# The Religious Thread



## mrjimmy

Here we go. A place for all to vent, observe, ask and preach.


----------



## chasMac

I predict this will be a cheerful thread, not at all fraught with emotion.


----------



## BigDL

Holy House of Horrors! My last visit. Good luck with that!


----------



## screature

Should be as much fun as many of the political threads.


----------



## jimbotelecom

Steve Jobs is the second coming.


----------



## screature

Of who....


----------



## jimbotelecom

screature said:


> Of who....


of Steve Jobs


----------



## SINC

Give me some of that old-time religion . . . *Hail Zeus!*


----------



## screature

jimbotelecom said:


> of Steve Jobs


Now that presents an interesting religious question... are you saying that Steve Jobs has been born again?


----------



## mrjimmy

I like it already!


----------



## eMacMan

My Southern Baptist friends express it rather concisely:

"Praise the Lard"


----------



## mrjimmy

Here's a good quote:

"Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich." — Napoleon.

and another:

A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject." — Winston Churchill.

one more:

"All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian, or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit." — Thomas Paine (1737-1809).

Lastly:

"Faith is believing what you know ain't so." — Mark Twain.


----------



## MacGuiver

> "All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian, or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit." — Thomas Paine (1737-1809).


Sounds like the IPCC.


----------



## Dr.G.

"Faith is believing what you know ain't so." — Mark Twain. Very wise, mrj. Paix, mon ami.


----------



## MazterCBlazter

.


----------



## MazterCBlazter

.


----------



## mrjimmy

MacGuiver said:


> Sounds like the IPCC.


There's a thread for that.


----------



## arminia

Just saw a show about Cromwell and all the Irish Catholics his army massacred in the name of God.


----------



## MazterCBlazter

.


----------



## Max

I saw it some months back. Not too terribly impressed. Not impressed with Bill Mahar being terribly impressed with himself, actually. A bit self-indulgent and his arguments felt somewhat circular and tinged with bitterness about his own experiences.

In short, it felt like a rant. Not a very funny rant at that.


----------



## groovetube

I'm starting an offshoot of sufism, I'll call it, say, goofism. Who's in?


----------



## chasMac

Haven't seen it; a review I read stated that of the big three, Maher reserves his most caustic attacks for Christianity - his send-ups of the other two being rather limp. The film was hyped though, as an equal opportunity attack of all religions.


----------



## kps

Okay folks, you heard it here first.

There's a genetic researcher in India that claims that the Taliban are actually Jews descended from one of the "lost" tribes of Israel.

Ready...Set...Google!


----------



## chas_m

chasMac said:


> Haven't seen it; a review I read stated that of the big three, Maher reserves his most caustic attacks for Christianity - his send-ups of the other two being rather limp. The film was hyped though, as an equal opportunity attack of all religions.


Being that its one of the largest (and most aggressive), that's really rather unsurprising.

I am personally pretty comfortable in Dawkins' camp, but that said I would hate a world with no cathedrals, no hymns, no stained glass artwork, no invisible friends to offer comfort. So I respect people's faiths and the various positive contributions religions have made to mankind, and loathe the various crimes and horrors that religion has fostered or that have been (are being) done in its name.


----------



## chasMac

chas_m said:


> Being that its one of the largest (and most aggressive), that's really rather unsurprising.
> 
> I am personally pretty comfortable in Dawkins' camp, but that said I would hate a world with no cathedrals, no hymns, no stained glass artwork, no invisible friends to offer comfort. So I respect people's faiths and the various positive contributions religions have made to mankind, and loathe the various crimes and horrors that religion has fostered or that have been (are being) done in its name.


I would say of the big 3, Christianity is most definitely only moderately aggressive, in terms of proselytization anyways. Wouldn't you agree?

Maybe Bill is of the same mind as Russell Peters, when reasoning on-stage why he doesn't make fun of certain religions - it's because he likes to live.


----------



## ehMax

chasMac said:


> I would say of the big 3, Christianity is most definitely only moderately aggressive, in terms of proselytization anyways. Wouldn't you agree?
> 
> Maybe Bill is of the same mind as Russell Peters, when reasoning on-stage why he doesn't make fun of certain religions - it's because he likes to live.


Not sure if anyone has seen this video. Try it yourself. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qott73xMyLk


----------



## Greenman

kps said:


> Okay folks, you heard it here first.
> 
> There's a genetic researcher in India that claims that the Taliban are actually Jews descended from one of the "lost" tribes of Israel.
> 
> Ready...Set...Google!


Simcha!? 

YouTube - [01/10] Quest For The Lost Tribes

Simcha Jacobovici - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Macfury

I am really getting tired of self-righteous people fingering various religions for historical crimes. When people get together in large groups, some of them tend to make trouble. End of story.


----------



## chasMac

Macfury said:


> I am really getting tired of self-righteous people fingering various religions for historical crimes. When people get together in large groups, some of them tend to make trouble. End of story.


Well.... the crusades were pretty religious in their genesis... not sure if it's just a case of nutterism born of a large gathering.


----------



## Macfury

chasMac said:


> Well.... the crusades were pretty religious in their genesis... not sure if it's just a case of nutterism born of a large gathering.


Sure it was. Just like the Stalin purges, Mao's Cultural Revolution and Pol Pot. Evil people rise to power when the opportunity strikes and lead the willing to commit atrocities.


----------



## kps

Macfury said:


> Sure it was. Just like the Stalin purges, Mao's Cultural Revolution and Pol Pot. Evil people rise to power when the opportunity strikes and lead the willing to commit atrocities.


As an atheist I take offense to that...

Although those mass murders may had something to do with communist (Marxist) ideology.


----------



## chasMac

Macfury said:


> Sure it was. Just like the Stalin purges, Mao's Cultural Revolution and Pol Pot. Evil people rise to power when the opportunity strikes and lead the willing to commit atrocities.


Surely though, you agree that the promise of eternal life is a most effective way of swaying the masses to do one's bidding. I would submit that it is _the_ most effective method. Thus, people who do condemn religion as a motivator to commit evil have a point (not sure if I am one of them).


----------



## Macfury

chasMac said:


> Surely though, you agree that the promise of eternal life is a most effective way of swaying the masses to do one's bidding. I would submit that it is _the_ most effective method. Thus, people who do condemn religion as a motivator to commit evil have a point (not sure if I am one of them).


I'm not certain of that. I don't believe that Japanese Kamikaze pilots believed they were going to an eternal reward, nor did most Communist thugs believe in an afterlife--only the rightness of their cause.

A belief in an afterlife cuts both ways--either you can be rewarded for expending your life, or you will be eternally punished for your actions.

I think all one needs is a belief in a cause greater than one's self to motivate.


----------



## Max

Absolutely. Religion may or may not enter into it. All you need is a certain degree of commitment/fanaticism/readiness to die for that supposed greater cause.


----------



## chasMac

@ Max, you must agree that religion has proven itself to be the most fertile ground for fanatacism Except, historically we would not have called acts committed in the name of god fanatacism: this is hugely important.

Please don't misunderstand me; I am not saying the worst acts in history have religion as a motivator; I am saying it is the most effective motivator: 2 different things.


----------



## chasMac

Macfury said:


> I think all one needs is a belief in a cause greater than one's self to motivate.


If you want to use examples, I can't think of an instance of a parent letting their young child die in the name of Stalin, as present-day parents do in the name of God by refusing to allow blood-transfusions, life-saving surgeries, etc (I mean children, 5 & 6 year olds - not sending them to the front to die as human mine-sweepers). Religion breeds a fanaticism like no other ideology. I do not believe that human beings have the mental capacity as group to resist this. If some do blame religion for the commission of atrocities, they do have the weight millennia as evidence. (That is to say, religion is as old as humankind.)


----------



## kps

Religion (or lack of) is not the motivator...it is the excuse.


----------



## Max

chasMac said:


> Please don't misunderstand me; I am not saying the worst acts in history have religion as a motivator; I am saying it is the most effective motivator: 2 different things.


I don't know that I can agree. In any case, it's not something we can statistically corroborate. And the distinction you make is lost on me; it appears to be so small as to be negligible, seeing as you cast religion as the most effective motivator behind the worst acts of history. I don't even know how you can go about measuring up the substance of such a claim. Much depends on what history books you seek for your sources.

Too, people are often terribly willing to overlook the good deeds done in the name of religious belief. There seems to be a fashionable wave of intolerance for religion in the West, as if it's a nasty vestigial tail of our psyche which inherently impedes progress and which must be subsequently abandoned if we are to move forward. I used to think that thesis was true but nowadays I question this orthodoxy. It often looks as if the anti-religionists have their own fanatical fervor brewing up. It makes me fearful of what we would put in its place. The state? The Benevolent Committee for Nice Non-Religious Feelings and Non-Fanatical Actions? _Yikes._

Better the devil you know? Perhaps.

Religion is a weird and powerful thing. Organized religion is even stranger stuff. Often I feel we allow the major religions of the world to push us this way and that and to fight amongst ourselves when we would do better to use our energies for the betterment of life for all - and not just the damn pesky humans and their self-important notions of primacy.

Yet all too often, those who call for the wholesale eradication of religion creep me out... most cries for revolution do.


----------



## Macfury

chasMac said:


> If you want to use examples, I can't think of an instance of a parent letting their young child die in the name of Stalin, as present-day parents do in the name of God by refusing to allow blood-transfusions, life-saving surgeries, etc)


I have watched people who believe in holistic healing allow their children to die by holding off on life-saving medicine. Their religious views never entered into it. I have watched environmentalists ban the use of DDT in countries where mosquito-borne malaria killed human infants by the thousands.


----------



## chasMac

Hmmm, maybe Max & MF have convinced me. (see if I were religious, I wouldn't do that, ). Kidding, kidding.


----------



## chasMac

Macfury said:


> I have watched people who believe in holistic healing allow their children to die by holding off on life-saving medicine. Their religious views never entered into it. I have watched environmentalists ban the use of DDT in countries where mosquito-borne malaria killed human infants by the thousands.


Wouldn't you say though, that the groups the above are members of bear all the hallmarks of a religion? 

Climate change belief given same legal status as religion - Telegraph


----------



## Macfury

chasMac said:


> Wouldn't you say though, that the groups the above are members of bear all the hallmarks of a religion?
> 
> Climate change belief given same legal status as religion - Telegraph


No. I think that extreme religious beliefs are an expression of the same thing that inflames the other groups into dangerous behaviour, tyranny, violence or neglect. The hallmarks are common to some greater disorder.


----------



## CubaMark

Good thing this thread is on _religion_, not _God_. Otherwise, I'd have a few questions to ask....


----------



## MazterCBlazter

.


----------



## screature

kps said:


> Religion (or lack of) is not the motivator...it is the excuse.


Bingo!! +1


----------



## screature

MazterCBlazter said:


> Re: religulous
> 
> I just saw it and learned pretty much nothing I didn't already know. It was unnecessarily offensive, not funny at all, and Bill Mahar was unnecessarily way too rude...


Bill Mahar is a very mediocre comic with a touch of megalomania or at the very least he has greatly overestimated his own intelligence. He is pretty much just a blow-hard a-hole (at least in his public persona).


----------



## MazterCBlazter

.


----------



## Macfury

MazterCBlazter said:


> After seeing Mahar's crap, I'm certainly no fan of his either.


Anything can be reduced to hypocrisy or absurdity depending on the lens we use to view it. The only way you can escape such lambasting is to do absolutely nothing and believe absolutely nothing.


----------



## MazterCBlazter

.


----------



## MazterCBlazter

.


----------



## arminia

*One of Man's most important invention*

God: This multipurpose tool has allowed billions to soothe their mortal fears while easily excusing a wide variety of unconscionable actions such as war and homophobia.


----------



## CubaMark

^^^^ +1000


----------



## chasMac

arminia said:


> God: This multipurpose tool has allowed billions to soothe their mortal fears while easily excusing a wide variety of unconscionable actions such as war and homophobia.


True. But if it has inspired man to commit terrible acts, it has also caused untold good. Don't think there would have been much of a charity industry in pre-modern Europe without the threat of eternal damnation to spur on the rich - (after all to 'soothe their mortal fears', as you put it, man had to act in return - prior to Luther anyways, when there was no free lunch). Art too, from the Greeks and before, to the nineteenth c. benefited from god, gods, religion, both as its subject and through benefaction.

Generally speaking, god, or at least in the name of, was behind all great acts, both noble and ignoble, prior to the modern era.


----------



## Macfury

Likewise, some people who believe in eternal life are more likely to sacrifice themselves for the greater good.


----------



## chasMac

Macfury said:


> Likewise, some people who believe in eternal life are more likely to sacrifice themselves for the greater good.


That's what is behind my thinking. Throughout history, people have more willingly, more consistently sacrificed their own lives for god, than for anything else, even their children.


----------



## jimbotelecom

chasMac said:


> That's what is behind my thinking. Throughout history, people have more willingly, more consistently sacrificed their own lives for god, than for anything else, even their children.


Yes, like the gentlemen who flew planes into the WTC, the Pentagon, etc.


----------



## chasMac

jimbotelecom said:


> Yes, like the gentlemen who flew planes into the WTC, the Pentagon, etc.


Exactly. Sadly, at the beginning of the 21st c. we are all too familiar with the idea of self-sacrifice in the name of one's god.


----------



## jimbotelecom

chasMac said:


> Exactly. Sadly, at the beginning of the 21st c. we are all too familiar with the idea of self-sacrifice in the name of one's god.


You maybe aware that Karlheinz Stockhausen called the 911 event the greatest artwork of all time.


----------



## MazterCBlazter

.


----------



## chasMac

MazterCBlazter said:


> I do partially believe in Karma though, if you do good things, good things are more likely, but not guaranteed, to happen to you.


I've encountered far, far too many horrible people who've achieved success and _genuine_ happiness (none of this 'but are they really happy on the inside' B.S., please) to believe in karma.


----------



## MazterCBlazter

.


----------



## Macfury

chasMac said:


> I've encountered far, far too many horrible people who've achieved success and _genuine_ happiness (none of this 'but are they really happy on the inside' B.S., please) to believe in karma.


I agree 100%. They don't give unhappiness the time of day.


----------



## arminia

Gay Teen Worried He Might Be Christian | The Onion - America's Finest News Source


----------



## tilt

God made Man, Man made religion (no capital R for religion)

Cheers


----------



## bryanc

tilt said:


> God made Man


Is man God's biggest mistake, or is God man's biggest mistake?

(roughly translated from Nietzsche)

Personally, I think it's the latter.


----------



## MazterCBlazter

.


----------



## bryanc

This thread is hardly the place to start a serious philosophical discussion, but I'll throw this out for your consideration:

There is not now, nor has there ever been, any evidence for any supernatural phenomena of any kind. This fact remains true in the face of our species' fundamental bias towards the belief in supernatural explanations, even in the face of evidence for mundane explanations.

Furthermore, it has now been demonstrated beyond any doubt that many species (including chickens) become superstitious in the context of randomized reinforcement, and that under random reinforcement, superstitious behaviour is at no disadvantage. If a given explanation is at no disadvantage to a complete lack of an explanation, the explanation that does as well as "I have no idea" is going to do better.

It therefore follows logically that our ancestors were highly superstitious and concocted many complex, and completely fictitious myths to explain their world, and there emerged a competitive 'market place' of mythology as communication systems emerged in human societies.

Those mythologies that were able to attract and retain adherents prospered, and those that were less able to do so either changed or disappeared.

As these belief systems were transmitted from believer to convert, and challenged by other beliefs and different contexts, they changed and adapted to their environment.

We now live in a culture were these beliefs have been evolving for literally hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of years, and are ideally optimized to 'feel' right to human minds. This has nothing to do with their congruence with objective reality.

There remains no objective evidence that any of these supernaturally-based superstitions are any more valid than another, or random chance. And there is ample evidence that all of them are fundamentally false.

Of course, as non-falsifiable tenants, none of them can be proved untrue (any that could be have long ago been proved untrue, and all surviving forms are immune to this attack).

But I would hope that as citizens of a 21st century civilization, with at least the basics of scientific literacy and the capacity for critical thought, most, if not all of you should be capable of rationally examining your beliefs and expunging the most egregiously irrational fantasies, which form the basis of all modern religions.

If any of you want to discuss this in a rational manner, please accept my invitation to do so here.


----------



## fjnmusic

Puzzling to me that one can reject religion yet still accept god. Isn't that really just trying to have it both ways? How on earth does a person learn about god _except_ through religion? Seems to me that if you reject religion, you must ultimately also be rejecting the concept of god. It's like saying, "I love mankind—it's people I hate."


----------



## MacGuiver

fjnmusic said:


> Puzzling to me that one can reject religion yet still accept god. Isn't that really just trying to have it both ways? How on earth does a person learn about god _except_ through religion? Seems to me that if you reject religion, you must ultimately also be rejecting the concept of god. It's like saying, "I love mankind—it's people I hate."


Good point.
I think what people are really saying in those instances where they bemoan "organized religion" is that they'd like to have the afterlife package they're offering but they're turned off by the terms put down by religion a,b or c to achieve it. I find it funny that you can attend the wake of the wildest guy in town that may have outright rejected the whole god thing yet you'll often hear people say things like "he's at rest now" or "he's in a better place" or "may he rest in peace". I noticed that when George Carlin died and found it quite ironic.

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## fjnmusic

MacGuiver said:


> Good point.
> I think what people are really saying in those instances where they bemoan "organized religion" is that they'd like to have the afterlife package they're offering but they're turned off by the terms put down by religion a,b or c to achieve it. I find it funny that you can attend the wake of the wildest guy in town that may have outright rejected the whole god thing yet you'll often hear people say things like "he's at rest now" or "he's in a better place" or "may he rest in peace". I noticed that when George Carlin died and found it quite ironic.
> 
> Cheers
> MacGuiver


Good points, especially with respect to our late friend, Mr. Carlin.

George Carlin On Religion


----------



## bryanc

fjnmusic said:


> George Carlin On Religion


Good old George... he always did a great job mixing comedy with deep philosophy. Very smart dude.

Since it appears that this thread is dead, I'm just going to post some of my favourite quotes about religion. If you have others, or if you have attributions for those quotes missing them, please post them and I'll add them to my collection.

"I wish to propose for the reader's favourable consideration a doctrine which may, I fear, appear wildly paradoxical and subversive. The doctrine in question is this: that it is undesirable to believe a proposition when there is no ground whatever for supposing it true." -- Bertrand Russell

"The inhabitants of this earth are of two sorts: 
Those with brains, but no religion, 
And those with religion, but no brains. " --Abu'l-Ala al-Ma'arri, 1047 C.E.

"I still say a church steeple with a lightning rod on top shows a lack of confidence"
- Doug McLeod

"The more I study religions the more I am convinced that man never worshipped anything but himself." - Sir Richard Francis Burton

"The difference between a miracle and fact is exactly the difference between a mermaid and a seal." - Mark Twain

"There are none so blind as those that look for answers on their knees with their eyes closed."

"I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer gods than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours." - Stephen Roberts

"Faith: not wanting to know what is true." - Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche

"All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian, or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit." - Thomas Paine

"Men never do evil so cheerfully and so completely as when they do so from religious conviction." - Blaise Pascal

"If God has created us in His image, we have more than returned the compliment." - Voltaire

"The fundamentalists, by 'knowing' the answers before they start, and then forcing nature into the straitjacket of their discredited preconceptions, lie outside the domain of science --or any honest intellectual inquiry." - Stephen J. Gould

"I cannot conceive of a God who rewards and punishes his creatures, or has a will of the type of which we are conscious in ourselves. An individual who should survive his physical death is also beyond my comprehension, nor do I wish it otherwise; such notions are for the fears or absurd egoism of feeble souls." - Albert Einstein

"Religion is what the common people see as true, the wise people see as false, and the rulers see as useful." - Seneca

"We must respect the other fellow's religion, but only in the sense and to the extent that we respect his theory that his wife is beautiful and his children smart." - H. L. Mencken

"It is a sad state of affairs that, at a time when rational thinking is most deperately needed in all aspects of national policy, secular humanism remains the scarlet letter of American politics." - Mark Twain

"Religions are founded on the fear of the many and the cleverness of the few." - Stendhal

"I have recently been examining all the known superstitions of the world, and do not find in our particular superstition (Christianity) one redeeming feature. They are all alike founded on fables and mythology." - Thomas Jefferson

"For those who believe in God, most of the big questions are answered. But for those of us who can't readily accept the God formula, the big answers don't remain stone-written. We adjust to new conditions and discoveries. We are pliable. Love need not be a command or faith a dictum. We are here to unlearn the teachings of the church, state, and our educational system. We are here to drink beer. We are here to kill war. We are here to laugh at the odds and live our lives so well that Death will tremble to take us." - Charles Bukowski

"How can I believe in God when just last week I got my tongue caught in the roller of an electric typewriter?" - Woody Allen

"It is convenient that there be gods, and, as it is convenient, let us believe there are." - Ovid

"Religion is based ... mainly upon fear ... fear of the mysterious, fear of defeat, fear of death. Fear is the parent of cruelty, and therefore it is no wonder if cruelty and religion have gone hand in hand . . . . My own view on religion is that of Lucretius. I regard it as a disease born of fear and as a source of untold misery to the human race." - Bertrand Russell

"The fact that a believer is happier than a sceptic is no more to the point than the fact than a drunken man is happier than a sober one." - George Bernard Shaw

"An atheist doesn't have to be someone who thinks he has a proof that there can't be a god. He only has to be someone who believes that the evidence on the God question is at a similar level to the evidence on the werewolf question." - John McCarthy

"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly." - Albert Einstein (in response to a question about his faith).

"My position concerning God is that of an agnostic. I am convinced that a vivid consciousness of the primary importance of moral principles for the betterment and ennoblement of life does not need the idea of a law-giver, especially a law-giver who works on the basis of reward and punishment." - Albert Einstein

"I suggest that the anthropomorphic god-idea is not a harmless infirmity of human thought, but a very noxious fallacy, which is largely responsible for the calamities the world is at present enduring." - William Archer

"A tyrant must put on the appearance of uncommon devotion to religion. Subjects are less apprehensive of illegal treatment from a ruler whom they consider god-fearing and pious. On the other hand, they do less easily move against him, believing that he has the gods on his side." - Aristotle, "Politics" 

"All religions, with their gods, demigods, prophets, messiahs and saints, are the product of the fancy and credulity of men who have not yet reached the full development and complete personality of their intellectual powers." - Mikhail A. Bakunin

"Since it is no longer permissible to disparage any single faith or creed, let us start disparaging all of them. A religion is a belief system with no basis in reality whatever. Religious belief is without reason and without dignity, and its record is near-universally dreadful." - Martin Amis

"Faith: Belief without evidence in what is told by one who speaks without knowledge, of things without parallel." - Ambrose Bierce

"The Christian view that all intercourse outside marriage is immoral was, as we see in the...passages from St. Paul, based upon the view that all sexual intercourse, even within marriage, is regrettable. A view of this sort, which goes against biological facts, can only be regarded by sane people as a morbid aberration. The fact that it is embedded in Christian ethics has made Christianity throughout its whole history a force tending towards mental disorders and unwholesome views of life." - Bertrand Russell

"Scriptures, n. The sacred books of our holy religion, as distinguished from the false and profane writings on which all other faiths are based." - Ambrose Bierce

"A society without religion is like a crazed psychopath without a .45."

"Organized religion: The world's largest pyramid scheme." - Bernard Katz

"There is nothing divine about morality, it is a purely human affair." - Albert Einstein

"No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered as patriots. This is one nation under God." - George H. W. Bush.

"Although the time of death is approaching me, I am not afraid of dying and going to Hell or (what would be considerably worse) going to the popularized version of Heaven. I expect death to be nothingness and, for removing me from all possible fears of death, I am thankful to atheism." -Isaac Asimov


----------



## Macfury

Pensees, by bryanc, plucked like fine grapes from the vineyards of "Internet Quotations R' Us."


----------



## MazterCBlazter

.


----------



## MazterCBlazter

.


----------



## MacGuiver

"I do not feel any contempt for an atheist, who is often a man limited and constrained by his own logic to a very sad simplification." ("Babies and Distributism" The Well and the Shallows)

G.K. Chesterton


----------



## tilt

fjnmusic said:


> Puzzling to me that one can reject religion yet still accept god. Isn't that really just trying to have it both ways? How on earth does a person learn about god _except_ through religion? Seems to me that if you reject religion, you must ultimately also be rejecting the concept of god. It's like saying, "I love mankind—it's people I hate."


I actually quoted someone (I do not remember whom), but the person who made the quote should have probably said "organised religion" as opposed to just "religion".

The reason I did not qualify it earlier is because I believe that al religion is organised. God is God, belief on God is belief, but religion is the imposition of "rules" made by people to whom the "rules" are convenient, such as the Catholic Church or some Imams in Islam or the Hindu fundamentalists. That is what is considered religion right from the days of the crusades and Torquemada and all other fanatics.

Ultimately, at least in my mind, there is no distinction between religion and orgaised religion. Adding the term "organised" is just an exercise in redundance in my opinion.

Cheers


----------



## eMacMan

tilt said:


> I actually quoted someone (I do not remember whom), but the person who made the quote should have probably said "organised religion" as opposed to just "religion".
> 
> The reason I did not qualify it earlier is because I believe that al religion is organised. God is God, belief on God is belief, but religion is the imposition of "rules" made by people to whom the "rules" are convenient, such as the Catholic Church or some Imams in Islam or the Hindu fundamentalists. That is what is considered religion right from the days of the crusades and Torquemada and all other fanatics.
> 
> Ultimately, at least in my mind, there is no distinction between religion and orgaised religion. Adding the term "organised" is just an exercise in redundance in my opinion.
> 
> Cheers


Actually my grandfather would have nothing to do with any church, however a number of his friends told me he was the best Christian they ever knew. So there is indeed a difference between religion and organized religion.


----------



## MacGuiver

eMacMan said:


> Actually my grandfather would have nothing to do with any church, however a number of his friends told me he was the best Christian they ever knew. So there is indeed a difference between religion and organized religion.


I'm sure your grandfather was a wonderful man and its great to hear he was so highly regarded by his friends.
However, it was organized religion that set the terms that your grandfather's friends would use to judge that he was in fact a good Christian. It was organized religion that put together the Bible he may have read to guide him through his life. Even though he may have never graced the doors of a church, if he professed a faith in Christ, he was taking part in organized religion. For without the organized structures of religion, any concept of Christ would not exist today.

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## MazterCBlazter

.


----------



## MazterCBlazter

.


----------



## MacGuiver

MazterCBlazter said:


> This is horrible, half a million children without parents??????
> 
> there is nothing negative about birth control and abortions being available for these poor people. Bringing children into the world in that poor country that is so lacking in resources and finances is just cruel and inhumane.
> 
> Opposinging birth control and abortions for religious reasons that make no sense is criminal and must be stopped.


I see no less inhumanity and cruelty in a child being crushed to death under a collapsed wall or one being crushed and ripped apart by an abortionists tools or burned alive in saline solution. I guess the only difference is one death is tragic accident while the other is a choice. 
The real tragedy is that our solution is to kill them rather than help. The Culture of death at its finest.

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## mrjimmy

MacGuiver said:


> I see no less inhumanity and cruelty in a child being crushed to death under a collapsed wall or one being crushed and ripped apart by an abortionists tools or burned alive in saline solution. I guess the only difference is one death is tragic accident while the other is a choice.
> The real tragedy is that our solution is to kill them rather than help. The Culture of death at its finest.
> 
> Cheers
> MacGuiver


I must admit I've always been surprised by the language and imagery used by ardent Pro-Lifers. Placards with graphic images being shoved in the faces of young women at abortion clinics, phrases such as 'ripped apart by abortionist's tools', all designed to evoke extreme emotional reactions such as fear, guilt and anxiety. 

Whereas Pro-Choicers like to speak more about reproductive (read human) rights and promote one's ability to choose. 

You tell me which is better.


----------



## MacGuiver

sorry, double post


----------



## groovetube

eMacMan said:


> Actually my grandfather would have nothing to do with any church, however a number of his friends told me he was the best Christian they ever knew. So there is indeed a difference between religion and organized religion.


absolutely there is, and I'm always amazed at those who believe there isn't. I know quite few people, whom I would consider very spiritual people, who don't need to go publicly proclaim their allegiances, or be part of a group they don't like, in order for them to be close to their deity of choice. Those sorts of christians are usually the ones I can stand talking about religion/beliefs with. Not someone trying to get me in a building putting money on a plate.


----------



## MacGuiver

mrjimmy said:


> Whereas Pro-Choicers like to speak more about reproductive (read human) rights and promote one's ability to choose.


Speaking of language, "Choice" is clearly a facade. The same people saying abortion is simply a matter of a woman's reproductive freedom and choice seem to have no qualms with eliminating that choice to have more than 1 child and are even prepared to enforce it by force if necessary to combat any number of real and perceived world problems.
Choice is non existent in China yet many Choicers long for similar policy here and around the world.


----------



## bryanc

MacGuiver said:


> I see no less inhumanity and cruelty in a child being crushed to death under a collapsed wall or one being crushed and ripped apart by an abortionists tools or burned alive in saline solution.


Just to be clear, are you equating the abortion of an early somitogenesis embryo without a functioning nervous system to the death of a child?


----------



## MacGuiver

MazterCBlazter said:


> People say that about me even though I want nothing to do with that ridiculous religion.


So these people see Christianity as contributing more than pretty buildings to this world or you're a master architect. 

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## MacGuiver

bryanc said:


> Just to be clear, are you equating the abortion of an early somitogenesis embryo without a functioning nervous system to the death of a child?


Just to be clear, are you claiming all abortions are painless?


----------



## Macfury

Don't worry MacGuiver. bryanc has his morality all figured out to the penny--including having one child (to suit his biological imperative, don't you know) instead of none, which woud be much more beneficial to the eco-system. Look for something equally more hair-splitting here.


----------



## bryanc

MacGuiver said:


> Just to be clear, are you claiming all abortions are painless?


No, of course not. What does that have to do with anything? Obviously less painful outcomes are desirable over more painful outcomes, which, ironically, is the whole point of having an abortion in the first place: to avoid unnecessary suffering.


----------



## bryanc

Macfury said:


> bryanc has his morality all figured out to the penny.


Not quite sure what you're getting at here. But it seems that you've abandoned your efforts to make substantive contributions to any discussion around here in favour of making snide and/or obscure remarks from the sidelines. So it seems likely that I'm not missing you're point here, but rather that you simply don't have one.


----------



## MacGuiver

bryanc said:


> No, of course not. What does that have to do with anything? Obviously less painful outcomes are desirable over more painful outcomes, which, ironically, is the whole point of having an abortion in the first place: to avoid unnecessary suffering.


It must have something to do with the debate since you felt the need to defend the procedure by alluding that its painless. I won't argue with your reasoning why people want abortions though you left out a big one, inconvenience. My issue is with the idea that taking the life of an innocent human is the only solution in those cases and is morally justified.

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## eMacMan

Hmmm you just knew that a religious thread would turn into pro/anti abortion brow beating.

This is at the top of my list as a smoke screen issue. 

The anti abortionist will thump his bible or some other "holy" book and shout: "thou shalt not kill". 'Course that little commandment doesn't count when Israel engages in the endless Gaza blood bath. How about Ireland. Nor did it stop the US from slaughtering many thousands of Iraqis justified only by lies. I am pretty sure Muslim's share a similar decree yet they are also quite willing to initiate the occasional massacre. Apparently the "No Kill" bit comes with a major exemption. It seemingly only applies if the victim is a member of the same sub-sub-sub sect of the same religion as the killer. To be completely cynical as the unborn have not been baptized, circumcised or whatever cized they too must be exempt from the No Kill rules.beejacon

I distinctly remember one woman coming into my business soliciting money to aid unwed mothers. Noticing the name of the anti-abortion group on her brochures I asked how the money would be spent. She hemmed and hawed and finally admitted it went mostly to advertising their "cause". I replied that when she could promise; every penny would be spent helping financially challenged unwed moms carry their baby's to term, paying their medical expenses and further aiding those that chose to keep the child, then I would be happy to contribute. Never saw her again.


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> Not quite sure what you're getting at here. But it seems that you've abandoned your efforts to make substantive contributions to any discussion around here in favour of making snide and/or obscure remarks from the sidelines. So it seems likely that I'm not missing you're point here, but rather that you simply don't have one.


Only stating that you explained in previous posts that you had your moral structure all carefully arranged and worked out. That it allowed you to have one child instead of none, and that your views on abortion are similarly carefully worked out.


----------



## MacGuiver

> This is at the top of my list as a smoke screen issue.


You've defended abortion with a spectacular smoke screen of your own. So how is it that an individual so passionate about the wrong committed killing fellow humans in war can make the leap to defending the killing of completely innocent humans in the womb?

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## eMacMan

MacGuiver said:


> You've defended abortion with a spectacular smoke screen of your own. So how is it that an individual so passionate about the wrong committed killing fellow humans in war can make the leap to defending the killing of completely innocent humans in the womb?
> 
> Cheers
> MacGuiver


Neither attacked nor defended abortion. I call it a smoke screen because anti-abortionists willingly vote for politicians who have been bought and sold by the Military Industrial Complex. They vote for them because they supposedly oppose abortion even though those same politicians cheerfully promote the slaughter of living women and children.

As to abortion I firmly believe that any changes in laws should be put to a referendum. As women would suffer much greater impact than men from such changes, only women could vote. If you can get 75% of the nations women to agree with a particular change in the law then it could be enacted but only as presented in the referendum. Further a second confirming referendum should be held during the next general election as a safety valve.


----------



## bryanc

Macfury said:


> Only stating that you explained in previous posts that you had your moral structure all carefully arranged and worked out.


Yes I do. And the fact that I've spent years studying philosophy, thinking about and analyzing various moral frameworks, and have come to what I believe is an internally consistent ethical system is relevant to the abortion debate how?

Basically, you are either making thinly veiled sarcastic comments or comments that have no relevance to the discussion at all. This is disappointing, because you have previously demonstrated that you are capable of much more, and seem lately to have devolved into a boring internet troll. I really preferred the old MacFury who frequently had intelligent contributions to make.


----------



## bryanc

MacGuiver said:


> It must have something to do with the debate since you felt the need to defend the procedure by alluding that its painless.


I certainly made no such allusion intentionally. Could you provide a quote?


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> Yes I do. And the fact that I've spent years studying philosophy, thinking about and analyzing various moral frameworks, and have come to what I believe is an internally consistent ethical system is relevant to the abortion debate how?


Yes, I know you believe it to be consistent. As I explained to McGuiver, you will probably deliver a view which you believe to be consistent on abortion. What is so difficult to understand about this? Do you think you're being insulted?


----------



## bryanc

Macfury said:


> As I explained to McGuiver, you will probably deliver a view which you believe to be consistent on abortion. What is so difficult to understand about this? Do you think you're being insulted?


Why would you think predicting that another poster will have an opinion that that is consistent with that posters ethical framework would be a meaningful contribution to a discussion?

As I said initially, you were either being sarcastic in a way that was too subtle for me to interpret, or you weren't saying anything at all.


----------



## MacGuiver

> Neither attacked nor defended abortion. I call it a smoke screen because anti-abortionists willingly vote for politicians who have been bought and sold by the Military Industrial Complex


.
I'd vote where I could save the most lives. 
-1.36 million died in iraq in *6 years*. ANTIWAR.COM claims (Now thats probably as inflated a number as your going to get given the source.) 
-roughly 1.2 million die each year in US abortion clinics alone
Besides its just business as usual with Obama except he's promised to spend more tax payer funds to kill more in abortions in other countries. He's also trying his hardest to eliminate any and all restriction on the practice.



> They vote for them because they supposedly oppose abortion even though those same politicians cheerfully promote the slaughter of living women and children.


Don't ever tell an expectant mother that the child in her womb isn't living.



> As to abortion I firmly believe that any changes in laws should be put to a referendum. As women would suffer much greater impact than men from such changes, only women could vote. If you can get 75% of the nations women to agree with a particular change in the law then it could be enacted but only as presented in the referendum. Further a second confirming referendum should be held during the next general election as a safety valve.


I'd agree if the unborn children being killed had a vote as well to determine their fate.

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## groovetube

ah. The righteous moral screaming lunatic right, that wants EVERYBODY, to live by their rules, their bible, and if anyone dares have different beliefs by golly they'll get a rifle and blow that abortion doctor's head off. Don't dare tell them different, or you might get shot too. They're unstoppable, and it doesn't occur to them that perhaps people. the majority of people, simply aren't interested in their beliefs, no matter how right, those people think they are.

That's one religion, we can all do without.


----------



## bryanc

MacGuiver said:


> .
> I'd agree if the unborn children being killed had a vote as well to determine their fate.


Would you agree that a parasite ought to have a say in wether someone has it removed?

An embryo may be a genetically distinct entity, but it is wholly dependent on the maternal metabolism for its support. If the mother chooses to provide this support, that's great. But if the mother chooses to withhold this support, the embryo is out of luck.

Just like someone in need of a blood transfusion cannot compel another to provide the needed blood, the rights of the unborn do not trump the rights of the mother. By carrying a pregnancy to term a woman chooses to provide physiological support for another, at considerable risk to herself. While we can admire and encourage that choice, we cannot compel it.


----------



## MacGuiver

bryanc said:


> Would you agree that a parasite ought to have a say in wether someone has it removed?
> 
> An embryo may be a genetically distinct entity, but it is wholly dependent on the maternal metabolism for its support. If the mother chooses to provide this support, that's great. But if the mother chooses to withhold this support, the embryo is out of luck.
> 
> Just like someone in need of a blood transfusion cannot compel another to provide the needed blood, the rights of the unborn do not trump the rights of the mother. By carrying a pregnancy to term a woman chooses to provide physiological support for another, at considerable risk to herself. While we can admire and encourage that choice, we cannot compel it.


This is an example of that sad simplification Chesterton spoke of. 
You're basically arguing an unborn child is no more, no less deserving of life than a common tape worm? 
By that logic, why not have open season on infants up to 2 or 3 years old. The child continues being a parasite on the mother for years after birth since without her support it would die in days. The only difference is location. 

Edit:
Seems like some intellectual has already taken this argument to its next logical conclusion.


> On Sunday, November 2 1997, the New York Times carried an article by Steven Pinker, a professor of psychology at the august Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Pinker seriously suggests infanticide as a legal practice.
> 
> Pinker argues as follows: Killing a newborn infant should not be penalized as harshly as killing an older child. "To a biologist, birth is as arbitrary a milestone as any other," Pinker says. Pinker says babies aren't real people because they don't have "an ability to reflect upon (themselves) as a continuous locus of consciousness, to form and savor plans for the future, to dread death and to express the choice not to die. And there's the rub: Our immature neonates don't possess these traits any more than mice do."


Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## bryanc

MacGuiver said:


> By that logic, why not have open season on infants up to 2 or 3 years old. The child continues being a parasite on the mother for years after birth since without her support it would die in days. The only difference is location.


And oh what a difference location makes. Once the organism is extrauterine, the options of state protection, foster homes and adoption become viable. There's still not much one can do about parents that don't take good care of their children apart from taking the children away. That's not an option with regard to embryos.

But this argument effectively boils down to one's sovereignty over one's own body. If you support legislation outlawing abortion, you are effectively saying that the state has the right to tell people what they can and cannot do with their own bodies, and that it is acceptable to force certain individuals to make physical sacrifices for the benefit of others.

While I would very much like to live in a world where no abortions ever occurred, I cannot accept that the state should be allowed to dictate what individuals do with their own bodies or who has to make what sacrifices for who.


----------



## Macfury

> And oh what a difference location makes. Once the organism is extrauterine, the options of state protection, foster homes and adoption become viable.


So viability in such fashion that the state could protect it creates the dividing line?


----------



## bryanc

Macfury said:


> So viability in such fashion that the state could protect it creates the dividing line?


To the extent that we have to have a dividing line and can't recognize the continuum of development, yes, the possibility of the state or others taking on the care of the unwanted child makes its death unnecessary and therefore unjustifiable.


----------



## rgray

bryanc said:


> To the extent that we have to have a dividing line and can't recognize the continuum of development, yes, the possibility of the state or others taking on the care of the unwanted child makes its death unnecessary and therefore unjustifiable.


Enter the population problem.... I don't say this lightly or glibbly. Sooner or later, there will be a global conference on how to address the problem of population and the outcomes won't be pretty.


----------



## groovetube

the religious right generally turns to the ridiculous to support their beliefs. When the huge outcry over same sex marriages, I saw many predict we would allow humans to marry their pets. They'll gladly provide links and examples to support this.

Now we'll hear how young people, will be allowed to be killed.

They can't support their beliefs with logical thought, so they'll turn to utter lunacy, to enforce their beliefs.

I don't have any problem, with anyone, or group, who decides they believe in something, and they want to adhere to their beliefs. However, I think there is a real severe problem, that should be dealt with strictly, when a group of people believe they should be able to enforce their beliefs on others, and actually use terror to do so. Amazingly enough, usually these groups, who have used terror tactics (shooting abortion doctors), will be the first up to yell and scream about other, 'terrorists'.


----------



## MazterCBlazter

.


----------



## Rps

MazterCBlazter said:


> +1
> 
> They are extremists, and fanatics that fit the definition of terrorist perfectly.


Okay, but what if they are right .. what if it is finally proved that there is a G_d and what has been espoused by the "right" is correct! Faith and reason are two different things ... but when one is deemed "right" certainly clouds the issue doesn't it...........


----------



## MazterCBlazter

.


----------



## Rps

MazterCBlazter said:


> I'm willing to take that chance.
> 
> Then there is the question of whether you want to go to heaven or hell.
> 
> Hell has all the good bad girls, the good bands, the parties are better.
> 
> I heaven there are these rules about what you can and can't do, it's cold, the women don't put out, and all the Jehovahs Witnesses that used to knock on my door, and the death row people that got forgiven at the last moment.
> 
> How about the Mormon version of Heaven, now that's gotta be cool. Send me there, I'd even wear the magical underwear for that. I'd like to be lord and master over a whole planet.
> 
> If there is an afterlife though, I think I'd be destined to go to Valhalla.


It always comes down to sex doesn't it? One shouldn't measure their beliefs on the amount of times they can get "laid". But to the point of most of the posters, religion, to me, is man made, but faith .... that is a different issue. If we have notfaith in anything what is left ...... just wonderin".


----------



## MacGuiver

MazterCBlazter said:


> +1
> 
> They are extremists, and fanatics that fit the definition of terrorist perfectly.


Sorry I was busy sighting in my rifle and unloading a shipment of fertilizer. What did I miss?

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## MazterCBlazter

.


----------



## Rps

MazterCBlazter said:


> A thousand virgins for suicide bombers,
> 
> 
> Mormons say that their place in heaven is decided by how large a family they can get going on the Earth with as many wives as possible.
> 
> Playboy magazine then is a religion with Hugh Hefner as God's appointed on Earth.
> 
> The Raelians have the right approach.
> 
> A whole lot of begatting going on :heybaby:


Notice how all of the male dominated religions have the same point.


----------



## MazterCBlazter

.


----------



## groovetube

MacGuiver said:


> Sorry I was busy sighting in my rifle and unloading a shipment of fertilizer. What did I miss?
> 
> Cheers
> MacGuiver


perhaps the others, out offing young kids since that's where the laws are headed apparently.


----------



## MacGuiver

groovetube said:


> perhaps the others, out offing young kids since that's where the laws are headed apparently.


Groove, your progressive brethren in the Netherlands are way ahead of ya. Blazing the trail for progressives everywhere as they so often do. 
If you and the girlfriend should happen to want to make a baby (carbon neutral of course and sanctioned by the Department of Fertility) and for some unforeseen reason, Baby Groove sneaks in under the radar and is born with a disability or terminal illness, them progressive dutch doctors would stick him with a needle and put him down like so many runty pigs. Dutch progressives, being progressive by definition will surely broaden the terms as time goes on as they did with Euthanasia to off just about anyone. Its only a matter of time but the ball is rolling on infanticide.

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## Max

It's only a matter of time too before men are considered optional when it comes to creating babies. Such is technology.

Are we hurtling towards an age of enlightenment or a new dark age? Such nagging questions.

Pardon me. I am reading the latest Dan Brown book and I find myself ambling down some strange corridors.


----------



## groovetube

MacGuiver said:


> Groove, your progressive brethren in the Netherlands are way ahead of ya. Blazing the trail for progressives everywhere as they so often do.
> If you and the girlfriend should happen to want to make a baby (carbon neutral of course and sanctioned by the Department of Fertility) and for some unforeseen reason, Baby Groove sneaks in under the radar and is born with a disability or terminal illness, them progressive dutch doctors would stick him with a needle and put him down like so many runty pigs. Dutch progressives, being progressive by definition will surely broaden the terms as time goes on as they did with Euthanasia to off just about anyone. Its only a matter of time but the ball is rolling on infanticide.
> 
> Cheers
> MacGuiver


dude, what the hell, are you blathering about?

No one is about to legalize murder of children regardless of how shrill you shriek. Nor are people marrying their pet dogs, or are natural disasters etc. a result of the unbelievers doing unchristian things.

The total lunacy of people who are desperate that others be forced to live by their rules is really, disturbing. 

Supporting a woman's right to choose, does not in any mean one chooses abortion, nor is required to, in any way. Painting Orwellian nonsense that people will be forced to off their kids is just neurotic.

Now, it's interesting that this now moved into an abortion debate, which never really goes down a great road. But it illustrates to me, why organized religious groups, should never have power to create laws to force others to conform to their interpretations and beliefs.


----------



## MazterCBlazter

.


----------



## MacGuiver

> No one is about to legalize murder of children regardless of how shrill you shriek.


The Groningen Protocol is a text created in September 2004 by Eduard Verhagen, the medical director of the department of pediatrics at the University Medical Center Groningen (UMCG). It contains directives with criteria under with physicians can perform "active ending of life on infants" (involuntary euthanasia) without fear of prosecution.[1][2]




> Nor are people marrying their pet dogs,


Can't recall predicting that one but I do recall predicting legalizing Polygamy and I'll stand by that prediction.



> or are natural disasters etc. a result of the unbelievers doing unchristian things.


 Your getting confused again Groove, that was Pat Robertson silly.



> The total lunacy of people who are desperate that others be forced to live by their rules is really, disturbing.


I don't want to force my rules but as a democratic country, we're free to make our case and let democracy dictate the outcome. But aside from that, were you not in that group calling for population control? That sounds rather intrusive, no?



> Supporting a woman's right to choose, does not in any mean one chooses abortion, nor is required to, in any way. Painting Orwellian nonsense that people will be forced to off their kids is just neurotic.


There you go again just making crap up. I never claimed people would be forced to off their kids. It'll be a choice like it is now only you'll get some extra time to have the deed done. They do however force people to off their unborn children in China.


----------



## MazterCBlazter

.


----------



## groovetube

MacGuiver said:


> The Groningen Protocol is a text created in September 2004 by Eduard Verhagen, the medical director of the department of pediatrics at the University Medical Center Groningen (UMCG). It contains directives with criteria under with physicians can perform "active ending of life on infants" (involuntary euthanasia) without fear of prosecution.[1][2]
> 
> 
> 
> Can't recall predicting that one but I do recall predicting legalizing Polygamy and I'll stand by that prediction.
> 
> 
> Your getting confused again Groove, that was Pat Robertson silly.
> 
> 
> I don't want to force my rules but as a democratic country, we're free to make our case and let democracy dictate the outcome. But aside from that, were you not in that group calling for population control? That sounds rather intrusive, no?
> 
> 
> 
> There you go again just making crap up. I never claimed people would be forced to off their kids. It'll be a choice like it is now only you'll get some extra time to have the deed done. They do however force people to off their unborn children in China.


I'm sorry Macguiver, but you simply cannot go making insinuations and accusations, and get all huffy when it gets returned. If you can't take it, don't dish it.

Now you want to get huffy about the pet dog, and pat robertson references, right after you insinuated all those things in your post about me, including supporting killing children. (I don't know anything about the netherlands much less have brethren in the netherlands).

Well, I think that speaks for itself the sort of position you take. If you're going to insinuate that sort of thing, at least have concrete examples of people who are simply pro choice killing children, or, are supporting it.

You are of course free to make your case, but let's see if it's possible without resorting to insinuating that if someone disagrees with you, they will support (or eventually support) killing young children..


----------



## MacGuiver

groovetube said:


> I'm sorry Macguiver, but you simply cannot go making insinuations and accusations, and get all huffy when it gets returned. If you can't take it, don't dish it.
> 
> Now you want to get huffy about the pet dog, and pat robertson references, right after you insinuated all those things in your post about me, including supporting killing children. (I don't know anything about the netherlands much less have brethren in the netherlands).
> 
> Well, I think that speaks for itself the sort of position you take. If you're going to insinuate that sort of thing, at least have concrete examples of people who are simply pro choice killing children, or, are supporting it.
> 
> You are of course free to make your case, but let's see if it's possible without resorting to insinuating that if someone disagrees with you, they will support (or eventually support) killing young children..


My irony meter is off the charts not to mention my BS dector.


----------



## groovetube

MacGuiver said:


> My irony meter is off the charts not to mention my BS dector.


gooooood. You get it then.


----------



## MazterCBlazter

.


----------



## JerusalemJim

Quite an interesting pagan edifice- if work could pry open heaven's doors you would have to give them some credit eh
jj


----------



## MazterCBlazter

.


----------



## eMacMan

groovetube said:


> Now, it's interesting that this now moved into an abortion debate, which never really goes down a great road. But it illustrates to me, why organized religious groups, should never have power to create laws to force others to conform to their interpretations and beliefs.


I do agree. If the shrub worshippers really want to discuss this it really should have its own thread.

Comes down to this: Anti-abortionists feel that the "No Kill" edict comes with exceptions. Don't kill unless the victim is black or Mexican, or Jewish, or Muslim, or Hindu, or Sikh, or Asian or a different shade of Christian. About the only ones safe from this crowd are other members of the First Self Righteous Church or the unborn fetus. For that reason alone this topic does not really come under the religion heading.

FWIW I have a lot of respect for say the Quakers who actually live by the commandments without making convenient exceptions.


----------



## MazterCBlazter

.


----------



## chasMac

eMacMan said:


> Comes down to this: Anti-abortionists feel that the "No Kill" edict comes with exceptions. Don't kill unless the victim is black or Mexican, or Jewish, or Muslim, or Hindu, or Sikh, or Asian or a different shade of Christian. About the only ones safe from this crowd are other members of the First Self Righteous Church or the unborn fetus. For that reason alone this topic does not really come under the religion heading.
> 
> FWIW I have a lot of respect for say the Quakers who actually live by the commandments without making convenient exceptions.


That's a little naive. Your rant assumes that none of the religions/ethnic groups you list may be an "anti-abortionist", when in reality they are often far, far more conservative than your "first self righteous chruch of the unborn fetus"; _especially with regard to women's rights._ (as an example, read-up on what even liberal media outlets put forth as a major cause for the success of prop 8 in California). And suggesting that people who oppose abortion harbour racist, homicidal tendencies is in no ways conducive to debate - I think we can all agree on that. 

Regarding your last paragraph: kudos to you for trying to bring the thread back on track; I too believe that should you choose to be a member of an organized religion, "convenient exceptions" are not really an option - you simply abide by the rules; if this makes you unhappy - leave.


----------



## mrjimmy

MazterCBlazter said:


> +1
> 
> I think it would be cool to go live with the Amish for a few months. No electricity or modern headaches. Religious but nice polite people. Except for a bunch of them getting busted for dealing Cocaine a while back, seem to be a good bunch.​




You'd have to send your ehMac posts by smoke signal.​


----------



## MazterCBlazter

.


----------



## JerusalemJim

haha - it's a lot of work smearing God's Word there eh maz
if you keep repeating the lie long enough it can be convincing I suppose- some famous germans used the same tactics
The first temptation was when the devil cast aspersion on God 's word to Eve when he said 
'Has God said?' in the Book of Genesis
Flap on-birds of a feather obscurate together


----------



## JerusalemJim

MazterCBlazter said:


> ​


mormans the merrier
say maz- what psi are you running in that vinyl avatar of yours?
I seem to hear a slight hissing on your posts- you might want to look into it eh
not sure that bubble gum would work
jj


----------



## ehMax

JerusalemJim said:


> mormans the merrier
> say maz- what psi are you running in that vinyl avatar of yours?
> I seem to hear a slight hissing on your posts- you might want to look into it eh
> not sure that bubble gum would work
> jj


jj, if you are trying to start something with another ehMac member, you will very soon find yourself permanently banned from ehMac. 

Feel free to express your opinions, ideas and beliefs here. Start trying to pick fights or insult other members, and you're gone.


----------



## MacGuiver

chasmac said:


> i too believe that should you choose to be a member of an organized religion, "convenient exceptions" are not really an option - you simply abide by the rules; if this makes you unhappy - leave.


^+1


----------



## MacGuiver

MazterCBlazter said:


> The Catholic church officially backs the right of families to practise voodoo. Protestant missionaries have been less sympathetic, classifying family spirits as demons.[/url]


I think this reporter must have failed theology 101. The church does no such thing. In fact "necromancy" is strictly forbidden in the Catechism of the Catholic Faith. 



> All forms of divination are to be rejected: recourse to Satan or demons, conjuring up the dead or other practices falsely supposed to "unveil" the future.48 Consulting horoscopes, astrology, palm reading, interpretation of omens and lots, the phenomena of clairvoyance, and recourse to mediums all conceal a desire for power over time, history, and, in the last analysis, other human beings, as well as a wish to conciliate hidden powers. They contradict the honor, respect, and loving fear that we owe to God alone.


The reporters ignorance isn't surprising though.

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## bryanc

Thanks for posting this MacGuiver,


> They contradict the honor, respect, and _loving fear_ that we owe to God alone.


(my italics)
This is going to be one of my new favourite expressions. :lmao: "Loving fear" no one but a devout theist could even try to say this with a straight face and not have their head explode from cognitive dissonance.

Cheers


----------



## MazterCBlazter

.


----------



## MacGuiver

bryanc said:


> Thanks for posting this MacGuiver,
> 
> (my italics)
> This is going to be one of my new favourite expressions. :lmao: "Loving fear" no one but a devout theist could even try to say this with a straight face and not have their head explode from cognitive dissonance.
> 
> Cheers


I guess it sounds funny if your ignorant of what it means. 

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## JerusalemJim

ehMax said:


> jj, if you are trying to start something with another ehMac member, you will very soon find yourself permanently banned from ehMac.
> 
> Feel free to express your opinions, ideas and beliefs here. Start trying to pick fights or insult other members, and you're gone.


 hey Mayor
Not a word about his silly flooding of posts with unrelated subjects and pictures? And not only mine
I suspect he is one of your stock holders the way he spews disinformation and aspersions with immunity- there is a worm in the apple after all.


----------



## Macfury

JerusalemJim said:


> hey Mayor
> Not a word about his silly flooding of posts with unrelated subjects and pictures? And not only mine
> I suspect he is one of your stock holders the way he spews disinformation and aspersions with immunity- there is a worm in the apple after all.


There are no stockholders here. 

And MazterCBlazter isn't insulting anyone with his posts. You're free to post your 911 conspiracy stuff and although you'll only find a few people here to go along with you, we defend your right to post it. Give him the same consideration.


----------



## rgray

JerusalemJim said:


> hey Mayor
> Not a word about his silly flooding of posts with unrelated subjects and pictures? And not only mine
> I suspect he is one of your stock holders the way he spews disinformation and aspersions with immunity- *there is a worm in the apple after all*.


Indeed there is.

Insulting the integrity of the Mayor isn't going to get you a whole hell of a lot of support around here.


----------



## chasMac

bryanc said:


> "Loving fear" no one but a devout theist could even try to say this with a straight face and not have their head explode from cognitive dissonance.
> 
> Cheers


I think the expression aptly describes the relationship many of us had with our old man.


----------



## Macfury

chasmac said:


> i think the expression aptly describes the relationship many of us had with our old man.


+1


----------



## ehMax

JerusalemJim said:


> hey Mayor
> Not a word about his silly flooding of posts with unrelated subjects and pictures? And not only mine
> I suspect he is one of your stock holders the way he spews disinformation and aspersions with immunity- there is a worm in the apple after all.


People are free to have opinions, ideas and beliefs and humour that differ to your own. The only main rule here, is to not directly insult other members. 

If you can't participate on ehMac without insulting other members, than just leave or be banned. Trust me, not a single person will think you're some kind of martyr.... just a rude behaving person on the internet who's really got nothing to say.


----------



## ehMax

bryanc said:


> Thanks for posting this MacGuiver,
> 
> (my italics)
> This is going to be one of my new favourite expressions. :lmao: "Loving fear" no one but a devout theist could even try to say this with a straight face and not have their head explode from cognitive dissonance.
> 
> Cheers


There is no fear in love. But perfect love drives out fear, because fear has to do with punishment. The one who fears is not made perfect in love (1 John 4:18)

You know that Blackberry commercial with U2? They're singing a song where there's a line in the lyrics, "Is it true that perfect love drives out all fear?"

I'd say, yes it does. I feel that love every day in every way in my life.


----------



## MazterCBlazter

.


----------



## MacGuiver

Loving Fear in the context it has been used. You love someone so much you fear to offend them. 

example:
You're tempted to sleep with your secretary but you love your wife so much you would never do it for fear it would hurt her. Not that you fear she'd beat the crap out of you.

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## groovetube

wow. Is that ever, a stretch. But that doesn't begin to cover the context you used it previously.

Holy back pedal.


----------



## Macfury

I think I agree with groove on this, MacGuiver. The use of the term "fear" in the Biblical sense means "respect."


----------



## groovetube

perhaps a healthy respect, a fear of getting turned to fire and brimstone....


----------



## Macfury

MazterCBlazter said:


> Missing books of the Bible.
> 
> The Lost Books of the Bible - The Hidden Truths


I've read some of those before. Quite interesting, but to call them lost books of the Bible is a bit of a misnomer, since "The Bible" as we know it was culled from a lot of material under King James. "The Bible" didn't exist before then.


----------



## Macfury

groovetube said:


> perhaps a healthy respect, a fear of getting turned to fire and brimstone....


You may be onto something actually. A respect of God's power.


----------



## mrjimmy

Macfury said:


> I think I agree with groove on this


A miracle! Right here in The Religious Thread!

_Sorry. I couldn't resist._


----------



## rgray

MacGuiver said:


> Loving Fear in the context it has been used. You love someone so much you fear to offend them.
> 
> example:
> You're tempted to sleep with your secretary but you love your wife so much you would never do it for fear it would hurt her. Not that you fear she'd beat the crap out of you.
> 
> Cheers
> MacGuiver


WTF??? Of course one could not sleep with the secretary out of a personal sense of honour, ethics and morality..... you know - *intrinsic* motivation.

If you are thinking it is OK to bang the secretary but don't out of fear of 'hurting' someone or taking a beating yourself - *extrinsic* motivation - then your personal honour is already compromised.

IMHO, personal honour stands before anything else as motivation. What someone's imaginary friend might think means less than nothing.


----------



## groovetube

Macfury said:


> You may be onto something actually. A respect of God's power.


on to something?

That's what's so sick about that whole thing. How can one love something or someone, that constantly threatens certain death for disobedience?


----------



## Macfury

groovetube said:


> How can one love something or someone, that constantly threatens certain death for disobedience?


If certain death were a result of disobedience, I suspect the churches would be packed full.


----------



## chasMac

rgray said:


> WTF??? Of course one could not sleep with the secretary out of a personal sense of honour, ethics and morality..... you know - *intrinsic* motivation.
> 
> If you are thinking it is OK to bang the secretary but don't out of fear of 'hurting' someone or taking a beating yourself - *extrinsic* motivation - then your personal honour is already compromised.
> 
> IMHO, personal honour stands before anything else as motivation. What someone's imaginary friend might think means less than nothing.


And yet, it would appear that religious leaders do give equal weight to extrinsic and intrinsic motivation:



> One who fears God in this way would never say, "It does not matter how I behave in this circumstance because no one will ever know."
> 
> Rabbi Jeffrey W. Goldwasser


 from Ask the Rabbi - Judaism and Fear of God

The above advice would seem to mirror exactly what MG was getting at: "Don't do something cause you might get in trouble."


----------



## MazterCBlazter

.


----------



## groovetube

Macfury said:


> If certain death were a result of disobedience, I suspect the churches would be packed full.


you're going in the right direction there macfury, now, just connect the dots...


----------



## Macfury

The curches ain't full, groove. Certain death appears to be the result of the end of life, not disobedience.


----------



## groovetube

Macfury said:


> The curches ain't full, groove. Certain death appears to be the result of the end of life, not disobedience.


interesting.


----------



## groovetube

here's a great example, of why organized religion, in this case, Christian, should not play a role in government, or foreign affairs, whatsoever...

Dr. Wesley Stafford, president of Compassion International here.

"Satan has had absolutely free reign in that nation."





+
YouTube Video









ERROR: If you can see this, then YouTube is down or you don't have Flash installed.


----------



## CubaMark

OMFG. Put these idiots on the same ice floe as Pat Robertson, _please...._


----------



## MazterCBlazter

.


----------



## groovetube

Now to fair, I have quite a few Christian friends who are appalled by this as well. But I think they've evolved from the 'go and conquer them with our bibles and schools' sorts.


----------



## MazterCBlazter

.


----------



## SINC

.


----------



## MacGuiver

MazterCBlazter said:


> I am not interested in this religion. What I cannot stand are the leaders, zealots and extremists that want their views on abortion and other issues crammed down the throats of people uninterested in their belief systems.


You make it sound as though opposition to abortion is nothing more than a product of religious dogma. Clearly its not. Many people with no religion at all and a sound knowledge of a babies development come to the conclusion its a human life and its immoral to kill it, or at the very least it should be restricted as to when and why an abortion can happen. In Canada we have absolutely no legal restrictions on when and why an abortion can be procured. You can legally have an abortion the day before delivery for any or no reason at all and 80% of Canadians are totally unaware of this.

Don't want to open the abortion debate up again but Blaster brought it up and his fallacious statement called to be challenged.

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## MazterCBlazter

.


----------



## groovetube

MacGuiver said:


> You make it sound as though opposition to abortion is nothing more than a product of religious dogma. Clearly its not. Many people with no religion at all and a sound knowledge of a babies development come to the conclusion its a human life and its immoral to kill it, or at the very least it should be restricted as to when and why an abortion can happen. In Canada we have absolutely no legal restrictions on when and why an abortion can be procured. You can legally have an abortion the day before delivery for any or no reason at all and 80% of Canadians are totally unaware of this.
> 
> Don't want to open the abortion debate up again but Blaster brought it up and his fallacious statement called to be challenged.
> 
> Cheers
> MacGuiver


yes you do mean to bring up the abortion debate.

The truth is, the anti choice movement, is not interested in merely placing some regulations, it wants to remove the option of abortion altogether. To insinuate any different, is both naive, and completely, dishonest. Period.

Do you know how many abortions are performed the day before birth?

Which comes back to, why religious groups should not be allowed near legislation, whatsoever.


----------



## MacGuiver

> As usual you make statements and accusations that you consistently fail to back up with facts or truth.


I quoted what you said and responded to your false assumption that its religious leaders, zealots and extremists that want to impose abortion laws. In fact 43% of Canadians say it should be limited to certain cases and another 5% would like it banned entirely. Do you think nearly half the country fit your description?
You also said its because of their belief system that they oppose abortion. I've argued that that assumption is wrong for many oppose it for biological reasons alone.



> I have been far too polite to you and your endless jabs at me for far too long.


Don't hold back on my account. I haven't made a personal attach on you? Its your statements and arguments that I challenge. If you wish to tar christianity and people of that faith it seems reasonable you might expect your assertions to be challenged.

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## MazterCBlazter

.


----------



## MacGuiver

> yes you do mean to bring up the abortion debate.


 Groove look at the post I responded to. You'll see the word "abortion" in it. If you guys don't want to discuss it don't bring it up. In fact it was Blaster that brought it up in the first place.



> The truth is, the anti choice movement, is not interested in merely placing some regulations, it wants to remove the option of abortion altogether. To insinuate any different, is both naive, and completely, dishonest. Period.


Many of us wish this deplorable injustice would end entirely. I make no bones about that. However, a high percentage of people that support the proceedure also support limits. You're obviously not one of them.



> Do you know how many abortions are performed the day before birth?


 I have no idea but if someone would like one they can legally get it.



> Which comes back to, why religious groups should not be allowed near legislation, whatsoever.


However we live in a democracy, not a dictatorship. If religious groups, environmental groups, gay activists etc. wish to make their case before the people, they are free to do so. If the majority agree, legislation happens. Its what happens in a country that embraces free speech and democracy.


----------



## MacGuiver

MazterCBlazter said:


> +1
> 
> I am sick of his drivel. Like listening to a broken record. Ignore button activated.
> 
> There is a growing Arab Muslim community in North America and Europe. To them it is very offensive for woman not to cover her head. Some of them have expressed to me they want the laws changed so that all the women in Canada are required by law to wear Islamic head covering. They say once there are enough converts and Islamic population they intend to push for it so that it will be required regardless of anyones religious beliefs. They seem to be doing a good job of acquiring converts and growing numbers of people that hold this view.


I guess you won't be reading this but wouldn't that be an infringement on our charter rights? I guess one could argue that a Muslim majority could vote to amend or do away with the charter all together to achieve this? Not a lawyer so I have no clue.

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## ehMax

I would just like us all to pause for one moment...

Let's all cherish the fact that we live in a country where we are absolutely free to discuss religion. Disagree with it. Hold on to it. Talk about it. All free from tyranny and oppression. 

I for one, am very thankful and cognizant for that fact. 

I'm not for abortion. (I don't think anyone is really for abortion, but for the choice to have it) However, I realize it is a part of life. I'd rather focus on creating an environment and civilization where its reduced as much as possible. That means education, low poverty, and respect for life. I don't think decreeing from on high that "Abortion is wrong" or standing on a corner with a sign that says, "Abortion is murder", does much to help that.


----------



## eMacMan

ehMax said:


> I would just like us all to pause for one moment...
> 
> Let's all cherish the fact that we live in a country where we are absolutely free to discuss religion. Disagree with it. Hold on to it. Talk about it. All free from tyranny and oppression.
> 
> I for one, am very thankful and cognizant for that fact.
> 
> I'm not for abortion. (I don't think anyone is really for abortion, but for the choice to have it) However, I realize it is a part of life. I'd rather focus on creating an environment and civilization where its reduced as much as possible. That means education, low poverty, and respect for life. I don't think decreeing from on high that "Abortion is wrong" or standing on a corner with a sign that says, "Abortion is murder", does much to help that.


I agree with pretty much all of that.

I think the one thing that really irks me is that all the money collected and spent attempting to ram through legislation. It would be far better spent helping single mothers. Helping to offset the income they would lose if they deliver the child. Helping offset medical expenses (in the US). Helping care for the child while they are trying to earn enough to feed it. Helping to feed and clothe it if needed. If the money were spent in that direction abortions could indeed be reduced, at least in cases where the mother wants the child but sees no viable way to carry it or support it.

Instead it is spent attempting to buy legislators. In some cases literally dealing with devils, at least some of whom have helped enable mass murder in Iraq and other parts of the world.


----------



## MazterCBlazter

.


----------



## MacGuiver

ehMax said:


> I would just like us all to pause for one moment...
> 
> Let's all cherish the fact that we live in a country where we are absolutely free to discuss religion. Disagree with it. Hold on to it. Talk about it. All free from tyranny and oppression.
> 
> I for one, am very thankful and cognizant for that fact.
> 
> I'm not for abortion. (I don't think anyone is really for abortion, but for the choice to have it) However, I realize it is a part of life. I'd rather focus on creating an environment and civilization where its reduced as much as possible. That means education, low poverty, and respect for life. I don't think decreeing from on high that "Abortion is wrong" or standing on a corner with a sign that says, "Abortion is murder", does much to help that.


I'm glad to here your not for abortion although your passive defence of it would seem to indicate otherwise. How could you support someones right to kill an innocent human being and then claim your against it? 

I agree with you that reducing poverty, education and respect for life will help reduce abortion and we should do that. Many pro-lifers do just that. But what if we took this tact with drunk driving? We have the no drinking and driving campaigns, we offer free drives to drunk people but we insist that it remains legal to drive drunk? Sounds silly given the toll it takes on innocent lives.
As far as "decreeing from on high", since this is the religion forum, Christ would expect no less. 

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## MacGuiver

> If someones religious beliefs make an abortion forbidden then those rules should be limited to the adherents of that religious system only.


As I've stated before, its simply not a matter of religious dogma but one of biological reality. I'd agree with this if we were talking about wearing burkas, eating kosher food or restricting work on Sunday but an innocent life is ended as a result of this "choice". Its a social justice issue where religion need not be the motive.



> When I grew up as a teenager most of the girls that got pregnant in high school were the religious ones. People I know that work in centres that offer counselling to women faced with accidental pregnancies tell me that the majority of the clients girls brought up in religious households. They are very upset and don't want their families to know about it. Many of them get their abortions and no one in their family, church or communities seem to find out.


I agree people of faith make bad choices and commit sin resulting in pain for themselves and others. Nobody is immune to sin.



> I am all for laws being put into place to curtail religions from creating laws that force their views upon those that believe otherwise. I also think that people who are deeply religious, that become priests, Imams, pastors, monks, nuns, etc. should not be allowed to run for public office or vote. If they really are in service to the God they believe in, they would have no problem with this.


That idea would have floated well in communist Russia or some dictatorship but hopefully not in Canada. 



> The extreme views held by many religious leaders today makes them dangerous to have in government authority. The ideas coming from the pulpit these days is a far cry from the good nature of Tommy Douglas of previous years.


I'm a follower of Christ, not Tommy Douglas.



> What we do not want or need is to live in a theocracy or have a land run by Islamic Sharia Law or the Christian, or other religious systems equivalency to it.


I agree.

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## groovetube

you see, this is something it seems, a religious person, bent on making others around them, believe and adhere to their belief system can't accept. It doesn't matter how many analogies you can find to killing people, it simply isn't the same as abortion. Nor is finding nutbars who postulate that soon it will become more acceptable to kill young children as evidence that abortion is a sin, insinuating we all will soon become child killers, going to further your, cause.

The opinion expressed by ehmax, likely reflects many others. No one is -for- abortion really, and the fact that someone chooses not to abort simply states they are choosing, which is what pro choice, is all about. Anti abortionists can't figure this out, or don't want to, because domination of the laws in this, is what they are really after.

Once again, the veiled dishonesty, the insinuations that people will become child killers, is a glowing example, of why religious organizations, should never get near any power over legislation.

The church is slowly dying, and thank er, god for that.


----------



## mrjimmy

Pro-Lifers will ALWAYS believe abortion is murder - full stop. They ascribe to it all the horrific connotations of murder, within both societal and religious contexts. Their belief system forces them to do so. It will never change unless their faith changes.

I am all for a free society that encourages one to hold these beliefs. I am however, against their aggressive recruiting tactics (and otherwise). I know they feel they are doing God's work and it's for our benefit, but what they don't take into account are all the other, equally valid believe systems that exist. Theirs is the only one. The right one. We are ignorant and foolish to them, preparing ourselves for an afterlife spent in the lake of fire. They are trying to save us from this fate. They want their fear to become our own. 

You can have your beliefs but please, keep your fear to yourself.


----------



## Dr.G.

"You can have your beliefs but please, keep your fear to yourself." A very valid point, mrj. Paix, mon ami.


----------



## groovetube

mrjimmy said:


> You can have your beliefs but please, keep your fear to yourself.


yes, well said indeed.


----------



## chasMac

mrjimmy said:


> You can have your beliefs but please, keep your fear to yourself.


No kidding. You should go after the agw crowd next , always going about the end of the world and all, island countries disappearing. Deplorable fear-mongering, I sincerely wish they would _keep it to themselves_.


----------



## mrjimmy

chasMac said:


> No kidding. You should go after the agw crowd next , always going about the end of the world and all, island countries disappearing. Deplorable fear-mongering, I sincerely wish they would _keep it to themselves_.


You can apply this to any belief system that people are pushing on others. But as far as agw, there's a thread for that, no?


----------



## chasMac

mrjimmy said:


> You can apply this to any belief system that people are pushing on others. But as far as agw, there's a thread for that, no?


Analogies are verboten?


----------



## groovetube

i didn't realize, we've reached a new age where conflicting scientific opinions, are now considered religious organizations.


----------



## mrjimmy

chasMac said:


> Analogies are verboten?


Not at all. I think if you have an issue with something so heavily discussed in this forum, it should be expressed there. Expressing it here is opening this thread up for derailment.


----------



## chasMac

mrjimmy said:


> Not at all. I think if you have an issue with something so heavily discussed in this forum, it should be expressed there. Expressing it here is opening this thread up for derailment.


No issue at all. I could have used the H1N1 scare (pick any disease we are cautioned on), food crisis of last year, etc. My point is simply: "You can have your beliefs but please, keep your fear to yourself." is a mind boggling-ridiculous thing to say. For if you are alerting others based on a genuine belief, and not motivated by something entirely different, you are doing your fellow human a disservice by "keeping it to yourself". I simply brought up agw, not to get off track (good gawd, that has been an agent of derailment too many times to count), but because presently, this is an area more than anywhere else in which scare tactics are employed (and this does not necessarily make the them invalid).


----------



## groovetube

you're absolutely right, certainly both sides of the GW debate have used scare tactics, but when either side has become an actual religion, complete with deity, come on back.


----------



## mrjimmy

chasMac said:


> No issue at all. I could have used the H1N1 scare (pick any disease we are cautioned on), food crisis of last year, etc. My point is simply: "You can have your beliefs but please, keep your fear to yourself." is a mind boggling-ridiculous thing to say. For if you are alerting others based on a genuine belief, and not motivated by something entirely different, you are doing your fellow human a disservice by "keeping it to yourself". I simply brought up agw, not to get off track (good gawd, that has been an agent of derailment too many times to count), but because presently, this is an area more than anywhere else in which scare tactics are employed (and this does not necessarily make the them invalid).


I think you misunderstood my point. I was referring to Christian (read religion based) fears of 'Hell', 'The Lake Of Fire' or whatever the specific religion uses. The Flu and food safety and even the current climate debate aren't faith based. They are tangible. Comparing them to religion based fears is, as you say, "mind boggling-ridiculous".


----------



## chasMac

groovetube said:


> you're absolutely right, certainly both sides of the GW debate have used scare tactics, but when either side has become an actual religion, complete with deity, come on back.


So mrjmmies's admonition applies only to religious issues. I see. If you ponder this for a sec you'll understanc how absurd that is: I'm guessing you've probably met some religious people; you know then that their faith/god etc is more real than anything earthly; they believe in their god as much as a greenie believes in agw. You are looking at religion as smoke, mirrors and hocus-pocus, so it is easy for you to differentiate between it and matters of science. 



(BTW: Climate change belief given same legal status as religion - Telegraph)


----------



## chasMac

mrjimmy said:


> They are tangible. Comparing them to religion based fears is, as you say, "mind boggling-ridiculous".


Would you not say that to the faithful, god is tangible? (That is what they tell me anyways...)


----------



## rgray

Depressingly yet typically this debate about abortion is being carried on largely by male voices. (Caveat: I am male.) Consequently many see the so-called pro-life faction as a variation on the 'every sperm is sacred' religion based dogma so successfully ridiculed by Monty Python. This might be more defensible if males were more careful about where they put their sperm. Pro-life is largely misogynistic in nature.

For example, the great boogey man proposed by pro-lifers when abortion became quasi-legal in Canada was that abortion rates would go through the roof, the implication being that women would use abortion as an irresponsible method birth control. It has been demonstrated by sociologists that this did not happen - abortion rates remained pretty much the same after as they had been before, indicating that women in fact used abortion as a responsible answer to handle difficult situations. Nobody wants an abortion, but sometimes needs must.

Since abortion rates are independent of the 'legality' of the procedure, the pro-life movement is in point of fact not preventing abortion. It is in fact preventing SAFE abortion.

The spurious social justice argument proffered by pro-lifers can be countered by asking why a woman must receive a life sentence for a few moments indiscretion/stupidity whereas the sperm provider in the situation generally walks away scot free. One also wonders about social justice when one sees ±15 year old girls pushing babies around the mall (as one so often does) when they should be in school. In such a case, neither the mother nor the child has much of a future beyond a lifetime of social assistance. So instead of one life correcting an error, two lives are thrown down the crapper. This is especially egregious in the case of rape/date-rape victims.

I am personally neither for nor against abortion per se. I am against irrational argument and I am against requiring dangerous solutions like back alley abortion when safe procedures exist.

Finally I think that abortion is a womens' issue. If men were more responsible with their sperm a good deal of the problem would disappear. Until men are prepared to control the travels of their sperm, they have nothing to say about the remedies women (some would say are forced to) use to ameliorate the situations that consequently arise. Anything else has a strong undercurrent of misogyny.


----------



## chasMac

rgray said:


> Depressingly yet typically this debate about abortion is being carried on largely by male voices. (Caveat: I am male.)


Obviously I don't have the statistics, but I would venture to say that the vast majority of ehmac members (or at least those who contribute on a daily basis) are male. That might have something to do with it.


----------



## groovetube

living near the morgentaler clinic for long time, one knows that the overwhelming majority of the picketers, were male.


----------



## MacGuiver

chasMac said:


> Obviously I don't have the statistics, but I would venture to say that the vast majority of ehmac members (or at least those who contribute on a daily basis) are male. That might have something to do with it.


This idea that men are the only objectors to abortion always gets marched out in the abortion debate but go to a prolife rally and you'll likely see more women than men. Many men, not all, are not motivated by a concern for women in their support for abortion, rather its an exit strategy when last nights conquest comes knocking at your door with your child growing in her womb. In fact many women are coerced into a regrettable abortion at the behest of the man that impregnated her. 

Cheers


----------



## groovetube

chasMac said:


> So mrjmmies's admonition applies only to religious issues. I see. If you ponder this for a sec you'll understanc how absurd that is: I'm guessing you've probably met some religious people; you know then that their faith/god etc is more real than anything earthly; they believe in their god as much as a greenie believes in agw. You are looking at religion as smoke, mirrors and hocus-pocus, so it is easy for you to differentiate between it and matters of science.
> 
> 
> 
> (BTW: Climate change belief given same legal status as religion - Telegraph)


ridiculous.

Their faith in god, is real only, to them. The idea, that someone's god/faith has to be real to everyone around them, is true narcism.


----------



## groovetube

MacGuiver said:


> This idea that men are the only objectors to abortion always gets marched out in the abortion debate but go to a prolife rally and you'll likely see more women than men. Many men, not all, are not motivated by a concern for women in their support for abortion, rather its an exit strategy when last nights conquest comes knocking at your door with your child growing in her womb. In fact many women are coerced into a regrettable abortion at the behest of the man that impregnated her.
> 
> Cheers


WRONG. Clearly you never lived near an abortion clinic for a few years.


----------



## MacGuiver

groovetube said:


> WRONG. Clearly you never lived near an abortion clinic for a few years.


I worked near one of his franchises in Ottawa and the protesters were always a mix of men and women. You're deluded if you believe all women support it.


----------



## chasMac

groovetube said:


> Their faith in god, is real only, to them. The idea, that someone's god/faith has to be real to everyone around them, is true narcism.


What you are suggesting is simply impossible: a religious person accepting that god only exists for him? But not for the guy next door who's an atheist? Do you not know what a religion is? 

You may know it is real only to them, but they believe their faith applies to everything/everyone. Non-adherents of of their particular brand are at worst heathens, at best mis-guided. You know as well I do that they believe _their_ god judges everyone, believer or not.


----------



## mrjimmy

MacGuiver said:


> I worked near one of his franchises in Ottawa and the protesters were always a mix of men and women. You're deluded if you believe all women support it.


I'd love to see the photo of the pro-choicers on that day. Why do I feel they would outnumber them 5 to 1 and be equally as fresh faced and enthusiastic. 

MacGuiver, is this a recruitment photo?


----------



## eMacMan

chasMac said:


> What you are suggesting is simply impossible: a religious person accepting that god only exists for him? But not for the guy next door who's an atheist? Do you not know what a religion is?
> 
> You may know it is real only to them, but they believe their faith applies to everything/everyone. Non-adherents of of their particular brand are at worst heathens, at best mis-guided. You know as well I do that they believe _their_ god judges everyone, believer or not.


I love the irony. There is only one God there is no other God. That guy over there also believes there is only one God but it is not the same God.beejacon 

Still it is rather arrogant to try to tell a supreme being how he should choose to reveal himself.


----------



## MazterCBlazter

.


----------



## MacGuiver

chasMac said:


> What you are suggesting is simply impossible: a religious person accepting that god only exists for him? But not for the guy next door who's an atheist? Do you not know what a religion is?
> 
> You may know it is real only to them, but they believe their faith applies to everything/everyone. Non-adherents of of their particular brand are at worst heathens, at best mis-guided. You know as well I do that they believe _their_ god judges everyone, believer or not.


I'm not a Jehovah's witness or a mormon but when they come to my door I don't look at it as someone trying to ram their religion down my throat. If you look at it with an understanding of their perspective, they're no different than the guy that comes to my door to warn me that my house is on fire. I think it nobel of them to be concerned for me though I don't share their beliefs. I guess I could say the same for someone crusading to save the planet.


----------



## mrjimmy

chasMac said:


> What you are suggesting is simply impossible: a religious person accepting that god only exists for him? But not for the guy next door who's an atheist? Do you not know what a religion is?
> 
> You may know it is real only to them, but they believe their faith applies to everything/everyone. Non-adherents of of their particular brand are at worst heathens, at best mis-guided. You know as well I do that they believe _their_ god judges everyone, believer or not.


It's simply a matter of keeping your dogma to yourself. Because all it is, is dogma. Not truth.


----------



## mrjimmy

MacGuiver said:


> I'm not a Jehovah's witness or a mormon but when they come to my door I don't look at it as someone trying to ram their religion down my throat. If you look at it with an understanding of their perspective, they're no different than the guy that comes to my door to warn me that my house is on fire. I think it nobel of them to be concerned for me though I don't share their beliefs. I guess I could say the same for someone crusading to save the planet.


That's very Christian of you. But don't forget, one man's noble is another man's irritation.


----------



## chasMac

eMacMan said:


> I love the irony. There is only one God there is no other God. That guy over there also believes there is only one God but it is not the same God.beejacon


Kind of my point. You may adhere to the rules that apply to one religion, and your neighbour may adhere to rules that derive from another. Nevertheless, firmly entrenched in your mind is the belief that your rules apply to him - he is breaking them at his peril. (and vice versa)


----------



## chasMac

mrjimmy said:


> It's simply a matter of keeping your dogma to yourself. Because all it is, is dogma. Not truth.


Try to empathize with the religious, that is what I do. People who dismiss, depise religion (I do not say you are among them) are at risk of falling into their own kind of dogma. "Not truth"? I think a few billion would argue with you; heck "God is truth" is oft-seen in Christian literature (and on a lot of billboards).


----------



## rgray

MacGuiver said:


> I'm not a Jehovah's witness or a mormon but when they come to my door I don't look at it as someone trying to ram their religion down my throat.


Odd, because that is exactly what they are there to do.


----------



## MazterCBlazter

.


----------



## MacGuiver

MazterCBlazter said:


> What if it was the hare Krishnas, the Raelians, a Wicca priestess, a Muslim, Pagan, or a Satanist?


I usually give witches, space aliens and devils candy.
Seriously though It would make no difference unless they became belligerent. But that would apply to the Mormon and the Jehovah's witness as well. 

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## mrjimmy

MacGuiver said:


> I usually give witches, space aliens and devils candy.
> Seriously though It would make no difference unless they became belligerent. But that would apply to the Mormon and the Jehovah's witness as well.
> 
> Cheers
> MacGuiver


Do you believe that waving placards in people's faces with horrific images and screaming 'you're killing your baby' (and other abusive things) is belligerent?


----------



## groovetube

chasMac said:


> What you are suggesting is simply impossible: a religious person accepting that god only exists for him? But not for the guy next door who's an atheist? Do you not know what a religion is?
> 
> You may know it is real only to them, but they believe their faith applies to everything/everyone. Non-adherents of of their particular brand are at worst heathens, at best mis-guided. You know as well I do that they believe _their_ god judges everyone, believer or not.


exactly. True narcism.

I don't care if you accept jesus on behalf of the entire population of the world. It's ridiculous to assume that means more than diddley squat to me, or anyone else who doesn't subscribe to your faith or belief.

I know first hand that there are people out there, whom I would consider far more spiritual than the self important "I'm right and you're the dirty little rascal' children, because they are not such narcissists as to believe their faith automatically applies o everyone and anyone who dares disagrees is, 'misguided'.

So no, it isn't impossible at all. There are people out there who recognize there is more out there than what's just in their pretty little head.


----------



## groovetube

MacGuiver said:


> I worked near one of his franchises in Ottawa and the protesters were always a mix of men and women. You're deluded if you believe all women support it.


how nice for you to find a picture on the internet that suits you.

Unfortunately, it doesn't at all represent what I saw daily, at the abortion clinic.


----------



## chasMac

groovetube said:


> So no, it isn't impossible at all. There are people out there who recognize there is more out there than what's just in their pretty little head.


It is impossible for someone to believe in god and recognize that it is a product of their pretty little head. (unless they suffer from some sort of mental illness punctuated by brief moments of lucidity.)


----------



## groovetube

chasMac said:


> It is impossible for someone to believe in god and recognize that it is a product of their pretty little head. (unless they suffer from some sort of mental illness punctuated by brief moments of lucidity.)


you seriously didn't get that from my post.

I guess I always did think debating on a forum isn't unlike playing telephone.
:yawn:


----------



## MacGuiver

mrjimmy said:


> Do you believe that waving placards in people's faces with horrific images and screaming 'you're killing your baby' (and other abusive things) is belligerent?


At least we can agree that the images of abortion are horrific. You won't see that in Sex Education classes.

Yes the messenger can become belligerent, even for a nobel cause. I've seen the belligerence of Pro-abortionists, environmentalists and evangelical atheists as well. 

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## MazterCBlazter

.


----------



## mrjimmy

MacGuiver said:


> At least we can agree that the images of abortion are horrific. You won't see that in Sex Education classes.


The images are specifically chosen for their effect. They are without context. They could have arrived at that result by many means but the Pro-Life movement chose to co-opt them for thier own purpose.



> Yes the messenger can become belligerent, even for a nobel cause. I've seen the belligerence of Pro-abortionists, environmentalists and evangelical atheists as well.


I haven't heard of very many Pro-Choicers blowing things up or murdering for their righteous cause. 

Pro-Lifers on the other hand...


----------



## chasMac

groovetube said:


> you seriously didn't get that from my post.
> 
> I guess I always did think debating on a forum isn't unlike playing telephone.
> :yawn:


Uh yeah:

"Their faith in god, is real only, to them. The idea, that someone's god/faith has to be real to everyone around them, is true narcism"

If an individual believes god doesn't apply universally, he doesn't believe in god. 

PS Why do you continue to grace us with your presence if you are so dismissive of the medium?


----------



## groovetube

chasMac said:


> Uh yeah:
> 
> "Their faith in god, is real only, to them. The idea, that someone's god/faith has to be real to everyone around them, is true narcism"
> 
> If an individual believes god doesn't apply universally, he doesn't believe in god.
> 
> PS Why do you continue to grace us with your presence if you are so dismissive of the medium?


wrong.

Just because someone believes in a deity, one he or she feels is capable of affecting everyone, doesn't automatically mean they are incapable of believing there are other beliefs, deities, and, other people on this planet. Or, perhaps that's the problem. When someone feels that way, that's when aggression, the need for control etc., everything that is -wrong- with religion, appear.

Contrary to what you are saying, there are many, many spiritual people out there, with great faith, who are evolved enough to understand, and accept there are other people and beliefs out there, and live in harmony with them.

The very fact you assume, and question my presence here, is quite telling. Perhaps you, would do well to explore this idea of acceptance, and tolerance.


----------



## MacGuiver

MazterCBlazter said:


> When is this rapture thing going to happen?


 It isn't.


----------



## chasMac

groovetube said:


> wrong.
> 
> Just because someone believes in a deity, one he or she feels is capable of affecting everyone, doesn't automatically mean they are incapable of believing there are other beliefs, deities, and, other people on this planet. Or, perhaps that's the problem. When someone feels that way, that's when aggression, the need for control etc., everything that is -wrong- with religion, appear.
> 
> Contrary to what you are saying, there are many, many spiritual people out there, with great faith, who are evolved enough to understand, and accept there are other people and beliefs out there, and live in harmony with them.
> 
> The very fact you assume, and question my presence here, is quite telling. Perhaps you, would do well to explore this idea of acceptance, and tolerance.


You harbour a grave misunderstanding of Abrahamic religions if you think their adherents can accept that their are other 'deities'.

BTW, what gave you the impression that I'm not tolerant? Do you think that because I try to understand the religious and occasionally come to their defense that I myself must be among the faithful? You should follow your own advice on acceptance: or does it only apply to those who keep their views on faith to themselves, lest they be accused of trying to ram their religion down your throat.


----------



## eMacMan

The term "pro-life" has lost all credibility. The anti-abortion group is quite willing to actively support politicians who are responsible for wholesale slaughter. The only requirement for this support is that the politicians don't slaughter members of the First Self-Righteous Church and claim they are anti-abortion.


----------



## Dr.G.

MacGuiver said:


> It isn't.


As my grandfather would say, "From your lips to God's ear." When I once asked him if prayers were always answered by God, he said "Sadly, no." This was less than 10 after the full horror of the Holocaust was discovered by the world. I was told that my grandfather was never a devout Jewish person, but that he questioned his faith when the news of the extent of the Holocaust became known.


----------



## groovetube

chasMac said:


> You harbour a grave misunderstanding of Abrahamic religions if you think their adherents can accept that their are other 'deities'.
> 
> BTW, what gave you the impression that I'm not tolerant? Do you think that because I try to understand the religious and occasionally come to their defense that I myself must be among the faithful? You should follow your own advice on acceptance: or does it only apply to those who keep their views on faith to themselves, lest they be accused of trying to ram their religion down your throat.


oh no, I don't harbour any misunderstandings, I'm merely pointing out what is -wrong- with it. I know only too well that, as you put it, "Abrahamic religions" have the er, strong tendency not to accept anything but, their beliefs, and exact true devotion, and will steam roller anything in it's path to achieve this.

Anyone with a basic understanding of history for children will know this. So I'm kinda unsure of this great point you're trying to make here.

You seem unwilling, to accept that there are many, even from the so called, "Abrahamic religions', who are quite capable of acceptance, and tolerance. In fact it's quite clear in your posts, right in black and white.

So unless you want to change that story, I'll see that as intolerance thank you.


----------



## MacGuiver

eMacMan said:


> The term "pro-life" has lost all credibility. The anti-abortion group is quite willing to actively support politicians who are responsible for wholesale slaughter. The only requirement for this support is that the politicians don't slaughter members of the First Self-Righteous Church and claim they are anti-abortion.


Except for one pesky detail. Troops are still in Iraq and more troops are in Afghanistan on the Obama watch. And abortion is now being exported with US dollars. Lovely!


----------



## groovetube

MacGuiver said:


> Except for one pesky detail. Troops are still in Iraq and more troops are in Afghanistan on the Obama watch. And abortion is now being exported with US dollars. Lovely!


as if Obama really represents 'the other side' and erases all hypocrisy...
:lmao:


----------



## Dr.G.

"OAKLAND, Calif. -- Oakland Athletics prospect Grant Desme is retiring from baseball to enter the priesthood. 

Desme was recently selected the 2009 Arizona Fall League MVP and was considered one of the top prospects in Oakland's system." 

As it is written, "Many are called, but few are chosen".


----------



## chasMac

Dr.G. said:


> As my grandfather would say, "From your lips to God's ear." When I once asked him if prayers were always answered by God, he said "Sadly, no." This was less than 10 after the full horror of the Holocaust was discovered by the world. I was told that my grandfather was never a devout Jewish person, but that he questioned his faith when the news of the extent of the Holocaust became known.


This is an excellent chance to get into the nitty-gritty and raison d'etre of a religious thread: the big questions. 

As Dr G alludes to, if God exists why does he let bad things happen? I suppose I can wrap my mind around a believer's view that as the soul is eternal and heaven is paradise, death (the quick and painless sort) can be made to be seen as tolerable (you are going to a much, much better place after all). By why suffering? Why children suffering? As in the Holocaust, or every day around the world. I cannot accept that. My stomach turns when I stuff like it's God's plan.


----------



## MacGuiver

Dr.G. said:


> As my grandfather would say, "From your lips to God's ear." When I once asked him if prayers were always answered by God, he said "Sadly, no." This was less than 10 after the full horror of the Holocaust was discovered by the world. I was told that my grandfather was never a devout Jewish person, but that he questioned his faith when the news of the extent of the Holocaust became known.


Sad story Dr. G. The holocaust must have been a faith shaker for the Jewish community. When tragedy happens it can shake the foundations of the most devout.

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## chasMac

groovetube said:


> Anyone with a basic understanding of history for children will know this. So I'm kinda unsure of this great point you're trying to make here.


The point I am trying to make is that you are wrong. You said:



> Just because someone believes in a deity, one he or she feels is capable of affecting everyone, doesn't automatically mean they are incapable of believing there are other beliefs, *deities*, and, other people on this planet.


That is to say if you consider yourself Christian, Muslim or Jewish, I can say quite confidently that you _are_ automatically incapable of believing that gods other than God exist. 

That is to say (again) you are wrong.

This makes me intolerant?


----------



## MacGuiver

groovetube said:


> as if Obama really represents 'the other side' and erases all hypocrisy...
> :lmao:


Since his post was a rant against the Republicans, what was the other option for U.S. voters he's referring to?


----------



## Dr.G.

chasMac said:


> This is an excellent chance to get into the nitty-gritty and raison d'etre of a religious thread: the big questions.
> 
> As Dr G alludes to, if God exists why does he let bad things happen? I suppose I can wrap my mind around a believer's view that as the soul is eternal and heaven is paradise, death (the quick and painless sort) can be made to be seen as tolerable (you are going to a much, much better place after all). By why suffering? Why children suffering? As in the Holocaust, or every day around the world. I cannot accept that. My stomach turns when I stuff like it's God's plan.


This is why I feel it is a result of "free will". I can't believe that all the horrors that happen in the world are a part of some sort of "plan" that God has set in place for us all. 

While I was born Jewish, I feel as it I am a cross between a Diest and an agnostic. I am also a hypocrite in that I prayed to God to save my daughter when she was born and her life hung in the balance. Then, I prayed to God to let her go peacefully when she quietly died 25 years later after a life of profound disabilities and pain. 

Paix, mes amis.


----------



## chasMac

Dr.G. said:


> While I was born Jewish, I feel as it I am a cross between a Diest and an agnostic. I am also a hypocrite in that I prayed to God to save my daughter when she was born and her life hung in the balance. Then, I prayed to God to let her go peacefully when she quietly died 25 years later after a life of profound disabilities and pain.


Dr G, no one who loses a child should ever feel compelled to explain their actions. You did not display hypocrisy but humanity.


----------



## MacGuiver

chasMac said:


> The point I am trying to make is that you are wrong. You said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is to say if you consider yourself Christian, Muslim or Jewish, I can say quite confidently that you _are_ automatically incapable of believing that gods other than God exist.
> 
> That is to say (again) you are wrong.
> 
> This makes me intolerant?


I guess Groove has some friends that have the "membership card" for particular faith groups but thats where it ends. They neither practice nor believe the faith of the group or they cherry pick the the things they like and don't like essentially creating their own religion. I know in my own religion, I'd say 60-70% of Catholics fit that description. All you need is a Baptism day or wedding and they come out of the woodwork.


----------



## Dr.G.

chasMac said:


> Dr G, no one who loses a child should ever feel compelled to explain their actions. You did not display hypocrisy but humanity.


Thanks, chasMac. I guess the point I was trying to make was that I do not believe in Divine Miracles, and yet there I was praying to God, a God I can't prove even exists, to intervene in the saving the life of my daughter, and then in the sparing of her to suffer further pain. Paix, mon ami.


----------



## MacGuiver

Dr.G. said:


> Thanks, chasMac. I guess the point I was trying to make was that I do not believe in Divine Miracles, and yet there I was praying to God, a God I can't prove even exists, to intervene in the saving the life of my daughter, and then in the sparing of her to suffer further pain. Paix, mon ami.


I've not been in that situation Dr.G and I don't envy you. I had a cousin loose a 3 year old son to cancer. It shook them to the very core. In those situations, all you have is hope for divine intervention and you grab for it. I do however believe in miracles but I have no explanation for why or when God chooses to provide them. 

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## Dr.G.

MacGuiver said:


> I've not been in that situation Dr.G and I don't envy you. I had a cousin loose a 3 year old son to cancer. It shook them to the very core. In those situations, all you have is hope for divine intervention and you grab for it. I do however believe in miracles but I have no explanation for why or when God chooses to provide them.
> 
> Cheers
> MacGuiver


MG, sometimes miracles do happen, although I have no explanations as to why, much like you. Paix, mon ami.


----------



## groovetube

chasMac said:


> The point I am trying to make is that you are wrong. You said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is to say if you consider yourself Christian, Muslim or Jewish, I can say quite confidently that you _are_ automatically incapable of believing that gods other than God exist.
> 
> That is to say (again) you are wrong.
> 
> This makes me intolerant?


yes. It does.

There is a huge difference, between believing in a deity, and believing your deity is your only god, and believing your deity is the only god, and you are willing, to enforce others, to believe in the same god.

A difference, you can't seem to fathom, and are dancing around.

Which is the entire, full point, of not wanting religious groups near legislation or control, to enforce others to their beliefs. Why is this sooo difficult to comprehend???


----------



## groovetube

MacGuiver said:


> I guess Groove has some friends that have the "membership card" for particular faith groups but thats where it ends. They neither practice nor believe the faith of the group or they cherry pick the the things they like and don't like essentially creating their own religion. I know in my own religion, I'd say 60-70% of Catholics fit that description. All you need is a Baptism day or wedding and they come out of the woodwork.


I guess you like to assume a lot of things about people I know, without actually knowing, anything.

As I have said. There are some, who have evolved past narcism. They've gotten past the, Me! Me! Me! What I believe is right and I'll make you believe it too! 

They are the truly spiritual people in my mind. And if that's 'cherry picking', then I think many more need to do that...


----------



## MazterCBlazter

.


----------



## MazterCBlazter

.


----------



## chasMac

groovetube said:


> yes. It does.
> 
> There is a huge difference, between believing in a deity, and believing your deity is your only god, and believing your deity is the only god, and you are willing, to enforce others, to believe in the same god.
> 
> A difference, you can't seem to fathom, and are dancing around.
> 
> Which is the entire, full point, of not wanting religious groups near legislation or control, to enforce others to their beliefs. Why is this sooo difficult to comprehend???


Listen to me very carefully. What I am saying is not personal opinion. I am not making it up. Go and read a little history and theology if the concept of _monotheism_ has your brain spinning and in such a tizzy. Notice I do not say anywhere "this is what I think", "this is what should be", "this is right and should be impressed upon everyone". It is what it is. You know what, you should take it up with the Catholic church (and indeed Muslims and Jews) if you don't approve of them accepting that there is only one god. That's actually damned intolerant of you, come to think.

Secondly, I don't believe you will find me saying anything contrary to your thoughts on legislation and religious groups. I never touched the subject.

Clearly, if anyone is dancing here it is you. That I plod on in this fruitless discussion is if anything proof of my tolerance. "Monotheism". Look it up.


----------



## MazterCBlazter

.


----------



## chasMac

MazterCBlazter said:


> -1
> 
> These groups frequently say that the others are worshipping a false God pretending to be the one true God. "Satan in disguise"


Yes they do and have done, you are correct; cause of much bloodshed and heartache over the centuries. So why the -1? Do not presuppose that because I state a fact, I am behind it.


----------



## MazterCBlazter

.


----------



## MazterCBlazter

.


----------



## chasMac

MazterCBlazter said:


> Apologies chasMac, I may have misread part of your statement.


No prob.


----------



## Dr.G.

MazterCBlazter said:


> -1
> 
> These groups frequently say that the others are worshipping a false God pretending to be the one true God. "Satan in disguise"


Sad, but all too true, MCB.


----------



## groovetube

chasMac said:


> Listen to me very carefully. What I am saying is not personal opinion. I am not making it up. Go and read a little history and theology if the concept of _monotheism_ has your brain spinning and in such a tizzy. Notice I do not say anywhere "this is what I think", "this is what should be", "this is right and should be impressed upon everyone". It is what it is. You know what, you should take it up with the Catholic church (and indeed Muslims and Jews) if you don't approve of them accepting that there is only one god. That's actually damned intolerant of you, come to think.
> 
> Secondly, I don't believe you will find me saying anything contrary to your thoughts on legislation and religious groups. I never touched the subject.
> 
> Clearly, if anyone is dancing here it is you. That I plod on in this fruitless discussion is if anything proof of my tolerance. "Monotheism". Look it up.


oh yes it is personal opinion, you are asserting that it is IMPOSSIBLE, for someone to believe in god, and be accepting of other beliefs and deities.

You are dead wrong. And it is precisely that attitude, that is responsible for a great number of senseless killing and human suffering.

It is NOT, impossible, and in fact a great number of people will prove you wrong. Once again, there are a lot of people, who show great spirituality, compassion, and acceptance. And we need far more of this, and less of this nonsense attitude that it is impossible.

No it is not.


----------



## MacGuiver

groovetube said:


> oh yes it is personal opinion, you are asserting that it is IMPOSSIBLE, for someone to believe in god, and be accepting of other beliefs and deities.
> 
> You are dead wrong. And it is precisely that attitude, that is responsible for a great number of senseless killing and human suffering.
> 
> It is NOT, impossible, and in fact a great number of people will prove you wrong. Once again, there are a lot of people, who show great spirituality, compassion, and acceptance. And we need far more of this, and less of this nonsense attitude that it is impossible.
> 
> No it is not.


Chas I'd save your breath. You were absolutely right. Monotheism is belief in one God. If someone claims to be a member of a monotheistic religion and also believes there are other gods besides the one true God then they're a heretic. Its pretty basic theology.

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## chasMac

groovetube said:


> oh yes it is personal opinion, you are asserting that it is IMPOSSIBLE, for someone to believe in god, and be accepting of other beliefs and deities.
> 
> You are dead wrong. And it is precisely that attitude, that is responsible for a great number of senseless killing and human suffering.
> 
> It is NOT, impossible, and in fact a great number of people will prove you wrong. Once again, there are a lot of people, who show great spirituality, compassion, and acceptance. And we need far more of this, and less of this nonsense attitude that it is impossible.
> 
> No it is not.


I am afraid it is impossible, the big guy is the one and only, that is if you belong to one of the 3 religions that something like 99% of religious Canadians adhere to. It is one their central tenets. I do admire your idealism however, and you are absolutely correct, it has led to untold bloodshed. But people's attitudes are moderating (in the past, it would have required a major re-write or their respective scripture, when people's views were more entrenched). Can we agree on this: that individuals who adhere to a particular religious belief may swear that there is only one god, but relinquish an thought of proselytization and more importantly harming others in the name of this god? Essentially: live and let live?


----------



## groovetube

MacGuiver said:


> Chas I'd save your breath. You were absolutely right. Monotheism is belief in one God. If someone claims to be a member of a monotheistic religion and also believes there are other gods besides the one true God then they're a heretic. Its pretty basic theology.
> 
> Cheers
> MacGuiver


I can't believe the pair of you are sitting their screaming about monotheism. Gee!! What was your first clue?????

Could it have been the millions of people slaughtered? The human suffering that continues to this day? What? What could possibly have clued either of you into this fantastic notion that monotheism could in any way be instrumental in this?

Both of you act like this is some kind of fantastic notion, did it take a few years in uni to figure this out? What?

Is there some kind of medal offered here to proclaim the obvious, that organized religion has been monotheistic for the most part til now? An award ceremony?

The great chasmac, and macguiver, for imparting this, rather obvious notion!

Congratulations. Masters of reiteration! And the er, bringers, of obvious information!

However, guess what! There are a lot of people out there, who have bucked the trend! Maybe, they've figured out, this monotheism stuff, is bunkum... pushed by the few who stand to gain from it...


----------



## Macfury

Guys, groove doesn't get it. Leave him alone.


----------



## groovetube

oh no another genius who wants to spend 3 pages stating the obvious like it's some sort of fantastic revelation too?

Or, just a cheapshot macfury...


----------



## MacGuiver

Macfury said:


> Guys, groove doesn't get it. Leave him alone.


Good advice. 

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## groovetube

you know, I never thought I'd see a christian, fight to assert they are part of a monotheist organization, and is completely incapable, of acceptance, and tolerance of something other than it's own.

It's really quite something.


----------



## MazterCBlazter

.


----------



## markceltic

Found this guy the other day thanks to my bro-in-law, fella has a lot on the ball I would say Wake up, America - 5 Translation(s) | dotSUB Ah the Brits you gotta love'em.


----------



## MacGuiver

markceltic said:


> Found this guy the other day thanks to my bro-in-law, fella has a lot on the ball I would say Wake up, America - 5 Translation(s) | dotSUB Ah the Brits you gotta love'em.


This surly old bigot makes Pat Robertson sound like Ghandi. 
Sadly every religion has its nutbar evangelists, even atheism.

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## MacGuiver

groovetube said:


> you know, I never thought I'd see a christian, fight to assert they are part of a monotheist organization, and is completely incapable, of acceptance, and tolerance of something other than it's own.
> 
> It's really quite something.


Against my better judgement, I'll engage.

Myself and Chasmac would not have had to fight to explain the painfully obvious that christianity is a monotheistic religion if you hadn't insisted that you can be a Christian and accept the validity of other gods.
If I am intolerant because I do not accept the validity of other peoples gods, what does that make the atheist that doesn't accept the validity of any god whatsoever?


----------



## Vandave

MacGuiver said:


> If I am intolerant because I do not accept the validity of other peoples gods, what does that make the atheist that doesn't accept the validity of any god whatsoever?


Intelligent?


----------



## rgray

Vandave said:


> Intelligent?


No question mark required...


----------



## MacGuiver

Vandave said:


> Intelligent?


Vandave 
I'm not saying Atheists are intolerant so don't get your back up (though they're certainly not immune as the bigoted atheist evangelical demonstrated in the sermon above.). 
I'm merely pointing out the logical fallacy of Grooves statement. 

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## groovetube

Vandave said:


> Intelligent?


brilliant.


----------



## MazterCBlazter

.


----------



## MazterCBlazter

.


----------



## ehMax

For those who are incurring that those who believe in a deity are not intelligent, that's pretty insulting and not very ehMacian.  It would be like me (unjustly) saying that Atheists have no morals. (Ironically, many of the most "moralistic" nicest people I know are atheists)

A differing view on life and why we are here on the planet does not make one unintelligent. 

Trust me, I empathize with the sentiment regarding frustrations towards a lot of people who believe in a deity, but let's not start insulting the intelligence of an entire group of people please.


----------



## MazterCBlazter

.


----------



## darkscot

ehMax said:


> For those who are incurring that those who believe in a deity are not intelligent, that's pretty insulting and not very ehMacian.  It would be like me (unjustly) saying that Atheists have no morals. (Ironically, many of the most "moralistic" nicest people I know are atheists)


I fail to see why this is ironic. Atheism does not = lack of morality, nor does religion = full of morality. 

As for Christianity/Judaism being monotheistic, I disagree - according to their bible there are other gods. Their chosen god just demanded they not worship the others. He was a bit possessive.

I agree that calling theists unintelligent is insulting, egotistical and presumptuous. They do make easy targets sometimes, tho.


----------



## MazterCBlazter

.


----------



## groovetube

ehMax said:


> For those who are incurring that those who believe in a deity are not intelligent, that's pretty insulting and not very ehMacian.  It would be like me (unjustly) saying that Atheists have no morals. (Ironically, many of the most "moralistic" nicest people I know are atheists)
> 
> A differing view on life and why we are here on the planet does not make one unintelligent.
> 
> Trust me, I empathize with the sentiment regarding frustrations towards a lot of people who believe in a deity, but let's not start insulting the intelligence of an entire group of people please.


for me anyway, I've focused on people, who feel it's their right to take their belief, and ram it down other people's throats (and in some cases kill people over it), not people who simply believe in a deity. 

It's good thing for people to have a spirituality, and believe in a deity of their choice, and I'd never want to paint an entire group as unintelligent based on simply believing in a deity.

But I refuse to believe, that it's impossible, for people, to live in harmony with others who believe in another deity.


----------



## ehMax

MazterCBlazter said:


> An insecure and vengeful God, jealous of all the other Gods.
> 
> "Thou shalt have no other Gods before me" This says that there are other Gods.
> 
> So much for monotheism.


Other gods does not mean other deities. In the Bible, many "god" were gold idols. Worship of other "gods" refers to the worship of money and ones self over others as well.


----------



## ehMax

darkscot said:


> Atheism does not = lack of morality, nor does religion = full of morality.


I think that's the same point I was _trying_ to make.


----------



## Macfury

ehMax said:


> Other gods does not mean other deities. In the Bible, many "god" were gold idols. Worship of other "gods" refers to the worship of money and ones self over others as well.


It means all other deities as well. Absolutely.

Deuteronomy 6:14: "You shall not follow other gods, any of the gods of the peoples who surround you..."

2 Kings 17:35: "You shall not fear other gods, nor bow down yourselves to them nor serve them nor sacrifice to them."


----------



## ehMax

groovetube said:


> for me anyway, I've focused on people, who feel it's their right to take their belief, and ram it down other people's throats (and in some cases kill people over it), not people who simply believe in a deity.
> 
> It's good thing for people to have a spirituality, and believe in a deity of their choice, and I'd never want to paint an entire group as unintelligent based on simply believing in a deity.
> 
> But I refuse to believe, that it's impossible, for people, to live in harmony with others who believe in another deity.


One of my favourite symbols:










In a nation like Canada, its not an option. We all have to learn to coexist and that starts with being respectful to each other.


----------



## chasMac

ehMax said:


> In a nation like Canada, its not an option. We all have to learn to coexist and that starts with being respectful to each other.


They might make that a pre-condition for settling in Canada: leave your wars and blood feuds behind.


----------



## eMacMan

chasMac said:


> They might make that a pre-condition for settling in Canada: leave your wars and blood feuds behind.


Sounds like a fabulous idea. No point in leaving a war ravaged homeland then trying to bring the war with you.


----------



## ehMax

Macfury said:


> It means all other deities as well. Absolutely.
> 
> Deuteronomy 6:14: "You shall not follow other gods, any of the gods of the peoples who surround you..."
> 
> 2 Kings 17:35: "You shall not fear other gods, nor bow down yourselves to them nor serve them nor sacrifice to them."


Lemme put it another way. Pretend I'm boss of a company. I like my employees to do correspondence with customers via a computer. I've got some people who claim that a gold painted cardboard box is the computer they want to use. In the employee handbook, I say, "Use our Computers. Do not use any other computers or try to send email to customers with them. "

That does not necessarily mean the manual recognizes that the gold painted cardboard box is a real Computer. 

Its the same in the bible. There were many forms of worship. Worshiping gold idols and making sacrifices to them. Its also refers to the making a god out of things. Making money your god etc... 

The God of the bible does not recognize any other deities. 

Mark 12:32
There is one God; and there is none other but he.


----------



## eshm.assist

ehMax said:


> One of my favourite symbols:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In a nation like Canada, its not an option. We all have to learn to coexist and that starts with being respectful to each other.


Oh wow, that symbol look so awesome


----------



## Macfury

^^^^^^^^
Bang on!


----------



## chasMac

ehMax said:


> The God of the bible does not recognize any other deities.
> 
> Mark 12:32
> There is one God; and there is none other but he.


Geez, where were you yesterday? This would have helped, coming from up on high.


----------



## Dr.G.

ehMax said:


> One of my favourite symbols:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In a nation like Canada, its not an option. We all have to learn to coexist and that starts with being respectful to each other.


An excellent way to demonstrate religious coexistence, Mr. Mayor. :clap::clap:


----------



## groovetube

ehMax said:


> Lemme put it another way. Pretend I'm boss of a company. I like my employees to do correspondence with customers via a computer. I've got some people who claim that a gold painted cardboard box is the computer they want to use. In the employee handbook, I say, "Use our Computers. Do not use any other computers or try to send email to customers with them. "
> 
> That does not necessarily mean the manual recognizes that the gold painted cardboard box is a real Computer.
> 
> Its the same in the bible. There were many forms of worship. Worshiping gold idols and making sacrifices to them. Its also refers to the making a god out of things. Making money your god etc...
> 
> The God of the bible does not recognize any other deities.
> 
> Mark 12:32
> There is one God; and there is none other but he.


I think, a distinction, an important distinction, needs to be made between following a deity that requires your, YOUR exclusive devotion, and following a single deity while forcing others to follow your deity too because your deity requires exclusivity.

A simple, but very important distinction, that I've tried to explain for, a few pages now.


As I said before, it's well known, the christian god wants exclusivity from it's followers.
I've never suggested, that a christian, follow other deities as well. 

It pretty much agrees with your graphic posted. Perfect.


----------



## ehMax

darkscot said:


> I fail to see why this is ironic. Atheism does not = lack of morality, nor does religion = full of morality.


Another interesting point from Kiva.org and the teams that are there and who's in first place.


----------



## groovetube

Dr.G. said:


> An excellent way to demonstrate religious coexistence, Mr. Mayor. :clap::clap:


yup, which is EXACTLY what I have been saying for pages now, in the face of being reminded the christian god wants exclusivity.

Oh really???


----------



## ehMax

chasMac said:


> Geez, where were you yesterday? This would have helped, coming from up on high.


Afraid I don't know what your referencing.


----------



## groovetube

ehMax said:


> Afraid I don't know what your referencing.


you... don't require exclusivity.... do you?


----------



## chasMac

ehMax said:


> Afraid I don't know what your referencing.


S'okay. Don't think any of us want to rehash it anyways.


----------



## ehMax

groovetube said:


> you... don't require exclusivity.... do you?


There is only one forum.


----------



## MazterCBlazter

.


----------



## MazterCBlazter

.


----------



## ehMax

MazterCBlazter said:


> What about the other religions and unbelievers?


It's very adaptable.


----------



## MazterCBlazter

.


----------



## MacGuiver

MazterCBlazter said:


> A book of contradictions.
> 
> Remember whoever wins the war, gets to write the stories.


Explain the contradiction? Oh right he's ignoring me. Anyone?

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## ehMax

IMO, It'd really make for an interesting religious conversation if we could all chat about what we each personally believed in or thought. To hear how we got to where we were in life.... Without and pretence that anyone is trying to "convert" anyone or have people just explaining why the things others believed in are wrong. 

IMO, its unfortunate that threads on religion are rather cyclical on ehMac in that every 4-6 months, there is a thread that could basically be played on repeat. 

These hot topics like religion, green house gases, politics etc.. They are starting to play out a little predictable and the same polarized points are repeated over and over. Would be great to have a different approach to them. 

Would be great to simply have more points of view presented, shared and discussed as opposed to some battle trying to have a victorious point of view via the most wittiest one liner or retort. I've certainly be guilty of this at times. 

If anyone has any suggestions or comments on that.


----------



## MazterCBlazter

.


----------



## chuckster

In college I took a class in Comparative Religions. The instructor struck me as intelligent and well versed in the subject matter. We were all young males with long hair and attitudes. We discussed every major religion and many that were either absorbed or just disappeared. After discussing many of the origins of Christianity, and dispelling many of the half-truths and myths of my Anglican childhood, he revealed he still went to church with his family every Sunday. I was dumbfounded. He knew the sermons were based on a mix of various religions and tainted by politics over generations and yet were supposedly the "true" faith.
His reply was quite simple. Going to church made him feel better. Not assured of an afterlife in heaven, not guaranteed to be found better than non-believers, just ... feel better.
I've always felt that was an excellent method of retaining spirituality, without concern for what someone tells you "God" wants.


----------



## SINC

^^

Best post in this thread. if it feels good, do it! :clap:

Sums it all up nicely and explains much of people's affiliations to any religion.


----------



## MazterCBlazter

.


----------



## chasMac

SINC said:


> if it feels good, do it!


Related to ethical hedonism, a form of utilitarianism. I think most of us practice this nowadays. Properly put: "If it feels good, do it, provided no harm is caused to others". That last clause is the tricky bit.


----------



## SINC

chasMac said:


> Related to ethical hedonism, a form of utilitarianism. I think most of us practice this nowadays. Properly put: "If it feels good, do it, provided no harm is caused to others". That last clause is the tricky bit.


A thoughtful appendage chasMac.


----------



## MazterCBlazter

.


----------



## Macfury

chasmac said:


> related to ethical hedonism, a form of utilitarianism. I think most of us practice this nowadays. Properly put: "if it feels good, do it, provided no harm is caused to others". That last clause is the tricky bit.


+1


----------



## bryanc

MacGuiver said:


> Sadly every religion has its nutbar evangelists, even atheism.


Atheism is a religion like not collecting stamps is a hobby.


----------



## SINC

bryanc said:


> Atheism is a religion like not collecting stamps is a hobby.


Atheism is a fervent belief in nothing and therefore a religion of its own unique kind.


----------



## eMacMan

I wonder how many "atheists" are really agnostics. I am quite willing to accept the possibility of a supreme/superior being(s) as long as faith is not the basis of believing.


----------



## bryanc

ehMax said:


> For those who are incurring that those who believe in a deity are not intelligent, that's pretty insulting and not very ehMacian.


Indeed it is. However, regardless of one's feelings about the facts, research shows that atheism does serve as a surprisingly accurate predictor of average intelligence across many cultures (PDF available upon request).

Nevertheless, rubbing people's noses in this fact is rude and does nothing to advance the cause of a secular society.


----------



## Macfury

Oh why not just post the pages of that PDF right here, bryanc?

Edit. Never mind, I just read it and a number of other study precis. It really is not conclusive.


----------



## bryanc

eMacMan said:


> I wonder how many "atheists" are really agnostics.


All the atheists I know are agnostics. I've never met a "strong atheist" because that is a position of faith, and, while it can be articulated, I've never encountered it as anything other than a straw-man argument.

"Agnostic" means you lack knowledge of/about god(s).
"Atheist" means you lack beliefs in/about god(s).

If you have no knowledge (i.e. are an agnostic), how can you have beliefs? Consequently, all rational agnostics are atheists. However, because so much negative connotation has been associated with the word 'atheist' (especially in the US, especially since the 1950's), many atheists will describe themselves as 'agnostics' in order avoid conflict.

Cheers


----------



## bryanc

Macfury said:


> Oh why not just post the pages of that PDF right here


I think it's publicly available. If any one has trouble finding it, PM me and I can email it to you.

The reference is:

Lynn et al. Average intelligence predicts atheism rates across 137 nations. Intelligence (2009) vol. 37 (1) pp. 11-15


----------



## chasMac

bryanc said:


> "Agnostic" means you lack knowledge of/about god(s).
> "Atheist" means you lack beliefs in/about god(s).


Regardless what the dictionary definition for agnostic is, I usually find that people who claim to be one are those too timid to take the 'final step' and say they are atheist. A cop-out in the same league as Pascal's gambit. Like if there is a god, they'd plead innocent in front of the pearly gates, claiming: "Hey, I didn't not-believe in You."


----------



## MacGuiver

Serial Killers can also boast of a higher IQ than normal. 

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## chasMac

MacGuiver said:


> Serial Killers can also boast of a higher IQ than normal.


They may; not really up on that. I would not be surprised though if many are extremely pious.


----------



## bryanc

MacGuiver said:


> Serial Killers can also boast of a higher IQ than normal.


I was not aware of that. Could you send me a link for the data? I've seen several studies showing that inmates of federal penitentiaries in the US are dramatically more religious than the general population, but I don't know of any studies done on the religiosity of serial killers.


----------



## chasMac

bryanc said:


> I've seen several studies showing that inmates of federal penitentiaries in the US are dramatically more religious than the general population


In all fairness, I think they arrive at that point post-incarceration, not pre-.


----------



## screature

MazterCBlazter said:


> Religion is mind pollution and thought corruption. *It's a crutch for those with crippled minds and emotions.*


That just isn't so. Einstein said he didn't believe God played dice with the universe. Did he have a crippled mind? Many if not most of all the world's great thinkers have believed in some form or another.

Your *waayy* over the top statement just belies your own prejudice.


----------



## rgray

As a hard-core, take-no-prisoners atheist it pains me to agree that atheists are agnostics. No matter how strongly one is convinced that there is no (such thing as) god(s), it is one of those ineffable wrinkles of logic that it is impossible to prove non-existence. In this, god(s) fall into the same category as the likes of OgoPogo, the Loch Ness Monster, Yetis and so on.


----------



## bryanc

chasMac said:


> Regardless what the dictionary definition for agnostic is, I usually find that people who claim to be one are those too timid to take the 'final step' and say they are atheist


It's funny you should put it in those terms, as I see the step of admitting you don't know (i.e. being an agnostic) far more difficult for most than not having any beliefs about it (i.e. being an atheist). However, from a cultural POV, atheism carries a lot of baggage, and is still a sort of 'scarlet letter' in much of our society (especially in the U.S.). Given that about 10 percent of the American public are atheists, and, statistically, that's going to be a disproportionately wealthy and well-educated population, isn't it surprising that none of the 535 people in the US congress admit to being atheists? Even in Canada, among our politicians, there are very few who would admit to this apparently highly unsavoury philosophical persuasion.

Cheers


----------



## bryanc

screature said:


> Einstein said he didn't believe God played dice with the universe. Di he have a crippled mind?


That was a widely-quoted figure of speech Einstein much regretted.



Albert Einstein said:


> I cannot conceive of a God who rewards and punishes his creatures, or has a will of the type of which we are conscious in ourselves. An individual who should survive his physical death is also beyond my comprehension, nor do I wish it otherwise; such notions are for the fears or absurd egoism of feeble souls.





Albert Einstein said:


> It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly.


Cheers


----------



## chasMac

screature said:


> That just isn't so. Einstein said he didn't believe God played dice with the universe. Di he have a crippled mind? Many if not most of all the world's great thinkers have believed in some form or another.


I was going to note something to that effect too: the greatest minds in history have belonged to those who not only believed in God, but practiced a standard, conformist, out of the box religion. There are a few reasons for this I think:

1) mild brain-washing, that is to say their parents were religious, their colleagues were everyone was.

2) to answer the ultimate question; at some point in their studies they reach a point where the natural sciences can no longer explain certain phenomena; must be God.

3) they weren't religious; it was simply a veil that allowed them to navigate society without being hung and quartered.

Not sure if this covers all the reasons tho. Newton was, to quote a physicist I heard "scary smart" - he would seem to be above all this, revelling in his extreme eccentricity as he did. Yet he was religious.


----------



## screature

rgray said:


> As a hard-core, take-no-prisoners atheist it pains me to agree that atheists are agnostics. No matter how strongly one is convinced that there is no (such thing as) god(s), it is one of those ineffable wrinkles of logic that it is impossible to prove non-existence. In this, god(s) fall into the same category as the likes of OgoPogo, the Loch Ness Monster, Yetis and so on.


Absolutely. That is the exact reason why I same I am agnostic. Fundamentally we have no way of *knowing* one way or another. All is belief in our oh so very limited existence, knowledge and means of perception.


----------



## bryanc

chasMac said:


> Not sure if this covers all the reasons tho.


I think you missed the most obvious one: nearly everyone throughout history has been religious, so it's not surprising that some very smart people were religious.

Especially prior to about 1960, the proportion of people who would admit to being atheists was infinitesimal, and it still remains a small segment of society. Statistically, one would expect to have almost no people of any remarkable accomplishments in this group because it is so small. The fact that so many of the great thinkers, be they philosophers, scientists, artists, politicians or writers throughout history have been atheists is quite remarkable.

One of the things I always find ironic is that atheists and non-christians played such an important role in the framing of the US constitution, and the US has recently become so much more dominated politically by christian fundamentalists than any other developed nation. Strange twist of fate.

Cheers


----------



## screature

bryanc said:


> That was a widely-quoted figure of speech Einstein much regretted.
> Cheers


Makes no difference the point is the same... many if not most of the greatest minds in history have believed in a god.

I am not trying be supportive of religion here or promote belief in a god. Just pointing out a very obviously biased and absolutely incorrect statement.


----------



## bryanc

screature said:


> Absolutely. That is the exact reason why I same I am agnostic. Fundamentally we have no way of *knowing* one way or another. All is belief in our oh so very limited existence, knowledge and means of perception.


Agreed. Like all humans, I was born an atheist, but I became an agnostic after decades of consideration and study.

Cheers


----------



## bryanc

screature said:


> Just point out a very obviously biased and absolutely incorrect statement.


The irony is that MCB's statement to which you take umbrage is very similar to the statement made by Einstein that I used to refute your point.

Perhaps you'd like to argue that Einstein's statement was obviously biased and absolutely incorrect?


----------



## rgray

screature said:


> Absolutely. That is the exact reason why I same I am agnostic. Fundamentally we have no way of *knowing* one way or another. All is belief in our oh so very limited existence, knowledge and means of perception.


Unfortunately the same logic holds true for Kuthulu, the Great Spaghetti Monster and any other bizarre hallucination that might be proposed as a "supreme being".....


----------



## bryanc

rgray said:


> In this, god(s) fall into the same category as the likes of OgoPogo, the Loch Ness Monster, Yetis and so on.


Another quote you might find amusing



Joseph McCarthy said:


> An atheist doesn't have to be someone who thinks he has a proof that there can't be a god. He only has to be someone who believes that the evidence on the God question is at a similar level to the evidence on the werewolf question.


Of course, McCarthy's opinion was that anyone who might be an atheist ought to be deported (or better yet, shot), but he did recognize that atheism was not the claim that god(s) do(es), not exist, but rather an absence of belief regarding such entities.

Cheers


----------



## screature

rgray said:


> Unfortunately the same logic holds true for Kuthulu, the Great Spaghetti Monster and any other bizarre hallucination that might be proposed as a "supreme being".....


And so it goes...


----------



## chasMac

bryanc said:


> One of the things I always find ironic is that atheists and non-christians played such an important role in the framing of the US constitution...
> 
> Cheers


You mean the Greeks?


----------



## MacGuiver

chasMac said:


> In all fairness, I think they arrive at that point post-incarceration, not pre-.


I don't know Chas, Hell's Angels always bring the best brownies to our church bake sales.

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## screature

bryanc said:


> The irony is that MCB's statement to which you take umbrage is very similar to the statement made by Einstein that I used to refute your point.
> 
> Perhaps you'd like to argue that Einstein's statement was obviously biased and absolutely incorrect?





> I cannot conceive of a God who rewards and punishes his creatures, or has a will of the type of which we are conscious in ourselves. An individual who should survive his physical death is also beyond my comprehension, nor do I wish it otherwise; such notions are for the fears or absurd egoism of feeble souls.


But the statements are very different indeed. MCB's statement was implied as an objective truth. Einstein's statement is carefully worded to reflective the relativism of his own personal belief... "I cannot conceive of a God..." "An individual who should survive his physical death is also beyond my comprehension, nor do I wish it otherwise; such notions are for the fears or absurd egoism of feeble *souls*."

Even here he interestingly bows to the notion of a greater power and understanding than his own by using the word *souls* rather than *minds*.


----------



## bryanc

chasMac said:


> You mean the Greeks?


:lmao: I was thinking of Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Paine, James Madison, and even guys like Franklin (who was a Christian,but who was decidedly unorthodox for his time).

Cheers


----------



## MazterCBlazter

.


----------



## screature

MazterCBlazter said:


> Bryanc summed it up exactly as I see it:
> 
> Albert Einsteins thoughts and opinions are completely different from those of the religious zealot. I have read his books and studied his life in the past.


Completely dodging the issue and the point being made... the Einstein quote was merely being used for emphasis. *Your *statement was simply untrue.


----------



## bryanc

screature said:


> Even here he interestingly bows to the notion of a greater power and understanding than his own by using the word *souls* rather than *minds*.


I certainly agree, as would MCB I think, that Einstein's wording was more diplomatic and probably better considered, but you have to recognize that Einstein was a product of his time. He clearly states that he cannot conceive of an aspect of one's consciousness or personalty surviving their physical death, but you're right that he uses the word 'soul.' But what, apart from an aspect of one's personality that survives their physical death does 'soul' mean? I think Einstein was simply using the words of his culture, and didn't shy away from calling people who believe such things 'feeble souls' not because he believed in an 'immortal soul' but rather because that's how people talked back then.


----------



## screature

bryanc said:


> I certainly agree, as would MCB I think, that Einstein's wording was more diplomatic and probably better considered, but you have to recognize that Einstein was a product of his time. He clearly states that he cannot conceive of an aspect of one's consciousness or personalty surviving their physical death, but you're right that he uses the word 'soul.' But what, apart from an aspect of one's personality that survives their physical death does 'soul' mean? I think Einstein was simply using the words of his culture, and didn't shy away from calling people who believe such things 'feeble souls' not because he believed in an 'immortal soul' but rather because that's how people talked back then.


Perhaps. It wasn't really all that long ago and people were still capable of using the word mind as opposed to soul.

He also belies the size of his own formidable ego by making such a statement as well. I do not think Newton was of crippled mind or feeble soul nor any other vast number of great historical intellects who just happened to believe in a god.

The fact remains that a "belief" is just that. Period. It does not then mean that you are mentally crippled or feeble merely because you may hold a specific belief that you have no empirical evidence to prove when you also have no empirical evidence to disprove it.


----------



## chasMac

bryanc said:


> :lmao: I was thinking of Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Paine, James Madison, and even guys like Franklin (who was a Christian,but who was decidedly unorthodox for his time).
> 
> Cheers


Hmmm. US history not my specialty, but I have a hard time believing any of those who you mention were atheists. In fact I know they weren't. And that they were unorthodox is of little surprise, considering that the established church at the time was the Church of England; ie: the bad guy. (I believe Washington remained an ardent Anglican) They were simply the vanguard of the Great Awakening, you know Baptists and all, hardly timid in propounding their beliefs. Perhaps then religion permeates US society and government, not in spite of them but because. (Paine being the exception as he _did_ rail against revealed religion).

With the Greeks you might have a point; debt western society owes to them for democracy...


----------



## MacGuiver

screature said:


> Completely dodging the issue and the point being made... the Einstein quote was merely being used for emphasis. *Your *statement was simply untrue.


Maybe Einstein suffered from multiple personality disorder...



> “Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.” †
> 
> “Before God we are all equally wise – and equally foolish.“ †
> 
> “I, in any case, am convinced [God] does not play dice.” †
> 
> “The Lord God is subtle, but malicious he is not.” †
> 
> “I want to know how God created this world. I am not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know his thoughts. The rest are details.” †


Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## bryanc

chasMac said:


> They were simply the vanguard of the Great Awakening, you know Baptists and all


Jefferson was certainly not a Baptist, or any other form of Christian (although he did admire the teachings attributed to Jesus, he did not accept that Jesus was the messiah or supernatural in any way). He, Thomas Paine, and John Adams were probably best described as Deists, from what I understand. But they were all strongly influenced by atheist thinkers of the enlightenment (people like Paul-Henri Thiry, Voltaire etc.). Which is why I find it ironic that, in modern America, one has little chance of being elected to their local PTA, let alone the Presidency, if one isn't a vocal and demonstrably devout Christian.


----------



## MazterCBlazter

.


----------



## MacGuiver

MazterCBlazter said:


> Young children believe in Santa Claus, many adults believe in religion. Is it much different?


If I see someone's sight restored in the name of Santa Claus, I'll agree you may be on to something.

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## rgray

MacGuiver said:


> If I see someone's sight restored in the name of Santa Claus, I'll agree you may be on to something.


Have you personally ever seen anyone's sight restored?


----------



## bryanc

MazterCBlazter said:


> The great scientists and minds of the world were usually born into it and just keep up the tradition to keep the family happy.


This is certainly true in my experience. One of the most common frustrations/stresses I have observed among graduate students in the natural sciences is that as their sophistication with regard to understanding the world, and their ability to recognize irrational/unsupported lines of argument grows, they become increasingly unable to sustain their childhood superstitions. Many furthermore are unable to stomach the hypocrisy of continuing to attend church with their parents/family, and this frequently causes familial strife.

Interestingly, even back in the early 20th century, only about half of scientists surveyed adhered to any religion, and in 1998, 93% of the members of the National Academy of Sciences expressed "disbelief or doubt in the existence of God." This figure is even more remarkable in the context of a society where somewhere in the neighbourhood of 90% of the lay public are religious adherents of some sort.

Although many good scientists are religious, I think they manage to do science *despite* their religiosity. It seems quite obvious to me that belief in the supernatural is a handicap for a natural scientist. That some people can manage it is only a testament to their great mental flexibility.

Cheers


----------



## screature

MazterCBlazter said:


> I stand by my statement:
> 
> If someone is healthy emotionally and mentally, they do not need a belief in a religion. It will only hold them back, it is only holding our entire society back. Religion only controls those with weak minds and emotions and tells them how to think and act instead of making up their own minds on things...


You stand by your statement and run off in all directions not shedding one little bit of evidence to back up your claim because you can't. It is pure prejudice and bias. The world is and always has been filled with intelligent people who happen to believe in a god. Keep on with your prejudice and bias. It doesn't change a thing.

Just a note here. Why is it that certain people are chastised and given"vacations" for expressing their prejudice and others are not... seems like at bit of an arbitrary double standard to me.

I guess it is Ok to be anti-religious here on ehMac. As I have already stated I am an agnostic and have no faith, but I also have no interest in demeaning, belittling and insulting those who do.


----------



## bryanc

rgray said:


> Have you personally ever seen anyone's sight restored?


He probably has. Certainly many people make those sorts of claims. But as you're well aware, the plural of 'anecdote' is not 'data.'

When I see someone preform anything that is not explicable in mundane terms under controlled laboratory conditions by invoking Zeus, or the FSM, or whatever, then I'll reconsider my ontological naturalism.

Cheers


----------



## screature

bryanc said:


> This is certainly true in my experience. One of the most common frustrations/stresses I have observed among graduate students in the natural sciences is that as their sophistication with regard to understanding the world, and their ability to recognize irrational/unsupported lines of argument grows, they become increasingly unable to sustain their childhood superstitions. Many furthermore are unable to stomach the hypocrisy of continuing to attend church with their parents/family, and this frequently causes familial strife.
> 
> Interestingly, even back in the early 20th century, only about half of scientists surveyed adhered to any religion, and in 1998, 93% of the members of the National Academy of Sciences expressed "disbelief or doubt in the existence of God." This figure is even more remarkable in the context of a society where somewhere in the neighbourhood of 90% of the lay public are religious adherents of some sort.
> 
> Although many good scientists are religious, I think they manage to do science *despite* their religiosity. It seems quite obvious to me that belief in the supernatural is a handicap for a natural scientist. That some people can manage it is only a testament to their great mental flexibility.
> 
> Cheers


Is science the only measure of intelligence or strength of mind?


----------



## MacGuiver

rgray said:


> Have you personally ever seen anyone's sight restored?


Not sight but I have witnessed other physical healings. I've actually never been to a prayer service where a blind person was prayed over.

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## bryanc

Sorry, I missed this edit earlier, and I can't resist commenting...



Macfury said:


> I just read it and a number of other study precis. It really is not conclusive.


Dude, it's _psychology_! If you want _conclusive_ you're shopping in the wrong store.


----------



## bryanc

screature said:


> Is science the only measure of intelligence or strength of mind?


Certainly not in my estimation. I'd be more inclined to rank the great philosophers as having the strongest minds. Bertrand Russell, Ayn Rand, Friedrich Nietzsche, Friedrich Engels, Daniel Dennett, Jean-Paul Sartre, and Arthur Schopenhauer are some who's arguments I've found particularly compelling.


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> Sorry, I missed this edit earlier, and I can't resist commenting...
> 
> Dude, it's _psychology_! If you want _conclusive_ you're shopping in the wrong store.


You're right of course. Take me up to 5th floor, Epistemology...


----------



## MazterCBlazter

.


----------



## bryanc

Macfury said:


> Take me up to 5th floor, Epistemology...


Did you study at the U of A? Epistemology was among my favourites, and all the Epistemologists had their offices on the 5th floor of Assiniboia Hall.

And here I was thinking you just make random off-hand remarks to trivialize other people's positions...


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> Did you study at the U of A? Epistemology was among my favourites, and all the Epistemologists had their offices on the 5th floor of Assiniboia Hall.
> 
> And here I was thinking you just make random off-hand remarks to trivialize other people's positions...


Oh come on now...they're hardly random.


----------



## screature

MazterCBlazter said:


> Whatever. I think you are just twisting my statements into something else.


I don't know.. I kinda think they speak for themselves... 



> Religion is mind pollution and thought corruption. It's a crutch for those with crippled minds and emotions.


----------



## MazterCBlazter

.


----------



## MazterCBlazter

.


----------



## MacGuiver

The near death experience seems to point to the idea we do go on after death. They appear to be widespread and the experiences similar. The doctor that wrote this book documented 1600 of them from a broad range of people in age and culture. 

Q&A: Is There Life After Death? -- Printout -- TIME


----------



## rgray

MazterCBlazter said:


> How about those that believe in levitation?





MazterCBlazter said:


> This is one of the Fakir's doing his thing in India. Anyone looked into what they are about and the things they claim they can do?


These are 'party tricks' that really have very little to do with religion. The correct spelling of the term is "faker"


----------



## ehMax

MazterCBlazter said:


> I stand by my statement:
> 
> If someone is healthy emotionally and mentally, they do not need a belief in a religion. It will only hold them back, it is only holding our entire society back. Religion only controls those with weak minds and emotions and tells them how to think and act instead of making up their own minds on things.


 Wow MazterCBlazter.... For someone who presses that "Report Post" button at the slightest infraction that offends you...  

There are a lot of ehMacians who are "religious" (Myself included), and you are bluntly saying we have weak minds and emotions. 

Getting a little tired of your insults that are untrue and offensive to the lives of many. 

My belief / religion does not hold me back in any way and I'd argue that its inspired me in many ways to be a better part of society. Is does not control me or make decisions for me. I have 100% freewill to think, chose and behave any way I see fit. 

It's not that I just think the things I believe are acceptable, I think they are absolutely beautiful. My belief is about beautiful things like faith, hope and love, and IMO, the most beautiful word in the world: Grace. Something I genuinely wish for everyone to experience in their lives, and not because I want to proselytize my religion.


----------



## MazterCBlazter

.


----------



## rgray

While it was perhaps Marx who first observed that religion was a crutch for the unsound, it does not follow that all those who profess to be religious are unsound..


----------



## MazterCBlazter

.


----------



## CubaMark

Out of respect for the beliefs of some of my fellow ehMacians, I will not comment beyond posting the following link...





> Pope John Paul II whipped himself with a belt, even on vacation, and slept on the floor as acts of penitence and to bring him closer to Christian perfection, according to a book by the Polish prelate spearheading his sainthood case.


(CBC)


----------



## Macfury

If I'm to be accepting of the S&M crowd's fetishes, I have no less reason to be accepting of the Pope's personal regimen, which at least appears designed to make him a better person.


----------



## rgray

^^^
Somehow I'm just not grokking the equation between "whipping himself with a belt" and "making him a better person". XX)

Forty years in Psychology suggests more likey a serious need for therapy/medication. 

Maybe that's just me....


----------



## Macfury

I'm not prejudiced about the way people exercise their rights over their own bodies.


----------



## rgray

^^^
Neither am I, but severe untreated mental illness amongst world leaders is an entirely different matter.


----------



## Macfury

So all people involved in S&M are mentally ill?


----------



## MacGuiver

rgray said:


> ^^^
> Neither am I, but severe untreated mental illness amongst world leaders is an entirely different matter.


I'm curious how you diagnose these fellas?










Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## Sonal

And many people fast.... essentially, starving themselves and torturing their bodies. How is that so different from self-flagellation?


----------



## chasMac

I should be more concerned if it were discovered that he shared the same predilections as Alexander VI among others.


----------



## Macfury

How about exercising to the point of injury or extreme pain?


----------



## rgray

MacGuiver said:


> I'm curious how you diagnose these fellas?


I don't care much about those guys. They are about themselves whereas the pope is the alleged 'leader' of millions of people.


----------



## rgray

Macfury said:


> How about exercising to the point of injury or extreme pain?


Beating oneself with a belt is not "exercise" by anyone's definition.


----------



## Macfury

rgray said:


> Beating oneself with a belt is not "exercise" by anyone's definition.


Both can cause pain.

My concern about such things extends only to what a person does to others. If he struck other people with a belt against their will, then we have an issue.


----------



## rgray

Macfury said:


> So all people involved in S&M are mentally ill?


"Deviance" is a factor in diagnosing mental illness.


----------



## rgray

Sonal said:


> And many people fast.... essentially, starving themselves and torturing their bodies. How is that so different from self-flagellation?


Taken to extremes, it isn't.


Macfury said:


> How about exercising to the point of injury or extreme pain?


Without even considering the 'mental' aspect exercise to such extremes is not healthy.


----------



## Macfury

rgray said:


> "Deviance" is a factor in diagnosing mental illness.



So those involved in S&M are deviant?


----------



## rgray

Macfury said:


> My concern about such things extends only to what a person *does to others*. If he struck other people with a belt against their will, then we have an issue.


My point exactly. Thank you! The guy was supposedly the leader of millions, more than that he claimed by virtue of his office that he represented god - he didn't have to actually strike people to have an effect.


----------



## Macfury

rgray said:


> My point exactly. Thank you! The guy was supposedly the leader of millions, more than that he claimed by virtue of his office that he represented god - he didn't have to actually strike people to have an effect.


Not your point at all. You took issue with him doing this to himself.


----------



## rgray

Macfury said:


> Not your point at all. You took issue with him doing this to himself.


No. I took issue with him doing it as pope.


----------



## MacGuiver

Macfury said:


> So those involved in S&M are deviant?


I tried MacFury but I don't think you'll get that out of him.


----------



## Macfury

MacG: I think it's only the Pope who earns his ire. Everyone else exempt.

The Pope is not an important figure to me, but I'll be hanged if I will see him discriminated against in this way.


----------



## Sonal

rgray said:


> No. I took issue with him doing it as pope.


The Pope is also a person, and the article posted indicates that he did these things privately.

Does the Pope not get the right to make private decisions for himself and how he chooses to practice his faith, that are separate from how he chooses to lead?


----------



## MacGuiver

Macfury said:


> MacG: I think it's only the Pope who earns his ire. Everyone else exempt.
> 
> The Pope is not an important figure to me, but I'll be hanged if I will see him discriminated against in this way.


Rgrey knows If he made the same comments about the dudes in leather that he did about the pope for beating themselves, he'd be standing before a human rights tribunal by sundown. This is the hypocrisy of many on the left.


----------



## CubaMark




----------



## Macfury

CubaMark, the day I meet ANYONE without excess baggage, will be the day that cartoon becomes meaningful to me. Recently, many of the atheists I've run into have had that big old "Enviro-nut" suitcase in plain sight--bearing in mind that they are free to carry the suitcase of their choice.

I also noticed that the atheist in the cartoon is balding and has a fat ass. I think this is fairly accurate.


----------



## groovetube

wow. you got all that from the cartoon?


----------



## groovetube

MacGuiver said:


> Rgrey knows If he made the same comments about the dudes in leather that he did about the pope for beating themselves, he'd be standing before a human rights tribunal by sundown. This is the hypocrisy of many on the left.


do you mean the bikers?


----------



## Macfury

groovetube said:


> wow. you got all that from the cartoon?


Sure. You got nothing?


----------



## groovetube

all or nothing I guess eh?


----------



## MazterCBlazter

.


----------



## MacGuiver

MazterCBlazter said:


> I think I give up on discussions of the ridiculous subject of religion especially online.
> 
> It's strictly a lose lose situation.
> 
> There is no such thing as a personal God, so I won't worry about it and will just go on and enjoy life....


:clap::clap::clap:
Good for you! I wish some of your fellow travellers would do the same and just live their lives and stop obsessing about what other people believe. 

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## rgray

Macfury said:


> ....... is balding and has a fat ass. ..............


Well the bible implies and certainly the anglican liturgy states that god created man in his own image.....


----------



## eMacMan

rgray said:


> Well the bible implies and certainly the anglican liturgy states that god created man in his own image.....


More likely that man created his gods in his own image.


----------



## MazterCBlazter

.


----------



## Macfury

eMacMan said:


> More likely that man created his gods in his own image.


Right, but that nerdy atheist is the spawn of the devil.



MazterCBlazter said:


> Pretty hard for us to live our lives when they want their views shoved down our throats. If people like you would stop bothering the rest of us the world would be a much better place.


Mazter, when has MacGuiver attempted to bother you?


----------



## MacGuiver

MazterCBlazter said:


> Pretty hard for us to live our lives when they want their views shoved down our throats. If people like you would stop bothering the rest of us the world would be a much better place.


Blaster,

Who posted the cartoon that revived this 3 month old thread? An evangelical atheist. Who starts 95% of the Religion threads on ehmac? An evangelical atheist. Now who's ramming their views down our throats? When my faith is attacked I will respond. All that is required for me to stop "ramming my beliefs down your throat" is for atheists to stop attacking them. 

The evangelical zeal many atheists show on here put the mormons to shame.

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## MazterCBlazter

.


----------



## MazterCBlazter

.


----------



## MacGuiver

MazterCBlazter said:


> Far too many times. I just blew it off and made the mistake of being too polite to him in return. Then once out of the blue he posted that he thought that I should be shown the door and kicked out of this community. Then I realized that I was being far too nice as he sure as hell isn't.


Nobody could accuse you of being polite when it comes to your comments about christianity. 
I don't want you nor have I ever wanted you banned. I'm not afraid to engage your ideas. I was merely making a point that their seemed to be a double standard on the forum when a professed christian (JerusalemJim or whatever his handle was) posted material deemed offensive to board members was quickly shown the door while you and many others post hateful anti-christian/anti-catholic remarks and pictures without a word.
By the way I thought you had me on ignore? Feel free to reactivate it.

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## Macfury

^^^^^^^^

That was my understanding as well. That MacGuiver said that there was not a single uniform policy for intolerant views. I don't believe he ever wanted to see you banned, MazterCBlazter.


----------



## MazterCBlazter

.


----------



## MacGuiver

MazterCBlazter said:


> Who uses Dr. Evil as an avatar tptptptp


I loved that movie! I chose the fictional character of Dr. Evil because he best fits the fictional characteristics often ascribed to me personally by evangelicals of the left when we debate. Plus I suffer from male pattern baldness.

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## Macfury

MazterCBlazter said:


> Then what is he saying here?


While I agree that the policy is not uniformly enforced, you made your point. I can't disagree with you on this, MazterCBlazter.


----------



## MacGuiver

MazterCBlazter said:


> Then what is he saying here?


Context my friend...

The mayor had read the riot act to Jerusalem Jim about the zero tolerance policy for hateful remarks and postings. I was merely showing that you've never been banned for your hateful postings against catholics.

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## eMacMan

For the record disagreeing with some ones beliefs is not at all hateful. 

An excellent example, while I despise Israel's treatment of its neighbours and have on occasion referred to their behaviour in Gaza as mass slaughter. This cannot and should not be interpreted as hating Jews.


----------



## MazterCBlazter

.


----------



## MazterCBlazter

.


----------



## ehMax

MacGuiver said:


> Blaster,
> 
> Who posted the cartoon that revived this 3 month old thread? An evangelical atheist. Who starts 95% of the Religion threads on ehmac? An evangelical atheist. Now who's ramming their views down our throats? When my faith is attacked I will respond. All that is required for me to stop "ramming my beliefs down your throat" is for atheists to stop attacking them.
> 
> The evangelical zeal many atheists show on here put the mormons to shame.
> 
> Cheers
> MacGuiver


Have to agree with MacGuiver on that one.

I disagree though, that moderating is being uneven. What JerusalemJim was posting is not the same as having legitimate criticism of the Catholic faith and the Pope. Members on ehMac are free to have those criticisms and their own thoughts and ideas on any religion or public figure. Insulting another member because they have those beliefs is a moderatable offence. 

Also, choosing and following a religion is not the same as being born something, like being a certain gender, race, gay or transgendered etc..


----------



## MacGuiver

eMacMan said:


> For the record disagreeing with some ones beliefs is not at all hateful.
> 
> An excellent example, while I despise Israel's treatment of its neighbours and have on occasion referred to their behaviour in Gaza as mass slaughter. This cannot and should not be interpreted as hating Jews.


In the sample provided, I agree.


----------



## MacGuiver

ehMax said:


> Have to agree with MacGuiver on that one.
> 
> I disagree though, that moderating is being uneven. What JerusalemJim was posting is not the same as having legitimate criticism of the Catholic faith and the Pope.


Blasters cartoon claimed Pope Benedict desired gay sex with boys. Hardly what you could claim as legitimate criticism. But its your forum and you can call it as you see it.

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## MacGuiver

MazterCBlazter said:


> You make such a big deal about being a Catholic. Why don't you instead conduct yourself in a manner that would make people see you as a good respectable person instead of a *ranting raving lunatic*?


Hmmm...that sounds like a personal attack? Could there be a free vacation in the Blasters future?

I doubt it... nor do I want it. 

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## Elric

MacGuiver said:


> Hmmm...that sounds like a personal attack? Could there be a free vacation in the Blasters future?
> 
> I doubt it... nor do I want it.
> 
> Cheers
> MacGuiver


That doesn't sound like a personal attack at all. Asking someone to be civil is not a bad thing.


----------



## MazterCBlazter

.


----------



## MacGuiver

Elric said:


> That doesn't sound like a personal attack at all. Asking someone to be civil is not a bad thing.


So "ranting raving lunatic" sounds like a personal compliment to you Elric?


----------



## ehMax

MacGuiver said:


> Hmmm...that sounds like a personal attack? Could there be a free vacation in the Blasters future?
> 
> I doubt it... nor do I want it.
> 
> Cheers
> MacGuiver


Hmmm...



> I'm glad to here your not for abortion although your passive defence of it would seem to indicate otherwise.


Hmmm... insinuating that that I am for abortion. No, that's not personal attack all.  Keep posting on forums that abortion is wrong and stand on a corner with a sign that says "Abortion is murder" if that makes you feel like you're doing something good.


----------



## MacGuiver

MazterCBlazter said:


> This molestation of children has been recent and is most likely still going on. All you and your religious leaders seem to want to do is have the issue buried and the world put on rose coloured glasses and have the world say how great your religion is. Meanwhile these victims have to live with the trauma of the abuse they suffered.
> 
> You will raise hell over a cartoon, which didn't seem to offend anyone else so far as I can recall. I still decided to remove it so you would quit complaining. You demand that everyone else make compromises for you, yet you would never dream of doing any such thing for anyone else. You say nothing in defence or to help the large number of victims of this sexual abuse. If this abuse wasn't going on, there wouldn't be so many cartoons out there made on this subject.
> 
> Cartoons don't offend me, child abuse does. Those that want it covered up, even more so.
> 
> I am all for people having the right to believe and practice whatever they want to believe. *Yet why give Muslims and Christians legal rights to freely practice their religions when many people in both of these particular groups want laws passed to take away choices and rights of those with no interest in their beliefs? They want us to respect them and their rights and yet they don't want the rest of us to be free to live as we choose, and they do not have any respect for non-believers and infidels.*
> 
> Should we give them the same amount of respect and consideration they give others, which too often appears to be none?


What yarns is the Master spinning about me in his latest rant:

1. I want to bury the abuse crisis in the church.
2. I want everyone to know how great my religion is.
3. I've said nothing to defend victims of abuse.
4. I'm more offended by a cartoon than sex abuse in the church
5. Then you've made a valiant effort to equate me with BinLaden

He once again proves my selection of a fictional evil villain for an avatar fits the fictional portrayal of me by evangelical atheists who know jack squat about me.

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## MacGuiver

ehMax said:


> Hmmm... insinuating that that I am for abortion. No, that's not personal attack all.  Keep posting on forums that abortion is wrong and stand on a corner with a sign that says "Abortion is murder" if that makes you feel like you're doing something good.


If memory serves me correct you were defending the right of people to have one? No?. It was merely an observation of what seemed to be a conflicting moral stance. I think its quite a stretch to equate this with blaster calling me a "ranting raving lunatic".

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## CubaMark

Ummm.... I'm an _*evangelical atheist*_? I had no idea.... I thought I was just an opinionated pain-in-the-ass....


----------



## MacGuiver

CubaMark said:


> Ummm.... I'm an _*evangelical atheist*_? I had no idea.... I thought I was just an opinionated pain-in-the-ass....


Your membership card is in the mail


----------



## MazterCBlazter

.


----------



## ehMax

MacGuiver said:


> If memory serves me correct you were defending the right of people to have one? No?. It was merely an observation of what seemed to be a conflicting moral stance. I think its quite a stretch to equate this with blaster calling me a "ranting raving lunatic".
> 
> Cheers
> MacGuiver


Well, I find calling oneself a Christ follower but yet supporting the Vatican and the Pope to be an enormous conflicting moral stance. I think if Christ were hear, he'd be burning down the Vatican, and I for one would be helping him. 

You think my "passive defence" is supporting abortion? Well, promotion of withholding of contraceptives is just as good as promotion abortion and AIDS. 

I also think doing very little about enormous problem of child abuse in the clergy is about the same as promotion it, warranting political cartoons to mock. 

I think clergy requesting church goers to donate money to pay for child abuse settlements is close to being criminal. 

I think posting on an internet forum that abortion is wrong or standing on a corner with a sign that says, "Abortion is murder" is a cop-out.


----------



## Macfury

ehMax said:


> Well, I find calling oneself a Christ follower but yet supporting the Vatican and the Pope to be an enormous conflicting moral stance. I think if Christ were hear, he'd be burning down the Vatican, and I for one would be helping him.


With all due respect, you're in dangerous territory here.


----------



## eMacMan

ehMax said:


> ...
> You think my "passive defence" is supporting abortion? Well, promotion of withholding of contraceptives is just as good as promotion abortion and AIDS.
> 
> I also think doing very little about enormous problem of child abuse in the clergy is about the same as promotion it, warranting political cartoons to mock.
> 
> I think clergy requesting church goers to donate money to pay for child abuse settlements is close to being criminal.
> ...


I would be hard pressed to disagree with those points. 

I am also convinced that if there is indeed a single God (or at least only one assigned to Earth), then; like it or not, every one that worships a god is worshipping the same God. Thus claiming it is OK to kill or maim or steal from that guy because he is not Muslim, Christian, Jew or whatever fails.


----------



## MazterCBlazter

.


----------



## MacGuiver

ehMax said:


> Well, I find calling oneself a Christ follower but yet supporting the Vatican and the Pope to be an enormous conflicting moral stance. I think if Christ were hear, he'd be burning down the Vatican, and I for one would be helping him.
> 
> You think my "passive defence" is supporting abortion? Well, promotion of withholding of contraceptives is just as good as promotion abortion and AIDS.
> 
> I also think doing very little about enormous problem of child abuse in the clergy is about the same as promotion it, warranting political cartoons to mock.
> 
> I think clergy requesting church goers to donate money to pay for child abuse settlements is close to being criminal.
> 
> I think posting on an internet forum that abortion is wrong or standing on a corner with a sign that says, "Abortion is murder" is a cop-out.



Good for you for coming out anti-catholic although I suspected that long ago. Makes it much more constructive for dialog when the person you're discussing things with is honest with you.

I agree that not doing anything about the abuse of children promotes it. For if nobody is called out on the carpet for the abuse, and the horrors are not brought to light, it will go on unchallenged and unpunished. Its no different than Christians that remain silent on abortion and vilify those that speak out against it. 
If shining a spotlight on the deaths of thousands of unborn children per day in North America alone is a cop-out, I'm curious what you would propose a follower of Christ should do?

I'm also curious how they pay for lawsuits against abusive clergy in the Protestant churches?

And as far as condoms and aids go. The Director of AIDS Prevention Research Project at Harvard Center agrees with the Pope.
From Saint Peter’s Square to Harvard Square - Kathryn Jean Lopez - National Review Online

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## ehMax

Macfury said:


> With all due respect, you're in dangerous territory here.


How so? What do you mean by dangerous?


----------



## ehMax

MacGuiver said:


> Good for you for coming out anti-catholic although I suspected that long ago. Makes it much more constructive for dialog when the person you're discussing things with is honest with you.
> 
> I agree that not doing anything about the abuse of children promotes it. For if nobody is called out on the carpet for the abuse, and the horrors are not brought to light, it will go on unchallenged and unpunished. Its no different than Christians that remain silent on abortion and vilify those that speak out against it.
> If shining a spotlight on the deaths of thousands of unborn children per day in North America alone is a cop-out, I'm curious what you would propose a follower of Christ should do?
> 
> I'm also curious how they pay for lawsuits against abusive clergy in the Protestant churches?
> 
> And as far as condoms and aids go. The Director of AIDS Prevention Research Project at Harvard Center agrees with the Pope.
> From Saint Peter’s Square to Harvard Square - Kathryn Jean Lopez - National Review Online
> 
> Cheers
> MacGuiver


Hey, a lot of people mocked Christ when he drove people out of the temple and overturned tables. I'm just saying, he'd do the same with the lavish Vatican, one of the richest entities in the world. How will the clergy.. the one who abused children pay for lawsuits and claims? Are you seriously saying they are justified to ask for money from members of the congregation? :lmao: :lmao:  WOW.


----------



## MacGuiver

ehMax said:


> Hey, a lot of people mocked Christ when he drove people out of the temple and overturned tables. I'm just saying, he'd do the same with the lavish Vatican, one of the richest entities in the world. How will the clergy.. the one who abused children pay for lawsuits and claims? Are you seriously saying they are justified to ask for money from members of the congregation? :lmao: :lmao:  WOW.


I never answered your question so I don't know where you read that I said that. I just asked how Protestant churches payed for the lawsuits of their sex offenders. I hope you and Jesus have lots of matches.

Protestant Clergy Abuse Equals or Exceeds Catholic Clergy Abuse BECAUSE IT MATTERS ~ Freedom from Abuse in Christianity


----------



## hayesk

Macfury said:


> With all due respect, you're in dangerous territory here.


Please explain this.


----------



## Macfury

ehMax said:


> How so? What do you mean by dangerous?


Section 13 of the _Canadian Human Rights Act_ prohibits the communication by means of a telecommunication undertaking (including the Internet) of messages that are likely to expose a person to hatred or contempt on the basis of religion, among other things.

The definition of hatred includes the promotion of violence against any group.

I have no use for child molesters or those who cover their tracks, but the law is pretty clear here.


----------



## hayesk

Uhm... where was he promoting violence? I believe he believed that Jesus would be the one promoting violence, and if that happened, he would go along with it. Not only that, it wasn't for the purposes of religion itself, it was for the acts of the members of the institution, not the tenants of the religion they are affiliated with.


----------



## Macfury

hayesk said:


> Uhm... where was he promoting violence? I believe he believed that Jesus would be the one promoting violence, and if that happened, he would go along with it. Not only that, it wasn't for the purposes of religion itself, it was for the acts of the members of the institution, not the tenants of the religion they are affiliated with.


Burning a cross on someone's lawn or an empty church also injures nobody. 

I'm not suggesting we have violent people here. 

I'm suggesting the thread is getting out of control and that people should consider what they're saying before it attracts really unwanted attention.


----------



## ehMax

MacGuiver said:


> I never answered your question so I don't know where you read that I said that. I just asked how Protestant churches payed for the lawsuits of their sex offenders. I hope you and Jesus have lots of matches.
> 
> Protestant Clergy Abuse Equals or Exceeds Catholic Clergy Abuse BECAUSE IT MATTERS ~ Freedom from Abuse in Christianity


No idea if your Google searched obscure web logs and web sites have accurate information or not. Any clergy person or anyone in any authority figure who has abused children should be punished to the full extent of the law. I would never and have never donated a cent to any organization that would use the funds for the defence or payout for a child abuse case. If I belonged to any organization in which had some sort of leader that was convicted of child abuse or tried to sweep the problem under the rug etc... I'd disown the organization in a second. But that would never happen.


----------



## ehMax

Macfury said:


> Section 13 of the _Canadian Human Rights Act_ prohibits the communication by means of a telecommunication undertaking (including the Internet) of messages that are likely to expose a person to hatred or contempt on the basis of religion, among other things.
> 
> The definition of hatred includes the promotion of violence against any group.
> 
> I have no use for child molesters or those who cover their tracks, but the law is pretty clear here.




Sometimes, people say things that are not meant to be taken literally. 










Just to put your mind at ease, I am not going to fly to the Vatican and attempt to set it on fire.


----------



## Macfury

ehMax said:


> Just to put your mind at ease, I am not going to fly to the Vatican and attempt to set it on fire.



:love2:


----------



## ertman

Nevermind


----------



## ehMax

ertman said:


> Wow? really?
> 
> I just read some of the last final comments, and was unsure that this had already been discussed, but I thought I throw some fuel on anyways.
> 
> People here know that Muslim, Judaism, Christianity all believe in the same God, right? You also realise that their historical texts are all decendent from an earlier religion, right? Everyone realizes that the Christian Bible was created and the passages chosen were for very political reasons, right?
> 
> As one who usually argues with Macfury, I actually find myself agreeing with a few of his posts on the previous pages.


Not sure what the intent of your comment is or what / who they are directed to.


----------



## MazterCBlazter

.


----------



## MazterCBlazter

.


----------



## MacGuiver

MazterCBlazter said:


> I see your point but disagree that burning a cross doesn't hurt people. Cross burning in North America is a disgusting act of hate. I don't know if it has a different meaning in other parts of the world.


I think what he meant to say is that burning a cross or a church doesn't physically hurt anyone. It is a disgusting act of hate as you say.

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## ehMax

MacGuiver said:


> I think what he meant to say is that burning a cross or a church doesn't physically hurt anyone. It is a disgusting act of hate as you say.
> 
> Cheers
> MacGuiver


I wouldn't compare my metaphor of the Vatican burning to burning a cross or a church. Would like to think more of it like a curtain ripping.


----------



## eMacMan

Can't say I think burning the Vatican would actually accomplish too much.

However selling off 75% of the Vatican treasure trove, and distributing the proceeds amongst those that were sexually abused by various priests would be entirely appropriate. Follow that up with jail time for the offenders and the church would at long last have embarked on meaningful reparations.


----------



## MazterCBlazter

.


----------



## Macfury

maztercblazter said:


> i also think that all religions should not be exempt from income and property taxes, many are incredibly profitable.


+1


----------



## MacGuiver

eMacMan said:


> Can't say I think burning the Vatican would actually accomplish too much.
> 
> However selling off 75% of the Vatican treasure trove, and distributing the proceeds amongst those that were sexually abused by various priests would be entirely appropriate. Follow that up with jail time for the offenders and the church would at long last have embarked on meaningful reparations.


I believe it was Judas that made a similar argument when the woman anointed Jesus feet with expensive oil.

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## ehMax

MacGuiver said:


> I believe it was Judas that made a similar argument when the woman anointed his feet with expensive oil.
> 
> Cheers
> MacGuiver


:lmao: Oh, the irony. :lmao:


----------



## MacGuiver

ehMax said:


> :lmao: Oh, the irony. :lmao:


I'm sure there is nothing shiny and expensive in your home ehmax? No luxuries? You live in poverty and give all your money to the poor? By the standard you set you will be judged.


----------



## ehMax

MacGuiver said:


> I'm sure there is nothing shiny and expensive in your home ehmax? No luxuries? You live in poverty and give all your money to the poor? By the standard you set you will be judged.


:lmao: What was that about Jack Squat again. :lmao:

You clearly miss the irony in pointing out Judas' objection of not getting rid of the expensive perfume and his true intentions. 

Anyways, I digress.


----------



## bryanc

MacGuiver said:


> I'm sure there is nothing shiny and expensive in your home ehmax? No luxuries? You live in poverty and give all your money to the poor? By the standard you set you will be judged.


I realize this wasn't directed at me, but I'll answer on EhMax's behalf: EhMax (presumably) pays his taxes.

The point here is that the church is a fabulously wealthy and profitable corporation that dodges taxation through masterful (and I would argue criminal) political lobbying. 

Suggesting that no one should criticize the church's insatiable greed and Machiavellian political manipulation unless they personally lead a completely selfless life is absurd.


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> The point here is that the church is a fabulously wealthy and profitable corporation that dodges taxation through masterful (and I would argue criminal) political lobbying.


_Some_ churches. A lot of them are on the edge of fiscal collapse.


----------



## ehMax

Some churches are truly charitable organizations that I think deserve tax credits. They exist to help local refugees and homeless and also closely work with other charitable organizations within their area. Buildings they use or lease are modest and to serve a functional purpose, they are not lavish or gaudy. Salaries for official staff are reasonable.


----------



## MacGuiver

ehMax said:


> :lmao: What was that about Jack Squat again. :lmao:
> 
> You clearly miss the irony in pointing out Judas' objection of not getting rid of the expensive perfume and his true intentions.
> 
> Anyways, I digress.


Not at all. Judas's protest was not out of genuine concern for the poor but his own self interest. As are the cries of many that spout about the vatican selling all its art that it has accumulated over its 2000 year history to serve the poor while they themselves are wealthy and don't feel compelled to live in poverty. If you yourself live a life of poverty and charity you are right to make such an argument. Otherwise its hypocracy. 

I wonder how many people could have been fed with the money you've spent on U2 tickets and albums? The latest apple gadgets? Your home? Your car? I bet your church is sitting on an expensive piece of Toronto real estate. Could probably do wonders for quake victims in Haiti. Why not sell it and rent a hall on Sunday or meet in someones home if your congregation is small?

Also Jesus Rebuked Judas and accepted the expensive oil. He had no issue with the expense of the purfume used to honor him. We spend billions to honor the accomplishments of man (museums, monuments etc.). Does God deserve less?

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## jef

MacGuiver said:


> ) Does God deserve less?
> 
> Cheers
> MacGuiver


Um, yes - doesn't god have everything anyway? Why bother honoring something that supposedly has it all?


----------



## eMacMan

MacGuiver said:


> Not at all. Judas's protest was not out of genuine concern for the poor but his own self interest. As are the cries of many that spout about the vatican selling all its art that it has accumulated over its 2000 year history to serve the poor while they themselves are wealthy and don't feel compelled to live in poverty. If you yourself live a life of poverty and charity you are right to make such an argument. Otherwise its hypocracy.
> 
> I wonder how many people could have been fed with the money you've spent on U2 tickets and albums? The latest apple gadgets? Your home? Your car? I bet your church is sitting on an expensive piece of Toronto real estate. Could probably do wonders for quake victims in Haiti. Why not sell it and rent a hall on Sunday or meet in someones home if your congregation is small?
> 
> Also Jesus Rebuked Judas and accepted the expensive oil. He had no issue with the expense of the purfume used to honor him. We spend billions to honor the accomplishments of man (museums, monuments etc.). Does God deserve less?
> 
> Cheers
> MacGuiver


Hmmm remember a local Christian Fellowship-Leader/Real-Estate Promoter using very similar arguments just before he was sentenced to two years on fraud charges.

As to my life style wrong on all counts. At $100/sub-bet I could easily live a month on my winnings.


----------



## arminia

CBC News - World - Catholic Church launches abuse probes in Germany


----------



## ehMax

MacGuiver said:


> Not at all. Judas's protest was not out of genuine concern for the poor but his own self interest. As are the cries of many that spout about the vatican selling all its art that it has accumulated over its 2000 year history to serve the poor while they themselves are wealthy and don't feel compelled to live in poverty. If you yourself live a life of poverty and charity you are right to make such an argument. Otherwise its hypocracy.
> 
> I wonder how many people could have been fed with the money you've spent on U2 tickets and albums? The latest apple gadgets? Your home? Your car? I bet your church is sitting on an expensive piece of Toronto real estate. Could probably do wonders for quake victims in Haiti. Why not sell it and rent a hall on Sunday or meet in someones home if your congregation is small?
> 
> Also Jesus Rebuked Judas and accepted the expensive oil. He had no issue with the expense of the purfume used to honor him. We spend billions to honor the accomplishments of man (museums, monuments etc.). Does God deserve less?
> 
> Cheers
> MacGuiver


You don't need to live in poverty to be charitable. Kind of hard to be charitable if you live in poverty actually. With wealth and notoriety, you can actually do amazing things, like Bill Gates and his foundation. 

You do know Jack Squat about me and what percentage of my income I donate or how much of my time I volunteer. I don't have to live in poverty to do things, but it's also completely laughable to think my "wealth" is in the same time zone or galaxy or scale of the Vatican's. Also laughable to think that those suggesting Vatican use more of its own wealth have some ulterior Judas motive to use the wealth for themselves. You *ARE* missing the irony there. It almost sounds Gallum like. "You want the precious for yourselves..." :lmao:

If you think God appreciates those things more than helping the poor or settlements for child abuse victims... hey whatever your pope or whoever tells you. To quote what a smart person once said, "The God I believe in isn't short of cash, mister."

Just out of coincidence I suppose, two more stories on CNN today:

*Dutch bishops launch child abuse investigation*

*Child abuse claims hit Catholic institutions in Germany*


----------



## MazterCBlazter

.


----------



## ertman

ehMax said:


> Not sure what the intent of your comment is or what / who they are directed to.


To clarify, my comment were about some of the ridiculousness of how, in general, groups can claim their the superiority of their god/religion. This comment was not directed at anyone group or person(s), but rather directed toward the subject matter, as is the "religious" thread.


----------



## MacGuiver

> You don't need to live in poverty to be charitable. Kind of hard to be charitable if you live in poverty actually. With wealth and notoriety, you can actually do amazing things, like Bill Gates and his foundation.


I guess if your OK with giving millions to organizations that murder the unborn, Bills doing great work. Sadly the United Way does the same though I'd expect better from them.



> You do know Jack Squat about me and what percentage of my income I donate or how much of my time I volunteer. I don't have to live in poverty to do things, but it's also completely laughable to think my "wealth" is in the same time zone or galaxy or scale of the Vatican's. Also laughable to think that those suggesting Vatican use more of its own wealth have some ulterior Judas motive to use the wealth for themselves. You *ARE* missing the irony there. It almost sounds Gallum like. "You want the precious for yourselves..." :lmao:


In the eyes of a child living in a cardboard and tin shack I'm willing to bet you look just as wealthy as the Vatican appears to you. If your going to judge the Catholic Church (the largest charitable organization on earth), remember you'll be judged by that same standard.



> If you think God appreciates those things more than helping the poor or settlements for child abuse victims... hey whatever your pope or whoever tells you. To quote what a smart person once said, "The God I believe in isn't short of cash, mister."


The Catholic Church has done more for the poor and the sick than any church on the planet. You'd have to be living under a rock to think otherwise. Abuse victims are being heard and compensated so we don't need to sell the Sistine Chapel just yet. 

I also think God appreciates those that will stand up against the murder of the unborn and Catholics and evangelicals seem to be the only ones with the conviction to do it. Which reminds me, I'm still waiting for you and Jesus to return from torching churches to tell us how real Christians deal with abortion.



> Just out of coincidence I suppose, two more stories on CNN today:
> 
> *Dutch bishops launch child abuse investigation*
> 
> *Child abuse claims hit Catholic institutions in Germany*


[/QUOTE]

With an average of 260 reported cases of sex abuse against minors in Protestant Church per year in America alone you may want to be careful throwing stones in that glass house. 
Maybe they need to be celebate

Report: Protestant Church Insurers Handle 260 Sex Abuse Cases a Year

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## eMacMan

Personally I am willing to accept that my view on abortion is just that and it does not give me the right to inflict it on those who happen to disagree.

As I have said, before the money spent trying to change abortion laws would be better and more honestly spent on mothers that just cannot afford to bear and raise an unplanned child.


----------



## mrjimmy

MacGuiver said:


> I guess if your OK with giving millions to organizations that murder the unborn, Bills doing great work. Sadly the United Way does the same though I'd expect better from them.


Wow, living in this world must be torture for you if you view this type of philanthropy with such bile. Dogma is dogma I suppose.



> The Catholic Church has done more for the poor and the sick than any church on the planet. You'd have to be living under a rock to think otherwise. Abuse victims are being heard and compensated so we don't need to sell the Sistine Chapel just yet.


Would it be fair to say that the Catholic view on abortion and contraception adds to the growing problem of poverty and disease? More people, more problems. 



> With an average of 260 reported cases of sex abuse against minors in Protestant Church per year in America alone you may want to be careful throwing stones in that glass house.
> Maybe they need to be celebate


Naa-naa-naa, my Church is better than your Church.

To me, it's sickening that it happens at all and only reinforces the idea that it all needs to be torn down and rebuilt to suit the modern world.


----------



## ehMax

MacGuiver said:


> I guess if your OK with giving millions to organizations that murder the unborn, Bills doing great work. Sadly the United Way does the same though I'd expect better from them.
> 
> 
> 
> In the eyes of a child living in a cardboard and tin shack I'm willing to bet you look just as wealthy as the Vatican appears to you. If your going to judge the Catholic Church (the largest charitable organization on earth), remember you'll be judged by that same standard.
> 
> 
> 
> The Catholic Church has done more for the poor and the sick than any church on the planet. You'd have to be living under a rock to think otherwise. Abuse victims are being heard and compensated so we don't need to sell the Sistine Chapel just yet.
> 
> I also think God appreciates those that will stand up against the murder of the unborn and Catholics and evangelicals seem to be the only ones with the conviction to do it. Which reminds me, I'm still waiting for you and Jesus to return from torching churches to tell us how real Christians deal with abortion.


With an average of 260 reported cases of sex abuse against minors in Protestant Church per year in America alone you may want to be careful throwing stones in that glass house. 
Maybe they need to be celebate

Report: Protestant Church Insurers Handle 260 Sex Abuse Cases a Year

Cheers
MacGuiver[/QUOTE]

*Sigh* 

Don't know where to begin and don't really have the time to address point by point. 

You're portrayal of Bill and Melinda's Gates foundation as being some sort of death machine....  I don't think I'm going to get any reasonable dialogue with you on that. I happen to think what they are doing will greatly reduce abortion. There's 2 thoughts on how to reduce abortion. One is to try to make it illegal and prevent access. Unfortunately, this doesn't work. The WHO estimates that over 75,000 women die a year from attempting to perform abortions without a doctor. Many more injured. Even more still will perform abortions without doctor's help. 

I think a far better approach is making abortion less necessary. By reducing un-intended pregnancy. By showing a true commitment to: 1) comprehensive sexuality education that includes medically accurate information about abstinence and contraception; 2) insurance coverage of and public funding for family planning services; 3) greater access to emergency contraception (which prevents pregnancy and does not cause abortion); and 4) programs that curb domestic violence and sexual abuse. These are things that are not championed by the religious right. 

Unfortunately, even with the supports listed above, there will always be some unintended pregnancies; birth control methods are fallible, as are human beings. Therefore, once a woman finds herself with an unexpected pregnancy, a second positive way to reduce abortion is to ensure that she has the means to have and raise a child in health and safety should she wish to do so. One of the two most common reasons women choose abortion is because they cannot afford a(nother) child. By providing low-income and young women with genuine education and career opportunities, health care, child care, housing, services for disabled children, and other basic supports, many would have the resources they need to fulfill the serious obligations that parenting brings.

Regrettably, few of these policy goals are mentioned in today’s rhetoric from keyboard warriors about reducing abortion. 

The issue is a smokescreen issue. Spend 5 minutes on a keyboard typing rhetoric about abortion is murder. Typing on a keyboard has probably stopped zero abortions.


----------



## bryanc

MacGuiver said:


> If your going to judge the Catholic Church (the largest charitable organization on earth), remember you'll be judged by that same standard.


When I claim tax free status as a charitable organization, I might reasonably expect to be held to such a standard. Until then, criticizing the church for its greed, corruption, and power-mongering has nothing to do with my contributions to charity.


----------



## eMacMan

bryanc said:


> when i claim tax free status as a charitable organization, i might reasonably expect to be held to such a standard. Until then, criticizing the church for its greed, corruption, and power-mongering has nothing to do with my contributions to charity.


+1


----------



## MazterCBlazter

.


----------



## MazterCBlazter

.


----------



## MacGuiver

Don't get me wrong, Bill does a lot a great work with his fantastic wealth as does the United Way. The fly in the ointment is funding abortion. Thats a really big fly for a Christian. It seems hypocritical that you'd chastise me for criticizing Bill for funding of abortions in light of his many great works yet you'd like to torch the Catholic Church for the sins of a small minority of its clergy dispite it being the largest charitable organization in the world.

Also if you think people opposing abortion do nothing but shout on street corners and pound keyboards you've got your head buried in the sand or your simply being contrary.

As for the Christian solution you propose to end abortion, I'm having a hard time seeing the Jesus of scripture agreeing with you.

1) Since comprehensive sex education came to be sex has started younger, become more common among children and STDs are rampant. The abortion business is booming and Maury has no shortage of guests for DNA testing. Great success thats been. Of course the liberals pushing this agenda think things will work out fine if we just get them in the program earlier and push the envelope further.
From a spiritual perspective, sexual immorality is rampant, even among children.

2) Public funding of family planning services? As a christian, I'm not interested in buying knives for murder or supplying condoms and drugs enabling people to fornicate and I doubt Jesus would be either. Jesus told the woman caught in adultery to go and sin no more. He didn't tell her to do it safely.

3) Emergency contraception? I guess if you didn't believe God is the author of life and he doesn't care if we terminate it then this would seem acceptable. Scripture certainly doesn't support this however. Once an egg is fertilized, life has begun. If God is its author then we are in sin to end it.

4)Programs that curb domestic violence and sex abuse? I don't know of a Prolife Christian that would have a problem with this. They may have issues with the solutions the program presents. Planned Parenthood has been caught repeatedly protecting the identity of sex abusers in their clinics. I hope you saved some matches for them.

I think the solution is to live the Gospel message of Christ and stop pushing the bandaids man keeps slapping on the festering wounds. None of the measures above would be necessary if we lived by Christ's moral teachings. I think it would be smarter to propose Christ's moral teachings as the ultimate solution and help pick up the pieces for those that refuse to hear.

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## mrjimmy

MacGuiver said:


> I think the solution is to live the Gospel message of Christ and stop pushing the bandaids man keeps slapping on the festering wounds. None of the measures above would be necessary if we lived by Christ's moral teachings. I think it would be smarter to propose Christ's moral teachings as the ultimate solution and help pick up the pieces for those that refuse to hear.
> 
> Cheers
> MacGuiver


Thank God the majority of us don't.


----------



## eMacMan

> The fly in the ointment is funding abortion. Thats a really big fly for a Christian. It seems hypocritical that you'd chastise me for criticizing Bill for funding of abortions in light of his many great works yet you'd like to torch the Catholic Church for the sins of a small minority of its clergy dispite it being the largest charitable organization in the world.


I would say the majority of my Catholic friends would disagree with you here. I am reasonably certain that a majority of non Roman Catholic Christians would probably disagree with you as well. 

It's one thing to speak from the far right of the Catholic Church, it is however wrong to claim that you speak for any but you, the pope and perhaps some right wingnut evangelical antioch baptists. 

I am beginning to believe that you are indeed a troll planted by the Free Masons whose intent is to ridicule the Catholic faith.


----------



## ehMax

MacGuiver said:


> Don't get me wrong, Bill does a lot a great work with his fantastic wealth as does the United Way. The fly in the ointment is funding abortion. Thats a really big fly for a Christian. It seems hypocritical that you'd chastise me for criticizing Bill for funding of abortions in light of his many great works yet you'd like to torch the Catholic Church for the sins of a small minority of its clergy dispite it being the largest charitable organization in the world.
> 
> Also if you think people opposing abortion do nothing but shout on street corners and pound keyboards you've got your head buried in the sand or your simply being contrary.
> 
> As for the Christian solution you propose to end abortion, I'm having a hard time seeing the Jesus of scripture agreeing with you.
> 
> 1) Since comprehensive sex education came to be sex has started younger, become more common among children and STDs are rampant. The abortion business is booming and Maury has no shortage of guests for DNA testing. Great success thats been. Of course the liberals pushing this agenda think things will work out fine if we just get them in the program earlier and push the envelope further.
> From a spiritual perspective, sexual immorality is rampant, even among children.
> 
> 2) Public funding of family planning services? As a christian, I'm not interested in buying knives for murder or supplying condoms and drugs enabling people to fornicate and I doubt Jesus would be either. Jesus told the woman caught in adultery to go and sin no more. He didn't tell her to do it safely.
> 
> 3) Emergency contraception? I guess if you didn't believe God is the author of life and he doesn't care if we terminate it then this would seem acceptable. Scripture certainly doesn't support this however. Once an egg is fertilized, life has begun. If God is its author then we are in sin to end it.
> 
> 4)Programs that curb domestic violence and sex abuse? I don't know of a Prolife Christian that would have a problem with this. They may have issues with the solutions the program presents. Planned Parenthood has been caught repeatedly protecting the identity of sex abusers in their clinics. I hope you saved some matches for them.
> 
> I think the solution is to live the Gospel message of Christ and stop pushing the bandaids man keeps slapping on the festering wounds. None of the measures above would be necessary if we lived by Christ's moral teachings. I think it would be smarter to propose Christ's moral teachings as the ultimate solution and help pick up the pieces for those that refuse to hear.
> 
> Cheers
> MacGuiver


Let me know how that works out for you. Your clergy are leading by a fine example. They are certainly leaving a lot of pieces for others to pickup. 

Christ sure did have an admiration for those who just preached the law and condemned others.


----------



## MacGuiver

eMacMan said:


> I would say the majority of my Catholic friends would disagree with you here. I am reasonably certain that a majority of non Roman Catholic Christians would probably disagree with you as well.
> 
> It's one thing to speak from the far right of the Catholic Church, it is however wrong to claim that you speak for any but you, the pope and perhaps some right wingnut evangelical antioch baptists.
> 
> I am beginning to believe that you are indeed a troll planted by the Free Masons whose intent is to ridicule the Catholic faith.


I'm not a cafeteria Catholic so I can't speak for them. Actually nobody really does because they are their own Pope, picking and choosing what they like and don't like to believe. They haven't come to grips with the fact they're Protestants and there are over 30,000 flavours of it for them to choose from.

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## bryanc

MacGuiver said:


> I'm not a cafeteria Catholic so I can't speak for them. Actually nobody really does because they are their own Pope, picking and choosing what they like and don't like to believe. They haven't come to grips with the fact they're Protestants


I don't disagree, but having spent years playing with a Catholic school band, and now having very many friends that call themselves "Catholic", and I've never met anyone who agrees with the pope on even most issues, let alone everything. If you took the 'cafeteria Catholics' out of the population, I think Catholicism would be nearly extinct.

This is only one of many reasons I think the pope's political and economic clout is completely unjustifiable.

But to get back to your earlier posting:



> 1) Since comprehensive sex education came to be sex has started younger, become more common among children and STDs are rampant.


Here's a hint: correlation != causation.

lots of things have changed since sex education was introduced, and, btw, comprehensive sex education doesn't exist anywhere, even today. I'm not going to bother looking for the references, but last I heard, education strongly correlated with reduced frequencies of STDs and unplanned pregnancies. Feel free to correct me if you have data to the contrary.



> 2) Public funding of family planning services? As a christian, I'm not interested in buying knives for murder or supplying condoms and drugs enabling people to fornicate


So you'd rather they got STDs, got pregnant, went to back-alley abortionists, and generally suffered because they deserve it? Very Christian of you.

Personally, the more of my tax dollars that can be spent on preventing unwanted pregnancies (before or after fertilization) the better. There's very little that is more likely to cost society a lot of money (and other things) than a child lacking good parents.



> 3) Emergency contraception? I guess if you didn't believe God is the author of life and he doesn't care if we terminate it then this would seem acceptable.


Ding! You're right! You win the obvious prize. 

What may be difficult for you and other Christians to cope with is that not everybody believes in your invisible bronze-age police man, and even many of those who do don't agree on what rules He wants us to follow. So, in our pluralistic, tolerant society, you're free to cower in fear of your Thunder God, and I'm free to look at reality and make my own choices. You're obviously welcome to disapprove of my choices as I'm free to disapprove of yours, but unless our respective choices impinge on each other's freedoms, all we can do is wonder aloud what the other is thinking, and perhaps exhort each other to consider the validity of their methods making decisions.

You can wring your hands and pull your hair for the unborn, but unless you can find some way to teleport them out of the bodies of the women who don't want them parasitizing their metabolism and somehow raise them ex utero, it's really none of your business.


----------



## Dr.G.

Pardon my ignorance, but I have never heard the phrase "cafeteria Catholic" before this thread. I think that I am able to infer its meaning from the previous postings, but what might be the correct underlying meaning of this phrase? Merci.


----------



## kps

bryanc, this might interest you. I learned about this psychiatrist/author today. She promotes so called "old fashioned values" based on sound biological research with respect to underdeveloped teenage bodies. Specifically female reproductory organs.

Perhaps the Catholic church could learn something here as well. Fire and brimstone just does not cut it any more.

Miriam Grossman, M.D.: 100% M.D., 0% P.C.

//
//


----------



## bryanc

Dr.G. said:


> Pardon my ignorance, but I have never heard the phrase "cafeteria Catholic" before this thread. I think that I am able to infer its meaning from the previous postings, but what might be the correct underlying meaning of this phrase? Merci.


A cafeteria Catholic is someone who chooses to accept bits and pieces of the faith - a ritual here, a bit of dogma there - as pleases them, but does not agree with everything.

In other words, probably almost every 'catholic' you've ever met.

All my catholic friends use birth control, and most of them think the pope is an idiot.

But when the census is done, they'll check of 'catholic' on the form, and their taxes go to support the separate school system, perpetuating the artificial political power in Rome.


----------



## bryanc

kps said:


> bryanc, this might interest you. I learned about this psychiatrist/author today. She promotes so called "old fashioned values" based on sound biological research with respect to underdeveloped teenage bodies. Specifically female reproductory organs.


Potentially interesting, but there's no useful information at the url. Just a promotion page for her book.


----------



## kps

bryanc said:


> Potentially interesting, but there's no useful information at the url. Just a promotion page for her book.


I heard her interviewed today and all I have is her name. Figured her home page may lead somewhere. Google turns up quite a few pro and con links. But that discussion doesn't really apply to this thread.


----------



## MacGuiver

> Let me know how that works out for you.


This comment puzzles me. I propose following Jesus moral teaching is the ultimate solution to the abyss we're in and you blow that idea off like the stupidest comment ever? I'd not expect that from a person professing to be the real Christian. If you don't think Christ had the answers, why would you profess to follow him.



> Your clergy are leading by a fine example. They are certainly leaving a lot of pieces for others to pickup.


The majority of our clergy do show a fine example. Unfortunately our clergy are also mere mortals and sin like the rest of us. Are there no sinners in the Protestant clergy? 



> Christ sure did have an admiration for those who just preached the law and condemned others.


Oh the irony. You've condemned me for condemning. 

Thats disappointing. 
I figured you'd present the biblical argument as to why you think a Christian would have God's blessing to support such measures and how such measures are supported in scripture. Take off your secular hat and defend your ideas with scripture since I thought we were debating Christian principles. 

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## Dr.G.

bryanc said:


> A cafeteria Catholic is someone who chooses to accept bits and pieces of the faith - a ritual here, a bit of dogma there - as pleases them, but does not agree with everything.
> 
> In other words, probably almost every 'catholic' you've ever met.
> 
> All my catholic friends use birth control, and most of them think the pope is an idiot.
> 
> But when the census is done, they'll check of 'catholic' on the form, and their taxes go to support the separate school system, perpetuating the artificial political power in Rome.


Thanks for the info, bryanc. This is what I inferred, but I wanted to confirm the validity of my speculation. I am Jewish, and the same holds true for some Jewish people as well. Merci, mon ami. Paix.


----------



## groovetube

it's interesting to see a consistent reference to the big bad Protestants. As if, if they did it, it somehow makes it ok. It's almost exactly like the political discussions where, the ying and yang battling it out, often using the fact that, well, ying party did it, somehow neutralizes things some.

You often wonder, at what point, does the justifications stop?


----------



## mrjimmy

groovetube said:


> it's interesting to see a consistent reference to the big bad Protestants. As if, if they did it, it somehow makes it ok. It's almost exactly like the political discussions where, the ying and yang battling it out, often using the fact that, well, ying party did it, somehow neutralizes things some.
> 
> You often wonder, at what point, does the justifications stop?


I'm sure it's a simply a psychological coping mechanism. Rather than face the unpalatable within your belief system, deflect and point the finger of blame elsewhere.

Learning to get beyond our own fractious beliefs and systems to see 'the bigger picture' is daunting. Sadly, if we haven't figured it out by now....


----------



## groovetube

read the globe this morning, seems the pope really has some more problems re: the major sex abuse scandal in Germany, apparently involving his brother!

Damn those libera... er, protestants!


----------



## MacGuiver

groovetube said:


> it's interesting to see a consistent reference to the big bad Protestants. As if, if they did it, it somehow makes it ok. It's almost exactly like the political discussions where, the ying and yang battling it out, often using the fact that, well, ying party did it, somehow neutralizes things some.
> 
> You often wonder, at what point, does the justifications stop?


The fact that there are abusers among Protestant ministers, school teachers, Scout leaders, medical professionals etc. doesn't make it OK. I'm glad these perverts are being brought to light because its necessary to deal with the abuse. I just find it peculiar that the media and the catholic bashers seam only concerned about victims if the perpetrator wears a roman collar. An average of 260 reported sexual abuse cases of minors per year in US Protestant denominations, on par if not exceeding Catholic abuse and not a mention in the media or so much as a breath of condemnation from the Catholic bashers. 

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## mrjimmy

MacGuiver said:


> The fact that there are abusers among Protestant ministers, school teachers, Scout leaders, medical professionals etc. doesn't make it OK. I'm glad these perverts are being brought to light because its necessary to deal with the abuse. I just find it peculiar that the media and the catholic bashers seam only concerned about victims if the perpetrator wears a roman collar. An average of 260 reported sexual abuse cases of minors per year in US Protestant denominations, on par if not exceeding Catholic abuse and not a mention in the media or so much as a breath of condemnation from the Catholic bashers.
> 
> Cheers
> MacGuiver


I believe it may have something to do with how the Catholic clergy has for centuries, stood on high, enforcing 'God's law' no matter what the cost. The fantastic irony of the sex scandals is simply not lost on people.


----------



## groovetube

agreed. Sort of like how we have to listen the constant blathering from the conservative religious zealots, but then find some in the men's bathrooms.


----------



## bryanc

MacGuiver said:


> I just find it peculiar that the media and the catholic bashers seam only concerned about victims if the perpetrator wears a roman collar.


It's the extreme hypocrisy. Other people and organizations aren't claiming divine inspiration, or telling other people how to govern their sex lives.

It's entirely predictable that an organization that requires sexual deviance (celibacy) from its leaders is full of individuals with other, more objectionable sexual predilections.


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> It's entirely predictable that an organization that requires sexual deviance (celibacy) from its leaders is full of individuals with other, more objectionable sexual predilections.


Please provide the studies on which you base this. I assume these are studies comparing religions requiring celibacy of their clergy and those that don't and relating them to incidents of "objectionable sexual predilections."


----------



## mrjimmy

bryanc said:


> It's entirely predictable that an organization that requires sexual deviance (celibacy) from its leaders is full of individuals with other, more objectionable sexual predilections.


I agree. Also, this adds to the fuel to the fiery debate as to why the Catholic clergy are singled out in terms of sexual abuse (and other) scandals. They hold themselves to some lofty standards in order to 'lord' over their parishioners and subsequently have the furthest to fall.


----------



## bryanc

Macfury said:


> Please provide the studies on which you base this.


I will leave it as an exercise for the student to dig through the literature on psycosexual pathology if you want to find studies. I'm sure they're out there, but this is sufficiently obvious that I don't feel any need to look into it in any detail. Celibacy is an extremely stressful sexual abnormality. Selecting for adult males that exhibit this particular abnormality and then professing surprise when a significant number of them also exhibit other abnormalities is just plain dumb.


----------



## MacGuiver

> It's the extreme hypocrisy. Other people and organizations aren't claiming divine inspiration,


Other religions do since they too claim to base their beliefs and morals on divinely inspired scripture. But I agree otherwise.



> It's entirely predictable that an organization that requires sexual deviance (celibacy) from its leaders is full of individuals with other, more objectionable sexual predilections.


I'm sure this theory is purely scientific with peer reviewed studies to back it up since Bryan has often stated his disdain for people floating ridiculous theories outside their area of expertise. One would have to assume he's an expert on religion since he's so eager to share his scientific theories with us on the subject. 

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## mrjimmy

MacGuiver said:


> I'm sure this theory is purely scientific with peer reviewed studies to back it up since Bryan has often stated his disdain for people floating ridiculous theories outside their area of expertise. One would have to assume he's an expert on religion since he's so eager to share his scientific theories with us on the subject.
> 
> Cheers
> MacGuiver


Nice dodge. Make it Bryanc's issue....


----------



## groovetube

google link! enguarde!


----------



## Dr.G.

An interesting article re a conflict of views re religion and social justice.

Evangelical leader takes on Beck for assailing social justice churches - CNN.com


----------



## Macfury

I agree with Beck on that one. Whenever I've heard such things preached from the pulpit, it was often woefully incompetent. Church leaders have a wish list which seems largely translated into support for one political party or another--or one issue so tied into that party that it is indistinguishable from party politics. While this occurs from both sides of the aisle, "social justice" is just a euphemism for left-wing politics.


----------



## chasMac

Dr.G. said:


> An interesting article re a conflict of views re religion and social justice.
> 
> Evangelical leader takes on Beck for assailing social justice churches - CNN.com


Interesting article. It might serve Beck to read up on no less an authority than the Hammer of the Left, John Paul II. He certainly thought social injustice was a worthy topic to preach upon (though coming from a different branch of Christianity). I tend to think that JPII was a little more up on the religion's tenets.


----------



## MacGuiver

This quote explains it nicely,

...Judas Iscariot, the Patron Saint of Social Justice, where people are concerned with humanity but ignore the truths of God...—Bishop Fulton Sheen

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## MazterCBlazter

.


----------



## Macfury

MazterCBlazter said:


> I clearly see the churches that are against government social justice are also the ones that support the military industrial complex, zionism, government anti-abortion legislation, etc. They preach family values and yet do the opposite. If this Jesus character were here today, he would be more of a socialist than a right wing political supporter. For sure he would be a shop steward in the carpenters union.


Sorry, but this simply isn't supportable. Jesus' message cut across political lines that were only developed almost two-thousand years later. You can argue about particular issues, but hijacking Jesus for the left or right wing is a mug's game.


----------



## MazterCBlazter

.


----------



## MazterCBlazter

.


----------



## MacGuiver

MazterCBlazter said:


> Repeat:
> *Amazing how such a compassionate message of love and tolerance, has become so screwed up and distorted into the exact opposite on a massive scale*


Love and tolerance, nothing else? That would be hippy Jesus created in the 60s, not the Jesus of scripture.

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## Macfury

MazterCBlazter said:


> So far as I am concerned Jesus's message is clearly left wing and socialist in nature. The very thing that the "Christian" nation is afraid of and condemns as evil.


You want to go at this one, point for point?


----------



## MazterCBlazter

.


----------



## MazterCBlazter

.


----------



## Macfury

MazterCBlazter said:


> That could be interesting, what points would you like to make?


You tell me why the Christian message is socialist in nature. I'll tell you where I see the opposite.


----------



## mrjimmy

While we were in here argu... debating, look what was happening in the rest of the world:

Image of Jesus 'appears in a frying pan' - Telegraph


----------



## chasMac

We are discussing JC's political affiliations?


----------



## Macfury

chasMac said:


> We are discussing JC's political affiliations?


Apparently some people believe he has them.


----------



## chasMac

Macfury said:


> Apparently some people believe he has them.


Well... he was rebelling _agains_t an occupying, fascist regime, and he was clearly anti-imperialist. Leftist-Christians might have a point.


----------



## Macfury

chasMac said:


> Well... he was rebelling _agains_t an occupying, fascist regime, and he was clearly anti-imperialist. Leftist-Christians might have a point.


He _didn't_ rebel against the existing Roman regime at all. In fact, that was one of the reasons that the Jews were so disappointed in him at the time.


----------



## chasMac

Macfury said:


> He _didn't_ rebel against the existing Roman regime at all. In fact, that was one of the reasons that the Jews were so disappointed in him at the time.


I am easily beaten on matters scripture and Biblical history. Would he have been considered a collaborator then (Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's)?


----------



## Macfury

chasMac said:


> I am easily beaten on matters scripture and Biblical history. Would he have been considered a collaborator then (Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's)?


No. He was more or less indifferent to it all. The "render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's" was a trick answer to the Pharisees who wanted to see Jesus taken out by the Roman Occupation. The original question: "Is it right for Jews to pay the taxes demanded by Caesar?" They were hoping he would say "no" so they could rat him out. His answer was ambiguous in context. However, when the people turned him over to Pontius Pilate, they fabricated evidence that suggested he had advocated non-payment of the occupation tax.


----------



## MazterCBlazter

.


----------



## Macfury

MazterCBlazter said:


> I gave a few points.
> 
> What motivated Tommy Douglas to start the CCF party by the way? He was a preacher, very religious man wasn't he? Did his religious convictions have anything to do with it?
> 
> Just asking.


Christ's message was apolitical. He had almost nothing to say about it. I have no idea what Tommy Douglas was thinking half the time.


----------



## chasMac

"Jesus was the first socialist, the first to seek a better life for mankind." -Gorbachev

Mikhail Gorbachev quotes


----------



## Macfury

Since socialism does not make a better life for mankind, Gorby has rocks in his head.

Seriously, who would even make such a statement, since Plato and Aristotle preceded Jesus and also attempted to make a better life for mankind?


----------



## MacGuiver

Macfury said:


> No. He was more or less indifferent to it all. The "render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's" was a trick answer to the Pharisees who wanted to see Jesus taken out by the Roman Occupation. The original question: "Is it right for Jews to pay the taxes demanded by Caesar?" They were hoping he would say "no" so they could rat him out. His answer was ambiguous in context. However, when the people turned him over to Pontius Pilate, they fabricated evidence that suggested he had advocated non-payment of the occupation tax.


I agree completely, you can't pin Jesus down to either end of the political spectrum. Theres good and bad on both sides.

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## eMacMan

*Child abuse claims sweep Catholic Church in Europe*

Rather long AP article but well worth the read. Might actually puncture the RC holier than thou attitude that sometimes pops up in this thread.


> *Child abuse claims sweep Catholic Church in Europe*
> 
> 
> By SHAWN POGATCHNIK, Associated Press Writer Shawn Pogatchnik, Associated Press Writer – 1 hr 31 mins ago
> 
> 
> DUBLIN – It often starts as a voice in the wilderness, but can swell into an entire nation's demand for truth. From Ireland to Germany, Europe's many victims of child abuse in the Roman Catholic church are finally breaking social taboos and confronting the clergy to face its demons.
> 
> 
> Ireland was the first in Europe to confront the church's worldwide custom of shielding pedophile priests from the law and public scandal. Now that legacy of suppressed childhood horror is being confronted in other parts of the Continent — nowhere more poignantly than in Germany, the homeland of Pope Benedict XVI.
> 
> 
> The recent spread of claims into the Netherlands, Austria and Italy has analysts and churchmen wondering how deep the scandal runs, which nation will be touched next, and whether a tide of lawsuits will force European dioceses to declare bankruptcy like their American cousins.
> "You have to presume that the cover-up of abuse exists everywhere, to one extent or another. A new case could appear in a new country tomorrow," said David Quinn, director of a Christian think tank, the Iona Institute, that seeks to promote family values in an Ireland increasingly cool to Catholicism.
> 
> 
> Quinn noted that stories of systemic physical, sexual and emotional abuse circulated privately in Irish society for decades, but only moved aboveground in the mid-1990s when former altar boy Andrew Madden and orphanage survivor Christine Buckley went public with lawsuits and exposes of how priests and nuns tormented them with impunity. Floodgates opened for Irish complaints that have topped 15,000 in this country of 4 million. Three government-ordered investigations have shocked and disgusted the nation, which has footed most of the bill to settle legal claims topping euro1 billion (nearly $1.5 billion).


Entire article found here (for the moment):
Child abuse claims sweep Catholic Church in Europe - Yahoo! News


----------



## Macfury

Of course this is isolated data, rarely punched into a broader context. While all child abuse is abhorrent and appalling, it appears to me that Catholic clergy are no more to blame for this behaviour than people in general:

In "A Perspective on Clergy Sexual Abuse" Dr. Thomas Plante, Professor and Chair of Psychology at Santa Clara University, and a Clinical Associate Professor of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences at Stanford University School of Medicine, writes:



> First, the available research suggests that approximately 2 to 5% of priests have had a sexual experience with a minor (i.e., anyone under the age of 18). There are approximately 60,000 active and inactive priests and brothers in the United States and thus we estimate that between 1,000 and 3,000 priests have sexually engaged with minors. That's a lot. In fact, that is 3,000 people too many. Any sexual abuse of minors whether perpetrated by priests, other clergy, parents, school teachers, boy-scout leaders or anyone else in whom we entrust our children is horrific. However, although good data is hard to acquire, it appears that this 2 to 5% figure is consistent with male clergy from other religious traditions and is lower than the general adult male population that is best estimated to be closer to 8%. Therefore, the odds that any random Catholic priest would sexually abuse a minor are not likely to be significantly higher than other males in or out of the clergy. Of course we expect better behavior from priests than from the average man on the street. While even one priest who abuses children is a major problem, we need to keep this issue in perspective and remember that the vast majority of priests do not abuse children.


He also notes, quite logically, in my opinion:



> ...allowing priests to marry will not eliminate this problem. As mentioned earlier, male clergy from other religious traditions also have this problem as well as people who are not clergy at all. Many people who sexually abuse minors are married. Besides, if you could not have sex due to marital discord, the inability to find an appropriate partner, or other reasons, young children would not become the primary object of your desire. Consenting adults would.


I have no opinion on allowing Catholic priests to marry--it's the rule of that church and they have the freedom to request allegiance to whatever rules they choose from consenting adults. But his point is well taken.

A Perspective on Clergy Sexual Abuse, by Dr. Thomas Plante


----------



## MacGuiver

Macfury said:


> Of course this is isolated data, rarely punched into a broader context. While all child abuse is abhorrent and appalling, it appears to me that Catholic clergy are no more to blame for this behaviour than people in general:
> 
> In "A Perspective on Clergy Sexual Abuse" Dr. Thomas Plante, Professor and Chair of Psychology at Santa Clara University, and a Clinical Associate Professor of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences at Stanford University School of Medicine, writes:
> 
> 
> 
> He also notes, quite logically, in my opinion:
> 
> 
> 
> I have no opinion on allowing Catholic priests to marry--it's the rule of that church and they have the freedom to request allegiance to whatever rules they choose from consenting adults. But his point is well taken.
> 
> A Perspective on Clergy Sexual Abuse, by Dr. Thomas Plante


MacFury,

Thanks for putting the abuse in its proper perspective. As sad as it is, its not simply a Catholic problem as some like to paint it.

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## groovetube

Macfury said:


> He _didn't_ rebel against the existing Roman regime at all. In fact, that was one of the reasons that the Jews were so disappointed in him at the time.


but they killed him anyway. I suppose he certainly wasn't _for_ them.


----------



## Macfury

groovetube said:


> but they killed him anyway. I suppose he certainly wasn't _for_ them.


Sure, the Romans killed him. but only on the trumped up charges by his countrymen that he was leading a revolt against the Roman occupation. Again, no political stance by Jesus.


----------



## groovetube

Macfury said:


> Sure, the Romans killed him. but only on the trumped up charges by his countrymen that he was leading a revolt against the Roman occupation. Again, no political stance by Jesus.


oh I wasn't aware he was in sync with the romans. Guess they oopsied.


----------



## Macfury

groovetube said:


> oh I wasn't aware he was in sync with the romans. Guess they oopsied.


Nope, not in sync with the Romans either.


----------



## eMacMan

*The pope has spoken*

Pope slams Irish church, no Vatican blame in abuse - Yahoo! News
*Pope slams Irish church, no Vatican blame in abuse*




> By Nicole Winfield And Victor L. Simpson, Associated Press Writers – 1 hr 43 mins ago
> VATICAN CITY – Pope Benedict XVI rebuked Irish bishops Saturday for "grave errors of judgment" in handling clerical sex abuse cases and ordered an investigation into the Irish church. But he laid no blame for the problem on the Vatican's policies of keeping such cases secret.
> ...


----------



## SINC

*Richard Dawkins: I will arrest Pope Benedict XVI*

Interesting times for the Pope:



> RICHARD DAWKINS, the atheist campaigner, is planning a legal ambush to have the Pope arrested during his state visit to Britain “for crimes against humanity”.
> 
> Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens, the atheist author, have asked human rights lawyers to produce a case for charging Pope Benedict XVI over his alleged cover-up of sexual abuse in the Catholic church.


Richard Dawkins: I will arrest Pope Benedict XVI -Times Online


----------



## mrjimmy

SINC said:


> Interesting times for the Pope:
> 
> Richard Dawkins: I will arrest Pope Benedict XVI -Times Online


and they never saw him again....


----------



## SINC

An update:

'Richard Dawkins: I will arrest Pope Benedict XVI' by [UPDATE 4-11] Marc Horne - TimesOnline - RichardDawkins.net


----------



## MacGuiver

mrjimmy said:


> and they never saw him again....


LOL!!!
I guess thinking like this can be expected when you get your theology from watching hollywood movies. Surely an albino ninja monk is tracking Dawkins as we speak. (thanks fiction writer Dan Brown)
Don't worry, Richard and his ilk know where its safe to sling the arrows. They make a sizeable income doing just that. If he really wanted to show he had cajonies he'd be as lippy about islam, which is the biggest threat to European freedoms today. But like a schoolyard bully, he sizes up the 50lb weakling on the yard in a demonstration his bravado. :yawn:
These "fearless" artist in Ireland also seem to be missing a certain prophet with a tidal wave of followers sweeping Europe from their hate propaganda whine and cheeze night. . 





+
YouTube Video









ERROR: If you can see this, then YouTube is down or you don't have Flash installed.


----------



## Macfury

The parallels between Pinochet and Benedict are pretty feeble. The "Holy See" has special recognition from the UN as an Observer Member, and has limited _itself_ to non-voting status. 

1. Benedict would have diplomatic immunity.
2. Pinochet was arrested at the behest of Spain on behalf of families of Spanish victims of his regime. Until the lawyers are acting on behalf of a particular victim they have no case.
3. The exception was made to arrest Pinochet because the act of torture was considered severe enough to warrant action.
4. One needs to determine the most appropriate venue to try such a case--which would appear to be Germany, just as Pinochet was returned to Chile. He was, however, granted special status to avoid most prosecution in Chile when he returned there.

Dawkins chooses such easy targets. it's a little sad. Why didn't he try to prosecute the Archbishop of Canterbury over child abuse cases involving the Church of England? That would show he had a little mojo.


----------



## mrjimmy

MacGuiver said:


> LOL!!!
> I guess thinking like this can be expected when you get your theology from watching hollywood movies. Surely an albino ninja monk is tracking Dawkins as we speak. (thanks fiction writer Dan Brown)


No, I'm simply not blinded by 'faith'. I'm open to all possibilities.


----------



## ehMax

*Priest calls for pope's resignation*

East Longmeadow, Massachusetts (CNN) -- The phones are ringing off the hook at the parish of St. Michael's Church, where the Rev. James Scahill called in a sermon last weekend for the pope to resign over the church's sexual abuse scandal.

Pope Benedict XVI has found himself tied to the crisis after news broke last month that 30 years ago, when he was an archbishop, he approved accommodations in his diocese for a priest accused of child sex abuse so the priest could undergo therapy.

The priest, who was not identified, was let go from church service in 2008, according to church officials in Germany.
"If he can't take the consequences of being truthful on this matter, his integrity should lead him, for the good of the church, to step down and to have the conclave of cardinals elect a pope with the understanding that the elected pope would be willing to take on this issue, not just in promise," Scahill said.

*His church has received more than 100 emails and dozens of calls, of which only two were negative, Sister Betty Braughan said.*

Scahill, a longtime critic of the sexual abuse crisis in the church, said *the Vatican is responsible for the controversy and believes that it is wrong to blame the media for perpetuating the scandal.*

"I have met with countless victims of abuse. *I have lives I can relate this to, and you know anyone with an ounce of intelligence knows the media has not created this scandal,"* he said. *"The institutional church has brought this onto themselves."*

*Full article*


----------



## Gilles

Macfury said:


> Dawkins chooses such easy targets. it's a little sad. Why didn't he try to prosecute the Archbishop of Canterbury over child abuse cases involving the Church of England?


Because there are protestant (or anglican) atheists and catholic atheists and they never attack their own. (I heard that one in Ireland.)


----------



## Macfury

Gilles said:


> Because there are protestant (or anglican) atheists and catholic atheists and they never attack their own. (I heard that one in Ireland.)


Makes sense.


----------



## CubaMark

*Food for The Eagle - Adam Savage's speech to Harvard Humanism Society*



> I think one of the defining moments of adulthood is the realization that nobody's going to take care of you. That you have to do the heavy lifting while you're here. And when you don't, well, you suffer the consequences. At least I have. (And in the empirical study I'm performing about interacting with the universe, I am unfortunately the only test subject I have complete access to, so my data is, as they say, self-selected.) While nobody's going to take care of us, it's incumbent upon us to take care of those around us. That's community.
> 
> The fiction of continuity and stability that your parents have painted for you is totally necessary for a growing child. When you realize that it's not the way the world works, it's a chilling moment. It's supremely lonely.
> 
> So I understand the desire for someone to be in charge. (As a side note, I believe that the need for conspiracy theories is similar to the need for God.) We'd all like our good and evil to be like it is in the movies: specific and horrible, easy to defeat. But it's not. It's banal.


----------



## SINC

.


----------



## Macfury

CubaMark said:


> While nobody's going to take care of us, it's incumbent upon us to take care of those around us. That's community.


Or it's incumbent upon us to take care of ourselves....that's responsibility.


----------



## mrjimmy

Macfury said:


> Or it's incumbent upon us to take care of ourselves....that's responsibility.


Do you not believe in taking care of those around you?


----------



## bryanc

mrjimmy said:


> Do you not believe in taking care of those around you?


Only if they pay beejacon Otherwise it's socialism... and that's BAD!


----------



## chasMac

mrjimmy said:


> Do you not believe in taking care of those around you?


Doesn't the author really mean: it is incumbent upon us to take care of those around us _who cannot take care of themselves_? Even the most independent-minded would agree with that.


----------



## Macfury

mrjimmy said:


> Do you not believe in taking care of those around you?


Yes, on a personal level, not an institutional level. I also believe that the perceived needs of those around me are much greater than their actual needs. Personal responsibility should be the first line of defense, not a last resort.


----------



## groovetube

like, pat them on the head and say, 'you can do it!'


----------



## Macfury

groovetube said:


> like, pat them on the head and say, 'you can do it!'


For some, really hopeless cases I just say: "Keep drumming away. Here's your cheque."


----------



## mrjimmy

Macfury said:


> Yes, on a personal level, not an institutional level. I also believe that the perceived needs of those around me are much greater than their actual needs. Personal responsibility should be the first line of defense, not a last resort.


It seems as though this is a justification to assuage yourself of guilt. If you think and therefore believe it's _not that bad_, it's a lot easier for you to ignore their plight. How do you back up such a sweeping statement?

If we as a society all felt this way, what would become of those at 'an institutional level'.

Do you really believe they'd just go out, get jobs and lead a proseperous life? As though we as a society finally caught on to their scheming plan?


----------



## Macfury

mrjimmy said:


> It seems as though this is a justification to assuage yourself of guilt. If you think and therefore believe it's _not that bad_, it's a lot easier for you to ignore their plight. How do you back up such a sweeping statement?
> 
> If we as a society all felt this way, what would become of those at 'an institutional level'.
> 
> Do you really believe they'd just go out, get jobs and lead a proseperous life? As though we as a society finally caught on to their scheming plan?



If all of us in society thought this way, then we would have the money to offer personal charity. We would allocate our resources to those we felt most needed out help. 

Not everybody would go and live a prosperous life. Not everybody lives one now.


----------



## hayesk

mrjimmy said:


> It seems as though this is a justification to assuage yourself of guilt. If you think and therefore believe it's _not that bad_, it's a lot easier for you to ignore their plight. How do you back up such a sweeping statement?


It also makes the assumption that everyone is in control of the situation they are in. If you get laid off from your job is it your fault? Capitalism and western society tends to reward those who least need it. The rich have better investment opportunities, home ownership is almost impossible for those below middle class, nepotism, is still alive and well in corporations, executives reward themselves before lower rung employees, etc. I could go on.

Most people (there are exceptions, of course) that lead prosperous lives, are either because of luck, or had help along the way. I'm not saying they didn't work hard, I'm sure they did. But it's much more difficult for those in need to go on lead prosperous lives - hard work is required (and there's nothing wrong with that) but so is help or sheer luck. Rags to riches situations make for good stories, but they're rare.


----------



## Macfury

Right, so help people if they have some temporary problem--or if they have a permanent disability. Don't support able-bodied people for the rest of their lives.

However, it isn't my responsibility to take care of everybody to the degree that others demand I do.


----------



## mrjimmy

Macfury said:


> Right, so help people if they have some temporary problem--or if they have a permanent disability. Don't support able-bodied people for the rest of their lives.
> 
> However, it isn't my responsibility to take care of everybody to the degree that others demand I do.


Imagine the infrastructure needed to determine who is and isn't able-bodied. The vast network of Government goons snoping behind corners waiting for you to step out of your wheelchair. 

Also, I think that if you have chosen to live in a society that condones this, it is your responsibility. You can opt out.


----------



## Macfury

mrjimmy said:


> Imagine the infrastructure needed to determine who is and isn't able-bodied. The vast network of Government goons snoping behind corners waiting for you to step out of your wheelchair.
> 
> Also, I think that if you have chosen to live in a society that condones this, it is your responsibility. You can opt out.



We already have a ludicrous amount of infrastructure designed to do just that. 

But mrjimmy, don't mistake your own guilt feelings for mine. If you have tremendous guilt over what needs doing around the world, feel free to act on it. I'm only offended by your desire to have me donate to others to work on _your__ guilt_ feelings.


----------



## mrjimmy

Macfury said:


> We already have a ludicrous amount of infrastructure designed to do just that.
> 
> But mrjimmy, don't mistake your own guilt feelings for mine. If you have tremendous guilt over what needs doing around the world, feel free to act on it. I'm only offended by your desire to have me donate to others to work on _your__ guilt_ feelings.


I don't have guilt Macfury, I have compassion.


----------



## Dr.G.

"I don't have guilt Macfury, I have compassion. " 

A typical wishy-washy bleeding-heart liberal cop out, mrj. You should learn a lesson from both Macfury and Scrooge. Social Darwinism at its finest. 

"The clerk, in letting Scrooge’s nephew out, had let two other people in. They were portly gentlemen, pleasant to behold, and now stood, with their hats off, in Scrooge’s office. They had books and papers in their hands, and bowed to him. ’Scrooge and Marley’s, I believe,’ said one of the gentlemen, referring to his list. ‘Have I the pleasure of addressing Mr Scrooge, or Mr Marley?’

‘Mr Marley has been dead these seven years,’ Scrooge replied. ‘He died seven years ago, this very night.’

‘We have no doubt his liberality is well represented by his surviving partner,’ said the gentleman, presenting his credentials.

It certainly was, for they had been two kindred spirits. At the ominous word liberality, Scrooge frowned, and shook his head, and handed the credentials back.

‘At this festive season of the year, Mr Scrooge,’ said the gentleman, taking up a pen, ‘it is more than usually desirable that we should make some slight provision for the Poor and destitute, who suffer greatly at the present time. Many thousands are in want of common necessaries; hundreds of thousands are in want of common comforts, sir.’

‘Are there no prisons?’ asked Scrooge.

‘Plenty of prisons,’ said the gentleman, laying down the pen again.

‘And the Union workhouses.’ demanded Scrooge. ‘Are they still in operation?’

‘They are. Still,’ returned the gentleman,’ I wish I could say they were not.’

‘The Treadmill and the Poor Law are in full vigour, then?’ said Scrooge.

‘Both very busy, sir.’

‘Oh. I was afraid, from what you said at first, that something had occurred to stop them in their useful course,’ said Scrooge. ‘I’m very glad to hear it.’

‘Under the impression that they scarcely furnish Christian cheer of mind or body to the multitude,’ returned the gentleman, ‘a few of us are endeavouring to raise a fund to buy the Poor some meat and drink, and means of warmth. We choose this time, because it is a time, of all others, when Want is keenly felt, and Abundance rejoices. What shall I put you down for?’

‘Nothing!’ Scrooge replied.

‘You wish to be anonymous?’

‘I wish to be left alone,’ said Scrooge. ‘Since you ask me what I wish, gentlemen, that is my answer. I don’t make merry myself at Christmas and I can’t afford to make idle people merry. I help to support the establishments I have mentioned-they cost enough; and those who are badly off must go there.’

‘Many can’t go there; and many would rather die.’

‘If they would rather die,’ said Scrooge, ‘they had better do it, and decrease the surplus population. Besides-excuse me-I don’t know that.’

‘But you might know it,’ observed the gentleman.

‘It’s not my business,’ Scrooge returned. ‘It’s enough for a man to understand his own business, and not to interfere with other people’s. Mine occupies me constantly. Good afternoon, gentlemen!’"


----------



## Macfury

mrjimmy said:


> I don't have guilt Macfury, I have compassion.


Then you must go forth and be compassionate with other who share your idea of compassion. Again, I have no problem with you offering your compassion dollars to others--I only wish to spend my compassion dollars in the way I see fit, and not to be drawn into your compassion program against my will.


----------



## Macfury

Dr.G. said:


> Scrooge. ...


The Ghosts understood that Scrooge needed to be convinced to extend compassion where he himself saw a need--to those closest to him. 

They did not remove the money from his wallet, pool it with that of other unwilling donors, and send it to Scotland.


----------



## mrjimmy

Macfury said:


> Then you must go forth and be compassionate with other who share your idea of compassion. Again, I have no problem with you offering your compassion dollars to others--I only wish to spend my compassion dollars in the way I see fit, and not to be drawn into your compassion program against my will.


Living in our society must be painful for you.


----------



## Macfury

mrjimmy said:


> Living in our society must be painful for you.


Less and less so each day, as I help to remake it to my own tastes.


----------



## mrjimmy

Macfury said:


> Less and less so each day, as I help to remake it to my own tastes.


Good luck with that.


----------



## Macfury

mrjimmy said:


> Good luck with that.


mrjimmy, if you like the direction in which Canadian society is headed, and I like it too, how can that be bad?


----------



## mrjimmy

Macfury said:


> mrjimmy, if you like the direction in which Canadian society is headed, and I like it too, how can that be bad?


What way is Canadian society headed Macfury?


----------



## Macfury

mrjimmy said:


> What way is Canadian society headed Macfury?


Why the way that infuriates me apparently.


----------



## mrjimmy

Macfury said:


> Why the way that infuriates me apparently.


Does it infuriate you Macfury?


----------



## Macfury

mrjimmy said:


> Does it infuriate you Macfury?


It used to.


----------



## hayesk

Macfury said:


> Right, so help people if they have some temporary problem--or if they have a permanent disability. Don't support able-bodied people for the rest of their lives.
> 
> However, it isn't my responsibility to take care of everybody to the degree that others demand I do.


Can't say I disagree with that, though the degree that others demand will always be up for debate.


----------



## arminia

*And on it goes*

CBC News - World - Belgium abuse charges ignored: retired priest


----------



## screature

bryanc said:


> All the atheists I know are agnostics. I've never met a "strong atheist" because that is a position of faith, and, while it can be articulated, I've never encountered it as anything other than a straw-man argument.
> 
> "Agnostic" means you lack knowledge of/about god(s).
> "Atheist" means you lack beliefs in/about god(s).
> 
> If you have no knowledge (i.e. are an agnostic), how can you have beliefs? Consequently, all rational agnostics are atheists. However, because so much negative connotation has been associated with the word 'atheist' (especially in the US, especially since the 1950's), many atheists will describe themselves as 'agnostics' in order avoid conflict.
> 
> Cheers


Your definitions are flawed:

agnostic: a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God.

atheist: a person who ascribes to the theory or belief that God does not exist.

Both are propositions. The agnostic says is not possible to know if there is a God. The atheist says there is no God. Two fundamentally different things.


----------



## groovetube

If you reread Bryanc's post, I think you just pretty much repeated what his definitions were.


----------



## screature

groovetube said:


> If you reread Bryanc's post, I think you just pretty much repeated what his definitions were.


There is a difference. "Agnostic" means you lack knowledge of/about god(s)." This implies that if there were sufficient evidence (i.e the opposite of lack) knowing may be possible.

"agnostic: a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God.", proposes that knowing (knowledge of God) is fundamentally impossible.

""Atheist" means you lack beliefs in/about god(s)." Implies that you are an atheist because you lack belief in a God.

"atheist: a person who ascribes to the theory or belief that God does not exist.", means you ascribe to the proposition that there *is* no God. In the the byanc's definition of atheism is based on a lack of belief. In the latter (dictionary version) atheism is based on the belief that there *is* no God. One is defined negatively (the lack of belief) the other through a positive assertion, there is no God.


----------



## groovetube

ha ha ha ha.

ok


----------



## bryanc

screature said:


> "atheist: a person who ascribes to the theory or belief that God does not exist.", means you ascribe to the proposition that there *is* no God. In the the byanc's definition of atheism is based on a lack of belief. In the latter (dictionary version) atheism is based on the belief that there *is* no God. One is defined negatively (the lack of belief) the other through a positive assertion, there is no God.


In philosophy there are two types of atheism: strong atheism, which is the positive assertion that there is/are no god/gods, and soft atheism, which is the lack of belief in god/gods.

I have never met _anyone_ who holds the position of strong atheism. It's a straw-man. It's so easy to demonstrate that strong atheism is a position of faith it's trivial. But no one is actually arguing that position (regardless of what some dictionaries might say).

Thus, soft atheism - the absence of belief(s) in/about god(s) - is the only version of atheism that is worth discussing. It is also the type of atheism that describes any rational agnostic.

I'm well aware of the dictionary definition of the word, but having spent a lot of time studying philosophy, and therefore being equally well aware of the fact that strong atheism is not a philosophical position defended by anyone other than the perennial crowd of 2nd year philosophy students who need to explore the argument in order to come to the conclusion that there's nothing interesting there. But I apologize for not clarifying the terminology.


----------



## SINC

I just don't get why it seems the more people are educated, the more they split hairs.

This is a simple and elementary issue.

1. There is a God.

-or-

2. There is no God.

Pick one or the other, and be done with it.


----------



## Sonal

SINC said:


> I just don't get why it seems the more people are educated, the more they split hairs.
> 
> This is a simple and elementary issue.
> 
> 1. There is a God.
> 
> -or-
> 
> 2. There is no God.
> 
> Pick one or the other, and be done with it.


~or~

3. The question is unanswerable and therefore I choose not to pick a particular stance.


----------



## SINC

SINC said:


> I just don't get why it seems the more people are educated, the more they split hairs.
> 
> This is a simple and elementary issue.
> 
> 1. There is a God.
> 
> -or-
> 
> 2. There is no God.
> 
> Pick one or the other, and be done with it.





Sonal said:


> ~or~
> 
> 3. The question is unanswerable and therefore I choose not to pick a particular stance.


I like it. :clap:

Works for me.


----------



## bryanc

Sonal said:


> ~or~
> 
> 3. The question is unanswerable and therefore I choose not to pick a particular stance.


Exactly. And therefore, if you are rational, you cannot formulate beliefs in/about gods. Which makes you an atheist. So, like most rational people I've met you're an agnostic atheist.


----------



## screature

bryanc said:


> Exactly. And therefore, if you are rational, you cannot formulate beliefs in/about gods. Which makes you an atheist. So, like most rational people I've met you're an agnostic atheist.


But that isn't right. If you are an atheist you *have* formulated a belief/opinion and decided there is no God.


----------



## screature

Sonal said:


> ~or~
> 
> 3. The question is unanswerable and therefore I choose not to pick a particular stance.


Works for me as well, always has (well since I was about 15 or so...).


----------



## chasMac

Sonal said:


> ~or~
> 
> 3. The question is unanswerable and therefore I choose not to pick a particular stance.


But for those of us who are not scientists, and therefore not constrained by their stringent definitions of proof, we can say with utmost certainty there is no God. The existence of an invisible flying spaghetti monster (to use bryan's term) can not be proven nor disproven, technically speaking, yet all of us mere laymen would assert it does not exist. Why cannot this view be applied in our assessment of the existence of God? 

I don't go for unanswerable; otherwise I should go insane: what other invisible, non-sensible entities might be inhabiting our world then?


----------



## MacGuiver

bryanc said:


> Exactly. And therefore, if you are rational, you cannot formulate beliefs in/about gods. Which makes you an atheist. So, like most rational people I've met you're an agnostic atheist.


What you may see as rational, others may view as simply willful ignorance. I often hear atheists accuse theists of simply deflecting to a deity what they can't explain. Often that is the case though not always. The reverse could be said of atheists that will take the stance that "God didn't do it" despite having absolutely no rational explanation of a particular religious phenomena. 
Correct me if I'm wrong but thats not a stance an agnostic would take. Wouldn't a agnostic be open to the fact that God or some other supernatural force may have been at work while an atheist would rule it out by default?

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## Sonal

bryanc said:


> Exactly. And therefore, if you are rational, you cannot formulate beliefs in/about gods. Which makes you an atheist. So, like most rational people I've met you're an agnostic atheist.


Rationality is highly overrated.

It's just no fun.


----------



## jef

MacGuiver said:


> The reverse could be said of atheists that will take the stance that "God didn't do it" despite having absolutely no rational explanation of a particular religious phenomena.
> Correct me if I'm wrong but thats not a stance an agnostic would take. Wouldn't a agnostic be open to the fact that God or some other supernatural force may have been at work while an atheist would rule it out by default?
> 
> Cheers
> MacGuiver


If there is an example of a such a religious phenomena, please tell us! 

If God does not exist in the first place, why would one suddenly believe in a God if something cannot be otherwise explained? History and science has shown that many things that could not be explained at one point in time, have been explained as we seek rational answers. So what justification is there for assigning some things away to a God when no proof of one exists?


----------



## jef

Sonal said:


> Rationality is highly overrated.
> 
> It's just no fun.


..and religion is fun??


----------



## Sonal

jef said:


> ..and religion is fun??


Depends on your religion.


----------



## MacGuiver

jef said:


> If there is an example of a such a religious phenomena, please tell us!
> 
> If God does not exist in the first place, why would one suddenly believe in a God if something cannot be otherwise explained? History and science has shown that many things that could not be explained at one point in time, have been explained as we seek rational answers. So what justification is there for assigning some things away to a God when no proof of one exists?


Hi Jeff

Here's one event you can try to explain. 70,000 people witnessed this miracle in Fatima Portugal in October of 1917. Among them were journalist that documented the event and many believers and unbelievers alike. 
My justification for assigning this miracle to God is the simple fact that the 3 children that were having the apparitions of the Virgin Mary were told this event would happen and the date it would occur to prove the authenticity of the phenomena to those that didn't believe them. It happened just as they predicted and was witnessed by thousands.

Our Lady of Fátima - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## jef

MacGuiver said:


> Hi Jeff
> 
> Here's one event you can try to explain. 70,000 people witnessed this miracle in Fatima Portugal in October of 1917. Among them were journalist that documented the event and many believers and unbelievers alike.
> My justification for assigning this miracle to God is the simple fact that the 3 children that were having the apparitions of the Virgin Mary were told this event would happen and the date it would occur to prove the authenticity of the phenomena to those that didn't believe them. It happened just as they predicted and was witnessed by thousands.
> 
> Our Lady of Fátima - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Cheers
> MacGuiver


Well, just Google 'Fatima debunked' and there are a huge number of accounts that explain what happened based on the power of wishful thinking, inaccurate reporting and accounts of the events. No reason to suspend all rational thought. Strange things happen (especially with a large group of believers looking into the sun), coincidences happen everyday - there is no doubt about that! 

My own children explain things they believe very convincingly (like the guy down the street who got a Corvette for $100 because someone was killed in it - Daddy - its true!). Kids (and religions) may have great imaginations - but somewhere we have to separate reality from belief and facts from fiction. Its a part of growing up that apparently doesn't happen for some...


----------



## Elric

MacGuiver said:


> Hi Jeff
> 
> Here's one event you can try to explain. 70,000 people witnessed this miracle in Fatima Portugal in October of 1917. Among them were journalist that documented the event and many believers and unbelievers alike.
> My justification for assigning this miracle to God is the simple fact that the 3 children that were having the apparitions of the Virgin Mary were told this event would happen and the date it would occur to prove the authenticity of the phenomena to those that didn't believe them. It happened just as they predicted and was witnessed by thousands.
> 
> Our Lady of Fátima - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Cheers
> MacGuiver



Yeah, that's a bit of a stretch.
Stories from a 10 year old (and 2 other kids even younger), draws 70,000-ish crazies. They all stare at the sun and claim to see the same thing. This screams every-which-way but fact. I'm sorry if you believe this, but this "incident" has more holes than the moon of green cheese.


----------



## Sonal

jef said:


> Kids (and religions) may have great imaginations - but somewhere we have to separate reality from belief and facts from fiction. Its a part of growing up that apparently doesn't happen for some...


And this is why rationality is no fun.


----------



## MacGuiver

> Well, just Google 'Fatima debunked' and there are a huge number of accounts that explain what happened based on the power of wishful thinking, inaccurate reporting and accounts of the events. No reason to suspend all rational thought.


Of course its been debunked. What hasn't? There are people that have proof we faked the moon landing and 911 was an inside job as well. I've read the debunking sites and they gloss over many detail and offer half baked explanations to fit their conclusions. There's evidence to fit just about any position but it doesn't make it true. Your an atheist so of course you'll grab onto whatever evidence is forwarded to support your disbelief.



> Strange things happen (especially with a large group of believers looking into the sun), coincidences happen everyday - there is no doubt about that!


Do you know this for fact or are you engaging in wishful thinking? Where has this ever happened before with similar results? If this kind of thing happens everyday it should be easy to point out a similar situation.



> My own children explain things they believe very convincingly (like the guy down the street who got a Corvette for $100 because someone was killed in it - Daddy - its true!). Kids (and religions) may have great imaginations - but somewhere we have to separate reality from belief and facts from fiction. Its a part of growing up that apparently doesn't happen for some...


OK Jeff but you haven't really offered any facts.
I could post numerous other example of the miraculous but I'm 100% positive someone out there has a website that neatly explains it all away. 

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## ic3guy

Praise Jeebus!

It is safer to believe than not to believe, since faith has no penalty, but doubt could result in damnation.

Unless, of course, God doesn't like sly, self-serving weasels.


----------



## jef

ic3guy said:


> Praise Jeebus!
> 
> It is safer to believe than not to believe, since faith has no penalty, but doubt could result in damnation.
> 
> Unless, of course, God doesn't like sly, self-serving weasels.


Faith has a huge penalty - you only live once and going through this life with blinders on is the biggest con job ever. Rational thought is the road to enlightenment! (and its fun!)


----------



## ic3guy

jef said:


> Faith has a huge penalty - you only live once and going through this life with blinders on is the biggest con job ever. Rational thought is the road to enlightenment! (and its fun!)


:clap:

beejacon

You stole my Jesus fish!


----------



## screature

jef said:


> Faith has a huge penalty - you only live once and going through this life with blinders on is the biggest con job ever. Rational thought is the road to enlightenment! (and its fun!)


Don't fool yourself "rational" thought has plenty of blinders as well.


----------



## Sonal

jef said:


> Faith has a huge penalty - you only live once and going through this life with blinders on is the biggest con job ever. Rational thought is the road to enlightenment! (and its fun!)


Spoken like a guy with no imagination. 

And who said anything about faith meaning you have blinders? I choose to believe certain things, and I am well aware that this is my choice of belief, other people chose different beliefs and that I could be completely wrong and that there are alternate explanations which I am also well aware of. But I have a preference for my choice anyway. Where are the blinders here? 

Oh, and if you want to answer that question, I'd ask that you make no assumptions about what my beliefs are.


----------



## ic3guy

To me, organized religions are the blinders he talks about. NOT personal beliefs.

Unfortunately, many people's personal beliefs are dictated by their religion. 

Praise XENU!


----------



## Sonal

ic3guy said:


> To me, organized religions are the blinders he talks about. NOT personal beliefs.
> 
> Unfortunately, many people's personal beliefs are dictated by their religion.
> 
> Praise XENU!


To chose to believe an organized religion is a personal decision, as is the level of adherence to that organizational belief. An organized religion is still a personal belief.

Who says my beliefs are not dictated by my religion? Do you know what I believe or what religion I am or what beliefs are dictated by my religion? No. Please don't assume.


----------



## screature

ic3guy said:


> *To me, organized religions are the blinders he talks about.* NOT personal beliefs.
> 
> Unfortunately, many people's personal beliefs are dictated by their religion.
> 
> Praise XENU!


They can be... but just because someone identifies themselves as "belonging" to a particular religion does not mean that all their "personal beliefs" are formulated from or that they personally ascribe to every tenet of that religion. 

For those who do, those who are "fundamentalist" or "orthodox", yes, but I would suspect that they are in the minority amongst those who identify themselves as "belonging" to a particular religion.

Life and even religion at an organized level is a funny thing that way... it isn't all black and white and it is indeed a complicated and complex thing. Otherwise how could it be that the study of theology exists.


----------



## ic3guy

Sonal said:


> To chose to believe an organized religion is a personal decision, as is the level of adherence to that organizational belief. An organized religion is still a personal belief.
> 
> Who says my beliefs are not dictated by my religion? Do you know what I believe or what religion I am or what beliefs are dictated by my religion? No. Please don't assume.


Yes, I agree for some religion is their own personal choice. But for many, that are indoctrinated at a young age, their is no choice. Or at least, no easy way out.

I wasn't assuming or passing judgment on your personal beliefs Sonal. 

I just highlighted the fact, without pointing any denomination out, that just because the organized "religion" says something, or the said manual of said "religion" says something should not necessarily dictate someone's beliefs. Blind faith is not good or healthy.

If you were referring to my "Praise Xenu" comment, I was passing judgment on Scientology and if you happen to be a Scientologist, then I apologize for this ironic situation.


----------



## Sonal

ic3guy said:


> Yes, I agree for some religion is their own personal choice. But for many, that are indoctrinated at a young age, their is no choice. Or at least, no easy way out.
> 
> I wasn't assuming or passing judgment on your personal beliefs Sonal.
> 
> I just highlighted the fact, without pointing any denomination out, that just because the organized "religion" says something, or the said manual of said "religion" says something should not necessarily dictate someone's beliefs. Blind faith is not good or healthy.
> 
> If you were referring to my "Praise Xenu" comment, I was passing judgment on Scientology and if you happen to be a Scientologist, then I apologize for this ironic situation.


You were assuming I was speaking about my personal beliefs. 

And I never said that I was offended or felt judged. 

If we narrow the field to Western society, than the majority of people, whether they were raised in a particular religion or not, are exposed to alternate points of view, even if that view is simply the absence of religion. There are books, there is television, there is the internet... we are in a society bombarded by information about everyone. 

It's very hard to argue that one has no choice but to believe something.... that's just plain lazy. (Now, if you want to talk about who people are getting increasingly intellectually lazy, that's a whole other thread.)

Those who choose faith in this society can hardly do so without choices. They may choose blinkers, and they may choose not to read and think, but it still a choice.

I mean, most of us have somehow manage to overcome our parents thoughts and beliefs... I don't care what my mom says, I'm not cutting my hair. beejacon


----------



## ic3guy

They cut mine in my sleep . For some, overcoming parents beliefs = being ostracized forever. 

Yes, I see your point. No choice is a choice after all.


----------



## bryanc

MacGuiver said:


> I often hear atheists accuse theists of simply deflecting to a deity what they can't explain. [...] The reverse could be said of atheists that will take the stance that "God didn't do it" despite having absolutely no rational explanation of a particular religious phenomena.


Any rational person, scientifically educated or otherwise, would not make the argument that "God didn't do it" unless there was reason to think that.

One of my greatest objections to all religions and less organized superstitions is that they purport to give explanations for things that we don't understand. As Mark Twain said "It's not what you don't know that'll hurt you, its what you do know that ain't so."

An rational person has to become comfortable with not knowing. There's always going to be a lot more that we don't understand than we do. But pretending to know, or convincing yourself that you know on the basis of some bronze-age fairy tales, is even worse than not knowing. If you know you don't have an explanation for some phenomenon, at least you have recognized that there's something to learn, and you may be able to start thinking about how you could find out. When you accept that the FSM is responsible for some phenomena, you blind yourself to the real cause of the phenomena, and effectively make yourself stupid.



> 70,000 people witnessed this miracle...


The plural of "anecdote" is not "data."



ic3guy said:


> It is safer to believe than not to believe, since faith has no penalty, but doubt could result in damnation.


Google "Pascal's Wager" for the reasons this is not true. Or, just consider this question; which of the thousands of deities humanity has invented over the course of it's myth-making history should you believe in, given that most of them will punish you for believing in the wrong one.

Cheers


----------



## MacGuiver

"It has been rightly said that the “atheist” can't find God for the same reason a thief can't find a policeman."

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## jef

MacGuiver said:


> "It has been rightly said that the “atheist” can't find God for the same reason a thief can't find a policeman."
> 
> Cheers
> MacGuiver


But a thief can find a policeman because policemen exist...

Since when does 'it has been rightly said' give complete nonsense some kind of authority?


----------



## Elric

Where organized religion went terribly terribly wrong. 
I think these kids are gonna grow up with HUGE ****in blinders on.


----------



## MacGuiver

> Any rational person, scientifically educated or otherwise, would not make the argument that "God didn't do it" unless there was reason to think that.



Self-identified rational, educated atheists make that argument all the time by default and the reason they do that is they've already ruled out the possibility of God to begin with. You even followed up this statement presenting your arguments as to why God doesn't exist so naturally you're incapable of attributing anything to God. Just as I would be incapable of attributing anything to the Atheist's Flying Spagetti Mascot.

When confronted with inexplicable phenomena attributed to God, the atheists default response is to claim its natural phenomena we don't yet understand and maybe offer some weak, vague theory as to why it isn't so. Then throw in a few derogatory comments about people of faith for good measure. 


Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## jef

MacGuiver said:


> Self-identified rational, educated atheists make that argument all the time by default and the reason they do that is they've already ruled out the possibility of God to begin with. You even followed up this statement presenting your arguments as to why God doesn't exist so naturally you're incapable of attributing anything to God. Just as I would be incapable of attributing anything to the Atheist's Flying Spagetti Mascot.
> 
> When confronted with inexplicable phenomena attributed to God, the atheists default response is to claim its natural phenomena we don't yet understand and maybe offer some weak, vague theory as to why it isn't so. Then throw in a few derogatory comments about people of faith for good measure.
> 
> 
> Cheers
> MacGuiver


At least these 'weak, vague theories' as you describe them have lead to much scientific discovery that has disproved the 'God did it' assumption over and over throughout history. Leaving all inexplicable phenomena at the 'god did it' level would not have allowed for much knowledge (astronomy, medicine etc, etc, etc) we now take for granted. 

It is quite possible and comfortable to go through this life confident in knowing that we do not have all the answers to all things inexplicable and that those who claim to 'know' the answers (God did it) are probably wrong - as they have been wrong over and over again..


----------



## MacGuiver

jef said:


> At least these 'weak, vague theories' as you describe them have lead to much scientific discovery that has disproved the 'God did it' assumption over and over throughout history. Leaving all inexplicable phenomena at the 'god did it' level would not have allowed for much knowledge (astronomy, medicine etc, etc, etc) we now take for granted.
> 
> It is quite possible and comfortable to go through this life confident in knowing that we do not have all the answers to all things inexplicable and that those who claim to 'know' the answers (God did it) are probably wrong - as they have been wrong over and over again..


Jeff
You make it sound like for every technological, medical, scientific discovery we ever made we should thank an atheist. Hate to burst your bubble but theists haven't and don't hide under a rock and simply say God did it, no need to look further. In fact, historically, without religious institutions and theists and their search for knowledge, we wouldn't have much of the scientific knowledge we have today. They've paved the road for higher learning with the first Universities and are responsible for educating millions of people around the world to this very day. Theists are no less inquisitive than atheists in the pursuit of knowledge. You simply have no room for a higher power in any equation.

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## Elric

Just to be clear, I don't have a problem with religion, or any member of it, if you need that faith to get you through your day to day and feel better about the world, so be it.
It's fanatics, people like the Phelps' that really get my goat.


----------



## ic3guy

MacGuiver said:


> When confronted with inexplicable phenomena attributed to God, the atheists default response is to claim its natural phenomena we don't yet understand and maybe offer some weak, vague theory as to why it isn't so. Then throw in a few derogatory comments about people of faith for good measure.


I like this little response that is from Twelve Poor Religious Arguments

"There is some gap in scientific knowledge, some event which can not be explained. So God must have caused it."

Ask the former believers in Apollo about this one. He was riding high in that fiery chariot before we figured out what the sun really was. This is what we call the God of the Gaps, and a lot of gods have been squashed in a lot of closing gaps.


----------



## MacGuiver

Elric said:


> Where organized religion went terribly terribly wrong.
> I think these kids are gonna grow up with HUGE ****in blinders on.


Elric

I agree the Phelps family has major hate issues which their independent church promotes. I wasn't aware that they represent the 2-3 billion professing Christians on the planet.


----------



## MacGuiver

Elric said:


> Just to be clear, I don't have a problem with religion, or any member of it, if you need that faith to get you through your day to day and feel better about the world, so be it.
> It's fanatics, people like the Phelps' that really get my goat.


Thanks for clarifying. I was under the impression you felt this was indicative of all organized religion.

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## jef

MacGuiver said:


> Jeff
> You make it sound like for every technological, medical, scientific discovery we ever made we should thank an atheist. Hate to burst your bubble but theists haven't and don't hide under a rock and simply say God did it, no need to look further. In fact, historically, without religious institutions and theists and their search for knowledge, we wouldn't have much of the scientific knowledge we have today. They've paved the road for higher learning with the first Universities and are responsible for educating millions of people around the world to this very day. Theists are no less inquisitive than atheists in the pursuit of knowledge. You simply have no room for a higher power in any equation.
> 
> Cheers
> MacGuiver


You are putting words in my mouth and then refuting them. I do not agree with your statement that you attribute to me. I have always been thankful for beer and beer was a religious invention.

I don't think any equations need to have a higher power; they are quite complicated on their own without.


----------



## eggman

jef said:


> You are putting words in my mouth and then refuting them. I do not agree with your statement that you attribute to me. I have always been thankful for beer and beer was a religious invention.
> 
> I don't think any equations need to have a higher power; they are quite complicated on their own without.


Indeed - we should take a moment and thank Osiris for providing us with beer!


----------



## CubaMark

*I really, really can't understand why one would want to deliberately do something to really tick off the opposing side in a centuries-old powder keg like this...*

*Muslims oppose Israeli construction at Islamic cemetery*



> Just before midnight on August 9, the bulldozers moved in and destruction of Jerusalem's best-known Islamic cemetery was once again under way.
> 
> The controversy surrounding the project - new construction on an area overlapping the cemetery of Ma'man Allah (God's Sanctuary) or Mamilla, as it is known in West Jerusalem - had simmered for years. That night, over 100 more graves in the ancient cemetery were demolished, further eroding what Palestinians see as a losing battle to preserve a sacred cultural landmark.
> 
> Mamilla, Jerusalem's oldest Islamic cemetery, dates back to the early days of Islam in the sixth century AD. Many of the people buried in the cemetery are believed to have been Islamic scholars and others who knew the Prophet Mohammad, including Islamic warriors who fought the crusaders in Jerusalem.


(CNN Religion Blog)


----------



## Macfury

CubaMark said:


> *I really, really can't understand why one would want to deliberately do something to really tick off the opposing side in a centuries-old powder keg like this...*
> 
> Like building a big old Mosque at Ground Zero in NYC?


----------



## eMacMan

CubaMark said:


> *I really, really can't understand why one would want to deliberately do something to really tick off the opposing side in a centuries-old powder keg like this...*
> 
> *Muslims oppose Israeli construction at Islamic cemetery*
> 
> 
> 
> (CNN Religion Blog)


In this case the Israelis are hoping that the Palestinians will react violently thus justifying another Israeli round of slaughter. When it's all over Israel will have stolen even more of Palestines water. The pattern is 40 years old now and mainstream media are about the only ones that can't see what's coming.


----------



## eMacMan

Macfury said:


> CubaMark said:
> 
> 
> 
> *I really, really can't understand why one would want to deliberately do something to really tick off the opposing side in a centuries-old powder keg like this...*
> 
> Like building a big old Mosque at Ground Zero in NYC?
Click to expand...


----------



## CubaMark

Macfury said:


> Like building a big old Mosque at Ground Zero in NYC?


It's *not* at "Ground Zero"._ It's three blocks away_. It's also *not* a mosque.

Man, you gotta stop watching Faux News.....

M


----------



## Macfury

Not FOX News, but the Great One himself:



> "In this country we treat everybody equally and in accordance with the law, regardless of race, regardless of religion," Obama said.
> "I was not commenting and I will not comment on the wisdom of making the decision to put a *mosque* there,


----------



## CubaMark

*9/11! 9/11! — Milking Fear, Hate, Islamic Scapegoating, Newsweek Piles On*





> A news magazine in limbo wouldn’t actually stoop to validate a racist and paranoid misrepresentation, rubbing people’s faces in this iconic wreckage just weeks before the anniversary of this notorious attack, would it?
> 
> To adapt a phrase from one of our readers: “each cover is one more addition to Bin Laden’s evil accomplishment.”


(From the great media image-analysis site BagNewsNotes)

And for some perspective...

.


----------



## Macfury

That's about where I thought it was being built. I certainly don't believe it is illegal to build it there--just provocative, as in the Middle East example you cited, Cubamark.


----------



## CubaMark

Semantics, I guess. I see the deliberate disturbance of actual grave sites that are thousands of years old in the midst of a very charged geo-political climate to be somewhat more provocative than building a cultural centre a number of city blocks away from the site of the collapse of the World Trade Centre buildings. What is the magic number? 5 blocks? 10? 

As usual, John Stewart nails it:



> *Stewart:* They’re going to build a mosque at Ground Zero? We haven’t even rebuilt a building at Ground Zero. Now they’re going to build a mosque on that “hallowed ground” or is it not exactly “hallowed ground”?
> 
> *Fox Newscaster:* This is 45 Park Place in lower Manhattan. It used to be the Burlington Coat Factory.
> 
> *Stewart:* Okay, I think that’s actually a couple of blocks away from Ground Zero. Not that the Burlington Coat Factory is not hallowed ground. If fact, I would say anywhere you can get a London Fog trench coat for under $300 is a place to be revered.
> 
> Let’s clarify a couple of things. It’s not technically being built at Ground Zero. It’s more Ground Zero adjacent and it’s not technically a mosque, it’s an Islamic cultural center. So, for its critics, what location would be acceptable?
> 
> *Pat Buchanan:* Move it several blocks away.
> 
> *Bill O’Reilly:* Put it five blocks away or ten blocks away.
> 
> *Rich Lowry:* 15 block radius…
> 
> *Newt Gingrich:* 20 blocks away
> 
> *Andrea Tantaros:* Why not the Upper West Side in Woody Allen’s building?
> 
> *Stewart:* Woody Allen... Woody Allen??? That’s your go to out of touch New York liberal Jew reference? What, are they asking to build a mosque in 1976?





> _Stewart goes on to show all the protests to mosques being built around the country and not just at Ground Zero._ So we’ve got a pattern here. Doesn’t matter how far you are from Ground Zero, the fear mongers are protesting.


(Crooks and Liars)


----------



## bsenka

CubaMark said:


> I really, really can't understand why one would want to deliberately do something to really tick off the opposing side in a centuries-old powder keg like this...


That's what Israel has been doing since before they were even an official country. They deliberately provoke the Palestinians specifically to elicit a retaliation. Then they lie to the world and claim the Palestinians are being terrorists and use that to justify their ethnic cleansing.


----------



## groovetube

Macfury said:


> That's about where I thought it was being built. I certainly don't believe it is illegal to build it there--just provocative, as in the Middle East example you cited, Cubamark.


that's totally brainless.

Provocative because you're saving face since it came out it's not even within a block, of ground zero nevermind -on- ground zero. It's blocks away. So, should there be a ban on anything 'islamic' for a minimum of, say 10 city blocks? WOuld this make is less, provocative?


----------



## Macfury

groovetube said:


> that's totally brainless.
> 
> Provocative because you're saving face since it came out it's not even within a block, of ground zero nevermind -on- ground zero. It's blocks away. So, should there be a ban on anything 'islamic' for a minimum of, say 10 city blocks? WOuld this make is less, provocative?


There should be no ban at all. Building it there is provocative. 

Cubamark: There is no magic number of blocks and there is no law. It is a provocative plan and becomes less provocative as the building recedes from Ground Zero.


----------



## groovetube

Macfury said:


> There should be no ban at all. Building it there is provocative.
> 
> Cubamark: There is no magic number of blocks and there is no law. It is a provocative plan and becomes less provocative as the building recedes from Ground Zero.


blocks away is provocative?

No, it is not.

Feeding drooling fools misinformation on the cover of a magazine, is.


----------



## Max

There have been two mosques in the immediate vicinity for years and years, apparently.


----------



## Macfury

groovetube said:


> blocks away is provocative?
> 
> No, it is not.


I guess you misunderstand the term "provocation." You can't simply apply your own lack of interest to the situation and expect others to agree with you. I don't care about that cemetery CubaMark mentioned but it is provocative to build over it. I can't simply dismiss it with an idiotic: "No it is not. Those graves are hundreds of years old and the people inside them don't care."


----------



## Macfury

Max said:


> There have been two mosques in the immediate vicinity for years and years, apparently.


Max: It's the nature of this particular building and the ties of its leader to terrorist organizations that rankles. Given a chance to denounce Hamas publicly, he politely demurred.


----------



## CubaMark

Macfury said:


> .... the ties of its leader to terrorist organizations that rankles.


Seems you're in the same company as the *cough* esteemed Mr. John Bolton:



> "The State Department has no responsibility to send fruitcakes around as if they are representatives of America," says former United Nations Ambassador John Bolton, who told Fox News that Imam Rauf should be dumped from the trip and that the State Department should investigate how he was included in the first place.
> "I am just amazed that he could be selected to represent our country speaking around the world," Bolton observes.


(_Faux- I mean,_ FoxNews)

Of course, Bolton is referring to the same *Feisal Abdul Rauf* who was a BUSH-era representative of the State Department?



> ...mosque opponents have been falling all over each other to paint the imam behind the proposed Cordoba House, Feisal Abdul Rauf, as some sort of terrorist sympathizing radical.





> ...hearken back to the halcyon days of the Bush Administration, one would remember that, when Bush adviser Karen Hughes was appointed Undersecretary of State for Public Diplomacy, the Bush Administration saw improving America's standing among Muslims abroad as a part of its national security strategy. And, as such, Hughes set up listening tours, attended meetings and worked with interfaith groups that -- shocking, by today's Republican standards -- included actual Muslims.
> 
> *One of those people was Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf*.


(Huffington Post)



> State Department spokesman P. J. Crowley said Tuesday. He added that the department’s public-diplomacy offices “have a long-term relationship with” Rauf – including during the past Bush administration, when the religious leader undertook a similar speaking tour.


(Christian Science Monitor)


----------



## Macfury

CubaMark said:


> Ummm... this would be the same Feisal Abdul Rauf who was a BUSH-era representative of the State Department?


Yes, the same one. Are you using the blessings of the Bush Administration to make a point? Perhaps Dick Cheney had lunch with him as well.


----------



## groovetube

Macfury said:


> I guess you misunderstand the term "provocation." You can't simply apply your own lack of interest to the situation and expect others to agree with you. I don't care about that cemetery CubaMark mentioned but it is provocative to build over it. I can't simply dismiss it with an idiotic: "No it is not. Those graves are hundreds of years old and the people inside them don't care."


I understand it quite well. I also can see the difference between building something city blocks away, and right over top of graves.

Though apparently there is an audience who can't.


----------



## Macfury

groovetube said:


> I understand it quite well. I also can see the difference between building something city blocks away, and right over top of graves..


How close to the graves is acceptable? On stilts over top of the graves? 6 feet away?


----------



## groovetube

Macfury said:


> How close to the graves is acceptable? On stilts over top of the graves? 6 feet away?


Why are you talking the graves now? The point was _destroying the graves_ -and- building 'over top of them" is very provocative.

Now back to you believing building an alleged mosque a couple city blocks away is apparently a real no no.


----------



## Macfury

groovetube said:


> Why are you talking the graves now? The point was _destroying the graves_ -and- building 'over top of them" is very provocative.
> 
> Now back to you believing building an alleged mosque a couple city blocks away is apparently a real no no.


Thanks for your non-answer.


----------



## groovetube

Macfury said:


> Thanks for your non-answer.


typical macfury tantrum.

Spin the conversation around to something else, stamp your feet and snort when called on it.

I pretty much did answer what ever your off track question was, if you look.


----------



## Macfury

groovetube said:


> typical macfury tantrum.
> 
> Spin the conversation around to something else, stamp your feet and snort when called on it.
> 
> I pretty much did answer what ever your off track question was, if you look.


Round and round she goes. Moeowrrrrr!!!


----------



## groovetube

yes macfury, that does indeed seem to be your method.


----------



## Macfury

And now--to the delight of anyone left reading this derailed thread--a mercy killing as I refuse to respond to anymore yowling from the above.


----------



## Macfury

Looks like the U.S. federal government feels inclined only to intervene on behalf of certain groups at Ground Zero:

Greek Orthodox Church At Ground Zero Destroyed on 9/11: Still Not Rebuilt – IndyPosted



> While controversy rages about the proposed mosque at Ground Zero, the only house of worship destroyed in the 9/11 attacks has received far less attention. The St. Nicholas Greek Orthodox Church was destroyed on 9/11 when one of the towers fell upon it. Since that day, efforts to rebuild it have come nowhere near as far as the mosque, with its array of politically powerful sponsors. The St. Nicholas Church web site reports as follows on the groundswell of world support for its reconstruction.
> 
> “Following its collapse, the legacy of this tiny Church continues to dramatically impact peoples’ lives, and donations of almost $2 million have been received, as well as additional pledges of construction materials and appointments for the complete rebuilding of the Church. The city of Bari, Italy, where the relics of St. Nicholas were originally bestowed, has donated $250,000. The government of Greece has contributed $750,000 to these efforts, and the Ecumenical Patriarchate has given $50,000. The Governor of the State of New York
> , George Pataki, met with the Archbishop and pledged his support for including a new St. Nicholas in the redevelopment of the World Trade Center site.”
> 
> George Demos, A Republican Conservative candidate for US Congress stated as follows in an open letter to President Obama about the future of the St. Nicholas Church.
> 
> “I believe that a Mosque near the hallowed Ground Zero where Islamic extremists murdered 3,000 Americans, including 168 from Suffolk County where I am a candidate for U.S. Congress, is inappropriate, provocative, and wrong.
> 
> “While we may disagree on the appropriateness of the Mosque, we can surely agree that it is an issue of national importance that the only house of worship actually destroyed on September 11, 2001, the St. Nicholas Greek Orthodox Church, be rebuilt. For the last year, the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey
> has refused to meet with Church officials and has placed bureaucratic roadblocks in way of rebuilding St. Nicholas Church.”
> 
> Demos recently spoke with Mayor Bloomberg during Bloomberg’s weekly call in radio program and asked about the future of the St. Nicholas Church. Mayor Bloomberg indicated that a deal may be in the works to rebuild the church, which up until now has not been getting cooperation from the Port Authority.
> 
> Will the St. Nicholas church be rebuilt? It had an established place before it was destroyed on 9/11. All of the arguments for religious freedom that are advanced in favor of a mosque at Ground Zero should apply to a church with an established presence at Ground Zero. It remains to be seen if the religious freedom of Greek Orthodox Americans will be respected as well.


----------



## CubaMark

*Ground Zero Mosque Opponents Have a Lot of Work to Do*



> It must be an election year because Republicans are once again rolling out September 11 as a wedge issue. You know, because they care about honoring the fallen. When it helps them politically.





> Let's begin with the actual ground. The Ground Zero. Literally, the ground. The One World Trade Center (aka. Freedom Tower) website notes the following feature:
> 
> _The below-grade concourses will include approximately 55,000 square feet of retail space and connect to an extensive transportation and retail network..._​
> So there's going to be a shopping mall literally in the ground of Ground Zero. "Below-grade" means "in the ground." The Ground. In other words, Sarah Palin and her entire gaggle of various babies and ghost writers can visit Ground Zero and honor the heroes and victims of 9/11 while trying on tankinis at Juicy Couture (or whatever clothing stores end up there) constructed within the actual ground of Ground Zero.
> 
> This bears repeating: unlike Park 51, which is blocks away, there's going to be a 55,000 square foot mall under the same ground where people fell to their deaths on that terrible day. Ground that's mixed with the remains of the dead. A mall.


(Huffington Post)


----------



## Macfury

CubaMark said:


> A mall...


I think that's entirely appropriate. The building was a hub of commerce before it was destroyed. It will be once again.


----------



## hayesk

This opposition to building this Islamic cultural centre really highlights religious prejudice is unfortunately, alive and well. Anyone who opposes this is really saying two things:
1. I really don't believe in freedom in the USA.
2. I really don't believe that is was radical extremists who attacked the WTC, but instead am blaming the religion that they followed and everyone else who follows it.


----------



## Macfury

hayesk said:


> 1. I really don't believe in freedom in the USA.


The USA has zoning by-laws that preclude building certain things in certain areas already. This is not a guaranteed freedom. Most of the attention is being focused on trying to convince the people building the mosque not to do it. This does not interfere with freedom either.

The Christian church that already stood in the shadow of the Twin Towers should be cleared to be rebuilt before this mosque is given a fast-track permit though.


----------



## jef

Macfury said:


> The Christian church that already stood in the shadow of the Twin Towers should be cleared to be rebuilt before this mosque is given a fast-track permit though.


Why? Why should one religion have special consideration? 

If 9/11 was a religious act, it would make sense to ban all religious institutions from building anything using this same logic. (I think this would be a better idea but it will never fly...)


----------



## Macfury

jef said:


> Why? Why should one religion have special consideration?


None should be given special consideration. That's why I don't want to see the mosque getting fast-tracked.


----------



## eMacMan

Being as we are talking NYC it is at least possible that the Palm Greasing Cult is a part of the picture.beejacon


----------



## MazterCBlazter

.


----------



## chasMac

MazterCBlazter said:


> +1
> 
> If Jerusalem, Mecca, and Rome were nuked off the face of the Earth and all the houses of worship demolished and burnt to the ground, what a wonderful world this would be.


You're kidding right?


----------



## screature

chasMac said:


> You're kidding right?


Regrettably he is not.


----------



## chasMac

screature said:


> Regrettably he is not.


I find his choice for an avatar to be very curious. TR is after-all the poster-child for American imperialism, and said such things as 'a thorough knowledge of the Bible is worth more than any college education'


----------



## Macfury

MazterCBlazter said:


> There is no reason why religions get many tax breaks, they are businesses. Their profits should be taxed, and all should not get any property tax exemptions. Religions should be forbidden by law to affect anything political. Both criminals and the holy men of religious organizations should be barred from running for office and voting.


That's just spooky.


----------



## MazterCBlazter

.


----------



## chasMac

MazterCBlazter said:


> Islam and Christianity have wiped out the cultures and people that would not convert.
> 
> Payback time.


You are serious.


----------



## chasMac

Question: Wouldn't you also have to wipe out all the Germans, for past sins?


----------



## MazterCBlazter

.


----------



## MazterCBlazter

.


----------



## chasMac

MazterCBlazter said:


> TR was a man of decisive action and accomplishment. He was physically and mentally capable of doing much more in a day than most can do in a month. No doubt that he knew his religious book thoroughly and had a strong understanding of many subjects.
> 
> His religious beliefs are irrelevant to me. His example of action and accomplishment inspire me. He did a lot with his life, and that's what counts. I'm certain that he would have been just as accomplished if he were an atheist or belonged to another religion.


Knowing your very strongly held views on religion, by your logic could not someone state: "Hitler's views on race are irrelevant to me" and admire him for his accomplishments? No, obviously not. A man's beliefs make the man.


----------



## MLeh

I would suggest that MazterCBlazter also read up on 'Protestant Work Ethic' before discounting the effect of religion on someone's actions in this world.


----------



## chasMac

MazterCBlazter said:


> By that logic you would have to wipe out pretty much every race on the planet. Everyone is guilty of something if you go back to ancestral lineage.
> 
> Best to eliminate the cause of the problem that makes people act in such ways.
> 
> Also, if the Germans won the war, what would our history books and school courses be telling us?


Wrong comparison on my part. This one is better: you want to wipe out Rome, other religious HQ's, etc... for past sins; correct? (your words: _"what a wonderful world this would be"_) Similarly, you must want to "nuke" Berlin and Moscow for unleashing Nazism and Stalinism, respectively, right?


----------



## Macfury

I enjoyed this blog entry by statistician William Briggs, which explains why those who don't believe in God will never eliminate the faith of others:

http://wmbriggs.com/blog/?p=2857



> Everybody knows the following story: At one time, long ago, most or all people believed that when a tree branch fell and caused damage that a god or other spiritual entity caused the branch to fall. This belief was animate, in the sense that the god himself was pictured as pulling the branch or otherwise knocking it off the tree.
> 
> Reasons for the god’s behavior were ascribed, usually to sin, and perhaps a ceremony of propitiation was performed to forestall future baleful consequence. But over anything else, it was the fact of the branch falling that was used as evidence for the god’s existence. The branch fell, something caused it to, we can think of no cause, therefore it must be the god.
> 
> As time went on and fewer people imagined actually witnessing the god yanking on the tree, but they did not discard the idea that, somehow, that branch fell because the god willed it. Branches falling were still evidence of the god’s existence, but now weaker evidence. Some branches might have fallen on their own, who cares why.
> 
> Of course, magical thinking of this kind applied to physical events of all kinds; disasters were called, and not that long ago, “Acts of God.” Once more, these “acts” were a proof of God’s existence, but recently only in a vague sense. The causation really went one way: God to act, and not so much act to God.
> 
> Man’s existence, crucially his uniqueness and superiority over all other animals was, and still is, used by few, but a diminishing few, to infer the existence of God. The reasoning goes: because the universe is, God is.
> 
> The reason man’s uniqueness decreased in importance as evidence of God’s existence, is because physics itself could explain matters of fact like the biology of man more parsimoniously. That is, when the tree branch fell, we looked to physics or biology explain why. These new explanations worked, in the sense that their accuracy in foretelling future events was high.
> 
> Eventually, as far as explanations for any physical phenomena, science was a better theory than one relying on the moods and ineffability of God. Scientists were thus right to boast of their predictive and explanatory power, and they were right to claim their ascendancy over religion.
> 
> But then scientists made the same mistake in reasoning earlier people did: they argued that because we have a mathematical equation that describes falling tree branches, we can infer that God does not exist.
> 
> It wasn’t just falling tree branches, of course. Scientists became able to explain more of creation, even to the point of inferring that creation itself was a natural phenomenon, fully explicable using a few, minor assumptions.
> 
> We now have scientists like Stephen Hawking, in his forthcoming The Grand Design (as reported by the redoubtable Daily Mail), saying things like this: “Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing…Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist.”
> 
> This may be so; in fact, it is likely to be so. But then Hawking goes one step farther and says this: “It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touchpaper and set the universe going.”
> 
> The key mistake Hawking makes is to forget what he started out saying, or to neglect its importance. He said, “Because there is a law such as gravity…” He did not ask why gravity? Why is there not something else that looks like gravity, but isn’t?
> 
> That, of course, isn’t a new question, and is usually answered by saying something like this: “We began in ignorance about tree branches, but eventually figured them out. We now understand gravity and various other forces, and they can explain the instantaneous, unforced creation of the universe. We might not now know why these forces exist, but we’ll surely figured out why they do in time.”
> 
> This, at first glance, is not an irrational argument, but it is flawed irreparably. While we might figure out why known forces exist, it will be because their origin is explained by other facts. Some of these facts might themselves be explained by other facts and so forth.
> 
> But there will eventually come a base beyond which no further proof is forthcoming. There will be, that is, a set of facts so fundamental that we will only know about them through our intuitions. These a priori truths cannot be seen behind. We will never be able to say why these facts are and why other facts are not.
> 
> It will be in that still small place that there will always be room for God. Thus, it will always be the case that the reason for what is is because of God.


----------



## groovetube

Macfury said:


> I enjoyed this blog entry by statistician William Briggs, which explains why those who don't believe in God will never eliminate the faith of others:
> 
> http://wmbriggs.com/blog/?p=2857


the thing is, I don't think I've ever considered, "eliminating the faith of others".

I simply want them to stop trying to enforce their belief systems _on me_ through schools, laws etc. I think everyone has a right to their faith and to believe in whatever religion (or not).


----------



## eMacMan

Macfury said:


> I enjoyed this blog entry by statistician William Briggs, which explains why those who don't believe in God will never eliminate the faith of others:
> 
> http://wmbriggs.com/blog/?p=2857


Can't say I have ever seen an atheist try to convert any one away from their particular belief system. 

OTH Jews and Muslims are quite willing to slaughter each other even though they worship the same God.


----------



## Macfury

groovetube said:


> the thing is, I don't think I've ever considered, "eliminating the faith of others".


Not through force, but through the power of "logic."


----------



## eMacMan

Macfury said:


> Not through force, but through the power of "logic."


AKA The tool of the beejacon


----------



## Macfury

eMacMan said:


> AKA The tool of the beejacon


The tool of Beej?


----------



## bryanc

Macfury said:


> I enjoyed this blog entry by statistician William Briggs, which explains why those who don't believe in God will never eliminate the faith of others:
> 
> http://wmbriggs.com/blog/?p=2857


Is there some way in which this is not the old "God-of-the-gaps" argument? While obviously a "winning position" in the same sense that conceptual relativism can't be disproved, it's also just as philosophically flaccid and leaves you with an essentially impotent god that the universe doesn't need.

It's also an infinite regress; if God is the "first cause" then what caused God? If God doesn't need a cause, then why does reality need a cause?

Personally, I've never understood why people get so worked up about these sort of metaphysical issues; what's wrong with saying "I don't know. That's an interesting question. Let's see if we can make some testable theories that will allow us to rule out answers that are false?" Certainly, at this point, it's difficult for us to make any testable theories about these things (let alone preform the tests), but that shouldn't be taken as licence to make up fantasies and claim we "know" the answers. Why not just admit there are things we don't know?

As we learn more, maybe we'll be able to address some of our ignorance, but certainly pretending to have knowledge when you don't is worse than not knowing.


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> Is there some way in which this is not the old "God-of-the-gaps" argument? While obviously a "winning position" in the same sense that conceptual relativism can't be disproved, it's also just as philosophically flaccid and leaves you with an essentially impotent god that the universe doesn't need.


Not a proof of God. Just the notion that we will never have more more information on certain phenomena than that we observe their effects. Once we parse the information as far as we can, the faithful will still see God behind that.


----------



## bryanc

Macfury said:


> Not a proof of God. Just the notion that we will never have more more information on certain phenomena than that we observe their effects. Once we parse the information as far as we can, the faithful will still see God behind that.


I'm sure some will, and do. But my point is that for someone who believes in God, the fact that science has a more parsimonious explanation for phenomena is not a threat to their belief. Just because science can explain something without invoking the supernatural does not prove that the supernatural is not involved. Only those who see their God being excluded from phenomena as science expands our knowledge of them -- people who worship the God-of-the-gaps -- need fear the progress of science.

Even if physicists are eventually able to explain the origins of the universe without invoking God, the faithful need not worry. Having thrown parsimony out the window to start with, God can be involved in everything even if science shows He's not necessary.


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> Even if physicists are eventually able to explain the origins of the universe without invoking God, the faithful need not worry. Having thrown parsimony out the window to start with, God can be involved in everything even if science shows He's not necessary.


I don't see it as "the gaps." I see it as moving back to first principles. At some point science will probably be forced by its own limitations to merely state that some phenomena or other can only be observed by its effects--that there is no further way to subdivide it into more clearly observable aspects. 

At this point, the religious will observe that they see God the same way.


----------



## screature

eMacMan said:


> Can't say I* have ever seen an atheist try to convert any one away from their particular belief system. *
> 
> OTH Jews and Muslims are quite willing to slaughter each other even though they worship the same God.


Uhmm, what about the Soviet Union or China? Well maybe they didn't try and convert them just deny them their freedom and persecute them.


----------



## screature

bryanc said:


> ...As we learn more, maybe we'll be able to address some of our ignorance,* but certainly pretending to have knowledge when you don't is worse than not knowing.*


But the world of human beings, even science, has run on this since the dawn of our existence. We think we know something and act accordingly until we discover/think/believe we are wrong and then change our beliefs/behaviour. 

"Same as it ever was."


----------



## Max

_Same as it ever was..._ can I get an amen?

True dat... science hasn't exactly had a sterling, unblemished record of never getting it wrong. One model gives way to another model, yet in turn to another model. Taking the long view, our understanding of the sciences would appear to be in a state of constant revision.


----------



## bryanc

screature said:


> We think we know something and act accordingly until we discover/think/believe we are wrong and then change our beliefs/behaviour.


Being mistaken is completely different than not-knowing and fabricating a story to cover that ignorance.

But I do agree that it's hard, once you think you've got something figured out, to admit when reality is telling you you're wrong. That is something that every scientist has to learn to accept.


----------



## bryanc

Max said:


> our understanding of the sciences would appear to be in a state of constant revision.


Absolutely. That's one of the great strengths of science as a mechanism for understanding the universe. It's self-correcting. If, because of faulty thinking, limited data or both, you accept a theory that is not true, it will inevitably fail as you try to build on it. Obviously, this sucks for the individuals who's careers and reputations are attached to that theory (although many scientists have done very well by knocking down their own hard-won theoretical achievements), but it's the nature of scientific progress. Indeed, there's no better way for an ambitious scientist to launch their career than by toppling a long-held belief.

This is one of the reasons why it is so remarkable when a scientific consensus emerges; scientists thrive on tearing each others ideas down, so when a significant majority of scientists in a given field come to an agreement, it's because the evidence is overwhelming.


----------



## screature

bryanc said:


> *Being mistaken is completely different than not-knowing and fabricating a story to cover that ignorance.*
> 
> But I do agree that it's hard, once you think you've got something figured out, to admit when reality is telling you you're wrong. That is something that every scientist has to learn to accept.


It's called myth making... it has been in existence since time immemorial. We tell "stories" to "illustrate" what experience indicates to be "true". Certainly certain "religions" have taken this "myth making" to an extreme. The Bible, Koran, Torah are all myths, stories used to try and reveal aspects of some "truths" of human existence as they were understood at the time. So was the Iliad and the Odyssey. These myths weren't created as a means of "fabricating a story to cover that ignorance" but to try and tell a "truth" as it was known/believed by their writers at the time. 

It is no different for Archimedes, Copernicus, Newton or Einstein aside from the means used to make their "discoveries". The pursuit, if taken seriously and disinterestedly is that of the Truth. Regrettably we are only human and so that pursuit is always conducted amidst ignorance.


----------



## screature

bryanc said:


> Absolutely. That's one of the great strengths of science as a mechanism for understanding the universe. It's self-correcting. If, because of faulty thinking, limited data or both, you accept a theory that is not true, it will inevitably fail as you try to build on it. Obviously, this sucks for the individuals who's careers and reputations are attached to that theory (although many scientists have done very well by knocking down their own hard-won theoretical achievements), but it's the nature of scientific progress. Indeed, there's no better way for an ambitious scientist to launch their career than by toppling a long-held belief.
> 
> This is one of the reasons why it is so remarkable when a scientific consensus emerges; scientists thrive on tearing each others ideas down, so when a significant majority of scientists in a given field come to an agreement, it's because the evidence is overwhelming.


A similar practice exists amongst theologians and why there are so many religions/sects, etc. Why do you think Protestantism exists for example, I could go on but I think you get the point.


----------



## bryanc

screature said:


> It's called myth making... The Bible, Koran, Torah are all myths, stories used to try and reveal aspects of some "truths" of human existence as they were understood at the time. So was the Iliad and the Odyssey. These myths weren't created as a means of "fabricating a story to cover that ignorance" but to try and tell a "truth" as it was known/believed by their writers at the time.


No argument. But as far as I know, no one was ever expected to believe that Agamemnon or Odysseus were real; they were fictional characters like Gandalf or Captain Kirk. I completely agree that myth making is part of human nature, and that our myths reveal important truths about us, without being true themselves. Furthermore, it's clear that there have always been people who get too wrapped up in these stories (have you ever met any hardcore Trekkies?), so you may be onto something with regard to the origins of some of the organized religions (I can't help picturing the pope with Spock-ears now :lmao: ).

Cheers


----------



## bryanc

screature said:


> A similar practice exists amongst theologians and why there are so many religions/sects, etc. Why do you think Protestantism exists for example, I could go on but I think you get the point.


Yes I do. But I'll point out the crucial difference, which is that scientific theories are brought down on the basis of conflict with *empirical facts*, not over interpretations of bronze-age poetry.


----------



## screature

bryanc said:


> Yes I do. But I'll point out the crucial difference, which is that scientific theories are brought down on the basis of conflict with *empirical facts*, not over interpretations of bronze-age poetry.


Empirical facts are here today and gone tomorrow... If, as you say time and again, science proves nothing but disproves... So in the end empiricism is based on the evidence/belief in what we "know" now, which is ever evolving... So the myth in science is that this or that evidence *is* the Truth, when all it can ever be is a* belief* that it is the Truth. I will say it again...

"Same as it ever was"


----------



## Max

it would seem to me that the topic of this very thread is presently being debated, by a fairly conservative estimate, in tens of thousands of similar threads spanning the globe. Said topic is a bottomless well. It simply cannot be exhausted.


----------



## screature

Max said:


> it would seem to me that the topic of this very thread is presently being debated, by a fairly conservative estimate, in tens of thousands of similar threads spanning the globe. Said topic is a bottomless well. It simply cannot be exhausted.


Ah yes, but like physical masturbation, mental masturbation can be fun even if it isn't fruitful.


----------



## Max

No doubt it provides humourous diversion. Although it should be noted that this thread, and its ilk, are also havens for strenuous yet largely inconclusive arguments, dazzling ego trips, pretentious stances, opportunities for both proselytizing and flaming, and all manner of other behavioural tics.


----------



## Macfury

Max said:


> No doubt it provides humourous diversion. Although it should be noted that this thread, and its ilk, are also havens for strenuous yet largely inconclusive arguments, dazzling ego trips, pretentious stances, opportunities for both proselytizing and flaming, and all manner of other behavioural tics.


A sporting event, in other words...


----------



## bryanc

screature said:


> Empirical facts are here today and gone tomorrow...


No. Interpretations are ephemeral, facts are not. It may turn out that instrumentation or other errors of measurement distort our perception of the facts, but that doesn't change the facts.



> So the myth in science is that this or that evidence *is* the Truth, when all it can ever be is a* belief* that it is the Truth.


The myth, if you want to call it that (I would say this is a misperception of the lay public regarding science, but whatever), is that a given interpretation of the evidence is the "Truth". As we gather more evidence, and eliminate more possible interpretations, our model of reality converges on the truth. On those rare occasions when our theoretical models are able to withstand enormous amounts of testing and match observations over extended periods of time, it is reasonable to conclude that they are very congruent with objective reality.


----------



## screature

Max said:


> No doubt it provides humourous diversion. Although it should be noted that this thread, and its ilk, are also havens for strenuous yet largely inconclusive arguments, dazzling ego trips, pretentious stances, opportunities for both proselytizing and flaming, and all manner of other behavioural tics.


Tis true, regrettably.


----------



## screature

bryanc said:


> No. Interpretations are ephemeral, facts are not. It may turn out that instrumentation or other errors of measurement distort our perception of the facts, but that doesn't change the facts.


What we say *"is"* (fact), is relative to our interpretation of reality or point of observation, Einstein indicated as much. It is only from the point of view of some omnipotent observer that an objective "truth" can be known. According to the Heisenberg uncertainty principle it is not only the "errors of measurement (that) distort our perception of the facts", it is the mere act our observation that alter the "facts".

If the universe existed without "observers" what you say could be true, as long as we observe it, it is not.



> The uncertainty principle is often stated this way:
> 
> The measurement of position necessarily disturbs a particle's momentum, and vice versa
> 
> This makes the uncertainty principle a kind of observer effect.
> 
> This explanation is not incorrect, and was used by both Heisenberg and Bohr. But they were working within the philosophical framework of logical positivism. In this way of looking at the world, the true nature of a physical system, inasmuch as it exists, is defined by the answers to the best-possible measurements which can be made in principle. *To state this differently, if a certain property of a system cannot be measured beyond a certain level of accuracy (in principle), then this limitation is a limitation of the system and not the limitation of the devices used to make this measurements. *So when they made arguments about unavoidable disturbances in any conceivable measurement, it was obvious to them that this uncertainty was a property of the system, not of the devices.


----------



## Macfury

screature said:


> What we say *"is"* (fact), is relative to our interpretation of reality or point of observation, Einstein indicated as much. It is only from the point of view of some omnipotent observer that an objective "truth" can be known. According to the Heisenberg uncertainty principle it is not only the "errors of measurement (that) distort our perception of the facts", it is the mere act our observation that alter the "facts".
> 
> If the universe existed without "observers" what you say could be true, as long as we observe it, it is not.



Agreed. In fact, some quantum theory posits that group expectations about what we are observing can change what we see to an extreme degree.


----------



## Max

Is that not the Heisenberg Principle?

____________________________________________________

Yeah, religious threads functioning as sporting events... agreed. Anything to stave off crushing waves of boredom, really. At least tossing words back and forth across the void is better than nothing.


----------



## Sonal

Max said:


> Yeah, religious threads functioning as sporting events... agreed. Anything to stave off crushing waves of boredom, really. At least tossing words back and forth across the void is *better than nothing.*


Ah, so very much like masturbation then.

I shall leave you master debaters to continue to amuse yourselves....


----------



## Macfury

Max said:


> Is that not the Heisenberg Principle?


No. Heisenberg says that one cannot observe phenomena such as position and momentum to a great degree of accuracy simultaneously, or that one cannot observe light as both a particle and a wave simultaneously. 

Further extrapolations in quantum physics (philosophy?) posit that what we consider reality actually changes when enough people are convinced that it's true. An extreme example--the Sun travels around the Earth until enough people can demonstrate that the reverse occurs, changing the nature of reality itself.


----------



## Max

Sonal: if it's like masturbation to you, it's like masturbation to you; certainly you needn't debase yourself by posting in such threads. Fortunately you have seen fit to extricate yourself, just in the nick of time!

MF: close but no cigar, eh? I guess the main thing I'm trying to grapple is that observation itself can change the nature of that which we're ostensibly seeking to get an accurate measure of.


----------



## Sonal

screature said:


> Ah yes, but like physical masturbation, mental masturbation can be fun even if it isn't fruitful.


screature said it first. I'm only pointing to the accuracy of his statement. 



Max said:


> Sonal: if it's like masturbation to you, it's like masturbation to you; certainly you needn't debase yourself by posting in such threads. Fortunately you have seen fit to extricate yourself, just in the nick of time!


I'm merely seeking temporary distraction...


----------



## Max

Ah, point clarified.

Everything is temporary.... that seems to be a point where science and religion can [sometimes] concur.


----------



## CubaMark

*Muslim Prayer Room Was Part Of Life In Twin Towers*



> Given the vitriolic opposition now to the proposal to build a Muslim community center two blocks from ground zero, one might say something else has been destroyed:_ the realization that Muslim people and the Muslim religion were part of the life of the World Trade Center._





> ...not only were Muslims peacefully worshiping in the twin towers long before the attacks, but even after the 1993 bombing of one tower by a Muslim radical, Ramzi Yousef, their religious observance generated no opposition
> 
> “We weren’t aliens,” Mr. Abdus-Salaam, 60, said in a telephone interview from Florida, where he moved in retirement. “We had a foothold there. You’d walk into the elevator in the morning and say, ‘Salaam aleikum,’ to one construction worker and five more guys in suits would answer, ‘Aleikum salaam.’ ”


(NYTimes)


----------



## fjnmusic

Peace be upon him. And the rest of us too. I think the numerous events of nine years ago today as well as their numerous conspiracy theory adjuncts have become religions unto themselves in many ways. And like all religions, many questions remain unanswered. We are to accept on faith that what our leaders tell us is the truth. A big question mark for me remains the motive behind the attacks on the WTC, what this has to with Islam and "the infidels," how the subsequent 7 year war in Iraq to dismantle the "weapons of mass destruction" is even remotely related, why the only man to claim responsibility, Osama Bin Laden, remains just as elusive 9 years later, and what on earth caused WTC7 to collapse on itself almost on command just after Larry Silverstein, the building's owner, gave the order to "pull it." Why not just pull the whole city block using the rationale provided concerning the immense "loss of life" that day? If the neo-cons were looking for a modern day Pearl Harbour, they certainly got one on September 11, 2001. More questions than answers; that's the hallmark of religion. At least it keeps people interested.


----------



## Macfury

More answers than questions. That "pull" urban legend has to be one of the weakest going.


----------



## fjnmusic

Macfury said:


> More answers than questions. That "pull" urban legend has to be one of the weakest going.


Because…? It is not a myth that he said it, and it is not a myth that he covered his tracks in a later interview by saying he meant 'pull the firefighters from the building' due to the immense loss of life that day. I watched Silverstein explain this himself on a 9/11 special last night. But why say 'it' if he meant 'them'? Which part of the "pull it" directive is not true in your mind?

Far more plausible in my mind is that Flight 93 was supposed to fly into WTC7 that day, the third NYC target, which was already rigged with explosives, just like the other two towers, and give the illusion of a reason for why the towers collapsed entirely. When Flight 93 was grounded it made for a very awkward for why WTC7 collapsed, apparently of its own volition, about eight hours after the other two, despite not being hit by a plane, the accepted "catalyst" for the collapse of the other two towers. If entire 47 storey buildings start collapsing like a controlled demolition from something as simple as a fire, we have a heck of a lot more to be worried about structurally with all of the tall buildings in the world even in the absence of terrorists.


----------



## screature




----------



## Macfury

Yep. Silverstein forgot himself and decided to blow the conspiracy in front of the news cameras. Oooooooooooops! Then again, what do you expect when you have a conspiracy in which 5,000 people must keep silent in order to pull it off?


----------



## fjnmusic

Macfury said:


> Yep. Silverstein forgot himself and decided to blow the conspiracy in front of the news cameras. Oooooooooooops! Then again, what do you expect when you have a conspiracy in which 5,000 people must keep silent in order to pull it off?


True enough. But your skepticism about the successful execution of a good conspiracy still fails to explain why World Trade Center No. 7 suddenly collapsed in on itself, exactly in the manner of a controlled demolition, at 5 o'clock in the afternoon that same day.


----------



## Macfury

fjnmusic said:


> True enough. But your skepticism about the successful execution of a good conspiracy still fails to explain why World Trade Center No. 7 suddenly collapsed in on itself, exactly in the manner of a controlled demolition, at 5 o'clock in the afternoon that same day.


This is really convincing to me:

Questions and Answers about the NIST WTC 7 Investigation


----------



## eMacMan

Note: The theory does not use conventional explosives but rather an incendiary version of nano-thermite which could be painted on. Obviously the people applying it would have been completely unaware of what they were doing. A handful of individuals could have rigged radio controlled blasting caps eliminating the miles of wires. 

Suddenly it's only a few people who were involved.

Besides the official theory involves believing what the Bush administration tells us. Given their history after 9/11 it seems extremely unlikely that they are even capable of any act that does not involve bald faced lies. In their minds treason would probably be a bonus.


----------



## screature

Macfury said:


> This is really convincing to me:
> 
> Questions and Answers about the NIST WTC 7 Investigation


Thanks for the link. Yep I agree, very convincing.


----------



## screature

eMacMan said:


> Note: The theory does not use conventional explosives but rather an incendiary version of *nano-thermite which could be painted on*. Obviously the people applying it would have been completely unaware of what they were doing. A handful of individuals could have rigged radio controlled blasting caps eliminating the miles of wires.
> 
> Suddenly it's only a few people who were involved.
> 
> Besides the official theory involves believing what the Bush administration tells us. Given their history after 9/11 it seems extremely unlikely that they are even capable of any act that does not involve bald faced lies. In their minds treason would probably be a bonus.


100 lbs of it for each column that it would have been applied to would be required, so not very likely. This question is specifically addressed the NIST report that MF provided the link for.



> *Is it possible that thermite or thermate contributed to the collapse of WTC 7?*
> 
> NIST has looked at the application and use of thermite and has determined that its use to sever columns in WTC 7 on 9/11/01 was unlikely.
> 
> Thermite is a combination of aluminum powder and a metal oxide that releases a tremendous amount of heat when ignited. It is typically used to weld railroad rails together by melting a small quantity of steel and pouring the melted steel into a form between the two rails.
> 
> To apply thermite to a large steel column, approximately 0.13 lb of thermite would be needed to heat and melt each pound of steel. For a steel column that weighs approximately 1,000 lbs. per foot, at least 100 lbs. of thermite would need to be placed around the column, ignited, and remain in contact with the vertical steel surface as the thermite reaction took place. This is for one column . presumably, more than one column would have been prepared with thermite, if this approach were to be used.
> 
> It is unlikely that 100 lbs. of thermite, or more, could have been carried into WTC 7 and placed around columns without being detected, either prior to Sept. 11 or during that day.
> 
> Given the fires that were observed that day, and the demonstrated structural response to the fires, NIST does not believe that thermite was used to fail any columns in WTC 7.
> 
> Analysis of the WTC steel for the elements in thermite/thermate would not necessarily have been conclusive. The metal compounds also would have been present in the construction materials making up the WTC buildings, and sulfur is present in the gypsum wallboard used for interior partitions.


----------



## CubaMark

*Back on the topic...*

*American atheists and agnostics know more about religion than professed believers*



> A new Pew survey on religion in America finds that atheists and agnostics are more likely to be well-versed about different religions' beliefs and practices than people who profess a belief in those religions. For example, atheists and agnostics are more likely to know that during Communion (Catholicism's central rite), the wafer and wine are meant to transubstantiate into the literal flesh and blood of Christ -- they aren't merely symbolic, as 40% of Catholics believe. Atheists and agnostics are also more likely than Protestants to know that Martin Luther sparked the Protestant Reformation (the majority of Protestants could not identify him).
> 
> Interestingly, Mormons are, on average, better versed on the traditional New Testament Bible than evangelical Christians and mainstream Christians, many of whom consider Mormonism to be apostasy.


(BoingBoing)


----------



## screature

CubaMark said:


> *Back on the topic...*
> 
> *American atheists and agnostics know more about religion than professed believers*
> 
> 
> 
> (BoingBoing)


This actually doesn't surprise me at all.


----------



## Macfury

No surprise there. I know more about Communism than most Liberals.


----------



## chasMac

I wonder if 'knowing your enemy' comes into play here.


----------



## Dr.G.

Macfury said:


> No surprise there. I know more about Communism than most Liberals.


I knew that deep down you were a "fellow traveler", Macfury. As you well know, Karl Marx once wrote that "Religion is the opium of the masses", and that "Religion is the impotence of the human mind to deal with occurrences it cannot understand.” Keep the Faith, Comrade MF. Paix, mon ami. 

YouTube - The Communist Internationale (Original, with English Lyrics)

YouTube - Monty Python Communist Quiz sketch


----------



## CubaMark

*Not Much Between The Temples*












> SYNAGOGUE | PEMBROKE PINES, FL, USA
> 
> *Customer*: “I need to speak to the person in charge!”
> 
> *Me*: “I’m sorry, I’m the only one in the office right now. Is there anything I can help you with?”
> 
> *Customer*: “There’s no Jesus memorabilia in your display cases!”
> 
> *Me*: “Ma’am, this is a temple. Maybe you’re looking for the church across the street?”
> 
> *Customer*: “I know this is a temple you dumb b****! All temples need Jesus in them. Otherwise, how is this a house of worship?”
> 
> *Me*: “I’m going to have to ask you to calm down, there’s a preschool class next door. And Jews don’t believe in Jesus as being a–”
> 
> *Customer*: *yelling* “What?! What the f*** do you mean you don’t believe in Jesus our Lord? How long has this been going on?!”
> 
> *Me*: “I’d say a good thousand years prior to Jesus, ma’am.”


----------



## Macfury

I find these sorts of gags are rarely based on fact. There are three synagogues in Pembroke Pines and none of them has a church across the street. This is just some knee slappin' Christian baiting! Ha, ha! The person who made this up doesn't have much between the temples! Ho, ho! What does it say about people who pass it along as a true anecdote, replete with place names? Hee! Hee! Knee slapper!


----------



## mrjimmy

Macfury said:


> There are three synagogues in Pembroke Pines and none of them has a church across the street.


The best part of this gag is that you did some research (or did you...) to try and discredit it! 

Now that's a knee slapper!


----------



## Macfury

mrjimmy said:


> The best part of this gag is that you did some research (or did you...) to try and discredit it!
> 
> Now that's a knee slapper!


Yep, pretty hilarious that I spent five minutes discrediting it. My sides are aching, I'm laughing so hard. 

Maybe this would have been a bigger knee slapper if it made Jews the butt of the joke. Maybe have one come in to a Christian church thinking it was a Jewish synagogue and... oh wait, then nobody would likely have posted it, because that would have been considered offensive.

This story has no value as a joke. It only means something ugly if it is true.


----------



## hayesk

Macfury said:


> Yep, pretty hilarious that I spent five minutes discrediting it. My sides are aching, I'm laughing so hard.
> 
> Maybe this would have been a bigger knee slapper if it made Jews the butt of the joke. Maybe have one come in to a Christian church thinking it was a Jewish synagogue and... oh wait, then nobody would likely have posted it, because that would have been considered offensive.


I haven't come across any Jewish people who think theirs is the only religion. They may believe theirs is the "right" religion, but I've met many Christians that don't even acknowledge the others exist.

Just an observation, but Christian "nut-jobs" seem to be far more prevalent.


----------



## Snapple Quaffer

Macfury said:


> I find these sorts of gags are rarely based on fact.




Gags aren't based on fact?!? An astonishing find. Well, slap ma knees! This spells the end of humour, and must at least rank alongside the discovery of the molecular structure of DNA, the proof of Fermat's Last Theorem and the quark model of hadronic resonances as a defining point in human development.


----------



## ehMax

Snapple Quaffer said:


> Gags aren't based on fact?!? An astonishing find. Well, slap ma knees! This spells the end of humour, and must at least rank alongside the discovery of the molecular structure of DNA, the proof of Fermat's Last Theorem and the quark model of hadronic resonances as a defining point in human development.


The site with the temple "gag" is meant to be a site of real world occurrences. It's mostly meant for real stories of salespeople coming across stupid shoppers, but this one was included as being a story of someone who worked in the office of a Temple and supposedly got this call.


----------



## MacGuiver

hayesk said:


> I haven't come across any Jewish people who think theirs is the only religion. They may believe theirs is the "right" religion, but I've met many Christians that don't even acknowledge the others exist.
> 
> Just an observation, but Christian "nut-jobs" seem to be far more prevalent.


You don't get out much.

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## ehMax

MacGuiver said:


> You don't get out much.
> 
> Cheers
> MacGuiver


Come on... I'm sure there is a huge cultural and world religion cross section in Napean! 
I'm sure he's been to Israel and asked a devout Jew if he acknowledges his neighbours religion. (Or will even say the name of their State). 

Christian nut-jobs... they're everywhere! They're running this forum! They've even taken over the White House! Run for your lives!


----------



## Rps

ehMax said:


> ] taken over the White House[/URL]! Run for your lives!


Don't laugh at that too hard. I have a home in LaSalle and of the 30 radio stations listed [ FM and AM ] in the local paper's listening guide, 11 are religious or gospel....all American.

I used to live in Renfrew many years ago and around 7pm like magic, a religious station from somewhere in the U.S. would blow away my favourite rock station in Ottawa, literally highjacked the frequency. One night I was driving home from a hockey game in Cobden and the religious station stole the frequency....there was this fire and brim stone preacher ranting about the school system in his state......quote.." I don't know why our children need to learn these foreign languages.....after all if English was good enough for our Lord Jesus Christ it's good enough for me".

I almost ran the car off the road....... be afraid, be very afraid.


----------



## MazterCBlazter

.


----------



## MacGuiver

Rps said:


> Don't laugh at that too hard. I have a home in LaSalle and of the 30 radio stations listed [ FM and AM ] in the local paper's listening guide, 11 are religious or gospel....all American.
> 
> I used to live in Renfrew many years ago and around 7pm like magic, a religious station from somewhere in the U.S. would blow away my favourite rock station in Ottawa, literally highjacked the frequency. One night I was driving home from a hockey game in Cobden and the religious station stole the frequency....there was this fire and brim stone preacher ranting about the school system in his state......quote.." I don't know why our children need to learn these foreign languages.....after all if English was good enough for our Lord Jesus Christ it's good enough for me".
> 
> I almost ran the car off the road....... be afraid, be very afraid.


Its not magic or a hijacking. I believe it has something to do with CRTC regulations regarding AM broadcast signal strength in the evening hours. Not 100% sure on that though. A station I hear in the day always drops off at around supper time that you can't even pick it up. 

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## Macfury

MacGuiver said:


> Its not magic or a hijacking. I believe it has something to do with CRTC regulations regarding AM broadcast signal strength in the evening hours. Not 100% sure on that though. A station I hear in the day always drops off at around supper time that you can't even pick it up.


That's it. I can pick up WABC from NYC at night, but not during the day, and a station from Rochester during the day but not at night. The FCC allows stations to alter the direction and strength of their signal at various points during the day. What happens after those stations cross the border doesn't much interest them, I suspect.


----------



## CubaMark

Macfury said:


> What happens after those stations cross the border doesn't much interest them, I suspect.


It should, and it does. There are international treaties covering international radio / tv broadcasts. For some reason the website of the International Telecommunications Union is down at the moment, saving me the bother of having to go scouring for the appropriate regulations.

This is an issue at the heart, for example, of the continuing *illegal* broadcasting of anti-Castro radio stations from Miami into Cuban airspace (Radio & TV Marti), and active policy of the U.S. government.

But then, laws are only meant for the weak, right?


----------



## MacGuiver

CubaMark said:


> It should, and it does. There are international treaties covering international radio / tv broadcasts. For some reason the website of the International Telecommunications Union is down at the moment, saving me the bother of having to go scouring for the appropriate regulations.
> 
> This is an issue at the heart, for example, of the continuing *illegal* broadcasting of anti-Castro radio stations from Miami into Cuban airspace (Radio & TV Marti), and active policy of the U.S. government.
> 
> But then, laws are only meant for the weak, right?


Is it legal to have a station in Cuba that is critical of the government? Do they exist? I've never been there so I have no idea.

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## CubaMark

Did the UK government allow the Germans to set up a radio station in London during the war?

I know what you're trying to do, screature. Not gonna bite.


----------



## Snapple Quaffer

CubaMark said:


> Did the UK government allow the Germans to set up a radio station in London during the war?


That's still classified information.

I can confirm that during the seventies, those of us here who listened to the late evening news on BBC Radio 4 longwave used to get the bonus of Radio Moscow overlapping at around 10 pm. I can still remember the signature 'tune', and the very clear clipped tones of the Russian announcer. The reason for this sort of thing happening is due to the different propagation of AM at night whereby a much larger geographical range is covered than during the day. Those scallywags at Radio Moscow didn't turn down the wick on their transmitters, and so polluted our pristine airwaves with their commie propaganda. It must be why we're all leftie commie, pinko ... etc.

Those of you being reached by the hard sell gospel drivel should watch out.


----------



## screature

CubaMark said:


> Did the UK government allow the Germans to set up a radio station in London during the war?
> 
> I know what you're trying to do, screature. Not gonna bite.


What????? I have no idea what you are referring to..... 
Please explain this confounding post. 

Have you had a wee too much tequila today or did you get hit on the head by one of the marauding narcos?


----------



## CubaMark

*I just don't understand religious fanatics... they're even more mysterious to me than the right-wingnuts on Fox...
*
*Road trip to the end of the world*





> They have been chosen by God to spread the news few understand, the ambassadors say. They liken themselves to biblical figures, including Jonah, who God commanded to warn the people of Nineveh of their city's destruction.
> 
> They say their work comes with ample precedence, that the God they believe in would never bring judgment on his people without warning them first. Their job is to "sound the alarm," they say, pointing to Ezekiel 33. Just by being out in their RVs, wearing their T-shirts, jackets and caps, and passing out their pamphlets -- which they call tracts -- they are fulfilling a mission.





> Camping also happens to be the man who once said September 6, 1994, would be the big day.
> 
> He explains now that he originally thought 2011 was the year, but a few verses tripped him up and he concluded that the Great Tribulation might get cut short. There was still scripture he was grappling with, end-time signs that were to come -- he points to the gay pride movement as one of them -- and truths that had yet to be revealed, "but because of the urgency of time I had to get it out quickly," he says of his previous warning.
> 
> This time around, he has no doubts.


(The full 8-page story is at CNN)


----------



## monokitty

hayesk said:


> ...but I've met many Christians that don't even acknowledge the others exist.


That's a Christian's right. True Christians do not believe in multiple gods, and therefore people worshipping a God that does not exist in our belief is, in fact, practising a false religion that we do not acknowledge. That does not make a Christian a "nut job."


@ CubaMark - Yeah, I know, bizarre, right? Ugh...


----------



## Sonal

Lars said:


> That's a Christian's right. True Christians do not believe in multiple gods, and therefore people worshipping a God that does not exist in our belief is, in fact, practising a false religion that we do not acknowledge. That does not make a Christian a "nut job."


Perhaps not a nut job, but to me, this reads like intolerance. 

@CubaMark, I remember back when I was a young teenager in the early 90s, I was talking to someone about college and what I wanted to do when I grew up. She said, quite seriously, "Why are you worrying about that? The world is ending in 2000."


----------



## Macfury

CubaMark said:


> *I just don't understand religious fanatics... they're even more mysterious to me than the right-wingnuts on Fox...*


*

Yet you stand by as the environmental whack jobs predict all sorts of Gaia-inspired punishments...*


----------



## Elric

Lars said:


> That's a Christian's right. True Christians do not believe in multiple gods, and therefore people worshipping a God that does not exist in our belief is, in fact, practising a false religion that we do not acknowledge. That does not make a Christian a "nut job."


It's the "nut jobs" that won't leave the others alone. The ones that do not respect the rights of others and yes, the intolerant ones... That's why most atheists and agnostics don't like christians, it's because of the hypocritical ones.


----------



## CubaMark

Macfury said:


> Yet you stand by as the environmental whack jobs predict all sorts of Gaia-inspired punishments...


This is my only word on the matter. There will be no other.


----------



## MacGuiver

Macfury said:


> Yet you stand by as the environmental whack jobs predict all sorts of Gaia-inspired punishments...


It would seem not all crazy people driving around in doomsday buses are Christians.


----------



## Macfury

CubaMark said:


> This is my only word on the matter. There will be no other.


This one?



> Y'know, I'd be far more interested in this (these) threads if we took the one thing we all agree on - the temperature is climbing and will have significant effects on climate and humans - and discussed responses, both practical (new home cooling technologies, solar energy uses, coastal protection) and policy (domestic & international).


And, I reiterate, simply expecting everyone to agree on the above is also an act of faith. You go on to your Gaia-appointed doom, then, and enjoy your selective attacks on the doom prophecies of others.


----------



## eMacMan

Lars said:


> That's a Christian's right. True Christians do not believe in multiple gods, and therefore people worshipping a God that does not exist in our belief is, in fact, practising a false religion that we do not acknowledge. That does not make a Christian a "nut job."
> 
> 
> @ CubaMark - Yeah, I know, bizarre, right? Ugh...


Ahh but if you believe in one God, and the others also worship a single God then by definition it is the same God even if you are Christian and they are Muslim. To claim otherwise requires claiming that God does not have either the ability or the right to reveal himself to others in whatever manner he/she/it chooses.

Personally I am not in the least inclined towards trying to tell God how he should reveal himself.


----------



## Snapple Quaffer

Ah! The ... _sniff, sniff_ ... whiff of sulphur in the air indicates a Macfuryesque attempt to distort and derail.


> Yet you stand by as the environmental whack jobs predict all sorts of Gaia-inspired punishments...


Boo-hoo, CM's saying things about fundamentalist Christians and their simple-minded interpretation of the Bible.

The Logic: You're saying nasty things about _them_, so I'm going to have a go at ... um ... oh, yes, I know! ... I'll drag in 'Gaia' and get it all mixed up in the usual mangled, ill-informed mish-mash about environmentalists and 'faith', and try to implicate 'Gaia' as a religion.

The attempt fails. It doesn't detract one bit from the fact that the featured Bible thumpers are deluded dafties. Rather than recycle tin-pot nonsense from the anti-science echo chamber that is the wretched 'Authoritative'_[sic]_ thread, why not try putting up a defence of the chosen ones and their bedazzlement with Ezekiel 33?
Now _that_ I look forward to. It'll be much more interesting and funny than your offering so far.
Please? Go on. You know you can. Try.


----------



## bryanc

Snapple Quaffer said:


> Ah! The ... _sniff, sniff_ ... whiff of sulphur in the air indicates a Macfuryesque attempt to distort and derail.
> ... why not try putting up a defence...


That's an unreasonable request. MF would have to create a new account. Under his MF guise he can only detract from the positions of others; never propose one of his own.


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> That's an unreasonable request. MF would have to create a new account. Under his MF guise he can only detract from the positions of others; never propose one of his own.


Of course I have a proposal of my own. Stop infecting science with this Gaia-induced claptrap. Accept that current climate patterns have been replicated in the past and that there is nothing extraordinary about the climate we are currently experiencing.


----------



## bryanc

Macfury said:


> Of course I have a proposal of my own. Stop infecting science with this Gaia-induced claptrap.


I think you'd have a hard time finding any scientist who supports the Gaia 'hypothesis'.

The consensus of current science supports anthropogenic global warming (by a vast preponderance of evidence... the legal equivalent would be "beyond a reasonable doubt' but that is not the terminology used by science because doubt is always reasonable in science). If this changes, I'll be as happy as anyone, as I would far prefer to believe that we haven't profoundly changed the chemistry of our atmosphere by releasing millions of years worth of sequestered CO2 in a couple of short centuries. But given the physics of CO2's infrared absorption spectra, and the various feed-back systems we understand to be working in our global climatic systems, it seems this is unlikely to be the case.

Regardless, it is obvious to anyone with even a modicum of intelligence that our society's reliance upon non-renewable energy sources is unsustainable, and so any and all efforts (even if motivated by what turn out to be fallacies) to transition to sustainable energy sources should be encouraged.

Second to reducing the global human population, this ought to be of the highest priority to any rational person who hopes to see our species survive.

Thus it baffles me that you, and a few other apparently rational people are antagonistic to this position. Even if you don't accept that the consensus of the vast majority of climatologists is correct WRT the anthropogenic cause of global warming, only the most perverse of idealists would oppose efforts to reduce our societies dependence on non-renewable resources.


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> , it is obvious to anyone with even a modicum of intelligence that our society's reliance upon non-renewable energy sources is unsustainable, and so any and all efforts (even if motivated by what turn out to be fallacies) to transition to sustainable energy sources should be encouraged.


Shale oil could supply us for 500 years. Let the price of the energy determine which fuel we choose.


----------



## bryanc

Macfury said:


> Let the price of the energy determine which fuel we choose.


Your faith in the Holy Free-Market is laudable (to the extent that faith is laudable... which is not at all). The price of a given fuel is only a good tool for regulating how society uses energy to the extent that the externalities are included in the costs. And they ain't. Not by a long stretch.

Even if you ignore current an future environmental impacts (as any good acolyte of the oil industry must), the simple thermodynamics are unavoidable. Consuming the chemical energy in reduced carbon compounds (wether they were generated by contemporary photosynthetic processes or ancient photosynthetic processes) is fundamentally consuming solar energy that has been captured by the biosphere. Given that we run our economy on solar energy (this is an empirical fact; nuclear energy is a negligible factor in the global energy economy), as a conservative, how do you reconcile supporting the energy deficit that our current global economy depends upon (i.e. we depend on the reduced carbon 'savings' the biosphere accumulated over hundreds of millions of years, and we consume far more energy than we allow the biosphere to capture and store in any given year)?


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> ...as a conservative, how do you reconcile supporting the energy deficit that our current global economy depends upon (i.e. we depend on the reduced carbon 'savings' the biosphere accumulated over hundreds of millions of years, and we consume far more energy than we allow the biosphere to capture and store in any given year)?


I'm not a conservative. However, nuclear power contributions are negligible only through misinformed choice. The increasing cost of Shale Oil extraction over the next 500 to 600 years will give us plenty of time to develop an alternative fuel source.



> , and we consume far more energy than we *allow* the biosphere to capture and store in any given year)?


That's the ticket. It isn't that the energy isn't reaching the Earth--it's that it's currently too expensive to harness.


----------



## bryanc

Macfury said:


> That's the ticket. It isn't that the energy isn't reaching the Earth--it's that it's currently too expensive to harness.


I'm right with you on this one. If you've got a technology that can beat RUBISCO, I'll put every dime I've got behind you. Problem is, we've never come up with anything near as efficient as photosynthesis, and converting carbon dioxide and water to complex organics is a non-trivial problem (enzymatically, CO2 and O2 are a bugger to distinguish, so even plants wind up wasting a ton of light energy doing 'photorespiration').

