# When Will The Church Learn - Pretending To Be Gay?



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

Priest 'only pretending to be gay' - CNN.com



> A Vatican official suspended after being caught on hidden camera making advances to a young man said in an interview published Sunday that he is not gay and was only pretending to be gay as part of his work.


Good grief. No wonder more and more people are turning to atheism. The Church has it down to a science on how to turn people off their religion:

Step 1) Claim homosexuality is a sin (for which you will burn in hell for an eternity)

Step 2) Have Church members caught in homosexual acts.

Step 3) Lie about the homosexual acts (or try to cover them up)

Makes you wonder if God really is on their side.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Are more and more people really turning to atheism? Got any hard stats to back that up?

As for the church and gays, nothing surprises me on that front. People do the strangest stuff in the name of sexuality and morality.


----------



## Elric (Jul 30, 2005)

Max said:


> Are more and more people really turning to atheism? Got any hard stats to back that up?
> 
> As for the church and gays, nothing surprises me on that front. People do the strangest stuff in the name of sexuality and morality.


People do the strangest thing in the name of religion.

As for "turning to atheism" I think they are just not joining christianity in the first place. Go into a church and count the people under 30, I doubt you'll be using 2 hands. I think the Internet has a hand in it too, actual information is a google away, so you don't have to believe everything you've been force fed as a child.


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

GT... This is like lumping you in as a David Miller supporter because you are a Torontonian. 

Sexually deprived Catholic priests are not "The church".


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Agreed with EhMax. It's like suggesting that the scandalous behaviour of a GM employee is turning people to buy Fords. Just ludicrous. 

You can produce better causation relationships than that Guy.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

I'm not even going to bother googling the relevant links, but it's well documented that the prevalence of non-religious (many people who are philosophically atheists will balk at the term, because it's been saddled with so much negative connotation) people in Western society has been increasing consistently for several decades.

'No religion' was the second largest identifiable group in the 2001 census, and I have every hope that this trend will continue.

While I agree that it's an overstatement to suggest that sex scandals plaguing various religious organizations are a general indication of moral turpitude among adherents, I think there is something to the idea that many religions promote an extremely unhealthy attitude towards sex, and that this results in a disproportionate manifestation of sexual abnormality among adherents. This is not the fault of the individuals, but it certainly is the fault of the church. If they'd sort out their kinky doctrines about sex, they would have far less of this kind of problem.

Cheers


----------



## MasterBlaster (Jan 12, 2003)

.


----------



## zenith (Sep 22, 2007)

It seems _many_ people are only "pretending to be gay" these days. I think it helps the "pretenders" sleep better at night. Being self-loathing closet cases must be such a burden for them.


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

ehMax said:


> GT... This is like lumping you in as a David Miller supporter because you are a Torontonian.
> 
> Sexually deprived Catholic priests are not "The church".


In no way do I mean to imply that all Catholics, Christians, whatever, are sexual hypocrites and liars. All I'm saying is that the Catholic Church's stance on homosexuality, and the often repeated lies and cover ups that come out of the Vatican and related organizations gives the whole religion a real bad name.

The best thing the Church could do for itself is stand by its convictions and publicly shame liars and hypocrites like this priest.


----------



## Demosthenes X (Sep 23, 2004)

This is good news for all the homosexuals, though. When they get to the Pearly Gates, they can just say "I was pretending to be gay".


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

You may have been 'pretending' to be gay, but you still worked on the Sabbath? Down you go!


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

I was only pretending not to be a Christian... all those years of not being raised in a Christian household, not going to church and not self-identifying as one were a big act. 

Assuming for a moment that the Judeo-Christian God does exist, I would imagine that he would be able to see through such flimsy lies, even if a human-run organizaton such as The Church chooses not to.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Sonal said:


> Assuming for a moment that the Judeo-Christian God does exist...


I tried that once and my head almost exploded due to all the paradoxes and logical inconsistencies such an assumption generates. Be careful!

Cheers


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

bryanc said:


> I tried that once and my head almost exploded due to all the paradoxes and logical inconsistencies such an assumption generates. Be careful!


It's generally not an assumption I make, but I needed it to make a point about the difference between this god (according to prevailing notions of him) and the organization that worships him. Rather difficult to do otherwise.


----------



## MasterBlaster (Jan 12, 2003)

.


----------



## Paul O'Keefe (Jun 3, 2005)

guytoronto said:


> You may have been 'pretending' to be gay, but you still worked on the Sabbath? Down you go!


What Sabbath is that, Saturday or Sunday? Or maybe we're all wrong and it's really Wednesday!


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

MasterBlaster said:


> Another pedophile that tried to become a Catholic Priest.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Yeah and he became a school teacher. No surprise there either.
Sex Abuse by Teachers Said Worse Than Catholic Church

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

MacGuiver: It's easier to attack a group that is easily identifiable, such as Catholic priests. Going after school teachers with the same vigour means you have to face up to some very ugly facts, and problems that are far more widespread and difficult to root out. And--if you're of a left-leaning persuasion--you wind up in an uncomfortable conflict with the teachers' unions.


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

Macfury said:


> MacGuiver: It's easier to attack a group that is easily identifiable, such as Catholic priests. Going after school teachers with the same vigour means you have to face up to some very ugly facts, and problems that are far more widespread and difficult to root out. And--if you're of a left-leaning persuasion--you wind up in an uncomfortable conflict with the teachers' unions.


MacFury

I'm a Catholic and I'll be the first to admit we have a sexual abuse problem with a small percentage of clergy that needs to be dealt with. Like this gay priest at the vatican needs his ass kicked out of the church, investigated and if he's found to have abused anyone, charged to the full extent of the law. 
That said I find it ironic that many people and the media in general will pick up on these stories and go immediately to page one with it yet they turn a blind eye to sexual abuse by school teachers or ministers of other religions. The only conclusion I can draw is that they are either ignorant of the abuse outside the Catholic Church or they really don't care about the abuse so much as they love to use it to attack the Church they hate.

In our town we had a few cases of high school teachers that were sexually abusive yet no CBC trucks rolled into town and no headlines took page one in the Ottawa Citizen. If this happened in our church...

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I suspect that it's just easier ot decry a very easily defineable group--Catholic priests--than it is to confront the fact that the molester is in your school, or living next door.


----------



## MasterBlaster (Jan 12, 2003)

.


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

Dontcha just love it when people of the Church claim "Homosexuality is a choice" and that "Prayer and devotion will make you straight", yet their own members can't seem to practice what they preach.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Macfury said:


> I suspect that it's just easier ot decry a very easily defineable group--Catholic priests--than it is to confront the fact that the molester is in your school, or living next door.


Or that maybe there is a higher incidence in the clergy (maybe due to abstinence). 
Priests, pedophilia, and celibacy. - By William Saletan - Slate Magazine


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

I don't the issue here is that some priests may be gay (personally I think that would be cool if more clergy were open about their sexuality). The issue is the hypocritical stance "The Church" has on the subject. What is more disturbing is the covering up of clearly illegal behavior in respect to minors.

Personally I'm in favour of this vision for "The Church"...


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

Macfury said:


> MacGuiver: It's easier to attack a group that is easily identifiable, such as Catholic priests.


Well let's be equal opportunity and include Family Values Conservatives and Republicans.


----------



## MasterBlaster (Jan 12, 2003)

.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

MacGuiver said:


> That said I find it ironic that many people and the media in general will pick up on these stories and go immediately to page one with it yet they turn a blind eye to sexual abuse by school teachers or ministers of other religions. The only conclusion I can draw is that they are either ignorant of the abuse outside the Catholic Church or they really don't care about the abuse so much as they love to use it to attack the Church they hate.


It's just the hypocrisy that gets the attention. There are pedophiles in teachers unions, coaching kids sports, and in every other sufficiently sizable population of human beings. But, unlike the Catholic Church, these other groups don't make everyones sexual behavior their business.

Obviously, this doesn't make pedophilia among hockey coaches or school teachers acceptable. But, because the church continually pontificates on what sort of sexual behavior is acceptable, and makes the absurd claim that they can correct the unacceptable behaviors through prayer, it focuses the limelight of hypocrisy on the issue when a priest or other catholic official gets caught.

Not too difficult to understand really.

Cheers


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

bryanc said:


> It's just the hypocrisy that gets the attention. There are pedophiles in teachers unions, coaching kids sports, and in every other sufficiently sizable population of human beings. But, unlike the Catholic Church, these other groups don't make everyones sexual behavior their business.


I think its broader than that--it's a violation perpetrated by people who claim to be trustworthy--much as teachers do. Most people would go on record as being against pedophelia, so it isn't merely a case of jumping on the hypocrisy here.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

Macfury said:


> I think its broader than that--it's a violation perpetrated by people who claim to be trustworthy--much as teachers do. Most people would go on record as being against pedophelia, so it isn't merely a case of jumping on the hypocrisy here.


You make a good argument here. I think the focus on hypocrisy stems from the emphasis that the church places on morality.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

DJ: I think I agre with you that the church demands a higher standard of conduct for itself and others, so they attract additional attention for raising the bar themselves.


----------



## MasterBlaster (Jan 12, 2003)

.


----------



## iMuck (Oct 15, 2007)

MasterBlaster said:


> Another pedophile that tried to become a Catholic Priest.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


One thing that bothers me about the Christopher Neil case is that there was this huge media manhunt -- as if he was at large in Canada -- just because he was a gay pedophile. Gee, the number of young girls being abused and exploited in Thailand and Indochina is easily ten times more than young boys, and it happens almost everyday. But do we see the same level of concern?


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

iMuck said:


> One thing that bothers me about the Christopher Neil case is that there was this huge media manhunt -- as if he was at large in Canada -- just because he was a gay pedophile. Gee, the number of young girls being abused and exploited in Thailand and Indochina is easily ten times more than young boys, and it happens almost everyday. But do we see the same level of concern?


Of COURSE not! The sex trade is such a boon for Thailand, they would be crazy to try to solve the problem.

The Thailand government and authorities are quite happy to see their children abused in back rooms, as long as money keeps flowing into the country. The only reason this one case is all over the news is because Canadian law enforcement is involved.


----------



## wonderings (Jun 10, 2003)

MasterBlaster said:


> I think that its nonsense.
> 
> Before the Romans perverted the Christian teachings, was it not a requirement for those that were to teach about Jesus to be married, have children, and understand human relationships and dynamics from a personal as well as doctrinal experience?
> 
> Nothing is more offensive than a supposed unmarried sexless celibate virgin giving maritial advice.


Would love to know where you got this info from, never heard that. I do believe in the bible one of the apostles even said it was better to stay unmarried.


