Richard Dawkins (The God Delusion) ..................... said this week that arguing with creatonists was like playing chess with a pigeon: "It knocks the pieces over, craps over the board and flies back to its flock to claim victory."

Reminds me of some people I could, but won't, name!

I do respect him, as a scientist...but he's also part of the problem...:)


from a muppetty scientist/engineer who believes in God

And no I don't believe in 'creationism' or that it should be taught...molecular biology shows us exactly...look up HOX [homeotic/or homeobox selector] genes, as that's all the evidence needed to completely refute litteral creationism...:)

that part of the Bible I receive as all metaphorical/allegorical to me, nor do I think the planet is 5000) yrs old...and I can clearly see that we are apes...:}

But atheists can be just as muppety as religionists...don't you think otherwise...I'm not going into the details...but they too are part of the problem...QED!

From a believing scientist and engineer...:)

http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m7d4zy8RR11rt8sgdo1_1280.jpg

Hellsbrink

Excellent poster. often said similar things about Greenies
and protecting the environment, they then get in a bombed out,
misfiring VW van that belches smoke everywhere.

I could use Hawkins's quote when describing Greenies.

Mr Dawkins is only part of a problem if you disagree with him.

Hearing his forthright views has been a revelation to me. I never felt I could voice my anti-religion views openly until I read his works.

For centuries the athiests and agnostics were shunned and treated as suspicious unbelievers. More power to him I say.

From a non-believing engineer. :ok:

I don't try to convert anyone, and I really appreciate those who don't try to convert me.

Dawkins is an aggressive atheist, but he has done many people a favour by making it okay to say you are an atheist. It's okay to come out of the atheism closet.

He's not the atheist the world deserves, but the one it needs right now. So we'll debate him because he can take it. Because he's not a religious man. He's an atheist. A vocal activist. A converting knight.

You think I could pick up the same sentiment over on the Queeny thread? Small acorns.

RD once said he was getting to close to David Icke...........

Well I do agree 100% what he says about the damge 'creation science' would do if ever allowed to prosper...

I think that this post I made in another thread sums up my feelings, of cousr as I believer personally I'm ecumenical and wont exclude atheist or agnostic, in fact I don't even try to convince them or forrce my view upon them...but science too has much faith and when I look at global warming theory mostly proffered by atheistics scientists, I stand by what I say about atheist; they can be just as muppetty as believers QED

"AH...yes the Saudi Mutwaein...very nice people:\:\:\

Only the most liberal interpretations of the Koran...provide for peace...the 'sunna' or ways of the Prophet...were violent and intolerant, and all of the hadiths reflect that...

As far as the muppettry in Christian sects...well I don't know but the way Christians are SUPPOSED, to take the Bible is to receive the 'Word' in an individual and personal way, thereby having a personal relationship with God

I actually follow Catholicism, primarily cultural reasons, but disagree with many, many of the Church's stances on thing [not abortion] plus I guess I like rituals too:}:ouch:

but I do like to go to church to hear the word and I also like to attend Olive Branch Baptist Church in North Carolina when I get down there...my Christian faith, as I receive the Word personally tend to make me...tolerant, non-judgemental, forgiving, patient and humble...I'm sure a like analogy can be made for the Koran...however, as written the Koran is probably the most intolerant and violent text ever writen...

incidentally science reaffirms my faith in God, becuase I see the world as mysterious and the natural laws as wonderful, but science doesn't answer everything...

Also, while we may study observe and use the laws we can't change them...what entity put these rules down in the first place???? I can't write F=M^2 [a]

Also, when one looks at biochemistry and molecular biology, one of the best scientist in that field, that I know, states that all of the tools we have to probe the natural living world and do experiments in molecular biology come from nature...despite all the fancy gadgets in the lab like DNA sequencers, and PCR thermal cyclers...we could not probe the natural world to the extent we have done so without the tools [mostly various enzymes] from the natural world in the first place...I don't judge atheists and I can definitely see their reasons...but many of them in the scientific world judge me---not all...I guess they just don't see what I see...I mean what would I know being just another muppet and all :E"

but I can imagine that you have your reasons for your stance also...I'm not against that...:)

Why are there no Creationists defending their corner??

Surely JB must have a few skulking around somewhere.:E

Dawkins, aggressive? He's a pussycat compared to some of the other atheist writers or speakers out there, such as Paula Kirby, PZ Myers, Greta Christina or Ireland's own Michael Nugent. I think his "new atheism" in the last decade is something of a shocked response to (a) 9/11 and (b) hateful, hypocritical American preachers. Both are a long way from the Oxford academic lifestyle or the genteel Church of England establishment. One day he might be having tea with the Archbishop of Canterbury, the next day he's being demonized on Fox News by Glenn Beck. I don't always like his style, but he's good at delivering the content.

Dawkins is a hypocrite. I stopped reading "The God Delusion" in the middle of Chapter Eight.... when he admitted that God does "perhaps" exist. :ugh:

Yep, for every action there's an equal an opposite reaction...in this case nobody believes their :mad: stinks---when I see things like Westboro baptist church...definitely understanding the atheist's pov...when I deal with the condescension and arrogance of the atheist...I see the other side..

You can't prove or disprove God's existence with science that's why it's faith

I'm not an atheist, so when I die and it turns out I was wrong, I'll never know.

If Dawkins is wrong, when he dies he going to be so annoyed :)

Why are there no Creationists defending their corner??
Surely JB must have a few skulking around somewhere

Doubt it. We're all far too intelligent on JB to believe that rubbish ;)

South Park: Little Boy You're Going To Hell Song and Video HD + Lyrics - YouTube

:}:}:}

It is not a brilliant quote. It just shows Dawkins's is not understanding most of those with whom is disagreeing.

I have been disagreeing with creationists since I started to use the internet at work, and it was the only real fun to be had on the geology newsgroups I was able to access from work. I even exchanged emails with Kent Hovind, before he was gaoled. The main failing of most of them is lack of sound education. They don't understand evolution, and have been misinformed about the evidence. Yes some of them might remain ignorant through closed mindedness and through bigotry, but many are completely sincere in their erroneous knowledge - and these are the only ones who have any realistic chance of responding to persuasive argument.

"condescension and arrogance of the atheist"

Do you have the same opinion about flat-earthers?

when I deal with the condescension and arrogance of the atheist...I see the other side..

You can't prove or disprove God's existence with science that's why it's faith

True, faith is the thing. If you believe in God, you believe; if you don't, you don't. Simple, you'd think, wouldn't you?

The main sticking point for me with all this is that I can't separate the promotion of the so-called word of God as recorded in the Bible from numerous other belief systems that I can't swallow, such as astrology and faith-healing - stuff you must accept at face value if you are to participate in it at all (and which works to the benefit of those pushing it, in terms of status, money, power and so on). There is no more compelling reason for me to believe in God than in any other evidence-free concept.

Clearly, too, much what is done in the name of religion is done in accordance with interpretations of the source material by those 'chosen' or 'called', people such as the Pope. These highly-regarded interpreters say what is and what isn't to be taken literally by believers, who are required to accept what is given to them.

So, if some of the Bible (for example) is to be taken literally and some isn't, how do we know which parts are the 'good' ones? All, none, or something in between? Where's the integrity in that?

Please don't take this as an insult, believers - it's just an articulation of why I can't understand your faith. It's not to say I refuse to believe anything - the mysteries of the universe are infinite, I'm sure, and I certainly will not close my mind to what may become apparent as we learn more about them.

True, it may not be a brilliant quote, but at least it fires up on here the debate that has no ending.

As a fairly devout atheist, the thing I find most perplexing is that some of the most intelligent people whose work I have long admired and found profound and often clever and humourous and earthy, (e.g. the poets Les Murray and Bruce Dawe), have in their mid-life years switched from agnosticism to admission into the Roman Catholic Church.

Then again, intelligence has little to do with it. Maybe 'blind faith' is nearer the crux of belief as opposed to disbelief.

On 'The Bastards from the Bush', a memorable ABC doco, Murray and his old mate Bob Ellis spar along so drollerly (??)

Ellis - 'You're a primitive Murray'.

Murray - 'I suppose I am. And I think I know why you're a heathen.'


Murray once said that the book that most influenced him was by someone called Theo, to do with the sacred. Still hunting for it.

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

My hero: Thomas Merton by Nicola Barker
'His writings brought huge numbers of men (and, no doubt, women) into lives of spiritual contemplation' ---

For those who don't know him, Thomas Merton (1915-68) was a Trappist monk, a poet and a social activist best known for his autobiography The Seven Storey Mountain, which for many decades brought huge numbers of young men (and, no doubt, women) into lives of spiritual contemplation all across America and beyond. I've long had a passion for Catholic transcendentalist writers (St Teresa of Avila is my pin-up girl) and love books about nuns and monks. I can't pretend that The Seven Storey Mountain was my favourite of these (you'll have to go a long way to beat Karen Armstrong's Through the Narrow Gate), but for some reason I stuck with Merton, and my patience has been rewarded a thousandfold. He's the only writer I read pretty much every day. There's a small Book of Hours that never fails to inspire me. The main thing that's so wonderful about him is his love of nature and his ebullience. And his need to constantly interrogate himself. And his extraordinary humility. And his exquisite facility with language.

As soon as you start reading him, you find yourself transported to the wooden porch of his hermitage in Gethsemani, Kentucky. It is night-time. The crickets roar. You are perched on an uncomfortably comfortable stool, watching the fireflies flit through the darkness.

"Lord God of this great night," Merton sighs, "do you see the woods?

"Do you hear the rumour of their loneliness?

"Do you behold their secrecy?

"Do you remember their solitudes? Do you see that my soul is beginning to dissolve like wax within me?

God resists being "Pitched". Similarly He cannot be logically denied...

I had my turn in the barrel of Atheism....It is frustrating, and made me conceited. I turned to Faith, and liked better the Man I saw in the Mirror....

I guess I am results oriented.

PA, thanks for your words, and your humility.

I've never been able to buy the magic, but revere all that Jesus said. I suppose I'm a pragmatic Christian.

One thing I have observed though. My parents were devout. They were also lifelong faithful to each other from college, where they met, on. They had, and my Mom still has (Dad passed away), a fulfilling, happy life centered around faith. That saw them through the Depression and WWII, and some severe hardship. The Bible was always their life guide.

I didn't choose to be as devout as they, but I have a respect for how they lived. I don't think I improved on it, except maybe materially, but not in terms of overall happiness.

As I age as a secular, I begin to reflect and seek the more spiritual aspect. To ridicule the faithful, I think, is shallow and arrogant.

I'm no creationalist but I reckon God had no hand in making Woman.


http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5266/5592866682_330f9891d9.jpg


The Devil did! :E

Doesn't matter who made her, Slasher, she's here and that's all that counts!

BandAide, fair points, but you don't need to be a believer to live a just life and have strong relationships that last through hardship.

This is the thing; people say 'oh, I use my faith as my guide' and so on; it sounds like they're having to be told to be a good person rather than just doing it.

Doing unto others etc is all good advice, but it seems to me the belief part is there as a kind of unnecessary add-on - by all means, have a book of rules that gives tips on how to get on and live a good fulfilling life, but the magic part, as you call it, isn't important, is it? Especially when religious leaders can apparently cherry-pick which parts of the holy word to take as gospel, pardon the pun.:)

Dawkins and his bitch Hitch are shallow, post-modern celebrities--no more, no less. Hitch spent most of his time at Cambridge on matters of buggery; real thinkers have written much more eloquently on questions of faith.

Dawkins and Hitch are silly, vain amuses bouches against the full course meal of classic authors.

Nietzsche defined faith as "Not wanting to know what is true."

He was referring to the believers, of course.

However, is there a non-believer out there who has never pondered the supernal without some quaking of doubt -- a disquieting -- before dismissing his inquiry?

I highly doubt it.

However, is there a non-believer out there who has never pondered the supernal without some quaking of doubt -- a disquieting -- before dismissing his inquiry?

Only as a result of the brainwashing that occurs during their formative years.

Religious education is one of the most pervasive forms of child abuse ever inflicted on the innocent.

Well my personal view is that God has presented himself to all of the world, perhaps in different ways I can say but I don't think I ca n judge others, it's not necessarily needing a book or whatever. but I think faith requires meditation and a book like the Bible has to be interpreted and applied personally...what the Bible tells me maybe completely different from what others get out of it there's lots of handwaving in Christianity...keeping up of appearances, and blind followership,but much of that stems from religion...without a personal relationship, you may be blinded to the little miracles and to the message that God is trying to send to you..as far as nutter like 'young eathers, flat earthers', I just can't be bothered I simply ignore them, people should be allowed to believe whatever they want...whatever floats their boat...but likewise science is much more limited than many people think, the world is not so deterministic either-nature laugh at complex mathematics in all fields engineerc can confrim my statement

I've said this before but I believe [with few exceptions] that nobody's all good and nobody's all bad; we all do things we're not supposed so I reserve judgements of everybody, and leave that to God [no -I don't mean that i don't judge evil acts]

I don't mind if people don't believe, and I don't think the majority of atheists are immoral psychopaths, or that they can't be good people but I've had help in my personal life and I've seen things that are inexplicable, otherwise...I mean if I wrote these things down, some will simply say 'liar'..but remember 'ask and it shall be given unto you..seek and you shall find'...I found that to hold true...I've definitely have been watched and helped in life by God...I mean directly at times...I do worry about going far with these conversations, becuase I'm afraid of judgement...but truthfully I don't think I'd be alive without divine intervention...long stories

All actions undertaken by the truly faithful seem to all include personal relationships those who have that tend to be accepting despite what exact words are written in their particular texts...:)

This one is a brilliant quote:
“In dark ages people are best guided by religion, as in a pitch-black night a blind man is the best guide; he knows the roads and paths better than a man who can see.
When daylight comes, however, it is foolish to use blind, old men as guides.”
― Heinrich Heine



A less brilliant one about religion fighting.
Still funny though (sorry for the offence)

"My imaginary friend is better than your imaginary friend" :p

Good words, PA - I've had discussions similar to this in the past, some on this here bulletin board, and this:

I've had help in my personal life and I've seen things that are inexplicable, otherwise

seems to be the crux of it, again pardon the pun.

I guess if I saw or experienced something that convinced me of the existence of a divine entity, I'd be a believer too. From this side of the fence, though, I can't see it happening - never say never, though, I suppose.

I wonder how many have that revelatory experience, though, and how many talk the talk without walking the walk, so to speak? Not judging, just asking.

Judging by the number of atheists and agnostics around here, I guess the aviation industry doesn't have many Freemasons ;)

Ultimate Argument for Evolution, Clip from the movie Paul (2011) - YouTube

Please, as usual, excuse my typing...:O

BTW no offense taken but it's an old, old joke...;)

Oh and Slash...definitely when you meet my ex-wife...:}

Three true stories, I have another one, unfortunately is far too personal to share...

the first one was relayed to me by my mom, papa and abuela..I was a baby at the time..so /i can't confirm, but I it believe considering those three didn't quite get along :\ well my mother didn't like the former people at least, abuela was my father's mom

They all lived in an old house and every night they heard foot-steps, it was so bad and scary that they all slept in the same room for a while...nobody wanted to be alone at night...eventually they called a priest who performed a blessing and the phenomenon/entity disappeared ...very short story, I know...this was a Catholic priest

The second was while I was at attendance of one of my great uncles' funeral, when he was younger he was the church organist...one day he was attacked and severely beaten and his hands were ruined not allowing him to play any longer, he was also kind of a recluse after that, very quiet meek man

During his funeral my cousin was playing the piano and of course it was fine...as soon as the keys to the organ were touched...there were three very loud bangs [boom boom boom] and some antendees even screamed 'Teddy???' and the organ refused to play it took years to get the funds to repair it...To me, it was him finally speaking up, as if to say If I can't play that thing today ain't no one gonna play it!... This occured at a Baptist church in North Carolina:)


lastly at another funeral for another uncle, recently,
My uncle was very, very close to my grandma, in fact since he was an uncle by marriage, I am surprised that they never got married..Well we were all late for is funeral because of the traffic on the Cross Bronx and while we when we were about to leave the church, my grandma [who is very organized] and actually happened to be wearing uncle Teddy's hat, somehow misplaced that hat and as a result she did not want to leave

I mean, we searched under EVERY pew up and down, finally having to give up after more than an hour...Finally, the priest said if they find it they'll call...two days later, the church called and said to my grandma that we've found your hat when asked where was it? they said under the back pew i.e where she was seated in the first place...I told my grandma that "I think uncle Kenneth wanted just a little more time with you grandma" this was an Episcopalian church...

of course the story I can't/wont relate is the best and most poignant...but suffice it to say I was convinced that I'd be dead one day until I heard my Puerto Rican abuela's voice [in my head- not aloud] --from beyond as she was long departed...say "don't worry you don't exist as a triangle, but as a triskelion; triangles are too simple and I never liked them...and just like a line touching the edge of a triskelion never points the same way, it has infinite curves---nothing's going to happen to you because I'm up here throwing infinite curves baby...infinite curves"...and no it wasn't in flight with a distre ssed aircraft but right on the ground...but long story short...I'm alive...some time on I opened the drawers to an old bureau that I had for years but for the first time I noticed there was a triskelion stamped in brass on the side, and I wasn't even a pilot yet...:)

Coincidences??? chance??? bold face lies???--- I'll leave that to the reader to decide...but for me these occurences, particularly, the last one-that I'm intentionally vague about are all of the convincing I'll ever need...:):):)

No offence intended PA, however:

are all of the convincing I'll ever need.

and therein lies the crux, you are open, indeed wanting to believe and are therefore looking for any reason to be convinced.

Just how a missing hat can be evidence of God says it all, really.

It never ceases to amaze me how the first reaction of many in seeking explanation for the not so obvious immediately turn to God, supernatural, spiritual for understanding. Why oh why?

BB

BB - I would have to argue that because one is "open" to belief in something, does not necessarily mean he / she is "therefore looking for any reason to be convinced".

I met a girl a couple of years ago in Somerset. We met once, made small talk, had dinner and went our seperate ways. Between then and our second date, she went along to a spiritualist meeting at the invite of an old school friend of hers.. essentially for a laugh. To cut a long story short, the lady leading the meeting was from Birmingham, they had never met, nor had any contact or connection whatsoever, spoke to her and mentioned two things.. a new romance with a tall dark foreign man.. she laughed and said, yeah my new fella is a Jock, to which the lady replied, no, I am thinking American. Secondly she was very specific and said she could see the guy's face surrounded by fire. Not an injury from real fire, but an incident from very hot food. not a dish, but one specific food item. Young Miss C told me this on our second date, laughing at the mumbo jumbo she had been told.. That is until I told her I used to live in America, and more importantly, a friend of mine who was a work colleague at a company on the south coast, was also a chilli grower of some note, and a few weeks before I met Miss C, we had a chilli eating contest in our office, at which there were 6 guys present, none of whom could have any possible connection to Miss C, or the Spiritualist. Anyway, dummy here decided to have a dabble with a Chocolate Bhut Jolokia chilli, and ended up with a mouth like Chernobyl for a whole day, jeez it hurt, but I forgot about it and never mentioned it to a soul until Miss C brought up the Spiritualist thing. I felt a bit of a chill in relating the facts to her, and she looked pretty disturbed by the accuracy. Do I really believe in the afterlife?? Hmmmm not so sure, I remain to be convinced!! :ok:

As an active member of a major religion, with a love of science, I have read several of Richard Dawkins books, and been impressed and dissapointed.
Impressed by his skilful dissection of all the dross and faults associated with human frailties in organised religion. (Indeed he would do any of the major religions a great benefit by being hired as a "turnaround Consultant" !).
Disappointed by his very poor critique of belief in a Creator/Afterlife/Supreme Being, through stretching the successes of science beyond it's boundaries in the natural world.

Baby Bear The 'search party' for this hat included about 10 people I personally looked under the pew where it was reported to be found... I mean we really looked, because I felt incredibly bad for my grandma that day...the structure under these pews was minimal, and I crawled under them; the place was searched top to bottom and in normal circumstance even a small item should have been quickly found......I'm not trying to prove God's existence to anyone and I can understand your scepticism...

From a different angle who or what made the rules of science that are inalterable where did the laws of physics come from?

Why do they work so perfectly? such as they apply equally well to biological and chemical systems?

Why can't we find a way to alter them?

Why does the quantum world converge to the classical world so smoothly?
Nobody that I know has a good answer to those questions other than that's what is observed

Also what about the broken organ story?...just sheer coincidence, quite possibly, but a very, very strange one-at least to me.