But the bottom line is that our society is like a drunken teenager who's been orphaned by wealthy parents. We've blown through the cash we've inherited, and now we're looking at selling the mansion and the jaguar. I have no doubt that we'll have to exploit these less liquid assets to survive, but it's time to sober up and start thinking about getting a job (or at least going to school and learning some marketable skills). We are very fortunate that our Devonian ancestors stored up so much energy, and that we were clever enough to figure out how to exploit it, but the fact is we need to learn to live within our means.

And the happy fact of the matter is that our planet receives so much energy from the sun that we have nothing to worry about (until the sun burns out in a few billion years) if we can develop technologies that do what we know is possible (because plants already do it) and capture that energy as reduced carbon bonds.

If you think of reduced carbon bonds as the 'dollar bills' of the energy economy, plants are like mints that literally print money. Underground, we have found 'vaults' of stored money that we've been literally burning through since the industrial revolution. This would be great if it were not for the fact that we've burned through vaults that took literally hundreds of millions of years for the plants of earth to fill, and, even if we stopped chopping down all the rain forests and stopped polluting the oceans, and stopped wiping out the kelp forests, these vaults are not going to be filled again for hundreds of millions of years.

So we have to stop taking money out of the bank.

What MF is suggesting is that we can still sell the furniture and the art and even the mansion itself. And he's right. If all we care about is having money to spend on hookers and blow for the weekend, there are vultures who'll take anything we're willing to sign over. My position is that we've been wildly irresponsible, and we should save what we've got left and use it as an investment/insurance as we try to become self-sustainable. Call me a wet-blanket if you will (it won't be the first time), but I think it's time we as a society took some responsibility for our future and started trying to live within our means.

Cheers


----------



## Macfury

You're applying a false moral structure to it, bryanc.

We have never used up all of one resource before moving to the next. We would already be employing solar technology if fossil fuels were expensive enough. So it isn't a matter of eating everything on our plate then asking where the food is. We're eating the low-hanging fruit first, before climbing up the tree to a higher branch. That's only proper.

Likewise, we are "living within our means" right now by using no more than the fuel available to us--just as a family lives within its means by using only the salaries earned by its members.


----------



## bryanc

Macfury said:


> We have never used up all of one resource before moving to the next.


Tell that to the dodos.


> Likewise, we are "living within our means" right now by using no more than the fuel available to us--just as a family lives within its means by using only the salaries earned by its members.


When those salaries are gained by drilling into the vaults of banks filled by millions of years worth of effort by others, you cannot claim that this is a sustainable plan.

One of the core values of successful criminals is 'hit once and hit big.' I'd like for our society to be a successful criminal; we've robbed the biggest vault; now's the time to retire peacefully to Panama rather than continuing to rob less lucrative targets.


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> Tell that to the dodos.
> 
> When those salaries are gained by drilling into the vaults of banks filled by millions of years worth of effort by others, you cannot claim that this is a sustainable plan.



Again, you're ascribing a false set of values by likening the accumulated fossil fuels to a "vault." It isn't there to be either stored or used--nature doesn't care what happens to it. Whether we use it quickly or slowly before moving on to the next energy source is entirely up to us--it isn't a moral question.


----------



## bryanc

Macfury said:


> Again, you're ascribing a false set of values by likening the accumulated fossil fuels to a "vault."...-it isn't a moral question.


You're right that it is not a moral question, and I ascribe no moral value to it. It is purely a pragmatic question. Given that the chemistry of earth's biosphere is capturing orders of magnitude less energy than we are expending, ought we go on being so profligate with our energy expenditures and so neglectful of the development of technologies to capture contemporary solar energy (either directly, or indirectly by wind etc.)? And by 'ought' here, I don't mean the moral 'ought' but rather the pragmatic 'ought' in that it would seem to be in our self-interest to do otherwise.

Cheers.


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> You're right that it is not a moral question, and I ascribe no moral value to it. It is purely a pragmatic question. Given that the chemistry of earth's biosphere is capturing orders of magnitude less energy than we are expending, ought we go on being so profligate with our energy expenditures and so neglectful of the development of technologies to capture contemporary solar energy (either directly, or indirectly by wind etc.)? And by 'ought' here, I don't mean the moral 'ought' but rather the pragmatic 'ought' in that it would seem to be in our self-interest to do otherwise.
> 
> Cheers.


No. We ought to use fossil fuels until their price rises to support the next generation of energy generation. If oil quadrupled in price, then many solar technologies already in existence would become viable in short order. It would be pragmatic to let private companies volunteer many new ways to bring other energy resource to the table--and to let the losers fall by the wayside.

Circa 1975, many scientists thought it would be prudent and pragmatic to batten down the hatches in preparation for the coming Ice Age. Given government resources to do so, they would certainly have squandered billions. Not one private company invested in the predicted frozen future--because they were acting in their self-interest.


----------



## Snapple Quaffer

Putting aside my study of the turgid Book of Ezekiel for a moment, I found myself idly re-reading some of the posts in Macfury's (for, lo, it is _his_) Third Official Authoritative_[sic]_ ... Thread.

There within did I find sternly authoritative pronouncements from said Father of The Third ... etc ... Thread :



Macfury said:


> I will remind members to comment only on the information. provided. If you don't enjoy the contributions of other members, EhMac provides many other destinations that may match your interests!





Macfury said:


> No more from me on that topic unless it involves discussion of climate.


A voice then whispered these words in my ear, with the command to offer them to the Father of The Third ... etc ... Thread so he may make two well-known sayings from them:

Black, goose, kettle, pot, gander, sauce.​


----------



## groovetube

Macfury said:


> No. We ought to use fossil fuels until their price rises to support the next generation of energy generation. If oil quadrupled in price, then many solar technologies already in existence would become viable in short order. It would be pragmatic to let private companies volunteer many new ways to bring other energy resource to the table--and to let the losers fall by the wayside.
> 
> Circa 1975, many scientists thought it would be prudent and pragmatic to batten down the hatches in preparation for the coming Ice Age. Given government resources to do so, they would certainly have squandered billions. Not one private company invested in the predicted frozen future--because they were acting in their self-interest.


that's a recipe for disaster. Basically what you are saying is, I don't wanna spend any money investing or developing newer forms of energy until our backs are up against the wall and imminent disaster is upon us because now food costs 50 times what it does now, and has thrown the world into a massive chaos of war. If you think the trouble we are seeing now with rising food costs etc are serious, you just wait until food prices really go up because oil costs are out of reach.

And the daddy US government isn't a whole lot of help as sending piles of jets over threatening areas isn't an option because we can't afford to fuel them.

I'm with byranc on the drunken orphaned teenager pawning the jag and the furniture. Perfect analogy.


----------



## Macfury

groovetube said:


> that's a recipe for disaster. Basically what you are saying is, I don't wanna spend any money investing or developing newer forms of energy until our backs are up against the wall and imminent disaster is upon us because now food costs 50 times what it does now, and has thrown the world into a massive chaos of war. If you think the trouble we are seeing now with rising food costs etc are serious, you just wait until food prices really go up because oil costs are out of reach.
> 
> And the daddy US government isn't a whole lot of help as sending piles of jets over threatening areas isn't an option because we can't afford to fuel them.
> 
> I'm with byranc on the drunken orphaned teenager pawning the jag and the furniture. Perfect analogy.


No. With 500 to 600 years worth of shale oil as a cushion, our backs would never be up against the wall. Unless you're worried that your great-great-great-great-great-great-grandchildren will still be using today's technology, your fears are completely groundless--as is the fear that they'll just one day wake up and say: "Bawwwwww! There's no oil left!"

The whole emotion-drenched imagery involving starving orphans, drunken children and jets falling out of the sky is apt for your emotional feelings on this matter. Fifty times? Shale oil could be pulled out of North American soil at prices comparable to current oil--no more oil imports.


----------



## groovetube

oh! We have 500 years of shale oil! Problem solved! No political turmoil, no worries about the pollution caused, since increased usage with india/china etc all are coming online as major users of oil. This is the world, according macfury?

Just because you make sweeping announcements of "what me? worry? Bushwaw!" on forum doesn't suddenly erase even current world events, the effects of watching what happens when even one major world oil exporter experiences trouble.

You think the riots and problems of food prices are a problem now? That's merely the precursor to what is coming my friend. Your "500 years of shale oil" isn't going to be much help I'm afraid.


----------



## Macfury

groovetube said:


> oh! We have 500 years of shale oil! Problem solved! No political turmoil, no worries about the pollution caused, since increased usage with india/china etc all are coming online as major users of oil. This is the world, according macfury?


The shale oil is here in North America, groovetube.



> Just because you make sweeping announcements of "what me? worry? Bushwaw!" on forum doesn't suddenly erase even current world events, the effects of watching what happens when even one major world oil exporter experiences trouble.


This is why we need to use domestic shale oil--already available.



> You think the riots and problems of food prices are a problem now? That's merely the precursor to what is coming my friend. Your "500 years of shale oil" isn't going to be much help I'm afraid.


Why will there be food riots? Current food problems are related to oil supply. Worldwide food price problems right now are virtually all tied to the U.S. government's efforts to promote renewable fuels like ethanol--which have caused an artificial spike in corn prices, and a reduction in production of other food crops.

As I say, I'm glad neither of you were in a position to make decisions during the Ice Age scenario presented as incontrovertible in the 1970s. We'd have spent billions preparing for that doomsday scenario and we could have said citizens were like "ignorant children, playing games while the ice walls formed around them."


----------



## groovetube

Macfury said:


> The shale oil is here in North America, groovetube.
> 
> 
> 
> This is why we need to use domestic shale oil--already available.
> 
> 
> 
> Why will there be food riots? Current food problems are related to oil supply. Worldwide food price problems right now are virtually all tied to the U.S. government's efforts to promote renewable fuels like ethanol--which have caused an artificial spike in corn prices, and a reduction in production of other food crops.
> 
> As I say, I'm glad neither of you were in a position to make decisions during the Ice Age scenario presented as incontrovertible in the 1970s. We'd have spent billions preparing for that doomsday scenario and we could have said citizens were like "ignorant children, playing games while the ice walls formed around them."


ahhhh. It's ethanol's fault.

I just don't think looking at current events is quite that simple macfury. Though it would certainly nice, in a sort of fuzzy, bunny, kinda way to take heart in these incredible pronouncements.


----------



## Macfury

groovetube said:


> ahhhh. It's ethanol's fault.
> 
> I just don't think looking at current events is quite that simple macfury. Though it would certainly nice, in a sort of fuzzy, bunny, kinda way to take heart in these incredible pronouncements.


We always have several factor relating to food crop production. One is harvests. Another is demand. We can't control much of those two. 

However, ethanol is currently consuming 40% of the U.S. corn crop, pushing food prices higher throughout the world. This need not continue.


----------



## groovetube

perhaps this is why further research and development is needed to come up with better forms of alternative energy. Simply throwing up ones hands and declaring what is currently in use as a failure and declaring we have 500 years of oil is certainly sticking one's head in the sand.


----------



## Macfury

groovetube said:


> perhaps this is why further research and development is needed to come up with better forms of alternative energy. Simply throwing up ones hands and declaring what is currently in use as a failure and declaring we have 500 years of oil is certainly sticking one's head in the sand.


What we currently have is not a failure.


----------



## screature




----------



## eMacMan

Out of curiosity when did the religious thread die and re-incarnate as the alternative energy thread


----------



## Macfury

eMacMan said:


> Out of curiosity when did the religious thread die and re-incarnate as the alternative energy thread


Post 747.


----------



## mrjimmy

Macfury said:


> Post 747.


Feels more like 738.


----------



## Snapple Quaffer

mrjimmy said:


> Feels more like 738.


Yes, the epicentre of this latest Macfury derailment is, precisely, the post 738.

In keeping with the intended topic for this thread, Macfury's behaviour and obsession is as described in The Good Book, Proverbs 26:11.


----------



## Macfury

mrjimmy said:


> Feels more like 738.


Only if you believe that Warmism is not a religion.


----------



## mrjimmy

Macfury said:


> Only if you believe that Warmism is not a religion.


I see you are a man who doesn't take responsibility for his actions.


----------



## Macfury

mrjimmy said:


> I see you are a man who doesn't take responsibility for his actions.


 I see you are a man who does not believe Warmism is a religion.


----------



## CubaMark




----------



## Dr.G.

Sounds like God is about to send us all an eviction notice. Guess we messed up with global warming. :-(


----------



## Macfury

Dr.G. said:


> Sounds like God is about to send us all an eviction notice. Guess we messed up with global warming. :-(


What temperature did God intend the world to be?


----------



## Snapple Quaffer

Macfury said:


> What temperature did God intend the world to be?


Read your Bible, Macfury, and feel awe.


----------



## Macfury

Awwwwww.


----------



## Dr.G.

Macfury said:


> What temperature did God intend the world to be?





Snapple Quaffer said:


> Read your Bible, Macfury, and feel awe.





Macfury said:


> Awwwwww.





Dr.G. said:


> Sounds like God is about to send us all an eviction notice. Guess we messed up with global warming. :-(


"Shock and awe", Macfury. Paix, mon ami.

"He that troubleth his own house shall inherit the wind: and the fool shall be servant to the wise of heart." Proverbs 11:29


----------



## Macfury

Dr.G. said:


> "He that troubleth his own house shall inherit the wind: and the fool shall be servant to the wise of heart." Proverbs 11:29


We have not yet determined whether the temperature of God's creation is rising. If it is rising, what is the cause? 

Again, I adjure you tell me--what temperature has God determined the world to be? How can we know his instruction in this matter without a guidepost?


----------



## Dr.G.

Macfury said:


> We have not yet determined whether the temperature of God's creation is rising. If it is rising, what is the cause?
> 
> Again, I adjure you tell me--what temperature has God determined the world to be? How can we know his instruction in this matter without a guidepost?


Marfury, I think that the world's temps are rising, so the main contention is the cause. I tend to see it as an eclectic mix of factors, with natural and man-made situations/causalities being the main reason for this increased warmth. The melting ice caps, especially in the north, are causing changes in the ocean patterns, which effect the climate in ways that will bring hotter than normal weather to some, colder weather than normal to some, along with wetter, drier, and very atypical weather to most.

I don't see God as causing any of this change, nor does this God have a "guidepost" set to say we went "over the line". All around the world, we see the changes taking place. Some species of plant, animal, insect and marine life might be able to adapt and evolve, but most won't be able to make these needed changes.

Thus, you may solemnly request that I tell you the what the "guidepost" is for this situation, but I don't see anyone being able to do that right now. There are warning signs all around us that we have gone too far, and there are some efforts to change around this situation. 

I guess we will only know that we have gone way past the tripping point when life starts to end on a global scale. Of course, it will be too late to do anything about it at that point.

Thus, it is not God's work to get us into or out of this situation, it is up to us.

Paix, mon ami.


----------



## groovetube

one of the most worrisome events I see is the mass animals deaths that is now continually occurring. The bee population dying off is particularly troubling, but now many species are literally washing up or dropping out fo the skys by the thousands.

Surely we don't light off that many fireworks...


----------



## Dr.G.

groovetube said:


> one of the most worrisome events I see is the mass animals deaths that is now continually occurring. The bee population dying off is particularly troubling, but now many species are literally washing up or dropping out fo the skys by the thousands.
> 
> Surely we don't light off that many fireworks...


Good point, gt. As well, birds, and fish and animals are showing up in parts of the world where they have never been seen before prior to the past ten years or so.


----------



## Macfury

groovetube said:


> one of the most worrisome events I see is the mass animals deaths that is now continually occurring. The bee population dying off is particularly troubling, but now many species are literally washing up or dropping out fo the skys by the thousands.
> 
> Surely we don't light off that many fireworks...


These "bird falls" and sudden deaths of various fish predate the industrial age. The bee death appears to be caused by one particular pesticide. The human mind likes to arrange these things in patterns, even where there are none. Likewise, we may love the current slate of species to which we're accustomed, but the world is a bizarre Petri dish, creating, testing and eliminating species with abandon. While I see no excuse to destroy a species by destroying its habitat, or poisoning it, natural climate change will take out many species that can't be saved.


----------



## eMacMan

> one of the most worrisome events I see is the mass animals deaths that is now continually occurring. The bee population dying off is particularly troubling, but now many species are literally washing up or dropping out fo the skys by the thousands.
> 
> Surely we don't light off that many fireworks...


Not too likely that either God or Satan are responsible here. Ditto minor fluctuations in global temperatures.

More likely culprits include; All the poisons we use as we try to control weeds and pests. The other poisons we are pumping into the water, ground, sea and air. Perhaps even the various radio and microwave transmissions that are an integral part of our modern society.


----------



## Macfury

eMacMan said:


> More likely culprits include; All the poisons we use as we try to control weeds and pests. The other poisons we are pumping into the water, ground, sea and air.


Which is where our efforts should be focused--not on tilting at carbon windmills.


----------



## bryanc

Macfury said:


> Likewise, we may love the current slate of species to which we're accustomed, but the world is a bizarre Petri dish, creating, testing and eliminating species with abandon. While I see no excuse to destroy a species by destroying its habitat, or poisoning it, natural climate change will take out many species that can't be saved.


The current rate of species loss is far greater than at any point in the fossil record; the anthropocine has already seen the most sudden extinctions in life's history. The question of wether these extinctions will as proportionately vast as have occurred in the past is still open.



> Which is where our efforts should be focused--not on tilting at carbon windmills.


Fortunately, exactly the same actions are required to address both problems. Even if you refuse to accept the consensus of the current science on one or the other of these issues, both issues have the same root causes and thus can be treated as a single problem.

The cause of our environmental problems is profligate consumption of resources by our species. Unfortunately, our technology is so good, and our greed is so insatiable, that our economic systems (which place no value on living things or intact ecosystems) simply do not function to protect our environment.

While I'd love to see a market solution to this (as I'm very well aware of the fact that market systems tend to do a better with respect to efficiency), the only proposals I've heard involve carbon trading, and I'm not convinced that sort of system will work.

Thus, it would appear we will have to impose the heavy hand of legislation and law enforcement to constrain the corporations and individuals who profit from over-exploiting our planet's resources.


----------



## eMacMan

bryanc said:


> The current rate of species loss is far greater than at any point in the fossil record; the anthropocine has already seen the most sudden extinctions in life's history. The question of wether these extinctions will as proportionately vast as have occurred in the past is still open.
> 
> 
> 
> Fortunately, exactly the same actions are required to address both problems. Even if you refuse to accept the consensus of the current science on one or the other of these issues, both issues have the same root causes and thus can be treated as a single problem.
> 
> The cause of our environmental problems is profligate consumption of resources by our species. Unfortunately, our technology is so good, and our greed is so insatiable, that our economic systems (which place no value on living things or intact ecosystems) simply do not function to protect our environment.
> 
> While I'd love to see a market solution to this (as I'm very well aware of the fact that market systems tend to do a better with respect to efficiency), the only proposals I've heard involve carbon trading, and I'm not convinced that sort of system will work.
> 
> Thus, it would appear we will have to impose the heavy hand of legislation and law enforcement to constrain the corporations and individuals who profit from over-exploiting our planet's resources.


Not sure how adding Mercury and Phosphorous to light bulbs equates to reducing the poisons in our environment. Nor, as we are seeing in Japan, is a CO2 free nuclear generator more environmentally friendly than a gas fired power plant.

First stop poisoning our nest, then you can throw any of *YOUR* leftover cash at Al Gore. I need what little cash I have to live on.


----------



## mrjimmy

Can we move this back to it's appropriate thread?


----------



## Dr.G.

"While I see no excuse to destroy a species by destroying its habitat, or poisoning it, natural climate change will take out many species that can't be saved." All too true, Macfury. Sadly, humans are on that list of species that may not be able to fully adapt. While I think that there are enough of us to survive as a species, it shall be a "brave new world" that they shall face. Paix, mon ami.


----------



## eMacMan

Still all of these species have survived far more serious warming trends than this one. The problems are not related to CO2 and efforts to improve things should be aimed at the real culprits, not a blue sky villain that Al Gore and Governments like because they can turn it into piles of cash without changing anything.

Perhaps we can get the mayor to transfer this last string to the Global Warming thread as I doubt that God is going to come to our aid on this one. Even if he does we may not like his approach.


----------



## groovetube

eMacMan said:


> Not sure how adding Mercury and Phosphorous to light bulbs equates to reducing the poisons in our environment. Nor, as we are seeing in Japan, is a CO2 free nuclear generator more environmentally friendly than a gas fired power plant.
> 
> First stop poisoning our nest, then you can throw any of *YOUR* leftover cash at Al Gore. I need what little cash I have to live on.


I think you need to read his post a little more carefully.


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> The question of wether these extinctions will as proportionately vast as have occurred in the past is still open.


The Cretaceous–Tertiary and Triassic–Jurassic extinction events, among, others put the statement in its proper context.




bryanc said:


> T
> Fortunately, exactly the same actions are required to address both problems. Even if you refuse to accept the consensus of the current science on one or the other of these issues, both issues have the same root causes and thus can be treated as a single problem.


No they're not the same problem. Carbon dioxide is not a poison, The others are. As much as you attempt to bind these issues, it's intellectually dishonest.


----------



## groovetube

hmm, once again, I didn't think he specifically said, carbon dioxide was a poison. But that in dealing with less fossil fuel use, you are also dealing with a lot of other poisons and pollution.


----------



## mrjimmy

Guys, there is a dedicated thread to debate this and this one isn't it.


----------



## eMacMan

Perhaps a new version of "Gimme Dat Old Time Religion" could swerve the derailed train back on track.beejacon

See them pray to Alan Gore.
Carbon balance to restore.
By stealing from the poor.
Mann that's way too cold for me.

*Chorus:*
Give me that good old global warming.
I am tired of winter storming.
And the icicles are forming,
Mann it's way too cold for me.


----------



## Snapple Quaffer

mrjimmy said:


> Guys, there is a dedicated thread to debate this and this one isn't it.


Macfury's on a roll, mr j. He can't help banging his little tin drum to the annoyance of the neighbours. He's being the naughty boy who's got everyone's attention. 

He's here spouting all of the nonsense he's been trying to peddle on the two unlamented, extinct 'Authoritative_[sic]_' threads as well as his very, very own 'Authoritative_[sic]_' thread. The trouble is that his own thread isn't getting the attention that the other two did, so he's had to have it bumped several times. His new wheeze is to parasitise your thread in order to get the attention.

He's the jolly fellow who demanded that posters keep on topic in _his_ thread, but this is only _your_ thread. Please try and keep up, mr j.


----------



## Dr.G.

Snapple Quaffer said:


> Macfury's on a roll, mr j. He can't help banging his little tin drum to the annoyance of the neighbours. He's being the naughty boy who's got everyone's attention.
> 
> He's here spouting all of the nonsense he's been trying to peddle on the two unlamented, extinct 'Authoritative_[sic]_' threads as well as his very, very own 'Authoritative_[sic]_' thread. The trouble is that his own thread isn't getting the attention that the other two did, so he's had to have it bumped several times. His new wheeze is to parasitise your thread in order to get the attention.
> 
> He's the jolly fellow who demanded that posters keep on topic in _his_ thread, but this is only _your_ thread. Please try and keep up, mr j.


Careful, SQ, for if God is on the side of Macfury, you shall suffer eternal damnation and have to try to contend with "hell fire and brimstone". So, I would be very, very careful when you mock Macfury. Remember that Hindu saying: "I am become death, the destroyer of worlds."

Paix, mon ami.


----------



## fjnmusic

Dr.G. said:


> Careful, SQ, for if God is on the side of Macfury, you shall suffer eternal damnation and have to try to contend with "hell fire and brimstone". So, I would be very, very careful when you mock Macfury. Remember that Hindu saying: "I am become death, the destroyer of worlds."
> 
> Paix, mon ami.


Reminds me of "All your base are belong to us."


----------



## Dr.G.

fjnmusic said:


> Reminds me of "All your base are belong to us."


:lmao: Good one, fjn, but not quite. 

"All your base are belong to us." However, then will come the final judgment, with "You are on the way to destruction" being said over and over again to the tunes of "Eve of Destruction" by Barry McGuire. 

Paix, mon ami.


----------



## Macfury

Dr. G. please think of all the hate there is in Red China.


----------



## Dr.G.

Macfury said:


> Dr. G. please think of all the hate there is in Red China.


"Then take a look around to Selma, Alabama".


----------



## Snapple Quaffer

Dr.G. said:


> Careful, SQ, for if God is on the side of Macfury, you shall suffer eternal damnation and have to try to contend with "hell fire and brimstone". So, I would be very, very careful when you mock Macfury. Remember that Hindu saying: "I am become death, the destroyer of worlds."
> 
> Paix, mon ami.


Thank you for your concern, Dr. G., but e'en tho' I walk through the Valley of the Shadow of Macfury, I shall fear no such weevil.


----------



## Macfury

Dr.G. said:


> "Then take a look around to Selma, Alabama".


You tell me that marches won’t bring integration, but look what it’s done for the voter registration. Be thankful our country allows demonstrations. Instead of condemnin’, make some recommendations


----------



## Dr.G.

Snapple Quaffer said:


> Thank you for your concern, Dr. G., but e'en tho' I walk through the Valley of the Shadow of Macfury, I shall fear no such weevil.


:lmao::lmao::lmao:

Bonne chance, mon ami. Vaya con Dios.


----------



## Dr.G.

Macfury said:


> You tell me that marches won’t bring integration, but look what it’s done for the voter registration. Be thankful our country allows demonstrations. Instead of condemnin’, make some recommendations


Amen, Brother Macfury. As a pacifist, I have always advocated peaceful protests. I recall as a teenager watching the scenes unfold each day during those months of protest in Alabama, wondering about the courage and the faith of those African-Americans to stand up to that sort of beating and jailing. 

Amazingly, LBJ stood up for what was right, not our of religious or moral reasons, but because that was what America was supposed to stand for, and helped to pass the various civil rights amendments. That legacy lives on still to this day.

I recall LBJ quoting JFK when he said that "God's work, here on Earth, must truly be our own."


----------



## CubaMark

(FarLeftSIde)


----------



## Macfury

Did a religious group say it wanted all sex and violence removed from reading material? I'd say that the left is probably the most interested in eliminating some violence, while the right is mostly interested in eliminating some sex.


----------



## bryanc

Macfury said:


> I'd say that the left is probably the most interested in eliminating some violence, while the right is mostly interested in eliminating some sex.


I don't really disagree. But the Bible is full of both.



Mark Twain said:


> The mind that becomes soiled in youth can never again be washed clean. I know this by my own experience, and to this day I cherish an unappeasable bitterness against the unfaithful guardians of my young life, who not only permitted but compelled me to read an unexpurgated Bible through before I was fifteen years old. None can do that and ever draw a clean, sweet breath again this side of the grave.


----------



## Elric

bryanc said:


> I don't really disagree. But the Bible is full of both.


The Bible is full of a LOT of things. A lot worse than sex and violence.


----------



## bryanc

Elric said:


> A lot worse than sex and violence.


Indeed. The sex and violence serve as a respite from the really offensive bits.


----------



## MacGuiver

Apparently religion is alive and well.

Apple triggers 'religious' reaction in fans' brains, report says - CNN.com










Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## fjnmusic

Jeez, I can't imagine why…


----------



## screature

^^^ :lmao:


----------



## Dr.G.

fjnmusic said:


> Jeez, I can't imagine why…


----------



## Macfury

Take two tablets, and call me in the morning...


----------



## fjnmusic

Well, it's nine am Alberta time and the skies are a little overcast. Other than that, no sign of a fiery apocalypse yet.


----------



## Dr.G.

Macfury said:


> Take two tablets, and call me in the morning...


:lmao::clap::lmao:


----------



## Dr.G.

fjnmusic said:


> Well, it's nine am Alberta time and the skies are a little overcast. Other than that, no sign of a fiery apocalypse yet.


Same here, fjn. We shall see. Paix, mon ami.


----------



## MazterCBlazter

.


----------



## screature

Groooaannn.....


----------



## rgray

Macfury said:


> ...... while the right is mostly interested in eliminating some sex.


And then they get caught in a hotel room with an underage hooker or in an airport washroom with an underage boy..... You gotta love those righties......  The hypocrisy anecdotes just about write themselves...


----------



## mrjimmy

The day after the Rapture - thestar.com

So the rapture came and went, or did it?



> While the world may not appear any different on the morning of May 22, 2011, it will only be because Satan has fooled the non-believers. The faithful will recognize that they are living in hell on Earth.


What concerns me the most though, is this:



> Marci McDonald, in her recent book The Armageddon Factor: The Rise of Christian Nationalism in Canada, claims that many of the 12 per cent of evangelical Canadians in Canada support Prime Minister Stephen Harper in the hope that he will help bring about the return of Christ.
> 
> This strikes fear into the hearts of secularists and liberal Christians alike, and, indeed, we should probably be concerned. But what we can take from this is that the Christian right has a much better formulated vision for the future than do those on the left.


This goes way beyond the mere mortal tomfoolery of partisan politics to something far more, hmmm... what's the word... oh yes, CRAZY.


----------



## rgray

mrjimmy said:


> So the rapture came and went, or did it?


..... And absolutely no one I know is missing.... :clap:


----------



## Rps

I find this whole concept of "The Rapture" very un-religious. I'm not a religious man by any stretch, and although I was brought up in a Chrisitan area, the concept that a G_d would want to destroy everyone seems anti-G_d-like to me .... although he or she can, why would he or she. I think these rapture fans only hurt what ever good one finds in having the security of a religion and the faith it provides .... we should not go media crazy with these people .... just ignore them ... tell them to take to valium and see them in the morning....


----------



## Macfury

Rps said:


> I find this whole concept of "The Rapture" very un-religious. I'm not a religious man by any stretch, and although I was brought up in a Chrisitan area, the concept that a G_d would want to destroy everyone seems anti-G_d-like to me .... although he or she can, why would he or she.


In fact, nobody is destroyed during the Rapture, as I understand it. The good are carried away, while the less-than-good are left behind to face a time of tribulation--during which time they have a chance to get right with God and save their souls. At this time, everybody understands that their life on earth is only temporary and that they're playing an eternal game, so anyone's death is incidental at this point.



> Marci McDonald, in her recent book The Armageddon Factor: The Rise of Christian Nationalism in Canada, claims that many of the 12 per cent of evangelical Canadians in Canada support Prime Minister Stephen Harper in the hope that he will help bring about the return of Christ.


Many? That's a startling number. 

And how do these Christians believe that they can _ bring about_ Christ's return?


----------



## Rps

MacFury, I stand corrected. My thought on this is that everytime someone predicts the "Rapture" it follows with earthquakes, tidal waves, end of the world stuff, and I made the leap that many would perish in the turmoil..... but I understand your refinement of my point.


----------



## fjnmusic

Rps said:


> I find this whole concept of "The Rapture" very un-religious. I'm not a religious man by any stretch, and although I was brought up in a Chrisitan area, the concept that a G_d would want to destroy everyone seems anti-G_d-like to me .... although he or she can, why would he or she. I think these rapture fans only hurt what ever good one finds in having the security of a religion and the faith it provides .... we should not go media crazy with these people .... just ignore them ... tell them to take to valium and see them in the morning....


Man creates g-d in his own image. That's why there are so many versions, and why the OT g-d seems to have a very different nature than the NT g-d. We create what we want to believe, not necessarily the truth. Only the truth from our own point of view. It's like the story of the blind men and the elephant.


----------



## fjnmusic

Rps said:


> MacFury, I stand corrected. My thought on this is that everytime someone predicts the "Rapture" it follows with earthquakes, tidal waves, end of the world stuff, and I made the leap that many would perish in the turmoil..... but I understand your refinement of my point.


When I think of the Rapture, it takes me back to a time of roller rinks and Debbie Harry and the extended version of the Blondie song, with bars and guitars and cars and Mars.


----------



## Macfury

fjnmusic said:


> When I think of the Rapture, it takes me back to a time of roller rinks and Debbie Harry and the extended version of the Blondie song, with bars and guitars and cars and Mars.


That song wasn't even cool then! I liked Blondie, but was stunned at the stilted cheesiness of the video. The choreographer should have been blacklisted. We got the requisite ballerina, but I don't think I caught a mime or harlequin.





+
YouTube Video









ERROR: If you can see this, then YouTube is down or you don't have Flash installed.


----------



## Elric

+
YouTube - ‪Bill Maher nails it!‬‏" title="View this video at YouTube in a new window or tab" target="_blank">YouTube Video






YouTube - ‪Bill Maher nails it!‬‏">
YouTube - ‪Bill Maher nails it!‬‏" />

ERROR: If you can see this, then YouTube is down or you don't have Flash installed.


----------



## MazterCBlazter

.


----------



## Rps

Macfury said:


> That song wasn't even cool then! I liked Blondie, but was stunned at the stilted cheesiness of the video. The choreographer should have been blacklisted. We got the requisite ballerina, but I don't think I caught a mime or harlequin.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> +
> YouTube Video
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ERROR: If you can see this, then YouTube is down or you don't have Flash installed.


MacFury, that's because it's an old testament video........


----------



## MazterCBlazter

.


----------



## fjnmusic

MazterCBlazter said:


> Jihad, Crusade, Fatwa, and Inquisition all very religious things.
> 
> Kool Aid Kool Aid, tastes great!
> 
> Added: Sharia Law - sending human rights into the stone age.


For the record, it was Flavor Aid. You could look it up.


----------



## Macfury

Rps said:


> MacFury, that's because it's an old testament video........


Why that's apocryphal!


----------



## Macfury

MazterCBlazter said:


> Fixed
> 
> LOL - he's correct. Sad but true.


Maher is something of an idiot--a dime store cracker-barrel philosopher. He rarely researches before making pronouncements. There's a huge difference in Christian tradition between individual acts and those acts performed on the societal level. So while it is wrong for an individual to murder someone in revenge, it is not wrong for society to deal with the situation.

Romans chapter 13, verses 3 and 4: _“For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same: For he (a ruler) is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, *a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil*.”_

Maher is a simpleton.


----------



## Max

Mahler just isn't your cup of tea, methinks. A simpleton? Hardly. But If he smirked less after his wisecracks I'd enjoy him more - a little too self-satisfied with his witty banter. Better if he played it straight, but whatever. He's got the schtick down and looks like he's in it for the long haul.

As for the bible, it has long been interpreted pretty freely. People can and do find plenty of ammo in it to justify their views or legitimize their fears and hatreds. It's very malleable and it offers a little something for everyone.

Citing the bible is but an another refuge a scoundrel will take. The good book indeed.


----------



## MazterCBlazter

.


----------



## Macfury

MazterCBlazter said:


> So much for Judge not lest yee be judged.
> 
> The Ayatollahs, Bin Laden, the Crusaders, Inquisitors, Jihadists and Hitler were all just Leaders doing Gods work to fight evil. Salman Rushdie was such an evil threat.
> 
> The Holy Books are all "Good Books" for the leaders to use towards their ends of manipulating masses of people.


This has nothing to do with the topic of Maher's poorly thought-outrant.


----------



## fjnmusic

Macfury said:


> Maher is something of an idiot--a dime store cracker-barrel philosopher. He rarely researches before making pronouncements. There's a huge difference in Christian tradition between individual acts and those acts performed on the societal level. So while it is wrong for an individual to murder someone in revenge, it is not wrong for society to deal with the situation.


Of course, there's also the good old leading by example, like when God smote the Egyptian army at the Red Sea. So much for Thou Shall Not Kill.


----------



## Macfury

fjnmusic said:


> Of course, there's also the good old leading by example, like when God smote the Egyptian army at the Red Sea. So much for Thou Shall Not Kill.


Again, no. The Bible is consistent in this. God may destroy what he creates, including the destruction of armies hostile to his people, but he does not allow individuals to murder. God never said he would lead by example--he said he would create a series of laws that people must abide by.


----------



## rgray

Macfury said:


> Again, no. The Bible is consistent in this. God may destroy what he creates, including the destruction of armies hostile to his people, but he does not allow individuals to murder. God never said he would lead by example--he said he would create a series of laws that people must abide by.


The story that turned me off god/bible and all that stuff was the story of Abraham. Supposedly god nagged and cajoled Abe to kill his son. God kept up the bullying and hectoring until Abe buckled. Then god says (more or less) "just kidding!". I have always hated that kind of sense of humour.


----------



## MazterCBlazter

.


----------



## Max

Hardly a feisty, robust reply there, MazterCBlazter; sounds like you're phoning it in. Please do yourself a favour and try to justify yourself with an actual reasoned explanation.


----------



## Macfury

rgray said:


> The story that turned me off god/bible and all that stuff was the story of Abraham. Supposedly god nagged and cajoled Abe to kill his son. God kept up the bullying and hectoring until Abe buckled. Then god says (more or less) "just kidding!". I have always hated that kind of sense of humour.


Quite frankly, I never fully understood what was expected of Abraham in this case. My best guess is that he was supposed to have faith that he would not be allowed to complete the act--but the poor kid!


----------



## Digikid

I could have sworn that I typed this before here....meh maybe not.

It is said in the Bible that NO MAN SHALL KNOW THE DAY NOR THE HOUR.

Only god knows.


----------



## fjnmusic

Macfury said:


> Again, no. The Bible is consistent in this. God may destroy what he creates, including the destruction of armies hostile to his people, but he does not allow individuals to murder. God never said he would lead by example--he said he would create a series of laws that people must abide by.


In that case, God is a hypocrite.


----------



## Macfury

Digikid said:


> I could have sworn that I typed this before here....meh maybe not.
> 
> It is said in the Bible that NO MAN SHALL KNOW THE DAY NOR THE HOUR.
> 
> Only god knows.


Which is why these guys should have known they were dealing with a false prophet!


----------



## fjnmusic

Macfury said:


> Quite frankly, I never fully understood what was expected of Abraham in this case. My best guess is that he was supposed to have faith that he would not be allowed to complete the act--but the poor kid!


Can you imagine every time thereafter when Abe suggested doing some kind of fun father-son bonding activity? "Uh, yeah, dad……actually I've got a lot of studying to do tonight. Maybe another time."


----------



## fjnmusic

Digikid said:


> I could have sworn that I typed this before here....meh maybe not.
> 
> It is said in the Bible that NO MAN SHALL KNOW THE DAY NOR THE HOUR.
> 
> Only god knows.


Reminds me of "only the true messiah would deny his divinity!"


----------



## DR Hannon

MazterCBlazter said:


> Don't think.
> 
> Don't question.
> 
> Believe.
> 
> Obey blindly.
> 
> beejacon


I do not understand this rational either. I was never taught religion in such absolutes. I was always taught, Jesus was a bit of a rebel. Enough of a threat to be thrown up on a cross. No matter your stance on religion, that is commitment. 

Though I do find hardliners on the religious and atheist side utter nonsense. No one has the right to tell me what I can and cannot believe. On the one hand I go to hell the other I have the intelligence of a stone. 

We all follow a certain set of beliefs or standards (if belief is to religious) and rationalize the rest. Science bases itself in facts and changes as new information comes to light. And it is very good at what it does, I live better than my ancestors of only a hundred years ago because of it.

Does this mean that stories from thousands of years ago are completely mute? I suppose it depends what you want to get out of it. This is what I have gotten out of it. "Love your neighbour as you love yourself." Children are more than the some of their parts and matter. Turn the other cheek. Accept people as they are, Lead by example, words are wasted without actions to back them up. People have worth even if they do not see it. I am sorry that I am no versed enough to give chapter and verse, but it is all there. Then again, I always saw the bible as written by man intended by God not written by God. So, I saw many books that could just be stories with a moral message in them.

If this means that I have not evolved as much as some of you so be it. I do not think so though. At the end of the day I can still look myself in the mirror and my wife and son in the eyes. What else is there?


----------



## DR Hannon

fjnmusic said:


> Reminds me of "only the true messiah would deny his divinity!"


Love the quote love the movie.


----------



## DR Hannon

fjnmusic said:


> In that case, God is a hypocrite.


That only works if God was a man.:yawn:


----------



## MannyP Design

DR Hannon said:


> I do not understand this rational either. I was never taught religion in such absolutes. I was always taught, Jesus was a bit of a rebel. Enough of a threat to be thrown up on a cross. No matter your stance on religion, that is commitment.
> 
> Though I do find hardliners on the religious and atheist side utter nonsense. No one has the right to tell me what I can and cannot believe. On the one hand I go to hell the other I have the intelligence of a stone.
> 
> We all follow a certain set of beliefs or standards (if belief is to religious) and rationalize the rest. Science bases itself in facts and changes as new information comes to light. And it is very good at what it does, I live better than my ancestors of only a hundred years ago because of it.
> 
> Does this mean that stories from thousands of years ago are completely mute? I suppose it depends what you want to get out of it. This is what I have gotten out of it. "Love your neighbour as you love yourself." Children are more than the some of their parts and matter. Turn the other cheek. Accept people as they are, Lead by example, words are wasted without actions to back them up. People have worth even if they do not see it. I am sorry that I am no versed enough to give chapter and verse, but it is all there. Then again, I always saw the bible as written by man intended by God not written by God. So, I saw many books that could just be stories with a moral message in them.
> 
> If this means that I have not evolved as much as some of you so be it. I do not think so though. At the end of the day I can still look myself in the mirror and my wife and son in the eyes. What else is there?


Don't even bother. I would take everything from MatzoBlaster with a grain of salt… he's a body-building nouveau viking entrepreneur from the church of cash who studies the dark magiks. Clearly he's on a whole new level that is far beyond our comprehension.


----------



## ehMax

MannyP Design said:


> Don't even bother. I would take everything from MatzoBlaster with a grain of salt… he's a body-building nouveau viking entrepreneur from the church of cash who studies the dark magiks. Clearly he's on a whole new level that is far beyond our comprehension.


Hey Manny, let's not have things get personal please.


----------



## MazterCBlazter

.


----------



## Max

Hoo boy.

__________________

Back to religion. So no rapture yet - check. I have to wonder when the next group of visionaries will start crowing about some all-important date. It's instructive to remember that these end-of-the-world arguments are about as old as civilization itself. Still, we trundle forward. I hope that old dude in the states eats a lot of crow for his latest miscalculation, but somehow I really doubt it; this type will always find a way to reframe their situation, put it in the best possible light. Hey, the faithful will understand, if no one else.


----------



## Snapple Quaffer

Max said:


> Hey, the faithful will understand, if no one else.


Yeah. It's a friggin' nightmare trying to get the timing of the end of the world right. I know. I've never managed it yet. Nor have I made as much as a penny from all my attempts, _unlike_ Mr. Camping who's parted a lot of fools from their money.


----------



## Max

That part of it is truly wild. The fact that he convinced a good amount of people... well, I guess that makes him a Bernie Madoff-type confidence man, someone able to sucker in people who seemingly ought to know better. I suppose it's the air of exclusivity he promised - come with me, it'll be a great ride, be one of the chosen few, you'll get rich, be allotted your own little slice of heaven. Life forever with God on your team. Everyone else? They'll crash and burn. They'll deserve it, really. But not you. _You're special._


----------



## fjnmusic

Max said:


> That part of it is truly wild. The fact that he convinced a good amount of people... well, I guess that makes him a Bernie Madoff-type confidence man, someone able to sucker in people who seemingly ought to know better. I suppose it's the air of exclusivity he promised - come with me, it'll be a great ride, be one of the chosen few, you'll get rich, be allotted your own little slice of heaven. Life forever with God on your team. Everyone else? They'll crash and burn. They'll deserve it, really. But not you. _You're special._


Yeah, he sounds like a real fun guy to spend eternity with.


----------



## Max

A special definition of hell, actually. Spend eternity with the fool who took cashed in your desire to be sold a whopper of a tail.


----------



## CubaMark

*How God is managing the 2011 rapture*



_*Click the graphic or the link below to see the whole strip - including the aprocryphal ending!*
_
(The Oatmeal)


----------



## jimbotelecom

Hasn't this been given an extension until October?


----------



## Snapple Quaffer

jimbotelecom said:


> Hasn't this been given an extension until October?


Yep, that's so the old coot can skin a few more suckers.


----------



## eMacMan

Snapple Quaffer said:


> Yep, that's so the old coot can skin a few more suckers.


Not sure how that would work. I mean if he really believes the rapture is coming why would he need contributions? Seems a lot like Al Gore buying a 70 Million dollar beach front home. If you believe the oceans are going to rise, why are you buying beach front property? 

Course no one said religious fervour makes any sense.


----------



## cap10subtext

jimbotelecom said:


> Hasn't this been given an extension until October?


Yeah, it's rescheduled for my birthday. Woo.


----------



## MacUnited

hmmmm.. I'm starting to get the feeling that you guys don't believe that the rapture will be on may 21st!!!


----------



## cap10subtext

MacUnited said:


> hmmmm.. I'm starting to get the feeling that you guys don't believe that the rapture will be on may 21st!!!


Call it a hunch....

I'm surprised this or as much press as it did.

Doonesbury Strip


----------



## Snapple Quaffer

eMacMan said:


> Not sure how that would work. I mean if he really believes the rapture is coming why would he need contributions?


Hmmm. Never hurts to have a Plan B. Just don't tell the marks.


----------



## Macfury

My recollection was that initially, October had been announced as the death day for all those left behind, so it's understandable that he might have mixed up these significant dates. Many's the time I've seen people mix up Christmas and Thanksgiving.


----------



## CubaMark

(FarLeftSide)


----------



## Macfury

Those cats look like bull terriers.


----------



## Sonal

Door To Door Atheists Bother Mormons Video

The halfway mark is when the guy switches from ranting to door-knocking, but if you listen to his ranting, you will note his problem is not so much religion as it is being woken up before noon on a Saturday morning.


----------



## Macfury

Sonal said:


> The halfway mark is when the guy switches from ranting to door-knocking, but if you listen to his ranting, you will note his problem is not so much religion as it is being woken up before noon on a Saturday morning.


I'd have to agree. The response of the people being badgered is just about the same as the reverse.


----------



## eMacMan

Just a thought here. If a loved one is going through a rough patch, perhaps the death of a loved one, please refrain from throwing a Bible, Quran or whatever other book your particular branch happens to cling to. 

If they believe they don't need another one, if not it is a rather tasteless point in time to attempt a conversion. Either way a Bible to the head can cause a concussion which should not be confused with enlightenment.

Long and short, eventually someone less devout will end up routing those 20+ surplus Bibles to the landfill.


----------



## Snapple Quaffer

The Flying Spaghetti Monster  is on the move


----------



## CubaMark




----------



## Macfury

What I love about generic religious cartoons like that--they're just as funny when you change the subject:


----------



## groovetube

not so generic now!


----------



## Snapple Quaffer

Macfury said:


> What I love about generic religious cartoons like that--they're *just as funny* when you change the subject:


What I love mostly about your attempt at humour is that it isn't funny. Then, after that I love how it is a superb example of a damp squib. Bravo!

Have another go. The world awaits ...


----------



## Macfury

Snapple Quaffer said:


> What I love mostly about your attempt at humour is that it isn't funny. Then, after that I love how it is a superb example of a damp squib. Bravo!
> 
> Have another go. The world awaits ...


Did you find the first one a solid attempt at humour? Did it make your wee Scots' sides ache with laughter? 

Mine was an intentional damp squib presented in response to a damp squib.


----------



## groovetube

the first one was funny. The other was a classic example of the guy in the room slapping his knee really hard and trying too hard to recreate the humour.


----------



## Macfury

groovetube said:


> the first one was funny. The other was a classic example of the guy in the room slapping his knee really hard and trying too hard to recreate the humour.


Do you slap your knee when you laugh?


----------



## Snapple Quaffer

Macfury said:


> Did you find the first one a solid attempt at humour? Did it make your wee Scots' sides ache with laughter?


Questions, questions. You have such an inquiring mind, Macfury. If only it could be put to good use ... (_sigh_)




Macfury said:


> Mine was an intentional damp squib presented in response to a damp squib.


There, there. Of course it was. How deliciously cunning of you, you old rascal. 

You should seriously consider publishing your squib in that thar official [sic], authoritative [sic] thread of yours. I'm sure you could present it as a solid attempt at sarcasm - not to be sniffed at.


----------



## Macfury

It has already been published here. But I give you permission to upload it to the other thread.


----------



## Snapple Quaffer

Macfury said:


> It has already been published here. But I give you permission to upload it to the other thread.


No, you do it. You worked so terribly hard at it. It really shows. You deserve the applause.


----------



## groovetube

Macfury said:


> Do you slap your knee when you laugh?


no but apparently you do.

It was humour fail. There's always the guy that doesn't get it and takes to the unfunny place.


----------



## Snapple Quaffer

Full marks to Enda Kenny : BBC News - Irish leader Enda Kenny in unprecedented attack on Vatican


----------



## darkscot

Snapple Quaffer said:


> Full marks to Enda Kenny : BBC News - Irish leader Enda Kenny in unprecedented attack on Vatican


Good for Kenny. I hope the attacks on Vatican continue.


----------



## Macfury

groovetube said:


> no but apparently you do.
> 
> It was humour fail. There's always the guy that doesn't get it and takes to the unfunny place.


Any cheapjack rip-off of a gag more than a half-century old is humour fail:


----------



## mrjimmy

Macfury said:


> Any cheapjack rip-off of a gag more than a half-century old is humour fail:


What is it that you're defending exactly? To make such an effort to attempt to discredit a post is odd. 

Do you disagree for disagreement's sake or are you just bored?

Just curious.


----------



## bryanc

Macfury said:


> Any cheapjack rip-off of a gag more than a half-century old is humour fail:


The fact that the paradigm is an old classic, and that religion is as old as this phenomenon is the point of the joke. 




Code:


====Joke===>

         _____
      /         \     ?
     {   M   F   }   ???
      |     ^    |     ?
       \    0   /
         -----


----------



## Snapple Quaffer

Macfury said:


> Any cheapjack rip-off of a gag more than a half-century old is humour fail:


So then, Smasher, of the supposed seven original jokes bestowed upon mankind, and hence their derivatives, how many would you, in your lofty omnipotence, permit us mere mortals to indulge in without having to flinch under the lash of your scorn?

It rather begs the question: Is all humour to be necessarily deemed, 'fail', in your savage kingdom?

Once again, without fail**, you have ended up wriggling and writhing like a worm on a hook of its own making. And you have in your most singular fashion, reduced the this thread to one that centres around one of _your_ absurdities. Bravo!

** [snicker]geddit?[/snicker]


----------



## Snapple Quaffer

More international coverage and support for Enda Kenny.

I would like a close textual analysis of the Twit-response:

@lileeny Enda Kenny, Ireland's Wendi Deng

Macfury? Step up please and do your duty. Redeem yourself!


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> The fact that the paradigm is an old classic, and that religion is as old as this phenomenon is the point of the joke.


The fact that the "new" joke fails to achieve even a fraction of the humour found in the original is the point of its failure.


----------



## Snapple Quaffer

Macfury said:


> The fact that the "new" joke fails to achieve even a fraction of the humour found in the original is the point of its failure.


It's not a fact.


----------



## Macfury

Snapple Quaffer said:


> It's not a fact.


No, that's true. You and groovetube were slapping each other's knees. While I have set an objective standard for the failure of humour, I simply can't control the guffaws emerging from the cheap seats.


----------



## bryanc

Macfury said:


> I have set an objective standard for the failure of humour


:clap:

Please, oh _please_ enlighten us with this objective standard. It could form the basis of an algorithm by which we could filter the internet and purify the purest comedy gold from the seas of dreck, and save literally billions of dollars worth of wasted time. This could be the most valuable contribution ever made to an internet forum; we wait with baited breath!


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> :clap:
> 
> Please, oh _please_ enlighten us with this objective standard. It could form the basis of an algorithm by which we could filter the internet and purify the purest comedy gold from the seas of dreck, and save literally billions of dollars worth of wasted time. This could be the most valuable contribution ever made to an internet forum; we wait with baited breath!


Why would I want the masses to be freed from engaging with dreck?

And it's "bated" short for "abated"--unless you feel the aroma of what you exhale is a lure of sorts.


----------



## MacGuiver

MacFury, you need to be a christophobe, an atheistic zealot or a far leftist bigot to really appreciate the knee slappin brilliance of that propaganda.... err...cartoon. You're obviously not in the club.

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## Max

this is how we roll~
stale retorts, usual gibes
ehmac's glory reigns


----------



## Snapple Quaffer

MacGuiver said:


> MacFury, you need to be a christophobe, an atheistic zealot or a far leftist bigot to really appreciate the knee slappin brilliance of that propaganda.... err...cartoon. You're obviously not in the club.


I think that sums up the whole picture very well, MacGuiver. It's an articulate, well polished, even-tempered model of clarity, and an example to us all as we stumble through the briar patch that is The Religious Thread

Can we have 'questions at the end'?

What do you think I am? A christophobe? An atheistic zealot? Or am I a far leftist bigot?

And, what's with the 'knee slapping' that you and Smasher seem to go in for? Is that a religious ritual? Sounds jolly suspect to me, a bit SM-ish.


----------



## groovetube

MacGuiver said:


> MacFury, you need to be a christophobe, an atheistic zealot or a far leftist bigot to really appreciate the knee slappin brilliance of that propaganda.... err...cartoon. You're obviously not in the club.
> 
> Cheers
> MacGuiver


or simply someone who can laugh at something without going apecrap and taking revenge with their own cartoon adaptation.

chillax, it was a smile.


----------



## CubaMark

*
I think this about sums it all up...*


----------



## Dr.G.

CubaMark said:


> *
> I think this about sums it all up...*


Interesting, CM. Sadly, all too true for some of these fans.


----------



## Macfury

God's detractors can be pretty insufferable and self-righteous as well.


----------



## MacGuiver

Macfury said:


> God's detractors can be pretty insufferable and self-righteous as well.


Ya think?


----------



## CubaMark




----------



## Macfury

This reminds me of those unfunny comics librarians post on their bulletin boards simply because they feature libraries.


----------



## Kosh

WOW, a religion that includes dinosaurs and explains the extintion of dinosaurs. :lmao:


----------



## CubaMark

*Kosh*, stop laughing and remove that emoticon this instance! MacFury says it's not funny. We wouldn't want to offend his sensibilities...


----------



## screature

Kosh said:


> WOW, a religion that includes dinosaurs and explains the extintion of dinosaurs. :lmao:





CubaMark said:


> *Kosh*, stop laughing and remove that emoticon this instance! MacFury says it's not funny. We wouldn't want to offend his sensibilities...


There are plenty of religions that would be happy to accept the existence of dinosaurs and it wouldn't upset their fundamental moral beliefs... Their creation myth may be altered but that is all fundamentally.


----------



## Macfury

screature said:


> There are plenty of religions that would be happy to accept the existence of dinosaurs and it wouldn't upset their fundamental moral beliefs... Their creation myth maybe altered but that is all fundamentally.


Exactly. But we want the jokes to be funny.


----------



## CubaMark

screature said:


> There are plenty of religions that would be happy to accept the existence of dinosaurs....


Kosh was talking about the _extinction_ of dinosaurs, not their _existence_, FYI.


----------



## CubaMark

*Back to more contemporary Religious issues.*

This guy. _Seriously? _



*US awaits new prophecy on 'end of world'*



> Five months after a media frenzy over a US preacher's "end of the world" prophesy, his faithful were awaiting Judgment Day again Friday based on his "recalculated" prediction.





> "The Bible declares that it was God's plan to save 200 million people out of all those that would ever live upon the earth."
> Camping bases his prediction on a message from God to Noah in the year 4990BC, claiming that the destruction in "seven days" really translates to 7,000 years.


(Telegraph UK)


----------



## Macfury

Next thing you know, he'll be telling people that the industrial nations of the world will be punished by great heat and rising seas!


----------



## Lawrence

I think he may have meant 7 ice ages till the end of the world.


----------



## screature

CubaMark said:


> Kosh was talking about the _extinction_ of dinosaurs, not their _existence_, FYI.


How can they go extinct if there isn't a logical presupposition of their existence?


----------



## Lawrence

I find it rather funny that the lowest place on earth is also where the Bible came from.


----------



## screature

Lawrence said:


> I find it rather funny that the lowest place on earth is also where the Bible came from.


Really? Is it funny because Jews believe in the Bible (1st Testament) or Christians (who believe in both Testaments) or both?

Once again please explain your meaning as I don't quite get the point you are making as it is too coded for my simple unenlightened mind to understand.


----------



## Lawrence

screature said:


> Really? Is it funny because Jews believe in the Bible (1st Testament) or Christians (who believe in both Testaments) or both?
> 
> Once again please explain your meaning as I don't quite get the point you are making as it is too coded for my simple unenlightened mind to understand.


God almighty, Lighten up


----------



## Lawrence

I can't give you rhyme or reason for every nit picking thing that comes into your head,
Reason it out on your own, You are talking like a Virgo for Gods sake.


----------



## bryanc

screature said:


> Really? Is it funny because Jews believe in the Bible (1st Testament) or Christians (who believe in both Testaments) or both?


I didn't get it either, but I presume he's referring to the fact that the primitive middle eastern cultures were rife with legends about 'great floods' due to the geography?


----------



## MLeh

Dead Sea.


----------



## Lawrence

bryanc said:


> I didn't get it either, but I presume he's referring to the fact that the primitive middle eastern cultures were rife with legends about 'great floods' due to the geography?


Not the best account of the area, The owners manual is missing about two thirds of the tablet,
But still, You might be able to get an idea of what I'm getting at.

Apocrypha: The Sumerians and Akkadians - Chapter 3


----------



## screature

Lawrence said:


> God almighty, Lighten up


I weigh about 230lbs... You're right I should lose some weight...


----------



## eMacMan

Given that Israel has corrupted the "Old Testament" to the point that bans against murder, theft and yes usury, only apply if the victims are Jews from the same synagogue, one does find their religious fervor to be a bit suspect.


----------



## SINC

I guess it had to happen:

Christian radio host warns that lesbian nurses can make kids gay


----------



## bryanc

SINC said:


> Christian radio host warns that lesbian nurses can make kids gay


:yikes:

I'm sure this is not representative of most Christians, but it certainly is a good illustration of the sort of intolerance characteristic of extremist religious fundamentalism. What a clown. If only she was an isolated example.


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> :yikes:
> 
> I'm sure this is not representative of most Christians, but it certainly is a good illustration of the sort of intolerance characteristic of extremist religious fundamentalism. What a clown. If only she was an isolated example.


I've heard people suggest that conservatives are biologically programmed to be unintelligent. Lots of intolerance all around.


----------



## bryanc

Macfury said:


> I've heard people suggest that conservatives are biologically programmed to be unintelligent. Lots of intolerance all around.


People confuse correlation and causation all the time. There is a correlation between certain kinds of intelligence (especially that associated with strong performances on IQ tests) and educational achievement. And there is a correlation between education and liberalism. Therefore it's not surprising that there's a correlation between intelligence and liberalism. That cannot be used as evidence that conservatives are unintelligent, but it can be used to formulate questions about why intelligent well-educated people tend to have liberal political leanings.

Correlations can lead to useful questions about mechanisms, but they rarely mean much by themselves.


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> People confuse correlation and causation all the time. There is a correlation between certain kinds of intelligence (especially that associated with strong performances on IQ tests) and educational achievement. And there is a correlation between education and liberalism. Therefore it's not surprising that there's a correlation between intelligence and liberalism. That cannot be used as evidence that conservatives are unintelligent, but it can be used to formulate questions about why intelligent well-educated people tend to have liberal political leanings.
> 
> Correlations can lead to useful questions about mechanisms, but they rarely mean much by themselves.


We can justify almost any prejudice.


----------



## Lawrence

SINC said:


> I guess it had to happen:
> 
> Christian radio host warns that lesbian nurses can make kids gay




Thank God I'm not religious


----------



## SINC

More stuff . . .


----------



## eMacMan

SINC said:


> More stuff . . .


Redundant that is, is that


----------



## fjnmusic

MLeh said:


> Dead Sea.


I'm old enough to remember when the Dead Sea was still sick.


----------



## screature

fjnmusic said:


> I'm old enough to remember when the Dead Sea was still sick.


:lmao::lmao:


Really great laugh fjnmusic... I hadn't heard that one before. :clap:


----------



## CubaMark




----------



## Macfury

Owww. That guy's weak cartoons are an insult to Gary Larson's namesake. 

Does one become a 9-11 "truther" when one goes to the "Far Left Side?"


----------



## eMacMan

CubaMark said:


>


Kids got a point. The Bible tries to turn things that may have rational explanations into miracles. Whereas the the 9-11 report tries to turn the impossible into rational explanations.


----------



## Greenman

...


----------



## eMacMan

A bit of tongue in chick Mormon History.

Mormons: A shallow yet helpful guide to see if you should hate them or not - Page 1 - News - Denver - Westword

The opening salvo of a two page article: 


> Last month, evangelical leaders gathered in D.C. for the Values Voter Summit, where disciples of the Pissed-Off Jesus harrumphed and yammered about how much America sucked. That's when the bomb ignited.
> 
> Dallas megachurch preacher Robert Jeffress was on hand to introduce Rick Perry. He warned that Mormon "cult" members were not only despoiling Broadway, but were actually running for president. "Non-Christians" like Mitt Romney and Jon Huntsman had invaded the Republican primary like a bunch of damn Mexicans — and they didn't even have comparable skill at operating a riding lawn mower.
> 
> If patriots didn't take heed, Jeffress cautioned, America would soon be possessed by heretics.
> ......
> ...
> .....
> 
> Prominent modern Mormons — like Glenn Beck and Romney -- have since had revelations of their own. They assert that what Smith was really trying to say is that Mormons should give all their money to very large corporations, whose excess divinity would eventually trickle down to everyone else. Most Mormons today prefer the revised prophesy.
> 
> So should we hate these guys or not?
> 
> Your call. Mormons may be lesser perverts than Catholics, and not nearly as mean as the Baptists. But if Romney declares martial law and forces you to get naked with a squadron of babushka ladies, don't come whining to us.
> 
> As Rev. Jeffress might counsel, the wise man always hates first and asks questions later — if only to stay on the right side of Jesus.


----------



## CubaMark




----------



## CubaMark




----------



## MacGuiver

Good grief Cuba, have you nothing better to do with your time than spread hate propaganda against Christians and America on the internet? I hope the communist party pays you for your tireless propaganda campaign. You're a communist and you hate Christians and Americans, we get it already. 

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## Macfury

MacGuiver said:


> Good grief Cuba, have you nothing better to do with your time than spread hate propaganda against Christians and America on the internet? I hope the communist party pays you for your tireless propaganda campaign. You're a communist and you hate Christians and Americans, we get it already.
> 
> Cheers
> MacGuiver


There's still that shining star of human rights, Cuba, that deserves all of the support it can get.


----------



## CubaMark

MacGuiver said:


> Good grief Cuba, have you nothing better to do with your time than spread hate propaganda against Christians and America on the internet? I hope the communist party pays you for your tireless propaganda campaign. You're a communist and you hate Christians and Americans, we get it already.


Hah! Communist? No. Too much of a pessimist (realist?) to believe human beings are anywhere close to sufficiently evolved to give up greed and selfishness to work toward a just society. 

And... this is a little something called _humour_, which sadly religious conservatives seem unable to appreciate. Having spent - in one of my previous careers - hours every morning of every workday monitoring evangelical programming (100 Huntley Street, etc.), I have a special kind of hatred for those truly evil people who "minister" to the "elderly" and "shut-ins", offering limousine service up to the pearly gates in exchange for a "small gift" of their monthly pension cheques...

I honestly don't care if people embrace religion (as opposed to a belief in a deity) - but it's excesses (and interference in politics, among other things) deserve no mercy at the hands of those who wish to expose hipocrisy.

As for America - it ain't propaganda if it's true, mate. But let's leave that topic for another thread...


----------



## eMacMan

*What would Jesus Think?*

Would Jesus Wear a Rolex by Ray Stevens - YouTube


----------



## MacGuiver

CubaMark said:


> And... this is a little something called _humour_, which sadly religious conservatives seem unable to appreciate.


So you'd be slapping your knees if we started a thread where we consistently posted cartoons degrading Cubans or some of the despot regimes you seem to have an affinity for? 

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## CubaMark

Post away. Then we can have an intellectual discussion / debate based on facts, rather than beliefs.

And... what are these "despot regimes" for which I seem to "have an affinity"?


----------



## MacGuiver

CubaMark said:


> Post away. Then we can have an intellectual discussion / debate based on facts, rather than beliefs.


No. We'll just post them for a good laugh. No need for discussion or debate, its all just for fun. Left wingers have a wonderful sense of humour when the jokes on them apparently.


----------



## fjnmusic

Children! Stop fighting already! It's nearly Christmastime, g#[email protected]!


----------



## Macfury

MacGuiver said:


> No. We'll just post them for a good laugh. No need for discussion or debate, its all just for fun. Left wingers have a wonderful sense of humour when the jokes on them apparently.


A new thread perhaps? "Cuba--Your'e such a joke!"


----------



## Rps

Hello all, i am finally getting back to my studies and have been reading some material on education. I came across an article which blames Rousseau for much of the ills in education...the gist was that Rousseau contended that intellectual and social development should occur naturally with children and not be impeded by adult notions or information...which appears.to me to mean a process driven approach rather than content....this got me thinking if Rousseau was right...so i began to think about any adult content we instill in our children...religion came to mind...then i began to wonder...is religion an adult concept.......thoughts....


----------



## Macfury

Rps said:


> then i began to wonder...is religion an adult concept.......thoughts....


Not judging the validity of religion here. Merely my observation. I believe that religion is the adult form of codifying that which is felt by many in childhood.


----------



## Rps

Macfury, i was wondering about that myself...a spirituality thing...so i am wondering, and this is not a slam against believers, but our culture has long held that children should use their imagination in the development of the intellectual and social process, if that is the case , with the historical political dealings aside, is to be religious to be childlike.....


----------



## CubaMark

Macfury said:


> Not judging the validity of religion here. Merely my observation. I believe that religion is the adult form of codifying that which is felt by many in childhood.


Then it follows that there is a case to be made for Santa Claus as deity? Or the Tooth Fairy?


----------



## bryanc

Rps said:


> so i began to think about any adult content we instill in our children...religion came to mind...then i began to wonder...is religion an adult concept.......thoughts....


I've often been bemused at the idea of people being 'born Christian/Muslim/whatever'. Children are not born with these beliefs, but have them inculcated through a variety of means (generally well before they have the capacity for critical thought or sufficient experience to consider alternatives, which strikes me as unethical). However, there is plenty of evidence that we, as a species, are prone to supernatural thoughts and beliefs, and it is clearly true that most people readily accept religious teachings. There has been plenty of research on this subject (see Dennet and/or Dawkins for reviews and references).

I would certainly agree that maintaining these beliefs into adulthood is childlike in that it requirers one to refrain from critically examining the logical and philosophical basis of the beliefs (i.e. it requires faith).


----------



## Rps

Cubamark, a valid point, but, depending on your belief, doesn't MacFury's point hold true if you still believe in those cultural beings as an adult.


----------



## Rps

I would wonder about Rousseau in that case....I would be interested to learn if he was a religious man and what he would have thought about the gap between faith and critical tbinking.....can the two coexist.


----------



## bryanc

Rps said:


> can the two coexist.


There is existence proof that they can. However, after a lot of study and discussion with sophisticated individuals who manage to be examples of this, it is quite clear to me that they do this through great mental flexibility. As one of them said to me, "I can believe 3 impossible things before breakfast". Most modern philosophers will agree that religious faith is not logically parsimonious, nor can it be supported empirically, but some people will persist in these beliefs despite (or even because of) their inability to rationally justify them. For some people, the irrationality of these ideas is part of their attraction.


----------



## CubaMark




----------



## groovetube

Once again, BS flies with this angus reid poll:
Angus Reid and the 'False Dilemma' Fallacy | The Mark



> Option 1b is especially misleading, as it implies that Canadian women currently have the “unrestricted right to have an abortion at any time up to the moment of birth,” which is simply not true. Less than half a per cent of abortions in Canada occur after 20 weeks [Select “Read Only” to view]. Such abortions are generally done only if the woman’s life is endangered or in cases of severe fetal abnormalities where the fetus cannot survive after birth. Almost all abortions occur before the end of the second trimester (24 weeks), and none at “the moment of birth.”
> 
> *It’s absurd and insulting to imply that women can have abortions when they are nine months pregnant, as if they impulsively change their minds and pop into an abortion clinic on their way to give birth. It’s also a slur against doctors, who adhere to medical policies and protocols that effectively restrict abortions after 20 weeks (except in critical cases).*
> 
> Remarkably, despite the fact that the question alarmingly implied that women can have abortions “up to the moment of birth,” 37 per cent of respondents still chose the option of having an unrestricted right to abortion. This reveals the astonishing strength of pro-choice sentiment in Canada: Consider how many more people would have selected the “no law” option if the question had been accurately presented.


emphasis mine. It seems to be a tactic of anti-abortionists, as seen here to insinuate something that simply isn't true.

Either that, or they want to make sure your wife dies as a result, and not have the choice to abort to save her life. It's really, that simple.


----------



## SINC

groovetube said:


> It seems to be a tactic of anti-abortionists, as seen here to insinuate something that simply isn't true.


Not exclusive to anti-abortionists, that kind of 'simply isn't true' thing even happens here on ehMac.


----------



## groovetube

SINC said:


> Not exclusive to anti-abortionists, that kind of 'simply isn't true' thing even happens here on ehMac.


Why people need to point out that untruths happen elsewhere is anyone's guess.

It seems that now when conservatives and religious zealots have more control over politics and law, this is about the only response we get.

But it still, doesn't change the fact, that these anti-abortionists, are resorting to misleading people completely. 

Sorry.


----------



## SINC

groovetube said:


> Sorry.


As you should be.


----------



## groovetube

Well you should proud of that post. I bet it took a lot of thought.

Thanks for once again, derailing a topic. I did try to put it here to prevent derailing the policial thread, but I guess that's not good enough for you, you had to come here and **** on my topic here too.


----------



## MacGuiver

groovetube said:


> Once again, BS flies with this angus reid poll:
> Angus Reid and the 'False Dilemma' Fallacy | The Mark


Yeah that survey must have sent pro-aborts into fits. Imagine learning that 60% of the country are actually far right wingnuts and religious fanatics on par with the Taliban. The lefties must all be at Costco tonight buying supplies for their bunkers.
There is a plan however should these bronze age mystics bring a single restriction against their sacred ritual. Justin Trudeau will turn Quebec into a sanctuary for social liberals everywhere should the evil 60% of this country ever manage to influence a single restriction on this heinous practice.

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## SINC

groovetube said:


> Well you should proud of that post. I bet it took a lot of thought.
> 
> Thanks for once again, derailing a topic. I did try to put it here to prevent derailing the policial thread, but I guess that's not good enough for you, you had to come here and **** on my topic here too.


I did nothing more than point out the hypocrisy of pointing out a tactic used by others that you occasionally choose to use yourself.


----------



## MazterCBlazter

.


----------



## MacGuiver

http://www.angus-reid.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/2012.01.26_Abortion_CAN.pdf

KEY FINDINGS
 *51%* believe there should be laws which outline when a woman can have an abortion in Canada; *37%* think there should be no laws on this matter and want a woman to have the unrestricted right to have an abortion at any time up to the moment of birth

 *60%* believe there should be laws which outline whether a woman can have an abortion based solely on the gender of the fetus; *30%* think a woman should have the unrestricted right to have an abortion in any circumstance

Things I found interesting in the stats that fly in the face of the pro-aborts narrative of the issue:

More women than men think there should be laws restricting abortion: *49% vs 53%*
More young people 18-34 support restrictions than people 55+ (this despite a dramatic decline in religious adherence and abortion positive "education" : *51% vs 50%*

On Party lines, support for abortion restrictions grew as you move to the right but it was surprising to see the high percentages in even the most left wing parties of this country 
CONS *57%* LIBS *52%* NDP *43%* BQ *44%* GREENS *41%*

And last but not least:
On the issue of gender selection abortion women were more supportive of laws to restrict it than men by a 12% margin: *54% vs 66%*

Proponents of abortion often paint dissenters as a minority, oppressive older men wanting to keep a woman down, religious nut jobs, right wing neocons. I've heard it all. But reality is another story as these statistics clearly show.

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## groovetube

MacGuiver said:


> Yeah that survey must have sent pro-aborts into fits. Imagine learning that 60% of the country are actually far right wingnuts and religious fanatics on par with the Taliban. The lefties must all be at Costco tonight buying supplies for their bunkers.
> There is a plan however should these bronze age mystics bring a single restriction against their sacred ritual. Justin Trudeau will turn Quebec into a sanctuary for social liberals everywhere should the evil 60% of this country ever manage to influence a single restriction on this heinous practice.
> 
> Cheers
> MacGuiver


Restrict what, women who need to have an abortion because their lives are at risk?

If you tell people a lie that there are unrestricted easily accessible late term abortions, then they'll answer there should be restrictions.

It's time for you to come clean that late term abortions are not readily available like you insinuate in Canada. But your position depends on this fabrication.


----------



## groovetube

Of further interest, how does one determine if someone under 20 weeks is having an abortion based on gender, or simply does not want to carry it to term?

Other than.... Wait for it, outlawing abortions altogether!

I'd be interested in the results should the question be simply posed as, should a women be allowed to choose under 20 weeks as they are able to now.

I bet that result, would not be what you want to hear. I believe the last I heard, was nearly 80%.

But hey let's form the questions with misinformation, to get what we want eh!

Religion, is Indeed, a joke, and never to be trusted. And this is proof.


----------



## groovetube

MazterCBlazter said:


> "Religion--Just a joke and always has been"


Witness the spin and misleading so called "facts".

It's clear proof it's a joke. If they actually stopped hiding behind bs and stated what they really believe, you could maybe actually respect them. But that'd never cross their minds.


----------



## MacGuiver

groovetube said:


> Of further interest, how does one determine if someone under 20 weeks is having an abortion based on gender, or simply does not want to carry it to term?
> 
> Other than.... Wait for it, outlawing abortions altogether!
> 
> I'd be interested in the results should the question be simply posed as, should a women be allowed to choose under 20 weeks as they are able to now.
> 
> I bet that result, would not be what you want to hear. I believe the last I heard, was nearly 80%.
> 
> But hey let's form the questions with misinformation, to get what we want eh!
> 
> Religion, is Indeed, a joke, and never to be trusted. And this is proof.


LOL! Yes Angus Reid Group is in the pocket of the radical religious right never to be trusted. All those poor souls that responded to that survey were tricked by their shenanigans. It simply can not be!


----------



## MacGuiver

groovetube said:


> Restrict what, women who need to have an abortion because their lives are at risk?


What percentage of women have abortions because their lives are in danger? Why do you assume restrictions would target them? If anyone would be granted the right to an abortion, thats the most likely candidate to legally have it.

It was curious how support for restriction on gender selection abortions were higher among women. How do you think the results would be if we polled handycapped people if they supported restrictions on abortions of handycapped children?

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## groovetube

MacGuiver said:


> LOL! Yes Angus Reid Group is in the pocket of the radical religious right never to be trusted. All those poor souls that responded to that survey were tricked by their shenanigans. It simply can not be!


It doesn't matter whether or not Angus Reid is in their backpocket, or isn't. It's very clear to any rational individual that the questions asked, are quite misleading. I bet you didn't bother to read the article I posted. And I also bet, you wouldn't want the sort of question I proposed asked either, because we already know those results. Which pretty much sums up your position nicely.



MacGuiver said:


> What percentage of women have abortions because their lives are in danger? Why do you assume restrictions would target them? If anyone would be granted the right to an abortion, thats the most likely candidate to legally have it.
> 
> It was curious how support for restriction on gender selection abortions were higher among women. How do you think the results would be if we polled handycapped people if they supported restrictions on abortions of handycapped children?
> 
> Cheers
> MacGuiver


Ah yes. Answer a question, with a question.

MacGuiver, you already know the answers. Less than half of one percent of abortions, are late term in Canada. And all are for medical reasons. So it only stands to reason that you, want to arbitrarily limit this option directly since these are the abortions you wish to limit. You cannot get an elective late term abortion as you insinuate.

And you have not address how we woud prevent those from having an abortion under the 20 week availability for gender reasons. Because one couldn't get one past 20/22 weeks. here in Canada.


----------



## Macfury

You'd think groovetube was carrying an unwanted baby, the way he's reacting to the simple results of a poll.


----------



## imnothng

MacGuiver said:


> . How do you think the results would be if we polled handycapped people if they supported restrictions on abortions of handycapped children?
> 
> Cheers
> MacGuiver


Some people DON'T support abortions of retarded fetuses? That in itself is retarded.

Until the religious morons can deem when life enters that body WITH ACTUAL REAL PROOF, then they should just shut their mouths and stick to their fables on their own.


----------



## groovetube

Macfury said:


> You'd think groovetube was carrying an unwanted baby, the way he's reacting to the simple results of a poll.


How do you know you've hit on an important point? When you see macfury melt down into a whiny little kid and crap on a thread. WHich is a pretty usual thing for him.


----------



## MacGuiver

imnothng said:


> Some people DON'T support abortions of retarded fetuses? That in itself is retarded.
> 
> Until the religious morons can deem when life enters that body WITH ACTUAL REAL PROOF, then they should just shut their mouths and stick to their fables on their own.


Ah religious morons. The old canard of the proaborts. 
Must be horifying to discover 66% of Canadian women are religious morons.
The proof is there for anyone with eyes, it's called biology 101. Where have you been during the last 100 years of medical science? It explains why pro aborts are repulsed by ultrasound and 3d imaging like vampires at a garlic festival.


----------



## Macfury

groovetube said:


> How do you know you've hit on an important point? When you see macfury melt down into a whiny little kid and crap on a thread. WHich is a pretty usual thing for him.


I've been following what is supposed to be a debate for a few days now. I have seen MacGuiver discussing a poll, and I have seen you express your opinion. Frankly, MacGuiver is treating it like a debate and you are treating it like a platform for personal opinion. Nothing wrong with that, but you're becoming repetitive now.


----------



## groovetube

Macfury said:


> I've been following what is supposed to be a debate for a few days now. I have seen MacGuiver discussing a poll, and I have seen you express your opinion. Frankly, MacGuiver is treating it like a debate and you are treating it like a platform for personal opinion. Nothing wrong with that, but you're becoming repetitive now.


That's because you aren't following it very closely. Because if you bothered to do so, you would see MacGuiver is evading the facts, and misleading people with -his- version of them, whereas I've quoted facts as they are.

Note that MacGuiver not addressing any direct questions. He won't because he knows he hasn't got a leg to stand on. He has stated that late term abortions need to be limited, when in actual fact, you cannot get a late term abortion in Canada without a medical reason to do so. He has also doubled the actual number of late term abortions here in Canada. So his position in actual fact, is to limit the medical reasons for late term abortions, not the unfettered acces, or gender selection as he, and his fav poll suggests, incorrectly.

You're just here to snipe at me because you dislike my opinion. That's all. Pretty intelligent, and a real contribution!

Try addressing the actual topic, if you think my opinion is incorrect. But I won't hold my breath, because as most here have said in person and in PM, you are the king of trolling. Hands down.


----------



## mrjimmy

Oh look, here's a poll from 2010 that says Canadians are decidedly pro-choice.

Polls. Go figure... 

Majority backs abortion rights - The Globe and Mail


----------



## bryanc

MacGuiver said:


> The proof is there for anyone with eyes, it's called biology 101. Where have you been during the last 100 years of medical science?


While I'll agree that imnothing's post was difficult to understand, I think what he was getting at was the issue of the rational justification for saying "before time X it is okay to kill these living cells, but after time X it is not." Obviously the sperm are living, as is the ovum, but presumably even anti-abortionists are not concerned by the use of spermicidal contraceptives (with the exception of the "every sperm is sacred" crowd). So what justifies the change in ethical significance... why is a morula a "person" worthy of legal protection but a sperm and an egg are just some cells?


----------



## Macfury

groovetube said:


> You're just here to snipe at me because you dislike my opinion.


Honestly, it's pretty hard to boil it down to an opinion. I have nothing against you expressing it, but it isn't debate.


----------



## groovetube

once again, if you were following, you would have seen that it wasn't merely my opinion, but based on readily available information. Mentioned and referenced by multiple people. So unless you address the topic, you're merely trolling, as you usually do. Which takes extreme brain power, I'm sure.

I'm still interested in why macguiver felt the need to mislead by conveniently leaving out the fact that late term abortions here in Canada are for medial reasons.


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> While I'll agree that imnothing's post was difficult to understand, I think what he was getting at was the issue of the rational justification for saying "before time X it is okay to kill these living cells, but after time X it is not." Obviously the sperm are living, as is the ovum, but presumably even anti-abortionists are not concerned by the use of spermicidal contraceptives (with the exception of the "every sperm is sacred" crowd). So what justifies the change in ethical significance... why is a morula a "person" worthy of legal protection but a sperm and an egg are just some cells?


It's an interesting question. If you can't define an exact moment does it mean that you can't restrict abortion at all, even on a nine-month-old? No matter which definition you choose, it will appear well-reasoned to some and arbitrary to others. But the difficulty in defining some point at which the fetus has rights, shouldn't lead people to throw up their hands and declare that unlimited abortion is the only logical response.


----------



## Macfury

groovetube said:


> once again, if you were following, you would have seen that it wasn't merely my opinion, but based on readily available information.


Sure. If only we would research it for you, we would have the facts at hand. Next...


----------



## groovetube

How many 9 month abortions occur in Canada?

Not that I expect an actual answer, but it's an obvious question.


----------



## MacGuiver

> He has stated that late term abortions need to be limited, when in actual fact, you cannot get a late term abortion in Canada without a medical reason to do so.


That was true between 1969 and 1988. 

_Early in Canadian history, all abortions were illegal. The Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1968-69 introduced by Pierre Trudeau's Liberal government, decriminalized abortion, *as long as a committee of doctors signed off that it was necessary for the physical or mental well-being of the mother*. In 1988, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled in R. v. Morgentaler that the existing laws were unconstitutional and struck down the 1969 law. The then governing Progressive Conservatives attempted, but failed, to pass a new abortion law, and since then Canada has had no laws governing the subject._



> He has also doubled the actual number of late term abortions here in Canada.


My source doubled it or your abortion advocacy group halved it. Cases likely very year to year so both stats may have been correct at one point. I'd not be surprised that the abortion advocacy site you sourced presented the lowest number they can find. That said, either number is sad.

Late termination of pregnancy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

_Canada: During the year 2003, 6.5% of induced abortions were performed between 13 to 16 weeks, 2.2% between 17 to 20 weeks, *and 0.8% over 20 weeks*. This sample included procedures carried out in hospitals and clinics.[6]_




> So his position in actual fact, is to limit the medical reasons for late term abortions, not the unfettered acces, or gender selection as he, and his fav poll suggests, incorrectly.


Its not about ME Groove. The poll is a reflection of what a majority of Canadians feel about the issue. Its not a black and white issue for them and they feel there should be restrictions for various reasons. You obviously don't share that sentiment and support unfettered abortion.

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## eMacMan

groovetube said:


> How many 9 month abortions occur in Canada?
> 
> Not that I expect an actual answer, but it's an obvious question.


That's the lunatic fringe term for what most of us call a still birth. For the parents it's painful enough experience, even without some religious fanatic accusing the bereaved mother of killing her baby.


----------



## bryanc

Macfury said:


> It's an interesting question. If you can't define an exact moment does it mean that you can't restrict abortion at all, even on a nine-month-old?


No. I think to argue that anything fundamentally changes at any particular instant during development is absurd. When a fetus has developed to the point that it is viable ex utero, I would agree that there should be strong pressure (but no legal requirement) to either carry the pregnancy to term and put any unwanted babies up for adoption, or induce early labor/ceasarian if necessary. Late term abortions should be a last resort of medical necessity, but I can't think of any ethical justification for forcing a human being to physiologically support someone else (baby or not) against their will.


----------



## mrjimmy

MacGuiver said:


> Its not about ME Groove. The poll is a reflection of what a majority of Canadians feel about the issue. Its not a black and white issue for them and they feel there should be restrictions for various reasons. You obviously don't share that sentiment and support unfettered abortion.
> 
> Cheers
> MacGuiver


I think to say 'majority' when you cite only one poll (see my previous post) is wishful thinking at best.

If the 'majority' of Canadians believed in stripping away a woman's right to choose, the Government, especially this Government, would reopen the issue.


----------



## MacGuiver

bryanc said:


> I can't think of any ethical justification for forcing a human being to physiologically support someone else (baby or not) against their will.


Maybe because their actions are responsible for when and how this human life began, unless of course you were raped. You'd be hard pressed to find a person in an abortion clinic that didn't understand sex=babies. Your desire for sexual pleasure shouldn't come at the expense of another humans life.

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## MacGuiver

mrjimmy said:


> Oh look, here's a poll from 2010 that says Canadians are decidedly pro-choice.
> 
> Polls. Go figure...
> 
> Majority backs abortion rights - The Globe and Mail


Your poll is correct in a black and white view of the issue. Most Canadians probably do identify as being prochoice if asked if they are for or against it. It doesn't address abortion on demand.
What I think this Reid poll reveals is the fact that even those that may support abortion, they feel that choice should have limits. I personally know many that given the question of the EKOS survey would have identified as prochoice but think the procedure should only be allowed in cases of rape, incest or mothers life. That would end over 80% of abortions.

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## bryanc

MacGuiver said:


> ...unless of course you were raped.


Glad to see that caveat. So just to be clear, you don't oppose abortion if the woman was raped?



> Your desire for sexual pleasure shouldn't come at the expense of another humans life.


This is a bit paradoxical, given that without that desire the life in question would not have existed in the first place. But I'm not in strong disagreement with you here; using abortion as a retroactive form of birth control is certainly repugnant to me. On the other hand, the type of person who would do this, is not going to be a good parent, and it's not like there's any shortage of baby humans that need looking after.

Fundamentally, this comes down to why you value life. If you can articulate what is valuable about life, you can formulate an internally consistent position about when and under what circumstances it is justifiable to terminate a life.

I am not philosophically opposed to abortion or euthanasia, but I see both as examples of "the lesser of two evils", and can hold theses positions without being inconsistent in my opposition to capital punishment.

My objection to most anti-abortion arguments is that they usually (and please correct me if I'm wrong in your case) hinge on the 'sanctity' of life or some irrational and unsupportable magical thinking about souls or other supernatural nonsense.


----------



## MacGuiver

> Glad to see that caveat. So just to be clear, you don't oppose abortion if the woman was raped?


No I don't since the child wasn't guilty for its conception. If a death sentence was warranted, it would make more sense to kill the rapist, though we certainly wouldn't advocate that. 
I just don't think two wrongs will make a right. A life is ended just the same and as many women have testified, the abortion can be just another trauma to live with on top of the other.
I do however understand how someone could see the abortion as a fix to put this sad situation behind them. The child was conceived through no fault of the mother but it still comes back to ending a human life innocent of the evil perpetrated against its mother.



> My objection to most anti-abortion arguments is that they usually (and please correct me if I'm wrong in your case) hinge on the 'sanctity' of life or some irrational and unsupportable magical thinking about souls or other supernatural nonsense.


You and I have bantered about enough to know my objections to abortion have roots in my faith but not exclusive to it. There are rational, supportable reasons why an atheist could object to abortion, especially abortion on demand. Development of the fetus and its sensory perception, viability, mental and physical damage to the mother, skewing the sexual demographic of society (india, china), the irradication of the disabled to name a few. 
I personally believe in the sanctity of human life as I'm sure you've already figured out, but its obvious that isn't a prerequisite for having empathy for the unborn. Its that or all of the people in the Reid survey expressing a desire for restrictions on the procedure would have to be religiously motivated but thats obviously not the case.

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## mrjimmy

MacGuiver said:


> Your poll is correct in a black and white view of the issue. Most Canadians probably do identify as being prochoice if asked if they are for or against it. It doesn't address abortion on demand.
> *What I think this Reid poll reveals *is the fact that even those that may support abortion, they feel that choice should have limits. I personally know many that given the question of the EKOS survey would have identified as prochoice but think the procedure should only be allowed in cases of rape, incest or mothers life. That would end over 80% of abortions.
> 
> Cheers
> MacGuiver


Thankfully we are advanced enough as a society here in Canada that we will never need to put that assumption to the test.

What I think the poll reveals is that 80% are pro-choice.


----------



## MacGuiver

mrjimmy said:


> Thankfully we are advanced enough as a society here in Canada that we will never need to put that assumption to the test.


There is nothing "advanced" about a society that kills its most vulnerable. Thats as old as time.


----------



## bryanc

MacGuiver said:


> There are rational, supportable reasons why an atheist could object to abortion


Of course. And I've never met an atheist who doesn't find the idea of abortion objectionable. But it also seems obvious that while abortion may be objectionable, it's nowhere near as objectionable as legislating what a woman can and cannot do with her own body, or that women are legally required to provide physiological support to embryos they do not want to support.

I think all healthy adults should donate blood, but I would strenuously oppose legislation making it mandatory. Forcing a woman to carry a pregnancy is ethically the same thing as forcing someone to donate blood (only to a much greater degree). We can admire and encourage that sacrifice, but we cannot force someone to make it.


----------



## groovetube

MacGuiver said:


> That was true between 1969 and 1988.
> 
> _Early in Canadian history, all abortions were illegal. The Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1968-69 introduced by Pierre Trudeau's Liberal government, decriminalized abortion, *as long as a committee of doctors signed off that it was necessary for the physical or mental well-being of the mother*. In 1988, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled in R. v. Morgentaler that the existing laws were unconstitutional and struck down the 1969 law. The then governing Progressive Conservatives attempted, but failed, to pass a new abortion law, and since then Canada has had no laws governing the subject._
> 
> 
> 
> My source doubled it or your abortion advocacy group halved it. Cases likely very year to year so both stats may have been correct at one point. I'd not be surprised that the abortion advocacy site you sourced presented the lowest number they can find. That said, either number is sad.
> 
> Late termination of pregnancy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> _Canada: During the year 2003, 6.5% of induced abortions were performed between 13 to 16 weeks, 2.2% between 17 to 20 weeks, *and 0.8% over 20 weeks*. This sample included procedures carried out in hospitals and clinics.[6]_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Its not about ME Groove. The poll is a reflection of what a majority of Canadians feel about the issue. Its not a black and white issue for them and they feel there should be restrictions for various reasons. You obviously don't share that sentiment and support unfettered abortion.
> 
> Cheers
> MacGuiver


It seems you've missed the part about the poll being misleading. If you asked the questions in that fashion, then the results are both hardly surprising, nor reflective of what Canadians feel about abortion general, as shown by many polls without misleading questions.

You still wish to have laws limiting what clearly, is limited already. One has to wonder, why.

My guess is you believe it's time to enforce your beliefs on others, starting with those who have abortions for medical reasons. Otherwise, what possible other reason would there be? To be so misleading, by conveniently leaving out half the story to make it sound as though late term abortions are freely available to anyone and everyone for any reason, such as gender selection shows total dishonesty, and a clear agenda.

And this is why you are met with suspicion, and for good reason.


----------



## groovetube

mrjimmy said:


> I think to say 'majority' when you cite only one poll (see my previous post) is wishful thinking at best.
> 
> If the 'majority' of Canadians believed in stripping away a woman's right to choose, the Government, especially this Government, would reopen the issue.


Absolutely. Stephen Haper promised not to re-open the debate simply because he knows full well what would happen if he did.

A complete campaign of misinformation is needed, as what we're seeing here is a prime example.


----------



## groovetube

bryanc said:


> *Glad to see that caveat. So just to be clear, you don't oppose abortion if the woman was raped?
> *
> 
> 
> This is a bit paradoxical, given that without that desire the life in question would not have existed in the first place. But I'm not in strong disagreement with you here; using abortion as a retroactive form of birth control is certainly repugnant to me. On the other hand, the type of person who would do this, is not going to be a good parent, and it's not like there's any shortage of baby humans that need looking after.
> 
> Fundamentally, this comes down to why you value life. If you can articulate what is valuable about life, you can formulate an internally consistent position about when and under what circumstances it is justifiable to terminate a life.
> 
> I am not philosophically opposed to abortion or euthanasia, but I see both as examples of "the lesser of two evils", and can hold theses positions without being inconsistent in my opposition to capital punishment.
> 
> My objection to most anti-abortion arguments is that they usually (and please correct me if I'm wrong in your case) hinge on the 'sanctity' of life or some irrational and unsupportable magical thinking about souls or other supernatural nonsense.


Interesting caveat. A life is only sacred if it wasn't a result of rape.


----------



## mrjimmy

MacGuiver said:


> There is nothing "advanced" about a society that kills its most vulnerable. Thats as old as time.


That's the way you see it. Not the way 80% of the people in 'my' poll see it.

Allowing women to choose what they do and don't do with their bodies is a remarkable advancement, and I'm proud to live in a country that recognizes this.


----------



## Macfury

mrjimmy said:


> Allowing women to choose what they do and don't do with their bodies is a remarkable advancement, and I'm proud to live in a country that recognizes this.


I'm not proud to live in a country where people are so commonly incapable of avoiding pregnancy, considering how easy it is to find, buy and use contraceptives.


----------



## groovetube

It's rather disheartening to look around, and see the level of carelessness everywhere, every day, all day. Everyday people by the hundreds of thousands make silly decisions that cost society far more than an unwanted pregnancy.

If only, people would just, be perfect. If only life, were a bowl of cherries.


----------



## mrjimmy

Macfury said:


> I'm not proud to live in a country where people are so commonly incapable of avoiding pregnancy, considering how easy it is to find, buy and use contraceptives.


I guess I just respect people's freedom of choice.


----------



## Macfury

mrjimmy said:


> I guess I just respect people's freedom of choice.


I respect freedom of choice... but often, not the choices people make.


----------



## groovetube

Macfury said:


> I respect freedom of choice... but often, not the choices people make.


Am I the only one that sees the hilarious irony here?

Or maybe macfury you were actually making a funny here. Nevermind.


----------



## Macfury

groovetube said:


> Am I the only one that sees the hilarious irony here?


You would be the only one. There's not a drop of irony in the statement. If you're laughing, it's because you misunderstood it.


----------



## Sonal

I had a friend who had a late-term abortion. This was a loved and wanted child. He had a name, and a mother, father and older brother who were anxiously waiting for him to be born. Unfortunately, while the pregnancy started out well, complications formed and his parents were faced with 3 horrible choices. One was termination. The other two compromised his mother's health and offered (at best) a very low chance that the baby would survive to viability, and even in the unlikely case of survival, he would have been profoundly disabled. It was a situation of no good options. So his parents sat down and made a very heart-breaking decision, and decided to terminate. 

She doesn't regret the choice, but she does regard it as the worst day of her life, which was made needlessly worse by the fact that owing to her insurance company wishing to avoid controversy (they are in the US) she was not able to have this procedure done in a hospital, but at a clinic, where she had to walk through protestors and was not permitted to have her husband come with her. 

That is the story I think of when people bring up late-term abortion. While I acknowledge that other people may be making similar choices in a way that I find callous or morally reprehensible, (heck, there are people who would find my friend's choice callous and morally reprehensible, though I don't) I believe that these are more the exception than the rule.

I support unrestricted access to abortion. I realize that in supporting this, I allow for the possibility that there are people who will make choices that I will personally find repugnant. But pregnancy, family, relationships, sexual behaviour, abuse, child-rearing, cultural issues--these are all complex issues. It's very easy to say "oh, well in the case of rape, in the case of medical necessity, that's okay" but once you start thinking about how exactly to define this, it starts becoming fuzzy very quickly. To make simplistic rules like this starts leaving grey areas and cracks in the system that will leave some people in horrible situations. 

To me, I have to leave this up to individual choice, and if I find some of these choices repugnant, well, I can think up alternative scenarios that I also find repugnant, so ultimately it's a wash. My personal moral comfort level is not something that I am willing to use to dictate another person's right to choose.


----------



## groovetube

I tends to come down to, I want laws to dictate my personal choices or beliefs, but not ones where I believe there should be freedom.

Incredibly selfish in my view. But common unfortunately. 

I'm sorry hear that story about your friend. To have to go through such a heart wrenching experience, and having to face those protestors without her husband. Wow.


----------



## Macfury

groovetube said:


> I tends to come down to, I want laws to dictate my personal choices or beliefs, but not ones where I believe there should be freedom.


I don't understand what you're getting at here. If you believe in gun control, for example, then you would be describing yourself.


----------



## groovetube

Perhaps, there's hope for you yet.


----------



## Macfury

groovetube said:


> Perhaps, there's hope for you yet.


So you're describing yourself as "incredibly selfish?"


----------



## groovetube

Perhaps you can answer that question.


----------



## Macfury

I won't do your work for you. If you won't answer a straightforward question, it's simply time to end the discussion.


----------



## groovetube

stamping your feet doesn't end a discussion. You asked, and I gave you what I thought. I'm sorry it wasn't the gotcha you were after.

It was an honest answer.


----------



## Macfury

groovetube said:


> stamping your feet doesn't end a discussion. You asked, and I gave you what I thought. I'm sorry it wasn't the gotcha you were after.
> 
> It was an honest answer.


You may feel it is honest, but it is not an answer to the question I asked.


----------



## groovetube

ah. Not the one you were hoping for.

Well I guess, it was worth the try then eh? Or not.


----------



## Macfury

I appreciate that you're trying, but I don't enjoy discussions in which people endlessly refuse to commit to a position. I'll respectfully end this one now.


----------



## MacGuiver

Macfury said:


> I won't do your work for you. If you won't answer a straightforward question, it's simply time to end the discussion.


Macfury

Do you ever get the feeling you've entered the reality distortion field when you try having a debate with Groove? I know he's a drummer but I must say he's an exceptionally gifted dancer as well. 
Angry tirade in 3...2...1


----------



## groovetube

Macfury said:


> I appreciate that you're trying, but I don't enjoy discussions in which people endlessly refuse to commit to a position. I'll respectfully end this one now.


Actually, I did. But it wasn't quite what you expected.


----------



## MacGuiver

eMacMan said:


> That's the lunatic fringe term for what most of us call a still birth. For the parents it's painful enough experience, even without some religious fanatic accusing the bereaved mother of killing her baby.


When has a prolife person ever accused the mother of a still born baby of killing it? She'd have nothing but sympathy and support for the loss of her baby.

Unless of course you're talking about a mother that had her baby take a burning bath in saline solution first to kill it. Thats a whole different story. The lunatic fringe may not share your sympathy.


----------



## SINC

groovetube said:


> Actually, I did. But it wasn't quite what you expected.


Some people just never know when to quit.


----------



## bryanc

Sonal said:


> I support unrestricted access to abortion. I realize that in supporting this, I allow for the possibility that there are people who will make choices that I will personally find repugnant. But pregnancy, family, relationships, sexual behaviour, abuse, child-rearing, cultural issues--these are all complex issues.
> ...
> My personal moral comfort level is not something that I am willing to use to dictate another person's right to choose.


:clap:

Like other personal issues, the rest of society (particularly as represented by the state and the church) has no business dictating your choices unless you *choose* to invite them into the relationship.


----------



## groovetube

SINC said:


> Some people just never know when to quit.


I know you're still smarting from finding out you, are no better than others here who name call, snipe, and cause good members to leave, however, here, once again, you stick your nose in to throw a jab in someone else's conversation.

I was merely replying to macfury, who seemed happy to continue himself (that is until he didn't egt what he wanted so he took his fire truck and went home mead).

So what other reason do you have here, other than to get in a kick to the groin hmm?

If discussion actually was to return to normalcy, if that's possible, you're just going to have to quit too I'm afraid.


----------



## eMacMan

MacGuiver said:


> When has a prolife person ever accused the mother of a still born baby of killing it? She'd have nothing but sympathy and support for the loss of her baby.
> 
> Unless of course you're talking about a mother that had her baby take a burning bath in saline solution first to kill it. Thats a whole different story. The lunatic fringe may not share your sympathy.


Doubt anyone would have the courage to say that to her directly but attempting to represent still births as abortions, in order to skew the statistics, is almost as low. 

Whatever the laws, no Doctor would simply kill a healthy full term baby that could be safely delivered.


----------



## MacGuiver

> Doubt anyone would have the courage to say that to her directly


No courage needed since nobody would think of telling a poor woman that had a still born child such a thing.



> but attempting to represent still births as abortions, in order to skew the statistics, is almost as low.


This will get you up to speed on abortion methods.



> *Labor induction methods (instillation methods)*
> In Canada in 2004, less than 1% of reported abortions used labor induction methods, such as instillation of saline, urea or prostaglandin solutions into the amniotic sac.
> 
> *Saline abortion*
> Saline abortion refers to the injection of a concentrated salt solution into the amniotic sac through the mother’s abdomen. The solution burns and kills the fetus, stops placental functioning, and stimulates labor.
> 
> Saline abortions are rare in Canada, due to maternal deaths and a high level of side effects.
> 
> *Urea*
> No urea abortions were reported in Canada for 2004. Although urea instillation abortions are safer than saline abortions, the abortion takes a long time to occur. Urea is sometimes used in D&E abortions to kill the fetus and soften its bones to make it easier to remove.
> 
> Prostaglandins
> Less than 1% of reported abortions in Canada in 2004 were listed as prostaglandin abortions. Prostaglandins can be injected into the amniotic sac or taken by the mother to induce abortion. However, due to a high rate of side effects, as well as cases of temporary fetal survival, this is not a common abortion method. Sometimes saline or urea are injected into the amniotic sac to ensure the fetus will be dead when it is delivered, or the fetus is killed by an injection of potassium chloride or digoxin into the fetal heart or amniotic sac.





> Whatever the laws, no Doctor would simply kill a healthy full term baby that could be safely delivered.


You have a lot of faith in doctors.
Defining healthy is a moving target. I read of a case where a baby was aborted late term for having a cleft pallet. A surgically correctable condition. I also have a problem with idea that babies with conditions such as downs syndrome are less worthy of life and therefore disposable. We fought this ideology in WW2.


----------



## Macfury

eMacMan said:


> Whatever the laws, no Doctor would simply kill a healthy full term baby that could be safely delivered.


What do you consider the limit beyond which you don't believe a doctor would kill a healthy baby? Are you talking about third trimester, or specifically in the ninth month?


----------



## eMacMan

Macfury said:


> What do you consider the limit beyond which you don't believe a doctor would kill a healthy baby? Are you talking about third trimester, or specifically in the ninth month?


I have no problems with current laws. I firmly believe if you want to change them they must be clear enough that anyone with a sixth grade education understands them and should also have to pass a national referendum and receive approval of two thirds of Canadian women. 

Women are impacted by abortion laws to a far greater degree than men. If it is not possible to write revised statutes that meet the clarity requirement and can withstand the referendum test then much better to leave well enough alone.


----------



## Macfury

eMacMan said:


> I have no problems with current laws. I firmly believe if you want to change them they must be clear enough that anyone with a sixth grade education understands them and should also have to pass a national referendum and receive approval of two thirds of Canadian women.


Right, but when you said:



eMacMan said:


> Whatever the laws, no Doctor would simply kill a healthy full term baby that could be safely delivered.


how do you define "full-term." Third trimester or a specific part of the third trimester?


----------



## groovetube

Macfury said:


> Right, but when you said:
> 
> 
> 
> how do you define "full-term." Third trimester or a specific part of the third trimester?


I'm not sur why the question is being asked since non medial reason abortions are not available in Canada for the third trimester.


----------



## bryanc




----------



## eMacMan

Picked up on the comment about the "harelip" late term abortion. I think someone was trying to use it to justify changing late term abortion laws. Rang a bell so I did a very brief search. Turns out this happened eleven years ago in the UK. Strong late term laws were and are in effect there. The doctors were charged by a private citizen and acquitted.

Not sure how having to go back eleven years to find an anecdote compelling enough to boost the cause is any real help, especially when it occurred in a country where the laws were in place to supposedly prevent it.

Only obvious conclusion one can draw from that anecdote is that no legal changes are needed, and perhaps unwarranted late term abortions are even less common than the faithful would have us believe.


----------



## groovetube

I'd be very interested in having MacGuiver post the details of that late term abortion.


----------



## MacGuiver

groovetube said:


> I'd be very interested in having MacGuiver post the details of that late term abortion.


Here ya go.

From Margaret Somerville, Director of the Centre for Medicine, Ethics and Law at McGill University



> Anecdotally, as an ethicist, I have been consulted in a professional capacity on two late-term abortions, both of which were carried out. One involved a 34-week gestation pregnancy, where the mother was an unmarried graduate student from a foreign country; the other a 32-week gestation pregnancy, where the married parents did not want to have a "defective child" - the baby had a cleft palate (a relatively minor physical deformity that can be largely corrected with surgery).


MercatorNet: Canada needs a national debate on abortion

Another alarming detail from the article...



> The facts on late-term abortions are intentionally made difficult to obtain. Some time ago, I contacted a staff member at Statistics Canada to ask about the numbers of late-term abortions. She told me they were instructed for political reasons not to collect statistics on the gestational age at which abortion occurs. She explained, however, that hospitals must report the number of abortions and about 45 per cent had continued to report gestational age. From these unsolicited reports, it's known that at least 400 post-viability abortions take place in Canada each year and the actual number is most probably more than twice that. The Canadian Medical Association sets viability (some chance of the child living outside the womb) at 20 weeks gestation.


----------



## screature

In all honesty I don't think this is just a religious subject... not strictly speaking, it is one of public policy, politics, philosophy and religion... this the reason why we have the laws we do... we leave it up to a physician and a patient...

Personally I am generally happy with that... there are some partisan doctors out there just like there are judges, but unlike judges it is much easier to find a physician willing to be sympathetic to an individual regardless of individual circumstance... after all physicians are sworn to do that which is in the best interest of their patient... who is most definitely the mother.

I am happy the current government is not going to touch the current laws even though it has some back benchers broaching the subject of abortion and the media and the Opposition gloming on to that as if it were some sort of policy plot dictated from above...


----------



## imnothng

So.... Can anyone determine the exact time consciousness enters a body? Didn't think so.


----------



## Macfury

imnothng said:


> So.... Can anyone determine the exact time consciousness enters a body? Didn't think so.


Exactly. This is why we have to err on the side of caution.

Interesting that there are many people out there who think little of terminating the lives of the elderly before consciousness leaves it.


----------



## eMacMan

Macfury said:


> Exactly. This is why we have to err on the side of caution.
> 
> Interesting that there are many people out there who think little of terminating the lives of the elderly before consciousness leaves it.


Yep often the same folks that would never dream of allowing an animal to living in extreme pain if there was no hope of it ever recovering.


----------



## Macfury

eMacMan said:


> Yep often the same folks that would never dream of allowing an animal to living in extreme pain if there was no hope of it ever recovering.


I would say, _sometimes_ the same folks. However, there seem to be enough vocal types who want to deny elderly patients care for various ailments on the basis of actuarial tables alone. We are not talking about mercy killing here, but denial of options based on likely outcome.


----------



## groovetube

MacGuiver said:


> Here ya go.
> 
> From Margaret Somerville, Director of the Centre for Medicine, Ethics and Law at McGill University
> 
> 
> 
> MercatorNet: Canada needs a national debate on abortion
> 
> Another alarming detail from the article...


I see, an "anecdote". 

Well after the amount of false and misleading information coming from you and other antiabortionists, you'll have to excuse my being a little skeptical of the accuracies on this er, "anecdote".


----------



## MacGuiver

groovetube said:


> I see, an "anecdote".
> 
> Well after the amount of false and misleading information coming from you and other antiabortionists, you'll have to excuse my being a little skeptical of the accuracies on this er, "anecdote".


Margaret Somerville, Director of the Centre for Medicine, Ethics and Law at McGill University was lying? I suggest you notify McGill University that their director of ethics has none.


----------



## groovetube

MacGuiver said:


> Margaret Somerville, Director of the Centre for Medicine, Ethics and Law at McGill University was lying? I suggest you notify McGill University that their director of ethics has none.


Read my post again, before you spit nails.

It wouldn't be the first time I've seen others here question the accuracies of those at Universities. ( gee I thought they were all liberals...).

As I said, after seeing the way you twist things, I'll be a little skeptical of what you, present as facts here.


----------



## eMacMan

My Google search found the late term harelip abortion. It happened in Sept 2001, in the UK. A pastor preferred charges against the Doctors. Said charges were dismissed. 

Since the UK already has fairly severe late term laws and the charges were dismissed I fail to see why it is being used as an argument for stricter laws in Canada. 

Perhaps I should say that the anti-abortion crowd having to go so far afield and so far back in time for a sufficiently spectacular anecdote, says all that needs to be said about this red herring.


----------



## MacGuiver

eMacMan said:


> My Google search found the late term harelip abortion. It happened in Sept 2001, in the UK. A pastor preferred charges against the Doctors. Said charges were dismissed.
> 
> Since the UK already has fairly severe late term laws and the charges were dismissed I fail to see why it is being used as an argument for stricter laws in Canada.
> 
> Perhaps I should say that the anti-abortion crowd having to go so far afield and so far back in time for a sufficiently spectacular anecdote, says all that needs to be said about this red herring.


How do you know its the same case?


----------



## groovetube

So I looked this up a bit. Ahhh. -that- Margaret Somerville. I thought so. Once again, you frame things without telling half the story. It seems a common thread with you macguiver, I'll never figure out why it's so necessary, to be so misleading every step of the way. But then, we know that the end goal here, is not just late term abortions since they're extremely rare, you want to ensure women are forced to have the abortion regardless of the medical reasons, and the on to earlier term abortions. that's the agenda and anti-abortionists are willing to sink to whatever level to mislead people in order to achieve that goal.

Personally, I think if one believes in something, they should be be honest about it. But that's just me. This sneaking around the facts, framing things a certain way, throwing semi facts and anecdotes out to get the answers they want, or need, doesn't speak much to me with regards to one's spirituality. I don't paint all religious people with this brush, as I know some deeply religious people who are, truly honest people. They simply tell me their beliefs on abortion, without twisting all the facts to suit. That's my little rant on this.

Well here's some interesting reading... 
Margaret Somerville joins the Conservative war on women - Dawg's Blawg (Blog)

So yeah, not just.. "Margaret Somerville, Director of the Centre for Medicine, Ethics and Law at McGill University" but a real anti-abortionist, with an "anecdote". Good one. It isn't like any of these anti-abortionists have framed things to suit before...


----------



## SINC

groovetube said:


> Well here's some interesting reading...
> Margaret Somerville joins the Conservative war on women - Dawg's Blawg (Blog)
> 
> So yeah, not just.. "Margaret Somerville, Director of the Centre for Medicine, Ethics and Law at McGill University" but a real anti-abortionist, with an "anecdote". Good one. It isn't like any of these anti-abortionists have framed things to suit before...


Now there's a real credible source. A blog written by an anonymous guy without the courage to disclose his own name and calls himself Dr. Dawg?

:lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao:

Followed by all that talk about hiding facts?

:lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao:


----------



## groovetube

Actually, if you dig a little deeper than the first 2 lines, you can find out who he is, and it's also interesting to simply read what he has to say.

There's nothing hidden at all.

Nice try.


----------



## mrjimmy

SINC said:


> Now there's a real credible source. A blog written by an anonymous guy without the courage to disclose his own name and calls himself Dr. Dawg?
> 
> :lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao:
> 
> Followed by all that talk about hiding facts?
> 
> :lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao:


SINC, is it just me or have the majority, if not all posts made by you in these select few threads been simply tirades against GT?


----------



## screature

groovetube said:


> *Actually, if you dig a little deeper than the first 2 lines,* you can find out who he is, and it's also interesting to simply read what he has to say.
> 
> There's nothing hidden at all.
> 
> Nice try.


I've looked all over the site and Googled Dr. Dawg... I can't find any indication of the real identity of Dr. Dawg.


----------



## bryanc

WRT the the fact that we don't know when consciousness emerges during development MF wrote...



Macfury said:


> This is why we have to err on the side of caution.


Interesting thought. But if that's an issue, surely the same problem pertains to the issue of what other animals are conscious, and we should err on the side of caution WRT what animals we kill to eat.

Are cows conscious? How about fish? I'm pretty sure oysters don't have consciousness, but there may be some who disagree.

Or are you arguing that a human consciousness is somehow ethically different than the consciousness of other animals, regardless of the stage of neurological development? If so, how would you justify saying the consciousness of a 6 month gestation human fetus is more ethically valuable than that of an adult dolphin?


----------



## SINC

mrjimmy said:


> SINC, is it just me or have the majority, if not all posts made by you in these select few threads been simply tirades against GT?


No tirade in that post at all mj. Its just the hypocrisy of this:



groovetube said:


> Personally, I think if one believes in something, they should be be honest about it. But that's just me. This sneaking around the facts, framing things a certain way, throwing semi facts and anecdotes out to get the answers they want, or need, doesn't speak much to me with regards to one's spirituality. I don't paint all religious people with this brush, as I know some deeply religious people who are, truly honest people. They simply tell me their beliefs on abortion, without twisting all the facts to suit. That's my little rant on this.


And then linking to such an unbelievable source that is in itself, only opinion from an anonymous "Dr." who is " throwing semi facts and anecdotes out to get the answers he wants, or needs,"


----------



## groovetube

Look! Shiny ball!

I made no representation as to who he was, or that he was an authority on anything, much less a title of some sort at an accredited university. Because, it didn't matter, I simply said, he had something interesting to say on the subject.

I suppose this was a little too much to ask. Now, it seems, we're running around in circles hollering about the identity of the writer. I found his identity, but in the end, I was referring to what he said, not -who- he was, since it wasn't relevant. I didn't need to preface the reference with, he's such and such, so what he says, must be true! You can take what he wrote, based on it's own merit...

If that were actually possible.


----------



## groovetube

SINC said:


> No tirade in that post at all mj. Its just the hypocrisy of this:
> 
> 
> 
> And then linking to such an unbelievable source that is in itself, only opinion from an anonymous "Dr." who is " throwing semi facts and anecdotes out to get the answers he wants, or needs,"


Once again, the unholy trinity turns it all into a 3 ring circus.

You're so pent up with "nail groovetube!!!!" that you have to come in here and holler about something that has absolutely nothing to do with anything I posted.

As I have said. Nowhere, did I make any misrepresentation of the author, offer half truths, I simply said, here's an interesting read. I didn't say all is facts were 100% right, or that you must agree with it. I didn't say it wasn't an opinion, I think anyone reasonably intelligent enough to read this can surmise it is indeed, an opinion piece. But I thought it was a piece relevant to the topic, that offered some insight into the topic. In my opinion.

Here we go with yet another, thread derail for no other reason than to pile on.

Have at 'er old boy, you all just get your yah yahs out and I'll wait until the dust settles and hopefully the thread can return to the topic. Again.


----------



## mrjimmy

SINC said:


> No tirade in that post at all mj. Its just the hypocrisy of this:
> 
> And then linking to such an unbelievable source that is in itself, only opinion from an anonymous "Dr." who is " throwing semi facts and anecdotes out to get the answers he wants, or needs,"


If we take only 'recognized' opinions as being credible, why do we bother engaging in debate here in ehMac?


----------



## SINC

Debate is good when it is conducted civilly, mj. It's just that I tire of the constant, "I'm right, never wrong", "shiny ball", "spare me", "you're a troll", mixed with a constant barrage of sarcasm. It's endless and needless. Trouble is, give some back and you get the reactions you see here.


----------



## MacGuiver

bryanc said:


> WRT the the fact that we don't know when consciousness emerges during development MF wrote...
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting thought. But if that's an issue, surely the same problem pertains to the issue of what other animals are conscious, and we should err on the side of caution WRT what animals we kill to eat.
> 
> Are cows conscious? How about fish? I'm pretty sure oysters don't have consciousness, but there may be some who disagree.
> 
> Or are you arguing that a human consciousness is somehow ethically different than the consciousness of other animals, regardless of the stage of neurological development? If so, how would you justify saying the consciousness of a 6 month gestation human fetus is more ethically valuable than that of an adult dolphin?


Your argument assumes that all life forms are of equal value. Firemen usually don't rescue cats from a burning building while a baby lays in a crib upstairs. If your argument were valid, they'd make no distinction in priority. If consciousness is the arbiter of life and death, then wouldn't a comatose patient lose the right to live? Justifying killing humans because we kill animals is a slippery slope.


----------



## eMacMan

SINC said:


> Debate is good when it is conducted civilly, mj. It's just that I tire of the constant, "I'm right, never wrong", "shiny ball", "spare me", "you're a troll", mixed with a constant barrage of sarcasm. It's endless and needless. Trouble is, give some back and you get the reactions you see here.


And yet....


----------



## eMacMan

MacGuiver said:


> Your argument assumes that all life forms are of equal value. Firemen usually don't rescue cats from a burning building while a baby lays in a crib upstairs. If your argument were valid, they'd make no distinction in priority. If consciousness is the arbiter of life and death, then wouldn't a comatose patient lose the right to live? Justifying killing humans because we kill animals is a slippery slope.


Yet far too many of the anti-abortionist crowd happily support the Bush/Obama slaughter of Muslims. Presumably since Muslims are not right wing Christians they therefore are not Human. Somehow in the mind of the anti-abortionist, those worshipping the same God from a different angle are disposable.


----------



## Sonal

eMacMan said:


> Yet far too many of the anti-abortionist crowd happily support the Bush/Obama slaughter of Muslims. Presumably since Muslims are not right wing Christians they therefore are not Human. Somehow in the mind of the anti-abortionist, those worshipping the same God from a different angle are disposable.


I've seen both left-wing and right-wing arguments against the right to access abortion. Personally, I think it's a little unfair to assume a right-wing approach unless it's specifically presented. (Though I do agree that this is the view we hear about the most.)


----------



## groovetube

Sonal said:


> I've seen both left-wing and right-wing arguments against the right to access abortion. Personally, I think it's a little unfair to assume a right-wing approach unless it's specifically presented. (Though I do agree that this is the view we hear about the most.)


Accurate assessment. This isn't limited to just the right wing.


----------



## groovetube

bryanc said:


> WRT the the fact that we don't know when consciousness emerges during development MF wrote...
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting thought. But if that's an issue, surely the same problem pertains to the issue of what other animals are conscious, and we should err on the side of caution WRT what animals we kill to eat.
> 
> Are cows conscious? How about fish? I'm pretty sure oysters don't have consciousness, but there may be some who disagree.
> 
> Or are you arguing that a human consciousness is somehow ethically different than the consciousness of other animals, regardless of the stage of neurological development? If so, how would you justify saying the consciousness of a 6 month gestation human fetus is more ethically valuable than that of an adult dolphin?


It's easy for them since, whatever falls within -their- belief systems, makes perfect sense.

The thing that seems to escape most anti-abortionists, and the debates that occur, is no one is forcing anyone to agree with abortions, they are all perfectly able to live within their belief systems. Where the trouble lies, is when people with certain beliefs think it's their mission to control everyone, of all beliefs, and ensure they are forced to adhere to their beliefs. 

I think it's healthy to have debate, and to listen to other sides of the story. But real understanding goes out the window when arguments are presented with half truths, and sneaky tactics to reach their goals. It's little wonder why pro-choice advocates are guarded and quite suspicious of these attempts to decriminalize abortions.


----------



## MacGuiver

eMacMan said:


> Yet far too many of the anti-abortionist crowd happily support the Bush/Obama slaughter of Muslims. Presumably since Muslims are not right wing Christians they therefore are not Human. Somehow in the mind of the anti-abortionist, those worshipping the same God from a different angle are disposable.


Thats a fine example of them half truths and sneaky tactics that gets Groove all fire up. Actually half truth would be an overstatement. 
I must have missed the encyclical on the subhumans. Do you have any evidence to back that statement up?


----------



## bryanc

MacGuiver said:


> Your argument assumes that all life forms are of equal value.


On the contrary, my question is why are they not equal? I certainly agree that they are not, my question is *why*?

I know that in my philosophy, the answer is because the capacity for cognitive activity in the brains of the different creatures is different, their ethical value is different. But for someone who sees "all life is equal" this argument does not hold, and for someone who uses a different criterion on which to value life, the correct choice may be different. This calculus is at the heart of many ethical problems, so we have to be explicit about why we value "life".



> Justifying killing humans because we kill animals is a slippery slope.


Not if we are logically consistent about why we value the lives of humans or others.


----------



## MacGuiver

groovetube said:


> The thing that seems to escape most anti-abortionists, and the debates that occur, is no one is forcing anyone to agree with abortions, they are all perfectly able to live within their belief systems.


Speaking of half truths, objections to abortion do not ride solely on religion, or being a conservative. Your argument makes about as much sense as saying we should be silent while the neighbour abuses his dog, since its his dog and we're not obliged to treat our own dog the same.



> Where the trouble lies, is when people with certain beliefs think it's their mission to control everyone, of all beliefs, and ensure they are forced to adhere to their beliefs


You've just described how laws are made. Many believe they can drive safetly at 140km/hr on the highway but others believe its 100km/hr. If you're they guy that likes to drive 140, it sucks to be you.


----------



## bryanc

MacGuiver said:


> Your argument makes about as much sense as saying we should be silent while the neighbour abuses his dog, since its his dog and we're not obliged to treat our own dog the same.


This is a false dichotomy. The dog is not physiologically dependent on the owner. The dog can be taken away from the abusive owner and given to someone willing and able to care for the animal. This is exactly what anyone would want for an abused child once it was able to survive independently of it's mother.

If we could wave a magic wand and transplant any unwanted embryo from the uterus (or fallopian tube, or kidney capsule, or wherever the thing implanted, which is often the problem) of one female, and into the uterus of a willing mother, we could avoid a very large number of abortions (it would still leave the problem of what to do with an embryo that is developing with serious genetic disorders, but that's another discussion). The problem is not an issue of one organism harming another independent organism, it's of an organism that is making decisions that impact a physiologically dependent internal organism. The only reason I didn't write "parasite" as the last word in the previous sentence is that most of us (including me) would not view a human embryo as a parasite, but this is exactly the physiological relationship between the mother and the embryo. Fortunately, in the vast majority of cases, the mother is a willing host. But if the host in unwilling, the ethics are clear; the parasite looses.


----------



## Sonal

But we do give adults rights that supercede the rights of children. Parents can make medical decisions for their children, for example. As children grow older, adults are entitled to fewer and fewer rights over their lives, some of which are clearly demarked by age. In some sense, isn't abortion the same thing?


----------



## bryanc

Sonal said:


> But we do give adults rights that supercede the rights of children. Parents can make medical decisions for their children, for example. As children grow older, adults are entitled to fewer and fewer rights over their lives, some of which are clearly demarked by age. In some sense, isn't abortion the same thing?


I don't think so. The right of a parent/adult to make choices that impact the life of a child has more to do with the assumptions that the adult will make better choices and that the adult has the child's best interests at heart (both usually, but not always, correct). The right of a woman to terminate a pregnancy does not have to do with her decision-making capacity or any assumptions about the interests of the embryo; it is based on her sovereignty over her own body.

But I do agree that our laws do recognize a spectrum in moral authority and responsibility that increases with age. I find it interesting that we don't see this same spectrum with regard to animals; you wouldn't insist a hamster be put down because it bit people, for example, but we do put dogs down for that reason.


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> I find it interesting that we don't see this same spectrum with regard to animals; you wouldn't insist a hamster be put down because it bit people, for example, but we do put dogs down for that reason.


I believe the possibility of severe injury or death might ensue with a vicious pooch. Unless you're extremely timid, the biting hamster is unlikely to cause lasting damage.


----------



## groovetube

bryanc said:


> I don't think so. The right of a parent/adult to make choices that impact the life of a child has more to do with the assumptions that the adult will make better choices and that the adult has the child's best interests at heart (both usually, but not always, correct). *The right of a woman to terminate a pregnancy does not have to do with her decision-making capacity or any assumptions about the interests of the embryo; it is based on her sovereignty over her own body.*
> 
> But I do agree that our laws do recognize a spectrum in moral authority and responsibility that increases with age. I find it interesting that we don't see this same spectrum with regard to animals; you wouldn't insist a hamster be put down because it bit people, for example, but we do put dogs down for that reason.


exactly. Agreed.


----------



## fjnmusic

bryanc said:


> I don't think so. The right of a parent/adult to make choices that impact the life of a child has more to do with the assumptions that the adult will make better choices and that the adult has the child's best interests at heart (both usually, but not always, correct). The right of a woman to terminate a pregnancy does not have to do with her decision-making capacity or any assumptions about the interests of the embryo; it is based on her sovereignty over her own body.
> 
> But I do agree that our laws do recognize a spectrum in moral authority and responsibility that increases with age. I find it interesting that we don't see this same spectrum with regard to animals; you wouldn't insist a hamster be put down because it bit people, for example, but we do put dogs down for that reason.


Depends how big and scary the hamster is.


----------



## bryanc

fjnmusic said:


> Depends how big and scary the hamster is.


and how small the dog is. The point is we expect a dog to be trained/socialized, because dog's have brains capable of this whereas hamsters don't.

What I'm trying to illustrate is that there's a spectrum of cognitive capacity, and we intuitively link that to a spectrum of moral responsibility. This is why we don't hold children and the mentally handicapped to the same ethical standards as we hold normal adults.

We all agree that rights come with responsibilities; but people seem to have difficulty with the converse. If you are not sufficiently developed cognitively to have responsibilities (either because you have not yet developed, or because you are genetically programmed to have a nervous system that does not develop that capacity), you don't have the same rights as an adult human. This is not to say that adult humans cannot extend their protection to whom or whatever they choose, but it is the rights (earned by bearing responsibility) of the adult that protect the infant or pet.


----------



## rgray

bryanc said:


> because dog's have brains capable of this whereas hamsters don't.


That is quite an unguarded statement. Mostly we simply don't know what the hamster brain is capable of because nobody has seriously 'looked'. Animal behaviourists are becoming more guarded in statements about the capabilities of supposed higher versus lower creatures as the gap is closing virtually daily as researchers pay more attention.

An example is here - a recent finding with regard to empathy as a motivator in rats who have about as much brain as hamsters: Rats free each other from traps, then share chocolate - life - 08 December 2011 - New Scientist


----------



## bryanc

rgray said:


> That is quite an unguarded statement.


I'm fairly confident that dogs have a greater capacity for complex social behaviour than hamsters, but you're right that I may be underestimating hamsters (as well as dogs).

And, as research improves our understanding of what both human and non-human brains are capable of, we may have to adjust our legal and ethical standards regarding how we treat animals. That certainly wouldn't upset me.

The point I'm trying to make here is not that we should not treat rodents with kindness, but rather that there is a spectrum of ethical value that we attribute, either explicitly or implicitly, on the basis of the neurological complexity of the organism in question.

This has important implications WRT the abortion issue, as well as other "life and death" ethical issues.


----------



## Macfury

But if this question truly is one of "sovereignty over one's own body" then anybody who believes this must also accept the right to freely use ANY drug. If an exception is made for drugs, then the argument of sovereignty for abortion is merely being used for convenience, not out of principle.


----------



## screature

Macfury said:


> But if this question truly is one of "sovereignty over one's own body" then anybody who believes this must also accept the right to freely use ANY drug. If an exception is made for drugs, then the argument of sovereignty for abortion is merely being used for convenience, not out of principle.


Add to that the criminality of suicide or more correctly attempted suicide.


----------



## groovetube

Macfury said:


> But if this question truly is one of "sovereignty over one's own body" then anybody who believes this must also accept the right to freely use ANY drug. If an exception is made for drugs, then the argument of sovereignty for abortion is merely being used for convenience, not out of principle.


You have the right to take any drug, just not the right to possess or traffic it.


----------



## Sonal

screature said:


> Add to that the criminality of suicide or more correctly attempted suicide.


If I'm not mistaken, suicide was removed from the Criminal Code some time ago...

EDIT: Yes, removed from the criminal code in 1972.


----------



## bryanc

Macfury said:


> But if this question truly is one of "sovereignty over one's own body" then anybody who believes this must also accept the right to freely use ANY drug.


Correct. With the caveat that the usage of these drugs cannot be allowed to endanger or harm others. But yes, to the extent that your doing so does not harm others, you should be able to put whatever you want into your body.


----------



## CubaMark




----------



## screature

groovetube said:


> You have the right to take any drug, just not the right to possess or traffic it.


Well it's kind of hard to take something you haven't had and unless you are suspected of having committed some other crime doing the required blood work or urine analysis goes against your basic rights. So while I understand the hair you are trying to split it is one of legal process and not actual law because in fact if you have taken a drug, you are in possession of it, as it is in your blood stream it is just that there is no way to prove it without contravening your individual rights.


----------



## screature

Sonal said:


> If I'm not mistaken, suicide was removed from the Criminal Code some time ago...
> 
> EDIT: Yes, removed from the criminal code in 1972.


My bad. I stand corrected.


----------



## Sonal

screature said:


> Well it's kind of hard to take something you haven't had and unless you are suspected of having committed some other crime doing the required blood work or urine analysis goes against your basis rights. So while I understand the hair you are trying to split it is one of legal process and not actual law because in fact if you have taken a drug you are in possession of it as it is in your blood stream it is just that there is no way to prove it without contravening your individual rights.


I suppose it's somewhat analogous to saying, well, it's legal to have an abortion but it's unlawful to perform one...


----------



## screature

Sonal said:


> I suppose it's somewhat analogous to saying, well, it's legal to have an abortion but it's unlawful to perform one...


But this isn't the case so I'm not sure of the point you are making.


----------



## Sonal

screature said:


> But this isn't the case so I'm not sure of the point you are making.


No point really.... just pointing out that when abortion was (at least somewhat) criminalized in Canada, the legality of it was split on similar hairs. Doctors were punished, but generally not the women seeking abortion. 

The 'personhood' law that appears to be rolling through Oklahoma right now may create some interesting issues. Will women be charged with murder (or at least, aiding and abetting) for seeking abortion? At a quick glance, it seems plausible.


----------



## MacGuiver

bryanc said:


> Correct. With the caveat that the usage of these drugs cannot be allowed to endanger or harm others. But yes, to the extent that your doing so does not harm others, you should be able to put whatever you want into your body.


And this is where the argument comes full circle. There is an "other" that dies as a result of an abortion. Pro abortionists and anti abortionists just don't agree on the status of the other.


----------



## screature

Sonal said:


> No point really.... just pointing out that when abortion was (at least somewhat) criminalized in Canada, the legality of it was split on similar hairs. Doctors were punished, but generally not the women seeking abortion.
> 
> The 'personhood' law that appears to be rolling through Oklahoma right now may create some interesting issues. Will women be charged with murder (or at least, aiding and abetting) for seeking abortion? At a quick glance, it seems plausible.


Ok I see... 

Oklahoma... eh? Well now that doesn't come as a shock...


----------



## bryanc

MacGuiver said:


> And this is where the argument comes full circle. There is an "other" that dies as a result of an abortion. Pro abortionists and anti abortionists just don't agree on the status of the other.


If the "other" in this case was an independent entity, the argument would hold. It is not, so the argument fails.


----------



## jamesB

Just had another visit from the local Jehovah witnesses militia.
I have been politely trying to convince them that I'm not interested in what they are selling for just short of 50 years now, and nobody seems to want to get it.
I've asked them if they could add my name to a permanent blacklist or what ever, I think that was a mistake as they appear to take that as a challenge.
Anyhow I can understand and sympathize with some of the drastic and sometimes violent action folks have taken to try and discourage these unwanted visits.


----------



## SINC

I always used to grab an empty beer can and go to the door and invite them in for a few beers. Haven't had one knock on my door in years now, but I see them walk by weekly.


----------



## dstanic

back when I was a kid my grandpa remarried a woman just over 10yrs younger than himself. Over the last couple years his wife (now mid-late 60s) has become a Jehovah. Ultimately she ended up leaving the old man and moving into a tiny apartment downtown by herself (he can be a cranky old man too, so it wasn't 100% the religion thing). That cult really ****ed her brain. Over the past few years I have not seen her for xmas, birthdays, etc (in other words did not see her much at all). Unfortunate what religion can do to people, she is a nice lady.

It was about 2 years ago that I realized I was not agnostic or whatever (I don't believe that term really makes much sense now, unless you are still religious) that I am in fact an atheist. Atheists get a bad rap from people that don't understand that we simply have a "lack of belief." And I feel happier than ever with my "spirituality" and understanding of the world, rather than living with scarey science fictional ideals.


----------



## bryanc

dstanic said:


> It was about 2 years ago that I realized I was not agnostic or whatever (I don't believe that term really makes much sense now, unless you are still religious) that I am in fact an atheist. Atheists get a bad rap from people that don't understand that we simply have a "lack of belief."


Unless I misunderstand you, it is still entirely reasonable for you do describe yourself as agnostic. Agnostic means "without knowledge [of gods]." Atheist means "without belief [in gods]." If you have no knowledge of gods, it's entirely reasonable not to have beliefs about them. So the position of an agnostic atheist is entirely rational.

While I don't have any knowledge _of_ gods, I have studied _human_ beliefs _about_ gods and philosophy fairly extensively, and have come to some fairly firm conclusions about why people feel the need to believe in gods. However, even though I know it is not just possible, but quite normal for humans to believe in gods without reason, I cannot claim that this proves the gods don't exist; people could be right even though they have no rational justification for their beliefs.

So, because the idea of gods cannot be falsified, I cannot take the position of "strong atheism" which is the belief that gods do not exit. Indeed, I've never met anyone who seriously holds this position; it's something of a straw-man used by theists to lampoon the atheists. But I can (and do) take the position that there is no need to postulate the existence of gods, nor is there any advantage in doing so, so any rational person will accept the null hypothesis; that gods do not exist; until proven otherwise.


----------



## MacGuiver

dstanic said:


> back when I was a kid my grandpa remarried a woman just over 10yrs younger than himself. Over the last couple years his wife (now mid-late 60s) has become a Jehovah. Ultimately she ended up leaving the old man and moving into a tiny apartment downtown by herself (he can be a cranky old man too, so it wasn't 100% the religion thing). That cult really ****ed her brain. Over the past few years I have not seen her for xmas, birthdays, etc (in other words did not see her much at all). Unfortunate what religion can do to people, she is a nice lady.
> 
> It was about 2 years ago that I realized I was not agnostic or whatever (I don't believe that term really makes much sense now, unless you are still religious) that I am in fact an atheist. Atheists get a bad rap from people that don't understand that we simply have a "lack of belief." And I feel happier than ever with my "spirituality" and understanding of the world, rather than living with scarey science fictional ideals.


Hi distanic

Sad to hear about your Grandpa's wife. You're correct in your belief that religion can be a negative influence on people and the world.
However, I could tell you numerous stories where the exact opposite were true. I've seen alcoholics, drug addicts, criminals etc. overcome their vices against great odds after finding God, only to become some of the finest people you'd want to meet. I know personally of people that experienced physical healing through faith in Christ. I've seen people of faith selflessly dedicated to helping the poor, the homeless, the sick. Religion is not a black and white issue and I might add that not all religions are created equal. 

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## Mythtaken

bryanc said:


> So, because the idea of gods cannot be falsified, I cannot take the position of "strong atheism" which is the belief that gods do not exit. Indeed, I've never met anyone who seriously holds this position; it's something of a straw-man used by theists to lampoon the atheists. But I can (and do) take the position that there is no need to postulate the existence of gods, nor is there any advantage in doing so, so any rational person will accept the null hypothesis; that gods do not exist; until proven otherwise.


I have great respect for everyone's personal beliefs. However, I have to admit, i don't believe in atheists. To me it's an unjustifiable position in a world where God is all around us.


----------



## CubaMark

MacGuiver said:


> I know personally of people that experienced physical healing through faith in Christ. I've seen people of faith selflessly dedicated to helping the poor, the homeless, the sick. Religion is not a black and white issue and I might add that not all religions are created equal.


Individual anecdotes of salvation notwithstanding, examples of the use of religion by believers or manipulators to bring about atrocities is legion. Every leader who has claimed 'god is on our side' while sending their armies off against other nations who claim the same...


----------



## CubaMark

Mythtaken said:


> I have great respect for everyone's personal beliefs. However, I have to admit, i don't believe in atheists. To me it's an unjustifiable position in a world where God is all around us.


...and for atheists, we have a difficult time understanding people who feel they must apply mystical origins and motivations to nature...


----------



## dstanic

bryanc said:


> So, because the idea of gods cannot be falsified, I cannot take the position of "strong atheism" which is the belief that gods do not exit. Indeed, I've never met anyone who seriously holds this position; it's something of a straw-man used by theists to lampoon the atheists. But I can (and do) take the position that there is no need to postulate the existence of gods, nor is there any advantage in doing so, so any rational person will accept the null hypothesis; that gods do not exist; until proven otherwise.



I agree with you Bryan about "strong atheism", those people that simply want to rag on every religious person and claim that science has proved 110% that there is no such thing as god- those people are close minded and ignorant, never a good thing. They have dogmatic beliefs about "atheism, and in that sense are hypocrites! I, like many other atheists (or agnostic atheists if you want to call them that- the whole topic of the exact meaning of agnostics/atheists is another matter that is debated frequently) would happily believe in God if he came down and said "hey guys!" 



Mythtaken said:


> I have great respect for everyone's personal beliefs. However, I have to admit, i don't believe in atheists. To me it's an unjustifiable position in a world where God is all around us.


It is possible to feel spiritually fulfilled by just that- enjoying the amazment of nature and our universe- without having to believe some monolithic or polylithic deity. I know that might be hard for religious people to understand, as I used to believe in god myself.


----------



## Mythtaken

CubaMark said:


> ...and for atheists, we have a difficult time understanding people who feel they must apply mystical origins and motivations to nature...


I didn't mean "mystical origins". I was talking about hard fact. My fault for not being specific.


----------



## MacGuiver

CubaMark said:


> Individual anecdotes of salvation notwithstanding, examples of the use of religion by believers or manipulators to bring about atrocities is legion. Every leader who has claimed 'god is on our side' while sending their armies off against other nations who claim the same...


If you think people go to war simply because they think "god is on our side" then you have an extremely simplistic understanding of history, politics and human nature.
This Century has seen atheistic communism spill blood like no other. No god's required.

65 million in the People's Republic of China
20 million in the Soviet Union[3]
2 million in Cambodia
2 million in North Korea
1.7 million in Africa
1.5 million in Afghanistan
1 million in the Communist states of Eastern Europe
1 million in Vietnam[4]
150,000 in Latin America
10,000 deaths "resulting from actions of the international Communist movement and Communist parties not in power."(p. 4)

The Black Book of Communism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## rgray

Mythtaken said:


> I have great respect for everyone's personal beliefs. However, I have to admit, i don't believe in atheists. To me it's an unjustifiable position in a world where God is all around us.





Mythtaken said:


> I didn't mean "mystical origins". I was talking about hard fact. My fault for not being specific.


Demonstrate just one such HARD FACT.......


----------



## Mythtaken

rgray said:


> Demonstrate just one such HARD FACT.......


You don't have to look very far. Open your phonebook. How many churches are listed. Think of all those square metres of real estate dedicated to God. Consider all the priests, bishops, and nuns, not to mention all the various church workers, doing real physical work for God. 

There is a huge body of art --some of it our most precious treasures-- featuring God or Christ, or other related subjects. The same goes for music. Some of the most precious music was written as hymns to God. Literature too, from Chaucer to Shakespeare, Milton to Donne; an enormous body of work about God. 

We name streets and cities after saints, we swear before God to tell the truth in court and sing "God save the Queen". God is firmly entrenched in our language. Every time you stub your toe and say "Dammit" or spill your tea and mutter "bloody hell" it's about God. God and heaven and faith are in every aspect of our real physical lives. 

God exists because we created him and we continue to sustain him through all these things. Is there an actual omniscient, omnipresent deity looking down at us from Heaven above? Maybe. I don't know or care (I'm more apathetic than agnostic). But I find it impossible to say there is no God, any more than I could say there is no Physics.


----------



## rgray

Mythtaken said:


> You don't have to look very far. Open your phonebook. How many churches are listed. Think of all those square metres of real estate dedicated to God. Consider all the priests, bishops, and nuns, not to mention all the various church workers, doing real physical work for God.
> 
> There is a huge body of art --some of it our most precious treasures-- featuring God or Christ, or other related subjects. The same goes for music. Some of the most precious music was written as hymns to God. Literature too, from Chaucer to Shakespeare, Milton to Donne; an enormous body of work about God.
> 
> We name streets and cities after saints, we swear before God to tell the truth in court and sing "God save the Queen". God is firmly entrenched in our language. Every time you stub your toe and say "Dammit" or spill your tea and mutter "bloody hell" it's about God. God and heaven and faith are in every aspect of our real physical lives.
> 
> God exists because we created him and we continue to sustain him through all these things. Is there an actual omniscient, omnipresent deity looking down at us from Heaven above? Maybe. I don't know or care (I'm more apathetic than agnostic). But I find it impossible to say there is no God, any more than I could say there is no Physics.


Absolutely none of which is "HARD FACT" related to the existence of "god". It is in fact a list of some of the activities of people done in the, arguably illusory, name of "god".

The Hard Fact is all that, the earth and the whole universe is the the result of 13.7 billion years of serial accident. Nothing more, nothing less. To me that is by itself (?) amazing enough without having to invoke the notion of some mystical special friend.


----------



## Mythtaken

rgray said:


> The Hard Fact is all that, the earth and the whole universe is the the result of 13.7 billion years of serial accident.


Actually, that number is more of an estimate than a fact. Just sayin'....

All I'm saying is that God, as a concept, exists. That is a fact. Whether you choose to believe it refers to a "mystical friend", a religious philosophy, or an actual omnipotent deity is entirely up to the individual. Hard core atheists who reject that concept are also rejecting a huge part of human culture, philosophy and history. To me that makes them no less wrong than the religious zealots who believe the world was created in seven days and the universe is 4000 years old.


----------



## MacGuiver

rgray said:


> Absolutely none of which is "HARD FACT" related to the existence of "god". It is in fact a list of some of the activities of people done in the, arguably illusory, name of "god".
> 
> The Hard Fact is all that, the earth and the whole universe is the the result of 13.7 billion years of serial accident. Nothing more, nothing less. To me that is by itself (?) amazing enough without having to invoke the notion of some mystical special friend.


I find the 13.7 billion years of serial accidents = everything theory requires faith as strong as any adherent of religion.


----------



## Mythtaken

MacGuiver said:


> I find the 13.7 billion years of serial accidents = everything theory requires faith as strong as any adherent of religion.


Exactly so. Nearly all of our achievements in science were based on belief. Facts came later.


----------



## CubaMark




----------



## Max

Mythtaken said:


> Actually, that number is more of an estimate than a fact. Just sayin'....
> 
> All I'm saying is that God, as a concept, exists. That is a fact. Whether you choose to believe it refers to a "mystical friend", a religious philosophy, or an actual omnipotent deity is entirely up to the individual. Hard core atheists who reject that concept are also rejecting a huge part of human culture, philosophy and history. To me that makes them no less wrong than the religious zealots who believe the world was created in seven days and the universe is 4000 years old.


I guess I'm left to wonder what the Qurrth of Rigel IV have to say about "God." Be cool to compare the two notions. Pictures would help, too! I'm sure it would be most edifying.

My guess is that the shining belief in God is something resident to but a single rambunctious species of a single wee little planet, dangling like a fragile fruit in the frigid emptiness of that giant black sea of abiding nothingness we like to call "space."


----------



## Mythtaken

Max said:


> I guess I'm left to wonder what the Qurrth of Rigel IV have to say about "God." Be cool to compare the two notions. Pictures would help, too! I'm sure it would be most edifying.


That is an interesting thought. I find it hard to conceive of a culture that doesn't evolve without some sort of deity, simply because their actions and interventions are such a good way to explain things primitive cultures don't understand yet. I also suspect that most cultures would, in time, develop beyond the need for gods and religion.


----------



## Max

I expect most of us have an exceedingly hard time moving beyond our own quite anthropomorphic notions of the universe and how we fit into it. It's almost as if it were encoded in our genes. But I agree with your guess that most cultures would, in time, move beyond the need for religion. Not that we really know, of course.


----------



## Macfury

Enviro-wackiness is the godless religion.


----------



## dstanic

Mythtaken said:


> God exists because we created him and we continue to sustain him through all these things. Is there an actual omniscient, omnipresent deity looking down at us from Heaven above? Maybe. I don't know or care (I'm more apathetic than agnostic). But I find it impossible to say there is no God, any more than I could say there is no Physics.





Mythtaken said:


> All I'm saying is that God, as a concept, exists. That is a fact. Whether you choose to believe it refers to a "mystical friend", a religious philosophy, or an actual omnipotent deity is entirely up to the individual. Hard core atheists who reject that concept are also rejecting a huge part of human culture, philosophy and history. To me that makes them no less wrong than the religious zealots who believe the world was created in seven days and the universe is 4000 years old.


I appreciate how you elaborate on your definition of what you consider "god". Usually when someone states "God is all around us" it is usually some Christian Creationist with an agenda, the same old story we've heard many times before. Your definition is more of a philosophical view compared to atheists who are basing everything on pure hard science. So if we were discussing this I would have to "agree to disagree" with some of what you have to say, but I do have an open mind and enjoy having spiritual/philosophical discussions in addition to scientific fact.


----------



## screature

Mythtaken said:


> You don't have to look very far. Open your phonebook. How many churches are listed. Think of all those square metres of real estate dedicated to God. Consider all the priests, bishops, and nuns, not to mention all the various church workers, doing real physical work for God.
> 
> There is a huge body of art --some of it our most precious treasures-- featuring God or Christ, or other related subjects. The same goes for music. Some of the most precious music was written as hymns to God. Literature too, from Chaucer to Shakespeare, Milton to Donne; an enormous body of work about God.
> 
> We name streets and cities after saints, we swear before God to tell the truth in court and sing "God save the Queen". God is firmly entrenched in our language. Every time you stub your toe and say "Dammit" or spill your tea and mutter "bloody hell" it's about God. God and heaven and faith are in every aspect of our real physical lives.
> 
> God exists because we created him and we continue to sustain him through all these things. Is there an actual omniscient, omnipresent deity looking down at us from Heaven above? Maybe. I don't know or care (I'm more apathetic than agnostic). But I find it impossible to say there is no God, any more than I could say there is no Physics.





Mythtaken said:


> Actually, that number is more of an estimate than a fact. Just sayin'....
> 
> All I'm saying is that God, as a concept, exists. That is a fact. Whether you choose to believe it refers to a "mystical friend", a religious philosophy, or an actual omnipotent deity is entirely up to the individual. Hard core atheists who reject that concept are also rejecting a huge part of human culture, philosophy and history. To me that makes them no less wrong than the religious zealots who believe the world was created in seven days and the universe is 4000 years old.


Excellent points Mythtaken.


----------



## bryanc

Macfury said:


> Enviro-wackiness is the godless religion.


Buddism is also a godless religion.

Personally, I've never been able to comprehend how apparently functional adult humans are so eager to embrace supernatural explanations for things. To my mind, these sorts of explanations are elaborate ways of disguising our ignorance, and it is only by recognizing what we do not know that we can learn what is true.

As Mark Twain wrote "It's not what you don't know that'll hurt you; it's what you do know that ain't so."


----------



## MacGuiver

bryanc said:


> Buddism is also a godless religion.
> 
> Personally, I've never been able to comprehend how apparently functional adult humans are so eager to embrace supernatural explanations for things.


Maybe because its the only plausible explanation. Take the miracle of the sun that occured on the 13th of October, 1917 in Fatima Portugal for instance.



> The people had gathered because three young shepherd children had predicted that at high noon the Blessed Virgin Mary would appear in a field in an area of Fatima called Cova da Iria. According to many witnesses, after a period of rain, the dark clouds broke and the sun appeared as an opaque, spinning disc in the sky.[1] It was said to be significantly duller than normal, and to cast multicolored lights across the landscape, the shadows on the landscape, the people, and the surrounding clouds.[1] The sun was then reported to have careened towards the earth in a zigzag pattern,[1] frightening those who thought it a sign of the end of the world.[2] Witnesses reported that their previously wet clothes became "suddenly and completely dry, as well as the wet and muddy ground that had been previously soaked because of the rain that had been falling".[3]
> Estimates of number present range from 30,000 to 40,000 by Avelino de Almeida, writing for the Portuguese newspaper O Século,[4] to 100,000, estimated by Dr. Joseph Garrett, professor of natural sciences at the University of Coimbra,[5] both of whom were present that day.[6]
> The event was attributed by believers to Our Lady of Fátima, a reported apparition of the Blessed Virgin Mary to the children who had made predictions of the event on 13 July 1917,[7] 19 August,[8] and 13 September.[9] The children stated that the Lady had promised them that she would on 13 October reveal her identity to them[10] and provide a miracle "so that all may believe."[11]
> According to these reports, the event lasted approximately ten minutes.


So what happened there that we simply don't understand? If what they witnessed was some sort of natural phenomena, how did 3 uneducated shepherd children accurately predict its date and time?


----------



## bryanc

MacGuiver said:


> Maybe because its the only plausible explanation. Take *this peculiar anecdote for instance*


T,FTFY.

Any time anyone has understood anything in the history of time, it has turned out to be NOT MAGIC.

Even if we accept that the account you posted has anything to do with reality, postulating a supernatural explanation when we are not able to recreate the circumstances and test mundane explanations first is just another way of saying "we don't know what happened."

I don't have a problem with admitting when I don't know something. But that is not a justification to go and make up magical fairy tales to explain it.

As soon as anyone comes up with any sort of reproducible, falsifiable evidence for any supernatural phenomena, they can walk away with a million dollars from the James Randi foundation. Given all the money Faith healers and other charlatans seem to need for their gold-plated Rolls Royces, you'd think one of these masters of magical healing or speakers-to-the-dead, would've collected the easy money. Yet for decades they've failed to demonstrate anything even remotely supernatural about anything. Maybe it's just that they don't want to take money from a dirty atheist. Or maybe it's just that they're frauds, and they know they'll get busted if they try to pull of their tricks in front of a master magician.


----------



## MacGuiver

You've certainly brushed that off easily. I guess when you begin with the conclusion that there is no God and nothing but a lab experiment will convince you otherwise, its a predictable response. If God submitting to a lab experiment is what it takes you'll likely die an atheist. I don't think God is interested in winning Randi's loot nor is Randi likely genuinely interested in finding him. I'm sure if someone did prove supernatural ability he'd simply say, what happened is something we just don't understand, but it certainly wasn't God.

Sadly you're correct that there are plenty of charlatans out there, but assuming everyone is a charlatan betrays your prejudice. 
Chesterton said it best: "I do not feel any contempt for an atheist, who is often a man limited and constrained by his own logic to a very sad simplification." 

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## Macfury

Max said:


> I guess I'm left to wonder what the Qurrth of Rigel IV have to say about "God." Be cool to compare the two notions. Pictures would help, too! I'm sure it would be most edifying.


Ever read, _Out of the Silent Planet_ by C.S. Lewis?


----------



## bryanc

MacGuiver said:


> You've certainly brushed that off easily. I guess when you begin with the conclusion that there is no God and nothing but a lab experiment will convince you otherwise


I do not begin with the conclusion that there is no god. I begin with an open mind and a rational null hypothesis that must be falsified in order to accept any proposition. The proposition that Zeus exists (or Yaweh, or Allah, or Isis, etc.) is an extraordinary claim (in that it requires the acceptance of the existence of the supernatural, as well as a very large number of specifics about the supernatural and natural realms), and therefore requires extraordinary evidence.

I find that not only is the extraordinary evidence for these claims lacking, there isn't even any ordinary evidence.



> If God submitting to a lab experiment is what it takes you'll likely die an atheist. I don't think God is interested in winning Randi's loot nor is Randi likely genuinely interested in finding him.


It depends on your religions, of course, but I've had many Christians tell me how much God wants me to know about Him and accept Him. I'm pretty easy to convince. All He's gotta do is say "hi". Burning bushes etc. are nice, but any number of other approaches would be just as compelling. 

But what is not going to cut it is the dubiously edited and translated writings of bronze age mystics, or the unverifiable claims of adherents to various faiths. I'm not likely to be impressed by dreams or visions either, because I know how drugs work... but if the dreams make specific testable/falsifiable predictions that turn out to be true, that would do it. I don't see any reason a god would object to being asked to provide evidence of His/Her existence. Furthermore, if this God dude created me, then He made me skeptical and logical and cannot reasonably fault me for being skeptical of His existence. If He damns me for being the way He created me, He's just a sadistic pervert (something that comes across quite clearly in the Old Testament), and I wouldn't worship Him even if He did exist.



> I'm sure if someone did prove supernatural ability he'd simply say, what happened is something we just don't understand, but it certainly wasn't God.


On the contrary, Randi's criteria are very clear and easily met. And you don't have to prove it's God... just that it's not a trick.



> Sadly you're correct that there are plenty of charlatans out there, but assuming everyone is a charlatan betrays your prejudice.


I don't assume they're all charlatans. It's just that they are routinely exposed as such, and the one's that have not been exposed are the ones that have not been investigated.



> Chesterton said it best: "I do not feel any contempt for an atheist, who is often a man limited and constrained by his own logic to a very sad simplification."


I find the real universe to be plenty complicated, wondrous, mysterious and full of fascination for the honestly curious, thanks. I see those who accept "God did it" as the answer to questions about how the universe works as the ones stuck with the sad simplification. There are none so blind as those who look for answers on their knees with their eyes closed.


----------



## MacGuiver

> I do not begin with the conclusion that there is no god. I begin with an open mind and a rational null hypothesis


Seriously? You may want to read the rest of your postings because it sure isn't coming from the lips of a guy with an open mind.



> I don't assume they're all charlatans. It's just that they are routinely exposed as such, and the one's that have not been exposed are the ones that have not been investigated.


Mmmm.... that sure does sound like you assume they're all charlatans.



> I find the real universe to be plenty complicated, wondrous, mysterious and full of fascination for the honestly curious, thanks.


This may come as a shock to you but religious people share your curiosity and fascination with the universe. Some of the greatest scientific minds in history have been theists. 



> I see those who accept "God did it" as the answer to questions about how the universe works as the ones stuck with the sad simplification. There are none so blind as those who look for answers on their knees with their eyes closed.


To make such a statement, one would have to be ignorant of scientific history or just bigoted towards people of faith. Some of the most radical scientific discoveries were made by people that spent a lot of time on their knees with their eyes closed. 
Belgian priest, Fr. Georges Lemaitre who was the first to propose the theory of the big bang and Dr. Francis Collins leader of the Human Genome Project to name a couple. I had a good laugh when Lemaitre's photo popped up in the "Science saved my soul" video.

List of Christian thinkers in science - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## eMacMan

Of course we must also mention Galileo. Further full credit to the RC church for finally welcoming him back and admitting that the earth goes around the sun. Sad that it took ~350 years for the revelation to reach Papal levels. 

That in itself is good reason not to let the Pope dictate your ethical outlook on any issue. It takes way too long for the Papacy to admit to a blunder.


----------



## jef

eMacMan said:


> Of course we must also mention Galileo. Further full credit to the RC church for finally welcoming him back and admitting that the earth goes around the sun. Sad that it took ~350 years for the revelation to reach Papal levels.
> 
> That in itself is good reason not to let the Pope dictate your ethical outlook on any issue. It takes way too long for the Papacy to admit to a blunder.


Nice one, ehMacMan...! :clap:


----------



## imnothng

My mother said to me once, "why not believe, there is no harm in it is there?". I wondered, then I came across something. 

Just taking into consideration the three Abrahmic religions. If I go with the Jews, then according to Christians I'll be doomed because I don't accept their lord and saviour. If I go with the Christians then I'm doomed to the Jews and Muslims because then I do believe that Jesus was the son of god. If I go with the muslims, again I'll be doomed according to the Christians because according to them, Jesus was just a mere prophet.

Damned if I do, and damned if I don't.


----------



## Macfury

imnothng said:


> My mother said to me once, "why not believe, there is no harm in it is there?". I wondered, then I came across something.
> 
> Just taking into consideration the three Abrahmic religions. If I go with the Jews, then according to Christians I'll be doomed because I don't accept their lord and saviour. If I go with the Christians then I'm doomed to the Jews and Muslims because then I do believe that Jesus was the son of god. If I go with the muslims, again I'll be doomed according to the Christians because according to them, Jesus was just a mere prophet.
> 
> Damned if I do, and damned if I don't.


That's not an accurate statement, if one of them is right!


----------



## rgray

MacGuiver said:


> = everything theory requires faith as strong as any adherent of religion.


:yawn:

I wondered when that tired old canard would rear its head. The last refuge of the religious troll. When discussion fails as it inevitably must from the point of view of the religious, then denigrate science as being somehow a religion.

"See, you are just one of us."

What utter nonesense. Such statements reveal a stunning and embarassing lack of understanding of science. It is an enditement of our education system that most students graduate from high school without the tiniest understanding of how scientific decision making is done, without any exposure to philosophy of science beyond a few cheesey demonstrations. Students receive more exposure to mystical mumbo-jumbo (religion) in their formative years.


----------



## Macfury

rgray said:


> :yawn:
> 
> I wondered when that tired old canard would rear its head. The last refuge of the religious troll. When discussion fails as it inevitably must from the point of view of the religious, then denigrate science as being somehow a religion.
> 
> "See, you are just one of us."
> 
> What utter nonesense. Such statements reveal a stunning and embarassing lack of understanding of science. It is an enditement of our education system that most students graduate from high school without the tiniest understanding of how scientific decision making is done, without any exposure to philosophy of science beyond a few cheesey demonstrations. Students receive more exposure to mystical mumbo-jumbo (religion) in their formative years.


And yet, having read the leaked Hadley CRU e-mails, it's clear to me that the presentation of a particular opinion on climate was far more important than the evidence at hand. So I would posit that what certain religious adherents and certain researchers have in common is an overwhelming urge to stick to the narrative at the expense of countervailing evidence.


----------



## bryanc

MacGuiver said:


> Seriously? You may want to read the rest of your postings because it sure isn't coming from the lips of a guy with an open mind.


To start a process with an open mind does not prevent one from becoming very confident of their ultimate conclusions. I have studied science, philosophy, religion, history, anthropology, and psychology extensively enough to have a good understanding of the rational explanations for the things religions claim to be explaining, and, more importantly, to understand the rational explanations for the existence of religions themselves. But I'm aware that just because gods are not needed to explain the data does not prove that gods do not exist (any more than it proves the non-existence of invisible pink unicorns).

While my judgement of the plausibility of supernatural explanations for things has eroded continuously throughout my adult life, I still remain agnostic, at least in principle. But as I've said before, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. And there is nothing of substance on offer by way of evidence for gods.



> This may come as a shock to you but religious people share your curiosity and fascination with the universe. Some of the greatest scientific minds in history have been theists.


Not at all. As I've already said, I'm quite familiar with the history of science. And you are quite correct, but you're missing an important fact. Are you familiar with the phenomenon of "selection bias?" Historically, until the enlightenment, essentially everyone was a theist, so it's not surprising that there were many important historical scientists who were theists. Until relatively recently, the luxury of learning to read and write (let alone access to anything to read) was almost an exclusive privilege of the clergy.

Even in our contemporary society, the vast majority (roughly 90% in most western countries) of people are theists. What may come as a shock to you is that theism is *vastly* under-represented (roughly 50%, depending on the field and level of expertise) among natural scientists, strongly supporting the contention that there is a causal relationship between training in the natural sciences and loss of faith. Why do you suppose that is?

It is obviously true that, in a society where the vast majority of people still cling to these bronze age superstitions, some successful scientists will also be so afflicted. But I contend that they do so _despite_ this psychological handicap, rather than because of it (which is certainly an accomplishment worthy of respect).

Indeed, I've often marvelled at the mental flexibility of my (few) religious colleagues, and asked how they manage to use reason and logic all day in the lab, and then put it aside on Sunday like rational thought was a suit of clothes that could be changed at will. They've invariably answered that they "just don't think about it."

I think, for many people, religion is something that is in a special mental category; in the same way I like certain music and other people don't, some people just like the religious stuff they were raised with, and the fact that it conflicts with the rational thought patterns they apply to the rest of their lives just doesn't bother them. That's certainly fine with me as long as they don't inflict their religious beliefs on others.


----------



## screature

bryanc said:


> To start a process with an open mind does not prevent one from becoming very confident of their ultimate conclusions. I have studied science, philosophy, religion, history, anthropology, and psychology extensively enough to have a good understanding of the rational explanations for the things religions claim to be explaining, and, more importantly, to understand the rational explanations for the existence of religions themselves. But I'm aware that just because gods are not needed to explain the data does not prove that gods do not exist (any more than it proves the non-existence of invisible pink unicorns).
> 
> While my judgment of the plausibility of *supernatural explanations*...


Some would argue that quite to the contrary the notion of "god" (not speaking about an old man in the sky notion of "god", but an overarching concept for how life came to be on this planet in an otherwise seemingly "dead" universe, a "life force" if you will) is not supernatural at all but is in fact "nature" itself, intrinsic to all things and life itself, i.e. not *super*natural... just, natural, as in being a part of "the nature on things" (if David Suzuki was dead he would have just rolled over in his grave ).


----------



## dstanic

@screature it all depends on how you define "god", just as the example you gave. I couldn't argue with your definition, I think that is entirely plausible, but I would have to argue it should be called something else. In my view, and the vast majority of people, 'God' implies a deity, a religion/cult, something that is man-made and made up. If there is some kind of "life force" (which I almost can't see how there _wouldn't_ be) would be something that we can't see or understand (at least with current technology) the universe is far more complicated than we could ever understand, and you just have to look at how much we learn about the universe from century to century.


----------



## bryanc

screature said:


> Some would argue that quite to the contrary the notion of "god" ... is not supernatural at all but is in fact "nature" itself...


I think this idea is fairly well captured under the umbrella term "deism", which is certainly worth discussing in this thread, but it excludes the Abrahamic religions and many of the other major world religions. I have less strenuous disagreement with most Deists, but still consider the philosophy un-parsimonious, if otherwise less irrational.

However, if we could get people to reject the wildly irrational ideas of an invisible sky daddy in favour of the slightly less irrational idea of a Gaia-Universe, I suppose that would be progress of a sort.


----------



## CubaMark




----------



## Macfury

.


----------



## eMacMan

Anti-abortion legislation is intended to discriminate against the poor. The middle class or rich anti-abortionist who discovers his thirteen year old daughter does not practice abstinence is of course free to fly to a country where abortion is legal and return home two weeks later with none the wiser.

For the poor it is a different story. Even if the child is carried to term and given up for adoption the cost to a single Mom in lost work hours is easily 10-20 times the cost of an abortion. If she tries to raise the child herself we are now talking hundreds of times the cost.

All of which brings me to the question; How many anti-abortionists give ten times more to funds that help poor mothers pay the expense of carrying an unwanted child to term, than they give to anti-abortion lobby funds?

How many give even two hours a week caring for a crack baby or severe FAS child to help the foster mother retain some shred of sanity?


----------



## rgray

eMacMan said:


> All of which brings me to the question; How many anti-abortionists give ten times more to funds that help poor mothers pay the expense of carrying an unwanted child to term, than they give to anti-abortion lobby funds?
> 
> How many give even two hours a week caring for a crack baby or severe FAS child to help the foster mother retain some shred of sanity?


Just one of the 'joys' of the religious..... You don't have to actually live your 'beliefs' as long as you can inflict them on others........


----------



## mrjimmy

Macfury said:


> .


I'm amazed you took the time to do that.

This begs the question, what are your views on abortion MF? You seem to revel in the counterpoint but I don't seem to recall you stating your actual opinion.


----------



## JCCanuck

eMacMan said:


> Of course we must also mention Galileo. Further full credit to the RC church for finally welcoming him back and admitting that the earth goes around the sun. Sad that it took ~350 years for the revelation to reach Papal levels.
> 
> That in itself is good reason not to let the Pope dictate your ethical outlook on any issue. It takes way too long for the Papacy to admit to a blunder.


Alexandria, Egypt, in the year 415 or 416, a mob of Christian zealots led by Peter the Lector accosted a woman’s carriage and dragged her from it and into a church, where they stripped her clothes and beat her to death with roofing tiles then stripped her flesh and burned the body parts. The woman was Hypatia, one of the last great thinkers of ancient Alexandria and one of the first women to study and teach mathematics, astronomy and philosophy. She also was an atheist that spoke her mind on religion and equality as a woman.


----------



## MacGuiver

eMacMan said:


> Anti-abortion legislation is intended to discriminate against the poor. The middle class or rich anti-abortionist who discovers his thirteen year old daughter does not practice abstinence is of course free to fly to a country where abortion is legal and return home two weeks later with none the wiser.
> 
> For the poor it is a different story. Even if the child is carried to term and given up for adoption the cost to a single Mom in lost work hours is easily 10-20 times the cost of an abortion. If she tries to raise the child herself we are now talking hundreds of times the cost.
> 
> All of which brings me to the question; How many anti-abortionists give ten times more to funds that help poor mothers pay the expense of carrying an unwanted child to term, than they give to anti-abortion lobby funds?
> 
> How many give even two hours a week caring for a crack baby or severe FAS child to help the foster mother retain some shred of sanity?


Your right. Killing people that propose a burden to society always makes good financial sense.


----------



## Macfury

mrjimmy said:


> I'm amazed you took the time to do that.


Took 30 seconds out of my busy day. It just highlights the weakness of the original cartoon..



mrjimmy said:


> This begs the question, what are your views on abortion MF? You seem to revel in the counterpoint but I don't seem to recall you stating your actual opinion.


I find the notion of abortion offensive, and believe that most abortions are the result of lack of personal responsibility on the part of the sexually active. On the other hand, I agree that there are cases where the result of carrying a child are worse than the abortion itself. I wouldn't outlaw abortions, however, I don't want any of my tax dollars to fund them either.


----------



## eMacMan

eMacMan said:


> Anti-abortion legislation is intended to discriminate against the poor. The middle class or rich anti-abortionist who discovers his thirteen year old daughter does not practice abstinence is of course free to fly to a country where abortion is legal and return home two weeks later with none the wiser.
> 
> For the poor it is a different story. Even if the child is carried to term and given up for adoption the cost to a single Mom in lost work hours is easily 10-20 times the cost of an abortion. If she tries to raise the child herself we are now talking hundreds of times the cost.
> 
> All of which brings me to the question; *How many anti-abortionists give ten times more to funds that help poor mothers pay the expense of carrying an unwanted child to term, than they give to anti-abortion lobby funds?
> 
> How many give even two hours a week caring for a crack baby or severe FAS child to help the foster mother retain some shred of sanity?*





MacGuiver said:


> Your right. Killing people that propose a burden to society always makes good financial sense.


Care to take a stab at the questions? I have kindly made them bolder and bigger to reduce the chance of confusion.


----------



## bryanc

MacGuiver said:


> Your right. Killing people that propose a burden to society always makes good financial sense.


Yes. It makes good financial sense. Fortunately society is not yet run entirely by banks and corporations, so we can consider values other than fiscal ones. Apart from the money saved, killing people who are a burden to society rarely makes good ethical sense. But there are always exceptions.


----------



## mrjimmy

Macfury said:


> Took 30 seconds out of my busy day. It just highlights the weakness of the original cartoon..
> 
> 
> 
> I find the notion of abortion offensive, and believe that most abortions are the result of lack of personal responsibility on the part of the sexually active. On the other hand, I agree that there are cases where the result of carrying a child are worse than the abortion itself. I wouldn't outlaw abortions, however, I don't want any of my tax dollars to fund them either.


So it's financial for you?


----------



## Macfury

mrjimmy said:


> So it's financial for you?


No. I find the idea morally repulsive. As a result, I don't want my money used to fund unlimited abortion.


----------



## bryanc

Macfury said:


> I find the notion of abortion offensive


Under all circumstances? Perhaps you'd like to expand on that, as I can't think of any rational reason to find aborting an ectopic pregnancy (which won't be viable and will likely kill the mother) morally repulsive.


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> Under all circumstances? Perhaps you'd like to expand on that, as I can't think of any rational reason to find aborting an ectopic pregnancy (which won't be viable and will likely kill the mother) morally repulsive.


No. I said that there are cases where the results of not aborting are worse than the abortion. I'm uncomfortable with the entire notion of abortion, because I have no personal degree of certainty on when the developing child becomes a human being. As a result I'm always uncomfortable with the idea of abortion--just not willing to legislate it out of legal existence. In the case of an ectopic pregnancy, my degree of uncertainty about what to do is greatly diminished. I would act on the side of the mother to eliminate a developing human who will never develop. However, even choosing to end an ectopic pregnancy would be a moral decision to me, but one with a high degree of moral certainty.


----------



## MacGuiver

eMacMan said:


> Care to take a stab at the questions? I have kindly made them bolder and bigger to reduce the chance of confusion.


Certainly in Canada there is a network of close to 200 Crisis Pregnancy Centers where women that want to let their baby live can get support that need it. Not to mention the thousands a local church run food banks, shelters, distribution centers with free furniture, clothing etc. There are also the vast number of social services offered that we all pay into as tax payers. I can't find any statistics comparing funding for supporting women vs lobbying so I can't answer your question. That said, do you have statistics since you're the one making the allegation or is this just a straw-man argument?


----------



## CubaMark

JCCanuck said:


> The woman was Hypatia, one of the last great thinkers of ancient Alexandria and one of the first women to study and teach mathematics, astronomy and philosophy. She also was an atheist that spoke her mind on religion and equality as a woman.


...portrayed in the excellent 2009 film "Agora" by the lovely *Rachel Weisz*.


----------



## bryanc

Macfury said:


> I'm uncomfortable with the entire notion of abortion, because I have no personal degree of certainty on when the developing child becomes a human being. As a result I'm always uncomfortable with the idea of abortion--just not willing to legislate it out of legal existence. In the case of an ectopic pregnancy, my degree of uncertainty about what to do is greatly diminished. I would act on the side of the mother to eliminate a developing human who will never develop.


Thanks for the clarification. That seems eminently reasonable.


----------



## bryanc

MacGuiver said:


> Certainly in Canada there is a network of close to 200 Crisis Pregnancy Centers where women that want to let their baby live can get support that need it.


This is all good. I'm also glad that there is some (if much less) support for women who do not want to support the development of an embryo. The point is that it must be her choice, and not a process that is forced upon her by society.


----------



## SINC

bryanc said:


> This is all good. I'm also glad that there is some (if much less) support for women who do not want to support the development of an embryo. *The point is that it must be her choice, and not a process that is forced upon her by society.*


To me, this is the key point to the entire debate and trumps all other arguments.


----------



## eMacMan

MacGuiver said:


> Certainly in Canada there is a network of close to 200 Crisis Pregnancy Centers where women that want to let their baby live can get support that need it. Not to mention the thousands a local church run food banks, shelters, distribution centers with free furniture, clothing etc. There are also the vast number of social services offered that we all pay into as tax payers. I can't find any statistics comparing funding for supporting women vs lobbying so I can't answer your question. That said, do you have statistics since you're the one making the allegation or is this just a straw-man argument?


Third try is the charm. Do you personally contribute 10 times as much to programs that will help poor women carry their baby to term as you do to anti-abortion lobbying?

The former is aimed exactly at reducing abortions, it accomplishes it now without trampling over those that disagree with the Popes viewpoint, and the suggested 10 to 1 ratio is no doubt a very conservative comparison of costs.


----------



## groovetube

SINC said:


> To me, this is the key point to the entire debate and trumps all other arguments.


Agreed. The other point that seems often missed, is that 'her choice', is that. Choice. My wife for instance, while strongly supporting the right to choose and control over her body, wouldn't choose abortion. Even if it meant hardships, or wasn't planned.


----------



## mrjimmy

SINC said:


> To me, this is the key point to the entire debate and trumps all other arguments.


I also agree strongly with this.


----------



## Mythtaken

The entire issue of abortion should be left between a woman and her doctor. Both the church and the state should stay out of it.


----------



## MacGuiver

eMacMan said:


> Third try is the charm. Do you personally contribute 10 times as much to programs that will help poor women carry their baby to term as you do to anti-abortion lobbying?


Yes


----------



## mrjimmy

bryanc said:


> Thanks for the clarification. That seems eminently reasonable.


I agree. Thanks MF for stating your opinion clearly and without defensiveness. It helps clear out the mud slinging and improve debate.


----------



## eMacMan

MacGuiver said:


> Yes


Then you deserve a lot of credit for living rather than speaking your religion. 

Ultimately it now comes down to the courtesy of not forcing your religion onto those who do not share it.


----------



## Mythtaken

eMacMan said:


> Ultimately it now comes down to the courtesy of not forcing your religion onto those who do not share it.


I'll second that, with one exception. I don't want anyone trying to force their views on me, but I have no problem with people of faith who simply share their views with no intent to "convert". 

I often have very enjoyable discussions with the Jehovah's Witness folks who come knocking on my door. Not so much with the latest crop of Mormon "elders" who have been making the rounds of late. That lot is definitely on a mission to win converts. Maybe they're having a contest (first one to convert 50 heathens gets a new car).


----------



## eMacMan

Mythtaken said:


> I'll second that, with one exception. I don't want anyone trying to force their views on me, but I have no problem with people of faith who simply share their views with no intent to "convert".
> 
> I often have very enjoyable discussions with the Jehovah's Witness folks who come knocking on my door. Not so much with the latest crop of Mormon "elders" who have been making the rounds of late. That lot is definitely on a mission to win converts. Maybe they're having a contest (first one to convert 50 heathens gets a new car).


As Don suggested earlier, Religious discussions with Mormons should always be accompanied with beer.


----------



## MacGuiver

eMacMan said:


> Then you deserve a lot of credit for living rather than speaking your religion.
> 
> Ultimately it now comes down to the courtesy of not forcing your religion onto those who do not share it.


You speak as if religious objection is the one and only reason to have objections to abortion and abortion on demand. I've said it before and I'll say it again, I'd have moral issues with it if I were an atheist for purely biological reasons. It may serve to justify your position or aid in an attempt to silence objection to it but its simply not the truth. Anyone with a shred of compassion, a basic understanding of human development and what happens in an abortion will instinctively be repulsed by it. If people were forced to watch the procedure on video they'd be horrified by what they witness, but abortion takes place in hiding so many are detached from the horror of it. Ignorance of it helps salve the conscience.
Many here hint at that repulsion in themselves when they say "I'd never have an abortion, but I wouldn't stop someone else from having one". Which raises the obvious question, why would you not have one? Who'd hesitate to remove a mole or a tumour? If the thought of gruesomely ending the life of your own unborn child offends you, why would it be OK for someone else to do it to theirs?

The other question arising from your comments would be, does a person loose the right to voice an opinion, lobby or vote to affect laws simply for the fact it may agree with a tenant of their faith? Does one loose the right to object to capital punishment if his religion also dictate that its wrong? If a referendum had been held to determine if Canada should fight in Iraq, would I be forcing my religion on people by voting against it since it would conform to the dictates of my faith?

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## Macfury

These are good points, MacGuiver.


----------



## groovetube

Except where he asserts that anyone who is possibly pro choice, doesn't have a shred of human compassion.

Such tactics will immediately shut down anyone who may listen to his side of things.

It seems the concept of not ramming your religion or beliefs down everybody's throat and understanding what choice actually means, angers enough to make such a low blow.


----------



## Macfury

Only those whose feelings are easily hurt would call it a low blow.


----------



## groovetube

Macfury said:


> Only those whose feelings are easily hurt would call it a low blow.


Why would you assume my feelings were hurt when I called it a low blow?

You need a new gag there macfury.

I just think that any religious person, if they were truly interested in 'preaching' to others, the last thing they'd likely do is pull a comment like that.


----------



## Mythtaken

MacGuiver said:


> You speak as if religious objection is the one and only reason to have objections to abortion and abortion on demand. I've said it before and I'll say it again, I'd have moral issues with it if I were an atheist for purely biological reasons. It may serve to justify your position or aid in an attempt to silence objection to it but its simply not the truth. Anyone with a shred of compassion, a basic understanding of human development and what happens in an abortion will instinctively be repulsed by it. If people were forced to watch the procedure on video they'd be horrified by what they witness, but abortion takes place in hiding so many are detached from the horror of it. Ignorance of it helps salve the conscience.


You make a good point, though it's a bit lost in your attempt at an emotional appeal. Certainly there are many who are against abortion for other than religious reasons. On the other side of it, though, I suspect there are those women who would consider the procedure if they weren't bombarded by the guilt that their religious upbringing places on them. 

Every woman should have the right to choose whether or not she wants this medical procedure. It should be a decision freely made, without moralizing, religion, or legislation.


----------



## Macfury

groovetube said:


> Why would you assume my feelings were hurt when I called it a low blow?


Moistly, I don't think about you at all in my responses.


----------



## groovetube

well it seems you did this time, and while I'm flattered macfury, it's all ok, I was just calling a comment out. That's all.

You can relax now.


----------



## eMacMan

MacGuiver said:


> You speak as if religious objection is the one and only reason to have objections to abortion and abortion on demand. I've said it before and I'll say it again, I'd have moral issues with it if I were an atheist for purely biological reasons. It may serve to justify your position or aid in an attempt to silence objection to it but its simply not the truth. Anyone with a shred of compassion, a basic understanding of human development and what happens in an abortion will instinctively be repulsed by it. If people were forced to watch the procedure on video they'd be horrified by what they witness, but abortion takes place in hiding so many are detached from the horror of it. Ignorance of it helps salve the conscience.
> Many here hint at that repulsion in themselves when they say "I'd never have an abortion, but I wouldn't stop someone else from having one". Which raises the obvious question, why would you not have one? Who'd hesitate to remove a mole or a tumour? If the thought of gruesomely ending the life of your own unborn child offends you, why would it be OK for someone else to do it to theirs?
> 
> The other question arising from your comments would be, does a person loose the right to voice an opinion, lobby or vote to affect laws simply for the fact it may agree with a tenant of their faith? Does one loose the right to object to capital punishment if his religion also dictate that its wrong? If a referendum had been held to determine if Canada should fight in Iraq, would I be forcing my religion on people by voting against it since it would conform to the dictates of my faith?
> 
> Cheers
> MacGuiver


Comes down to abortion being a very emotional issue particularly for those on the anti side. Needing to force your views on those that disagree is what weakens your argument. If your views were universal there would be no point to anti-abortion legislation. 

As it is the anti-abortion viewpoint is at best somewhat less than 50% of the general population and a lot less than 50% of the female population.

My original suggestion stands. Any legislation should be so clear that everyone can understand it. It should also be subject to a referendum, with only women allowed to vote and a two thirds majority required to pass. Women are impacted far more than men and should have the final say. Fifty percent plus one is not nearly decisive enough on an issue as divisive and emotional as this one is. If the anti-abortion crowd cannot get legislation passed that meets these criteria then it should not be passed at all.


----------



## fjnmusic

Macfury said:


> Only those whose feelings are easily hurt would call it a low blow.


And only the true messiah would deny his divinity.


----------



## CubaMark




----------



## Macfury

Tyson completely misunderstands the concept, as espoused by its adherents. He is talking about something like "perfect design." Intelligent design merely suggests that intelligence set creation into motion along a certain path--not that perfection is the result of it. This sort of debate is troublesome enough without dragging out straw men to kick around.


----------



## bryanc

Macfury said:


> Intelligent design merely suggests that intelligence set creation into motion along a certain path.


No, the central idea of ID is that the complexity and interdependent functionalities of biological systems could not have evolved by natural selection, and are therefore evidence of frequent or continuous intelligent intervention in biological evolution. The primary logical argument is built on the idea of Irreducible Complexity - complex biological systems like the bacterial flagellum, which, ID'er argue are Irreducibly Complex in that they cease to function if any of several components are missing, and could therefore not have arisen by selection for any individual mutation. Of course these arguments are easily refuted by anyone with even a modest understanding of cell/molecular biology, and have been completely debunked for decades. But that doesn't stop the intellectually dishonest ID proponents from trotting them out and using them to fool the naive into thinking their brand of Creationism is more sciencey.


----------



## eMacMan

Can't recall where the phrase comes from but it is appropriate:

"We'll teach the unintelligent 'Intelligent Design.' "


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> No, the central idea of ID is that the complexity and interdependent functionalities of biological systems could not have evolved by natural selection, and are therefore evidence of frequent or continuous intelligent intervention in biological evolution. The primary logical argument is built on the idea of Irreducible Complexity - complex biological systems like the bacterial flagellum, which, ID'er argue are Irreducibly Complex in that they cease to function if any of several components are missing, and could therefore not have arisen by selection for any individual mutation. Of course these arguments are easily refuted by anyone with even a modest understanding of cell/molecular biology, and have been completely debunked for decades. But that doesn't stop the intellectually dishonest ID proponents from trotting them out and using them to fool the naive into thinking their brand of Creationism is more sciencey.


It is more crafty than that. It only specifies that "certain" aspects of development need to be ascribed to intelligent intervention. It does not deny that some natural changes occur to species. Therefore you can marvel at the workings of the eye, but dismiss the failure of the appendix. Or: claim that that the appendix performs a mysterious function that we are not capable enough to appreciate as yet.


----------



## SINC

.


----------



## Dr.G.

SINC said:


> .


Very interesting, Sinc. :lmao:beejacon:lmao:


----------



## bryanc

Macfury said:


> It is more crafty than that. It only specifies that "certain" aspects of development need to be ascribed to intelligent intervention.


Indeed. And when any given example of IC is refuted, they come up with a new one. After a few iterations real scientists gave up on knocking down these stupid examples, so now they argue that [IC example du jour] has baffled scientists.

It's like the missing link problem. Palaeontologists come up with fossils showing that species 1 is ancestral to species 2, and Creationists howl about the "missing link." A few years later someone finds a fossil that represents species 1.5, and the Creationists are ecstatic because now there are _two_ missing links - one between species 1 and species 1.5 and another between species 1.5 and species 2. So it doesn't matter how good the evidence gets, the Creationists see it as more problems for evolutionary theory.



> Therefore you can marvel at the workings of the eye, but dismiss the failure of the appendix


Actually, the vertebrate eye is a great example of unintelligent design. The photosensitive cells in the retina are positioned such that the image formed by the lens has to be projected through several layers of non-photo-sensitive neurons, as well as layers of extracellular matrix, not to mention all the vasculature serving the retina, all of which reduce our optical acuity. Cephalopod molluscs have eyes that are much better designed.


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> Cephalopod molluscs have eyes that are much better designed.


Evil humans did not deserve them, but the proof that they could have had such eyes is manifested in the mollusk.

Frankly, I'm very impressed with the existence of coffee!


----------



## Macfury

And here's the slippery slope we've entered into. Check out this article in the Australian online _Journal of Medical Ethics_ in which it's argued that--if abortion is permissible to the moment of birth, why should it stop there?

After-birth abortion: why should the baby live? -- Giubilini and Minerva -- Journal of Medical Ethics

*Abstract*



> *After-birth abortion: why should the baby live?*
> 
> Alberto Giubilini1,2,
> Francesca Minerva3,4
> 
> Abortion is largely accepted even for reasons that do not have anything to do with the fetus' health. By showing that (1) both fetuses and newborns do not have the same moral status as actual persons, (2) the fact that both are potential persons is morally irrelevant and (3) adoption is not always in the best interest of actual people,_ the authors argue that what we call ‘after-birth abortion’ (killing a newborn) should be permissible in all the cases where abortion is, *including cases where the newborn is not disabled*_.


----------



## groovetube

Slippery slope?

Let me know when you find that any significant number of people think that ending a new born's life, is permissible.


----------



## Macfury

I would have found few who thought abortion was permissible decades ago. We're just moving into the next phase when articles such as this are being written by physicians in medical journals.


----------



## groovetube

Just for you, since you enjoy links.

BBC - Ethics - Abortion: Historical attitudes to abortion


----------



## Macfury

Which proves my point exactly. Late term abortions were considered criminal at many points during history and now are not. We are probably moving into a phase where killing of newborns will be acceptable.


----------



## groovetube

At what point did you miss the fact that late term abortions are not performed here unless for medical reasons?

Must there be a law for everything?


----------



## mrjimmy

Macfury said:


> Which proves my point exactly. Late term abortions were considered criminal at many points during history and now are not. We are probably moving into a phase where killing of newborns will be acceptable.


We are also entering a phase where homosexuality is becoming an accepted practice. I'm not saying that late term abortions are considered progress, but perhaps the attitude that it's the woman's, and only the woman's right to choose is. Late term abortions are perhaps a by-product of that.


----------



## Macfury

groovetube said:


> At what point did you miss the fact that late term abortions are not performed here unless for medical reasons?
> 
> Must there be a law for everything?


Not yet. But convergence has a way of bringing these practices to Canada.


----------



## groovetube

I guess he also missed this bit:



> Abortion was common in most of colonial America, but it was kept secret because of strict laws against unmarried sexual activity.


I'm guessing "colonial America' was probably a little more than a few decades ago.


----------



## groovetube

Macfury said:


> Not yet. But convergence has a way of bringing these practices to Canada.


Why because you say it's so?

Didn't they ban late partial birth abortions stateside not long ago?


----------



## Macfury

The U.S. is a far more conservative culture than Canada.


----------



## MacGuiver

Macfury said:


> I would have found few who thought abortion was permissible decades ago. We're just moving into the next phase when articles such as this are being written by physicians in medical journals.


Future "progressives" will look with disgust at the closed minds of the current ones.


----------



## Macfury

MacGuiver said:


> Future "progressives" will look with disgust at the closed minds of the current ones.


It seems to me, MacGuiver, that they want to impose their own sense of morality on others who could live happier lives if they could only take advantage of post-birth abortion. Why not limit the choice of infanticide solely to the woman and her doctor?


----------



## MacGuiver

Macfury said:


> It seems to me, MacGuiver, that they want to impose their own sense of morality on others who could live happier lives if they could only take advantage of post-birth abortion. Why not limit the choice of infanticide solely to the woman and her doctor?


Not to mention how cruel it is to impose a life sentence of sickness or compromised existence upon a disabled child that was not weeded out during prebirth screening. Imagine forcing a family to be burdened with that problem for the rest of their lives.


----------



## mrjimmy

Macfury said:


> It seems to me, MacGuiver, that they want to impose their own sense of morality on others who could live happier lives if they could only take advantage of post-birth abortion. Why not limit the choice of infanticide solely to the woman and her doctor?


Incorrect. They simply want to give a woman the right to choose. Imposing their sense of morality is the other side's game.


----------



## groovetube

Macfury said:


> The U.S. is a far more conservative culture than Canada.


But hold on here, didn't you just say that because of "convergence" we'll end up killing new borns soon enough?

That doesn't sound like the convergence you were predicting.


----------



## groovetube

mrjimmy said:


> Incorrect. They simply want to give a woman the right to choose. Imposing their sense of morality is the other side's game.


No it's far better to take that and turn it into fornicating on the streets over top of dead newborns.

Far more sense it seems. Whatever it takes to make your point I suppose.


----------



## bryanc

Macfury said:


> And here's the slippery slope we've entered into. Check out this article in the Australian online _Journal of Medical Ethics_ in which it's argued that--if abortion is permissible to the moment of birth, why should it stop there?


If you read the paper you've linked to, especially knowing the context (i.e. the tenor of the AJME), this is pretty clearly a "modest proposal" type of argument - it's not intended to be taken seriously.

But for the humour impaired, the clear and obvious distinction between infanticide and abortion is that, once delivered, the infant is no longer physiologically dependent on the mother, and therefore the mother's sovereignty over her own body no longer takes precedence over the value of the infant. Once delivered, a healthy infant can be taken as a ward of the state or by any other adoptive agent, without infringing on the rights of the mother.


----------



## Macfury

Here is the response of the Journal's editor to hostile comments regarding the publication of the paper:



> The novel contribution of this paper is not an argument in favour of infanticide – the paper repeats the arguments made famous by Tooley and Singer – but rather their application in consideration of maternal and family interests. The paper also draws attention to the fact that infanticide is practised in the Netherlands.
> 
> Many people will and have disagreed with these arguments. However, the goal of the Journal of Medical Ethics is not to present the Truth or promote some one moral view. It is to present well reasoned argument based on widely accepted premises. The authors provocatively argue that there is no moral difference between a fetus and a newborn. Their capacities are relevantly similar. If abortion is permissible, infanticide should be permissible. The authors proceed logically from premises which many people accept to a conclusion that many of those people would reject.
> 
> ....What is disturbing is not the arguments in this paper nor its publication in an ethics journal. It is the hostile, abusive, threatening responses that it has elicited. More than ever, proper academic discussion and freedom are under threat from fanatics opposed to the very values of a liberal society.
> 
> What the response to this article reveals, through the microscope of the web, is the deep disorder of the modern world. Not that people would give arguments in favour of infanticide, but the deep opposition that exists now to liberal values and fanatical opposition to any kind of reasoned engagement.
> 
> Julian Savulescu, Editor, Journal of Medical Ethics


----------



## groovetube

I love how the response points to the disturbing comments, yet glosses over the far more disturbing assumption that if you support pro choice then clearly your on the road to killing newborns.

Classic. Make an outrageous assumption bordering on veiled accusation, and cry when the responses are hostile.


----------



## rgray

If mankind cannot find a way to curb fertility in the very near future, we are going to have to have to look seriously at ways to "cull the herd" or nature will handle the problem for us.

tptptptp


----------



## groovetube

Well, it's called contraception, though at least one major religion wants to stifle it, and we all saw the screaming south of the border when Obama dared try to make it available through medical programs.


----------



## rgray

Oh yeah! Contraception has been such a blinding success that the world population has ballooned to 7 BILLION!!!! and shows absolutely no signs of slowing down anytime soon.

Studies have shown that the earth can sustain about 1.5 billion.....


----------



## Macfury

groovetube said:


> Well, it's called contraception, though at least one major religion wants to stifle it, and we all saw the screaming south of the border when Obama dared try to make it available through medical programs.


Obama tried to force employers to give it to their employees for free. Big difference from: "make it available through medical programs."


----------



## bryanc

Macfury said:


> Obama tried to force employers to give it to their employees for free. Big difference from: "make it available through medical programs."


I'm all for anything that decreases human fertility; free contraceptives is an obviously good thing that no sane person should oppose. We should be distributing free birth control pills and condoms all over the world. This simple action would do more to alleviate poverty, disease and prevent wars than all others combined.


----------



## Macfury

rgray said:


> Oh yeah! Contraception has been such a blinding success that the world population has ballooned to 7 BILLION!!!! and shows absolutely no signs of slowing down anytime soon.
> 
> Studies have shown that the earth can sustain about 1.5 billion.....


Overall, it's already slowing down--reversing in some countries. Looks likely to peak somewhat higher and then (if the past is any indicator) head into a slow decline. The Earth is actually sustaining the current population (or could sustain even the ones who have little to eat). I call foul on that study.


----------



## bryanc

Macfury said:


> I call foul on that study.


It's relatively trivial to estimate the absolute maximum population of any given species that could be sustained by the earth by simply dividing the total daily energy flux by the number of calories an average individual needs to survive. But this will give a ridiculously over-inflated number because it ignores the fact that people need space, water, and complex social structures (including things like privacy), as well as energy.

So estimating the actual carrying capacity of an ecosystem for any given species is extremely difficult, and will vary dramatically based on some important assumptions. What percent of other biodiversity do you need to maintain in order to sustain the long-term stability of the ecosystem? This number will obviously impact what percent of the ecosystem's resources can be consumed by any one species, and therefore put an upper limit on the number of individuals for that species.

Many biologists would argue that we have already dramatically exceeded the carrying capacity for our species; and that a significant reduction in human population is now inevitable, as is significant damage to the earth's ecosystem due to human overpopulation.

Given the constraints of maintaining extant biodiversity, and without invoking any technological solutions not currently available, 1.5 billion is a conservative, but not wildly conservative estimate. I'd put it closer to 4 billion, but certainly not 15 billion, so we're in the same order of magnitude.


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> I'm all for anything that decreases human fertility; free contraceptives is an obviously good thing that no sane person should oppose. We should be distributing free birth control pills and condoms all over the world. This simple action would do more to alleviate poverty, disease and prevent wars than all others combined.


If Obumma wanted to spend government money to do it, I doubt he would have had much trouble. He wants to force private employers to give them away. The guy is a walking disaster area when it comes to policy.


----------



## groovetube

Macfury said:


> Obama tried to force employers to give it to their employees for free. Big difference from: "make it available through medical programs."


First, medical programs are not necessarily free. But I'm more interested in the idea that such coverage can include a variety of things, such as viagara, but contraception, well, that's just not right.


----------



## Macfury

groovetube said:


> First, medical programs are not necessarily free. But I'm more interested in the idea that such coverage can include a variety of things, such as viagara, but contraception, well, that's just not right.


Your statement is nonsense. Nobody is forcing the employers to give Viagra to their employees for free.


----------



## mrjimmy

Macfury said:


> Your statement is nonsense. Nobody is forcing the employers to give Viagra to their employees for free.


That would be a real boner of a move!


----------



## MacGuiver

Obama forcing religious institution to pay for birth control and abortion pills is an outright offensive on freedom of religion and freedom of conscience. Since when did free birth prevention become a human right? His "solution" of making the insurance company pay instead was nothing more than a shell game that only an idiot wouldn't see.


----------



## eMacMan

MacGuiver said:


> Obama forcing religious institution to pay for birth control and abortion pills is an outright offensive on freedom of religion and freedom of conscience. Since when did free birth prevention become a human right? His "solution" of making the insurance company pay instead was nothing more than a shell game that only an idiot wouldn't see.


Except of course, religious institutions were excluded from the get go and definitions were clarified to make sure they were indeed excluded. 

As much as I dislike the way BO has faithfully stayed the Bush path, I must urge you not to take Republirat lying points as Gospel. Just as I would similarly urge you to take the Democrony lies with copious quantities of salt.


----------



## CubaMark

MacGuiver said:


> Obama forcing religious institution to pay for birth control and abortion pills is an outright offensive on freedom of religion and freedom of conscience. Since when did free birth prevention become a human right? His "solution" of making the insurance company pay instead was nothing more than a shell game that only an idiot wouldn't see.


How about this for an option: religious institutions don't have to cover the cost of birth control, in exchange they surrender their tax-exempt status?


----------



## Macfury

CubaMark said:


> How about this for an option: religious institutions don't have to cover the cost of birth control, in exchange they surrender their tax-exempt status?


It shouldn't be a trade. Both are wrong for different reasons and should be dealt with separately.


----------



## bryanc

Macfury said:


> It shouldn't be a trade. Both are wrong for different reasons and should be dealt with separately.


Indeed, the state should be covering the costs of everyone's contraceptive needs, not employers. So the unjustifiable bronze age attitudes of the employer should have no bearing on it.


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> Indeed, the state should be covering the costs of everyone's contraceptive needs, not employers. So the unjustifiable bronze age attitudes of the employer should have no bearing on it.


Neither should be covering the cost. It shouldn't be paid for on the public's dime.


----------



## groovetube

Macfury said:


> Your statement is nonsense. Nobody is forcing the employers to give Viagra to their employees for free.


And your statement has nothing to do with what I said. Learn to read a little carefully.

Are you absolutely certain that no anti-impotence drugs are covered by those who object to covering birth control?

And to the idea that tax emption should be revoked based on these sorts of objections, I'm fully 100$ behind it. Simply believing in a flying man with stone tablets and some book allegedly written by wise holy men thousands of years ago shouldn't give one the freedom to pick and choose laws and regulations they dislike and still enjoy tax emption.

At that point they might as well become a corporation since these days they are pretty much enjoying tax exptions more and more and certainly have more power to change or ignore laws we have in our countries.


----------



## MacGuiver

CubaMark said:


> How about this for an option: religious institutions don't have to cover the cost of birth control, in exchange they surrender their tax-exempt status?


Personally I have no problem with the church giving up tax exemption stats. I think it impedes their mission. Render unto Caesar. As long as we remove the exemption from all organizations that provide charitable services I'm game.
From a strictly legal and logical view, why should the church be forced to give up a tax exemption for the government to NOT violate the constitution?


----------



## Macfury

groovetube said:


> Are you absolutely certain that no anti-impotence drugs are covered by those who object to covering birth control?


No. And it's no business of mine if they do, No more than a company offering transit passes also offering a car allowance.


----------



## groovetube

Macfury said:


> No. And it's no business of mine if they do, No more than a company offering transit passes also offering a car allowance.


But it's your business if they offer contraceptives.


----------



## Macfury

groovetube said:


> But it's your business if they offer contraceptives.


No. I object if they're being _ordered_ to offer contraceptives--or Viagra.


----------



## groovetube

I see, but you have no idea if any anti impotence drugs are part of the mandatory offerings. But just as an aside, oh yeah, I object to that too.


----------



## Dr.G.

groovetube said:


> I see, but you have no idea if any anti impotence drugs are part of the mandatory offerings. But just as an aside, oh yeah, I object to that too.


They are not. Very few insurance policies will cover Viagra and these sorts of meds.


----------



## Macfury

Dr.G. said:


> They are not. Very few insurance policies will cover Viagra and these sorts of meds.


Dr. G: The Milwaukee Teachers Union had coverage, but it was taken away:

Milwaukee teachers fight for Viagra drug coverage - 24 Hour National News - The Buffalo News


----------



## eMacMan

Anyone who knows what that first few days after the loss of a loved one are like, will appreciate how clueless this priest really was. It is mentioned further along in the article Ms. Johnson was the daughter of the woman being buried.



> By Michelle Boorstein, Published: February 28 | Updated: Wednesday, February 29, 7:27 AM
> 
> Deep in grief, Barbara Johnson stood first in the line for Communion at her mother’s funeral Saturday morning. But the priest in front of her immediately made it clear that she would not receive the sacramental bread and wine.
> 
> Johnson, an art-studio owner from the District, had come to St. John Neumann Catholic Church in Gaithersburg with her lesbian partner. The Rev. Marcel Guarnizo had learned of their relationship just before the service.
> 
> “He put his hand over the body of Christ and looked at me and said, ‘I can’t give you Communion because you live with a woman, and in the eyes of the church, that is a sin,’ ” she recalled Tuesday.
> 
> She reacted with stunned silence. Her anger and outrage have now led her and members of her family to demand that Guarnizo be removed from his ministry.
> 
> Family members said the priest left the altar while Johnson, 51, was delivering a eulogy and did not attend the burial or find another priest to be there.


Entire story here:
D.C. archdiocese: Denying Communion to lesbian at funeral was against ‘policy’ - The Washington Post

A quick follow up, she has received an apology but not from the priest. Should the priest be bounced to another unsuspecting parish as the daughter has requested?


----------



## groovetube

Dr.G. said:


> They are not. Very few insurance policies will cover Viagra and these sorts of meds.


Yes, but the point was, macfury had no idea. But he strongly objected to contraceptives being mandated to be offered. I wonder if there are any other treatments that are mandatory that could be deemed unacceptable, or frivolous (etc.), but since this is the bandwagon du jour for religious nuts who haven't discovered we live in 2012 and not 60 A.D. we have to put up with more unwanted babies (hence the abortion thing but hey that's a circle they run in...) and not to mention HIV/AIDS, and the rest.

All they can say is pray, and just say no. Boy that's worked wonders hasn't it.

How long do we have to put up with this nonsense? How long before it's no longer acceptable to enforce one's beliefs on others?

Choice, seems a concept much too difficult to fathom.


----------



## groovetube

I have to add, after a small rant like that, that I have nothing but the utmost respect for the many very religious people I know. The ones I know well, understand very well that we live in a diverse society, with differing opinions, and lead their lives according to their beliefs. They don't use half truths, twisted facts spun to suit, they stand by what they believe in, don't hesitate to speak their minds, but also understand tolerance just as they expect it from others.

Society as a whole makes it's laws and rules that we live by, and laws don't change quickly. The slippery slope argument has been used far too many times even when it's simply not a credible position to stand on. 

Even after seeing some of the tactics and half truths pushed by those who pontificate their spirituality here, seeing it being suggested that we're ready to start killing newborns, was simply too far. What a ridiculous, offensive tactic. And complete, utter BS.


----------



## Dr.G.

Macfury said:


> Dr. G: The Milwaukee Teachers Union had coverage, but it was taken away:
> 
> Milwaukee teachers fight for Viagra drug coverage - 24 Hour National News - The Buffalo News


Well, we all know why they had it in Milwaukee .............. and we know why it was taken away. "What happens in Milwaukee stays in Milwaukee" ............ except for the Milwaukee Braves.


----------



## MacGuiver

> I have to add, after a small rant like that, that I have nothing but the utmost respect for the many very religious people I know. The ones I know well, understand very well that we live in a diverse society, with differing opinions, and lead their lives according to their beliefs. They don't use half truths, twisted facts spun to suit, they stand by what they believe in, don't hesitate to speak their minds, but also understand tolerance just as they expect it from others.


The Dutch - YouTube



> Society as a whole makes it's laws and rules that we live by, and laws don't change quickly. The slippery slope argument has been used far too many times even when it's simply not a credible position to stand on.
> Even after seeing some of the tactics and half truths pushed by those who pontificate their spirituality here, seeing it being suggested that we're ready to start killing newborns, was simply too far. What a ridiculous, offensive tactic. And complete, utter BS.


One only needs to look to the nation on the bleeding edge of "progress" to see its not ridiculous. In fact its already happening.

_Infanticide? Today? Alas, yes. In fact, although technically illegal, baby killing already is being carried out in the Netherlands as a logical extension of that country’s euthanasia license. A bureaucratic check list has even been published — including in the prestigious New England Journal of Medicine — known as the Groningen Protocol, by which Dutch neonatologists determine which sick and disabled babies qualify to be euthanized. Indeed, according to two articles published in The Lancet, about 8% of all babies who die each year in the Netherlands (80-90) are killed by their own doctors._

Read more: The Shocking Case For Legalizing Infanticide - Business Insider


----------



## groovetube

And apparently they send people into crowded areas with bombs strapped to their bodies.

Just because you found what you consider a 'progressive' country doing something we don't and nobody else does either does not mean our society will begin accepting this practice.

What a bunch of trumped up BS. And that's how you support your argument? Yeah this sort of BS will give you lots of credibility. All you need is for people to fall for it.

By this sort of logic, we can then assume that if we allow the religious right to begin affecting our laws, it's a slippery slope to sending human beings into crowded areas with bombs strapped to their bodies to blow people up in protest. We'll be stoning women for adultery outside our city walls. Hey, it's being done elsewhere!

That slippery slope is right in front of us.


----------



## dstanic

We need more young, secular voters to go out and vote (!) because it's the older ideologues that make up the majority of the conservative votes. I did vote for Harper but only for his fiscal views, and I'm starting to worry about what other policies he will put in place (such as the stupid internet bills). I hope the Liberals can get their act together. While they don't publicly talk about it, I don't want a party in place that has any kind of underlying ideology.


----------



## Macfury

groovetube said:


> Just because you found what you consider a 'progressive' country doing something we don't and nobody else does either does not mean our society will begin accepting this practice.


Don't get upset. It's just the "progress" in _progress_ive.


----------



## groovetube

Macfury said:


> Don't get upset. It's just the "progress" in _progress_ive.


I'll give you a second try at making a bit more sense.


----------



## Macfury

I'll do it for you groove: It will never happen in Canada because it isn't happening today.


----------



## groovetube

I wasn't the one who made the prediction, so do a little damn research and fill in your own blanks.

Back on the subject of supplying contraception, it seems the wingnut right has it's way of dealing with those who dare to speak in support of this.

Sandra Fluke Issues Statement On Limbaugh's Comments And Public Support | TPM Livewire

Yeah just call them sluts and prostitutes.

However, when the either the wingnut right, or the religious right begin shrieking from their pulpits everywhere, you can pretty much be assured of some true hilarious hypocrisy...

Rush Limbaugh's Dominican Stag Party | The Smoking Gun


----------



## Macfury

groovetube said:


> I wasn't the one who made the prediction, so do a little damn research and fill in your own blanks.
> 
> Back on the subject of supplying contraception, it seems the wingnut right has it's way of dealing with those who dare to speak in support of this.
> 
> Sandra Fluke Issues Statement On Limbaugh's Comments And Public Support | TPM Livewire
> 
> Yeah just call them sluts and prostitutes.
> 
> However, when the either the wingnut right, or the religious right begin shrieking from their pulpits everywhere, you can pretty much be assured of some true hilarious hypocrisy...
> 
> Rush Limbaugh's Dominican Stag Party | The Smoking Gun


I think you're having a bit of a mental disconnect here groove. Why would someone who doesn't support birth control not use Viagra? How is this hypocrtical?


----------



## groovetube

I guess you didn't take the time to actually read it. I think I'll just let your response stand for anyone to read.

I think it speaks for itself.


----------



## Macfury

groovetube said:


> I guess you didn't take the time to actually read it. I think I'll just let your response stand for anyone to read.
> 
> I think it speaks for itself.


I read it thoroughly and it looks to me like a complete misfire on your part. Someone who opposes free birth control drugs and also uses viagra is being philosophically consistent.


----------



## bryanc

Macfury said:


> Neither [private companies nor the State] should be covering the cost. It [birth control] shouldn't be paid for on the public's dime.


I vehemently disagree. Choices individuals make that serve the good of society should be financially supported by society. Every couple that uses birth control to avoid having unwanted children saves society considerable financial burdens (not to mention the emotional, ethical and environmental consequences of more human babies), and so any costs associated with that choice should be subsidized to the greatest extent possible.

Indeed, I'd like to see condoms and birth control pills being made effectively free for everyone on earth. Whatever the cost of such socialized birth control, you can bet it would be minuscule compared to the social cost of warfare, plague, famine and environmental catastrophe.


----------



## groovetube

Macfury said:


> I read it thoroughly and it looks to me like a complete misfire on your part. Someone who opposes free birth control drugs and also uses viagra is being philosophically consistent.


Since I'm feeling a little charitable this morning, I'll point out to you the main topic of the article, the calling of this woman who spoke in support of contraceptives a "slut" and a "prostitute", and put that in context with the dolling news bit.

Let's see if those neurons zap in unison here.


----------



## MacGuiver

> And apparently they send people into crowded areas with bombs strapped to their bodies.






> Just because you found what you consider a 'progressive' country doing something we don't and nobody else does either does not mean our society will begin accepting this practice.


Holland is the benchmark for progressive policy. Where have you been?



> What a bunch of trumped up BS. And that's how you support your argument? Yeah this sort of BS will give you lots of credibility. All you need is for people to fall for it.


Yes I lied. This isn't happening at all. Total fabrication. 



> By this sort of logic, we can then assume that if we allow the religious right to begin affecting our laws,


Christianity has been affecting our laws since the foundation of the nation. Its been the benchmark for justice for western civilization. However, in recent decades, secularism and moral relativism have pretty much supplanted it.



> it's a slippery slope to sending human beings into crowded areas with bombs strapped to their bodies to blow people up in protest. We'll be stoning women for adultery outside our city walls. Hey, it's being done elsewhere!
> That slippery slope is right in front of us.


I've pointed to a well known progressive country where infanticide is happening today to make my point. Can you point to a right leaning Christian country today where stoning women is legal or leadership is calling for suicide bombers? I think you're confusing Christianity with Islam.


----------



## mrjimmy

dstanic said:


> I did vote for Harper but only for his fiscal views, and I'm starting to worry about what other policies he will put in place (such as the stupid internet bills). I hope the Liberals can get their act together. While they don't publicly talk about it, I don't want a party in place that has any kind of underlying ideology.


I wonder how many Conservative voters are in the same boat as you. I'm guessing quite a few. 

I tend to take all election promises/ platforms with a healthy dose of skepticism. I found with Harper's conservatives, the danger signs were fairly clear. Hopefully all their bad work can be undone to some degree. Although he is quoted as saying "You won't recognize Canada when I get through with it".


----------



## mrjimmy

MacGuiver said:


> Christianity has been affecting our laws since the foundation of the nation. Its been the benchmark for justice for western civilization. *However, in recent decades, secularism and moral relativism have pretty much supplanted it.*


Many see this as progress.


----------



## bryanc

MacGuiver said:


> I've pointed to a well known progressive country where infanticide is happening today to make my point.


It might not strike you as important, but I see a fairly significant distinction between euthanizing a newborn with devastating birth defects and infanticide of a female infant because the family does not want a daughter.


----------



## Macfury

groovetube said:


> Since I'm feeling a little charitable this morning, I'll point out to you the main topic of the article, the calling of this woman who spoke in support of contraceptives a "slut" and a "prostitute", and put that in context with the dolling news bit.


Rush Limbaugh referred to a woman a prostitute and he uses viagra? I think you've blown it on this one.


----------



## bryanc

MacGuiver said:


> Christianity has been affecting our laws since the foundation of the nation. Its been the benchmark for justice for western civilization. However, in recent decades, secularism and moral relativism have pretty much supplanted it.


Yes, it's good to see progress. We've gone from building our legal system around the authoritarian dictates of some misanthropic medieval child molesters to a system based on secular ethical principles and the best interests of society. We're still struggling to shake off the demon-haunted superstitions of our ancestors, and we've still got a lot of medieval baggage to get rid of, but we are making progress.


----------



## rgray

bryanc said:


> Yes, it's good to see progress. We've gone from building our legal system around the authoritarian dictates of some misanthropic medieval child molesters to a system based on secular ethical principles and the best interests of society. We're still struggling to shake off the demon-haunted superstitions of our ancestors, and we've still got a lot of medieval baggage to get rid of, but we are making progress.


As my father was fond of saying we will make real progress when all notions of "god(s)" are finally reduced to a rather embarassing footnote in history.


----------



## MacGuiver

bryanc said:


> Whatever the cost of such socialized birth control, you can bet it would be minuscule compared to the social cost of warfare, plague, famine and environmental catastrophe.


Historically, I'm unaware of any wars that you could put a finger on that were caused strictly by overpopulation? Did Hitler strike out because Germany was overpopulated? Wars are driven by ideology, hatred or greed. Those three factors don't disappear with fewer people. 
I agree there is the potential if a nation has exhausted its resources they may want their neighbours. 

Plague: Certainly densely populated areas will facilitate a plague spreading more easily but even with fewer humans on the earth, our tendency to group up remains and the plague is just as costly. The ratio of the dead to the living would likely be constant. Again, advancements in knowledge have helped dramatically to diffuse this issue as populations continued to grow.

Famine: I agree population can exacerbate this problem, however I don't see limited resources as its cause. We produce way more food than we need and we have the technology for other countries to do likewise, what we lack is the will to make it happen.

Environmental catastrophe: I agree somewhat. More people produce more garbage. But again 10 people can make a bigger mess than 100 if they don't poses the knowledge, practices and technology of the 100. Point in case, water and air are cleaner today in many places in the world than they were when they had half as many people. 

The answer to these issues isn't necessarily fewer people.


----------



## bryanc

rgray said:


> As my father was fond of saying we will make real progress when all notions of "god(s)" are finally reduced to a rather embarassing footnote in history.


Indeed. Religion is a security blanket we not only no longer need, but one we are constantly tripping over.

I don't begrudge our primitive ancestors their superstitions; their fear of the unknown was well justified and probably allowed us them survive (and therefore us to exist). But we no no longer need to adhere to the ghost stories they made up to explain the world to themselves, and to keep each other in line. The faster we can unlearn our reflexive tendency to make up fairy tales to justify doing what we want, the faster we can star learning to deal with reality in an effective way.


----------



## MacGuiver

bryanc said:


> It might not strike you as important, but I see a fairly significant distinction between euthanizing a newborn with devastating birth defects and infanticide of a female infant because the family does not want a daughter.


See Groove, Bryan is onboard for infanticide as long as you're culling the disabled. He just made the leap from killing in the womb to killing outside of it. He justifies his stance on unfettered abortion on the autonomy of women to control her own body but the logic he employs to justify the killing of the human life is evolving to justifications outside the womb as well. Given enough time, he could warm up to the idea of killing infants for social reasons.
The slope is slippery indeed.


----------



## bryanc

MacGuiver said:


> Historically, I'm unaware of any wars that you could put a finger on that were caused strictly by overpopulation?


Historically, we haven't been as seriously overpopulated... local overpopulation can be addressed by emigration (which has caused wars). But ultimately conflict over limited resources is what most often triggers human aggression.



> Plague: Certainly densely populated areas will facilitate a plague spreading more easily but even with fewer humans on the earth, our tendency to group up remains and the plague is just as costly.


So a plague that kills ten million out of a billion is "just as costly" as a plague that kills ten out of a thousand? More to the point, the greater the population of potential hosts, the greater the selective pressure to utilize that resource. 7 billion warm mammals of the same species and with very similar immunological defence mechanisms is a pretty attractive evolutionary target. This is what biologists call a 'niche vacuum."



> Famine: I agree population can exacerbate this problem, however I don't see limited resources as its cause. We produce way more food than we need and we have the technology for other countries to do likewise, what we lack is the will to make it happen.


All food or other resources consumed by humans must come at the expense of resources for other members of the ecosystem. While it's true that we can continue to expand our food production, and that technological improvements can increase our efficiency, we are already driving many species to extinction with our agricultural practices, and the greater demand for food will only make this worse.



> Environmental catastrophe: I agree somewhat. More people produce more garbage. But again 10 people can make a bigger mess than 100


It's not just the pollution, it's the consumption of resources. And you're right that better practices/greater efficiency can mitigate the problem, but the problem is ultimately one of population.



> The answer to these issues isn't necessarily fewer people.


It is necessarily fewer people. There are other things we can do to mitigate in the short term, and to help the system support a larger number, but even that larger number is certainly a smaller number than the number of people we have on the planet right now. So we need to reduce our population.

I'd prefer to reduce our population gradually by reducing fecundity for a few generations. Others may prefer genocide, or other more violent means. But regardless of the mechanisms, our population has got to drop.


----------



## bryanc

MacGuiver said:


> See Groove, Bryan is onboard for infanticide as long as you're culling the disabled. He just made the leap from killing in the womb to killing outside of it. He justifies his stance on unfettered abortion on the autonomy of women to control her own body but the logic he employs to justify the killing of the human life is making its natural transition to outside the womb as well.


No. Euthanasia and abortion are entirely unrelated ethical problems. The justification for euthanizing an infant is exactly the same as euthanizing any other patient. The justification for abortion has nothing to do with the embryo, as it is an issue of the right of the woman to do what she pleases with her own body.

So no slippery slope. Just philosophical consistency. You should try it some time.


----------



## Macfury

MacGuiver said:


> See Groove, Bryan is onboard for infanticide as long as you're culling the disabled. He just made the leap from killing in the womb to killing outside of it. He justifies his stance on unfettered abortion on the autonomy of women to control her own body but the logic he employs to justify the killing of the human life is evolving to justifications outside the womb as well. Given enough time, he could warm up to the idea of killing infants for social reasons.
> The slope is slippery indeed.


MacGuiver---can't you see that this is not yet legal in Canada. That means it will never happen.


----------



## MacGuiver

rgray said:


> As my father was fond of saying we will make real progress when all notions of "god(s)" are finally reduced to a rather embarassing footnote in history.


They tried this in the Soviet Union. This is what real progress looked like.


----------



## groovetube

Well it didn't take long to pull out the soviet communist card.

The gloves are indeed off eh?


----------



## groovetube

MacGuiver said:


> See Groove, Bryan is onboard for infanticide as long as you're culling the disabled. He just made the leap from killing in the womb to killing outside of it. He justifies his stance on unfettered abortion on the autonomy of women to control her own body but the logic he employs to justify the killing of the human life is evolving to justifications outside the womb as well. Given enough time, he could warm up to the idea of killing infants for social reasons.
> The slope is slippery indeed.


"culling the disabled" Boy there's no depths you won't stoop to to make your point is there.


----------



## bryanc

MacGuiver said:


> They tried this in the Soviet Union. This is what real progress looked like.


They tried a lot of things that didn't work in the USSR. One of those things was using the power of the state to repress religion. That, not surprisingly, turns out to be like trying to put out a fire by pouring gasoline on it. Religion thrives on oppression.

The only cure for religion is education. One thing even complete smeg heads like Rick Santorum can see is that there is a very strong negative correlation between post secondary education (especially in the sciences) and religious adherence. An educated society is a secular society.


----------



## MacGuiver

groovetube said:


> "culling the disabled" Boy there's no depths you won't stoop to to make your point is there.


I'm glad the prospect of killing disabled babies offends you. We'll be allies if some nazi proposes we legalize infanticide to get rid of them.


----------



## CubaMark

bryanc said:


> The only cure for religion is education. One thing even complete smeg heads like Rick Santorum can see is that there is a very strong negative correlation between post secondary education (especially in the sciences) and religious adherence. An educated society is a secular society.


Which is why parties on the Right (in the U.S. at least) tend to oppose public education, encouraging the use of "vouchers" etc. to enable those so inclined to place their children in private (and often religious) schools.


----------



## groovetube

MacGuiver said:


> I'm glad the prospect of killing disabled babies offends you. We'll be allies if some nazi proposes we legalize infanticide to get rid of them.


No one said they were for killing "disabled" babies. 

Your attempts like to smear people like that is offensive.


----------



## MacGuiver

CubaMark said:


> Which is why parties on the Right (in the U.S. at least) tend to oppose public education, encouraging the use of "vouchers" etc. to enable those so inclined to place their children in private (and often religious) schools.


Is it science, math and biology that causes the conversion or is it indoctrination that turns them into liberals, secularists and atheists? I suspect the later and so do many others. That is why control of education is the holy grail of the anti-religion crowd.
Science, math, biology have never shaken my faith. In fact quite the opposite would be true.


----------



## jef

MacGuiver said:


> Science, math, biology have never shaken my faith. In fact quite the opposite would be true.


You must have scored low in these subjects then...


----------



## MacGuiver

jef said:


> You must have scored low in these subjects then...


And you're likely theologically illiterate if thats what you think.


----------



## bryanc

MacGuiver said:


> Is it science, math and biology that causes the conversion or is it indoctrination that turns them into liberals, secularists and atheists? I suspect the later and so do many others.


If learning some critical thinking skills and the factual basis of secular explanations equates to "indoctrination" in your mind, that would explain a lot.


----------



## groovetube

bryanc said:


> If learning some critical thinking skills and the factual basis of secular explanations equates to "indoctrination" in your mind, that would explain a lot.


yup.

At least -that-, was honest.


----------



## SINC

This looks like a good spot for this.


----------



## dallan

MacGuiver, you said, "Science, math, biology have never shaken my faith. In fact quite the opposite would be true." The same is true for me! Science is not the enemy of true Religion; faith and reason are two wings of the one bird.


----------



## bryanc

SINC said:


> This looks like a good spot for this.


That's cool... I've not seen that before. Thanks SINC.


----------



## bryanc

dallan said:


> faith and reason are two wings of the one bird.


that's very poetic, but I find it genuinely incomprehensible. Can you elaborate on /explain this for me?


----------



## MacGuiver

dallan said:


> MacGuiver, you said, "Science, math, biology have never shaken my faith. In fact quite the opposite would be true." The same is true for me! Science is not the enemy of true Religion; faith and reason are two wings of the one bird.


Thank you Dallan 
I'm finding that many atheists, though they may be smart in science are illiterate in theology. They get all excited about the small proportion of Christianity that wrongly approach the Bible like a literal source for scientific truth of our origins and tar the rest of Christendom with the same brush. The overwhelming majority of Christianity don't look to the Bible to explain matters of science and marvel in the knowledge we have obtained through it. 
Despite the ill informed and bitter atheistic evangelist preaching in the "how science saved my soul" video posted earlier, it was an awe inspiring presentation of our universe. The fact he thinks the scientific knowledge he presented made any kind of case against God's existence just exposes his theological ignorance.
Its good fodder for conversion of Christians that are also theologically challenged.


----------



## jef

MacGuiver said:


> Thank you Dallan
> I'm finding that many atheists, though they may be smart in science are illiterate in theology.


I'd like to dedicate this to MacGuiver:
Chubby Checker - The Twist - YouTube


----------



## dallan

bryanc said:


> that's very poetic, but I find it genuinely incomprehensible. Can you elaborate on /explain this for me?


Yes, faith is as important to our wellbeing as is reason; everyone has faith, indeed, everyone needs faith.


----------



## jef

dallan said:


> Yes, faith is as important to our wellbeing as is reason; everyone has faith, indeed, everyone needs faith.


Faith scares the crap out of me. I don't want it or need it. Give me some evidence and I'll work with that. . .


----------



## Macfury

jef said:


> Faith scares the crap out of me.


Well, see, without faith you would be constipated!


----------



## jef

Macfury said:


> Well, see, without faith you would be constipated!


Maybe - but there is an app for that bio feedback constipation clinic


----------



## rgray

Faith is the antithesis of reason and thought, both of which are in short supply in the world.


----------



## Macfury

rgray said:


> Faith is the antithesis of reason and thought, both of which are in short supply in the world.


I disagree with you on that. Faith is a reaching toward what we believe to be true--and that includes all disciplines. One has faith that one can win an Olympic Medal, write a novel, or invent something worthwhile. It's the leap between what you are certain of and what you believe can be.


----------



## jef

Macfury said:


> I disagree with you on that. Faith is a reaching toward what we believe to be true--and that includes all disciplines. One has faith that one can win an Olympic Medal, write a novel, or invent something worthwhile. It's the leap between what you are certain of and what you believe can be.


Having personal hopes and aspirations is very different from religious faith. You can know and understand your own abilities and potential but believing in fairy tales and imaginary beings is not going to help...


----------



## Macfury

I was responding to a comment that said "faith" itself, not "religious" faith was the antithesis to reason and thought.


----------



## groovetube

In a religious thread no less.


----------



## Macfury

Don't feel bad if you don't get it. Just read and learn.


----------



## groovetube

well that was easy.

over and out.


----------



## MacGuiver

jef said:


> I'd like to dedicate this to MacGuiver:
> Chubby Checker - The Twist - YouTube


I like that song Jef. Thanks. 
Chubby Checker's Twist, though a great tune, doesn't really bring anything intelligent to the table. The fact you think I'm twisting, again demonstrates your ignorance of my religion. What have I twisted?


----------



## Macfury

MacGuiver said:


> I like that song Jef. Thanks.
> Chubby Checker's Twist, though a great tune, doesn't really bring anything intelligent to the table. The fact you think I'm twisting, again demonstrates your ignorance of my religion. What have I twisted?


He may have chosen Chubby because of his religious beliefs:



> _God's got something for me. I have faith it'll be OK._
> 
> --Chubby Checker


Read more: Chubby Checker Quotes - BrainyQuote


----------



## jef

MacGuiver said:


> Thank you Dallan
> I'm finding that many atheists, though they may be smart in science are illiterate in theology. They get all excited about the small proportion of Christianity that wrongly approach the Bible like a literal source for scientific truth of our origins and tar the rest of Christendom with the same brush. The overwhelming majority of Christianity don't look to the Bible to explain matters of science and marvel in the knowledge we have obtained through it.
> Despite the ill informed and bitter atheistic evangelist preaching in the "how science saved my soul" video posted earlier, it was an awe inspiring presentation of our universe. The fact he thinks the scientific knowledge he presented made any kind of case against God's existence just exposes his theological ignorance.
> Its good fodder for conversion of Christians that are also theologically challenged.


You are twisting logic here to assume that those who are 'smart in science' are or must be' illiterate in theology'. I don't agree. I had the usual Christian indoctrination like so many others. But I realized early in life (having lived and worked in mainland China, Japan and traveled extensively in other 'god-less' and 'god-fearing' countries and working around - not with - missionaries) that humans needed religion in the past to answer the unanswerable - I get that. However, religion today is a huge liability and is hindering knowledge development on a global scale (see our Conservative gov't for proof).


----------



## Macfury

jef said:


> ...religion today is a huge liability and is hindering knowledge development on a global scale....


Interesting. In which areas do you see religion primarily hindering knowledge development? Be specific.


----------



## jef

Macfury said:


> Interesting. In which areas do you see religion primarily hindering knowledge development? Be specific.


Contraception, education and rights for women for starters.


----------



## groovetube

jef said:


> Contraception, education and rights for women for starters.


zing...


----------



## SINC

bryanc said:


> That's cool... I've not seen that before. Thanks SINC.


You may like this one too.


----------



## groovetube

SINC said:


> You may like this one too.


I like that one for sure.


----------



## Macfury

jef said:


> Contraception, education and rights for women for starters.


All religions, or just a few of them?


----------



## jef

Macfury said:


> All religions, or just a few of them?


Certainly the current crop of the largest organized religions which influence the majority of the world's cultures and politics. There will be some exceptions (can't think of any) as there are so many thousands of religions that have vied to control the human condition - some with better results than others.


----------



## rgray

Macfury said:


> Interesting. In which areas do you see religion primarily hindering knowledge development? Be specific.


You don't have to be specific. Religions are anti thought, stressing instead a dependance on faith and belief. They stand in the way of all knowledge seeking endeavour and expect acolytes instead to follow canned mystical fairy tales.


----------



## Mythtaken

rgray said:


> Religions are anti thought, stressing instead a dependance on faith and belief. They stand in the way of all knowledge seeking endeavour and expect acolytes instead to follow canned mystical fairy tales.


That's a very simplistic view, and incorrect. The Jesuits, for example, are all about knowledge, studying the sciences, humanities, and mathematics while still retaining their faith in a god and heaven and all the rest of it. The Vatican has it's own astronomy department, run by Jesuits. 

Believing in god doesn't necessarily limit one's appreciation for nature and science. There are certain religious organizations which do just that, but that's about politics and control, not belief. In the same way, holding onto a passionate, unwavering, unprovable belief that there is no god can be just as intellectually crippling.


----------



## bryanc

dallan said:


> Yes, faith is as important to our wellbeing as is reason; everyone has faith, indeed, everyone needs faith.


I guess I'm in big trouble then, because I don't have any. One of the things I've done since I was quite young is to examine my beliefs critically, and expunge anything I can't support on the basis of reason and evidence.

I have studied philosophy extensively, and while "faith" is one of those words with a fairly flexible definition, I've never seen it stretched to encompass beliefs founded on reason and evidence.

Let me know if you still think everyone needs faith.


----------



## bryanc

Macfury said:


> I was responding to a comment that said "faith" itself, not "religious" faith was the antithesis to reason and thought.


I think your use of the word "faith" to mean "optimism" is idiosyncratic to say the least. But I've encountered others with a similar view, and, after some discussion we came to the agreement that they meant that faith was holding to an optimistic belief even when evidence to the contrary was starting to pile up. You're certainly right that this does not have to be religious; a sports fan or athlete can have faith that their team is going to win even when they're loosing by a wide margin and the clock is ticking down. Indeed, I think this is the sort of faith that is healthy in moderation. Personally, I can't pull it off, but I do try to remain optimistic and encouraging to kids when they're playing some sport and their team is loosing.


----------



## jef

Mythtaken said:


> That's a very simplistic view, and incorrect. The Jesuits, for example, are all about knowledge, studying the sciences, humanities, and mathematics while still retaining their faith in a god and heaven and all the rest of it. The Vatican has it's own astronomy department, run by Jesuits.
> 
> Believing in god doesn't necessarily limit one's appreciation for nature and science. There are certain religious organizations which do just that, but that's about politics and control, not belief. In the same way, holding onto a passionate, unwavering, unprovable belief that there is no god can be just as intellectually crippling.



If the Jesuits study science and shape it to their beliefs, it's not good science. Ask Galileo how well the Jesuits and the Vatican supported his discoveries. Believing in God doesn't necessarily limit one's appreciation for nature and science - but it does limit one's understanding of it.


----------



## bryanc

Macfury said:


> Interesting. In which areas do you see religion primarily hindering knowledge development? Be specific.


There are plenty of examples, but some of the most egregious and obvious would be the religiously-motivated censoring/editing of biology texts in the US, where Christian creationists still try to hamper the teaching of evolution. Then there's the whole "Intelligent Design" movement, which actively promotes magical thinking as a replacement for science.

Then there are the more insidious pathways whereby religion hinders knowledge development, such as the appointment of a barely-high-school educated religious nut as the minister of science and technology in Canada, and then suggesting that the massive cuts to scientific research are merely fiscally prudent. tptptptp


----------



## Mythtaken

jef said:


> If the Jesuits study science and shape it to their beliefs, it's not good science. Ask Galileo how well the Jesuits and the Vatican supported his discoveries. Believing in God doesn't necessarily limit one's appreciation for nature and science - but it does limit one's understanding of it.


I think the church's attitude towards Galileo's ideas were coloured more by his alternative lifestyle than by his science. Again, that's confusing the personal beliefs of the scholars and scientists with the the political arm of religion (the church). 

The church most certainly did (and arguably still does) try to reshape the science to suit it's vision in order to maintain it's position of power. Personal belief in a god had nothing to do with that. Nor does religion have the corner on that market. Drug companies, tobacco companies, manufacturers, governments, all continue to massage the scientific facts and data to suit their own agendas. In many ways, scientific truth is as fractured and indistinct as religious truth.


----------



## jef

Mythtaken said:


> In many ways, scientific truth is as fractured and indistinct as religious truth.


By definition, scientific truth is subject to replication, testing and peer review. There is no rational basis for religious 'truth'. The fact that there is bad science out there does not somehow justify or equate science and religious truths.


----------



## SINC

Koo-koo Kachoo


----------



## mrjimmy

SINC said:


> Koo-koo Kachoo





> Televangelist Pat Robertson on Monday tried to deflect the blame for tornadoes away from God, saying people shouldn’t build houses in the Midwest and could prevent the deadly storms by praying.


It is astonishing that in this day and age, people are still shovelling that type of malarkey with a straight face. Even Pat Robertson.


----------



## fjnmusic

I dunno. For a religion based on a God that is all-forgiving, why must we still reject Satan and all that he stands for? Why must there always be a scapegoat? Don't sound much like forgiveness to me. Satan is apparently beyond rehabilitation. Maybe if we prayed TO the tornado god or offered him/her a virgin to be sacrificed we'd have better luck.


----------



## rgray

deleted


----------



## rgray

deleted


----------



## Mythtaken

jef said:


> By definition, scientific truth is subject to replication, testing and peer review. There is no rational basis for religious 'truth'. The fact that there is bad science out there does not somehow justify or equate science and religious truths.


Facts are consistent and repeatable (an anvil falls at a constant, repeatable rate when dropped from the same height). Truth is an interpretation of the facts (coffee will kill you/coffee is good for you). 

In the past, both religious truths and scientific truths were interpreted from the same observed facts. They just used different criteria to reach their conclusions. Often both turned out to be inaccurate. Our scientific methods have improved considerably over time. Our ability to draw unbiased conclusions still needs work. In the same way, I think most people who believe in a god have grown beyond the limitations of the Bible to understand their faith in the context of the modern world. To paraphrase you, the fact that there is bad religion out there does not equate belief in a higher power with scientific limitations or misconceptions.


----------



## bryanc

Mythtaken said:


> In the past, both religious truths and scientific truths were interpreted from the same observed facts. They just used different criteria to reach their conclusions. Often both turned out to be inaccurate.


Well, one _always_ turned out to be inaccurate, but I take your point.



> Our scientific methods have improved considerably over time.


Indeed. This is one of the great things about science; our understanding is constantly improving... we learn from our mistakes.



> In the same way, I think most people who believe in a god have grown beyond the limitations of the Bible to understand their faith in the context of the modern world.


So, are you arguing that religion has also improved in the past few centuries? As far as I can tell, there remain orthodox religions, who's teachings haven't changed and who're peddling "consistency" as their major claim to having the Truth(tm), and there are the more liberal religions, who don't much care what you believe or do as long as you contribute to their profitability, which seem to be operating on the model that people might not give up on religion quite so quickly if it wasn't such an obvious load of medieval bollocks.

Both of these business models are currently massively profitable, but they will remain so only so long as they can find consumers without the critical thinking capacity to see through their scams. Sending missionaries to the developing world (where the vast majority of people will not have had much, if any, education, and where many will say they believe whatever you like in exchange for some clean water) is a pretty good gambit, and it's proving quite effective. But the expansion of secular education and it's obvious deleterious effects on religious adherence in the first world has got to be causing some sleepless nights for the CEOs of these myth pedlars.


----------



## bryanc

*Maybe it would help if we rebooted society...*


----------



## CubaMark

*The image Miley Cyrus tweeted that has U.S. evangelicals in an uproar...*










_Beautiful!_


----------



## screature

Mythtaken said:


> Facts are consistent and repeatable (an anvil falls at a constant, repeatable rate when dropped from the same height). Truth is an interpretation of the facts (coffee will kill you/coffee is good for you).
> 
> In the past, both religious truths and scientific truths were interpreted from the same observed facts. They just used different criteria to reach their conclusions. Often both turned out to be inaccurate. Our scientific methods have improved considerably over time. Our ability to draw unbiased conclusions still needs work. In the same way, I think most people who believe in a god have grown beyond the limitations of the Bible to understand their faith in the context of the modern world. To paraphrase you, the fact that there is bad religion out there does not equate belief in a higher power with scientific limitations or misconceptions.


:clap: Good post.


----------



## jef

Mythtaken said:


> . To paraphrase you, the fact that there is bad religion out there does not equate belief in a higher power with scientific limitations or misconceptions.


This is where we disagree. The fact that there is _any_ religion out there is a scientific limitation and leads to misconceptions.


----------



## MacGuiver

CubaMark said:


> *The image Miley Cyrus tweeted that has U.S. evangelicals in an uproar...*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Beautiful!_



If there is an afterlife, atheists will have Miley Cyrus to sing to them through eternity. Any doubts you had of Hell will quickly vanish..


----------



## jef

MacGuiver said:


> If there is an afterlife, atheists will have Miley Cyrus to sing to them through eternity. Any doubts you had of Hell will quickly vanish..


This is a huge benefit of atheism - there is no belief and therefore no fear of an afterlife good or bad!


----------



## Mythtaken

bryanc said:


> So, are you arguing that religion has also improved in the past few centuries? As far as I can tell, there remain orthodox religions, who's teachings haven't changed and who're peddling "consistency" as their major claim to having the Truth(tm), and there are the more liberal religions, who don't much care what you believe or do as long as you contribute to their profitability, which seem to be operating on the model that people might not give up on religion quite so quickly if it wasn't such an obvious load of medieval bollocks.


Certainly religion has evolved to encompass the current understanding of the universe. More than that, believers have, for the most part, evolved beyond the literal religious texts. As you point out, there are still those sects which try to hold on to the traditional, biblical view of the world. They, I suspect, are the very reason for the increasing trend away from organized religion. I know that those friends of mine who are theists eschew any connection to a particular church or order.


----------



## Mythtaken

jef said:


> This is where we disagree. The fact that there is any religion out there is a scientific limitation and leads to misconceptions.


That just doesn't follow. Maybe that's why I can't buy into the atheist dogma.


----------



## MacGuiver

jef said:


> This is a huge benefit of atheism - there is no belief and therefore no fear of an afterlife good or bad!


A true Christian has nothing to fear of the afterlife. In fact its something to look forward to. Thats a benefit of being Christian. If there is no God, the Christian will be nothing more than worm food like you. If there is Heaven and Hell, then things will get complicated.


----------



## bryanc

Mythtaken said:


> Maybe that's why I can't buy into the atheist dogma.


There is no atheist dogma. Ask any two atheists what they believe and you'll get (at least) two different answers. There is no organization that dictates what atheists are supposed to believe. Atheism is the lack of a belief, so it's the opposite of a religion.


----------



## bryanc

MacGuiver said:


> A true Christian has nothing to fear of the afterlife. In fact its something to look forward to.


Just like a true Muslim, or a true Jew, or a true Hindu, or a true Zoroastrian, etc. etc. etc.

Unfortunately, this enthusiasm for death is what makes if very easy to convince otherwise healthy young people to throw away their lives to do Allah's Will, or God's Work, or whatever other nonsense they've been brain-washed to believe by their priests (who, it's worth noting, are almost never the people who strap explosives to themselves and blow themselves up in a crowed market, or fly planes into buildings, or whatever).

This is one of the primary aspects of religion that I argue makes this a mental disorder, and a threat to the safety of both the afflicted individual and society in general.


----------



## eMacMan

MacGuiver said:


> A true Christian has nothing to fear of the afterlife. In fact its something to look forward to. Thats a benefit of being Christian. If there is no God, the Christian will be nothing more than worm food like you. If there is Heaven and Hell, then things will get complicated.


Pretty sure if there is an afterlife it won't be limited to white Christians. you may find yourself sharing that netherworld with Jews, Hindus, Buddhists and <gasp> even Muslims. 

One thing I know for sure is; if there is a heaven, then dogs have earned a place long before their masters.


----------



## MacGuiver

bryanc said:


> There is no atheist dogma. Ask any two atheists what they believe and you'll get (at least) two different answers. There is no organization that dictates what atheists are supposed to believe. Atheism is the lack of a belief, so it's the opposite of a religion.


Here are 2 key dogma of atheism shared by all.

1. There is no God.
2. All unexplainable evidence presented of God is to be dismissed as gaps in our understanding of natural phenomena. But it can never be God because that would violate Dogma #1.


----------



## Sonal

Well, a true Jain (and as I understand it, a Hindu or Buddhist) is expected to go through many different lives, both good and bad, in order to learn and eventually break the cycle of rebirth. So there may very well be much to fear in the next life. 

But if you take the very long view over many, many lifetimes, then sure there's not so much to fear.


----------



## bryanc

MacGuiver said:


> Here are 2 key dogma of atheism shared by all.
> 
> 1. There is no God.
> 2. All unexplainable evidence presented of God is to be dismissed as gaps in our understanding of natural phenomena. But it can never be God because that would violate Dogma #1.


I'm an atheist, and I subscribe to neither of these views. I am therefore existence proof that these are not dogmas of atheism.


On point one, I would say that I cannot prove that there is no god, but I have no belief that there is. That is, like Bertrand Russell's teapot orbiting Saturn, I have no reason to think that the assertions of any of the religions regarding the existence of their supernatural entities are true, so I presume they're false. However, I remain open to evidence to the contrary.

On point two, any extraordinary claims (which obviously include claims about supernatural events/agents/processes) require extraordinary evidence. Until such time as such evidence is provided, such claims will be met with extreme skepticism.

For example, if you claim that it is raining where you live, I will likely just take your word for it. If I suspect you are not particularly reliable, I might ask for some evidence, but a picture taken out your window with a current date-stamp on it would certainly suffice. However, if you claim you have a dragon in your garage, you're going to have to do better than show me some scorch marks on your driveway.


----------



## rgray

deleted


----------



## Mythtaken

bryanc said:


> On point one, I would say that I cannot prove that there is no god, but I have no belief that there is. That is, like Bertrand Russell's teapot orbiting Saturn, I have no reason to think that the assertions of any of the religions regarding the existence of their supernatural entities are true, so I presume they're false. However, I remain open to evidence to the contrary.


I would say that makes you an agnostic rather than an atheist. I've always found agnosticism a much more rational and comfortable position than atheism. Atheists work so hard to retain their dogged state of perpetual unbelief in any god or supernatural occurrence that it has become a belief system on it's own. Perhaps that's why some atheists are now organizing their own churches of unbelief (including tax exemption).

We don't know where the big bang came from. The theist will simply say "God did it". The atheist will argue there is no god and the event resulted from something else that we just don't understand yet --"but we will and then we'll show those religious nuts." The agnostic will shrug and see what's on TV.


A man said to the universe:
"Sir I exist!"
"However," replied the universe,
"The fact has not created in me
A sense of obligation."
-- Stephen Crane


----------



## screature

rgray said:


> *Facts are not consistent*. The life of a fact is inversely proportional to the amount of work done it (research, applied curiosity)). A fact is only repeatable in the strict context in which it was originally framed because when we look at something a second (or third, etc) time our perception is changed. Truth is not absolute and varies with weight of evidence...


True but as long as they are repeatable in the short term they are considered to be consistent... it all depends on how long a view one takes of facts. When applying "facts" for applied science or technology (engineering, medicine) etc. one takes the short term view of facts as being consistent, otherwise it would be almost impossible to ever have the "confidence" to ever make or build anything.


----------



## screature

Mythtaken said:


> I would say that makes you an agnostic rather than an atheist. I've always found agnosticism a much more rational and comfortable position than atheism. Atheists work so hard to retain their dogged state of perpetual unbelief in any god or supernatural occurrence that it has become a belief system on it's own. Perhaps that's why some atheists are now organizing their own churches of unbelief.
> 
> We don't know where the big bang came from. The theist will simply say "God did it". The atheist will argue there is no god and the event resulted from something else that we just don't understand yet --"but we will and then we'll show those religious nuts." *The agnostic will shrug and see what's on TV.*
> 
> 
> A man said to the universe:
> "Sir I exist!"
> "However," replied the universe,
> "The fact has not created in me
> A sense of obligation."
> -- Stephen Crane


Exactly and why I am an agnostic.  :lmao:


----------



## rgray

deleted


----------



## rgray

deleted


----------



## chasMac

Agnosticism requires too much effort. Were we to grant the luxury of unknowable to all that our imagination might conjure up we should be institutionalized.


----------



## Sonal

chasMac said:


> Agnosticism requires too much effort. Were we to grant the luxury of unknowable to all that our imagination might conjure up we should be institutionalized.


Really? Taking a position of "I don't know" is too much effort?


----------



## screature

chasMac said:


> Agnosticism requires too much effort. Were we to grant the luxury of unknowable to all that our imagination might conjure up we should be institutionalized.


:lmao: It ain't always easy.


----------



## screature

Sonal said:


> Really? Taking a position of "I don't know" is too much effort?


It can be depending on who you are talking to...


----------



## bryanc

Mythtaken said:


> I would say that makes you an agnostic rather than an atheist.


"Gnostic" means "knowledge" (usually vis gods or other theological issues). "Agnostic" means "lacking knowledge". "Theist" means someone with belief(s) in/about god(s). "Atheist" means someone lacking beliefs in/about gods.

Since I lack knowledge of god(s), I am agnostic. Because I have no knowledge, I also have no beliefs, therefore I'm an atheist as well. These are not only not mutually exclusive philosophical positions, they are almost necessarily linked; if you lack knowledge, any rational person will also lack beliefs. Thus all rational agnostics are also atheists. It is, at least theoretically possible to be an agnostic but have beliefs anyway, but this is an irrational position. It is also possible to be an atheist who is not agnostic, but this is also an irrational position. I've never met anyone who holds either of these irrational positions; every atheist I've ever discussed this with sufficiently to understand their position has also been an agnostic.



> Atheists work so hard to retain their dogged state of perpetual unbelief in any god or supernatural occurrence that it has become a belief system on it's own.


Really? I've never met anyone like that. Where do you encounter these people?



> Perhaps that's why some atheists are now organizing their own churches of unbelief (including tax exemption).


I rather suspect this is like the folks trying to get official religious status for Pastafarianism; it's a political action the primary objective of which is to eliminate the tax exemption for churches by showing how easily it can be abused.



> We don't know where the big bang came from. The theist will simply say "God did it". The atheist will argue there is no god and the event resulted from something else that we just don't understand yet --"but we will and then we'll show those religious nuts." The agnostic will shrug and see what's on TV.


The atheists I know will say, "this is an interesting problem, how could we find out what really happened... or at least put constraints on what are possible explanations." They may also be frustrated at people who try to explain the unknown with unfalsifiable fairy tales, and wish that such anti-intellectual types would stop trying to interfere with the business of science. Maybe that's what you mean by "showing those religious nuts."


----------



## screature

rgray said:


> Medicine is a particularly interesting example here because there have been some clangers of disasters due exactly to the failure to recognise that "facts" are not immutable. The thalidomide debacle is an example.


It is indeed replete with failure but again without "facts" (so called) nothing would ever get made or done.


----------



## chasMac

Sonal said:


> Really? Taking a position of "I don't know" is too much effort?


The existence of something like god as championed by some religions would affect every aspect of your life. Your principles, morals, view of science, view of family, relationships, the universe, absolutely everything. Applying 'I don't know' to god's existence when you approach _everything,_ yeah that would take a lot of effort.


----------



## bryanc

chasMac said:


> Were we to grant the luxury of unknowable to all that our imagination might conjure up we should be institutionalized.


I think I see you're point, and I agree. If someone were to seriously consider any unfalsifiable claim, they would be unable to function. But just because I remain agnostic about gods or tea pots orbiting Saturn, does not mean I have to give them serious consideration. As it happens, I have given the idea of gods serious consideration (because it is an idea that is so pervasive in our culture and other human cultures), but I have found it to be even less plausible than Russell's tea pot orbiting Saturn (we know tea pots exist, and we know how orbital mechanics work, so the idea of a tea pot orbiting Saturn is decidedly more plausible than the idea of an Invisible Sky Daddy).


----------



## screature

bryanc said:


> "Gnostic" means "knowledge" (usually vis gods or other theological issues). "Agnostic" means "lacking knowledge". "Theist" means someone with belief(s) in/about god(s). "Atheist" means someone lacking beliefs in/about gods.
> 
> Since I lack knowledge of god(s), I am agnostic. Because I have no knowledge, I also have no beliefs, therefore I'm an atheist as well. These are not only not mutually exclusive philosophical positions, *they are almost necessarily linked*; if you lack knowledge, any rational person will also lack beliefs. Thus all rational agnostics are also atheists.


It depends on the definition you use of what it means to be an atheist. Not all definitions are the same as the one you present. Some definitions actually define an atheist as denying the existence of a god or gods so an affirmation of belief i.e., "I believe god or gods do not exist." as opposed to simply lack of belief.



bryanc said:


> *
> Really? I've never met anyone like that. Where do you encounter these people?*


Really? I have never met any atheist who isn't like this.


----------



## bryanc

chasMac said:


> The existence of something like god as championed by some religions would affect every aspect of your life. Your principles, morals, view of science, view of family, relationships, the universe, absolutely everything.


It is indeed an extraordinary claim. Which is why any rational person will require extraordinary evidence to substantiate it.



> Applying 'I don't know' to god's existence when you approach _everything,_ yeah that would take a lot of effort.


I think this hinges on what one mean's by I don't know. When I say "I don't know if I've got enough gas to get to the next service station" that implies some anxiety and the need for changing one's behaviour (driving so as to optimize fuel efficiency, etc.). But saying "I don't know if there's a tea pot orbiting Saturn" does not imply any such anxiety or need for altered behaviour. So it takes much less cognitive effort to consider the fact that, philosophically, I can't prove that there's no tea pot orbiting Saturn, so I can't claim knowledge that such a tea pot does not exist. Similarly, one cannot prove that there's no invisible Sky Daddy watching over us all, so we can't claim we know He does not exist. But we can claim that the evidence for the existence of either the tea pot or the Sky Daddy is lacking, and the arguments supporting their existence are not logically consistent, so while we cannot prove these things aren't true, we can be very confident that they probably are not.


----------



## Sonal

chasMac said:


> The existence of something like god as championed by some religions would affect every aspect of your life. Your principles, morals, view of science, view of family, relationships, the universe, absolutely everything. Applying 'I don't know' to god's existence when you approach _everything,_ yeah that would take a lot of effort.


And if you don't approach everything in view of the existence of a god.....?


----------



## bryanc

screature said:


> Some definitions actually define an atheist as denying the existence of a god or gods so an affirmation of belief i.e., "I believe god or gods do not exist." as opposed to simply lack of belief.


I certainly have met many atheists who are sufficiently philosophically naive and or sloppy with language to make such a statement. But when pressed, I've never met anyone who takes this position (known as the position of "Strong Atheism" in philosophy), which is essentially a position of faith. Though they sound very similar, there is a profound logical difference between "I believe gods do not exist" and "I don't believe gods exist."

There are certainly people like Penn Jillette, who get very close to this line, and I can certainly say that I understand the position of saying "I'm so confident that gods don't exist that I can say 'I believe gods do not exist'." I'm pretty much there myself; I just recognize that, as a non-falsifiable premise, I can't prove that gods don't exist logically, and therefore, to be philosophically consistent, I have to remain open to the possibility that I could be wrong. Penn Jillette is notorious for being inflammatory and confrontational by nature, and is also not afraid of being wrong (he and his partner Teller have a whole show dedicated to giving aspiring magicians the opportunity to trick them called "Fool Us"), so I suspect that he's really an agnostic, but takes the position of strong atheism publicly in order to provoke responses. But I don't know the guy... maybe he really _believes_ in the absence of gods.



> I have never met any atheist who isn't like this.


To the extent that our online interactions constitutes having "met", now you have.


----------



## chasMac

Sonal said:


> And if you don't approach everything in view of the existence of a god.....?


Make the dangerous assumption that one's may-be-god is a very reasonable chap.


----------



## bryanc

chasMac said:


> Make the dangerous assumption that one's may-be-god is a very reasonable chap.


Well, that pretty much rules out all the gods humans have ever imagined.


----------



## Sonal

chasMac said:


> Make the dangerous assumption that one's may-be-god is a very reasonable chap.


My own religion does not require belief in god.... it's IMO a rather Judeo-Christian slant that assumes that to be 'good' per religious teaching requires belief. Other belief systems figure that so long as you are 'good', you're good. 

But in any case, I do think that if there is a god, than that being's abilities to be reasonable, compassionate, etc., would likely be super-human.


----------



## chasMac

Sonal said:


> But in any case, I do think that if there is a god, than that being's abilities to be reasonable, compassionate, etc., would likely be super-human.


But not his wrath. 

I think yours is a sentiment expressed by a lot of agnostics (not sure or saying that you are one in fact); that if there is a god he/she/it is pretty reasonable, and understands human failings.


----------



## eMacMan

chasMac said:


> But not his wrath.
> 
> I think yours is a sentiment expressed by a lot of agnostics (not sure or saying that you are one in fact); that if there is a god he/she/it is pretty reasonable, and understands human failings.


Let's see; God created Man> Man has failings>As omniscient creator of the species, God by definition, must understand human failings.

Edit: Since God created humans and therefore their failings, God failing to make allowances for human failings implies that God is less than perfect and therefore is not God.


----------



## bryanc

chasMac said:


> ...if there is a god he/she/it is pretty reasonable


Indeed, this is one of the reasons that, while I remain very skeptical of the idea of gods and the supernatural I am genuinely agnostic, however I have nothing but disdain for the Gods of the Abrahamic religions - spiteful, misanthropic, bullies that they're portrayed as. I can't comprehend how any person could worship such an entity even if faced with compelling evidence that they really existed.


----------



## Macfury

eMacMan said:


> Let's see; God created Man> Man has failings>As omniscient creator of the species, God by definition, must understand human failings.
> 
> Edit: Since God created humans and therefore their failings, God failing to make allowances for human failings implies that God is less than perfect and therefore is not God.


Too simple. If God created humans with free choice and God knew he had created them with the power to choose to do right, then he is not responsible if they choose to do wrong. Basic stuff.


----------



## bryanc

Sonal said:


> it's IMO a rather Judeo-Christian slant that assumes that to be 'good' per religious teaching requires belief.


Yes, it's a predictable outcome of the selective pressures on the evolution of religions; if they don't include mechanisms that punish people who question the dogma, they're less likely to succeed. Hence, all of the most successful religions (in terms of profitability and market share - remember, organized religions are businesses) have finely tuned mechanisms to keep their adherents from questioning their faith.


----------



## Sonal

chasMac said:


> But not his wrath.
> 
> I think yours is a sentiment expressed by a lot of agnostics (not sure or saying that you are one in fact); that if there is a god he/she/it is pretty reasonable, and understands human failings.


Well his/her/its wrath would also be super-human. But to me, a lot of the time anger can be small and petty.... you would think an omniscient being would be above all that.

My beliefs don't fit well (IMO) with most labels, but I'm not agnostic. The closest description would be deist.


----------



## bryanc

Macfury said:


> Too simple. If God created humans with free choice and God knew he had created them with the power to choose to do right, then he is not responsible if they choose to do wrong. Basic stuff.


If God is omniscient, He knows what people will choose, and is therefore responsible for the choices His creations make. It's also obvious from this that God's omniscience makes Free Will impossible. Either their is no omniscient God, or we do not have Free Will. (It's worth noting that, even if there is no omniscient God, there are other, better reasons to think that Cartesian Free Will is impossible anyway).


----------



## chasMac

eMacMan said:


> Edit: Since God created humans and therefore their failings, God failing to make allowances for human failings implies that God is less than perfect and therefore is not God.


Allowances? He allows that one goes to heaven or hell; thus he did allow for failings, and of particular interest to us, their consequences.


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> If God is omniscient, He knows what people will choose, and is therefore responsible for the choices His creations make. It's also obvious from this that God's omniscience makes Free Will impossible. Either their is no omniscient God, or we do not have Free Will. (It's worth noting that, even if there is no omniscient God, there are other, better reasons to think that Cartesian Free Will is impossible anyway).


Again, this stuff is old hat for those who actually study religion. God gave people free will to make choices between good and evil, but knew--at the moment that they were created--that they would choose to do evil of their own free will. The notion of time passing to allow people to prove/disprove themselves would be irrelevant to God, who would see the whole thing as instantaneous anyway. The underlying question is: "why would God create humans, knowing that they would use their free will to do wrong." And that question could only be answered by God.

Next?


----------



## Sonal

bryanc said:


> Yes, it's a predictable outcome of the selective pressures on the evolution of religions; if they don't include mechanisms that punish people who question the dogma, they're less likely to succeed. Hence, all of the most successful religions (in terms of profitability and market share - remember, organized religions are businesses) have finely tuned mechanisms to keep their adherents from questioning their faith.


Explains why the religion I was raised in is old and yet still relatively obscure. 

They did try a marketing ploy of incorporating rituals from more popular religions into it, but it didn't really work out well for them.


----------



## Macfury

Sonal said:


> Explains why the religion I was raised in is old and yet still relatively obscure.
> 
> They did try a marketing ploy of incorporating rituals from more popular religions into it, but it didn't really work out well for them.


Shopping is not a religion!


----------



## Sonal

Macfury said:


> Shopping is not a religion!


If it were, I'd be a very bad adherent this year... they'd banish me to the mall.


----------



## bryanc

Macfury said:


> Again, this stuff is old hat for those who actually study religion.


Yes, as I have. And, as anyone who has studied religion knows, there is no adequate logical resolution to the paradox. Aquinas gave up and decided it was a test of faith...



> And that question could only be answered by God.


...it would appear that you agree with him.

I'm more of the opinion that the bronze age mystics who made this BS up screwed up and, like poor SF screen-writers, they wrote a logical paradox into their dogma. The fact that it's paradoxical is just further evidence that it was made up by fallible humans, and has nothing to do with reality.


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> I'm more of the opinion that the bronze age mystics who made this BS up screwed up and, like poor SF screen-writers, they wrote a logical paradox into their dogma. The fact that it's paradoxical is just further evidence that it was made up by fallible humans, and has nothing to do with reality.


I suspect that people really hadn't had the leisure to think much about anything until civilization allowed the luxury of a "thinking class" to begin examining these things down to the point of paradox. They simply were not issues at all until people began to think about them.

However, what you're saying does not prove or disprove anything (as you know). The religious adherent would ultimately say that it made perfect sense for a God who could create the universe to act in a way that was not entirely transparent to humans. If they understood everything he did, then they would be his equal.


----------



## Mythtaken

rgray said:


> Where most atheists make their mistake is in trying to prove the non-existence of god.


Good point. I agree with that. There are indeed many atheists who prefer to simply _believe_ there is no god.


----------



## bryanc

Macfury said:


> I suspect that people really hadn't had the leisure to think much about anything until civilization allowed the luxury of a "thinking class" to begin examining these things down to the point of paradox. They simply were not issues at all until people began to think about them.


Almost certainly correct. It's also interesting to note how quickly religions began to converge on the mono-theistic super-god (omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent God who requires Faith in His Unknowable Plan(tm)) paradigm that characterized 'modern' religions as philosophical discourse started revealing logical flaws in the popular dogmas of the time.



> If they understood everything he did, then they would be his equal.


I know what you mean here, but this isn't necessarily so. I may know what a good hockey player should do at a given moment in a game, but I don't have the skill or physique to do it myself. So understanding the same things is only part of being an equal.


----------



## Mythtaken

bryanc said:


> "Gnostic" means "knowledge" (usually vis gods or other theological issues). "Agnostic" means "lacking knowledge". "Theist" means someone with belief(s) in/about god(s). "Atheist" means someone lacking beliefs in/about gods.
> 
> Since I lack knowledge of god(s), I am agnostic. Because I have no knowledge, I also have no beliefs, therefore I'm an atheist as well. These are not only not mutually exclusive philosophical positions, they are almost necessarily linked; if you lack knowledge, any rational person will also lack beliefs. Thus all rational agnostics are also atheists. It is, at least theoretically possible to be an agnostic but have beliefs anyway, but this is an irrational position. It is also possible to be an atheist who is not agnostic, but this is also an irrational position. I've never met anyone who holds either of these irrational positions; every atheist I've ever discussed this with sufficiently to understand their position has also been an agnostic.


Good response. That's a very clever use of denotation in your argument. But if you look at the connotations of the terms, it doesn't work as well. Most people not involved in a philosophical debate would define atheism as a rejection of belief in a god and agnosticism as the belief that one cannot know whether god exists or not. Those do not go together very well. 




> Really? I've never met anyone like that. Where do you encounter these people?


You don't have to go back to far in this thread to find all sorts of rationalizations for the non-existence of god.


----------



## Mythtaken

bryanc said:


> Yes, it's a predictable outcome of the selective pressures on the evolution of religions; if they don't include mechanisms that punish people who question the dogma, they're less likely to succeed. Hence, all of the most successful religions (in terms of profitability and market share - remember, organized religions are businesses) have finely tuned mechanisms to keep their adherents from questioning their faith.


Nothing wrong with making a buck or two off the backs of the ignorant. Microsoft's been doing it for years.


----------



## bryanc

Mythtaken said:


> Most people not involved in a philosophical debate would define atheism as a rejection of belief in a god and agnosticism as the belief that one cannot know whether god exists or not.


Fair enough. This is one of the reasons why philosophers spend so much time and effort arguing over what exactly is meant by specific words. Given that this is essentially a philosophical discussion, I think it's worth a few posts to clarify the meanings of these words in this context.


----------



## Mythtaken

bryanc said:


> Fair enough. This is one of the reasons why philosophers spend so much time and effort arguing over what exactly is meant by specific words.


And all this time I thought philosophers argued over the meaning of words in an effort to avoid taking a stand on anything.



> Given that this is essentially a philosophical discussion, I think it's worth a few posts to clarify the meanings of these words in this context.


I fear any consensus on those definitions would be a long time coming.


----------



## SINC

This one caught my attention:

Wanted to show some support of my Christian friends so I got a tattoo of God today . . .


----------



## Macfury

SINC said:


> This one caught my attention:
> 
> Wanted to show some support of my Christian friends so I got a tattoo of God today . . .


"Though shalt not make any graven image...."


----------



## MacGuiver

SINC said:


> This one caught my attention:
> 
> Wanted to show some support of my Christian friends so I got a tattoo of God today . . .


Stalin is the reigning champ of arm wrestling in Hell. With his attitude and a forearm like that, this guy could take the title.


----------



## screature

One thing I really don't get about some religions is that in order to go "heaven" or wherever their afterlife is you have to be a believer. 

Seems to me God wouldn't make that a requirement for promotion, just as long as you lived a good life and were good to other people that should be all that matter's. 

Seems kind of petty that God would need you to"support'/'promote" him in order to be worthy... seems an all too human requirement to me.


----------



## eMacMan

screature said:


> One thing I really don't get about some religion's is that in order to go "heaven" or wherever their afterlife is you have to be a believer.
> 
> Seems to me God wouldn't make that a requirement for promotion, just long as you lived a good life and were good to other people that should be all that matter's.
> 
> Seems kind of petty that God would need you to"support'/'promote" him in order to be worthy... seems an all too human requirement to me.


Or rather that you have to believe the God as portrayed by your own tertiary cult is the only one that will get you there. Everybody else worships a false god, even though by definition many religions claim there is only a single god. Meaning that like it or not their God is also your god.


----------



## screature

eMacMan said:


> *Or rather that you have to believe the God as portrayed by your own tertiary cult is the only one* that will get you there. Everybody else worships a false god, even though by definition many religions claim there is only a single god. Meaning that like it or not their God is also your god.


That as well but not all religions ascribe to this requirement...


----------



## Macfury

eMacMan said:


> Everybody else worships a false god, even though by definition many religions claim there is only a single god. Meaning that like it or not their God is also your god.


Not at all. Their god doesn't exist.


----------



## screature

Macfury said:


> Not at all. Their god doesn't exist.


Or is it just that my God is bigger than your God and can beat your God up.


----------



## MacGuiver

screature said:


> One thing I really don't get about some religion's is that in order to go "heaven" or wherever their afterlife is you have to be a believer.
> 
> Seems to me God wouldn't make that a requirement for promotion, just long as you lived a good life and were good to other people that should be all that matter's.
> 
> Seems kind of petty that God would need you to"support'/'promote" him in order to be worthy... seems an all too human requirement to me.


This is Catholic teaching regarding what you just said.

_"Those, who through no fault of their own do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and moved by grace, try in their actions to do His will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience — those too may attain eternal salvation" (Catechism, no. 847). Sincere non-Christians can be moved by grace to seek God and know and do His will. When they do so according to the dictates of their conscience they can be saved, for by God's will they are associated with the paschal mystery of Christ._

So yes, good people outside of Christianity can attain salvation. However if you know of God and reject, hate and despise him and his teaching, God will honour your choice and your free will and you will spend eternity in the darkness you desire.


----------



## Mythtaken

If there is indeed a god out there somewhere, it is very likely to be something completely different than anything written by men in their religious texts. Being "saved" could turn out to be something less than blissful.

I prefer to live well now and be content to look back on my life here knowing that I tried to be a decent person and not cause anyone undue harm along the way. I'm not going to worry about whether that bubble gum I nicked in the first grade, or the phoney excuse I used to get out of something, is going to land me in a bad place. I'm only counting on a long, quiet dirt nap.


----------



## Macfury

Mythtaken said:


> I'm only counting on a long, quiet dirt nap.


If you're already going to Hell, a dirt nap would be like heaven.


----------



## Mythtaken

Unless we're already there. I'd swear Harper has cloven hooves.beejacon


----------



## screature

MacGuiver said:


> This is Catholic teaching regarding what you just said.
> 
> _"Those, who through no fault of their own do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and moved by grace, try in their actions to do His will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience — those too may attain eternal salvation" (Catechism, no. 847). Sincere non-Christians can be moved by grace to seek God and know and do His will. When they do so according to the dictates of their conscience they can be saved, for by God's will they are associated with the paschal mystery of Christ._
> 
> So yes, good people outside of Christianity can attain salvation. However if you know of God and reject, hate and despise him and his teaching, God will honour your choice and your free will and you will spend eternity in the darkness you desire.


See, I know this being brought up Catholic, but it makes no sense. 

A person could live the life of great devotion to the well being of his fellow man without any devotion to god or belief in god whatsoever and would still be damned to hell.

What right and just god would do this?


----------



## Macfury

screature said:


> See, I know this being brought up Catholic, but it makes no sense.
> 
> A person could live the life of great devotion to the well being of his fellow man without any devotion to god or belief in god whatsoever and would still be damned to hell.
> 
> What right and just god would do this?


The ant doesn't like having to forage for food. It finds a great supply of sugar inside the home of a human being. The amount of sugar the ant takes is infinitesimal. When the ant is spied entering the kitchen, a human being follows the ant back to its nest and not only kills the ant, but pours poison into its nest, killing the entire colony. 

What right and just human being would do such a thing?


----------



## screature

Macfury said:


> The ant doesn't like having to forage for food. It finds a great supply of sugar inside the home of a human being. The amount of sugar the ant takes is infinitesimal. When the ant is spied entering the kitchen, a human being follows the ant back to its nest and not only kills the ant, but pours poison into its nest, killing the entire colony.
> 
> What right and just human being would do such a thing?


What exactly is your point MF as by way of analogy it has no bearing on the question I am asking?


----------



## Macfury

screature said:


> What exactly is your point MF as by way of analogy it has no bearing on the question I am asking?


The ant has no concept of the structure of its universe or the laws surrounding its existence. It can only comprehend the results of its actions on an ant level.


----------



## groovetube

according to religious beliefs, that one ain't gonna cut it unfortunately.

Gonna be a hot one...


----------



## screature

Macfury said:


> The ant has no concept of the structure of its universe or the laws surrounding its existence. It can only comprehend the results of its actions on an ant level.


So are you saying that a just god, regardless of whether or not we "understand his ways", would condemn a person who led a good and just life devoted to the service of humankind would condemn that person to hell just because they didn't believe in them?

What kind of universe (that a "god" created) would be dependant upon the belief of *every* individual in that universe in order to maintain the "laws" of said universe?

Seems decidedly totalitarian IMO... Not a concept of any god or structure of the universe that I can get on board with as it is far too anthropocentric... if there is a god he/she/it would be above such petty concerns... IMO.


----------



## bryanc

Macfury said:


> The ant doesn't like having to forage for food. It finds a great supply of sugar inside the home of a human being. The amount of sugar the ant takes is infinitesimal. When the ant is spied entering the kitchen, a human being follows the ant back to its nest and not only kills the ant, but pours poison into its nest, killing the entire colony.
> 
> What right and just human being would do such a thing?


The humans didn't create the ants, nor did humans cause the ants to be attracted to sugar, or to spread disease, damage property, etc. etc. etc.

If we had created ants with these traits, poisoning their nests would be unjust to the extent that ants have sentience (which I don't think they do, but can't prove otherwise).


----------



## bryanc

Mythtaken said:


> I prefer to live well now and be content to look back on my life here knowing that I tried to be a decent person and not cause anyone undue harm along the way. I'm not going to worry about whether that bubble gum I nicked in the first grade, or the phoney excuse I used to get out of something, is going to land me in a bad place. I'm only counting on a long, quiet dirt nap.


:clap:

Indeed, any god that would punish someone for living a life guided by these principles would not be worthy of worship even if they existed.


----------



## Macfury

Some thoughts, bearing in mind that I am arguing from the religious position, not espousing everything I'm saying.:



screature said:


> So are you saying that a just god, regardless of whether or not we "understand his ways", would condemn a person who led a good and just life devoted to the service of humankind...


Because the purpose of the universe is not for humans to be of service to humankind--it is primarily to be of service to God, and this may be manifested only in part in the expression of service to others. 



screature said:


> ...would condemn that person to hell just because they didn't believe in them?


The "noble savage" who has not heard of God is saved because he/she is doing as much as possible with only a little information. The person who has heard everything available about God and still does not believe is not condemned because they don't believe, but because they have enough information to believe and rebuke God. The assumption here would be that the atheist is never _really _convinced that God does not exist, but makes a conscious decision to deny God.

One school of thought is that, on Judgment Day, the hard-hearted themselves choose Hell over heaven. They have deliberately denied God in life, and want no part of him after they have died.



screature said:


> What kind of universe (that a "god" created) would be dependant upon the belief of *every* individual in that universe in order to maintain the "laws" of said universe?


This one!



screature said:


> Seems decidedly totalitarian IMO...


It would be totalitarian--if God created the universe he would have total control. 



screature said:


> Not a concept of any god or structure of the universe that I can get on board with...


You don't have to get "on board with it" at all. You have free will, and only because you do can you be judged.



screature said:


> ...as it is far too anthropocentric... if there is a god he/she/it would be above such petty concerns... IMO.


It seemed that your concerns about God are that he is not anthropocentric enough... that is, he does not share enough human qualities to make him acceptable to you. This seems to go both ways.


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> The humans didn't create the ants, nor did humans cause the ants to be attracted to sugar, or to spread disease, damage property, etc. etc. etc.
> 
> If we had created ants with these traits, poisoning their nests would be unjust to the extent that ants have sentience (which I don't think they do, but can't prove otherwise).


It is only the limited scope of understanding of the creatures that's important here.


----------



## screature

Macfury said:


> Some thoughts, bearing in mind that I am arguing from the religious position, not espousing everything I'm saying...
> 
> 
> ..It seemed that your concerns about God are that he is not anthropocentric enough... that is, he does not share enough human qualities to make him acceptable to you. This seems to go both ways.


Sorry MF these are not what all religions believe by a long shot but I do see the "logic" for those that believe human beings purpose is to be of service to god.

As for saying that my question/view is that god is not anthropocentric enough because "he does not share enough human qualities to make him acceptable to you." Quite the contrary, the qualities of the god you outline are all too human and thus why I stated what I did.


----------



## bryanc

Macfury said:


> It is only the limited scope of understanding of the creatures that's important here.


I disagree. If you're making the analogy that a human killing ants because the ants are causing problems for the human is morally comparable to God killing or otherwise causing human suffering because the humans are not following God's plan, the fact that God is supposed to have created the humans and determined our characteristics changes the moral responsibility for our actions. Since humans did not create ants, our efforts to prevent them from acting on their natural instincts are not hypocritical or immoral. But for an omniscient/omnipotent God to create humans, and then punish them for behaving like humans is both hypocritical and immoral.


----------



## CubaMark




----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> I disagree. If you're making the analogy that a human killing ants because the ants are causing problems for the human is morally comparable to God killing or otherwise causing human suffering because the humans are not following God's plan, the fact that God is supposed to have created the humans and determined our characteristics changes the moral responsibility for our actions. Since humans did not create ants, our efforts to prevent them from acting on their natural instincts are not hypocritical or immoral. But for an omniscient/omnipotent God to create humans, and then punish them for behaving like humans is both hypocritical and immoral.


No. The analogy is that that the ant can't fathom the rules surrounding its existence. The fact that it can't reason why it is being destroyed does not change the nature of its circumstances.


----------



## Sonal

bryanc said:


> I disagree. If you're making the analogy that a human killing ants because the ants are causing problems for the human is morally comparable to God killing or otherwise causing human suffering because the humans are not following God's plan, the fact that God is supposed to have created the humans and determined our characteristics changes the moral responsibility for our actions. Since humans did not create ants, our efforts to prevent them from acting on their natural instincts are not hypocritical or immoral. But for an omniscient/omnipotent God to create humans, and then punish them for behaving like humans is both hypocritical and immoral.


You are assuming God is actually omniscient/omnipotent, and not simply perceived that way because he/she/it/they are simple more powerful and more knowledgeable than we mere ants.


----------



## bryanc

Sonal said:


> You are assuming God is actually omniscient/omnipotent, and not simply perceived that way because he/she/it/they are simple more powerful and more knowledgeable than we mere ants.


It's not really an assumption. The God of the Abrahamic religions is omniscient & omnipotent by definition. You're right that this argument would not pertain to the less powerful deities of other religions, or super-powerful aliens, or whatever other sorts of non-magical entities you might want to postulate.

The idea of "God" being a more powerful but still limited entity is actually a much more interesting basis of discussion, IMO, as the Omniscient/Omnipotent/Omnibevolent God of the Abrahamic tradition generates so many logical paradoxes and philosophical dead ends that it's not really worth much effort, even as a hypothetical. However, the limited god(s) of non-Judeo/Christian religions are not generally what people mean when they talk about "God." Although, to be fair, whenever I ask someone to expand on what they mean when they say "God" most people quickly flounder in their own inability to articulate what amounts to a very vague and fundamentally bad idea.


----------



## Sonal

My cats might consider me omnipotent because I possess opposable thumbs that allow me to access and dole out the cat food. I also mysteriously disappear and return with full bags of cat food. If you were to ask them, they might call me omnipotent.... but that doesn't mean that their perception of my omnipotence is correct.


----------



## Mythtaken

bryanc said:


> But for an omniscient/omnipotent God to create humans, and then punish them for behaving like humans is both hypocritical and immoral.


I think you're off the mark here. God (the one in the bible) is Good. No matter what his actions, God is Good. If you perceive his actions as immoral or hypocritical it's because of your inability to understand the mind of God. 

This, of course, is part of the reason why the Christian god has survived so long. The church learned a lot from the mistakes their predecessors and created a god who's actions are beyond question. True believers accept whatever comes in life as part of their god's plan. They rejoice in the good things that happen and cling to faith during the bad things. All in all, it's a pretty interesting, self-sustaining system.


----------



## Mythtaken

Sonal said:


> My cats might consider me omnipotent because I possess opposable thumbs that allow me to access and dole out the cat food. I also mysteriously disappear and return with full bags of cat food. If you were to ask them, they might call me omnipotent


Really? My cats just think of me as a mobile sleeping mat/scratching post and food dispenser. And I've noticed them sizing me up at night when they get a little hungry....


----------



## bryanc

Sonal said:


> My cats might consider me omnipotent because I possess opposable thumbs that allow me to access and dole out the cat food. I also mysteriously disappear and return with full bags of cat food. If you were to ask them, they might call me omnipotent.... but that doesn't mean that their perception of my omnipotence is correct.


I agree completely: if your cats postulated that, being so amazingly powerful, intelligent and kind, you were in fact infinitely powerful, intelligent and kind, that would be an understandable mistake but a mistake none the less. It would also be a mistake for them to believe that you created them, or the rest of the world; for all your importance in their lives, you are not a god. They might also think it's unfair of you to have created them with the innate desire to shred furniture, and then punish them for doing so. And if you *had* created them with their need to sharpen their claws on the back of the couch, it would be unjust of you to punish them for doing so, but you didn't, so it's not unjust.

I think the same psychology is at work in humans. We are born as helpless little creatures with god-like parents who look after us. But as we mature, we discover that our parents are not gods, and they are not only fallible but mortal, so the comfortable illusions of childhood are broken. Strangely (to my mind), it seems that most people are happy to accept the existence of an invisible magical parent (which is why I refer to God as the "Magical Sky Daddy") in order to maintain this illusion, rather than face reality.


----------



## Sonal

Mythtaken said:


> Really? My cats just think of me as a mobile sleeping mat/scratching post and food dispenser. And I've noticed them sizing me up at night when they get a little hungry....


Well it was a supposition. 

In reality, my cats more likely see me as the world's worst slave (e.g., I dare to lie in bed when I could be feeding them instead) but haven't quite figured out how to replace me with something more attentive to their needs.


----------



## bryanc

Mythtaken said:


> God (the one in the bible) is Good. No matter what his actions, God is Good. If you perceive his actions as immoral or hypocritical it's because of your inability to understand the mind of God.


This is Kant's reasoning. And while I'll agree that if we take it as axiomatic that "God is Good" the logic is sound, it's an abject failure as an ethical frame work. Indeed, I'd argue that there are plenty of examples of God being horribly evil in the Bible (forcing parents to sacrifice their children, etc. even if He intervenes at the last second, putting a parent and child through that as a test of faith is cruel and fundamentally evil).



> This, of course, is part of the reason why the Christian god has survived so long. The church learned a lot from the mistakes their predecessors and created a god who's actions are beyond question. True believers accept whatever comes in life as part of their god's plan. They rejoice in the good things that happen and cling to faith during the bad things. All in all, it's a pretty interesting, self-sustaining system.


Not only did the modern religions benefit from being able to avoid the flaws of more primitive religions, they were able to keep the aspects of more primitive religions that had worked - stories like the resurrection of Jesus or the Flood myth predate Christianity by centuries or even millennia. So modern Christianity is a hodgepodge of mythology dating back to the Sumerians or even earlier, as re-mixed and dubbed by a few middle eastern hebrew mystics and scam artists.


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> Indeed, I'd argue that there are plenty of examples of God being horribly evil in the Bible (forcing parents to sacrifice their children, etc. even if He intervenes at the last second, putting a parent and child through that as a test of faith is cruel and fundamentally evil).


The supposition of many interpreters is that Abraham was being tested to see if he had renounced the rite of human sacrifice practiced by surrounding tribes. Having proceeded to the point where he had to be stopped would be a failure them, and not a success.


----------



## bryanc

Macfury said:


> The supposition of many interpreters is that Abraham was being tested to see if he had renounced the rite of human sacrifice practiced by surrounding tribes. Having proceeded to the point where he had to be stopped would be a failure them, and not a success.


Yet the angel praises Abe for his faithfulness? Whatever. The whole fundamental story of Christ is one of human sacrifice as a test of faith. It's barbaric and disgusting, in my opinion, but it certainly seems to resonate with many.


----------



## Sonal

bryanc said:


> I agree completely: if your cats postulated that, being so amazingly powerful, intelligent and kind, you were in fact infinitely powerful, intelligent and kind, that would be an understandable mistake but a mistake none the less. It would also be a mistake for them to believe that you created them, or the rest of the world; for all your importance in their lives, you are not a god. They might also think it's unfair of you to have created them with the innate desire to shred furniture, and then punish them for doing so. And if you *had* created them with their need to sharpen their claws on the back of the couch, it would be unjust of you to punish them for doing so, but you didn't, so it's not unjust.
> 
> I think the same psychology is at work in humans. We are born as helpless little creatures with god-like parents who look after us. But as we mature, we discover that our parents are not gods, and they are not only fallible but mortal, so the comfortable illusions of childhood are broken. Strangely (to my mind), it seems that most people are happy to accept the existence of an invisible magical parent (which is why I refer to God as the "Magical Sky Daddy") in order to maintain this illusion, rather than face reality.


The cats might similarly believe that I am cruel and unjust because I have neutered them, and then periodically cage them up and take them to the vet where they are poked, prodded and given shots. They similarly might look at the beautiful world outside and protest that I do not let them out go out and explore it. They may find it torturous that I have the ability to shower them with food all the time, and yet I only allow them to eat limited amounts. They might see this as unjust treatment, as inordinate cruelty, as evidence that clearly I am not a just God, and wonder why I would create them and then torture them so. 

They haven't the perspective to see that this is for their own good.

In any case, the notion of a limited-power God does not necessarily eliminate the possibility that God created us.... possibly inadvertently.


----------



## bryanc

Sonal said:


> In any case, the notion of a limited-power God does not necessarily eliminate the possibility that God created us.... possibly inadvertently.


No. Indeed, on of my favourite questions for theists is "what evidence would convince you that God does not exist?" It's effectively impossible to prove that God didn't do something, even if you can demonstrate that whatever happened could have happened without divine intervention. So the better question is "how does inserting God into our explanation of things improve our understanding of those things (i.e. how does it improve the predictive power of the theory)?" And the answer to this question is invariably "it doesn't." So, while we can't disprove the existence of god(s), we can show that they are not necessary.


----------



## rgray

deleted


----------



## bryanc

rgray said:


> Your question for the theist seems a clever rhetorical device except that the theist has almost by definition abdicated the rational tools for the argument - it smacks a bit like starting a battle of wits with the unarmed.


Now now... that's not nice. And, to be fair, it's not even consistently true. I know plenty of very bright people who are theists, they just can't rationally support their position. So they generally fall into two categories - those that embrace the irrationality of their beliefs, and those that just don't think about it.

It is, however, interesting to watch the occasional theist (usually a high school or fairly young university student) struggling with trying to rationalize the irrational nonsense they've been taught to believe without question for their whole life with their emerging capacity for rational thought and critical thinking. I've seen this happen many times, and about half of them resolve into one of the two categories mentioned above (those that accept their irrationality, and those who compartmentalize and put their faith in a mental box that does not get examined rationally). The other half have a crisis of faith and wind up abandoning their religion in order to maintain a rationally coherent conceptual framework.

I think the frequency of the latter path is increasing as our society is able to provide more and more young people with the luxury of time to think. Historically, by the time a person was in their late teens, they were fully occupied with the business of making a living, raising a family, and generally trying to stay alive. So not many of us had the opportunity to apply any rational thinking skills we may have developed by that age to philosophical questions like wether or not the priests are feeding us all a line of BS. Furthermore, for those few of us who have the extreme good fortune to become educated in the natural sciences, we not only get to learn to think, but we become familiar with what is *really* known about the universe, and more importantly, *how* what is known has been discovered. The knowledge of science is so diametrically opposed to what religions teach that, even in our indoctrinated and religion-dominated society, the majority of people educated in the sciences are unable to maintain their ancestral superstitions any longer.


----------



## Sonal

bryanc said:


> No. Indeed, on of my favourite questions for theists is "what evidence would convince you that God does not exist?" It's effectively impossible to prove that God didn't do something, even if you can demonstrate that whatever happened could have happened without divine intervention. So the better question is "how does inserting God into our explanation of things improve our understanding of those things (i.e. how does it improve the predictive power of the theory)?" And the answer to this question is invariably "it doesn't." So, while we can't disprove the existence of god(s), we can show that they are not necessary.


You lose me at not necessary. Not necessary to explain particular events, perhaps. Not necessary in general--not necessarily for all people. 

I'm not sure that you need to know that God (term used for convenience) exists in order to make use of a belief in God.


----------



## rgray

deleted


----------



## Sonal

rgray said:


> Doesn't that Just about define delusion?


Bare reality is just so terribly stark.


----------



## bryanc

Sonal said:


> I'm not sure that you need to know that God (term used for convenience) exists in order to make use of a belief in God.


Seneca (Emperor Nero's advisor) would agree. He said "Religion is what the common people see as true, the wise people see as false, and the rulers see as useful."

I think this is also what Machiavelli had in mind when he wrote "A tyrant must put on the appearance of uncommon devotion to religion. Subjects are less apprehensive of illegal treatment from a ruler whom they consider god-fearing and pious. On the other hand, they do less easily move against him, believing that he has the gods on his side."

And as for this


> Bare reality is just so terribly stark.


I think (and hope) you're being ironic. Because nothing could be further from the truth. On those rare occasions that we get a glimpse of bare reality, it makes the months (or more often years) of tedious and painstaking research worth while.


----------



## Mythtaken

bryanc said:


> No. Indeed, on of my favourite questions for theists is "what evidence would convince you that God does not exist?"


But a true theist would simply answer "none" because he doesn't require proof of god's existence. Interestingly enough you'd get the same answer from an atheist, if you turned the question around and asked "what evidence would convince you that god exists?"


----------



## bryanc

Mythtaken said:


> But a true theist would simply answer "none" because he doesn't require proof of god's existence.


But the question isn't what would convince them God exits, it's what would convince them God does *not* exist. The point here is that, if nothing will convince you God does not exist, it's not just faith, it's _*blind*_ faith (i.e. willful ignorance).



> Interestingly enough you'd get the same answer from an atheist, if you turned the question around and asked "what evidence would convince you that god exists?"


Not at all. It'd be easy for God to convince me He exists if he's real. As I've said before, I won't even hold out for burning bushes or anything so obviously miraculous. I'll settle for prophetic dreams, or any of dozens of the sorts of things He's supposed to have done in the past. I'm not hard to convince, I just won't accept the scribblings of bronze age mystics as evidence of anything extraordinary.


----------



## rgray

deleted


----------



## CubaMark

> *Can being an atheist in America get you killed? *If police in the small Texas town of Petrolia are to be believed, the answer to that question is yes.
> 
> Officials in Clay County, Texas revealed this week that human remains uncovered near the Oklahoma border last month were those of Spc. Jose Ramirez, an El Centro, California native who went missing from Fort Sill, Oklahoma more than seven years ago. A former friend of Ramirez’s, 30-year-old Justin Green, was charged with the murder in February.





> Green’s sister believes he killed Ramirez “because Ramirez did not believe in God.”


(RawStory.com)


----------



## bryanc

People have been killed for their religious affiliations throughout history, so it's not surprising that people will be killed for their lack of religion as well. Sad but true.

What's more insidious is that as a society, we're very suspicious and hostile towards people who don't believe in God(s). In the US, this so extreme that one may as well give up on holding any public office if there's reason to doubt your pious Christianity. Even though somewhere in the vicinity of 15% of Americans are non-religious (and statistically, this 15% will include a disproportionately large number of the best-educated citizens), none of the 535 members of the US congress will admit to lacking faith in the magical Sky Daddy so popular with Americans. (If atheism weren't discriminated against, we'd expect somewhere in the vicinity of 80).

Indeed, a Gallup poll in 2007 revealed that more Americans would "never vote for" an atheist than any other identifiable group (making atheism something average Americans find even more offensive than homosexuality).

I can't find any numbers on this topic for Canada, but I suspect the same trends would be evident, even if less extreme (as is typical for Canada).


----------



## SINC

A basic understanding of prayer . . .


----------



## Dr.G.

SINC said:


> A basic understanding of prayer . . .


Good one, Sinc. It is like the woodcarver who makes a small idol of a god out of wood ......... places it on the table ......... and then kneels down to pray to it .......... forgetting who made the idol of the god in the first place.


----------



## Sonal

bryanc said:


> Seneca (Emperor Nero's advisor) would agree. He said "Religion is what the common people see as true, the wise people see as false, and the rulers see as useful."
> 
> I think this is also what Machiavelli had in mind when he wrote "A tyrant must put on the appearance of uncommon devotion to religion. Subjects are less apprehensive of illegal treatment from a ruler whom they consider god-fearing and pious. On the other hand, they do less easily move against him, believing that he has the gods on his side."


These are arguments for why people who may not believe can use religion to affect or influence others who do believe. 

But I don't think one has to know for sure whether God exists in order to make use of having a God for oneself.



bryanc said:


> I think (and hope) you're being ironic. Because nothing could be further from the truth. On those rare occasions that we get a glimpse of bare reality, it makes the months (or more often years) of tedious and painstaking research worth while.


Perhaps slightly ironic, but not entirely.

Science, the study of bare realities, is your passion. For me, a glimpse of the bare reality doesn't do very much for me. Certainly, I haven't invested months or years in the tedious or painstaking research of it.


----------



## rgray

deleted


----------



## Sonal

rgray said:


> Bare reality has the beauty of truth.
> 
> Beyond bare reality is only delusion, hallucination and fantasy. XX)
> 
> Like bryanc I spent my research and teaching lifetime trying to cut through all that bullsh*t.


I am slowly moving towards a life of writing fiction. 

So let's just say I revel in the delusions that I can create, and hopefully make someone believe.


----------



## CubaMark

*Moroccan Girl, Forced To Marry Her Rapist, Kills Herself. Where Do These Backwards People Get These Crazy Ideas?*



> ...why aren't fundamentalist Christians, who claim to follow the literal interpretation of the Bible, out smiting and killing people in the name of the Lord? (Most of them aren't, anyway.) Why aren't they picketing seafood restaurants, screaming at people to turn back and save their souls before they eat the unclean food?
> 
> Because deep down, they know how absurdly contradictory these ancient laws are. They know they are picking and choosing from these Biblical injunctions (even though the Lord tells them they have to keep all of them. Leviticus 26:14-16 that _"If you do not obey me and do not carry out all of these commandments, if instead, you reject my statutes, and if your soul abhors my ordinances so as not to carry out all my commandments ...I, in turn, will do this to you: I will appoint over you a sudden terror, consumption and fever that shall waste away the eyes and cause the soul to pine away; also, you shall sow your seed uselessly, for your enemies shall eat it up."_ ).
> 
> So most of them are hypocrite enough to ignore the rest, thank God.





> ...the Bible states, _Happy is the one who seizes your infants and dashes them against the rocks_ (Psalms 137:9). And: _Their children also shall be dashed to pieces before their eyes; their houses shall be spoiled, and their wives ravished._ (Isaiah 13:15–16). Not so baby-friendly. *So where did the idea that God wants to protect fetuses come from?*


Crooks and Liars


----------



## Mythtaken

bryanc said:


> But the question isn't what would convince them God exits, it's what would convince them God does *not* exist. The point here is that, if nothing will convince you God does not exist, it's not just faith, it's _*blind*_ faith (i.e. willful ignorance).


I understand where your headed, but I would argue that all faith (not just the religious kind) is blind. We go to sleep each night, expecting to wake up the next morning. Even though we are aware of many scientific reasons why we might go to sleep at night and never wake up, and even though there are many cases to cite proving that, we still choose to believe that we will wake up in the morning. We even make plans for the next day based on that belief.

Do you really think a true atheist would answer any differently? Compare these two responses:


> Not at all. It'd be easy for God to convince me He exists if he's real. As I've said before, I won't even hold out for burning bushes or anything so obviously miraculous. I'll settle for prophetic dreams, or any of dozens of the sorts of things He's supposed to have done in the past. I'm not hard to convince, I just won't accept the scribblings of bronze age mystics as evidence of anything extraordinary.


That is pretty much how I, as an agnostic, would answer. It's sceptical, but open to the possibility and prepared to be convinced. 



rgray said:


> That is not quite correct IMHO. As an athiest I would answer that I would evaluate any GOOD evidence offered. Personally I do not beilieve in any sort of god(s) because I have seen absolutely no quality evidence in my lifetime.


This is the response of a hard-core atheist. While I respect that choice, it is clear in the wording that the door is firmly shut against any convincing. If Jesus himself came down and walked on the water, the true atheist would rationalize it as an illusion or swamp gas.


----------



## JCCanuck

Mythtaken said:


> This is the response of a hard-core atheist. While I respect that choice, it is clear in the wording that the door is firmly shut against any convincing. If Jesus himself came down and walked on the water, the true atheist would rationalize it as an illusion or swamp gas.


Not really a response for a true atheist which I am. First I would rationalize what am I viewing but much more in detail dare I say more scientifically? Could it be a man imitation Jesus on submerged walkers? A projection from a video device? An illusion from reflections made to look like a man walking on water? Etc. Etc. It is the religious devotees that jump to conclusions who at times see Jesus in a pizza or rock. And to top it all, there is no given descriptions of Jesus in the bible or anywhere. All the paintings, sculptures and other art forms of Jesus are pure imagination. So how can I know it's him?


----------



## Macfury

JCCanuck said:


> So how can I know it's him?


"cause he's walking on water and tells you his name!


----------



## Dr.G.

Macfury said:


> "cause he's walking on water and tells you his name!


"I Am that I Am" אֶהְיֶה אֲשֶׁר אֶהְיֶה .............. although not sure about the "walking on water" part.


----------



## JCCanuck

Macfury said:


> "cause he's walking on water and tells you his name!


How do I know thee is telling thou trutheth?


----------



## Mythtaken

JCCanuck said:


> Not really a response for a true atheist which I am. First I would rationalize what am I viewing but much more in detail dare I say more scientifically? Could it be a man imitation Jesus on submerged walkers? A projection from a video device? An illusion from reflections made to look like a man walking on water? Etc. Etc.


Exactly. A true atheist, by definition, does not believe in a deity. He will always look for a way to rationalize an experience so that it cannot possibly be god. To accept the possibility that some event could be the hand of god (or feet, in this case) he would have to give up his beliefs and embrace agnosticism. This is why I believe that agnosticism is the most rational and scientific viewpoint. It is the only one which is always both objective and open.



> It is the religious devotees that jump to conclusions who at times see Jesus in a pizza or rock.


To be fair, those people aren't religious devotees. They're nutters.


----------



## JCCanuck

Mythtaken said:


> Exactly. A true atheist, by definition, does not believe in a deity. He will always look for a way to rationalize an experience so that it cannot possibly be god. To accept the possibility that some event could be the hand of god (or feet, in this case) he would have to give up his beliefs and embrace agnosticism. This is why I believe that agnosticism is the most rational and scientific viewpoint. It is the only one which is always both objective and open.
> 
> 
> To be fair, those people aren't religious devotees. They're nutters.


Well put "Mythtaken". My biggest frustration in discussing religion with believers is the "burden of proof" argument, "Prove to me God doesn't exist". Either I walk away or stay and get into a "Monty Python" skit type argument.
Another point I want to make is my wife wished the kids to be in a religious upbringing.
I said fine as long as I can say my piece, which was little. The kids grew up somewhat religious for years till last week, I found my son with a Richard Dawkins book, "The God Delusion". Probably happened after doing sciences in high school, and doing well I might add. He is to major in Bio-Med. My upbringing was similar except my son's smarter than me.


----------



## Macfury

JCCanuck said:


> How do I know thee is telling thou trutheth?


What _is_ trutheth?


----------



## Mythtaken

JCCanuck said:


> Another point I want to make is my wife wished the kids to be in a religious upbringing.
> I said fine as long as I can say my piece, which was little. The kids grew up somewhat religious for years till last week, I found my son with a Richard Dawkins book, "The God Delusion". Probably happened after doing sciences in high school, and doing well I might add. He is to major in Bio-Med. My upbringing was similar except my son's smarter than me.


Good on you. Whatever our views, I think it's important to expose our children to a variety of viewpoints so they can choose the path that best suits them. We tried our lot, dutifully taking them to various services, but they decided early on that religion wasn't for them.


----------



## rgray

deleted


----------



## Mythtaken

rgray said:


> Don't condescend to speak for the "true atheist" in general or for me in particular. Any evidence would be evaluated on its own merit. The appearance of a firmly shut door is due to the huge amount of delusion/hallucination/lies/fantasy that is supposed to pass as evidence that I have scrutised over the years. Anyone claiming to be christ himself would have to produce photo ID. I don't find the concept of (a) god(s) necessary or even desirable to explain anything.


I wasn't condescending to anyone. I respect your chosen position. However, based on your statements above and quoted here, it is clear that, even if proof of divine power was offered, it would be nearly impossible to sway you from your position. In this, the atheist is very like the theist; both are driven by an unshakeable conviction in their viewpoints.


----------



## MacDoc

Don't even think of comparing an evidence based worldview with the religious nonsense.

You want to believe in skydaddy's, society grants you that right to a point.....along with your belief comes growing nose wrinkling and caution thanks to your Islamic brethren of the desert religions - currently the most active on the violent fundamental side.

You can choose your belief, respect doesn't follow....it's earned. As with Catholicism and pedofilia amongst its priesthood all respect is lost and the organization increasingly seen as a predator by a more predominant secular society where "freedom from" is important.

It's a common theme given belief without reason or evidence history....at least in many societies it is becoming irrelevant to the larger population.


----------



## Macfury

MacDoc said:


> Don't even think of comparing an evidence based worldview with the religious nonsense.
> 
> You want to believe in skydaddy's, society grants you that right to a point.....along with your belief comes growing nose wrinkling and caution thanks to your Islamic brethren of the desert religions - currently the most active on the violent fundamental side.
> 
> You can choose your belief, respect doesn't follow....it's earned. As with Catholicism and pedofilia amongst its priesthood all respect is lost and the organization increasingly seen as a predator by a more predominant secular society where "freedom from" is important.
> 
> It's a common theme given belief without reason or evidence history....at least in many societies it is becoming irrelevant to the larger population.


No religion... just alien greys. Give me a break, MacDoc!


----------



## eMacMan

When newspapers get squeamish about running Doonesbury it is always a worthwhile read.

Last weeks strips start here, then just keep following the next link.

Doonesbury Strip


----------



## bryanc

Mythtaken said:


> I understand where your headed, but I would argue that all faith (not just the religious kind) is blind. We go to sleep each night, expecting to wake up the next morning. Even though we are aware of many scientific reasons why we might go to sleep at night and never wake up, and even though there are many cases to cite proving that, we still choose to believe that we will wake up in the morning.


I disagree. While I would not describe my confidence that I will wake up in the morning as "faith", that belief is nothing like the faith a theist has in their god(s). I have good reason to believe that I will wake up in the morning, and it is not an extraordinary claim: I and the vast majority of other normal humans consistently wake up after going to sleep.

But my contention was that there is an important philosophical distinction between someone who believes something because they have experienced no contradictory evidence, and someone who denies the possibility of contradictory evidence. When you ask a theist what evidence would convince them God does not exist, most will answer that nothing could convince them their God did not exist.

This is the diametric opposite of a rational belief. I have many beliefs of which I am quite confident, but for any of them, I can easily conceive of evidence that would force me to change my mind.



> That is pretty much how I, as an agnostic, would answer. It's sceptical, but open to the possibility and prepared to be convinced.


That's good. I would also argue that as a rational agnostic, you are also an atheist: if you admit you have no good evidence for the existence of god(s), you must also lack beliefs in gods in order to be rational. This does not mean you are completely certain god(s) do not exist. But, just like you would not form beliefs in other things you have no evidence for, you have not formed beliefs in god(s). Lacking belief in god(s) makes you an atheist by definition.



> While I respect that choice, it is clear in the wording that the door is firmly shut against any convincing.


Again, I disagree. Just because a rational person has recognized that the claimed evidence for a particular religious claim is inadequate, does not mean that they are closed-minded. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. And religions make the most extraordinary claims of all without providing any evidence whatsoever. Indeed, most modern religions have elevated the ability to accept this completely irrational BS without evidence onto a pedestal and define "faith" as a principle virtue. In fact, any rational person should see faith as a dire intellectual flaw, deserving of pity rather than respect.



> If Jesus himself came down and walked on the water, the true atheist would rationalize it as an illusion or swamp gas.


Having seen Penn and Teller preform even more amazing illusions without resorting to any magic at all, I would not find some guy appearing to walk on water sufficient evidence to accept the claim that this was supernatural, let alone that the wild claims of Christianity are true. 


> A true atheist, by definition, does not believe in a deity. He will always look for a way to rationalize an experience so that it cannot possibly be god.


Well, there may be some atheists like that, but a rational skeptic (who will also be an atheist by definition), would not be convinced by evidence that could be the result of mundane processes. As I said above, such an extraordinary claim requires extraordinary evidence.



> However, based on your statements above and quoted here, it is clear that, even if proof of divine power was offered, it would be nearly impossible to sway you from your position.


Nearly impossible for a human perhaps, but not even remotely difficult for an omnipotent god. That's the point.

If the Christian God existed, He could easily convince me of His existence (being omnipotent and all) and, by definition He knows how to do so (being omniscient and all). So the fact that I remain unconvinced means either He does not exist, or that He chooses not to convince me. Furthermore, if the claims of Christianity are true, then my skeptical nature is due to the way that God created me, so my lack of 'salvation' is entirely the result of God's choices; not mine. Thus, if the claims of Christianity are true, God created people like me for the express purpose of torturing us eternally; something only an evil god would do. Fortunately, I have no reason to believe such a malevolent God exists, but I cannot comprehend how anyone who was convinced of His existence could worship such a perverse entity, let alone suggest He provides a moral compass.

Ultimately, it is trivially obvious that the burden of proof lies with the theist; it is the theist who posits the existence of the supernatural, and the existence of specific supernatural entities with specific characteristics. None of these suppositions are in any way necessary (or even helpful) to explain observable reality, so the theist must provide some evidence to support their contention that these entities exist. For most of human history, the theists have managed to muddy the waters and obscure this obvious logical flaw in their position, and we've all gotten used to starting with the idea that god(s) exist, and framing the argument such that the atheist has to disprove the existence of these gods, which is logically impossible.


----------



## fjnmusic

Tbh, it seems to be that atheism is the natural state for humans. We need to be trained to put aside rational thought and instead have faith in a rather irrational explanation for how things come to be.

To put it another way, every one of us is an atheist as long as we reject every other god save for the one we happen to believe in.


----------



## fjnmusic

JCCanuck said:


> Not really a response for a true atheist which I am. First I would rationalize what am I viewing but much more in detail dare I say more scientifically? Could it be a man imitation Jesus on submerged walkers? A projection from a video device? An illusion from reflections made to look like a man walking on water? Etc. Etc. It is the religious devotees that jump to conclusions who at times see Jesus in a pizza or rock. And to top it all, there is no given descriptions of Jesus in the bible or anywhere. All the paintings, sculptures and other art forms of Jesus are pure imagination. So how can I know it's him?


Chris Angel can walk on water. I saw him do it. Ever notice the religious symbolism in his name, by the way?


----------



## bryanc

fjnmusic said:


> Tbh, it seems to be that atheism is the natural state for humans. We need to be trained to put aside rational thought and instead have faith in a rather irrational explanation for how things come to be.


If humans were fundamentally rational, this would be true. Unfortunately we're not. Our brains evolved in a selective environment that favoured the attribution of personalities and intent to natural phenomena. The monkey that incorrectly attributed lightning to an angry god was at no disadvantage to the monkey that simply had no idea what caused lightning. But the monkey that routinely suspected some malevolent agent was behind things they didn't understand would more often behave in ways that allowed them to survive and reproduce than the monkey who was curious about how things might really work. Curious monkeys often get killed and eaten, whereas fearful superstitious monkeys survive and reproduce. So our species is innately prone to superstition and irrational explanations. We love fairy tales and people will believe in magic even when magicians like Penn & Teller or James Randi explain how the illusions were done. There's a whole field of scientific research called Neurotheology, which endeavours to understand how it is that we're wired to believe in gods.

So, while you're right that we're not born Catholic or Muslim, and need to be taught to have specific religious beliefs, we are born with the propensity for believing in gods and ghosts, and even if we aren't indoctrinated in some specific religion, we'll invent our own superstitions. Where education helps is in developing our rational and critical thinking skills, so we can get past our innate irrationality, and learn to think clearly and logically.


----------



## SINC

Posted this in the visually humorous thread, but it fits so well here too:


----------



## bryanc

A beautiful illustration, SINC. Thanks for posting it.


----------



## JCCanuck

Macfury said:


> What _is_ trutheth?


Sorry I was just trying to speak old english, failed miserably I guess.


----------



## MacGuiver

bryanc said:


> A beautiful illustration, SINC.


Of what exactly?


----------



## eMacMan

MacGuiver said:


> Of what exactly?


Let's start with just the top layer, I can see several but we'll just go with the top.

Stateside if you get sick and aren't wealthy, your faith in God better save you, 'cause you can't afford the medical system. OTH Canada invests its faith in its Doctors.


----------



## bryanc

MacGuiver said:


> Of what exactly?


Of what is wrong with the US (at least in part): They have incorporated irrational superstition into their national identity, and are increasingly suspicious and hostile towards the sciences. Only the pious have any chance of getting elected to positions of political power, and denigrating science has become a standard method for at least one of the political parties to curry favour with their ignorant supporters.

Comparing the currencies of Canada and the US, one adorned with a researcher at a microscope and one adorned with the slogan "In God we trust" highlights problem with the US quite eloquently. Wouldn't you agree?


----------



## MacGuiver

eMacMan said:


> Let's start with just the top layer, I can see several but we'll just go with the top.
> 
> Stateside if you get sick and aren't wealthy, your faith in God better save you, 'cause you can't afford the medical system. OTH Canada invests its faith in its Doctors.


The whole point of the Canadian bill was to boast of our achievements in medical science. All I can say is God help you if you go into a hospital these days and you don't have access the world leading medical and scientific advances courtesy of the folks in "God we trust" land.


----------



## bryanc

MacGuiver said:


> All I can say is God help you if you go into a hospital these days and you don't have access the world leading medical and scientific advances courtesy of the folks in "God we trust" land.


I presume you're trying to point out that the US has contributed very significantly to scientific and medical research over the past century or so, and of course, you're absolutely right. Furthermore, the US remains a research powerhouse, with many of the best research facilities and researchers in the world.

This is what's particularly disturbing about the growing disconnect between the political and public discourse and the scientific community in the US. Scientists in the US are feeling considerably less secure, knowing their funding, and even their legal status is being examined by legislators who are religious fundamentalists, and who represent an electorate that is overwhelmingly scientifically illiterate. The laughable ignorance of the American Public regarding the basic facts of science has become a cliché. This was especially bad during the Bush years, but the growing hostility towards science in the US is still an issue.


----------



## MacGuiver

bryanc said:


> Of what is wrong with the US (at least in part): They have incorporated irrational superstition into their national identity, and are increasingly suspicious and hostile towards the sciences. Only the pious have any chance of getting elected to positions of political power, and denigrating science has become a standard method for at least one of the political parties to curry favour with their ignorant supporters.
> 
> Comparing the currencies of Canada and the US, one adorned with a researcher at a microscope and one adorned with the slogan "In God we trust" highlights problem with the US quite eloquently. Wouldn't you agree?


Don't agree at all. 
I'd have to say "In God we trust" hasn't hindered the US one bit. In fact they've pretty much dominated the world for the past 100 years in just about every aspect of life. From space exploration, innovation, medical science, humanitarian aid, quality of life etc. etc. 
Sadly we Canadians have just been riding on their coat tails for years. If not for our natural resources and American industry, we'd be screwed. 

Compare the history of theistic USA to atheistic USSR and tell me again how much better and more advanced life is without God. The irony is that as the US increasingly abandons its Judeo-Christian roots, its increasingly coming apart at the seams, economically, socially and financially.


----------



## bryanc

MacGuiver said:


> I'd have to say "In God we trust" hasn't hindered the US one bit. In fact they've pretty much dominated the world for the past 100 years


A fair point. But you know that the "In God we trust" thing is quite recent, right? (It replaced _E Pluribus Unum_ in 1956).

I and many others would argue that the success of the US in the 20th century had nothing to do with their failure to implement their constitutional separation of church and state.



> Compare the history of theistic USA to atheistic USSR and tell me again how much better and more advanced life is without God.


This is not a fair comparison; the USSR was nowhere near as well developed economically, militarily, or socially, and its antagonistic relationship with the US was disastrous for it people for reasons entirely unrelated to state policy on religion.



> The irony is that as the US increasingly abandons its Judeo-Christian roots, its increasingly coming apart at the seams, economically, socially and financially.


Give that the US Declaration of Independence and Constitution were written by a bunch of Deists and atheists, I'm not clear on how you can see it has having Judeo-Christian roots. But I certainly agree that the theocratic leadership the US has suffered for the past few decades has driven it off a cliff.


----------



## CubaMark




----------



## bryanc

CubaMark said:


> "Imagine a future where every Sunday, instead of going to church, we all met up to do science for an hour.


Interesting thought. Unfortunately, most science that has not already been done is hard, expensive, usually inconclusive, and very time-consuming. So for people to do 'science' for an hour, they'd probably have to be doing things that allow them to better understand things that are already well-understood. But that'd be cool. Getting people to ask questions, and think of ways to test possible answers to find out what is true, rather blindly accepting what they're told by authorities or making up fairy tales would be a very valuable experience for most people. You could take the crosses off all the steeples and replace them with question marks


----------



## rgray

deleted


----------



## Macfury

rgray said:


> Most of the public is never exposed to such concepts as hypothesis testing...


If we applied such critical thinking to many government programs they would cease to exist.


----------



## bryanc

Macfury said:


> If we applied such critical thinking to many government programs they would cease to exist.


Perhaps. And perhaps many new ones would be started.


----------



## rgray

deleted


----------



## bryanc

rgray said:


> IMHO science education to the high scohool level is one giant FAIL!


As someone who deals with the successful products of this system on a daily basis, I strenuously agree with you. This is one of the only good things about the current fashion of having essentially everyone go to university; there is at least some chance that at least some of the products of the high school system will have some of the damage done to their critical thinking capacities undone.


----------



## MacGuiver

CubaMark said:


>


Adherents of Scientism seem to have a mental block or are just being intentionally obtuse. One does not need to choose between religion and science. Its not one or the other. Most people embrace both.