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

MasterBlaster said:


> I think that its nonsense.
> 
> If there is a God, God made us to have sex. It's a God given right of humans to enjoy sexual relations with each other. We are physically and emotionally in need of sexual activity.
> 
> ...


:yikes: I'd try to address some of these far out statements you've made but I wouldn't know where to begin. I guess I'd start by asking you to show me where Christ said anything to back up what you're claiming he said.

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

MacGuiver said:


> :yikes: I'd try to address some of these far out statements you've made but I wouldn't know where to begin. I guess I'd start by asking you to show me where Christ said anything to back up what you're claiming he said.
> 
> Cheers
> MacGuiver


I could ask to to show me where Christ was the son of God...


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

MasterBlaster said:


> Before the Romans perverted the Christian teachings, was it not a requirement for those that were to teach about Jesus to be married, have children, and understand human relationships and dynamics from a personal as well as doctrinal experience?


The first signs of forbidding catholic priest came at the Council of Elvira and the Council of Carthage (I think that's your Roman connection?).


----------



## Pelao (Oct 2, 2003)

> Would love to know where you got this info from, never heard that. I do believe in the bible one of the apostles even said it was better to stay unmarried.


Paul addressed the issue. His point was one of focus. The job he was referring to was evangelizing. It would be a tough call to travel the way he did, and face the dangers common to those times, and still have a family. He would suffer, so would the family and of course so would his work.

It's an important distinction, because as noted earlier, the celibacy thing for priests came later. It could be argued that though priests are called on the evangelize, in practical terms they are counsellors - and the life experience of relationships and family might assist them in their work.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

It's true that the requirements for an early Christian "minister"--according to Paul--were to be married and to demonstrate exemplary family life. Not surprising in a world of married rabbis. The "celibacy" thing came later. 

Paul's ideas about marriage indicated that people should have sex within a married relationship--so if you felt that you couldn't go without sex, you ought really to get married. Believing that the end of the world could possibly be near, Paul chose not to be married because he wanted to concentrate on his ministry, and hoped that some others would choose as he did.


----------



## MasterBlaster (Jan 12, 2003)

.


----------



## i<3myiBookg4 (Mar 17, 2006)

Macfury said:


> It's true that the requirements for an early Christian "minister"--according to Paul--were to be married and to demonstrate exemplary family life. Not surprising in a world of married rabbis. The "celibacy" thing came later.
> 
> Paul's ideas about marriage indicated that people should have sex within a married relationship--so if you felt that you couldn't go without sex, you ought really to get married. Believing that the end of the world could possibly be near, Paul chose not to be married because he wanted to concentrate on his ministry, and hoped that some others would choose as he did.


http://bible.cc/1_corinthians/7-9.htm


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

ArtistSeries said:


> I could ask to to show me where Christ was the son of God...


Is this question supposed to stump me or are you actually unaware of any Bible verses that give that title to Christ?

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## MasterBlaster (Jan 12, 2003)

.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

MacGuiver said:


> Is this question supposed to stump me or are you actually unaware of any Bible verses that give that title to Christ?


I think he was asking for evidence, not quotes from a book.

Cheers.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

bryanc said:


> I think he was asking for evidence, not quotes from a book.
> 
> Cheers.


Thanks bryanc - 
While not religious, I do have respect for those that practice their faith.


----------



## zenith (Sep 22, 2007)

*"If Jesus Christ came back and saw what people have been doing in his name, he would never stop throwing up."*

*--Maryscott O’Connor*


----------



## MasterBlaster (Jan 12, 2003)

.


----------



## MacBookPro (Jun 22, 2006)

ArtistSeries said:


> Thanks bryanc -
> While not religious, I do have respect for those that practice their faith.


Although I truly feel that discussing faith is a monumental waste of time, I am curious as to WHY you "have respect for those that practice their faith".


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

MacBookPro said:


> Although I truly feel that discussing faith is a monumental waste of time, I am curious as to WHY you "have respect for those that practice their faith".


I find organized religion to be bunk but those that follow a given religion should not be questioned. Unless, of course, they try to impose their views.


----------



## MacBookPro (Jun 22, 2006)

ArtistSeries said:


> I find organized religion to be bunk but those that follow a given religion should not be questioned. Unless, of course, they try to impose their views.


Why should their "faith" not be questioned?


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

MacBookPro said:


> Why should their "faith" not be questioned?


There's the philosophical side of me that completely agrees with you that everything should be questioned and that rational skepticism is the only justifiable position regarding any unsupported claims. However, there is also the pragmatic side of me that recognizes that religions have succeeded in defining social practice in our culture to the extent that it is considered rude to question any religious beliefs.

I think there's a middle ground that can be struck, whereby you respect the individual's right to believe whatever silly superstitions they want, without respecting the superstitions themselves. This, however, requires subtlety and tact to pull off, and I'm still working on that bit.

Cheers


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

bryanc said:


> There's the philosophical side of me that completely agrees with you that everything should be questioned and that rational skepticism is the only justifiable position regarding any unsupported claims. However, there is also the pragmatic side of me that recognizes that religions have succeeded in defining social practice in our culture to the extent that it is considered rude to question any religious beliefs.
> 
> _I think there's a middle ground that can be struck, whereby you respect the individual's right to believe whatever silly superstitions they want, without respecting the superstitions themselves. This, however, requires subtlety and tact to pull off, and I'm still working on that bit._
> 
> Cheers


As am I. 
When it comes to articles of faith and belief, I try stay clear.


----------



## MacBookPro (Jun 22, 2006)

bryanc said:


> There's the philosophical side of me that completely agrees with you that everything should be questioned and that rational skepticism is the only justifiable position regarding any unsupported claims. However, there is also the pragmatic side of me that recognizes that religions have succeeded in defining social practice in our culture to the extent that it is considered rude to question any religious beliefs.
> 
> I think there's a middle ground that can be struck, whereby you respect the individual's right to believe whatever silly superstitions they want, without respecting the superstitions themselves. This, however, requires subtlety and tact to pull off, and I'm still working on that bit.
> 
> Cheers


Hmmm...

I too can respect an adult person's right to believe in what they have been told is "God's truth" for all of their lives, but I cannot (I have tried!) respect that adult person's "awareness quotient", for lack of a better term.


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

MasterBlaster said:


> What gets my goat is that what the Catholic Church does, believes, and gets its people to follow suit has absolutely nothing to do with anything that Jesus taught us to believe and to do.
> 
> Not that the crap put out by Protestants and other branches of these stupid religions are any better.
> 
> ...


LOL!! 
Nobeliefs.com. :lmao: The hate propaganda wing of the atheist church. No wonder you think as you do, ingesting that mind poo. Garbage in, garbage out.

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

MasterBlaster said:


> I think that its nonsense.
> 
> If there is a God, God made us to have sex. It's a God given right of humans to enjoy sexual relations with each other. We are physically and emotionally in need of sexual activity.
> 
> In some religious and spiritual belief systems, it is a sin NOT to have sex. They say that God gave humans sex for enjoyment and it makes God angry when humans deny themselves this God given right.


Exactly!

Because we all know how much God loves uncommitted recreational sex and the resulting millions of aborted babies, fatherless children often living in poverty, crabs, gonorrhea, syphilis, HIV and the dignity a women feels being last nights sexual conquest. All part of the master plan. By all means don't deny your "God given" urges. You'll only **** him off. 

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## hayesk (Mar 5, 2000)

Let me get this straight, you are saying that because people have recreational sex, and sometimes bad things happen to those people, it must be because God wanted it that way.

Then how do you explain bad things happen to "good" Christian-folk. Let me guess, God works in mysterious ways?


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

hayesk said:


> Let me get this straight, you are saying that because people have recreational sex, and sometimes bad things happen to those people, it must be because God wanted it that way.
> 
> Then how do you explain bad things happen to "good" Christian-folk. Let me guess, God works in mysterious ways?


You're putting words in my mouth. No God doesn't want it that way. 
Let me explain it in another way. Think of God as you're family doctor. He knows your insides better than you ever will. He tells you to watch your cholesterol and he gives you a dietary plan to follow to avoid catastrophe. You ignore him saying I can eat all the Tim Horton Donuts I like. A year down the road you're getting a triple bypass. Like God, you doctor knows health way better than you. The doctor didn't want you to have a heart attack, you more or less chose it for yourself by ignoring his dietary guidelines. 
And yes it happens to good Christian Folk too because they're far from perfect and just as capable as anyone else of falling into sin.

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

MacGuiver said:


> You're putting words in my mouth. No God doesn't want it that way.
> Let me explain it in another way. Think of God as you're family doctor. He knows your insides better than you ever will. He tells you to watch your cholesterol and he gives you a dietary plan to follow to avoid catastrophe. You ignore him saying I can eat all the Tim Horton Donuts I like. A year down the road you're getting a triple bypass. Like God, you doctor knows health way better than you. The doctor didn't want you to have a heart attack, you more or less chose it for yourself by ignoring his dietary guidelines.
> And yes it happens to good Christian Folk too because they're far from perfect and just as capable as anyone else of falling into sin.
> 
> ...


So what are the wait times for this God Doctor you speak of? Where did he get his Divinity degree? Does he do referrals?


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

What does this God-Doctor think of alternative medical therapies?


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

Dumbledore is god.


----------



## MacBookPro (Jun 22, 2006)

MacGuiver said:


> You're putting words in my mouth. No God doesn't want it that way.
> Let me explain it in another way. Think of God as you're family doctor. He knows your insides better than you ever will. He tells you to watch your cholesterol and he gives you a dietary plan to follow to avoid catastrophe. You ignore him saying I can eat all the Tim Horton Donuts I like. A year down the road you're getting a triple bypass. Like God, you doctor knows health way better than you. The doctor didn't want you to have a heart attack, you more or less chose it for yourself by ignoring his dietary guidelines.
> And yes it happens to good Christian Folk too because they're far from perfect and just as capable as anyone else of falling into sin.
> 
> ...


This post illustrates why threads that attempt to discuss religion using logic are inherently pointless.


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

HowEver said:


> Dumbledore is god.


Dumbledore is god.
Dumbledore is gay. 

Therefore, god is gay. Or is he just pretending?


----------



## MissGulch (Jul 20, 2005)

MacGuiver said:


> You're putting words in my mouth. No God doesn't want it that way.
> Let me explain it in another way. Think of God as you're family doctor. He knows your insides better than you ever will. He tells you to watch your cholesterol and he gives you a dietary plan to follow to avoid catastrophe. You ignore him saying I can eat all the Tim Horton Donuts I like. A year down the road you're getting a triple bypass. Like God, you doctor knows health way better than you. The doctor didn't want you to have a heart attack, you more or less chose it for yourself by ignoring his dietary guidelines.
> And yes it happens to good Christian Folk too because they're far from perfect and just as capable as anyone else of falling into sin.
> 
> ...