As far as the last story, well I wont question you on that as I intentionally put very little information...:)
but it's not that people have sceptism or disbelief that gets to me it's that superior attitude. People[scientists in my case] make assumptions about you and begin to mock you about evolution or young earth's as if that's an automatic belief by Christians, in my case it's not their lack of belief that gets to me, it's the attitude

Luckily I'm a rather 'hard-core' scientist so it's not too hard to defend myself
and I end up with responses like;
No, I didn't know Pouiseille's law is derived Navier Stokes' characteristic condition for flow in pipes
No, I didn't know, quantum mechanical tunneling is so important to photosynthesis,
No, I didn't realize that's how singlet oxygen kills the cancer cells in photodynamic chemotherapy
No, I didn't understand the molecular mechanisms for myocardial and skeletal muscle sycytia formation during development...:E

And so on and so forth, but until they're put in their place they don't think that I can be a good scientist too...I think it's quite unfair to be so predjudiced and judgemental...it's one of the reasons I went to engineering and left science; I do not get that treatment from engineers, or pilots..but airlines are no good for a long term career in the US, unless you want to either fly for peanuts, change jobs every year, leave the country---but if I could still do that job I think I'd be the happiest of all-at least I had my little taste...:)

Alloa, nice story, hope you enjoyed her company!:ok:

Baby Bear The 'search party' for this hat included about 10 people I personally looked under the pew where it was reported to be found... I mean we really looked, because I felt incredibly bad for my grandma that day...the structure under these pews was minimal, and I crawled under them; the place was searched top to bottom and in normal circumstance even a small item should have been quickly found......I'm not trying to prove God's existence to anyone and I can understand your scepticism...

Again with respect to yourself, your Grandmother and your Uncle, and accepting the story as told, I would argue that it is completely illogical to arrive at the conclusion that your Uncle was in any way involved in moving a hat from the afterlife and seeing this as proof, whilst dismissing the other possible explanations, including IMO the true explanation, I believe is irrational. Why must all we cannot immediately understand have to be referred to religion, spiritualism, supernatural forces for answers?

From a different angle who or what made the rules of science that are inalterable where did the laws of physics come from?

Why do they work so perfectly? such as they apply equally well to biological and chemical systems?

Why can't we find a way to alter them?

Why does the quantum world converge to the classical world so smoothly?
Nobody that I know has a good answer to those questions other than that's what is observed

Also what about the broken organ story?...just sheer coincidence, quite possibly, but a very, very strange one-at least to me.

It is an interesting human characteristic that as a species we seek to find answers to the human questions we pose in terms we can understand. There are many very interesting points raised in your post and many an enjoyable hour could be spent discussing them. However do the questions actually exist other than as we understand the asking of them and if so why, if the answers at not within our present understanding, is there a need to seek answers from outwith science? Why when our current understanding of science fails to provide proof of human observations is there a tendency to dismiss science and entertain, indeed on occasions fabricate, explanations of a spiritual nature to satisfy the human need for an answer?

Where is the law that stipulates we humans must always; a) find answers to what we don't immediately understand, and b) that we should understand the why/how of everthing that 'happens'?

Personally I find it infinitely more palatable to accept that the answers don't exist, are beyond our understanding, or have just gone unobserved, than I do to seek answers that requires belief in, IMO, irrational goings on which are generally only supported by further examples of incidents without answers acceptable to those arguing the point.

BB

I accept your opinions...it goes either way, depending on your viewpoints

But just because of my beliefs do you think---I'm automatically an incompetent wrt to the sciences...although I have proven I'm not when forced into a corner, the assumptions are unfair the mockery is uncalled for---not saying your mocking me...I mean in general, I even conceded that some of what I wrote could be coincidental---but even if it were, my faith would not change...but does possesing faith make one automatically incapable of being a scientist, doing research because as you admit much about science is unknowable...besides I have yet to meet anyone from my culture that doesn't believe---there maybe a few of course but I've never met one

Funny, if there's a Jewish or Muslim scientist people in the lab were very defferential to that person's belief, the vast majority of the animosity by atheists is direcrted toward Christians we are all painted with a very broad brush...at least that could be considered discriminatory to some degree...it not like I'm probing genes looking for Adam's ribs or something I was doing the same PCR, western blots, immunostaining,and doing it in light of eveolutionary biology... as everyone else...so does is the condescension called for when I don't do the same with atheists, or other religions for that matter..as I said I'm not trying proselyitize or change beliefs of anyone, I just feel that the predjudice and disrespect from the Dawkins-types is uncalled for especially when it reflects in their treatment of you...of course as far as mechanical engineering and aerodynamics, and to some extent chemistry is concerend they wouldn't care if I believed to moon is made of swiss cheese as long as I do my work...:)
I'm far from perfect or saintly by the way anyone who reads my posts in jet blast will tell you that ...:}

Back to Richard Dawkins, which, I believe (ha!) was the original topic of this thread. I have read his book The God Delusion. A lot of it made sense but what I didn't like, and of course these things are personal, is that he condemns people for following a religion. In fact he says that people should not hold on to religion as a form of comfort but that they should find this from within themselves. (Apologies, I'm not paraphrasing the very well). Now, my point and my view is that all are entitled to their beliefs, as long as taking part in those beliefs does not adversely affect others, and that people are entitled to obtain help and comfort during this journey we call life in any way they choose. Dawkins, in my view, has no right to negate that. That's the point where we fell out.

I've been an expat in a catholic country for five years and I have come to have a respect for peoples' beliefs here. Over seventy five percent of the population do not attend mass but almost all subscribe to the rites of passage, for which they attend church. I have been to my Spanish daughter-in-law's childrens' Baptism, her father's funeral and her wedding. For the Spanish people and family members they were quite clearly moving experiences and ones which they took seriously and were part of their life. I am not a believer but I have come to respect other's beliefs in whatever form it takes. I therefore would not agree with Lord Dawkins!

Sunnyjohn exactly my point...:)

But just because of my beliefs do you think---I'm automatically an incompetent wrt to the sciences...although I have proven I'm not when forced into a corner, the assumptions are unfair the mockery is uncalled for---not saying your mocking me...I mean in general, I even conceded that some of what I wrote could be coincidental---but even if it were, my faith would not change...but does possesing faith make one automatically incapable of being a scientist, doing research because as you admit much about science is unknowable...besides I have yet to meet anyone from my culture that doesn't believe---there maybe a few of course but I've never met one

Absolutely not!

I just feel that the predjudice and disrespect from the Dawkins-types is uncalled for especially when it reflects in their treatment of you.

Granted Dawkins has an argressive manner, however whether he is more or less disrespectful and prejudice than many preachers, especially in the US, is subjective. I guess it very much depends on which side of the fence you favour, as a non believer I find most of what Dawkins says as sensible, logical and rational. I do, however, feel that his delivery does not do his cause any favours.

BB

Personally, I can't stand high and mighty Christians either,or judgemental ones, I readily admit so many are, they even judge me, I will not attend those types of services...I feel I'm no better than anyone else
I find the attitudes of many Christians to be deplorable, and will question them, asking do you think YOU'RE God? Or wasn't Christ supposed to be loving and accepting?

I definitely know that they can also be part of the problem, I don't like 'superior' attitudes from anyone...to me when anyone feels they are above reproach, I automatically take a dim view of that person in general...but there are three sides to every story, but my focus is on radical atheism, as it was the topic of this thread

I keep my relationship with God mostly personal and internal...I am a sinner too, I do not feel I'm above reproach; and as hard as it his being a human I really try to keep my predjudices under control and take people as individuals...i.e in Christian terms follow the golden rule...in atheist terms, being a decent human...:)

Sunnyjohn, you raise an interesting point.

I agree we should be free to choose, however if indeed Dawkins is right, as I believe he is, then I can understand his belief that religion is damaging to society and that the quicker we move away from it then the better for the species.

So, essentially I think he is absolutely correct, the debatable point is whether he should be telling others what they should believe?

The world is full of people from politicians to business leaders to celebrities who spend their lives trying to sell their beliefs and methods to all and sundry with a general acceptance. For some reason religion stirs up anger within the believer when others question their faith.

BB

I'm over a year behind with my book, but I hope to have something to present this year.

It's only a yarn. I have to tell myself regularly that it's nothing more, but sometimes I wonder. We are so far removed from perfection and I don't really understand why. Designed or not, I would have expected less chaos in physical design and indeed, in our actions.

The story started out as a fairly straightforward sci-fi, but soon developed into, I hope, something more meaningful. In truth, it's ended up being an argument for open-mindedness. It might be said it's aimed largely at atheists, though I'd like to think it marries the timescales of the real universe with a possible intelligent design.

When I read the rough notes about the big bang to a writer's group class, one charming old boy piped up that he found it offensive. He had his ideas about how one could readjust the 6 days of creation to a more generous scale, but when I suggested our Universe was an ultimate Ooops moment, he wasn't having any of it. In fact, although it's a basic premise of the story, I do treat the creation with considerable respect, but the team of beings working on a more solid reality, 'one which can't be altered on a whim,' are stunned when some of their brothers are swept into our 'inconveniently large' universe - a violent self-fueling expansion of their new spacetime fabric.

The design for an exquisite being is carried in the maelstrom, safe on its carrier of a force, to this day unknown to mankind. The brothers are thought lost, but this 5th force carries a surprise back to the team. Tiny beacons of sentience are detected, and so the search for their brothers and indeed other intelligent life begins.

Our world is of particular interest, because we display a clear likeness to the perfect beings intended for this universe. Right now, we are the product of a poor sub-set of the Perfect Code, but it's a very cunning piece of software.

Humans are like one grain of sand hidden in a desert of species, but every time the world becomes fertile enough, the code starts fighting its way back. We have a long, long way to travel on our evolutionary path before we'll be accepted back in the fold.

There are times when I feel something like this is more likely to be the truth than conventional religion.

There are times when I feel Dawkings is right and everything seems empty.

But mostly, I just feel something . . . and although I don't know what it is, it lets me know I'm not entirely alone.

Here is a guy who was never scared to clear up a lot of misconception :D

Bit Sweary ! Bill Hicks - Dinosaurs - YouTube (http://youtu.be/mrZcztxRquo)

But mostly, I just feel something . . . and although I don't know what
it is, it lets me know I'm not entirely alone.

Loose Rivets you sound agnostic...me too I just feel something, but it's hard to express



agree we should be free to choose, however if indeed Dawkins is right,
as I believe he is, then I can understand his belief that religion is damaging
to society and that the quicker we move away from it then the better for the
species.






Baby Bear Just one more question is he against religion? or is he against belief in higher powers/God? as I've only heard and read about Dawkins but i was lead to believe he's against faith and belief in general, not specifically just 'religion'

I do agree that religion can often be a problem...but Nazi's were atheists [officially] Communist are too[officially], so having a large population with no belief in a higher power can obviously be dangerous and detrimental also,

I've been churches that are centered around a aprticular religious demonination, but the overall message was that of a personal relationship with God and internal faith...even some Catholic churches [depending on the priest] are more centered around the personal beliefs rather than strictly the religion...so even religion can't be painted with so broad a brush

atheism tends to lead to ideas like Eugenics and population control---is that any less detrimental to society?

What a lovely post, Loose Rivets. I know you're not advertising but I'd love to read your book!

I'm currently reading 'A History of Christianity - the First 3000 Years" by Diarmaid MacCulloch. The first thousand years is a pre-history and shows how Christianity appeared. It's a long (1200 pages) and hard read but well worth it if you have any interest in Christianity; believer, historical or otherwise.

Baby Bear Just one more question is he against religion? or is he against belief in higher powers/God? as I've only heard and read about Dawkins but i was lead to believe he's against faith and belief in general, not specifically just 'religion'

I am not an expert in Dawkins, for the purpose of this thread I view higher powers, religion, faith in a similar way.

I do agree that religion can often be a problem...but Nazi's were atheists [officially] Communist are too[officially], so having a large population with no belief in a higher power can obviously be dangerous and detrimental also,

I think to assume the atrocities committed by the Nazis were because they were non believers is stretching it a little. Would you argue that had they been religious it would not have happened? The danger from the Nazis did not originate from their non belief.

I've been churches that are centered around a aprticular religious demonination, but the overall message was that of a personal relationship with God and internal faith...even some Catholic churches [depending on the priest] are more centered around the personal beliefs rather than strictly the religion...so even religion can't be painted with so broad a brush

I agree religion can be painted with a very broad brush, that's one of the issues for many. An individuals relationship with God, or 'feeling something' is, in my view, a state of the human mind and nothing to do with God.

atheism tends to lead to ideas like Eugenics and population control---is that any less detrimental to society?

To be honest PA you have me scratching my head on this one. I can only guess it is the same train of thought that allows you to hold true your beliefs that permits you to conclude there is any correlation between atheism and eugenics. To be honest I find this assertion bazar.

BB

To be honest PA you have me scratching my head on this one. I can only guess
it is the same train of thought that allows you to hold true your beliefs that
permits you to conclude there is any correlation between atheism and eugenics.
To be honest I find this assertion bazar.

BB



China's former policy, was my basis...:)

I've personally heard numerous atheistic scientists constantly talk, about controlling populations/ or the need for population control, they generally mix it in with global warming, or something along that line...when in fact I really don't believe scientifically that the planet is near it's carrying capacity wrt to human population
I think to assume the atrocities committed by the Nazis were because they were
non believers is stretching it a little. Would you argue that had they been
religious it would not have happened? The danger from the Nazis did not
originate from their non belief.

Hitler's Mein Kampf specifically deifies the German race, as a higher form of being---the Nazi policy was officially atheist, the goverment was officially atheist; it can not be denied that Nazism grew out of Atheistic foundations, furthermore they practiced eugenics...you may argue the what ifs as far as whai if they were religious but, they were not, so that's speculation...n'est ce pas?

But not just Nazis nearly all of the worst examples of genocide of the last century were proffered by officially atheistic governments Stalin, Lenin, Moa, Pol Pot, the current situation in N. Korea...all officially atheists, therefore the atheist of last and this century are resonsible for nearly all of the mass murder and genocide: not religions
How many miilion have religious killed in the 20th century of course baring the obvious Islamic terror...still atheistic goverments have killed millions more...see both sides not one have a problem...so from the past examples of 'net atheism' perhaps Dawkins hypothesis of the net rejection of faith by humanity [based on the evidence] is not such a great hypothesis after all

;);)

I found empirical evidence today that Reincarnation is true, so I re-arranged my whole belief system and issue this challenge for any of you atheist scientists to refute it and prove me wrong.

The evidence...

1. Turtle Rescued After Taped to Helium-Filled Balloons - ABC News (http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2012/08/turtle-rescued-after-taped-to-helium-filled-balloons/)

2. Larry Walters - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry_Walters)

Aww poor little turtle...at least he's safe...:)
the other day I saw some rabbits who were obviously someones discarded pets...I treid to get them but I couldn't I still feel bad about maybe if I see them again I try once more...I hate when people abuse and discard animals:(

Cool dude with the balloons a little crazy but at least he fulfiiled his dream...:)

But not just Nazis nearly all of the worst examples of genocide of the last century were proffered by officially atheistic governments Stalin, Lenin, Moa, Pol Pot, the current situation in N. Korea...all officially atheists, therefore the atheist of last and this century are resonsible for nearly all of the mass murder and genocide: not religions

If there was a God, does anyone honestly believe that he (she/it) would allow the major religions to be a conduit for his thoughts and deeds?

From the crusading Christians, through the expansionist terrorism of Islam, to todays fundamentalist happy clappy headbangers, they have been proved to be nothing less than political forces hiding behind their man-made holy books.

All political and religious creeds thrive on the acceptance of the stupid and gullible, because they carry the majority.

I've addressed relious zealotry/terrorism numerous times on JB human beings have free will...as far as certain reliogious zealots go...what are you trying to tell me? that people can be muppets...old news...:hmm:

Atheistic regimes have responsible for the slaughter of over a billion people...they did not commit these attrocities in God's name they commited then in THEIR own name!!!

again like so many debates their extreme muppetry on BOTH sides nobody's shit don't not stink
Atheist can be just as horrible and dumb as religious zealots...conservatives just as bad as liberals...Black just as bad as Whites omen Just as bad as men and so on and so forth...why does everyone who is on one particular side or the other think they're so perfect...when clearly that premise hass never panned out in abject reality...:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

God resists being "Pitched". Similarly He cannot be logically denied...


I had my turn in the barrel of Atheism....It is frustrating, and made me
conceited. I turned to Faith, and liked better the Man I saw in the
Mirror....

I guess I am results oriented.

PA, thanks for your
words, and your humility.
Lyman I also enjoy many of your wise observations, somewhat cryptic at times but nevertheless poignant...I missed your post in amongst this thread...I got a bit caught up...:)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WnfVpQJt6Zg&feature=related

why some may believe...;)

I just got in, and read into this. What an excellent thread, with admirable restraint from different opinions.

Richard Dawkins does seem to be more mellow, more prone to listening, and less "shouty" these days. I don't think I agree with his views on religion(s) any more than I used to, though.

Cambridge University hosts the Faraday Institute for Science and Religion, where I have spent some very interesting and enlightening days. I would be fascinated to hear Richard Dawkins and some of the scientists and theologians there in debate.

VERILY A MIXED BAG -


And I say unto you repent or ye shall be burnt to a crisp. The commandments handed down for us are there to be obeyed. They are not examination questions. Attempt any three is not a proposition the divine adjudicator can entertain.

The Meaning of Life is not to be found here -

]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eBqe5xvYnNc"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eBqe5xvYnNc"]]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eBqe5xvYnNc

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=buqtdpuZxvk"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=buqtdpuZxvk"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=buqtdpuZxvk

Before you pontificate on any subject

Definition: to speak about something in as if you are the authoritative expert on the subject

Synonyms: expound, expatiate, preach

Antonyms: ask, deliberate

Tips: Pontificate is derived from the same Latin word that gives us pontiff, or "pope." When people pontificate on a subject, they act like they have most expert and authoritative opinion on that subject.

Usage Examples:

If you don't have kids, then you really shouldn't pontificate about the best way to raise a child. (preach, expound)

I get tired of listening to people pontificating about religion, especially when they contradict one another. (discuss, expound, expatiate)

It's funny to watch the political pundits pontificate as if they are smartest people on the planet. (speak in a pompous manner)

I have a feeling he's going to get up and pontificate about the subject as if he's the foremost authority. (speak as an expert)




Dear Reader - are you at peace with God? If not, you can be. Do you know what awaits you when you die? You can have the assurance from God that heaven will be your home, if you would like to be certain. Either Jesus Christ died for your sins, or He didn't (He did!). Are you prepared to stand before God on the Judgment Day and tell Him that you didn't need the shed blood of Jesus Christ on the Cross to have your sins forgiven and get in right-standing with God? We plead with you...please don't make such a tragic mistake.

To get to know God, to be at peace with God, to have your sins forgiven, to make certain heaven will be your home for eternity, to make certain that you are in right-standing with God right now ... please click here to help you understand the importance of being reconciled to God. What you do about being reconciled to God will determine where you will spend eternity, precious one. Your decision to be reconciled to God is the most important decision you'll ever make in this life.

Precious Testimonies is supported by the gifts of our readers and viewers. If this ministry has been a blessing to you in any way, please consider sending a financial gift of any size, to help us continue to reach lost souls for Jesus Christ, and to encourage and help believers.
When you send a gift, you have our PROMISE that we will NOT place you on any mailing list, nor will we will be asking you to CONTINUE to keep giving to this ministry. We fully understand how agitating that can be, after someone sends a gift.

We are a non-denominational 501-C-3 evangelistic ministry, and financial gifts to this ministry are tax-deductible.
For your convenience, you can simply click on the secure Pay Pal donate button below if you want to donate by credit card. Otherwise, you can send your precious gift to: Precious Testimonies, P.O. Box 516, Jenison, MI 49429.

I posted this in another group but it is fitting here with a preface.

Preface

Science, atheism and religion are 3 man made methodologies imperfect and not without both positive and negative consequences. Science and the meaningful application thereof, known as engineering has provided us with: vaccines, antibiotics, the atom bomb, lasers, computers, guns, and internet porn:}

Atheism and its faith based movements has provided us with: a new way of thinking about life/meaning, a different secular humanist based ethical code of conduct, and a false sense of security in Humean based (partially Hume) consequentialism and empiricism which the Behaviorists and strict empiricists philosophically took and mangled along the way. See Kant and Thomas Nagel for the quasi-intuitive "reasoning" and morality for the counter argument, though there are good, clear thinking atheists on this side too, many are either deists or loose theists/pantheists and not true atheists.

Religion gave us humans too certain in their piety and another constructed elitist social control system based upon social hiearchy, but with the reformation Martin Luther began progress in the Western World, though such progression was stifling for many reasons, we can discuss later. Religion has given us freedom and oppression, parsimonious thinking and bad judgment.

Atheism imagines a world of cause and effect and where a keen human mind and will can rule a world that comes from nothing and nowhere for no reason. While laying claim to 1 true God is absurd, if made with 100% veracity, atheism as a whole is more absurd than the absurdity of Dawkin's selfish gene, memes and the certainty there is no God--more absurd than Jean Paul Sartre's terrible writing although I still indulge Albert Camus.

Interesting exchange guys. Last year when I worked in the lab of a Lifespan Psychologist heavily focused on the biological basis of human behavior I became a little bit disillusioned. The profess,or I worked under was heavily dedicated to the theories and hypotheses put forth by Evolutionary Psychology and although the professor/researcher is published in peer review and has a general grasp of Biology there was sharp disagreement with many aspects of Evolutionary Biology and Biochemistry for which this professor had no training or background in. The Psychology researcher was convinced that EP could essentially explain all we know about the evolution of human behavior without having much knowledge (even self made) on: genes/DNA, biochemistry, molecular biology, and basic paleontology. Not that the professor and respective graduate students were not well trained and educated in other aspects and with books on the shelves, but your conversation reminds me of my experience in this lab. Conversely, many geneticists and biochemists dismiss psychology too quickly without any real: training, education, experience, and self made knowledge with an honest attempt.