----------



## rgray

deleted


----------



## MacGuiver

rgray said:


> Although I have heard this statement bandied about many times I think that it is dishonest. Religion is the antithises of skepticism while skepticism is the life blood of science.


 You think religious people are incapable of skepticism in matters of science? There are numerous examples that fly in the face of this false dichotomy like the fact that the big bang theory was forwarded by a Catholic Priest. Theists and the church have been active in science for hundreds of years and have contributed greatly to advances in science. Some of the greatest advances in science have been made by theists and some of the greatest minds in science have been and continue to be theists.


----------



## rgray

deleted


----------



## bryanc

MacGuiver said:


> Theists and the church have been active in science for hundreds of years and have contributed greatly to advances in science. Some of the greatest advances in science have been made by theists and some of the greatest minds in science have been and continue to be theists.


While this is historically correct, the proportion of theists (and especially adherents of organized religion) among people with graduate training in the natural sciences is continuing to decrease. I think it was less of a problem for theists to succeed in science historically because of several factors: we knew so little back then that conflicts with religious doctrines were less common, almost everyone in 'normal society' was religious, and there was very little tolerance for anyone who voiced skepticism about religion. All of these factors have changed significantly in the last century, and we are therefore seeing a precipitous decline in the apparent religiosity of scientists and philosophers.

However, there are certainly some who remain (I have both Christian and Muslim graduate students in my lab right now). When the vast majority of the population adhere to irrational superstitions, it is not surprising to find that some of people who have been trained in the sciences have found ways to maintain these cherished beliefs even as they have been trained to seek natural explanations for observable phenomena.

Because modern religions have backed away from making claims about the causes of natural phenomena (due to having been proved wrong so consistently by science), the conflict between science and religion is now fundamentally philosophical: religion offers "revealed truth" and requires faith; science offers discovered truth and requires skepticism.

In all honesty, I have no idea how one person can be both religious and do science; these seem to me to be such diametrically opposite approaches that to accept one would logically require dismissal of the other. I have asked some of my (few) religious colleagues how they do this, and their answer has invariably been "I just don't think about it."


----------



## fjnmusic

bryanc said:


> In all honesty, I have no idea how one person can be both religious and do science; these seem to me to be such diametrically opposite approaches that to accept one would logically require dismissal of the other. I have asked some of my (few) religious colleagues how they do this, and their answer has invariably been "I just don't think about it."


Not every "religious person", either now or throughout history, necessarily takes religious truth literally. Even Roman Catholicism, which has over a billion followers worldwide, does not, for example, take the six days of creation story literally. Such time constraints are obviously silly. However the order of operations of the creation story (void, planet, water animals, land animals, man) seems to roughly mirror evolution. The "truth" in most Bible stories comes from just that: stories, with a plot, characters, setting and theme. The truth about human nature is revealed, just as it is in Aesop's fables. 

Scientific truth, for whatever reason, is assumed to be literal and therefore not imaginative, yet it still requires the need for an invisible hand, or what we commonly refer to as "mother nature"--just another parent figure operating in the background to connect the things we can't explain. Even Darwin knew there were weak points in his evolutionary theory. The pre-Cambrian explosion of fossils is one. Evolution can justify that organisms adapt and change over time, but it does not really address the how or why of it. The invisible hand is therefore working behind the scenes to propel one "model" of an organism to the next new and improved version. Why? Because that's how nature works.

Substitute "god" for "nature" or even "life" and you get a glimpse of just how similar religion and science actually are; both attempt to explain how things came to be, but neither one covers everything, and both can be picked apart by others with nothing better to do.


----------



## MacGuiver

fjnmusic said:


> Not every "religious person", either now or throughout history, necessarily takes religious truth literally. Even Roman Catholicism, which has over a billion followers worldwide, does not, for example, take the six days of creation story literally. Such time constraints are obviously silly. However the order of operations of the creation story (void, planet, water animals, land animals, man) seems to roughly mirror evolution. The "truth" in most Bible stories comes from just that: stories, with a plot, characters, setting and theme. The truth about human nature is revealed, just as it is in Aesop's fables.
> 
> Scientific truth, for whatever reason, is assumed to be literal and therefore not imaginative, yet it still requires the need for an invisible hand, or what we commonly refer to as "mother nature"--just another parent figure operating in the background to connect the things we can't explain. Even Darwin knew there were weak points in his evolutionary theory. The pre-Cambrian explosion of fossils is one. Evolution can justify that organisms adapt and change over time, but it does not really address the how or why of it. The invisible hand is therefore working behind the scenes to propel one "model" of an organism to the next new and improved version. Why? Because that's how nature works.
> 
> Substitute "god" for "nature" or even "life" and you get a glimpse of just how similar religion and science actually are; both attempt to explain how things came to be, but neither one covers everything, and both can be picked apart by others with nothing better to do.


Excellent point fjnmusic.


----------



## bryanc

fjnmusic said:


> Not every "religious person", either now or throughout history, necessarily takes religious truth literally.


I would hope not; it's worrying enough that so many people use these bronze age fables as sources of moral guidance, let alone believing them to be literally true.



> The truth about human nature is revealed, just as it is in Aesop's fables.


I completely agree that the stories of the bible (or any other holy book) should be treated exactly like Aesop's fables. But most religious adherents see the stories of their particular holy book as being somehow more "truthy" than the stories of any other religion or those of any other fiction writers. There's nothing wrong with liking the Lord of the Rings better than Narnia, but we'd consider anyone who actually believed that Gandalf or Aslan were real and claimed to talk to these characters through prayer to be mentally ill. So why do we consider it normal for people to exhibit the same behaviour with respect to the fictional characters of other books?



> Evolution can justify that organisms adapt and change over time, but it does not really address the how or why of it. The invisible hand is therefore working behind the scenes to propel one "model" of an organism to the next new and improved version.


This is incorrect. The whole point of evolutionary theory is to provide a mechanistic explanation (i.e. the "how and why") of the observable facts of biological evolution. There is no invisible hand.

Anytime a phenomenon implies the existence of some force or process that we don't understand, science goes to work to determine what that force or process is and how it works. In the case of evolution, we now understand this very well indeed.



> Substitute "god" for "nature" or even "life" and you get a glimpse of just how similar religion and science actually are


If you think the scientific world view is in any way comparable to simply substituting "nature" for "god" in a religious world view, I'm afraid you have a very poor understanding of the basic principles of science. When religions say "god did it" as the answer to the question of why something occurs, it appears semantically to be an answer, but it is simply a way of saying "we don't know." When science does not have an answer we say "we don't know" but then set about thinking of ways we could find out, and then interpreting data we collect to generate hypotheses about how this unknown phenomena works, and then do experiments to test the predictions of these hypotheses until we've either built a theory that adequately answers the question or we have to continue to say "we don't know."

So in religion "we don't know" (i.e. "god did it") is the end of the line of inquiry, whereas in science "we don't know" is the beginning.



> both attempt to explain how things came to be


But science provides answers that can be falsified and tested, and when these tests reveal our understanding is lacking, we say "we don't know" instead of making up fables and passing them off as some sort of "revealed truth" in which everyone must have faith.



> both can be picked apart by others with nothing better to do.


Picking appart hypotheses *is the whole point* of doing science. The way we gain confidence that something is true is when we find that we cannot do tests that fail to confirm the predictions of a given theory.

There are two fundamental differences between science and religion: falsifiability and the use of evidence. All scientific theories must make falsifiable predictions, and these predictions must be falsifiable by reproducible empirical evidence (preferably using multiple independent methodologies). In contrast, modern religions must not make falsifiable predictions, and the claims of religion are emphatically not based on evidence. Thus science is the systematic use of observation and logical skepticism, whereas religion is ... well "wishful thinking" is the most charitable characterization I can come up with.


----------



## Sonal

bryanc said:


> In all honesty, I have no idea how one person can be both religious and do science; these seem to me to be such diametrically opposite approaches that to accept one would logically require dismissal of the other. I have asked some of my (few) religious colleagues how they do this, and their answer has invariably been "I just don't think about it."


My fiance, who is both a scientist and very rigourous in his use of logic, has spent a long time thinking through all of this and has come to the logical conclusion that there is a god.

I've asked him to explain, but all I can get out of him so far is that if you examine all the arguments against the existence of god very carefully, they don't hold up to a rigourous use of logic. (He apparently used to express the same kind of arguments himself, so he's well-familiar with them.)

(I am not nearly so formal in my use of logic, so any logical errors in how I'm expressing this are my own.)

He's not a fan of organized religion or religious institutions though. (Dawkins would probably describe him as a deist.)


----------



## bryanc

Sonal said:


> My fiance, who is both a scientist and very rigourous in his use of logic, has spent a long time thinking through all of this and has come to the logical conclusion that there is a god.


I'd be very curious as to the reasoning he uses to draw this conclusion.



> I've asked him to explain, but all I can get out of him so far is that if you examine all the arguments against the existence of god very carefully, they don't hold up to a rigourous use of logic.


This seems to be a logical failure at the very outset, in that the burden of proof is reversed. It is incumbent on the proponent to make a case for the existence of god(s), not on the skeptic to prove that god(s) do not exist. It is very easy to postulate any number of things that one could not prove do not exist (Bertrand Russell's teapot orbiting Saturn being one of the more famous examples of this logical fallacy). But it is incumbent on the proponent of these ideas to provide some logical reason to suppose they *do* exist, not on the skeptic to prove that they do not.

So if your fiancé is concluding that God(s) must exist because no one has been able compellingly argue that they do not, he's got his reasoning backwards to start with.



> (I am not nearly so formal in my use of logic, so any logical errors in how I'm expressing this are my own.)


Understood. While I wouldn't be surprised if his reasoning is more complicated, it's actually surprisingly easy to fall into such simple logical traps if you've been indoctrinated by society to *assume* god(s) exist, and you find yourself unable to logically prove that they do not.

But seriously, I would like to hear his reasoning; I've been through many arguments on this topic, and have encountered some interesting and creative thinking on both sides, but have never heard of any logically compelling arguments *for* the existence of gods or any kind of supernatural agents.


----------



## JCCanuck

bryanc said:


> So in religion "we don't know" (i.e. "god did it") is the end of the line of inquiry, whereas in science "we don't know" is the beginning.


Well put bryanc as well as the rest of your statement.


----------



## CubaMark

*Re:* "invisible hand" - ah, _NOW_ I see the connection between evangelicals and free-market capitalists... 

*Meanwhile, in the Caribbean...*


----------



## JCCanuck

Sonal said:


> if you examine all the arguments against the existence of god very carefully, they don't hold up to a rigourous use of logic.


So he's saying nothing reasonable seems to prove that god doesn't exist therefore he does? As a scientist he should be proving that is there a god not proving a negative?


----------



## Sonal

JCCanuck said:


> So he's saying nothing reasonable seems to prove that god doesn't exist therefore he does? As a scientist he should be proving that is there a god not proving a negative?


No.

I'm saying that this is the gist of what he told me--which is by no means a complete expression of his thoughts on the matter--but any logical errors in how it is expressed should be attributed to my writing of it, and not his thought processes on it.


----------



## bryanc

Sonal said:


> I'm saying that this is the gist of what he told me


I certainly appreciate how difficult it can be to communicate a subtle philosophical argument; especially if one only superficially understands it one's self. So I'm happy to withhold judgement on the validity of the argument.

But I do think it's worth pointing out that many of the arguments in favour of the existence of gods/supernatural are founded on the unsupported (but often ubiquitous) assumptions of their social context. So that may be a point worth considering. It does sound to me as if he may have the burden of proof reversed.

Cheers


----------



## mrjimmy

CubaMark said:


> *Re:* "invisible hand" - ah, _NOW_ I see the connection between evangelicals and free-market capitalists...
> 
> *Meanwhile, in the Caribbean...*


:lmao: fantastic!

Where's that from CM? I couldn't find it on The Onion.


----------



## Sonal

bryanc said:


> I certainly appreciate how difficult it can be to communicate a subtle philosophical argument; especially if one only superficially understands it one's self. So I'm happy to withhold judgement on the validity of the argument.


I'd actually enjoy seeing a discussion between the two of you on this topic. 

However, I can't seem to convince him to come argue with people on the internet. He seems to think it's a bit of a pointless time-waster.


----------



## CubaMark

mrjimmy said:


> :lmao: fantastic!
> 
> Where's that from CM? I couldn't find it on The Onion.


A facebook post - no idea of the source...


----------



## mrjimmy

CubaMark said:


> A facebook post - no idea of the source...


Does it cut off at the end like that in the original?


----------



## fjnmusic

What does science have to say about the subjective consciousness that inhabits our bodies and minds right now, the essence of who we are, no less, and where that consciousness came from and where it goes after our bodies die? I believe science falls short of explaining these rather basic mysteries of our existence, mainly because consciousness is a rather tricky theory to prove under any circumstances, and yet we do not come to the conclusion that our own consciousness is a myth. And for what it's worth, I don't think that religion does any better with respect to this subject. How did we come to be out of nothing? Was there any consciousness that predated the egg-meets-sperm moment? At what point in the human cell's evolution do we become conscious of anything? Basic questions. Religions takes the imaginative metaphorical approach, which falls short. But I would argue that science falls even shorter.

In other words, we really have no idea.


----------



## chimo

mrjimmy said:


> Does it cut off at the end like that in the original?


Free Wood Post


----------



## bryanc

fjnmusic said:


> What does science have to say about the subjective consciousness that inhabits our bodies and minds right now, the essence of who we are, no less, and where that consciousness came from and where it goes after our bodies die?


Firstly, I should point out that even if science had nothing to say about these questions, it would not be justifiable to start fabricating fables about souls or afterlives. The first step in acquiring real knowledge is recognizing that there is a phenomenon that is not adequately explained by current models - and pretending that our stories about souls and ghosts etc. are adequate explanations is simply entrenching ignorance.

Secondly, the field of cognitive neuroscience has made significant progress on the question of consciousness, and it clearly is an example of the general category of emergent complexity. If you're interested in understanding the real science, I recommend starting with Marvin Minsky's "The Society of Mind" and getting into the cognitive neuroscience literature of the past two decades. If you're more inclined to a good general overview, Daniel Dennett's aptly named "Consciousness Explained", while now a little out of date, is excellent. (There are also excellent books targeted at the intelligent lay audience by Stephen Pinker, John Searle, and David Chalmers).

As to the question of "where do we go after we die?" you are making a common logical error of assuming your answer (at least partially, in that you're assuming we "go" _somewhere_). There is no reason to think our consciousness 'goes' anywhere after we die. If someone writes a beautiful poem using a word processor, and the power fails before it is saved, where did the poem go? Where did the beauty go? We have every reason to believe that our subjective consciousness is an emergent property of the complex and self-stabilizing neurochemical interactions between the neurons in the brain, so when metabolism fails and the neurons die, the consciousness ceases to exist.

I think it's worth considering that, for billions of years before your birth, your consciousness did not exist, so why would you expect that you would continue to exist after your death?



> I believe science falls short of explaining these rather basic mysteries of our existence, mainly because consciousness is a rather tricky theory to prove under any circumstances, and yet we do not come to the conclusion that our own consciousness is a myth.


On the contrary, the existence of consciousness is trivial to prove - "I think, therefore I am." Determining how our capacity to think and become self-aware emerges from the interactions of neurons is, as you say, "tricky." But starting with the premise that it is magic, and therefore inaccessible to science is admitting defeat before one has even begun.



> Was there any consciousness that predated the egg-meets-sperm moment?


Since there was no neural complexity to support the emergence of consciousness before fertilization (apart from that which existed in the brains of the adults supplying the gametes), the obvious answer is "no."



> At what point in the human cell's evolution do we become conscious of anything?


Without meaning to be pedantic, individual cells do not evolve; evolution occurs over many generations. If what you're asking is at what point in the development of a human does consciousness emerge, that's a more interesting (and at this point unanswerable) question, but it certainly cannot be before the development of a functional central nervous system. Furthermore, it's almost certainly wrong to think of consciousness happening suddenly, like a light switch going on. We all know from introspection that our consciousness changes as we mature from child to adult, and it is entirely reasonable to think that the consciousness that emerges in an infant is significantly different than the consciousness we are aware of in ourselves as adults.

So consciousness probably emerges gradually over the course of development (starting after the synaptic complexity of the developing CNS reaches some critical threshold), and continues to develop throughout one's life.



> In other words, we really have no idea.


I beg to differ. Until we started seriously examining these phenomena scientifically (about the time of William James in the late 19th century), we blindly accepted the teachings of religion, and yes, that really meant we "had no idea" what was going on. However, through great effort on the part of many people who have dedicated their lives to scientifically researching these questions, we now know a great deal. Certainly we have a lot left to learn, but it is both inaccurate and demeaning of the work that has been done to say that we still "have no idea."


----------



## bryanc

Sonal said:


> I can't seem to convince him to come argue with people on the internet. He seems to think it's a bit of a pointless time-waster.


I can understand his position. However, I see it as both a relaxing/therapeutic way to spend a few spare minutes, and a sort of cross-training for the brain. I'm surrounded by like-minded academics, and it is very easy for us to become isolated from 'main-stream' society (the ivy tower syndrome). This leads to the tendency to become complacent in one's philosophical/political/sociological/economic and even scientific positions.

Bouncing ideas around here is both fun, and a valuable way for me to stop focusing on whatever I'm "really" working on for a few minutes, which often turns out to be the opportunity for my subconscious mind needed to come up with an idea.


----------



## screature

bryanc said:


> ...On the contrary,* the existence of consciousness is trivial to prove *- "I think, therefore I am." Determining how our capacity to think and become self-aware emerges from the interactions of neurons is, as you say, "tricky." But starting with the premise that it is magic, and therefore inaccessible to science is admitting defeat before one has even begun.


This does not prove anything, as you say yourself, science does not prove, it disproves and the statement "I think therefore I am" is far from being even scientific. 

Cognition is definitely an indicator of consciousness but it is definitely not the sole criteria or even necessarily the most significant criteria in determining consciousness.

We are in the infancy of AI which begs many questions regarding the nature of consciousness which have been addressed in speculation for decades. The coming developments will in my estimation make the statement "I think therefore I am" seem like a quaint, early and rather naive understanding of the true complexity of consciousness.


----------



## MacGuiver

CubaMark said:


> *Re:* "invisible hand" - ah, _NOW_ I see the connection between evangelicals and free-market capitalists...
> 
> *Meanwhile, in the Caribbean...*


How dare the pope criticize Marxism. Its been such a whopping success everywhere its been tried. I mean, who doesn't want to live in a dictatorship like Cuba?


----------



## bryanc

screature said:


> This does not prove anything, as you say yourself, science does not prove, it disproves and the statement "I think therefore I am" is far from being even scientific.


It's not supposed to be scientific. It's logic. You're right that empirical science can only disprove; proofs are the stuff of mathematics and pure logic. Descartes' famous quote is an "existence proof" of the most succinct nature.



> Cognition is definitely an indicator of consciousness but it is definitely not the sole criteria or even necessarily the most significant criteria in determining consciousness.


The semantics in this feild are not trivial, but self-awareness is generally viewed as synonymous with consciousness. So to be complete, Descartes would have to have said "I think _about myself_, therefore I am." One of the current problems in AI is developing systems that can have "self-symbols". This runs up against Godel's Incompleteness Theorem (which says that no system can completely/accurately represent itself), which also almost certainly pertains to our own biological self-awareness as well. But many would argue that a computer that was able to query, establish internal data structures that represent, and manipulate its own internal state would have properties of consciousness (which opens an ethical problem; would it be ethical to turn such a computer off?). More practically, such a system would be able to detect when it had become caught in an infinite loop, and break out of that trap (solving the "halting problem").

At any rate, while developments in AI are fascinating and impressive in their own right, it's not entirely clear that our efforts to develop machine intelligence will necessarily shed much light on how our own nervous system gives rise to self-awareness. However, it's also worth pointing out that many researchers in cognitive neurobiology and AI (not to mention philosophy) have argued that the slow progress in AI (back in the '70s, people thought we'd have true AI by the late '90s) may be largely due to fundamental misunderstandings about what consciousness really is.


----------



## JCCanuck

bryanc said:


> Firstly, I should point out that even if science had nothing to say about these questions, it would not be justifiable to start fabricating fables about souls or afterlives. The first step in acquiring real knowledge is recognizing that there is a phenomenon that is not adequately explained by current models - and pretending that our stories about souls and ghosts etc. are adequate explanations is simply entrenching ignorance.
> 
> Secondly, the field of cognitive neuroscience has made significant progress on the question of consciousness, and it clearly is an example of the general category of emergent complexity. If you're interested in understanding the real science, I recommend starting with Marvin Minsky's "The Society of Mind" and getting into the cognitive neuroscience literature of the past two decades. If you're more inclined to a good general overview, Daniel Dennett's aptly named "Consciousness Explained", while now a little out of date, is excellent. (There are also excellent books targeted at the intelligent lay audience by Stephen Pinker, John Searle, and David Chalmers).
> 
> As to the question of "where do we go after we die?" you are making a common logical error of assuming your answer (at least partially, in that you're assuming we "go" _somewhere_). There is no reason to think our consciousness 'goes' anywhere after we die. If someone writes a beautiful poem using a word processor, and the power fails before it is saved, where did the poem go? Where did the beauty go? We have every reason to believe that our subjective consciousness is an emergent property of the complex and self-stabilizing neurochemical interactions between the neurons in the brain, so when metabolism fails and the neurons die, the consciousness ceases to exist.
> 
> I think it's worth considering that, for billions of years before your birth, your consciousness did not exist, so why would you expect that you would continue to exist after your death?
> 
> 
> 
> On the contrary, the existence of consciousness is trivial to prove - "I think, therefore I am." Determining how our capacity to think and become self-aware emerges from the interactions of neurons is, as you say, "tricky." But starting with the premise that it is magic, and therefore inaccessible to science is admitting defeat before one has even begun.
> 
> 
> 
> Since there was no neural complexity to support the emergence of consciousness before fertilization (apart from that which existed in the brains of the adults supplying the gametes), the obvious answer is "no."
> 
> 
> Without meaning to be pedantic, individual cells do not evolve; evolution occurs over many generations. If what you're asking is at what point in the development of a human does consciousness emerge, that's a more interesting (and at this point unanswerable) question, but it certainly cannot be before the development of a functional central nervous system. Furthermore, it's almost certainly wrong to think of consciousness happening suddenly, like a light switch going on. We all know from introspection that our consciousness changes as we mature from child to adult, and it is entirely reasonable to think that the consciousness that emerges in an infant is significantly different than the consciousness we are aware of in ourselves as adults.
> 
> So consciousness probably emerges gradually over the course of development (starting after the synaptic complexity of the developing CNS reaches some critical threshold), and continues to develop throughout one's life.
> 
> 
> 
> I beg to differ. Until we started seriously examining these phenomena scientifically (about the time of William James in the late 19th century), we blindly accepted the teachings of religion, and yes, that really meant we "had no idea" what was going on. However, through great effort on the part of many people who have dedicated their lives to scientifically researching these questions, we now know a great deal. Certainly we have a lot left to learn, but it is both inaccurate and demeaning of the work that has been done to say that we still "have no idea."


Wow! You are very good writer bryanc, wish I be as articulate as you.
What field of Biology are you in? Curious because my son is taking Bio-Chem at University next year.


----------



## CubaMark




----------



## screature

bryanc said:


> It's not supposed to be scientific. It's logic. You're right that empirical science can only disprove; *proofs are the stuff of mathematics and pure logic.* Descartes' famous quote is an "existence proof" of the most succinct nature.


I think I am aware of this... it represents neither a logical nor mathematical proof. It is a statement of conclusion not a proof per say.



bryanc said:


> *The semantics in this feild are not trivial*, but self-awareness is generally viewed as synonymous with consciousness. So to be complete, Descartes would have to have said "I think _about myself_, therefore I am." One of the current problems in AI is developing systems that can have "self-symbols". This runs up against Godel's Incompleteness Theorem (which says that no system can completely/accurately represent itself), which also almost certainly pertains to our own biological self-awareness as well. But many would argue that a computer that was able to query, establish internal data structures that represent, and manipulate its own internal state would have properties of consciousness (which opens an ethical problem; would it be ethical to turn such a computer off?). More practically, such a system would be able to detect when it had become caught in an infinite loop, and break out of that trap (solving the "halting problem").
> 
> At any rate, while developments in AI are fascinating and impressive in their own right, it's not entirely clear that our efforts to develop machine intelligence will necessarily shed much light on how our own nervous system gives rise to self-awareness. However, it's also worth pointing out that many researchers in cognitive neurobiology and AI (not to mention philosophy) have argued that the slow progress in AI (back in the '70s, people thought we'd have true AI by the late '90s) *may be largely due to fundamental misunderstandings about what consciousness really is.*


Ta Da...


----------



## bryanc

JCCanuck said:


> Wow! You are very good writer bryanc, wish I be as articulate as you.


Thank you.
*blush*


> What field of Biology are you in?


I consider myself primarily a developmental biologist, but my research relates to many fields (including neurophysiology, toxicology, cancer biology, aging, immunology, inflammatory diseases, etc.)


> Curious because my son is taking Bio-Chem at University next year.


At what university?
I'm currently teaching Biochemistry, Embryology, and an advanced course in animal developmental biology. But I have also taught philosophy of science, microscopy & image processing, bioinformatics, immunology, and some marine biology.


----------



## bryanc

CubaMark said:


>


All that's missing is the arrogant-intellectual-elitist smirk on the militant atheist. This reminds me, it's time I went to get an expresso.


----------



## CubaMark

bryanc, for that visual, you need to go to the Oatmeal, which did a version of the above comic (and has apologized to the original artist for any perceived copying). The final frame of _the Oatmeal'_s comic is:


----------



## bryanc

CubaMark said:


> bryanc, for that visual, you need to go to the Oatmeal, which did a version of the above comic (and has apologized to the original artist for any perceived copying). The final frame of _the Oatmeal'_s comic is:


Yes, it's pretty rare to find examples of atheist extremists flying their microscopes into buildings or engaging in anti-social behaviour more extreme than bitter arguments about how much hops is *too much* for a good beer. (answer: there's no such thing as too much hops).


----------



## JCCanuck

bryanc said:


> Thank you.
> *blush*
> 
> I consider myself primarily a developmental biologist, but my research relates to many fields (including neurophysiology, toxicology, cancer biology, aging, immunology, inflammatory diseases, etc.)
> 
> At what university?
> I'm currently teaching Biochemistry, Embryology, and an advanced course in animal developmental biology. But I have also taught philosophy of science, microscopy & image processing, bioinformatics, immunology, and some marine biology.


He just got accepted to his 3 choices, McMaster, Guelph and Ottawa. He has to decide soon. Teaching wow, I hope he gets someone like you. Is yours U of NB? My wife suggest my son go there.


----------



## JCCanuck

*Bumper sticker!*

Just twiddling my thumbs (no work at moment) and thought maybe I should get a bumper sticker that says "Thank God I'm an Atheist!". No?


----------



## CubaMark

JCCanuck said:


> Just twiddling my thumbs (no work at moment) and thought maybe I should get a bumper sticker that says "Thank God I'm a Atheist!". No?


Twiddling your thumbs? "Get"? You're a Mac user, dude! Create it!


----------



## bryanc

JCCanuck said:


> He just got accepted to his 3 choices, McMaster, Guelph and Ottawa. He has to decide soon. Teaching wow, I hope he gets someone like you. Is yours U of NB? My wife suggest my son go there.


see PM.


----------



## JCCanuck

CubaMark said:


> Twiddling your thumbs? "Get"? You're a Mac user, dude! Create it!


Maybe I'll use........KEYNOTE?


----------



## jef

JCCanuck said:


> Maybe I'll use........KEYNOTE?


Or just order one of these:

Darwin Fish Symbol


----------



## MacGuiver

A few omissions from the militant Atheism graphic


----------



## jef

Neither of these men did what they did in the name of 'Atheism'. I don't think you 'get it'.
..and you left out Hitler - is it because there is strong evidence that he was a Christian?


----------



## MacGuiver

jef said:


> Neither of these men did what they did in the name of 'Atheism'. I don't think you 'get it'.
> ..and you left out Hitler - is it because there is strong evidence that he was a Christian?


Hitler was baptized a Catholic. That much is true. But I'd say I'd consider him Catholic like Lady Gaga would be considered catholic. They got splashed in the baptismal font but they quickly dried off and started working for the other team. Hitler was more of an occultist than an atheist. He spoke of Christianity when it served his purposes but he personally despised it. Although I'd not class him as an atheist, many of Hitlers values are popular among progressives of today like euthanasia and eugenics and his contempt and loathing of Jews and Christians. He liked to toss around a lot of Darwinian lingo to justify his actions.



> “The law of selection justifies this incessant struggle, by allowing the survival of the fittest. Christianity is a rebellion against natural law, a protest against nature. Taken to its logical extreme, Christianity would mean the systematic cultivation of the human failure.”
> 
> - Norman Cameron and R.H. Stevens, trans., (Oxford, 1953), Hitler's Table-Talk, p. 51


Regarding Mao and Stalin, its true you can't lay all the blame for their atrocities at the feat of atheism but their atheist mindset certainly motivated them to perceive religion as a threat to progress and a hinderance to mankind. Opiate of the masses and all that. How often have I heard that bantered about on here. Their persecution and termination of religious people was an extension of their atheistic worldview.


----------



## chasMac

Hitler was most definitely an atheist - very much of it had to with the major religions' concepts of protecting the weak, the very notion of which was anathema to the man. Even prior to the war he actually stated that 'Christianity was ripe for destruction'. And by 1941, in a speech to the Reichstag he declared that within the new order, there would be no place for the church. 

Besides, not sure where it is stated that when one mentions Mao and Stalin to put forward an argument, Hitler must be uttered in the same breath.


----------



## MacGuiver

chasMac said:


> Hitler was most definitely an atheist - very much of it had to with the major religions' concepts of protecting the weak, the very notion of which was anathema to the man. Even prior to the war he actually stated that 'Christianity was ripe for destruction'. And by 1941, in a speech to the Reichstag he declared that within the new order, there would be no place for the church.
> 
> Besides, not sure where it is stated that when one mentions Mao and Stalin to put forward an argument, Hitler must be uttered in the same breath.


Hi ChasMac

I guess my hesitation to brand Hitler atheist would stem from his occultic activity. I don't think Richard Dawkins would agree there is power to be had in that kind of thing nor would most atheists posting here. From what I know of Hitler, he'd certainly find much common ground with the expressed opinions of atheists regarding Christianity and Judaism.


----------



## bryanc

chasMac said:


> Hitler was most definitely an atheist


Your opinion here flies in the face of all historical evidence. But what any given individual believes or uses to justify their actions (for good or ill) has no bearing on the logical/philosoophical validity of their position. This is is fundamentally an _ad hominem_ fallacy.

It's easy to find examples of atrocities justified on religious grounds, but that does not prove the religion is false; just that it can be used to justify atrocity.


----------



## chasMac

bryanc said:


> Your opinion here flies in the face of all historical evidence. But what any given individual believes or uses to justify their actions (for good or ill) has no bearing on the logical/philosoophical validity of their position. This is is fundamentally an _ad hominem_ fallacy.
> 
> It's easy to find examples of atrocities justified on religious grounds, but that does not prove the religion is false; just that it can be used to justify atrocity.


Am I arguing that because an individual is a Christian or Atheist he possesses the capacity for evil? You have me confused with somebody else; as far as I'm concerned actions speak louder than beliefs.

As far as Hitler's religiosity, if not Christian, then what? I gave 2 examples of his disdain for that particular religion. He was a materialist to the core (I think this is most exemplified through his obsession with (pseudo-) sciences to prove his theories on race). He was however, not above entering into deals with and exploiting Germany's dominant religion to achieve his ends.


----------



## bryanc

chasMac said:


> As far as Hitler's religiosity, if not Christian, then what?


Read _Mein Kampf_. Hitler considered himself a Christian, even though he disagreed with (and planned to eliminate) the Catholic church. He had all kinds of crazy ideas, but was clearly a theist and believer in the supernatural. He was most certainly _*not*_ a materialist, for exactly the reasons you cite: he was obsessed with pseudo-science and occultism, and invoked all kinds of paranormal/magical justifications for his beliefs.

But again, this is entirely beside the point. Even if it were the case that every evil person in the history of the human race were atheists, and every good person were theists, it would have no bearing on the logical or epistemological validity of either position.


----------



## MacGuiver

bryanc said:


> Read _Mein Kampf_. Hitler considered himself a Christian, even though he disagreed with (and planned to eliminate) the Catholic church. He had all kinds of crazy ideas, but was clearly a theist and believer in the supernatural. He was most certainly _*not*_ a materialist, for exactly the reasons you cite: he was obsessed with pseudo-science and occultism, and invoked all kinds of paranormal/magical justifications for his beliefs.
> 
> But again, this is entirely beside the point. Even if it were the case that every evil person in the history of the human race were atheists, and every good person were theists, it would have no bearing on the logical or epistemological validity of either position.


I think Hitler could put on a Christian facade for political expediency but many of his statements and most certainly his actions were anti-Christian and not just anti-Catholic. At his core, he was nothing close to Christian. We see this dynamic alive and well in politics today. 



> “The heaviest blow which ever struck humanity was Christianity; Bolshevism is Christianity’s illegitimate child. Both are inventions of the Jew.”
> 
> - Norman Cameron and R.H. Stevens, trans., (Oxford, 1953), Hitler's Table-Talk, p. 7


----------



## eMacMan

MacGuiver said:


> I think Hitler could put on a Christian facade for political expediency but many of his statements and most certainly his actions were anti-Christian and not just anti-Catholic. At his core, he was nothing close to Christian. We see this dynamic alive and well in politics today.


Yep the so-called pro life Bible Thumpers supporting the Middle East massacres en-mass, just because the Republirats give lip service to the anti-abortion agenda.


----------



## CubaMark

*Methinks somebody over at The Oatmeal must be a lurker here at ehMac...* 
*
The 30 March 2012 comic:*


----------



## MacGuiver

eMacMan said:


> Yep the so-called pro life Bible Thumpers supporting the Middle East massacres en-mass, just because the Republirats give lip service to the anti-abortion agenda.


Yeah after radical Islam attacked the US, "bible thumpers" were not immune to the desire for retribution that swept the land. They should have listened to Pope John Paul II.
I guess the other choice they had was an abortion loving president that also massacres people in the middle east while paying lip service to God.
I'm perplexed how you get all protective of Muslims on one hand, some of whom have openly declared war on western civilization and attacked it repeatedly, yet you have a hate on for people that oppose the killing of the unborn. Millions of unborn each year.


----------



## MacGuiver

CubaMark said:


> *Methinks somebody over at The Oatmeal must be a lurker here at ehMac...*
> *
> The 30 March 2012 comic:*



Another bullet proof commentary for the kids at the Oatmeal


----------



## chasMac

Mein Kampf, written very early on in his career - yes I have in fact read it. His views on a number of topics evolved over the years (in a similar vein, Stalin possessed no less than priestly aspirations, and was a top student in his seminary school – that’s a corker!). I am inclined to view what he uttered privately among those he trusted as carrying more weight than pronouncements intended for more public consumption as MK very clearly was. Certainly, he would portray himself as a good Christian leader to rally his followers and then his nation – I can’t imagine a more effective motivational tool when going up against the ‘godless communists’ – doubly potent as he believed communism to be a product of the Jews. Anyways, he could not advertise the fact he didn’t believe in god anymore than a current American politician might- political suicide in both cases. 
Hitler was not an occultist; this belief has been promulgated by Indiana Jones movies and History Channel specials. There is no evidence to back this up; for a period he harboured an interest the occult, (as many, many educated Europeans of the time did, even the avowedly Catholic), but this shouldn’t be confused with him being an adherent to any branch. I recognize that some members of his entourage were heavily into it however. Pseudo-science, like pseudo-history (ie: Aryan migrations) needn’t be mired in magic or the occult; it can just be ‘bad’ science - reaching conclusions when the evidence doesn’t warrant so, etc.., can it not? Hitler was fascinated with race as a function of naturally occurring characteristics; not ubermensch traits magically imparted from up on high. For this reason (along with his views on religion) I say that he was a materialist.
And I agree, this is immaterial when it comes to crimes committed. It is however, a little annoying to be tacitly accused of being a Christian apologist when discussing Hitler’s faith or lack thereof – it makes for a very interesting topic in its own right I think. And it strikes me as odd to throw about the names of history’s great brutes to prove essentially that my credo is better than yours and vice-versa. (Hitler – Christian; Christianity bad: Stalin - atheist; atheism bad.) I have no agenda here, and if irrefutable evidence were to make itself known proving that he was a god-fearing Catholic, so be it. It does not change the nature of his actions.


----------



## MacGuiver

Good points ChasMac.


----------



## groovetube

This article is a little dated, but I just read it now, linked to from another news bit.
Lynn M. Paltrow: Personhood Measures in Disguise

It's truly scary what happens when we get complacent and allow religious quacks define our laws. It needs to be stood up to, full force.

The only good thing, is if/when this starts rearing it's ugly head here in Canada, if Harper in any way allows just some of this, he's finished.


----------



## SINC

groovetube said:


> The only good thing, is if/when this starts rearing it's ugly head here in Canada, if Harper in any way allows just some of this, he's finished.


And just what sources can you quote that even remotely links Harper to this kind of thinking?


----------



## groovetube

well members of his government, are attempting to place abortion on the table. And given the lies harper has told so far, I don't trust him.

You keep asking for sources, I hope you got the other one on harpers lies on his f35 contract lies.


----------



## bryanc

SINC's argument is a good one; you need to provide positive evidence, rathe than suggesting that Harper et al are planning to alter the laws and asking for evidence to the country. 

On the other hand, given Harper's history, it's reasonable to suppose he might be setting something up; and it's good to be alert. But at this point all that any reasonable citizen can do is be alert. Watch for Harper trying to pass some 'subtle' alteration to the laws surrounding abortion on a Friday afternoon, while some other major news is 'breaking'.


----------



## SINC

groovetube said:


> well members of his government, are attempting to place abortion on the table. And given the lies harper has told so far, I don't trust him.


Nor do I trust you, so what is your point?


----------



## MacGuiver

Secular hedonism is the fastest growing religion in North America and it pretty much dominates the courts, academia, politics and the media. So don't be troubled, the acceptable boundaries for killing will only grow.


----------



## bryanc

MacGuiver said:


> Secular hedonism is the fastest growing religion in North America


for the most meaningless definitions of 'religion.' Where 'religion' means "uh.. whatever you believe dude... uhn.. yeah."

There's no question that certain individuals justify their amoral/immoral behaviour as "sticking it to the man" or some other form of "rebellion" against the status quo. But secularism, and even hedionism (which are philosophically unrelated concepts) have never been significantly correlated with anti social behaviour.


----------



## groovetube

MacGuiver said:


> Secular hedonism is the fastest growing religion in North America and it pretty much dominates the courts, academia, politics and the media. So don't be troubled, the acceptable boundaries for killing will only grow.


Oh I nor many others won;t be complacent in this at all. The noticeable and distinct shift to this sort of "hand maid's tale" sort of society, should be stopped right in it's tracks. What's next down there, the arrest and investigations of women who have miscarriages?

And good post bryanc.


----------



## mrjimmy

bryanc said:


> SINC's argument is a good one; you need to provide positive evidence, rathe than suggesting that Harper et al are planning to alter the laws and asking for evidence to the country.
> 
> On the other hand, given Harper's history, it's reasonable to suppose he might be setting something up; and it's good to be alert. But at this point all that any reasonable citizen can do is be alert. Watch for Harper trying to pass some 'subtle' alteration to the laws surrounding abortion on a Friday afternoon, while some other major news is 'breaking'.


I believe this was likely GT's point. It's not a stretch given Harper's choice of church.

Christian and Missionary Alliance - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## mrjimmy

SINC said:


> Nor do I trust you, so what is your point?


SINC, must you?


----------



## groovetube

bryanc said:


> SINC's argument is a good one; you need to provide positive evidence, rathe than suggesting that Harper et al are planning to alter the laws and asking for evidence to the country.
> 
> *On the other hand, given Harper's history, it's reasonable to suppose he might be setting something up; and it's good to be alert. But at this point all that any reasonable citizen can do is be alert. Watch for Harper trying to pass some 'subtle' alteration to the laws surrounding abortion on a Friday afternoon, while some other major news is 'breaking'.*


That's precisely what I am pointing out. Of course Harper and crew would never openly say they intend to alter abortion laws. That much is clear. However, if they could get away with it, I think it's rather obvious that they would. 


mrjimmy said:


> I believe this was likely GT's point. It's not a stretch given Harper's choice of church.
> 
> Christian and Missionary Alliance - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Yes, thanks. I find this explanation that it isn't Harper, but a private member's initiative just galling. Especially given Harper's well known super control top down of his government. The indignant responses are almost insulting.



mrjimmy said:


> SINC, must you?


I've gotten used to it. I try not to let it derail. Try I say.


----------



## rgray

deleted


----------



## CubaMark




----------



## Dr.G.

CubaMark said:


>


:lmao::lmao::lmao:

Paix, mon ami.


----------



## jef

CubaMark said:


>


That's a church I might attend - I might get lucky!


----------



## CubaMark




----------



## JCCanuck

*'Monkey Bill' Becomes Law In Tennessee!*

Heard about this law becoming a possibility a few days ago and now it is a reality (or lack of). Tennessee is up to its old anti-science tricks again. In a new twist on an old classic, a modern "monkey bill," which encourages teachers to explore "alternative" explanations for established scientific theories, recently passed in both the Tennessee House and Senate. Ugh! 
Found these great cartoons in a response to Intelligent Design...


----------



## groovetube

The Daily Show with Jon Stewart : April 11, 2012

heh


----------



## Dr.G.

groovetube said:


> The Daily Show with Jon Stewart : April 11, 2012
> 
> heh


Oh the humanity!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Aurora

Would this make menstruation illegal?


----------



## Macfury

Aurora said:


> Would this make menstruation illegal?


It WOULD be illegal if women I know had any say in it.


----------



## MacGuiver

The sperm thing was just stupid.

This attempt to derail the legislation has some merit.



> This is the very saddest part of this whole article: "A second legislator, Democrat Jim Wilson attempted to introduce an amendment stating that all men would be responsible for the full support and well-being of any woman carrying their child for the duration of the pregnancy, including housing, food, transportation, and all medical costs. The amendment failed."
> 
> So, in other words, we can force women to have babies they don't want, but we are NOT going to make the men who are equal partners in the babies' conceptions to be responsible. How is that for a double standard? Because none of this is about the fetus. This is all about punishing women for being sluts, right?


I'd actually support that motion. Abortion is hedonistic man's escape clause from Friday nights quest for sexual gratification. Thats why men want abortion as much or more than women. It enables them to use women for nothing more than objects of pleasure. Legion are the stories of women coaxed, forced and dropped off at the abortion clinic by their "caring" sperm donor wanting to fix the "problem" he created. If it is wrong for a woman to end the life of her baby, its wrong for the sperm donor to walk away without consequence. Sex makes babies. Its time to stop treating it like a ride at Disney Land.


----------



## groovetube

as much or more? That may be why when I lived down the street from Morgentaler's clinic, the protestors outside were overwhelmingly MEN.


----------



## MacGuiver

groovetube said:


> as much or more? That may be why when I lived down the street from Morgentaler's clinic, the protestors outside were overwhelmingly MEN.


That may have been the case at your Morgentaler franchise. I'll take your word for it. 
I'd suggest you type in pro life rally in google image search to get a broader perspective. I can assure you, women are as much or more pro life as men. This notion that all women are unified for abortion and its basically men opposing it is a lie. The recent poll we talked about a while back on this issue attested to that fact. Men were willing to go further with abortion than the women.


----------



## groovetube

MacGuiver said:


> That may have been the case at your Morgentaler franchise. I'll take your word for it.
> I'd suggest you type in pro life rally in google image search to get a broader perspective. I can assure you, women are as much or more pro life as men. This notion that all women are unified for abortion and its basically men opposing it is a lie. The recent poll we talked about a while back on this issue attested to that fact. Men were willing to go further with abortion than the women.


my word and anyone else at the time. It was widely reported and noticed.

But in the end, the majority of people support pro choice. Full stop. So the minority of those with religious beliefs ramming it down everyones throats should be stopped.


----------



## fjnmusic

groovetube said:


> my word and anyone else at the time. It was widely reported and noticed.
> 
> But in the end, the majority of people support pro choice. Full stop. So the minority of those with religious beliefs ramming it down everyones throats should be stopped.


What if a non-religious person doesn't support abortion rights? You're making a pretty big assumption there.


----------



## Macfury

fjnmusic said:


> What if a non-religious person doesn't support abortion rights? You're making a pretty big assumption there.


A huge assumption.


----------



## groovetube

Macfury said:


> A huge assumption.


how huge? You'll need to explain that one.


----------



## groovetube

fjnmusic said:


> What if a non-religious person doesn't support abortion rights? You're making a pretty big assumption there.


There isn't an assumption implied. Since the majority of anti abortion activist are opposing it based on religious beliefs (if they're reasoning is to be believed...) that's why I said it.

I don't think it's a stretch to say atheists or agnostics don't support pro choice.


----------



## fjnmusic

JCCanuck said:


> Heard about this law becoming a possibility a few days ago and now it is a reality (or lack of). Tennessee is up to its old anti-science tricks again. In a new twist on an old classic, a modern "monkey bill," which encourages teachers to explore "alternative" explanations for established scientific theories, recently passed in both the Tennessee House and Senate. Ugh!
> Found these great cartoons in a response to Intelligent Design...


You do realize that Darwin called his proposal on evolution a THEORY as well, don't you? If not, then you are just as myopic as the creationists you slam.


----------



## Macfury

Atheist and Agnostic Pro-Life League Homepage

Amazon.com: The Liberal Case Against Abortion (9780977223435): Vasu Murti, Carol Crossed: Books

Libertarians for Life Homepage

Atheists Against Abortion | Facebook


----------



## groovetube

Macfury said:


> Atheist and Agnostic Pro-Life League Homepage
> 
> Amazon.com: The Liberal Case Against Abortion (9780977223435): Vasu Murti, Carol Crossed: Books
> 
> Libertarians for Life Homepage
> 
> Atheists Against Abortion | Facebook


I guess you misunderstood (again). I don't think it's a question of whether atheists or agnostics are not pro choice, just how HUGE is it?

Explain.


----------



## fjnmusic

groovetube said:


> There isn't an assumption implied. Since the majority of anti abortion activist are opposing it based on religious beliefs (if they're reasoning is to be believed...) that's why I said it.
> 
> I don't think it's a stretch to say atheists or agnostics don't support pro choice.


Many nonreligious people don't support abortion simply on the grounds that it's killing a fetus. Pro-choice doesn't mean for abortion, it simply means it is the woman's right to choose.

For example, I am against abortion under most circumstances, but I am also pro-choice. I believe it is the woman's right to choose, even though sometimes the choice might be defined as murder under certain circumstances. This is not a religious argument, but a biological one, or perhaps a legal or ethical one.


----------



## Macfury

groovetube said:


> I guess you misunderstood (again). I don't think it's a question of whether atheists or agnostics are not pro choice, just how HUGE is it?


If you can keep with the thread for a minute, we were not discussing how huge this contingent was, but how huge an assumption you had made in ascribing these view to religious groups.


----------



## fjnmusic

Amen to that, brother.


----------



## MacGuiver

I've said this before but it doesn't seem to be sinking in. My opposition to abortion is firmly rooted in what we know of human development and what we know of the procedures performed. Biological reality. If I were to abandon my religion, those convictions wouldn't be affected. There are atheists that have drawn the same conclusions as I have based their awareness of the issue.


----------



## bryanc

MacGuiver said:


> My opposition to abortion is firmly rooted in what we know of human development and what we know of the procedures performed. Biological reality. If I were to abandon my religion, those convictions wouldn't be affected. There are atheists that have drawn the same conclusions as I have based their awareness of the issue.


As a developmental biologist, who knows a fair bit about human development (and particularly the development of the CNS), and as someone who does not oppose abortion, I'm having trouble understanding your reasoning. Would you mind laying it out for me. If you can make a reasonable argument for opposing a woman's right to decide wether or not to support a developing embryo with her own body that does not make reference to souls or other supernatural constructs, I'd be very interested in hearing it.


----------



## groovetube

Macfury said:


> If you can keep with the thread for a minute, we were not discussing how huge this contingent was, but how huge an assumption you had made in ascribing these view to religious groups.


If you stopped to read people's posts, you would see that I did not make any such "huge" assumption. I merely addressed the religious groups attempting to force their beliefs on others.

It is -you-, who made an assumption, if only to troll.


----------



## Macfury

It's already over groove. The conversation has passed you by again.


----------



## groovetube

Macfury said:


> It's already over groove. The conversation has passed you by again.


I'm afraid you aren't the thread cop here. 

I know you asserted in another thread that you read all posts in a thread that interests you, but clearly, you didn't in this case. fjn seemed miffed that I didn't include his non religious group in the anti pro choice side, so I clarified that I didn't intend to do so. But I guess that part of the conversation passed -you- by didn't it? Of course it did.

You simply can't help yourself on trolling can you. Try following the thread and actually reading what people post.


----------



## Macfury

MacGuiver said:


> I've said this before but it doesn't seem to be sinking in. My opposition to abortion is firmly rooted in what we know of human development and what we know of the procedures performed. Biological reality. If I were to abandon my religion, those convictions wouldn't be affected. There are atheists that have drawn the same conclusions as I have based their awareness of the issue.


My thoughts on the matter exactly.


----------



## groovetube

Trying to pass off your beliefs as having nothing to do with religious beliefs, is a joke. I'm not buying it.


----------



## Macfury

groovetube said:


> Trying to pass off your beliefs as having nothing to do with religious beliefs, is a joke. I'm not buying it.


Who is asking you to buy it? My comments aren't directed at you.


----------



## groovetube

Macfury said:


> Who is asking you to buy it? My comments aren't directed at you.


I wasn't talking to you either. So butt out then.


----------



## MacGuiver

bryanc said:


> As a developmental biologist, who knows a fair bit about human development (and particularly the development of the CNS), and as someone who does not oppose abortion, I'm having trouble understanding your reasoning. Would you mind laying it out for me. If you can make a reasonable argument for opposing a woman's right to decide wether or not to support a developing embryo with her own body that does not make reference to souls or other supernatural constructs, I'd be very interested in hearing it.


Maybe you should ask your fellow atheists that share my view.


----------



## groovetube

MacGuiver said:


> Maybe you should ask your fellow atheists that share my view.


Actually bryanc asked you a very good question. And I'd be very interested in the answer as well, since you've indicated that your opposition to abortion would be the same without religious beliefs.


----------



## Macfury

MacGuiver said:


> Maybe you should ask your fellow atheists that share my view.


Groovetube says he "isn't buying" your statement.


----------



## groovetube

ok, since you have shown a complete lack of any ability to have a conversation, and clearly, from your last post, your only reason for being here is to troll, I have placed you on ignore for now.

When, or if, you show that you can follow a conversation like an adult, perhaps I'll change that.


----------



## Macfury

groovetube said:


> ok, since you have shown a complete lack of any ability to have a conversation, and clearly, from your last post, your only reason for being here is to troll, I have placed you on ignore for now.


Buh-bye.


----------



## mrjimmy

Macfury said:


> Buh-bye.


Odd, if you didn't care as your response implies, then why have you been constantly engaging with GT? It seems as though you should have simply been ignoring him.

I think it hurts. Be strong.


----------



## Macfury

mrjimmy said:


> Odd, if you didn't care as your response implies, then why have you been constantly engaging with GT? It seems as though you should have simply been ignoring him.
> 
> I think it hurts. Be strong.


It's the Henry Higgins in me, mrjimmy. It'll be a tough few minutes as I adjust to the new reality... but I must soldier on.


----------



## bryanc

MacGuiver said:


> Maybe you should ask your fellow atheists that share my view.


I've never met any atheists who oppose a woman's sovereignty over her own body. But you said that *you* were able to make a non-religious argument based on the facts of human development. I'm unable to fathom how someone could make such a case, so I await enlightenment with baited breath.

As for the meaningless squabbling between MF and GT; why don't you two get a room?


----------



## MazterCBlazter

.


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> I'm unable to fathom how someone could make such a case, so I await enlightenment with baited breath.


One of my pet peeves. It should be "bated" breath--as in "abated." Unless you've eaten something in an effort to attract MacGuiver with the resulting aroma...


----------



## bryanc

MazterCBlazter said:


> The Catholic schools round up all their students and take them out of class by bus to go to abortion protests.


I don't doubt that this is true, but I'd appreciate a link to evidence if you can provide it.


----------



## MazterCBlazter

.


----------



## bryanc

Macfury said:


> One of my pet peeves. It should be "bated" breath--as in "abated." Unless you've eaten something in an effort to attract MacGuiver with the resulting aroma...


Right you are. However, I'll leave the original post as is, because the misspelling does make it almost a pun.


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> Right you are. However, I'll leave the original post as is, because the misspelling does make it almost a pun.


I'm just being an ass, but it was at least a bit of fun.


----------



## MazterCBlazter

.


----------



## mrjimmy

Macfury said:


> It's the Henry Higgins in me, mrjimmy.


To each their own. Just try not to put the 'pig' in Pygmalion.


----------



## MacGuiver

Hey we sent our kids to a Catholic school and they had the audacity to present Catholic moral teaching!
Love the picture. Bigots protesting bigotry.


----------



## bryanc

MazterCBlazter said:


> It happen to my kids. They were very unhappy about it. The parents were neither informed nor asked permission for this extra curricular activity.


Yikes. Okay, thanks for this; I'd never heard about it.

I played with the Catholic Schools All City Band for years, and many of my best friends are/were Catholics (many of them have given up on their faith since learning to think for themselves), and I'd heard some pretty horrible things about the Catholic school system, but I'd never heard about this.

I'd love to see some kid at one of those protests walking up to the media and telling them "I didn't want to come here... our teachers made us do this." Imagine the headlines.. :lmao:

Of course, tarnishing the reputation of the Catholic Church has become rather like shooting fish in a barrel these days, so it's probably not worth the effort anymore.


----------



## bryanc

MacGuiver said:


> Hey we sent our kids to a Catholic school and they had the audacity to present Catholic moral teaching!


They can present their ideas all they like. Dragging other peoples' kids to protests is an entirely different thing.


----------



## CubaMark




----------



## Coriolis99

bryanc said:


> I've never met any atheists who oppose a woman's sovereignty over her own body. ?


Parachuting into this thread. 


Interesting turn of phrase. 

Interesting how a woman can make a unilateral decision regarding the obliteration of her unborn child, the father having no say.

Yet should she decide to carry on with the pregnancy, the man is fully financially responsible, with criminal consequences should he refuse to pay up. 

Having one's cake and eating it too must be nice..

Let's take a third option.

Instead of men and women whoring around, getting abortions or chasing the baby daddy in the courts, maybe people should wait to be married before copulating.

That way aN unwanted pregnancy is more of an "oh well, let's put some extra cash aside" situation rather than one that calls for coat hangers and a shop vac.

But then, commitment, love and family values are hopelessly outmoded ideas sacrificed on the altar of womens' rights. 

Political correctness, atheism and misandry are all symptoms of the Marxist disease. The sooner people wake up from their propaganda induced slumber the better.

I am a Christian and I believe in traditional values. Before some liberal arts hipster calls me a Luddite, let me dig up my engineering diploma so I can rub it in their face. 

Oh the faith non scientists have in the scientific method. Oh how poorly they understand it.


----------



## MacGuiver

bryanc said:


> They can present their ideas all they like. Dragging other peoples' kids to protests is an entirely different thing.


You're missing the point. What dumb ass sends his kids to a Catholic School and is shocked that they're taught Catholic values?
Like sending a kid to the cub scouts and getting pissed they go camping. The obvious action to be taken is to send your kid to Public school where they should have been to start with. There they'll hear nothing but glowing reviews of abortion and any other issues that float a secular progressives boat.


----------



## MazterCBlazter

.


----------



## fjnmusic

Coriolis99 said:


> Parachuting into this thread.
> 
> 
> Interesting turn of phrase.
> 
> Interesting how a woman can make a unilateral decision regarding the obliteration of her unborn child, the father having no say.
> 
> Yet should she decide to carry on with the pregnancy, the man is fully financially responsible, with criminal consequences should he refuse to pay up.
> 
> Having one's cake and eating it too must be nice..
> 
> Let's take a third option.
> 
> Instead of men and women whoring around, getting abortions or chasing the baby daddy in the courts, maybe people should wait to be married before copulating.
> 
> That way aN unwanted pregnancy is more of an "oh well, let's put some extra cash aside" situation rather than one that calls for coat hangers and a shop vac.
> 
> But then, commitment, love and family values are hopelessly outmoded ideas sacrificed on the altar of womens' rights.
> 
> Political correctness, atheism and misandry are all symptoms of the Marxist disease. The sooner people wake up from their propaganda induced slumber the better.
> 
> I am a Christian and I believe in traditional values. Before some liberal arts hipster calls me a Luddite, let me dig up my engineering diploma so I can rub it in their face.
> 
> Oh the faith non scientists have in the scientific method. Oh how poorly they understand it.


Blunt but effective. Nice to hear a new voice, parachute person.


----------



## MazterCBlazter

.


----------



## MacGuiver

MazterCBlazter said:


> After only a year in the Catholic school system, you should hear my kids talk about it. They have nothing good and a lot bad to say about it. Some say the Catholic schools are public. BS. A lot extra was paid for them to go there. They should not be entitled to a penny of public tax money.


I'm sure their negative views have nothing to do with their Catholic bashing father.


----------



## groovetube

Coriolis99 said:


> Parachuting into this thread.
> 
> 
> Interesting turn of phrase.
> 
> Interesting how a woman can make a unilateral decision regarding the obliteration of her unborn child, the father having no say.
> 
> Yet should she decide to carry on with the pregnancy, the man is fully financially responsible, with criminal consequences should he refuse to pay up.
> 
> Having one's cake and eating it too must be nice..
> 
> Let's take a third option.
> 
> Instead of men and women whoring around, getting abortions or chasing the baby daddy in the courts, maybe people should wait to be married before copulating.
> 
> That way aN unwanted pregnancy is more of an "oh well, let's put some extra cash aside" situation rather than one that calls for coat hangers and a shop vac.
> 
> But then, commitment, love and family values are hopelessly outmoded ideas sacrificed on the altar of womens' rights.
> 
> Political correctness, atheism and misandry are all symptoms of the Marxist disease. The sooner people wake up from their propaganda induced slumber the better.
> 
> I am a Christian and I believe in traditional values. Before some liberal arts hipster calls me a Luddite, let me dig up my engineering diploma so I can rub it in their face.
> 
> Oh the faith non scientists have in the scientific method. Oh how poorly they understand it.


Here's an idea, let's solve all of the problems by telling people, they have to wait until they're married to have sex, just say no to drugs, and live by all the principles of the bible.

Oh wait, even most of the ones standing on pulpits with a bible in their hands shouting all this don't live by it.

Before you start mouthing off about 'liberal arts hipsters', (I know quite a few who lead exemplary lives in great families with kids...) perhaps you should look at the actions of those who preach your sermon the most.


----------



## CubaMark




----------



## groovetube

hah


----------



## JCCanuck

groovetube said:


> Here's an idea, let's solve all of the problems by telling people, they have to wait until they're married to have sex, just say no to drugs, and live by all the principles of the bible.
> 
> Oh wait, even most of the ones standing on pulpits with a bible in their hands shouting all this don't live by it.
> 
> Before you start mouthing off about 'liberal arts hipsters', (I know quite a few who lead exemplary lives in great families with kids...) perhaps you should look at the actions of those who preach your sermon the most.


+1

"Political correctness, atheism and misandry are all symptoms of the Marxist disease".
Really? How can I take that statement by Coriolis99 and the rest of the post seriously?


----------



## JCCanuck

The church of Homer makes more sense than the real church.


----------



## screature

MazterCBlazter said:


> After only a year in the Catholic school system, you should hear my kids talk about it. They have nothing good and a lot bad to say about it. Some say the Catholic schools are public. BS. A lot extra was paid for them to go there. They should not be entitled to a penny of public tax money.


Depends on where you live... in Quebec Protestant and Catholic schools *are* public schools all funded by the same tax dollar. I went to a Catholic school and I have to say there was next to no "indoctrination". There was a religion class but really it was more fundamentally just a morals and ethics class and in later years you could opt out of taking religion class (required parental permission) to take something else that fit more within the track you were on, i.e. you could take an extra science for example if that was where you were headed post secondary.

In fact it was my studies there of history and science that led me to becoming agnostic. One cannot lump all Catholic schools or school systems into the same basket just like anything else, there are significant differences between schools and school boards as well as how they are funded.


----------



## Coriolis99

groovetube said:


> Here's an idea, let's solve all of the problems by telling people, they have to wait until they're married to have sex, just say no to drugs, and live by all the principles of the bible.
> 
> Oh wait, even most of the ones standing on pulpits with a bible in their hands shouting all this don't live by it.
> 
> Before you start mouthing off about 'liberal arts hipsters', (I know quite a few who lead exemplary lives in great families with kids...) perhaps you should look at the actions of those who preach your sermon the most.


Humans are not infallible, there are good and bad people on both sides.

Do as I say not as I do is far too prevalent in the majority of denominations.

This being said, successful marriages all have one thing in common. They follow biblical tenets, whether the people know it or not.


----------



## screature

Coriolis99 said:


> Humans are not infallible, there are good and bad people on both sides.
> 
> Do as I say not as I do is far too prevalent in the majority of denominations.
> 
> *This being said, successful marriages all have one thing in common. They follow biblical tenets, whether the people know it or not*.


Not true at all. There are plenty of successful marriages that are based on other faiths that have nothing to do with Christianity and plenty of failed ones that are Christian.

As well there are plenty of successful ones that are not based in any faith at all just good morals and ethics... like mine and almost all my friends and family including my in-laws who are in their 90s and have been married for over 50 years.


----------



## Coriolis99

JCCanuck said:


> +1
> 
> "Political correctness, atheism and misandry are all symptoms of the Marxist disease".
> Really? How can I take that statement by Coriolis99 and the rest of the post seriously?


Yes, really.

Do what you want. My statements are based on years of research corroborated by empirical and in some cases statistical evidence. 

Ask yourself this. For 3500 years of recorded history, humanity has behaved in a certain way. how could we have determined a better way of doing things in the last 50 years?

Marxism is alive and well, make no mistake. Every social science class is filled with Marxist rhetoric. Scientific evidence, so worshipped when using it to tear down religious faith is totally ignored when it comes to discussing differences in race and gender.

You know, because weak men and strong women is a great way to raise children.

Because affirmative action is totally equitable and morally acceptable. 

Because a husband sleeping around behind his wife's back (or, increasingly, vice versa) is a great way to keep a marriage going.

Because disarming the population is a great way to protect the people.

Because Marxism has never done anything bad, ever, and religion has never done anything good.

Down is up, cold is hot, brutality is virility, promiscuity is virtue, war is peace, ignorance is strength.

Like I said, believe whatever you want. I don't care and I can't and won't impose my beliefs on you. 

All im saying is that I've been on both sides, swallowing the Marxist rhetoric hook line and sinker for years until I finally woke up. And now that I did I can see liberal values for the house of cards they really are. 

Next time you pick up a random slut at a bar to use and discard, ask yourself why you feel like a piece of **** afterwards. Maybe there's more to life than the singular pursuit of pleasure.


----------



## Coriolis99

screature said:


> Not true at all. There are plenty of successful marriages that are based on other faiths that have nothing to do with Christianity and plenty of failed ones that are Christian.
> 
> As well there are plenty of successful ones that are not based in any faith at all just good morals and ethics... like mine and almost all my friends and family including my in-laws who are in their 90s and have been married for over 50 years.


That is my point. Man is faithful to his wife, the wife supports and defers her man, the wife nurtures the children while the husband protects and provides discipline. 

All of these values are universal to all lasting marriages. They are also in the bible.


----------



## screature

Coriolis99 said:


> That is my point. *Man is faithful to his wife, the wife supports and defers her man, the wife nurtures the children while the husband protects and provides discipline. *
> 
> All of these values are universal to all lasting marriages. They are also in the bible.


That's just archaic... this is NOT how all successful marriages work at all. No point in talking about this further as I strongly disagree.


----------



## SINC

Coriolis99 said:


> That is my point. Man is faithful to his wife, the wife supports and defers her man, the wife nurtures the children while the husband protects and provides discipline.
> 
> All of these values are universal to all lasting marriages. They are also in the bible.


As one who has been happily married for 47 years, I can confidently tell you that your so far out to lunch it isn't even funny. You have no connection with reality with views like that, nor have you experienced enough of married life to know just how very wrong you are. Marriage is all about love and sharing responsibilities and respect.


----------



## Coriolis99

SINC said:


> As one who has been happily married for 47 years, I can confidently tell you that your so far out to lunch it isn't even funny. You have no connection with reality with views like that, nor have you experienced enough of married life to know just how very wrong you are. Marriage is all about love and sharing responsibilities and respect.


In what way is that any different than what I posted? You certainly wouldn't still be married were you a weak subservient man.


----------



## bryanc

Coriolis99 said:


> You certainly wouldn't still be married were you a weak subservient man.


:lmao: I was going to spend some time obliterating your argument pice by brain-dead-piece, but you beat me to it by posting this foolishness. You clearly have no clue about the diversity of healthy relationships, history, psychology, or anything else (engineering 'diploma' notwithstanding).

Have fun living in your cave with your bronze-age brethren.


----------



## SINC

Coriolis99 said:


> In what way is that any different than what I posted? You certainly wouldn't still be married were you a weak subservient man.


Oh, how about this different?



Coriolis99 said:


> That is my point. Man is faithful to his wife, the wife supports and defers her man (never happens), the wife nurtures the children (we both did) while the husband protects (my wife stood her ground all by herself as a working RN) and provides discipline (shared mutually).
> 
> All of these values are universal to all lasting marriages. They are also in the bible. (The bible played no part in our marriage.)


----------



## groovetube

truly one of the most arrogant things written about marriage I've seen to date.

Even the most preachy of my christian friends would bristle at the idea of this being uttered by anyone who believes in the bible.


----------



## screature

bryanc said:


> :lmao: I was going to spend some time obliterating your argument pice by brain-dead-piece, but you beat me to it by posting this foolishness. You clearly have no clue about the diversity of healthy relationships, history, psychology, or anything else (engineering 'diploma' notwithstanding).
> 
> Have fun living in your cave with your *bronze-age brethren*.


Not even bronze age, more like stone age.


----------



## Coriolis99

Haters gonna hate, but having seen a couple of marriages fall apart because the men were weak and put their wives up on pedestals, there is no way I can believe what you say.

Oh I believe you guys are married but I don't believe you are all girly men. 

A happy man is a happy relationship. A happy woman is a miserable man.


----------



## screature

Coriolis99 said:


> Haters gonna hate, but having seen a couple of marriages fall apart because the men were weak and put their wives up on pedestals, there is no way I can believe what you say.
> 
> Oh I believe you guys are married but I don't believe you are all girly men.
> 
> *A happy man is a happy relationship. A happy woman is a miserable man.*


Unbelievable....


----------



## bryanc

Coriolis99 said:


> Haters gonna hate, but having seen a couple of marriages fall apart because the men were weak


And chauvinists are never gonna get that people are individuals, regardless of their gender.

No wonder you like the bible. It fits your myopic world view.


----------



## rgray

deleted


----------



## Bryce

bryanc said:


> Of course. And I've never met an atheist who doesn't find the idea of abortion objectionable.
> I think all healthy adults should donate blood, but I would strenuously oppose legislation making it mandatory.


Am unable to contribute to the blood trough.
A homosexual since forever with an internal
compromised immune system.


As one surgeon I had a run in with noted:
"If you're ill and going to die, hurry up,
there are too many others who want your 
bed for their own maladies!"


----------



## fjnmusic

screature said:


> Depends on where you live... in Quebec Protestant and Catholic schools *are* public schools all funded by the same tax dollar. I went to a Catholic school and I have to say there was next to no "indoctrination". There was a religion class but really it was more fundamentally just a morals and ethics class and in later years you could opt out of taking religion class (required parental permission) to take something else that fit more within the track you were on, i.e. you could take an extra science for example if that was where you were headed post secondary.
> 
> In fact it was my studies there of history and science that led me to becoming agnostic. One cannot lump all Catholic schools or school systems into the same basket just like anything else, there are significant differences between schools and school boards as well as how they are funded.


Amen to that. Here in Alberta we also have publicly funded Catholic (separate) schools. I work in one. We also accept any students regardless of background because we are Catholic schools, not schools for Catholics, just as there are Catholic and Jewish hospitals who accept all patients.

It is also naive to think that public schools are not indoctrinating people into particular belief systems or values quite apart from religion. Something as simple as "raise your hand before you speak" or singing the national anthem assumes a number of things you are expected to go along with whether you agree or not. One is that students cannot be trusted to make responsible choices about simple bodily functions, which is why they have to ask permission to go to the bathroom. Can you picture this concept with adults in the workplace?

It's not really about religious schooling. It's about group dynamics and adopting the values of the society in which you live. Or being shunned.


----------



## groovetube

Coriolis99 said:


> Haters gonna hate, but having seen a couple of marriages fall apart because the men were weak and put their wives up on pedestals, there is no way I can believe what you say.
> 
> Oh I believe you guys are married but I don't believe you are all girly men.
> 
> A happy man is a happy relationship. A happy woman is a miserable man.


looks like someone hasn't learned that respecting another person in a relationship is one of the main keys to a successful and happy relationship/marriage.

Has worked for me for over 20 years.


----------



## JCCanuck

bryanc said:


> And chauvinists are never gonna get that people are individuals, regardless of their gender.
> 
> No wonder you like the bible. It fits your myopic world view.


+!


----------



## JCCanuck

screature said:


> Not even bronze age, more like stone age.


That argument with bronze or stone age won't work, I'm sure "Coriolis99" is a proponent of intelligent design.


----------



## bryanc

I kind of hope he posts some more, just for comedy value, but I think we may have scared him off. Those macho types are often cowards.


----------



## eMacMan

JCCanuck said:


> That argument with bronze or stone age won't work, I'm sure "Coriolis99" is a proponent of intelligent design.


Don't speak of evolution, it's time to draw the line.
And teach the unintelligent, intellegent design.
Our leader so religious, that heaven sets the tone.
God speaks to him in person now, since someone bugged the phones. 
(From "The George Bush Society")


----------



## rgray

deleted


----------



## groovetube

That just had to be a troll post. No one can be that pathetic as to believe a woman can't be happy in a marriage without the man being miserable, and say so publicly.


----------



## Coriolis99

Ah the like minded feminized men congregate to pile hate onto the scab. 

We've all seen it before, the best friend everyone tries to save from a psychotic girlfriend while he staunchly refuses to listen, and then proceeds full speed ahead to face plant spectacularly. 

Do what you will. Listen to Peter Mansbridge's siren call as you convince yourselves that your estrogen fueled lives are all playing out in accordance with natural law.

Your attitudes are 80 years old. They really began when Bernays et al convinced women to seek out work, ostensibly as an act of rebellion, thereby doubling the size of the taxable population.

It's sad to see just how well the system has succeeded in its quest to churn out feminized men, toothless sharks.


----------



## groovetube

think I'm right. There's no way anyone is this stupid. 

Troll.


----------



## eMacMan

groovetube said:


> think I'm right. There's no way anyone is this stupid.
> 
> Troll.


Rather, young and stupid. Oops a bit redundant there.


----------



## Macfury

Even if you disagree with these opinions, calling it "trolling" displays monumental ignorance. Either debate or step back.


----------



## SINC

Coriolis99 said:


> Listen to Peter Mansbridge's siren call as you convince yourselves that your estrogen fueled lives are all playing out in accordance with natural law.


Peter Mansbridge and the truth are so foreign to each other, it's no wonder you are so warped in your opinions. Natural law? You have no idea.

Not a troll at all, just plain misinformed.

Must everyone in your world be a troll, gt?


----------



## Macfury

"Peter Mansbridge" is what you say 'round these parts when you drop a hammer on your foot.


----------



## groovetube

SINC said:


> Peter Mansbridge and the truth are so foreign to each other, it's no wonder you are so warped in your opinions. Natural law? You have no idea.
> 
> Not a troll at all, just plain misinformed.
> 
> Must everyone in your world be a troll, gt?


No, just the self admitted one.

Isn't it rather obvious sinc? I mean, to actually think it's impossible for a man to be happy in a relationship if the woman is happy? It seems others think this is insane as well. (well perhaps most of them... )

This one smells. As I said, either the individual is incredibly disturbed, or, a troll.

One or the other. jmo.


----------



## Macfury

It's an embarrassment to the forum when a member immediately declares another member to be "disturbed." It says far more about the accuser than someone whose arguments they disagree with.


----------



## SINC

groovetube said:


> As I said, either the individual is incredibly disturbed, or, a troll.
> 
> One or the other. jmo.


Either way gt, it showcases your warped view of fellow posters when there is no middle ground and that, is very sad. Add to that calling anyone 'disturbed' is a direct reflection of your own issues.


----------



## groovetube

SINC said:


> Either way gt, it showcases your warped view of fellow posters when there is no middle ground and that, is very sad. Add to that calling anyone disturbed is a direct reflection of your own issues.


I don't really have many problems with anyone, save for the one on ignore who admitted to being a troll, and another well, I'm certainly not the only one with my opinion trust me. If it isn't me in a merry go round, it's always several others. I'm staying out of it for now.

It isn't so much that I disagree sinc, but this one, is really over the top. Don't you think?

It's my opinion, that misogyny like this so openly expressed, should be met with a strong reaction. I take it pretty seriously, perhaps if more did, there'd be less violence against women.

That's my opinion, and I won't apologize for it.


----------



## Coriolis99

groovetube said:


> It's my opinion, that misogyny like this so openly expressed, should be met with a strong reaction. I take it pretty seriously, perhaps if more did, there'd be less violence against women.
> 
> That's my opinion, and I won't apologize for it.


Take a moment to read the fathers for justice site and come back and repeat this. You are so superficial it's honestly disappointing.


----------



## MacGuiver

groovetube said:


> Here's an idea, let's solve all of the problems by telling people, they have to wait until they're married to have sex, just say no to drugs, and live by all the principles of the bible.


If people had the convictions to live that out, it would solve a mountain of social ills. Christianity has not be tried and found wanting, its been found difficult and not tried. Even by self identified Christians.

Would you not agree that waiting until marriage and joining yourself to one person for life that is equally committed would solve a boat load of social ills? If we were to make a list comparing the mental, financial and physical consequences of living the Christian ideal for human sexuality VS the hedonistic one that dominates our culture now, the scales would weigh overwhelmingly heavy against the popular culture.
Same goes for our appetites for drugs and alcohol.

A person may not be able to nor want to live that way, but you'd have a hard time arguing that the "if it feels good do it" approach to sexuality we see today has not reaped a heavy toll on humanity.


----------



## groovetube

Coriolis99 said:


> Take a moment to read the fathers for justice site and come back and repeat this. You are so superficial it's honestly disappointing.


Listen pal, you're the one who posted some pretty backwards stuff regarding women.

Deal with it. I find anyone with your attitude towards women, far worse, than simply "disappointing".


----------



## Coriolis99

groovetube said:


> Listen pal, you're the one who posted some pretty backwards stuff regarding women.
> 
> Deal with it. I find anyone with your attitude towards women, far worse, than simply "disappointing".


I'm not your pal. Don't condescend to me, it is the lowest form of insult.

What you fail to understand is the sacrifice I and people who think like me make for our families. Everything we do is to take care of the wife and children. I would take a bullet for my family without hesitating. Everything I do is out of love and adoration. I have devoted myself to my family on a level that you will never comprehend.

Sometimes that includes protecting my woman from herself. All it takes is some highly emotionally charged situation and a woman's sense of reason evaporates. This is why I have to make the tough calls and why she respects me as a man. And her respect of me, her trust and her love are what give my life purpose. 

I give everything I have and everything I am to my family. 

It is every man's duty to protect their family from harm either in the form of physical dangers or ideological poisons.

Feminism IS misandry by definition. It is counterproductive at best, destructive at its worst.

Man and woman have never been more equal or more confused about how to approach one another. As gender roles become corrupt so will gender relations. The family structure will suffer, emotional trauma will be commonplace and messed up parents will beget messed up children.

As posted earlier, a monogamous, wait until married, one woman for life relationship will solve a collection of social ills in one fell swoop.

But this is something mansbridge and the people who run the media will never allow to flourish. The hedonist is the ideal consumer. The family man is a conservative spender. Bad for the consumer economy.

Everything has its place. remember that. And you, so entranced by the media's ideals of "equality" and other such nonsense have to ask yourself... What if they're wrong?

As with everything consider the source. Follow the money and you will have the answer.


----------



## ehMax

If we can't have a discussion on ehMac about religion with civility and respect for other members, we won't be having the discussion here at all. 

A general warning to this thread... stop posting comments and insults directed to other members, no matter their point of view.


----------



## groovetube

Fine, you want to allow this sort of attitudes towards women to be posted, see ya.

On just about any other forum this would NOT be tolerated.

I would view these sorts of attitudes, precisely the same attitudes expressed by my ex brother in law who then beat my sister black and blue in front of their children because she had apparently lost "all reason because she was too emotional", as far more grave than the calling of it as "disturbed" or possibly a troll given the nature of how serious this is.

And I would wonder, about anyone, who would defend this.


----------



## MacDoc

> All it takes is some highly emotionally charged situation and a woman's sense of reason evaporates


did I walk into an 18th century time warp......chattel's n'all? 

I hear all these eminently sensible women rolling in their graves.

Women's Suffrage


----------



## groovetube

MacDoc said:


> did I walk into an 18th century time warp......chattel's n'all?
> 
> I hear all these eminently sensible women rolling in their graves.
> 
> Women's Suffrage


careful macdoc, you are insulting, woman bashing is protected here.


----------



## rgray

deleted


----------



## John Clay

rgray said:


> You are not going to allow insults to individuals but you *are allowing* insults to a whole gender (not to mention general misogyny)....... ??????
> 
> 
> 
> Groove is right.......
> 
> 
> A pretty bogus and lame position for you to hold Mr Mayor.


I stay out of this thread, as it's pretty much a hornets nest. I came here from groovetube's thread only to say I agree 100% with his, and the above, post.

Some people here need to grow up and smell the coffee.


----------



## jef

What we have here is a highly emotionally charged situation where man's sense of reason has evaporated. Maybe a woman could intervene and add some reason to this?


----------



## Rps

I think the noted words in post 1622 sez it all " protect my woman from herself".... Marriage is not ownership. This thread has become proof of the adage you don't discuss religion, sects, or politics..... Groove I agree with you and hope you stay


----------



## groovetube

thank you. I want to point out there are many things I could have said, that I would like to have said, but because I do respect the forum I didn't.

I'm a little upset at this, so perhaps I need some more coffee, and some fresh air.


----------



## fjnmusic

Rps said:


> I think the noted words in post 1622 sez it all " protect my woman from herself".... Marriage is not ownership. This thread has become proof of the adage you don't discuss religion, sects, or politics..... Groove I agree with you and hope you stay


Especially sects. Especially religious sects.


----------



## fjnmusic

groovetube said:


> thank you. I want to point out there are many things I could have said, that I would like to have said, but because I do respect the forum I didn't.
> 
> I'm a little upset at this, so perhaps I need some more coffee, and some fresh air.


You also need to realize the freedom of speech that demands protection is the freedom of speech with which you do not agree (Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr.). 

Calling other individuals "stupid," "disturbed," and "a troll" will normally earn you a three day holiday here. Don't let this guy get to you. I get his point, sort of, though his delivery could use some finesse. It's a forum. Attack the idea, not the person. Civility is needed on all sides.

And for what it's worth, the bible DOES look at marriage as ownership, with respect to the commandment about not coveting your neighbor's property, including his wife. You'll notice there is no mention of coveting your neighbor's husband, since husbands could not be owned as property at the time these "laws" were written. Not saying I agree, just clarifying a commonly misunderstood biblical reference.


----------



## groovetube

sure, and the bible also says to stone women who commit adultery too. Should we allow that too?

Sorry, there are things that should be confronted. I did so with a lot of restraint in my opinion. You can't allow this sort of thing and expect there wouldn't be a strong reaction. Freedom of speech goes both ways.


----------



## MacGuiver

No offence ehMax but this thread has been nothing but a soapbox for atheist bigots since its inception. In fact the thread would be dead long ago if not for atheists gleefully resurrecting it on a regular basis to spew their hate. On rare occasion the debate on here is sincere, exploratory and civil but its mostly composed of childish hate cartoons, pot shots at and simplified negative generalizations of religion and its adherents (especially Christianity).

The atheists are outraged at Coriallis unpopular and controversial views on the roles of men and women yet they fail to see the offensiveness of the hateful crap they gleefully perpetuate themselves, denigrating billions of people on this planet that have a faith life, many of them women by the way.

Dare I say if the hateful propaganda they posted here were directed at Jews or Muslims rather than Christians, this thread would be closed down in a hurry for its dissemination of hate propaganda. Seeing that anti-Christian hate speech is the last form of acceptable bigotry, the thread persists.

I credit your patients for tolerating this thread as long as you have being Christian yourself. I guess many of the atheists on here fail to see the irony in their outrage. Pot and kettle come to mind. 

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## bryanc

fjnmusic said:


> Especially sects. Especially religious sects.


Or people who treat anyone without a Y chromosome as if they had the brain of an in*SECT*.

But seriously, we should lay off the poor chap; it must be tough being an Australopithecine in the modern world.


----------



## Coriolis99

MacDoc said:


> did I walk into an 18th century time warp......chattel's n'all?
> 
> I hear all these eminently sensible women rolling in their graves.
> 
> Women's Suffrage


Would you say Luce Irigaray is someone you would generally agree with? You know because a woman can do no wrong. 

In typical left wing fashion many of you are howling at the injustices I spew forth in my posts. Oh how i love internet white knights Clearly I and that guy's degenerate brother in law must be cut from the same cloth.

Per your comments I hate women, beat women to a pulp. Hell lets call me gay while we're at it. Oh wait that's a group you wouldn't want to mess with. 

That this is the furthest thing from the truth is irrelevant as it spent fit the profile you are building. 

And the other guy crying about the forum admin promoting misogyny by not censoring my posts or what have you. Brilliant. Kindergarten logic. What he is allowing is free debate, as long as it stays respectful. Some of you have been anything but. 

Nothing I say or do will ever wake you up to the truth. You have to want to wake up. That's fine. Enjoy your lives. Contribute to the high divorce rate.


----------



## Coriolis99

I've been told many times to mix in some sugar with my words. No time. 

Y'all need to focus on the message and not the way it sounds. 

A little finesse? Wish I could but I've always been blunt. Useful in my line of work. Does ruffle feathers on occasion.


----------



## bryanc

MacGuiver said:


> No offence ehMax but this thread has been nothing but a soapbox for atheist bigots since its inception.


translation: I'm unable to refute any of the arguments, so I'm feeling put upon.



> On rare occasion the debate on here is sincere, exploratory and civil


I've been sincere and as civil as I could manage in every posting; but I'll admit the egregious misogyny exhibited recently is more than even I can tolerate.



> The atheists are outraged at Coriallis unpopular and controversial views on the roles of men and women yet they fail to see the offensiveness of the hateful crap they gleefully perpetuate themselves


I'm not aware of any. If you can point it out I'd be happy to change. If you're unhappy about people laughing at your religion, you shouldn't have such a funny religion. But you should realize that we'er not laughing at _you_, it's just the crazy beliefs you espouse that we can't resist making fun of.

And hey, I've posted things here that people have made fun of. That has forced me to re-examine some of my beliefs, or at the very least think of better ways to present them. You shouldn't let it upset you.



> Dare I say if the hateful propaganda they posted here were directed at Jews or Muslims rather than Christians, this thread would be closed down in a hurry for its dissemination of hate propaganda.


I don't think so. I certainly find the beliefs of Jews, Muslims, Zoroastrians, Hindus, Pastafarians, etc. equally risible, and I think I've made that quite clear. I genuinely have a great deal of difficulty understanding how any functional adult can believe in _any_ of that stuff.


----------



## Sonal

Coriolis99 said:


> I've been told many times to mix in some sugar with my words. No time.
> 
> Y'all need to focus on the message and not the way it sounds.
> 
> A little finesse? Wish I could but I've always been blunt. Useful in my line of work. Does ruffle feathers on occasion.


If you take no time to put some care into how you present your message, why should I take time to care about your message? 

If you would like people to focus on the message and not the way it sounds, present it in such a way that they way it sounds does not distract from the message.

Bluntness may be useful in your line of work, but this forum is not your job.


----------



## Macfury

Sonal said:


> If you take no time to put some care into how you present your message, why should I take time to care about your message?
> 
> If you would like people to focus on the message and not the way it sounds, present it in such a way that they way it sounds does not distract from the message.
> 
> Bluntness may be useful in your line of work, but this forum is not your job.


Bluntness does work to send some people into a tailspinning dither, and make them the worst proponents of their own positions and arguments. It's the cousin of an _ad hominem_ atack. By making one's opponents fold like wallflowers, their arguments also appear weak.


----------



## Coriolis99

Sonal said:


> If you take no time to put some care into how you present your message, why should I take time to care about your message?
> 
> If you would like people to focus on the message and not the way it sounds, present it in such a way that they way it sounds does not distract from the message.
> 
> Bluntness may be useful in your line of work, but this forum is not your job.


You try typing eloquent messages on this tiny keyboard!


----------



## Sonal

Coriolis99 said:


> You try typing eloquent messages on this tiny keyboard!


Other people manage it successfully.

EDIT to add: It is not the length of your message at issue here. Your ability to think through how to compose something isn't limited by your keyboard.


----------



## rgray

deleted


----------



## Coriolis99

Sonal said:


> Other people manage it successfully.


Do they manage to avoid the equally inscrutable wall of text effect?


----------



## Sonal

Coriolis99 said:


> Do they manage to avoid the equally inscrutable wall of text effect?


Yes. 

As I edited to add below, the issue is not your keyboard, it's what you choose to type on that keyboard. Unless your brain is located in the keys, it should not matter what you are using to type with.


----------



## groovetube

rgray said:


> Me? Contribute to the divorce rate? Unlikely. I've been married to the same woman for over 42 years because I treat her with the full measure of respect and independence due to any human and she returns the favour. Anything else would have led to disaster years ago.


Fully agree. Been wit my wife 22 years, and both of our happiness is the key. We both allow each other our emotional times, and support each other. It's called respect. And love.

I'm convinced like you if this wasn't the case, it would never have been successful.


----------



## bryanc

Coriolis99 said:


> Do they manage to avoid the equally inscrutable wall of text effect?


Why don't you come back when you've got time to sit down, think about what it is you're trying to say, and post that as concisely and coherently as you can. Because what you've posted so far indicates that you are a narrow-minded misogynist neanderthal with a dubious grip on reality. I hope that is not an accurate interpretation of your real beliefs, but you've dug quite a hole, so I'd suggest you lay off posting until you have time to properly clarify what you meant.


----------



## Coriolis99

rgray said:


> Me? Contribute to the divorce rate? Unlikely. I've been married to the same woman for over 42 years because I treat her with the full measure of respect and independence due to any human and she returns the favour. Anything else would have led to disaster years ago.


If she decides she needs to cheat on you and gives an elaborate series of excuses, are you ok with that?

We both know how women are affected by their emotions. It is your job as a man to protect her from falling victim to them. It is in effect the height of respect to acknowledge these faults and not look upon her unfavorably because of them. 

Marriage is about love charity and esteem. To love despite the faults and to do what must be done in both the husband and wife's case. 

I'll be the first to admit that my wife has saved me from a pile of dumb calls by helping me see things her way. As I have done for her.

Congrats on your many years of marriage. Same goes for Sinc.


----------



## bryanc

groovetube said:


> Been wit my wife 22 years, and both of our happiness is the key. We both allow each other our emotional times, and support each other. It's called respect.


Congratulations. I think the point here is that every relationship is unique; while there may be some who genuinely want and benefit from the stone-age traditions promoted in the bible (although I seriously doubt that any woman benefits from being treated as property), it certainly isn't the norm or something that would work for everyone.

A good relationship facilitates complementation; if the woman is taller/stronger/more competitive and the man is better with kids, why should that be a problem? If both partners are men, who's to say that's not a healthy relationship? Whatever works for the individuals involved is the definition of success. It's hard enough to find happiness without having to conform to external societal expectations, especially the expectations of a long-extinct society like the one portrayed in the bible.


----------



## rgray

deleted


----------



## bryanc

Coriolis99 said:


> We both know how women are affected by their emotions. It is your job as a man to protect her from falling victim to them.


What planet are you from? I'm seriously curious, because women on this planet are as capable of being rational as men, and men are as prone to being affected by their emotions as women. How long did it take for you to travel here from your planet? Are there any other interesting things about your species you'd like to share?


----------



## bryanc

Coriolis99 said:


> If she decides she needs to cheat on you and gives an elaborate series of excuses, are you ok with that?


Ah... so this all comes down to sexual insecurity. That explains why you think you need to have an unquestionable dominance over your wife.

Pro tip: if she loves and respects you, you don't have to worry. If you're trying to control her through fear or authority, your doomed.


----------



## Coriolis99

bryanc said:


> What planet are you from? I'm seriously curious, because women on this planet are as capable of being rational as men, and men are as prone to being affected by their emotions as women. How long did it take for you to travel here from your planet? Are there any other interesting things about your species you'd like to share?


Oh really, you've never seen your mom, sister, wife or daughter blow a gasket over something completely trivial? 

A Quebec psychiatrist almost lost his medical license for having the gall to state that in his experience working in emergency rooms for 20 years, women were less capable than men under pressure to make the right call. 

You will have seen examples in your own life, I can assure you.


----------



## fjnmusic

Coriolis99 said:


> View attachment 23810
> 
> 
> You try typing eloquent messages on this tiny keyboard!


Ah, I see that since you have the iPhone 4S, you could actually just _dictate_ your message if you wish to be more eloquent. Watch out for the odd word substitutions however.


----------



## Sonal

I've seen men blow a gasket over something trivial too. 

After all, the Superbowl has been shown to trigger heart attacks in men.


----------



## Coriolis99

bryanc said:


> Ah... so this all comes down to sexual insecurity. That explains why you think you need to have an unquestionable dominance over your wife.
> 
> Pro tip: if she loves and respects you, you don't have to worry. If you're trying to control her through fear or authority, your doomed.


Absolutely nothing to do with it, though I consider that act to be the worst type of betrayal. I've always taken the attitude that if she's unhappy and feels like trying out some new guy she is free to do so. But the decision is final, there is no going back. If she's ready to leave and face the wrath of the children and restart her life from scratch, she is welcome to it. I won't stop her because if it gets to that point, nothing can save the marriage.


----------



## Coriolis99

Sonal said:


> I've seen men blow a gasket over something trivial too.
> 
> After all, the Superbowl has been shown to trigger heart attacks in men.


I don't want to offend anyone but sports fans are in my opinion the dumbest of simpletons. Barely a notch above "wrasslin" fans So it wouldn't surprise me.


----------



## fjnmusic

Sonal said:


> I've seen men blow a gasket over something trivial too.
> 
> After all, the Superbowl has been shown to trigger heart attacks in men.


Best be careful what you're calling trivial there, missy.


----------



## Sonal

Coriolis99 said:


> Absolutely nothing to do with it, though I consider that act to be the worst type of betrayal.


It's a betrayal, yes, and one that greatly hurts people.

But if you think this is the worst betrayal that can happen in a marriage, you lack imagination.

And if you believe that such acts occur in a vacuum, you have a very poor understanding of relationships.


----------



## Coriolis99

Coriolis99 said:


> I don't want to offend anyone but sports fans are in my opinion the dumbest of simpletons. Barely a notch above "wrasslin" fans So it wouldn't surprise me.


Though I can see the appeal I cannot relate to it

Wow quoted myself instead of editing. Genius.


----------



## Joker Eh

Coriolis99 said:


> Absolutely nothing to do with it, though I consider that act to be the worst type of betrayal. I've always taken the attitude that if she's unhappy and feels like trying out some new guy she is free to do so. But the decision is final, there is no going back. If she's ready to leave and face the wrath of the children and restart her life from scratch, she is welcome to it. I won't stop her because if it gets to that point, nothing can save the marriage.


Old thinking. She wouldn't start from scratch. Actually you would be starting from scratch. She would make you leave your house, keep the kids, you pay child support and alimony (to cover the cost of the mortgage, and bills and living) and you would have to find a place all on your own. All she has to do is call a lawyer and you would be out on the street.


----------



## Sonal

Coriolis99 said:


> I don't want to offend anyone but sports fans are in my opinion the dumbest of simpletons. Barely a notch above "wrasslin" fans So it wouldn't surprise me.


So then it doesn't surprise you that men also blow emotional gaskets over things that are ultimately trivial. 

In that case, why highlight women being emotional when clearly it's both genders?


----------



## Coriolis99

Sonal said:


> It's a betrayal, yes, and one that greatly hurts people.
> 
> But if you think this is the worst betrayal that can happen in a marriage, you lack imagination.
> 
> And if you believe that such acts occur in a vacuum, you have a very poor understanding of relationships.


Other than multiple homicides I don't see what can be worse. 

Of course it doesnt happen in a vacuum. It happens when people bottle up unhappiness for a long time. In typical north American fashion.


----------



## bryanc

Coriolis99 said:


> Oh really, you've never seen your mom, sister, wife or daughter blow a gasket over something completely trivial?


Have you never seen your dad, brother, son or other male similarly loose it over something trivial? 



> You will have seen examples in your own life, I can assure you.


Keep your assurances, thanks. You know nothing about my life.



> I consider [sex outside of the relationship] to be the worst type of betrayal.


Again, I think this reflects sexual insecurity on your part, more than anything else. Although I'm not personally interested in this sort of thing, I know several couples that enjoy that sort of stuff, and if everyone's happy with it, there's no betrayal and there's no harm done.

Humans seem to be the only primates that have hangups about monogamy. But then, we're also the only one's that have religion, so I guess we're just perverse in that way.


----------



## MacGuiver

> translation: I'm unable to refute any of the arguments, so I'm feeling put upon.


Yes the evangelical atheists arguments and logic posted here are always so amazing and bullet proof. Not to mention they always have the facts right and never exhibit a negative bias. 



> I've been sincere and as civil as I could manage in every posting; but I'll admit the egregious misogyny exhibited recently is more than even I can tolerate.


I agree your bigotry in sincere and there is always a candy coating of civility on the outside. 



> I'm not aware of any. If you can point it out I'd be happy to change.


How about the next two sentences that popped out of you head. 



> If you're unhappy about people laughing at your religion, you shouldn't have such a funny religion. But you should realize that we'er not laughing at _you_, it's just the crazy beliefs you espouse that we can't resist making fun of.


With logic like that, you'd surely give an inspiring lecture at an anti-bullying assembly. It would sound something like this:

If someone is making fun of your core beliefs and values, its OK really because your beliefs are crazy to them and you are as well for having them. Suck it up kid and learn from your bullies how to be smarter, better people like they are. Don't look at their constant ridicule and taunts as hatred but a learning opportunity to change to be better people like them.
. 



> And hey, I've posted things here that people have made fun of. That has forced me to re-examine some of my beliefs, or at the very least think of better ways to present them. You shouldn't let it upset you.


Why should bigotry expressed towards christianity be any less upsetting and tolerable to me than this is to you?


> "egregious misogyny exhibited recently is more than even I can tolerate"





> I don't think so. I certainly find the beliefs of Jews, Muslims, Zoroastrians, Hindus, Pastafarians, etc. equally risible, and I think I've made that quite clear. I genuinely have a great deal of difficulty understanding how any functional adult can believe in _any_ of that stuff.


I agree. You've certainly been consistent but you certainly have a special fire in your belly against Christianity.


----------



## JCCanuck

Coriolis99 said:


> Oh really, you've never seen your mom, sister, wife or daughter blow a gasket over something completely trivial?
> 
> A Quebec psychiatrist almost lost his medical license for having the gall to state that in his experience working in emergency rooms for 20 years, women were less capable than men under pressure to make the right call.
> 
> You will have seen examples in your own life, I can assure you.


You can assure me not! Stop putting your erroneous conclusions in other people's mouths. One statement from a psychiatrist does not make your argument conclusive. Married over 20 years strong and both of us had emotional pitfalls which we helped each other out of it. It takes team work and honesty for a good relationship. 
By the way psychiatry to me and others is not an exact science.


----------



## Coriolis99

bryanc said:


> Have you never seen your dad, brother, son or other male similarly loose it over something trivial?
> 
> 
> 
> Keep your assurances, thanks. You know nothing about my life.
> 
> 
> Again, I think this reflects sexual insecurity on your part, more than anything else. Although I'm not personally interested in this sort of thing, I know several couples that enjoy that sort of stuff, and if everyone's happy with it, there's no betrayal and there's no harm done.
> 
> Humans seem to be the only primates that have hangups about monogamy. But then, we're also the only one's that have religion, so I guess we're just perverse in that way.


If you think the swinger lifestyle is the best way to raise kids then I never want to see your kids. 

Some people like to copulate with farm animals. Doesn't make it right. 

Stop projecting. The only thing I am insecure about is the stock market. You either stay together and live the family life or you don't. 

So yes, I call it the ultimate betrayal and it is. I've seen what it did to my cousin and his daughters. But as much as it hurt then she payed the price. Heo own family disowned her. So yeah you can say she started from scratch.


----------



## Sonal

Coriolis99 said:


> Other than multiple homicides I don't see what can be worse.
> 
> Of course it doesnt happen in a vacuum. It happens when people bottle up unhappiness for a long time. In typical north American fashion.


You probably want to think about this for a second. Sex outside of a marriage, vs multiple homicides. So what, a singular homicide isn't a bigger betrayal--you have to off multiple people to have a bigger betrayal?

But in any case, seems like an awfully big gap between 'sex' and 'murder' to me. You might want to give this some critical thought just for your own sake. Because from my perspective, either you're making wayyyy too big a deal out of infidelity, or not enough of one out of murder.


----------



## Sonal

Coriolis99 said:


> So yes, I call it the ultimate betrayal and it is. I've seen what it did to my cousin and his daughters. But as much as it hurt then she payed the price. Heo own family disowned her. So yeah you can say she started from scratch.


Ah, I get it. 

You are projecting what happened to your cousin all over this issue.

Makes much more sense now.


----------



## Coriolis99

Sonal said:


> You probably want to think about this for a second. Sex outside of a marriage, vs multiple homicides. So what, a singular homicide isn't a bigger betrayal--you have to off multiple people to have a bigger betrayal?
> 
> But in any case, seems like an awfully big gap between 'sex' and 'murder' to me. You might want to give this some critical thought just for your own sake. Because from my perspective, either you're making wayyyy too big a deal out of infidelity, or not enough of one out of murder.


Your failure to read between the lines is infuriating.


----------



## Sonal

Coriolis99 said:


> Your failure to read between the lines is infuriating.


Oh, I'm sorry, are you having an emotional reaction that's interfering with your judgement and ability to express what you mean exactly?


----------



## bryanc

Coriolis99 said:


> If you think the swinger lifestyle is the best way to raise kids then I never want to see your kids.


Who was talking about kids? My point is what works in a relationship is unique to to the relationship, and that your obsession with sex as the ultimate bond between two people is probably not healthy or representative.

But if you want to talk about kids, the happiest and best-adjusted kids I've ever met were raised by a couple of lesbians. I'd certainly take advice about how to raise children from them before someone who thinks a man needs to keep emotionally fragile women in check.



> Some people like to copulate with farm animals. Doesn't make it right.


You're the one bringing it up. What part of "consenting adults" are you having trouble understanding?



> Stop projecting.


You're the one projecting... in the very next paragraph: 


> I call it the ultimate betrayal and it is. I've seen what it did to my cousin and his daughters.


----------



## MLeh

Macfury said:


> "Peter Mansbridge" is what you say 'round these parts when you drop a hammer on your foot.


Best line in this thread. Where is that 'like' button?



Coriolis99 said:


> I'm not your pal. Don't condescend to me, it is the lowest form of insult.
> 
> What you fail to understand is the sacrifice I and people who think like me make for our families. Everything we do is to take care of the wife and children. I would take a bullet for my family without hesitating. Everything I do is out of love and adoration. I have devoted myself to my family on a level that you will never comprehend.
> 
> Sometimes that includes protecting my woman from herself. All it takes is some highly emotionally charged situation and a woman's sense of reason evaporates. This is why I have to make the tough calls and why she respects me as a man. And her respect of me, her trust and her love are what give my life purpose.
> 
> I give everything I have and everything I am to my family.
> 
> It is every man's duty to protect their family from harm either in the form of physical dangers or ideological poisons.
> 
> Feminism IS misandry by definition. It is counterproductive at best, destructive at its worst.
> 
> Man and woman have never been more equal or more confused about how to approach one another. As gender roles become corrupt so will gender relations. The family structure will suffer, emotional trauma will be commonplace and messed up parents will beget messed up children.
> 
> As posted earlier, a monogamous, wait until married, one woman for life relationship will solve a collection of social ills in one fell swoop.
> 
> But this is something mansbridge and the people who run the media will never allow to flourish. The hedonist is the ideal consumer. The family man is a conservative spender. Bad for the consumer economy.
> 
> Everything has its place. remember that. And you, so entranced by the media's ideals of "equality" and other such nonsense have to ask yourself... What if they're wrong?
> 
> As with everything consider the source. Follow the money and you will have the answer.





Coriolis99 said:


> If she decides she needs to cheat on you and gives an elaborate series of excuses, are you ok with that?
> 
> We both know how women are affected by their emotions. It is your job as a man to protect her from falling victim to them. It is in effect the height of respect to acknowledge these faults and not look upon her unfavorably because of them.
> 
> Marriage is about love charity and esteem. To love despite the faults and to do what must be done in both the husband and wife's case.
> 
> I'll be the first to admit that my wife has saved me from a pile of dumb calls by helping me see things her way. As I have done for her.
> 
> Congrats on your many years of marriage. Same goes for Sinc.





Coriolis99 said:


> Oh really, you've never seen your mom, sister, wife or daughter blow a gasket over something completely trivial?
> 
> A Quebec psychiatrist almost lost his medical license for having the gall to state that in his experience working in emergency rooms for 20 years, women were less capable than men under pressure to make the right call.
> 
> You will have seen examples in your own life, I can assure you.





Coriolis99 said:


> Absolutely nothing to do with it, though I consider that act to be the worst type of betrayal. I've always taken the attitude that if she's unhappy and feels like trying out some new guy she is free to do so. But the decision is final, there is no going back. If she's ready to leave and face the wrath of the children and restart her life from scratch, she is welcome to it. I won't stop her because if it gets to that point, nothing can save the marriage.





Coriolis99 said:


> Other than multiple homicides I don't see what can be worse.
> 
> Of course it doesnt happen in a vacuum. It happens when people bottle up unhappiness for a long time. In typical north American fashion.


Coriolis99 - Reading the progression of your posts is interesting. (I always have to take a few minutes or hours to contemplate responses, so my apologies for not joining in much sooner.)

I sense that you are feeling insecure, betrayed and angry. These are all emotions. You are posting mostly emotionally. Irony! However, you are projecting your feelings on the object of your wrath on all women. This is an interesting response, but not particularly productive.

Posting on this thread is doing nothing but crystalizing your feelings and your emotions, and you are becoming defensive. 

I sense, through your posts, that you are a very angry and controlling person.

Many of the people on this forum have enjoyed many happy years of marriage by having mutual respect for their spouses. Whether or not the wife works is completely irrelevant in a happy, mutually respective relationship, because in a happy marriage both partners will be working towards a common goal, whether or not one or both of them are working outside the home, and irrespective of who is the 'breadwinner' and who is the 'homemaker'.

Someone who is a control freak will want to maintain control, and one of the ways men exert control over women is to limit their opportunities for independence, by limiting their opportunities for financial independence.

The emancipation of women has less to do with 'more freedom for women' than it has to do with 'less control of women by men'.

You are trying to exert control by fiscal means. You can trap her body, make it so she can't leave, but not her mind. You can give her the options of 'stay or go', and if she is at the end of her rope, at the end of her tolerance, she may go, knowing that all she has given up to your controlling ways has to come to an end. If you are as controlling as you indicate through your posts she may very well have to 'leave it all' behind, at least initially.

There are transition houses for women in these situations, because the men consider their wives to be 'property', and consider it stealing for someone to help these women leave these emotionally abusive relationships. It can be almost as dangerous to try to help an abused woman escape an abusive relationship as to be the person escaping. There is a reason transition houses will not publish their addresses and will only accept donations through third parties - they don't want the men tracking the women down, because they come to 'get their property back'.

It's all about 'control'. Take a look in the mirror and think about your motivations for your actions. Stop reacting emotionally, and have a good think about yourself, and quit projecting this emotionalism on others.


----------



## bryanc

MacGuiver said:


> Yes the evangelical atheists arguments and logic posted here are always so amazing and bullet proof.


If you've seen a logical fault in any of the arguments I've posted, please elaborate. I make no apologies or excuses for the postings of anyone else, but I do try to be logically consistent.



> I agree your bigotry in sincere


Ohh... zing. Apparently I am a bigot. I'm cut to the quick. 

I will certainly admit that I have strong opinions, and that I'm aggressive in arguing my case, but I am eminently tolerant of other positions. If you can rationally defend your position, I respect that. If you can't, then I still respect your right to your irrational beliefs, I just don't respect the beliefs and won't tolerate their being forced upon others. You're in the later category, along with all my other religious friends and acquaintances.



> How about the next two sentences that popped out of you head.





bryanc said:


> If you're unhappy about people laughing at your religion, you shouldn't have such a funny religion. But you should realize that we're not laughing at _you_, it's just the crazy beliefs you espouse that we can't resist making fun of.


There is nothing bigoted or intolerant about that. I find your beliefs ludicrous and comical. Not intolerable; just risible. I don't argue that people with your beliefs should be persecuted or treated any differently than anyone else. I do argue that the _*beliefs*_ are not worthy of respect, but I am able to distinguish between the people that hold the beliefs and the beliefs themselves.



MacGuiver said:


> If someone is making fun of your core beliefs and values, its OK really because your beliefs are crazy to them and you are as well for having them.


Perhaps you should examine your core beliefs. If they really are ludicrous, you will benefit from examining them critically and developing a more rational world view. If you can rationally defend them from these attacks, then you don't have a problem.

More importantly, there's a big difference between teasing a kid at school (even if it is 'just teasing' it can be harmful, because kids are so socially vulnerable, especially at school) and challenging an adult to justify their beliefs. I've challenged and teased you, because you've posted extensively in support of a belief system that I think is ridiculous, indefensible and harmful to society. If that's hurt your feelings, I apologize, because I don't want to cause you emotional distress; I want to cause you _*intellectual*_ distress in the hope that the cognitive dissonance will trigger some long-calcified part of your brain to wake up and look rationally at the completely crazy basis of your beliefs... I mean, a bronze age jewish zombie as a role model?!? Come on!

Perhaps you should consider my jabs as the moral equivalent of your praying for someone; I'm trying to help you remember how to think.


----------



## MacDoc

Mleh +1 - good evidence why women should run the planet.

•••

Corlol virulence...good evidence against patriarchy. 

••

Bryanc - trying for sainthood 

••



> Originally Posted by MacGuiver
> Yes the evangelical atheists arguments and logic posted here are always so amazing and bullet proof.


amazing - he finally woke up to that.....

irony cuts both ways...


----------



## Coriolis99

MacDoc said:


> Mleh +1 - good evidence why women should run the planet.
> 
> &#149;&#149;&#149;
> 
> Corlol virulence...good evidence against patriarchy.
> 
> &#149;&#149;
> 
> Bryanc - trying for sainthood


No matriarchal society has ever survives the test of time.


----------



## bryanc

MLeh said:


> ....[lotsa great stuff cut]....I sense, through your posts, that you are a very angry and controlling person....[lots more great stuff cut]


:clap: Wow. Nailed it.


----------



## bryanc

coriolis99 said:


> no ... society ... ever survives the test of time.


t, ftfy


----------



## eMacMan

MLeh said:


> Coriolis99 - Reading the progression of your posts is interesting. (I always have to take a few minutes or hours to contemplate responses, so my apologies for not joining in much sooner.)
> 
> I sense that you are feeling insecure, betrayed and angry. These are all emotions. You are posting mostly emotionally. Irony! However, you are projecting your feelings on the object of your wrath on all women. This is an interesting response, but not particularly productive.
> 
> Posting on this thread is doing nothing but crystalizing your feelings and your emotions, and you are becoming defensive.
> 
> I sense, through your posts, that you are a very angry and controlling person.
> 
> Many of the people on this forum have enjoyed many happy years of marriage by having mutual respect for their spouses. Whether or not the wife works is completely irrelevant in a happy, mutually respective relationship, because in a happy marriage both partners will be working towards a common goal, whether or not one or both of them are working outside the home, and irrespective of who is the 'breadwinner' and who is the 'homemaker'.
> 
> Someone who is a control freak will want to maintain control, and one of the ways men exert control over women is to limit their opportunities for independence, by limiting their opportunities for financial independence.
> 
> The emancipation of women has less to do with 'more freedom for women' than it has to do with 'less control of women by men'.
> 
> You are trying to exert control by fiscal means. You can trap her body, make it so she can't leave, but not her mind. You can give her the options of 'stay or go', and if she is at the end of her rope, at the end of her tolerance, she may go, knowing that all she has given up to your controlling ways has to come to an end. If you are as controlling as you indicate through your posts she may very well have to 'leave it all' behind, at least initially.
> 
> There are transition houses for women in these situations, because the men consider their wives to be 'property', and consider it stealing for someone to help these women leave these emotionally abusive relationships. It can be almost as dangerous to try to help an abused woman escape an abusive relationship as to be the person escaping. There is a reason transition houses will not publish their addresses and will only accept donations through third parties - they don't want the men tracking the women down, because they come to 'get their property back'.
> 
> It's all about 'control'. Take a look in the mirror and think about your motivations for your actions. Stop reacting emotionally, and have a good think about yourself, and quit projecting this emotionalism on others.


Yes, the "Woman can only be happy through her man" point of view is quite repugnant. What I find astounding is the individuals who believe this, cannot comprehend why ultimately women do not buy into it.

For what it's worth I find it quite satisfying that my wife and I have stayed together through some very tough times. We stuck it out not because she was afraid to leave but because as a team we were able to prevail in situations where either of us working alone would have failed.

The trouble with being in total control, is in a way the controller has to do all the work. If ultimately the relationship fails he must also bear a very large portion of responsibility for the failure.


----------



## Coriolis99

Mleh good post, I respect ur intentions. You've given me a lot to think about. 

Though im not the control freak you paint I've had this strong aversion to the thought of adultery for a long time. I've seen it enough times around me. Quebec is great for that.

And it is something I would never do.


----------



## MacDoc

> No matriarchal society has ever survives the test of time.


perhaps because of brutal dismissive males that can't think straight and resort to violence??? Fancy that.

see I'm not so patient as Bryanc and when I perceive open predation as I do now both individual and as a destructive meme .....I tend to not tiptoe. 
Mleh has it.


----------



## Macfury

Some very interesting arguments on both sides here, whether or not I agree with them. Much better to have these civil exchanges in public than to squash debate merely because some people have an emotional reaction to the topic.


----------



## Sonal

Coriolis99 said:


> Mleh good post, I respect ur intentions. You've given me a lot to think about.
> 
> Though im not the control freak you paint I've had this strong aversion to the thought of adultery for a long time. I've seen it enough times around me. Quebec is great for that.
> 
> And it is something I would never do.


But (and I was actually being serious about this earlier) you may want to dig into exactly why this is so horrifying for you. Because when you start equating it with murder, well, that's putting it on a rather high anti-pedestal. 

I too, know a lot of people whose marriages have been directly affected by infidelity, and a lot of those survive it. Even those that don't, for a lot of people looking back, the infidelity was not the thing that ultimately hurt the worst or broke the marriage.

So I do think it would be valuable for you to examine where this idea that this is the worst thing that can happen comes from.


----------



## bryanc

Macfury said:


> Some very interesting arguments on both sides here, whether or not I agree with them. Much better to have these civil exchanges in public than to squash debate merely because some people have an emotional reaction to the topic.


I agree. However, I don't agree that we need to treat reprehensible statements with respect and civility. If you post something asinine, you deserved to be called out on it. If it's not what you meant, well, that's fine; say so, and try to be more careful about how you express yourself in the future.


----------



## MacDoc

Yeah MF - misogyny ain't polite no matter how euphemized.....in fact thanks to the Charter its illegal....no need to be polite at all over a destructive meme.

•••

move over Bryanc Ma Mleh has the floor and is wagging her finger somethin' fierce :clap:


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> I agree. However, I don't agree that we need to treat reprehensible statements with respect and civility. If you post something asinine, you deserved to be called out on it. If it's not what you meant, well, that's fine; say so, and try to be more careful about how you express yourself in the future.


I'm never one to suggest that opposing view require respect, just because they are views. However, responses should maintain a certain level of civility.


----------



## ehMax

groovetube said:


> Fine, you want to allow this sort of attitudes towards women to be posted, see ya.
> 
> On just about any other forum this would NOT be tolerated.
> 
> I would view these sorts of attitudes, precisely the same attitudes expressed by my ex brother in law who then beat my sister black and blue in front of their children because she had apparently lost "all reason because she was too emotional", as far more grave than the calling of it as "disturbed" or possibly a troll given the nature of how serious this is.
> 
> And I would wonder, about anyone, who would defend this.


Yes, I do allow people to post their attitudes and point of views here on ehMac, no matter how stupid. For the most part, as long as:

A) It's not attacking another member
B) It's not against the law. 

I've said many times, I don't censor topics on ehMac. 

There are plenty of intelligent, well thought out people here on ehMac on all sides of the fence who can counter other points of views without resorting to insults. 

I may not agree with what's being said, but I will defend the right to say it. If someone says something that is dumb, it's my experience that if you insult that person, or just shut them up, that only solidifies their point of few, and can even give them a sense of justification. 

If you logically and calmly state your point of view, you can actually affect change in the person you're having a discussion with. 

To insinuate because I let someone post their point of view, that ehMac endorses that point of view is insulting and foolish. On the contrary...


----------



## MacGuiver

Bryan

Thanks for caring so much. Every one of your insults and derogatory statements is like a bouquet of roses from a dear friend. I love you man!!


----------



## MLeh

Coriolis99 said:


> Mleh good post, I respect ur intentions. You've given me a lot to think about.
> 
> Though im not the control freak you paint I've had this strong aversion to the thought of adultery for a long time. I've seen it enough times around me. Quebec is great for that.
> 
> And it is something I would never do.


I learnt years ago that the only person you can actually control is yourself. Sometimes we can't control what happens to us either - we can only control our _reactions_ to what happens. Sometimes the reaction: to try to exert even more control on the other person - is counter-productive.

But nothing happens in isolation - not adultery, nothing. Everything is a consequence of prior actions (or inaction). Things like this don't just happen out of the blue, without some sort of prior indication.

Your fixation on adultery, as Sonal says, is ... _interesting_. Sex is a good part of marriage, but not the only aspect. Being emotionally available to the other person is as much a part of a good marriage as what happens between the sheets. Are you emotionally available to your spouse? Most extra-marital relationships aren't based on sex, but on emotional need.

You need to look at the complete relationship, and, again, consider the 'control' aspect of that relationship.


----------



## MLeh

MacDoc said:


> move over Bryanc Ma Mleh has the floor and is wagging her finger somethin' fierce :clap:


:blush:


----------



## steviewhy

sudo rm -rf /


----------



## fjnmusic

steviewhy said:


> Real men don't drop their hammers. Get a grip son.


It is the poor carpenter who blames his hammer.


----------



## Macfury

fjnmusic said:


> It is the poor carpenter who blames his hammer.


I use three man-hammers at a time--and just put up with the occasional inconvenience of dropping one.


----------



## Sonal

Macfury said:


> I use three man-hammers at a time--and just put up with the occasional inconvenience of dropping one.


So then, it wouldn't be unfair to characterize you as being very hammered....?


----------



## Macfury

Sonal said:


> So then, it wouldn't be unfair to characterize you as being very hammered....?


Ball-pean, claw, sledge HAMMERED!


----------



## MLeh

That explains a lot.


----------



## BigDL

bryanc said:


> Or people who treat anyone without a Y chromosome as if they had the brain of an in*SECT*.
> 
> But seriously, we should lay off the poor chap; it must be tough being an Australopithecine in the modern world.


Does that mean he walks around semi erect at all times? Sounds like a teen aged male to me.


----------



## eMacMan

Wonder how the Gideon Bible Thumpers would react if a local Muslim group wished to distribute the Koran in the Chelsey schools.



> CHESLEY, Ont. - Public school trustees defied vitriol, threats and impassioned pleas by finalizing a ban Tuesday on the free handouts of Gideon Bibles.
> 
> The 8-3 vote at the Bluewater District board barring distribution of any non-instructional religious materials ended months of fractious and emotionally charged debate over the ending of the decades-old practice.
> 
> The decision, which follows in the footsteps of several other public school boards in Canada, was made on legal advice that allowing the distribution could violate human-rights legislation.
> Bill Donovan, of Owen Sound, Ont., a father with one child in the Bluewater system, opposed the distribution because it "undermines the secular nature" of public schools.


Public school board defies threats, bar Gideon Bible distribution - Yahoo! News Canada


----------



## Macfury

Yep. they should just pick up their free Bibles after school.


----------



## bryanc

Indeed. It's hard to believe this is controversial, or that this was an 8-3 decision, rather being unanimous.

I guess it just goes to show that there is still a significant minority that want to return to the middle ages.


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> Indeed. It's hard to believe this is controversial, or that this was an 8-3 decision, rather being unanimous.
> 
> I guess it just goes to show that there is still a significant minority that want to return to the middle ages.


Not the Middle Ages, but the mid-1950s. Either way, the time has passed.


----------



## JCCanuck

Macfury said:


> Yep. they should just pick up their free Bibles after school.


Or get a bible app! Many available for free.


----------



## Macfury

JCCanuck said:


> Or get a bible app! Many available for free.


Yes, I believe copyright lapses after 2000 years.


----------



## MazterCBlazter

.


----------



## CubaMark

MazterCBlazter said:


> Take away the bible in your hotel room and put in a copy of the Koran when you leave. Especially when travelling in certain parts of the good old USA. Make sure there are some tracts on it on why Islam is the true religion, all the benefits, and how they can become one. You can get them for free from any Mosque


Heh heh heh heh heh heh heh....


----------



## MazterCBlazter

.


----------



## Macfury

MazterCBlazter said:


> I went to the "attitudes to women thread" and just my luck it pointed directly to the as usual disturbing content of this thread. This thread is a great substitute for caffeine when you need a boost or a good laugh.
> 
> Takes me right to the dark ages as we can see that many would like a return to those days that the Church was running things, oppressing science and freedom, generally making a big mess of everything. Torquemada would approve.


What about using "magick" to dominate others and earn business success?


----------



## MazterCBlazter

.


----------



## MazterCBlazter

.


----------



## Macfury

MazterCBlazter said:


> If that is what you are into go ahead. Up to you.


Don't recognize yourself there, huh? You posted quite a lot about this for several months.


----------



## MazterCBlazter

.


----------



## Macfury

Who knows, next year you might be supporting some religious belief or another. Maybe later this year.


----------



## rgray

deleted


----------



## MazterCBlazter

.


----------



## MacGuiver

Maybe you should consider taking your evangelical atheism on the road rather than waisting your energy here. Lots of guys cashing in on that these days with books and speaking engagements. Who knows, you could be the next Ricky Dawkins $$$.

Oh and be sure to donate to his Foundation. Tax deductible in the US too! 
Donate - RichardDawkins.net
I'm sure he's building an orphanage, a food bank or a hospital with it someplace.


----------



## MazterCBlazter

.


----------



## MazterCBlazter

.


----------



## bryanc

*Interesting study published in Science today...*

Today's (April 27, 2012) issue of _Science_ has an interesting (but not surprising) paper titled "Analytic Thinking Promotes Religious Disbelief." (PM me with an email address if you'd like me to send the full PDF).
From the abstract:


> Individual differences in the tendency to analytically override initially flawed intuitions in reasoning were associated with increased religious disbelief. Four additional experiments provided evidence of causation, as subtle manipulations known to trigger analytic processing also encouraged religious disbelief. Combined, these studies indicate that analytic processing is one factor (presumably among several) that promotes religious disbelief.


Of course, as the authors point out, this has no bearing on the validity or even value of religion, but it does help us understand why some people (like myself) simply can't conceive of how any adult human being can believe in religions, whereas others (like many of you here) have a completely different perspective; this is just the way we're wired. If you're fundamentally an intuitive thinker, it's far less difficult to accept the irrational nature of religion, but if you're inherently (or by training) inclined to analytical thought, it is very difficult (or in my case impossible) to accept.


----------



## screature

rgray said:


> :yawn: :yawn: :yawn: ..........................


+1


----------



## rgray

deleted


----------



## MLeh

I certainly didn't take the yawns out of context, and I don't think screature implied that they were in response to bryanc's post. All one has to do is read up.


----------



## Sonal

bryanc said:


> Of course, as the authors point out, this has no bearing on the validity or even value of religion, but it does help us understand* why some people (like myself) simply can't conceive of how any adult human being can believe in religions, *whereas others (like many of you here) have a completely different perspective; this is just the way we're wired. If you're fundamentally an intuitive thinker, it's far less difficult to accept the irrational nature of religion, but if you're inherently (or by training) inclined to analytical thought, it is very difficult (or in my case impossible) to accept.


A lack of imagination is certainly does take a certain something out of life.  beejacon


----------



## screature

rgray said:


> Please do not take my yawns out of context. You imply that that was my response to the paper *bryanc* just posted concerning "Analytic Thinking Promotes Religious Disbelief." Nothing could be further from the truth. I agree with the thesis of that paper. My yawns were to do with a different matter entirely.


I know where your yawns were directed... at MazterCBlazter's (aka Mr Wonderful) self glorification and megalomania.... it was understood. There was nothing implied by my +1 that would indicate what you are saying... you simply misunderstood.


----------



## rgray

deleted


----------



## bryanc

rgray said:


> I agree with the thesis of that paper. My yawns were to do with a different matter entirely.


Interesting (for those who don't know, rgray is a trained psychologist, and has the expertise to critically evaluate this paper). I read the paper and found it interesting and reasonably compelling, but I don't have the expertise to have much confidence that I'd catch any errors in reasoning. I am also prone to be somewhat skeptical of psychological studies, because I know how difficult it can be to get conclusive data.

I liked their argument that, while any of their experiments could easily be due to "off target effects", the only thing they all had in common (empirically) was the known effect on analytical reasoning, so their conclusion that their correlation between the effects of all of these experiments and religious disbelief is most parsimoniously explained as an effect of analytical thinking.


----------



## bryanc

Sonal said:


> A lack of imagination is certainly does take a certain something out of life.  beejacon


I like to think I have a pretty good and very active imagination. Imagination is a very important aspect of doing research. I'm just able to distinguish my imaginary fantasies from reality.


----------



## Sonal

bryanc said:


> I like to think I have a pretty good and very active imagination. Imagination is a very important aspect of doing research. I'm just able to distinguish my imaginary fantasies from reality.


And that's well and good.

I only poke at you for saying that you cannot conceive of how any adult can believe in religion. One doesn't have to believe to be able to conceive of how another person could.

But then, I would probably consider myself as favouring a more intuitive thinking style.


----------



## bryanc

Sonal said:


> I only poke at you for saying that you cannot conceive of how any adult can believe in religion. One doesn't have to believe to be able to conceive of how another person could


Yes, that's how I took it. And I really am bemused by this, because as I say, I do think I've got a pretty good imagination. I think I can imagine what it would be like to be a bat, I love imaginative fiction (and especially interesting ideas for alien life), and I make my living trying to imagine ways that things we don't understand might work, and how we could find out if that is true. But for the life of me I can't imagine what it would be like to actually _*believe*_ in the tenets of any religion.

I can work with the abstract logic of the beliefs (e.g. if you believe that the world is full of sin, and sinners will go to hell, then drowning your children before they become corrupted makes a certain amount of logical sense.) I just can't imagine actually believing.


----------



## Macfury

I eat more fried chicken in a day than most people do in a lifetime.


----------



## screature

Macfury said:


> I eat more fried chicken in a day than most people do in a lifetime.


:lmao:


----------



## fjnmusic

bryanc said:


> Yes, that's how I took it. And I really am bemused by this, because as I say, I do think I've got a pretty good imagination. I think I can imagine what it would be like to be a bat, I love imaginative fiction (and especially interesting ideas for alien life), and I make my living trying to imagine ways that things we don't understand might work, and how we could find out if that is true. But for the life of me I can't imagine what it would be like to actually _*believe*_ in the tenets of any religion.
> 
> I can work with the abstract logic of the beliefs (e.g. if you believe that the world is full of sin, and sinners will go to hell, then drowning your children before they become corrupted makes a certain amount of logical sense.) I just can't imagine actually believing.


And yet you do believe in science, do you not? One must surrender a certain amount of skepticism to take the word of a scientist on a given matter that one knows little about. The scientist now becomes the expert the same way the chief priest may have been in an earlier time. Take black holes, for example. Their existence can only be inferred, not proven, because we cannot see them, but we can see their effects. Another person may say much the same thing about god, or spirits, or the soul. We cannot prove their existence; the best we can do is infer based on other observable phenomena. 

I believe that neither religion nor science does a very good job of answering the most basic existential questions, however: where do we come from? Why are we here? Where do we go after we die? At one point does consciousness actually begin? Both disciplines, religion as well as science, can only guess at the answer to these rather fundamental questions. And I don't think anyone else really has the answers either.


----------



## Elric

Religion vs science? Really?
I'll take "this is why" and an explanation over "because the bible says so"

Honestly, the people that follow the bible as their "guide" frighten me.


----------



## JCCanuck

fjnmusic said:


> I believe that neither religion nor science does a very good job of answering the most basic existential questions, however: where do we come from? Why are we here? Where do we go after we die? At one point does consciousness actually begin? Both disciplines, religion as well as science, can only guess at the answer to these rather fundamental questions. And I don't think anyone else really has the answers either.


True science does not ask the existential question in a spiritual sense, that is totally a religious thought not scientific. At least in terms of where we came from, physically, science is trying to answer. If some theories don't pan out, it is thrown out. The Black Hole is plausible and is "always" being questioned like any other true scientific research. Religion does not, it always back to the bible or it's God's plan.


----------



## fjnmusic

JCCanuck said:


> True science does not ask the existential question in a spiritual sense, that is totally a religious thought not scientific. At least in terms of where we came from, physically, science is trying to answer. If some theories don't pan out, it is thrown out. The Black Hole is plausible and is "always" being questioned like any other true scientific research. Religion does not, it always back to the bible or it's God's plan.


In other words, science is not really equipped to answer these questions, just like I said. So is religion ill-equipped to provide a decent explanation beyond the "because I said so" approach. Both science and religion are perspectives for describing the universe around us, but neither is quite adequate when it comes to some pretty fundamental questions. Both can only offer guesses, with educated guesses in science based more on empirical data and therefore being more "believable." Still, people seem to need something to believe in, be it religion, medicine, molecular physics or the flying spaghetti monster. I don't think the need to have faith in something outside of ourselves is really all that bad, even it is ultimately irrational. It helps us cope.


----------



## bryanc

fjnmusic said:


> And yet you do believe in science, do you not?


For a certain range of the meaning of the word "belief." I have no faith in science, or scientists, but depending on how extraordinary their claims are, I will accept the claims of scientists (about topics within their expertise) until it conflicts with evidence I am able to interpret, and/or until a significant number of their peers make conflicting claims.

As for the process of science itself, I think the only aspects of my belief system that could be in anyway compared to faith are my confidence that the universe is self-consistent, and that logic works. I'd distinguish my confidence in these things from faith in that I'm not certain that they're true, but I understand enough epistemology to know that if they are not, I cannot know anything. 

From this I can deduce that well designed experiments and empirical observation can tell us when we are wrong about something. I.e. science works.



> The scientist now becomes the expert the same way the chief priest may have been in an earlier time.


Except that, if you doubt the claims of the scientist, you can learn to do the research and make the observations of nature yourself. No faith required.



> Take black holes, for example. Their existence can only be inferred, not proven, because we cannot see them, but we can see their effects. Another person may say much the same thing about god, or spirits, or the soul. We cannot prove their existence; the best we can do is infer based on other observable phenomena.


Except that we cannot observe anything about the universe or ourselves that requires the existence of souls or spirits that is not adequately explained by natural causes. There are observations that *anyone* can make about nature that are most parsimoniously explained by the existence of black holes. This is not true of the claims of religion.



> I believe that neither religion nor science does a very good job of answering the most basic existential questions, however: where do we come from? Why are we here? Where do we go after we die? At one point does consciousness actually begin?


You're right that neither science nor religion offer good answers to these questions. Science is ill suited to these questions, and religion is just stuff people make up to make themselves feel better about their lack of knowledge. Science, however, is just a subset of philosophy, and philosophy _can_ tackle these questions, at least to some degree. Furthermore, as philosophy progresses, many of these previously 'unanswerable' questions become answerable (the "when does consciousness begin?" question is now, thanks to the tireless efforts of people like Danniel Dennett, becoming accessible to science). Many of these other questions turn out to be unanswerable because they're ill-conceived (for example, asking "where do we go when we die?" presumes that we go _somewhere_... but this is like asking "what is north of the north pole?"... it _sounds_ like a reasonable question, but it doesn't have a meaningful answer because the assumptions on which the question is based are not true).



> Both disciplines, religion as well as science, can only guess at the answer to these rather fundamental questions.


No, religions guess (or more accurately "fabricate") answers to these questions. Science doesn't address anything that cannot be formulated as a falsifiable hypothesis. As we learn more about neuroscience, questions like "what is a self" become addressable by science, but questions like "why are we here?" may never be scientifically accessible (probably because they don't really mean anything).


----------



## bryanc

fjnmusic said:


> Still, people seem to need something to believe in


I disagree. I think people would be far better off, both mentally and pragmatically if they learned to accept uncertainty. There will always be far more that we don't know than we do, and this isn't really a problem. We have good methods of finding out what is probably true, and for most things that we can't apply these methods to, it doesn't matter if we don't know.


----------



## MacDoc

Be far better off if people realized we have one life boat in a lonely universe full of wonders.










Best we take care of it instead of wishing on skydaddies to bail our sorry asses out.


----------



## rgray

deleted


----------



## csonni

Not sure why I haven't seen this thread before. I must not have scrolled down far enough. I haven't nearly browsed through all the 170+ pages but it's clear that many posters would rather mock anything that hints of "religion." I don't believe God is about religion at all. Rather than me ramble on with the perspective from my faith, let me share with you a 4 minute video that says it all. Here you go.

What is the GOSPEL - Propaganda (Dare 2 Share) [HD - 720p] on Vimeo


----------



## fjnmusic

rgray said:


> i don't think these are "fundamental questions" or even "existential question", rather I think they constitute mental masturbation.
> 
> "where do we come from?" We come from about 13.7 billion years of serial accident.
> 
> "Why are we here?" see above. We are here by accident. There is no 'why' - the is just 'is'
> 
> "Where do we go after we die?" we decay just like everything else in the universe into basic components which are "recycled".
> 
> Any othr notions are a product of man's arrogance that we are something special and have some sort of (pardon the expression) purpose. Anything else is also delusion. And delusion is primary factor in mental illness and for which we have effective medication.


Interesting. And it would appear that you derive some kind of comfort from your belief in the nihilistic view of the universe. I would suggest that everyone believes in something, even if that something is "nothing," and that each of us is also an atheist since we reject all other gods save for the one we believe in. Your god happens to be the god of reason and skepticism. But it's still something in which you believe strongly, and you find it hard to understand why others can't see it as clearly as you do.

I think the "mental masturbation" comment is a little over the top, however. These are simple philosophical questions that science readily admits it is not equipped to try to answer, and in my opinion, religion attempts to answer with varying degrees of success. But I would not throw out the baby with the bath water. Religion provides comfort and solace, a connection with the rest of humanity and life itself, even if it is ultimately "delusion." 

In this way, science and religion have something else in common: they both provide theories for understanding the way elements of our universe work, and they are working models, in that they can and will change as more evidence reveals itself. We no longer view heaven as "up in the sky," for example, and hell as "underground," thus any literal ascension into heaven is today seen as silly. However, the basic idea of up=good being better than down=evil still carries over despot the archaic concept that it originates from. When this dichotomy is no longer useful we replace it with a different one. All modes of thought are ultimately "working models."


----------



## bryanc

rgray said:


> "where do we come from?" We come from about 13.7 billion years of serial accident.


"All persons, living and dead, are purely coincidental." - Kurt Vonnegut Jr.

My only quibble with this is the word "accident." It's not that I disagree, but "accident" has the connotation of being contrary to some purpose. So we just have to be conscious of what we mean.

The other important thing to not about this wildly improbably serial "accident" is that, while the specific outcome we observe may be wildly improbable, _something_ had to happen, and whatever happened was necessarily going to be wildly improbable. So it's like winning the lottery; even though the chances of winning are astronomically small somebody's got to win.

Furthermore, much of the complexity we observe in nature is the result of selection by extremely non-random processes; so even thought the events that gave rise to the complexity are the outcome of stochastic processes, the nature of the system selects for emergent complexity. Therefore it is not surprising that we find complexity throughout the universe (this is especially true in biological systems).



> "Why are we here?" see above. We are here by accident. There is no 'why' - the is just 'is'


Again, I have no real disagreement, but I think it's worth noting that we are not only entirely capable of giving our own existence meaning, I think this is almost a necessity. Personally, I take a view similar to Charles Bukowski:
"For those who believe in God, most of the big questions are answered. But for those of us who can't readily accept the God formula, the big answers don't remain stone-written. We adjust to new conditions and discoveries. We are pliable. Love need not be a command or faith a dictum. We are here to unlearn the teachings of the church, state, and our educational system. We are here to drink beer. We are here to kill war. We are here to laugh at the odds and live our lives so well that Death will tremble to take us."



fjnmusic said:


> I would suggest that everyone believes in something, even if that something is "nothing,"


With all due respect, I think you're projecting. Atheism is only a religion in the way that not collecting stamps is a hobby. I suspect you are having trouble imagining not believing. I have no beliefs about the supernatural. This is entirely different than believing the supernatural does not exist. I simply don't have *any* belief.



> Your god happens to be the god of reason and skepticism. But it's still something in which you believe strongly, and you find it hard to understand why others can't see it as clearly as you do.


I don't think you can equate believing in something (especially something that is demonstrably true), with theism. Unless you loosen the meaning of the word "god" to the point of absurdity, believing in logic is not the same as believing in a god. Logic has no personality, is not supposed to answer prayers, and is not attributed with having created the universe. It's simply a system for distinguishing the valid conclusions that can be drawn from a set of premises from the invalid conclusions.


----------



## Sonal

bryanc said:


> Unless you loosen the meaning of the word "god" to the point of absurdity, believing in logic is not the same as believing in a god. Logic has no personality, is not supposed to answer prayers, and is not attributed with having created the universe.
> It's simply a system for distinguishing the valid conclusions that can be drawn from a set of premises from the invalid conclusions.


I'm not so sure that it's so absurd, as many people's conception of god is not far off from this.


----------



## bryanc

Sonal said:


> I'm not so sure that it's so absurd, as many people's conception of god is not far off from this.


There are certainly some definitions of "god" that are sufficiently vague as to be meaningless. And these do have the advantage of not being as easy to logically dissect. But if you're going to say you believe in a god that can't really be defined and doesn't really have any meaningful characteristics, how is that different than saying you don't really have any beliefs about god(s) but you're just trying to avoid admitting that you're an atheist?


----------



## MLeh

bryanc said:


> The other important thing to not about this wildly improbably serial "accident" is that, while the specific outcome we observe may be wildly improbable, something had to happen, and whatever happened was necessarily going to be wildly improbable.So it's like winning the lottery; even though the chances of winning are astronomically small somebody's got to win.


Actually, something didn't 'have' to happen, and nobody's 'got' to win the lottery. 

Something had to be the catalyst for change. Some of us happen to believe that catalyst for change is God.

Lotteries are something else. (The odds are the odds - you can't win if you don't have a ticket, but having a ticket doesn't mean that the combination of numbers drawn will match any ticket combination purchased. In the 6/49 the odds are still 14 million to one no matter what.)


----------



## Sonal

bryanc said:


> There are certainly some definitions of "god" that are sufficiently vague as to be meaningless. And these do have the advantage of not being as easy to logically dissect. But if you're going to say you believe in a god that can't really be defined and doesn't really have any meaningful characteristics, how is that different than saying you don't really have any beliefs about god(s) but you're just trying to avoid admitting that you're an atheist?


I don't think it's necessarily about avoiding being an atheist. There are certainly some places in the world where that's a difficult thing to admit to, but there are similarly many places were it's difficult to admit to religious belief.

I also wouldn't say that this particular conception of god has NO meaningful characteristics, so much as these characteristics are not strongly defined. Clearly, it has to be meaningful for the person who chooses to believe, but such characteristics may not be strong enough to really be called a personality. (e.g., a sense of lovingness isn't quite a full personality.)

But I do think that belief, for some, is a hedge against despair. It is what keeps someone from feeling entirely alone in the world, it's what helps them believe that they can cope in difficult times, and it may helps someone makes sense of events that are otherwise confusing and distressing for them.

I don't think everyone needs religious belief for this purpose, but I do think that it serves that purpose for many people.


----------



## fjnmusic

“Everybody is an atheist in saying that there is a god - from Ra to Shiva - in which he does not believe. All that the serious and objective atheist does is to take the next step and to say that there is just one more god to disbelieve in.” 
― Richard Dawkins


----------



## Sonal

fjnmusic said:


> “Everybody is an atheist in saying that there is a god - from Ra to Shiva - in which he does not believe. All that the serious and objective atheist does is to take the next step and to say that there is just one more god to disbelieve in.”
> ― Richard Dawkins


That's not entirely accurate. Both Hindus and Buddhists are believers in religious pluralism, and take the general view that all gods are the same god, just known by other names and forms.


----------



## fjnmusic

Fair enough, Sonal, but I think the point of the quote is that if you reject any god apart for your personal favorite then you are adopting the same stance as an atheist does. 

I prefer to think of different religions as different paths to the same destination, although that contradicts the basic tenets of many religions, including Christianity. I also look at religion as a metaphorical explanation of the world as opposed to a literal one, like a science. But they are all also a way of keeping control over sections of the population and subject to abuse. One can say exactly the same thing about science, by the way.


----------



## bryanc

MLeh said:


> Actually, something didn't 'have' to happen, and nobody's 'got' to win the lottery.


That depends on the rules of the lottery. For the purposes of my analogy, the nature of reality dictates that things happen.

The current issue of Scientific American has an article on cosmology and quantum mechanics, and it would appear that "non-existence" is not stable at a quantum mechanical level, therefore universe(s) containing matter and energy inevitably occur.

Defining god as "the uncaused cause" is a meaningless answer to the question of why there is something rather than nothing. If god can exist without a cause, why can't the same be true of universes?

As I am fond of saying, it is not until you admit you do not understand something that you can begin to learn the truth about it. If we persist in making up answers and pretending these fabrications are meaningful answers, we cannot learn. This is one of my fundamental complaints against religion; not only is it an unsatisfactory answer, it prevents us from finding satisfactory answers. Religion is anti-knowlege.


----------



## bryanc

fjnmusic said:


> I prefer to think of different religions as different paths to the same destination


I would argue that rather than providing different paths to the same destination, different religions provide different ways in which to remain lost.

If you actually want to find your way to knowledge, you have to think. Having some data helps too.


----------



## MLeh

I'm not going to rise to the bait that all those who believe in God are incapable of thinking ...


----------



## MacGuiver

Double post.


----------



## MacGuiver

> With all due respect, I think you're projecting. Atheism is only a religion in the way that not collecting stamps is a hobby. *any* belief.


Does this look more like not collecting stamps or religion?

SYMBOLS/ICONS? Check!









PROSTHELYTIZING? Check!









EVANGELISTS AND GURUs? Check!









HOLY BOOKS? Check!






























SAINTS? Check!

















GATHERINGS OF THE FAITHFUL? Check!









ORGANIZED? Check!
Atheist organizations - Google Search[/QUOTE]


----------



## Sonal

fjnmusic said:


> Fair enough, Sonal, but I think the point of the quote is that if you reject any god apart for your personal favorite then you are adopting the same stance as an atheist does.
> 
> I prefer to think of different religions as different paths to the same destination, although that contradicts the basic tenets of many religions, including Christianity. I also look at religion as a metaphorical explanation of the world as opposed to a literal one, like a science. But they are all also a way of keeping control over sections of the population and subject to abuse. One can say exactly the same thing about science, by the way.


I don't disagree with you, but that particular tenet seems fairly unique to Judeo-Christian religions. Other religions endorse religious pluralism. Likewise, other religions do not expect their followers to take religious texts literally, nor are they actively trying to assert their particular dogma as a substitute for science.

It's a particular pet peeve of mine these days when people (and I'm not solely referring to ehMac) talk about the evils or misguided notions of 'religion' when their notion of religion is a) usually limited to Christianity and sometimes Islam, and b) are typically referring to the beliefs and practices a minority for followers for those religions (albeit such a minority has gained a great deal of power in some areas of the world.)


----------



## bryanc

MacGuiver said:


> ...bunch of stuff equating atheism with religion...




So you'd agree that Apple is a religion? Or the Toronto Maple Leafs? Or any other conceptual focus around which people generate symbols and organized behaviour?

And I thought Deists were vague about what they thought god was...


----------



## bryanc

Sonal said:


> It's a particular pet peeve of mine these days when people (and I'm not solely referring to ehMac) talk about the evils or misguided notions of 'religion' when their notion of religion is a) usually limited to Christianity and sometimes Islam, and b) are typically referring to the beliefs and practices a minority for followers for those religions


I understand your frustration, and I recognize that I'm occasionally a cause of it. This is not because I don't realize 'religion' is a superset of the Abrahamic traditions, but because, as westerners, we're all exposed to Christianity far more than anything else, and once you've added in the other Abrahamic faiths, that covers 95% of what most of us encounter by way of religion.

My philosophical grievances with religion in general obviously apply to the Abrahamic faiths, as well as to the less well-known brands of magical thinking like Zoroastrianism, Shinto, Pastafarianism, etc. But in addition to these problems, Christianity, Islam, Judaism, etc. have other specific faults that are also worth discussing, even though they may not apply to other minority religions.


----------



## MacGuiver

bryanc said:


> So you'd agree that Apple is a religion? Or the Toronto Maple Leafs? Or any other conceptual focus around which people generate symbols and organized behaviour?
> 
> And I thought Deists were vague about what they thought god was...


Of course they are not religions, nor is atheism. However drawing parallels between die hard Apple computer or Leaf fans and religion isn't unheard of. Your argument that atheists are like people that don't collect stamps is flawed. People that don't collect stamps don't obsess about those that do. They don't flood the internet with anti-stamp collector propaganda. They don't vandalize post offices for selling stamps. They don't advertise on billboards and bus shelters against stamp collecting. They don't meet in groups to rebuke the stamp collectors. They don't evangelize against stamp collecting.

New Atheists do employ these tactics and the similarities between the atheist movement and a religion are obvious. The difference being one is adamant there is a God and one is adamant there is not.


----------



## Rps

I always find it amazing regarding arguments over religion or whether there is a G_d or not. Basically it all comes down to faith. To suggest that those who believe are intellectually inferior is flawed and is worshipping at the alter of arrogance. I personally know many true believers, some are Dr's, lawyers, Pengs and Phds. Non believers always seems to think that a believers has some weakness as well, my observations have also taught me that this can also be a false assumption. I've also know atheists who challenge creation theory. No matter what their argument a believer has the advantage of asking the question "where did that come from". I, myself, am not a believer. However I believe that challenging one's faith or belief system is fundamentally wrong when their faith and beliefs do not impact me. So if you are a believer (for lack of a better way of saying it) G_d Bless You! If you are not have a good life .


----------



## Elric

MacGuiver said:


> New Atheists do employ these tactics and the similarities between the atheist movement and a religion are obvious. The difference being one is adamant there is a God and one is adamant there is not.


Maybe we feel that rolling our eyes isn't enough anymore, we need to prevent the brainwashing of our young and let THEM decide when they can think for themselves. We're letting the youths know that it's okay to question and think for themselves. As an ex-brainwashee, I'm very proud to flaunt the Flying Spaghetti Monster on my Jeep.


----------



## bryanc

MacGuiver said:


> Of course they are not religions, nor is atheism.


Good. We agree.



> However drawing parallels between die hard Apple computer or Leaf fans and religion isn't unheard of.


True, but this was initially done in jest, and when taken seriously, it's wrong for the same reasons.



> Your argument that atheists are like people that don't collect stamps is flawed.


I didn't say atheists don't collect stamps. I'm sure some do. My point is that "not believing in something" is not the same as "believing in nothing". It is the distinction between belief and lack of belief. Atheists lack belief, and equating this lack of belief to a "belief in the non-existence of god" or "belief in nothing" is simply logically incorrect.



> People that don't collect stamps don't obsess about those that do. They don't flood the internet with anti-stamp collector propaganda. They don't vandalize post offices for selling stamps. They don't advertise on billboards and bus shelters against stamp collecting. They don't meet in groups to rebuke the stamp collectors. They don't evangelize against stamp collecting.


Perhaps this is because stamp collectors don't demand tax-free status, dictate when non-stamp collectors can shop, how laws should be written, what should be taught in schools, who should be allowed to marry who, blow themselves up in crowded markets, fly planes into buildings, and otherwise try to inflict stamp collection on everyone around them.

This 'new atheism' you so detest is a very clear and obvious reaction of a growing number of people who are tired of having to pretend to respect religion, tired of having to hide the fact that they don't believe in some invisible sky daddy, tired of being denigrated and marginalized, and have finally started to speak out against the tyranny of religion in our society.

Organized religion has played a powerful role in the history of our civilization (and one that I would argue has been mostly negative in the last century or so), but that role is finally diminishing and the vitriol you see directed at organized religion is like the vitriol that was directed at the aristocracy during the enlightenment. Society has lost it's fear of the all-powerful church, and the church would do well to back off and let society go its own way. If there are individuals that want to stay mired in the superstitions of our ancestors, they're free to do so. But churches have lost their moral authority and are rapidly loosing their political power as well.

Religion is a safety blanket we not only no longer need, it is one we now find ourselves constantly tripping over. It's time for us to mature and face reality... reality is actually very interesting and fun; it certainly beats the bronze-age fairy tales most religions offer as an alternative.


----------



## bryanc

Rps said:


> a believer has the advantage of asking the question "where did that come from"


How is saying that the ultimate answer is "God did it" an advantages over saying "I don't know."

"I don't know" has the advantages of being a) true, and b) something that can be changed by research and evidence.

Saying "God did it" quashes all intellectual activity, and abandons hope for real knowledge.

As I said earlier, religion is anti-knowlege. It not only fails to provide genuine answers, it actually prevents adherents from learning.


----------



## Rps

Bryanc,. I'm not gonna go there. As a species we seem to need to know why. In the case of a question is unanswerable one persons answer is probably as good as another's. And with the case of all answers we seem to choose one must be right and one must wrong. What we should be thinking is you have a different view which is just as inexact as mind.


----------



## csonni

bryanc said:


> Saying "God did it" quashes all intellectual activity, and abandons hope for real knowledge.


Since no one has taken the liberty to even quote from the Bible of which so many have scorned on this thread, I'll take the opportunity.

Romans 1:20-23

For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse. For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and Reptiles.

Psalms 14:1 The fool has said in his heart, "There is no God."

Hebrews 4:13 Nothing in all creation is hidden from God’s sight. Everything is uncovered and laid bare before the eyes of him to whom we must give account.


----------



## rgray

deleted


----------



## Sonal

bryanc said:


> How is saying that the ultimate answer is "God did it" an advantages over saying "I don't know."
> 
> "I don't know" has the advantages of being a) true, and b) something that can be changed by research and evidence.
> 
> Saying "God did it" quashes all intellectual activity, and abandons hope for real knowledge.
> 
> As I said earlier, religion is anti-knowlege. It not only fails to provide genuine answers, it actually prevents adherents from learning.


It's not in everyone's particular set of interests to be intellectually curious about this particular question. 

That said, I don't think that anyone's lack of interest in a particular topic should squash someone else's interest in it, but likewise, I don't think someone's lack of interest in a particular topic is necessarily a sign of their intellectual inferiority.


----------



## bryanc

Sonal said:


> It's not in everyone's particular set of interests to be intellectually curious about this particular question.
> 
> That said, I don't think that anyone's lack of interest in a particular topic should squash someone else's interest in it, but likewise, I don't think someone's lack of interest in a particular topic is necessarily a sign of their intellectual inferiority.


No disagreement. But this is the Religion thread, and it a topic I do find interesting.


----------



## bryanc

rgray said:


> Proving exactly what?


Proving that some bronze-age mystics thought they'd be able to head off questions about stuff they didn't understand by saying "Goddidit!" and calling anyone who questioned this "fools."


----------



## MacGuiver

Elric said:


> Maybe we feel that rolling our eyes isn't enough anymore, we need to prevent the brainwashing of our young and let THEM decide when they can think for themselves. We're letting the youths know that it's okay to question and think for themselves. As an ex-brainwashee, I'm very proud to flaunt the Flying Spaghetti Monster on my Jeep.


The mormons have nothing on you guys. Preach on brother!


----------



## Sonal

bryanc said:


> I understand your frustration, and I recognize that I'm occasionally a cause of it. This is not because I don't realize 'religion' is a superset of the Abrahamic traditions, but because, as westerners, we're all exposed to Christianity far more than anything else, and once you've added in the other Abrahamic faiths, that covers 95% of what most of us encounter by way of religion.
> 
> My philosophical grievances with religion in general obviously apply to the Abrahamic faiths, as well as to the less well-known brands of magical thinking like Zoroastrianism, Shinto, Pastafarianism, etc. But in addition to these problems, Christianity, Islam, Judaism, etc. have other specific faults that are also worth discussing, even though they may not apply to other minority religions.


I'm aware that you in particular are fairly knowledgable about the wide variety of religions. But I suspect that 95% number is dropping rapidly for most of us, particularly those of us in highly multicultural centres. 

There are certainly some commonalities between at least most religions, but I do think it's important to note that the grievances that many have with the religions they are most familiar with are not necessarily applicable to all religions.


----------



## rgray

deleted


----------



## Sonal

bryanc said:


> No disagreement. But this is the Religion thread, and it a topic I do find interesting.


Yes. But someone else who is content with the explanation that God didn't isn't necessarily intellectually lazy.

Based on what I actually know and have researched and understand, 'God did it' and 'The Big Bang did it' are about equally well-understood to me in that I know equally as much about how it came about. In the latter case, I assume that it's all been vetted and questioned and theorized and researched and such, but I have no personal knowledge of that.


----------



## MLeh

rgray said:


> Religion is is the very antithesis of thinking for oneself - a commodity in rather short supply these days.


Or maybe we have thought EXTENSIVELY about it, have come to a conclusion that there is a higher power, and have moved on to thinking about something different that is more PRODUCTIVE.


----------



## MacGuiver

bryanc said:


> As I said earlier, religion is anti-knowlege. It not only fails to provide genuine answers, it actually prevents adherents from learning.


From learning what exactly? I can't think of anything that my religion would inhibit me from learning.


----------



## bryanc

Sonal said:


> Yes. But someone else who is content with the explanation that God didn't isn't necessarily intellectually lazy.


Perhaps not lazy, but certainly abdicating rational thought about whatever they accept God as an adequate explanation for.



> Based on what I actually know and have researched and understand, 'God did it' and 'The Big Bang did it' are about equally well-understood to me in that I know equally as much about how it came about. In the latter case, I assume that it's all been vetted and questioned and theorized and researched and such, but I have no personal knowledge of that.


Fair enough. All I know about cosmology is that, in order to be considered, a theory or hypothesis must make falsifiable predictions. Current theories about the origins of space-time make predictions that can, at least in principle, be tested, whereas "Goddidit" does not make any falsifiable predictions. So epistemologically, these are not comparable answers; science invites further exploration, analysis and can be improved upon, whereas religion shuts down all rational inquiry.


----------



## bryanc

MacGuiver said:


> I can't think of anything that my religion would inhibit me from learning.


What questions does your religion purport to provide answers for? Those are the specific topics about which your religion impairs your ability to learn.

Furthermore, by accepting faith-based reasoning and supernatural answers, you're ability to use rational skepticism and critical thinking to improve your understanding of the world around you has also been impaired.

For doing this to billions of people throughout human history, I think religion has a lot to answer for.


----------



## Sonal

bryanc said:


> Perhaps not lazy, but certainly abdicating rational thought about whatever they accept God as an adequate explanation for.
> 
> 
> 
> Fair enough. All I know about cosmology is that, in order to be considered, a theory or hypothesis must make falsifiable predictions. Current theories about the origins of space-time make predictions that can, at least in principle, be tested, whereas "Goddidit" does not make any falsifiable predictions. So epistemologically, these are not comparable answers; science invites further exploration, analysis and can be improved upon, whereas religion shuts down all rational inquiry.


Or (for those religions that require belief in a "God did it" view of the world) it provides an answer that one may find sufficiently satisfying for some who is uninterested in exploring the question further, but does not (or more accurately, should not) necessarily prevent someone else who is interested from exploring the question.

So no, I don't agree that religion by definition shuts down all rational inquiry. I don't deny that it has done so at times, but I do not think that is inherent to religious belief in general.


----------



## csonni

rgray said:


> Proving exactly what?


There's hardly anything you can prove in this life unless you can reproduce it in a controlled laboratory environment. And if you're looking for hard core proof of God's existence, you're approaching Him from nothing more than a humanistic curiosity minus faith. In the end, the truth will be known on this matter that was started 177 pages ago (actually for the seeker, it can be known now). The question is, on what ground or foundation will you be standing on? I'm sorry, but mere human philosophy and intellect will get us nowhere. All that does is prove what mere humans we are apart from God.


----------



## jef

csonni said:


> ....humanistic curiosity minus faith...


Sounds like a healthy approach to life to me!


----------



## csonni

None of us operate on that level. Do you examine the hardware of a chair before you sit down? Do you call the local weather station to make sure there are no tornadoes in the area before you step outdoors? Faith my friend. You exercise an amount of it every waking moment. It just so happens that the object of your faith isn't God (you're approaching Him from nothing more than a humanistic curiosity minus faith).


----------



## csonni

bryanc said:


> There is not now, nor has there ever been, any evidence for any supernatural phenomena of any kind.


This is atheism smacking of a dose of ignorance or a lack of information. Even your hard core agnostic will attest to the presence of the supernatural. Excuse my bluntness on this, but you need to get out more.

I'd better bow out of this thread. The OP intended this thread to be about religion, exactly what Messiah came to free us of. He offers life.


----------



## MacGuiver

> What questions does your religion purport to provide answers for? Those are the specific topics about which your religion impairs your ability to learn.


Since you guys keep telling us how religion is so detrimental to ones ability to learn I assumed you had the answers.

Anyway here are the questions I feel my religion gives me.
It answers the question of what happens to my soul after death.
Why we are here? Science doesn't really attempt to answer that question. Its more concerned with how we got here. 
How did the world come about? Now I do believe God has had a guiding hand in creation but my religion doesn't give answers to how and when that took place. Granted a minority of Christian faiths take a literal view of the creation story but mine does not.

So what specific scientific topics has my religion impaired my ability to learn?

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## rgray

deleted


----------



## jef

csonni said:


> None of us operate on that level. Do you examine the hardware of a chair before you sit down? Do you call the local weather station to make sure there are no tornadoes in the area before you step outdoors? Faith my friend. You exercise an amount of it every waking moment. It just so happens that the object of your faith isn't God (you're approaching Him from nothing more than a humanistic curiosity minus faith).


Your examples are things that have been learned and repeated through experience since childhood, not trusted by blind faith. One does not have to examine every chair - a quick look will confirm it against your experience and ability to reason that it will support you. And experience has taught me to check the weather - but I certainly don't have much faith in weather reports these days...


----------



## screature

rgray said:


> *Religion is is the very antithesis of thinking for oneself *- a commodity in rather short supply these days.


For some fundamentalists, but very far from being true for many people who are religious. Being an atheist I don't know how you can presume to know the thought patterns of those who believe in some form of higher power.


----------



## MLeh

rgray said:


> The mere fact that people actually believe there is a supernatural is evidence of an impaired ability to learn.


The mere fact that people are unable to conceive of something greater than themselves is evidence of an impaired ability to perceive.

Your conceit is showing.


----------



## screature

bryanc said:


> Perhaps not lazy, but certainly abdicating rational thought about whatever they accept God as an adequate explanation for.
> 
> 
> 
> Fair enough. All I know about cosmology is that, in order to be considered, a theory or hypothesis must make falsifiable predictions. Current theories about the origins of space-time make predictions that can, at least in principle, be tested, whereas "Goddidit" does not make any falsifiable predictions. So epistemologically, these are not comparable answers; science invites further exploration, analysis and can be improved upon, *whereas religion shuts down all rational inquiry.*


It most certainly does not. Such a statement is patently false and all that one needs to do to know that this is true is to look at the early history of science where those investigations were done in order to "better understand the workings of god". Believing that a god or higher power created the universe does not shut down all rational inquiry. If it were true we could never have gotten to where we are today as in the past just about everyone was religious.


----------



## MLeh

For instance, _most_ religious groups do not see a conflict between the theory of evolution and the existence of God.


----------



## bryanc

MLeh said:


> The mere fact that people are unable to conceive of something greater than themselves is evidence of an impaired ability to perceive.


What does this have to do with religion or perception? I have no difficulty conceiving of things far grater than myself, I just don't prejudge them to be supernatural, and I don't suggest they exist unless I have some evidence that they do (of which there is plenty). Indeed, I would argue that for a human to suggest that something has to be supernatural in order to be significantly more complex/powerful/creative/whatever than ourselves is the height of hubris.


----------



## bryanc

MacGuiver said:


> So what specific scientific topics has my religion impaired my ability to learn?


I'm taking this to be an honest, rather than rhetorical question, so I'll try to provide honest answers.



> It answers the question of what happens to my soul after death.


By accepting (completely without evidence) that souls exist and are somehow independent of the biological functioning of your body, you have impaired your ability to learn about the actual mechanisms that give rise to consciousness, self-awareness, and personality. You are also, therefore, impaired in your ability to formulate rational ethical systems that value lives reasonably (without immortal souls, someone's mortal existence is rather more ethically significant, no?).



> Why we are here?


By accepting that your God (who's existence is not supported by any reason or evidence) defines the purpose of your existence, you have impaired your ability to learn and create your own meaning.



> How did the world come about? Now I do believe God has had a guiding hand in creation but my religion doesn't give answers to how and when that took place.


Well, it's good that you don't accept the literal story of genesis, as that would put blinders on your ability to learn about basic physics, chemistry and biology, but even accepting the premise that "God has a guiding hand" in the process means that you're understanding is irrefutably impaired by magical thinking.

None of these are particularly dire impairments, but the are impairments nonetheless.


----------



## Elric

The Bible taught me the consequences of Rape:
(Deuteronomy 22:28-29 NLT)
If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her.

I think this quote voids all others from the same book.


----------



## bryanc

csonni said:


> This is atheism smacking of a dose of ignorance or a lack of information.


Oh really? What information do you suspect I may be lacking? On what basis would you argue that my cognitive abilities are not up to your standard?



> Even your hard core agnostic will attest to the presence of the supernatural.


"Hard core agnostic". I love this turn of phrase; mind if I borrow it? It's quite beautifully oxymoronic.



> Excuse my bluntness on this, but you need to get out more.


How would this help? What could I encounter by "getting out more" that would lead me to change my beliefs? I will certainly concede that my beliefs, being based on reason and evidence, *are* subject to change (unlike beliefs based on faith). I just wonder what you think "getting out more" would add to the decades of experience and education I've already got?



> He offers life.


To quote Monty Python's French Taunters "We've already got one... it's very nice!"


----------



## jef

MLeh said:


> The mere fact that people are unable to conceive of something greater than themselves is evidence of an impaired ability to perceive.
> 
> Your conceit is showing.


The concept of a higher power is not difficult at all to understand at all (that is part of the problem). It's the proof that is missing. 

Suggesting that atheists cannot conceive of something greater than themselves is also a misunderstanding. There is a whole universe out there that is much greater than ourselves - as well as most natural things on Earth.

There is a lot more conceit involved in believing that a god has chosen you or will save you (but not everyone) by believing in them - as is common in most religions.


----------



## csonni

bryanc said:


> How would this help? What could I encounter by "getting out more"


Just reread your quote on the total absence of the supernatural and then visit somewhere beyond the borders of our North American shelter. The supernatural is very real in most other countries around the world. Just take a peak at Haiti which is doused in the practice of Voodoo. Need I mention more? Now then, if there is insurmountable evidence of the so-called supernatural, than there must be something greater behind it, namely, God. Pure logic, which you can learn in Intro to Philosophy 101.


----------



## bryanc

csonni said:


> Pure logic, which you can learn in Intro to Philosophy 101.


Dude, I *taught* Philosophy 101. (well, it was actually an epistemology course, not 101, but you get the point).



> Just reread your quote on the total absence of the supernatural and then visit somewhere beyond the borders of our North American ideal. The supernatural is very real in most other countries around the world. Just take a peak at Haiti which is doused in the practice of Voodoo. Need I mention more?


I won't claim to be particularly well traveled, but I've spent plenty of time outside of North America. But more to the point, people's _beliefs in_ the supernatural (wether they're North American or not), is not _evidence of_ the supernatural.

This is a very important point you seem to have missed from Philosophy 101: Belief <> Evidence.



> Now then, if there is insurmountable evidence of the so-called supernatural, than there must be something greater behind it, namely, God.


You really do seem to be having trouble with basic logic. Even if there were evidence for the existence of the supernatural (which, to be clear, there most certainly is not), it would not be evidence for the existence of God any more than it would be evidence for the existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster or any other supernatural entity we care to make up.

Finally, if you accept that the supernatural exists, and conclude that there must be something behind it, and conclude that this something must be God, then what caused God?

If you accept that somethings do not need causes, then why postulate the existence of gods?


----------



## JCCanuck

csonni said:


> Just reread your quote on the total absence of the supernatural and then visit somewhere beyond the borders of our North American shelter. The supernatural is very real in most other countries around the world. Just take a peak at Haiti which is doused in the practice of Voodoo. Need I mention more? Now then, if there is insurmountable evidence of the so-called supernatural, than there must be something greater behind it, namely, God. Pure logic, which you can learn in Intro to Philosophy 101.


There is absolutely no evidence of the supernatural anywhere on this planet. Voodoo real? You got to be kidding?


----------



## Sonal

jef said:


> There is a lot more conceit involved in believing that a god has chosen you or will save you (but not everyone) by believing in them - as is common in most religions.


Common in some religions, but I would not go so far as to say most.

Certainly, those religions that believe in reincarnation don't tend to think god will save them.... rather, it's that the choices you've made in a past life have lead to this, and likewise, the choices made in this life will have consequences in the next one.... god won't save you but you can save yourself.


----------



## csonni

bryanc said:


> people's _beliefs in_ the supernatural (wether they're North American or not), is not _evidence of_ the supernatural.QUOTE]
> 
> I said nothing about beliefs. I'm referring to experience. So, someone who steps into a sod house and sees a table elevated off of the earthen floor, you're saying that's just someone's imaginary belief? Kitchen utensils flying through the air on their own in an Inuit community on the North Coast- you're telling me that's just a product of belief and there's nothing supernatural behind it?
> 
> And, as for your dogmatism on nothing but the natural, that can contaminate any further rational thinking. And so-called fundamentalists and evangelicals are accused of being dogmatic?


----------



## JCCanuck

Caught my wife and daughter watching "Long Island Medium" on TV and just about gagged! Are there actually people sapping this psychic stuff up still? Just recently I had a conversation with two young ladies at work who just went to a psychic and were just amazed at the psychic's accurate predictions. Of course the predictions were so corny, did your grandmother or someone die recently etc.. I do find most religious believers are also into the supernatural phenomena, is it safe to say that? This thread does show that correlation.


----------



## Macfury

csonni said:


> So, someone who steps into a sod house and sees a table elevated off of the earthen floor, you're saying that's just someone's imaginary belief? Kitchen utensils flying through the air on their own in an Inuit community on the North Coast- you're telling me that's just a product of belief and there's nothing supernatural behind it?


I've got to be honest with you, I have never seen anything like that and as much as it would scare me out of my wits, I would want to examine such phenomena more closely. With the advent of dozens of demon/ghost hunter shows, and hundreds of millions of mobile cameras, I've never seen anything but people claiming they're feeling a chill or feeling freaky.

Is this something you've experienced and is there some sort of independent proof?


----------



## Sonal

JCCanuck said:


> Are there actually people sapping this psychic stuff up still?


I once had to argue with one of my tenants that no, he could not stay in his apartment while major construction was going on (I was paying for a hotel for him) because I was far less confident than he that the ghost he claimed inhabited the place would protect him from any harm.


----------



## jef

Sonal said:


> Common in some religions, but I would not go so far as to say most.
> 
> Certainly, those religions that believe in reincarnation don't tend to think god will save them.... rather, it's that the choices you've made in a past life have lead to this, and likewise, the choices made in this life will have consequences in the next one.... god won't save you but you can save yourself.


I spent 2 months in Tibet in the late 80s. Tibetan Buddhists are all about reincarnation and spend a great effort on Earth preparing for their next life. I saw Tibetans on their pilgrimages where they believe the more difficult they make it, the more reward they get in the next life. I saw people in terrible condition - starving, self-mutilated and suffering. It was not uncommon to see pilgrims dead on the roadway. I learned from a wealthier Tibetan that he would never have to do this himself. He was wealthy enough to pay someone else to do it for him. Religion can be so cruel - even Buddhist ones.


----------



## csonni

Personally, no. Credible friends and witnesses, yes. And just as a misnomer, I'm not into the phenomenon aspect of the supernatural. My aunt and uncle, years ago, stepped into someone's house in Europe and eye witnessed articles of furniture off the floor. I suppose the term "supernatural" should be defined. Anything not subject to the laws of natural or with no natural explanation. I could list a dozen of events which come from credible witnesses. What I'm wondering is, is it skepticism that most posters here are dealing with (due to an abundance of media hype on the subject) or inner denial?


----------



## Sonal

jef said:


> I spent 2 months in Tibet in the late 80s. Tibetan Buddhists are all about reincarnation and spend a great effort on Earth preparing for their next life. I saw Tibetans on their pilgrimages where they believe the more difficult they make it, the more reward they get in the next life. I saw people in terrible condition - starving, self-mutilated and suffering. It was not uncommon to see pilgrims dead on the roadway. I learned from a wealthier Tibetan that he would never have to do this himself. He was wealthy enough to pay someone else to do it for him. Religion can be so cruel - even Buddhist ones.


There are strange sects and orders of every religion, but the practices of one particular sect or group is not necessarily indicative of the religion as a whole.

But Buddhism is only one religion the purports reincarnation, and at that, Tibetan Buddhism only one version of of Buddhism.


----------



## eMacMan

One of the commonalities amongst most religions is the belief in an extreme being with power overall.

From here it is easy to accept a representative of that being with power over you. From there just a quick hop to accepting a Supreme Government that has the power to trample the very freedoms it supposedly guarantees. Whether or not that is the intent of Organized Religion it is certainly how it has been used throughout the millennia and continues to be used today. 

I remain reasonably certain that if you believe there is only one God you have no choice to accept that the other guys God is indeed your God and vice versa. I know that the believers make a career out of looking for loopholes but until each group learns to accept that one means one and yours is theirs is yours, I remain skeptical.

Personally, I lack the arrogance to tell God how he should of revealed himself to different people at different times or that he does not have the right to throw out some variations now and then.

Finally I am absolutely certain that if there is a God and he/she/it requires something of me he/she/it is quite capable of communicating with me directly. Having just said that there are times I am absolutely convinced that someone out there is indeed looking out for me and for that I am most appreciative.


----------



## bryanc

csonni said:


> I'm referring to experience.


Yours, or someone who told you a story about what they say they experienced?



> So, someone who steps into a sod house and sees a table elevated off of the earthen floor, you're saying that's just someone's imaginary belief? Kitchen utensils flying through the air on their own in an Inuit community on the North Coast- you're telling me that's just a product of belief and there's nothing supernatural behind it?


Have you ever seen a Penn & Teller show? They do stuff way more impressive than that and nobody's claiming there's anything supernatural about it.



> And, as for your dogmatism on nothing but the natural, that can contaminate any further rational thinking.


The only thing I'm being dogmatic about is critical thinking; why suggest something is supernatural when it either can be explained by natural processes, or is something we cannot demonstrate actually happened? I don't claim to know that the supernatural does not exist, I simply ask for reasonable evidence that it does. The claims of people I've never met are not good evidence of anything, and extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, so you'd have to do better than showing me someone who claims to have seen something weird happen.

We know nature exists, so parsimony dictates we try to explain things within the constraints of what we understand about nature until it is impossible to do so. When we find that it is impossible to do so, we should first re-examine our understanding of nature and determine if modifications of our theories about nature could explain the phenomena, and if so, are these modifications consistent with everything else we know. When this happens, we have improved our understanding of nature - yay science! If, someday, we make observations that cannot be explained by our understanding of nature, and our understanding of nature cannot be adjusted to fit these new observations, then (and only then) we can rationally consider supernatural explanations. Such observations have not been made, so rational people refrain from using supernatural explanations.


----------



## csonni

So bryanc, this Evolutionistic story of our beginning- did you eyewitness the event? Never mind what someone else has told you. Might as well take your critical thinking to extremes.


----------



## Sonal

eMacMan said:


> I remain reasonably certain that if you believe there is only one God you have no choice to accept that the other guys God is indeed your God and vice versa. I know that the believers make a career out of looking for loopholes but until each group learns to accept that one means one and yours is theirs is yours, I remain skeptical.


Quoting His Holiness the Dalai Lama:

"People from different traditions should keep their own, rather than change. However, some Tibetan may prefer Islam, so he can follow it. Some Spanish prefer Buddhism; so follow it. But think about it carefully. Don’t do it for fashion. Some people start Christian, follow Islam, then Buddhism, then nothing. In the United States I have seen people who embrace Buddhism and change their clothes! Like the New Age. They take something Hindu, something Buddhist, something, something… That is not healthy. For individual practitioners, having one truth, one religion, is very important. Several truths, several religions, is contradictory. I am Buddhist. Therefore, Buddhism is the only truth for me, the only religion. To my Christian friend, Christianity is the only truth, the only religion. To my Muslim friend, [Islam] is the only truth, the only religion. In the meantime, I respect and admire my Christian friend and my Muslim friend."


----------



## bryanc

csonni said:


> So bryanc, this Evolutionistic story of our beginning- did you eyewitness the event? Never mind what someone else has told you. Might as well take your critical thinking to extremes.


Of course not. But I can (and have) easily observe the evidence that makes current evolutionary theory the most parsimonious explanation of the facts. Furthermore, evolution by natural selection as a mechanism, does not rely on any supernatural forces and it is easily and reproducibly demonstrable in a laboratory setting. Finally, unlike supernatural explanations, scientific explanations like evolution provide us with predictive power and can be applied as technologies.

Wether you believe in it or not, science works.


----------



## csonni

bryanc said:


> Wether you believe in it or not, science works.


I never said I didn't "believe" in Science (oh, so you do have a belief?). I believe Science can only bring us so far. 
And need we be reminded that many of our scientists happen to be Deists. They believe there is a "God", yet not personal and relating to His creation. If this is the case, than, according to some of your thinking, Science must be flawed if it comes partially from men who have been susceptible to the wiles of religious thinking. These men are your teachers. Your scientific, critical thinking, ultimately, has religious underpinnings. I don't believe there is anything such as pure science. Its roots is in its Maker.


----------



## jef

Sonal said:


> Quoting His Holiness the Dalai Lama:
> 
> "People from different traditions should keep their own, rather than change. However, some Tibetan may prefer Islam, so he can follow it. Some Spanish prefer Buddhism; so follow it. But think about it carefully. Don’t do it for fashion. Some people start Christian, follow Islam, then Buddhism, then nothing. In the United States I have seen people who embrace Buddhism and change their clothes! Like the New Age. They take something Hindu, something Buddhist, something, something… That is not healthy. For individual practitioners, having one truth, one religion, is very important. Several truths, several religions, is contradictory. I am Buddhist. Therefore, Buddhism is the only truth for me, the only religion. To my Christian friend, Christianity is the only truth, the only religion. To my Muslim friend, [Islam] is the only truth, the only religion. In the meantime, I respect and admire my Christian friend and my Muslim friend."


The Dali Lama has proven to be a very adept politician...


----------



## Macfury

eMacMan said:


> remain reasonably certain that if you believe there is only one God you have no choice to accept that the other guys God is indeed your God and vice versa. I know that the believers make a career out of looking for loopholes but until each group learns to accept that one means one and yours is theirs is yours, I remain skeptical.


That premise has no internal logic. If I believe there is one god as taught by Christianity, why can't the beliefs of the Muslims and the Hindus simply be wrong?


----------



## Rps

Macfury, I can see yours as well as ehMacman's view here. I would view it like grammar.. all literate societies have a grammar to their language it just isn't the same grammar. In that sense one's religious beliefs and belief in their one G_d is their grammar... Which sets the framework for communicating with their religion, and their religion is the language of their beliefs. Problem is, I don't recall anyone going to war over language grammar.... Sin Tax maybe.


----------



## MLeh

It's my personal belief that there is a God, and they are doing a 'head shake/face-palm' over humanity right now.


----------



## Sonal

Macfury said:


> That premise has no internal logic. If I believe there is one god as taught by Christianity, why can't the beliefs of the Muslims and the Hindus simply be wrong?


The Christians might see it that way, but the Hindus don't. 

Hinduism purports that that religious truth is universal, but there are many paths to getting there. So other religions aren't wrong, so much as they are just different.


----------



## jef

Isn't it far more logical to understand that all religions and gods were created by humans to fill an obvious need? Therefore, they are all wrong.


----------



## Sonal

jef said:


> Isn't it far more logical to understand that all religions and gods were created by humans to fill an obvious need. Therefore, they are all wrong.


Perhaps, but pure, plain logic can be such a boring way to see the world.


----------



## jef

Sonal said:


> Perhaps, but pure, plain logic can be such a boring way to see the world.


I disagree - it is fascinating to see how Religion has shaped the world we live in and will continue to do so for years to come. It illustrates beautifully what a silly species we are.


----------



## MacDoc

Logic has no relation to the corporeal world. Internal logic of anything says nothing about the physical world at all.

Repeatable evidence based on thesis/antithesis that is testable moves our human body of knowledge forward.

Fantasy is fun.....but that's the end of it.


----------



## Macfury

MacDoc said:


> Logic has no relation to the corporeal world. Internal logic of anything says nothing about the physical world at all.
> 
> Repeatable evidence based on thesis/antithesis that is testable moves our human body of knowledge forward.
> 
> Fantasy is fun.....but that's the end of it.


But what about alien greys, MacDoc? Will you categorically state here that they are not real?


----------



## Sonal

MacDoc said:


> Logic has no relation to the corporeal world. Internal logic of anything says nothing about the physical world at all.
> 
> Repeatable evidence based on thesis/antithesis that is testable moves our human body of knowledge forward.
> 
> Fantasy is fun.....but that's the end of it.


We're not supposed to have fun in our lives? How sad.


----------



## rgray

deleted


----------



## MacGuiver

jef said:


> Isn't it far more logical to understand that all religions and gods were created by humans to fill an obvious need? Therefore, they are all wrong.


Or there truly is a God and on some level, throughout history humanity has come to know it but our understanding or interpretation of God have differed.


----------



## jef

MacGuiver said:


> Or there truly is a God and on some level, throughout history humanity has come to know it but our understanding or interpretation of God have differed.


The more we know, the less we need to rely on gods or a god. Humans initially created many gods to cover many unknowns, but as knowledge increased, one ended up with the job. As knowledge and technology press on, he (she, it) is also being downsized...


----------



## csonni

That is lame and pathetic, Jef. With that, we'd better be inventing new gods because if we humbly assess our place in this universe, we know very little. Man's pride comes right before a big fall.


----------



## jef

csonni said:


> That is lame and pathetic, Jef. With that, we'd better be inventing new gods because if we humbly assess our place in this universe, we know very little. Man's pride comes right before a big fall.


I think it is rather inspiring. Human's would no longer have to worry about treading on god's territory and could really explore the things we do not know. Think about how much we could learn if the money invested in religion was put to practical use in education and science.


----------



## MacGuiver

jef said:


> I think it is rather inspiring. Human's would no longer have to worry about treading on god's territory and could really explore the things we do not know. Think about how much we could learn if the money invested in religion was put to practical use in education and science.


The atheist regime of the Soviet Union tried that. Failed miserably however they did give the world the Lada. Meanwhile the most religious (Christian) country on the planet excelled in virtually every aspect of life.


----------



## rgray

deleted


----------



## csonni

Good night guys. Maybe I'll check back when God causes the sun to rise (or earth to spin or sun to revolve-whichever your scientific bent prefers) to display His handiwork to those who have chosen to ignore Him and to draw those who acknowledge Him to worship.


----------



## csonni

jef said:


> Human's would no longer have to worry about treading on god's territory


And this is bad or wrong? God invites us to marvel at and discover what He has made so that we would avoid the very trap of getting so self-centered with our puffed-up knowledge (foolishness to Him), come to the end of our puny and finite selves and acknowledge Him. Go back to the video link I posted a number of pages ago. It's only 4 minutes.

Here, I'll make it easier.

What is the GOSPEL - Propaganda (Dare 2 Share) [HD - 720p] on Vimeo

And I thought I was retiring for the night.


----------



## eMacMan

Macfury said:


> That premise has no internal logic. If I believe there is one god as taught by Christianity, why can't the beliefs of the Muslims and the Hindus simply be wrong?


Ah that's what allowed Irish Catholics and Protestants to co-exist via open warfare when sides were roughly equal or slaughter where one side was stronger. Allows The State of Israel to ignore many of the Ten Commandments as long as the victims are not Jewish. Allowed Hitler to attempt to exterminate the Jews. Allows the Shrub Christians to slaughter Muslims wholesale. Allows Muslims to .................................


----------



## rgray

deleted


----------



## csonni

Since others here have been revealing what they've learned through textbooks, let me, again, quote from my textbook (I think this is one I used in my first post): 

"For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse. For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened." Romans 1: 20,21

Nature alone teaches and reveals God to us. 

Natural Revelation is enough to convince us of God’s existence. The world around us and our own existence is enough to prove to us that there is a God.

Natural Revelation is enough to convince us that God is powerful and that He created the universe. Looking at the universe is enough to convince us that someone extraordinarily powerful must have done the work of creation. 

God's greatest revelation of Himself is in the Person of Jesus, God in the flesh.

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. In him was life, and that life was the light of men. The light shines in the darkness, but the darkness has not understood it. He was in the world, and though the world was made through him, the world did not recognize him. He came to that which was his own, but his own did not receive him. Yet to all who received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God— 
children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband’s will, but born of God. The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.

John 1: 1-5, 11-14 

The historical (and Biblical) Jesus can't be ignored. That's God's proof to us of Himself. Totally existent. And it's not just the Bible that speaks of Him. He 's written of in plenty of historical, secular writings. The Koran even speaks of Jesus as one of the greatest messengers of God having a virgin birth. Josephus, the non-believer historian of Jesus' day wrote some incredible stuff about Him. And he wasn't high on weed or the choice drug of the day as he wrote.


----------



## rgray

deleted


----------



## Max

"Natural Revelation" does indeed sound like the latest hot slogan - a new marketing strategy. Not to be confused with the product itself - new, improved or otherwise.


----------



## csonni

csonni said:


> but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened." Romans 1: 20,21


Certificates, degrees, years whatever else we earn in this life to our "credit" is of very little value if it just puffs us up. God's uses the base things in this world to shame the wise (wise in ones own estimation). 

Lots of buzz phrases among the so-called educated as well. We're all in good company


----------



## Sonal

rgray said:


> He didn't say that at all!!! The point is to know what is fantasy and what is not. The inability to distinguish the two is a seed of mental illness.


Likewise, I've never said that we're not supposed to use logic at all either.


----------



## bryanc

csonni said:


> Natural Revelation is enough to convince *me* of God’s existence. The world around us and our own existence is enough to prove to *me* that there is a God.


T,FTFY.
If that's what it takes to help you get through the day, then good for you. But please try not to presume that everyone else is so logic-impaired as to draw these conclusions from the existence of nature and human beings.



> Looking at the universe is enough to convince us that someone extraordinarily powerful must have done the work of creation.


Only if you're so naive that you fail to understand that you haven't answered anything by proposing that Zeus, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster, or Yaweh created the universe. Doing so just begs the question of what created Zeus.

Someone who is not logically impaired might recognize that we do not, at present know enough to determine exactly how the universe works, and therefore refrain from fabricating fairy tales about it. Fairy tales may be entertaining, but mistaking them for answers leaves us worse than ignorant.

As Mark Twain wrote "It's not what you don't know that get's you in trouble, it's what you do know that ain't so."



> The historical (and Biblical) Jesus can't be ignored. That's God's proof to us of Himself.


Pretty lame proof. Certainly does not convince me. There's very little evidence that Jesus actually existed, and even if he did, it would hardly be compelling evidence of the existence of the supernatural, let alone the Christian god.


----------



## csonni

bryanc said:


> There's very little evidence that Jesus actually existed


Reality check.

"The first-century Roman Tacitus, who is considered one of the more accurate historians of the ancient world, mentioned superstitious “Christians” (from Christus, which is Latin for Christ), who suffered under Pontius Pilate during the reign of Tiberius. Suetonius, chief secretary to Emperor Hadrian, wrote that there was a man named Chrestus (or Christ) who lived during the first century (Annals 15.44).

Flavius Josephus is the most famous Jewish historian. In his Antiquities he refers to James, “the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ.” There is a controversial verse (18:3) that says, “Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man. For he was one who wrought surprising feats....He was [the] Christ...he appeared to them alive again the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him.” One version reads, “At this time there was a wise man named Jesus. His conduct was good and [he] was known to be virtuous. And many people from among the Jews and the other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die. But those who became his disciples did not abandon his discipleship. They reported that he had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion, and that he was alive; accordingly he was perhaps the Messiah, concerning whom the prophets have recounted wonders.”

Julius Africanus quotes the historian Thallus in a discussion of the darkness which followed the crucifixion of Christ (Extant Writings, 18).

Pliny the Younger, in Letters 10:96, recorded early Christian worship practices including the fact that Christians worshiped Jesus as God and were very ethical, and he includes a reference to the love feast and Lord’s Supper.

The Babylonian Talmud (Sanhedrin 43a) confirms Jesus' crucifixion on the eve of Passover and the accusations against Christ of practicing sorcery and encouraging Jewish apostasy.

Lucian of Samosata was a second-century Greek writer who admits that Jesus was worshiped by Christians, introduced new teachings, and was crucified for them. He said that Jesus' teachings included the brotherhood of believers, the importance of conversion, and the importance of denying other gods. Christians lived according to Jesus’ laws, believed themselves to be immortal, and were characterized by contempt for death, voluntary self-devotion, and renunciation of material goods.

Mara Bar-Serapion confirms that Jesus was thought to be a wise and virtuous man, was considered by many to be the king of Israel, was put to death by the Jews, and lived on in the teachings of His followers.

Then we have all the Gnostic writings (The Gospel of Truth, The Apocryphon of John, The Gospel of Thomas, The Treatise on Resurrection, etc.) that all mention Jesus.

In fact, we can almost reconstruct the gospel just from early non-Christian sources: Jesus was called the Christ (Josephus), did “magic,” led Israel into new teachings, and was hanged on Passover for them (Babylonian Talmud) in Judea (Tacitus), but claimed to be God and would return (Eliezar), which his followers believed, worshipping Him as God (Pliny the Younger)."

There is overwhelming evidence for the existence of Jesus Christ, both in secular and biblical history. Perhaps the greatest evidence that Jesus did exist is the fact that literally thousands of Christians in the first century A.D., including the twelve apostles, were willing to give their lives as martyrs for Jesus Christ. People will die for what they believe to be true, but no one will die for what they know to be a lie.


----------



## Max

Plenty of people die for what they know to be lies. History is littered with their corpses. People often learn of those lies just as they are dying on battlefields.


----------



## bryanc

csonni said:


> Reality check.


:lmao:

There's more and better evidence that Elvis is still alive. In two thousand years, historians will have "irrefutable proof" that Elvis died and was resurrected, and thousands of his followers followed the Way of Fried Chicken.


----------



## jef

csonni said:


> Reality check.




The Wikipedia entry for Santa Claus reads very closely to that of your evidence for Christ. Why do we not believe in him as well?


----------



## MacDoc

Sounding like a Ron L. Hubbard myth in the making.....I'd kill myself laughing about Hubbard's great joke if the damn "religion" was not so damaging.


----------



## kps

Max said:


> Plenty of people die for what they know to be lies. History is littered with their corpses. People often learn of those lies just as they are dying on battlefields.


...yeah, like trying to collect those 72 virgins. LOL

bryanc...big difference between the historical Jesus and the biblical Jesus. Jesus the man (scholar, teacher) perhaps existed. 

Parting shot from moi...


----------



## Macfury

MacDoc said:


> Sounding like a Ron L. Hubbard myth in the making.....I'd kill myself laughing about Hubbard's great joke if the damn "religion" was not so damaging.


Yep. But what about alien greys? Do they exist and are they visiting Earth, MacDoc?


----------



## csonni

Looks like this thread is turning into nonsensical jargon and mockery. In an Islamic country, there'd be a death sentence on us for taking like this about Muhammad or Allah. Freedom of speech, etc. Isn't that the byproduct of countries with Christian roots? Maybe not 500+ years ago, but more recent, yes.


----------



## kps

Meh, all non muslims have a death sentence imposed on them. 

So does it make any difference whether we continue speaking or keeping our mouths shut?


----------



## Sonal

csonni said:


> Looks like this thread is turning into nonsensical jargon and mockery. In an Islamic country, there'd be a death sentence on us for taking like this about Muhammad or Allah. Freedom of speech, etc. Isn't that the byproduct of countries with Christian roots? Maybe not 500+ years ago, but more recent, yes.


A few Islamic countries, perhaps, but certainly not all.

As for freedom of speech, that's arguably more secular in origin,

Finally, few countries truly have Christian roots. Christianity is a fairly new religion... most countries and cultures pre-date it. Christianity might tie up into the history of many countries, but not the roots.


----------



## CubaMark

*Religious websites riskier than porn for online viruses*



> Web wanderers are more likely to get a computer virus by visiting a religious website than by peering at porn, according to a study released on Tuesday.
> 
> “Drive-by attacks” in which hackers booby-trap legitimate websites with malicious code continue to be a bane, the US-based anti-virus vendor Symantec said in its Internet Security Threat Report.
> 
> Websites with religious or ideological themes were found to have triple the average number of “threats” that those featuring adult content, according to Symantec.


(RawStory)


----------



## Macfury

CubaMark said:


> *Religious websites riskier than porn for online viruses*


It's because pornography is big business:

“We hypothesize that this is because pornographic website owners already make money from the Internet and, as a result, have a vested interest in keeping their sites malware-free; it’s not good for repeat business.”


----------



## screature

Macfury said:


> *It's because pornography is big business*:
> 
> “We hypothesize that this is because pornographic website owners already make money from the Internet and, as a result, have a vested interest in keeping their sites malware-free; it’s not good for repeat business.”


And religion isn't?


----------



## eMacMan

CubaMark said:


> *Religious websites riskier than porn for online viruses*
> 
> 
> 
> (RawStory)





Macfury said:


> It's because pornography is big business:
> 
> “We hypothesize that this is because pornographic website owners already make money from the Internet and, as a result, have a vested interest in keeping their sites malware-free; it’s not good for repeat business.”





screature said:


> And religion isn't?


Amen Brother, Amen!


----------



## bryanc

csonni said:


> In an Islamic country, there'd be a death sentence on us for taking like this about Muhammad or Allah.


As has already been pointed out, this is certainly not universally true. And it is equally true of Christianity, at a similar age (Islam is about 6 centuries younger than Christianity). In the late 1300's one could certainly get themselves burned at the stake for being a heretic.

But more to the point, the fact that religions often try to stifle the expression of sceptical thoughts can only be evidence of the philosophical frailty of their position. In contrast, science (and philosophy in general) thrives on dissent and debate; false ideas are pruned away through argument and experimentation, leaving us with a better idea of what is likely true.


----------



## MacGuiver

CubaMark said:


> *Religious websites riskier than porn for online viruses*
> 
> 
> 
> (RawStory)


Maybe because most hackers and criminals writing and distributing malicious code on the web are also atheists, hate religion and love porn.


----------



## eMacMan

MacGuiver said:


> Maybe because most hackers and criminals writing and distributing malicious code on the web are also atheists, hate religion and love porn.


More likely because the religious sites depend on God, Allah, Jesus or some other deity to handle their security protocols.


----------



## Macfury

screature said:


> And religion isn't?


The majority of religious sites are pretty primitive stuff. Only the major churches have sophisticated sites.


----------



## kps

MacGuiver said:


> hate religion and love porn.


Sounds like Jimmy Swaggart...:lmao:

That descriptor may also fit quite a few repressed priests also.


----------



## csonni

Philosphy's mandate, I don't believe (correct me if I'm wrong) is to seek out truth. And I think that is the biggest dilemma posed on this thread. Is there an absolute truth or is it all relative? And many of us posting here don't really want to consider any such thing as truth as it brings accountability, responsibility and change, of which, apart from God, we are incapable of producing.


----------



## Max

When talking earnestly about absolute truth, it's all too possible to make terrible errors of judgement.


----------



## MacGuiver

kps said:


> Sounds like Jimmy Swaggart...:lmao:
> 
> That descriptor may also fit quite a few repressed priests also.


I don't doubt that at all. The internet has put smut in the face of everyone from primary school kids to seniors homes. Its spread knows no bounds.


----------



## kps

MacGuiver said:


> I don't doubt that at all. The internet has put smut in the face of everyone from primary school kids to seniors homes. Its spread knows no bounds.


Well, technology sure put a new face on "smut" , but not much different than "French postcards" used to be in 1912.


----------



## Sonal

csonni said:


> Philosphy's mandate, I don't believe (correct me if I'm wrong) is to seek out truth. And I think that is the biggest dilemma posed on this thread. Is there an absolute truth or is it all relative? And many of us posting here don't really want to consider any such thing as truth as it brings accountability, responsibility and change, of which, apart from God, we are incapable of producing.


My fiance and I regularly discuss absolute vs relative truth. What on earth does that have to do with god, accountability, responsibility and change?


----------



## csonni

Max said:


> When talking earnestly about absolute truth, it's all too possible to make terrible errors of judgement.


If there are no sources we can trust, than we're in terrible trouble. And we can't be sure of anything.


----------



## Max

If you have source you can trust, bully for you. I will agree that perhaps this assumption may bring you a significant level of comfort in your own day to day life. The problem is that your idea of trustworthy source can be my idea of an untrustworthy resource, and vice versa.


----------



## bryanc

csonni said:


> If there are no sources we can trust, than we're in terrible trouble. And we can't be sure of anything.


We can't be *absolutely* certain of anything except our own existence. But we can be very confident of many things (such as the existence of an extrinsic reality). While conceptual relativism is an amusing philosophical exercise, it is also a dead-end, epistemologically, because in absence of an objective reality (i.e. absolute truth), we really can't make much progress. However, for objectivists, there is much to be learned and, while we will always have more to learn, three are good ways of distinguishing truth from fiction (such as logic and science), and there are sources we can trust (such as nature).

It seems you may have turned to religion in the vain hope that it would provide you with meaningful answers, when in fact it prevents you from achieving that objective.


----------



## eMacMan

Bit of a stretch blaming Jimmy Swaggerts sliminess on the internet. 

Lets face it JS was what he was long before the internet became a part of our lives. All the internet did was let his natural sliminess grow and develop and take meaningful shape within his religious sanctimony.


----------



## MacGuiver

eMacMan said:


> Bit of a stretch blaming Jimmy Swaggerts sliminess on the internet.
> 
> Lets face it JS was what he was long before the internet became a part of our lives. All the internet did was let his natural sliminess grow and develop and take meaningful shape within his religious sanctimony.


Who was blaming Jimmy S. moral corruption on the internet?


----------



## csonni

bryanc said:


> It seems you may have turned to religion in the vain hope that it would provide you with meaningful answers, when in fact it prevents you from achieving that objective.


Actually, I found scientific reasoning in my studies to leave one empty handed. Call it what you may, but as a father, teacher, mentor and leader, those who I am accountable to are deserving of much more than that. As far as religion goes, I'm not into that. Religion can only lead you so far and then the rest is up to you. God's far greater than that. And yes, acknowledging God in my life brings meaning but that's not the reason I seek Him. Simply put, He is worthy of my praise. Nothing else. If the rocks had voices, they to would follow suit (no, I'm not an Animist).


----------



## bryanc

csonni said:


> Actually, I found scientific reasoning in my studies to leave one empty handed.


I'm certainly not going to try to convince you otherwise, but it sounds like maybe you weren't doing it right.



> God's far greater than that. And yes, acknowledging God in my life brings meaning but that's not the reason I seek Him. Simply put, He is worthy of my praise.


What make you think it was the Christian God that is responsible for the existence of the world? Why not Odin, or Jupiter, or Zeus, or (my favourite) the Flying Spaghetti Monster? When you understand why you reject these other gods, you'll understand why I don't believe in the Christian god either.


----------



## MacGuiver

bryanc said:


> What make you think it was the Christian God that is responsible for the existence of the world? Why not Odin, or Jupiter, or Zeus, or (my favourite) the Flying Spaghetti Monster? When you understand why you reject these other gods, you'll understand why I don't believe in the Christian god either.


Its a failure of logic and reason to dismiss an explanation of a phenomena simply because other understandings or interpretations of it were wrong. Dismissing God because of the Easter Bunny or Spaghetti Monsters is rather simplistic thinking. You're ignoring the possibility that other religions are just getting it wrong.


----------



## bryanc

MacGuiver said:


> Dismissing God because of the Easter Bunny or Spaghetti Monsters is rather simplistic thinking. You're ignoring the possibility that other religions are just getting it wrong.


The Easter Bunny has exactly the same evidential support (i.e. none) as any other supernatural entity. So why accept the existence of any of them? Just because some are more popular?

It seems to me that _you're_ ignoring the possibility that *all* religions are getting it wrong.


----------



## csonni

bryanc said:


> it sounds like maybe you weren't doing it right


That's just it. Being a Christ follower is admitting that we can't do it right at all and that it's already been done. I won't elaborate on that as I'd rather not give one opportunity to scorn the Cross. And the examples of gods you make reference to (other than Zeus) are, well....... I actually think I heard a 6 year old refer to the spaghetti monster on my bus. To each his own I guess on that one.


----------



## MacGuiver

> The Easter Bunny has exactly the same evidential support (i.e. none) as any other supernatural entity.


No evidence? So say you.



> It seems to me that _you're_ ignoring the possibility that *all* religions are getting it wrong.


This is a more logical argument than your last. There is always that possibility.


----------



## jef

csonni said:


> That's just it. Being a Christ follower is admitting that we can't do it right at all and that it's already been done. I won't elaborate on that as I'd rather not give one opportunity to scorn the Cross. And the examples of gods you make reference to (other than Zeus) are, well....... I actually think I heard a 6 year old refer to the spaghetti monster on my bus. To each his own I guess on that one.


So how is being a Christ follower any different from being a Zeus follower, a Santa Claus follower or a Spaghetti Monster follower? If you won't elaborate, we will never know...


----------



## csonni

The resurrection, for one. Plenty of evidence. Just browse through Josh MacDowell's work, "Evidence Demands A Verdict."
None of the one's you mention claim to be able to forgive and remove our violations against an all holy God, so we might approach Him blameless entirely on the merit of Christ.
None of the ones you mention have any breath in them. How can they offer any sort of life when they are "dead" themselves. God breathed into original man the breathe of life.
And from what I understand, at least from your stand, since there is nothing spiritual or supernatural, your gods (of which you don't even believe) don't even exist. In this case, you shouldn't even be up to bat. You're in the wrong game my friend.


----------



## Elric

csonni said:


> The resurrection, for one. Plenty of evidence. Just browse through Josh MacDowell's work, "Evidence Demands A Verdict."


For example...?

We've had this "Evidence" since 1972 and only this guy knows about it? And is selling it?


----------



## csonni

400 eyewitnesses of the resurrected Christ, many of which weren't even followers of Him.
Historical records of the guards guarding the tomb being paid off by the Roman authorities to say nothing about the missing body. They should have been put to death for allowing the seal to be broken and the body removed on their watch.

And why are you so bothered by someone writing a book(s) such as these. Are all "religious" people suppose to offer everything without cost.

I've met people such as yourself that use this smoke screen. By the way, this Josh MacDowell was either an atheist or skeptic. He originally began his work to disprove the resurrection. The evidence was undeniable.


----------



## MacGuiver

The tolerance police are on the case in NS demonstrating their intolerance.
N.S. student suspended for wearing pro-Jesus T-shirt | CTV News


----------



## jef

csonni said:


> 400 eyewitnesses of the resurrected Christ, many of which weren't even followers of Him.
> Historical records of the guards guarding the tomb being paid off by the Roman authorities to say nothing about the missing body. They should have been put to death for allowing the seal to be broken and the body removed on their watch.
> 
> And why are you so bothered by someone writing a book(s) such as these. Are all "religious" people suppose to offer everything without cost.
> 
> I've met people such as yourself that use this smoke screen. By the way, this Josh MacDowell was either an atheist or skeptic. He originally began his work to disprove the resurrection. The evidence was undeniable.


The resurrection myth was not unique to Jesus and was quite popular in ancient folklore long before the Christians attributed it to Jesus (Egyptians, Pagans etc). Google it - there is a ton of analysis that refutes the evidence that you proclaim 'undeniable'.


----------



## csonni

jef said:


> The resurrection myth was not unique to Jesus and was quite popular in ancient folklore long before the Christians attributed it to Jesus


I don't see how that makes it less credible. Just because millions of people catch a common cold does that make yours less credible or real? A bit far fetched example, but you get what I mean.


----------



## fjnmusic

mrjimmy said:


> Here's a good quote:
> 
> "Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich." &#151; Napoleon.
> 
> and another:
> 
> A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject." &#151; Winston Churchill.
> 
> one more:
> 
> "All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian, or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit." &#151; Thomas Paine (1737-1809).
> 
> Lastly:
> 
> "Faith is believing what you know ain't so." &#151; Mark Twain.


I really like these, by the way, in case I didn't mention it before. These latter diatribes that are basically about who has read more were starting to get a little boring. 

"It ain’t supposed to make sense; it’s faith. Faith is something that you believe that nobody in his right mind would believe."
-- Archie Bunker


----------



## Elric

csonni said:


> 400 eyewitnesses of the resurrected Christ, many of which weren't even followers of Him.
> Historical records of the guards guarding the tomb being paid off by the Roman authorities to say nothing about the missing body. They should have been put to death for allowing the seal to be broken and the body removed on their watch.
> 
> And why are you so bothered by someone writing a book(s) such as these. Are all "religious" people suppose to offer everything without cost.
> 
> I've met people such as yourself that use this smoke screen. By the way, this Josh MacDowell was either an atheist or skeptic. He originally began his work to disprove the resurrection. The evidence was undeniable.


Smoke screen? I'm looking for this "evidence", because a guy says so in a book is hardly evidence. Nice sales pitch though.


----------



## csonni

First hand eyewitnesses for the event, today? Not possible, obviously. Just as you won't get such evidence for anything else dating back that far or beyond, especially if were talking about beginnings. And what "evidence" can we have that wasn't gleaned from a textbook? This is crazy. Just because something appears religious or contains something of the sort, it's considered a money scheme. Talk about twisted biases.


----------



## bryanc

csonni said:


> First hand eyewitnesses for the event, today? Not possible, obviously. Just as you won't get such evidence for anything else dating back that far or beyond, especially if were talking about beginnings. And what "evidence" can we have that wasn't gleaned from a textbook?


Okay, so God created me, in 1965, so I couldn't possibly have any reasonable access to any compelling first hand evidence about the miracles He apparently caused to happen almost 2000 years ago. Similarly the billions of people who weren't privileged to experience His awesome POWAR in our lives either due to having been born in the millennia before or after this brief moment in human history during which Yaweh's apparent shyness about exhibiting His omnipotency abated (albeit briefly). 

God chooses to provide modern people with none of this "evidence."

Yet you think we should accept these millennia old translated accounts, made by semiliterate translators of the claims of completely illiterate shepherds as evidence of some sort of supernatural forces that have never before or since been in evidence?!?

Why not accept the 3000 year old claims of Zoroastrians instead?


----------



## jef

bryanc said:


> Okay, so God created me, in 1965, so I couldn't possibly have any reasonable access to any compelling first hand evidence about the miracles He apparently caused to happen almost 2000 years ago. Similarly the billions of people who weren't privileged to experience His awesome POWAR in our lives either due to having been born in the millennia before or after this brief moment in human history during which Yaweh's apparent shyness about exhibiting His omnipotency abated (albeit briefly).
> 
> God chooses to provide modern people with none of this "evidence."
> 
> Yet you think we should accept these millennia old translated accounts, made by semiliterate translators of the claims of completely illiterate shepherds as evidence of some sort of supernatural forces that have never before or since been in evidence?!?
> 
> Why not accept the 3000 year old claims of Zoroastrians instead?


It's so frustrating that you don't understand, bryanc. This only proves that the One and Only God works in mysterious ways. beejacon


----------



## fjnmusic

bryanc said:


> Okay, so God created me, in 1965, so I couldn't possibly have any reasonable access to any compelling first hand evidence about the miracles He apparently caused to happen almost 2000 years ago. Similarly the billions of people who weren't privileged to experience His awesome POWAR in our lives either due to having been born in the millennia before or after this brief moment in human history during which Yaweh's apparent shyness about exhibiting His omnipotency abated (albeit briefly).
> 
> God chooses to provide modern people with none of this "evidence."
> 
> Yet you think we should accept these millennia old translated accounts, made by semiliterate translators of the claims of completely illiterate shepherds as evidence of some sort of supernatural forces that have never before or since been in evidence?!?
> 
> Why not accept the 3000 year old claims of Zoroastrians instead?


You forget the time when the Madonna appeared to the kids at Fatima and the sun briefly went the other direction in the sky. And of course there are the countless apparitions from our lord and friends in grilled cheese sandwiches and such.


----------



## jef

fjnmusic said:


> You forget the time when the Madonna appeared to the kids at Fatima and the sun briefly went the other direction in the sky. And of course there are the countless apparitions from our lord and friends in grilled cheese sandwiches and such.


There have been times in my life when I have worshiped a grilled cheese sandwich. But that is about as far as I will go..


----------



## Elric

csonni said:


> And what "evidence" can we have that wasn't gleaned from a textbook?


Wow, I nearly blew coffee out of my nose at that!

Plate Tectonics, fossils & bones, the bloody STARS IN THE SKY lol
Just because you haven't looked at the evidence for longer than a passing grade (I hope), doesn't mean it doesn't exist, it's everywhere. And it's FREE.

Makes me wonder how many christians even know how the moon was formed, or do they think god just plopped a cherry on his wondrous sundae.

And what the hell do christians think all of the other 100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 (approx.) planets are for? Were they his mistakes? Are they "Under Construction"?


----------



## fjnmusic

Elric said:


> Wow, I nearly blew coffee out of my nose at that!
> 
> Plate Tectonics, fossils & bones, the bloody STARS IN THE SKY lol
> Just because you haven't looked at the evidence for longer than a passing grade (I hope), doesn't mean it doesn't exist, it's everywhere. And it's FREE.
> 
> Makes me wonder how many christians even know how the moon was formed, or do they think god just plopped a cherry on his wondrous sundae.
> 
> And what the hell do christians think all of the other 100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 (approx.) planets are for? Were they his mistakes? Are they "Under Construction"?


Fair enough, but just to play devil's advocate: ask your evolutionary scientist to explain what happened during the big bang prior to 10 to the power of -43 seconds. In other words, the unfolding of events can be explained (sort of) but there is no explanation for what caused the big bang in the first place.


----------



## csonni

Elric said:


> Plate Tectonics, fossils & bones, the bloody STARS IN THE SKY lol
> Just because you haven't looked at the evidence for longer than a passing grade (I hope), doesn't mean it doesn't exist, it's everywhere. And it's FREE.


Funny thing you mention plate tectonics. The very words from my prof in university about plate tectonics- "Students, it might not be the truth, but it works."

And the very things you mention in your post- yes, evidence- "The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of His hands." Psalm 19:1

What I was saying is that most go along with what the textbooks say about all those stars. When you look at that incredible evidence, are you sufficed to say "Oh, I'll go with what the books say about all those stars"?

Believe me, I've been looking at the heavens long before I hid behind the textbook.


----------



## csonni

Creation Calls -- are you listening? Music by Brian Doerksen - YouTube

Job 38:1-40:5

2“Who is this that obscures my plans 
with words without knowledge? 
3 Brace yourself like a man;
I will question you,
and you shall answer me.
4 “Where were you when I laid the earth’s foundation? 
Tell me, if you understand. 
5 Who marked off its dimensions? Surely you know!
Who stretched a measuring line across it?
6 On what were its footings set, 
or who laid its cornerstone —
7 while the morning stars sang together 
and all the angels[a] shouted for joy?
8 “Who shut up the sea behind doors 
when it burst forth from the womb, 
9 when I made the clouds its garment
and wrapped it in thick darkness, 
10 when I fixed limits for it 
and set its doors and bars in place, 
11 when I said, ‘This far you may come and no farther; 
here is where your proud waves halt’?
12 “Have you ever given orders to the morning, 
or shown the dawn its place, 
13 that it might take the earth by the edges
and shake the wicked out of it? 
14 The earth takes shape like clay under a seal; 
its features stand out like those of a garment.
15 The wicked are denied their light, 
and their upraised arm is broken.
16 “Have you journeyed to the springs of the sea
or walked in the recesses of the deep? 
17 Have the gates of death been shown to you?
Have you seen the gates of the deepest darkness? 
18 Have you comprehended the vast expanses of the earth? 
Tell me, if you know all this.
19 “What is the way to the abode of light?
And where does darkness reside? 
20 Can you take them to their places?
Do you know the paths to their dwellings?
21 Surely you know, for you were already born! 
You have lived so many years!
22 “Have you entered the storehouses of the snow 
or seen the storehouses of the hail, 
23 which I reserve for times of trouble, 
for days of war and battle? 
24 What is the way to the place where the lightning is dispersed, 
or the place where the east winds are scattered over the earth? 
25 Who cuts a channel for the torrents of rain,
and a path for the thunderstorm, 
26 to water a land where no one lives,
an uninhabited desert, 
27 to satisfy a desolate wasteland
and make it sprout with grass? 
28 Does the rain have a father? 
Who fathers the drops of dew?
29 From whose womb comes the ice?
Who gives birth to the frost from the heavens 
30 when the waters become hard as stone,
when the surface of the deep is frozen?
31 “Can you bind the chains* of the Pleiades?
Can you loosen Orion’s belt? 
32 Can you bring forth the constellations in their seasons[c]
or lead out the Bear[d] with its cubs? 
33 Do you know the laws of the heavens? 
Can you set up God’s[e] dominion over the earth?
34 “Can you raise your voice to the clouds
and cover yourself with a flood of water? 
35 Do you send the lightning bolts on their way? 
Do they report to you, ‘Here we are’?
36 Who gives the ibis wisdom[f] 
or gives the rooster understanding?[g] 
37 Who has the wisdom to count the clouds?
Who can tip over the water jars of the heavens 
38 when the dust becomes hard 
and the clods of earth stick together?
39 “Do you hunt the prey for the lioness
and satisfy the hunger of the lions 
40 when they crouch in their dens 
or lie in wait in a thicket? 
41 Who provides food for the raven 
when its young cry out to God
and wander about for lack of food?

1 The Lord said to Job:
2 “Will the one who contends with the Almighty correct him? 
Let him who accuses God answer him!”
3 Then Job answered the Lord:
4 “I am unworthy —how can I reply to you?
I put my hand over my mouth. 
5 I spoke once, but I have no answer —
twice, but I will say no more.”*


----------



## fjnmusic

csonni said:


> Creation Calls -- are you listening? Music by Brian Doerksen - YouTube
> 
> Job 38:1-40:5
> 
> 2&#147;Who is this that obscures my plans
> with words without knowledge?
> 3 Brace yourself like a man;
> I will question you,
> and you shall answer me.
> 4 &#147;Where were you when I laid the earth&#146;s foundation?
> Tell me, if you understand.
> 5 Who marked off its dimensions? Surely you know!
> Who stretched a measuring line across it?
> 6 On what were its footings set,
> or who laid its cornerstone &#151;
> 7 while the morning stars sang together
> and all the angels[a] shouted for joy?
> 8 &#147;Who shut up the sea behind doors
> when it burst forth from the womb,
> 9 when I made the clouds its garment
> and wrapped it in thick darkness,
> 10 when I fixed limits for it
> and set its doors and bars in place,
> 11 when I said, &#145;This far you may come and no farther;
> here is where your proud waves halt&#146;?
> 12 &#147;Have you ever given orders to the morning,
> or shown the dawn its place,
> 13 that it might take the earth by the edges
> and shake the wicked out of it?
> 14 The earth takes shape like clay under a seal;
> its features stand out like those of a garment.
> 15 The wicked are denied their light,
> and their upraised arm is broken.
> 16 &#147;Have you journeyed to the springs of the sea
> or walked in the recesses of the deep?
> 17 Have the gates of death been shown to you?
> Have you seen the gates of the deepest darkness?
> 18 Have you comprehended the vast expanses of the earth?
> Tell me, if you know all this.
> 19 &#147;What is the way to the abode of light?
> And where does darkness reside?
> 20 Can you take them to their places?
> Do you know the paths to their dwellings?
> 21 Surely you know, for you were already born!
> You have lived so many years!
> 22 &#147;Have you entered the storehouses of the snow
> or seen the storehouses of the hail,
> 23 which I reserve for times of trouble,
> for days of war and battle?
> 24 What is the way to the place where the lightning is dispersed,
> or the place where the east winds are scattered over the earth?
> 25 Who cuts a channel for the torrents of rain,
> and a path for the thunderstorm,
> 26 to water a land where no one lives,
> an uninhabited desert,
> 27 to satisfy a desolate wasteland
> and make it sprout with grass?
> 28 Does the rain have a father?
> Who fathers the drops of dew?
> 29 From whose womb comes the ice?
> Who gives birth to the frost from the heavens
> 30 when the waters become hard as stone,
> when the surface of the deep is frozen?
> 31 &#147;Can you bind the chains* of the Pleiades?
> Can you loosen Orion&#146;s belt?
> 32 Can you bring forth the constellations in their seasons[c]
> or lead out the Bear[d] with its cubs?
> 33 Do you know the laws of the heavens?
> Can you set up God&#146;s[e] dominion over the earth?
> 34 &#147;Can you raise your voice to the clouds
> and cover yourself with a flood of water?
> 35 Do you send the lightning bolts on their way?
> Do they report to you, &#145;Here we are&#146;?
> 36 Who gives the ibis wisdom[f]
> or gives the rooster understanding?[g]
> 37 Who has the wisdom to count the clouds?
> Who can tip over the water jars of the heavens
> 38 when the dust becomes hard
> and the clods of earth stick together?
> 39 &#147;Do you hunt the prey for the lioness
> and satisfy the hunger of the lions
> 40 when they crouch in their dens
> or lie in wait in a thicket?
> 41 Who provides food for the raven
> when its young cry out to God
> and wander about for lack of food?
> 
> 1 The Lord said to Job:
> 2 &#147;Will the one who contends with the Almighty correct him?
> Let him who accuses God answer him!&#148;
> 3 Then Job answered the Lord:
> 4 &#147;I am unworthy &#151;how can I reply to you?
> I put my hand over my mouth.
> 5 I spoke once, but I have no answer &#151;
> twice, but I will say no more.&#148;*


*

I'm gonna say the candy man.*


----------



## MacGuiver

fjnmusic said:


> You forget the time when the Madonna appeared to the kids at Fatima and the sun briefly went the other direction in the sky.



Yeah I mentioned that before and all I heard from the evangelical atheists was "goddundntdoit". The sun did a lot more than briefly go in the other direction. 3 illiterate shepherd children, under threat of death from their government and chastisement from peers and family either pulled off the greatest illusion in history or the events were genuine with upwards of 70,000 witnesses, atheists and news media among them. Call me when Penn and Teller get it figured out so we can all see it.
The grill cheese sandwiches and burnt toast are merely blow torch art by hucksters, I'm sure you could make a wonderful spaghetti monster toast. However, I'm sure you can't reproduce the phenomena that occurred at Fatima or even explain it.









The kids that pulled it off.


----------



## Elric

csonni said:


> 2“Who is this that obscures my plans
> with words without knowledge?
> 3 Brace yourself like a man;
> I will question you,
> and you shall answer me.


... quoting the book that supports rape, slavery, incest (but NOT ON HER PERIOD), only hurts your argument continually.

Your prof doesn't understand earths plates?

As for your problem with textbooks, you DO realize they get updated constantly as FACTS emerge right? or as theories turn to laws... when was your textbook last updated? I'm pretty sure it still says "cuz I say so" and world is flat.


----------



## csonni

Elric said:


> and world is flat.


I'd suggest you do your homework. The Scriptures spoke of a round earth long before it was "believed.". 
“There is One who is dwelling above the circle of the earth.” (Isaiah 40:22). And there are other references to a spherical earth in the Old Testament. You do your homework and maybe you'll get The first part of your comment straightened out as well.


----------



## Elric

csonni said:


> I'd suggest you do your homework. The Scriptures spoke of a round earth long before it was "believed.".
> “There is One who is dwelling above the circle of the earth.” (Isaiah 40:22). And there are other references to a spherical earth in the Old Testament. You do your homework and maybe you'll get The first part of your comment straightened out as well.


You do know that a circle and a sphere are 2 different things right?

Believe me, I've done my homework.


----------



## csonni

I beg to differ on that.

Lot, Abraham’s nephew, had two sons by his own daughters while in a drunken stupor (Genesis 19:30-35). Moses recorded the sordid act as a matter of history, but there is no sanction of the sin in Scriptures. In fact it is placed in a decidedly negative light. Ruben was intimate with Bilhah, his father’s concubine (Genesis 35:22) — a shameful act that was condemned and penalized (Genesis 49:4). Amnon, one of David’s sons, committed incest/rape against his half-sister, Tamar (2 Samuel 13:7-14), and, as a consequence, was murdered later by the order of Absalom, Tamar’s full brother (2 Samuel 13).

The incest you made reference to, I'm assuming, is from 1 Corinthians 7:36. That's not a father marrying a daughter. It's a father allowing his daughter to marry. If you studied the cultural context of the Bible, many of your gripes would be dealt with. That should be the case with any historical book, such as the Bible. I believe that's what many have done with the Bible just as an excuse to discredit it.

Again, do your homework.


----------



## JCCanuck

Elric said:


> You do know that a circle and a sphere are 2 different things right?
> 
> Believe me, I've done my homework.


+1
A pancake can be circular but flat.


----------



## Elric

Rape:

Deuteronomy 22:23-24 NAB)
*
*** If within the city a man comes upon a maiden who is betrothed, and has relations with her, you shall bring them both out of the gate of the city and there stone them to death: the girl because she did not cry out for help though she was in the city, and the man because he violated his neighbors wife.


*(Deuteronomy 22:28-29 NLT)
*
*** If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father.* Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her.



(Zechariah 14:1-2 NAB)
*
*** Lo, a day shall come for the Lord when the spoils shall be divided in your midst.* And I will gather all the nations against Jerusalem for battle: the city shall be taken, houses plundered, women ravished; half of the city shall go into exile, but the rest of the people shall not be removed from the city.

Do yours.


----------



## JCCanuck

csonni said:


> First hand eyewitnesses for the event, today? Not possible, obviously. Just as you won't get such evidence for anything else dating back that far or beyond, especially if were talking about beginnings. And what "evidence" can we have that wasn't gleaned from a textbook? This is crazy. Just because something appears religious or contains something of the sort, it's considered a money scheme. Talk about twisted biases.


Evidence? How 'bout the fascinating discovery of Ötzi the Iceman found to have lived about 5300 years ago. Scientists and researchers have been able to give a detailed sketch of the Iceman's lifestyle including what he ate from contents of stomach. Forensic science has shown he died from injuries of an arrow possible shot in him from behind. Now that's a believable story and real evidence.


----------



## csonni

The Hebrew word in the Bible for “circle” (חוג—chuwg) can also mean “round” or “sphere.”

Job 26:10 indicates that where light terminates, darkness begins. This suggests day and night on a spherical globe.

The Hebrew record is the oldest, because Job is one of the oldest books in the Bible. Historians wrongly credit the Greeks with being the first to suggest a spherical earth. In the sixth century B.C., Pythagoras suggested a spherical earth.

Elric- so you think that just because instances like that are mentioned in the Bible that the Bible supports and condones such behaviour? Where in the world do you get that? Try re-reading exactly what you quoted. It's not there in the text at all. And as far as the Zechariah passage, that has to do with God withdrawing His hand of protection on Jerusalem due to their idolatry and the Romans sacking the place to destroy it. 

Tell me where the Bible condones wicked behavior. Sorry, but it's not there.

The more you dig into the Bible, the more nuggets you will find that shatter the delusions that others have raised up against it.


----------



## csonni

JCCanuck said:


> Now that's a believable story and real evidence.


+1

There's a nice youtube clip here on him: In Focus: Ötzi "The Ice Man" - YouTube


----------



## fjnmusic

csonni said:


> The Hebrew word in the Bible for &#147;circle&#148; (חוג&#151;chuwg) can also mean &#147;round&#148; or &#147;sphere.&#148;
> 
> Job 26:10 indicates that where light terminates, darkness begins. This suggests day and night on a spherical globe.
> 
> The Hebrew record is the oldest, because Job is one of the oldest books in the Bible. Historians wrongly credit the Greeks with being the first to suggest a spherical earth. In the sixth century B.C., Pythagoras suggested a spherical earth.
> 
> Elric- so you think that just because instances like that are mentioned in the Bible that the Bible supports and condones such behaviour? Where in the world do you get that? Try re-reading exactly what you quoted. It's not there in the text at all. And as far as the Zechariah passage, that has to do with God withdrawing His hand of protection on Jerusalem due to their idolatry and the Romans sacking the place to destroy it.
> 
> Tell me where the Bible condones wicked behavior. Sorry, but it's not there.
> 
> The more you dig into the Bible, the more nuggets you will find that shatter the delusions that others have raised up against it.


In the Old Testament, polygamy was permitted, even encouraged. A man could have as many wives as he could afford. You'll notice that the commandment is not to covet thy neighbor's wife (or oxen or tools) as they were considered a man's possessions. There is no parallel commandment regarding covering a neighbor's husband, since men could not be owned (except slaves).

Not wicked exactly, but certainly not admirable either. You will find these if you read your bible more closely, or if you perhaps read the works of biblical scholars like Bishop John Shelby Spong.


----------



## csonni

They were patriarchal societies in those days and an unmarried woman would have a very difficult time providing for herself, if not impossible. Women were often uneducated and untrained. They relied on their fathers, brothers, and husbands for provision and protection. Any unmarried women were often subjected to prostitution and slavery.

While there are no perfect, logical explanations for all the cultural ills in the Bible, it seems that God may have allowed polygamy to protect and provide for the women who could not find a husband otherwise. A man would take multiple wives and serve as the provider and protector of all of them. While definitely not ideal, living in a polygamist household was far better than the alternatives: prostitution, slavery, or starvation.


----------



## MazterCBlazter

.


----------



## JCCanuck

fjnmusic said:


> In the Old Testament, polygamy was permitted, even encouraged. A man could have as many wives as he could afford.


Geeeez! I can barely handle having one wife now!


----------



## fjnmusic

JCCanuck said:


> Geeeez! I can barely handle having one wife now!


Nobody said it's a better life, but certainly a more expensive one.


----------



## rondini

Never understood how some modern day quirky faiths condone Polygamy, but there very few belief systems that condone Polyandry.


----------



## Max

Hey, it's religion. It's not supposed to be logical, or even consistent.


----------



## Sonal

rondini said:


> Never understood how some modern day quirky faiths condone Polygamy, but there very few belief systems that condone Polyandry.


Women are smart enough to realize that one husband is more than enough trouble as it is?  :lmao:


----------



## CubaMark




----------



## SINC

'Bout says it all . . .


----------



## kowalskil

mrjimmy said:


> Here we go. A place for all to vent, observe, ask and preach.


Perhaps my article about *dangerous* feuds between theists-atheists is worth discussing. It appeared in the April 2012 Issue of American Atheist Magazine. The link is:

atheist

Comments will be appreciated.


----------



## Macfury

kowalskil said:


> Perhaps my article about *dangerous* feuds between theists-atheists is worth discussing. It appeared in the April 2012 Issue of American Atheist Magazine. The link is:
> 
> atheist
> 
> Comments will be appreciated.


I read your article and I think it made some valid points. One simply can't attempt to reconcile questions of science and religion simultaneously using the same set of analytical tools. People on both sides of the theist-atheist debate would do well to realize this, not to end the debate, but to end the futile portion of it.


----------



## MazterCBlazter

.


----------



## kowalskil

MazterCBlazter said:


>


Feuds between theists and atheists are dangerous. What can be done to reduce their intensity? What is the alternative to NOMA, formulated by a scientist, S.J. Gould?

L.K.


----------



## Macfury

kowalskil said:


> Feuds between theists and atheists are dangerous. What can be done to reduce their intensity? What is the alternative to NOMA, formulated by a scientist, S.J. Gould?


\

Not too long ago , the poster above you was touting his occult powers.


----------



## bryanc

kowalskil said:


> Feuds between theists and atheists are dangerous.


I would change that to "*can be* dangerous." I also agree that there is no need for this conflict. In regions where religion conflicts with science, religion is invariably wrong, and should be ignored. There are topics regarding which various religions have various things to say, but to which science does not pertain. For these topics we can't know if the religions are wrong, but I strongly suspect their near perfect record for inaccuracy is safe.

So all-in-all, we're better off ignoring religions.


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> I would change that to "*can be* dangerous." I also agree that there is no need for this conflict. In regions where religion conflicts with science, religion is invariably wrong, and should be ignored. There are topics regarding which various religions have various things to say, but to which science does not pertain. For these topics we can't know if the religions are wrong, but I strongly suspect their near perfect record for inaccuracy is safe.
> 
> So all-in-all, we're better off ignoring religions.


In fact, tour post is a perfect example of how inflammatory the arguments can be. If you are going to ignore religion, then ignore it--don't feel obliged to get up on your hind legs and mark your territory at its mere mention.


----------



## MazterCBlazter

.


----------



## jef

kowalskil said:


> Feuds between theists and atheists are dangerous. What can be done to reduce their intensity? What is the alternative to NOMA, formulated by a scientist, S.J. Gould?
> 
> L.K.


Feuds are by definition dangerous but debates are healthy and can be productive. I successfully converted 2 christian missionaries and one mormon missionary to atheism through healthy debate during a couple of long cold winters while working at a university in North Eastern China. 

As a side note, one of the other missionaries ended up being deported because he convinced one of his students, who had a serious eye disease, to put her faith in god rather than have surgery. She is now blind.


----------



## MazterCBlazter

.


----------



## kowalskil

MazterCBlazter said:


> ...
> 
> Religion is clearly a business. They should not be granted special tax and legal status. ...


That is not theological issue. I deliberately avoided the word religion in

atheist

What is a better alternative to NOMA, as far as reducing intensity of dangerous feuds is concerned? 

L.K.


----------



## bryanc

kowalskil said:


> What is a better alternative to NOMA, as far as reducing intensity of dangerous feuds is concerned?


While I think NOMA is the best we're likely to do, in an ideal world the validity and consequent respect for religion would evaporate, so these would not be "non-overlapping magisteria" so much as a rational understanding of what we know and what we don't know.


----------



## Macfury

MazterCBlazter said:


> That was a long time ago and you twisted around what I was saying.
> 
> You are a liar.


Seriously?

From this thread, three years ago:

http://www.ehmac.ca/everything-else-eh/73392-scientific-vs-spiritual-viewpoints-reality-life.html



MazterCBlazter said:


> There should be no contradiction between science and religion if both speak the truth. Science and religion both contradict themselves on their own. Science is always changing its model of truth. Religion does not allow itself to be questioned. Science does not give one moral direction or emotional inspiration, just cold hard (what they claim to be) facts.
> 
> While there is much truth and wisdom in religious writings, there is much dogma. For example, what the Bible and Jesus teaches is dramatically different from anything any Christian church is preaching today.
> 
> ........
> 
> So far as I am concerned, the only way to God is though the intellect (scientific and spiritual), mastering mathematics and occult spiritual practices.





MazterCBlazter said:


> I use things I have learned from mystical spiritual practices to bring me huge success in business and in life. *I work very little, live very well, and make very good money in my business transactions thanks to knowledge and practice of the occult.*





MazterCBlazter said:


> ...The only part of scientific knowledge that is infallible is mathematics. A one is always a one. One plus one is always two. The rest of it changes constantly. Science is just another form of religion.


----------



## jef

kowalskil said:


> That is not theological issue. I deliberately avoided the word religion in
> 
> atheist
> 
> What is a better alternative to NOMA, as far as reducing intensity of dangerous feuds is concerned?
> 
> L.K.


'NOMA' isn't much of a solution because it denies the existence of the overlap between religion and science. The overlap is where most of the contentious issues are.

To deny a problem certainly doesn't work toward a better understanding and/or solution.


----------



## bryanc

jef said:


> 'NOMA' isn't much of a solution because it denies the existence of the overlap between religion and science. The overlap is where most of the contentious issues are.


Good point. But, where science and religion overlap, religion is invariably shown to be wrong. So what essentially all modern religions do is avoid the aspects of human experience that can be addressed by science. Strangely, this does not stop the contention, because science continues to expand, forcing religion to retreat. It is at these interfaces that the friction arises.



> To deny a problem certainly doesn't work toward a better understanding and/or solution.


Hence my confidence that the ultimate solution will be the abandonment of religion. 

Unfortunately, due primarily to our brains being 'wired' for irrational superstitions, our culture being steeped in mysticism, and our political system having been deeply suborned by organized religions, I don't see this happening any time soon. So NOMA is the best we can do in the short term.


----------



## kowalskil

jef said:


> 'NOMA' isn't much of a solution because it denies the existence of the overlap between religion and science. The overlap is where most of the contentious issues are.
> 
> To deny a problem certainly doesn't work toward a better understanding and/or solution.


Yes, the problem of defining boundaries will not be easy. But it should be addressed by those who want to turn the NOMA idea into reality. Theologians and scientists should work on the proposals separately, at least at the beginning.

L.K.


----------



## fjnmusic

MazterCBlazter said:


> Hello Sir,
> 
> You do seem to be a very intelligent, highly educated, thoughtful and concerned person. I am going to have to read up more from the links you have provided.
> 
> 
> 
> From your link.
> 
> I have no problem whatsoever with people believing and doing whatever they want, so long as they keep it to themselves. If someone believes a particular religious idea and wants to share it with friends, that is OK. I have no problem with people like the Amish. They are not on a Crusade to convert the world into their beliefs and way of life.
> 
> I am in complete agreement with the statement the Atheist made above. Religions have a history of forcibly converting the masses and murdering those that would not comply. The behaviour and attitudes of these organizations has not improved.
> 
> If a religious group is for or against something, those rules should apply to members of their religion ONLY.
> 
> So much of what many religions have been saying has been clearly disproven. Many of the beliefs and practices are outright bizarre and irrational.
> 
> Religion is clearly a business. They should not be granted special tax and legal status. They should not be property and income tax exempt. Donations given to religions should be subject to sales tax, not be income tax deductible. Peoples right to belong to and practice a religion should be protected by law. Also, the law should protect the general public from religion. It should be very illegal for religions to participate in politics in any way.
> 
> If someone is going to serve any major function in any religion they should dedicate their life to that spiritual practice. They should also be willing to forfeit their right to vote, run for public office, and participate in anything political. The penalties for violating that rule should be severe.
> 
> Big religions are a major political machine. In order for the world to go forward and progress that must be stopped permanently. For the most part they are corrupt criminal organizations. Their agendas clearly have nothing spiritual, progressive, or compassionate about them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most religious people act like the people on the right side of the picture. Which is just sickening. The world would be a much better place if the religious acted like the picture on the left.


With all due respect, I think you've gone a little off the deep end with where you're willing to draw the line in the sand, my friend. You cannot separate religion and politics, for example, because politics IS religion. It is based on the religious beliefs of a society ultimately and unless you only elect people who don't believe in anything, including concepts like social justice, rep by pop, democracy, or providing for the poor, you're going to have to deal with people's belief systems no matter what. True, some are more in your face than others, but everyone believes in something. Change the word religion to "belief system" and you'll see where I'm coming from. Rather than trying to eliminate religion from politics, you look for someone whose beliefs are not totally contradictory to your own and negotiate on most issues.


----------



## bryanc

kowalskil said:


> Yes, the problem of defining boundaries will not be easy.


Indeed. And any such boundaries are going to be temporary. As scientific knowledge grows, the nooks and crannies of our ignorance provide fewer and fewer refuges for superstition to flourish. Many otherwise rational people I know who cling to their religious faiths for emotional reasons have recognized the hopelessness of using religion to explain the things that science has not yet explained, and therefore adopt the NOMA approach of using religion to provide "meaning" to that which we do understand through science, and "guidance" with regard to the employment of our technological applications of science.

I have less disagreement with this position than I do with the religious fundamentalists who clash with science about the nature of observable reality, but I like to point out that the guidance and meaning provided by theological reasoning is no more likely to be correct than the religious pronouncements historically made regarding the natural universe. We are far better off determining how we ought to behave using rational, secular reasoning, than looking to bronze-age mystics for guidance in the 21st century.


----------



## bryanc

fjnmusic said:


> You cannot separate religion and politics, for example, because politics IS religion. It is based on the religious beliefs of a society ultimately and unless you only elect people who don't believe in anything, including concepts like social justice, rep by pop, democracy, or providing for the poor, you're going to have to deal with people's belief systems no matter what. True, some are more in your face than others, but everyone believes in something. Change the word religion to "belief system" and you'll see where I'm coming from.


While all religions are belief systems, not all belief systems are religions. Belief systems that are founded on faith in supernatural entities or processes can fairly be described as religions. But belief systems that are founded on observable reality, rational skepticism, and which accept that one must change one's beliefs when faced with new compelling evidence are emphatically not religions.

While most people suffer from the former, I think we should all strive for the latter, and a society based on the latter would be far more just, sustainable, and productive than our current religiously-dominated one.


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> But belief systems that are founded on observable reality, rational skepticism, and which accept that one must change one's beliefs when faced with new compelling evidence are emphatically not religions.


Problem is, members of many of these belief systems have too much invested in them to change their minds when confronted with new evidence. They then become religions of a sort.


----------



## bryanc

Macfury said:


> Problem is, members of many of these belief systems have too much invested in them to change their minds when confronted with new evidence. They then become religions of a sort.


I agree that people may become invested in their initially rational belief systems, and become dogmatically adherent when the data starts to indicate they may have been wrong. This is certainly an irrational propensity to which we are all susceptible, and against which scientists in particular must constantly be on guard. However, even if an individual were to succumb to this type of irrationality to the point where they denied overwhelming evidence to the contrary (at which point I think it would be fair to describe the belief as "faith"), unless that belief were somehow founded on the existence of a supernatural force or entity, I don't think it would be fair to call it a religion.

The obvious current example of this is climate change; while initially holding a position of rational skepticism, the scientists who disagreed with AGW have almost all been forced to concede by reason and evidence over the past two decades. The remaining deniers are clearly basing their beliefs on faith, rather than evidence; but that does not make climate change denial a religion.


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> The obvious current example of this is climate change; while initially holding a position of rational skepticism, the scientists who disagreed with AGW have almost all been forced to concede by reason and evidence over the past two decades. The remaining deniers are clearly basing their beliefs on faith, rather than evidence; but that does not make climate change denial a religion.


I believe the reverse is true,


----------



## bryanc

Macfury said:


> I believe the reverse is true,


Of course you do; because you have faith. I would like to believe that human activity is not changing our climate, but I am compelled to believe otherwise by reason and evidence.

But this thread is not the place for that discussion.


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> Of course you do; because you have faith. I would like to believe that human activity is not changing our climate, but I am compelled to believe otherwise by reason and evidence.
> 
> But this thread is not the place for that discussion.


You're right. However I do want to establish that I would like to believe global warming is occurring. I prefer that immensely to cooling.


----------



## bryanc

MazterCBlazter said:


>


Do you have a source for this quote? I'm very surprised an active American Politician would be so openly atheistic. Wikipedia says Paul Ryan is a Catholic.


----------



## kowalskil

fjnmusic said:


> With all due respect, I think you've gone a little off the deep end with where you're willing to draw the line in the sand, my friend. You cannot separate religion and politics, for example, because politics IS religion. ...


I deliberately avoided "politics" and "religion" in

atheist

in order to discuss NOMA. Yes, religion and politics are often closely related. But that was not my topic


----------



## kowalskil

bryanc said:


> ... to adopt the NOMA approach of using religion to provide "meaning" to that which we do understand through science, and "guidance" with regard to the employment of our technological applications of science. ...


That is not my understanding of the NOMA idea.

L.K.


----------



## jamesB

Macfury said:


> You're right. However I do want to establish that I would like to believe global warming is occurring. I prefer that immensely to cooling.


I'd like to see some of that "global warming" myself, seeing as how I had my wood stove on last night and my oil furnace on for a cycle or 2 this morning just to take the chill off.


----------



## fjnmusic

bryanc said:


> While all religions are belief systems, not all belief systems are religions. Belief systems that are founded on faith in supernatural entities or processes can fairly be described as religions. But belief systems that are founded on observable reality, rational skepticism, and which accept that one must change one's beliefs when faced with new compelling evidence are emphatically not religions.
> 
> While most people suffer from the former, I think we should all strive for the latter, and a society based on the latter would be far more just, sustainable, and productive than our current religiously-dominated one.


And the fact that you "think we should all strive for the latter" essentially moves this potentially useful concept into the realm of your own personal belief system, your mantra if you will, which is at its core no different than a religious belief. Your error in judgement comes when you declare that we should "all" subscribe to some particular notion that you happen to believe in. True atheism rejects groupthink or at least gets its back up when it sees groupthink, even "non-believer" groupthink. It's a little hypocritical for you to denounce religious viewpoints now. See how that works?


----------



## bryanc

fjnmusic said:


> And the fact that you "think we should all strive for the latter" essentially moves this potentially useful concept into the realm of your own personal belief system, your mantra if you will, which is at its core no different than a religious belief.


How is this in any way similar to a religious belief. There is no faith or beliefs regarding supernatural forces or entities involved.



> Your error in judgement comes when you declare that we should "all" subscribe to some particular notion that you happen to believe in.


I have not suggested that everyone should believe the same things, I have suggested that everyone should strive for clarity of thought, eschew the irrational nonsense promulgated by religions, and formulate their own beliefs to the best of their rational abilities. When we encounter subjects regarding which we are not well equipped to reason our way to a well-founded belief, we should avoid forming beliefs; remain open minded and consider the opinions of experts carefully unless and until you can rationally come to your own conclusions.



> True atheism rejects groupthink or at least gets its back up when it sees groupthink, even "non-believer" groupthink.


"True atheism" is rather an outré phrase; atheism is simply the absence of a belief in god(s). There is no dogma or authority that dictates what is or is not "true" atheism. If you don't believe in god(s), you're an atheist. Why an individual is without a belief in gods is going to vary significantly from individual to individual, but it doesn't really pertain to the fact that they're an atheist, or the "truthyness" of their atheism.



> It's a little hypocritical for you to denounce religious viewpoints now. See how that works?


Nope. I feel entirely rational and confident in my denunciation of religious viewpoints. Declaring that I think the world would be a better place if others were more rational and came to similar conclusions on their own has nothing to do with "groupthink" or anything remotely similar to religion.


----------



## bryanc

kowalskil said:


> That is not my understanding of the NOMA idea.


I don't think I expressed the point very clearly, sorry. I know many religious people who accept the idea that science and religion are "non-overlapping magisteria" (this is what you mean by "NOMA", correct?) and who argue that, because science can only help us understand the way things *are*, not how we _*ought*_ to act, we need to turn to religion for guidance on the latter.

I disagree. Religion has demonstrated that it is of no value in discerning what is true about the natural world, but it does not follow that because religion is not useful in understanding nature that it *is* good for understanding anything else. I contend that religion is not good for _*anything*_. (Well, I'll admit that there are side effects of religion that are nice; music, art, literature, architecture, etc. But I see no reason we can't continue to develop these aspects of our culture without the baggage of a bunch of irrational beliefs in the supernatural).

While I agree that science is not a useful tool for developing a moral philosophy, I see religion as even less useful in that it appears to provide guidance, but does so in a consistently twisted and/or inappropriate way that prevents an individual from developing their own rational philosophy to guide their behaviour. Religion is, in my opinion, a deterrent to the development of a healthy and functional moral philosophy, and it therefore does far more harm than good in modern society.


----------



## kowalskil

bryanc said:


> I don't think I expressed the point very clearly, sorry. I know many religious people who accept the idea that science and religion are "non-overlapping magisteria" (this is what you mean by "NOMA", correct?) and who argue that, because science can only help us understand the way things *are*, not how we _*ought*_ to act, we need to turn to religion for guidance on the latter. ...


"Guidance" is a different topic, in my opinion. But it is worth addressing. Each society needs moral principle, such as "be honest," "do not harm others," etc.

L.K.


----------



## bryanc

kowalskil said:


> "Guidance" is a different topic, in my opinion. But it is worth addressing. Each society needs moral principle, such as "be honest," "do not harm others," etc.


I agree, and I think most would. My objection is that many contend that moral principles are the domain of religion. I've had this discussion with many bright people, and often it goes along the lines of "you can't use science to find moral principles, therefore this is the domain of religion." While I agree that science is not going to provide us with moral insights (at least not in the foreseeable future), I emphatically disagree with the conclusion. Just because science can't do something does not mean that religion can.

We have ample evidence that religion can't be used to understand the natural world, but the claim that religion _can_ provide moral guidance is without substantiation. Religion's failure at explaining the natural world is not evidence of it's capacities in any other realm. Indeed, I would argue that religion is an even worse failure as a moral compass than science because it claims to do something it can't.


----------



## fjnmusic

Not sure why you insist on throwing out the baby with the bath water, Bryan C. Did you have a bad experience with religion growing up? Some dark catalyst that led you to this conclusion? Not only do you not appreciate the value of religion, but you don't want anyone to appreciate its value either. Strikes me as a rather absolute stand for someone who on the surface is preaching tolerance and open-mindedness. Does your world view not permit superstitious beliefs of any sort? Even if these irrational beliefs can make others happy? And for what it's worth, I respect science, but science does not have all the answers, nor does it even pretend to. Take creation, for example: science attempts to explain how organisms can evolve from what state to the next, but has no idea what prompts this evolution or even how life begins in the first place. 

And our good friend Albert Einstein claimed that imagination is more important than knowledge.

http://taylorsciencewriter.com/Papers/THESWEBII.pdf


----------



## bryanc

fjnmusic said:


> Not sure why you insist on throwing out the baby with the bath water


Because I'm quite convinced there's no baby; it's just a floating turd.



> Did you have a bad experience with religion growing up?


My personal experiences with religion are not really relevant; history and society's current religiously-founded woes are more than enough evidence that these memetic viruses do us significant harm.

I was fortunate to be spared most of the particularly damaging influences of religion as a child, but I have had the pleasure of playing intellectual midwife to the triumph of reason over faith, fear, and familial indoctrination for several of my friends and colleagues who managed to recover from their religious upbringings. So I can say that while my experiences with religion were rare and only marginally distasteful, many of my friends and colleagues have had much more traumatic histories with religion.



> Some dark catalyst that led you to this conclusion?


I've alway though of reason and evidence as "enlightening" rather than as a "dark catalyst." But I have to admit "dark catalyst" sounds cool... mind if I borrow it?



> Not only do you not appreciate the value of religion, but you don't want anyone to appreciate its value either.


It's not really a question of "want." I see religion as fundamentally inimical to individual and social development. So it's like saying "I don't appreciate the value of herpes, and I don't want anyone else to appreciate it either." I certainly don't see anything wrong with studying and learning about religion (indeed, I think, like other viruses, that's an important approach to eliminating it), but I disagree with people who argue that it is necessary or desirable.



> Does your world view not permit superstitious beliefs of any sort?


Nope. At least not for me. Of course I don't propose we should outlaw any religion or other superstitious nonsense; you can't legislate belief, and oppressing a religion is like trying to put out a fire with gasoline. I just don't think we should be promoting or respecting any of it.



> Even if these irrational beliefs can make others happy?


I admit this is a tough call, and I personally back-off on the religion thing when I'm dealing with someone who I think isn't mentally or emotionally capable of developing a rational philosophy that can adequately replace their religion. This may be somewhat hypocritical of me, but I'm always very uncomfortable about causing unnecessary suffering.



> And for what it's worth, I respect science, but science does not have all the answers, nor does it even pretend to.


Of course not. That's why this is philosophy.



> Take creation, for example: science attempts to explain how organisms can evolve from what state to the next, but has no idea what prompts this evolution or even how life begins in the first place.


Actually, this is a bad example. You're right that evolutionary theory does not deal with the origin of life, and that our understanding of abiogenesis is far less well-developed than our understanding of evolution, but we understand very well how evolution works, and we also have some pretty good ideas about how life got started; this is a thriving sub-feild of biochemistry. We now have several different plausible mechanisms that can give rise to self-replicating polymers that are consistent with what we know of the conditions on the pre-biotic earth. It's just that it's very difficult to formulate falsifiable hypotheses about chemical processes that happened billions of years ago. We can say mechanisms X, Y and Z are known to occur under conditions thought to reflect those on earth around the time of the emergence of self-replicating biochemistry, but we cannot say that some other mechanism we don't know about didn't occur.

So, while we have lots of ideas, we have far less confidence that we understand what actually happened, and we may never be able to unequivocally answer that question.

But it's very important to note that, when we don't know, we admit we don't know; we don't go around making up fairy tales about it.



> And our good friend Albert Einstein claimed that imagination is more important than knowledge.


I certainly agree. But in order for imagination to be useful, one has to be able to distinguish between things that they have imagined and things that they have actually perceived. Just because I can imagine invisible pink unicorns does not mean they exist. As is common for many famous Einstein quotes, the context is important. The point he was trying to make here is that in order to make great discoveries, you have to be able to imagine something that you don't know exists (such as a relationship between mass and energy), use logic and reason to determine the implications (predictions) of your imagined scenario, and then, ideally, make empirical observations to test your predictions (i.e. does perception match the prediction of imagination and rational analysis).


----------



## fjnmusic

Interesting answers, with which many of I agree. And feel free to use "dark catalyst" if you like—it just came to me out of the blue, like a butterfly angel or a pink unicorn landing softly on my shoulder and whispering in my ear. 👂🐛


----------



## MacGuiver

> It's not really a question of "want." I see religion as fundamentally inimical to individual and social development. So it's like saying "I don't appreciate the value of herpes, and I don't want anyone else to appreciate it either." I certainly don't see anything wrong with studying and learning about religion (indeed, I think, like other viruses, that's an important approach to eliminating it), but I disagree with people who argue that it is necessary or desirable.


Hate has made you blind not to mention irrational if you can only see herpes when you see religion. Unless herpes has inspired people to build hospitals, cloth the poor, feed the sick, visit the imprisoned, forgive those that have done them wrong, turn from addictions and vices that would have destroyed them etc etc. I've personally known people that would likely be dead today had they not encountered God. They live life and live it to the full. They'd not share your vitriol for the faith that saved them.


Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## jef

MacGuiver said:


> Hate has made you blind not to mention irrational if you can only see herpes when you see religion. Unless herpes has inspired people to build hospitals, cloth the poor, feed the sick, visit the imprisoned, forgive those that have done them wrong, turn from addictions and vices that would have destroyed them etc etc. I've personally known people that would likely be dead today had they not encountered God. They live life and live it to the full. They'd not share your vitriol for the faith that saved them.
> 
> 
> Cheers
> MacGuiver


Wow - who is the blind one here? Generosity is not solely the domain of the religious. As far as your personal observations go, there is no proof that any god was actually encountered; the mind is a powerful thing. An erroneous belief can certainly motivate the behavioral change that actually did 'save them' and lead them to a fuller life. I think they would actually have an even fuller life if religion was left out altogether and they faced their issues directly without the crutch of an irrational belief.


----------



## fjnmusic

jef said:


> Wow - who is the blind one here? Generosity is not solely the domain of the religious. As far as your personal observations go, there is no proof that any god was actually encountered; the mind is a powerful thing. An erroneous belief can certainly motivate the behavioral change that actually did 'save them' and lead them to a fuller life. I think they would actually have an even fuller life if religion was left out altogether and they faced their issues directly without the crutch of an irrational belief.


This is what I cannot understand. Why do you find it so necessary to burst other people's balloons? If others find comfort in religion, what do you care? As long as it isn't harming you, what's the big deal? I know many people who swear by UFO's, Bigfoot and Nessie, and if that works for them, who am I to criticize? Atheists who think it is their duty to convert the world to atheism are just as annoying as fundamentalists who do the same.


----------



## bryanc

fjnmusic said:


> This is what I cannot understand. Why do you find it so necessary to burst other people's balloons? If others find comfort in religion, what do you care? As long as it isn't harming you, what's the big deal? I know many people who swear by UFO's, Bigfoot and Nessie, and if that works for them, who am I to criticize? Atheists who think it is their duty to convert the world to atheism are just as annoying as fundamentalists who do the same.


You're reading something into my position that isn't there. While I think people would be better off if they could eliminate these irrational beliefs from their world view, I'm not on some crusade to bring everyone to their senses. As long as other people keep their crazy beliefs to themselves, I'm fine with them wasting their time with their fantasies about magic sky daddies or whatever. When these crazy beliefs are used to motivate atrocities, or when they start otherwise inflicting their bronze age fantasies on those around them, then I'm less tolerant. If people kept their religions to themselves, they'd be a lot less offensive. But they don't. I frequently have to deal with people's religious foibles, and, what's worse, society deems these innumerable little stupidities "respectable" so I have to restrain my contempt.


----------



## jef

fjnmusic said:


> This is what I cannot understand. Why do you find it so necessary to burst other people's balloons? If others find comfort in religion, what do you care? As long as it isn't harming you, what's the big deal? I know many people who swear by UFO's, Bigfoot and Nessie, and if that works for them, who am I to criticize? Atheists who think it is their duty to convert the world to atheism are just as annoying as fundamentalists who do the same.


This is a discussion, not a crusade. You are entitled to believe whatever you want as long as it is not harming anyone.

However, when bad decisions are made because of irrational beliefs, it can and does cause harm. A world where decisions are made based on the best evidence available (and always subject to review) instead of 'faith' is something to look forward to.


----------



## eMacMan

fjnmusic said:


> This is what I cannot understand. Why do you find it so necessary to burst other people's balloons? If others find comfort in religion, what do you care? As long as it isn't harming you, what's the big deal? I know many people who swear by UFO's, Bigfoot and Nessie, and if that works for them, who am I to criticize? Atheists who think it is their duty to convert the world to atheism are just as annoying as fundamentalists who do the same.


Yep no harm at all to those folks in say Northern Ireland or The Gaza Strip.


----------



## bryanc

MacGuiver said:


> Hate has made you blind not to mention irrational if you can only see herpes when you see religion. Unless herpes has inspired people to ...


Your latter point has some merit, but first I want to address the former; I don't "hate" religion. One of the main reasons I post here is to argue and discuss interesting topics, and while I find religions variously risible, pathetic, contemptible, or just somewhat lame, depending on the flavour, it is a topic I find entertaining to discuss, and I certainly don't have the sort of emotional investment to call it "hate." Furthermore, as I've said several times, I do see religions as viruses, and just like I don't dislike people who catch a cold, I don't dislike religious people; I just don't want them coughing and spreading their infection all over the place.

As for the fact that religion has inspired some people to do good things (ignoring, for the moment, all the horrible things that have been inspired by religion), it's true. But many diseases have inspired people to do good things... or crazy things. I think that says far more about the people than it does about the disease.

Finally, while I'm always pleased to see people doing good things, it's far more gratifying to see people doing the right things for the right reasons than the right things for the wrong reasons; when people are motivated by irrational nonsense, they may sometimes do the right thing, but they can't really be trusted... they may turn around and start flying planes into buildings for the same crazy reasons.


----------



## MacGuiver

> Wow - who is the blind one here? Generosity is not solely the domain of the religious.


I never claimed it was Jef but only a fool would be blind to or deny the many charities and good works done by followers of Christ. That said, not all religions are a force for good in the world. I have a hard time seeing positive fruits of Islam for instance but then again my knowledge of the islamic community is limited to what we see on the evening news.



> As far as your personal observations go, there is no proof that any god was actually encountered; the mind is a powerful thing.


I'll grant you that, but the original contention was that religion was like herpes. Maybe it was hyperbole. I can't think of a single positive side effect of having herpes but I've seen lives that were a train wreck turned around for the good of the individual and everyone around them from a religious conversion.



> An erroneous belief can certainly motivate the behavioral change that actually did 'save them' and lead them to a fuller life.


I agree. 



> I think they would actually have an even fuller life if religion was left out altogether and they faced their issues directly without the crutch of an irrational belief.


Maybe, but I've certainly met my fair share of jaded and bitter atheists with their fair share of crutches to question whether that offers a happier, more satisfying life. Not to mention history is rife with irrational and dangerous people that shared your atheism. It certainly didn't lead them to a higher moral standard. In fact it may have given them license to commit some of the most horrific acts in human history.
Before you go making assumptions again that I think all atheist are like Stalin, I'm not. There are people with no religion that are some of the nicest people you'd ever meet. 

Using broad brushes to characterize atheists would show the same poor judgement as using that brush to characterize people of faith.

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## screature

I think kowalskil by bringing forward the notion of NOMA has made a very significant point as clearly laid out but many of the atheists here. They see theism/religion as an anathema onto the world and humanity and fail to see the good that theism has also brought about.

Theism played/s a significant role in the development of human history and as such without it we couldn't be where we are today. All one has to do is look at the history of art, music, architecture, literature, medicine and even science to know that it was in the name of mankind expressing "glory to god" that we are where we are today because of theism, the good the bad and the ugly. 

If it wasn't for religion we wouldn't have the flying buttress, the pyramids, great works of art and music etc., etc., etc. We also wouldn't have had the crusades and countless other wars. The fact of the matter is that theism like science is dualistic in nature. It contains its own thesis and antithesis... yin and yang if you will.

Those atheists who espouse the greatness of science and how we would all be better off if we were all just coldly "rational" also seem to forget the great travesties, death, destruction and environmental devastation that have been brought about by the application of science.

So long as science remains at the disposal of all too flawed and fallible human beings to use for good or evil it has no "high ground" to stand on relative to theism/religion, it is all up to the morality of those "in charge" as to how either one will be used.


----------



## MacGuiver

screature said:


> I think kowalskil by bringing forward the notion of NOMA has made a very significant point as clearly laid out but many of the atheists here. They see theism/religion as an anathema onto the world and humanity and fail to see the good that theism has also brought about.
> 
> Theism played/s a significant role in the development of human history and as such without it we couldn't be where we are today. All one has to to is look at the history of art, music, architecture, literature, medicine and even science to know that it was in the name of mankind expressing "glory to god" that we are where we are today because of theism, the good the bad and the ugly.
> 
> If it wasn't for religion we wouldn't have the flying buttress, the pyramids, great works of art and music etc., etc., etc. We also wouldn't have had the crusades and countless other wars. The fact of the matter is that theism like science is dualistic in nature. It contains its own thesis and antithesis... yin and yang if you will.
> 
> Those atheists who espouse the greatness of science and how we would all be better off if we were all just coldly "rational" also seem to forget the great travesties, death, destruction and environmental devastation that have been brought about by the application of science.
> 
> So long as science remains at the disposal of all too flawed and fallible human beings to use for good or evil it has no "high ground" to stand on relative to theism/religion, it is all up to the morality of those "in charge" as to how either one will be used.


Excellent post Screature.


----------



## fjnmusic

bryanc said:


> You're reading something into my position that isn't there. While I think people would be better off if they could eliminate these irrational beliefs from their world view, I'm not on some crusade to bring everyone to their senses. As long as other people keep their crazy beliefs to themselves, I'm fine with them wasting their time with their fantasies about magic sky daddies or whatever. When these crazy beliefs are used to motivate atrocities, or when they start otherwise inflicting their bronze age fantasies on those around them, then I'm less tolerant. If people kept their religions to themselves, they'd be a lot less offensive. But they don't. I frequently have to deal with people's religious foibles, and, what's worse, society deems these innumerable little stupidities "respectable" so I have to restrain my contempt.


If people kept their religions to themselves, they wouldn't be religions. Religions are by definition social activities.


----------



## eMacMan

fjnmusic said:


> If people kept their religions to themselves, they wouldn't be religions. Religions are by definition social activities.


Wrongo. They would be called Quiet Christians (or whatever other religion you care to insert). People who live their beliefs rather than talking or Armstronging them.


----------



## SINC

eMacMan said:


> Wrongo. They would be called Quiet Christians (or whatever other religion you care to insert). People who live their beliefs rather than talking or Armstronging them.


Maybe not. If every man lived his beliefs, there would be no sharing of beliefs of any kind and therefore no progress in a shared society. Could society even exist under such circumstances?


----------



## jef

screature said:


> I think kowalskil by bringing forward the notion of NOMA has made a very significant point as clearly laid out but many of the atheists here. They see theism/religion as an anathema onto the world and humanity and fail to see the good that theism has also brought about.
> 
> Theism played/s a significant role in the development of human history and as such without it we couldn't be where we are today. All one has to do is look at the history of art, music, architecture, literature, medicine and even science to know that it was in the name of mankind expressing "glory to god" that we are where we are today because of theism, the good the bad and the ugly.
> 
> If it wasn't for religion we wouldn't have the flying buttress, the pyramids, great works of art and music etc., etc., etc. We also wouldn't have had the crusades and countless other wars. The fact of the matter is that theism like science is dualistic in nature. It contains its own thesis and antithesis... yin and yang if you will.
> 
> Those atheists who espouse the greatness of science and how we would all be better off if we were all just coldly "rational" also seem to forget the great travesties, death, destruction and environmental devastation that have been brought about by the application of science.
> 
> So long as science remains at the disposal of all too flawed and fallible human beings to use for good or evil it has no "high ground" to stand on relative to theism/religion, it is all up to the morality of those "in charge" as to how either one will be used.


I think we can all agree that both theists and atheists have brought both good and bad to the world and it's not an issue as far as determining a good or bad person. And we can agree that there are certainly bad things that have come from bad science. (I would assume that the slaves that toiled to death to build the pyramids etc had a different opinion of how glorious they were at the time.) I don't see how this supports a position that we need religion to lead good or full lives.

Also, why is being rational 'cold'? We can marvel in the 'glory' of nature and in the discovery of how these things came to be. We can produce and enjoy music and art without the help of anything supernatural - why do you equate being 'rational' with a lack of imagination and creativity?


----------



## screature

jef said:


> I think we can all agree that both theists and atheists have brought both good and bad to the world and it's not an issue as far as determining a good or bad person. And we can agree that there are certainly bad things that have come from bad science. (I would assume that the salves that toiled to death to build the pyramids etc had a different opinion of how glorious they were at the time.) I don't see how this supports a position that we need religion to lead good or full lives.
> 
> Also, why is being rational 'cold'? We can marvel in the 'glory' of nature and in the discovery of how these things came to be. We can produce and enjoy music and art without the help of anything supernatural - why do you equate being 'rational' with a lack of imagination and creativity?



I think you are reading a lot into and all the while ignoring a lot of what I said. I never said we needed religion to lead good and full lives, never even implied it.

Cold as opposed to "hot" rational.  Most people think of being rational as being emotionless or at least not allowing emotion to enter into ones logical decision making... think of Sheldon Cooper in TBBT. 

I didn't equate being rational with a lack of imagination or a lack of creativity never even came close to saying it, that is your misinterpretation and reading into what I said.


----------



## fjnmusic

eMacMan said:


> Wrongo. They would be called Quiet Christians (or whatever other religion you care to insert). People who live their beliefs rather than talking or Armstronging them.


Wrongo yourself. A one-person religion is not a religion. Heck, you need a minimum number of members before you can even be considered a sect or cult, let alone a religious denomination. You could look it up. Christians are followers of the Christ, or Messiah. How do you have a single person be the follower if there is not at least one other person to lead them? 

Religions are by definition social institutions whether you like it or not. The question, really, is how much tolerance do you have for other people's belief systems and how quite or vocal they must be. Some religions, for example, require them to evangelize; to go knocking on doors and trying to convert others. I respect their belief that they need to do this, but I am not comfortable with them trying to evangelize me. That being said, the concept of "murder is wrong," also religiously based, I am quite comfortable with because it makes my world a little safer in theory.

Fact is, apart from living on an island or living in the mountains by yourself, you have to learn to live with people with different belief systems than yourself. I have concerns about other people's politics just as much as religion, and I have long lived as a Mac guy in a PC world. That's just life, and we get a lot further with tolerance than bigotry.

Religion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Macfury

fjnmusic said:


> Fact is, apart from living on an island or living in the mountains by yourself, you have to learn to live with people with different belief systems than yourself. I have concerns about other people's politics just as much as religion, and I have long lived as a Mac guy in a PC world. That's just life, and we get a lot further with tolerance than bigotry.


Exactly. I don't care how may people approach me with their ideas, as long as they cease and desist by polite request. As long as the religion makes no effort to forcibly control me, I can put on my big guy underwear and extend tolerance to them.


----------



## bryanc

I agree with most of the above.


fjnmusic said:


> The question, really, is how much tolerance do you have for other people's belief systems and how quite or vocal they must be.


This is really the issue, isn't it? In principle, I'm fine with letting everyone believe whatever they like, and even discussing and disagreeing about it in forums like these (where, if you don't want to talk about it, you're free not to). However, when people's irrational beliefs (no matter how popular they may be) impact public policy, or infringe on the personal freedoms of non-adherents, it's not intolerant to object.



> Some religions, for example, require them to evangelize; to go knocking on doors and trying to convert others.


Yes, this is part of the viral nature of religion. It's interesting to note that religions that exhibit this trait most strongly are also most dominant in our culture.



> I respect their belief that they need to do this


Why do you respect this? I _tolerate_ it, but can't see anything respectable about it.



> That being said, the concept of "murder is wrong," also religiously based


What?!? How is this religiously based? Are you suggesting that atheists don't also view murder as wrong? A secular philosophy will often have a more complex view of killing, in which euthanasia or self-defence may justify killing, but I've never met an atheist who didn't view murder as an ethical "wrong."



> Fact is, apart from living on an island or living in the mountains by yourself, you have to learn to live with people with different belief systems than yourself.


Absolutely. "Learning to live with", may mean "tolerating in some contexts", which may involve difficult discussions and compromises about what acceptable contexts are. Or it may mean something more like "Learning to live with cancer"... you may wish you could eradicate it, but, being unable to do so, you try to mitigate the damage it causes and hope for a cure.


----------



## fjnmusic

bryanc said:


> Why do you respect this? I _tolerate_ it, but can't see anything respectable about it.


"Respect" as in "not pick a fight with" or "try to view with an open mind" as opposed to getting on my pulpit to inform them of how wrong wrong wrong they are for believing such a thing. I also believe in freedom of speech (for the most part) and I must respect the evangelist's need to try to persuade me, just as if I were running for office and wanted the opportunity to try to convince some hard-core conservatives of the value of some aspects of socialism, for example.

Entrenched political belief systems are at their heart virtually the same as entrenched religious belief systems. We have the freedom to believe as we wish as long as exercising (and exorcising) those beliefs does not infringe on the rights and freedoms of others. Ay, there's the rub; the right of my fist ends where the right of your nose begins, and vice-versa.


----------



## jef

fjnmusic said:


> Wrongo yourself. A one-person religion is not a religion. Heck, you need a minimum number of members before you can even be considered a sect or cult, let alone a religious denomination. You could look it up. Christians are followers of the Christ, or Messiah. How do you have a single person be the follower if there is not at least one other person to lead them?
> 
> Religions are by definition social institutions whether you like it or not. The question, really, is how much tolerance do you have for other people's belief systems and how quite or vocal they must be. Some religions, for example, require them to evangelize; to go knocking on doors and trying to convert others. I respect their belief that they need to do this, but I am not comfortable with them trying to evangelize me. That being said, the concept of "murder is wrong," also religiously based, I am quite comfortable with because it makes my world a little safer in theory.
> 
> Fact is, apart from living on an island or living in the mountains by yourself, you have to learn to live with people with different belief systems than yourself. I have concerns about other people's politics just as much as religion, and I have long lived as a Mac guy in a PC world. That's just life, and we get a lot further with tolerance than bigotry.
> 
> Religion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


To paraphrase: If one person has an imaginary friend, we call them crazy. If a group of people share an imaginary friend, we call it a religion...


----------



## fjnmusic

jef said:


> To paraphrase: If one person has an imaginary friend, we call them crazy. If a group of people share an imaginary friend, we call it a religion...


Now that's more like it. ;-)


----------



## fjnmusic

Speaking of science and God…

http://mobile.news.com.au/technolog...und-god-particle/story-fn5fsgyc-1226417165748


----------



## bryanc

fjnmusic said:


> "Respect" as in "not pick a fight with"


Okay; that's what I mean when I say "tolerance." I do restrain my inclination to argue with religious people to forums like these, where anyone who does not want to participate is free to avoid the discussion.



> or "try to view with an open mind"


If you leave your mind open, people will throw garbage in it. Open minded skepticism is laudable, but the idea that all belief systems are of equal value is simply foolish. It is entirely possible (indeed very difficult not) to be wrong.



> Entrenched political belief systems are at their heart virtually the same as entrenched religious belief systems.


Why do you keep equating religions with all other belief systems? Isn't this eroding the meaning of the word religion? Not all belief systems, no matter how rational or irrational, are dependent on supernatural explanations. It's fair to say that not all supernatural claims are religious, but all religions make claims about the supernatural.


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> Why do you keep equating religions with all other belief systems? Isn't this eroding the meaning of the word religion? Not all belief systems, no matter how rational or irrational, are dependent on supernatural explanations. It's fair to say that not all supernatural claims are religious, but all religions make claims about the supernatural.


It's because they are based on unprovable premises. For example, the luddite notion that all development is wrong on some level, or the notion that using fossil fuels is inherently wrong. It is a belief system based on a first principle in which adherents bypass critical discussion of that first principle.


----------



## bryanc

Macfury said:


> It's because they are based on unprovable premises.


So art is a religion?



> For example, the luddite notion that all development is wrong on some level, or the notion that using fossil fuels is inherently wrong. It is a belief system based on a first principle in which adherents bypass critical discussion of that first principle.


Interesting straw men you've got there; can you find anyone who is actually arguing these positions?


----------



## screature

bryanc said:


> Okay; that's what I mean when I say "tolerance." I do restrain my inclination to argue with religious people to forums like these, where anyone who does not want to participate is free to avoid the discussion.
> 
> 
> 
> If you leave your mind open, people will throw garbage in it. Open minded skepticism is laudable, but the idea that all belief systems are of equal value is simply foolish. It is entirely possible (indeed very difficult not) to be wrong.
> 
> Why do you keep equating religions with all other belief systems? Isn't this eroding the meaning of the word religion? Not all belief systems, no matter how rational or irrational, are dependent on supernatural explanations. It's fair to say that not all supernatural claims are religious, *but all religions make claims about the supernatural*.


No they don't. Many religions believe that "god" or "the life force", whatever you want to call it, is simply part of nature, as in the nature of things, not above or beyond nature, it is a part of the make up of the universe. 

I have pointed this out to you before but your memory seems to only retain those things that support your given argument.


----------



## fjnmusic

screature said:


> No they don't. Many religions believe that "god" or "the life force", whatever you want to call it, is simply part of nature, as in the nature of things, not above or beyond nature, it is a part of the make up of the universe.
> 
> I have pointed this out to you before but your memory seems to only retain those things that support your given argument.


Good point, Screature. Neil Donald Walsch suggests we replace the word God with the word Life and we'll gain a much better understanding of how God works. As in, do you cease to be alive if you declare that Life does not exist? A perspective I find refreshing that lays to rest all the religion vs. science petty squabbling. God is essentially the Life force that flows through all of us and though everything that exists or could exist. It is both manifest and in manifest, and exists whether you believe it or not. It is not the traditional sky-daddy; you cannot offend God or hurt his/her feelings. There is no need for sacrifice or guilt or restitution. Just keep breathing for as long as you are able.

OK, here come the refutations from the believers and non-believers alike. I can handle it.


----------



## bryanc

screature said:


> No they don't. Many religions believe that "god" or "the life force", whatever you want to call it, is simply part of nature, as in the nature of things, not above or beyond nature, it is a part of the make up of the universe.
> 
> I have pointed this out to you before but your memory seems to only retain those things that support your given argument.


No need to be snippy; I remember these points perfectly well. Firstly, while there are many religions that do not refer to specific supernatural agents, these are by far less common that the Abrahamic religions that dominate our society. And secondly, while there are branches of Buddism and other religions that do not explicitly reference the supernatural, they do posit "forces" and/or entities that are not constrained by the laws of physics, making these claims either explicitly supernatural or so very close as to be indistinguishable. You're nit-picking.

You are probably right that there are some people who hold to a fundamentally naturalistic world view, and who nevertheless engage in ritualistic behaviours that they believe somehow influence or are pleasing to some cosmic "universal life force" or something, but such a belief system is A) sufficiently esoteric that if it breaks the general definition of a religion including claims about the supernatural, it's a rare exception to the rule, and B) in every case I've encountered these belief systems are fundamentally based on supernatural claims regarding how "all life in the universe is connected/loved by the universal mind" or some similar fundamentally physically impossible (i.e. supernatural) ideas.


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> So art is a religion?


Art is not a premise. A belief in something about art that relies on a first principle might be comparable to a religion.



bryanc said:


> Interesting straw men you've got there; can you find anyone who is actually arguing these positions?


A few regarding fossil fuels. More likely, you will find the more prevalent belief, that capitalism is inherently evil. Example:



> ...capitalism is inherently evil, and in the first place because in divides human beings into irreconcilable classes."


Banks and Mountebanks | Aotearoa Independent Media Centre

Another good example found here, related to fossil fuels. A knitting group that believes using plastic wool is unequivocally wrong:



> I believe that all plastics, as they are derived from fossil fuels, are inherently evil and as they will eventually end up in landfill aren't actually being recycled at all: they're being reformed. In the end, the same volume of processed crude oil is going to be dumped straight back into our planet for our children's generation to deal with.


A thousand needle felting ?s

While they may not be organized or knowledgable of the other people who share their viewpoint, their belief relies on a shared, but unchallenged first principle. Note how a second person in the sewing thread immediately identifies with the first:



> I agree with flapjack on the inherent evil of plastic.


----------



## fjnmusic

All you really need to be classified as a religion is enough numbers, which is how Jedi came to be the fourth largest religion in England and Wales in the 2001 census. Strange but true.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Jedi_census_phenomenon_2001.pdf&page=1


----------



## bryanc

fjnmusic said:


> God is essentially the Life force that flows through all of us and though everything that exists or could exist.


How is this not a supernatural claim?

The biochemistry of living things does not require any "force" beyond the chemical thermodynamics we already understand. Positing a "Life force" let alone one that somehow "flows" through every living thing is just a bunch of supernatural gobbeldy ****. It doesn't make any testable, falsifyable predictions; it doesn't provide any explanatory power; and it serves only to disguise ignorance and confuse the issue.


----------



## screature

bryanc said:


> *No need to be snippy;* I remember these points perfectly well. Firstly, while there are many religions that do not refer to specific supernatural agents, these are by far less common that the Abrahamic religions that dominate our society. And secondly, while there are branches of Buddism and other religions that do not explicitly reference the supernatural, they do posit "forces" and/or entities that are not constrained by the laws of physics, making these claims either explicitly supernatural or so very close as to be indistinguishable. You're nit-picking.
> 
> You are probably right that there are some people who hold to a fundamentally naturalistic world view, and who nevertheless engage in ritualistic behaviours that they believe somehow influence or are pleasing to some cosmic "universal life force" or something, but such a belief system is *A) sufficiently esoteric that if it breaks the general definition of a religion including claims about the supernatural, it's a rare exception to the rule, and B) in every case I've encountered these belief systems are fundamentally based on supernatural claims regarding how "all life in the universe is connected/loved by the universal mind" or some similar fundamentally physically impossible (i.e. supernatural) ideas.*


You condescend to people all the time so I thought you would have a thicker skin.

I see, so you are only interested in religions that abide by your "general definition of religion" in order that you may continue to ridicule and deride them and then if the don't they are simply "esoteric" and rare exceptions to the rule... Perhaps they are, but as a scientist I would have thought that you would be more interested in the exceptions than the rule as after all isn't science about disproving and not proving?


----------



## screature

bryanc said:


> How is this not a supernatural claim?
> 
> *The biochemistry of living things does not require any "force" beyond the chemical thermodynamics we already understand. * Positing a "Life force" let alone one that somehow "flows" through every living thing is just a bunch of supernatural gobbeldy ****. It doesn't make any testable, falsifyable predictions; it doesn't provide any explanatory power; and it serves only to disguise ignorance and confuse the issue.


Clearly there is capacity for life in the universe and so as such there is an inherent system of circumstances that when met allows for life to come into existence. This is what some mean when the use they rather poetic (not supernatural) term "life force".

Beyond that there is the inherent drive for procreation and generational iteration once that life has come into existence. You have tried to explain the theoretical mechanics for this in the past but have ultimately had to admit that science does not yet have the answer for this drive for reproduction and generational continuance. But it is also this phenomenon that some people refer to as "life force" again something purely natural with no "supernatural" claim, just something observable in nature.


----------



## bryanc

Macfury said:


> Art is not a premise. A belief in something about art that relies on a first principle might be comparable to a religion.


Lots of things are comparable to religion that are not religion. Science is comparable to religion in that they are both methods people have used to try to understand the universe. Science is different from religion in that it actually _works_ beejacon



> A few regarding fossil fuels.


Okay, I'll give you this one. The quotes you provided above show that you're right, there are certainly some kooky people out there who believe all sorts of wacky stuff. But I would still argue that just because someone has an irrational belief or belief system, that does not make their belief system a religion. Again, while all religions are irrational, not all irrationality is religious.



> More likely, you will find the more prevalent belief, that capitalism is inherently evil.


Well, for some definitions of "evil" it is. But so is nature. Ecology is the ultimate form of laissez-faire economics, with energy being the currency.

Anyone who played Dungeons and Dragons back in the 70's may remember the descriptions of character alignments from the Dungeon Master's Guide along the axes of Good vs. Evil and Law vs. Chaos. The DMG described the ethos of evil as being fundamentally governed by the principle that "might makes right"; that the strong should have dominion over the weak. This is obviously a cliché definition of evil, but it is actually fairly consistent with a fair bit of moral philosophy, and it certainly matches the mechanics of capitalism.

So I'd say that, if you accept that definition of "evil" then yes, capitalism is inherently evil. 

Personally, I don't accept that definition of evil. My definition of evil is based on Millsian Utilitarianism, and therefore is ultimately reducible to "pain."


----------



## bryanc

screature said:


> I see, so you are only interested in religions that abide by your "general definition of religion" in order that you may continue to ridicule and deride them and then if the don't they are simply "esoteric" and rare exceptions to the rule.


Okay, I'll grant you that "religion" is hard to define, and if you pick some esoteric edge cases you can find exceptions to my criticisms of religion. But to be fair, you have to agree that my ridicule of religion accurately targets the vast majority of what people mean when they use the word "religion."

Many of my objections to religion are far less pertinent to atheistic forms of Buddhism, or Jainism, etc. but to the extent that these belief systems make reference to the supernatural, at least some of my criticisms still pertain.



> but as a scientist I would have thought that you would be more interested in the exceptions than the rule as after all isn't science about disproving and not proving?


Um... isn't it pretty clear that we're well outside of the realm of science here; we're discussing metaphysics, epistemology, and ethics, not nature. I don't think anyone's trying to prove or disprove anything; I'm just trying to make the case that the failure of supernaturally-based belief systems (generically "religions") to provide useful guidance regarding the natural world is in no way indicative that they will be successful at providing moral or other guidance. Failure in one realm is not evidence of success in another.


----------



## bryanc

screature said:


> Clearly there is capacity for life in the universe and so as such there is an inherent system of circumstances that when met allows for life to come into existence. This is what some mean when the use the rather poetic (not supernatural) term "life force".


Well, that's just poor writing, and I have less objection to that. Rather than "life force" say "chemistry" and there's no problem.



> You have tried to explain the theoretical mechanics for this in the past but have ultimately had to admit that science does not yet have the answer for this drive for reproduction and generational continuance.


Have I? I certainly don't recall doing so, because this is very well understood and has been for over a century.



> But it is also this phenomenon that some people refer to as "life force" again something purely natural with no "supernatural" claim, just something observable in nature.


Again, bad writing. This is called "natural selection" not "life force." Any organism that does not successfully compete for resources and procreate is eliminated by natural selection. Selection therefore generates populations of organisms that have a "drive" to reproduce. No "life force," supernatural or otherwise, necessary.


----------



## screature

bryanc said:


> Okay, I'll grant you that "religion" is hard to define, and if you pick some esoteric edge cases you can find exceptions to my criticisms of religion. But to be fair, you have to agree that my ridicule of religion accurately targets the vast majority of what people mean when they use the word "religion."
> 
> Many of my objections to religion are far less pertinent to atheistic forms of Buddhism, or Jainism, etc. but to the extent that these belief systems make reference to the supernatural, at least some of my criticisms still pertain.
> 
> 
> 
> *Um... isn't it pretty clear that we're well outside of the realm of science here; we're discussing metaphysics, epistemology, and ethics, not nature. I don't think anyone's trying to prove or disprove anything; I'm just trying to make the case that the failure of supernaturally-based belief systems (generically "religions") to provide useful guidance regarding the natural world is in no way indicative that they will be successful at providing moral or other guidance. Failure in one realm is not evidence of success in another.*


Well I think it is pretty obvious that is what you are talking about but even when the notion of NOMA was brought forward which specifically attempted to leave the word "religion" out of the discussion in favour of the use of the words theism and atheism you continued to bring the term "religion" back into the discussion.

I know the thread is called the religion thread but I think it would be beneficial if we extend beyond the extremely limiting definitions of the word if it the discussion is going to bear any fruit otherwise it is just going to be a wheel inside a wheel spinning round and round forever.


----------



## screature

bryanc said:


> Well, that's just poor writing, and I have less objection to that. Rather than "life force" say "chemistry" and there's no problem.
> 
> *
> Have I? I certainly don't recall doing so, because this is very well understood and has been for over a century.*
> 
> 
> Again, bad writing. *This is called "natural selection" not "life force."* Any organism that does not successfully compete for resources and procreate is eliminated by natural selection. Selection therefore generates populations of organisms that have a "drive" to reproduce. No "life force," supernatural or otherwise, necessary.


Yes you have. So what is it then, what drove the first initial life forms to procreate and not simply die out?

Natural selection is simply a term used in science and you prefer it because you are a scientist... life force is equally valid as it refers to the same processes. Not bad writing... just your preference of terminology.


----------



## fjnmusic

I would suggest that this forum is not even really a discussion any more, not even a debate, to be honest. It has somehow transmogrified into Bryanc's personal shooting range to flaunt his obvious intellectual superiority. If you come up with an interesting idea you want to pursue or have others consider, he'll be happy to shoot you down and make you feel like an idiot for even thinking that way. He OWNS science, apparently, as well as most of the other terms in the English language. 

Sorry if this comes off a bit harsh, but it's the truth. You didn't start this thread, you're not here to moderate it, and you don't have a monopoly on the terms or concepts discussed herein. In other words, back off and stop treating every post as something you must either refute or support. We're not your students, and you don't need to condescend. 

I stand by the term "life force" because it most accurately represents what I'm trying to say. You don't have to agree and you certainly don't need to mock. You could climb out of your ivory tower now and then and exercise your imagination, though. Life is not a collection of definitions and hypotheses.


----------



## bryanc

screature said:


> Yes you have.


Link?


> So what is it then, what drove the first initial life forms to procreate and not simply die out?


There is no reason to think that the first self-replicating chemical systems didn't just die out. Maybe the first thousand did. Until a system that had the characteristics of replicating efficiently enough to spread arose, not much was likely to happen. Once a system that spread arose, it would, by definition, spread until it was limited by resources (in this spread it may well have eliminated other systems that propagated less effectively). Once it was limited by resources, variants that were more effective at obtaining and or utilizing resources would be selected for, and the evolutionary logic takes off.



> Natural selection is simply a term used in science and you prefer it because you are a scientist... life force is equally valid as it refers to the same processes.


Natural selection is a very explicit mechanism based on which we can make hypotheses with testable, falsifiable predictions. If you can define, in explicit mechanistic terms what "life force" means, then fine; it may have some merit. However, if it means the same thing as "natural selection" why use a different and confusingly vague term for something that already has a well established term with well established meaning, and vast amounts of supportive data. If "life force" means something else, then it's proponents need to provide some evidence that phenomena not explicable by natural selection are observable, and that "life force" can be used to generate hypotheses with falsifiable predictions about these phenomena that natural selection cannot.

As far as I can tell "life force" is pure obfuscation crafted to muddy the waters; it connotes supernatural phenomena without making these implications explicit, and contributes nothing to our understanding of biology or philosophy.


----------



## fjnmusic

I'll bet you're fun at parties.


----------



## bryanc

fjnmusic said:


> I would suggest that this forum is not even really a discussion any more, not even a debate, to be honest. It has somehow transmogrified into Bryanc's personal shooting range to flaunt his obvious intellectual superiority.


Look, you often make good points and even when we disagree, your posts are usually at least interesting, but now you're getting personal and this isn't productive.



> If you come up with an interesting idea you want to pursue or have others consider, he'll be happy to shoot you down and make you feel like an idiot for even thinking that way.


If you feel like an idiot after reading my posts, that's unfortunate and certainly not my intention, but I think it has more to do with your psychology than mine.

I am trying to refute points made by others here as clearly as possible, and if that makes you feel bad, I apologize. But I contend that if you recognize that you're position was flawed as the result of something I've posted, that reflects well on both of us. An idiot does not recognize when they are wrong. An idiot does not recognize when someone else has a point. An idiot is not capable of changing their position to adapt to external challenges.

So you shouldn't feel like an idiot if you are able to recognize that holes in your position have been pointed out.

And just because I am able to refute aspects of your arguments does not mean you have to accept my position; you are certainly free to come up with alternatives. But don't take it so personally when I attack them as well. This is how philosophy works; we present our ideas and then try to find flaws in them and iterate until we find positions that can withstand attack from many different angles. It's sort of like natural selection 



> He OWNS science


Now you're just being childish.



> as well as most of the other terms in the English language.


How can we have a reasoned discussion if we can't agree on what words mean? We're discussing religion, so it's important to agree on what religion means. Screature took me to task on my equating religion with beliefs about god(s), and I was forced to agree that there are exceptions. That's useful; I should be saying "conventional religions" or trying to convince you that the atheistic religions are sufficiently exceptional that we can disregard them.



> You didn't start this thread, you're not here to moderate it, and you don't have a monopoly on the terms or concepts discussed herein.


Maybe this should've been sent to me as a PM, if you're really just pissed at me. I don't claim to have any monopolies or ownership of anything here; I'm arguing my position to the best of my ability and you're free to quit anytime you want. If you don't like my definitions, provide better alternatives and explain why.



> In other words, back off and stop treating every post as something you must either refute or support.


I'm only responding to the things I find worth arguing. The fact that your posts have been so engaging is something you should find complementary, not threatening. Maybe you need a cup of tea or something? Did you skip lunch; is your blood sugar low? You seem unreasonably upset.... oops... that was condescending wasn't it 

But seriously dude, take a deep breath. I'm not taking this personally and neither should you.



> I stand by the term "life force" because it most accurately represents what I'm trying to say.


Okay, then please explain what it means. It doesn't make any sense to me.



> You don't have to agree and you certainly don't need to mock. You could climb out of your ivory tower now and then


Now who's mocking? 

And as for getting out of the "ivory tower," what do you think I'm doing here?


----------



## screature

bryanc said:


> Link?


#1947



bryanc said:


> ...You're right that evolutionary theory does not deal with the origin of life, and that our understanding of abiogenesis is far less well-developed than our understanding of evolution, but we understand very well how evolution works, and we also have some pretty good ideas about how life got started; *this is a thriving sub-feild of biochemistry. We now have several different plausible mechanisms that can give rise to self-replicating polymers that are consistent with what we know of the conditions on the pre-biotic earth. It's just that it's very difficult to formulate falsifiable hypotheses about chemical processes that happened billions of years ago. We can say mechanisms X, Y and Z are known to occur under conditions thought to reflect those on earth around the time of the emergence of self-replicating biochemistry, but we cannot say that some other mechanism we don't know about didn't occur.
> 
> So, while we have lots of ideas, we have far less confidence that we understand what actually happened, and we may never be able to unequivocally answer that question...*


You wrote this two days ago you think you would remember...




bryanc said:


> There is no reason to think that the first self-replicating chemical systems didn't just die out. Maybe the first thousand did. Until a system that had the characteristics of replicating efficiently enough to spread arose, not much was likely to happen. Once a system that spread arose, it would, by definition, spread until it was limited by resources (in this spread it may well have eliminated other systems that propagated less effectively). Once it was limited by resources, variants that were more effective at obtaining and or utilizing resources would be selected for, and the evolutionary logic takes off.


This does in now way explain the why of procreation.





bryanc said:


> Natural selection is a very explicit mechanism based on which we can make hypotheses with testable, falsifiable predictions. If you can define, in explicit mechanistic terms what "life force" means, then fine; it may have some merit. However, if it means the same thing as "natural selection" why use a different and confusingly vague term for something that already has a well established term with well established meaning, and vast amounts of supportive data. If "life force" means something else, then it's proponents need to provide some evidence that phenomena not explicable by natural selection are observable, and that "life force" can be used to generate hypotheses with falsifiable predictions about these phenomena that natural selection cannot.
> 
> As far as I can tell "life force" is pure obfuscation crafted to muddy the waters; it connotes supernatural phenomena without making these implications explicit, and contributes nothing to our understanding of biology or philosophy.


To reiterate:



> *Clearly there is capacity for life in the universe and so as such there is an inherent system of circumstances that when met allows for life to come into existence. *This is what some mean when the use they rather poetic (not supernatural) term "life force".
> 
> Beyond that there is the inherent drive for procreation and generational iteration once that life has come into existence. You have tried to explain the theoretical mechanics for this in the past but have ultimately had to admit that science does not yet have the answer for this drive for reproduction and generational continuance. But it is also this phenomenon that some people refer to as "life force" again something purely natural with no "supernatural" claim, just something observable in nature.


----------



## bryanc

screature said:


> #1947
> 
> 
> You wrote this two days ago you think you would remember...


Okay, thank you. Now I understand the confusion. You're confounding the questions of what chemistry gave rise to life with what mechanism selected for it's replicative potential. I said we don't know the mechanisms that gave rise to the first self replicating polymers (but we have a pretty good handle on several possibilities) not that we didn't understand _why_ they would be selected to replicate.

Even without knowing the specific chemistry of the early self-replicators, we know that the mechanism of natural selection would apply, because the logic of natural selection applies to all systems that replicate with imperfect fidelity under conditions of limited resources.



> This does in now way explain the why of procreation.


Yes it does. Any replicative system that expands more rapidly than competing systems will dominate the ecosystem. Hence all systems subject to natural selection will tend to be maximize their procreative capacity. This is demonstrable both empirically and logically, and is a well-established scientific principle.

Make sense now?


----------



## bryanc

screature said:


> To reiterate: *Clearly there is capacity for life in the universe and so as such there is an inherent system of circumstances that when met allows for life to come into existence.*


Yes, I agree. It's called "chemistry" and we can learn a lot about it by doing science. Calling it a "Life force" and imagining that it somehow binds us all together and provides some sort of moral compass is not productive. Chemistry does not guid morality.

If this is to be a discussion about religion, I agree we need to clarify our terms.

IF we don't agree that "religion" means "a system of beliefs founded on precepts relating to the existence of supernatural agents or forces that people use as the foundation for moral philosophy", what word should I use for that? Because it is this reliance on belief systems founded on supernatural beliefs that I find problematic about religion. To the extent that a "religion" makes no claims about the supernatural, they really aren't very deleterious to society.


----------



## fjnmusic

bryanc said:


> Maybe you need a cup of tea or something? Did you skip lunch; is your blood sugar low? You seem unreasonably upset.... oops... that was condescending wasn't it


Actually, that was pretty funny.



> Okay, then please explain what it means. It doesn't make any sense to me.


I think of it as the ghost in the machine, the software behind the hardware, the mind that drives the brain, the unmanifest that gives rise to the manifest. It is life itself, how I see God, it is you and me at the same time, it is all. I am he as you are he as you are me and we are all together. Unless of course you don't think life exists either, since it's a more or less abstract concept…



> And as for getting out of the "ivory tower," what do you think I'm doing here?


You can take the boy out of the ivory tower, but you can't take the ivory tower out of the boy…


----------



## bryanc

fjnmusic said:


> I think of it as the ghost in the machine, the software behind the hardware, the mind that drives the brain, the unmanifest that gives rise to the manifest.


Ah, now we're getting somewhere.

I think at least some of what you're getting at can be described as "emergent complexity," which is something we know happens, and in some cases we even know how it happens, but it is admittedly something that is often difficult to unravel scientifically.

I'd disagree with your phraseology somewhat; software is not "behind" the hardware and the mind does not "drive" the brain, but I think I understand what you're getting at.

And (genuinely trying not be be condescending here) I think your attribution of "ghost"-like (i.e. supernatural) qualities to these things is due to a fundamental naivety regarding the underlying physical causes of these complex behaviours. When you run Safari on your Mac, the software is not some magical ghost; it's not even an ephemeral abstract algorithm or recipe. It's a complex pattern of resistance in the semiconductors contained within the hardware. In order to run, software needs to be instantiated in hardware. Back in the bad-old-days, we had to set physical switches on the CPU for each cycle. Then we got Hollerith cards, that could automate the switch-setting, and now we have semiconductors that can have their state changed electronically. The state of the various semiconducting elements in the physical system defines the logical behaviour (in terms of which pixels get displayed, what voltages get sent over your ethernet cable, or what radio frequencies are transmitted by your wireless network card).

So while we perceive the behaviour of the machine to be almost magically complex and powerful, it's all just physics; no ghosts required.

We obviously understand what's happening in the brain far less well than we do with regard to the computer, but there's no reason to think that the emergent properties of consciousness, thought, creativity or anything else people do requires phenomena that are not fundamentally governed by the laws of physics.


----------



## screature

bryanc said:


> Okay, thank you. Now I understand the confusion. You're confounding the questions of what chemistry gave rise to life with what mechanism selected for it's replicative potential. I said we don't know the mechanisms that gave rise to the first self replicating polymers (but we have a pretty good handle on several possibilities) not that we didn't understand _why_ they would be selected to replicate.
> 
> Even without knowing the specific chemistry of the early self-replicators, we know that the mechanism of natural selection would apply, because the logic of natural selection applies to all systems that replicate with imperfect fidelity under conditions of limited resources.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes it does. Any replicative system that expands more rapidly than competing systems will dominate the ecosystem. Hence all systems subject to natural selection will tend to be maximize their procreative capacity. This is demonstrable both empirically and logically, and is a well-established scientific principle.
> 
> Make sense now?


Hmmph! It must be nice to live in a world where without irrefutable proof one proselytizes to others to sway them toward their own personal beliefs/evidence (replete with lack thereof) that what they think they know constitutes the truth... Seems kind of like religion... or anyone else whom seems to think like they know it all despite the fact that they don't....


----------



## MacDoc

It's not - get over it. It's call an evidenced based worldview - try it sometime.


----------



## Macfury

MacDoc said:


> It's not - get over it. It's call an evidenced based worldview - try it sometime.


When you can apply that to the alien greys, MacDoc, I might believe you're serious.


----------



## screature

MacDoc said:


> It's not - get over it. It's call an evidenced based worldview - try it sometime.


Why did I not expect a better response from you MacDoc... I could go on but because I respect ehMac rules of decorum I shall not.... 

Time to get back on your scooter... Zoom Zoom...


----------



## jimbotelecom

screature said:


> Why did I not expect a better response from you MacDoc... I could go on but because I respect ehMac rules of decorum I shall not....
> 
> Time to get back on your scooter... Zoom Zoom...


Yuk Yuk Yuk!


----------



## bryanc

screature said:


> It must be nice to live in a world where without irrefutable proof one proselytizes to others to sway them toward their own personal beliefs/evidence (replete with lack thereof) that what they think they know constitutes the truth.


I'm having trouble parsing that. Could you clarify? But even without clarification, I can say that the only feild in which I've encountered "irrefutable proof" is mathematics/logic; science is about falsification, not proof, and religion is neither science nor logic.



> Seems kind of like religion... or anyone else whom seems to think like they know it all despite the fact that they don't....


Again, I really can't figure out what you're saying here.


----------



## fjnmusic

Open question to all: you're driving home in the wee hours and come to an intersection with traffic lights. Your light is red. You have been at this intersection before and you know from experience that the light could take several minutes to change. There are no other cars on the road as far as you can see in any direction. Do you wait for the light to turn green or do you cross on the red?


----------



## SINC

I wait. The chances of there being a red light video camera watching the intersection 24/7 is too high in the Edmonton area to chance going through the red. Edmonton and surrounding cites are hooked on revenue from photo traffic law enforcement.


----------



## Macfury

I have crossed on the red only once, after 10 minutes when the light was clearly malfunctioning. other than that, I wait.


----------



## eMacMan

fjnmusic said:


> Open question to all: you're driving home in the wee hours and come to an intersection with traffic lights. Your light is red. You have been at this intersection before and you know from experience that the light could take several minutes to change. There are no other cars on the road as far as you can see in any direction. Do you wait for the light to turn green or do you cross on the red?


Not sure where the religious connection is but it is a very clear illustration of the difference between the spirit and the letter of the law.

The letter says wait it out. 

The spirit of the law is to control intersections in order to prevent collisions. Since there is zero chance of a collision proceed the spirit is satisfied and one can proceed.

Will be interested to see how some of the Letter of the Law types answer this one.


----------



## jef

eMacMan said:


> Not sure where the religious connection is but it is a very clear illustration of the difference between the spirit and the letter of the law.


If i was in a car, I'd wait... but on foot or a bicycle, I'd cross. I guess I'm doomed to purgatory...


----------



## fjnmusic

jef said:


> If i was in a car, I'd wait... but on foot or a bicycle, I'd cross. I guess I'm doomed to purgatory...


Hee hee. :lmao:

Interesting responses so far.


----------



## CubaMark




----------



## Dr.G.

CubaMark said:


>


----------



## bryanc

fjnmusic said:


> Open question to all: you're driving home in the wee hours and come to an intersection with traffic lights. Your light is red. You have been at this intersection before and you know from experience that the light could take several minutes to change. There are no other cars on the road as far as you can see in any direction. Do you wait for the light to turn green or do you cross on the red?


I think what you're getting at here is "do you break the rules if you know there will be no negative consequences." If I'm really confident that it is safe to do so (including begin safe from red-light cameras and other law-enforcment), sure, I'd cross against the light. The point of the rule against crossing is to prevent accidents and allow multiple cars to share the road safely; I'll obey the sprit of the law (sharing the road and keeping everyone as safe as possible), but not the letter of the law unless I'm concerned about being surveilled and punished.

Like economics, I see the law as something that should be serving social interests, not as desirable thing in and of itself.


----------



## Sonal

fjnmusic said:


> Open question to all: you're driving home in the wee hours and come to an intersection with traffic lights. Your light is red. You have been at this intersection before and you know from experience that the light could take several minutes to change. There are no other cars on the road as far as you can see in any direction. Do you wait for the light to turn green or do you cross on the red?


I make a right, and then do a U-turn, and then make another right. 

(A variation on this is a regular issue when I'm coming home from work late--rather than waiting a long time to make a left at the light, I make a right and do a U.)


----------



## kps

fjnmusic said:


> Open question to all: you're driving home in the wee hours and come to an intersection with traffic lights. Your light is red. You have been at this intersection before and you know from experience that the light could take several minutes to change. There are no other cars on the road as far as you can see in any direction. Do you wait for the light to turn green or do you cross on the red?


If, as you say, the intersection is known to me, why wouldn't I take an alternative route to avoid the long light...especially in the wee hours? 

If caught at an unfamiliar one, I've been known to do the U-turn nonsense or just disobey the red altogether, provided of course, the way is clear and it's safe to do so.


----------



## fjnmusic

These are really cool responses, and I think they reflect something about our own world views. For example, are the rules and policies that are in place something we do not feel we have the power to override even if the situation warrants, or do we feel it is acceptable to be disobedient sometimes, especially when no one else will know and no harm will be done. The situation of course is artificial, and different people will project their own details in order to make it "real," but the question ultimately is about when is it acceptable to break the law or defy the moral code. They say character is determined by what you do when no one is watching.

Me, I've come across this situation many times returning home from a gig at 2 or 3 in the morning, especially on the outskirts of the city. I stop, look both ways to make sure there is no other traffic, and continue through the red if it looks like it will be a while (like the little white walking guy is still lit going in the other direction). Where I live, many of the traffic lights switch to flashing ambers/reds at midnight since the traffic will be lighter and the streets are well lit. Exactly the same place geographically, just a different time of day, and the rules have now switched at least until 6:00 am or so. 

If I choose to go through a red light, sure I'm breaking the law, but I'm a utilitarian when it come to religion/world views. I know there are times when I do not know what the purpose is but the law still must be obeyed. There are plenty of things I don't know yet or may not need to know; society does not require my approval of all of its laws and expectations.

I respect the law as long as it is serving a useful purpose; otherwise, maybe the law needs to be changed or at least challenged. There are many religious laws that exist whose purpose may no longer be useful. No marriage for RC priests, for example, comes to mind…


----------



## bryanc

fjnmusic said:


> They say character is determined by what you do when no one is watching.


Yes, this was a major facet of the definition of morality I was taught in philosophy. This has always caused me to wonder, how can morality pertain to those who believe in an omniscient and judgmental God exists? I've heard many people claim that, without God, there would be no morality. But it seems that logic dictates the opposite is true; if everyone is under constant supernatural surveillance, to the extent we believe this, our actions can only be guided by self interest. This is not strictly true; obviously one could choose to disobey the laws of the omniscient God out of moral courage, so its not really impossible to be moral if you believe in God (but one would have to _disobey_ Him in order to be acting morally). But the aspect of morality that governs how we behave when we believe we are not being watched cannot pertain to the behaviour of a theist who believes in an omniscient God.


----------



## fjnmusic

bryanc said:


> Yes, this was a major facet of the definition of morality I was taught in philosophy. This has always caused me to wonder, how can morality pertain to those who believe in an omniscient and judgmental God exists? I've heard many people claim that, without God, there would be no morality. But it seems that logic dictates the opposite is true; if everyone is under constant supernatural surveillance, to the extent we believe this, our actions can only be guided by self interest. This is not strictly true; obviously one could choose to disobey the laws of the omniscient God out of moral courage, so its not really impossible to be moral if you believe in God (but one would have to _disobey_ Him in order to be acting morally). But the aspect of morality that governs how we behave when we believe we are not being watched cannot pertain to the behaviour of a theist who believes in an omniscient God.


Call it God, call it Big Brother, call it Conscience, call it what you will. They all serve pretty much the same purpose. I call it Upbringing. If it were truly universal and part of our DNA, everyone would have pretty much the same reaction, and no one would ever cross on the red light. The guilt or lack thereof that we each feel is a product of or even a reaction to our upbringing. 

For some people, for example, there is nothing wrong with stealing. "If I need it and it's there, I take it with no apologies." For others, the mere thought of taking what is not "yours" is so morally reprehensible that they feel guilty even about the thought of it. This is not right or wrong, by the way, but the product of learned behavior. Does a baby feel bad about taking something that us not "his"? Of course not, because to a baby, the whole world is his. The concept of "others" hasn't been learned yet.

The debate about theism/atheism as it pertains to religion and sky-daddy figures to me is interesting but mostly irrelevant when it comes to religion. Whether a supreme God who created the world and who presides over football games really exists or not doesn't ultimately concern me that much. 

What IS real is that people believe such things and use their beliefs to make decisions and judgements that DO affect me. My interest in religion is in how it affects the here and now of our lives, and when certain belief systems simply provide reassurance and when they become dangerous. Including my own. As for eternal life? I believe we're already living it and have been for as long as we can remember. Probably longer.


----------



## bryanc

fjnmusic said:


> Call it God, call it Big Brother, call it Conscience, call it what you will. They all serve pretty much the same purpose.


In the general sense of constraining the behaviour of individuals, yes, I agree. However, the constraints placed upon you by a society, or the constraints you incorporate into your personal code of conduct as part of your upbringing are purely human constructs. Of course, I think gods are also purely human constructs as well, but the religious claim otherwise. And it is this claim of specialness, of access to a revealed Truth(TM) and often the claims that God will punish heretics etc. (often, not surprisingly, through the actions of the adherents of the religion), that I think makes religions profoundly flawed, from an ethical point of view.

If we didn't have religions putting people in moral straightjackets, more of them might be able to reach more sophisticated levels of personal maturation, and exhibit the more socially desirable ethical behaviour that arises from that.



> Whether a supreme God who created the world and who presides over football games really exists or not doesn't ultimately concern me that much.


It wouldn't concern me much (although I think I'd still find it incredible that rational adults could believe such a thing) either, if these organizations did not play such a massive role in governing our society.


----------



## fjnmusic

I dunno. It's not really all that much different than avoiding stepping on cracks on the sidewalk, not stepping on spiders (in case it rains), not walking under ladders, throwing salt over your shoulder for good luck, or checking your daily horoscope for guidance. I don't believe in those particular superstitions, but I know many whose lives are guided by them. If it works for them, who am I to say who's right and who's wrong?


----------



## bryanc

fjnmusic said:


> I dunno. It's not really all that much different than avoiding stepping on cracks on the sidewalk, not stepping on spiders (in case it rains), not walking under ladders, throwing salt over your shoulder for good luck, or checking your daily horoscope for guidance. I don't believe in those particular superstitions, but I know many whose lives are guided by them. If it works for them, who am I to say who's right and who's wrong?


Imagine a world in which people who made sidewalks without cracks didn't pay property taxes, climate change was being addressed by a spider-stomping brigade, someone's suitability for political office was decided on the basis of how much salt they had publicly thrown over their shoulder, and it was illegal to walk under ladders. Furthermore, imagine that ridiculing these superstitions was viewed as the height of rudeness, and in many countries could get you imprisoned. Finally, imagine that it was expected that essentially everyone would adhere to these superstitions, but people from other cultures would have other equally crazy superstitions, and we should all "respect" that.

I agree with you completely that these are generally harmless superstitions (but I would go further and say that any adult who engages in these superstitions seriously should be directed to psychiatric help, rather than be treated with respect). But unlike religions, they rarely dictate how *others* are expected to behave. Religions explicitly dictate not just the behaviour of the individual, but the behaviour of the society. Most religions are now saying "oh no... our rules are just for our adherents" but this is new; a few centuries ago, they were busily burning people alive who disagreed with them. The only reason religions are espousing tolerance now, is that they're regrouping and entrenching for their next push to model society in their crazy image.


----------



## CubaMark

The Oatmeal's take on religion....

(Since I got so much heat for the last damn thing I posted, no preview images here. Sensitive types should probably not click that link above.)


----------



## fjnmusic

CubaMark said:


> The Oatmeal's take on religion....
> 
> (Since I got so much heat for the last damn thing I posted, no preview images here. Sensitive types should probably not click that link above.)


WIll I burn if I say I enjoyed that?


----------



## Dr.G.

fjnmusic said:


> WIll I burn if I say I enjoyed that?


Me too. It was interesting and gave some food for thought. Paix, mon ami.


----------



## chimo

CubaMark said:


> The Oatmeal's take on religion....
> 
> (Since I got so much heat for the last damn thing I posted, no preview images here. Sensitive types should probably not click that link above.)


Great link!


----------



## SINC

.


----------



## MacGuiver

SINC said:


> .


Cartoonist displays his ignorance/immaturity by missing the point of the tax break entirely. The break was granted because churches provided services for the community. Food Banks, homeless shelters, meeting rooms for groups helping people with drug and alcohol addiction, halls for community events, hospitals etc. etc. 
In our town, the church provides the only food bank in the community as well as warehousing and distributing donated furniture and appliances so they can furnish an apartment. They also host many community events unrelated to church activities.
Obviously this isn't the case with every church and their usefulness to the community is questionable. But there is good reason to extend tax breaks to many churches if you weigh the tax breaks against the cost of replacing the services they provide the community.
If the Bigfoot lodge feeds the hungry and helps the poor, maybe they should get a tax break too.


----------



## Macfury

MacGuiver said:


> Cartoonist displays his ignorance/immaturity by missing the point of the tax break entirely. The break was granted because churches provided services for the community. Food Banks, homeless shelters, meeting rooms for groups helping people with drug and alcohol addiction, halls for community events, hospitals etc. etc.
> In our town, the church provides the only food bank in the community as well as warehousing and distributing donated furniture and appliances so they can furnish an apartment. They also host many community events unrelated to church activities.
> Obviously this isn't the case with every church and their usefulness to the community is questionable. But there is good reason to extend tax breaks to many churches if you weigh the tax breaks against the cost of replacing the services they provide the community.
> If the Bigfoot lodge feeds the hungry and helps the poor, maybe they should get a tax break too.


Probably best for churches to get tax breaks on a sliding scale, depending on the levelsof charitable community service offered.


----------



## MacGuiver

Macfury said:


> Probably best for churches to get tax breaks on a sliding scale, depending on the levelsof charitable community service offered.


Yeah I'd agree with that. Nobody can deny the tax breaks get abused. But then again this is true of just about any organization claiming charity status.


----------



## Elric




----------



## MacGuiver

Elric said:


>


Not a bad idea. However I'd not recommend searching for the truth from the kid that scribbles out the Oatmeal. Sorta like expecting the truth about Jews from Joseph Goebbels cartoons.


----------



## groovetube

I'm not aware of the oatmeal guy(s) killing and gassing christians.


----------



## SINC

MacGuiver said:


> Not a bad idea. However I'd not recommend searching for the truth from the kid that scribbles out the Oatmeal. Sorta like expecting the truth about Jews from Joseph Goebbels cartoons.


Yep, the Oatmeal is teeny bopper stuff to follow, no matter the subject. Certainly not for mature adults who can think for themselves.


----------



## groovetube

SINC said:


> Yep, the Oatmeal is teeny bopper stuff to follow, no matter the subject. Certainly not for mature adults who can think for themselves.


well that was uncalled for.

The cartoon may not be everyones cup of tea, but there's no need for this.


----------



## MacGuiver

groovetube said:


> well that was uncalled for.
> 
> The cartoon may not be everyones cup of tea, but there's no need for this.


Yes SINC you've crossed a line. Posting that comment was offensive to people that enjoy sharing offensive cartoons with strangers on the internet


----------



## mrjimmy

SINC said:


> teeny bopper


Mr. C, is that you?


----------



## groovetube

MacGuiver said:


> Yes SINC you've crossed a line. Posting that comment was offensive to people that enjoy sharing offensive cartoons with strangers on the internet


well since he is the king of keeping the tone civil, practice what you preach.

Anyway, I'm still curious why you found it necessary to compare something like the oatmeal thing to one of the most horrific murderous nazis.

Rather a strong response don't you think?


----------



## SINC

MacGuiver said:


> Yes SINC you've crossed a line. Posting that comment was offensive to people that enjoy sharing offensive cartoons with strangers on the internet


Sorry MG.


----------



## Macfury

SINC, you've offended people with a taste for juvenile meanderings everywhere--how could you?


----------



## groovetube

so true!


----------



## groovetube

and even though a few civil people here will call you immature or a juvenile for having an opinion or liking something, ignore the name callers (since that's all they have I guess...) and enjoy this one. Often conversation never really quite works in some cases, so a good cartoon well done can make a good point. Some adult language and concepts here, so if that worries you don't click. 
How to suck at your religion - The Oatmeal


----------



## eMacMan

groovetube said:


> and even though a few civil people here will call you immature or a juvenile for having an opinion or liking something, ignore the name callers (since that's all they have I guess...) and enjoy this one. Often conversation never really quite works in some cases, so a good cartoon well done can make a good point. Some adult language and concepts here, so if that worries you don't click.
> How to suck at your religion - The Oatmeal


Man it's dèjà vue all over again. Still I think the reason so many found it offensive is that it may have felt like they were looking in the mirror. OTOH certainly is equal opportunity in the religions it offends.


----------



## groovetube

Now, this is why the religious right needs to be kept away from making these sorts of draconian laws.

Miscarrying woman denied an abortion dies in Ireland - World - CBC News

Thank god America stood up to these lunatics.