Doctor, God, donuts, diets. Is this how they talk to the supplicants in church? I really wouldn't know.


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

MacBookPro said:


> This post illustrates why threads that attempt to discuss religion using logic are inherently pointless.


:lmao: :clap:

That's one of the beauties of religion. You can make up the rules as you go, contradict yourself in multiple ways, ignore plain logic, all while throwing your arms in the air pronouncing the greatness of God.

As soon as you use logic to contradict religion, religion uses the "God doesn't have to adhere to logic" defense.


----------



## MissGulch (Jul 20, 2005)

"History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance of which their civil as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes."

-Thomas Jefferson to Alexander von Humboldt, Dec. 6, 1813.


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

guytoronto said:


> :lmao: :clap:
> 
> That's one of the beauties of religion. You can make up the rules as you go, contradict yourself in multiple ways, ignore plain logic, all while throwing your arms in the air pronouncing the greatness of God.
> 
> As soon as you use logic to contradict religion, religion uses the "God doesn't have to adhere to logic" defense.


Actually Guy I haven't heard a single logical argument why orgasm on demand is better than the Christian ideal of sex within marriage and monogamy.

Basically the Christian logic is, screw for fun whenever, whatever and whoever you like and you've put yourself and your partner/partners or unwanted offspring at grave risk of sickness, death and emotional damage. Keep your pants on, fall in love without sex in the picture, get married and stay faithful to each other and the majority of those social ills will never enter the picture. Pretty simple logic really. 

Now if you want to put forward the "logical" argument why orgasm on demand is so much healthier physically and emotionally with fewer risks I'd love to hear it.

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

MissGulch said:


> "History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance of which their civil as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes."
> 
> -Thomas Jefferson to Alexander von Humboldt, Dec. 6, 1813.


I wonder if Jefferson were alive today if he'd be able to give an example of an atheist ridden people maintaining a free and civil government? Hmmm... Soviet Union, China. Fact is the freest countries in the world today are rooted in Judeo-Christian ethics. Including ours.

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

MacGuiver said:


> I wonder if Jefferson were alive today if he'd be able to give an example of an atheist ridden people maintaining a free and civil government? Hmmm... Soviet Union, China. Fact is the freest countries in the world today are rooted in Judeo-Christian ethics. Including ours.
> 
> Cheers
> MacGuiver


India, the world's largest democracy, isn't rooted in Judeo-Christian ethics....


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

MacGuiver said:


> I wonder if Jefferson were alive today if he'd be able to give an example of an atheist ridden people maintaining a free and civil government? Hmmm... Soviet Union, China. Fact is the freest countries in the world today are rooted in Judeo-Christian ethics. Including ours.


This is a pretty biased look at things. I don't see the US currently as a free and civil society.

Using USSR and China as examples of Atheism is a pretty big stretch. Both these "Atheist" societies use(d) a living god(s) to replace the church's God. (Mao / Stalin not to mention Lennin / Marx) I'd hardly call that Atheist.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

We're playing fast and loose with our definitions here, I see. Well, what else is new? But really - "living gods" to describe Mao or Stalin? They were authoritarian patriarchal rulers, to be sure. But gods? They might have been arrogant and played with plenty of lives, but to ascribe godly powers to them makes "god" so general a term it approaches meaninglessness. In any case, both of those nations you cite belittled religion and were officially atheist. You would never have caught Stalin declaring to the people that he was a god... at least, I rather doubt it. Privately, I am sure he relished his hold over the Soviet Union, sure. Still, calling himself a god doesn't fit at all with the communist theory he was ostensibly drawing from during his notorious leadership. So why would _you_ call him a god?

Although I would agree that holding America up as some kind of shining example of freedom - never mind contending that this is because of some superior Judeo-Christian ethical base - is more than a bit of a stretch. Pretty obviously a self-serving statement based on a fairly superficial historical analysis. And I also like Sonal's succint point about India.


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

Sonal said:


> India, the world's largest democracy, isn't rooted in Judeo-Christian ethics....


Nor is it rooted in atheism. 
Its true India is a democracy but a trip to amnesty international sure doesn't paint a pretty picture for freedom of its people. 
Amnesty International Report 2007 • India

If I had my choice between Canada, USA, Australia, Britain, France, Ireland or India, India wouldn't even be on the radar.

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

MacGuiver said:


> I wonder if Jefferson were alive today if he'd be able to give an example of an atheist ridden people maintaining a free and civil government? Hmmm... Soviet Union, China. *Fact is the freest countries in the world today are rooted in Judeo-Christian ethics. Including ours.*
> 
> Cheers
> MacGuiver


Are you saying that you don't want a secular state?
I'm all for respecting religious choices, but I'm not sure what point you are trying to get across.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

But I see that you are softening your initial stance... now you appear to be taking up the fallback position that democracy is rooted in a belief in god as opposed to a Judeo-Christian god.

As for whether or not India is far your first choice in terms of relative "freedom" accorded to its citizens, tell that to the Mahir Arar. He might have a thing or two to say about both Canada and America and their superior freedoms.


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

MacGuiver said:


> Nor is it rooted in atheism.
> Its true India is a democracy but a trip to amnesty international sure doesn't paint a pretty picture for freedom of its people.
> Amnesty International Report 2007 • India


Actually Nehru advocated a secular state that was free from religion, as many of India's problems were (and still are) rooted in religious issues--e.g., the ongoing Hindu/Muslim animosity, the caste system, Sikh separatism, etc.


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

And actually that reminds me... Islam worships the same Judeo-Christian god and grew from the same base. Some of the *least* free nations in the world are strongly rooted in Islam.... not sure that gives you the best advertisement for a government rooted in Judeo-Christian ethics.


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

ArtistSeries said:


> Are you saying that you don't want a secular state?
> I'm all for respecting religious choices, but I'm not sure what point you are trying to get across.


Not at all. 
Simply pointing out the fact that the vast majority of the citizenry of the freest countries on earth today are or were not so long ago adherents to the Judeo-Christian ethic. Those people select the governments and become its representatives determining just how free its citizens are. 
If I'm wrong, name me a country with little or no Christians that enjoys the freedoms we do here.

The irony is that the best country in the world to live in 2005 was Ireland. Heck of a lot of Christians in Ireland. 
What's the best country to live in? - World News - MSNBC.com

I found this snippet interesting in light of Canada's growing abandonment of traditional social and family values.



> Social cohesion
> *The United Kingdom ranked the lowest out of the EU members, primarily due to the deterioration of traditional social and family values.*
> 
> Ireland not only rated high on social cohesion, but beat the United Kingdom on GDP per person. Average yearly income is now $36,790 in Ireland, versus $31,150 in Britain. For a country that was losing much of its population right up to the early 1990s as emigrants searched for work abroad, the lifestyle victory shows how far Ireland has come since joining the European Union.
> ...


Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

MacGuiver said:


> The irony is that the best country in the world to live in 2005 was Ireland. Heck of a lot of Christians in Ireland.


I'm sure the IRA will be happy to hear that... beejacon


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

]


Sonal said:


> And actually that reminds me... Islam worships the same Judeo-Christian god and grew from the same base. Some of the *least* free nations in the world are strongly rooted in Islam.... not sure that gives you the best advertisement for a government rooted in Judeo-Christian ethics.


I don't see Islam rooted in Christianity. In fact the Koran goes out of its way to differentiate itself from Christianity expressly denying the validity and truthfulness of the New Testament. Its a real stretch to link the two. 
I don't know how Islam interprets the old testament though so I can't comment on how Islam relates to Judaism. I'll venture a guess that its not the same either. That said the Christian version of the old testament is the same as the Hebrew Bible.



> Judeo-Christian (or Judaeo-Christian, sometimes written as Judæo-Christian) is a term used to describe the body of concepts and values which are thought to be held in common by Judaism and Christianity, and typically considered (sometimes along with classical Greco-Roman civilization) a fundamental basis for Western legal codes and moral values. In particular, the term refers to the common Old Testament/Tanakh (which is a basis of both moral traditions, including particularly the Ten Commandments); and implies a common set of values present in the modern Western World.


Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

"The irony is that the best country in the world to live in 2005 was Ireland. Heck of a lot of Christians in Ireland. "

Good for Ireland, I say, to win the top honours in some non-scientific poll. I suppose there are lots of other contests out there which would factor in different decision-making criteria and thus arrive at different conclusions about which country in the whole of the world was the best for the year 2005. Some strange alchemy going on, as well, to associate Ireland's success with Christianity. Bit of loosey-goosey logic going on there, wot?

Too, this kind of "irony" reminds me of Alanis Morisette and her glib makeover for the term "irony."


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

ArtistSeries said:


> I'm sure the IRA will be happy to hear that... beejacon


Maybe they're finally starting to adhere to the faith they profess to hold. Thank God things have changed in Ireland.

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

MacGuiver said:


> Nor is it rooted in atheism.
> Its true India is a democracy but a trip to amnesty international sure doesn't paint a pretty picture for freedom of its people.
> Amnesty International Report 2007 • India
> 
> ...


Amnesty International Report 2007 • United States of America
no more needs to be said.



> UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
> 
> UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
> 
> ...


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

MacGuiver said:


> I don't see Islam rooted in Christianity. In fact the Koran goes out of its way to differentiate itself from Christianity expressly denying the validity and truthfulness of the New Testament. Its a real stretch to link the two.
> I don't know how Islam interprets the old testament though so I can't comment on how Islam relates to Judaism. I'll venture a guess that its not the same either. That said the Christian version of the old testament is the same as the Hebrew Bible.


From an insider's perspective you may see it as a stretch, but from an outsider's perspective, (i.e., raised in an entirely different religious tradition) it looks very much the same--there is far more difference between Buddhism and Christianity, for example, than there is between Islam and Christianity. If nothing else, the professors of some religious studies courses I took way back when considered Judaism, Christianity and Islam part of the same family of religions.

The Koran values the Old Testament over the New Testament. Though it interprets a few things differently, essentially, it's a retelling of both books. Islam considers Jesus (along with many Old Testament characters) a prophet, not the son of God. Islam considers the Koran to be the perfect word of the divine, and explains its the similarities to stories in the Torah and the Bible by saying that these books also sprung from the same divine source, but were altered over time.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

I am frankly surprised this thread has lasted as long as it has.

While those who have accepted religion as a real part of their lives are certainly among the minority here, can't the rest of you be at least a bit more tolerant? 

What do you care if someone practices something you don't acknowledge?

If becomes a "crap on anyone who believes" type of environment, that holds no interest for most ehMacers.

Secularism is a religion unto itself, whether you know it or not.

Perhaps it's time everyone gave it a rest?