For example my poster presentation was an attempt to combine psychological and statistical methods with biological theory using hormones as proxies for some sort of correlation to various human behaviors. The problem with the study is that it was too much of certain aspects of biology without a more broad and deep foundation and with too little verified theory acting as the scaffolding for the psychology assumed to be correct.

Dawkins is guilty of the same things with an overly stated case for genes and exactly on how to view those genes and he misses some evidence that has far more clarity, parsimony and robustness like from Gould for example. Not that Gould got everything right, but in the end Gould won the major debates based upon: the nature of the evidence, his breadth and depth of knowledge and his ability to truly communicate in a usually kind and gentle tone such facts like punctuated equilibrium. PE also fits in greatly with the found environmental shifts and it is these shifts that exert such pressures on not only genes, but: cell membranes, channels, cell walls, (non animals) plasmids, transposons, mitochondria, and in higher lifeforms so to speak (bacteria are actually very complex and we need them and come from the symbiotic dynamics of bacteria and viruses) also adapt socially in conjunction with and independent of any biological change acting as a progenitor.

Honestly in 2012 we are in post-Darwinian Biology and Psychology though some academics have not as of yet, received the memo, but they should. Evolutionary theory, while standing to the test of time is not Darwin's anymore than modern day Psychology is all Freud or Skinner. Evolutionary theory of course involves gene adaptations and descent with modification but there is far more to it than that biologically and biochemically. One thing that a life of the mind and science has afforded me is to take many different classes within the physical, natural and social sciences both undergraduate and graduate and then take on an engineering major with new enthusiasm after conducting research that was interdisciplinary as well, to get a bigger picture of the nature, the narrative, the unknowns, and the evolution of evolutionary theory.

It is not good when any scientist or student is not well rounded or seeking to be so, but it is even worse when we forget or do not know the most established theories and laws that have stood up to all scrutiny with never wavering direct and empirical data and appropriate and properly applied/reported statistical methods as well. It is a folly to think any of us can get it all correct in every matter and manner, however, the overly used hypothesis generating I have seen with my own eyes in labs needs to stop as well, since even though, science is a method, not just a body of knowledge--some hypotheses are not true based upon what we already know.

Epistemologically that may sound like I am on a slippery slope, however, there are known knowns like for example in humans I emphasize: crossing over meiosis, alternative splicing of RNA primary transcripts, transcription factors, laws of probability within heredity, and immutable laws at least at the macro level, like thermodynamics. If (conditional statement) a given scientist, professor, or graduate student is not sufficiently knowledgeable, trained and eager to really read, learn, question, and pay attention then too much sub-par hypotheses gets passed around as reasonable and funded when it should not be.

I like the fact that even though some scientists abuse computer models, actually programming them to compile--run--do what are supposed to do is a strict science/engineering endeavor, but still like all science with an aspect of the art of what syntax/semantics to choose, and how to program an algorithm.

Blackmore does not reject the concepts of internal and external memes but there are other issues for Blackmore much like Dawkins. Conceptually it is much like an algorithm and a dynamic program running the given algorithm but it still holds too many obvious flaws and then there are suspect flaws, with finally, the basis of the role of genes from the selfish gene is just wrong on so many levels.

The foregoing post refers to parsimony. This means a lot more than just stingy.


Parsimony is a non-parametric statistical method commonly used in computational phylogenetics for estimating phylogenies. Under parsimony, the preferred phylogenetic tree is the tree that requires the least evolutionary change to explain some observed data. "Maximum" parsimony refers to the condition of this preferred tree being the most parsimonious. It also refers to the methods associated with finding this maximally parsimonious tree. While evolution is not an entirely parsimonious process, it is generally thought that a simpler, more parsimonious chain of events are more likely to occur than more complicated, less parsimonious chains of events. Hence, parsimony (sensu lato) is typically sought in constructing phylogenetic trees, and in scientific explanation generally.[1] However, complications in both actual evolutionary processes and in the methods used to reconstruct them make the science of phylogenetics difficult, relying more and more on advanced genomics and computational and statistical methods to compliment traditional field research and morphological methods. In both principle and practice, parsimony helps guide this work. (Ref- Wiki)

The foregoing also refers to 'known knowns'.

Known knowns?

Watson’s Dictionary of Weasel Words has this to say –

1. Things we know we know

2. Things we know we made up.

3. Things we forgot we made up.

4. Things we forgot we knew.

‘As we know, there are known knowns. There are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns. That is to say we know there are some things we do not know. There are also unknown unknows, the ones we don’t know we don’t know.’
Donald Rumsfeld

‘The more you know the more you don’t know. It’s what you don’t know you don’t know.’
Werner Erhard (founder of est)

Actually parsimony when explained parsimoniously means: simple elegance, and comes from the older conceptions of Occam's razor which were later added to the epistemology-- conceptually to phylogenetic studies.My Evolutionary Biology professor was also a philosopher with a graduate degree in addition to being an expert in evolutionary Biology. He taught us much about parsimony, clades, clines, drifts, shifts, and the problems with Dawkin's main points--even Gould whom I admire did not escape evidence that contradicted some of his work.

Additional Response to Fantome

Not only does parsimony have its own inherent limitations, there is not one exacting definition of parsimony hence why a dictionary or web entry is very incomplete. To further seemingly complicate matters University education has been deteriorating mostly due to the poor preparation in the High Schools. Thus, even understanding simple elegance has been reduced to a wikipedia article and some dictionary definition. Simple elegance herein and by semantic assignment for parsimony then = explanatory power, completeness of thought and accuracy as judged by the available evidence, well examined/argued assertions based thereof and with the fewest unnecessary complications. For my brief discussion of the non-parametric statistical method then by not using normalcy in a distribution curve, we can then have less complicated/simpler/more elegant/data driven (parsimonious) and less unreal distractions to analyze data statistically. See link below for initial introduction to a brief explanation.

Parsimony is a non-parametric statistical method commonly used in computational phylogenetics for estimating phylogenies.

Yet normalcy is not an exacting criterion for determining between parametric and non-parametric statistical methods-- thus, a Gaussian curve or normal bell shaped curve although useful and very well approximated to model nature is not usually exacting. Mathematically speaking we must consider eigen functions and eigen vectors, how they operate and interact in order to see why in a sense, though obeyed under specific constraints and within appropriate contexts each method can sometimes be substituted for the other, meaning that, parametric and non-parametric can sometimes either switch places or you can use a square root transformation to convert values. However, in such cases as phylogenetics for which I have lab experience there are additional factors to consider besides mathematical which is outside the scope of this post. One limitation is with non parametric techniques you need more data to actually look at data.

Before we can discuss this please read here:


http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/epd/remediation/guidance/technical/pdf/12/gd05_all.pdf

Known knowns?

Within academia and scientific research known knowns refers to things we know we know. I am not trying to quote Rumsfeld (though I know he made such statements as did Pinker too I believe) but please avoid Wikipedia as it is a sham of an encyclopedia for most things.

We also discuss unknown unknowns or what we do not know we do not know as well.

Although Descartes has since been partially discredited, cogito extended still holds truth value in the modern world. I think therefore I am and perhaps I think therefore I do can be an extension of such a super class. By super class I mean a general blueprint from which other elemental statements can be made and within object oriented programming a super class gives rise to subtypes known as sub classes. Also within many subdivisions of Biology, Chemistry and Physics we use flow charts with such super classes and sub classes illustrated. In programming within OOP we use class and object diagrams often in conjunction with the form of unified modeling language or UML for short. However, within the programming if no super class exists we something called object that gives rise to all subtypes of subclass or objects from classes. Deductive reasoning, then still has its place alongside inductive, but of course, many a scientist is tempted to think erroneously that inductive is somehow inferior.

For our discussion here dictionaries are 100% worthless and in most cases of science, philosophy and theology equally worthless.

God is that object to me without religion and without belonging to a group to worship with.

Ref- Wiki?

Wiki equates to I read online that the sky is falling, but when I looked at the sky it was not falling, therefore it must be falling because Wiki tells me so... sounds like faith to me.

I am not an expert in Dawkins, for the purpose of this thread I view higher powers, religion, faith in a similar way.

Maybe similar and maybe not. Even so, religion is a ritualized social form that over time becomes politicized and holds a definitive social hierarchy if it survives and then holds a more significant stake within society much like science does.

Belief in higher powers and faith can be very different like in: individualist theism, deism and the higher powers say discussed in 12 step groups and many new age circles, though once we cross an invisible line into new age we confront more group dynamics and group think if exercised in a ritualistic manner.

However, we have not even defined ritual yet, thus we may not have boundary layers as of yet on what constitutes a social group exercising socio economic and political authority over its members and perhaps within a larger societal framework (see Durkheim, Weber, Plato, Aristotle, and any general textbook on recovery from addiction) or what we define as a function of faith-- maybe you are correct in asserting similar as like in a similie, or perhaps you mean in a gestalt sense where you are saying all faith is blind like a watchmaker--voila Dawkins-- and in so doing you are making underlying assumptions that equate to faith yourself which logically is internally inconsistent.

How do you mean similar? I read all of Dawkin's books a few times and anything he has available online as well--just saying, we gotta be informed about what we are discussing. Of course when I first came to PPRUNE I shitted on myself, as there are many very intelligent people here--this thread I have been avoiding as I have too much to say from my studies, my work and my life experiences. This is a good topic to be discussing when I have time off from work and my research.

Trust us Aussies to blow a hole in the Big Bang Theory:

Melbourne researchers believe they may be on the brink of rewriting the history of the universe.
A paper being published in a US physics journal suggests it may be possible to view "cracks" in the universe that would support the theory of Quantum Graphity - considered to be the holy grail of physics.
The team of researchers from the University of Melbourne and RMIT say instead of thinking of the start of the universe as being a big bang, we should imagine it as a cooling of water into ice.
"Think of the early universe as being like a liquid," Melbourne University theoretical physics researcher James Quach said.
"Then as the universe cools, it 'crystallises'.
"The reason we use the water analogy is water is without form.
"In the beginning there wasn't even space, space did not exist because there was no form."
Their research rests on a school of thought that has emerged recently to suggest space is made of indivisible building blocks, like atoms, that can be thought of as similar to pixels that make up images on a computer screen.
Mr Quach says the standing model for the origins of the universe, the big bang, needs to be rewritten.
He hopes experimentalists will be able to find evidence to support the theory put forward by the Melbourne team of researchers, that would replace it.
"The biggest problem with the big bang model is the bang itself," Mr Quach says.
"At the bang, physics breaks down.
"The model cannot make any predictions at what occurs at the big bang. You can't use any of the mathematics (or) any of the theories."
Mr Quach and his fellow researchers theorise that if Quantum Graphity "cracks" do exist, they will bend or reflect light, which, if observed through a telescope would support their predictions.
"If they prove my predictions that's really good evidence for the condensed matter model of quantum graphity in which case you can throw out all the other attempts."

Aussie researchers rewrite Big Bang theory (http://news.ninemsn.com.au/technology/8519215/aussie-researchers-rewrite-big-bang-theory)

Some points from my perspective:

I believe it is very important to separate 'religion' from 'faith'.

Faith is very personal, and to a large extent you either have it, or you don't. You can have faith that the airflow over a wing will keep your aircraft flying or that your wife will be faithful to you, and sometimes that faith can be explained by science (as in the case of airflow over a wing) and sometimes it cannot. I cannot explain why my wife loves me, when sometimes I find myself quite unloveable and my behaviour intolerable?

I don't understand the theory of fluid dynamics with regard to wing-design even though some people do understand it, but I have faith that it works.

I have a personal faith in God, creation, and the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. This is coupled with that verse many people know so well (John 3:16): For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life, and is followed by a verse not so many know: For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him.

I don't believe God so 'reasoned with' or 'argued with' or 'convinced' the world - He loved.

But just as there are crooked politicians, untrustworthy trade union officials, dishonest policemen, firebug volunteer firefighters etc etc, so 'belonging' to a group does not guarantee purity of purpose or action from everyone in that group. Indeed, some 'join up' specifically to further their 'wrong' motives. And churches and organised religion are not exempt.

And I respectfully suggest that if anyone would like to assess whether someone is a true Christian - a follower of Christ - apply the test that Jesus himself set in John 13:33 and 34: "A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another."

Reading these pages has been very interesting. I was thinking though that it was time somebody mentioned the person who Christians follow.

Although I do have faith, it's faith I think well grounded in boring reason & logic. There's a reasonable body of evidence that Jesus almost certainly existed and that he almost certainly said much the same things as the gospels say he said. Uniquely in messiah-movements or cults before & since, his followers had quite radical lives & deaths afterwards indicating that they believed him too, a little bit before he died and totally afterwards.

So for me, faith is not at all necessarily faith that is blind to the historical facts.

But whether that floats your boat or not, I'm happy to be judged by the words of Jesus who I claim to follow, as david1300 has said better than I can.

Cheers all,
Oktas

jbmack, I wholeheartedly agree that there are differences, however having considered this fact I felt to open discussion on the differences would detract from the core of the thread and thus dilute it. It is not that I deny the differences, it is more, as you say, that I view all faith as blind.

What interests me is how some can have faith in something there is no proof of and mostly very little 'evidence' of. I find it fascinating that it is so. Furthermore I wonder what is at the route of such faith and why these individuals have a need for their chosen belief.

BB

David1300
John 3:16 was my late father's favorite passage in it's entirety...

Thankyou for sharing the Word...it's nice to see pprune has advanced to the level where this important discussion can be had...I really wish I had more time...I hope that even non-Christrians can see how different 'reading the Bible' and receiving the Word truly is...

It's hard to convey the peace the New Testament can bring to Christians, who truly can see the love of God, and why we do have such peace despite adversity at times...I wish that I had more time to participate in this discussion, now that it seems some of the[albeit understandable at times] predjudice, steroetyping and intolerance has been broken down...I hope some of your message also is received by the atheists, not to change their minds, just to allow them to understand why we don't change our minds...I've said the Our Father Prayer numerous times... the passage means different things to me, at different times...so even though the litteral writings of the Bible don't change; the Word, does...and for Christians -only through acceptance of Christ as our saviour and having a personal relationship with God can we receive the Word each and every time

I'd never thought I'd be brave enough to ever write these thoughts down on pprune

:):):)

Melbourne researchers believe they may be on the brink of rewriting the history of the universe.


A bit late aren't they? The God botherers have been doing that for millenia!

Thanks for your reply. I do not mean to come off as aggressive. I think my belief in God comes from my anecdotal experience and how I interpret science. I can only speak for myself, but I have experienced God in my life and then have seen God in my own studies as well. Can I say here is God or there is God... no, but I see evidence through many things.

I have absolutely no problem in people believing in intangible entities influencing/controlling events. Just as long as they don't try and enforce their belief, lifestyle or rules on those who don't.

Unfotunately, regardless of their protestations, they all invariably do when they form the majority. For the good of your immortal soul of course, with the best of intentions.

I'm NOT bragging but I have 'science' very well condensed in my head to the point where nothing, if I should, take the time to learn is difficult, for me..when I was in molecular biology research I found the atmophere slow in limiting; I wanted to cure disease and fix things with it, i.e be more of a molecular engineer...

I look forward to the new advances in physics that will elucidate more of the mysteries of the universe...but science's limitations are very, very clear to me...

...and...

We as humans have difficulty with [outside of mathematics] with the concept of infinity[and nothing, i.e zero]... when questioning where does it all end? or all begin? and in order to even begin to try to prove the various hypotheses in physics relating, to these questions we must use the tools given to us... i.e ancient light, or various particle accelerators etc, otherwise these will remain purely speculative mathematical hypotheses...

As a result of our aforementioned experimental limitations; we can try perhaps to connect the many unknowns through a series of differential equations in attempt to reconcile our lack of knowledge concerning the beginning and the end with the inconcievable concepts of nothing and infinity

In the endless theory diferential equations, in order to relate [theoretically] any two items..we need to have at least one common variable between the items that we are trying to relate to one another...but since for certain items...we physically can not run the experiment [such as probing beyond the universe] in order to find connecting variables...in this case a variable that connects the known and, at least, finite and observable universe with infinity...we can never really grasp the infinite nor probe nor relate it to our finite world with equations as that's impossible...i.e reconconcile the first and the last the beginning and the end, the finite and the infinite...i.e...the last great questions in theoretical physics, more or less...

The only variable, the only hypothesis that gives humanity hope for solving this theoretical and non-existant differential equation is God because that's all we have that can explain the connection between the finite and infinite

so, even scientifically we can not really probe the infinite, becuase of our limitations of direct observation, without at least including God...one may wish to think of the variable as just a factor, as an atheist might do...but all along the faithful have been calling the variable that connects the finite and the infinite, the beginnings with the end, 'God' just without all of the fancy math...therein lies one, not proof, of faith or God, but one very good reason to at least try to include God, in the mix in terms of coming to any hope of parsimony as far as dealing with the age old conundrum of finite and time limited with infinite and timeless...

just a more 'scientific' view of things

:)

Why doesn't God (or his equivalent in other religions) reveal himself to today's world in a more obvious form than elliptical ancient scriptures written by ignorant people or 'visions' experienced by isolated individuals in obscure locations?

A quote from 'It's Not As Simple As That':


<<Is there a God for Jesus to be son of? And who created God? And who created the person who created God? If someone created the universe they made a pretty crap job of it. What's the point of having diseases? Why do people get dozy as they get older? Why can't people get smarter and healthier instead? Why do people have to die anyway? What's the point of earthquakes and droughts and floods? Why are so many grown-ups so miserable or so shitty? It's true, you know. You never get children who are as miserable or as shitty as grown-ups. Mrs Bellwood gets annoyed when you say this stuff. She says you have to have faith in God. Doesn't seem like much of a deal to me. The best way for God to make you believe in him would be to beam down to earth in the middle of the World Cup final. You couldn't argue with that.

Charlie doesn't believe in God. She says why do people use the Bible to tell us what to do when it was written 2000 years ago by people who thought the earth was flat and floods were God's punishment for being bad. But Martin says some people need God to help them when they're unhappy and it's wrong to tell these people that God doesn't exist.

Charlie reckons religion is a con trick. You tell people to put up with being poor or having a shitty life because when you die you go straight to heaven and live happily ever after. She says that religion is used as political control but I don't really know what that means. She laughed when I told her what Bob Hollis said about more people have been killed in the name of God than any other reason. My Dad says Mr Hollis is a subversive. I think that's like a boat that can go under water like a small submarine. I can't see the connection myself.>>

Is infinity in fact an inconceivable concept? If space is not unending, then what is it?

The news that the Australian team are proposing "a phase transition" analogue for the 'big bang' (how Fred Hoyle might laugh that his scathing terminology is still popular flavour de jour) is an interesting one.

Unfortunately (but typically) the popular press have missed the essence of the proposed theory.

Very few proponents of the view that an expanding (and open) universe emerged from a singularity (with all the mathematical contradictions and breakdowns that occur due to infinity at that point) would not be interested in this proposed model seeing that the Australian team are attempting to integrate quantum gravity (or graphity to be precise) within a coherent testable model.

Phys. Rev. D 77, 104029 (2008): Quantum graphity: A model of emergent locality (http://prd.aps.org/abstract/PRD/v77/i10/e104029)


Big Bang theory challenged by big chill | The Melbourne Newsroom (http://newsroom.melbourne.edu/news/n-885)

In fact the theories are not mutually exclusive and the fact that the popular media latch on to sound bites like 'Big Bang' or 'Big Chill' tells us more about the popular media than they do about the underlying theories.


http://www.staff.science.uu.nl/~proko101/DoruSticlet_pt2.pdf


Caco

Is infinity in fact an
inconceivable concept? If space is not unending, then what is it?


That's the problem..we're not sure are there many universes? is there infinite matter and energy also if not is there, nothing? but nothing must be something right? in a similar way that we can use multivariable calculus to go beyond three mutually orthogonal axes..we can not graph such a function we only have x,y,z plane but we can go beyond that limitation up until infinity actually...but only with symbols...similar with +/- infinity or the thru concept of nothing we can deal with it mathematically, but we can not draw it or really form a true mental picture...without mathematics we'd be blind to these concepts...therefore a true extension of that to physical reality is truly inconceivable...i.e no real mental picture can be drawn outside of a broad conceptualiztion...makes sense?

as far as the query below yours I also have my opinion, but I need to have coffee, before I write that...;)

Caco the problem with these hypotheses is that without, serendipitously i.e the exact right beam of ancient light hitting us, we can't say for sure complex math can fall like a house of cards...;)

And yes, not that we don't know this alread,...the media is largely comprised of muppetty air heads blabbering without any research or aforethought

Bring Back Ted Koppel!!!...:ok:

Great discussion, PA, and great also that you feel comfortable enough to talk about these quite personal things.

