# Is The Bible's Story of Jesus True After All?



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

"A Canadian filmmaker claims he has found limestone receptacles that in all likelihood contained the remains of Jesus, his mother, Mary, his wife, Mary Magdalene, and -- most shockingly -- their son, Judah.

The cave was easily dated at about 2,000 years old, a time during the First Century when bodies were wrapped in shrouds and allowed to decompose for a year. The families would then return to re-inter the remaining bones in one of these ossuaries. The custom stopped abruptly when the Romans destroyed the city of Jerusalem around AD 70."



http://www.canada.com/edmontonjournal/news/story.html?id=d67d8bd0-016e-4a72-9f5d-18d34ad870bc&k=6559


----------



## imactheknife (Aug 7, 2003)

I am always torn between creation and evolution....I don't know what to believe anymore....this adds some interesting stuff to the fire....


----------



## darkscot (Nov 13, 2003)

for a less-local story:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6397373.stm

If true I hope it smashes Christendom


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

imactheknife said:


> I am always torn between creation and evolution....I don't know what to believe anymore....this adds some interesting stuff to the fire....


are you saying that this new info. increases your internal debate between creation and evolution?

it's pretty much fact that Jesus, the man, did exist 
he did preach a philosophy of peaceful co-existence

as for miracles and rising from the dead, i don't believe it is as important as the message Jesus was trying to spread
there has been speculation that Jesus was influenced by eastern religion, especially Buddhism

non violence and civil disobedience would be a much better way of life as opposed to the gun culture we currently live in


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

darkscot said:


> for a less-local story:
> 
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6397373.stm
> 
> If true I hope it smashes Christendom





> Local residents said they were pleased with the attention the tomb has drawn.
> 
> "It will mean our house prices will go up because Christians will want to live here," one woman said.


love thy neighbour...


----------



## Pelao (Oct 2, 2003)

I am not sure why any of this would have any significant bearing on Christianity. He died, and therefore the body was buried somewhere. The only question is over the Ascension, and to what degree it was physical and / or spiritual. 

Whether or not Jesus had a son has no bearing on Christian faith. 

It's interesting archaeology, and debate will simply be fuelled by headline research rather than any in-depth study.


----------



## darkscot (Nov 13, 2003)

You think thousands of years of lies has no bearing on Christian faith? Omission of facts. Changing of facts.


----------



## iMatt (Dec 3, 2004)

Maybe I'm missing something, but how would this discovery, if it proves to be Jesus and his extended family, do anything but undermine the biblical account? Doesn't the bible say he left no earthly remains and no progeny? 

If true, this discovery would seem to contradict the bible on both counts, and perhaps undermine the claim for divinity. (But since that's already purely an article of faith anyway, there's probably no earthly evidence that could sway believers.)


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

coming from the ukrainian catholic faith, i grew up with priests being married and with families
the Vatican has tried via various sneaky methods to stop this long held tradition of married priests
married priests would have helped at least some of of the children from being abused
allowing married priests would also attract more "normal" people to the priesthood
sex and progeny is a very natural part of life

the roman catholic church's stoic belief of celibacy being necessary for the priesthood is so very archaic and pathetic and will one day be its downfall
celibacy flies in the face of the natural order of things which a person of faith could interpret at God's order


----------



## CamCanola (Jan 26, 2004)

Jesus is alive and well, working in a gas station on 107 Ave. and 116th St. here in Edmonton. No wait, that's Elvis, I get the two confused all the time because they often share the same front page of the supermarket tabloids. 

Words (& music) are all that's left of these two "messianic" figures. A body of work, comprised of words - that still lives in us (One for the money, two for the show, three to get ready, now . . . you finnish the phrase). 

Or maybe you can remember some of the words Jesus spoke (Blessed are the peacemakers, or maybe cheese-makers - Damn you Bush and Cheney). When you make these words real, let's say by breaking up a fight or by helping two people or nations come to a mutual understanding, you are breathing life into the words of Christ. Christ has risen. Verily he has risen. 

So what if they find the actual body of Christ. What's the body going to do for anyone (except make a few people even richer or angrier). It's only ashes and dust, the ideas do not rely on the existence of a body, that's the one beautiful truth about ideas. I don't need to see or touch the bones of Jesus, Buddha, Mohammed, Socrates, Shakespeare, Blake, Gandhi, MLKjr., or even Elvis to get the meaning. 

Actually, I did see Jesus the other day; he gave a homeless person half of his sandwich just out front of where I work 2 weeks ago. Funny, he didn't look anything like I'd seen in the papers.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

This is the same stuff that's been rehashed several times over the past couple of decades. Yawnnnnn.


----------



## RunTheWorldOnMac (Apr 23, 2006)

Pelao, CamCanola, finding the body of Jesus would be a big problem with the Church. Why you ask? Because if Jesus rose from the dead, how can they have buried the body?

http://www.carm.org/doctrine/Jesus_resurrection.htm

After he was ressurected, he ascended into heaven. 

http://www.biblebb.com/files/MAC/sg2402.htm

I was going to make a Tardis / Jesus comment but I do not want to offend anyone here.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I agree with the above statement by RunTheWorldOnMac. If it were true, it would effectively change Christianity from a religion into a philosophy.


----------



## Pelao (Oct 2, 2003)

> Doesn't the bible say he left no earthly remains and no progeny?


Not that I am aware of, which was the basis of my earlier point. There is nothing in Christianity that precludes Jesus being a father. In addition, there has been no discovery of Jesus' body. This event is offers that it is _possible_ that his body lay within a particular tomb.

As I said, it's all great stuff for headline mongering. The Globe:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20070226.wjesus0226/BNStory/Front/home


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

imactheknife said:


> I am always torn between creation and evolution....I don't know what to believe anymore....this adds some interesting stuff to the fire....


You are torn between a 1500yo book with questionable origins and accuracy, and modern scientific data?


----------



## CamCanola (Jan 26, 2004)

A problem with the churches? Yes. 
A problem with the ideas? Not really.


----------



## RunTheWorldOnMac (Apr 23, 2006)

I agree with you on the son part; nothing was ever noted that Jesus had a son.

Chrisianity believes that the only time he lay in a tomb was the three days after him being hanged on the cross, before the ressurection.

The article / documentary states that this could be the body of Christ; but as far as Christianity is concerned this is impossible as he ascended into heaven shortly after his ressurection; body and spirit.


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

Herein lies one of the problems with religious belief.

If your morals are based on the fear of God, and then you realize there is no God, what happens to your morals?


----------



## Pelao (Oct 2, 2003)

> The article / documentary states that this could be the body of Christ


Not quite - the claim is that the body of Jesus lay within a particular container - there are no bones.


----------



## madgunde (Mar 10, 2006)

guytoronto said:


> Herein lies one of the problems with religious belief.
> 
> If your morals are based on the fear of God, and then you realize there is no God, what happens to your morals?


They just find something else to fear, like getting your ass whooped, or getting tossed in pound me in the ass prison. 

Seriously though, there are plenty of people in this world who have very high standards of morals, and don't believe in God at all. But realistically, even if they found the remains of Jesus Christ, the vast majority of Christians would just think it was a huge load of B.S. and go on with their normal lives. Scientific evidence of evolution and other historical findings that contradict the Bible haven't worked yet, what makes people think this will be any different?


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

madgunde said:


> Scientific evidence of evolution and other historical findings that contradict the Bible haven't worked yet, what makes people think this will be any different?


If the DNA strands arranged themselves in curlicues that spelled Jesus. In English.


----------



## adam1185 (Feb 16, 2005)

madgunde said:


> They just find something else to fear, like getting your ass whooped, or getting tossed in pound me in the ass prison.
> 
> Seriously though, there are plenty of people in this world who have very high standards of morals, and don't believe in God at all. But realistically, even if they found the remains of Jesus Christ, the vast majority of Christians would just think it was a huge load of B.S. and go on with their normal lives. Scientific evidence of evolution and other historical findings that contradict the Bible haven't worked yet, what makes people think this will be any different?


Yeah, it would just be the devil at work again trying to trick everyone. Sheesh...


----------



## Lawrence (Mar 11, 2003)

SINC said:


> "A Canadian filmmaker claims he has found limestone receptacles that in all likelihood contained the remains of Jesus, his mother, Mary, his wife, Mary Magdalene, and -- most shockingly -- their son, Judah.
> 
> The cave was easily dated at about 2,000 years old, a time during the First Century when bodies were wrapped in shrouds and allowed to decompose for a year. The families would then return to re-inter the remaining bones in one of these ossuaries. The custom stopped abruptly when the Romans destroyed the city of Jerusalem around AD 70."
> 
> ...


Wasn't this dug up in 1980 and just now being made public knowledge?
(I never read the Bible, I don't like reading fiction, No offense)
But if this is/was the family remains, Who's to say it is also the remains of Hey Zeus?


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

dolawren said:


> Wasn't this dug up in 1980 and just now being made public knowledge?
> (I never read the Bible, I don't like reading fiction, No offense)
> But if this is/was the family remains, Who's to say it is also the remains of Hey Zeus?



Yeah I recall something about this on Discovery like last year at some point.


----------



## imactheknife (Aug 7, 2003)

I grew up in a christian family and always believed in creation but when I was in my teens the church Pis*!d me off royaly and I stopped going. I look at my sister and her husband and sometimes think thier whacked and are extreme religious nuts...I looked into evolution for answers and to me some of it is believable. I still believe in creation but I flip flop back and forth like a fish out of water on both subjects...I can appreciate both sides of the coin.

God wants spiritual fruits NOT religious nuts...as stated on my Mom's fridge....


----------



## Lawrence (Mar 11, 2003)

Yeah...2000 year old wars aren't worth talking about,
But turn the item of your woe into an icon and make him larger than life itself,
Just sounds like 2000 years of the right to do what ever you want in his name.

That's the main reason for my desire to seek out natures memory instead.

(Wiccan by choice, Occultist, and Mystic)


----------



## RunTheWorldOnMac (Apr 23, 2006)

The way I see it is that we all need some type of spiritual guidance. Whether it be a religion or a peace we come to on our own terms. I am not religous myself but see how it does help those who do. It's all a matter of choice that we decide on our own.


----------



## Lawrence (Mar 11, 2003)

I think the true power of religion has been lost and will never be found,
It's an interesting power when you walk into a church of worshippers.
A power that could be directed...Should you be gifted enough to do so.

The whole thing has been lost...It's such a pity,
An orchestra without a conducter.


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

guytoronto said:


> Herein lies one of the problems with religious belief.
> 
> If your morals are based on the fear of God, and then you realize there is no God, what happens to your morals?


You simply conform to whatever is deemed right or wrong by the secular world. 

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## Pelao (Oct 2, 2003)

> God wants spiritual fruits NOT religious nuts...as stated on my Mom's fridge....