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

SINC said:


> Secularism is a religion unto itself, whether you know it or not.


Uhmmm, no.....


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

MacGuiver said:


> Maybe they're finally starting to adhere to the faith they profess to hold. Thank God things have changed in Ireland.


No, other circumstances.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

Max said:


> But really - "living gods" to describe Mao or Stalin? They were authoritarian patriarchal rulers, to be sure. But gods?


Absoluty. Look at the way they were portrayed in those societies. Notice How the North Koreans have a similar thing going with Kim il Jong. The whole point of Stalinism and Maoiam is the virtual deification of the party leader.
Oh Mao God


> Oh Mao God
> 
> Mao Zedong Temple Coming Soon
> 
> "Chairman Mao is like Jesus to us," a Chinese student told the Manawatu Standard in response to a spoof on Mao Zedong in a student magazine. Another student linked the spoof to the Muhammad cartoons.


This is DECADES AFTER Mao's fall from grace. Try and imagine what it was like when he was in charge...

Films for the Humanities and Sciences - Educational Media - Stalin: The Red God


> When atheistic Joseph Stalin assumed power, he put to use his training as a Russian Orthodox priest to redirect his people’s devotional fervor and to cast himself as a secular god. Using eyewitness accounts, reenactments of key events in Stalin’s life, and examples of Soviet film, art, music, and architecture, this provocative program demonstrates how Stalin ennobled communism and elevated it to the level of a state religion. Neo-Stalinists, nostalgic for their godlike leader, provide insights into how a terrifying dictatorship can ignite a devotion both deep and disturbing.



MY point remains that these "Atheist" states were (are) not Atheist at all. Christians may want to call this Atheism but it is not. A deity is a deity whether supposedly secular or not and if it exists (the deity) than there is no Atheism.


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

Sonal said:


> From an insider's perspective you may see it as a stretch, but from an outsider's perspective, (i.e., raised in an entirely different religious tradition) it looks very much the same--there is far more difference between Buddhism and Christianity, for example, than there is between Islam and Christianity.


Sure and Vancouver is farther from Ottawa than Regina but I wouldn't recommend you try walking from one to the other. You're perceived greater distance doesn't by default make Islam close to Christianity. They may share some old testament values and beliefs but thats it. Heck the scientologists could be closer to us than them but I'd hardly say we're cut from the same cloth.

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

martman said:


> Absoluty. Look at the way they were portrayed in those societies. Notice How the North Koreans have a similar thing going with Kim il Jong. The whole point of Stalinism and Maoiam is the virtual deification of the party leader.
> Oh Mao God
> 
> This is DECADES AFTER Mao's fall from grace. Try and imagine what it was like when he was in charge...


Beg to differ. I just came back from a month in China, and for the most part, Mao worship is pretty dead. Largely seems to be a matter of official policy and lip service--no one we talked to seem to care very much about Mao. Granted, this is anecdotal, but it's a personal experience anecdote.

There's a little Daoism practiced, a little Confucianism, a little Buddhism (except in Tibet, where there is a LOT of Buddhism), but very little Mao. You can find the little red books in junk shops if you hunt for it. 

Though largely speaking, religion does not seem to be a particularly active part of the average Chinese person's life. Most people we talked to said that they had no religion, though my brother did meet one young Buddhist. Most temples are not actively used, other than by Chinese tourists--the Confucian temple I visited in Nanjing was by the the emptiest place I went to. (And there are no places in China that empty.)


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

MacGuiver said:


> Heck the scientologists could be closer to us than them but I'd hardly say we're cut from the same cloth.


Absolutly false. Scientology has nothing to do with Christianity or Judaism. Nothing, zero, zilch. I though you knew about Catholicism but it seems you do not if you believe this.


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

martman said:


> MY point remains that these "Atheist" states were (are) not Atheist at all. Christians may want to call this Atheism but it is not. A deity is a deity whether supposedly secular or not and if it exists (the deity) than there is no Atheism.


Actually everyone has their deity whether they profess it or not. Even atheists. Sex, money, sports, science, Hollywood, Steve Jobs, Al Gore... 

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Martman, you seem to be making the argument that, since some people allegedly saw Mao as a living god, that made him so. Are you suggesting that Mao and "God" are therefore indistinguishable? I sure hope not.

Most of the adoring official portrayals of Stalin and Mao were also carefully orchestrated and state-sanctioned. In other words, propaganda for the masses - heck, often even _by_ the masses. As for those who claim to have revered Mao: in such closed societies, for those raised from birth in them, ignorance truly is bliss - indeed, _there is no opposition figure to venerate_. Therefore, by default (i.. in the absence of any true political opposition given legitimate voice by the state) people tend to fixate on the person in charge; in their shoes, you would too! It's an awful singularity, but perhaps it's not the wisest course of action to rush and call these notorious tyrants "gods."

Your argument that these tyrants of history were as gods conveniently ignores the state apparatus which constantly reinforced their totalitarian rule.... it's not even remotely similar to true freedom of religion.


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

martman said:


> Absolutly false. Scientology has nothing to do with Christianity or Judaism. Nothing, zero, zilch. I though you knew about Catholicism but it seems you do not if you believe this.


Martie it was a joke. Chill dude.

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

Sonal said:


> Beg to differ. I just came back from a month in China, and for the most part, Mao worship is pretty dead. Largely seems to be a matter of official policy and lip service--no one we talked to seem to care very much about Mao. Granted, this is anecdotal, but it's a personal experience anecdote.
> 
> There's a little Daoism practiced, a little Confucianism, a little Buddhism (except in Tibet, where there is a LOT of Buddhism), but very little Mao. You can find the little red books in junk shops if you hunt for it.
> 
> Though largely speaking, religion does not seem to be a particularly active part of the average Chinese person's life. Most people we talked to said that they had no religion, though my brother did meet one young Buddhist. Most temples are not actively used, other than by Chinese tourists--the Confucian temple I visited in Nanjing was by the the emptiest place I went to. (And there are no places in China that empty.)


Yes China has changed and so has Communism in China. How many regions did you go to? Did you visit the Muslim ones? I was surprised to find this kind of attitude (from my quote). Never the less its existence clearly indicates the former depth of the deification of the party leader. Again look at North Korea for a more modern example.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

Max said:


> Your argument that these tyrants of history were as gods conveniently ignores the state apparatus which constantly reinforced their totalitarian rule.... it's not even remotely similar to true freedom of religion.


Please explain what freedom of religion has to do with this argument.


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

MacGuiver said:


> Sure and Vancouver is farther from Ottawa than Regina but I wouldn't recommend you try walking from one to the other. You're perceived greater distance doesn't by default make Islam close to Christianity. They may share some old testament values and beliefs but thats it. Heck the scientologists could be closer to us than them but I'd hardly say we're cut from the same cloth.


Yes, but Islam claims you are cut from the same cloth.

You share many of the same stories, the same values, the same prophets, the same beliefs, the same monotheistic view, the same history, similar books and your beliefs evolved from the same place. You have far more in common than you do different. A better analogy would be that Islam, Judaism and Christianity are like Spanish, French and Italian--all evolving from the same linguistic root, but vastly different from, say, Japanese.

And Scientology is vastly different--Dianetics and the stories of L. Ron Hubbards share nothing in common with the Torah, Bible or Koran. The text is different, the history is different, the stories are different, the values are different, the beliefs are different, etc.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Martman: tomorrow. Gotta catch some winks first. Something tells me this thread won't run out of gas anytime soon anyway.

No one wins these things. I'm not even sure anyone walks away from them even remotely wiser.


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

martman said:


> Yes China has changed and so has Communism in China. How many regions did you go to? Did you visit the Muslim ones? I was surprised to find this kind of attitude (from my quote). Never the less its existence clearly indicates the former depth of the deification of the party leader. Again look at North Korea for a more modern example.


Several regions, though I didn't get into the south or into Mongolia. I didn't hit the Muslim regions either, though it would have been fascinating to do so. Spent more time in the east, the west and in Tibet.

I am not so surprised to see this kind of attitude... in a country of 1.3 billion, there are bound to be a few diehard nutcases.  But I have to think, that if Maoism had truly caught on as a belief system (as opposed to required lip service) would it not still exist in some for today? It is not that long after Mao's death, and yet, Mao worship has almost entirely disappeared.

I am reminded of charismatic cults.... few cults survive the death of their leader. (Most peter out entirely afterwards.) The same seems to be true of Maoism-as-religion.


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

Sonal said:


> And Scientology is vastly different--Dianetics and the stories of L. Ron Hubbards share nothing in common with the Torah, Bible or Koran. The text is different, the history is different, the stories are different, the values are different, the beliefs are different, etc.


Yeah I know the story of Scientology and you're absolutely correct. It was my vain attempt at injecting some levity into the discussion. 

I guess I can see how you see similarities, there are some common threads via the old testament. From my view however, I see huge gaps between us that far outweigh any similarities. There's even huge gaps between Judaism and Christianity as far as I'm concerned but Islam is that much farther from both traditions.

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

MacGuiver said:


> I guess I can see how you see similarities, they're are some common thread via the old testament. From a my view, I see huge gaps between us that far outweigh any similarities. They're is even huge gaps between Judaism and Christianity but Islam is that much farther from both traditions.


The thing is, I'm not the only person who sees similarities... scholars of comparative religions group Islam into the same family of religions as Christianity and Judaism for the reasons I listed above. Islam may be more different from Christianity than Judaism is, but overall, it's not that different. There is no Moses in Hinduism, no Noah in Buddhism and no Adam in Taoism.

On a personal note, it's always kind of astounded me how small the differences are between various sects of Christianity, and yet how much is made of these differences. It's the same kind of attitude I perceive behind promoting the tiny differences between Islam, Judaism and Christianity--it's almost like making war over petty details. (And in fact, in some cases it *is* making war over petty details.)

I find the whole attitude to what religion is and how it functions very different in Christianity, Judaism and Islam than in my family's religion, or many other Eastern religions. You all have very specific rules. We have guidelines. You have sins. We have karma. When I was much younger, I explained the fact that I was vegetarian as religious reasons.... I used to always get hit with a barrage of questions about what would happen to me if I ate meat, and what would I have to do, and is it a sin if my food touches meat, and can I eat caviar, etc. But these questions were confusing to answer, because that religion doesn't work that way. 

Again, I stand by it--more the same than different.


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

Sonal said:


> The thing is, I'm not the only person who sees similarities... scholars of comparative religions group Islam into the same family of religions as Christianity and Judaism for the reasons I listed above. Islam may be more different from Christianity than Judaism is, but overall, it's not that different. There is no Moses in Hinduism, no Noah in Buddhism and no Adam in Taoism.
> 
> On a personal note, it's always kind of astounded me how small the differences are between various sects of Christianity, and yet how much is made of these differences. It's the same kind of attitude I perceive behind promoting the tiny differences between Islam, Judaism and Christianity--it's almost like making war over petty details. (And in fact, in some cases it *is* making war over petty details.)
> 
> ...