A couple of comments from the opposing viewpoint, if I may:

It's hard to convey the peace the New Testament can bring to Christians,

Fair enough. Non-Christians, though, are able to experience some pretty profound feelings of peace as well - I'd nominate an early morning camped on the banks of some outback river with the mist rising and the world slowly waking as about the most peaceful experience one can have, and whether that world was made or arose by chance is immaterial;

The only variable, the only hypothesis that gives humanity hope for solving this theoretical and non-existant differential equation is God because that's all we have that can explain the connection between the finite and infinite


Do we particularly need to explain the unexplainable? We can try, and the quest to do so seems to yield some pretty useful and edifying results, but if I can't get my equations to work without introducing a God factor, the universe will still continue to work in its wonderful way.

Is infinity in fact an
inconceivable concept? If space is not unending, then what is it


Anybody who has thought about and used calculus gets quite dizzy when thinking about that question above! ;)

It has driven some men mad...

Georg Cantor - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georg_Cantor)

Poor old Georg Cantor.

Caco

Fair enough. Non-Christians, though, are able to experience some pretty
profound feelings of peace as well - I'd nominate an early morning camped on the
banks of some outback river with the mist rising and the world slowly waking as
about the most peaceful experience one can have, and whether that world was made
or arose by chance is immaterial;


Arm out the Window

Oh I definitely agree I was expressing why I have found faith in Christianity

but as I've said I believe that God has presented himself to all humankind just in different ways...I've seen people who receive their word through Islam, or Budhism, or Judaism..people who do have a personal relationship with God...In fact this extends to atheist and agnostics, and I'm sure even the ancient polytheistic religions or the naturalistic concepts of Native Americans...in fact the general themes of faith are represented with in all concepts of God [even faith in science]...the book by late, great sociologist Joseph Campbell details these matter much more precisely than I can ever hope to...I don't feel Christians own God or Faith or Enlightenment, per se...

In fact...that is one of the root causes of so much strife in the world...I receive my word through Christ, it not so simplistic, but I feel the Word is out there for everyone to recieve-I'm not the type who thinks all Non-Christians are going to hell, you could interpret things superficially in the Bible as such,and many unfortunately, do but that's why it's important to meditate on Faith of anykind...to receive the word for you...meditiation can be communal [as in a religion] but of course we as humans with our follies and vices can distort all of that, just as science can be distorted..but I'm happiest recieving my word through Christ...but we Christians don't own God...Humanity owns him...God is quite litterally found in our DNA and from the DNA somehow gets into our brains in one form or another...that's my view hence my ecumenical standpoint; I feel it's no contradiction at all to being a good Christian to realize some may also be a good Budhist there exists among all faiths the truly enlightened...

and yes the universe would continue on it's own but what fun is that...we're too curious too leave these questions alone, that's why science and faith truly exist they're just not mutually exclusive concepts..as so many are lead to believe...IMHO


Caco..so many of the greats saw the same road Gibbs, Maxwell that's why i like engineering, if you see math that is too hard and you don't like ,you can just cross it all out...:}:ouch:

as far as my next opinion why is there bad if there's a God? and why do the word in these old book seemingly contradict scientific reality?...well in the next post i can't type too much at once:\
so that, as Koppel, used to say on Nightline ---that conversation when we return
:)

So when a major natural disaster claims the lives of thousands of men, women and children alike, in some far flung country which is staunchly Islamic, what sould the "correct" reaction of the survivors be ?

Should they weep and wail, searching through the carnage looking for relatives to bury.

Or

With the firm and unrefutable belief that everything that occurs is "God's Will" should they not celebrate the great act of their creator.

After all, their "God" willed the great event to take place, Who are they to question ?

Never been entirely clear on that one !

That sort of argument is silly and unhelpful. It is perfectly reasonable in my (non-Believer's) view for people to subscribe to a religion which believes that all things, good and calamitous, are the work of their god. That does not mean that they cannot and should not mourn their dead and injured in such a calamity.

I feel that William Blake sums up some of this stuff the best...


To see a world in a grain of sand,
And a heaven in a wild flower,
Hold infinity in the palm of your hand,
And eternity in an hour.

A robin redbreast in a cage
Puts all heaven in a rage.

A dove-house fill'd with doves and pigeons
Shudders hell thro' all its regions.
A dog starv'd at his master's gate
Predicts the ruin of the state.

A horse misused upon the road
Calls to heaven for human blood.
Each outcry of the hunted hare
A fibre from the brain does tear.

A skylark wounded in the wing,
A cherubim does cease to sing.
The game-cock clipt and arm'd for fight
Does the rising sun affright.

Every wolf's and lion's howl
Raises from hell a human soul.

The wild deer, wand'ring here and there,
Keeps the human soul from care.
The lamb misus'd breeds public strife,
And yet forgives the butcher's knife.

The bat that flits at close of eve
Has left the brain that won't believe.
The owl that calls upon the night
Speaks the unbeliever's fright.

He who shall hurt the little wren
Shall never be belov'd by men.
He who the ox to wrath has mov'd
Shall never be by woman lov'd.

The wanton boy that kills the fly
Shall feel the spider's enmity.
He who torments the chafer's sprite
Weaves a bower in endless night.

The caterpillar on the leaf
Repeats to thee thy mother's grief.
Kill not the moth nor butterfly,
For the last judgement draweth nigh.

He who shall train the horse to war
Shall never pass the polar bar.
The beggar's dog and widow's cat,
Feed them and thou wilt grow fat.

The gnat that sings his summer's song
Poison gets from slander's tongue.
The poison of the snake and newt
Is the sweat of envy's foot.

The poison of the honey bee
Is the artist's jealousy.

The prince's robes and beggar's rags
Are toadstools on the miser's bags.
A truth that's told with bad intent
Beats all the lies you can invent.

It is right it should be so;
Man was made for joy and woe;
And when this we rightly know,
Thro' the world we safely go.

Joy and woe are woven fine,
A clothing for the soul divine.
Under every grief and pine
Runs a joy with silken twine.

The babe is more than swaddling bands;
Every farmer understands.
Every tear from every eye
Becomes a babe in eternity;

This is caught by females bright,
And return'd to its own delight.
The bleat, the bark, bellow, and roar,
Are waves that beat on heaven's shore.

The babe that weeps the rod beneath
Writes revenge in realms of death.
The beggar's rags, fluttering in air,
Does to rags the heavens tear.

The soldier, arm'd with sword and gun,
Palsied strikes the summer's sun.
The poor man's farthing is worth more
Than all the gold on Afric's shore.

One mite wrung from the lab'rer's hands
Shall buy and sell the miser's lands;
Or, if protected from on high,
Does that whole nation sell and buy.

He who mocks the infant's faith
Shall be mock'd in age and death.
He who shall teach the child to doubt
The rotting grave shall ne'er get out.

He who respects the infant's faith
Triumphs over hell and death.
The child's toys and the old man's reasons
Are the fruits of the two seasons.

The questioner, who sits so sly,
Shall never know how to reply.
He who replies to words of doubt
Doth put the light of knowledge out.

The strongest poison ever known
Came from Caesar's laurel crown.
Nought can deform the human race
Like to the armour's iron brace.

When gold and gems adorn the plow,
To peaceful arts shall envy bow.
A riddle, or the cricket's cry,
Is to doubt a fit reply.

The emmet's inch and eagle's mile
Make lame philosophy to smile.
He who doubts from what he sees
Will ne'er believe, do what you please.

If the sun and moon should doubt,
They'd immediately go out.
To be in a passion you good may do,
But no good if a passion is in you.

The whore and gambler, by the state
Licensed, build that nation's fate.
The harlot's cry from street to street
Shall weave old England's winding-sheet.

The winner's shout, the loser's curse,
Dance before dead England's hearse.

Every night and every morn
Some to misery are born,
Every morn and every night
Some are born to sweet delight.

Some are born to sweet delight,
Some are born to endless night.

We are led to believe a lie
When we see not thro' the eye,
Which was born in a night to perish in a night,
When the soul slept in beams of light.

God appears, and God is light,
To those poor souls who dwell in night;
But does a human form display
To those who dwell in realms of day.



Caco

Fascinating stuff - thank you, PA and others, for your openness and honesty.

To a great extent, I think the individual's faith (or lack of) depends on where he/she was brought up, and the culture in which he/she lives. The three great monotheistic religions share many concepts (and much history), although there are also major areas of disagreement.

To me, brought up in a Christian environment, and as a Christian and a minister in the church, it's simple. The historical accounts convince me, and practising them has revealed the "holiness" behind them, in people I have met and studied. In other words, it works for me. I don't force it on others, but I willingly discuss it with those who want to know more.

I have seen things happen which I cannot explain. At this point, some folks clamour to be told, so that they can ridicule them. I've learned to keep them for times when the scoffers are absent (it's less hassle that way). But they work for me.

There are those who are not convinced. Fair enough. There are those who quite deliberately choose to negate and to insult those who believe. That's their choice, but insults don't persuade anyone away from faith/belief, any more than arguments persuade anyone to faith. Insulting Christians, calling them "God botherers" or "people with imaginary friends" convinces nobody. I choose not to reply in like vein.

As to "having all the answers": no, not in potted form. Life isn't that simple. As has been said many times, there's a simple answer to every question, and it's simply wrong.

Why do earthquakes happen? Because the earth's crust is tectonic. It's a function of how it was made. That's my simplified answer, so probably wrong at least in part.

Why is the moon at that specific distance from the earth? If it were any further away, it would have escaped earth's gravity and wandered off into space. There would have been no tides to stir the primeval mulch, and life would not have formed on earth. If it were much closer, the tides would have been so strong that life could not have formed.

You can do the same with gravity, the weak and strong nuclear forces, and so on. Many "constants" are within a fraction of a percent of the value they need to be for stars to form, burn to produce higher elements, then explode to scatter those higher elements to form into planets, and so on. Who set those constants, or was it random? I don't know - but I have a faith.

Abuse of religious authority? Oh yes, there's been plenty of that. As I tire of saying, that's not the fault of God or of Jesus. They didn't teach that - very much the opposite. Diarmaid McCulloch's "History of Christianity" is full of examples, good and bad.

Who created God, and who created him/her, and so on? The question doesn't work because it's infinitely regressive. The same problem arises with "who created the Big Bang?" (or whatever theory is in favour this year).
God is "outside time".

I'm delighted at the informed debate on this thread - long may it continue!

FWIW my take on religion.

I can't believe in a "big invisible man in the sky" who tests his followers by killing their children (or allowing them to die). But, and this is a huge BUT (like mine :)) I bring my Children up as Christians because I think Christian morality is a good way to live your life. I see other religions (no names, no packdrill) that feel it is okay to rape, murder, steal from and generally abuse a "non believer" that I shudder.

So many people have been killed and maimed in the name of God, that if he does exist, then why allow all of this confusion to reign. Why doesn't she/he just pop up on out TVs one night and say "hey guys, you, you and you have all got it wrong, you lot over there are close, but this is my laws I want you to live by and this book that will be delivered though your door within the next 10 seconds, tells exactly what you must do and how you must live your life"

Saves all of the fuss, don't know why he hasn't thought of it himself.....

don't know why he hasn't thought of it himself.....


Think you do FO :ok:

Saves all of the fuss, don't know why he hasn't thought of it himself.....

As is well documented (see The Old Testament) in the media of the day (scrolls / word of mouth) he used to do that but it was quite limiting (one group of people) and it didn't lead to long term following as people knew that if they didn't get it right, he would appear again and sort out the mess.

The current strategy appears much more successful (1/3 of the world profess to be Christians) even though it isn't always quite as exciting.

:ok:

To a great extent, I think the individual's faith (or lack of) depends on where he/she was brought up, and the culture in which he/she lives.
Indeed. I find it funny (ha ha) how religious visions always correspond to the subject of the seer's religion. Muslims never have visions of Ganesh, Buddhists never see the Virgin Mary, and so on.

My thinking about religion has evolved (!) over the years. I've never been strongly "anti", but I've also never seen it as being objectively correct about the nature of this world and beyond.

I call religion a "platform", and where it allows good people to do good things, of course I can't complain. Look at the numbers of religious charities out there, or hospitals with names starting in "Saint". Where the fallacy creeps in, I think, is in believing that just because it's been that way in the past, it has to be that way in the future, and can't be any other way. Religious people can do good, and have done, but that doesn't mean that religion itself is inherently good, or that non-religious people can't be good too. You just have to have the right "platform"; in the past, that's often been religion, but it's not necessarily going to be that way in the future.

There's been two "interesting" ones in the UK recently, one ongoing, where there has been/is court cases to stop their "loved ones" having their life support machines switched off. One of the families were Christian, the other Muslim. Both have tried to play the "religion" card by saying that the machines should be left on as it is "God's Will" that decides whether someone lives or dies and not the doctors in charge.

The thing that gets me is that if it is actually "God's Will", then surely keeping them hooked up to a machine that keeps them breathing, etc, is against that due to it meaning these two are being kept alive artificially. Surely "God's Will" means pulling the plug and if they keep breathing then God has actually decided they live. If they don't, then He's decided they don't.

Strange people, them who try to invoke "God's Will" on every aspect of their life.........

Many "constants" are within a fraction of a percent of the value they need to be for stars to form, burn to produce higher elements, then explode to scatter those higher elements to form into planets, and so on. Who set those constants, or was it random? I don't know - but I have a faith.

If they were different we wouldn't be here to discuss the matter so there is no point in being surprised by it.

If I studied the lives of my ancestors in detail I would no doubt find that if an ancient cannon had fired a moment earlier or someone had walked down a medieval street a moment later I would never have been born. But I don't conclude that some higher force made those chances happen, it was just chance.

Postulating God just means there is one more thing to explain.

[QUOTE] At this point, some folks clamour to be told, so that they can ridicule them. [QUOTE]

Critic: Aha! Gotcha! So just because an obscure 18th century Irish bishop reached conclusions from a few a priori calculations based on his assumed average generation span, you believe the world was created 6,000 years ago! Huh? Huh?

Victim: Sigh. No, not really. I give myself freedom to use my own mind.

Critic: Aha! Gotcha! So you pick and choose! Oh Yes, you do! Don't try to deny it. Not to me.

Victim: Sigh. Yes, I suppose I do.

Critic: Aha! Gotcha! So my critique is brilliant.

Victim (inwardly): Sigh. But in an uncertain world my schema works for me. What does yours do for me?

Well, Davaar, enthusiastic as Abp Ussher was, I don't go along with his assumptions. Maybe it's more modern scholarship, I dunno, but I don't take "Yom" as meaning "24 hours". But that wasn't what I meant, as I'm sure you appreciate :)

Regarding constants: I asked a scientific atheist how come they are all exactly where they are for stars to form, etc etc. His answer was that there is an infinite number of universes (the multiverse), each with subtly different constants. We happen to be in the one that permits life to exist. Plausible, but fails the test of parsimony (if you accept that one). And so ever on...

We can look at our world and note some of the constants and facts that make our lives and the world as we know it possible and deduce the we are somehow special.

Truth is that in the context of deep time. many of factors that make life here possible will have altered and it is very likely that we will have vanished from the face of the earth (due to our own foolishness) well before a bloated red giant swallows our little planet.

I really don't know how a loving deity fits neatly into such an uncomfortable (from a human perspective) scenario.

Watch "Florian Beutler: Does Earth have a special place in the universe?" Video at TED2013 #TEDTalentSearch (http://talentsearch.ted.com/video/Florian-Beutler-Does-Earth-have)

Caco

But that wasn't what I meant, as I'm sure you appreciate


Dear me, Keef. Please don't tell me I have fallen into the age-old trap of unrequited irony!

I chose the 6,000 year tale quite at random as one of those without number that the critic imputes as dogma to the "believer", and was intended to support your contribution.

Of course "believer" is a coat of many colours, on which I am not wholly at odds with that other Irish Bishop, Berkeley of Cloyne. Those chaps must have suffered empty hours on their hands.

My current speculation is on a category of "believing non-believers", in which I think I fall. I have lived a long time, I suppose, and I accept the texts and chapters I choose, and not those I reject. Works, as they say, for me, but maybe not for others.

As the "train manager", so-called these days, on the Aberdeen-Plymouth express puts it: "Yese've goat tae chinge. Yese kin chinge at Edinburgh or yese kin chinge at York [pause] -- it's a' up tae yersels".

There are so many creeds around after 2,000 years that choice is of necessity up tae yersels, voluntarily or by inheritance.

I am not wholly at odds with that other Irish Bishop, Berkeley of Cloyne.

A very interesting, remarkable if sometimes misguided fellow, especally with regard to calculus!

George Berkeley (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy) (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/berkeley/)

Caco

I could never reconcile the 'Christian' teachings with real life.

By the time I was 9, I was an agnostic.

When I was 15 I was an atheist.

I can see the comfort that religion brings some people but becoming religious again would be like deliberately deciding to believe in Santa Claus or the tooth fairy.

I think that 'Christianity' simply acknowledges the way that most people act naturally.

In general, I find that religious people behave less charitably than others, possibly because they are special, having been 'saved' in some way and therefore above the lesser breeds.

Your religion is not determined by galactic constants, but simply by what is drummed into you at an early age, ie it is geographical.

If this were not so, then surely everyone would have the same beliefs?

Keef

It's called the strong anthropic principle, and is very sound.

So what is your explanation for the origin of God, a benign God who wished to create a world and is both omniscient and omnipotent (mutually exclusive characteristics) but rather jealous, petulant and, well, human in character? God being necessarily more complicated than the universe, He must also be far more unlikely than the coincidence of the constants.

I've read everything---I just can't write much right now a little later in the day perhaps

We can't as of yet prove the 'multiverse' it's only a mathematical hypothesis and with technology...some sort of thermonuclear device, and using the residual solar energy, to feed the new reaction and not let the sun get too big... we may in the future be able to replace the current sun so---we might not be that insignicant---there are too many things we'll never know, as we have no way of perceiving the data---I think that these discussions-while they may not change minds---are best to at least break down predjudices and allow for less bitterness and more understanding---I do have more to say but--but don't have time to write it and if I tried right now it would seem be pure illiteracy:uhoh:

but like Keef I am grateful for this dialogue as it promotes mutual understanding

Keef[ or anyone ]if you'd ever like feel free to PM me I like your take on things...:)

I enjoy reading your posts as well. I think in general this thread is far more civil than other threads and blogs where people discuss such matters.

Jcb I know that from some of our PMs i know you have and interesrting take on consciuosness I'd really like to hear more about that if you don't mind

:)

I think that 'Christianity' simply acknowledges the way that most people act naturally.

Ooh, dear - no. It's a bit more complex than that! Have a look at the book I mentioned earlier - "A History of Christianity".

In general, I find that religious people behave less charitably than others, possibly because they are special, having been 'saved' in some way and therefore above the lesser breeds.

That's a rather sweeping statement. Have you evidence to back it up?

Your religion is not determined by galactic constants, but simply by what is drummed into you at an early age, ie it is geographical.

Nonsense. You are suggesting that people do not have their own minds. I was sent to church as a child and continued to attend until a teenager. I was and still am a non-believer. And where does geography come into it?

The Martyrdom of Man

The Martyrdom of Man (1872), is a secular history of the Western world. The book became a kind of "substitute bible for secularists". In it, Reade attempts to trace the development of Western civilisation in terms analogous to those used in the natural sciences. He uses it to advance his philosophy, which was political liberalism. The final section of the book provoked enormous controversy due to Reade's "outspoken attack on Christian dogma".
In 1872 the Prime minister, William Gladstone denounced The Martyrdom of Man as one of several "irreligious works" (the others included work by Auguste Comte, Herbert Spencer and David Friedrich Strauss).

Reade was an atheist and a social Darwinist who believed in survival of the fittest and wanted to create a new civilization: "While war, slavery and religion had once been necessary",Reade argued, "this would not always be so;in the future only science could guarantee human progress".

Cecil Rhodes, an English-born South Africa politician and businessman, said that the book "made me what I am". Other admirers of The Martyrdom of Man included H.G. Wells, Winston Churchill, Harry Johnston, George Orwell, Susan Isaacs, A.A. Milne and his son Christopher Robin and Michael Foot.

The title of the book is well known to many who have not read it: in Arthur Conan Doyle's The Sign of the Four, Sherlock Holmes says to Dr. Watson: "Let me recommend this book, -- one of the most remarkable ever penned." V.S. Pritchett lauded The Martyrdom of Man as "the one, the outstanding, dramatic, imaginative historical picture of life, to be inspired by Victorian science".

Reade's other secularist work, "The Outcast", is a short novel about a young man rejected by his religious father while concurrently deeply affected by the death of his wife.

(Ref - Wiki)

Flaymy beat me to it. I can't fault the anthropic principle, but it does imply colossal redundancy.


In 2006, It had been suggested by an aggressive atheist, that instead of relying on religion, 'we should stand on our own two feet.'

I answered.

My question is: For what purpose?

If there is no ‘continuance', then what is it point of any endeavor, any single work, hope or act? Being a Humanist just does not hold water. If one compares even the age of our universe, with the speck of time we have on this planet, then the time we are sentient is scarcely longer than the spark from a flint. Why would we want to put huge effort into advancing our minds, and with this, the quality of life on Earth, when it is to be extinguished in a moment . . . permanently?

In this unimaginably small speck of time, there would be no logic in anything except perhaps, self gratification.