----------



## MacGuiver

groovetube said:


> Now, this is why the religious right needs to be kept away from making these sorts of draconian laws.
> 
> Miscarrying woman denied an abortion dies in Ireland - World - CBC News
> 
> Thank god America stood up to these lunatics.


Romney opposed access to abortion except in cases of rape, incest or risk to the woman’s life. Clearly this woman's case would have been considered a risk to life and would never have been in danger in a Romney presidency. Voting for Obama didn't save a womans life. Unless you believe there are 3000 life and death abortion cases everyday in the USA.


----------



## groovetube

You conveniently ignored the senators who believed differently. Paul Ryan as well, though he was smart enough to keep his beliefs a little more locked up.

If the right could get their way, they would. Which is why this needs to be confronted actively.


----------



## bryanc

I've always found it quite ironic that the same politicians who espouse personal freedom when it comes to hoarding massive amounts of cash tax free even if it means cutting support for social programs that save lives, are somehow able to justify invading a woman's body to protect an embryo she does not want to support.


----------



## Elric

MacGuiver said:


> Romney opposed access to abortion except in cases of rape, incest or risk to the woman’s life. Clearly this woman's case would have been considered a risk to life and would never have been in danger in a Romney presidency. Voting for Obama didn't save a womans life. Unless you believe there are 3000 life and death abortion cases everyday in the USA.


Which election were you watching?
Not only were they threatening to take the woman's choices away, but he wouldn't even "look into" decriminalizing marijuana to save his own family's lives directly.

I dunno, but someone that won't even "look into" saving their immediate family's lives and taking basic human rights away from, what they see as a minority, seems like trouble from the start. And if they were fine with taking away basic human rights in favour of their voodoo beliefs, you know that any attempt at equal rights for gay and lesbians would be downright impossible.

Sorry, but the guy is a raving lunatic, and the scariest part is actually how close the race even was.


----------



## imnothng

Elric said:


> Sorry, but the guy is a raving lunatic, and the scariest part is actually how close the race even was.


Ding ding ding.


----------



## Macfury

Elric said:


> Which election were you watching?
> Not only were they threatening to take the woman's choices away, but he wouldn't even "look into" decriminalizing marijuana to save his own family's lives directly.
> 
> I dunno, but someone that won't even "look into" saving their immediate family's lives and taking basic human rights away from, what they see as a minority, seems like trouble from the start. And if they were fine with taking away basic human rights in favour of their voodoo beliefs, you know that any attempt at equal rights for gay and lesbians would be downright impossible.
> 
> Sorry, but the guy is a raving lunatic, and the scariest part is actually how close the race even was.


Be specific here. This sounds like the FUD the Obama campaign was pushing. If you're going to make these accusations, then explain specifically who said these things and how they were going to achieve them.


----------



## bryanc

Elric said:


> Sorry, but the guy is a raving lunatic, and the scariest part is actually how close the race even was.


This probably belongs in the American Politics thread, but this is exactly why I see the current rumblings about succession as an indication of things to come; the US, and indeed much of the world is comprised of essentially two populations - those who's beliefs are determined by reality and what we can learn about it, and those who's beliefs are determined by faith. While we can agree to disagree, and get along as well as possible, these are fundamentally irreconcilable differences. It may simply be better for each group to wish each other well, and go our separate ways.


----------



## Elric

Macfury said:


> Be specific here. This sounds like the FUD the Obama campaign was pushing. If you're going to make these accusations, then explain specifically who said these things and how they were going to achieve them.


Actually, they're all over the place, with quotes.

Google these.
Romney Gay Marriage
Legitimate Rape

And check out the documentary from Vice magazine 



+
The Mexican Mormon War | VICE News | VICE" title="View this video at YouTube in a new window or tab" target="_blank">YouTube Video






The Mexican Mormon War | VICE News | VICE">
The Mexican Mormon War | VICE News | VICE" />

ERROR: If you can see this, then YouTube is down or you don't have Flash installed.


----------



## Sonal

Paul Ryan is extremely pro-life, and has (in the past) questioned whether 'life of the mother' was too big of an exception to make. 
Paul Ryan

But for his more recently spoken (and slightly more moderate) views are portrayed here. 
Ryan on abortion exceptions: Rape is just another ‘method of conception’ | The Raw Story

ETA: Shoot, I thought I was in the American politics thread for a moment!


----------



## Rps

Years ago a friend of mine, who was a scout for the Expos, and I were talking about moving baseball teams in order to make more money. My view was that business is business and teams are a business so there shouldn't be trade restrictions ( since in many cases these would be considered a monopoly or at least an oligopoly ) his view was that when one joined a league, you agreed to abided by the rules of the league: are you in or are you out. Religion and society is much like this conversation I think.


----------



## bryanc

Sonal said:


> But for his more recently spoken (and slightly more moderate) views are portrayed here.
> Ryan on abortion exceptions: Rape is just another ‘method of conception’ | The Raw Story
> 
> ETA: Shoot, I thought I was in the American politics thread for a moment!


Given that the argument here is that someone getting pregnant after a rape is "part of God's plan", I don't see it as out of place here.

From the POV of the theist who believes in souls that are created at the moment* of conception, there's certainly a case to be made that it's not the zygote's fault that their father was a rapist, and it's not fair to kill the embryo just because it's the product of a rape. But then, these same theists usually believe is some magical paradise that souls go to (as long as they're not horrible adherents of other religions, or even worse, atheists), so presumably, the souls of unborn babies go to heaven. By that reasoning, abortionists should be lauded for saving so many souls from temptation and potential damnation.... religion is confusing 

* (setting aside the fact that fertilization is a process that occurs over several minutes, so there is no "moment" of conception... I've never been able to get a straight answer from a theist about when God puts the magic soul into the embryo; is it when the sperm makes contact with the zona, or when the acrosome reaction occurs, or when the egg membrane becomes depolarized, or when the fertilization envelope elevates, or when the polar body is extruded, or what?)


----------



## Macfury

Elric said:


> Actually, they're all over the place, with quotes.
> 
> Google these.
> Romney Gay Marriage
> Legitimate Rape
> 
> And check out the documentary from Vice magazine
> 
> 
> 
> +
> The Mexican Mormon War | VICE News | VICE" title="View this video at YouTube in a new window or tab" target="_blank">YouTube Video
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Mexican Mormon War | VICE News | VICE">
> The Mexican Mormon War | VICE News | VICE" />
> 
> ERROR: If you can see this, then YouTube is down or you don't have Flash installed.


You're asking me to do the research for you. If you can't point to specific promises and people and explain how these views would affect laws, then "you got nothing."


----------



## bryanc

Macfury said:


> You're asking me to do the research for you. If you can't point to specific promises and people and explain how these views would affect laws, then "you got nothing."


Oh please. You were as engaged in the last US election as anyone on this board. You know perfectly well what Romney and Ryan had to say on these topics. But whatever; let me google that for ya.


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> Oh please. You were as engaged in the last US election as anyone on this board. You know perfectly well what Romney and Ryan had to say on these topics. But whatever; let me google that for ya.


That's not going to do it. You need to show how electing a Republican would cause these things you fear to come about. Lazy googling won't cut it.


----------



## Sonal

bryanc said:


> But then, these same theists usually believe is some magical paradise that souls go to (as long as they're not horrible adherents of other religions, or even worse, atheists), so presumably, the souls of unborn babies go to heaven.


Actually, I thought they went to limbo as they were unbaptised. So no paradise.


----------



## Macfury

Sonal said:


> Actually, I thought they went to limbo as they were unbaptised. So no paradise.


Innocents. Straight to heaven.


----------



## bryanc

Macfury said:


> You need to show how electing a Republican would cause these things you fear to come about.


It is not even theoretically possible to show how something that did not occur would have caused something to happen. But if we take Romney at his word (admittedly a tough proposition, as he flip-flopped so often on so many topics), he said he viewed marriage as a "one man one woman" deal. His running mate said "the policy of a Romney administration will be to oppose abortions with the exceptions for rape, incest and life of the mother."

The point Elric was making is so easily substantiated that saying you disagree and won't do his "research" for him is taking pedantry to the point of perversity. His case is trivially obvious to anyone who was even remotely aware of what these politicians claimed to stand for. What they would actually have done if they won the election is obviously not something that can be known, but it's perfectly reasonable to fear that someone who says they're going to do irrational things if they're elected might actually do so. It's also perfectly reasonable to to fear an electorate who would vote for someone who says such things.


----------



## groovetube

Macfury said:


> Be specific here. This sounds like the FUD the Obama campaign was pushing. If you're going to make these accusations, then explain specifically who said these things and how they were going to achieve them.


why should anyone have to explain what various republican candidates even both the presidential and vice have said multiple times?

Do your own damned research.


----------



## groovetube

Sonal said:


> Paul Ryan is extremely pro-life, and has (in the past) questioned whether 'life of the mother' was too big of an exception to make.
> Paul Ryan
> 
> But for his more recently spoken (and slightly more moderate) views are portrayed here.
> Ryan on abortion exceptions: Rape is just another ‘method of conception’ | The Raw Story
> 
> ETA: Shoot, I thought I was in the American politics thread for a moment!


indeed, the beliefs were very clear to anyone without blinders to hear.

What I find really telling here, is the ones who say they support the republicans trying to pretend they didn't say such things.

Wonder why...


----------



## Sonal

Macfury said:


> Innocents. Straight to heaven.


Apparently, that depends on who you ask:
Limbo - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## bryanc

Sonal said:


> Apparently, that depends on who you ask...


And to get this thread back onto the topic of a philosophical discussion of religion, this emphasizes an important point: If the answer to a question about reality depends on who you ask, that probably means the people you're asking are just making stuff up. If you want to know something about reality, make observations of reality and/or ask someone who's answers are supported by observable facts about reality or are at the very least logically consistent.

It shouldn't surprise us that bronze-age goat herders generally didn't know much about how the universe really works, but isn't it surprising that modern people turn to the medieval translations of the scribblings of even more primitive folks when looking for insight into the workings of the cosmos? I mean, I can understand why academics might be interested in the mythology of ancient tribes, but why are so many ordinary citizens of the 21st century convinced that certain peculiar translations of an arbitrary selection of internally inconsistent folk stories from thousands of years ago have relevance to modern life?

It strikes me as appalling that the majority of modern citizens of the developed world, with their access to education and technology that was unimaginable during the enlightenment, still cower in fear of these primitive fairy tales and waste incalculable resources trying to appease vindictive gods and demons. Voltaire must be rolling in his grave. The people of the world would be far better off if we could shake off the imaginary shackles of our ancestors and address reality as directly as we are able to perceive it.


----------



## fjnmusic

Come on Bryanc, stop beating around the bush. Tell us how you really feel about religion. It's hard to tell from these tiny hints you drop for us occasionally.


----------



## Macfury

fjnmusic said:


> Come on Bryanc, stop beating around the bush. Tell us how you really feel about religion. It's hard to tell from these tiny hints you drop for us occasionally.


And all the people at work agree with him, too!


----------



## bryanc

I know you're being sarcastic, but seriously, after decades of studying philosophy and discussing this with hundreds of people (including may theists), I just can't comprehend how anyone can believe any of this stuff.

I'm starting to appreciate Penn Jillette's form of atheism. Not only does he not believe in god(s), he doesn't believe that anyone else believes in gods either... he's convinced all the 'believers' are just yanking our chain, and one day everyone's gonna say "Just kidding! Ha! We can't believe you atheists were so gullible; pompously telling us we were all wrong like a little kid who's figured out that there's no Santa and earnestly tries to explain it to the adults." I kinda hope this is true... I'd much prefer everyone to have a good laugh at my expense than to live in a society in which 90% of the population are clinically insane.

I mean, is it like one of those magic-eye 3D things that some people can look at and see the giraffe with a ballon, and other people just look at it and say "It just looks like bunch of coloured splotches to me"?


----------



## bryanc

Macfury said:


> And all the people at work agree with him, too!


Where do you work? In my experience scientists are about the most irreligious population one can find, and even among scientists you'll find a small but significant number of religious adherents. I do find it notable that those few people who manage to maintain their religious faiths and their scientific world view are largely people who compartmentalize and don't think about the inherent contradictions that arise from these beliefs. But apart from the "I believe this because it's how I was raise and I'm not going to worry about it" folks, I really can't understand how a rational thinking adult can believe in a magical man in the sky who knows everything and judges you if you don't conform to a set of rules laid down by primitive cultures thousands of years ago.


----------



## fjnmusic

bryanc said:


> I know you're being sarcastic, but seriously, after decades of studying philosophy and discussing this with hundreds of people (including may theists), I just can't comprehend how anyone can believe any of this stuff.
> 
> I'm starting to appreciate Penn Jillette's form of atheism. Not only does he not believe in god(s), he doesn't believe that anyone else believes in gods either... he's convinced all the 'believers' are just yanking our chain, and one day everyone's gonna say "Just kidding! Ha! We can't believe you atheists were so gullible; pompously telling us we were all wrong like a little kid who's figured out that there's no Santa and earnestly tries to explain it to the adults." I kinda hope this is true... I'd much prefer everyone to have a good laugh at my expense than to live in a society in which 90% of the population are clinically insane.
> 
> I mean, is it like one of those magic-eye 3D things that some people can look at and see the giraffe with a ballon, and other people just look at it and say "It just looks like bunch of coloured splotches to me"?


Have you read Life of Pi yet? I think it presents religion in a very helpful way, from Piscine's desire to be Hindu, Christian and Muslim, to the horror of his tutors, to the lessons he learns from survival out on the open ocean. Really, the book is more of a reflection of our own inner workings; which version of the truth do you prefer?

I think religion definitely has its place as a way of describing and understanding the world we find ourselves in. Just because Yoda doesn't really live on a moon in the Dahobah system doesn't make his influence any less pervasive.


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> I'm starting to appreciate Penn Jillette's form of atheism.


Do some really good magic tricks and I might like _your_ brand of atheism better!


----------



## rondini

Dagobah system. Just saying.


----------



## fjnmusic

rondini said:


> Dagobah system. Just saying.


Fundamentalist extremist!!


----------



## rondini

fjnmusic said:


> Fundamentalist extremist!!


What else would u have on 'The Religious Thread"?


----------



## fjnmusic

bryanc said:


> Where do you work? In my experience scientists are about the most irreligious population one can find, and even among scientists you'll find a small but significant number of religious adherents. I do find it notable that those few people who manage to maintain their religious faiths and their scientific world view are largely people who compartmentalize and don't think about the inherent contradictions that arise from these beliefs. But apart from the "I believe this because it's how I was raise and I'm not going to worry about it" folks, I really can't understand how a rational thinking adult can believe in a magical man in the sky who knows everything and judges you if you don't conform to a set of rules laid down by primitive cultures thousands of years ago.


Something you might enjoy: George Carlin on the Invisible Man





+
YouTube Video









ERROR: If you can see this, then YouTube is down or you don't have Flash installed.


----------



## groovetube

bryanc said:


> And to get this thread back onto the topic of a philosophical discussion of religion, this emphasizes an important point: If the answer to a question about reality depends on who you ask, that probably means the people you're asking are just making stuff up. If you want to know something about reality, make observations of reality and/or ask someone who's answers are supported by observable facts about reality or are at the very least logically consistent.
> 
> It shouldn't surprise us that bronze-age goat herders generally didn't know much about how the universe really works, but isn't it surprising that modern people turn to the medieval translations of the scribblings of even more primitive folks when looking for insight into the workings of the cosmos? I mean, I can understand why academics might be interested in the mythology of ancient tribes, but why are so many ordinary citizens of the 21st century convinced that certain peculiar translations of an arbitrary selection of internally inconsistent folk stories from thousands of years ago have relevance to modern life?
> 
> It strikes me as appalling that the majority of modern citizens of the developed world, with their access to education and technology that was unimaginable during the enlightenment, still cower in fear of these primitive fairy tales and waste incalculable resources trying to appease vindictive gods and demons. Voltaire must be rolling in his grave. The people of the world would be far better off if we could shake off the imaginary shackles of our ancestors and address reality as directly as we are able to perceive it.


I agree with you. One of the reasons why I posted the news bit that I did, was to show what happens in a relatively modern world country, when you allow religious wingnuts pleasing their vindictive gods make life and death decisions with someone else's life. They essentially, without the permission of this poor woman, killed her.

Now, I want to make a distinction here. I don't think all religious people are wingnuts. I may not understand why they believe the things they do, or practice whatever it is that they feel they must. But I have a lot of good friends who are Wiccan, Catholic, Muslim, and all kinds of various beliefs. But they're my good friends, because they aren't lunatics who will kill others based on their beliefs. They don't work for world domination and forcing people to adhere to their belief systems, and are perfectly happy to not believe in abortion, go to their places of prayer, talk about it respectfully, etc. 

One of the reasons I believe many people have ditched religions like I have, is because the sheer lunacy and murderous actions by the religious organizations bent on domination and control. I want none of it. I recall a good friend, who believed strongly in this guru like enlightened man who I think lived in Fiji or something. It required much effort on his part to adhere to this 'enlightenment', and he always tried to get me to see what a powerful and incredible thing this all was. One day, after his many attempts, I looked at him and said, you know, I would almost consider looking into this half naked individual sitting atop some hill imparting this wonderful enlightenment, except for the fact that my friend seemed miserable to me. I think this shocked him for a minute, because he realized, I was right. He was not one bit any kore happier or enlightened than I was.

Some religious people who constantly try to enlighten me never seem to consider that perhaps, a sane person can stand back and look at the devastation that organized religion has had on society, and say, noooo thanks. And they think I'm crazy...


----------



## bryanc

fjnmusic said:


> Have you read Life of Pi yet? I think it presents religion in a very helpful way


No I haven't. I will try to make time for it as this remains one of the most vexing questions of my life.



> which version of the truth do you prefer?


I guess this is where we're coming from completely irreconcilable philosophical positions. As a scientist, I'm an objectivist; there is only one truth. There aren't any versions. People may have different models of truth, but at most one can be correct (the can obviously all be wrong). This was my point regarding Sonal's "depends who you ask" comment; if the answers you get are inconsistent they can't be correct. (Quantum uncertainty notwithstanding)



> I think religion definitely has its place as a way of describing and understanding the world we find ourselves in.


As far as I can tell, that place is in the "incorrect" pile. While religion provides semantic answers to questions, they are worthless.



> Just because Yoda doesn't really live on a moon in the Dahobah system doesn't make his influence any less pervasive.


If what you're trying to say is that even fictional characters like Yoda and Jesus can be instructive examples, then yes, I agree, fictional literature can be important in one's personal development. But failing to distinguish between fiction and reality is worrisome in children over the age of 6, and evidence of mental illness in adults.


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> But failing to distinguish between fiction and reality is worrisome in children over the age of 6, and evidence of mental illness in adults.


This is what I've been saying for years about people delusional enough to believe that they control the planet's climate.


----------



## groovetube

It's really anyone's guess how that correlation came about.


----------



## fjnmusic

Even the great Albert Einstein believed imagination is more important than knowledge. It's kind of that same quality that made Steve Jobs so special. Sure, he was working with the exact same facts and data and raw material as the rest of us, but he managed to create this reality distortion field (much like religions do) where he was able to create new visions of reality that did not exist before and persuade others to join in that vision. Some ideas were ridiculous, like the Fruitarian Apple/Banana Diet to battle all illnesses, but others, like the iPad, or even Apple itself, really did change the world as we know it. Whether you use a Mac or PC, an iPhone or an Android, it's all SJ's influence.

This is how religion works. Whether something is "real" or not, like the Velveteen Rabbit, depends more on whether other people "get" the vision than it does on actual historical veracity. "Do or do not; there is no try" is a useful thing to know whether it was said by Stephen Hawking, William Shakespeare, or the voice of a little green muppet who also does the voice of Miss Piggy and Grover. Truth does not belong only to the realm of science. Human nature has its own truths that no amount of error analysis is able to quantify.


----------



## bryanc

fjnmusic said:


> Even the great Albert Einstein believed imagination is more important than knowledge.


As I mentioned the last time this came up in this thread, the context in which he said this is important. Imagination is important because it provides us with the ideas that we can then analyze and test. The point he was trying to make is that we can learn to do math, or apply other forms of logic, and we can learn how to design experiments and make empirical measurements, but it's difficult to learn how to be imaginative. So Einstein thought of imagination as the "limiting reagent" in our ability to do science, but not as something that was inherently valuable in and of itself.



> This is how religion works. Whether something is "real" or not, like the Velveteen Rabbit, depends more on whether other people "get" the vision than it does on actual historical veracity. "Do or do not; there is no try" is a useful thing to know whether it was said by Stephen Hawking, William Shakespeare, or the voice of a little green muppet who also does the voice of Miss Piggy and Grover.


Okay, I understand this, and I appreciate the way you've articulated it. But, as someone who appreciates fiction (both literary and dramatic), and who can certainly be inspired by fictional events, I still don't understand how this relates to beliefs in the supernatural. I don't need to believe Yoda is real to understand and learn from the "Do or do not; there is no try."

I don't have too much difficulty imagining how people could read the bible or some other work of fiction and find some inspiration in it (I'd simply find their taste in fiction somewhat disturbing). I just can't imagine how someone could read that stuff and believe that God or Jesus were *real*.



> Truth does not belong only to the realm of science. Human nature has its own truths that no amount of error analysis is able to quantify.


Certainly likely to remain true for the foreseeable future; but perhaps not forever. Regardless, science is simply a method for distinguishing false hypotheses from hypotheses that may be true. It is not the only way to learn about things; it's just proven to be a very effective way of learning about natural phenomena.


----------



## SINC

I thought this appropriate here, even if it only touches lightly on religion, it does illustrate a point that bryanc often makes. Michael Shermer, publisher of Skeptic Magazine in a TED talk, "Why people believe weird things".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8T_jwq9ph8k


----------



## Sonal

bryanc said:


> Okay, I understand this, and I appreciate the way you've articulated it. But, as someone who appreciates fiction (both literary and dramatic), and who can certainly be inspired by fictional events, I still don't understand how this relates to beliefs in the supernatural. I don't need to believe Yoda is real to understand and learn from the "Do or do not; there is no try."
> 
> I don't have too much difficulty imagining how people could read the bible or some other work of fiction and find some inspiration in it (I'd simply find their taste in fiction somewhat disturbing). I just can't imagine how someone could read that stuff and believe that God or Jesus were *real*.


One of the courses I'm taking right now as part of my creative writing studies is non-fiction, and one of the discussion points that invariably comes up is how people tend to relate to a work when it is presented as fiction vs. non-fiction. There is definitely a difference; exactly what or why there is a difference is not something I fully understand yet.

But a good example is the whole James Frey _Million Little Pieces_ scandal. Frey actually did try to publish the book as fiction, but there were no takers and no one found it particularly compelling. When it was sold as non-fiction, people found it hugely inspirational. When the story broke that it was actually fiction, many of the same people who were previously inspired by the book no longer found it inspiring. Same story.


----------



## SINC

This too is thought provoking.


----------



## fjnmusic

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."

"Logic will get you from A to B. Imagination will take you everywhere."

"Whoever undertakes to set himself up as a judge of Truth and Knowledge is shipwrecked by the laughter of the gods."

"Everything that can be counted does not necessarily count; everything that counts cannot necessarily be counted."

"I am a deeply religious nonbeliever - This is a somewhat new kind of religion."

"Imagination is more important than knowledge. For knowledge is limited to all we now know and understand, while imagination embraces the entire world, and all there ever will be to know and understand."

"Imagination is everything. It is the preview of life's coming attractions."

I dunno, Bryan. These quotes from Einstein don't sound to me like someone who was downplaying the importance of imagination. Just sayin'.


----------



## fjnmusic

SINC said:


> This too is thought provoking.


That's awesome, SINC. None of us comes fully equipped.


----------



## bryanc

SINC said:


> This too is thought provoking.


I've never seen this. excellent. to the extent that I fail to conform to this ideal, I appologise.


----------



## fjnmusic




----------



## bryanc

Gotta wonder what Albert was smoking in that pipe... what the hell does "frequency of reality" mean?


----------



## Rps

bryanc said:


> Gotta wonder what Albert was smoking in that pipe... what the hell does "frequency of reality" mean?


Think radio......................


----------



## fjnmusic

.


----------



## bryanc

:lmao:

I just had a student journalist interview me and write up a little item in the campus newspaper, and I can certainly relate. It seems that quotation marks don't actually mean much anymore


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> :lmao:
> 
> I just had a student journalist interview me and write up a little item in the campus newspaper, and I can certainly relate. It seems that quotation marks don't actually mean much anymore


They are helping you to say what you ought to have said!


----------



## rondini

bryanc said:


> Gotta wonder what Albert was smoking in that pipe... what the hell does "frequency of reality" mean?


Maybe we should ask Kenneth?


----------



## SINC

An idea whose time has come:

National Secular Society - Italian Catholic Church to pay property tax from next year


----------



## Macfury

SINC said:


> An idea whose time has come:
> 
> National Secular Society - Italian Catholic Church to pay property tax from next year


SINC, just to clarify for people who are not reading the full article, this appears to apply only to income generating properties.

I've always said that churches should pay taxes like every other organization, then deduct their charitable work as a separate expense. Property tax should be non-negotiable, except for historic structures that a city would like to see maintained.


----------



## Rps

Macfury said:


> then deduct their charitable work as a separate expense. Property tax should be non-negotiable, except for historic structures that a city would like to see maintained.


Only if they meet Rev Can requirements......................


----------



## SINC

Macfury said:


> SINC, just to clarify for people who are not reading the full article, this appears to apply only to income generating properties.
> 
> I've always said that churches should pay taxes like every other organization, then deduct their charitable work as a separate expense. Property tax should be non-negotiable, except for historic structures that a city would like to see maintained.


My interpretation is, that if they take up collections during services, that building (the church) automatically becomes an income generating venue.


----------



## Macfury

SINC said:


> My interpretation is, that if they take up collections during services, that building (the church) automatically becomes an income generating venue.


No, it refers specifically to properties such as hotels, sports facilities, athletic facilities, etc. that are owned by the church, but also contain a chapel. The ruling says that the commercial nature of the property supercedes the presence of a chapel.


----------



## Macfury

Rps said:


> Only if they meet Rev Can requirements......................


Sure, but they're pretty lax to begin with.


----------



## CubaMark

*Has hell frozen over???*

*Pat Robertson Admits Dinosaurs, Earth Older Than 6,000 Years*


----------



## bryanc

CubaMark said:


> *Pat Robertson Admits Dinosaurs, Earth Older Than 6,000 Years*


Bear in mind that these guys are con-men and politicians; Pat Robertson has never given a moments consideration to what may or may not be true, he's simply interested in what he can sell to his audience. As it becomes harder and harder to find people dumb enough to believe the Young Earth Creationism story, he's got to hitch his wagon to some other pile of horse sh*t that appeals to a broader demographic. The safe bet is that he'll be peddling Intelligent Design for the foreseeable future.


----------



## bryanc

This may have potential...


----------



## fjnmusic

bryanc said:


> This may have potential...


Ever seen that movie "Cold Souls"?


----------



## CubaMark




----------



## kowalskil

*The Fight for Religious Freedom*

*The Fight for Religious Freedom in America​*
This PBS video, broadcasted on 12/18/2012, is worth watching and thinking about. 

Video: First Freedom: The Fight for Religious Liberty | Watch First Freedom Online | PBS Video

It is full of topics worth debating, either here or elsewhere. Please share the link with those who might also be interested.

Best wishes to all,

Ludwik Kowalski
http://csam.montclair.edu/~kowalski/life/intro.html]Former Communist: Thoughts, Feelings, Reality


----------



## SINC

Ah yes, the purity of the Catholic religion:

Montreal deacon charged with making child porn


----------



## MacGuiver

SINC said:


> Ah yes, the purity of the Catholic religion:
> 
> Montreal deacon charged with making child porn


If his actions can be attributed to the Catholic faith, what catholic teaching was he following that lead him to child porn Sinc?


----------



## skippythebushkangaroo

MacGuiver said:


> If his actions can be attributed to the Catholic faith, what catholic teaching was he following that lead him to child porn Sinc?


The answer is in the article he celebrated, "World Youth Day".


----------



## skippythebushkangaroo

error


----------



## skippythebushkangaroo

And in strict violation of one of the major commandments too...thou shall not covet thy neighbour's ass.


----------



## MacGuiver

Skippy you haven't answered my question.
He's a pedophile despite the teachings of his religion, not because of it. It would be equally ludicrous to blame his perversion on the fact he was a journalist and tar all Journalists as perverts.


----------



## SINC

MacGuiver said:


> If his actions can be attributed to the Catholic faith, what catholic teaching was he following that lead him to child porn Sinc?


Perhaps the very same hidden Catholic beliefs that continually leads thousands of priests to prey on innocent children? Given the rampant numbers of priests who prey, compared to other religions, there must be something inside Catholicism that prompts them?


----------



## Macfury

SINC said:


> Perhaps the very same hidden Catholic beliefs that continually leads thousands of priests to prey on innocent children? Given the rampant numbers of priests who prey, compared to other religions, there must be something inside Catholicism that prompts them?


There is no greater number of Catholic priests who prey on children than the average would suggest--however, it is much bigger news when it happens.


----------



## kowalskil

Macfury said:


> There is no greater number of Catholic priests who prey on children than the average would suggest--however, it is much bigger news when it happens.


That is not surprising.


----------



## kps

These sickos generally seek positions close to their targets, integrated with positions of trust and authority such as teachers and religious leaders the kids are easily prayed upon.


----------



## bryanc

It should not be surprising that an organization that promotes one form of sexual perversion - celibacy - is rife with other forms. The sooner the Catholic church finishes imploding the better.


----------



## MacGuiver

bryanc said:


> It should not be surprising that an organization that promotes one form of sexual perversion - celibacy - is rife with other forms. The sooner the Catholic church finishes imploding the better.


This guy was a decon and free to marry so the celibacy=pedophile myth doesn't even apply.


----------



## fjnmusic

Here is what happens when a Catholic priest, Roy Bourgeois, speaks up for the ordination of women in the church. Not on Benedict's watch, apparently. 
http://www.cbc.ca/thecurrent/mobile...mmunicated-priest-on-the-ordination-of-women/


----------



## bryanc

MacGuiver said:


> celibacy=pedophile


Way to put words in the mouths of others! I never suggested celibacy equates in any way with pedophilia. I pointed out that the Church promotes celibacy, which is empirically a deviation from normative sexual behaviour for adults and can therefore fairly be described colloquially as a 'perversion.' I then made the logical extension that an organization that promotes one sexual perversion may be attractive to individuals with other perverse tastes (the genital mutilation of infants promoted by many churches springs to mind here as well). If my argument has any weakness, it is in this latter logical extension; I'l help you out here... one perversion isn't evidence of another. Of course, absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence, and sadly we have plenty of evidence of pedophilia within the clergy.


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> Way to put words in the mouths of others! I never suggested celibacy equates in any way with pedophilia. I pointed out that the Church promotes celibacy, which is empirically a deviation from normative sexual behaviour for adults and can therefore fairly be described colloquially as a 'perversion.'


By that definition, homosexuality is also a perversion.


----------



## MacGuiver

Macfury said:


> By that definition, homosexuality is also a perversion.


There is a high percentage of gay clergy in the Catholic Church in North America. Former Bishop Lahey, recently caught with child porn being among them.


----------



## MacGuiver

fjnmusic said:


> Here is what happens when a Catholic priest, Roy Bourgeois, speaks up for the ordination of women in the church. Not on Benedict's watch, apparently.
> Roy Bourgeois, excommunicated priest on the ordination of women | The Current with Anna Maria Tremonti | CBC Radio


There were none on Jesus watch either.


----------



## fjnmusic

MacGuiver said:


> There were none on Jesus watch either.


So did you actually read the link? Is having an opinion now grounds for excommunication, the equivalent of burning in hell for eternity?


----------



## Macfury

fjnmusic said:


> So did you actually read the link? Is having an opinion now grounds for excommunication, the equivalent of burning in hell for eternity?


He violated the rules of the organization, so he is out. Why is this so difficult for you to understand?


----------



## fjnmusic

Macfury said:


> He violated the rules of the organization, so he is out. Why is this so difficult for you to understand?


Because, Macfury, I belong to the same organization, and priests were never excommunicated for simply talking about the POSSIBILITY of change in the church. I've had this talk with many priests myself, all intelligent men with minds of their own. I've also had great conversations with non-RC female pastors and ministers and an Anglican minister with grand kids just yesterday, and we're all quite amazed at just how backwards thinking Mr. Ratzinger is on pretty much all fronts. Long faithful Catholics are abandoning the church because of doctrines like this. The rules of the organization have changed, Macfury, which apparently you do not understand. Benedict is no John Paul II.


----------



## Macfury

fjnmusic said:


> The rules of the organization have changed, Macfury, which apparently you do not understand. Benedict is no John Paul II.


I would say that the rules are now being enforced.


----------



## skippythebushkangaroo

The rules are the same. Go forth and multiply. Condoms be damned.


----------



## fjnmusic

Macfury said:


> I would say that the rules are now being enforced.


Not the rules of Vatican II, which as the last official overhaul, designed to make Roman Catholicism relevant to modern day life. There was progress being made in that direction before the Ratzinger reign of terror.


----------



## Macfury

fjnmusic said:


> Not the rules of Vatican II, which as the last official overhaul, designed to make Roman Catholicism relevant to modern day life. There was progress being made in that direction before the Ratzinger reign of terror.


VAT II was a big kettle. To exactly which part were you referring?


----------



## MacGuiver

fjnmusic said:


> Not the rules of Vatican II, which as the last official overhaul, designed to make Roman Catholicism relevant to modern day life. There was progress being made in that direction before the Ratzinger reign of terror.


Vatican II never gave Catholics the choice to make our own rules, especially when in conflict with magisterial teaching.


----------



## Macfury

MacGuiver said:


> Vatican II never gave Catholics the choice to make our own rules, especially when in conflict with magisterial teaching.


That's what I thought!


----------



## fjnmusic

MacGuiver said:


> Vatican II never gave Catholics the choice to make our own rules, especially when in conflict with magisterial teaching.


Yes, but to excommunicate a priest for disagreeing? You don't find that a bit extreme? I think I'm a Protestant in a Catholic body.


----------



## Macfury

fjnmusic said:


> I think I'm a Protestant in a Catholic body.


Time to check out the Anglicans, my friend.


----------



## imnothng

Macfury said:


> Time to check out the Anglicans, my friend.


How about reality? It's always here.


----------



## MacGuiver

fjnmusic said:


> Yes, but to excommunicate a priest for disagreeing? You don't find that a bit extreme? I think I'm a Protestant in a Catholic body.


He went a little further than just disagreeing. He became an active participant in the bogus ordinations of women in direct disobedience to church authority. He wasn't just kicked to the curb either. The rules were spelled out and he was given the opportunity to recant. He refused. Two more warnings he was given went unheeded so he really made his bed on this one. Now he is free to join fellow protestants in anyone of the 30,000 different denominations that might fit his theology. I don't understand why it took an excommunication for him to go if he felt that strongly about the issue.


----------



## Macfury

imnothng said:


> How about reality? It's always here.


What does that mean?


----------



## fjnmusic

MacGuiver said:


> He went a little further than just disagreeing. He became an active participant in the bogus ordinations of women in direct disobedience to church authority. He wasn't just kicked to the curb either. The rules were spelled out and he was given the opportunity to recant. He refused. Two more warnings he was given went unheeded so he really made his bed on this one. Now he is free to join fellow protestants in anyone of the 30,000 different denominations that might fit his theology. I don't understand why it took an excommunication for him to go if he felt that strongly about the issue.


Fair enough. But at the heart of this issue is the schism within the RC church between progressive and conservative factions, of which Mr. Ratzinger obviously represents the latter. And for that matter, priests were not always required to be celibate in the RC church. Things change, but for every RC looking for ecumenical style progress, there's at least one who feels we're too progressive already. Bring back communion rails and Latin, they say. It's also interesting that RC priests as addressed as "father" when that is the one thing they are forbidden to become.


----------



## Macfury

fjnmusic said:


> Fair enough. But at the heart of this issue is the schism within the RC church between progressive and conservative factions, of which Mr. Ratzinger obviously represents the latter.


"Progressive" being "good?'


----------



## fjnmusic

Macfury said:


> "Progressive" being "good?'


Progressive being progressive, Macfury. You know full well the inherent goodness/badness or rightness/wrongness depends on your own values. John Paul I for example, a very progressive leader, died suddenly 33 days after becoming pope. There is much speculation that his death was not exactly due to natural causes and may have been a reaction to a threat perceived by more conservative members of the church. So the "goodness" of a term like "progressive" depends very much on your own beliefs.


----------



## imnothng

Macfury said:


> What does that mean?


Really?

You suggested someone try Anglicism, and I suggested reality.


----------



## groovetube

fjnmusic said:


> Progressive being progressive, Macfury. You know full well the inherent goodness/badness or rightness/wrongness depends on your own values. John Paul I for example, a very progressive leader, died suddenly 33 days after becoming pope. There is much speculation that his death was not exactly due to natural causes and may have been a reaction to a threat perceived by more conservative members of the church. So the "goodness" of a term like "progressive" depends very much on your own beliefs.


I think some find the very idea of 'progressive' very frightening. Obviously this seems to be the case in the catholic church these days. Some catholic friends I have are not happy about ratzinger either and the direction he has taken things.


----------



## Macfury

imnothng said:


> Really?
> 
> You suggested someone try Anglicism, and I suggested reality.


Since fjn said he already felt like a protestant over this one rule of his church, I suggested he join a church that represented his views. That's another form of reality.


----------



## Macfury

fjnmusic said:


> Progressive being progressive, Macfury. You know full well the inherent goodness/badness or rightness/wrongness depends on your own values. John Paul I for example, a very progressive leader, died suddenly 33 days after becoming pope. There is much speculation that his death was not exactly due to natural causes and may have been a reaction to a threat perceived by more conservative members of the church. So the "goodness" of a term like "progressive" depends very much on your own beliefs.


That says nothing about what "progressive" means in this context. Sounds more like you apply the label to any set of changes with which you agree.


----------



## MacGuiver

I think what we are seeing in the Catholic faith now was described in 2 Timothy


> 1 I charge thee, before God and Jesus Christ, who shall judge the living and the dead, by his coming, and his kingdom: 2 Preach the word: be instant in season, out of season: reprove, entreat, rebuke in all patience and doctrine. 3 *For there shall be a time, when they will not endure sound doctrine; but, according to their own desires, they will heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears: 4 And will indeed turn away their hearing from the truth, but will be turned unto fables.* 5 But be thou vigilant, labour in all things, do the work of an evangelist, fulfil thy ministry. Be sober.


I see it when 2/3 of the kids in my children's class mates are not making confirmation because it requires attending 2 hr catechesis classes once a month for 8 months that could cut into hockey or dance classes. 
I see it when I hear of Catholics insensed that the priest took issue with them being shacked up when they wanted to get married.
I see it when catholics let the daughters boyfriend sleep in her bed in their own house.
When catholics support killing babies in the womb.
When priests and nuns preach fluff to the congregation in fear of offence, never touching on sin and the consequences of it. Or worst yet, rebellious preaching to magisterial teaching authority of the faith.

This is a small sample of the ear tickling Timothy speaks of and its made a train wreck of the church as everyone has now become his own Pope.


----------



## Macfury

MacGuiver said:


> I think what we are seeing in the Catholic faith now was described in 2 Timothy


In many Christian denominations, members are essentially declaring that any challenges to their own natural proclivities makes life too difficult for them. They should act in a manner that is easiest for them and then adjust the rules of each church to work around those behaviours. They are their own church, but need established churches to provide a building for them, so they can celebrate their unique approach to spirituality.

The churches, on the other hand, are trying to create a seat so large that it accommodates all buttocks. Their popularity, they believe, rests on making church fun and easy to digest. By avoiding judgement, they can maintain a wide spectrum of barely committed members who will never feel challenged, and always feel comfortable, regardless of the particular brand of perversion they practice.

This is a sensible approach to religion, once God has been excommunicated.


----------



## MacGuiver

Macfury said:


> In many Christian denominations, members are essentially declaring that any challenges to their own natural proclivities makes life too difficult for them. They should act in a manner that is easiest for them and then adjust the rules of each church to work around those behaviours. They are their own church, but need established churches to provide a building for them, so they can celebrate their unique approach to spirituality.
> 
> The churches, on the other hand, are trying to create a seat so large that it accommodates all buttocks. Their popularity, they believe, rests on making church fun and easy to digest. By avoiding judgement, they can maintain a wide spectrum of barely committed members who will never feel challenged, and always feel comfortable, regardless of the particular brand of perversion they practice.
> 
> This is a sensible approach to religion, once God has been excommunicated.


Amen to that!


----------



## groovetube

MacGuiver said:


> I think what we are seeing in the Catholic faith now was described in 2 Timothy
> 
> 
> I see it when 2/3 of the kids in my children's class mates are not making confirmation because it requires attending 2 hr catechesis classes once a month for 8 months that could cut into hockey or dance classes.
> I see it when I hear of Catholics insensed that the priest took issue with them being shacked up when they wanted to get married.
> I see it when catholics let the daughters boyfriend sleep in her bed in their own house.
> When catholics support killing babies in the womb.
> When priests and nuns preach fluff to the congregation in fear of offence, never touching on sin and the consequences of it. Or worst yet, rebellious preaching to magisterial teaching authority of the faith.
> 
> This is a small sample of the ear tickling Timothy speaks of and its made a train wreck of the church as everyone has now become his own Pope.


That really depends on who's definition of what sound doctrine is. Over the course of history, things, and times have changed. Granted there may be people who wish to change things too far in a religion, but from my perspective, if religion doesn't progress over time as the world changes, religions like catholicism will dies out. It's already happening it seems...


----------



## MacGuiver

groovetube said:


> That really depends on who's definition of what sound doctrine is.


For a Catholic that would be the pope and the magisterial teaching authority of the church.



> Over the course of history, things, and times have changed. Granted there may be people who wish to change things too far in a religion, but from my perspective, if religion doesn't progress over time as the world changes, religions like catholicism will dies out. It's already happening it seems...


I don't agree here. What religious entity is more accommodating than the United Church and their numbers are in steeper decline than the Catholic church. By your definition they should be bursting at the seams with young eager progressives but they're grey haired and dying.


----------



## fjnmusic

groovetube said:


> That really depends on who's definition of what sound doctrine is. Over the course of history, things, and times have changed. Granted there may be people who wish to change things too far in a religion, but from my perspective, if religion doesn't progress over time as the world changes, religions like catholicism will dies out. It's already happening it seems...


Oddly enough, the more hard line a religion becomes, often the more popular it becomes. Take Islam for example, the fastest growing religion on the planet. It certainly does not allow a great deal of flexibility in interpretation, yet people join because they want that structure and those clear parameters. Catholicism is only ever as progressive or conservative as the current pope makes it, due to the pope's infallibility when speaking on matters "ex cathedra", but this doctrine was only invented in 1879. It's like when the dogma of "immaculate conception" was created in 1854 in response to the discovery of both sperm and egg cells which created a bit of a dilemma regarding original sin. The pope and the other boys have always made it up as they went along (crusades and witch-burning are no longer fashionable) and 400 years after making Galileo recant his statement that the earth revolves around the sun, the church officially apologized for being wrong. If the rule is stupid and enough people recognize it, they change the rule. It's not rocket science. To excommunicate a priest for advocating for change, like ordaining women, and to be forbidden to even discuss the matter, is a desperate move by an insecure man. The very first pope, St. Peter, was married, and so were many others before the rules were officially changed about a thousand years later. You could look it up.


----------



## MacGuiver

fjnmusic said:


> Oddly enough, the more hard line a religion becomes, often the more popular it becomes. Take Islam for example, the fastest growing religion on the planet. It certainly does not allow a great deal of flexibility in interpretation, yet people join because they want that structure and those clear parameters. Catholicism is only ever as progressive or conservative as the current pope makes it, due to the pope's infallibility when speaking on matters "ex cathedra", but this doctrine was only invented in 1879. It's like when the dogma of "immaculate conception" was created in 1854 in response to the discovery of both sperm and egg cells which created a bit of a dilemma regarding original sin. The pope and the other boys have always made it up as they went along (crusades and witch-burning are no longer fashionable) and 400 years after making Galileo recant his statement that the earth revolves around the sun, the church officially apologized for being wrong. If the rule is stupid and enough people recognize it, they change the rule. It's not rocket science. To excommunicate a priest for advocating for change, like ordaining women, and to be forbidden to even discuss the matter, is a desperate move by an insecure man. The very first pope, St. Peter, was married, and so were many others before the rules were officially changed about a thousand years later. You could look it up.


Too many moles to wack it this litany of anti-catholic talking points for today. It does however seem apparent that you've discovered you're a member of the wrong church.


----------



## imnothng

Macfury said:


> That's another form of reality.


There's no reality in imaginary beings and fairy tales.


----------



## groovetube

MacGuiver said:


> For a Catholic that would be the pope and the magisterial teaching authority of the church.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't agree here. What religious entity is more accommodating than the United Church and their numbers are in steeper decline than the Catholic church. By your definition they should be bursting at the seams with young eager progressives but they're grey haired and dying.


Perhaps it's because those who wish to be a part of a religion prefer to be controlled. The idea of mixing religion, and freedom is probably not as successful as they once thought. Somehow, this doesn't surprise me.

Religion in general, is in a deep decline. This is accelerating, which I think is a good thing. Controlling people with a bunch of misinterpreted passages from a book held up as some sort of human rulebook has been a complete and utter disaster.


----------



## fjnmusic

MacGuiver said:


> Too many moles to wack it this litany of anti-catholic talking points for today. It does however seem apparent that you've discovered you're a member of the wrong church.


Hey man! Easy there. Nobody mocks like a lapsed Catholic. Doesn't mean I'm renouncing my faith. Still good to have a little "fire insurance."


----------



## fjnmusic

groovetube said:


> Perhaps it's because those who wish to be a part of a religion prefer to be controlled. The idea of mixing religion, and freedom is probably not as successful as they once thought. Somehow, this doesn't surprise me.
> 
> Religion in general, is in a deep decline. This is accelerating, which I think is a good thing. Controlling people with a bunch of misinterpreted passages from a book held up as some sort of human rulebook has been a complete and utter disaster.


Man, GT. That whole passage could just as easily have been written about politics. In fact, I'm not sure there's a real difference.


----------



## groovetube

fjnmusic said:


> Man, GT. That whole passage could just as easily have been written about politics. In fact, I'm not sure there's a real difference.


ha ha yes! :clap:


----------



## SINC

Hmmm . . .


----------



## Rps

groovetube said:


> Religion in general, is in a deep decline. This is accelerating, which I think is a good thing. Controlling people with a bunch of misinterpreted passages from a book held up as some sort of human rulebook has been a complete and utter disaster.


This is truly a myopic view. I would contend that if you looked around the world religion is on the rise, and if you don't think so look at Africa, Indonesia, South America, that is if you don't think Islam is not a religion. And as for controlling people, you can only control them if they want to be controlling in my opinion......but it is a very true statement that misinterpreted passages from a book held up as the rule book is very dangerous....since from time immortal "man" has always had some "divine leader" who imposes his views through the use of religion.

What I haven't been able to figure out in my 60 some-odd years is : "Is it more dangerous to have the "rules" interpreted for the time we live in, or to take them literally" Either way I think mankind is predisposed to loose. But I do caution those who think all religion should be banned....... I'm not a believer... and I certainly think we have had more trouble in the world due to organised religions than they are worth.....however, what do you do with faith..... if we don't have "faith" in something ( I'm not saying what that should be here ) then what do we have? Don't we need to have faith in something?


----------



## Macfury

Rps said:


> This is truly a myopic view. I would contend that if you looked around the world religion is on the rise, and if you don't think so look at Africa, Indonesia, South America, that is if you don't think Islam is not a religion. And as for controlling people, you can only control them if they want to be controlling in my opinion......but it is a very true statement that misinterpreted passages from a book held up as the rule book is very dangerous....since from time immortal "man" has always had some "divine leader" who imposes his views through the use of religion.
> 
> What I haven't been able to figure out in my 60 some-odd years is : "Is it more dangerous to have the "rules" interpreted for the time we live in, or to take them literally" Either way I think mankind is predisposed to loose. But I do caution those who think all religion should be banned....... I'm not a believer... and I certainly think we have had more trouble in the world due to organised religions than they are worth.....however, what do you do with faith..... if we don't have "faith" in something ( I'm not saying what that should be here ) then what do we have? Don't we need to have faith in something?


I contend that many people who have smugly moved "beyond" religion have replaced it with environmentalism or socialism or some similar group or idea that they identify with to such a degree that it becomes obvious to those around them that they have found religion--but label it "logic."


----------



## Rps

Macfury said:


> they have found religion--but label it "logic."


Sounds like the creed of the Atheist......ever notice how Atheism has all the traits of a religion?


----------



## groovetube

Rps said:


> This is truly a myopic view. I would contend that if you looked around the world religion is on the rise, and if you don't think so look at Africa, Indonesia, South America, that is if you don't think Islam is not a religion. And as for controlling people, you can only control them if they want to be controlling in my opinion......but it is a very true statement that misinterpreted passages from a book held up as the rule book is very dangerous....since from time immortal "man" has always had some "divine leader" who imposes his views through the use of religion.
> 
> What I haven't been able to figure out in my 60 some-odd years is : "Is it more dangerous to have the "rules" interpreted for the time we live in, or to take them literally" Either way I think mankind is predisposed to loose. But I do caution those who think all religion should be banned....... I'm not a believer... and I certainly think we have had more trouble in the world due to organised religions than they are worth.....however, what do you do with faith..... if we don't have "faith" in something ( I'm not saying what that should be here ) then what do we have? Don't we need to have faith in something?


Don't mistake my disdain for religion for people's spiritual beliefs. It may seem like religion is on the rise, due to the scaremongering, but it is losing. Steadily.

It's organized religion I despise.

I see the resident crap disturber wishes us to believe that only non religious people think about our environment and the welfare of others.

Sad, deluded, not to mention pretty disrespectful of those who do have beliefs, and care about people and our environment.


----------



## Rps

groovetube;1242752It's organized religion I despise.
[/QUOTE said:


> Couldn't agree more!!!!


----------



## CubaMark

What is entirely depressing, for those of us who live and work in the "developing" world, is the incredibly rapid growth of right-wing evangelical Christian churches. They're friggin' everywhere, building huge worship centres and creating new believers, holding rallies and allying themselves with political parties that serve the interests of everyone but the poor... truly depressing. Too bad people can't have faith in their fellow man, and service to their nation, rather than faith to an invisible being who alternately smites your enemies or helps your football team win a game...


----------



## eMacMan

groovetube said:


> Don't mistake my disdain for religion for people's spiritual beliefs. It may seem like religion is on the rise, due to the scaremongering, but it is losing. Steadily.
> 
> It's organized religion I despise.
> 
> I see the resident crap disturber wishes us to believe that only non religious people think about our environment and the welfare of others.
> 
> Sad, deluded, not to mention pretty disrespectful of those who do have beliefs, and care about people and our environment.


Amen! My Grandad's neighbours described him as the best Christian they had ever meant, even though he never went to church. That description had everything to do with how he lived and how he treated others. Whatever his true beliefs were he kept them to himself.


----------



## MacGuiver

Macfury said:


> I contend that many people who have smugly moved "beyond" religion have replaced it with environmentalism or socialism or some similar group or idea that they identify with to such a degree that it becomes obvious to those around them that they have found religion--but label it "logic."


I agree.


----------



## MacGuiver

CubaMark said:


> What is entirely depressing, for those of us who live and work in the "developing" world, is the incredibly rapid growth of right-wing evangelical Christian churches. They're friggin' everywhere, building huge worship centres and creating new believers, holding rallies and allying themselves with political parties that serve the interests of everyone but the poor... truly depressing. Too bad people can't have faith in their fellow man, and service to their nation, rather than faith to an invisible being who alternately smites your enemies or helps your football team win a game...


Socialism isn't exactly lilly white in the smite your enemies department.


----------



## Macfury

Rps said:


> Sounds like the creed of the Atheist......ever notice how Atheism has all the traits of a religion?


Yes, it often does. 

However, adherence to religion of some variety or other is growing by leaps and bounds all over the world. If one merely reads _Now Magazine_ for information, for example, one would believe that Toronto's lacklustre support for religious adherence is a microcosm of the world--it is not.

Edit: I see CubaMark backs me up on this.


----------



## Macfury

CubaMark said:


> Too bad people can't have faith in their fellow man...


And this faith in one's fellow man is to be based on what track record?


----------



## iMouse

eMacMan said:


> Amen! My Grandad's neighbours described him as the best Christian they had ever meant, even though he never went to church. That description had everything to do with how he lived and how he treated others. Whatever his true beliefs were he kept them to himself.


Did they ever try to 'enlist' him?

Been there, done that.

Perhaps the believers thought that I should be harnessed for their church's own benefit?

Who knows? I respectfully declined.


----------



## Macfury

iMouse said:


> Did they ever try to 'enlist' him?
> 
> Been there, done that.
> 
> Perhaps the believers thought that I should be harnessed for their church's own benefit?
> 
> Who knows? I respectfully declined.


Do as CubaMark suggests instead--let the "nation" harness your energies. Or work for your "fellow man" instead of yourself.


----------



## iMouse

Macfury said:


> Do as CubaMark suggests instead--let the "nation" harness your energies.
> 
> Or work for your "fellow man" instead of yourself.


Che Guevara is alive?? 

I do, well a sub-set of the "nation".

And who said anything about work??? tptptptp

I'm retired, just not dead yet. :lmao:


----------



## Macfury

iMouse said:


> Che Guevara is alive??
> 
> I do, well a sub-set of the "nation".
> 
> And who said anything about work??? tptptptp
> 
> I'm retired, just not dead yet. :lmao:


Ha!


----------



## groovetube

eMacMan said:


> Amen! My Grandad's neighbours described him as the best Christian they had ever meant, even though he never went to church. That description had everything to do with how he lived and how he treated others. Whatever his true beliefs were he kept them to himself.


sounds like a good christian to me too!


----------



## groovetube

MacGuiver said:


> I agree.


of course you do.

It's kind of entertaining to see the usuals go off on socialism as if this has anything to do with the topic.

Do what you do, I guess.


----------



## Macfury

eMacMan said:


> Amen! My Grandad's neighbours described him as the best Christian they had ever meant, even though he never went to church.


Well, no. He might have been a grand fellow, but being a Christian requires something more than that.


----------



## groovetube

yes. It requires strict adherence to an organization that tells you how to be a better christian, and fleeces you for some tax free cash.

Pretty sure it specifies that somewhere in that book they all carry around.


----------



## iMouse

Macfury said:


> Well, no. He might have been a grand fellow, but being a Christian requires something more than that.





groovetube said:


> yes. It requires strict adherence to an organization that tells you how to be a better christian, and fleeces you for some tax free cash.
> 
> Pretty sure it specifies that somewhere in that book they all carry around.


I truly believe that, if Christ were to return, no church would have Him.

They might even try to crucify Him, again.


----------



## groovetube

Yeah they'd be showin that socialist the door pretty fast.


----------



## skippythebushkangaroo

iMouse said:


> I truly believe that, if Christ were to return, no church would have Him.
> 
> They might even try to crucify Him, again.


If Christ were around today he'd spend alot of his time upsetting all the bingo tables in the temples. Among other things.


----------



## fjnmusic

iMouse said:


> I truly believe that, if Christ were to return, no church would have Him.
> 
> They might even try to crucify Him, again.


How do you know he hasn't? The bible only said he "ascended" to heaven, not that he died a second time. He could be here with us the whole time. Just sayin'.


----------



## Macfury

fjnmusic said:


> How do you know he hasn't? The bible only said he "ascended" to heaven, not that he died a second time. He could be here with us the whole time. Just sayin'.


How does that square with the BIble? Answer: it doesn't.


----------



## fjnmusic

Macfury said:


> Well, no. He might have been a grand fellow, but being a Christian requires something more than that.


Not quite. Being a Christian simply requires one to be a follower of the Christ, the Saviour, the Messiah. Most Christians follow Jesus the Christ, but technically, if Bob had all the right tributes, you could be a follower of Bob the Christ. That's why there are so many variations of Christianity, all valid, although like hockey teams most seem to think there can only be one winner.


----------



## Macfury

fjnmusic said:


> Not quite. Being a Christian simply requires one to be a follower of the Christ, the Saviour, the Messiah. Most Christians follow Jesus the Christ, but technically, if Bob had all the right tributes, you could be a follower of Bob the Christ. That's why there are so many variations of Christianity, all valid, although like hockey teams most seem to think there can only be one winner.


No. That is not Christianity which specifies that Jesus of Nazareth is_ the_ Christ. This is not a competition.


----------



## fjnmusic

Macfury said:


> How does that square with the BIble? Answer: it doesn't.


Read your bible, MacFury. He could come and go as he pleases; if He's God, He can do anything He wants. There was no second death. He'd be pretty old, but if you believe the bible, he's still alive, fully human and fully God.


----------



## fjnmusic

Macfury said:


> No. That is not Christianity which specifies that Jesus of Nazareth is_ the_ Christ. This is not a competition.


You have a fairly shallow understanding of the term Christian, MF. No offense.


----------



## groovetube

and a rather surprising one coming from someone who believes their life is their own!


----------



## Macfury

fjnmusic said:


> You have a fairly shallow understanding of the term Christian, MF. No offense.


No. Your attempt to expand the definition of Christianity is what's failing here. You're talking about generic messianism and attempting to use it to replace the definition of Christianity--something specific.

All Porsches may be cars, but all cars are not Porsches.


----------



## groovetube

There are those, who need someone else to define it for them. Regardless of whether it's a valid definition or not.

And others, who can read, and think for themselves.


----------



## skippythebushkangaroo

groovetube said:


> and a rather surprising one coming from someone who believes their life is their own!


I follow your line of thinking here. I previously thought that religion and objectivism were not compatible. BS can baffle brains though.


----------



## Macfury

skippythebushkangaroo said:


> I previously thought that religion and objectivism were not compatible.


Why have you changed your mind?


----------



## skippythebushkangaroo

Macfury said:


> Why have you changed your mind?


I don't follow either strain. But I've never known a non atheist objectivist. 

Fascinating.


----------



## groovetube

skippythebushkangaroo said:


> I follow your line of thinking here. I previously thought that religion and objectivism were not compatible. BS can baffle brains though.


I think you've caused some head scratching


----------



## Macfury

skippythebushkangaroo said:


> ...I've never known a non atheist objectivist.


Neither have I.


----------



## MacGuiver

Macfury said:


> Why have you changed your mind?


I think many are adherents to the teachings of Hippy Jesus of the 60s, who has a few selective traits of Jesus of the Gospels thrown in to make him half convincing to those that are poorly schooled in scripture. A Jesus of their own design, moulded to fit lifestyle choices.


----------



## jef

Rps said:


> Sounds like the creed of the Atheist......ever notice how Atheism has all the traits of a religion?


Atheism is absolutely not like a religion. There is no single, all encompassing answer for the things we do not know ie) 'god did it'. Atheists generally require proof and/or best evidence rather than faith as answers - and most atheists I know are comfortable with the concept of no afterlife and that they are not held hostage to that belief.

There is nothing in common with religious thinking... atheism is an absence of belief in a deity and there is no substitute for a deity.


----------



## groovetube

MacGuiver said:


> I think many are adherents to the teachings of Hippy Jesus of the 60s, who has a few selective traits of Jesus of the Gospels thrown in to make him half convincing to those that are poorly schooled in scripture. A Jesus of their own design, moulded to fit lifestyle choices.


It's amazing how you're so incredibly threatened by people who may think for themselves, or lead exemplary christian lives without the need for organized religion, by slamming them as socialists or hippies.

Something bad must have happened to you to be so incredibly bitter like this.


----------



## Macfury

MacGuiver said:


> I think many are adherents to the teachings of Hippy Jesus of the 60s, who has a few selective traits of Jesus of the Gospels thrown in to make him half convincing to those that are poorly schooled in scripture. A Jesus of their own design, moulded to fit lifestyle choices.


I suspect some of them believe _Godspell_ to be a documentary.


----------



## bryanc

jef said:


> Atheism is absolutely not like a religion.


Indeed; in fact the literal meaning of 'atheism' is the 'lack of belief [of|in|about] god(s).'


> There is nothing in common with religious thinking.


Absolutely correct again. Atheism is the anthesis of religious belief; skepticism is a virtue and faith a vice.



Rps said:


> ....ever notice how Atheism has all the traits of a religion?


I'm surprised you would say this; atheism has almost none of traits of a religion. No dogma, no organization, no promises of eternal life or other supernatural claims, no holy days, no rituals, none of the characteristics of any organized religion. There may be some atheists who've made up some of these things for themselves, but they certainly don't pertain to atheism. Atheism is like a religion in the same way that not collecting stamps is like a hobby.



Macfury said:


> And this faith in one's fellow man is to be based on what track record?


This is good atheistic thinking; basing your expectations on historical observations or other rational evidence is the opposite of faith. To expect human behaviour to suddenly diverge from historical precedent would require faith.


----------



## skippythebushkangaroo

MacGuiver said:


> I think many are adherents to the teachings of Hippy Jesus of the 60s, who has a few selective traits of Jesus of the Gospels thrown in to make him half convincing to those that are poorly schooled in scripture. A Jesus of their own design, moulded to fit lifestyle choices.


What does this response have to do with the price of rice in Istanbul?


----------



## iMouse

fjnmusic said:


> How do you know he hasn't? The bible only said he "ascended" to heaven, not that he died a second time. He could be here with us the whole time. Just sayin'.


That great. A chip off the old block. Just like dad, disassociated. beejacon


----------



## bryanc

MacGuiver said:


> I think many are adherents to the teachings of Hippy Jesus of the 60s, who has a few selective traits of Jesus of the Gospels thrown in to make him half convincing to those that are poorly schooled in scripture. A Jesus of their own design, moulded to fit lifestyle choices.


As opposed to the Jesus of the 4th century who was concocted from the selected assemblages of edited, translated, and entirely fabricated documents designed and moulded to fit the lifestyle choices of the Council of Nicaea?


----------



## fjnmusic

bryanc said:


> As opposed to the Jesus of the 4th century who was concocted from the selected assemblages of edited, translated, and entirely fabricated documents designed and moulded to fit the lifestyle choices of the Council of Nicaea?


Good point, Bryan. Well said too.


----------



## skippythebushkangaroo

bryanc said:


> as opposed to the jesus of the 4th century who was concocted from the selected assemblages of edited, translated, and entirely fabricated documents designed and moulded to fit the lifestyle choices of the council of nicaea?


🙈🙉🙊


----------



## groovetube

bryanc said:


> As opposed to the Jesus of the 4th century who was concocted from the selected assemblages of edited, translated, and entirely fabricated documents designed and moulded to fit the lifestyle choices of the Council of Nicaea?


Boom


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> I'm surprised you would say this; atheism has almost none of traits of a religion. No dogma, no organization, no promises of eternal life or other supernatural claims, no holy days, no rituals, none of the characteristics of any organized religion. There may be some atheists who've made up some of these things for themselves, but they certainly don't pertain to atheism. Atheism is like a religion in the same way that not collecting stamps is like a hobby.


It would be with regards to: 

* Organizations such as these:

Atheist Alliance International - Welcome!

Supporting Civil Rights for Atheists and the Separation of Church and State | American Atheists

Home : Humanists Atheists and Agnostics of Manitoba

* Atheists who advertise their belifs, and atheists who attempt to convert others.

* Atheists who hold their beliefs to be absolute.

So although it is not exactly like a religion, it is not entirely unlike one either.


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> As opposed to the Jesus of the 4th century who was concocted from the selected assemblages of edited, translated, and entirely fabricated documents designed and moulded to fit the lifestyle choices of the Council of Nicaea?



Where does it say that documents were fabricated?


----------



## bryanc

Macfury said:


> * Organizations such as these:


There are organizations of people who have common concerns because they are atheists in the same way that there are organizations of people who have common concerns because they are small business owners; does that make business a religion?

Atheism can arguably be described as a philosophy (although even that is difficult because of the myriad variations of reasoning, or lack thereof, that have led people to this position). But because the only common feature of atheists is the absence of a belief, it can't be reasonably compared to a religion.


----------



## Macfury

If I said I rejected evolution, but had no further opinion on the matter, would that constitute a belief or not?


----------



## jef

Macfury said:


> If I said I rejected evolution, but had no further opinion on the matter, would that constitute a belief or not?


There is evidence and proof that evolution is a fact. Evolution is not a belief. 
There is no such proof that there are gods. Gods need belief.
If you reject evolution, you are simply wrong.


----------



## groovetube

this has to be one of the weakest responses from MF yet.

Trying to defend comparing atheists to organized religion? Another classic.


----------



## iMouse

groovetube said:


> this has to be one of the weakest responses from MF yet.
> 
> Trying to defend comparing atheists to organized religion? Another classic.


What about us Agnostics? Don't we have any gravitas in this conversation?

I realize that neither side likes us, but too bad for them.

Not my problem. tptptptp


----------



## groovetube

love your sig. 

fitting


----------



## bryanc

iMouse said:


> What about us Agnostics? Don't we have any gravitas in this conversation?
> 
> I realize that neither side likes us, but too bad for them.


Not sure what you mean here; in general, agnostics _are_ atheists. "Agnostic" means "without knowledge [of|about] god(s)." Any rational person who does not have knowledge about a specific subject will also refrain from formulating beliefs about that subject. Thus rational agnostics are without beliefs [in|about] god(s) and are therefore atheists, by definition.

I certainly consider myself an agnostic, as well as an atheist, and the same goes for every atheist I've ever talked with about this subject.

In principle, it is possible to describe the philosophical position of "strong atheism" which is the belief that god(s) do not exist, but I've never met anyone who, when asked to articulate their position with regard to the existence/non-existence of god(s), argued that they could prove god(s) do not exist.

So "strong atheism" is something of a straw-man argument. However, many, myself and people like Penn Jillette included, would argue that although it is logically impossible to prove the non-existence of god(s), positing their existence as anything other than a thought exercise is patently absurd and unsupportable by any rational standard.


----------



## Macfury

jef said:


> There is evidence and proof that evolution is a fact. Evolution is not a belief.
> There is no such proof that there are gods. Gods need belief.
> If you reject evolution, you are simply wrong.


Sure, but my question is whether the statement that "something does not exist" is a belief.


----------



## jef

Macfury said:


> Sure, but my question is whether the statement that "something does not exist" is a belief.


Not if the definition of atheism is a lack of belief in the first place. You can't believe something exits if it's something that you don't believe in.

A belief in gods is in the same category as a belief in Santa Claus. 

I wonder if archaeologists 20,000 years from now will postulate that we primitives worshiped many gods, including Jesus and Santa, when they dig up our buildings and storage closets.


----------



## fjnmusic

bryanc said:


> Not sure what you mean here; in general, agnostics _are_ atheists. "Agnostic" means "without knowledge [of|about] god(s)." Any rational person who does not have knowledge about a specific subject will also refrain from formulating beliefs about that subject. Thus rational agnostics are without beliefs [in|about] god(s) and are therefore atheists, by definition.
> 
> I certainly consider myself an agnostic, as well as an atheist, and the same goes for every atheist I've ever talked with about this subject.
> 
> In principle, it is possible to describe the philosophical position of "strong atheism" which is the belief that god(s) do not exist, but I've never met anyone who, when asked to articulate their position with regard to the existence/non-existence of god(s), argued that they could prove god(s) do not exist.
> 
> So "strong atheism" is something of a straw-man argument. However, many, myself and people like Penn Jillette included, would argue that although it is logically impossible to prove the non-existence of god(s), positing their existence as anything other than a thought exercise is patently absurd and unsupportable by any rational standard.


Every religious person is also at least partially atheistic, if they reject every other deity save for the one they happen to believe in.


----------



## MacGuiver

jef said:


> There is evidence and proof that evolution is a fact. Evolution is not a belief.
> There is no such proof that there are gods. Gods need belief.
> If you reject evolution, you are simply wrong.


There is evidence of God's existence. Plenty of it. The atheist has simply ruled out the possibility.


----------



## imnothng

MacGuiver said:


> There is evidence of God's existence. Plenty of it. The atheist has simply ruled out the possibility.


Holy phuck,please enlighten us.


----------



## groovetube

listen, the day I go out and find a burning bush that talks to me, either I head to a church fast, or the looney bin.


----------



## jef

MacGuiver said:


> There is evidence of God's existence. Plenty of it. The atheist has simply ruled out the possibility.


What god? What evidence?


----------



## Dr.G.

groovetube said:


> listen, the day I go out and find a burning bush that talks to me, either I head to a church fast, or the looney bin.


groovetube at the burning bush


3 Now groovetube was tending the flock of Jethro his father-in-law, the priest of Midian, and he led the flock to the far side of the wilderness and came to Horeb, the mountain of God. 2 There the angel of the Lord appeared to him in flames of fire from within a bush. groovetube saw that though the bush was on fire it did not burn up. 3 So groovetube thought, “I will go over and see this strange sight—why the bush does not burn up.”

4 When the Lord saw that he had gone over to look, God called to him from within the bush, “groovetube! groovetube!”

And groovetube said, “Here I am.”

5 “Do not come any closer,” God said. “Take off your sandals, for the place where you are standing is holy ground.” 6 Then he said, “I am the God of your father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob.” At this, groovetube hid his face, because he was afraid to look at God.

7 The Lord said, “I have indeed seen the misery of my people in ehMacLand. I have heard them crying out because of their slave drivers, and I am concerned about their suffering. 8 So I have come down to rescue them from the hand of the Microsofties and to bring them up out of that land into a good and spacious land, a land flowing with milk and honey—the home of the iMacs, the iPod, the iPads and the iPhones. 9 And now the cry of the has reached me, and I have seen the way the Microsofties are oppressing them. 10 So now, go. I am sending you to Pharaoh to bring my people the ehMacLanders out of darkness.”

11 But groovetube said to God, “Who am I that I should go to Pharaoh and bring the ehMacLanders out of darkness?"

12 And God said, “I will be with you. And this will be the sign to you that it is I who have sent you: When you have brought the people out of darkness, you will worship God on this mountain.”

13 groovetube said to God, “Suppose I go to the ehMacLanders and say to them, ‘The God of your fathers has sent me to you,’ and they ask me, ‘What is his name?’ Then what shall I tell them?”

14 God said to groovetube, “I am who I am. This is what you are to say to the ehMacLanders: ‘I am has sent me to you.’”


----------



## jef

Dr.G. said:


> groovetube at the burning bush
> 
> 
> 3 Now groovetube was tending the flock of Jethro his father-in-law, the priest of Midian, and he led the flock to the far side of the wilderness and came to Horeb, the mountain of God. 2 There the angel of the Lord appeared to him in flames of fire from within a bush. groovetube saw that though the bush was on fire it did not burn up. 3 So groovetube thought, “I will go over and see this strange sight—why the bush does not burn up.”
> 
> 4 When the Lord saw that he had gone over to look, God called to him from within the bush, “groovetube! groovetube!”
> 
> And groovetube said, “Here I am.”
> 
> 5 “Do not come any closer,” God said. “Take off your sandals, for the place where you are standing is holy ground.” 6 Then he said, “I am the God of your father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob.” At this, groovetube hid his face, because he was afraid to look at God.
> 
> 7 The Lord said, “I have indeed seen the misery of my people in ehMacLand. I have heard them crying out because of their slave drivers, and I am concerned about their suffering. 8 So I have come down to rescue them from the hand of the Microsofties and to bring them up out of that land into a good and spacious land, a land flowing with milk and honey—the home of the iMacs, the iPod, the iPads and the iPhones. 9 And now the cry of the has reached me, and I have seen the way the Microsofties are oppressing them. 10 So now, go. I am sending you to Pharaoh to bring my people the ehMacLanders out of darkness.”
> 
> 11 But groovetube said to God, “Who am I that I should go to Pharaoh and bring the ehMacLanders out of darkness?"
> 
> 12 And God said, “I will be with you. And this will be the sign to you that it is I who have sent you: When you have brought the people out of darkness, you will worship God on this mountain.”
> 
> 13 groovetube said to God, “Suppose I go to the ehMacLanders and say to them, ‘The God of your fathers has sent me to you,’ and they ask me, ‘What is his name?’ Then what shall I tell them?”
> 
> 14 God said to groovetube, “I am who I am. This is what you are to say to the ehMacLanders: ‘I am has sent me to you.’”


Praise be to Dr. G! Now it all makes sense! I shall from this day forth accept groovetube as my savior!


----------



## Dr.G.

jef said:


> Praise be to Dr. G! Now it all makes sense! I shall from this day forth accept groovetube as my savior!


"Who among the gods is like you, O LORD groovetube? Who is like you--majestic in holiness, awesome in glory, working wonders?

Do not make any gods to be alongside me; do not make for yourselves gods of silver or gods of gold.

They have been quick to turn away from what I commanded them and have made themselves an idol cast in the shape of a calf. They have bowed down to it and sacrificed to it and have said, 'These are your gods, O ehMacLand, who brought you up out of darkness.'

Do not worship any other god, for the LORD groovetube, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God."

Luckily, for the people of ehMacLand, groovetube was a forgiving god, and one who wished only peace and love for all the world.


----------



## bryanc

Macfury said:


> Sure, but my question is whether the statement that "something does not exist" is a belief.


While semantically similar, there is an enormous logical chasm between "I believe X does not exist" and "I do not believe X exists." The former is a very difficult position to defend, whereas the later is the default 'null hypothesis' from which all rational minds must start any line of inquiry.

Many philosophically naive atheists will oversimplify their position, but when pressed on the fine logical distinctions, every one I've ever met will agree that they can't be completely certain that god does not exist, but they put god in the same category of implausibility as santa claus or the tooth fairy, which is perfectly rational.


----------



## bryanc

MacGuiver said:


> There is evidence of God's existence.


citation needed.



> The atheist has simply ruled out the possibility.


You mistake the rational position of "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" for "ruling out the possibility." I am completely open to evidence of the existence of gods, unicorns, sasquatches, UFOs, homeopathic remedies, etc. I simply require good evidence for these extrodinary claims. On the topic of gods, the evidence offered not only fails this criterion, it fails any criterion; there is no evidence whatsoever. The faithful take this as a 'feature'; apparently the utter lack of evidence for the existence of their invisible sky daddy is a _good_ thing, in that only the truly faithful will believe.

I'm not wired that way; my beliefs are forged by force of reason and evidence; I have no choice regarding my beliefs. If there is a God, She created me that way and She knows what would be required to convince me of Her existence. If she chooses to condemn me to eternal damnation for using the critical reasoning capacities with which She endowed me, She is a malevolent entity that I would not worship even if I believed She existed.


----------



## fjnmusic

Only the true Messiah denies his divinity.


----------



## bryanc

Follow the Gourd!


----------



## groovetube

Dr.G. said:


> "Who among the gods is like you, O LORD groovetube? Who is like you--majestic in holiness, awesome in glory, working wonders?
> 
> Do not make any gods to be alongside me; do not make for yourselves gods of silver or gods of gold.
> 
> They have been quick to turn away from what I commanded them and have made themselves an idol cast in the shape of a calf. They have bowed down to it and sacrificed to it and have said, 'These are your gods, O ehMacLand, who brought you up out of darkness.'
> 
> Do not worship any other god, for the LORD groovetube, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God."
> 
> Luckily, for the people of ehMacLand, groovetube was a forgiving god, and one who wished only peace and love for all the world.


All I really want right now is a brilliantly brewed expresso.

Not much of a god if I don't get one now am I.

Now, if one were to show up, that would indeed be proof that I -am-... god. No further proof required!


----------



## iMouse

MacGuiver said:


> There is evidence of God's existence. Plenty of it.


There is evidence of god's lack of interest. Plenty of it.



groovetube said:


> All I really want right now is a brilliantly brewed expresso.
> 
> Not much of a god if I don't get one now am I.
> 
> Now, if one were to show up, that would indeed be proof that I -am-... god. No further proof required!


God is a replicator?? Interesting.


----------



## groovetube

Apparently, god is all things.

See? There's an explanation for everything.


----------



## iMouse

groovetube said:


> Apparently, god is all things.
> 
> See? There's an explanation for everything.


And mysterious to boot. Don't forget that.

I wonder how it is that Man got to choose his form? Hubris? :lmao:

And he can shove his mysterious ways for a start. tptptptp


----------



## MacGuiver

imnothng said:


> Holy phuck,please enlighten us.


What would be the point of that? When presented with the evidence you'll simply fall back to the atheist usual response. "Well that may have happened but its not proof of God or if we can't reproduce the miracle in a lab I won't believe. We just don't understand what happened or some vague reference to mind over matter." 
Thousands of people have testified to the miracles in there lives through prayer. I've seen it in my own family having a sister healed of scholiosis at church.


----------



## groovetube

Now I wouldn't necessarily invalidate someone's religious experience, and resulting beliefs, but don't expect this, to be good enough to convince someone else that this is -proof-.


----------



## imnothng

MacGuiver said:


> What would be the point of that? When presented with the evidence you'll simply fall back to the atheist usual response. "Well that may have happened but its not proof of God or if we can't reproduce the miracle in a lab I won't believe. We just don't understand what happened or some vague reference to mind over matter."
> Thousands of people have testified to the miracles in there lives through prayer. I've seen it in my own family having a sister healed of scholiosis at church.


Yup, just like my mother, you think miracles are evidence of gOD. Yes I will take the atheist (ie. sane) approach and ask you, is electricity evidence of gOD? If yes, please explain. If no, it would be to someone 500 years ago. Or to that caveman that made the story of Thor to explain lightning.

I do not doubt that unexplainable things happen to people every day. I can't explain how I wake up every single day, or why my heart didn't choose today to stop working. That's not evidence of an imaginary being.

Just because we can't explain something today, doesn't mean we wont be able to in 10 years, or 100 years, or 1000 years.


----------



## Dr.G.

groovetube said:


> All I really want right now is a brilliantly brewed expresso.
> 
> Not much of a god if I don't get one now am I.
> 
> Now, if one were to show up, that would indeed be proof that I -am-... god. No further proof required!


According to the Book of Life, once groovetube reached the temple, he could only find one expresso cup with the high priest’s seal intact. Worse still, there was no expresso in the cup only enough coffee to make one cup. A great miracle occurred and the coffee lasted for eight cups.

So, on that day each year, and for eight mornings, we light the gt candles in memory of the miricle of the expresso coffee. 

And, as Tiny Tom said in "The Hanukkah Carol", "God bless us, everyone."


----------



## jef

MacGuiver said:


> What would be the point of that? When presented with the evidence you'll simply fall back to the atheist usual response. "Well that may have happened but its not proof of God or if we can't reproduce the miracle in a lab I won't believe. We just don't understand what happened or some vague reference to mind over matter."
> Thousands of people have testified to the miracles in there lives through prayer. I've seen it in my own family having a sister healed of scholiosis at church.


So we should all stop going to doctors and work on our prayers? 

How do you account for all the unexplained medical healing which has occurred without prayer? 

And all the people who have prayed really hard but succumbed to their illness?

Even atheists have had unexplained medical recoveries. 

If there is a god, it certainly does work in mysterious (and really mean) ways. I'll place my bets on doctors and science.


----------



## MacGuiver

You've all answered predictably.


----------



## jef

MacGuiver said:


> You've all answered predictably.


By predictably, you mean rationally and I'll accept that as a compliment...


----------



## Macfury

fjnmusic said:


> Every religious person is also at least partially atheistic, if they reject every other deity save for the one they happen to believe in.


Where do you dig up these weirdo definitions? Atheistic is an absolute and refers to the concept of the existence of a god--not particular gods. There is no partial atheism.


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> While semantically similar, there is an enormous logical chasm between "I believe X does not exist" and "I do not believe X exists." The former is a very difficult position to defend, whereas the later is the default 'null hypothesis' from which all rational minds must start any line of inquiry.


Right. So atheism is a belief.


----------



## groovetube

If that simplifies it down enough for you to grasp it, so be it.


----------



## Dr.G.

groovetube said:


> If that simplifies it down enough for you to grasp it, so be it.



And seeing the multitudes, groovetube went up into a mountain: and when he was set, his disciples came unto him. Then he taught them one of Life's lessons, saying "The greatest things are so simple and the simple things are so great."


----------



## fjnmusic

groovetube said:


> Apparently, god is all things.
> 
> See? There's an explanation for everything.


Neal Donald Walsch sees the words God and Life as interchangeable. Do you believe in Life? What is Life exactly? Is there Life within you? Are you alive? Does it matter whether or not you believe in Life? Will Life still exist? Will life exist even after the last of humankind dies off? It's a different kind of perspective, more New Age than Christian, but it works for me.


----------



## groovetube

see, there you have it.

Now if enough people were to believe I am the messiah, does it make it so? Is that irrefutable proof?


----------



## Dr.G.

groovetube said:


> see, there you have it.
> 
> Now if enough people were to believe I am the messiah, does it make it so? Is that irrefutable proof?


Well, regardless of what other people believe, the messiah will not come until there is peace among all nations and a perfect harmony and abundance in nature. So, my friend, remember "Heavy is the head that wears the crown." Paix, mon ami.


----------



## margarok

Some things can't be proven, nor disproved. Many things, even in a scientific body of work, have to be relied upon as being truth. Infinity, for example, is a concept I believe is true, but I can't measure it.

Having said that, I just want to repeat a question I have posed to my non-believer friends and acquaintances for years:

"Why is it so much easier to believe that everything we see with either our own eyes or with the lenses of modern viewing tools sprang from a speck of cosmic dust that somehow experienced a turbulence that initiated the accidental beginning of all life forms rather than to believe that an Intelligent Creator had a guiding hand in it?"


----------



## fjnmusic

Dr.G. said:


> Well, regardless of what other people believe, the messiah will not come until there is peace among all nations and a perfect harmony and abundance in nature. So, my friend, remember "Heavy is the head that wears the crown." Paix, mon ami.


Isn't this just another way of saying the Messiah will not come? Nice caveat there, hey!


----------



## bryanc

MacGuiver said:


> Thousands of people have testified to the miracles in there lives through prayer. I've seen it in my own family having a sister healed of scholiosis at church.


So the people who've experienced 'miracles' after praying to your god are evidence of his existence, but the people who've experienced 'miracles' after praying to Shiva, or Vishnu, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster, or Satan are just lucky?

When people mistake improbable or unusual events for 'miracles' it is usually the result of a profound misunderstanding of either the causes of the events, or statistics; extremely improbable things happen _all the time_.


----------



## bryanc

Macfury said:


> Right. So atheism is a belief.


You seem to be having trouble with basic logic. The statement "I do not believe X" is not a statement of belief; it is the negation of a statement of belief.

Atheism can be stated in two different ways: 
Strong Atheism - "I believe that god does not exist." 
Weak Atheism - "I do not believe god exists."

The position of strong atheism is a belief, and I've never encountered anyone who truly takes this philosophical position, because it is logically indefensible; it's a straw-man argument.

The position of weak atheism is not a belief. It is the position of rational skepticism, and it is the position of every atheist I've ever encountered, including myself. Because this is essentially the only real form of atheism, it's not generally worth using the "weak" modifier.


----------



## kps

bryanc said:


> You seem to be having trouble with basic logic. The statement "I do not believe X" is not a statement of belief; it is the negation of a statement of belief.
> 
> Atheism can be stated in two different ways:
> Strong Atheism - "I believe that god does not exist."
> Weak Atheism - "I do not believe god exists."
> 
> The position of strong atheism is a belief, and I've never encountered anyone who truly takes this philosophical position, because it is logically indefensible; it's a straw-man argument.
> 
> The position of weak atheism is not a belief. It is the position of rational skepticism, and it is the position of every atheist I've ever encountered, including myself. Because this is essentially the only real form of atheism, it's not generally worth using the "weak" modifier.


No need to over anlyse it...fundamentally, religion is steeped in dogma while atheism is completely devoid of dogma. Belief doesn't really factor in the latter.


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> You seem to be having trouble with basic logic. The statement "I do not believe X" is not a statement of belief; it is the negation of a statement of belief.


 "I do not believe X" = "I believe X is not true."


----------



## bryanc

fjnmusic said:


> Do you believe in Life? What is Life exactly?


Life is the chemistry that links thermodynamically favourable (and therefore spontaneous) reactions to unfavourable reactions allowing self-replicating entities to temporarily establish metastable states that are far from equilibrium for as long as they are able to obtain energy.



> Is there Life within you? Are you alive?


If, by "within me" you mean "are my cells performing such chemistry" then yes.



> Does it matter whether or not you believe in Life?


No. The chemistry occurring within my cells does not require any particular pattern of neurological activity within my brain. But it's worth pointing out that the specific patterns of neurological activity occurring in my brain, and therefore the underlying chemistry that gives rise to those patterns, defines what I believe. So my beliefs depend on the chemistry of life, and not the other way around.



> Will life exist even after the last of humankind dies off?


Of course; life existed for billions of years before humans evolved, and it will continue to exist as long as the conditions on earth can continue to support it. Furthermore, there is every reason to think that such conditions likely exist elsewhere in the universe, and perhaps even here in our solar system, so it is likely that life exists elsewhere as well.



> It's a different kind of perspective, more New Age than Christian, but it works for me.


I'm not quite sure what you're getting at here. The fact that complex chemical systems have evolved is both interesting and fun to learn about, but it doesn't really pertain to the sorts of issues most people make up religions to deal with.


----------



## CubaMark

bryanc said:


> Follow the Gourd!


*NO!! Follow the Shoe!!*





+
YouTube Video









ERROR: If you can see this, then YouTube is down or you don't have Flash installed.


----------



## bryanc

Macfury said:


> "I do not believe X" = "I believe X is not true."


Ah, so I was correct; you are having trouble with basic logic. These statements are not equivalent.

I don't know what Angelina Jolie wore to bed last night, or even if she wore anything at all. So saying "I do not believe Angelina Jolie wore a pink snowmobile suit to bed last night" is entirely different than saying "I believe Angelina Jolie sleeps naked" or even that "I believe Angelina Jolie did not wear a pink snowmobile suit to bed last night." The former is not a statement of belief, and the later two are. The semantics of English make these important logical distinctions somewhat subtle, but there're not really that hard to comprehend.

I have no knowledge of gods, and am therefore an agnostic. Because I am an agnostic, I have no beliefs in or about gods, therefore I'm an atheist. Clear now?

I am also a student of philosophy and psychology, so I do have beliefs about why people make up supernatural explanations for things, and I know enough about history to understand how some of the current religions evolved from previous mythologies. None of this knowledge is relevant to the question of wether god(s) exist, but since the existence of gods would require the existence of the supernatural, this is clearly an extraordinary claim, and I would require extraordinary evidence to consider it. No one in my experience has provided anything that that even resembles ordinary evidence for the existence of any form of supernatural event or process, let alone evidence for a specific character from bronze age mythology, so I consider these beliefs quite absurd and am often given to wonder how apparently functional adults can sustain such wild fantasies and still function in the real world.


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> Ah, so I was correct; you are having trouble with basic logic. These statements are not equivalent.
> 
> I don't know what Angelina Jolie wore to bed last night, or even if she wore anything at all. So saying "I do not believe Angelina Jolie wore a pink snowmobile suit to bed last night" is entirely different than saying "I believe Angelina Jolie sleeps naked" or even that "I believe Angelina Jolie did not wear a pink snowmobile suit to bed last night." The former is not a statement of belief, and the later two are. The semantics of English make these important logical distinctions somewhat subtle, but there're not really that hard to comprehend.
> 
> I have no knowledge of gods, and am therefore an agnostic. Because I am an agnostic, I have no beliefs in or about gods, therefore I'm an atheist. Clear now?
> 
> I am also a student of philosophy and psychology, so I do have beliefs about why people make up supernatural explanations for things, and I know enough about history to understand how some of the current religions evolved from previous mythologies. None of this knowledge is relevant to the question of wether god(s) exist, but since the existence of gods would require the existence of the supernatural, this is clearly an extraordinary claim, and I would require extraordinary evidence to consider it. No one in my experience has provided anything that that even resembles ordinary evidence for the existence of any form of supernatural event or process, let alone evidence for a specific character from bronze age mythology, so I consider these beliefs quite absurd and am often given to wonder how apparently functional adults can sustain such wild fantasies and still function in the real world.



"I do not believe Angelina Jolie wore a pink snowmobile suit to bed last night" = "I believe Angelina Jolie did not wear a pink snowmobile suit to bed last night."


----------



## bryanc

Macfury said:


> "I do not believe Angelina Jolie wore a pink snowmobile suit to bed last night" = "I believe Angelina Jolie did not wear a pink snowmobile suit to bed last night."


No. You still don't get it. Stating that you don't have belief X is not equivalent to stating you believe ~X. This is first year predicate calculus. 

If A then B.
~A

The above does not allow you to infer ~B even in simple binary logic, and in this case we're talking about concluding ~C.

My lack of belief regarding Angelina Jolie's nighttime attire is exactly the same as my lack of belief about gods in the logical sense; I have no evidence so I refrain from forming a belief. I therefore do not believe she wore a pink snowsuit. This is not in any way similar to having a belief that she did not wear a pink snowsuit.

What is different is that, while peculiar, the idea that Angelina Jolie may have worn a pink snowsuit to bed last night, it isn't completely outside the realm of what we know is possible; snowsuits exist, Angelina Jolie exists, and there is some reason to think she may behave in peculiar ways. So I'd be willing to entertain the possibility that Angelina Jolie did wear a pink snowsuit to bed last night if given some evidence that such was the case. Because it's an unusual claim, I'd want fairly strong evidence (i.e. more that a digital image that could've been photoshopped... but I'd be convinced by a corroboratory statement from her personally).

For more extraordinary claims, such as the existence of supernatural entities, I'd want stronger evidence.


----------



## margarok

bryanc said:


> I am also a student of philosophy and psychology, so I do have beliefs about why people make up supernatural explanations for things, and I know enough about history to understand how some of the current religions evolved from previous mythologies. None of this knowledge is relevant to the question of wether god(s) exist, but since the existence of gods would require the existence of the supernatural, this is clearly an extraordinary claim, and I would require extraordinary evidence to consider it. No one in my experience has provided anything that that even resembles ordinary evidence for the existence of any form of supernatural event or process, let alone evidence for a specific character from bronze age mythology, so I consider these beliefs quite absurd and am often given to wonder how apparently functional adults can sustain such wild fantasies and still function in the real world.


I am quite functional, intelligent, fairly successful in my chosen profession and I have managed to bumble through 50+ years with my faith intact. What does it matter to you if someone like myself believes in God?


----------



## JCCanuck

margarok said:


> Some things can't be proven, nor disproved. Many things, even in a scientific body of work, have to be relied upon as being truth. Infinity, for example, is a concept I believe is true, but I can't measure it.
> 
> Having said that, I just want to repeat a question I have posed to my non-believer friends and acquaintances for years:
> 
> "Why is it so much easier to believe that everything we see with either our own eyes or with the lenses of modern viewing tools sprang from a speck of cosmic dust that somehow experienced a turbulence that initiated the accidental beginning of all life forms rather than to believe that an Intelligent Creator had a guiding hand in it?"


Easy, it makes more sense especially if you look into the science of it all especially evolution. Plus, a big plus, it begs the question where did the "Creator" come from?


----------



## MacGuiver

> So the people who've experienced 'miracles' after praying to your god are evidence of his existence, but the people who've experienced 'miracles' after praying to Shiva, or Vishnu, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster, or Satan are just lucky?


I've not heard of anyone being healed of such a thing in any of the religions you mention though I do believe Satan has supernatural abilities.


----------



## Dr.G.

fjnmusic said:


> Isn't this just another way of saying the Messiah will not come? Nice caveat there, hey!


Well, he or she has not come yet .............. so we shall just have to muddle through each day, trying to live by the guidelines that groovetube has set forth for us to follow, and try to do good works/deeds here to the people/animals/plant life here on Earth. Basically, groovetube wants us to get along together in peace and harmony.

Paix, mon ami.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=53XyCbIJGKY]The Youngbloods - Get Together - 1967 - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## iMouse

Can we segway to the fact that we all pay for churches in some way?

Or should that be a new thread?

Opinions, please.


----------



## margarok

Dr.G. said:


> Well, he or she has not come yet .............. so we shall just have to muddle through each day, trying to live by the guidelines that groovetube has set forth for us to follow, and try to do good works/deeds here to the people/animals/plant life here on Earth. Basically, groovetube wants us to get along together in peace and harmony.
> 
> Paix, mon ami.
> 
> The Youngbloods - Get Together - 1967 - YouTube


I can muddle through on those guidelines...


----------



## MacGuiver

Dr.G. said:


> Well, regardless of what other people believe, the messiah will not come until there is peace among all nations and a perfect harmony and abundance in nature. So, my friend, remember "Heavy is the head that wears the crown." Paix, mon ami.


Hi Dr. G.
What scripture passage is this based on? I'm curious because there are numerous old testament prophecy's that fit Jesus as the messiah to a T.

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## bryanc

margarok said:


> What does it matter to you if someone like myself believes in God?


Well, as long as you don't let these delusions interfere with your ability to be rational about the real world, I suppose I shouldn't let it bother me (although, just like I'm unhappy about people suffering from other mental disorders, I would be happier knowing that fewer of my fellow citizens had to deal with this particular syndrome).

Unfortunately, there are far too many examples of people letting their irrational religious beliefs impact others around them, and social policy in general. Furthermore, the fact that so many apparently functional adults in our society are harbouring these profoundly irrational superstitions makes it difficult for me to trust people in general to behave rationally when it comes to issues that affect me; if someone claims they believe in being charitable to their neighbours because it pleases an invisible man in the sky one day, how can I have confidence that they won't become convinced the invisible man in the sky wants them to go on a shooting rampage the next? While it's admittedly rare that people commit violence because of religious motivations, it's certainly not unheard of. And while it's true that most modern religions preach behaviour that is largely socially acceptable or even positive, it's quite disturbing to think that people are going around behaving nicely for completely irrational reasons; who knows what irrational people will choose to do next?


----------



## margarok

JCCanuck said:


> Easy, it makes more sense especially if you look into the science of it all especially evolution. Plus, a big plus, it begs the question where did the "Creator" come from?


Ahhhhh... the "science" of evolution. 

The "Creator" is, was and ever shall be. And I can "prove" that only in the sense that I believe it and my believing it does not require me to try and make you believe it.

Why exactly does it make more sense for all of the universe to have suddenly come into existence from cosmic dust? 

Is just a rhetorical question, by the way. I engaged in the same banter with a Journalism Law Professor years ago who seemed to like making fun of my beliefs in front of a class of teens. I never did understand why he couldn't just accept the fact that the person in his class with the highest GPA was a devout Christian. Why it bothered him so much I will never know. When he left the college to go teach in California he went out of his way to find me (in the Master's program by then so out of the undergraduate buildings) to say goodbye and tell me he respected me. But I still don't get why he needed to make fun of my beliefs in front of others. I suspect he was uncomfortable with the idea someone with a strong belief in God was NOT an obvious lunatic.


----------



## margarok

bryanc said:


> Well, as long as you don't let these delusions interfere with your ability to be rational about the real world, I suppose I shouldn't let it bother me (although, just like I'm unhappy about people suffering from other mental disorders, I would be happier knowing that fewer of my fellow citizens had to deal with this particular syndrome).
> 
> Unfortunately, there are far too many examples of people letting their irrational religious beliefs impact others around them, and social policy in general. Furthermore, the fact that so many apparently functional adults in our society are harbouring these profoundly irrational superstitions makes it difficult for me to trust people in general to behave rationally when it comes to issues that affect me; if someone claims they believe in being charitable to their neighbours because it pleases an invisible man in the sky one day, how can I have confidence that they won't become convinced the invisible man in the sky wants them to go on a shooting rampage the next? While it's admittedly rare that people commit violence because of religious motivations, it's certainly not unheard of. And while it's true that most modern religions preach behaviour that is largely socially acceptable or even positive, it's quite disturbing to think that people are going around behaving nicely for completely irrational reasons; who knows what irrational people will choose to do next?


I guess I will just thank you for your opinion and move on, and assure you that my particular syndrome isn't contagious.


----------



## bryanc

margarok said:


> Why is it so much easier to believe that everything we see with either our own eyes or with the lenses of modern viewing tools sprang from a speck of cosmic dust that somehow experienced a turbulence that initiated the accidental beginning of all life forms rather than to believe that an Intelligent Creator had a guiding hand in it?


Whether it is easier or harder to believe in one thing or another is entirely irrelevant. In order to be rational, we must accept the dictates of reason and evidence. The supposition that an "Intelligent Creator" exists creates a whole series of metaphysical questions that are frankly intractable; how did this creator come into existence? what constraints are there on this creator? etc. If you are willing to accept that the creator can exist without cause, why can you not accept that the universe can exist without cause? etc. So positing a creator simply turns question that may be difficult but are in principle ones we can address with reason and evidence into ones that are entirely unanswerable; using "God did it" is the opposite of progress because instead of a question that might be answerable, now you've got an answer that does not tell you anything and which extinguishes all further inquiry.

By eschewing the simple-minded supernatural explanations, science has made enormous progress in developing a meaningful explanation of the observable universe; explanations that allow us to make testable predictions, and an understanding that allows us some modicum of control over the natural world. The supernatural explanations have never given us anything but the comfort of ignorance disguised as knowledge; it is only by recognizing what we don't know that we can hope to learn.


----------



## Rps

margarok said:


> I am quite functional, intelligent, fairly successful in my chosen profession and I have managed to bumble through 50+ years with my faith intact. What does it matter to you if someone like myself believes in God?


I am not a religious man.... in fact I don't think I have an ounce of spirituality in me, however I do believe that everyone has a right to their beliefs ..... I believe that one has to have faith in something ..... even if that something is there is no G_d. But what I find really harmful is when people openly criticise those who do, especially when those who believe don't harm anyone. I have been seeing much of this within this thread of late and it is becoming more than just "debateful fun"..... it seems we're bordering on being hurtful.

That being said, I have always had a problem with the cruel and harsh histories of organised religions and how they hang upon the political processes of virtually all the countries where they are allowed to flourish. So maybe we should discuss the merits of organised religions as opposed to criticising those who believe in a supreme being, because in the final analysis, none of us will ever find out until we get there, and that I can say with out any form of critique.


----------



## bryanc

margarok said:


> my particular syndrome isn't contagious.


Unfortunately, the research suggests that religions are among the most contagious of cultural traits. A colleague of mine did his Ph.D. thesis on this; one of his findings was that epidemiological modelling of religions as viruses very accurately predicted the spread of Christianity across Africa as the missionaries did their dirty work in the 1800s.

Indeed, I think that if religions really did keep to themselves and not bother anyone, you'd find a lot fewer outspoken atheists objecting to the encroachment of religion into civil society. The enormous wealth and political power wielded by churches historically and even today is more than enough reason for rational citizens to call for change.


----------



## groovetube

margarok said:


> I guess I will just thank you for your opinion and move on, and assure you that my particular syndrome isn't contagious.


I don't think anyone is concerned that much about what your beliefs are, that's the beauty of freedom of religion.

But the problem begins, as bryanc said, when it impacts others. I find many religious people try to push their beliefs on me, and my response often becomes one of defence. Then the circle begins.

Believe what you believe, you're entitled to. Everyone has their reasons for their beliefs, and I'm sure they're quite valid and meaningful. Even if I can't understand them.


----------



## Rps

groovetube said:


> believe what you believe, you're entitled to. Everyone has their reasons for their beliefs, and i'm sure they're quite valid and meaningful. Even if i can't understand them.


+1


----------



## iMouse

groovetube said:


> I don't think anyone is concerned that much about what your beliefs are, that's the beauty of freedom of religion.
> 
> But the problem begins, as bryanc said, when it impacts others. I find many religious people try to push their beliefs on me, and my response often becomes one of defence. Then the circle begins.
> 
> Believe what you believe, you're entitled to. Everyone has their reasons for their beliefs, and I'm sure they're quite valid and meaningful. Even if I can't understand them.


What you cite is Freedom *From* Religion, which I don't believe is currently codified anywhere.

Pity.


----------



## groovetube

Dr.G. said:


> Well, he or she has not come yet .............. so we shall just have to muddle through each day, trying to live by the guidelines that groovetube has set forth for us to follow, and try to do good works/deeds here to the people/animals/plant life here on Earth. *Basically, groovetube wants us to get along together in peace and harmony.*
> 
> Paix, mon ami.
> 
> The Youngbloods - Get Together - 1967 - YouTube


yes, yes I do.

thank you, thank you very much


----------



## margarok

Rps said:


> I am not a religious man.... in fact I don't think I have an ounce of spirituality in me, however I do believe that everyone has a right to their beliefs ..... I believe that one has to have faith in something ..... even if that something is there is no G_d. But what I find really harmful is when people openly criticise those who do, especially when those who believe don't harm anyone. I have been seeing much of this within this thread of late and it is becoming more than just "debateful fun"..... it seems we're bordering on being hurtful.
> 
> That being said, I have always had a problem with the cruel and harsh histories of organised religions and how they hang upon the political processes of virtually all the countries where they are allowed to flourish. So maybe we should discuss the merits of organised religions as opposed to criticising those who believe in a supreme being, because in the final analysis, none of us will ever find out until we get there, and that I can say with out any form of critique.


I appreciate your comments and respect your opinion, my friend. And as far as "organized" religions and churches? That is a whole different topic that has nothing to do with my personal beliefs.  Thanks for the input...


----------



## Dr.G.

margarok said:


> I can muddle through on those guidelines...


Amen, Sister. Peace.


----------



## Dr.G.

margarok said:


> I can muddle through on those guidelines...





groovetube said:


> I don't think anyone is concerned that much about what your beliefs are, that's the beauty of freedom of religion.
> 
> But the problem begins, as bryanc said, when it impacts others. I find many religious people try to push their beliefs on me, and my response often becomes one of defence. Then the circle begins.
> 
> Believe what you believe, you're entitled to. Everyone has their reasons for their beliefs, and I'm sure they're quite valid and meaningful. Even if I can't understand them.


Amen, Brother gt. Paix, mon ami.


----------



## Dr.G.

MacGuiver said:


> Hi Dr. G.
> What scripture passage is this based on? I'm curious because there are numerous old testament prophecy's that fit Jesus as the messiah to a T.
> 
> Cheers
> MacGuiver


No scripture, just my own beliefs. I am not waiting for any messiah, so I just try to do what I feel I am able to do to make the world a better place for people, plants and animals. Paix, mon ami.

In Shakespeare's Henry IV, Part 2, Act 3, Scene 1, the king has a soliloquy. It begins, "How many thousand of my poorest subjects / Are at this hour asleep! O sleep, O gentle sleep, . . ." At the end, he declares, "Uneasy lies the head that wears a crown."


----------



## jef

MacGuiver said:


> I've not heard of anyone being healed of such a thing in any of the religions you mention though I do believe Satan has supernatural abilities.


You should get out more. Many religions claim healing as a member benefit. Yoga is a practical example and has measurable health benefits. Christianity is not the only religion with a magical health benefit program - the practice of Voodoo makes similar claims and also has its share of believers.

In 23 years of living and traveling in Asia, I have seen many different religious practices that claim to heal. I still prefer a good doctor and hospital when I need one.


----------



## iMouse

jef said:


> You should get out more. Many religions claim healing as a member benefit. Yoga is a practical example and has measurable health benefits. Christianity is not the only religion with a magical health benefit program - the practice of Voodoo makes similar claims and also has its share of believers.
> 
> In 23 years of living and traveling in Asia, I have seen many different religious practices that claim to heal. I still prefer a good doctor and hospital when I need one.


Can you just imagine the new disciples satan would garner, where he to use his super-powers to heal some of those poor unfortunates?

They probably have no money, so god doesn't want them. Right?


----------



## margarok

iMouse said:


> Can we segway to the fact that we all pay for churches in some way?
> 
> Or should that be a new thread?
> 
> Opinions, please.


I can tell from your attempt to open another thread on this that you have a strong opinion on this. I don't...

However, I will say this: Depending upon whether churches take the 503(c) exemption (And probably most of them do) for IRS purposes, they have to be pretty careful about mingling religious doctrine with political speech. And, having known at least one accountant who worked for a church, I know that they have to be very careful with what monies are exempt versus what monies are considered as earnings. For example, the church she keeps the books for also has a school associated with it. so, when some of the classrooms are used for church services, those rooms can be exempt. However, when they are used for teaching in the school (paid tuition) they are not exempt from taxes. It is a complex formula that she says makes the exemption very hard to work with for churches.

Which is why some of the churches opt out of it...

That's all I even claim to know about the tax exemption for churches.


----------



## iMouse

margarok said:


> I can tell from your attempt to open another thread on this that you have a strong opinion on this. I don't...


That attempt has apparently succeeded, with Dr. G's blessing.

What more could one poor church-mouse ask. :heybaby:

See you over there, perhaps?


----------



## JCCanuck

Dr.G. said:


> No scripture, just my own beliefs. I am not waiting for any messiah, so I just try to do what I feel I am able to do to make the world a better place for people, plants and animals. Paix, mon ami.
> 
> In Shakespeare's Henry IV, Part 2, Act 3, Scene 1, the king has a soliloquy. It begins, "How many thousand of my poorest subjects / Are at this hour asleep! O sleep, O gentle sleep, . . ." At the end, he declares, "Uneasy lies the head that wears a crown."


You do make the world a better place G man! The Shangri-la Clubhouse brings me down to earth and relaxed.


----------



## MacGuiver

jef said:


> You should get out more. Many religions claim healing as a member benefit. Yoga is a practical example and has measurable health benefits. Christianity is not the only religion with a magical health benefit program - the practice of Voodoo makes similar claims and also has its share of believers.
> 
> In 23 years of living and traveling in Asia, I have seen many different religious practices that claim to heal. I still prefer a good doctor and hospital when I need one.


Yoga is exercise. Of course it has health benefits. So does jogging, swimming etc. Nothing miraculous about it. My sisters spine straightened out without a single stretch.


----------



## bryanc

Rps said:


> I am not a religious man.... in fact I don't think I have an ounce of spirituality in me, however I do believe that everyone has a right to their beliefs


Absolutely; if someone wants to believe in the flying spaghetti monster or any other invisible friend, that's certainly their prerogative. If they choose to tell me their weird stories, I reserve the right to laugh at them. And if they try to use their delusions to justify social policy that affects others, I do and will continue to strenuously object.



> I believe that one has to have faith in something


Why?



> even if that something is there is no G_d.


How could one have 'faith' in the absence of something? Can one have faith in the non-existence of flying pink unicorns? One can (and ought) to be skeptical of the existence of such fanciful creatures, but I can't imagine how such doubt could be construed as 'faith.'

Maybe you mean something else when you say 'faith'? Can you expand on this?


----------



## bryanc

MacGuiver said:


> My sisters spine straightened out without a single stretch.


And there you have it; unequivocal proof of the existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster - she was touched by His Noodly Appendage (TM) and miraculously healed. No other explanation is possible!


----------



## MacGuiver

Dr.G. said:


> No scripture, just my own beliefs. I am not waiting for any messiah, so I just try to do what I feel I am able to do to make the world a better place for people, plants and animals. Paix, mon ami.
> 
> In Shakespeare's Henry IV, Part 2, Act 3, Scene 1, the king has a soliloquy. It begins, "How many thousand of my poorest subjects / Are at this hour asleep! O sleep, O gentle sleep, . . ." At the end, he declares, "Uneasy lies the head that wears a crown."


Ah, I thought you were referring to a passage of scripture that the Jewish faith feels that Jesus did not meet seeing that you've expressed your Jewish roots here before.


----------



## iMouse

bryanc said:


> And there you have it; unequivocal proof of the existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster - she was touched by His Noodly Appendage (TM) and miraculously healed. No other explanation is possible!


I was just praying to FSM, and you posted this. It's a miracle. :clap:

Plus I'm hungry now for spaghetti and meatballs.


----------



## jef

MacGuiver said:


> Yoga is exercise. Of course it has health benefits. So does jogging, swimming etc. Nothing miraculous about it. My sisters spine straightened out without a single stretch.


You have just offended a whole bunch of Hindus. Yoga is a religion - it's just been co-opted here for it's practical healing powers...

Yoga - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## MacGuiver

bryanc said:


> And there you have it; unequivocal proof of the existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster - she was touched by His Noodly Appendage (TM) and miraculously healed. No other explanation is possible!


Your unshakeable faith in "no God" is showing.
I'll make you a deal Bryan. You invoke your beloved Spaghetti Monster and if someones spine straightens, sight is restored or they stand up from a wheel chair as a result I'll join your religion.


----------



## MacGuiver

jef said:


> You have just offended a whole bunch of Hindus. Yoga is a religion - it's just been co-opted here for it's practical healing powers...
> 
> Yoga - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Gee you atheists are suddenly concerned with offending peoples religious sensitivities? From reading this thread, who'd have figured that?


----------



## jef

MacGuiver said:


> Gee you atheists are suddenly concerned with offending peoples religious sensitivities? From reading this thread, who'd have figured that?


Sorry - you have misunderstood my point. I would prefer to offend any religion that claims magical healing powers as a member benefit - at least Yoga is a religion that has practical health benefits. 

James Randi Debunks Faith Healer:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rBpiV72pLAo]James Randi Debunks Faith Healer - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## screature

bryanc said:


> It should not be surprising that an organization that promotes one form of *sexual perversion - celibacy* - is rife with other forms. The sooner the Catholic church finishes imploding the better.


Sorry late to this... but since when is celibacy a form of "sexual perversion"? 

It is indeed unusual but not perverted... i.e. distorted or corrupted, as it is an abstinence from sex not a distorted or corrupted practice of sex. Your semantics are all wrong. 

Hindu monks also practice abstinence are you suggesting they are "perverted"? So in your mind someone who has no libido is perverted? Again your semantics IMO are completely wrong and narrow minded.


----------



## imnothng

MacGuiver said:


> Your unshakeable faith in "no God" is showing.
> I'll make you a deal Bryan. You invoke your beloved Spaghetti Monster and if someones spine straightens, sight is restored or they stand up from a wheel chair as a result I'll join your religion.


So does Thor exist because he makes electricity? Or is it your gOD that makes it? Perhaps it's a magic magneto in the sky? I don't know where it comes from, so I think I'll imagine some big spaghetti like thing that can fly and it's many noodle appendages lash out to magically generate this mysterious force.


----------



## screature

bryanc said:


> Way to put words in the mouths of others! I never suggested celibacy equates in any way with pedophilia. I* pointed out that the Church promotes celibacy*, which is empirically a deviation from normative sexual behaviour for adults and can therefore fairly be described colloquially as a 'perversion.' I then made the logical extension that an organization that promotes one sexual perversion may be attractive to individuals with other perverse tastes (the genital mutilation of infants promoted by many churches springs to mind here as well). If my argument has any weakness, it is in this latter logical extension; I'l help you out here... one perversion isn't evidence of another. Of course, absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence, and sadly we have plenty of evidence of pedophilia within the clergy.


The Catholic church promotes celibacy before marriage and for the ordained, not celibacy in general... lest we forget the tenet "be fruitful and multiply"... selective references on your part to say the least.


----------



## MacGuiver

jef said:


> Sorry - you have misunderstood my point. I would prefer to offend any religion that claims magical healing powers as a member benefit - at least Yoga is a religion that has practical health benefits.
> 
> James Randi Debunks Faith Healer:
> 
> James Randi Debunks Faith Healer - YouTube


You just made the same assessment of Yoga as I did that you rebuked me for being offensive to Hindus. Or do you believe yoga is miraculous?


----------



## MacGuiver

imnothng said:


> So does Thor exist because he makes electricity? Or is it your gOD that makes it? Perhaps it's a magic magneto in the sky? I don't know where it comes from, so I think I'll imagine some big spaghetti like thing that can fly and it's many noodle appendages lash out to magically generate this mysterious force.


I don't know of anyone thats prayed to Thor and had their scoliosis disappear. If you find someone let me know.


----------



## iMouse

MacGuiver said:


> I don't know of anyone thats prayed to Thor and had their scoliosis disappear. If you find someone let me know.


The Human body is an amazing, complex, organism.

So is a psychosomatic injury.


----------



## jef

MacGuiver said:


> You just made the same assessment of Yoga as I did that you rebuked me for being offensive to Hindus. Or do you believe yoga is miraculous?


No. You said that Yoga was not a religion - it is. I did not make the same assessment as you did.

I didn't rebuke you for being offensive, I simply said you offended Hindus by saying that Yoga is not a religion - it is. 

Scoliosis is a complex debilitation - classified as 'idopathic' (god did it?) and is a combination of both mental and physical issues. In most cases it sorts itself out, sometimes it gets worse.

Why do you assume it was some god who cured her instead of her own willpower? The human mind and body is capable of a lot of things we do not fully understand.


----------



## imnothng

MacGuiver said:


> I don't know of anyone thats prayed to Thor and had their scoliosis disappear. If you find someone let me know.


Missed the point yet again. 300 years ago if someone saw a lightbulb they would think gOD was lighting it, of course we know that's not the case. Somehow your sister was cured of some disease, you say it was your particular gOD, and I say it can not be explained at this time.


----------



## imnothng

iMouse said:


> The Human body is an amazing, complex, organism.
> 
> So is a psychosomatic injury.


Nah, it was gOD. Let's be lazy and just say that for everything while we live in darkness and ignorance.


----------



## Dr.G.

MacGuiver said:


> Ah, I thought you were referring to a passage of scripture that the Jewish faith feels that Jesus did not meet seeing that you've expressed your Jewish roots here before.


Sorry. I am not a big fan of organized religion, so I just pick and choose the parts from various faiths and philosophies that help me be a better person each day. The one thing I truly like about the Jewish faith is the concept of "mitzvahs" (i.e., good deeds).


----------



## screature

imnothng said:


> Missed the point yet again. 300 years ago if someone saw a lightbulb they would think* gOD was lighting it*, of course we know that's not the case. Somehow your sister was cured of some disease, you say it was your particular gOD, and I say it can not be explained at this time.


Not necessarily they would be equally likely tho think it was the work of the "devil" or some sort of magic...

BTW is your writing of the word god gOD supposed to be some form of insult/superiority/attempt at being clever or just "lazy"/lack of keyboarding skills...


----------



## screature

Dr.G. said:


> *Sorry. I am not a big fan of organized religion, so I just pick and choose the parts from various faiths and philosophies that help me be a better person each day.* The one thing I truly like about the Jewish faith is the concept of "mitzvahs" (i.e., good deeds).


Exactly... I agree 100%. Kudos to you Dr. G. :clap:


----------



## Dr.G.

screature said:


> EXACTLY!... I agree 100%. Kudos to you Dr. G.


Merci, mon ami. I tend to "march to the beat of my own drummer". Still, I put no one down for their faith, and try to learn from them so as to be more knowledgeable about the various faiths and philosophies the help to guide people. Paix.


----------



## screature

Dr.G. said:


> Merci, mon ami. I tend to "march to the beat of my own drummer". Still, I put no one down for their faith, and try to learn from them so as to be more knowledgeable about the various faiths and philosophies the help to guide people. Paix.


I am the same and I agree... It is the way I try to live my life as well.


----------



## Dr.G.

screature said:


> I am the same and I agree... It is the way I try to live my life as well.


Yes, "to each their own". While I was born Jewish, I only follow certain aspects of the faith, and include various other aspects to help me get the most out of each day. Sometimes I succeed, and sometimes not ................. but so long as the sun comes up the next day, I am able to start all over once again. Paix, mon ami.


----------



## MacGuiver

imnothng said:


> Missed the point yet again. 300 years ago if someone saw a lightbulb they would think gOD was lighting it, of course we know that's not the case. Somehow your sister was cured of some disease, you say it was your particular gOD, and I say it can not be explained at this time.


Thats the corner you've painted yourself into it seems.


----------



## jef

screature said:


> I am the same and I agree... It is the way I try to live my life as well.


Unfortunately, picking and choosing what you believe is not tolerated in either of your religions - it is all or nothing so you are both doomed for eternity beejacon ... maybe... unless you are forgiven. So you better get it right. :yawn:


----------



## Dr.G.

jef said:


> Unfortunately, picking and choosing what you believe is not tolerated in either of your religions - it is all or nothing so you are both doomed for eternity beejacon ... maybe... unless you are forgiven. So you better get it right. :yawn:


Guess so ...................... unless we become followers of groovetube. Then we shall be saved. We shall see. Paix, mon ami.


----------



## screature

jef said:


> Unfortunately, picking and choosing what you believe is not tolerated in either of your religions - it is all or nothing so you are both doomed for eternity beejacon ... maybe... unless you are forgiven. So you better get it right. :yawn:


I follow no religion at all. Capiche? 

It seems you didn't understand the first time around.


----------



## groovetube

It seems you misunderstood his post as well! :yawn:


----------



## margarok

There is a ginormous cross that was erected just north of Oklahoma City and some people claimed (on a local radio call-in show) that it was offensive to their non-belief to have to drive by and see it every day on their way to and from work. Someone pointed out that except for it being without electric lines, it wasn't really any different from all the telephone poles that carry electricity and signals around the country. So why aren't they offended by them? Only because the one without cables is on church property?


----------



## jef

groovetube said:


> It seems you misunderstood his post as well! :yawn:


Wow groovetube saves! Miracles never cease on ehmac.ca!

Praise be to groovetube! beejacon


----------



## jef

margarok said:


> There is a ginormous cross that was erected just north of Oklahoma City and some people claimed (on a local radio call-in show) that it was offensive to their non-belief to have to drive by and see it every day on their way to and from work. Someone pointed out that except for it being without electric lines, it wasn't really any different from all the telephone poles that carry electricity and signals around the country. So why aren't they offended by them? Only because the one without cables is on church property?


Power lines have a practical purpose and serve the community. Ginormous religious erections (symbolic and otherwise) do not always represent the best interests of the community.


----------



## groovetube

jef said:


> Wow groovetube saves! Miracles never cease on ehmac.ca!
> 
> Praise be to groovetube! beejacon


I am everywhere. Believe. 

See, you gotten your proof.


----------



## jef

groovetube said:


> See, you gotten your proof.


You may be my saviour but your typing sucks...:love2:


----------



## screature

jef said:


> Wow groovetube saves! Miracles never cease on ehmac.ca!
> 
> Praise be to groovetube! beejacon


Wow! Another persona created by gt to praise gt... 

And I thought this level of deception was relegated to the movies and the government... Who knew...?


----------



## groovetube

Paranoia big destroyaaah


----------



## jef

screature said:


> Wow! Another persona created by gt to praise gt...
> 
> And I thought this level of deception was relegated to the movies and the government... Who knew...?


Let's not get confused about the creator...there can only be won, uh, 1, I mean one. 
Wow - there are 3! Holy trinity, Batman!


----------



## groovetube

jef said:


> You may be my saviour but your typing sucks...:love2:


Here in savior land we only use iPhones.


----------



## margarok

jef said:


> Power lines have a practical purpose and serve the community. Ginormous religious erections (symbolic and otherwise) do not always represent the best interests of the community.


But is the fact it can be seen from the highway offensive?


----------



## SINC

Seems to me that anyone offended by religion, or a non-believer, isn't smart enough to ignore it. That applies to so many in now both religious threads, it's laughable.


----------



## screature

jef said:


> Let's not get confused about the creator...there can only be won, uh, 1, I mean one.
> Wow - there are 3! Holy trinity, Batman!





margarok said:


> But is the fact it can be seen from the highway offensive?


How many more personas are you going to continue to populate with the same drivel.... seems you think ehMac is your own personal play ground... enjoy talking to yourself much?


----------



## margarok

Hmmm... I think I've been confused with someone else here. Whatever. I really have enjoyed watching the discussions from the sidelines in Okie land, so will probably return to doing that for the most part. I just thought I might provide some of my northern neighbors with a slightly different perspective. I didn't realize I would be attacked by scritters.

Oh, and SYNC? Laughter truly is the best medicine.


----------



## screature

margarok said:


> Hmmm... I think I've been confused with someone else here. Whatever. I really have enjoyed watching the discussions from the sidelines in Okie land, so will probably return to doing that for the most part. I just thought I might provide some of my northern neighbors with a slightly different perspective. *I didn't realize I would be attacked by scritters*.
> 
> Oh, and SYNC? Laughter truly is the best medicine.


The proof is in the pudding... thanks for confirming it for me... as if I really had any doubt. You really are all too transparent... What is kind of sad is that you think you are so clever... a genius in your own mind...


----------



## bryanc

screature said:


> You really are all too transparent... What is kind of sad is that you think you are so clever...


Why don't you report it if you think someone is using multiple accounts? I'll bet ya a $10 iTunes gift card that margarok and groovetube are logging in from different IP addresses... their writing style isn't even similar. It's you who's transparent here.


----------



## screature

bryanc said:


> Why don't you report it if you think someone is using multiple accounts? *I'll bet ya a $10 iTunes gift card* that margarok and groovetube are *logging in from different IP addresses*... *their writing style isn't even similar*. It's you who's transparent here.


Wow that's a big bet. You must be confident.

You do realize how easy that is to do these days don't you..?

Sure they are for those with eyes to see, despite the disguise.

Transparent how... what are my motives? Please do explain... I have never left here only to come back again apparently reformed... I have been always who I have always been.

No need to report it as lately it wouldn't make make one iota of difference... 

Now how about responding to how celibacy is a form of "sexual perversion"? Getting the thread back on track...


----------



## groovetube

screature said:


> Wow that's a big bet. You must be confident.
> 
> You do realize how easy that is to do these days don't you..?
> 
> Sure they are for those with eyes to see, despite the disguise.
> 
> Transparent how... what are my motives? Please do explain... I have never left here only to come back again apparently reformed... I have been always who I have always been.
> 
> No need to report it as lately it wouldn't make make one iota of difference...
> 
> Now how about responding to how celibacy is a form of "sexual perversion"? Getting the thread back on track...


Ha ha ha ha ha. 'Getting the thread on track', oh wait allow me to accuse a few members of things first... He's not srsly 'screeching' that I have multiple accounts!

Now I have heard everything. You've topped yourself screech, accusing me, and others here of such things. Don't you need to go preach civility somewhere?

:baby:


----------



## margarok

bryanc said:


> Why don't you report it if you think someone is using multiple accounts? I'll bet ya a $10 iTunes gift card that margarok and groovetube are logging in from different IP addresses... their writing style isn't even similar. It's you who's transparent here.


He thinks I'm NOT an Okie from Muskogee? I would almost be flattered at the suggestion except I can't figure out why I would do it or why I would want to send anyone here pudding.

And as I said before, I have spent most of my time here as a member reading and learning a lot from many articulate and interesting characters here; just decided to start "talking" a bit with our election in full swing last fall. NOT that I am trying to explain myself, just letting bryanc know I appreciate the supportive comment and that you are right.


----------



## margarok

groovetube said:


> Ha ha ha ha ha. 'Getting the thread on track', oh wait allow me to accuse a few members of things first... He's not srsly 'screeching' that I have multiple accounts!
> 
> Now I have heard everything. You've topped yourself screech, accusing me, and others here of such things. Don't you need to go preach civility somewhere?
> 
> :baby:


What is even more amusing is that I assume he believes that you and I are split personalities. Hello, I am MarGar from Oklahoma... Nice to share a post with you. Could you explain to me what it is I posted that caused scritter to accuse me of such a thing? I simply asked why it was offensive to see the cross from the highway. And that generated all of this?


----------



## margarok

screature said:


> The proof is in the pudding... thanks for confirming it for me... as if I really had any doubt. You really are all too transparent... What is kind of sad is that you think you are so clever... a genius in your own mind...


 
Quote:	
Originally Posted by jef 
Let's not get confused about the creator...there can only be won, uh, 1, I mean one. Wow - there are 3! Holy trinity, Batman! 


Quote:	
Originally Posted by margarok 
But is the fact it can be seen from the highway offensive? 




screature said:


> How many more personas are you going to continue to populate with the same drivel.... seems you think ehMac is your own personal play ground... enjoy talking to yourself much?




*
Is my friend RPS around? Can you send me a message and explain to me what this is all about? Or a moderator?*


----------



## Rps

margarok said:


> I simply asked why it was offensive to see the cross from the highway


Forgive the editing on your quote margarok, but I find the discuss generated by others from your comment laughable. Crosses are cultural symbols, in fact they are everywhere.... so those who take offence of their existence I say get over it. It is apart of our culture and is likely to be so for some time. 

I see nothing wrong with the display of one's religion, there are prominent symbols of devotion everywhere, Rome, Rio, even Toronto You want to talk about offensive symbols, start by tearing down road signs which advertise the gluttony of commerce rather than a sign where some may achieve comfort.


----------



## Rps

margarok said:


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by jef
> Let's not get confused about the creator...there can only be won, uh, 1, I mean one. Wow - there are 3! Holy trinity, Batman!
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by margarok
> But is the fact it can be seen from the highway offensive?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *
> Is my friend RPS around? Can you send me a message and explain to me what this is all about? Or a moderator?*


Margarok, not sure but Ithink that sreature thinks you are also groove ( based on what I have read ). Also, religion is a hot button item and many ( like politics ) don't really debate points but demand compliance.

Personally I wouldn't worry about it, your personality will come through with your continued posts ( I hope you continue posting ). 

To others that are reading this thread, it is fine to debate but not fine to hurt! If you can't tell the difference maybe you should "back-off the accelerator" . 

Discussing religion is fine, but making fun of one's faith isn't.


----------



## margarok

Rps said:


> Margarok, not sure but Ithink that sreature thinks you are also groove ( based on what I have read ). Also, religion is a hot button item and many ( like politics ) don't really debate points but demand compliance.
> 
> Personally I wouldn't worry about it, your personality will come through with your continued posts ( I hope you continue posting ).
> 
> To others that are reading this thread, it is fine to debate but not fine to hurt! If you can't tell the difference maybe you should "back-off the accelerator" .
> 
> Discussing religion is fine, but making fun of one's faith isn't.


Thank you, thank you, thank you... 

I enjoy the dialogue we have shared immensely and really do like being able to ponder the different points of view I see here on this board. I can tell most are educated people and are at least willing to discuss and so I will continue to participate when I feel I have something of value to add. I just really didn't understand the attack I found myself under.


----------



## groovetube

Don't worry about it margarok. Screature has a sort of diabolical hatred of me it seems, and a number of others here judging from the attacks, and perhaps you were caught in the crossfire. 

You're not the first to coin words like 'scritter', believe me.


----------



## jef

Rps said:


> Discussing religion is fine, but making fun of one's faith isn't.


Why? Humour helps us understand that a lot of the things we do and think are really silly.
You are more than welcome to make fun of my lack of faith!


----------



## Rps

jef said:


> Why? Humour helps us understand that a lot of the things we do and think are really silly.
> You are more than welcome to make fun of my lack of faith!


Short answer: because it is done in written text and some may not know your sense of humour or even get that it was a joke... a contextual thing.... but I do agree with your point that humour helps......provided the recipient knows its humour....


----------



## mrjimmy

groovetube said:


> Paranoia big destroyaaah


At the risk of being considered yet another member of the GT army,

_*seriously...?*_ :lmao:

This has become by far the most entertaining thing around in awhile!


----------



## groovetube

It's my new religion I'm starting. First, you must give up your soul to me. None of this 15% of your income stuff, I want it all! ALLLL!!!

ha ha ha ha.

Seriously though, it's rather entertaining, sort of.


----------



## jef

groovetube said:


> It's my new religion I'm starting. First, you must give up your soul to me. None of this 15% of your income stuff, I want it all! ALLLL!!!
> 
> ha ha ha ha.
> 
> Seriously though, it's rather entertaining, sort of.


At least it's clear who the anti-groovetube is.... every religion needs a screature beejacon


----------



## groovetube

Actually there's 3 'anti-groovetubes' which is I think the, unholy trinity.


----------



## margarok

jef said:


> At least it's clear who the anti-groovetube is.... every religion needs a screature beejacon


I'm delighted to have you as my other "mistakened identity" persona! Good one!

:clap::clap::clap::clap::clap::clap::clap:


----------



## jef

margarok said:


> I'm delighted to have you as my other "mistakened identity" persona! Good one!
> 
> :clap::clap::clap::clap::clap::clap::clap:


Our destiny is clear. We are one with his grooviness.


----------



## mrjimmy

groovetube said:


> Actually there's 3 'anti-groovetubes' which is I think the, unholy trinity.


Hey GT, a quick derail (it is _my_ thread after all). I notice you are coming up on your 10th anniversary here on ehMac! Congratulations for sticking it out that long! One can only imagine how many personas you have created in all that time. :clap::lmao:


----------



## jef

mrjimmy said:


> Hey GT, a quick derail (it is _my_ thread after all). I notice you are coming up on your 10th anniversary here on ehMac! Congratulations for sticking it out that long! One can only imagine how many personas you have created in all that time. :clap::lmao:


We are all children of the tubed one....


----------



## groovetube

mrjimmy said:


> Hey GT, a quick derail (it is _my_ thread after all). I notice you are coming up on your 10th anniversary here on ehMac! Congratulations for sticking it out that long! One can only imagine how many personas you have created in all that time. :clap::lmao:


sweet!

My reach is endless!


----------



## Dr.G.

groovetube said:


> sweet!
> 
> My reach is endless!


You are the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End.


----------



## groovetube

I just believe in me.


----------



## margarok

groovetube said:


> I just believe in me.


----------



## margarok

mrjimmy said:


> At the risk of being considered yet another member of the GT army,
> 
> _*seriously...?*_ :lmao:
> 
> This has become by far the most entertaining thing around in awhile!


I hope I've contributed to the entertainment in at least some small way, now that so many have rushed to let me know it isn't just ME. I was getting a complex, but now, I see I just became part of a GT mob scene.


----------



## iMouse

groovetube said:


> My reach is endless!


Having been in your immaculate presence several times, I can attest that, indeed, your stench is endless.

Sire.


----------



## fjnmusic

I say he's the Messiah and I should know; I've followed a few.


----------



## groovetube

iMouse said:


> Having been in your immaculate presence several times, I can attest that, indeed, your stench is endless.
> 
> Sire.


That was me? :lmao:


----------



## screature

My most humble apologies to margarok and jef and gt. 

I wasn't quite myself last night. My mother in law had a stroke a week ago and my father in law's dementia has been worse ever since so we have been under a lot of stress since then.

I have to admit I tied one on last night as a means of stress relief and the results are here for all to see. I completely misinterpreted a couple of things that were said by jef and margarok and went on a ridiculous tangent. When I read it back this morning I really haven't a clue why I was thinking what I posted.

margarok and jef what I said to you was not directed to either of you but to gt (we have a history). I apologize to you both and to every one else here who had to bear witness to that train wreck. 

Learned my lesson... don't drink and post.


----------



## margarok

Apology accepted. Moving on.

and will be keeping score, by the way, in case I tie one on tonight and decide to come insult you.


----------



## bryanc

screature said:


> I apologize to you both and to every one else here who had to bear witness to that train wreck.


:clap: It takes real character to admit when you're in the wrong. Well done.

Going back to my use of perversion to describe celibacy, my point is that celibacy is a highly abnormal sexual behaviour for adult humans, and can therefore fairly be described as a perversion. It's not a perversion that is dangerous to others (except in that it may cause it's participants undue stress and frustration which they may express in anti-social ways), but it's certainly not normal.

I admit that this is a fairly loose use of the word perversion, but if the Christians want to describe homosexuality as a perversion, celibacy is certainly even more deviant.


----------



## groovetube

I don't know if the apology was directed towards me as well, but in any case I'm sorry to hear about your parents. I hope they are ok.

I was lucky to celebrate another christmas with my mom that we never thought would happen. Much less last christmas.


----------



## screature

groovetube said:


> I don't know if the apology was directed towards me as well, but in any case I'm sorry to hear about your parents. I hope they are ok.
> 
> I was lucky to celebrate another christmas with my mom that we never thought would happen. Much less last christmas.


My apology was directed to you as well gt as I said, "My most humble apologies to margarok and jef and gt."

Thank you for your words of understanding and condolence. We have been going through hell since this Fall when my mother in law broke her hip and my wife has been going through her own significant health problems for which she is on sick leave.

My in-laws are 92 and 94 respectively and we have had a heavy burden to bear for several months now, with both of us having to stay with them for weeks on end or be travelling back and forth to their home which is 45 minutes away one way and then going to work on top of it all in my case. 

My father in law's dementia is always worse when his wife of over 50 years isn't there to keep him on an even keel. She is the rudder that guides the ship and when she isn't around he gets lost very easily. 

He is in better physical shape at 94, but despite her physical ailments "Mim" (as she is known to me, a play on Mom) is still sharp as tack, except for when she suffered the side effects of the general anaesthetic for her hip surgery which lasted a couple of weeks when she was experiencing constant hallucinations. 

Anyway, yes my apology was directed to you as well gt.

I hope you have a very Happy New Year and that you get to have as much quality time with your Mom as possible in the coming year(s).


----------



## eMacMan

screature said:


> My most humble apologies to margarok and jef and gt.
> 
> I wasn't quite myself last night. My mother in law had a stroke a week ago and my father in law's dementia has been worse ever since so we have been under a lot of stress since then.
> 
> .....
> 
> Learned my lesson... don't drink and post.


Sorry to hear about your parents. What you describe can be as or more stressful than their deaths. I recently lost Mom after a short but rather brutal illness and I can assure you that watching her struggle towards the end was very difficult.


----------



## Rps

I. also, would like to say how sorry I am to hear about your parents. I can relate to what eMacMan has said, a couple of times sorry to say, and while I cannot know what you and your wife are feeling, for what it is worth, your many friends both here on eMac and in your community will be a source of strength if and when you need it .... our friendships are a gift that keeps on giving, especially in troubling times.


----------



## screature

eMacMan said:


> Sorry to hear about your parents. What you describe can be as or more stressful than their deaths. I recently lost Mom after a short but rather brutal illness and I can assure you that watching her struggle towards the end was very difficult.





Rps said:


> I. also, would like to say how sorry I am to hear about your parents. I can relate to what eMacMan has said, a couple of times sorry to say, and while I cannot know what you and your wife are feeling, for what it is worth, your many friends both here on eMac and in your community will be a source of strength if and when you need it .... our friendships are a gift that keeps on giving, especially in troubling times.


Thank you both for your kind posts...

This is the 2nd time around for me as I lost my mother in 1997 after a long protracted (3 year) illness with much suffering on her part and the family in general.

My father followed 3 years later in 2000. His suffering was very short as he suffered a massive stroke at 6pm and died only 12 hours later at 6am.... just the way he would have wanted to go as he was always full of life right up until the end and his worst nightmare would have been to be around as a invalid for several years.

Once again I apologize to all ehMac members (especially, margarok, jef and groovetube) for my ramblings of last night. I am embarrassed and ashamed for posting while under the influence.

I greatly appreciate the kind, forgiving words...

All the best to you and yours in the coming year.


----------



## mrjimmy

screature said:


> I apologize to you both and to every one else here who had to bear witness to that train wreck.


Nice way to end the year. Well done!

Happy New Year. Here's to it being better than the last.


----------



## SINC

Way to lead by example, screature. It takes both courage and intelligence to put things back on the right track. Happy New Year to you and all ehMacers this 2012 eve.


----------



## kps

Sorry to hear about your in-laws Steve, hope things turn around in the new year. My best wishes for THAT New Year!

P.S. I had the pleasure to meet both Groovetube and Jef (however briefly) and they do not look anything like each other. Been to Okie many years ago, but never had the pleasure of meeting margarok.


----------



## jef

kps said:


> P.S. I had the pleasure to meet both Groovetube and Jef (however briefly) and they do not look anything like each other.


I guess that means you're lucky, groove...

Just in case there is more PUI (Posting Under the Influence) tonight, I apologize in advance.
<burp> Happy New Year everyone!


----------



## iMouse

screature said:


> Learned my lesson... don't drink and post.


If I only had a nickle .......



mrjimmy said:


> Nice way to end the year. Well done!


OMG, it's like the Airing of the Grievances!! Happy Festivus everyone. 



jef said:


> Just in case there is more PUI (Posting Under the Influence) tonight, I apologize in advance.


The Mods here will just let us have a do-over, right?? :lmao:


----------



## margarok

By the way, Screature. We lost both my husband's parents this year to COPD and my own dear father turned 90 and is suffering from terrible arthritis pain; I know how very difficult it is to cope with the problems of elderly care. 

I put away more than enough wine during some very stress-filled evenings this year, so am not being glib when I say I really do understand.

However, I will keep score for future reference.


----------



## imnothng

So all this talk of sick old people I'm wondering what your views on assisted suicide, or euthanasia is. From a religious point of view?


----------



## iMouse

imnothng said:


> So all this talk of sick old people I'm wondering what your views on assisted suicide, or euthanasia is. From a religious point of view?


Oh boy, that's a big one, right up there with Capital Punishment.

Only god has the right ..... whatever. 

Please, by my guest, as this topic simply cries-out for a unique thread.

<The Son of a Father that died from the horror that is ALS.>


----------



## margarok

imnothng said:


> So all this talk of sick old people I'm wondering what your views on assisted suicide, or euthanasia is. From a religious point of view?



You have brought up an interesting question. Prior to watching my in-laws descend into senility/dementia, I would have dismissed the idea of euthanasia as being a heartless act by family members/the medical community. However, having seen my father-in-law struggling to breathe even with the oxygen support system fully operating and seeing the panicked look in his eyes day after day as he fought to catch his breath and still his heart rate after stepping from bedside to wheelchair or vice versa gave me a new understanding of the meaning of "quality of life."

He asked us to have him certified as mentally competent to make his own medical decisions. We had our family doctor administer the test and he passed with 82% (passing score was 75%). He had short term memory problems, but his reasoning ability and long term memory was fine. 

About two weeks later, his doctor at the assisted living home took me aside and said my father-in-law had asked about stopping the life extending medications (his heart pills). He told me that he didn't want my husband to know he was thinking about it, but he wanted me to know. Poppa viewed me as someone he could trust to talk about such things with. So we talked about it and thus, I brought my pastor to take his last confession and he made the decision to stop taking the medications. He grew weaker, but was never in pain or struggling for air. We added a CPAP mask to provide a positive air pressure for him. My husband was upset when I explained his father's decision, but he respected it... just wondering why his dad didn't tell him. Well, he knew my husband would try to stop him. He was his DAD.

One of us was with him 24/7 from that point on. My husband was holding his hand when he "let go." My son and I joined him and we all stayed until they took his body away. It was, as they say, a good passing.

Since this is the "religious" thread, let me explain why my father-in-law talked with me about it and not my husband. I had taken him to church a few times to show him what "down home religion" here in the Bible belt is all about. Since he'd been raised in a traditional Italian Catholic family, he'd never been around any holy rollers. He laughed and thought it a hoot, but really did appreciate how nice everyone was to him. Since I spent most of my days with him, having taken a leave of absence to help him get settled after his wife passed, we chatted and talked about lots of things. I read Bible stories to him (favored ones from my childhood, which, oddly he'd never heard even though he went through 12 years of Catholic school?) and we talked about our beliefs. I got a rosary for him and had it blessed by a friend's priest. I learned to pray the rosary with him. I'm not trying to declare myself a saint, but I realized that as he came to see that there was no hope of his broken body healing, he sought out comfort of a spiritual nature. And because of my background, I found a way to give him that comfort. And it enabled him to go in peace.

So, the idea of euthanasia and/or assisted suicide is not something I would dismiss as wrong anymore. I have been taught a valuable lesson in humility by a frail old man with a heart as big as the sky.


----------



## imnothng

margarok said:


> So, the idea of euthanasia and/or assisted suicide is not something I would dismiss as wrong anymore. I have been taught a valuable lesson in humility by a frail old man with a heart as big as the sky.


Thank you for sharing that with us. I quoted the last part because I think a lot of what people are against, they wouldn't be if they had to go through it. I'm very open and honest with my kids when we talked about putting our family dog down. I told them straight up that I hope they will do the same with me when I'm too far gone.


----------



## margarok

imnothng said:


> Thank you for sharing that with us. I quoted the last part because I think a lot of what people are against, they wouldn't be if they had to go through it. I'm very open and honest with my kids when we talked about putting our family dog down. I told them straight up that I hope they will do the same with me when I'm too far gone.


Thank you for your kind words. As I said... it was a lesson for me and I do not mind sharing it honestly with others. I wouldn't wish it on anyone to have to make that sort of decision, but having lived through it, I will NOT judge anyone for their decision. It is not my place...


----------



## Macfury

imnothng said:


> Thank you for sharing that with us. I quoted the last part because I think a lot of what people are against, they wouldn't be if they had to go through it. I'm very open and honest with my kids when we talked about putting our family dog down. I told them straight up that I hope they will do the same with me when I'm too far gone.


Yes--it's a kindness we extend to our animal friends, but sometimes not to our loved ones. 

I knew my father's life support needed to be turned off, even though he died at the relatively young age of 63.


----------



## SINC

Macfury said:


> Yes--it's a kindness we extend to our animal friends, but sometimes not to our loved ones.
> 
> I knew my father's life support needed to be turned off, even though he died at the relatively young age of 63.


Agreed, and my family know that I do not wish to labour them with needless lengthy issues that can be ended humanely.


----------



## bryanc

As a non-religious person this is not an ethically difficult issue for me, but one which is a potentially excruciatingly difficult judgment call; does the individual in question have the potential for enjoyment of life (pleasure) in the future that outweighs the probable suffering (pain)?

If the person is mentally competent to make that decision for themselves, it's nobodies business but theirs, and the medical community should put whatever tools for painlessly ending their lives at their disposal as are reasonably safe and practical (i.e. pills, but not guns).

I can't comprehend how someone could force a human to endure unnecessary and hopeless suffering when they'd euthanize their pets without hesitation.

Ironically, some of these same people who oppose euthanasia are gung-ho proponents of the death penalty; I've had the pleasure of watching some pretty amazing ethical acrobatics utilized in an effort to justify that position.


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> If the person is mentally competent to make that decision for themselves, it's nobodies business but theirs, and the medical community should put whatever tools for painlessly ending their lives at their disposal as are reasonably safe and practical (i.e. pills, but not guns).


Be careful here. Would you support providing the means for painless suicide to an 18 year old who was recently dumped by his girlfriend? Where do you draw the line at "assisting" them?



bryanc said:


> Ironically, some of these same people who oppose euthanasia are gung-ho proponents of the death penalty; I've had the pleasure of watching some pretty amazing ethical acrobatics utilized in an effort to justify that position.


I support both kinds of death!


----------



## groovetube

Ah the old slippery slope thing.

They'll be fornicating in the streets murdering babies and hanging each other if we're, y'know, not careful.


----------



## screature

mrjimmy said:


> Nice way to end the year. Well done!
> 
> Happy New Year. Here's to it being better than the last.





SINC said:


> Way to lead by example, screature. It takes both courage and intelligence to put things back on the right track. Happy New Year to you and all ehMacers this 2012 eve.





kps said:


> Sorry to hear about your in-laws Steve, hope things turn around in the new year. My best wishes for THAT New Year!
> 
> P.S. I had the pleasure to meet both Groovetube and Jef (however briefly) and they do not look anything like each other. Been to Okie many years ago, but never had the pleasure of meeting margarok.





jef said:


> I guess that means you're lucky, groove...
> 
> Just in case there is more PUI (Posting Under the Influence) tonight, I apologize in advance.
> <burp> Happy New Year everyone!





margarok said:


> By the way, Screature. We lost both my husband's parents this year to COPD and my own dear father turned 90 and is suffering from terrible arthritis pain; I know how very difficult it is to cope with the problems of elderly care.
> 
> I put away more than enough wine during some very stress-filled evenings this year, so am not being glib when I say I really do understand.
> 
> However, I will keep score for future reference.


Thank you all for the kind words of understanding. It means a lot. Especially when someone publicly humiliates them self and still receives messages of support.

It is what makes ehMac the great *community* that it is...

As we Quebecers say... Bonne année to one and all... I am humbled by the expression of support despite my obvious failings.


----------



## eMacMan

screature said:


> Thank you all for the kind words of understanding. It means a lot. Especially when someone publicly humiliates them self and still receives messages of support.
> 
> It is was what makes ehMac the great *community* that it is...
> 
> As we Quebecers say... Bonne année to one and all... I am humbled by the expression of support despite my obvious failings.


My Dad always said: "Any idiot can make an ass of himself but you don't have to be an idiot to do so. It takes a man to admit to it, do what he can to make it right and move on."

Admitting to blunders takes courage and is therefore worthy of respect.

I recall a former neighbour. We disagreed on just about any issue you care to name, yet if either of us needed help the other was always there. That is really what being a good neighbour is all about. It is good that you have discovered similar support here at ehMac.


----------



## screature

eMacMan said:


> My Dad always said: "Any idiot can make an ass of himself but you don't have to be an idiot to do so. It takes a man to admit to it, do what he can to make it right and move on."
> 
> Admitting to blunders takes courage and is therefore worthy of respect.
> 
> I recall a former neighbour. We disagreed on just about any issue you care to name, yet if either of us needed help the other was always there. That is really what being a good neighbour is all about. It is good that you have discovered similar support here at ehMac.


Thank you very much eMacMan. A very happy healthy and prosperous New Year to you and yours.


----------



## bryanc

eMacMan said:


> "Any idiot can make an ass of himself but you don't have to be an idiot to do so. It takes a man to admit to it, do what he can to make it right and move on."


This is a powerful statement; I hope you don't mind if I adopt it. And, for the record, I don't think Screature was completely out of line with the stuff he posted... he was just a little more extreme and bellicose than usual (and for understandable reasons). While I rarely agree with Screature, I do enjoy arguing with him and I hope he won't hesitate to continue to post his objectionable and obviously wrong opinions


----------



## eMacMan

bryanc said:


> This is a powerful statement; I hope you don't mind if I adopt it. And, for the record, I don't think Screature was completely out of line with the stuff he posted... he was just a little more extreme and bellicose than usual (and for understandable reasons). While I rarely agree with Screature, I do enjoy arguing with him and I hope he won't hesitate to continue to post his objectionable and obviously wrong opinions


Feel free. I like another from one of my Grandfathers. "I'm Sorry is the most abused phrase in the English language. Don't just say you're sorry, do something to make it right." Not bad for a man with a Grade 3 education.

For the record Screature does a better job of defending his viewpoints than many posters, even when he is wrong.


----------



## screature

bryanc said:


> This is a powerful statement; I hope you don't mind if I adopt it. And, for the record, I don't think Screature was completely out of line with the stuff he posted... he was just a little more extreme and bellicose than usual (and for understandable reasons). While I rarely agree with Screature, I do enjoy arguing with him and I hope he won't hesitate to continue to post his objectionable and obviously wrong opinions





eMacMan said:


> Feel free. I like another from one of my Grandfathers. "I'm Sorry is the most abused phrase in the English language. Don't just say you're sorry, do something to make it right." Not bad for a man with a Grade 3 education.
> 
> For the record Screature does a better job of defending his viewpoints than many posters, even when he is wrong.


Thanks guys. I am getting a little verklempt... :-( ... Talk among yourselves...





+
YouTube Video









ERROR: If you can see this, then YouTube is down or you don't have Flash installed.


----------



## Sonal

This would be a very dull place indeed if we all didn't occasionally make an ass of ourselves. And a very unfriendly place if we all didn't understand that.

screature, very sorry to hear of the many health-issues and stresses upon your family.


----------



## screature

Sonal said:


> This would be a very dull place indeed if we all didn't occasionally make an ass of ourselves. And a very unfriendly place if we all didn't understand that.
> 
> screature, very sorry to hear of the many health-issues and stresses upon your family.


Thank you Sonal and a very Happy, Health and Prosperous New Year to you and yours.


----------



## margarok

screature said:


> Thanks guys. I am getting a little verklempt... :-( ... Talk among yourselves...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> +
> YouTube Video
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ERROR: If you can see this, then YouTube is down or you don't have Flash installed.


Well put, Mr. Screature! You have urnt (Okie pun intended) my respect!

Score remains Margarok 1/Screature 0 though.


----------



## rgray

"Our main finding is that people who had a spiritual understanding of life had worse mental health than those with an understanding that was neither religious nor spiritual."

"They were also more likely than others to be taking medication for mental health problems."

Spirituality Linked To Mental Health 'Demons' Like Eating Disorders, Drug Abuse, Anxiety, Study Says


----------



## screature

rgray said:


> "Our main finding is that people who had a spiritual understanding of life had worse mental health than those *with an understanding that was neither religious nor spiritual*."
> 
> "They were also more likely than others to be taking medication for mental health problems."
> 
> Spirituality Linked To Mental Health 'Demons' Like Eating Disorders, Drug Abuse, Anxiety, Study Says


So what was their "understanding" of life... was it homogeneous? and exactly what constitutes "understanding"?

I understand completely the difference between a living thing and a non-living thing without any religion involved and I am not religious nor do I wish to portray those who "believe" as being disillusion, misguided, psychotic, lacking in mental abilities etc., etc... 

For me, some people just believe something else other than I do and since the question at hand is what is the "ultimate nature of the universe", I do not profess to have any more or less understanding than others... although some others of both faiths (spiritual and non-spiritual) freely attest to having a greater understanding and subsequent sense of superiority. 

So it goes... and forever it shall be, until the day we die and cannot prove who is right or who is wrong.


----------



## iMouse

rgray said:


> "Our main finding is that people who had a spiritual understanding of life had worse mental health than those with an understanding that was neither religious nor spiritual."
> 
> "They were also more likely than others to be taking medication for mental health problems."
> 
> Spirituality Linked To Mental Health 'Demons' Like Eating Disorders, Drug Abuse, Anxiety, Study Says


Un-natural control on the Human psyche tends to do that.


----------



## MacGuiver

rgray said:


> "Our main finding is that people who had a spiritual understanding of life had worse mental health than those with an understanding that was neither religious nor spiritual."
> 
> "They were also more likely than others to be taking medication for mental health problems."
> 
> Spirituality Linked To Mental Health 'Demons' Like Eating Disorders, Drug Abuse, Anxiety, Study Says


Interesting study given that "Spirituality" is all the rage while organized religion is frowned upon.


> Individuals of religious faith and those with none experienced equal levels of mental problems, the study found.
> 
> But there were fewer problems with drugs or alcohol among the faithful.


----------



## screature

iMouse said:


> Un-natural control on the Human psyche tends to do that.


What could be more "natural" than for a human being to believe in a power above us? 

It has been so since before recorded time. It seems to be a part our make up... perhaps because we are self aware and realize we are not "god"...

Except in some exceptional circumstances where an individual actually thinks they are (a) god which almost always inevitably ends up in disaster and tragedy... 

Just like so many myths and realities of almost any culture/civilization around the world throughout history portrays and continues to display.


----------



## groovetube

I don't think it's natural at all for humans to think there is a god. In fact I think humans are beginning to figure out just how -un-natural it actually is, and the amount of pain, suffering, and mass executions it has caused over thousands of years.

It was such an incredibly powerful tool for the few to control the populations, that it has taken thousands of years for people to gain enough freedom to not have to submit to this tyranny.

To add, I think true religious, or spiritual beliefs are also a victim in the tyranny as well, having been used as the method of control all this time.


----------



## kps

groovetube said:


> I don't think it's natural at all for humans to think there is a god. In fact I think humans are beginning to figure out just how -un-natural it actually is, and the amount of pain, suffering, and mass executions it has caused over thousands of years.
> 
> It was such an incredibly powerful tool for the few to control the populations, that it has taken thousands of years for people to gain enough freedom to not have to submit to this tyranny.
> 
> To add, I think true religious, or spiritual beliefs are also a victim in the tyranny as well, having been used as the method of control all this time.


I think many people need spirituality and are predisposed to it. How they satisfy that need is probably the issue. Many use it as a crutch, others for well being and some for control, but I think it's part of being human and I don't see it going away.


----------



## groovetube

kps said:


> I think many people need spirituality and are predisposed to it. How they satisfy that need is probably the issue. Many use it as a crutch, others for well being and some for control, but I think it's part of being human and I don't see it going away.


Likely it's taught from parents. Take that away and I wonder what would happen.


----------



## kps

groovetube said:


> Likely it's taught from parents. Take that away and I wonder what would happen.


You'd get me...both of my parents were atheists, but didn't "preach it". We just didn't have religion in the house or talked about it. However, I was baptized as a RC to pacify the grand parents.


----------



## imnothng

kps said:


> You'd get me...both of my parents were atheists, but didn't "preach it". We just didn't have religion in the house or talked about it. However, I was baptized as a RC to pacify the grand parents.


Except for the not "preaching" part, it sounds like my son could have wrote that. We'll have to see what life choices he makes. Now that he's 10 he hasn't believed in Santa for a few years, so I'm hopeful he won't believe other fairy tales are real when he's older.


----------



## fjnmusic

imnothng said:


> Except for the not "preaching" part, it sounds like my son could have wrote that. We'll have to see what life choices he makes. Now that he's 10 he hasn't believed in Santa for a few years, so I'm hopeful he won't believe other fairy tales are real when he's older.


Ask him if he believes in Slenderman. You might be surprised.


----------



## bryanc

groovetube said:


> I don't think it's natural at all for humans to think there is a god.





kps said:


> I think many people need spirituality and are predisposed to it.


The psych research on this topic is far from conclusive, but it's leaning in KPS's direction; it appears we're hard-wired to think in supernatural terms, and without significant intellectual effort and/or training most people will become either religious or 'spiritual' in the sense of believing in supernatural forces/agents that affect reality.

This is thought to be due to the evolutionary pressure on our ancestors; mistaking the causes of effectively random, naturally occurring environmental threats or opportunities as being the result of the actions of unseen agents would rarely be deleterious... but failing to attribute threats and opportunities that were due to the actions of hidden agents would often be lethal. I.e., the monkey who mistakes the shadow of a leopard in the woods for a demon and runs away is likely going to be fine, but the monkey who thinks that leopard is just a harmless shadow is going to be lunch. The selective advantage to knowing the real reasons for things is generally small; as long as you generally behave in the right way. So we're predisposed to attribute supernatural causes to almost anything we can't understand or predict. James Randi famously showed that many people will continue to believe that illusions they've been show are 'magic' even _after_ the magician explains how the trick was really done. There is now a whole feild of "neurotheology" that examines how the human brain generates these irrational beliefs not only in the absence of evidence, but even in the face of contradictory evidence.

So the bottom line is that we're prone to attribute causes to things, and if we can't readily identify a cause, our imagination will supply a supernatural one. Over the course of human history, these imaginary causes have become the biggest and most profitable business ever.


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> There is now a whole feild of "neurotheology" that examines how the human brain generates these irrational beliefs not only in the absence of evidence, but even in the face of contradictory evidence.


This explains why the IPCC still has faith in its warming predictions, despite previously stating that any hiatus in warming of 15 years would show their model had failed.


----------



## groovetube

right on cue.


----------



## fjnmusic

Why is that no matter where a person goes on this planet, religious discussions always end up becoming debates about global warming?


----------



## Macfury

fjnmusic said:


> Why is that no matter where a person goes on this planet, religious discussions always end up becoming debates about global warming?


Because global warming is a religion--or at least shares enough in common with religion to make their adherents indistinguishable from each other.


----------



## groovetube

fjnmusic said:


> Why is that no matter where a person goes on this planet, religious discussions always end up becoming debates about global warming?


Because they see it as some kind of holy war or something. They haven't been able to effectively counter well, just about every scientist in the world, so they need to see things from a religious perspective.

And you know how religion has such a great track record in keeping the populace well controlled.


----------



## bryanc

Macfury said:


> Because global warming is a religion--or at least shares enough in common with religion to make their adherents indistinguishable from each other.


And the science-denying crowd breaks yet another irony meter.


----------



## groovetube

The fury has delivered rather spectacularly for the last little while.


----------



## fjnmusic

groovetube said:


> Because they see it as some kind of holy war or something. They haven't been able to effectively counter well, just about every scientist in the world, so they need to see things from a religious perspective.
> 
> And you know how religion has such a great track record in keeping the populace well controlled.


I was actually being sarcastic, but I couldn't remember what the sarcasm font was.


----------



## groovetube

fjnmusic said:


> I was actually being sarcastic, but I couldn't remember what the sarcasm font was.


You may have been, I'm thinking he wasn't. :lmao:


----------



## screature

bryanc said:


> The psych research on this topic is far from conclusive, but it's leaning in KPS's directio*n; it appears we're hard-wired to think in supernatural terms, and without significant intellectual effort and/or training most people will become either religious or 'spiritual' in the sense of believing in supernatural forces/agents that affect reality.
> 
> This is thought to be due to the evolutionary pressure on our ancestors; mistaking the causes of effectively random, naturally occurring environmental threats or opportunities as being the result of the actions of unseen agents would rarely be deleterious... but failing to attribute threats and opportunities that were due to the actions of hidden agents would often be lethal. I.e., the monkey who mistakes the shadow of a leopard in the woods for a demon and runs away is likely going to be fine, but the monkey who thinks that leopard is just a harmless shadow is going to be lunch. The selective advantage to knowing the real reasons for things is generally small; as long as you generally behave in the right way. So we're predisposed to attribute supernatural causes to almost anything we can't understand or predict. James Randi famously showed that many people will continue to believe that illusions they've been show are 'magic' even after the magician explains how the trick was really done. There is now a whole feild of "neurotheology" that examines how the human brain generates these irrational beliefs not only in the absence of evidence, but even in the face of contradictory evidence.
> 
> So the bottom line is that we're prone to attribute causes to things, and if we can't readily identify a cause, our imagination will supply a supernatural one.* Over the course of human history, these imaginary causes have become the biggest and most profitable business ever.


I agree and this is exactly the point I was making... It may not be desirable but it seems to be "the nature of things", i.e. "natural".

All that one has to do to know this is true is to study any culture, even before there was any "culture" as we know it. They all have "creation" myths. 

To deny it simply denies the empirical/historical evidence.


----------



## groovetube

That's simply not true.

Perhaps you should read up on Buddhists. Just for starters.


----------



## screature

Perhaps you should read Buddhist texts more carefully. There is no more or less "spiritual"/"god"/"something greater than us" religion out there...



> Saṃsāra
> Main article: Saṃsāra (Buddhism)
> 
> Samsara is *"the cycle of birth and death".*[21] Sentient beings crave pleasure and are averse to pain from birth to death. In being controlled by these attitudes, they perpetuate the cycle of conditioned existence and suffering (saṃsāra), and produce the causes and conditions of *the next rebirth after death*. *Each rebirth* repeats this process in an involuntary cycle, which Buddhists strive to end by eradicating these causes and conditions, applying the methods laid out by the Buddha and subsequent Buddhists.


Wiki
It *is *just another, even more undefined example than most of a "creation myth:"

You really don't think Buddhism has a creation myth? I suggest you read the text more carefully.

Are you suggesting that *reincarnation* is not a "creation myth"?


----------



## groovetube

No, I don't. My wife has studied Buddhism quite a bit and seems quite adamant that there was no real 'creation myth'. But you can argue that well, we had to come from somewhere, so any belief will involve creation of some sort. Whether it is a bang from atoms blowing up to create life, or some being created us. I was really talking about people growing up believing in some supernatural being (god, or whatever) having created us, and requires some form of allegiance and worship. By your definition, evolution is a creation myth, all of it would be.

The belief in buddhism seems to be about focusing on oneself, rather than running around looking for supernatural beings that people believe may or may not have created us. But I personally haven't studied it, perhaps someone else with more knowledge can go further.


----------



## SINC

This makes it quite clear:

6 wacky creation myths around the world


----------



## Sonal

Reincarnation isn't a creation myth in the sense that 'creation myth' usually refers to; unlike Genesis, it doesn't explain how the world came into being in the first place.

Buddhism and the religion I was raised in, Jainism, share many common elements. (Gautama Siddartha, who later became the Buddha, studied with Jain monks before deciding their path was too austere and finding 'the middle way.')

Jainism has no creation myth, at least not in the same sense as Christianity does. That is, there may be some stories associated with Jainism about how the world came into being (though if it exists, it's mighty obscure and isn't taught) but such stories are not really considered a core part of the religious belief; one does not need to accept that story to accept or practice Jainism.

It would not surprise me if Buddhism treated creation myths similarly.


----------



## fjnmusic

Sonal said:


> Reincarnation isn't a creation myth in the sense that 'creation myth' usually refers to; unlike Genesis, it doesn't explain how the world came into being in the first place.
> 
> Buddhism and the religion I was raised in, Jainism, share many common elements. (Gautama Siddartha, who later became the Buddha, studied with Jain monks before deciding their path was too austere and finding 'the middle way.')
> 
> Jainism has no creation myth, at least not in the same sense as Christianity does. That is, there may be some stories associated with Jainism about how the world came into being (though if it exists, it's mighty obscure and isn't taught) but such stories are not really considered a core part of the religious belief; one does not need to accept that story to accept or practice Jainism.
> 
> It would not surprise me if Buddhism treated creation myths similarly.


You know, technically, Christianity has no creation myths either, since those come from Judaism previously. And also interestingly, RC's today view the six days of creation as metaphor, which makes the Adam/Eve story metaphor as well. But since original sin comes from eating the apple, or "eating from the tree of knowledge of good and evil," and since Eve is metaphorical rather than historical, then it follows that original sin is also metaphorical, which mean there was nothing that the human race needed to be saved from. Shouldn't somebody perhaps have mentioned this to Jesus before the ultimate sacrifice?

Of course, if one view myths as stories meant for passing on wisdom and guidance, then the good books take on a whole different purpose. One of my favorites is Life of Pi.


----------



## Macfury

fjnmusic said:


> You know, technically, Christianity has no creation myths either, since those come from Judaism previously.


No, Christianity is an extension of Judaism, not a re-invention of it.


----------



## fjnmusic

Macfury said:


> No, Christianity is an extension of Judaism, not a re-invention of it.


Either way, you're saying the same thing as me, Macfury. The appearance of JC on the scene did not change the Genesis chapter of the bible, apart from this new emphasis on the world needing to be saved from original sin. But if Adam and Eve were not literal people, then there is no original sin to be saved from. It's such a glaringly obvious omission I'm surprised no one seems to have spotted it before. No original sin, no need for a saviour.


----------



## imnothng

fjnmusic said:


> You know, technically, Christianity has no creation myths either, since those come from Judaism previously. And also interestingly, RC's today view the six days of creation as metaphor, which makes the Adam/Eve story metaphor as well.


This is one of the things that drives me nuts about christians. They are willing to admit that, for example, the above is true. Now when it comes to suggesting that the whole "gOD" part is just a metaphor, they won't believe that. How can you say the creation is just a metaphor, but the bit about about a burning bush and angels is real?

I just don't get it.


----------



## Macfury

fjnmusic said:


> It's such a glaringly obvious omission I'm surprised no one seems to have spotted it before. No original sin, no need for a saviour.


You're joking, right? Or do you actually believe that you're the first person to have ever mentioned this?


----------



## groovetube

Sonal said:


> Reincarnation isn't a creation myth in the sense that 'creation myth' usually refers to; unlike Genesis, it doesn't explain how the world came into being in the first place.
> 
> Buddhism and the religion I was raised in, Jainism, share many common elements. (Gautama Siddartha, who later became the Buddha, studied with Jain monks before deciding their path was too austere and finding 'the middle way.')
> 
> Jainism has no creation myth, at least not in the same sense as Christianity does. That is, there may be some stories associated with Jainism about how the world came into being (though if it exists, it's mighty obscure and isn't taught) but such stories are not really considered a core part of the religious belief; one does not need to accept that story to accept or practice Jainism.
> 
> It would not surprise me if Buddhism treated creation myths similarly.


That's what I thought.

I think it's only natural that anyone would come up with some sort of explanation as to where we actually come from, so, in that sense, I suppose we all have some sort of myth or story. But I think I was originally saying that I don't believe all cultures perpetuate some kind of supernatural being myth who created all life. I think this is something passed on from previous generations and isn't something that is natural to all humans.


----------



## bryanc

groovetube said:


> But you can argue that well, we had to come from somewhere, so any belief will involve creation of some sort. Whether it is a bang from atoms blowing up to create life, or some being created us.


The important and often overlooked difference being that the scientific explanations for the existence of the observable universe are not purported to be unchallengeable truths, but are rather proposed as falsifiable hypotheses to explain observable facts. As new observations are made, the explanation changes to fit them, and where facts are lacking, no explanation is attempted. This leaves science in a distinctly different position than religions with regard to explaining questions like "where did the universe come from?" Where religions can say "god did it" and leave it at that (which, I like to point out, sounds like an answer but does not really provide any explanatory power), science can provide only more-or-less incomplete theories that ultimately resolve to "we're not really sure, but it's very interesting and we're working on trying to learn more." Fortunately, science does not extinguish continued investigation and, while we may never come to a completely satisfying answer, we're discovering many wonderful and occasionally useful things along the way.


----------



## fjnmusic

bryanc said:


> The important and often overlooked difference being that the scientific explanations for the existence of the observable universe are not purported to be unchallengeable truths, but are rather proposed as falsifiable hypotheses to explain observable facts. As new observations are made, the explanation changes to fit them, and where facts are lacking, no explanation is attempted. This leaves science in a distinctly different position than religions with regard to explaining questions like "where did the universe come from?" Where religions can say "god did it" and leave it at that (which, I like to point out, sounds like an answer but does not really provide any explanatory power), science can provide only more-or-less incomplete theories that ultimately resolve to "we're not really sure, but it's very interesting and we're working on trying to learn more." Fortunately, science does not extinguish continued investigation and, while we may never come to a completely satisfying answer, we're discovering many wonderful and occasionally useful things along the way.


In other words, Evolution is a theory, just as Darwin himself proposed.


----------



## iMouse

fjnmusic said:


> In other words, Evolution is a theory, just as Darwin himself proposed.


Well, where all "this" came from is always open for dispute, but Evolution is far from a theory, insofar as how all life on this orb morphs over time.

Survival of the Fittest. Trial and error. That sort of thing.

Humans are the only species on Earth that can chose not to follow Survival of the Fittest.


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> The important and often overlooked difference being that the scientific explanations for the existence of the observable universe are not purported to be unchallengeable truths, but are rather proposed as falsifiable hypotheses to explain observable facts. As new observations are made, the explanation changes to fit them, and where facts are lacking, no explanation is attempted. This leaves science in a distinctly different position than religions with regard to explaining questions like "where did the universe come from?"


But no different regarding theories like global warming, in which human contribution is the mantra, regardless of how many studies point to other explanations.


----------



## Macfury

iMouse said:


> Humans are the only species on Earth that can chose not to follow Survival of the Fittest.


Not exclusively, but largely. This is why so many people mow have diabetes. It no longer limits reproduction.


----------



## bryanc

Macfury said:


> But no different regarding theories like global warming, in which human contribution is the mantra, regardless of how many studies point to other explanations.


This is not the thread for this, but as I have pointed out repeatedly, the studies that are cited as evidence against the established ACC paradigm do not say what the deniers seem to think they say. Like research cited by Intelligent Design proponents as examples of science that conflicts with evolutionary theory, when you read the papers you find that they do not conflict with ACC. I certainly don't have time to read all the stuff FeXL posts in the GHG thread, but I've read some, and go so far as to contact the researchers who've published it to ask for clarification of interpretation because it's not my feild. One of the researchers responded to my query regarding people interpreting his paper as conflicting with the ACC paradigm with a two word answer "F***ing idiots."

So, to get this back on the topic of science vs. religion, there is no 'mantra' or 'faith' regarding human contribution to climate change; it's what the evidence forces science to conclude regardless of what we might like to believe. If the data actually pointed in another direction, that's what we would believe, because that's how science works.


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> So, to get this back on the topic of science vs. religion, there is no 'mantra' or 'faith' regarding human contribution to climate change; it's what the evidence forces science to conclude regardless of what we might like to believe. If the data actually pointed in another direction, that's what we would believe, because that's how science works.


It's reason, filtered through faith, amplified by the echo chamber effect.


----------



## bryanc

fjnmusic said:


> In other words, Evolution is a theory, just as Darwin himself proposed.


Evolution is both a theory and a fact. We can observe evolutionary change empirically, therefore it is a fact. We also have a theory regarding the mechanism underlying these empirically observable changes (i.e. natural selection). We now also have so much evidence supporting this theory that it is essentially beyond doubt. Nevertheless, like climate change and other well established theories, lots of research on the details and interesting anomalies of evolutionary biology is still happening, and we clearly have lots more to learn both about how it work and what the details of the evolutionary history of life on earth really are.


----------



## bryanc

Macfury said:


> It's reason, filtered through faith, amplified by the echo chamber effect.


Check the mirror; this is a perfect description of the climate-change denier community (with the additional amplifier of the oil-industry funded PR machine).

Science has no place for faith. Reason and evidence are the only accepted currency, which is why the consensus in the climatology feild is so extraordinary.


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> Science has no place for faith. Reason and evidence are the only accepted currency, which is why the consensus in the climatology feild is so extraordinary.


_Science_ has no place for faith. Scientists, on the other hand...


----------



## screature

Sonal said:


> Reincarnation isn't a creation myth in the sense that 'creation myth' usually refers to; unlike Genesis, it doesn't explain how the world came into being in the first place.
> 
> Buddhism and the religion I was raised in, Jainism, share many common elements. (Gautama Siddartha, who later became the Buddha, studied with Jain monks before deciding their path was too austere and finding 'the middle way.')
> 
> Jainism has no creation myth, at least not in the same sense as Christianity does. That is, there may be some stories associated with Jainism about how the world came into being (though if it exists, it's mighty obscure and isn't taught) but such stories are not really considered a core part of the religious belief; one does not need to accept that story to accept or practice Jainism.
> 
> It would not surprise me if Buddhism treated creation myths similarly.


Well by your semantics I can see how reincarnation is not a creation myth per say but it still is supernatural. 

So perhaps not every culture has had a creation myth (but on the other hand Buddhism isn't a culture per say it is a religion). To be semantically correct I think it can easily be stated that the vast majority of cultures have a creation myth associated with them.


----------



## bryanc

Macfury said:


> _Science_ has no place for faith. Scientists, on the other hand...


On this we can agree. I've often found it very puzzling that _any_ scientists manage to maintain religious faith; how can one use the scientific method to learn about reality, while simultaneously believing in the existence of the supernatural? Clearly this is possible for some (although the number of religious scientists is small, and decreasing, there are undeniable examples), but how do people maintain these mutually incompatible conceptual frameworks?

Having met and worked with quite a few of these people, I have found they generally fall into one of three categories. By far the most common are those who partition their scientific work from their personal lives, and just don't think about the conflict between them - they were raised in a given religious tradition, and that part of their life is completely separate from what they do in their research; they just don't think about it. The second is the "flexible" theist who is someone who was usually raised in some sort of religious tradition, but in an environment that tolerated unorthodox interpretations of dogma, and who has found some way of bending their religious beliefs into something that isn't overtly in conflict with science; this usually involves some sort of more-or-less complete translation of their religious beliefs into aspects of objective reality, with the supernatural aspects of their religion explained as aspects of reality we do not yet understand. The third, and probably most rational are the deists, who have generally abandoned organized religion, but still maintain some beliefs they describe as spiritual, but these are generally not in conflict with naturalistic explanations of observable reality; they simply have additional beliefs about aspects of the universe that we currently do not understand.

If I didn't have so many other more pressing concerns, I'd be interested in a more rigorous study of how non-atheist scientists deal with the cognitive dissonance of incorporating supernatural beliefs into their conceptual framework. There's got to be a good Ph.D. thesis in the examination of that psychology.


----------



## groovetube

screature said:


> Well by your semantics I can see how reincarnation is not a creation myth per say but it still is supernatural.
> 
> So perhaps not every culture has had a creation myth (but on the other hand Buddhism isn't a culture per say it is a religion). To be semantically correct I think it can easily be stated that the vast majority of cultures have a creation myth associated with them.


I think you're muddling things up a little bit, and playing a little loose with the definitions. 

There is no supernatural beings in buddhism tat I can see, they seem to discourage that belief completely. They aren't the only ones. As mentioned. Again I originally said that I found the belief in some supernatural or higher power being, not altogether natural to everybody.


----------



## fjnmusic

bryanc said:


> On this we can agree. I've often found it very puzzling that _any_ scientists manage to maintain religious faith; how can one use the scientific method to learn about reality, while simultaneously believing in the existence of the supernatural? Clearly this is possible for some (although the number of religious scientists is small, and decreasing, there are undeniable examples), but how do people maintain these mutually incompatible conceptual frameworks?
> 
> Having met and worked with quite a few of these people, I have found they generally fall into one of three categories. By far the most common are those who partition their scientific work from their personal lives, and just don't think about the conflict between them - they were raised in a given religious tradition, and that part of their life is completely separate from what they do in their research; they just don't think about it. The second is the "flexible" theist who is someone who was usually raised in some sort of religious tradition, but in an environment that tolerated unorthodox interpretations of dogma, and who has found some way of bending their religious beliefs into something that isn't overtly in conflict with science; this usually involves some sort of more-or-less complete translation of their religious beliefs into aspects of objective reality, with the supernatural aspects of their religion explained as aspects of reality we do not yet understand. The third, and probably most rational are the deists, who have generally abandoned organized religion, but still maintain some beliefs they describe as spiritual, but these are generally not in conflict with naturalistic explanations of observable reality; they simply have additional beliefs about aspects of the universe that we currently do not understand.
> 
> If I didn't have so many other more pressing concerns, I'd be interested in a more rigorous study of how non-atheist scientists deal with the cognitive dissonance of incorporating supernatural beliefs into their conceptual framework. There's got to be a good Ph.D. thesis in the examination of that psychology.


Interesting. Since you can't believe it's possible for someone to be scientist and a theist, you find it hard to accept that such people even exist. And yet we can find a number of scientists, Albert Einstein among them, who were in fact such people. Either Einstein is wrong or misguided, and perhaps Einstein does not actually exist. Is my belief in the existence of Einstein necessary for Einstein's existence? Or would he continue to exist whether I believed in him or not?

Substitute the word "Life" for "God" and you have a much more compelling argument for the existence of God. Not the sky-daddy kind, but the life force that inhabits every single living thing kind. Also hard to prove, although we can tell when something is alive and when it is not. I think you take this stuff far too literally, Bryan. You need to get a sense of ha-ha about it.


----------



## imnothng

fjnmusic said:


> Interesting. Since you can't believe it's possible for someone to be scientist and a theist, you find it hard to accept that such people even exist. And yet we can find a number of scientists, Albert Einstein among them, who were in fact such people. Either Einstein is wrong or misguided, and perhaps Einstein does not actually exist. Is my belief in the existence of Einstein necessary for Einstein's existence? Or would he continue to exist whether I believed in him or not?
> 
> Substitute the word "Life" for "God" and you have a much more compelling argument for the existence of God. Not the sky-daddy kind, but the life force that inhabits every single living thing kind. Also hard to prove, although we can tell when something is alive and when it is not. I think you take this stuff far too literally, Bryan. You need to get a sense of ha-ha about it.


It would have been nearly impossible for Einstein to publicly say there's no proof for a gOD. Nowadays it's much more acceptable for intelligent and the "non" intelligent to say it.

As to the second paragraph, this 'life' force that inhabits every single thing is called electricity, without it we are dead.


----------



## imnothng

groovetube said:


> There is no supernatural beings in buddhism tat I can see, they seem to discourage that belief completely. .


But didn't "the" Buddha "fight" the evil gODs while he meditated under the bodhi tree and that is when he reached enlightenment?


----------



## screature

imnothng said:


> But didn't "the" Buddha "fight" the evil gODs while he meditated under the bodhi tree and that is when he reached enlightenment?


Reincarnation in empirical terms is fundamentally supernatural as there is no empirical evidence that supports its existence...


----------



## screature

fjnmusic said:


> Interesting. Since you can't believe it's possible for someone to be scientist and a theist, you find it hard to accept that such people even exist. And yet we can find a number of scientists, Albert Einstein among them, who were in fact such people. Either Einstein is wrong or misguided, and perhaps Einstein does not actually exist. Is my belief in the existence of Einstein necessary for Einstein's existence? Or would he continue to exist whether I believed in him or not?
> 
> Substitute the word "Life" for "God" and you have a much more compelling argument for the existence of God. Not the sky-daddy kind, but the life force that inhabits every single living thing kind. Also hard to prove, although we can tell when something is alive and when it is not. I think you take this stuff far too literally, Bryan. You need to get a sense of ha-ha about it.


There are great number scientists both historically and in the present day who are also theists, it just seems that they aren't in bryanc's circle of friends... I wonder why.


----------



## groovetube

screature said:


> Reincarnation in empirical terms is fundamentally supernatural as there is no empirical evidence that supports its existence...


But there are no supernatural beings, no higher power, or 'god', which has been the point, all along.

Certainly, there are many people who believe a lot of things where there are no empirical evidence. That doesn't necessarily involve supernatural beings like flying gods etc.


----------



## margarok

I was planning to come here and post a snarky little comment about America being under judgement but since you folks are talking about Albert Einstein (do you really think he had a copy of the Secret Doctrine on his bookshelf? I read that some years ago and always wondered if it were true.) All I know about Buddha and reincarnation comes from my cousin who left this country to move to to India ten years ago to the Auroroville community to seek enlightenment or as close as she can get.

In any event... I just wanted to add to my comment in the political thread that the complete loss of rational behavior by my country's leaders and by the citizens who should be organizing some sort of outcry against the madness appears to be almost (I SAID almost, Screature) supernatural in that people I have known for decades can't seem to understand how very dangerous our fiscal situation is...

Good night to all. It has been a rough few days...


----------



## fjnmusic

margarok said:


> I was planning to come here and post a snarky little comment about America being under judgement but since you folks are talking about Albert Einstein (do you really think he had a copy of the Secret Doctrine on his bookshelf? I read that some years ago and always wondered if it were true.) All I know about Buddha and reincarnation comes from my cousin who left this country to move to to India ten years ago to the Auroroville community to seek enlightenment or as close as she can get.
> 
> In any event... I just wanted to add to my comment in the political thread that the complete loss of rational behavior by my country's leaders and by the citizens who should be organizing some sort of outcry against the madness appears to be almost (I SAID almost, Screature) supernatural in that people I have known for decades can't seem to understand how very dangerous our fiscal situation is...
> 
> Good night to all. It has been a rough few days...


You know, it's these same people who had an unwavering faith in their commander in chief that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq which necessitated a pre-emptive strike against the country. Even though that particular trance has been lifted, there are still Americans who believe it.


----------



## Sonal

imnothng said:


> But didn't "the" Buddha "fight" the evil gODs while he meditated under the bodhi tree and that is when he reached enlightenment?


Um, no. Though he did have to fight himself, in a sense, to learn to let go of attachments.



screature said:


> Reincarnation in empirical terms is fundamentally supernatural as there is no empirical evidence that supports its existence...


While both Jainism and Buddhism do hold reincarnation as a major point in their philosophy, you can practice either without necessarily having to accept reincarnation; both are more concerned with how you live and practice these beliefs (in really simplified terms, with whether or not you are a good person) as opposed to whether or not you have faith in these particular elements.

I find there is a fundamental difference in what is religion 'means' in the East vs the West, though I have yet to be able to articulate it well... particularly since it's a difficult thing to generalize. But maybe this approaches the nub of it, that faith is perhaps less important in the East.


----------



## bryanc

fjnmusic said:


> Since you can't believe it's possible for someone to be scientist and a theist


Please don't put words in my mouth; I explicitly said I know these people exist, and that I've talked about this very issue with quite a few of them. I simply said that I didn't really understand how they could rationalize that position philosophically.



> Albert Einstein among them, who were in fact such people.


Although it's not really important, as I've already conceded that many great scientists were/are theists; Einstein was not a theist. He may have been a deist.



Albert Einstein said:


> It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly.
> ...
> I cannot conceive of a God who rewards and punishes his creatures, or has a will of the type of which we are conscious in ourselves. An individual who should survive his physical death is also beyond my comprehension, nor do I wish it otherwise; such notions are for the fears or absurd egoism of feeble souls.





fjnmusic said:


> Substitute the word "Life" for "God" and you have a much more compelling argument for the existence of God. Not the sky-daddy kind, but the life force that inhabits every single living thing kind. Also hard to prove, although we can tell when something is alive and when it is not. I think you take this stuff far too literally, Bryan. You need to get a sense of ha-ha about it.


Don't worry; I'm certainly not getting worked up about this... it's an interesting discussion. But I don't think your substitution of "life" for "God" is a compelling argument. It's just nonsensical; life is a set of chemical mechanisms for harvesting energy to facilitate self-replication, and it's not really hard to tell if something is alive. There's no reason to suggest the existence of a "life force" or that such a force (which, if it existed, would be measurable) "inhabits" anything.


----------



## bryanc

screature said:


> There are great number scientists both historically and in the present day who are also theists, it just seems that they aren't in bryanc's circle of friends... I wonder why.


As I said I do have several friends and colleagues who are theists or deists and simultaneously manage to do good science; I just don't understand how they manage to rationalize these mutually exclusive perspectives on reality.

But, while I won't dispute the existence of some great scientists who are/were theists, I'm not sure I'd agree with "a great number." Especially in modern times, when one no longer needed to fear for one's life if one expressed doubt about the Church's teachings, the proportion of scientists who adhere to any religion has plummeted, and the number who report belief in any deity is almost as small. In 1998 (which is the last time this issue was rigorously examined), less than 6% of biologists professed a belief in a personal god (Edward J. Larson and Larry Witham: "Leading Scientists Still Reject God." Nature, 1998; 394, 313.). So it is hardly surprising that very few of my colleagues are theists.


----------



## groovetube

Sonal said:


> Um, no. Though he did have to fight himself, in a sense, to learn to let go of attachments.
> 
> 
> 
> While both Jainism and Buddhism do hold reincarnation as a major point in their philosophy, you can practice either without necessarily having to accept reincarnation; both are more concerned with how you live and practice these beliefs (in really simplified terms, with whether or not you are a good person) as opposed to whether or not you have faith in these particular elements.
> 
> I find there is a fundamental difference in what is religion 'means' in the East vs the West, though I have yet to be able to articulate it well... particularly since it's a difficult thing to generalize. But maybe this approaches the nub of it, that faith is perhaps less important in the East.


It is interesting as I look more into this (my wife has tried to get me to for years) the more I like buddhism, and can see how so many people have so much misinformation about it, yet insist on things.

Christianity to me, sort of seems almost backwards in priorities. That's a generalization for sure I know, but that's my perspective.


----------



## Macfury

Sonal said:


> Um, no. Though he did have to fight himself, in a sense, to learn to let go of attachments.


What about the Brahma(s)? Vedics see a Brahma as the creator of the universe.


----------



## Sonal

Macfury said:


> What about the Brahma(s)? Vedics see a Brahma as the creator of the universe.


That's a Hindu thing.


----------



## Macfury

Sonal said:


> That's a Hindu thing.


The term is Hindu, but I believe the Vedic notion translated to some degree to Buddhism--though most of the Brahmas get taken down a peg by Buddha.


----------



## Sonal

Macfury said:


> The term is Hindu, but I believe the Vedic notion translated to some degree to Buddhism--though most of the Brahmas get taken down a peg by Buddha.


Yes and no. Gautama Siddhartha grew up in a Hindu/Brahmin household, so the Vedas probably figured heavily into how he understood the world when he went down this path, and likely was a part of how he initially taught Buddhism into the largely Hindu population. 

But it's not something one needs to accept to practice Buddhism. It's there, if your understanding of Buddhism and its practice is made easier through Vedic notions than that's fine, but it's not required. If the Vedas gets in the way, you don't need to hang on to them.

Jainism does something very similar, in the most Jains adopt Hindu stories and rituals as part of their practice--most Jains are from India and are culturally exposed to all of this--but ultimately it's not a core part of the belief. 

Neither Jains nor Buddhists require a rejection of other religious beliefs to practice, nor do they assert their own supremacy over other beliefs. (Nor does Hinduism at its core--they believe that there are many paths to God--but there are fundamentalists who subvert that notion.)


----------



## Macfury

Sonal said:


> Yes and no. Gautama Siddhartha grew up in a Hindu/Brahmin household, so the Vedas probably figured heavily into how he understood the world when he went down this path, and likely was a part of how he initially taught Buddhism into the largely Hindu population.
> 
> But it's not something one needs to accept to practice Buddhism. It's there, if your understanding of Buddhism and its practice is made easier through Vedic notions than that's fine, but it's not required. If the Vedas gets in the way, you don't need to hang on to them.
> 
> Jainism does something very similar, in the most Jains adopt Hindu stories and rituals as part of their practice--most Jains are from India and are culturally exposed to all of this--but ultimately it's not a core part of the belief.
> 
> Neither Jains nor Buddhists require a rejection of other religious beliefs to practice, nor do they assert their own supremacy over other beliefs. (Nor does Hinduism at its core--they believe that there are many paths to God--but there are fundamentalists who subvert that notion.)


So if we cut to the chase--Buddhists can believe in _A_ god belonging to another religion, but are not required to believe in _ANY_ god. 

That said, how does Buddhism qualify as a religion and not a philosophy?

Just pulling two common definitions from the Internet--not pushing these as absolute:



> 1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, *and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies*, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
> 
> 2. *a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons* or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.


While Christianity satisfies both definitions, Buddhism does not satisfy definition number one. If it satisfies definition number two, then it also shares a common space with communists, socialists and capitalists who maintain "a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon."


----------



## bryanc

I think definition 2 is far too vague because, as you correctly point out, it would subsume economic, social and ethical philosophies that are clearly not religions.

To me, the diagnostic feature of a religion is its foundation on beliefs in/about the supernatural. Not all beliefs in the supernatural are religions, but all religions make reference to supernatural processes or entities.



Macfury said:


> So if we cut to the chase--Buddhists can believe in _A_ god belonging to another religion, but are not required to believe in _ANY_ god.


Yes, as far as I understand, it is possible to be an atheist Buddhist.



> That said, how does Buddhism qualify as a religion and not a philosophy?


It's a fine line, and I do have friends that call themselves Buddhists who make no claims about the existence of the supernatural - their idea of Karma is purely mundane; I'm not sure that I'd call their brand of Buddhism a religion.

But if the form of Buddhism you're looking at insists that Karma is a force that functions supernaturally, that entities are reincarnated (even if they're not the same "soul"), and that the 31 various "planes of existence" are not simply part of objective reality, it's a religion.

At any rate, I agree that Buddhism and some other Eastern philosophical/religious traditions are hard to accurately define; that may simply be a reflection of our limited understanding of what they're saying.


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> But if the form of Buddhism you're looking at insists that Karma is a force that functions supernaturally, and that individual selves/souls are reincarnated, it's a religion.


Even if they claim that these reincarnations are merely a natural function of the universe, they would still need to prove, with some degree of evidence, that the reincarnations occur. It would be a matter of faith to say that they occur if they could not be proven.

Of course, the moment I try to define religion as "a belief whose tenets cannot _consistently _be demonstrated through rigorous scientific testing" someone will show me a group of people who worship magnetic flux.


----------



## dona83

Macfury said:


> Of course, the moment I try to define religion as "a belief whose tenets cannot _consistently _be demonstrated through rigorous scientific testing" someone will show me a group of people who worship magnetic flux.


ROFLMAO oh too funny!


----------



## margarok

Macfury said:


> Even if they claim that these reincarnations are merely a natural function of the universe, they would still need to prove, with some degree of evidence, that the reincarnations occur. It would be a matter of faith to say that they occur if they could not be proven.
> 
> Of course, the moment I try to define religion as "a belief whose tenets cannot _consistently _be demonstrated through rigorous scientific testing" someone will show me a group of people who worship magnetic flux.


:clap:


----------



## bryanc

Macfury said:


> Even if they claim that these reincarnations are merely a natural function of the universe, they would still need to prove, with some degree of evidence, that the reincarnations occur.


Depending one what is meant by 'reincarnation', this claim could be described as anything from ordinary (i.e. that atoms get recycled, so when you die, the molecules of which you are composed will be consumed and recycled by fungi and bacteria (or released into the environment as various gasses and ash if you are cremated) and eventually the atoms will be parts of molecules that comprise other organisms) to extraordinary (i.e. that when you die your consciousness continues to exist and will somehow be transferred to a new body, complete with memories and learned behaviours, so you may wake up as a cat). 

For the ordinary claim, we already have ample evidence to accept this, and we could easily provide empirical data using isotopic tracers to demonstrate this is true. For the extraordinary claim, I would want to see some extraordinary evidence, but I can imagine several forms this might take (getting a putatively re-incarnated cat to provide the combination for locks that the person they're supposedly re-incarnated from knew, distinguishing photographs of relatives from other people, etc.). Then, if we had some evidence that learned behaviours were somehow being transmitted from a human to either some non-human or (even more problematically) another human, we could start considering an eliminating natural mechanisms whereby such information could be transmitted, possibly ultimately forcing us to consider supernatural explanations.

But in the absence of any of this sort of evidence, only someone who believes things on faith can accept claims of reincarnation, putting this solidly in the realm of religion.


----------



## screature

bryanc said:


> Depending one what is meant by 'reincarnation', this claim could be described as anything from ordinary (i.e. that atoms get recycled, so when you die, the molecules of which you are composed will be consumed and recycled by fungi and bacteria (or released into the environment as various gasses and ash if you are cremated) and eventually the atoms will be parts of molecules that comprise other organisms) to extraordinary (i.e. that when you die your consciousness continues to exist and will somehow be transferred to a new body, complete with memories and learned behaviours, so you may wake up as a cat).
> 
> *For the ordinary claim, we already have ample evidence to accept this, and we could easily provide empirical data using isotopic tracers to demonstrate this is true. * For the extraordinary claim, I would want to see some extraordinary evidence, but I can imagine several forms this might take (getting a putatively re-incarnated cat to provide the combination for locks that the person they're supposedly re-incarnated from knew, distinguishing photographs of relatives from other people, etc.). Then, if we had some evidence that learned behaviours were somehow being transmitted from a human to either some non-human or (even more problematically) another human, we could start considering an eliminating natural mechanisms whereby such information could be transmitted, possibly ultimately forcing us to consider supernatural explanations.
> 
> But in the absence of any of this sort of evidence, only someone who believes things on faith can accept claims of reincarnation, *putting this solidly in the realm of religion*.


We are all made of stars... 





+
YouTube Video









ERROR: If you can see this, then YouTube is down or you don't have Flash installed.





Not a very good video, but a good song. I like its "Bowiesque" quality.

 Are we really all made of stardust?
physics.org


Putting this solidly in the realm of metaphysics, not necessarily religion at all.

*metaphysics* |ˌmetəˈfiziks|
plural noun [usu. treated as sing. ]
the branch of philosophy that deals with the first principles of things, including abstract concepts such as being, knowing, substance, cause, identity, time, and space.
• abstract theory or talk with no basis in reality : his concept of society as an organic entity is, for market liberals, simply metaphysics.
Metaphysics has two main strands: that which holds that what exists lies beyond experience (as argued by Plato), and that which holds that objects of experience constitute the only reality (as argued by Kant, the logical positivists, and Hume). Metaphysics has also concerned itself with a discussion of whether what exists is made of one substance or many, and whether what exists is inevitable or driven by chance.

*religion* |riˈlijən|
noun
the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, esp. a personal God or gods.
• details of belief as taught or discussed : when the school first opened they taught only religion, Italian, and mathematics.
• a particular system of faith and worship : the world's great religions.
• a pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes supreme importance : consumerism is the new religion.


----------



## Sonal

Macfury said:


> So if we cut to the chase--Buddhists can believe in _A_ god belonging to another religion, but are not required to believe in _ANY_ god.
> 
> That said, how does Buddhism qualify as a religion and not a philosophy?
> 
> Just pulling two common definitions from the Internet--not pushing these as absolute:


Many do see Buddhism as more of a philosophy than a religion. 

However, there is a spiritual component Buddhist beliefs. The distinction is that Buddhism does not _require_ adherents to accept these beliefs in order to practice. (This, I think, is one of those hard to describe differences between the Western concept of religion and the Eastern concept; faith is not seen as a requirement.) 

If you are practicing Buddhism, being non-violent, practicing mindfulness and detachment and loving kindness, etc., but aren't interested in committing to a particular spiritual conception of the world, that's good enough for Buddhists. It's seen as better that you practice these things and be a good person than accept some abstract notion just because.


----------



## margarok

My son got his black belt (and subsequently two degrees) in Tae Kwon Do from a gentle Korean man* who immigrated here in the mid 60s or 70s and established a chain of TaeKwonDo studios in this area since 1980. I got to know his daughters fairly well and both attended a local Baptist church, which I found surprising, since he was building a Buddhist temple behind his home for his brother and his wife to meditate in. Over the years, I grew comfortable enough around him to talk about philosophy and religion and he explained to me that Buddhism requires one to look inward for guidance, learning to assess self completely and to grasp that the meaning of one's existence is important only to self. He told me that once someone understands that, he or she can ascribe to any religion they want to, including none, and still be in agreement with Bhuddist principles.

I told him that I wasn't so sure that I could ascribe to Bhuddist principles and still have my pastor think I am in agreement with Christian principles. He understood and said that is why he doesn't require his students to study Bhuddism. Even though to master Tae Kwon Do, they have to exercise elements of Bhuddist discipline. A very enigmatic man... I respect him greatly. My son tired of the repetitiveness of TKD, and moved on to other teenagery things. But, I think he learned a lot from his Sensai and I hope I did too.


*_(Great Grandmaster Won is US Central Taekwondo Association President and the USAT’s Oklahoma State Taekwondo Association President)_


----------



## Rps

So, not trying to step on a land mine here, I guess the question margarok is can one follow Christian principles and not be a Christian?


----------



## iMouse

*You bet they can.* 

Been doing it all my life, so far (well, after age 12 anyway).

I don't require some money/power-grubbing facility to "direct" me through life, for their own aggrandizement. tptptptp

I have others to do that, and they compensate me better. 

(Notice that I didn't say "pay", as some compensation from others is not measured by that standard.)


----------



## margarok

Not a land mine at all, my friend! I believe one can indeed follow Christian principles and not "be" a born-again dipped in the creek member of the faith. The ten commandments are good principles to live life by, whether you believe God wrote them onto Moses's stone tablets or that Moses just saw a need for some rules to live by for his people. Or whether you think Moses existed at all. 

And Jesus Himself said the two commandments to live by are to love the Lord with all your heart and to love thy neighbor as thyself. My understanding of this is that we need to recognize that we (people) are all equal to one another in that we are not gods to one another, so if we keep that in mind, our love, or respect, for one another is a natural outgrowth of a sense of being in the same boat, so to speak. (no reference to Noah intended). So believing in the "Lord" is not necessary to acknowledge that we are really the same regardless of color, creed, wealth, etc.

And loving they neighbor as thyself should be a no-brainer once we see that "there but for the grace of God (whim of Fate) go I" (Again, simply insert fate or chance if your belief system disallows the word "God.") Once we grasp that each of us faces obstacles to overcome in different ways with differing skills, traits, support systems, etc., then we should be able to at least respect/admire/empathize with our neighbor, even if we disagree with them.

Does this make sense at all?


----------



## iMouse

margarok said:


> Does this make sense at all?


Yep, but I chose to look at the first three as "infomercials", and let them pass.


----------



## margarok

iMouse said:


> Yep, but I chose to look at the first three as "infomercials", and let them pass.


And, again... I have no problem with that as long as you recognize my right to view them however I choose to view them.

:clap:


----------



## jef

margarok said:


> The ten commandments are good principles to live life by....
> 
> Does this make sense at all?


If the 10 commandments were actually taken seriously by Christians and enforced by the church, there would be very few survivors....


----------



## MacGuiver

If Margarok is referring to "principles" as defined by this definition then I'd have to say no.



> a fundamental truth or proposition that serves as the foundation for a system of belief or behavior or for a chain of reasoning:


The fundamental truth that serves as the foundation of Christianity is the Jesus Christ is the son of God and that he died for our salvation. 

If "principles" implied this other definition below then I'd have to say yes. 


> Principles may refer to:
> Value (personal and cultural)
> Principles and parameters


Much of the laws of western culture are based on Judeo-Christian principles.
You shall not murder, love your neighbour as yourself, you shall not commit adultery etc.
So by that definition you can follow Christian principles and not be a Christian.

I'm thinking she's referring to the first definition not the second since you can be a Christian and share a the principles of another religion that don't conflict with your own.


----------



## eMacMan

jef said:


> If the 10 commandments were actually taken seriously by Christians and enforced by the church, there would be very few survivors....


I believe the state of Israel routinely violates at least half a dozen of them.


----------



## groovetube

jef said:


> If the 10 commandments were actually taken seriously by Christians and enforced by the church, there would be very few survivors....


exactly. The hypocrisy of organized religion is astounding.


----------



## MacGuiver

jef said:


> If the 10 commandments were actually taken seriously by Christians and enforced by the church, there would be very few survivors....


Jef, I take it you've never read the ten commandments or you'd be aware of the logical disconnect in that statement.


----------



## jef

MacGuiver said:


> Jef, I take it you've never read the ten commandments or you'd be aware of the logical disconnect in that statement.


I just reread them before I posted...


----------



## iMouse

margarok said:


> And, again... I have no problem with that as long as you recognize my right to view them however I choose to view them.
> 
> :clap:


Yep, as long as you recognize mine.

Otherwise, "and then the fight started ......" :heybaby:


----------



## margarok

MacGuiver said:


> If Margarok is referring to "principles" as defined by this definition then I'd have to say no.
> 
> 
> 
> The fundamental truth that serves as the foundation of Christianity is the Jesus Christ is the son of God and that he died for our salvation.
> 
> If "principles" implied this other definition below then I'd have to say yes.
> 
> 
> Much of the laws of western culture are based on Judeo-Christian principles.
> You shall not murder, love your neighbour as yourself, you shall not commit adultery etc.
> So by that definition you can follow Christian principles and not be a Christian.
> 
> I'm thinking she's referring to the first definition not the second since you can be a Christian and share a the principles of another religion that don't conflict with your own.


I really don't like being boxed in to a pre-established definition of anything, but given the choice of those two, I will say I most agree with the second definition.

I thought I made it very clear by my statements that you didn't even have to believe there was a Moses to live your life in compliance with the ten (or seven, as iMouse agrees to) commandments. I _suspect_ (I almost said "think" but that makes me just as guilty, doesn't it?) that people have boxed us "Christians" into categories based upon their own experience with the different "types."

Those types, or categories, may be formed along these lines:

1. The hypocrite: That person who declares at Sunday morning go to meeting how much they love God and then goes home and beats the wife, dog and belittles the neighbors for not going to church as thehappy family gathers around the BBQ grill Sunday to have a loving family picnic on the Sabbath. _Hey! You jerks aren't keeping the day holy! _ And then slaps his wife when she asks him to not say that out loud.

2. The righteous beyond tolerance: That person who truly appears to live his/her life by the tenets of the faith, but seems to have a tendency to look down on everyone else no matter what their belief. This is the person who constantly says "As for me and my house, we serve the Lord" when they hear discussion of ordinary day to day problems. The first time I heard a co-worker say that when the rest of us were talking about someone (okay, ME) getting a speeding ticket and trying to figure out how to get out of the fine, I asked "What does that have to do with it?" To which he replied, "If you follow God's law, you follow man's law. Therefore, you will not get speeding tickets." Righteous prick.

3. The proselytizer. That person who feels that they have to convert everyone they meet to their belief system. They take every opportunity to accuse those around them of being sinful, which is why they are going to go pray for them.

4. The tight-lipped prude. This person doesn't outwardly make judgements about behavior, nor do they declare their belief system to be superior. They simply purse their lips when actions do not agree with their Christian tenets. Sometimes, they close their eyes and move their lips in a silent prayer for those around them. But they make sure they are in plain sight when they do that, so everyone knows. They must have missed that line about praying in the closet and not in public.

I have found that the "best" people are quite often those who can't be easily described. I aspire to be one of those people, though I miss the mark at every turn. Please, feel free to add to my list. This could get entertaining and be quite enlightening for me. I would love to see what sort of "traits" folks have noticed about their religiously intolerant acquaintances and/or friends.


----------



## margarok

iMouse said:


> Yep, as long as you recognize mine.
> 
> Otherwise, "and then the fight started ......" :heybaby:


There are always those "lastworders" that can't just let a thought be spoken without adding their own qualifier. Are you a lastworder? I am. This could go on and on and on and on...


----------



## jef

MacGuiver said:


> Jef, I take it you've never read the ten commandments or you'd be aware of the logical disconnect in that statement.


I am well aware of the logical disconnect regarding the commandments. The original punishment was death (which in its own right could be considered a breach but I guess god doesn't follow his/her/it's own commandments) but since the adultery thing (which is not against the law in most christian countries I have visited or lived in) might be responsible for 60 to 70% of the population in Canada, killing all adulterers may not be so popular.

The church has backed off on the death thing and postponed some of the punishments until judgement day when you might be forgiven etc so it doesn't even take its own commandments seriously. 

The coveting thing is lower on the list (so possibly not in the punishable by death category) but the coveting thing is probably breached by close to 100% of the sound mind and bodied population daily...:heybaby:

I'm so glad we don't base our laws on Christian principles.


----------



## Macfury

jef said:


> I am well aware of the logical disconnect regarding the commandments. The original punishment was death (which in its own right could be considered a breach but I guess god doesn't follow his/her/it's own commandments...


The original is much clearer. Thou shalt not _murder_. This refers to one human deliberately killing another for personal reasons.



jef said:


> ..but since the adultery thing (which is not against the law in most christian countries I have visited or lived in) might be responsible for 60 to 70% of the population in Canada,


So it was the action of Christians in those countries to take adultery off the books?


----------



## jef

Macfury said:


> The original is much clearer. Thou shalt not _murder_. This refers to one human deliberately killing another for personal reasons.
> 
> So it was the action of Christians in those countries to take adultery off the books?


There are many interpretations of the kill vs murder translation; choosing one that suits the occasion seems to be the easiest way to avoid the hypocrisy. 

I think it would be the politicians in most countries who make the laws.

I haven't even gone into the most grievous commandments because, OMG!, no one really takes using the lord's name in vain seriously...


----------



## Macfury

jef said:


> I haven't even gone into the most grievous commandments because, OMG!, no one really takes using the lord's name in vain seriously...


No set of rules has all adherents to those rules keeping them 100% of the time. In that sense, we are all hypocrites because we fail to live up to even the rules set by our courts and governments. I don't think that necessarily makes the set of rules ridiculous--it merely points out that people frequently choose to break all rules.


----------



## jef

Macfury said:


> I do. It's simply a choice of whether you do or don't.


So you believe that anyone who has uttered an 'Oh my god!' or 'ferchrissakes' or 'goddamnit' has committed a mortal sin and is doomed to an eternity in hell?

Wow


----------



## jef

Macfury said:


> No set of rules has all adherents to those rules keeping them 100% of the time. In that sense, we are all hypocrites because we fail to live up to even the rules set by our courts and governments. I don't think that necessarily makes the set of rules ridiculous--it merely points out that people frequently choose to break all rules.


So you don't really take the rules/commandments etc seriously (depending on the occasion and how they suit you at the time....)


----------



## Macfury

jef said:


> So you believe that anyone who has uttered an 'Oh my god!' or 'ferchrissakes' or 'goddamnit' has committed a mortal sin and is doomed to an eternity in hell?
> 
> Wow


Is this what the Bible says will happen?



jef said:


> So you don't really take the rules/commandments etc seriously (depending on the occasion and how they suit you at the time....)


No, I take them seriously. However, we are all imperfect before the law.


----------



## jef

Macfury said:


> Is this what the Bible says will happen?


Yes. Blasphemy is a grave sin. (James 2:7) Grave sins are serious stuff (Galatians 5:19-20), (1 Corinthians 6:9-10).



Macfury said:


> No, I take them seriously. However, we are all imperfect before the law.


That position is not a valid defense in court.


----------



## Macfury

jef said:


> Yes. Blasphemy is a grave sin. (James 2:7) Grave sins are serious stuff (Galatians 5:19-20), (1 Corinthians 6:9-10).


Well there it is! If you don't believe it, you have nothing to worry about right?

Christians ask for such sins to be forgiven.



jef said:


> That position is not a valid defense in court.


I know it isn't. Punishment will likely follow when we break the law.


----------



## screature

Macfury said:


> No set of rules has all adherents to those rules keeping them 100% of the time. In that sense, we are all hypocrites because we fail to live up to even the rules set by our courts and governments. I don't think that necessarily makes the set of rules ridiculous--it merely points out that people frequently choose to break all rules.


The Lords prayer covers this:

...Forgive us our sins,
as we forgive those who sin against us...

Some interpretations say debt and debtor or trespasses and those who trespass against us (that is the version I grew up with) as opposed to sins and those who sin against us.

Thus Christianity has built into it a notion of forgiveness i.e. fallibility/humanity and the associated absolution and tolerance (at least in principle).

At any rate the 10 commandments came from Moses (the old testament) thus a Jew and not a Christian. It is simply an ancient set of rules that continue to be applied to this day by some.


----------



## fjnmusic

As far as the Sabbath goes, we've blown that one pretty much completely. The Sabbath, according to Jewish tradition, is Saturday, not Sunday. That's why it's the last day of the week on most calendars, mirroring the six days of creation followed by rest on the seventh. Christians changed it to Sunday via one of the popes at some point for convenience, but the point remains, with all the weekend shopping and other work we do, SOMEBODY's working on the Sabbath. So either we accept that maybe that's not a really important commandment or we're pretty much all sinners.


----------



## jef

Macfury said:


> Well there it is! If you don't believe it, you have nothing to worry about right?
> 
> Christians ask for such sins to be forgiven.
> 
> 
> 
> I know it isn't. Punishment will likely follow when we break the law.


Well that's just great! Instead of eternal hell, you can get away with everything by just saying 'sorry'. This explains a lot! 

It's no wonder the commandments aren't taken seriously!

It's a nice day today. Excuse me while I go out and do some coveting. Sincere apologies to follow....


----------



## Dr.G.

fjnmusic said:


> As far as the Sabbath goes, we've blown that one pretty much completely. The Sabbath, according to Jewish tradition, is Saturday, not Sunday. That's why it's the last day of the week on most calendars, mirroring the six days of creation followed by rest on the seventh. Christians changed it to Sunday via one of the popes at some point for convenience, but the point remains, with all the weekend shopping and other work we do, SOMEBODY's working on the Sabbath. So either we accept that maybe that's not a really important commandment or we're pretty much all sinners.


The Jewish Sabbath is from sundown on Friday night to sundown on Saturday night.

:... but the point remains, with all the weekend shopping and other work we do, SOMEBODY's working on the Sabbath. So either we accept that maybe that's not a really important commandment or we're pretty much all sinners." All too true. "I'll see you in hell....".
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dpDkYZWeeVg]Clint Eastwood - Unforgiven - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## jef

fjnmusic said:


> As far as the Sabbath goes, we've blown that one pretty much completely. The Sabbath, according to Jewish tradition, is Saturday, not Sunday. That's why it's the last day of the week on most calendars, mirroring the six days of creation followed by rest on the seventh. Christians changed it to Sunday via one of the popes at some point for convenience, but the point remains, with all the weekend shopping and other work we do, SOMEBODY's working on the Sabbath. So either we accept that maybe that's not a really important commandment or we're pretty much all sinners.


So do you have to ask forgiveness every Sunday you shop or work or is one big 'sorry' for all Sundays good enough at the end? If the risk is eternal hell and torment, these are pretty serious apologies!


----------



## margarok

Macfury said:


> Is this what the Bible says will happen?
> 
> 
> 
> No, I take them seriously. However, we are all imperfect before the law.


We all fall short, don't we? That's how I see it. We just try to do the best we can. And when we fall? We try again.

And we don't point fingers at others for falling short, either.

Psalm 141:3 helps me too.


----------



## iMouse

margarok said:


> There are always those "lastworders" that can't just let a thought be spoken without adding their own qualifier. Are you a lastworder? I am. This could go on and on and on and on...


Not that I am aware of, but thanks for the heads-up.

I'll be particularly careful from now on.

Over to you.



Dr.G. said:


> All too true. "I'll see you in hell....".


Great movie and morality play.



> I've killed women and children. I've killed just about everything that walks or crawled at one time or another.
> 
> And I'm here to kill you, Little Bill, for what you did to Ned.


----------



## jef

margarok said:


> We all fall short, don't we? That's how I see it. We just try to do the best we can. And when we fall? We try again.
> 
> And we don't point fingers at others for falling short, either.
> 
> Psalm 141:3 helps me too.


There seems to be a lot of finger pointing going on right here on ehmac- don't forget to make the appropriate apologies - eternal is a long time. beejacon


----------



## Rps

I know I'm late again here, but all religions have some form of rule. Basically they were used to guide the following populace in and out of harmful situations. Christian's hold the 10 commandments, but in truth there are many "additional" rules that have been bestowed upon the followers over time, as a guide. These are the interpretations of the canon .... virtually all religions have these additional rules, informed by the canon of the day. 

Dr. G, please correct me if I'm wrong, but do not the Jewish people have 600 or so rules........

My own personal belief is that religion acts as a form of police force for the populace.... providing moral compass and informing judicial boundaries. That said, I have always had a great deal of respect for those who are "believers"....in this day and age it takes a great deal of discipline to maintain ones beliefs, and to practice and enjoy one's faith. It's a respect we all should follow, even if your belief is no belief at all.


----------



## Rps

Sorry to drag Freire into this discussion but he does seem to have a resonance on many topics. Freire was a religious man and a Marxist, but he knew people and he knew how they were controlled and oppressed ...Gramsci no doubt agreed with much of Freire's positions. One of Freire's key works was "Pedagogy of the Oppressed" ... here he talks about enlightening ... many a religious person would view their beliefs and faith as an enlightenment. But many here would state that such a practice is also a form of oppression .... history has shown that religions are not immune from this practices as well. I have included an annotation, if you seek out to read the work, just replace dominant class and oppressors with religion and religious leaders and it work fits well with many of the posters views in this thread. But I also draw your attention to Freire's concept of praxis: action through critical reflection ... many a devout would say that they, too, practice what they, Freire, and others preach:


Freire, P. (2000). Pedagogy of the Oppressed 30th Anniversary Edition. New York: Continuum 

Pedagogy of the Oppressed is, undoubtedly, the best know work of the Brazilian educator Paulo Freire. It is a work which can be interpreted on many levels, and in this regard would not look out of place along side Machiavelli’s The Prince, in that both were written as socio-political manuals. Machiavelli’s to maintain political control, and Freire’s to drive socio-political change.

Often deemed a pedagogy for revolution more than a revolutionary pedagogy, much of the work describes Freire’s vision on how to effect social change using critical consciousness [ conscientiazacao in his terms] to assist the oppressed to achieve cultural liberation. In other words, helping them see their reality and using praxis [ reflection and action together ] to transform that reality into a reality that is more just and one which will allow them to achieve their potential. In Freirean terms this process seeks “humanization”. 

Freire appears to have been heavily influenced by Catholicism and, oddly, Marxist teachings. Much of the work discusses class struggle and how the dominate class oppresses the dominated class by using varying methods which includes, most notably, what he calls the “Banking Concept of Education”: teachers simply deposit facts into student’s heads for withdrawal at a later date. A concept discussed by Lindeman and also by Malcolm Knowles in much earlier writings. This leads us to one of the major criticisms of Freire: that of limited references to educational literature. Freire seems to be either unaware of, or simply refuses to acknowledge, the work of others, which remarkably resembles his train of thought. 

Another criticism of Freire is the opinion that his writings have limited applicability out side of the Third World ( Griffith, 1972, Taylor, 1993 ). However, revolutions take many forms and are not limited only to over-throwing governments. One need only to try to install major computer systems in a large organization, or develop contemporary educational curricula to see the politics involved. 

While I consider his approach utopian [ and Freire is the first to state that it was not his intent to develop a universal method ], Freire is also unabashed in his purpose. His work was intended as a guide for socio-political change, under the guise of pedagogy, to help those who are submerged within the reality of their oppression; a blueprint for Cultural Revolution, so to speak, and while many may not consider it “the” blueprint, it probably is as good a blueprint as any.


----------



## margarok

iMouse said:


> Not that I am aware of, but thanks for the heads-up.
> 
> I'll be particularly careful from now on.
> 
> Over to you.
> 
> 
> 
> Great movie and morality play.


----------



## margarok

jef said:


> There seems to be a lot of finger pointing going on right here on ehmac- don't forget to make the appropriate apologies - eternal is a long time. beejacon


I wasn't trying to point my fingers at anyone, but I learned a long time ago that if it seems that someone feels wronged by my actions, it doesn't hurt to step right up and apologize. And sometimes, it helps.

So, if you think I was pointing my fingers, I apologize.


----------



## Dr.G.

Rps said:


> I know I'm late again here, but all religions have some form of rule. Basically they were used to guide the following populace in and out of harmful situations. Christian's hold the 10 commandments, but in truth there are many "additional" rules that have been bestowed upon the followers over time, as a guide. These are the interpretations of the canon .... virtually all religions have these additional rules, informed by the canon of the day.
> 
> Dr. G, please correct me if I'm wrong, but do not the Jewish people have 600 or so rules........
> 
> My own personal belief is that religion acts as a form of police force for the populace.... providing moral compass and informing judicial boundaries. That said, I have always had a great deal of respect for those who are "believers"....in this day and age it takes a great deal of discipline to maintain ones beliefs, and to practice and enjoy one's faith. It's a respect we all should follow, even if your belief is no belief at all.


Rp, there are 613 commandments or mitzvots listed in the Torah.

These principles of Jewish Biblical law are referred to collectively as the "Law of Moses". Even for the very devoute, they are very difficult to undertake each day. I prefer the notion of "mitzvah", which is a good deed. So, if I shovel out someone's driveway, that is a mitzvah. However, I don't do it because I am Jewish and God commands me to do this good deed, I do it because I am a neighbor of an elderly couple and their driveway needed clearing. If this gets me a better parking place in heaven, so be it. For me, I don't truly follow any one organized religion. I guess you could say I am a Jewish agnostic deist ......... sort of a "a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma". 

Shalom, mon ami.


----------



## Rps

Dr. G, this could give one a headache .... That's why the Lord said to Moses," take two tablets and see me in the morning".


----------



## Dr.G.

Rps said:


> Dr. G, this could give one a head. Ache .... That's why the Lord said to Moses," take two tablets and see me in the morning".


Blastphemy!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Where are the Levites and the Book of Leviticus when we need them -- "And he that blasphemeth the name of the LORD, he shall surely be put to death; all the congregation shall certainly stone him; as well the stranger, as the home-born, when he blasphemeth the Name, shall be put to death. "


----------



## fjnmusic

Dr.G. said:


> Rp, there are 613 commandments or mitzvots listed in the Torah.
> 
> These principles of Jewish Biblical law are referred to collectively as the "Law of Moses". Even for the very devoute, they are very difficult to undertake each day. I prefer the notion of "mitzvah", which is a good deed. So, if I shovel out someone's driveway, that is a mitzvah. However, I don't do it because I am Jewish and God commands me to do this good deed, I do it because I am a neighbor of an elderly couple and their driveway needed clearing. If this gets me a better parking place in heaven, so be it. For me, I don't truly follow any one organized religion. I guess you could say I am a Jewish agnostic deist ......... sort of a "a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma".
> 
> Shalom, mon ami.


Shalom indeed, Rabbi G.  Is there actually a concept of heaven and hell (eternal reward or punishment) in Jewish thought? I was raised Roman Catholic but like to explore what other religions have to say. Ever since an episode of Picket Fences in the early 90's when Zach wanted to convert to Judaism, I've been under the impression that heaven/hell was a moot point in Judaism, and that one does good things because it is simply good to do good things, like the walk-shoveling example you give.


----------



## Dr.G.

fjnmusic said:


> Shalom indeed, Rabbi G.  Is there actually a concept of heaven and hell (eternal reward or punishment) in Jewish thought? I was raised Roman Catholic but like to explore what other religions have to say. Ever since an episode of Picket Fences in the early 90's when Zach wanted to convert to Judaism, I've been under the impression that heaven/hell was a moot point in Judaism, and that one does good things because it is simply good to do good things, like the walk-shoveling example you give.


There is not a place, as such, that is considered "heaven" in the Jewish faith. It is considered "end of days" and "the world-to-come". Judaism, unlike other world-religions, is not focused upon the quest of getting into heaven but on life and how to live it to the fullest to help other people. The one ideal of the Jewish faith that I am able to believe in, even if I can't prove that there is a God, is that God's work here on Earth is our work. Thus, the concept of "love thy neighbor" comes into play as well as "do unto others ...." I try to do these sorts of things because of who I am, not because I am Jewish.

While I am a teacher, I am not a teacher of the Torah, so the term "Rabbi" would not fit in this instance. However, the Yiddish term "reb", meaning a "teacher", could be appropriate in this discussion.

Paix, mon ami.


----------



## iMouse

fjnmusic said:


> .... and that one does good things because it is simply good to do good things, like the walk-shoveling example you give.


:clap:

If a god does exist, I doubt it will be showing much interest in anyone's particular "button".


----------



## fjnmusic

Dr.G. said:


> There is not a place, as such, that is considered "heaven" in the Jewish faith. It is considered "end of days" and "the world-to-come". Judaism, unlike other world-religions, is not focused upon the quest of getting into heaven but on life and how to live it to the fullest to help other people. The one ideal of the Jewish faith that I am able to believe in, even if I can't prove that there is a God, is that God's work here on Earth is our work. Thus, the concept of "love thy neighbor" comes into play as well as "do unto others ...." I try to do these sorts of things because of who I am, not because I am Jewish.
> 
> While I am a teacher, I am not a teacher of the Torah, so the term "Rabbi" would not fit in this instance. However, the Yiddish term "reb", meaning a "teacher", could be appropriate in this discussion.
> 
> Paix, mon ami.


Cool. like reb Tevye. I think I might actually be Jewish on the inside, reb G.


----------



## fjnmusic

iMouse said:


> :clap:
> 
> If a god does exist, I doubt it will be showing much interest in anyone's particular "button".


Never really noticed before, but man in this depiction really has a tiny…uh…appendage, while TFSM, man those are big meatballs. I guess it helps to put things in perspective, huh?


----------



## Macfury

jef said:


> Well that's just great! Instead of eternal hell, you can get away with everything by just saying 'sorry'. This explains a lot!
> 
> It's no wonder the commandments aren't taken seriously!
> 
> It's a nice day today. Excuse me while I go out and do some coveting. Sincere apologies to follow....


If you don't believe in God, don't worry about it. Que sera sera.


----------



## iMouse

fjnmusic said:


> Never really noticed before, but man in this depiction really has a tiny…uh…appendage, while TFSM, man those are big meatballs. I guess it helps to put things in perspective, huh?


I believe that Michelangelo was vexed with a problem he was unable to solve.

But perhaps he was a 'grower' too? Certainly Adam was. One never knows.


----------



## fjnmusic

iMouse said:


> I believe that Michelangelo was vexed with a problem he was unable to solve.
> 
> But perhaps he was a 'grower' too? Certainly Adam was. One never knows.


Perhaps Adam had just returned from a cold swim. As the prophet George Costanza once explained, "I'm concerned that you're thinking something might not be all that it could be when, in fact, it's al it that it should be—_and more_!!"


----------



## Dr.G.

fjnmusic said:


> Cool. like reb Tevye. I think I might actually be Jewish on the inside, reb G.


Well, in his case it is meant as Mr., as a sign of respect. Jewish on the inside or the outside, as long as you are a good person to all things living, you are a good person. 

As the old saying goes, "You don't have to be Jewish to be a mensch".

Shalom, mon ami.


----------



## margarok

Rps said:


> I know I'm late again here, but all religions have some form of rule. Basically they were used to guide the following populace in and out of harmful situations. Christian's hold the 10 commandments, but in truth there are many "additional" rules that have been bestowed upon the followers over time, as a guide. These are the interpretations of the canon .... virtually all religions have these additional rules, informed by the canon of the day.
> 
> Dr. G, please correct me if I'm wrong, but do not the Jewish people have 600 or so rules........
> 
> My own personal belief is that religion acts as a form of police force for the populace.... providing moral compass and informing judicial boundaries. That said, I have always had a great deal of respect for those who are "believers"....in this day and age it takes a great deal of discipline to maintain ones beliefs, and to practice and enjoy one's faith. It's a respect we all should follow, even if your belief is no belief at all.


I suspect a great many of those rules were put in place for reasons other than service to God or their fellow man. I'm glad you joined the discussion...


----------



## margarok

_Freire was a religious man and a Marxist, but he knew people and he knew how they were controlled and oppressed ...Gramsci no doubt agreed with much of Freire's positions. One of Freire's key works was "Pedagogy of the Oppressed" ... here he talks about enlightening ... many a religious person would view their beliefs and faith as an enlightenment. But many here would state that such a practice is also a form of oppression .... history has shown that religions are not immune from this practices as well. I have included an annotation, if you seek out to read the work, just replace dominant class and oppressors with religion and religious leaders and it work fits well with many of the posters views in this thread. But I also draw your attention to Freire's concept of praxis: action through critical reflection ... many a devout would say that they, too, practice what they, Freire, and others preach:


Freire, P. (2000). Pedagogy of the Oppressed 30th Anniversary Edition. New York: Continuum 
_

A quick search online led me to a pdf of this work this morning and I've downloaded it to peruse a bit. I'm always interested in seeing what others I respect find interesting and informative. Thanks for the citation.


----------



## margarok

margarok said:


> _
> Freire, P. (2000). Pedagogy of the Oppressed 30th Anniversary Edition. New York: Continuum _
> A quick search online led me to a pdf of this work this morning and I've downloaded it to peruse a bit. I'm always interested in seeing what others I respect find interesting and informative. Thanks for the citation.


And now... a half hour later, having read the introduction, I have ordered a copy for myself and for my 90 year-old father to read. I believe my father and I were just discussing this very thing on the phone yesterday. Dad will enjoy reading this. He's a very intelligent man, though physically restricted by his WWII POW related disabilities. He loves to read "new" material that presents things in a way he may not have looked at them before. I think you've given him a real gift (through me).

After I read it, I will be able to better respond to your thoughts. Give me a week...

I will say this: I have only read the introduction, but I can see that Freire's views on exactly how the meanings of words impact both understanding and reality. I found the comment about the futility of trying to convince hungry children that their lack of food was a "social construct" particularly intriguing. (This is badly paraphrased but I don't want to go back and actually build a citation here - just demonstrating my genuine interest). 

As to the topic under discussion here, the 10 (or 600+) commandments or rules to live by, there are some really good points that have been made and I certainly am neither willing nor capable to rebut the evidence that many of the commandments were written for the purpose of controlling or extorting behavior from the masses by religious/political leaders. But, I will stand on my original claim that trying to live one's life in accordance with the values/principles/tenets that are the foundation upon which the commandments were written is not a bad way to live and that I feel that way shouldn't infringe on anyone else's belief system. (By tenet, I am not referring to the belief Jesus was/is the son of God - just that stealing, telling fibs, murder, etc., are undesirable behaviors in civil society. So, maybe, iMouse, I am indeed down to 7.)


----------



## Rps

Margarok, " But, I will stand on my original claim that trying to live one's life in accordance with the values/principles/tenets that are the foundation upon which the commandments were written is not a bad way to live and that I feel that way shouldn't infringe on anyone else's belief system".... if everyone thought this way the world would certainly be a better place indeed.


----------



## fjnmusic

Another you may wish to read is John Shelby Spong, a retired Episcopalian bishop who reveals some very eye-opening truths in his books. "Why Christianity Must Change or Die" is one I read a fee years ago that made a bug impact. The commandment about thou shall not kill, for example, referred to anyone of the twelve tribes of Israel. Anyone else from outside the twelve tribes was fair game. In fact, there are times in the OT where God commands his people to smite every man, woman and child of a particular culture. The Ten Commandments are absolutely not cut and tried good rules for living if you know a little about their origin. At a superficial level, however, they may seem like good idea.

For another perspective, here's The Top 10 List from Mr. Deity. Mr Deity, his assistant Larry, and his son Jesse are having some difficulty deciding what to include and not include in their list:

http://youtu.be/s-25iBw2EX8


----------



## screature

fjnmusic said:


> Another you may wish to read is John Shelby Spong, a retired Episcopalian bishop who reveals some very eye-opening truths in his books. "Why Christianity Must Change or Die" is one I read a fee years ago that *made a bug impact*. The commandment about thou shall not kill, for example, referred to anyone of the twelve tribes of Israel. Anyone else from outside the twelve tribes was fair game. In fact, there are times in the OT where God commands his people to smite every man, woman and child of a particular culture. The Ten Commandments are absolutely not cut and tried good rules for living if you know a little about their origin. At a superficial level, however, they may seem like good idea.
> 
> For another perspective, here's The Top 10 List from Mr. Deity. Mr Deity, his assistant Larry, and his son Jesse are having some difficulty deciding what to include and not include in their list:
> 
> mr. Deity Episode 8: Mr. Deity and the Top Ten - YouTube


Bugs can read!!  :yikes: 

Take to the hills... we are all doomed!


----------



## screature

iMouse said:


> :clap:
> 
> If a god does exist, I doubt it will be showing much interest in anyone's particular "button".


Wow! God has some pretty big balls. Thank goodness, being God and the creator of all things, he sure needs them.

P.S. Just catching up so I didn't notice that his attributes had already been discussed


----------



## fjnmusic

screature said:


> Bugs can read!!  :yikes:
> 
> Take to the hills... we are all doomed!


Yup. Always cherry-picking the post for hidden messages and missing the big picture.


----------



## screature

fjnmusic said:


> Yup. Always cherry-picking the post for hidden messages and missing the big picture.


I thought it was a pretty good joke and that you would appreciate it... no offence intended...

The reference was to the comic strip B.C.... "Clams got legs!"










Being that you post humorous posts quite frequently I thought you would get it... never mind. 

Geesh...


----------



## Macfury

fjnmusic said:


> Another you may wish to read is John Shelby Spong, a retired Episcopalian bishop who reveals some very eye-opening truths in his books. "Why Christianity Must Change or Die" is one I read a fee years ago that made a bug impact. The commandment about thou shall not kill, for example, referred to anyone of the twelve tribes of Israel. Anyone else from outside the twelve tribes was fair game. In fact, there are times in the OT where God commands his people to smite every man, woman and child of a particular culture. The Ten Commandments are absolutely not cut and tried good rules for living if you know a little about their origin. At a superficial level, however, they may seem like good idea.


Why would such an analysis mean much to Christians, since Jesus Christ taught that the Ten Commandments apply to everyone.

Spong was also not able to square this stuff with Deuteronomy 23:7:



> “You shall not abhor an Edomite, for he is your brother. You shall not abhor an Egyptian, because you were a sojourner in his land."


----------



## iMouse

screature said:


> Bugs can read!!  :yikes:





fjnmusic said:


> Yup.
> 
> Always cherry-picking the post for hidden messages and missing the big picture.





screature said:


> Being that you post humorous posts quite frequently I thought you would get it... never mind. Geesh...


I got it.

You read a book, then squished a bug with it.

It's very obvious.

Look. 



> "Why Christianity Must Change or Die" is one I read a fee years ago that made a bug impact.


----------



## Macfury

iMouse said:


> I got it.
> 
> You read a book, then squished a bug with it.
> 
> It's very obvious.


He also read it for a fee... very suspicious.


----------



## jef

Rps said:


> Margarok, " But, I will stand on my original claim that trying to live one's life in accordance with the values/principles/tenets that are the foundation upon which the commandments were written is not a bad way to live and that I feel that way shouldn't infringe on anyone else's belief system".... if everyone thought this way the world would certainly be a better place indeed.



The biblical 10 commandments are outdated and, well, silly, since no one can possibly live by them in today's world. 

Richard Dawkins published these alternatives in his book 'the God Delusion' which make much more sense as they are practical:

1) Do not do to others what you would not want them to do to you.
2) In all things, strive to cause no harm.
3) Treat your fellow human beings, your fellow living things, and the world in general with love, honesty, faithfulness and respect.
4) Do not overlook evil or shrink from administering justice, but always be ready to forgive wrongdoing freely admitted and honestly regretted.
5) Live life with a sense of joy and wonder.
6) Always seek to be learning something new.
7) Test all things; always check your ideas against the facts, and be ready to discard even a cherished belief if it does not conform to them.
8) Never seek to censor or cut yourself off from dissent; always respect the right of others to disagree with you.
9) Form independent opinions on the basis of your own reason and experience; do not allow yourself to be led blindly by others.
10) Question everything.


----------



## fjnmusic

screature said:


> I thought it was a pretty good joke and that you would appreciate it... no offence intended...
> 
> The reference was to the comic strip B.C.... "Clams got legs!"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Being that you post humorous posts quite frequently I thought you would get it... never mind.
> 
> Geesh...


No no I get it, thanks for the attempt, screature. I type faster than I can proofread. I was really just hoping you'd read the rest of the words and consider them also. I'll find a good clip of Spong talking about hell.


----------



## fjnmusic

I just really like and respect this guy. If all preachers were as engaging, I bet more people would go to church.





+
YouTube Video









ERROR: If you can see this, then YouTube is down or you don't have Flash installed.


----------



## screature

fjnmusic said:


> No no I get it, thanks for the attempt, screature. I type faster than I can proofread.* I was really just hoping you'd read the rest of the words and consider them also. *I'll find a good clip of Spong talking about hell.


I will fjnmusic... 

My time here is limited lately and so sometimes the first thing that "catches my eye" gets a post from me. 

Undoubtedly, not the best approach to other posters, but I think we all suffer from a lack of time from time to time and subsequently our posts may not be as fulsome as they otherwise might be...

"And thus we dance."... another comic strip reference...


----------



## Dr.G.

screature said:


> Bugs can read!!  :yikes:
> 
> Take to the hills... we are all doomed!


Bugs can read??? What about a thinking sponge???

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ECITwTYSIsg]Inherit the wind: what is holy? - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Macfury

jef said:


> The biblical 10 commandments are outdated and, well, silly, since no one can possibly live by them in today's world.


If you fail to live by a set of rules, just abandon them!! Sweet. 

In Toronto, drivers consistently receive parking and speeding tickets, even though they know better. These rules need to go, particularly for the sake of weaker citizens. Outmoded!

It appears that in India some men are not able to prevent themselves from raping women, no matter how hard they try! Away with those outdated rules.

Have rules failed to stamp out pedophilia? The problem may not be the behaviour by that thinking--it's the rules that need to change to normalize the behaviour.


----------



## Macfury

fjnmusic said:


> I just really like and respect this guy. If all preachers were as engaging, I bet more people would go to church


If he's wrong, he would have boosted attendance, both in his church and in hell!


----------



## MacGuiver

fjnmusic said:


> I just really like and respect this guy. If all preachers were as engaging, I bet more people would go to church.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> +
> YouTube Video
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ERROR: If you can see this, then YouTube is down or you don't have Flash installed.


2 Timothy 4:3

_For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear._

This is ear tickling at its finest. Practically every thing that came from his mouth is in direct contradiction to scripture.

Why would this preacher draw people to church when his basic message is you don't need church or rules and whatever you do in life, Heaven awaits you in the end. Why would I want to invest an hour each Sunday with this guy when I could be swinging a 7 iron instead and I'll still get to spend eternity in paradise with Hitler and Stalin?


----------



## margarok

fjnmusic said:


> Another you may wish to read is John Shelby Spong, a retired Episcopalian bishop who reveals some very eye-opening truths in his books. "Why Christianity Must Change or Die" is one I read a fee years ago that made a bug impact. The commandment about thou shall not kill, for example, referred to anyone of the twelve tribes of Israel. Anyone else from outside the twelve tribes was fair game. In fact, there are times in the OT where God commands his people to smite every man, woman and child of a particular culture. The Ten Commandments are absolutely not cut and tried good rules for living if you know a little about their origin. At a superficial level, however, they may seem like good idea.
> 
> For another perspective, here's The Top 10 List from Mr. Deity. Mr Deity, his assistant Larry, and his son Jesse are having some difficulty deciding what to include and not include in their list:
> 
> mr. Deity Episode 8: Mr. Deity and the Top Ten - YouTube


Thanks... I certainly will take a look at the list. 

And, yes... there are some "episodes" in the Bible that do not seem to make a lot of sense on any level. And when confronted, even the most passionate Bible literalist can NOT come up with a good reason they are there. (Trust me... I asked a pastor who has doctorates in both Theology and World History one time about a passage in II Kings that has two bears killing 42 children for making fun of Elisha's baldness. He stammered a bit and tried to pass it off as punishing the children for being disrespectful to an adult. REALLY????) I believe the Bible (_and for me, that would include the Catholic canon as well as the books included in the Greek Orthodox Bible_) includes a vast number of Truths in a enigmatic collection of "books": there are stories that illustrate Truths, there are myths and legends that recount events of historical value, there are examples of hyperbole and there are flat-out fictional accounts that can't be reconciled to other accounts in either the Bible or other historical documents. And yes, I've heard the argument that I can't consider myself to be a Christian if I do not declare every single word of such and such version of the Bible to be the absolute unblemished truth from the mouth of God to some inspired writer's quill. Hogwash.

And since my interpretation of the 10 commandments works fine for me and I know more than a little bit about their origin, I won't even bother to point out the use of the term superficial might seem to be condescending to someone more sensitive than I to a stranger's opinion. 

So, thanks for the feedback... I think you are genuinely participating in my sincere discussion of the topic. I just wonder whether my choosing to believe in something that seems unbelievable to others warrants their dismissing my opinion as worthless on unrelated topics. (This is absolutely a theoretical question... I do not feel put down or dismissed by your use of the word superficial. I just pointed it out to show how easy it can be for people to take things completely out of context and fly off the handle. I see this a LOT here, though your battles here are much more civil than many I see here in Okieland)


----------



## margarok

fjnmusic said:


> No no I get it, thanks for the attempt, screature. I type faster than I can proofread. I was really just hoping you'd read the rest of the words and consider them also. I'll find a good clip of Spong talking about hell.


I loved the CLAMS got HANDS strip.


----------



## margarok

fjnmusic said:


> I just really like and respect this guy. If all preachers were as engaging, I bet more people would go to church.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> +
> YouTube Video
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ERROR: If you can see this, then YouTube is down or you don't have Flash installed.


And Purgatory was invented to generate additional revenue from family members hoping to pay their loved ones' way into the Promised Land.


----------



## jef

Macfury said:


> If you fail to live by a set of rules, just abandon them!! Sweet.
> 
> In Toronto, drivers consistently receive parking and speeding tickets, even though they know better. These rules need to go, particularly for the sake of weaker citizens. Outmoded!
> 
> It appears that in India some men are not able to prevent themselves from raping women, no matter how hard they try! Away with those outdated rules.
> 
> Have rules failed to stamp out pedophilia? The problem may not be the behaviour by that thinking--it's the rules that need to change to normalize the behaviour.


False equivalencies don't make for good arguments. Rules and laws have changed for the betterment of all over time - no one is suggesting that rape, murder and pedophilia are normal behavior or should be considered normalised behavior. 

But if you are trying to live by the biblical 10 commandments in 2012, you are going to have major problems - and you'll need a lot of apologising and forgiving. 

No work on Sunday? No OMG etc? No coveting? No lust? How many people can honestly say they could live up to these standards?


----------



## Macfury

MacGuiver said:


> Why would this preacher draw people to church when his basic message is you don't need church or rules and whatever you do in life, Heaven awaits you in the end. Why would I want to invest an hour each Sunday with this guy when I could be swinging a 7 iron instead and I'll still get to spend eternity in paradise with Hitler and Stalin?


Thing is, even those people who want to hit the LIKE button for the guy aren't really going to step into his church because of his message. He's got a swinging mod set of homilies that will make sure he's respected from a distance. Maybe replay the clip a few times if one feels a tinge of doubt, so the respect for his easy-time message can be re-established.


----------



## MacGuiver

jef said:


> No work on Sunday? No OMG etc? No coveting? No lust? How many people can honestly say they could live up to these standards?


[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nhjGoaKf52s"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nhjGoaKf52s[/ame]


----------



## Macfury

jef said:


> False equivalencies don't make for good arguments. Rules and laws have changed for the betterment of all over time - no one is suggesting that rape, murder and pedophilia are normal behavior or should be considered normalised behavior.


They're not false equivalencies. You stated that rules that could not be kept were outmoded. These folks appearing in an article at the _UK Guardian _agree with you:

Paedophilia: bringing dark desires to light | Society | The Guardian


> Some academics do not dispute the view of Tom O'Carroll, a former chairman of PIE and tireless paedophilia advocate with a conviction for distributing indecent photographs of children following a sting operation, that society's outrage at paedophilic relationships is essentially emotional, irrational, and not justified by science. "It is the quality of the relationship that matters," O'Carroll insists. "If there's no bullying, no coercion, no abuse of power, if the child enters into the relationship voluntarily … the evidence shows there need be no harm."





> But there is a growing conviction, notably in Canada, that paedophilia should probably be classified as a distinct sexual orientation, like heterosexuality or homosexuality. Two eminent researchers testified to that effect to a Canadian parliamentary commission last year, and the Harvard Mental Health Letter of July 2010 stated baldly that paedophilia "is a sexual orientation" and therefore "unlikely to change".





> A Dutch study published in 1987 found that a sample of boys in paedophilic relationships felt positively about them. And a major if still controversial 1998-2000 meta-study suggests – as J Michael Bailey of Northwestern University, Chicago, says – that such relationships, entered into voluntarily, are "nearly uncorrelated with undesirable outcomes".


All is permitted! Every man a King!!


----------



## fjnmusic

I saw Bishop Spong speak at a United church presentation in Edmonton about seven years ago and I was impressed with his sincerity, his kindness, and his knowledge of all scripture. I mean, he could skate circles around any of the hellfire and brimstone preachers. His message is simple and makes sense, even if some of the people on this forum seem dismissive because they fear he may be right.


----------



## jef

Macfury said:


> They're not false equivalencies. You stated that rules that could not be kept were outmoded. These folks appearing in an article at the _UK Guardian _agree with you:
> 
> Paedophilia: bringing dark desires to light | Society | The Guardian
> 
> All is permitted! Every man a King!!


It is a false equivalency. Children are protected under the law - there is no societal consensus suggesting they should not be. 

Societal consensus on other issues is clear and make some (not all) of the 10 commandments seem a bit silly 2000+ years after they were written. 

There are much better and more practical rules to live by.


----------



## Macfury

fjnmusic said:


> I saw Bishop Spong speak at a United church presentation in Edmonton about seven years ago and I was impressed with his sincerity, his kindness, and his knowledge of all scripture. I mean, he could skate circles around any of the hellfire and brimstone preachers. His message is simple and makes sense, even if some of the people on this forum seem dismissive because they fear he may be right.


There you go then! It was all dealt with in Edmonton in 2006 and it never made the news.


----------



## Macfury

jef said:


> It is a false equivalency. Children are protected under the law - there is no societal consensus suggesting they should not be.
> 
> Societal consensus on other issues is clear and make some (not all) of the 10 commandments seem a bit silly 2000+ years after they were written.
> 
> There are much better and more practical rules to live by.


Why stop pedophilia if children have a positive experience with it, as the article states? If one can demonstrate that the law only prevents children from having meaningful relationships while victimizing the perps, is it time to throw out the law? Pedophilia is not objectively wrong then. It is wrong until it is clear the law is outmoded.


----------



## MacGuiver

fjnmusic said:


> I saw Bishop Spong speak at a United church presentation in Edmonton about seven years ago and I was impressed with his sincerity, his kindness, and his knowledge of all scripture. I mean, he could skate circles around any of the hellfire and brimstone preachers. His message is simple and makes sense, even if some of the people on this forum seem dismissive because they fear he may be right.


Please tell me you teach in a Public School?


----------



## fjnmusic

Macfury said:


> There you go then! It was all dealt with in Edmonton in 2006 and it never made the news.


What are you talking about, Macfury? What was dealt with? What news? I saw a lecture by a visiting preacher that inspired me. You seriously need to be so dismissive? Would you please stop p!ssing all over otherwise pleasant posts? I don't know what your issues are, but you seem to feel no one has a opinion worthy of consideration apart from your own and it is annoying.


----------



## fjnmusic

MacGuiver said:


> Please tell me you teach in a Public School?


Nope, Roman Catholic all the way. Believe it or not, some of us are actually quite open-minded.


----------



## Macfury

fjnmusic said:


> What are you talking about, Macfury? What was dealt with? What news? I saw a lecture by a visiting preacher that inspired me. You seriously need to be so dismissive? Would you please stop p!ssing all over otherwise pleasant posts? I don't know what your issues are, but you seem to feel no one has a opinion worthy of consideration apart from your own and it is annoying.


You were the one who stated Spong could skate rings around other preachers, not me. You were dismissive of the opinions of other religious figures, not me. If you don't like defending your statements vigorously, just don't, OK?


----------



## fjnmusic

Macfury said:


> You were the one who stated Spong could skate rings around other preachers, not me. You were dismissive of the opinions of other religious figures, not me. If you don't like defending your statements vigorously, just don't, OK?


What am I supposed to defend? I said he was inspiring. Why does that require defense? And I fail to follow the Edmonton 2006 and "never made the news" comment you threw out. What exactly are you wishing me to defend? You don't believe I am sincere in saying his presentation was inspiring? Is that what you want me to defend?


----------



## Macfury

fjnmusic said:


> What am I supposed to defend? I said he was inspiring. Why does that require defense? And I fail to follow the Edmonton 2006 and "never made the news" comment you threw out. What exactly are you wishing me to defend? You don't believe I am sincere in saying his presentation was inspiring? Is that what you want me to defend?


Two challenging statements:



> ... he could skate circles around any of the hellfire and brimstone preachers.





> ...some of the people on this forum seem dismissive because they fear he may be right.


If you had just said he was inspiring and kind, I wouldn't even have responded.


----------



## MacGuiver

fjnmusic said:


> Nope, Roman Catholic all the way. Believe it or not, some of us are actually quite open-minded.


I'm beginning to understand why the Bishops are starting to take the roll of religious formation out of the hands of "Catholic" schools these days for sacramental preparation. 

The wisdom of Archbishop Fulton Sheen has never been more true.



> ‘If you want your kids to defend their Faith send them to a public school, if you want them to lose their Faith send them to a Catholic School.’


----------



## jef

Macfury said:


> Why stop pedophilia if children have a positive experience with it, as the article states? If one can demonstrate that the law only prevents children from having meaningful relationships while victimizing the perps, is it time to throw out the law? Pedophilia is not objectively wrong then. It is wrong until it is clear the law is outmoded.


No, because children do not have fully developed brains and are not capable of judgement especially in sexual matters. Pedophilia is objectively wrong. 

Why am I even bothering to explain this to you?


----------



## Macfury

jef said:


> No, because children do not have fully developed brains and are not capable of judgement especially in sexual matters. Pedophilia is objectively wrong.
> 
> Why am I even bothering to explain this to you?


Explain it to the people in Canada, Holland and England who are trying to build a consensus for normalizing the behaviour.


----------



## bryanc

Macfury said:


> Explain it to the people in Canada, Holland and England who are trying to build a consensus for normalizing the behaviour.


They will never succeed for the reasons Jef outlined and others.

More to the point, you're being deliberately obtuse; it is perfectly possible and indeed preferable to have flexible and normative standards of 'acceptable behaviour' without having society collapse into some sort of depraved orgy of perversity. We don't need rules written by bronze age witch doctors to govern society; we need rules that are adjusted to reflect the reality we live in by intelligent, well-educated and thoughtful people of our time.


----------



## jef

Macfury said:


> Explain it to the people in Canada, Holland and England who are trying to build a consensus for normalizing the behaviour.


Again you're making a false equivalency - a few people with weird ideas and bad science is not equal to public consensus.

There is public consensus that adultery, lust, using the lord's name in vain, and even lying should not be punishable offenses, even though the bible says they should be. 

There is no public consensus that pedophilia is acceptable and there are good reasons to keep it that way.


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> They will never succeed for the reasons Jef outlined and others.
> 
> More to the point, you're being deliberately obtuse; it is perfectly possible and indeed preferable to have flexible and normative standards of 'acceptable behaviour' without having society collapse into some sort of depraved orgy of perversity. We don't need rules written by bronze age witch doctors to govern society; we need rules that are adjusted to reflect the reality we live in by intelligent, well-educated and thoughtful people of our time.


I never said society would collapse. I said it could normalize pedophilia.


----------



## fjnmusic

MacGuiver said:


> I'm beginning to understand why the Bishops are starting to take the roll of religious formation out of the hands of "Catholic" schools these days for sacramental preparation.
> 
> The wisdom of Archbishop Fulton Sheen has never been more true.


Thank you for your judgemental attitude. You would prefer little Catholic drones who cannot think for themselves, I take it? I stick with the textbook as closely as I can in class, MacGuiver, but children are not stupid. They see the hypocrisy, the contrast between what we say and what we do. It's not an easy gap to bridge, my friend. You should try it. We preach the sanctity of marriage while the divorce rate is over 50%, even for Catholics. The pope excommunicates (translate burn in hell) a priest for suggesting that maybe women should be ordained, rather than the church continue to defend pedophile priests. Oh yes, by all means, let us not ask questions. Ever heard of trying to change the system from within?


----------



## iMouse

fjnmusic said:


> Thank you for your judgmental attitude.
> 
> You would prefer little Catholic drones who cannot think for themselves, I take it?


HEY, they got theirs, right?

Isn't that what it's all about?


----------



## fjnmusic

iMouse said:


> HEY, they got theirs, right?
> 
> Isn't that what it's all about?


Hmmm. I thought the hokey-pokey was what it was all about. Might have to modify my plan for Monday's Religion class.


----------



## jef

Here is another pretty good list of rules (coincidentally there are also 10).

This is a version of the Secularist Creed:

1. Reason, Not Superstition

2. Ethics, Not Dogma

3. Respect, Not Worship

4. Courage, Not Fear

5. Fact, Not Myth

6. Morality, Not Religion

7. Clarity, Not Delusion

8. Good, Not God

9. Skeptic, Not Cynic

10. Rationality, Not Ideology


----------



## iMouse

fjnmusic said:


> Hmmm. I thought the *hokey-pokey* was what it was all about.
> 
> Might have to modify my plan for Monday's Religion class.


Just the means to an end, my friend.


----------



## fjnmusic

jef said:


> Here is another pretty good list of rules (coincidentally there are also 10).
> 
> This is a version of the Secularist Creed:
> 
> 1. Reason, Not Superstition
> 
> 2. Ethics, Not Dogma
> 
> 3. Respect, Not Worship
> 
> 4. Courage, Not Fear
> 
> 5. Fact, Not Myth
> 
> 6. Morality, Not Religion
> 
> 7. Clarity, Not Delusion
> 
> 8. Good, Not God
> 
> 9. Skeptic, Not Cynic
> 
> 10. Rationality, Not Ideology


These are good. However, I think teaching Myth is great—as long as we remember that it is Myth, and is meant to teach a truth indirectly, like the story of the Tortoise and the Hare, or the Parable of the Mustard Seed, or even (brace yourself) the Virgin Birth.


----------



## margarok

fjnmusic said:


> I saw Bishop Spong speak at a United church presentation in Edmonton about seven years ago and I was impressed with his sincerity, his kindness, and his knowledge of all scripture. I mean, he could skate circles around any of the hellfire and brimstone preachers. His message is simple and makes sense, even if some of the people on this forum seem dismissive because they fear he may be right.


A quick research session brought took me to this: 

_Spong rejoices in uncertainty and the supposed relativity of all truth in Into the Whirlwind (ITW pp. 12 ff.). Also, in Resurrection: Myth or Reality? RMR (pp. 34–35) he claims:

No word is objective; hence no word ever passes from the lips of one person into the hearing of another without being changed in meaning. … Words are never the truth. They are only the medium of truth … Words become the vehicles by which experiences are shared.

Yet Spong wants us to believe that his words are true and that fundamentalists are most certainly wrong. Such absolute and certain statements sound strange from a bishop who condemns a church for prescribing certainty and absolutes. However, we must now look at why Spong thinks that the church has got it wrong and why liberal scholarship and morality is on the right track.
_​
I think I will indeed read your suggested work. Having stopped working in order to coordinate our cabin build in the Ozarks affords me some time to read until the next phase begins. Hopefully, I will gain some insight as to why I seem unable to divest myself of my core beliefs.


----------



## margarok

fjnmusic said:


> Nope, Roman Catholic all the way. Believe it or not, some of us are actually quite open-minded.


:clap: I told my pastor one time I knew some decent Catholics and asked him if he didn't know a few he thought were sincere in their faith. He looked skeptical, but I suspect he knew what I meant.


----------



## fjnmusic

margarok said:


> A quick research session brought took me to this:
> 
> _Spong rejoices in uncertainty and the supposed relativity of all truth in Into the Whirlwind (ITW pp. 12 ff.). Also, in Resurrection: Myth or Reality? RMR (pp. 34&#150;35) he claims:
> 
> No word is objective; hence no word ever passes from the lips of one person into the hearing of another without being changed in meaning. &#133; Words are never the truth. They are only the medium of truth &#133; Words become the vehicles by which experiences are shared.
> 
> Yet Spong wants us to believe that his words are true and that fundamentalists are most certainly wrong. Such absolute and certain statements sound strange from a bishop who condemns a church for prescribing certainty and absolutes. However, we must now look at why Spong thinks that the church has got it wrong and why liberal scholarship and morality is on the right track.
> _​
> I think I will indeed read your suggested work. Having stopped working in order to coordinate our cabin build in the Ozarks affords me some time to read until the next phase begins. Hopefully, I will gain some insight as to why I seem unable to divest myself of my core beliefs.


It's not an easy journey to question things you've always taken for granted. Fortunately there are also many clips of people like John Spong, Tom Harpur and many others available on YouTube if you want a small sample of their ideas before diving in. Some of the other writers I began reading in the last five to ten years include Neale Donald Walsch (Conversations with God series), Wayne W. Dyer, and Eckhart Tolle. There is a common strand of wisdom in all good writers, from my perspective, and they leave you feeling hopeful about humanity.


----------



## margarok

MacGuiver said:


> I'm beginning to understand why the Bishops are starting to take the roll of religious formation out of the hands of "Catholic" schools these days for sacramental preparation.
> 
> The wisdom of Archbishop Fulton Sheen has never been more true.


I am trying to understand what the Bishops are taking from the hands of Catholic schools.

However, having read quite a bit about the rituals of Catholicism in order to better understand my Roman Catholic father-in-law while he was with us, I grew to respect what I had not understood very well. Amazing what an open mind and a true desire to learn and understand his Italian/Roman Catholic did for our relationship as father-in-law and daughter-in-law. I called him Dad and really meant it before he passed.


----------



## jef

fjnmusic said:


> These are good. However, I think teaching Myth is great—as long as we remember that it is Myth, and is meant to teach a truth indirectly, like the story of the Tortoise and the Hare, or the Parable of the Mustard Seed, or even (brace yourself) the Virgin Birth.


May I ask what truth is told in the story of the virgin birth?


----------



## iMouse

jef said:


> May I ask what truth is told in the story of the virgin birth?


Foreplay sometimes gets out-of-hand?


----------



## fjnmusic

jef said:


> May I ask what truth is told in the story of the virgin birth?


Sure. I'd say it's about humanity's need for a scapegoat ultimately. There is no technical reason for either Jesus or Mary to be depicted as ever-virgin (sinless, this seems to equate to). And yet they are. In Mary's case, the Immaculate Conception doctrine was added in 1854 following the discovery of egg cells, which threw a huge monkey wrench into Catholic doctrine, since it meant Jesus could have been tainted by original sin on his mother's side. Of course, if you don't take Adam and Eve literally, then there IS no original sin, but let's leave that one alone for now.

Anyhow, the sacrifice of God's only son (or Himself, actually), is really not that different at its core than any other throw the virgin into the volcano story, to appease the Gods. Why must an all-forgiving all-loving God need to be appeased? Well it's due to the huge variety of depictions of God man seems to worship. It seems more likely we created God in our image than the other way around. In any event, we choose a scapegoat, Jesus in this case, the lamb of God, the paschal sacrifice, and all our sins are forgiven. Just like the villagers after the virgin was thrown into the volcano. Except that the gods are never totally appeased, so we have to keep reenacting the story each week. It's really very primitive and tribal at its roots.

Now that's not the version I'd tell the kids of course. I'd probably keep it the emphasis on the purity theme found in the bible, which is what the virgin birth represents. In truth, Tom Harpur found something like 200 example of other virgin births before Jesus.


----------



## iMouse

fjnmusic said:


> In truth, Tom Harpur found something like 200 example of other virgin births before Jesus.


Well duh.

You don't have to break the hymen membrane to knock a girl up.

If you have done foreplay correctly, any "stray" sperm cells around her vagina would be nurtured by her vaginal juices.

Too gross for some? Too bad. tptptptp


----------



## fjnmusic

Well what I'm talking about is heroes of antiquity and the legends associated with how they came to exist, but thanks for that explanation.


----------



## iMouse

fjnmusic said:


> Well what I'm talking about is heroes of antiquity and the legends associated with how they came to exist, but thanks for that explanation.


Sorry, my bad. 

Please, continue with Mythology 101.


----------



## Rps

Macfury said:


> I never said society would collapse. I said it could normalize pedophilia.


MacFury, it's not often but I do agree with you on this. If one has enough money and inclination they can normalise anything no matter how much people currently view any given topic repugnant.


----------



## iMouse

Delete please.


----------



## margarok

fjnmusic said:


> Sure. I'd say it's about humanity's need for a scapegoat ultimately. There is no technical reason for either Jesus or Mary to be depicted as ever-virgin (sinless, this seems to equate to). And yet they are. In Mary's case, the Immaculate Conception doctrine was added in 1854 following the discovery of egg cells, which threw a huge monkey wrench into Catholic doctrine, since it meant Jesus could have been tainted by original sin on his mother's side. Of course, if you don't take Adam and Eve literally, then there IS no original sin, but let's leave that one alone for now.
> 
> Anyhow, the sacrifice of God's only son (or Himself, actually), is really not that different at its core than any other throw the virgin into the volcano story, to appease the Gods. Why must an all-forgiving all-loving God need to be appeased? Well it's due to the huge variety of depictions of God man seems to worship. It seems more likely we created God in our image than the other way around. In any event, we choose a scapegoat, Jesus in this case, the lamb of God, the paschal sacrifice, and all our sins are forgiven. Just like the villagers after the virgin was thrown into the volcano. Except that the gods are never totally appeased, so we have to keep reenacting the story each week. It's really very primitive and tribal at its roots.
> 
> Now that's not the version I'd tell the kids of course. I'd probably keep it the emphasis on the purity theme found in the bible, which is what the virgin birth represents. In truth, Tom Harpur found something like 200 example of other virgin births before Jesus.


I think that well put. I would add one little tidbit, if I may. While the sacrifice is an important theme in this story, I think the purity of the innocent child is an important aspect or "truth" as well. Other mentions of children as being role models for mankind's quest for heaven perhaps support this. (None greater than this child in all of heaven; come as a little child; it is better to be cast to the bottom of the sea than to harm this little child)

In my interpretation of the "purpose" of Jesus's humble birth, the baby represents the idea that the weakest and smallest of humanity can carry within our greatest Hope for redemption and salvation. Since becoming wise to the idea of a virgin birth, I've come to believe that the "virgin" birth protects the bloodline from unnecessary harassment by people who would demand they do miracles just because they were related to Jesus of Nazareth.


----------



## margarok

Rps said:


> MacFury, it's not often but I do agree with you on this. If one has enough money and inclination they can normalise anything no matter how much people currently view any given topic repugnant.


I hope/wish you were not correct in this assumption, but I fear that you are right. I have actually heard the argument that if the relationship between child and adult is mutually pleasurable, there is no harm. (This was from a serious pseudo-therapist type -- true, was part of a staged talk show argument intended to garner ratings, but still, that someone would say that out loud to an audience is repulsive. I turned it off and do not know the outcome of the debate.)


----------



## Macfury

fjnmusic said:


> ....and they leave you feeling hopeful about humanity.


That was never the purpose of religion, however.


----------



## margarok

Macfury said:


> That was never the purpose of religion, however.


Well, not the main purpose perhaps, but certainly a few well meaning people probably thought giving people *hope* would help their ultimate goal of keeping the masses in line, if that (control) is what you believe religion's purpose really is.


----------



## Rps

That


margarok said:


> I hope/wish you were not correct in this assumption, but I fear that you are right. I have actually heard the argument that if the relationship between child and adult is mutually pleasurable, there is no harm. (This was from a serious pseudo-therapist type -- true, was part of a staged talk show argument intended to garner ratings, but still, that someone would say that out loud to an audience is repulsive. I turned it off and do not know the outcome of the debate.)


Margarok, my comment was geared towards any repugnant topic and not paedophiles per se. One such topic would be the current discourse on gun control in your country ... Not wanting to derail the thread as there are others on this site to more than cover that specific issue .... But if you can buy a critical mass of the populace, which studies have indicated can be as low as 35%, then you can normalise almost anything. The trick is to set it up as a normal practice which creates a "common sense" belief that is accepted by the whole.


----------



## margarok

Rps said:


> That
> 
> Margarok, my comment was geared towards any repugnant topic and not paedophiles per se. One such topic would be the current discourse on gun control in your country ... Not wanting to derail the thread as there are others on this site to more than cover that specific issue .... But if you can buy a critical mass of the populace, which studies have indicated can be as low as 35%, then you can normalise almost anything. The trick is to set it up as a normal practice which creates a "common sense" belief that is accepted by the whole.


I understand that... and realize you were not discussing paedophiles specifically, but your comment brought that strange statement I saw on television to mind. Sorry... I didn't mean to imply you were talking about that specifically. And you are correct... lots of places to discuss gun control issues here.


----------



## screature

Searching... continuing to search... system error...

Please reboot....

Rebooting...

Thread Topic: Religious...

Too many references... more than 1,00,000,000,000,000 entries.

Advanced search...


----------



## groovetube

I thought they were still in a round about way on topic. Actually reading with some interest. With not much to add for now for once.


----------



## Rps

groovetube said:


> I thought they were still in a round about way on topic. Actually reading with some interest. With not much to add for now for once.


Thanks for the vote of confidence Groove, as I think we are as well. If we look at Gramsci's work on hegemony, one could argue that's how religion works.....


----------



## Macfury

margarok said:


> Well, not the main purpose perhaps, but certainly a few well meaning people probably thought giving people *hope* would help their ultimate goal of keeping the masses in line, if that (control) is what you believe religion's purpose really is.


To give people hope is a goal of religion. To give them hope in mankind... not so much.


----------



## fjnmusic

Macfury said:


> That was never the purpose of religion, however.


Maybe not your religion. But my religion—and more importantly, my spirituality—is all about hope. We each see what we want to see. Or what we think we deserve.


----------



## groovetube

fjnmusic said:


> Maybe not your religion. But my religion—and more importantly, my spirituality—is all about hope. We each see what we want to see. Or what we think we deserve.


I had thought that religions were all about giving it's followers hope. There's always some sort of big reward, heaven, the coming of christ, the meek inheriting the earth, all sorts of big worldwide events to end all events.

And as you put it, on a perhaps smaller scale, hope in a somewhat better world, hope that good people will win out over the bad.

I don't know how anyone could think religion wasn't about hope.


----------



## Rps

fjnmusic said:


> Maybe not your religion. But my religion—and more importantly, my spirituality—is all about hope. We each see what we want to see. Or what we think we deserve.


Although I'm not a religious man, I wouldn't want to live in a world without hope ...


----------



## jef

Rps said:


> MacFury, it's not often but I do agree with you on this. If one has enough money and inclination they can normalise anything no matter how much people currently view any given topic repugnant.


I can't agree with you and MacFury - the concept of 'consenting adults' has rightly trumped religious views on LGTB issues but the same does not apply to adults having sex with children.

There is a social consensus that supports laws to protect children from adults whether it is pleasurable for them or not. The science supports that fact that children do not have fully developed judgemental capabilities over sexual and power relationships. It is not in the best interest of the child to allow pedophilia to become 'normal' or even tolerated in modern society. 

Humans are capable of doing and believing a lot of stupid things but I don't think we need to worry about pedophilia becoming normal even if the church tried to get out of their current problems with the issue by condoning it.


----------



## margarok

groovetube said:


> I thought they were still in a round about way on topic. Actually reading with some interest. With not much to add for now for once.


I say that our discussion of how behaviors or ideas are normalized in society was very much on track with the "religious" thread, since many people participating in the discussion appear to believe that religion is some kind of delusional tool, an opiate perhaps, for the masses. Maybe a way to normalize certain behaviors that are deemed to be desirable by religious/political leaders?

Off topic? tptptptp


----------



## Macfury

fjnmusic said:


> Maybe not your religion. But my religion—and more importantly, my spirituality—is all about hope. We each see what we want to see. Or what we think we deserve.


Maybe your "spirituality." Few religions look for hope in mankind.


----------



## groovetube

if religions didn't offer hope in mankind, then I suppose they can stop bothering us with their preaching and their never ending zeal to convert everyone.


----------



## Macfury

jef said:


> The science supports that fact that children do not have fully developed judgemental capabilities over sexual and power relationships. It is not in the best interest of the child to allow pedophilia to become 'normal' or even tolerated in modern society.


According to the many people and organizations referenced in the article, the science supports the notion that no harm is caused. If no harm is caused, why enforce laws regarding pedophilia?


----------



## jef

Macfury said:


> According to the many people and organizations referenced in the article, the science supports the notion that no harm is caused. If no harm is caused, why enforce laws regarding pedophilia?


Are you really serious? Normalising sex with children adults exposes them to all kinds of dangers that many (most?) adults today are not well equipped to deal with. Birth control, STDs etc etc and the related emotional issues (religious guilt for example) should not be and are not in the domain of children.

As I said before, children are not considered 'consenting adults' and weird ideas and bad science are not going to change the social consensus on this issue.


----------



## margarok

Macfury said:


> To give people hope is a goal of religion. To give them hope in mankind... not so much.


I don't want to seem like I'm nitpicking at all, but what kind of "hope" does this religion you refer to have as a goal if it doesn't have much to do with mankind?


----------



## iMouse

jef said:


> Are you really serious?


Some people will even argue the concept of water flowing down-hill.


----------



## margarok

iMouse said:


> Some people will even argue the concept of water flowing down-hill.


Don't you think it could be pushed down the hill by a force that has nothing to do with gravity? :lmao:

Edit: I felt compelled to come give credit to the character of Phoebe on "Friends" sitcom, who once argued with character Ross about whether gravity exists or not.


----------



## Macfury

margarok said:


> I don't want to seem like I'm nitpicking at all, but what kind of "hope" does this religion you refer to have as a goal if it doesn't have much to do with mankind?


Religion offers hope in what God will do, not in what humans will do. You don't need religion to have faith in other human beings.


----------



## jef

Macfury said:


> Religion offers hope in what God will do, not in what humans will do. You don't need religion to have faith in other human beings.


So if we become Catholic, we can hope god doesn't make us pedophiles? Somehow I'm not diggin' the odds on this...


----------



## margarok

Macfury said:


> Religion offers hope in what God will do, not in what humans will do. You don't need religion to have faith in other human beings.


I can see your point, then. Thanks...


----------



## Macfury

People can fall victim to pedophiles if they have too much faith in other humans.


----------



## groovetube

iMouse said:


> Some people will even argue the concept of water flowing down-hill.


I see it didn't long for you to figure that out here


----------



## MacGuiver

jef said:


> So if we become Catholic, we can hope god doesn't make us pedophiles? Somehow I'm not diggin' the odds on this...


If he makes you a school teacher the odds are just as bad.


----------



## MacGuiver

> Thank you for your judgemental attitude.


At this point its not a judgement, it's an observation. From your postings there is barely a Catholic doctrine you support or accept. If Martin Luther were alive he'd say you're no Protestant either. You've rejected practically every aspect of the faith in this thread and express an affinity to new age gurus.



> You would prefer little Catholic drones who cannot think for themselves, I take it?


Well if I wanted my kids to be secular humanist drones I'd have sent them to the Public board not Catholic. What's the point of a Catholic School system if the teachers are not even nominal Protestants.



> I stick with the textbook as closely as I can in class, MacGuiver, but children are not stupid. They see the hypocrisy, the contrast between what we say and what we do. It's not an easy gap to bridge, my friend. You should try it. We preach the sanctity of marriage while the divorce rate is over 50%, even for Catholics.


You can't blame the churches teaching for the failed marriages. You can blame those that decide there is nothing sacred about marriage and bailed at the first sign of trouble or in pursuit of an upgrade to their sex life. 



> The pope excommunicates (translate burn in hell) a priest for suggesting that maybe women should be ordained, rather than the church continue to defend pedophile priests.


We've been over this before and he did more than simply suggest. He participated in bogus ordinations and refused to recant his position numerous times before he was finally shown the door. He likely doesn't believe in hell anyhow so I doubt he's too concerned.
I do agree the church failed miserably in the past with the rampant homosexual rape. That said they've payed millions in restitution and measures have been taken to reign in the problem. I've read and heard public denunciations and apologies for the abuse from numberous clergy and the Pope himself. We've also seen excommunication for abusers. I'm not sure what else you'd like them to do? 
It has been a scandal how the abuse crisis has been handled but even worst is the churches handling of proabortion "catholics". If a priest should be excommunicated for ordaining ladies or fondling teenaged boys, then surely one that advocates and even promotes for the killing of a defenceless child in the womb should be tossed as well. 



> Oh yes, by all means, let us not ask questions. Ever heard of trying to change the system from within?


I'm well aware there are wolves among the sheep. An honest, principled person would drop the facade and leave the church for one that meets with their approval.


----------



## fjnmusic

MacGuiver said:


> At this point its not a judgement, it's an observation. From your postings there is barely a Catholic doctrine you support or accept. If Martin Luther were alive he'd say you're no Protestant either. You've rejected practically every aspect of the faith in this thread and express an affinity to new age gurus.
> 
> 
> Well if I wanted my kids to be secular humanist drones I'd have sent them to the Public board not Catholic. What's the point of a Catholic School system if the teachers are not even nominal Protestants.
> 
> 
> 
> You can't blame the churches teaching for the failed marriages. You can blame those that decide there is nothing sacred about marriage and bailed at the first sign of trouble or in pursuit of an upgrade to their sex life.
> 
> 
> 
> We've been over this before and he did more than simply suggest. He participated in bogus ordinations and refused to recant his position numerous times before he was finally shown the door. He likely doesn't believe in hell anyhow so I doubt he's too concerned.
> I do agree the church failed miserably in the past with the rampant homosexual rape. That said they've payed millions in restitution and measures have been taken to reign in the problem. I've read and heard public denunciations and apologies for the abuse from numberous clergy and the Pope himself. We've also seen excommunication for abusers. I'm not sure what else you'd like them to do?
> It has been a scandal how the abuse crisis has been handled but even worst is the churches handling of proabortion "catholics". If a priest should be excommunicated for ordaining ladies or fondling teenaged boys, then surely one that advocates and even promotes for the killing of a defenceless child in the womb should be tossed as well.
> 
> 
> I'm well aware there are wolves among the sheep. An honest, principled person would drop the facade and leave the church for one that meets with their approval.


Yup. I think judgemental was exactly the right word. An honest, principled person would not be afraid to speak their mind either. It is not my fault that I was baptized long before the age where I could make a conscious choice, and since supporting my Catholic family depends on my teaching job, I try to be good person and tread lightly on matters of faith. You, my friend, appear to proceed with all the subtlety of a bulldozer. It is unfortunate that you are so set in your ways; it gives the rest of us moderate Catholics a bad rep.


----------



## fjnmusic

margarok said:


> I think that well put. I would add one little tidbit, if I may. While the sacrifice is an important theme in this story, I think the purity of the innocent child is an important aspect or "truth" as well. Other mentions of children as being role models for mankind's quest for heaven perhaps support this. (None greater than this child in all of heaven; come as a little child; it is better to be cast to the bottom of the sea than to harm this little child)
> 
> In my interpretation of the "purpose" of Jesus's humble birth, the baby represents the idea that the weakest and smallest of humanity can carry within our greatest Hope for redemption and salvation. Since becoming wise to the idea of a virgin birth, I've come to believe that the "virgin" birth protects the bloodline from unnecessary harassment by people who would demand they do miracles just because they were related to Jesus of Nazareth.


I like your explanation better, Margarok!


----------



## fjnmusic

Macfury said:


> Religion offers hope in what God will do, not in what humans will do. You don't need religion to have faith in other human beings.


And yet JC was both God and human. He also said that there is no greater love than for a man to lay down his life for his friends. Seems we have some mixed messages here...


----------



## Macfury

fjnmusic said:


> And yet JC was both God and human. He also said that there is no greater love than for a man to lay down his life for his friends. Seems we have some mixed messages here...


What does that have to do with what I said? No mixed messages.


----------



## fjnmusic

Macfury said:


> What does that have to do with what I said? No mixed messages.


If JC was both God and human, then by your definition Religion does provide hope in what at least one human can and did do.


----------



## jef

Macfury said:


> People can fall victim to pedophiles if they have too much faith in other humans.


Children, not 'people', fall victim to pedophiles because children are brought up to have faith in adults.


----------



## groovetube

jef said:


> Children, not 'people', fall victim to pedophiles because children are brought up to have faith in adults.


theres also a very large difference between people having faith in mankind, but not being stupid about it and recognizing life's realities, and the oddly utopian delusions macfury seems to be describing.


----------



## MacGuiver

> Yup. I think judgemental was exactly the right word. An honest, principled person would not be afraid to speak their mind either.


This whole forum is judgemental. Your judging the legitimacy of Catholic teaching, dogma and the actions of its leadership and I'm merely challenging your claim to be a Catholic in light of your many anti-catholic statements.



> It is not my fault that I was baptized long before the age where I could make a conscious choice,


The church will do nothing if you make the conscious choice to leave and theres nothing preventing you from doing so. In fact it sounds like you already have theologically, its just a matter of coming out of the closet. 



> and since supporting my Catholic family depends on my teaching job, I try to be good person and tread lightly on matters of faith.


I'm not saying you're not trying to be a good person, no doubt you do. You're just not a Catholic.



> It is unfortunate that you are so set in your ways; it gives the rest of us moderate Catholics a bad rep.


There in lies a problem. Winning the favour of the world should be of no concern to a true Christian. If your morality is in lockstep with pagans and atheists, you may be on the other team but just haven't come to terms with the fact.

John 15:19

If you belonged to the world, it would love you as its own. As it is, you do not belong to the world, but I have chosen you out of the world. That is why the world hates you.

This is what Jesus had to say about "moderate" or lukewarm Christians.. 


> “‘I know your works: you are neither cold nor hot. Would that you were either cold or hot! So, because you are lukewarm, and neither hot nor cold, I will spit you out of my mouth.


----------



## margarok

fjnmusic said:


> I like your explanation better, Margarok!


----------



## fjnmusic

MacGuiver said:


> This whole forum is judgemental. Your judging the legitimacy of Catholic teaching, dogma and the actions of its leadership and I'm merely challenging your claim to be a Catholic in light of your many anti-catholic statements.
> 
> 
> 
> The church will do nothing if you make the conscious choice to leave and theres nothing preventing you from doing so. In fact it sounds like you already have theologically, its just a matter of coming out of the closet.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not saying you're not trying to be a good person, no doubt you do. You're just not a Catholic.
> 
> 
> 
> There in lies a problem. Winning the favour of the world should be of no concern to a true Christian. If your morality is in lockstep with pagans and atheists, you may be on the other team but just haven't come to terms with the fact.
> 
> John 15:19
> 
> If you belonged to the world, it would love you as its own. As it is, you do not belong to the world, but I have chosen you out of the world. That is why the world hates you.
> 
> This is what Jesus had to say about "moderate" or lukewarm Christians..


I appreciate your advice  but thank you, I am quite satisfied with my life and faith choices. You make it sound as though true Catholics are not permitted to have any original thoughts, and sadly, for many out there, they may believe that to be true. Call me a New Age Catholic if you wish, but I'm not the only one.

Jesus never said any such thing about Christians, as there were no Christians in his days. Most of his followers were Jewish.


----------



## margarok

fjnmusic said:


> I appreciate your advice  but thank you, I am quite satisfied with my life and faith choices. You make it sound as though true Catholics are not permitted to have any original thoughts, and sadly, for many out there, they may believe that to be true. Call me a New Age Catholic if you wish, but I'm not the only one.
> 
> Jesus never said any such thing about Christians, as there were no Christians in his days. Most of his followers were Jewish.


Since we are quoting scripture now: 
Matthew 20:16
The first shall be last; the last shall be first. Many will be called; few will be chosen.

Some people believe this means that some of us who call ourselves Christian are lying to ourselves, having been "called" but really we have not been accepted into the club (not chosen) since we seem to have our own ideas about what a relationship with the Lord entails. 

I realize that there are many meanings that can be assigned to the ancient stories and parables of the Bible. A Greek literature professor told me something about Homer's tales one time that has served me well when reading and interpreting any literature written thousands of years ago, including the Bible. He asked the class about the chapter we were to discuss that day, "Where was Homer at in his journey?"

Caught up in my first real exposure to realizing the "deeper meanings" of literature and how to wrest those meanings from the words, I raised my hand and tried very eloquently (I hoped) to explain how I thought the dangerous route between Charybdis and Scylla represented mankind's inability to avoid monstrous consequences no matter how carefully we plan our journey. The professor praised me for understanding the deeper meaning, then suggested I just answer his question.

Kindly, he said, "Homer was between the land of Death where he spoke to the blind prophet and the final leg of his journey home to Ithaca. The interpretation Ms. Garxxxx has given us is not incorrect, since Homer intended meaning on many levels. However, we must never lose sight of the first meaning: what the words say."

Perhaps the Lord was simply telling his disciples that many of them would be called upon to serve, but only a few of them chosen to perform. Maybe that verse doesn't mean what some people think it does at all.

Maybe Odysseus just had to travel between a whirlpool and a dangerous cliff to get home.


----------



## MacGuiver

> I appreciate your advice  but thank you, I am quite satisfied with my life and faith choices. You make it sound as though true Catholics are not permitted to have any original thoughts, and sadly, for many out there, they may believe that to be true.


Catholics are not permitted to define their own truth in contradiction to Church teaching. There is no accommodation for moral relativism in Catholicism. Basic Catholicism 101.



> Call me a New Age Catholic if you wish, but I'm not the only one.


I'm well aware.



> Jesus never said any such thing about Christians, as there were no Christians in his days. Most of his followers were Jewish.


Oy Vey!


----------



## Macfury

fjnmusic said:


> If JC was both God and human, then by your definition Religion does provide hope in what at least one human can and did do.


The same holds true for all people who are both God and human. However, that club extends to only one.



fjnmusic said:


> Ever heard of trying to change the system from within?


Yes. But not in the way that a worm changes an apple from within.


----------



## Macfury

jef said:


> Children, not 'people', fall victim to pedophiles because children are brought up to have faith in adults.


The faith of adults in other adults allows people close to them to victimize their children.


----------



## margarok

MacGuiver said:


> Catholics are not permitted to define their own truth in contradiction to Church teaching. There is no accommodation for moral relativism in Catholicism. Basic Catholicism 101.
> 
> 
> I'm well aware.
> 
> 
> Oy Vey!


When we took my dear father-in-law to Cleveland to be buried in the cemetery near the Catholic church/school of his youth, having grown up as the son of poor Italian immigrants in the 1930s and 40s, I stepped forward to speak to the priest who arrived at the funeral home to inquire about his wish to have a full Catholic funeral mass.

I explained to Father Pat how I was not Catholic, but had taken him with me to interdenominational church services, had gotten him a rosary and had it blessed for him, had learned enough about praying the rosary to help him with his prayers and that my pastor had come to visit with him at the nursing home when he was too weak to leave again. I read to him from the Bible and he got a kick out of what I called the "Blesseds." I told the priest that it might not be the way he would have accomplished it, but that my "preacher" and I had held his hand while he said the "Our Father" and made his last confession of Jesus as his Lord and Saviour. I told him that if that wasn't good enough for him and the Catholic Church, then my father-in-law was just gonna have to sit with the Protestants in heaven.

He told me he wasn't worried so much about religion, only the condition of a man's soul. He gave my Poppa G a full Catholic funeral mass with all the bells and whistles (communion, candles, incense and holy water). And, in a touching and humbling act, he asked me (a special family member he called me) to read a few verses (the Beatitudes) during the service.

I refrained from shouting "hallelujah" after I finished the reading. LOL.


----------



## Rps

Just wondering if now would be a good time to ask this question ( as some conversations here appear to be mocking others who are believers ). So, and I think this consolidates virtually all discourse thus far: : Since we all know that religion exists and that it will probably never cease to exist, what should the role of religion be going forward. I know there are many of you who think that it should have no role, but really, it's there so what role should it take.

As an example, there are two amongst us here who find great comfort in having a faith, while that might not be the only role for religion that they see, it is a role they embrace non-the-less. Thoughts........


----------



## margarok

Rps said:


> Just wondering if now would be a good time to ask this question ( as some conversations here appear to be mocking others who are believers ). So, and I think this consolidates virtually all discourse thus far: : Since we all know that religion exists and that it will probably never cease to exist, what should the role of religion be going forward. I know there are many of you who think that it should have no role, but really, it's there so what role should it take.
> 
> As an example, there are two amongst us here who find great comfort in having a faith, while that might not be the only role for religion that they see, it is a role they embrace non-the-less. Thoughts........


I do NOT want to mock anyone's belief or non-belief, ever. 

As for what "role" religion should have, are you talking about in public discourse in general or in all of society? Are you asking if we think religion, or the use thereof, should be regulated and/or taxed, much like cigarette smoking?

RPS... I really should not have visited this early in the day. I have work to do and places to go. And then, at least one book to read. (No, not that Book... I leave that to my mother to read again and again)


----------



## Rps

Margarok, my question is a general one open to all. what role should religion have in a society?


----------



## margarok

I figured that was your intent. Sigh... that is the hard question, isn't it? I'll give it some thought as I do some chores, but honestly, I think religion should have NO role in societal organization, only at the individual level. However, since segments of society tend to try to impose their own beliefs and code of conduct onto others, it doesn't seem to be able to remain at the individual level, except in the rarest of cases.

I think people who storm to the front of the room to holler that Judeo-Christian principles are what Western society is built upon confuse morality with religiosity. One can be moral without being religious, I think.

And now... off for a while. I will enjoy reading other responses.


----------



## MacGuiver

margarok said:


> He told me he wasn't worried so much about religion, only the condition of a man's soul. He gave my Poppa G a full Catholic funeral mass with all the bells and whistles (communion, candles, incense and holy water). And, in a touching and humbling act, he asked me (a special family member he called me) to read a few verses (the Beatitudes) during the service.
> 
> I refrained from shouting "hallelujah" after I finished the reading. LOL.



Hi Margarok

Thats a touching story and what you did for your father-in-law was wonderful. He was blessed to have you with him in those last days.
I assume you were thinking I might take issue with what transpired since you directed it towards me?
Not at all. The Priest was right. Your religious membership doesn't save you. Your relationship with Christ does and how you choose to live your life. I'm sure there are plenty of Catholics in hell including Priests and Bishops. That said I do believe the Catholic Church was the one founded by Christ and possesses the fulness of truth. Matt: 16: 13-19
However the Church teaches that God will not turn away those that seek him with sincerity and live good moral lives in step with Gods will even though they do not possess the fullness of truth through no fault of their own.

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## margarok

MacGuiver said:


> Hi Margarok
> 
> Thats a touching story and what you did for your father-in-law was wonderful. He was blessed to have you with him in those last days.
> I assume you were thinking I might take issue with what transpired since you directed it towards me?


Only directed to you to clarify an earlier comment you made concerning Catholics not being allowed to interpret truth. I am glad that you do not take issue with the priest's decision about my FIL's eligibility for certain sacraments. You do not see the priest's decision as accomodating moral relativism; I think you believe (as I do) that he recognized my FIL (and I) had done our best and that our best "counted." 

And now, I MUST do something else.


----------



## jef

MacGuiver said:


> “‘I know your works: you are neither cold nor hot. Would that you were either cold or hot! So, because you are lukewarm, and neither hot nor cold, I will spit you out of my mouth.
> 
> .........................
> 
> However the Church teaches that God will not turn away those that seek him with sincerity and live good moral lives in step with Gods will even though they do not possess the fullness of truth through no fault of their own.
> 
> Cheers
> MacGuiver


This is all so clear to me now....


----------



## MacGuiver

jef said:


> This is all so clear to me now....


The key is "through no fault of their own". If you're a follower of the Catholic faith and you decide for yourself that abortion is perfectly moral and have one, perform one, encourage one or support them then all bets are off in that case. Unless of course you sincerely repent.


----------



## iMouse

MacGuiver said:


> Unless of course you sincerely repent.


As in a healthy indulgence? beejacon


----------



## fjnmusic

Rps said:


> Just wondering if now would be a good time to ask this question ( as some conversations here appear to be mocking others who are believers ). So, and I think this consolidates virtually all discourse thus far: : Since we all know that religion exists and that it will probably never cease to exist, what should the role of religion be going forward. I know there are many of you who think that it should have no role, but really, it's there so what role should it take.
> 
> As an example, there are two amongst us here who find great comfort in having a faith, while that might not be the only role for religion that they see, it is a role they embrace non-the-less. Thoughts........


Good question, Rps. I think most religions teach good guidelines for living a moral life and finding peace with those around you. I say most because I would not count Satan worship or cults as exemplifying morally good behaviour. I believe there are many paths to the same destination and I am definitely not a one-true-religion kind if person, which seems to be at its core a requirement for devout Catholics. There are many good lessons in the bible, as well as many questionable ones, but for a document written for an agrarian lifestyle several thousand years ago that has been edited and interpreted countless times over the years, it still holds up pretty well, all things considered. But it is not the only book of wisdom out there, and I would count some of the authors I've previously mentioned as having an even better handle on the truth. I don't expect everyone to be familiar with them, but their guidance sure works for me.

Religion on my mind is good provided we take it for what it is: mythology. Within the mythic archetype are many lessons that we can learn from. Even Jesus spoke in parables, and it is entirely possible that he is a mythic construct himself. I have no problem with that. There doesn't have to be an actual creature names Yoda living on a moon in the Dagobah system in order for people today to be familiar with his teachings. The story of Superman is really just a disguised story of JC, who came from far away to be raised by his earthly parents, with initials J & M, and lives to help humankind using modern day miracles. The archetype is the same, and archetypes and syories have always been used in religion to reveal some insight about human nature.

Stories do not need to have actually happened in history in order to be helpful, and animals can talk if it helps the authors purpose. We are a story-telling species.


----------



## bryanc

fjnmusic said:


> It is not my fault that I was baptized long before the age where I could make a conscious choice, and since supporting my Catholic family depends on my teaching job, I try to be good person and tread lightly on matters of faith.





MacGuiver said:


> I'm merely challenging your claim to be a Catholic... you may be on the other team but just haven't come to terms with the fact.


I'm going to have to side with MacGuiver here; it seems to me that you [fjnmusic] are a Catholic in name only. Just like every other Catholic I've ever met. I can't imagine a rational adult that does not disagree, more or less strenuously, with lots of the teachings of the Catholic church.

I played in the Edmonton Catholic Schools All City Band for years back in the 1980's (they were happy to have me because I was a good musician, and didn't give a damn about my religious beliefs, or lack thereof), and as a result, many of my best friends are Catholics. Except none of them actually agree with the Church on very many, if any topics. The mother of our oboe player was the principle of one of the Catholic Schools, and it turned out that she was an atheist.

The Catholic Church seems to be largely a social club, and they welcome essentially any and all who want to participate. This can be a good thing (if you can stomach a little hypocrisy), but it also makes it possible for complete smegheads like the Pope to claim they represent a lot more people than they really do.

So congratulations on being a CINO, you're in good company.


----------



## bryanc

fjnmusic said:


> Stories do not need to have actually happened in history in order to be helpful, and animals can talk if it helps the authors purpose. We are a story-telling species.


I completely agree with you here. But I would add that it's important to distinguish between fiction and non-fiction. The bible is mostly the former, with a little of the later thrown in for spice.



> I think most religions teach good guidelines for living a moral life and finding peace with those around you. I say most because I would not count Satan worship or cults as exemplifying morally good behaviour.


But, I take it you think Christianity is pretty good on this score? Despite portraying a misanthropic sado-masochistic god with a screaming inferiority complex, a variety of disturbing fetishes about what people eat & dress and how & with whom they have sex, and fundamentally arguing that leading a "good" life depends on kowtowing to the rules of this overbearing monster for which, fortunately, there is not a shred of evidence? Just what 'morality' do you glean from Christianity?

[Please note, I'm genuinely curious here, and I really do respect you and enjoy your postings here; I just think you're a good person *_*despite*_* your religion, rather than because of it]



> Religion on my mind is good provided we take it for what it is: mythology. Within the mythic archetype are many lessons that we can learn from. Even Jesus spoke in parables, and it is entirely possible that he is a mythic construct himself. I have no problem with that. There doesn't have to be an actual creature names Yoda living on a moon in the Dagobah system in order for people today to be familiar with his teachings. The story of Superman is really just a disguised story of JC, who came from far away to be raised by his earthly parents, with initials J & M, and lives to help humankind using modern day miracles. The archetype is the same, and archetypes and syories have always been used in religion to reveal some insight about human nature.


:clap:

Absolutely excellent thinking and examples; I completely agree. So why is it that so many religious people insist that we believe their particular myth is literally true and that we must give their crazy beliefs special respect. It's okay to be amused by people who claim to be Jedi and to draw silly cartoons of Yoda, but drawing a cartoon of Mohammad is sufficiently offensive as to justify violence and murder?

We need to recognize the elephant in the room here; there is now and always has been a complete lack of evidence for all the extraordinary claims of all religions. We can't prevent people form forming crazy beliefs, and some of their crazy beliefs sometimes inspire some of them to greatness, but that doesn't mean we should respect the crazy beliefs; we should respect the greatness of the individuals, and wonder how much greater they might have been if they weren't encumbered with those delusions.


----------



## fjnmusic

bryanc said:


> I'm going to have to side with MacGuiver here; it seems to me that you [fjnmusic] are a Catholic in name only. Just like every other Catholic I've ever met. I can't imagine a rational adult that does not disagree, more or less strenuously, with lots of the teachings of the Catholic church.
> 
> I played in the Edmonton Catholic Schools All City Band for years back in the 1980's (they were happy to have me because I was a good musician, and didn't give a damn about my religious beliefs, or lack thereof), and as a result, many of my best friends are Catholics. Except none of them actually agree with the Church on very many, if any topics. The mother of our oboe player was the principle of one of the Catholic Schools, and it turned out that she was an atheist.
> 
> The Catholic Church seems to be largely a social club, and they welcome essentially any and all who want to participate. This can be a good thing (if you can stomach a little hypocrisy), but it also makes it possible for complete smegheads like the Pope to claim they represent a lot more people than they really do.
> 
> So congratulations on being a CINO, you're in good company.


Thanks, bryanc. I'm a hypocrite and proud of it! In some circles we call this fire insurance. Most of my Catholic friends are similarly lapsed Catholics, as are a couple of my fave comedians: George Carlin and Denis Leary. There's a certain pride in being a lapsed Catholic. I'd rather laugh with the sinners than cry with the saints anyway.

Most of the morality I glean comes from JC Himself; I like the way he questions the authority of his day, the way he hangs out with the outcasts, the way he simplifies the old law to something much more immediate and meaningful, his kindness in general to everyone he meets. Love your enemies is a pretty revolutionary concept when you think about it. This is if course a very different nature than the God of the Old Testament.


----------



## bryanc

Rps said:


> what role should religion have in a society?


I agree with Margarok


margarok said:


> I think religion should have NO role in societal organization


Getting there, with the enormous role organize religion has and continues to play in society, will be a slow and difficult process, fraught with danger (like big oil resisting the transition to renewable energy, don't expect the wealthy and powerful religions to go down without a fight).

And even if society is successful in shaking of the superstitions of our ancestors, we will have to re-invent societal structures that fill some of the roles currently occupied by Churches (like other parasites, religions have many affects on their hosts, and not all of them are deleterious). We'll need to increase the number and size of secular charities and social organizations. We'll need more and better day care and early childhood education centres. We need places and organizations that facilitate social interactions within the community. And many other things will have to change if we manage to get religion out of our social system, but I think all of these changes can be for the better.


----------



## bryanc

fjnmusic said:


> Thanks, bryanc. I'm a hypocrite and proud of it!


I'm glad you didn't take offence; we're all hypocrites to some degree. But I've found among my Catholic friends this particular form of hypocrisy is utterly rampant and they, like you, seem to be okay with that. They continue to call themselves Catholics despite not agreeing with the Pope on almost any topic... even so far as to be genuine philosophical atheists. I guess it's almost like an ethnicity; I have a friend who self-identifies as a Jew, despite being a vocal atheist and never having participated in the religion since childhood. But he was born a Jew, so that's how he sees himself.

The only real problem I have with this is that it gives religious leaders far more political clout than they deserve. When the Pope claims to represent well over a billion people, he understandably wields considerable political power. But if the vast majority are like my Catholic friends, and think the man is a complete smeghead with whom they share essentially no common ground, how much of that political power is really warranted?


----------



## bryanc

fjnmusic said:


> This is if course a very different nature than the God of the Old Testament.


Yes, the kinder gentler masochistic god of the NT is less morally objectionable than the sadistic genocidal god of the OT. But I think you can get as much moral guidance from Gandalf or Yoda as you can from JC, and you can do that without having to pretend you actually belief they were/are real people. And as far as real people go, there's a great deal of excellent moral philosophy (Hobbes, Mill, Kant, Plato, etc.) that I'd take over the vague proverbs of religious writings or the antics of the heroic characters of fiction any day.


----------



## Rps

bryanc said:


> And even if society is successful in shaking of the superstitions of our ancestors, we will have to re-invent societal structures that fill some of the roles currently occupied by Churches (like other parasites, religions have many affects on their hosts, and not all of them are deleterious).


So how do we provide for consistent social reproduction....schools? That would most certainly "formalize" the process, so how and what do we choose to replicate. FJ touched on this with morals ...... but many of our "morals" have been inculcated through religion. So what morals do we replicate..... It wasn't all that long ago that many of the educated elite stated that there was nothing left to be invented..... are we that way with morals? I don't think so, since science has impacted greatly on society...... science might actually be a religion of its own.


----------



## margarok

bryanc said:


> I agree with Margarok
> 
> 
> Getting there, with the enormous role organize religion has and continues to play in society, will be a slow and difficult process, fraught with danger (like big oil resisting the transition to renewable energy, don't expect the wealthy and powerful religions to go down without a fight).
> 
> And even if society is successful in shaking of the superstitions of our ancestors, we will have to re-invent societal structures that fill some of the roles currently occupied by Churches (like other parasites, religions have many affects on their hosts, and not all of them are deleterious). We'll need to increase the number and size of secular charities and social organizations. We'll need more and better day care and early childhood education centres. We need places and organizations that facilitate social interactions within the community. And many other things will have to change if we manage to get religion out of our social system, but I think all of these changes can be for the better.


I would want to make sure everyone realizes I do believe in the individual's right to believe and practice their faith as long as it infringes on no one else. Just as religion should play NO role in society; society should impose NO rule on the belief of an individual.


----------



## Sonal

bryanc said:


> I guess it's almost like an ethnicity; I have a friend who self-identifies as a Jew, despite being a vocal atheist and never having participated in the religion since childhood. But he was born a Jew, so that's how he sees himself.


In a lot of cases, there's a culture and a community that is associated with the religion. One might not believe, but might still want to be part of that community.


----------



## bryanc

margarok said:


> Just as religion should play NO role in society; society should impose NO rule on the belief of an individual.


:clap:

I completely concur. But I also recognize that this is very idealistic, and essentially impossible to implement in real life. While society may not explicitly insist on a specific set of beliefs, it can and does effectively exclude or disenfranchise people who don't conform to social norms (even when these norms aren't really that dominant... try getting elected to public office as an atheist in the US).


----------



## screature

Sonal said:


> In a lot of cases, there's a culture and a community that is associated with the religion. One might not believe, but might still want to be part of that community.


Tis true dat.


----------



## bryanc

Rps said:


> So how do we provide for consistent social reproduction....schools?


Firstly, I should say that we don't necessarily want "consistent social reproduction." Variation is the feed-stock of evolution, so we don't want to encourage homogeneity. But yes, schools, family, the media, and other forms of cultural exchange all serve to propagate culture.



> many of our "morals" have been inculcated through religion.


I really think this is a myth. Of the great moral philosophers, even Kant agreed that morality didn't need to be dictated by divinity, and modern thinkers are decidedly consequentialist. Religion has repeatedly laid claim to morality, as if humans will all turn into sociopaths as soon as they realize the omniscient policeman in the sky isn't really there, but I see no evidence of this. For the religious teachings that actually make moral sense, there are perfectly good secular reasons for these principles. And for the religious "morals" that aren't congruent with secular reasoning, they're usually stupid rules that really have no moral consequences (like taking the lord's name in vain).



> So what morals do we replicate.


The ones that make sense in a secular framework; one's that have real consequences.



> since science has impacted greatly on society...... science might actually be a religion of its own.


If science were a religion, we'd have a lot less trouble raising money for research.

Bu seriously, how can you even suggest this? Science is the application of rational skepticism to distinguish between naturalistic hypotheses describing observable reality. Religion is dependent on faith, and all religions make unfalsifiable claims about supernatural forces or entities and an unobservable reality. Science and religion are diametrically opposed approaches to understanding the universe. (One works and one doesn't beejacon)


----------



## MacGuiver

fjnmusic said:


> Thanks, bryanc. I'm a hypocrite and proud of it! In some circles we call this fire insurance.


How do you see this insurance policy working for you in the end?


----------



## bryanc

MacGuiver said:


> How do you see this insurance policy working for you in the end?


This does remind me of the similarity between the Abrahamic religions and mob-style protection rackets; although you've got to give the mob credit for actually having enforcers rather than just the threat of an imaginary enforcer who'll rough you up in the hereafter


----------



## iMouse

bryanc said:


> This does remind me of the similarity between the Abrahamic religions and mob-style protection rackets; although you've got to give the mob credit for actually having enforcers rather than just the threat of an imaginary enforcer who'll rough you up in the hereafter


Does the devil have PayPal??


----------



## Rps

bryanc quoting you:

*If science were a religion, we'd have a lot less trouble raising money for research.
*
That maybe, but you will always have conflict of science .... climate change comes to mind here....... and conflict can impact on grant money.

*Bu seriously, how can you even suggest this? Science is the application of rational skepticism to distinguish between naturalistic hypotheses describing observable reality. Religion is dependent on faith, and all religions make unfalsifiable claims about supernatural forces or entities and an unobservable reality. Science and religion are diametrically opposed approaches to understanding the universe. (One works and one doesn't beejacon)[/quote]*

I always find it amusing that science is more easily accepted than religion as an explanation for things ( bare in mind I am not a religious person ) but the very act of developing a scientific theory is an act of explanation .... and this answer to the question "why" is a hallmark of virtually all religions that I know of. 

Additionally, we can easily accept a man made theory on faith, such as E=MC2 but reject the concept of a G_D....... we accept theory because we have faith that it has not yet been disproven, but anything that was attributed to G_d and we have discovered the scientific reason behind for some reason seem a valid explanation that G_d does not exist.....why because we have "explained" the question at hand. If man's purpose is to question and find answers, then maybe scientists worship at the alter of science.....


----------



## Sonal

bryanc said:


> Religion is dependent on faith.


Not all religions.


----------



## iMouse

Sonal said:


> Not all religions.


But churches are dependent on money.


----------



## fjnmusic

MacGuiver said:


> How do you see this insurance policy working for you in the end?


It's a line I stole from a Mr. Deity episode. I believe in an afterlife, but I don't believe in either heaven or hell, so I guess it doesn't really matter how it works. I think people should do good in this life because it makes for more of a satisfying existence, not because of some eternal reward or punishment. Karma in this life is reason enough for me. 

Ever seen George Carlin's invisible man routine? 

(advisory: not suitable for all viewers, especially those easily offended by religious mockery)





+
YouTube Video









ERROR: If you can see this, then YouTube is down or you don't have Flash installed.


----------



## groovetube

iMouse said:


> But churches are dependent on money.


why not another graphic, though for this thread.


----------



## MacGuiver

Bill Gates gave us Windows and they call him good?


----------



## groovetube

They didn't say perfect!


----------



## fjnmusic




----------



## groovetube

fjnmusic said:


>


we like the Dalai Lama. Love listening to him talk.


----------



## imnothng

groovetube said:


> we like the Dalai Lama. Love listening to him talk.


And just think, according to millions of people's belief's (including MacGuiver here), this man of peace is going to spend eternity in some magical place called hell that is overseen by some magical dude called the devil.


----------



## MacGuiver

imnothng said:


> And just think, according to millions of people's belief's (including MacGuiver here), this man of peace is going to spend eternity in some magical place called hell that is overseen by some magical dude called the devil.


Dude. Your ignorance is showing.


----------



## iMouse

I assume most here have seen Rowan Atkinson do his "Toby" (the devil) skit?

If not ....

Rowan Atkinson Live - The devil Toby welcomes you to hell - YouTube


----------



## jef

imnothng said:


> And just think, according to millions of people's belief's (including MacGuiver here), this man of peace is going to spend eternity in some magical place called hell that is overseen by some magical dude called the devil.


Unless, of course, he says 'sorry'. :yawn:


----------



## imnothng

MacGuiver said:


> Dude. Your ignorance is showing.


How so? I'm pretty sure he doesn't accept Jesus Christ as his lord and savior.


----------



## jef

Jared Diamond: It’s irrational to be religious
Supernatural beliefs might not make sense, but they endure because they're so emotionally satisfying
BY JARED DIAMOND
Jared Diamond: It’s irrational to be religious - Salon.com


----------



## MacGuiver

jef said:


> Unless, of course, he says 'sorry'. :yawn:


What really makes me yawn is how ignorant you guys are when it comes to theology.


----------



## bryanc

Nice bit from the Jared Diamond piece:


Jared Diamond said:


> Instead, the religious supernatural beings in which we believe are surprisingly similar to humans, animals, or other natural objects, except for having superior powers. They are more far-sighted, longer-lived, and stronger, travel faster, can predict the future, can change shape, can pass through walls, and so on. In other respects, gods and ghosts behave like people. The god of the Old Testament got angry, while Greek gods and goddesses became jealous, ate, drank, and had sex. Their powers surpassing human powers are projections of our own personal power fantasies; they can do what we wish we could do ourselves.


----------



## MacGuiver

imnothng said:


> How so? I'm pretty sure he doesn't accept Jesus Christ as his lord and savior.


You're attributing the doctrine of some Protestant sects to the Catholic Church. Here ya go:



> In his Credo of the People of God, Pope Paul VI wrote: the divine design of salvation embraces all men; and those who without fault on their part do not know the Gospel of Christ and His Church, but seek God sincerely, and under the influence of grace endeavor to do His will as recognized through the prompting of their conscience, they, in a number known only to God, can obtain salvation. The Second Vatican council said much the same thing and then added: Nor does divine Providence deny the help necessary for salvation those who, without blame on their part, have not yet arrived at an explicit knowledge of God, but who strive to live a good life, thanks to His grace. Whatever goodness or truth is found among them is looked upon by the Church as a preparation for the gospel. She regards such qualities as given by Him who enlightens all men so that they may finally have life. (Constitution on the Church n.16).


----------



## Macfury

And yet, just because they are not on your road, does not mean they are necessarily on a road that leads to anything good. In fact, the road that leads to ultimate happiness may be a bitch to travel.


----------



## bryanc

> the divine design of salvation embraces all men; and those who without fault on their part do not know the Gospel of Christ and His Church, but seek God sincerely, and under the influence of grace endeavor to do His will as recognized through the prompting of their conscience, they, in a number known only to God, can obtain salvation.


So, just to clarify, someone like me, who genuinely strives to be a good person and to make the world a better place, will still burn in hell because I have not accepted the Gospels and have come to the conclusion that Christ is most likely a fictional character who is a gestalt of several individuals who existed at that time plus a lot of wishful fantasy on the part of the writers; I've had access to the "word of God" and have rejected it as irrational nonsense, so I'm damned, despite my otherwise moral life, right? Not that I'm really worried, I just want clarification on how an orthodox Christian sees an eternity of torture as just punishment for using the critical thinking skills with which God endowed me.


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> Nice bit from the Jared Diamond piece:


 


> Instead, the religious supernatural beings in which we believe are surprisingly similar to humans, animals, or other natural objects, except for having superior powers. They are more far-sighted, longer-lived, and stronger, travel faster, can predict the future, can change shape, can pass through walls, and so on. In other respects, gods and ghosts behave like people. The god of the Old Testament got angry, while Greek gods and goddesses became jealous, ate, drank, and had sex. Their powers surpassing human powers are projections of our own personal power fantasies; they can do what we wish we could do ourselves.


This is why I find that followers of the AGW movement are so similar to some religious groups. The world is a god that comes back to smite you for exactly the type of actions of which they disapprove in the first place. Use fossil fuels and you not only sow the wind, you reap the whirlwind! You burn fossil fuel and Earth burn you!!!

Likewise, we get the notion that unless you do something now!!!!! without proof that it makes a lick of difference, you must act according to their dictates or some terrible thing will befall you, your children, or your childrens' children.

Now I'm not suggesting that the AGW scenario is not remotely possible--just that it is not remotely likely. However, the belief is structured according to a religious model of fire and brimstone.


----------



## jef

MacGuiver said:


> You're attributing the doctrine of some Protestant sects to the Catholic Church. Here ya go:


..and in the case of the Dali Lama, I'm pretty sure that he is aware, and probably quite knowledgeable of the Christian faith but has rejected it in favour of what he believes. Therefore he is accordingly doomed... unless he repents... maybe... huh?


----------



## fjnmusic

imnothng said:


> And just think, according to millions of people's belief's (including MacGuiver here), this man of peace is going to spend eternity in some magical place called hell that is overseen by some magical dude called the devil.


If the devil punishes bad people, does that mean he's doing a good thing?


----------



## groovetube

Macfury said:


> This is why I find that followers of the AGW movement are so similar to some religious groups. The world is a god that comes back to smite you for exactly the type of actions of which they disapprove in the first place. Use fossil fuels and you not only sow the wind, you reap the whirlwind! You burn fossil fuel and Earth burn you!!!
> 
> Likewise, we get the notion that unless you do something now!!!!! without proof that it makes a lick of difference, you must act according to their dictates or some terrible thing will befall you, your children, or your childrens' children.
> 
> Now I'm not suggesting that the AGW scenario is not remotely possible--just that it is not remotely likely. However, the belief is structured according to a religious model of fire and brimstone.


That's completely ridiculous. The idea that those who accept the near unanimous opinion of the worldwide scientific community think the earth is somehow a supernatural being 'smiting us' because of our activity is breathtaking in it's stupidity.


----------



## eMacMan

jef said:


> ..and in the case of the Dali Lama, I'm pretty sure that he is aware, and probably quite knowledgeable of the Christian faith but has rejected it in favour of what he believes. Therefore he is accordingly doomed... unless he repents... maybe... huh?


Interestingly a couple of my former customers were Baptist Missionaries. They had the pleasure of meeting the Dali Lama and declared him to be the holiest man they had ever met.


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> So, just to clarify, someone like me, who genuinely strives to be a good person and to make the world a better place, will still burn in hell because I have not accepted the Gospels and have come to the conclusion that Christ is most likely a fictional character who is a gestalt of several individuals who existed at that time plus a lot of wishful fantasy on the part of the writers; I've had access to the "word of God" and have rejected it as irrational nonsense, so I'm damned, despite my otherwise moral life, right? Not that I'm really worried, I just want clarification on how an orthodox Christian sees an eternity of torture as just punishment for using the critical thinking skills with which God endowed me.


C.S. Lewis has an interesting answer in his book, _The Problem of Pain _:



> "The doors of Hell are locked on the inside. I do not mean that the ghosts may not wish to come out of Hell, in the vague fashion wherein an envious man 'wishes' to be happy: but they certainly do not will even the first preliminary stages of that self-abandonment through which alone the soul can reach any good. They enjoy forever the horrible freedom they have demanded, and are therefore self-enslaved: just as the blessed, forever submitting to obedience, become through all eternity more and more free."


He sees Hell simply as a boring eternity, apart from God, but one chosen freely by the "rebel."


----------



## Rps

fjnmusic said:


> If the devil punishes bad people, does that mean he's doing a good thing?


Now that is an interesting question.............


----------



## MacGuiver

bryanc said:


> So, just to clarify, someone like me, who genuinely strives to be a good person and to make the world a better place, will still burn in hell because I have not accepted the Gospels and have come to the conclusion that Christ is most likely a fictional character who is a gestalt of several individuals who existed at that time plus a lot of wishful fantasy on the part of the writers; I've had access to the "word of God" and have rejected it as irrational nonsense, so I'm damned, despite my otherwise moral life, right? Not that I'm really worried, I just want clarification on how an orthodox Christian sees an eternity of torture as just punishment for using the critical thinking skills with which God endowed me.


What you define as a "moral life" may not be a moral life in God's judgement. Ask most anyone and they'll tell you they're living a moral life. The architects of Aushwitz likely saw nothing morally objectionable about what they were doing. But again I don't know your heart or life circumstances and I have no idea how God will judge you. That said, I think if you reject God and despise him in this life he'll honour that decision in the next.


----------



## Macfury

fjnmusic said:


> If the devil punishes bad people, does that mean he's doing a good thing?


In the final tally, he gets thrown into the lake of fire as well, and doesn't like it a bit. He's too busy suffering to inflict punishment.


----------



## Rps

MacGuiver said:


> What you define as a "moral life" may not be a moral life in God's judgement.


MacGuiver this is the root of most religious issues, what is moral ( under one's religion ) may be in conflict with another who is moral under theirs.


----------



## MacGuiver

Macfury said:


> And yet, just because they are not on your road, does not mean they are necessarily on a road that leads to anything good. In fact, the road that leads to ultimate happiness may be a bitch to travel.


:clap:


----------



## bryanc

MacGuiver said:


> What you define as a "moral life" may not be a moral life in God's judgement.