I gotta hand it to you Sonal, you're making some good points. I'll change my simile to accommodate that. Tokyo is far from Ottawa compared to Regina...
Anyhow thanks for your input. I've enjoyed your posts. Have a great night.

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

MacGuiver said:


> I gotta hand it to you Sonal, you're making some good points. I'll change my simile to accommodate that. Tokyo is far from Ottawa compared to Regina...
> Anyhow thanks for your input. I've enjoyed your posts. Have a great night.


Anytime... I enjoy this kind of discussion. Christianity seems so odd to me--the more I learn about how it functions in people's lives, the more oddly fascinating I find it. And yet, here in the West, this is what religion means to people.

Have a great night, yourself.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Want to echo MacGuiver's comments and remark on how much enjoyment I just got from reading your calm, persuasive words this morning Sonal, as I sip from my java. With just a few comments, you've managed to elevate the tenor of this thread by quite a bit... thanks for that.

I am particularly struck by your observation that _"it's always kind of astounded me how small the differences are between various sects of Christianity, and yet how much is made of these differences. "_ I have often thought so myself. For the sake of appearances and the acquisition of power, those differences can be magnified, even to grotesque lengths. The same holds true on the level of perceived differences between Christianity, Judaism and Islam... and it's these realtively minor differences that are wielded as clubs to spur whole nations on into war.


----------



## MissGulch (Jul 20, 2005)

Sonal said:


> Christianity seems so odd to me--the more I learn about how it functions in people's lives, the more oddly fascinating I find it. And yet, here in the West, this is what religion means to people.


I grew up in the west, surrounded by the Judeo-Christian ethic, and religion of all types is odd to me. Probably because it's my nature to apply the rules of logic, and religion at the core is magic.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

MacGuiver said:


> ]
> 
> I don't see Islam rooted in Christianity. In fact the Koran goes out of its way to differentiate itself from Christianity expressly denying the validity and truthfulness of the New Testament. Its a real stretch to link the two.
> I don't know how Islam interprets the old testament though so I can't comment on how Islam relates to Judaism. I'll venture a guess that its not the same either. That said the Christian version of the old testament is the same as the Hebrew Bible.


FYI... and I am sure somebody has pointed this out... Christianity, Judaism and Islam all share the Old Testament.

Ahhhh as I read back into the thread I see it was Sonal... Damn those Jains for being so even keeled and level headed. I was looking for a fire and brimstone bloodbath.


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

MissGulch said:


> I grew up in the west, surrounded by the Judeo-Christian ethic, and religion of all types is odd to me. Probably because it's my nature to apply the rules of logic, and religion at the core is magic.


I grew up in the West and surrounded by the Judeo-Christian ethic as well. But my parents did not.

Generally, I would not disagree with you that religion is magic but I can think of 2, perhaps 3 (I'm not that familiar with Taoism) where belief in the supernatural is not necessarily _required_ to practice.... though most followers choose to believe in the supernatural. Then again, the ones I am thinking of are often considered more like philosophies rather religions.

On the other hand, the big question for me is to ask "What harm is there in magic?" or more accurately "Is there always harm in magic?" I can see harm if it imposed on someone else who does not subscribe to the same system of magic, I know historically that there have been (and still are) many cases where harm was caused in the name of some particular magic, but is there a way for magic and logic to peacefully co-exist?



da_jonesy said:


> Ahhhh as I read back into the thread I see it was Sonal... Damn those Jains for being so even keeled and level headed. I was looking for a fire and brimstone bloodbath.


But that would be himsa.


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

Max said:


> Want to echo MacGuiver's comments and remark on how much enjoyment I just got from reading your calm, persuasive words this morning Sonal, as I sip from my java. With just a few comments, you've managed to elevate the tenor of this thread by quite a bit... thanks for that.
> 
> I am particularly struck by your observation that _"it's always kind of astounded me how small the differences are between various sects of Christianity, and yet how much is made of these differences. "_ I have often thought so myself. For the sake of appearances and the acquisition of power, those differences can be magnified, even to grotesque lengths. The same holds true on the level of perceived differences between Christianity, Judaism and Islam... and it's these realtively minor differences that are wielded as clubs to spur whole nations on into war.


Actually while we're dishing out the pats on the back and high fives, Max you deserve one too. You always manage to keep a level head in a debate without resorting to personal attacks. Its refreshing here on ehmac.

That said, I still don't agree with the assessment of "relatively minor differences" between the three religions. We may share some moral ethics but theologies on the nature of God and the means by which one attains salvation are hardly minor differences. Heck many of the moral ethics we share are shared by non beleivers as well because simple logic would have you conclude that that a certain action is wrong. 
For a Christian, Jesus is the only path to salvation and the son of God. For Jews, Jesus was not the Messiah and they're still waiting. For the Moslem, the Christian Jesus was fabricated by the early church and he was simply another prophet. Hardly minor theological differences to overcome.
However within the Christian churches that can be true. The divisions can come to finite points in the interpretation of scripture. Especially in Protestantism with ten's of thousands of different denominations and new ones cropping up daily.

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Well, fair enough. I think we'll have to agree to disagree. For each point you make about crucial differences, I see magnification and a refusal to acknowledge the substructure of faith upon which all of these great religions rests. But no matter. This is the stuff over which wars are fought - and charities established. It will continue to be a divisive world and we as a species will continue to see differences rather than embrace our similarities. We are territorial and vain creatures, and not as wise as we like to think.

[By the way,* t*hanks, MacGuiver. But I think you give me too much credit! I lock horns with MacDoc all the time over matters pertaining to both style and substance. Sometimes I get caught up in my own petty concern for perceived differences.]


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

Max said:


> [By the way,* t*hanks, MacGuiver. But I think you give me too much credit! I lock horns with MacDoc all the time over matters pertaining to both style and substance. Sometimes I get caught up in my own petty concern for perceived differences.]


Actually we do see the three faiths come together from time to time on an issue. Thats a good thing and we could use more of it for peace sake. As for locking horns, we all do it. Guilty of it here too but its great when we can rise above that and debate these issues and disagree but still have a beer together after. Derogatory comments just widen the rifts. 

Have a great day Max.

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

martman said:


> Please explain what freedom of religion has to do with this argument.


Simple. In a nation where freedom of religion is banned - indeed, where religion itself is denounced - two things happen: religion is driven further underground but it is rarely extinguished altogether. Its most fervent believers hold the torch aloft and keep it lit, despite the worst punishments awaiting them should they be found out. 

Secondly, for those who are not as fervent, the state itself supplies the citizenry its own objects of veneration... gigantic statues and murals of the fearless father figure leader who leads the masses.... statues and murals which serves as shrines and reminders of their supremacy over the common rabble. It's a tactic which attempts to replace one kind of god for a hollow idol... it's idol worship.

I am all for freedom of religion. I believe that the state may denounce religion and spiritualism - indeed, even outlaw it - but it cannot kill it. I believe that the energy expended over containing the supposed "harmful" aspects of religion might perhaps be put to better use elsewhere - but what would be the fun in that? Great leaders need great, fearless measures. It makes for good drama, declaring god is dead. It's great optics. Those big statues and murals... well, they certainly can be persuasive, especially when they're ubiquitous and the people can't hide from them.

Totalitarian states, with their centrlalist, top-down decision making apparatus, cannot by definition last very long; in time they collapse under their own unwieldy weight. Pretending that 'the people' are freed of the shackles of religion is yet another manifestation of the delusion of absolute power. You can't stop people from believing in stuff you don't any more than I can reach inside of your mind and flick on or off a switch. And in this day and age we often want to forget that great inner faith has been the saving grace for many an individual caught up in hellish circumstances. We seem to want to declare that we've evolved past religion, but I see no evidence for this at all. We still argue our heads off at the slightest provocation over the slightest differences.

I fear the arrival of the day where some future leader declares that we have successfully eradicated that great scourge of humanity, religion. I fear what will come to replace it. False idols.

I despair over how much energy we commit to dividing the world between scientists and believers. What utter folly. It's a false duality, I think. But then again, we seem to like simple scenarios.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

Sonal said:


> But that would be himsa.


yeah, but c'mon, some of these guys are only one sensed beings 

Oooppss I just picked up some negative karma for that one.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

*genuine question about religion*

Since this thread has pretty much wandered completely off topic and turned into random philosophical discussions on the topic of comparative religion, I'm going to ask a completely genuine question. And I'll apologize in advance if some of you find this offensive, but from the point of view of a completely faithless atheist, strict objectivist/materialist and philosophically-inclined scientist, I'm quite amazed not only that so many people believe in the Abrahamic religions (Christianity, Islam and Judaism... and I agree with others who have posted here, that from an outside POV these faiths are essentially similar), but more interestingly to me is that so many people *want* these things to be true.

I can understand wanting the karma-based religions to be true (heck, I wish there were such a thing as karma... it would certainly make the world a better place... I just don't have any reason to believe in it), but wanting the sort of character(s) described as gods in the major Abrahamic religions to exist completely escapes me. The sort of petty, judgmental, sexually deviant, sado-masochistic and generally misanthropic character that my reading of the bible suggests this god character is supposed to be is not exactly the kind of dude I'd want to spend eternity sucking up to. Why is it that people not only believe in the existence of this character, but so many seem to fervently *need* this to be true.

Cheers


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

bryanc said:


> I can understand wanting the karma-based religions to be true (heck, I wish there were such a thing as karma... it would certainly make the world a better place... I just don't have any reason to believe in it), but wanting the sort of character(s) described as gods in the major Abrahamic religions to exist completely escapes me. The sort of petty, judgmental, sexually deviant, sado-masochistic and generally misanthropic character that my reading of the bible suggests this god character is supposed to be is not exactly the kind of dude I'd want to spend eternity sucking up to. Why is it that people not only believe in the existence of this character, but so many seem to fervently *need* this to be true.
> 
> Cheers


I think it is a hold over from our tribal roots. It is the need to have some sort of narrative to describe what can not be described.

There is a huge difference between a religion based on a narrative story such as Abrahamic, Classical and Vedic traditions than on religions which are more philosophies such as Daoism, Buddhidm and Jainism. 

The biggest difference is the emphasis on violent struggle in narrative religions as opposed to the emphasis on inflection on more philosophical religions.


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

I blame chickens. The feathery types.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

guytoronto said:


> I blame chickens. The feathery types.


yes, the ones without feathers... in orange sauce... they are tasty.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

guytoronto said:


> I blame chickens. The feathery types.