 

You might enjoy this read:
http://www.amazon.ca/Language-God-Scientist-Presents-Evidence/dp/0743286391/sr=8-1/qid=1172519883/ref=pd_ka_1/701-5000765-1343531?ie=UTF8&s=books


----------



## Lawrence (Mar 11, 2003)

If you also believe that all things are God,
Then when you fear God...You fear yourself.


----------



## zoziw (Jul 7, 2006)

This appears to be another one of those pre-easter cash grabs that pop up every few years. The initial comments I have read about this say that the name on the "Jesus" casket is more likely "Hanun".

The filmakers also speculate that the "James" ossuary found several years ago might have been from the same cave, but several people were charged with forgery for that.

As for Cameron's remarks that they aren't trying to undermine Christianity, the whole point of the faith is that Jesus was physically resurrected from the dead and ascended into heaven. If what is claimed in this documentary was verifiably true it would destroy Christianity. I'm willing to bet that Cameron knows this.

It is kind of strange, but stories like this tend to get people thinking about these things and we usually experience an increase in attendance from them. The same thing happened in previous years with The Da Vinci Code, The Gospel of Thomas, the Gospel of Judas and pretty much everytime someone does another feature on the Shroud of Turin.

I guess I'll have to wait at least another year for the Time Magazine cover asking "Was Jesus Gay?", which I really thought I would have seen by know...maybe I just missed it.


----------



## Lawrence (Mar 11, 2003)

Interesting..."Was Jesus Gay"
Was Jesus religious would have been my first question,
More than likely my 2nd question would be...Was Jesus (HeyZeus) a revolutionary?

I would have thought so, Considering he turned the world on it's head without lifting a finger.

Was Jesus a Christian?
I think not.


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

dolawren said:


> If you also believe that all things are God,
> Then when you fear God...You fear yourself.


Christians don't believe all things are God only that all things are created by God.

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## Lawrence (Mar 11, 2003)

MacGuiver said:


> Christians don't believe all things are God only that all things are created by God.
> 
> Cheers
> MacGuiver


Sounds a bit like a paradox, Oxymoron, Catch 22...Pity.
That's a bit like...Pity the earthlings because they are the meek,
Instead of "The meek shall inherit the earth".
(Pity no one understood that)


----------



## zoziw (Jul 7, 2006)

> Was Jesus a Christian?
> I think not.


Jesus was a jew.


----------



## Lawrence (Mar 11, 2003)

zoziw said:


> Jesus was a jew.


I thought he was just a normal kinda guy out on a limb,
But then, There you go...Flexing your border type muscles,
Heck, The poor guy could of of been chinese for all you know.


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

dolawren said:


> Sounds a bit like a paradox, Oxymoron, Catch 22...Pity.
> That's a bit like...Pity the earthlings because they are the meek,
> Instead of "The meek shall inherit the earth".
> (Pity no one understood that)


Sorry but you've lost me. What's your point?  

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## Lawrence (Mar 11, 2003)

MacGuiver said:


> Sorry but you've lost me. What's your point?
> 
> Cheers
> MacGuiver


It's a paradox,


> Christians don't believe all things are God only that all things are created by God.


Christian's believe all things are created by God, I replied All things come from God.

I shouldn't have to explain this and you really shouldn't be confused.


----------



## zoziw (Jul 7, 2006)

> Heck, The poor guy could of of been chinese for all you know.


He could have been, but most scholars feel he was a palestinian jew.

Interestingly enough, your comment was one of the pre-easter cash grabs that came up a few years ago.


----------



## Pelao (Oct 2, 2003)

> Heck, The poor guy could of of been chinese for all you know.


Can you just imagine if this were the case? Now _that_ would be worth talking about.

I suspect though that the Romans would haven noticed and mentioned it in their history of the period. Oh well....


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

madgunde said:


> Seriously though, there are plenty of people in this world who have very high standards of morals, and don't believe in God at all. But realistically, even if they found the remains of Jesus Christ, the vast majority of Christians would just think it was a huge load of B.S. and go on with their normal lives. Scientific evidence of evolution and other historical findings that contradict the Bible haven't worked yet, what makes people think this will be any different?


It should be different because the claims of who Jesus was and what he did strikes at the essense of Christianity.


----------



## Lawrence (Mar 11, 2003)

zoziw said:


> He could have been, but most scholars feel he was a palestinian jew.
> 
> Interestingly enough, your comment was one of the pre-easter cash grabs that came up a few years ago.


Considering the last Anti-christ is supposed to be of Chinese origin,
What can I say, Was Jesus an Anti-Christ?

Could be...Could have been the last of a horrible recipe gone wrong.
A crucified human that was the last to be crucified for...ever.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

MacGuiver said:


> You simply conform to whatever is deemed right or wrong by the secular world.
> 
> Cheers
> MacGuiver


Actually, morals are not defined by the secular world. It goes much deeper than that, which is our genetic make-up. Humans are a social animal and as social animals we have a set of norms that are genetically driven.

There is lots of scientific evidence to back this up.

Thank god the bible doesn't define morality (e.g. read some of the crazy stuff in the Old Testament).


----------



## Lawrence (Mar 11, 2003)

Pelao said:


> Can you just imagine if this were the case? Now _that_ would be worth talking about.
> 
> I suspect though that the Romans would haven noticed and mentioned it in their history of the period. Oh well....



But...Did the Romans try and convict him?
This is just too dangerous...Fun stuff eh?


----------



## Lawrence (Mar 11, 2003)

Vandave said:


> Actually, morals are not defined by the secular world. It goes much deeper than that, which is our genetic make-up. Humans are a social animal and as social animals we have a set of norms that are genetically driven.
> 
> There is lots of scientific evidence to back this up.
> 
> Thank god the bible doesn't define morality (e.g. read some of the crazy stuff in the Old Testament).


Normally I would say yes to this ideal that humans are social animals,
But as modern humans we know that humans are capable of being controlled humans.
Even anti social humans, Humans that can controll large groups of humans,
Imagine a human that is in perfect control of say 12 humans and their thoughts.

Dangerous?

Not if it is purposeful and directed like an orchestra.

Interesting isn't it?

Not exactly a Christian concept is it?

Seems like a coven to me, Almost...God like...But it isn't...It's...(Dangerous)


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

imactheknife said:


> I grew up in a christian family and always believed in creation ...I looked into evolution for answers and to me some of it is believable.


Evolutionary biology is able to answer questions about the nature of life, the history of life, and is able to make predictions about the future of life, but it won't tell you anything about the _meaning_ of life. That's not the job of science.



> I still believe in creation but I flip flop back and forth like a fish out of water on both subjects...I can appreciate both sides of the coin.


With respect to the biology, there's evolution on one side, and the other side of the coin is blank, because creationists have never developed a scientific (falsifiable) theory of creation. So there is no argument here.

Cheers


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

MacGuiver said:


> You simply conform to whatever is deemed right or wrong by the secular world.


This isn't a direct reply to MacGuiver, but to all of you who contend that religion is either necessary or useful in developing morality.

If we define morality as the internal code of conduct that governs one's behaviour when one is otherwise unconstrained in their actions (when one is 'at liberty', as J.S.Mill would say) (which is how it was defined in the Ethics courses I took as an undergraduate), I contend that the Abrahamic religions not only fail as a moral system, but actively prevent the moral development of their adherents.

By postulating the existence of an omniscient and judgmental observer, the Abrahamic religions remove morality from play. An agent can never be moral if they know they are being observed. It is our actions when we believe we are unobserved (and that we will 'get away with' whatever action we might be considering) that show our morality. Because the Jew/Christian/Muslim believes that they are constantly under observation, the best they can do is enlightened self-interest. Because they believe that their god will see and care about what ever they do (or even think), they are never 'at liberty' to make a moral decision. All of their decisions are guided by the fear of punishment/desire for reward.

Because she does not have to worry about the magical-police-man-in-the-sky, the atheist is free to do as she pleases. She is 'at liberty'. If she constrains her behaviour when she believe that she could get away with doing something immoral, it is precisely because of her morality, rather than her fear of being punished (or desire to be rewarded) by an omniscient god. Thus, while Christians/Muslims/Jews can be great people, they never get an opportunity to test their morality.

This argument (with associated supporting research) got me a perfect score in one of my ethics courses. I've never heard it refuted.

Cheers


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Bryanc: functioning within a broader society enforces a very strong self-interest aspect. Atheists aren't free either. Damned social contract.  Maybe God wrote it...needs editing. Sunday should acceptably be no-pants day.

Also, amongst religious people, there is a wide variety of "punishable" behaviour and much testing of morality (acting against supposed self-interest and challenging the rules). That gives them the freedom to beware of other pressures.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Evolution has equipped us with tensioned inherent drives between self interest and group interest.

Sure wish the bonobos had a little more influence on our conflict resolution.....maybe the Dionysians had a better idea. 

Bryanc - slight variation - she has ethics - those ethics determine response to moral issues of the time.

Individuals have ethics, societies have mores.

There is an inherent cooperate/self interest spectrum even in many animal species including fish.

Anyone every seen a barracuda teeth cleaning station??? I have and it's truly remarkable behaviour.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Beej said:


> Bryanc: functioning within a broader society enforces a very strong self-interest aspect. Atheists aren't free either.


No... when we're functioning within a social contract we aren't at liberty, regardless of our beliefs or lack thereof, assuming that we have a reasonable expectation of getting caught in any breaches of this contract.

However, if your walking in the woods one day, and there's no one around for miles, and you find a wallet full of cash on the ground, what would you do?

If you're a Christian, and you send the wallet with all the money still in it to the address on the driver's licence, you can't really take credit for having shown good moral character, because you believed that God was watching and God will know what you did. The atheist, on the other hand, could quite reasonably expect to get away with keeping the money (weather they returned the wallet or not). So if the atheist returns the wallet with all the money in it, she has exhibited real moral integrity.

It turns out that, unlike ethics, morality isn't really that applicable in most situations, because there are almost always other observers. But my point stands... the Jew/Christian/Muslim can never demonstrate morality.

Cheers


----------



## Lawrence (Mar 11, 2003)

bryanc said:


> This isn't a direct reply to MacGuiver, but to all of you who contend that religion is either necessary or useful in developing morality.
> 
> If we define morality as the internal code of conduct that governs one's behaviour when one is otherwise unconstrained in their actions (when one is 'at liberty', as J.S.Mill would say) (which is how it was defined in the Ethics courses I took as an undergraduate), I contend that the Abrahamic religions not only fail as a moral system, but actively prevent the moral development of their adherents.
> 
> ...


An interesting observation, But it's just that, An observation.
The belief however is that people can and are controlled by paper.
Whether it is truth or believed truth, It doesn't seem to matter.

Interesting also that you refer to the atheist as being a she,
Is that normal for your writing to refer to an atheist as being a she?
Why not a man and a woman as atheist?


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

bryanc said:


> But my point stands... the Jew/Christian/Muslim can never demonstrate morality.