A logical person would walk right past an abandoned child - to comfort it would serve no purpose. To aid its injured parent - a futile gesture. Any instinctive caring for progeny would be lost in the chaos.

Why we feel our lives are an important chapter in something much bigger is the real mystery. Even professor Dawkins does not seem to question why he thinks his work has any long-term worth. In his world, his work will be lost to nothing more than a succession of curious occurrences called humans, blinking at his words and then dying.

A logical person would walk right past an abandoned child - to comfort it would serve no purposeAs here

http://i101.photobucket.com/albums/m56/babraham227/v-2.gif

We are not just logical computers or machines. Even the 'computers' of yesteryear were thinking/feeling human beings. Logic has its limitations too as Brian Abraham shows.

Although that's a very familiar photograph--it's shocking and sad each and every time...

It kind of leads in to my next opinion as too why is there so much 'bad' even with a God...the biggest reasone I believ is free will if I were to take a pistol and shoot someone and that person dies how can I blame God?...I feel the earth is like a playground for us to explore and probe and we have the ability to explore and be creative...one consequence of not being slaves or machines is the ability to do bad things; a majority of 'Godless horror is manmade

furthermore we have rules under which we MUST abide, these rules are essentially the laws of physics
And although they sometimes add up in our favor such as the flight attendant who fell from the flight levels and survived or the fellow who recently jumped from the Empire State building and lived, but nevertheless they must be followed...furthermore

As far as the science in the bible well actually if God is beyond time perhaps he was using relativistic facts in order to create the universe in seven days...time dilation...when for 7 days for him was billions of years for us, perhaps Adam and Eve were metaphors for evolution...I think discovery of tthese facts were meant for us as humans to explore and elucidate the real mechanisms, the messages in the Bible, for instance, were not intended to give us science as we view it today but the writers of that text were far from ignorant, but they were meant to deliver a message, not to reveal all of the laws of science to us-but to deliver a word-but we have free will...I find like another text I've read called 'power of prayer' that there are three basic answers to our prayers...1 Yes, 2, not yet, 3 a little different than what you're asking but nevertheless a happy conclusion

I find it amazing that people have so much faith in speculative mathematical models of the universe and and scientific nonsense-such as 'global warming'
a hypothesis that violates thermodynamics...yet criticize people of faith when for all intents and purposes they have the utmost faith in the unproven, perhaps unprovable...and it the case of 'climate change' an utter lie...yet dismiss as loons and crazies people whose lives have been touched personally by God and people who have been saved by God-sometimes litterallt

In relativistic physics who would have ever thought possible time dilation, or quantum mechanical tunneling? yet these are proven facts...they do occur

For those of faith it's not necessarily 'blind faith' many of us have asked and received...or sought and we've found, but when we give accounts of personal miracles or salvation; it's invariably dismissed as chance or probability-and there's none as blind as they who wont see

As far as that poor child in the above picture, of course, he most likely died, but the main reason for his horrible situation in the first place was undoubtedly caused by man-not God, one consequence of being given free will is that we can hurt others...this leads to pain and anger that at times lasts generation after generation-this is not from God-it's mainly from us-and largely a consequence of free will-and not being made slaves-why couldn't the photographer assist that child?---it was his free will and as noted he suffered the consequences thereof, perhaps the child did make it the 1000 meters...we can't know-but we know for sure that the photographer didn't make it!

All of this of course is my opinion-take it with a grain of sand if you want...but it's how I reconcile things-i don't believe God is a blind watchmaker---I believe we're the ones who can be the blind ones through our own choices not to see

funny enough in light of the level of debate Dawkin's quote doesn't seem so brilliant after all-and ironically when the shoe is on the other foot the atheist do the exact same thing Dawkins accuses the faithful of...when I made my initial point about the evil in the 20th and 21st century that was perpetrated by atheist it was implied that I was perhaps being illogical and crazy until i stated the indisputable facts---so for all intents and purposes that person knocked over the pices and crapped on the board---of course through the facts I introduced; it can safely be said that I was right and and he was wrong---who'd have ever believed it? coming from a stupid pigeon like me...:rolleyes:

In his world, his work will be lost to nothing more than a succession of curious occurrences called humans, blinking at his words and then dying.


Dawkins might take some solace from the transmission of his works as cultural or intellectual memes that will finally be lost with human genetics when the human race dies out but may live on elsewhere in the universe if we (highly unlikely) manage to transmit our meagre memetic contribution across space and time to other civilisations!


http://sitemaker.umich.edu/satran/files/human_nature_01.pdf

Caco

I find like another text I've read called 'power of prayer' that there are three basic answers to our prayers...1 Yes, 2, not yet, 3 a little different than what you're asking but nevertheless a happy conclusion

Another excerpt from 'It's Not As Simple As That':

<<I got to thinking - when we used to say our prayers when I was a kid I used to pray for Mum and Dad and Granny and Grandad Fielding and Granny Forester and Uncle Maurice and Auntie Jessica and my disgusting sisters and all my friends and that. Then I used to pray for sick people and poor people, like I was taught. But then I thought that's unfair - what about all the billions of people you leave out. What happens to them? Okay, maybe they've got their own families to pray for them but you can see it's bloody complicated. Suppose someone gets missed out? Why doesn't everyone just pray for everyone else so it all evens out? Anyway, if God was as terrific as they make out he would want to help people without being asked to. So why bother with prayers anyway?>>

Dawkins and his bitch Hitch are shallow, post-modern celebrities--no more, no less. Hitch spent most of his time at Cambridge on matters of buggery; real thinkers have written much more eloquently on questions of faith.

Dawkins and Hitch are silly, vain amuses bouches against the full course meal of classic authors.


Well there it is is! Matari has spoken so it must be so but I must point out that if people, including Messieurs Dawkins and Hitchens , are buggering each other and making a degree out of it, they are probably are doing it or did it at Oxford (but in Hitchen's case, clearly not in heaven)! :p

Dawkins can come over as a tad shrill but he is no post modernist and is clearly a thinker of some force.

As for writing about faith his point would be that it is a meaningless exercise.

Authors@<hidden>: Christopher Hitchens - YouTube

Caco

A woman floats by in a boat, asking if the man needs help. "No, thank you," says the man, "I'm trusting in the Lord." The waters rise higher, sending the man upstairs. A raft full of people floats by his second story window. "Get in," they say, "there's plenty of room." "No thanks," says the man, "I'm trusting in the Lord." The flood waters keep rising, pushing the man up to the roof. A helicopter swoops in, lowering its ladder for the man. "Thanks anyway," shouts the man, "I'm trusting in the Lord." Finally, the man is swept away in the torrent and drowns. At the gates of Heaven, the man asks God, "Why didn't you save me?" "What do you mean?'' replies God, "I sent two boats and a helicopter."


Happens too often

Also the converse an atheist would get into the boat but then say 'wow wasn't I lucky'
How do we know prayers aren't answered when so often people are blind to the answers and likewise we have...many of mine have been of course that was an hallucination-funny enough if you're faithful and you're convinced you will die...it's not as bad as one might imagine---death as I've been told is simply another form of transportation-like a plane ride...seriously:cool:

Prayer is complex. It's not a "heavenly shopping list" - or shouldn't be, anyway.

Part of the process of prayer is aligning the individual's mind with God. There are some excellent books on the concept (not books of prayers, but books about what prayer is, and how to pray). "Godly contemplation" would describe it. It results in the mindset that, seeing that starving child, wouldn't photograph it but would pick it up and take it to food and water.

Intercessory prayer comes in for some complex definitions and explanations, but I like the simple version taught to me many years ago by a wise clergyman: please; thank you; sorry; I love you.

Prayer as a form of "magic" doesn't work. Prayer as a way of life does, and can yield some amazing results - for those with eyes to see.

As soon as I heard the condescending molecular biology lessons...I had too stop; he's stereotyping and also lying we still don't know a great deal about the origins of the universe; mostly speculative mathematical models-for which we still await the data and some of which is impossible to actually probe with experiments...

We act like the scientists have everything worked out---but i don't need his lectures I had developmental and molecular biology with one of the greatest minds on the planet, possibly, in the field of evolutionary and developmental biology-the evo/devo movement as it's called and I got 'A's' in both courses...skipping through he only describes-Christian extremists and then plays the usually sorry song of assuming we're all the same--same predjudice; it's like they all read from the same trite and tired script-funny enough it was a Christian scientist who elucidated the human genome in the first place...a person who's made many more breakthroughs than Dawkin's
Perhaps if Dawkins spent more time at the bench and less time with his intolerant messages he'd actually get some substantial science done maybe even something as monumental as Dr. Francis Collins---of course some scientists who've accomplished so little---like to mock Dr. Collins so much--envy

Furthermore, I don't really find them that smart to begin with.
We're not here to convert atheist to faith or to prove God's exists...we just want to stop being mocked, ridiculed, stereotyped and condescended

Again he's painted all the faithful with broad brush strokes---if this were done with Blacks or Women the cries of intolerance would reach to outerspace; if done to the faithful..we deserve it...hippocracy^3
:zzz:

We're not here to convert atheist to faith or to prove God's exists...we just want to stop being mocked, ridiculed, stereotyped and condescended

Absolutely, but I also signed up to Matthew 28: 19-20 so I do teach and preach as well :)

Part of the process of prayer is aligning the individual's mind with God. There are some excellent books on the concept (not books of prayers, but books about what prayer is, and how to pray). "Godly contemplation" would describe it. It results in the mindset that, seeing that starving child, wouldn't photograph it but would pick it up and take it to food and water.



Keef I think these concepts are intangible to those who haven't tried, I know exactly what you're talking about! I really do...:)

We all try to spread the Gospel, but the number of deaf ears and blind eyes gets frustrating...then it sometime becomes 'preaching to the choir' so to speak...:):):)

I just had to post Piper.Classique's contribution to another thread, because I think it's brilliant:

Ah, well it takes a very determined atheist to murmer "Oh, dear, outmoded concept on a crutch" when he has just accidentally hit his thmb with the hammer

I think a couple of posters a few pages back mentioned that some have a need to believe. For me, it was the other way round; I was busily getting on with my life, when, gradually, I started to feel that I was being called to believe - it's an odd sensation and I can't describe it properly. But no sudden revelation, just a persistent niggle that I couldn't ignore.

So gradually I started to learn more and the more I learn, the more I want to learn. And in a way, it's inconvenient - it takes time (of which I have very little), it makes me spend time with people with whom, normally, I would have very little in common and it changes the way I am perceived by people around me (a good, but newish friend, on discovering I was a churchgoer when I was still in London, exclaimed "but you're doing to get the children into a church school, yes?" as though an answer in the affirmative would confirm my sanity).

So I found myself a couple of months ago being baptised and confirmed at the same time, rather to my own bemusement. So here I am, at the beginning of a journey. I don't know what God expects of me (part of me hopes it's not too much). But, hey, we'll see.

Personally I take a great deal of comfort in knowing that when I shuffle off this mortal coil I shall not be bothered by anybody quoting verses from some damned book nor by people saying they do or don't believe in God.

The universe will just go quietly on its rather beautiful and enigmatic way and I shall have been privileged to have been part of it, albeit for a meaninglessly short time, not that I will be aware of that!

Or perhaps as David Byrne sings...

"Heaven is place where nothing never happens".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5zNdMc6wGtU

Caco

Talking Heads' first big hit "Take Me To The River" was a cover of an old southern gospel tune. Wonder if Byrne thanked the Lord for that. Doubt it, although I really like the guy.

On the Trabb Thread Mark XXIVKXX or whatever it is, if one stubs one's toe and reveals that to all, the chorus will respond with "TRABB force directed to you" or other such nonsense. But if one were to say "prayers", wow what a terribly gauche thing to say in today's secular, logical, scientific world.

But if one were to say "prayers", wow what a terribly gauche thing to say in today's secular, logical, scientific world.


Old habits die hard sometimes even for wishy washy old agnostics like me and I find myself praying to something. I guess it is human to look outwards and realise how puny we really are no matter how much logic and our belief systems have evolved.

Caco

To wind-down, perhaps the Dali Lama said it best:

- No need for temples. No need for complicated philosophy. Your own mind, your own heart is the temple. Your philosophy is simple kindness.

- Our prime purpose in this life is to help others. And if you can't help them, at least don't hurt them.

Of course, the latter doesn't apply to one of the biggest windbags on the topic.....does it, Big Daddy-O????

Mendacity - Cat On A Hot Tin Roof - YouTube

Also the converse an atheist would get into the boat but then say 'wow wasn't I lucky'


What would your view be Pugilistic ?

Dear Keef, although I do not share your viewpoint, I admire your stance.

Here is a beautiful song, penned and presented by a beautiful Englishman.

Well worth a listen, believe me !

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UgYz2Ml4O78

"Godly contemplation" would describe it. It results in the mindset that, seeing that starving child, wouldn't photograph it but would pick it up and take it to food and water.

Fortunately I'm an atheist so I'd naturally help the child without having to consult an imaginary friend to see if that was OK.

El Grifo
Well considering my life, and the number of times 'luck' has intervened, I'd get on the boat and say 'thank God', of course someone may say well-that's my irrational bias, and I can accept that but consider the following, no this stuff is not too personal...

As a child I grew up in poverty in a place surrounded by death, crime, violence, drugs etc considering I was a 'white boy' marked for targeting,in violent Black areas where Latinos were frequently sent to the ICU or killed yet I've never lost a fight even being jumped-at worst I've had a cut on the lip or once after a sneak attack sucker punch- a black eye, while my attackers usually much larger than me sometimes ended up with broken noses and usually were left prostrate and such-to the point where no one wanted to bother with me after a while:E...considering that I had procured an illegal weapon at 12 yet never had to use it, nor the knife that I always had with me, in this environment...considering that without any testing, I was written off as 'retarded' by the school system-in fact I'd virtually dropped out of middle school-one year I'd missed 145 days out of a 180 day school year-and yet I've accomplished most of what I sought to do wrt to my fascination with aviation, science and engineering...it's difficult to dare say I did these things without help from God, I've had just wayyyyy too much 'luck' otherwise...:)

Fortunately I'm an atheist so I'd naturally help the child without having to
consult an imaginary friend to see if that was OK.




when did Keef say anything about having to consult God or 'imaginary friend' as you so condescendingly put it wrt to that photo? he mentioned what he'd do you should not put word in peoples mouths...:=

Yet you probably believe that the scientist's hypothetical cosmological models of the universe are perfectly true, despite the fact that you can draw all sorts of fancy shapes with math, aren't these hypotheses at this moment imaginary?...yet they are believed by the 'faithful' atheists---quite wholeheartedly at times...can one say pot---kettle---black..?

you all have just as much faith with much less basis!

but I'm infering things about you, using common stereotypes...and basing my inference on things that you did not actually say...:rolleyes:

Furthermore, his action of not helping the child is more of an atheist's action based on their fatalistic determinism...clearly the photographer didn't find the child worthwhile to save-must be their misguided and frequently racist understanding of evolutionary biology---survival of the fittest- you know oh well, everybody dies some time...:zzz:

How could I?
:eek:

Fortunately I'm an atheist so I'd naturally help the child without having to consult an imaginary friend to see if that was OK.

That's excellent. I don't have any imaginary friends, but even if I did, I doubt I would need to consult one in those circumstances.

Hitchens talks of the big bang and the billion year period of evolution, saying, '. . . it was not designed so that you and I could be meeting in this room - we are not the objects of either of these plans. These plans don't know we're here, and wouldn't care if we stopped being here.'


Anyway, it's not just in my meandering yarn that I would argue with this. I really think it's a possibility that a perfect design has been lost into spacetime, and we are on just one planet that allows this astonishing program to fight its way back to perfection. A possibility, that's all.

The thing is, if something like this happened, and it was discovered, the authors of such a code would care. Probably care very much. It is conceivable there is one senior mind, a father figure, if you like. But having discovered our little planet, what would they do?

Odds are, they'd study it - for a very long time, and it seems to me that if it was found a being was re-evolving that was a vague copy of the original design, they would be thrilled, and wonder just how far it might progress. One thing they would have to NOT do, would be to intervene. These emerging beings would have to have minds that were clean sheets of paper, given there was just enough basic intelligence to build on.

Imagine the designer's disappointment when the leading species turned out to be a seething mass of self-interested warriors. They'd have to do something, and it would have to be done without giving the game away if that sheet of paper was to remain clean.

The occasional mysterious being arriving on Earth would give about the right balance between believable and totally unbelievable, so that people would argue over their words for thousands of years without having any certainties - other than developing feelings. The mind of man would have been seeded with the notion of right and wrong, without a tangible contract, that if they were good it would be to their advantage. They not only had to have 'that feeling', but to act on it as well.

Right now, most people have a conscience, but don't quite have enough of that feeling to steer them from daily misdeeds. Odd that.

It's amazing that many atheists do exactly all of the things they condemn the faithful for---how many of you were/are worshipping the fake climate change models?

Fortunately I'm an atheist so I'd naturally help the child without having to consult an imaginary friend to see if that was OK.

Interestingly, social science research shows that those who are politically conservative and religious give more than those who are leftist and secular. The 'giving' includes not just money, tithing, etc. but even blood donations, volunteering, time, etc.

Wonder why that is.

The cynical side of me would say those that give their time and love, have a little more of that above-mentioned feeling, and are hoping for a reward. However, for the most part, I think loving caring people just happen to be open to the closeness of something more.

My observation is that rejecting faith, as our cultures have been doing for 50 years or so, has been liberating but self-destructive.

We have not replaced the moral constraints and associated guidance with anything other than a general Do Your Thing tolerance. The societal results are all around us - it doesn't work.

I have been a secular backslider my whole life. Now, as I approach later middle age, I tend to admire my parents' spiritual orientation more and more. They were devout Methodists from adolescence to the end. Their faith was practiced and revered every day. They were the happiest and kindest people I've ever come across.

My mother, aged 93, is still vibrant and constantly seeking ways to help her friends in her assisted living facility, which symbiotically keeps her going and vital. You could do worse, as I have.

I have been brooding on my post 88 above and Keef’s response 89. It is clear to me that mine was misunderstood, and for that I shoulder the blame. Irony, as I wrote above, is a trap.

My complaint about the atheist is that he takes some item of nonsense that he imputes to me, assuming that I am what he looks on as a believer. An example that I cited was that the world goes back 6,000 years. This the atheist seizes and hurls at me as a simpleton, a foolish fellow, and for sure much simpler than he. Perhaps he is right in that last suggestion, but I have done things too, read and quite often understood difficult books, flown not always easy aircraft, survived the cancers and the heart attacks. I’ve lived a little bit.

Sometimes the atheist heaves the creation at me or the "six days". As I put it in 88: "Sigh!"

Then the atheist tosses off some banality that is represented as brilliance. Not to me.

What about the Resurrection, then? Why does not the atheist tax me with the various versions in the New Testament? Which if any of these do I believe?

I know he has read the first few words of Genesis, but has he progressed further? Why does he not hit me with the elements that I do find difficult? There are plenty.

What am I, then? I see myself as, again to repeat, a believing unbeliever. I could go through the Westminster Confession of Faith, but that recital plus the “Davaar Commentary (Of Reservations)” would not be a post or a thread but a whole new web of faulty weaving. Then there are the Creeds: Apostles' (long after any Apostle), Athanasian, and so on. We can leave Luther and Calvin aside for the time being, and for that matter that French Enlightenment that apparently still gave room to Chou En Lai for further thought.

What of the Trinity? God the Father, Son and Holy Ghost? Ummm. Was Christ really the Son of God? Which was the elder? But if they are one and co-existent, how could either be older? If you are one of the millions of Christians still surviving and worshipping, you almost certainly mumble every Sunday that you do believe that. Do you mumble that? Do you believe it?

Ever since the Council of Nicaea in the 4th century there have been minorities, sometimes strong minorities, that did not believe it. Without checking my sources for the date, I recall one Spanish cleric [Michael Servetus] martyred by Calvin for that disbelief. That is one crime that the atheist has not thrown at me. The poor chap was on the run and attended church (that being mandatory) in Geneva, where he was recognised. Gotcha! Should have stayed in Vienna.

They even have a Latin word that summarises that whole squabble: “the clause ‘filioque’” (i.e Father AND son).

Then there is the disagreement on what the Heavenly choir really did sing on that first happy Christmas Eve. Keef and I have already exchanged views on that. I had asked my (then) minister why he had the RC version up on the church wall, and he had been unaware that there were two. How sad for the King James Version!

I now know from “The March of Literature” (Ford Madox Ford) that this was a big item at the Council of Trent, and the RCs almost adopted the Protestant version. Ah but! The RC version is based on St Jerome and the Vulgate, and thus the Latin, so there we are. Of course Presbyterian ministers in Canada are no longer required to know any Latin. Ah well.

Now what about life after death? Why do the atheists not expound their brilliant insights into the First Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Corinthians, Chapter 15, especially verses 32 to 54: “..... flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption”. So: do you still plan to take a death-bed course of harp lessons prior to zipping upstairs? I don’t. No point to it. If we take the trouble to look, Paul makes it pretty clear.

In the 4th century the emperor Constantine developed a village on the Bosphorus, called it “Constantinople”, and moved east there from Rome with the corporate HQ. It stayed that way until 1453 when the Ottomans moved in. It is now of course Istanbul.