Are you making a very sly reference to the paper published in Nature a few years ago demonstrating superstitious behavior in chickens, and the inference that superstitious beliefs have been part of our neurophsiology since long before humans evolved? 

Or are you just trying to add a little surrealism to the discussion?

Cheers


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

bryanc said:


> Are you making a very sly reference to the paper published in Nature a few years ago demonstrating superstitious behavior in chickens, and the inference that superstitious beliefs have been part of our neurophsiology since long before humans evolved?
> 
> Or are you just trying to add a little surrealism to the discussion?
> 
> Cheers


Ummm....both?


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

Abramahic religions.... THAT'S the term I couldn't remember last night. Thanks bryanc.



MacGuiver said:


> For a Christian, Jesus is the only path to salvation and the son of God. For Jews, Jesus was not the Messiah and they're still waiting. For the Moslem, the Christian Jesus was fabricated by the early church and he was simply another prophet. Hardly minor theological differences to overcome.


See, I still think it's relatively minor when contrasted with non-Abrahamic religions.

In all three cases, the path to salvation is through the Messiah. There's a bit of a disagreement as to who this Messiah is, and whether or not he's been here already, but essentially, you all agree on the same concept, you just disagree on the implementation.

Contrast that to, say Hinduism, where the path to salvation is primarily through execution of dharma (e.g., your duty in life), or Buddhism where the path to salvation is through non-attachment and does not require any influence of the supernatural, or Scientology where the path to salvation is through alien life forms.  No Messiahs here. The concepts are entirely different.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Sonal said:


> Contrast that to, say Hinduism, where the path to salvation is primarily through execution of dharma (e.g., your duty in life), or Buddhism where the path to salvation is through non-attachment and does not require any influence of the supernatural, or Scientology where the path to salvation is through alien life forms.  No Messiahs here. The concepts are entirely different.


Or contrast it to deism or atheism, where the whole concept of salvation becomes absurd.

As much as the adherents like to make a big fuss (and often kill each other) over the various details of their particular version of the mythology, I just can't see anything to get excited over. This was nicely lampooned in Monty Python's "Life of Brian" with the fighting between the Gourd and Sandal factions.

But none of this addresses my question of why anyone would want to believe that an entity like Yaweh or Allah or whatever-you-want-to-call-the-magical-sky-daddy exists in the first place?

Cheers


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

I honestly don't think your question will ever be answered to your satisfaction. I expect that you will be scratching your head to your grave.


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

bryanc said:


> Or contrast it to deism or atheism, where the whole concept of salvation becomes absurd.


True. My point, however, was about theological differences, and so I chose to make it through comparisons to other theologies. And as you can guess, I find all kinds of beliefs interesting.



bryanc said:


> But none of this addresses my question of why anyone would want to believe that an entity like Yaweh or Allah or whatever-you-want-to-call-the-magical-sky-daddy exists in the first place?


Well I have to admit, I have a hard time seeing the appeal of Abrahamic traditions, unless you have been born and raised in them and are attached to those particular concepts--I have some friends who describe themselves as "recovering Catholics" and many of the things they believed in childhood still affect them emotionally, even if they do not believe them anymore.

I'm not quite sure how to express this accurately, since the words belief/believe are generally taken as more concrete than I usually intend them, but I'll do my best.

For myself, my own particular beliefs are not unchanging, are often made up by me, and in a lot of things, I choose to simultaneously accept multiple interpretations--some logical, some not--that fit the particular facts of the situation, without necessarily delving too deeply into the whys and wherefores. E.g., a lucky coincidence is both "a coincidence" and "the Universe is being good to me" and "I must have done something good to benefit from this karma" and "Hail the Flying Spaghetti Monster who bestows his noodly bounty upon me" and I choose the terms in which I want to frame the event based on whatever happens to appeal to me at the moment. 

Incidentally, this whole simultaneous approach is rooted in my parent's religion, which is Jainism. (da_jonesy's wife is also Jain.) Do I consider myself a Jain? I don't know, depends on my mood when you ask me. 

As to why I might choose to frame things in a religious or spiritual context, well, sometimes it's just fun.  (That might be a bit of Tao in me.)

I've also spent about 2/3rds of my life coping with major depression and have frequently felt suicidal. (I'm much better now.) For me, it's helpful to choose to believe that there is an external being of some kind that cares for me and wants me to be alive. (Is belief in the supernatural necessary in the treatment or prevention of depression? No. But if it works for you, it works for you.) I also find this a convenient way to express gratitude for the good things in my life--psychologists studying happiness have found that gratitude is something that helps us attain sustainable joy. Is a belief in the supernatural necessary for this? Again no, but I find it convenient.

Development of my own sense of spirituality occurred while in the midst of my own (entirely secular) treatment for depression. My smorgasbord system might seem odd, but dogma had never been appealing to me, and this seems to suit my personality better.

If I had to pick, though, I'd call myself a deist, but I play in other sandboxes, including athiest and theist ones. 

Confused yet? beejacon


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Max said:


> I honestly don't think your question will ever be answered to your satisfaction. I expect that you will be scratching your head to your grave.


You may be right, but upon re-reading my posts I'm thinking that I wasn't sufficiently clear about the question. While I think the question of why people believe in supernatural entities is a good one, and one regarding which we are finally starting to make some scientific progress, the question I'm asking my fellow denizens of ehMac is why people *want* to believe in these sorts of things.

I think understanding the latter will help understanding the former.

Cheers


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Nice post, Sonal. Thanks.



Sonal said:


> psychologists studying happiness have found that gratitude is something that helps us attain sustainable joy. Is a belief in the supernatural necessary for this? Again no, but I find it convenient.


This bit, in particular, may relate to my question du jour. It certainly fits in with my evolving model that our ancestors succeeded partially due to their development of the ability to predict the actions of other agents. Thus our propensity to anthropomorphize. When there is a conscious agent behind some important action in your life, being able to 'put yourself in their head' is an extremely valuable trait. When no conscious agent is responsible, imagining there is one isn't likely to do any harm, so our propensity to attribute intention to anything we don't understand is not surprising. Attributing consciousness and intention to the entire universe is just a logical extension of this selectively advantageous trait.

Cheers


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

To me the answer is self-evident. People will naturally seek to believe whatever grants them a measure of comfort, security, stability, and order. You as a scientist ought to be able to grasp that quite readily. Not everyone works along the same lines or requires the same type of information upon which to base their judgments and philosophies - and I'm quite grateful this is so. We are an individualist species, not hive mind creatures. It's part of our damnable charm. We can act collectively but we also like autonomy of purpose and spirit.

To be human is to embody some rather curious dualities. I'm afraid that my response is neither specific nor scientific... apologies for that.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Max said:


> To me the answer is self-evident. People will naturally seek to believe whatever grants them a measure of comfort, security, stability, and order.


But, if you're going to make up imaginary friends to make you feel more secure, couldn't you do better than the judeo-christian god? If I were lacking imagination and therefore stuck with gods that others have envisioned, Loki strikes me as more fun 

Cheers


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

But if you're going to take shots at people who are not scientists and don't subscribe to the same view of existence as you do, couldn't you do better than to pull the same old tired tirade about sky daddies and patent irrationality? Trying to honestly collaborate on a good discussion strikes me as more useful.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Max said:


> But if you're going to take shots at people who are not scientists and don't subscribe to the same view of existence as you do, couldn't you do better than to pull the same old tired tirade about sky daddies and patent irrationality?


This has nothing to do with science. I'm genuinely curious about why so many people seem to like the idea of sky-daddies. And if "our father who ar't in heaven" isn't a sky-daddy, how else would you characterize the judeo-christian god (or Zeus or various other thunder-gods that came before him)? 

I have plenty of trouble understanding how people can accept claims of the supernatural without compelling evidence, but I'm willing to accept that not everyone is rational and that you're probably right about them wanting to believe in things that make them feel special and/or secure. But the personalities of the various gods humanity has concocted over the millennia strikes me as indicative of some deep-rooted psychological problems, and I can't begin to imagine what would make someone *like* the idea of these guys existing, much less actually believe it's true.

Cheers


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Perhaps your own continued inability to successfully puzzle these mysteries out is compelling evidence of your own deep-rooted psychological problems... have you considered that hypothesis?

Just joking of course... however, much as you are puzzled by people's attatchment to sky daddies, I am amused by the brittle notion that science must triumph over spirituality... either/or and no middle ground possible, it would seem.

Cheers


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

bryanc said:


> But, if you're going to make up imaginary friends to make you feel more secure, couldn't you do better than the judeo-christian god? If I were lacking imagination and therefore stuck with gods that others have envisioned, Loki strikes me as more fun


Funny you mention Loki, since my formerly staunch atheist ex-husband converted to Asatru--the religion of Norse gods. Though he prefers Tyr to Loki.

For some, the Judeo-Christian god isn't truly a choice--it's a selection made for them by their parents and then gets locked in emotionally. I do know people who, regardless of what they may believe now, have emotionally vivid memories of feeling the presence of god, etc. Whether that is pure imagination or not is not necessarily relevant--it was perceived as real at the time, and the memory of it is the memory of a real event. No choice made intellectually later in life would stand up to the emotional power of such memories.

For myself, there was one time when (as I choose to interpret it) I felt like God (name used solely a convenient term) was talking to me. It was a very emotional moment, and thinking about it still affects me emotionally today. (Note that I can also interpret the same event as me coming to a powerful psychological realization all on my own, but today I choose not to.)

The other thing is that there is something nice about a personal god. Prayer in many Eastern religions is not like prayer in Christianity (particularly Protestantism?)--it's not a personal message to god. In times of trouble, most people like to have someone they can talk to who will empathize with them. If you believe in a personal god, you have a listening ear available to you at all times. Loki, as fun as he is, isn't really much of a sympathetic listener. This is something I find unique to the Judeo-Christian god.... you are expected to talk over your troubles with him (or, for Catholics, through an intermediary.)

Again, is it necessary to have an imaginary friend to talk to? No. But if you have it and it works for you, it works for you.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

Sonal said:


> Again, is it necessary to have an imaginary friend to talk to? No. But if you have it and it works for you, it works for you.


Harvey and Jimmy Stewart thank you


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Max said:


> Perhaps your own continued inability to successfully puzzle these mysteries out is compelling evidence of your own deep-rooted psychological problems... have you considered that hypothesis?
> 
> Just joking of course...


No need to be apologetic. It's a criticism I hear often. It doesn't bother me, and yes, I have considered that this may be some psychological fault of my own. By definition, I'm abnormal in this regard, but that doesn't mean I'm wrong. I do think this [inaccurate] impression of my position is largely due to my sacrifice of subtlety in my effort to communicate clearly. Text isn't an optimal communication channel.