You have not made that case. You seem to assume one version of Jew/Christian/Muslim morality. There are many that challenge themselves daily operating within and outside of it. Not as clear cut as you may think.

There is also the notion of individuals always acting in self-interest (that warm fuzzy feeling of "doing good"). Again, not necessarily "morality".

You have assumed away real unknowns in your interesting hypothesis. A good idea, worthy of an open examination of shortcomings.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> atheist as being a she,


To bring balance into discussions where the nominal HE is pervasive...no other reason than that I suspect.

If you really thnk you are in conscious control of your ethics and reactions I suggest you read Blink....you'll come away informed and I suspect a bit saddened.

There is truth in the old saw about no person knows how they will behave when under fire in a war or even in a dire emergency.
Your behaviour is very often determined by factors in your physiology that you have zero control over....just as some people have a negative G reaction.

Accepting and making use of diverse approaches ( memes ) and diverse human tendencies/abilities - in my mind is a far better approach than expecting cookie cutter behaviour.

Creating institutions that accommodate that diversity and can turn it to peaceable use - extra testosterone to perhaps football instead of street gang violence is admirable and not easy.

There is the weight of a million+ years of human evolution focused in each one of us and no bits of mumbo jumbo scribbled down has much impact in the face of that inertia.

•••

Beej - individuals ALWAYS react in their own perceived self interest even if it's blowing themselves up or hunger striking until death.


----------



## Lawrence (Mar 11, 2003)

bryanc said:


> But my point stands... the Jew/Christian/Muslim can never demonstrate morality.
> 
> Cheers


Heh...So...By your standards...A lot of famous people couldn't demonstrate morality?

Pity for Freud.

To name but one in an army of many.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> Beej - individuals ALWAYS react in their own perceived self interest even if it's blowing themselves up or hunger striking until death.


That is a theory that I agree with for the vast majority of behaviours. I think there are real "meh" points, though. Where there isn't a clear interest, something other than a system crash must occur. The one problem I see with the self-interest assumption is that its logical framework is self-fulfilling. That doesn't make it wrong, it just makes it questionable. Beware of self-fulfilling logical constructs, but don't dismiss.

Within that theory there is no moral behaviour, just different results from perception of self-interest, atheist or otherwise. 

I think that is a valid uncertainty to challenge bryanc's claims of certainty. The other piece being people acting against their believed religion or acting within a grey zone of it. There may be more, these are just two quick flaws that occurred at the moment.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Beej said:


> Within that theory there is no moral behaviour, just different results from perception of self-interest, atheist or otherwise.


Note that I didn't say that atheists _are_ moral, just that they can be at liberty to display morals. I agree with you and MD that this strict definition of morality is almost (but not quite) an academic curiosity, as it so rarely impinges on real behaviour. But it is how I was taught to consider the theories of morality when I studied ethics.



> The other piece being people acting against their believed religion or acting within a grey zone of it. There may be more, these are just two quick flaws that occurred at the moment.


Yes this is a fringe case where a theist can be moral: where their religion conflicts with their morals, and they act in the way they believe is moral _despite_ their belief that a judgmental omniscient god will punish them. I left that out for sake of simplicity... good catch.

Cheers


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Beej said:


> You seem to assume one version of Jew/Christian/Muslim morality.


Not at all. I've only assumed that Jews, Christians and Muslims believe in an omniscient God who cares about their actions. The existence of such an entity removes the freedom of action necessary for morality to pertain.

Cheers


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

bryanc said:


> I agree with you and MD that this strict definition of morality is almost (but not quite) an academic curiosity, as it so rarely impinges on real behaviour.


So that would be always versus must? If self-interest is how we always act, but we don't have to, given the follow-up fringe case, what is the distinction between religious and atheist? Everybody has the option, we just don't take it. Sort of like physics-based predestination. 

Maybe the rare case has slightly different possibilities? Either way, what is the basis for logical distinction if both follow the always, but both can also operate outside of it.

Interesting discussion. Thanks.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

bryanc said:


> The existence of such an entity removes the freedom of action necessary for morality to pertain.


Nope. It sways it. The possibility of operating against or within a grey zone has already been raised.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Bee - just a variation - there is no moral behaviour based on an ABSOLUTE set mores ( something some want to believe there is ).

An individual adheres to or goes against the mores of the times based on their own ethics which are conscious and behaviours which are often subconscious.

An example might be the urge to smoke where conscious ethical behaviour may war with addictive impulses.

Smoking was not seen as immoral previously and is fast becoming grossly immoral if done in a crowded place or say in a kindergarten.

HOW such shifts occur and mores change I assume is what Bryanc talks about with theories of morality.

Religions attempt to impact both mores and ethics and have a hell of time with built in biological drives 
•••

Beej your grey zone is simply conflicting ethics/impulses and there are indeed ethical conundrums that can arise quite easily especially if it comes to close family.

If you know YOUR child will have to die to say a 1,000 others.....what do you do?
There are fascinating studies on this and non-fatal tho very scary experiments. ( to do with administering electric shock ).

•••

BTW game theory and thinking about these issues within the context of games where a clear set of dos and don'ts apply is useful in my view.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

As presented, the logical absolutes of bryanc's haven't justified distinguishing between religious and non-religious, except on possible statistical grounds. Changing mores and such, while true, is different than absolute statements of atheists versus the religious. 

To me, the largest and most obvious stupidity of objectivism is atheism with objective morality. Couldn't logically accept God, nor a world without universal rules.

As for grey zones, I agree that they are fascinating and brutally challenging to how we think we are versus how we are at the moment. Again, religion can strongly influence the outcome, but doesn't lend it self to absolute logical distinctions.

To your question I can say let my kid die, but would I do it? I don't know. I am quite certain that for other similar circumstances I am right, but I have no kids so the certainty is much less. I, however, from experience have deeply different views on certain things than most people. That favours my notion but, again, massive uncertainty between what I think and what I will.

[Game theory: nice mention. That and Pareto Optimality explain a helluva lot about what seem like obviously "non-optimal" outcomes or, less technically, dumb sh*t.]


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Where are you reading Bryanc as an absolutist??

His point I believe is there IS morality without religion - we are social animals - that's where it dervies out of - no where have I seen his mention of an absolute set of mores ( as in theory with religion but not in practice ) to set a personal ethical stance for or against.

••

If you are looking to religious versus non religious just look at law versus religion as two aspects of attempting to codify mores.

His point and mine would be there is no NEED for religion to develop personal ethics and humans as social animals have a set of communal dos and don'ts that are generally adhered to religious or not. Religions and other memes attemp to persuade and effect change.
The anti-smoking campaign and gay rights two notable changing aspects of current mores that are being consciously driven

Some public behaviors are sanctioned in nearly all societies.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Beej said:


> As presented, the logical absolutes of bryanc's haven't justified distinguishing between religious and non-religious, except on possible statistical grounds.


The atheist is always free to behave morally (or to fail to do so) when they are not constrained by reasonable fear of reprisal (e.g. social contract). In contrast the theist (and I'm speaking here of the Abrahamic traditions that posit an omniscient judgemental god) is always being observed and therefore never unconstrained. What makes this more than a fringe case is that all the major religions have cast their gods as having very definite opinions about many moral issues, and, not surprisingly, these opinions are generally congruent with what most people would agree are morally acceptable behaviours most of the time (don't kill, don't steal, don't make out with your neighbours chick, etc.). The only time an adherent of one of these religions could exhibit moral integrity would be in circumstances when their moral code conflicted with the teaching of their church.

So I'll back off a notch, and agree that the Catholic who euthanizes someone, or has an abortion when they think it's the lesser of two evils, or otherwise goes against the stated position of their god on the basis of their own moral decision making is able to be moral. However, it is only by doing something that the church would see as 'immoral' that an adherent can take a moral stance. Otherwise their actions cannot be distinguished from self interest, and for most people this status reflects their entire lives.

In contrast, the atheist is not constrained by the omniscient police, and therefore much more often in a position to be moral or immoral.

Cheers


----------



## monokitty (Jan 26, 2002)

guytoronto said:


> You are torn between a 1500yo book with questionable origins and accuracy, and modern scientific data?


It's called faith. Christians (real ones; many claim to be but aren't in reality), follow their religion based on faith. Those with strong faith believe that which cannot be physically proven. Though Christians may refer to the Bible as their 'evidence,' the Bible can also just as quickly be dismissed as a forgery. However, through dedicated faith (a form of willpower, if you must), we Christians believe the Bible, and in God, without physical evidence to prove His existence. Christiantity, and its surrounding religion, is based entirely on faith, and not supporting evidence at all, which is why Christians typically can't fend off accusations against them in regards to what they believe. If you can't understand the concept of faith, you can't understand our point of view or our religion.

God gave us free will -- thus allowing anyone to not believe in Him if they wish not to. If His existance was bluntly obvious, free will would not exist as there would be no question as to whether God exists, and no questioning of his set rules or commandments for humanity. A human can only appreciate God and his workings if he can believe in Him on his own measure and account. If God's existance was obvious, God would be taken for granted by humanity. If His existance isn't obvious, those who do believe in Him are much more appreciative of his presence and what He does for you, strictly through faith, which is what God ultimately wants from you.

You can debate it all you want, but really, it's not worth the effort. Christians can fight non-Christians and vice-versa, but in reality, no one's opinion or "evidence" to convict either one will convince either one.

Faith is unbeatable and no real Christian will bend to non-Christian "evidence" against their religion in an attempt to convince them otherwise. Non-Christians, or atheists, use science to define their point of view -- Christians use faith to define theirs. And neither party can convince the other they're the right ones.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

MacDoc said:


> Where are you reading Bryanc as an absolutist??


Yeah.... sorry if I gave you that impression. It wasn't my intention. For simplicity you can think of me as a Millsian Utilitarian, with some fairly unimaginative modernizations (all sentient agents get an ethical 'weight' proportionate to their sentience... non-sentient life has value proportionate to it's utility in supporting sentient life and it's potential to evolve, etc.).

There are still lots of tough problems with this system, but it's the best I've been able to come up with.

Cheers


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> There is the weight of a million+ years of human evolution focused in each one of us and no bits of mumbo jumbo scribbled down has much impact in the face of that inertia.


Please... we all know that man was created by god in one day and that the earth is only 5000 years old.  

You scientists and your evidence. tptptptp


----------



## MissGulch (Jul 20, 2005)

I'm confused about the whole thing. JC was supposed to have died on the cross, and then he arose, right? Where did he go after that, and how did he spend his time after he arose?

After he arose, did he die again? People keep saying he's coming back, but I don't know where he went in the first place. Why would he want to come back anyway? Didn't he have enough once around?


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Lars said:


> If His existance isn't obvious, those who do believe in Him are much more appreciative of his presence and what He does for you


And those of you who don't 'get it' _BURN_! Right?

Sounds like a real charming character, this God dude.