Well, if God's morals are differnent than mine, He's wrong 


> Ask most anyone and they'll tell you they're living a moral life.


In my experience; many people feel that they're trying and failing to be moral, and some are fairly complacent (often because they believe they can repent later and be forgiven). But yes, in general, I think most people try to adhere to what they consider to be an acceptable moral code. If we could get them to develop a more sophisticated moral code, they might behave better more often.


> The architects of Aushwitz likely saw nothing morally objectionable about what they were doing.


That likely explains their high suicide rate. I suspect most of the lower echelons in that regime did what they felt they had to in order to protect themselves and/or their families from retribution.


> That said, I think if you reject God and despise him in this life he'll honour that decision in the next.


How could I despise something I don't think exists? I no more despise the Christian God than any of the Hindu Gods, or invisible pink unicorns. I do think the way the God of Abraham is depicted in the bible is a fairly despicable character, so if such an entity actually existed, I certainly wouldn't worship it, but fortunately, there is no reason to think such a creature actually exists.


----------



## bryanc

Macfury said:


> This is why I find that followers of the AGW movement are so similar to some religious groups.


That's quite a stretch. We know human activity can profoundly affect the environment. We've damaged our atmosphere with CFCs and other pollutants in the past, and this has had serious deleterious effects on ecosystems and our own health. We've mitigated these problems by reducing our emissions of gasses that alter the chemistry of our atmosphere, lakes and oceans in the past. How is the empirically demonstrable fact of ACC, or the belief that we can mitigate it by reducing our emissions even remotely similar to a religion?


----------



## MacGuiver

Rps said:


> MacGuiver this is the root of most religious issues, what is moral ( under one's religion ) may be in conflict with another who is moral under theirs.


I agree but I think that extends beyond religion. Clashing morality is at the root of a good many conflict outside of faith as well.


----------



## Rps

MacGuiver said:


> I agree but I think that extends beyond religion. Clashing morality is at the root of a good many conflict outside of faith as well.


Again, an interesting point and question.


----------



## MacGuiver

> Well, if God's morals are differnent than mine, He's wrong


I don't think thats an uncommon belief, even among believers.



> In my experience; many people feel that they're trying and failing to be moral, and some are fairly complacent (often because they believe they can repent later and be forgiven).


That hasn't been my experience. A lot may act immorally because they have justified it in their own minds or because they know the proper moral choice but choose to reject it because it isn't the easy one or even a desirable one. I think if they're complacent about their transgressions they've likely justified their actions since your conscience would hinder your ability to be complacent about it. 



> But yes, in general, I think most people try to adhere to what they consider to be an acceptable moral code.


Agreed. What varies wildly is what they deem moral.



> If we could get them to develop a more sophisticated moral code, they might behave better more often.


How would you propose doing that? What or who would set the parameters for that moral code?



> That likely explains their high suicide rate. I suspect most of the lower echelons in that regime did what they felt they had to in order to protect themselves and/or their families from retribution.


No doubt this is true. But obviously there were people that saw nothing morally wrong with what they were doing. I'd venture so far as to say they'd see it as a moral good for the advancement and benefit of the German people. 



> How could I despise something I don't think exists? I no more despise the Christian God than any of the Hindu Gods, or invisible pink unicorns.


Lets be honest Bryan. You spend far too much energy and time fighting Christianity at every opportunity for me to believe you don't despise it. Its your favourite horse to beat.


----------



## Sonal

bryanc said:


> How could I despise something I don't think exists? I no more despise the Christian God than any of the Hindu Gods, or invisible pink unicorns.


In many of your (frequently sarcastic) pokes at belief and God, you use Judeo-Christian examples.... a lot of what you say does not apply to the spiritual beliefs of other religions.

So you do not give the appearance of equally non-despising all religious belief.


----------



## fjnmusic

bryanc said:


> Well, if God's morals are differnent than mine, He's wrong
> 
> In my experience; many people feel that they're trying and failing to be moral, and some are fairly complacent (often because they believe they can repent later and be forgiven). But yes, in general, I think most people try to adhere to what they consider to be an acceptable moral code. If we could get them to develop a more sophisticated moral code, they might behave better more often.
> 
> That likely explains their high suicide rate. I suspect most of the lower echelons in that regime did what they felt they had to in order to protect themselves and/or their families from retribution.
> 
> How could I despise something I don't think exists? I no more despise the Christian God than any of the Hindu Gods, or invisible pink unicorns. I do think the way the God of Abraham is depicted in the bible is a fairly despicable character, so if such an entity actually existed, I certainly wouldn't worship it, but fortunately, there is no reason to think such a creature actually exists.


Actually, we're all atheists to some degree, in that we reject the existence of all other gods save for the one we happen to believe in.


----------



## Macfury

fjnmusic said:


> Actually, we're all atheists to some degree, in that we reject the existence of all other gods save for the one we happen to believe in.


No. This is like saying we're all vegan to some degree, if we reject some meats. Why try to redefine the meanings of words such as atheist (or vegan) that have absolute definitions?


----------



## fjnmusic

Macfury said:


> No. This is like saying we're all vegan to some degree, if we reject some meats. Why try to redefine the meanings of words such as atheist (or vegan) that have absolute definitions?


An athiest is who one does believe in the existence of God. But if I believe in the Christian God but reject the Hindu God, then I am an atheist as far as the Hindu is concerned. Unless all these different gods are really the same, yet with many natures.


----------



## Macfury

fjnmusic said:


> An athiest is who one does believe in the existence of God. But if I believe in the Christian God but reject the Hindu God, then I am an atheist as far as the Hindu is concerned. Unless all these different gods are really the same, yet with many natures.


You wouldn't be an atheist, just a a non-believer. A Christian would not call a Muslim an atheist.


----------



## fjnmusic

Macfury said:


> You wouldn't be an atheist, just a a non-believer. A Christian would not call a Muslim an atheist.


How dare you call me a non-believer, just because I believe in different things than you do. I am very much a believer. And there are many Muslims who call non-Muslims infidels. Ditto for Christians. Really, it's a lot like which football you root for. A lot.


----------



## Rps

fjnmusic said:


> An athiest is who one does believe in the existence of God. But if I believe in the Christian God but reject the Hindu God, then I am an atheist as far as the Hindu is concerned. Unless all these different gods are really the same, yet with many natures.


I'm confused here fjn. I think we have a typo here. To me, an atheist is one who does not believe in a deity. So if you believed in a Christian G_d but not any other you would not be an atheist ..... but I think I see where you were intending to go here.... if I believe in mine but not yours, I'm a believer in mine and an atheist of yours....... maybe you would be more agnostic of the others...... not sure an atheist can believe in a deity.


----------



## groovetube

I'm not sure how one can be an atheist, and believe in their own choice of gods either.


----------



## screature

Macfury said:


> You wouldn't be an atheist, just a a non-believer. A Christian would not call a Muslim an atheist.





Rps said:


> I'm confused here fjn. I think we have a typo here. To me, an atheist is one who does not believe in a deity. So if you believed in a Christian G_d but not any other you would not be an atheist ..... but I think I see where you were intending to go here.... if I believe in mine but not yours, I'm a believer in mine and an atheist of yours....... maybe you would be more agnostic of the others...... not sure an atheist can believe in a deity.


If you believe in any form of god you are not an atheist. You are a theist. Period, full stop.

I really fail to see the value in fjnmusic trying to squeeze in some form of logic into his belief that we are all atheists in the the eyes of those of other faiths. 

Perhaps in the eyes of idiots/fundamentalists of faiths of any kind, but not for anyone with half a brain to know that you don't have to believe in *my* god to believe in *a * god.


----------



## bryanc

MacGuiver said:


> A lot may act immorally because they have justified it in their own minds or *because they know the proper moral choice but choose to reject it* because it isn't the easy one or even a desirable one.


(my bold)
Right; the point is that they know that've made morally questionable choices. So not all people think they behave morally (although they may or may not admit it). 



> How would you propose doing that [increasing the level of moral development in the absence of religion]?


Education. Exactly as the church has been doing it, but instead of teaching people to behave in certain ways because if you do not, God will punish you, we teach secular moral philosophy (see J.S. Mill or almost any moral philosopher of the 18th, 19th, 20th, or 21st century). There is certainly no evidence that atheists are less moral than theists (indeed, there is some evidence to the contrary), so there's no reason to think that removing the threat of the invisible police man will prevent people from developing a rational moral code.

Indeed, as I've pointed out before, belief in an omniscient rule-enforcer actually impairs moral development, because it removes the situation in which one's personal morality is all that governs behaviour; if you never believe you're unobserved, morality does not really pertain.



> What or who would set the parameters for that moral code?


Society; just as it always has.



> Lets be honest Bryan. You spend far too much energy and time fighting Christianity at every opportunity for me to believe you don't despise it. Its your favourite horse to beat.


I said I don't despise your God; I cant despise what I don't believe exists. I didn't say that I did not despise Christianity. But 'despise' is too strong a word; I think Christianity (which is hardly a single belief system; it seems every Christian has a different variant on the general theme) ranges from harmless but risible to pathological and disturbing. It's also not my favourite horse to beat; it's just a very easy target because it is so philosophically indefensible and an attractive target because it plays a prominent and largely deleterious role in society.


----------



## bryanc

Sonal said:


> In many of your (frequently sarcastic) pokes at belief and God, you use Judeo-Christian examples.... a lot of what you say does not apply to the spiritual beliefs of other religions.


This is a fair criticism. Because the Abrahamic religions are so much more prominent in western society that's what I'm most familiar with. I agree that this is a lazy and sloppy use of the term religion, but it's an internet forum and typing out "Abrahamic religions" sometimes seems more effort than it's worth.


> So you do not give the appearance of equally non-despising all religious belief.


My objections to religious beliefs are more numerous and strenuous with regard to the Abrahamic traditions, but I am equally disdainful of all supernatural beliefs.


----------



## fjnmusic

Rps said:


> I'm confused here fjn. I think we have a typo here. To me, an atheist is one who does not believe in a deity. So if you believed in a Christian G_d but not any other you would not be an atheist ..... but I think I see where you were intending to go here.... if I believe in mine but not yours, I'm a believer in mine and an atheist of yours....... maybe you would be more agnostic of the others...... not sure an atheist can believe in a deity.


It's not my concept, I can't remember who came up with it originally, but that's the gist of it anyhow. If I believe in my God but reject yours, I am somewhat limited in my deity belief system. I am suggesting that your God does not exist, the same way an atheist claims my God does not exist. In the words of Mark Knopfler, two men say they're Jesus; one of them must be wrong.

Myself, I believe there is some kind of life force that connects us all. Some people would call that life force God. I suppose I just think of it as life. Does life exist? Do I believe in life? Doesn't matter whether I believe in life? Will life continue with or without my belief? Perhaps it's more New Age, but this kind of thinking works for me. No need for a sky daddy except in metaphorical terms. No need for human sacrifice either; there's far too much of that in human history. What it comes down to it, I am not really a theist or an atheist. And I am definitely not a nonbeliever – such a presumptuous term. I believe in myself and the power of the human spirit. I do not need to defend my beliefs to anyone else....and neither do you.


----------



## Macfury

fjnmusic said:


> I believe in myself and the power of the human spirit. I do not need to defend my beliefs to anyone else....and neither do you.


Apparently not to the RC school board either!!


----------



## fjnmusic

Macfury said:


> Apparently not to the RC school board either!!


Macfury, you can be so anal retentive. I WORK for the school board; they do not OWN me. They do not control what I think. I am a good teacher and they are lucky to have me. They are a good employer and I am lucky to have them. Stop trying to meddle. What exactly do you do for a living so we can pick it apart? Enough already with your condescension, Mr I'm a better Catholic than you are. Maybe you're just less honest.


----------



## Macfury

My apologies. I thought Catholic schools hired people who professed Catholic faith.


----------



## iMouse

fjnmusic said:


> Macfury, you can be so anal retentive. I WORK for the school board; they do not OWN me. They do not control what I think. I am a good teacher and they are lucky to have me. They are a good employer and I am lucky to have them. Stop trying to meddle. What exactly do you do for a living so we can pick it apart? Enough already with your condescension, Mr I'm a better Catholic than you are. Maybe you're just less honest.


Hee hee. :lmao: :clap:



Macfury said:


> My apologies. I thought Catholic schools hired people who professed Catholic faith.


Think?


----------



## fjnmusic

Macfury said:


> My apologies. I thought Catholic schools hired people who professed Catholic faith.


You'd be surprised. Back when I was in high school my Chemistry teacher was Hindu. Didn't seem to interfere with his ability to teach Chemistry, although he always had one of the students lead the prayer. As Sister Terasita once explained, they are Catholic schools, not schools for Catholics. And in my province they are publicly funded, so a fair degree of tolerance is expected.


----------



## MacGuiver

Macfury said:


> My apologies. I thought Catholic schools hired people who professed Catholic faith.


In my experience, there are a few genuine Catholic teachers but probably most of them are CINO. Know next to nothing of the faith, never go to church nor have any interest in it and likely cherry pick the doctrines they like and reject the rest. This is why the Bishop in our area is pulling Catechesis out of the schools and back into the church. With the secular progressives running the show in Queens park, its only a matter of time before nothing Catholic remains.

That said its not all bad. We still have a real Christmas Concert with nativity scenes and the whole bit. Social teaching is still strong. Kids do a lot of charitable stuff and services and church activities still take place. The education is also top notch where my kids go. They're in the top level of the standardized testing scores year after year.


----------



## groovetube

Do you really think it's the provincial government's fault?

I have a few catholic teacher friends, and, they're good people, and are rather mindful of what they do, but I wouldn't consider them particularly religious either. And they've been teachers there for a good number of years. Probably long before the 'heathens' currently in provincial government


----------



## Macfury

MacGuiver said:


> In my experience, there are a few genuine Catholic teachers but probably most of them are CINO. Know next to nothing of the faith, never go to church nor have any interest in it and likely cherry pick the doctrines they like and reject the rest. This is why the Bishop in our area is pulling Catechesis out of the schools and back into the church. With the secular progressives running the show in Queens park, its only a matter of time before nothing Catholic remains.


I can't see though, that having a nativity scene at Christmas is enough of a reason to duplicate an entire school board. If they don't care to teach the Catholic faith and don't hire adherents of their faith, it strikes me that individual Catholic schools should undergo some sort of litmus test to justify their existence.That would pare it down to a few schools that can prove they are different enough from secular humanist schools to qualify as Catholic.


----------



## fjnmusic

Macfury said:


> I can't see though, that having a nativity scene at Christmas is enough of a reason to duplicate an entire school board. If they don't care to teach the Catholic faith and don't hire adherents of their faith, it strikes me that individual Catholic schools should undergo some sort of litmus test to justify their existence.That would pare it down to a few schools that can prove they are different enough from secular humanist schools to qualify as Catholic.


What province are you in, Macfury, out of curiosity? Here in Alberta, Catholic schools are publicly funded, and since most of the curriculum we are paid to teach would qualify as secular humanism, I wonder why you seem to have your panties in a bunch over this particular style of education. It is the curriculum after all. Our rights as Catholic taxpayers are also protected as part of the 1905 Alberta Act.


----------



## jef

Why I Raise My Children Without God - CNN iReport

All parents should read this!


----------



## jef

jef said:


> Why I Raise My Children Without God - CNN iReport
> 
> All parents should read this!


The article above (reader submitted) has been flagged as inappropriate and is under review. I have saved the text in case it disappears. I wish it could be flagged as 'most appropriate'!


----------



## groovetube

It's still there for me.

It highlights one of the biggest reasons I don't believe in god, one which no religious person has ever been able to satisfactorily answer for me. Just look around at the insane human suffering going on. And god loves us?

NOT.


----------



## Macfury

fjnmusic said:


> What province are you in, Macfury, out of curiosity? Here in Alberta, Catholic schools are publicly funded, and since most of the curriculum we are paid to teach would qualify as secular humanism, I wonder why you seem to have your panties in a bunch over this particular style of education. It is the curriculum after all. Our rights as Catholic taxpayers are also protected as part of the 1905 Alberta Act.


Toronto is in Ontario. 

I don't believe it's been demonstrated that it's a style of education at all. It sounds like a public school curriculum taught by non-Catholics, or Catholics who don't believe their own religion--with a Christmas concert! If all the Catholic system has to offer is a duplication of the public school system, then I don't see that the Catholic school system has a lot longer to go. The _1905 Alberta Act_ is not immovable, it is simply not possible to upend it on the grounds of the Charter.


----------



## imnothng

School should be for learning truths, church's (and their ilk) are for indoctrinating lies and half truths.


----------



## bryanc

Macfury said:


> It sounds like a public school curriculum taught by non-Catholics, or Catholics who don't believe their own religion--with a Christmas concert! If all the Catholic system has to offer is a duplication of the public school system, then I don't see that the Catholic school system has a lot longer to go.


I have to agree. I have very serious philosophical problems with a publicly funded separate religious school for only one religion in a secular democracy; I'm astounded it's survived legal challenge this long.

That being said, in my experience, the Catholic schools (certainly in Edmonton) have historically done a far better job than the public schools. I attribute this to a few important factors: demographics (the kids in the Catholic schools are from more affluent families on average), selection (a problem student can be dumped more easily from a Catholic school to a public school than from a public school out of school entirely), and culture (in my experience, the families of the kids in Catholic school were valued and supported academic performance far more than the families of kids in public schools, on average). I think (but don't know) that the teacher to student ratio is significantly higher in Catholic schools, and that the average amount of money spent per student is also higher in the separate system, which probably contributes as well.

But I would still favour abolishing the separate school system and utilizing the resources to improve the public system to benefit all Canadians.


----------



## Rps

imnothng said:


> School should be for learning truths, church's (and their ilk) are for indoctrinating lies and half truths.


What an enlightened and unbiased view. What is a lie and half truth really depends on whose book your reading at the time a class is taught. For the most part, our history in Canada has been written by White, Protestant, European males...... truth tends to be written by the winners....... That said, schools also introduce aspects of culture....is culture an indoctrination of lies and half truths....well maybe....depends what culture you are experiencing. The real question here is do we need separate school boards. To me the age old Catholic and Protestant boards are a thing of the past. What is taught should be a curricula matter. For clarity, I'm not suggesting we eliminate Catholic or Protestant ( or any other religious education... in fact teaching all religions may be a good idea ) education, just the boards that run them.


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> But I would still favour abolishing the separate school system and utilizing the resources to improve the public system to benefit all Canadians.


The Catholic schools could continue to bring their incremental excellence to the marketplace through private schools.

In Alberta, the 1905 Act was a political agreement designed to seal the Confederation deal and this is why it's considered untouchable. I would be more inclined to support that agreement, if the schools maintained their Catholic tradition as a show of good faith. 

Sounds like the deal is now one-sided: _you_ maintain our funding agreement, while _we_ stop being Catholic.


----------



## fjnmusic

jef said:


> The article above (reader submitted) has been flagged as inappropriate and is under review. I have saved the text in case it disappears. I wish it could be flagged as 'most appropriate'!


It is a very clear and honest testimony that I can find no fault with. It's like she flipped the light switch on in the dark room where many of us sit.


----------



## fjnmusic

Macfury said:


> Toronto is in Ontario.
> 
> I don't believe it's been demonstrated that it's a style of education at all. It sounds like a public school curriculum taught by non-Catholics, or Catholics who don't believe their own religion--with a Christmas concert! If all the Catholic system has to offer is a duplication of the public school system, then I don't see that the Catholic school system has a lot longer to go. The _1905 Alberta Act_ is not immovable, it is simply not possible to upend it on the grounds of the Charter.


Well there's the difference between your world and mine. In Alberta, Catholic education is a secular humanist publicly funded education with the addition of religion classes, going to mass a few times a year, crucifixes on the wall, and no fear that if you mention religion or Jesus that someone is going to tell you can't do that. It is quite a bit different from a private Catholic education I would imagine. And it is really not harming you if two school systems can operate in one city or town—we've been doing it successfully for for 108 years now. Why do you wish to destroy what is working well for us?


----------



## Macfury

jef said:


> Why I Raise My Children Without God - CNN iReport
> 
> All parents should read this!


It's pretty feeble stuff. If you presuppose God does not exist, the thinking is irrelevant. If you presuppose God does exist, her points have all been dealt with centuries ago.

Pretty hard to come up with something new on this topic, I know, but this is a moldy retread.


----------



## JCCanuck

Macfury said:


> Toronto is in Ontario.
> 
> I don't believe it's been demonstrated that it's a style of education at all. It sounds like a public school curriculum taught by non-Catholics, or Catholics who don't believe their own religion--with a Christmas concert! If all the Catholic system has to offer is a duplication of the public school system, then I don't see that the Catholic school system has a lot longer to go. The _1905 Alberta Act_ is not immovable, it is simply not possible to upend it on the grounds of the Charter.


I agree and to add to that there is a Catholic high school near us that is 30% muslim so why not just make it a public school? The catholic school in our area was not good and with the public school being over crowded we sent the two kids to private Christian schools. The private school was great and I'm an atheist unlike the kids and momma.


----------



## fjnmusic

Rps said:


> What an enlightened and unbiased view. What is a lie and half truth really depends on whose book your reading at the time a class is taught. For the most part, our history in Canada has been written by White, Protestant, European males...... truth tends to be written by the winners....... That said, schools also introduce aspects of culture....is culture an indoctrination of lies and half truths....well maybe....depends what culture you are experiencing. The real question here is do we need separate school boards. To me the age old Catholic and Protestant boards are a thing of the past. What is taught should be a curricula matter. For clarity, I'm not suggesting we eliminate Catholic or Protestant ( or any other religious education... in fact teaching all religions may be a good idea ) education, just the boards that run them.


It's funny, Rps. Those who favor abolishing Catholic schools apparently don't realize that in Alberta, the highest achieving school in the province year after year according to the Fraser Institute ranking is The Strathcona Christian Academy—a formerly private, now fully publicy funded religious school that is part of the PUBLIC school system in Elk Island Public Schools. How does it maintain such a high academic average? Simple. It weeds out people that don't make the grade if their marks are not high to qualify for entrance. Just like a university, except that this is a publicly funded school. Go figure that. So you see, it's not just Catholic school systems that get all the privileges.


----------



## fjnmusic

Macfury said:


> It's pretty feeble stuff. If you presuppose God does not exist, the thinking is irrelevant. If you presuppose God does exist, her points have all been dealt with centuries ago.
> 
> Pretty hard to come up with something new on this topic, I know, but this is a moldy retread.


That was a feeble answer. No offence. The lady explained very clearly why she is not passing on the God-myth to her kids, and you haven't actually refuted a single thing she said with any clear counterexample.


----------



## Macfury

fjnmusic said:


> That was a feeble answer. No offence. The lady explained very clearly why she is not passing on the God-myth to her kids, and you haven't actually refuted a single thing she said with any clear counterexample.


Did you think I was going to leave her alone? More to come.


----------



## fjnmusic

Macfury said:


> Did you think I was going to leave her alone? More to come.


Can hardly wait.


----------



## Rps

fjnmusic said:


> It's funny, Rps. Those who favor abolishing Catholic schools apparently don't realize that in Alberta, the highest achieving school in the province year after year according to the Fraser Institute ranking is The Strathcona Christian Academy—a formerly private, now fully publicy funded religious school that is part of the PUBLIC school system in Elk Island Public Schools. How does it maintain such a high academic average? Simple. It weeds out people that don't make the grade if their marks are not high to qualify for entrance. Just like a university, except that this is a publicly funded school. Go figure that. So you see, it's not just Catholic school systems that get all the privileges.


Fjn, I have no problem with this, I think the Catholic system has done a wonderful job, it's the fact that we have separate boards and the cost of same that I take issue with.


----------



## bryanc

Rps said:


> What is a lie and half truth really depends on whose book your reading at the time a class is taught.


Um... no. What is _*taught*_ may depend on the book or the professor, but what is true is independent of what is written, who is perceiving it, and what we may want to believe.



> For the most part, our history in Canada has been written by White, Protestant, European males...... truth tends to be written by the winners.


No. History is written by the winners; what actually happened is independent of who writes about it or what they choose to record.



> culture an indoctrination of lies and half truths...


Cultural characteristics rarely have much to do with what is true or false; they are norms of behaviour that fall within very broad ranges of what is viable for human beings. Is a cheeseburger better than a curry? There's no universally true or false answer to that question. I prefer curries, but someone else may prefer cheeseburgers; neither of us is wrong.

But either the Nazis massacred millions of Jews during WWII or they didn't. You can't say a holocaust denier "just has a different perspective on history." Although the precise details of the history may be arguable, the occurrence of the holocaust is an objective fact of history.



> For clarity, I'm not suggesting we eliminate Catholic or Protestant ( or any other religious education... in fact teaching all religions may be a good idea ) education, just the boards that run them.


I like this idea; everyone I know who has studied comparative religion extensively has become an atheist. Discovering that the myth your family has been indoctrinating you with from birth is no more supportable by evidence than any of hundreds or thousands of other myths that are obviously not true is a great way to get people to recognize that their religion is not true either.


----------



## bryanc

Macfury said:


> It's pretty feeble stuff. If you presuppose God does not exist, the thinking is irrelevant. If you presuppose God does exist, her points have all been dealt with centuries ago.


Inadequately, in my opinion and in the opinions of most modern philosophers. Aquinas' apologetics and Voltaire's "Best of All Possible Worlds" not withstanding, the "Problem of Evil" is still an unsolved paradox if you accept the premise of an omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent deity.

And while I agree with your criticism of the writing as feeble; the arguments are air-tight. There simply is no logical reason to believe in any God.


----------



## Rps

bryanc not to be argumentative but I think you are looking at too high a level here. When I was in high school virtually all history was that of the British Empire. We had no Canadian history and Louis R was a traitor.........now we have a statue of him in Manitoba..... so, yes history is written by the winners and is culturally biased and we shall agree to disagree.


----------



## bryanc

Rps said:


> so, yes history is written by the winners and is culturally biased and we shall agree to disagree.


I don't disagree with you; clearly history is written by the winners and is grossly culturally biased. My point is that such biases have nothing to do with what is actually true.


----------



## MacGuiver

Macfury said:


> Toronto is in Ontario.
> 
> I don't believe it's been demonstrated that it's a style of education at all. It sounds like a public school curriculum taught by non-Catholics, or Catholics who don't believe their own religion--with a Christmas concert! If all the Catholic system has to offer is a duplication of the public school system, then I don't see that the Catholic school system has a lot longer to go. The _1905 Alberta Act_ is not immovable, it is simply not possible to upend it on the grounds of the Charter.


I can't say I disagree with this assessment. However at this point in time, I feel its the better choice of two public schools and there are still a few real Catholics teaching that teach the faith to the kids. We have a French teacher that is excellent in this regard.
The Christmas Concert is a little more than a nativity scene. Its a Christmas Concert that is entirely based on the real Christmas story. At our particular school Santa Claus, Snow men and elves doesn't even get a mention in the plays and songs. Its not a Winter Festive Non Denominational Holiday Snow Man Celebration. That said your milage may vary depending on the school. The liberal sexual agenda is also somewhat kept a bay but its forcing its foot in the door more each year.

I can't argue with your logic though. If its nothing more than another Public School, and its heading in that direction, then whats the point? That said I'm no fan of a single Public system. It tends to get stagnant like any business with no competition while unions would have the tax payer over a barrel more than ever. We're seeing this in Ontario now where at least some kids aren't getting kicked around by the teachers union since they're in the Catholic Board. I'd love to see full privatization of education and a voucher system with some provincial oversite over curriculum. Works great in some european countries.


----------



## Macfury

MacGuiver said:


> I can't argue with your logic though. If its nothing more than another Public School, and its heading in that direction, then whats the point? That said I'm no fan of a single Public system. It tends to get stagnant like any business with no competition while unions would have the tax payer over a barrel more than ever.


What I'm saying is that they should limit the Separate Board to only those schools willing to behave as Catholic schools and hire teachers who will teach in a manner consistent with that. Many schools will be absorbed into the public system. Each community may be left with a smaller number of true Catholic schools.



MacGuiver said:


> I'd love to see full privatization of education and a voucher system with some provincial oversite over curriculum. Works great in some european countries.


Agreed.


----------



## imnothng

MacGuiver said:


> The Christmas Concert is a little more than a nativity scene. Its a Christmas Concert that is entirely based on the real Christmas story. At our particular school Santa Claus, Snow men and elves doesn't even get a mention in the plays and songs. Its not a Winter Festive Non Denominational Holiday Snow Man Celebration. .


Oh please tell us the "real" Christmas story?

Surely you're not talking about the fact that some pope just happened to pick a date right next to the pagans biggest holiday, while stealing and converting many of their traditions.


----------



## MacGuiver

imnothng said:


> Oh please tell us the "real" Christmas story?
> 
> Surely you're not talking about the fact that some pope just happened to pick a date right next to the pagans biggest holiday, while stealing and converting many of their traditions.


There's nothing to stop pagans from still doing their thing on Dec. 25th. We nor they have a monopoly on what someone does on a given calendar date. And another theological tidbit for you, we don't believe Jesus was born Dec. 25th. We've no idea what day he was born but its the day we chose to celebrate it. I'd guess if their pagan celebrations fell out of favour, it has more to do with their pagan religions falling out of favour than a shared holiday date destroying it.


----------



## jef

bryanc said:


> And while I agree with your criticism of the writing as feeble; the arguments are air-tight. There simply is no logical reason to believe in any God.


The piece was not written by an academic or a journalist. It was written as a mom. As a parent, it laid bare the issues faced when raising kids in a non-religous family and I can relate to everything she writes. I don't agree her writing is feeble at all.



Macfury said:


> It's pretty feeble stuff. If you presuppose God does not exist, the thinking is irrelevant. If you presuppose God does exist, her points have all been dealt with centuries ago.
> 
> Pretty hard to come up with something new on this topic, I know, but this is a moldy retread.


Suggesting that not believing in god means you can simply ignore religion is more than a feeble argument. Christianity is very much an in-your-face religion and it is impossible to ignore. Raising your kids so they can understand the role and influence of religion(s) over our lives - religious or not - and make an educated choice for themselves is not 'irrelevant'. 

I wish every parent could express their views as well as she did.


----------



## fjnmusic

Rps said:


> Fjn, I have no problem with this, I think the Catholic system has done a wonderful job, it's the fact that we have separate boards and the cost of same that I take issue with.


Yes, but the answer is not always fewer boards covering larger and larger geographical areas. Sometimes two boards can work better than one. There would not be much difference in cost anyway if you merged the boards, since by far the biggest cost is salaries, and there would be the same number of teachers and support staff, maintenance staff and so on either way. At best, we're talking about the savings on not duplicating a few upper admin at central office. School board members don't make a killing either. Your costs are mainly related to how many students total are being represented, and therefore how much staff you have to hire. That's just a practical consideration, not even bringing up any religious argument.


----------



## imnothng

MacGuiver said:


> There's nothing to stop pagans from still doing their thing on Dec. 25th. We nor they have a monopoly on what someone does on a given calendar date. And another theological tidbit for you, we don't believe Jesus was born Dec. 25th. We've no idea what day he was born but its the day we chose to celebrate it. I'd guess if their pagan celebrations fell out of favour, it has more to do with their pagan religions falling out of favour than a shared holiday date destroying it.


So you don't believe that he was born on that date? Do you tell your kids that? Does the pope admit that?

Pagan celebrations fell out after they were forced by torture to worship someone else's beliefs. But it's ok because your imaginary story is the right one.


----------



## Rps

fjnmusic said:


> Your costs are mainly related to how many students total are being represented, and therefore how much staff you have to hire. That's just a practical consideration, not even bringing up any religious argument.


You've obviously haven't seen the school boards main offices here in WIndsor, Toronto, Whitby , one each for Catholic and Protestant. As for trustees, in Toronto they average around 30K a year..... not sure what they make out west. But your somewhat right on the merger of the boards....but bare in mind the purchasing power of a single board on text books, equipment, even desks........ we need to put our money where it does the most good and that is in a quality teaching staff no matter what curricula they teach.

But I think I'll have to play moderator here as we are getting off thread.


----------



## fjnmusic

MacGuiver said:


> There's nothing to stop pagans from still doing their thing on Dec. 25th. We nor they have a monopoly on what someone does on a given calendar date. And another theological tidbit for you, we don't believe Jesus was born Dec. 25th. We've no idea what day he was born but its the day we chose to celebrate it. I'd guess if their pagan celebrations fell out of favour, it has more to do with their pagan religions falling out of favour than a shared holiday date destroying it.


The early Christians "shared" the holiday date because they would have been killed by the Romans for openly flaunting their Christian beliefs. It wasn't for another 300 years, until the Council of Nicea in 325 AD when Christianity became the officially acceptable religion as decreed by the less than honourable Emperor Constantine. Christians had to keep their beliefs quiet for many years before then or risk punishment or death.

As far as piggybacking on other pagan celebrations goes, have you ever considered why Easter keeps shifting from different dates in March or April every year if it's supposed to commemorating a historical event? If it's a specific time in history, you commemorate that day or one very close to it, if it needs to be on a Sunday, but with Easter there's about a month variance. First Sunday after the full moon following the vernal equinox. Count back 40 days and you have ash Wednesday (but make allowances on leap years). This means that everything associated with Easter including Holy Week, the Last Supper, Good Friday and ultimately, the Resurrection, must therefore be _symbolic_ celebrations, not historical ones. Truth can be elusive when you're dealing with events of so long ago, let alone last week, unless you're talking about some kind of mystical inner truth, but if you regard religion as stories that reveal a great deal about our own humanity, hen religion can be very helpful indeed. There is no need to throw the baby out with the bath water. You just have to be willing to accept the dichotomy that seems to divide the "believers" from the "non-believers." From what I've seen so far in this discussion, it's a contest between fundamentalism versus atheism. As Piscine asks in Life of Pi, why can't I be both (or in his case, all three)?


----------



## Rps

fjnmusic said:


> the early christians "shared" the holiday date because they would have been killed by the romans for openly flaunting their christian beliefs. It wasn't for another 300 years, until the council of nicea in 325 ad when christianity became the officially acceptable religion as decreed by the less than honourable emperor constantine. Christians had to keep their beliefs quiet for many years before then or risk punishment or death.
> 
> As far as piggybacking on other pagan celebrations goes, have you ever considered why easter keeps shifting from different dates in march or april every year if it's supposed to commemorating a historical event? If it's a specific time in history, you commemorate that day or one very close to it, if it needs to be on a sunday, but with easter there's about a month variance. First sunday after the full moon following the vernal equinox. Count back 40 days and you have ash wednesday (but make allowances on leap years). This means that everything associated with easter including holy week, the last supper, good friday and ultimately, the resurrection, must therefore be _symbolic_ celebrations, not historical ones. Truth can be elusive when you're dealing with events of so long ago, let alone last week, unless you're talking about some kind of mystical inner truth, but if you regard religion as stories that reveal a great deal about our own humanity, it can be very helpful indeed. You just have to be willing to accept the dichotomy. From what i've seen so far in this discussion, it's a contest between fundamentalism versus atheism. As piscine asks in life of pi, why can't i be both (or in his case, all three)?



+1.


----------



## Macfury

fjnmusic said:


> Yes, but the answer is not always fewer boards covering larger and larger geographical areas. Sometimes two boards can work better than one. There would not be much difference in cost anyway if you merged the boards, since by far the biggest cost is salaries, and there would be the same number of teachers and support staff, maintenance staff and so on either way. At best, we're talking about the savings on not duplicating a few upper admin at central office. School board members don't make a killing either. Your costs are mainly related to how many students total are being represented, and therefore how much staff you have to hire. That's just a practical consideration, not even bringing up any religious argument.


We're also about folding schools and redistricting.


----------



## Macfury

fjnmusic said:


> From what I've seen so far in this discussion, it's a contest between fundamentalism versus atheism.


Who represents fundamentalism? I can pick out a few atheists, but there are others who appear to be neither.


----------



## fjnmusic

Macfury said:


> We're also about folding schools and redistricting.


Yes, but you're still talking about the same number of students and staff either way. About 85% of the school division's costs are related to staffing on average. Where exactly would be the savings by folding and redistricting? It would be like taking the same phys ed class and rearranging the two teams randomly or any other way, for that matter. Unless you assign more of them to sit on the bench, it's the same number of players on the field.


----------



## imnothng

fjnmusic said:


> The early Christians "shared" the holiday date because they would have been killed by the Romans for openly flaunting their Christian beliefs. It wasn't for another 300 years, until the Council of Nicea in 325 AD when Christianity became the officially acceptable religion as decreed by the less than honourable Emperor Constantine. Christians had to keep their beliefs quiet for many years before then or risk punishment or death.
> 
> As far as piggybacking on other pagan celebrations goes, have you ever considered why Easter keeps shifting from different dates in March or April every year if it's supposed to commemorating a historical event? If it's a specific time in history, you commemorate that day or one very close to it, if it needs to be on a Sunday, but with Easter there's about a month variance. First Sunday after the full moon following the vernal equinox. Count back 40 days and you have ash Wednesday (but make allowances on leap years). This means that everything associated with Easter including Holy Week, the Last Supper, Good Friday and ultimately, the Resurrection, must therefore be _symbolic_ celebrations, not historical ones. Truth can be elusive when you're dealing with events of so long ago, let alone last week, unless you're talking about some kind of mystical inner truth, but if you regard religion as stories that reveal a great deal about our own humanity, hen religion can be very helpful indeed. There is no need to throw the baby out with the bath water. You just have to be willing to accept the dichotomy that seems to divide the "believers" from the "non-believers." From what I've seen so far in this discussion, it's a contest between fundamentalism versus atheism. As Piscine asks in Life of Pi, why can't I be both (or in his case, all three)?


Very well said.

To comment on the last two lines. People believe in imaginary beings because what there parents told them based on a book that is full of lies trying to be passed off as truths. Christians and their ilk will admit that many "stories" in their respective holy books are just made up stories, but they will never admit that the biggest one of all, the belief in a supreme imaginary being, might not be true.

So it's really a discussion between reality and fairy tales.


----------



## fjnmusic

Macfury said:


> Who represents fundamentalism? I can pick out a few atheists, but there are others who appear to be neither.


I'd have to say that anyone who sees the Bible or Catholicism as flawless and expects all Catholic teachers to adhere strictly to Catholic doctrine would be a Catholic fundamentalist. I'd also suggest they're dreaming as far the real world goes. There are far more lapsed Catholics (who are also good people) than the pope would like to count.


----------



## Macfury

fjnmusic said:


> Yes, but you're still talking about the same number of students and staff either way. About 85% of the school division's costs are related to staffing on average. Where exactly would be the savings by folding and redistricting? It would be like taking the same phys ed class and rearranging the two teams randomly or any other way, for that matter. Unless you assign more of them to sit on the bench, it's the same number of players on the field.


Suppose I were to suggest that we have five school boards instead, one for Muslims, another for Jews and another for Atheists? Would you still say that the cost would be the same--same number of staff, same number of students?


----------



## Macfury

fjnmusic said:


> I'd have to say that anyone who sees the Bible or Catholicism as flawless and expects all Catholic teachers to adhere strictly to Catholic doctrine would be a Catholic fundamentalist. I'd also suggest they're dreaming as far the real world goes. There are far more lapsed Catholics (who are also good people) than the pope would like to count.


It isn't a matter of them being flawless, it's that the arguments presented here seem to miss the target.

For example: the Pope would probably acknowledge that some lapsed Catholics are good people. However, what bearing does that have on the mission of the Catholic Church, which is to create converts and adherence to Jesus Christ?


----------



## fjnmusic

Macfury said:


> Suppose I were to suggest that we have five school boards instead, one for Muslims, another for Jews and another for Atheists? Would you still say that the cost would be the same--same number of staff, same number of students?


The cost for staff and students would be the same, save for your upper admin and associated buildings and such. It would be more expensive overall, by how much I couldn't tell you. If you were to designate all five as public systems, then parents would have to be able to enrol their kids into any school they choose. This is not likely with all faiths, and so traditionally those schools have been private schools. But remember, it is very different in Alberta than Ontario. Here, Catholic schools are not schools for Catholics; there are publicly funded, so anyone can enrol their kids here. As a result, we have to respect that we are not preaching to the choir. Many of our students are not Catholic at all or but they are still our students. We teach; we do not indoctrinate. That's the parent's role. We try to provide a decent, Christ-based school setting, and so far, it seems to work. But you can't go hardcore if you're publicly funded and accept all comers.


----------



## fjnmusic

Macfury said:


> It isn't a matter of them being flawless, it's that the arguments presented here seem to miss the target.
> 
> For example: the Pope would probably acknowledge that some lapsed Catholics are good people. However, what bearing does that have on the mission of the Catholic Church, which is to create converts and adherence to Jesus Christ?


Well, that's not MY mission nor in my years of being a student of Catholic schools, an altar boy, a music minister, and a teacher for the last 24 years, has it ever been the mission of any school board or Catholic church I've ever attended. There are programs set up for those who wish to convert, but it is not at all about recruiting in my experience. Perhaps your church does things differently. My church would just be happy if its OWN members showed up more often than Christmas and Easter.

As for the Pope, I really liked John Paul II. I think the new one is a bully and a megalomaniac. I will say a prayer for the poor…from my Golden Throne. That's a far cry from St. Francis of Assisi or Mother Theresa. But whatever. He's the new boss, and lots of people are never too fond of the boss in any event.


----------



## MacGuiver

> So you don't believe that he was born on that date? Do you tell your kids that? Does the pope admit that?


-There's a 1 in 365 chance he was.
-Yes
-Yes and every well Catechized Catholic does as well.



> Pagan celebrations fell out after they were forced by torture to worship someone else's beliefs. But it's ok because your imaginary story is the right one.


And you accuse me of believing fairy tales...


----------



## groovetube

that pagans were tortured and murdered and some christian holidays and traditions stole pagan things as their own?

I would have thought that was pretty well known!


----------



## iMouse

groovetube said:


> that pagans were tortured and murdered and some christian holidays and traditions stole pagan things as their own?
> 
> I would have thought that was pretty well known!


Christmas, the Winter Solstice, being the most well-known.


----------



## fjnmusic

iMouse said:


> Christmas, the Winter Solstice, being the most well-known.


History is written by the victors alright.


----------



## MacGuiver

groovetube said:


> that pagans were tortured and murdered and some christian holidays and traditions stole pagan things as their own?
> 
> I would have thought that was pretty well known!


I've often heard atheists repeat this theory but how exactly do you steal someones religious holiday? 
If a Christmas tree and a yule log at your neighbours church throw you off your own religion that easily, you're either not very bright, only care about Christmas trees and yule logs or not very convicted to begin with.


----------



## groovetube

MacGuiver said:


> I've often heard atheists repeat this theory but how exactly do you steal someones religious holiday?
> If a Christmas tree and a yule log at your neighbours church throw you off your own religion that easily, you're either not very bright, only care about Christmas trees and yule logs or not very convicted to begin with.


I don't know -how- they did it, but I -do- know they did it. It's well documented, and accepted as fact.

I don't even know why, they did it. Nor do I really care really, it isn't my problem.

As for it 'throwing me off my religion' babble, please leave that sort of nonsense response to macfury. That's his game.

I don't have a religion to be thrown off from. I'm merely pointing out the obvious.


----------



## MacGuiver

iMouse said:


> Christmas, the Winter Solstice, being the most well-known.


Or just maybe people just stopped giving a crap about celebrating the Winter Solstice. The presence of Christmas can't stop a faithful Pagan from bowing to the sun. 
If in 100 years Dec. 25th becomes widely known as gifting day with pine trees trimmed with Richard Dawkins, Charles Darwin and Che figurines would you blame the atheists for steeling Christmas or did Christianity just fade away?


----------



## groovetube

or perhaps they got burned at the stake...


----------



## MacGuiver

groovetube said:


> As for it 'throwing me off my religion' babble, please leave that sort of nonsense response to macfury. That's his game.
> 
> I don't have a religion to be thrown off from. I'm merely pointing out the obvious.


I wasn't referring to you groove when I said "you". It was the hypothetical pagan of days gone by. Sorry for the confusion.


----------



## MacGuiver

groovetube said:


> or perhaps they got burned at the stake...


 Atheistic regimes do have a pretty brutal track record in the past century. You could be on to something there.


----------



## jef

"The Vatican, and the Mormon Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, and the Southern Baptist Convention should be very worried."

Religion may not survive the Internet - Salon.com


----------



## groovetube

MacGuiver said:


> I wasn't referring to you groove when I said "you". It was the hypothetical pagan of days gone by. Sorry for the confusion.


I don't think christians are thrown off by these much. 

But let's face it, in history, christianity was a really aggressive religion, between converting (missions??) burning pagans at the stake (or drowning or other such horrible deaths) in the name of ridding the community of 'satan', it isn't hard to see how paganism faded. Even now there's still a stigmatism attached to those who consider themselves pagan, or similar.


----------



## MacGuiver

jef said:


> "The Vatican, and the Mormon Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, and the Southern Baptist Convention should be very worried."
> 
> Religion may not survive the Internet - Salon.com


Judging by the misinformation circulating on this forum I have to agree.


----------



## JCCanuck

jef said:


> "The Vatican, and the Mormon Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, and the Southern Baptist Convention should be very worried."
> 
> Religion may not survive the Internet - Salon.com


Love the quote, “For me, I am driven by two main philosophies: know more today about the world than I knew yesterday and lessen the suffering of others. You'd be surprised how far that gets you.” 
― Neil deGrasse Tyson
Didn't know about this Tyson guy. Thanks for the link, jef, something I didn't think about, the negative aspect of internet on religion.


----------



## groovetube

certainly, history having been *re*written is having a tougher time standing.


----------



## groovetube

How 19-year-old activist Zack Kopplin is making life hell for Louisiana's creationists

Young student takes on the creationists bent on removing science and alternative ideas from the classroom. Good for him!

This caught my eye:


> He also has his eyes set on vouchers. After an Alternet story came out about a school in the Louisiana voucher program teaching that the Loch Ness Monster was real and disproved evolution, Kopplin looked deeper into the program and found that this wasn't just one school, but at least 19 other schools, too.


Just wow.

And of course the creationists aren't happy with him.



> His efforts, needless to say, have not gone unnoticed — particularly by his opponents. He's been called the Anti-Christ, a stooge of "godless liberal college professors," and was even accused of causing Hurricane Katrina. Kopplin cooly brushes these incidents aside, saying they're just silly distractions.


Sounds crazy, but how many times have we heard this sort of insane responses?


----------



## Macfury

MacGuiver said:


> Judging by the misinformation circulating on this forum I have to agree.


Yep. This big wave of secular humanist genius on EhMac will just wash religion away.


----------



## groovetube

No need for sour grapes now!


----------



## fjnmusic

I still don't understand what's so supposedly evil about secular humanism. I've taught in both public and Catholic schools and kids are kids in either place. It's the adults in positions of power who sometimes make me wonder.


----------



## fjnmusic

jef said:


> "The Vatican, and the Mormon Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, and the Southern Baptist Convention should be very worried."
> 
> Religion may not survive the Internet - Salon.com


I really appreciate this article. Clear, straightforward, logical. It really resonates with my own feelings about how religion can be used in a very manipulative fashion, far from the kind of spirituality I believe in and have discovered for myself. Thanks for the link, Jef.


----------



## imnothng

MacGuiver said:


> Atheistic regimes do have a pretty brutal track record in the past century. You could be on to something there.


You sir are completely delusional, but you have lots of company in those that believe in imaginary friends.


----------



## groovetube

imnothng said:


> You sir are completely delusional, but you have lots of company in those that believe in imaginary friends.


No, he's absolutely right. However...



MacGuiver said:


> Atheistic regimes do have a pretty brutal track record in the past century. You could be on to something there.


Christians present themselves as a religion of peace, their god, is one of 'love'. But their history shows they are far from it. I've heard and seen many christians howl about the muslims, and their acts of violence, when we hear about the acts of violence of the christians. Christians have had their time n persecution for sure. But I'm merely pointing out that christians, in history is no better than any other. I brought this up originally since you were talking about how paganism faded. Well perhaps the reign of terror and murder the christians foisted on them may have been a factor.


----------



## Macfury

imnothng said:


> You sir are completely delusional, but you have lots of company in those that believe in imaginary friends.


It's Communism, entirely free of any deity, that holds the record for mass murder. That's secular humanism in action! By relying on logic and elevated by the faith in the human spirit, one can achieve death tolls unheard of by pikers with imaginary friends.


----------



## groovetube

communism, isn't a religion.

Try again.


----------



## imnothng

groovetube said:


> No, he's absolutely right. However...
> .


My bad for not being clear. I was trying to point out that he isn't denying anything, rather he's pointing fingers at something else.


----------



## groovetube

Yeah they tend to do that to deflect any criticism.

The old 'well the other guy did it!' Which doesn't cut it after hearing how much better they're supposed to be.

And check out the communism comment. If that doesn't smack of a desperate attempt to deflect I don't know what does.


----------



## bryanc

jef said:


> The piece was not written by an academic or a journalist. It was written as a mom. As a parent, it laid bare the issues faced when raising kids in a non-religous family and I can relate to everything she writes. I don't agree her writing is feeble at all.


Okay, you're right; I was being harsh. It would count as feeble writing if it were being written by a professional, but for an average person it was pretty good. And, I completely agree with you that her arguments were entirely valid.


----------



## bryanc

MacGuiver said:


> I've often heard atheists repeat this theory but how exactly do you steal someones religious holiday?


This has nothing to do with atheism and everything to do with canny marketing; the holy roman empire was having a tough time stamping out the pagans (who were well entrenched), and Constantine was a smart guy, so rather than trying to repress the pagans, he decided to co-opt them. So he moved the Christ Mass, which was being held in January onto the nearest major pagan festival (solstice/Saturnalia), and moved the celebration of resurrection onto Oestra (the pagan festival of fertility we know as Easter). Then, rather than having to stamp out the pagan festivals, he could encourage them as 'Christian' celebrations, although they've kept their pagan trimmings (bringing trees indoors to symbolize the reversal of the day length and lighting up the darkness to celebrate the return of the sun at midwinter, and fertility symbols like eggs and rabbits for the festival of Oestra). It was an example of extremely good marketing accomplishing what religious persecution could not.

I always get a smile out of devout Christians who insist that we should return to more traditional celebrations of Christmas and Easter... I agree; bring on the drunken orgies!


----------



## fjnmusic

bryanc said:


> This has nothing to do with atheism and everything to do with canny marketing; the holy roman empire was having a tough time stamping out the pagans (who were well entrenched), and Constantine was a smart guy, so rather than trying to repress the pagans, he decided to co-opt them. So he moved the Christ Mass, which was being held in January onto the nearest major pagan festival (solstice/Saturnalia), and moved the celebration of resurrection onto Oestra (the pagan festival of fertility we know as Easter). Then, rather than having to stamp out the pagan festivals, he could encourage them as 'Christian' celebrations, although they've kept their pagan trimmings (bringing trees indoors to symbolize the reversal of the day length and lighting up the darkness to celebrate the return of the sun at midwinter, and fertility symbols like eggs and rabbits for the festival of Oestra). It was an example of extremely good marketing accomplishing what religious persecution could not.
> 
> I always get a smile out of devout Christians who insist that we should return to more traditional celebrations of Christmas and Easter... I agree; bring on the drunken orgies!


I think we need more imaginary creatures, not fewer. More Easter bunnies, perhaps a good one and an evil one, along with maybe an Easter alien with a message of universal peace. like Paul in the movie of the same name, a drinking/swearing alien to appeal to today's young people. The only thing we've had new in recent times was South Park's Mr. Hankey.


----------



## bryanc

fjnmusic said:


> I think we need more imaginary creatures, not fewer.


Hey, we've got a relatively new Flying Spaghetti Monster, and there are loads of really excellent old imaginary creatures from humanities past we could dust off and start playing with again; bring out the faeries and gnomes!


----------



## Macfury

fjnmusic said:


> I think we need more imaginary creatures, not fewer. More Easter bunnies, perhaps a good one and an evil one...


The evil one brings Easter Creme Eggs.


----------



## fjnmusic

bryanc said:


> Hey, we've got a relatively new Flying Spaghetti Monster, and there are loads of really excellent old imaginary creatures from humanities past we could dust off and start playing with again; bring out the faeries and gnomes!


And let us not forget all the mythical Sesame Street gang and other creatures of the Children's Television Workshop.


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> Hey, we've got a relatively new Flying Spaghetti Monster, and there are loads of really excellent old imaginary creatures from humanities past we could dust off and start playing with again; bring out the faeries and gnomes!


There was a great story by Robert Sheckley written in the 1960s about attempts to build a utopian civilization as part of a university research project. Eventually, they realized that happiness could not be achieved without experiencing fear of threat, so the model included a robotic monster that would run through the utopian village at random, and kill a few people.


----------



## MacGuiver

> Christians present themselves as a religion of peace, their god, is one of 'love'.


I'd agree with that sentiment. Unfortunately we're mortal and prone to sin like everyone else and often fall short of the ideal.



> But their history shows they are far from it.


"Far from it" is a simplistic overstatement. It completely ignores the immense good Christianity has contributed to the world. The dominant contributors to hospitals, orphanages, 3rd world relief, education and charities of all sort. Take the Christian contribution out of these pursuits and the world would be a far less hospitable place to live. 



> I've heard and seen many christians howl about the muslims, and their acts of violence, when we hear about the acts of violence of the christians.


Although I'm no fan of Islam, I prefer to howl about the recent violent history of atheistic regimes since Atheists are usually the ones howling about real and mythical acts of violence by Christians. Claiming the world would be a utopia if only religion were eliminated. Observable reality doesn't support that statement.
They ignore the epic violence of their enlightened brethren in our current times that makes the casualties of the crusades and the inquisition look like a picnic.



> Christians have had their time n persecution for sure. But I'm merely pointing out that christians, in history is no better than any other.


I beg to differ. I think there are far worst religions and ideologies. 



> I brought this up originally since you were talking about how paganism faded. Well perhaps the reign of terror and murder the christians foisted on them may have been a factor.


This is some of that myth I mentioned. No Catholic denies that there was persecutions in our history, a dark spot in our history for sure, however the extent of it is often extremely exaggerated. The BBC recently investigated the archives of the often sited Spanish Inquisition and the popular myths surrounding it. A good documentary for anyone interested in facts and reality. The often thrown out, inquisitions millions of deaths, in reality were in the hundreds over a 300 year span. More die in abortion clinics on a Monday in the US alone.


----------



## bryanc

MacGuiver said:


> I prefer to howl about the recent violent history of atheistic regimes...


I certainly won't dispute that a couple of political regimes that happened to espouse atheism also engaged in the types of genocidal violence that has characterized most of human history; but I certainly don't think atheism played any role in their pogroms. It's pretty difficult to use the absence of a divine figure head to motivate your jackbooted thugs to commit an atrocity.

I should also point out that I don't think religion is the sole cause of any particular atrocity in human history (there may be examples of which I'm not aware, but I certainly don't think it's a general case). It's just that religion is terribly useful as a justification for these sorts of things; firstly, many organized religions explicitly promote 'conversion by the sword' and glorify violence committed against members of different religions. But more generally, because religions teach the dangerous nonsense that death is not the end. If you can convince an ignorant young man that if he is killed in battle against your religious foes, he will be rewarded with an eternal afterlife surrounded with nubile young women, he's much more likely to participate in whatever stupid violence you're selling.

So while I wouldn't suggest atheists have never done terrible things, I would say that when atheists do terrible things it isn't justified by their atheism; they've got some other reason. In contrast, throughout history, atrocities have been justified by "God's will" and soldiers or suicide bombers have been convinced that their martyr's death is earning them a special place in paradise, making religion a perfect tool for motivating violence against others.


----------



## jef

Macfury said:


> It's Communism, entirely free of any deity, that holds the record for mass murder. That's secular humanism in action! By relying on logic and elevated by the faith in the human spirit, one can achieve death tolls unheard of by pikers with imaginary friends.


CIMO = Communism In Name Only. There has never been a communist society but the title has been used much in the same way religion has to justify political means. Countries that are labeled communist are in most cases dictatorships and have very little in common with their 'ideal'.

"Freedom" is used in a similar way to label societies that are actually far from free.


----------



## Rps

jef said:


> CIMO = Communism In Name Only. There has never been a communist society but the title has been used much in the same way religion has to justify political means. Countries that are labeled communist are in most cases dictatorships and have very little in common with their 'ideal'.
> 
> "Freedom" is used in a similar way to label societies that are actually far from free.


"True-that" Almost any country which has the words: Democratic or Republic in it is not.


----------



## bryanc

Macfury said:


> It's Communism, entirely free of any deity, that holds the record for mass murder. That's secular humanism in action!


I think many communists, and citizens of communist countries would take exception to the implication that communism was the motivation for Stalin's purges. This is like saying Capitalism holds the record for most NASCAR champions because most NASCAR racers are American; the political economic structure of the US doesn't really pertain to the fact that some Americans like to drive really fast around in circles. Furthermore, there's no relationship between secular humanism and Communism, so to blame the mass murders perpetrated by a dictator that happened to be the leader of the communist party on the philosophy of secular humanism is patently absurd.


----------



## groovetube

MacGuiver said:


> I'd agree with that sentiment. Unfortunately we're mortal and prone to sin like everyone else and often fall short of the ideal.


 Good. Glad we're in agreement here. To be sure, it covers all religions or lack thereof.




> "Far from it" is a simplistic overstatement. It completely ignores the immense good Christianity has contributed to the world. The dominant contributors to hospitals, orphanages, 3rd world relief, education and charities of all sort. Take the Christian contribution out of these pursuits and the world would be a far less hospitable place to live.


No, I don't think I did ignore anything. I realize the number of good things many christians have done, in fact I donate to groups who are christian that in my opinion do great work. And I'll continue to do so. But it doesn't excuse any of the horrific things that people have done to each others, as 'christians'. But make no mistake, I don't hold the good christians responsible for these acts. At all. Anymore than I hold a good german person for what Hitler and his cohorts did.




> Although I'm no fan of Islam, I prefer to howl about the recent violent history of atheistic regimes since Atheists are usually the ones howling about real and mythical acts of violence by Christians. Claiming the world would be a utopia if only religion were eliminated. Observable reality doesn't support that statement.
> They ignore the epic violence of their enlightened brethren in our current times that makes the casualties of the crusades and the inquisition look like a picnic.


I don't think the world would be utopia without religion. I may think that we can benefit greatly with less of the organized 'money machines' who prey on good people, and the ones who use religion to justify violence and other horrific crimes.



> I beg to differ. I think there are far worst religions and ideologies.


The old, 'they killed more numbers than we did.' Really? I'd say christianity ranks right up there in it's aggression, coercion, and it's justifications for mass murder.



> This is some of that myth I mentioned. No Catholic denies that there was persecutions in our history, a dark spot in our history for sure, however the extent of it is often extremely exaggerated. The BBC recently investigated the archives of the often sited Spanish Inquisition and the popular myths surrounding it. A good documentary for anyone interested in facts and reality. The often thrown out, inquisitions millions of deaths, in reality were in the hundreds over a 300 year span. More die in abortion clinics on a Monday in the US alone.


This isn't a discussion for me about whether it was 100,000 or 50 million. The fact is, there will always be some who can and will justify what happened and minimize anything. In any religion. 

But I want to make clear that I don't view the spirituality of someone who believes in a christian god as associated with any of the crimes committed by past christians. Currently my main problem with most christians is the constant need to enforce their beliefs on me or anyone else that doesn't believe what they believe. They are totally free to believe what they want and to live their lives according to their rules and beliefs. But somehow, that still isn't good enough for many christians.


----------



## bryanc

groovetube said:


> I don't think the world would be utopia without religion.


I don't think simply getting rid of religion would make the world a utopia, but I do think a utopian society would not have religion.


----------



## groovetube

bryanc said:


> I don't think simply getting rid of religion would make the world a utopia, but I do think a utopian society would not have religion.


well put.


----------



## jef

MacGuiver said:


> The BBC recently investigated the archives of the often sited Spanish Inquisition and the popular myths surrounding it. A good documentary for anyone interested in facts and reality. The often thrown out, inquisitions millions of deaths, in reality were in the hundreds over a 300 year span. More die in abortion clinics on a Monday in the US alone.


Is this the documentary you meant? :lmao:

Monty Python - The Spanish Inquisition - YouTube


----------



## screature

bryanc said:


> I don't think simply getting rid of religion would make the world a utopia, *but I do think a utopian society would not have religion.*


For an atheist that would be true. 

But ask any theist, of what ever persuasion you choose, who constitute the vast majority of the world's population, and they would beg to differ.

Any way you choose to slice it, atheists are in the minority, especially when it comes to concepts of "Utopia".

It seems when it comes to religion, for atheists, "democracy" is just a hindrance and a nuisance to their Weltanschauung.

Long live Philosopher Kings!!


----------



## fjnmusic

jef said:


> Is this the documentary you meant? :lmao:
> 
> Monty Python - The Spanish Inquisition - YouTube


Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition.


----------



## MacGuiver

> I certainly won't dispute that a couple of political regimes that happened to espouse atheism also engaged in the types of genocidal violence that has characterized most of human history; but I certainly don't think atheism played any role in their pogroms.


I think it had everything to do with their efforts to eradicate religion to supplant it with atheism. The Soviets were ruthless to adherents of religion for many of the same reasons atheists criticize religion today.



> It's pretty difficult to use the absence of a divine figure head to motivate your jackbooted thugs to commit an atrocity.


Who needs a divine figure to motivate the thugs? Propaganda, money, power or the threat of a bullet in the head or life in a Siberian concentration camp work wonderfully. I think street gangs and organized crime demonstrate the fact that you don't need a divine figure to motivate extreme violence and inhumanity.



> I should also point out that I don't think religion is the sole cause of any particular atrocity in human history (there may be examples of which I'm not aware, but I certainly don't think it's a general case).


Agreed.



> It's just that religion is terribly useful as a justification for these sorts of things; firstly, many organized religions explicitly promote 'conversion by the sword' and glorify violence committed against members of different religions.


Agreed. That said I wouldn't tar all religions with that same brush.



> But more generally, because religions teach the dangerous nonsense that death is not the end. If you can convince an ignorant young man that if he is killed in battle against your religious foes, he will be rewarded with an eternal afterlife surrounded with nubile young women, he's much more likely to participate in whatever stupid violence you're selling.


Agreed. Only a fool would deny this danger.
But the belief in eternity is not always of negative consequence for humanity. Many are the people that heroically sacrificed themselves to save others because they believed that life doesn't end here. Many are those that refused to act out violently knowing death was their fate if they didn't. Many are those that worked tirelessly for the poor, for justice, for peace to conform their lives to the will of God. Regardless of whether you believe God is real, you can't deny belief in eternity has been a motivation for much good as well.



> So while I wouldn't suggest atheists have never done terrible things, I would say that when atheists do terrible things it isn't justified by their atheism; they've got some other reason.


I couldn't disagree more. If your atheism has created a perceived enemy then it can be a motivator for the terrible things committed against them. Reading comments from many atheists, I have no doubt this dynamic takes place. If "religion poisons everything" then its not a leap of logic to think that someone could justify eliminating it and its adherents for the greater good. The Soviets tried to do just that to make atheism the norm killing millions that hindered their goal.



> throughout history, atrocities have been justified by "God's will" and soldiers or suicide bombers have been convinced that their martyr's death is earning them a special place in paradise, making religion a perfect tool for motivating violence against others.


I agree with this statement though atrocities have been committed as much or more for non religious reasons. The only thing you may loose is the willingness for your attacker to sacrifice his life for the cause. He'll just look for a way to kill the enemy without killing himself as well.


----------



## Macfury

jef said:


> CIMO = Communism In Name Only. There has never been a communist society but the title has been used much in the same way religion has to justify political means. Countries that are labeled communist are in most cases dictatorships and have very little in common with their 'ideal'.


Doesn't matter. That they were "free of religion" is the salient detail here.


----------



## jef

Macfury said:


> Doesn't matter. That they were "free of religion" is the salient detail here.


Megalomania is more likely the motivator for dictators - religious or not. There are many examples on both sides of the fence.


----------



## groovetube

jef said:


> Megalomania is more likely the motivator for dictators - religious or not. There are many examples on both sides of the fence.


what they seem to miss is that the dictatorship simply replaced the god. They're just looking for reasons why atheism, is worse.


----------



## fjnmusic

I submit that everyone believes in something. Even the belief that "I don't believe in God" or "I believe we evolved from a primordial soup" or "I believe there is other intelligent sentient life in the universe" is still a belief. I believe there is no such thing as a non-believer.


----------



## SINC

fjnmusic said:


> I submit that everyone believes in something. Even the belief that "I don't believe in God" or "I believe we evolved from a primordial soup" or "I believe there is other intelligent sentient life in the universe" is still a belief. I believe there is no such thing as a non-believer.


Good sound thinking Frank.

"Everyone believes in something. I believe I'll have another beer."

That sign hung over my bar for many long years. Come to think of it, I should make a new one for our motor home. Thanks for the reminder.


----------



## fjnmusic

Now we're talking, Don.


----------



## Macfury

fjnmusic said:


> I submit that everyone believes in something. Even the belief that "I don't believe in God" or "I believe we evolved from a primordial soup" or "I believe there is other intelligent sentient life in the universe" is still a belief. I believe there is no such thing as a non-believer.


Uhm... yeah...


----------



## groovetube

fjnmusic said:


> I submit that everyone believes in something. Even the belief that "I don't believe in God" or "I believe we evolved from a primordial soup" or "I believe there is other intelligent sentient life in the universe" is still a belief. I believe there is no such thing as a non-believer.


I believe, John Lennon wrote a song on this very thing.


----------



## bryanc

fjnmusic said:


> I submit that everyone believes in something. Even the belief that "I don't believe in God" or "I believe we evolved from a primordial soup" or "I believe there is other intelligent sentient life in the universe" is still a belief. I believe there is no such thing as a non-believer.


I guess this depends on how you use the word 'belief.' If you take beliefs to mean "the collection of logical and data constructs regarding which one is reasonably confident", then yes, I agree that everyone "believes" something. If, however, you think of beliefs as "unshakable/unquestionable" ideas in which a person has some sort of faith, than no. I have no beliefs that could not be altered by adequate evidence. I could easily be convinced of the existence of god(s) (they simply need to show themselves), or that evolution is completely wrong (finding fossil primates in precambrian shale, or evidence for any of millions of other falsifiable predictions evolutionary theory makes).

So, as I've said many times here, my beliefs are not freely chosen; I am compelled to believe by reason and evidence, and when reason and/or evidence are lacking, I refrain from forming beliefs.


----------



## groovetube

Lawyers for Catholic hospital argue that a fetus is not a person - CNN.com

wow. The fetus is a life until it's legally convenient to argue otherwise I suppose.


----------



## groovetube

and in other news, those religious republicans are hard at work ensuring better education it seems.

Arizona Republicans Propose Bill That Would Not Allow Atheists To Graduate High School

just wow.


----------



## MacGuiver

groovetube said:


> Lawyers for Catholic hospital argue that a fetus is not a person - CNN.com
> 
> wow. The fetus is a life until it's legally convenient to argue otherwise I suppose.


Yeah only an idiot would make that argument to justify the killing of the unborn.


----------



## Macfury

MacGuiver said:


> Yeah only an idiot would make that argument.


Seems that the church is looking to rectify the situation:



> Representatives of the Catholic bishops of Colorado declined to comment on the legal proceedings, but said they will review the litigation and Catholic Health Initiatives' practices "to ensure fidelity and faithful witness to the teachings of the Catholic Church."


Sadly, some Catholic hospitals have become as secular as Catholic schools.


----------



## MacGuiver

Macfury said:


> Seems that the church is looking to rectify the situation:
> Sadly, some Catholic hospitals have become as secular as Catholic schools.


Yeah and not to mention the Schools overrun by new agers and atheists wrapped in a colourful candy Catholic shell.


----------



## Macfury

:yikes:


MacGuiver said:


> Yeah and not to mention the Schools overrun by new agers and atheists wrapped in a colourful candy Catholic shell.


I suspect that the dismissal of the suit regarding the unborn twins would really rest on the dismissal of the wrongful death suit for the mother. The lawyers, instead, took the short-cut.


----------



## fjnmusic

MacGuiver said:


> Yeah and not to mention the Schools overrun by new agers and atheists wrapped in a colourful candy Catholic shell.


Easy there, buddy. You wouldn't want to disrespect the bible now, would you?

“Do not judge so that you will not be judged. For by the standard you judge you will be judged, and the measure you use will be the measure you receive. Why do you see the speck in your brother’s eye, but fail to see the beam of wood in your own? Or how can you say to your brother, ‘Let me remove the speck from your eye,’ while there is a beam in your own?"

Matthew 7:1-4


----------



## fjnmusic

bryanc said:


> I guess this depends on how you use the word 'belief.' If you take beliefs to mean "the collection of logical and data constructs regarding which one is reasonably confident", then yes, I agree that everyone "believes" something. If, however, you think of beliefs as "unshakable/unquestionable" ideas in which a person has some sort of faith, than no. I have no beliefs that could not be altered by adequate evidence. I could easily be convinced of the existence of god(s) (they simply need to show themselves), or that evolution is completely wrong (finding fossil primates in precambrian shale, or evidence for any of millions of other falsifiable predictions evolutionary theory makes).
> 
> So, as I've said many times here, my beliefs are not freely chosen; I am compelled to believe by reason and evidence, and when reason and/or evidence are lacking, I refrain from forming beliefs.


I guess it all depends what you believe the word "believe" means then.


----------



## Macfury

fjnmusic said:


> Easy there, buddy. You wouldn't want to disrespect the bible now, would you?
> 
> “Do not judge so that you will not be judged. For by the standard you judge you will be judged, and the measure you use will be the measure you receive. Why do you see the speck in your brother’s eye, but fail to see the beam of wood in your own? Or how can you say to your brother, ‘Let me remove the speck from your eye,’ while there is a beam in your own?"
> 
> Matthew 7:1-4


It's shocking to see that verse so completely misunderstood--turned around backward in fact.

This verse is not a warning against the act of judgment. It's a warning against self-deception and hypocrisy. If you judge according to a certain standard, be prepared to shed the same light on yourself. It _encourages_ the judger to be judged.


----------



## Macfury

fjnmusic said:


> I guess it all depends what you believe the word "believe" means then.


Sure. If you develop non-traditional meanings for a word, you can argue that green is orange and dogs are horses.


----------



## fjnmusic

groovetube said:


> and in other news, those religious republicans are hard at work ensuring better education it seems.
> 
> Arizona Republicans Propose Bill That Would Not Allow Atheists To Graduate High School
> 
> just wow.


All because of a pledge, huh? Unbelievable. Or I should clarify: I believe that's unbelievable, where the word unbelievable means beyond belief or understanding, and the word believe means to accept as true or credit with veracity. Anybody can say anything they want; it does not make it true or even a reflection of what they actually believe in their minds, as in Lance Armstrong's interview, or the belief in transubstantiation required of all Catholics. 

Plus, a pledge? Seriously? As they say in legal circles, a verbal contract is worth the paper it is written on.


----------



## fjnmusic

Macfury said:


> It's shocking to see that verse so completely misunderstood--turned around backward in fact.
> 
> This verse is not a warning against the act of judgment. It's a warning against self-deception and hypocrisy. If you judge according to a certain standard, be prepared to shed the same light on yourself. It _encourages_ the judger to be judged.


That's exactly what I am meaning to say to you, my friend. Must be nice to be without sin. Do you have all of your stones lined up? The thing you find shocking is that a bible verse can be turned around and used against you, and worse yet, by a new age atheist wrapped up in Catholic clothes.


----------



## fjnmusic

Macfury said:


> Sure. If you develop non-traditional meanings for a word, you can argue that green is orange and dogs are horses.


There are at least five traditional meanings for the word "believe" in my dictionary, probably many more in a more advanced dictionary, all with slightly different colorations of meaning. How many are there in yours?


----------



## Macfury

fjnmusic said:


> That's exactly what I am meaning to say to you, my friend. Must be nice to be without sin. Do you have all of your stones lined up? The thing you find shocking is that a bible verse can be turned around and used against you, and worse yet, by a new age atheist wrapped up in Catholic clothes.


Are_ you _the new age atheist wrapped up in Catholic clothes?

I was just commenting on the Bible verse you brought up.

To answer your question, anyway. I am prepared to judge_ and _be judged, although I frequently turn the harsh light of judgment on myself and find myself wanting.


----------



## Macfury

fjnmusic said:


> There are at least five traditional meanings for the word "believe" in my dictionary, probably many more in a more advanced dictionary, all with slightly different colorations of meaning. How many are there in yours?


_Slightly_ different. Not _entirely_ different.


----------



## iMouse

fjnmusic said:


> There are at least five traditional meanings for the word "believe" in my dictionary, probably many more in a more advanced dictionary, all with slightly different colorations of meaning. How many are there in yours?


As many as are necessary to achieve his goals.

For Catholics, the Pope will decide on the interpretation for all.

Thank you.


----------



## fjnmusic

Macfury said:


> Are_ you _the new age atheist wrapped up in Catholic clothes?
> 
> I was just commenting on the Bible verse you brought up.
> 
> To answer your question, anyway. I am prepared to judge_ and _be judged, although I frequently turn the harsh light of judgment on myself and find myself wanting.


There you go, as do I. And as does pretty much every other Catholic I have ever met (and I've met a lot in 47 years so far). Hence the "Let he who has not sinned cast the first stone" epithet of which I must constantly remind myself. In my world view, JC and the New Testament is mainly centered on one word: forgiveness. Much easier to say than to do, and self-forgiveness is the most difficult of all.


----------



## Macfury

fjnmusic said:


> There you go, as do I. And as does pretty much every other Catholic I have ever met (and I've met a lot in 47 years so far). Hence the "Let he who has not sinned cast the first stone" epithet of which I must constantly remind myself. In my world view, JC and the New Testament is mainly centered on one word: forgiveness. Much easier to say than to do...


In the case of the "first stone," Jesus was not talking about a figurative stone, but a literal one. 

Forgiveness is an important part of the New Testament, but it is not unconditional.



fjnmusic said:


> ... and self-forgiveness is the most difficult of all.


I suspect it _should_ be!


----------



## fjnmusic

Macfury said:


> In the case of the "first stone," Jesus was not talking about a figurative stone, but a literal one.
> 
> Forgiveness is an important part of the New Testament, but it is not unconditional.
> 
> 
> 
> I suspect it _should_ be!


In fact I would suggest that the definition of hell is ultimately the inability to forgive one self for something they've done. If God forgives all, then you're already forgiven in God's eyes if you want to be. But not forgiving yourself is the ultimate isolation, and that is what hell is, whether in this life or the hereafter.


----------



## Macfury

fjnmusic said:


> In fact I would suggest that the definition of hell is ultimately the inability to forgive one self for something they've done. If God forgives all, then you're already forgiven in God's eyes if you want to be. But not forgiving yourself is the ultimate isolation, and that is what hell is, whether in this life or the hereafter.


Many people find it easier to forgive themselves than to do what is necessary to receive true forgiveness.


----------



## fjnmusic

Macfury said:


> Many people find it easier to forgive themselves than to do what is necessary to receive true forgiveness.


Yeah, I don't see it that way. I think people can put on the _appearance_ of forgiving themselves, or avoid really thinking about it or feeling the true magnitude of their actions, or rationalize that their was no other choice, but true forgiveness is very hard to come by. Take the death of a child, or killing somebody in an auto accident, or committing some crime and getting away with it. "The Cask of Amontillado" by Edgar Allen Poe tells us, for example, that there is no such thing as the perfect crime; the story itself is an act of confession. Human nature, I believe, is such that we all need confirmation or acknowledgement by others, that's it's pretty damn hard to keep a secret for life. It tears us up inside, so much so that life becomes hell right here on this planet, let alone the next. 

In fact, in that context, "eternal" might mean something closer to "without any letting up", right here in the present moment, never mind down the road. Certainly clinical depression works this way—no end to the pain seems possible. When you start to consider heaven and hell from a more here and now perspective, those biblical passages take on a whole new layer of meaning.


----------



## iMouse

Macfury said:


> In the case of the "first stone," Jesus was not talking about a figurative *stone, but a literal one*.


My bold.

I chose to think he meant the same, when speaking about "And I say also unto you, That you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it.."

A glen or a wood make a fine church. Why are these palaces even necessary?


----------



## fjnmusic

iMouse said:


> My bold.
> 
> I chose to think he meant the same, when speaking about "And I say also unto you, That you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it.."
> 
> A glen or a wood make a fine church. Why are these palaces even necessary?


I think Peter may have been petrified that Jesus WAS being literal and that there really would be a church built upon him. Of course if you see the whole bible as being metaphorical, rather than picking and choosing the passages where "rock" and "stone" are literal and not symbolic, then the bible does indeed contain much wisdom of the interpretive kind. Upon this rock (Peter himself) will I build my church; hence, Peter (or Simon, his real name), becomes the first pope. Let he who is without sin cast the first stone; the story is only about stoning a prostitute if one has the limited intelligence not to see the greater message concerning hypocrisy. It's the literalists that I have a hard time understanding. Follow the gourd!


----------



## screature

bryanc said:


> I guess this depends on how you use the word 'belief.' If you take beliefs to mean "the collection of logical and data constructs regarding which one is reasonably confident", then yes, I agree that everyone "believes" something. If, however, you think of beliefs as "unshakable/unquestionable" ideas in which a person has some sort of faith, than no. I have no beliefs that could not be altered by adequate evidence. I could easily be convinced of the existence of god(s) (they simply need to show themselves), or that evolution is completely wrong (finding fossil primates in precambrian shale, or evidence for any of millions of other falsifiable predictions evolutionary theory makes).
> 
> *So, as I've said many times here, my beliefs are not freely chosen; I am compelled to believe by reason and evidence, and when reason and/or evidence are lacking, I refrain from forming beliefs*.


Whatever you say Sheldon...


----------



## screature

fjnmusic said:


> There you go, as do I. And as does pretty much every other Catholic I have ever met (and I've met a lot in 47 years so far). *Hence the "Let he who has not sinned cast the first stone" epithet of which I must constantly remind myself. *In my world view, JC and the New Testament is mainly centered on one word: forgiveness. Much easier to say than to do, and self-forgiveness is the most difficult of all.


You cast plenty of stones here... they may not always be the first, but you cast plenty. 

So let's reboot and not just spout dogma but actually walk the talk. Otherwise it is just pure hypocrisy and just so many words.

*But then again, that is all that this place is, just words. So, never mind. Carry on...*


----------



## iMouse

screature said:


> But then again, that is all that this place is, just words. So, never mind. Carry on...






+
YouTube Video









ERROR: If you can see this, then YouTube is down or you don't have Flash installed.


----------



## fjnmusic

screature said:


> You cast plenty of stones here... they may not always be the first, but you cast plenty.
> 
> So let's reboot and not just spout dogma but actually walk the talk. Otherwise it is just pure hypocrisy and just so many words.
> 
> But then again, that is all that this place is, just words. So, never mind. Carry on...


Ouch. That stone stung a little.


----------



## screature

iMouse said:


> +
> YouTube Video
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ERROR: If you can see this, then YouTube is down or you don't have Flash installed.


Nice... beautiful actually.


----------



## screature

fjnmusic said:


> Ouch. That stone stung a little.


A little sting once and a while reminds we are still alive... 

But it was meant to be ironic... as I am as guilty as anyone in like regard. 

Despite the fact that sometimes we portray ourselves to otherwise, we are all just fallible human beings. 





+
YouTube Video









ERROR: If you can see this, then YouTube is down or you don't have Flash installed.


----------



## screature

Macfury said:


> Many people find it easier to forgive themselves than to do what is necessary to receive true forgiveness.


I agree. Many people do...

On the other side of the coin, some people milk the trespasses against them for more than they are worth...


----------



## iMouse

screature said:


> I agree. Many people do...
> 
> On the other side of the coin, some people milk the trespasses against them for more than they are worth...


Agreement. 

If only I had a nickle ......


----------



## MacGuiver

fjnmusic said:


> I think Peter may have been petrified that Jesus WAS being literal and that there really would be a church built upon him. Of course if you see the whole bible as being metaphorical, rather than picking and choosing the passages where "rock" and "stone" are literal and not symbolic, then the bible does indeed contain much wisdom of the interpretive kind.


The bible is not all this or all that (ie the whole bible is metaphorical). The bible is composed of multiple books from multiple authors over an extended period of time. Like any author the writing styles differs. There certainly is use of metaphor in scripture but not everywhere.


----------



## Macfury

MacGuiver said:


> The bible is not all this or all that (ie the whole bible is metaphorical). The bible is composed of multiple books from multiple authors over an extended period of time. Like any author the writing styles differs. There certainly is use of metaphor in scripture but not everywhere.


What's more, it's often very clear which is which. If you're looking for inspiration by simply mis-reading the text, why not read more Stephen King or Agatha Christie?


----------



## MacGuiver

fjnmusic said:


> In fact I would suggest that the definition of hell is ultimately the inability to forgive one self for something they've done. If God forgives all, then you're already forgiven in God's eyes if you want to be. But not forgiving yourself is the ultimate isolation, and that is what hell is, whether in this life or the hereafter.


I don't agree with the statement that "God forgives all" but I would agree with the statement that God *can* forgive all. He will forgive us *if* we recognize our sin and sincerely repent. 
Is that Tolle theology you're quoting? Sounds like it.


----------



## Macfury

fjnmusic said:


> In fact, in that context, "eternal" might mean something closer to "without any letting up", right here in the present moment, never mind down the road. Certainly clinical depression works this way—no end to the pain seems possible. When you start to consider heaven and hell from a more here and now perspective, those biblical passages take on a whole new layer of meaning.


Again, there's a huge difference between tortuous and eternal. Why this emphasis on picking away at words with actual meaning? 

If you believe that heaven and hell are concepts bound entirely to Earth, you simply don't believe what you are reading.


----------



## fjnmusic

That's the thing with literalists and hard liners; they believe everyone else must interpret the bible the "right" way, which means exactly the same way they would. Even theologians disagree on the meanings of particular passages, and today, Mary Magdalene for example is not considered to be the same woman as the prostitute Pope Gregory mistake her for. A misinterpretation lasting well over a thousand years, but a misinterpretation all the same.


----------



## Macfury

fjnmusic said:


> That's the thing with literalists and hard liners; they believe everyone else must interpret the bible the "right" way, which means exactly the same way they would. Even theologians disagree on the meanings of particular passages, and today, Mary Magdalene for example is not considered to be the same woman as the prostitute Pope Gregory mistake her for. A misinterpretation lasting well over a thousand years, but a misinterpretation all the same.



Um-hm. However, that does not mean that EVERY interpretation has equal validity--or any at all. This reminds me of a corporate exercise in which staff members were being asked for their ideas. Ideas that were wildly off the mark were duly recorded and placed in a separate category of "solutions for challenges we are not currently facing."


----------



## fjnmusic

That was funny, MF. So is this, in its own way.


----------



## fjnmusic

More wisdom! Stand aright! Let us be attentive!


----------



## Macfury

fjnmusic said:


> More wisdom! Stand aright!


I see some wisdom in the first one, but I don't understand the second. I don't believe that the purpose of judging some action is an attempt to define someone. Even if it was, is defining someone supposed to be some sort of social faux pas?


----------



## groovetube

Somehow I find it ironic to watch a few seemingly religious people slam others for not being valid christians, simply for not living up to their interpretations of it.

It -is- important I guess, to control people.


----------



## iMouse

Still love the line from The Magnificent Seven: "If God had not wanted them shorn, He would not have made them sheep."

Only Eli Wallach could deliver it in that manner. To him it made perfect sense, and you believed him.


----------



## Macfury

iMouse said:


> Still love the line from The Magnificent Seven: "If God had not wanted them shorn, He would not have made them sheep."
> 
> Only Eli Wallach could deliver it in that manner. To him it made perfect sense, and you believed him.


"I'll tell you one thing, Blondie. If I knew that my last hour had come.. I swear, I would tell about the gold. Yes, yes I would!"


----------



## screature

Macfury said:


> I see some wisdom in the first one, but I don't understand the second. I don't believe that the purpose of judging some action is an attempt to define someone. Even if it was, *is defining someone supposed to be some sort of social faux pas?*


I like them both... 

In certain company, most definitely. 

What is said behind closed doors while the other person can't see or can't hear can be "socially acceptable" but it makes you "two faced" if it differs substantially from what you are willing to say publicly.

The second one is a tenet of Christianity.. "judge not lest yee be judged"... so not quite sure how you don't understand it.

If I judge someone else and believe in a forgiving god then how can I not expect to be judged by god? Ergo it makes me a hypocrite, or at least I am admitting I am less than holy or righteous, thereby saying something about me. I am willing to judge even though I believe in a forgiving god.


----------



## Macfury

screature said:


> The second one is a tenet of Christianity.. "judge not lest yee be judged"... so not quite sure how you don't understand it.
> 
> If I judge someone else and believe in a forgiving god then how can I not expect to be judged by god.


Again, the meaning of that verse is not that you should not judge--merely that you will be judged by the same standard.

However, the emphasis of the second one seems to suggest that judgment attempts to "define a person" and that this is the real problem.


----------



## screature

Macfury said:


> *Again, the meaning of that verse is not that you should not judge--merely that you will be judged by the same standard.
> *
> However, the emphasis of the second one seems to suggest that judgment attempts to "define a person" and that this is the real problem.


I disagree with your interpretation of the first one entirely. It clearly makes sins relative to the individual and denies any objective perspective on which to judge or be judged at all. 

There is no standard...

It reminds me of the epithet, "What I like is erotica, what you like is porn."

Being judgmental and the things they decide to judge upon does define a person or at least shows the rest of us who they are.


----------



## groovetube

Of course judging someone attempts to define them. I would have thought this was obvious?

Whether it's successful is another matter altogether.


----------



## Macfury

screature said:


> There is no standard.


It is the standard by which the original judgment is made.


----------



## screature

Macfury said:


> It is the standard by which the *original judgment* is made.


Which is subjective unless one proclaims to know the mind of god.


----------



## Macfury

screature said:


> Which is subjective unless one proclaims to know the mind of god.


When you right an injustice it can only occur after you have judged it an injustice. You do not need to know the mind of God to do it. This sort of judgment is entirely separate from Final Judgment, something no human has the right to exercise or pre-suppose.


----------



## screature

Macfury said:


> When you right an injustice *it can only occur after you have judged it an injustice*. You do not need to know the mind of God to do it. This sort of judgment is entirely separate from Final Judgment, something no human has the right to exercise or pre-suppose.


Exactly. In your scenario you presuppose there is an injustice in the first place, that "judgment" is entirely subjective... It may still be the "right" thing to do but unless one supposes to know the mind of god you cannot know if your "judgment" was correct or not... Thus it is better not to judge lest yee be judged as well.


----------



## groovetube

This is fast becoming one of those 'who's on first' circles.


----------



## Macfury

screature said:


> Exactly.In your scenario you presuppose there is an injustice in the first place, that "judgment" is entirely subjective... It may still be the "right" thing to do but unless one supposes to know the mind of god you cannot know if your "judgment" was correct or not... Thus it is better not to judge lest yee be judged as well.


We're not empty vessels, devoid of morality. Taken to an extreme level, however, everything is subjective. You could be frozen into inaction and avoid doing exactly those things God would want you to do. 


Look at the full passage in the Book of Matthew:




> 1 Judge not, that ye be not judged.
> 
> 2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.
> 
> 3 And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?
> 
> 4 Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye?
> 
> 5 Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.


You need to judge yourself first, before you cast judgement on others. However, if you judge harshly or unfairly, expect to be judged in the same way.


----------



## screature

Macfury;1250142[B said:


> We're not empty vessels, devoid of morality.[/B] Taken to an extreme level, however, everything is subjective. You could be frozen into inaction and avoid doing exactly those things God would want you to do.
> 
> Look at the full passage in the Book of Matthew:
> 
> You need to judge yourself first, before you cast judgement on others. However, if you judge harshly or unfairly, expect to be judged in the same way.


I disagree.

We are empty vessels devoid of morality when we are born, just like the innocent savage or wild animal. It is only when we create or are indoctrinated into a society that we develop and create a morality.

That morality is created by a group of "like minded" individuals... but it is still subjective in nature, i.e., it does not know the mind of god.

They then go one to simply attribute those values to god or as being holy, righteous or moral, thereby giving them greater power and authority "coming down from on high" as opposed to be being merely the words of men.


----------



## Macfury

screature said:


> I disagree.
> 
> We are empty vessels devoid of morality when we are born, just like the innocent savage or wild animal. It is only when we create or are indoctrinated into a society that we develop and create a morality.
> 
> That morality is created by a group of "like minded" individuals... but it is still subjective in nature, i.e., it does not know the mind of god.
> 
> They then go one to simply attribute those values to god or as being holy, righteous or moral, thereby giving them greater power and authority "coming down from on high" as opposed to be being merely the words of men.


If you don't believe in God, however, then the idea of knowing the mind of God is a moot point.


----------



## SINC

Whether you believe in a god, a supreme being or the flying spaghetti monster as some here claim is the case, one never really knows who they would appeal to for help if they thought the worst. Two heart attacks taught me my inner beliefs as I lay alone in a campsite far from help during my first heart attack that I was lucky enough to survive. Life is a great teacher and brave words here make me laugh. Been there, done that.


----------



## fjnmusic

I don't know; "judge not" is pretty clear to me. There's no wiggle room there. If you judge others, you are a hypocrite. Game, set, match. At least these images get people talking, which is what I'm advocating.


----------



## fjnmusic

SINC said:


> Whether you believe in a god, a supreme being or the flying spaghetti monster as some here claim is the case, one never really knows who they would appeal to for help if they thought the worst. Two heart attacks taught me my inner beliefs as I lay alone in a campsite far from help during my first heart attack that I was lucky enough to survive. Life is a great teacher and brave words here make me laugh. Been there, done that.


Didn't know that about you, Don. Did the heart attacks give you a different perspective on life? I don't want to have a near-death experience in order to see the light, if you know what I mean.


----------



## Macfury

fjnmusic said:


> I don't know; "judge not" is pretty clear to me.


This is simply wrong. it is not a matter of interpretation. The Bible is full of exhortations to execute fair judgement. 

Only if you just look at the truncated verse, your interpretation makes sense.


----------



## fjnmusic

Macfury said:


> This is simply wrong. it is not a matter of interpretation. The Bible is full of exhortations to execute fair judgement.
> 
> Only if you just look at the truncated verse, your interpretation makes sense.


I'm looking at the whole quote, Macfury, the one that you submitted. Seems to me it is you who missed the meaning on this one in a vain attempt to justify your occasionally judgemental temperament. Me, I know I can be judgemental, it goes with the job description, so I try to be as fair-minded as possible.


----------



## SINC

fjnmusic said:


> Didn't know that about you, Don. Did the heart attacks give you a different perspective on life? I don't want to have a near-death experience in order to see the light, if you know what I mean.


First time when alone taught me just what I believed when I needed help but could not get it.

Second time four days later, I watched what went on from above as docs did their thing and my family gathered round. Incredible experience that was so real and I will never forget it.


----------



## MacGuiver

Judge not lest ye be judged is one of the most widely misused scriptures in the entire bible. If we were to follow that literally we couldn't have judges, jails or police officers or even laws. Nobody could make a determination of right and wrong conduct. This is obviously not the proper interpretation of this quote.

The often quoted verse derives from Matt 7:1-2
_"Judge not, that you be not judged. 2 For with what judgment you judge, you will be judged; and with the measure you use, it will be measured back to you.
_
Most people erroneously using this verse stopped reading there but if you read beyond those verses to verse 6 you read this.
_"Hypocrite! First remove the plank from your own eye, and *then you will see clearly to remove the speck out of your brother's eye*.
_ It is clearly a condemnation of hypocritical judgement but not the condemnation of judgement itself.

One also needs to compare the verse to what is said elsewhere is scripture where we are encouraged to judge, albeit righteously. 
_John 7:24 "Do not judge according to appearance, but *judge with righteous judgment*."
The Apostle Paul says that he "did not cease to warn everyone night and day with tears" about the false teachers who troubled the church at Ephesus both from within and without (Acts 20:28-31)
Jesus congratulated the church at Ephesus for rooting out false apostles (Rev.2:1-3)_

One of the gifts of the Holy Spirit promised in scripture is Discernment.


----------



## Macfury

fjnmusic said:


> I'm looking at the whole quote, Macfury, the one that you submitted. Seems to me it is you who missed the meaning on this one in a vain attempt to justify your occasionally judgemental temperament. Me, I know I can be judgemental, it goes with the job description, so I try to be as fair-minded as possible.


I'm speaking about the Bible, not myself or anyone here. MacGuiver has it right.


----------



## MacGuiver

SINC said:


> Second time four days later, I watched what went on from above as docs did their thing and my family gathered round. Incredible experience that was so real and I will never forget it.


Thanks for sharing that Sinc. I'm always fascinated with accounts of Near Death experiences. Do you believe some part of you actually left your body or do you ascribe to the dying brain explanation where crazy things happen causing you to dream this up in your head?


----------



## SINC

MacGuiver said:


> Thanks for sharing that Sinc. I'm always fascinated with accounts of Near Death experiences. Do you believe you actually left your body or do you ascribe to the dying brain explanation where crazy things happen causing you to dream this up in your head?


Sorry MacGuiver, I cannot answer that. Oh that I could. All I know is that I watched them work on me from above and saw my family who had been called in, waiting outside a curtain pulled around me in an emergency cubicle after being taken there from home by ambulance. How? Why? I know not. I wish I did though.


----------



## MacGuiver

SINC said:


> Sorry MacGuiver, I cannot answer that. Oh that I could. All I know is that I watched them work on me from above and saw my family who had been called in, waiting outside a pulled curtain around me in an emergency cubicle after being taken there from home by ambulance. How? Why? I know not. I wish I did though.


Wow that is awesome! 
Its not inconsistent with the experiences and testimonies of countless others. I believe you're soul briefly left your body and you experienced what we all will when we breath our last. It doesn't end here. It obviously wasn't your time.

Thanks again for sharing that. Its an extremely personal experience and one that many would be reluctant to speak about.


----------



## fjnmusic

SINC said:


> First time when alone taught me just what I believed when I needed help but could not get it.
> 
> Second time four days later, I watched what went on from above as docs did their thing and my family gathered round. Incredible experience that was so real and I will never forget it.


Do you think of the watching from above experience as being your soul? I don't know what you've said before, but many people who have near death experiences have described a similar feeling. Must be incredible, whether one is religious or not.


----------



## fjnmusic

Macfury said:


> I'm speaking about the Bible, not myself or anyone here. MacGuiver has it right.


Because you both say so? Somehow that's what I thought you'd say.


----------



## SINC

MacGuiver said:


> Wow that is awesome!
> Its not inconsistent with the experiences and testimonies of countless others. I believe you're soul briefly left your body and you experienced what we all will when we breath our last. It doesn't end here. It obviously wasn't your time.
> 
> Thanks again for sharing that. Its an extremely personal experience and one that many would be reluctant to speak about.





fjnmusic said:


> Do you think of the watching from above experience as being your soul? I don't know what you've said before, but many people who have near death experiences have described a similar feeling. Must be incredible, whether one is religious or not.


Again, I do not know. I don't try to label what I experienced. I just know and vividly recall the experience. Dream? Real? Illusion? Stress reaction? I am not sure what to call it, but the term soul never entered my mind.


----------



## fjnmusic

SINC said:


> Sorry MacGuiver, I cannot answer that. Oh that I could. All I know is that I watched them work on me from above and saw my family who had been called in, waiting outside a curtain pulled around me in an emergency cubicle after being taken there from home by ambulance. How? Why? I know not. I wish I did though.


I think your account also shows that there is more to our awareness than simply what our senses tell us. We cannot "see" with our eyes closed any more than we can "see" when we are dreaming, but we experience the sensation of seeing all the same. Some believe lucid dreaming is like a preview of what's to come. I also see that you have a certain peace and tranquility about you, Don.


----------



## SINC

fjnmusic said:


> I think your account also shows that there is more to our awareness than simply what our senses tell us. We cannot "see" with our eyes closed any more than we can "see" when we are dreaming, but we experience the sensation of seeing all the same. Some believe lucid dreaming is like a preview of what's to come. I also see that you have a certain peace and tranquility about you, Don.


See my response previous page.


----------



## Macfury

fjnmusic said:


> Because you both say so? Somehow that's what I thought you'd say.


Having both of us say it does not make it incorrect.


----------



## MacGuiver

fjnmusic said:


> Because you both say so? Somehow that's what I thought you'd say.


Not because we say so but because the very scripture you're quoting says so. I don't know how it could be more obvious as to what the verse is referring to. How do you justify verse 6 with your interpretation that all judgement is hypocritical if a judgement is being made in verse 6 after hypocrisy is eliminated?


----------



## fjnmusic

MacGuiver said:


> Not because we say so but because the very scripture you're quoting says so. I don't know how it could be more obvious as to what the verse is referring to. How do you justify verse 6 with your interpretation that all judgement is hypocritical if a judgement is being made in verse 6 after hypocrisy is eliminated?


Do not be concerned about the sliver in your friend's eye when you have a pole sticking out of your own. I don't know how it couldn't be more obvious to that JC is telling us to refrain from casting judgement on others since we all have faults as well. It's not an invitation to judge others; quite the opposite. It's the same lesson as the "let he who has not sinned cast the first stone." It's about the fact we need to examine our own conscience before judging others. I can't understand how you can read it any other way. 

Or more likely, Jesus would have said something like, "או איך אתה יכול לומר לאחיך, "הנח לי כתם מהעין שלך," בזמן שיש בקרן שלך? אתה צבוע! ראשית להסיר את הקורה מהעיניים שלך, ואז אתה יכול לראות בבירור כדי להסיר את הכתם מהעין של אחיך."


----------



## fjnmusic

Macfury said:


> Having both of us say it does not make it incorrect.


Or vice-versa.


----------



## MacGuiver

fjnmusic said:


> Do not be concerned about the sliver in your friend's eye when you have a pole sticking out of your own. I don't know how it couldn't be more obvious to that JC is telling us to refrain from casting judgement on others since we all have faults as well. It's not an invitation to judge others; quite the opposite. It's the same lesson as the "let he who has not sinned cast the first stone." It's about the fact we need to examine our own conscience before judging others. I can't understand how you can read it any other way.
> 
> Or more likely, Jesus would have said something like, "או איך אתה יכול לומר לאחיך, "הנח לי כתם מהעין שלך," בזמן שיש בקרן שלך? אתה צבוע! ראשית להסיר את הקורה מהעיניים שלך, ואז אתה יכול לראות בבירור כדי להסיר את הכתם מהעין של אחיך."


If your interpretation is correct Then jails should be emptied, laws burned up and police and judges fired. Again your ignoring context to say what you want to.


----------



## fjnmusic

MacGuiver said:


> If your interpretation is correct Then jails should be emptied, laws burned up and police and judges fired. Again your ignoring context to say what you want to.


I am not a lawyer, a police officer or a judge. Yes, those jobs are necessary.I believe he was referring to our regular day to day dealings with other people. Like on this forum, for example.


----------



## MacGuiver

fjnmusic said:


> I am not a lawyer, a police officer or a judge. Yes, those jobs are necessary.I believe he was referring to our regular day to day dealings with other people. Like on this forum, for example.


Why are lawyers and police exempt from this teaching? They sin too don't they?

And you are still bobbing and weaving around verse 6.
_"Hypocrite! First remove the plank from your own eye, and *then you will see clearly to remove the speck out of your brother's eye*._


----------



## fjnmusic

MacGuiver said:


> Why are lawyers and police exempt from this teaching? They sin too don't they?


As do executioners. But somebody has to do the job.


----------



## groovetube

Three Tory MPs want police to investigate abortions after 19 weeks as homicides | Canada | News | National Post

Once again, a lack of any specific cases. Just some spin, some corrections to spin, and no rst allegations to gain public sympathy.

What BS.


----------



## iMouse

groovetube said:


> Once again, a lack of any specific cases. Just some spin, some corrections to spin, and no rst allegations to gain public sympathy.
> 
> What BS.


Just 3 *male* MP's. Nothing to see here. Move along please.


----------



## groovetube

yet another terrified screeching futz the details sideshow.


----------



## Macfury

iMouse said:


> Just 3 *male* MP's. Nothing to see here. Move along please.


I haven't seen the MPs cite any religious reasons for their letter.


----------



## groovetube

sneaky eh?


In fact, usually when a criminal act is alleged, there are generally some more specifics, and uncertainty on the text, etc., is pretty suspect.

Most sane people should be able to see this is yet another attempt by the religious right to use some fudged BS to stir up some public 'gasp?!!!!!' to get what they want.

We already saw this tactic quite recently.


----------



## MacGuiver

I'll repost a comment from that story that sums it up nicely:



> Leaving aside the blah-blah-blah:
> 
> 1. When do you believe life begins?
> 
> a - at the moment of conception?
> 
> b - at X weeks after conception? (you put the number instead of "X")
> 
> c - at full birth?
> 
> 1.1 If you choose any of the "a” or "b" answers, then do you accept that in Canada it is LEGALLY possible to have murder on demand because no LEGAL barrier can stop a woman to have abortion in the 7th, 8th or 9th month for instance? I underline LEGALLY, kindly please don’t give me the crap with leaving it to the woman and the doctor, because murdering somebody is everybody’s business. You cannot kill your neighbour because he pisses you off with loud music, why do we allow killing an unborn baby because a woman wants to have a different type of life (or at least nine months) than the one coming from the baby responsibilities?
> 
> 1.2. If you choose the “c” answer, then do you realise that you would propose the Kafkian idea that a baby one hour before birth is just useless “tissue”?
> 
> As well:
> 
> What should have priority between these two CONGRUENT premises?
> 
> - A’s right to choose at the expense of B’s right to live.
> 
> - B’s right to live at the expense of A’s right to choose.


----------



## bryanc

MacGuiver said:


> 1. When do you believe life begins?
> 
> a - at the moment of conception?
> 
> b - at X weeks after conception? (you put the number instead of "X")
> 
> c - at full birth?


None of the above; life began on earth billions of years ago, and hasn't stopped since.

If what you're really asking is "when does a human being's individual consciousness emerge", which is a somewhat (but only slightly) more relevant question, then the answer is that it emerges gradually over the last trimester of pregnancy and continues to develop well into childhood. There is no "moment" at which one becomes self-aware.



> You cannot kill your neighbour because he pisses you off with loud music, why do we allow killing an unborn baby because a woman wants to have a different type of life


This is the most absurd false equivalency I've ever seen. Your neighbour is not obtaining his oxygen and other metabolic needs by taking them from your body. If he was, you'd be entirely within your rights to refuse them, even if that meant he would die.


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> This is the most absurd false equivalency I've ever seen. Your neighbour is not obtaining his oxygen and other metabolic needs by taking them from your body. If he was, you'd be entirely within your rights to refuse them, even if that meant he would die.


You're not paying attention to the central question--whether an aborted child in the third trimester is entitled to life support if it survives the abortion procedure. Or whether it should be killed if it lives on its own.


----------



## MacGuiver

> None of the above; life began on earth billions of years ago, and hasn't stopped since.
> 
> If what you're really asking is "when does a human being's individual consciousness emerge", which is a somewhat (but only slightly) more relevant question, then the answer is that it emerges gradually over the last trimester of pregnancy and continues to develop well into childhood. There is no "moment" at which one becomes self-aware.


Thats some fancy skating Bryan. So consciousness is your measure? What level? We protect the life of an infant born at 24 weeks yet down the hall we can legally murder them right up until delivery. If there is a level at which we should afford protection of life are we not obligated to determine that level to protect people from being murdered?



> This is the most absurd false equivalency I've ever seen. Your neighbour is not obtaining his oxygen and other metabolic needs by taking them from your body. If he was, you'd be entirely within your rights to refuse them, even if that meant he would die.


There is a flaw in that equivalency. They should have said that you were the one that turned on your neighbours stereo and cranked the volume before you decided to kill him for the loud music.
My kids take a bigger physical toll on my wife now than when they did in the womb. Maybe she should have the unrestricted right to murder them now as well.


----------



## Macfury

MacGuiver said:


> Thats some fancy skating Bryan. So consciousness is your measure? What level? We protect the life of an infant born at 24 weeks yet down the hall we can legally murder them right up until delivery. If there is a level at which we should afford protection of life are we not obligated to determine that level to protect people from being murdered?


Even an ethical atheist needs to come to terms with this--ethically.


----------



## iMouse

> I underline LEGALLY, kindly please don’t give me the crap with leaving it to the woman and the doctor, because murdering somebody is everybody’s business.


It's not somebody until it can live without being in Mommy.

And even if it was, why was I not there for the conception? 

Is that not my business too, by extension?

Oh, right, that's the province of the Catholic Church.


----------



## Macfury

iMouse said:


> It's not somebody until it can live without being in Mommy.


Yes. This is what is being discussed.


----------



## bryanc

MacGuiver said:


> Thats some fancy skating Bryan. So consciousness is your measure?


No skating; sentience has always been central to consequentialist ethical systems.



> What level?


Since we can't measure consciousness, we can't answer this question. But one can use the precautionary principle to try to minimize error.



> We protect the life of an infant born at 24 weeks yet down the hall we can legally murder them right up until delivery.


we choose to preserve the life of an infant that the parent(s) want to raise, or we allow a mother to choose not to support an embryo she does not want to support inside her body. It's simply a matter of sovereignty over one's body, which is why the "killing your neighbour" business is completely unrelated.



> If there is a level at which we should afford protection of life are we not obligated to determine that level to protect people from being murdered?


Society is obligated to protect the personal security of all individuals. That includes the women who choose not to gestate unwelcome guests. If the individual is viable as a separate entity, there is good reason to try to support them. If a woman want's to gestate an embryo, good for her (and good for the embryo). But if she dosen't want it, the embryo is out of luck, because it's *HER BODY*.



> My kids take a bigger physical toll on my wife now than when they did in the womb. Maybe she should have the unrestricted right to murder them now as well.


No, because they no longer inhabit *her body*. However, should they need a blood transfusion or organ transplant, she would have every right to say no.


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> No skating; sentience has always been central to consequentialist ethical systems.


This describes Classical Utilitarianism, not Consequentialism. Consequentialism is not dependent on sentience.


----------



## MacGuiver

I find it amusing that the "science and logic" crowd flee from it like vampires at a garlic farm whenever someone proposes making a determination of when life begins based on modern scientific understanding of human development. Preferring the shelter of their illogical dogma of birth = human being.


----------



## MacGuiver

> Society is obligated to protect the personal security of all individuals. That includes the women who choose not to gestate unwelcome guests. If the individual is viable as a separate entity, there is good reason to try to support them. If a woman want's to gestate an embryo, good for her (and good for the embryo). But if she dosen't want it, the embryo is out of luck, because it's *HER BODY*.


The "unwelcomed guest" is a direct consequence of her and her sex partners chosen actions with the exception of rape. Its not the babies fault he's in the womb.
Sorta like driving 180km/hr on icy roads in your car and getting in an accident then holding the car manufacture culpable for your injuries.


----------



## groovetube

Wait a second. It appears the pro life crowd has once again, proposed their own determinations in order to force a move towards locking out late term abortions, which has already been determined that it occurs for medical reasons. They can't seem to let it go, so they come up with some vague scenarios to shock the public.

What I'd like to know, are what are the examples of this happening. I recall the last debates on sex selection we had someone offer some anecdotal evidence of this, which later was found to be unsubstantiated.

So, without fleeing like vampires from garlic, I'd like to see some specific evidence, and why this has suddenly become a concern. Beyond the vague references that have been given. Because it's now being implied that late term abortions are free-for-all and babys are being murdered.

Lets cut the crap and get some details please.


----------



## MacGuiver

groovetube said:


> Wait a second. It appears the pro life crowd has once again, proposed their own determinations in order to force a move towards locking out late term abortions, which has already been determined that it occurs for medical reasons. They can't seem to let it go, so they come up with some vague scenarios to shock the public.
> 
> What I'd like to know, are what are the examples of this happening. I recall the last debates on sex selection we had someone offer some anecdotal evidence of this, which later was found to be unsubstantiated.
> 
> So, without fleeing like vampires from garlic, I'd like to see some specific evidence, and why this has suddenly become a concern. Beyond the vague references that have been given. Because it's now being implied that late term abortions are free-for-all and babys are being murdered.
> 
> Lets cut the crap and get some details please.


Can you name me one law in Canada limiting abortion?


----------



## bryanc

MacGuiver said:


> I find it amusing that the "science and logic" crowd flee from it like vampires at a garlic farm whenever someone proposes making a determination of when life begins based on modern scientific understanding of human development. Preferring the shelter of their illogical dogma of birth = human being.


Wait... what are you talking about? I'm being completely logical and consistent with scientific knowledge; anyone who is "making a determination of when life begins" is being illogical and dogmatic. Science is perfectly clear about what life is, and fertilization and subsequent embryonic development does not involve life "beginning."

And, as we've been over (and over and over), it doesn't matter if you decide the embryo is a legal human being with the full rights of citizenship; if it lives inside a woman and depends on that woman's physiology for it's oxygen and nutrition, it's life is entirely in the hands of that woman. This is exactly the same ethical relationship we would have if I were going to die without a blood transfusion from you... it would be very nice of you to donate the blood, and I would really appreciate it, but I can't make you do it and the state can't compel you to do it. If you do it, you do so out of your own kindness and desire for me to live; just like the mother chooses to carry a baby out of her desire for the baby to live. You can't force her to do it.


----------



## bryanc

MacGuiver said:


> Sorta like driving 180km/hr on icy roads in your car and getting in an accident then holding the car manufacture culpable for your injuries.


Only insomuch as the car manufacturer lives inside your body and depends on your physiology for their existence... great comparison there, MacGuiver


----------



## MacGuiver

bryanc said:


> Only insomuch as the car manufacturer lives inside your body and depends on your physiology for their existence... great comparison there, MacGuiver


Mom and dads actions put baby in the womb. It didn't get their on its own. Thats my point. Killing it for being there when its your fault its there in the first place is immoral and an injustice.


----------



## bryanc

Macfury said:


> This describes Classical Utilitarianism, not Consequentialism. Consequentialism is not dependent on sentience.


Utilitarianism is a subset of consequentialism; I'm not aware of any consequentialist systems that don't require the existence of Agents to experience consequences, and Agency requires sentience.


----------



## bryanc

MacGuiver said:


> Mom and dads actions put baby in the womb. It didn't get their on its own. Thats my point. Killing it for being there when its your fault its there in the first place is immoral and an injustice.


It didn't exist without those actions, so it's not 'loosing' anything if it's aborted. But from a Utilitarian POV, causing unnecessary suffering is to be avoided, so if it's going to be aborted it is far preferable to do so before it has developed a complex nervous system that can experience pain. Furthermore, because even before it has developed a CNS capable of experiencing pain, it has the potential to do so, it has ethical value from the time at which it becomes a viable zygote, so I do see abortions as ethically costly; simply not *as* ethically costly as allowing state control over the bodies of adult women.

In a perfect world, there would be no rapes, there would be no unwanted pregnancies, there would be no embryos developing with severe genetic disorders, and there would be no ectopic pregnancies, and there would be no need for abortions. However, until then, abortions can be the lesser of two evils, and for those unfortunate enough to have to make that choice, the least society can do is not interfere.


----------



## MacGuiver

> It didn't exist without those actions, so it's not 'loosing' anything if it's aborted.


Just its life.


----------



## groovetube

MacGuiver said:


> Can you name me one law in Canada limiting abortion?


you're dodging the question.

You first.


----------



## bryanc

MacGuiver said:


> Just its life.


Which is the result of the "actions of mommy and daddy" as you put it. You can't simultaneously fault them for these actions and not give them credit for them. If you think a "life" was magically "created" somehow in this process, then they get credit for that. If they choose to destroy that; they're even.


----------



## iMouse

bryanc said:


> Which is the result of the "actions of mommy and daddy" as you put it. You can't simultaneously fault them for these actions and not give them credit for them. If you think a "life" was magically "created" somehow in this process, then they get credit for that. If they choose to destroy that; they're even.


Correct!! 

it's not as if this 'thing' suddenly became of chattel of government/religion.

<aside>

I'd like to see the same thing proposed for Capital Punishment.

If either parent is alive, and of sound mind, only they can give the OK to terminate the life in that case too.

</aside>


----------



## Macfury

iMouse said:


> If either parent is alive, and of sound mind, only they can give the OK to terminate the life in that case too.


I think many would see their parents requesting this whether or not their offspring were criminals awaiting execution!


----------



## MacGuiver

groovetube said:


> you're dodging the question.
> 
> You first.


I'll save you dodging my question to you by answering it for you. There are no laws whatsoever restricting abortions for any reason at any time in Canada. The only countries on that planet that share our "progressive zero restrictions" are North Korea and China.

Reporting requirements were removed on abortion in 1988 when abortion laws were struck down by the Supreme Court so you nor I can claim to know what reason women are having abortions late term. As a result, detailed information is not available for more than half of the abortions performed. There have been reports from those that choose to speak out but we have no definitive way of knowing why abortions happen either way.

For instance, right now a woman could walk into a hospital and legally have an abortion at any time for not wanting a girl. Don't you think we should have laws prohibiting that? As it stands a doctor would be denying her rights to deny the procedure. Are you happy with that?


----------



## groovetube

MacGuiver said:


> I'll save you dodging my question to you by answering it for you. There are no laws whatsoever restricting abortions for any reason at any time in Canada. The only countries on that planet that share our "progressive zero restrictions" are North Korea and China.
> 
> Reporting requirements were removed on abortion in 1988 when abortion laws were struck down by the Supreme Court so you nor I can claim to know what reason women are having abortions late term. As a result, detailed information is not available for more than half of the abortions performed. There have been reports from those that choose to speak out but we have no definitive way of knowing why abortions happen either way.
> 
> For instance, right now a woman could walk into a hospital and legally have an abortion at any time for not wanting a girl. Don't you think we should have laws prohibiting that? As it stands a doctor would be denying her rights to deny the procedure. Are you happy with that?


Except you have been told multiple times that doctors in Canada do not perform late term abortions freely. anti abortionists have been milking this without any kind of evidence that there is actually a real problem. So, it seems like they (you?) are manufacturing a crisis of some sort, and questions directed to you about what are the specifics, are ignored. 

I have to wonder why your response has completely ignored the fundamental question here, and simply alleged, very vaguely I might add, things which you refuse to address with more actual specifics.

I asked the important question first, and it is you, who refuses to answer.


----------



## Sonal

MacGuiver said:


> For instance, right now a woman could walk into a hospital and legally have an abortion at any time for not wanting a girl. Don't you think we should have laws prohibiting that? As it stands a doctor would be denying her rights to deny the procedure. Are you happy with that?


Legally, perhaps, but practically, no.

Canadians For Choice


----------



## groovetube

And since I know you'll likely hunt for some more vague references to anecdotes, that may, or may not have happened.

Canadians For Choice



> Many anti-choice and misinformed individuals would have Canadians believe that a woman in Canada can access abortion services at any point during the nine months of pregnancy.This belief is hugely inaccurate and serves only to appeal to the emotional response of people in trying to prevent the acceptance of abortion as a critical reproductive health service.* In Canada, a woman cannot have an elective abortion past 24 weeks gestation. There are simply no doctors and no facilities that will allow for an elective termination at that point. In fact, there are only a few doctors in the entire country who are willing to perform abortions past 20 weeks. As there are different methods of abortion, each woman’s pregnancy is individually assessed by a doctor to help decide which method is safest and best for her. However, since abortion services after 20 weeks are not easily available in Canada, many women who seek an abortion at this point must either travel to another province or to the United States, or must continue to carry the pregnancy to term.*
> 
> Despite what some may believe about the availability of late-term abortion services in Canada, Statistics Canada has reported that less than 1% of abortions take place past 20 weeks gestation.[1] The fact remains that nearly 90% of abortions in Canada take place before 13 weeks gestation. The belief that a woman makes the choice to have an abortion easily and without giving it much thought is especially inaccurate in instances of late-term abortion. Many women who have an abortion after 20 weeks originally wanted to have a child, but chose to have an abortion after discovering that her foetus was severely or fatally impaired, or upon the discovery that her own health or life is endangered. Other women need to access abortion services past 20 weeks because of extremely long wait-times or, especially in the case of young teenagers, because they were either not aware that they were pregnant or were in denial about being pregnant until the symptoms were no longer unavoidable. Whatever the reason a woman seeks to have an abortion past 20 weeks gestation, Canadians must know: abortion services in Canada are not uniformly accessible and late-term abortions are much more rare and difficult to access than abortions that take place within the first trimester of pregnancy.


----------



## MacGuiver

groovetube said:


> Except you have been told multiple times that doctors in Canada do not perform late term abortions freely. anti abortionists have been milking this without any kind of evidence that there is actually a real problem. So, it seems like they (you?) are manufacturing a crisis of some sort, and questions directed to you about what are the specifics, are ignored.
> 
> I have to wonder why your response has completely ignored the fundamental question here, and simply alleged, very vaguely I might add, things which you refuse to address with more actual specifics.
> 
> I asked the important question first, and it is you, who refuses to answer.



I did answer your question. I can't give you statistics because they don't exist. Nor can you give them to me to claim all late term abortions are justifiable. As I pointed out and you failed to read, reporting requirements were struck down in 1988. Sure you've said it multiple times that all late term abortions are ethical but you can't be sure of that either since the statistics available are incomplete. And I'm sure if questionable abortions are being performed, reporting them wouldn't be a good business decision for an abortionist.

Am I to assume you're ok with sex selection abortions since you never answered my question about creating laws to prevent it.


----------



## groovetube

Well isn't that convenient. And once again, you were told ...



> *In Canada, a woman cannot have an elective abortion past 24 weeks gestation. There are simply no doctors and no facilities that will allow for an elective termination at that point.* In fact, there are only a few doctors in the entire country who are willing to perform abortions past 20 weeks. As there are different methods of abortion, each woman’s pregnancy is individually assessed by a doctor to help decide which method is safest and best for her. However, since abortion services after 20 weeks are not easily available in Canada, many women who seek an abortion at this point must either travel to another province or to the United States, or must continue to carry the pregnancy to term.



So are you going to continue to ignore the facts, and with this holy crisis charade based on, whatever you -think- may be happening? It's hard to take any of that seriously. This once again, is another big hoax put on by the religious right.

When will they figure out that this constant crying wolf just lowers their credibility further and further?


----------



## bryanc

MacGuiver said:


> For instance, right now a woman could walk into a hospital and legally have an abortion at any time for not wanting a girl. Don't you think we should have laws prohibiting that?


Emphatically NO! We should not have any laws that restrict what a mentally competent adult does to their own body under any circumstances.



> Are you happy with that?


What makes me happy is irrelevant. I'd be far happier if people didn't want to make stupid decisions like aborting female embryos, but I can't suggest we legislate against stupidity.

We can, however, try to educate people so they stop believing such stupid things. Of course, the more we educate people, the less religious they become... but c'est la vie.


----------



## MacGuiver

groovetube said:


> Well isn't that convenient. And once again, you were told ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So are you going to continue to ignore the facts, and with this holy crisis charade based on, whatever you -think- may be happening? It's hard to take any of that seriously. This once again, is another big hoax put on by the religious right.
> 
> When will they figure out that this constant crying wolf just lowers their credibility further and further?


Thanks for that Groove. Pro abortion lobbyists have set me straight. Nothing to see here folks, move along.


----------



## Sonal

MacGuiver said:


> I did answer your question. I can't give you statistics because they don't exist. Nor can you give them to me to claim all late term abortions are justifiable. As I pointed out and you failed to read, reporting requirements were struck down in 1988. Sure you've said it multiple times that all late term abortions are ethical but you can't be sure of that either since the statistics available are incomplete. And I'm sure if questionable abortions are being performed, reporting them wouldn't be a good business decision for an abortionist.
> 
> Am I to assume you're ok with sex selection abortions since you never answered my question about creating laws to prevent it.


Statistics are still collected and studied, even though reporting is not mandatory. (In BC, it's voluntary, and in Quebec, they do not provide this information to Canadian Institute for Health Information.) So it's not true that statistics don't exist.

The law typically does not try to handle cases that do not exist; a woman cannot walk into any hospital in Canada past 24 weeks gestation and get an abortion because there is no doctor or hospital equipped in Canada to perform this. Similarly, we have no laws to address the status of extra-terrestrials in Canada, either.


----------



## iMouse

bryanc said:


> What makes me happy is irrelevant. I'd be far happier if people didn't want to make stupid decisions like aborting female embryos, but I can't suggest we legislate against stupidity.


Perhaps he would prefer the Chinese methods.

Wait until they are alive on there own, then smother them at birth, or abandon them somewhere.


----------



## bryanc

MacGuiver said:


> Am I to assume you're ok with sex selection abortions since you never answered my question about creating laws to prevent it.


Not being "okay with" something is quite different than arguing we should create laws to stop it. I am definitely not "okay with" people having abortions in order to select the sex of their offspring, but I would address that by trying to change the cultural bias driving the desire to have children of a given sex. A slow process to be sure, but one that solves the problem rather than trying to apply a band-aid over the effect. Even if you were successful in preventing sex-selection abortions, the people who wanted to have them would clearly be poor parents for children of either sex. And by allowing the state to dictate the use of women's bodies for gestation, you've created a horrible president; you've granted the state legal control over people's bodies.


----------



## bryanc

MacGuiver said:


> Pro abortion lobbyists....


Where do you find these people? I've never encountered anyone who would describe themselves as "pro abortion." That would be like describing yourself as "pro appendectomy." People may be pro choice, but they're not pro abortion.


----------



## groovetube

bryanc said:


> Where do you find these people? I've never encountered anyone who would describe themselves as "pro abortion." That would be like describing yourself as "pro appendectomy." People may be pro choice, but they're not pro abortion.


It's all they have. This, and an attempt at manufacturing a crisis. You've seen what happens when a very basic fundamental question was asked.

A total, and complete refusal to even try to address it, just more nonsense.

In other words, FAIL.


----------



## bryanc

I guess it's part of the right-wing echo chamber; the only facts that get in are the ones that fit their narrative, and when it turns out most of those "facts" were made up, they just ignore that and carry on repeating them because if you say something often or loud enough, it becomes true, right?


----------



## MacGuiver

> I am definitely not "okay with" people having abortions in order to select the sex of their offspring, but I would address that by trying to change the cultural bias driving the desire to have children of a given sex.


What an excellent approach. Maybe we should just drop all laws and just "educate" everyone to prevent them from committing an offensive act.


----------



## groovetube

MacGuiver said:


> What an excellent approach. Maybe we should just drop all laws and just "educate" everyone to prevent them from committing an offensive act.


That seems to be working wonders in the states with guns. It's funny how the right thinks 'control' is only appropriate when it comes to women, but not so much for say guns. Both seem to involve debates on 'life and death'.


----------



## bryanc

MacGuiver said:


> What an excellent approach. Maybe we should just drop all laws and just "educate" everyone to prevent them from committing an offensive act.


Nice idea, but it wouldn't work. We can and should limit what people do outside of their personal bodies and (to an even greater extent) outside of their private homes. When people are using public property, and interacting with other, independent citizens, their actions can be far more strictly and legitimately regulated than when they are on their private property or doing things that pertain to their own person.

Of course, if everyone were well-educated and reasonable, we'd have far less conflict and we would need fewer laws, but limited resources and human nature will always be causes of conflict, so we'll always need some legal constraints.


----------



## MacGuiver

iMouse said:


> Perhaps he would prefer the Chinese methods.
> 
> Wait until they are alive on there own, then smother them at birth, or abandon them somewhere.


Infanticide. Its already happening in other lefty countries so it'll come hear eventually if the lefties get their way. They can justify killing just about anyone.


----------



## MacGuiver

groovetube said:


> That seems to be working wonders in the states with guns. It's funny how the right thinks 'control' is only appropriate when it comes to women, but not so much for say guns. Both seem to involve debates on 'life and death'.


I was being ironic Groove. Relying on "education" to create moral people is a ridiculous notion. We need laws to protect the innocent.
Also I fully support gun laws so you're arguing with a straw man.


----------



## Macfury

Sonal said:


> The law typically does not try to handle cases that do not exist; a woman cannot walk into any hospital in Canada past 24 weeks gestation and get an abortion because there is no doctor or hospital equipped in Canada to perform this.


So essentially, if the baby she was carrying died at that point, such a woman would also die if she remained in Canada, because she could not receive medical help.


----------



## groovetube

MacGuiver said:


> I was being ironic Groove. Relying on "education" to create moral people is a ridiculous notion. We need laws to protect the innocent.
> Also I fully support gun laws so you're arguing with a straw man.


I wasn't being ironic.

Given the facts, it seems you are the keeper of the strawman argument here.


----------



## MacGuiver

groovetube said:


> I wasn't being ironic.
> 
> Given the facts, it seems you are the keeper of the strawman argument here.


Just to be clear you support a woman's right to kill her baby if its a girl? Bryan didn't like it but was ok with it but you never answered that question.


----------



## Sonal

Macfury said:


> So essentially, if the baby she was carrying died at that point, such a woman would also die if she remained in Canada, because she could not receive medical help.


No. Apparently, the medical procedure in that case is different.


----------



## groovetube

MacGuiver said:


> Just to be clear you support a woman's right to kill her baby if its a girl? Bryan didn't like it but was ok with it but you never answered that question.


If anything, you're persistent. You can try to spin anything to satisfy your need for a crisis, but it won't work that way.

I support a women's right to choose whether to keep, or not, until what is currently allowed in Canada, (what you have been reminded of repeatedly) without a medical reason. Past the current allowable period, you need a medical reason. 

But you have still, evaded my question. SInce this topic was brought up by allegations by pro lifers, I want to hear specifics. I asked first, and you still refuse to answer questions, only pepper with more.


----------



## MacGuiver

groovetube;1251625I support a women's right to choose whether to keep said:


> Currently allowable period? I'm unfamiliar with any law specifying an allowable period. Could you point me to it?
> I believe the currently allowable is 9 months since not a single law exists restricting abortion.


----------



## Macfury

MacGuiver said:


> Currently allowable period? I'm unfamiliar with any law specifying an allowable period. Could you point me to it?
> I believe the currently allowable is 9 months since not a single law exists restricting abortion.


Anyone who has looked at the issue seriously would know that there are no restrictions on abortion in Canada. None.

National Abortion Federation: Legal Abortion in Canada



> In 1988 Canada became one of a small number of countries without a law restricting abortion. Abortion was now treated like any other medical procedure and was governed by provincial and medical regulations.


It's embarrassing to see partisans "all in" on an issue, yet lacking even a basic understanding of the legal underpinnings of their position.


----------



## groovetube

MacGuiver said:


> Currently allowable period? I'm unfamiliar with any law specifying an allowable period. Could you point me to it?
> I believe the currently allowable is 9 months since not a single law exists restricting abortion.


You believe? Or making things up. You were told repeatedly, that you cannot get an abortion in Canada as an elective past 20 weeks. There may be possibilities from what I read in rare cases up to 24. But this doesn't somehow seem good enough for the holy terrorists, so they seem to feel the need to make things up, and create a big problem, yet when questioned, they, you, will not provide any details. Other than, some feeble excuse about not having details (Which Sonal pointed out was beyond feeble.)

So, if you don't have any details, what on earth are you talking about? You have been asked several times for details on these 'crimes', but have provided nothing.

Prove why we must have a law.


----------



## groovetube

Macfury said:


> Anyone who has looked at the issue seriously would know that there are no restrictions on abortion in Canada. None.
> 
> National Abortion Federation: Legal Abortion in Canada
> 
> 
> 
> It's embarrassing to see partisans "all in" on an issue, yet lacking even a basic understanding of the legal underpinnings of their position.


What's embarrassing, is to see you all shrieking about some alleged crimes being committed, but no details. Because, apparently, there aren't any. :lmao:

We're all quite aware of the legal issues, but we are also keenly aware of the religious right's interest in forcing women to have babies in later term even if they may lose their life. Just look south and there are examples of this.

So unless I see a convincing argument as to why such a law must be passes, you are the one that should be embarrassed at having failed to provide even a half arsed explanation.


----------



## SINC

Using the royal we now?


----------



## groovetube

SINC said:


> Using the royal we now?


Hey buddy, in for a wee jab are we?

Well it's best to see what the context was.



> It's embarrassing to see* partisans "all in" on an issue*, yet lacking even a basic understanding of the legal underpinnings of their position.


More than one. Hence the 'we'. Makes sense now?

Good!


----------



## SINC

'We' insinuates speaking for a group or at the very least more than one, thus the royal we. Just wondering who you claiming to speak for is all.


----------



## K2ACP

This thread should have a huge blinking banner at the top that says WARNING: OPINIONS!


----------



## groovetube

If you read the posts, it's very clear. 

However the bigger story here, is despite the allegations of crime etc., we still have absolutely no specifics. So it appears, there are none.


----------



## iMouse

groovetube said:


> If you read the posts, it's very clear.
> 
> However the bigger story here, is despite the allegations of crime etc., we still have absolutely no specifics. So it appears, there are none.


So, you didn't fall for the *"Look, over there!!!"* approach? :lmao:

When all else fails, obfuscate.


----------



## groovetube

Anything to avoid the real question. This is a new planned tactic by the anti abortioners. I read a news item today, and while the article sensationalized this idea of 'live births' (GASP!) it sort of in a round about way alluded that these 'live births' are classified as such if there is even a movement in the umbilical cord, that these 'live births' are fetuses with such abnormalities such as no developed brain, or organs making survival pretty much impossible.

But nothing will stop these shrieking religious fanatics from using lies to enforce their beliefs.

Perhaps if these lunatics want these fetuses to be kept alive by any means necessary, they should also agree to pay the costs associated with this.


----------



## jef

groovetube said:


> Perhaps if these lunatics want these fetuses to be kept alive by any means necessary, they should also agree to pay the costs associated with this.


... as well as the costs of giving an unwanted child the chance to grow up 'normally'. Never see that on the table anywhere...


----------



## iMouse

groovetube said:


> Perhaps if these lunatics want these fetuses to be kept alive by any means necessary, they should also agree to pay the costs associated with this.





jef said:


> ... as well as the costs of giving an unwanted child the chance to grow up 'normally'. Never see that on the table anywhere...


There must be a lot of trappings about like this, that they could melt-down for cash. beejacon


----------



## groovetube

the reality isn't important to them. The focus is making abortion illegal. So they'll use whatever BS possible to attain this goal.

You saw what happened when I asked a very simple an important question. Total avoidance. I knew of course that would happen. It merely confirmed this whole charade to me.


----------



## iMouse

Is used to argue religion at my first job, with a failed seminary student, when we were both in our early 20's.

I would parry every thrust, until he finally threw down his 'sword', said "You're just ignorant.", and walked away.

Brain-washing is for life, apparently.


----------



## groovetube

For the real card carrying ones (and I mean that in the nicest way possible) they just can't comprehend someone not agreeing and being converted.


----------



## MacGuiver

groovetube said:


> the reality isn't important to them. The focus is making abortion illegal. So they'll use whatever BS possible to attain this goal.
> 
> You saw what happened when I asked a very simple an important question. Total avoidance. I knew of course that would happen. It merely confirmed this whole charade to me.


Groove you're so ill informed on this subject its hardly worth trying to talk with you about it. You don't even have a clue of the legality of the issue. Claiming there are restrictions when absolutely none exist. Its like debating with a child.:baby:


----------



## groovetube

MacGuiver said:


> Groove your are so ill informed on this subject its hardly worth trying to talk with you about it. You don't even have a clue of the legality of the issue. Claiming there are restrictions when absolutely none exist. Its like debating with a child.


There we have it. Total inability to answer an important question. 

Speaking of 'child', since you want to throw that one around.

It's quite clear I'm aware that 'legally' there isn't the restriction, despite it being impossible in Canada to get an abortion as an elective past a certain point, even though you try to allege otherwise. But you are making a case for Canada needing a law. I have asked repeatedly for you to explain with specifics, more than the vague allegations that seems to change or be quite slippery, yet you provide none.

Now you can call me a child, and stamp your feet all you want. But until you can step up to the plate and explain why such a law is required, I can't take you seriously. Failure to do so merely reinforces my, and many others opinions that anti abortionists are merely creating a crisis to further their agenda.

I would think you'd be interested in dispelling that. Apparently not.


----------



## groovetube

iMouse said:


> Is used to argue religion at my first job, with a failed seminary student, when we were both in our early 20's.
> 
> I would parry every thrust, *until he finally threw down his 'sword', said "You're just ignorant.", and walked away.*
> 
> Brain-washing is for life, apparently.


^^^^ check it out. That actually just occurred. :lmao:


----------



## jef

groovetube said:


> ^^^^ check it out. That actually just occurred. :lmao:


So typical of the reality challenged right - in one thread they will moan about government regulation for things that society needs but may not concern them directly, and in this thread they are whining about a lack of laws for something that isn't happening (except in their own minds)...


----------



## MacGuiver

groovetube said:


> ^^^^ check it out. That actually just occurred. :lmao:


Here ya go little guy. Another sad chapter in the barbaric practice you so eagerly support. 

LifeSiteNews Mobile | 491 babies born alive after failed abortions, left to die: Statistics Canada confirms

LifeSiteNews Mobile | Probing the stats on those 491 babies born alive after abortion


----------



## jef

MacGuiver said:


> Here ya go little guy. Another sad chapter in the barbaric practice you so eagerly support.
> 
> LifeSiteNews Mobile | 491 babies born alive after failed abortions, left to die: Statistics Canada confirms
> 
> LifeSiteNews Mobile | Probing the stats on those 491 babies born alive after abortion


No one is eagerly supporting abortion. 

In the article, it says that some of these births may fall under laws that we already have and therefore should be investigated. What new law do we need?


----------



## Macfury

jef said:


> No one is eagerly supporting abortion.
> 
> In the article, it says that some of these births may fall under laws that we already have and therefore should be investigated. What new law do we need?


We have a law against infanticide that is not being applied because the infanticide follows an abortion. We need to clarify what constitutes infanticide so that charges will be laid, 

Here is the Statistics Canada table:


----------



## groovetube

Clearly you haven't done your homework. Does this make you a 'littler guy'? Just wondering.

Nowhere, does it say these 'live births' are births of babies able to live. Further reading reveals these are majorly deformed, no developed brains, no organs, the inability to live longer than a few minutes or in rare cases hours. Have you read what is defined as a 'live birth'? You probably have, but aren't interested.

But these details don't seem to matter do they. All you've done so far, is throw vague details, and use insinuations to make people believe they're 'killing babies'!

Given the pro lifers propensity for twisting the facts, and in some cases outright lying, only to slightly modify their statements, I want some more concrete facts. You are simply going to do a whole lot better than these BS insinuations. And that's not my fault, blame the pro-lifers who have been employing these tactics for years for people not taking them seriously. Your clear avoidance tactics right here is a clear example of why someone should be very wary of your supposed 'facts'.

Until I can see a well reasoned argument that relies less on insinuations, shock value based on misinformation, I simply can't take any of you seriously.


----------



## fjnmusic

In my opinion, abortion is ending a human life. Simple. 

Sometimes it is necessary. Sometimes a fetus aborts itself, as in a miscarriage. Sometimes the baby is strangled by the umbilical cord in childbirth. Sometimes the baby is stillborn. Sometimes the baby dies of SIDS in the middle if the night. These are all pretty horrible and traumatic events for the parents, but sometimes they are necessary. 

I am not an advocate of abortion, and it has nothing to do with my Catholic upbringing, but I also respect that it is the mother's right to choose. It is not a decision she should make lightly, or simply out of convenience. She should be fully informed, as should the father, since he's the one who got her pregnant in the first place. One in five pregnancies ends in spontaneous miscarriage, nature's abortion if you will. It is still traumatic. Getting a D&C after a miscarriage is exactly the same ad getting one after an abortion: it is to protect the mother's health so the leftover cells do not continue to grow. 

Murder is a legal term. Currently a fetus had no rights as a human being until after they are born and breathing on their own. I do not agree with this definition. For me, human life begins at conception, maybe sooner, but for sure when human cells start multiplying, and sometimes it is necessary to end that life. It is tragic, but it happens all the time, with or without human intervention. I'm just glad by parents were not pro abortion, and I'll bet you're glad too.


----------



## groovetube

jef said:


> So typical of the reality challenged right - in one thread they will moan about government regulation for things that society needs but may not concern them directly, and in this thread they are whining about a lack of laws for something that isn't happening (except in their own minds)...


Well if actual viable live births occur and they're killed, perhaps it's something to consider. But there is no evidence this actually happens, and the righteous right is alleging that almost 500 babies have been murdered this past decade.

When you have a group of people alleging this publicly, not only is it embarrassing especially when it's clearly know that no one has 'murdered' 500 babies, but they know full well it isn't true either.

When you see the sort of lying, grandstanding and avoidance of basic questions as you've seen right here, one would of course be quite suspicious of the hidden agenda.

Anyone would be.


----------



## groovetube

fjnmusic said:


> In my opinion, abortion is ending a human life. Simple.
> 
> Sometimes it is necessary. Sometimes a fetus aborts itself, as in a miscarriage. Sometimes the baby is strangled by the umbilical cord in childbirth. Sometimes the baby is stillborn. Sometimes the baby dies of SIDS in the middle if the night. These are all pretty horrible and traumatic events for the parents, but sometimes they are necessary.
> 
> I am not an advocate of abortion, and it has nothing to do with my Catholic upbringing, but I also respect that it is the mother's right to choose. It is not a decision she should make lightly, or simply out of convenience. She should be fully informed, as should the father, since he's the one who got her pregnant in the first place. One in five pregnancies ends in spontaneous miscarriage, nature's abortion if you will. It is still traumatic. Getting a D&C after a miscarriage is exactly the same ad getting one after an abortion: it is to protect the mother's health so the leftover cells do not continue to grow.
> 
> Murder is a legal term. Currently a fetus had no rights as a human being until after they are born and breathing on their own. I do not agree with this definition. For me, human life begins at conception, maybe sooner, but for sure when human cells start multiplying, and sometimes it is necessary to end that life. It is tragic, but it happens all the time, with or without human intervention. I'm just glad by parents were not pro abortion, and I'll bet you're glad too.


There isn't any such thing as 'pro abortion'. Many support a woman's right to choose, but would not choose abortion. My wife and I would fall into that category.


----------



## iMouse

fjnmusic said:


> I'm just glad by parents were not pro abortion, and I'll bet you're glad too.


I was a 'whoops' baby, but I am neither glad nor sad.

I would not be here if I were aborted, so I would have no feelings on the matter.

I am just as ambivalent that I am here.

But a nice existential question Spock.


----------



## screature

So how about we look at the law instead of going off madly in all directions.

The section of Criminal Code that the 3 Con MPs were referring to is Section 223 (2) which falls under the section:

Homicide



> Homicide
> 
> Homicide
> 
> 222. (1) A person commits homicide when, directly or indirectly, by any means, he causes the death of a human being.
> Marginal note:Kinds of homicide
> 
> (2) Homicide is culpable or not culpable.
> Marginal note:Non culpable homicide
> 
> (3) Homicide that is not culpable is not an offence.
> 
> Culpable homicide
> 
> (4) Culpable homicide is murder or manslaughter or infanticide.
> Marginal note:Idem
> 
> (5) A person commits culpable homicide when he causes the death of a human being,
> 
> (a) by means of an unlawful act;
> 
> (b) by criminal negligence;
> 
> (c) by causing that human being, by threats or fear of violence or by deception, to do anything that causes his death; or
> 
> (d) by wilfully frightening that human being, in the case of a child or sick person.
> 
> Exception
> 
> (6) Notwithstanding anything in this section, a person does not commit homicide within the meaning of this Act by reason only that he causes the death of a human being by procuring, by false evidence, the conviction and death of that human being by sentence of the law.
> 
> R.S., c. C-34, s. 205.
> 
> 
> When child becomes human being
> 
> * 223. (1) A child becomes a human being within the meaning of this Act when it has completely proceeded, in a living state, from the body of its mother, whether or not
> 
> (a) it has breathed;
> 
> (b) it has an independent circulation; or
> 
> (c) the navel string is severed.
> 
> Killing child
> 
> (2) A person commits homicide when he causes injury to a child before or during its birth as a result of which the child dies after becoming a human being.
> 
> R.S., c. C-34, s. 206.
> 
> Death that might have been prevented
> 
> 224. Where a person, by an act or omission, does any thing that results in the death of a human being, he causes the death of that human being notwithstanding that death from that cause might have been prevented by resorting to proper means*.


In bold are the relevant sections.

So when you read the sections it becomes pretty clear that even though an abortion was being attempted, if the fetus has completely proceeded, in a living state, from the body of its mother, whether or not

(a) it has breathed;

(b) it has an independent circulation; or

(c) the navel string is severed.

It is a human being. Thus all the subsequent definitions (in law) of homicide apply. The most salient in the circumstances surrounding this particular issue is I believe:

*Death that might have been prevented

224. Where a person, by an act or omission, does any thing that results in the death of a human being, he causes the death of that human being notwithstanding that death from that cause might have been prevented by resorting to proper means.*

Again the intent was to abort the fetus but when the child actually is expelled from the womb of the mother alive, by law it becomes a human being, so at that point not trying to keep it alive constitutes homicide by law. 

The child will still most likely die (see: Survival rate for premature babies fails to improve) however, by law again, by an act or omission, does any thing that results in the death of a human being, he causes the death of that human being.

So I think that this is indeed an issue that needs to be addressed.

The issue has been raised by anti-abortionist but I think that in and of itself is not of importance what is important are the details of the 491 cases and whether or not they in fact constitute a breach of the law as it is written.

Strictly speaking the issue in and of itself in not a pro-life or pro-choice issue, it is an issue of whether or not certain practices while attempting to conduct an abortion are illegal.

Personally I don't think that anyone on the pro-choice side of the issue should fear these cases being investigated because it in no way would affect the law in this county regarding abortion. The law would remain the same, what it would affect is the legality of the actions or inactions of physicians when an abortion is being attempted but despite that attempt a live birth still occurs and I think that, at least legally, is clearly worth investigating.


----------



## groovetube

screature said:


> So how about we look at the law instead of going off madly in all directions.
> 
> The section of Criminal Code that the 3 Con MPs were referring to is Section 223 (2) which falls under the section:
> 
> Homicide
> 
> 
> 
> In bold are the relevant sections.
> 
> So when you read the sections it becomes pretty clear that even though an abortion was being attempted, if the fetus has completely proceeded, in a living state, from the body of its mother, whether or not
> 
> (a) it has breathed;
> 
> (b) it has an independent circulation; or
> 
> (c) the navel string is severed.
> 
> It is a human being. Thus all the subsequent definitions (in law) of homicide apply. The most salient in the circumstances surrounding this particular issue is I believe:
> 
> *Death that might have been prevented
> 
> 224. Where a person, by an act or omission, does any thing that results in the death of a human being, he causes the death of that human being notwithstanding that death from that cause might have been prevented by resorting to proper means.*
> 
> Again the intent was to abort the fetus but when the child actually is expelled from the womb of the mother alive, by law it becomes a human being, so at that point not trying to keep it alive constitutes homicide by law.
> 
> The child will still most likely die (see: Survival rate for premature babies fails to improve) however, by law again, by an act or omission, does any thing that results in the death of a human being, he causes the death of that human being.
> 
> So I think that this is indeed an issue that needs to be addressed.
> 
> The issue has been raised by anti-abortionist but I think that in and of itself is not of importance what is important are the details of the 491 cases and whether or not they in fact constitute a breach of the law as it is written.
> 
> Strictly speaking the issue in and of itself in not a pro-life or pro-choice issue, it is an issue of whether or not certain practices while attempting to conduct an abortion are illegal.
> 
> Personally I don't think that anyone on the pro-choice side of the issue should fear these cases being investigated because it in no way would affect the law in this county regarding abortion. The law would remain the same, what it would affect is the legality of the actions or inactions of physicians when an abortion is being attempted but despite that attempt a live birth still occurs and I think that, at least legally, is clearly worth investigating.


Well that is, at least a somewhat sane take on the issue.

The problem is, these MPs have clearly misrepresented the facts, and are using 'they're killing live babies' for their push for more restrictions on abortions. That's what their aim really is. Otherwise, why the need for the clear misinformation? There's a word for intentional misrepresentation of the facts isn't there?

If there's a look at how these situations are handled, so be it. But let's leave these anti abortionists tactics out of it.


----------



## jef

Rhode Island flower shops shun atheist teenager - Salon.com

How christian of them....


----------



## MacGuiver

jef said:


> Rhode Island flower shops shun atheist teenager - Salon.com
> 
> How christian of them....


The atheist taliban have a right to flowers too. Stupid decision.


----------



## jef

MacGuiver said:


> The atheist taliban have a right to flowers too. Stupid decision.


Atheist taliban? Where did that come from??


----------



## MacGuiver

jef said:


> Atheist taliban? Where did that come from??


The ones that go around ridding the world from highly offensive nativity scenes and other forms of religious expression. Saving countless people from the horror of it all.


----------



## jef

MacGuiver said:


> The ones that go around ridding the world from highly offensive nativity scenes and other forms of religious expression. Saving countless people from the horror of it all.


The 16 year old girl contested a prayer hanging in a public school and, quite rightly, won according to the law.

How does that equate her in any way with the Taliban? 

I really don't understand how there are any similarities at all.


----------



## groovetube

there are atheist taliban in America?

I never knew.


----------



## bryanc

this is a new oxymoron for me; I'll put it beside "Christian decency."


----------



## iMouse

Come on guys. 

He did spell taliban with a lower-case "t", so it is obviously NOT the proper name.

Does he have to put it into quotes too before you'll get it?


----------



## screature

bryanc said:


> this is a new oxymoron for me; I'll put it beside "*Christian decency*."


Such hyperbole, meant to inflame and provoke without any reason being applied. 

Of course there is such a thing as christian decency.


----------



## groovetube

Personally, I'd rather see it as 'human decency'

It isn't as though christians have some sort of lock on this.


----------



## bryanc

screature said:


> Of course there is such a thing as christian decency.


I certainly know many decent Christians, but it seems to me that they are decent_ despite_ their Christianity.


----------



## fjnmusic

bryanc said:


> I certainly know many decent Christians, but it seems to me that they are decent_ despite_ their Christianity.


"Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. It's them twisting it that ruins it for me."
- John Lennon, who suffered quite the backlash from the US bible belt for voicing this radical opinion


----------



## MacGuiver

fjnmusic said:


> "Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. It's them twisting it that ruins it for me."
> - John Lennon, who suffered quite the backlash from the US bible belt for voicing this radical opinion


John was pretty thick when it comes to Jesus. He thought he was a long haired hipster like him.


----------



## i-rui

Jesus had a brush cut?


----------



## groovetube

MacGuiver said:


> John was pretty thick when it comes to Jesus. He thought he was a long haired hipster like him.


I don't think John Lennon actually did. But those who disliked him, and.or didn't get him thought this.
Actually his quote was petty bang on. Perhaps a wee bit too straight up for your average bible thumper perhaps, but an interesting take.


----------



## screature

bryanc said:


> I certainly know many decent Christians, but it seems to me that *they are decent despite their Christianity*.


Of course that would be your take on it, I would expect nothing else.


----------



## screature

i-rui said:


> Jesus had a brush cut?


John Lennon had a brush cut? I would like to see a photo of when that was the case? 

Hipsters don' wear brush cuts either... "squares" and military personnel have brush cuts.

TBT I think MacGuiver meant hippy not hipster, but still, Lennon never had a brush cut nor do hipsters.

This is an example of a "hipster" hair cut:









This is a brush cut:









This is John Lennon:









This is a depiction of Jesus:










I think what MacGuiver was getting at was pretty clear despite the inaccuracy of his reference/jargon.


----------



## fjnmusic

Why is Jesus always so white? Hmmm. For the record, here is another picture of John sporting something amazingly close to a brush cut, without the bristles.
(Look at both for a stereo effect  )


----------



## bryanc

screature said:


> Of course that would be your take on it, I would expect nothing else.


I do try to be consistent.

WRT the topic at hand, I've always found it difficult to understand how the Neo-conservatives figure the ideals espoused by Jesus in the new testament (forgiveness, non-judgemental charity, looking after the poor, sick and needy, and general selflessness) are in any way congruent with theirs (greed-is-good, tax-cuts-for-the-rich, massive military expenditures, etc.).

Regardless of the hair style, the Jesus of the Bible was a Socialist.


----------



## screature

fjnmusic said:


> Why is Jesus always so white? Hmmm. For the record, here is another picture of John sporting something amazingly close to a brush cut, without the bristles.
> (Look at both for a stereo effect  )


I stand corrected, I couldn't find a photo of Lennon sporting a brush cut.


----------



## screature

bryanc said:


> I do try to be consistent.
> 
> WRT the topic at hand,* I've always found it difficult to understand how the Neo-conservatives figure the ideals espoused by Jesus in the new testament (forgiveness, non-judgemental charity, looking after the poor, sick and needy, and general selflessness) are in any way congruent with theirs (greed-is-good, tax-cuts-for-the-rich, massive military expenditures, etc.*).
> 
> *Regardless of the hair style, the Jesus of the Bible was a Socialist.*


Because the neo-cons are an adjunct to Christianity just as there are countless others... they use Christianity to meet their political objectives. It is not about religion per say... more like "poligion" or "religotics".

Jesus of the Bible *was not a socialist*. He never advocated for a state imposed redistribution of wealth, which is what socialism is fundamentally built upon.

It seems you are now participating in "poligion" or "religotics" with that statement, just to suit your own inclinations/proclivites.


----------



## fjnmusic

bryanc said:


> Regardless of the hair style, the Jesus of the Bible was a Socialist.


Amen brother. Or quite possibly a raptor.


----------



## Macfury

fjnmusic said:


> Why is Jesus always so white? Hmmm. For the record, here is another picture of John sporting something amazingly close to a brush cut, without the bristles.
> (Look at both for a stereo effect  )


A brush cut without the bristle is... close cropped hair.


----------



## Macfury

screature said:


> Because the neo-cons are an adjunct to Christianity just as there are countless others... they use Christianity to meet their political objectives. It is not about religion per say... more like "poligion" or "religotics".
> 
> Jesus of the Bible *was not a socialist*. He never advocated for a state imposed redistribution of wealth, which is what socialism is fundamentally built upon.


Yep. It was all about individual responsibility.


----------



## Lawrence

..DEFINITIVE PROOF Jesus Of Nazareth Was a Buddhist Monk





+
YouTube Video









ERROR: If you can see this, then YouTube is down or you don't have Flash installed.


----------



## MacGuiver

Lawrence said:


> ..DEFINITIVE PROOF Jesus Of Nazareth Was a Buddhist Monk
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> +
> YouTube Video
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ERROR: If you can see this, then YouTube is down or you don't have Flash installed.


Definitive is quite a claim for what little evidence was presented.


----------



## Macfury

The fact that the Buddhists don't believe in a god makes this a teensy bit suspect...


----------



## screature

Lawrence said:


> ..DEFINITIVE PROOF Jesus Of Nazareth Was a Buddhist Monk





MacGuiver said:


> Definitive is quite a claim for what little evidence was presented.


:lmao: The inconsistency of logic is astounding for the BBC.

The best "evidence" they have is that the scars on the feet match up "if you cross them over for a single nail"... but this flies in the face of the notion that he died in Kashmir, for why would he have scars one his feet like that if he did not die on the cross and was not crucified???

This "documentary" or rather "mocumentary" seems to "want to have its cake and eat it too" logically speaking.

Whoever wrote this is a dolt.


----------



## Lawrence

screature said:


> :lmao: The inconsistency of logic is astounding for the BBC.
> 
> The best "evidence" they have is that the scars on the feet match up "if you cross them over for a single nail"... but this flies in the face of the notion that he died in Kashmir, for why would he have scars one his feet like that if he did not die on the cross and was not crucified???
> 
> This "documentary" or rather "mocumentary" seems to "want to have its cake and eat it too" logically speaking.
> 
> Whoever wrote this is a dolt.


I think the idea was that he didn't die on the cross and was removed from the cross,
Only to live on elsewhere with the scars on his feet.


----------



## Lawrence

Macfury said:


> The fact that the Buddhists don't believe in a god makes this a teensy bit suspect...


Buddha is often portrayed as a teacher of the gods and superior to them


----------



## screature

Lawrence said:


> I think the idea was that he didn't die on the cross and was removed from the cross,
> Only to live on elsewhere with the scars on his feet.


How could he not die on the cross if the rest of the story is true... did he suddenly get clemency and someone said while he he was already on the cross being crucified based on a death sentence, "Ok Jesus you have suffered enough now and you are free to go." 

Such rubbish and again completely illogical. Quite frankly I can't understand how anyone could believe this to be more credible than the popular Jesus story... I mean really.


----------



## screature

Lawrence said:


> Buddha is often portrayed as a teacher of the gods and superior to them


In Buddhism there are no "gods" plain and simple. Please state the source of your claim.


----------



## Lawrence

screature said:


> In Buddhism there are no "gods" plain and simple. Please state the source of your claim.


That's true, There are no gods, But they are teachers of gods,
If you can't comprehend what I'm saying, Then peruse the links.

Buddhism and the God-Idea

God in Buddhism


----------



## Sonal

Macfury said:


> The fact that the Buddhists don't believe in a god makes this a teensy bit suspect...


Buddhists neither explicitly believe nor explicitly disbelieve in god.


----------



## screature

Lawrence said:


> That's true, There are no gods, But they are teachers of gods,
> If you can't comprehend what I'm saying, Then peruse the links.
> 
> Buddhism and the God-Idea
> 
> God in Buddhism


Read the first line of both your links... They completely prove my point.

But whatever floats your boat. I don't believe in either story.

If you would rather believe this even more far fetched story than the traditional one go right ahead but the traditional one is certainly much more logically/geographically coherent than the one in the video.


----------



## screature

Sonal said:


> Buddhists neither explicitly believe nor explicitly disbelieve in god.


So what do you think of the content of the video that Lawrence linked to?


----------



## Sonal

screature said:


> So what do you think of the video that Lawrence linked to?


I think it requires 7 minutes more time than I'm willing to spend on it. 

But whether Jesus was a Buddhist or not well, the Buddhists really wouldn't care. They believe there are many paths to enlightenment, so whether a path is called Buddhism or Christianity or "I'm not religious, I just try to be a good person" is not particularly relevant. That you are on a path is more important than its name.

They are also not particularly attached to labels. So whether you want to call Jesus a Buddhist or not, or label his teachings as Buddhist teachings or not, it's not a particularly Buddhist concern.


----------



## Lawrence

screature said:


> Read the first line of both your links... They completely prove my point.
> 
> But whatever floats your boat. I don't believe in either story.
> 
> If you would rather believe this even more far fetched story than the traditional one go right ahead but the traditional one is certainly much more logically/geographically coherent than the one in the video.


The first line is like reading the first ingredient in dog food and ignoring the rest of the contents.

If it's so difficult to read, Then I'll quote a passage for you:



> Buddhists accept the existence of beings in higher realms (see Buddhist cosmology), known as devas, but they, like humans, are said to be suffering in samsara,[19] and are not necessarily wiser than us. In fact the Buddha is often portrayed as a teacher of the gods,[20] and superior to them.[21] Despite this there are believed to be enlightened devas.[22]
> Some variations of Buddhism express a philosophical belief in an eternal Buddha: a representation of omnipresent enlightenment and a symbol of the true nature of the universe. The primordial aspect that interconnects every part of the universe is the clear light of the eternal Buddha,where everything timelessly arises and dissolves.[23][24][25]


----------



## Lawrence

Sonal said:


> I think it requires 7 minutes more time than I'm willing to spend on it.
> 
> But whether Jesus was a Buddhist or not well, the Buddhists really wouldn't care. They believe there are many paths to enlightenment, so whether a path is called Buddhism or Christianity or "I'm not religious, I just try to be a good person" is not particularly relevant. That you are on a path is more important than its name.
> 
> They are also not particularly attached to labels. So whether you want to call Jesus a Buddhist or not, or label his teachings as Buddhist teachings or not, it's not a particularly Buddhist concern.


Very good, I see have you taken ehMac survivalist training.


----------



## Sonal

Lawrence said:


> If it's so difficult to read, Then I'll quote a passage for you:


Ah. It's the same in Jainism, though we don't typically translate the word meaning 'devas' as 'gods'. 

That is, they are higher beings, but not gods. Closest English translation would likely be 'angels' though in this case, the angels are subject to the cycle of birth and death.


----------



## Lawrence

Sonal said:


> Ah. It's the same in Jainism, though we don't typically translate the word meaning 'devas' as 'gods'.
> 
> That is, they are higher beings, but not gods. Closest English translation would likely be 'angels' though in this case, the angels are subject to the cycle of birth and death.


I've watched quite a few documentaries on the possession of such "Gods" or Deities,
Those of higher realms, Interesting to see.

I'd love to go to Tibet someday.
Not necessarily to be possessed by such deities, But to just to take in the splendour.


----------



## screature

Sonal said:


> I think it requires 7 minutes more time than I'm willing to spend on it.
> 
> But whether Jesus was a Buddhist or not well, the Buddhists really wouldn't care. They believe there are many paths to enlightenment, so whether a path is called Buddhism or Christianity or "I'm not religious, I just try to be a good person" is not particularly relevant. That you are on a path is more important than its name.
> 
> They are also not particularly attached to labels. So whether you want to call Jesus a Buddhist or not, or label his teachings as Buddhist teachings or not, it's not a particularly Buddhist concern.


Sonal this is not a debate about what constitutes being a Buddhist is a debate about whether or not you believe Jesus was a Buddhist...

So what say you?


----------



## Sonal

Lawrence said:


> I'd love to go to Tibet someday.
> Not necessarily to be possessed by such deities, But to just to take in the splendour.


I was in Lhasa for a little over a day. Beautiful place.... would love to go back and spend more time.


----------



## Sonal

screature said:


> Sonal this is not a debate about what constitutes being a Buddhist is a debate about whether or not you believe Jesus was a Buddhist...
> 
> So what say you?


I say what the Buddhists would likely say.... the question is not particularly relevant.


----------



## screature

Lawrence said:


> The first line is like reading the first ingredient in dog food and ignoring the rest of the contents.
> 
> If it's so difficult to read, Then I'll quote a passage for you:


The first lines affirms my statement. The rest is rationalization on your part.

Next.


----------



## MacGuiver

I think the Shroud of Turin is among the most compelling evidence of the biblical Christ. Modern science still can't explain how the image was made on the fabric and what has been discovered points towards its authenticity. The markings are consistent with the biblical accounts of the crucifixion as well. The carbon dating that was done in 88 dating it to the middle ages has been proven to be contaminated with cotton fibres from early restoration efforts.


----------



## screature

Sonal said:


> I say what the Buddhists would likely say.... the question is not particularly relevant.


Nice dodge... you might want to consider a career in politics. 

I asked you a specific question about the contents of the video and you refused to answer or rather provided an answer that was so ambiguous as to be meaningless.


----------



## Lawrence

screature said:


> The first lines affirms my statement. The rest is rationalization on your part.
> 
> Next.


Must be a beautiful life that you lead, So easy to dismiss paragraphs and base life on one liners.

If only life were so easy.


----------



## screature

This Post has been edited due to inappropriate language and or behaviour.

*This is a warning.*

Please note that we encourage all present and future participants of the ehMac community to keep there Posts polite and respectful at all times.


----------



## Lawrence

Sonal said:


> I say what the Buddhists would likely say.... the question is not particularly relevant.


I particularly like that video up to an extent, Just wished it explained a bit more, 
Although, I suppose explaining everything would be like teaching a Virgo the meaning of life.

Who are we to teach, We are mere peasants.


----------



## Lawrence

screature said:


> Don't for an instant try and pretend, even remotely, you understand or have an inkling of the difficulty of my life with your pompous and self important post. tptptptp


Whatever


----------



## screature

Lawrence said:


> Whatever


Yeah... I figured as much... the response like that of a 12 year old.


----------



## groovetube

screature said:


> Don't for an instant try and pretend, even remotely, you understand or have an inkling of the difficulty of my life with your pompous and self important post. tptptptp
> 
> Why don't you just phuck off!!!


Didn't you report someone for calling someone an arsehole?

Seriously, what's going on here.


----------



## Sonal

screature said:


> Nice dodge... you might want to consider a career in politics.
> 
> I asked you a specific question about the contents of the video and you refused to answer or rather provided an answer that was so ambiguous as to be meaningless.


No, it's a pretty specific answer.

I can't speak for Jesus, but from what I know he doesn't strike me as someone who would be too bothered by what people call him. And the Buddhists definitely wouldn't be bothered by it. So if the two parties involved are likely okay with it either way, then why should anyone else get hot and bothered by it? Choose the answer that gives you the most peace.

This also gets into what does it mean to be called a Buddhist, since many people practice the same things that Buddhists without actually calling themselves Buddhists. So are you a Buddhist because you practice the same things as Buddhists, or are you a Buddhist because you explicitly label yourself as such?

If the former, sure, you could probably call Jesus a Buddhist.... turn the other cheek and love thy neighbour is a pretty Buddhist thing to do. If the latter, no, you really can't call him a Buddhist. 

Buddhists themselves would most likely consider everyone a Buddhist, though recognize that not everyone chooses to identify that way (Jainism is similar in this) and also recognize that the label is not so important. So really, we are all Buddhists, and we are all also whatever label we choose for ourselves, and we are all also neither of these things.

Really, it's your question that's ambiguous.


----------



## Lawrence

screature said:


> Yeah... I figured as much... the response of a 12 year old.


My my, You certainly are trying aren't you,
But, Being who I am, I'll pass.

Thanks anyways.

Jesus loves you


----------



## screature

Sonal said:


> No, it's a pretty specific answer.
> 
> I can't speak for Jesus, but from what I know he doesn't strike me as someone who would be too bothered by what people call him. And the Buddhists definitely wouldn't be bothered by it. So if the two parties involved are likely okay with it either way, then why should anyone else get hot and bothered by it? Choose the answer that gives you the most peace.
> 
> This also gets into what does it mean to be called a Buddhist, since many people practice the same things that Buddhists without actually calling themselves Buddhists. So are you a Buddhist because you practice the same things as Buddhists, or are you a Buddhist because you explicitly label yourself as such?
> 
> If the former, sure, you could probably call Jesus a Buddhist.... turn the other cheek and love thy neighbour is a pretty Buddhist thing to do. If the latter, no, you really can't call him a Buddhist.
> 
> Buddhists themselves would most likely consider everyone a Buddhist, though recognize that not everyone chooses to identify that way (Jainism is similar in this) and also recognize that the label is not so important. So really, we are all Buddhists, and we are all also whatever label we choose for ourselves, and we are all also neither of these things.
> 
> Really, it's your question that's ambiguous.


My question was very direct. Essentially I was asking you about your thoughts on the veracity of the contents of the video i.e., sorry I didn't make myself clear (although I think I did)

I asked you for a critique of what you thought of the content of the video... you still have yet to answer it directly.


----------



## Sonal

screature said:


> No I asked you for a critique of what you thought of the content of the video... you still have yet to answer it directly.


And my answer is that I'm not interested in watching the video because the question of whether or not Jesus is a Buddhist is a) not particularly relevant and b) dependent on how one perceives the notion of 'being a Buddhist.'


----------



## Lawrence

screature said:


> Don't for an instant try and pretend, even remotely, you understand or have an inkling of the difficulty of my life with your pompous and self important post. tptptptp
> 
> Why don't you just phuck off!!!


My goodness, Gosh Golly, I'm so hurt,
How can you say such a thing.

Jesus


----------



## screature

Sonal said:


> And my answer is that I'm not interested in watching the video because the question of whether or not Jesus is a Buddhist is a) not particularly relevant and b) dependent on how one perceives the notion of 'being a Buddhist.'


Ok. Now I understand. Sorry I forgot about your early dismissal without witness. My apologies, but I kind of wonder why you would enter into a debate about a video that you haven't watched.


----------



## Sonal

screature said:


> Ok. Now I understand. Sorry I missed that the first time around. My apologies, but I kind of wonder why you would enter into a debate about a video that you haven't watched.


I didn't. I entered the conversation to correct the assertion that Buddhists don't believe in god. 

Then I was asked about the video that says that Jesus is a Buddhist, and so I commented on whether or not Jesus was a Buddhist. And then continued to comment on whether or not Jesus is a Buddhist.

So you might have been talking about the video in specific, but I was talking about whether Jesus could be called a Buddhist in general. 

(As for why, I have homework that I am procrastinating on.... ironically, it's Buddhist lyric poetry.)


----------



## fjnmusic

screature said:


> How could he not die on the cross if the rest of the story is true... did he suddenly get clemency and someone said while he he was already on the cross being crucified based on a death sentence, "Ok Jesus you have suffered enough now and you are free to go."
> 
> Such rubbish and again completely illogical. Quite frankly I can't understand how anyone could believe this to be more credible than the popular Jesus story... I mean really.


Because resurrection is so credible? I think that perhaps the NT is so full of these superhuman INcredible feats because


----------



## fjnmusic

Damn. Just got struck by lightning again.


----------



## groovetube

I'm sorry but sometimes this thread is not much different than this youtube.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YFDCNr1L64o

(note that it repeats for a very, very long time)


----------



## screature

Sonal said:


> I didn't. I entered the conversation to correct the assertion that Buddhists don't believe in god.
> 
> *Then I was asked about the video that says that Jesus is a Buddhist, and so I commented on whether or not Jesus was a Buddhist. And then continued to comment on whether or not Jesus is a Buddhist.*
> 
> So you might have been talking about the video in specific, but I was talking about whether Jesus could be called a Buddhist in general.
> 
> (As for why, I have homework that I am procrastinating on.... ironically, it's Buddhist lyric poetry.)


Sorry Sonal. You are right. I didn't frame my question the way I had intended, I meant to ask you about your opinion of the video and it's contents, not about whether or not you believed Jesus was a Buddhist.

I guess I just kinda thought based on the flow of discussion following from the video you would get the jist of my question... my bad for not framing the nature of my question to you more accurately.

Good luck with the homework. I hope it goes well and you don't have to stay up too late.


----------



## fjnmusic

Sonal said:


> I didn't. I entered the conversation to correct the assertion that Buddhists don't believe in god.
> 
> Then I was asked about the video that says that Jesus is a Buddhist, and so I commented on whether or not Jesus was a Buddhist. And then continued to comment on whether or not Jesus is a Buddhist.
> 
> So you might have been talking about the video in specific, but I was talking about whether Jesus could be called a Buddhist in general.
> 
> (As for why, I have homework that I am procrastinating on.... ironically, it's Buddhist lyric poetry.)


Poetic justice! There's a book I think you and other ehMac'ers might enjoy, Sonal. It's called LAMB, and it fills in the missing years from Jesus childhood until his ministry as an adult, including journeys to the Far East where he learns much about himself. The story is told by his childhood friend, Biff, and written by Christopher Moore. A very interesting perspective if you ever have the time!


----------



## screature

fjnmusic said:


> Because resurrection is so credible? I think that perhaps the NT is so full of these superhuman INcredible feats because


Sorry I thought you were a believer.

I'm so confused...


----------



## Lawrence

Nam Myoho Renge Kyo





+
YouTube Video









ERROR: If you can see this, then YouTube is down or you don't have Flash installed.


----------



## MacGuiver

screature said:


> Sorry I thought you were a believer.
> 
> I'm so confused...


its complicated. He's an atheist Catholic school teacher.


----------



## kps

Man, I actually prayed to the Superbowl gods tonight!

The gods heard my prayers.

Way to go Baltimore!

(better than 9minutes of screaming sheep.)


----------



## fjnmusic

screature said:


> Sorry I thought you were a believer.
> 
> I'm so confused...


I am a believer. I just never specified a believer in what.


----------



## fjnmusic

MacGuiver said:


> its complicated. He's an atheist Catholic school teacher.


Oh Lordy. You and your labels. Don't suppose you're a Type A linear sequentialist by nature?


----------



## Macfury

fjnmusic said:


> Oh Lordy. You and your labels. Don't suppose you're a Type A linear sequentialist by nature?


Nope. You can't escape being described just because you have a hippie-like aversion to labels... man!


----------



## fjnmusic

Macfury said:


> Nope. You can't escape being described just because you have a hippie-like aversion to labels... man!


Fine dude. I think I'm a hippie peacenik Sci-fi nut Buddhist catholic atheist existentialist Jedi. I really suggest some of you people read that book I mentioned. It's a good read!


----------



## screature

screature said:


> This Post has been edited due to inappropriate language and or behaviour.
> 
> *This is a warning.*
> 
> Please note that we encourage all present and future participants of the ehMac community to keep there Posts polite and respectful at all times.


So let's see... phuck is tolerated by one poster and not another... nice... check the record mods and new owner gods, Lawrence was the one to use it first without repudiation. The inconsistency is astounding and troubling.

SINC complained about it and nothing was done so one would assume it was a tolerated word.

The new ownership/mods are completely clueless and out to lunch on this one... This place is going to hell in a handcart.


----------



## i-rui

screature said:


> TBT I think MacGuiver meant hippy not hipster, but still, Lennon never had a brush cut nor do hipsters.
> 
> ---
> 
> I think what MacGuiver was getting at was pretty clear despite the inaccuracy of his reference/jargon.


Ya, i read his post as hippy (not hipster), which is why i posted the sarcastic 'brush cut' comment since every depiction of jesus basically has him with long hippy hair (like Lennon), and his overall message was very consistent with the 'all you need is love' message that JL preached in his music which filtered into 60's hippy culture.



screature said:


> :lmao: The inconsistency of logic is astounding for the BBC.
> 
> The best "evidence" they have is that the scars on the feet match up "if you cross them over for a single nail"... but this flies in the face of the notion that he died in Kashmir, *for why would he have scars one his feet like that if he did not die on the cross and was not crucified???*
> 
> This "documentary" or rather "mocumentary" seems to "want to have its cake and eat it too" logically speaking.
> 
> Whoever wrote this is a dolt.


Not that i want to be put in a position of defending the theory because I don't think there's enough evidence to support it, but I just wanted to point out that someone could survive the initial crucifixion if they were removed from the cross soon enough (which is what is being implied here) as it's not the initial being nailed to the planks that would kill people but rather the suffering after the fact.


----------



## groovetube

screature said:


> So let's see... phuck is tolerated by one poster and not another... nice... check the record mods and new owner gods, Lawrence was the one to use it first without repudiation. The inconsistency is astounding and troubling.
> 
> SINC complained about it and nothing was done so one would assume it was a tolerated word.
> 
> The new ownership/mods are completely clueless and out to lunch on this one... This place is going to hell in a handcart.


I think there's a difference in what you did and say what Lawrence did. It was pointed out rather smugly by a few. Possibly I think even you I'm pretty sure!

We're all adults and probably can tolerate some play on words, but you attacked another member directly with it. That's the line you crossed. Obviously not because of the *ph*lipping around, because we've all tested that one out and the mods seemed to have made clear that's ok so long as it's not involved in personal attacking. (if that's wrong a clarification would help, but Sinc's thread made that clear) I've been trying to figure out what the rules are given I've seen some things being quite liquid, but as far as I can ascertain, direct personal attack seems to be the line in the sand here.


----------



## groovetube

fjnmusic said:


> I am a believer. I just never specified a believer in what.


As Nick Lowe sang, (one of my favs by him btw) 'you're a failed christian...'


----------



## Lawrence

screature said:


> So let's see... phuck is tolerated by one poster and not another... nice... check the record mods and new owner gods, Lawrence was the one to use it first without repudiation. The inconsistency is astounding and troubling.
> 
> SINC complained about it and nothing was done so one would assume it was a tolerated word.
> 
> The new ownership/mods are completely clueless and out to lunch on this one... This place is going to hell in a handcart.


Writing an expression as opposed to directing an expression are very different indeed,
Not that I care about your personal attack, But obviously the board does.

Interesting that it is, I didn't report your attack.

Better to turn the other cheek.


----------



## fjnmusic

i-rui said:


> Ya, i read his post as hippy (not hipster), which is why i posted the sarcastic 'brush cut' comment since every depiction of jesus basically has him with long hippy hair (like Lennon), and his overall message was very consistent with the 'all you need is love' message that JL preached in his music which filtered into 60's hippy culture.
> 
> 
> 
> Not that i want to be put in a position of defending the theory because I don't think there's enough evidence to support it, but I just wanted to point out that someone could survive the initial crucifixion if they were removed from the cross soon enough (which is what is being implied here) as it's not the initial being nailed to the planks that would kill people but rather the suffering after the fact.


People who are crucified die from asphyxiation when they can no longer support their own weight. A Roman form of mercy was to break the victim's legs so they would die more quickly.


----------



## margarok

Hello, all! You will be glad to see your right-wing gun-toting devout Christian Okie friend is still checking in from time to time. However, I don't have time to debate the merits of Phuck or whether saying Dam is fine while adding an "n" violates a Commandment. I wish I did... I am too busy Honoring my WWII POW veteran father by getting his home modified to accomodate a walker and wheelchair.

Sheeeeesh! What does this have to to with the Religious Thead, you ask? Well when I was at my parents' home at Christmas, I talked to my mother about the possibility of having an addition put onto the house. She said that old farmhouse was structurally weak after all the flooding a couple years ago. But, she sat in her chair, bowed her head and prayed that somehow we would be able to figure out a way to do it so that my father can live out his days in dignity in the house where he was born in 1921.

I submitted a letter to the Veterans Administration explaining the difficulties my father has with his feet and knees from 3 plus years of hard labor in a POW camp in Japan. Mom got a notice a week ago that they have been awarded a $63,000 Independent Living Grant and that I am the point of contact for coordinating the construction work. 

Coincidence? Call it what you will. I'm taking the miracle and saying Hallelujah!


----------



## MacGuiver

i-rui said:


> Ya, i read his post as hippy (not hipster), which is why i posted the sarcastic 'brush cut' comment since every depiction of jesus basically has him with long hippy hair (like Lennon), and his overall message was very consistent with the 'all you need is love' message that JL preached in his music which filtered into 60's hippy culture.


The fact Lennon was a hippy also made him a hipster so either description was correct.

hipster: a person who follows the latest trends and fashions. 

The latest fashion of the 60s being long hair, colourful cloths, hedonism and drug use he fit the definition perfectly. Other than the long hair, Lennon had very little in common with Jesus and his message.


----------



## groovetube

If you knew what a true hipster was, then you'd know Lennon wasn't. He didn't so much as follow, as he was followed.

I'm sitting in a trendy downtown coffee shop right now, and I see several what I would call, a hipster. I assume you dislike John Lennon, to each their own, but your definition of hipster, is far too broad.

Hippie, absolutely. But hippies and hipsters are different things.


----------



## fjnmusic

MacGuiver said:


> The fact Lennon was a hippy also made him a hipster so either description was correct.
> 
> hipster: a person who follows the latest trends and fashions.
> 
> The latest fashion of the 60s being long hair, colourful cloths, hedonism and drug use he fit the definition perfectly. Other than the long hair, Lennon had very little in common with Jesus and his message.


Except of course for all you need is love, and give peace a chance.


----------



## MacGuiver

groovetube said:


> If you knew what a true hipster was, then you'd know Lennon wasn't. He didn't so much as follow, as he was followed.
> 
> I'm sitting in a trendy downtown coffee shop right now, and I see several what I would call, a hipster. I assume you dislike John Lennon, to each their own, but your definition of hipster, is far too broad.
> 
> So you think Lennon started the hippy movement and the philosophy and culture it espoused? I don't think anything he was saying wasn't already being said elsewhere.


----------



## Macfury

fjnmusic said:


> Except of course for all you need is love, and give peace a chance.


Jesus never remotely implied that all someone needed was love.so you only get 50% on this essay.


----------



## Lawrence

MacGuiver said:


> The fact Lennon was a hippy also made him a hipster so either description was correct.
> 
> hipster: a person who follows the latest trends and fashions.
> 
> The latest fashion of the 60s being long hair, colourful cloths, hedonism and drug use he fit the definition perfectly. Other than the long hair, Lennon had very little in common with Jesus and his message.


I can only "Imagine" that Lennon knew more than most.


----------



## MacGuiver

fjnmusic said:


> Except of course for all you need is love, and give peace a chance.


Sure he may have used a few soundbites that had a ring of Christianity to them but the hippy concept of attaining peace and practicing love was quite different than the Christian one. In fact drugs and hedonism have quite the opposite effect of creating peace and love.


----------



## Macfury

Lawrence said:


> I can only "Imagine" that Lennon knew more than most.


He was making nowhere plans for nobody.


----------



## Lawrence

Macfury said:


> He was making nowhere plans for nobody.


Yes, That was an interesting song, Very well written.
The Fool on the hill has a lot of symbolism to it related to Tarot and the Major Arcana.


----------



## fjnmusic

Macfury said:


> He was making nowhere plans for nobody.


Christ, you know it ain't easy 
you know how hard it be 
the way things are going 
they're gonna crucify me


----------



## MacGuiver

Lawrence said:


> I can only "Imagine" that Lennon knew more than most.


The communists "imagined" it in the former Soviet Union. No heaven or hell, no religion, no possessions and a brotherhood of man. That didn't go so well.


----------



## Lawrence

MacGuiver said:


> The communists "imagined" it in the former Soviet Union. No heaven or hell, no religion, no possessions and a brotherhood of man. That didn't go so well.


Oh I see, You missed the meaning, How interesting.


----------



## MacGuiver

Lawrence said:


> Oh I see, You missed the meaning, How interesting.


I don't think Lennon was necessarily singing about Lenin. But much of what the song portrays as the impediments to a utopian society were shared by the communists.


----------



## Lawrence

MacGuiver said:


> I don't think Lennon was necessarily singing about Lenin. But much of what the song portrays as the impediments to a utopian society were shared by the communists.


One thing I've learned in life, You can't teach enlightenment.


----------



## MacGuiver

Lawrence said:


> One thing I've learned in life, You can't teach enlightenment.


What meaning was I missing Lawrence? Enlighten me.


----------



## Lawrence

MacGuiver said:


> What meaning was I missing Lawrence? Enlighten me.


Sorry, Not going to teach you.
My cup is closed.


----------



## groovetube

MacGuiver said:


> The communists "imagined" it in the former Soviet Union. No heaven or hell, no religion, no possessions and a brotherhood of man. That didn't go so well.


Except what was wrong with Soviet communism had less to do with the lack of religion, or the 'brotherhood of man'.

Wee detail.


----------



## groovetube

MacGuiver said:


> groovetube said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you knew what a true hipster was, then you'd know Lennon wasn't. He didn't so much as follow, as he was followed.
> 
> I'm sitting in a trendy downtown coffee shop right now, and I see several what I would call, a hipster. I assume you dislike John Lennon, to each their own, but your definition of hipster, is far too broad.
> 
> So you think Lennon started the hippy movement and the philosophy and culture it espoused? I don't think anything he was saying wasn't already being said elsewhere.
> 
> 
> 
> No I don't think Lennon started it all by himself, and I'm not sure how you would have come to that conclusion. I guess you know less about Lennon then you're letting on here.
Click to expand...


----------



## MacGuiver

groovetube said:


> MacGuiver said:
> 
> 
> 
> No I don't think Lennon started it all by himself, and I'm not sure how you would have come to that conclusion. I guess you know less about Lennon then you're letting on here.
> 
> 
> 
> True, I can't claim to be an authority on Lennon. I was never a fan and I'm not big on celebrity worship to give their opinions and philosophies greater importance than your average Joe.
Click to expand...


----------



## Macfury

MacGuiver said:


> True, I can't claim to be an authority on Lennon. I was never a fan and I'm not big on celebrity worship to give their opinions and philosophies greater importance than your average Joe.


I've always found that attitude puzzling. He's got a good set of pipes and a way with a guitar, so I'd better pay attention to his philosophical ramblings??


----------



## i-rui

margarok said:


> I submitted a letter to the Veterans Administration explaining the difficulties my father has with his feet and knees from 3 plus years of hard labor in a POW camp in Japan. Mom got a notice a week ago that they have been awarded a $63,000 Independent Living Grant and that I am the point of contact for coordinating the construction work.
> 
> Coincidence? Call it what you will. I'm taking the miracle and saying Hallelujah!


Good news!

Thank god for socialism!


----------



## Macfury

i-rui said:


> Thank god for socialism!


This is not socialism. It's a compensation payment for suffering endured in the line of employment. The military is one of the few legitimate functions of government.


----------



## groovetube

MacGuiver said:


> True, I can't claim to be an authority on Lennon. I was never a fan and I'm not big on celebrity worship to give their opinions and philosophies greater importance than your average Joe.


You seem to like extremes. First you thought people believe that Lennon started the hippie thing, and now if someone like John Lennon, it's 'celebrity worship'?

Man it seems like you all have a real chip on your shoulders over this guy! :lmao:

John Lennon, is just a great song writer. A unique artist who resonated with people. Nothing to get all worked up over!


----------



## iMouse

MacGuiver said:


> The communists "imagined" it in the former Soviet Union. No heaven or hell, no religion, no possessions and a brotherhood of man. That didn't go so well.





Lawrence said:


> Oh I see, You missed the meaning, How interesting.


They also missed "no greed".


----------



## MacGuiver

groovetube said:


> You seem to like extremes. First you thought people believe that Lennon started the hippie thing, and now if someone like John Lennon, it's 'celebrity worship'?
> 
> Man it seems like you all have a real chip on your shoulders over this guy! :lmao:
> 
> John Lennon, is just a great song writer. A unique artist who resonated with people. Nothing to get all worked up over!


Whose getting worked up?
No chip on the shoulder, just think he espoused a poor philosophy. One that many have mistaken for genuine Christian expression. And yes, some just like his music too. 
If your saying he didn't start the hippie movement, I agree. He was just another hippy follower but one with an elevated status due to his celebrity. A hipster of his era.


----------



## i-rui

Macfury said:


> This is not socialism. It's a compensation payment for suffering endured in the line of employment. The military is one of the few legitimate functions of government.


nope. it's socialism!

it's not a "compensation payment" - it's a benefit. to be exact it's an Independent Living Grant.

Compensation payment would mean the applicant could do whatever they want with the money, an independent living grant would require the money be spent in specific ways to assist with day to day living conditions and construction to meet those needs.

Also I believe American POWs have already received compensation payments for any internment long ago (although i'm sure it was a pittance relative to their suffering).


----------



## groovetube

MacGuiver said:


> Whose getting worked up?
> No chip on the shoulder, just think he espoused a poor philosophy. One that many have mistaken for genuine Christian expression. And yes, some just like his music too.
> If your saying he didn't start the hippie movement, I agree. He was just another hippy follower but one with an elevated status due to his celebrity. A hipster of his era.


because you've spent 3 or 4 posts now really really pointing out what a hippie follower he was, a hipster (hissss...).

Despite your excitement here, for a follower, he sure had a pretty huge follow_ing_. Millions in fact. :lmao:


----------



## Sonal

Hipster in a modern context has a very different meaning from hippie in both its contemporary and current context. 

So unless the crux of your argument relies on equating these two words, I think it would be less distracting to let go of the idea that John Lennon was a hipster because he was a hippie.


----------



## MacGuiver

Sonal said:


> Hipster in a modern context has a very different meaning from hippie in both its contemporary and current context.
> 
> So unless the crux of your argument relies on equating these two words, I think it would be less distracting to let go of the idea that John Lennon was a hipster because he was a hippie.


I never looked at the word hipster as a label of a particular group (ie generation X) but someone that is "hip" or with the latest trends. Yes Lennon was a hippy but being a hippy was the the hip thing to be in the 1960s.

hipster 1 |ˈhipstər| noun
a person who follows the latest trends and fashions.
hipsterism |-ˌrizəm | noun

Lets just drop the debate of me describing him as a hipster as its really trivial


----------



## Sonal

MacGuiver said:


> I never looked at the word hipster as a label of a particular group (ie generation X) but someone that is "hip" or with the latest trends. Yes Lennon was a hippy but being a hippy was the the hip thing to be in the 1960s.
> 
> hipster 1 |ˈhipstər| noun
> a person who follows the latest trends and fashions.
> hipsterism |-ˌrizəm | noun
> 
> Lets just drop the debate of me describing him as a hipster as its really trivial


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hipster_(contemporary_subculture)

The definition you pulled up is incomplete.


----------



## bryanc

I'm not a huge fan of John Lennon or the Beatles (although I will certainly acknowledge their importance in music history and popular culture, and I don't dislike their music), but I would certainly argue that rather than following trends, Lennon created trends.

Furthermore, to get things back on to the religious line of thinking; I'd argue that Lennon's message was one of "Peace and Love," very much like that of the Jesus character portrayed in the bible. Unlike the Jesus character, we can be quite confident that John Lennon actually existed, and most importantly, you don't have to believe Lennon was anything other than a thoughtful man to learn from his example.


----------



## groovetube

It is interesting that people can be so threatened by someone like John Lennon.


----------



## bryanc

groovetube said:


> It is interesting that people can be so threatened by someone like John Lennon.


Anyone who sung "Imagine there's no religion..." as if it would be a good thing is going to be pretty threatening to the sky-daddy crowd.


----------



## groovetube

Well that would certainly explain the hissing and spitting 'hippie follower hipster' stuff.


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> Anyone who sung "Imagine there's no religion..." as if it would be a good thing is going to be pretty threatening to the sky-daddy crowd.


I was always embarrassed by the simpering tone of the song, but I don't believe it's considered much of a threat. Were you watching an old episode of _WKRP in Cincinnati_i?


----------



## MacGuiver

groovetube said:


> It is interesting that people can be so threatened by someone like John Lennon.


Yes John Lennon threatens me groove.
Drama much?


----------



## groovetube

You guys have provided the drama. The whole embarrassed hippie hipster follower simpering worshipped celebrity, it is kinda finny. Some pretty angry stuff there.

Just one of many well known people to create art. Whether it's to your tastes, or not.


----------



## Lawrence

...Real Proof that Jesus was NOT real
(You are going to love this one)





+
YouTube Video









ERROR: If you can see this, then YouTube is down or you don't have Flash installed.


----------



## MacGuiver

Lawrence said:


> ...Real Proof that Jesus was NOT real
> (You are going to love this one)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> +
> YouTube Video
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ERROR: If you can see this, then YouTube is down or you don't have Flash installed.


You had me convinced he was a Buddhist monk yesterday.


----------



## bryanc

Lawrence said:


> ...Real Proof that Jesus was NOT real


That's a nice summary (well worth watching for anyone who isn't up on the mythological precedents on which the story of Jesus is based) of the evidence that the story of Jesus is a gestalt of many far more ancient myths. But it dose not prove that Jesus didn't exist any more than summarizing the assemblage of stories and marketing campaigns about Santa Clause proves that Santa dose not exist.

Of course, there's as much evidence for a magical Santa as there is for a divine Jesus, so we should give both those ideas the same credibility (i.e. none), but we cannot claim to have proof that either is not true.


----------



## Lawrence

MacGuiver said:


> You had me convinced he was a Buddhist monk yesterday.


You could say that he was real and he was not real and yet he was in many places at the same time.


----------



## iMouse

MacGuiver said:


> You had me convinced he was a Buddhist monk yesterday.


Boy, are you ever fickle.



Lawrence said:


> You could say that he was real and he was not real and yet he was in many places at the same time.


You mean like Santa?? :lmao:


----------



## Lawrence

iMouse said:


> Boy, are you ever fickle.
> 
> 
> 
> You mean like Santa?? :lmao:


That's actually quite a good analogy


----------



## Macfury

Lawrence said:


> That's actually quite a good analogy


Santa is only in one place at a time.


----------



## Lawrence

Macfury said:


> Santa is only in one place at a time.


But he's universal


----------



## steviewhy

sudo rm -rf /


----------



## Sonal

iMouse said:


> You mean like Santa?? :lmao:


I believe in Santa.


----------



## BigDL

Lawrence said:


> Writing an expression as opposed to directing an expression are very different indeed,
> Not that I care about your personal attack, But obviously the board does.
> 
> Interesting that it is, I didn't report your attack.
> 
> Better to turn the other cheek.


Well it is always nice to have a clear cut winner in these endless battle of wits.

When a poster such as yourself is attacked personally by another poster, that makes you clearly the victor. It is a sad situation when an individual is the object of f’bombs (or is it ph’bombs) is a person not an idea or a concept.

But still, the assailant is still one of God’s creature’s more to be pitied than blamed, I say and I mean that in the nicest possible way.

The assailant seems not to have the wit nor wisdom to keep up with your thesis and chose to lash out with a personal attack. 

I have personally witnessed in the past, when a fact based argument all referenced with hyperlinks was placed in front of a poster with the only response being something like Pfffft “where do I begin.” . 

Pfffft is I suppose akin to the sound of air escaping from a tire on a vehicle and then followed by a the “where do I begin.” Then you have to deal with a blathering akin to a flat tire on vehicle just making a lot of noise and not going anywhere very fast. 

Clearly someone out of their element, but still one of God’s creature’s more to be pitied than blamed and I mean that in the nicest possible way.

I find many folks this time of year are maybe suffering from “cabin fever” <start hushed tone> you know when the so called “black dog comes to visit.”</end hushed tone>

Still there is no shame for being affected by depression is there? What with the brutal winter weather many posters in this country have experienced this year.

Posters are cranky, loss of interest, fatigue, at this time of year.

Why I have tried to assist one senior citizen that posts on this board myself. I figured it is due to the weather. <start hushed tone>You know how the seniors are, you must help them along the poor dears.</end hushed tone> So I send encouraging messages that the winter is nearly half over and to “hang in there" you know that type of thing.

This might be situation in the instant case, I noted you were willing to turn the other cheek but you might consider forgiveness, as forgiveness goes along way for the person forgiving as well as the perpetrator. 

I mention it here in the religious thread, with or without the religious overtones, forgiveness is still good you. Remember the offender is still one of God’s creature’s more to be pitied than blamed and I mean that in the nicest possible terms.


----------



## MacGuiver

steviewhy said:


> This really needs to be in this thread.


Hey its John Lennon!


----------



## iMouse

Sonal said:


> I believe in Santa.


I am with you there. 

Same with Jesus, up to a point.


----------



## jef

Creationism tour....

The hypocrisy and hostilities mirror a lot of the stuff in this thread.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oju_lpqa6Ug"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oju_lpqa6Ug[/ame]


----------



## Macfury

jef said:


> Creationism tour....
> 
> The hypocrisy and hostilities mirror a lot of the stuff in this thread.
> 
> Conspiracy Road Trip: Creationism - YouTube


Why don;t you set it up so that we can decide if we want to spend 57 minutes watching something that we don't remotely agree with.


----------



## iMouse

Macfury said:


> Why don't you set it up so that *we* can decide if we want to spend 57 minutes watching something that *we* don't remotely agree with.


You ........... YOU!!!! tptptptp

What's with the Royal we, Bub? :lmao:


----------



## screature

BigDL said:


> Well it is always nice to have a clear cut winner in these endless battle of wits.
> 
> *When a poster such as yourself is attacked personally by another poster, that makes you clearly the victor. It is a sad situation when an individual is the object of f’bombs (or is it ph’bombs) is a person not an idea or a concept.*
> 
> But still, the assailant is still one of God’s creature’s more to be pitied than blamed, I say and I mean that in the nicest possible way.
> 
> *The assailant seems not to have the wit nor wisdom to keep up with your thesis* and chose to lash out with a personal attack.
> 
> I have personally witnessed in the past, when a fact based argument all referenced with hyperlinks was placed in front of a poster with the only response being something like Pfffft “where do I begin.” .
> 
> Pfffft is I suppose akin to the sound of air escaping from a tire on a vehicle and then followed by a the “where do I begin.” Then you have to deal with a blathering akin to a flat tire on vehicle just making a lot of noise and not going anywhere very fast.
> 
> Clearly someone out of their element, but still one of God’s creature’s more to be pitied than blamed and I mean that in the nicest possible way.
> 
> I find many folks this time of year are maybe suffering from “cabin fever” <start hushed tone> you know when the so called “black dog comes to visit.”</end hushed tone>
> 
> Still there is no shame for being affected by depression is there? What with the brutal winter weather many posters in this country have experienced this year.
> 
> Posters are cranky, loss of interest, fatigue, at this time of year.
> 
> Why I have tried to assist one senior citizen that posts on this board myself. I figured it is due to the weather. <start hushed tone>You know how the seniors are, you must help them along the poor dears.</end hushed tone> So I send encouraging messages that the winter is nearly half over and to “hang in there" you know that type of thing.
> 
> This might be situation in the instant case, I noted you were willing to turn the other cheek but you might consider forgiveness, as forgiveness goes along way for the person forgiving as well as the perpetrator.
> 
> I mention it here in the religious thread, with or without the religious overtones, forgiveness is still good you. Remember the offender is still one of God’s creature’s more to be pitied than blamed and I mean that in the nicest possible terms.


You clearly don't understand why I did what I did and I am not surprised in the least by that lack of understanding. 

Here I will spell it out for you... now read it slowly, it might help you to be able to follow along.

Lawrence was the first to use the word phuck here and got away with it repeatedly and it was reported by SINC to the mods but went unnoticed. I used it against Lawrence *specifically* because *he* was the one to introduce its usage here and used it over and over and over again rubbing it in SINC's face that he hadn't been shut down by the mods.

So I turned the tables and used it against him and lo and behold my one usage of the word garners a warning... finally. Now how about Lawrence gets a retroactive warning for his multiple uses of the word.


----------



## Macfury

iMouse said:


> You ........... YOU!!!! tptptptp
> 
> What's with the Royal we, Bub? :lmao:


I was being courteous to you, Mouse! I didn't want you to have to get out of your cozy chair and ask!


----------



## groovetube

screature said:


> You clearly don't understand why I did what I did and I am not surprised in the least by that lack of understanding.
> 
> Here I will spell it out for you... now read it slowly, it might help you to be able to follow along.
> 
> Lawrence was the first to use the word phuck here and got away with it repeatedly and it was reported by SINC to the mods but went unnoticed. I used it against Lawrence *specifically* because *he* was the one to introduce its usage here and used it over and over and over again rubbing it in SINC's face that he hadn't been shut down by the mods.
> 
> So I turned the tables and used it against him and lo and behold my one usage of the word garners a warning... finally. Now how about Lawrence gets a retroactive warning for his multiple uses of the word.


Actually, you used it in a personal attack, then called him a 12 year old directly. So -I- reported it. If it was used in another context, I wouldn't have caed. However...

If you're going to constantly preach to everyone else about civility, to the point of ignoring people simply because you don't think they're civil, then tell someone to eff off and call them a 12 year old? I think it's only fair!

I think the ph-ing was somewhat novel until it got used that way. I would have thought others who can counted on to jump all over someone else and report them for calling someone an arsehole would have gotten this. It's not so much the term, but the personal attack.


----------



## iMouse

Please, let me make my own decisions myself.

I have no need of ruler anymore.


----------



## MacGuiver

jef said:


> Creationism tour....
> 
> The hypocrisy and hostilities mirror a lot of the stuff in this thread.
> 
> Conspiracy Road Trip: Creationism - YouTube


Geez it only took 30 seconds for this documentary to be making false claims. But its typical.


----------



## jef

Macfury said:


> Why don;t you set it up so that we can decide if we want to spend 57 minutes watching something that we don't remotely agree with.


There is a lot of stuff in it (and in this thread) that I don't remotely agree with but I watched it and found it interesting, if not disturbing. 

Have faith and watch a few minutes of it; MacGuiver lasted 30 seconds - see if you can beat him (not in the literal sense).


----------



## Macfury

iMouse said:


> Please, let me make my own decisions myself.
> 
> I have no need of ruler anymore.


Give me a break! When did you ever need a ruler?


----------



## MacGuiver

jef said:


> There is a lot of stuff in it (and in this thread) that I don't remotely agree with but I watched it and found it interesting, if not disturbing.
> 
> Have faith and watch a few minutes of it; MacGuiver lasted 30 seconds - see if you can beat him (not in the literal sense).


Actually I watched it all. It wasn't that bad but when they showed the sign for a Catholic Church while talking about how Christians take the creation story literally and believe we walked with dinosaurs they displayed their ignorance of religion. The Catholic church doesn't espouse such theology. In fact the big bang theory was first proposed by a Catholic Priest. 
They also didn't take anyone with them that had any knowledge of the scientific arguments creationist pose so its sorta like shooting fish in a barrel when you put these believers in front of a scientist from Berkley. It would have been much more interesting if they'd have taken creation scientists on the tour instead.
In all fairness, I think if you took a bunch of atheists on a bus that have little scientific knowledge of the evolutionary theory they espouse and put them in front of some creation scientists you'd see the same head scratching going on with the questions they might pose to them.


----------



## fjnmusic

MacGuiver said:


> Actually I watched it all. It wasn't that bad but when they showed the sign for a Catholic Church while talking about how Christians take the creation story literally and believe we walked with dinosaurs they displayed their ignorance of religion. The Catholic church doesn't espouse such theology. In fact the big bang theory was first proposed by a Catholic Priest.
> They also didn't take anyone with them that had any knowledge of the scientific arguments creationist pose so its sorta like shooting fish in a barrel when you put these believers in front of a scientist from Berkley. It would have been much more interesting if they'd have taken creation scientists on the tour instead.
> In all fairness, I think if you took a bunch of atheists on a bus that have little scientific knowledge of the evolutionary theory they espouse and put them in front of some creation scientists you'd see the same head scratching going on with the questions they might pose to them.


This is where Catholicism always hits a snag: the part of Genesis concerning the creation of Adam and Eve and their three sons. If the story if creation is supposed to be metaphorical, as my understanding of the catechism stands, the there was no literal Adam and Eve. But if there was no literal Adam and Eve, then there was no original sin either, hence no need for a savior to save the world from original sin. So what did Jesus die for, and what does it matter who was descended from whom if there was no actual original sin? I haven't heard a decent explanation for this conundrum yet.


----------



## speckledmind

:d


----------



## fjnmusic

"You will issued a warning?" OK then. While the admonition can be refreshing this many pages in, Speck, it does seem a little off-topic with respect to Religion. I mean, being as this is the Religious thread and all.


----------



## iMouse

Does pulling a lion's tail work out for you, and have you been doing it long?


----------



## fjnmusic

iMouse said:


> Does pulling a lion's tail work out for you, and have you been doing it long?


Only if you're on the other side of the bars. Also as long as you do it politely. Lions respect politeness.


----------



## Macfury

fjnmusic said:


> But if there was no literal Adam and Eve, then there was no original sin either, hence no need for a savior to save the world from original sin. So what did Jesus die for, and what does it matter who was descended from whom if there was no actual original sin? I haven't heard a decent explanation for this conundrum yet.


It's no a conundrum at all--that's why no explanation is offered. If Adam and Eve were real, then everything holds. If Adam and Eve were not real, but are a metaphor for the first humans who chose to sin, then it still holds.

However, Jesus died not only for the sins of the first humans, but for all sins committed afterward. Original Sin is not the only sin being forgiven.

The whole notion of the "young Earth" is based on a 17th-century chronology assembled by James Ussher, an Archbishop in the Church of Ireland. It has never been root Christian teaching and Ussher's well-meaning work is no longer taken seriously by most people.


----------



## fjnmusic

Macfury said:


> It's no a conundrum at all--that's why no explanation is offered. If Adam and Eve were real, then everything holds. If Adam and Eve were not real, but are a metaphor for the first humans who chose to sin, then it still holds.
> 
> However, Jesus died not only for the sins of the first humans, but for all sins committed afterward. Original Sin is not the only sin being forgiven.
> 
> The whole notion of the "young Earth" is based on a 17th-century chronology assembled by James Ussher, an Archbishop in the Church of Ireland. It has never been root Christian teaching and Ussher's well-meaning work is no longer taken seriously by most people.


Interesting. And yet the blood line of Jesus from Adam appears to be important as it has its own special section in the bible. And the dogma of Immaculate Conception, officially proclaimed in 1854, was established by the RC church so that Mary would specifically not be linked to original sin. So it would seem that original sin, committed by a specific pair of people whose offspring became the rest of the human race, is _very_ important to church doctrine. 

Immaculate Conception - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Macfury

fjnmusic said:


> Interesting. And yet the blood line of Jesus from Adam appears to be important as it has its own special section in the bible.


If Adam was the first man, the blood line could similarly be traced for anyone!



fjnmusic said:


> And the dogma of Immaculate Conception, officially proclaimed in 1854, was established by the RC church so that Mary would specifically not be linked to original sin. So it would seem that original sin, committed by a specific pair of people whose offspring became the rest of the human race, is _very_ important to church doctrine.


I suspect it was very important to the people who created that proclamation in 1854. But it strikes me that what was at work was a desire to explain why Jesus Christ was born untainted by sin, regardless of the origin of that sin. At any rate, the doctrine was announced long after Jesus was crucified.


----------



## fjnmusic

Exactly my point. They make it up as they go along, in this case with the discovery that both males and females (eggs) supply the genetic material for the developing fetus. Previously it was believed that all of the genetic material comes from the father and that the mother was only a vessel for carrying that genetic material. This provided a monkey wrench for the RC church, who them had to invent the Immaculate Conception to explain why Mary was untainted by original sin even though she was a descendent of Adam. She was untainted because....well, because the church said so.

Now here is Jesus genealogy from the time of Abraham, and I believe there is another that traces Adam through Abraham. This is the very first part of the gospel of Matthew.

"Matthew 1

The Genealogy of Jesus Christ

This is the record of the genealogy of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham. 

Abraham was the father of Isaac, Isaac the father of Jacob, Jacob the father of Judah and his brothers, Judah the father of Perez and Zerah (by Tamar), Perez the father of Hezron, Hezron the father of Ram, Ram the father of Amminadab, Amminadab the father of Nahshon, Nahshon the father of Salmon, Salmon the father of Boaz (by Rahab), Boaz the father of Obed (by Ruth), Obed the father of Jesse, and Jesse the father of David the king. 

David was the father of Solomon (by the wife of Uriah ), Solomon the father of Rehoboam, Rehoboam the father of Abijah, Abijah the father of Asa, Asa the father of Jehoshaphat, Jehoshaphat the father of Joram, Joram the father of Uzziah, Uzziah the father of Jotham, Jotham the father of Ahaz, Ahaz the father of Hezekiah, Hezekiah the father of Manasseh, Manasseh the father of Amon, Amon the father of Josiah, and Josiah the father of Jeconiah and his brothers, at the time of the deportation to Babylon. 

After the deportation to Babylon, Jeconiah became the father of Shealtiel, Shealtiel the father of Zerubbabel, Zerubbabel the father of Abiud, Abiud the father of Eliakim, Eliakim the father of Azor, Azor the father of Zadok, Zadok the father of Achim, Achim the father of Eliud, Eliud the father of Eleazar, Eleazar the father of Matthan, Matthan the father of Jacob, and Jacob the father of Joseph, the husband of Mary, by whom Jesus was born, who is called Christ. 

So all the generations from Abraham to David are fourteen generations, and from David to the deportation to Babylon, fourteen generations, and from the deportation to Babylon to Christ, fourteen generations."

Apparently it was very important to the New Testament writers (or editors) that this information come right out at the front, the first thing you read, even if Jesus could not have had any actual geneology (he was conceived by the Holy Spirit) and his father, Joseph, was really a stepfather. 

You'd better believe the idea of original sin being passed on through the generations is absolutely central to RC teaching. And it also has some very flawed logic at its core.


----------



## Macfury

fjnmusic said:


> ou'd better believe the idea of original sin being passed on through the generations is absolutely central to RC teaching. And it also has some very flawed logic at its core.


I agree it became more important to the RC church as time went on. However, it all seemed to work rather nicely before they began to get heavily involved in detailed doctrine.


----------



## fjnmusic

Macfury said:


> I agree it became more important to the RC church as time went on. However, it all seemed to work rather nicely before they began to get heavily involved in detailed doctrine.


True dat. If one looks too closely at the object of one's affections, one may not like what one sees.


----------



## iMouse

fjnmusic said:


> True dat. If one looks too closely at the object of one's affections, one may not like what one sees.


Ah, the curtain, yes.

And behind it, quilt, fear, control.


----------



## fjnmusic

iMouse said:


> Ah, the curtain, yes.
> 
> And behind it, quilt, fear, control.


Do not pay attention to the man behind the curtain!





+
YouTube Video









ERROR: If you can see this, then YouTube is down or you don't have Flash installed.


----------



## iMouse

Point.


----------



## Macfury

fjnmusic said:


> Do not pay attention to the man behind the curtain!


I paid some attention to the man behind the curtain, but he took off to Kansas without me.


----------



## kps

Interesting Hypocricy:

Church and state : Prime time : with Lilly and Giambroni


----------



## fjnmusic

kps said:


> Interesting Hypocricy:
> 
> Church and state : Prime time : with Lilly and Giambroni


An interesting approach to telling us "the news."


----------



## kps

fjnmusic said:


> An interesting approach to telling us "the news."


Did you find something unusual with that approach?


----------



## MacGuiver

kps said:


> Did you find something unusual with that approach?


I find it refreshing when someone on the left gets asked tough questions from the Media exposing their blatant hypocrisy. Mulcair owes evangelical Christians an apology for this smear job. I wonder if he'll express his outrage at the "religion of peace" who not only see homosexuality as a sin but execute them under sharia law? I think he'll hold his tongue.


----------



## groovetube

man people just love the church of nonsense. Sun news.

Seriously? Let me know when you see the "religion of peace" executing homosexual here. I know certainly here we've had to work at getting 'people of peace' here to accept that bashing and killing gays here is not acceptable.


----------



## SINC

Mulcair has painted himself into a corner. Wonder how he will try and wiggle out?


----------



## MacGuiver

groovetube said:


> man people just love the church of nonsense. Sun news.
> 
> Seriously? Let me know when you see the "religion of peace" executing homosexual here. I know certainly here we've had to work at getting 'people of peace' here to accept that bashing and killing gays here is not acceptable.


Oh so Crossroads has been killing gays to warrant the designation of unCanadian? Do tell groove.


----------



## groovetube

I'm curious about all those who haven't bothered to look into crossroads and their illustrious past in anti-gay protests with speakers lumping them all as child molestors, if they'll try to wriggle away from the sheer nonsense of sun news. Far more, than a belief that homosexuality is a sin.

We all know just how much sun news loves facts and details, enough that they often get them wrong, slander people (they're being sued by people as we speak for this). Seriously?

People will choose to believe what they want I suppose.


----------



## MacGuiver

groovetube said:


> People will choose to believe what they want I suppose.


This is true.


----------



## SINC

groovetube said:


> We all know just how much sun news loves facts and details, enough that they often get them wrong, slander people (they're being sued by people as we speak for this). Seriously?


No, "we" don't all know. I suspect this is your opinion only and the royal "we" certainly does not apply. If it is your opinion, please present it as such.


----------



## groovetube

MacGuiver said:


> Oh so Crossroads has been killing gays to warrant the designation of unCanadian? Do tell groove.


Don't put words into my mouth. But I can see why you'd need to do so. If you do a search you will find a CBC new video showing what I described.

And you aren't really going to suggest gays weren't being bashed, targeted, and murdered here in Canada were you? 



SINC said:


> No, "we" don't all know. I suspect this is your opinion only and the royal "we" certainly does not apply. If it is your opinion, please present it as such.


I suggest google. There is definitely a "royal we", I have read the very opinions many times by many others.

The laughing stock that is sun news, is well known. Not to mention the multiple lawsuits. :lmao:


----------



## SINC

groovetube said:


> I suggest google. There is definitely a "royal we", I have read the very opinions many times by many others.


Sorry, but that makes no sense to me. Please provide a link to these "very opinions many times by many others" you refer to in your response.


----------



## groovetube

SINC said:


> Sorry, but that makes no sense to me. Please provide a link to these "very opinions many times by many others" you refer to in your statement.


try google. I will not do the work for you.


----------



## SINC

groovetube said:


> try google. I will not do the work for you.


I am simply asking you to provide some proof to your claim that "very opinions many times by many others" you refer to in your statement. That cannot be Googled.


----------



## groovetube

I'm sorry you're having trouble with this.


----------



## SINC

Thanks you for the response, that says a lot.


----------



## groovetube

Well as long as you're satisfied, perhaps the thread can get back on topic, and the bullying can cease.


----------



## SINC

I find it interesting that you consider someone questioning your opinion 'bullying'. I made no threats in any way at all. Your use of the term is interesting, but clearly misguided.


----------



## MacGuiver

groovetube said:


> And you aren't really going to suggest gays weren't being bashed, targeted, and murdered here in Canada were you?


I'd love to see some statistics on the backgrounds of the idiots that carry out such attacks. I'm guessing they're not too likely to be drilling wells in Uganda for poor folk or watching Huntley Street. I'd be willing to bet the vast majority of them don't even attend a church if they believe in God at all.


----------



## groovetube

Well obviously you have it in for me here, with all this in multiple threads. Perhaps I'll step out for the night, and hope by tomorrow you will have let it go.

I'm done with this.


----------



## BigDL

SINC said:


> Mulcair has painted himself into a corner. Wonder how he will try and wiggle out?


Seems a foolish thing to say but I'll bite. How so?


----------



## SINC

BigDL said:


> Seems a foolish thing to say but I'll bite. How so?


Watch the video kps posted, It is obvious.


----------



## groovetube

MacGuiver said:


> I'd love to see some statistics on the backgrounds of the idiots that carry out such attacks. I'm guessing they're not too likely to be drilling wells in Uganda for poor folk or watching Huntley Street. I'd be willing to bet the vast majority of them don't even attend a church if they believe in God at all.


I don't have them in front of me of course, and I'm going to stop wasting time here this evening. But, to be clear, I don't want to imply that huntley street or people who attend church in general are responsible for such heinous acts.

But, having large anti gay protests where you are calling gay people child molestors isn't exactly helping matters in regards to treating gay people with respect, and goes far and above simply believing the bible in it's calling homosexuality a sin.


----------



## BigDL

Are you referring to this one I commented on in the Canadian Political Thread?



kps said:


> I'm cross-posting this with the Religious thread because it belongs in both.
> 
> Interesting Hypocricy:
> 
> Church and state : Prime time : with Lilly and Giambroni





BigDL said:


> What a crock of misrepresentations and foolishness. If this is where people are acquiring their opinions the primary source of information, it is little wonder, the conversations on this board go nowhere, fast.


Again I shall ask "Seems a foolish thing to say but I'll bite. How so?"


----------



## Macfury

MacGuiver said:


> I'd love to see some statistics on the backgrounds of the idiots that carry out such attacks. I'm guessing they're not too likely to be drilling wells in Uganda for poor folk or watching Huntley Street. I'd be willing to bet the vast majority of them don't even attend a church if they believe in God at all.


I think you should search for these on Google in some progressive blog. If you can't find these instances yourself, you are not looking hard enough. Like the "missing heat" in global warming equations, the information is there, but hidden.


----------



## BigDL

SINC said:


> Mulcair has painted himself into a corner. Wonder how he will try and wiggle out?[/QUOTE=BigDL]
> 
> 
> 
> Seems a foolish thing to say but I'll bite. How so?
> 
> 
> 
> I'm still waiting for answer but on second thought never mind SINC the paint on this analogy has dried.
Click to expand...


----------



## SINC

[/QUOTE=BigDL]I'm still waiting for answer but on second thought never mind SINC the paint on this analogy has dried.[/QUOTE]

Sorry, I guess you missed it. Here it is again:


----------



## groovetube

Macfury said:


> I think you should search for these on Google in some progressive blog. If you can't find these instances yourself, you are not looking hard enough. Like the "missing heat" in global warming equations, the information is there, but hidden.


This from the master of "do your own damed research?"


ha ha ha ha ha! :lmao::lmao::lmao:


----------



## bryanc

groovetube said:


> People will choose to believe what they want I suppose.


In a rather feeble attempt to get this thread back on the topic of religion (or lack thereof), I'm going to disagree with this.

Some people may choose to believe what they want; rational people, by definition are compelled to believe by reason and evidence.

Someone may say that, despite ample evidence to the contrary, they "choose to believe that most people are fundamentally kind" and this would be an example of a chosen belief. I would argue that, depending on the circumstances of the person, either the belief is at least somewhat rational (i.e. while much cruelty exists, so does kindness, and there may have been mitigating circumstances (such as being in a war) biasing their experience that they are, at some level, taking into consideration), or that this belief is genuinely irrational (what my Epistemology profs used to call a 'Blick').

I wouldn't go so far as to say all irrational beliefs should be eradicated, but I do think we should examine our beliefs and if we find that we've come to them through irrational or otherwise flawed reasoning, we should question why we have these beliefs instead of admitting ignorance.

What beliefs do you hold that you feel you have "chosen" and on what basis did you "decide" to believe these things?


----------



## Sonal

bryanc said:


> Someone may say that, despite ample evidence to the contrary, they "choose to believe that most people are fundamentally kind" and this would be an example of a chosen belief.


Or, that one chooses to believe this because it aids a more positive outlook on life, leading to better mental health and a better ability to cope with stress.


----------



## bryanc

I understand that perspective, but if one chooses to maintain certain beliefs as special cases that are protected from rational scrutiny because one relies on theses beliefs for their emotional stability, does that not strongly imply that one suspects these beliefs would prove flawed if examined by the hard cold light of reason?

I think, for most people, religious beliefs fall into this category. These were beliefs that were established in childhood, before the capacity for critical thinking was well established and before the individual had sufficient knowledge to apply to any independent thought on the subject. The importance of maintaining these beliefs is emphasized over and over from many different sources the child cannot avoid. And the behaviours and rituals associated with the beliefs are reinforced by strong association with positive sensory and emotional experiences (feasts, incense, fancy costumes, music, holidays with family, presents, etc.). By the time a kid gets to 12 (often described as 'the age of reason'), the beliefs are so central to their conceptual framework that they are effectively essential to the individuals mental health. So then, as the individual becomes rational, but discovers that their mind is dependent on something that they either intuitively suspect or outright know is irrational, they deal with this cognitive dissonance by compartmentalizing: "I can be rational about everything else, but my religious beliefs are off-limits; I have faith."

Add in two more interesting factors: the importance most religions place on evangelization, and the fact that, like any human characteristic, each individual adds their unique variations and other little differences; now we have all the ingredients for evolution. Religions are information viruses for human brains.


----------



## Sonal

bryanc said:


> I understand that perspective, but if one chooses to maintain certain beliefs as special cases that are protected from rational scrutiny because one relies on theses beliefs for their emotional stability, does that not strongly imply that one suspects these beliefs would prove flawed if examined by the hard cold light of reason?


No, it doesn't imply that one would suspect that, as confirmation bias kicks in and a person would continue to believe that their worldview is NOT flawed when held up to the hard cold light of reason.


----------



## MacGuiver

bryanc said:


> Religions are information viruses for human brains.


Same could be said of any "ism".


----------



## Macfury

MacGuiver said:


> Same could be said of any "ism".


Global warmism. As bryanc pointed out, most people who believe in this do not have the capacity to understand the science, therefore must have faith in those who study it.


----------



## bryanc

Macfury said:


> Global warmism. As bryanc pointed out, most people who believe in this do not have the capacity to understand the science, therefore must have faith in those who study it.


Wrong thread, so I'll only make this one post to address the epistemologically relevant point.

In order to formulate beliefs about global warming, people without the expertise to understand the empirical evidence themselves certainly do have to be engaging in some types of indirect reasoning, but this does not have to be irrational:

1) we have good reason to believe that scientists do not form consensus readily.
2) we have historical evidence that when scientists do reach a consensus, they are usually right.
3) scientists in general have neither motive nor history of intentionally deceiving the general public.
4) we have good evidence of the existence of an extraordinary level of consensus among qualified climatologists on the issue of global warming.

Therefore, we can conclude that there is reason and evidence to support belief in global warming, even if we cannot reproduce the empirical research used to reach this conclusion ourselves.

This exact line of reasoning can be used by anyone to support a rational belief in plate tectonics, evolution, the safety and efficacy of vaccines, or any other well-established scientific theory, without their needing to have the training, time, resources, and inclination to do the research that established these paradigms for them selves.


----------



## Macfury

I will respond once and then leave it alone:



bryanc said:


> 1) we have good reason to believe that scientists do not form consensus readily.


I believe they will form consensus when they feel peer pressure to do so, the conclusions are consistent with their political beliefs, and they can benefit financially. Global warmism is the perfect storm for manufactured consensus.



bryanc said:


> 2) we have historical evidence that when scientists do reach a consensus, they are usually right.


We have historical evidence that when scientists do reach a consensus that is incorrect, it eventually rights itself--as global warmism is currently faling away to more informed theories and empirical evidence



bryanc said:


> 3) scientists in general have neither motive nor history of intentionally deceiving the general public.


It is generally not intentional deception. With global warmism, however, for some scientists it is a noble intention to reshape the world for the good of the people, even though they are far less certain than they claim publicly. See leaked Climategate e-mails.



bryanc said:


> 4) we have good evidence of the existence of an extraordinary level of consensus among qualified climatologists on the issue of global warming.


Consensus never existed. Only a poorly conceived literature review. You said yourself that nobody had the means or desire to determine whether an exact consensus existed.



bryanc said:


> This exact line of reasoning can be used by anyone to support a rational belief in plate tectonics, evolution, the safety and efficacy of vaccines, or any other well-established scientific theory, without their needing to have the training, time, resources, and inclination to do the research that established these paradigms for them selves.


Certainly for theories where the empirical evidence continues to support them. As empirical evidence for global warmism continues to discredit the theory, we have the trappings of faith to bolster true believers.

This "ism" is the very information virus you described!


----------



## fjnmusic

Children, children. It doesn't really matter what the subject is, global warning, sasquatchs, or transubstantiation of the eucharist, people will believe what they want to believe and then cherry pick the "proofs" that best support their believes. This is why there are so many different versions of God, for example. We create God in our own image based on our experience and values and what we think God ought to be like. This is why some people believe in hippy groovy peace-nik Jesus, while others believe in gun-toting Republican pro-second amendment Jesus. Like Mark Knopfler once said, two men say they're Jesus; one of them must be wrong. Our beliefs are never objective. Even the belief in a scientific objective reality is a projection by the user. We can never escape from our own point of view, which colors everything we do and see. Not that this is bad, but we do need to always be aware of our own bias when we make our observations.


----------



## Macfury

fjnmusic said:


> ... we do need to always be aware of our own bias when we make our observations.


Absolutely agreed. I am always wary of the person who claims to have eliminated bias from their observations... they're the ones who can no longer see it.

Cut it with the "children" thing, OK?


----------



## fjnmusic

Macfury said:


> Absolutely agreed. I am always wary of the person who claims to have eliminated bias from their observations... they're the ones who can no longer see it.
> 
> Cut it with the "children" thing, OK?


Yes, boss.


----------



## MacGuiver

Macfury said:


> Absolutely agreed. I am always wary of the person who claims to have eliminated bias from their observations... they're the ones who can no longer see it.
> 
> Cut it with the "children" thing, OK?


I actually agree as well. Everyone has a bias be they scientist, school teacher, preacher or burger flipper and it colours our perceptions and conclusions.


----------



## fjnmusic

MacGuiver said:


> I actually agree as well. Everyone has a bias be they scientist, school teacher, preacher or burger flipper and it colours our perceptions and conclusions.


So the trick, then, is in spite of everyone's personal bias, including our own, to still be able to have a respectful conversation with one another. That would be maturity, and to my understanding, that is what ecumenism is all about. It means suspending our instinctive nature to defend our own beliefs first and consider the argument from the other person's perspective. Much can be learned, I have found.


----------



## Macfury

fjnmusic said:


> So the trick, then, is in spite of everyone's personal bias, including our own, to still be able to have a respectful conversation with one another. That would be maturity, and to my understanding, that is what ecumenism is all about. It means suspending our instinctive nature to defend our own beliefs first and consider the argument from the other person's perspective. Much can be learned, I have found.


Yes. I frequently go through the painful process of reading impassioned arguments on topics with which I disagree entirely. At the very worst, it gives me a better way of framing my own beliefs and arguments--at best, I might gain some appreciation for their belief or actually change my views somewhat.


----------



## bryanc

Macfury said:


> I frequently go through the painful process of reading impassioned arguments on topics with which I disagree entirely. At the very worst, it gives me a better way of framing my own beliefs and arguments--at best, I might gain some appreciation for their belief or actually change my views somewhat.


This is one of my primary motivations for participation here; I rarely find it painful.


----------



## groovetube

bryanc said:


> This is one of my primary motivations for participation here; I rarely find it painful.


I don't find it 'painful' either, except perhaps when badgered in 3 different threads by someone about something totally silly and irrelevant leading to a total thread derailment. But even then it isn't painful, it's just a drag. If I found it painful I'd have to question why even bother? Unless...


----------



## MacGuiver

fjnmusic said:


> So the trick, then, is in spite of everyone's personal bias, including our own, to still be able to have a respectful conversation with one another. That would be maturity, and to my understanding, that is what ecumenism is all about. It means suspending our instinctive nature to defend our own beliefs first and consider the argument from the other person's perspective. Much can be learned, I have found.


My understanding of ecumenism as it pertains to faith is to celebrate with those outside the Church what we have in common as Christians and to better understand each other but that doesn't include adopting their conflicting theology. I have some great evangelical friends and we share the same passion for Christ. We can be ecumenical and share our faith with each other but we also understand that there are theological rifts we're not likely to reconcile. We really don't discus or debate our differences but focus on what we share.


----------



## bryanc

MacGuiver said:


> We really don't discus or debate our differences but focus on what we share.


Isn't that boring? When scientists with different theories talk, it's much more interesting; we discuss and debate the evidence for each position, and figure out what experiments or observations of nature could refute each position. Even if we can't do the experiments because of limitations, it's fun. And if we can, it's even better because we'll get to discover what is actually true! 

I suppose you could say scientists focus on what we share as well, in that we focus on reality.


----------



## BigDL

SINC said:


> Mulcair has painted himself into a corner. Wonder how he will try and wiggle out?





BigDL said:


> Seems a foolish thing to say but I'll bite. How so?





SINC said:


> Watch the video kps posted, It is obvious.





BigDL said:


> Are you referring to this one I commented on in the Canadian Political Thread?





kps said:


> I'm cross-posting this with the Religious thread because it belongs in both.
> 
> Interesting Hypocricy:
> 
> Church and state : Prime time : with Lilly and Giambroni
> 
> Again I shall ask "Seems a foolish thing to say but I'll bite. How so?"





BigDL said:


> SINC said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mulcair has painted himself into a corner. Wonder how he will try and wiggle out?[/QUOTE=BigDL]I'm still waiting for answer but on second thought never mind SINC the paint on this analogy has dried.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SINC said:
> 
> 
> 
> [/QUOTE=BigDL]I'm still waiting for answer but on second thought never mind SINC the paint on this analogy has dried.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> [QUOTE}Sorry, I guess you missed it. Here it is again:
Click to expand...

 

That's all you got! Repeating a weak, worthless answer. Catch you later old pal.


----------



## Sonal

MacGuiver said:


> My understanding of ecumenism as it pertains to faith is to celebrate with those outside the Church what we have in common as Christians and to better understand each other but that doesn't include adopting their conflicting theology. I have some great evangelical friends and we share the same passion for Christ. We can be ecumenical and share our faith with each other but we also understand that there are theological rifts we're not likely to reconcile. We really don't discus or debate our differences but focus on what we share.





bryanc said:


> Isn't that boring? When scientists with different theories talk, it's much more interesting; we discuss and debate the evidence for each position, and figure out what experiments or observations of nature could refute each position. Even if we can't do the experiments because of limitations, it's fun. And if we can, it's even better because we'll get to discover what is actually true!


Hmm.... personally, if I had to pick between these two dinner parties to attend, I'd go for MacGuiver's. Sounds a lot more congenial.


----------



## groovetube

On the topic of the religious group(s) in question, and their attitudes towards gays.

CBSC | Media Release

excerpt:


> It’s Your Call is a Christian program on which the host presents a topic of discussion for each episode and encourages viewers to contact the show by telephone or internet to voice their opinions. In some episodes, the topic related to issues regarding sexual orientation. The CBSC received multiple complaints about different episodes of the program, alleging that the programs contained negative comments about homosexuals.
> 
> The CBSC’s Ontario Regional Panel examined the complaints under the Human Rights clauses of the CAB Code of Ethics and Equitable Portrayal Code which prohibit abusive or unduly discriminatory commentary on the basis of sexual orientation, as well as the Religious Programming clause of the CAB Code of Ethics which states that programs shall not convey attacks on identifiable groups. The Panel noted *that religious programs are allowed to declare homosexuality a sin, but that It’s Your Call crossed the line by allowing program participants to accuse homosexuals of a malicious “agenda” to “recruit” and “brainwash” children and of having a propensity to commit violent crimes such as rape targeting straight people.*
> 
> The Panel also concluded that the program contained inaccurate information about various related issues, such as details about Toronto’s school curriculum. Those inaccuracies violated the Full, Fair and Proper Presentation clause of the CAB Code of Ethics.


A big difference between being part of a religion that believes homosexuality is a sin, and the sort of actions by this group.

Interesting what one finds if they look past the Brian Lillys of the world. And there's more.

The show is by Crossroads.


----------



## fjnmusic

MacGuiver said:


> My understanding of ecumenism as it pertains to faith is to celebrate with those outside the Church what we have in common as Christians and to better understand each other but that doesn't include adopting their conflicting theology. I have some great evangelical friends and we share the same passion for Christ. We can be ecumenical and share our faith with each other but we also understand that there are theological rifts we're not likely to reconcile. We really don't discus or debate our differences but focus on what we share.


That's closer to my way of thinking, but I'd like to extend that ecumenical instinct to all people, regardless of what we believe. Even those who claim to be non-believers believe in something, be it science, existentialism, secular humanism or even something that doesn't have a label yet. Sometimes I like the congeniality that Sonal refers to, other times my iconoclastic nature demands something more vigorous. In any event, as long as I'm learning new things, I'm pretty content.


----------



## screature

bryanc said:


> Isn't that boring? When scientists with different theories talk, it's much more interesting; we discuss and debate the evidence for each position, and figure out what experiments or observations of nature could refute each position. Even if we can't do the experiments because of limitations, it's fun. And if we can, it's even better because* we'll get to discover what is actually true*!
> 
> I suppose you could say scientists focus on what we share as well, in that* we focus on reality*.


Uhhm no. 

You get to discover each others theories. As by your own repeated statement, "science does not prove it disproves".

Being that a disproof can only be applied to a limited number of things it does not provide "truth" it merely narrows down the possibilities of what may be true.

You focus on your limited knowledge of reality and write papers that expound and pontificate your view/research as if it were "reality", i.e. the truth.

Big difference.


----------



## SINC

BigDL said:


> That's all you got! Repeating a weak, worthless answer. Catch you later old pal.


It is neither weak nor worthless. If you watch the video it is obvious. If you can't grasp that, well, perhaps get someone to assist you in understanding the video. That's all I can suggest to help you out old pal.


----------



## iMouse

Do you guys never tire if trying to out-twit each other?

Seriously, this is nothing but grown-up "So's your old man."


----------



## screature

iMouse said:


> *Do you guys never tire if trying to out-twit each other?*
> 
> Seriously, this is nothing but grown-up "So's your old man."


It seems to me that is what debate is all about... At least in the formal rules guided meaning of the word....

What is it exactly that you do here? 

Trolling maybe?


----------



## iMouse

That is debate? Perhaps in Parliament, but can we not do better here?

I'm in Collections, and I have a few live ones.


----------



## screature

iMouse said:


> *That is debate?* Perhaps in Parliament, but can we not do better here?
> 
> *I'm in Collections, and I have a few live ones.*


What is this supposed to mean? What else could it possibly be? 

And *again* what is this supposed to mean? 

Collections of ehMac posts?... Or what... Your attempts at being clever by being obtuse don't impress me much.


----------



## Macfury

screature said:


> It seems to me that is what debate is all about... At least in the formal rules guided meaning of the word....
> 
> What is it exactly that you do here?
> 
> Trolling maybe?


To me, commenting negatively on such things is like telling strangers in a coffee shop that you don't like the topic of their conversation and telling them to desist. Live and let live.


----------



## iMouse

Macfury said:


> To me, commenting negatively on such things is like telling strangers in a coffee shop that you don't like the topic of their conversation and telling them to desist. *Live and let live.*


Ah, channelling MC in Cabaret.


----------



## groovetube

BigDL said:


> That's all you got! Repeating a weak, worthless answer. Catch you later old pal.


you will notice as I posted more info about crossroads (y'know, the info that this incredibly enlightening video failed to add...) there'll be no responses. There are other videos of this group, displaying their sheer hatred of gays inciting anger against them.

This goes far, far above simply believing homosexuality is a sin. Which makes, as I've said from the beginning, this whole nonse that Lilly was trying to sell people on, just more bait for the sheeple to bite on and raise a fist in the air. "how dare he! That seen... deee. peewee socialist fake roman catholic bike ridin pinko!"

You know, that sort of thing.


----------



## groovetube

iMouse said:


> That is debate? Perhaps in Parliament, but can we not do better here?
> 
> I'm in Collections, and I have a few live ones.


It seems you probably do have some live ones. You never change eh mouse? 

just don't quote them svp


----------



## iMouse

Right, and thanks for not ignoring me. It pisses me off.

Don't make me angry. You wouldn't like me when I'm angry.


----------



## MacGuiver

[No message]


----------



## bryanc

Sonal said:


> Hmm.... personally, if I had to pick between these two dinner parties to attend, I'd go for MacGuiver's. Sounds a lot more congenial.


Well, you'd be missed. But to each their own. I can certainly understand your aversion to emotional or irrational disputes, but a reasoned (even if somewhat impassioned) disagreement is quite invigorating. I've just never found people sitting around agreeing with each other very interesting or educational.


----------



## Sonal

bryanc said:


> Well, you'd be missed. But to each their own. I can certainly understand your aversion to emotional or irrational disputes, but a reasoned (even if somewhat impassioned) disagreement is quite invigorating. I've just never found people sitting around agreeing with each other very interesting or educational.


Generally, I don't go to dinner parties to be educated or invigorated. I go to relax and have a nice time.


----------



## MacGuiver

bryanc said:


> Well, you'd be missed. But to each their own. I can certainly understand your aversion to emotional or irrational disputes, but a reasoned (even if somewhat impassioned) disagreement is quite invigorating. I've just never found people sitting around agreeing with each other very interesting or educational.


I guess the difference is science is impersonal where religion is extremely personal. I could argue with my friends over hockey teams or solar flares all day and nobody gets personally offended (unless global warming comes up) Start criticizing their faith and its a whole different thing. It can be on par with telling them their kids are fat.
Now certainly that dialog can and does take place and it can be quite civil but ecumenism by definition is not about accentuating our differences but celebrating what we do share.


----------



## bryanc

screature said:


> Being that a disproof can only be applied to a limited number of things it does not provide "truth" it merely narrows down the possibilities of what may be true.


Observations are facts - philosophically "truths" - within the error of measurement. Our interpretations of these facts may or may not be correct, but when we observe reality it is the closest a human being can come to knowing truth.



> You focus on your limited knowledge of reality and write papers that expound and pontificate your view/research as if it were "reality", i.e. the truth.


Exactly; and the combined efforts of thousands like me doing exactly this over only the past few hundred years has transformed our civilization from a bunch of starving disease-ridden parasite-infested primitives living in superstitious fear of mercurial gods of our own imagining to the technologically adept dominant species we are today. Clearly the new situation is not without problems; these largely arise, in my opinion, not from the application of the scientific knowledge and rational thinking capacities we've developed since shaking off the dominance of religious authorities, but from our disinclination to do so sufficiently. Sure, we'll happily take up a technology that addresses an immediate need or desire, but we will rarely use the scientific knowledge we have to avoid the pitfalls of using a new technology... so if research tells us that a previously unknown spawning location for a commercially important species of fish exists somewhere, we're prone to go and catch 'em all and eat them before we listen to scientists telling us why we shouldn't have done that.

I'm not suggesting that science has been the only cause of progress since the enlightenment, but it certainly has been a major one, and it could be doing far more if it were appropriately financed and, more importantly, heeded at the policy level.


----------



## bryanc

Sonal said:


> Generally, I don't go to dinner parties to be educated or invigorated. I go to relax and have a nice time.


I was picturing more of a pub than a dinner party, but either way, it all depends on your definition of 'a nice time'... I'd rather come away from a social interaction with my ideas changed than not.


----------



## bryanc

MacGuiver said:


> I guess the difference is science is impersonal where religion is extremely personal. I could argue with my friends over hockey teams or solar flares all day and nobody gets personally offended (unless global warming comes up) Start criticizing their faith and its a whole different thing.


I see what you're saying and I think I basically agree. I would simply exchange "rational" for "personal" in your argument above (i.e. science is rational, and can therefore be discussed rationally and no one gets offended, whereas religion is irrational, and therefore cannot be argued about rationally, so the discussion gets emotional and acrimonious).


----------



## Sonal

bryanc said:


> I see what you're saying and I think I basically agree. I would simply exchange "rational" for "personal" in your argument above (i.e. science is rational, and can therefore be discussed rationally and no one gets offended, whereas religion is irrational, and therefore cannot be argued about rationally, so the discussion gets emotional and acrimonious).


Disagree, as one can have rational beliefs that are very personal.


----------



## bryanc

Sonal said:


> Disagree, as one can have rational beliefs that are very personal.


Sure... and in the right context (i.e. with the right person) you could discuss them rationally.

I still hold that religious beliefs are irrational, and that's why discussions of them tend to get emotional...which is why we're taught not to argue about religion with people. This seems an unreasonable protection for religions; "you are not allowed to question my irrational beliefs because I find it upsetting and will get emotional."

The emotional response to the cognitive dissonance arising from the clash between rational thinking and religious indoctrination is perfectly understandable and yes, we should be sensitive to it; but it is not a legitimate defence for religious belief. It's very sad that so many people are hampered with these silly beliefs... hopefully by talking about them reasonably most of them will be able to get over it.


----------



## Sonal

bryanc said:


> Sure... and in the right context (i.e. with the right person) you could discuss them rationally.


Yes, and likewise, you could do the same with religious belief. 

But calling them irrational fairy tales probably indicates that you are not the right person/right context for doing so.


----------



## MacGuiver

I don't think religion is always irrational though I agree it can be. 

As Sinc shared earlier of what would be described as a classic near death episode which thousands of people have reported similar experiences, I don't think its irrational to believe there is part of us outside our physical human form that lives on. 
I think its irrational to think someone was flat lining on a table and can accurately recount details of the room they were laying in from above and say it was just a dying brain trick. There are numerous reports of this happening. People recounting details that would be impossible to know by mere chance.
When 3 shepherd children tell the world the Virgin Mary is going to provide a sign on a particular day and that sign occurs on that specific day to 70,000 eye witnesses, its perfectly rational to believe that the young children did possess knowledge of something they could not possibly have guessed or made up. What is irrational is to exclude the possibility that what they claimed was true by default or thinking 3 uneducated shepherd children under the age of 10 could pull off the most spectacular illusion in history.


----------



## jef

MacGuiver said:


> I don't think religion is always irrational though I agree it can be.
> 
> When 3 shepherd children tell the world the Virgin Mary is going to provide a sign on a particular day and that sign occurs on that specific day to 70,000 eye witnesses, its perfectly rational to believe that the young children did possess knowledge of something they could not possibly have guessed or made up. What is irrational is to exclude the possibility that what they claimed was true by default or thinking 3 uneducated shepherd children under the age of 10 could pull off the most spectacular illusion in history.


..and you know this to be a fact? How?


----------



## MacGuiver

jef said:


> ..and you know this to be a fact? How?


It was widely reported, even in secular media at the time and even witnessed by atheists.


----------



## bryanc

MacGuiver said:


> It was widely reported, even in secular media at the time and even witnessed by atheists.


And has been widely debunked since. Regardless, the plural of 'anecdote' is not data, so these sorts of 'miracles' are not particularly relevant to the argument. 

Anytime anyone of any faith (or lack thereof) wants to go into a lab and demonstrate any sort of supernatural phenomena, they're free to do so; James Randi will even give them a million dollars. But no one, ever, has succeeded in providing any empirical evidence for any sort of supernatural forces or entities. Therefore the rational person must remain skeptical of their existence.


> I don't think its irrational to believe there is part of us outside our physical human form that lives on.


Well, firstly, such a belief has to posit that "there is part of us outside our physical human form" that exists in the first place. Given that we did not exist prior to our development of a body, this seems highly implausible (and metaphysically paradoxical... how can something have a beginning but no end) to start with. But if we abandon parsimony and imagine that, having undergone our biological development and built a brain that can sustain the complex neurological activity necessary for thought, we somehow generate or are otherwise imbued with this non-corporeal aspect. Does this solve anything? Does it provide an explanation for NDEs? If such non-corporeal aspects are independent of the physical bodies (as they must be for them to survive the death of the physical body, or to explain these out-of-body experiences), there must be some mechanism for information to flow back and forth between these non-corporeal and our physical bodies. If such a mechanism exists, we should be able to measure it. If someone produces evidence of energy, matter, or entropic changes that can be better explained by such a hypothesis than more parsimonious hypotheses, I will be very excited to hear about it. Until then, it seems the only choice rational people have is to accept that the drugs and or anoxia and physiological stress suffered by trauma victims, cardiac patients etc. cause hallucinations.


----------



## MacGuiver

> And has been widely debunked since. Regardless, the plural of 'anecdote' is not data, so these sorts of 'miracles' are not particularly relevant to the argument.
> 
> Anytime anyone of any faith (or lack thereof) wants to go into a lab and demonstrate any sort of supernatural phenomena, they're free to do so; James Randi will even give them a million dollars. But no one, ever, has succeeded in providing any empirical evidence for any sort of supernatural forces or entities. Therefore the rational person must remain skeptical of their existence.


The so called debunking I've read is pretty lame. Again its coming from people that have started out with the conclusion that God doesn't exist therefor this is impossible. Now lets think up a way we can write this off. Maybe a supernatural being doesn't feel he needs to convince James Randy with a science experiment. Herod asked for a sideshow too but Jesus didn't bite.



> Well, firstly, such a belief has to posit that "there is part of us outside our physical human form" that exists in the first place. Given that we did not exist prior to our development of a body, this seems highly implausible (and metaphysically paradoxical... how can something have a beginning but no end) to start with. But if we abandon parsimony and imagine that, having undergone our biological development and built a brain that can sustain the complex neurological activity necessary for thought, we somehow generate or are otherwise imbued with this non-corporeal aspect. Does this solve anything? Does it provide an explanation for NDEs? If such non-corporeal aspects are independent of the physical bodies (as they must be for them to survive the death of the physical body, or to explain these out-of-body experiences), there must be some mechanism for information to flow back and forth between these non-corporeal and our physical bodies. If such a mechanism exists, we should be able to measure it. If someone produces evidence of energy, matter, or entropic changes that can be better explained by such a hypothesis than more parsimonious hypotheses, I will be very excited to hear about it. Until then, it seems the only choice rational people have is to accept that the drugs and or anoxia and physiological stress suffered by trauma victims, cardiac patients etc. cause hallucinations.


Your thinking is limited to what can be measured, touched and tested. Mine isn't so when 3 shepherd kids say they have a message from God and a great miracle will occur as a sign and it does just as they predicted, I'm open to the possibility God was at work. It becomes rational to accept if you are open to the idea that not all can be measured, touched and tested.


----------



## bryanc

MacGuiver said:


> when 3 shepherd kids say they have a message from God and a great miracle will occur as a sign and it does just as they predicted, I'm open to the possibility God was at work.


If those kids had gone to Mr. Randi, they'd have convinced a lot more unbelievers 

But seriously; why do these 'miracles' alway occur in some circumstances that prevents any empirical evidence from being found?

If God really want's us to know of His existence, why is He impossible to detect? I can't speak for others, but I don't even require anything measurable; I'm open to visions/dreams or whatever He wants... but BS stories from the Bronze Age that are obvious rehashes of far older mythologies? Come on.



> It becomes rational to accept if you are open to the idea that not all can be measured, touched and tested.


Not even close to rational; you're desperately grasping at fairy tales to support a psychological construct that is in complete conflict with observable reality on a daily basis.


----------



## jef

I'm quite sure the meteor falling out of the sky today in Russia would have also been confirmed as a great miracle or at least been a sign from (a) god if it weren't for science and all we know now...


----------



## MacGuiver

jef said:


> I'm quite sure the meteor falling out of the sky today in Russia would have also been confirmed as a great miracle or at least been a sign from (a) god if it weren't for science and all we know now...


What if yesterday a child had told you it was going to hit Russia tomorrow morning?


----------



## jef

MacGuiver said:


> What if yesterday a child had told you it was going to hit Russia tomorrow morning?


Coincidence happens...


----------



## groovetube

MacGuiver said:


> I guess if we live in Orwell's 1984 these statements should bring down the wrath of government thought police. No one was calling for violence against gays but if negative opinions=violence then you may have something. Heck if we held slurs against people of faith to the same standard on these forum we'd be sending people here to SIberia.


Really? So you condone publicly calling all gays child molestors, and actually believe that isn't going to incite some hatred against gays? Really?

I have to say I'm a little disturbed that anyone, part of this religious group or not, would either condone or try to whitewash this as something acceptable.

Could you just imagine the howls if people were to publicly (like crossroads did) paint -all- catholics as child abusers as a result of the child sex abuse scandals covered up?

Gays were already a group being beat up, tortured and murdered. As if people needed another reason to continue this sort of disgusting behaviour. It's as if you aren't aware how bad the problems were.

Is there a problem of 'catholic bashing' and murder here in Canada as there is with gays?

Getting back to the video of Brian Lilly, which was supposed to be "so obvious"... what was obvious to me, was Lilly tried to compare the actions of crossroads, to catholics who only believed homosexuality was a sin.

HUGE difference.


----------



## bryanc

MacGuiver said:


> What if yesterday a child had told you it was going to hit Russia tomorrow morning?


I have no doubt that somebody somewhere had a child that told them something would happen somewhere; this happens all the time. To be surprised by these sorts of coincidences is to significantly underestimate the number of things that happen. Statistics.


----------



## jef

bryanc said:


> I have no doubt that somebody somewhere had a child that told them something would happen somewhere; this happens all the time. To be surprised by these sorts of coincidences is to significantly underestimate the number of things that happen. Statistics.


One of these days someone is going to predict that the world will end tomorrow and be right. 

I just hope they continue to be wrong for a while...


----------



## fjnmusic

jef said:


> One of these days someone is going to predict that the world will end tomorrow and be right.
> 
> I just hope they continue to be wrong for a while...


If they're right, there will be no one left to brag to so it won't matter.


----------



## eMacMan

Am I the only one offended that this petition was even necessary?

Catholic activists petition LA cardinal not to join papal conclave - Yahoo! News



> LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - Roman Catholic activists on Saturday petitioned a U.S. cardinal to recuse himself from taking part in selecting a new pope so as not to insult survivors of sexual abuse by priests committed while he was archbishop of Los Angeles.
> 
> The activists delivered a petition with nearly 10,000 signatures to the North Hollywood church where Cardinal Roger Mahony resides.
> 
> "It's a total slap in the face to victims to think (Mahony) can cover up 25 years of child sex abuse and then go prancing off to Rome like a prince of the Church," said Joelle Casteix, western regional director of the Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests.
> 
> As archbishop of Los Angeles from 1985 until 2011, Mahony worked to send priests known to be abusers out of state to shield them from law enforcement scrutiny in the 1980s, according to church files unsealed under a U.S. court order last month.


----------



## fjnmusic

Shouldn't those cardinals also be excommunicated if this is how they were serving people? Or maybe it's a case of 'let he who is not guilty cast the first stone.'


----------



## eMacMan

I believe there is an Irish cardinal with a similar history also on his way to participate.


----------



## MacGuiver

If Mahony didn't go, that would be one less "progressive" Catholic vote.


----------



## bryanc

I can't decide what I'm hoping for here; another dinosaur like Ratzinger to accelerate Catholicism's rapid march into irrelevancy, or a more moderate man who might do less harm in the short term. Tough call.


----------



## bryanc

.


----------



## MacGuiver

bryanc said:


> .


I figured you get your theology from comic books.


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> I can't decide what I'm hoping for here; another dinosaur like Ratzinger to accelerate Catholicism's rapid march into irrelevancy, or a more moderate man who might do less harm in the short term. Tough call.


Irrelevant... and growing! Oh what a conundrum!


----------



## MacGuiver

Macfury said:


> Irrelevant... and growing! Oh what a conundrum!


His peer reviewed literature claims otherwise.


----------



## groovetube

bryanc said:


> I can't decide what I'm hoping for here; another dinosaur like Ratzinger to accelerate Catholicism's rapid march into irrelevancy, or a more moderate man who might do less harm in the short term. Tough call.


I have no problem with the catholic church adopting more progressive policies and beliefs at all. In order for the catholic church to grow they will have to change things and adapt to the 21st century. That's obvious to anyone I think.

Women's rights, the whole sex abuse scandal, sane contraceptive policies, they're all changing, and they have to in order to stay relevant. I have no problem with my friends who are devout catholics and respect their beliefs. As long as of course they don't try to impose their beliefs in the form of laws. That goes for any religion.

Of course, if growth is the measure of a religion's relevance, I suppose Islam is probably the most relevant true religion in the world! :lmao:


----------



## fjnmusic

groovetube said:


> As long as of course they don't try to impose their beliefs in the form of laws. That goes for any religion.


So where exactly do you suppose all our current laws ultimately come from?


----------



## groovetube

fjnmusic said:


> So where exactly do you suppose all our current laws ultimately come from?


-all-our laws? I don't think so. 

I highly doubt atheists want to legalize murder and rape either.

I'm talking about trying to impose beliefs that the majority of others aren't interested in.


----------



## MacGuiver

groovetube said:


> -all-our laws? I don't think so.
> 
> I highly doubt atheists want to legalize murder and rape either.
> 
> I'm talking about trying to impose beliefs that the majority of others aren't interested in.


So you think law should be the exclusive domain of atheists?


----------



## CubaMark




----------



## bryanc

MacGuiver said:


> So you think law should be the exclusive domain of atheists?


Of course not. However in a secular democracy such as ours, religious beliefs that are not shared by all citizens (i.e. all religious beliefs) cannot be used as the foundation for laws. The laws must therefore be based on secular principles. Fortunately, there are good rational (i.e. entirely non-religious) foundations for most moral and legal principles (and, interestingly, those few principles which are founded on religion for historical reasons, are the ones that inevitably turn out to be problematic).

This of course completely falsifies the idea that one needs religion to guide morality, and supports my increasingly strongly held belief that religion actually impedes moral development.


----------



## groovetube

MacGuiver said:


> So you think law should be the exclusive domain of atheists?


I never said that.


----------



## bryanc

fjnmusic said:


> So where exactly do you suppose all our current laws ultimately come from?


Most moral and legal philosophy of the 18th century and beyond was largely secular in nature. Certainly by the 19th century, it was well-established that morality did not require any divine law-giver; on the contrary, even if such a divine law-giver existed, that would not make Their laws moral. Even Kant argued that the laws of men must be based on principles on which men agreed (and therefore did not rely on religion), and Hume, Mills, Hagel, Locke, Nietzsche et al. went on to establish the basis of modern consequentialist ethics, on which the modern legal system is founded.


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> Even Kant argued that the laws of men must be based on principles on which men agreed (and therefore did not rely on religion), and Hume, Mills, Hagel, Locke, Nietzsche et al. went on to establish the basis of modern consequentialist ethics, on which the modern legal system is founded.


This is a sublime overstatement. The basis for most basic laws predate them significantly.


----------



## groovetube

bryanc said:


> Most moral and legal philosophy of the 18th century and beyond was largely secular in nature. Certainly by the 19th century, it was well-established that morality did not require any divine law-giver; on the contrary, even if such a divine law-giver existed, that would not make Their laws moral. Even Kant argued that the laws of men must be based on principles on which men agreed (and therefore did not rely on religion), and Hume, Mills, Hagel, Locke, Nietzsche et al. went on to establish the basis of modern consequentialist ethics, on which the modern legal system is founded.


It is the height of pomposity to think our laws all come from christianity. Somehow, since some book tells a story that some old man came down from a mountain with eternal fire inscribing the commandments from some god, the christians believe they have the moral authority to make laws.

Sort of reminds of how many americans think they're the only country in the world with running water and a civilized society.


----------



## MacGuiver

CubaMark said:


>


He likely does though he likely hasn't much use for hateful atheists either.


----------



## Macfury

MacGuiver said:


> He likely does though he likely hasn't much use for hateful atheists either.


Or just your average atheists.


----------



## MacGuiver

Macfury said:


> Or just your average atheists.


Agreed.


----------



## groovetube

Cookies must be enabled. | The Australian



> AUSTRALIA'S Cardinal George Pell yesterday called on the Vatican press office to respond "in some constructive way" to reports of an internal investigation by three senior cardinals that told Pope Benedict XVI about an insidious web of blackmail, corruption and homosexual sex inside the Vatican.


always the ones that scream loudest found in the bathroom stalls. Amazing isn't it.


----------



## fjnmusic

All laws that we have were invented by human beings. And human beings have a tendency to congregate together in groups with similar moral values. It is from these shared values that they create laws that make sense (for the most part) for their social context. 

For example, spitting on the sidewalk may be gross, but tolerated in most places, while in some places, it is against the law and a punishable offence. Laws are not universal, although some seem to be more common than others. Some variation of 'Thou Shall Not Kill' seems to be found in most societies, except that there are countless exceptions for war, self-defense, and capital punishment among others depending on the jurisdiction. 

Laws seem to emanate from that which we call a conscience, although some might prefer the term 'common sense' -- which again is that part of us that seems to exist but is also beyond the realm of science. How do you prove that you have a conscience? And I would suggest that it is this concept of conscience, often attributed to religion even though it can develop quite independently of religion, that is ultimately responsible for helping groups of people create laws on which they can agree.


----------



## MacGuiver

groovetube said:


> Cookies must be enabled. | The Australian
> 
> 
> 
> always the ones that scream loudest found in the bathroom stalls. Amazing isn't it.


The Lavender mafia is a known entity in the church. I pray the next Pope can clean house.


----------



## groovetube

its something that seems to be a consistent thing with the religious right.

It certainly isn't limited to the 'lavender mafia' by any stretch of the imagination.


----------



## bryanc

fjnmusic said:


> All laws that we have were invented by human beings.


Absolutely. And while many laws existed before the enlightenment, and may have been justified on religious principles during medieval and earlier times, western democracies have been largely successful at founding their legal systems on secular principles.



> Laws seem to emanate from that which we call a conscience, although some might prefer the term 'common sense' -- which again is that part of us that seems to exist but is also beyond the realm of science.


Probably not for long  There's a lot of exciting progress being made in neurophysiology and neuropsychology these days. I expect we'll have a much less 'magical' view of consciousness emerging over the next couple of decades.



> How do you prove that you have a conscience?


"I think, therefore I am." So you can prove it to yourself, just not to others. Then there's the Turning Test, which is showing that it is increasingly difficult to distinguish computers from people... some interesting philosophical questions there...



> And I would suggest that it is this concept of conscience, often attributed to religion even though it can develop quite independently of religion, that is ultimately responsible for helping groups of people create laws on which they can agree.


I agree with you about the role of 'conscience' or 'ethical intuition' in the formulation of laws. But what's interesting to me here, especially in the context of a thread on religion, is your point that many people seem to believe that this ethical intuition or 'conscience' is inherently and necessarily based on religion, even though as you correctly point out, non-religious people clearly have this characteristic, and there is even evidence that some non-human animals also have this capacity.

Why would it be surprising that empathy, and a desire to see others treated as we would like to be treated, would be selectively advantageous in social species? I don't think we need to hypothesize any supernatural explanation for this.


----------



## MacGuiver

groovetube said:


> its something that seems to be a consistent thing with the religious right.
> 
> It certainly isn't limited to the 'lavender mafia' by any stretch of the imagination.


And you know this how?


----------



## bryanc

Good to see I'm not the only one who find's the Catholic Church's foolishness amusing.


----------



## fjnmusic

MacGuiver said:


> The Lavender mafia is a known entity in the church. I pray the next Pope can clean house.


----------



## MacGuiver

bryanc said:


> Good to see I'm not the only one who find's the Catholic Church's foolishness amusing.


If Fiore had any expertise in this field, his opinion on the subject might be worth the electrons that were inconvenienced in its transmission. In this case, it's not.


----------



## MacGuiver

fjnmusic said:


>


As horrifying as the prospect of you teaching religion class in a Catholic School is, I must add photoshop 101 to the list.


----------



## Macfury

MacGuiver said:


> As horrifying as the prospect of you teaching religion class in a Catholic School is, I must add photoshop 101 to the list.


I think bad Photoshop work should be one of the Seven Deadly.


----------



## MacGuiver

Macfury said:


> I think bad Photoshop work should be one of the Seven Deadly.


:lmao:


----------



## fjnmusic

MacGuiver said:


> As horrifying as the prospect of you teaching religion class in a Catholic School is, I must add photoshop 101 to the list.


Full of warmth and good cheer today, I see. Always a pleasure to try to make you smile and get slapped down yet again for the effort. Have a nice day!

Love your enemies; it really pisses them off.


----------



## bryanc

MacGuiver said:


> As horrifying as the prospect of you teaching religion class in a Catholic School is...





fjnmusic said:


> Love your enemies; it really pisses them off.


You two really embody the schism in the current Catholic church for me; on the one hand you have the orthodox bronze-age reality deniers, who have the branding and tradition thing going for them; you have to accept their point that if you've got people convinced of the existence of an invisible man in the sky, the other obvious clashes with reality and the teachings of the church shouldn't really be a problem. And on the other hand, you've got the modernists who are mostly concerned about doing the right thing and being good people, and not so worried about church orthodoxy; you have to give these people credit for having their hearts in the right place, but they're probably underestimating the importance of tradition (no mater how stupid it may be) in keeping the pews filled and the tithes flowing.

It'd be kind of sad if it weren't so funny. :lmao:


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> You two really embody the schism in the current Catholic church for me; on the one hand you have the orthodox bronze-age reality deniers, who have the branding and tradition thing going for them; you have to accept their point that if you've got people convinced of the existence of an invisible man in the sky, the other obvious clashes with reality and the teachings of the church shouldn't really be a problem. And on the other hand, you've got the modernists who are mostly concerned about doing the right thing and being good people, and not so worried about church orthodoxy; you have to give these people credit for having their hearts in the right place, but they're probably underestimating the importance of tradition (no mater how stupid it may be) in keeping the pews filled and the tithes flowing.
> 
> It'd be kind of sad if it weren't so funny. :lmao:


We're getting our belly laughs watching you pontificate, bryanc! Laughs all around!


----------



## fjnmusic

bryanc said:


> You two really embody the schism in the current Catholic church for me; on the one hand you have the orthodox bronze-age reality deniers, who have the branding and tradition thing going for them; you have to accept their point that if you've got people convinced of the existence of an invisible man in the sky, the other obvious clashes with reality and the teachings of the church shouldn't really be a problem. And on the other hand, you've got the modernists who are mostly concerned about doing the right thing and being good people, and not so worried about church orthodoxy; you have to give these people credit for having their hearts in the right place, but they're probably underestimating the importance of tradition (no mater how stupid it may be) in keeping the pews filled and the tithes flowing.
> 
> It'd be kind of sad if it weren't so funny. :lmao:


I think you may have nailed it, my atheist friend.


----------



## fjnmusic

Macfury said:


> We're getting our belly laughs watching you pontificate, bryanc! Laughs all around!


Never misses an opportunity to not share a kind word.


----------



## Macfury

fjnmusic said:


> I think you may have nailed it, my atheist friend.


That seals it, then! Be careful, lest you be blinded by your own sense of goodness.


----------



## MacGuiver

fjnmusic said:


> Full of warmth and good cheer today, I see. Always a pleasure to try to make you smile and get slapped down yet again for the effort. Have a nice day!
> 
> Love your enemies; it really pisses them off.


Who'd a thunk a catholic school teacher belittling the Pope by posting another anti-catholic propaganda poster to the delight of church haters everywhere wouldn't make a faithful catholic smile? 
Maybe you should post your nice little collection of derogatory pictures of the pope in the staff room for a good laugh or share them with your priest. I'm sure they'd be delighted.

I was joking about the photoshop by the way so I'm sorry if that offended you.


----------



## fjnmusic

Macfury said:


> That seals it, then! Be careful, lest you be blinded by your own sense of goodness.


Enough with the speaking in tongues, Macfury. What are you trying to say? That we should all follow your example of treating others with goodness and compassion? Hypocrites abound.


----------



## fjnmusic

MacGuiver said:


> Who'd a thunk a catholic school teacher belittling the Pope by posting another anti-catholic propaganda poster to the delight of church haters everywhere wouldn't make a faithful catholic smile?
> Maybe you should post your nice little collection of derogatory pictures of the pope in the staff room for a good laugh or share them with your priest. I'm sure they'd be delighted.
> 
> I was joking about the photoshop by the way so I'm sorry if that offended you.


It was meant to look like a hack job. And you're the one who brought up the Pope cleaning house. People I work with might actually appreciate the irony of the situation, since the cleanup would likely have to begin with the Vatican itself. By the way, I think it's only polite to capitalize Catholic, regardless of your beliefs.


----------



## Macfury

fjnmusic said:


> Enough with the speaking in tongues, Macfury. What are you trying to say? That we should all follow your example of treating others with goodness and compassion? Hypocrites abound.


I don't believe any of us set a good enough example for others to follow. I was poking gentle fun at your meek acceptance when confronted by bryanc's vision of your own goodness.


----------



## groovetube

bryanc said:


> You two really embody the schism in the current Catholic church for me; on the one hand you have the orthodox bronze-age reality deniers, who have the branding and tradition thing going for them; you have to accept their point that if you've got people convinced of the existence of an invisible man in the sky, the other obvious clashes with reality and the teachings of the church shouldn't really be a problem. And on the other hand, you've got the modernists who are mostly concerned about doing the right thing and being good people, and not so worried about church orthodoxy; you have to give these people credit for having their hearts in the right place, but they're probably underestimating the importance of tradition (no mater how stupid it may be) in keeping the pews filled and the tithes flowing.
> 
> It'd be kind of sad if it weren't so funny. :lmao:


well said. From fjn's posts, I'm glad he -is- teaching. I always a little more suspicious of those who really can't find humour in things.


----------



## iMouse

fjnmusic said:


> By the way, I think it's only polite to capitalize Catholic, regardless of your beliefs.


Just catholic, no, that means universal. 

And I'm sure they would love to be, just like Muslims.

Roman Catholic, perhaps, but then I would have to resume spelling god as God.

And that isn't about to happen any time soon.


----------



## MacGuiver

> It was meant to look like a hack job. And you're the one who brought up the Pope cleaning house.


Yeah I did, though I didn't use the phrase to degrade the Pope, you did. You seem to enjoy publicly denigrating the leader of our faith. I'd expect no less from an evangelical atheist but I don't expect it from a Catholic school teacher.



> People I work with might actually appreciate the irony of the situation, since the cleanup would likely have to begin with the Vatican itself.


I agree though you and I and maybe even some of your colleges would likely disagree on who needs to be cleaned out. The lavender mafia would be a good start.



> By the way, I think it's only polite to capitalize Catholic, regardless of your beliefs.


Spelling noted. Thanks


----------



## fjnmusic

Macfury said:


> I don't believe any of us set a good enough example for others to follow. I was poking gentle fun at your meek acceptance when confronted by bryanc's vision of your own goodness.


The meek shall inherit the earth, my friend. Or was it the Greek?


----------



## fjnmusic

MacGuiver: you seem to have a recurring theme here that all Catholics, particularly school teachers, must think and act and believe the same way. Do you really think that's realistic? It's a job, buddy; it pays the bills. You'd probably be surprised by how many of us have our own concerns about the papacy, the catechism, and the interpretation of scriptures. We are a lot more open minded than you might realize, I liked John Paul II very much, although it would have been nice if John Paul I had lived longer. I never trusted Mr. Ratzinger from day one, and I always viewed him as a blatant opportunist. To me, the church is exactly like politics; you might believe in the ideals, but you're not crazy about the current leader. Nothing strange about that.


----------



## jef

fjnmusic said:


> The meek shall inherit the earth, my friend. Or was it the Greek?


I'd bet on the geeks inheriting the earth; they get all the hot chicks these days...


----------



## Macfury

fjnmusic said:


> MacGuiver: you seem to have a recurring theme here that all Catholics, particularly school teachers, must think and act and believe the same way. Do you really think that's realistic?


I know the question is aimed at McGuiver, but I believe it's realistic to expect these people to publicly toe the line on basic Catholic beliefs, regardless of their personal feelings. If their personal belief system deviates too greatly from that of the church, I would hope they would find a way to pay the bills that better suits their conscience.


----------



## Macfury

fjnmusic said:


> The meek shall inherit the earth, my friend. Or was it the Greek?


Jimmy the Greek?


----------



## fjnmusic

Macfury said:


> I know the question is aimed at McGuiver, but I believe it's realistic to expect these people to publicly toe the line on basic Catholic beliefs, regardless of their personal feelings. If their personal belief system deviates too greatly from that of the church, I would hope they would find a way to pay the bills that better suits their conscience.


Well that's fairly idealistic. I can live with a certain amount of hypocrisy. Let he was without sin cast the first stone. We are all sinners, I've heard it said many a time. And that's the Catholic Church that I am a part of. Live and let live, for the most part.

Also, what I say publicly at school is not exactly the same as what I say on a relatively anonymous online forum for Mac users in Canada. I mean, I like my job and the kids I teach are great, not to mention excellent salary and benefits. I'm not knocking my school; just the policies of the church, which dies not actually control the curriculum.


----------



## fjnmusic

Macfury said:


> Jimmy the Greek?


It's a line from Life of Brian.


----------



## groovetube

fjnmusic said:


> Well that's fairly idealistic. I can live with a certain amount of hypocrisy. Let he was without sin cast the first stone. We are all sinners, I've heard it said many a time. And that's the Catholic Church that I am a part of. Live and let live, for the most part.


I think you may have caused a short circuit there. :clap:


----------



## MacGuiver

> MacGuiver: you seem to have a recurring theme here that all Catholics, particularly school teachers, must think and act and believe the same way.


 Its what Jesus wanted and he left us a Church to guide us united in truth.



> Do you really think that's realistic?


 Not when every man has made himself Pope. 



> It's a job, buddy; it pays the bills.


 I realize that. 



> You'd probably be surprised by how many of us have our own concerns about the papacy, the catechism, and the interpretation of scriptures.


Not surprised in the least. Sure many of us are armchair popes but most lack even the most basic knowledge of scripture, theology and church teaching to be putting ourselves in that position.



> We are a lot more open minded than you might realize,


Chesterton said it best "Merely having an open mind is nothing; the object of opening the mind, as of opening the mouth, is to shut it again on something solid." The church shouldn't have an open mind on matters closed by Christ's teachings. There is no wiggle room for fornication, adultery, murder etc etc.



> I liked John Paul II very much, although it would have been nice if John Paul I had lived longer. I never trusted Mr. Ratzinger from day one, and I always viewed him as a blatant opportunist.


Dogmatically and theologically I don't see a difference. JP2 was certainly more charismatic but as orthodox as Benedict. How was Benedict an opportunist?



> To me, the church is exactly like politics; you might believe in the ideals, but you're not crazy about the current leader. Nothing strange about that.


The Church should be nothing like politics though its becoming like that for many of its followers and leaders. Politicians blow with the winds of the day whereas the church is *supposed to* hold fast to what is true despite where the political and social winds of the day are blowing. The only Christian Church on earth where I see that happening is in the Catholic Church in its magisterial teachings. We haven't escaped the politicization of truth by its adherents but the magisterium has stood firm. Our Protestant brothers have succumb to this more than us with no centralized teaching authority. Hence we have 30,000 shades of Protestantism and growing.


----------



## fjnmusic

MacGuiver said:


> Chesterton said it best "Merely having an open mind is nothing; the object of opening the mind, as of opening the mouth, is to shut it again on something solid." The church shouldn't have an open mind on matters closed by Christ's teachings. There is no wiggle room for fornication, adultery, murder etc etc.


Let's take a closer look at that one, shall we? Christ did not advocate celibacy, and many of his apostles were married, including Peter, the first pope. So were many other popes in fact. Celibacy did not become a Catholic dogma until many centuries later. 

Fornication? You mean having sex, that element that is necessary for a species to become fruitful and multiply? I see no banishment of that activity either, except that adultery is (formally) frowned upon. Yet at the same time, Jesus show mercy and compassion for the prostitute who is about to be stoned to death. Oddly all the johns were not about to be similarly stoned to death, however.

Murder? Hmmm. Did God Himself not murder all the Egyptians who tried to follow the Israelites across the Red Sea? Great setting a good example there. And there are many passages in the OT where the Israelites are instructed to slaughter all the men, women and children of other tribes. The "Thou Shall Not Kill" commandment his been abandoned many times to exempt war, witch burnings, the Crusades and many other church-sponsored activities over the years. In fact, that commandment probably was in reference to any one of the 12 tribes of Israel anyway; any one outside of those tribes was fair game. 

I could go on, and many great religious writers have already done so. Your sacred scriptures written in stone are not quite so unbending as you make them out to be.


----------



## Macfury

fjnmusic said:


> Let's take a closer look at that one, shall we? Christ did not advocate celibacy, and many of his apostles were married, including Peter, the first pope. So were many other popes in fact. Celibacy did not become a Catholic dogma until many centuries later.


MacGuiver may disagree with me on this, but I never understood why this needed to become a Catholic plank,



fjnmusic said:


> Fornication? You mean having sex, that element that is necessary for a species to become fruitful and multiply? I see no banishment of that activity either, except that adultery is (formally) frowned upon. Yet at the same time, Jesus show mercy and compassion for the prostitute who is about to be stoned to death. Oddly all the johns were not about to be similarly stoned to death, however.


Fornication is sex out of marriage, not just sex. Jesus showed mercy and compassion to the prostitute, because she required mercy--for having sinned. You have no idea what Jesus thought about the Johns, because it is not discussed. However, the Bible contains plenty of admonitions against sleeping with prostitutes.



fjnmusic said:


> Murder? Hmmm. Did God Himself not murder all the Egyptians who tried to follow the Israelites across the Red Sea? Great setting a good example there.


He killed them. He did not murder them.Do you understand the difference between God doing this and you doing it?



fjnmusic said:


> And there are many passages in the OT where the Israelites are instructed to slaughter all the men, women and children of other tribes. The "Thou Shall Not Kill" commandment his been abandoned many times to exempt war, witch burnings, the Crusades and many other church-sponsored activities over the years. In fact, that commandment probably was in reference to any one of the 12 tribes of Israel anyway; any one outside of those tribes was fair game.


This is the "Thou Shalt not Murder" command. And no, it did not only apply to the 12 Tribes.



fjnmusic said:


> I could go on, and many great religious writers have already done so. Your sacred scriptures written in stone are not quite so unbending as you make them out to be.


I would say much more than you make them out to be.


----------



## Macfury

fjnmusic said:


> It's a line from Life of Brian.


Yeah, but it's getting old.


----------



## MacGuiver

> Let's take a closer look at that one, shall we? Christ did not advocate celibacy, and many of his apostles were married, including Peter, the first pope. So were many other popes in fact. Celibacy did not become a Catholic dogma until many centuries later.


You're wrong. Celibacy is not a dogma (look it up) and yes Christ himself advocates celibacy and he practiced it himself.
Matthew 19:11-12: "Not all can accept this word, but only those to whom it is granted. Some are incapable of marriage because they were born so; some, because they were made so by others; *some, because they have renounced marriage for the sake of the kingdom of God. Whoever can accept this ought to accept it*." The Church could change the celibacy requirement and in fact they have for married Anglican ministers crossing the Tiber. I believe celibacy is also not a requirement in eastern rite churches?



> Fornication? You mean having sex, that element that is necessary for a species to become fruitful and multiply?


No I mean fornication as in sex outside of marriage where babies are often murdered via shop vac or left with a mom struggling on her own to look after the child without a father or two people have a shotgun wedding that probably should have never married in the first place. And yes scripture condemns it. 1Cor. 7:2



> I see no banishment of that activity either, except that adultery is (formally) frowned upon.


A little more than frowned upon. Here is one verse of many that condemn it.
1 Cor. 6:9
Do you not realise that people who do evil will never inherit the kingdom of God? Make no mistake -- the sexually immoral, idolaters, adulterers, the self-indulgent, *********,
10 thieves, misers, drunkards, slanderers and swindlers, none of these will inherit the kingdom of God.



> Yet at the same time, Jesus show mercy and compassion for the prostitute who is about to be stoned to death. Oddly all the johns were not about to be similarly stoned to death, however.


Yeah I agree on the Johns but they were not there so we don't know what happened with them. We do know sleeping with prostitutes is condemned as well. Yes Jesus showed mercy but he also told her to sin no more. A point often not mentioned when trying to paint Jesus as somehow OK with it. He certainly wasn't endorsing her actions.



> Murder? Hmmm. Did God Himself not murder all the Egyptians who tried to follow the Israelites across the Red Sea? Great setting a good example there. And there are many passages in the OT where the Israelites are instructed to slaughter all the men, women and children of other tribes. The "Thou Shall Not Kill" commandment his been abandoned many times to exempt war, witch burnings, the Crusades and many other church-sponsored activities over the years. In fact, that commandment probably was in reference to any one of the 12 tribes of Israel anyway; any one outside of those tribes was fair game.


Witch burnings were largely a protestant phenomena though I'm sure some were burned by Catholics as well in medieval times. Regarding the Crusades, Europe would have been in burka's long ago had they not rose up to defend Christendom from the Muslims. There is a time when war is justified by God.
In Matthew 8:5-13 Jesus heals the Roman Officers servant and marvels at his faith. If he was hippy Jesus he missed a perfect opportunity to condemned him for the job he did but he didn't. God does not condemn the person defending themselves from evil.


----------



## fjnmusic

Macfury said:


> Yeah, but it's getting old.


As are you, my curmudgeonly friend.


----------



## groovetube

MacGuiver said:


> You're wrong. Celibacy is not a dogma (look it up) and yes Christ himself advocates celibacy and he practiced it himself.
> Matthew 19:11-12: "Not all can accept this word, but only those to whom it is granted. Some are incapable of marriage because they were born so; some, because they were made so by others; *some, because they have renounced marriage for the sake of the kingdom of God. Whoever can accept this ought to accept it*." The Church could change the celibacy requirement and in fact they have for married Anglican ministers crossing the Tiber. I believe celibacy is also not a requirement in eastern rite churches?
> 
> 
> No I mean fornication as in sex outside of marriage where babies are often murdered via shop vac or left with a mom struggling on her own to look after the child without a father or two people have a shotgun wedding that probably should have never married in the first place. And yes scripture condemns it. 1Cor. 7:2
> 
> 
> 
> A little more than frowned upon. Here is one verse of many that condemn it.
> 1 Cor. 6:9
> Do you not realise that people who do evil will never inherit the kingdom of God? Make no mistake -- the sexually immoral, idolaters, adulterers, the self-indulgent, *********,
> 10 thieves, misers, drunkards, slanderers and swindlers, none of these will inherit the kingdom of God.
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah I agree on the Johns but they were not there so we don't know what happened with them. We do know sleeping with prostitutes is condemned as well. Yes Jesus showed mercy but he also told her to sin no more. A point often not mentioned when trying to paint Jesus as somehow OK with it. He certainly wasn't endorsing her actions.
> 
> 
> Witch burnings were largely a protestant phenomena though I'm sure some were burned by Catholics as well in medieval times. Regarding the Crusades, Europe would have been in burka's long ago had they not rose up to defend Christendom from the Muslims. There is a time when war is justified by God.
> In Matthew 8:5-13 Jesus heals the Roman Officers servant and marvels at his faith. If he was hippy Jesus he missed a perfect opportunity to condemned him for the job he did but he didn't. God does not condemn the person defending themselves from evil.


I don't think a children born outside of marriage are the ones subject to abortion. Marriage isn't the magic bullet to preventing abortion.

If I saw more religious organizations focusing more efforts on education and proper contraceptive use, then, then I would see them as being a little more serious about preventing unwanted pregnancies. 

The truth is, for al the pontificating I see from religious leaders and preachers about morality, the supposed growth in certain religions, I don't see them as being any more 'moral' than non-believers. In reality, they continue to sin, commit adultery, look for sex in men's bathrooms, have abortions, lie, cheat, steal, all of the above. But if they go to church, repent every week, or whatever it is they do to wash their hands of whatever sins they committed that week is, that somehow gives them the moral authority to pass judgement on non believers as the ones that are going to hell for the same damn things they do.

You mean all I have to do is quote scripture, go to church and make like I'm saved from my sins because I accept some holy figure in my life? 

Sounds like quite a deal!

I applaud those within the catholic church who can criticize what they see and dislike within their organization. That shows me they see the hypocrisy, and wish to see changes. That doesn't make them any less devoted to their faith, it makes them more real to me.

This whole blind allegiance thing within religions is what gets society into trouble in the first place. In any religion.


----------



## MacGuiver

groovetube said:


> I don't think a children born outside of marriage are the ones subject to abortion. Marriage isn't the magic bullet to preventing abortion.
> 
> If I saw more religious organizations focusing more efforts on education and proper contraceptive use, then, then I would see them as being a little more serious about preventing unwanted pregnancies.
> 
> The truth is, for al the pontificating I see from religious leaders and preachers about morality, the supposed growth in certain religions, I don't see them as being any more 'moral' than non-believers. In reality, they continue to sin, commit adultery, look for sex in men's bathrooms, have abortions, lie, cheat, steal, all of the above. But if they go to church, repent every week, or whatever it is they do to wash their hands of whatever sins they committed that week is, that somehow gives them the moral authority to pass judgement on non believers as the ones that are going to hell for the same damn things they do.
> 
> You mean all I have to do is quote scripture, go to church and make like I'm saved from my sins because I accept some holy figure in my life?
> 
> Sounds like quite a deal!
> 
> I applaud those within the catholic church who can criticize what they see and dislike within their organization. That shows me they see the hypocrisy, and wish to see changes. That doesn't make them any less devoted to their faith, it makes them more real to me.
> 
> This whole blind allegiance thing within religions is what gets society into trouble in the first place. In any religion.


Your ignorance of Catholicism is astounding if this is what you believe.


----------



## bryanc

fjnmusic said:


> I think you may have nailed it, my atheist friend.


I'm glad you didn't take it personally; I really do sympathize with your conundrum, even as I revel in watching the Church implode. I have every confidence that intelligent, good-willed people will survive the upheaval and continue to flourish long after the Church of Rome is a historical footnote.



> MacGuiver: you seem to have a recurring theme here that all Catholics, particularly school teachers, must think and act and believe the same way. Do you really think that's realistic? It's a job, buddy; it pays the bills. You'd probably be surprised by how many of us have our own concerns about the papacy, the catechism, and the interpretation of scriptures. We are a lot more open minded than you might realize, I liked John Paul II very much, although it would have been nice if John Paul I had lived longer. I never trusted Mr. Ratzinger from day one, and I always viewed him as a blatant opportunist. To me, the church is exactly like politics; you might believe in the ideals, but you're not crazy about the current leader. Nothing strange about that.


I think you've got it right here; I consider myself a very proud and patriotic Canadian, but I absolutely despise our current government and disagree with almost everything they do, as do the majority of Canadians (and, if you don't agree that the fact that a bunch of ideologues can gain the majority of seats in parliament with just over a third of the votes is indicative of a problem with our democracy, I suggest you look up 'democracy' in the dictionary). So your Church has been governed by a regressive smeg-head for the past few years; why should you be considered less Catholic for criticizing him than some spineless dweebs who kowtow to whoever is in power?

Of course MacGuiver has a point; all Catholicism has really got going for it over Protestantism or any of the other various derivations of Christianity going all the way to Unitarianism is the the dubious claim that their traditions are more _traditional_... so while change may be necessary to adapt to the modern reality, change is bad for the brand. It's a real dilemma for the business model of the Church, and I don't see any solution.


----------



## MacGuiver

bryanc said:


> I'm glad you didn't take it personally; I really do sympathize with your conundrum, even as I revel in watching the Church implode. I have every confidence that intelligent, good-willed people will survive the upheaval and continue to flourish long after the Church of Rome is a historical footnote.
> 
> 
> 
> I think you've got it right here; I consider myself a very proud and patriotic Canadian, but I absolutely despise our current government and disagree with almost everything they do, as do the majority of Canadians (and, if you don't agree that the fact that a bunch of ideologues can gain the majority of seats in parliament with just over a third of the votes is indicative of a problem with our democracy, I suggest you look up 'democracy' in the dictionary). So your Church has been governed by a regressive smeg-head for the past few years; why should you be considered less Catholic for criticizing him than some spineless dweebs who kowtow to whoever is in power?
> 
> Of course MacGuiver has a point; all Catholicism has really got going for it over Protestantism or any of the other various derivations of Christianity going all the way to Unitarianism is the the dubious claim that their traditions are more _traditional_... so while change may be necessary to adapt to the modern reality, change is bad for the brand. It's a real dilemma for the business model of the Church, and I don't see any solution.


Bryan, stick to fish embryos. You won't sound as ridiculous.


----------



## fjnmusic

MacGuiver said:


> Your ignorance of Catholicism is astounding if this is what you believe.


Enough with the condescension already, MacGuiver. You make Catholics seem like a wholly unlikeable bunch. We're not.


----------



## groovetube

MacGuiver said:


> Your ignorance of Catholicism is astounding if this is what you believe.


that's merely your words. I realize that in theory, you have this ideal of what a true catholic is. 

Welcome to the real world. Have a look around, and see that what I'm saying is the truth.


----------



## groovetube

fjnmusic said:


> Enough with the condescension already, MacGuiver. You make Catholics seem like a wholly unlikeable bunch. We're not.


This.

MacGuiver here seems to be the poster boy for why Catholicism doesn't seem to be a good path.


----------



## Macfury

MacGuiver, stick to your guns. I suppose that some people see religion as a popularity contest. They're so out of line with what was once offered as part of a classical education that the "success" or relevance of Christianity, in their minds, is based on whether people like you, approve of you, or how many people attend a particular church. What? The number of Christians in the world is rising? Well, that wasn't the argument they intended to use anyway.

Thankfully Jesus took that road, accepting the advice of one Pharisee: "You'll never get people to follow you if they don't like you. Tone down the message and what, after all, is truth?" Following that simple piece of advice ensured that everyone liked Jesus. He offended nobody, and lived to a nice, ripe old age in Israel, loved by millions. 

My favourite compliment--"You attack your own faith, therefore I like and trust you." Heaven help you (pardon the expression) if you try to second guess a sacred cow (pardon the expression) such as some aspect of abortion or the tenets of universal free healthcare. That's simply not kosher (pardon the expression). You're only a _mensch_ if you willingly smash your own belief system to smithereens--in front of witnesses.


----------



## MacGuiver

fjnmusic said:


> Enough with the condescension already, MacGuiver. You make Catholics seem like a wholly unlikeable bunch. We're not.


Your right FJN, I shouldn't get in the gutter with my opponents but rise to a higher standard, but being human and prone to sin you can fall into it out of frustration.
That said, I don't expect evangelical atheists or CINOs to like me. Jesus warned us to expect it if you're his follower. If those that make war on Christ and his Church think I'm wonderful then I'm on the wrong team.

Mark 13:13
"All men will hate you because of me, but he who stands firm to the end will be saved."

My popularity is of no concern to me if it means rejecting Christ to gain it.


----------



## MacGuiver

groovetube said:


> that's merely your words. I realize that in theory, you have this ideal of what a true catholic is.
> 
> Welcome to the real world. Have a look around, and see that what I'm saying is the truth.


If "real world" Catholics share your understanding of the faith then they're only fooling themselves and need to brush up on their catechesis.


----------



## groovetube

MacGuiver said:


> If "real world" Catholics share your understanding of the faith then they're only fooling themselves and need to brush up on their catechesis.


It's not about what their understanding of the faith is. It's about what the ideal theory is, and what actually happens.

It's hard to take any religious organization that looks down their noses with some sort of moral authority while not only their members but their leaders often lead incredibly hypocritical lives.

Your outrage that a catholic dare criticize is a bit rich.


----------



## bryanc

fjnmusic said:


> Enough with the condescension already, MacGuiver. You make Catholics seem like a wholly unlikeable bunch. We're not.


I have lots of Catholic friends, so I know many of you are very likeable. Of course, all my Catholic friends are pretty relaxed about fornication, birth control, the metaphorical (or even completely fictional) nature of the bible, and much more serious about issues like a woman's sovereignty over her body and exposing pedophiles; I guess by MacGuiver's definition, they wouldn't be Catholics. And I don't really disagree with him; it's just that I think by that definition, there would be very few Catholics, so it's fair to say that the Pope and the Church in general, do not really represent a very large constituency, despite their claims to the contrary.


----------



## MacGuiver

bryanc said:


> I have lots of Catholic friends, so I know many of you are very likeable. Of course, all my Catholic friends are pretty relaxed about fornication, birth control, the metaphorical (or even completely fictional) nature of the bible, and much more serious about issues like a woman's sovereignty over her body and exposing pedophiles; I guess by MacGuiver's definition, they wouldn't be Catholics. And I don't really disagree with him; it's just that I think by that definition, there would be very few Catholics, so it's fair to say that the Pope and the Church in general, do not really represent a very large constituency, despite their claims to the contrary.


In the western world, I'd agree. CINOs are everywhere. When the western world collapses under the weight of its sins, they'll either fish or cut bait. I do share your friends desire to rid the church of pedophiles but not so much their support for killing babies. I think a house cleaning is getting under way.


----------



## bryanc

MacGuiver said:


> When the western world collapses under the weight of its sins...


:lmao: You sound exactly like the radical Islamic Mullahs. 

If the western world collapses, it will be under the weight of the wealth-hording banksters and corporate profiteers and/or the collapse of the ecosystems our economic activity exploits.


----------



## MacGuiver

bryanc said:


> :lmao: You sound exactly like the radical Islamic Mullahs.


Hence my DR. EVIL avatar. 
So you're predicting Greed will be our downfall, not sin?


----------



## eMacMan

MacGuiver said:


> Hence my DR. EVIL avatar.
> So you're predicting Greed will be our downfall, not sin?


'Tis sad that greed is not considered a sin. Obviously the faithful holier than thou types, no longer believe JC evicted the money changers from the temple. Or is there a special Papal exemption as long as a certain amount of the excess trickles up to the Holy See?


----------



## Macfury

MacGuiver said:


> So you're predicting Greed will be our downfall, not sin?


It would be terrible to see "greed" included on the list of the Seven Deadly Sins.


----------



## MacGuiver

eMacMan said:


> 'Tis sad that greed is not considered a sin. Obviously the faithful holier than thou types, no longer believe JC evicted the money changers from the temple. Or is there a special Papal exemption as long as a certain amount of the excess trickles up to the Holy See?


I assumed everyone knew greed was a sin and the irony would be obvious. As MacFury pointed out, one of the seven deadly sins.


----------



## bryanc

.


----------



## MacGuiver

bryanc said:


> .


Is this what a University Education gets you? Disappointing.


----------



## fjnmusic

MacGuiver said:


> In the western world, I'd agree. CINOs are everywhere. When the western world collapses under the weight of its sins, they'll either fish or cut bait. I do share your friends desire to rid the church of pedophiles but not so much their support for killing babies. I think a house cleaning is getting under way.


There's that expression again.


----------



## iMouse

Holy water will clean anything. 

Now if god took a good **** on us I would be impressed.

FILTER EDIT: When used in this manner, **** means urinate. tptptptp


----------



## Macfury

MacGuiver said:


> Is this what a University Education gets you? Disappointing.


Seeing those weak cartoon panels makes me long for the real Far Side comic. What I find interesting is that these lefty comics seem to get big guffaws from their intended audience just because they toe the line on subject matter--cartooning skill or solid gags be damned.


----------



## MacGuiver

fjnmusic said:


> There's that expression again.
> 
> View attachment 26554


Still trying to win the praises of the world are we? They love ya FJN. Enough already.


----------



## fjnmusic

MacGuiver said:


> Still trying to win the praises of the world are we? They love ya FJN. Enough already.


You say it, I respond, faithful like the ghost of Banquo.


----------



## bryanc

Macfury said:


> Seeing those weak cartoon panels makes me long for the real Far Side comic.


Like this one?









Gary Larson was trained as a biologist, and what I've read that he wrote, put him, like almost all scientists, way on the left of the current political spectrum.

Of course, most people are far to the left in the current political climate, where the politicians are mostly far to the right of the people who elected them


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> Like this one?
> 
> Gary Larson was trained as a biologist, and what I've read that he wrote, put him, like almost all scientists, way on the left of the current political spectrum.


Larson is a far better cartoonist, yes.

However, what made you think he was a biologist? Larson worked part time at the humane society. You need to brush up on your research skills!




bryanc said:


> Of course, most people are far to the left in the current political climate...


That one actually had me howling. How can most people be "far to the left"? It's like everyone being above average!


----------



## fjnmusic

bryanc said:


> Like this one?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gary Larson was trained as a biologist, and what I've read that he wrote, put him, like almost all scientists, way on the left of the current political spectrum.
> 
> Of course, most people are far to the left in the current political climate, where the politicians are mostly far to the right of the people who elected them


That looks more like up and down than left and right to me. Kind of like the way Upper Canada was actually geographically further south than Upper Canada.


----------



## MacGuiver

> Like this one?


Now that is funny. I always loved Larson's cartoons. I'm also a huge Simpson's fan and religion is often the brunt of the joke. Just about everything is on that show.


----------



## Macfury

MacGuiver said:


> Now that is funny. I always loved Larson's cartoons. I'm also a huge Simpson's fan and religion is often the brunt of the joke. Just about everything is on that show.


Being funny is the most important part of humour, I always say.


----------



## groovetube

Well thank goodness for catholic approved humor.


----------



## fjnmusic

groovetube said:


> Well thank goodness for catholic approved humor.


Lapsed Catholic humor, as in Denis Leary or George Carlin, can be some of the best comedy going.


----------



## groovetube

fjnmusic said:


> Lapsed Catholic humor, as in Denis Leary or George Carlin, can be some of the best comedy going.


:lmao:

For a little while there I thought we were going to witness you being hauled up and excommunicated there.

How DARE you poke fun or criticize! beejacon


----------



## bryanc

Macfury said:


> However, what made you think he was a biologist? Larson worked part time at the humane society. You need to brush up on your research skills!


I didn't say he _was_ a biologist, I said he _studied_ biology. He did a degree at Washington State, where he took every biology course available. He was and is an active environmentalist, and has a deep and passionate interest in ecology.



> How can most people be "far to the left"? It's like everyone being above average!


I phrased that poorly; what I meant was that most people are far to the left _of the politicians_ they elect.


----------



## bryanc

fjnmusic said:


> That looks more like up and down than left and right to me.


You're right, it's a confusing graph. You have to go to Nate Silver's political analysis page and read about how it was done to really get it; the point is that the vast majority of politicians are ideologically to the right of the people they represent.


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> I didn't say he _was_ a biologist, I said he _studied_ biology.


Uh huh. You know, I've studied French and Spanish--time to add that to my biography!


----------



## fjnmusic

Last day for the pope today. Who will clean house now?


----------



## bryanc

Macfury said:


> Uh huh. You know, I've studied French and Spanish--time to add that to my biography!


If you have a reasonable command of those languages, that no doubt gives you a great deal more insight in to those cultures, and a far greater ability to function effectively in French or Spanish speaking countries. Knowledge is good.

I find it interesting that the vast majority of people with more than a superficial knowledge of science (especially biology), tend to be on the political left, and agnostic/atheist. Why do you think this is the case? Can you really believe that training in the natural sciences is politically biased? Or that universities, the bastions of 'political correctness' that they are, are really indoctrinating people into a specific philosophy on religion?

Isn't it far more parsimonious to accept that the more one learns and grapples with complex ideas, the more Right-wing political positions on economic social issues and religious dogma in general are inconsistent with observable reality. Consequently educated people tend to be left-leaning and agnostic.


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> Can you really believe that training in the natural sciences is politically biased?


Yes.



bryanc said:


> Isn't it far more parsimonious to accept that the more one learns and grapples with complex ideas, the more Right-wing political positions on economic social issues and religious dogma in general are inconsistent with observable reality. Consequently educated people tend to be left-leaning and agnostic.


No.


----------



## groovetube

bryanc said:


> If you have a reasonable command of those languages, that no doubt gives you a great deal more insight in to those cultures, and a far greater ability to function effectively in French or Spanish speaking countries. Knowledge is good.
> 
> I find it interesting that the vast majority of people with more than a superficial knowledge of science (especially biology), tend to be on the political left, and agnostic/atheist. Why do you think this is the case? Can you really believe that training in the natural sciences is politically biased? Or that universities, the bastions of 'political correctness' that they are, are really indoctrinating people into a specific philosophy on religion?
> 
> *Isn't it far more parsimonious to accept that the more one learns and grapples with complex ideas, the more Right-wing political positions on economic social issues and religious dogma in general are inconsistent with observable reality. Consequently educated people tend to be left-leaning and agnostic.*


oh noes! Teh learns!


----------



## bryanc

Macfury said:


> Yes.
> No.


The Force of Reality-Denial is strong in this one...


----------



## screature

bryanc said:


> If you have a reasonable command of those languages, that no doubt gives you a great deal more insight in to those cultures, and a far greater ability to function effectively in French or Spanish speaking countries. Knowledge is good.
> 
> *I find it interesting that the vast majority of people with more than a superficial knowledge of science (especially biology), tend to be on the political left, and agnostic/atheist. * Why do you think this is the case? Can you really believe that training in the natural sciences is politically biased? Or that universities, the bastions of 'political correctness' that they are, are really indoctrinating people into a specific philosophy on religion?
> 
> Isn't it far more parsimonious to accept that the more one learns and grapples with complex ideas, the more Right-wing political positions on economic social issues and religious dogma in general are inconsistent with observable reality. Consequently educated people tend to be left-leaning and agnostic.


I highly doubt there is any comprehensive compilation of this data for you to state this as a fact but please feel free to post a link to any non-definitive data that may have led to you making that statement.


----------



## Macfury

screature said:


> I highly doubt there is any comprehensive compilation of this data for you to state this as a fact but please feel free to post a link to any non-definitive data that may have led to you making that statement.


bryanc has posted a few whacked-out studies with methodologies that would make most scientists blanch. It's just bias confirmation at work.


----------



## bryanc

screature said:


> I highly doubt there is any comprehensive compilation of this data for you to state this as a fact but please feel free to post a link to any non-definitive data that may have led to you making that statement.


The entire subdiscipline of the sociology of science is replete with data on this; although no coherent theory to explain the well-documented correlations is currently widely accepted. I would hesitate to call any sociology 'definitive' but these correlations are so well known that they've spawned whole fields of sociological research.

The well established negative relationship between scientific education and religious adherence gave rise to the whole theory of secularization back in the early 1900's... I think it was Leuba who first published surveys of scientists' religious affiliations and drew attention to the stark contrast between a society in which the vast majority (>95%) self-identified as religious, while the scientifically educated subset of respondents were shockingly a-religious, with less than half adhering to religions. There was a paper in Nature in 1997 following up on this, and over 70% of biologists were categorized as agnostics or atheists (I'd have to go look up the reference, but this is such common knowledge in sociology, that I'm surprised anyone would doubt it). More recently, there's been research published showing that IQ is a very good predictor of atheism across many different cultures and economic conditions, so that may be a factor here as well.

As for the correlation between liberalism and scientific education, I'm sure some googling can find you a pile of references; not even MacFury doubts this, he just attributes it to the well known Liberal Bias of Reality.


----------



## groovetube

certainly our current right wing government is a classic example of conservatives muzzling and shutting down science. The clear fear and paranoia of what a scientist might say or find out is pretty clear in their actions.

Some parts of the population are ok with losing this freedom and information, but not all are.


----------



## screature

bryanc said:


> The entire subdiscipline of the sociology of science is replete with data on this; although no coherent theory to explain the well-documented correlations is currently widely accepted. I would hesitate to call any sociology 'definitive' but these correlations are so well known that they've spawned whole fields of sociological research.
> 
> The well established negative relationship between scientific education and religious adherence gave rise to the whole theory of secularization back in the early 1900's... I think it was Leuba who first published surveys of scientists' religious affiliations and drew attention to the stark contrast between a society in which the vast majority (>95%) self-identified as religious, while the scientifically educated subset of respondents were shockingly a-religious, with less than half adhering to religions. There was a paper in Nature in 1997 following up on this, and over 70% of biologists were categorized as agnostics or atheists (I'd have to go look up the reference, but this is such common knowledge in sociology, that I'm surprised anyone would doubt it). More recently, there's been research published showing that IQ is a very good predictor of atheism across many different cultures and economic conditions, so that may be a factor here as well.
> 
> As for the correlation between liberalism and scientific education, I'm sure some googling can find you a pile of references; not even MacFury doubts this, he just attributes it to the well known Liberal Bias of Reality.


Too bad you couldn't produce the evidence asked for... but just to say that your statement was, *vast majority* of people with *more than a superficial knowledge of science*" not scientists. 

That is why I called you out on it as I see no way that there could be comprehensive data across the globe on people who fit the criteria "more than a superficial knowledge of science" as at best it could only be a sample as you as much indicated in your own post.


----------



## bryanc

screature said:


> That is why I called you out on it as I see no way that there could be comprehensive data across the globe on people who fit the criteria "more than a superficial knowledge of science" as at best it could only be a sample as you as much indicated in your own post.


Of course not; it's too broad a statement. There are literally thousands of papers in the sociology literature on various aspects of this. There are a couple of books on the subject "Science, Religion and Secularization" and "Clash of Conceptual Frameworks" that I've seen, but don't have access to on line. If you really are so naive as to doubt the existence of this correlation, I suppose I could try to find something that basic for you on line, but seriously, do you really doubt this?
Why do you think religious fundamentalists home-school their kids?

{edit to add: read "Secularization" by Steve Bruce for a review of the sociology on this}


----------



## bryanc

*Interesting contrast*

I just read something that I think is an interesting contrast between science and religion.

We can be quite confident, on the basis of the wildly divergent religious beliefs held by different cultures over time and around the world that, if we could somehow eliminate all traces of religion today, while some other beliefs would likely emerge over time and may even become widely held, these new religious beliefs would be very different than what are common today.

In contrast, if we eliminated all scientific knowledge, over time people would re-discover what we have discovered through science, and come to essentially the same conclusions.


----------



## screature

bryanc said:


> Of course not; it's too broad a statement. There are literally thousands of papers in the sociology literature on various aspects of this. There are a couple of books on the subject "Science, Religion and Secularization" and "Clash of Conceptual Frameworks" that I've seen, but don't have access to on line. If you really are so naive as to doubt the existence of this correlation, I suppose I could try to find something that basic for you on line, *but seriously, do you really doubt this*?
> Why do you think religious fundamentalists home-school their kids?
> 
> {edit to add: read "Secularization" by Steve Bruce for a review of the sociology on this}


Yes I doubt the veracity of your statement 



> I find it interesting that the *vast majority* of people *with more than a superficial knowledge of science* (especially biology), tend to be on the political left, and agnostic/atheist.


as I don't think you know definitively nor does anyone know definitively this to be true in the manner in which you expressed it.


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> We can be quite confident, on the basis of the wildly divergent religious beliefs held by different cultures over time and around the world that, if we could somehow eliminate all traces of religion today, while some other beliefs would likely emerge over time and may even become widely held, these new religious beliefs would be very different than what are common today.


We can also be confident that they would have much in common with each other.


----------



## bryanc

screature said:


> does anyone know definitively this to be true in the manner in which you expressed it.


Does anyone know anything _definitively_ in any feild, let alone sociology? But I'll agree that I've probably worded it too strongly; what I should've said is that there is a strong negative correlation between education, especially in the natural sciences, and religious adherence. There is also a strong correlation between advanced education and politically liberal views.

And if you doubt this, pick up a 2nd year sociology textbook and look up 'secularization theory.'


----------



## bryanc

Macfury said:


> We can also be confident that they would have much in common with each other.


Really? Like what? The only similarities I think we could be confident of regarding independently developing religious beliefs is that they would eventually become based on dogma that is unfalsifiable, because claims that could be falsified would be, and that would select against religions that made such claims. Apart from that, I suppose it's reasonable to expect that the deities people would invent would continue to be largely projections and exaggerations of themselves; people with magical powers and petty personalities... although many religions have also included magical animals or other imaginative entities, so I don't think we can rule that out. It's likely that any newly emerging religion would try to provide answers about the unknowns that worried the people of the time, but this is going to be limited by the first constraint; these answers can't be things that can be shown to be false.

It's an interesting thought exercise, but the point is that science, constrained as it is by reality, will inevitably converge on the same answers because these answers are true (or a close approximation of it), whereas religion will come up with divergent answers because it is not constrained by any objective reality.


----------



## fjnmusic

bryanc said:


> I just read something that I think is an interesting contrast between science and religion.
> 
> We can be quite confident, on the basis of the wildly divergent religious beliefs held by different cultures over time and around the world that, if we could somehow eliminate all traces of religion today, while some other beliefs would likely emerge over time and may even become widely held, these new religious beliefs would be very different than what are common today.
> 
> In contrast, if we eliminated all scientific knowledge, over time people would re-discover what we have discovered through science, and come to essentially the same conclusions.


I'm going to throw something out here and say that religion was the science of olden times, and science is one of the religions of today. Todays's scientific certainties will be the doubts of tomorrow, and both disciplines require faith in their methods to be believable. Even Darwin knew that his theory was not foolproof if, for example, the pre-Cambrian explosion suddenly impacted the fossil record. Evolution is good and explains a lot, but it does not explain everything. Religion is even more mythological.


----------



## screature

bryanc said:


> Does anyone know anything _definitively_ in any feild, let alone sociology? But I'll agree that I've probably worded it too strongly; what I should've said is that there is a strong negative correlation between education, especially in the natural sciences, and religious adherence. There is also a strong correlation between advanced education and politically liberal views.
> 
> And if you doubt this, pick up a 2nd year sociology textbook and look up 'secularization theory.'


I don't doubt tendencies, I do doubt vast majority.


----------



## SINC

fjnmusic said:


> I'm going to throw something out here and say that religion was the science of olden times, and science is one of the religions of today. Todays's scientific certainties will be the doubts of tomorrow, and both disciplines require faith in their methods to be believable. Even Darwin knew that his theory was not foolproof if, for example, the pre-Cambrian explosion suddenly impacted the fossil record. Evolution is good and explains a lot, but it does not explain everything. Religion is even more mythological.


I had never considered that jfn, but now that I think about it, that theory hunts.


----------



## JCCanuck

bryanc said:


> I just read something that I think is an interesting contrast between science and religion.
> 
> We can be quite confident, on the basis of the wildly divergent religious beliefs held by different cultures over time and around the world that, if we could somehow eliminate all traces of religion today, while some other beliefs would likely emerge over time and may even become widely held, these new religious beliefs would be very different than what are common today.
> 
> In contrast, if we eliminated all scientific knowledge, over time people would re-discover what we have discovered through science, and come to essentially the same conclusions.


I like that one, puts it in a nutshell.
My son who grew as a Christian/Catholic has confessed to me last week that he is an atheist. He was glad I didn't oppose his religious upbringing by his mother (on my approval), it gave him a better perspective on religion. The more he studied various sciences the more he understood us and the universe, something he couldn't do with religion.


----------



## bryanc

fjnmusic said:


> I'm going to throw something out here and say that religion was the science of olden times, and science is one of the religions of today. Todays's scientific certainties will be the doubts of tomorrow, and both disciplines require faith in their methods to be believable.


Okay, let me preface this by saying that I appreciate your position (and your willingness to post it), and I think there's a grain of truth here; but no, you're completely wrong. Science and religion are diametrically opposed. Science relies on rational skepticism, whereas religion relies on faith; the abandonment of rational thought. Where I think you're onto something is that both science and religion try to provide answer to questions about the unknown... where they differ is that the answers science provides are correct, whereas the answers religion provides are made up and have no rational support; so if they turn out to be correct, it was a fluke. Furthermore, there _are_ no scientific certainties; science is fundamentally a mechanism of dealing with uncertainty... so there are no "scientific certainties of today" to become the doubts of tomorrow. The well-supported scientific theories of today may become subjects of doubt tomorrow, but they will either be refined to explain whatever observations brought them into doubt, or will be replaced with new theories that explain all the data better. That's how science works; reality is the only truth.

Where religion and science have similarities, it is in that they both seek to provide explanations for the unknown. However, that is where the similarities end; religion provides explanations by looking to revelation... interpretations of bronze age poetry and drug or starvation or meditation-induced "visions" are the "data", and the interpretations are to believed on the basis of faith. Science uses reproducible observations of reality, and when interpretations clash with these data, interpretations must change; reality is the ultimate arbiter of who is wrong. Unfortunately, science only allows us to clearly determine who is wrong, not what is true; so it is a tool for chipping away falsehoods, and we assume that what we are unable to falsify is true. Some day perhaps something better than science will be devised; something that allows us to determine not only what is false, but also what is true. That will be a cause for celebration.


----------



## fjnmusic

bryanc said:


> Okay, let me preface this by saying that I appreciate your position (and your willingness to post it), and I think there's a grain of truth here; but no, you're completely wrong. Science and religion are diametrically opposed. Science relies on rational skepticism, whereas religion relies on faith; the abandonment of rational thought. Where I think you're onto something is that both science and religion try to provide answer to questions about the unknown... where they differ is that the answers science provides are correct, whereas the answers religion provides are made up and have no rational support; so if they turn out to be correct, it was a fluke. Furthermore, there _are_ no scientific certainties; science is fundamentally a mechanism of dealing with uncertainty... so there are no "scientific certainties of today" to become the doubts of tomorrow. The well-supported scientific theories of today may become subjects of doubt tomorrow, but they will either be refined to explain whatever observations brought them into doubt, or will be replaced with new theories that explain all the data better. That's how science works; reality is the only truth.
> 
> Where religion and science have similarities, it is in that they both seek to provide explanations for the unknown. However, that is where the similarities end; religion provides explanations by looking to revelation... interpretations of bronze age poetry and drug or starvation or meditation-induced "visions" are the "data", and the interpretations are to believed on the basis of faith. Science uses reproducible observations of reality, and when interpretations clash with these data, interpretations must change; reality is the ultimate arbiter of who is wrong. Unfortunately, science only allows us to clearly determine who is wrong, not what is true; so it is a tool for chipping away falsehoods, and we assume that what we are unable to falsify is true. Some day perhaps something better than science will be devised; something that allows us to determine not only what is false, but also what is true. That will be a cause for celebration.


I appreciate the thoughtfulness of your response, Bryan. I will give an example to better explain what I was getting at. Consider this: it was commonly understood a few centuries ago that there were only four elements that made up everything: earth, water, air and fire. The Alchemists could explain the composition of all things as different combinations of these elements. It was believed to be the truth because no one knew any better. Yet.

Today the simplicity of the alchemists world seems silly, since we have now identified over a hundred different chemical elements, even though the vast majority of things are largely made up of combinations of only four elements: oxygen, hydrogen, nitrogen and carbon with a few other flavors thrown in for variety.

But if you look at it from another angle, all matter also exists in only thee possible states (as far as we know): solid (earth), liquid (water), and gas (air), and the thing that makes stuff change states is the addition or removal of heat (fire). So while the alchemists weren't exactly right, they weren't exactly wrong either, and from the ashes of old theories new ones can emerge like a Phoenix. 

Today, we take gravity pretty much for granted, and relative to our everyday experience, Newton's theories work just fine. Not so much for Einstein, however, as Newton's theories didn't work as well in space or when looking at very large objects like planets and stars, so he proposed a warping of space-time to explain it, which seems like something out of Star Trek to most of us. Newton's theory is so much easier, even though it may not be entirely right. But it does the job. 

Ditto for the theory of evolution. So many people refer to evolution as fact, not theory, and I'm not really sure they understand what the two words mean. Evolution is and always will be a theory about how life goes from one phase to another incrementally and over long period of time. Shorter life spans should lead to faster evolution, so mosquitoes should evolve more quickly than, say, humans or any of the other animals they feed upon. I do not know if this is actually the case. But many people regard evolutionary theory today as fact, even though they know very little about it, or that the theory is not very useful for positing how any life form came about in the first place. It's usefulness is limited to explaining how incremental changes in an organism happen over time.

Why I liken science to religion has little to with scientists themselves, who on the whole tend not to be magical thinkers. I am referring to the average citizen who knows little about either science or theology and instead just trusts that the experts have it figured out. We trust doctors to know how to fix our Health problems. We trust mechanics to know what's wrong with our vehicles (you're gonna need a new Johnson rod). And we trust lawyers....okay, let's face it-nobody trusts lawyers. But you get the idea. We trust someone who knows better.

So to my way if thinking, it's the same big picture: we have faith in some higher power, be it God or Nature or whatever you want to call it, that something has it all figured out, and then when you walk out your door tomorrow, gravity will still be there and you won't start floating up into the sky.


----------



## fjnmusic

And on a lighter note, here's one from my sister:

Deja Vu – When you think you’re doing something you’ve done before, it’s because God thought it was so funny, he had to rewind it for his friends.


----------



## screature

bryanc said:


> *Does anyone know anything definitively in any feild, let alone sociology? * But I'll agree that I've probably worded it too strongly; what I should've said is that there is a strong negative correlation between education, especially in the natural sciences, and religious adherence. There is also a strong correlation between advanced education and politically liberal views.
> 
> And if you doubt this, pick up a 2nd year sociology textbook and look up 'secularization theory.'


Just to add to my previous post...

So it seems we are in agreement.

Thus, that is why I am an agnostic and not an atheist.


----------



## fjnmusic

screature said:


> Just to add to my previous post...
> 
> So it seems we are in agreement.
> 
> Thus, that is why I am an agnostic and not an atheist.


I think that's known as 'fire insurance.'


----------



## screature

fjnmusic said:


> I think that's known as 'fire insurance.'


Not in the least bit. It is fundamental to what is known and can be known. 

Such a comment displays a lack of understanding of what it means to be agnostic and reveals some people's predilection to feel the need to believe that they know the "Truth".