> I am amused by the brittle notion that science must triumph over spirituality... either/or and no middle ground possible, it would seem.


Depending on what you mean by 'spirituality' I don't think I subscribe to this notion. Science is simply a method of falsifying hypotheses. It's a process, not a belief system. So I don't see how it can be compared to spirituality, let alone triumph over it.

That being said, I hear a lot of people promoting a lot if irrational hog-wash and calling it spirituality, so I'm not inclined to be very sympathetic to the notion that we need to give special dispensation to religious or other spiritual claims.

Cheers


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Sonal said:


> Funny you mention Loki, since my formerly staunch atheist ex-husband converted to Asatru--the religion of Norse gods.


Now _that's_ something you don't hear about every day!



> For some, the Judeo-Christian god isn't truly a choice--it's a selection made for them by their parents and then gets locked in emotionally.


You know, I think this is the single biggest factor at play here. It's what I'd call "historical constraint". People believe this stuff because they're indoctrinated before they have developed any rational critical thinking capability of their own (and at a developmental stage where we are evolutionarily programmed to accept anything our parents/elders tell us without question). Those few of use who are both sufficiently philosophically inclined and intellectually capable of critically analyzing these beliefs often manage to shake them off at a conscious/rational level as adults, but the childhood programming will be with us for life at an emotional level. Furthermore, once programmed, the mind will be predisposed to interpret any of the common hallucinatory or temporal-lobe synchronization events experienced as evidence for the beliefs. So it forms a feed-back loop. It's a very neat trick from a marketing standpoint.



> most people like to have someone they can talk to who will empathize with them. If you believe in a personal god, you have a listening ear available to you at all times.


That's why I have a dog. Maybe I'm just dyslexic.

Cheers


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

bryanc said:


> Furthermore, once programmed, the mind will be predisposed to interpret any of the common hallucinatory or temporal-lobe synchronization events experienced as evidence for the beliefs. So it forms a feed-back loop. It's a very neat trick from a marketing standpoint.Cheers


Its neat when the hallucination or temporal-lobe synchronization results in someone having their blind defective eyes spontaneously repaired to perfect vision.

Blind man now sees 20-20---is it a miracle?
Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

bryanc said:


> No need to be apologetic. It's a criticism I hear often. It doesn't bother me, and yes, I have considered that this may be some psychological fault of my own. By definition, I'm abnormal in this regard, but that doesn't mean I'm wrong. I do think this [inaccurate] impression of my position is largely due to my sacrifice of subtlety in my effort to communicate clearly. Text isn't an optimal communication channel.


Ain't that the truth. However, it's usually all we have. But I like your statement that "science is simply a method of falsifying hypotheses." That's as good a definition as any I've seen. But as for your contention that science is a process rather than a belief system, again we have the stickiness of words and their flexibility. I don't think the spiritual lives of humans are static entities. They too are processes.



bryanc said:


> I hear a lot of people promoting a lot if irrational hog-wash and calling it spirituality, so I'm not inclined to be very sympathetic to the notion that we need to give special dispensation to religious or other spiritual claims.


Of course. In a similar fashion, nor am I much inclined to give a pass to those scientists (and the defenders of science) who are forever asking why people believe in allegedly irrational things. It suggests to me a deficiency in their mental constructs - an utter void where there should be an understanding. But as it is science's job to ask questions and disprove falsities, I am content to await irrevocable proof that religionists are themselves mentally deficient. But I suspect I may be in for a rather lengthy wait.

Finally, you may be right that it's absurd to compare science to spIrituality. A bit of an apples to dumptrucks comparison. Nonetheless, judging by the length of this one thread alone there's much to discuss about how the two relate - or don't relate, as the case may be.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

MacGuiver said:


> Its neat when the hallucination or temporal-lobe synchronization results in someone having their blind defective eyes spontaneously repaired to perfect vision.


Wow. With proof like that, who needs faith?


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Max said:


> But as it is science's job to ask questions and disprove falsities, I am content to await irrevocable proof that religionists are themselves mentally deficient. But I suspect I may be in for a rather lengthy wait.


Indeed you will be, because you've fallen for one of the common misconceptions about what science does. Science doesn't prove things... it only *disproves*.  

But if you're interested in this topic, you may want explore the developments in the research of neruotheology. It seems that we are making a lot of progress in understanding the neurophsyology underlying religious experience. And, sadly for many adherents, there does not appear to be any magic involved.

Cheers


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

LOL

I don't think you are very sad at all, actually. A bit condescending, albeit in a gentle, grand manner. But sad? Ixnay on the adsay.

Point to you for correcting me on my idea that science proves things. In a similar vein I hope to help clear up some of your tragic misconceptions about religious belief. I know, I know - that will require enormous patience on my part.


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

bryanc said:


> Wow. With proof like that, who needs faith?


You brushed that aside so casually with no alternative explanation. 
I guess you're faith that God doesn't exist is stronger than any scientific explanation you could offer? I'd expect an atheistic scientist to give at least some half-baked explanation to this miraculous event? 

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

MacGuiver said:


> You brushed that aside so casually with no alternative explanation.
> I guess you're faith that God doesn't exist is stronger than any scientific explanation you could offer? I'd expect an atheistic scientist to give at least some half-baked explanation to this miraculous event?


See, I prefer to leave these things as a question mark. Not every unknown has to be made known immediately.

Was it God? Sure, maybe, I don't know, the 4 minutes of airtime on CNN hardly gives you enough to determine that.

Was it a biological process? Sure, maybe, I don't know the 4 minutes of airtime on CNN hardly gives you enough to determine that.

What's the rush to explain the currently inexplicable? What's the rush to pull out an example and actively say "See, I TOLD YA god exists" or "See, I TOLD YA god doesn't exist" instead of just stopping and saying "Hey cool, dude got his sight back, his life is a better place, I'm happy for him, good news stories are good things."


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Thanks again, Sonal, for bringing your perspective to this.

I pretty much stopped listening when the MD called himself a scientist.  

Lots of stuff happens for which there will never be a scientific explanation, not because it was a 'miracle' but because the context in which the events happened precluded collection of the data necessary to understand the phenomena. That in no way supports the idea that these phenomena are some how inexplicable.

But I like your focus on the pragmatic bottom line... the guy can see and that's great... the world is a better place. Beyond that, the evidence that religion had something to do with this is no better than the evidence that his choice of toothpaste had something to do with it.

And, MacGuiver, I have no more faith that your god doesn't exist than I do that Zeus, Culthulu or Tinkerbell don't exist. You can't have faith in the non-existence of something. How hard is that to understand?

Cheers


----------



## MacBookPro (Jun 22, 2006)

*Barna Group poll says majority of Americans accept Bible stories as truth*

Welcome to The Barna Group!

Read this!

Some very enlightening stats, many of which scare the heck out of me.

The accepted attitude that "religious explanations must not be questioned" must die. The "New Atheist" must fight the good fight and help people realize that it is OK to diss religious nonsense and fairytale beliefs.


----------



## MissGulch (Jul 20, 2005)

MacGuiver said:


> You brushed that aside so casually with no alternative explanation.
> I guess you're faith that God doesn't exist is stronger than any scientific explanation you could offer? I'd expect an atheistic scientist to give at least some half-baked explanation to this miraculous event?
> 
> Cheers
> MacGuiver


May I ask a personal question of you, MacGuiver? Are you reborn Christian? I noticed that the reborn possess uncommon zeal.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

MacBookPro said:


> Some very enlightening stats, many of which scare the heck out of me.


I'm in complete agreement, but there are a few important caveats to consider WRT that link.

First


> This report is based upon a nationwide telephone survey conducted by The Barna Group in August 2007 among a random sample of 1000 adults


So it's a pretty small sample from which to infer generalities about millions of people.

And second


> The Barna Group, Ltd. conducts primary research, produces media resources pertaining to spiritual development, and facilitates the healthy spiritual growth of leaders, children, families and Christian ministries.


so they're not exactly unbiased researchers.

Still I suspect their numbers are not wildly inaccurate. But I look at them in a different way...



> The Bible opens with the description of God creating the universe in six days. That report is accepted as literally true by 60% of the adult population.


While this is pretty depressing from the POV of a science educator, if you consider the fact that a century ago this number would likely have been nearly 100%, at least we've made some progress. And, to bolster this...



> ...while 73% of the adults who did not attend college believe this account to be literal, just half as many college graduates (38%) hold that view.


So the widely held (on both sides) belief that education is deleterious to faith is supported by this. Logically more education will help.

This is certainly consistent with my experience. Many of my friends are from religious families (I played trumpet with the Catholic School's All-City Band throughout high school and during my first few years of university, and I made friends with a lot of Catholics as a result), and those of them who pursued advanced education in the sciences almost invariably suffered/enjoyed a 'crisis of faith' at some point during their education. I had the pleasure of being the 'anti-spiritual' guide for several of my friends as they grappled with the cognitive dissonance arising from the magical thinking they'd been raised with and their developing materialist/rationalist conceptual framework. It was very gratifying to see the blinds come off and the albatross of irrationality removed from their necks.

Cheers


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

bryanc said:


> Lots of stuff happens for which there will never be a scientific explanation, not because it was a 'miracle' but because the context in which the events happened precluded collection of the data necessary to understand the phenomena. That in no way supports the idea that these phenomena are some how inexplicable.


I think it's the height of hubris to assume that we can explain everything... whether it's by stepping back and saying "God did it" or by saying "science is now at a point where it can explain EVERYTHING." (Because I've met some pseudo-scientists who seem to think that.... emphasis on the 'pseudo' because I also know real scientists, who don't think that way.) 

Besides, gaps in our understanding give us a place to learn, grow, improve our lives, etc. Further research into how this man came to be able to see could help us improving other people's vision in the future--if for no other reason than we at least know now that is possible for this type of eye problem to correct itself spontaneously. 

If anything, I'd call the inexplicable a god-given opportunity to learn something. 

(See, I just combined religion and science, and no one got hurt.  )

In my own whacko system of beliefs, I don't really worry about miracles. There are miracles everywhere. Happiness was a miracle for me, and I created it myself. Watching the ocean crash down endlessly on the beach is a miracle to me, and it doesn't matter who or what made it so. Miracles prove nothing to me... people can fuss and fight endlessly over this idea of a what is and isn't a miracle, and in the end, who cares? Good stuff happened, let it be.

I don't think God/the Universe/Flying Spaghetti Monster/whatever gives us miracles. I do think we are given opportunities to learn, to be our authentic selves, to grow, to be strong, to love fearlessly, to do the right thing, to give, etc., and if we take those opportunities, we are the better for it--that's our reward. So I take a moment to thank the Universe for the opportunity and get on with the business of doing what I need to do.