Cheers


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

bryanc said:


> The atheist is always free to behave morally (or to fail to do so) when they are not constrained by reasonable fear of reprisal (e.g. social contract). In contrast the theist (and I'm speaking here of the Abrahamic traditions that posit an omniscient judgemental god) is always being observed and therefore never unconstrained. What makes this more than a fringe case is that all the major religions have cast their gods as having very definite opinions about many moral issues, and, not surprisingly, these opinions are generally congruent with what most people would agree are morally acceptable behaviours most of the time (don't kill, don't steal, don't make out with your neighbours chick, etc.). The only time an adherent of one of these religions could exhibit moral integrity would be in circumstances when their moral code conflicted with the teaching of their church.
> 
> So I'll back off a notch, and agree that the Catholic who euthanizes someone, or has an abortion when they think it's the lesser of two evils, or otherwise goes against the stated position of their god on the basis of their own moral decision making is able to be moral. However, it is only by doing something that the church would see as 'immoral' that an adherent can take a moral stance. Otherwise their actions cannot be distinguished from self interest, and for most people this status reflects their entire lives.
> 
> ...


They're both always free to behave "morally", and their actions can not be distinguished from self-interest (beware technology: could change this). So your statement, "much more often in a position to be moral or immoral" may be accurate (could be a good discussion there) but, "The existence of such an entity removes the freedom of action necessary for morality to pertain." is an unnecessary distinction in such absolute contexts (this sentence for MD regarding absolutist question). 

Similarly, "never unconstrained" is inaccurate within the framework of the social contract. They're both unconstrained and constrained to some degree, by their own self-interest. Recall, "No... when we're functioning within a social contract we aren't at liberty, regardless of our beliefs or lack thereof, assuming that we have a reasonable expectation of getting caught in any breaches of this contract."

Similarly, "However, it is only by doing something that the church would see as 'immoral' that an adherent can take a moral stance." How different is that from an atheist challenging the social contract? Probabilities, perhaps.

Thanks for clarifying your thesis and thanks again for a good discussion. Now, do we dare delve into the probabilities argument? Lies, damn lies and all.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Lars said:


> Christiantity, and its surrounding religion, is based entirely on faith


Exactly. Thanks. I can respect faith in another. Adherence to demonstrably flawed logic I can not. You believe what you believe, but don't present it as something else. I don't present my beejacon as divine. Well...

As a side note, James Morrow's Godhead Trilogy is a fascinating philosophical read, albeit dry by the fiction standards it is sold within.


----------



## monokitty (Jan 26, 2002)

bryanc said:


> And those of you who don't 'get it' _BURN_! Right?
> 
> Sounds like a real charming character, this God dude.
> 
> Cheers


Christians believe God has complete control, and that we were created by Him. Non-believers find God to be unfair, and brutal, but in reality, to Christians, the exact opposite is true. If we believe God created each one of us, then if we turn on Him, we deserve the worse end of the stick, so to speak. If your child defies you, his/her parent, do you ground him/her? God does the same to us, to a larger extreme (otherwise known as eternal damnation, by the Devil, not by God himself - the two are different; if God rejects you, because you rejected him, the Devil gets you instead - common Christian belief). Of course, we're having a friendly discussion here, and no personal insults are required.  (because these discussions do typically get heated.)

I'm really not trying to convince anyone to my own belief, but rather as simply explaining Christian belief as it pertains to this thread.



> JC was supposed to have died on the cross, and then he arose, right? Where did he go after that, and how did he spend his time after he arose?
> 
> After he arose, did he die again? People keep saying he's coming back, but I don't know where he went in the first place. Why would he want to come back anyway? Didn't he have enough once around?


The general belief is that JC rose from the dead, then ascended to heaven several (3?) days later with God himself. Christians also believe JC will come back again to earth in a very obvious form (however, there has never been a set date on his return, as it's not something humans are supposed to know).


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

bryanc said:


> Yeah.... sorry if I gave you that impression. It wasn't my intention. For simplicity you can think of me as a Millsian Utilitarian, with some fairly unimaginative modernizations (all sentient agents get an ethical 'weight' proportionate to their sentience... non-sentient life has value proportionate to it's utility in supporting sentient life and it's potential to evolve, etc.).
> 
> There are still lots of tough problems with this system, but it's the best I've been able to come up with.


We have very similar broad outlooks, but the devil is in the details.

I do see a distinction between sentient and not. Why? Sentient is the only one that cares. Like you said, tough problems. Maybe I just refuse to give up eating meat.  Of course, without distinctions, plants are just as morally entitled.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> I do see a distinction between sentient and not. Why? Sentient is the only one that cares.


Sentient defined as self aware??

You should see the morality of cleaning stations between little fish and big barracudas.

•••

Thankfully the devil isn't - but insight is in the details.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Details allow someone to eat lettuce without having to get therapy over their contribution to an act of destroying life. Nice world we live in.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Lars said:


> God created each one of us, then if we turn on Him, we deserve the worse end of the stick


How can you 'turn on' something you don't believe exists? Am I pissing off the invisible pink space pixies too? Have you 'turned against' Odin? Don't you fear the wrath of Cuthulu?!?



> If your child defies you, his/her parent, do you ground him/her?


My child has pretty good evidence of my existence.



> if God rejects you, because you rejected him, the Devil gets you instead


I didn't reject anything... I just haven't been convinced... in fact I've never even been _close_ to being convinced. I am, however, very open minded... I was once quite optimistic that aliens might be visiting earth.

But, here's another question for you... since, by your religion, I'll be suffering eternal torture in the hands of the devil, where did the devil come from? Presumably God created him too? I guess God didn't realize what a cruel and evil SOB he'd turn out to be... oops... God's omniscient... He must've known... so why'd he create the devil? Dang paradoxes.

Cheers


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

bryanc said:


> But, here's another question for you... since, by your religion, I'll be suffering eternal torture in the hands of the devil, where did the devil come from? Presumably God created him too? I guess God didn't realize what a cruel and evil SOB he'd turn out to be... oops... God's omniscient... He must've known... so why'd he create the devil? Dang paradoxes.


It's all part of a mysterious plan, so just learn to like the feel of a pitchfork. I'll be there before you, so I can show you the ropes. Personally, because the interesting folk are in hell, I'm a little eager.

Omniscience and omnipotence are bad assumptions to make for a rational God. Without them, it works much better. God must be faith (alternatively, hope with low odds, like a lottery). It comes down to belief: God, as omnipotent, can make a rock so heavy that he can't lift it. Deal with it, and hope that the rock doesn't show up in your backyard.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Beej said:


> Omniscience and omnipotence are bad assumptions to make for a rational God.


"Rational God"... I think you may have broken my oxymoronmeter. But my logic doesn't actually require omniscience... just that the magic sky-police be able to see what we do. If the somewhat less fantastically unbelievable God is not quite omniscient, and can't tell you the locations & velocities of every quantum in the universe, they can still serve as the magic police man that renders morality a moot issue for believers.



Beej said:


> ...so just learn to like the feel of a pitchfork. I'll be there before you, so I can show you the ropes. Personally, because the interesting folk are in hell, I'm a little eager.


You're so right.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> Details allow someone to eat lettuce without having to get therapy over their contribution to an act of destroying life.


That requires a comfortable meme. Buddhists have a hard time.

Spaghetti Monster adherents have it made.


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

Lars said:


> It's called faith. Christians (real ones; many claim to be but aren't in reality), follow their religion based on faith.


So, where did you get the idea for your faith to begin with?


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> Personally, because the interesting folk are in hell, I'm a little eager.


Beej - devil et al - you'll likely enjoy this.










Usually not my cuppa but this was brilliant ...what a terrific vision - funny, exotic a wonderful myth mix.


----------



## monokitty (Jan 26, 2002)

guytoronto said:


> So, where did you get the idea for your faith to begin with?


Someone can introduce a concept or idea to you. From there, it's up to you to either believe it, or in it, or reject the idea altogether. Christianity has run in my family dating way back in time, and was passed on to me.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Lars said:


> Someone can introduce a concept or idea to you. From there, it's up to you to either believe it, or in it, or reject the idea altogether.


So, now that you've been introduced to the idea of the flying spaghetti monster, you'll believe it without question, right? Because if not, you'll boil in the eternal vat of tomato sauce, and that's perfectly fair.

Cheers


----------



## monokitty (Jan 26, 2002)

bryanc said:


> So, now that you've been introduced to the idea of the flying spaghetti monster, you'll believe it without question, right? Because if not, you'll boil in the eternal vat of tomato sauce, and that's perfectly fair.
> 
> Cheers


bryanc, at least stick to realistic comparisons.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

He did.

Do you enjoy virtual cannibalism??


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Lars said:


> bryanc, at least stick to realistic comparisons.


How is the FSM (or Zeus, or Sauron, or whatever) less realistic than Yaweh?

I cannot, for the life of me, imagine anything _less_ realistic than the Christian God.

Cheers


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Personally Dionysis or Saturanalia turns my crank tho the Wiccans have some appealing attributes.....thing for nudity in the forest


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

Lars said:


> Someone can introduce a concept or idea to you.


And where did they get the idea?

My reasoning here is that you are basing your belief on a very large broken telephone chain almost 2000 years old.

Having faith is one thing. Believing in something based on word passed down from ages ago is something different.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Upon thinking about it more, I'm considering trying to develop this as a Douglas Adamsesque proof of the existence of God. But I'm just not quite up to it this evening.

The argument would revolve around the mind-numbingly implausible nature of the Christian God, and try to use one of Adams' clever logical reversals to reach the conclusion that such an inconceivably unlikely entity not only can exist, but must exist. Some kind of reversal of Dawkin's 'Ultimate 747' argument.

Anyone care to have a go at it?


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

ugh reverse engineering a heavily mutated meme  - all yours.


••
Anyone watching Little Mosque - on now.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

MacDoc said:


> Anyone watching Little Mosque - on now.


Yep, I did. Turned it off halfway through. It was awful on the premiere and I can see it hasn't improved since. Somebody shoot it and put it out of its misery. Give me Corner Gas every time.


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

University Professor and devout atheist Howard Storm would have relished to be part of the intellectual banter on this thread. He was enlightened, had a Masters from Berkley and would have traded high fives with the Doc and Bryan as they ridiculed the great unwashed and their silly sky daddy. 
However that all changed in a hurry when he suddenly found himself dying in a hospital bed.
http://www.southcoasttoday.com/daily/01-04/01-31-04/c04rg223.htm

God works in mysterious was.

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

So does a dying suggestible brain.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Hell may be full of just fascinating blokes...but the conversation is apparently a bit weak when it is punctuated by agonizing screams.


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

MacGuiver said:


> University Professor and devout atheist Howard Storm would have relished to be part of the intellectual banter on this thread. He was enlightened, had a Masters from Berkley and would have traded high fives with the Doc and Bryan as they ridiculed the great unwashed and their silly sky daddy.
> However that all changed in a hurry when he suddenly found himself dying in a hospital bed.
> http://www.southcoasttoday.com/daily/01-04/01-31-04/c04rg223.htm
> 
> God works in mysterious was.