Some people are uncomfortable with admitting that they just don't know one way or the other...


----------



## iMouse

They like a security blanket, and shun those that reject one.


----------



## groovetube

I think fjn is sorta kinda pulling your leg.


----------



## iMouse

I fully understand the reference to Hell, but is he really?


----------



## screature

groovetube said:


> I think fjn is sorta kinda pulling your leg.


Yeah I kinda thought that but I still thought the joke was misplaced.


----------



## groovetube

sorry that was in response to screature.


----------



## screature

iMouse said:


> They like a security blanket, and shun those that reject one.


Nonsense. What security blanket do I have and who do I shun as someone who simply admits that they do not know. I adhere to no religion of any kind.

However, I do have trouble with those that feel the need to state and preach definitively that they know the truth one way or the other.


----------



## groovetube

screature said:


> Yeah I kinda thought that but I still thought the joke was misplaced.


Perhaps depending on who said it. Just my own opinion, but in the religious discussions, I have expressed quite a few times that I'm very disturbed at religious people seem to think it's somehow their right to trample over mine to enforce their beliefs. But I haven't really gotten that sense from fjn.


----------



## Macfury

screature said:


> Yeah I kinda thought that but I still thought the joke was misplaced.


I don't get the joke in that context. "Fire Insurance" is for pretend Catholics. I don't think you get any special dispensation from the Fiery Pit for being an agnostic!


----------



## MacGuiver

screature said:


> Thus, that is why I am an agnostic and not an atheist.


I think screature's position is a more reasonable one than atheism. Atheism closes the door to the possibility of God completely (barring some peer reviewed lab experiment where a+b=God) so all your evaluation of phenomena attributed to God has a predetermined conclusion. You simply craft reason to meet your predetermined conclusion, even if its extremely improbable and even if no explanation can be given, "God did it" can never be the answer when possibly it is. 
Chesterton says it best.
“I do not feel any contempt for an atheist, who is often a man limited and constrained by his own logic to a very sad simplification.”


----------



## MacGuiver

Here is another Chesterton quote I love.

“Progress is Providence without God. That is, it is a theory that everything has always perpetually gone right by accident. It is a sort of atheistic optimism, based on an everlasting coincidence far more miraculous than a miracle.” – Wells and the World State, What I Saw in America


----------



## fjnmusic

I find religious discussions interesting but ultimately rather silly. Whether you believe in God or whether you don't really doesn't matter, I believe. You still exist either way, and we're all headed for the same destination when we die: we don't know. Nobody who's died gets to come back and tell about it, and even JC only gives rather cryptic hints.

I stayed after class to question a philosophy prof I had a long time ago, who happened to be an atheist. I asked him if it bothered him that he didn't believe there was life after death. He asked me, Frank, do you remember what it was like before you were born? I said no. He said, does it bother you? I said no, not really. He said that was what he believed the after life is like. We don't know and it won't bother us.

I found his point of view strangely comforting after twelve years of Catholic schooling. And the conclusion that I came to is that whether there is a heaven or whether there isn't, the only way you get there is by being kind to others in this life right now. Call it Catholic Existentialism. And so I try not to worry about the hereafter and instead try to make the best of now, the present moment. Dwelling on the past leads to depression and dwelling on the future leads to anxiety. To stay balanced, we need to focus on the present and try to enjoy life. Now is all we ever really have anyway.


----------



## Dr.G.

"Dwelling on the past leads to depression and dwelling on the future leads to anxiety. To stay balanced, we need to focus on the present and try to enjoy life. Now is all we ever really have anyway. " An interesting and in my opinion valid philosophy of Life, fjn. Paix, mon ami.


----------



## iMouse

screature said:


> Nonsense. What security blanket do I have and who do I shun as someone who simply admits that they do not know.
> 
> I adhere to no religion of any kind.


Nor do I.

The blanket reference was directed at theists.


----------



## groovetube

MacGuiver said:


> I think screature's position is a more reasonable one than atheism. Atheism closes the door to the possibility of God completely (barring some peer reviewed lab experiment where a+b=God) so all your evaluation of phenomena attributed to God has a predetermined conclusion. You simply craft reason to meet your predetermined conclusion, even if its extremely improbable and even if no explanation can be given, "God did it" can never be the answer when possibly it is.
> Chesterton says it best.
> “I do not feel any contempt for an atheist, who is often a man limited and constrained by his own logic to a very sad simplification.”


There's a certain kind of irony, that someone with such fixed positions such as yours, would criticize an atheist, one who also has a decidedly fixed belief as well.


----------



## iMouse

groovetube said:


> There's a certain kind of irony, that someone with such fixed positions such as yours, would criticize and atheist, one who also has a decidedly fixed belief as well.


Nature abhors a vacuum, and .... like that.  :lmao:


----------



## bryanc

Great post, fjnmusic. I understand what you're getting at much better now.



fjnmusic said:


> Consider this: it was commonly understood a few centuries ago that there were only four elements that made up everything: earth, water, air and fire. The Alchemists could explain the composition of all things as different combinations of these elements. It was believed to be the truth because no one knew any better. Yet.


I take your point, but I'd argue that alchemists were not scientists; the scientific method hadn't been invented when these guys were mucking around trying to turn lead into gold. So it's not really fair to use this as an example of "scientific certainties of the past" that turned out to be false. I want to re-emphasize my point about science being a method of dealing with uncertainty; there is no such thing as a "scientific certainty"... just greater and lesser degrees of confidence.



> Today the simplicity of the alchemists world seems silly, since we have now identified over a hundred different chemical elements, even though the vast majority of things are largely made up of combinations of only four elements: oxygen, hydrogen, nitrogen and carbon with a few other flavors thrown in for variety.


Just to be pedantic; no. CHNOPS (Carbon, Hydrogen, Nitrogen, Oxygen, Phosphorus and Sulphur) are the big players in biological systems, but the vast majority of "things" on earth are made of silicone, iron, calcium, aluminum, carbon, oxygen, hydrogen, etc. (as these are the most abundant elements in the earth's crust), and the vast majority of things in space are wisps of gas or plasma consisting primarily of hydrogen and helium.



> But if you look at it from another angle, all matter also exists in only thee possible states (as far as we know): solid (earth), liquid (water), and gas (air), and the thing that makes stuff change states is the addition or removal of heat (fire).


The fourth state (fire) is plasma... so you're right, the medieval alchemists had almost figured out the states of matter.



> So while the alchemists weren't exactly right, they weren't exactly wrong either, and from the ashes of old theories new ones can emerge like a Phoenix.


What had to change was the formalization of hypotheses, and the explicit need for falsifiability. So while they set the stage for science to start working during the enlightenment, they weren't really establishing scientific theories. Perhaps this is a semantic quibble, but I do think the emergence of rational scientific thought is important.



> Ditto for the theory of evolution. So many people refer to evolution as fact, not theory, and I'm not really sure they understand what the two words mean. Evolution is and always will be a theory about how life goes from one phase to another incrementally and over long period of time.


Evolution is both a fact and a theory; the fact that the genetic make up, and consequent biochemical and morphological natures of biological populations change over time is an observable and empirical fact that we call "evolution". The theory that the cause of this observable change is selection of advantageous variation (by either natural or artificial selection) is the "theory of evolution." We have abundant evidence that this theory is correct, so it is as well-supported as any theory in science, and while we must always be open to the possibility that some new observation will force us to change it, evolutionary theory is now so well-supported by so many independent lines of evidence that no one seriously considers the possibility that it may be fundamentally wrong.



> Why I liken science to religion has little to with scientists themselves, who on the whole tend not to be magical thinkers. I am referring to the average citizen who knows little about either science or theology and instead just trusts that the experts have it figured out.


This is where I have to agree with you. Unfortunately, the average citizen is so scientifically illiterate that they can't distinguish science from religion. This is why scams like Intelligent Design work. But this is a failure of education, not a problem with science (or religion for that matter).

If we did a better job teaching kids what science *is*, rather than what we know because of science we've done, they'd have a lot less trouble as adults figuring out who to trust.



> So to my way if thinking, it's the same big picture: we have faith in some higher power, be it God or Nature or whatever you want to call it, that something has it all figured out, and then when you walk out your door tomorrow, gravity will still be there and you won't start floating up into the sky.


I don't have any faith in anything. I don't think "nature" has it figured out; nature is not a conscious entity that 'figures'... it's just the sum total of all things that exist. The reason I expect gravity to continue to work the way it has is because I understand that gravity is the curvature of space-time caused by mass, and I have no reason to think that this will change. There are many things I don't understand, and I have no faith that they will continue to work the way they have, but until I have evidence to think that some change I can predict and prepare for in some meaningful way is imminent, I can't do anything about it, so I will focus on the things I can do something about.


----------



## bryanc

screature said:


> Thus, that is why I am an agnostic and not an atheist.


Unless you have formulated beliefs about these god(s) that you agree you can't know anything about, you are also an atheist. This is exactly my position; I know nothing about the existence of gods, therefore I am agnostic. Because I know nothing, I believe nothing, therefore I am an atheist.

{edit to add: Here's a great old quote from a hero of the Conservative Right on this topic


Senator John McCarthy said:


> An atheist doesn't have to be someone who thinks he has a proof that there can't be a god. He only has to be someone who believes that the evidence on the God question is at a similar level to the evidence on the werewolf question.


}


----------



## bryanc

MacGuiver said:


> I think screature's position is a more reasonable one than atheism.


As I have just shown, screatures position *is* atheism, and it is the same as mine.



> Atheism closes the door to the possibility of God completely


No, atheism is the rational absence of believe without evidence.



> (barring some peer reviewed lab experiment where a+b=God) so all your evaluation of phenomena attributed to God has a predetermined conclusion.


Every mind must establish it's own criterion for belief. If God can't meet my criteria, He's not much of a God, is He? But frankly, if God existed, He'd have no trouble convincing me; I don't need laboratory evidence... God could just speak to me in my mind; come to me in my dreams... appear when no one is around as a burning bush and talk to me. Once I had myself checked out to be sure I hadn't been drugged and wasn't undergoing some sort of schizophrenic delusion, that'd be enough to convince me. I wouldn't expect anyone else to be convinced by my personal experiences, but that would convince me. It's just never happened, and it never seems to happen to anyone who is in a rational state of mind. If some person wants to convince me of the existence of the supernatural, they're going to have to do something in a lab, but God is welcome to talk to me through His supernatural ways any time... Obviously I couldn't stop Him if He existed.


----------



## bryanc

fjnmusic said:


> And the conclusion that I came to is that whether there is a heaven or whether there isn't, the only way you get there is by being kind to others in this life right now.


I can't disagree with this philosophy, but of course the Church does. It's called the Pelagian Heresy because it disintermediates the Church in the process of salvation... we can't have people getting into heaven without paying their tithes can we? 



> To stay balanced, we need to focus on the present and try to enjoy life. Now is all we ever really have anyway.


I like Charles Bukowski's philosophy on this:


Chuck Bukowski said:


> For those who believe in God, most of the big questions are answered. But for those of us who can't readily accept the God formula, the big answers don't remain stone-written. We adjust to new conditions and discoveries. We are pliable. Love need not be a command or faith a dictum. We are here to unlearn the teachings of the church, state, and our educational system. We are here to drink beer. We are here to kill war. We are here to laugh at the odds and live our lives so well that Death will tremble to take us.


----------



## fjnmusic

Thanks for the clarification, Bryan. One thing that caught my eye: Nature is the sum total of all things that exist. I like that. You see, for some people like me, nature and reality and life and God are all just different names for the same thing. I'm not talking about sky daddy God, I'm talking about the basic building block of everything that exists. I am well aware that this flies in the face of traditional Catholic thinking, but I don't really care. It works for me and it explains a lot of what I see in my life. So there you go, like the dad says in My Big Fat Greek Wedding. I see miracles everyday.


----------



## screature

bryanc said:


> Unless you have formulated beliefs about these god(s) that you agree you can't know anything about, you are also an atheist. This is exactly my position; I know nothing about the existence of gods, therefore I am agnostic. Because I know nothing, I believe nothing, therefore I am an atheist.
> 
> {edit to add: Here's a great old quote from a hero of the Conservative Right on this topic
> }


I know these are your semantics but they are from being definitive as "atheism" has no one "fixed" meaning:

Atheism



> Definitions and distinctions
> 
> Writers disagree how best to define and classify atheism,[28] contesting what supernatural entities it applies to, whether it is an assertion in its own right or merely the absence of one, and whether it requires a conscious, explicit rejection. Atheism has been regarded as compatible with agnosticism,[29][30][31][32][33][34][35] and has also been contrasted with it.[36][37][38] A variety of categories have been used to distinguish the different forms of atheism.
> 
> Range
> 
> Some of the ambiguity and controversy involved in defining atheism arises from difficulty in reaching a consensus for the definitions of words like deity and god. The plurality of wildly different conceptions of god and deities leads to differing ideas regarding atheism's applicability. The ancient Romans accused Christians of being atheists for not worshiping the pagan deities. Gradually, this view fell into disfavor as theism came to be understood as encompassing belief in any divinity.[39]
> 
> With respect to the range of phenomena being rejected, atheism may counter anything from the existence of a deity, to the existence of any spiritual, supernatural, or transcendental concepts, such as those of Buddhism, Hinduism, Jainism and Taoism.[40]
> 
> Implicit vs. explicit
> 
> Definitions of atheism also vary in the degree of consideration a person must put to the idea of gods to be considered an atheist. Atheism has sometimes been defined to include the simple absence of belief that any deities exist. This broad definition would include newborns and other people who have not been exposed to theistic ideas. As far back as 1772, Baron d'Holbach said that "All children are born Atheists; they have no idea of God."[41] Similarly, George H. Smith (1979) suggested that: "The man who is unacquainted with theism is an atheist because he does not believe in a god. This category would also include the child with the conceptual capacity to grasp the issues involved, but who is still unaware of those issues. The fact that this child does not believe in god qualifies him as an atheist."[42] Smith coined the term implicit atheism to refer to "the absence of theistic belief without a conscious rejection of it" and explicit atheism to refer to the more common definition of conscious disbelief. Ernest Nagel contradicts Smith's definition of atheism as merely "absence of theism", acknowledging only explicit atheism as true "atheism".[43]
> 
> Positive vs. negative
> 
> Philosophers such as Antony Flew[44] and Michael Martin[39] have contrasted positive (strong/hard) atheism with negative (weak/soft) atheism. Positive atheism is the explicit affirmation that gods do not exist. Negative atheism includes all other forms of non-theism. According to this categorization, anyone who is not a theist is either a negative or a positive atheist. The terms weak and strong are relatively recent, while the terms negative and positive atheism are of older origin, having been used (in slightly different ways) in the philosophical literature[44] and in Catholic apologetics.[45] Under this demarcation of atheism, most agnostics qualify as negative atheists.
> 
> *While Martin, for example, asserts that agnosticism entails negative atheism,[32] most agnostics see their view as distinct from atheism,[citation needed] which they may consider no more justified than theism or requiring an equal conviction.[46] The assertion of unattainability of knowledge for or against the existence of gods is sometimes seen as indication that atheism requires a leap of faith.[47][unreliable source?] Common atheist responses to this argument include that unproven religious propositions deserve as much disbelief as all other unproven propositions,[48] and that the unprovability of a god's existence does not imply equal probability of either possibility.[49] Scottish philosopher J. J. C. Smart even argues that "sometimes a person who is really an atheist may describe herself, even passionately, as an agnostic because of unreasonable generalised philosophical skepticism which would preclude us from saying that we know anything whatever, except perhaps the truths of mathematics and formal logic."[50] Consequently, some atheist authors such as Richard Dawkins prefer distinguishing theist, agnostic and atheist positions along a spectrum of theistic probability—the likelihood that each assigns to the statement "God exists".[51]*
> 
> Definition as impossible or impermanent
> 
> Before the 18th century, the existence of God was so universally accepted in the western world that even the possibility of true atheism was questioned. This is called theistic innatism—the notion that all people believe in God from birth; within this view was the connotation that atheists are simply in denial.[52]
> 
> There is also a position claiming that atheists are quick to believe in God in times of crisis, that atheists make deathbed conversions, or that "there are no atheists in foxholes."[53] There have however been examples to the contrary, among them examples of literal "atheists in foxholes."[54]
> 
> Some atheists have doubted the very need for the term "atheism". In his book Letter to a Christian Nation, Sam Harris wrote:
> 
> In fact, "atheism" is a term that should not even exist. No one ever needs to identify himself as a "non-astrologer" or a "non-alchemist." We do not have words for people who doubt that Elvis is still alive or that aliens have traversed the galaxy only to molest ranchers and their cattle. Atheism is nothing more than the noises reasonable people make in the presence of unjustified religious beliefs.[55]


I am not an atheist I am an agnostic.

Agnosticism



> Agnosticism is the belief that the existence or non-existence of any deity is unknown and possibly unknowable. More specifically, agnosticism is the view that the truth values of certain claims—especially claims about the existence or non-existence of any deity, as well as other religious and metaphysical claims—are unknown and (so far as can be judged) unknowable.[1][2][3] Agnosticism can be defined in various ways, and is sometimes used to indicate doubt or a skeptical approach to questions. In some senses, agnosticism is a stance about the difference between belief and knowledge, rather than about any specific claim or belief. In the popular sense, an agnostic is someone who neither believes nor disbelieves in the existence of a deity or deities, whereas a theist and an atheist believe and disbelieve, respectively.[2] In the strict sense, however, agnosticism is the view that humanity does not currently possess the requisite knowledge and/or reason to provide sufficient rational grounds to justify the belief that deities either do or do not exist.


Here is a useful diagram.










This Euler diagram represents the relationship between main theological positions as sets and regions. In set theory, nontheism is a complement of theism. This diagram excludes alternative views such as ignositicsm, pantheism, and deism.


----------



## CubaMark




----------



## MacGuiver

fjnmusic said:


> You see, for some people like me, nature and reality and life and God are all just different names for the same thing. I'm not talking about sky daddy God, I'm talking about the basic building block of everything that exists.


I recall a similar theology from Obi-Wan Kenobi.
That would be Pantheism.


----------



## MacGuiver

> Originally Posted by Senator John McCarthy
> An atheist doesn't have to be someone who thinks he has a proof that there can't be a god. He only has to be someone who believes that the evidence on the God question is at a similar level to the evidence on the werewolf question.


I agree. And the level of evidence supporting the existence of God is insurmountable if your mind is open to the possibility that he exists. Werewolves, Santa, Thor, Leprechauns? Not so much.


----------



## Macfury

screature said:


> I am not an atheist I am an agnostic.


Well put.


----------



## Macfury

fjnmusic said:


> You see, for some people like me, nature and reality and life and God are all just different names for the same thing. I'm not talking about sky daddy God, I'm talking about the basic building block of everything that exists.


So essentially everything is everything else?


----------



## bryanc

screature said:


> I know these are your semantics but they are from being definitive as "atheism" has no one "fixed" meaning...{bunch of good stuff deleted}


Good post. To clarify, where would you put yourself in the Venn diagram? In the blue section of the agnostic circle, or the green overlap between agnostic and atheist? I put myself in the latter (green overlap), and for the record, I've never even met anyone who would be in the yellow section of the atheist circle.

While I understand the rhetorical value of using 'agnostic', I still don't really see how someone can claim that it's a logically coherent position. Either one has beliefs about god(s) or they don't. If you don't, you're an atheist by definition. And if you don't have knowledge, how can you have rational beliefs? So this would make the blue set (the set of agnostics that do not overlap with theists or with atheists) irrational by definition.

I can understand how one could be an agnostic theist (you have beliefs but you aren't certain they're correct), or an agnostic atheist (you don't have knowledge so you don't have beliefs), but I don't really understand how you can be agnostic and neither theist nor atheist... I can't even logically construct what this means.


----------



## bryanc

MacGuiver said:


> I agree. And the level of evidence supporting the existence of God is insurmountable if your mind is open to the possibility that he exists. Werewolves, Santa, Thor, Leprechauns? Not so much.


How is the evidence for your God any better, or even any different than the evidence for the existence of Thor or Werewolves?


----------



## bryanc

fjnmusic said:


> You see, for some people like me, nature and reality and life and God are all just different names for the same thing. I'm not talking about sky daddy God, I'm talking about the basic building block of everything that exists. I am well aware that this flies in the face of traditional Catholic thinking, but I don't really care. It works for me and it explains a lot of what I see in my life.


I think what you're saying is that you're a Pandeist. Which, as far as I can tell differs from my entirely atheistic world view only in that it attributes some sort of will or Gaia-like consciousness to the universe (which may or may not still be active). Certainly not a logically parsimonious philosophy, but entirely unobjectionable from my point of view.


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> How is the evidence for your God any better, or even any different than the evidence for the existence of Thor or Werewolves?


I just want to interject that the existence of Lucky Charms cereal does not bolster the case for the existence of leprechauns.


----------



## MacGuiver

bryanc said:


> How is the evidence for your God any better, or even any different than the evidence for the existence of Thor or Werewolves?


Because it exists. The testimonials of divine intervention and the miraculous are numberous. The same cannot be said for Thor or werewolves?


----------



## MacGuiver

macfury said:


> i just want to interject that the existence of lucky charms cereal does not bolster the case for the existence of leprechauns.


lol!!!


----------



## bryanc

There are plenty of people who claim to have seen werewolves, and anyone who has seen a lightning bolt has seen the proof of Thor's existence.


----------



## fjnmusic

Macfury said:


> So essentially everything is everything else?


A a subatomic level, actually yes, very much so.


----------



## fjnmusic

MacGuiver said:


> I recall a similar theology from Obi-Wan Kenobi.
> That would be Pantheism.


On Facebook my religion is listed as Jedi.


----------



## MacGuiver

bryanc said:


> There are plenty of people who claim to have seen werewolves, and anyone who has seen a lightning bolt has seen the proof of Thor's existence.


Sure but Thor's a lazy god. Thats all he's got?

Perhaps if he told 3 peasant children that he'd perform a spectacular and inexplicable sign on a particular day to be witnessed by 10s of thousands of people to prove his existence I'd say his evidence is comparable. 
We also don't have any physical evidence to support Thors existence nor do we have historians that confirm his place in history. We do with Jesus.
We don't have people claiming inexplicable healings, validated by doctors, in the name of Thor.
We don't have people with NDE experiences reporting meeting Thor or experiencing anything that would remotely lend credibility to his story.


----------



## bryanc

MacGuiver said:


> ...{anecdotal claims of miracles deleted}...


How do you explain the miracles claimed by the adherents of other religions?


> ...{dubious claims of historical documentation deleted}...


Even if Jesus existed, it is in no way evidence for the existence of a supernatural God.


> ...{dubious claims of faith healing deleted}...


Do the claims of witch doctors convince you that Voodoo works?


> ...{anecdotal reports of NDEs deleted}...


So the people who see Vishnu or Shiva when they suffer ischemic attacks are lying?

None of this is evidence of anything but the cultural framework of the people making the claims.


----------



## fjnmusic

MacGuiver said:


> Sure but Thor's a lazy god. Thats all he's got?
> 
> Perhaps if he told 3 peasant children that he'd perform a spectacular and inexplicable sign on a particular day to be witnessed by 10s of thousands of people to prove his existence I'd say his evidence is comparable.
> We also don't have any physical evidence to support Thors existence nor do we have historians that confirm his place in history. We do with Jesus.
> We don't have people claiming inexplicable healings, validated by doctors, in the name of Thor.
> We don't have people with NDE experiences reporting meeting Thor or experiencing anything that would remotely lend credibility to his story.


Wait a minute, MG. You seriously believe that story about the peasant kids and the sun standing still? Hoo boy. You've just dropped a couple notches on my respect totem. You had some decent arguments up to that point. Also I've got some really cool blueberry muffins with the Virgin Mary on them I'd like to sell you.


----------



## bryanc

Furthermore, I thought the whole point of having faith was that you don't need evidence to support your beliefs. I mean, accepting that there's an invisible man in the sky who runs the universe would take some pretty convincing evidence (certainly a lot better than some people claiming that they've seen weird things happen, but no one has ever been able to reproduce any of these claims). But the sop I've always had from theists is that "this requirement for faith is what's so great about our crazy beliefs", not that the entirely unsupported claims of miracles is actually supposed to be taken seriously as evidence for these fantastical stories.


----------



## bryanc

Here's another miracle; Jesus has returned as a dog's butt (as presented by Adam Savage)

__
Sensitive content, not recommended for those under 18
Show Content


----------



## screature

bryanc said:


> Good post. To clarify, where would you put yourself in the Venn diagram? In the blue section of the agnostic circle, or the green overlap between agnostic and atheist? I put myself in the latter (green overlap), and for the record, I've never even met anyone who would be in the yellow section of the atheist circle.
> 
> While I understand the rhetorical value of using 'agnostic', I still don't really see how someone can claim that it's a logically coherent position. *Either one has beliefs about god(s) or they don't. * If you don't, you're an atheist by definition. And if you don't have knowledge, how can you have rational beliefs? So this would make the blue set (the set of agnostics that do not overlap with theists or with atheists) irrational by definition.
> 
> I can understand how one could be an agnostic theist (you have beliefs but you aren't certain they're correct), or an agnostic atheist (you don't have knowledge so you don't have beliefs), but I don't really understand how you can be agnostic and neither theist nor atheist... I can't even logically construct what this means.


I would put myself in the blue somewhere in the lower center.

As I already quoted:



> In the popular sense, an agnostic is someone who neither believes nor disbelieves in the existence of a deity or deities, whereas a theist and an atheist believe and disbelieve, respectively.[2] In the strict sense, however, agnosticism is the view that humanity does not currently possess the requisite knowledge and/or reason to provide sufficient rational grounds to justify the belief that deities either do or do not exist.


----------



## MacGuiver

> How do you explain the miracles claimed by the adherents of other religions?


Supernatural occurrences outside my religion, even outside Christianity are not beyond the boundaries of my faith.



> Even if Jesus existed, it is in no way evidence for the existence of a supernatural God.


Agreed, though ill informed atheists often claim he's a myth and didn't even exist historically.



> Do the claims of witch doctors convince you that Voodoo works?


Same answer as first question.



> So the people who see Vishnu or Shiva when they suffer ischemic attacks are lying?


Drugs, mental illness can produce mystical effects. That said, the same would apply to people claiming visions within Christianity. The Church realizes this and is cautious in discerning these phenomena. 



> None of this is evidence of anything but the cultural framework of the people making the claims.


So say you. For many people who's thinking is not limited to lab experiments it makes a compelling case.


----------



## bryanc

screature said:


> I would put myself in the blue somewhere in the lower center.
> 
> No there is a third position that being I believe that it is not *possible* for me to know.


Thanks for being patient with me; I'm still not getting it. I agree with you that it's not possible to know; which is why I'm in the green... don't know, therefore don't have belief.


----------



## MacGuiver

fjnmusic said:


> Wait a minute, MG. You seriously believe that story about the peasant kids and the sun standing still? Hoo boy. You've just dropped a couple notches on my respect totem. You had some decent arguments up to that point. Also I've got some really cool blueberry muffins with the Virgin Mary on them I'd like to sell you.


Coming from the Pantheist pretending to be a Catholic, I'd expect no less. Keep your muffins Obi-Wan.


----------



## bryanc

MacGuiver said:


> Supernatural occurrences outside my religion, even outside Christianity are not beyond the boundaries of my faith.


Okay, so how are these anecdotal claims evidence for your faith (if "evidence for faith" even makes any sense logically, which it would seem to me it does not)?


> Agreed, though ill informed atheists often claim he's a myth and didn't even exist historically.


Whereas well informed theists and atheists agree that there are a variety of mutually contradictory historical sources of various degrees of credibility that indicated Jesus of Nazareth is likely a fictional gestalt of several social and political activists of the time.


> Drugs, mental illness can produce mystical effects. That said, the same would apply to people claiming visions within Christianity.


Again, how is it that someone taking LSD and having a vision is not evidence but someone meditating and having a vision is?


> For many people who's thinking is not limited to lab experiments it makes a compelling case.


Perhaps you should consider applying some limitations to your thinking; I suggest starting with logic.


----------



## fjnmusic

bryanc said:


> Here's another miracle; Jesus has returned as a dog's butt (as presented by Adam Savage)
> 
> __
> Sensitive content, not recommended for those under 18
> Show Content


Hey now, don't be dissin' the holy appearances. Remember the face of John the Baptist on Mars? Only it doesn't look exactly like John the Baptist because he had shaved his beard off.


----------



## screature

bryanc said:


> Thanks for being patient with me; I'm still not getting it. I agree with you that it's not possible to know; which is why I'm in the green... don't know, therefore don't have belief.


Not believing is not the same as not knowing.

Think of it like this... 3 particles one positive, one negative and one neutrally charged. Theism and atheism are the charged particles. Agnosticism is the neutrally charged particle. 

I can accept that I don't know (and most likely it is unknowable) without taking the active (charged) positions of belief or disbelief, i.e., there is a god vs. there is no god.


----------



## fjnmusic

MacGuiver said:


> Coming from the Pantheist pretending to be a Catholic, I'd expect no less. Keep your muffins Obi-Wan.


You're big on labelling people I notice. Interesting. Sort of mean-spirited too.


----------



## fjnmusic

screature said:


> Not believing is not the same as not knowing.
> 
> Think of it like this... 3 particles one positive, one negative and one neutrally charged. Theism and atheism are the charged particles. Agnosticism is the neutrally charged particle.
> 
> I can accept that I don't know (and most likely it is unknowable) without taking the active (charged) positions of belief or disbelief, i.e., there is a god vs. there is no god.


Agnosticism is the wussy particle that can't make up its mind what it is and still want to stay acquaintances with everybody. Agnosticism is an atheist with fire insurance, like Jean Paul Sartre converting on his deathbed just in case.


----------



## Macfury

fjnmusic said:


> You're big on labelling people I notice. Interesting. Sort of mean-spirited too.


Why is labeling mean-spirited if it is correct? Are you disagreeing with what was said, or merely reacting to "being labeled."

In my experience, many people feel they can't be labeled, but their opinions and behaviour patterns are generally so commonplace, they rarely warrant a new designation.


----------



## fjnmusic

Macfury said:


> Why is labeling mean-spirited if it is correct? Are you disagreeing with what was said, or merely reacting to "being labeled."
> 
> In my experience, many people feel they can't be labeled, but their opinions and behaviour patterns are generally so commonplace, they rarely warrant a new designation.


Labelling is usually a mark of insecurity by the labeller.


----------



## bryanc

screature said:


> Not believing is not the same as not knowing.


And not believing is not the same as believing not. As in "I do not believe God exists" is a very different statement than "I believe God does not exist." Both are atheists, but the former is in the green overlap with agnosticism, whereas the latter is in the yellow area which makes a positive claim about the non-existence of god. (This is the distinction between positive atheism and negative atheism from the Wiki article you quoted earlier). I have never encountered a genuine positive atheist. Many, like me, are very confident that god does not exist, but I've never met anyone who claims that they can know this for certain.



> Think of it like this... 3 particles one positive, one negative and one neutrally charged. Theism and atheism are the charged particles. Agnosticism is the neutrally charged particle.


Okay, I think where we're miscommunicating here is that I would disagree that atheism has a charge. I'd say Christianity is negative, Hindu is positive, and atheism is no charge (the analogy doesn't really work because there are lots of different religions, but only two types of charge). The point is that the absence of belief is atheism. So the absence of charge is the analogous position.


> I can accept that I don't know (and most likely it is unknowable) without taking the active (charged) positions of belief or disbelief


As can I; I think we're in complete agreement. I don't believe "there is no god", I just don't believe there is a god. It's an absence of belief; not a belief in an absence.


----------



## MacGuiver

fjnmusic said:


> You're big on labelling people I notice. Interesting. Sort of mean-spirited too.


If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, its a duck. Sorry but from your own admissions make it clear there is barely a remnant of Catholic theology in your religious understanding. What you described in your previous posts is by definition Pantheism. Sorry for hurting your feelings.


----------



## screature

fjnmusic said:


> Agnosticism is the wussy particle that can't make up its mind what it is and still want to stay acquaintances with everybody. Agnosticism is an atheist with fire insurance, like Jean Paul Sartre converting on his deathbed just in case.


Nonsense it is a reasoned position. Talk about labelling.


----------



## Macfury

fjnmusic said:


> Labelling is usually a mark of insecurity by the labeller.


I could understand that if there was no explanation attached--for example simply calling people who disagree with Global Warming theory "deniers," which implies much more than simple disagreement.


----------



## screature

bryanc said:


> And not believing is not the same as believing not. As in "I do not believe God exists" is a very different statement than "I believe God does not exist." Both are atheists, but the former is in the green overlap with agnosticism, whereas the latter is in the yellow area which makes a positive claim about the non-existence of god. (This is the distinction between positive atheism and negative atheism from the Wiki article you quoted earlier). I have never encountered a genuine positive atheist. Many, like me, are very confident that god does not exist, but I've never met anyone who claims that they can know this for certain.
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, I think where we're miscommunicating here is that I would disagree that atheism has a charge. I'd say Christianity is negative, Hindu is positive, and atheism is no charge (the analogy doesn't really work because there are lots of different religions, but only two types of charge). The point is that the absence of belief is atheism. So the absence of charge is the analogous position.
> 
> As can I; I think we're in complete agreement. I don't believe "there is no god", I just don't believe there is a god. It's an absence of belief; not a belief in an absence.


Well then it is simply a matter of in which semantic camp do you want to pitch your tent. Because atheism has those camping out with them that say definitely there is no god, I would rather camp out with the agnostics who all admit that they don't know.

EDIT: Also in my analogy of the particles Christianity could not possible be negative because it has belief, so your counter does not fit. The scale is belief, admitted ignorance and disbelief.


----------



## bryanc

screature said:


> Nonsense it is a reasoned position. Talk about labelling.


Labeling is important. Words are important. If you get the right words in the right order you can nudge the world a little bit.

This is why I've been going back and forth with you about your philosophical position and the labels we use to describe it; I think it's been worthwhile, in that even if we still differ on how we want to label our position, I think our philosophies are very similar (if not identical) and I now understand what you mean by 'agnostic' and you understand (I hope) what I mean by 'atheist.'

I also hope others who might read this will understand that atheists aren't holding a position of faith; atheism is not making the metaphysical claim that god does not exist, it is simply the absence of belief in any god(s).


----------



## screature

bryanc said:


> Labeling is important. Words are important. If you get the right words in the right order you can nudge the world a little bit.
> 
> This is why I've been going back and forth with you about your philosophical position and the labels we use to describe it; I think it's been worthwhile, in that even if we still differ on how we want to label our position, I think our philosophies are very similar (if not identical) and I now understand what you mean by 'agnostic' and you understand (I hope) what I mean by 'atheist.'
> 
> I also hope others who might read this will understand that atheists aren't holding a position of faith; atheism is not making the metaphysical claim that god does not exist, it is simply the absence of belief in any god(s).


I don't disagree I was merely pointing out fjnmusic's hypocrisy.


----------



## bryanc

screature said:


> Because atheism has those camping out with them that say definitely there is no god, I would rather camp out with the agnostics who all admit that they don't know.


Have you ever actually encountered anyone who claims to know that there definitely is no god? I haven't.

The most extreme atheist I've come across is probably Penn Jillette, who claims that not only does he not believe in the existence of god, but he does not believe anyone else actually believes in god either; he just can't imagine anyone being that irrational. But even he wouldn't claim that he has evidence that there is no god or can somehow know that supernatural entities cannot exist. He, like me, just thinks that's a silly idea. Unlike me, he apparently does not believe anyone is really that silly.


----------



## MacGuiver

bryanc said:


> Here's another miracle; Jesus has returned as a dog's butt (as presented by Adam Savage)


Wow Bryan. Posting that just destroyed the credibility of any miraculous claim. You're on fire today!
Great use of logic too by the way. A dog's butt looks like Jesus therefor all claimed images of Christ are silly like the doggies butt. Sorta like an argument you might expect from a child in a playground, not a guy with a wall full of University degrees.


----------



## screature

bryanc said:


> *Have you ever actually encountered anyone who claims to know that there definitely is no god?* I haven't.
> 
> The most extreme atheist I've come across is probably Penn Jillette, who claims that not only does he not believe in the existence of god, but he does not believe anyone else actually believes in god either; he just can't imagine anyone being that irrational. But even he wouldn't claim that he has evidence that there is no god or can somehow know that supernatural entities cannot exist. He, like me, just thinks that's a silly idea. Unlike me, he apparently does not believe anyone is really that silly.


I have in fact.


----------



## bryanc

screature said:


> I was merely pointing out fjnmusic's hypocrisy.


I think he was joking.


----------



## screature

bryanc said:


> I think he was joking.


Perhaps. With this thread it is hard to tell at times.


----------



## bryanc

screature said:


> I have in fact.


Well... it takes all kinds, I suppose. But clearly that position is no more rational than the position of the theist. I've met atheists who are not very sophisticated philosophically, and who will phrase their position poorly and get trapped in this logical bind, but never anyone who actually believed in the absence of god(s). One has to wonder how they would arrive at such a faith, given that it does not even have the merit of being socially acceptable or popular.


----------



## screature

bryanc said:


> *Well... it takes all kinds, I suppose*. But clearly that position is no more rational than the position of the theist. I've met atheists who are not very sophisticated philosophically, and who will phrase their position poorly and get trapped in this logical bind, but never anyone who actually believed in the absence of god(s). One has to wonder how they would arrive at such a faith, given that it does not even have the merit of being socially acceptable or popular.


Indeed it does. Some people have delusions of intellectual grandeur. They aren't very pleasant to be around.


----------



## fjnmusic

screature said:


> Nonsense it is a reasoned position. Talk about labelling.


Labelling a belief, not a person. Big difference.


----------



## screature

fjnmusic said:


> Labelling a belief, not a person. Big difference.


If you label the belief that a person is a believer in the difference is very small indeed it is still taken personally.


----------



## fjnmusic

MacGuiver said:


> If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, its a duck. Sorry but from your own admissions make it clear there is barely a remnant of Catholic theology in your religious understanding. What you described in your previous posts is by definition Pantheism. Sorry for hurting your feelings.


You haven'y hurt my feelings in the slightest; you simply reveal an inherent bigotry in some of the things you say to me or to others who don't share your particular belief system. You make it pretty clear that you consider yourself a superior Catholic to me, for example. You also seem to possess a very old school fear of God which I find quite puzzling if God is really an all-forgiving entity. At least as far as I'm concerned, you seem more interested in ending the discussion with a dismissive "you're not even a real Catholic" than you are with actually listening to what others have to say. Most of the Catholics that I know or teach are not so narrow-minded in their world view. And it's a shame, because I think you are a fairly intelligent person.


----------



## bryanc

MacGuiver said:


> A dog's butt looks like Jesus therefor all claimed images of Christ are silly like the doggies butt. Sorta like an argument you might expect from a child in a playground, not a guy with a wall full of University degrees.


I don't actually have any of my degrees on the wall... they're all buried in boxes somewhere; not a big fan of paper symbols. 

But to address your fundamentally flawed argument, what the dog's butt (as well as the shadows on mars that fjnmusic posted) shows is that people are very good at projecting patterns (especially faces) into images that are not actually of people's faces. This is an interesting and well-studied aspect of perceptual psychology, and it does provide more than ample explanatory power to explain many 'miraculous' appearances of saints, gods, Elvis, etc. in people's toast, lichen-covered stones, etc.

Other aspects of human psychology and various other natural phenomena offer very good explanations for every other 'miracle' that has ever been documented.


----------



## Macfury

fjnmusic said:


> You haven'y hurt my feelings in the slightest; you simply reveal an inherent bigotry in some of the things you say to me or to others who don't share your particular belief system. You make it pretty clear that you consider yourself a superior Catholic to me, for example. You also seem to possess a very old school fear of God which I find quite puzzling if God is really an all-forgiving entity. At least as far as I'm concerned, you seem more interested in ending the discussion with a dismissive "you're not even a real Catholic" than you are with actually listening to what others have to say. Most of the Catholics that I know or teach are not so narrow-minded in their world view. And it's a shame, because I think you are a fairly intelligent person.



What is the value of being an "open-minded" Catholic if it results in a set of beliefs that violates the tenets of Catholicism?

I don't get any sense that MacGuiver is afraid of God, merely that he understands the consequences of certain actions. However, God is not supposed to be all-forgiving unless there is contrition and confession of sins.


----------



## fjnmusic

screature said:


> If you label the belief that a person is a believer in the difference is very small indeed it is still taken personally.


Then I apologize to you Screature. I have just always thought Agnosticism is the word for an Atheist who is using the demo version on a trial basis but hasn't actually purchased the software yet.

For that matter, I don't think any one has to identify themselves as any thing in particular if they don't want to. I was baptized Catholic as a baby, long before I was ole enough to choose for myself. Womb to tomb, they say. It doesn't change my physiology one bit what I call myself, what political party I endorse, or what language I speak. You can be a member of several religions over your lifetime if you want, even at the same time if you want. That's what's so funny about the marketplace scene in Life of Pi. His mentors all want him to choose, but Pi decides he's quite comfortable being a Hindu, a Christian and a Muslim all at the same time. It's the people who want everything sorted into nice little containers, nicely labelled, no foods touching, linear-sequential mind sets who have a problem with that. It's why I apparently can't be both a Catholic and an Atheist at the same time.


----------



## bryanc

fjnmusic said:


> I apparently can't be both a Catholic and an Atheist at the same time.


Okay; I'll admit this one is blowing my noodle. You must have a truly epic tolerance for cognitive dissonance. Are you an electric monk?


----------



## bryanc

As a follow up to the topic of inexplicable events being evidence for the existence of God, suppose we accepted that argument. If we did so, what reason would we have for using science to try to discover the real cause of phenomena if we start out with the premise that these things have supernatural causes, which are, by definition, inaccessible to science.

What if we had accepted that diseases were caused by demons, and had not investigated the possibility of germs?
What if we had accepted that lightning was sent by the gods, and had not investigated the possibility of electricity?
What if we had accepted that God put earth at the centre of the universe and had never investigated the nature of the solar system or the cosmos?

Given that every single thing we have ever developed any meaningful understanding of has turned out to be a natural phenomena, when we encounter phenomena we don't understand, is it rational to say "oh _this_ time it must be God, so we shouldn't try to use science to explain it" or is it more reasonable to suppose that "this will probably turn out to have natural explanations as well, even if we can't currently understand it"?


----------



## fjnmusic

bryanc said:


> Okay; I'll admit this one is blowing my noodle. You must have a truly epic tolerance for cognitive dissonance. Are you an electric monk?


I'm not familiar with that particular work of literature, but I certainly enjoyed the rather sarcastic observations of human nature in Mr. Adam's four-part trilogy, and "So Long and Thanks For All The Fish" is one of my favorite book titles. I think the whole labelling of what you believe is pretty absurd in the same way you see the concept of God as rather unlikely. I say this because a person's beliefs change. One day, I'm thanking my lucky stars for my good fortune, another I'm pretty certain there is no good, other days I'm not so sure. I think we all put on masks, and I'm pretty sure most people, if they are honest with themselves, feel much the same way deep down. 

I like aspects of Catholicism--those are some pretty cool hats for example--and I like aspects of Atheism, and I like aspects of many religions and belief systems I've encountered. I don't understand why it's so important to some people that you have to make a definitive choice and stick with it. Where I would be a hypocrite is if I pretended to my children to believe everything about Catholicism and expected them to do the same. No way. That ain't me, and it ain't them. So instead we question it together and have some pretty damn good conversations. I wish I'd have had that chance when I was growing up. And my kids are some pretty nice people, so I think we're doing something right. Lapsed Catholics or not.


----------



## fjnmusic

bryanc said:


> As a follow up to the topic of inexplicable events being evidence for the existence of God, suppose we accepted that argument. If we did so, what reason would we have for using science to try to discover the real cause of phenomena if we start out with the premise that these things have supernatural causes, which are, by definition, inaccessible to science.
> 
> What if we had accepted that diseases were caused by demons, and had not investigated the possibility of germs?
> What if we had accepted that lightning was sent by the gods, and had not investigated the possibility of electricity?
> What if we had accepted that God put earth at the centre of the universe and had never investigated the nature of the solar system or the cosmos?
> 
> Given that every single thing we have ever developed any meaningful understanding of has turned out to be a natural phenomena, when we encounter phenomena we don't understand, is it rational to say "oh _this_ time it must be God, so we shouldn't try to use science to explain it" or is it more reasonable to suppose that "this will probably turn out to have natural explanations as well, even if we can't currently understand it"?


Good question. Perhaps at our roots we are all abandoned children hoping that some day sky-daddy will come back for us. All the other alien species just look at us sadly, knowing that sky-daddy, just like Godot, is not coming.


----------



## fjnmusic

Truth.


----------



## bryanc

Okay, I am now convinced that I'd really enjoy having a few beers and talking philosophy with fjnmusic.



fjnmusic said:


> I'm not familiar with that particular work of literature, but I certainly enjoyed the rather sarcastic observations of human nature in Mr. Adam's four-part trilogy, and "So Long and Thanks For All The Fish" is one of my favorite book titles.


The electric monk was a character in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency. He was a robot constructed for the purpose of believing mutually incompatible things on behalf of his owner, as the demands of everyday life were becoming overwhelming in this regard (i.e. trying to believe your politicians were honest while believing that the news of them taking kickbacks is also true).



> I think the whole labelling of what you believe is pretty absurd in the same way you see the concept of God as rather unlikely.


As I was saying to Screature, labels are important. The words we use to explain our ideas to each other are essential to meaningful conversation. So using the right words to describe your position is worth some effort.



> I say this because a person's beliefs change.


One would hope so. Unless you're religious, in which case that's _bad_ 

But that doesn't change the importance of using the right words to express your beliefs. If anything, it makes it more important. The fact that your beliefs are dynamic means that you have to be even better at articulating what you think and why, because now you also have to explain why it's changed.



> I like aspects of Catholicism--those are some pretty cool hats for example


There's no accounting for taste 



> So instead we question it together and have some pretty damn good conversations. I wish I'd have had that chance when I was growing up. And my kids are some pretty nice people, so I think we're doing something right. Lapsed Catholics or not.


:clap:

The only thing I will caution you about here is that, when you teach kids to think for themselves, they're bound to ask you some pretty uncomfortable questions, and they may come to conclusions you don't agree with. But that's as it should be, IMO.


----------



## screature

fjnmusic said:


> Then I apologize to you Screature. *I have just always thought Agnosticism is the word for an Atheist who is using the demo version on a trial basis but hasn't actually purchased the software yet.
> *
> For that matter, *I don't think any one has to identify themselves as any thing in particular if they don't want to*. I was baptized Catholic as a baby, long before I was ole enough to choose for myself. Womb to tomb, they say. It doesn't change my physiology one bit what I call myself, what political party I endorse, or what language I speak. You can be a member of several religions over your lifetime if you want, even at the same time if you want. That's what's so funny about the marketplace scene in Life of Pi. His mentors all want him to choose, but Pi decides he's quite comfortable being a Hindu, a Christian and a Muslim all at the same time. It's the people who want everything sorted into nice little containers, nicely labelled, no foods touching, linear-sequential mind sets who have a problem with that. It's why I apparently can't be both a Catholic and an Atheist at the same time.


Not in the slightest. 

Nor do I, but you can rest assured that even if you decide not to others will do it for you.


----------



## Macfury

fjnmusic said:


> Truth.


Yes. That's what I've been saying all along. Who are you trying to convince?


----------



## bryanc

Macfury said:


> Yes. That's what I've been saying all along.


_Now_ does everyone see the importance of agreeing on what words/labels mean?


----------



## Macfury

fjnmusic said:


> I like aspects of Catholicism--those are some pretty cool hats for example--and I like aspects of Atheism, and I like aspects of many religions and belief systems I've encountered. *I don't understand why it's so important to some people that you have to make a definitive choice and stick with it.* Where I would be a hypocrite is if I pretended to my children to believe everything about Catholicism and expected them to do the same. No way. That ain't me, and it ain't them. So instead we question it together and have some pretty damn good conversations. I wish I'd have had that chance when I was growing up. And my kids are some pretty nice people, so I think we're doing something right. Lapsed Catholics or not.


Pretty much everybody thinks their kids are nice, fjn. Except some of the time, when they're not...

However, the question isn't whether people care whether you maintain a certain belief. The question is whether you believe there is any unmovable truth in the religion you profess to be a part of. If you believe everything is completely malleable, then you simply aren't a Catholic, or anything else--just a free spirit. But why even worry if someone says you're not a Catholic--it would just be a label to you after all, right?


----------



## fjnmusic

screature said:


> Not in the slightest.
> 
> Nor do I, but you can rest assured that even if you decide not to others will do it for you.


So I've discovered. I've also found that some of the wisest people I've met never say exactly what they're thinking. Music is the silence between the notes. Keep a little mystery.


----------



## fjnmusic

Macfury said:


> Pretty much everybody thinks their kids are nice, fjn. Except some of the time, when they're not...
> 
> However, the question isn't whether people care whether you maintain a certain belief. The question is whether you believe there is any unmovable truth in the religion you profess to be a part of. If you believe everything is completely malleable, then you simply aren't a Catholic, or anything else--just a free spirit. But why even worry if someone says you're not a Catholic--it would just be a label to you after all, right?


Exactly. Nobody can prove what's going on inside your mind anyway. If you REALLY believe in transubstantiation for example, a basic requirement of all Catholics, then you also believe cannibalism is right. I tend toward consubstantiation myself; too morbid the other way. I suspect so go pretty much all Catholics, they just don't say it. When the creed is said, I stay silent for the lines I do not believe, like "one holy Catholic and apostolic church", for example. I see many paths. Also, I don't "profess" to anyone except myself, and I have no issue being the contradicting-duality robot that Bryan alludes to. As a teacher, I try to promote both questioning and tolerance as core values because they are things I believe in. So far so good,19 times out of 20.


----------



## bryanc

Macfury said:


> But why even worry if someone says you're not a Catholic--it would just be a label to you after all, right?


I don't want to put words in fjnmusic's mouth here, but presumably he has to continue to self-identify as a Catholic in order to keep his job. This brings up a different problem; if the Catholic school board can insist that it's employees adhere to a specific religious view, how is it that they are supported through the public tax system? Alternatively, if the Catholics get a separate school system, why don't the Protestants, or the Muslims, or the Buddhists, or the Pastafarians?

The obvious solution here is to either eliminate public funding for the Catholic school system, or to secularize it and merge it with the public system.


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> I don't want to put words in fjnmusic's mouth here, but presumably he has to continue to self-identify as a Catholic in order to keep his job.


Some people have a label for that!



bryanc said:


> if the Catholic school board can insist that it's employees adhere to a specific religious view, how is it that they are supported through the public tax system?


Because they are funded by Catholic school supporters only and because it was part of the deal that brought about Confederation. A pre-existing condition that doesn't apply to other religions.



bryanc said:


> The obvious solution here is to either eliminate public funding for the Catholic school system, or to secularize it and merge it with the public system.


Because of the above. However, I would insist that they prove they are true to their Catholic charter on a school-by-school basis or be merged into the public system.


----------



## bryanc

Macfury said:


> because it was part of the deal that brought about Confederation.


Yes, this certainly puts a wrinkle in it. One of the big problems in this sort of thing that I'm not used to thinking about is historical constraints. In science, if we made some inferences that turn out to be wrong, we change them... but legally we're bound by the stupidity of our ancestors; damn lawyers.


----------



## fjnmusic

bryanc said:


> I don't want to put words in fjnmusic's mouth here, but presumably he has to continue to self-identify as a Catholic in order to keep his job. This brings up a different problem; if the Catholic school board can insist that it's employees adhere to a specific religious view, how is it that they are supported through the public tax system? Alternatively, if the Catholics get a separate school system, why don't the Protestants, or the Muslims, or the Buddhists, or the Pastafarians?
> 
> The obvious solution here is to either eliminate public funding for the Catholic school system, or to secularize it and merge it with the public system.


It's a Catholic school, not a school for Catholics. We already enrol anyone who wishes to attend, Catholic or not. It's not a private school, even though in Alberta, there are a number of private schools of particular religious denominations, including Muslim, under the umbrella of the public school system believe it or not. In fact, one of them, the Strathcona Christian Academy in Sherwood Park, consistently ranks first in the Fraser institute Rankings each year. And they CAN turn away students below a certain GPA. The Pastafarians are still out of luck, as far as I know.

But you're right, I self-identify as Catholic because that's my job. I've also experienced five of the seven sacraments, as well as being an altar boy and a music minister in my life so far, so I'm not going to take accusations of hypocrisy too much to heart. At least I'm interested in religion and study the subject of my own volition, which is more than a lot of other self-identified Catholics I've met. 

As far as merging, well that already exists where I live. Some public/separate schools share a building, often they are two different sets of schools served by two school boards. But make no mistake; they are both publicly funded and accept all applicants unless they rare full. I have taught in both systems and see advantages to both, but I see no advantage to getting rid of the Catholic system if it is working, which it seems to do. Why throe the baby out with the bath water? Besides, it is protected by law where numbers warrant, and there are a lot of tax-paying Catholics in Alberta, CINO or not. So there's that.


----------



## screature

fjnmusic said:


> So I've discovered. I've also found that *some of the wisest people I've met never say exactly what they're thinking*. Music is the silence between the notes. Keep a little mystery.


Some of the wisest people I have ever met don't say that much at all, because they are listening and thinking, but when they do speak you sure pay attention to what they have to say.


----------



## fjnmusic

The world is now without Pope. The situation is Popeless. Help me Obi-Wan; you're my only Pope.


----------



## Aurora

Never mind. When they elect a new one, he will be surrounded by the poperazzi


----------



## fjnmusic

Aurora said:


> Never mind. When they elect a new one, he will be surrounded by the poperazzi


Now we're talking! There will be Pope after all. :clap:


----------



## SINC

Sure, we could celebrate with Popesicles.


----------



## fjnmusic

We could make predictions as to which cardinal will win the pope-ular vote.


----------



## iMouse

What have you been smoking?


----------



## Macfury

I remember when the Pope visited Toronto years ago, some enterprising fellow had created a shower product called Pope-on-a-rope.


----------



## eMacMan

iMouse said:


> What have you been smoking?


They weren't smoking, just Pontificating.


----------



## bryanc

It's good that everyone shows the pope the respect he deserves


----------



## SINC

He may be gone, but not forgotten, a new one will be back by Popeular demand.


----------



## iMouse

I wonder if they measure all the cardinals, hoping to elect one that requires less/no wardrobe adjustments.

They all seem to be portly, well-fed, just varying a little in stature.

"Pointy hat size?" "8 1/2" "Check."


----------



## fjnmusic

Macfury said:


> I remember when the Pope visited Toronto years ago, some enterprising fellow had created a shower product called Pope-on-a-rope.


Perfect for the showers. And that rope can be helpful if you accidentally drop it--not so far to bend to pick it up.


----------



## fjnmusic

Food for thought.


----------



## fjnmusic

If you have not yet seen or read Life of Pi, by Yann Martel and a film by Ang Lee, I highly recommend it. It presents religion in a very thought-provking light.


----------



## fjnmusic




----------



## iMouse

He must think he's in the Canadian Senate.



> In one of his last acts as pope, Benedict loosened the rules on the timeframe for the camerlengo to take possession of papal holdings, precisely to allow him to live out his first few months in retirement in what is an official papal residence.


Sauce.


----------



## fjnmusic

More to ponder...


----------



## bryanc

fjnmusic said:


> More to ponder...


Two points to raise in response to that very interesting little snippet: firstly, a pedantic quibble with the 220 km/s thing - with respect to what? For us to be moving at any speed, you need a frame of reference, and one of the really interesting things about the universe is that there appears to be no objective frame of reference. Secondly, I find it quite revealing that this illustration of what we know and what we don't know about the nature of the universe comes not from religion, but from science. It rather suggests that if you want to learn something meaningful about the universe, religion isn't going to provide it.


----------



## MacGuiver

fjnmusic said:


> More to ponder...
> View attachment 26629


That was awesome. Good post.


----------



## fjnmusic

bryanc said:


> Two points to raise in response to that very interesting little snippet: firstly, a pedantic quibble with the 220 km/s thing - with respect to what? For us to be moving at any speed, you need a frame of reference, and one of the really interesting things about the universe is that there appears to be no objective frame of reference. Secondly, I find it quite revealing that this illustration of what we know and what we don't know about the nature of the universe comes not from religion, but from science. It rather suggests that if you want to learn something meaningful about the universe, religion isn't going to provide it.


All the more reason I think you would enjoy Life of Pi.


----------



## fjnmusic

MacGuiver said:


> That was awesome. Good post.


Thanks MG. It reminds me of something George Harrison said once: the more I know, the more I know that I don't know.


----------



## fjnmusic




----------



## CubaMark




----------



## bryanc

This is actually a really good question; not that there's any shortage of logical paradoxes or other irrational nonsense in Christian theology, but this idea that missionaries were somehow doing 'good work' by running around the world converting heathens flies directly in the face of the apologists' argument that young children or people who lived their lives morally, but who were never exposed to the 'good news' are not judged on their lack of faith. If the Christians really wanted people to be 'saved', they'd let God communicate with us heathens in His own way, rather than risking doing a bad job proselytizing and thereby damning us to Hell.


----------



## fjnmusic

bryanc said:


> If the Christians really wanted people to be 'saved', they'd let God communicate with us heathens in His own way, rather than risking doing a bad job proselytizing and thereby damning us to Hell.


Maybe He/She is doing it through this forum.  In any event, I make no apologies for the apologists.


----------



## MacGuiver

CubaMark said:


>


Answer: Because life is better for you and everyone else around you when sin is recognized and avoided.


----------



## groovetube

Well thank goodness the christians are around to tell us all about what sin is, cause none of us would ever know.


----------



## MacGuiver

groovetube said:


> Well thank goodness the christians are around to tell us all about what sin is, cause none of us would ever know.


Sadly many don't despite the fact they've been told and choose to wallow in it, even upholding it as a moral good. Adversely affecting themselves and the society they live in.


----------



## bryanc

MacGuiver said:


> Sadly many don't despite the fact they've been told and choose to wallow in it, even upholding it as a moral good. Adversely affecting themselves and the society they live in.


I completely agree with you. Unfortunately, some people cling to ancient superstitions and the writings of bronze-age schizophrenics for moral guidance. If only we could get people to think rationally and apply the enormous intellectual progress humanity has made in philosophy, psychology, science and other fields to their thinking about how they ought to behave, we could dramatically reduce the suffering and sinful waste of human potential caused by religion.


----------



## fjnmusic

Rowr. Get out the saucers of milk. There's-a-gonna be a cat fight.


----------



## MacGuiver

bryanc said:


> I completely agree with you. Unfortunately, some people cling to ancient superstitions and the writings of bronze-age schizophrenics for moral guidance. If only we could get people to think rationally and apply the enormous intellectual progress humanity has made in philosophy, psychology, science and other fields to their thinking about how they ought to behave, we could dramatically reduce the suffering and sinful waste of human potential caused by religion.


:yawn:


----------



## fjnmusic

MacGuiver said:


> Answer: Because life is better for you and everyone else around you when sin is recognized and avoided.


Sin is defined as breaking the rules of a religion, so again, whose religion? If one does not believe in any religion, how can one commit a sin?


----------



## iMouse

fjnmusic said:


> Sin is defined as breaking the rules of a religion, so again, whose religion? If one does not believe in any religion, how can one commit a sin?


Well, some sins are civil crimes, but not the sins dealing with a given religion's peccadilloes.


----------



## MacGuiver

fjnmusic said:


> Sin is defined as breaking the rules of a religion, so again, whose religion? If one does not believe in any religion, how can one commit a sin?


Sin is defined as breaking Gods laws. From the "all paths lead to God" perspective I can understand your conundrum. As a Catholic I don't share that theology.
I can choose not to believe in the speed limit on the 401 and drive 200km/h but the fact I didn't accept the limit doesn't exempt me from the penalty due.


----------



## fjnmusic

MacGuiver said:


> Sin is defined as breaking Gods laws. From the "all paths lead to God" perspective I can understand your conundrum. As a Catholic I don't share that theology.
> I can choose not to believe in the speed limit on the 401 and drive 200km/h but the fact I didn't accept the limit doesn't exempt me from the penalty due.


Yes, fair enough. But again, you are pre-supposing that your religion would be the only correct one. If an action is a sin under one set of rules but not under a different set, whose rules prevail? The group with greater numbers or more strength? Does the victor write the history once again? 

For example, it is considered a sin to dispose of the holy eucharist by any other means than consumption if you are Catholic because it would be defiling the actual body of Jesus, whereas a protestant would view the same wafer as a symbol of Christ, not the actual Christ Himself. The old transubstantiation versus consubstantiation. Perhaps a minor detail to many people, but go visit Ireland if you think these slight differences in ideology aren't worth killing people for. So "God's laws" really is not a universal concept in application.

Which makes me wonder: if you are into counting calories meticulously, does the protestant count the eucharist as a carbohydrate while the Catholic counts it as a protein?


----------



## bryanc

fjnmusic said:


> Which makes me wonder: if you are into counting calories meticulously, does the protestant count the eucharist as a carbohydrate while the Catholic counts it as a protein?


Does this mean that Catholics can't be vegetarians?


----------



## fjnmusic

bryanc said:


> Does this mean that Catholics can't be vegetarians?


Not completely.


----------



## MacGuiver

> Yes, fair enough. But again, you are pre-supposing that your religion would be the only correct one.


Of course I do or I wouldn't be a Catholic. Same could be said for people in other religions or no religion at all. They embrace them because they believe they found what is True.



> If an action is a sin under one set of rules but not under a different set, whose rules prevail?
> The group with greater numbers or more strength? Does the victor write the history once again?


In this life it is often as you describe regarding laws, the greatest number of supporters or the ideology with the most might often set the rules. However that can be in accord or in rejection of what God will deem just in the end. Taking the life of an unborn child is legal in this life but it will not be justified in the next.




> For example, it is considered a sin to dispose of the holy eucharist by any other means than consumption if you are Catholic because it would be defiling the actual body of Jesus, whereas a protestant would view the same wafer as a symbol of Christ, not the actual Christ Himself. The old transubstantiation versus consubstantiation. Perhaps a minor detail to many people, but go visit Ireland if you think these slight differences in ideology aren't worth killing people for.


They're not killing each other in Northern Ireland over transubstantiation vs consubstantiation. They're killing each other over a tribalism that has been determined by religious affiliation. In fact its a good example of how sin ruins all that it touches. Murder, violence, greed, envy, jealously, pride and selfishness are the roots of that conflict. One need not have religion for this kind of tribalism to occur. Street gangs are at war with each other depending on what colour you're wearing. 



> So "God's laws" really is not a universal concept in application.


Certainly not in application but in the end we'll all be subject to them.



> Which makes me wonder: if you are into counting calories meticulously, does the protestant count the eucharist as a carbohydrate while the Catholic counts it as a protein?


I follow Jesus and he says the eucharist is his real body and blood. He lost a lot of followers the day he made that statement but he didn't recant. If the guy that walked on water, rose people from the dead, turned water into wine says the eucharist is his true body and blood I won't argue with him. He's obviously capable of things that defy my limited mortal understanding of things.


----------



## bryanc

MacGuiver said:


> Of course I do or I wouldn't be a Catholic. Same could be said for people in other religions or no religion at all. They embrace them because they believe they found what is True.


You think this because that's how religious people think. Atheists I know do not believe "they found what is True." We are unconvinced by the claims of people who claim to know the Truth(tm), and remain skeptical; we therefore do not have any belief in these claims of Truth, and are therefore forced to admit ignorance. From the acceptance of one's ignorance, one can begin to search for truth.

If you've been given the Truth(tm) by some priest or book (or professor, or parent), and have accepted that, you've given up actually trying to understand.



> Taking the life of an unborn child is legal in this life but it will not be justified in the next.


Says you. And on the basis of nothing but the bronze age superstitions of primitives. I'll go with the consequentalist ethics of modern ethical philosophers, and say that killing an embryo can be the lesser of two evils under some circumstances. Granted, my ethical system is not black & white, and requires thinking and difficult judgements, but I've never been afraid of having to think.



> If the guy that walked on water, rose people from the dead, turned water into wine says the eucharist is his true body and blood I won't argue with him. He's obviously capable of things that defy my limited mortal understanding of things.


Either that, or your a sucker for wild stories and guys wearing dresses and funny hats


----------



## fjnmusic

The transubstantiation part kind of means that all Catholics are cannibals. Is it possible that JC was using a metaphor rather than a simile? It is a stronger statement rhetorically to say "this is my body" as opposed to "this is like my body." He was also holding the bread (and wine) in front of him when he said this, with for me the rather obvious suggestion that these things would symbolize him but were obviously separate from him. Literalists run into so many inherent contradictions that seem so obvious to us non-literalists. They also miss all the nuance and subtlety of metaphorical language, and often miss the point entirely.


----------



## bryanc

fjnmusic said:


> The transubstantiation part kind of means that all Catholics are cannibals. Is it possible that JC was using a metaphor rather than a simile? It is a stronger statement rhetorically to say "this is my body" as opposed to "this is like my body." He was also holding the bread (and wine) in front of him when he said this, with for me the rather obvious suggestion that these things would symbolize him but were obviously separate from him. Literalists run into so many inherent contradictions that seem so obvious to us non-literalists. They also miss all the nuance and subtlety of metaphorical language, and often miss the point entirely.


Not to mention the various translations those stories have been through; imagine the fun you could have with literalists and google translate


----------



## iMouse

bryanc said:


> Not to mention the various translations those stories have been through; imagine the fun you could have with literalists and google translate


Translations? :lmao:

Some serious editing, and "alterations", have obviously gone on over the ages.

None the less, them guys wrote a good bunch of stories.


----------



## heavyall

bryanc said:


> You think this because that's how religious people think. Atheists I know do not believe "they found what is True." We are unconvinced by the claims of people who claim to know the Truth(tm), and remain skeptical; we therefore do not have any belief in these claims of Truth, and are therefore forced to admit ignorance.


That's not atheist, that's agnostic.


----------



## MacGuiver

fjnmusic said:


> The transubstantiation part kind of means that all Catholics are cannibals. Is it possible that JC was using a metaphor rather than a simile?


No he was being literal. Read John 6:32-69
Jesus lost a large number of his followers because they believed he was speaking literally about the eucharist being his actual body and blood. He didn't chase after them saying he was speaking in metaphor or try to correct their understanding of what he said. He then put the question to his disciples if they too were going to leave over this teaching. If he was speaking in metaphor this falling out would not have happened.


----------



## bryanc

heavyall said:


> That's not atheist, that's agnostic.


All rational agnostics are also atheists. Atheist means "without belief in god(s)." Agnostic means "without knowledge of god(s)." A rational agent who lacks knowledge must also refrain from formulating beliefs.

It is theoretically possible to describe the position of "positive atheism", which is the belief in the non-existence of god(s), but this is a straw-man; essentially no one actually holds this belief.

In the same way that I do not believe in invisible pink unicorns, I do not believe in god(s). But I do not believe in the absence of invisible pink unicorns any more than I believe in the non-existence of gods.

I have no knowledge of invisible pink unicorns or gods; therefore I am an agnostic. I have no beliefs in/about invisible pink unicorns or god(s); therefore I am an atheist.


----------



## fjnmusic

bryanc said:


> All rational agnostics are also atheists. Atheist means "without belief in god(s)." Agnostic means "without knowledge of god(s)." A rational agent who lacks knowledge must also refrain from formulating beliefs.
> 
> It is theoretically possible to describe the position of "positive atheism", which is the belief in the non-existence of god(s), but this is a straw-man; essentially no one actually holds this belief.
> 
> In the same way that I do not believe in invisible pink unicorns, I do not believe in god(s). But I do not believe in the absence of invisible pink unicorns any more than I believe in the non-existence of gods.
> 
> I have no knowledge of invisible pink unicorns or gods; therefore I am an agnostic. I have no beliefs in/about invisible pink unicorns or god(s); therefore I am an atheist.


If the pink unicorns are invisible, how would we even begin to surmise what color they are or are not? I see a paradox forming here, along the lines of: this sentence is not true.


----------



## fjnmusic

MacGuiver said:


> No he was being literal. Read John 6:32-69
> Jesus lost a large number of his followers because they believed he was speaking literally about the eucharist being his actual body and blood. He didn't chase after them saying he was speaking in metaphor or try to correct their understanding of what he said. He then put the question to his disciples if they too were going to leave over this teaching. If he was speaking in metaphor this falling out would not have happened.


You're right. It is a bizarre passage and a belief I am still uncomfortable with all these years later. I suspect so are most other Catholics, God's honest truth, if they really think about what this passage means. The show True Blood certainly attempts to use the wine/blood imagery and the life-giving qualities of blood to heart. And so it is with mythology, I suppose.


----------



## eMacMan

MacGuiver said:


> No he was being literal. Read John 6:32-69
> Jesus lost a large number of his followers because they believed he was speaking literally about the eucharist being his actual body and blood. He didn't chase after them saying he was speaking in metaphor or try to correct their understanding of what he said. He then put the question to his disciples if they too were going to leave over this teaching. If he was speaking in metaphor this falling out would not have happened.


Hmm the church literally promotes cannibalism.


----------



## jef

eMacMan said:


> Hmm the church literally promotes cannibalism.


Religions are silly... but in a very sad way. Especially when children are taught to believe in them.


----------



## bryanc

jef said:


> Religions are silly... but in a very sad way. Especially when children are taught to believe in them.


Yes, I find it somewhere between silly and sad when I discover that adults believe these misanthropic fairy tales are anything more than the anthropologically interesting myths of our ancestors. But teaching them to children should be considered child abuse.


----------



## iMouse

jef said:


> Religions are silly... but in a very sad way. Especially when children are taught to believe in them.


Some people have to clutch at straws, lest they collapse into sorrowful puddle on the floor.

My mind can get along very nicely, without believing in some mystery guy in the sky being responsible for all this crap.

I figure I'm doing him a favour, if anyone is out there, which they are not. 

Please do not ask me to explain the nature of the Universe, because I can't. And neither can they.


----------



## fjnmusic

Baby, it don't make no difference to me
You believe what you want to believe
- from the gospel according to Tom Petty


----------



## bryanc

Douglas Adams said:


> There is a theory which states that if ever anybody discovers exactly what the Universe is for and why it is here, it will instantly disappear and be replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable. There is another theory which states that this has already happened.


Happy Birthday Doug... we miss you.


----------



## eMacMan

So the whole conclave thing intrigues me. The alleged sexual predator from England chose not to attend, but would have been allowed to. Furthermore there would have been nothing to stop the other Cardinals from electing him Pope. 

Also in attendance and Papally eligible are at least two and perhaps more Cardinals, who are known to have protected pedophile priests and placed other children at risk by shuffling the pedophiles from place to place. 

None of these individuals is in the least danger of ex-communication. Yet if any of them were to reveal the negotiations within the Conclave, ex-communication is supposedly automatic.


----------



## screature

bryanc said:


> Yes, I find it somewhere between silly and sad when I discover that adults believe these misanthropic fairy tales are anything more than the anthropologically interesting myths of our ancestors. *But teaching them to children should be considered child abuse.*


Is this a hyperbolic sound chamber? It really seems like it is at times.


----------



## bryanc

Mark Twain said:


> The mind that becomes soiled in youth can never again be washed clean. I know this by my own experience, and to this day I cherish an unappeasable bitterness against the unfaithful guardians of my young life, who not only permitted but compelled me to read an unexpurgated Bible through before I was fifteen years old. None can do that and ever draw a clean, sweet breath again this side of the grave.


.


----------



## bryanc

Nice interview with God-All-Mighty in the Onion (warning: language).


----------



## screature

> Mark Twain
> 
> The mind that becomes soiled in youth can never again be washed clean. I know this by my own experience, and to this day I cherish an unappeasable bitterness against the unfaithful guardians of my young life, who not only permitted but compelled me to read an unexpurgated Bible through before I was fifteen years old. None can do that and ever draw a clean, sweet breath again this side of the grave.





bryanc said:


> .


Mark Twain was a good author but this statement is simply untrue. I was raised Catholic and renounced that religion at the age of sixteen. So your "period" be damned. He also didn't suggest that bringing up a child to have a "faith" was *child abuse*. 

Hyperbole in the extreme.... for Twain as well.


----------



## bryanc

There are plenty of things that we used to do to children that would now be considered child abuse. I hope, as we continue to become more enlightened and the obvious psychological harm that religions do to children become more widely recognized, we will be less accepting of the infliction of this trauma on young children. If consenting adults want to have a social club where they brain-wash each other into believing in bronze-age fairy tails, that's their business. Doing it to children is another thing altogether.


----------



## SINC

bryanc said:


> There are plenty of things that we used to do to children that would now be considered child abuse. I hope, as we continue to become more enlightened and the obvious psychological harm that religions do to children become more widely recognized, we will be less accepting of the infliction of this trauma on young children. If consenting adults want to have a social club where they brain-wash each other into believing in bronze-age fairy tails, that's their business. Doing it to children is another thing altogether.


I grow tired of this superior attitude of yours. It could be said that what you might be drumming into the head of your own child is just as dangerous if not more so.


----------



## groovetube

bryanc said:


> There are plenty of things that we used to do to children that would now be considered child abuse. I hope, as we continue to become more enlightened and the obvious psychological harm that religions do to children become more widely recognized, we will be less accepting of the infliction of this trauma on young children. If consenting adults want to have a social club where they brain-wash each other into believing in bronze-age fairy tails, that's their business. Doing it to children is another thing altogether.


I have to agree. As someone who grew up with religion shoved down my throat, I wish it could have been a little more open, and I would have liked to make my own choices later in life as to what I should believe in.

I know far too many people who have had the same negative experience. Perhaps less negative you'll burn in hellfire! crap, I'd be a little more positive about religious organizations.

Oh and the rampant hypocrisy of those who preach loudest.


----------



## screature

bryanc said:


> There are plenty of things that we used to do to children that would now be considered child abuse. I hope, as we continue to become more enlightened and the obvious psychological harm that religions do to children become more widely recognized, we will be less accepting of the infliction of this trauma on young children. If consenting adults want to have a social club where they brain-wash each other into believing in bronze-age fairy tails, that's their business. Doing it to children is another thing altogether.


That you seriously think bringing up a child within a religion constitutes child abuse is really quite astounding.

*List of religious populations*



> The CIA's World Factbook gives the world population as 7,021,836,029 (July 2012 est.) and the distribution of religions as Christian 33.39% (of which Roman Catholic 16.85%, Protestant 6.15%, Orthodox 3.96%, Anglican 1.26%), Muslim 22.74%, Hindu 13.8%, Buddhist 6.77%, Sikh 0.35%, Jewish 0.22%, Baha'i 0.11%, other religions 10.95%, *non-religious 9.66%, atheists 2.01%* (2010 est.)


So* in your opinion* 89% of the parents in the world are *"child abusers"*...

Like I said hyperbole in the *extreme*. Sorry bryanc you may think taking a few undergrad courses in general religious studies makes you an expert in religion and theology, and so you can be so dismissive of 89% of the world's population, but I don't buy into that ****e.

Thank goodness the world isn't ruled by would be *"philosopher kings"* such as yourself. Your lack of tolerance for those who think differently than you is actually quite astounding coming from someone who considers themself to be educated and rational.

So where do all the children go while their parents languish in prison for the crime of teaching their children a religion? Hmmm...?!

Oh, I know to 11% of the world's population.. but wait, do the math... that produces a 89% deficit... Oops... 

Bad public policy anyway you cut it.


----------



## fjnmusic

I agree that parents are notorious for lying to their children about what the world is really like, but this is normal. Religion is useful for teaching lessons in morality the same way Aesop's fables are. There's nothing wrong with storytelling, as the films Life Is Beautiful and Life of Pi demonstrate. Stories can help us deal with traumatic events or help us see the big picture. But we must always put the story in perspective, lest we mistake imagination for reality.


----------



## screature

fjnmusic said:


> *I agree that parents are notorious for lying to their children about what the world is really like*, but this is normal. Religion is useful for teaching lessons in morality the same way Aesop's fables are. There's nothing wrong with storytelling, as the films Life Is Beautiful and Life of Pi demonstrate. Stories can help us deal with traumatic events or help us see the big picture. But we must always put the story in perspective, lest we mistake imagination for reality.


You seem to think that parents in general know what the *world is really like* i.e. they have knowledge of the truth and choose to tell their children otherwise (BTW that is a really cynical view point of parents coming from an educator). 

I highly doubt that is the case. In my experience most parents don't lie to their children about the important things, they simply teach them what they believe to be true based on their own limited experience, education and understanding.


----------



## groovetube

fjnmusic said:


> I agree that parents are notorious for lying to their children about what the world is really like, but this is normal. Religion is useful for teaching lessons in morality the same way Aesop's fables are. There's nothing wrong with storytelling, as the films Life Is Beautiful and Life of Pi demonstrate. Stories can help us deal with traumatic events or help us see the big picture. But we must always put the story in perspective, lest we mistake imagination for reality.


Well put.


----------



## fjnmusic

screature said:


> You seem to think that parents in general know what the *world is really like* i.e. they have knowledge of the truth and choose to tell their children otherwise (BTW that is a really cynical view point of parents coming from an educator).
> 
> I highly doubt that is the case. In my experience most parents don't lie to their children about the important things, they simply teach them what they believe to be true based on their own limited experience, education and understanding.


Cynical? Hardly. Put aside your knee-jerk reaction and think about what I said. Have you seen Life Is Beautiful? It won the Academy Award for Best Picture a few years ago. In order to protect his son from the horrors which are the reality of the German concentration camp they are in, the boy's father plays a game with his son. He pretends to the boy that the concentration camp is really a fun place because he does not believe the boy is ready to handle the truth at his young age. Rather than being cruel, the father is being kind, and the boy will someday learn about the harsh realities.

This is a common theme in much of literature; the world of the imagination as a refuge from harsh reality. Sometimes it is the story that keep us sane. The final episode of M*A*S*H worked the same way, with Hawkeye inventing an alternate reality to try to cope with the reality he wasn't ready to face yet. I'm surprised that you are offended by this observation on the role of parents and protecting and educating their offspring. I certainly invented all kinds of alternate realities for my kids as they were growing up. We still talk about them today. I see it everyday and I have no problem with it, provided we remember which is the story and which is the reality. Both can be vessels for truth.


----------



## bryanc

SINC said:


> I grow tired of this superior attitude of yours.


:yawn:



> It could be said that what you might be drumming into the head of your own child is just as dangerous if not more so.


You have no idea what, if anything, I teach my kid, so if you said anything of the sort it would simply be the most egregious illustration of ignorance imaginable.


----------



## groovetube

bryanc said:


> :yawn:
> 
> 
> You have no idea what, if anything, I teach my kid, so if you said anything of the sort it would simply be the most egregious illustration of ignorance imaginable.


It's hard to imagine what teaching a kid different perspectives and learning to make their own decisions on beliefs over time systems could be anything but monstrous!


----------



## bryanc

screature said:


> That you seriously think bringing up a child within a religion constitutes child abuse is really quite astounding.


Reality is _amazing_, ain't it.


> So* in your opinion* 89% of the parents in the world are *"child abusers"*


At least that many, probably more. Of course, most are not _intentionally_ abusing their children, but they are damaging them nonetheless. My mother smoked, and I was therefore exposed to a lot of second hand smoke; at the time anyone suggesting that was bad for people, and that my mother was therefore harming her kids with her secondhand smoke would've been laughed at. Dragging your kids to church to be infected with these mental viruses and horror stories is certainly as bad as blowing smoke in their faces.


----------



## bryanc

fjnmusic said:


> I certainly invented all kinds of alternate realities for my kids as they were growing up. We still talk about them today. I see it everyday and I have no problem with it, *provided we remember which is the story and which is the reality.*


{My bold}

This is really the core point. While I would question the judgement of parents who chose to expose their kids to the horrifying stories and monstrous ethical choices of the Christian Bible at an early age, that would be a matter of debate. However, telling kids these horrible stories are _true_, and that they must believe them or horrible things will happen to them falls well within my definition of child abuse.


----------



## screature

fjnmusic said:


> Cynical? Hardly. *Put aside your knee-jerk reaction and think about what I said.* Have you seen Life Is Beautiful? It won the Academy Award for Best Picture a few years ago. In order to protect his son from the horrors which are the reality of the German concentration camp they are in, the boy's father plays a game with his son. He pretends to the boy that the concentration camp is really a fun place because he does not believe the boy is ready to handle the truth at his young age. Rather than being cruel, the father is being kind, and the boy will someday learn about the harsh realities.
> 
> This is a common theme in much of literature; the world of the imagination as a refuge from harsh reality. Sometimes it is the story that keep us sane. The final episode of M*A*S*H worked the same way, with Hawkeye inventing an alternate reality to try to cope with the reality he wasn't ready to face yet.* I'm surprised that you are offended by this observation on the role of parents and protecting and educating their offspring. I certainly invented all kinds of alternate realities for my kids as they were growing up. We still talk about them today. I see it everyday and I have no problem with it, provided we remember which is the story and which is the reality. Both can be vessels for truth.*


Knee jerk? Hardly. I thought well about what you said, despite your condescension and the dismissive (knee jerk) nature of your post I have seen the movie and know it well. Its example applies to the vast minority. It is a piece of literature/theatre/film that is what makes it art, not the lived reality of most people.

I'm not offended by myth in the least, which is fundamentally what you are talking about here, but previously you were talking about lies and myths are not lies, there is a *big* difference one is meant to educate, the other to deceive.


----------



## SINC

bryanc said:


> You have no idea what, if anything, I teach my kid, so if you said anything of the sort it would simply be the most egregious illustration of ignorance imaginable.


You've left enough clues in this thread alone for imagination by any participant here to run the gamut of possibilities. Teaching a child there is nothing based on your view of religion deprives them of making the rational decisions you aspire to. Either that or you teach your own conclusions which may or may not be correct.


----------



## fjnmusic

screature said:


> Knee jerk? Hardly. I thought well about what you said, despite your condescension and the dismissive (knee jerk) nature of your post I have seen the movie and know it well. Its example applies to the vast minority. It is a piece of literature/theatre/film that is what makes it art, not the lived reality of most people.
> 
> I'm not offended by myth in the least, which is fundamentally what you are talking about here, but previously you were talking about lies and myths are not lies, there is a *big* difference one is meant to educate, the other to deceive.


My apologies if you were offended. Perhaps I was overreacting to your castigation of me as an educator. 

My wife says you have a good point about lies and myth, and I suppose you do. Both myth and actual true stories (an oxymoron) are a way to pass on a truth about life, with myth probably involving a greater suspension of disbelief in order to work story-wise. I believe of course that all religion is myth, but unlike Bryan, I do not see this type of deception as child abuse. But there does a come a time when one must put aside childish ways, as St. Paul put it, and see reality for what it is, painful as that may be. Far from child abuse, I believe myth and story telling are a very human and necessary way of surviving in this world. It is lying in the sense that it is not being truthful (and here we might debate the possibility of someone walking on water, for example), but to my mind, if the truth if the story is worth telling, then the suspension of disbelief is a small price to pay.

Could Superman really fly or see through walls? Does it matter? We accept the archetype of Superman because we need to believe in the inherent goodness of the world at some level.


----------



## SINC

fjnmusic said:


> Could Superman really fly or see through walls? Does it matter? We accept the archetype of Superman because we need to believe in the inherent goodness of the world at some level.


Is this not the case with many, if not all religions? If one can fantasize about Superman flying, enjoy science fiction like Star Wars and Star Trek, is it really so far fetched that humans for thousands of centuries have believed in ancient stories, be they biblical or not? Heck, some here watch and enjoy zombie tales (not me) but there you go. I wonder how some atheists can enjoy one venue and scorn the other?


----------



## jef

fjnmusic said:


> Could Superman really fly or see through walls? Does it matter? We accept the archetype of Superman because we need to believe in the inherent goodness of the world at some level.


But you don't go to hell for not believing in Superman...


----------



## Macfury

jef said:


> But you don't go to hell for not believing in Superman...


Curiously, this is the first post in this thread on which everyone here--religious and non-religious alike--can agree,


----------



## groovetube

jef said:


> But you don't go to hell for not believing in Superman...


Surprisingly, there are likely people who even believe that too!

Thankfully I don't think anyone here does.


----------



## MacGuiver

My faith is no myth. Historians wrote of Christ. Only an idiot would equate his existence with superman. 
I think it would be abusive not to pass it on to my children. LIke sending your kids out to play in traffic and not even warning of the speeding cars. I've seen too many of my good secular, no religious friends children become roadkill on the highway of life because they weren't going to take any advice and live by the virtues of those bronze age mystics. 

Maybe I should let them figure out for themselves if playing on the road is dangerous. That seems to be the prevailing wisdom these days.


----------



## fjnmusic

MacGuiver said:


> My faith is no myth. Historians wrote of Christ. Only an idiot would equate his existence with superman.
> I think it would be abusive not to pass it on to my children. LIke sending your kids out to play in traffic and not even warning of the speeding cars. I've seen too many of my good secular, no religious friends children become roadkill on the highway of life because they weren't going to take any advice and live by the virtues of those bronze age mystics. Maybe I should let them figure out for themselves if playing on the road is dangerous.


If I am an idiot, I am not alone. 

Similarities Between Superman & Jesus Christ


----------



## MacGuiver

fjnmusic said:


> If I am an idiot, I am not alone.
> 
> Similarities Between Superman & Jesus Christ


Oh so Jesus is a myth based on Superman? I'm pretty sure Jesus predates him by a few years.


----------



## fjnmusic

MacGuiver said:


> Oh so Jesus is a myth based on Superman? I'm pretty sure Jesus predates him by a few years.


Uh, no MacGuiver…but I'm pretty sure that Superman is based on the same messiah archetype that Jesus is. Now make sure those kids have their Bible with them when they go out and play in traffic. I just advise mine that there are safer places to play.

Here are a number of other characters based on the same messianic archetype:

Messianic Archetype - Television Tropes & Idioms


----------



## Macfury

fjnmusic said:


> Here are a number of other characters based on the same messianic archetype:


Sure, but the existence of an archetype does not disprove something else.


----------



## MacGuiver

Macfury said:


> Sure, but the existence of an archetype does not disprove something else.


Yeah for some reason atheists seem to repeat this silly logic often. Santa, unicorns and leprechauns are fake therefore so is Jesus.


----------



## fjnmusic

Macfury said:


> Sure, but the existence of an archetype does not disprove something else.


I'm not trying to disprove anything. I believe a man named Jesus existed, but I think the things he did have been totally blown out of proportion. he has been turned into a myth, perhaps because his message and his teaching were so simple that they would have been forgotten in the footnotes of history if a whole ton of other-wordly magical powers had not also been attributed to him. Problem is, people get all wrapped up in the miracles and forget the message. Love your neighbour. Be kind to your enemies. Live a good life. My Jesus does not have to raise the dead or walk on water in order for me to abide by his message of how to live a good life.

I am a believer. In many things. They may not be exactly the same as your things, but they work for me in this life. Please be careful not to judge others if you have not walked a mile in their shoes.


----------



## Macfury

fjnmusic said:


> Problem is, people get all wrapped up in the miracles and forget the message. Love your neighbour. Be kind to your enemies. Live a good life.


I guess you didn't like the rest of his message.


----------



## MacGuiver

fjnmusic said:


> I'm not trying to disprove anything. I believe a man named Jesus existed, but I think the things he did have been totally blown out of proportion. he has been turned into a myth, perhaps because his message and his teaching were so simple that they would have been forgotten in the footnotes of history if a whole ton of other-wordly magical powers had not also been attributed to him. Problem is, people get all wrapped up in the miracles and forget the message. Love your neighbour. Be kind to your enemies. Live a good life. My Jesus does not have to raise the dead or walk on water in order for me to abide by his message of how to live a good life.
> 
> I am a believer. In many things. They may not be exactly the same as your things, but they work for me in this life. Please be careful not to judge others if you have not walked a mile in their shoes.


Jesus is either God incarnate as he claimed and therefore fully capable of the miracles he performed or he was insane and should be ignored. How do you reconcile considering yourself a follower of Jesus if you don't believe any of his claims or the miracles attributed to him?


----------



## fjnmusic

MacGuiver said:


> Jesus is either God incarnate as he claimed and therefore fully capable of the miracles he performed or he was insane and should be ignored. How do you reconcile considering yourself a follower of Jesus if you don't believe any of his claims or the miracles attributed to him?


I'd say that's a pretty shallow interpretation and one I read by Peter Kreeft many years ago. At least credit your sources.


----------



## fjnmusic

Macfury said:


> I guess you didn't like the rest of his message.


Go ahead, Macfury. Explain to me what you think the rest of his message is. I think I can sum it up while standing on one foot.


----------



## bryanc

SINC said:


> Teaching a child there is nothing based on your view of religion deprives them of making the rational decisions you aspire to. Either that or you teach your own conclusions which may or may not be correct.


I don't teach my child "there is nothing" any more than I teach him there are no invisible pink unicorns under his bed. In fact I don't teach any beliefs; I hope I provide a good example of applying rational skepticism to claims, looking for independent confirmation, setting higher standards of evidence for more extraordinary claims, looking for alternative explanations, applying logic and critical thinking, and recognizing when the data and or conceptual tools at your disposal are insufficient to draw any conclusion. These apply as much to the claims of advertisers as to those of priests, and my hope is that he will develop his own internally consistent philosophy by thinking, reading, arguing, studying and thinking some more; just as I did.


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> I don't teach my child "there is nothing" any more than I teach him there are no invisible pink unicorns under his bed. In fact I don't teach any beliefs; I hope I provide a good example of applying rational skepticism to claims, looking for independent confirmation, setting higher standards of evidence for more extraordinary claims, looking for alternative explanations, applying logic and critical thinking, and recognizing when the data and or conceptual tools at your disposal are insufficient to draw any conclusion. These apply as much to the claims of advertisers as to those of priests, and my hope is that he will develop his own internally consistent philosophy by thinking, reading, arguing, studying and thinking some more; just as I did.


What is even logically consistent about the arbitrary figure you have assigned to the number of children somebody should have--one? Your own child is the first example of the illogic you practice in daily life. What about your personal commitment to vegetarianism, which you describe as arbitrary if you feel it will lead to an embarrassing social situation? 

You still have a lot of work to do.


----------



## bryanc

fjnmusic said:


> I believe of course that all religion is myth, but unlike Bryan, I do not see this type of deception as child abuse.


I like good myths as much as the next guy; I've read many of the great mythical stories to my son at bedtimes (ranging from classical greek and norse mythology, to Lord of the Rings). What I see as detremental to a child's development is the claims that religions make about their stories being _true_. Learning to distinguish fact from fiction is hard enough, and when the adults you trust give you mixed messages, especially about stories that are the most obviously unrealistic, this can cause serious to a child's developing psychology.

As the famous Canadian psychotherapist said


Nathaniel Branden said:


> Anyone who engages in the practice of psychotherapy confronts every day the devastation wrought by the teachings of religion.


----------



## bryanc

Macfury said:


> What is even logically consistent about the arbitrary figure you have assigned to the number of children somebody should have


WTF are you on about?!? I explained our reasoning for our personal choices... it is perfectly longical. If others find that reasoning compelling, thats great. If society as a whole finds that reasoning sufficiently compelling to enforce such a demographic policy, that's perhaps a little worrisome, but so is overpopulation; I'm not sure how I'd feel about that. But I most certainly never suggested I should dictate to others how to run their reproductive lives.



> What about your personal commitment to vegetarianism, which you describe as arbitrary if you feel it will lead to an embarrassing social situation?


How is that illogical?


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> As the famous Canadian psychotherapist said


Strange bedfellows indeed. I imagine you would find Branden's ideas about the role of government appalling.


----------



## bryanc

MacGuiver said:


> Only an idiot would equate his existence with superman.


It seems there are about 1.6 million hits on the web where people have compared superman to Jesus. I can certainly see the similarities, but I'll agree they aren't that compelling. Superman is far more plausible.


----------



## bryanc

Macfury said:


> Strange bedfellows indeed. I imagine you would find Branden's ideas about the role of government appalling.


I respect his opinions within his field of expertise: psychiatry. Outside of that, he was just another guy with an opinion.


----------



## groovetube

MacGuiver said:


> Yeah for some reason atheists seem to repeat this silly logic often. Santa, unicorns and leprechauns are fake therefore so is Jesus.


Really? Now, I don;t dislike the concept of Jesus, he had a good message, and seemed to stand for noble ideas, but I don't know that there is any real evidence he actually existed any more than say santa, or superman for that matter.


----------



## iMouse

bryanc said:


> It seems there are about 1.6 million hits on the web where people have compared superman to Jesus. I can certainly see the similarities, but I'll agree they aren't that compelling. Superman is far more plausible.


So is Klaatu,

Much more plausible, given all the "miracles" that the authors of the bible have attributed to Jesus.

I have less trouble believing Jesus actually lived, just all the fiction about his conception and travels.

Perhaps in a couple of thousand years, Mother Theresa will be the Second Coming, if handled properly.


----------



## bryanc

MacGuiver said:


> Jesus is either God incarnate as he claimed and therefore fully capable of the miracles he performed or he was insane and should be ignored. How do you reconcile considering yourself a follower of Jesus if you don't believe any of his claims or the miracles attributed to him?


Just because someone is insane does not mean they should be ignored. Even a stopped clock is right twice a day. And there's a very fine line between genius and insanity.

I find the claims of miracles preformed by Jesus or anyone else ludicrous utterly unconvincing (indeed, I can't imagine any even remotely mentally competent adult would give such claims any credibility whatsoever). However, the promotion of kindness, forgiveness, generosity, valuing the community over the individual, etc. are all perfectly valid and can be derived from ethical first principles wether you believe in magic sky fairies or not.

So the fictional character of Jesus as portrayed in the bible was right about a lot of things, wrong about others, and anyone who believes he actually preformed miracles should seek psychiatric help. Not too hard if you think for yourself.


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> WTF are you on about?!? I explained our reasoning for our personal choices... it is perfectly longical. If others find that reasoning compelling, thats great. If society as a whole finds that reasoning sufficiently compelling to enforce such a demographic policy, that's perhaps a little worrisome, but so is overpopulation; I'm not sure how I'd feel about that. But I most certainly never suggested I should dictate to others how to run their reproductive lives.
> 
> 
> How is that illogical?


Neither are rooted in principle. They are convenient arrangements with a lot of wiggle room to allow you to do what you want to do when it suits you.


----------



## bryanc

Macfury said:


> Neither are rooted in principle. They are convenient arrangements with a lot of wiggle room to allow you to do what you want to do when it suits you.


Both are compromises between principle and social/biological constraints. Perfectly logical and reasonable for someone who is a rational adult rather than an inflexible ideologue.


----------



## Macfury

Flexible="Allows me to do what I want to do while pretending to live according to principle."

Your "biological constraints" aren't constraints at all and don't require you to compromise with them.


----------



## fjnmusic

bryanc said:


> Just because someone is insane does not mean they should be ignored. Even a stopped clock is right twice a day. And there's a very fine line between genius and insanity.
> 
> I find the claims of miracles preformed by Jesus or anyone else ludicrous utterly unconvincing (indeed, I can't imagine any even remotely mentally competent adult would give such claims any credibility whatsoever). However, the promotion of kindness, forgiveness, generosity, valuing the community over the individual, etc. are all perfectly valid and can be derived from ethical first principles wether you believe in magic sky fairies or not.
> 
> So the fictional character of Jesus as portrayed in the bible was right about a lot of things, wrong about others, and anyone who believes he actually preformed miracles should seek psychiatric help. Not too hard if you think for yourself.


I think that's the most spiritual response I've ever read from you, Bryan. And I enthusiastically agree with you, by the way.

Whether or not the messianic guru figured actually exists or not doesn't really seem to matter. In more recent times, there was a young man named Paul who died at 28 years of age and was magically resurrected. The man was a musician, and one of his bandmates described the band as "bigger than Jesus." Followers of this band smoked a lot of drugs, and would scour the bands album covers for clues about the man's death. Even though the man didn't really die, and the whole thing was a hoax not perpetrated by the band them selves, many people continue to believe the myth. Many people preferred the myth. Oddly, the man has lived on many years longer and is 72 years old today, and his concerts command the ticket price of several hundred dollars. Now that's a career resurrection, I'd have to say.


----------



## bryanc

Macfury said:


> Your "biological constraints" aren't constraints at all and don't require you to compromise with them.


Oh please, wise and mighty MacFury...will you teach me about biology? My decades of study, multiple post-graduate degrees in the field, and decades of independent research have obviously left me badly misinformed!


----------



## fjnmusic

bryanc said:


> Oh please, wise and mighty MacFury...will you teach me about biology? My decades of study, multiple post-graduate degrees in the field, and decades of independent research have obviously left me badly misinformed!


Do not tempt the MacFury, Bryan! His wrath is great and his empathy...not so great.


----------



## bryanc

fjnmusic said:


> I think that's the most spiritual response I've ever read from you, Bryan. And I enthusiastically agree with you, by the way.


I'll take that as a complement, in the spirit it was meant, rather than as an insult.  But in all honesty, I really would like to know what people mean when they say "spiritual"... it just seems to be a catch all term for vaguely justified beliefs about philosophical issues. 



> Even though the man didn't really die, and the whole thing was a hoax not perpetrated by the band them selves, many people continue to believe the myth. Many people preferred the myth.


James Randi describes in one of his books the fact that when he was a stage magician, sometimes he would show the audience how a particular illusion was done, but many in the audience insisted on believing it was magic, even after he'd show'd them the trick. Many people like believing in the supernatural, and this is one of the reasons I think teaching young children that obviously fabricated stories about Jesus doing miracles or Gandalf doing magic, are actually true is a very bad idea. This is a tough distinction for young kids to make, and adults shouldn't make it harder, or when those kids grow up into adults, they may still have a lot of trouble making the distinction (this is obviously a good thing from the point of view of religions, as it keeps their business going, but it's a bad thing with respect to the objective of raising mentally competent adults).


----------



## screature

bryanc said:


> Reality is _amazing_, ain't it.
> 
> *At least that many, probably more.* Of course, most are not _intentionally_ abusing their children, but they are damaging them nonetheless. My mother smoked, and I was therefore exposed to a lot of second hand smoke; at the time anyone suggesting that was bad for people, and that my mother was therefore harming her kids with her secondhand smoke would've been laughed at. Dragging your kids to church to be infected with these mental viruses and horror stories is certainly as bad as blowing smoke in their faces.


Completely ludicrous and simply belies your own extreme views on the matter.

And your viewpoint is as bad as any fundamentalist/evangelical of any faith. By saying that raising a child in faith is "child abuse" (which is a legal term by the way and not anything to do with being exposed to 2nd hand smoke, which is a trite metaphor at best) which carries legal consequences, like putting the child in the custody of the state you are not only demonizing but also saying it is criminal to raise a child in faith.

Your position is so extreme as be completely illogical and fundamentally goes against basic human rights and freedoms, not to mention our own Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, so I will not discuss this point with you further as it is futile.


----------



## bryanc

screature said:


> which is a legal term


Obviously I'm not using "child abuse" in it's current legal context. My point is that what we define as "child abuse" for legal purposes changes with the times. Parenting practices of the middle ages would clearly fall into the legal category of child abuse now, and my example of second hand smoke is meant to illustrate that this standard is still rapidly changing. Exposing a child to second hand smoke still doesn't qualify legally, but you wouldn't have any trouble finding a lot of people who think that's appalling, and that it probably should qualify. In a few years, smoking around your kids may well be deemed child abuse.

So while my personal view that indoctrinating a child with a religion causes significant harm and therefore should be considered child abuse is obviously far removed from the current norm, normative values are not constant, and that norm is moving in my direction.


----------



## screature

fjnmusic said:


> My apologies if you were offended. Perhaps I was overreacting to your castigation of me as an educator.
> 
> My wife says you have a good point about lies and myth, and I suppose you do. Both myth and actual true stories (an oxymoron) are a way to pass on a truth about life, with myth probably involving a greater suspension of disbelief in order to work story-wise. I believe of course that all religion is myth, but unlike Bryan, I do not see this type of deception as child abuse. But there does a come a time when one must put aside childish ways, as St. Paul put it, and see reality for what it is, painful as that may be. Far from child abuse, I believe myth and story telling are a very human and necessary way of surviving in this world. It is lying in the sense that it is not being truthful (and here we might debate the possibility of someone walking on water, for example), but to my mind, if the truth if the story is worth telling, then the suspension of disbelief is a small price to pay.
> 
> Could Superman really fly or see through walls? Does it matter? We accept the archetype of Superman because we need to believe in the inherent goodness of the world at some level.


I was not offended by your post and I did not castigate you as an educator I simply stated that I found your statement regarding parents to be cynical. In my books that is a simple statement of opinion and not one of severe reprimand or criticism.

As for the rest of your post I am in agreement.


----------



## bryanc

screature said:


> And your viewpoint is as bad as any fundamentalist/evangelical of any faith.


This is completely and objectively false. My positions are entirely based on reason and evidence. If you can provide compelling reason and evidence that my position is flawed, I will change it. My views are therefore the diametric opposite of those of a fundamentalist, who maintains their position adamantly in the face of opposing reason and evidence.


----------



## Dr.G.

fjnmusic said:


> Do not tempt the MacFury, Bryan! His wrath is great and his empathy...not so great.


Macfury on the Mount. However, he is a gentle person, not one given to wrath or scorn.


----------



## bryanc

screature said:


> Your position is so extreme as be completely illogical


All social progress is the result of views that were once viewed as 'extreme.' Saying my position is illogical without demonstrating any logical flaws is not a refutation. The fact you disagree or find my position offensive is neither a logical flaw, nor is it my problem.


----------



## screature

groovetube said:


> Really? Now, I don;t dislike the concept of Jesus, he had a good message, and seemed to stand for noble ideas, but I don't know that there is any real evidence he actually existed any more than say santa, or superman for that matter.


This is simply not true there is plenty of historical evidence that a man name Jesus existed. Whether or not he was the son of god is clearly up for debate but that he existed is no more up for debate than the existence of Moses or King Solomon.


----------



## iMouse

bryanc said:


> Obviously I'm not using "child abuse" in it's current legal context.


Perhaps he would prefer indoctrination, for that's what it is.

Create yet another obedient, before they are able to actually think for themselves, and you have them for life.

Perhaps.


----------



## screature

bryanc said:


> Obviously I'm not using "child abuse" in it's current legal context. My point is that what we define as "child abuse" for legal purposes changes with the times. Parenting practices of the middle ages would clearly fall into the legal category of child abuse now, and my example of second hand smoke is meant to illustrate that this standard is still rapidly changing. Exposing a child to second hand smoke still doesn't qualify legally, but you wouldn't have any trouble finding a lot of people who think that's appalling, and that it probably should qualify. *In a few years, smoking around your kids may well be deemed child abuse.
> *
> So while my personal view that indoctrinating a child with a religion causes significant harm and therefore should be considered child abuse is obviously far removed from the current norm, normative values are not constant, *and that norm is moving in my direction*.


So you can perform miracles now and foretell the future. 

Not high on your own opinion at all...

With 89% of the world's population ascribing to one religion or another I would say that humanity is moving at glacial speed in "your direction" and if it were ever to come to coincide with viewpoint, which is extremely intolerant and denies basic human rights and freedom, it will be millennia from now and hopefully never.


----------



## bryanc

screature said:


> This is simply not true there is plenty of historical evidence that a man name Jesus existed.


Lots of guys named Jesus existed; many exist today (one of my colleagues is named Jesus; he's an atheist, which makes for some good jokes). Many messianic cults existed around 30 AD, and many of the labour/political/social/religious activists were noted orators who evangelized their particular ideas in the public fora of the time. I'm not a historian, but I recently spent a couple of pleasant hours talking with a grad student in history who's quite knowledgeable about this topic, and I understand that there is very little independent historical record of the biblical Jesus (most of what was recorded about Jesus was gathered up by the church over the centuries, and we have very little confidence that what they gathered was not 'edited' or otherwise tampered with in order to better fit the narrative they're promoting). So we can't really have much confidence in the historical veracity of stories about Jesus (not that historians have much confidence about the details of much that happened that long ago).


----------



## screature

bryanc said:


> This is completely and objectively false. My positions are entirely based on reason and evidence. If you can provide compelling reason and evidence that my position is flawed, I will change it. My views are therefore the diametric opposite of those of a fundamentalist, *who maintains their position adamantly in the face of opposing reason and evidence.*


I am obviously speaking about your assertion that raising a child in faith is child abuse not about your atheism or rationalism. 

I have presented to you ample evidence as to why this position is logically wrong and goes against basic human rights and freedoms and yet you persist. That is why you're argument is IMO fundamentalist.


----------



## groovetube

screature said:


> This is simply not true there is plenty of historical evidence that a man name Jesus existed. Whether or not he was the son of god is clearly up for debate but that he existed is no more up for debate than the existence of Moses or King Solomon.


I would never say definitively that a man who's name was 'Jesus' never existed.

There could quite possibly have been a man named Jesus who proclaimed to be the son of god, and/or said some of things that was written in a book.


----------



## screature

bryanc said:


> *All social progress is the result of views that were once viewed as 'extreme.' * Saying my position is illogical without demonstrating any logical flaws is not a refutation. The fact you disagree or find my position offensive is neither a logical flaw, nor is it my problem.


Nonsense. Much social progress is made by sound democratically agreed upon public policy. Supporting a position that denies basic human rights is in my opinion illogical, I thought that should have been clear to a fellow as clever as yourself.


----------



## groovetube

History is full of the support of positions that denies basic human rights.

Bryan is right, much of social progress is about the struggle to extend basic rights to everyone.


----------



## bryanc

screature said:


> I am obviously speaking about your assertion that raising a child in faith is child abuse not about your atheism or rationalism.


Let's take the phrase "child abuse" out of it, because it seems to trigger an emotional reaction for you.

I contend that indoctrinating a child with superstitious nonsense when they're too young to have the critical thinking capacity to decide for themselves what to believe is A) harmful, in that it impairs the child's ability to discern fact from fiction, and B) and abuse of power, because the child is genetically programmed to trust its parents and 'elders' of it's tribe.

How is this not logical?


----------



## bryanc

screature said:


> Much social progress is made by sound democratically agreed upon public policy.


Only after the ideas that were once considered as 'extreme' have become mainstream and the politicians of the day adopt them in an effort to curry favour with the electorate.

Consider gay marriage. Or, if you want a more finished example, allowing women to vote. These were radical ideas that were offensive to the status quo, but they're now mainstream and politicians have been forced to adopt them.


----------



## iMouse

bryanc said:


> Or, if you want a more finished example, allowing women to vote. These were radical ideas that were offensive to the status quo, but they're now mainstream and politicians have been forced to adopt them.


Except at the Vatican and it's churches, where women are only there to serve, not to make decisions.

Now compare today's Muslims with, say, 17th Century Catholics.

Mmmmmm..


----------



## screature

groovetube said:


> History is full of the support of positions that denies basic human rights.
> 
> Bryan is right, *much of social progress* is about the struggle to extend basic rights to everyone.


He is not, he said all. What you said is correct, much is but not all.


----------



## screature

bryanc said:


> Let's take the phrase "child abuse" out of it, because it seems to trigger an emotional reaction for you.
> 
> I contend that indoctrinating a child with superstitious nonsense when they're too young to have the critical thinking capacity to decide for themselves what to believe is A) harmful, in that it impairs the child's ability to discern fact from fiction, and B) and abuse of power, because the child is genetically programmed to trust its parents and 'elders' of it's tribe.
> 
> How is this not logical?


Because it goes against the basic principles in our Charter of Rights and Freedoms and those of any civilized society. One of those basic rights and freedoms is not to be discriminated against based on religion and the the freedom to practise religion.

You wish to impede or deny that basic right and freedom. 

Not to mention in terms of public policy it is simply untenable in a world with 89% of humans adhering to one religion or another.


----------



## screature

bryanc said:


> *Only after the ideas that were once considered as 'extreme' have become mainstream and the politicians of the day adopt them in an effort to curry favour with the electorate.*
> 
> Consider gay marriage. Or, if you want a more finished example, allowing women to vote. These were radical ideas that were offensive to the status quo, but they're now mainstream and politicians have been forced to adopt them.


Not true except in the cases of "big issues" such as your examples. Much social progress occurs through incremental public policy that is not based on "big issue" issues, but nonetheless moves society forward.


----------



## SINC

Meanwhile at the Vatican . . .


----------



## screature

^^^ :clap:


----------



## bryanc

screature said:


> He is not, he said all. What you said is correct, much is but not all.


As always, I'm willing to be convinced by evidence. If you can give me an example of social progress that was not initially viewed as an extreme or otherwise outrageous position, I'll fall back from my claim of "all" to "most."


----------



## screature

bryanc said:


> As always, I'm willing to be convinced by evidence. If you can give me an example of social progress that was not initially viewed as an extreme or otherwise outrageous position, I'll fall back from my claim of "all" to "most."


Sure EI, health care, subsidized day care in Quebec and other jurisdictions,"baby bonuses", disability benefits, etc., etc. etc. Go to the HRSDC web site and most of the policies that you see there were formed incrementally and came about through decades of revision of public policy depending on the government that was in power and did not stem from a single "big issue" issue or issues that were once viewed as extreme at least in this country.

For someone who has no experience in the formation of public policy you seem to think you know a lot more about how it than you actually do.


----------



## fjnmusic

SINC said:


> Meanwhile at the Vatican . . .


It is a Popeless situation, indeed.


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> Oh please, wise and mighty MacFury...will you teach me about biology? My decades of study, multiple post-graduate degrees in the field, and decades of independent research have obviously left me badly misinformed!


Yep. One's desire to get it on, does not lead to a logical progression of having exactly one child.


----------



## Dr.G.

fjnmusic said:


> It is a Popeless situation, indeed.


Not anymore. We have a "winner".


----------



## bryanc

screature said:


> EI, health care


I don't know enough about the history of the other examples, so you'll have to expand to make your case with them, but I think unemployment insurance and universal health care fits my paradigm very well. Tommy Douglas' ideas were viewed as extremely radical at the time; so much so that the CIA was surveilling him as a potential communist sympathizer).



> most of the policies that you see there were formed incrementally and came about through decades of revision of public policy depending on the government that was in power


I don't dispute this; things start out as 'radical' or 'extreme' ideas, and gradually become more acceptable, until they are mainstream. Implementation is also usually (but not always) gradual.



> For someone who has no experience in the formation of public policy you seem to think you know a lot more about how it than you actually do.


Why the snark? I'm presenting my ideas as calmly and rationally as possible; you view them as extreme or somehow objectionable, and that's fine. Tell me why.


----------



## bryanc

Macfury said:


> One's desire to get it on, does not lead to a logical progression of having exactly one child.




Our decision to have one child was in fact the only logical choice we could make.

Axiom 1: Having a family is biologically, socially and emotionally desirable.
Axiom 2: The human population is ecologically unsustainable.

From axiom 2 we can deduce that reducing human population is desirable.
For a fertile couple to reduce the population, they must have 0 or 1 children.

From axiom 1 we can deduce that 0 children is undesirable.

Therefore 1 child is the only logical solution.

Q.E.D.


----------



## iMouse

Dr.G. said:


> Not anymore. We have a "*wiener*".


What?? :lmao:



beejacon


----------



## screature

bryanc said:


> I don't know enough about the history of the other examples, so you'll have to expand to make your case with them,* but I think unemployment insurance and universal health care fits my paradigm very well. Tommy Douglas' ideas were viewed as extremely radical *at the time; so much so that the CIA was surveilling him as a potential communist sympathizer).
> 
> I don't dispute this; things start out as 'radical' or 'extreme' ideas, and gradually become more acceptable, until they are mainstream. Implementation is also usually (but not always) gradual.
> 
> *Why the snark?* I'm presenting my ideas as calmly and rationally as possible; you view them as extreme or somehow objectionable, and that's fine. *Tell me why.*


Health Care was not not Tommy Douglas' baby alone and in fact the provinces began health care systems (as the delivery of health care falls under provincial jurisdiction) before it ever became a federal notion. Pearson brought in the Canada Health Act not Douglas federally. It was never viewed as extreme it was a very popular idea (even with John Diefenbaker) A federal program was contentious because the provinces didn't want the feds stepping on what was rightfully their jurisdiction. So your notion that it was viewed as being extreme is simply historically unfounded.

Canada Health Act

Ei or UI as it was when it first came into existence had nothing to do with Douglas at all and predated him considerably.



> The Employment and Social Insurance Act was passed in 1935 during the Great Depression by the government of R.B. Bennett as an attempted Canadian unemployment insurance program. It was, however, ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court of Canada as unemployment was judged to be an insurance matter falling under provincial responsibility. After a constitutional amendment was agreed to by the provinces, a reference to "Unemployment Insurance" was added to the matters falling under federal authority under the Constitution Act, 1867, and the first Canadian system was adopted in 1940


Unemployment Benefits Canada

It was never viewed as an extreme idea, again the contentious nature of it's implementation was a jurisdictional battle between the provinces and the feds. 

As for why TD was being investigated by the CIA as being red, who cares and it is not relevant to Health Care or EI in Canada.

You may think that your ideas calmly and rationally but as others have noted you present them in such a way that derides others who disagree with you, e.g.:



> ...So the fictional character of Jesus as portrayed in the bible was right about a lot of things, wrong about others, and anyone who believes he actually preformed miracles *should seek psychiatric help*.


By the nature of many of your posts you have expressed your desire to impose your atheistic beliefs through public policy even stating that eventually public policy will coincide with your desire to eradicate religious belief... Perhaps that is the reason for the snark.

As for telling you why I see your view as extreme, I already have a number of times. Because your views on religion are intolerant and would seek to deny the fundamental right that is written into our Charter of Rights and Freedoms (as well as many other countries), that one is not to be discriminated against based on religion and has the right and freedom to practice the religion of their choosing.... maybe the fourth time will be the charm.


----------



## fjnmusic

We are no longer Popeless. But here's some little known trivia about what all the other smoke colors at the Sistine Chapel signify.


----------



## jef

screature said:


> By the nature of many of your posts you have expressed your desire to impose your atheistic beliefs through public policy even stating that eventually public policy will coincide with your desire to eradicate religious belief... Perhaps that is the reason for the snark.
> 
> As for telling you why I see your view as extreme, I already have a number of times. Because your views on religion are intolerant and would seek to deny the fundamental right that is written into our Charter of Rights and Freedoms (as well as many other countries), that one is not to be discriminated against based on religion and has the right and freedom to practice the religion of their choosing.... maybe the fourth time will be the charm.


I think you miss the point. Bryanc's position is a position of absolute tolerance when it comes to freedom for adults to believe even in things that are silly, providing that the adult has had and taken the opportunity to assess and evaluate the reasoning for their own belief. Adults can and should deal with the consequences of their beliefs. 

However, to indoctrinate a child into one religion and shelter them from a full range of ideas and philosophies is denying 'freedom' (religious or otherwise) to that child. To scare a child with eternal damnation if they do not comply to a singular belief, is a huge problem. Freedom for an adult to practice a religion is very different from imposing one on children.


----------



## bryanc

screature said:


> By the nature of many of your posts you have expressed your desire to impose your atheistic beliefs through public policy even stating that eventually public policy will coincide with your desire to eradicate religious belief.


That's not what I said. I said that I hope and expect that public policy will eventually come around to my position that the indoctrination of children will be unacceptable. If you think that will eradicate religious beliefs, you must be saying that no one would believe in god(s) if they hadn't been indoctrinated as children. I think you're probably right; but I favour absolute religious freedom *for adults*. If you want to believe in the flying spaghetti monster, go right ahead. But don't drag children to your pasta parties and indoctrinate them into these crazy beliefs.



> Because your views on religion are intolerant


As I've said above, I'm extremely tolerant of religions... I just don't feel compelled to respect* the crazy beliefs or pretend that they are good for society. 

(*note: it's entirely possible to respect the person and their rights, without respecting any or all of their beliefs).



> that one is not to be discriminated against based on religion and has the right and freedom to practice the religion of their choosing.


As I said, I completely agree with this; everyone has the right to practise any religion or no religion, but they don't have a right not to be offended by my lack of respect for their crazy beliefs, and they don't have a right to inflict them on others (including children who have not yet developed the cognitive maturity necessary to choose for themselves what to believe).


----------



## bryanc

screature said:


> [WRT universal health care] It was never viewed as extreme


I think you'd have to go back further in time; once the politicians are seriously considering an idea, it has obviously become widely acceptable.

But you may be right; it may be that only _most_ social progress stems from ideas that are initially considered radical.


----------



## jef

bryanc said:


> I think you'd have to go back further in time; once the politicians are seriously considering an idea, it has obviously become widely acceptable.
> 
> But you may be right; it may be that only _most_ social progress stems from ideas that are initially considered radical.


It was not long ago that women were regarded as and treated as property. Society has now recognised that treating women as property is abuse. 

When it comes to religion, children are still considered property of their parents and religious indoctrination is still alive and well. Children's rights have come a long way but there is still abuse when it comes to a child's right to freedom of thought and education.


----------



## bryanc

This is why I used the second-hand smoke analogy; anyone over 40 will remember when the idea that exposing someone else (even a child) to second hand smoke was bad for them and ought not be allowed, was viewed as the position of an anti-smoker extremist. Now, it's just common sense, and I know that it can and has been used as evidence that one is not a fit parent (in an acrimonious split, in which the parents were fighting each other for custody of the child, the fact that one of them smoked around the child was listed as evidence of abuse).

While I completely accept screature's account of the recent history, I rather expect that anyone proposing that the state ought to provide universal health care for every citizen back in the 1800's would've been viewed as mad. Even in the 1950's, it was a fairly audacious idea, and even today, about half of Americans think it's the end of the world.

Screature may be right that there have been significant social advances that emerged from someone saying 'What if we tried X?' and everyone saying 'hey, that's a good idea... let's do it'... I just can't think of any examples.


----------



## MacGuiver

bryanc said:


> That's not what I said. I said that I hope and expect that public policy will eventually come around to my position that the indoctrination of children will be unacceptable. If you think that will eradicate religious beliefs, you must be saying that no one would believe in god(s) if they hadn't been indoctrinated as children. I think you're probably right; but I favour absolute religious freedom *for adults*. If you want to believe in the flying spaghetti monster, go right ahead. But don't drag children to your pasta parties and indoctrinate them into these crazy beliefs.


Translation:
You can practice whatever religion you want, as long as you don't believe that it is true.


----------



## iMouse

bryanc said:


> Screature may be right that there have been significant social advances that emerged from someone saying 'What if we tried X?' and everyone saying 'hey, that's a good idea... let's do it'... I just can't think of any examples.


There will *ALWAYS* be axes of varying sizes to be ground.

We are a long way from universal selflessness, unfortunately. :-(


----------



## screature

jef said:


> *I think you miss the point.* Bryanc's position is a position of absolute tolerance when it comes to freedom for adults to believe even in things that are silly, providing that the adult has had and taken the opportunity to assess and evaluate the reasoning for their own belief. Adults can and should deal with the consequences of their beliefs.
> 
> However, to indoctrinate a child into one religion and shelter them from a full range of ideas and philosophies is denying 'freedom' (religious or otherwise) to that child. To scare a child with eternal damnation if they do not comply to a singular belief, is a huge problem. Freedom for an adult to practice a religion is very different from imposing one on children.


I think you miss the point. To try and deny the right of parents to raise the children in their faith is to deny the rights of adults. Pure and simple. It is not up to the state to decide such matters and would be a denial of rights and freedoms.


----------



## screature

bryanc said:


> That's not what I said. I said that I hope and expect that public policy will eventually come around to my position that the indoctrination of children will be unacceptable. If you think that will eradicate religious beliefs, you must be saying that no one would believe in god(s) if they hadn't been indoctrinated as children. I think you're probably right; but I favour absolute religious freedom *for adults*. *If you want to believe in the flying spaghetti monster, go right ahead. But don't drag children to your pasta parties and indoctrinate them into these crazy beliefs.*
> 
> 
> 
> As I've said above, I'm extremely tolerant of religions... I just don't feel compelled to respect* the crazy beliefs or pretend that they are good for society.
> 
> (*note: it's entirely possible to respect the person and their rights, without respecting any or all of their beliefs).
> 
> 
> As I said, I completely agree with this; everyone has the right to practise any religion or no religion, but they don't have a right not to be offended by my lack of respect for their crazy beliefs, and they don't have a right to inflict them on others (including children who have not yet developed the cognitive maturity necessary to choose for themselves what to believe).


As I said to jef:

You miss the point. To try and deny the right of parents to raise the children in their faith is to deny the rights of adults. Pure and simple. It is not up to the state to decide such matters and would be a denial of rights and freedoms.


----------



## screature

jef said:


> It was not long ago that women were regarded as and treated as property. Society has now recognised that treating women as property is abuse.
> 
> *When it comes to religion, children are still considered property of their parents and religious indoctrination is still alive and well.* Children's rights have come a long way but there is still abuse when it comes to a child's right to freedom of thought and education.





bryanc said:


> This is why I used the second-hand smoke analogy; anyone over 40 will remember when the idea that exposing someone else (even a child) to second hand smoke was bad for them and ought not be allowed, was viewed as the position of an anti-smoker extremist. Now, it's just common sense, and I know that it can and has been used as evidence that one is not a fit parent (in an acrimonious split, in which the parents were fighting each other for custody of the child, the fact that one of them smoked around the child was listed as evidence of abuse).
> 
> While I completely accept screature's account of the recent history, I rather expect that anyone proposing that the state ought to provide universal health care for every citizen back in the 1800's would've been viewed as mad. Even in the 1950's, it was a fairly audacious idea, and even today, about half of Americans think it's the end of the world.
> 
> Screature may be right that there have been significant social advances that emerged from someone saying 'What if we tried X?' and everyone saying 'hey, that's a good idea... let's do it'... I just can't think of any examples.


This is absolutely false both in religion and civil society. Children are not "property" parents are responsible for their children and are charged with their care and upbringing until the age of majority. You show me anywhere that it is written that children are the "property" of their parents.

You and bryanc are so keen on the use of the word "indoctrination" when it comes to being raised with a faith but being raised as a Catholic until my renunciation at 16, I can tell you that there was no indoctrination. Faith was used as a moral compass more than anything else and to a certain extent also community forming.

You both seem to think that there is some religious Gestapo out there making sure that all parents who have a religion raise their children in strict and tyrannical adherence to every tenet of that faith. I can tell you it is simply not true.

Sure there are some fundamentalists out there but they are plenty of parents out there who are not. Even the religious world, which constitutes 89% of the world's population, is not all black and white, as you and bryanc seem so keen to portray it, there are multitudes of shades of grey in between. To think otherwise simply belies an extreme bias and prejudice or just pure ignorance of the diversity that exists in being raised within a faith.


----------



## fjnmusic

screature said:


> This is absolutely false both in religion and civil society. Children are not "property" parents are responsible for their children and are charged with their care and upbringing until the age of majority. You show me anywhere that it is written that children are the "property" of their parents.
> 
> You and bryanc are so keen on the use of the word "indoctrination" when it comes to being raised with a faith but being raised as a Catholic until my renunciation at 16, I can tell you that there was no indoctrination. Faith was used as a moral compass more than anything else and to a certain extent also community forming.
> 
> You both seem to think that there is some religious Gestapo out there making sure that all parents who have a religion raise their children in strict and tyrannical adherence to every tenet of that faith. I can tell you it is simply not true.
> 
> Sure there are some fundamentalists out there but they are plenty of parents out there who are not. Even the religious world, which constitutes 89% of the world's population, is not all black and white, as you and bryanc seem so keen to portray it, there are multitudes of shades of grey in between. To think otherwise simply belies an extreme bias and prejudice or just pure ignorance of the diversity that exists in being raised within a faith.


Indoctrination:
Indoctrination is the process of inculcating ideas, attitudes, cognitive strategies or a professional methodology (see doctrine). It is often distinguished from education by the fact that the indoctrinated person is expected not to question or critically examine the doctrine they have learned. As such the term may be used pejoratively, often in the context of education, political opinions, theology or religious dogma. The term is closely linked to socialization; in common discourse, indoctrination is often associated with negative connotations, while socialization refers to cultural or educational learning.

So yup, I'd have to say it absolutely is indoctrination when parents teach their religious (or political or economic etc.) beliefs to their children, especially if the children are not allowed to question or reject said beliefs. The question is whether or not parents have the right to. I say that absolutely they do. It's part of what makes the parent-child bond so special, sharing stories. However, there does come a day when you must also accept reality, like learning that the Easter Bunny and Santa Claus are mythical traditions, and probably later on that the same can be said of every religion on earth. That does not make religion any less important; it just puts it in perspective. To regard mythology as "gospel" truth into adulthood is a bit of a sign of mental imbalance. in fact, if you study the behaviour of mentally ill people, religious calling is one of the classic hallmarks. It is not necessarily always a good thing to be ultra-religious.


----------



## screature

fjnmusic said:


> Indoctrination:
> Indoctrination is the process of inculcating ideas, attitudes, cognitive strategies or a professional methodology (see doctrine). It is often distinguished from education by the fact that the indoctrinated person is expected not to question or critically examine the doctrine they have learned. As such the term may be used pejoratively, often in the context of education, political opinions, theology or religious dogma. The term is closely linked to socialization; in common discourse, indoctrination is often associated with negative connotations, while socialization refers to cultural or educational learning.
> 
> *So yup, I'd have to say it absolutely is indoctrination when parents teach their religious (or political or economic etc.) beliefs to their children, especially if the children are not allowed to question or reject said beliefs.* The question is whether or not parents have the right to. I say that absolutely they do. It's part of what makes the parent-child bond so special, sharing stories. However, there does come a day when you must also accept reality, like learning that the Easter Bunny and Santa Claus are mythical traditions, and probably later on that the same can be said of every religion on earth. That does not make religion any less important; it just puts it in perspective. To regard mythology as "gospel" truth into adulthood is a bit of a sign of mental imbalance. in fact, if you study the behaviour of mentally ill people, religious calling is one of the classic hallmarks. It is not necessarily always a good thing to be ultra-religious.


If, they aren't allowed to question. We were in our family and many children are (at least many of the kids I knew) so again it depends and not all parents of faith indoctrinate their kids. In our family it was much more about socialization and moral behaviour than anything else as I stated previously.

Also as I previously stated I renounced my faith at 16 and was not disowned or chastised for doing so, so again not all parents of faith indoctrinate their kids by any means.


----------



## eMacMan

The new Pope is officially Pope Francis. We can only hope that he lives up to the name he has chosen.


----------



## bryanc

MacGuiver said:


> Translation:
> You can practice whatever religion you want, as long as you don't believe that it is true.


Your translator is broken. Try one that speaks English.

I said that any adult is free to believe what they want, as long as they don't inflict it on others. That includes children.

Let's try the example of the seventh day adventists who refuse to allow their child to receive medically necessary blood transfusions. Should they be free to 'raise their children in their faith' even if it means killing the kid? I'm absolutely fine with an adult saying "I'm a seventh day adventist; I would rather die than receive a blood transfusion." It's their funeral, and absolutely none of my business. But the child is too young to be able to choose what to believe, and the crazy beliefs of her parents are what is killing her; that strikes me as unjust.


----------



## Dr.G.

eMacMan said:


> The new Pope is officially Pope Francis. We can only hope that he lives up to the name he has chosen.


Amen, brother Bob. We shall see.


----------



## groovetube

bryanc said:


> Your translator is broken. Try one that speaks English.
> 
> I said that any adult is free to believe what they want, as long as they don't inflict it on others. That includes children.
> 
> Let's try the example of the seventh day adventists who refuse to allow their child to receive medically necessary blood transfusions. Should they be free to 'raise their children in their faith' even if it means killing the kid? I'm absolutely fine with an adult saying "I'm a seventh day adventist; I would rather die than receive a blood transfusion." It's their funeral, and absolutely none of my business. But the child is too young to be able to choose what to believe, and the crazy beliefs of her parents are what is killing her; that strikes me as unjust.


Agreed.

I think though some are getting confused by this indoctrination thing. I don't see anything wrong with teaching your child your faith. But it's the forcing, the fear tactics etc. that I have a problem with.

There's a large difference between the two.


----------



## screature

groovetube said:


> Agreed.
> 
> I think though some are getting confused by this indoctrination thing. I don't see anything wrong with teaching your child your faith. *But it's the forcing, the fear tactics etc. that I have a problem with*.
> 
> *There's a large difference between the two.*


Agreed but such forcing and fear tactics is far from how all parents of faith bring up their children within their faith. 

I am quite sure that some parents do but when I was growing up under Catholicism (as I have stated) there was no forcing and fear tactics in our family and I didn't know anyone else for whom it was the case either.


----------



## groovetube

I think many people's experience greatly differs. I know mine certainly did. And we hear a lot about the fear factor, and it certainly is not rare.

But to fair My opinion, wasn't meant to paint all parents who teach their children religion with the same brush.


----------



## MacGuiver

bryanc said:


> Your translator is broken. Try one that speaks English.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I said that any adult is free to believe what they want, as long as they don't inflict it on others. That includes children.
> 
> 
> 
> I understood exactly what you were saying. Here is the problem. You may not think my religion is important because you don't believe it but I DO. It would be abusive in my opinion to deny my kids religious instruction when Heaven and Hell and their very happiness on earth are in the balance. Like letting the kids play in traffic hoping they'll learn on their own to watch for cars.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let's try the example of the seventh day adventists who refuse to allow their child to receive medically necessary blood transfusions. Should they be free to 'raise their children in their faith' even if it means killing the kid?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Good example. I'd have to agree declining the blood transfusion would be an abuse in that case. Should parents be free to force their kids to school with the very real risk of abuse upon them at the hands of teachers and other students?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm absolutely fine with an adult saying "I'm a seventh day adventist; I would rather die than receive a blood transfusion." It's their funeral, and absolutely none of my business. But the child is too young to be able to choose what to believe, and the crazy beliefs of her parents are what is killing her; that strikes me as unjust.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I feel the same with the abortion debate. The crazy beliefs of a parent or a legal system that their unborn child is expendable for any reason up to delivery is unjust since the child isn't given a choice to live or die. Millions are sentenced to death each year because of this crazy belief.
Click to expand...


----------



## groovetube

Except they are not children they are fetuses.

Sorry.


----------



## fjnmusic

groovetube said:


> Except they are not children they are fetuses.
> 
> Sorry.


Technically you are on overgrown fetus. You are ultimately just a collection of cells if you think about it.


----------



## iMouse

fjnmusic said:


> Technically you are on overgrown fetus. You are ultimately just a collection of cells if you think about it.


No, and yes, but that's being overly simplistic. 

A fœtus requires a host to survive, Tim does is all on his own.

More's the wonder. :lmao:


----------



## jef

MacGuiver said:


> bryanc said:
> 
> 
> 
> I understood exactly what you were saying. Here is the problem. You may not think my religion is important because you don't believe it but I DO. It would be abusive in my opinion to deny my kids religious instruction when Heaven and Hell and their very happiness on earth are in the balance. Like letting the kids play in traffic hoping they'll learn on their own to watch for cars.
> 
> 
> 
> You don't need to deny them religious teaching as long as they are also allowed exposure to alternate viewpoints and to question their religious instruction. Kids are pretty good at figuring things out for themselves when given the chance.
Click to expand...


----------



## fjnmusic

iMouse said:


> No, and yes, but that's being overly simplistic.
> 
> A fœtus requires a host to survive, Tim does is all on his own.
> 
> More's the wonder. :lmao:


Yes, on the surface it seems silly. However, I have heard the "it's just a collection of cells" argument many times to rationalize abortion. I, however, believe that life begins at conception, if not sooner, and sometimes it is necessary to end that life. Nature does it automatically—one out of five pregnancies ends in miscarriage for example. Sometimes babies/fetuses even die in childbirth from strangling on the umbilical cord. It is tragic ehn this happens, particularly for the parents and the rest of the family. However, in many cases, the body's rejection of the fetus at the early stages is what is best for both the mother and the fetus, if the fetus had something wrong with it. It seems cruel to us, but that is based on our own human naive point of view. Nature (or God, if you prefer) can seem extremely cruel at times.

When we choose to end a life of a fetus is a much thornier issue, especially if that fetus would have grown into a healthy baby. We do not define it as murder, because apparently you have to be able to breathe on your own before you are considered human, and murder is a term limited only to human beings. I do not accept the dividing line theory very easily myself, since I know that I have been in existence since conception, through the fetus phase, and then for the past 47 years as a human being on this planet. There was no change in me; only the label that is given. It is also sometimes necessary to end a life, fetal, human or otherwise, which is a whole other story. That's the way this collection of cells sees it anyway.


----------



## screature

jef said:


> *
> You don't need to deny them religious teaching as long as they are also allowed exposure to alternate viewpoints and to question their religious instruction. Kids are pretty good at figuring things out for themselves when given the chance.*


Bingo! 

That is my experience exactly. I was raised in Catholicism and what I learned in a Catholic high school, mostly science and history but also literature, led me to renounce my religion at the age of 16. 

Lived experience is a diverse thing indeed.


----------



## MacGuiver

fjnmusic said:


> Yes, on the surface it seems silly. However, I have heard the "it's just a collection of cells" argument many times to rationalize abortion. I, however, believe that life begins at conception, if not sooner, and sometimes it is necessary to end that life. Nature does it automatically—one out of five pregnancies ends in miscarriage for example. Sometimes babies/fetuses even die in childbirth from strangling on the umbilical cord. It is tragic ehn this happens, particularly for the parents and the rest of the family. However, in many cases, the body's rejection of the fetus at the early stages is what is best for both the mother and the fetus, if the fetus had something wrong with it. It seems cruel to us, but that is based on our own human naive point of view. Nature (or God, if you prefer) can seem extremely cruel at times.
> 
> When we choose to end a life of a fetus is a much thornier issue, especially if that fetus would have grown into a healthy baby. We do not define it as murder, because apparently you have to be able to breathe on your own before you are considered human, and murder is a term limited only to human beings. I do not accept the dividing line theory very easily myself, since I know that I have been in existence since conception, through the fetus phase, and then for the past 47 years as a human being on this planet. There was no change in me; only the label that is given. It is also sometimes necessary to end a life, fetal, human or otherwise, which is a whole other story. That's the way this collection of cells sees it anyway.


Good post fjn


----------



## iMouse

MacGuiver said:


> Good post fjn


Yes, it was. :clap: Seriously.

Still, that represents his own personal feelings on the matter. That would stand him in good stead, were an "issue" arise in his personal life.

But the subject is not allowed to be approached at a personal level, by those opposed to pregnancy cessation. (Nice, eh?)

"Every sperm is sacred" is dying a slow, lingering death, thanks to some religions.

As a man, I feel that it is the woman's choice. At least until men can start carrying embryos, for delivery by Caesarian Section.


----------



## fjnmusic

iMouse said:


> Yes, it was. :clap: Seriously.
> 
> Still, that represents his own personal feelings on the matter. That would stand him in good stead, were an "issue" arise in his personal life.
> 
> But the subject is not allowed to be approached at a personal level, by those opposed to pregnancy cessation. (Nice, eh?)
> 
> "Every sperm is sacred" is dying a slow, lingering death, thanks to some religions.
> 
> As a man, I feel that it is the woman's choice. At least until men can start carrying embryos, for delivery by Caesarian Section.


It is always the woman's choice, or at least it should be. Sometimes the choice is death, but just like children of religious people, the chooser needs to be fully aware of what they are choosing. There are no easy answers to the subject of abortion or any unexpected death of a fetus. Reality can be very difficult to cope with, and what we need more of in this world is empathy and forgiveness, not judgment and moral superiority.


----------



## MacGuiver

fjnmusic said:


> It is always the woman's choice, or at least it should be. Sometimes the choice is death, but just like children of religious people, the chooser needs to be fully aware of what they are choosing. There are no easy answers to the subject of abortion or any unexpected death of a fetus. Reality can be very difficult to cope with, and what we need more of in this world is empathy and forgiveness, not judgment and moral superiority.


I figured you'd accept abortion but you made good reasoned arguments outside of a religious framework as to why its ethically questionable. I still say if I were an atheist I'd be prolife just on what we know scientifically about human development even in its earliest stages.


----------



## screature

fjnmusic said:


> it is always the woman's choice, or at least it should be. Sometimes the choice is death, but just like children of religious people, the chooser needs to be fully aware of what they are choosing. *there are no easy answers to the subject of abortion or any unexpected death of a fetus. Reality can be very difficult to cope with, and what we need more of in this world is empathy and forgiveness, not judgment and moral superiority*.


+1


----------



## bryanc

I recognize that this is a very touchy and emotional subject, and I want to say to start that I really do respect your views on this (as long as you don't enforce them on others). So take this in the spirt of genuine inquiry, not as a personal attack.


fjnmusic said:


> I, however, believe that life begins at conception


I really can't understand how anyone with any understanding of biology can take this view. The oocyte is alive before fertilization, the sperm is alive before fertilization, the zygote is alive after fertilization, so how does life 'begin' somewhere in the process of fertilization? Furthermore, once fertilized, the zygotic genome isn't doing anything; essentially all of early development is maternally specified by mRNAs stored in the oocyte... DNA is just getting replicated and distributed among the blastomeres of the early embryo. In fact, if you enucleate an early zygote, it will continue to develop normally for quite sometime.

So this notion that there is something magical occurring at fertilization is just not supported by any facts.



> We do not define it as murder, because apparently you have to be able to breathe on your own before you are considered human, and murder is a term limited only to human beings.


The key difference is the biological ability to live independently of a host metabolism. Mammalian embryos are very effective parasites of the maternal host; fortunately in most cases they are welcome guests in the mother's body. But if that is not the case, their right to life is obviously trumped by the mother's sovereignty over her own body. Once the baby is born and it is no longer dependant on the mother's metabolism, it is possible to have that individual cared for by other people, so if the mother doesn't want it, it is no longer a death sentence.


> I do not accept the dividing line theory very easily myself


I agree that we should always be skeptical of 'dividing lines.' It's very rare in real life that anything occurs in a truly binary fashion (except possibly at the quantum mechanical level). Unfortunately, our legal system is not nearly so flexible, so we are often forced to draw lines; at 18 you're an adult with adult responsibilities... plenty of people are probably sufficiently mature to be treated as adults before they're 18, and many more are not (some, it seems never reach that level of maturity). But we have to have a line, so we've set it at 18, as that was viewed as the best compromise (I think it's useful to re-examine these sorts of things with some regularity, BTW). In the case of where we draw the line at giving an individual legal protection, the criterion of existing independently of another's metabolism seems a reasonable compromise.


> ... since I know that I have been in existence since conception, through the fetus phase, and then for the past 47 years as a human being on this planet.There was no change in me


Really? You don't think you've changed since you were a zygote? Do you have a functioning digestive system, nervous system, skeletal system, endocrine system, circulatory system, etc? Because you didn't when you were a zygote. Can you walk, read, speak, ride a bicycle, drive a car, etc? Because you couldn't when you were an infant. Are your beliefs about politics, economics, philosophy unchanged from when you were 20? Because if they are, you're doing it wrong.


----------



## groovetube

GOP Senator Embraces Gay Marriage After His Son Comes Out | ThinkProgress

It's amazing how one can be so hostile on an issue because of one's own religious beliefs, until it hits home how such beliefs and the enforcement of it on many others can actually hurt people.


----------



## bryanc

Yes, the gay marriage thing is another example of something that was initially considered radical and extreme that is rapidly becoming mainstream. The only people resisting this are the dinosaurs who can't adapt to new ideas.


----------



## iMouse

Up until the cold reality hits home, that it is NOT a choice made by the person.

You could go the old route, and cast them out, or the new, and embrace them.


----------



## groovetube

Vatican lashes out at 'dirty war' accusations against Pope - World - CBC News

Oh my those satanic left wing forces!

Speaking of demonic left wing forces, this blog entry has some interesting reading: Pope Francis and his Church in Argentina - Dawg's Blawg (Blog)

I know it's popular to howl about such a blog, but the post is an interesting bit.


----------



## fjnmusic

bryanc said:


> I recognize that this is a very touchy and emotional subject, and I want to say to start that I really do respect your views on this (as long as you don't enforce them on others). So take this in the spirt of genuine inquiry, not as a personal attack.
> 
> I really can't understand how anyone with any understanding of biology can take this view. The oocyte is alive before fertilization, the sperm is alive before fertilization, the zygote is alive after fertilization, so how does life 'begin' somewhere in the process of fertilization? Furthermore, once fertilized, the zygotic genome isn't doing anything; essentially all of early development is maternally specified by mRNAs stored in the oocyte... DNA is just getting replicated and distributed among the blastomeres of the early embryo. In fact, if you enucleate an early zygote, it will continue to develop normally for quite sometime.
> 
> So this notion that there is something magical occurring at fertilization is just not supported by any facts.
> 
> 
> 
> The key difference is the biological ability to live independently of a host metabolism. Mammalian embryos are very effective parasites of the maternal host; fortunately in most cases they are welcome guests in the mother's body. But if that is not the case, their right to life is obviously trumped by the mother's sovereignty over her own body. Once the baby is born and it is no longer dependant on the mother's metabolism, it is possible to have that individual cared for by other people, so if the mother doesn't want it, it is no longer a death sentence.
> 
> I agree that we should always be skeptical of 'dividing lines.' It's very rare in real life that anything occurs in a truly binary fashion (except possibly at the quantum mechanical level). Unfortunately, our legal system is not nearly so flexible, so we are often forced to draw lines; at 18 you're an adult with adult responsibilities... plenty of people are probably sufficiently mature to be treated as adults before they're 18, and many more are not (some, it seems never reach that level of maturity). But we have to have a line, so we've set it at 18, as that was viewed as the best compromise (I think it's useful to re-examine these sorts of things with some regularity, BTW). In the case of where we draw the line at giving an individual legal protection, the criterion of existing independently of another's metabolism seems a reasonable compromise.
> 
> Really? You don't think you've changed since you were a zygote? Do you have a functioning digestive system, nervous system, skeletal system, endocrine system, circulatory system, etc? Because you didn't when you were a zygote. Can you walk, read, speak, ride a bicycle, drive a car, etc? Because you couldn't when you were an infant. Are your beliefs about politics, economics, philosophy unchanged from when you were 20? Because if they are, you're doing it wrong.


I appreciate the thoughtfulness in your response, Bryan, and the lesson in zygote biology is fascinating. When I stated that I believe life begins at conception, if not earlier, I was inferring that life may very well begin before that moment, or even possibly we have always been alive and just didn't know it. or don't remember it. But I am also talking about consciousness, a term I know you've questioned before, since consciousness is more a philosophical concept than a scientific one. I think if it as the ghost in the machine.

Certainly my body has changed since I was a child, a fetus, a zygote, an egg or sperm cell, but my consciousness has been with me the whole time. All of the cells in my body are replaced every so many months, but I am the same person and I can remember my past. This is the part I am referring to.

I also came across a book description that looks like it would be if interest to people who like to dabble in both religion and science, about how Mr, g decided to create the universe one day... 
http://www.everydayebook.com/2012/03/mr-g-by-alan-lightman-a-creative-creation-myth/


----------



## i-rui

fjnmusic said:


> Certainly my body has changed since I was a child, a fetus, a zygote, an egg or sperm cell, but my consciousness has been with me the whole time. All of the cells in my body are replaced every so many months, but I am the same person and I can remember my past. This is the part I am referring to.


I highly doubt you remember anything from being a sperm, egg, zygote, fetus.....even memories from being an infant are rare.


----------



## bryanc

fjnmusic said:


> When I stated that I believe life begins at conception, if not earlier, I was inferring that life may very well begin before that moment, or even possibly we have always been alive and just didn't know it. or don't remember it. But I am also talking about consciousness, a term I know you've questioned before, since consciousness is more a philosophical concept than a scientific one. I think if it as the ghost in the machine.


Okay, I think I understand better what you're getting at now. But if you're saying that your consciousness began when the zygote you developed from was formed by the fusion of a living ovum with a living spermatozoa, that also seems difficult to believe as well (although, as you correctly observe, since we don't really know what consciousness is, you position is no longer scientifically falsifiable).

Given that manipulations of the nervous system have direct effects on our conscious experience, and nothing without a functioning nervous system displays any of the attributes of consciousness, it is reasonable and parsimonious to assume that a functioning (and indeed highly developed) central nervous system is necessary for consciousness. I take this a step further and contend that consciousness is an emergent property of the activity of the brain, but I won't hold you to my strict materialist explanations.

At any rate, if we accept that a functioning brain is necessary for consciousness, then you could not have been conscious before you had undergone nerulation, and then the anterior lobes of your neural tube underwent several months of complex development to form a functioning brain. I.e., although you would've developed rudimentary stimulus-responce circuitry earlier, you could not have been conscious until fairly late in gestation at the very earliest.

I suspect what you're getting at here is the idea of a "soul." If you posit that a zygote has a soul, and that this was lacking in the egg and sperm, you can construct a logical argument that the zygote has ethical value that neither the egg nor sperm had. Unfortunately, there isn't a shred of evidence for the existence of souls, nor dose proposing their existence provide any explanatory power with respect to any observable phenomenon. So this is probably where we part company; I don't have a soul, so I can't imagine what you're talking about.


----------



## bryanc

i-rui said:


> even memories from being an infant are rare.


Our brains are highly plastic during early childhood; indeed, while one may maintain some memories from their early experiences, it is quite fair to say that we are not the same people as we were as young children.

The rate of change in most people dramatically slows after adolescence, but one would hope that we all continue to progress in our psychological development throughout our lives. This really is a bit of a problem for the concept of a 'self', not to mention 'justice.'... if you're continuously changing throughout your life, to what extent are you the same person from one day to the next, and to what extent are you responsible for the actions 'you' chose when you were younger? Again, I see this as a spectrum. I'm clearly responsible for the choices I made yesterday, but less so for the choices I made 20 years ago (although I obviously must live with their consequences). I'm clearly not responsible for the choices "I" made as a young child, and we don't hold people responsible for those choices for that reason.

fjnmusic's point that the cells and structural proteins making up your body are continuously turning over (although the rate at which this occurs is dramatically different for different cell types and various ECM components), so you aren't really even made of the same stuff "you" were made of when you were younger. So how is it you can have memories from decades ago, if all the material you were made of has been replaced? Clearly the memories are not made of material, but of patterns of synaptic connections; as long as the patterns are maintained, the memory (or other personality traits) will persist even if the cells and proteins participating in the molecular interactions that comprise those patterns have changed.

If you're interested in this idea, look up the Ship of Theseus. It's something philosophy students have been talking about for literally millennia.


----------



## i-rui

bryanc said:


> fjnmusic's point that the cells and structural proteins making up your body are continuously turning over (although the rate at which this occurs is dramatically different for different cell types and various ECM components), so you aren't really even made of the same stuff "you" were made of when you were younger. So how is it you can have memories from decades ago, if all the material you were made of has been replaced? Clearly the memories are not made of material, but of patterns of synaptic connections; as long as the patterns are maintained, the memory (or other personality traits) will persist even if the cells and proteins participating in the molecular interactions that comprise those patterns have changed.


yes, but my point was we DON'T have memories from being a sperm, egg, fetus..... so by a reasonable definition there isn't a conscious at those points in time. He may have been alive, but there was no tangible consciousness....at least none that was carried over.


----------



## bryanc

i-rui said:


> yes, but my point was we DON'T have memories from being a sperm, egg, fetus..... so by a reasonable definition there isn't a conscious at those points in time. He may have been alive, but there was no tangible consciousness....at least none that was carried over.


Consciousness does not necessarily require or imply the existence of a functional memory system. Theoretically an early embryo could be 'conscious' but not forming memories. But that could only be the case if a functioning brain was not required for consciousness, which strikes me as highly implausible.


----------



## fjnmusic

bryanc said:


> Consciousness does not necessarily require or imply the existence of a functional memory system. Theoretically an early embryo could be 'conscious' but not forming memories. But that could only be the case if a functioning brain was not required for consciousness, which strikes me as highly implausible.


Is a jellyfish conscious? Is it alive? How about a person in a consistent vegetative state? How about a person who was thought to be brain dead who "miraculously" wakes from a coma? I think that life is what it is, but our definitions may be lacking.


----------



## bryanc

fjnmusic said:


> Is a jellyfish conscious? Is it alive?


Since we don't really know what consciousness is, I can't say for certain, but I think it's highly unlikely that a cnidarian nervous system supports any kind of consciousness. But it is most certainly alive.



> How about a person in a consistent vegetative state?


Not conscious; alive.



> How about a person who was thought to be brain dead who "miraculously" wakes from a coma?


Not conscious (until they woke up), but definitely alive.



> I think that life is what it is, but our definitions may be lacking.


I think that if we think about our definitions and use words carefully, we can have a productive and enjoyable discussion, even if we disagree.

It seems likely that we agree that it's not "life" per se, that is the primary sticking point regarding abortion, but rather consciousness.

I certainly agree that self-awareness/sentience/consciousness are essential characteristics of the ethical agent, and therefore without these things, while killing something may be ethically undesirable, it's not murder.

It follows from this that killing animals that may have self-awareness (dogs, cats, monkeys, dolphins, etc.) is also ethically problematic. And this fits with my intuitive ethical sense that unnecessary cruelty or killing of animals is morally wrong. So it's all internally consistent so far.

So how do we apply this to human embryos? Well, if they haven't developed a functional brain, they have no ethical agency, so the only ethical cost of killing them is the loss of whatever potential they have (which, for a healthy human, is pretty damned significant). At any rate, it's obvious that the earlier in a pregnancy an abortion is preformed the less ethically costly it will be. So if someone's going to abort, they should do it as early as possible.


----------



## fjnmusic

Well, it's the same way we all started out isn't it? To play devil's advocate, ever notice how it's only people who are already born that support abortion? 

Yes, it is sometimes necessary, and one in five pregnancies miscarry on their own, but it should still be an avenue of last resort, not a means of birth control, in my opinion. Here is what a human fetus looks like at 10 weeks, before the end of the first trimester, when most abortions are performed, and while Quasimodo-ish, still clearly a human fetus. Can it feel? Is it conscious? Does it matter? It is clearly alive and, Great Spirit willing, will grown into a healthy bouncing boy or girl. 

http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/medical/IM04611


----------



## bryanc

fjnmusic said:


> ever notice how it's only people who are already born that support abortion?


:lmao:
I'm glad you're able to discuss this without loosing your sense of humour.



> Yes, it is sometimes necessary, and one in five pregnancies miscarry on their own, but it should still be an avenue of last resort, not a means of birth control, in my opinion.


I completely agree.


> Here is what a human fetus looks like at 10 weeks, before the end of the first trimester, when most abortions are performed, and while Quasimodo-ish, still clearly a human fetus.


Don't fall victim to emotional responses to what something looks like. As a developmental biologist, and having worked extensively in the area of neural development, I know what's going on in that little head; while it's quite amazing at a cellular and biochemical level, it is almost certainly not anything like what goes on in the brain of a functional human infant, let alone fully self-aware child. At this stage, the neuroblasts are still proliferating like crazy, and only the most primitive synaptic circuits (autonomic stuff) are getting established.



> Can it feel?


It can feel in the sense of having primitive spinal reflexes, so it can respond to touch... but so can a jellyfish. The parts of the brain required for cognition and emotional responses, or even simple things like pain haven't developed yet.


> Is it conscious?


I seriously doubt it, but this is unprovable.


> Does it matter?


It does to an extent; the mother's sovereignty over her body still trumps any rights of the embryo or fetus, even if it were a fully formed and conscious individual, but the ethical cost of an abortion is obviously lower if the embryo is terminated before it develops a complex nervous system capable of experiencing pain or fear.


----------



## fjnmusic

bryanc said:


> :lmao:
> I'm glad you're able to discuss this without loosing your sense of humour.
> 
> 
> I completely agree.
> 
> Don't fall victim to emotional responses to what something looks like. As a developmental biologist, and having worked extensively in the area of neural development, I know what's going on in that little head; while it's quite amazing at a cellular and biochemical level, it is almost certainly not anything like what goes on in the brain of a functional human infant, let alone fully self-aware child. At this stage, the neuroblasts are still proliferating like crazy, and only the most primitive synaptic circuits (autonomic stuff) are getting established.
> 
> 
> It can feel in the sense of having primitive spinal reflexes, so it can respond to touch... but so can a jellyfish. The parts of the brain required for cognition and emotional responses, or even simple things like pain haven't developed yet.
> 
> I seriously doubt it, but this is unprovable.
> 
> It does to an extent; the mother's sovereignty over her body still trumps any rights of the embryo or fetus, even if it were a fully formed and conscious individual, but the ethical cost of an abortion is obviously lower if the embryo is terminated before it develops a complex nervous system capable of experiencing pain or fear.


Don't take this the wrong way, but your explanations of the very limited neural activity of a developing fetus sound more like they're designed to reduce the guilty feelings of a woman or couple who have had or are intending to have an abortion. Left to its own devices and given a supportive environment, most fetuses do grow into human beings eventually. The way I see it, there is no point at which you can definitively say, now it's not human; now it is. Even five minutes before birth, it is not recognized as human by the letter of the law, even though there are no real biological changes five minutes after birth. Except that it can breathe on its own.


----------



## bryanc

fjnmusic said:


> Left to its own devices and given a supportive environment, most fetuses do grow into human beings eventually. The way I see it, there is no point at which you can definitively say, now it's not human; now it is. Even five minutes before birth, it is not recognized as human by the letter of the law, even though there are no real biological changes five minutes after birth. Except that it can breathe on its own.


I completely agree. The essential legal distinction between a human and a fetus is that the human can exist independently of the mother. No one, not an adult nor an infant, can demand the physiological support of another, even if they will die without it.


----------



## MacGuiver

bryanc said:


> I completely agree. The essential legal distinction between a human and a fetus is that the human can exist independently of the mother. No one, not an adult nor an infant, can demand the physiological support of another, even if they will die without it.


Why not? Thats just your opinion and nothing more. 
When mom engages in sex she's taking the chance of a child being conceived in here womb unless she's lived under a stone and hasn't a clue where babies come from. Reproductive systems reproduce. It's not rocket science. Unless she's raped, she is fully responsible for that babies life since her actions brought it into existence. To turn around and say, kill the parasite is pretty reprehensible given its her and her mate that gave it life to begin with. Its not moms body that gets chopped into pieces but that of her child. Abortion is the greatest injustice and evil man has ever concocted.


----------



## jef

groovetube said:


> GOP Senator Embraces Gay Marriage After His Son Comes Out | ThinkProgress
> 
> It's amazing how one can be so hostile on an issue because of one's own religious beliefs, until it hits home how such beliefs and the enforcement of it on many others can actually hurt people.




The Pope, wearing a fabulous vintage chiffon-lined Dior gold lame gown
over a silk Vera Wang empire waist tulle cocktail dress,
accessorized with a three-foot House of Whoville hat and
the ruby slippers Judy Garland wore in the Wizard of Oz, on his way to tell us it's Wrong to be Gay.


----------



## fjnmusic

bryanc said:


> I completely agree. The essential legal distinction between a human and a fetus is that the human can exist independently of the mother. No one, not an adult nor an infant, can demand the physiological support of another, even if they will die without it.


I don't think a newborn baby can survive for very long on its own without a mother or someone to care for it, nor can many children. Heck, I know a few adults with failure-to-launch syndrome, so I'm not sure the "living independently" argument is a valid one.


----------



## groovetube

MacGuiver said:


> Why not? Thats just your opinion and nothing more.
> When mom engages in sex she's taking the chance of a child being conceived in here womb unless she's lived under a stone and hasn't a clue where babies come from. Reproductive systems reproduce. It's not rocket science. Unless she's raped, she is fully responsible for that babies life since her actions brought it into existence. To turn around and say, kill the parasite is pretty reprehensible given its her and her mate that gave it life to begin with. Its not moms body that gets chopped into pieces but that of her child. Abortion is the greatest injustice and evil man has ever concocted.


It seems it's also the legal definition, not just his opinion.

Your post however, is, just -your- opinion.


----------



## iMouse

jef said:


> The Pope, wearing a fabulous vintage chiffon-lined Dior gold lame gown over a silk Vera Wang empire waist tulle cocktail dress, accessorized with a three-foot House of Whoville hat and the ruby slippers Judy Garland wore in the Wizard of Oz, on his way to tell us it's Wrong to be Gay.


Outstanding post. :lmao:


----------



## jef

MacGuiver said:


> Why not? Thats just your opinion and nothing more.
> When mom engages in sex she's taking the chance of a child being conceived in here womb unless she's lived under a stone and hasn't a clue where babies come from. Reproductive systems reproduce. It's not rocket science. Unless she's raped, she is fully responsible for that babies life since her actions brought it into existence. To turn around and say, kill the parasite is pretty reprehensible given its her and her mate that gave it life to begin with. Its not moms body that gets chopped into pieces but that of her child. Abortion is the greatest injustice and evil man has ever concocted.


In the actual world we live in, there are a multitude of reasons for a woman (or a man) having to deal with an unwanted pregnancy. It's not rocket science; it's reality. People make mistakes, accidents happen, sudden illness or death of a parent, predatory relationships, etc etc.. Is it fair to condemn an unwilling parent(s) and an unwanted child to a high probability of a life of misery for a mistake? I thought forgiveness and an understanding of human fallibility was a hallmark of christianity.


----------



## iMouse

jef said:


> I thought forgiveness and an understanding of human fallibility was a hallmark of Christianity.


Not when the church rolls are declining, rapidly.


----------



## jef

iMouse said:


> Not when the church rolls are declining, rapidly.


Holy Fashion | VICE Canada

Maybe they need a new tailor?


----------



## iMouse

jef said:


> Maybe they need a new tailor?


Maybe the faithful need an audit of all this crap?

How many kids are starving somewhere, due to the need for funds to dress the holiest of the holy?


----------



## i-rui

fjnmusic said:


> I don't think a newborn baby can survive for very long on its own without a mother or someone to care for it, nor can many children. Heck, I know a few adults with failure-to-launch syndrome, *so I'm not sure the "living independently" argument is a valid one.*


bryanc specifically pointed out the "physiological support" of a pregnant woman, which is very much different then that of a caregiver.


----------



## jef

*can't wait for this...*

[ame]http://youtu.be/ZxDLkoK8vQQ[/ame]


----------



## fjnmusic

jef said:


> [ame]http://youtu.be/ZxDLkoK8vQQ[/ame]


Looks like an interesting film. The title bothers me, however; there seems to be an assumption among the faithful that if you don't believe in religion, then you don't believe in anything. Perhaps that's why they chose this title, come to think of it.


----------



## jef

fjnmusic said:


> Looks like an interesting film. The title bothers me, however; there seems to be an assumption among the faithful that if you don't believe in religion, then you don't believe in anything. Perhaps that's why they chose this title, come to think of it.


Ricky Gervais summed it up nicely: 

beliefs don't change the facts; facts, if you are rational, should change your beliefs. 

Believing in 'something' should be temporary, until there is something better to believe - and you should always be looking for something better.


----------



## fjnmusic

jef said:


> Ricky Gervais summed it up nicely:
> 
> beliefs don't change the facts; facts, if you are rational, should change your beliefs.
> 
> Believing in 'something' should be temporary, until there is something better to believe - and you should always be looking for something better.


Wookin' pa hub in all da wong paces…





+
YouTube Video









ERROR: If you can see this, then YouTube is down or you don't have Flash installed.


----------



## groovetube

fjnmusic said:


> Looks like an interesting film. The title bothers me, however; there seems to be an assumption among the faithful that if you don't believe in religion, then you don't believe in anything. Perhaps that's why they chose this title, come to think of it.


no, I think somehow there's a certain sarcasm to that choice.


----------



## MacGuiver

> In the actual world we live in, there are a multitude of reasons for a woman (or a man) having to deal with an unwanted pregnancy. It's not rocket science; it's reality. People make mistakes, accidents happen, sudden illness or death of a parent, predatory relationships, etc etc..


Pregnancy is not an "accident" anymore than tossing matches in a barn is accident when it suddenly goes up in flames. 



> Is it fair to condemn an unwilling parent(s) and an unwanted child to a high probability of a life of misery for a mistake? I thought forgiveness and an understanding of human fallibility was a hallmark of christianity.


Lets be honest. They've "condemned" themselves by their choices. The alternative is a grave injustice with the wilful murder an innocent child. You think that's justified?


----------



## groovetube

neither is enforcing one's religious beliefs on others, forcing women into back alley abortions or worse.

No amount of hell fire talk will convert everyone to your beliefs. Have your beliefs, live by them, but don't expect others to have to be forced to do the same.

Why is that so hard to fathom?


----------



## jef

MacGuiver said:


> Pregnancy is not an "accident" anymore than tossing matches in a barn is accident when it suddenly goes up in flames.
> 
> 
> 
> Lets be honest. They've "condemned" themselves by their choices. The alternative is a grave injustice with the wilful murder an innocent child. You think that's justified?


Being honest, I don't agree with your views on pregnancies, condemnation or that there is willful murder involved as they relate to reality. I'm glad I don't have such a black-and-white cynical view of the world...


----------



## Sonal

MacGuiver said:


> Lets be honest. They've "condemned" themselves by their choices. The alternative is a grave injustice with the wilful murder an innocent child. You think that's justified?


Given that, in practice, the other side of this is frequently unsafe attempts to terminate the pregnancy which result in both death of the mother and child, I'll take take the medically safe option, thanks.


----------



## iMouse

Sonal said:


> Given that, in practice, the other side of this is frequently unsafe attempts to terminate the pregnancy which result in both death of the mother and child, I'll take take the medically safe option, thanks.


But you're a woo-man!!!  (Say it like a Fereng /fəˈrɛŋɡi/ in ST-TNG.) :lmao:


----------



## bryanc

fjnmusic said:


> I don't think a newborn baby can survive for very long on its own without a mother or someone to care for it, nor can many children.


Again, I completely agree. The point here is once the infant is physiologically independent of it's mother's metabolism _someone else_ can care for it if _they_ choose. This boils down to the fact that no individual can be forced to _care_ for another. When the embryo is dependant on it's mothers metabolism, the only individual who _can_ care for it is the mother, and if the mother chooses not to, the fetus is SOL. Once delivered, other adults may choose to accept the burden of caring for it, so there is at least the potential for the infant to survive. But if no one choose to take on that responsibility, the infant is just as dead. And the state cannot force anyone to care for another. Fortunately, in the vast majority of cases, this is not an issue, and the mother and/or other adults are eager and willing to care for a new baby. Unfortunately there are exceptions, sometimes as the result of circumstances beyond anyone's control, sometimes as a result of bad decisions, but either way, when there is a developing human that no one is willing or able to care for, it is doomed, and it is far kinder to kill it before it has any self-awareness or ability to suffer.


----------



## iMouse

MacGuiver said:


> Pregnancy is not an "accident" anymore than tossing matches in a barn is accident when it suddenly goes up in flames.


Perhaps the fire extinguisher malfunctioned?



MacGuiver said:


> Lets be honest. They've "condemned" themselves by their choices. The alternative is a grave injustice with the wilful murder an innocent child. You think that's justified?


This paragraph fairly screams for dissection. 

*"Let's be honest." * What usually follows is rarely honest. Beware.

*"They've "condemned" themselves by their choices." * To have sex, or to have sex for procreation? They do not have to be the same choice, unless we go back to being animals. (Please, anyone, DM me your brief, detailing why we are *still* animals.)
*
"The alternative is a grave injustice with the wilful murder an innocent child."* 


*Grave injustice* depends of the law of the land, not religious dogma. 
*Wilful murder* is also defined by civil law, not the clergy. 
*Innocent*, OK, this collection of cells is certainly innocent. It can be nothing else at that point.
*Child.* Again, what defines a "child" in law? Anything else is irrelevant and immaterial.

*"You think that's justified?"* Yes.


----------



## bryanc

iMouse said:


> This paragraph fairly screams for dissection. {evisceration of irrational argument deleted}


:clap:


----------



## iMouse

bryanc said:


> :clap:


Thank you.

It was really too much work for my decaying brain cells, but once in a while I take one (10 minutes) for the team.


----------



## screature

jef said:


> Ricky Gervais summed it up nicely:
> 
> beliefs don't change the facts; facts, if you are rational, should change your beliefs.
> 
> *Believing in 'something' should be temporary, until there is something better to believe - and you should always be looking for something better.*


This would indeed account for the high divorce rate...


----------



## MacGuiver

iMouse said:


> Perhaps the fire extinguisher malfunctioned?
> 
> 
> 
> This paragraph fairly screams for dissection.
> 
> *"Let's be honest." * What usually follows is rarely honest. Beware.
> 
> *"They've "condemned" themselves by their choices." * To have sex, or to have sex for procreation? They do not have to be the same choice, unless we go back to being animals. (Please, anyone, DM me your brief, detailing why we are *still* animals.)
> *
> "The alternative is a grave injustice with the wilful murder an innocent child."*
> 
> 
> *Grave injustice* depends of the law of the land, not religious dogma.
> *Wilful murder* is also defined by civil law, not the clergy.
> *Innocent*, OK, this collection of cells is certainly innocent. It can be nothing else at that point.
> *Child.* Again, what defines a "child" in law? Anything else is irrelevant and immaterial.
> 
> *"You think that's justified?"* Yes.


Sure its legal, but not all laws are just and laws can change. This one is clearly not just. You can beat your wife in some countries too, legally, but I'd argue its an unjust law and needs to change.


----------



## MacGuiver

screature said:


> This would indeed account for the high divorce rate...


Good point screature and so true.


----------



## bryanc

MacGuiver said:


> This one is clearly not just.


Only because you believe (without any reason or evidence) that an embryo has a soul, and is therefore morally equivalent to a functional human being, and furthermore, that one individual has the right to demand physiological support from another.

Neither of these positions can be rationally justified, which is why abortion is legal in Canada, and that is not likely to change.


----------



## MacGuiver

bryanc said:


> Only because you believe (without any reason or evidence) that an embryo has a soul, and is therefore morally equivalent to a functional human being, and furthermore, that one individual has the right to demand physiological support from another.
> 
> Neither of these positions can be rationally justified, which is why abortion is legal in Canada, and that is not likely to change.


Not at all. If I was an atheist I'd be opposed or at least demanding limits and tight restrictions for the simple facts we've learned through science of our lives before birth. There are atheists that are prolife for that very reason. 
Its completely irrational to think a successful short journey down a birth canal defines you as a human being. Before that you were a clump of tissue with the status of a wart.
This is why prochoicers are so frightened to explore the idea of when life begins base on our modern understanding of human development. They know darn well science is not in their favour so blocking investigation is key to maintaining the status quo. They're forced to resort to shout downs and censorship like this screeching vulva because intellectually they haven't a leg to stand on.


----------



## groovetube

MacGuiver said:


> Not at all. If I was an atheist I'd be opposed or at least demanding limits and tight restrictions for the simple facts we've learned through science of our lives before birth. There are atheists that are prolife for that very reason.
> Its completely irrational to think a successful short journey down a birth canal defines you as a human being. Before that you were a clump of tissue with the status of a wart.
> This is why prochoicers are so frightened to explore the idea of when life begins base on our modern understanding of human development. They know darn well science is not in their favour so blocking investigation is key to maintaining the status quo. They're forced to resort to shout downs and censorship like this screeching vulva because intellectually they haven't a leg to stand on.


Pure and utter nonsense.

When you have a government that has shown a very clear bias towards being against any and all abortion, who goes to great lengths to muzzle scientists and prevent them from speaking to the public, begin to try and set up some 'scientific study' that you just know will be tightly controlled and geared to come up with a message that suits them, of course people will get upset and demonstrate.

Conservatives and religious fanatics have always shown a great disdain for science, that's well documented, you'd have to live in a hole in the ground not to know that.

If you want to be pro-life, that's the beauty of choice, and freedom in this country. You can do so and live by your beliefs without harassment.

But the main point you cannot fathom, is it's simply NOT ok, to enforce your religious beliefs on others. And yes, I'd demonstrate against that in the most vigorous way possible.

t's long been known that pro-lifers haven;t a scientific leg to stand on, and all they want to do is rig up a BS study in which they control the message. Some leg you stand on...


----------



## fjnmusic

groovetube said:


> Pure and utter nonsense.
> 
> When you have a government that has shown a very clear bias towards being against any and all abortion, who goes to great lengths to muzzle scientists and prevent them from speaking to the public, begin to try and set up some 'scientific study' that you just know will be tightly controlled and geared to come up with a message that suits them, of course people will get upset and demonstrate.
> 
> Conservatives and religious fanatics have always shown a great disdain for science, that's well documented, you'd have to live in a hole in the ground not to know that.
> 
> If you want to be pro-life, that's the beauty of choice, and freedom in this country. You can do so and live by your beliefs without harassment.
> 
> But the main point you cannot fathom, is it's simply NOT ok, to enforce your religious beliefs on others. And yes, I'd demonstrate against that in the most vigorous way possible.
> 
> t's long been known that pro-lifers haven;t a scientific leg to stand on, and all they want to do is rig up a BS study in which they control the message. Some leg you stand on...


I dunno. Thou shall not kill, steal or bear false witness are three religious beliefs that we force upon others. You can argue against the religious nature if you wish, but they are still beliefs. Ideas that people creat and promote, presumably for the good of the society in which they live. You won't find these universal concepts maintained in the animal kingdom, for example, or during wartime, when basic survival often trumps the need for civility. 

So yes, we force our beliefs, religious and otherwise, on others every day of our lives. The question is really which beliefs will dominate.


----------



## bryanc

MacGuiver said:


> Not at all. If I was an atheist I'd be opposed or at least demanding limits and tight restrictions for the simple facts we've learned through science of our lives before birth.


Please provide one 'scientific' reason that supports your position. I'd particularly like to hear about the scientific support of your belief that "life begins at conception." I seriously doubt you even understand the basic facts about what happens at "conception."



> Its completely irrational to think a successful short journey down a birth canal defines you as a human being.


This is a strawman argument; no one is making this claim. The legal issue is wether the fetus can survive independently of it's mother's metabolism. After it has been delivered, it can enjoy the protection of the state and or other adults who choose to look after it. Prior to that, its existence is contingent solely on the choices of the mother.... because **IT'S HER BODY*.*



> They know darn well science is not in their favour ... intellectually they haven't a leg to stand on.


 Your knowledge of the science of developmental biology is highly suspect. This is my field of specialty; I'd be happy to set you straight on any of the details ranging from the molecular biology and biochemistry to the neuroanatomy and physiology of embryonic development.


----------



## bryanc

fjnmusic said:


> I dunno. Thou shall not kill, steal or bear false witness are three religious beliefs that we force upon others.


Society functions on the basis of limiting the freedoms of individuals to the extent necessary for them to live and function together. My freedom to swing my fist ends where your nose begins. Because, especially historically, even adults could not be counted upon to be consistently emotionally and intellectually mature enough to come to these conclusions on the basis of purely logical and rational thought, primitive humans developed irrational superstitions to emphasize and support these necessary civilizing constraints on behaviour. These developed into our modern religions.

It is not only entirely possible, it is essential for a secular society to develop rational foundations for their ethical and legal systems that do not depend on beliefs in invisible policemen in the sky.


----------



## groovetube

fjnmusic said:


> I dunno. Thou shall not kill, steal or bear false witness are three religious beliefs that we force upon others. You can argue against the religious nature if you wish, but they are still beliefs. Ideas that people creat and promote, presumably for the good of the society in which they live. You won't find these universal concepts maintained in the animal kingdom, for example, or during wartime, when basic survival often trumps the need for civility.
> 
> So yes, we force our beliefs, religious and otherwise, on others every day of our lives. The question is really which beliefs will dominate.


That's not a very good analogy. I don't think you'll find many non Christians who think we should remove murder from our laws, society as a whole shares those beliefs. It's incorrect to attribute those laws or beliefs to just Christians.


----------



## fjnmusic

groovetube said:


> That's not a very good analogy. I don't think you'll find many non Christians who think we should remove murder from our laws, society as a whole shares those beliefs. It's incorrect to attribute those laws or beliefs to just Christians.


True dat. But that's why I use the word "beliefs" instead. To me it does not matter much whether those beliefs are the product of religion, politics, hallucinogenic drugs or other altered states of consciousness. They are laws created by people to live in harmony with other people. Animals may observe some of those laws out of necessity, but to lie or "bear false witness" for example would have no meaning for them. 

I'm not saying there's anything wrong with having these laws; far from. I'm just saying it is incorrect to say we do not force these laws on others. I think the law regarding carrying liquids of more than 100 ml on board an aircraft is absolutely ludicrous, as is spitting on the sidewalk in some places, but these are the laws that were enacted for different places and times and you are forced to follow them if you wish to be a law-abiding citizen.


----------



## jef

screature said:


> This would indeed account for the high divorce rate...


...and why is a high divorce rate a problem? People should be forced to stay in a bad relationship?? Why??


----------



## groovetube

fjnmusic said:


> True dat. But that's why I use the word "beliefs" instead. To me it does not matter much whether those beliefs are the product of religion, politics, hallucinogenic drugs or other altered states of consciousness. They are laws created by people to live in harmony with other people. Animals may observe some of those laws out of necessity, but to lie or "bear false witness" for example would have no meaning for them.
> 
> I'm not saying there's anything wrong with having these laws; far from. I'm just saying it is incorrect to say we do not force these laws on others. I think the law regarding carrying liquids of more than 100 ml on board an aircraft is absolutely ludicrous, as is spitting on the sidewalk in some places, but these are the laws that were enacted for different places and times and you are forced to follow them if you wish to be a law-abiding citizen.


There are lots of bad laws. SOme there for the good of people, some silly ones etc.

But over time they get refined, to reflect what the majority of society wishes. But there are always social interest groups that feel their needs and beliefs trumps all others. If they are in the overwhelming majority, well, they'll be successful.

I find the misinformation tactics of the religious zealots to try and trick people into a crisis mode of limiting abortion just appalling.


----------



## fjnmusic

groovetube said:


> There are lots of bad laws. SOme there for the good of people, some silly ones etc.
> 
> But over time they get refined, to reflect what the majority of society wishes. But there are always social interest groups that feel their needs and beliefs trumps all others. If they are in the overwhelming majority, well, they'll be successful.
> 
> I find the misinformation tactics of the religious zealots to try and trick people into a crisis mode of limiting abortion just appalling.


Well Ok, but……we're talking about ABORTION here. The deliberate ending of the life of a fetus by human beings who were not aborted themselves. It's not exactly a right like free speech or freedom of assembly. It is a desperate, last ditch effort to end the life of a fetus because that decision would be better than any other. It may not be murder, legally speaking, but good Lord, it's a decision that should not be taken lightly other. 

It's the mother's body and her right to choose, certainly, but it's a decision with major consequences, just as the decision to engage in procreation in the first place is. To me, it has little to do with religious zealots and more to do with biology, not to mention maturity. Call me a prude, but unless a person is prepared to accept the possibility of pregnancy and the lifelong responsibility of raising a child with their partner, they should really not be doing the deed in the first place. That's logic, not religion.


----------



## jef

fjnmusic said:


> Well Ok, but……we're talking about ABORTION here. The deliberate ending of the life of a fetus by human beings who were not aborted themselves. It's not exactly a right like free speech or freedom of assembly. It is a desperate, last ditch effort to end the life of a fetus because that decision would be better than any other. It may not be murder, legally speaking, but good Lord, it's a decision that should not be taken lightly other.
> 
> It's the mother's body and her right to choose, certainly, but it's a decision with major consequences, just as the decision to engage in procreation in the first place is. To me, it has little to do with religious zealots and more to do with biology, not to mention maturity. Call me a prude, but unless a person is prepared to accept the possibility of pregnancy and the lifelong responsibility of raising a child with their partner, they should really not be doing the deed in the first place. That's logic, not religion.


Why do you assume it is a decision taken lightly? I can't imagine that such a medical procedure could be taken lightly by anyone in that situation.


----------



## iMouse

fjnmusic said:


> Well Ok, but……we're talking about ABORTION here. The deliberate ending of the life of a fetus by human beings who were not aborted themselves.


Once again, with the "end of life" argument? Why? What purpose is served by continuing to trumpet this lie?



fjnmusic said:


> It's the mother's body and her right to choose, certainly, but it's a decision with major consequences, just as the decision to engage in procreation in the first place is.


Yes, it is, and perhaps if people such as yourself would just cool-it with the rhetoric, the Mother could just get along with her life with little angst. Or is that your purpose?



fjnmusic said:


> Call me a prude, but unless a person is prepared to accept the possibility of pregnancy and the lifelong responsibility of raising a child with their partner, they should really not be doing the deed in the first place. That's logic, not religion.


Oh bother, now you are reaching w-a-y out there. It is the nature of the beast to seek "solace" in the arms of another, and this is a personal as it gets. Mistakes happen, humans are fallible, but should the life of the Mother be forever tarnished with guilt??

NO!!!

*ASIDE: * I'm starting to consider that you might be a sheep in wolf's clothing. It does happen.


----------



## fjnmusic

iMouse said:


> Once again, with the "end of life" argument? Why? What purpose is served by continuing to trumpet this lie?
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, it is, and perhaps if people such as yourself would just cool-it with the rhetoric, the Mother could just get along with her life with little angst. Or is that your purpose?
> 
> 
> 
> Oh bother, now you are reaching w-a-y out there. It is the nature of the beast to seek "solace" in the arms of another, and this is a personal as it gets. Mistakes happen, humans are fallible, but should the life of the Mother be forever tarnished with guilt??
> 
> NO!!!
> 
> *ASIDE: * I'm starting to consider that you might be a sheep in wolf's clothing. It does happen.


If this is what you are starting to consider, then you haven't understood a word I've said. What disturbs me is that "religious zealots" are cast aside as having nothing of value to say, simply because of their religiosity, and possibly because it's very appealing to life a guilt-free life. I am arguing from the point of view of having sex with another human is as personal as it gets, and not without HUGE consequences, including but not limited to sexually transmitted diseases and pregnancy. When people start to reduce it to an expression of self or a pleasurable recreational activity, I shake my head. Yes, it CAN be that, but it can also be a whole lot of other unintended things.

Whether we care to admit it or not, the fetus did not ask to be born nor did it ask to have its life terminated. It is simply the result of its parents "getting it on." We all came into this world the same way more or less. The heat of passion. Whatever the origin was, at least we have a choice to carry on with our lives or not at this point. The fetus does not have such a choice, right up until the moment of birth. I don't know anyone who would agree with the right to end the life of a baby once the umbilical cord has been cut, so why is it acceptable an hour prior to that? Or a day? Or a week? I don't know exactly when "sentient" or "human" life begins. but then I don't view the whole journey from zygote to human as stages. It is one continuous journey for me. I can't compartmentalize it.

Having said that, it is sometimes necessary to end the life of the fetus or even the baby. Nature chooses this unemotionally when the baby dies in childbirth, for example, by being strangled by the umbilical cord. This happened to friends of mine. It's pretty damn horrible and difficult to "get over." Sometimes the zygote/fetus is not viable, as in our case, and the pregnancy ends in miscarriage. This is usually followed by a dilation and curettage—the exact same procedure used in an abortion—whereby any fetal material is removed to prevent further medical problems down the road. I know that night at the hospital, the people that were trying to get pregnant were right alongside those who were trying not to, and everyone was emotionally pretty beat up. Oddly, that was the time I really developed a heartfelt sympathy for anyone who has an abortion. It is devastating, and should never be taken lightly as some form of birth control.

Life is a miracle in my eyes regardless of what unseen forces bring us into existence. The fact we exist at all is pretty damn amazing. I think we should honour that.


----------



## iMouse

fjnmusic said:


> Life is a miracle in my eyes regardless of what unseen forces bring us into existence. The fact we exist at all is pretty damn amazing. I think we should honour that.


Life is a biological consequence of interaction between two like-minded individuals, whether intended or not, be they what we call animals or Humans.

Hardly a miracle, unless you attach that epithet to the event.


----------



## fjnmusic

iMouse said:


> Life is a biological consequence of interaction between two like-minded individuals, whether intended or not, be they what we call animals or Humans.
> 
> Hardly a miracle, unless you attach that epithet to the event.


Not a miracle? I don't think you've really thought this through. Do you know what the chances of life existing at all in the universe is? You happen to live on the only planet that is capable of sustaining life as far as we know. There may well be other life out there, but after many years of looking, so far this is the only planet capable of supporting carbon-based life forms that we know of. Water exists as a solid, liquid and gas. The temperature at the surface hovers about 30 degrees below or above the freezing/melting point on average. The ecosystem is a delicate balance of factors that must be just right for life to flourish. Life has sprung from literally nothing into existence, and we humans have an incredibly developed brain to be able to appreciate our world. That's a miracle in and of itself.

You are the sperm cell that won out of the 20 to 100 million you were competing against. Had another cell won, you would not exist. Do you realize how astronomically high the odds against you winning the race were? That is another miracle right there. You grew from nothing into existence and are here today to tell the story. If you don't like the word "miracle" how about "frigging incredibly lucky individual"? That's what I mean when I say life is a miracle, and it bothers me when people dismiss it so casually. Life is precious. We should honour it.


----------



## groovetube

fjnmusic said:


> Well Ok, but……we're talking about ABORTION here. The deliberate ending of the life of a fetus by human beings who were not aborted themselves. It's not exactly a right like free speech or freedom of assembly. It is a desperate, last ditch effort to end the life of a fetus because that decision would be better than any other. It may not be murder, legally speaking, but good Lord, it's a decision that should not be taken lightly other.
> 
> It's the mother's body and her right to choose, certainly, but it's a decision with major consequences, just as the decision to engage in procreation in the first place is. To me, it has little to do with religious zealots and more to do with biology, not to mention maturity. Call me a prude, but unless a person is prepared to accept the possibility of pregnancy and the lifelong responsibility of raising a child with their partner, they should really not be doing the deed in the first place. That's logic, not religion.


But it has everything to do with religion. Because it's the religious zealots that want to prevent others from having choice. Let's be frank here. As you know, being pro choice does not necessarily mean, you would choose it yourself, in fact many wouldn't. But they support the right to choose for others.

While about 80% of Canadians support the right to choose, I'd hardly place that in the same category as say murder, because you won't find much of a percentage at all that would ever support allowing that. No matter how many howls of slippery slopes we would be subjected to.


----------



## fjnmusic

groovetube said:


> But it has everything to do with religion. Because it's the religious zealots that want to prevent others from having choice. Let's be frank here. As you know, being pro choice does not necessarily mean, you would choose it yourself, in fact many wouldn't. But they support the right to choose for others.
> 
> While about 80% of Canadians support the right to choose, I'd hardly place that in the same category as say murder, because you won't find much of a percentage at all that would ever support allowing that. No matter how many howls of slippery slopes we would be subjected to.


The mother already has the right to choose under Canadian law. I don't disagree with that, but I also believe there are many women who choose abortion without really understanding what is happening. There are many who live with regrets years later wondering about the child that might have been. It's a hard choice, and it should be a hard choice, because semantics aside, you are ending the life of another being who depends on you. That can'y be easy. At what point in a pregnancy do you think abortion should no longer be an option, and adoption considered instead? I know the law currently allows for first trimester abortions with few questions asked, although the picture I posted earlier showed a fetus at ten weeks of development—well within the first trimester. I don't think I could do it, and I'd have a hard time recommending it to someone else. The thing just looks too human to me. Far more than a clump of cells.


----------



## jef

fjnmusic said:


> The mother already has the right to choose under Canadian law. I don't disagree with that, but I also believe there are many women who choose abortion without really understanding what is happening. There are many who live with regrets years later wondering about the child that might have been. It's a hard choice, and it should be a hard choice, because semantics aside, you are ending the life of another being who depends on you. That can'y be easy. At what point in a pregnancy do you think abortion should no longer be an option, and adoption considered instead? I know the law currently allows for first trimester abortions with few questions asked, although the picture I posted earlier showed a fetus at ten weeks of development—well within the first trimester. I don't think I could do it, and I'd have a hard time recommending it to someone else. The thing just looks too human to me. Far more than a clump of cells.


If you believe that women choose to have abortions without really understanding what's happening, how do you think these same women will cope with the responsibilities of motherhood? A lot of women do not understand what is happening even when they think they are ready to have a child. 

Your reasoning is emotional rather than rational; you can believe what you want about what a woman is dealing with but only that woman knows for sure. 

The picture you posted earlier of a fetus is a drawing - an artists representation - it is also not real. Read bryanc's post again.


----------



## fjnmusic

jef said:


> If you believe that women choose to have abortions without really understanding what's happening, how do you think these same women will cope with the responsibilities of motherhood? A lot of women do not understand what is happening even when they think they are ready to have a child.
> 
> Your reasoning is emotional rather than rational; you can believe what you want about what a woman is dealing with but only that woman knows for sure.
> 
> The picture you posted earlier of a fetus is a drawing - an artists representation - it is also not real. Read bryanc's post again.


Real enough for you?





+
YouTube Video









ERROR: If you can see this, then YouTube is down or you don't have Flash installed.


----------



## fjnmusic

How about this one?





+
YouTube Video









ERROR: If you can see this, then YouTube is down or you don't have Flash installed.


----------



## SINC

.


----------



## jef

fjnmusic said:


> How about this one?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> +
> YouTube Video
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ERROR: If you can see this, then YouTube is down or you don't have Flash installed.


You are soliciting emotional responses - I saw these when my wife was pregnant but it doesn't change the facts.


----------



## fjnmusic

jef said:


> You are soliciting emotional responses - I saw these when my wife was pregnant but it doesn't change the facts.


Change what facts? This is a photograph: it doesn't get more objective than this. If one chooses to have an abortion at 12 weeks, this us what one is aborting. Clearly this had some emotional resonance....with you. It's not my baby. You'll find tons of ultrasound videos on YouTube. If this provokes an emotional response, so be it. This is what a fetus looks like and how it moves at about 12 weeks since conception. These ARE the facts.


----------



## iMouse

fjnmusic said:


> Do you know what the chances of life existing at all in the universe is?


No one does, due to limitations put upon us by the vastness of space and our limited time within it.



fjnmusic;1261828You happen to live on the only planet that is [B said:


> capable of sustaining life as far as we know.


For life as sentient beings, In this Solar System, that is true. And our knowledge of other Systems capable of the same may never happen to the end of time.



fjnmusic said:


> That's what I mean when I say life is a miracle, and it bothers me when people dismiss it so casually.
> 
> Life is precious. We should honour it.


Yes, life is precious, especially that of the woman carrying this collection of cells.

I believe that this is one matter that should be settled by woman alone.


----------



## groovetube

fjnmusic said:


> The mother already has the right to choose under Canadian law. I don't disagree with that, but I also believe there are many women who choose abortion without really understanding what is happening. There are many who live with regrets years later wondering about the child that might have been. It's a hard choice, and it should be a hard choice, because semantics aside, you are ending the life of another being who depends on you. That can'y be easy. At what point in a pregnancy do you think abortion should no longer be an option, and adoption considered instead? I know the law currently allows for first trimester abortions with few questions asked, although the picture I posted earlier showed a fetus at ten weeks of development—well within the first trimester. I don't think I could do it, and I'd have a hard time recommending it to someone else. The thing just looks too human to me. Far more than a clump of cells.


Of course it's a hard choice. I don't think anyone who even fully supports choice should ever suggest otherwise. I don't know that I could choose it either, but that's my personal choice. I simply don't trust the pro-lifers and their attempts at 'educating' people on abortion. I think people should, be educated in these choices, just not by fanatics who have such a strong bias.

As for limits, well I agree with what is currently allowed in Canada, (despite the misinformation campaign we generally see every once in a while) late term abortions should be limited to -only- medical reasons in my opinion. What I don't want to see, is more regulations when we don't need it, possibly leading to a woman dying because doctors tried to adhere to regulation and erred. What we have now, works.


----------



## fjnmusic

iMouse said:


> No one does, due to limitations put upon us by the vastness of space and our limited time within it.
> 
> 
> 
> For life as sentient beings, In this Solar System, that is true. And our knowledge of other Systems capable of the same may never happen to the end of time.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, life is precious, especially that of the woman carrying this collection of cells.
> 
> I believe that this is one matter that should be settled by woman alone.


Maybe if the woman had the support of her boyfriend/husband/f-buddy, it shouldn't have to be a matter settled by the woman alone. If a guy can get her pregnant, then that same guy can damn well stick around for what comes afterwards, including abortion, if that is her choice.


----------



## jef

fjnmusic said:


> Change what facts? This is a photograph: it doesn't get more objective than this. If one chooses to have an abortion at 12 weeks, this us what one is aborting. Clearly this had some emotional resonance....with you. It's not my baby. You'll find tons of ultrasound videos on YouTube. If this provokes an emotional response, so be it. This is what a fetus looks like and how it moves at about 12 weeks since conception. These ARE the facts.


You misinterpreted my response. The fact is that it is a fetus, not a baby. bryanc's post (#3575) explains what is happening at this stage of development much more accurately than a video.


----------



## fjnmusic

jef said:


> You misinterpreted my response. The fact is that it is a fetus, not a baby. bryanc's post (#3575) explains what is happening at this stage of development much more accurately than a video.


Uh-huh. Semantics designed to mitigate any guilt feelings. You can remove any aspects of humanity via wordsmithing all you want, and reduce what you see to simple primitive neural responses, but that fetus has a face and ten tiny fingers and toes. Deny it all you want, but this picture is worth a thousand words. This could have been you. This is what a person is aborting at 12 weeks should they choose to do so. I thought you were someone seeking truth and facts, Jef. Truth too harsh?


----------



## eMacMan

It seems to me that life is tough enough for a lot of people with out trying to load them down with the Jewish/Catholic guilt trip. 

FWIW I know a couple of women who gave up children for adoption and in many ways the guilt they put themselves through, was far worse than had they had an abortion.

I find the idea that a young woman should be punished for the rest of her life, for getting pregnant at a time she could not support a child, to be thoroughly repugnant. Perhaps those that promote such torture by guilt campaigns should be humanely euthanized before they can do even more harm. <Insert sarcasm emoticon here>


----------



## i-rui

fjnmusic said:


> Uh-huh. Semantics designed to mitigate any guilt feelings. You can remove any aspects of humanity via wordsmithing all you want, and reduce what you see to simple primitive neural responses, but that fetus has a face and ten tiny fingers and toes. Deny it all you want, but this picture is worth a thousand words. This could have been you. This is what a person is aborting at 12 weeks should they choose to do so. I thought you were someone seeking truth and facts, Jef. Truth too harsh?


taking this argument further means male ejaculation is mass murder. sperm "could have been you" too if everything played out in their favour.


----------



## jef

fjnmusic said:


> Uh-huh. Semantics designed to mitigate any guilt feelings. You can remove any aspects of humanity via wordsmithing all you want, and reduce what you see to simple primitive neural responses, but that fetus has a face and ten tiny fingers and toes. Deny it all you want, but this picture is worth a thousand words. This could have been you. This is what a person is aborting at 12 weeks should they choose to do so. I thought you were someone seeking truth and facts, Jef. Truth too harsh?


You are projecting your perspective on me. I do not see it the way you do. That fetus could not have been me because there was no me at that stage; there was only a fetus.


----------



## fjnmusic

i-rui said:


> taking this argument further means male ejaculation is mass murder. sperm "could have been you" too if everything played out in their favour.


Nope. Only one out of 20-100 million makes it to fertilize the egg. It is not the beginning of a human life until that happens. So continue to release those little tadpoles to your heart's content with no guilt feelings, except the ones your own set of moral guidelines causes you to feel.


----------



## fjnmusic

jef said:


> You are projecting your perspective on me. I do not see it the way you do. That fetus could not have been me because there was no me at that stage; there was only a fetus.


I see. So when exactly do you you suppose "you" came into being?

For what it's worth, your entire genetic blueprint was decided at conception; when the sperm meets the egg for the first time. Everything else is details. It's complex from a biological point of view, but there is not really a question as to when the being that is "you" sprang into existence. Without those early developmental stages when you looked more like a prawn than a person, the later stages would never have occurred and the you that is "you" would not be here today. It's all about the chromosomes, my friend. 46 chromosomes needed, and the sperm and the egg each have 23. Furthermore, every sperm and egg cell is unique, meaning every combination yields different results. The odds against your very existence are incredible. Unless you believe consciousness is transferable, of course—but that would mean believing in something like a soul, the ghost in the machine. 

Conception: Chromosomes, Your Genetic Blueprint


----------



## groovetube

fjnmusic said:


> Nope. Only one out of 20-100 million makes it to fertilize the egg. It is not the beginning of a human life until that happens. So continue to release those little tadpoles to your heart's content with no guilt feelings, except the ones your own set of moral guidelines causes you to feel.


Now you can't close the door on an argument once you've already opened it.

Afaik Catholics also believe contraception is also a sin, so Jef has a valid point.


----------



## fjnmusic

groovetube said:


> Now you can't close the door on an argument once you've already opened it.
> 
> Afaik Catholics also believe contraception is also a sin, so Jef has a valid point.


I'm not arguing the Catholic view point. I'm arguing the biological one. Catholic policy is whacked as far s this goes. It is also rooted in the belief that all genetic material came form the father, and the mother was just a vessel. With the discovery of egg cells, which could then be tainted by "original sin" from the mother's side, the church formally adopted the doctrine of Immaculate Conception in 1854, which meant that Mary was born without the taint of original sin. Just because. It's a pretty weak doctrine, IMHO, and the mark of a church inventing policies on the fly. A fairy tale, if you wish.

None of this changes the fact that basic biology will reveal that when sperm meets egg, a baby may happen. That's what I teach my girls, anyway. Yes, there are precautions you cn take to avoid pregnancy, and there are precautions you can take to try to get pregnant, but none is foolproof. As far as "spilling seed" goes, I really wouldn't worry too much about it. While a female has a limited count of eggs (determined at her conception, by the way), which become less viable as she ages, a man has an almost unlimited number of sperm cells well into his senior years, on average.


----------



## groovetube

fjnmusic said:


> I'm not arguing the Catholic view point. I'm arguing the biological one. Catholic policy is whacked as far s this goes. It is also rooted in the belief that all genetic material came form the father, and the mother was just a vessel. With the discovery of egg cells, which could then be tainted by "original sin" from the mother's side, the church formally adopted the doctrine of Immaculate Conception in 1854, which meant that Mary was born without the taint of original sin. Just because. It's a pretty weak doctrine, IMHO, and the mark of a church inventing policies on the fly. A fairy tale, if you wish.
> 
> None of this changes the fact that basic biology will reveal that when sperm meets egg, a baby may happen. That's what I teach my girls, anyway. Yes, there are precautions you cn take to avoid pregnancy, and there are precautions you can take to try to get pregnant, but none is foolproof. As far as "spilling seed" goes, I really wouldn't worry too much about it. While a female has a limited count of eggs (determined at her conception, by the way), which become less viable as she ages, a man has an almost unlimited number of sperm cells well into his senior years, on average.


What biological view point? It's yours. Not mine. I respect that you have this biological view point, but it isn't mine or, many others.


----------



## fjnmusic

groovetube said:


> What biological view point? It's yours. Not mine. I respect that you have this biological view point, but it isn't mine or, many others.


I'm confused by your response, GT. I didn't create the fetus in the pictures or the ultra-sounds; that is simply how they look at that stage. Pure biology. I don't know what they feel at that point or whether they can understand anything; Bryan is the expert in that realm as are many others and I respect their wisdom on that subject. They fact they already look A LOT like babies in that first trimester is enough to give me pause. There are also pictures of actual fetuses at that same age on the Internet, but since they would be dead, I didn't think it would be in good taste to show those. One may be a model, but in any event, what impresses me is how developed they already are for that size. Like a little bonsai tree.

So how on earth do you think pics or vids of a developing fetus within the first trimester constitutes MY opinion? This evidence exists with or without my involvement. Perhaps it is surprising to some people just how humanoid a fetus looks already by this stage, perhaps more than they had expected. 

That's how I looked 48 years and six months ago. Glad I'm still here to talk about it.


----------



## groovetube

fjnmusic said:


> I'm confused by your response, GT. I didn't create the fetus in the pictures or the ultra-sounds; that is simply how they look at that stage. Pure biology. I don't know what they feel at that point or whether they can understand anything; Bryan is the expert in that realm as are many others and I respect their wisdom on that subject. They fact they already look A LOT like babies in that first trimester is enough to give me pause. There are also pictures of actual fetuses at that same age on the Internet, but since they would be dead, I didn't think it would be in good taste to show those. One may be a model, but in any event, what impresses me is how developed they already are for that size. Like a little bonsai tree.
> 
> So how on earth do you think pics or vids of a developing fetus within the first trimester constitutes MY opinion? This evidence exists with or without my involvement. Perhaps it is surprising to some people just how humanoid a fetus looks already by this stage, perhaps more than they had expected.
> 
> That's how I looked 48 years and six months ago. Glad I'm still here to talk about it.


That isn't 'biology', those are images with an emotional response. Since they begin to 'look like babies', it's merely an emotional response rather than a logical biological conclusion.


----------



## fjnmusic

groovetube said:


> That isn't 'biology', those are images with an emotional response. Since they begin to 'look like babies', it's merely an emotional response rather than a logical biological conclusion.


I don't know where you took science, but one of the criteria I learned for determining what something is is its appearance. A few weeks prior this fetus may have been hard to distinguish from several other species, but by this stage it's pretty clear that it's going to develop into a human baby as opposed to a bird or a primate. This is not an emotional observation. You can see it with your own eyes. You can deny it if you choose to, but you would definitely be denying an important tenet of the scientific method: measuring and studying what we can actually see.


----------



## groovetube

fjnmusic said:


> I don't know where you took science, but one of the criteria I learned for determining what something is is its appearance. A few weeks prior this fetus may have been hard to distinguish from several other species, but by this stage it's pretty clear that it's going to develop into a human baby as opposed to a bird or a primate. This is not an emotional observation. You can see it with your own eyes. You can deny it if you choose to, but you would definitely be denying an important tenet of the scientific method: measuring and studying what we can actually see.


What science class was this?

I have to disagree here. Science is not about just making conclusions based on what your eyes see and your emotional response to it. That's completely false.

All you really have here, is appearance. You are trying to take that assumption based on appearance, and make a scientific conclusion.

That sounds like pretty bad, and incomplete science to me.


----------



## fjnmusic

groovetube said:


> What science class was this?
> 
> I have to disagree here. Science is not about just making conclusions based on what your eyes see and your emotional response to it. That's completely false.
> 
> All you really have here, is appearance. You are trying to take that assumption based on appearance, and make a scientific conclusion.
> 
> That sounds like pretty bad, and incomplete science to me.


I never said only. Leaving out the things that are observable, things that you can see with your eyes or perhaps a microscope, is not science at all.


----------



## screature

groovetube said:


> Pure and utter nonsense.
> 
> When you have a government that has shown a very clear bias towards being against any and all abortion, who goes to great lengths to muzzle scientists and prevent them from speaking to the public, begin to try and set up some 'scientific study' that you just know will be tightly controlled and geared to come up with a message that suits them, of course people will get upset and demonstrate.
> 
> *Conservatives* and religious fanatics *have always shown a great disdain for science, that's well documented, you'd have to live in a hole in the ground not to know that.*
> 
> If you want to be pro-life, that's the beauty of choice, and freedom in this country. You can do so and live by your beliefs without harassment.
> 
> But the main point you cannot fathom, is it's simply NOT ok, to enforce your religious beliefs on others. And yes, I'd demonstrate against that in the most vigorous way possible.
> 
> t's long been known that pro-lifers haven;t a scientific leg to stand on, and all they want to do is rig up a BS study in which they control the message. Some leg you stand on...


I most strongly disagree, conservatives are no more homogeneous in their beliefs than any other political inclination. 

I am fiscally conservative but socially liberal (so long as such liberal social policies can be supported in a fiscally conservative manner). I am pro choice, believe strongly in science, I am agnostic and I am far from being alone. 

For example, my father was an atheist (my Mother was RC and that was how we were raised as part of their agreement when they got married) and a Tory and a strong proponent of everything scientific. 

Not to mention my mother was RC, voted Liberal (generally) and was a chemistry lab technician all her adult life (with her final placement being the RC High-school that both my sister and I attended). Your statement is simply not true.

Life is quite simply not so black and white.


----------



## SINC

^

Yep, exactly.


----------



## groovetube

Obviously I'm aware that people who are conservatives can be pro choice.

I'm referring to the fact that its no secret that a conservative government such as the one we have currently, would happily begin restricting abortion if it thought it could get away with it.

People with all sorts if different opinions and a lack of religion call themselves 'conservatives', but that doesn't change the original definition of conservatism.


----------



## screature

groovetube said:


> Obviously I'm aware that people who are conservatives can be pro choice.
> 
> I'm referring to the fact that its no secret that *a conservative government such as the one we have currently, would happily begin restricting abortion if it thought it could get away with it.*
> 
> People with all sorts if different opinions and a lack of religion call themselves 'conservatives', but that doesn't change *the original definition of conservatism*.


Some *in* a Conservative government most definitely would and that is why they shall forever be in the backbenches.

Some *in* a Liberal government would as well, also why, they shall forever be in the backbenches.


----------



## SINC

screature said:


> Some *in* a conservative government most definitely would and that is why they shall forever be in the backbenches.
> 
> Some in a Liberal government would as well, also why, they shall forever be in the backbenches.


While this is noted and understood by most, some just don't get it. There is no Harper government conspiracy to do any such thing.


----------



## screature

SINC said:


> While this is noted and understood by most, some just don't get it. There is no Harper government conspiracy to do any such thing.


"Don't let the facts get in the way of a good story."

Politicians/Political Parties of every stripe partake in such story telling.

What is truly disturbing is that much, if not most, media today partake in such story telling. 

I mean, aren't they the ones whose purported job is to provide us with just the facts unless the article/piece is stated to be an editorial or a commentary?


----------



## i-rui

more than just conservative "backbenchers" support reopening the abortion debate. several prominent ministers do, such as Jason Kenney, Rona Ambrose, Peter Van Loan, Julian Fantino, Ed Fast, Peter Penashue, Gerry Ritz & Gail Shea. That's a pretty healthy chunk of the Harper cabinet.


----------



## i-rui

fjnmusic said:


> Nope. Only one out of 20-100 million makes it to fertilize the egg. *It is not the beginning of a human life until that happens*.


why? because *you* say so?

earlier in this thread you said bryanc was making an arbitrary distinction by saying a trip out of the birth canal shouldn't be the point of it becoming "human" - but you just did the exact same thing.

even after the egg is fertilized it has to travel from the fallopian tube to the uterus, and attach itself to it's wall. if this doesn't happen it won't survive. why isn't *THIS* the moment "human" life begins? 

or any of the other moments in the 9 month gestation period? why not wait until the brain is formed to declare it a human life? or perhaps when the sexual organs are formed? or why not wait until all the digits are distinct? why are any of these signposts more important than when sperm are released? at all of these stages we're always talking about something that is "alive".

until the gestation period is over and a baby can survive outside it's mother's womb it legally doesn't have the same rights as the woman carrying it. to try and read anything more into the process is just playing god (which religious people seem to enjoy) and a fool's errand.


----------



## groovetube

i-rui said:


> more than just conservative "backbenchers" support reopening the abortion debate. several prominent ministers do, such as Jason Kenney, Rona Ambrose, Peter Van Loan, Julian Fantino, Ed Fast, Peter Penashue, Gerry Ritz & Gail Shea. That's a pretty healthy chunk of the Harper cabinet.


Hmmmm... now those don't seem like backbenchers at all! 

I have to chuckle pretty hard at someone who recently tried to tell everyone that the conservative government was spending it's own money for the action plan ads rather than tax payer's money. Perhaps before getting sarcastic with another's understanding of our government, they do well to play closer attention. :lmao:


----------



## screature

i-rui said:


> more than just conservative "backbenchers" support reopening the abortion debate. several prominent ministers do, such as Jason Kenney, Rona Ambrose, Peter Van Loan, Julian Fantino, Ed Fast, Peter Penashue, Gerry Ritz & Gail Shea. That's a pretty healthy chunk of the Harper cabinet.


I knew this post would be coming I just wasn't sure who would make it...

No they didn't, (that is the story you would like to tell though) they voted their conscience on a completely non-binding Private Members Motion which are not whipped and that would only study the notion of when scientifically human life begins. 

The PM didn't support the motion and urged the Caucus not to vote for it... Notice it was a backbencher that moved the motion not a member of Cabinet a HUGE difference...

8 Ministers voted in favour of a study that was based on a Motion that they knew would fail... 

If you can't understand that those Ministers have a voting demographic that could make the difference between being elected and not elected if they voted against the Motion, then quite frankly you don't have a very good grasp on politics IMO...

Just ask the NDP MPs Charlie Angus and Peter Stoffer who stated in 2 different elections they would vote to abolish the Long Gun Registry pandering to their rural vote only to vote in opposition to abandoning the Long Gun Registry when they could actually vote on the matter and make it law.


----------



## screature

groovetube said:


> Hmmmm... now those don't seem like backbenchers at all!
> 
> *I have to chuckle pretty hard at someone who recently tried to tell everyone that the conservative government was spending it's own money for the action plan ads rather than tax payer's money. Perhaps before getting sarcastic with another's understanding of our government, they do well to play closer attention. :lmao:*


See my post above... Why is it necessary for the eyeroll? Is the old gt back?


----------



## screature

.


----------



## fjnmusic

i-rui said:


> why? because *you* say so?
> 
> earlier in this thread you said bryanc was making an arbitrary distinction by saying a trip out of the birth canal shouldn't be the point of it becoming "human" - but you just did the exact same thing.
> 
> even after the egg is fertilized it has to travel from the fallopian tube to the uterus, and attach itself to it's wall. if this doesn't happen it won't survive. why isn't *THIS* the moment "human" life begins?
> 
> or any of the other moments in the 9 month gestation period? why not wait until the brain is formed to declare it a human life? or perhaps when the sexual organs are formed? or why not wait until all the digits are distinct? why are any of these signposts more important than when sperm are released? at all of these stages we're always talking about something that is "alive".
> 
> until the gestation period is over and a baby can survive outside it's mother's womb it legally doesn't have the same rights as the woman carrying it. to try and read anything more into the process is just playing god (which religious people seem to enjoy) and a fool's errand.


Because each person's DNA sequence is determined at conception. Every genetic thing about you is determined at that point, not because I say so, but because it is so. Prior to that, the possibility of a particular human being coming in existence is simply not there, as no two eggs or sperm cells are the same, and no sperm or egg cell can develop into a human on its own. You are a unique being. There are many huge hurdles to overcome still, and many zygotes will die before they even have a chance, but conception is the one time you can narrow your genetic footprint down for the first time. The rest is details. Again, not because I say so, but _because it is so_.

Also, I have never said anything about the short distance down the fallopian tube; you must be quoting someone else. I also do not believe the fetus's rights supersede the mother's rights; just that abortion should only be used as a last resort effort to end an unwanted pregnancy. This is not a freedom of choice issue. It's a life or death issue. The fetus will die and it will likely be painful for it, at least for a brief period. But sometimes that's the way it goes. Again, not because I said so, but _because it is so_.


----------



## groovetube

screature said:


> See my post above... Why is it necessary for the eyeroll? Is the old gt back?


Not really, but one too many veiled jabs. I gave in once  Not directed at you at all.

"SOME people"... blah blah.


----------



## screature

groovetube said:


> Not really, but one too many veiled jabs. I gave in once  Not directed at you at all.
> 
> "SOME people"... blah blah.


Ok but, sorry if you think I made veiled jabs at you... it was not my intention.

If you care to post to me (PM if you choose) where I did so I would be more than happy to apologize or clarify what I meant, as I have been trying to keep our postings polite even though we obviously strongly disagree on many things and have a history of nastiness between us.

It is my hope that despite that history we can call it "water under the bridge" and just debate and if no agreement can be made we can just agree to disagree without it devolving into the way it was before.

Peace out.


----------



## i-rui

screature said:


> If you can't understand that those Ministers have a voting demographic that could make the difference between being elected and not elected if they voted against the Motion, then quite frankly you don't have a very good grasp on politics IMO...


i completely understand that. which is why i think if Harper *could* pass abortion laws he very much *would*. The only thing holding him back is he knows that his party would lose power virtually overnight.




screature said:


> Just ask the NDP MPs Charlie Angus and Peter Stoffer who stated in 2 different elections they would vote to abolish the Long Gun Registry pandering to their rural vote only to vote in opposition to abandoning the Long Gun Registry when they could actually vote on the matter and make it law.


*OR* we could ask Harper, who initially voted for the LGR, but then made it a plank of his campaign and ran on abolishing it.


----------



## i-rui

fjnmusic said:


> Because each person's DNA sequence is determined at conception. Every genetic thing about you is determined at that point, not because I say so, but because it is so. Prior to that, the possibility of a particular human being coming in existence is simply not there, as no two eggs or sperm cells are the same, and no sperm or egg cell can develop into a human on its own. You are a unique being. There are many huge hurdles to overcome still, and many zygotes will die before they even have a chance, but conception is the one time you can narrow your genetic footprint down for the first time. The rest is details. Again, not because I say so, but _because it is so_.


again, *you* are arbitrarily attributing *"human" life* to that instance. I can come along and attribute it to the moment the brain develops, or the moment a heart beats, or the moment the gestation is over at birth.

however, i will not because i truly do not know and I understand that i can not know.


----------



## SINC

groovetube said:


> Hmmmm... now those don't seem like backbenchers at all!
> 
> I have to chuckle pretty hard at someone who recently tried to tell everyone that the conservative government was spending it's own money for the action plan ads rather than tax payer's money. Perhaps before getting sarcastic with another's understanding of our government, they do well to play closer attention. :lmao:


Ah, read my misinformed friend. I questioned the issue, not tried to tell anyone. Wrong again. Or is that still?


----------



## groovetube

Suggested, told, questioned, whatever.

You want to poke fun at others for not knowing things about this conservative government, don't complain when someone sends it right back.


----------



## jef

fjnmusic said:


> I also do not believe the fetus's rights supersede the mother's rights; just that abortion should only be used as a last resort effort to end an unwanted pregnancy. [/I].


On this, we agree.


----------



## screature

i-rui said:


> i completely understand that. which is why i think if Harper *could* pass abortion laws he very much *would*. The only thing holding him back is he knows that his party would lose power virtually overnight.


He could do it now. He has a majority in Parliament and the Senate... clearly he has no desire to despite the story you wish to tell.



i-rui said:


> *OR* we could ask Harper, who initially voted for the LGR, but then made it a plank of his campaign and ran on abolishing it.


All you have done is to provide further evidence to support the point I have already made... You do realize that I hope. 

Take off your partisan blinders and realize that what I am saying is that all parties do it, it isn't something the Harper conservatives invented. 

For Ch**st sake politicians cross the floor even among your beloved NDP, twice most recently, and surely that is a greater betrayal than changing ones mind about a vote in the House.

Since you provide no reference I will do it for you:

Harper initially supported long-gun registry


----------



## fjnmusic

i-rui said:


> again, *you* are arbitrarily attributing *"human" life* to that instance. I can come along and attribute it to the moment the brain develops, or the moment a heart beats, or the moment the gestation is over at birth.
> 
> however, i will not because i truly do not know and I understand that i can not know.


We shall have to agree to disagree then. Surely, the development of the human body must begin at some point, so it would seem logical to me to use the point at which the genetic blueprint comes together, which is conception. This is not advanced biology. The new cell with 46 chromosomes will not evolve into a baboon, a cat, a dog or a dolphin at this point. The only thing it can develop into is a human being, if it survives the journey. Once those wheels are in motion, they can't be stopped except by some extraordinary act, which is what abortion does. Call it a zygote, call it a pre-fetus, call it whatever you want--it makes no difference. It is what it is. What you've got there is the embryonic beginnings of a human being. In my world, that's something to honor and hopefully the parents are getting prepared for its arrival. It is terrible when a fetus dies; I've experienced the pain of that loss as a parent, as I'm sure have many others. Ours was through miscarriage, but I believe the pain is similar for those whi have had an abortion. Regret. Loss of hope. Doubt, not to mention raging hormones. But often it makes you love the next one that much more.


----------



## fjnmusic

Uh-oh, MacFury. Is this an omen? Check your number, dude.


----------



## groovetube

The difference to me between the liberal party and the conservative party on the issue of abortion, is that the conservative party, by it's very nature is going to be more religious and more likely to pass laws along those lines. Isn't that what conservatism is? I know not all conservatives are necessarily religious, some may only subscribe to just the small government, less taxes part (I guess this government threw out the small government bit out too  )

Sure there are religious member within the liberal party, perhaps less so in the NDP, but the only reason why we haven't seen restrictions and/or bans on abortion from Harper, is because he well knows the majority of Canadians would reject this, and they would suffer probably defeat just over that.

Why do you think the religious zealots need to use misinformation and lies to further their cause of trying to inch towards bans on abortion?


----------



## fjnmusic

Oddly, GT, Liberals in Canada are derived quite clearly from the French settlers in Quebec and Eastern Canada, who were overwhelmingly Catholic, while the English settlers were overwhelmingly Protestant, if anything, you'd think it would be the Liberals that would be against abortion, historically speaking.


----------



## bryanc

I was busy marking exams this weekend, and it appears I missed a fairly extensive (and largely civil :clap: ) discussion.


fjnmusic said:


> So when exactly do you you suppose "you" came into being?


The person I am now came into being gradually over the course of the last 48 years. There was no instant before which I did not exist, and after which I did. Early cognitive activity likely began shortly after birth and a clear personality was present soon thereafter, but it took years before a personality that relates significantly to who I am now emerged. Even the personality I had as a 20-year-old is significantly different that who I am now, and I hope that who I am when I'm 80 will be significantly dissimilar to who I am now. Life is change.



> For what it's worth, your entire genetic blueprint was decided at conception; when the sperm meets the egg for the first time.


Actually, this is not entirely correct; look up VDJ recombination and somatic hypermutation for some biologically significant examples of how your genome is radically altered during the course of your embryonic and adult development.

More importantly, even if I had an identical twin or clone, they wouldn't be the same person I am. Your genome does not determine who you are or your ethical value, so the fact that a unique combination of genes has been assembled in a zygote is not of any particular philosophical importance.



> Everything else is details.


And as always, there in lies the interesting and problematical issue.



> It's complex from a biological point of view, but there is not really a question as to when the being that is "you" sprang into existence.


I beg to differ. As I indicated above, I don't agree that any individual "springs" into existence; personalities are emergent properties that arise over extended periods of time and are continuously evolving and changing as a result of their experiences.



> It's all about the chromosomes, my friend.


Again, I disagree. The biology is necessary but not sufficient to make a person; the experiences are at least as important, and probably more so; hence the value of a good education.


----------



## groovetube

historically, perhaps.


----------



## MacGuiver

FJN

From reading your logical arguments, I'd say we see human development in the same light. You've eloquently made the argument for me that even if I were an atheist, I'd still be prolife, if not, reluctantly accepting it in rare cases simply based on what we know about the development of human life.


----------



## bryanc

fjnmusic said:


> Surely, the development of the human body must begin at some point, so it would seem logical to me to use the point at which the genetic blueprint comes together, which is conception. This is not advanced biology.


If you took my courses in developmental biology or embryology (which _*is*_ advanced biology), one of the first things you'd learn is that this is not true. Life is a continuous cycle, it doesn't really have a start Much of the early development of any organism is the result of the molecular processes and events of gametogenesis; fertilization is just one of many steps along the way to generating a functional body... if you want to say it 'starts' somewhere, it starts with the differentiation of the gametes (which of course was preceded by the migration of the primordial germ cells into the gonads... again, there is no real "start" in the cycle). But if you want to attribute special philosophical significance to the 'start', you have to go the "every sperm is sacred" route and give special philosophical value to gametes (not to mention all the essential contributions of follical cells, sertoli cells, etc. that are necessary for normal gametogenesis).


----------



## fjnmusic

bryanc said:


> If you took my courses in developmental biology or embryology (which _*is*_ advanced biology), one of the first things you'd learn is that this is not true. Life is a continuous cycle, it doesn't really have a start Much of the early development of any organism is the result of the molecular processes and events of gametogenesis; fertilization is just one of many steps along the way to generating a functional body... if you want to say it 'starts' somewhere, it starts with the differentiation of the gametes (which of course was preceded by the migration of the primordial germ cells into the gonads... again, there is no real "start" in the cycle). But if you want to attribute special philosophical significance to the 'start', you have to go the "every sperm is sacred" route and give special philosophical value to gametes (not to mention all the essential contributions of follical cells, sertoli cells, etc. that are necessary for normal gametogenesis).


Obviously, I don't have your background. But I don't think I need it either to make my case. 46 chromosomes are needed to make the exact person that is you, and that happens at conception. You cannot escape this fact, no matter how many big words you use. A different 46 chromosomes would result in a different person. Is this false?


----------



## bryanc

fjnmusic said:


> A different 46 chromosomes would result in a different person. Is this false?


No, it is not false; but neither is it completely true. The key concept here is "necessary but not sufficient." With a different genetic make up, I would certainly be different. But two individuals with the same genetic makeup (clones or identical twins) will not be the same people. They may have the same colour eyes, but even their physical morphology may be significantly different due to environmental effects. So the genome does not define the individual.


----------



## fjnmusic

Interesting comment, Bryan. With a different genetic makeup, would "you" even exist at all? What you are saying here sounds suspiciously like the concept of a "soul" with a different body, something I didn't think atheists believed in. Science would seem to suggest that without a body, there is no consciousness, no soul, no ghost on the machine. No hardware, no software neither.


----------



## bryanc

fjnmusic said:


> Interesting comment, Bryan. With a different genetic makeup, would "you" even exist at all? What you are saying here sounds suspiciously like the concept of a "soul" with a different body, something I didn't think atheists believed in. Science would seem to suggest that without a body, there is no consciousness, no soul, no ghost on the machine. No hardware, no software neither.


I think you're misunderstanding. I certainly don't believe in a soul, and I agree with you that without a body, there would be no mind. I also agree that with different genetics, any of us would be different people. It's just that the converse is not true; a genetically identical copy of you (a clone or a twin sibling) would not be the same as you.

Both the hardware and the software are self-modifying, and strongly affected by environmental stimuli. Genetically identical individuals can be strikingly different physically, and are even more different behaviourally. So the idea that the establishment of a diploid genome during the formation of a zygote is a good place to define the "start" of your existence is biologically naive.


----------



## fjnmusic

bryanc said:


> I think you're misunderstanding. I certainly don't believe in a soul, and I agree with you that without a body, there would be no mind. I also agree that with different genetics, any of us would be different people. It's just that the converse is not true; a genetically identical copy of you (a clone or a twin sibling) would not be the same as you.
> 
> Both the hardware and the software are self-modifying, and strongly affected by environmental stimuli. Genetically identical individuals can be strikingly different physically, and are even more different behaviourally. So the idea that the establishment of a diploid genome during the formation of a zygote is a good place to define the "start" of your existence is biologically naive.


You callin'my naive? _Are you callin' me naive?_ Fair enough. This is why if there was a crime committed by one person who has an identical twin, and there was only fingerprint evidence available, then that person could never be convicted.


----------



## bryanc

fjnmusic said:


> This is why if there was a crime committed by one person who has an identical twin, and there was only fingerprint evidence available, then that person could never be convicted.


<pedantic biologist> Twins (and other clones) don't have identical fingerprints. Their nervous systems are also wired differently, and even the genetics of their immune systems will differ (so a DNA finger print of blood samples from clones _can_ be used to distinguish them if you use the right PCR primers). This is part of my point; the set of chromosomes you inherit as a result of fertilization does not even determine your physiology, let alone your psychology. And by the time you're 40 you've accumulated thousands of novel mutations, in millions of different cells in your body on top of the genetic heterogeneity that is necessary for the functioning of your immune system. Finally, you own cells are out numbered 10:1 by all sorts of different microbes that live on and inside you, all of which contribute to your physiology significantly. So we're all really colonies of lots of different cells with lots of different genetic and physiological properties. </pedantic biologist>


----------



## fjnmusic

bryanc said:


> Twins (and other clones) don't have identical fingerprints. Their nervous systems are also wired differently, and even the genetics of their immune systems will differ (so a DNA finger print of blood samples from clones _can_ be used to distinguish them if you use the right PCR primers). This is part of my point; the set of chromosomes you inherit as a result of fertilization does not even determine your physiology, let alone your psychology. And by the time you're 40 you've accumulated thousands of novel mutations, in millions of different cells in your body on top of the genetic heterogeneity that is necessary for the functioning of your immune system. Finally, you own cells are out numbered 10:1 by all sorts of different microbes that live on and inside you, all of which contribute to your physiology significantly. So we're all really colonies of lots of different cells with lots of different genetic and physiological properties.


Drat! Foiled again.


----------



## fjnmusic

So I will try this once again. Humans, unless they have Down's Syndrome, have 46 pairs of chromosomes, 23 pairs from each parent. You get these chromosomes at the moment of conception. Many changes will happen along the way from zygote to fetus to human baby, and many more after birth that help to shape the collection of molecules known as "you." Can we agree on that much at least? Am I missing something? Do these 46 chromosomes not first come together at the time of conception? Help a brother out here.


----------



## i-rui

fjnmusic said:


> So I will try this once again. Humans, unless they have Down's Syndrome, have 46 pairs of chromosomes, 23 pairs from each parent. You get these chromosomes at the moment of conception. Many changes will happen along the way from zygote to fetus to human baby, and many more after birth that help to shape the collection of molecules known as "you." Can we agree on that much at least? Am I missing something? Do these 46 chromosomes not first come together at the time of conception? Help a brother out here.


I'm certainly not as informed as bryanc, but i'll throw my 2 cents in.

I don't think anyone is arguing with what you're saying above. The problem comes when you attach the idea that it is *that* moment when "human life" begins. It is just a single moment in a multitude of moments in the gestation period.

That DNA sequence is important and perhaps can be called a blueprint, but that doesn't necessarily imply human life *by itself*. Our DNA may last for centuries long after we have ceased to exist. It isn't *life* (let alone human life) without a multitude of other factors.

Just as the blueprint of a house is not an actual house (probably a terrible example because a house isn't alive... but i'm going to go with it anyways....). But when does it become a house? Is it when the land is purchased? when the foundation is laid? When the walls erected? the roof attached? plumbing? electricity?


----------



## i-rui

I don't want to spend too much space responding to this here since it's becoming more about politics than abortion, but i'll touch on a few things.



screature said:


> He could do it now. He has a majority in Parliament and the Senate... clearly he has no desire to despite the story you wish to tell.


that's incorrect. as much as Harper would love to think he has absolute power he still has to work within the confines of our democracy.

He could certainly begin the wheels turning in that regard, but he would still need enough votes from his MPs, and IMO if he tried such an extreme action many of his MPs would not support him and vote against any law. Politicians will turn on their leader if they risk almost certain defeat in the next election. 

Of course we would never know the outcome to that unless it was tried, so it would just be speculation on both our parts...



screature said:


> All you have done is to provide further evidence to support the point I have already made... You do realize that I hope.
> 
> Take off your partisan blinders and realize that what I am saying is that all parties do it, it isn't something the Harper conservatives invented.


I don't doubt that politicians often flip flop. That is hardly an earth shattering statement. However you seem to be painting it as some kind of political virtue to be proud of, while i see it as Harper manipulating issues to attain and control power at the cost of what he espouses as his principles. I guess we'll have to disagree on that.


----------



## fjnmusic

i-rui said:


> I'm certainly not as informed as bryanc, but i'll throw my 2 cents in.
> 
> I don't think anyone is arguing with what you're saying above. The problem comes when you attach the idea that it is *that* moment when "human life" begins. It is just a single moment in a multitude of moments in the gestation period.
> 
> That DNA sequence is important and perhaps can be called a blueprint, but that doesn't necessarily imply human life *by itself*. Our DNA may last for centuries long after we have ceased to exist. It isn't *life* (let alone human life) without a multitude of other factors.
> 
> Just as the blueprint of a house is not an actual house (probably a terrible example because a house isn't alive... but i'm going to go with it anyways....). But when does it become a house? Is it when the land is purchased? when the foundation is laid? When the walls erected? the roof attached? plumbing? electricity?


That's a great response, in my opinion. Is it the concept of the house (conception) or the actual start of the building process that is the beginning of the house's existence? For that matter, I remember clearly planning ahead before we had kids and discussing how we would raise them, LONG before they actually appeared on the scene. Perhaps that is also part of the conception, like the blueprints drawn up with the developer before they actually break ground. 

You've also got a good point about DNA existing long after we die, which can be used in crime scenes, for example, to establish the identities of those present. DNA is not life itself, but rather an indicator or a characteristic of living things. Do we have DNA before our parents get together? I believe we have half our DNA stored with each parent, but they haven't joined up yet. That is what happens at conception.

I think that moment of conception is a good starting point for human life, as I see it, and I have a hard time to see that life would begin at some later point than that. Yes, the genetic sequence is only part of the story, but factors like how tall you will be, how many freckles you will have, and whether you will enjoy the taste of broccoli are all decided in that moment. Pretty incredible, I think. If one wishes to state that a particular human life begins _before_ conception, well I just can't quite see that. The egg or the sperm could combine with anyone else prior to that moment, but after conception, that particular combination of chromosomes is "locked in" so to speak.

OK, fire away, biology specialists. I'm sure I'll learn about the error of my logic one way or another. If I'm wrong, I'd sure to like to hear a plausible explanation for a better way of determining when "human life begins."


----------



## Sonal

fjnmusic said:


> OK, fire away, biology specialists. I'm sure I'll learn about the error of my logic one way or another. If I'm wrong, I'd sure to like to hear a plausible explanation for a better way of determining when "human life begins."


Well, not being a biology specialist, but being in the middle of a major bout of procrastination, my understanding is the difficulty here is that there is no singular, well-defined point of where life begins.... it's more of a continuum. Finding a discrete point at which to say "Okay, this side of the line, definitely not alive, the other side, definitely alive" is not really possible.

In some ways, an easier way to look at this is to try and figure out what is point between life and death. These days, medical science typically uses brain death as their definition, but that's actually somewhat arbitrary, and has been challenged. It's not known whether consciousness stops at that point or not.
Death - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It's a similar--though considerably harder to measure--problem for when life begins. It's not like a light switch that suddenly turns on.


----------



## jef

I think Bill gets his inspiration from this thread...

HBO - Real Time with Bill Maher Blog - Immaculate*Misconception


----------



## bryanc

Sonal said:


> my understanding is the difficulty here is that there is no singular, well-defined point of where life begins.... it's more of a continuum.


Bingo!


> Finding a discrete point at which to say "Okay, this side of the line, definitely not alive, the other side, definitely alive" is not really possible.


Yes, this is exactly what I'm trying to say. However, from the point of view of the legal system, we need some sort of line-in-the-legal-sand, just like we need to define when someone becomes an "adult." Fortunately, we don't need to answer the question of when an embryo becomes "human," we only need to answer the question of when does the mother's right to sovereignty over her body stop trumping the rights of the fetus, and that's easy; it happens as soon as it leaves the mother's body.


fjnmusic said:


> Humans, unless they have Down's Syndrome, have 46 pairs of chromosomes, 23 pairs from each parent. You get these chromosomes at the moment of conception. Many changes will happen along the way from zygote to fetus to human baby, and many more after birth that help to shape the collection of molecules known as "you." Can we agree on that much at least? Am I missing something? Do these 46 chromosomes not first come together at the time of conception?


You're focusing too much on the DNA; DNA is just a data storage molecule, it isn't alive. Is the person with Down's syndrome not human? Is someone with Turner's syndrome not human? The ethical value of a human life is not defined by having 46 chromosomes.

Try, instead, to determine what it is you value about a human being, and then ask when does a developing embryo start to exhibit those attributes. What you'll find, I expect, is that there is no instant before which it does not have them, and after which it does. Thus the ethical value of an individual's life grows with them over time; you may start to value their life earlier or later than I do, but I'd be surprised if you see a zygote as having much value (apart from it's potential to develop value later).


----------



## iMouse

Your mention of "adult" is very apt in this context.

Some adults are still children, and some children are very old at a young age.

That one is also hard to nail down legally, IMO, as it is not a direct reflection of chronological age.


----------



## fjnmusic

bryanc said:


> Bingo!
> 
> Yes, this is exactly what I'm trying to say. However, from the point of view of the legal system, we need some sort of line-in-the-legal-sand, just like we need to define when someone becomes an "adult." Fortunately, we don't need to answer the question of when an embryo becomes "human," we only need to answer the question of when does the mother's right to sovereignty over her body stop trumping the rights of the fetus, and that's easy; it happens as soon as it leaves the mother's body.
> 
> You're focusing too much on the DNA; DNA is just a data storage molecule, it isn't alive. Is the person with Down's syndrome not human? Is someone with Turner's syndrome not human? The ethical value of a human life is not defined by having 46 chromosomes.
> 
> Try, instead, to determine what it is you value about a human being, and then ask when does a developing embryo start to exhibit those attributes. What you'll find, I expect, is that there is no instant before which it does not have them, and after which it does. Thus the ethical value of an individual's life grows with them over time; you may start to value their life earlier or later than I do, but I'd be surprised if you see a zygote as having much value (apart from it's potential to develop value later).


Except that without a zygote, no human being can form, normal, Down's Syndrome, Turner's Syndrome, or any other. You cannot get past the zygote stage if you wish to see a human form at some point. Plenty of egg cells and sperm cells exist and die off without ever becoming zygotes. But is the zygote that has the potential to become a human being. And when is that zygote first formed again?


----------



## bryanc

fjnmusic said:


> Except that without a zygote, no human being can form, normal, Down's Syndrome, Turner's Syndrome, or any other. You cannot get past the zygote stage if you wish to see a human form at some point.


This is equally true for blastulas, gastrula, germ cells, etc. Without a properly matured egg, a human can never develop. Without undergoing gastrulation properly, no embryo can develop into a human being, so is that the instant* at which an embryo takes on ethical value?

(*bearing in mind that none of these developmental processes, including fertilization, occur instantaneously, so if you attribute special ethical meaning to any of them, there's also the problem of 'where in this process does the ethically important thing happen?').

It make far more philosophical sense to recognize that the ethical value of a human being is something that emerges slowly over the course of development (including post-natal development), and that there is no instant at which we "become human".


----------



## fjnmusic

bryanc said:


> This is equally true for blastulas, gastrula, germ cells, etc. Without a properly matured egg, a human can never develop. Without undergoing gastrulation properly, no embryo can develop into a human being, so is that the instant* at which an embryo takes on ethical value?
> 
> (*bearing in mind that none of these developmental processes, including fertilization, occur instantaneously, so if you attribute special ethical meaning to any of them, there's also the problem of 'where in this process does the ethically important thing happen?').
> 
> It make far more philosophical sense to recognize that the ethical value of a human being is something that emerges slowly over the course of development (including post-natal development), and that there is no instant at which we "become human".


I'm afraid your superior education and experience is not quite persuading me here. Before the sperm meets the egg, a human being will not develop. After they meet, there is a chance a human being will develop. There is no guarantee, but there is a good chance.


----------



## bryanc

fjnmusic said:


> Before the sperm meets the egg, a human being will not develop.


Before the oocyte undergoes meiosis a human being will not develop. The same logic applies. Fertilization is just one of many processes that must occur correctly in order for a functional human being to develop. To my mind, the processes that occur late in development (indeed even post-nataly) are far more important to the emergence of the ethically important characteristics of a human life.


----------



## fjnmusic

bryanc said:


> Before the oocyte undergoes meiosis a human being will not develop. The same logic applies. Fertilization is just one of many processes that must occur correctly in order for a functional human being to develop. To my mind, the processes that occur late in development (indeed even post-nataly) are far more important to the emergence of the ethically important characteristics of a human life.


I don't disagree that nurture is as important as nature, probably even moreso. However, in order for a particular human being to be created, with a particular set of chromosomes, and a particular genetic blueprint, you cannot bypass this fertilization process. You seem to want to minimize the importance of this step without providing a better start point for the definition of a human being. I'm wondering why that is. 

Sure a brand new embryo doesn't seem very human yet, and thousands of embryos are stored or discarded for research or fertilization purposes, yet we all started this way and you know that. Without fertilization there would be no you. If one of your parents had been someone else, you would not be you. Unless you believe souls are transferable, of course, and I thought you didn't believe in souls any more than you believe in consciousness.


----------



## bryanc

fjnmusic said:


> However, in order for a particular human being to be created, with a particular set of chromosomes, and a particular genetic blueprint, you cannot bypass this fertilization process.


Nor can you bypass gastrulation, or neurulation, or gametogenesis, or any of thousand of other processes; they are all essential, so why single one out as being more important?



> You seem to want to minimize the importance of this step without providing a better start point for the definition of a human being. I'm wondering why that is.


It's because there is no "start." You keep looking for an event to define as the starting point; the creation of a new human being. I keep trying to tell you that no such event exists; what we value about a human life emerges gradually as the result of a lot of biology and psychology that is spread out over time.



> Unless you believe souls are transferable, of course, and I thought you didn't believe in souls any more than you believe in consciousness.


 I don't believe in souls, but I most certainly believe in consciousness, as I experience it directly. I've never heard of anyone who claims not to believe in consciousness. I just don't attribute any magical properties to it; I have every reason to believe that my consciousness is the emergent property of a lot of complex neurological activity occurring in my brain.


----------



## fjnmusic

bryanc said:


> Nor can you bypass gastrulation, or neurulation, or gametogenesis, or any of thousand of other processes; they are all essential, so why single one out as being more important?


These are all essential, and they come about after fertilization occurs as I understand it. But none of these processes will take place if fertilization does _not_ occur, and none will take place before fertilzation occurs either. Therefore, fertilization becomes the causal factor that sets these other processes into motion. This still does guarantee a human being will form, but that the mother's body is preparing itself for that possibility.



> It's because there is no "start." You keep looking for an event to define as the starting point; the creation of a new human being. I keep trying to tell you that no such event exists; what we value about a human life emerges gradually as the result of a lot of biology and psychology that is spread out over time.


If there is no "start", then at what point does the mother's body not carry another potential human being? Eggs can continue being eggs all throughout a women's life and unless she is Schmi Skywalker or the Virgin Mary, these eggs will not spontaneously evolve into human beings on their own. It is simply not possible. 

Similarly, sperm cells can also exist or be manufactured inside the male for much of a man's lifetime and they will not spontaneously grow legs and evolve into people or even frogs, though they look like tadpoles. They are alive, certainly, but they will not start the journey to become human until sperm meets egg. I really can't put it more simply that that, and I'm not sure if you are being obtuse about this on purpose. Fertilization marks ground zero. The other details matter, of course, but without that moment of conception, none of these other stages even take place.



> I don't believe in souls, but I most certainly believe in consciousness, as I experience it directly. I've never heard of anyone who claims not to believe in consciousness. I just don't attribute any magical properties to it; I have every reason to believe that my consciousness is the emergent property of a lot of complex neurological activity occurring in my brain.


Well, we can't prove consciousness any more than we can prove a soul; it's something we accept and take for granted. Perhaps what you call consciousness is what someone else calls a soul. No magical thinking necessary—just acceptance that there are things that exist that we can't explain. Now if this consciousness that I call "me" were to exist in another body, that we pretty strange indeed. Science fiction writers talk of it. Eastern mystics talk of it. But if the consciousness that is a result of my brain and my specific body and its particular chromosomes is only a result of neurological impulses processed by my brain, then when I die, that is it. There is no lingering consciousness afterwards. This is standard atheist belief. But if a consciousness carries on without the body, then that consciousness, or what some call a "soul" inhabits the body but is not directly a part of it.

It is not easy for us humans to contemplate our nonexistence, precisely because we exist while pondering the concept. But if we remember nothing from before our birth, and it doesn't bother us, then it really shouldn't bother us if that's what life after death is like also. And yet……


----------



## bryanc

fjnmusic said:


> These are all essential, and they come about after fertilization occurs as I understand it.


Then you don't understand it. They all come about before fertilization as well, because they're all part of the life cycle. It's a cycle... a circle has no beginning. (It is worth pointing out that each of us, as individuals, gets flung out of the circle, so each of us has an end, despite not really having a beginning).



> none will take place before fertilzation occurs


Gametogenesis (the formation of gametes) must obviously precede fertilization. And for gametogenesis to occur you need gonads; so it must be preceded by organogenesis. For organogenesis, you need germ layers, so it must be preceded by gastrulation, and so on... Fertilization is just a step in a continuous process...it's not special biologically or philosophically.


> if there is no "start", then at what point does the mother's body not carry another potential human being?


I'm not quite sure what you're asking here. Most, if not any of the cells in the mothers body could be used to generate a clone, which would not be the same person as the mother, so there are literally trillions of potential human beings in any of our bodies.



> They are alive. but will not become human until sperm meets egg.


Every one of your cells is a live human cell. Why is a zygote special? Because it has a unique genetic complement? Every one of your beta lymphocytes has a unique genetic complement; why aren't they special? Every one of your sperm cells has a unique genetic complement; why aren't they special? The answer is obviously that the genetic composition of a human being is not what makes it special.



> Fertilization marks ground zero.


Only in your arbitrary and biologically unsupportable philosophy. Fertilization is one of many events (some that occurred before and some that occurred after) that gives rise to a viable human embryo, which in turn must develop complex neurological behaviours before it has most of the properties that make human lives more ethically valuable than those of guppies.



> Well, we can't prove consciousness any more than we can prove a soul; it's something we accept and take for granted.


On the contrary; "I think therefore I am." I can prove my own consciousness exists (indeed it is one of the only things I _can_ prove); I just can't prove _yours_ exists. However, given the provable fact that my consciousness exists, I have an existence proof for the possibility of consciousness, which makes it parsimonious to presume that the complex behaviour you exhibit (which is similar in many ways to mine, and I know my behaviour is due to my conscious thoughts), is therefore likely due to the existence of your consciousness. So while I can't prove your consciousness exists, it's a parsimonious explanation for the data.



> Perhaps what you call consciousness is what someone else calls a soul. No magical thinking necessary


Why use two different words for the same concept? Does your soul stop when you sleep; consciousness does. Are souls affected by hunger, pain or drugs, because your conscious experience is.

The word 'soul' has the connotation (if not denotation) of a supernatural entity.

While I have irrefutable evidence of the existence of consciousness (mine), I have no evidence for the existence of souls.



> Now if this consciousness that I call "me" were to exist in another body, that we pretty strange indeed. Science fiction writers talk of it. Eastern mystics talk of it.


These are fun ideas, but not very plausible; if consciousness is, as all the evidence indicates, a function of the neurological activity of your brain, the fact that any other brain is radically different means that your consciousness would not result from it's activity.



> But if the consciousness that is a result of my brain and my specific body and its particular chromosomes is only a result of neurological impulses processed by my brain, then when I die, that is it.


Yep.



> But if a consciousness carries on without the body, then that consciousness, or what some call a "soul" inhabits the body but is not directly a part of it.


Yep... but I have no reason to consider this as anything other than the foolish beliefs of a feeble* mind. (*note: this choice of words is a reference to the famous Einstein quote: "An individual who should survive his physical death is also beyond my comprehension, nor do I wish it otherwise; such notions are for the fears or absurd egoism of feeble souls." Einstein used the word 'soul' as you were proposing above; as a synonym for consciousness, but I think this confuses the issue).



> It is not easy for us humans to contemplate our nonexistence, precisely because we exist while pondering the concept. But if we remember nothing from before our birth, and it doesn't bother us, then it really shouldn't bother us if that's what life after death is like also.


Exactly. I think it was Carl Sagan who said something along the lines of "I did not exist for billions of years before my birth, and it didn't cause me the slightest inconvenience. Why then should I fear not existing after my death?" (I'd actually appreciate it if anyone can find a proper source for this quote, as I quite like it, but I'm not sure it was Sagan and I wouldn't want to misattribute it).


----------



## fjnmusic

At least Einstein and I are on the same page on the soul thing.  Not to appear parsimonious or anything.


----------



## fjnmusic

I believe we're going to have to agree to disagree on the biology of it, Bryan, as I cannot understand how human being can come together until the sperm and the egg meet, and you are unable to convince me that your view is the correct one no matter how many big words that I have to look up that you use. However, I think I can address one point:



> On the contrary; "I think therefore I am." I can prove my own consciousness exists (indeed it is one of the only things I can prove); I just can't prove yours exists. However, given the provable fact that my consciousness exists, I have an existence proof for the possibility of consciousness, which makes it parsimonious to presume that the complex behaviour you exhibit (which is similar in many ways to mine, and I know my behaviour is due to my conscious thoughts), is therefore likely due to the existence of your consciousness. So while I can't prove your consciousness exists, it's a parsimonious explanation for the data.


If you can only prove that your own consciousness exists, then you haven't really proved anything. The quote from Descartes is a cool quote, but it doesn't prove anything, and scientific proofs must be reproduce able as you've explained so many times before. I can take it on faith that I am conscious, but I might also be simply having a lucid dream. If I am conscious within a dream, is that still consciousness? I could be in an altered state from drugs wherein the things I think are real are not really so. I could be suffering delusions from a mental illness, as John Nash did when he thought he was the top expert codebreaker in the whole world. He didn't even know he was delusional until it was explained to him later.

That's why consciousness is a great mystery, something we take for granted, something that is with us every second of our lives, the "me" that looks out on the world through my eyes. For me, that is synonymous with my soul, my inner being, my "is-ness", my very essence. It is who I am. How about, "I am, therefore I am", or if you want to wax religious, "I am who am." And I believe it is actually this same consciousness alive in every other person as well, though I'll save that theory for another day.


----------



## bryanc

fjnmusic said:


> I believe we're going to have to agree to disagree on the biology of it, Bryan, as I cannot understand how human being can come together until the sperm and the egg meet, and you are unable to convince me that your view is the correct one no matter how many big words that I have to look up that you use.


I'm not trying to convince you otherwise; it's obviously true that fertilization has to occur for development to proceed. My point is that this is equally true of many other developmental processes, so why attribute special meaning to fertilization? Fertilization is _necessary but not sufficient _for development of a human being.




> The quote from Descartes is a cool quote, but it doesn't prove anything, and scientific proofs must be reproduce able as you've explained so many times before.


I don't think I've ever said anything about 'scientific proofs'... I have said that science is not about proving things; it's about falsification. Descartes' famous quote is a logical statement, not a scientific one, and it most certainly is reproducible.



> I can take it on faith that I am conscious, but I might also be simply having a lucid dream.


You must be conscious of the dream for it to be 'lucid.' Therefore you exist.


> If I am conscious within a dream, is that still consciousness? I could be in an altered state from drugs wherein the things I think are real are not really so. I could be suffering delusions from a mental illness, as John Nash did when he thought he was the top expert codebreaker in the whole world. He didn't even know he was delusional until it was explained to him later.


All of these are still conscious states.

We cannot know if our perceptions of ourselves are correct, or if any of the stimuli we are conscious of are 'real' - we could be a brain in a vat, or a computer simulation, or any number of things we may or may not be able to imagine, but if we are self-aware, the self must exist in order to be aware of itself.



> That's why consciousness is a great mystery


It certainly is a mystery, but I see no reason to attribute any magical properties to it. Furthermore, it is one that we are now starting to make progress towards understanding (and, I'll note, that this progress is coming through scientific research, not praying, meditating, or otherwise wishing it were so). 



> something we take for granted, something that is with us every second of our lives, the "me" that looks out on the world through my eyes. For me, that is synonymous with my soul, my inner being, my "is-ness", my very essence. It is who I am.


Fortunately, philosophers, psychologists, and scientists have not been taking it for granted, and we are now developing a fairly sophisticated understanding of what consciousness is, how it works, what can go wrong with it, and how we might treat such disorders. If you're genuinely interested in this topic, I found these particularly enjoyable introductions to the feild.

[ame="http://www.amazon.ca/Minds-I-Doug-Hofstadter/dp/0553340875/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1363789960&sr=1-1"]The mind's I[/ame]
[ame="http://www.amazon.ca/Consciousness-Explained-Daniel-C-Dennett/dp/0316180661"]Consciousness Explained[/ame]
[ame="http://www.amazon.ca/Society-Mind-Marvin-Minsky/dp/0671657135/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1363790022&sr=1-1"]The Society of Mind[/ame] 
[ame="http://www.amazon.ca/Freedom-Evolves-Daniel-C-Dennett/dp/0142003840"]Freedom Evolves[/ame]

There's a nice essay (relating to that last one) you can read on line here.

Also, here are a couple of YouTube videos you can have a look at:




+
YouTube Video









ERROR: If you can see this, then YouTube is down or you don't have Flash installed.









+
YouTube Video









ERROR: If you can see this, then YouTube is down or you don't have Flash installed.


----------



## margarok

fjnmusic said:


> And on a lighter note, here's one from my sister:
> 
> Deja Vu – When you think you’re doing something you’ve done before, it’s because God thought it was so funny, he had to rewind it for his friends.


Back from Marathon trip to family farm in Missouri. Catching up on your discussions here. Really like this one.


----------



## margarok

Dr.G. said:


> "Dwelling on the past leads to depression and dwelling on the future leads to anxiety. To stay balanced, we need to focus on the present and try to enjoy life. Now is all we ever really have anyway. " An interesting and in my opinion valid philosophy of Life, fjn. Paix, mon ami.


Another keeper.


----------



## fjnmusic




----------



## fjnmusic




----------



## bryanc

I remember a bumper sticker I saw back in the '80s in Edmonton that said "Jesus Saves, but Gretzky put's in the rebound!"


----------



## fjnmusic




----------



## fjnmusic




----------



## fjnmusic

bryanc said:


> There's a nice essay (relating to that last one) you can read on line here.
> 
> Also, here are a couple of YouTube videos you can have a look at:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> +
> YouTube Video
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ERROR: If you can see this, then YouTube is down or you don't have Flash installed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> +
> YouTube Video
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ERROR: If you can see this, then YouTube is down or you don't have Flash installed.


Interesting videos, Bryan, thanks for sharing them. I haven't read the essay yet.

There are many things that intrigue me and these videos lead me to ponder. One is the whole concept of "human being" rather than "**** sapiens." Why do we not refer to a cat being or a dolphin being or a mountain being (which makes much sense , since that's pretty much what a mountain does). The "being" part of it that is so widely accepted implies something philosophical, maybe Descartesian, that we certainly do take that for granted. As one of the speakers says, the ability to choose and make choices based on the perceived consequences of our actions is something that seems unique to humans and what we term "free will". I would argue that my cat definitely considers all the perceived consequences of her actions before she jumps, even if she does not use words to describe those thoughts.

One particular fascination is the use of the possessive adjective 'my' before anything that has to with our human bodies, as in "my hand" or "my eye" or even "my brain" or "my mind." It's a bizarre thing if you stop and think about it. Why not just say "me" instead of "my hand'? What is implied is that "I" am the consciousness that owns these body parts, but these parts are not the same as "me." Even "my mind" is something "I" possess, but is not actually "me." Of course, these are linguistic conventions, at least in English, that we take for granted, but if there is any truth to them, then "I" must be more than simply the sum of "my parts." 

And I think perhaps that is what is meant by the rather mystical statement "I am who am" from the Bible. It is a reference to a universal consciousness that exists outside of space and time. Or it is simply a universal and oft-repeated delusion. Either way, it's an idea worthy of more study.


----------



## bryanc

fjnmusic said:


> The "being" part of it that is so widely accepted implies something philosophical, maybe Descartesian, that we certainly do take that for granted.


Yes; the idea that a "self" exists independently of your material body is called "Cartesian Dualism." Since the 19th Century, and the rise of scientific thinking, this position has been widely criticized, and is now the ghetto of religious philosophers as it provides no explanatory power, and it obviously less parsimonious than the materialist explanations.



> As one of the speakers says, the ability to choose and make choices based on the perceived consequences of our actions is something that seems unique to humans


I doubt that it is unique to us, but I have no difficultly believing that we are among a handful of species with this level of neurological sophistication.



> One particular fascination is the use of the possessive adjective 'my' before anything that has to with our human bodies, as in "my hand" or "my eye" or even "my brain" or "my mind." It's a bizarre thing if you stop and think about it. Why not just say "me" instead of "my hand'? What is implied is that "I" am the consciousness that owns these body parts, but these parts are not the same as "me." Even "my mind" is something "I" possess, but is not actually "me." Of course, these are linguistic conventions, at least in English, that we take for granted, but if there is any truth to them, then "I" must be more than simply the sum of "my parts."


I agree that this semantic representation is a common and interesting phenomenon. But I would strongly argue that the sense of self we have is not separate from our bodies; there is plenty of evidence that the self is an emergent property of one's physiology, no evidence that it is not, and to accept that a Cartesian self exists complexifies the explanation not only by adding another entity, but by adding a whole category of existence (not to mention the mechanisms for the necessary interactions between these types of existence) for which we have no evidence. So the proposition of a Cartesian 'soul' is an egregious breach of the principle of parsimony.

However, it is perfectly reasonable to suppose that you are more than the sum of your parts; we know emergent complexity is a property of the natural universe. We observe it in many circumstances, and in some instances we understand how it occurs.

As Dennett argues, very convincingly in Freedom Evolves, we do not need a magical Cartesian soul in order to have most of the desirable (as well as some of the undesirable) characteristics of an ethical agent with free will. We don't need magic in order for our lives to have value, for our choices to have meaning, and for our endeavours to be worthwhile.


----------



## bryanc

MacGuiver said:


> The testimonials of divine intervention and the miraculous are numberous. The same cannot be said for Thor or werewolves?


I should've used Odin as my example instead of his wimpy son Thor.


----------



## jef

*If it says so in the bible.....*

Catholic movement condemns Galileo - Chicago Tribune


----------



## fjnmusic

jef said:


> catholic movement condemns galileo - chicago tribune


----------



## bryanc

*Gallup International poll on religiosity*

A few weeks back someone asked me to provide evidence to support my assertion that religious adherence was negatively associated with education. To be honest, I was surprised to be called out on this point, because it is so widely known as to be beyond question, as far as I'm concerned. But I dutifully went to the social psych. literature to try to find some authoritative support for this obvious fact. What I found was lots of research regarding the specific psychological mechanisms underlying this phenomenon within different cultural contexts, but I couldn't find anything that clearly states this fact (I think this is now so well established that no one specifically addresses it any more; one might find it in the literature from the 1800's if one did a more thorough search).

However, just yesterday, I came across the 2012 Gallup International data on religiosity and atheism world wide (research conducted for the Red Crescent), and one of their data summaries illustrates my point very clearly; When asked "Irrespective of whether you attend a place of worship, would you say you are a religious person, not a religious person, or a convinced atheist?" the more education people world wide have gained, the more likely they will answer "not religious" or "convinced atheist." Religiosity also correlated with lower earning power and regionally, with the undeveloped nations (places like Ghana, Nigeria, Kenya, etc.) being far more religious, and Japan, China and the Western European countries being much less religious.

Interestingly, this 2012 poll was a followup to an identical survey done in 2005, and in the intervening time, religiosity has dramatically fallen almost everywhere, with the most dramatic shift occurring in Ireland. In 2005, 69% of Irish people self-identified as being a religious person, 23% were non-religious or convinced atheists (the remainder did not answer), whereas in 2012, only 46% self-identified as being religious, with 54% being non-religious.

Globally, there as been an overall drop in religiosity of about 9%, with the biggest shifts occurring in Ireland (23% drop), Vietnam (23% drop), Switzerland (21% drop), France (21% drop), South Africa (19% drop), Iceland (17% drop), Ecuador (15% drop), United States (13% drop), Canada (12% drop), and Austria (10% drop). This is certainly consistent with my experience, and a very hopeful sign that human civilization is slowly shaking off the superstitious fears of our ancestors. It also supports my contention that education and security are the most effective remedies for people afflicted with religion.

At any rate, here is the page that shows the data regarding education:


----------



## fjnmusic

Happy Easter weekend, folks! And especially you, Bryan. If you have today off, thank a religious person.


----------



## groovetube

thank you bunny rabbit!


----------



## fjnmusic

Bryanc: I appreciate the time and effort you take to do the research to back up your claims regarding religion, education level, et cetera. It is commendable that you can find so much data to back up your stance that religion is misguided at best and evil at worst and your contention that it should be abolished. But I believe you fail to see the big picture.

I've mentioned many times before that you might be interested in the story Life of Pi. Again I recommend the book or the movie if you have a mere two hours to spare. It may help you put religion and a belief in a higher power into perspective. Far from needing to be abolished, there is a redemptive side to religion that you will never understand with your empirical approach. You just don't understand the healing power of a belief in something bigger than ourselves.

In a way, it's a little like the kid who wants to take his bat and ball and go home, so nobody else can have fun either. I don't see the usefulness of a belief in sky-daddy, therefore nobody else should believe in him either. But you fail to see the importance of the imagination to human survival. Einstein certainly understood it. Did you allow your own kids to believe in Santa Claus for a period of time or did you pop that balloon at the start as well?

Btw, Santa Claus is based on a real person. When my kids asked if Santa was real, I'd say as real as you and me.


----------



## jef

fjnmusic said:


> Bryanc: I appreciate the time and effort you take to do the research to back up your claims regarding religion, education level, et cetera. It is commendable that you can find so much data to back up your stance that religion is misguided at best and evil at worst and your contention that it should be abolished. But I believe you fail to see the big picture.
> 
> I've mentioned many times before that you might be interested in the story Life of Pi. Again I recommend the book or the movie if you have a mere two hours to spare. It may help you put religion and a belief in a higher power into perspective. Far from needing to be abolished, there is a redemptive side to religion that you will never understand with your empirical approach. You just don't understand the healing power of a belief in something bigger than ourselves.
> 
> In a way, it's a little like the kid who wants to take his bat and ball and go home, so nobody else can have fun either. I don't see the usefulness of a belief in sky-daddy, therefore nobody else should believe in him either. But you fail to see the importance of the imagination to human survival. Einstein certainly understood it. Did you allow your own kids to believe in Santa Claus for a period of time or did you pop that balloon at the start as well?
> 
> Btw, Santa Claus is based on a real person. When my kids asked if Santa was real, I'd say as real as you and me.


What makes you think that being an atheist precludes using your imagination? As an atheist, I am concerned about the ability of people to put fairy tales into perspective. When fairy tales run your life or when people impose them on others as 'truth', they become a problem. If left in the realm of the imagination, fairy tales can be a healthy form of human communication.


----------



## fjnmusic

jef said:


> What makes you think that being an atheist precludes using your imagination? As an atheist, I am concerned about the ability of people to put fairy tales into perspective. When fairy tales run your life or when people impose them on others as 'truth', they become a problem. If left in the realm of the imagination, fairy tales can be a healthy form of human communication.


That is exactly what I'm saying about religion, Jef. But the argument Bryan often presents is for the abolition of religion altogether, which is a very different proposal and certainly one of less tolerance. I see an important place for religion in people's lives, much as I see a love for other kinds of literature and the importance of story and parable to reveal insights into human nature. Music to me does much the same thing. There does not need to be an actual person named Eleanor Rigby for us to grasp the sense of loneliness in the song.

I am not sure whether Bryan's argument is more based on atheism or scientific method. They are not one and the same, though he often equates the two. As both a religious person and wannabe atheist I certainly understand what you mean about putting fairy tales into perspective. I would also suggest that every story, no matter how fantastical, begins with some truth about life or human nature. We can all walk on water provided the water is frozen, for example, and so it is with a great many of the Jesus stories that I believe were meant to be symbolic rather than literal. It is our strange human nature that prevents us from appreciating the metaphor and instead opting for a literal translation of something that to me was so obviously meant to be taken metaphorically. It was not the stupidity of the ancient storytellers so much as the failure of imagination of the repeaters through the centuries that turns religion into a strange quagmire of contradictory messages.


----------



## iMouse

jef said:


> What makes you think that being an atheist precludes using your imagination? As an atheist, I am concerned about the ability of people to put fairy tales into perspective. When fairy tales run your life or when people impose them on others as 'truth', they become a problem. If left in the realm of the imagination, fairy tales can be a healthy form of human communication.


I too like morality plays, but not with my eyes held open with toothpicks.


----------



## fjnmusic

groovetube said:


> thank you bunny rabbit!


Blessed be. 

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Easter_Bunny#section_1


----------



## jef

fjnmusic said:


> That is exactly what I'm saying about religion, Jef. But the argument Bryan often presents is for the abolition of religion altogether, which is a very different proposal and certainly one of less tolerance. I see an important place for religion in people's lives, much as I see a love for other kinds of literature and the importance of story and parable to reveal insights into human nature. Music to me does much the same thing. There does not need to be an actual person named Eleanor Rigby for us to grasp the sense of loneliness in the song.


Although I agree with Bryanc that religion is delusional and bringing up children to be delusional is a problem, I think we both indicated that religion is fine for an adult if they make that choice in their adult life. 

Children brought up in a religion often do not have the right to choose not to believe and often they do not have the right to question the religion of their parents. The good news is that education is slowly overcoming this. 

No one is advocating abolition of religion (but it would be nice if it died a natural death!); adults are free to believe what they want.

...and I still don't understand your association/confusion with literature or music. If religious works were treated as what they are, literature and music, there would be no problem! The bible has lots of interesting stories (but many are a little too violent and cruel for my liking) and is a great work of literature of its time. There is nothing wrong with reading the bible, discussing it and learning from it if it is kept in perspective.


----------



## fjnmusic

jef said:


> Although I agree with Bryanc that religion is delusional and bringing up children to be delusional is a problem, I think we both indicated that religion is fine for an adult if they make that choice in their adult life.
> 
> Children brought up in a religion often do not have the right to choose not to believe and often they do not have the right to question the religion of their parents. The good news is that education is slowly overcoming this.
> 
> No one is advocating abolition of religion (but it would be nice if it died a natural death!); adults are free to believe what they want.
> 
> ...and I still don't understand your association/confusion with literature or music. If religious works were treated as what they are, literature and music, there would be no problem! The bible has lots of interesting stories (but many are a little too violent and cruel for my liking) and is a great work of literature of its time. There is nothing wrong with reading the bible, discussing it and learning from it if it is kept in perspective.


Perhaps it is because I see religion at its core as no different than any other belief system, including political views. Most children will grow up parroting their parent's views, whether it be liberal, conservative, socialist, or what have you. Whether or not they see the world as basically a safe or a scary place, whether they value education, how they define marriage, and anything else that one can believe in. Or they may be diametrically opposed to their parent's views, depending on the relationship, but either way, our parents have the biggest influence on what we believe, whether we like it or not. And so religious views or lack thereof are bound to be part of the equation. It is just as closed-minded to shield your children from all religious influence just because your own views are atheistic. Either way, what you believe is going to have a direct impact on your offspring.

And I have no problem with that, by the way. It's one of the big reasons people have children; to pass on their world views. Nobody gets to be an adult from bypassing childhood, so it is impossible to shield children from our own beliefs and biases. When they become adults, they are free to accept or reject those beliefs and we just have to deal with it.

I entirely agree that the bible, like many other works if literature, should be taken in context if it is to be used a source of wisdom and guidance. There are many sections that are absolutely antithetical to Jesus' message of forgiveness and love your enemies. But just like the words "conservative" and "liberal", there are many different colorations of meaning depending on who you talk to.


----------



## jef

fjnmusic said:


> It is just as closed-minded to shield your children from all religious influence just because your own views are atheistic. Either way, what you believe is going to have a direct impact on your offspring.


You are assuming that sheltering children is what atheists do? I don't know of anyone who is an atheist parent that would agree. Exposing your children to the universe of beliefs is important - and challenging them. Sheltering children is what I see religious families do.


----------



## iMouse

jef said:


> You are assuming that sheltering children is what atheists do? I don't know of anyone who is an atheist parent that would agree. Exposing your children to the universe of beliefs is important - and challenging them.
> 
> Sheltering children is what I see religious families do.


I like the way you think.

Please, continue.


----------



## fjnmusic

jef said:


> You are assuming that sheltering children is what atheists do? I don't know of anyone who is an atheist parent that would agree. Exposing your children to the universe of beliefs is important - and challenging them. Sheltering children is what I see religious families do.


Interesting. I don't disagree that sheltering children from other world views is a classic trademark of many religious traditions. But if I read between the lines, you see families (and presumably individuals) as either atheist or religious. Why not both? If you raise a child to be strictly atheistic in their world view, you are sheltering them from what most of the rest of the world believes, since most people in the world subscribe to a religion of some kind, and it's just as closed-minded an approach as a fundamentalist view. There is no need for either/or. That's one of my favorite parts of the novel Life of Pi; why can't a person be more than one thing? Why not look at many of the belief systems of the world, including atheism, agnosticism, and secular humanism, and see what they all have in common? 

This is how we teach our own children, even though we are all baptized RC, and it feels like a much more honest approach. Religion provides a great comfort, especially in times of sorrow and loss, but it is the community of people much more than the words on the page that provides that comfort. I have taught in both public and Catholic schools, and the lack of any religious discussion for fear of offending anyone's beliefs is not a benefit in my eyes. You also have to be careful what you say in an RC school, but at least you can mention the G word. I wish everyone could take a comparative religious studies course to get the essence of what each religion is about, since this "magical thinking" or lack thereof is behind just about every decision human beings make. I always want to understand why people act the way they do, and this is the biggest clue.


----------



## iMouse

Why not wait until the kids are 13 to baptize them?

Works for the Jews, and I know that my own "awakening" occurred a few years before that age.


----------



## Dr.G.

iMouse said:


> Why not wait until the kids are 13 to baptize them?
> 
> Works for the Jews, and I know that my own "awakening" occurred a few years before that age.


Sounds reasonable, iMouse ............. except for the Bris. At 8 days of age it is difficult ............... at 13 years of age it would be very traumatic. 

Shalom, mon ami.


----------



## iMouse

Dr.G. said:


> Sounds reasonable, iMouse ............. except for the Bris. At 8 days of age it is difficult ............... at 13 years of age it would be very traumatic.
> 
> Shalom, mon ami.


As I understand it, more and more Jewish parents are opting-out of this procedure for their baby boys.

If the child decides at a later date to follow this tenet, they are certainly free to do so.

Unless medial intervention is required before that time.


----------



## Dr.G.

iMouse said:


> As I understand it, more and more Jewish parents are opting-out of this procedure for their baby boys.
> 
> If the child decides at a later date to follow this tenet, they are certainly free to do so.
> 
> Unless medial intervention is required before that time.


Yes, I have heard this as well. We had our pediatrician use "the ring technique", which does not involve any cutting. I was told that I screamed and peed upon both the Sandek and Mohel. My son laughed when he was done (in a non-religious ceremony) and peed on the doctor.


----------



## jef

fjnmusic said:


> Interesting. I don't disagree that sheltering children from other world views is a classic trademark of many religious traditions. But if I read between the lines, you see families (and presumably individuals) as either atheist or religious. Why not both? If you raise a child to be strictly atheistic in their world view, you are sheltering them from what most of the rest of the world believes, since most people in the world subscribe to a religion of some kind, and it's just as closed-minded an approach as a fundamentalist view. There is no need for either/or. That's one of my favorite parts of the novel Life of Pi; why can't a person be more than one thing? Why not look at many of the belief systems of the world, including atheism, agnosticism, and secular humanism, and see what they all have in common?
> 
> This is how we teach our own children, even though we are all baptized RC, and it feels like a much more honest approach. Religion provides a great comfort, especially in times of sorrow and loss, but it is the community of people much more than the words on the page that provides that comfort. I have taught in both public and Catholic schools, and the lack of any religious discussion for fear of offending anyone's beliefs is not a benefit in my eyes. You also have to be careful what you say in an RC school, but at least you can mention the G word. I wish everyone could take a comparative religious studies course to get the essence of what each religion is about, since this "magical thinking" or lack thereof is behind just about every decision human beings make. I always want to understand why people act the way they do, and this is the biggest clue.



You are assuming a lot again...

When I was a kid, my parents, who were both brought up in religious families, were on the fence about religion. We visited a bunch of different churches, synagogues and temples and I was made well aware of the diversity of religious beliefs (and the penalties for not believing in them). As they grew away from the church, I was taught that it was my choice to choose what to believe and they would respect my decisions. I remember talking to them often about all the different beliefs and how could any one of them be the only correct one. I think that was my 'eureka' moment...

My own kids grew up in Japan where religion plays a very different role. They went to shrines and temples as they grew up for different occasions but mainstream religion in Japan is more like cultural superstition than actual belief. When we moved back to Canada a few years ago, the number and intensity of religious people (and too much processed food) were probably the greatest culture shock items we experienced. 

Now settled in Canada, they are in contact with religious people on a much more personal level than in Japan. They have to deal with the neighbour's kids telling them they will go to hell if they don't go to church etc. but they have attended church services here to find out what it is all about. If they decide to join a church, I see it as my duty as a parent to discuss it with them and ultimately, to respect their decisions.


----------



## fjnmusic

iMouse said:


> Why not wait until the kids are 13 to baptize them?
> 
> Works for the Jews, and I know that my own "awakening" occurred a few years before that age.


Womb to tomb--that's the Catholic way. Some other denominations wait until adulthood before full indoctrination. I ljke what Bishop John Shelby Spong says about the whole born again thing...

http://youtu.be/SF6I5VSZVqc


----------



## fjnmusic

jef said:


> You are assuming a lot again...
> 
> When I was a kid, my parents, who were both brought up in religious families, were on the fence about religion. We visited a bunch of different churches, synagogues and temples and I was made well aware of the diversity of religious beliefs (and the penalties for not believing in them). As they grew away from the church, I was taught that it was my choice to choose what to believe and they would respect my decisions. I remember talking to them often about all the different beliefs and how could any one of them be the only correct one. I think that was my 'eureka' moment...
> 
> My own kids grew up in Japan where religion plays a very different role. They went to shrines and temples as they grew up for different occasions but mainstream religion in Japan is more like cultural superstition than actual belief. When we moved back to Canada a few years ago, the number and intensity of religious people (and too much processed food) were probably the greatest culture shock items we experienced.
> 
> Now settled in Canada, they are in contact with religious people on a much more personal level than in Japan. They have to deal with the neighbour's kids telling them they will go to hell if they don't go to church etc. but they have attended church services here to find out what it is all about. If they decide to join a church, I see it as my duty as a parent to discuss it with them and ultimately, to respect their decisions.


I like your approach, Jef. You are respectful of different traditions and allow your kids to make their own choices. It would be great if all parents could be spiritual guides as opposed to spiritual dictators. It is also worth noting that your own open-mindedness was passed on to you from your parents. If they had been more hardcore, your eureka moment might have come at a different time...or not at all.


----------



## bryanc

Fjnmusic has posted several interesting things that I'd like to reply to, so I'm going to try to respond to several posts at once here.


fjnmusic said:


> Happy Easter weekend, folks! And especially you, Bryan.


Thanks.


> If you have today off, thank a religious person.


I spent the day working with my students on their research projects; but I am grateful to all the pagans who established the festival of Ēostre (which, like the solstice, was subsequently co-opted by the Christians) because I enjoy chocolate and scavenger hunts as much as the next guy.


> It is commendable that you can find so much data to back up your stance that religion is misguided at best and evil at worst and your contention that it should be abolished. But I believe you fail to see the big picture.


I don't think it should be abolished any more than smoking should be abolished; Like smoking, religions are damaging habits that many people pick up and find hard to quit, but as long as they keep it to themselves, I feel very strongly that any adult should be able to choose what chemicals they put in their body, and what ideas they put in their minds. I do however agree you shouldn't be allowed to sell cigarettes to kids, or take them to church.

If kids didn't get indoctrinated with these crazy ideas when they were too young to think for themselves, I think religions would fade away very quickly. There'd probably always be a few followers of various faiths, but it's dominance in society would evaporate.



> In a way, it's a little like the kid who wants to take his bat and ball and go home, so nobody else can have fun either.


On the contrary, almost all the kids have different kinds of bats and balls and they've spent the past couple of millennia arguing about who's rules should be used, who's going to be on who's team, and these arguments have frequently turned into violent fights (using your analogy, the kids are hitting each other with their bats). I don't want to play - I'd rather go read a book - and I don't think anyone else should be made to play these stupid games either.



> Did you allow your own kids to believe in Santa Claus for a period of time or did you pop that balloon at the start as well?


I told him Santa was a mythical character, just like the Tooth Fairy, Jesus, The Cat in the Hat (who he found quite frightening), Bilbo Baggins, and the Devil. By the time he was sophisticated enough to understand what "mythical" meant, he was perfectly comfortable with Santa not being real; and he never had to deal with the discovery that his parents had been lying to him. It was also very useful in helping him understand why many of his friends distrust their parents, and why so many of them feel the need to go to church.



> But the argument Bryan often presents is for the abolition of religion altogether, which is a very different proposal and certainly one of less tolerance.


Again, just to be clear, I'm not arguing for the abolition of religion; I don't even think that would be possible, as most religions thrive on persecution. I think society would be far better off without religion*, but it must be allowed to die a natural death; civilization needs to outgrow its superstitions, they can't be abolished.

(One of the quotes in my collection, for which I'm still looking for attribution is "Society without religion is like a crazed psychopath without a .45" If anyone can tell me who said that, I'd appreciate it.)

My tolerance for religion is very much like my tolerance for smoking; I don't like it, and I don't want it done around me. I grew up in an environment where it was ubiquitous, and I know what harm it can cause, so I do what I can to reduce people's propensity to this unpleasant habit, but I can't object to adults who choose to do it to themselves.



> I am not sure whether Bryan's argument is more based on atheism or scientific method. They are not one and the same, though he often equates the two.


My atheism is based on logical skepticism, and the scientific method is also based on logical skepticism. Science starts with the premise that any observable phenomenon has natural causes, so science is inherently atheistic. I have discussed this epistemological characteristic of science with a few of my theist colleagues, and have found none that disagree; when pressed on the question of "how can you believe in a supernatural god, and simultaneously believe that science is a valid way of answering questions?" they've all admitted it's irrational and they just don't think about it.



> I would also suggest that every story, no matter how fantastical, begins with some truth about life or human nature.


 This is because the stories were made up by humans. If you could understand the stories dolphins made up, they'd doubtless reveal a great deal about dolphin-nature.



> Perhaps it is because I see religion at its core as no different than any other belief system


I agree with you to some extent; many beliefs are held irrationally - faith in politicians, sports heroes, military heroes, and even many personal relationships. But not all systems of thought are built on such shifting sands. Good philosophies are founded on internally consistent logic, and science has the added foundation of empirical observation. So science (and much of modern Western philosophy) is very much the opposite of religion; faith is not a virtue, it is a vice. Rational skepticism, logic and evidence are virtues, and any argument that cannot withstand those, no matter how desirable it might be to believe, is not accepted as valid.



> It is just as closed-minded to shield your children from all religious influence just because your own views are atheistic.


I agree; our culture is steeped in religion, and it is inescapable in one's daily life (more's the pity). But I have never instructed my son, or any other kids on what to believe, nor have I even told him what I believe (or don't believe). I have focused on how one can decide for one's self what is believable and what is likely bullish*t. Critical thinking, rational thought, flexibility and the ability to admit when you've made a mistake or been misled, standards of evidence, and common sense things like "follow the money."


> But if I read between the lines, you see families (and presumably individuals) as either atheist or religious. Why not both?


Well, your own prodigious capacity for coping with cognitive dissonance notwithstanding, "atheist" means "without believes in/about god(s)" and the Abrahamic religions that dominate our society are based on beliefs about a god. While I understand that it's possible to be an atheist Buddhist, and that there are some other religions that do not explicitly require beliefs in god(s), if you meet someone who describes themselves as "religious" they will almost invariably be Christian, Jewish, Muslim, or Hindu and all of these faiths involve gods. Thus, the intersection of the set of atheists and the set of religious people, is a small, if not negligible set.



> If you raise a child to be strictly atheistic in their world view, you are sheltering them from what most of the rest of the world believes, since most people in the world subscribe to a religion of some kind, and it's just as closed-minded an approach as a fundamentalist view.


I'm sure you won't be surprised to learn that I disagree. By raising one's child to be open minded but skeptical, and arming them with critical thinking skills and the capacity to accept that they cannot necessarily answer all questions all the time, and that therefore uncertainty is not to be feared, you provide them with the conceptual tools to decide for themselves what to believe.

But just like you don't immunize your child against all the viruses in the world all at once (because you would overwhelm their developing immune systems), you don't plunge your uneducated child into social setting seething with the most infectious mental viruses that have ever evolved before their mental immune system has developed. By the time they're 12 or so, they may be able to use their rationality to ward off the attacks of viruses as optimized to infect the Western mind as Christianity or Islam, but exposing a young child to these viruses early is likely to infect them (which, of course, is exactly why these churches so desperately want people to bring their children).

It should be noted that many people have been able to fight off these mental illnesses even having been infected as children; I think this speaks highly of their rational thinking capacities, their self-disipline, and in many cases their personal bravery. I am genuinely impressed by those of you who have done it. (I think this is quite similar to quitting smoking after having become addicted; good on you if you've managed it!). But just like we wouldn't approve of getting kids hooked on cigarettes before they were 12, we shouldn't approve of getting kids infected with religion before they're adults either.



> I wish everyone could take a comparative religious studies course to get the essence of what each religion is about


I completely agree with you here.



> since this "magical thinking" or lack thereof is behind just about every decision human beings make. I always want to understand why people act the way they do, and this is the biggest clue.


I also find this interesting; "magical thinking" to me, underlies about half of what's wrong with society... greed underlies the other half. (Actually, there's probably significant overlap, come to think of it).

At any rate, thanks for some very thought provoking posts. :clap:


----------



## bryanc

fjnmusic said:


> It is also worth noting that your own open-mindedness was passed on to you from your parents.


My parents also took this approach, and my partner and I have continued the tradition with our son. But I think the lack of religion in my early development is part of what has made it so fascinating to me in my adulthood. I is genuinely incomprehensible to me that otherwise functional adults can believe these myths. Especially when they are such wildly implausible myths and every other culture on earth has a bunch of equally implausible myths (and, if you take some time to study it, you can even trace the evolution of these myths through the millennia).

It's like discovering 90% of the people you meet are colour blind.


----------



## fjnmusic

bryanc said:


> Fjnmusic has posted several interesting things that I'd like to reply to, so I'm going to try to respond to several posts at once here.
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> I spent the day working with my students on their research projects; but I am grateful to all the pagans who established the festival of Ēostre (which, like the solstice, was subsequently co-opted by the Christians) because I enjoy chocolate and scavenger hunts as much as the next guy.
> 
> I don't think it should be abolished any more than smoking should be abolished; Like smoking, religions are damaging habits that many people pick up and find hard to quit, but as long as they keep it to themselves, I feel very strongly that any adult should be able to choose what chemicals they put in their body, and what ideas they put in their minds. I do however agree you shouldn't be allowed to sell cigarettes to kids, or take them to church.
> 
> If kids didn't get indoctrinated with these crazy ideas when they were too young to think for themselves, I think religions would fade away very quickly. There'd probably always be a few followers of various faiths, but it's dominance in society would evaporate.
> 
> 
> On the contrary, almost all the kids have different kinds of bats and balls and they've spent the past couple of millennia arguing about who's rules should be used, who's going to be on who's team, and these arguments have frequently turned into violent fights (using your analogy, the kids are hitting each other with their bats). I don't want to play - I'd rather go read a book - and I don't think anyone else should be made to play these stupid games either.
> 
> 
> I told him Santa was a mythical character, just like the Tooth Fairy, Jesus, The Cat in the Hat (who he found quite frightening), Bilbo Baggins, and the Devil. By the time he was sophisticated enough to understand what "mythical" meant, he was perfectly comfortable with Santa not being real; and he never had to deal with the discovery that his parents had been lying to him. It was also very useful in helping him understand why many of his friends distrust their parents, and why so many of them feel the need to go to church.
> 
> 
> Again, just to be clear, I'm not arguing for the abolition of religion; I don't even think that would be possible, as most religions thrive on persecution. I think society would be far better off without religion*, but it must be allowed to die a natural death; civilization needs to outgrow its superstitions, they can't be abolished.
> 
> (One of the quotes in my collection, for which I'm still looking for attribution is "Society without religion is like a crazed psychopath without a .45" If anyone can tell me who said that, I'd appreciate it.)
> 
> My tolerance for religion is very much like my tolerance for smoking; I don't like it, and I don't want it done around me. I grew up in an environment where it was ubiquitous, and I know what harm it can cause, so I do what I can to reduce people's propensity to this unpleasant habit, but I can't object to adults who choose to do it to themselves.
> 
> 
> My atheism is based on logical skepticism, and the scientific method is also based on logical skepticism. Science starts with the premise that any observable phenomenon has natural causes, so science is inherently atheistic. I have discussed this epistemological characteristic of science with a few of my theist colleagues, and have found none that disagree; when pressed on the question of "how can you believe in a supernatural god, and simultaneously believe that science is a valid way of answering questions?" they've all admitted it's irrational and they just don't think about it.
> 
> This is because the stories were made up by humans. If you could understand the stories dolphins made up, they'd doubtless reveal a great deal about dolphin-nature.
> 
> 
> I agree with you to some extent; many beliefs are held irrationally - faith in politicians, sports heroes, military heroes, and even many personal relationships. But not all systems of thought are built on such shifting sands. Good philosophies are founded on internally consistent logic, and science has the added foundation of empirical observation. So science (and much of modern Western philosophy) is very much the opposite of religion; faith is not a virtue, it is a vice. Rational skepticism, logic and evidence are virtues, and any argument that cannot withstand those, no matter how desirable it might be to believe, is not accepted as valid.
> 
> 
> I agree; our culture is steeped in religion, and it is inescapable in one's daily life (more's the pity). But I have never instructed my son, or any other kids on what to believe, nor have I even told him what I believe (or don't believe). I have focused on how one can decide for one's self what is believable and what is likely bullish*t. Critical thinking, rational thought, flexibility and the ability to admit when you've made a mistake or been misled, standards of evidence, and common sense things like "follow the money."
> 
> Well, your own prodigious capacity for coping with cognitive dissonance notwithstanding, "atheist" means "without believes in/about god(s)" and the Abrahamic religions that dominate our society are based on beliefs about a god. While I understand that it's possible to be an atheist Buddhist, and that there are some other religions that do not explicitly require beliefs in god(s), if you meet someone who describes themselves as "religious" they will almost invariably be Christian, Jewish, Muslim, or Hindu and all of these faiths involve gods. Thus, the intersection of the set of atheists and the set of religious people, is a small, if not negligible set.
> 
> 
> I'm sure you won't be surprised to learn that I disagree. By raising one's child to be open minded but skeptical, and arming them with critical thinking skills and the capacity to accept that they cannot necessarily answer all questions all the time, and that therefore uncertainty is not to be feared, you provide them with the conceptual tools to decide for themselves what to believe.
> 
> But just like you don't immunize your child against all the viruses in the world all at once (because you would overwhelm their developing immune systems), you don't plunge your uneducated child into social setting seething with the most infectious mental viruses that have ever evolved before their mental immune system has developed. By the time they're 12 or so, they may be able to use their rationality to ward off the attacks of viruses as optimized to infect the Western mind as Christianity or Islam, but exposing a young child to these viruses early is likely to infect them (which, of course, is exactly why these churches so desperately want people to bring their children).
> 
> It should be noted that many people have been able to fight off these mental illnesses even having been infected as children; I think this speaks highly of their rational thinking capacities, their self-disipline, and in many cases their personal bravery. I am genuinely impressed by those of you who have done it. (I think this is quite similar to quitting smoking after having become addicted; good on you if you've managed it!). But just like we wouldn't approve of getting kids hooked on cigarettes before they were 12, we shouldn't approve of getting kids infected with religion before they're adults either.
> 
> 
> I completely agree with you here.
> 
> 
> I also find this interesting; "magical thinking" to me, underlies about half of what's wrong with society... greed underlies the other half. (Actually, there's probably significant overlap, come to think of it).
> 
> At any rate, thanks for some very thought provoking posts. :clap:


I must say that I agree with pretty much everything you've said here, Bryan. I don't think atheists are generally unaware of the beliefs of others; if anything, they are more aware of the intricacies of religions than most of the practitioners are. Of course, that compliment is reserved for the educated atheists. There are many others who are not atheists so much as they've never studied anything. The same could be said of a great many "believers" truth be told. To be honest, the labelling of ourselves as this thing or that thing could well be the root of the problem. 

"Society without religion is like a crazed psychopath without a .45"

According to this source ( "A society without religion is like a crazed psychopath without a loaded .45"? - Yahoo! Answers ), Mike Beebe, governor of Arkansas is quoted as saying this. It doesn't mean he came up with it, but it's a start.

Here are some more fun quotes for your Easter weekend:

"You're basically killing each other to see who's got the better imaginary friend."
Blaise Pascal

"I do not fear my death. I had been dead for billions and billions of years before I was born, and had not suffered the slighest inconvenience from it."
Mark Twain

"The invisible and the non-existent look very much alike."
Delos B. McKown

"Christ died for our sins. Dare we make his martyrdom meaningless by not committing them?"
Jules Feiffer


----------



## jef

fjnmusic said:


> I like your approach, Jef. You are respectful of different traditions and allow your kids to make their own choices. It would be great if all parents could be spiritual guides as opposed to spiritual dictators. It is also worth noting that your own open-mindedness was passed on to you from your parents. If they had been more hardcore, your eureka moment might have come at a different time...or not at all.


Actually my grandparents, paternal especially, were pretty hardcore but my parents were brave enough to step out on their own in the early to mid 60s which wasn't a very popular thing to do at the time. So I'm glad that these things are not always passed on...


----------



## bryanc

fjnmusic said:


> According to this source ( "A society without religion is like a crazed psychopath without a loaded .45"? - Yahoo! Answers ), Mike Beebe, governor of Arkansas is quoted as saying this. It doesn't mean he came up with it, but it's a start.


Thanks. I'm not sure I believe yahoo answers, but you're right; it's a start.



> Here are some more fun quotes for your Easter weekend:
> 
> "You're basically killing each other to see who's got the better imaginary friend."
> Blaise Pascal


I've heard several variations on this, attributed to several different people. That particular wording certainly does not sound like Pascal (he of "Pascal's Wager"), but he may have said something similar.



> "I do not fear my death. I had been dead for billions and billions of years before I was born, and had not suffered the slighest inconvenience from it."
> Mark Twain


I've heard this one, with slightly different wording, attributed to Carl Sagan.



> "The invisible and the non-existent look very much alike."
> Delos B. McKown
> 
> "Christ died for our sins. Dare we make his martyrdom meaningless by not committing them?"
> Jules Feiffer


I hadn't heard either of these two before; good ones!

{edit: I suppose I should contribute some quotes as well:

"We must respect the other fellow's religion, but only in the sense and to the extent that we respect his theory that his wife is beautiful and his children smart." - H. L. Mencken

"Faith: Belief without evidence in what is told by one who speaks without knowledge, of things without parallel." - Ambrose Bierce

"I still say a church steeple with a lightning rod on top shows a lack of faith." - Doug McLeod

"Gods are fragile things; they may be killed by a whiff of science or a dose of common sense." - Chapman Cohen

"For centuries, theologians have been explaining the unknowable in terms of the-not-worth-knowing." - H. L. Mencken

"The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason." - Ben Franklin

"I consider the capacity for faith terrifying." - Kurt Vonnegut, Jr.}


----------



## fjnmusic

Good ones, also. But one does need faith in oneself before one steps on the stage for the first time. - FJN


----------



## iMouse

In the end, that all you have, really.


----------



## eMacMan

An appropriate easter contribution from Woody
Jesus Christ - Woody Guthrie - YouTube

Another version from Merle
Merle Haggard - Jesus Christ - YouTube


----------



## JCCanuck

Great stuff fjnmusic and bryanc, love the quotes especially. I have two kids (actually my son became an adult three days ago, the daughter a teenager) one of which was mentioned a few month ago back on this forum telling me he's an atheist after being brought up a catholic since birth.The boy has done very well keeping his sins minimal to this day. The daughter who still is very religious in belief, well let's say she was a bad girl and that's all I can really say but I'm sure many moms and dad can guess what I mean.


----------



## iMouse

Yes, Confession can be very "convenient".


----------



## bryanc

JCCanuck said:


> I have two kids (actually my son became an adult three days ago, the daughter a teenager)


Congratulations; you have succeeded at what is ultimately the most important task in life. :clap:


> one of which was mentioned a few month ago back on this forum telling me he's an atheist after being brought up a catholic since birth.The boy has done very well keeping his sins minimal to this day.


In my experience, an individual who realizes they must establish their own moral framework using principles they can derive for themselves, rather than a set of instructions handed down by dubious authorities ostensibly based on a magic book, is far more likely to behave in a morally acceptable manner.


> The daughter who still is very religious in belief, well let's say she was a bad girl and that's all I can really say but I'm sure many moms and dad can guess what I mean.


This is what I loved most about Catholic girls when I was in high school  Good luck with her; hopefully she'll grow out of it. Most of them do.


----------



## bryanc

.


----------



## fjnmusic




----------



## CubaMark




----------



## screature

*Attendance at religious services lowers risk of depression, study finds*

Attendance at religious services lowers risk of depression, study finds



> A major new study that tracked more than 12,000 Canadians over a period of 14 years has found that regular attendance of religious service offers significant protection against depression.
> 
> In an article published in the April issue of the Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, researchers at the University of Saskatchewan write that incidence of clinical depression was 22% lower among those who attended religious services at least once a month compared with people who never attended.
> 
> “Significantly fewer monthly attenders reported having episodes or a diagnosis of depression,” the authors write. “This … suggests a protective effect of religious attendance.”
> 
> Marilyn Baetz, head of the department of psychiatry at the University of Saskatchewan, co-wrote the study with Lloyd Balbuena and Rudy Bowen. In an interview she said the explanation for the effect remains something of a mystery.
> 
> The researchers controlled for the subjects’ sense of “social support” — for example, whether they felt they had someone to confide in or felt loved — and found that religious attendance had an impact beyond the sentiment of belonging to a community.
> 
> “The feeling is that if you belong to a religious organization, what you are really getting is just social support, nothing else,” Dr. Baetz said. “But it would appear it is something over and above that.”
> 
> They also controlled for age, income, medical history, marital status and education.
> 
> The conclusion: there is an “unmeasurable” aspect of religious attendance that benefits worshippers, she said.
> 
> “Some ingredient of the religious experience other than behaviours, networks or attitudes alone probably contributes to the benefit,” the authors write. “From the believers’ perspective, they have recourse to divine assistance (even a personal relationship in Christian traditions) and thus are less likely to feel alone with the vicissitudes of life.”
> 
> The study drew on data from the longitudinal National Population Health Survey, beginning with 12,583 people who were not depressed in 1994, and following them to 2008.
> 
> The researchers did not differentiate between different faiths, but Dr. Baetz said that in the baseline year, about 80% of worshippers would have been from Christian denominations.
> 
> Researchers said religious attendance lowered the risk of depression in a “dose-response” fashion: People who attended frequently had the least depression, those who attended occasionally were in the mid-range and those who never attended had the most.
> 
> The study found that people identifying themselves as spiritual but not attending religious service did not experience any health benefit. “It might be something about the organized component of religion that is the healthful component,” Dr. Baetz said.
> 
> She began researching the connection between religion and health about 15 years ago and said at that time the questions she was asking were considered controversial. But she said the medical profession has become more accepting of the role of spirituality.
> 
> “Although in some ways we’re secular, in other ways, particularly when people are stressed and have health problems, you do tend to look outside yourself for other means of coping or support,” she said.
> 
> Of course there’s no guarantee that any individual will benefit from religious attendance. “And you can’t really prescribe it,” Dr. Baetz said. “But it’s interesting to see a 22% decrease in something that’s pretty common.”


----------



## fjnmusic

Makes sense. Going to church is like a social club, and getting up and out of your shell with other people with similar values is a natural way to combat depression. I wonder if you would find similar trends among other kinds of social clubs.


----------



## bryanc

I suspect music has an important role here as well. One thing that secular social institutions rarely do as well as churches is get people involved in singing or otherwise making music. I'm quite convinced (although I have no data apart from my own anecdotal experience) that participating in making music is really good for people.


----------



## screature

fjnmusic said:


> Makes sense. Going to church is like a social club, and getting up and out of your shell with other people with similar values is a natural way to combat depression. I wonder if you would find similar trends among other kinds of social clubs.


Uhmm...



> The researchers controlled for the subjects’ sense of “social support” — for example, whether they felt they had someone to confide in or felt loved — and found that religious attendance had an impact beyond the sentiment of belonging to a community.


----------



## bryanc

screature said:


> Uhmm...


I think FJN's point is that there's more than just being part of a community involved in attending church; there's a regular social interaction that may be having a positive effect.

It's obviously difficult to control for these sorts of things, but you'd have to find similar groups who were regularly attending secular social gatherings that consisted of similar sorts of activities to really test the impact of the religious aspect of attending church.

I really don't think it's feasible to do that type of experiment, but I'm not a sociologist; maybe they have ways of teasing these sorts of confounding effects apart.


----------



## Sonal

While in therapy for depression a while back, I remember telling my therapist that I wish I had a stronger sense of faith to fall back on. She agreed that yes, that can be helpful, but if it's not something you have already, it's not something you can simply say "Okay, today I will have faith." So for me, it just wasn't a tool I had access to, though it is something I began developing in my own way not long after this.

Though from personal experience, as well as that of several friends and my husband, developing a personal sense of spirituality is helpful. I think what it does is help to bring a larger perspective to difficult events.


----------



## eMacMan

An interesting concept.

Ironically a good friend of mine who happens to be a very devout church-goer and participant has a great deal of difficulty dealing with depression. Her son is a non-believer, has suffered brain damage, really struggles to make ends meet and has far more reason to suffer depression, yet he is far better than his mom at maintaining an even keel.

BTW This proves absolutely nothing nor was that my intent.


----------



## iMouse

Everyone loves pie, even that sky flavour.


----------



## Sonal

eMacMan said:


> An interesting concept.
> 
> Ironically a good friend of mine who happens to be a very devout church-goer and participant has a great deal of difficulty dealing with depression. Her son is a non-believer, has suffered brain damage, really struggles to make ends meet and has far more reason to suffer depression, yet he is far better than his mom at maintaining an even keel.
> 
> BTW This proves absolutely nothing nor was that my intent.


Well, no one I know who developed a sense of spirituality to cope with depression goes to church.  

But these matters are very individual. I don't think it's so much the circumstances of a person's life that affects depression so much as it is their own individual emotional resilience. It's why you can have two people with similar life-circumstances, and one is fine while the other is not.

For some people, I think a sense of the spiritual contributes to their emotional resilience, but I don't think that's true for everyone. And certainly, a loss of faith can be an emotionally devastating event, so it may work both ways.


----------



## bryanc

Yes, the importance of religion/spirituality in an individual's emotional stability is likely highly self-fulfilling. If you don't believe you need religion, you probably don't, and if you believe it's important, it probably is. Furthermore, if you believe it is important, and you are somehow unable to participate, you will probably be significantly affected by that.

I certainly have no doubt that, if I were forced to go to church (any church) each week, it would probably drive me insane quite quickly.


----------



## fjnmusic

bryanc said:


> Yes, the importance of religion/spirituality in an individual's emotional stability is likely highly self-fulfilling. If you don't believe you need religion, you probably don't, and if you believe it's important, it probably is. Furthermore, if you believe it is important, and you are somehow unable to participate, you will probably be significantly affected by that.
> 
> I certainly have no doubt that, if I were forced to go to church (any church) each week, it would probably drive me insane quite quickly.


Like any other obligation you get schmoozed into.


----------



## MacGuiver

fjnmusic said:


> Makes sense. Going to church is like a social club, and getting up and out of your shell with other people with similar values is a natural way to combat depression. I wonder if you would find similar trends among other kinds of social clubs.


Perhaps depression is often a byproduct of sinful choices? People steeped in sin are less likely to be attracted to an institution that challenges the virtue of their vices. Acts 17:11
Hence fewer people suffering from depression attending church. Not so much that Church is the cure for depression but depressed people are less likely to attend?


----------



## eMacMan

MacGuiver said:


> Perhaps depression is often a byproduct of sinful choices? People steeped in sin are less likely to be attracted to an institution that challenges the virtue of their vices. Acts 17:11
> Hence fewer people suffering from depression attending church. Not so much that Church is the cure for depression but depressed people are less likely to attend?


Again none of the depressed individuals I have encountered have any reason to be ashamed of their lives. Quite simply life is stressful for about 95% of the worlds population. Imagine what it would be like if you happened to be born as a next door neighbour to Israel.

What it comes down to is some of us are better able to deal with this than others. 

I have no tolerance for the suggestion that someone is depressed because they happen to not be Catholic or Protestant or Jewish or Muslim or Buddhist ... and therefore are sinners in the eyes of whatever religion that happens to be damning them this week.

The case I cited earlier is as devout as they come and lives her life according to her spiritual beliefs. That has not in the least prevented depression.

Still if the Catholic Church were to present clear evidence that its pedophile Priests, and the corresponding butt covering Bishops, suffered a much higher rate of depression than their cleaner counterparts it would reinforce your argument.


----------



## Sonal

MacGuiver said:


> Perhaps depression is often a byproduct of sinful choices? People steeped in sin are less likely to be attracted to an institution that challenges the virtue of their vices. Acts 17:11
> Hence fewer people suffering from depression attending church. Not so much that Church is the cure for depression but depressed people are less likely to attend?


Well, considering that depression for me started when I was about 8 years old, I would say no, sin did not have much to do with it. I wasn't leading a sinful life at 8. 

For my husband, he struggled with the Balkan war--though born and brought up here, and not directly touched by the war, his family is from the former Yugoslavia. Sin? No. 

In my experience, depression does not necessarily have an identifiable cause, i.e., I did these things, or these thing happened to me, and then I became depressed. A lot of it is a thinking pattern that makes it difficult to cope.


----------



## screature

Sonal said:


> Well, considering that depression for me started when I was about 8 years old, I would say no, sin did not have much to do with it. I wasn't leading a sinful life at 8.
> 
> For my husband, he struggled with the Balkan war--though born and brought up here, and not directly touched by the war, his family is from the former Yugoslavia. Sin? No.
> 
> In my experience, *depression does not necessarily have an identifiable cause*, i.e., I did these things, or these thing happened to me, and then I became depressed. A lot of it is a thinking pattern that makes it difficult to cope.


I agree, not necessarily, but depression can and often does follow or is precipitated by certain life events, e.g. the death of a loved one, a marriage/relationship breakup, loss of job etc. 

But I certainly agree don't see where there is any causal relationship between "sin" and depression as often the "sinner" does not see their actions as being wrong.


----------



## Sonal

screature said:


> I agree, not necessarily, but depression can and often does follow or is precipitated by certain life events, e.g. the death of a loved one, a marriage/relationship breakup, loss of job etc.


It's one primary differences between situational depression and clinical depression.

Situational depression, while still serious, will usually abate when the situation either changes or becomes easier to cope with. Clinical depression may be triggered by events, but is also occurs in the absence of these events.

Clearly, situational depression is a lot easier for people to understand. 

Now, possibly if you are doing things that you believe are wrong or harmful, you will become unhappy, and then once you stop doing these things you will stop being so unhappy. (I'm oversimplifying a bit.) 

If those things that may you unhappy are considered sins, sure, you could say that leading a life free of sin helps with depression, and a group (religious community) that supports that will likely help you. 

But if these things are not considered sins, or if the things that make you unhappy are considered virtuous behaviour (I'm particularly thinking of homosexuality and being closeted), then being confronted with the 'error of your ways' is probably going to make you feel a lot worse.


----------



## bryanc

Certain religious traditions have a propensity to attribute all the unfortunate events of life to 'sin' (and therefore 'you deserve it'), while simultaneously attributing all the fortunate circumstances to God (i.e. 'you are blessed with good health, wealth, etc.') and therefore you must be thankful for it. 

I'd rather accept that there are aspects of our existence that are beyond our control; so one does what one can to minimize the odds of bad things happening and gets on with the things we do control.


----------



## screature

Sonal said:


> *It's one primary differences between situational depression and clinical depression.
> 
> Situational depression, while still serious, will usually abate when the situation either changes or becomes easier to cope with. Clinical depression may be triggered by events, but is also occurs in the absence of these events.*
> 
> Clearly, situational depression is a lot easier for people to understand.
> 
> Now, possibly if you are doing things that you believe are wrong or harmful, you will become unhappy, and then once you stop doing these things you will stop being so unhappy. (I'm oversimplifying a bit.)
> 
> If those things that may you unhappy are considered sins, sure, you could say that leading a life free of sin helps with depression, and a group (religious community) that supports that will likely help you.
> 
> *But if these things are not considered sins, or if the things that make you unhappy are considered virtuous behaviour (I'm particularly thinking of homosexuality and being closeted), then being confronted with the 'error of your ways' is probably going to make you feel a lot worse.*


Yes I agree there is a difference but as you say situational depression can trigger clinical depression. It was certainly the case when I have become clinically depressed.

My mother was clinically depressed most of her life and went through extended periods lasting years before there was a period of remission but it seemed that inevitably a life experience/situation would occur and send her back into clinical depression.

Clinical depression is often (if not always) related to a brain chemistry imbalance, so those who are clinically depressed, even during periods of remission, are far more susceptible to a life event/situation triggering another period of clinical depression. 

On that front for some it may, for others being made to feel "guilty" for that which to them is normal and natural may just lead to them abandoning that religion and moving to one that is more tolerant.


----------



## Sonal

bryanc said:


> Certain religious traditions have a propensity to attribute all the unfortunate events of life to 'sin' (and therefore 'you deserve it'), while simultaneously attributing all the fortunate circumstances to God (i.e. 'you are blessed with good health, wealth, etc.') and therefore you must be thankful for it.
> 
> I'd rather accept that there are aspects of our existence that are beyond our control; so one does what one can to minimize the odds of bad things happening and gets on with the things we do control.


To that end, expressing gratitude and being thankful for fortunate circumstances has been shown to increase happiness.


----------



## screature

Sonal said:


> To that end, expressing gratitude and being thankful for fortunate circumstances has been shown to increase happiness.


And isn't this indeed what many religions profess, that we should be grateful for that which we already have and not be envious of others who may "seemingly" (materially) have more.

Certainly in terms of Judeo-Christian theology/tradition it is a major tenet of their faiths as envy is one of the "seven deadly sins" and as well they have significant rituals related to expressing gratitude such as Thanksgiving.


----------



## MacGuiver

bryanc said:


> Certain religious traditions have a propensity to attribute all the unfortunate events of life to 'sin' (and therefore 'you deserve it'), while simultaneously attributing all the fortunate circumstances to God (i.e. 'you are blessed with good health, wealth, etc.') and therefore you must be thankful for it.


Not at all.


----------



## fjnmusic

Sonal said:


> Well, considering that depression for me started when I was about 8 years old, I would say no, sin did not have much to do with it. I wasn't leading a sinful life at 8.
> 
> For my husband, he struggled with the Balkan war--though born and brought up here, and not directly touched by the war, his family is from the former Yugoslavia. Sin? No.
> 
> In my experience, depression does not necessarily have an identifiable cause, i.e., I did these things, or these thing happened to me, and then I became depressed. A lot of it is a thinking pattern that makes it difficult to cope.


You're right, Sonal. It's all about the synapses. "Sin" is a pejorative word that means nothing to one who does not adhere to the religion being referenced. For a Catholic to eat bacon is not a sin, for example, while for a Jew it is. The guilt complexes associated with "sin" however, real or imagined, can certainly lead to depression and anxiety.


----------



## iMouse

eMacMan said:


> Imagine what it would be like if you happened to be born as a next door neighbour to Israel.


I have an easier time imagining being born a Jew, in 1930's Europe.


----------



## MacGuiver

fjnmusic said:


> The guilt complexes associated with "sin" however, real or imagined, can certainly lead to depression and anxiety.


So there should be more depression with church attendance...but there is less?


----------



## groovetube

First of all, the person has to believe what they was, a sin.

For example, many gay people can be ashamed or have major problems, as a result of being taught religious beliefs that it's a sin, one to be ashamed of. If it weren't for these belief systems being rammed down people's throats, perhaps there would be far less depression and feelings of shame.

I could go on about this. So the idea that a solution to depression is to live by a religious set of beliefs and not 'sin' according to those rules, is almost pathetic, if not ludicrous in my opinion.


----------



## iMouse

Right.

The depression is Man-made, and can be solved by Man.

Therein lies the problem.


----------



## MacGuiver

groovetube said:


> First of all, the person has to believe what they was, a sin.
> 
> For example, many gay people can be ashamed or have major problems, as a result of being taught religious beliefs that it's a sin, one to be ashamed of. If it weren't for these belief systems being rammed down people's throats, perhaps there would be far less depression and feelings of shame.
> 
> I could go on about this. So the idea that a solution to depression is to live by a religious set of beliefs and not 'sin' according to those rules, is almost pathetic, if not ludicrous in my opinion.


I guess it is ludicrous. 
Cheat on your wife, beat your children, prostitute yourself, indulge whatever desire you wish for sex, drugs, alcohol, power or money and if depression should befall you as a result, whisk that nasty conscience aside and be happy. Your actions are not responsible for your pain, its only your erroneous perception of them that is to blame.


----------



## iMouse

Ah yes, the root reason for Confession.

Well done.


----------



## groovetube

MacGuiver said:


> I guess it is ludicrous.
> Cheat on your wife, beat your children, prostitute yourself, indulge whatever desire you wish for sex, drugs, alcohol, power or money and if depression should befall you as a result, whisk that nasty conscience aside and be happy. Your actions are not responsible for your pain, its only your erroneous perception of them that is to blame.


oh really, I wasn't aware that -those- were the causes of depression.

What a revelation! :lmao:


----------



## iMouse

Well of course, the Koran isn't around for most, to be of any benefit.


----------



## fjnmusic

MacGuiver said:


> So there should be more depression with church attendance...but there is less?


I don't know about that. However, I do know that with someone suffering a psychotic episode, particularly mania, hearing the voice of god or believing oneself to actually be god is present in about 100% of cases.


----------



## MacGuiver

fjnmusic said:


> I don't know about that. However, I do know that with someone suffering a psychotic episode, particularly mania, hearing the voice of god or believing oneself to actually be god is present in about 100% of cases.


I couldn't disagree more. I certainly can concur this is the case with newagers.


----------



## fjnmusic

MacGuiver said:


> I couldn't disagree more. I certainly can concur this is the case with newagers.


So how many people have you met that are in the midst of a full blown psychotic episode? How much have you read on the subject of mental illness and religious delusions of grandeur?


----------



## MacGuiver

fjnmusic said:


> So how many people have you met that are in the midst of a full blown psychotic episode? How much have you read on the subject of mental illness and religious delusions of grandeur?


I may have miss read your intent in your 100% figure. I was under the impression you were attributing that to everyone that attends church since that was the focus of our discussion.


----------



## iMouse

No room on the bench. 

Sculpture of Jesus the Homeless rejected by two prominent churches | Toronto Star

People without funds are of no value to The Church.


----------



## eMacMan

iMouse said:


> No room on the bench.
> 
> Sculpture of Jesus the Homeless rejected by two prominent churches | Toronto Star
> 
> People without funds are of no value to The Church.


Good catch.

"If Jesus were to preach today in Toronto City the way he preached in Galilee 
The bankers and the soldiers would lay poor Jesus in his grave."

Pardon the paraphrase. (Woodie Guthrie)


----------



## fjnmusic

MacGuiver said:


> I may have miss read your intent in your 100% figure. I was under the impression you were attributing that to everyone that attends church since that was the focus of our discussion.


What I said was "I do know that with someone suffering a psychotic episode, particularly mania, hearing the voice of god or believing oneself to actually be god is present in about 100% of cases." I t the intent was pretty clear, actually. People who attend church may or may not be psychotic, I'm going to guess not in most cases. Delusional perhaps, but the same could be said about people who believe in the inherent goodness of government or political parties. The ideals may be worthy, but rarely do the institutions live out the ideals very well or very consistently. But this all irrelevant to the point I was making.

In about every case of someone suffering from a psychotic episode, such as mania, hearing the voice of god, being on some kind of mission from god, having a direct connection to god, or otherwise experiencing a delusion of grandeur is a pretty universal symptom. Earlier I asserted that is the guilt associated with having "sinned" leads to depression and anxiety, especially since the concept of "sin" is entirely in the mind. If one is in a state of war, for example, killing is not only not wrong, but it is encouraged. "Sins" are defined as transgressions of religious guidelines, but these guidelines vary depending on which religion one adheres to, if at all. Therefore a "sin" is not a universal concept.

Then you suggested "So there should be more depression with church attendance...but there is less?" which seems to me like you were fishing for opinions. I don't know whether there is more or less depression in your average churchgoer's psyche, or what exactly you were suggesting by your question/statement, but I do know that a strong belief in a personal divine connection is usually associated with mental illness, not wellness. 

So to assume that people who go to church or "have faith" (in what exactly is not specified) have a lesser incidence of depression I think is a BS finding. I contend that people are social animals and whether the gathering is a church, a bar, or an AA meeting, it is the presence of others that has the healing power moreso than the belief in a higher power. Crediting everything to the supreme almighty doesn't give enough credit to the good people doing the hard work right here on terra firm. Or for the religious, it's about "seeing Christ in everyone."


----------



## MacGuiver

iMouse said:


> No room on the bench.
> 
> Sculpture of Jesus the Homeless rejected by two prominent churches | Toronto Star
> 
> People without funds are of no value to The Church.


The article neglects to give us the sticker price$$. Was it free?
Personally I like the concept. Its a thought provoking piece, but as one commenter posted rather ironically "It's tragic that the church and Christians don't do more to help homeless sculptures, as they are called to do. "
That said I think an image of a just man rejected, treated as a criminal, tortured and nailed to a cross is a much more powerful statement of the inhumanity and injustice of the human condition. You'd be hard pressed to find a Catholic Church without it.
I'm also sure all the Catholic bashers left right after posting their outrage in the com box to start their evening shift at the mission dishing out meal and making beds.


----------



## iMouse

It does say it was created under a privately-funded grant, by a devout Catholic, I believe.

I do know that I will be on the look-out for it on Monday, when I go by Wellesley West and Queens' Park Circle.


----------



## fjnmusic

Cool piece of art. Why, I just broke bread with the old guy a couple evenings ago in the front entrance of my daughter's school.