At the same time Constantine and his successors expanded Roman administration in a westward explosion, but although he called himself a Christian, he did not accept baptism until on his death bed.

In the West everyone became Christian (incentive program was the bopping on the head with an axe), and from Christianity plus the powerful chaps, and which the clerics alone, more or less, could read, came the administrators, ambassadors, lawyers, priests, medics, scientists, economists, organisers of agricultural research.

No doubt it was true, as the poet put it, that they/we were all “half believers in our casual creeds”. Read Lytton Strachey (“Eminent Victorians”) on the VERY casual state of Christianity in England and especially the Church of England, until the arrival of the Oxford Movement and the Tractarians in the early half of the 19th century. “Half believers” for sure, but it all worked very well.

In all that time, Islam tried to overcome the West, and was repelled. Tours, Vienna, the Balkans.

Knox and the other Reformers were as much social reformers as religious reformers. Read what they wrote. Then the French brought us their Revolution.

Beyond doubt, Christianity had its internal wars. I just have to get that in before the atheist brilliantly, as is his wont, tells me about the 30 Years’ War, the Albigensians, and the Crusades. Gosh! I’d never heard of those. Thank you, atheist, for telling me.

There was a poster here, now gone, who used to drone on about the evils of Christianity, and I asked him what he thought would come after. No answer. Well, that will not worry me much. Five years more, ten at the most, and I shall be exchanging one of Paul’s life forms for the other, the corruptible for the incorruptible, maybe, but it will worry our civilisation and your children.

A religion that attracts believers who are not “half believers” is upon us by our own invitation, not in Constantinople, Tours, Vienna, or the Balkans, but right here, complete believers, believing firmly in the post-martyrdom gift of 70 virgins.

I certainly have many difficulties with literal acceptance of the Bible and of Christianity as taught, not always the same thing, but by and large they have worked well for us. With what will the brilliant atheist replace them? If he has any opportunity, that is?

Well said, counselor.

We're not worthy, Davaar. Thank you.

It looks as if the large flock of mindless pigeons have some intelligence after all---I may even call 'check mate' :E

It seems that an outbreak of warm fuzzy feelings aligned to an encyclopedic memory for arcane verses has occurred here that makes the paricipants feel virtuous, justified and/or at the very best happy.

I, of course, don't want disturb this virtue fest, nor stamp on happiness by asking which particular version of said book of verse serves as the basis for this outpouring nor what particular sect or branch of a bickering (sometimes hate filled) tradition underpins this 'faith' based benefit show.

No I shall simply wish these folks well and shake the dust of this thread from my feet.

Edited to say...

How much nicer this appeal to faith and the decency of human love is...


He wishes for the cloths of heaven

Had I the heaven's embroidered cloths,
Enwrought with golden and silver light,
The blue and the dim and the dark cloths
Of night and light and the half-light,
I would spread the cloths under your feet:
But I, being poor, have only my dreams;
I have spread my dreams under your feet;
Tread softly because you tread on my dreams.

William Butler Yeats


Caco

I will not try and convince the atheists that they have faith in their unfounded beliefs. I will surely not quote a poem about how God is necessary.

“Our deepest fear is not that we are inadequate. Our deepest fear is that we are powerful beyond measure. It is our light, not our darkness, that frightens us most. We ask ourselves, 'Who am I to be brilliant, gorgeous, talented, and famous?' Actually, who are you not to be? You are a child of God. Your playing small does not serve the world. There is nothing enlightened about shrinking so that people won't feel insecure around you. We were born to make manifest the glory of God that is within us. It's not just in some of us; it's in all of us. And when we let our own light shine, we unconsciously give other people permission to do the same. As we are liberated from our own fear, our presence automatically liberates others.”
Used by Nelson Mandela in his 1994 inaugural speech

Yet you probably believe that the scientist's hypothetical cosmological models of the universe are perfectly true, despite the fact that you can draw all sorts of fancy shapes with math, aren't these hypotheses at this moment imaginary?...yet they are believed by the 'faithful' atheists---quite wholeheartedly at times...can one say pot---kettle---black..?

you all have just as much faith with much less basis!

The difference is that cosmological models make predictions that can be checked, if the predictions don't come off the models are discarded. That's why it's science not religion.

Faith on the other hand, means sticking with the model even if (especially if?) it doesn't work.

Faith on the other hand, means sticking with the model even if (especially if?) it doesn't work.

Why do so called scientists keep believing in global circulation models that show anthropogenic global warming that is 100% not true, and make many catastrophic projections that are completely unverified and invalidated?

Why do many cosmologists believe in multi verses without one shred of actual empirical evidence and unverified mathematical models?

Why is Dawkins considered so smart when Francis Collins, a Christian is better educated, (PhD MD) and has performed more meaningful applied science, (Human Genome project head for years) and treats both believers and unbelievers with more respect than Dawkins?

Why do some world renowned scientists believe HIV does not lead to AIDS after a dramatic lowering of T cells (Margulis) and make it a point to base their evolutionary models on such beliefs without any facts?

Not that all engineers believe in God, but how is it so many engineers who build things that are practical do in fact, believe in God?

Where did you put the sugar... how did you get to be so sweeet?

I can't help myself... (I will put my slippers on having dusted off my feet). ;)

JCB all the points you noted are subject to verification or refutation using a method. Science or the laws that seem to govern our universe seem to be like that... Sure humans can be wrong and scientists are humans and are often wrong about things but the things they are wrong about can be disputed and their errant thoughts corrected...

There is, however, no method for belief. You either believe or you don't.

As an agnostic I can only say that I don't see sufficient reason to believe in an omniscient creator but if an irrefutable and logically consistent proof was provided then I would change my stance.

I will say one thing. If there is a God She has a darned macabre sense of humour!

Caco

Irony of Ironies is this thread Jcb

When I pointed out the limitations of physics and when I personally preempted them on their supposed ownership of science---I did that on purpose:suspect:
when I and others explained the complexity of faith and belief, and how it requires meditation and comtemplation, and for thinking people it's not merely blind followership...when I justified that the existance of God is a much more plausible than his nonexistence wrt to understanding the intangible facts of the universe...intangible because experiments are impossible...

When I pointed out that atheistic beliefs have spead death and destruction-resulted in wars and how their misguided understanding of science would be much more likely to allow for a child to be left to starve to death, then devoured by vultures...commit genocide, misuse or be mislead by false prophets such as the scientists profering 'global whining'...

When I pointed out that atheist have just as much 'faith' in unknown entities, with far less justisfication

When Ipointed that mankind has been responsible for most of the madness, due to our free will...

When it's clear that the believers on this thread posses far more intellect than pigeons

The only retorts are the usual sorry songs and stereotypes "imaginary friends" God botherers..implied mental illness...or Youtubes of shallow false intellectuals who are steeped in their own personal predjudices and hatred [some of which I'm lead to believe is self hatred] whereas one side of this debate has been patient tolerant thoughtful and eloquent the other side has been, as usual, trite banal predjudiced and condescending

If I were a neutral observer to this thread I would conclude that atheist have far more to prove, with far less basis...:suspect:


yet none of the faithful are pushing our faith on others---and I don't see any memebers of westboro baptist church here either

therefore how about you all really have to attempt jutisfy your stance with out resorting to the trite and banal...or without the name calling...it really seems as if they can't et Quod Erat Demonstradum...

i.e Checkmate...:cool:

or Youtubes of shallow false intellectuals who are steeped in their own personal predjudices and hatred [some of which I'm lead to believe is self hatred] whereas one side of this debate has been patient tolerant thoughtful and eloquent the other side has been, as usual, trite banal predjudiced and condescending



Come, come! Just because these folks don't agree with you doesn't necessarily make them shallow or false, trite or anything else just as being a faith holding person doesn't make you a shallow or false person either.

A little of that tolerance you talk about might go some way to helping your argument!

Caco

One thing I have never been very clear on.

Did "God" exist prior to Christianity being invented, or did he/she/it arrive with the package ?

Why doesn't God make himself/herself/itself more obviously visible to remove the doubt element? When an interviewer asked philosopher Bertrand Russell to explain his agnosticism he replied: 'insufficient evidence.'

Here's Wikipedia's entry on BR's view on religion:

<<Russell described himself both as an agnostic and an atheist. For most of his adult life Russell maintained that religion is little more than superstition and, despite any positive effects that religion might have, it is largely harmful to people. He believed religion and the religious outlook (he considered communism and other systematic ideologies to be forms of religion) serve to impede knowledge, foster fear and dependency, and are responsible for much of the war, oppression, and misery that have beset the world. He was a member of the Advisory Council of the British Humanist Association and President of Cardiff Humanists until his death.>>

There are many non-believers who show compassion for less fortunate humans (and many professed Christians who don't).

Added to which, some of the more profound religions harbour the most barbaric bastards, ever to have walked on the surface of the earth !

I must say that I enjoy any good debate reference belief and was looking through my e-mails with a good physicist (atheist) friend of mine on the subject of Dawkins, who I am apt to beleive can come over shrill and (as JCB pointed out ) rude and intolerant of those he doesn't agree with.

I note the following mail from Dr Daniel Crane for those of either point of view here who would continue this discourse in the spirit of humour, good will and reasonableness...

Caco

Richard Dawkins accused of cowardice for refusing to debate existence of God - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/8511931/Richard-Dawkins-accused-of-cowardice-for-refusing-to-debate-existence-of-God.html)

Dear Professor Dawkins, I write as an atheist and in reference to your refusal to participate in a one-to-one debate with the philosopher William Lane Craig.

You dismiss Professor Craig as a ‘professional debater’ and state that you are not willing to debate anyone less senior than a bishop. Professor Craig has a PhD in philosophy and a PhD in theology. He is Research Professor in Philosophy at Talbot University. He has published more than thirty books and over a hundred papers in reputable peer-reviewed journals. Given your passionate and unconditional commitment to truth, I can only think that you were not aware of Professor Craig’s credentials when you made the above reference.

I understand that you have also commented that ‘a debate with Professor Craig might look good on his CV but it would not look good on mine’. On the contrary, the absence of a debate with the foremost apologist for Christian theism is a glaring omission on your CV and is of course apt to be interpreted as cowardice on your part. I notice that, by contrast, you are happy to discuss theological matters with television and radio presenters and other intellectual heavyweights like Pastor Ted Haggard of the National Association of Evangelicals and Pastor Keenan Roberts of the Colorado Hell House.

While I have your attention, may I also urge you to take another look at the ontological argument for the existence of God? On the basis of your brief discussion of the argument in The God Delusion, it appears you do not understand the logic of this argument. The ontological argument moves from the logical possibility of God’s existence to its actuality. Douglas Gasking’s parody of the argument, which you cite, moves from a logical impossibility to actuality and so is not parallel to the argument. In addition, you do not discuss the more sophisticated modal version of the argument advanced by the American philosopher of religion, Alvin Plantinga. Admittedly, you do say that some philosophers ‘resort to modal logic’ in an attempt to prove the existence of God. But this is a bit like saying ‘some botanists resort to looking at plants’ and so can hardly be said to constitute an objection to the argument.


Yours sincerely,


Dr. Daniel Came , Lecturer in Philosophy, Faculty of Philosophy, University of Oxford

Debate - William Lane Craig vs Christopher Hitchens - Does God Exist? - YouTube

Caco if you would kindly show me the intolerance shown by the believers in this thread; as I don't see any but I see much predjudice from the otherside
Has anyone here made any unjustifiable statements like "you're all going to hell", or "God hates Fags" or AIDS is "God's punishment" of course I did make a statement as to how much I hate when Christians do and say such intolerant thing...most Christians with whom I associate...are normal everyday people---the faithful who make those statements are in essence speaking for God, as if they weren God...:= and I don't have the time of day for them either

Further more when someone starts off their presentation with a LIE!!! i.e how a mathematical hypothesis about the structure of the universe is tried and true...I do have to call that a false intellectual..beginning a lecture based on a false misleading premise, is not very intelligent to me...it only seems to that he has an agenda to propagate...not many undertand me when I say that 'Nature laughs at complex mathematics' The universe almost dismisses it in it's entirety

El Grifo since we generally believe God is timeless..we must assume that he did exist prior to Christianty

As far as your other statement...again I reiterate What are you trying to tell me that people of any belief can be muppetts?...shock horror:eek:

Numerically, in our times atheists have killed more than all of the religious zealots put together...you can take the sum total of those who died under religious terrorism [Al quaeda, IRA etc] and it amounts to nowhere near the numbers killed by radical atheistic governments---not even close...:zzz:

Pugilistic (you are well named ) ;)

I don't think that anybody here is positing any scientific theory (they are all theories after all no matter how useful they may be, vide. Newton and Einstein's theories, two complimentary theories, that work well but don't represent any infinite 'truth') that makes science a replacement for the concept of an omniscient deity,however true or extant that latter 'being' may or may not be.

However I do think that are those here who are posting qualms about the modus operandi for positing a theory about God who by virtue of definition is 'unknowable' in any scientific or empirical sense that is.

Without some common ground in terms of method for the religious and the scientific adherents there is going to be a difficulty in presenting first principles, let alone being draw into a meaningful debate and coming to definite conclusions.

I agree that there are many scientific theories that seem as much faith based as any declaration of a beliief in God (here, in my prejudice I include 'string theory' or M theory which seems as much use as a belief in 11 dimensional pixies)... but I still hold that these scientific theories are likely to be (in an empirical sense at least) potentially more verifiable than the 'belief' in God.

Caco


Numerically, in our times atheists have killed more than all of the religious zealots put together...you can take the sum total of those who died under religious terrorism [Al quaeda, IRA etc] and it amounts to nowhere near the numbers killed by radical atheistic governments---not even close...http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/sleep.gif


Sadly humans of every stripe or belief system can be barbarians and science also becomes a potent tool in this human tragedy which tells us nothing about God or science.

El Grifo since we generally believe God is timeless..we must assume that he did exist prior to Christianty


Thanks form the reply Pugilistic and for the other, referring to what lead you to your faith. Interesting reading indeed.

I, like many others, went through similar, if less dramatic circumstances as you. I did so without the feeling the need to attribute the slow but sure improvements in my life to some unknown and invisible third party.

For me it was "just the breaks"

Your above quotation is a bit of a "leap of faith" is it not.

Possibly a leap which someone who is who is commited to his belief could make, rather than one who is not.

Alternatively, one could come to the conclusion that God is in fact timeless, it took humanity a heck of a long time to cotton on.

Sadly humans of every stripe or belief system can be barbarians and science also becomes a potent tool in this human tragedy which tells us nothing about Gor or science.


I would take issue with that statement Caco.

There can be no doubt whatsoever, that in the world we inhabit today, the extreme religion as we might call it, tolerates and often calls for the most barbaric actions carried out by mankind anywhere on the surface of the planet. Actions that is, which are carried out in the name of a religion.
Not politics, not tribalism, not science, simply religion.

El Grifo

I don't dispute what you say. Religion appears to have caused great havoc, but religion is but one reason amongst an infinity of others that humans have found for killing each other. I would say that I think it is the human element in celebrating the potential negative aspects of science, religion (and all the rest) that makes for these bloody and disturbing statistics.

I don't think there is anthing innate in religion that makes it any more likely to be a cause of genocide save for our own base natures (I speak for myself).

Caco

Caco if one were to stand in front of a locomotive then Newton's laws would seem justified...likewise play a CD or get laser eye surgery or undergo photodynamic chemotherapy...you can see that QM holds true...Using a DC-8 jetliner and two atomic clocks or certain spectroscopic experiments we have long shown that relativity holds

Newton is for everday, quantum theory is for teeny tiny things einstein is for really really fast moving things...we are very limited by our tools with respect to figuring out the universe-until the correct beams of electromagnetc radiation are detected or the correct particles materialize upon the CRT/LCD or in the cloud chamber...it would be by sheer luck that some of the hypotheses of modern physics are proven, more than likely they will never be proven...we can do all sorts of nice things with math; draw all sorts of pretty shapes, explore what happens at infinity or zero with specific functions...but without data these are all merely math and math alone...math is far less limiting than physics

And even within practical engineering physics, such as my field of aerodynamics even the most complex equations fail to completely describe reality, even the best wind tunnels fail to fully describe reality...only flight tests give the answer..hence my statement about nature and the universe laughing at complex math

Faith can not be forced upon anyone...science actually strengthens my faith

The best result of dialogue such as we're having here is not to prove or disprove anything---it's merely to have tolerance and understanding of the other's viewpoint...many faithful are simply tired of the 'high-handed' dismissals or the implied collective mental illness...

Regarding my screen name..I was actually named by a very wise and experienced airline captain, who contributes to pprune...whose also a brilliant engineer...I wont say who, but perhaps the shoe may indeed fit...:):):)

The best result of dialogue such as we're having here is not to prove or disprove anything---it's merely to have tolerance and understanding of the other's viewpoint...many faithful are simply tired of the 'high-handed' dismissals or the implied collective mental illness...




Amen to that. Religion is no more a sign of anything 'ill' than the human mind struggling to come to some sort of understanding of the mystery of existence, something that science is also trying to do.

I don't think that science and relgion are mutually exclusive, just, that, as you say tolerance and a certain amount of humility is required by all parts of one's brain to deal with the many conundrums and apparent contradictions at times! :ok:

I respect open minded religious thought just as much as I do scientific.

Caco

I agree BTW human folly and evil is not limited to anyone group of people---and the universe, nature and/or God (depending on your exact beliefs) work in profoundly mysterious ways...
personally I try to live and let live unless it's truly evil I don't judge, nor do I try to represent myself as perfect or morally superior to anyone...as is said in Islam in the surah of the Koran "I have my beliefs and you have yours"

Or even better as our most comedic and funniest president ever [GWB] once stated "I believe what I believe because what I believe is what I believe":)

Indeed Amen to that!...:ok:

Or even better as our most comedic and funniest president ever [GWB] once stated "I believe what I believe because what I believe is what I believe"


Not so much cogito ergo sum for Mr Bush then! ;)

Brings to mind the fact that Mr Rumsfeld's words might have been apposite to the question of both science and religion...

There are known knowns; there are things we know that we know.
There are known unknowns; that is to say there are things that, we now know we don't know.

But there are also unknown unknowns – there are things we do not know, we don't know.

Caco

I don't think there is anything innate in religion that makes it any more likely to be a cause of genocide save for our own base natures

That's the problem. Christianity is (arguably) a prototype form of socialism, yet has been hijacked by some pretty unpleasant evangelists for non-socialist political purposes.

I don't think there is anything innate in religion that makes it any more likely to be a cause of genocide save for our own base natures atheists may kill you for all sorts of motives - but always bad because they know that's the end.

Religious zealots will additionally kill you for your own good, because they believe they are saving your immortal soul.

Mormons just take to the next ridiculous level.... :ugh::ugh:

Religious zealots will additionally kill you for your own good, because they believe they are saving your immortal soul.



Well put.

Somehow being killed for my own good would stick most in my craw!

I guess a good example of this might have been the man standing at the stake being asked to repent prior to being dispatched in a pile of pain and soot.

http://www.smartscience.net/SmartScience/Popa/images/autodefe2.jpg

Caco

Discorde Mankind has used all sorts of things; things in which there should be inherent goodness to push dangerous and wicked agenda-not just religion
Global whining is the best example--a group of radical pseudoscientists have hijacked climatology---wrote ridiculous things that contradict the laws of thermodynamics; elevated certain people to the level of the Messiah---I wont name who as I don't want to be sued:} and...created a brainwashed and radical cult-a cult that many scientists have been drawn into---we've managed to hijack all things which were meant to be good to use for evil---not all religions, not all individual within a specific religion, and not all individuals...use religion in this manner; just as not all scientists or individuals have been brainwashed by the global whining cult---for further justification of my stance on global whining see that thread--as it's too much to repeat here...man has used everything for both good and evil...

but my belief, with no further argumentative justification is that God sees every secret thing, every secret thing under the sun whether good or evil...:)

Has anyone here made any unjustifiable statements like ....... AIDS is "God's punishment"

Not I, for sure. I have had friends who lived with one aberration or another, and I may have thought that life, rarely easy all the way through for anyone, would have been at least easier for them if they had been more "normal", especially those who (sadly for me) committed suicide.

On the AIDS topic, forget for the moment the "God's punishment" and substitute a line like: "Those who practise indiscriminate unprotected male homosexual intercourse are statistically more likely than those who do not to end up with AIDS, from which they die an unpleasant death. This gives a clue that (a) they are acting against Nature, (b) Nature does not like that, and (c) Nature does something about it."

From the little I have read on that topic, said line pretty well sums up the case, and is, again from what I have read, incontrovertible. Said line does not mention God, but as the song used to put it: "Tomahto, Tomaeto", so what? Call it "God"; call it "Nature": Who cares?

Then again: the Mormons. I once (only once, mind you; my experience has been far removed from the "rammed down my throat" of which so many posters here complain) had a knock at the door from two young Mormon missionaries.

To their astonishment (and they had to come back with it later), I asked for and bought a copy of the Book of Mormon, which I have skimmed but not read in depth. The skimming did little to persuade me to join the regiment.

I do reflect, though, that Mormons do not smoke; drink alcohol, coffee or tea (I think); and beyond that refrain from many other common societal practices ...... AND (as a result? It seems so.) suffer statistically far less than most from many common illnesses and ailments.