Oh please. This guy has a nightmare on his deathbed, and it suddenly changes his beliefs? Not a very devout atheist.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Grey area for you Beej



> *Elderly man kills wife, self, disabled adult children*
> 
> STEPHANIE REITZ
> Associated Press
> ...


http://www.theglobeandmail.com/serv...226.wshootings0226/BNStory/International/home


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

MacDoc said:


> So does a dying suggestible brain.


Funny how them dying suggestible brains always seem to be confronted with the notion of God. Even in atheists that think he's as real as the the Tooth Fairy.

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

MacGuiver said:


> Funny how them dying suggestible brains always seem to be confronted with the notion of God. Even in atheists that think he's as real as the the Tooth Fairy.
> 
> Cheers
> MacGuiver


i don't think is "always" the notion of God, but rather an afterlife, highlighted by meeting dead relatives


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> i don't think is "always" the notion of God, but rather an afterlife, highlighted by meeting dead relatives


Yeah you're probably correct there. Many NDE include meeting deceased relatives but I've read numerous accounts of people, like Howard Storm meeting Christ or someone more sinister.

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

It's all rather circular.

When you ask the religious people to prove the existence of God, they tell you it can't be proven, as it is all faith.

If they believe faith cannot be proven, then they must admit that the Bible (and any other significant religious document) is not proof of the existence of any God.

If the Bible is not proof of God, then it is simply the word of man. Stories, ideas, tales, broken telephone.

If their faith is based on the possibility some of the Bible is true, but not to the extent to prove God exists, then they are admitting their belief is based on what some other person has told them, in the same way that children believe in Santa Claus because parents tell them about Santa Claus.

If their faith is based on their personal experiences, how can they be trusted? Everybody has heard of God, heaven, hell, Jesus, etc. It would be impossible to say your belief was not influenced by the world around you.

It's kinda like UFOs and aliens. Their existence can't be proven. Statistically and scientifically,their existence is more likely than the existence of God. Everyone knows of the stereotypical "grey-balloon head" alien ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greys ). It's interesting how many people who claim abduction paint the same picture of the alien's appearance.

Near-death / enlightenment experiences and finding God is just like alien abduction. Did it actually happen, or is it merely a by-product of societal influences?


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

guytoronto said:


> It's all rather circular.
> 
> When you ask the religious people to prove the existence of God, they tell you it can't be proven, as it is all faith.


Actually I've seen and heard tons of evidence of Gods existence. Present it to an atheist though and he'll simply brush it off as a coincidence or some thing that can easily be explained through science (yet not be able to deliver a scientific explanation)

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

I wonder what proportion of Hindus, Wiccans, Buddhists, etc. who have NDEs encounter Christian mythical figures.

Having been steeped in Christianity my whole life, I'd be pretty surprised to hallucinate about Shiva when my brain misfires due to oxygen depravation. But whatever, I wouldn't take such hallucinations any more seriously than the smegging great spider I saw - clear as day - a few weeks ago while I was drifting off to sleep.

NDEs have exactly zero value as evidence. Of course, that won't dissuade the faithful.

Cheers


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

MacGuiver said:


> Actually I've seen and heard tons of evidence of Gods existence.


Your god must not have much confidence in your faith, if He's provided you with such compelling evidence. I wonder why He chooses to remain completely invisible to me?

Cheers


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Your trouble is MacG is you don't understand what science consists of - REPEATABLE evidence.

Make a hypothesis - then prove it - repeatedly and defend against alternative hypothesis.

When you get around to it...let us know.


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

bryanc said:


> Your god must not have much confidence in your faith, if He's provided you with such compelling evidence. I wonder why He chooses to remain completely invisible to me?
> 
> Cheers


Quite simple really.

I believe in God and seek him out. You don't and only seek to prove he doesn't exist. You'll never find something your not looking for.

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## monokitty (Jan 26, 2002)

> I wonder why He chooses to remain completely invisible to me?


God remains invisible to anyone who refuses to believe He exists without being prior presented with hard evidence to prove His existence. If you lack faith, you will never see, hear, or witness God's power in your life, unless God comes around in your lifetime to destroy the corruption of mankind. As Christians believe, non-believers only witness the wrath of God and no other part.



> Make a hypothesis - then prove it - repeatedly and defend against alternative hypothesis.


Why do you even insist? MacG isn't going to make a hypothesis, and probably won't come up with compelling evidence of God's existence, either. Believers believe what they do through faith and faith only.

*...you don't understand what science consists of...*

And you don't understand his point of view, either. Simply put, you can't disprove the existence of God, just as we can't prove He does exist. State just even a single fact that disproves religion entirely.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

MacGuiver said:


> I believe in God and seek him out. You don't and only seek to prove he doesn't exist. You'll never find something your not looking for.


An elegant summation. Don't know how MacDoc is going to shoot that one down.

More accurately however, no one wins this ongoing discussion. People are arguing on different planes, assuming a common experience and perception of existence as a basis from which to discuss faith and science; seems that's not the case, but we each continue to wish it were otherwise.

A good thread all the same. I am certain the controversial mysteries of this topic will all be solved within my lifetime... _not_.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> I am certain the controversial mysteries of this topic will all be solved within my lifetime... not.


Now there you go getting all absolute on us again 

••

I have no problem with neurotic behaviour - we all exhibit it to some degree but just now the planet needs less reliance on "fairytales will provide" and more on science and knowledge based sustainable stewardship both for peaceable co-existence and preservation of resources.

If a religious meme does not get in the way of that - in fact like the Quakers have often done - advance the human society - fine.
Look no further than the Amish for good stewardship of the land if not the mind. If the meme promulgates ignorance and conflict - especially to young minds ( think anti-gay and creationism ) then it's as dangerous as any destructive virus and deserves to be fought and eradicated in the same manner.

No free pass.

In that door, and that door and that door and that door ( history, geography, logic, science , personal hygiene etc ) kids are taught and demanded to be logical, observant and question. Reason their way with study and research to answers that are demonstrably sensible and have facts to back them.

THEN the religious types want the kid to go through THAT door.....religion...... and toss the rational away and just believe.
Hogwash. It's conflicting in the extreme to goals of modern society.

No better place to look than Ireland emerging out from under the Catholics as a case study.



> The God Shaped Hole
> Richard Dawkins assesses the legacy of the Catholic Church in Ireland, and enters a plea for a religion-free society.
> 
> I am delighted that one of the leading Roman Catholic seminaries for the training of young priests in Ireland is closing down because it can't get any recruits. When I read that in the newspaper, it left me smiling for the rest of the day. However, if the Catholic Church does die in Ireland - and I devoutly hope it will - I hope that it will not be replaced by some other idiotic superstition like New Age-ism or some other kind of religion.
> ...


The reminder is a worthwhile read http://www.thedubliner.ie/template.php?ID=15 - 

and it's far worse in the Phillipines.

The planet can ill afford such dogged opposition to family planning and availability of contraception and for THAT alone religions that do not support a woman's right to choose should be condemned.

A child indulging in fantasy with their toys brings a smile at imagination at work.
An adult in a position of power and influence - such as Bush or any number of ayatollahs doing so - brings shudders.


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

Lars said:


> State just even a single fact that disproves religion entirely.


Everything in our physical universe has a state of energy or matter. Even something like "love" can be measured using equipment, as it is electrical impulses in our brains.

Even theoretical scientific concepts, like tachyons and string theory, have a basis in science fact.

The concept of "God" has no basis in any scientific fact.


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

MacGuiver said:


> I believe in God and seek him out. You don't and only seek to prove he doesn't exist. You'll never find something your not looking for.


Incorrect. Many scientific discoveries happened when through the scientific process, people found something totally different than their original intent.

Christopher Columbus was looking for a passage to China. He found the Americas.

Harry Cover was looking to make synthetic gun-sights. He discovered superglue.

Frank Epperson left his soda pop on a porch one evening accidentally, and the next morning, he had discovered the first Popsicle.

Spencer Silver was trying to create a very strong adhesive. The result was a very weak adhesive. They now use it for Post-It Notes.

Patsy Sherman was trying to develop a rubber that would deteriorate when in contact with airplane fuel. She spilled some on her shoe, and discovered Scotchguard.

Wilhelm Conrad Röntgen accidentally discovered X-Rays when studying cathode rays.

God has never been scientifically discovered or proven. People of faith say that he can't be. If he can't be discovered or proven, he doesn't exist, except for in your mind.


----------



## RunTheWorldOnMac (Apr 23, 2006)

Well put Lars!


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

LOL!!

I always love hearing quotes from Richard Dawkins. The Fred Felps equivalent for atheists.

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

What I find ironic is a tale like that of Teilhard de Chardin.

A biologist and staunch Catholic commissioned by the Pope to try and reconcile biology and faith.

Instead....his results were banned by the very church that commissioned him.

*Phenomena of Man* is worth a read if only for the incredible vision the noosphere represented in light of the current WWWeb.

There's quite enough wonder and mystery in the universe without needing to postulate anthropogenic sky daddies.

Even a classically trained Jesuit such as Teilhard could not stomach the regressive nonsense his church promulgates.

But then the institution of slavery is not yet entirely dead yet either despite best efforts.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

Lars said:


> And you don't understand his point of view, either. Simply put, you can't disprove the existence of God, just as we can't prove He does exist. State just even a single fact that disproves religion entirely.


Disproving religion is easy. It has been done many times by science in the last 500 years (e.g. earth revolving around sun, age of the earth, impossibility of the Ark, etc...). Disproving god is another thing. It's difficult to disprove something that doesn't exist.

The buddhists take a healthy view of science and don't fear it like the major monotheistic religions. Rather, buddhists are willing to change their beliefs as science progresses. I wish the theists would take a page from this approach.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

bryanc said:


> I wouldn't take such hallucinations any more seriously than the smegging great spider I saw - clear as day - a few weeks ago while I was drifting off to sleep.


Pensées--by the guy who hallucinates about smegging great spiders.

Cheers


----------



## Darien Red Sox (Oct 24, 2006)

Creation is what created the universe. Not any of that crazy evolution stuff that people have unsuccessfully proved. In fact science has within the last 100 years has made discovers that were writen about in the Bible!


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

MacGuiver said:


> I believe in God and seek him out. You don't and only seek to prove he doesn't exist. You'll never find something your not looking for.


On the contrary, in my career as a research scientist, I've discovered things I wasn't looking for far more often than the things I was looking for. That is the nature of research.

I'd be happy to be able to prove the God doesn't exist, but since the idea of a supernatural being is non-falsifiable, it can't be done. No evidence could ever be provided that would prove the non-existence of God, which is exactly why the Christian God is in the same boat with other supernatural entities like Zeus, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, invisible pink space pixies, and the Tooth Fairy. It is also worth noting that the belief in God is exactly as reasonable as the belief in any of these other magical entities, and has exactly the same explanatory power (none).