----------



## MissGulch (Jul 20, 2005)

Sonal said:


> I think it's the height of hubris to assume that we can explain everything... whether it's by stepping back and saying "God did it" or by saying "science is now at a point where it can explain EVERYTHING."


This is exactly what I think, in a nutshell, and I also get highly irritated when people proclaim knowledge of what god wants for us, or thinks of us, or wants us to do. I think god, if there is one, is beyond the comprehension of our little chimp brains.  

OTOH, science hasn't explained some phenomena to my satisfaction. I suppose this makes me a true Agnostic.


----------



## MacBookPro (Jun 22, 2006)

I am curious as to what phenomena you refer to MIss Gulch! Care to expound?



MissGulch said:


> OTOH, science hasn't explained some phenomena to my satisfaction. I suppose this makes me a true Agnostic.


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

MissGulch said:


> This is exactly what I think, in a nutshell, and I also get highly irritated when people proclaim knowledge of what god wants for us, or thinks of us, or wants us to do. I think god, if there is one, is beyond the comprehension of our little chimp brains.


Here's my take on what skypappy/Yaweh/Gaia/whomever wants for us: to be happy.

I could be entirely wrong, but I'm okay with that. But I tried misery, and it sucks donkey dung, so I think I'll stick with happy for now.


----------



## MissGulch (Jul 20, 2005)

MacBookPro said:


> I am curious as to what phenomena you refer to MIss Gulch! Care to expound?


After-death experiences that so many people have, including a person who is known to me personally, and not prone to sentimentality or religiosity. The fact that my father once saw a ghost, the fact that I have had some odd psychic experiences myself that I can't explain. 

The fact that the earth has so many living and non-living parts that compliment each other so perfectly. A virus such as HIV will mutate in response to changes in medicine, ensuring its survival. Nature is so well designed I could almost endorse the intelligent design theory, but again, I don't know. It's all just a nice piece of work. :clap:


----------



## MacBookPro (Jun 22, 2006)

bryanc said:


> I'm in complete agreement, but there are a few important caveats to consider WRT that link.
> 
> First
> 
> ...


Agreed, plus we don't know the geographic range either. One would expect a different set of answers from wealthy suburbs of Los Angeles than from rural Kentucky.



> so they're not exactly unbiased researchers.
> 
> Still I suspect their numbers are not wildly inaccurate. But I look at them in a different way...


The numbers are fairly consistent with other, less biased surveys of the same ilk



> While this is pretty depressing from the POV of a science educator, if you consider the fact that a century ago this number would likely have been nearly 100%, at least we've made some progress. And, to bolster this...
> 
> So the widely held (on both sides) belief that education is deleterious to faith is supported by this. Logically more education will help.


Education is key to awareness. No question.



> This is certainly consistent with my experience. Many of my friends are from religious families (I played trumpet with the Catholic School's All-City Band throughout high school and during my first few years of university, and I made friends with a lot of Catholics as a result), and those of them who pursued advanced education in the sciences almost invariably suffered/enjoyed a 'crisis of faith' at some point during their education. I had the pleasure of being the 'anti-spiritual' guide for several of my friends as they grappled with the cognitive dissonance arising from the magical thinking they'd been raised with and their developing materialist/rationalist conceptual framework. It was very gratifying to see the blinds come off and the albatross of irrationality removed from their necks.


The seeds were planted in these friends from birth and there will always be remnant engrams in their brain cells. Organized religion thrives because of the cradle-to-grave reinforcement of its "truths". But I truly respect those who have successfully broken the back of their churchs' forced indoctrinations.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Sonal said:


> I think it's the height of hubris to assume that we can explain everything... whether it's by stepping back and saying "God did it"


"God did it" explains _nothing_, even if you believe in god.


> or by saying "science is now at a point where it can explain EVERYTHING." (Because I've met some pseudo-scientists who seem to think that.... emphasis on the 'pseudo' because I also know real scientists, who don't think that way.)


As a 'real' scientist I'll back you up on this 100%. Philosophically, I'm inclined to think that all things are explainable, and as a scientist, I'm working towards providing explanations for things, but there are many and obvious examples of things for which explanations will never be found because data was-not/cannot-be collected. Then there is the obvious point that the human intellect is limited, and therefore there will be things we simply cannot understand, regardless of the availability of whatever data might support the correct hypotheses. Finally, if the physicists are correct, there are simply aspects of our universe that preclude knowledge (e.g. Hisenberg's Uncertainty Principle).



> Besides, gaps in our understanding give us a place to learn, grow, improve our lives, etc.


And a good thing too. Because the more we learn, the more we discover we don't know.



> So I take a moment to thank the Universe for the opportunity and get on with the business of doing what I need to do.


Fundamentally, our only difference is that you seem to be attributing 'agency' to the universe (how else can you 'thank' it), where I would not. But I don't see that as a big deal. You're obviously in good company (Einstein was a deist too).

Cheers


----------



## MacBookPro (Jun 22, 2006)

MissGulch said:


> After-death experiences that so many people have, including a person who is known to me personally, and not prone to sentimentality or religiosity. The fact that my father once saw a ghost, the fact that I have had some odd psychic experiences myself that I can't explain.
> 
> The fact that the earth has so many living and non-living parts that compliment each other so perfectly. A virus such as HIV will mutate in response to changes in medicine, ensuring its survival. Nature is so well designed I could almost endorse the intelligent design theory, but again, I don't know. It's all just a nice piece of work. :clap:


But all organisms are inherently flawed in some way - and this is why all organisms are constantly, always evolving. No exceptions to this rule. 

I remember someone saying that if god was so great, why did he give man such a crappy support system (our spinal column).

I think we have all had some sort of experience that we cannot explain. The work of Persinger has always fascinated me. He can produce a religious experience in anyone who has had some religious exposure in their lives just by altering magnetic fields - and our known universe is full of electromagnetic energy. Just because "science" has not got the tools at the moment to give all the answers does not mean that we must then bow to religious belief. A certain religion once demanded that the sun revolved around the earth, even after scientific method came up with the truth.


----------



## MissGulch (Jul 20, 2005)

MacBookPro said:


> But all organisms are inherently flawed in some way - and this is why all organisms are constantly, always evolving. No exceptions to this rule.
> 
> I remember someone saying that if god was so great, why did he give man such a crappy support system (our spinal column).`


Why are we evolving? Who or what is experimenting with us to get the recipe correct? The knees suffer from a flimsy design also.


> I think we have all had some sort of experience that we cannot explain. The work of Persinger has always fascinated me. He can produce a religious experience in anyone who has had some religious exposure in their lives just by altering magnetic fields - and our known universe is full of electromagnetic energy. Just because "science" has not got the tools at the moment to give all the answers does not mean that we must then bow to religious belief. A certain religion once demanded that the sun revolved around the earth, even after scientific method came up with the truth.


I don't know. I'm not arrogant enough to proclaim that it's god. Or science. Maybe god created science for us to figure her out.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

MissGulch said:


> The fact that the earth has so many living and non-living parts that compliment each other so perfectly. A virus such as HIV will mutate in response to changes in medicine, ensuring its survival. Nature is so well designed I could almost endorse the intelligent design theory, but again, I don't know. It's all just a nice piece of work. :clap:


Indeed it is a nice piece of work, and, without a good understanding of evolutionary theory, biological systems give a very strong impression of design. You certainly can't be faulted for considering design as an option. Indeed, until the emergence of Darwinian theory, and the molecular biological revolution that revealed much of how evolution works, natural scientists were completely at a loss to provide an explanation for the incredibly implausible and patently optimal adaptations that living systems exhibit so manifestly. However, with this understanding of the underlying mechanisms of evolution, we find that, while the adaptations are no less marvelous, no supernatural designer is necessary to produce them. And furthermore, we find in evolutionary theory explanations for many aspects of life that design cannot explain (including many examples of 'bad design'). Because evolution is a random, but contingent process, all accessible design-space will be explored, and local optima populated. But because it is an unconscious process with no fore-thought or direction, local optima that lead to evolutionary cul-de-sacs are not avoided, and the Earth's history is consequently littered with extinctions.

If you're genuinely curious about this, I can recommend some good introductory textbooks in evolutionary biology.

Cheers


----------



## MacBookPro (Jun 22, 2006)

MissGulch said:


> Why are we evolving? Who or what is experimenting with us to get the recipe correct? The knees suffer from a flimsy design also.


There is no "correct recipe". Everything alive is evolving simply because in a dynamic environment, change begats change (to employ a biblical word!).

Change (evolving) does not guarantee continued existence either.


----------



## MissGulch (Jul 20, 2005)

MacBookPro said:


> There is no "correct recipe". Everything alive is evolving simply because in a dynamic environment, change begats change (to employ a biblical word!).
> 
> Change (evolving) does not guarantee continued existence either.


I agree that change is dynamic in response to environment, but who or what put the system in place? Maybe we're just blobs of protoplasm on somebody's progress chart, cogs in the wheel.

If evolution is so dynamic, we should evolve to not be so fat. The program needs to be rewritten to account for Tim Horton's.


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

bryanc said:


> "God did it" explains _nothing_, even if you believe in god.


That really depends on what you consider a satisfying explanation. For you, a explanation has to be logically sound and scientifically accurate. 

For example, sometimes people, even when faced with a perfectly logical explanation, still look for something emotionally satisfying--e.g., the railing against the world about why a loved one had to die.... a logical explanation doesn't really satisfy. Maybe that's a temporary phase, but sometimes, the emotionally satisfying explanation becomes a lifelong belief. 

Does "God did it" explain anything logically? No, but not everyone uses logic as their basis for judging the acceptability of an explanation.  For some people, however, "God did it" explains it enough for them... they're satisfied with the answer and feel no further need to question it.

You can shake your head sadly at humanity now. 



bryanc said:


> Fundamentally, our only difference is that you seem to be attributing 'agency' to the universe (how else can you 'thank' it), where I would not. But I don't see that as a big deal. You're obviously in good company (Einstein was a deist too).


Pretty much. 

I acknowledge that agency-attribution for me is a choice I make because I prefer it for various reasons, and I also acknowledge that it's not the only possible explanation. I don't require my own view to be true for it to work for me, nor do I require anyone else to share it.

But I agree, the difference isn't really a big deal.


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

MissGulch said:


> May I ask a personal question of you, MacGuiver? Are you reborn Christian? I noticed that the reborn possess uncommon zeal.


Hey MissGulch

I was baptized, so yes I'm born again. I think you're referring to the evangelical protestant definition of born again though and I wouldn't fit that. That said, my belief in the miraculous isn't "uncommon zeal" for a Christian, I don't think one could sincerely be one without it. However my willingness to discuss or defend my faith is uncommon.

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------