They also tend to be more prosperous and crime-free than the statistical norm; and they tend to live longer than most, if that is as desirable as many think it is.

Accepting with the atheist that all religion is for the gullible, we might do worse than lead life according to the Book of Mormon. I am being purely practical here. We all must live by some discipline or some indiscipline, and the Mormon discipline does seem successful. It's not for me, though.

Not yet.

Davaar I purposely in my assesment of the HIV/AIDS virus did not include gays...because what about the children born with it? what about the babies raped in Africa who contracted it via that means? what about indiscriminate heterosexual sex? why is the rate relatively low amongst lesbians?

Being quite aware of what the Old Testament says on these matters, However my interpretaion of the OT is that of historical context...Why does it say nothing about gays in the ten commandments a document upon which secular western common law is undoubtedly based...Why would God hate someone with an uncontrollable genetic pre-disposition anymore than he'd hate someone with Down's syndrome---Jesus was loving and broaught message of forgiveness and salvation and his message applies to everyone---the NT abrogates many the Old ways; though there is plenty of wisdom, in the OT...

Jesus hung around with the prostitutes the drug addicts, the homosexuals etc of those days-he was loving and accepting---I know Christian's differ profoundly in their individual philosophies, based on how they receive the word...that being said can gays be intolerant and muppetty too, of course...there exists the gay mafia and such...but I don't receive any messages from the Bible that tells me to hate gays or allows ME the right to judge them, or anyone else I may differ with some/many Christians on this matter but I've met too many nice and kind gays too declare them evil or sinners or whatever...I feel I have no right to judge ANYONE!!! I'm not God!!!

Intolerance of any kind from anyone begets intolerance, hatred begets hatred but these are follies of mankind---


As an aside HIV has a huge Achille's heel...and all it takes is the right engineer to safely exploit that Achille's heel and the crisis will disappear forever...the problem is the person who sees the answer-was shitted upon by scientists, so that person can't use his/her idea---I'll say no more about this, or who this person who long ago saw the solution maybe, it's a very tight rope to walk with this, because even one slight thing out of place and you'll probably replace the HIV virus with a nasty cancer---as the solution is very, very tight---this person gets very angry when they see AIDS fundraisers--because for a fraction of the money being collected this person can make the problem disapear forever...

God willing this person may still be able to contribute, his/her seemingly God-given scientific genius to truly help the world, and fight diseases...but mankind's arrogance and judgement makes this person unable to do that at the moment

:)

NB...The aforementioned person also gets extremely bitter about the millions in wasted grant money going to the climate scientologists...and so does Pugilistic Animus

(b) Nature does not like that

If you mean this literally then you are assuming that nature is sentient which is what you are trying to prove. if you don't mean it literally the analogy with creator falls down.

Dr. Jekyll

We understand very little about nature and her mysteries either...we may know more but, at this moment there are too may distraction and too few people who seek the truth...in my opinion/personal assesment, the natural laws-who the Creator made for nature to follow, are as mysterious as anything else under the sun and in the universe...Of course one doesn't need to even believe in God to come to this conclusion---one in this case can be merely a scientist---nature will do what it will do, and as she has done since time immemorial...;)

Jet Blast is so heavy lately---I can't wait for a thread where I can go back to my silly and corny jokes...:}

Numerically, in our times atheists have killed more than all of the religious zealots put together...you can take the sum total of those who died under religious terrorism [Al quaeda, IRA etc] and it amounts to nowhere near the numbers killed by radical atheistic governments---not even close...
Another interesting statement. Can you back this up? In "The History of Christianity" (sorry to keep banging on about it but it is an extremely well-researched book) Diarmaid MacCulloch says just the reverse. Actually, I confess that that is a little disingenuous - what he actually says is that more people have been killed for the cause of religion than for any other reason. He does quote a source but it's a while back in the book (I'm just over halfway at 700 pages) but I'll have scan later and see if I can find it.

I don't receive any messages from the Bible that tells me to hate gays or allows ME the right to judge them,

Pugilistic, you do not, I think, differ from me in this. I was addressing the "God's punishment" position, which is directed, again I think, at the male homosexual indiscriminate unprotected practitioner. The premise there is that he acts from choice. I do not consider "orientation", or inclination.

I am sure that many in jobs (not hard to conjure up) that require total chastity (quite different from celibacy, though often confused with that condition) are by orientation or inclination highly sexed one way or the other, but refrain. Not easy, but not impossible.

I have observed people on whom "Nature" has played cruel tricks. In one mall a long way from where I am now a young man used to work at a scent and fragrances counter. In his dress and body language he was a young woman, no question, and I am sure life was not easy for him. What he practised sexually, I have no idea. "Judgment" on my part does not enter the question.

In one case over which I presided, the appellant (male) wanted to be considered as female. I already knew that from the file, which the other panel members and I, and, I was sure, counsel for both sides, had studied in preparation.

His/her counsel started by referring to this anxiety. There was no question in my mind, nor in the way I/we ran the hearing, that all participants honoured his client's wishes, and I would have made sure of that in anhy event.

I use the convenience "he/she" for present purposes only. "She" wanted to be "she" and the evidence, quite apart from physical and societal appearances, was convincing that "he" was indeed "she". It was a great tragedy, and we did our best to find a remedy for Nature's error. That woman led a terrible life, for which one could feel nothing but compassion.

For myself, as a "believing non-believer" it did not enter my mind even to glance at either Testament for guidance.

But if a person chooses to engage in conduct, and that does not by definition include African successors to the practices of his/her father, that Nature automatically forbids, and he suffers the result that Nature imposes, please don't drag God into it, as proof either way.

Davaar I'm not dragging God into it, perhaps I've misunderstood your exact point, you can write a bit cryptically at times

Aside from God, I feel that it's mainly society that makes life intolerable for these types of people I just don't see them as defective or mistakes, nor do I feel these things are against nature---they are by very fact of their existance part of nature---it's not nature that's really cruel it's humanity's approach to certain aspects of nature that makes their lives horrible, the ridicule and scorn, some may receive

I hope I'm not further misunderstanding you feel free to correct me if I am-
I can take it...:)

"Newton is for everday, quantum theory is for teeny tiny things"

Sorry for the slight thread drift, but this statement is wrong. It is a common mistake to believe that it is Newton for big things and quantum for small things when in fact Quantum Theory gives the more accurate description of the universe. Newton's Laws are being replaced by Quantum Theory because they are shown to only be mostly correct and can be categorised as emerging out of Quantum Theory.

sheesh you guys are killing me...:}



Another interesting statement. Can you back this up? In "The History of
Christianity" (sorry to keep banging on about it but it is an extremely
well-researched book) Diarmaid MacCulloch says just the reverse. Actually, I
confess that that is a little disingenuous - what he actually says is that more
people have been killed for the cause of religion than for any other reason. He
does quote a source but it's a while back in the book (I'm just over halfway at
700 pages) but I'll have scan later and see if I can find it


Sunny John---

I specifically said in our times---I'd like to read that book btw it sounds extremely interesting...meaning the 20th and 21st centuries..look a Mao, or Pol Pot, Hitler, Stalin and Lenin... Kim Jung Il--- all atheists---all extreme mass muderers---I don't think the Catholic church has been burning people at the stake for a while now perhaps in all of history, yes but not recently they haven't.... see at the beginning of this thread where I already stated this

even if you look at Saddam although not atheist you can see that his genocidal campaign was less abot relion than control---some religious aspects, yes but not directly attributed to God...has Al Queada yet killed as many people as Hilter...and if you think about the deaths that occured in say WWII that hitler was responsible I just can't see how in Our times religion murdered more people than atheism...makes sense?

:)

Sorry for the slight thread drift, but this statement is wrong. It is a
common mistake to believe that it is Newton for big things and quantum for small
things when in fact Quantum Theory gives the more accurate description of the
universe. Newton's Laws are being replaced by Quantum Theory because they are
shown to only be mostly correct and can be categorised as emerging out of
Quantum Theory.

Nick Riviera
Yes, I'm quite aware of statistical thermodynamics/partition functions etc since I received and 'A' in that class further I'm quite familiar with the Correspondence principle...but generally there no reason to do such craziness...no?

I mean, Yea one resolves state functions using spectroscopic data instead of pressure and temperature...but for the most part using QM for large objects is not necessary

If you are aware then you should not have made such a false statement. Just because it is not necessary to always use quantum for large bodies doesn't make your statement correct.

Dude it's not a false statement I've never seen anything, in say, aerodynamics derived from QM---that shit is hard enough perhaps I wasn't 100% complete but I'm not here to teach physics, in fact I'm supposedly on vacation...so sue me

so unless your using spectroscopic data to determine state variables...you're statement is while perhaps true, not applicable to practical life one doesn't use QM to compute the trajectory of rockets!!!!!:zzz:


:rolleyes:

and yes, I'm aware of relativistic corrections in spectroscopy too:cool:

Actually, now that you enticed my pedantic nature...for large quamtum numbers or objects of finite size, the quantum case converges upon the classical case...this is the definition of the correspondence pinciple...hence you were not correct...so if you apply QM to classical situation you'll end up in classical physics anyway...:8

Sorry for the slight thread drift, but this statement is wrong. It is a common mistake to believe that it is Newton for big things and quantum for small things when in fact Quantum Theory gives the more accurate description of the universe. Newton's Laws are being replaced by Quantum Theory because they are shown to only be mostly correct and can be categorised as emerging out of Quantum Theory.


If you are aware then you should not have made such a false statement. Just because it is not necessary to always use quantum for large bodies doesn't make your statement correct.

QM does not and cannot 'replace' Newtonian physics. There is uncertainty within QM and there are some interesting hypotheses about quantum consciousness with small micro state fluxes making our experiences of consciousness possible and there are quantum gravitational effects being proposed, but even if shown to be true, they do not replace classical physics, but merely augment.

Another common mistake is the notion that Relativity is superior in every way to Newtonian physics as well, but it applies mainly to objects approaching the speed of light and in some cases can make more accurate predictions about the movement of heavenly bodies, but other than that Newtonian physics works great.

You never apply QM to actual macro states directly, though it is my view that consciousness is in a constant state of flux only better explained by QM mediating the eternal all encompassing consciousness of God. However, even if I am right, there is no need to apply QM to how kinesin and dynein are transported per se, but only in terms of very small force and particle interactions.

Even if I were to have some nuanced differences from PA's interpretation of what is actually happening in nature, the correspondence principal is fact, and cannot be disputed. Only in very specific, perhaps nanoseconds might we see very nuanced QM effects within very specific domains of nature as we classify them and NOT everyday life on macroscales.

For example tunneling in nano chips or within energy states between neurons, and guess what..? it would still be in those quantum microstates.

And, Penrose, Hammerhoff and myself (humbly) could be wrong anyways.

You tell'em Jcb:ok:

I was awaiting your synopsis of that discussion here btw...glad you had time to come though...:)

when I was in molecular neurobiology kinesin and dynein were exactly what the lab was looking at I told them how to know for sure but they were assholes, funny I still haven't seen a publication from that lab---guess it was too hard for them---shame really it would have had direct applicabilty to treating certain neurodegenerative disease...

but what would we know as muppets...;)

The so called soft problem of consciousness is just figuring out all of the neuro circuitry completely and all of the neuro-chemistry, and how it all produces physiologically based impulses/senses and strictly physically based responses. No one knows... I have taken dozens of courses in Neuroscience, Neurobiology and NeuroPsychology among Cell/Evo/Molecular Biology, and even the professors are like we do not know. Estimates of understanding all of this within the soft problem range from 100 years to 250 years, though a few outliers say less than 100 years, it is doubtful.

Then, there is the hard problem of consciousness:

Why should I have an experience of my own awareness/consciousness, so why can I see red and not only physiologically perceive it differently due to minor changes in neural connections but reflect upon that experience and view it differently from anyone else?

Why do we have the ability to make choices? Albeit free will does not mean we can choose to sprout wings, and within society having less money can hinder one, but how is it, I can still choose to protest against the king or to be subservient and have an experience of my decisions--why am I not just a biological machine constituted of fluid filled sacks?

Having such a mind is not evolutionary favorable, not that I doubt evolution, on the contrary, I majored in evo bio and worked in an EP lab. During the second Ice Age the more powerful brains helped modern human survive while Neanderthals died off, but being able to build warm shelter does not require one being able to reflect on the color red and write poems either.

Sometimes Dawkins' logic nags at me. Should I consider Blind Watchmaker Theory valid? Does a billion years make anything possible? Certainly, I'm not capable of imagining time on that scale, and it is a long time for chance to design and build something practical. Something like a washing machine . . . or even a simple brain that builds and builds on reactions to touch or even light, but never, ever, in n-billion years, could I conceive of a mechanism designing itself to clean the deepest microscopic mechanisms of such a self-wiring organ.

Personally, I think it might have something to do with the Blood-Brain Barrier, but that's just me hypothesizing again.


Whatever, supremely intelligent design.


Scientists Discover How Brains Keep Clean | Wired Science | Wired.com (http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2012/08/brain-waste-cleaning/)

Very Very interesting article Loose Rivets there's just soooo much we don't understand and seemingly infinite thing to learn I like one of my mentors just wish I could know more...:)

edit: maybe will help fix Alzheimers...I hope!

Well said.

Here is a song I like to reflect upon these things with:


Tool - Schism (Official Video) {HD 720p} - YouTube

sorry 2 from TOOL that go hand in hand:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NTBn-moPyMI&feature=related

I'll digress.

Pugilistic, I did not introduce the topic of AIDS. I did not attribute AIDS to a punishment from God. I have never seen it used in that sense in relation to children dying by inheritance. As for Nature, I have had many illnesses that I did not bring on myself. I do not blame anyone for them, mortal or immortal.

If I know that a certain course of conduct will lead to certain results, and I choose to follow that course of conduct despite that, I do not blame my neighbour for the result, and I do not agree if my neighbour says the results are a punishment from God.

It is all Nature, my unsought illnesses and his sought illness. I know that. He knows that. That must be clear enough.

I specifically said in our times-

You did - my apologies!

No sir I did not think that you did, I was not talking about you when I brought that up...

sorry if I caused a misunderstanding I re-read your post carefully...I get what you mean now...sorry it's been a long week and you have a very intense and philosophical style of writing---I read your posts with great interests although they are a bit difficult for me to understand at times admittedly---:O

I am a nice man...:)

Sunny John...No problema...:):):)

I sat and watched that YouTube of Christopher Hitchins in debate with a theologian I'd never heard of. Interesting in parts, but inconclusive, I'd say: 2 hours of my life that with hindsight I could probably have put to better use.

Diarmaid MacCulloch's (now Sir D M) "History of Christianity" is probably the most impressive book I've read in a long time. It gives clear insights from some centuries BC up to the present day. It's a long read, but well worth it. I can see why he was nominated for the knighthood.

I am a nice man

Pugilistic:

Of that I had no doubt.

For the rest, thank you.

Just a brief update regarding those two rabbits I saw, well I just saw them again and they seem to be doing fine-they still run behind a fence when I approach them I think they're scared of my dog-she gets very excited and scares them

I'll have to try enticing them with some food one day---problem is if I do get them I'm not quite sure what to do with them...I'm just glad they are still alive...:)

But if a person chooses to engage in conduct, and that does not by definition include African successors to the practices of his/her father, that Nature automatically forbids, and he suffers the result that Nature imposes, An interesting comment which reveals more of the writer than the subject.

It should be noted that homosexuality is found throughout the animal kingdom and is not abnormal. In biological terms it has not died out because, overall, the genes which give rise to it prove beneficial to the tribe (females more fecund and you only need a handful of heterosexual males). The comment that "nature automatically forbids" is their scientifically incorrect and only reflects a moral outrage introduced in the monotheistic faiths.

Equally "nature" does not forbid any other activity. The fact that the proliferation of AIDS is more prevalent in the gay community is a simple result of the exchange of bodily fluids, much as occurs in heterosexual activity in Africa and Asia where heterosexual variants of AIDS are more prevalent than homosexual. Perhaps you consider than "nature" abhors Africans and Asians procreating and breeding?

I can perceive a prurient Scottish Presbyterian staring thin lipped from a pulpit somewhere in the background.... :=

Just so that I'm not misunderstood...perhaps this is of general interest

Homosexual behavior in animals - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_animals)
A difference in hypothalamic structure between heterosexual and homosexual men (http://www.sciencemag.org/content/253/5023/1034.short)

the reason I believe the incidence is so high in the human population is that the extreme intolerance[yes much of it religious intolerance] has forced so many of them into the underground or into heterosexual relationships has helped conserve those alleles

note this post is not directed at anyone...I'm just putting here for general interest

I for one against many fellow Christians-though not all beleive that gay marriages should be allowed as I think people should be happier with whomever they choose..and that gays can't be forced straight sexuality is biological...also see the intersting work of Kinsey since, as it's well documented, gays, both lesbians and males can sometimes be very intolerant of bisexuals [also largely biological]

I think evryone can be muppety in the absence of facts, in the presence of facts however it's no longer pure ignorant muppetry...it's evolves to sheer idiocy and plaian stupidity

I like facts, and think they should be faced---that's mainly why I studied the sciences I've always felt the world was lying too me, and it turns out in most case they were...at least now I can usually[99% of the time] tell when people are lying and about what...:suspect:

One example is in the US to me the conservative stance on gay marriage is muppetry...the liberal stance on 'climate change' is muppetry also...yet as I've written here and elsewhere evryone thinks they're are so much better than everyone else therefore they can not see that their little factions are just as muppetty as everyone else... everybody!:ooh:

meaning the 20th and 21st centuries..look a Mao, or Pol Pot, Hitler, Stalin and Lenin... Kim Jung Il--- all atheists---all extreme mass murderers
The difference is that they did not commit mass murder in the name of atheism but in the name of politics. Atheism was not the direct cause of their murderous rule- politics was. I could also add once again that Hitler made frequent references to God being on his side in his speeches and Josef Stalin trained as a priest as a young man. Now you could argue that religious leaders do what they do not out of some religious principles but because they have the political power to do so and I would not disagree with you but to allege that it was Atheism that was the root cause of the mass murders of the twentieth century is just plain wrong.

Well, some of you may well have found God, what interests me is how on Earth God found you?

The Known Universe, Primordial Sound, Vibration, and the Cosmos Visually - YouTube

And yes, it is beautiful, exquisite even, and we are totally undeserving of its hospitality. 2000 year old books compiled by men desperately hungry for power and influence over the needy just don't cut it. Everything is on a much grander scale than that. Every atom of hydrogen in your body was created at that one spectacular instant 14 billion years ago, and every other atom within you within a billion years of that. Every atom of Iron and every heavy metal was created as a result of a supernova. It is poetic, mind boggling and staggering and maybe our journey is complete when we return to the whole (not hole!)from whence we came.

It is estimated that there are 27 trillion atoms within each of our bodies and some very clever chaps have calculated that if your body burns or decomposes, then after approximately 300 years your atoms will have spread to the corners of the globe and are likely to have become part of most living organisims on the planet. It is highly probable that your bodies contain atoms from almost every human that has ever lived on this planet (I wonder if particles at atomic or quantum level could contain memory???).

It is hardly any wonder we try to find a way to explain things or justify things as we really are very very small. Is there a God, or is there not? He would have had a hell of a time finding us thats for sure. Another even more clever clever chap who was real called Buddah once suggested that God was within you/us. Perhaps those that do find that private/personal relationship with their God have just unlocked a door to that, it is all within. But pearly gates and clouds and harps when we die, I don't think so, our bodies (or their constituent parts) cannot die, and that is of some comfort, but can your consciousness survive the biological demise of your body, who knows, but nothing can journey towards a man made vision of heaven, we can only journey back to where we came from. So churches and hymns and preaching are nice for some but totally unnecessary, the journey is within, it is personal.

is not abnormal.

Use any adjective you choose, it is immaterial to me. Nature says, "Do this, here is the result. Refrain from this, this is not the result".

That observation and similar results apply to thousands of activities. "It's God's punishment" is applied to unhappy situations throughout history, but not by me. That was the reason for the flagellants hundreds of years ago.

I have just finished M/Gen J F C Fuller's "Grant and Lee". Robert E Lee, it seems, looked on defeat as the consequence of a life unsatisfactory to God. Poor God! Such a ready whipping-boy! The more prosaic think it Lee's own fault, since he made insufficient use of materiel that was readily available.

Some say "God". Some say "Nature". You are much more specific: you refine it down to "the thin-lipped Presbyterian". "Ah! There we have it!" So you say.

What is the relevance of any of these? "Do this, here is the result. Refrain from this, this is not the result". It is up to you, one and all. Perhaps you like it better if I say "up to us, each for himself".

It is increasingly difficult here these days to buy a cigar, and even to smoke one in any public place, outdoors or indoors.

This civic prohibition is based on identical logic: "Second-hand tobacco smoke kills", so they say, and we used to have the choice. No more: the civic fathers and mothers have made the decision for us. True or false, that is an acceptable rule, but I have yet to see the thin-lipped Presbyterian hit with the blame. Apply that to the transmission of AIDS as contemplated here, and the basis for the smoke analogy is not acceptable. Why? Fashion.