I agree with Max, there is an insurmountable intellectual chasm separating science and faith. I honestly have no idea how adherents of various religions are able to partition their minds such that they are able to function as scientists striving to understand the natural while simultaneously having faith in the supernatural. To me, these seem to be mutually exclusive conceptual frame works. I can not allow myself faith if I wish to pursue science.

Cheers


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Macfury said:


> Pensées--by the guy who hallucinates about smegging great spiders.


These hallucinations are quite common... they're called 'dreams'.... maybe you've heard of them?


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

bryanc said:


> I'd be happy to be able to prove the God doesn't exist, but since the idea of a supernatural being is non-falsifiable, it can't be done.


Who knows what science will be able to prove in the future. The nature of matter and the universe might not leave any room for an omnipresent god and could form a proof for his non-existance.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

perhaps the scientific community should stop trying to disprove the existence of God and wait for the believers to prove God exists

faith is not proof

"I know because I believe" is hardly any sort of method unless you're president of the U.S.A.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

MacGuiver said:


> I always love hearing quotes from Richard Dawkins. The Fred Felps equivalent for atheists.


I have no idea who Fred Felps is, but this appears to be an ad hominum attack at best. Do you have any logically valid criticisms to make of Dawkin's arguments?

Cheers


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

bryanc said:


> I have no idea who Fred Felps is, but this appears to be an ad hominum attack at best. Do you have any logically valid criticisms to make of Dawkin's arguments?
> 
> Cheers


He's just another hate filled bigot only he's parading around in a white lab coat.

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Vandave said:


> Who knows what science will be able to prove in the future.


The problem is that empirical sciences don't prove anything. We only _disprove_. So, unless a given hypothesis is falsifiable (i.e. makes predictions that can be tested and found incorrect), it can't be addressed by science. The idea that a supernatural god exists makes no falsifiable predictions.

Cheers


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

MacGuiver said:


> He's just another hate filled bigot only he's parading around in a white lab coat.


[Translation] I haven't read Dawkins', nor do I understand the arguments, so I will simply attack the individual, despite knowing nothing about them as a person.[/Translation]

Richard Dawkins seems to be a very kind and gentle person, but it wouldn't matter if he was a deranged ax murderer. His personality or any other aspects of his character have no bearing on the validity of his argument. If you dispute the case Dawkins makes, let's hear why. Your opinions on his clothing or biases are of no relevance.

Cheers


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

Darien Red Sox said:


> Creation is what created the universe. Not any of that crazy evolution stuff that people have unsuccessfully proved. In fact science has within the last 100 years has made discovers that were writen about in the Bible!


Care to elaborate? Evolution is unproven, but creation is?


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

guytoronto said:


> Care to elaborate? Evolution is unproven, but creation is?



according to cabinet minister Stockwell "doris" Day it is

"Walk with the dinosaurs"
[sung to the tune of "Walk with the Egyptians"]


----------



## Greenman (Feb 22, 2003)

So, to bring the discussion back to the original question... Is the Bible's story of Jesus true?

from the film

<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/jxOrkVE2iEk"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/jxOrkVE2iEk" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>

and there's more exerpts from Simcha's interview on YouTube...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lN308HByRko

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BeQ2xt-dmdc


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

Greenman said:


> So, to bring the discussion back to the original question... Is the Bible's story of Jesus true?
> 
> from the film
> 
> ...


i think you pooched the original URL


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

_Now there you go getting all absolute on us again_

Hmmm... strikes me you've made an absolute statement there. _Sigh._ Some days I just wish the pot and the kettle would just get along, you know?

_I have no problem with neurotic behaviour - we all exhibit it to some degree but just now the planet needs less reliance on "fairytales will provide" and more on science and knowledge based sustainable stewardship both for peaceable co-existence and preservation of resources._

And you're furthering this peaceable co-existence just how - by hectoring and talking down to all who disagree with the majesty of your views?

_If a religious meme does not get in the way of that - in fact like the Quakers have often done - advance the human society - fine.
Look no further than the Amish for good stewardship of the land if not the mind. If the meme promulgates ignorance and conflict - especially to young minds ( think anti-gay and creationism ) then it's as dangerous as any destructive virus and deserves to be fought and eradicated in the same manner._

Hey, good luck with that eradication thing. Sometimes a good idea can take a terribly wrong turn. The cure having eclipsed the disease. Your prescription for the health of society could shade very easily over into Big Brother territory. Not to mention I am not terribly confident of your ability to rid yourself of your own prejudices before taking us to task over ours.

_In that door, and that door and that door and that door ( history, geography, logic, science , personal hygiene etc ) kids are taught and demanded to be logical, observant and question. Reason their way with study and research to answers that are demonstrably sensible and have facts to back them._

Fair enough. But then again you are oversimplifying things for the sake of your argument. Teaching history is fraught with all sorts of pitfalls. Think the Japanese and the Americans read from the same accounts when covering WW11, ferinstance?

_THEN the religious types want the kid to go through THAT door.....religion...... and toss the rational away and just believe.
Hogwash. It's conflicting in the extreme to goals of modern society._

No, what's hogwash is your near-hysterical inability to leave religion well enough alone. You're quite zealous about it - you _do_ know that, right?

And thanks for all the poop on Ireland and the mini-snippet aside on the Philippines, but that's simply irrelevant. Please don't toss so many links at me. I'm trying to respond to your posts, not go through your clippings scrapbook. I'm trying to pin you down on your reasoning as to why religion is such a threat to you... wouldn't politics be a bigger boogeyman? Of course, the two are intextricably tied together... you see, the key factor in all of your arguments, as I see it, is the fervour with which you go up against religion. You're like some railing anti-priest. Which is, after all, still a priest. So I find your stance intriguing, MacDoc. Intriguing but not very logical. Even though do you do publicly worship at the alter of logic.

_The planet can ill afford such dogged opposition to family planning and availability of contraception and for THAT alone religions that do not support a woman's right to choose should be condemned._

No, the planet can afford pretty much anything it wants to - if a planet can be said to want to do anything at all. It's _we_ who cannot afford screwing the planet over. So enough talk of the poor planet. It will survive us. We have to get our act together if we are to continue as a viable species and not kill off too many other species in our own precious road to ruin. Meanwhile the planet remains spectacularly indifferent to our anxieties and wailings. Bringing in the subject of a woman's right to choose, however salutary a move that may be in its own regard, merely muddies the water and makes me think you are only too eager to drag anyhing into a debate, just so long as you believe it buys you some cred.

_A child indulging in fantasy with their toys brings a smile at imagination at work An adult in a position of power and influence - such as Bush or any number of ayatollahs doing so - brings shudders._

OK, so you don't like Bush. Neither do I, come to think of it - but this should come as no surprise to anyone who frequents this place. What exactly does Bush have to do with your contempt of religion and how does that relate to saving humanity from itself?


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

> What exactly does Bush have to do with your contempt of religion and how does that relate to saving humanity from itself?


"thou shalt not kill"

one of the 10 commandments that are cornerstones of the judeo-christian doctrine

why does that one get broken so often in the name of God?


----------



## Greenman (Feb 22, 2003)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> i think you pooched the original URL




Yeah, I tried to embed the clip....???

here's the URL

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jxOrkVE2iEk

another interesting short clip Symbolism in Art: Clues to the Secrets of the Tomb

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AcSKzMj76xA


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> "thou shalt not kill"
> 
> one of the 10 commandments that are cornerstones of the judeo-christian doctrine
> 
> why does that one get broken so often in the name of God?


Excellent question, no doubt. But hey, you don't really think MacDoc would answer what was wrong with Bush with a reference to the 10 commandments, do you?


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Max said:


> *I have no problem with neurotic behaviour - we all exhibit it to some degree but just now the planet needs less reliance on "fairytales will provide" and more on science and knowledge based sustainable stewardship both for peaceable co-existence and preservation of resources.*
> 
> And you're furthering this peaceable co-existence just how - by hectoring and talking down to all who disagree with the majesty of your views?


I think you're being somewhat unfair to those of us who are promoting a more secular world. Human civilizations have always been dominated by religion, and it is only during the past few decades that a significant number of people have had the guts to suggest that this status quo may not be ideal. Inevitably, minorities that promote a major sociological shift, however beneficial it may be in hindsight, will be viewed as disruptive, or even dangerous.



> Fair enough. But then again you are oversimplifying things for the sake of your argument. Teaching history is fraught with all sorts of pitfalls. Think the Japanese and the Americans read from the same accounts when covering WW11, ferinstance?


Case in point. Wouldn't it be a good thing if they both used objectively correct accounts of the stupidity, the atrocities, the horror and the heroism in that conflict? When you let certain groups off-the-hook with respect to remaining consistent with objective reality, or at the very least or current understanding of that reality, because it's offensive to their religion, you create fertile ground for entrenching the misunderstandings and mistrust that fuels the persistent conflicts.



> No, what's hogwash is your near-hysterical inability to leave religion well enough alone. You're quite zealous bout it - you _do_ know that, right?


Again, was Rosa Parks a zealot? Martin Luther King Jr.? Emmeline Pankhurst?

When you perceive a serious social problem, should you just 'leave well enough alone' just because it's pervasive?



> I'm trying to pin you down on your reasoning as to why religion is such a threat to you


I think MacDoc and I have articulated many reasons organized religion is a threat to society, and therefore us personally. At the risk of frustrating you with extra reading, these arguments are eloquently made, and well-supported with independent references and data in "The God Delusion" by Richard Dawkins. It's not actually such a long book, you might enjoy reading it.



> No, the planet can afford pretty much anything it wants to - if a planet can be said to want to do anything at all. It's _we_ who cannot afford screwing the planet over.


A semantic quibble. This is simply one of many issues where organized religion is a direct threat to the continued existence of our civilization.



> OK, so you don't like Bush. Neither do I, come to think of it - but this should come as no surprise to anyone who frequents this place. What exactly does Bush have to do with your contempt of religion and how does that relate to saving humanity from itself?


Can you seriously look at the antics of the Bush administration and not see religious fundamentalism as having played a pivotal role (both in getting the smeghead into office and in his hideously ill-advised policies)? This is simply another example of how religion threatens us all. What would you think of Stockwell Day as Primeminister? If it weren't for the fact that the religious fundamentalists don't yet have quite the political pull here in Canada as they do in the US, it could've happened. And such a thing could still happen if the rational people of Canada continue to sit quitely and leave religion 'well-enough alone.'

I'm all for religious freedom. I certainly don't want to see any legislation forbidding worshipping fairytales or demolishing churches. But I do think it's time that these delusion-factories started paying their taxes and I would seriously like to see them treated like alcohol or tobacco: not to be sold to children.