----------



## Dr.G.

fjnmusic said:


> Cool piece of art. Why, I just broke bread with the old guy a couple evenings ago in the front entrance of my daughter's school.
> View attachment 27053


You found the holy grail!!!!!!!!!!!! :clap::clap::clap:


----------



## fjnmusic

Dr.G. said:


> You found the holy grail!!!!!!!!!!!! :clap::clap::clap:


True dat. I also chose wisely. 





+
YouTube Video









ERROR: If you can see this, then YouTube is down or you don't have Flash installed.


----------



## Dr.G.

We should erect a temple for fjn in the ehMacLand Square so that we might worship him and follow his word.


----------



## fjnmusic

Dr.G. said:


> We should erect a temple for fjn in the ehMacLand Square so that we might worship him and follow his word.


I'm liking your way of thinking, Dr. G.


----------



## Dr.G.

fjnmusic said:


> I'm liking your way of thinking, Dr. G.


We just held our first sunrise service in the Temple of fjn. The music lifted all of our spirits ..................... now we await the guidance of your words. "Nearer my fjn, to thee." Paix, mon amis. Excelsior.


----------



## Dr.G.

As it is written in The Book of Life by fjn, "The purpose of following me (i.e., fjn) is to wash the dust of Life off of our everyday souls." Wise words from a wise man.


----------



## Rps

I may join the Temple of the fun. I was going to be an atheist but they have lousy holidays.


----------



## Dr.G.

Rps said:


> I may join the Temple of the fun. I was going to be an atheist but they have lousy holidays.


The Temple of the Fun is downtown next to Our Lady of 147th Street. The atheists meet at the corner of Walk and Don't Walk every day.

However, if you are a true believer in the words of fjnmusic, and want to march to the beat of a different musician, then join us at his temple in the ehMacLand Square. Services are at dawn, noon and sunset each day. Hopefully you shall share in the amazing grace of our spiritual leader. May you see the light to find your way through every day life. He does not demand obedience, nor money, from you ............. just that you treat everyone around you with kindness and respect ............. that you respect your natural environment ................. that you share your knowledge with the rest of the world ............ and that you love doxies. 'Tis an amazing religion and experience once you realize how much you and the world around you benefits from your faith.

From the Book of Life, written by fjnmusic --

"Is not the mountain far more awe-inspiring and more clearly visible to one passing through the valley than to those who inhabit the mountain?"

"The teacher who is indeed wise does not bid you to enter the house of his wisdom but rather leads you to the threshold of your mind."

Your living is determined not so much by what life brings to you as by the attitude you bring to life; not so much by what happens to you as by the way your mind looks at what happens."

In the sweetness of friendship let there be laughter, and sharing of pleasures. For in the dew of little things the heart finds its morning and is refreshed."

Peace, my friend.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u4qbmPpfG6s]Amazing Grace Lyrics - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Dr.G.

Rps said:


> I may join the Temple of the fun. I was going to be an atheist but they have lousy holidays.


Join us for the yearly fjy Springfest ............ we celebrate the coming of Spring and the end to Winter. Just remember NOT to pick any of the flowers. We respect Nature by letting it respect us in the sharing of all of it's beauty. Peace, my friend.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fbsuSaQf2n4]Nearer my God to Thee.. violin - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## fjnmusic

Rps said:


> I may join the Temple of the fun. I was going to be an atheist but they have lousy holidays.


So let it be written; so let it be done. :clap:


----------



## fjnmusic

Dr.G. said:


> The Temple of the Fun is downtown next to Our Lady of 147th Street. The atheists meet at the corner of Walk and Don't Walk every day.
> 
> However, if you are a true believer in the words of fjnmusic, and want to march to the beat of a different musician, then join us at his temple in the ehMacLand Square. Services are at dawn, noon and sunset each day. Hopefully you shall share in the amazing grace of our spiritual leader. May you see the light to find your way through every day life. He does not demand obedience, nor money, from you ............. just that you treat everyone around you with kindness and respect ............. that you respect your natural environment ................. that you share your knowledge with the rest of the world ............ and that you love doxies. 'Tis an amazing religion and experience once you realize how much you and the world around you benefits from your faith.
> 
> From the Book of Life, written by fjnmusic --
> 
> "Is not the mountain far more awe-inspiring and more clearly visible to one passing through the valley than to those who inhabit the mountain?"
> 
> "The teacher who is indeed wise does not bid you to enter the house of his wisdom but rather leads you to the threshold of your mind."
> 
> Your living is determined not so much by what life brings to you as by the attitude you bring to life; not so much by what happens to you as by the way your mind looks at what happens."
> 
> In the sweetness of friendship let there be laughter, and sharing of pleasures. For in the dew of little things the heart finds its morning and is refreshed."
> 
> Peace, my friend.
> 
> Amazing Grace Lyrics - YouTube


You're killing me, Dr. G. (not literally, I hope—though it is a fate that often befalls those with messiah complexes). Funny you should mention the wise lyrics of Amazing Grace…I actually have a version of that one performed with some friends at the Hope Mission a couple of weeks back. 





+
YouTube Video









ERROR: If you can see this, then YouTube is down or you don't have Flash installed.


----------



## Dr.G.

fjnmusic said:


> So let it be written; so let it be done. :clap:


I don't see you as much as a pharaoh as a person who will help us to live better lives from sunrise to sunset. After all, it is written in The Book of Life, by fjn that "We are all in the same rowboat together ............. it just seems as if we are alone and drifting aimlessly." Peace, my friend.


----------



## Dr.G.

fjnmusic said:


> You're killing me, Dr. G. (not literally, I hope—though it is a fate that often befalls those with messiah complexes). Funny you should mention the wise lyrics of Amazing Grace…I actually have a version of that one performed with some friends at the Hope Mission a couple of weeks back.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> +
> YouTube Video
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ERROR: If you can see this, then YouTube is down or you don't have Flash installed.


Cool. Is that you on the bass guitar??


----------



## fjnmusic

Dr.G. said:


> Cool. Is that you on the bass guitar??


It is indeed. The girls have lovely voices, and my own daughter enjoyed being videographer. The folks there were very appreciative of the food and the entertainment.


----------



## Dr.G.

fjnmusic said:


> It is indeed. The girls have lovely voices, and my own daughter enjoyed being videographer. The folks there were very appreciative of the food and the entertainment.


Good to know and hear, fjn. Kudos to you as well. I have volunteered at a local food bank and lunch kitchen at times when I knew that Christian folks would want to be home with their families. When I was a single parent of a profoundly disabled 8 year old daughter, and five year old son, I took them to a soup kitchen one Canadian Thanksgiving to help prepare and serve meals. I wanted my son to realize how lucky we were to have all that we did have in Life.

This is why I became a believer in the philosopy of fjn ............. a wise teacher if ever there was one. For, as he has written "A little knowledge that acts is worth infinitely more than much knowledge that is idle" and "March on. Do not tarry. To go forward is to move toward perfection. March on, and fear not the thorns, or the sharp stones on life's path." Peace, my friend.


----------



## Dr.G.

you raise me up - josh groban with lyrics - YouTube

Would like to hear you folks play this, fjn. Peace, my friend.


----------



## fjnmusic

Dr.G. said:


> you raise me up - josh groban with lyrics - YouTube
> 
> Would like to hear you folks play this, fjn. Peace, my friend.


You indeed raise me up, my friend, and I am humbled. I'm not sure I use the word 'tarry' much, but I will now (in fulfillment of the scriptures). Gotta walk the walk if you're gonna talk the talk.


----------



## Dr.G.

fjnmusic said:


> You indeed raise me up, my friend, and I am humbled. I'm not sure I use the word 'tarry' much, but I will now (in fulfillment of the scriptures). Gotta walk the walk if you're gonna talk the talk.



True. However, as you have said in "The Book of Life, according to fjnmusic", "The journey of a thousand miles begins with but a single step. Therefore, what you are to be you are just now becoming." Peace, my friend.


----------



## iMouse

Well, I did manage to have a good look at Homeless Jesus today, even managing to park my car for a bit without a ticket.

From the road His blanket looks like actual black cloth. His body seems very frail, and His face is not visible, just some hair. The bench is also solid bronze.

There is scant room to sit on the bench, but I couldn't bring myself to do it. Didn't seem right.

I think He is well placed here, although probably not envisaged by the sculpture. Leave Him be.

I did however get the overwhelming urge to tag the bench "Group W".


----------



## Dr.G.

iMouse said:


> Well, I did manage to have a good look at Homeless Jesus today, even managing to park my car for a bit without a ticket.
> 
> From the road His blanket looks like actual black cloth. His body seems very frail, and His face is not visible, just some hair. The bench is also solid bronze.
> 
> There is scant room to sit on the bench, but I couldn't bring myself to do it. Didn't seem right.
> 
> I think He is well placed here, although probably not envisaged by the sculpture. Leave Him be.
> 
> I did however get the overwhelming urge to tag the bench "Group W".


How ironic that "Homeless Jesus" has no home. 

You might not be "moral enough" to sit on the "Group W bench". When I became a Conscientious Objector during the war in Vietnam, and was drafted, I sat on that bench. Not sure if I was moral enough either.

Still, glad you did not sit on the HJ bench.

Paix, mon ami.


----------



## iMouse

You sat with the father rapers and mother stabbers? 

Excellent. My admiration for you just doubled. :clap:


----------



## Dr.G.

iMouse said:


> You sat with the father rapers and mother stabbers?
> 
> Excellent. My admiration for you just doubled. :clap:


No, they did not want to have anything to do with me ............. while I was not a litterbug, I based my objection to killing on philosophical and moral reasons, rather than religious reasons, but I did get a non-combatant status as a para-medic on the front line when I was drafted into the US Army.

While I was never arrested for being a litterbug, I do have an FBI file. Does that reclaim my status in your opinion???


----------



## fjnmusic

Dr.G. said:


> No, they did not want to have anything to do with me ............. while I was not a litterbug, I based my objection to killing on philosophical and moral reasons, rather than religious reasons, but I did get a non-combatant status as a para-medic on the front line when I was drafted into the US Army.
> 
> While I was never arrested for being a litterbug, I do have an FBI file. Does that reclaim my status in your opinion???


Long as you were causin' some sorta nuisance.


----------



## Dr.G.

fjnmusic said:


> Long as you were causin' some sorta nuisance.


No, I was good. At the trial, I was told that if I refused to go into the Army that they had the right to send me to jail. I responded, with knees shaking, that they had the power to send me to jail, but not the right ............... and that if being in jail was the only way my body and beliefs could be together "so be it". They must have realized that I was sincere in my beliefs, since I was given the non-combatant status rather than being forced to go into combat with a gun. I said that I had no objections with being on the front line in combat, so long as I had a medical bag rather than a gun.


----------



## fjnmusic

Dr.G. said:


> No, I was good. At the trial, I was told that if I refused to go into the Army that they had the right to send me to jail. I responded, with knees shaking, that they had the power to send me to jail, but not the right ............... and that if being in jail was the only way my body and beliefs could be together "so be it". They must have realized that I was sincere in my beliefs, since I was given the non-combatant status rather than being forced to go into combat with a gun. I said that I had no objections with being on the front line in combat, so long as I had a medical bag rather than a gun.


Them army types are hardliners, huh? Do you do a fair bit of medical work in the service of your country?


----------



## Dr.G.

fjnmusic said:


> Them army types are hardliners, huh? Do you do a fair bit of medical work in the service of your country?


No. As the joke goes, when asked "Are you a doctor doctor or a dentis doctor?" I reply, "No, a Ph.D."  Still, I did not have to kill anyone. 

Now, I am a true beliver in "The Way of fjnmusic of yesterday's saints and sinners". We are not the only way to heaven, but if God has a plan for us on Earth, it is to follow the words of fjn and help to make this a better world for all men, women, children, animals, plants and the environment in general. There may not be a special place in heaven for those who follow his words, and we don't get a chosen parking place in heaven when it is our time, but we live this life knowing that we left the world a better place than when we entered this world. Such is Life.

Paix, mon ami.


----------



## fjnmusic

Dr.G. said:


> No. As the joke goes, when asked "Are you a doctor doctor or a dentis doctor?" I reply, "No, a Ph.D."  Still, I did not have to kill anyone.
> 
> Now, I am a true beliver in "The Way of fjnmusic of yesterday's saints and sinners". We are not the only way to heaven, but if God has a plan for us on Earth, it is to follow the words of fjn and help to make this a better world for all men, women, children, animals, plants and the environment in general. There may not be a special place in heaven for those who follow his words, and we don't get a chosen parking place in heaven when it is our time, but we live this life knowing that we left the world a better place than when we entered this world. Such is Life.
> 
> Paix, mon ami.


You never know, Dr. G. This might already BE heaven.


----------



## MacGuiver

fjnmusic said:


> You never know, Dr. G. This might already BE heaven.


If this is heaven, let me off.


----------



## iMouse

Disturbing the peace?

And then they all moved back.


----------



## MacGuiver

iMouse said:


> Disturbing the peace?
> 
> And then they all moved back.


Its not a comment on the fun Dr. G and FJN are having. Just fjn's proposition that this could be heaven on earth. In light of recent events, with people blown to bits watching a marathon race to the details the media is so desperately trying to sweep under the rug from the little shop of horrors run by Dr. Kermit Gosnell to help women exercise their "choice". 
This world is getting more hellish by the day. 
Sorry to rain on the positive nature of this thread.


----------



## fjnmusic

MacGuiver said:


> Its not a comment on the fun Dr. G and FJN are having. Just fjn's proposition that this could be heaven on earth. In light of recent events, with people blown to bits watching a marathon race to the details the media is so desperately trying to sweep under the rug from the little shop of horrors run by Dr. Kermit Gosnell to help women exercise their "choice".
> This world is getting more hellish by the day.
> Sorry to rain on the positive nature of this thread.


I never said it can't be hell TOO. It all depends on your perspective. Children tend to be blissfully unaware of the tragedies of everyday life, for example, while adults often live their lives totally ignorant of the simple happiness of a child. Eternal life may not refer to the distant future at all, but rather learning to fully experience life now while we are here. Many authors touch on this theme.


----------



## Dr.G.

fjnmusic said:


> You never know, Dr. G. This might already BE heaven.


You would know, fjn ............... but for now, I shall try my best to be good here on Earth. Paix, mon ami.


----------



## Dr.G.

iMouse said:


> Disturbing the peace?
> 
> And then they all moved back.


----------



## bryanc

MacGuiver said:


> If this is heaven, let me off.


Voltaire's argument that this is "the best of all possible worlds" is the only logically coherent response any philosopher has come up with as a counter to the ancient Problem of Evil, as first presented by Epicurus. The fact that Voltaire was clearly being sarcastic, and was in fact lampooning his own argument by contrasting it with the many flaws of his society at the time has not prevented its continued use in serious theodicy.

Indeed, if you are sufficiently divorced from reality as to believe in the existence of an omnipotent, omniscient, benevolent sky daddy, believing that this is the best of all possible worlds should be easy.


----------



## MacGuiver

bryanc said:


> Indeed, if you are sufficiently divorced from reality as to believe in the existence of an omnipotent, omniscient, benevolent sky daddy, believing that this is the best of all possible worlds should be easy.


I believe the exact opposite may be true. Many of Gods detractors seem to find paradise in the diabolical because of their divorce from reality.


----------



## bryanc

MacGuiver said:


> Many of Gods detractors seem to find paradise in the diabolical because of their divorce from reality.


Not really sure how to parse this, but I don't know anyone who views our reality as a paradise; I do know that those who recognized this is the only life we have must also recognize that doing what we can to improve the status quo is far more important than any fantasy one might have about an afterlife.


----------



## Dr.G.

bryanc said:


> Not really sure how to parse this, but I don't know anyone who views our reality as a paradise; I do know that those who recognized this is the only life we have must also recognize that doing what we can to improve the status quo is far more important than any fantasy one might have about an afterlife.


Count me in on your final point, bryanc. If there is a God, then His/Her work, here on Earth, is our work, to help to make this world a better place for the environment and all lving things. Paix, mon ami.

This is why there are so many followers to fjnmusic's view of the world, since we are all in on this rowboat together, and we sink or swim together, and I feel better knowing that I am helping to make this a stable ride than to try and tip us all over. In the final analysis, fjn's words are simple but powerful, idealistic yet relevant and pragmatic. I guess that these sorts of dichotomies are common in all religions/faiths/beliefs. Thus, we strive to become aware of our true nature and our oneness with everything that is around us.

For, as it is written in "The Book of Life by fjnmusic", "The path to this oneness is varied, and has many obstacles and forks in the road. Therefore, if you don't know where you are going, any path will take you there. However, the journey of thousand miles begins with but a single step and a belief in your own goodness."

Paix, mes amis.


----------



## fjnmusic

I appreciate that you make me sound like I know what I am talking about. Happy trails, amigo.


----------



## MacGuiver

bryanc said:


> Not really sure how to parse this, but I don't know anyone who views our reality as a paradise; I do know that those who recognized this is the only life we have must also recognize that doing what we can to improve the status quo is far more important than any fantasy one might have about an afterlife.


You seem to be under the false impression that making this life on earth better is the exclusive domain of the godless. That could be no further from reality.


----------



## Dr.G.

fjnmusic said:


> I appreciate that you make me sound like I know what I am talking about. Happy trails, amigo.


Well, as you have often told your followers, "He who knows not and knows he knows not is wise, so follow him, for he is at the onset of knowledge.” Peace, my friend.


----------



## bryanc

MacGuiver said:


> You seem to be under the false impression that making this life on earth better is the exclusive domain of the godless.


No, I'm certainly not of that impression. People who believe in invisible policemen in the sky are not incapable of making the world a better place; I'm skeptical of their motives, but whatever. As long as they aren't blowing up buildings or otherwise trying to inflict their mental illness on others, I couldn't care less what they believe.

Unfortunately, far to many theists use their magic books or the voices in their heads to justify committing atrocities, or further exacerbating the social conditions that cause unrest.



Voltaire said:


> Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.





Blaise Pascal said:


> Men never do evil so cheerfully and so completely as when they do so from religious conviction.


----------



## MacGuiver

bryanc said:


> No, I'm certainly not of that impression. People who believe in invisible policemen in the sky are not incapable of making the world a better place, I'm just skeptical of their motives, but whatever. As long as they aren't blowing up buildings or otherwise trying to inflict their mental illness on others, I couldn't care less what they believe.
> 
> Unfortunately, far to many theists use their magic books or the voices in their heads to justify committing atrocities, or further exacerbating the social conditions that cause unrest.


I share your cautions attitude, but with atheism as well. There have been far too many atheists with books and voices in their heads committing atrocities and further exacerbating the social conditions that cause unrest. In their vain attempts to make the world a better place, millions of lives were crushed and snuffed out in the attempt.


----------



## bryanc

I agree that authoritarians of any stripe are dangerous and should not be granted power; Harper and his cronies shouldn't be allowed to be in charge of a church bake sale, much less our country.


----------



## MacGuiver

bryanc said:


> I agree that authoritarians of any stripe are dangerous and should not be granted power; Harper and his cronies shouldn't be allowed to be in charge of a church bake sale, much less our country.


Really? Stalin, Mao, Hitler, Kim Jong, Paul Potts, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad...Stephen Harper.
He's not even the diet coke of evil.


----------



## iMouse

Dr.G. said:


> They must have realized that I was sincere in my beliefs, since I was given the non-combatant status rather than being forced to go into combat with a gun. I said that I had no objections with being on the front line in combat, so long as I had a medical bag rather than a gun.


I dub thee "Alvin".


----------



## Dr.G.

iMouse said:


> I dub thee "Alvin".


Sgt. Alvin York held much stronger religious beliefs that I do and as he said "I used my gun to stop the killing of hundreds by the German machine guns." I hope that I would be as brave as he was if I was ever in that sort of position. Paix, mon ami.


----------



## iMouse

Letting god sort it all out at the End of Days simply does not work.

Moral people must rise to the occasion, when pressed.


----------



## fjnmusic

Dr.G. said:


> Well, as you have often told your followers, "He who knows not and knows he knows not is wise, so follow him, for he is at the onset of knowledge.&#148; Peace, my friend.


And remember: only the true messiah denies his divinity!


----------



## Dr.G.

iMouse said:


> Letting god sort it all out at the End of Days simply does not work.
> 
> Moral people must rise to the occasion, when pressed.


To paraphrase, All that is necessary for the triumph of evil in our world is that good men and women do nothing.

Paix, mon ami.


----------



## Dr.G.

fjnmusic said:


> And remember: only the true messiah denies his divinity!


True. While you are not the messiah, you are a wise and kind person. Peace, my friend.


----------



## fjnmusic

This I like.


----------



## Dr.G.

fjnmusic said:


> This I like.
> 
> View attachment 27100


Amen, Brother fjn. Peace, my friend.


----------



## MacGuiver

fjnmusic said:


> This I like.
> 
> View attachment 27100



"Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed."

Jesus Christ


----------



## fjnmusic

MacGuiver said:


> "Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed."
> 
> Jesus Christ


I don't think that's what he said, for English had not yet been invented. It was more like:

בגלל שראית אותי, יש לך האמינו; אשרי מי שלא ראה ועדיין האמין


----------



## bryanc

MacGuiver said:


> "Because you have seen me, you have believed; *blessed* are those who have not seen and yet have believed."
> 
> Jesus Christ


From the point of view of the perpetrators of the biggest pyramid scam in history, I can certainly see how they'd feel this way. Fortunately, the proportion of adults in the western world with sufficient education and/or critical thinking capacity to doubt the extraordinary claims of the priest and other purveyors of false promises is slowing increasing.

With the emergence of the internet, which facilitates exposure to other ideas and information, it's becoming increasingly difficult to keep people from discovering that, what ever their religion, it is far from universally accepted, and the same reasons they have for accepting their particular faith apply equally well to thousands of other mutually incompatible beliefs. Among those capable of rational thought, this triggers a crisis of faith.

One of the great things about working at a university is that I get to see this happening to bright young people on an almost daily basis; you can almost see the lightbulbs going on as they realize the stuff their parents and priests have been telling them about God is no more real than the stuff they used to tell them about Santa and the Tooth Fairy.


----------



## iMouse

Nice.

I was just going to ask for a citation, but you guys trumped that, by tons.


----------



## Dr.G.

fjnmusic said:


> I don't think that's what he said, for English had not yet been invented. It was more like:
> 
> בגלל שראית אותי, יש לך האמינו; אשרי מי שלא ראה ועדיין האמין


Eight-year-old Virginia O'Hanlon wrote a letter to the editor of ehMacLand Sun, and the quick response was printed as an unsigned editorial April 17, 2013. The work of veteran newsman Francis Pharcellus Church has since become history's most reprinted newspaper editorial, appearing in part or whole in dozens of languages in books, movies, and other editorials, and on posters and stamps.




"DEAR EDITOR: I am 8 years old. 
"Some of my little friends say there is no fjnmusic. 
"Papa says, 'If you see it in The SUN it's so.' 
"Please tell me the truth; is there a real fjnmusic?

"VIRGINIA O'HANLON.
"115 WEST NINETY-FIFTH STREET."

VIRGINIA, your little friends are wrong. They have been affected by the skepticism of a skeptical age. They do not believe except they see. They think that nothing can be which is not comprehensible by their little minds. All minds, Virginia, whether they be men's or children's, are little. In this great universe of ours man is a mere insect, an ant, in his intellect, as compared with the boundless world about him, as measured by the intelligence capable of grasping the whole of truth and knowledge.

Yes, VIRGINIA, there is a fjnmusic. He exists as certainly as love and generosity and devotion exist, and you know that they abound and give to your life its highest beauty and joy. Alas! how dreary would be the world if there were no fjnmusic. It would be as dreary as if there were no VIRGINIAS. There would be no childlike faith then, no poetry, no romance to make tolerable this existence. We should have no enjoyment, except in sense and sight. The eternal light with which childhood fills the world would be extinguished.

Not believe in fjnmusic! You might as well not believe in doxies! You might get your papa to hire men to watch in all the chimneys on Christmas Eve to catch fjnmusic bringing some doxie pups, but even if they did not see fjnmusic, what would that prove? Nobody sees fjnmusic, but that is no sign that there is no fjnmusic. The most real things in the world are those that neither children nor men can see. Did you ever see doxies digging up the lawn in search of badgers? Of course not, but that's no proof that they are not there. Nobody can conceive or imagine all the wonders there are unseen and unseeable in the world.

You may tear apart the baby's rattle and see what makes the noise inside, but there is a veil covering the unseen world which not the strongest man, nor even the united strength of all the strongest men that ever lived, could tear apart. Only faith, fancy, poetry, love, romance, can push aside that curtain and view and picture the supernal beauty and glory beyond. Is it all real? Ah, VIRGINIA, in all this world there is nothing else real and abiding. 

No fjnmusic! Thank God! he lives, and he lives forever. A thousand years from now, Virginia, nay, ten times ten thousand years from now, he will continue to make glad the heart of childhood with his insightful words and fine music.


----------



## fjnmusic

Posters and stamps? Cool.

Live long and prosper.


----------



## Dr.G.

fjnmusic said:


> Posters and stamps? Cool.
> 
> Live long and prosper.


As it is written in "The Book of Life by fjnmusic", "What matters in this life is more than winning for ourselves. What matters in this life is helping others win, even if it means slowing down and changing our course. A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle"

Or, as the Dalai Lama once wrote, "Take into account that great love and great achievement involve great risk." 

Moral: We will not be remembered by our words, but by our kind deeds.

"Life is not measured by the breaths we take, but by the moments that
take our breath."


----------



## MacGuiver

bryanc said:


> From the point of view of the perpetrators of the biggest pyramid scam in history, I can certainly see how they'd feel this way. Fortunately, the proportion of adults in the western world with sufficient education and/or critical thinking capacity to doubt the extraordinary claims of the priest and other purveyors of false promises is slowing increasing.
> 
> With the emergence of the internet, which facilitates exposure to other ideas and information, it's becoming increasingly difficult to keep people from discovering that, what ever their religion, it is far from universally accepted, and the same reasons they have for accepting their particular faith apply equally well to thousands of other mutually incompatible beliefs. Among those capable of rational thought, this triggers a crisis of faith.
> 
> One of the great things about working at a university is that I get to see this happening to bright young people on an almost daily basis; you can almost see the lightbulbs going on as they realize the stuff their parents and priests have been telling them about God is no more real than the stuff they used to tell them about Santa and the Tooth Fairy.


Most kids these days had an abysmal catechesis so yeah, they'd be easy prey for an evangelical atheist. Its hard to defend what you don't understand.


----------



## bryanc

MacGuiver said:


> Its hard to defend what you don't understand.


Indeed it is; and given that "mysteriousness" and the "unknowable" is core to religious beliefs, it's not surprising how fragile these beliefs are when they are challenged by reason, evidence and critical thought.



Chapman Cohen said:


> Gods are fragile things; they may be killed by a whiff of science or a dose of common sense.


----------



## MacGuiver

bryanc said:


> Indeed it is; and given that "mysteriousness" and the "unknowable" is core to religious beliefs, it's not surprising how fragile these beliefs are when they are challenged by reason, evidence and critical thought.


Funny, reason, evidence and critical thought have only strengthened my faith. As for wiffs of science, it really says nothing on the subject of religion.


----------



## bryanc

Just that it's wrong whenever it makes claims about the observable universe. If reason has strengthened your faith, all I can say is "your doing it wrong." Reason is the antithesis of faith, by definition.


----------



## fjnmusic

bryanc said:


> Just that it's wrong whenever it makes claims about the observable universe. If reason has strengthened your faith, all I can say is "your doing it wrong." Reason is the antithesis of faith, by definition.


People, people! Must it be so dichotomous? Must it be one or the other? Must it be the cold logic of science versus the religious machinations of Dr. Evil? Is it possible that maybe neither science nor religion has it right? The observable universe is a pretty slim slice of the electromagnetic spectrum, for example—it is possible that we may only be to sense certain truths about the nature of life and the universe long before we'll be able to prove our theories empirically, if at all? 

The "blessed are those who have not seen but still believe" quote works well with discoveries in nature as well. I have never personally been to the bottom of the ocean to see what creatures dwell their in the darkness, but with the miracle of YouTube I can watch with my own eyes what others have experienced. Something as simple as my own face I can never see directly, though I can infer what I look like based on photos and mirror-reversed images I can see any time. Even the sun, which I take for granted, is really an after-image from eight minutes ago, and that's what it has been since Adam and Eve crawled out of the primordial soup some 6000 years ago.


----------



## MacGuiver

fjnmusic said:


> People, people! Must it be so dichotomous? Must it be one or the other? Must it be the cold logic of science versus the religious machinations of Dr. Evil? Is it possible that maybe neither science nor religion has it right? The observable universe is a pretty slim slice of the electromagnetic spectrum, for example—it is possible that we may only be to sense certain truths about the nature of life and the universe long before we'll be able to prove our theories empirically, if at all?
> 
> The "blessed are those who have not seen but still believe" quote works well with discoveries in nature as well. I have never personally been to the bottom of the ocean to see what creatures dwell their in the darkness, but with the miracle of YouTube I can watch with my own eyes what others have experienced. Something as simple as my own face I can never see directly, though I can infer what I look like based on photos and mirror-reversed images I can see any time. Even the sun, which I take for granted, is really an after-image from eight minutes ago, and that's what it has been since Adam and Eve crawled out of the primordial soup some 6000 years ago.


It isn't one or the other for me. 
I have absolutely no issues with science however atheists like to project that upon all Christians but it simply isn't true for the vast majority of us. I'm as interested and fascinated by science as the next guy and I don't see any conflict with my faith. As I've stated before, many of the greatests scientific minds have been and are deists.
The Religion or Science dichotomy is a false one often stated by evangelical atheists. One can practice and accept both.


----------



## groovetube

no one is disputing that one can believe in both, they certainly do.

However, what happens to the person who sees scientific evidence that what he or she believes in their religion of choice that conflicts? Which takes precedence, religious belief? Or scientific evidence?


----------



## fjnmusic

groovetube said:


> no one is disputing that one can believe in both, they certainly do.
> 
> However, what happens to the person who sees scientific evidence that what he or she believes in their religion of choice that conflicts? Which takes precedence, religious belief? Or scientific evidence?


Rock, paper, scissors, I say.


----------



## Dr.G.

fjnmusic said:


> Rock, paper, scissors, I say.


Why not try "Rock Paper scissors Lizard Spock"?

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kov2G0GouBw]Rock Paper scissors Lizard Spock - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## fjnmusic

On a related note: Gorn's Revenge.


----------



## MacGuiver

groovetube said:


> no one is disputing that one can believe in both, they certainly do.
> 
> However, what happens to the person who sees scientific evidence that what he or she believes in their religion of choice that conflicts? Which takes precedence, religious belief? Or scientific evidence?


Personally I've never encountered such a dilemma nor do I foresee one. My religion and science propose answers to unrelated questions though many have wrongly proposed otherwise on both sides of the issue.


----------



## groovetube

MacGuiver said:


> Personally I've never encountered such a dilemma nor do I foresee one. My religion and science propose answers to unrelated questions though many have wrongly proposed otherwise on both sides of the issue.


I have no doubt that you haven't!


----------



## bryanc

fjnmusic said:


> Must it be one or the other?


This depends on the question to some extent, but if it is a question that science can address, then yes, one must either formulate one's beliefs on the basis of reason and evidence (in which case these beliefs must always be tinged with uncertainty and open for re-examination if new evidence comes to light), or one must operate on faith. Historically when religions have promoted explanations for observable phenomena, they have invariably been shown to be false by science. So I go with the former.

However, if you are considering topics regarding which no observable evidence is available, and no conceivable scientific approach to the problem is apparent, you could turn to religion. Of course, I see no reason to believe that the answers religion offers in these unfalsifiable contexts will be any better than it's universally abysmal track record with regard to the natural world; just because religion is bad at explaining nature does not mean it will be good at something else.



> The observable universe is a pretty slim slice of the electromagnetic spectrum, for example


One of the great things about science and technology is that they allow us to detect and measure things well beyond the range of our senses. We don't need to directly see X-rays to be able to detect them and use them and formulate falsifiable hypotheses about their causes and effects.



> The "blessed are those who have not seen but still believe" quote works well with discoveries in nature as well. I have never personally been to the bottom of the ocean to see what creatures dwell their in the darkness, but with the miracle of YouTube I can watch with my own eyes what others have experienced.


So you _have_ seen... video recordings made by others at different times and places are exactly the sorts of extensions of our limited senses I'm talking about. Furthermore, you can use your understanding of how observable reality works to critically analyze such evidence of things you haven't seen to come to a rational position on wether such videos are plausible. With respect to the fantastic creatures of the deep, a reasonable person might be skeptical, and go looking for more and more authoritative evidence than YouTube. And, as a rational open-minded skeptic, one might be surprised to find that there is plenty of good evidence (live and preserved specimens at various marine stations, university researchers who have far more detailed video and other data on the species in question, DNA sequences, etc.) that such bizarre creatures actually do exist.

So unlike the poor intellectually-limited individual who operates on faith, the rational skeptic can alter their beliefs to accommodate new information, and adapt when their initial judgements turn out to be incorrect.



> and that's what it has been since Adam and Eve crawled out of the primordial soup some 6000 years ago.


----------



## bryanc

MacGuiver said:


> Personally I've never encountered such a dilemma nor do I foresee one. My religion and science propose answers to unrelated questions


As long as religion avoids making statements about observable reality, science will prove it incorrect less frequently. 



> though many have wrongly proposed otherwise on both sides of the issue.


Again, this is one of the strengths of science and weaknesses of religion; when some data doesn't fit a scientific theory, the theory changes. Science adapts to new information. When something doesn't fit religious dogma, they get burned at the stake, excommunicated, outlawed, banned, made the target of crusades or jihads, put to death, or are otherwise eliminated from the religion's view.


----------



## MacGuiver

> As long as religion avoids making statements about observable reality, science will prove it incorrect less frequently.


Funny, I'm unaware of any scientific theories floating from the Vatican in the last few hundred years? 
Edit:
Actually I stand corrected. Fr. Georges Lemaitre from the Catholic University of Louvain was the first to propose the Big Bang Theory in 1927.



> Again, this is one of the strengths of science and weaknesses of religion; when some data doesn't fit a scientific theory, the theory changes. Science adapts to new information. When something doesn't fit religious dogma, they get burned at the stake, excommunicated, outlawed, banned, made the target of crusades or jihads, put to death, or are otherwise eliminated from the religion's view.


I'm not a defender of all "religion". Frankly, your fears of some of them is justified.
But you seem to persist in your confusion regarding the nature of science vs religion.
Religion is based on truths revealed by divine revelation of a spiritual nature, science is the search for truths of the physical world. Its like claiming Hockey is in a battle with Synchronized swimming and one or the other will triumph.


----------



## Macfury

MacGuiver said:


> Funny, I'm unaware of any scientific theories floating from the Vatican in the last few hundred years?


Some people expend a lot of effort punching at straw men.


----------



## MacGuiver

Macfury said:


> Some people expend a lot of effort punching at straw men.


Absolutely!


----------



## bryanc

MacGuiver said:


> Funny, I'm unaware of any scientific theories floating from the Vatican in the last few hundred years?


You're correct; the Vatican, presumably still smarting from the embarrassment of it's treatment of science and scientists in the renaissance, has learned to avoid making falsifiable statements of any kind.

This is not true of other religions or religious leaders, and hence we have things like "the Discovery Institute" and "Answers in Genesis" exerting their prodigious PR and political power to undermine scientific progress and scientific education.


> But you seem to persist in your confusion regarding the nature of science vs religion.


I don't think I'm confused. Science is a method of distinguishing false hypotheses from hypotheses that are consistent with evidence. Religion is nonsense people make up, and all to often use to justify treating others extremely badly.


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> Religion is nonsense people make up, and all to often use to justify treating others extremely badly.


In the same way that scientists used the advancement of science as an excuse for some of their cruel applications of eugenics?


----------



## MacGuiver

bryanc said:


> You're correct; the Vatican, presumably still smarting from the embarrassment of it's treatment of science and scientists in the renaissance


Oh you mean when they were pretty much the exclusive patrons of scientific research, founding Universities and Hospitals?


----------



## iMouse

MacGuiver said:


> Oh you mean when they were pretty much the exclusive patrons of scientific research, founding Universities and Hospitals?


"Keep your friends close, and your enemies closer."_ - Michael Corleone_

Cobbled together by Mario Puzo & Francis Ford Coppola, for The Godfather II, from The Art of War quotes, authored by Sun Tzu.


----------



## screature

bryanc said:


> You're correct; the Vatican, presumably still smarting from the embarrassment of it's treatment of science and scientists in the renaissance, has learned to avoid making falsifiable statements of any kind.
> 
> This is not true of other religions or religious leaders, and hence we have things like "the Discovery Institute" and "Answers in Genesis" exerting their prodigious PR and political power to undermine scientific progress and scientific education.
> 
> I don't think I'm confused. Science is a method of distinguishing false hypotheses from hypotheses that are consistent with evidence. Religion is nonsense people make up, and all to often use to justify treating others extremely badly.


Science has been used every bit as much to treat people extremely badly as religion, especially in modern times.


----------



## bryanc

screature said:


> Science has been used every bit as much to treat people extremely badly as religion, especially in modern times.


I think this is highly debatable, but regardless, the point is that science is based on evidence and logic. The conclusions or technologies arising from scientific discovery can certainly be abused and applied immorally (science is inherently amoral; it helps us determine what _is_ true, not what _ought_ to be true), but that is not a failing of science.

So even if science can be used to justify immoral actions in the same way that religion can, science is telling us about observable reality, whereas religion is not.


----------



## fjnmusic

Where we came from…


----------



## bryanc

I've read recently about a variation on Hawking's "multiverse foam" that posits that natural selection may act on universes.

Apparently there are indications in some of the math that properties of a given space-time fabric (e.g. physical constants like the speed of light or the Plank constant) may be both propagated and distorted by gravitational singularities. So the idea is that black holes essentially spawn new universes, and the physical constants of those baby universes will be related to (but not identical to) the physical constants of the parental universe in which the black hole that gave rise to them existed.

Thus, a universe with physical constants that do not favour the condensation of matter from energy, or the gravitational collapse of matter into stars, will not generate black holes and will therefore not propagate. In contrast, universes like ours that have physical constants that are 'well adapted' to generating matter and having it coalesce in lots of interesting ways (including both black holes, and collections of carbon and other atoms that become self-aware, develop technologies, and build particle accelerators), will successfully 'reproduce.' If such a mechanism pertains, we should not be surprised to observe that the physical constants of our universe seem well-tuned to facilitate the complexity of matter and energy that exists.

However, as the evidence for this is only supported by math and the observation of a single universe, it strikes me as interesting speculation but not scientifically falsifiable.


----------



## bryanc

On another topic, it has been asked many times here and elsewhere, "why are you atheists so angry?" Greta Christina has written an excellent book [ame="http://www.amazon.com/Atheists-Angry-Things-That-Godless/dp/0985281529/ref=pd_sim_b_5"]an excellent book[/ame] answering that question, showing that the anger of the non-relgious is both well founded and constructive; we're not bitter, we're pissed off for legitimate reasons and we're trying to solve the problems rather than accepting the status quo.


----------



## SINC

If you choose not to practice any form of religion and you are not constantly being harassed or recruited by a religion, what's to be pissed off about? Ever hear of live and let live or to each their own?


----------



## groovetube

Well I certainly have. However, many religious people (not saying all...) really haven;t heard of this phrase bigtime.

That's one of the biggest problems.


----------



## bryanc

SINC said:


> If you choose not to practice any form of religion and you are not constantly being harassed or recruited by a religion, what's to be pissed off about? Ever hear of live and let live or to each their own?


Have a look at the book I linked; if you click "look inside" you can read the first couple of pages. See if you find anything you disagree with.


----------



## bryanc

Furthermore, I have been harassed by religions, and I have had religious rules enforced on me. As a kid I was required to say the Lord's Prayer in school, and when I refused, I was ostracized, bullied, and harassed by teachers and students. My own kid has had creationism taught to him in public school science class, and I deal with all sorts of young who've been mentally handicapped by their religious indoctrination on a daily basis.

Indeed, we're so inured to the constraints that the dominant religion in our society puts on us that we barely even notice them any more; the fact that stores are closed on Sundays, etc. just seems so normal that we don't even think about the fact that these are religious rules that everyone is expected to obey. I certainly agree that it is far worse in other countries, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't work to improve the situation in our country.


----------



## iMouse

This line of discussion puts me in mind of The Manchurian Candidate.

*Off to China with Bryan, for "re-education"!!!!*


----------



## screature

bryanc said:


> I think this is highly debatable, but regardless, the point is that science is based on evidence and logic. The conclusions or technologies arising from scientific discovery can certainly be abused and applied immorally (science is inherently amoral; it helps us determine what _is_ true, not what _ought_ to be true), but that is not a failing of science.
> 
> So even if science can be used to justify immoral actions in the same way that religion can, science is telling us about observable reality, whereas religion is not.


I think that goes without saying and did in no way rebut the validity of my statement.


----------



## SINC

bryanc said:


> Have a look at the book I linked; if you click "look inside" you can read the first couple of pages. See if you find anything you disagree with.


I disagree with most of it. It is the rantings of a man with much ado about nothing. What happened to you as a child was the fault of your parents, or society at large, not religion. You're an adult now and have dealt with it in your own way. My opinion is that trying to persuade others to avoid religion is just as bad to them as it is to you to when you say, "I have been harassed by religions, and I have had religious rules enforced on me."


----------



## iMouse

So, child abuse carries no weight with you, nor the Hell that Adults suffering from this go through.

Man, that's hard.


----------



## screature

SINC said:


> I disagree with most of it. *It is the rantings of a man* with much ado about nothing. What happened to you as a child was the fault of your parents, or society at large, not religion. You're an adult now and have dealt with it in your own way. My opinion is that trying to persuade others to avoid religion is just as bad to them as it is to you to when you say, "I have been harassed by religions, and I have had religious rules enforced on me."


Actually of a woman... just saying.


----------



## bryanc

SINC said:


> I disagree with most of it. It is the rantings of a man with much ado about nothing.


I find that difficult to comprehend. First of all, the author is a woman {edit: beaten by screature}, and I can't imagine a reasonable person not finding most of the problems she points out in the first couple of pages quite offensive. For example


Greta Christina said:


> ...that atheists in [the US] are often denied custody of their children explicitly because of their atheism...
> ...that the Bamiyan Buddha statues in Afghanistan - magnificent monumental works of art over 1500 years old - were dynamited by the Taliban because they were an affront to God's law...
> ...that little girls are getting their clitorises cut off because their parent's religion teaches that it is necessary...
> ...that people react to [child abuse] by saying the religions need to be defended rather than the children...
> ...about honour killings...
> ...that seriously ill children suffer and die because their parents believe in faith healing...
> ...that over half of Americans believe in creationism [and that this represents two problems; the insidious invasion of the public school system by religious fundamentalists promoting their particular creation myth, and the dire failings of the school system to provide sufficient grounding in science and critical thinking that makes Americans so susceptible to this sort of manipulation]...
> ...that religious freedom includes the right to harass bully and intimidate gay kids [or people of other beliefs]...
> ...that even when the law clearly states that government can't endorse religion or force it on its citizens, people are often too intimidated to insist on their legal rights...


There are literally dozens of other well-documented reasons for non-relgious people to be angry itemized in the first couple of pages of the book. Do you really see these issues as "much ado about nothing"?



SINC said:


> What happened to you as a child was the fault of your parents, or society at large, not religion.


How can my being pressured to participate in a religious ritual in public school be the fault of my parents?!? Society at large, I'll grant you, but it's only because religion is such a entrenched force in 'society at large' and that's my point.


----------



## fjnmusic

I find the contention that everyone has the right to believe their own religion just as scary as everyone must follow one religion or all religions must be abolished. What we believe informs everything we do, from what we eat to how we interact to our beliefs about death to ours and others' rights. Far from being something someone does on their own in the privacy of their own home once a week or with a community of similarly minded individuals, religion or lack thereof informs just about every decision that we make. Separation of church and state is a myth. North American laws tend to reflect the dinant religious culture, which in this case is Judeo-Christian.

Committing to a religion or not is a reflection of our core values, and while I'd like to believe these values are universal, it is obvious to me they are not. If I had grown up in a Muslim country, I might actually believe Sharia law is acceptable, even though I find it abhorrent to what I believe today. If I had been brought up Buddhist instead of RC, the argument about transubstantiation vs. con substantiation or the importance of forgiveness from original sin would not perplex me. If I had been raised to believe in reincarnation, I had would have a different world view again.

To me, the dialogue is what is important here. Respecting our differences but still finding a common ground to live together. I don't think there are any "right" or "wrong" about this; just theories where some are more functional than others.


----------



## SINC

One day an atheist or group of same will go too far in their anti religion campaign and make a mistake that could result in them having charges laid against them under Canada's hate laws. As far as I can tell, it is hatred of religion that seems to drive vocal activist atheists.


----------



## bryanc

you be sure to let us all know when that happens, SINC. Meanwile, care to address the reality of the harm caused by religion?


----------



## SINC

bryanc said:


> you be sure to let us all know when that happens, SINC. Meanwile, care to address the reality of the harm caused by religion?


I will be watching, but meanwhile the harm of atheists working against religion is a growing danger.


----------



## jef

SINC said:


> I will be watching, but meanwhile the harm of atheists working against religion is a growing danger.


Atheists have an arsenal of words and reason. Atheists don't hold any belief worth hurting, killing or dying for; there is certainly no promise of reward in an afterlife. Where's the harm?


----------



## fjnmusic

SINC said:


> One day an atheist or group of same will go too far in their anti religion campaign and make a mistake that could result in them having charges laid against them under Canada's hate laws. As far as I can tell, it is hatred of religion that seems to drive vocal activist atheists.


An odd comment, to say the least. The "one day" part would indicate that you appear to agree that atheists do not normally break the law much less start wars or fly planes into office towers. Yet the evidence is overwhelming that religion is often the root cause of war, terrorism and all kinds of atrocities. I should use the word "ideology" perhaps because it is a more accurate description of like-minded people who are bent on a particular course of action that can be rationalized by their belief system. So far, I have not seen an organized army of atheists banding together to take over anything anywhere, though they can certainly get whiny at times.


----------



## groovetube

While I'm trying to keep from laughing pretty hard, I have to wonder what this 'growing danger' might be.
:lmao:


----------



## MacGuiver

fjnmusic said:


> So far, I have not seen an organized army of atheists banding together to take over anything anywhere, though they can certainly get whiny at times.


Soviet Union. The atheistic regime showed the same smug contempt for religion that many die hard atheists do today. Same talking points, same animosity. Murdered and persecuted millions that wouldn't become brights like them.


----------



## groovetube

Having some trouble understanding what Russia has to do with say, Canada.

I don't think atheism itself was responsible for the horrible acts of violence there.


----------



## MacGuiver

Atheism had everything to do with it. The atheistic state came to the same conclusions and exhibited the same paranoia of religion as notables like Richard Dawkins today only they're solution to the "religion problem" were violent and ruthless.


----------



## fjnmusic

groovetube said:


> Having some trouble understanding what Russia has to do with say, Canada.
> 
> I don't think atheism itself was responsible for the horrible acts of violence there.


Indeed. On the contrary, if one looks at religion less as a spiritual experience and more as an ideology, with the emphasis on groupthink or mob mentality over individual awareness or enlightenment, it is easy to see the parallels between the worst excesses of the Russian or Chinese communist regimes and other religious exercises, such as the Crusades, the Inquisition or the centuries old fighting in Ireland. None of these things have anything to do with any kind of spiritual awakening and everything to do with bullying behaviour and mob mentality. As soon as someone signs over the responsibility for making their own decisions and and gives in to the wishes of the group, religious or otherwise, you have the potential for the worst abuses in human behaviour. Sadly, the group does not even have to be that big.


----------



## groovetube

fjnmusic said:


> Indeed. On the contrary, if one looks at religion less as a spiritual experience and more as an ideology, with the emphasis on groupthink or mob mentality over individual awareness or enlightenment, it is easy to see the parallels between the worst excesses of the Russian or Chinese communist regimes and other religious exercises, such as the Crusades, the Inquisition or the centuries old fighting in Ireland. None of these things have anything to do with any kind of spiritual awakening and everything to do with bullying behaviour and mob mentality. As soon as someone signs over the responsibility for making their own decisions and and gives in to the wishes of the group, religious or otherwise, you have the potential for the worst abuses in human behaviour. Sadly, the group does not even have to be that big.


thanks for getting it. I didn't expect everyone to. 

The trouble here is that many seem to have this inherent need to vilify whatever it is that is not their belief system, and to take actions, however subtle of horrendously violent, to enforce their dominance. Really, this has nothing to do really with the belief they likely have, be it christian, muslim, atheist, etc. But many groups, governments, take on these religions (or lack of) and use force to make sure everyone lives by their rules as a form of control. 

The followers, ones who either can't, or won't think for themselves, tend to blame the 'other one' as the villain belief system because of this. And there, there is the main source of our problems.

To me, the beliefs, whatever it is, christian, whatever, isn't the root of the violence. It's the ones that want to force others to adhere to their beliefs.


----------



## groovetube

MacGuiver said:


> Atheism had everything to do with it. The atheistic state came to the same conclusions and exhibited the same paranoia of religion as notables like Richard Dawkins today only they're solution to the "religion problem" were violent and ruthless.


I'm sorry but I don't think you quite get it. fjn totally got it.


----------



## iMouse




----------



## MacGuiver

fjnmusic said:


> Indeed. On the contrary, if one looks at religion less as a spiritual experience and more as an ideology, with the emphasis on groupthink or mob mentality over individual awareness or enlightenment, it is easy to see the parallels between the worst excesses of the Russian or Chinese communist regimes and other religious exercises, such as the Crusades, the Inquisition or the centuries old fighting in Ireland. None of these things have anything to do with any kind of spiritual awakening and everything to do with bullying behaviour and mob mentality. As soon as someone signs over the responsibility for making their own decisions and and gives in to the wishes of the group, religious or otherwise, you have the potential for the worst abuses in human behaviour. Sadly, the group does not even have to be that big.


I'd say I agree that we should test and carefully evaluate the merits of the ideology being fed to us be it religious or secular, however "Thinking for yourself", and determining your own path is not always a recipe for good either. In fact its often been a recipe for justification of some of the most hideous behaviour in human history. Self enlightenment can often lead to a very dark place.
There is absolutely nothing intelligent about outright rejection of wisdom accumulated by those that went before us and starting from scratch. Its like arguing that to be the best cake chef, refuse to be trained by other chefs and never open a recipe book. You'll figure it out on your own and your cakes will be superior.


----------



## bryanc

MacGuiver said:


> I'd say I agree that we should test and carefully evaluate the merits of the ideology being fed to us be it religious or secular


Completely agree.

And on this basis, I am unable to comprehend how any rational adult can adhere to the beliefs espoused by the common religions. Almost by definition, these beliefs require faith, and will not withstand careful evaluation or testing.



> however "Thinking for yourself", and determining your own path is not always a recipe for good either.


Unfortunately true; some people just aren't very bright. This is why we need laws and law enforcement. And, it's worth noting, that with very few exceptions, a well-socialized and well-educated human will be a well-behaved member of society. The vast majority of criminal behaviour stems from failings of socialization and/or education.



> There is absolutely nothing intelligent about outright rejection of wisdom accumulated by those that went before us and starting from scratch.


Again, I completely agree; however I would add the caveat that rather than accepting such 'wisdom' blindly on faith, one should analyze and critique it in a modern context. What seemed wise to people a thousand (or even 10) years ago may be obviously wrong in the context of new information. Furthermore, it is only by considering the rational basis for an argument that one can appreciate it's merit. So blindly accepting or rejecting ancient wisdom is foolish; consider it, and recognize that it's an approach that has stood the test of time so it's worth considering carefully, but still, think for yourself.


----------



## bryanc

iMouse said:


> Dosen't believe in evolution... forces her kids to have flu shots every year


Is that a picture of someone in particular, or is it meant to represent the average north-american parent who's so desperately ignorant of science and/or religiously brainwashed that they don't understand the science that makes evolution the cornerstone of all modern biology, but simultaneously has faith in the applications of that theory?

I am seriously concerned that the creationists are scaling up their efforts to undermine science education in Canada. I've seen some of this first hand, and I'm hearing a lot of worrisome rumours. Please speak out (and or let me know) if you hear about anything that leads you to suspect Intelligent Design or other creationist disinformation is getting covered in schools you know of.


----------



## groovetube

bryanc said:


> Again, I completely agree; however I would add the caveat that rather than accepting such 'wisdom' blindly on faith, one should analyze and critique it in a modern context. What seemed wise to people a thousand (or even 10) years ago may be obviously wrong in the context of new information. Furthermore, it is only by considering the rational basis for an argument that one can appreciate it's merit. So blindly accepting or rejecting ancient wisdom is foolish; consider it, and recognize that it's an approach that has stood the test of time so it's worth considering carefully, but still, think for yourself.


This is precisely what I meant when I referred to one being able to think for oneself.

Somehow, it got twisted into meaning some socio/psychopath sitting in a dark room somewhere thinking up some horrible acts of whatever. I'm not sure how, or why anyone would insinuate that thinking for oneself would mean this.


----------



## fjnmusic

bryanc said:


> Is that a picture of someone in particular, or is it meant to represent the average north-american parent who's so desperately ignorant of science and/or religiously brainwashed that they don't understand the science that makes evolution the cornerstone of all modern biology, but simultaneously has faith in the applications of that theory?
> 
> I am seriously concerned that the creationists are scaling up their efforts to undermine science education in Canada. I've seen some of this first hand, and I'm hearing a lot of worrisome rumours. Please speak out (and or let me know) if you hear about anything that leads you to suspect Intelligent Design or other creationist disinformation is getting covered in schools you know of.


What if life itself is its own intelligent designer? That is, on fact, what evolutionary theory would seem to suggest. There may be no sky daddy, but natural selection always implies some kind of chooser.


----------



## SINC

Thinking for oneself includes those whose thinking becomes demented and they commit terrible acts with innocent victims. As I said, one day one of those free thinking atheists will crack and that free thinking will turn to the demise of innocents who will die in the name of atheism. It's bound to happen one day.


----------



## groovetube

So then it's far better NOT to think for oneself, and follow whatever group you have become involved with.

You wouldn't want to evaluate the people/groups you are around by thinking for yourself now would we.


----------



## MacGuiver

bryanc said:


> I am seriously concerned that the creationists are scaling up their efforts to undermine science education in Canada. I've seen some of this first hand, and I'm hearing a lot of worrisome rumours. Please speak out (and or let me know) if you hear about anything that leads you to suspect Intelligent Design or other creationist disinformation is getting covered in schools you know of.


I think your concerns are not founded in fact. The majority of Canadians, even among Christians don't seem to have an issue with evolutionary theory. Frankly most of us really don't loose much sleep at night fretting over the origins of our species. We're too busy dealing with where we'll be next week to be worried about where we were millions of years ago. 
Lets say Joe student is a mathematical genius, a brain surgeon, a dentist, a lawyer, a cook but he ascribes to the dreaded God created the earth 10,000 years ago and Adam and Eve walked with Dinosaurs position. What difference does that make in his abilities to excel at his job? I can't think of too many carriers where such thought could impair your ability to excel at it and contribute substantially to your fellow man. I just don't see the apocalypse of education and intelligence coming from this issue.


----------



## bryanc

fjnmusic said:


> What if life itself is its own intelligent designer? That is, on fact, what evolutionary theory would seem to suggest.


The core idea of evolution by natural selection is that it is a mindless process; it's an algorithm, not an agent.


> There may be no sky daddy, but natural selection always implies some kind of chooser.


Only in the same way that gravity is the "chooser" regarding which way things fall. There's no "intelligence", just differential reproductive success.


----------



## bryanc

SINC said:


> As I said, one day one of those free thinking atheists will crack and that free thinking will turn to the demise of innocents who will die in the name of atheism. It's bound to happen one day.


Well, atheism has a lot of catching up to do on the atrocity front if it wants to be taken seriously as an ideology.


----------



## bryanc

MacGuiver said:


> Lets say Joe student is a mathematical genius, a brain surgeon, a dentist, a lawyer, a cook but he ascribes to the dreaded God created the earth 10,000 years ago and Adam and Eve walked with Dinosaurs position. What difference does that make in his abilities to excel at his job?


Well, someone with that level of cognitive dissonance is bound to have their heads explode, so I wouldn't want them as an employee.

Seriously, accepting the young earth creationist position requires such a phenomenal denial of observable reality and absurdist logic that I have to consider such a person dangerously mentally unstable.



> I just don't see the apocalypse of education and intelligence coming from this issue.


It's only one of many issues pertaining to the erosion of education in our society; but it's one we can do something about quite easily, so it's worth paying attention to it.


----------



## MacGuiver

bryanc said:


> Well, atheism has a lot of catching up to do on the atrocity front if it wants to be taken seriously as an ideology.


Still in denial of the history of atheist state regimes and the millions they murdered dealing with the threats from "dangerously mentally unstable" religious folk?


----------



## bryanc

I'm aware of a variety of historical atrocities committed by individuals who either were or are suspected of being atheists, but I'm not aware of any that were justified by atheism. Stalin and Hitler both had moustaches, Hitler and Napoleon were both short, and Stalin and Mao were both atheists, etc. These characteristics of the individuals don't seem relevant to their commission of atrocities. Their forces were given marching orders based on economic, military, and political objectives.

Contrast that to the Crusades, Jihads, and various terrorist and militant groups that are explicitly murdering in the name of God.


----------



## MacGuiver

bryanc said:


> I'm aware of a variety of historical atrocities committed by individuals who either were or are suspected of being atheists, but I'm not aware of any that were justified by atheism. Stalin and Hitler both had moustaches, Hitler and Napoleon were both short, and Stalin and Mao were both atheists, etc. These characteristics of the individuals don't seem relevant to their commission of atrocities. Their forces were given marching orders based on economic, military, and political objectives.
> 
> Contrast that to the Crusades, Jihads, and various terrorist and militant groups that are explicitly murdering in the name of God.


Yes it was the moustaches
Suggested reading.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USSR_anti-religious_campaign_(1928–1941)


----------



## bryanc

MacGuiver said:


> Suggested reading.


Yes, I know about that, and it's certainly the closest to a good example of an atrocity motivated by atheism that I can think of. However, even if you read that wikipedia article, let alone any more rigorous historical analysis, you will see that this was a largely political action, targeting a specific church (rather than religion in general) because of "reasons surrounding opposition to Metropolitan Sergii and his notorious declaration of loyalty."

I'll certainly grant you that the promotion of a secular state was a big part of it, and it was also a big reason it failed. You can't eliminate religion by force; religion thrives on persecution (perceived or otherwise).

France and Mexico are a couple of other examples of places where people have become sufficiently pissed off at the religious authorities to enact state atheism after a revolution, so as to declare open season for hunting clerics . But it never works.

Education and reason are the natural enemies of irrational superstition, and if we're ever to be free of the superstitions of our ancestors it will be due to nurturing critical thinking, rather than oppressing those infected with these memetic viruses.

{edit to add: This is why the religious need not fear education or "liberal/progressive" policies, but religion _is_ under existential threat.}


----------



## fjnmusic

bryanc said:


> I'm aware of a variety of historical atrocities committed by individuals who either were or are suspected of being atheists, but I'm not aware of any that were justified by atheism. Stalin and Hitler both had moustaches, Hitler and Napoleon were both short, and Stalin and Mao were both atheists, etc. These characteristics of the individuals don't seem relevant to their commission of atrocities. Their forces were given marching orders based on economic, military, and political objectives.
> 
> Contrast that to the Crusades, Jihads, and various terrorist and militant groups that are explicitly murdering in the name of God.


I think we have more to fear from Mustachism. Look at Saddam Hussein, he was an admirer of Stalin's mustache. Although George W did not have a mustache, strangely enough. Maybe back in college.


----------



## MacDoc

theists...avert thy eyes, close thy ears.....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EJwhqhqBtbo&nomobile=1


----------



## Macfury

I bet he would say the same thing about alien greys, MacDoc!


----------



## fjnmusic

Discuss.


----------



## MacGuiver

fjnmusic said:


> View attachment 27202
> 
> 
> Discuss.


He didn't have a Twitter account.


----------



## groovetube

MacDoc said:


> theists...avert thy eyes, close thy ears.....
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EJwhqhqBtbo&nomobile=1


the dry delivery was perfect. :clap:


----------



## bryanc

MacDoc said:


> theists...avert thy eyes, close thy ears....


That was brilliant.


----------



## MacGuiver

bryanc said:


> That was brilliant.


Sure but his character makes atheists look like spiteful, arrogant jerks void of any joy in life.


----------



## bryanc

That's a pretty common cliché, so it doesn't surprise me. I've never seen the show.


----------



## fjnmusic

bryanc said:


> That's a pretty common cliché, so it doesn't surprise me. I've never seen the show.


Seriously? I think you'd appreciate his dry wit and scientific minded approach to problem solving. House was also loosely base on the story of Sherlock Holmes.


----------



## bryanc

I gave up on TV in the mid 1980's. Back then there was really nothing on, and now that there is stuff worth watching, I just don't have the time. We got a TV to use as a display for a game console a couple of years ago, and found that we could pick up CBC OTA, which is nice for watching hockey games. I am now getting sucked into watching some old stuff on NetFlix (lots of TED talks, various BBC documentaries etc., and some guilty pleasures like Breaking Bad).

From what I've seen, I'd probably like House; I certainly think very highly of Hugh Laurie as an actor (although I liked him better in his comedic stuff like Black Adder). I just don't have time for it right now.


----------



## MacGuiver

bryanc said:


> I gave up on TV in the mid 1980's. Back then there was really nothing on, and now that there is stuff worth watching, I just don't have the time. We got a TV to use as a display for a game console a couple of years ago, and found that we could pick up CBC OTA, which is nice for watching hockey games. I am now getting sucked into watching some old stuff on NetFlix (lots of TED talks, various BBC documentaries etc., and some guilty pleasures like Breaking Bad).
> 
> From what I've seen, I'd probably like House; I certainly think very highly of Hugh Laurie as an actor (although I liked him better in his comedic stuff like Black Adder). I just don't have time for it right now.


Your not missing much Bryan. Though you'd likely enjoy Discovery, National Geographic, History and the Science Channels. Some of the few channels I enjoy watching on occasion.


----------



## chimo

bryanc said:


> I gave up on TV in the mid 1980's. Back then there was really nothing on, and now that there is stuff worth watching, I just don't have the time. We got a TV to use as a display for a game console a couple of years ago, and found that we could pick up CBC OTA, which is nice for watching hockey games. I am now getting sucked into watching some old stuff on NetFlix (lots of TED talks, various BBC documentaries etc., and some guilty pleasures like Breaking Bad).
> 
> From what I've seen, I'd probably like House; I certainly think very highly of Hugh Laurie as an actor (although I liked him better in his comedic stuff like Black Adder). I just don't have time for it right now.


I think you would like _House_. We don't watch very much TV, but that was one series we enjoyed. Most episodes don't vary much on their construct, but the characters are really the entertainment.

One thing I like about Netflix is that you can wait to see which series amass critical acclaim and watch (gorge on) those without the commercials.


----------



## Dr.G.

fjnmusic said:


> Seriously? I think you'd appreciate his dry wit and scientific minded approach to problem solving. House was also loosely base on the story of Sherlock Holmes.


As well, much of what House said was lifted from "The Book of Life According to fjnmusic" .............. Guess, much like the Bible, there are no copyright restrictions from the use of one's thoughts.

Paix, mon ami.


----------



## bryanc

I'll certainly take these recommendations of _House_ under advisement; when so many of you who've dealt with my postings here think I'll like it, it's probably a pretty safe bet 

But as summer is nearly here (most of the snow has melted and the mosquitoes are out), my TV watching will likely drop from "hardly ever" to "none"... I'm already 4 episodes behind on _Game of Thrones_  ... so it'll probably have to go into my bucket list for the nonce.


----------



## fjnmusic

Dr.G. said:


> As well, much of what House said was lifted from "The Book of Life According to fjnmusic" .............. Guess, much like the Bible, there are no copyright restrictions from the use of one's thoughts.
> 
> Paix, mon ami.


"Great spirits always encounter violent opposition from mediocre minds." Albert lifted that one from me too.


----------



## fjnmusic

bryanc said:


> I'll certainly take these recommendations of _House_ under advisement; when so many of you who've dealt with my postings here think I'll like it, it's probably a pretty safe bet
> 
> But as summer is nearly here (most of the snow has melted and the mosquitoes are out), my TV watching will likely drop from "hardly ever" to "none"... I'm already 4 episodes behind on _Game of Thrones_  ... so it'll probably have to go into my bucket list for the nonce.


One of the best episodes: "Three Stories" from Season 1.


----------



## CubaMark

*A little perspective....*


----------



## bryanc

And no shellfish, mixing fabrics, or gay sex either! Slaves are okay though.


----------



## chimo

CubaMark said:


> *A little perspective....*


I was going to report that image........ as awesome! Thanks!


----------



## MacGuiver

I guess if someone spends much of their time typing with one hand while surfing porn on internet, it could seem an impossible proposal.


----------



## chimo

I liked the strip even before the last panel. It really sinks in how small we are in the large scheme of things. The last panel just added a touch of thread appropriate humour.


----------



## bryanc

I'd love to see that graph with each scale cylinder rotating so you could see the 3D structure, and then zooming out so you could visualize the scale differences between each cylinder better.


----------



## CubaMark

chimo said:


> I liked the strip even before the last panel. It really sinks in how small we are in the large scheme of things. The last panel just added a touch of thread appropriate humour.


I was also quite impressed by this... Jesus showing up at the end was an unexpected surprise, and pretty much begged to be posted in this thread


----------



## fjnmusic

bryanc said:


> I'd love to see that graph with each scale cylinder rotating so you could see the 3D structure, and then zooming out so you could visualize the scale differences between each cylinder better.


Try this one. It goes both ways. 

The Scale of the Universe 2


----------



## CubaMark




----------



## MacGuiver

fjnmusic said:


> Try this one. It goes both ways.
> 
> The Scale of the Universe 2


Thats awesome!. Thanks for sharing.


----------



## fjnmusic

MacGuiver said:


> Thats awesome!. Thanks for sharing.


Yeah, I like that too. Kind of puts things into perspective.


----------



## iMouse

But, but, *we* are the Chosen Ones.


----------



## Dr.G.

iMouse said:


> But, but, *we* are the Chosen Ones.


No, we are the champions. "Many are called but few are chosen." Paix, mon ami.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KFfCKy0nKr0]Queen - We Are The Champions (Lyrics) - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## groovetube

CubaMark said:


> I was also quite impressed by this... Jesus showing up at the end was an unexpected surprise, and pretty much begged to be posted in this thread


that image made me laugh. Perspective indeed!


----------



## MacGuiver

iMouse said:


> But, but, *we* are the Chosen Ones.


Why couldn't we be? Are you assuming scale would=relevance to God? I guess thats what one would have to assume if they come away from looking at infinite space with the conclusion we just couldn't matter to the creator of it all because or our apparent obscurity in it.


----------



## bryanc

MacGuiver said:


> Why couldn't we be? Are you assuming scale would=relevance to God? I guess thats what one would have to assume if they come away from looking at infinite space with the conclusion we just couldn't matter to the creator of it all because or our apparent obscurity in it.


I understand your position. And you're right of course; our obscure and insignificant position in the universe is certainly not proof that we aren't the darlings of the Creator's eye, or even the whole purpose of the existence of the universe. It simply does not fit with any rational explanation, but of course one of the great things about gods is that their behaviour and choices are, a priori, inexplicable.

This latter point is one of my main objections to religion (not yours in particular, but all religions): if an explanation does not provide any predictive power, it's not any better than saying "I don't know." Indeed, it is worse, because by semantically answering a question with "God did it" you extinguish curiosity and the possibility for gaining real knowledge.

So any question that is answered with 'God' or other supernatural explanation is not only fundamentally an unanswered question, it's a question that believers are no longer thinking about and therefore even worse than ignorance. As Wolfgang Pauli said "that's not right. That's not even wrong." An incorrect answer that can be falsified, or even the admission of ignorance, allow (or even promote) intellectual progress. But answering questions with unfalsifiable supernatural forces or beings simply dresses ignorance in the guise of knowledge and prevents further progress.


----------



## MacGuiver

bryanc said:


> I understand your position. And you're right of course; our obscure and insignificant position in the universe is certainly not proof that we aren't the darlings of the Creator's eye, or even the whole purpose of the existence of the universe. It simply does not fit with any rational explanation, but of course one of the great things about gods is that their behaviour and choices are, a priori, inexplicable.
> 
> This latter point is one of my main objections to religion (not yours in particular, but all religions): if an explanation does not provide any predictive power, it's not any better than saying "I don't know." Indeed, it is worse, because by semantically answering a question with "God did it" you extinguish curiosity and the possibility for gaining real knowledge.
> 
> So any question that is answered with 'God' or other supernatural explanation is not only fundamentally an unanswered question, it's a question that believers are no longer thinking about and therefore even worse than ignorance. As Wolfgang Pauli said "that's not right. That's not even wrong." An incorrect answer that can be falsified, or even the admission of ignorance, allow (or even promote) intellectual progress. But answering questions with unfalsifiable supernatural forces or beings simply dresses ignorance in the guise of knowledge and prevents further progress.


This seems to be a point of ignorance for many atheists.
If one believes God created the universe, why do you assume one stops seeking to understand it? Reality doesn't reflect that. Most Christians don't check their curiosity at the church door.
Of course there are some that misinterpret aspects of the Bible as a literal scientific truth but they are not the vast majority. Many believe God is the author of life but that hasn't stopped them from exploring the wonders of it or seeking to understand its mysteries. Many great scientists have been and continue to be deists making substantial contributions to our wealth of knowledge.
The only area I can see belief limiting where a scientist might dare venture is on ethical grounds.


----------



## bryanc

MacGuiver said:


> This seems to be a point of ignorance for many atheists.


I'll admit, I'm unable to understand how one rationalizes using the scientific method to try to understand a phenomena, when one has already accepted the existence of supernatural agents and forces.

I mean, if you believe in gods, angels, demons, and what not, how can you interpret the appearance of a band on a western blot or a given oxygen isotope signature as evidence that supports or refutes a hypothesis; god or some other supernatural agent could've manipulated the data, and there's no way you can control for that.

Why would they manipulate your data? Well, who knows... why did God put his favourite creations on a small blue planet orbiting a star in the backwaters of the unfashionable end of the western arm of the milky way galaxy? There's no way you can know what gods or demons might or might not want to do, and there's no way you can control for their actions, so science is an utterly useless way of trying to learn about the universe if they exist.

Fortunately, we have no reason to think that gods or demons or any other supernatural entities exist; and science seems to work pretty well, which is consistent with the nonexistence of such entities.

When I've discussed this with some of my theistic colleagues, they've all agreed that science operates on atheistic assumptions, and most have never thought about how that conflicts with their personal philosophy. Most persist in continuing not to think about it, but several have started to consider how to rationalize this conflict; they're all atheists now.


----------



## bryanc




----------



## iMouse

MacGuiver said:


> Why couldn't we be?
> 
> Are you assuming scale would = relevance to God?
> 
> I guess that's what one would have to assume if they come away from looking at infinite space, with the conclusion we just couldn't matter to the creator of it all, because or our apparent obscurity in it.


My point is that 'we' think that we are the centre of god universe, when nothing could be further from the truth.

Perhaps we are a botched petri dish in the back of his fridge?

And yes, god has a fridge, for he too is a lover of fine ales. :clap:


PS: Love the god-particle reference. :lmao:


----------



## MacGuiver

bryanc;1271731 There's no way you can know what gods or demons might or might not want to do said:


> Unless one believes, and I think the vast majority do, that God created the universe through measurable, observable processes using various laws and mechanisms that are there for us to discover. Then whats to hinder you? There is no conflict.
> It's quite possible your colleagues that left the fold had a better understanding of science than the religion they abandon. I can't speak to that though since I have no idea what faith they left.


----------



## bryanc

MacGuiver said:


> Unless one believes, and I think the vast majority do, that God created the universe through measurable, observable processes using various laws and mechanisms that are there for us to discover.


If such mechanisms are being manipulated by supernatural agents, we cannot hope to discover much about them through science. On the other hand, if such mechanisms are not subject to supernatural intervention, how does the addition of a supernatural component improve our understanding? In either case, the supernatural incompatible with the use of science to understand the universe.



> It's quite possible your colleagues that left the fold had a better understanding of science than the religion they abandon. I can't speak to that though since I have no idea what faith they left.


In my personal experience, it's been a couple of Muslims, a Buddhist, and a whole lot of Christians. In every case the fundamental conflict comes from the incompatibility of magical thinking and rational thinking. If you hope to explain the unknown in terms of causes and effects - rational explanations - you have to eliminate the supernatural from your world view.


----------



## SINC

bryanc said:


> When I've discussed this with some of my theistic colleagues, they've all agreed that science operates on atheistic assumptions, and most have never thought about how that conflicts with their personal philosophy. Most persist in continuing not to think about it, but several have started to consider how to rationalize this conflict; they're all atheists now.


And so ends yet another sermon by the chief administrator of the New Church of Atheists whose recruiting attempts here have grown as tiresome as the JWs who insist on knocking on my door.


----------



## bryanc

This is the religion thread; if you don't like talking about this topic, why do you click on the link? I'm certainly not knocking on anyone's door; what people do in the privacy of their homes and what they believe in the privacy of their own heads is nobody's business but theirs.

Unfortunately, religion and the public expression thereof has become such an established characteristic of our society, anyone who doesn't participate or questions it is immediately branded as a non-conformist or otherwise socially penalized. So it's not unreasonable for non-believers to object to the way we have and continue to be treated, and to be more vocal about the religious assumptions that permeate society.


----------



## MacGuiver

> If such mechanisms are being manipulated by supernatural agents, we cannot hope to discover much about them through science. On the other hand, if such mechanisms are not subject to supernatural intervention, how does the addition of a supernatural component improve our understanding? In either case, the supernatural incompatible with the use of science to understand the universe.


The supernatural is also incompatible with flying an airplane but somehow people manage to do it with their faith intact.
Your whole argument is a house of cards built on the assumption that believing God is the creator somehow ends inquiry. It still leaves open the question of how. Creation is not supernatural, the creator is. Since creation is natural as are the forces acting upon it, its fully within our abilities to unlock its mysteries as we have been doing for centuries, with and without faith.



> In my personal experience, it's been a couple of Muslims, a Buddhist, and a whole lot of Christians. In every case the fundamental conflict comes from the incompatibility of magical thinking and rational thinking.


Example?



> If you hope to explain the unknown in terms of causes and effects - rational explanations - you have to eliminate the supernatural from your world view.


If we eliminated the contributions of scientists with a supernatural worldview, we'd be nowhere near where we are today in scientific knowledge. This statement isn't rational given historical contributions of scientists with faith.


----------



## bryanc

MacGuiver said:


> The supernatural is also incompatible with flying an airplane but somehow people manage to do it with their faith intact.


Well, most do, anyway 

The point is that one wouldn't be able to figure out how aerodynamics works and build an airplane if one presumed that flying things were held up by angels or demons in the first place.



> Your whole argument is a house of cards built on the assumption that believing God is the creator somehow ends inquiry.


First, I should say that I admit you definitely have the upper hand here; you have an existence proof that it is possible to do good science and be a believer, so I cannot argue that it's impossible; I just don't understand how.



> Creation is not supernatural, the creator is. Since creation is natural as are the forces acting upon it, its fully within our abilities to unlock its mysteries as we have been doing for centuries, with and without faith.


This really confused me until I recognized that you were using "creation" as a noun, rather than as a verb. We have to tread carefully with our semantics if we're going to understand each other here 

So what you're saying is that if a believer (let's just use a Christian as an example) wants to understand observable reality, they have to assume that God is not manipulating the system when they make their observations; that what we observe is just the natural world working as it does without God's intervention?

Because if that's the case, I agree. We have to assume that there are no supernatural forces at work in order for science to function. And if we're going to assume that there are no supernatural forces at work, why would you postulate their existence?



> Example?


Okay, one of my colleagues when I was a Ph.D. student was raised in a very religious Christian family, and he had been taught since he was a child that the natural world had been created by God for our benefit. I think his faith began to waver as an undergraduate when he started learning about biology and all the biochemical reactions and processes that occur in the living world that either have nothing to do with human life or are inimical to it (I remember him being taken by the famous E.O.Wilson quote "If God created every living thing, He must be inordinately fond of beetles."), and as he learned about astronomy (including things like the scale and structure of the universe, which make it difficult to believe that humans are particularly important), and as he became aware of the many other religions in the world with their unique and completely unsupported beliefs that conflicted with his own. But he'd been trained that faith was a virtue, and he held onto his beliefs even as he lost confidence in their validity.

However, as he became trained as a research scientist, and learned to value not only finding out new things, but also that, in order to have confidence in any theory, you must attack it and test it with alternate explanations and see how well it predicts objective reality. As he learned that the best theory is the one that explains the facts with the fewest assumptions, and even as he enjoyed arguing about scientific theories and philosophy with me, he began to struggle with his faith in God. I know he went through a lot of turmoil at this point; he did a lot of praying, as did his fiancé (he was engaged to a nice Christian girl that he'd met through his church). But ultimately, he found that he could no longer justify believing that there was an alternate, undetectable reality that somehow affected our reality in unmeasurable and unknowable ways, purely because some superstitious primitives had written about it thousands of years ago. He recognized that such an extraordinary claim required some extraordinary evidence, and that there was no evidence for this claim whatsoever.

So he renounced his faith, which resulted in his breaking up with his fiancé, being disowned and disinherited by his parents, and winding up sleeping on my couch for a few weeks. I was honestly very surprised at his reaction to all this; rather than being upset, he said he felt enormously relieved and unburdened ... I think he'd been subconsciously oppressing his emerging atheism for several years, and the cognitive dissonance was starting to really bother him. He wound up going to europe for a postdoctoral stint and met a gorgeous Hungarian girl (to whom he is now married and with whom he's had a couple of brilliant kids), and then getting hired at a big name university in the US. So it all worked out alright eventually.

This is a fairly representative trajectory, in my experience, for the crisis of faith suffered by religiously indoctrinated students of science.


----------



## JCCanuck

chimo said:


> I liked the strip even before the last panel. It really sinks in how small we are in the large scheme of things. The last panel just added a touch of thread appropriate humour.


Reminded me of the beginning of "Contact" with the radio-waves.


----------



## Dr.G.

JCCanuck said:


> Reminded me of the beginning of "Contact" with the radio-waves.


Me too ............. great minds think alike. I always liked that scene as the "waves of communication" went further and further into space.


----------



## Sonal

bryanc said:


> However, as he became trained as a research scientist, and learned to value not only finding out new things, but also that, in order to have confidence in any theory, you must attack it and test it with alternate explanations and see how well it predicts objective reality. As he learned that the best theory is the one that explains the facts with the fewest assumptions, and even as he enjoyed arguing about scientific theories and philosophy with me, he began to struggle with his faith in God.


My husband finds that arguments about the non-existance of god don't hold up under formal logic. (I don't follow formal logic in a very detailed sense, so I can't explain why.) In any case, he's skeptical of 'strong atheism.' 

He wasn't raised in a strict religious environment, though, and isn't strictly religious now either, though he did definitely change for the more religious... period of time when this happened would have been while he was still a university student. 

But I do think there is an issue of degree that is missing here. You present many of your arguments about religion and science in relatively extreme terms, where the options appear to be a strict adherence to conservative religious teachings, or else strong atheism/science. There's a lack of middle ground here.


----------



## bryanc

Sonal said:


> My husband finds that arguments about the non-existance of god don't hold up under formal logic. (I don't follow formal logic in a very detailed sense, so I can't explain why.) In any case, he's skeptical of 'strong atheism.'


As a student of formal logic, I can say unequivocally, your husband is correct. There are exceptions (especially in math), but it's usually very difficult to prove a negative.

I've never met a "strong atheist" and generally consider it a strawman argument. I can't even wrap my head around what it would mean to believe in the non-existence of something.

I certainly do not believe in god or santa, but I don't believe in the non-existence of god or santa.



> You present many of your arguments about religion and science in relatively extreme terms, where the options appear to be a strict adherence to conservative religious teachings, or else strong atheism/science. There's a lack of middle ground here.


Not strong atheism; what philosophers would call soft atheism (i.e. the absence of belief, rather than belief in the absence).

Science operates on the assumption that there is a natural explanation for observable phenomenon, so there's not much room for a middle ground; you can posit the supernatural exists, but that it doesn't affect observable reality so we can still do science. But if it has no effect, it begs the question of why you'd posit that it exists.


----------



## jef

bryanc said:


> As a student of formal logic, I can say unequivocally, your husband is correct. There are exceptions (especially in math), but it's usually very difficult to prove a negative.
> 
> I've never met a "strong atheist" and generally consider it a strawman argument. I can't even wrap my head around what it would mean to believe in the non-existence of something.
> 
> I certainly do not believe in god or santa, but I don't believe in the non-existence of god or santa.
> 
> 
> Not strong atheism; what philosophers would call soft atheism (i.e. the absence of belief, rather than belief in the absence).
> 
> Science operates on the assumption that there is a natural explanation for observable phenomenon, so there's not much room for a middle ground; you can posit the supernatural exists, but that it doesn't affect observable reality so we can still do science. But if it has no effect, it begs the question of why you'd posit that it exists.


Middle ground would have to be a combined state of confusion and contentment.


----------



## Sonal

bryanc said:


> Not strong atheism; what philosophers would call soft atheism (i.e. the absence of belief, rather than belief in the absence).
> 
> Science operates on the assumption that there is a natural explanation for observable phenomenon, so there's not much room for a middle ground; you can posit the supernatural exists, but that it doesn't affect observable reality so we can still do science. But if it has no effect, it begs the question of why you'd posit that it exists.


You don't come off as a softie. 

Though he's a physicist, his work is (as far as I understand it) probably more math than science. In math, you can posit all kinds of things that don't exist in observable reality, so long as you can prove them mathematically, they exist.... well, as much as math exists. While his work does have real-world connections, I don't think that's that part that interests him the most... it's more the math.

Pure math research tends to stay within the mathematical realm. Frequently, it's much later that someone comes along and finds a connections with in observable reality, although that doesn't always happen either. But certainly, things do get posited that don't affect observable reality.... at least, not in any way that's necessarily understood at that time.

So perhaps that is the difference... you probably work more with observable reality than he does.


----------



## Sonal

jef said:


> Middle ground would have to be a combined state of confusion and contentment.


Well, I'm certainly content, but not confused, so I would suggest that the middle ground looks quite different than that.


----------



## fjnmusic

MacGuiver said:


> Unless one believes, and I think the vast majority do, that God created the universe through measurable, observable processes using various laws and mechanisms that are there for us to discover. Then whats to hinder you? There is no conflict.
> It's quite possible your colleagues that left the fold had a better understanding of science than the religion they abandon. I can't speak to that though since I have no idea what faith they left.


I don't thonk anyone believes, not really, that there's an invisible god-man who did all this work of creation. I think people probably believe more in some kind of life-force that goes by many names, including El, Allah, God, Vishnu, or what have you, but in reality is more of a feeling than a person. We create god in our own image because it's easier for us to relate to this way, much like the depiction of angels is pretty much humans with wings. If the metaphor works, we just accept it for the sake of the story. It's the willing suspension of disbelief. Unfortunately hardcore theists and hardcore atheists both make the mistake of forgetting that the whole thing about religion is that it is a metaphor for things we have a hard time understanding, like infinity or love or forgiveness. Whether there really is a little green dude name Yoda on moon in the Dagobah system is irrelevant; he has become an archetype in our culture for the wise spiritual leader who inspires us to believe in ourselves. Such is the power and the importance of story.


----------



## Macfury

fjnmusic said:


> I don't thonk anyone believes, not really, that there's an invisible god-man who did all this work of creation. I think people probably believe more in some kind of life-force that goes by many names, including El, Allah, God, Vishnu, or what have you, but in reality is more of a feeling than a person.


Did you take a poll?


----------



## MacGuiver

fjnmusic said:


> I don't thonk anyone believes, not really, that there's an invisible god-man who did all this work of creation. I think people probably believe more in some kind of life-force that goes by many names, including El, Allah, God, Vishnu, or what have you, but in reality is more of a feeling than a person. We create god in our own image because it's easier for us to relate to this way, much like the depiction of angels is pretty much humans with wings. If the metaphor works, we just accept it for the sake of the story. It's the willing suspension of disbelief. Unfortunately hardcore theists and hardcore atheists both make the mistake of forgetting that the whole thing about religion is that it is a metaphor for things we have a hard time understanding, like infinity or love or forgiveness. Whether there really is a little green dude name Yoda on moon in the Dagobah system is irrelevant; he has become an archetype in our culture for the wise spiritual leader who inspires us to believe in ourselves. Such is the power and the importance of story.


I think there are a good many that REALLY believe in the God their faith proclaims. If they thought otherwise they'd spend Sundays at the beach or golf course rather than sitting on hard oak seats in a hot church. 
Granted in western culture, the Life Force concept is a New Age product gaining popularity based on theology of new age guru's like Eckhart Tolle, Miriam Williamson and Deepak Chopra. 
People find it appealing because it offers you hope in an afterlife with no expectations, no restrictions or limitations on how you decide to live in this one. We all get the prize in the end despite how we chose to live our lives.
That said, the all paths lead to God theory is deeply flawed. A study of world religions would demonstrate that for this to be true, God must suffer from multiple personality disorder and schizophrenia.


----------



## fjnmusic

Macfury said:


> Did you take a poll?


Do I need to? Do you really believe in the invisible man theory, Macfury? Or is it possible, just possible, that an understanding of metaphor would prove more useful when talking about religion? Do you REALLy believe, for example, that carbs turn into protein when the priest waves his hand and says some special words?


----------



## fjnmusic

MacGuiver said:


> I think there are a good many that REALLY believe in the God their faith proclaims. If they thought otherwise they'd spend Sundays at the beach or golf course rather than sitting on hard oak seats in a hot church.
> Granted in western culture, the Life Force concept is a New Age product gaining popularity based on theology of new age guru's like Eckhart Tolle, Miriam Williamson and Deepak Chopra.
> People find it appealing because it offers you hope in an afterlife with no expectations, no restrictions or limitations on how you decide to live in this one. We all get the prize in the end despite how we chose to live our lives.
> That said, the all paths lead to God theory is deeply flawed. A study of world religions would demonstrate that for this to be true, God must suffer from multiple personality disorder and schizophrenia.


I think that concept may have merit. The irritated punishing and interfering god of the old testament seems to be a completely different being than the forgiving god that Jesus speaks of. One god with multiple personalities, or two different gods altogether? When you study the bible a little more closely, the details become fascinating. The books were written with particular goals in mind and particular groups of people to persuade. As I've said before, man creates god in his own image. And he keeps recreating god to suit his purpose. The new age god fits with the mind set of people who like to consider themselves free spirits. Who's to say the traditional god is more correct than the new age god? Just because that's what you grew up with? We believe what we need to believe to help us get through the day and get on with our lives. 

I also do not for a second believe that all paths lead to god any more than I believe all paths lead to good. There are many choices we can make that have disastrous consequences. Still, free will necessitates that we must make our own choices freely and without coercion. Spread good cheer or burn in hell—that's not exactly a fair balance. In any event, I'm very much a fan of Eckhart Tolle. He reminds me of Jesus—the Jesus that I believe in—due to his simple and peaceful nature. His words are wise and resonate for me with Jesus and many other great thinkers, both Christian and non-Christian. There are many great minds that can teach us in this life; it would be a shame to subscribe to only one particular rabbi.


----------



## Macfury

fjnmusic said:


> Do I need to? Do you really believe in the invisible man theory, Macfury?


Yes, you need to, because you are wrong. Many people believe in a personal God. Not a metaphor, a force or a concept.

Look at this PEW forum poll conducted in 2005:

Pew Forum: Do the Democrats Have aGod Problem?

Americans who believe in a "higher power" as opposed to a being are vastly outnumbered.



fjnmusic said:


> Or is it possible, just possible, that an understanding of metaphor would prove more useful when talking about religion?


It's possible, but unlikely--especially if the metaphor is a substitute for the truth.


----------



## fjnmusic

Macfury said:


> Yes, you need to, because you are wrong. Many people believe in a personal God. Not a metaphor, a force or a concept.
> 
> Look at this PEW forum poll conducted in 2005:
> 
> Pew Forum: Do the Democrats Have aGod Problem?
> 
> Americans who believe in a "higher power" as opposed to a being are vastly outnumbered.
> 
> 
> 
> It's possible, but unlikely--especially if the metaphor is a substitute for the truth.


So you are an advocate of cannibalism then as well? Protestants do not have to deal with this problem because they believe bread and wine are symbols, not literally flesh and blood. I do have to question the sanity of someone who believes they are literally eating flesh and blood at a certain point in the mass, as it 1) defies any kind of logical reasoning about the nature of matter, and 2) cannibalism is gross and against the law in our culture. The symbolic approach works just fine for me, but if you're a hardcore RC, then you accept the doctrine of transubstantiation. Which means you advocate and practice cannibalism. You cannot have it both ways as a "true believer."


----------



## Macfury

fjnmusic said:


> Protestants do not have to deal with this problem because they believe bread and wine are symbols, not literally flesh and blood. I do have to question the sanity of someone who believes they are literally eating flesh and blood at a certain point in the mass, as it 1) defies any kind of logical reasoning about the nature of matter, and 2) cannibalism is gross and against the law in our culture. The symbolic approach works just fine for me, but if you're a hardcore RC, then you accept the doctrine of transubstantiation. Which means you advocate and practice cannibalism. You cannot have it both ways as a "true believer."


I did not say I believe that no symbolism exists. I said that worshiping a metaphor was a poor excuse for worshiping God.


----------



## bryanc

fjnmusic said:


> Do I need to? Do you really believe in the invisible man theory, Macfury? Or is it possible, just possible, that an understanding of metaphor would prove more useful when talking about religion? Do you REALLy believe, for example, that carbs turn into protein when the priest waves his hand and says some special words?


As much as I understand how difficult this is for a rational person to believe, I think you're wrong here; most people really do believe in an invisible man in the sky, who watches and judges their every move and even reads their minds, and that they will magically transform into invisible flying angels and live with him in the sky forever after they die if they suck up to Him sufficiently in this life. Pathetic, isn't it?


----------



## bryanc

Sonal said:


> You don't come off as a softie.


You should meet me IRL; I'm very soft and cuddly 

But seriously, the position of "hard atheism" is not really held by anyone as far as I can tell. I've never encountered anyone who claims they can prove that God does not exist, any more than they can prove Santa or the Tooth Fairy does not exist. Until you can claim to know everything (i.e. omniscience), there is always the possibility that something you don't know will force you to re-consider previously held beliefs, so the possibility always exists that you could be wrong.

That being said, I'm as confident that the Christian God does not exist as I am that Zeus, Vishnu, Cthulhu, Quetzalcoatl, etc. don't exist; I just can't prove it, so I have to remain open to the possibility that I'm wrong. So in that sense I'm an agnostic; I don't claim any knowledge about these gods, but I don't believe in any them either, so I'm an atheist as well.

I guess you could call me a "firm" atheist; I'm quite confident that gods and other supernatural entities don't exist, but I don't claim to be able to prove this.



> you probably work more with observable reality than he does.


Yes indeed; for me math is a tool that is useful for describing reality, formalizing predictions (making models), and testing wether data fits those predictions (stats). While I very much appreciate that there are bright people out there working on the semantic mechanisms of math to improve it's ability to fit certain concepts, I'm not personally interested in the math in-and-of-itself.


----------



## iMouse

bryanc said:


> Pathetic, isn't it?


Yes, but so is the fear of death.

Like it's something unusual.

I only fear the manner of my passing, not the actual event.


----------



## bryanc

I think it was Carl Sagan that said something along the lines of "I did not exist for billions of years before my birth and it didn't cause me the least inconvenience; why should I fear non-existance after my death?"


----------



## fjnmusic

bryanc said:


> As much as I understand how difficult this is for a rational person to believe, I think you're wrong here; most people really do believe in an invisible man in the sky, who watches and judges their every move and even reads their minds, and that they will magically transform into invisible flying angels and live with him in the sky forever after they die if they suck up to Him sufficiently in this life. Pathetic, isn't it?


Not really. We believe what we choose or need to believe. I believe people believe in the CONCEPT of god theoretically, and the church itself certainly exists, but if people really believed in the god the way they say they do, they'd be a whole nicer to each other.


----------



## fjnmusic

bryanc said:


> You should meet me IRL; I'm very soft and cuddly
> 
> But seriously, the position of "hard atheism" is not really held by anyone as far as I can tell. I've never encountered anyone who claims they can prove that God does not exist, any more than they can prove Santa or the Tooth Fairy does not exist. Until you can claim to know everything (i.e. omniscience), there is always the possibility that something you don't know will force you to re-consider previously held beliefs, so the possibility always exists that you could be wrong.
> 
> That being said, I'm as confident that the Christian God does not exist as I am that Zeus, Vishnu, Cthulhu, Quetzalcoatl, etc. don't exist; I just can't prove it, so I have to remain open to the possibility that I'm wrong. So in that sense I'm an agnostic; I don't claim any knowledge about these gods, but I don't believe in any them either, so I'm an atheist as well.
> 
> I guess you could call me a "firm" atheist; I'm quite confident that gods and other supernatural entities don't exist, but I don't claim to be able to prove this.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes indeed; for me math is a tool that is useful for describing reality, formalizing predictions (making models), and testing wether data fits those predictions (stats). While I very much appreciate that there are bright people out there working on the semantic mechanisms of math to improve it's ability to fit certain concepts, I'm not personally interested in the math in-and-of-itself.


An interesting point. I've had this conversation with my philosophy friend-turned-professor before. He asked whether numbers are real and how do we prove their existence. Or are they simply a system of symbols created by man so that we have a common language to describe something invisible?


----------



## iMouse

We were allegedly created in god's image, so I think it behooves us to emulate god in our lives.

In essence we are the only god we will experience in our lives. 

We have no need for a church to sanctify this behaviour.


----------



## bryanc

fjnmusic said:


> We believe what we choose or need to believe.


I agree. And fundamentally, I think most people are not swayed by the obvious rationality of atheism is that most people don't believe things for rational reasons. They choose what to believe on the basis of how it makes them feel, rather than being compelled to believe because of reason and evidence.

As House quipped in that video posted earlier "Rational arguments don't work on religious people. Otherwise there would _be_ no religious people."



> but if people really believed in the god the way they say they do, they'd be a whole nicer to each other.


I don't think that follows; it's not like the God of the Bible or any other holy book sets a very good example.


----------



## bryanc

fjnmusic said:


> Or are they simply a system of symbols created by man so that we have a common language to describe something invisible?


Math is great because it can describe things that natural languages cannot. But just like natural languages, it can also describe things that do not exist. Furthermore, like fictional characters, imaginary numbers (based on the square root of negative or zero values) can be very useful.

So as you've said before, something doesn't have to be real to be powerful, interesting or important. But as I've said, it's important to keep clear in our minds about what is real and what is not.


----------



## bryanc

iMouse said:


> I think it behooves us to emulate god in our lives.


Which god? You could use this sort of approach to justify any action, so I have to disagree. I would argue that we all need to develop an internally coherent moral framework that guides our actions before we become adults. This process of moral maturation (first seriously studied by Jean Piaget, and more formally characterized by Lawrence Kohlberg) is highly subject to family and social imprinting, which is a characteristic of many social animals.

In order to be fully functional adults, our behaviour has to be guided intrinsically, rather than extrinsically; that is, moral maturation must ultimately govern behaviour independently of threats of reward or punishment from outside agents (including imaginary ones like gods).


> We have no need for a church to sanctify this behaviour.


Even more importantly, the church impairs our development in this regard.


----------



## iMouse

Whichever god we wish, hence the lack of a religious element in our decision.


----------



## SINC

This may just fit well here.


----------



## Sonal

bryanc said:


> Yes indeed; for me math is a tool that is useful for describing reality, formalizing predictions (making models), and testing wether data fits those predictions (stats). While I very much appreciate that there are bright people out there working on the semantic mechanisms of math to improve it's ability to fit certain concepts, I'm not personally interested in the math in-and-of-itself.


Still, math-for-math's-sake is an example of a field of logical/scientific inquiry and development where existence in observable reality is not really a factor. 

In some sense, it's a good example of the importance of pure research; many of the very practical uses of math today makes use of pure math research from decades ago that was studied with no practical outcome in mind at the time, but is utterly invaluable now.


----------



## bryanc

Sonal said:


> Still, math-for-math's-sake is an example of a field of logical/scientific inquiry and development where existence in observable reality is not really a factor.
> 
> In some sense, it's a good example of the importance of pure research


Absolutely; I wasn't arguing that pure math research isn't a good thing, just that it doesn't interest me personally. I completely agree that it's important and should be supported.


----------



## Sonal

bryanc said:


> Absolutely; I wasn't arguing that pure math research isn't a good thing, just that it doesn't interest me personally. I completely agree that it's important and should be supported.


Right, and just as pure math, which has (in its time) no effect on observable reality does not interest you--but is very interesting or important to others--the notion of a deity that has no effect on observable reality (which seems somewhat pointless to you) is meaningful, interesting or otherwise important or useful to others.


----------



## Sonal

fjnmusic said:


> An interesting point. I've had this conversation with my philosophy friend-turned-professor before. He asked whether numbers are real and how do we prove their existence. Or are they simply a system of symbols created by man so that we have a common language to describe something invisible?


Math goes beyond a system of symbols or common language, I think.

Essentially, a number is an abstraction. Rather than referring to a specific quantity of specific things, the number 4 (for example) is an abstraction of the quantity 4 or anything. (Think of going from counting on fingers to adding 2+2... you've gone from specific to general.) 

Likewise, in algebra, x is an abstraction of number. x can be any number. Specific to general again. So it's abstraction upon abstraction.

Then f(x) is an abstraction of formulas... abstraction upon abstraction upon abstraction.

And so on.

This is only one particular field of math, but as you can see, the higher the level of math you go, the more the layers of abstraction. At some point, you are no longer describing specific quantities of things, but it's math describing math itself. There are times, yes, when you can make a connection to reality, but that's not always necessary... and in fact, not always helpful, as reality (as it is known at the time) introduces a constraint.


----------



## bryanc

Sonal said:


> Right, and just as pure math, which has (in its time) no effect on observable reality does not interest you--but is very interesting or important to others--the notion of a deity that has no effect on observable reality (which seems somewhat pointless to you) is meaningful, interesting or otherwise important or useful to others.


I think you're making a false equivalency here. Math is clearly important, has real applications, and it's validity can be logically (and empirically) demonstrated. We are all required to learn math in school, and being unable to use math at least to some degree seriously impairs your ability to function in society.

We are not all required to pursue higher math, or take an interest in math research in the same way we're not all required to write brilliant poetry. You need to be able to use these semantic tools at some level, but beyond that, it's valuable but not required.

The concept of a deity or other religious dogma are demonstrably not necessary for people to function and be healthy, happy, well-adjusted and productive members of society. Some people claim they find these fanciful ideas helpful, and others claim they're harmful. Certainly if they were ideas people kept to themselves, no one could object, but they are ideas that are emphatically promoted by their adherents, and in many cases used to dictate and judge the behaviour of others.


----------



## CubaMark

*Item #7 made me LOL*


----------



## fjnmusic

bryanc said:


> Math is great because it can describe things that natural languages cannot. But just like natural languages, it can also describe things that do not exist. Furthermore, like fictional characters, imaginary numbers (based on the square root of negative or zero values) can be very useful.
> 
> So as you've said before, something doesn't have to be real to be powerful, interesting or important. But as I've said, it's important to keep clear in our minds about what is real and what is not.


This kind of side-steps the question however. My question is: are numbers real? I am certain that mathematics, the study of numbers, is as real as religion, the study of deities and their relationships with the world. But what about numbers themselves? As humans, we certainly invented the arabic and roman numeral systems. Is base 10 inherent in nature, or is that just for our convenience? Are numbers a way of describing quantities that are independent of language and even of human involvement? Does Pythagoras' theorem hold true even if there is no Pythagoras? Is the gravitational pull of the earth still 9.8 m/s2 even if we had never come up with the equations to describe it? 

This is what I'm talking about. We invent a language to describe things that are largely abstract and we agree on a common set of principles if those principles seem to describe reality well enough for our intents and purposes. The Newtonian concept of gravity may not be so helpful when describing interstellar space, but it's good enough to make accurate predictions here on terra firm.

And so it is with god, in my estimation. We get a feeling, we have a hunch, we can figure out what the right course of action according to our conscience, which is another impossible thing to prove empirically. When enough people get together with a common set of values and principles about how to behave when they're together, they become a society or perhaps a religion. 

But the whole thing is predicated upon an unspoken (or spoken) agreement about how one should interact with others in the group. An interesting idea would be whether one can have a sense of god or religion if one is cut off from all contact with others, like say living in solitary confinement from the start. Of course, human babies, needy as they are, could never survive this way, so its kind of a moot point. We get our sense of religion from our caregivers.


----------



## fjnmusic

Sonal said:


> Math goes beyond a system of symbols or common language, I think.
> 
> Essentially, a number is an abstraction. Rather than referring to a specific quantity of specific things, the number 4 (for example) is an abstraction of the quantity 4 or anything. (Think of going from counting on fingers to adding 2+2... you've gone from specific to general.)
> 
> Likewise, in algebra, x is an abstraction of number. x can be any number. Specific to general again. So it's abstraction upon abstraction.
> 
> Then f(x) is an abstraction of formulas... abstraction upon abstraction upon abstraction.
> 
> And so on.
> 
> This is only one particular field of math, but as you can see, the higher the level of math you go, the more the layers of abstraction. At some point, you are no longer describing specific quantities of things, but it's math describing math itself. There are times, yes, when you can make a connection to reality, but that's not always necessary... and in fact, not always helpful, as reality (as it is known at the time) introduces a constraint.


Well, that's certainly how I see it. Mathematics as invented by man is describing real world quantities that do obey the laws of nature (even though proving nature exists is about as easy as proving god exists). Gravity, electricity, magnetism, centripetal and centrifugal force all exist with or without our involvement. Electrons, protons and neutrons are bound together using their own laws whether we like it or not. Interestingly, I have yet to meet a math teacher who can satisfactorily provide a real world example of why a negative times a negative equals a positive. Many metaphors, like when bad things happen to bad people, that's good, but no examples. Not yet anyway.

I suspect that what we call god is much the same. God is a little like electricity. There are several outlets in the room I'm in that can provide electricity for me, but we know they're all connected behind the walls via electrical cables. Still, they appear in different places, giving them the illusion of being separate. If I am in another building, is it the same electricity? How about a different continent? How about another planet? Is it all the same electricity or is it different? Do the electrical principles stay the same? Do the negative charge and the positive and the neutral charge still work the same way independent of what we call them?

One god. Many names.


----------



## iMouse

CubaMark said:


> *Item #7 made me LOL*


I favour #5 myself. 



> When you have a beer, you don't knock on people's doors trying to give it away.


Rarely, as in never. :lmao:


----------



## bryanc

fjnmusic said:


> This kind of side-steps the question however. My question is: are numbers real?


Numbers are symbols, so they are not real in and of themselves. In the same way that 'blue' is not real, but light of a wavelength we would describe as blue is real.

Similarly, mathematical operators such as "greater than" are not real, but the can be used to describe real relationships.



> Is base 10 inherent in nature, or is that just for our convenience?


It is just for our convenience; I'm sure that if octopuses invented their own math, they'd use base 8.



> Are numbers a way of describing quantities that are independent of language and even of human involvement?


Quantities of things exist; numbers are our symbolic way of representing quantities. There are 8 protons in the nucleus of an oxygen atom, but if you were an octopus, you'd say there were 10. In both cases we mean this many: . . . . . . . .



> Does Pythagoras' theorem hold true even if there is no Pythagoras?


Yes. It's a logical relationship. Agents with a different mathematical language would use different symbols to describe it, but the relationship is inherent in the properties of a triangle.



> Is the gravitational pull of the earth still 9.8 m/s2 even if we had never come up with the equations to describe it?


Yes, but that is just our way of describing the slope of the curvature of space-time at the surface of the earth in our mathematical language; dolphins may describe it differently, but it exists independently of our, or the dolphins description of it.


Math is a symbolic language, and it is better suited for describing and working with concepts that reflect certain aspects of reality than other languages we've developed. The symbols of the language can be applied to descriptions of real things (in more or less accurate ways), or they can be used to fabricate fictions as a mental exercise. Like fictions fabricated in other languages, we often find the ideas or principles we learn from mathematical fictions have surprising relevance to the real world.

Regions are simply stories that people have made up in natural languages, and like other fictions, they may provoke thoughts or feelings that have important relevance to real world circumstances. But, as you've suggested previously, Jesus is no different than Yoda or Gandalf; they're fictional characters that may provide admirable or inspirational examples.

My point is that it equally possible to describe things that do not exist in either mathematical or natural languages, and while it may be fun to play with these ideas (and we may find that some of the things we learn from playing with these ideas can be applied to reality), it's important to keep in mind what is real and what is fiction.


----------



## fjnmusic

bryanc said:


> It is just for our convenience; I'm sure that if octopuses invented their own math, they'd use base 8.


Quote of the day! Brilliant.


----------



## CubaMark




----------



## bryanc

While quite cute, that's a fairly unimaginative devil. I'd simply facilitate the development of a free-market economy and distortions of the legal system such that people could incorporate and then pursue their natural greed without guilt. That would inevitably create gross injustices, wild disparities of wealth, all-sorts of 'tragedy of the commons' type situations that would lead to over-explotation of the environment and people, and generally set the stage for war, famine, plague, and chaos.

It's a good thing the devil doesn't exist, or we'd be easy marks...


----------



## fjnmusic

"The greatest trick the Devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn't exist. And like that, poof. He's gone." 

– Verbal Kint, The Usual Suspects

.


----------



## Macfury

fjnmusic said:


> Quote of the day! Brilliant.


This was something we were taught in middle school. Didn't they teach bases in Alberta?


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> While quite cute, that's a fairly unimaginative devil. I'd simply facilitate the development of a free-market economy and distortions of the legal system such that people could incorporate and then pursue their natural greed without guilt. That would inevitably create gross injustices, wild disparities of wealth, all-sorts of 'tragedy of the commons' type situations that would lead to over-explotation of the environment and people, and generally set the stage for war, famine, plague, and chaos.
> 
> It's a good thing the devil doesn't exist, or we'd be easy marks...


If I were the devil, I would make people believe they had a right to exploit the efforts of others. I would teach them that theft and murder and slavery was more than acceptable, as long as they hired thieves and murderers and slavemasters to do the dirty work for them and called it an election. I would sanctify true greed--the desire to take from another what they have worked for--and call it the "common good."


----------



## MacGuiver

CubaMark said:


>


IF I WAS THE DEVIL... I'd promote Lance Sievert to Marketing Director.


----------



## MacGuiver

Paul Harvey’s ‘if i were the devil’ transcript 1965



> if i were the devil … if i were the prince of darkness, i’d want to engulf the whole world in darkness. And i’d have a third of it’s real estate, and four-fifths of its population, but i wouldn’t be happy until i had seized the ripest apple on the tree — thee. So i’d set about however necessary to take over the united states. I’d subvert the churches first — i’d begin with a campaign of whispers. With the wisdom of a serpent, i would whisper to you as i whispered to eve: ‘do as you please.’
> “to the young, i would whisper that ‘the bible is a myth.’ i would convince them that man created god instead of the other way around. I would confide that what’s bad is good, and what’s good is ‘square.’ and the old, i would teach to pray, after me, ‘our father, which art in washington…’
> “and then i’d get organized. I’d educate authors in how to make lurid literature exciting, so that anything else would appear dull and uninteresting. I’d threaten tv with dirtier movies and vice versa. I’d pedal narcotics to whom i could. I’d sell alcohol to ladies and gentlemen of distinction. I’d tranquilize the rest with pills.
> “if i were the devil i’d soon have families that war with themselves, churches at war with themselves, and nations at war with themselves; until each in its turn was consumed. And with promises of higher ratings i’d have mesmerizing media fanning the flames. If i were the devil i would encourage schools to refine young intellects, but neglect to discipline emotions — just let those run wild, until before you knew it, you’d have to have drug sniffing dogs and metal detectors at every schoolhouse door.
> “within a decade i’d have prisons overflowing, i’d have judges promoting pornography — soon i could evict god from the courthouse, then from the schoolhouse, and then from the houses of congress. And in his own churches i would substitute psychology for religion, and deify science. I would lure priests and pastors into misusing boys and girls, and church money. If i were the devil i’d make the symbols of easter an egg and the symbol of christmas a bottle.
> “if i were the devil i’d take from those, and who have, and give to those wanted until i had killed the incentive of the ambitious. And what do you bet? I could get whole states to promote gambling as thee way to get rich? I would caution against extremes and hard work, in patriotism, in moral conduct. I would convince the young that marriage is old-fashioned, that swinging is more fun, that what you see on the tv is the way to be. And thus i could undress you in public, and i could lure you into bed with diseases for which there is no cure. In other words, if i were the devil i’d just keep right on doing on what he’s doing. Paul harvey, good day.”


----------



## Macfury

MacGuiver said:


> IF I WAS THE DEVIL... I'd promote Lance Sievert to Marketing Director.


I'd also make sure that the Jesus on the image was not depicted as someone so ugly--that sort of depiction builds sympathy, not antipathy.


----------



## bryanc

Sorry to back track; I missed this earlier...



fjnmusic said:


> Mathematics as invented by man is describing real world quantities that do obey the laws of nature (even though proving nature exists is about as easy as proving god exists).


I disagree with your parenthetical statement quite strongly. While I cannot _prove_ that nature exists (I could be a virtual agent in a computer program etc. so I cannot know that my, or anyone else's perceptions of an apparently objective reality are 'real'), the only alternative is conceptual relativism, which is a philosophical dead end. I can certainly say that there appears to be an objective reality, and many other agents (people) seem to exist in this objective reality, and they report perceptions of this apparently objective reality that are congruent with my own. So parsimoniously, the simplest explanation is that an objective reality (nature) exists.

Contrast this with "God"... no two people's perception of this agent seem to be congruent; there is zero objective evidence of His existence, His existence causes no end of logical paradoxes etc., and there is plenty of objective and subjective evidence that explains the emergence of such fictional characters from human neurophysiology, psychology, sociology and history. Furthermore, postulating the existence of such a supernatural agent complexities our model of the universe infinitely without providing any explanatory power... Occam would be very displeased. So again, the most parsimonious explanation for the data is that gods are things that people make up to explain the unknown and provide themselves with some comfort regarding untoward circumstances beyond their control.



> Gravity, electricity, magnetism, centripetal and centrifugal force all exist with or without our involvement. Electrons, protons and neutrons are bound together using their own laws whether we like it or not.


Agreed.



> Interestingly, I have yet to meet a math teacher who can satisfactorily provide a real world example of why a negative times a negative equals a positive.


This is the logical nature of math. Multiplication is the logical equivalent of a logical AND operation. So if you have a debt with bank X AND with bank Y, now you have a money... er... well, if the numbers are big enough, maybe you're 'too big to fail' now.... Okay... you've got me; it's the semantics of the system; it don't gotta make sense in the real world.




> God is a little like electricity. There are several outlets in the room I'm in that can provide electricity for me, but we know they're all connected behind the walls via electrical cables.


I've gotta call you out on this; you just don't understand electricity, so you think it's magic and therefore it's like god. The reason you can plug stuff into the wall and have it do interesting things (play music, surf the internet, display porn, whatever you like), is because the electrons in the metal wire are being shoved around by magnets far away in turbines that are being forced to move by mechanical forces (water going through a dam, steam expanding in a turbine, etc.). There's nothing magic happening there... it's just like Arthur Clarke said so many years ago "Any sufficiently advance technology is indistinguishable from magic." (Although I like Harlan Ellison's corollary to Clarke's Law better: "Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced.")



> How about another planet? Is it all the same electricity or is it different? Do the electrical principles stay the same? Do the negative charge and the positive and the neutral charge still work the same way independent of what we call them?


Yes. A coulomb is a coulomb is a coulomb. These are properties of the particles that make up matter in our universe; we have developed arbitrary symbols to describe them, but their properties are physical constants. We can observe manifestations of these properties in the the spectra and other observable features of stars in other galaxies and throughout our observable universe.



> One god. Many names.


More likely zero god(s); many names.


----------



## fjnmusic

Interesting and thought-provoking response, Bryan. I will begin by questioning any universal meaning of the term "nature," however, as from its earliest incarnation the word seemed to have a somewhat more mystical flavor, referring to the intrinsic qualities of things, not just the things we can perceive with our senses. Human nature, for example can be either a triumphant problem solver, a greedy user of resources meant for others, or a sinful transgressor of god's laws, depending upon your definition and your point of view (and probably your religious upbringing or lack thereof). Which version is correct? All are and none are, just like the blind men describing the elephant. 



> Nature, in the broadest sense, is equivalent to the natural world, physical world, or material world. "Nature" refers to the phenomena of the physical world, and also to life in general. It ranges in scale from the subatomic to the cosmic.
> 
> The word nature is derived from the Latin word natura, or "essential qualities, innate disposition", and in ancient times, literally meant "birth".[1]Natura was a Latin translation of the Greek word physis (φύσις), which originally related to the intrinsic characteristics that plants, animals, and other features of the world develop of their own accord.[2][3] The concept of nature as a whole, the physical universe, is one of several expansions of the original notion; it began with certain core applications of the word φύσις by pre-Socratic philosophers, and has steadily gained currency ever since. This usage was confirmed during the advent of modern scientific method in the last several centuries.[4][5]
> 
> Within the various uses of the word today, "nature" often refers to geology and wildlife. Nature may refer to the general realm of various types of living plants and animals, and in some cases to the processes associated with inanimate objects – the way that particular types of things exist and change of their own accord, such as the weather and geology of the Earth, and the matter and energy of which all these things are composed. It is often taken to mean the "natural environment" or wilderness–wild animals, rocks, forest, beaches, and in general those things that have not been substantially altered by human intervention, or which persist despite human intervention. For example, manufactured objects and human interaction generally are not considered part of nature, unless qualified as, for example, "human nature" or "the whole of nature". This more traditional concept of natural things which can still be found today implies a distinction between the natural and the artificial, with the artificial being understood as that which has been brought into being by a human consciousness or a human mind. Depending on the particular context, the term "natural" might also be distinguished from the unnatural, the supernatural, or synthetic.


From Wikipedia, source of all worthwhile human knowledge


----------



## bryanc

fjnmusic said:


> I will begin by questioning any universal meaning of the term "nature,"


I'm not sure if you meant it to be, but this is a *very* profound question, and one that cannot currently be answered.

Wether the reality you inhabit is the same reality I inhabit is not something that can be unequivocally answered. However, if we assume there is only one reality, and that we both inhabit it, we can make significant progress by comparing our observations and challenging each other's interpretations thereof. The existence of an objective extrinsic reality is one of the core assumptions of the scientific method.



> however, as from its earliest incarnation the word seemed to have a somewhat more mystical flavor, referring to the intrinsic qualities of things, not just the things we can perceive with our senses.


I would disagree here; it is by assuming that there is no 'mystical' or supernatural aspect to reality that science is able to progress. There may be aspects that are not directly accessible to our senses, and there may be subtleties beyond our ability to comprehend, but only if we agree that there is fundamentally nothing that is, in principle, inexplicable about reality can we apply the scientific method and attempt to understand some of it. 

This is why I see science fundamentally at odds with religion; science assumes there is no magic and everything is, at least in principle, explicable (even if we may never have the wits or data necessary to understand it ourselves). Religion assumes that there is fundamentally a supernatural cause at the root of all things, and that science therefore cannot explain anything other than the superficial epiphenomenal residuals of the supernatural causes of things.


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> Wether the reality you inhabit is the same reality I inhabit is not something that can be unequivocally answered. However, if we assume there is only one reality, and that we both inhabit it, we can make significant progress by comparing our observations and challenging each other's interpretations thereof. The existence of an objective extrinsic reality is one of the core assumptions of the scientific method.


Assuming, of course, that there are other beings and it isn't just another aspect of yourself firing back the observations you like want to hear at that time.


----------



## fjnmusic

Macfury said:


> Assuming, of course, that there are other beings and it isn't just another aspect of yourself firing back the observations you like want to hear at that time.


I actually agree with you here, Macfury. The only way we experience the universe or reality is through our own eyes and with our own bodies, which are not always reliable. Each time we look at the sun, for example, we are witnessing an illusion; we are seeing where the sun was in its arc across the sky eight minutes ago due to the huge distance away it is. And when we see the stars, we can be looking thousands or even millions of years into the past. The idea of "Now"—even the concept of time itself—is really an illusion as well since it is not fixed, and this would therefore apply to spacetime as well. So the fact that science presupposes that this "reality" we live in is objective simply because we agree that it is is a pretty damn big caveat.

And the question of the nature of things has still been sidestepped. The question of motivation, why a person makes this choice instead of that one, or why life unfolds the way it does, or how and why the human race or any race appeared out of what at one point seemed to be nothing, all of these things remain a mystery. I do not believe that either religion or science provides satisfactory answers to these questions, questions about the nature of things. The scientific method, while thorough to the point of boring, does not allow a great deal of room for intuition or imagination, even though like Archimedes running naked through the streets of Syracuse shouting "Eureka!" that is where we so much scientific discovery comes from. Religion, burdened by the shackles of following all the rules and precepts of its leaders and founders, often suffers from a similar lack of imagination.

That is why I study as many different kinds of thought and models of reality as I can get my mind wrapped around and decide for myself what I believe and what I disbelieve. I think that's what we all do, ultimately. Believing something simply someone else told you to believe it is simply irresponsible in my view. And that applies whether we're talking about religion, science, or any other form of groupthink.


----------



## CubaMark




----------



## Macfury

CubaMark said:


>


Attempting to fathom the tortured dialectic of some posts is already hell.


----------



## Dr.G.

Macfury said:


> Attempting to fathom the tortured dialectic of some posts is already hell.


Bonne chance, mon ami. There is hope for you yet. Paix.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u4qbmPpfG6s]Amazing Grace Lyrics - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## bryanc

*a very easy religion quiz*

This is very U.S. centric, and trivially easy if an atheist like me who's never been to church gets 15/15. But it's interesting to see how your score compares to the average citizen, and how it breaks down on the basis of their religious affiliation.


----------



## CubaMark

I managed 12 / 15, without really thinking about it...  That still put me ahead of 87% of the US population. Go figure...


----------



## Dr.G.

bryanc said:


> This is very U.S. centric, and trivially easy if an atheist like me who's never been to church gets 15/15. But it's interesting to see how your score compares to the average citizen, and how it breaks down on the basis of their religious affiliation.


I got a 15 out of 15, but I have to admit that my Jonathan Edwards answer was an educated guess.


----------



## Aurora

I got #11 wrong but that was a question of not knowing US law. I, by the way, have no religious beliefs


----------



## Macfury

14. I knew it wasn't Billy Graham.


----------



## jef

14/15 - I hesitated on the Jewish sabbath...


----------



## ged

Got 15/15 and several were guesses so was a bit surprised at the outcome.


----------



## heavyall

14/15, I had to flat out guess on both of the US law questions.


----------



## chimo

Got 13/15.


----------



## iMouse

Dr.G. said:


> I got a 15 out of 15, but I have to admit that my Jonathan Edwards answer was an educated guess.


Hey, I guessed him too, especially after the Billy Graham hint.



> You answered 13 out of 15 questions correctly
> for a score of 87%.


----------



## fjnmusic

Cool. I scored than 97% of the public. That's US public, mind you, so maybe not something to brag about.


----------



## fjnmusic

jef said:


> 14/15 - I hesitated on the Jewish sabbath...


After sundown on Friday, I believe, and all day Saturday. That's why the body of JC had to be taken away rather quickly on Good Friday. No self-respecting Jew would be touching a dead body on the Sabbath if it could be helped.


----------



## bryanc

Yes, I expected most of the people around here would do far better than the average American. I too had to guess at the last one (I knew it wasn't Billy Graham, but don't really know the history of the Great Awakening, so I didn't know which was the right answer).

I find it interesting that Jews and atheists are tied for 'best informed' about religion. I wonder why non-believers apparently know so much more about religion than the adherents of those religions?


----------



## iMouse

fjnmusic said:


> After sundown on Friday, I believe, and all day Saturday.


Yes, I remember that, after I answered "Saturday", but I believe it ends at Sundown Saturday.

Because Saturday is when they go to Temple. 

And now I can't even remember the other wrong answer.


----------



## Dr.G.

iMouse said:


> Yes, I remember that, after I answered "Saturday", but I believe it ends at Sundown Saturday.
> 
> Because Saturday is when they go to Temple.
> 
> And now I can't even remember the other wrong answer.


Actually, a Jewish person who is religious, would go to Temple on Friday evening as well as 2-3 times on Saturday, so long as they did not have to drive. Candles would be lit about 20-30 minutes prior to the sunset on Friday. Then, when there are three stars seen in the sky on Saturday, the Sabbath ends. Of course, for places like St.John's, where there are weeks on end that we never see full sunshine let alone the night sky, there is a set time for the start and end of the Jewish Sabbath.

Shalom, mon ami.


----------



## Sonal

15/15 with a guess on the last one.


----------



## MacGuiver

bryanc said:


> I wonder why non-believers apparently know so much more about religion than the adherents of those religions?


Know your enemy? 
Seriously I think many people that are opposed to things, be it God, global warming, abortion, war etc. tend to be more studious in learning about them in order to exploit their weaknesses and defend their counter position. Those that just accept the consensus opinion have often not given it much independent thought and can actually be less informed when pushed on their views. Not to say their view is necessarily the wrong one, just that they don't have a very well informed opinion. 
One only needs look at this religion thread. The majority of people posting are the non believers while polls would indicate the vast majority of people in the general population identify with a belief in God. I have no doubt that many zealous atheists know more about some peoples religion than they do.


----------



## Dr.G.

Sonal said:


> 15/15 with a guess on the last one.


Great minds think alike, Sonal. I had to make an educated guess on #15 as well to get a perfect score.


----------



## Sonal

Dr.G. said:


> Great minds think alike, Sonal. I had to make an educated guess on #15 as well to get a perfect score.


I'm afraid mine was an uneducated guess...


----------



## Macfury

Dr.G. said:


> Actually, a Jewish person who is religious, would go to Temple on Friday evening as well as 2-3 times on Saturday, *so long as they did not have to drive.*


Place a glass of water underneath the car seat and....


----------



## Dr.G.

Macfury said:


> Place a glass of water underneath the car seat and....


----------



## bryanc

MacGuiver said:


> Seriously I think many people that are opposed to things, be it God, global warming, abortion, war etc. tend to be more studious in learning about them in order to exploit their weaknesses and defend their counter position. Those that just accept the consensus opinion have often not given it much independent thought and can actually be less informed when pushed on their views. Not to say their view is necessarily the wrong one, just that they don't have a very well informed opinion.


Both good points; I have to agree that one of the major reasons I've become knowledgeable about religion is either through the process of arguing against it, or because such arguments got me interested and I then read about it, thought about it, and even took university courses on the subject.

I would also argue that people raised in a community with homogeneous religious beliefs are rarely challenged to think about or compare the teachings of their religions to alternatives, and are therefore less likely to have their faith's challenged. In contrast, people who become well-versed in global religions and the history thereof, are far more likely to re-examine the beliefs they were taught as children, and are therefore far more likely to realize that these beliefs don't stand up to critical examination. I'm certainly not the first person to note that one of the best ways to eliminate religious adherence is to educate people about religion.


----------



## iMouse

I remembered the one I got wrong, driving home tonight.

The wine and wafer *actually* become the blood and body of Christ.

Thankfully, Cannibalism is not dead.

What with current trends, the wafer should become the brains of Christ.


----------



## fjnmusic

iMouse said:


> I remembered the one I got wrong, driving home tonight.
> 
> The wine and wafer *actually* become the blood and body of Christ.
> 
> Thankfully, Cannibalism is not dead.
> 
> What with current trends, the wafer should become the brains of Christ.


Jesus toast.





+
YouTube Video









ERROR: If you can see this, then YouTube is down or you don't have Flash installed.


----------



## Dr.G.

fjnmusic said:


> Jesus toast.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> +
> YouTube Video
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ERROR: If you can see this, then YouTube is down or you don't have Flash installed.


Interesting ................


----------



## fjnmusic

Dr.G. said:


> Interesting ................


Seems we see what we are looking for.


----------



## MacGuiver

fjnmusic said:


> Seems we see what we are looking for.


I see Jesus


----------



## groovetube

I see the shape of a dead bearded man.

Could be anyone.


----------



## fjnmusic

I see Ghandi, but with a beard and long hair. Or maybe Jerry Garcia.


----------



## bryanc

I see a painting done by medieval artists on a pice of fabric we know dated from the 13th century.


----------



## MacGuiver

bryanc said:


> I see a painting done by medieval artists on a pice of fabric we know dated from the 13th century.


I suggest you get up to speed on the latest research. The carbon dating was a fail and if it was painted the medieval artist must have had a magical touch with a paint brush that modern science have not been able to detect nor the pigments the artist used to create it.


----------



## MacGuiver

fjnmusic said:


> I see Ghandi, but with a beard and long hair. Or maybe Jerry Garcia.


Proving your point, people will see what they want to see.


----------



## Sonal

fjnmusic said:


> I see Ghandi, but with a beard and long hair. Or maybe Jerry Garcia.


Definitely not Gandhi.

He has a round face, and that guy clearly has a long one.


----------



## bryanc

MacGuiver said:


> I suggest you get up to speed on the latest research. The carbon dating was a fail


link?


----------



## MacGuiver

bryanc said:


> link?


The section of cloth the scientist used was in an area subject to repair at a much later date and was contaminated with the cotton fibres used to make the repair. Its actually quite an amazing story as to how the failed tests was discovered.

This is one mention of it but a quick google search will give you lots to read. 

Turin Shroud 'could be genuine as carbon-dating was flawed' - Telegraph


----------



## bryanc

That old story? Carbon dating reveals the shroud is from the 12th century, and then they claim "oh, but the bit you analyzed was a very subtle repair... the rest of the shroud is more than a thousand years older... but no, we won't let you have another piece to test." Riiiiiight. You believe that if it helps you sleep at night. Why don't you just claim that the dating was flawed because a miracle happened, or it's a test of your faith?


----------



## fjnmusic

Only the true Messiah would deny his divinity.






+
YouTube Video









ERROR: If you can see this, then YouTube is down or you don't have Flash installed.


----------



## CubaMark

Monty Python to the rescue. Life of Brian = Brilliant.


----------



## Dr.G.

fjnmusic said:


> Only the true Messiah would deny his divinity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> +
> YouTube Video
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ERROR: If you can see this, then YouTube is down or you don't have Flash installed.


Yes, and remember that you denied your divinity earlier in this posting. Talk about the kettle calling the pot black. Still, you have never said that you were The Messiah. You come across to your followers as a wise and gentle leader, one who wants us all to find our own path to goodness. As you wrote in "The Book of Life According to fjnmusic" -- "The teacher who is indeed wise does not bid you to enter the house of his wisdom but rather leads you to the threshold of your mind." We who follow your guidance have gained from your wisdom and expressed words. "But let there be spaces in your togetherness and let the winds of the heavens dance between you. Love one another but make not a bond of love: let it rather be a moving sea between the shores of your souls."

Paix, mon ami.


----------



## MacGuiver

> That old story? Carbon dating reveals the shroud is from the 12th century, and then they claim "oh, but the bit you analyzed was a very subtle repair... the rest of the shroud is more than a thousand years older...


Well the scientist never found dyed cotton fibre anywhere else on the shroud. Funny you have a problem with that since the scientist that conducted one of the original carbon dating tests (a fellow atheist) was quite capable of maintaining his objectivity in the matter and discrediting the original findings.



> but no, we won't let you have another piece to test."


Wouldn't it stand to reason that if the Vatican knew or suspected it was a fake and didn't want it exposed that they would have refused the first carbon dating or any research whatsoever of the images origins? If it were a scam it would have easily been discredited long ago.
There is no saying they won't revisit testing again. If it is a genuine relic of Christ, the church would be understandably hesitant to cut it up for lab tests.
That said, reams of other evidence would suggest this shroud dates back to Jerusalem of Jesus day.



> Riiiiiight. You believe that if it helps you sleep at night.


From your hostility toward the subject I don't think its me loosing sleep.



> Why don't you just claim that the dating was flawed because a miracle happened, or it's a test of your faith?


I don't need to claim that because researchers and scientists have demonstrated it to be wrong.


----------



## fjnmusic

Dr.G. said:


> Yes, and remember that you denied your divinity earlier in this posting. Talk about the kettle calling the pot black. Still, you have never said that you were The Messiah. You come across to your followers as a wise and gentle leader, one who wants us all to find our own path to goodness. As you wrote in "The Book of Life According to fjnmusic" -- "The teacher who is indeed wise does not bid you to enter the house of his wisdom but rather leads you to the threshold of your mind." We who follow your guidance have gained from your wisdom and expressed words. "But let there be spaces in your togetherness and let the winds of the heavens dance between you. Love one another but make not a bond of love: let it rather be a moving sea between the shores of your souls."
> 
> Paix, mon ami.


You know, Dr. G., I always sound better when you quote me than when I hear myself speaking out loud. :lmao:


----------



## Dr.G.

fjnmusic said:


> You know, Dr. G., I always sound better when you quote me than when I hear myself speaking out loud. :lmao:


"The first thing which I can record concerning myself is, that I was born. These are wonderful words. This life, to which neither time nor eternity can bring diminution - this everlasting living soul, began. My mind loses itself in these depths."

"If you've heard this story before, don't stop me, because I'd like to hear it again."

“I, not events, have the power to make me happy or unhappy today. I can choose which it shall be. Yesterday is dead, tomorrow hasn't arrived yet. I have just one day, today, and I'm going to be happy in it.” 

“I intend to live forever, or die trying.” 

I could listen to you preach your wisdom all night.

Paix, mon ami.


----------



## eMacMan

MacGuiver said:


> Well the scientist never found dyed cotton fibre anywhere else on the shroud. Funny you have a problem with that since the scientist that conducted one of the original carbon dating tests (a fellow atheist) was quite capable of maintaining his objectivity in the matter and discrediting the original findings.
> 
> 
> 
> Wouldn't it stand to reason that if the Vatican knew or suspected it was a fake and didn't want it exposed that they would have refused the first carbon dating or any research whatsoever of the images origins? If it were a scam it would have easily been discredited long ago.
> There is no saying they won't revisit testing again. If it is a genuine relic of Christ, the church would be understandably hesitant to cut it up for lab tests.
> That said, reams of other evidence would suggest this shroud dates back to Jerusalem of Jesus day.
> 
> 
> From your hostility toward the subject I don't think its me loosing sleep.
> 
> 
> I don't need to claim that because researchers and scientists have demonstrated it to be wrong.


While the odds of picking the only part of the shroud that is faked may seem a bit astronomical, they really are not that bad. Damage/repairs would be most likely to happen around the edges and that would also be the least destructive place to secure a sample.

However if the powers that be were convinced this was the genuine article, would they not surreptitiously take a second sample and have a blind carbon dating test performed?

Then if it proves genuine they announce the results of the blind test and happily submit another tiny scrap to confirm. Of course if the blind test proved all was not as advertised, then they could dissemble and delay, saying they did wish to further damage the goods.


----------



## CubaMark

eMacMan said:


> However if the powers that be were convinced this was the genuine article, would they not surreptitiously take a second sample and have a blind carbon dating test performed?


Perhaps they did, and didn't like the results.... :yikes:


----------



## fjnmusic

CubaMark said:


> Perhaps they did, and didn't like the results.... :yikes:


I think those who have strong faith in something do not really want to see that faith tested. Logic compels me to the following argument: if there were no literal Adam and Eve (which seems a reasonable premise and is consistent with Catholic catechesis, among others schools of thought), then there is no original sin by virtue of the fact that there was no snake, no apple, no temptation, no fall from grace. If there were no original sin, then there would be no need for a saviour in the form of JC to redeem the world from the taint of original sin. 

If the need for a saviour, and hence JC, is not necessary, then JC may have existed or not existed, even though his teachings and stories are the same either way. If the existence of JC is not a requirement, then the Shroud of Turn does not make any logical sense because it is not necessary. Original sin is the strand that holds the whole thing together, and without original sin, everything else simply becomes optional. I don't think most people really want to go there where their faith is concerned because they don't want to even consider that they may not like what they see.

It's a little like revealing to a small child the truth about Santa Claus before they're ready to hear it. Why burst the bubble? It doesn't do anything good for the believer if that faith is what gets them through the day. For me, the stories from the bible that show what I consider to be the good side of human nature are the ones I try to live, whether they actually happened or not. One does not need to throw the baby out with the bath water. Stories have an incredible transformative power.


----------



## Dr.G.

fjnmusic said:


> I think those who have strong faith in something do not really want to see that faith tested. Logic compels me to the following argument: if there were no literal Adam and Eve (which seems a reasonable premise and is consistent with Catholic catechesis, among others schools of thought), then there is no original sin by virtue of the fact that there was no snake, no apple, no temptation, no fall from grace. If there were no original sin, then there would be no need for a saviour in the form of JC to redeem the world from the taint of original sin.
> 
> If the need for a saviour, and hence JC, is not necessary, then JC may have existed or not existed, even though his teachings and stories are the same either way. If the existence of JC is not a requirement, then the Shroud of Turn does not make any logical sense because it is not necessary. Original sin is the strand that holds the whole thing together, and without original sin, everything else simply becomes optional. I don't think most people really want to go there where their faith is concerned because they don't want to even consider that they may not like what they see.
> 
> It's a little like revealing to a small child the truth about Santa Claus before they're ready to hear it. Why burst the bubble? It doesn't do anything good for the believer if that faith is what gets them through the day. For me, the stories from the bible that show what I consider to be the good side of human nature are the ones I try to live, whether they actually happened or not. One does not need to throw the baby out with the bath water. Stories have an incredible transformative power.


A valid arguement, fjn. Aspects of the Bible might be no more than poetic fantasies, but they still make a point. Paix, mon ami.

Will you be leading us in the sunrise service today, a date of a solar eclipse in parts of the world? Things are all set for you to help guide us to see "the good side of human nature".

Paix, mon ami.


----------



## Macfury

fjnmusic said:


> It's a little like revealing to a small child the truth about Santa Claus before they're ready to hear it. Why burst the bubble? It doesn't do anything good for the believer if that faith is what gets them through the day. For me, the stories from the bible that show what I consider to be the good side of human nature are the ones I try to live, whether they actually happened or not. One does not need to throw the baby out with the bath water. Stories have an incredible transformative power.


Why does it need to go only in one direction? All of this talk _may_ be the ramblings of children who are not yet mature enough to accept the truth of Christianity. Mere talk of good and evil and Santa Claus before they can deal with the reality of God or Christ.


----------



## iMouse

The noumenon of god or Christ, surely?


----------



## Macfury

iMouse said:


> The noumenon...


I believe this was Ralph Kramden's famous delivery, repeated endlessly, when he became nervous.


----------



## MacGuiver

fjnmusic said:


> I think those who have strong faith in something do not really want to see that faith tested. Logic compels me to the following argument: if there were no literal Adam and Eve (which seems a reasonable premise and is consistent with Catholic catechesis, among others schools of thought), then there is no original sin by virtue of the fact that there was no snake, no apple, no temptation, no fall from grace. If there were no original sin, then there would be no need for a saviour in the form of JC to redeem the world from the taint of original sin.
> 
> If the need for a saviour, and hence JC, is not necessary, then JC may have existed or not existed, even though his teachings and stories are the same either way. If the existence of JC is not a requirement, then the Shroud of Turn does not make any logical sense because it is not necessary. Original sin is the strand that holds the whole thing together, and without original sin, everything else simply becomes optional. I don't think most people really want to go there where their faith is concerned because they don't want to even consider that they may not like what they see.
> 
> It's a little like revealing to a small child the truth about Santa Claus before they're ready to hear it. Why burst the bubble? It doesn't do anything good for the believer if that faith is what gets them through the day. For me, the stories from the bible that show what I consider to be the good side of human nature are the ones I try to live, whether they actually happened or not. One does not need to throw the baby out with the bath water. Stories have an incredible transformative power.


How often have you insisted Bible stories are metaphor then you go fundamentalist Christian with the story of Adam and Eve to make the narrative fit your desired theology.


----------



## bryanc

For the Bible to be literally true, most of what we know about reality would have to be wrong, and science would be a waste of time. If, however, you pick certain parts to be literally true, and other parts to interpret metaphorically, you can get anything from an interesting book of fables that reveals much about the culture of the authors but which is entirely consistent with observable reality, to full-on crazy. It just depends on which bits you choose to dismiss as metaphorical. Obviously, modern Christians seem to fall on a spectrum between these extremes, and that's fine, as long as they don't inflict it on others.


----------



## fjnmusic

Dr.G. said:


> A valid arguement, fjn. Aspects of the Bible might be no more than poetic fantasies, but they still make a point. Paix, mon ami.
> 
> Will you be leading us in the sunrise service today, a date of a solar eclipse in parts of the world? Things are all set for you to help guide us to see "the good side of human nature".
> 
> Paix, mon ami.


I believe I slept through that, and deservedly so. But I say unto you now: may the sun worshipped the world over begin to see the light. And may they also be wise enough to wear sun screen.


----------



## fjnmusic

MacGuiver said:


> How often have you insisted Bible stories are metaphor then you go fundamentalist Christian with the story of Adam and Eve to make the narrative fit your desired theology.


Easy there MG. The message; not the messenger. I believe the whole thing is metaphor, as is all religious writing, but I'm also an English major so I have a natural inclination to see it that way. I certainly haven't gone fundamentalist Christian; I simply do not believe in the concept of original son. I believe Jesus or Joshua or Yeshua taught us some important life lessons and that's plenty. No need for redemption by throwing the virgin into the volcano in my world view. Oddly enough, the bible would appear to agree with me on the subject of "original sin"--a phrase that does appear in the good book, by the way.


----------



## Macfury

fjnmusic said:


> No need for redemption by throwing the virgin into the volcano in my world view. Oddly enough, the bible would appear to agree with me on the subject of "original sin"--a phrase that does appear in the good book, by the way.


Are you just throwing that out there to be arch, or do you really believe you've caught an oversight?


----------



## fjnmusic

Macfury said:


> Are you just throwing that out there to be arch, or do you really believe you've caught an oversight?


Huge oversight, my friend. More like willful blindness.


----------



## Macfury

Romans 5, Verses 12 to 14:



> 12 *Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world*, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:
> 
> 13 (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.
> 
> 14 *Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.*


----------



## MacGuiver

Macfury said:


> Romans 5, Verses 12 to 14:


That sure sounds like original sin to me.


----------



## Macfury

fjnmusic said:


> For me, the stories from the bible that show what I consider to be the good side of human nature are the ones I try to live, whether they actually happened or not. One does not need to throw the baby out with the bath water. Stories have an incredible transformative power.


The Apostle Paul again, talking about the transformative power of Jesus after people graduated from metaphor and stories:



> When I was a child, I spoke as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.


----------



## Dr.G.

fjnmusic said:


> I believe I slept through that, and deservedly so. But I say unto you now: may the sun worshipped the world over begin to see the light. And may they also be wise enough to wear sun screen.


Amen, Brother fjn. Paix, mon ami.


----------



## eMacMan

MacGuiver said:


> That sure sounds like original sin to me.


A quick glance at recent US (and Canadian) budgets will give a much more recent and glaringly obvious example of original sin. Indeed your great grandchildren shall spend their lifetimes paying for the current crop of corruption.


----------



## Dr.G.

eMacMan said:


> A quick glance at recent US (and Canadian) budgets will give a much more recent and glaringly obvious example of original sin. Indeed your great grandchildren shall spend their lifetimes paying for the current crop of corruption.


"You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me."


----------



## Macfury

eMacMan said:


> A quick glance at recent US (and Canadian) budgets will give a much more recent and glaringly obvious example of original sin. Indeed your great grandchildren shall spend their lifetimes paying for the current crop of corruption.


As I keep repeating, a government big enough to look after you, will also bankrupt you.


----------



## fjnmusic

"When I was a child, I spoke as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things."

Graduate TO metaphor, MF, not from. The child believes the hare actually speaks to the tortoise and dares him to race; the adult and even older child understands this is a metaphor for not giving up and working hard in spite of tough odds. The same can be said of the biblical stories; the mature mind can see the truth of the story without having to believe the story is actually true.


----------



## MacGuiver

fjnmusic said:


> "When I was a child, I spoke as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things."
> 
> Graduate TO metaphor, MF, not from. The child believes the hare actually speaks to the tortoise and dares him to race; the adult and even older child understands this is a metaphor for not giving up and working hard in spite of tough odds. The same can be said of the biblical stories; the mature mind can see the truth of the story without having to believe the story is actually true.


Sure but to apply metaphor where none was implied is just poor theology.


----------



## fjnmusic

MacGuiver said:


> Sure but to apply metaphor where none was implied is just poor theology.


Not all theologians would agree with you. Even Catholic ones.

Catholic Cardinal Says Adam and Eve Didn’t Exist | Conscious Life News


----------



## Macfury

fjnmusic said:


> "When I was a child, I spoke as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things."
> 
> Graduate TO metaphor, MF, not from. The child believes the hare actually speaks to the tortoise and dares him to race; the adult and even older child understands this is a metaphor for not giving up and working hard in spite of tough odds. The same can be said of the biblical stories; the mature mind can see the truth of the story without having to believe the story is actually true.


This is not what Paul taught. Christianity teaches that you are grasping at metaphors, looking through a glass darkly, until you understand Christianity. You're obviously free to reject the teachings of Christianity, but please don't confuse the two stances.


----------



## MacGuiver

fjnmusic said:


> Not all theologians would agree with you. Even Catholic ones.
> 
> Catholic Cardinal Says Adam and Eve Didn’t Exist | Conscious Life News


So does Pell ascribe to your theory that the Bible is ALL metaphor? That is your claim but I don't think Pell would agree.


----------



## bryanc

I certainly subscribe to the theory that the authors were either writing metaphorically, or they were stoned, or they were insane (or all three). That doesn't make it less interesting or important as a work of literature, but you'd certainly have to have a weak grip on reality to think that the characters and events portrayed in the bible were even mostly real, let alone all real.


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> I certainly subscribe to the theory that the authors were either writing metaphorically, or they were stoned, or they were insane (or all three).


This could often apply to you as well, bryanc!


----------



## Dr.G.

bryanc said:


> I certainly subscribe to the theory that the authors were either writing metaphorically, or they were stoned, or they were insane (or all three). That doesn't make it less interesting or important as a work of literature, but you'd certainly have to have a weak grip on reality to think that the characters and events portrayed in the bible were even mostly real, let alone all real.





Macfury said:


> This could often apply to you as well, bryanc!


"He who is without sin among you, let him be the first to throw a stone ...."

Paix, mes amis.


----------



## MacGuiver

Dr.G. said:


> "He who is without sin among you, let him be the first to throw a stone ...."
> 
> Paix, mes amis.


I just had a good confession... where are the stones


----------



## Dr.G.

MacGuiver said:


> I just had a good confession... where are the stones


Bonne chance, mon ami. Cast away ..............

Just remember, "He that troubleth his own house shall inherit the wind: and the fool shall be servant to the wise of heart." Also, if they start to throw stones back at you, they could wreck your house. Paix, mon ami.


----------



## fjnmusic

MacGuiver said:


> So does Pell ascribe to your theory that the Bible is ALL metaphor? That is your claim but I don't think Pell would agree.


Pell doesn't need to ascribe to my theory. All that matters regarding original sin is whether or not Adam and Eve actually literally existed. If they did not exist, then original sin is a fiction, as is the necessity for a saviour to redeem all mankind from original sin. Regardless of what I believe. Or you, for that matter.


----------



## fjnmusic

Dr.G. said:


> Bonne chance, mon ami. Cast away ..............
> 
> Just remember, "He that troubleth his own house shall inherit the wind: and the fool shall be servant to the wise of heart." Also, if they start to throw stones back at you, they could wreck your house. Paix, mon ami.






+
YouTube Video









ERROR: If you can see this, then YouTube is down or you don't have Flash installed.


----------



## Macfury

fjnmusic said:


> Pell doesn't need to ascribe to my theory. All that matters regarding original sin is whether or not Adam and Eve actually literally existed. If they did not exist, then original sin is a fiction, as is the necessity for a saviour to redeem all mankind from original sin. Regardless of what I believe. Or you, for that matter.


Again, are you being serious, or just throwing out these comments at random?


----------



## Dr.G.

Macfury said:


> Again, are you being serious, or just throwing out these comments at random?


As Jesus said, "Do not take revenge on someone who wrongs you." Paix, mon ami.


----------



## fjnmusic

Macfury said:


> Again, are you being serious, or just throwing out these comments at random?


Absolutely serious. There is no such thing as original sin. Prove me wrong if you can, keeping in mind Pell's assertion about Adam and Eve. I look forward to your rebuttal.


----------



## Macfury

fjnmusic said:


> Absolutely serious. There is no such thing as original sin. Prove me wrong if you can, keeping in mind Pell's assertion about Adam and Eve. I look forward to your rebuttal.


You could still have original sin because humans were created in a state of grace, and chose to sin.


----------



## Dr.G.

Macfury said:


> You could still have original sin because humans were created in a state of grace, and chose to sin.


Macfury, what happens to your arguement if we were not "created in a state of grace" and chose just to live our lives as best we could?


----------



## Macfury

Dr.G. said:


> Macfury, what happens to your arguement if we were not "created in a state of grace" and chose just to be born?


If you chose to be born, you would be like God.


----------



## Dr.G.

Macfury said:


> You could still have original sin because humans were created in a state of grace, and chose to sin.


As it is written in "The Book of Life According to fjnmusic", "We were born to do good in this world, and we should all strive to do this goodness well." Paix, mon ami.


----------



## Dr.G.

Macfury said:


> If you chose to be born, you would be like God.


Yes, I realized that the minute I posted that comment, and changed it to read "Macfury, what happens to your arguement if we were not "created in a state of grace" and chose just to live our lives as best we could? "


----------



## fjnmusic

Macfury said:


> You could still have original sin because humans were created in a state of grace, and chose to sin.


Actually, you could not. Original sin is a concept specifically attached to Adam. No Adam, no original sin. That's why the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception was invented. It was vitally important that Mary not be tied by scripture to Adam, otherwise she would also be tainted by original sin. The whole thing sounds absolutely ludicrous when you say it out loud. It is deception built upon deception. Anyway, the "fall from grace" theory just does not hold up in Catholic catechism. It's Adam or nothing.


----------



## Dr.G.

fjnmusic said:


> Actually, you could not. Original sin is a concept specifically attached to Adam. No Adam, no original sin. That's why the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception was invented. It was vitally important that Mary not be tied by scripture to Adam, otherwise she would also be tainted by original sin. The whole thing sounds absolutely ludicrous when you say it out loud. It is deception built upon deception. Anyway, the "fall from grace" theory just does not hold up in Catholic catechism. It's Adam or nothing.


A very interesting perspective and theory, fjn, and it makes sense. :clap:

As Robert Oppenheimer once wrote, "Genius see the answer before the question is asked."


----------



## CubaMark




----------



## Macfury

CubaMark said:


>


Since this is Old Testament law, no.


----------



## Macfury

fjnmusic said:


> Actually, you could not. Original sin is a concept specifically attached to Adam. No Adam, no original sin. That's why the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception was invented. It was vitally important that Mary not be tied by scripture to Adam, otherwise she would also be tainted by original sin.


If it had not been Adam, she would have been tainted by the original sins of humankind, as a descendant of the first two humans. As the Vatican states:



> The account of the fall in Genesis 3 uses figurative language, but affirms a primeval event, a deed that took place at the beginning of the history of man. Revelation gives us the certainty of faith that the whole of human history is marked by the original fault freely committed by our first parents.


Easy-peasy!


----------



## fjnmusic

Macfury said:


> If it had not been Adam, she would have been tainted by the original sins of humankind, as a descendant of the first two humans. As the Vatican states:
> 
> 
> 
> Easy-peasy!


That's a pretty weak explanation, Macfury, even for a hardcore RC. The Vatican cannot have it both ways. Either there was an Adam or there wasn't. If there wasn't, which your quote seems to confirm, the original sin must be a fiction. There is no way around it. You don't even need a second source. The bible refutes itself on this one.


----------



## Dr.G.

fjnmusic said:


> That's a pretty weak explanation, Macfury, even for a hardcore RC. The Vatican cannot have it both ways. Either there was an Adam or there wasn't. If there wasn't, which your quote seems to confirm, the original sin must be a fiction. There is no way around it. You don't even need a second source. The bible refutes itself on this one.


"If it had not been Adam, she would have been tainted by the original sins of humankind, as a descendant of the first two humans." So you are saying that Mary was "tainted"? "Fruit of the poisonous tree"??? There are some who would say that this is blasphemy.

Once again, I agree with the logic put forth by fjnmusic. "Easy-peasy". 

Paix, mes amis.


----------



## fjnmusic

Good point, Dr. G. One cannot be tainted and immaculate at the same time.


----------



## Dr.G.

fjnmusic said:


> Good point, Dr. G. One cannot be tainted and immaculate at the same time.


Again, all too true, fjn. This brings to mind the "mind-body problem" put forth by Descartes and the "battle" between Dualism and Monism. Still, a discussion of neurophilosophy would only take this thread off-course. Best to stick with "original sin".

We await the reading at sunrise from "The Book of Life According to fjnmusic" today to mark this day in history, namely that on this day in 1310, over in France, fifty-four members of the Knights Templar are burned at the stake as heretics.

Paix, mon ami.


----------



## bryanc

This is all especially ludicrous when you consider that what the church is effectively teaching is that you are guilty because of what others did long before you existed. There is no coherent moral theory that transfers guilt from one agent to another.

Just as I refuse to accept guilt about how my ancestors treated the aboriginals, I won't accept any made up guilt about how made up people ate made up fruit at the behest of made up talking serpents.

However, I can recognize that the way aboriginals were treated was unfair, and I have, through no choice of my own benefited from that injustice, so I will support efforts to help those who, through no choice of their own, are not disadvantaged.


----------



## Dr.G.

bryanc said:


> This is all especially ludicrous when you consider that what the church is effectively teaching is that you are guilty because of what others did long before you existed. There is no coherent moral theory that transfers guilt from one agent to another.
> 
> Just as I refuse to accept guilt about how my ancestors treated the aboriginals, I won't accept any made up guilt about how made up people ate made up fruit at the behest of made up talking serpents.
> 
> However, I can recognize that the way aboriginals were treated was unfair, and I have, through no choice of my own benefited from that injustice, so I will support efforts to help those who, through no choice of their own, are not disadvantaged.


Another reasonable point, bryanc. This is our time on Earth, and what we do with our time is determined by us, each in our own way. Granted, we live in a society governed by certain laws, so our total express of self is somewhat limited. Thus, my right to swing my arm wildly in front of me is there, but that right ends at the point of your nose.

Paix, mon ami.


----------



## groovetube

bryanc said:


> This is all especially ludicrous when you consider that what the church is effectively teaching is that you are guilty because of what others did long before you existed. There is no coherent moral theory that transfers guilt from one agent to another.
> 
> Just as I refuse to accept guilt about how my ancestors treated the aboriginals, I won't accept any made up guilt about how made up people ate made up fruit at the behest of made up talking serpents.
> 
> However, I can recognize that the way aboriginals were treated was unfair, and I have, through no choice of my own benefited from that injustice, so I will support efforts to help those who, through no choice of their own, are not disadvantaged.


This is especially interesting given that many of the religious conservatives have gone on and on about how they are tired of having to pay the price for not only the injustices to native americans, but also for all the horrendous things done to black people. 

I find that this notion that all the horrible things that have occurred for many thousands of years because we're paying for the sin of 2 people who couldn't stay away from a tree, absolutely beyond, ludicrous.


----------



## MacGuiver

fjnmusic said:


> That's a pretty weak explanation, Macfury, even for a hardcore RC. The Vatican cannot have it both ways. Either there was an Adam or there wasn't. If there wasn't, which your quote seems to confirm, the original sin must be a fiction. There is no way around it. You don't even need a second source. The bible refutes itself on this one.


Does there have to be a snake and a fruit tree too? You're getting a bit fundy there fjn.


----------



## Dr.G.

groovetube said:


> This is especially interesting given that many of the religious conservatives have gone on and on about how they are tired of having to pay the price for not only the injustices to native americans, but also for all the horrendous things done to black people.
> 
> I find that this notion that all the horrible things that have occurred for many thousands of years because we're paying for the sin of 2 people who couldn't stay away from a tree, absolutely beyond, ludicrous.


There is a serious theological contradiction in telling people that when they come to have a genuine faith in Christ, that their personal sins are forgiven ............ all the while that they continue to be punished for the sin of eating the forbidden fruit. In a way, we could blame God for making Adam and Eve so weak .......... or the serpent so stupid. 

Paix, mes amis.


----------



## fjnmusic

MacGuiver said:


> Does there have to be a snake and a fruit tree too? You're getting a bit fundy there fjn.


Buddy, you're the one claiming the bible to be true and not to cherry pick your fave parts, not me. I believe the whole thing is metaphor. Given the section where Jesus lineage is traced all the way from Joseph through David and Abraham, all the way to Adam, it seemed to be am important point to the writers. What I'm pointing out is the slippery slope that if the Adam & Eve story, about a particular transgression with a particular set of named people is fictional, then it logically follows that the act they committed that creates original sin is also fictional. It cannot be any other way. Game, set, match.


----------



## fjnmusic

In case you have forgotten, this is from the very first book in Matthew's gospel:

Matthew 1
The Genealogy of Jesus Christ


This is the record of the genealogy of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham. 

Abraham was the father of Isaac, Isaac the father of Jacob, Jacob the father of Judah and his brothers, Judah the father of Perez and Zerah (by Tamar), Perez the father of Hezron, Hezron the father of Ram, Ram the father of Amminadab, Amminadab the father of Nahshon, Nahshon the father of Salmon, Salmon the father of Boaz (by Rahab), Boaz the father of Obed (by Ruth), Obed the father of Jesse, and Jesse the father of David the king. 

David was the father of Solomon (by the wife of Uriah ), Solomon the father of Rehoboam, Rehoboam the father of Abijah, Abijah the father of Asa, Asa the father of Jehoshaphat, Jehoshaphat the father of Joram, Joram the father of Uzziah, Uzziah the father of Jotham, Jotham the father of Ahaz, Ahaz the father of Hezekiah, Hezekiah the father of Manasseh, Manasseh the father of Amon, Amon the father of Josiah, and Josiah the father of Jeconiah and his brothers, at the time of the deportation to Babylon. 

After the deportation to Babylon, Jeconiah became the father of Shealtiel, Shealtiel the father of Zerubbabel, Zerubbabel the father of Abiud, Abiud the father of Eliakim, Eliakim the father of Azor, Azor the father of Zadok, Zadok the father of Achim, Achim the father of Eliud, Eliud the father of Eleazar, Eleazar the father of Matthan, Matthan the father of Jacob, and Jacob the father of Joseph, the husband of Mary, by whom Jesus was born, who is called Christ. 

So all the generations from Abraham to David are fourteen generations, and from David to the deportation to Babylon, fourteen generations, and from the deportation to Babylon to Christ, fourteen generations.
The Birth of Jesus Christ


Now the birth of Jesus Christ happened this way. While his mother Mary was engaged to Joseph, but before they came together, she was found to be pregnant through the Holy Spirit. Because Joseph, her husband to be, was a righteous man, and because he did not want to disgrace her, he intended to divorce her privately. When he had contemplated this, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream and said, “Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary as your wife, because the child conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit. She will give birth to a son and you will name him Jesus, because he will save his people from their sins.” This all happened so that what was spoken by the Lord through the prophet would be fulfilled: “Look! The virgin will conceive and bear a son, and they will call him Emmanuel,” which means “God with us.” When Joseph awoke from sleep he did what the angel of the Lord told him. He took his wife, but did not have marital relations with her until she gave birth to a son, whom he named Jesus.


----------



## Dr.G.

fjnmusic said:


> In case you have forgotten, this is from the very first book in Matthew's gospel:
> 
> Matthew 1
> The Genealogy of Jesus Christ
> 
> 
> This is the record of the genealogy of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham.
> 
> Abraham was the father of Isaac, Isaac the father of Jacob, Jacob the father of Judah and his brothers, Judah the father of Perez and Zerah (by Tamar), Perez the father of Hezron, Hezron the father of Ram, Ram the father of Amminadab, Amminadab the father of Nahshon, Nahshon the father of Salmon, Salmon the father of Boaz (by Rahab), Boaz the father of Obed (by Ruth), Obed the father of Jesse, and Jesse the father of David the king.
> 
> David was the father of Solomon (by the wife of Uriah ), Solomon the father of Rehoboam, Rehoboam the father of Abijah, Abijah the father of Asa, Asa the father of Jehoshaphat, Jehoshaphat the father of Joram, Joram the father of Uzziah, Uzziah the father of Jotham, Jotham the father of Ahaz, Ahaz the father of Hezekiah, Hezekiah the father of Manasseh, Manasseh the father of Amon, Amon the father of Josiah, and Josiah the father of Jeconiah and his brothers, at the time of the deportation to Babylon.
> 
> After the deportation to Babylon, Jeconiah became the father of Shealtiel, Shealtiel the father of Zerubbabel, Zerubbabel the father of Abiud, Abiud the father of Eliakim, Eliakim the father of Azor, Azor the father of Zadok, Zadok the father of Achim, Achim the father of Eliud, Eliud the father of Eleazar, Eleazar the father of Matthan, Matthan the father of Jacob, and Jacob the father of Joseph, the husband of Mary, by whom Jesus was born, who is called Christ.
> 
> So all the generations from Abraham to David are fourteen generations, and from David to the deportation to Babylon, fourteen generations, and from the deportation to Babylon to Christ, fourteen generations.
> The Birth of Jesus Christ
> 
> 
> Now the birth of Jesus Christ happened this way. While his mother Mary was engaged to Joseph, but before they came together, she was found to be pregnant through the Holy Spirit. Because Joseph, her husband to be, was a righteous man, and because he did not want to disgrace her, he intended to divorce her privately. When he had contemplated this, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream and said, “Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary as your wife, because the child conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit. She will give birth to a son and you will name him Jesus, because he will save his people from their sins.” This all happened so that what was spoken by the Lord through the prophet would be fulfilled: “Look! The virgin will conceive and bear a son, and they will call him Emmanuel,” which means “God with us.” When Joseph awoke from sleep he did what the angel of the Lord told him. He took his wife, but did not have marital relations with her until she gave birth to a son, whom he named Jesus.


Where does Noah, as well as his family, and The Great Flood fit in here? With everyone destroyed other than those on the ark, they need to be included in this lineage.

I say that we either take responsibility for our own actions, or we merely blame God for the situations that existed and exist today.

It is like the story of the woodcarver who carves a great image of what he thinks God might look like, and then bows down to this idol and begs to be forgiven for the original sin brought forth by the wickedness of Adam and Eve.


----------



## Dr.G.

Add to this "The Book of Life According to fjymusic" and we have the start of a grand library.

All I Really Need To Know
I Learned In Kindergarten
by Robert Fulghum

- an excerpt from the book, All I Really Need To Know I Learned in Kindergarten 




All I really need to know I learned in kindergarten.
ALL I REALLY NEED TO KNOW about how to live and what to do 
and how to be I learned in kindergarten. Wisdom was not 
at the top of the graduate-school mountain, but there in the 
sandpile at Sunday School. These are the things I learned:



Share everything. 

Play fair. 

Don't hit people. 

Put things back where you found them. 

Clean up your own mess. 

Don't take things that aren't yours. 

Say you're sorry when you hurt somebody. 

Wash your hands before you eat. 

Flush. 

Warm cookies and cold milk are good for you. 

Live a balanced life - learn some and think some
and draw and paint and sing and dance and play 
and work every day some. 

Take a nap every afternoon. 

When you go out into the world, watch out for traffic, 
hold hands, and stick together. 

Be aware of wonder.
Remember the little seed in the styrofoam cup: 
The roots go down and the plant goes up and nobody 
really knows how or why, but we are all like that. 

Goldfish and hamsters and white mice and even 
the little seed in the Styrofoam cup - they all die. 
So do we. 

And then remember the Dick-and-Jane books 
and the first word you learned - the biggest
word of all - LOOK. 



Everything you need to know is in there somewhere. 
The Golden Rule and love and basic sanitation.
Ecology and politics and equality and sane living. 

Take any of those items and extrapolate it into 
sophisticated adult terms and apply it to your 
family life or your work or your government or
your world and it holds true and clear and firm. 
Think what a better world it would be if 
all - the whole world - had cookies and milk about 
three o'clock every afternoon and then lay down with
our blankies for a nap. Or if all governments 
had a basic policy to always put thing back where 
they found them and to clean up their own mess. 

And it is still true, no matter how old you
are - when you go out into the world, it is best 
to hold hands and stick together.



© Robert Fulghum, 1990. 
Found in Robert Fulghum, All I Really Need To Know I Learned In Kindergarten, Villard Books: New York, 1990, page 6-7.


----------



## fjnmusic

In this passage from Mathew, the great irony is that Joseph was actually only Jesus' foster father, since he was "conceived by the Holy Spirit and born of the Virgin Mary," a very necessary component since one who is tainted by original son cannot save the souls of the human race from original sin apparently. The paschal lamb must be absolutely clean for the sacrifice. Yet the bible is very clear that Jesus was descended directly for those those other bible people. Except he wasn't. Joseph was. That same Joseph, by the way, who is not mentioned at all anywhere in the passion and crucifixion accounts. Joseph, the one with the lineage, who just vanished completely from the story without even a mention. Jesus the adult is clearly a mama's boy.

Like the story of Life of Pi, it is hard to figure out where the truth ends and the fiction begins with Jesus' "lineage". Unless of course the whole account is a fiction. Then we can suspend disbelief and a person can walk on water, feed thousands with loafs and fish, turn water into wine, and turn the dead into the living without having them try to suck the brains out of all the living people like most zombies do. In short, Jesus makes sense as an example of mythology and traditional story-telling; the only time the stories of the bible create cognitive dissonance is when we take them literally, and then use those literal translations to justify some of the worst injustices man can inflict upon man. As a story, there is great wisdom and insight there.


----------



## fjnmusic

Dr.G. said:


> Where does Noah, as well as his family, and The Great Flood fit in here? With everyone destroyed other than those on the ark, they need to be included in this lineage.
> 
> I say that we either take responsibility for our own actions, or we merely blame God for the situations that existed and exist today.
> 
> It is like the story of the woodcarver who carves a great image of what he thinks God might look like, and then bows down to this idol and begs to be forgiven for the original sin brought forth by the wickedness of Adam and Eve.


Talk about creating god in your own image. I believe the lineage from Adam to Abraham, including Noah and his family, comes earlier in the Old Testament. The passage from Mathew is a New Testamemt quote that attempts to merge the OT and the NT. Obviously, the passage from Mathew would not be part of the Torah.

And you're absolutely write about personal responsibility for our own actions. So sayeth I and I.


----------



## fjnmusic

Dr.G. said:


> Add to this "The Book of Life According to fjymusic" and we have the start of a grand library.
> 
> All I Really Need To Know
> I Learned In Kindergarten
> by Robert Fulghum


These words of wisdom I pass on to you, to guide your lives. But the greatest of these is Flush.


----------



## Dr.G.

fjnmusic said:


> These words of wisdom I pass on to you, to guide your lives. But the greatest of these is Flush.
> View attachment 27272


True. However, it is also written in "The Book of Life According to fjnmusic" that "Water is the gift given unto us all, but not in equal amounts. Thus, I say unto you all 'Conserve and protect your water ........... waste not want not', for an addlepated beetlehead and his aqua accumulations are expeditiously divaricated with startling prematurity."

Paix, mon ami.


----------



## Dr.G.

fjnmusic said:


> These words of wisdom I pass on to you, to guide your lives. But the greatest of these is Flush.
> View attachment 27272


True. We need to keep the waters "down by the riverside" clean and pure in the event we need to baptize someone.

Conducting to the watering place
A quadruped of equine race
Is simple; but he may not care
To practice imbibition there.


----------



## Dr.G.

Still, I can't imagine that when I held my newborn son in my arms, at age 10 minutes old, that he was not in a prelapsarian state with an innate tendency to be/do good.


----------



## Macfury

Dr.G. said:


> Still, I can't imagine that when I held my newborn son in my arms, at age 10 minutes old, that he was not in a prelapsarian state with an innate tendency to be/do good.


Exactly. You were not capable of knowing this, so you were told.


----------



## Macfury

fjnmusic said:


> That's a pretty weak explanation, Macfury, even for a hardcore RC. The Vatican cannot have it both ways. Either there was an Adam or there wasn't. If there wasn't, which your quote seems to confirm, the original sin must be a fiction. There is no way around it. You don't even need a second source. The bible refutes itself on this one.


This is all you've got? They've just said that original sin occurred, whether it was Adam or the earliest person. Your escape hatch just closed kid.

(I'm not RC by the way.)


----------



## Macfury

MacGuiver said:


> Does there have to be a snake and a fruit tree too? You're getting a bit fundy there fjn.


Sometimes he wants a metaphor, and sometimes he wants it to be real. Depends on what he wants to evade at that moment.


----------



## fjnmusic

Macfury said:


> This is all you've got? They've just said that original sin occurred, whether it was Adam or the earliest person. Your escape hatch just closed kid.
> 
> (I'm not RC by the way.)


"Whether it Adam or the earliest person"? Wow. Just wow. Every Catholic, lapsed or not, has had this pounded into our skulls. if you're an RC apologist, but not RC yourself, I guess your lack of awareness of the importance if Adam--specifically Adam--in this story makes sense. It's not Adam or some other nameless guy. I'm telling you, the RC church makes the rules up as it goes along, as it did with the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception when egg cells were first discovered. If no Adam and Eve, exactly whom did Saran tempt?


----------



## Macfury

fjnmusic said:


> If no Adam and Eve, exactly whom did Saran tempt?


A cheaper brand of plastic wrap?


----------



## Dr.G.

Macfury said:


> Exactly. You were not capable of knowing this, so you were told.


No one told me this, since it was what I believed. "I think, therefore I am." Intellect and free-will ............... a winning combination. Paix, mon ami.


----------



## Macfury

Dr.G. said:


> No one told me this, since it was what I believed. "I think, therefore I am." Intellect and free-will ............... a winning combination. Paix, mon ami.


You think, therefore you are--but it doesn't mean everything you think is correct. Has Mrs. Dr. G. never told you this??


----------



## Dr.G.

Macfury said:


> You think, therefore you are--but it doesn't mean everything you think is correct. Has Mrs. Dr. G. never told you this??


Low blow!!!!!!!!! XX) You shall be reported for this ............. or else God will get you for this, mon ami. 

Luckily, she is a libertarian and feels that I have the right to my own opinions. Paix, mon ami.


----------



## Macfury

Dr.G. said:


> Luckily, she is a libertarian and feels that I have the right to my own opinions. Paix, mon ami.


Yes, she will give honour your rights to your own opinions--and reserve the right to freely express her displeasure!


----------



## Dr.G.

Macfury said:


> Yes, she will give honour your rights to your own opinions--and reserve the right to freely express her displeasure!


True, but she respects my right as a thinking individual to hold fast to my own thoughts so long as it does not restrict her rights as an individual. I think that this is why she stopped going to church. Such is Life. Paix, mon ami.


----------



## fjnmusic

Macfury said:


> A cheaper brand of plastic wrap?


Funny. I meant Sauron, the big eye of fire.


----------



## bryanc

.


----------



## bryanc

*God of the past and future*


----------



## fjnmusic




----------



## MacGuiver

fjnmusic said:


> View attachment 27295


Thats a farce. There is nothing New about new age. Its all borrowed and repackaged content from eastern religions. Deeppockets isn't selling anything new.


----------



## screature

MacGuiver said:


> Thats a farce. There is nothing New about new age. Its all borrowed and repackaged content from eastern religions. Deeppockets isn't selling anything new.


I don't think he would ever say that he is saying anything new. He is simply saying things that have been told many times before but in his own way.

In this day and age it is pretty hard to say or do anything truly original or new as we all stand on the shoulders of giants.


----------



## bryanc

screature said:


> ...we all stand on the shoulders of giants.


... or up to our necks in quicksand, as the case may be


----------



## CubaMark




----------



## fjnmusic

MacGuiver said:


> Thats a farce. There is nothing New about new age. Its all borrowed and repackaged content from eastern religions. Deeppockets isn't selling anything new.


Nobody can suck the joy and happiness out of a happy thought faster than MacGuiver.


----------



## iMouse

Some people prefer to have spirituality defined for them. Lazy I guess?

Still others rely on those lazy people to exert control over them.

Pretty sad state of affairs.


----------



## screature

iMouse said:


> Some people prefer to have spirituality defined for them. Lazy I guess?
> 
> Still others rely on those lazy people to exert control over them.
> 
> Pretty sad state of affairs.


What do you believe in and makes you happy at the same time? 

Serious question, I am interested in what you have to say.


----------



## iMouse

I believe in the here and now, not some pie-in-the-sky reward for my good works.

I do them because it gives me a great deal of satisfaction.

Now how about you?


----------



## screature

iMouse said:


> I believe in the here and now, not some pie-in-the-sky reward for my good works.
> *
> I do them because it gives me a great deal of satisfaction.*
> 
> Now how about you?


What does this mean? What/Who is "them"? 

Sorry but in relation to your previous statement this sentence makes no sense.

So you still haven't answered my first question so the onus is still on you.
*
What do you believe in and makes you happy at the same time? *


----------



## MacGuiver

screature said:


> I don't think he would ever say that he is saying anything new. He is simply saying things that have been told many times before but in his own way.
> 
> In this day and age it is pretty hard to say or do anything truly original or new as we all stand on the shoulders of giants.


I guess my point is all the people claiming to be "spiritual" and not "religious" are just practicing religion in fancy new wrapping.


----------



## MacGuiver

iMouse said:


> Some people prefer to have spirituality defined for them. Lazy I guess?
> 
> Still others rely on those lazy people to exert control over them.
> 
> Pretty sad state of affairs.


I'm pretty sure the "spiritual" aren't as freelance as they like to think they are. Otherwise Depok, Oprah Myriam Williamson and the likes wouldn't be making millions hosting seminars and selling books telling them how to be "spiritual". The books being a repackaging of things they like in various religions. 
Sorta like the guy getting a nose piercing to express his individuality when really he's just following what everyone else is doing trying to be an individual.


----------



## iMouse

screature said:


> What do you believe in and makes you happy at the same time?


Myself.

Better?

Sorry, but I can't be more succinct, and still be grammatically correct.


----------



## MacGuiver

fjnmusic said:


> Nobody can suck the joy and happiness out of a happy thought faster than MacGuiver.


I guess if you derive Joy and happiness by belittling religious people then guilty as charged.


----------



## fjnmusic

MacGuiver said:


> I guess if you derive Joy and happiness by belittling religious people then guilty as charged.


And you, spiritual people who follow a different guru than the one that was chosen for you when you were an infant. Holier-than-thou much?


----------



## bryanc

Organized religion, like any other corporate entity, ultimately has only one objective: monopoly. When they aren't in a position of assured power, most religious leaders will talk about tolerance, just like CEOs talk about how they respect and admire aspects of what their competitors are doing or hockey players will spew platitudes about how the other team is really tough and "we've just gotta get out there and play our game." But religions have always been about out-competing other religions, either by the sword or by more subtle methods, and the only thing religions find more threatening than other religions is the idea of no religion.

Personally, as we've discussed, I find 'spirituality' and almost meaningless term; everyone seems to use it differently. But I would certainly prefer to live in a world where individuals came up with their own metaphysical beliefs (spiritual or rational) than one where giant multinational corporations made billions tax-free inflicting such primitive and barbaric beliefs upon millions of mentally defenceless children.


----------



## MacGuiver

fjnmusic said:


> And you, spiritual people who follow a different guru than the one that was chosen for you when you were an infant. Holier-than-thou much?


Oh right, this is the anti-christian propaganda outreach thread. Magic crystal wielding gurus and spirit guides are off limits here. 
I guess I am ruining the fun. I'll let you boys continue to pleasure each other.


----------



## fjnmusic

MacGuiver said:


> Oh right, this is the anti-christian propaganda outreach thread. Magic crystal wielding gurus and spirit guides are off limits here.
> I guess I am ruining the fun. I'll let you boys continue to pleasure each other.


More like if someone finds spiritual enlightenment from a different guru than the one you happen to follow, why do you have to be so condescending and judgemental about it? There are many paths up the mountain.


----------



## eMacMan

fjnmusic said:


> More like if someone finds spiritual enlightenment from a different guru than the one you happen to follow, why do you have to be so condescending and judgemental about it? There are many paths up the mountain.


And the other side of the mountain never looks the same as the view you claim to be the only view.


----------



## MacGuiver

> More like if someone finds spiritual enlightenment from a different guru than the one you happen to follow, why do you have to be so condescending and judgemental about it?


Yeah what was I thinking, there are no judgmental or condescending opinions in this thread. Even from you.



> There are many paths up the mountain.


Maybe in your religion, not mine. John 14:6
I agree there are many paths, just that they are not all heading to the same destination.


----------



## fjnmusic

MacGuiver said:


> Yeah what was I thinking, there are no judgmental or condescending opinions in this thread. Even from you.
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe in your religion, not mine. John 14:6
> I agree there are many paths, just that they are not all heading to the same destination.


Interesting. I've always thought all organic matter decomposes in pretty much the same way. In a very real sense, we are all headed to the same destination.


----------



## bryanc

fjnmusic said:


> There are many paths up the mountain.


Like the spoon; there is no mountain.


----------



## fjnmusic

bryanc said:


> Like the spoon; there is no mountain.


Reminds me of one of the lines from the grad song I wrote 30 years ago:

Challenge itself makes life worth living
There are no walls if you don't believe in them


----------



## screature

fjnmusic said:


> Reminds me of one of the lines from the grad song I wrote 30 years ago:
> 
> Challenge itself makes life worth living
> *There are no walls if you don't believe in them*


How new age of you... 

Try that some time going 100km/hour on a motorcycle straight at a brick wall. 

Whether you believe in brick walls or not I can guarantee you the result will be the same.


----------



## fjnmusic

screature said:


> How new age of you...
> 
> Try that some time going 100km/hour on a motorcycle straight at a brick wall.
> 
> Whether you believe in brick walls or not I can guarantee you the result will be the same.


Well, OK for brick walls going 100 km/h on a motorcycle I will make an exception. Let's see…

Challenge itself makes life worth living
There are no walls if you don't believe in them
(Unlesss you're on a motorcycle going 100 km/h
And you happen to run into one made of brick)
For love will find the answer to everything we need
The world is struggle; the heart is free

Hmmm. Doesn't scan quite the same, but point taken. Safety first.


----------



## iMouse

fjnmusic said:


> Well, OK for brick walls going 100 km/h on a motorcycle I will make an exception.


Guess he didn't see Vanishing Point.


----------



## chimo

iMouse said:


> Guess he didn't see Vanishing Point.


He could always try for the eighth dimension and pass right through the wall if he had the oscillation over thruster working. 

Who will be the first to recognize what movie this references......


----------



## iMouse

Guessing, Back To The Future??


----------



## chimo

iMouse said:


> Guessing, Back To The Future??


Nope. The movie wasn't huge, but it had some familiar actors. Kind of in the "cult classic" category now.


----------



## fjnmusic

chimo said:


> Nope. The movie wasn't huge, but it had some familiar actors. Kind of in the "cult classic" category now.


The Adventures of Buckaroo Banzai Across the 8th Dimension - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Whoa! That's going back a ways. Never saw it, but I remember the name. Stars my favourite Robocop actor of all time.


----------



## chimo

fjnmusic said:


> The Adventures of Buckaroo Banzai Across the 8th Dimension - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Whoa! That's going back a ways. Never saw it, but I remember the name. Stars my favourite Robocop actor of all time.


I found it quite funny. John Lithgow's character was a riot.


----------



## CubaMark




----------



## iMouse

Nurds go to Heaven??


----------



## Macfury

chimo said:


> I found it quite funny. John Lithgow's character was a riot.


That's a great movie. I saw it on opening night. Best line involves the indignant alien impostors: "Big Boo-TAY, not Big Bootee!!"

I also love that bizarre end credit sequence with the whole Banzai gang marching, marching, marching.


----------



## BigDL

*Seems in the Those Excited States 24 Hour News is for God*

Interview from CNN Moore Okla twister.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rIDrmYyfWe8


----------



## fjnmusic

BigDL said:


> Interview from CNN Moore Okla twister.
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rIDrmYyfWe8


All praise the great void!


----------



## bryanc

*you've gotta give her credit*

she handled that pretty well I thought. Like most atheists in a religiously dominated society, she was perfectly happy to let it pass, but when pressed, she was honest without being confrontational. Classy.

As an afterthought, why is it that religious people feel that their survival of a natural disaster is a 'blessing'? I mean, if you believe that an omniscient God caused the tornado that ripped up your house, killed your neighbours but for some mysterious reason didn't quite kill you or your baby, wouldn't you be rather annoyed at this capricious sky daddy for wrecking havoc in your community? I mean, sure, if you believe the bible's depiction of this character, you wouldn't want to say or even think anything bad about Him, lest he decide to smite you some more, but from any objective POV, a supernatural being who teases and torments His creation like this is nothing but a sadistic bully who does not deserve anyone's worship.


----------



## JCCanuck

bryanc said:


> she handled that pretty well I thought. Like most atheists in a religiously dominated society, she was perfectly happy to let it pass, but when pressed, she was honest without being confrontational. Classy.
> 
> As an afterthought, why is it that religious people feel that their survival of a natural disaster is a 'blessing'? I mean, if you believe that an omniscient God caused the tornado that ripped up your house, killed your neighbours but for some mysterious reason didn't quite kill you or your baby, wouldn't you be rather annoyed at this capricious sky daddy for wrecking havoc in your community? I mean, sure, if you believe the bible's depiction of this character, you wouldn't want to say or even think anything bad about Him, lest he decide to smite you some more, but from any objective POV, a supernatural being who teases and torments His creation like this is nothing but a sadistic bully who does not deserve anyone's worship.


I know why God kills and maims some but not others, " He has a plan!". Tired of that response.


----------



## bryanc

JCCanuck said:


> " He has a plan!".


Yeah, just like the Cylons in BSG. That turned out to be a crock too.


----------



## fjnmusic

bryanc said:


> Yeah, just like the Cylons in BSG. That turned out to be a crock too.


Hey careful. BSG as it was under Lorne Greene did have a plan and that ragtag fugitive fleet was based on Mormonism, if I remember correctly.


----------



## bryanc

In all of these cases, fiction writers (such as the authors of the bible) have used the cop-out of a "mysterious plan" to explain why their stories make no sense.


----------



## bryanc

*okay, it looks like I was wrong...*

... God _does_ have a plan:


----------



## fjnmusic

Now here's a new twist:

http://www.edmontonjournal.com/touch/story.html?id=8477130



> EDMONTON - The altar at Greenfield Baptist Church doesn’t usually have an atheist standing at it, preaching to onlookers why God doesn’t exist.
> 
> But it will Wednesday night, when minister-turned-atheist John W. Loftus stands up to debate Dr. Randal Rauser of Edmonton’s Taylor College and Seminary on the existence of God.
> 
> “He is one of the best Christian apologists of our generation, but I will also say that his arguments are worthless,” Loftus, an American, said of his Canadian debate adversary.
> 
> Calling it the “clash of the titans,” Rauser said that as atheists begin to bring up issues and questions, Christians need to start dealing with them.
> 
> “It is more important for us now more than ever with the rise of new atheism moving into the cultural mainstream,” said the Edmonton-born Rauser, noting the popularity of atheist authors Richard Dawkins and the late Christopher Hitchens.
> 
> In a series of debates sponsored by Taylor Seminary’s EP Wahl Centre, the two will face off in three Baptist churches in Alberta. The “God or Godless?” debates started Monday night at Renfrew in Calgary, moved to Unity in Red Deer on Tuesday night and will end Wednesday night at Greenfield.


----------



## iMouse

I hope this is being offered on pay-per-view.


----------



## SINC

fjnmusic said:


> Now here's a new twist:
> 
> Unbelievable? Edmonton church the unlikely site of debate between atheist, Christian


Why are the quotes in your posts littered with this "&rsquo" string of garble? Just curious.


----------



## iMouse

Somewhere along the line the double-quotation couldn't be decoded.

If would have been nice if he returned to fix it.


----------



## fjnmusic

SINC said:


> Why are the quotes in your posts littered with this "&rsquo" string of garble? Just curious.


Link posted from iPhone. It just does that, unbeknownst to me. Does the link work?


----------



## fjnmusic

iMouse said:


> Somewhere along the line the double-quotation couldn't be decoded.
> 
> If would have been nice if he returned to fix it.


Link works on my iPhone, though I believe PPV is unavailable at this time. He will double-check the link on his Mac later this morning.


----------



## MacGuiver

Actually you can watch it now. 
Just start streaming virtually any Christian/Atheist debate on Youtube and you'll hear the same talking points and see the same end result. Everyone claiming their side won.


----------



## SINC

fjnmusic said:


> Link posted from iPhone. It just does that, unbeknownst to me. Does the link work?


The link works just fine. The garble is contained in the body copy of the quoted text.


----------



## fjnmusic




----------



## iMouse

Only if what they are holding is coin of the realm.


----------



## MacGuiver




----------



## fjnmusic




----------



## iMouse

MacGuiver said:


> < gratuitous picture with no crystal in sight > ]


Religion is like crystals is like voodoo.

If you believe in something strongly enough it can affect your life, for good and for evil.

I'd just as soon believe in myself, thank you.


----------



## fjnmusic

The most important kind of faith is faith in yourself.


----------



## Macfury

fjnmusic said:


> The most important kind of faith is faith in yourself.


I suspect that most people would find themselves pretty badly off having faith in themselves. I can see this homily next to a picture of a unicorn with the sub-title: "Dare to dream."


----------



## fjnmusic

Macfury said:


> I suspect that most people would find themselves pretty badly off having faith in themselves. I can see this homily next to a picture of a unicorn with the sub-title: "Dare to dream."


Why is that? Do you find you lack faith in yourself? I always thought God helps those who help themselves.


----------



## groovetube

fjnmusic said:


> Why is that? Do you find you lack faith in yourself? I always thought God helps those who help themselves.


I thought so as well. I can't imagine living life in general without at some point, having the ability to believe in yourself.


----------



## Macfury

fjnmusic said:


> Why is that? Do you find you lack faith in yourself?


It's that the phrase is almost meaningless on its own. The entire Russian communist revolution was based on faith in humankind. On an individual level, having faith in yourself is meaningless out of context. Do you have faith that you're going to be a rock star without learning to play an instrument particularly well? How many Mott the Hooples does the world need?



fjnmusic said:


> I always thought God helps those who help themselves.


If you believe Sophocles, I suppose. But the original phrase is not stated quite that way. It tells people to try something first, and only after all avenues have been exhausted, put the matter before the gods.


----------



## MacGuiver

I can't argue with the statement that we need to believe in ourselves to some extent. However belief in ourselves is rather impotent in many situations where God is not. In those times I'll turn to God knowing full well its beyond anything belief in myself can address.


----------



## bryanc

MacGuiver said:


> [traditional vs new-age religion picture/quote deleted]


There's definitely something to that comparison; superstitious nonsense is superstitious nonsense regardless of wether it's based on an ancient book written by illiterate bronze age stoners, modern illiterate stoners, or whatever other fanciful fables might be employed.

The difference is that traditional religions have the power of being extremely well-funded and entrenched political lobby groups, and hence have much more sway over how society is run than some harmless dope-smoking hippies.

While I certainly agree that the crystal-rubbing, homeopathic-remedy-seeking, new-agey types are no more rational than the cookie-eating, genuflecting, hymn-singing, go-to-church-every-Sunday types, the latter are far more likely to inflict their flavour of crazy on me. Because the latter organize and fund PACs, pay lobbyists to promote their social agenda at all levels of government, and because they have and continue to feel that they represent a cultural/historical norm, they the ones dictating when and where I can shop on Sundays, what is (and is not) taught to children in public schools, what we can watch on TV, etc., and far more insidiously, who our geopolitical allies are and what our national objectives are on the international stage.

So again, there's more than a grain of truth in the image/quote pointing out the irony of a new-agey type denigrating traditional religion, but people like that don't start or fund wars, or otherwise significantly manipulate public policy. Guys in dresses and funny hats operating out of world-headquarters in Rome do.


----------



## MacGuiver

bryanc said:


> There's definitely something to that comparison; superstitious nonsense is superstitious nonsense regardless of wether it's based on an ancient book written by illiterate bronze age stoners, modern illiterate stoners, or whatever other fanciful fables might be employed.
> 
> The difference is that traditional religions have the power of being extremely well-funded and entrenched political lobby groups, and hence have much more sway over how society is run than some harmless dope-smoking hippies.
> 
> While I certainly agree that the crystal-rubbing, homeopathic-remedy-seeking, new-agey types are no more rational than the cookie-eating, genuflecting, hymn-singing, go-to-church-every-Sunday types, the latter are far more likely to inflict their flavour of crazy on me. Because the latter organize and fund PACs, pay lobbyists to promote their social agenda at all levels of government, and because they have and continue to feel that they represent a cultural/historical norm, they the ones dictating when and where I can shop on Sundays, what is (and is not) taught to children in public schools, what we can watch on TV, etc., and far more insidiously, who our geopolitical allies are and what our national objectives are on the international stage.
> 
> So again, there's more than a grain of truth in the image/quote pointing out the irony of a new-agey type denigrating traditional religion, but people like that don't start or fund wars, or otherwise significantly manipulate public policy. Guys in dresses and funny hats operating out of world-headquarters in Rome do.


LOL!
I posted that more as a rebuttal to FJN. While bashing religion he's a believer in "THE FORCE" or some kind of cosmic energy at our disposal. I think that belief is just as ridiculous as any religion can be. Its really just another religion in a fancy new bow.

Regarding your paranoia of Christianity, Godless paranoids have been responsible for more bloodshed in the past 100 years than the entire history of Christendom. I'd take a predominantly Christian nation over an atheist dominated country any day for justice, quality of life and safety. The atheist is only restricted to what he personally believes is right and wrong. History has proven that bar can be set pretty low to achieve a desired outcome.


----------



## CubaMark

MacGuiver said:


> Godless paranoids have been responsible for more bloodshed in the past 100 years than the entire history of Christendom.


The indigenous peoples of the Americas may take issue with your analysis....


----------



## bryanc

MacGuiver said:


> I posted that more as a rebuttal to FJN. While bashing religion he's a believer in "THE FORCE" or some kind of cosmic energy at our disposal. I think that belief is just as ridiculous as any religion can be. Its really just another religion in a fancy new bow.


I agree, but since its a 'fancy new bow' that has no political clout, the new-age types are of very little threat to the rest of society. You don't see crystal-rubbers insisting that other forms of medicine be out-lawed, and that only their superstitions be respected.



> Regarding your paranoia of Christianity, Godless paranoids have been responsible for more bloodshed in the past 100 years than the entire history of Christendom.


I'll grant you there've been a couple of particularly egregious examples of genocidal megalomania that did not use religion to justify the atrocities they committed, but I highly doubt even their systematic genocides come close to the bloody costs of Christianity, let alone other religions.

But the point here is that totalitarian dictatorships are a Bad Thing (TM), regardless of the purported beliefs of the dictator, and I completely agree with you.



> I'd take a predominantly Christian nation over an atheist dominated country any day for justice, quality of life and safety.


Okay, let's compare the homicide rates of a few Christian nations and a few countries in which Atheism is dominant, or at least prevalent.

Christian nations:
Unites states 4.8 (murders/100,000 people per year)
Mexico 18.1
Brazil 22.7


Atheist-dominated Nations:
Norway 0.6
Sweden 1.0
Iceland 0.3
Denmark 0.9

Hmm... it seems reality disagrees with your beliefs. That, of course, is not likely to bother you, as a theist.



> The atheist is only restricted to what he personally believes is right and wrong.


Indeed. And any individual who is not capable of figuring this sort of stuff out by the time they're 16 is probably dysfunctional in a number of other ways, and needs to be monitored carefully. Unfortunately, because we have historically used the memorization of morally reprehensible stories written by bronze-age-mystics which are of dubious relevance to modern society as a corner stone for teaching morality, far more people are unable to determine what a moral corse of action is, or how to figure that out, than is strictly necessary.


----------



## bryanc




----------



## MacGuiver

bryanc said:


>


Yeah Christians burning heretics is a big problem these days
Paranoid much?


----------



## groovetube

no they have way better methods to slaughter people now.


----------



## MacGuiver

groovetube said:


> no they have way better methods to slaughter people now.


LOL

I'll bite. What would those methods be. Death by bingo?


----------



## bryanc

I try not to discriminate; I don't see any difference between fundamentalists muslims flying planes into buildings, or stoning rape victims in the streets and the KKK burning black people in their homes or lynching progressive politicians. Wether the perpetrators are Muslim, Christian, Buddhist, Jewish, or Pastafarians, religion is a regressive force in our civilization, and the further it is removed from power the better off we all will be; including the adherents of the religions.


----------



## fjnmusic

MacGuiver said:


> LOL!
> I posted that more as a rebuttal to FJN. While bashing religion he's a believer in "THE FORCE" or some kind of cosmic energy at our disposal. I think that belief is just as ridiculous as any religion can be. Its really just another religion in a fancy new bow.
> 
> Regarding your paranoia of Christianity, Godless paranoids have been responsible for more bloodshed in the past 100 years than the entire history of Christendom. I'd take a predominantly Christian nation over an atheist dominated country any day for justice, quality of life and safety. The atheist is only restricted to what he personally believes is right and wrong. History has proven that bar can be set pretty low to achieve a desired outcome.


It's funny you should say this, since I can demonstrate the reality of at least a couple of forces that have a huge impact on you and yet are invisible: the force of gravity and the force of magnetism, not to mention the force of electricity. These forces are invisible to the eye yet we can see their effects quite readily. Would you suggest that these forces do not exist or are less important than religious theories?


----------



## bryanc

<science pedant> Technically, magnetism and electricity are part of the same force. The four fundamental forces are gravity, electromagnetism, the strong nuclear force and the weak nuclear force. </science pedant>

But if the point you're trying to make is that we know these forces exist because we can observe their effects and develop testable/falsifiable theories about how they work, then I agree.

{edit to add: as to wether understanding the forces of nature is more or less important than religious studies, well, when was the last time you actually saw anything that worked which was 'powered by prayer.')


----------



## MacGuiver

fjnmusic said:


> It's funny you should say this, since I can demonstrate the reality of at least a couple of forces that have a huge impact on you and yet are invisible: the force of gravity and the force of magnetism, not to mention the force of electricity. These forces are invisible to the eye yet we can see their effects quite readily. Would you suggest that these forces do not exist or are less important than religious theories?


If you're espousing gravity, magnetism or electricity I'm with you 100%. If someone thinks they can send someone a "positive vibe" to make them well (often said on facebook) or put some crystal, round black rocks or a pyramid on your head to make you well then they lost me there.


----------



## MacGuiver

bryanc said:


> I try not to discriminate; I don't see any difference between fundamentalists muslims flying planes into buildings, or stoning rape victims in the streets and the KKK burning black people in their homes or lynching progressive politicians. Wether the perpetrators are Muslim, Christian, Buddhist, Jewish, or Pastafarians, religion is a regressive force in our civilization, and the further it is removed from power the better off we all will be; including the adherents of the religions.


Dare to dream...



> “As far as we are concerned, we’ve succeeded in chasing the Jews from our midst and excluding Christianity from our political life.” -Hitler’s Table Talk, pg 394


----------



## bryanc

Adolph Hitler said:


> "Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord."





Adolph Hitler said:


> "My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was His fight for the world against the Jewish poison. To-day, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before the fact that it was for this that He had to shed His blood upon the Cross. As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice... And if there is anything which could demonstrate that we are acting rightly it is the distress that daily grows. For as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people.


(Norman H. Baynes, ed. The Speeches of Adolf Hitler, April 1922-August 1939, Vol. 1 of 2, pp. 19-20, Oxford University Press, 1942)

{edit to add: in case it isn't obvious, the point here is that, regardless of what he may or may not have believed, Hitler actively used Christianity in his political speeches and effectively co-opted the support of the church (most notably the Catholic church) to help him control the German people. German soldiers wore belt buckles inscribed with the phrase "Gott mit uns" (God is with us) because the cause of the Third Reich was so throughly viewed as a Christian cause by the people.)


----------



## MacGuiver

bryanc said:


> (Norman H. Baynes, ed. The Speeches of Adolf Hitler, April 1922-August 1939, Vol. 1 of 2, pp. 19-20, Oxford University Press, 1942)


Hitler was a Christian of convenience for political gain. He talked Christian in public if it served to forward his agenda but he despised it in reality. Hence the numberous anti-christian statements, persecution and killing of religious leaders and plot to kill Pius XII. 
Sorta like some modern western leaders. Prayer breakfast today and abortion promotion tour tomorrow. Its a necessary facade in a nation of believers to keep your cards close to your chest.


----------



## bryanc

"Religion is what the common people see as true, the wise people see as false, and the rulers see as useful." - Seneca

I don't claim to know, and I certainly don't care what Hitler actually believed, but my point is that he effectively used Christianity in the pursuit of his political agenda.

"A tyrant must put on the appearance of uncommon devotion to religion. Subjects are less apprehensive of illegal treatment from a ruler whom they consider god-fearing and pious. On the other hand, they do less easily move against him, believing that he has the gods on his side." - Aristotle, "Politics" (as translated by Machiavelli in _The_Prince_)


----------



## fjnmusic

MacGuiver said:


> If you're espousing gravity, magnetism or electricity I'm with you 100%. If someone thinks they can send someone a "positive vibe" to make them well (often said on facebook) or put some crystal, round black rocks or a pyramid on your head to make you well then they lost me there.


So we're in agreement on the first part at least. But if crystal, round black rocks or pyramids qualify as superstitions, why is prayer any different?


----------



## MacGuiver

fjnmusic said:


> So we're in agreement on the first part at least. But if crystal, round black rocks or pyramids qualify as superstitions, why is prayer any different?


Its not in the sense that its all religion. So when you're disparaging religion in your postings you're really disparaging your own silly religious views. Like the girl that hates religion but thinks her crystals have magic powers.


----------



## bryanc

fjnmusic said:


> But if crystal, round black rocks or pyramids qualify as superstitions, why is prayer any different?


That is exactly what I'd like to hear any religious adherent explain. If other religions are false, why is yours true?

A religious adherent has just dismissed one less religion than an atheist.


----------



## bryanc

MacGuiver said:


> Its not in the sense that its all religion. So when you're disparaging religion in your postings you're really disparaging your own silly religious views. Like the girl that hates religion but thinks her crystals have magic powers.


You're right that it's ironic. But that doesn't make the criticisms invalid. Someone who is prejudiced against Jews can make valuable contributions to eliminating prejudice against blacks.

"Since it is no longer permissible to disparage any single faith or creed, let us start disparaging all of them. A religion is a belief system with no basis in reality whatever. Religious belief is without reason and without dignity, and its record is near-universally dreadful." - Martin Amis


----------



## MacGuiver

bryanc said:


> That is exactly what I'd like to hear any religious adherent explain. If other religions are false, why is yours true?


Discrediting a religion based on that logic would be similar to saying if other scientific theories are false then they all must be false. The fact that others are in error doesn't mean yours is incorrect by default.


----------



## bryanc

MacGuiver said:


> Discrediting a religion based on that logic would be similar to saying if other scientific theories are false then they all must be false. The fact that others are in error doesn't mean yours is incorrect by default.


Correct. But when the same logical fallacies and similar unsupportable assertions pertain to your theory as well as the ones you've accepted as false, it's time to start working on a new theory.

{edit to add: Theories are falsified on the basis of their incompatibility with evidence. What evidence can you point to that falsifies other religions, but does not falsify your own?}

But I'm sure you won't be convinced. After all, as Gregory House said "Rational arguments don't work on religious people. Otherwise there would _be_ no religious people."


----------



## fjnmusic

> Its not in the sense that its all religion. So when you're disparaging religion in your postings you're really disparaging your own silly religious views. Like the girl that hates religion but thinks her crystals have magic powers.





> That is exactly what I'd like to hear any religious adherent explain. If other religions are false, why is yours true?
> 
> A religious adherent has just dismissed one less religion than an atheist.


My own religious views are far from silly, thank you very much. I am a womb-to-tomb Catholic, just like you, so if you want to call my religion silly, then whatever you say bounces off of me and sticks back on you. 

I do not limit myself to only the Catholic faith, however, and I do not see why I should have to, any more than anyone else should. I believe prayer has a therapeutic effect on the one who prays, more than any outward manifestation. And that's a good enough reason to pray, in my books. If one finds similar solace from crystals, pet rocks, or large cathedrals, then that is their thing. Some church buildings work for me, and they certainly don't have to be fancy. Some of the really rich and fancy buildings are cool too, at least for architectural reasons. But since for me, god is with us all the time, you don't have to go anywhere to find him, or her. You just need to silence your mind, which is what meditation does. Which is what prayer does.

I don't think religions are false in the true/false boolean logic sort of way. They reflect truisms about human nature, about karma, about the push-and-pull of the forces that affect us. I don't believe in the kind of Force that you see in Star Wars, obviously, which is presented like some kind of telekinesis power, though it would sure be handy. Religion, when done right, taps into the kinder side of human nature, and the "force of good will and kindness", if you wish. If this is too lightweight for some more hardcore religious types, tough ***** I say, because this is what I believe, and I don't have to defend it to anyone else any more than you have to defend your beliefs. We've all been on this planet long enough to form our conclusions about what is and what isn't, and I'm fine with multiple beliefs co-existing, so long as no one is harming anyone else with them.

When I disparage religion, it is because I see somebody practising something that they have no idea why they are doing it, or because someone else demands they do, and they surrender their own brain at the door. When I see religions taking advantage of their congregants, I take exception to that. And it happens far too often unfortunately, including my own RC religion. I am far from anti-religious, as evidenced by my desire to keep resurrecting this thread every time it starts to disappear. (see what I did there?  )


----------



## MacGuiver

fjnmusic said:


> I am far from anti-religious, as evidenced by my desire to keep resurrecting this thread every time it starts to disappear. (see what I did there?  )


Then why are all your posting pot shots at religion? I've never seen you revive the thread with anything but disparaging atheist propaganda pictures. Where's the positive religious postings if you're not anti-religious? 
Do us a favor. Let the thread die so we don't have to listen to the usual anti-christian rantings that populate this entire thread.


----------



## bryanc

fjnmusic said:


> My own religious views are far from silly, thank you very much.


Depending, of course, on one's definition of 'silly.' Personally, I can think of very little more silly than Catholicism. (I was initially convinced that Catholicism was a spoof invented by Monty Python).


> I am a womb-to-tomb Catholic


I think I understand what you're saying. I have a large number of friends who check off 'Catholic' on the census form, and direct their tax support to the separate school system, but who vary in their philosophical views from 'complete atheist' to 'vaguely-spiritual-whatever-works-for-you' to 'generally-christian-but-won't-follow-stupid-pope's-rules.' I similarly know several people who self-identify as Jewish, but don't believe in any supernatural stuff like gods.

I consider this a somewhat hypocritical form of tribalism or ethnicity. And before you take offence at the 'hypocritical' thing, I recognize that we all engage in this sort of thing to some degree; it's part of our social nature... we can't be entirely consistent about all things all the time, and we derive great value and pleasure from fitting in with a group of like-minded people, even if our like-mindedness evaporates under scrutiny.



> I believe prayer has a therapeutic effect on the one who prays, more than any outward manifestation.


This is called 'the placebo effect', and you're right that it works, but only if you believe it.



> But since for me, god is with us all the time, you don't have to go anywhere to find him, or her. You just need to silence your mind, which is what meditation does. Which is what prayer does.


Huh... dosen't seem to work for me. Maybe my magic antenna is defective.



> I'm fine with multiple beliefs co-existing, so long as no one is harming anyone else with them.


I'm in complete agreement. Unfortunately, the established religions are routinely harming others; dictating what behaviour is acceptable, what women are allowed to do with their bodies, when we can shop, what we can draw and publish, what we can teach, etc. etc.

Like sexual practises, religious practices should be kept private, and among consenting adults.


----------



## fjnmusic

MacGuiver said:


> Then why are all your posting pot shots at religion? I've never seen you revive the thread with anything but disparaging atheist propaganda pictures. Where's the positive religious postings if you're not anti-religious?
> Do us a favor. Let the thread die so we don't have to listen to the usual anti-christian rantings that populate this entire thread.


You're not the boss of me, MacG.  if you don't want to read stuff, then don't read it. Not my fault if you take the bait. it is kind of cool to see my hardcore Catholic friend (you) having a discussion with my hardcore atheist friend though (Bryan). 

As far as negativism, did you not see the intersection of faith and reason pic, or the faith in oneself pic? I'd say their uplifting as well as thought provoking. I shall find you a nice uplifting religious pic that is not an insult to anyone's intelligence. Caveat: it may not be a Christian one, though.


----------



## fjnmusic

bryanc said:


> Depending, of course, on one's definition of 'silly.' Personally, I can think of very little more silly than Catholicism. (I was initially convinced that Catholicism was a spoof invented by Monty Python).
> 
> I think I understand what you're saying. I have a large number of friends who check off 'Catholic' on the census form, and direct their tax support to the separate school system, but who vary in their philosophical views from 'complete atheist' to 'vaguely-spiritual-whatever-works-for-you' to 'generally-christian-but-won't-follow-stupid-pope's-rules.' I similarly know several people who self-identify as Jewish, but don't believe in any supernatural stuff like gods.
> 
> I consider this a somewhat hypocritical form of tribalism or ethnicity. And before you take offence at the 'hypocritical' thing, I recognize that we all engage in this sort of thing to some degree; it's part of our social nature... we can't be entirely consistent about all things all the time, and we derive great value and pleasure from fitting in with a group of like-minded people, even if our like-mindedness evaporates under scrutiny.
> 
> 
> This is called 'the placebo effect', and you're right that it works, but only if you believe it.
> 
> 
> 
> Huh... dosen't seem to work for me. Maybe my magic antenna is defective.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm in complete agreement. Unfortunately, the established religions are routinely harming others; dictating what behaviour is acceptable, what women are allowed to do with their bodies, when we can shop, what we can draw and publish, what we can teach, etc. etc.
> 
> Like sexual practises, religious practices should be kept private, and among consenting adults.


By George, I think you've got it, Bryan! Or you've got me anyway. In a nutshell.


----------



## fjnmusic




----------



## Elric

fjnmusic said:


> View attachment 30849


But you can sell them as slaves until they're 7, well, the boys anyways, girls are slaves forever.


----------



## iMouse

bryanc said:


> "Religion is what the common people see as true, the wise people see as false, and the rulers see as useful." - Seneca


"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it". - Santayana


----------



## screature

bryanc said:


> ...Okay, let's compare the homicide rates of a few Christian nations and a few countries in which Atheism is dominant, or at least prevalent.
> 
> Christian nations:
> Unites states 4.8 (murders/100,000 people per year)
> Mexico 18.1
> Brazil 22.7
> 
> 
> *Atheist-dominated Nations:*
> Norway 0.6
> Sweden 1.0
> Iceland 0.3
> Denmark 0.9
> 
> Hmm... it seems reality disagrees with your beliefs...


Huh, where to get that idea from?

Norway: 2010, 10% of the population was religiously unaffiliated 
Sweden: In the Eurostat survey, 23% of Swedish citizens responded that "they believe there is a God", whereas 53% answered that "they believe there is some sort of spirit or life force" and 23% that "they do not believe there is any sort of spirit, God, or life force".
Iceland: According to a study published in 2001, 23% of the inhabitants are either atheist or agnostic.
Denmark: According to a 2010 Eurobarometer Poll,[137] 28% of Danish citizens polled responded that they "believe there is a God", 47% responded that they "believe there is some sort of spirit or life force" and 24% responded that they "do not believe there is any sort of spirit, God or life force"

It seems the facts disagree with your notion that these are "Atheist-dominated Nations".

Nordic nations are among the least religious nations of the world but they are not "atheist dominated" by any means. Sweden comes the closest but your statement is still not factual even for Sweden.


----------



## Macfury

screature said:


> Huh, where to get that idea from?
> 
> Norway: 2010, 10% of the population was religiously unaffiliated
> Sweden: In the Eurostat survey, 23% of Swedish citizens responded that "they believe there is a God", whereas 53% answered that "they believe there is some sort of spirit or life force" and 23% that "they do not believe there is any sort of spirit, God, or life force".
> Iceland: According to a study published in 2001, 23% of the inhabitants are either atheist or agnostic.
> Denmark: According to a 2010 Eurobarometer Poll,[137] 28% of Danish citizens polled responded that they "believe there is a God", 47% responded that they "believe there is some sort of spirit or life force" and 24% responded that they "do not believe there is any sort of spirit, God or life force"
> 
> It seems the facts disagree with your notion that these are "Atheist-dominated Nations".
> 
> Nordic nations are among the least religious nations of the world but they are not "atheist dominated" by any means. Sweden comes the closest but your statement is still not factual even for Sweden.


Likewise, you would need to show who did the killing, including religious affiliation. The original statement was very weak science.


----------



## fjnmusic




----------



## groovetube

screature said:


> Huh, where to get that idea from?
> 
> Norway: 2010, 10% of the population was religiously unaffiliated
> Sweden: In the Eurostat survey, 23% of Swedish citizens responded that "they believe there is a God", whereas 53% answered that "they believe there is some sort of spirit or life force" and 23% that "they do not believe there is any sort of spirit, God, or life force".
> Iceland: According to a study published in 2001, 23% of the inhabitants are either atheist or agnostic.
> Denmark: According to a 2010 Eurobarometer Poll,[137] 28% of Danish citizens polled responded that they "believe there is a God", 47% responded that they "believe there is some sort of spirit or life force" and 24% responded that they "do not believe there is any sort of spirit, God or life force"
> 
> It seems the facts disagree with your notion that these are "Atheist-dominated Nations".
> 
> Nordic nations are among the least religious nations of the world but they are not "atheist dominated" by any means. Sweden comes the closest but your statement is still not factual even for Sweden.


You need to read a little further in your links. Cherry picking a line doesn't help. Merely being 'religiously affiliated doesn't mean anything, I know plenty of atheists and agnostics who would show up officially as 'religiously affiliated'.

Some more info on say, Norway.



> Most Norwegians are registered at baptism as members of the Church of Norway; many remain in the state church to be able to use services such as baptism, confirmation, marriage and burial, rites which have strong cultural standing in Norway. About 77% of Norwegians were members of the Church of Norway on 1 January 2012. About 66% of all newborns were baptized and about 65% of all 15-year-old persons were confirmed in the church in 2011.[120] However, only 20% of Norwegians say that religion occupies an important place in their life (according to a Gallup poll in 2009), the fourth-lowest such percentage in the world (only Estonia, Sweden and Denmark are lower).[121] In the early 1990s, it was estimated that between 4.7% and 5.3% of Norwegians attended church on a weekly basis.[122] This figure has dropped to about 2% – the lowest such percentage in Europe – according to data from 2009 and 2010[123][124]


----------



## MacGuiver

As pointed out by others, claiming those countries are atheist dominated or even became desirable countries because of it is a long stretch. It may be true they are evolving into atheist states so where they are in a generation or two may be more telling if they continue to abandon the Judeo Christian ethic.
Originally I was thinking of oppressive states run by atheist regimes like China, former Soviet Union, Cambodia, North Korea.
Among the worst places on earth to live yet Bryan seemed to pass them over. Of course he'll blame some other cause for the nastiness but the fact remains he touts Atheism as the enlightened, intelligent mans choice and the only leaders we can trust for a just society. The atheist leaders of these nations are neither enlightened, intelligent or just, quite the opposite in fact. This leaves the whole "only atheists should be in government" hypothesis in shambles.


----------



## bryanc

If MacFury or anyone else wants to refute my contention that the Scandinavian countries are among the least religiously adherent in the world and are simultaneously among the safest WRT to crime and enjoy among the best standards of living, he's welcome to do the research. This is an internet forum, not an academic conference or publication; rigorous science is not necessary. Anyone who'd take something they read on an internet forum or blog as "authoritative science," wether regarding sociology or climate change, is beyond help.


----------



## bryanc

MacGuiver said:


> As pointed out by others, claiming those countries are atheist dominated


Have you ever been to any of these countries? Have you looked at any of the data regarding religious adherence in these countries? As I just pointed out, the Scandinavian countries are among the least religious populations in the world. Yet there is no blood in the streets; the people are peaceful, happy, healthy and prosperous. Why is that? According to your hypothesis, their disbelief in the Invisible Sky-Policeman should result in anarchy. Why not kill, rape and steal if there's no God to punish you? It couldn't be that the vast majority of educated rational adults are capable of empathy and recognizing the need for them to control their impulses in order to benefit from a working society could it?



> Originally I was thinking of oppressive states run by atheist regimes like China, former Soviet Union, Cambodia, North Korea.


Ah; so you want to compare totalitarian dictatorships to constitutional democracies. Er... why would you make such a comparison? It's pretty obvious that totalitarian dictatorships run by theists are pretty much as horrible as totalitarian dictatorships run by atheists... probably because totalitarian dictatorships are generally horrible.



> This leaves the whole "only atheists should be in government" hypothesis in shambles.


Congratulations on having demolished that straw man. Well done you.


----------



## fjnmusic

I find it fascinating that there is an underlying belief that people can identify themselves as one thing and one thing only, for life. At one point I was definitely Roman Catholic, not by choice but by baptism, and though that is still my official religion, there are so many other belief systems that I can identify with, including atheism and agnosticism, though the latter strikes me as fence sitting. The sorting and ranking of people by group is almost as silly as saying that the most important attribute for grouping individuals is by the year they were born as opposed to, say, their aptitudes or interests. And yet that's how we set up schools today.


----------



## groovetube

fjnmusic said:


> I find it fascinating that there is an underlying belief that people can identify themselves as one thing and one thing only, for life. At one point I was definitely Roman Catholic, not by choice but by baptism, and though that is still my official religion, there are so many other belief systems that I can identify with, including atheism and agnosticism, though the latter strikes me as fence sitting. The sorting and ranking of people by group is almost as silly as saying that the most important attribute for grouping individuals is by the year they were born as opposed to, say, their aptitudes or interests. And yet that's how we set up schools today.


I have to agree. Lumping the majority of believers, or non believers all with the murderous few only results in more violence based on fear of differences. 

The sooner people are less interested in making people conform to their religious belief systems the better.


----------



## iMouse

Fence-sitting? Perhaps.

But the World is never black & white, so why should one be required to yea or nay?

I prefer to view it as having an open mind, for we shall never know in our life-times one way or the other.

Very little 'risk' potential differential from a firm Atheist anyway.


----------



## MacGuiver

bryanc said:


> Congratulations on having demolished that straw man. Well done you.


What straw man? This is what you said and you've said it before that religious people shouldn't be allowed to hold office.



> religion is a regressive force in our civilization, and the further it is removed from power the better off we all will be; including the adherents of the religions.


Clearly, removing Judeo/Christian adherents from power has been a nightmare in many countries around the world when replaced with atheists. It would seem that atheists are not all that enlightened and moral, and that they're fully capable of steering the ship to some pretty dark places.


----------



## CubaMark




----------



## eMacMan

fjnmusic said:


> I find it fascinating that there is an underlying belief that people can identify themselves as one thing and one thing only, for life. At one point I was definitely Roman Catholic, not by choice but by baptism, and though that is still my official religion, there are so many other belief systems that I can identify with, including atheism and agnosticism, though the latter strikes me as fence sitting. The sorting and ranking of people by group is almost as silly as saying that the most important attribute for grouping individuals is by the year they were born as opposed to, say, their aptitudes or interests. And yet that's how we set up schools today.


In a way I agree. I have always thought it rather arrogant for various religions to try to tell God how he should or should not present himself to other people, in other parts of the world, and at different times. If you honestly believe, then leave it up to God as to how he reveals himself. And for Gods sake do not try to force your tunnel vision version on me.


----------



## fjnmusic

CubaMark said:


>


Cute! 

Here's a site that helps to put your day in perspective with respect to the larger time scale. 

http://hereistoday.com/


----------



## screature

bryanc said:


> *If MacFury or anyone else wants to refute my contention that the Scandinavian countries are among the least religiously adherent in the world and are simultaneously among the safest WRT to crime and enjoy among the best standards of living, he's welcome to do the research.*
> 
> *This is an internet forum, not an academic conference or publication; rigorous science is not necessary. Anyone who'd take something they read on an internet forum or blog as "authoritative science," wether regarding sociology or climate change, is beyond help.*


That would be fine if it is what you said but you didn't...

Indeed and so why would we believe a word you say?

Huh? 

Beyond help indeed... it seems you need some.  

Seeing as you have only your opinion to back up your statements at least 50% of the time.

And you don't even take this place "seriously" until that is you are called out on your so called "facts" and can't feel superior...

Then it isn't "serious" or "facts" at all it is just, "an internet forum or blog" how convenient, hypocritical and condescending of you...

If only it was funny, but it is actually really sad. :-(

As Rodney Dangerfield said, you simply have no respect for anyone who disagrees with you especially those who point out factual errors in your arguments.


----------



## screature

groovetube said:


> You need to read a little further in your links. Cherry picking a line doesn't help. Merely being 'religiously affiliated doesn't mean anything, I know plenty of atheists and agnostics who would show up officially as 'religiously affiliated'.
> 
> Some more info on say, Norway.


I read them and no cherry picking the is absolutely no underlying data that suggests these counties are Atheist-dominated Nations none, zero.

Talk about trying to cherry picking.  Even among the minority.


----------



## groovetube

Just read the extra bit I posted. It completely deflates your point quite clearly.

You based your post on one line. There's more if you would have read on!


----------



## bryanc

screature said:


> Then it isn't "serious" or "facts" at all it is just, "an internet forum or blog" how convenient, hypocritical and condescending of you...


poor muffin; you feel I'm condescending... how adorable :love2:



> As Rodney Dangerfield said, you simply have no respect for anyone who disagrees with you especially those who point out factual errors in your arguments.


I don't think Rodney Dangerfield said anything about who or what I respect, or why. Clearly you feel you don't get much respect; you might want to examine why that might be the case, but it certainly isn't my problem.

I think my position is eminently clear, reasonable, well-supported with facts, entirely consistent, and I have no idea why you find it so objectionable. But your tantrums don't really worry me anymore.


----------



## bryanc

MacGuiver said:


> What straw man? This is what you said and you've said it before that religious people shouldn't be allowed to hold office.


I don't think that's what I said, please provide a context. If it is what I said, I agree that is an indefensible position, and it's not what I meant. {edit to add: I emphatically support the idea that there should be _*no religious litmus test*_ for public office} I think what I said, and certainly what I meant is that _*I*_ am uncomfortable voting for a theist, as they are clearly mentally ill. I do think the ultimate consequence of the decreasing religiosity of our society will eventually be that politicians will no longer boast of their religious adherence, and it may eventually even become something they keep private.

Unfortunately, in our country and in the the US, demonstrable adherence to some form of Christianity is all but essential for electablility to any major office. Despite 34% of Americans and 23.9% of Canadians reporting being non-religious, zero of the 435 members of congress, and as far as I can tell, a similar number of the 308 Canadian parliamentarians admit to lacking faith in the supernatural. Why do you suppose that is? And how is it that religious people argue that they are under-represented?


----------



## bryanc

fjnmusic said:


> I find it fascinating that there is an underlying belief that people can identify themselves as one thing and one thing only, for life.


I agree completely; if your beliefs don't change with time and new information, you're doing it wrong. Indeed, this is one of my major disagreements with religion. Faith negates reason and questioning. Reason and Questioning are the whole point, as far as I'm concerned.


----------



## fjnmusic

bryanc said:


> I agree completely; if your beliefs don't change with time and new information, you're doing it wrong. Indeed, this is one of my major disagreements with religion. Faith negates reason and questioning. Reason and Questioning are the whole point, as far as I'm concerned.


Unless we're talking about faith in oneself, which I believe is the root of progress. I may not be sure if I can do something I've never tried before, but if I have faith in my ability to figure it out, I must just learn something new and gain some confidence in myself.


----------



## bryanc

This may be a semantic issue, but I don't agree that faith == confidence. I may have confidence that I can do something, or even lack confidence, but be willing to give it my best shot anyway, but that's not the same thing as having faith in one's self. The only case I can see for 'faith' being a virtue is in the context of 'bargaining in good faith'; assuming that those you're negotiating with are not being deliberately malicious or dishonest in order to facilitate finding an agreeable compromise. And even that's not faith in the religious sense; one knows that it is possible to enter negotiation with good intent and to communicate honestly, so assuming that others are engaged in this is really nothing more than giving people the benefit of the doubt.

Faith : Belief without evidence in what is told by one who speaks without knowledge, of things without parallel. - Ambrose Bierce.


----------



## iMouse

And consider that all this was created when we had the hubris to believe we were the centre of the Universe, and the culmination of god's work.

Well, that sure has been shot-down, both as to the space we occupy and being the culmination of anything worthwhile. 

So, if these elements are flawed, why not the entire premise?

Discuss.


----------



## fjnmusic

bryanc said:


> This may be a semantic issue, but I don't agree that faith == confidence. I may have confidence that I can do something, or even lack confidence, but be willing to give it my best shot anyway, but that's not the same thing as having faith in one's self. The only case I can see for 'faith' being a virtue is in the context of 'bargaining in good faith'; assuming that those you're negotiating with are not being deliberately malicious or dishonest in order to facilitate finding an agreeable compromise. And even that's not faith in the religious sense; one knows that it is possible to enter negotiation with good intent and to communicate honestly, so assuming that others are engaged in this is really nothing more than giving people the benefit of the doubt.
> 
> Faith : Belief without evidence in what is told by one who speaks without knowledge, of things without parallel. - Ambrose Bierce.


There are many definitions of faith, and several which have no specific religious meaning. I would say faith and confidence are very closely related, and it appears I am not alone on this understanding. 

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/_/dict.aspx?rd=1&word=faith


----------



## fjnmusic

iMouse said:


> And consider that all this was created when we had the hubris to believe we were the centre of the Universe, and the culmination of god's work.
> 
> Well, that sure has been shot-down, both as to the space we occupy and being the culmination of anything worthwhile.
> 
> So, if these elements are flawed, why not the entire premise?
> 
> Discuss.


You may not be the center of the universe, imouse, but you are always at the center of YOUR universe, like it or not. The horizon is always the same distance away from you through your eyes. You are always here and it is always now. There has never been a time in your life where you could have been anywhere or anytime else. You have been with yourself for every second of your own journey. So from that point of view, you might want to take another look at the whole center of the universe premise.


----------



## iMouse

Your premise is not flawed, but the 'we' was a sobriquet for Religion in general, Judeo/Christian in particular.


----------



## fjnmusic

Deep thought for today: we are all God. Something to ponder....









http://www.iawwai.com/TruthBehindReligion.htm


----------



## MacGuiver

fjnmusic said:


> Deep thought for today: we are all God. Something to ponder....
> 
> View attachment 30978
> 
> 
> We Are God is the Truth Behind World Religion


A quick walk on top of the water should show just how deep that thought is.


----------



## fjnmusic

MacGuiver said:


> A quick walk on top of the water should show just how deep that thought is.


I walk on water all the time...as long as it is frozen.


----------



## MacGuiver

fjnmusic said:


> I walk on water all the time...as long as it is frozen.


I can top that. I've raised the dead... getting my son out of bed for school in the morning.


----------



## fjnmusic

MacGuiver said:


> I can top that. I've raised the dead... getting my son out of bed for school in the morning.


LOL :lmao:


----------



## screature

bryanc said:


> poor muffin; you feel I'm condescending... how adorable :love2:
> 
> I don't think Rodney Dangerfield said anything about who or what I respect, or why. Clearly you feel you don't get much respect; you might want to examine why that might be the case, but it certainly isn't my problem.
> 
> I think my position is eminently clear, reasonable, well-supported with facts, entirely consistent, and I have no idea why you find it so objectionable. But your tantrums don't really worry me anymore.


Ah crumpet, how sweet. I can feel the love all the way through the intertubes.

What is objectionable and disrespectful is saying things like people are "beyond hope".

Your new statement that "Scandinavian countries are among the least religiously adherent in the world" is completely supportable in fact. Your original statement that Scandinavian countries are Atheist-*dominated* Nations is not. 

I'd also like to point out that there is little to indicate that it is your so called "prevalence" of atheism in these countries that leads to lower murder rates, i.e. a causal relationship.

There are a multitude of socioeconomic, cultural, political and legal reasons for why this is the case in these countries that has absolutely nothing to do with theism or atheism at all. I would dare say those factors are in fact the leading reasons for the lower murder rate and that religiosity has very little to do with it at all.


----------



## groovetube

Ah. So a light goes on!

Suddenly the cries of Russia and china being atheist countries resulting in huge murders suddenly gets muted. :clap:


----------



## screature

groovetube said:


> Ah. So a light goes on!
> 
> Suddenly the cries of Russia and china being atheist countries resulting in huge murders suddenly gets muted. :clap:


I never said anything like that. That is MacGuivers contention.


----------



## groovetube

yes it was. But part of this conversation.


----------



## screature

groovetube said:


> yes it was. But part of this conversation.


Ok fair enough. But it seemed that seeing as you said:



> Ah. So a light goes on!


immediately following my post, your little bit of patronization was directed at me.


----------



## Macfury

screature said:


> There are a multitude of socioeconomic, cultural, political and legal reasons for why this is the case in these countries that has absolutely noting to do theism or atheism at all. I would dare say those factors are in fact the leading reasons for the lower murder rate and that religiosity has very little to do with it at all.


Exactly. There was a really sad short-circuit between evidence and conclusion here.


----------



## screature

Just to add to what I was saying to bryanc that there is little evidence that there is a causal connection between high murder rates and religiosity and atheism and low murder rates.

Here is a list of countries that have medium to high levels of religiosity where the murder rate is completely comparable to the Scandinavian countries that he listed.

Singapore 0.3
Bahrain 0.6
Oman 0.7
Qatar 0.9
Saudi Arabia 1.0
Italy 0.9
Spain 0.8
Austria 0.6
Switzerland 0.7

As compared to:

Norway 0.6
Sweden 1.0
Iceland 0.3
Denmark 0.9

List of countries by intentional homicide rate


----------



## bryanc

screature said:


> Just to add to what I was saying to bryanc that there is little evidence that there is a causal connection between high murder rates and religiosity and atheism and low murder rates.


I never said their was; the evidence is at best correlative, although it is interesting that the correlation holds under many different conditions (atheists, for example, are highly underrepresented in prison populations).

All this correlation serves to do is to falsify MacGuiver's implication that nations dominated by Christians are safer or enjoy a better standard of living.

Wether the Scandinavian countries I used as counter examples are predominantly atheist or just 'less christian' than the Christian-dominated countries I used in my example, doesn't matter to the point I'm trying to make: religiosity of a population does not predict the peacefulness or lawfulness of that population.


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> ...religiosity of a population does not predict the peacefulness or lawfulness of that population.


I believe MacGuiver says that it appears that the reigns of atheist communist dictators demonstrate a high degree of correlation with murdering their own citizens.


----------



## screature

bryanc said:


> I never said their was; *the evidence is at best correlative*, although it is interesting that the correlation holds under many different conditions (atheists, for example, are highly underrepresented in prison populations).
> 
> All this correlation serves to do is to * falsify MacGuiver's implication that nations dominated by Christians are safer or enjoy a better standard of living.*
> 
> Wether the Scandinavian countries I used as counter examples are predominantly atheist or just 'less christian' than the Christian-dominated countries I used in my example, doesn't matter to the point I'm trying to make: *religiosity of a population does not predict the peacefulness or lawfulness of that population.*


Based on the evidence I just presented I would suggest that it is not even correlative.

Agreed.

I completely agree.


----------



## bryanc

> reigns of *any* dictators demonstrate a high degree of correlation with murdering their own citizens.


t,ftfy.


----------



## screature

bryanc said:


> t,ftfy.


Who is this in response to?


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> t,ftfy.



I believe that one can find a high correlation between 20th century dictators and non-Christianity. The link between these dictators and atheism is less profound.


----------



## bryanc

Both MacFury and MacGuiver have tried to make a big deal out of the fact that totalitarian dictators have a horrible track record. They seem to be under the impression that because some of these dictators were atheists, that the cause of their horrific behaviour was their lack of faith in the supernatural. My point is that it's the "totalitarian dictator" part that the problem; not the "atheist" part.


----------



## screature

bryanc said:


> Both MacFury and MacGuiver have tried to make a big deal out of the fact that totalitarian dictators have a horrible track record. They seem to be under the impression that because some of these dictators were atheists, that the cause of their horrific behaviour was their lack of faith in the supernatural. *My point is that it's the "totalitarian dictator" part that the problem; not the "atheist" part.*


Ok I see, yes I agree.


----------



## CubaMark

*Do Scientists Pray? Einstein Answers a Little Girl's Question about Science vs. Religion*

_The enormous cultural baggage of the question didn’t stop a little girl from New York named Phyllis from posing it to none other than the great Albert Einstein in a 1936 letter found in Dear Professor Einstein: Albert Einstein’s Letters to and from Children (public library) — the same delightful collection that gave us Einstein’s encouraging words to women in science._​


(BrainPickings)


----------



## MacGuiver

bryanc said:


> Both MacFury and MacGuiver have tried to make a big deal out of the fact that totalitarian dictators have a horrible track record. They seem to be under the impression that because some of these dictators were atheists, that the cause of their horrific behaviour was their lack of faith in the supernatural. My point is that it's the "totalitarian dictator" part that the problem; not the "atheist" part.


I don't agree. 
Atheism has culpability because it laid the ground work for the perceived threat of the religious. Its the popular beliefs of atheists that helped build the enemy of the state which in turn left them ripe for persecution. ie. Adherents are mentally ill, irrational, superstitious, unenlightened, uneducated, unfit to govern, cause of all wars etc. The state was about science and reason and religion is anti-science and anti-reason therefor a problem to be dealt with. Irrational garbage like that adopted by the atheist regimes was fuel for the fires of persecution of religion.


----------



## screature

MacGuiver said:


> I don't agree.
> Atheism has culpability because it laid the ground work for the perceived threat of the religious. Its the popular beliefs of atheists that helped build the enemy of the state which in turn left them ripe for persecution. ie. Adherents are mentally ill, irrational, superstitious, unenlightened, uneducated, unfit to govern, cause of all wars etc. The state was about science and reason and religion is anti-science and anti-reason therefor a problem to be dealt with. Irrational garbage like that adopted by the atheist regimes was fuel for the fires of persecution of religion.


You would need to be specific of which regime you speak of because, for example, in China during the people's revolution it was academics and intellectuals that were persecuted and often murdered and imprisoned as they were seen as elites and therefore an anathema to "the people".


----------



## groovetube

MacGuiver said:


> I don't agree.
> Atheism has culpability because it laid the ground work for the perceived threat of the religious. Its the popular beliefs of atheists that helped build the enemy of the state which in turn left them ripe for persecution. ie. Adherents are mentally ill, irrational, superstitious, unenlightened, uneducated, unfit to govern, cause of all wars etc. The state was about science and reason and religion is anti-science and anti-reason therefor a problem to be dealt with. Irrational garbage like that adopted by the atheist regimes was fuel for the fires of persecution of religion.


Interesting, given there are just as many, if not more who did believe in some supernatural god-being who were also "mentally ill, irrational, superstitious, unenlightened, uneducated, unfit to govern, cause of all wars etc."


----------



## bryanc

Just because someone is mentally ill does not make them less-human or somehow despicable; in the same way that someone who has a cold is not a bad person, someone who is schizophrenic is a valuable person who we should want to help get better, not abandon, persecute or ostracize.

Religion is pervasive in our society; that does not make it healthy or desirable. Because it is something that was ubiquitous historically, and is likely something that has been part of our cultural evolution since before we were even human, we are almost unable to imagine how we could live without it. And I'm not convinced a society without religion would be without problems, or that even the loss of religion itself wouldn't cause other problems. We are now discovering that, because our ancestors were chronically infected with various parasites, and these parasites repressed immune function, our immune system has evolved in such a way that without parasitic infections, we're prone to auto-immune disorders due to the immune system being over-active. So while I remain convinced that society would be better off without religions, I'm sure there would be some downsides, and that significant adaptation would be necessary.


----------



## MacGuiver

groovetube said:


> Interesting, given there are just as many, if not more who did believe in some supernatural god-being who were also "mentally ill, irrational, superstitious, unenlightened, uneducated, unfit to govern, cause of all wars etc."


I think your confused Groove. I was saying those were traits atheists commonly attribute to theists, not the other way around.


----------



## MacGuiver

screature said:


> You would need to be specific of which regime you speak of because, for example, in China during the people's revolution it was academics and intellectuals that were persecuted and often murdered and imprisoned as they were seen as elites and therefore an anathema to "the people".


For sure. The Soviet Union is the regime I'm thinking of.


----------



## groovetube

MacGuiver said:


> I think your confused Groove. I was saying those were traits atheists commonly attribute to theists, not the other way around.


Oh I assure you, I'm not confused at all. :lmao:


----------



## screature

groovetube said:


> Oh I assure you, I'm not confused at all. :lmao:


Despite your further patronization with the :lmao: your statement was:



groovetube said:


> Interesting, *given there are just as many, if not more* who did believe in some supernatural god-being who were also "mentally ill, irrational, superstitious, unenlightened, uneducated, unfit to govern, cause of all wars etc."


How could that possibly be the case as there are far, far, far, fewer leaders than followers.

What MacGuiver is talking about is followers of religion who were persecuted and murdered for being followers of a religion, not leaders who were religious. Logically it is quite impossible that there could be more leaders than followers.

If you look historically at the times that atrocities were done in the "name of god X" there were very few (on either side) who didn't believe in some form god. So it was just a matter of "My god is the true god, you are just a heathen who believes in the wrong god".

So the leaders and followers on both sides were all equally guilty on the _"did believe in some supernatural god-being who were also "mentally ill, irrational, superstitious, unenlightened, uneducated, unfit to govern, cause of all wars etc."_ front.

If you look at history I think you will find it difficult to find where one power/group of people annihilated another for not believing in any god at all, just that they did not believe in their god.

But historically, people have been killed and or persecuted simply because they believed in any god at all.


----------



## fjnmusic

fjnmusic said:


> Deep thought for today: we are all God. Something to ponder....
> 
> View attachment 30978
> 
> 
> http://www.iawwai.com/TruthBehindReligion.htm


It seems to be far easier to discuss the politics of religious/atheist organizations than to discuss what religion, or atheism, means at a far more personal level. And so, because it received only a cursory glance the first time, again I offer this article that conjectures that God is actually each of us. If the premise is true, and I believed it is, it changes the equation substantially. Give it a good look, if you don't mind.


----------



## groovetube

screature said:


> Despite your further patronization with the :lmao: your statement was:
> 
> 
> 
> How could that possibly be the case as there are far, far, far, fewer leaders than followers.
> 
> What MacGuiver is talking about is followers of religion who were persecuted and murdered for being followers of a religion, not leaders who were religious. Logically it is quite impossible that there could be more leaders than followers.
> 
> If you look historically at the times that atrocities were done in the "name of god X" there were very few (on either side) who didn't believe in some form god. So it was just a matter of "My god is the true god, you are just a heathen who believes in the wrong god".
> 
> So the leaders and followers on both sides were all equally guilty on the _"did believe in some supernatural god-being who were also "mentally ill, irrational, superstitious, unenlightened, uneducated, unfit to govern, cause of all wars etc."_ front.
> 
> If you look at history I think you will find it difficult to find where one power/group of people annihilated another for not believing in any god at all, just that they did not believe in their god.
> 
> But historically, people have been killed and or persecuted simply because they believed in any god at all.


I think things are starting get muddied here, glossing this whole thing over.

Now we're starting to complicate things by talking about the followers. It was asserted that the atheist leaders were killing in large numbers because they were atheists. 

Followers, will do what they're told regardless of the religion, or lack of one. Let's be clear.

As for the rest of your post, I'm not really sure what point you're trying to make here, but it seems to be that large numbers f people have been killed over believing in the wrong god. On that I'm in total agreement.


----------



## screature

fjnmusic said:


> It seems to be far easier to discuss the politics of religious/atheist organizations than to discuss what religion, or atheism, means at a far more personal level. And so, because it received only a cursory glance the first time, again I offer this article that conjectures that God is actually each of us. If the premise is true, and I believed it is, it changes the equation substantially. Give it a good look, if you don't mind.


fjnmusic I will definitely read it but could you re-post the image as all I see is an attachment link and not the photo and I never click on attachment links.

If you don't mind it would be appreciated.


----------



## screature

groovetube said:


> I think things are starting get muddied here, glossing this whole thing over.
> *
> Now we're starting to complicate things* by talking about the followers. It was asserted that the atheist leaders were killing in large numbers because they were atheists.
> 
> *Followers, will do what they're told regardless of the religion, or lack of one. Let's be clear.*
> 
> As for the rest of your post, I'm not really sure what point you're trying to make here, but it seems to be that *large numbers f people have been killed over believing in the wrong god. On that I'm in total agreement.*


Undoubtedly, because although some may be inclined to postulate that it is a simple subject, it is not.

Agreed.

Yes that is in part what I am saying and I believe to be a historical fact.

But what is new in "modern times", is that people have been killed and persecuted for believing in *any god at all*. And on that specific point (which I believe is the point MacGuiver is trying to make) I am in complete agreement with and IMO cannot be refuted.

The posts of some here reflect those "modern times", at least in terms of the derision/patronization/condescension/mockery/their beliefs being made light of that they receive for believing in *any god/life force/higher power*.


----------



## fjnmusic

screature said:


> fjnmusic I will definitely read it but could you re-post the image as all I see is an attachment link and not the photo and I never click on attachment links.
> 
> If you don't mind it would be appreciated.


Sure, it's a pretty cool picture, although it is one I picked to suit the subject matter, not a part of the link itself.


----------



## screature

fjnmusic said:


> Sure, it's a pretty cool picture, although it is one I picked to suit the subject matter, not a part of the link itself.
> View attachment 31025


Thanks fjnmusic.

I like that photo very much as it quite succinctly illustrates the same sort of amazement that I feel about life and its many forms on a regular basis.


----------



## groovetube

screature said:


> Undoubtedly, because although some may be inclined to postulate that it is a simple subject, it is not.
> 
> Agreed.
> 
> Yes that is in part what I am saying and I believe to be a historical fact.
> 
> But what is new in "modern times", is that people have been killed and persecuted for believing in *any god at all*. And on that specific point (which I believe is the point MacGuiver is trying to make) I am in complete agreement with and IMO cannot be refuted.
> 
> The posts of some here reflect those "modern times", at least in terms of the derision/patronization/condescension/mockery/their beliefs being made light of that they receive for believing in *any god/life force/higher power*.


To be sure, I don't mock people for believing in god. Certainly not in a serious way. I may not understand it, and I may poke fun just as someone could poke fun at me for being 'godless', it's when a religious person wants to force me to adhere to their beliefs I will fight back.


----------



## fjnmusic

When one starts to see god as "in here" rather than "out there", the whole equation changes. Instead of having some parental figure looking over our shoulder, we begin to see our own responsibility in this world. God sees the world through our eyes and hears the world through our ears. We are god. We are the consciousness that has been around since the dawn of time. Even longer. We are life itself. The same consciousness inside of you is not just similar to the consciousness inside of me; it is me. I am he as you are he as you are me and we are all together. 

Koo koo ka joob.


----------



## bryanc

I think what you're getting at is generally known as 'pandeism' and it's an idea that's been around for a long time. And while I certainly don't find it as objectionable as the tenets of any of the Abrahamic religions, or even as silly as some of the other new-agey mysticism, I don't see it as an idea that provides any explanatory power or testable hypotheses. In other words, it may be a nice idea and it may make some people feel warm-and-fuzzy, but it's basically worthless as a philosophical stepping stone to understanding anything worth while.


----------



## Macfury

fjnmusic said:


> When one starts to see god as "in here" rather than "out there", the whole equation changes. Instead of having some parental figure looking over our shoulder, we begin to see our own responsibility in this world. God sees the world through our eyes and hears the world through our ears. We are god. We are the consciousness that has been around since the dawn of time. Even longer. We are life itself. The same consciousness inside of you is not just similar to the consciousness inside of me; it is me. I am he as you are he as you are me and we are all together.
> 
> Koo koo ka joob.


I'm personally disgusted by the concept. I value my "otherness" more than just about anything. Being part of some huge wishy-washy mental collective is about as close to hell as anything I could imagine.


----------



## bryanc

I think that's what's supposed to be scary about the Borg.

But the idea of a universal consciousness, from which we become distinct selves as our brains develop in utero, and into which we return upon our death is a component of many deistic philosophies. At best, it fits with a variety of religious paradigms regarding souls, but it runs severely afoul of parsimony by proposing the existence of an entirely undetected (undetectable?) form of existence; some sort of supernatural consciousness that infuses our mundane reality according to unknown and unknowable rules.

Since William James' time, science has been making significant progress at understanding the emergent properties of collections of neurons, and since Minsky, Dennet, and others in the 1980's we've developed a much more sophisticated understanding of what the 'self' or 'consciousness' really is (see Daniel Dennett's "Consciousness Explained"). Given the rapidly increasing ability of the natural sciences to explain consciousness in terms of the physics of reality that we already understand, why postulate the existence of whole new dimensions and physics that we not only don't understand but can't even detect?


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> I think that's what's supposed to be scary about the Borg.


Indeed. However, I've heard people speak with delight about someday dying, losing their "otherness" and returning to "the collective mind" stripped of their individuality.

Entirely outside whether one believes the scenario is possible, it's a nightmare scenario to me.


----------



## bryanc

Most've what I've heard describing paradise/nirvana/heaven/whatever has struck me as horrific. The Christian version of 'heaven' strikes me as particularly unattractive; sitting around with all the staid, unimaginative sycophants and an authoritarian dictator who's obsessed with people's sex lives for all eternity... *shudder*. Perhaps one of the reasons I never became a believer is that none of the religions I encountered as an impressionable youth offered much that appealed to me. By the time I encountered less objectionable depictions of an afterlife, like Magh Meall, I had figured out that it's all BS anyway.


----------



## bryanc

Macfury said:


> I've heard people speak with delight about someday dying, losing their "otherness" and returning to "the collective mind" stripped of their individuality.


This is a common feature of NDEs, deep meditation, and hallucinogenic drug use (including most anesthetics). I saw a TED talk by a neurophysiologist who suffered a stroke and experienced the same thing. It is fundamentally due to the failure of the parts of the brain involved in distinguishing self from non-self in the sensory stream. Because the mind has difficulty reconciling these experiences, it also gives rise to 'out of body' hallucinations, which are frequently modified post-hoc to incorporate information that the individual believes they could not possibly have obtained any other way.


----------



## MacGuiver

> When one starts to see god as "in here" rather than "out there", the whole equation changes. Instead of having some parental figure looking over our shoulder, we begin to see our own responsibility in this world. God sees the world through our eyes and hears the world through our ears.


Strange. I don't have the need to think I'm God to see my responsibility in this world. I can't say I've ever met a believer that didn't feel the same. In fact many are more engaged in the world than many without belief.



> We are god.


We were joking around earlier about our god powers but in all seriousness, I fail the God test horribly. I can't multiply fish, raise the dead or walk on water just to name a few. I'd have to see someone claiming to be God pull that off before I gave that theory any credence.
In Christianity, this proposition that we could be god resulted in our downfall. Its way out of step with Christian theology.



> We are the consciousness that has been around since the dawn of time. Even longer. We are life itself. The same consciousness inside of you is not just similar to the consciousness inside of me; it is me. I am he as you are he as you are me and we are all together.


It sound really deep and all but I fail to see any evidence to give that hypothesis any credibility.


----------



## bryanc

MacGuiver said:


> I don't have the need to think I'm God to see my responsibility in this world.


I agree completely; moral development does not depend at all on beliefs in the supernatural. Indeed, there are good arguments to be made that beliefs in/about god(s) can impair moral development.



> I can't multiply fish, raise the dead or walk on water just to name a few.


Neither can I, and nor do I believe anyone who could has ever existed, fanciful tales in storybooks notwithstanding.



> I'd have to see someone claiming to be God pull that off before I gave that theory any credence.


I completely agree; I can't imagine how any rational adult could accept such outlandish stories without compelling, reproducible empirical evidence. And yet, there are millions of Christians who accept this on the basis of nothing more than a storybook.



> I fail to see any evidence to give that hypothesis any credibility.


Excellent; if you could learn to apply this to your own religion, you'd be well on your way to becoming an atheist.


----------



## MacGuiver

> I agree completely; moral development does not depend at all on beliefs in the supernatural. Indeed, there are good arguments to be made that beliefs in/about god(s) can impair moral development.


You appear to be agreeing with something I didn't say.



> Neither can I, and nor do I believe anyone who could has ever existed, fanciful tales in storybooks notwithstanding.


You're an adherent to the atheist dogma that God doesn't exist. What else could you believe.



> I completely agree; I can't imagine how any rational adult could accept such outlandish stories without compelling, reproducible empirical evidence. And yet, there are millions of Christians who accept this on the basis of nothing more than a storybook.


Much more than just a story book. History is full of accounts of the miraculous supporting what Christ preached. I've seen it in my own life and people close to me. But your mind is too tightly closed to entertain the possibility. 



> Excellent; if you could learn to apply this to your own religion, you'd be well on your way to becoming an atheist.


I have and the evidence is compelling that there is a God and an afterlife. I just don't agree with the premise that I'm personally god.


----------



## bryanc

MacGuiver said:


> You're an adherent to the atheist dogma that God doesn't exist.


Please refrain from making assertions about what I believe or why; it is abundantly clear that you cannot read my mind.

I adhere to no dogma, and maintain an open mind. However, as any rational person must be, I am skeptical, and require claims be supported by reason and evidence. 

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. I have not encountered even the most mundane evidence that any of what is claimed by any religion is even remotely plausible.


> But your mind is too tightly closed to entertain the possibility.


I have, on many occasions been convinced to change my beliefs and/or formulate new beliefs on the basis of reason and evidence. Indeed, this is among the greatest pleasures of doing science. However, I have never encountered any reason or evidence for the existence of god(s) or any supernatural agents/forces/processes. 



> the evidence is compelling that there is a God and an afterlife.


Either your experience is radically different than my own (in which case we can infer, that your god does not want me to believe He exists, as He is providing you with compelling evidence while preventing me from experiencing such evidence), or your belief-forming-mechanisms are radically different than my own (in which case we can infer that you do not employ the same standards of evidence or use rational thought in establishing your conceptual paradigms). I suspect the latter.


----------



## bryanc

This just in... the Universe is a crueler, more uncaring place than previously thought.


----------



## fjnmusic

bryanc said:


> I think what you're getting at is generally known as 'pandeism' and it's an idea that's been around for a long time. And while I certainly don't find it as objectionable as the tenets of any of the Abrahamic religions, or even as silly as some of the other new-agey mysticism, I don't see it as an idea that provides any explanatory power or testable hypotheses. In other words, it may be a nice idea and it may make some people feel warm-and-fuzzy, but it's basically worthless as a philosophical stepping stone to understanding anything worth while.


Worthless to you perhaps, but not worthless to me. Just like any other religious concept or mode of thinking, including the methods of science, if it brings me comfort in coming to understand the nature of the universe, it doesn't HAVE to be useful to anyone else. If it works for me and gets me through my day and brings me some peace, that's really all that matters. We do not have to justify our well-being to anyone. That's one of the differences between spirituality and religion.


----------



## fjnmusic

Macfury said:


> I'm personally disgusted by the concept. I value my "otherness" more than just about anything. Being part of some huge wishy-washy mental collective is about as close to hell as anything I could imagine.


Interesting. And yet the RC faith assures you that the afterlife will be spent as part of some huge, wishy-washy mental collective. And that's if you're good and go to heaven.


----------



## fjnmusic

What do you suppose Lennon meant when he wrote that line from "I Am the Walrus"?


----------



## Macfury

fjnmusic said:


> Interesting. And yet the RC faith assures you that the afterlife will be spent as part of some huge, wishy-washy mental collective. And that's if you're good and go to heaven.


I've never heard of such a terrible thing. Do tell?


----------



## bryanc

fjnmusic said:


> Worthless to you perhaps, but not worthless to me.


Poor choice of words on my part; I meant 'worthless' the the philosophical sense, of not contributing to an improved understanding of reality; if it makes you happy, it's obviously of worth to you, and I don't mean to diminish that.



> If it works for me and gets me through my day and brings me some peace, that's really all that matters. We do not have to justify our well-being to anyone. That's one of the differences between spirituality and religion.


and the difference between 'philosophy' and just BSing over a few beers; I value the latter... just not as much as I value the former.


----------



## iMouse

Macfury said:


> I've never heard of such a terrible thing.
> 
> Do tell?


The Borg.

Hell would be more laughs.


----------



## fjnmusic

Macfury said:


> I've never heard of such a terrible thing. Do tell?


Sure. Here's what the after-party will be like. 





+
YouTube Video









ERROR: If you can see this, then YouTube is down or you don't have Flash installed.


----------



## jamesB

now here's proof, jesus is with us everywhere...


----------



## fjnmusic

I'd rather laugh with the sinners 
Than cry with the saints
The sinners are much more fun
And, darlin', only the good die young
-- Billy Joel


----------



## groovetube

jamesB said:


> now here's proof, jesus is with us everywhere...


That cannot be unseen. Thanks!


----------



## iMouse

groovetube said:


> That cannot be unseen. Thanks!


Jesus is a bitch?

Man, someone has sure been playing with the hysterical record.


----------



## fjnmusic

bryanc said:


> Poor choice of words on my part; I meant 'worthless' the the philosophical sense, of not contributing to an improved understanding of reality; if it makes you happy, it's obviously of worth to you, and I don't mean to diminish that.
> 
> 
> 
> and the difference between 'philosophy' and just BSing over a few beers; I value the latter... just not as much as I value the former.


Hang up philosophy! Unless philosophy can make a Juliet, displant a town, reverse a prince’s doom, it helps not, 
it prevails not. Talk no more.

But anon, make haste! Bring on the beers, good sir!


----------



## fjnmusic

On ITV and BBC they talk about the curse 
Philosophy is useless theology is worse 
History boils over there's an economics freeze 
Sociologists invent words that mean 'Industrial Disease' 

-- Mark Knopfler


----------



## bryanc

From the same Dire Straits song:

Two men say they're Jesus; one of them must be wrong 
There's a protest singer singing a protest song - he says 
'they wanna have a war to keep us on our knees 
They wanna have a war to keep their factories 
They wanna have a war to stop us buying Japanese 
They wanna have a war to stop Industrial Disease

They're pointing out the enemy to keep you deaf and blind 
They wanna sap your energy incarcerate your mind 
They give you Rule Brittania, gassy beer, page three 
Two weeks in Espana and Sunday striptease' 

Meanwhile the first Jesus says 'I'll cure it soon 
Abolish monday mornings and friday afternoons' 
The other one's on a hunger strike he's dying by degrees 
How come Jesus gets Industrial Disease?


{edit to add: I still remember this line from the 1982 Rolling Stone review of that album


Rolling Stone said:


> In almost suicidal defiance of commercial good sense, singer-songwriter-guitarist Mark Knopfler has chosen to follow his muse, fashioning a collection of radically expanded epics and evocative tone poems that demand the listener's undivided attention.


----------



## fjnmusic

I always liked that song. Apparently it was the framework for a film that never came to be.


----------



## CubaMark




----------



## bryanc

Apparently there are 6 "types" of atheists; from my reading, I'm all of the first four.


----------



## fjnmusic

bryanc said:


> Apparently there are 6 "types" of atheists; from my reading, I'm all of the first four.


I think ultimately everyone is an atheist, and not just because we reject all other gods save the one we happen to choose. We are all liars; we even lie to ourselves because it's preferable to be put part of a club than to have to face our ultimate loneliness. We are social creatures, humans, and we agree to all kinds of crazy theories in order to have people to hang out with. Some of the most religious people are serial killers.


----------



## bryanc

fjnmusic said:


> I think ultimately everyone is an atheist, and not just because we reject all other gods save the one we happen to choose. We are all liars; we even lie to ourselves because it's preferable to be put part of a club than to have to face our ultimate loneliness. We are social creatures, humans, and we agree to all kinds of crazy theories in order to have people to hang out with. Some of the most religious people are serial killers.


You're sounding like Penn Jillette. When talking about his lack of belief in God, he said something along the lines of "I'm not just an atheist for myself, I don't even believe _other_ people believe in God."

I certainly have difficulty believing that otherwise apparently functional adults believe in an omniscient being (wether it's an invisible man, who lives in the sky, or some other variation) who created the universe, and who takes a special interest in what particular individuals of a certain species of hairless apes on the surface of one little planet orbiting an inconsequential little star in the backwaters of an unremarkable spiral galaxy do with their short lives.

I can understand being apprehensive about death, and wanting to develop mental crutches to deal with one's inevitable non-existence, but the offerings of religion are such trite and obvious fabrications and so much of it panders to the most vile and vulgar aspects of human nature, that I just can't see much of value in any of it.


----------



## fjnmusic

bryanc said:


> You're sounding like Penn Jillette. When talking about his lack of belief in God, he said something along the lines of "I'm not just an atheist for myself, I don't even believe _other_ people believe in God."
> 
> I certainly have difficulty believing that otherwise apparently functional adults believe in an omniscient being (wether it's an invisible man, who lives in the sky, or some other variation) who created the universe, and who takes a special interest in what particular individuals of a certain species of hairless apes on the surface of one little planet orbiting an inconsequential little star in the backwaters of an unremarkable spiral galaxy do with their short lives.
> 
> I can understand being apprehensive about death, and wanting to develop mental crutches to deal with one's inevitable non-existence, but the offerings of religion are such trite and obvious fabrications and so much of it panders to the most vile and vulgar aspects of human nature, that I just can't see much of value in any of it.


Having said that, I'm going to do a 180 and state that I actually believe in God, but it's the god that is only one letter removed from the word good. I know we are all a product of our environment as well as our biology, but I also believe there is an inherent advantage to getting along with others for our mutual benefit. Call it conscience, call it goodwill, call it what you will---the message I takeaway is no different than what Jesus proclaims in the Golden Rule (and pretty much every religion has some variation of this). It doesn't matter to me whether the founder is real or fictional, or a fiction built upon some original person; the message is still the same. Be good to others and you will live a better life in this world (and probably the next, if there is one).

I don't think anybody has the right nor the authority to tell you what you must believe. If they're running an exclusive nightclub, I suppose they can insist on parameters, but then you're free to not join that club. I think the study of religion should be open and mature enough to include the study of things you don't agree with, including atheism. I learned much from existentialism for example, and I get Waiting For Godot. Brilliant metaphor really. I met some Muslim gentlemen today who I was surprised to find out that they do not even consume water during Ramadan until 10:00 tonight, even in sweltering 27 degree heat as laborers. I do not agree with that choice myself, but I admire their devotion and their stamina.

You see, Bryan, proving or disproving God's existence is ultimately irrelevant. The Vatican certainly exists, mosques certainly exist, synagogues certainly exist, and dinosaur fossils certainly exist. There are billions of people who see merit in these institutions and who have fascinating stories to tell. And it's the story part that I am drawn to.


----------



## SINC

First let me be clear that I have never considered myself a 'religious' person. My church attendance records show weddings and funerals as the primary reason for attendance. Didn't even have our children baptized. We left that decision to them as adults although our (wife and I) parents did make that decision for us, but it is meaningless.

I'm not so sure anyone can truly state here what they do and don't believe when it comes to their spirituality or 'religion' if you must call it that. I have been close to death twice in my life. Actually confronted with it. Until anyone faces that moment, their views are just opinion. Opinion with no real experience. When that moment arrives and you face imminent death, you find out real quickly what you really believe. Been there, done that, know the answer in my own case.

I don't think I can be any clearer than that, or any more true to myself.


----------



## fjnmusic

So in your view, do any of these opinions even come close, Don?


----------



## SINC

There are some here who in my humble opinion are close, others not so much. Experience is a great teacher and without it, one simply second guesses oneself or follows what they think they believe. Reality will one day reveal their innermost beliefs like it did for me. There is no right or wrong that I can tell.


----------



## fjnmusic

SINC said:


> There are some here who in my humble opinion are close, others not so much. Experience is a great teacher and without it, one simply second guesses oneself or follows what they think they believe. Reality will one day reveal their innermost beliefs like it did for me. There is no right or wrong that I can tell.


That is comforting to know.


----------



## CubaMark

This popped up on Reditt today - I can't stop laughing....


----------



## bryanc

fjnmusic said:


> I know we are all a product of our environment as well as our biology, but I also believe there is an inherent advantage to getting along with others for our mutual benefit. Call it conscience, call it goodwill, call it what you will


I call it the selective advantage of mutualistic behaviour, which is amplified in social organisms like ants and humans. Ants do it better than us.



> the message I takeaway is no different than what Jesus proclaims in the Golden Rule (and pretty much every religion has some variation of this).


It's worth noting that purely secular moral philosophies come to the same conclusion from entirely logical first principles that have nothing to do with the supernatural, souls, spirituality, or any other nonsense. Read Bertrand Russell's Introduction to Moral Philosophy for some background on this.



> Be good to others and you [and others] will live a better life in this world


(my addition). This is more than adequate reasoning for me.



> I met some Muslim gentlemen today who I was surprised to find out that they do not even consume water during Ramadan until 10:00 tonight, even in sweltering 27 degree heat as laborers. I do not agree with that choice myself, but I admire their devotion and their stamina.


While I admire their discipline, that can't be good for you. And their reasoning is desperately faulty.



> You see, Bryan, proving or disproving God's existence is ultimately irrelevant.


Well, certainly no one is going to disprove it; it's an inherently unfalsifiable claim, which is one of the reasons it's philosophically useless. But it is fun to argue about.



> And it's the story part that I am drawn to.


I guess there's no accounting for taste; I find the stories of the bible almost universally dreadful and many of them are downright hideous.


----------



## iMouse

Fear is a big seller. Today's media is no different.


----------



## screature

bryanc said:


> Apparently there are 6 "types" of atheists; from my reading, I'm all of the first four.


I don't see how you can logically be 3 and 4 at the same time as a number of their characteristics are in direct contradiction to one another.

3) Seeker-agnostic

This group is made up of people who are *unsure about the existence of a God but keep an open mind and recognize the limits of human knowledge and experience.*

Silver and Coleman describe this group as people who regularly question their own beliefs and “*do not hold a firm ideological position.*”

That doesn't mean this group is confused, the researchers say. They just *embrace uncertainty.
*
4) Anti-theist

This group regularly speaks out against religion and religious beliefs, usually by “*positioning themselves as diametrically opposed to religious ideology*,” Silver and Coleman wrote.

“Anti-theists view religion as ignorance and see any individual or institution associated with it as backward and socially detrimental,” the researchers wrote. “The Anti-Theist *has a clear and – in their view, superior – understanding* of the limitations and danger of religions.”

Anti-theists are outspoken, devoted and – at times – confrontational about their disbelief. *They believe that "obvious fallacies in religion and belief* should be aggressively addressed in some form or another.”


----------



## bryanc

There is no contradiction between



screature said:


> *unsure about the existence of a God but keep an open mind and recognize the limits of human knowledge and experience.* ...
> ... *embrace uncertainty.*


and


> “*positioning themselves as diametrically opposed to religious ideology*,”
> ...
> *has a clear and – in their view, superior – understanding* of the limitations and danger of religions.”
> ...
> *They believe that "obvious fallacies in religion and belief* should be aggressively addressed in some form or another.”


Indeed, it strikes me as obviously true that we cannot know, in any epistemological sense, that God, or ghosts, or invisible pink unicorns, do not exist. But that does not mean there is any rational reason to believe that they do. So I can quite reasonably be "open minded" in the sense that if I ever encounter any evidence for the existence of the supernatural, I'm willing to change my beliefs, while simultaneously being quite confident that no such evidence will ever be found and that there are no gods or other supernatural agents.

Furthermore, the ideologies of most religions are obviously fallacious, and in my opinion, damaging to society. So I can be anti-religious while still being philosophically open to new ideas/information.


----------



## MacGuiver

CubaMark said:


> This popped up on Reditt today - I can't stop laughing....


Ewww... good luck with that.


----------



## screature

bryanc said:


> There is no contradiction between
> 
> 
> and
> 
> 
> Indeed, it strikes me as obviously true that we cannot know, in any epistemological sense, that God, or ghosts, or invisible pink unicorns, do not exist. But that does not mean there is any rational reason to believe that they do. So I can quite reasonably be "open minded" in the sense that if I ever encounter any evidence for the existence of the supernatural, I'm willing to change my beliefs, while simultaneously being quite confident that no such evidence will ever be found and that there are no gods or other supernatural agents.
> 
> *Furthermore, the ideologies of most religions are obviously fallacious, and in my opinion, damaging to society. So I can be anti-religious while still being philosophically open to new ideas/information.*


Indeed there is, these things cannot logically co-exist despite your attempts to make the twains meet:


unsure about the existence of a God but keep an open mind and recognize the limits of human knowledge and experience.

vs.

positioning themselves as diametrically opposed to religious ideology.​
You cannot be *diametrically* opposed to an idea and still be open minded about it, it is a logical contradiction. Unless you live in some non-human world.

do not hold a firm ideological position

vs.

has a clear and – in their view, superior – understanding​
If one has what they consider to be a "superior" understanding it is by definition a "firm" ideological position.

embrace uncertainty

vs.

They believe that "obvious fallacies in religion and belief​
If one embraces uncertainty there can be no "obvious fallacies in religion and belief" all you can do is admit that "reality" is beyond the ability of your comprehension and that you simply do not know.

This statement most clearly demonstrates the incongruous nature of your argument:



> Furthermore, *the ideologies of most religions are obviously fallacious, and in my opinion, damaging to society.* So I can be anti-religious while still being philosophically open to new ideas/information.


This is pure opinion and not a statement of known fact.

So while you seem to want to have your cake and eat it too you cannot logically denounce all religion and actively proselytise against it in an effort to convert others to your beliefs and purport to also have an open mind and embrace uncertainty.

That is unless you want to go into politics and so be able to speak out of both sides of your mouth at the same time.


----------



## iMouse

It's called pity for the ignorant, and most Seeker-Agnostics don't go on and on about it.

But we are usually Anti-Theist in our minds.

When anyone mentions Religion, I just politely try change the subject.


----------



## bryanc

screature said:


> You cannot be *diametrically* opposed to an idea and still be open minded about it, it is a logical contradiction.


You're conflating "religious ideology" and "the existence of God(s)/supernatural entities". I'm open to evidence for the latter; I cannot prove Zeus does not exist, but I think it's highly unlikely. I'm diametrically opposed to many of the former; many religious ideologies are in diametric opposition to my own beliefs (for example, many religions dictate that women should be subservient to men, whereas I believe women and men should be treated as equals).



> If one embraces uncertainty there can be no "obvious fallacies in religion and belief" all you can do is admit that "reality" is beyond the ability of your comprehension and that you simply do not know.


I embrace uncertainty about the many things we cannot know. That does not mean I'm unable to see the obvious logical fallacies in religious dogma (e.g. God is omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent, yet we are supposed to have free will, and evil continues to exist).



> This statement most clearly demonstrates the incongruous nature of your argument


there is nothing incongruous, or logically inconsistent in anything you quoted.



> cannot logically denounce religion and actively proselytise against it in an effort to convert others to your beliefs and purport to also have an open mind and embrace uncertainty.


I'm a scientist; science is inherently a method of embracing uncertainty. And I'm not trying to convert anyone, I'm simply arguing against obvious fallacies and absurdities. We cannot know these things are false, but they're absurd and we have no reason to think they're true.

So I embrace uncertainty; I'm very comfortable not knowing for certain that God(s) don't exist. But this is entirely logically consistent with arguing that religion is bunk.

This is essentially the same argument I've made with regard to the distinction between atheism and agnosticism; we don't know, so we don't have beliefs: Agnostic Atheists.


----------



## fjnmusic

Just out of curiousity, Bryan, do you believe life exists in the universe anywhere other than on planet earth?


----------



## bryanc

fjnmusic said:


> Just out of curiousity, Bryan, do you believe life exists in the universe anywhere other than on planet earth?


I'm certainly open to the possibility. Let us consider the facts; we know life can evolve on some planets in our universe (our own planet is existence proof of that), and we have ample evidence that our planet is only one of billions, or trillions of similar planets elsewhere in our galaxy, and that our galaxy is only one of billions or trillions of similar galaxies in our universe.

While I would not say that "I believe life exists elsewhere in our universe", as we have yet to uncover any evidence to support this, I would say the probabilities are good that it does.


----------



## screature

By way of these 6 categories I can most comfortably fit myself within the Seeker-agnostic category.



iMouse said:


> ,,, When anyone mentions Religion, I just politely try change the subject.


That is indeed the same route I take....

No need to ruin a nice get together with talking about religion...

Like the saying goes, "If you can't say something nice then say nothing at all."

I feel no need to and try and subsume the characteristics of the various "categories" into one just to suit my own proclivities and agenda.


----------



## iMouse

Some of my conversations are not necessarily 'nice', although I try to make them so. 

When one is Terminal, you are apt to revisit any prior decisions in your life involving the existence of a god or heaven. They have little need of me getting on their case at that moment. 

As to your last sentence, control freaks LOVE to categorize.


----------



## Lawrence

Had some Jehovahs Witnesses come to my door this morning,
Tough people to get rid of, Finally I just had to say to them that I was a Heathen.

Which is true in most of my views on life in general.

Anyways, It worked, Now I'm sure they are looking it up on Google.

May your God go with you


----------



## bryanc

If you talked to them at all, they'll be back. If you're argumentative, like me, they'll send you their newbies to have them galvanized. It took me quite some time (as some of you have noted, I can be quite dense) to realize that they were using me to train their recruits. I eventually had to be quite forceful to get them to leave me alone.


----------



## Dr.G.

Lawrence said:


> Had some Jehovahs Witnesses come to my door this morning,
> Tough people to get rid of, Finally I just had to say to them that I was a Heathen.
> 
> Which is true in most of my views on life in general.
> 
> Anyways, It worked, Now I'm sure they are looking it up on Google.
> 
> May your God go with you


I tell them that while I am Jewish, my wife is into snake handling and she is down in the basement now with her snakes. So, I plead with them to come in and try and convert her ...................... but they quickly back away .............. never to return for a few years.


----------



## fjnmusic

Another method: I simply say I'm not interested. When they say, but don't you want to spend eternity in the kingdom of heaven? I say, well.... not if it's with a bunch of Jehovah's Witnesses.


----------



## Dr.G.

fjnmusic said:


> Another method: I simply say I'm not interested. When they say, but don't you want to spend eternity in the kingdom of heaven? I say, well.... not if it's with a bunch of Jehovah's Witnesses.


"When they say, but don't you want to spend eternity in the kingdom of heaven?" I am a bit more subtle, fjn. When asked this I simply say, "No. Have a good day." and close the door.


----------



## iMouse

I am perplexed by the idea of doing anything for all eternity.

What's the point?


----------



## fjnmusic

Dr.G. said:


> "When they say, but don't you want to spend eternity in the kingdom of heaven?" I am a bit more subtle, fjn. When asked this I simply say, "No. Have a good day." and close the door.


Understood, Dr. G. But it's a standup comedy joke. It just works better if you tell it in the first person.


----------



## fjnmusic

iMouse said:


> I am perplexed by the idea of doing anything for all eternity.
> 
> What's the point?


Exactly. With no highs or lows, how is heaven any different than hell?


----------



## Dr.G.

fjnmusic said:


> Understood, Dr. G. But it's a standup comedy joke. It just works better if you tell it in the first person.


I see. Good one, fjn. I try not to be rude since they are only doing what they feel is right and it really does not take that much of my time. Paix, mon ami.


----------



## fjnmusic

Dr.G. said:


> I see. Good one, fjn. I try not to be rude since they are only doing what they feel is right and it really does not take that much of my time. Paix, mon ami.


Fair enough, but sometimes they can be a little pushy. My friend simply told them that his life had been going pretty well since he started worshipping the dark one, upon which they bid a hasty retreat.


----------



## Dr.G.

fjnmusic said:


> Fair enough, but sometimes they can be a little pushy. My friend simply told them that his life had been going pretty well since he started worshipping the dark one, upon which they bid a hasty retreat.


 Well, if they are not pushy, I merely say no thanks and wish them well. If they insist and won't let me close the door, I use the snake worshipping ruse. That does the trick.


----------



## fjnmusic

Snakes....why'd it have to be snakes? http://youtu.be/ClwIj3x24Q4


----------



## iMouse

Snakes are cool.

Remember, one got Eve to improve her diet with apples.


----------



## Dr.G.

fjnmusic said:


> Snakes....why'd it have to be snakes? Indianna Jones: Why Did It Have to Be Snakes? - YouTube


I am with him. Next to heights and tight spaces, snakes really scare me. Luckily, in real life, my wife is an Anglican.


----------



## fjnmusic

Dr.G. said:


> I am with him. Next to heights and tight spaces, snakes really scare me. Luckily, in real life, my wife is an Anglican.


Snakes, hey? Than you have to see the guy who cleans the cobra pit (with commentary). Language warning, but it's well worth it. http://youtu.be/ThBrnOlF-8g


----------



## screature

iMouse said:


> I am perplexed by the idea of doing anything for all eternity.
> 
> What's the point?





fjnmusic said:


> Exactly. With no highs or lows, how is heaven any different than hell?


This. 





+
YouTube Video









ERROR: If you can see this, then YouTube is down or you don't have Flash installed.


----------



## bryanc

People who make up stories about an eternal afterlife clearly have no concept of just how long eternity really is.


----------



## screature

bryanc said:


> People who make up stories about an eternal afterlife clearly have no concept of just how long eternity really is.


I don't think you get the irony. It seems your knowledge of David Byrne and the Talking Heads is lacking and yet you post none-the-less.


----------



## fjnmusic

screature said:


> I don't think you get the irony. It seems your knowledge of David Byrne and the Talking Heads is lacking and yet you post none-the-less.


I'm a Tina Weymouth fan from way back.


----------



## bryanc

screature said:


> I don't think you get the irony. It seems your knowledge of David Byrne and the Talking Heads is lacking and yet you post none-the-less.


it seems, as usual, that you have no idea what i know and don't know, and yet you take inappropriate shots at your misinterpretations of my posts nonetheless. Same as it ever was.

I completely get the irony; I've been a Talking Heads fan for decades and know this song very well. I was agreeing with it.

Given that you reflexively disagree with everything I post; apparently without even reading it, why don't you just put me on 'ignore?'


----------



## iMouse

fjnmusic said:


> I'm a Tina Weymouth fan from way back.


She's no Jaco Pastorius, but she's much easier to look at.


----------



## fjnmusic

iMouse said:


> She's no Jaco Pastorius, but she's much easier to look at.


Same as it ever was.


----------



## iMouse

fjnmusic said:


> Same as it ever was.






+
YouTube Video









ERROR: If you can see this, then YouTube is down or you don't have Flash installed.


----------



## screature

bryanc said:


> it seems, as usual, that you have no idea what i know and don't know, and yet you take inappropriate shots at your misinterpretations of my posts nonetheless. Same as it ever was.
> 
> I completely get the irony; I've been a Talking Heads fan for decades and know this song very well. I was agreeing with it.
> 
> Given that you reflexively disagree with everything I post; apparently without even reading it, why don't you just put me on 'ignore?'


My apologies bryanc I clearly must have misunderstood your post. Mea culpa.  

It seemed to me that you were taking a pot shot at the song and its meaning with your comment as clearly David Byrne was being satirical and does comprehend how long eternity is...

As for putting you on ignore I feel no need to do that and yes when it comes to this thread in particular I do disagree with your approach about 90% of the time. You like to argue so I see no reason for why you would take offense to being disagreed with in general.

In this particular case I can see why you would be perturbed because I misunderstood the point you were making. Once again my apologies for my terse comment.


----------



## bryanc

screature said:


> My apologies bryanc I clearly must have misunderstood your post.


Okay, thanks. And you're right, I don't mind being disagreed with; I generally only get annoyed when someone attributes to me something I didn't say.


----------



## fjnmusic

bryanc said:


> Okay, thanks. And you're right, I don't mind being disagreed with; I generally only get annoyed when someone attributes to me something I didn't say.


I'm just a soul whose 
Intentions are good
Oh Lord, please don't 
Let me be misunderstood


----------



## bryanc

fjnmusic and I appear to have grown up listening to much of the same music in the '60s and '70s


----------



## fjnmusic

I thought the words "soul" and "Lord" might get your attention.


----------



## bryanc

As much as I have no use for religion in modern society, I fully appreciate the role it has played in music and the arts. Certainly the works of Bach and the other great composers of the Baroque and Classical eras would not have been possible without the church (or some similar organization), and am truly grateful for their existence despite my disdain for the irrationality of some of the lyrics.

As we progress in the modern era, in which education and science provide viable alternatives to obedience and faith for more and more people, the role of religion in society becomes less ubiquitous, and the focus of our art and culture shifts accordingly. I have no doubt that we will continue to make great art and music without the church, but that does not mean we should not appreciate the art and culture produced by previous generations.


----------



## screature

bryanc said:


> As much as I have no use for religion in modern society, I fully appreciate the role it has played in music and the arts. *Certainly the works of Bach and the other great composers of the Baroque and Classical eras would not have been possible without the church (or some similar organization), and am truly grateful for their existence* despite my disdain for the irrationality of some of the lyrics.
> 
> As we progress in the modern era, in which education and science provide viable alternatives to obedience and faith for more and more people, the role of religion in society becomes less ubiquitous, and the focus of our art and culture shifts accordingly. I have no doubt that we will continue to make great art and music without the church, *but that does not mean we should not appreciate the art and culture produced by previous generations.*


Good on ya for not letting your own personal biases blind you to the beauty that has been created by man for the "glory of god" and certainly Christianity is far from being alone in this practice.


----------



## CubaMark

*Seriously... they should rebrand it the Fox Comedy Channel. *

*Fox News Horrified That A Religious Scholar Who's Muslim Can Write About Jesus*

Reza Aslan is a religious scholar with a PhD in the sociology of religions from the University of California and a Masters of Theological Studies degree from Harvard Divinity School, but that didn't seem nearly enough for Fox News and host Lauren Green who couldn't seem to wrap her head around the fact that "a Muslim" would want to write a book about Jesus Christ. Aslan is the author of a new book, “Zealot: The Life and Times of Jesus of Nazareth”.

*GREEN:* This is an interesting book. Now I want to clarify, you’re a Muslim, so why did you write a book about the founder of Christianity?

*ASLAN: *Well to be clear, I am a scholar of religions with four degrees — including one in the New Testament, and fluency in biblical Greek, who has been studying the origins of Christianity for two decades — who also just happens to be a Muslim. So it’s not that I’m just some Muslim writing about Jesus, I am an expert with a Ph.D in the history of religions…

*GREEN:* But it still begs the question why would you be interested in the founder of Christianity?

*ASLAN: *Because it’s my job as an academic. I am a professor of religion, including the New Testament. That’s what I do for a living, actually.​
_And on it went for nearly 10 minutes, with Green asking the same or similar question seven times._​




+
YouTube Video









ERROR: If you can see this, then YouTube is down or you don't have Flash installed.





(Crooks & Liars)


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> As much as I have no use for religion in modern society, I fully appreciate the role it has played in music and the arts.


As much as I have no real appreciation for atheism, I still enjoy Ayn Rand, J.G. Ballard and Robert Louis Stevenson.


----------



## bryanc

I just saw this in another discussion, and can't resist reposting it here:

"I'm not convinced faith can move mountains, but I've seen what it can do to skyscrapers."


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> I just saw this in another discussion, and can't resist reposting it here:
> 
> "I'm not convinced faith can move mountains, but I've seen what it can do to skyscrapers."


I believe that wasn't faith--it was an airplane crash and subsequent fire.


----------



## fjnmusic

Macfury said:


> I believe that wasn't faith--it was an airplane crash and subsequent fire.


Motivated by the promise of 72 virgins.


----------



## Macfury

fjnmusic said:


> Motivated by the promise of 72 virgins.


You only need a cause--Kamikaze pilots of WWII, for example,


----------



## fjnmusic

Macfury said:


> You only need a cause--Kamikaze pilots of WWII, for example,


But see that's the thing; the cause is usually connected to religion in some way, or what I like to refer to more generically as "belief systems." People will also die voluntarily for the causes of "democracy" or "freedom" or "the war on terror" for example. When someone believes in a concept strongly enough, no amount of persuasion will convince them otherwise. Really, it's more about collective brainwashing. Remember when Americans were gung ho about the "pre-emptive strike" that became the latest war in Iraq? Ten years later, it is alarming how many still believe that was a just war, despite all evidence to the contrary.


----------



## Macfury

fjnmusic said:


> But see that's the thing; the cause is usually connected to religion in some way, or what I like to refer to more generically as "belief systems." People will also die voluntarily for the causes of "democracy" or "freedom" or "the war on terror" for example. When someone believes in a concept strongly enough, no amount of persuasion will convince them otherwise. Really, it's more about collective brainwashing. Remember when Americans were gung ho about the "pre-emptive strike" that became the latest war in Iraq? Ten years later, it is alarming how many still believe that was a just war, despite all evidence to the contrary.


We have plenty of belief systems that are not religions or even brainwashing. I would die to protect my wife or child, but it has nothing to do with religion or a cause.


----------



## bryanc

The problem here is nicely illustrated by this excerpt from Richard Dawkin's excellent essay "Religions Misguided Missiles", published shortly after the September 11th attacks.



Richard Dawkins said:


> Could we get some otherwise normal humans and somehow persuade them that they are not going to die as a consequence of flying a plane smack into a skyscraper? If only! Nobody is that stupid, but how about this - it's a long shot, but it just might work. Given that they are certainly going to die, couldn't we sucker them into believing that they are going to come to life again afterwards? Don't be daft! No, listen, it might work. Offer them a fast track to a Great Oasis in the Sky, cooled by everlasting fountains. Harps and wings wouldn't appeal to the sort of young men we need, so tell them there's a special martyr's reward of 72 virgin brides, guaranteed eager and exclusive.
> 
> Would they fall for it? Yes, testosterone-sodden young men too unattractive to get a woman in this world might be desperate enough to go for 72 private virgins in the next.
> 
> It's a tall story, but worth a try. You'd have to get them young, though. Feed them a complete and self-consistent background mythology to make the big lie sound plausible when it comes. Give them a holy book and make them learn it by heart. Do you know, I really think it might work. As luck would have it, we have just the thing to hand: a ready-made system of mind-control which has been honed over centuries, handed down through generations. Millions of people have been brought up in it. It is called religion and, for reasons which one day we may understand, most people fall for it (nowhere more so than America itself, though the irony passes unnoticed). Now all we need is to round up a few of these faith-heads and give them flying lessons.
> 
> Facetious? Trivialising an unspeakable evil? That is the exact opposite of my intention, which is deadly serious and prompted by deep grief and fierce anger. I am trying to call attention to the elephant in the room that everybody is too polite - or too devout - to notice: religion, and specifically the devaluing effect that religion has on human life. I don't mean devaluing the life of others (though it can do that too), but devaluing one's own life. Religion teaches the dangerous nonsense that death is not the end.


One may rationally sacrifice themselves in the desperate protection of something they value more than their own life. But the rational person only does this as a very last resort. The religious, by having accepted the utterly unsupported idea that they will somehow continue to exist after they die, value their lives (and the lives of others) far less.


----------



## Elric

bryanc said:


> I just saw this in another discussion, and can't resist reposting it here:
> 
> "I'm not convinced faith can move mountains, but I've seen what it can do to skyscrapers."


That's great! I LOLed!


----------



## Elric

Macfury said:


> We have plenty of belief systems that are not religions or even brainwashing. I would die to protect my wife or child, but it has nothing to do with religion or a cause.


Defending isn't a religious cause. Attacking is.


----------



## fjnmusic

Elric said:


> Defending isn't a religious cause. Attacking is.


And the best defense is a good offense.


----------



## iMouse

So the trick is to disarm your enemy, in this case with continual pleas of innocence by the rank and file.

They could distance themselves quite easily. Or can they?

The carrot for Men is the ether-virgins. Not sure about what's in it for Women?

The stick is they will kill you if you don't do as they say.

I doubt that can be defined as faith, by any bizarre stretch of the imagination.


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> But the rational person only does this as a very last resort.


If rationality in this case is defined as "not giving up one's life for a cause," then the definition is circular. Let's flip it around. Are there _irrational_ people who will NOT give up their lives for a cause? Of course. I suspect that the subset of people who will not give up their lives for a cause would be extremely large, approaching 100% in both groups.


----------



## screature

Elric said:


> Defending isn't a religious cause. Attacking is.


Tell that to the Jews at Masada... or any other religious minority being attacked by a religious majority... Ireland, Gaza, Israel, etc., etc., etc., etc...

I mean seriously.


----------



## MacGuiver

screature said:


> Tell that to the Jews at Masada... or any other religious minority being attacked by a religious majority...


Or irreligious majority... former Soviet Union, China, Cambodia, North Korea etc.


----------



## eMacMan

screature said:


> Tell that to the Jews at Masada... or any other religious minority being attacked by a religious majority... Ireland, Gaza, Israel, etc., etc., etc., etc...
> 
> I mean seriously.


Uh you came close, almost all of the casualties in the middle east, well over 99%, are Muslim. As to how big a part Israel plays in those deaths and maimings, depends entirely on whether or not you go by the lamestream media or dig a little deeper.


----------



## bryanc

For my entire life, the middle east has been a powder keg, and the fundamental basis of the disputes between the people there has always been (and no doubt will continue to be) "my invisible friend is better than your invisible friend."

I have no doubt that, were religion to disappear, disputes would continue to occur, but the tribalism and generational conflict that has defined the middle east since WWII would be a thing of the past.


----------



## screature

eMacMan said:


> Uh you came close, almost all of the casualties in the middle east, well over 99%, are Muslim. As to how big a part Israel plays in those deaths and maimings, depends entirely on whether or not you go by the lamestream media or dig a little deeper.



Hardly historically... but it seems you missed that I listed Gaza... We all know your anti-Israel stance.

Also last I checked Israel doesn't deny the right for Syria, Jordan, Iran, Iraq and Lebanon, etc. to exist as do many in those countries deny the right for Israel to exist. 

Your historical perspective on the middle east is decidedly selective and one sided.


----------



## screature

bryanc said:


> For my entire life, the middle east has been a powder keg, and the fundamental basis of the disputes between the people there has always been (and no doubt will continue to be) "my invisible friend is better than your invisible friend."
> 
> I have no doubt that, were religion to disappear, disputes would continue to occur, but *the tribalism and generational conflict that has defined the middle east since WWII *would be a thing of the past.


Try going back a millennia or 3 and then that statement would be more historically accurate.


----------



## iMouse

screature said:


> Your historical perspective on the middle east is decidedly selective and one sided.


"but .... but .... they stole our land!!!"

Ah, yes, a time-honoured tradition since Man discovered that ox femur.


----------



## Dr.G.

screature said:


> Hardly historically... but it seems you missed that I listed Gaza... We all know your anti-Israel stance.
> 
> Also last I checked Israel doesn't deny the right for Syria, Jordan, Iran, Iraq and Lebanon, etc. to exist as do many in those countries deny the right for Israel to exist.
> 
> Your historical perspective on the middle east is decidedly selective and one sided.


Let us hope that Sect. of State Kerry's initiatives in this region are successful. We shall see.


----------



## screature

iMouse said:


> "but .... but .... they stole our land!!!"
> 
> Ah, yes, a time-honoured tradition since Man discovered that ox femur.


Not to mention they raped and killed our women and children... an eye for an eye or a life for an eye seems to be part of human nature since the beginning... regardless of whether or not religion was part of the equation.


----------



## bryanc

An interesting image to use to illustrate your point, Screature, given Arthur Clarke's well-known position on religion and it's role in the bloody history of our species.


----------



## iMouse

You're getting closer.

We are still not that far removed from animals, with the exception that animals do it by instinct.

We should know better.


----------



## bryanc

iMouse said:


> We are still not that far removed from animals, with the exception that animals do it by instinct.
> 
> We should know better.


There have been several studies now that show that many non-human animals have significant awareness of the long-term consequences of their actions, and a sense of morality. I, perhaps optimistically, think humans are at the most developed end of this spectrum, but we're far from unique in our ability to consider wether what we do is right or wrong. And more relevantly to this thread, we certainly don't need gods or any other supernatural agents to make these decisions.


----------



## fjnmusic

bryanc said:


> There have been several studies now that show that many non-human animals have significant awareness of the long-term consequences of their actions, and a sense of morality. I, perhaps optimistically, think humans are at the most developed end of this spectrum, but we're far from unique in our ability to consider wether what we do is right or wrong. And more relevantly to this thread, we certainly don't need gods or any other supernatural agents to make these decisions.


Perhaps, but it does make it a lot easier to blame or credit some supernatural deity for our mistakes than to take responsibility for our own actions.


----------



## fjnmusic

Food for thought.


----------



## JCCanuck

bryanc said:


> There have been several studies now that show that many non-human animals have significant awareness of the long-term consequences of their actions, and a sense of morality. I, perhaps optimistically, think humans are at the most developed end of this spectrum, but we're far from unique in our ability to consider wether what we do is right or wrong. And more relevantly to this thread, we certainly don't need gods or any other supernatural agents to make these decisions.


Your right to some degree, my wife makes all my decisions


----------



## bryanc

fjnmusic said:


> Food for thought.
> View attachment 31898


I disagree with Dyer's contention that refusal to investigate something you know nothing about is the ultimate ignorance; it's certainly not optimal, but it can sometimes be necessary. In my opinion the ultimate ignorance is making up explanations for the unknown, and then proclaiming those explanations are The Truth(TM), and no other explanations need be sought or considered.

Someone who admits ignorance, even if they choose not to learn the answers to the questions regarding which they are ignorant, at least does not interfere with others who might make progress on those questions.

As Mark Twain said, "It ain't what you don't know that'll hurt you, it's what you _do_ know that ain't so."

By making so many of the important philosophical questions matters of faith, many religions effectively extinguish intellectual progress. Science resolutely avoids making proclamations about matters outside it's domain, and is therefore, in a sense, guilty of what Dyer is saying. But as long as we don't interfere with the mathematicians and philosophers who work outside the boundaries of the natural sciences, we aren't interfering with intellectual progress that is not within our power to assist.

Recognizing your limits is not ignorance, it's wisdom.


----------



## screature

bryanc said:


> An interesting image to use to illustrate your point, Screature, given Arthur Clarke's well-known position on religion and it's role in the bloody history of our species.


Actually I didn't post the image to illustrate anything, I was merely quoting and commenting on the post of iMouse who used the image.


----------



## fjnmusic

bryanc said:


> I disagree with Dyer's contention that refusal to investigate something you know nothing about is the ultimate ignorance; it's certainly not optimal, but it can sometimes be necessary. In my opinion the ultimate ignorance is making up explanations for the unknown, and then proclaiming those explanations are The Truth(TM), and no other explanations need be sought or considered.
> 
> Someone who admits ignorance, even if they choose not to learn the answers to the questions regarding which they are ignorant, at least does not interfere with others who might make progress on those questions.
> 
> As Mark Twain said, "It ain't what you don't know that'll hurt you, it's what you _do_ know that ain't so."
> 
> By making so many of the important philosophical questions matters of faith, many religions effectively extinguish intellectual progress. Science resolutely avoids making proclamations about matters outside it's domain, and is therefore, in a sense, guilty of what Dyer is saying. But as long as we don't interfere with the mathematicians and philosophers who work outside the boundaries of the natural sciences, we aren't interfering with intellectual progress that is not within our power to assist.
> 
> Recognizing your limits is not ignorance, it's wisdom.


No, I think Dyer nailed it and I'm surprised you disagree. To ignore, which is where ignorance comes from, is illustrated quite well when someone ignores a scientific finding, like the heliocentric solar system for example, and refuses to alter their belief and even persecute others for proclaiming otherwise in spite of the large amounts of evidence to the contrary. It took the church 400 years to admit they were wrong about Galileo, for example. That's ignorance writ large.


----------



## CubaMark

*11 Things The Bible Bans, But You Do Anyway*

*Excerpt:*

*Letting people without testicles into church.* Whether you've been castrated or lost one or two balls to cancer isn't important. The Bible doesn't get that specific. It just says you can't pray.

_Deuteronomy 23:1_ reads (this is the God's Word translation, which spells it out better), "A man whose testicles are crushed or whose penis is cut off may never join the assembly of the Lord."​
_Seriously, who wrote this stuff? _ :lmao:


----------



## Macfury

CubaMark said:


> *11 Things The Bible Bans, But You Do Anyway*
> 
> *Excerpt:*
> 
> *Letting people without testicles into church.* Whether you've been castrated or lost one or two balls to cancer isn't important. The Bible doesn't get that specific. It just says you can't pray.
> 
> _Deuteronomy 23:1_ reads (this is the God's Word translation, which spells it out better), "A man whose testicles are crushed or whose penis is cut off may never join the assembly of the Lord."​
> _Seriously, who wrote this stuff? _ :lmao:


What I take from this post is that your testicles have been crushed, but you continue going to church!!??


----------



## bryanc

fjnmusic said:


> No, I think Dyer nailed it and I'm surprised you disagree. To ignore, which is where ignorance comes from, is illustrated quite well when someone ignores a scientific finding, like the heliocentric solar system for example, and refuses to alter their belief and even persecute others for proclaiming otherwise in spite of the large amounts of evidence to the contrary. It took the church 400 years to admit they were wrong about Galileo, for example. That's ignorance writ large.


That illustrates my point; it's far worse to pretend you have an answer when you don't (and therefore to repress anyone who comes up with an alternative answer), than it is to simply say "I can't answer that question."

The admission of ignorance is the first step towards understanding, etymology notwithstanding. I agree with Dyer that those who refuse to go beyond that first step are embracing their ignorance, but it's not the "ultimate ignorance" in that it doesn't prevent others from answering the question.

What religion has done for centuries is what I consider the ultimate ignorance; not only failing to answer questions correctly, but fabricating answers that prevent others from pursuing truth.


----------



## fjnmusic

bryanc said:


> That illustrates my point; it's far worse to pretend you have an answer when you don't (and therefore to repress anyone who comes up with an alternative answer), than it is to simply say "I can't answer that question."
> 
> The admission of ignorance is the first step towards understanding, etymology notwithstanding. I agree with Dyer that those who refuse to go beyond that first step are embracing their ignorance, but it's not the "ultimate ignorance" in that it doesn't prevent others from answering the question.
> 
> What religion has done for centuries is what I consider the ultimate ignorance; not only failing to answer questions correctly, but fabricating answers that prevent others from pursuing truth.


Still don't get what you're in a twist about on this one. What Dyer is criticizing is ignorance, religious or any other kind. One simply cannot learn anything unless one is willing to accept that there are things they don't know. That Dyer himself is Catholic is irrelevant. He speaks truth. Unless we can first accept that we don't know everything, we can not make progress. Not all religions assume they have all the answers, yet you seem to make the basic assumption that all religions work the same way. You are mistaken, my friend, and indeed exemplify some of the same ignorance Dyer refers to here by refusing to consider that there may be more to life that what you think you know. Closed minds exist in scientific circles just as much as anywhere else.


----------



## SINC

fjnmusic said:


> You are mistaken, my friend, and indeed exemplify some of the same ignorance Dyer refers to here by refusing to consider that there may be more to life that what you think you know. Closed minds exist in scientific circles just as much as anywhere else.


:clap:

Some people, smart as they claim to be, just never fully get the big picture.


----------



## fjnmusic

SINC said:


> :clap:
> 
> Some people, smart as they claim to be, just never fully get the big picture.


Amen, brother.


----------



## Macfury

fjnmusic said:


> Amen, brother.


We're in agreement once again, mr. music.


----------



## bryanc

fjnmusic said:


> Still don't get what you're in a twist about on this one.


I'm not in a twist; I'm simply saying that Dyer's position that refusing to address your own ignorance is "the ultimate" ignorance is incorrect. Embracing your own ignorance does not prevent others from investigating the unknown. What the the major Abrahamic religions promote is the acceptance of fairytales on the basis of faith; that is the ultimate ignorance. Not just accepting your ignorance, but pretending it is knowledge, and preventing anyone from disputing your fairytales.



> One simply cannot learn anything unless one is willing to accept that there are things they don't know.


I agree and have said so several times in this thread.



> That Dyer himself is Catholic is irrelevant.


I didn't even know he was Catholic and couldn't care less. My argument is with his statement to the effect that refusing to admit your own ignorance is the ultimate ignorance... I agree with him that it is an egregious form of ignorance and it certainly prevents one from learning. But it doesn't prevent others from learning, so there are yet worse forms of ignorance, and we call them religions.



> Unless we can first accept that we don't know everything, we can not make progress.


This is the foundation of scientific thinking. I understand this completely and agree unreservedly.



> Not all religions assume they have all the answers, yet you seem to make the basic assumption that all religions work the same way.


I know this too, having studied religion extensively during my minor in Philosophy at the U of A. The fact that not all religions have this nasty characteristic does not change the fact that many do.



> You are mistaken, my friend, and indeed exemplify some of the same ignorance Dyer refers to here by refusing to consider that there may be more to life that what you think you know.


It is you who are mistaken, in your assumptions about what I know, what I believe, and why I believe those things; the irony here is rich, in that you accuse me of ignorance.


----------



## fjnmusic

bryanc said:


> I'm not in a twist; I'm simply saying that Dyer's position that refusing to address your own ignorance is "the ultimate" ignorance is incorrect. Embracing your own ignorance does not prevent others from investigating the unknown. What the the major Abrahamic religions promote is the acceptance of fairytales on the basis of faith; that is the ultimate ignorance. Not just accepting your ignorance, but pretending it is knowledge, and preventing anyone from disputing your fairytales.
> 
> 
> I agree and have said so several times in this thread.
> 
> 
> I didn't even know he was Catholic and couldn't care less. My argument is with his statement to the effect that refusing to admit your own ignorance is the ultimate ignorance... I agree with him that it is an egregious form of ignorance and it certainly prevents one from learning. But it doesn't prevent others from learning, so there are yet worse forms of ignorance, and we call them religions.
> 
> 
> This is the foundation of scientific thinking. I understand this completely and agree unreservedly.
> 
> 
> I know this too, having studied religion extensively during my minor in Philosophy at the U of A. The fact that not all religions have this nasty characteristic does not change the fact that many do.
> 
> 
> It is you who are mistaken, in your assumptions about what I know, what I believe, and why I believe those things; the irony here is rich, in that you accuse me of ignorance.


Well sometimes I get the strong feeling that if I were to claim that I see a pink elephant in the room, you would need to convince me that is in fact green, and that it is not really an elephant but a grasshopper, and that it is not a room but rather a bus stop. If the word "ultimate" bothers you, then just leave it out and see if the statement makes sense. I share Dyer's quote because I like it and believe he is wise and it seems like the only thing you like to do is take a big **** all over it. There are other ways to have a conversation, Bryan. I also took some philosophy courses at U of A. What you could use right now is a course in diplomacy.


----------



## bryanc

fjnmusic said:


> Well sometimes I get the strong feeling that if I were to claim that I see a pink elephant in the room, you would need to convince me that is in fact green, and that it is not really an elephant but a grasshopper, and that it is not a room but rather a bus stop.


Well, this is the 'religion thread', the express purpose of which is to argue about things religious.

I would re-phrase your metaphor above as follows; you as the religious person, claim there's an invisible pink elephant in the room. I as the atheist, say no, that's preposterous; not only is there no evidence of an elephant of any sort, the room is far too small to contain such a creature, and we have no need to posit the existence of such a creature to explain the spilled drink. A far more parsimonious explanation is that the dog, which is plainly visible and who's tail wags at exactly coffee table height, knocked it over. However, as neither of us actually saw what happened, we cannot know for certain.



> If the word "ultimate" bothers you, then just leave it out and see if the statement makes sense.


If you look at my first post following yours, you'll see that is exactly what I did. And I said that I agreed with the statement with that caveat.



> I share Dyer's quote because I like it and believe he is wise and it seems like the only thing you like to do is take a big **** all over it.


It seems to me that it is you who are reacting emotionally to this; I simply responded to the quote by suggesting that it was sub-optimal; that there are other flavours of ignorance which are more egregious, and that, apropos to the thread, they are characteristic of religion.



> What you could use right now is a course in diplomacy.


Again, I think the cause of the rancour here is your emotional response to my criticism of the Dyer quote, but I'm always open to learning new things; given the flaw in Dyer's statement that I have demonstrated, how might I have presented my case more diplomatically?


----------



## fjnmusic

Well, for starters, you could just accept a statement at face value instead of needing to redefine it. That doesn't mean you have to agree, by the way; it just means you're willing to discuss the idea, the concept, without nitpicking the definition. The quote I used wasn't even about religion specifically....it was about ignorance and being obtuse when there is a larger picture to consider. Theists definitely do not have the market cornered on being closed-minded, and I have observed scientific minds to be equally set in their ways despite your explanation of the scientific method. Furthermore, millions of people believe the word of scientists today the same way people used to believe the word of rabbis and bishops and other holy men. They do not wish to think for themselves. This is the part of the quote that I wished to focus on.


----------



## bryanc

fjnmusic said:


> Well, for starters, you could just accept a statement at face value instead of needing to redefine it.


Well, if I just accepted it, we wouldn't have much to discuss would we? As I said at the outset, I basically agree, with the caveat that the type of ignorance Dyer is describing as "the ultimate ignorance" is not the ultimate ignorance, and can even, in some circumstances, be necessary (e.g. in the example I gave, when the conceptual tools you're working with do not apply to a given problem, you have to accept that you aren't going to answer certain questions, and recognizing the limitations of your approach is an important epistemological accomplishment).



> it just means you're willing to discuss the idea, the concept, without nitpicking the definition.


I don't think I'm nitpicking. If someone said "financial success is the ultimate happiness", would you consider it nitpicking to say that "well, it's nice to have money, but there are other things in life that are more important"?



> Theists definitely do not have the market cornered on being closed-minded, and I have observed scientific minds to be equally set in their ways despite your explanation of the scientific method.


I certainly don't think the problem of close-mindedness is restricted to theists or scientists. But I do find it somewhat ironic that you seem to be implying here that I may be close-minded, given that I'm the one questioning the proclamations of the ostensibly wise, and you're the one defending them


----------



## bryanc

An interesting paper was just published in Personality and Social Psychology Review (a peer-reviewed academic journal of the Society for Personality and Social Psychology). What is interesting about this papers is that it not only verifies and expands upon the well-known negative correlation between religiosity and intelligence, it proposes some thought-provoking mechanisms that may underly this widely recognized relationship.

Firstly, the authors note that highly intelligent people are often non-confomists. And given that most societies are dominated by religious adherents, the authors propose that the propensity of highly intelligent people to buck the societal norms may be partly responsible for this correlation. They do note, however, that many of the Scandinavian countries are predominantly atheist, and they do not observe any reversal of the correlation in those countries.

Secondly, the authors propose the cognitive style of individuals scoring highly on IQ tests or other measures of intelligence may be at least partly responsible for their tendency to reject religion. Analytical, rational, logical thinking runs counter to faith-based belief systems.

Thirdly, the authors propose that religion provides many individuals with a feeling of external control, or of being protected from a frightening, incomprehensible universe, and that intelligent people have less need for this.

Fourth, the authors suggest that religion serves society and individuals as a mechanism of behavioural regulation, and again, this is redundant for the intelligent individuals who are able to rationally understand why they need to behave within socially acceptable norms.

Fifth, religion has been shown to boost self-esteem, and again, so does intelligence, so again, intelligence can compensate for the lack of religion in a person's belief system.

Finally, religious adherence provides individuals with social connectivity, and the authors suggest intelligence, which other research has shown increases the ability of individuals to form and maintain interpersonal relationships, again compensates for this; bright people are less likely to need the social support of a church.

Certainly very interesting reading. If anyone has trouble accessing the article, PM me for a PDF copy by email.


----------



## fjnmusic

Do you consider Albert Einstein to be an intelligent person?


----------



## bryanc

As a single individual, Einstein's intelligence and beliefs are of no significance in this context, but he certainly would be a single data point that fits the correlation.



Albert Einstein said:


> I cannot conceive of a God who rewards and punishes his creatures, or has a will of the type of which we are conscious in ourselves. An individual who should survive his physical death is also beyond my comprehension, nor do I wish it otherwise; such notions are for the fears or absurd egoism of feeble souls.





Albert Einstein said:


> My position concerning God is that of an agnostic. I am convinced that a vivid consciousness of the primary importance of moral principles for the betterment and ennoblement of life does not need the idea of a law-giver, especially a law-giver who works on the basis of reward and punishment.


Of course, many religious apologists have tried to claim that Einstein was an adherent, which annoyed Einstein a great deal


Albert Einstein said:


> It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly.


----------



## screature

bryanc said:


> ...Certainly very interesting reading. *If anyone has trouble accessing the article*, PM me for a PDF copy by email.


Is there any way to read it if you aren't a subscriber? If there is I can't see how and if there is maybe you could tell us how.


----------



## bryanc

screature said:


> Is there any way to read it if you aren't a subscriber? If there is I can't see how and if there is maybe you could tell us how.


I don't know; I accessed the PDF through my institutional subscription. PM me with an email address and I'll send you the PDF.


----------



## JCCanuck

*Albert Einstein's 'God Letter'*



bryanc said:


> As a single individual, Einstein's intelligence and beliefs are of no significance in this context, but he certainly would be a single data point that fits the correlation.
> 
> Of course, many religious apologists have tried to claim that Einstein was an adherent, which annoyed Einstein a great deal


There is also this "God Letter" written by Einstein saying, "The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honorable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation, no matter how subtle, can (for me) change this."
For more details see this link, Albert Einstein's 'God Letter' To Be Auctioned On eBay With An Opening Bid Of $3 Million (PHOTO)


----------



## JCCanuck

*Albert Einstein's 'God Letter'*

Ooops! I accidentally sent my posting twice. Sorry!


----------



## fjnmusic

bryanc said:


> As a single individual, Einstein's intelligence and beliefs are of no significance in this context, but he certainly would be a single data point that fits the correlation.
> 
> 
> 
> Of course, many religious apologists have tried to claim that Einstein was an adherent, which annoyed Einstein a great deal


So, to answer the question, you see Einstein as an intelligent person? Or not?


----------



## bryanc

I never dealt with him personally, and I'm not a physicist, so I'm in no position to evaluate his contribution to science critically. However, what I've read of his thinking on philosophical and sociological topics leads me to believe that he was certainly very insightful, so I'd say yes, he was likely an unusually bright man. But this isn't really a yes-or-no question; Einstein was exceptional in some regards, but fairly average in others. Overall, I think we'd have to categorize him as intelligent, but that doesn't mean everything he said was true or that all his ideas were good.

What are you getting at here anyway?


----------



## fjnmusic

bryanc said:


> I never dealt with him personally, and I'm not a physicist, so I'm in no position to evaluate his contribution to science critically. However, what I've read of his thinking on philosophical and sociological topics leads me to believe that he was certainly very insightful, so I'd say yes, he was likely an unusually bright man. But this isn't really a yes-or-no question; Einstein was exceptional in some regards, but fairly average in others. Overall, I think we'd have to categorize him as intelligent, but that doesn't mean everything he said was true or that all his ideas were good.
> 
> What are you getting at here anyway?


I'm saying I asked you a fairly simple question regarding your perception of Einstein's intelligence or lack thereof, and which you answered by explaining all the reasons Einstein is not religious. In other words, you didn't really answer the question. Some of the greatest blunders have come from anticipating the next argument before it has been given. Also, anyone can cherry pick.

My understanding is that Einstein, whom I consider to be a very intelligent man based on the insights I have seen from his writings and quotes, was a believer in both science and religion, but the kind of religion he advocated was more of a cosmic nature. Kind of like what I believe in.



> In his 1949 book The World as I See It, he wrote: "A knowledge of the existence of something we cannot penetrate, of the manifestations of the profoundest reason and the most radiant beauty, which are only accessible to our reason in their most elementary forms—it is this knowledge and this emotion that constitute the truly religious attitude; in this sense, and in this alone, I am a deeply religious man."[36]
> 
> Einstein referred to his belief system as "cosmic religion" and authored an eponymous article on the subject in 1954, which later became his book Ideas and Opinions in 1955.[37] The belief system recognized a "miraculous order which manifests itself in all of nature as well as in the world of ideas," devoid of a personal God who rewards and punishes individuals based on their behavior. It rejected a conflict between science and religion, and held that cosmic religion was necessary for science.[37] He told William Hermanns in an interview that "God is a mystery. But a comprehensible mystery. I have nothing but awe when I observe the laws of nature. There are not laws without a lawgiver, but how does this lawgiver look? Certainly not like a man magnified."[38] He added with a smile "some centuries ago I would have been burned or hanged. Nonetheless, I would have been in good company."[38]


Religious views of Albert Einstein - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## bryanc

As far as I understand it, Einstein was a Spinozian agnostic-atheist. He did not believe in any gods, but recognized that one could not prove such things do not exist. Spinoza developed a lot of interesting ideas around this sort of materialistic deism. I think you'd like Spinoza. Personally, I find it too flaky and lacking in testability or explanatory power, but I certainly don't object to it the way I object to Abrahamic religions.


----------



## fjnmusic

bryanc said:


> As far as I understand it, Einstein was a Spinozian agnostic-atheist. He did not believe in any gods, but recognized that one could not prove such things do not exist. Spinoza developed a lot of interesting ideas around this sort of materialistic deism. I think you'd like Spinoza. Personally, I find it too flaky and lacking in testability or explanatory power, but I certainly don't object to it the way I object to Abrahamic religions.


I'll keep an eye out for him. From my understanding, Einstein actually rejected atheism because he found them to be a little too absolute for his liking. 



> Einstein rejected the label atheist. Einstein stated: "I have repeatedly said that in my opinion the idea of a personal God is a childlike one. You may call me an agnostic, but I do not share the crusading spirit of the professional atheist whose fervor is mostly due to a painful act of liberation from the fetters of religious indoctrination received in youth. I prefer an attitude of humility corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of nature and of our own being."[1] According to Prince Hubertus, Einstein said, "In view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognize, there are yet people who say there is no God. But what really makes me angry is that they quote me for the support of such views."[18]


----------



## bryanc

fjnmusic said:


> Einstein actually rejected atheism because he found them to be a little too absolute for his liking.


Einstein rejected 'strong atheism' for the same reason I do. You can't prove a negative unless you have absolute and complete knowledge of the system. So believing that there is no god is not rational.

From all of his writing, he was a "weak atheist", wether he accepted the label or not, because he did not have any belief(s) in/about god(s). However, he had good political reasons to distance himself from the term "atheist" because at the time, Joseph McCarthy et al. were busy rounding up atheists and communists and putting them on trial. Even today, publicly admitting one is an atheist is dangerous, and essentially demolishes any public standing one might have in the US. Despite the fact that, depending on what statistics you use, between 10 and 30% of Americans are irreligious, you'll be hard pressed to find elected officials at any level who don't claim to be religious.


----------



## fjnmusic

Would a weak atheist be an advocate for what he terms cosmic religion? I think it would be more reasonable to conclude that Einstein simply was not an atheist, no matter how much we wish he were.


----------



## bryanc

fjnmusic said:


> Would a weak atheist be an advocate for what he terms cosmic religion?


if he or she were a pandeist, sure, why not? There are Buddhists who fit the definition of 'atheist' and adherents of various other religions in which no deity is required. So atheism does not necessarily exclude all religious beliefs.


> I think it would be more reasonable to conclude that Einstein simply was not an atheist, no matter how much we wish he were.


In that he expressed no belief in god(s), he was by definition, an atheist. However, in the socio-political context of the day, he eschewed that label for very good reasons, as do many who are technically atheists today.


----------



## fjnmusic

bryanc said:


> if he or she were a pandeist, sure, why not? There are Buddhists who fit the definition of 'atheist' and adherents of various other religions in which no deity is required. So atheism does not necessarily exclude all religious beliefs.
> 
> In that he expressed no belief in god(s), he was by definition, an atheist. However, in the socio-political context of the day, he eschewed that label for very good reasons, as do many who are technically atheists today.


In that he himself asserts that he is not an atheist and doesn't like atheists putting words in his mouth, I believe it is reasonable to conclude that he is not.


----------



## bryanc

fjnmusic said:


> In that he himself assert*ed* that he *was* not an atheist and d*idn't* like atheists putting words in his mouth, I believe it is reasonable to conclude that he *was* not.


{corrected tense}
I understand your point, but it's important to consider the historical context (which is why I'm emphasizing the fact that his statements were made in the past) as well and the philosophical distinction between strong and weak atheism.

In the historical context, the word "atheist" was a label that was apt to get you in a lot of trouble (and still can), and furthermore, the semantically subtle (but logically profound) distinction between strong and weak atheism was generally ignored. On the basis of his statements, Einstein was a weak atheist (one without belief in god), wether he accepted the label or not. He was clearly not a strong atheist (one who believes there is no god), but I've never encountered a strong atheist; I'm told such people exist and I don't really doubt it, but they're clearly not philosophically inclined, as strong atheism is an philosophically indefensible position.

I certainly understand why, in the historical context, he would want to distance himself from the word 'atheist.' I'd probably have done the same thing. But that does not mean we can't look at what he wrote, what he said, conclude that he did not believe in god, and recognize that he was therefore an atheist, regardless of his eschewing that label.