P.S. Not relevant, I suppose, but among the "prurient thin-lipped" Presbyterian ministers I have known, one was awarded the DCM in WW1 for taking out a German machine-gun nest (would have been a VC, but he was on a charge at the time); one flew the Bristol Fighter in the RFC; two were ex-NCOs in the RCMP; one lost an arm to gangrene from wounds at Dunkirk; he would have been OK but he refused medical care until all the others had been treated; one was a machine-gunner in the HLI; one was awarded the MC in WW2; one was with the 8th Army in North Africa; and one served with the Chindits in Burma, I admired all of them. I suppose that too reveals to ORAC some element of my personality. Thinking back, I do not recall prurience in any of them, or thin lips, but maybe I was too young to notice. And maybe all of that too is irrelevant to the discussion.

And maybe all of that too is irrelevant to the discussion.
The nature of this discussion is such - in my view - that nothing is irrelevant. It is, however, also in the nature of the subject matter of this discussion that all comments will be personal and individual. That does not negate the discussion - it makes it more interesting. (Right - back to Diarmaid MacCulloch!)

Shedhead

I never alleged that they commited these attrocities in the name of atheism...I said that atheist entities were responsible for most of the mass murder of recent history...as far a Stalin studying for the priesthood---he clearly changed his mind...Dawkins asserts that complete rejection of faith is better for humanity but that is not been shown to hold up my exact statement was that perhaps net rejection of faith isn't the best idea either, as it hasn't shown any superiority to radical religionism

From what I've read about Hitler he waivered back and forth on the issues and his personal beliefs are not easily discernible he has written many conflicting accounts vacillating between various views of religion/faith but the others I named definitely were officially atheists...In terms of governments I think the best stance is secularism...but even the US government has trouble putting that into practice

ENFP...every physics book will tell you that we are breathing our ancestors or that we are assimilating them this is the first law of themodynamics and the law of conservation of matter, it can be interpreted many ways it doesn't prove or disprove anything...Does it not state in the bible that from from dust we are made and to dust we shall return...or even the concept of reincarnation can be extrapolated to these basic laws, so again nothing is proven or disproven by those basic facts...

my point is that your beliefs are as equally valid as mine are...and I'm aquainted with thermodynamics and conservation of mass and all of the above facts you state yet I don't change my mind, science too is and has been used for political control, Marxism is and was used for the same purposes you speak of

The early writers in the Bible had no agenda...regrettably, like many other things religion has been used for bad purposes and for power...and as I said atheists, as they commonly believe do not own science even biology even evolutionary biology...the best textbook in physical chemistry that I have read was written by an avowed atheist...it doesn't change the fact that it's one of the best books on the topic IMHO

My purpose for participating in this thread is not to change beliefs, but to show that Dawkin's radical beliefs are superficial, based solely on stereotypes, predjudiced and ignorant and as if too prove my point people made comments about 'young Earth'- in reference to the dinosaur poster shown, imaginary friends, God botherers do some believe these things, yes...but look how many atheists, not all, believe in the speculative unproven mathematical models of the universe, or even worse Global warming---a theory which now seems to be claiming that negative absolute temperatures exists outside of the lab in order to circumvent some inconvient thermodynamic facts--Dawkin's stereotyping is unfounded; he has the right to do so...but that doesn't make his assertions correct


:)

ENFP, that was a nice post. In the link, I felt the fear of a super-c traveler when we were returning home. A minute change of angle would leave one in a very strange and distant place.


God fining us? In my tale, there is a 5th force. It rides spacetime, or the Higgs Field, or whatever, instantly. When the beings outside the Universe sensed 'Minute beacons of sentience,' the search was on.

I don't think it's beyond the realms to dream of such a force. If there is 'Ghostly action at a distance,' then somehow the electrons are linked, though perhaps not, but we'd then be in a deterministic universe, which I don't like because it would be of no use at all.

The difference is that they did not commit mass murder in the name of atheism but in the name of politics.

I'm not sure that they did. I think they did it based on personal agendas.

Whether my lips are thin, and my outlook prurient, those have no relevance to any cause or effect here in discussion. These last would be the same were my lips full and rosy, and my outlook liberal.

This is not some abstraction of exchange of bodily fluids, or what is called the "gay community".

My acquaintance with the subtopic of AIDS is infrequent but quite close and wholly professional. A partner and I spent a great deal of time and effort on clients who had AIDS through no witting act of their own. Husband had haemophilia, under treatment with, as it was realised too late, AIDS-tainted blood transfusions. He was going to die, and did die. In the meantime, pending revelation of tainted-blood scandal, wife caught AIDS from husband. Into hospital. Going to die.

In the meantime, partner and I put together and brought action for damages to maintain children. We did not pass it to our litigation partners, since those chaps like to settle and we wanted to win, and did. Endless delays and opposition. Wife did die.

What to do with children. That's another story that we resolved as happily as the circumstances allowed.

This is not just a rant of the thin-lipped prurient, Presbyterian or atheist, no more than cause and effect. Again irrelevant, but in the firm we did that work "pro bono".

Should I have wasted my life on the law? I can justify it all on this case. which leaves me with little sympathy for the self-inflicted-wound whiners.

Rock Hudson, poor fellow and sad case, looked very miserable on those last unrewarded travels to find a cure for his unknown illness. Veto the word "homosexual" and hide it in "gay" and nothing changes. Cause and effect.

Today we know the cause and effect, as perhaps Hudson did not, and there is no point in splitting hairs on what is "naturally unnatural" or as some put it "unGodly". Stick your head into a guillotine, and if someone releases the blade you will lose it.

With this I leave. I had not thought to get into AIDS and I did not introduce it.

I'm not sure that they did. I think they did it based on personal agendas.
Very true Keef and what I (in my usual clumsy way) was trying to point out. I would add that I also think that some if not all of the horrors carried out in the name of religion were actually carried out for the same reason.Not from some order from "God" or because it was written in the scriptures but purely because they wanted to and because they could.Religion was used as an excuse but was almost certainly not the real cause. That would have been a desire for absolute power and ultimate control over other people. Atheism and religion are irrelevant to the argument they are just useful things to use as justifications for tyranny or as accusations to throw at the other side in debates like this one. I must say though that this thread has been one of the most interesting things on JB for some time and has made very entertaining reading.

Homosexual behavior in animals - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
A difference in hypothalamic structure between heterosexual and homosexual men


I am certainly not saying anything against homosexuals but the studies on the BST hypothalamic sections and so forth have yet to be replicated.

Either way, yes biology seems to play a role in some subtypes of sexual behavior and preference/orientation. I use all 3 words even though there remains considerable controversy within the fields studying: sexual identity formation, sexuality and gender formation.

In modern day Neuroscience with with an emphasis placed upon psychoanalysis it is still held that although being: homosexual, bisexual or lesbian is completely healthy and normal we all begin somewhat bisexual in nature and via experiences, complex social interactions and changing biochemistry we tend towards our own unique sexual identity, usually, but not always homosexual or heterosexual, but some feel they are more bisexual still.

True bisexuals are found to be rare where they are about halfway on a continuum of sexual identity and prefer neither one sex or the other in general as adults, though they have been found to exist.

I am not saying there are no genes that influence sexual desire and behavior, or that the hypothalamus may not play a role as it does in hunger and thirst regulation among other things, but there is not one type of homosexuals or heterosexuals, but several, at least, sub types.

At Oklahoma State University they are conducting some research into the relative lengths of fingers to one another as a proxy of sexual preference and while the work is not done it is interesting.

Proof's already in.

http://s3.amazonaws.com/rapgenius/liberace.2.jpg

The early writers in the Bible had no agenda

Surely their agenda was to record the history of their people and the development of their religion? All writers have an agenda - otherwise they wouldn't write. My agenda in writing this is to point this out - that is, if you're still with me!

Jcb

I don't know I'm not an expert on that topic by any means...plus it's harder and harder for me to trust even peer reviewed science [of all kinds] considering the antics I've seen or heard about [not just climate change] but if I had to bet especially in light of certain knockout mice studies... I would say genetics plays a huge role in sexual orientation, but as you say I'm sure it's a very complex interplay that determines these things exactly...

With the "publish or perish syndrome" so prevalent especially today it's obvious that taking ones time and performing careful studies, even if the studies can't be concluded overnight, and even if the studies don't support your hypothesis wont cut it in terms of grant money

I have a feeling some people [not all] are just pushing out publications---with data that may or not be the best, perhaps with heavy doses of confirmation bias...I remember in one lab the PI [principle investigator] used to come in almost every hour screaming about "results...where are the results?" I've always carefully reviewed data within publications that I used in any of my writings or proposals to see if it makes sense even before reading I read science backwards results----methods---conclusion---introduction---abstract

but admittedly, I don't have enough interest in the topic of sexual orientation to really keep up with it

My original goal, with biology/physiology and such was to use very solidly proven facts in an attempt to engineer disease treatments, although I do love pure chemistry...I think despite initially studying science; I was always much more of an engineer not a 'scientist', not that I can't do 'science' or it's related field research engineering, but I like to solve problem more than I like to look for unknowns...but in a laboratory setting either chemistry or biology I was very careful with technique and very methodical almost obsessive, of course I've made mistakes and I wasn't perfect but It's amazing how many scientists exhibit poor basic lab technique... the sociological aspects of the pure science has left quite a bitter taste in my mouth hence why I keep to engineering I like practicalities better

I do want to emphasize that I've met many careful methodical researchers some who have lots of related publications so I'm definitely not saying all or even most scientists are like I describe...but enough of them to negatively perturb the profession...make no mistake there's tons and tons of faith in science because it's impossible to check every fact, every result, every method to the point where you 100% assured of truthfulness...and some aspects of peer review are political and in certain fields just a big circle jerk

I've also avoided speaking too openly about this aspect of my life on pprune just sticking primarily to the technicalities of aviation...I think more than anything the 'global whining' thread caused me to reveal more biographical facts I would have been quite content simply being the professor of aeronautics and telling my vacuous technical jokes...but in light of such a fraud i felt it was important to reveal a bit more of my background...if only just to show 'them' I'm not fooled...:suspect:
besides through chemistry I understand fireworks the way I want to

:)





Matari Funny:}:}:}

Sunny John...Got me:ouch::ouch:

:}

I admittedly hold a strong interest in the biological and social influences on human behavior. Having myself seen bad data and poor SPSS technique in a public Uni can agree with your point about peer review.

My own experience in working with individuals and groups and from my training/teaching from a one Dr. Pinhas can say that sexuality and sexual attraction are very complex dynamics as you no doubt noted. I have had the pleasure of traveling the country and living in many different states with various political mixes and views on sexuality and can say with relative degree of confidence from my own observations and studies then comparing them with published research that sexual attraction is not all genes or all social interactions,but the very core biological basis is a tendency towards bisexuality in early development.

As you no doubt know from out pm's on other subjects and your recent posts, evo devo, behavioral genetics and hormone secretions greatly influence what side of the fence one finds oneself on the continuum. Though Kinsey was not 100% correct the Kinsey continuum still stands on its own merits as do many continuum studies within behavioral psychology and behavioral genetics combined with the sociological world view, but more from a socio-biological perspective and upholds Freud's theory that we are born all bisexual.

I find the topic deeply fascinating and will stop here since I might be the only in this thread who does:(

With this I leave.

My apologies to ORAC. I did not mean to be abrupt, and my reason if not excuse is that I found the work brought to me by human tragedies in this illness to be more than I want to revisit. Ever.

The early writers in the Bible had no agenda...That is simply not true. At the very least they had an agenda to record history. More likely they had an agenda to spread the religion they believed. Probably some had an agenda to spread and reinforce a religion that allowed them some control and authority over others. I would suggest that some of the writers had an agenda to persuade people that stories they had heard about events long before their birth were true.

Of course we know for a fact that the editor of the Bible's New Testament, who chose which stories were included, was using religion as a way of controlling people in his empire. He was not even claimed to be a Christian himself, until a supposed death-bed conversion during which he might or might not have been conscious.

Bible writers and their agendas ... this could be a long thread!

As said above, every one of the Biblical authors had a reason for writing. Some stated their reasons, many did not. Academics have studied the reasons (aetiology in English, I think the US spelling is different) for each book. When I was studying theology, I started to wonder if there were as many theories about that as academics writing.

My take on it would be that the main motives were:
- to record the history of the Jewish people,
- to provide a reference to explain the hard things that the people would ask the priests and rabbis,
- to record the thinking of the prophets,
- to provide the hymn book for the temple etc,
- to define the dietary and behavioural rules,
- to provide some meaningful material for contemplation
... and so on.

I don't think I can go along with the "control" theory though. The Old Testament is certainly prescriptive, and "of its time" in places, but many of the rules are about diet, health and hygiene (for example) - a very important topic for a primitive people wandering around in a hot desert with no sanitation to speak of (and certainly no refrigerators).

The New Testament Canon wasn't edited by one man (at least, not according to the stuff I've read). There were individuals who played a large part, but looking with 21st Century eyes at what made the cut and what didn't, I don't think many serious theologians would disagree with the selection made.

I thought, as I sat listening to one of my colleagues preaching this morning, about how we all have subtly different interpretations and opinions. There is (for Anglicans, at least) no single absolute interpretation and exegesis of every passage. Hence, you can find proscription of homosexuality, and indeed many other activities - or not: it depends on how you read the text. I choose not to find condemnation, since that isn't my reading of the purpose of the faith and our Bible. I know there are those who do, and I disagree with them.

Keef

The New Testament was standardised by (or rather on behalf of) the Emperor Constantine, in effect an editorial role.

Control is not necessarily nefarious in intent. Indeed many people who want influence or even totalitarian control feel they have the best interests of the controlled in their hearts. Certainly the diet rules in the Bible are wise for that area of the world without cool storage and knowledge of hygiene. However it is still control, and like all control, even for the most altruistic of motives, it has been abused.

I think the canon was more or less settled by the time of Constantine. The main players before his time were Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Clement, Origen, and Eusebius. Some would add Marcion and others to that list.

There was a reasonably well defined canon before Constantine appeared on the scene. In the version produced for him, Revelation was "out", so it certainly wasn't final. The debate went on for some time after that. Some would argue it's not over yet!

Of course we know for a fact that the editor of the Bible's New TestamentI think you will find that there was (is) more than one editor! And then, of course, there's the ticklish problem of the translations.

Another of the less attractive characteristics of religion is the hypocritical behaviour of some adherents. What would Jesus have made of the exclusive and extravagant pomp of a royal wedding or coronation carried out in a grand edifice built in his name?

Here's another excerpt from 'Simple':

<<Like I told you before, I don't normally bother much about religious stuff. But what about this - in the New Bible Jesus Christ always hangs around with poor people and sick people and that. So he obviously preferred them to rich people and important people. Is that why churches are big fancy buildings with loads of coloured windows and statues? Cos obviously they must have loads of money to pay for stuff like that. You see, if they gave their money to the poor people they wouldn't be poor anymore so they wouldn't be the sort of people Jesus liked. So they spend the money on other stuff instead. It makes sense to me. So therefore the answer to Hicksy's question is 'no' - it's wrong for rich people to give their money to poor people, despite what Martin says.
Mind you, people round here wouldn't want Jesus hanging around anyway, not when he looks like a foreigner. Even if he was wearing normal clothes they wouldn't like the long hair and the beard. They'd say he was an asylum seeker or a terrorist and they'd tell him to go back to where he came from.>>


http://steemrok.com/06 jesus v10

Another of the less attractive characteristics of religion is the hypocritical behaviour of some adherents.

That was true in Jesus' time. He spoke about it aplenty.

Just read this recently.

Funny and bitter sweet little tale, relevant to todays culture :ok:

http://www.waterstones.com/waterstonesweb/products/john+niven/the+second+coming/8584709/

We're all hypocrites to some degree if we don't live up to every ideal. To me the most endearing feature of the church is the ritual admission of sins, and plea for forgiveness.

To some, maybe, it's a convenient out. To others, an encouragement to strive to do better.

I have always recognized myself as a well-meaning, imperfect sinner, in need of the grace of God to justify, forgive, and bless my efforts to be a good man, despite my frailties. I can only hope I've read it right.

I do think, however, we all must answer to ourselves, regardless of our theology.

That hit home.

Keef will know of my interest in the Doctrine of the Atonement. Or should I say, Doctrines. He was kind enough to send me the links to three, what shall I say . . . interpretations?

That was a few years ago.

Last night, I spent two hours reading another link. It had of course, several sub-links to things I felt the need to read. There is a reason for all of this.

My story starts out as a sci-fi, but soon starts to merge with certain theological concepts. In parts woven into the story, I wanted to spend a few moments here and there, opening the eyes of atheists to a possibility. Nothing more. It's got a bit too involved.

I've written a new doctrine of the atonement, one which substantiates the sacrifice made, but gives a totally new reason for the act. You may be able to tell, I am agonizing over leaving it in, though I'm not sure why, because I also make reference to eternal beings, and how the universe came into being.

I think the concept of the Atonement is a vital part of Christianity, yet no one I've ever talked to about it, can come up with a truly logical reason for the 'mechanism' of how such an act could be a fundamental part of our salvation. Indeed, while having dinner with neighbors here in Texas a while back I raised the subject. They had started talking about their church, and two of my friends are preachers, so I ceased the moment. Like the huge post I read last night, the answers were blurred . . . at best. None of it made detailed sense to my searching mind.

I have one of those feelings. Again, that's all it is, but it's that Jesus of Nazareth did exist, and that the sacrifice was very real. I also think he knew precisely what was going to happen long before the event. Perhaps all of his life.

Has anyone got a clear idea of why the Atonement was so vital, and what the agreed reason was for the sacrifice . . . and more frighteningly, with whom was the agreement made?

What you really need, LR, is a few hours discussing it with my two daughters. Since that isn't likely to happen...

There are three recognised elements to "atonement theology", mixed in varying proportions by different schools of thought. Basically: ransom theory, satisfaction theory, and moral example theory. I don't think anyone but a modern theologian would recognise those terms, but they are useful hooks.

Some excellent books have been written on the subject, but I don't know of any that is universally accepted as containing the "answer".

Was it essential? Most theologians of my acquaintance will say yes - but from where we stand, you'd expect that.

The agreement? Between God and Jesus, you mean?

Like you, I've discussed it at great length. There isn't a simple answer. There are plenty of complicated ones.
I've not preached on it for a long time - maybe when we get to Advent I'll pick a time.

Keef, Thanks for your reply.

I wrote a lengthy answer, but am fading fast with sleepers at 04:00. It was all getting a bit blurred.

I've popped it into my WP and will come back on this, but don't want to barge into someone's thread more than a little so may PM as well.

I dropped the ball on this one for a while, but this link from my son spurred me into bumping the thread back up.

Not everyone will understand how totally, utterly, completely mind-blowing this new finding is. It ups the anti on brain power - or potential brain power when it comes to the average human - by orders of magnitude.

This simple paragraph gives the standard model at this time.

Glial Cells (http://blustein.tripod.com/)


I guess the computer buffs among us will realize the mechanism's power.

'Genius Cells' in the Brain? - YouTube

Yes.....:p



:cool:

What would Jesus have made of the exclusive and extravagant pomp of a royal wedding

Probably quite pleased, don't you think? Remember his contribution to that jolly at Cana?

On the "immigration" cartoon, remember too, those who have patience, the Grand Inquisitor in "The Brothers Karamazov".

Him apart, what a dreary book, and it was intended as the first in a series! Since I am not being examined in Lit., English or Russian, and it is too late to matter, I do not have to pretend otherwise.

To set a Rabble on a flame and keep their governors from blame disperse the news the pulpit tells, conformed with fireworks and with bells

Pendennis

Diarmaid MacCulloch's (now Sir D M) "History of Christianity" is probably the most impressive book I've read in a long time.

Keef, on 25 August you wrote in complimentary terms of the book noted above.

I have tried to buy it from Amazon, Alibris, and Abe Books.

None of these has any trace of it. Can you help?

I did a focus on glial cells and the way they transport stored ions is an incredible jump for neurons:)

I think Amazon have it, Davaar. It's also available on Kindle in the UK although I prefer the hard copy for the nice colour plates.

Try this link.

For those who believe or have theological curiosity any thoughts? Sacraments?

Ah, Keef! Perhaps the secret lay in my search for "History of Christianity", which should have been for "Christianity: The First Three Thousand Years". That could do it.

Now ordered and on its way to me. Thank you.

P.S. But I wanted to order a copy for the Davaar Sister, so tried direct to Amazon. By Golly! Never heard of it. Then tried your link again. Duly worked.

Is this a miracle?

Nah, just a quirk of search engines and an inherent gap in my memory.

Indeed vita brevis...I must see this book!!!...I mean I MUST!!!


Far more enlightenening the Dawkin's Bloviating-I assume...:rolleyes:

As quotes go, I think Scott D. Weitzenhoffer may have first offered that one, when discussing Eugenie Scotts’ book 'Evolution Vs. Creationism: An introduction'. You can even wear the snappy T.. :8

Men's Playing chess with pigeons | Become an Evo-T devotee! (http://evolutionshirts.spreadshirt.com/men-s-playing-chess-with-pigeons-A6167906/customize/color/2)