Cheers


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

bryanc said:


> But I do think it's time that these delusion-factories started paying their taxes and I would seriously like to see them treated like alcohol or tobacco: not to be sold to children.


All sorts of really dumb ideas shouldn't be given such a free ride when taught to children, but a lot of that is a parent's choice. Why just this one and all forms of this one or just one's that are too extreme (subjective)?

All this talk of eradication and other controls...zealous (also "militant") atheists are as bad as their religious counterparts. Of course, they both believe the higher purpose of their calling -- their greater good. Then wrapping themselves in the memories human rights leaders. More delusional analogies.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Beej said:


> All this talk of eradication and other controls...zealous (also "militant") atheists are as bad as their religious counterparts. Of course, they both believe the higher purpose of their calling -- their greater good. Then wrapping themselves in the memories human rights leaders. More delusional analogies.


Bang on.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

What he said :clap - thanks. Good post Bryanc

The time is past for a free pass.

••

Max

As to kids - don't quibble on the the specific subject matter - it's what the kids are being asked to bring to those topics.... questioning, using reason and expectation of rational processes in writing and analysis versus shut up and believe. 

Dangerous memes are no different than dangerous viruses need to be isolated, eliminated, vaccinated against and educated as to the dangers.

Were the religions memes of the world typified by the Quakers and the Amish and perhaps even the Buddhists I'd and I suspect Bryanc would take a different stance.

•••••



> zealous (also "militant") atheists are as bad as their religious counterparts. Of course, they both believe the higher purpose of their calling -- their greater good. Then wrapping themselves in the memories human rights leaders. More delusional analogies.


what a crock - 
You might say the same about those passionate about vaccines, or Doctors without Borders, or human rights.
Beej that's total tripe and you know it - I'm appalled.

There is a huge difference between applying human KNOWLEDGE to further a peaceable and sustainable planet and promulgating fairy tales to impressionable youngsters and denying woman and families the right to family planning tools and education.
Wake up.....

I and millions of others are seriously tired of inane comparisons between verifiable human knowledge and religious tripe. And lots are gettting loud about.

Time to call a spade a spade on this and not give ignorance a free pass.

When morons like Bush start to cripple scientific endeavour, time to get gnarly...many are.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

MacDoc said:


> Dangerous memes are no different than dangerous viruses need to be isolated, eliminated, vaccinated against and educated as to the dangers.


Careful what you wish for Doc. The tremendous diversity you're cheering on in Mississauga is full of people who practice "dangerous memes" in the form of religion--Christians, Jews, Muslims. In fact, I'd hazard that current crop of immigrants is even more dangerous--that is, religious---than what you're used to.




MacDoc said:


> Were the religions memes of the world typified by the Quakers and the Amish and perhaps even the Buddhists I'd and I suspect Bryanc would take a different stance.


Yes, it's time for us all to do some important self-analysis so as to make our varied religious beliefs conform to the wishes of the immortal high command: a Maritime biologist and a Mississauga computer salesman.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

_I think you're being somewhat unfair to those of us who are promoting a more secular world. Human civilizations have always been dominated by religion, and it is only during the past few decades that a significant number of people have had the guts to suggest that this status quo may not be ideal. Inevitably, minorities that promote a major sociological shift, however beneficial it may be in hindsight, will be viewed as disruptive, or even dangerous._

Agreed! I was responding more to one of MacDoc's more egregious tendencies, tarring everyone with the same brush. In doing so I used a rather wide brush myself.

_Case in point. Wouldn't it be a good thing if they both used objectively correct accounts of the stupidity, the atrocities, the horror and the heroism in that conflict? When you let certain groups off-the-hook with respect to remaining consistent with objective reality, or at the very least or current understanding of that reality, because it's offensive to their religion, you create fertile ground for entrenching the misunderstandings and mistrust that fuels the persistent conflicts._

Agreed again.

_Again, was Rosa Parks a zealot? Martin Luther King Jr.? Emmeline Pankhurst?_

Gosh no, but I fear you miss my point. Zealotry shades over into that excessive religiosity in no time at all... it's the thin edge of the wedge. What forces exist to separate the good aspects from the bad ones? I think it's a matter of degrees myself.

_When you perceive a serious social problem, should you just 'leave well enough alone' just because it's pervasive?_

Nope. Did I say that?

_I think MacDoc and I have articulated many reasons organized religion is a threat to society, and therefore us personally. At the risk of frustrating you with extra reading, these arguments are eloquently made, and well-supported with independent references and data in "The God Delusion" by Richard Dawkins. It's not actually such a long book, you might enjoy reading it._

Perhaps I would. But do you think I would enjoy it because it's not such a long book? Wait, don't answer that... perhaps for the sake of fairness I should urge you to speak to more people of faith... perhaps you simply have spent too little time listening to them and far too much time reacting to them.

[Insert winkie here]

_A semantic quibble. This is simply one of many issues where organized religion is a direct threat to the continued existence of our civilization._

I dunno why you need to reserve all your ire for religion only. Society has many direct threats. Shucks, society is a threat to itself. Pinning all of the woes we face on organized religion seems mighty peculiar to me.

_Can you seriously look at the antics of the Bush administration and not see religious fundamentalism as having played a pivotal role (both in getting the smeghead into office and in his hideously ill-advised policies)? This is simply another example of how religion threatens us all. What would you think of Stockwell Day as Primeminister? If it weren't for the fact that the religious fundamentalists don't yet have quite the political pull here in Canada as they do in the US, it could've happened. And such a thing could still happen if the rational people of Canada continue to sit quitely and leave religion 'well-enough alone.'_

Unlike you I don't think Bush is propped up solely by hardcore Christian fundies. He has plenty of fans down south, despite his rapidly tanking popularity... his appeal remains fairly broad in America and while he pays lip service to the fundie sects he also draws on mainstream conservative roots to stay in power. Last time I looked, America is split down the middle between those who tend to identify themselves as left and their rightward counterparts. No, Bush has all sorts of support, whether we like it or not. Blaming all of the nastiness of the Bush administration on people who believe in God is a bit much. It's a gross oversimplification.

_I'm all for religious freedom. I certainly don't want to see any legislation forbidding worshipping fairytales or demolishing churches. But I do think it's time that these delusion-factories started paying their taxes and I would seriously like to see them treated like alcohol or tobacco: not to be sold to children._

I agree that churches ought to be taxed; I'm all for it. But as far as dealing with children is concerned, I rather doubt that the state has any more trustworthy resources for imparting wisdom and morality. No one has a lock on rational thought, and to posit that the government or social institutions could actually carry this out without hugely mucking it up is something of a stretch for me personally. In fact, the notion that we could build a rational society in and of itself strikes me as innately creeptastic. In terms of potential, it's wonderfully dystopian.

But then again, I don't consider human beings to be all that rational. Perhaps that's a failing of mine.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Macfury said:


> Yes, it's time for us all to do some important self-analysis so as to make our varied religious beliefs conform to the wishes of the immortal high command: a Maritime biologist and a Mississauga computer salesman.


LOL

MacDoc practically begs for these types of broadsides... after all, gnarly begets gnarly.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

No Max you were just being combatative -did somehow my praise of Quakers and others as exemplars escape your fierce gaze.....I guess....knee jerk is just more fun.
Gnarly - yes it does Max - yes it does....get used to it.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Beej said:


> All sorts of really dumb ideas shouldn't be given such a free ride when taught to children, but a lot of that is a parent's choice. Why just this one and all forms of this one or just one's that are too extreme (subjective)?


Sure, it'd be nice if we could fix everything. But given that we can't should we fix nothing?



> All this talk of eradication and other controls...zealous (also "militant") atheists are as bad as their religious counterparts.


I'm just being honest about my biases. I'm not going to pretend I wouldn't like to see the memes of the Abrahamic religions go extinct, but I certainly hold no ill-will towards the people carrying these memes, nor do I expect to see such outcomes during my life.



> Then wrapping themselves in the memories human rights leaders. More delusional analogies.


So do you have a legitimate point to make here? How is someone standing up against a pervasive social standard that they legitimately perceive as deleterious qualitatively different than the positions taken by social activists in the past?

We get accused of being zealots and extremists because we point out the elephant in the room. I expect and receive a fair amount of abuse from the religious adherents on this account, but I expect better of you. If you've got a point to make, let's hear it.

Cheers


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Macfury said:


> Yes, it's time for us all to do some important self-analysis so as to make our varied religious beliefs conform to the wishes of the immortal high command: a Maritime biologist and a Mississauga computer salesman.


Nothing like the old ad hominum when you don't have any logical points to make, eh?

Cheers


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

MacDoc said:


> Gnarly - yes it does Max - yes it does....get used to it.


Why MacDoc, I _am_ used to it. That's why I usually ignore it.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

bryanc said:


> I expect and receive a fair amount of abuse from the religious adherents on this account, but I expect better of you. If you've got a point to make, let's hear it.


While I can't speak for Beej of course I can make an edumacated guess. I think he's suggesting that there are more similarities between rabid anti-religionists and rabid religionists than there are differences... especially where it regards the fervor of their beliefs.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

bryanc said:


> Nothing like the old ad hominum....


The term is _ad hominem_, but doesn't apply here...MacDoc was specifically suggesting that you and he might be mollified if we all took a hard look at our religious views and made them more acceptable to the both of you. I merely listed your credentials for judging the suitability of various religions, avoiding any suggestion that these credentials crippled the intellectual acceptability of your posts in general.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Max said:


> Agreed! ...


Thank you. It's always a lot more fun to discuss things when there's the possibility of finding grounds for agreement.



> What forces exist to separate the good aspects from the bad ones? I think it's a matter of degrees myself.


Agreed!



> _When you perceive a serious social problem, should you just 'leave well enough alone' just because it's pervasive?_
> 
> Nope. Did I say that?


Maybe I was misreading you, but I thought you said that we should leave religion well-enough alone? Both MD and I perceive religion (especially, but not exclusively, large organized religions) as a serious social malady. For us to leave these respected social institutions alone would certainly be the path of least resistance, but I also think it would be cowardly.




> _At the risk of frustrating you with extra reading, these arguments are eloquently made, and well-supported with independent references and data in "The God Delusion" by Richard Dawkins. It's not actually such a long book, you might enjoy reading it._
> 
> Perhaps I would. But do you think I would enjoy it because it's not such a long book?


That wasn't meant as a dig. You had just lambasted MD for showering you in links, and I wanted to point out that Dawkins' book is not really a lot of reading.



> I should urge you to speak to more people of faith... perhaps you simply have spent too little time listening to them and far too much time reacting to them.


I spent many years playing trumpet for the Catholic Schools All City Band, and have a ton of Catholic friends because of it. Well, many of them are ex-Catholics now (I like to think that I played a significant role in their recovery from that particular mental virus). I've also studied philosophy fairly extensively, and have discussed these issues with people of many faiths. I think I understand their positions fairly well, but I'll admit that I'm prone to assumptions now, and will gladly accept any corrections if I'm misrepresenting anyone's beliefs.




> I dunno why you need to reserve all your ire for religion only. Society has many direct threats. Shucks, society is a threat to itself. Pinning all of the woes we face on organized religion seems mighty peculiar to me.


I don't reserve my ire for religion exclusively. I have argued vociferously on many other topics.

However, religion does get special treatment, because I think that, unlike global climate change, or privatization of health care, there aren't many people who appear to be aware of the problem. On the contrary, it appears to me that most people seem to believe that religions are actually _good_ for society.



> Unlike you I don't think Bush is propped up solely by hardcore Christian fundies.


I don't think _all_ of his support is coming from these groups; just that it's a significant factor.



> I agree that churches ought to be taxed; I'm all for it. But as far as dealing with children is concerned, I rather doubt that the state has any more trustworthy resources for imparting wisdom and morality.


Well, I think we agree here, but I'd go a step further and argue that you couldn't do worse than the church. But this is an example where I'm failing to distinguish between my positions that I think are reasonable short-term objectives (taxation of organized religions), and my admittedly far-fetched ideals (identification of religions as dangerous memes not to be inflicted on minors).



> But then again, I don't consider human beings to be all that rational. Perhaps that's a failing of mine.


If anyone faults you for this, it certainly won't be for lack of evidence.

Cheers.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Good retorts all. Yeah, the Fundies are a significant factor of Bush's support - we're agreed on this. And thanks for clearing that up about the Dawkins book. I can certainly see now why you replied the way you did.

_However, religion does get special treatment, because I think that, unlike global climate change, or privatization of health care, there aren't many people who appear to be aware of the problem. On the contrary, it appears to me that most people seem to believe that religions are actually good for society._

This is where it gets sticky for me. I have yet to see any convincing proof that religions are universally harmful, so I remain skeptical about those who claim it to be a massive roadblock to our progress as a civilization. Religion is merely yet one more symptom of the human condition, the way I see it anyway - and sometimes I wonder if we aren't genetically predisposed to think and act along certain lines. Though the pessimist in me tends to focus on that which holds humanity back, I will also readily acknowledge that we carry within us the seeds of success too. If that success is achieved through religion, then what's the problem? You see, I don't see religion as being inherently bad. I think latent stupidity holds us back far more - and that is a far more primal aspect of our species.

In short, I think that campaigning against stupidity in its many forms is to be applauded. Bashing on religion, however, can merely amount to yet more stupidity - albeit cloaked in some other fancy garment.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Macfury said:


> The term is _ad hominem_, but doesn't apply here...MacDoc was specifically suggesting that you and he might be mollified if we all took a hard look at our religious views and made them more acceptable to the both of you.


thanks for the correction... built-in spell check is only as good as it's dictionary.

I didn't see where MD suggested you should be trying to please us with your religious views. If he did, I disagree. I certainly don't place myself in any position of authority on this topic.



> I merely listed your credentials for judging the suitability of various religions


I would argue that no credentials are of any relevance here whatsoever, which is why I took it as an ad hominem. What is relevant is the parsimony, logical consistency and explanatory power of the conceptual framework. My judgement is that all forms of supernaturalism fail abysmally by these criteria. However the only qualified judge of such an issue is the individual holding the beliefs.

Cheers


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

> Were the religions memes of the world typified by the Quakers and the Amish and perhaps even the Buddhists I'd and I suspect Bryanc would take a different stance.


Bryanc: You're right. MacDoc only suspected you would be mollified. He only spoke for himself there. My apologies.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

So now we need degrees established to determine eradication, otherwise it's just another looney wanting some very general thing to be eradicated based on extremist examples.

MD: Your logic on this topic has always entered the appalling territory of broad-brush statements followed up with anecdotal and contextless demonising. Using something perhaps more familiar to your experiences, you're being an anti-nuke nutcase.

So, Quakers ok, Catholicism not? Eastern religions? Family spirit worship? What needs eradicating and why do you have any say in that? To where should the crusade be aimed? I hope the militants are being "provocative" and don't actually believe the virus BS and self-serving associations with other activists movements and, well, a lot of their insecure aggression. 

The standard logical dismissal of 'gods' which I've always strongly supported is very different from going out and eradicating or controlling information. Sure, broaden education, level the playing-fied for taxes, speak out against ID in science but the fanaticism is obvious.

MD and Bryanc, you are not the brave promoters, you are acting like quite the zealots intent on wiping out and dehumanising everything about what you don't like. You are more like abolitionists, if you prefer not being lumped in with the religious zealots. 

For all those who think that persons of various religious groups should speak up when someone of their religion is being a hateful zealot (even though it's not their fault at all), this atheist just did. It's not a religion, by I am associated with whatever it is. The Truth?  

I'm calling a spade a spade. There is an enormous gap between actively riding the deep logical flaws in any "god" (FSM anyone?) proofs and what you two are doing.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Macfury said:


> Bryanc: You're right. MacDoc only suspected you would be mollified. He only spoke for himself there. My apologies.


I'd actually missed that post, so I have a better idea of what you're referring to now. I don't think MD was saying that you should be trying to please us, but rather responding to the criticism that he and I are anti-religious. His point, with which I agree, is that our anti-religious stance would likely be less vigorous were the majority of the worlds religions peaceful and non-evangelical.

For example, I find the supernaturalism of many Buddhists philosophically offensive, but as religions go, I find Buddhism much less threatening than any of the Abrahamic religions.

At any rate, I certainly don't expect anyone to try to please me with their beliefs, but when their irrational superstitions are used to excuse and motivate behavior that endangers my work, my society and my ecosystem, I don't think I can be faulted for complaining about it.

Cheers


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Beej said:


> So, Quakers ok, Catholicism not?


I'm sure you're capable of understanding the concept of a spectrum. Small problems vs. big problems, respectively.



> What needs eradicating and why do you have any say in that?


To look forward to something's eventual disappearance is not the same thing as advocating it's eradication.

I'd like to see people stop smoking. It's bad for them, it's bad for the people around them, and it's bad for the society that has to pay for their health care. But I wouldn't advocate making it illegal and locking up smokers any more than I would advocate making religions illegal and locking up believers.



> MD and Bryanc, you are not the brave promoters, you are acting like quite the zealots intent on wiping out and dehumanising everything about what you don't like.


You're certainly entitled to your opinion, but I disagree. I do see religions as memetic viruses, and I do see them as a danger to society. But I'm not dehumanizing anyone or blindly following dogma. I like the way Dawkins articulates the ideas, but this is primarily because I had come to most of these conclusions on my own, and Dawkins is simply better equipped to argue this case. There are many (*many*) other scientists I know who agree, and these are all very independent, critical thinkers. The only way in which we're like zealots is that we are quite confident in our beliefs and enthusiastic about expressing them. But the confidence is the result of careful rational consideration and a great deal of study, and the enthusiasm is a function of our respective personalities and our perception of the importance of this issue in society.




> For all those who think that persons of various religious groups should speak up when someone of their religion is being a hateful zealot (even though it's not their fault at all), this atheist just did. It's not a religion, by I am associated with whatever it is.


This is a very good point. If you think I'm being hateful, I think you're wildly misinterpreting my position, but it is entirely appropriate for you to distance yourself. Unlike religions, atheism has no canon, and there is no single coherent position that binds us apart from a lack of belief in god(s).

Cheers


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

Beej said:


> So now we need degrees established to determine eradication, otherwise it's just another looney wanting some very general thing to be eradicated based on extremist examples.
> 
> MD: Your logic on this topic has always entered the appalling territory of broad-brush statements followed up with anecdotal and contextless demonising. Using something perhaps more familiar to your experiences, you're being an anti-nuke nutcase.
> 
> ...



:clap: :clap: :clap:

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Beej that's just about the most nonsensical post you've written ......of course it thrilled MacGuiver as a result.

•••

Degrees of risk??? - of course - many viruses are benign and even beneficial.
Others dangerous and worth tackling. Some neuroses are harmless rabbits foot good luck charm - tho not so harmless to the rabbit - others lead to pyschotic behaviour ..think sucide bomb.
The Catholic approach to banning education and a effective family planning tools being made available is dangerous to the sustainable nature of the planet.

There are many dangerous memes not necessarily religious - fascism is one, misogynism another, slavery yet another.
Shall we not speak vigorously and with passion there??

With 50% more people on the way and a stressed planet ecosystem...business as usual ain't gonna work.
Much to be questioned as to value to getting through this 30 year bottleneck.
Dangerous memes amongst them.


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> "thou shalt not kill"
> 
> one of the 10 commandments that are cornerstones of the judeo-christian doctrine
> 
> why does that one get broken so often in the name of God?


Ah, you seem to have missed the obvious.


----------



## imactheknife (Aug 7, 2003)

guytoronto said:


> Ah, you seem to have missed the obvious.


haha, thats funny...


----------



## Darien Red Sox (Oct 24, 2006)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> perhaps the scientific community should stop trying to disprove the existence of God and wait for the believers to prove God exists
> 
> faith is not proof
> 
> "I know because I believe" is hardly any sort of method unless you're president of the U.S.A.


I have to disagree, we already have prof that God exists. People have experienced it. Things that are scientifically impossible happen all the time with just a little pray. An in recent years Science has discovered stuff that scientists would have known 2000 years ago if they picked up and read the Bible.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Darien Red Sox said:


> I have to disagree, we already have prof that God exists.


I thought you guys were all about faith, not proof. But by all means, let's hear about these proofs.



> People have experienced it.


A little LSD or the endogenous opiates your brain will produce under conditions of stress (or meditation/prayer, interestingly enough) will allow you to experience all kinds of interesting things. That, of course, does not make the pink elephants real.



> Things that are scientifically impossible happen all the time with just a little pray.


Really? That's amazing! Perhaps you'd like to come into my lab and demonstrate something impossible. I understand that James Randi has a million dollar bond up for grabs for anyone who can demonstrate anything even remotely 'paranormal,' let alone impossible, under laboratory conditions.

It seems to me that this would be easy money for your church... you wouldn't have to have bake sales for quite a while.



> An in recent years Science has discovered stuff that scientists would have known 2000 years ago if they picked up and read the Bible.


What, like the fact that rabbits chew their cud, or that grasshoppers have four legs? (Leviticus 11:20-23)

Cheers


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

any more questions  



> Falwell to Arms: Christians Being Duped by Global Warming?
> by Jasmin Malik Chua, Jersey City, USA on 02.27.07
> Culture & Celebrity
> Just as evangelical representatives, including bishops from the Catholic Church, are drawing attention to climate-change issues, right-wing preacher Jerry Falwell is decrying global warming as "Satan's attempt to redirect the church's primary focus" from evangelism to environmentalism.
> ...


http://www.treehugger.com/files/2007/02/falwell_to_arms.php


----------