----------



## fjnmusic

bryanc said:


> {corrected tense}
> I understand your point, but it's important to consider the historical context (which is why I'm emphasizing the fact that his statements were made in the past) as well and the philosophical distinction between strong and weak atheism.
> 
> In the historical context, the word "atheist" was a label that was apt to get you in a lot of trouble (and still can), and furthermore, the semantically subtle (but logically profound) distinction between strong and weak atheism was generally ignored. On the basis of his statements, Einstein was a weak atheist (one without belief in god), wether he accepted the label or not. He was clearly not a strong atheist (one who believes there is no god), but I've never encountered a strong atheist; I'm told such people exist and I don't really doubt it, but they're clearly not philosophically inclined, as strong atheism is an philosophically indefensible position.
> 
> I certainly understand why, in the historical context, he would want to distance himself from the word 'atheist.' I'd probably have done the same thing. But that does not mean we can't look at what he wrote, what he said, conclude that he did not believe in god, and recognize that he was therefore an atheist, regardless of his eschewing that label.


Here we go with the micromanaging of other people's words again. I wanted "is" so I wrote "is." If I wanted "was" I would have stated "was." Didn't need to be "corrected." This goes back to the criticism I made earlier. For the record, ALL statements made by anyone ever were in the past, including this one. This is what I'm saying.

It kinda sorta seems like you want to claim you know what Einstein meant even better than Einstein himself did. It sucks when the facts don't quite fit your own world view.


----------



## bryanc

No, I'm saying that Einsteins statements fit the definition of weak atheism, wether he agreed or not.

If someone says "I'm not a racist, I just hate white people" the fact that they don't accept the label racist does not change the fact that the word "racist" describes them. The fact Einstein did not like the label "atheist" does not change the fact that it describes his philosophy.

The facts fit this view perfectly, wether I like it or not. If the facts did not fit this view of the world, I would have to change my view. I am compelled to believe by reason and evidence, not how I wish things were.

I'm sorry you didn't like my adjustment of the tense, but the fact that Einstein is dead means that all the things he said and believed were in the past. Certainly any thing that one says immediately becomes part of the past, but if still living, the individual who said those things can still be actively holding those positions, so it is sensible to make statements in the present tense about those beliefs. The same does not pertain to someone who is dead.


----------



## fjnmusic

bryanc said:


> No, I'm saying that Einsteins statements fit the definition of weak atheism, wether he agreed or not.
> 
> If someone says "I'm not a racist, I just hate white people" the fact that they don't accept the label racist does not change the fact that the word "racist" describes them. The fact Einstein did not like the label "atheist" does not change the fact that it describes his philosophy.
> 
> The facts fit this view perfectly, wether I like it or not. If the facts did not fit this view of the world, I would have to change my view. I am compelled to believe by reason and evidence, not how I wish things were.
> 
> I'm sorry you didn't like my adjustment of the tense, but the fact that Einstein is dead means that all the things he said and believed were in the past. Certainly any thing that one says immediately becomes part of the past, but if still living, the individual who said those things can still be actively holding those positions, so it is sensible to make statements in the present tense about those beliefs. The same does not pertain to someone who is dead.


Not unless their spirit lives on, in which case they are still very much with us in the present tense. Ha! Thought you'd like that one.


----------



## fjnmusic

Something I think BryanC in particular might like.


----------



## bryanc

Thanks; that's going in my collection.


----------



## CubaMark




----------



## Macfury

Sadly, peer-review is no longer the gold standard for such things.


----------



## CubaMark

*Fascinating!*

*The tragic tale of George Smith and Gilgamesh*

_In 1873, the Telegraph funded a groundbreaking expedition. Now, a new book by Vybarr Cregan-Reid tells the story of what happened when George Smith rediscovered The Epic of Gilgamesh._​
​
...without the enterprising public spirit of the paper’s editor-in-chief, Edwin Arnold, the Epic might still be buried in the sands of Nineveh, just outside Mosul in Iraq. The poem went on to become one of the most important archaeological finds of the 19th century. Even today, it is still the oldest substantial epic that we have.​* * *​The poem tells of the adventures of the king of Uruk in Mesopotamia from around 4,000 years ago. The reason that the Epic’s rediscovery caused such a controversy in the 1870s was that the King’s voyages were analogues for stories from the Old Testament, pressed into clay at least 1,000 years before the Bible’s first books and many centuries before Homer. The impact of the discovery challenged literary and biblical scholarship and would help to redefine beliefs about the age of the Earth.
The ''flood’’ tablet constituted the 11th part of the 12-book Epic​* * *​Smith’s notebooks in the British Library recount his descent into delirium, and the final pages make for heartbreaking reading. He set off for England, but died before he got as far as Aleppo. He was 36, only four years into his career as an Assyriologist. The newspapers mourned Smith’s early passing. They explained that he had died exercising a heroic commitment to the science.​* * *​Had he not died so young, Smith could have gone on to become the Darwin of archaeology. As it is, even the little work that he was able to do still refashioned the landscape of his own and other disciplines forever.​
(TelegraphUK)​


----------



## Macfury

Gilga-who?


----------



## Dr.G.

Macfury said:


> Gilga-who?


The Epic of Gilgamesh, an epic poem from Mesopotamia, is amongst the earliest surviving works of literature.


----------



## fjnmusic

Dr.G. said:


> The Epic of Gilgamesh, an epic poem from Mesopotamia, is amongst the earliest surviving works of literature.


It was referenced in the "Darmok" episode of Star Trek: The Next Generation, when Captain Picard and Captain Dathon were stuck on a remote planet with some kind of scary entity, and they could not communicate with one another except by metaphor.


----------



## Macfury

Dr.G. said:


> The Epic of Gilgamesh, an epic poem from Mesopotamia, is amongst the earliest surviving works of literature.


Dr. G., I was only joking. Anyone who grew up with the_ Chariots of the Gods _knows Gilgamesh.


----------



## Dr.G.

Macfury said:


> Dr. G., I was only joking. Anyone who grew up with the_ Chariots of the Gods _knows Gilgamesh.


OK. Paix, mon ami. I was always interested in Von Däniken's specuations.


----------



## CubaMark




----------



## CubaMark

*George Bush’s Second Coming – Dubya on a Christian mission to convert Jews*



_If George W Bush thought he was done being controversial, it appears he was mistaken. Next week, the 43rd US president will deliver the keynote address at a fundraising event for the Messianic Jewish Bible Institute (MBJI), a global organisation that trains its members to convert Jews to Christianity, in the hope of bringing about the Second Coming of Christ.

Messianic Judaism first emerged as an evangelical force in the 1960s. Its adherents are made up of Christians who have adopted Jewish ritual and customs, and Jewish people who believe that Jesus is the Messiah and the son of God. The sect is frequently criticised by Jews of other denominations for its claim that Christian beliefs are consistent with Jewish theology.

In 2010, former Republican Senator Rick Santorum spoke at the Messianic Jewish Alliance of America’s annual conference._​* * *​_his reputation has benefited by his absence from the public eye. A recent Gallup poll founded that 49 per cent of Americans now view Mr Bush favourably, as opposed to 46 per cent who view him unfavourably – his first positive approval ratings since before his administration’s bungled response to Hurricane Katrina in 2005.

According to Days of Fire: Bush and Cheney in the White House, a new book by New York Times White House correspondent Peter Baker, one of the 43rd president’s associates likes to describe his post-presidential life by comparing it to his predecessor’s. “Clinton is a citizen of the world,” the friend says, “and Bush is a citizen of Dallas.”_​
(IndependentUK)


----------



## Dr.G.

Very interesting, CM. We shall see.

Lewis Black - The Old Testament - YouTube


----------



## CubaMark




----------



## fjnmusic

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## MacGuiver

fjnmusic said:


> View attachment 37802
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Relative to the poor in the 3rd world, your average Canadian is no less affluent than the dude in the top hat. We feel good castigating them for their greed but are we really all that much better? 
I think we'll be in for a shock when we too are judged for how we used our resources. We like to point fingers at the rich and no doubt their may be just cause, but their are likely just as many fingers pointed at us from people living in tin shacks with dirt floors. 
I'm reminded of the scene in Shindler's list where he's weeping at the fact he kept his ring when he could have used it to buy freedom for more Jews than he already did. I don't think your average Canadian is much better than the 1%er, just selfish on a smaller scale.


----------



## CubaMark

Then I suggest you have no idea of the excesses of the rich the world over. As for the average Canadian - their cost of living is considerably higher than the majority of the poor in the Third World, whose shelter expenses don't need to take into account things like Winter (speaking very generally, of course). 

But that's not the point. Why on earth would you bring up the average Canadian and compare him/her to a person in the Third World who is poor? There is a crapload of money and privilege in the Third World... the income disparities here in Mexico are beyond obscene. Over 50% of the population is *officially* 45.5% (the actual number is higher, and the measurement methods tend to curve downward). And yet the luxury SUVs on the roads... the Mercedes and BMWs.... the enormous houses of politicians and others in a position to rob the country blind... hugely discouraging. And this is a country that is steadfastly Catholic..... but one would have to be suspicious of many who claim to be Christian....


----------



## fjnmusic

Not to mention they the subject of this cartoon is trickle-down economics and the tendency for those who have to choose not to share with those who have not. It's the American Dream after all! And to some extent the Canadian one as well. It seems to me trickle-down economics is the theory that if you support the rich companies, the employees and all others will benefit indirectly as well. But just look at the continual high pay of CEO's during this most recession, for instance, and you see it's more about take the money and run.

On a related note...good to see you again, MacGuiver! For a while there I thought you had simply become Phuviano. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## MacGuiver

This image pretty much sums up my point. While we rant and castigate the wealthy for not looking after the poor, the average Canadian holds in his hands the means to do incredible good for people lacking the bare essentials of life. The $5 this morally outraged guy spent on his luxury latte is a months wages or more for the poor in some desperate 3rd world country. 
On a biblical level as this cartoon points out, If we're going to point fingers at the rich for being greedy, we must remember we will also be judged on how generous we were with our wealth. Many of us will fail that test miserably just as the extremely wealthy can.


----------



## Macfury

fjnmusic said:


> View attachment 37802
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


The notion of Jesus as Marxist is for "progressives" who have not read, or do not understand, the Bible.


----------



## CubaMark

MacGuiver said:


> The $5 this morally outraged guy spent on his luxury latte is a months wages or more for the poor in some desperate 3rd world country.


Oh good lord. And I'm an atheist, so you can imagine how frustrated that "logic" makes me to spur such an outburst.

What do you want buddy to do, mail it to Ishmail Ahmed, 13 Bombshell Road, Mogadishu? Schemes like Kiva are helpful, on a very small scale. But the problem is far more than any individual can address. The problems of poverty are structural, not social. Latte Guy isn't in a position to address global security concerns that lead to mass refugee phenomena; unequal terms of trade that leave individuals and countries unable to meet their debt repayment responsibilities; etc.

What is the plan of action you would suggest Latte Guy follow?


----------



## MacGuiver

Macfury said:


> The notion of Jesus as Marxist is for "progressives" who have not read, or do not understand, the Bible.


True. With Marxism, nobody has the means to make the choice to help the poor and the system only creates more people living in poverty.
Biblically speaking, true charity comes from the heart, it isn't mandated by government decree.


----------



## MacGuiver

CubaMark said:


> Oh good lord. And I'm an atheist, so you can imagine how frustrated that "logic" makes me to spur such an outburst.
> 
> What do you want buddy to do, mail it to Ishmail Ahmed, 13 Bombshell Road, Mogadishu? Schemes like Kiva are helpful, on a very small scale. But the problem is far more than any individual can address.


Buddy should do what he can, and there is much he can do. If and when enough buddies do likewise the world can change.


----------



## groovetube

CM is absolutely right. "Buddy" can donate a few bucks like other "buddys" do, but that's not going to change the world by any means, that's very naive. All they can do is help lessen the misery a little bit.


----------



## MacGuiver

groovetube said:


> CM is absolutely right. "Buddy" can donate a few bucks like other "buddys" do, but that's not going to change the world by any means, that's very naive. All they can do is help lessen the misery a little bit.


First off I don't excuse the obscenely wealthy from their moral obligation to use that wealth and power for the good of others and I recognize the greater impact they can have on the issues. We all have that responsibility on every level. What perturbs me is the hypocrisy of individuals that point accusing fingers at them while doing and sacrificing little or nothing to do what they can to help.
Buddy's few bucks could be the difference between life and death for a family. If you think that gesture is worthless then so be it. I'm sure there could be a family or individual in dire poverty that would think otherwise.
I agree it is a naive proposition since our default concern is for ourselves. 
The average buddy often is really no different at heart than the CEO that hordes his millions. We'd rather the latest iPhone, the daily Latte, annual luxury vacation or designer cloths than to consider doing without and donating to help some family to start a farm, educate their children, provide them medical care or feed them in the 3rd world. All of which can be done for a pretty meagre amount of funds from us in the hands of the right agency or charity. Greed is in our nature, we prefer to look after our own asses while blame someone else for their plight, sipping our Latte. Meanwhile a child dies of malnutrition that could have been saved had we forgo the $5 Latte and donate the cash.


----------



## groovetube

MacGuiver said:


> First off I don't excuse the obscenely wealthy from their moral obligation to use that wealth and power for the good of others and I recognize the greater impact they can have on the issues. We all have that responsibility on every level. What perturbs me is the hypocrisy of individuals that point accusing fingers at them while doing and sacrificing little or nothing to do what they can to help.
> Buddy's few bucks could be the difference between life and death for a family. If you think that gesture is worthless then so be it. I'm sure there could be a family or individual in dire poverty that would think otherwise.
> I agree it is a naive proposition since our default concern is for ourselves.
> The average buddy often is really no different at heart than the CEO that hordes his millions. We'd rather the latest iPhone, the daily Latte, annual luxury vacation or designer cloths than to consider doing without and donating to help some family to start a farm, educate their children, provide them medical care or feed them in the 3rd world. All of which can be done for a pretty meagre amount of funds from us in the hands of the right agency or charity. Greed is in our nature, we prefer to look after our own asses while blame someone else for their plight, sipping our Latte.


At this point, I have to ask, how do you know "buddy" hasn't donated money towards any worthy cause helping the needy? Because he has a 3 dollar latte in his hand?

That seems a bit of a flimsy premise. Whether this particular individual has donated or not, he certainly doesn't represent others who do have a 3 dollar lattes (I don't actually think they're 5 bucks...)

I will agree though that generally we could be giving more. But that doesn't mean people can't speak out against the systemic problem of poverty.


----------



## MacGuiver

groovetube said:


> At this point, I have to ask, how do you know "buddy" hasn't donated money towards any worthy cause helping the needy? Because he has a 3 dollar latte in his hand?
> 
> That seems a bit of a flimsy premise. Whether this particular individual has donated or not, he certainly doesn't represent others who do have a 3 dollar lattes (I don't actually think they're 5 bucks...)
> 
> I will agree though that generally we could be giving more. But that doesn't mean people can't speak out against the systemic problem of poverty.


Groove, the latte is just a metaphor. Get past it.
We are all privileged to live in a country with a standard of living that makes us the envy of much of the world. Even our "poor" would be looked upon with envy from those in cardboard shacks on a hillside in Haiti. With self sacrifice on our part, the average Joe Canadian has the potential to do wonders to alleviate poverty and suffering for the poorest of the poor. For the most part we choose not to. 
This is the Religion thread and the cartoon I responded to alluded that Christ condemned greed in the wealthy, which is true. But it misses the fact that greed is condemned on all levels of the financial spectrum. We too will be measured by what we did with the wealth we hold. Dare I say most of us could do a heck of a lot more if we were willing to sacrifice. Myself included.
I also have no quams with speaking out for the poor and oppressed but we best do that while practicing what we preach. I think we've lost site of just how wealthy we truly are by comparison and are just as guilty of negligence as the 1% in the cartoon.

Since this is the religion thread, here is some scripture relevant to the topic. 

_Mark 12:41-44

41 Jesus sat down opposite the place where the offerings were put and watched the crowd putting their money into the temple treasury. Many rich people threw in large amounts. 42 But a poor widow came and put in two very small copper coins, worth only a few cents.

43 Calling his disciples to him, Jesus said, “Truly I tell you, this poor widow has put more into the treasury than all the others. 44 They all gave out of their wealth; but she, out of her poverty, put in everything—all she had to live on.”_


----------



## groovetube

I understand what you're saying MacGuiver. But I think focusing just on whether or not the average joe gives enough, or not, seems to blur the real problems. As in, why are there so many people living in poverty here in such a rich country, and by all reports, is getting worse?

We can give all we can all we like, but until fixing the real problems behind why so many people have so little, this is never going to improve.


----------



## kps

---


----------



## groovetube

kps said:


> ---


Ah. Yet another useless depiction. For the very reasons I gave above.


----------



## groovetube

I would also add MacGuiver, that scripture you quoted, the point is not, that the poorer people need to give more, but that the wealthy need to.

So these cartoons like the one MPs posted, and your critisicm of "buddy" with the latte, completely miss the point of that scripture.


----------



## kps

Groove your rhetoric sound like we live in a third world country. Majority of the poor in this country have mental health issues, drug addictions or find themselves in that situation due to their own doing (single mothers on welfare who continue to have kids for one). There are also countless stories of those that pulled themselves out of poverty. Sometimes people have to take responsibility for their condition especially in this country and not rely on handouts.


----------



## screature

groovetube said:


> I understand what you're saying MacGuiver. But I think focusing just on whether or not the average joe gives enough, or not, seems to blur the real problems. As in, why are there so many people living in poverty here in such a rich country, *and by all reports, is getting worse*?
> 
> We can give all we can all we like, but until fixing the real problems behind why so many people have so little, this is never going to improve.


Uh no that would be wrong:

Poverty in Canada


----------



## groovetube

kps said:


> Groove your rhetoric sound like we live in a third world country. Majority of the poor in this country have mental health issues, drug addictions or find themselves in that situation due to their own doing (single mothers on welfare who continue to have kids for one). There are also countless stories of those that pulled themselves out of poverty. Sometimes people have to take responsibility for their condition especially in this country and not rely on handouts.


Rhetoric K? What about the -huge- numbers of families who are struggling to make ends meet? I realize the conversation has swung to our problems here, which doesn't compare to third world countries.

The real rhetoric is the constant cherry picking of examples of people who bilk the system.

This sort of reminds me of the US states that want to force photo registration for voting because of widespread voter fraud, but uh there was like 2 or so cases apparently.


----------



## groovetube

screature said:


> Uh no that would be wrong:
> 
> Poverty in Canada


So you're saying the income divide, isn't getting worse correct?


----------



## MacGuiver

Thanks KPS. 
Looks like my point hasn't flown over your head. 

Bill Gates and his 1% gang are not the only rich guys or the only ones with a moral obligation to help the poor. By comparison to the poorest of the poor in the world, the average Canadian is stinking rich. Many of us running down the super rich for not helping the poor when we ourselves could do much. Dragging Jesus out to beatdown on the filthy rich ignores the fact we ourselves can be counted among them and have the same moral obligation.









This is poverty!









This is filthy rich by comparison and Buddy lives here. 

Tell me again how he doesn't have the means to help the poor? Is he morally justified to just insist Bill Gates look after the problem? For sure the 1% have that moral obligation but so do we.

This being the religion thread and dragging Jesus out to condemn the super rich ignores the fact we too are expected to give, and give until it hurts. We are the rich in the scripture passage I posted merely offering up some of the surplus or in many cases, nothing at all.


----------



## screature

groovetube said:


> So you're saying the income divide, isn't getting worse correct?


Did you read it, poverty rate is going down not up as you indicated. You made no comment about income gap.

But now that you have in fact when it comes to that we among the best in the world:

Gini coefficient

The Gini coefficient is a measure of statistical dispersion most prominently used as a measure of inequality of income distribution or inequality of wealth distribution. It is defined as a ratio with values between 0 and 1: the numerator is the area between the Lorenz curve of the distribution and the uniform distribution line; the denominator is the area under the uniform distribution line. Thus, a low Gini coefficient indicates more equal income or wealth distribution, while a high Gini coefficient indicates more unequal distribution. 0 corresponds to perfect equality (everyone having exactly the same income) and 1 corresponds to perfect inequality (where one person has all the income, while everyone else has zero income). The Gini coefficient requires that no one have a negative net income or wealth.


----------



## groovetube

screature said:


> Did you read it, poverty rate is going down not up as you indicated. You made no comment about income gap.
> 
> But now that you have in fact when it comes to that we among the best in the world:
> 
> Gini coefficient
> 
> The Gini coefficient is a measure of statistical dispersion most prominently used as a measure of inequality of income distribution or inequality of wealth distribution. It is defined as a ratio with values between 0 and 1: the numerator is the area between the Lorenz curve of the distribution and the uniform distribution line; the denominator is the area under the uniform distribution line. Thus, a low Gini coefficient indicates more equal income or wealth distribution, while a high Gini coefficient indicates more unequal distribution. 0 corresponds to perfect equality (everyone having exactly the same income) and 1 corresponds to perfect inequality (where one person has all the income, while everyone else has zero income). The Gini coefficient requires that no one have a negative net income or wealth.


You tend to just accept some generalizations, but they don't really tell the full story screature. Middle incomes have stagnated for about 30 years, while the very top have dramatically risen. Simply coming up with a number of who is in poverty (based on what criteria you haven't mentioned) and calling it a day is lame. How about child poverty? Apparently, we rank behind amongst rich nations with 13.3% higher than 35 other rich nations. Which isn't a good thing, especially since in this 2008 report from the chief public health officer said this:



> It is estimated that $1 invested in the early years saves between $3 and $9 in future spending on the health and criminal justice systems, as well as on social assistance.423 Imagine the long-term benefit to taxpayers then, if Canada were to achieve progress on child poverty rates as good or better than world leaders such as Finland, Norway and Sweden.8, 424


And I hear food banks aren't slowing down anytime soon, they are having trouble keeping their shelves stocked with a record number of people relying on them in 2012.

The picture is not, as rosy as you paint it by any means.

And MacGuiver, once again, you are focusing on the wrong things. Yes, we all have a moral obligation to give. Not nearly enough do, but many do give. We give a lot through taxes to fund social programs, and many of us donate varying amounts of money and charity work. You hadn't addressed my question I don't think, how do you know "buddy" hasn't donated, despite his latte? Is he not allowed to have a latte? Are you suggesting that until we all give up most of our luxuries we don't have the credibility to protest and stand up to the rich corporations and governments to improve wages and opportunities for people? Is that really, what you're suggesting? 

Personally, I think you are slightly twisting the meaning of the word in that scripture. That's my opinion. It seems to me, that you're telling us we have zero credibility to speak out against the utter gluttony of corporate profits while workers can barely afford to provide for their families. And seeing cartoons that suggest we shut up unless we regular folk give away all our possessions is just plain insulting.


----------



## SINC

Some days I can barely stand the self righteous, I'm right you're wrong stuff that gets posted.

MacGuiver's point is so basic I guess some miss it entirely. 

We all need to help our fellow man be it at home or abroad. The Bill Gates and his like give millions. The rich give hundreds of thousands. The well off give thousands, the average earners give hundreds and the not so well to do give $50, but they don't all give. 

The thing is that in every class of giving, there are too many that give nothing, not even their compassion. And that is who I think MacGuiver takes aim at with the latte thing, or at least that's how I view the reality of the situation.

His viewpoints have nothing to do with 'rosy' or 'wrong focus' or whether poverty at home is up or down. There is an old saying that charity begins at home. I have always interpreted that to mean that charity starts in the home with family and spreads from there where it was first taught. It has nothing to do with _where_ the help goes, be it home or abroad.


----------



## groovetube

and there goes the civility in the thread.

In addition to my post, I saw this a little while ago:

The One Where A Walmart-Friendly PR Firm Creates An Ad So Full Of Propaganda It's Actually Hilarious

This is the sort of ad that lots of people would take as truth.


----------



## fjnmusic

Can't believe how quickly this, as usual, devolves into a debate about who should share the wealth. We ALL should share the wealth. The point of the cartoon I posted is that trickle down economics doesn't work, because once people have the money in their hot little hands, it is very tempting to just keep it there. We all pay taxes and many of us donate to charities; this is what we do in this country to help the poor. But those with the deepest pockets could probably do a lot more. Government bailouts particularly in the US over the last few years prove that greed is indeed alive and well, and that trickle down economics does not have the intended effect of helping the supposed target people.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## groovetube

fjnmusic said:


> Can't believe how quickly this, as usual, devolves into a debate about who should share the wealth. We ALL should share the wealth. The point of the cartoon I posted is that trickle down economics doesn't work, because once people have the money in their hot little hands, it is very tempting to just keep it there. We all pay taxes and many of us donate to charities; this is what we do in this country to help the poor. But those with the deepest pockets could probably do a lot more. Government bailouts particularly in the US over the last few years prove that greed is indeed alive and well, and that trickle down economics does not have the intended effect of helping the supposed target people.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


well put fjn. I agree.


----------



## Dr.G.

fjnmusic said:


> Can't believe how quickly this, as usual, devolves into a debate about who should share the wealth. We ALL should share the wealth. The point of the cartoon I posted is that trickle down economics doesn't work, because once people have the money in their hot little hands, it is very tempting to just keep it there. We all pay taxes and many of us donate to charities; this is what we do in this country to help the poor. But those with the deepest pockets could probably do a lot more. Government bailouts particularly in the US over the last few years prove that greed is indeed alive and well, and that trickle down economics does not have the intended effect of helping the supposed target people.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Excellent points, mon ami. Paix. :clap::clap::clap:


----------



## MacGuiver

fjnmusic said:


> Can't believe how quickly this, as usual, devolves into a debate about who should share the wealth. We ALL should share the wealth. The point of the cartoon I posted is that trickle down economics doesn't work, because once people have the money in their hot little hands, it is very tempting to just keep it there. We all pay taxes and many of us donate to charities; this is what we do in this country to help the poor. But those with the deepest pockets could probably do a lot more. Government bailouts particularly in the US over the last few years prove that greed is indeed alive and well, and that trickle down economics does not have the intended effect of helping the supposed target people.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Hi FJN

I don't think paying your taxes and tossing the odd toonie in the Sally Ann kettle would fulfill the definition of charity as Christ taught it. When Jesus is dragged in by the cartoonist to accuse the extremely rich it ignores the fact that the teachings on charity apply to us as well. Money spent on a billionaires yacht could provide houses to a small village in India. Thats a fact, but that annual week in the South laying around on a beach drinking margaritas average Buddy takes each year could have paid for a desperate family in Africa to get our of poverty. I think when we're finally judged we'll be shocked how far short we fell from the mark.

When the final curtain falls, I don't think "I paid my taxes" will cut it.
Matthew 25:31-46 comes to mind.


----------



## MacGuiver

SINC said:


> Some days I can barely stand the self righteous, I'm right you're wrong stuff that gets posted.
> 
> MacGuiver's point is so basic I guess some miss it entirely.
> 
> We all need to help our fellow man be it at home or abroad. The Bill Gates and his like give millions. The rich give hundreds of thousands. The well off give thousands, the average earners give hundreds and the not so well to do give $50, but they don't all give.
> 
> The thing is that in every class of giving, there are too many that give nothing, not even their compassion. And that is who I think MacGuiver takes aim at with the latte thing, or at least that's how I view the reality of the situation.
> 
> His viewpoints have nothing to do with 'rosy' or 'wrong focus' or whether poverty at home is up or down. There is an old saying that charity begins at home. I have always interpreted that to mean that charity starts in the home with family and spreads from there where it was first taught. It has nothing to do with _where_ the help goes, be it home or abroad.


Well said Sinc.


----------



## groovetube

MacGuiver said:


> Well said Sinc.


You're preaching to the choir MacGuiver. There is no disagreement that we as people in this country have a moral obligation to give. I'm quite well aware that a 'toonie in the sally ann box' isn't going to cut it, though I don't see a reason to brag as I believe giving is a personal private thing (which I think you'll agree) I'm sure many people here (actually I -know-...) will also agree with this. To be honest, I find people who brag and/or make a big deal of preaching about it, somewhat suspicious. 

I have no reason to believe "buddy" in the picture hasn't donated much more than a 'toonie in the sally ann box', and neither do you. (unless there's something I've missed). So your premise, is based on air.

At best, I agree that everyone needs to be reminded (without the self importance I saw...) that giving is extremely important, there are a lot of good charities that do good work that can be chosen from. With this, I'm with you 100% of the way. Cheers to that.


----------



## Macfury

fjnmusic said:


> We ALL should share the wealth.


Only on an individual basis. There is no moral imperative to redistribute institutionally.


----------



## MacGuiver

groovetube said:


> You're preaching to the choir MacGuiver. There is no disagreement that we as people in this country have a moral obligation to give. I'm quite well aware that a 'toonie in the sally ann box' isn't going to cut it, though I don't see a reason to brag as I believe giving is a personal private thing (which I think you'll agree) I'm sure many people here (actually I -know-...) will also agree with this. To be honest, I find people who brag and/or make a big deal of preaching about it, somewhat suspicious.
> 
> I have no reason to believe "buddy" in the picture hasn't donated much more than a 'toonie in the sally ann box', and neither do you. (unless there's something I've missed). So your premise, is based on air.
> 
> At best, I agree that everyone needs to be reminded (without the self importance I saw...) that giving is extremely important, there are a lot of good charities that do good work that can be chosen from. With this, I'm with you 100% of the way. Cheers to that.


OY VEY!!
Whose bragging? Not sure where you got that. I've made no mention of what I give.
Simply pointing out what constitutes charity from a biblical perspective since the Jesus card was pulled in the cartoon. I personally could do a heck of a lot more than I do now. But I think this can be said for most of us. Do I need a new iPhone to replace my 4G? The money I pony up for that could sponsor a child in Africa for a year with food, clothing and education. We can snicker at those greedy rich guys but are we really any better?


----------



## MacGuiver

Macfury said:


> Only on an individual basis. There is no moral imperative to redistribute institutionally.


Agreed.


----------



## groovetube

MacGuiver said:


> OY VEY!!
> Whose bragging? Not sure where you got that. I've made no mention of what I give.
> Simply pointing out what constitutes charity from a biblical perspective since the Jesus card was pulled in the cartoon. I personally could do a heck of a lot more than I do now. But I think this can be said for most of us. Do I need a new iPhone to replace my 4G? The money I pony up for that could sponsor a child in Africa for a year with food, clothing and education. We can snicker at those greedy rich guys but are we really any better?


Not you MacGuiver. Sorry. I understand your point however.



MacGuiver said:


> Agreed.


I don't. I believe there -is- a moral obligation. Though not everyone has that.


----------



## fjnmusic

MacGuiver said:


> Hi FJN
> 
> I don't think paying your taxes and tossing the odd toonie in the Sally Ann kettle would fulfill the definition of charity as Christ taught it. When Jesus is dragged in by the cartoonist to accuse the extremely rich it ignores the fact that the teachings on charity apply to us as well. Money spent on a billionaires yacht could provide houses to a small village in India. Thats a fact, but that annual week in the South laying around on a beach drinking margaritas average Buddy takes each year could have paid for a desperate family in Africa to get our of poverty. I think when we're finally judged we'll be shocked how far short we fell from the mark.
> 
> When the final curtain falls, I don't think "I paid my taxes" will cut it.
> Matthew 25:31-46 comes to mind.


Good points. The bible recommends tithing (giving away one-tenth of your income to charity). Not sure if that's meant to be before or after-tax income, but in any event, every bit helps. I have discovered playing music at the Hope Mission downtown one way to help the poor that doesn't necessarily involve money directly.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## screature

groovetube said:


> You tend to just accept some generalizations, but they don't really tell the full story screature. Middle incomes have stagnated for about 30 years, while the very top have dramatically risen. Simply coming up with a number of who is in poverty (based on what criteria you haven't mentioned) and calling it a day is lame. How about child poverty? Apparently, we rank behind amongst rich nations with 13.3% higher than 35 other rich nations. Which isn't a good thing, especially since in this 2008 report from the chief public health officer said this:
> 
> 
> 
> And I hear food banks aren't slowing down anytime soon, they are having trouble keeping their shelves stocked with a record number of people relying on them in 2012.
> 
> The picture is not, as rosy as you paint it by any means.
> 
> And MacGuiver, once again, you are focusing on the wrong things. Yes, we all have a moral obligation to give. Not nearly enough do, but many do give. We give a lot through taxes to fund social programs, and many of us donate varying amounts of money and charity work. You hadn't addressed my question I don't think, how do you know "buddy" hasn't donated, despite his latte? Is he not allowed to have a latte? Are you suggesting that until we all give up most of our luxuries we don't have the credibility to protest and stand up to the rich corporations and governments to improve wages and opportunities for people? Is that really, what you're suggesting?
> 
> Personally, I think you are slightly twisting the meaning of the word in that scripture. That's my opinion. It seems to me, that you're telling us we have zero credibility to speak out against the utter gluttony of corporate profits while workers can barely afford to provide for their families. And seeing cartoons that suggest we shut up unless we regular folk give away all our possessions is just plain insulting.


Look gt you make a statement that is demonstrably wrong and don't acknowledge it and then deflect by adding another component that was not in your original statement and then when that component is demonstrably refuted you go into minutia to try and defend your original wrong overarching statement.

Quite simply it is not worth debating with you any further because you simply dodge and weave, consistently refusing to accept facts when they are presented to you.

Have a happy holiday season.


----------



## groovetube

I'm sorry screature but I will disagree with cherry picking something out of what is obviously a complex issue beyond one stat you feel is some kind of proof.

And happy holidays to you as well.


----------



## fjnmusic

screature said:


> Look gt you make a statement that is demonstrably wrong and don't acknowledge it and then deflect by adding another component that was not in your original statement and then when that component is demonstrably refuted you go into minutia to try and defend your original wrong overarching statement.
> 
> Quite simply it is not worth debating with you any further because you simply dodge and weave, consistently refusing to accept facts when they are presented to you.
> 
> Have a happy holiday season.


What, no smiley face to go with the "have a happy holiday season"? Or the "happy holidays to you as well"? This is sadly what happens when we take the X out of Xmas.

Happy Festivus to all, and to all a goodnight! 

(at least we're dealing with the Airing of Grievances part)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## MacGuiver

fjnmusic said:


> Good points. The bible recommends tithing (giving away one-tenth of your income to charity). Not sure if that's meant to be before or after-tax income, but in any event, every bit helps. I have discovered playing music at the Hope Mission downtown one way to help the poor that doesn't necessarily involve money directly.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Kudo to you with the Mission music. There is a verse for that. "When I was hungry, you gave me food, while I was eating you played me some toons"


----------



## groovetube

fjnmusic said:


> Good points. The bible recommends tithing (giving away one-tenth of your income to charity). Not sure if that's meant to be before or after-tax income, but in any event, every bit helps. I have discovered playing music at the Hope Mission downtown one way to help the poor that doesn't necessarily involve money directly.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


excellent fjn, music is a fantastic way to help raise money and/or bring a smile to faces.


----------



## screature

fjnmusic said:


> What, no smiley face to go with the "have a happy holiday season"? Or the "happy holidays to you as well"? This is sadly what happens when we take the X out of Xmas.
> 
> Happy Festivus to all, and to all a goodnight!
> 
> (at least we're dealing with the Airing of Grievances part)
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


We essentially agreed to disagree on rather polite terms, if not amicable... 

I still strongly disagree with gt and he with me but obviously for very different reasons... 

But we both stepped back. At any rate that is the way I see it. 

So I really don't get your "This is sadly what happens when we take the X out of Xmas."

X had nothing to do with it other than it is the time of year that we have been indoctrinated to try and be good to each other.


----------



## fjnmusic

screature said:


> We essentially agreed to disagree on rather polite terms, if not amicable...
> 
> I still strongly disagree with gt and he with me but obviously for very different reasons...
> 
> But we both stepped back. At any rate that is the way I see it.
> 
> So I really don't get your "This is sadly what happens when we take the X out of Xmas."
> 
> X had nothing to do with it other than it is the time of year that we have been indoctrinated to try and be good to each other.


Just being goofy. There are those who object to the term Xmas, not realizing that X is a perfectly acceptable abbreviation for ol' JC Himself. Of course, if we want to really celebrate the reason for season, we'd have to embrace many pagan customs that predate Christianity, like the Christmas tree and the Advent Wreath. Wait a minute...we already do!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## groovetube

Personally I never understood being against or offended by merry Christmas, or happy whatever it is.

I generally use happy holidays or a Whatever general one when I know I'm talking to people who are celebrating multiple celebrations.

In conclusion, I'm up for whatever excuse I can use to share drink and food in whatever celebration with good people.


----------



## kps

groovetube said:


> Rhetoric K? What about the -huge- numbers of families who are struggling to make ends meet? I realize the conversation has swung to our problems here, which doesn't compare to third world countries.
> 
> The real rhetoric is the constant cherry picking of examples of people who bilk the system.
> 
> This sort of reminds me of the US states that want to force photo registration for voting because of widespread voter fraud, but uh there was like 2 or so cases apparently.


The middle class is rapidly disappearing and many people have a difficult time maintaining their standard of living, so I have no idea what your "huge number of families" represents. I've also read that most at the poverty level are singles, so again, what are the factual statistics? Don't answer that, it's not important, whats important is how you're helping. Me, I donate to a hospital and the Cancer Society (see sig). Understand this, many cancer patients have lost their jobs due to their illness and are struggling to maintain their standard of living and hovering at or close to the poverty line.


----------



## kps

Back on topic….


----------



## groovetube

That would be the stat I posted about the children living in poverty kps. Canada lags behind other rich countries.

And good on you for your charity. Something everyone should do.


----------



## groovetube

kps said:


> Back on topic….


Wait. You can pray... To batman???

This changes everything.


----------



## kps

groovetube said:


> Wait. You can pray... To batman???
> 
> This changes everything.


The Joker too, don't you know...


----------



## MacGuiver

fjnmusic said:


> Just being goofy. There are those who object to the term Xmas, not realizing that X is a perfectly acceptable abbreviation for ol' JC Himself. Of course, if we want to really celebrate the reason for season, we'd have to embrace many pagan customs that predate Christianity, like the Christmas tree and the Advent Wreath. Wait a minute...we already do!
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


I wouldn't call it "embracing" pagan customs. We've simply borrowed from them and adapted them to our own religious practices. The meanings and symbolism we've attached to the traditions are symbolic of Christianity and not what the religions and beliefs of the pagans were back in the day. A blackberry may be similar to an iPhone but it isn't an iPhone. Claiming the modern Christmas tree or Advent wreath is the same tree and wreath of the pagans thousands of years ago with all its pagan meaning is also a silly claim. I know a lot of atheists like to toss that out there every Christmas hoping to **** off some Christians but its really lame. 
Gotta go, there is a Yule log in the freezer calling my name.


----------



## eMacMan

MacGuiver said:


> I wouldn't call it "embracing" pagan customs. We've simply borrowed from them and adapted them to our own religious practices. The meanings and symbolism we've attached to the traditions are symbolic of Christianity and not what the religions and beliefs of the pagans were back in the day. A blackberry may be similar to an iPhone but it isn't an iPhone. Claiming the modern Christmas tree or Advent wreath is the same tree and wreath of the pagans thousands of years ago with all its pagan meaning is also a silly claim. I know a lot of atheists like to toss that out there every Christmas hoping to **** off some Christians but its really lame.
> Gotta go, there is a Yule log in the freezer calling my name.


Perhaps not but whatever one's personal beliefs, those of us living in northern climates have more than sufficient reason to celebrate the time of the winter solstice. As others have said any excuse will do. Personally I'm up to the fermented fluids but will pass on the dancing naked in the ruins. At least when it's -35°C. So indeed I have somewhat modified the pagan rituals to fit my circumstances.

"We shall pray with those old Druids,
and drink fermented fluids,
waltzing naked through the ruins.
That's good enough for me." _Pete Seeger_


----------



## groovetube

MacGuiver said:


> I wouldn't call it "embracing" pagan customs. We've simply borrowed from them and adapted them to our own religious practices. The meanings and symbolism we've attached to the traditions are symbolic of Christianity and not what the religions and beliefs of the pagans were back in the day. A blackberry may be similar to an iPhone but it isn't an iPhone. Claiming the modern Christmas tree or Advent wreath is the same tree and wreath of the pagans thousands of years ago with all its pagan meaning is also a silly claim. I know a lot of atheists like to toss that out there every Christmas hoping to **** off some Christians but its really lame.
> Gotta go, there is a Yule log in the freezer calling my name.


Borrowed after centuries of slaughtering them, considering them people of the devil. I think the jabs are quite deserved personally.


----------



## MacGuiver

groovetube said:


> Borrowed after centuries of slaughtering them, considering them people of the devil. I think the jabs are quite deserved personally.


Oh Groove,

Ah the nobel pagan mythology. I guess you haven't read much of the history of many pagan cultures. I climbed the temple steps in Mexico where countless people had their hearts taken out and heads lopped off to appease the sun god. People of the devil is a fitting description for what went on back then.

On a side note, do you atheists still feel the need to jab the Germans because of the Nazis or the Japanese for Pearl Harbour? How about the Mexicans for mass human sacrifice or the Russians for the millions they butchered to advance atheistic communism? Atheistic regimes killed more people in the 20th Century alone than Church-approved wars and violence killed in the preceding 19 Centuries. 
You being a modern atheist, do you deserve to be jabbed for that? I don't think so.

The "centuries of slaughtering them" as you say were centuries ago. I think its time to let it go. All that futile anger isn't good for anyone.


----------



## Macfury

MacGuiver said:


> Oh Groove,
> 
> Ah the nobel pagan mythology. I guess you haven't read much of the history of many pagan cultures. I climbed the temple steps in Mexico where countless people had their hearts taken out and heads lopped off to appease the sun god. People of the devil is a fitting description for what went on back then.
> 
> On a side note, do you atheists still feel the need to jab the Germans because of the Nazis or the Japanese for Pearl Harbour? How about the Mexicans for mass human sacrifice or the Russians for the millions they butchered to advance atheistic communism? Atheistic regimes killed more people in the 20th Century alone than Church-approved wars and violence killed in the preceding 19 Centuries.
> You being a modern atheist, do you deserve to be jabbed for that? I don't think so.
> 
> The "centuries of slaughtering them" as you say were centuries ago. I think its time to let it go. All that futile anger isn't good for anyone.


Those who don't remember history... should form a club with groovetube as president.


----------



## groovetube

MacGuiver said:


> Oh Groove,
> 
> Ah the nobel pagan mythology. I guess you haven't read much of the history of many pagan cultures. I climbed the temple steps in Mexico where countless people had their hearts taken out and heads lopped off to appease the sun god. People of the devil is a fitting description for what went on back then.
> 
> On a side note, do you atheists still feel the need to jab the Germans because of the Nazis or the Japanese for Pearl Harbour? How about the Mexicans for mass human sacrifice or the Russians for the millions they butchered to advance atheistic communism? Atheistic regimes killed more people in the 20th Century alone than Church-approved wars and violence killed in the preceding 19 Centuries.
> You being a modern atheist, do you deserve to be jabbed for that? I don't think so.
> 
> The "centuries of slaughtering them" as you say were centuries ago. I think its time to let it go. All that futile anger isn't good for anyone.


Nice deflections. I guess you need them don't you?

Not once in my post, did I say pagans didn't kill anyone. Nor, did I deny the Nazis, or the the Japanese in WW2 killed lots of people. But, is this what you want to use as a justification? Oh look they were worse, so, killing pagans and burning them at the stakes was A OK. Otherwise, why are you bringing up so many other atrocities??? 

Somehow, I'm guessing this isn't what you intended. But I guess my pointing out the hypocrisy, may have touched a nerve. I'm well aware most christians aren't burning pagans at the stake anymore, but to pretend there isn't a certain irony in how the christians, long long ago (you know, when they -were- burning pagans at the stake...) they took some pagan traditions as their own in their christian celebrations is a bit rich.

Even after slaughtering them. Christian Atrocities | Victims of Christianity | Catholic Church Inquisition | Crusades


----------



## Macfury

It's just that your group killed more groovetube.


----------



## SINC

Macfury said:


> It's just that your group killed more groovetube.





groovetube said:


> Nice deflections. I guess you need them don't you?


Did you notice the opening sentences? The condescending and 'I know better than' you type of confrontational statement? When someone disputes that, he will cry 'victim'. Same old, same old. It's tiresome. :yawn:


----------



## groovetube

.


----------



## MacGuiver

groovetube said:


> Nice deflections. I guess you need them don't you?
> 
> Not once in my post, did I say pagans didn't kill anyone. Nor, did I deny the Nazis, or the the Japanese in WW2 killed lots of people. But, is this what you want to use as a justification? Oh look they were worse, so, killing pagans and burning them at the stakes was A OK. Otherwise, why are you bringing up so many other atrocities???
> 
> Somehow, I'm guessing this isn't what you intended. But I guess my pointing out the hypocrisy, may have touched a nerve. I'm well aware most christians aren't burning pagans at the stake anymore, but to pretend there isn't a certain irony in how the christians, long long ago (you know, when they -were- burning pagans at the stake...) they took some pagan traditions as their own in their christian celebrations is a bit rich.
> 
> Even after slaughtering them. Christian Atrocities | Victims of Christianity | Catholic Church Inquisition | Crusades


OY VEY!

Where is the smash head against wall emoticon when you need it. 
My point is atheists like yourself, not all, like to drag up dirt from ancient history and smear christians today with it as if they own it. They don't seem to do that with any other identifiable groups dirty laundry. The irony is their own groups recent history makes the crusades look like a picnic.

Get over it already. 
The ladies packing food hampers for the poor haven't burned a witch in at least a couple months.

I think I'll jump off the Groove Tube perpetual wheel of argument before I puke.


----------



## groovetube

MacGuiver said:


> OY VEY!
> 
> Where is the smash head against wall emoticon when you need it.
> My point is atheists like yourself, not all, like to drag up dirt from ancient history and smear christians today with it as if they own it. They don't seem to do that with any other identifiable groups dirty laundry.
> 
> Get over it already.
> The ladies packing food hampers for the poor haven't burned a witch in at least a couple months.
> 
> I think I'll jump off the Groove Tube perpetual wheel of argument before I puke.


OY VEY indeed MacGuiver. I wasn't the one who brought it up remember!


----------



## SINC

MacGuiver said:


> I think I'll jump off the Groove Tube perpetual wheel of argument before I puke.


You would be surprised just how many here have told me and others the same thing. They've had enough too.


----------



## MacGuiver

ITS STILL GOING...... MAKE IT STOPPP! MAKE IT STOOOOOOOOP!!


----------



## screature

MacGuiver said:


> OY VEY!
> 
> Where is the smash head against wall emoticon when you need it.
> My point is atheists like yourself, not all, like to drag up dirt from ancient history and smear christians today with it as if they own it. They don't seem to do that with any other identifiable groups dirty laundry. The irony is their own groups recent history makes the crusades look like a picnic.
> 
> Get over it already.
> The ladies packing food hampers for the poor haven't burned a witch in at least a couple months.
> 
> I think I'll jump off the Groove Tube perpetual wheel of argument before I puke.


I understand your frustration MacGuiver.

Your original post that refuted the notion that JC was a socialist seems to be have been deliberately misconstrued.

It seems that those on the left feel that if we had the "correct" form of government in place we would have no need for "personal" charity, because the "gubmint" will look after that.

But what if the current "gubmint" isn't looking after those for whom you wish to look after?

That is where charities step in and always have. Your suggestion that we should not rely on "gubmint" to look after all the downtrodden in the world is indeed noble. 

"Charity begins at home" is the beginning and that does not only mean helping those closest to you, it means you personally need to take some individual responsibility and anti up.

What those on the left (based on the current postings) don't seem to understand is that charity isn't an "either or proposition" it is an "either and proposition" as this government has demonstrated time and again when it comes to relief dollars for disasters around the world.

They launch awareness campaigns to tell people that for every dollar that is donated privately they will match from public funding... that seems about right to me.

I think the over arching sentiment of your original post was don't expect your government to do something that you aren't willing to do yourself...

Kind of like what JFK said in his famous statement: "Don't ask what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country."


----------



## groovetube

Oh MacGuiver. Seriously. I'm sorry you find my response to your bewilderment that anyone would jab christians for taking some pagan traditions as their own disagreeable, but this is a little extreme.


----------



## groovetube

screature said:


> I understand your frustration MacGuiver.
> 
> Your original post that refuted the notion that JC was a socialist seems to be have been deliberately misconstrued.
> 
> It seems that those on the left feel that if we had the "correct" form of government in place we would have no need for "personal" charity, because the "gubmint" will look after that.
> 
> But what if the current "gubmint" isn't looking after those for whom you wish to look after?
> 
> That is where charities step in and always have. Your suggestion that we should not rely on "gubmint" to look after all the downtrodden in the world is indeed noble.
> 
> "Charity begins at home" is the beginning and that does not only mean helping those closest to you, it means you personally need to take some individual responsibility and anti up.
> 
> *What those on the left (based on the current postings) don't seem to understand is that charity isn't an "either or proposition" it is an "either and proposition"* as this government has demonstrated time and again when it comes to relief dollars for disasters around the world.
> 
> They launch awareness campaigns to tell people that for every dollar that is donated privately they will match from public funding... that seems about right to me.
> 
> I think the over arching sentiment of you original post was don't expect your government to do something that you aren't willing to do yourself...
> 
> Kind of like what JFK said in his famous statement: "Don't ask what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country.


You know there's something rather insulting in your assumptions screature. Not only you, but several have insinuated, that those of us on "the left" don't understand the idea that we as people have a responsibility to give and do as we expect our governments do. Really? Because that's the underlying suggestion you make in your post.

As it happens, there are those of us "on the left", who are, and have been willing to give and do as we expect our governments to as well. And we also, believe there are many things that governments can do, to help improve the conditions for people and families who struggle to survive and keep themselves healthy, because we recognize that our efforts only go so far.

So don't insinuate those on the left aren't willing to give. That's just insulting. It seems that's about what you have to lob I guess.


----------



## MacGuiver

groovetube said:


> Oh MacGuiver. Seriously. I'm sorry you find my response to your bewilderment that anyone would jab christians for taking some pagan traditions as their own, but this is a little extreme.


It was more your "slaughter them for centuries" comment that set me off. Sick of listening to self righteous atheists slamming people for things that happened centuries ago or expressing outrage at the use of a wreath or a tree to celebrate Christmas. The pagans are far less concerned.
Seems that some atheists really have no issue with co-opting the traditions of others cultures and beliefs for their own purposes after all. Order now. Quantities are limited!


----------



## groovetube

MacGuiver said:


> It was more your "slaughter them for centuries" comment that set me off. Sick of listening to self righteous atheists slamming people for things that happened centuries ago or expressing outrage at the use of a wreath or a tree to celebrate Christmas. The pagans are far less concerned.
> Seems that some atheists really have no issue with co-opting the traditions of others cultures and beliefs for their own purposes after all. Order now. Quantities are limited!


I understand MacGuiver. I apologize I didn't mean to set you off. 

However, to be clear, I'm in no way expressing any outrage for christians for using a wreath or a christmas tree. If I did, I'd be a hypocrite (as I prepare to set up and decorate one this weekend...  )


----------



## MacGuiver

groovetube said:


> I understand MacGuiver. I apologize I didn't mean to set you off.
> 
> However, to be clear, I'm in no way expressing any outrage for christians for using a wreath or a christmas tree. If I did, I'd be a hypocrite (as I prepare to set up and decorate one this weekend...  )


No worries Groove. Enjoy decorating your tree and have a great weekend.


----------



## screature

groovetube said:


> You know there's something rather insulting in your assumptions screature. Not only you, but several have insinuated, that those of us on "the left" don't understand the idea that we as people have a responsibility to give and do as we expect our governments do. Really? Because that's the underlying suggestion you make in your post.
> 
> As it happens, there are those of us "on the left", who are, and have been willing to give and do as we expect our governments to as well. And we also, believe there are many things that governments can do, to help improve the conditions for people and families who struggle to survive and keep themselves healthy, because we recognize that our efforts only go so far.
> 
> So don't insinuate those on the left aren't willing to give. That's just insulting. It seems that's about what you have to lob I guess.


groovetube doth protest too much, methinks.

No insult. An observation which I have seen time and again. "I gave at the office" attitude.

You may be an exception, I don't know.

But if what you say is really true then why do you take offence to what MacGuiver has posted?

All he is suggesting is that we all need to anti up more at the personal level.

I don't recall anywhere in what I have read that he suggested we stop federal programs of relief, merely that the individual could do more as well.

Why is it that you take exception to that?


----------



## groovetube

screature said:


> groovetube doth protest too much, methinks.
> 
> No insult. An observation which I have seen time and again.
> 
> You maybe an exception, I don't know.
> 
> But if what you say is really true then why do you take offence to what MacGuiver has posted?
> 
> All he is suggesting is that we all need to anti up more at the personal level.
> 
> I don't recall anywhere in what I have read that he suggested we stop federal programs of relief, merely that the individual could do more as well.
> 
> Why is it that you take exception to that?


Because I take issue with people who suggest that people who ask that their governments take steps to help improve the many people struggling in for example minimum wage jobs etc., is in no way, a reflection on that person's willingness to give themselves, certainly not mine. It's disturbing that you would even insinuate that, without any basis whatsoever! I find that assumption rather astounding, and how you could have made that 'observation', is really anyone's guess. 

I believe this goes beyond the reminder that we all can do more.


----------



## groovetube

MacGuiver said:


> No worries Groove. Enjoy decorating your tree and have a great weekend.


Thanks, and you too.


----------



## kps

Not PC perhaps, but lets put it all into perspective and bring ourselves into the present :

••


----------



## screature

groovetube said:


> Because I take issue with people who suggest that people who ask that their governments take steps to help improve the many people struggling in for example minimum wage jobs etc., is in no way, a reflection on that person's willingness to give themselves, certainly not mine. It's disturbing that you would even insinuate that, without any basis whatsoever! I find that assumption rather astounding, and how you could have made that 'observation', is really anyone's guess.
> 
> I believe this goes beyond the reminder that we all can do more.


Oh for goodness sake groove settle down and have a drink or something, it is the week-end and the holiday season...

People on all sides of the political fence are interested in taking steps to help improve the many people struggling in for example minimum wage jobs etc., we just don't agree on the methods of doing it.

I know lots of people on the left and the right and my anecdotal experience is that those on the right are actually more generous when it comes to personally donating to charity that those on the left.

My basis of argument is on my experience and reading as is yours... Our experiences are obviously different. As are undoubtedly the things that we read or at least if we read the same things we interpret them differently.

C'est la guerre/vie.


----------



## groovetube

screature said:


> Oh for goodness sake groove settle down and have a drink or something, it is the week-end and the holiday season...
> 
> People on all sides of the political fence are interested in taking steps to help improve the many people struggling in for example minimum wage jobs etc., we just don't agree on the methods of doing it.
> 
> I know lots of people on the left and the right and my anecdotal experience is that those on the right are actually more generous when it comes to personally donating to charity that those on the left.
> 
> My basis of argument is on my experience and reading as is yours... Our experiences are obviously different. As are undoubtedly the things that we read or at least if we read the same things we interpret them differently.
> 
> C'est la guerre/vie.


First you make unfounded assumptions, then when I express surprise at such baseless assumptions you say, settle down?

I'm not going to offer my personal anecdotes as proof of whether I think a conservative is more charitable than the liberal. That's ridiculous. I don't believe either politic makes one more likely to donate to charity. I've come across some pretty selfish people, and I don't think it was because of how they voted.

The issue of minimum wage, well that may start to get outside the topic of this thread. But did post an interesting take by Jon Stewart in the American politics thread. Even if you disagree with it, it shares some of the frustrations I have with that issue.


----------



## Macfury

Take a breather groovy, you're just spinning in circles now. Try again tomorrow after a good night's rest.


----------



## screature

groovetube said:


> First you make unfounded assumptions, then when I express surprise at such baseless assumptions you say, settle down?
> 
> I'm not going to offer my personal anecdotes as proof of whether I think a conservative is more charitable than the liberal. That's ridiculous. I don't believe either politic makes one more likely to donate to charity. I've come across some pretty selfish people, and I don't think it was because of how they voted.
> 
> The issue of minimum wage, well that may start to get outside the topic of this thread. But did post an interesting take by Jon Stewart in the American politics thread. Even if you disagree with it, it shares some of the frustrations I have with that issue.


I guess I should consider myself served... :lmao: (been taking lessons from Angry Tom?)

Your statements have nothing to do with the most salient points raised, such as:



> ...this government... launch awareness campaigns to tell people that for every dollar that is donated privately they will match from public funding... that seems about right to me.


No comment from you.


----------



## SINC

Notice how he gets himself in trouble wherever he goes? It's kind of fun now watching a train wreck of his own making and simply comment on it without engaging anyone.


----------



## jef

Proof that these crooks actually have a sense of humour?


----------



## groovetube

screature said:


> I guess I should consider myself served... :lmao: (been taking lessons from Angry Tom?)
> 
> Your statements have nothing to do with the most salient points raised, such as:
> 
> 
> 
> No comment from you.


This is your, 'salient point'? Every government since I was alive have sent money supplies and manpower to places of major disasters. Good on them.


----------



## screature

groovetube said:


> This is your, 'salient point'? Every government since I was alive have sent money supplies and manpower to places of major disasters. Good on them.


Sigh.... It is about public policy.










Once again, I'm done... Time to move on.


----------



## screature

jef said:


> Proof that these crooks actually have a sense of humour?


What?


----------



## SINC

screature said:


> Sigh.... It is about public policy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Once again, I'm done... Time to move on.


Like so many others before you, I guess groove continues to beat everyone down.


----------



## groovetube

screature said:


> Sigh.... It is about public policy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Once again, I'm done... Time to move on.


Ok. I'm sorry I'm not getting your point here. I need a better explanation than that...

Move on is fine with me.


----------



## CubaMark




----------



## Macfury

Whatever happened to good satire? This stuff is far too broad with no subtlety. It probably stems from too many years of watching that weak _Saturday Night Live_ skit format in which a mutjob walks into a room and begins to accost a bunch of people playing it straight.


----------



## fjnmusic

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## MacGuiver

fjnmusic said:


> View attachment 38282
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


I guess if your among the minority of atheist or pagans that finds reason to celebrates earths regular cycles then yeah I guess that statement is true. Happy Solstice to you.


----------



## screature

MacGuiver said:


> I guess if your among the minority of atheist or pagans that finds reason to celebrates earths regular cycles then yeah I guess that statement is true. Happy Solstice to you.


I don't think you need to be an atheist or pagan to celebrate the changing of the season's, just a human. It has been done since time immemorial.


----------



## groovetube

holy crap the birth of the sun is coming! Better don my goat leggings dance and sacrifice something!!!


----------



## MacGuiver

screature said:


> I don't think you need to be an atheist or pagan to celebrate the changing of the season's, just a human. It has been done since time immemorial.


I hear ya scripture. I'm just sick of the Solstice vs Christmas BS every year. If someone wants to celebrate sun cycles fill your boots but stop with the BS of pitting it against Christmas like this faux Christmas card does. Christians celebrate the birth of Christ. I wish they could get over it. All it does is make them look really insecure. 
Groove made a great point. Pagan solstice practices basically died centuries ago. Christmas rose to domination. If someone wishes to dance naked in goat fur around a fire then have at it but me and millions of others will be celebrating CHRISTmas. Don't let it ruin your fun.


----------



## groovetube

I'm not sure what all the fuss is about.

I think if someone wants a Xmas tree and Xmas cards, do it. This idea that Xmas has to be cancelled is stupid. Put up various celebratory symbols for anyone involved.

It'd make things more interesting. But don't tell anyone they can't celebrate something because it's not 'inclusionary'.

Actually pagans and atheists are growing at a pretty fast rate, though they don't don goat legging a much anymore anymore than Christians burning or hanging witches anymore.


----------



## fjnmusic

MacGuiver said:


> I guess if your among the minority of atheist or pagans that finds reason to celebrates earths regular cycles then yeah I guess that statement is true. Happy Solstice to you.


I don't think it has anything to do with celebrating. The statement is that it's the tilt of the earth's axis that is the reason for the season. It's the reason for all seasons actually. Nothing to do with religion, atheism or anything in between. People do attach their own meanings to these natural occurrences however, so Happy Solstice right back at ya, MacGuiver.


----------



## Macfury

That one about Santa's reindeer shows me just how far you've lapsed as a Catholic, fjn. Does that have anything to do with Christianity?


----------



## groovetube

Suspected Witches Burned Alive by Christians in Kenya | The Tale Of Bitter Truth

Wow. And here I thought the christians burning witches had stopped long ago.


----------



## Macfury

Read up on the cultural implications of witchcraft in these countries before posting in ignorance.


----------



## groovetube

Would that be the same ignorance of 'cultural implications' when people post Islamic crimes of simar gravity? (Not accusing anyone here)

I suppose I need to state the obvious. This does not mean all Christians are burning witches certainly not that I'm aware of here in North America. Far from it! But I have seen that people are of the opinion that Christians have all moved forward from those dark days while other religions have not.

But it's good to see that it's recognized that 'cultural implications' are recognized as a big factor, rather than just that they are if a certain religion. :clap:


----------



## fjnmusic

Macfury said:


> That one about Santa's reindeer shows me just how far you've lapsed as a Catholic, fjn. Does that have anything to do with Christianity?


You're not the boss of me and you have no authority to judge, Macfury. Judge not, lest ye be judged. If you take your catechism literally, there's only 144,000 souls that get saved anyhow, and heaven was filled up long ago. Anyway, the thing about all those pics is that they contain a pretty huge grain of truth, whether you get it or not. Most Catholics I know have developed a sense of humour by this age.


----------



## fjnmusic

Macfury said:


> Read up on the cultural implications of witchcraft in these countries before posting in ignorance.


Boy. All full of good cheer this morning I see.


----------



## fjnmusic

groovetube said:


> Would that be the same ignorance of 'cultural implications' when people post Islamic crimes of simar gravity? (Not accusing anyone here)
> 
> I suppose I need to state the obvious. This does not mean all Christians are burning witches certainly not that I'm aware of here in North America. Far from it! But I have seen that people are of the opinion that Christians have all moved forward from those dark days while other religions have not.
> 
> But it's good to see that it's recognized that 'cultural implications' are recognized as a big factor, rather than just that they are if a certain religion. :clap:


Hey, Groove. Some people have a hard time understanding that not all Christians, let alone Catholics, move in lock step formation. Oddly enough, we were created with free will and a functioning intelligence so that we could think for ourselves. Not everybody gets this.


----------



## fjnmusic




----------



## Macfury

Take a look at the tabloid drivel you're linking to. Some of the images are from lynchings in South Africa that have nothing to do with witchcraft. You're implicating "Christians" in witch burnings, and the web site doesn't back it up with a shred of evidence. 

Show some discretion in what you post here.



groovetube said:


> Would that be the same ignorance of 'cultural implications' when people post Islamic crimes of simar gravity? (Not accusing anyone here)
> 
> I suppose I need to state the obvious. This does not mean all Christians are burning witches certainly not that I'm aware of here in North America. Far from it! But I have seen that people are of the opinion that Christians have all moved forward from those dark days while other religions have not.
> 
> But it's good to see that it's recognized that 'cultural implications' are recognized as a big factor, rather than just that they are if a certain religion. :clap:


----------



## Macfury

fjnmusic said:


> You're not the boss of me and you have no authority to judge, Macfury. Judge not, lest ye be judged. If you take your catechism literally, there's only 144,000 souls that get saved anyhow, and heaven was filled up long ago. Anyway, the thing about all those pics is that they contain a pretty huge grain of truth, whether you get it or not. Most Catholics I know have developed a sense of humour by this age.


Yes, I have the authority to judge, as you have the authority to judge me. 

If Santa Claus and the reindeer are religious icons for you, then I have no idea what sort of Catholicism you aspire to.


----------



## fjnmusic

Macfury said:


> Yes, I have the authority to judge, as you have the authority to judge me.
> 
> If Santa Claus and the reindeer are religious icons for you, then I have no idea what sort of Catholicism you aspire to.


You are so condescending, but I'll forgive you for the sake of conversation. Yes I know Santa and reindeer are not directly religious icons (and even that could be argued), but if you step back and notice, the theme of the pics I included was Christmas, not just religion. Honestly, some people have no sense of ha ha. I suppose next you'll tell me that several Christmas religious traditions are not derived from much earlier pagan customs.


----------



## groovetube

Macfury said:


> Take a look at the tabloid drivel you're linking to. Some of the images are from lynchings in South Africa that have nothing to do with witchcraft. You're implicating "Christians" in witch burnings, and the web site doesn't back it up with a shred of evidence.
> 
> Show some discretion in what you post here.


Actually these events have been reported on by quite reputable few sources if you actually check, but I will agree that these killings really don't have a lot to do with witchcraft. Just as many of the 'witches' burned in Salem had little to do with witchcraft given most, if not all of the victims were not even involved in witchcraft, they were merely suspected of it. It seems in Kenya there was the extra motivation to burn these so-called witches to gain access to land deeds.

As for 'tabloid drivel', one can only really make that accusation after they've looked into this a little further. First off you do know, that Kenya's dominant religion is Christian correct? Or did you think that the 'witches' were burning other 'witches' 



fjnmusic said:


> Hey, Groove. Some people have a hard time understanding that not all Christians, let alone Catholics, move in lock step formation. Oddly enough, we were created with free will and a functioning intelligence so that we could think for ourselves. Not everybody gets this.


Agreed. One of the things I've disliked and why I choose never to be involved in any organized faith group is exactly that very reason. I don't begrudge anyone who chooses to do so, but I reserve the right to say what I think is wrong with it, and the dangers of a group of people being led to believe another group of people different from them deserves death. 

It always seems though, the minority of people screw it up for the good people of this world.


----------



## fjnmusic

groovetube said:


> Agreed. One of the things I've disliked and why I choose never to be involved in any organized faith group is exactly that very reason. I don't begrudge anyone who chooses to do so, but I reserve the right to say what I think is wrong with it, and the dangers of a group of people being led to believe another group of people different from them deserves death.
> 
> It always seems though, the minority of people screw it up for the good people of this world.


Alleluia, brother. Happy Festivus. :clap:


----------



## Macfury

fjnmusic said:


> You are so condescending, but I'll forgive you for the sake of conversation. Yes I know Santa and reindeer are not directly religious icons (and even that could be argued), but if you step back and notice, the theme of the pics I included was Christmas, not just religion. Honestly, some people have no sense of ha ha. I suppose next you'll tell me that several Christmas religious traditions are not derived from much earlier pagan customs.


No condescension. Judging each other is how we get along, whether we admit this to be true or not.

The reason I wondered why you included Santa was that this was The Religious Thread, not the Christmas Thread.


----------



## Macfury

groovetube said:


> Actually these events have been reported on by quite reputable few sources if you actually check, but I will agree that these killings really don't have a lot to do with witchcraft. Just as many of the 'witches' burned in Salem had little to do with witchcraft given most, if not all of the victims were not even involved in witchcraft, they were merely suspected of it..


In the Salem witch trials, the people were really believed to be witches.


----------



## groovetube

Did you read any of the articles written on the Kenyan burnings??


----------



## Macfury

groovetube said:


> Did you read any of the articles written on the Kenyan burnings??


Far more of them than you have.


----------



## kps

groovetube said:


> Suspected Witches Burned Alive by Christians in Kenya | The Tale Of Bitter Truth
> 
> Wow. And here I thought the christians burning witches had stopped long ago.


Well why wouldn't you link to a more reputable report( instead of some obscure blog) where it's indicated that this is Kenyan on Kenyan violence over ocean view real estate perpetrated by relatives of the victims and nothing to do with Christians or muslims or any religion at all.

Elderly Kenyans burned alive as 'witches' after refusing to give up desirable coastline land | Mail Online


----------



## Macfury

kps said:


> Well why wouldn't you link to a more reputable report( instead of some obscure blog) where it's indicated that this is Kenyan on Kenyan violence over ocean view real estate perpetrated by relatives of the victims and nothing to do with Christians or muslims or any religion at all.


Because it didn't say "Christian" in the headline and it didn't show the photo of Ernesto Alfabeto Nhamuave being burned by a mob in South Africa in 2008.


----------



## kps

fjnmusic said:


> You are so condescending, but I'll forgive you for the sake of conversation. Yes I know Santa and reindeer are not directly religious icons (and even that could be argued), but if you step back and notice, the theme of the pics I included was Christmas, not just religion. Honestly, some people have no sense of ha ha. I suppose next you'll tell me that several Christmas religious traditions are not derived from much earlier pagan customs.


I have a sense of ha, ha, but _indirectly_ and historically, no matter how bastardized …Santa is really St Nicolas a catholic saint and Greek bishop. Even me, an atheist, knows that.


----------



## Macfury

kps said:


> I have a sense of ha, ha, but _indirectly_ and historically, no matter how bastardized …Santa is really St Nicolas a catholic saint and Greek bishop. Even me, an atheist, knows that.


Yep--but those reindeer....


----------



## groovetube

kps said:


> Well why wouldn't you link to a more reputable report( instead of some obscure blog) where it's indicated that this is Kenyan on Kenyan violence over ocean view real estate perpetrated by relatives of the victims and nothing to do with Christians or muslims or any religion at all.
> 
> Elderly Kenyans burned alive as 'witches' after refusing to give up desirable coastline land | Mail Online


Well given lots of links are provided in the piece I linked to, including the one you provided (!) I thought it wasn't a big stretch to think that if someone was interested enough in looking into it further, it was a click away right from my link! 

Plenty written on how people are being burned as suspected witches. If one reads the information provided, or looks into it. 

But, it is rather too disturbing that something like this, could happen in a predominately Christian country. I think my real point has now become lost in a back and forth of, they were burned because they were withes no they weren't (despite the reports to the contrary...) yes it is no it's not, so, believe what you like.

Some chilling similarities to events like Salem if one digs a little more.


----------



## groovetube

fjnmusic said:


> Alleluia, brother. Happy Festivus. :clap:


And a happy festivus to you too!


----------



## fjnmusic

At least we're getting the annual Airing of Grievances out of the way. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## groovetube

A healthy dose of turkey and beer oughta quieten things down some.


----------



## Macfury

groovetube said:


> I think my real point has now become lost in a back and forth of, they were burned because they were withes no they weren't (despite the reports to the contrary...) yes it is no it's not, so, believe what you like.


Believe what you like... even without a shred of evidence?



groovetube said:


> Some chilling similarities to events like Salem if one digs a little more.


Although some of the Salem 'witches' were likely accused based on deliberately false testimony, most of the accusations and the executions were conducted by people who believed they were witches. In the case of Kenya, the victims are simply being murdered by mobs under the defense that only witches are being killed.

Huge difference.


----------



## groovetube

And you have reams of evidence on this as well? 

I know what I've read on many different sources, and I think it's clear what I think, and it's also clear where you stand. It's pointless to belabour this any more.

In the end, whatever reasons people say they have for burning human beings alive, it's extremely disturbing, that that many people are being burned alive, and in a predominately Christian country at that!

To clear up any confusion though, I don't think they are burning people alive simply because, they're Christian. Far from it!


----------



## fjnmusic

Macfury said:


> Believe what you like... even without a shred of evidence?
> 
> 
> 
> Although some of the Salem 'witches' were likely accused based on deliberately false testimony, most of the accusations and the executions were conducted by people who believed they were witches. In the case of Kenya, the victims are simply being murdered by mobs under the defense that only witches are being killed.
> 
> Huge difference.


I dunno. I'd say these witches are just as dead as those witches were.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury

groovetube said:


> And you have reams of evidence on this as well?
> 
> I know what I've read on many different sources, and I think it's clear what I think, and it's also clear where you stand. It's pointless to belabour this any more.
> 
> In the end, whatever reasons people say they have for burning human beings alive, it's extremely disturbing, that that many people are being burned alive, and in a predominately Christian country at that!
> 
> To clear up any confusion though, I don't think they are burning people alive simply because, they're Christian. Far from it!


People are being murdered. Happens all over the world.


----------



## MacGuiver

> You're not the boss of me and you have no authority to judge, Macfury. Judge not, lest ye be judged. If you take your catechism literally, there's only 144,000 souls that get saved anyhow, and heaven was filled up long ago.


You're confused. I think you've been reading the WatchTower.


----------



## Macfury

MacGuiver said:


> You're confused. I think you've been reading the WatchTower.


I didn't even want to get started on that one, but the mix-up was obvious. Sometimes too much free-thinkin' leads to mere self-expression.


----------



## MacGuiver

Macfury said:


> I didn't even want to get started on that one, but the mix-up was obvious. Sometimes too much free-thinkin' leads to mere self-expression.


Having kids in the Separate School system, I've learned not to take it for granted that the teachers even have a remedial knowledge of Catholicism. Most don't.


----------



## fjnmusic

It is a matter of much debate, but the number 144,000 is clearly mentioned in Revelations. http://www.ask.com/answers/12462936...en-how-will-god-decide-who-the-lucky-ones-are

I believe the whole thing is horse puckey myself, but rather than simply complain, why don't you two enlightened individuals explain it the best you can. I notice that you can throw out plenty of criticism without offering anything yourself. It's easy to make no mistakes when you take no risks. You two are the new Waldorf and Statler. 









Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## fjnmusic

A little overview: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/144000_(number)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## MacGuiver

fjnmusic said:


> I don't think it has anything to do with celebrating. The statement is that it's the tilt of the earth's axis that is the reason for the season. It's the reason for all seasons actually. Nothing to do with religion, atheism or anything in between. People do attach their own meanings to these natural occurrences however, so Happy Solstice right back at ya, MacGuiver.


I love the cards you posted. A bunch of them are veiled attacks on Christianity and then the last one implores world religions to "COEXIST". A noble goal indeed.
But I would refrain from posting the cards that attack the beliefs of the Christian religion symbolized in the last card if you really take that message to heart.

And I don't celebrate solstice but thanks for the greeting just the same. Call me crazy but changing sun cycles just don't get me all that excited.


----------



## MacGuiver

fjnmusic said:


> It is a matter of much debate, but the number 144,000 is clearly mentioned in Revelations. According to the Bible only 144,000 people get into heaven. How will G - Ask Community
> 
> I believe the whole thing is horse puckey myself, but rather than simply complain, why don't you two enlightened individuals explain it the best you can. I notice that you can throw out plenty of criticism without offering anything yourself. It's easy to make no mistakes when you take no risks. You two are the new Waldorf and Statler.
> View attachment 38497
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


You specifically stated it was in the Catechism of the Catholic Church and church teaching that 144,000 would be saved. This is categorically false and the only reason I'm calling you out on it is the fact you being a "Catholic Teacher" and stating this publicly would lead naive Catholics or non Catholics to think what you said is true when it isn't. 

If you think spreading false information about Catholicism is OK then so be it. But don't get all upset if someone calls you out on it. The Jehovah Witnesses adhere to that literal reading of Revelations but the Catholics sure as heck don't.


----------



## Macfury

fjnmusic said:


> II believe the whole thing is horse puckey myself, but rather than simply complain, why don't you two enlightened individuals explain it the best you can. I notice that you can throw out plenty of criticism without offering anything yourself. It's easy to make no mistakes when you take no risks.


Well, I certainly won't take risks in areas in which I have no expertise.



fjnmusic said:


> A little overview: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/144000_(number)


The 144,000 are only those saved from the 12 Tribes of Israel, following the beginning of the Great Tribulation--not a grand total.


----------



## SINC

Well, according to Fox, here's the scoop: 

A Christmas gift for atheists -- five reasons why God exists | Fox News


----------



## fjnmusic

I don't know what you consider to be the ultimate source, but here's the Revelations Chapter 7 section courtesy of Catholic Online: Revelation - Chapter 7 - Bible - Catholic Online

How this is interpreted of course varies widely. I would read it to mean "a lot," the same way you are supposed to forgive someone continually, not 490 times exactly (seventy times seven). Most people couldn't count that high (still can't).


----------



## Macfury

The 144,000 were only those of the 12 Tribes of Israel. The uncountable multitude are the rest of those saved.


----------



## fjnmusic

Macfury said:


> The 144,000 were only those of the 12 Tribes of Israel. The uncountable multitude are the rest of those saved.


This does point to an unavoidable problem: salvation and for whom. If the story of Adam and Eve is symbolic rather than literal (which is what the Catholic catechism that I consulted states), then there was no literal snake, no literal apple, and no literal original sin that can trace all of humanity back to one pair of people. And therefore…wait for it…no original sin that man needs to be saved from. Follow that thinking through and see where it gets you. 

And please don't shoot me; I'm just the piano player.


----------



## Macfury

fjnmusic said:


> This does point to an unavoidable problem: salvation and for whom. If the story of Adam and Eve is symbolic rather than literal (which is what the Catholic catechism that I consulted states), then there was no literal snake, no literal apple, and no literal original sin that can trace all of humanity back to one pair of people. And therefore…wait for it…no original sin that man needs to be saved from. Follow that thinking through and see where it gets you.
> 
> And please don't shoot me; I'm just the piano player.


I believe this is the third time you've delivered that dud.


----------



## fjnmusic

Macfury said:


> I believe this is the third time you've delivered that dud.


Then that would mark the third time you haven't addressed it.


----------



## Macfury

fjnmusic said:


> Then that would mark the third time you haven't addressed it.


You were cremated.

http://www.ehmac.ca/everything-else-eh/83651-religious-thread-410.html

http://www.ehmac.ca/everything-else-eh/83651-religious-thread-309.html#post1252574


----------



## fjnmusic

Macfury said:


> You were cremated.
> 
> http://www.ehmac.ca/everything-else-eh/83651-religious-thread-410.html
> 
> http://www.ehmac.ca/everything-else-eh/83651-religious-thread-309.html#post1252574


Well that was a link to nowhere. Tell me, Macfury, how do you define original sin? Shouldn't be that hard since you know so much. And it IS the religious thread after all.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury

Certainly it's a sin to post the identical argument three times in The Religious Thread within the same year.


----------



## Dr.G.

Macfury said:


> Certainly it's a sin to post the identical argument three times in The Religious Thread within the same year.


"And the Lord turned and looked at Peter. And Peter remembered the saying of the Lord, how he had said to him, “Before the rooster crows today, you will deny me three times.” And he went out and wept bitterly."


----------



## MacGuiver

Dr.G. said:


> "And the Lord turned and looked at Peter. And Peter remembered the saying of the Lord, how he had said to him, “Before the rooster crows today, you will deny me three times.” And he went out and wept bitterly."


LOL!!! Good one Dr. G.


----------



## groovetube

Yes G, nailed it sweetly.


----------



## Macfury

Dr.G. said:


> "And the Lord turned and looked at Peter. And Peter remembered the saying of the Lord, how he had said to him, “Before the rooster crows today, you will deny me three times.” And he went out and wept bitterly."


In the modern retelling, it's fjnmusic who crowed three times--then wept bitterly.


----------



## screature

Macfury said:


> Yes, I have the authority to judge, as you have the authority to judge me.
> 
> If Santa Claus and the reindeer are religious icons for you, then I have no idea what sort of Catholicism you aspire to.


Well on the other hand there is this:



> Judge not, lest ye be judged.


 and 



> Forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us...


Personally I prefer this paradigm.


----------



## Macfury

> Well on the other hand there is this:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Judge not, lest ye be judged.
Click to expand...

The meaning is this:

"For in the way you judge, you will be judged; and by your standard of measure, it will be measured to you." Matthew 7:2 

It is not an injunction against judgement, but a caution.


----------



## screature

Macfury said:


> The meaning is this:
> 
> "For in the way you judge, you will be judged; and by your standard of measure, it will be measured to you." Matthew 7:2
> 
> It is not an injunction against judgement, but a caution.


Well I guess what I am saying then is I tend to be pretty lenient in my judging of others. I try to let the little stuff slide on the whole. We are all fallible and just like another little tidbit:



> Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.


----------



## Macfury

> Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.


Literal not figurative.


----------



## screature

Macfury said:


> Literal not figurative.


Maybe originally, but in terms of theology it definitely has a figurative meaning as well.


----------



## Macfury

screature said:


> Maybe originally, but in terms of theology it definitely has a figurative meaning as well.


Yes--judge and be prepared to be judged likewise.


----------



## MacGuiver

Macfury said:


> Yes--judge and be prepared to be judged likewise.


Don't forget, Jesus told the woman to "go and sin no more" at the end of the discourse. A judgement had to be made that her conduct was sinful to make that statement. If the lesson of "Let he without sin cast the first stone" is not to judge people whatsoever then he shouldn't have mentioned her sin and told her to straighten up when she departed.


----------



## screature

Macfury said:


> Yes--judge and be prepared to be judged likewise.


I think you will find it is open to interpretation depending on which theologian you speak to.


----------



## Macfury

screature said:


> I think you will find it is open to interpretation depending on which theologian you speak to.


That can pretty much be said about any subject.


----------



## fjnmusic

There are those who if they could not use their great wisdom to lord it over others would not find any use in religion at all. These kinds of people I believe completely miss the point. Humility is indeed a virtue.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## groovetube

fjnmusic said:


> There are those who if they could not use their great wisdom to lord it over others would not find any use in religion at all. These kinds of people I believe completely miss the point. Humility is indeed a virtue.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


and right there I think you nailed the meaning of the phrase quite well.


----------



## fjnmusic

Macfury said:


> In the modern retelling, it's fjnmusic who crowed three times--then wept bitterly.


You are a bitter man. It is difficult to extend any goblet of kindness to you because it is spat back abrasively and with derision. It has not occurred to you that you might be Peter in this scenario. When confronted with the truth three times, Peter avoids it rather than confront what the premise might lead to. And yet Peter knows the truth; he just doesn't want to admit it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## fjnmusic

groovetube said:


> and right there I think you nailed the meaning of the phrase quite well.


Why thank you GT. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury

fjnmusic said:


> There are those who if they could not use their great wisdom to lord it over others would not find any use in religion at all. These kinds of people I believe completely miss the point. Humility is indeed a virtue.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Clearly, such people would find positions in "progressive" governments could they not lord it over others as religious figures.


----------



## fjnmusic

Macfury said:


> Clearly, such people would find positions in "progressive" governments could they not lord it over others as religious figures.


Or regressive or conservative governments as well. I believe Rob Ford is a member of the conservative establishment, as endorsed by Stephen Harper no less for all he had done to clean up Toronto. No one has a monopoly on truth and goodness. Sometimes inspiration comes from the most unlikely places. I believe that was the point of a Saviour being born in a lowly manger. It's about as homeless as one can get.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## screature

Macfury said:


> That can pretty much be said about any subject.


Exactly and thus my point.


----------



## MacGuiver

fjnmusic said:


> I believe that was the point of a Saviour being born in a lowly manger. It's about as homeless as one can get.


You mustn't be talking about Jesus here, because you've denied him being a Saviour 3 times now in this thread?


----------



## Macfury

MacGuiver said:


> You mustn't be talking about Jesus here, because you've denied him being a Saviour 3 times now in this thread?


I heard a rooster crow just now.


----------



## screature

MacGuiver said:


> Don't forget, Jesus told the woman to "go and sin no more" at the end of the discourse. A judgement had to be made that her conduct was sinful to make that statement. If the lesson of "Let he without sin cast the first stone" is not to judge people whatsoever then he shouldn't have mentioned her sin and told her to straighten up when she departed.


IMO if we are to believe the scriptures verbatim, which mind you is the personal memories of those present and their own personal interpretations of those memories of what was said then we are only relying on the testimony of those individuals and not the word of JC. 

To me this is clear.

Thus we really have no way of knowing what JC *actually* meant as he is not here to provide clarification. I wish he was.

So in the end it is the word of *some men* that some people believe to be the *"word of god"* that Christianity basis's its beliefs upon.

IMO not a very solid philosophical/theological leg to stand on...

It doesn't mean that their accounts are not true but merely that they are subjective and thus can in no way represent objective fact... They may be right and correct in their interpretations of what JC said but we really have no means of knowing either way.

So in the end all you can do is to choose to believe what you want to believe, much like modern day politics.


----------



## Macfury

screature said:


> IMO if we are to believe the scriptures verbatim, which mind you is the personal memories of those present and their own personal interpretations of those memories of what was said then we are only relying on the testimony of those individuals and not the word of JC.
> 
> To me this is clear.
> 
> Thus we really have no way of knowing what JC *actually* meant as he is not here to provide clarification. I wish he was.
> 
> So in the end it is the word of *some men* that some people believe to be the *"word of god"* that Christianity basis's its beliefs upon.
> 
> IMO not a very solid philosophical/theological leg to stand on...
> 
> It doesn't mean that their accounts are not true but merely that they are subjective and thus can in no way represent objective fact... They may be right and correct in their interpretations of what JC said but we really have no means of knowing either way.
> 
> So in the end all you can do is to choose to believe what you want to believe, much like modern day politics.


This is why there is more than one gospel, each of which roughly corroborates the others. At that point, you simply have to decide if they were simultaneously wrong, or lying.


----------



## screature

Macfury said:


> This is why there is more than one gospel, *each of which roughly corroborates the others*. At that point, you simply have to decide if they were simultaneously wrong, or lying.


Roughly indeed.

The words may be close but the interpretations of those words vary greatly and thus my point.

As I have made previously.


----------



## Macfury

screature said:


> Roughly indeed.
> 
> The words may be close but the interpretations of those words vary greatly and thus my point.
> 
> As I have made previously.


They're quite close in fact, minus a few glitches in chronology.

I'm never much concerned about outré interpretations. You can find people who call black white and congratulate themselves on their cleverness.


----------



## Macfury

fjnmusic said:


> You are a bitter man. It is difficult to extend any goblet of kindness to you because it is spat back abrasively and with derision. It has not occurred to you that you might be Peter in this scenario. When confronted with the truth three times, Peter avoids it rather than confront what the premise might lead to. And yet Peter knows the truth; he just doesn't want to admit it.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


You're right. It has not occurred to me once.


----------



## fjnmusic

Macfury said:


> This is why there is more than one gospel, each of which roughly corroborates the others. At that point, you simply have to decide if they were simultaneously wrong, or lying.


Or building upon the previous ones and editing as necessary.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## groovetube

I've often found wide discrepancies in people's interpretations, and while as you say screature, this JC fellow isn't around to verify the correct one, I do find it interesting to observe the difference in these interpretations. 

Of course, people are often insistent that theirs is correct, or that you're not a real (insert religious organization here)... If you think something different.


----------



## fjnmusic

Macfury said:


> They're quite close in fact, minus a few glitches in chronology.
> 
> I'm never much concerned about outré interpretations. You can find people who call black white and congratulate themselves on their cleverness.


Two gospel versions do not even mention the birth of Jesus at all. So much for rough corroboration.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury

fjnmusic said:


> Two gospel versions do not even mention the birth of Jesus at all. So much for rough corroboration.


That's right. Each of them tells their own version of events, stressing what they saw as important. However, the overlap of each version delivers a close match.


----------



## fjnmusic

Macfury said:


> That's right. Each of them tells their own version of events, stressing what they saw as important. However, the overlap of each version delivers a close match.


Good lord. My Christian Theology teacher back in the day lined them all up to show how much difference there is, pointing to political motivations as the reason for the differences. Where there are similarities, it is likely because one author was working from the texts of the previous authors, with Mark being the first gospel, a good number of decades after JC's appearance and long after Paul's letters, who says he never actually met Jesus himself. Plagiarism pretty much, and leaving out the parts they didn't like. There's a ton of uncertainty here on which to formulate such a didactic response to criticism about the "truth" as you know it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## screature

Macfury said:


> That's right. Each of them tells their own version of events, stressing what they saw as important. *However, the overlap of each version delivers a close match.*


Again what they saw/heard may be close but what those events and words *meant* are always open to interpretation, i.e. subjective not objective. Only JC could know what he meant and since he isn't around to ask so all we have is subjective (2nd hand) interpretation.


----------



## Macfury

fjnmusic said:


> Good lord. My Christian Theology teacher back in the day lined them all up to show how much difference there is, pointing to political motivations as the reason for the differences. Where there are similarities, it is likely because one author was working from the texts of the previous authors, with Mark being the first gospel, a good number of decades after JC's appearance and long after Paul's letters, who says he never actually met Jesus himself. Plagiarism pretty much, and leaving out the parts they didn't like. There's a ton of uncertainty here on which to formulate such a didactic response to criticism about the "truth" as you know it.


Again, the differences are the result of reporting by different people over a vast time period. The differences were known when they were included in the Bible as we know it--this is not some latter day discovery.


----------



## MacGuiver

screature said:


> Again what they saw/heard may be close but what those events and words *meant* are always open to interpretation, i.e. subjective not objective. Only JC could know what he meant and since he isn't around to ask so all we have is subjective (2nd hand) interpretation.


From a Christian perspective this isn't the case. Christ promised the Holy Spirit to instruct the Church in all truths. We have not just the written word to teach us but the Holy Spirit to guide us to understand it and lead us to the Truth.
Of course from a sceptics perspective, if you've written off the validity of scripture and the possibility of a God then this is just more stuff to disbelieve.


----------



## groovetube

But who's to say what this Holy Spirit told one person is being reported accurately?

We have an awful lot of examples of people who have been pretty sure what some spirit has told them, including this Holy Spirit. (Interesting that the iPad capitalized Holy Spirit...  )

It's not for me to say it doesn't exist. But that seems pretty shaken to me.


----------



## groovetube

Man there's a spirit inhabiting the ehMac server and it's a bit of a trickster! 

So many database errors!


----------



## Dr.G.

groovetube said:


> Man there's a spirit inhabiting the ehMac server and it's a bit of a trickster!
> 
> So many database errors!


Maybe God is trying to send a message???  "I am that I am." We shall see.


----------



## fjnmusic

Dr.G. said:


> Maybe God is trying to send a message???  "I am that I am." We shall see.


That's remarkably close to what St. Popeye said!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Dr.G.

fjnmusic said:


> That's remarkably close to what St. Popeye said!
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Careful, fjn. "Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain. Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me; And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments."

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zUm6rC0o7Po]The Ten Commandments (10/10) Movie CLIP - The Burning Bush (1956) HD - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## screature

MacGuiver said:


> From a Christian perspective this isn't the case. Christ promised the Holy Spirit to instruct the Church in all truths. We have not just the written word to teach us but the Holy Spirit to guide us to understand it and lead us to the Truth.
> Of course from a sceptics perspective, if you've written off the validity of scripture and the possibility of a God then this is just more stuff to disbelieve.


I think you meant to say Catholic. From a Christian perspective there are hundreds if not thousands of different theological interpretations of the words of the various testaments.


----------



## Macfury

screature said:


> I think you meant to say Catholic. From a Christian perspective there are hundreds if not thousands of different theological interpretations of the words of the various testaments.


I don't want to speak for MacGuiver, but just because there are many interpretations, does not mean all of them are either valid or correct. There would be only one correct interpretation, and it's up to Christians to try to hone in on it.


----------



## groovetube

It would be nice if we had a little less 'you're not expert enough to ask such questions! You're not a Christian so how dare you have an opinion on this!' Etc., and a little more discussion?

I agree with screature, there are a lot if different interpretations out there. Seems that Holy Spirit has been busy


----------



## screature

Macfury said:


> I don't want to speak for MacGuiver, but just because there are many interpretations, does not mean all of them are either valid or correct. *There would be only one correct interpretation, and it's up to Christians to try to hone in on it.*


So who decides? A human being I would think.


----------



## Macfury

screature said:


> So who decides? A human being I would think.


People will _try_ to decide. However, it is inherent in the message that there is a correct interpretation. It isn't simply food for thought.


----------



## groovetube

screature said:


> So who decides? A human being I would think.


Yes. Though apparently, a human being will KNOW which is the correct interpretation, which given the many many different versions out there as you correctly pointed out, it's anyone's guess as to which human being, is correct.


----------



## MacGuiver

MacFury is right. Their is no moral relativism in Christianity where their is a truth for me and one for you and all are valid. Truth can not contradict itself. If people differ on a truth as God intended it then one or both are wrong.


----------



## CubaMark

MacGuiver said:


> From a Christian perspective this isn't the case. Christ promised the Holy Spirit to instruct the Church in all truths.


I trust, then, that you shall be abandoning your advocacy of contemporary capitalism and embracing an economic system that is more equitable?


----------



## Macfury

CubaMark said:


> I trust, then, that you shall be abandoning your advocacy of contemporary capitalism and embracing an economic system that is more equitable


The Bible does not advocate "economic systems"--only personal conviction and responsibility.


----------



## groovetube

well done macfury! There's hope for you yet!


----------



## MazterCBlazter

CubaMark said:


> I trust, then, that you shall be abandoning your advocacy of contemporary capitalism and embracing an economic system that is more equitable?


I just get the Capitalist thing working for me, and then this happens :yikes:

Republicans are calling him a socialist LOL!


----------



## MazterCBlazter

Pope is an anticapitalism socialist — thank God - Paul B. Farrell - MarketWatch

Evangelii Gaudium, Apostolic Exhortation of Pope Francis, 2013


----------



## Macfury

MazterCBlazter said:


> Republicans are calling him a socialist LOL!


No at all. Rush Limbaugh said, on his program, that a recent speech of the Pope sounded as though he was advocating Marxism. The Pope's response was that he was not a Marxist and that ""Marxist ideology is wrong."


----------



## groovetube

MazterCBlazter said:


> I just get the Capitalist thing working for me, and then this happens :yikes:
> 
> *Republicans are calling him a socialist LOL!*


Yup. I've seen republican after republican do so. I don't know that all republicans are saying so, but this pope isn't exactly helping matters for them


----------



## MazterCBlazter

As an Atheist, I actually like and have some respect for this new Pope. He seems to be a very good man trying hard to do good things. He is big improvement over the long line of assholes than he replaced. Hopefully he and other Popes after him will continue to have a positive effect on a big powerful organization (and the bad attitude of many of its followers) that badly needs it. Although if I were in his position I would do to the Church what Gorbachev did to the Soviet Union. Dissolve it.

Many of my Capitalist Bible Thumping Republicans gun totin' friends are very unhappy with this Pope.

Hugo Chavez was a very religious man, as was Jack Layton. Many Socialists and hardcore NDP supporters also consider themselves Christian approve of his position.


----------



## MazterCBlazter

Meanwhile in America...


----------



## groovetube

MazterCBlazter said:


> Meanwhile in America...


:clap:


----------



## Macfury

MazterCBlazter said:


> As an Atheist, I actually like and have some respect for this new Pope. He seems to be a very good man trying hard to do good things. He is big improvement over the long line of assholes than he replaced. Hopefully he and other Popes after him will continue to have a positive effect on a big powerful organization (and the bad attitude of many of its followers) that badly needs it. Although if I were in his position I would do to the Church what Gorbachev did to the Soviet Union. Dissolve it.
> 
> Many of my Capitalist Bible Thumping Republicans gun totin' friends are very unhappy with this Pope.
> 
> Hugo Chavez was a very religious man, as was Jack Layton. Many Socialists and hardcore NDP supporters also consider themselves Christian approve of his position.


Why wouldn't a socialist agree with a call for a hard left turn? Are we supposed to be surprised. Do you agree with the Pope's stand on abortion--you can't just take a little piece of his message and run with it.

Hugo Chavez? He probably takes the record then for a religious man wreaking economic devastation, hyperinflation and food shortages on his country. Gives religion a bad name.


----------



## MacGuiver

Pope Francis is no Socialist poster boy... or Capitalist. I know that many lefties are elated thinking he's one of them but other than his Charisma and style, he's theologically no different than his predecessors. He strongly supports all the things that get leftists underwear in a knot and will not be changing these church positions. He's Pro Life, supports man and wife marriage only, celibacy or monogamous marriage, male priesthood, against birth control etc etc. 
I hate to rain on the party but these moral issues he and his predecessors supported haven't and won't change. 

Here is the Pope's view of the issue of Capitalism vs Marxism.

_“Both capitalism and Marxism promised to point out the path for the creation of just structures, and they declared that these, once established, would function by themselves; they declared that not only would they have no need of any prior individual morality, but that they would promote a communal morality. And this ideological promise has been proved false. The facts have clearly demonstrated it. The Marxist system, where it found its way into government, not only left a sad heritage of economic and ecological destruction, but also a painful oppression of souls. And we can also see the same thing happening in the West, where the distance between rich and poor is growing constantly, and giving rise to a worrying degradation of personal dignity through drugs, alcohol and deceptive illusions of happiness.”_


----------



## MacGuiver

I have to admit I really like him too. Not that I didn't like his predecessors. His humility, personality and compassion are very attractive to Christian and non Christian alike.


----------



## MazterCBlazter




----------



## MacGuiver

MazterCBlazter said:


>


Wrong side of context.


----------



## Macfury

MacGuiver said:


> Wrong side of context.


If I'm not mistaken, the Catholic church does not deem it wrong to be gay, but considers it wrong to engage in homosexual activity. The Pope's statement is certainly consistent with that.


----------



## MacGuiver

Macfury said:


> If I'm not mistaken, the Catholic church does not deem it wrong to be gay, but considers it wrong to engage in homosexual activity. The Pope's statement is certainly consistent with that.


You are correct. And if these folks had used more than a snippet from his talk, that would have been evident. In the next line he endorses the churches position on homosexuality as stated in the Catechism.


----------



## screature

Macfury said:


> *If I'm not mistaken, the Catholic church does not deem it wrong to be gay, but considers it wrong to engage in homosexual activity.* The Pope's statement is certainly consistent with that.


That is extremely hypocritical and unrealistic of the Catholic church isn't it, considering their all too shady past and present on the matter. 

Seems they want to have their cake and eat it to. Quite frankly in terms of human behaviour it is a ridiculously untenable position.


----------



## Macfury

It isn't untenable, but it is hypocritical not to apply the same rules equally to clergy.


----------



## fjnmusic

Macfury said:


> If I'm not mistaken, the Catholic church does not deem it wrong to be gay, but considers it wrong to engage in homosexual activity. The Pope's statement is certainly consistent with that.


So how in the world can you determine if someone is gay if not by their activity? What if they've never had sex with anyone yet? Dois one condemn the mere inclination? Seems pretty weak. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## screature

Macfury said:


> It isn't untenable, but it is hypocritical not to apply the same rules equally to clergy.


So the way of life for those who are born gay should be to abstain from sex with those to whom they are physically attracted? 

That is untenable in reality. A completely inhuman proposition IMO.


----------



## fjnmusic

screature said:


> So the way of life for those who are born gay should be to abstain from sex with those to whom they are physically attracted?
> 
> That is untenable in reality. A completely inhuman proposition IMO.


Not to mention chastity. If it is the act that defines the sexuality, and a young person has never had sex with anyone, male or female, how do they honestly know if they're homosexual or heterosexual? 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury

fjnmusic said:


> Not to mention chastity. If it is the act that defines the sexuality, and a young person has never had sex with anyone, male or female, how do they honestly know if they're homosexual or heterosexual?


They will certainly know when they've joined the club.


----------



## screature

Macfury said:


> They will certainly know when they've *joined the club*.


MF I know you are an intelligent and educated person, but that post does not reflect either of those attributes.

I wish I could be more diplomatic but sadly I cannot.


----------



## screature

screature said:


> So the way of life *for those who are born gay should be to abstain from sex with those to whom they are physically attracted*?
> 
> That is untenable in reality. A completely inhuman proposition IMO.





fjnmusic said:


> *Not to mention chastity*. If it is the act that defines the sexuality, and a young person has never had sex with anyone, male or female, how do they honestly know if they're homosexual or heterosexual?


Sorry but I thought that is what I already said in so many words.


----------



## screature

fjnmusic said:


> Not to mention chastity. *If it is the act that defines the sexuality, and a young person has never had sex with anyone, male or female, how do they honestly know if they're homosexual or heterosexual? *


Just to add...

It isn't the act of sex that makes one **** or hetero sexual... it is the unrelenting desire towards one sex or the other that makes one so either way.


----------



## groovetube

screature said:


> MF I know you are an intelligent and educated person, but that post does not reflect either of those attributes.
> 
> I wish I could be more diplomatic but sadly I cannot.


You have to assume he's pulling your leg...


----------



## fjnmusic

screature said:


> MF I know you are an intelligent and educated person, but that post does not reflect either of those attributes.
> 
> I wish I could be more diplomatic but sadly I cannot.


It seems you may have assumed too much. What I see demonstrated time and again are simply bully tactics. Each if us has a brain and a conscience and we can come to our own conclusions on an anonymous Internet forum. No one is the expert more than anyone else, despite their protests to the contrary.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury

screature said:


> MF I know you are an intelligent and educated person, but that post does not reflect either of those attributes.
> 
> I wish I could be more diplomatic but sadly I cannot.


I was pointing out the silly nature of fjn's post. Most people know whether they're interested in the opposite sex or their own sex long before they've actually had a sexual encounter. If that encounter is indefinitely postponed, most people still identify as gay or straight.


----------



## screature

Macfury said:


> I was pointing out the silly nature of fjn's post. *Most people know whether they're interested in the opposite sex or their own sex long before they've actually had a sexual encounter. If that encounter is indefinitely postponed, most people still identify as gay or straight.*


Ok fair enough I agree.


----------



## Macfury

screature said:


> Ok fair enough I agree.


Maybe not enough _Seinfeld_ viewers here, but the euphamism used for homosexuality on one episode was: "He plays for the other team."


----------



## screature

Macfury said:


> Maybe not enough _Seinfeld_ viewers here, but the euphamism used for homosexuality on one episode was: "He plays for the other team."


Well yes I get that and I see what you were referring to but when you said "joined the club" in this day and age it doesn't read very well.

I have numerous gay friends of both the male and female sex and they are some of the finest people I know.


----------



## Macfury

screature said:


> Well yes I get that and I see what you were referring to but when you said "joined the club" in this day and age it doesn't read very well.
> 
> I have numerous gay friends of both the male and female sex and they are some of the finest people I know.


But once a person begins to enjoy sexual relations, they have pretty much joined one club/team or the other. Since that applies equally to any orientation, I don't see how that's derogatory.

I also have numerous gay friends. Some of them are among the finest people I know, while others are goofs, bad spellers and people with really annoying habits--just like my heterosexual friends.


----------



## CubaMark




----------



## Dr.G.

CubaMark said:


>


:lmao::lmao:


----------



## fjnmusic

Macfury said:


> But once a person begins to enjoy sexual relations, they have pretty much joined one club/team or the other. Since that applies equally to any orientation, I don't see how that's derogatory.
> 
> I also have numerous gay friends. Some of them are among the finest people I know, while others are goofs, bad spellers and people with really annoying habits--just like my heterosexual friends.


Most of the gay friends I know do not join one team or the other. In fact, they may well play for both teams at different times of their lives. That's what makes sexuality so complex...more of a continuum than an either/or situation. If course, this is not the kind of thing homophobic people like to hear, but it's the truth. There is no such thing as a "gay" gene so much as there is in inclination toward hetero- or ****- sexuality, which may change with time. There's also no accounting for taste with anyone, bad spellers and annoying people included.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury

fjnmusic said:


> Most of the gay friends I know do not join one team or the other. In fact, they may well play for both teams at different times of their lives. That's what makes sexuality so complex...more of a continuum than an either/or situation. If course, this is not the kind of thing homophobic people like to hear, but it's the truth. There is no such thing as a "gay" gene so much as there is in inclination toward hetero- or ****- sexuality, which may change with time.


Most people identify as gay or straight. The "continuum" may be a useful construct for people who just like to have a lot of sex with anyone.


----------



## groovetube

Macfury said:


> Most people identify as gay or straight. The "continuum" may be a useful construct for people who just like to have a lot of sex with anyone.


false again. Not everyone who have decided to sleep either opposite or same sex partners, 'simply want to have sex with a lot of people'.

That's an even more ridiculous notion.


----------



## Macfury

Yes, of course. It's all elusive. All on a continuum. All undefinable.

I had once read a comment that from someone "on the continuum" that they wouldn't want people to practice selective abortion against babies identified medically as homosexual. Since all people are now on a continuum, we can dispense with that concern.


----------



## screature

Macfury said:


> *Most people identify as gay or straight.* The "continuum" may be a useful construct for people who just like to have a lot of sex with anyone.



I do have to agree with that statement... there maybe some confusion at puberty when hormones are raging but usually once into adulthood they know who they are.


----------



## groovetube

Macfury said:


> Yes, of course. It's all elusive. All on a continuum. All undefinable.
> 
> I had once read a comment that from someone "on the continuum" that they wouldn't want people to practice selective abortion against babies identified medically as homosexual. Since all people are now on a continuum, we can dispense with that concern.


That sentence doesn't make a lot sense.

Now let's roll this back to the beginning where you tried to differentiate between between people who identify as being gay, and then people who have gay sex.

Before we get too confused and embroiled in 10 more quickly added topics, you need to explain why you would make such a distinction.

I have generally seen people, either gay, straight, or bi, either be sexually active (whether monogamously or not) or be celibate. But you've somehow come up with some new rather strange ideas.


----------



## Macfury

groovetube said:


> I have generally seen people, either gay, straight, or bi, either be sexually active (whether monogamously or not) or be celibate. But you've somehow come up with some new rather strange ideas.


How did you now they were gay? Perhaps they were on the continuum?


----------



## groovetube

that's kinda what I thought.


----------



## Macfury

No answer. You are at least consistent in your ability to follow through.


----------



## CubaMark

screature said:


> I do have to agree with that statement... there maybe some confusion at puberty when hormones are raging but usual once into adulthood they know who they are.


Jeez, dude. Offhand I can think of at least four Republican politicians who disprove that assertion...


----------



## groovetube

Macfury said:


> No answer. You are at least consistent in your ability to follow through.


Well macfury you've darted through too many directions to offer a proper response. I did try to turn things back on track, but well, if it gets there, sure.


----------



## Macfury

Don't bother. If you can't answer one simple question, this will be too much of a "think" for you.


----------



## groovetube

yes I believe that may be a bit too much work


----------



## Macfury

CubaMark said:


> Jeez, dude. Offhand I can think of at least four Republican politicians who disprove that assertion...


They're gay men pretending to be straight. Is that not obvious?


----------



## groovetube

apparently a lot of britons called to complain about this... :roll eyes:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eO3SDlIivcQ


----------



## screature

CubaMark said:


> Jeez, dude. Offhand I can think of at least four Republican politicians who disprove that assertion...


Usually I said. And also I think people like who you are referring to know who they are deep down inside they just don't want to admit it to the world.


----------



## screature

groovetube said:


> apparently a lot of britons called to complain about this... :roll eyes:


:lmao: I love Rowan Atkinson. He is terrific in every role he plays.


----------



## MacGuiver

groovetube said:


> apparently a lot of britons called to complain about this... :roll eyes:


He's a funny man. Nothing irks me with this. I do get urked when you know the "comedy" was less about being funny and more about being offensive using "comedy" as a cover. There is a difference. 
The Simpson's regularly pokes fun at Christians (and just about every other identifiable group) and its always good for laugh.


----------



## MacGuiver

Its just a good thing he didn't offend the gays. He'd be off the air the same day.

Sun News : Phil Robertson removed from 'Duck Dynasty' following homophobic remarks


----------



## eMacMan

MacGuiver said:


> Its just a good thing he didn't offend the gays. He'd be off the air the same day.


I believe it's the pedophiles that the BBC views as sacred, homosexuals more as vital lynch pins.


----------



## CubaMark

screature said:


> Usually I said. And also I think people like who you are referring to know who they are deep down inside they just don't want to admit it to the world.


I'm trying to parse that... but your meaning isn't quite clear. Are you inferring that I have internalized issues about my sexuality? I daresay you don't know me well enough to go there, pal.


----------



## groovetube

MacGuiver said:


> Its just a good thing he didn't offend the gays. He'd be off the air the same day.
> 
> Sun News : Phil Robertson removed from 'Duck Dynasty' following homophobic remarks


Well I think this guys comments about the gays went a little further than Atkinson's humour.

Robertson's comments wasn't humour.


----------



## screature

CubaMark said:


> I'm trying to parse that... but your meaning isn't quite clear. Are you inferring that I have internalized issues about my sexuality? I daresay you don't know me well enough to go there, pal.


What are you talking about?!!

*Usually* people by the time they are an adult know what their sexuality is. You seemed to think that I was somehow in error and cited cases of US republicans, who I in turn said they most likely deep down know who they are but aren't willing to admit it to the world at large.

What's not to get and where did I talk about you or your sexuality. Man talk about reading into things. Take a pill.


----------



## CubaMark

Yeah, some tylenol might help. I've been doing translations for the past year to pay the bills, and I'm used to needing to decipher another language or (worse) non-native-speaker's attempts in English. My brain simply misread "who" to mean me....


----------



## fjnmusic

Something else to ponder: is it the act or the inclination that determines one's sexuality if one holds steadfast to the belief that sexuality is not a continuum? Suppose a young person has an attraction to members of the same gender but tragically dies before they ever have their first sexual experience. Are they gay, even if they never acted on it? Are they straight? Suppose a straight person goes to prison and engages in homosexual activity while there (this happens in the armed forces as well due to the needs if basic biology and a lack of alternatives). They didn't start out gay but nonetheless participated in homosexual acts. Is is the inclination or the act? If you hold steadfast to the inclination theory, you're going to run into some pretty strange counter examples, where the person who engages in the activity is "less gay" than the one who never acts upon that inclination. That and the fact that every gay person I know has "played for both teams" at some point in their lives leads me to believe that sexuality must be a kind of continuum as opposed to an either/or scenario. Anyone could play for either team given the right circumstances.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury

fjnmusic said:


> Suppose a straight person goes to prison and engages in homosexual activity while there (this happens in the armed forces as well due to the needs if basic biology and a lack of alternatives).


Uh, just no. I could never be driven to this level of desperation.


----------



## groovetube

Well I don't think FJN was necessarily referring to you macfury...

Good questions fjn. I have heard religious people come up with some pretty hilarious loopholes, but this one is a surprise.


----------



## eMacMan

Macfury said:


> Uh, just no. I could never be driven to this level of desperation.


Well once the international thought police are set up and running you could certainly wind up in jail. From that point you might not be given the choice as to engaging in homosexual activity.


----------



## screature

fjnmusic said:


> Something else to ponder: is it the act or the inclination that determines one's sexuality if one holds steadfast to the belief that sexuality is not a continuum? Suppose a young person has an attraction to members of the same gender but tragically dies before they ever have their first sexual experience. Are they gay, even if they never acted on it? Are they straight? Suppose a straight person goes to prison and engages in homosexual activity while there (this happens in the armed forces as well due to the needs if basic biology and a lack of alternatives). They didn't start out gay but nonetheless participated in homosexual acts. Is is the inclination or the act? If you hold steadfast to the inclination theory, you're going to run into some pretty strange counter examples, where the person who engages in the activity is "less gay" than the one who never acts upon that inclination. That and the fact that every gay person I know has "played for both teams" at some point in their lives leads me to believe that sexuality must be a kind of continuum as opposed to an either/or scenario. Anyone could play for either team given the right circumstances.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Another scenario is that of males in adolescence having same sex experience with friends only to decide it isn't for them. I can't remember the percentage of young men/boys who according to Masters and Johnson engage in this "experimenting" behavior but it was very high, somewhere around 60%.

I don't think there is a hard and fast rule at all when it comes to such matters. For some people they have an unwavering sexual orientation while for others it is very much a fluid (to use your word continuum) thing.


----------



## MacGuiver

screature said:


> Another scenario is that of males in adolescence having same sex experience with friends only to decide it isn't for them. I can't remember the percentage of young men/boys who according to Masters and Johnson engage in this "experimenting" behavior but it was very high, somewhere around 60%.
> 
> I don't think there is a hard and fast rule at all when it comes to such matters. For some people they have an unwavering sexual orientation while for others it is very much a fluid (to use your word continuum) thing.


Much research has also demonstrated a link between sexual abuse as children and a later identification as homosexual. Some stats showing that a homosexual was far more likely to have been abused as a child.


----------



## screature

MacGuiver said:


> Much research has also demonstrated a link between sexual abuse as children and a later identification as homosexual. *Some stats showing that a homosexual was far more likely to have been abused as a child*.


Any links? Certainly in the cases of the gay people I know that was not the case.


----------



## kps

I don't believe there is such a thing as bi-sexuality. I personally can't imagine being sexually attracted to another male. There is a preference no matter what bi sexual claims and that preference is the same gender. I would imagine that over active hormones can have a role in such behaviour as well.

Any gay person I've ever met and was willing to talk about it, male or female, told me they knew they were gay very early in life. I came to the conclusion that homosexuality is mostly genetic and not an acquired sexual behaviour.


----------



## screature

kps said:


> *I don't believe there is such a thing as bi-sexuality.* I personally can't imagine being sexually attracted to another male. There is a preference no matter what bi sexual claims and that preference is the same gender. I would imagine that over active hormones can have a role in such behaviour as well.
> 
> Any gay person I've ever met and was willing to talk about it, male or female, told me they knew they were gay very early in life. *I came to the conclusion that homosexuality is mostly genetic and not an acquired sexual behaviour*.


In my experience there are actually sexually-ambivalent people. There aren't many but they do exist.

There are two types that I have noticed.

Type 1: Some people are more interested in emotional relationships, so the main thing is an emotional connection as opposed to physical and the sexual aspect comes second.

Type 2: Some people are extremely sexually motivated and have no morality i.e., good or bad, associated with their sexual encounters and thus they are open to whatever may come (no pun intended  ) their way.

At least that is what I have noticed anecdotally.

Generally speaking I agree with you but in the animal kingdom there have been studies that indicate that with the absence of animals of the opposite sex individual animals will have sexual relations with those of the same sex. I believe the study was conducted with male dogs, if memory serves me correctly.

So to me what that suggests is that while preference may be genetic, hormones and the lack of a preferred sex based partner, may sometimes lead to hormones overriding genetics.


----------



## kps

You make valid points screature, especially the one about hormones overriding genetics at times. Luckily, I never had that problem…however 
•
•


----------



## screature

kps said:


> You make valid points screature, especially the one about hormones overriding genetics at times. Luckily, I never had that problem…however
> •
> •


Luckily neither have I, but I do read and have friends and acquaintances who have told me of such encounters.

Personally, the way I look at it is, "What sex do I dream about ?" 

For me it is women. So if that is what my subconscious/unconscious mind is telling me I think I know what my genetic preference is... 

The rest is up to a given individual to decide how they want to act regardless of circumstance.


----------



## fjnmusic

groovetube said:


> Well I don't think FJN was necessarily referring to you macfury...
> 
> Good questions fjn. I have heard religious people come up with some pretty hilarious loopholes, but this one is a surprise.


I've also heard it said that homophobia is ultimately the fear that one might have that particular inclination oneself. Ever see American Beauty? Ever watch the HBO series OZ? Many men seem to overcompensate with their macho tough guy image out of fear of being persecuted. Think about it: why would anyone who was 100% comfortable with their own sexuality ever be threatened by the mere presence of someone who is gay? 

Also, there is a strange hypocrisy I've noticed: many MANY men have a problem with the concept of a gay man, yet they have no problem at all with "girl on girl" action.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## groovetube

fjnmusic said:


> I've also heard it said that homophobia is ultimately the fear that one might have that particular inclination oneself. Ever see American Beauty? Ever watch the HBO series OZ? Many men seem to overcompensate with their macho tough guy image out of fear of being persecuted. Think about it: why would anyone who was 100% comfortable with their own sexuality ever be threatened by the mere presence of someone who is gay?
> 
> Also, there is a strange hypocrisy I've noticed: many MANY men have a problem with the concept of a gay man, yet they have no problem at all with "girl on girl" action.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


I have seen quite a few times those same overly macho types, who go out of their way to overcompensate, only to find out later they were gay, or found in men's bathrooms looking for sex, etc etc. This has happened to a number of high profile religious thumpers who 'thumped' anti-gay messages a little too much. 

Remember growing up, and later discovering the strong macho biker dude in biker leather singing for Judas Priest was as gay as they come!


----------



## CubaMark




----------



## Macfury

CubaMark said:


>


Looks like the Christians win.


----------



## Macfury

fjnmusic said:


> Also, there is a strange hypocrisy I've noticed: many MANY men have a problem with the concept of a gay man, yet they have no problem at all with "girl on girl" action.


Did you just crawl out from under a rock? They watch that sort of action because they are turned off by watching a man have sex. With two women, they can avoid that.



fjnmusic said:


> I've also heard it said that homophobia is ultimately the fear that one might have that particular inclination oneself.


No more than gay men, fear that they are heterosexual.


----------



## MacGuiver

Macfury said:


> Looks like the Christians win.


That guy must have worked in marketing before he hit the skids. Brilliant fundraising tactics!


----------



## fjnmusic

Macfury said:


> Did you just crawl out from under a rock? They watch that sort of action because they are turned off by watching a man have sex. With two women, they can avoid that.
> 
> 
> 
> No more than gay men, fear that they are heterosexual.


Can you refrain from insults for once? Of course I understand that. However, if one is okay with homosexuality for one gender but not the other, then they are really not railing against homosexuality. In fact they are promoting it, if only in a limited manner. Again, what I said about homophobia fits this observation perfectly. Ever seen OZ? I find it incredibly disturbing to watch at times, but it is meant to be. It's also a very perceptive story about human behaviour, both inmates and staff, in a maximum security prison setting. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## fjnmusic

groovetube said:


> I have seen quite a few times those same overly macho types, who go out of their way to overcompensate, only to find out later they were gay, or found in men's bathrooms looking for sex, etc etc. This has happened to a number of high profile religious thumpers who 'thumped' anti-gay messages a little too much.
> 
> Remember growing up, and later discovering the strong macho biker dude in biker leather singing for Judas Priest was as gay as they come!


Often we criticize most loudly in others what we hate most about ourselves. It is true in pretty much all facets of life.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## eMacMan

MacGuiver said:


> Much research has also demonstrated a link between sexual abuse as children and a later identification as homosexual. Some stats showing that a homosexual was far more likely to have been abused as a child.


What an interesting circle. We have a church whose clergy have sexually molested untold numbers of children, a church which has gone far beyond all sane limits to protect the abusers, a church which condemns homosexuality and claims that homosexuality is linked to those children having been sexually abused.

There is an incredibly elegant bit of irony in all of that that.


----------



## Macfury

fjnmusic said:


> Often we criticize most loudly in others what we hate most about ourselves. It is true in pretty much all facets of life.


I find that to be pretty much untrue.


----------



## Macfury

eMacMan said:


> What an interesting circle. We have a church whose clergy have sexually molested untold numbers of children, a church which has gone far beyond all sane limits to protect the abusers, a church which condemns homosexuality and claims that homosexuality is linked to those children having been sexually abused.
> 
> There is an incredibly elegant bit of irony in all of that that.


There's no higher incidence of this in clergy than anywhere else. It's just that the cases are more highly publicized. Uncle Joe from Northernville just keeps doing what he's doing while family members turn a blind eye.


----------



## Macfury

fjnmusic said:


> Can you refrain from insults for once?


You deserved it for that one!



fjnmusic said:


> However, if one is okay with homosexuality for one gender but not the other, then they are really not railing against homosexuality. In fact they are promoting it, if only in a limited manner. Again, what I said about homophobia fits this observation perfectly.


In order to consume porn of any sort, they are willing to watch female homosexuality, to avoid seeing males having sex with other males or with women. It's an aesthetic choice. If they're buying that porn, I suppose they are encouraging more heterosxual females to pretend to be nurses loving each other up for a few minutes in front of the cameras.


----------



## groovetube

aesthetic choice?

You've skirted right around the issue of whether one believes homosexuality is a sin, or not. I don't think the bible's definition of this sin has any loopholes involving aesthetics or any other nonsense.


----------



## Macfury

groovetube said:


> aesthetic choice?
> 
> You've skirted right around the issue of whether one believes homosexuality is a sin, or not. I don't think the bible's definition of this sin has any loopholes involving aesthetics or any other nonsense.


On religious grounds. homosexuality is homosexuality. I don't believe fjn was speaking only about religous adherents watching Nurse Randy, however, just those who think homosexuality is wrong. That viewpoint s not limited to the religious community.


----------



## groovetube

Macfury said:


> On religious grounds. homosexuality is homosexuality. I don't believe fjn was speaking only about religous adherents watching Nurse Randy, however, just those who think homosexuality is wrong. That viewpoint s not limited to the religious community.


Again, you either believe homosexuality is a sin, or not. Any loopholes like it's ok to watch girl on girl, makes you a hypocrite. Otherwise, you don't believe it's a sin, but you're a heterosexual, who isn't into watching your own gender do it.


----------



## eMacMan

MacGuiver said:


> Much research has also demonstrated a link between sexual abuse as children and a later identification as homosexual. Some stats showing that a homosexual was far more likely to have been abused as a child.





eMacMan said:


> What an interesting circle. We have a church whose clergy have sexually molested untold numbers of children, a church which has gone far beyond all sane limits to protect the abusers, a church which condemns homosexuality and claims that homosexuality is linked to those children having been sexually abused.
> 
> There is an incredibly elegant bit of irony in all of that that.





Macfury said:


> There's no higher incidence of this in clergy than anywhere else. It's just that the cases are more highly publicized. Uncle Joe from Northernville just keeps doing what he's doing while family members turn a blind eye.


The tendency to divert must be a reflex action.

Of course if you include all clergy that is probably true, However I was referring to RC clergy. The priest sexually molests children; Who then by MacGuivers quote grow up to be homosexuals; Who are then condemned by the RC church for being homosexuals.


----------



## Macfury

groovetube said:


> Again, you either believe homosexuality is a sin, or not. Any loopholes like it's ok to watch girl on girl, makes you a hypocrite. Otherwise, you don't believe it's a sin, but you're a heterosexual, who isn't into watching your own gender do it.


That's what I said.


----------



## groovetube

Not exactly. You still seem to have this loophole that if you think homosexuality is a sin, and your not religious, you're somehow allowed this loophole. I'm saying, religious or not, if you think it's wrong, then all of it is wrong, even if it's the opposite sex.

If I misunderstood your post that these non religious people actually don't consider it a sin, just that they are heterosexual, I apologize.


----------



## screature

I'm just curious, as my memory of the "reported" words of JC are not what they used to be.

Where did Christ say that homosexuality was a sin? 

It certainly doesn't exist in the Ten Commandments from the Old Testament.


----------



## screature

groovetube said:


> Not exactly. You still seem to have this loophole that if you think homosexuality is a sin, and your not religious, *you're somehow allowed this loophole. I'm saying, religious or not, if you think it's wrong, then all of it is wrong, even if it's the opposite sex.
> *
> If I misunderstood your post that these non religious people actually don't consider it a sin, just that they are heterosexual, I apologize.


Perhaps if there is no insertion of a penis into any given male orifice you get a pass.


----------



## groovetube

screature said:


> Perhaps if there is no insertion of a penis into any given male orifice you get a pass.


Hmmm. I missed that bible verse.


----------



## Macfury

screature said:


> I'm just curious, as my memory of the "reported" words of JC are not what they used to be.
> 
> Where did Christ say that homosexuality was a sin?
> 
> It certainly doesn't exist in the Ten Commandments from the Old Testament.


*OLD TESTAMENT: Leviticus 18:22*


> "Do not practice homosexuality, having sex with another man as with a woman. It is a detestable sin." (NLT)


*NEW TESTAMENT: 1 Corinthians 6:9-11*


> Don't you realize that those who do wrong will not inherit the Kingdom of God? Don't fool yourselves. Those who indulge in sexual sin, or who worship idols, or commit adultery, or are male prostitutes, or practice homosexuality, or are thieves, or greedy people, or drunkards, or are abusive, or cheat people-none of these will inherit the Kingdom of God. Some of you were once like that. But you were cleansed; you were made holy; you were made right with God by calling on the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God. (NLT)


----------



## groovetube

Are those the words of JC?


----------



## fjnmusic

groovetube said:


> Are those the words of JC?


Nope. One of St. Paul's letters. Paul, who never actually met Jesus, and from whom pretty much all New Testament writings originate.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## groovetube

fjnmusic said:


> Nope. One of St. Paul's letters. Paul, who never actually met Jesus, and from whom pretty much all New Testament writings originate.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


that's what I thought 

I was wondering given your original question was asking what JC words actually were. At least if I read it right


----------



## fjnmusic

Macfury said:


> I find that to be pretty much untrue.


Denial ain't just a river in Egypt. You might ask yourself why you get so hostile sometimes about certain things.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## fjnmusic

groovetube said:


> that's what I thought
> 
> I was wondering given your original question was asking what JC words actually were. At least if I read it right


I believe he said love your enemies, and love your neighbor as yourself.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## screature

groovetube said:


> that's what I thought
> 
> I was wondering given your original question was asking what JC words actually were. At least if I read it right


Actually it was my question and then you asked what I was going to ask... "Are those the words of JC"? before I had the chance and fjnmusic replied in the negative.

Just for clarity sake.


----------



## groovetube

oops. Got that mixed up.


----------



## MazterCBlazter

+
YouTube Video









ERROR: If you can see this, then YouTube is down or you don't have Flash installed.


----------



## CubaMark




----------



## eMacMan

Hopefully not too close to Christmas for this one.

George Carlin - Life is Sacred / Kill for God - BLOCKED FOR 3 YEARS! - YouTube

George Carlin - Abortion - YouTube


----------



## kps

eMacMan said:


> Hopefully not too close to Christmas for this one.
> 
> George Carlin - Life is Sacred / Kill for God - BLOCKED FOR 3 YEARS! - YouTube
> 
> George Carlin - Abortion - YouTube


I love Carlin, he's expert at showing the hypocrisy and inconsistency in social and religious dogma while being funny and entertaining. I may not agree with everything he pokes holes in, still think he's one of the greats.


----------



## kps

Came across this earlier, and found it interesting with a touch of humour.

How to Make Atheism Less Awful in 2014 | VICE Canada


----------



## CubaMark




----------



## Macfury

You can really tell when they're not copies of Larson.


----------



## screature

Macfury said:


> You can really tell when they're not copies of Larson.


When a comic is this "not funny" you have to wonder why the author/illustrator bothered.

It's not remotely clever or funny... just plain lame IMO.

I guess once you simply preach to the converted you just get lazy and anything can pass as humour.


----------



## screature

kps said:


> I love Carlin, he's expert at showing the hypocrisy and inconsistency in social and religious dogma while being funny and entertaining. I may not agree with everything he pokes holes in, still think he's one of the greats.


+1 I totally agree.

Carlin was brilliant, not consistently, but his best stuff ranks among the best of the best IMO.


----------



## Macfury

screature said:


> +1 I totally agree.
> 
> Carlin was brilliant, not consistently, but his best stuff ranks among the best of the best IMO.


Yes, I don't think sportscaster Biff Barf or the Hipp Dippy Weatherman stand the test of time as well as some of his monologues!


----------



## screature

Macfury said:


> Yes, I don't think sportscaster Biff Barf or the Hipp Dippy Weatherman stand the test of time as well as some of his monologues!


I still watch/listen to his best stuff... I doubt if there will ever be the likes of him again.

Today's comics pale by comparison in terms of being philosophical/serious and funny at the same time.

That was his genius, no one exactly like him before or since thus far IMO.

He had a great mind and was truly unique in terms of his comedic style.

To me, to this day, this ranks as one of the best "serious" comedic performances ever.

I miss him.




+
YouTube Video









ERROR: If you can see this, then YouTube is down or you don't have Flash installed.





I think this is entirely appropriate and applicable to the "Religious Thread" and probably also to the "The Third Official, Authoritative GHG Thread".


----------



## SINC

Macfury said:


> Yes, I don't think sportscaster Biff Barf or the Hipp Dippy Weatherman stand the test of time as well as some of his monologues!


Nope, that is for sure, but the Hippy Dippy Weatherman, (bringing you the weather, man), was developed and first performed on the Ed Sullivan Show and it was tightly controlled and family only material allowed. It did however give him great exposure which I'm sure is what he was after with those appearances.


----------



## MacGuiver

Came across this freaky story from the Indy Star that I thought would be a good one to post in the religion forum since the events seem to only make any sense if the Christian narrative is true. 
If Heaven, Hell, Angels, Demons and the supernatural don't exist, how do you explain these widely reported and witnessed events?

The exorcisms of Latoya Ammons


----------



## screature

MacGuiver said:


> Came across this freaky story from the Indy Star that I thought would be a good one to post in the religion forum since the events seem to only make any sense if the Christian narrative is true.
> If Heaven, Hell, Angels, Demons and the supernatural don't exist, how do you explain these widely reported and witnessed events?
> 
> The exorcisms of Latoya Ammons


Yes I read about this when it first came out, in that the police witnessed some of the goings on, it reminds me of a case that occurred in Ottawa several years ago.

It was reported on CBC radio, police were called to an apartment building on Baseline Road where the complainants were saying that there were strange sounds emanating from the walls and that things in the apartment were moving of their own accord.

So the police arrived and witnessed and heard what the residents were taking about. The official police report from the officers was that they heard strange sounds coming from the walls throughout the apartment and witnessed furniture moving in the apartment on their own.

Never did hear any follow up report as to the cause for the strange occurrences.


----------



## MacGuiver

screature said:


> Yes I read about this when it first came out, in that the police witnessed some of the goings on, it reminds me of a case that occurred in Ottawa several years ago.
> 
> It was reported on CBC radio, police were called to an apartment building on Baseline Road where the complainants were saying that there were strange sounds emanating from the walls and that things in the apartment were moving of their own accord.
> 
> So the police arrived and witnessed and heard what the residents were taking about. The official police report from the officers was that they heard strange sounds coming from the walls throughout the apartment and witnessed furniture moving in the apartment on their own.
> 
> Never did hear any follow up report as to the cause for the strange occurrences.


I never heard of that case Screature but recall years ago something similar in Ottawa where police entered a home to witness objects moving on their own. 
In the Indiana case, I guess a skeptic could easily dismiss phenomena not witnessed by others but the 7 year old boy going up the wall backwards before two medical staff and the grandmother in the hospital and going over the grandmother's head to land on the floor with an evil grin is hard to explain away. That event had the staff calling 911 and looking for a Chaplin.


----------



## fjnmusic

I miss the good times we had here. Wonder where bryanc got to?


----------



## Macfury

Didn't bryanc say he would be circling the drain at MacDiscussions?

Still, if you say something inflammatory, you might attract some good times here.


----------



## SINC

fjnmusic said:


> I miss the good times we had here. Wonder where bryanc got to?


Last seen on MacDiscussion a couple weeks ago:

Canadian politics


----------



## MacGuiver

fjnmusic said:


> I miss the good times we had here. Wonder where bryanc got to?


You could have given your take on what went on in the news story I posted where a growling 7 year old child went up a wall backwards flipping over his grandmothers head before 3 witnesses landing on his feet with a demonic grin, causing medical staff to flee the room. That could have been fun. 
Sounds like classic demonic activity to me. Of course thats crazy talk to atheists so how do atheists interpret what was witnessed and reported? Spontaneous Juvenile Parkour Syndrome?


----------



## fjnmusic

SINC said:


> Last seen on MacDiscussion a couple weeks ago:
> 
> Canadian politics


I forgot about MacDiscussions, to be honest. I should really stop by more often.


----------



## Macfury

fjnmusic said:


> I forgot about MacDiscussions, to be honest. I should really stop by more often.


Apparently, so have most of its members!


----------



## fjnmusic

MacGuiver said:


> Came across this freaky story from the Indy Star that I thought would be a good one to post in the religion forum since the events seem to only make any sense if the Christian narrative is true.
> If Heaven, Hell, Angels, Demons and the supernatural don't exist, how do you explain these widely reported and witnessed events?
> 
> The exorcisms of Latoya Ammons


Sorry, I missed this when you first posted it, and I haven't really been able to delve into it. Stories involving supernatural activity are always fascinating (hence the interest in the TV series of the same name), but ultimately, to me they are all flights of fancy. Heaven, hell, demons and the supernatural don;t have to be the sonly possible explanations for such stories; I see mental illness, drug abuse, and plain old physical abuse when I look at them. For the record, I believe The Exorcism Of Emily Rose was a better movie than The Exorcist, because it offered two possible interpretations of the same events. Much more interesting from a psychological point of view. Also, just because demonic possession can be explained by other means doesn't make the Christian narrative false either. It is thought-provoking stuff, to be sure.

For what it's worth, I don't for a second believe in the miracle at Fatima either, either the apparition or the sun doing a little dance in the sky, though it does make for an interesting story. Our Lady of Fátima - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Macfury

fjnmusic said:


> Sorry, I missed this when you first posted it, and I haven't really been able to delve into it. Stories involving supernatural activity are always fascinating (hence the interest in the TV series of the same name), but ultimately, to me they are all flights of fancy. Heaven, hell, demons and the supernatural don;t have to be the sonly possible explanations for such stories; I see mental illness, drug abuse, and plain old physical abuse when I look at them. For the record, I believe The Exorcism Of Emily Rose was a better movie than The Exorcist, because it offered two possible interpretations of the same events. Much more interesting from a psychological point of view. Also, just because demonic possession can be explained by other means doesn't make the Christian narrative false either. It is thought-provoking stuff, to be sure.
> 
> For what it's worth, I don't for a second believe in the miracle at Fatima either, either the apparition or the sun doing a little dance in the sky, though it does make for an interesting story. Our Lady of Fátima - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


He asked you to read it first! It's different than most of these accounts.


----------



## MacGuiver

I totally agree demons and the supernatural are not always the explanation for what can appear to be demonic or angelic activity. 
True that many things described in this case could be explained off by a skeptic by what you site above but that growling 7 year old going backwards up the wall, over his grandmothers head and landing on his feet on the floor isn't one of them. If your sure phenomena like this is all just a flight of fancy, how did this happen? Its scared the medical staff so bad they ran out of the room. 
Of all the things that occurred in this case, I sited that occurrence specifically because to me, it can't be brushed off as a fight of fancy.
I honestly think faith can be a two way street. You can have it that supernatural things can happen or you can have it that supernatural things can never happen.


----------



## CubaMark

_"editing error". Yeah...right...._

*Oklahoma Fox station removes evolution from ‘Cosmos’ by cutting only 15 seconds*












> In what appeared to be an editing error, a Fox affiliate in Oklahoma managed to remove the only mention of evolution from Sunday night’s Cosmos science documentary by cutting only 15 seconds from the broadcast.
> 
> The much-anticipated reboot of Carl Sagan’s legendary Cosmos premiered on Sunday with an overview of the history of the Universe, from the Big Bang to the advent of humans.
> 
> It wasn’t until the last 10 minutes of the show that host Neil deGrasse Tyson hinted at human evolution.





> But for viewers of KOKH-TV in Oklahoma City, that 15 second paragraph was replaced by an awkwardly-inserted commercial for the evening news. The edit was caught on video and uploaded to YouTube by Adam Bates.






+
YouTube Video









ERROR: If you can see this, then YouTube is down or you don't have Flash installed.






(RawStory)


----------



## eMacMan

CubaMark said:


> _"editing error". Yeah...right...._
> 
> *Oklahoma Fox station removes evolution from ‘Cosmos’ by cutting only 15 seconds*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> +
> YouTube Video
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ERROR: If you can see this, then YouTube is down or you don't have Flash installed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (RawStory)


Hey it's Oklahoma. The land where spin doctors can magically reshape the word evolution to contain a mere four letters.


----------



## fjnmusic

uh said:


> Came across this freaky story from the Indy Star that I thought would be a good one to post in the religion forum since the events seem to only make any sense if the Christian narrative is true.
> If Heaven, Hell, Angels, Demons and the supernatural don't exist, how do you explain these widely reported and witnessed events?
> 
> The exorcisms of Latoya Ammons


A strange account, indeed, but only that—an account. I have to play…uh…devil's advocate here and say pics, or it didn't happen. Anybody can claim to have seen anything they want, but it doesn't make it so. My response would be to say the boy didn't defy gravity and climb up a wall backwards, though it might have seemed like it to the people watching. I also don't think JC actually walked on water either, unless the water was frozen. I think we tend to miss the meaning of the miracle stories because we don't understand the parable symbolic nature of storytelling much of the time. Chris Angel can walk on water—I've seem him do it!—but not really. It's just an illusion. The message is forgive everyone, especially your enemies. No magic tricks necessary to make that message meaningful.


----------



## Macfury

fjnmusic said:


> A strange account, indeed, but only that—an account. I have to play…uh…devil's advocate here and say pics, or it didn't happen. Anybody can claim to have seen anything they want, but it doesn't make it so. My response would be to say the boy didn't defy gravity and climb up a wall backwards, though it might have seemed like it to the people watching. I also don't think JC actually walked on water either, unless the water was frozen. I think we tend to miss the meaning of the miracle stories because we don't understand the parable symbolic nature of storytelling much of the time. Chris Angel can walk on water—I've seem him do it!—but not really. It's just an illusion. The message is forgive everyone, especially your enemies. No magic tricks necessary to make that message meaningful.


Nowadays a photo isn't proof of anything.

And I fail to see how such miracles lead you to conclude that one should forgive everyone.


----------



## fjnmusic

Macfury said:


> Nowadays a photo isn't proof of anything.
> 
> And I fail to see how such miracles lead you to conclude that one should forgive everyone.


You're right; it's easy to doctor photos or videos. That makes everything we can learn with our senses suspect. See, my view on Catholicism doesn't require miracles of any sort to be a message worth following. Not even the resurrection itself. Totally unnecessary in my world view. The message—love your enemies, be kind to those that persecute you, forgive everyone, especially yourself—is not a message that requires any sort of miracle to be true and worthy. People get all caught up in gimmickry, today perhaps more than ever. But the message is the message. I don't believe I am wrong about this, and I don't care if it's sacrilegious to say so and I'm threatened with eternal damnation. I have no fear of hell. If God really loves us, he would never want us to suffer, now would he?





+
YouTube Video









ERROR: If you can see this, then YouTube is down or you don't have Flash installed.


----------



## Macfury

fjnmusic said:


> See, my view on Catholicism doesn't require miracles of any sort to be a message worth following. Not even the resurrection itself. Totally unnecessary in my world view. The message—love your enemies, be kind to those that persecute you, forgive everyone, especially yourself—is not a message that requires any sort of miracle to be true and worthy.


The part about "especially forgiving yourself" has nothing to do with Catholicism or Biblical teaching. That's just pop-psych.

Of course the rest of the message is true and worthy. It simply has nothing to do with God.


----------



## fjnmusic

Macfury said:


> The part about "especially forgiving yourself" has nothing to do with Catholicism or Biblical teaching. That's just pop-psych.
> 
> Of course the rest of the message is true and worthy. It simply has nothing to do with God.


Fortunately the good lord blessed us with free will as well as the the ability to think for ourselves. Far from being "pop psych" as you put it, the ability to forgive is central to Jesus' teaching, and omitting the capacity for self-forgiveness I think really misses the point of what this religion—not to mention all religions worthy of being called a religion—is all about. To say I cannot forgive myself is really another way if saying I cannot forgive.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury

fjnmusic said:


> Fortunately the good lord blessed us with free will as well as the the ability to think for ourselves. Far from being "pop psych" as you put it, the ability to forgive is central to Jesus' teaching, and omitting the capacity for self-forgiveness I think really misses the point of what this religion—not to mention all religions worthy of being called a religion—is all about. To say I cannot forgive myself is really another way if saying I cannot forgive.


If you believe blanket self-forgiveness is central to all religions worthy of being called religions, then you simply are not a Catholic. 

Perhaps you belong to the "Chicken Soup for the Soul" religion.


----------



## fjnmusic

Macfury said:


> If you believe blanket self-forgiveness is central to all religions worthy of being called religions, then you simply are not a Catholic.
> 
> Perhaps you belong to the "Chicken Soup for the Soul" religion.


Judge not, lest ye be judged, my friend. I have been Catholic since I was a wee baby, just as I presume you were. Your judgement does not remove my Catholicity. Why is it you have such an issue with self-forgiveness, exactly? In this life, it is one of the most difficult barriers to overcome. Say a person takes away the life of a child, perhaps even their own child, because they were driving drunk. Do you not suppose they would in a living hell for the rest of their lives because the guilt is just too difficult to deal with? And yet they must somehow come to terms with this fate. Self-forgiveness is not easy; it is more than just saying the words. It is a letting go. If you do not understand the importance of forgiveness, then you, sir, are also not Catholic.


----------



## Macfury

fjnmusic said:


> Judge not, lest ye be judged, my friend.


The phrase is: "Judge and be prepared to be judged." 



fjnmusic said:


> JYour judgement does not remove my Catholicity.


It was you who said that no religion was worthy of being called a religion if it did not recognize self-forgiveness as a central tenet--so you're pilloried on your own statement.



fjnmusic said:


> I have been Catholic since I was a wee baby, just as I presume you were.


I'm not Catholic. 



fjnmusic said:


> Why is it you have such an issue with self-forgiveness, exactly? In this life, it is one of the most difficult barriers to overcome. Say a person takes away the life of a child, perhaps even their own child, because they were driving drunk. Do you not suppose they would in a living hell for the rest of their lives because the guilt is just too difficult to deal with?


I imagine they would.



fjnmusic said:


> And yet they must somehow come to terms with this fate. Self-forgiveness is not easy; it is more than just saying the words. It is a letting go.


I call that "letting go." Self-forgiveness in such a context would be meaningless, since only God could offer forgiveness. You've simply removed God from religion and assumed you have now inherited his power to forgive.


----------



## Macfury

See, I knew you could spark up this topic again!


----------



## fjnmusic

Macfury said:


> See, I knew you could spark up this topic again!


----------



## fjnmusic

“Do not judge so that you will not be judged” Matthew 7:1

“Why do you look at the speck that is in your brother’s eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? Or how can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ and behold, the log is in your own eye? “You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother’s eye. Matthew 7:3-5

Great statements about the nature of hypocrisy, along the lines of "he who is without sin cast the first stone." 

I'm not sure where you are quoting from, and I wouldn't consider Ayn Rand to be a better source on the bible than the bible itself.

Provocative Bible Verses: Judge Not Lest You Be Judged | Provocative Christian Living


----------



## Dr.G.

Paix, mes amis.


----------



## Macfury

You missed Matthew 7: 2:


> For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.


More like Ayn Rand than many would care to admit.


----------



## Dr.G.

Macfury said:


> You missed Matthew 7: 2:
> 
> 
> Moe like Ayn Rand than many would care to admit.


Paix, mon ami.


----------



## Macfury

Good grief, Dr. G--you have risen early!


----------



## Dr.G.

Macfury said:


> Good grief, Dr. G--you have risen early!


Woke up to the sound of fury outside ............... it was only the roaring wind and rain and not the second coming.

Paix, mon ami.


----------



## fjnmusic

Macfury said:


> You missed Matthew 7: 2:
> 
> 
> More like Ayn Rand than many would care to admit.


Yes, but it is still about hypocrisy, either way.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Dr.G.

fjnmusic said:


> Yes, but it is still about hypocrisy, either way.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


God shall smite those that believe in hypocrisy and idol worshipping ................


----------



## fjnmusic

And don't forget wanton self-abuse.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury

fjnmusic said:


> Yes, but it is still about hypocrisy, either way.


No. It's about judgment, not hypocrisy. It's only hypocrisy if you refuse to accept judgement by the same standard you use to judge others.


----------



## fjnmusic

The gospel according to Wayne W. Dyer, a well-known motivational speaker and professed Roman Catholic. Party on, Wayne. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury

One of the 12 disciples, no doubt. 

Dyer is a well-known pop-psych idiot who simply tries to make people feel good about themselves when they ought not to.



fjnmusic said:


> View attachment 43465
> 
> 
> The gospel according to Wayne W. Dyer, a well-known motivational speaker and professed Roman Catholic. Party on, Wayne.


----------



## fjnmusic

Wow. You're just full of the milk of human kindness today, MF. He is no idiot, and the derision with which you describe this wonderful and peaceful man, combined with the way that you display such anger, makes me wonder if you understand the Christian message at all. I guess we see what we want to see.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury

Dyer is just a big peaceful sack of empty of platitudes. Even if you deserve the guilt from which you suffer, Dyer's the man to tell you that you don't. 

Christianity certainly doesn't require me to bear fools such as Dyer lightly. He's not wonderful at all--just a sappy windbag.

It surprises me that you see anger in honest criticism. Perhaps you have some issues surrounding these things.



fjnmusic said:


> Wow. You're just full of the milk of human kindness today, MF. He is no idiot, and the derision with which you describe this wonderful and peaceful man, combined with the way that you display such anger, makes me wonder if you understand the Christian message at all. I guess we see what we want to see.


----------



## Dr.G.

Paix, mes amis. Smile .............


----------



## Macfury

Have a glass of mother's milk, Dr. G.


----------



## Dr.G.

Macfury said:


> Have a glass of mother's milk, Dr. G.


Actually, I am drinking unsweetened almond milk these days, mon ami.


----------



## Macfury

My condolences, Dr. G.


----------



## Dr.G.

Macfury said:


> My condolences, Dr. G.


Actually, it is quite good and without the sugar content of skim milk.


----------



## MacGuiver

+
YouTube Video









ERROR: If you can see this, then YouTube is down or you don't have Flash installed.




[/QUOTE]

The gospel according to Timothy. 

I charge you in the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who will judge the living and the dead, and by his appearing and his kingly power:a
2
proclaim the word; be persistent whether it is convenient or inconvenient; convince, reprimand, encourage through all patience and teaching.b
3
*For the time will come when people will not tolerate sound doctrine but, following their own desires and insatiable curiosity,* will accumulate teachersc*
4
and will stop listening to the truth and will be diverted to myths.d


----------



## fjnmusic

MacGuiver said:


> +
> YouTube Video
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ERROR: If you can see this, then YouTube is down or you don't have Flash installed.


The gospel according to Timothy. 

I charge you in the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who will judge the living and the dead, and by his appearing and his kingly power:a
2
proclaim the word; be persistent whether it is convenient or inconvenient; convince, reprimand, encourage through all patience and teaching.b
3
*For the time will come when people will not tolerate sound doctrine but, following their own desires and insatiable curiosity,* will accumulate teachersc*
4
and will stop listening to the truth and will be diverted to myths.d[/QUOTE]

Not quite sure what your point is, MacGuiver. Perhaps you could clarify?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## MacGuiver

fjnmusic said:


> Not quite sure what your point is, MacGuiver. Perhaps you could clarify?


Sure..
"Everyone goes to Heaven", and "Hell doesn't exist" isn't sound doctrine. Its merely wishful thinking to accommodate our desires to do as we please with no consequences for our actions and choices. Its the miracle diet pill of Christianity. All the sin you can eat and never worry about gaining a pound. 
Certainly a shinny apple to behold but contrary to the teachings and principles of Christianity.

Regarding your response to the exorcism case. You're simply declaring it never happened or the 7 year old was pulling off a nifty Chris Angel trick? I guess if your mind is closed to the possibility of the supernatural, a 7 year old master illusionist or 3 delusional witnesses is the only option on the table without compromising your predetermined conclusion.


----------



## fjnmusic

MacGuiver said:


> Sure..
> "Everyone goes to Heaven", and "Hell doesn't exist" isn't sound doctrine. Its merely wishful thinking to accommodate our desires to do as we please with no consequences for our actions and choices. Its the miracle diet pill of Christianity. All the sin you can eat and never worry about gaining a pound.
> Certainly a shinny apple to behold but contrary to the teachings and principles of Christianity.


Okay, that I can work with. I would venture to say that both heaven and hell are not clear concepts in the Bible, and that they have mostly been sculpted over the years by the church hierarchy for exactly the reasons Spong describes: you can intimidate children into obeying, but it is harder to intimidate adults. Hence, "born agains" are much easier to control, whereas having a follower that grows up and can think for him or herself threatens the power base of the church. And in any event, what kind of a loving god would want to punish his children FOR ALL ETERNITY for the simple sin of disobedience? Doesn't sound like the kind of God I'd want to spend eternity with. It makes God sound like a bit of a whack job.

One of the big problems the church had with the Protestant Reformation was that the Protestants were claiming people could read and interpret for themselves what the Bible means, thereby undermining the authority of the Pope. I must be a bad Catholic myself since I also do not believe the Pope is infallible, even when speaking Ex Cathedra, although I think Pope Francis is the most sensible and least hypocritical leader to come along in years.

As far as hell is concerned, I believe it does exist, but in the here and now, not in some vague undead future. The person who in this life cannot forgive themselves or someone else for something is truly living in hell. Ultimately, one can obtain all the external forgiveness they can find, but if they cannot forgive themselves, they cannot move forward, and end up stuck in a hell of their own making. I think that's where Jesus was going with this. Ands I believe that heaven works much the same way; we find our freedom in the here and now, not in the abstract future.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury

It's nice to know that YouTube provides apostates made to order.

I was thinking of the Biblical notion of forgiveness and its discordance with fjn's opinion. When Christ was dying on the cross, he called out to God: "Father, forgive them for they know not what they do."

In fjn-land, I guess Christ said: "Father, give them the strength to forgive themselves. I don't want them to go through life bearing that sort of guilt because it might interfere with their happiness."



MacGuiver said:


> Sure..
> "Everyone goes to Heaven", and "Hell doesn't exist" isn't sound doctrine. Its merely wishful thinking to accommodate our desires to do as we please with no consequences for our actions and choices. Its the miracle diet pill of Christianity. All the sin you can eat and never worry about gaining a pound.
> Certainly a shinny apple to behold but contrary to the teachings and principles of Christianity.
> 
> Regarding your response to the exorcism case. You're simply declaring it never happened or the 7 year old was pulling off a nifty Chris Angel trick? I guess if your mind is closed to the possibility of the supernatural, a 7 year old master illusionist or 3 delusional witnesses is the only option on the table without compromising your predetermined conclusion.


----------



## Macfury

fjnmusic said:


> And in any event, what kind of a loving god would want to punish his children FOR ALL ETERNITY for the simple sin of disobedience? It makes God sound like a bit of a whack job.


This is because you've been spoon fed pop-psych religion in which God is depicted as a yellow Happy Face. Just because God loves you is no reason that you can't make terrible things happen to yourself.



fjnmusic said:


> Doesn't sound like the kind of God I'd want to spend eternity with.


How would you want God to change so you might like him better?



fjnmusic said:


> s far as hell is concerned, I believe it does exist, but in the here and now, not in some vague undead future. The person who in this life cannot forgive themselves or someone else for something is truly living in hell.


Perhaps they belong there.



fjnmusic said:


> Ultimately, one can obtain all the external forgiveness they can find, but if they cannot forgive themselves, they cannot move forward...


Should someone forgive themselves when the people they have harmed have not forgiven them? Can God forgive them? 



fjnmusic said:


> I think that's where Jesus was going with this. Ands I believe that heaven works much the same way; we find our freedom in the here and now, not in the abstract future.


Why are you so stuck on the mantra of relieving guilt? It certainly wasn't a central tenet of Christ's teaching.


----------



## MacGuiver

Macfury said:


> It's nice to know that YouTube provides apostates made to order.
> 
> I was thinking of the Biblical notion of forgiveness and its discordance with fjn's opinion. When Christ was dying on the cross, he called out to God: "Father, forgive them for they know not what they do."
> 
> In fjn-land, I guess Christ said: "Father, give them the strength to forgive themselves. I don't want them to go through life bearing that sort of guilt because it might interfere with their happiness."


Perhaps Jesus never really said that and the power-hungry church hierarchy edited or added that in to better control the stupid people?

You can customize Christ like a subway sandwich when you can rip out bible verses with the unsubstantiated accusation of editing and adding to scripture to serve a sinister agenda.


----------



## Macfury

MacGuiver said:


> Perhaps Jesus never really said that and the power-hungry church hierarchy edited or added that in to better control the stupid people?


Perhaps the new stuff was invented by the devil because it makes it easier to get people into hell?


----------



## Dr.G.

Macfury said:


> Perhaps the new stuff was invented by the devil because it makes it easier to get people into hell?


Maybe .....................


----------



## fjnmusic

Macfury said:


> It's nice to know that YouTube provides apostates made to order.
> 
> I was thinking of the Biblical notion of forgiveness and its discordance with fjn's opinion. When Christ was dying on the cross, he called out to God: "Father, forgive them for they know not what they do."
> 
> In fjn-land, I guess Christ said: "Father, give them the strength to forgive themselves. I don't want them to go through life bearing that sort of guilt because it might interfere with their happiness."


I think the emphasis was on FORGIVENESS, not eternal damnation, even to those who were crucifying him. I don't believe Jesus' request was necessary if Jesus is also God, meaning he has the power to forgive them himself. In other words, if He can forgive those who are torturing him, what's our problem?


----------



## fjnmusic

Macfury said:


> This is because you've been spoon fed pop-psych religion in which God is depicted as a yellow Happy Face.


This part is offensive. You have no idea what concept of God I've grown up with and you should stop being so presumptuous. 



Macfury said:


> Should someone forgive themselves when the people they have harmed have not forgiven them? Can God forgive them?


I think you need to study more about what forgiveness really means. You can forgive someone who has hurt you without ever speaking to them, and they can forgive you whether you know about it or not. Reconciliation is about connecting with someone; forgiving is about letting go. no conversation necessary. Not forgiving someone is like letting them live front-free inside your head, It is ultimately you that suffers. And yes, God forgives all. So knowing that, since God has already forgiven you, as evidenced by Christ's sacrifice on the cross (assuming you believe that), then the only thing that remains is whether or not you can forgive yourself. You seem to think that it's easy to do. I tell you solemnly, forgiving yourself is one of the most difficult things you can do in this life.



Macfury said:


> Why are you so stuck on the mantra of relieving guilt? It certainly wasn't a central tenet of Christ's teaching.


Au contraire, forgiveness is THE central tenet of Christ's teaching. It's the thing that is emphasized in the New Testament, not in the Old Testament, and it is the thing that makes His message stand out as revolutionary. It is not an eye for an eye. It is not about a call for vengeance. It is about love, not hate. Surely you must have picked up on this. It is not about guilt relief; it is about moving on and not letting your mistakes haunt you for the rest of your life. Forgiveness is a pretty powerful force in the universe, and yes, it is a central tenet of Christ's teaching.

If you disagree with this, I'd like to know what you think the central tenet is.


----------



## Macfury

fjnmusic said:


> I think the emphasis was on FORGIVENESS, not eternal damnation, even to those who were crucifying him. I don't believe Jesus' request was necessary if Jesus is also God, meaning he has the power to forgive them himself. In other words, if He can forgive those who are torturing him, what's our problem?


Yes. It was a marvelous example of wishing to forgive others. It was not an example of forgiving oneself.



fjnmusic said:


> This part is offensive. You have no idea what concept of God I've grown up with and you should stop being so presumptuous.


I meant this in a general sense, and how it seems to have suffused modern religion. I should not have singled you out. I apologize.



fjnmusic said:


> I think you need to study more about what forgiveness really means. You can forgive someone who has hurt you without ever speaking to them, and they can forgive you whether you know about it or not. Reconciliation is about connecting with someone; forgiving is about letting go. no conversation necessary. Not forgiving someone is like letting them live front-free inside your head, It is ultimately you that suffers.


These are all good points.



fjnmusic said:


> And yes, God forgives all. So knowing that, since God has already forgiven you, as evidenced by Christ's sacrifice on the cross (assuming you believe that), then the only thing that remains is whether or not you can forgive yourself.


God has _the power_ to forgive all, provided you take some steps first.



fjnmusic said:


> You seem to think that it's easy to do. I tell you solemnly, forgiving yourself is one of the most difficult things you can do in this life.


I never forgive myself. I keep the guilt with me as a strong reminder of where I ought never to go again. However, I have met many people for whom it's the cheapest coin in the realm.



fjnmusic said:


> Au contraire, forgiveness is THE central tenet of Christ's teaching. It's the thing that is emphasized in the New Testament, not in the Old Testament, and it is the thing that makes His message stand out as revolutionary.


I disagree. In the OT, God already forgave sins through the presentation of burnt offerings:



> _Isaiah 43:25-26_
> "I, even I, am he who blots out your transgressions, for my own sake, and remembers your sins no more."





> _Isaiah 1:18_
> "Come now, let us reason together," says the LORD. "Though your sins are like scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they are red as crimson, they shall be like wool."





> _Micah 7:18-19_
> "Who is a God like you, who pardons sin and forgives the transgression of the remnant of his inheritance? "


Christ offered himself as the final offering that did away with adherence to the laws of the Old Testament as a means of salvation and opened a new relationship between the people and God. Yes, his sacrifice offered forgiveness for the sins of the world, but it is not the origin of forgiveness of sins by God.



fjnmusic said:


> It is not an eye for an eye. It is not about a call for vengeance. It is about love, not hate. Surely you must have picked up on this.


Yes!



fjnmusic said:


> It is not about guilt relief; it is about moving on and not letting your mistakes haunt you for the rest of your life.


Again, I don't know where the business about not letting one's mistakes haunt them jumps in out of left field. There's also a vast difference between a mistake, a misjudgement, an act of wanton carelessness and a deliberate and willful act. On the one part of that that continuum, we have to do our best to make things right and then live our lives as best we can. However, guilt may be entirely appropriate for some things.



fjnmusic said:


> Forgiveness is a pretty powerful force in the universe, and yes, it is a central tenet of Christ's teaching. If you disagree with this, I'd like to know what you think the central tenet is.


I disagree. Forgiveness is important, but these three points are central. 

Two commandments identified by Jesus:

1. Love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your mind, and with all your strength.
2. Love your neighbor as you love yourself.

And finally:

3. "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me."


----------



## fjnmusic

Well, Macfury, at least the conversation is getting interesting!


----------



## Macfury

fjnmusic said:


> Well, Macfury, at least the conversation is getting interesting!


I could wish for nothing better!


----------



## Dr.G.

Macfury said:


> I could wish for nothing better!


You could wish for a puppy?


----------



## screature

Macfury said:


> This is because you've been spoon fed pop-psych religion in which God is depicted as a yellow Happy Face. Just because God loves you is no reason that you can't make terrible things happen to yourself.
> 
> How would you want God to change so you might like him better?
> 
> Perhaps they belong there.
> 
> Should someone forgive themselves when the people they have harmed have not forgiven them? Can God forgive them?
> 
> Why are you so stuck on the mantra of relieving guilt? It certainly wasn't a central tenet of Christ's teaching.


Confession and absolution remain basic components of Catholic doctine last I checked MacFury. fjnmusic isn't just making this stuff up as some sort pop-psych revolution, it exists within the basic tenets of Catholicism.


----------



## screature

A religious tenet that I feel to be absurd is:



> *a sin in thought is a sin in deed*


I am not sure as to it's origin but it is one that was taught to by my Catholic priest in the past.

To me a sin in thought that is *not* carried out in deed, is being "virtuous".

Most of us (aside from the very rare instance of a saint) have "evil" thoughts and are presented with temptation either physically or mentally.

What makes us virtuous is in our decisions and actions, not our thoughts.

One can be a virtuous person, *especially* when having less than virtuous thoughts, just by simply behaving/acting virtuously. Is it not virtuous to resist "evil temptation"? Is that not what Christ reportedly did?


----------



## screature

Dr.G. said:


> You could wish for a puppy?


I agree whole heartily with the sentiment Dr. G.


----------



## Dr.G.

screature said:


> I agree whole heartily with the sentiment Dr. G.


Very true, screature. The love a dog shares with a person is unconditional. Paix, mon ami.


----------



## Macfury

screature said:


> Confession and absolution remain basic components of Catholic doctine last I checked MacFury. fjnmusic isn't just making this stuff up as some sort pop-psych revolution, it exists within the basic tenets of Catholicism.


Self-forgiveness is what we were talking about, among other items that are not basic components of Catholic doctrine.


----------



## eMacMan

Macfury said:


> Self-forgiveness is what we were talking about, among other items that are not basic components of Catholic doctrine.


True. Once one forgives themselves, the Church no longer holds the hammer of guilt over his/her head, so obviously the Church is not at all keen on that idea.

OTOH Forgiving others is absolutely essential whether or not one is a true believer. The reason is quite simple. Forgiveness allows one to put the insult (or worse) behind them and go on with their lives rather than allowing what has passed to control or even poison them.


----------



## Macfury

Why would you need the church to make you feel guilty about some dreadful thing you've done? Don't you have a conscience?



eMacMan said:


> True. Once one forgives themselves, the Church no longer holds the hammer of guilt over his/her head, so obviously the Church is not at all keen on that idea.


----------



## MacGuiver

Macfury said:


> Why would you need the church to make you feel guilty about some dreadful thing you've done? Don't you have a conscience?


I never understood the repulsion for guilt. Guilt is a biproduct of having a formed conscience so it's not always a bad thing. If you want to find people living free of the burden of guilt, many reside in the walls of our prison system.


----------



## CubaMark

via Doonesbury:


----------



## Macfury

CubaMark said:


> via Doonesbury:


Late to the dance again, CM? He apologized days ago:



> I deeply regret and apologize for using the expression “taken out and shot” on the Sandy Rios Show this week. It was not intended to be taken literally. I have dedicated my life and career to ending violence. I regret that these poorly chosen words are being used to attack my friends at American Family Radio and American Family Association.


However, he would have been spot-on if he had said that many of them should be let go. He missed a good opportunity there.


----------



## CubaMark

*Anti-gay Westboro Baptist church founder Fred Phelps "on the edge of death"*










_The Rev. Fred Phelps Sr., who founded a Kansas church widely known for its protests at military funerals and anti-gay sentiments, is in a care facility, according to a church spokesman.

Phelps, 84, is being cared for in a Shawnee County facility, Westboro Baptist Church spokesman Steve Drain said Sunday. Drain wouldn’t identify the facility.

“I can tell you that Fred Phelps is having some health problems,” Drain said. “He’s an old man, and old people get health problems.”

Phelps’ son Nate, however, said in a Facebook posting that his father is at a hospice in Topeka, Kansas, and is “on the edge of death.”

Members of the Westboro church, based in Topeka, frequently protest at funerals of soldiers with signs containing messages such as “Thank God for dead soldiers,” and “Thank God for 9/11,” claiming the deaths are God’s punishment for American immorality and tolerance of homosexuality and abortion.

* * *​
Nate Phelps, an estranged son of Fred Phelps, also said in an email to The Topeka Capital-Journal that *members of Westboro have voted Fred Phelps out of the church*._

(TorontoStar)

*....what's the emoticon for biting my tongue...?*


----------



## Macfury

Why are you posting that, Cuba Mark? Do you consider it important news?


----------



## fjnmusic

MacGuiver said:


> I never understood the repulsion for guilt. Guilt is a biproduct of having a formed conscience so it's not always a bad thing. If you want to find people living free of the burden of guilt, many reside in the walls of our prison system.


What makes you so sure the prison inmates aren't feeling guilt? That's probably why they're so f-ed up. They probably don't know anything but hate and anger and they really don't know how to get out of the hole they've dug. Literally. But if God can forgive the most hardened criminal, as Jesus did while he was on the cross, then perhaps we have much to learn about what forgiveness means. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## MacGuiver

fjnmusic said:


> What makes you so sure the prison inmates aren't feeling guilt? That's probably why they're so f-ed up. They probably don't know anything but hate and anger and they really don't know how to get out of the hole they've dug. Literally. But if God can forgive the most hardened criminal, as Jesus did while he was on the cross, then perhaps we have much to learn about what forgiveness means.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Its not an all or nothing proposition. I'm well aware there are inmates that may have an intact conscience. I'm speaking of the guy that can be a serial rapist or murder and sit stone faced or smiling in court surounded by grieving relatives or victims. He isn't plagued by guilt but that's not a good thing. Freedom from guilt can simply be the biproduct of the absence of a properly formed conscience.
My argument with you has nothing to do with Gods ability to forgive either. Truly if one is repentant there is no limit to his mercy as with the thief on the cross. In fact it was guilt that brought about the good thief's repentance. I don't recall him extending the offer of paradise to the other unrepentant thief.
I'd also agree that not all guilt is healthy and needs to be let go. Say for instance someone who feels guilt that was a victim of sex abuse or through no fault of their own caused harm to someone else. There are instances where guilt is neither healthy or warranted.
But i take issue with the notion that we should all just live our lives free of guilt for whatever we've done or choose to do. That is really only possible in the absence of a properly formed conscience.


----------



## MacGuiver

screature said:


> A religious tenet that I feel to be absurd is:
> I am not sure as to it's origin but it is one that was taught to by my Catholic priest in the past.
> 
> To me a sin in thought that is *not* carried out in deed, is being "virtuous.


An example of the origin of a sin in thought would be in the commandments. Though shalt not covet thy neighbors wife, etc.
Other sins that could be confined to thought but not action could be lust, envy, hatred.
I agree however that not all bad thoughts are sins but can be merely temptations. Like finding an envelope full of money and thinking it would be nice to keep the cash but instead pursing the rightful owner. That would be virtuous.


----------



## screature

Macfury said:


> Self-forgiveness is what we were talking about, among other items that are not basic components of Catholic doctrine.


But we were also talking about guilt and forgiveness in general, at least I believe fjnmusic was...


----------



## eMacMan

screature said:


> But we were also talking about guilt in forgiveness in general, at least I believe fjnmusic was...


The Catholic Church of course expects the individual to forgive others but must beg the Church for personal forgiveness. Just in case an individual happens to live a relatively good life, the Church throws in freebies. Things like original sin, which the individual had absolutely nothing to do with but is expected to pay for ad nauseum.

A real world example of original sin would be the national debt. Kids born today had nothing to do with creating it but are expected to personally pay for it forever.


----------



## screature

MacGuiver said:


> An example of the origin of a sin in thought would be in the commandments. Though shalt not *covet* thy neighbors wife, etc.
> Other sins that could be confined to thought but not action could be lust, envy, hatred.
> I agree however that not all bad thoughts are sins but can be merely temptations. Like finding an envelope full of money and thinking it would be nice to keep the cash but instead pursing the rightful owner. That would be virtuous.


Those tenets are of the old testament and not the new i.e. they based in Jewish tenets and not strictly Christian or Catholic. Christianity "cherry picks" from the old testament tenets that Christ himself never stated.

Why should covertness (desire) be a sin without out action i.e. adultery. What human being does not have lust (desire), or envy again basically a form of desire. It is human to have desire, after all didn't god make us that way? 

What is sinful is to act inappropriately upon those desires. To resist acting upon those desires again to me constitutes virtue. To have no desire is to not be human.

Perhaps in the opinion of some self flagellation for having such desires is the correct means of riding oneself of such desires or for others entering the priesthood... but we all know just how well that turns out in many cases.


----------



## screature

eMacMan said:


> The Catholic Church of course expects the individual to forgive others *but must beg the Church for personal forgiveness.* Just in case an individual happens to live a relatively good life, the Church throws in freebies. Things like original sin, which the individual had absolutely nothing to do with but is expected to pay for ad nauseum.
> 
> A real world example of original sin would be the national debt. Kids born today had nothing to do with creating it but are expected to personally pay for it forever.


Well that is a little overstated, all you have to do is say "forgive me father for I have sinned", that to me doesn't constitute begging, just confession and a request for absolution.


----------



## eMacMan

screature said:


> Well that is a little overstated, all you have to do is say "forgive me father for I have sinned", that to me doesn't constitute begging, just confession and a request for absolution.


When I posted that, I was thinking of the kids who were sexually molested by their priests. Years later the fear and rage and hatred are still there, yet they should "request" forgiveness for such feelings? Meanwhile they are expected to give the priest a free pass.

That is one messed up system. Ironically they really do need to forgive the B*******s involved, as otherwise those past actions continue to destroy their lives. OTOH those involved should be held fully accountable not merely forgiven and absolved.

Enough testimony out there to convince me that it's extremely difficult for such victims to overcome their own feelings. Asking forgiveness and being absolved doesn't seem to be helping them much.


----------



## Macfury

screature said:


> Those tenets are of the old testament and not the new i.e. they based in Jewish tenets and not strictly Christian or Catholic. Christianity "cherry picks" from the old testament tenets that Christ himself never stated.


Jesus instructed people to keep the 10 commandments.



screature said:


> Why should covertness (desire) be a sin without out action i.e. adultery. What human being does not have lust (desire), or envy again basically a form of desire. It is human to have desire, after all didn't god make us that way?
> 
> What is sinful is to act inappropriately upon those desires. To resist acting upon those desires again to me constitutes virtue. To have no desire is to not be human.


Covetousness is not simply wanting something but to lust after that which should not be yours. So planning in your heart how to steal someone's car or to commit adultery with someone's wife is not a virtue, simply because you didn't get around to it, or the plan didn't come together.


----------



## screature

Macfury said:


> *Jesus instructed people to keep the 10 commandments.*
> 
> *Covetousness is not simply wanting something but to lust after that which should not be yours. So planning in your heart how to steal someone's car or to commit adultery with someone's wife is not a virtue, simply because you didn't get around to it, or the plan didn't come together.*


Just for clarification what is the reference?

I can get on board with that definition of the word. But it has to be much more significant than just thinking... "Hey my friend's wife is 'hot" and having lustful thoughts about her and that is where it ends. To me that is not sinful, just biology, we don't choose who we find attractive, nature does that for us... what we do next in reaction to that biological urge (i.e., the *choice *we make) is what makes us "sinful" or "virtuous", i.e. the "actions" we take or don't take, whether it be making a plan (which to me is an action) or a physical act, like flirting with her in the attempt to "steal her away".


----------



## screature

eMacMan said:


> When I posted that, I was thinking of the kids who were sexually molested by their priests. Years later the fear and rage and hatred are still there, yet they should "request" forgiveness for such feelings? Meanwhile they are expected to give the priest a free pass.
> 
> That is one messed up system. Ironically they really do need to forgive the B*******s involved, as otherwise those past actions continue to destroy their lives. OTOH those involved should be held fully accountable not merely forgiven and absolved.
> 
> *Enough testimony out there to convince me that it's extremely difficult for such victims to overcome their own feelings. Asking forgiveness and being absolved doesn't seem to be helping them much.*


On that point I can agree, but it is because human beings don't always follow through on the 3rd and 4th aspects which are penance and repentance. Confession first, absolution second, penance, (200 Hail Mary's etc.) and then repentance, actually 3 and 4 have to happen pretty much at the same time/be coincidental to be effective.

Although at certain times penance can lead to repentance, but I think history shows it is not as likely repentance will follow when penance is conducted without simultaneous efforts at repentance. It really very much depends on the seriousness of the "sin".


----------



## Macfury

screature said:


> Just for clarification what is the reference?
> 
> I can get on board with that definition of the word. But it has to be much more significant than just thinking... "Hey my friend's wife is hot" and having lustful thoughts about her and that is where it ends. To me that is not sinful, just biology, we don't choose who we find attractive, nature does that for us... what we do next in reaction to that biological urge is what makes us "sinful" or "virtuous", i.e. the "actions" we take or don't take, whether it be making a plan (which to me is an action) or a physical act, like flirting with her in the attempts to "steal her away".


There's a lot of discussion on the original Hebrew, but the debate over the use of the word "covet" goes right back to the 14th Century:



> English translations almost exclusively translate the two instances of the Hebrew “chamad” as “covet” although Wycliffe (1395) and the Douay-Rheims version (1609), following the example of the Vulgate, attempt to enrich the translation by using two different verbs. More than mere envy, “chamad” is used in the sense of “to desire” or “take pleasure” in something and, even more strongly, to have *“inordinate, ungoverned, selfish desire verging on idolatry”*.


Rules for the Good Life, or the Ten Commandments Revisited â€“ Part 11 | Sententia Cafe


----------



## screature

Macfury said:


> There's a lot of discussion on the original Hebrew, but the debate over the use of the word "covet" goes right back to the 14th Century:
> 
> Rules for the Good Life, or the Ten Commandments Revisited – Part 11 | Sententia Cafe


Yes, well I know there is much varying historical use of the word. 

But what do you believe in the 21st century? 

The "words of Christ and of Moses" have been open to interpretation since the time that they were written down by those that "followed them", as none/zero documentation exists that indicates the *testaments* of their followers are their actual words... because there exists no verifiable evidence, i.e., that any of the words as written are historically and verifiably attributable to them or their deeds/actions for that matter.

That is why they are called the "testaments"... we are just supposed to believe the testimonial of their followers.

Now that they all bear some similarity to one another is not surprising, the disciples were after all... disciples... they would most likely want to get their stories straight amongst themselves. They had a vested interest in doing so... like not getting crucified.

Plus undoubtedly they all probably believed Jesus was the Messiah and they had an interest in "proving" that, as after all, they were his disciples. So for them to collectively come together to make sure "we are all on the same page" was definitely in their collective self interests.

Remember anyone one of them could have been crucified as a co-conspirator of Jesus. It was only when they were in "the clear" or there was no perceived potential threat that any one one of them wrote their "testimonials".

It doesn't mean that their testimonials were false, it just calls into question the verifiability that their testimony regarding the words and deeds of Christ were actually spoken or occurred exactly as testified.


----------



## Macfury

screature said:


> Yes, well I know there is much varying historical use of the word.
> 
> But what do you believe in the 21st century?


That it is wrong to lust after something and plan to take what is not yours. Time has not changed it.



screature said:


> Remember anyone one of them could have been crucified as a co-conspirator of Jesus. It was only when they were in "the clear" or there was no perceived potential threat that any one one of them wrote their "testimonials".


Their testimonials were not written concurrently, though.


----------



## screature

Macfury said:


> That it is wrong to lust after something and * plan to take what is not yours.* *Time has not changed it.
> **
> Their testimonials were not written concurrently, though.*


I didn't question that, in fact I agreed with you on that... 

What I was essentially asking, although obviously not well, was where do you personally draw the line in sand? Is it based on strict adherence to testimony?

Just to play beejacon ... becuase your wife is married to you does that make her your "property"... I should think 2000+ years later it is a little bit anachronistic to think that way. 

That their testimonials are not concurrent provides what validation exactly?


----------



## Macfury

screature said:


> Just to play beejacon ... becuase your wife is married to you does that make her your "property"... I should think 2000+ years later it is a little bit anachronistic to think that way.


I think that was more a matter of civil law.



screature said:


> That their testimonials are not concurrent provides what validation exactly?


I'm pointing out that the testimonies of the disciples don't exactly gel because they were written years apart and there was no collusion in preparing them.


----------



## MacGuiver

screature said:


> Those tenets are of the old testament and not the new i.e. they based in Jewish tenets and not strictly Christian or Catholic. Christianity "cherry picks" from the old testament tenets that Christ himself never stated.



Actually Christ confirms it in the New Testament here in Matthew:

27"You have heard that it was said, 'YOU SHALL NOT COMMIT ADULTERY'; 28but I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

By that measure, when you consider our current overly sexualized culture, adultery must be epidemic.


----------



## screature

Macfury said:


> I think that was more a matter of civil law.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm pointing out that the testimonies of the disciples don't exactly gel because they were written years apart and *there was no collusion in preparing them*.


You don't know that to be a fact... it is your (perhaps hopeful) belief... look at the history never mind religion.


----------



## screature

Macfury said:


> I think that was more a matter of civil law.


So how do you feel about how that jives in 21st century Canada? 



Macfury said:


> I'm pointing out that the testimonies of the disciples don't exactly gel because they were written years apart and there was no collusion in preparing them.


Well if they don't exactly gel what does that say? 

No there was no collusion... Possibly...

But so many years later how can we tell whose personal testimony is more accurate... if any? 

The one who first invented it, who we don't know, or the one who remembered it best, who we also don't know?


----------



## fjnmusic

Macfury said:


> I think that was more a matter of civil law.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm pointing out that the testimonies of the disciples don't exactly gel because they were written years apart and there was no collusion in preparing them.


Au contraire. Because they were written years apart could very well suggest that one testimony was based on an earlier testimony. Paul's letters are considered the oldest testimonies (even though he never claimed to meet Jesus personally), with Mark's gospel considered to be the oldest written gospel and in many ways the blueprint for the others. Not only that, but it was not until the Council of Nicea in 325 A.D. when it was decided which versions of the truth would stay and which versions would be edited out. So figuring out the "truth" is not exactly a cut and dried matter.


----------



## screature

MacGuiver said:


> Actually Christ confirms it in the New Testament here in Matthew:
> 
> 27"You have heard that it was said, 'YOU SHALL NOT COMMIT ADULTERY'; 28*but I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart.
> *
> By that measure, when you consider our current overly sexualized culture, adultery must be epidemic.


Ok. So that gives me all the more reason not to be a Christian as it defies all reason and nature.

Thanks for that MacGuiver. 

That very much adds affirmation to my personal beliefs and my reasons for them.

I apologize for being so facetious, but the statement you made that I put in bold makes no sense to me at all, not in 2014.


----------



## fjnmusic

screature said:


> Ok. So that gives me all the more reason not to be a Christian as it defies all reason and nature.
> 
> Thanks for that MacGuiver. That very much affirms my personal beliefs.


Remember: Christians seem to have a bit of preoccupation with sexuality and denial of basic human impulses, RC's in particular. There is this basic primal connection between wanting to learn—eating the fruit from the tree of knowledge—and sin, carnal sin in particular, as personified by the talking snake and the pain of childbirth as a consequence of Eve's transgression. But being as the story of Adam and Eve is so obviously mythological, and that humans were meant to advance, the "sin" of disobedience is really just an important part of the story. Without it, in fact, there would be no story. 

According to the Bible, man is not supposed to "spill his seed" either. So really what seems to be the common denominator is guilt, whether you "look lustfully," "spill your seed" or what have you. It's really all about mind/behaviour control, and it's only valid if you buy into it. I do not, and I'll be damned if I'm going to start feeling guilty about basic human biology.

All of this, of course, has absolutely nothing to do with the basic message of love God with all your heart and love your neighbor as yourself. Of course, if your neighbor is kind of hot-looking….


----------



## SINC

This thread continues to fascinate me, in content furthering my personal education, but also in the level of discussion being kept moderate and respectful to other members with differing views. The latter is an example of how a forum should be conducted. I applaud all of you for your contributions here. :clap:


----------



## fjnmusic

I agree, Sinc. Nothing like a good respectful discussion on a heated topic. Now here's another quote that may stir things up a bit.









Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## MacGuiver

screature said:


> Ok. So that gives me all the more reason not to be a Christian as it defies all reason and nature.


I'm not an expert in theology but I'm not sure it defies all reason. There is usually someone hurt or negatively affected by our sin.
In this particular example, I've heard of porn addicted husbands that go on to tell how their porn habit destroyed intimacy with their wives and even their marriages falling apart. The guy may never have cheated on his wife with a flesh and blood woman but his lust for the women in his porn distorted his view of sexuality so badly he could no longer have intimacy with his wife. Either he looses interest in her or she simply becomes another means of sexual gratification. Now this could be classified as the adultery in thought Christ warned about since no flesh and blood woman is involved but its consequences are no less damaging to the marriage. It can also affect the dignity we allot to women, seeing them as mere objects for our gratification.
In this day and age, many are the marriage breakups where porn addiction is sited as a cause or contributor to the destruction of the relationship.


----------



## Macfury

screature said:


> You don't know that to be a fact... it is your (perhaps hopeful) belief... look at the history never mind religion.





screature said:


> Well if they don't exactly gel what does that say?
> 
> No there was no collusion... Possibly...
> 
> But so many years later how can we tell whose personal testimony is more accurate... if any?
> 
> The one who first invented it, who we don't know, or the one who remembered it best, who we also don't know?


You'll have to decide whether you believe the gospels were written by the people to whom they are attributed. However, they are written in four markedly different styles over a period of possibly 40 years. There was no notion that these gospels would one day be printed alongside each other. Thee are discrepancies between the accounts which could have been ironed out by publishers of early Bibles--but they chose to leave them intact. I think that this also speaks to authenticity. Identical account less so.



screature said:


> So how do you feel about how that jives in 21st century Canada?


My wife won't let me say...


----------



## Macfury

fjnmusic said:


> Not only that, but it was not until the Council of Nicea in 325 A.D. when it was decided which versions of the truth would stay and which versions would be edited out. So figuring out the "truth" is not exactly a cut and dried matter.


Agreed.


----------



## Macfury

fjnmusic said:


> According to the Bible, man is not supposed to "spill his seed" either.


Specifically not in the way that was recounted in the OT--in such a way as to insult a woman to whom Onan was bound to impregnate by custom.



fjnmusic said:


> So really what seems to be the common denominator is guilt, whether you "look lustfully," "spill your seed" or what have you. It's really all about mind/behaviour control, and it's only valid if you buy into it.


It is about the control and harnessing of harmful behaviour.



fjnmusic said:


> *I'll be damned* if I'm going to start feeling guilty about basic human biology.


If your religion is correct, you may be right...



fjnmusic said:


> All of this, of course, has absolutely nothing to do with the basic message of love God with all your heart and love your neighbor as yourself.


If God was responsible for these instructions it has everything to do with loving God by obeying his laws.


----------



## MacGuiver

Macfury said:


> If God was responsible for these instructions it has everything to do with loving God by obeying his laws.


If you think of our relationship with God as a Father/Son and Daughter relationship it makes sense. Like a good parent, God gives rules for his children to follow for their well being and protection. Like children we often think we know better, rebel and run headlong into trouble with our eyes wide open. 
A child with loving parents, who loves them in turn, will respect their authority and be obedient to them. A loving relationship with God is no different.

The argument that the concept of sin is simply about control don't hold water when you look at it in this light. My young children are not allowed down to the river without mom or I with them. To say that rule is about control or power is ridiculous to any thinking person. The rules are there because I know the dangers the water presents to a child that may not be aware themselves.


----------



## fjnmusic

Macfury said:


> If your religion is correct, you may be right...


I thought you might like that one.


----------



## fjnmusic

MacGuiver said:


> If you think of our relationship with God as a Father/Son and Daughter relationship it makes sense. Like a good parent, God gives rules for his children to follow for their well being and protection. Like children we often think we know better, rebel and run headlong into trouble with our eyes wide open.
> A child with loving parents, who loves them in turn, will respect their authority and be obedient to them. A loving relationship with God is no different.
> 
> The argument that the concept of sin is simply about control don't hold water when you look at it in this light. My young children are not allowed down to the river without mom or I with them. To say that rule is about control or power is ridiculous to any thinking person. The rules are there because I know the dangers the water presents to a child that may not be aware themselves.


I can see what you mean. However, I am guessing you would have a hard time disowning your children forever for disobeying you. In the parable of the Prodigal Son, we see God portrayed as the father who is so happy that his son has returned that he is willing to kill the fatted calf and have a feast despite his other, more faithful son's objections. And in Isaiah 49, we see the comparison to a shepherd who would not abandon his flock and a mother who would never abandon her baby. Pretty hard to square these metaphors of love and devotion with the concept of damnation and eternal hellfire.


----------



## MacGuiver

fjnmusic said:


> I can see what you mean. However, I am guessing you would have a hard time disowning your children forever for disobeying you. In the parable of the Prodigal Son, we see God portrayed as the father who is so happy that his son has returned that he is willing to kill the fatted calf and have a feast despite his other, more faithful son's objections. And in Isaiah 49, we see the comparison to a shepherd who would not abandon his flock and a mother who would never abandon her baby. Pretty hard to square these metaphors of love and devotion with the concept of damnation and eternal hellfire.


Good points but like the prodigal son, God will not drag you back kicking and screaming. He give us our freedom and we can choose to be in relationship with him or not.
I've honestly heard some guys say they wouldn't want to go to heaven because sin is much more fun. I'm beginning to believe that attitude can carry over with us to the afterlife.

John alludes to this in the Gospels

…19"This is the judgment, that the Light has come into the world, and men loved the darkness rather than the Light, for their deeds were evil. 20"For everyone who does evil hates the Light, and does not come to the Light for fear that his deeds will be exposed. 21"But he who practices the truth comes to the Light, so that his deeds may be manifested as having been wrought in God."

How often have I heard people say, If God doesn't accept this or that then I'd want no part of him. I think people steeped in sin will find God repulsive in the afterlife like they do in the present.


----------



## Macfury

fjnmusic said:


> I can see what you mean. However, I am guessing you would have a hard time disowning your children forever for disobeying you. In the parable of the Prodigal Son, we see God portrayed as the father who is so happy that his son has returned that he is willing to kill the fatted calf and have a feast despite his other, more faithful son's objections. And in Isaiah 49, we see the comparison to a shepherd who would not abandon his flock and a mother who would never abandon her baby. Pretty hard to square these metaphors of love and devotion with the concept of damnation and eternal hellfire.


Really? 

The prodigal son came back from hellfire on his own--this is why the fatted calf was slaughtered. 

The shepherd will not abandon his flock--but sometimes the flock abandons him.

I'm curious, fjn, why you elevate the notion of your biological urges to such an honoured state. Is the knowledge that you want to behave more like an animal all that separates you from the animals?



MacGuiver said:


> I think people steeped in sin will find God repulsive in the afterlife like they do in the present.


The notion that people simply choose to go to hell at that point is an interesting one. It would also diffuse anybody's objections against God "throwing his children into hellfire."


----------



## fjnmusic

Macfury said:


> Really?
> 
> The prodigal son came back from hellfire on his own--this is why the fatted calf was slaughtered.
> 
> The shepherd will not abandon his flock--but sometimes the flock abandons him.
> 
> I'm curious, fjn, why you elevate the notion of your biological urges to such an honoured state. Is the knowledge that you want to behave more like an animal all that separates you from the animals?
> 
> 
> 
> The notion that people simply choose to go to hell at that point is an interesting one. It would also diffuse anybody's objections against God "throwing his children into hellfire."


Interesting points. The "knowledge that I want to behave more like an animal" is kind of absurd. I am an animal, and so are you. Denial will not change that. We all have biological urges, such as the urge to procreate (what some people call fornicate). There is nothing good or bad intrinsically about having that urge, though there are some ways to act on it that are more socially acceptable than others. But the biology doesn't disappear just because we wish it would. I believe this is the reason it is exceedingly difficult for men of the cloth to be celibate, and why most other Christian denominations allow priests to be married and have families. Denial of these basic animal urges just leads to repression, which can have unintended consequences.

And for the record, there is no eternal hellfire. It's a ridiculous notion meant to scare people who can't think for themselves. And there's probably no heaven either—at least not the way it's traditionally described. Who wants to sing praise with the heavenly choirs all day anyway? 





+
YouTube Video









ERROR: If you can see this, then YouTube is down or you don't have Flash installed.


----------



## Macfury

fjnmusic said:


> We all have biological urges, such as the urge to procreate (what some people call fornicate).


No, the urge to procreate is not fornication. Fornication is sex among unmarried people.



fjnmusic said:


> And for the record, there is no eternal hellfire. It's a ridiculous notion meant to scare people who can't think for themselves.


Then why worry about the fact that the religion to which you belong says that the behaviours you support will get you there? 

I think back to the concept of God as "loving shepherd" when you declare that there is categorically no hell. From where the shepherd stands, he can see a whole lot farther than you sheep.


----------



## fjnmusic

Macfury said:


> No, the urge to procreate is not fornication. Fornication is sex among unmarried people.
> 
> 
> 
> Then why worry about the fact that the religion to which you belong says that the behaviours you support will get you there?
> 
> I think back to the concept of God as "loving shepherd" when you declare that there is categorically no hell. From where the shepherd stands, he can see a whole lot farther than you sheep.


Again with the presumptions. Who says I support these behaviors? I am saying that doing something "sinful" is not cause to throw the baby out with the bath water. That's not the same as condoning the "sin." At least, that's not what a _loving_ parent would do. You do like to twist, Macfury.


----------



## Macfury

fjnmusic said:


> Again with the presumptions. Who says I support these behaviors? I am saying that doing something "sinful" is not cause to throw the baby out with the bath water. That's not the same as condoning the "sin." At least, that's not what a _loving_ parent would do. You do like to twist, Macfury.


You were saying that the unrepentant behaviours do not result in condemnation. You did not call them "sin"--just behaviours and biological urges.

However, by its very nature, sin is what separates one from God and can lead to hell. If you are saying that this is isn't so, you may be unwittingly leading people into this state of false security.

*2 Peter 2:*


> *18 *For they speak bombastic nonsense, and with licentious desires of the flesh they entice people who have just[l] escaped from those who live in error. *19* They promise them freedom, but they themselves are slaves of corruption; for people are slaves to whatever masters them. *20* For if, after they have escaped the defilements of the world through the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, they are again entangled in them and overpowered, the last state has become worse for them than the first. 2


----------



## fjnmusic

Here's one for you: which is the greater sin? Eating the fruit from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, or the incestuous relations that inevitably would have had to take place in order to create the human race from the one common ancestor, Adam? And then again, from Noah's family after the flood? Remember: if you declare more than one common ancestor, you negate the effect of original sin on all of humanity and make meaningless the need for redemption. Catch-22.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury

fjnmusic said:


> Here's one for you: which is the greater sin? Eating the fruit from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, or the incestuous relations that inevitably would have had to take place in order to create the human race from the one common ancestor, Adam?


I have a question for you. What do you consider incest and why do you consider it wrong?



fjnmusic said:


> And then again, from Noah's family after the flood?


Cousins are still marrying in the 21st century. Scratch this one.



fjnmusic said:


> Remember: if you declare more than one common ancestor, you negate the effect of original sin on all of humanity and make meaningless the need for redemption. Catch-22.


Ouch. This is the fourth or fifth time you've recycled this old chestnut here.


----------



## MacGuiver

fjnmusic said:


> +
> YouTube Video
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ERROR: If you can see this, then YouTube is down or you don't have Flash installed.


This video sorta plays right in to the hand of what I said earlier. Its possible people could choose Hell for themselves since they find God repulsive and sin delightful. 
These guys, however distorted their views may be and ignorant of scripture they clearly are want no part of God or Heaven. At least what they percieve them to be. I don't believe we surrender our free will in the next life and these guys may get exactly what they want. Separation from God.
Its not that we will become puppets without free will but our will will be aligned with God because what is right and wrong will be blatantly obvious to us. The sins we crave in this life will be as appealing as rotting fish in the presence of God. At the risk of sounding like a new ager, we will have a new level of awareness and with it sin and evil will be repulsive. 

There was a story on the news yesterday of a man that intentionally dragged his dog behind his truck for a mile before someone stopped him. Peoples reaction was, what kind of sick person could do such a thing? In truth, the man was just exercising his free will and obviously saw no wrong in his actions since he chose freely to do it. But to people with an enlightened conscience, its a choice they find repulsive and would never entertain the thought of doing it. Heaven will be like that. Like choosing to drag that poor dog down the road, the choice to sin will be equally repugnant.


----------



## fjnmusic

MacGuiver said:


> This video sorta plays right in to the hand of what I said earlier. Its possible people could choose Hell for themselves since they find God repulsive and sin delightful.
> These guys, however distorted their views may be and ignorant of scripture they clearly are want no part of God or Heaven. At least what they percieve them to be. I don't believe we surrender our free will in the next life and these guys may get exactly what they want. Separation from God.
> Its not that we will become puppets without free will but our will will be aligned with God because what is right and wrong will be blatantly obvious to us. The sins we crave in this life will be as appealing as rotting fish in the presence of God. At the risk of sounding like a new ager, we will have a new level of awareness and with it sin and evil will be repulsive.
> 
> There was a story on the news yesterday of a man that intentionally dragged his dog behind his truck for a mile before someone stopped him. Peoples reaction was, what kind of sick person could do such a thing? In truth, the man was just exercising his free will and obviously saw no wrong in his actions since he chose freely to do it. But to people with an enlightened conscience, its a choice they find repulsive and would never entertain the thought of doing it. Heaven will be like that. Like choosing to drag that poor dog down the road, the choice to sin will be equally repugnant.


A horrible crime, to be sure. My understanding is that the right of your fist ends where the right of my nose begins. Freedom has limits, and my right to free speech, for example, is curtailed if I am using hate speech or trying to incite people to riot. We live in a society, and a great many of the religious laws we employ are designed to help our society function well, with or without a deity's involvement.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## fjnmusic

Macfury said:


> I have a question for you. What do you consider incest and why do you consider it wrong?
> 
> 
> 
> Cousins are still marrying in the 21st century. Scratch this one.
> 
> 
> 
> Ouch. This is the fourth or fifth time you've recycled this old chestnut here.


And yet again you manage to sidestep the question. I would have to say that a son having relations with his mother would constitute incest, wouldn't you? Adam and Eve begat three sons: Cain, Abel, and Seth. That's it. So where do the rest of the human race come from? That Eve would have been pretty busy.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury

fjnmusic said:


> AFreedom has limits, and my right to free speech, for example, is curtailed if I am using hate speech or trying to incite people to riot.


I wouldn't even curtail that one.


----------



## fjnmusic

Macfury said:


> I wouldn't even curtail that one.


Why not? You believe free speech has no limits?


----------



## Macfury

fjnmusic said:


> Why not? You believe free speech has no limits?


I believe "hate speech" should be protected.


----------



## Macfury

fjnmusic said:


> And yet again you manage to sidestep the question. I would have to say that a son having relations with his mother would constitute incest, wouldn't you? Adam and Eve begat three sons: Cain, Abel, and Seth. That's it. So where do the rest of the human race come from? That Eve would have been pretty busy.


I suspect sister would be more likely. The laws against incest did not exist before the law was announced--and that was much later in the game. While I find the idea of begetting children with a close family member repugnant, that was all that was available in the Adam and Eve scenario.

So you have the act of sleeping with one's sister, no law against incest, and original sin, all wrapped up in a tidy bundle.


----------



## fjnmusic

Macfury said:


> I suspect sister would be more likely. The laws against incest did not exist before the law was announced--and that was much later in the game. While I find the idea of begetting children with a close family member repugnant, that was all that was available in the Adam and Eve scenario.
> 
> So you have the act of sleeping with one's sister, no law against incest, and original sin, all wrapped up in a tidy bundle.


Except that there is no sister mentioned. Only the mother. One woman for four men. Of course for me it's quite simple, because I know the Adam and Eve story to be mythology, which is exactly how the RC catechism sees it, incidentally. That way no incest, no harm, no foul. But it does present that pesky problem of no original sin either.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury

fjnmusic said:


> Except that there is no sister mentioned. Only the mother. One woman for four men. Of course for me it's quite simple, because I know the Adam and Eve story to be mythology, which is exactly how the RC catechism sees it, incidentally. That way no incest, no harm, no foul. But it does present that pesky problem of no original sin either.


If it were true, then no incest because no law and original sin is intact. There is no pesky problem except in your head (how many times have you dragged the corpse of that idea here, again?)

And why argue about it at all if you believe the story to be false?


----------



## fjnmusic

Macfury said:


> If it were true, then no incest because no law and original sin is intact. There is no pesky problem except in your head (how many times have you dragged the corpse of that idea here, again?)
> 
> And why argue about it at all if you believe the story to be false?


You've been drinking your own bath water Macfury. No incest because no law? You seriously believe that's what defines incest? Time to re-study basic biology. And I'd for once like you to explain why you don't see a flagrant violation of the concept of original sin if Adam and Eve were just a myth. You offer insults but no insight on this subject.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury

fjnmusic said:


> No incest because no law? You seriously believe that's what defines incest?


I'm giving you one explanation. All species start out this way, so there is nothing shameful about humans doing so early on, and before the law exists. It would have had to occur whether humans were created or whether they evolved.



fjnmusic said:


> And I'd for once like you to explain why you don't see a flagrant violation of the concept of original sin if Adam and Eve were just a myth. You offer insults but no insight on this subject.


I haven't insulted you fjn. I also never said that Adam and Eve were a myth. I asked you why you were so worried about incest if they were not real.

But people are plenty bad enough to require Christ's sacrifice--it was necessary even if no original sin existed.


----------



## fjnmusic

Macfury said:


> I'm giving you one explanation. All species start out this way, so there is nothing shameful about humans doing so early on, and before the law exists. It would have had to occur whether humans were created or whether they evolved.
> 
> 
> 
> I haven't insulted you fjn. I also never said that Adam and Eve were a myth. I asked you why you were so worried about incest if they were not real.
> 
> But people are plenty bad enough to require Christ's sacrifice--it was necessary even if no original sin existed.


See, that's where I find the rationale goes completely off the rails. Christ's sacrifice is really no different in function than the old throwing-the-virgin-into-the-volcano-to-appease-the-gods concept. It makes no sense how one man's human sacrifice 2000 years or so ago has some kind of effect on anyone today, other than symbolically. If he "died for our sins" then it would seem to let us off the hook, wouldn't it? I don't buy that. And just because I was baptized RC doesn't mean I don't have the right to question the logic of the whole premise.

Now if you look at the crucifixion and resurrection as part of a much larger picture the borrows from many other older mythologies, the way the Tom Harpur does in The Pagan Christ, for example, then you have a fascinating collection of stories that offer much insight into human culture. Religion for adults. Religion for thinking people. When I became an adult I learned to put away childish ways. I'm afraid going back to the blind faith of my childhood now would be impossible, because I have learned far too much that makes more sense of the world. But I can still appreciate the story and its impact on culture. Story is a universal touchstone.

And why comment? Because it affects me. Everybody's belief systems affect me and I must navigate through them to come to understand people better. Christianity has all the hallmarks of most mythologies. Sometimes I think the superhuman characteristics, like walking on water, were included on purpose so that we would remember that we're talking about mythology here, not history. Take moveable feast days. If Easter were an actual historical remembrance, why does it shift around by about a month from year to year? That's the mark of a Pagan festival, not a historical event.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## CubaMark

*fjnmusic *- one of the smartest posts this thread has seen so far. Thanks for that.


----------



## fjnmusic

CubaMark said:


> *fjnmusic *- one of the smartest posts this thread has seen so far. Thanks for that.


Thanks, CubaMark. It's nice to know when someone else gets a point you've been trying to make for a couple of years.


----------



## Macfury

fjnmusic said:


> See, that's where I find the rationale goes completely off the rails. Christ's sacrifice is really no different in function than the old throwing-the-virgin-into-the-volcano-to-appease-the-gods concept. It makes no sense how one man's human sacrifice 2000 years or so ago has some kind of effect on anyone today, other than symbolically.


Seriously, fjn, it isn't that you can't conceive that a 2,000-year-old sacrifice could have any effect on people today. It's simply that you don't believe. You may think you're too smart or too experienced or too clever to believe, but it boils down to the fact that you don't. 



fjnmusic said:


> If he "died for our sins" then it would seem to let us off the hook, wouldn't it? I don't buy that.


Neither did Christ, or his disciples... or most Christians.




fjnmusic said:


> And just because I was baptized RC doesn't mean I don't have the right to question the logic of the whole premise.


You have the right to question and to disbelieve--and you do disbelieve. So why hang onto the few pitiful tatters that identify you as a member of the Catholic faith? 



fjnmusic said:


> Now if you look at the crucifixion and resurrection as part of a much larger picture the borrows from many other older mythologies, the way the Tom Harpur does in The Pagan Christ, for example, then you have a fascinating collection of stories that offer much insight into human culture. Religion for adults. Religion for thinking people. When I became an adult I learned to put away childish ways. I'm afraid going back to the blind faith of my childhood now would be impossible, because I have learned far too much that makes more sense of the world. But I can still appreciate the story and its impact on culture. Story is a universal touchstone.


Harpur's book was rife with errors and original "research" that appeared more like plagiarism. Religion for the coffee klatsch set and not remotely worthy of the examination of a great faith.



fjnmusic said:


> And why comment?


I don't care why you comment in general. I only wonder why you're building these sand castles about Adam and Eve when you don't believe in them anyway.



fjnmusic said:


> Take moveable feast days. If Easter were an actual historical remembrance, why does it shift around by about a month from year to year? That's the mark of a Pagan festival, not a historical event.


It's the mark of a celebration that is linked to Passover and always follows the Paschal full moon. I thought you would know that.


----------



## fjnmusic

Macfury said:


> Seriously, fjn, it isn't that you can't conceive that a 2,000-year-old sacrifice could have any effect on people today. It's simply that you don't believe. You may think you're too smart or too experienced or too clever to believe, but it boils down to the fact that you don't.


I believe that it's presumptuous for people of the Christian faith to have co-opted the word "believe" as though they have exclusive rights to its meaning, much as American has come to mean only people if the United States OF America rathe than the other countries that make up two continents of seven in this world. 

I would suggest you are also an unbeliever if you reject the god of other faiths, such as Lord Vishnu. Everybody believes in something, and though I was born and raised RC, I have a different understanding now that I am older. I still believe in God, but He/She probably does not look or act a lot like the God you believe in. We create God in our own image. I truly believe THAT.



Macfury said:


> Neither did Christ, or his disciples... or most Christians.


I don't remember what this was in reference to.



Macfury said:


> You have the right to question and to disbelieve--and you do disbelieve. So why hang onto the few pitiful tatters that identify you as a member of the Catholic faith?


Why stay part of a family after you've grown up and moved out? Sometimes it's nice to stay in touch, and personally, I think of church as more of a social club than anything else. Some people hang out at the bar. My faith connects my whole life and I see no reason to abandon it completely. But I also see no reason to accept illogical premises blindly. More church people should ask questions in my opinion. And as I've already established, I most certainly believe—maybe not in the same things you do however.



Macfury said:


> Harpur's book was rife with errors and original "research" that appeared more like plagiarism. Religion for the coffee klatsch set and not remotely worthy of the examination of a great faith.


Yes, but did you read it? Anyone can quote some one else whose read it, but that does not make them an authority. It's a fascinating theory he presents, errors or not, and it helps me to understand Christianity as part of the bigger picture. Another more Christian text is Lee Strobel's The Case For a Creator, which examines some of the problems inherent in a strictly scientific view of the world. Again, a fascinating read. How did eyes evolve for example? 



Macfury said:


> I don't care why you comment in general. I only wonder why you're building these sand castles about Adam and Eve when you don't believe in them anyway.


Do you believe in them? You seem like a learned man. Does the creation story not fly in the face of common sense for you? And yet, there must have been first organisms at some point....I just doubt that they looked very much like humans.



Macfury said:


> It's the mark of a celebration that is linked to Passover and always follows the Paschal full moon. I thought you would know that.


What I know is that it is the first Sunday following the first full moon following the vernal equinox. Count back 46 days (because Sundays are not counted) and you get Ash Wednesday, and the whole Easter season is based on a Pagan spring festival. I thought you would know that. But again, it affirms what I have been saying: it is a symbolic ritual based on a story rather than an actual historical certainty. If it was historical, it would be on the same date every year. But of course you must have known that too.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury

fjnmusic said:


> I believe that it's presumptuous for people of the Christian faith to have co-opted the word "believe" as though they have exclusive rights to its meaning, much as American has come to mean only people if the United States OF America rathe than the other countries that make up two continents of seven in this world.
> 
> I would suggest you are also an unbeliever if you reject the god of other faiths, such as Lord Vishnu. Everybody believes in something, and though I was born and raised RC, I have a different understanding now that I am older. I still believe in God, but He/She probably does not look or act a lot like the God you believe in. We create God in our own image. I truly believe THAT.


Except I'm not using "believe" in that sense at all. Simply in the strict literal sense yo u have no belief that it matters.




fjnmusic said:


> Why stay part of a family after you've grown up and moved out? Sometimes it's nice to stay in touch, and personally, I think of church as more of a *social club *than anything else.


That sums it up pretty nicely. 



fjnmusic said:


> Yes, but did you read it? Anyone can quote some one else whose read it, but that does not make them an authority. It's a fascinating theory he presents, errors or not, and it helps me to understand Christianity as part of the bigger picture.


I started reading it and then stopped when I saw it as a rehash of existing material.



fjnmusic said:


> What I know is that it is the first Sunday following the first full moon following the vernal equinox. Count back 46 days (because Sundays are not counted) and you get Ash Wednesday, and the whole Easter season is based on a Pagan spring festival. I thought you would know that. But again, it affirms what I have been saying: it is a symbolic ritual based on a story rather than an actual historical certainty. If it was historical, it would be on the same date every year. But of course you must have known that too.


It's based on the date of Passover, not a pagan festival.


----------



## MacGuiver

fjnmusic said:


> Except that there is no sister mentioned. Only the mother. One woman for four men. Of course for me it's quite simple, because I know the Adam and Eve story to be mythology, which is exactly how the RC catechism sees it, incidentally. That way no incest, no harm, no foul. But it does present that pesky problem of no original sin either.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


You're kinda sucking and blowing at the same time FJN. You insist the story of Adam and Eve is myth but then you insist on interpreting it literally. If Adam and Eve are not historical people then why are the 3 sons in the story? Regarding the Catechism, yes it does state that the story of Adam and Eve employs figurative language but insists the truths of the story remain. Our first parents marked us with original sin and we are decedents of them.



> The story of the creation and fall of man is a true one, even if not written entirely according to modern literary techniques. The Catechism states, "The account of the fall in Genesis 3 uses figurative language, but affirms a primeval event, a deed that took place at the beginning of the history of man. Revelation gives us the certainty of faith that the whole of human history is marked by the original fault freely committed by our first parents" (CCC 390).


----------



## fjnmusic

Sucking and blowing at the same time? Why, I should become a harmonica player in a blues band!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## fjnmusic

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury

...and where self-forgiveness is rarely discussed!


----------



## fjnmusic

Ha ha! Knew that wouldn't get by you. I have a feeling self-forgiveness is the next big strand in the tapestry. It hasn't been brought up yet because people aren't ready to hear it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury

I think we might agree at least on this: we must not be harder on ourselves than God is.


----------



## Dr.G.

Macfury said:


> I think we might agree at least on this: we must not be harder on ourselves than God is.


A valid point, Macfury. Paix, mon ami.


----------



## fjnmusic

Tha's the ticket. And since God is all-forgiving (a quality that baffles the human brain) meaning that there is literally nothing God would not forgive us for if we are truly repentant, then forgiving ourselves would seem to be even more difficult than asking God's forgiveness. That's where I got the idea...sort of a corollary to the teachings about God's nature and forgiveness. 

I really think honestly coming to terms with one's own mistakes, particularly if they cause injury to someone else, is one of the hardest things one can do in this life. It is more familiar to hold on to our guilt. Not healthier, but more familiar. Letting go is risky, because it means tearing down the walls we have built up.

By the way, I'm not talking psychopathy or sociopathy here, where someone lacks empathy entirely. If someone doesn't feel guilt to begin with, chances are they won't feel forgiveness either. They often do have an obsessive compulsive nature about their crimes though, which in a way is a hell in itself. That would be the opposite of letting go. Take Lennie in Of Mice and Men. He does not understand the severity of his actions (nor does Lizzy in TWD) but is more concerned about disapproval from George. A feeling, to be sure, but not exactly empathy for other living things. 

And so God's disapproval or forgiveness would have no influence on one who does not believe in Him or Her. But since we all have to share this earthly realm together regardless of our faith background, there must be some kind of here and now consequence for those who do not play nicely with others. Shunning would seem to be one of the more effective and time honored methods, although it's effectiveness in creating the desired change in behaviour is questionable. I think healing circles, though riskier, may be a better way of achieving reintegration.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury

fjnmusic said:


> I think healing circles, though riskier, may be a better way of achieving reintegration.


No.

Just no....


----------



## fjnmusic

Macfury said:


> No.
> 
> Just no....


Why no, Macfury? It would seem to be in keeping with the example Jesus set.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury

Jesus was not a New Age nutter.


----------



## fjnmusic

Macfury said:


> Jesus was not a New Age nutter.


Seemed pretty New Age compared to the establishment of his time if you ask me. I have a hard time seeing Him as a Republican. Like I've said before, man creates God in his own image. Without resorting to putdowns like "nutter," what is it about Healing Circles that you think is not authentic? Seems to me that facing the people you hurt, feeling their pain, and atoning for your transgressions before you can be accepted back into the community is EXACTLY the kind of forgiveness Jesus was talking about.


----------



## Macfury

fjnmusic said:


> Seemed pretty New Age compared to the establishment of his time if you ask me. I have a hard time seeing Him as a Republican. Like I've said before, man creates God in his own image. Without resorting to putdowns like "nutter," what is it about Healing Circles that you think is not authentic? Seems to me that facing the people you hurt, feeling their pain, and atoning for your transgressions before you can be accepted back into the community is EXACTLY the kind of forgiveness Jesus was talking about.


The Democrats are the US establishment, so I guess Jesus was a Republican.

Back to the topic at hand. If people want to voluntarily submit to New Age nutterism, by tearing a page out of some ancient culture and try to graft it onto their own without the history, tradition, or any of the other qualities of the original culture, it's up to them of course.


----------



## fjnmusic

Macfury said:


> The Democrats are the US establishment, so I guess Jesus was a Republican.
> 
> Back to the topic at hand. If people want to voluntarily submit to New Age nutterism, by tearing a page out of some ancient culture and try to graft it onto their own without the history, tradition, or any of the other qualities of the original culture, it's up to them of course.


Healing circles are a traditional First Nations way of dealing with transgressors, far from New Age actually. But again, I ask you the same question, since you seem to be avoiding it: what is it about healing circles that you find to be not consistent with Jesus' teachings?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury

fjnmusic said:


> Healing circles are a traditional First Nations way of dealing with transgressors, far from New Age actually.


That's what I said. It's New Age nutters who try to tear a tradition out of time-honoured aboriginal culture without replicating the cultural norms that surround it.



fjnmusic said:


> But again, I ask you the same question, since you seem to be avoiding it: what is it about healing circles that you find to be not consistent with Jesus' teachings?


Inconsequential does not mean inconsistent.


----------



## fjnmusic

Macfury said:


> That's what I said. It's New Age nutters who try to tear a tradition out of time-honoured aboriginal culture without replicating the cultural norms that surround it.
> 
> 
> 
> Inconsequential does not mean inconsistent.


You speak in riddles, Macfury. I need a translator.


----------



## Macfury

fjnmusic said:


> You speak in riddles, Macfury. I need a translator.


By George, I believe you do!


----------



## Dr.G.

Macfury said:


> By George, I believe you do!


[ame]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uVmU3iANbgk[/ame]


----------



## Macfury

Dr.G. said:


> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uVmU3iANbgk


Are you up early or late, Dr. G?


----------



## Dr.G.

Macfury said:


> Are you up early or late, Dr. G?


Up early.


----------



## Macfury

We're meeting in the middle then--I haven't yet gone to sleep.


----------



## Dr.G.

Macfury said:


> We're meeting in the middle then--I haven't yet gone to sleep.


Middle ground is good ................. it brings us both to a point of balance and equilibrium.


----------



## fjnmusic

Dr.G. said:


> Middle ground is good ................. it brings us both to a point of balance and equilibrium.


Careful with the Zen, Dr. G; you don't want to sound like some kind of New Age nutter quoting some kind of Old Age nutter. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Dr.G.

fjnmusic said:


> Careful with the Zen, Dr. G; you don't want to sound like some kind of New Age nutter quoting some kind of Old Age nutter.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


OK, fjn. I shall stick with Mark Twain.


----------



## CubaMark




----------



## screature

CubaMark said:


>


True that.


----------



## CubaMark

_*Anyone want to take bets on how long before this guy pops up on the news, involved in a scandal involving male prostitutes in airport bathroom stalls or something similar...?*_

*U.S. anti-gay activist Peter LaBarbera arrested in Regina*



U.S. anti-gay activist Peter LaBarbera and a Saskatchewan man were arrested on the University of Regina campus on Monday and will be charged with mischief, police said.

*LaBarbera, who is with a group called Americans for Truth about Homosexuality*, and Bill Whatcott were distributing anti-gay literature on the campus.

Before their arrival, the university issued a news release saying the pair would be monitored to ensure they did not engage in any activity that would promote hatred.

At one point, with news cameras rolling, an unidentified university official approached Whatcott and LaBarbera and asked them to leave. During that encounter, Whatcott said he had attempted to get permission to set up an information table and, since he was denied, proceeded to set up a table anyway.

"I'm not leaving," Whatcott told the official, "You guys are intolerant and should be ashamed of yourselves for shutting down our message without even considering it."

American anti-gay activist Peter LaBarbera was arrested Monday and charged with mischief. He was at the University of Regina. (CBC)

A short while later, several Regina police officers arrived and Whatcott and LaBarbera were handcuffed and taken off campus.

** * *​*
On Friday, LaBarbera was briefly detained at the Regina airport, but was allowed into Saskatchewan to participate in an anti-abortion conference in Weyburn on the weekend.​


> LaBarbera, whose group professes on its website to stand for "God-ordained sexuality,


(CBC)

*So this dude was in Canada to speak at an anti-abortion event, and decided he might as well push his anti-homosexuality prejudices as well, eh? Amazing, the people we let into the country these days....

And c'mon... that name... it's gotta be a made-up moniker, right? "Dick the Barbara"? ROFLMFAO!!!!*


----------



## Macfury

The school is behaving in a pathetic fashion. It is afraid of ideas and doesn't trust its students to separate bad ideas from good ones. Shame on the University of Regina for not upholding the principles of academic freedom.


----------



## CubaMark

LaBarbera - from what I can glean from the article - was not invited onto campus by any group, student or professor. Seems quite apparent that his intention was to provoke a reaction (mission complete!) and get some coverage for his cause. There's nothing "academic" at play here, given that an infringement on "academic freedom" would imply a formal forum by professors and students was in some way impeded. That's not the case here at all.

Funny that those on the far right who complain about university professors, "eggheads", ivory tower types, etc. and then get their knickers in a twist over something like this, claiming the denial of academic rights.... there's a word for folks who talk out of both sides of their mouths...


----------



## Macfury

They are eggheads--however I support their right to academic freedom, regardless of how boneheaded they may be. Don't play those games with me, because I am consistent on this.

The academic freedom in this case is the freedom of students to hear ideas both good and bad.



CubaMark said:


> LaBarbera - from what I can glean from the article - was not invited onto campus by any group, student or professor. Seems quite apparent that his intention was to provoke a reaction (mission complete!) and get some coverage for his cause. There's nothing "academic" at play here, given that an infringement on "academic freedom" would imply a formal forum by professors and students was in some way impeded. That's not the case here at all.
> 
> Funny that those on the far right who complain about university professors, "eggheads", ivory tower types, etc. and then get their knickers in a twist over something like this, claiming the denial of academic rights.... there's a word for folks who talk out of both sides of their mouths...


----------



## MacGuiver

Left wing fascists dominate academia in Canada. This shutdown of opposing views is getting to be the norm in Canadian Universities. Time and time again anyone that tries to set foot on university property, even those invited by student groups that support them are greeted by lefty brown shirts screaming profanities, chanting and disrupting any opposing view. They behave like spoiled children not getting a toy they demand to have. Sad really. They know acceptance of their views are so fragile that anyone challenging them needs to be silenced rather than debated.
That said, they seem to love people spewing hatred of Jews and Christians and roll out the red carpet for them.


----------



## Macfury

My point exactly. Any group that demonstrates political correctness does not require an invitation to enter a public campus. That's just a requirement for undesirables.



MacGuiver said:


> Left wing fascists dominate academia in Canada. This shutdown of opposing views is getting to be the norm in Canadian Universities. Time and time again anyone that tries to set foot on university property, even those invited by student groups that support them are greeted by lefty brown shirts screaming profanities, chanting and disrupting any opposing view. They behave like spoiled children not getting a toy they demand to have. Sad really. They know acceptance of their views are so fragile that anyone challenging them needs to be silenced rather than debated.
> That said, they seem to love people spewing hatred of Jews and Christians and roll out the red carpet for them.


----------



## CubaMark

MacGuiver said:


> Left wing fascists dominate academia in Canada. This shutdown of opposing views is getting to be the norm in Canadian Universities. Time and time again anyone that tries to set foot on university property, even those invited by student groups that support them are greeted by lefty brown shirts screaming profanities, chanting and disrupting any opposing view.


Was LaBarbera invited to attend an academic event on campus? If not, your just blowing hot air. "left wing fascists" - a term applied to anyone who dares criticize, for example, the actions of the State of Israel against Palestinians. Doing so automatically leads to an anti-semite label, which - when it happens in a university environment - is the height of academic / intellectual dishonesty.


----------



## Macfury

CubaMark said:


> Was LaBarbera invited to attend an academic event on campus?


Again, you wouldn't ask this question if it involved a representative of Occupy Wall Street (oh, the nostalgia!)


----------



## MacGuiver

CubaMark said:


> Was LaBarbera invited to attend an academic event on campus? If not, your just blowing hot air. "left wing fascists" - a term applied to anyone who dares criticize, for example, the actions of the State of Israel against Palestinians. Doing so automatically leads to an anti-semite label, which - when it happens in a university environment - is the height of academic / intellectual dishonesty.


I've yet to hear a single incident where an anti-Israel, anti-Christian, pro-abortion speaker has ever been barred from speaking at a Canadian University by its staff or met with screaming disruptive protestors intent on preventing the person from speaking.
This happens repeatedly to anyone not instep with lefty thought. 

A few examples off the top of my head.
-Carleton had students of a pro life group forcibly removed from campus and later banned pro life clubs completely.
-Queens tears down a free speech wall erected by students championing the freedom of speech due to non PC speech on the wall.
-Ann Coulter was supposed to speak at Ottawa U but was yelled down and disrupted by lefty brown shirts to the point they couldn't proceed. This after attempts were made to bar here altogether with administration.
-MP Stephen Woodworth invited to speak to pro life students at University of Waterloo is yelled down and insulted by a guy in a giant vagina suit and his entourage that barged in on their meeting.
-St. Mary's University (Oh the irony) Fascist lefties barge in to shout down Prolife presentation. When the speaker graciously offers them the opportunity to speak their opinion they resume with the yelling and chanting like spoiled children. 
Watch the video. It demonstrates precisely how the fascists are working and how terrified they are to engage in a dialogue. 
[ame="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PWZsNXVqu_M"]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PWZsNXVqu_M[/ame]

Thats just a few off the top of my head.


----------



## CubaMark




----------



## Macfury

I don't get the gag. Why is the "End of Days" construed as infinite?


----------



## MacGuiver

Happy Easter to all celebrating today!


----------



## Macfury

Absolutely!


----------



## fjnmusic

Happy Easter from Frank the Rabbit!









Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## fjnmusic

More to ponder.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury

Another Ray Bolger moment, brought to you by...


----------



## fjnmusic

Yes I'm sure the Scarecrow would agree. What about you? Do you see a fault with this logic?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## screature

fjnmusic said:


> View attachment 47641
> More to ponder.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


I certainly believe that you don't need to be a theist to be a moral person, but I also certainly don't see where the twains meet between empathy and morality.

Empathy:



> Empathy is the capacity to recognize emotions that are being experienced by another sentient or fictional being. One may need to have a certain amount of empathy before being able to experience accurate sympathy or compassion



Morality:



> Morality (from the Latin moralitas "manner, character, proper behavior") is the differentiation of intentions, decisions, and actions between those that are "good" (or right) and those that are "bad" (or wrong).[citation needed] Morality can be a body of standards or principles derived from a code of conduct from a particular philosophy, religion, culture, etc., or it can derive from a standard that a person believes should be universal.[1] Morality may also be specifically synonymous with "goodness" or "rightness." Immorality is the active opposition to morality (i.e. opposition to that which is good or right), while amorality is variously defined as an unawareness of, indifference toward, or disbelief in any set of moral standards or principles


One is not logically necessary for the other to exist. The statement you quoted is IMO a logical fallacy.


----------



## Macfury

fjnmusic said:


> Yes I'm sure the Scarecrow would agree. What about you? Do you see a fault with this logic?


It's a straw man argument and isn't really logical. Some morals will develop outside of religion and some will develop within it. As screature points out, empathy is not necessary to the development of morals.


----------



## Rps

Macfury said:


> It's a straw man argument and isn't really logical. Some morals will develop outside of religion and some will develop within it. As screature points out, empathy is not necessary to the development of morals.


I am not so sure about that. I can see Fj's point here. Morals have nothing to do with religion ... Morals are what a society accepts as accepted behaviour. True religion likes to try to apply a guiding hand ... But you do indeed have morals in all societies whether there is a religion or not .... They may not be your morals. So the empathy point i think has merit. It's the wrong from right that may be the problem. If you are raised in a society without religion the communication of wrong and right would be reinforced by the application of empathy. But no amount of empathy will help you if you are dropped into a strange society where you do not know the laws .... Religion won't help you . You may need empathy to help you understand the laws and punishments .... Something to think about as you are being burned at the stake for being a heretic.


----------



## Macfury

Some morals have everything to do with religion and some do not. Empathy is not necessary to know the law and to obey it.


----------



## fjnmusic

I understand empathy to be the ability to feel what someone else is feeling, to be able to "put yourself in their shoes." I believe most people have this ability intuitively unless it has been programmed out if them. Many sociopaths, for example, start by being cruel to smaller animals before graduating on to humans. These people tend to lack any sense of empathy toward other sentient beings, and in fact may show many signs of narcissism. In any event, Religion is not much help for one who lacks empathy, because they can quote chapter and verse and yet still miss the main point, like be kind to others, for example.

Many times we learn about morality and empathy through religion, but I believe we learn far more on the school playground than we do in church. To my way of thinking, Religion is predominantly a social experience (or a social experiment if you prefer), where the compliance of the individual to groupthink is constantly being tested, and where being shunned by the group is the ultimate punishment. Of course, that kind of punishment is only effective if the group is one worth being with.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury

Right. This is what I said. Some morals are taught by religion, others are not. 

But empathy is not necessary to guide behaviour when other social forces are at play. You also underestimate conscientiousness—the learning and acquisition of good habits.




fjnmusic said:


> I understand empathy to be the ability to feel what someone else is feeling, to be able to "put yourself in their shoes." I believe most people have this ability intuitively unless it has been programmed out if them. Many sociopaths, for example, start by being cruel to smaller animals before graduating on to humans. These people tend to lack any sense of empathy toward other sentient beings, and in fact may show many signs of narcissism. In any event, Religion is not much help for one who lacks empathy, because they can quote chapter and verse and yet still miss the main point, like be kind to others, for example.
> 
> Many times we learn about morality and empathy through religion, but I believe we learn far more on the school playground than we do in church. To my way of thinking, Religion is predominantly a social experience (or a social experiment if you prefer), where the compliance of the individual to groupthink is constantly being tested, and where being shunned by the group is the ultimate punishment. Of course, that kind of punishment is only effective if the group is one worth being with.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Rps

Macfury said:


> Right. This is what I said. Some morals are taught by religion, others are not.
> 
> But empathy is not necessary to guide behaviour when other social forces are at play. You also underestimate conscientiousness—the learning and acquisition of good habits.


Not to put too fine a point on it, this, too, is a matter of society's general acceptance of what good is. Many times, good has akin to religious beliefs and rules of morality. Maybe the better question would be, what if there were no morals or concept of good ... How would you define conscientiousness .... Would you not need empathy in the society, else would you not have chaos?


----------



## Macfury

Rps said:


> Not to put too fine a point on it, this, too, is a matter of society's general acceptance of what good is. Many times, good has akin to religious beliefs and rules of morality. Maybe the better question would be, what if there were no morals or concept of good ... How would you define conscientiousness .... Would you not need empathy in the society, else would you not have chaos?


I think you only need to understand what is expected.


----------



## fjnmusic

Rps said:


> Not to put too fine a point on it, this, too, is a matter of society's general acceptance of what good is. Many times, good has akin to religious beliefs and rules of morality. Maybe the better question would be, what if there were no morals or concept of good ... How would you define conscientiousness .... Would you not need empathy in the society, else would you not have chaos?


Good point, Rps. :clap:


----------



## screature

Rps said:


> Not to put too fine a point on it, this, too, is a matter of society's general acceptance of what good is. Many times, good has akin to religious beliefs and rules of morality. Maybe the better question would be, what if there were no morals or concept of good ... How would you define conscientiousness .... Would you not need empathy in the society, else would you not have chaos?





fjnmusic said:


> Good point, Rps. :clap:


Not at all. Another simple thought experiment is could you have morals without empathy and the simple answer is most definitely yes. 

As I have already stated it is simple logic based on their definitions to determine than one is not necessary for the other to exist.

I don't have to empathize with either a murderer or his victim to know that the act of killing another human being is wrong.

Empathy is based on emotion. Morals are based on logic and rationality.


----------



## Macfury

Yep. All you need is general agreement about what creates a society that works on your behalf. Even the realization that you don't want to inflict pain on another person doesn't require the emotional state of empathy--it's simply enlightened self-interest to ban beatings.


----------



## screature

Just to add further to the discussion. fjnmusic the character that is your avatar is a perfect thought experiment of why empathy is not necessary for morality.

Spock was as closely as possible based in pure logic and rationality. He was not emotional and therefore displayed virtually no empathy or even sympathy yet he clearly acted morally in virtually every situation and interaction. 

He operated from the logical stand point of the "prime directive" which basically "prohibits Starfleet personnel from interfering with the internal development of alien civilizations".

It was a metaphor of course for life on earth and human interaction. Which is basically to have *respect* for the independence of the "other".

In many ways it is similar to other doctrine such as "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" or the Hippocratic oath, "do no harm".

It is absolutely unnecessary to have empathy to follow these logical tenets.

Now that being said, for individuals who do not have the logical/rational/cognitive ability to always act in a logical/rational/cognitive manner, empathizing with another can perhaps help them to act in a morally responsible way, but it certainly is not necessary.


----------



## Rps

Macfury said:


> Yep. All you need is general agreement about what creates a society that works on your behalf. Even the realization that you don't want to inflict pain on another person doesn't require the emotional state of empathy--it's simply enlightened self-interest to ban beatings.


So, what you have created is a "morality"


----------



## screature

Rps said:


> So, what you have created is a "morality"


Perhaps, but what is your point? Where is there any "empathy" involved? None that I can see.


----------



## fjnmusic

screature said:


> Just to add further to the discussion. fjnmusic the character that is your avatar is a perfect thought experiment of why empathy is not necessary for morality.
> 
> Spock was as closely as possible based in pure logic and rationality. He was not emotional and therefore displayed virtually no empathy or even sympathy yet he clearly acted morally in virtually every situation and interaction.
> 
> He operated from the logical stand point of the "prime directive" which basically "prohibits Starfleet personnel from interfering with the internal development of alien civilizations".
> 
> It was a metaphor of course for life on earth and human interaction. Which is basically to have *respect* for the independence of the "other".
> 
> In many ways it is similar to other doctrine such as "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" or the Hippocratic oath, "do no harm".
> 
> It is absolutely unnecessary to have empathy to follow these logical tenets.
> 
> Now that being said, for individuals who do not have the logical/rational/cognitive ability to always act in a logical/rational/cognitive manner, empathizing with another can perhaps help them to act in a morally responsible way, but it certainly is not necessary.


You forget that Spock had a human mother, so yes he felt emotion. So do all Vulcans; they just repress it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## screature

fjnmusic said:


> You forget that Spock had a human mother, so yes he felt emotion. So do all Vulcans; *they just repress it.*
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


I already said "as closely as possible" so please stop with the jabs. 



> Spock was* as closely as possible* based in pure logic and rationality.


So no I have not forgotten anything, despite your attempts to discredit my memory. Do you want to have a civil discussion or not?



> *they just repress it.*


And why do you think that is?...

Maybe because it makes them act irrationally.

You really have not made a counterpoint.

So instead of just trying to discredit my memory you could just address the issues I raised. 

That could be helpful in conducting a civil discussion going forward. Thanks.


----------



## fjnmusic

Here is more about my people and our emotional history for those who wish to know. 









Surak, Father of Vulcan Logic



> Culturally one of the most fascinating species in the Federation, the Vulcans were once an extremely violent and emotional people (even by Earth standards) who waged almost constant warfare on one another. (TOS: "Balance of Terror"; VOY: "Random Thoughts") Paranoia and homicidal rage were common. (ENT: "Impulse") They believed in a variety of gods, such as war, peace and death. (TNG: "Gambit, Part II") As their level of technology improved, the Vulcans eventually reached a point where their violent nature threatened species extinction. (ENT: "Awakening").
> 
> In an effort to avoid this fate, a Vulcan named Surak developed a new philosophy thereby igniting the Time of Awakening. Surak maintained that the root cause of all the problems on Vulcan lay in the uncontrolled outpouring of the people's emotions. His followers swore to live their lives by an ethical system devised by Surak and based purely on logical principles. Emotions were to be controlled and repressed. (TAS: "Yesteryear")
> 
> http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/Vulcan



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## screature

fjnmusic said:


> Here is more *about my people* and our emotional history[for those who wish to know.
> 
> View attachment 47705
> 
> 
> Surak, Father of Vulcan Logic
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


That is pretty funny... 

Movies, metaphors or TV shows aside...

So does this mean that you agree that empathy is not necessary to act morally or not?

It seems you are reluctant to address my actual statements.

I thought I would make a reference to something that you could relate to, seeing as you seem to place little value on actual lived experience relative to fiction/thought experiments.

I am trying to come to a common ground of understanding.

If that is not possible, then we will have to agree to disagree.

There is no harm in that.

Peace out.


----------



## fjnmusic

If a person does not have empathy, then they are not acting morally. Not really. They are automatons, simply following instructions. Acting a certain way because someone or some doctrine tells you to actually has nothing to do with morality, in my view. Morality has everything to do with empathy, the ability to put yourself in someone else's shoes, just like the other types of pathos: sympathy, or it's antithesis, apathy. To have morality, one must care. 

This is why it can be tough for a soldier who has been raised on the Judeo-Christian ethic of "Thou shall not kill" to be forced into a situation where they MUST kill or be killed themselves. The tables have turned and now the old moral code becomes meaningless. Of course, the logical thing to do is self-preservation, which is the new moral code in war, or perhaps loyalty to your brothers in arms, but that absolute value from before no longer has the same meaning. You can rationalize killing in wartime as necessary for survival and therefore look at your enemy or target as almost non-human. In fact it may be necessary to repress that emotion, that empathy, that human-ness in order to do the job. 

Some soldiers are totally messed up after the tour of duty as a result, and can only live with what they've done by rationalizing that they had no choice or were simply following orders. Many people have died horrible deaths under the heading of someone "just following orders." But no matter what, to be human means to have empathy, and we can deny or repress that quality as much as we can, but it will always be there, even for Vulcans. Even sociopaths have empathy if you look hard enough, though they repress it almost completely, but they certainly have emotions when it comes to their own self-preservation and concerns about being caught. I have only ever taught one student in 25 years whom I would say was sociopathic. You know it when you see it. The quality of remorse is one indicator of empathy. This is why many people who have been falsely accused can not express remorse in prison: you cannot feel remorse for something you didn't do. It is also nearly impossible for a sociopath to express remorse, since they have pretty much shut down that part of their brain. 

So to sum up, in my view, a real morality does require empathy, a "do unto others as you would have done to you," if you will, which requires some kind of emotional connection, not merely saying the words. 



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury

fjnmusic said:


> If a person does not have empathy, then they are not acting morally. Not really. They are automatons, simply following instructions.


This is CS Lewis's argument against limiting choice--anyone who has no choice is not acting morally, because the choice of action has been made for them and they are now automatons. Having no empathy does not make one an automaton because this person still has freedom to make different choices.



fjnmusic said:


> Acting a certain way because someone or some doctrine tells you to actually has nothing to do with morality, in my view.


This is a good argument against socialism and most social programs. They are not moral because someone or some doctrine makes them happen and the givers have no choice in the matter. You're making Lewis's argument again, regarding the necessity of choice--but not empathy.



fjnmusic said:


> Morality has everything to do with empathy, the ability to put yourself in someone else's shoes, just like the other types of pathos: sympathy, or it's antithesis, apathy. To have morality, one must care.


Simply stating that it is so, is a weak argument.



fjnmusic said:


> This is why it can be tough for a soldier who has been raised on the Judeo-Christian ethic of "Thou shall not kill" to be forced into a situation where they MUST kill or be killed themselves.


In the case you highlight, the inculcation of the Judeo-Christian ethic precedes the supposed internal battle over empathy. So I guess religion created this sort of morality.

Besides, any soldier who has truly been raised in Judeo-Christian morality understands that the commandment tells them "Thou shall not murder." As the Bible says regarding John the Baptist:



> "Some soldiers were questioning him, saying, "And what about us, what shall we do?" And he said to them, "Do not take money from anyone by force, or accuse anyone falsely, and be content with your wages."


These soldiers were not ordered not to kill and the value was never absolute. 

Again, people such as yourself might face mind boggling confusion over such simple matters. Is it difficult to be a soldier? Absolutely. It's difficult to kill others because death is an abhorrent business--not simply because of some picayune internal struggle over empathy.



> Many people have died horrible deaths under the heading of someone "just following orders." But no matter what, to be human means to have empathy, and we can deny or repress that quality as much as we can, but it will always be there...


With leaps of logic like this, it's time to retire your Spock icon. It doesn't address whether empathy is necessary to morality at all. It just says that almost all people are empathic to a degree.



> So to sum up, in my view, a real morality does require empathy, a "do unto others as you would have done to you," if you will, which requires some kind of emotional connection, not merely saying the words.


NO! All it requires is to do unto them as you would have them do unto you. It requires the reverse of what you say--being able to imagine the sort of treatment you want for yourself first. Once you know that, no empathy is required.


----------



## fjnmusic

You know, MF, perhaps you mean well, but I didn't write what I wrote intending for it to be dissected. It is what I believe empathy and morality are about and I wasn't asking for a blessing. You may want to try the PNP approach sometime if you feel like people are taking your well-intentioned advice the wrong way: first butter them up with something positive, a compliment, a comment about something you see as worthwhile for example, even if it makes you cringe a little to do so; second, make your constructive criticism (the negative part) clear and non-personal; third, offer a solution that the person you're criticizing is not so likely to take offence to. Ask yourself, what is my purpose in criticizing or picking apart the heartfelt contribution another member of this community has made? Am I trying to have a good dialogue? Am I trying to put the other person on the defence?

For example, although I do appreciate that you have put some thought into your comments on my previous post, to me they come across as unnecessarily nitpicky. The comparison to CS Lewis is interesting, since I have little knowledge of his work apart from the Narnia stories in movie form. I wasn't writing what I wrote because I wanted to have to defend each point. Screature was asking for my stance on empathy and morality, since clearly some of us, like you and I, approach this concept from very different vantage points. If I feel I have to defend everything I say, it doesn't really make me want to contribute anymore. It just becomes a lot of work and it isn't why I signed up for ehMac. I was looking for some interesting general discussion topics, which sometimes we are able to have on this forum. But just like in real life, it needs good honest listening, reading between the lines, and above all respect for both the other person and the etiquette of discussion. Or at least, that's how I see it from my moral and/or logical viewpoint.

As far as avatars go, I don't believe I need to defend mine anymore than you need to defend yours from that old TV series. I like Spock, I think he's cool, but that doesn't mean I identify with him. I mean, he is a fictional character after all. It was funny back in the day when Ottawaman and I had the same avatar, so he opted to go for the evil Spock avatar instead. People pick the symbols they want for their own reasons and it's not business to tell them they are wrong for doing so.

I hope you take these comments as constructive criticism because that's how I intended them. As for the actual advice, you can take it or leave it; it's a free world.

P.S. Do you really feel that there are people who have no empathy at all? Or is possible that some people have repressed this instinct? I would like to believe that deep down inside any being who has a soul also possesses the capacity to empathize with other living creatures. We have the choice as to how to act on those feelings, but I have a hard time believing that there are humans with no empathy whatsoever. I'd be interested your reaction and the reaction of others to this question.


----------



## fjnmusic

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Rps

FJ, there are people who do not have empathy .... They are called sociopaths.


----------



## Macfury

fjnmusic said:


> You know, MF, perhaps you mean well, but I didn't write what I wrote intending for it to be dissected.


Yes, this is the risk of placing it on a public forum in the middle of a debate.



fjnmusic said:


> You may want to try the PNP approach sometime if you feel like people are taking your well-intentioned advice the wrong way: first butter them up with something positive, a compliment, a comment about something you see as worthwhile for example, even if it makes you cringe a little to do so; second, make your constructive criticism (the negative part) clear and non-personal; third, offer a solution that the person you're criticizing is not so likely to take offence to.


I'm not going to butter you up or mock you with false praise. This isn't school. However, if you feel offended when I conflate you with your own opinion, I will take note of that.



fjnmusic said:


> Ask yourself, what is my purpose in criticizing or picking apart the heartfelt contribution another member of this community has made? Am I trying to have a good dialogue? Am I trying to put the other person on the defence?


That it is heartfelt isn't really an issue here--I can't tell if it's heartfelt or disingenuous. I am picking i apart because I see the post as a product of seriously flawed reasoning--that's all there is to it.



fjnmusic said:


> If I feel I have to defend everything I say, it doesn't really make me want to contribute anymore. It just becomes a lot of work and it isn't why I signed up for ehMac.


You don't have to defend yourself. Just ignore the post if you like. It doesn't make a huge difference to me.



fjnmusic said:


> As far as avatars go, I don't believe I need to defend mine anymore than you need to defend yours from that old TV series. I like Spock, I think he's cool, but that doesn't mean I identify with him. I mean, he is a fictional character after all. It was funny back in the day when Ottawaman and I had the same avatar, so he opted to go for the evil Spock avatar instead. People pick the symbols they want for their own reasons and it's not business to tell them they are wrong for doing so.


Of course you don't need to defend it. I was simply noting the ambiguity between the post and the avatar. If you feel that a jab at your avatar is too personal, I will be mindful of that as well.



fjnmusic said:


> P.S. Do you really feel that there are people who have no empathy at all? Or is possible that some people have repressed this instinct? I would like to believe that deep down inside any being who has a soul also possesses the capacity to empathize with other living creatures. We have the choice as to how to act on those feelings, but I have a hard time believing that there are humans with no empathy whatsoever. I'd be interested your reaction and the reaction of others to this question.


I doubt there are people with zero empathy. I believe there are people who understand, empathically, for example, what they are doing to another person, but simply don't care. It isn't the empathy that's missing, it's caring about the result of their actions.


----------



## fjnmusic

Macfury said:


> I doubt there are people with zero empathy. I believe there are people who understand, empathically, for example, what they are doing to another person, but simply don't care. It isn't the empathy that's missing, it's caring about the result of their actions.


At least on this point we can agree. It seems to me empathy is more like a continuum, where some have more and some less. On one end is the complete narcissist who can not care about anyone but themselves, whole at the other end, someone who is completely selfless and only cares about others. Some people minimal empathy, or it is so repressed that it appears non-existent. Lennie in Of Mice and Men would strike me as the kind of person/character who feels empathy superficially, but ultimately if he hurts something unintentionally, he can only think about the consequences to himself. Same with serial killers and other sociopaths. The opposite end if the spectrum, the not caring about yourself at all and only being concerned about the well-being of others can also be dangerous if not kept in check by concern for one's own well-being. I think someone like Mother Theresa would be at the selfless end, although she would still have to leave some room for caring about herself—personal hygiene or having some downtime, for example.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## fjnmusic

groovetube said:


> I'm starting an offshoot of sufism, I'll call it, say, goofism. Who's in?


How would it work?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## SINC

fjnmusic said:


> How would it work?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Good grief Frank, are you OK?

Going back to quote a guy from four years ago who no longer posts here is a real stretch.

WTF is with that?


----------



## fjnmusic

SINC said:


> Good grief Frank, are you OK?
> 
> Going back to quote a guy from four years ago who no longer posts here is a real stretch.
> 
> WTF is with that?


Just my twisted sense of humour, Don. No need to worry. Or maybe it's the heat. 

ETA: after I post something, Tapatalk automatically sends me back to some random post in the past. It's like Quantum Leap, I tell you. This time I decided to respond, as Goofism actually sounds rather appealing to me.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury

fjnmusic said:


> I think someone like Mother Theresa would be at the selfless end, although she would still have to leave some room for caring about herself—personal hygiene or having some downtime, for example.


While I can't dismiss her good works, her celebration of poverty was a sickness I could never embrace. I don't see it as selflessness--it was the selfishness of a personal vision that saw nothing wrong with an endless cycle of poverty.


----------



## SINC

Ah, glad to know you are OK and with it. I would get rid of that tap thingy though. Tried it once and junked it in favour of my browser. Safari. This posted from my iPhone the traditional and much easier way.


----------



## fjnmusic

I actually like Tapatalk, Don. The going back in time part is kind of weird but also fun ride sometimes. It's like Bill and Ted's excellent adventure. Or landing on the Jersey Turnpike after being John Malkovich. I actually prefer Tapatalk over the computer browser most of the time, tbh.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## screature

screature said:


> That is pretty funny...
> 
> Movies, metaphors or TV shows aside...
> 
> *So does this mean that you agree that empathy is not necessary to act morally or not?*
> 
> It seems you are reluctant to address my actual statements.
> 
> I thought I would make a reference to something that you could relate to, seeing as you seem to place little value on actual lived experience relative to fiction/thought experiments.
> 
> I am trying to come to a common ground of understanding.
> 
> If that is not possible, then we will have to agree to disagree.
> 
> There is no harm in that.
> 
> Peace out.





fjnmusic said:


> If a person does not have empathy, then they are not acting morally. Not really. They are automatons, simply following instructions. Acting a certain way because someone or some doctrine tells you to actually has nothing to do with morality, in my view. Morality has everything to do with empathy, the ability to put yourself in someone else's shoes, just like the other types of pathos: sympathy, or it's antithesis, apathy. To have morality, one must care.
> 
> This is why it can be tough for a soldier who has been raised on the Judeo-Christian ethic of "Thou shall not kill" to be forced into a situation where they MUST kill or be killed themselves. The tables have turned and now the old moral code becomes meaningless. Of course, the logical thing to do is self-preservation, which is the new moral code in war, or perhaps loyalty to your brothers in arms, but that absolute value from before no longer has the same meaning. You can rationalize killing in wartime as necessary for survival and therefore look at your enemy or target as almost non-human. In fact it may be necessary to repress that emotion, that empathy, that human-ness in order to do the job.
> 
> Some soldiers are totally messed up after the tour of duty as a result, and can only live with what they've done by rationalizing that they had no choice or were simply following orders. Many people have died horrible deaths under the heading of someone "just following orders." But no matter what, to be human means to have empathy, and we can deny or repress that quality as much as we can, but it will always be there, even for Vulcans. Even sociopaths have empathy if you look hard enough, though they repress it almost completely, but they certainly have emotions when it comes to their own self-preservation and concerns about being caught. I have only ever taught one student in 25 years whom I would say was sociopathic. You know it when you see it. The quality of remorse is one indicator of empathy. This is why many people who have been falsely accused can not express remorse in prison: you cannot feel remorse for something you didn't do. It is also nearly impossible for a sociopath to express remorse, since they have pretty much shut down that part of their brain.
> 
> So to sum up, in my view, a real morality does require empathy, a "do unto others as you would have done to you," if you will, which requires some kind of emotional connection, not merely saying the words.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


A simple "no" to my question would have sufficed. 

But in the interests of debate (for fun and exercise), how about we lay aside all polemics, hyperbole, anecdotes, mixed metaphors, conflation and movie/literature references and engage in the art of dialectics instead?









Because of your quote and support of it the discussion that we have at hand is, "is it necessary for one to be empathetic to be a moral person"?

Is that correct? Yes or No?

If yes then we can continue on, if no then I don't understand the basis of the premise that was postulated by you and Anonymous. 

If your answer is yes, then to me, the logic of our discussion hinges on our mutual understanding of what is *necessary* for something to exist *as we humans define it.*

Do you agree with that? Yes or NO?

If you do, great. If you don't then we have to stop here.

Assuming we can continue forward I would like to suggest that in the interests of dialects we begin with the basics.

One example that has always stuck out in my mind as being basic is, "what is necessary for a chair to be called a chair and nothing else?"

Care to answer and participate?


----------



## Macfury

This is how I like to discuss matters, screature. In an orderly fashion that simply doesn't consist of people stating that nobody can define a chair.


----------



## fjnmusic

Yes. And No.

Frankly, Screature, I'm getting bored of discussing this with you because you are trying to control every parameter of the conversation. If I prefer to use allusions when I explain things, too bad for you. It's my choice how I respond. Maybe my words are not directed solely at you anyway. I like to see mutual respect in a conversation, and I feel like when I put a great deal of thought into a response, you end up dismissing it anyway. There is no mutual respect, just contradiction. Your didactic conditions under which the ensuing conversation must take place makes me uninterested in discussing empathy with you any further. Others, certainly, so long as the conversation is open-minded, tolerant, and not insulting. So please: regard the words I write here as meant for someone else and we'll both be better off. Thank you.

P.S. The irony is that I actually agree that it is necessary for one to be empathetic to be a moral person. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## fjnmusic

Rps said:


> FJ, there are people who do not have empathy .... They are called sociopaths.


Yes, I agree, Rps. That is the generally accepted definition of a sociopath. But I wonder at what stage this sociopathy first appears? Can a child be born a sociopath? That's a pretty frightening concept.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## fjnmusic

Macfury said:


> This is how I like to discuss matters, screature. In an orderly fashion that simply doesn't consist of people stating that nobody can define a chair.


You two should be able to have a great conversation with each other then. Best of luck.


----------



## Macfury

Well, screature--you tried to to bring order out of chaotic rambling. Props to you.


----------



## Macfury

fjnmusic said:


> You two should be able to have a great conversation with each other then. Best of luck.


Fjn, Screature _invited _you to try dialectic reasoning--and your response is to accuse him of trying to control you? Screature and I do have such conversations with each other, and they are aimed at uncovering truth. However, since we largely agree on this matter there is little point in debating it.


----------



## fjnmusic

Macfury said:


> Fjn, Screature _invited _you to try didactic reasoning--and your response is to accuse him of trying to control you? Screature and I do have such conversations with each other, and they are aimed at uncovering truth. However, since we largely agree on this matter there is little point in debating it.


Why is it I always feel like I'm being double-teamed with the two of you? I do not have the time nor the interest in tailoring my responses to someone else's agenda, so no thanks on that invitation. I didn't realize you thought there was an acceptable format for using this forum. If you don't like the way I write, then for God's sake don't read it. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## fjnmusic

I believe this sums up my feelings on morality, empathy and religion quite nicely. And evidently many others as well.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## fjnmusic

Macfury said:


> Well, screature--you tried to to bring order out of chaotic rambling. Props to you.


"Chaotic rambling." Nice. Since you are "always kind" from your own point of view, I do wonder about your sense of empathy sometimes. You really should learn some manners my friend.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury

fjnmusic said:


> Why is it I always feel like I'm being double-teamed with the two of you? I do not have the time nor the interest in tailoring my responses to someone else's agenda, so no thanks on that invitation. I didn't realize you thought there was an acceptable format for using this forum.


Dialectics is a time-honoured approach to seeking truth, not an "agenda." If the constraints of presenting your ideas in some sort of organized fashion are too great, that's absolutely understood.


----------



## Macfury

fjnmusic said:


> "Chaotic rambling." Nice. Since you are "always kind" from your own point of view, I do wonder about your sense of empathy sometimes. You really should learn some manners my friend.


So quick to take offense. I was referring to the state of debate in this thread.


----------



## Macfury

fjnmusic said:


> I believe this sums up my feelings on morality, empathy and religion quite nicely. And evidently many others as well.


It doesn't stand up to much scrutiny, but if it makes you happy to simply post your feelings, go for it, I say!


----------



## fjnmusic

Macfury said:


> Dialectics is a time-honoured approach to seeking truth, not an "agenda." If the constraints of presenting your ideas in some sort of organized fashion are too great, that's absolutely understood.


Do you hear yourself? Even this statement is positively dripping with sanctimonious sarcasm. I present my ideas the best way I can figure to explain them, and the "organized fashion" you seem to hold in such high regard is boring for some of us. It's not like you're all that persuasive yourself.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury

fjnmusic said:


> Do you hear yourself? Even this statement is positively dripping with sanctimonious sarcasm. I present my ideas the best way I can figure to explain them, and the "organized fashion" you seem to hold in such high regard is boring for some of us. It's not like you're all that persuasive yourself.


You present your feelings in a way that makes you happy. That's fine.

If dialectics bore you, that's certainly fair warning.


----------



## MacGuiver

How would empathy work in this situation to make the morally correct choice. 

Your daughter is sexually assaulted by your neighbour who isn't even a likeable character. How does empathy stop you from killing him or beating him senseless when empathy for your daughter's suffering brings you to a rage against your neighbour? What empathy do you have for him that would prevent you from taking action against him?
Clearly empathy alone could also encourage us to act immorally. Religion tells me to restrain.


----------



## fjnmusic

MacGuiver said:


> How would empathy work in this situation to make the morally correct choice.
> 
> Your daughter is sexually assaulted by your neighbour who isn't even a likeable character. How does empathy stop you from killing him or beating him senseless when empathy for your daughter's suffering brings you to a rage against your neighbour? What empathy do you have for him that would prevent you from taking action against him?
> Clearly empathy alone could also encourage us to act immorally. Religion tells me to restrain.


A good example, MacGuiver, and nice to hear from you again. In this case, doing the thing that society deems moral means holding back the desire for vengeance. On the other hand, under sharia law, another religious moral code, you could be permitted to punish or even kill your daughter for bringing dishonor to your family by virtue of being raped. Anyone with empathy for the daughter would be aghast at the concept of punishing the victim. Having empathy does not mean not being frustrated with the system. It means being able to imagine circumstances from the other's point of view, and forgiving sometimes in order to gain any peace of mind yourself. The capacity to forgive does not necessarily come quickly or without a lot of anguish first though. If it were me, I'd sooner beat the guy to a pulp.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## eMacMan

MacGuiver said:


> How would empathy work in this situation to make the morally correct choice.
> 
> Your daughter is sexually assaulted by your neighbour who isn't even a likeable character. How does empathy stop you from killing him or beating him senseless when empathy for your daughter's suffering brings you to a rage against your neighbour? What empathy do you have for him that would prevent you from taking action against him?
> Clearly empathy alone could also encourage us to act immorally. Religion tells me to restrain.


Forgiveness because your religion demands it is pretty much worthless. The reason one needs to forgive is that pursuing hatred or a lust for vengeance always does more damage to yourself than to the intended target. 

The case you quote is extreme, but let's say you do beat him to a pulp. In some cultures you go to jail, in others his brothers or his father or sons visit a similar punishment on you. They don't honestly care what their kinsman did, they care that you beat him up or killed him. Eventually things reach the point where each side is slaughtering the other preemptively, knowing if they don't, the other side will slaughter them to get even for their own latest atrocity. 

Forgiveness is one way to break that cycle. Empathy is a tool which can make it possible to forgive.

That said, I would probably castrate the b******, then forgive him.


----------



## Macfury

So the person's empathy could result in the death of the rapist, the daughter, the rapist's family, etc., depending on the person on whom the empathy is focused at any given time. Essentially the empathy of this person does not help to separate right from wrong here--it just determines who gets their ass kicked. 



fjnmusic said:


> A good example, MacGuiver, and nice to hear from you again. In this case, doing the thing that society deems moral means holding back the desire for vengeance. On the other hand, under sharia law, another religious moral code, you could be permitted to punish or even kill your daughter for bringing dishonor to your family by virtue of being raped. Anyone with empathy for the daughter would be aghast at the concept of punishing the victim. Having empathy does not mean not being frustrated with the system. It means being able to imagine circumstances from the other's point of view, and forgiving sometimes in order to gain any peace of mind yourself. The capacity to forgive does not necessarily come quickly or without a lot of anguish first though. If it were me, I'd sooner beat the guy to a pulp.


----------



## Dr.G.

.


----------



## screature

fjnmusic said:


> Yes. And No.
> 
> Frankly, Screature, I'm getting bored of discussing this with you because you are trying to control every parameter of the conversation. If I prefer to use allusions when I explain things, too bad for you. It's my choice how I respond. Maybe my words are not directed solely at you anyway. I like to see mutual respect in a conversation, and I feel like when I put a great deal of thought into a response, you end up dismissing it anyway. There is no mutual respect, just contradiction. Your didactic conditions under which the ensuing conversation must take place makes me uninterested in discussing empathy with you any further. Others, certainly, so long as the conversation is open-minded, tolerant, and not insulting. So please: regard the words I write here as meant for someone else and we'll both be better off. Thank you.
> 
> P.S. The irony is that I actually agree that it is necessary for one to be empathetic to be a moral person.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


So your answer is no. Fair enough.

I tried to create a rational basis for the the discussion of and determining the truth of opinions (in this case is empathy necessary for morality to exist)) using the time honoured method of dialectics and that you chose to turn that around and make a personal attack on me and my motives speaks volumes about you and your preferred methods of discourse.

We are done.


----------



## fjnmusic

Dr.G. said:


> .


Exactly. Paix mon ami. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## fjnmusic

screature said:


> So your answer is no. Fair enough.
> 
> I tried to create a rational basis for the the discussion of and determining the truth of opinions (in this case is empathy necessary for morality to exist)) using the time honoured method of dialectics and that you chose to turn that around around and make a personal attack on me and my motives speaks volumes about you and your preferred methods of discourse.
> 
> We are done.


Finally. Thank you. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury

fjnmusic said:


> Finally. Thank you.


Free of the constrictions of intellectual rigour at last!


----------



## screature

fjnmusic said:


> Exactly. Paix mon ami.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


You didn't seem to get the joke.


----------



## fjnmusic

Macfury said:


> Free of the constrictions of intellectual rigour at last!


No just free of the politics of entrapment under the guise of impartial dialectical thinking.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## fjnmusic

screature said:


> You didn't seem to get the joke.


Other way around, buddy. That was for Dr. G, who somehow manages to remain polite whomever he responds to. Irony comes in many flavors. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury

fjnmusic said:


> No just free of the politics of entrapment under the guise of impartial dialectical thinking.


Of course. Who wants to be entrapped by their own clearly expressed ideas? You might have to stand by your own words. That's for saps!


----------



## MacGuiver

> A good example, MacGuiver, and nice to hear from you again. In this case, doing the thing that society deems moral means holding back the desire for vengeance.


Hello FJN. Hope summer is treating you well.

But why does society deem restraint to be the moral choice? Empathy wouldn't compel you to spare the rapist so that moral construct has a source other than empathy. As expressed by pretty much everyone here, violence is our innate response in situations like this spurred by empathy for the victim.



> On the other hand, under sharia law, another religious moral code, you could be permitted to punish or even kill your daughter for bringing dishonor to your family by virtue of being raped. Anyone with empathy for the daughter would be aghast at the concept of punishing the victim.


I agree with your original posting half way. You don't need religion to be moral but I strongly disagree that empathy is the only ingredient required. But "religion" is not the only ingredient either as not all religions are morally sound or consistently moral.


----------



## screature

fjnmusic said:


> Other way around, buddy. That was for Dr. G, who somehow manages to remain polite whomever he responds to. Irony comes in many flavors.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


I am not your buddy. Nor am I your enemy (even though it appears you seem to think I am).

I am merely a contestant in the game of life as are you, Dr. G, Macfury, eMacMan, SINC, Sonal, FeXL, CubaMark, groovetube, MacGuiver, etc., etc., etc...

But just to add, IMO, irony comes in only one "flavour". That of irony. 

If you mean by "flavour" you mean a variation of what is *necessary *while still holding on to what is *necessary*, then I agree.

Peace Out...


----------



## fjnmusic

MacGuiver said:


> Hello FJN. Hope summer is treating you well.
> 
> But why does society deem restraint to be the moral choice? Empathy wouldn't compel you to spare the rapist so that moral construct has a source other than empathy. As expressed by pretty much everyone here, violence is our innate response in situations like this spurred by empathy for the victim.
> 
> 
> 
> I agree with your original posting half way. You don't need religion to be moral but I strongly disagree that empathy is the only ingredient required. But "religion" is not the only ingredient either as not all religions are morally sound or consistently moral.


Excellent point. I agree very much with hat you have stated. In fact, I would say we really have to teach empathy, usually under the guise of religion or ethics or that the public school system here calls"character education," since children often have trouble seeing any point of view but their own. That doesn't make them sociopathic, of course, but it does mean that they are not in a good position to make sound judgements about the welfare of a group of people, for example. Being an adult is a tough job. However, whenever that moment in life that empathy finally appears, I believe it is hard to make it disappear without some level of repression.


----------



## fjnmusic

screature said:


> I am not your buddy. Nor am I your enemy (even though it appears you seems you think think I am).
> 
> I am merely a contestant in the game of life as are you, Dr. G, Macfury, eMacMan, SINC, Sonal, FeXL, CubaMark, groovetube, MacGuiver, etc., etc., etc...
> 
> But just to add, IMO, irony comes in only one "flavour". That of irony.
> 
> If you mean by "flavour" you mean a variation of what is *necessary *while still holding on to what is *necessary*, then I agree.
> 
> Peace Out...


Well, I always learned and teach in at least three flavours: verbal irony, dramatic irony, and irony of situation. And then there's fate….


----------



## SINC

fjnmusic said:


> Excellent point. I agree very much with hat you have stated. In fact, I would say we really have to teach empathy, usually under the guise of religion or ethics or that the public school system here calls"character education," since children often have trouble seeing any point of view but their own. That doesn't make them sociopathic, of course, but it does mean that they are not in a good position to make sound judgements about the welfare of a group of people, for example. Being an adult is a tough job. However, whenever that moment in life that empathy finally appears, I believe it is hard to make it disappear without some level of repression.


This is closer to the truth save for one statement and that is "I believe it is hard to make it disappear without some level of repression".

I can turn empathy on and off at will, no need for any repression. Some people I can feel empathy for, others nary a drop.


----------



## fjnmusic

SINC said:


> This is closer to the truth save for one statement and that is "I believe it is hard to make it disappear without some level of repression".
> 
> I can turn empathy on and off at will, no need for any repression. Some people I can feel empathy for, others nary a drop.


I see. So selective empathy. Fair enough. But the ability to be empathetic in and of itself still exists even if you feel it towards some and not others, yes?


----------



## Macfury

In fact, if you look at the "confessions" of some sociopaths, they have stated that they simply choose to be moral, while others choose to be immoral. Their ability to empathize is not an issue.


----------



## SINC

fjnmusic said:


> I see. So selective empathy. Fair enough. But the ability to be empathetic in and of itself still exists even if you feel it towards some and not others, yes?


Absolutely and I doubt I am any different from the vast majority of people.


----------



## Dr.G.

fjnmusic said:


> No just free of the politics of entrapment under the guise of impartial dialectical thinking.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


As Karl Marx once wrote, "Religion is the opium of the people". From this came the Marxist view of "dialectical materialism". Lenin wrote that "Atheism is a natural and inseparable part of Marxism, of the theory and practice of scientific socialism." And, as Grouch Marx once said, "Work is the curse of the drinking class."


----------



## Dr.G.

fjnmusic said:


> Exactly. Paix mon ami.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk





fjnmusic said:


> Other way around, buddy. That was for Dr. G, who somehow manages to remain polite whomever he responds to. Irony comes in many flavors.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Merci, mon ami. Paix.


----------



## Macfury

SINC said:


> Absolutely and I doubt I am any different from the vast majority of people.


And clearly, your empathy is not what dictates your morality. Just because you can switch it off for some people does not cause you to become immoral toward them.


----------



## fjnmusic

Dr.G. said:


> As Karl Marx once wrote, "Religion is the opium of the people". From this came the Marxist view of "dialectical materialism". Lenin wrote that "Atheism is a natural and inseparable part of Marxism, of the theory and practice of scientific socialism." And, as Grouch Marx once said, "Work is the curse of the drinking class."


Hmmm. I can't remember who said, "I'd rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy," but I think they were on to something.


----------



## screature

> I am not your buddy. Nor am I your enemy (even though it appears you seems you think think I am).
> 
> I am merely a contestant in the game of life as are you, Dr. G, Macfury, eMacMan, SINC, Sonal, FeXL, CubaMark, groovetube, MacGuiver, etc., etc., etc...
> 
> But just to add, IMO, *irony comes in only one "flavour". That of irony*.
> 
> If you mean by "flavour" you mean a variation of what is necessary while still holding on to what is necessary, then I agree.
> 
> Peace Out...





fjnmusic said:


> Well, I always learned and teach in* at least three flavours: verbal irony, dramatic irony, and irony of situation*. And then there's fate….



Ok good, we can agree that there are variations of things without them being something completely different. All the while respecting that there are certain things that are required/necessary in the first place to be described as a variation of the "original"/first example.

So you agree there are variations of things as you just clearly illustrated by saying:



> verbal irony, dramatic irony, and irony of situation


...but you do see what they all have one thing in common don't you?...* irony*. 

Just like there are many fruit that taste like orange there is only one original orange we refer to everything else as tasting "like orange". And maybe we are wrong and the origin of the orange is the clementine and so we should "that tastes like clementine". 

The point is that there is always something that exists first upon which all variation depends.

So aside from variation, what is *necessary* for irony to exist in its first formation and purpose?


----------



## fjnmusic

Macfury said:


> In fact, if you look at the "confessions" of some sociopaths, they have stated that they simply choose to be moral, while others choose to be immoral. Their ability to empathize is not an issue.


That would certainly be the premise of Dexter, who kills according to the code his father taught him. But when he makes a wrong assumption and kills an innocent man, it bothers him for some reason. So he can't be a complete sociopath if there's even a hint of a conscience in there.


----------



## fjnmusic

screature said:


> Ok good, we can agree that there are variations of things without them being something completely different. All the while respecting that there are certain things that are required/necessary in the first place to be described as a variation of the "original"/first example.
> 
> So you agree there are variations of things as you just clearly illustrated by saying:
> 
> 
> 
> ...but you do see what they all have in common don't you?...* irony*.
> 
> So aside from variation, what is *necessary* for irony to exist in its first formation and purpose?


Well I always teach it as a contrast; a contrast between what is said and what is meant (verbal irony, which includes sarcasm), a contrast between what is expected and what actually happens (situation irony), and a contrast between what a character is aware of and what the reader or audience knows to be true (dramatic irony).


----------



## Macfury

fjnmusic said:


> That would certainly be the premise of Dexter, who kills according to the code his father taught him. But when he makes a wrong assumption and kills an innocent man, it bothers him for some reason. So he can't be a complete sociopath if there's even a hint of a conscience in there.


That's a TV show. I am talking about real people.


----------



## fjnmusic

Macfury said:


> That's a TV show. I am talking about real people.


Oh good god. So how many serial killers do you know personally that would provide a suitable frame of reference for you?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury

fjnmusic said:


> So how many serial killers do you know personally that would provide a suitable frame of reference for you?


Self-identified sociopaths, not fictional or real serial killers.


----------



## SINC

At the risk of being called uncivil, i have zero interest in comparing fictional TV characters to real discussion. Such examples are completely irrelevant.


----------



## fjnmusic

All fiction is based on true stories. You guys really got to start thinking outside the box.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## SINC

fjnmusic said:


> All fiction is based on true stories. You guys really got to start thinking outside the box.


I see, so for example Star Wars and the characters that exist in it are based on true stories? There really are creatures that exist like Chewbacca or 'huts' running around with names like Jabba? Good grief, that is a simply outrageous statement as I could cite hundreds more examples. I think I will stay inside the reality box, thanks anyway.


----------



## fjnmusic

SINC said:


> I see, so for example Star Wars and the characters that exist in it are based on true stories? There really are creatures that exist like Chewbacca or 'huts' running around with names like Jabba? Good grief, that is a simply outrageous statement as I could cite hundreds more examples. I think I will stay inside the reality box, thanks anyway.


Study the background for Star Wars and you will find that is indeed the case. Every writer, even Sci-Fi writers, just extrapolate on what they have actually experienced. Harry Potter is about Jo Rowlings' experiences at boarding school, and many of the teachers are based on actual people that taught her. She herself identifies most closely with Hermione she has said In the George Lucas world, both Chewbacca and later Indiana Jones are based on his own dog. In the third film they even allude to the fact that Henry Jones, Jr. was named after the family dog. Luke Skywalker (originally Starkiller) is symbolic of Lucas himself, although obviously the stories are different, and the farm kid who feels he is destined for something greater storyline is one that resounds universally, no pun intended. 

The point is, and I would have thought you knew this being a writer, that one cannot write about what they do not know about. Now you can change the locale and details of the story, but every good writer takes situations they are familiar with and tells their story in the most effective way they can. They change details to protect the innocent of course, but this is why it is safe to say that all fiction is based on true stories to some extent, and while fictional characters may not be literally real, their reactions to things, if well written, give us tremendous vicarious insight into the human experience.

But enjoy your box if it provides comfort to you. Just don't feed the trolls in there, lest you start to become one yourself.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## screature

fjnmusic said:


> *All fiction is based on true stories. You guys really got to start thinking outside the box. *
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Really? Are you sure? Can you prove that definitively? 

Real lived events may operate as a springboard for many author's imagination, but I think it is a stretch to say "*All fiction is based on true stories."* That is a broad and sweeping statement that I doubt you have the knowledge to make, as have you read *all fiction*?

No one has read *all fiction*, literally no one, it is completely an impossible thing to do in any given life time.

Maybe instead of deriding others you could just stick to what you *think* you know to be factual, i.e. your opinion.

And even then it is still up for debate.

Dialectics anyone?


----------



## fjnmusic

screature said:


> Really? Are you sure? Can you prove that definitively?
> 
> Real lived events may operate as a springboard for many author's imagination, but I think it is a stretch to say "*All fiction is based on true stories."* That is a broad and sweeping statement that I doubt you have the knowledge to make, as have you read *all fiction*?
> 
> No one has read *all fiction*, literally no one, it is completely an impossible thing to do in any given life time.
> 
> Maybe instead of deriding others you could just stick to what you *think* you know to be factual, i.e. your opinion.
> 
> And even then it is still up for debate.
> 
> Dialectics anyone?


Lighten up, screature; you're way too serious.

Real lived events are a springboard for many author's imagination = All fiction is based on true stories

operative words "based on"


----------



## SINC

fjnmusic said:


> The point is, and I would have thought you knew this being a writer, that one cannot write about what they do not know about. Now you can change the locale and details of the story, but every good writer takes situations they are familiar with and tells their story in the most effective way they can. They change details to protect the innocent of course, but this is why it is safe to say that all fiction is based on true stories to some extent, and while fictional characters may not be literally real, their reactions to things, if well written, give us tremendous vicarious insight into the human experience.
> 
> But enjoy your box if it provides comfort to you. Just don't feed the trolls in there, lest you start to become one yourself.


I know enough to know for sure that you butt is blowing smoke. That statement is totally outrageous and has no truth whatsoever. Fantasy is fantasy, or possibly the work of a twisted mind and nothing more.


----------



## fjnmusic

fjnmusic said:


> Lighten up, screature; you're way too serious.
> 
> Real lived events are a springboard for many author's imagination = All fiction is based on true stories
> 
> operative words "based on"


P.S. I find your micro managerial version of dialectics unappealing. Sorry, but you'll need to find another Padawan leaner.


----------



## fjnmusic

SINC said:


> I know enough to know for sure that you butt is blowing smoke. That statement is totally outrageous and has no truth whatsoever. Fantasy is fantasy, or possibly the work of a twisted mind and nothing more.


I'm guessing you're sticking with writing non-fiction then, Don.


----------



## screature

fjnmusic said:


> Lighten up, screature; you're way too serious.
> 
> Real lived events are a springboard for many author's imagination = *All fiction is based on true stories
> *
> operative words "based on"


You do not *know *that. As I stated it is impossible for you too know, It is simply your opinion but you state it as fact.

Instead of me "lightening up", I think you need to tighten up when it comes to logic and reason and making broad sweeping statements that are merely your own opinion and not statements of provable/defensible truth.


----------



## screature

fjnmusic said:


> P.S. I find your micro managerial version of dialectics unappealing. Sorry, but you'll need to find another Padawan leaner.


There has been no micro management as no one has yet chosen to enter into a dialectical discussion.

But that being stated dialectics *requires* that things first be broken down into their essential/necessary elements and reaching some degree of consensus before moving onto the next higher/complex order of things. 

It seems to me based on your statement that you don't appreciate the *discipline* of logic and dialectics then, as it is necessary to break things down to their basics if the truth of opinions is to be achieved.


----------



## fjnmusic

screature said:


> There has been no micro management as no one has yet chosen to enter into a dialectical discussion.
> 
> But that being stated dialectics *requires* that things first be broken down into their essential/necessary elements and reaching consensus before moving onto the next higher/complex order.
> 
> It seems to me based on your statement that you don't appreciate the discipline of logic and dialectics then, as it is necessary to break things down to their basics if the truth of opinions is to be achieved.


Nope, not interested thanks. I'm a random abstract guy, always have been, which is why I'll fly in examples that may not make sense to you because you don't see the synchronicity of it all the same way I do. You seem much more linear sequential in your approach, which is probably why we don't see eye to eye most of the time. The one point at a time dialectic method that you propose sounds very micromanagerial and creatively restrictive to me. I come here for the conversation, not to be shown point by point why my opinion is not as good as someone else's. From my view, that is a linear sequential anal-retentive (if you will) tactic for those who are afraid to let go. Me, I will flit from flower to flower like a butterfly and occasionally sting like a bee (to paraphrase M. Ali). If you don't like that approach, you're probably best not to argue with me, because it will never go anywhere, or at least not in the direction you prefer. Just being honest here.


----------



## Macfury

That explains it.


----------



## fjnmusic

Macfury said:


> That explains it.


:clap:


----------



## screature

fjnmusic said:


> *Nope, not interested thanks. I'm a random abstract guy,* always have been, which is why I'll fly in examples that may not make sense to you because you don't see the synchronicity of it all the same way I do. You seem much more linear sequential in your approach, which is probably why we don't see eye to eye most of the time. *The one point at a time dialectic method that you propose sounds very micromanagerial and creatively restrictive to me. *I come here for the conversation, *not to be shown point by point why my opinion is not as good as someone else's*. From my view, that is a* linear sequential anal-retentive (if you will) tactic for those who are afraid to let go.* Me, I will flit from flower to flower like a butterfly and occasionally sting like a bee (to paraphrase M. Ali). If you don't like that approach, you're probably best not to argue with me, because it will never go anywhere, or at least not in the direction you prefer. Just being honest here.


Yep, that seems about right.

So you want to construct your own "reality", based on your own personal point of view and expect others to embrace it? Good luck with that... sounds like religion to me. I have no interest in that.

You clearly have not been involved in formal debate then.

In formal debate there is a "be it resolved" statement (which you make freely all the time) and then there are opportunities for those in support and in opposition of the statement to make their case for or against. 

You seem to only want to make "be it resolved" statements and then only to deride those who disagree with you, case in point:



> linear sequential *anal-retentive (if you will) tactic for those who are afraid to let go.*


and not listen to their opposing arguments. That is not debate or respectful in the least.

As for the rest you are probably right. As I suggested many posts ago, we will just have to agree to disagree but I did not feel it necessary to deride you in the process as you just did me.

Yet at the same time you speak of deserving respect but yet you display none.

You clearly feel yourself to be of superior intellect to those who disagree with you and your methods of discourse based on your post and you may be right. 

But as of yet you have not *proved* it any any logical or reasoned manner. In fact quite the opposite, you have consistently resorted to the lowest means of discourse, insult and derision to those that oppose your point of view, so please forgive me if I don't agree with your high self appointed assessment of yourself and intellect.

As I said before, I simply see us all here as being contestants/participants in "the game of life".


----------



## Macfury

Just check out *fjnmusic* in the Omar Khadr thread where he suddenly demands linear reasoning and formal rebuttals.

*fjnmusic*, in the Omar Khadr thread you suddenly demand linear reasoning and formal rebuttals.



screature said:


> Yep, that seems about right.
> 
> So you want to construct your own "reality", based on your own personal point of view and expect others to embrace it? Good luck with that... sounds like religion to me. I have no interest in that.
> 
> You clearly have not been involved in formal debate then.
> 
> In formal debate there is a "be it resolved" statement (which you make freely all the time) and then there are opportunities for those in support and in opposition of the statement to make their case for or against.
> 
> You seem to only want to make "be it resolved" statements and then only to deride those who disagree with you, case in point:
> 
> 
> 
> and not listen to their opposing arguments. That is not debate or respectful in the least.
> 
> As for the rest you are probably right. As I suggested many posts ago, we will just have to agree to disagree but I did not feel it necessary to deride you in the process as you just did me.


----------



## fjnmusic

screature said:


> Yep, that seems about right.
> 
> So you want to construct your own "reality", based on your own personal point of view and expect others to embrace it? Good luck with that... sounds like religion to me. I have no interest in that.
> 
> You clearly have not been involved in formal debate then.
> 
> In formal debate there is a "be it resolved" statement (which you make freely all the time) and then there are opportunities for those in support and in opposition of the statement to make their case for or against.
> 
> You seem to only want to make "be it resolved" statements and then only to deride those who disagree with you, case in point:
> 
> 
> 
> and not listen to their opposing arguments. That is not debate or respectful in the least.
> 
> As for the rest you are probably right. As I suggested many posts ago, we will just have to agree to disagree but I did not feel it necessary to deride you in the process as you just did me.


Sorry if you feel I derided you. I actually meant to deride all linear sequential thinkers, not just you. For whatever reason, linear sequentials seem to think they rule the world because they can file, sort, organize, do things one at a time. However, it is the creative ones, the random abstracts, that become the artists, the musicians, for the most part, and actually make a cultural contribution to the world. RA's are the ones who "think different", the ones Steve Jobs was alluding to in that commercial. The LS's are good at keeping things under control, for the most part, but they are not particularly gifted or creative. They would take piano lessons, but when they quit the lessons, never touch the piano again. The RA's would likely pick up piano on their own, and if they took lessons, would probably use the "wrong" fingerings. Some of us have both LS and RA tendencies at different times, depending on what's needed, but we likely have a preferred mode.

You're right about one thing though; we're best when meeting an impasse to agree to disagree, I don't like your method and you don't like mine, but at least we can be respectful.


----------



## fjnmusic

Macfury said:


> Just check him out in the Omar Khadr thread where he suddenly demands linear reasoning and formal rebuttals.


You know that it's rude to talk about "him" in the third person when "he" is right here in the thread with you. It is clear from your frequent trolling, macfury, that you really have no interest in getting along. As least screature is willing to agree to disagree, which shows some degree of mutual respect.


----------



## Macfury

fjnmusic said:


> You know that it's rude to talk about "him" in the third person when "he" is right here in the thread with you. It is clear from your frequent trolling, macfury, that you really have no interest in getting along. As least screature is willing to agree to disagree, which shows some degree of mutual respect.


Fixed!


----------



## screature

fjnmusic said:


> *Sorry if you feel I derided you.* I actually meant to deride all linear sequential thinkers, not just you. For whatever reason, linear sequentials seem to think they rule the world because they can file, sort, organize, do things one at a time. *However, it is the creative ones, the random abstracts, that become the artists, the musicians, for the most part, and actually make a cultural contribution to the world.* RA's are the ones who "think different", the ones Steve Jobs was alluding to in that commercial. The LS's are good at keeping things under control, for the most part, but they are not particularly gifted or creative. They would take piano lessons, but when they quit the lessons, never touch the piano again. The RA's would likely pick up piano on their own, and if they took lessons, would probably use the "wrong" fingerings. Some of us have both LS and RA tendencies at different times, depending on what's needed, but we likely have a preferred mode.
> 
> You're right about one thing though; we're best when meeting an impasse to agree to disagree, I don't like your method and you don't like mine, but at least we can be respectful.


Thank you for your apology.

I actually graduated Summa Cum Laude with a BFA from the University of Ottawa in 1990. 

But I also studied intensively the sciences, philosophy and logic.

No one shoe size fits all, but when there is a particular "shoe size" required one does not try and squeeze a size 10 foot into a size 8 shoe. It simply does not fit. 

In like regard linear and abstract thought both have their place and "fit" and neither one or the other should try to be *squeezed * into an inappropriate ill fitting shoe.

It just makes for great discomfort.


----------



## Macfury

Or, like many people, they can not only do the organized things one at a time, they can do many such things at the same time--then they can do the random abstract thing as well! Organized, gifted and creative all in a single package. Computer-programming piano players! Artistic office managers!




fjnmusic said:


> Sorry if you feel I derided you. I actually meant to deride all linear sequential thinkers, not just you. For whatever reason, linear sequentials seem to think they rule the world because they can file, sort, organize, do things one at a time. However, it is the creative ones, the random abstracts, that become the artists, the musicians, for the most part, and actually make a cultural contribution to the world. RA's are the ones who "think different", the ones Steve Jobs was alluding to in that commercial. The LS's are good at keeping things under control, for the most part, but they are not particularly gifted or creative. They would take piano lessons, but when they quit the lessons, never touch the piano again. The RA's would likely pick up piano on their own, and if they took lessons, would probably use the "wrong" fingerings. Some of us have both LS and RA tendencies at different times, depending on what's needed, but we likely have a preferred mode.
> 
> You're right about one thing though; we're best when meeting an impasse to agree to disagree, I don't like your method and you don't like mine, but at least we can be respectful.


----------



## Macfury

With all due respect, fjn, there's nothing wrong with free association and riffing on an idea. However, you're sowing confusion by apparently formulating your posts bebop style, then veering back and forth between stabs at organized debate, demanding linear and logical arguments from others, followed by retrenchment into the position that your posts are mere self expression and not to be parsed.


----------



## fjnmusic

Macfury said:


> With all due respect, fjn, there's nothing wrong with free association and riffing on an idea. However, you're sowing confusion by apparently formulating your posts bebop style, then veering back and forth between stabs at organized debate, demanding linear and logical arguments from others, followed by retrenchment into the position that your posts are mere self expression and not to be parsed.


And you my friend need to start coming up with some ideas of your own instead of just criticizing what others say. When is the last time you put forth an original thought? Ever? 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury

fjnmusic said:


> And you my friend need to start coming up with some ideas of your own instead of just criticizing what others say. When is the last time you put forth an original thought? Ever?


It seems like you're trying to control me with your confining constructs.


----------



## Rps

Just wondering as a casual observer if this is the part in the saga where the word "chill" comes into play .... We seem to be moving from friendly discussion into more heated and personal salvos.


----------



## Dr.G.

Rps said:


> Just wondering as a casual observer if this is the part in the saga where the word "chill" comes into play .... We seem to be moving from friendly discussion into more heated and personal salvos.


Good point, Rp. "To chill or not to chill ......... that is the question."


----------



## fjnmusic

Agreed Rps and Dr. G. It's just a discussion forum after all. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Dr.G.

fjnmusic said:


> Agreed Rps and Dr. G. It's just a discussion forum after all.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Very true, fjn. Paix, mon ami.


----------



## screature

Rps said:


> Just wondering as a casual observer if this is the part in the saga where the word "chill" comes into play .... We seem to be moving from friendly discussion into more heated and personal salvos.





Dr.G. said:


> Good point, Rp. "To chill or not to chill ......... that is the question."





fjnmusic said:


> Agreed Rps and Dr. G. It's just a discussion forum after all.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk





Dr.G. said:


> Very true, fjn. Paix, mon ami.


It seems some people only respond when certain others are replying.... and then an "intervention" is required.

If the "correct" people aren't involved then it can be a "free for all"...

It seems to happen again and again on whatever side of the fence you are on ...

Just an observation.


----------



## Macfury

Agreed! Makes me laugh to see the forces of helpfulness coalesce.



screature said:


> It seems some people only respond when certain others are replying.... and then an "intervention" is required.
> 
> If the "correct" people aren't involved then it can be a "free for all"...
> 
> It seems to happen again and again on whatever side of the fence you are on ...
> 
> Just an observation.


----------



## eMacMan

*Amen*

.


----------



## fjnmusic

Been on a holiday for the last week in sunny Cuba. Can't say as I really miss the petty squabbling that so often passes for discussion in some of these threads. What a country this is, where the religion is old cars and good cigars!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury

fjnmusic said:


> Been on a holiday for the last week in sunny Cuba. Can't say as I really miss the petty squabbling that so often passes for discussion in some of these threads. What a country this is, where the religion is old cars and good cigars!


Stop squabbling then, and maintain your Havana Zen--this isn't a command performance!


----------



## fjnmusic

Macfury said:


> Stop squabbling then, and maintain your Havana Zen--this isn't a command performance!


Nice to hear from you too, Macfury.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## screature

Prisoners 

Watched it for the 2nd time today. IMO a very good movie.

It seemed quite relevant to recent discussions regarding empathy and morality.

What do you think?


----------



## fjnmusic

screature said:


> Prisoners
> 
> Watched it for the 2nd time today. IMO a very good movie.
> 
> It seemed quite relevant to recent discussions regarding empathy and morality.
> 
> What do you think?


Deja vu, but probably a more suitable location for a discussion. I haven't seen it, but it sounds interesting. Anything in particular stands out for you without giving away any plot points?


----------



## Macfury

screature said:


> Prisoners
> 
> Watched it for the 2nd time today. IMO a very good movie.
> 
> It seemed quite relevant to recent discussions regarding empathy and morality.
> 
> What do you think?


No spoilers.

Because the conclusion was telegraphed so early into the film, it made it virtually impossible for me to empathize with the "civilians." The level of brutality brought to bear simply never appeared justified. Thought Jake Gyllenhall did a nice job, though.

I enjoyed him in the director's next film, _Enemy_, though its loose narrative structure isn't for all tastes.

Enemy (2013) - IMDb


----------



## screature

Macfury said:


> No spoilers.
> 
> *Because the conclusion was telegraphed so early into the film*, it made it* virtually impossible for me to empathize with the "civilians." The level of brutality brought to bear simply never appeared justified.* Thought Jake Gyllenhall did a nice job, though.
> 
> I enjoyed him in the director's next film, _Enemy_, though its loose narrative structure isn't for all tastes.
> 
> Enemy (2013) - IMDb


How so?

I have seen it 2x now and I don't see how you could have known how it would end exactly in the way it did.

Especially seeing as there were no "telegraphed" conclusions based on Dover's earlier actions relative to his later actions.

Maybe in another life you were stuck in a cave with your daughter's whistle to blow to save your life, even though by doing so you will go to jail.

Sorry MF I don't exactly buy your no "spoiler alert" comment. But then again maybe you are psychic and you could foresee that ending.

But, I think you may have missed some of the subtle details if that is your conclusion.

But hey, as always it is Ok to agree to disagree.


----------



## Macfury

SPOILER ALERT:

I mean that I was practically begging for the actual culprit not to be the culprit as the film unfolded. That process began with a setup that pushed its hand too far in trying to force the audience to accept Hugh Jackman's false conclusion and make them complicit in his actions.


----------



## screature

Macfury said:


> SPOILER ALERT:
> 
> *I mean that I was practically begging for the actual culprit not to be the culprit as the film unfolded. T*hat process began with a setup that pushed its hand too far in trying to force the audience to accept Hugh Jackman's false conclusion and make them complicit in his actions.


Ok on that point we can agree.

But Dover (Jackman's charter) was accurate in believing that his suspected culprit was culpable in the crime and had information that he was not telling him that could lead to his daughter's whereabouts.

I also think we all (the audience) believed, as did Dover, that they did not have the actual culprit with person they arrested.

As the story unfolded I think it was a bit of a surprise to have the climax that it did, that is what I am talking about.

The denouement was I agree predictable as is expected from Hollywood... 

I am just glad they didn't feel the need to go all the way "to the end".


----------



## fjnmusic

For what it's worth I guessed the twist to The Sixth Sense before I even walked into the theatre. Maybe that's because those who had seen it already wouldn't shut up about what a great twist ending the movie has. That's it—as soon as someone says a moviefilm has a twist ending, buh-bye suspense, because you're anticipating it the whole time.


----------



## fjnmusic

fjnmusic said:


> Deja vu, but probably a more suitable location for a discussion. I haven't seen it, but it sounds interesting. Anything in particular stands out for you without giving away any plot points?


I apologize for being smarmy in the other thread. I had no right to be a conversation killer like that. Nobody does.

At the risk of being accused of being an arse, I think this was a polite and well-intentioned question that you somehow missed, screature. Before I go and spend two hours watching a film I'd like to know a little more about it. I do know it is about a man who is searching for his missing daughter and abducts a mentally challenged man (who is also the chief suspect) to detain and torture him in an effort to get him to divulge the location of his missing daughter. I would assume you are interested in looking at the morality of his actions. So again I ask, since I haven't seen it, but it sounds interesting, is there anything in particular about this film that stands out for you without giving away any plot points? Anything in particular that drew you to this film in the first place?


----------



## fjnmusic

Those questions shall remain rhetorical it appears. And now for something completely different.









Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## fjnmusic

Why aren't more Americans atheists? 

http://www.politico.com/magazine/st...utm_source=digg&utm_medium=email#.U-Iy3im9Kc1


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury

Because they believe in God. It's not some sort of condition to be cured.



fjnmusic said:


> Why aren't more Americans atheists?
> 
> Why Aren't More Americans Atheists? - Nick Spencer - POLITICO Magazine
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## fjnmusic

Macfury said:


> Because they believe in God. It's not some sort of condition to be cured.



Is this your reaction to the article itself or just the title?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Rps

Hello all, just was wondering your thoughts on the following question .... But before I state it I just wanted you to know that the religious thread appears to be the only proper place to put this, and I do not mean to derail the current discussion, but some how it fits. So......

My wife and I were talking about religion and up came the topic of creation .... So came the question of what things should we not know. It appears that our species wants an answer for everything ... But what ever our thoughts on what G-d is sooner or later we need to step back and ask ... Do we really need to know. So I ask, what questions do you think we , as humans, do not really need to have an answer for. Not a trite topic, as we are currently exploding the concept of the Big Bang at CERN, and tinkering with genetics. So what questions do you think we should not try to answer?


----------



## fjnmusic

Good question Rps. I don't know if there are questions we should not ask, per as, as answers we may not want to hear. If heaven really is like what we were led to believe when I was an elementary student in an RC school, it would be pretty disappointing to me. All that choirs of angels and heavenly praises would get pretty old pretty fast in my book. Plus there's the total lack of any personal identity thing. That could just be what my vision was, but to be honest, the depiction of heaven, of eternal blandness, scared me even more than the depiction of hell. That's just something off the top of my head for starters; maybe we don't really want to know what the afterlife looks like, if there is one.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## SINC

I have come to the conclusion that because I don't know anything I was taught in Sunday school for my entire pre age 14 life, is truth or fiction, I just don't care anymore. I like to think there is some truth to what I experienced, but the existence of some supreme being has waned in my mind.

Yet when in duress and fearful of one's life, it is amazing how one falls back on one's childhood teachings. And was what I experienced during a heart attack 14 years ago, real or illusion?

Thus the unanswered questions remain and the belief, or lack thereof, continues.


----------



## Rps

SINC said:


> I have come to the conclusion that because I don't know anything I was taught in Sunday school for my entire pre age 14 life, is truth or fiction, I just don't care anymore. I like to think there is some truth to what I experienced, but the existence of some supreme being has waned in my mind.
> 
> Yet when in duress and fearful of one's life, it is amazing how one falls back on one's childhood teachings. And was what I experienced during a heart attack 14 years ago, real or illusion?
> 
> Thus the unanswered questions remain and the belief, or lack thereof, continues.


Since hence the expression there are no atheists in a fox hole.....


----------



## Macfury

fjnmusic said:


> Is this your reaction to the article itself or just the title?


Both.


----------



## Macfury

Rps said:


> So what questions do you think we should not try to answer?



I think we should try to answer them all and not be disappointed if we can't.


----------



## Rps

I wonder about our science with regard to genetics. As we don't live as long as a tree, maybe we shouldn't be tinkering around in that area, since non of us will probably live long enough to see the results and determine if our tinkering was really worthwhile. 

Frank, your comments seem to me to be a question of faith. As I am not a religious man I am guessing one either has faith or does not. From my perspective, questioning one's faith is a natural process ... It really seems a good question to ask don't you think. It is the answer to that question that may cause problems.

Sinc, I don't think there are many who when confronted with their mortality haven't pulled the "G-d" card out of the deck. I think it is rare that we don't fear the possibility of death..... Maybe that is a question that only can be answered personally .... And maybe that is the way it should be.


----------



## fjnmusic

Rps said:


> Frank, your comments seem to me to be a question of faith. As I am not a religious man I am guessing one either has faith or does not. From my perspective, questioning one's faith is a natural process ... It really seems a good question to ask don't you think. It is the answer to that question that may cause problems.



I think faith waxes and wanes, to be honest. Not so much the old man in the sky version of god so much (I mostly abandoned that concept long ago, though remnants remain), but more the faith in myself to be able to tackle the next challenge ahead of me. I think that's what faith really means, and a part of it is surrendering one's doubts and learning to have faith in others as well, that they will come through and help you. That's faith for me. Others may prefer a deity who is out there; I believe the deity is already within me. And you. A spark of the divine.

As for the eternal questions, where did we come from? Where are we going? An atheist prof once gave me the most oddly comforting answer to that. I was perplexed that he didn't seem at all bothered by the question of life after death. When I asked him about this after class, he said, Frank, do you remember what it was like before you were born? I said no. He said, does it bother you? I said no. He said that's what it is like for him regarding any life beyond this one. He doesn't know and it doesn't bother him. He left me with much to contemplate following that conversation.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury

fjnmusic said:


> I think faith waxes and wanes, to be honest. Not so much the *old man* in the sky version of god....


A man?



fjnmusic said:


> ...but more the faith in myself to be able to tackle the next challenge ahead of me. I think that's what faith really means...


Why would it have to be one or the other? Why could one not have faith both in God and oneself?



fjnmusic said:


> ... and a part of it is surrendering one's doubts and learning to have faith in others as well, that they will come through and help you.


Thank goodness I've let go of that one. I'd be dead by now if I kept on that track!



fjnmusic said:


> Others may prefer a deity who is out there...


If God is real, then it is not a preference.



fjnmusic said:


> I believe the deity is already within me. And you. A spark of the divine.


Where does "the divine" come from then?



fjnmusic said:


> As for the eternal questions, where did we come from? Where are we going? An atheist prof once gave me the most oddly comforting answer to that. I was perplexed that he didn't seem at all bothered by the question of life after death. When I asked him about this after class, he said, Frank, do you remember what it was like before you were born? I said no. He said, does it bother you? I said no. He said that's what it is like for him regarding any life beyond this one. He doesn't know and it doesn't bother him. He left me with much to contemplate following that conversation.


There is no possibility of my going back before I was born, therefore it doesn't matter to me. There is a possibility that my life will continue after death, so it does. 

If you or your professor might be happily extinguished, I guess that's OK--more eternal life left over for me!


----------



## screature

fjnmusic said:


> I apologize for being smarmy in the other thread. I had no right to be a conversation killer like that. Nobody does.
> 
> At the risk of being accused of being an arse, I think this was a polite and well-intentioned question that you somehow missed, screature. Before I go and spend two hours watching a film I'd like to know a little more about it. I do know it is about a man who is searching for his missing daughter and abducts a mentally challenged man (who is also the chief suspect) to detain and torture him in an effort to get him to divulge the location of his missing daughter. I would assume you are interested in looking at the morality of his actions. So again I ask, since I haven't seen it, but it sounds interesting, is there anything in particular about this film that stands out for you without giving away any plot points? Anything in particular that drew you to this film in the first place?


I watch movies all the time simply because someone I know recommended it to me, not because of the trailers or anything like that.

Nothing in particular drew me to watch it in the first place that I can remember aside from perhaps a brief synopsis of the plot on the DVD cover.

The first time I watched it I didn't like it much because I thought Hugh Jackman's acting was over the top, not because it was uninteresting.

I still felt Jackman's performance was over the top watching it the 2nd time, but not as much.

The reason why I referenced it was because in watching it the 2nd time there is IMO a certain ambiguous relationship established between morality and empathy in the movie that I felt relevant to the two threads and was interested in the opinion of others who had seen the movie and who also were following the threads.

I am not going to talk to anyone about the movie unless they have seen it and formed their own opinions, otherwise there is simply nothing to discuss.

I can't talk to someone in a book club intelligently about about a book they have never read or have read only the Coles Notes.

That is the reason why I was so curt and rude with you previously and for that I do apologize.


----------



## fjnmusic

screature said:


> I watch movies all the time simply because someone I know recommended it to me, not because of the trailers or anything like that.
> 
> Nothing in particular drew me to watch it in the first place that I can remember aside from perhaps a brief synopsis of the plot on the DVD cover.
> 
> The first time I watched it I didn't like it much because I thought Hugh Jackman's acting was over the top, not because it was uninteresting.
> 
> I still felt Jackman's performance was over the top watching it the 2nd time, but not as much.
> 
> The reason why I referenced it was because in watching it the 2nd time there is IMO a certain ambiguous relationship established between morality and empathy in the movie that I felt relevant to the two threads and was interested in the opinion of others who had seen the movie and who also were following the threads.
> 
> I am am not going to talk to anyone about the movie unless they have seen it and formed their own opinions, otherwise there is simply nothing to discuss.
> 
> I can't talk to someone in a book club intelligently about about a book they have never read or have read only the Coles Notes.
> 
> That is the reason why I was so curt and rude with you previously and for that I do apologize.


Fair enough, Steve, and I thank you for your response. This moviefilm does sound like an interesting take on morality and how the concept may not always be absolute. I've just finished watching the second season of Hannibal, a story where morality and empathy and simply survival cross the lines back and forth constantly so that right and wrong, good and evil can be quite confusing and you're not really sure if the "hero" is the one you should be rooting for. Takes moral relativity to a whole new level.


----------



## screature

fjnmusic said:


> Fair enough, Steve, and I thank you for your response. This moviefilm does sound like an interesting take on morality and how the concept may not always be absolute. I've just finished watching the second season of Hannibal, a story where morality and empathy and simply survival cross the lines back and forth constantly so that right and wrong, good and evil can be quite confusing and you're not really sure if the "hero" is the one you should be rooting for. Takes moral relativity to a whole new level.


Thanks fjnmusic for your response as well. 

Sounds like I might enjoy Hannibal too, I will put it on my "to watch' list.

As an aside, have you seen the first season of True Detective? (9.4 on IMDb... one of, if not the highest score I have ever seen).

My colleague recommended it to me and man oh man was she right... it is great IMO... even the intro is great. 

Can't wait for season 2... I just hope it lives up to season 1.

Peace out and have a good evening.


----------



## Rps

Frank I think your Prof was on to something. Why worry about things you don't know about is similar to a reply to this question I think I read in a book . A fellow was fretting about death and his friend asked him what the problem was ... He said he was afraid of death, when asked why he said it was such a void, to which his friend replied, don't worry a void is nothing.

While I don't speak animal, not don't think they dwell on the topic of life after death, they dwell on life and trying to make it the best they can .... A sensible choice if you ask me ... We all could learn from them I think.


----------



## Macfury

Rps said:


> Frank I think your Prof was on to something. Why worry about things you don't know about is similar to a reply to this question I think I read in a book . A fellow was fretting about death and his friend asked him what the problem was ... He said he was afraid of death, when asked why he said it was such a void, to which his friend replied, don't worry a void is nothing.


If you became deathly ill, why would you be concerned about the outcome if a "void is nothing?" 

Of course, if there is no void beyond your life, but something else, then there is more to think about.

I'm surprised these ideas provide anyone with comfort. In the case of Frank's prof, the analogy would be: "I don't worry about whether I ate any food yesterday, so why should I secure a food supply for today?"



Rps said:


> While I don't speak animal, not don't think they dwell on the topic of life after death, they dwell on life and trying to make it the best they can .... A sensible choice if you ask me ... We all could learn from them I think.


Why is it a choice? Why can't you dwell on the topic of life after death AND try to make your life the best it can be?


----------



## fjnmusic

Steve: True Detective is the one with Mathew and Woody, yes? Looks interesting. With respect to my atheist prof, Rocky, who was a very inspiring philosophy teacher, I took away from it that he didn't believe our current consciousness survives past death. His evidence is that we have no consciousness that survived from a previous life (past believers not included, I suppose). Because my lack of memory of a previous life doesn't bother me, the same logic would then apply to any existence after we shuffle off this mortal coil. It is the fear of losing consciousness that I think we fear, even though we all experience this for several hours a night when we sleep. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury

fjnmusic said:


> With respect to my atheist prof, Rocky, who was a very inspiring philosophy teacher, I took away from it that he didn't believe our current consciousness survives past death. His evidence is that we have no consciousness that survived from a previous life (past believers not included, I suppose). Because my lack of memory of a previous life doesn't bother me, the same logic would then apply to any existence after we shuffle off this mortal coil.


What if you had no previous life, because your eternal life began with your conception? In that case, you would have no memory of it for a good reason.



fjnmusic said:


> It is the fear of losing consciousness that I think we fear, even though we all experience this for several hours a night when we sleep.


I have never seen sleep as a loss of consciousness--just an altered consciousness, and temporary at that. I think people begin to fear sleep only of they are worried that it will not be temporary.


----------



## Rps

Macfury said:


> I have never seen sleep as a loss of consciousness--just an altered consciousness, and temporary at that. I think people begin to fear sleep only of they are worried that it will not be temporary.


I really agree with this point!


----------



## Dr.G.

Macfury said:


> What if you had no previous life, because your eternal life began with your conception? In that case, you would have no memory of it for a good reason.
> 
> 
> 
> I have never seen sleep as a loss of consciousness--just an altered consciousness, and temporary at that. I think people begin to fear sleep only of they are worried that it will not be temporary.


"To sleep, perchance to dream ..... ah, there's the rub."


----------



## fjnmusic

Macfury said:


> What if you had no previous life, because your eternal life began with your conception? In that case, you would have no memory of it for a good reason.


It seems silly to way of thinking to assume we start at conception but do not end with our last breath. Or perhaps if we live beyond our earthly death, then perhaps we also existed before our earthly conception. I mean, we did exist, just in two different places before the DNA of our parents met up. 





> I have never seen sleep as a loss of consciousness--just an altered consciousness, and temporary at that. I think people begin to fear sleep only of they are worried that it will not be temporary.



When you are in REM sleep you are in an altered state of consciousness, but that is only for a part of the sleep cycle. The rest of the time you are literally unconscious. 



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury

fjnmusic said:


> It seems silly to way of thinking to assume we start at conception but do not end with our last breath.


Why?



fjnmusic said:


> When you are in REM sleep you are in an altered state of consciousness, but that is only for a part of the sleep cycle. The rest of the time you are literally unconscious.


Since you can still respond to stimuli when asleep--prodding or loud noises, you are not unconscious. There is a part of you that is open to the stimuli that allow you to wake up.


----------



## fjnmusic

Macfury said:


> Why?


to me "world without end" is just the flip side of "world without beginning." My consciousness, though similar, is not the same as it was when I was ten, as I have learned and evolved since then. The people I live with and associate with are not the same, some people like my kids exist now but did not exist then. The world is entropy, even though aspects of it are similar. Oddly though, I have been conscious of every waking moment, every second, since I was ten, apart from periods of time when I was unconsciousness, like a portion of every night. I do not remember every second, thankfully, but I was nonetheless there to experience it. So were you.

Anyway, I find the concept of life starting out of nothing and then living forever to be puzzling and unsettling. Why? I just do.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury

fjnmusic said:


> Anyway, I find the concept of life starting out of nothing and then living forever to be puzzling and unsettling. Why? I just do.


I find that much easier to accept than something ending without beginning.


----------



## screature

fjnmusic said:


> *Steve: True Detective is the one with Mathew and Woody, yes? Looks interesting. *With respect to my atheist prof, Rocky, who was a very inspiring philosophy teacher, I took away from it that he didn't believe our current consciousness survives past death. His evidence is that we have no consciousness that survived from a previous life (past believers not included, I suppose). Because my lack of memory of a previous life doesn't bother me, the same logic would then apply to any existence after we shuffle off this mortal coil. It is the fear of losing consciousness that I think we fear, even though we all experience this for several hours a night when we sleep.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Yes, for season one. Season 2 will have new characters.

True Detective



> ...written by Nic Pizzolatto, with the first season directed by Cary Joji Fukunaga...
> 
> ...Season one stars Matthew McConaughey, Woody Harrelson (both executive producers of the series)...
> 
> ...Nic Pizzolatto stated that the second season will feature three new lead characters.


----------



## CubaMark

_If there was a real Jesus (There wasn't.) forensic anthropologists have determined the he would have looked looked much more like the swarthy scamp on the left rather than the hunky fashion model the Church prefers to promote. The reason for that is simple: The first people to illustrate Jesus were Europeans and they painted what they saw. So long noses, blue eyes, straw-colored hair, assault rifles, etc.



Needless to say, the reasoned sculpting of a Middle Eastern savior by men of science hasn't convinced Christians to stampede their local houses of worship and commence with iconic urban renewal. Nooo, they're just fine with their Aryan superstar, thank you very much. Also, please send money or burn in Hell._

(FarLeftSide)


----------



## Macfury

People have been discussing this as long as I've been alive. Only an idiot would suggest that people deface original religious art because some scientist reinvented the wheel--for the 40th time.


----------



## fjnmusic

I doubt that it mattered much what Jesus looked like. Although his appearance on muffins and grilled cheese sandwiches seems more consistent with the European view.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## CubaMark

No idea what you're going on about. 

I find it interesting to consider whether Christianity would have gained as much traction were the saviour / object of the faith not be the fair-haired European poster boy. If overnight someone swapped out all the Christ portraits and statues in the USA with a more ethnically appropriate version, how might worshippers react? I'm sure they'd find a way to blame the communists.... or the terrorists... or Obama....


----------



## Macfury

CubaMark said:


> No idea what you're going on about.


Don't you read your own posts?



CubaMark said:


> Needless to say, the reasoned sculpting of a Middle Eastern savior by men of science *hasn't convinced Christians to stampede their local houses of worship and commence with iconic urban renewal*.



The Far Left Side has to be the worst embarrassment of a comic in some time. For that one to make sense, there would have to be some thrust from Christians about a hatred for "idealized forms." 

It would be as though the left decried "idealized forms" while embracing an idealized image of...oh.. I don't know... Che Guevera.


----------



## fjnmusic

CubaMark said:


> No idea what you're going on about.
> 
> 
> 
> I find it interesting to consider whether Christianity would have gained as much traction were the saviour / object of the faith not be the fair-haired European poster boy. If overnight someone swapped out all the Christ portraits and statues in the USA with a more ethnically appropriate version, how might worshippers react? I'm sure they'd find a way to blame the communists.... or the terrorists... or Obama....



An interesting observation, Mark. Man creates god in his own image. Sells more t-shirts and rosaries that way. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## screature

CubaMark said:


> No idea what you're going on about.
> 
> I find it interesting to consider whether Christianity would have gained as much traction were the saviour / object of the faith not be the *fair-haired European* poster boy. If overnight someone swapped out all the Christ portraits and statues in the USA with a *more ethnically appropriate version, how might worshippers react? I'm sure they'd find a way to blame the communists.... or the terrorists... or Obama*....



I can't think of any depiction of Jesus as being "fair-haired", perhaps you have seen one's that I haven't.

To me it only makes sense that people who have never seen Jesus are going to depict him in a way that jives with their own idealized version of what in their imagination he looked like.

There was no photography back then, just descriptions of what he looked like so it is very easy to understand and reasonable that he would be depicted based only on them and the people they see around them that resemble those descriptions.

For example, I very much doubt that any Renaissance painter ever saw a middle eastern person of any religious persuasion. 

So, that the depiction of Jesus may not represent the anthropological/genealogical record of possablities is not at all surprising to me and I do not believe there was any "conspiracy" afoot to make him look European so as to make the religion more palatable to Europeans. 

Hyperbole much?


----------



## Macfury

Tilting at straw men. Imagining something about an imaginary situation and then imagining a bizarre outcome.



screature said:


> I can't think of any depiction of Jesus as being "fair-haired", perhaps you have seen one's that I haven't.
> 
> To me it only makes sense that people who have never seen Jesus are going to depict him in a way that jives with their own idealized version of what in their imagination he looked like.
> 
> There was no photography back then, just descriptions of what he looked like so it is very easy to understand and reasonable that he would be depicted based only on them and the people the see around them that resemble those descriptions.
> 
> For example, I very much doubt that any Renaissance painter ever saw a middle eastern person of any religious persuasion.
> 
> So, that the depiction of Jesus may not represent the anthropological/genealogical recordpossablities is not at all surprising to me and I do not believe there was any "conspiracy" afoot to make him look European so as to make the religion more palatable to Europeans.
> 
> Hyperbole much?


----------



## screature

Depictions of Jesus Christ from Google.

So you can see CM there are indeed a few that portray him as being "fair-haired" but not many. So based on your previous post I think that based on what I could find your statement is not supported by evidence.

The thing that stands out for me is that in the vast majority of cases he had long hair and full facial hair.

The depiction that you posted is in the overwhelming minority, i.e. he had short hair.

Beyond that, skin tone varies greatly and based on my previous post I think that is to be expected for the reasons I already stated.

But at any rate tell me again why the way he is depicted is so important to you and your argument?

It seems to me to be, as MF suggested, a "straw man" argument or a red herring.

On a side note, I have not seen any depictions of Allah aside from this Google search":

Depictions of Allah

and 

Depictions of Muhammad 

I thought it was interesting.


----------



## CubaMark

screature said:


> To me it only makes sense that people who have never seen Jesus are going to depict him in a way that jives with their own idealized version of what in their imagination he looked like.


You're quite right, I'm sure people do internalize and reproduce their own identity when imagining the appearance of their god(s). 



screature said:


> ...at any rate tell me again why the way he is depicted is so important to you and your argument?


I'm not 'arguing' anything. As I said above, I find the issues surrounding how Christ is portrayed interesting, and I offered some conjecture as to how a more accurate representation of him might be received by certain Christians.

And I found the cartoon humourous. All the moreso since MF just can't stand it... 



screature said:


> On a side note, I have not seen any depictions of Allah aside from this Google search


As with all things religious, which perhaps all begin with the best of intentions, someone inevitably comes along and screws things up - sometimes to tragic result. I found this interesting:



> *What does the Koran, the holy book of Islam, say on the issue?*
> 
> There is no specific, or explicit ban in the Koran on images of Allah or the Prophet Muhammad - be they carved, painted or drawn.
> 
> However, chapter 42, verse 11 of the Koran does say: "[Allah is] the originator of the heavens and the earth... [there is] nothing like a likeness of Him."
> 
> This is taken by Muslims to mean that Allah cannot be captured in an image by human hand, such is his beauty and grandeur. To attempt such a thing is seen as an insult to Allah.
> 
> The same is believed to apply to Muhammad.
> 
> * * *
> 
> Shia Islamic tradition is far less strict on this ban. Reproductions of images of the Prophet, mainly produced in the 7th Century in Persian, can be found.
> 
> (BBC)


That's very interesting - something I hadn't known. Not surprised, though, that extremists, self-serving asses and the unenlightened would propagate such idiocy. 

Thankfully there are few Christian leaders who take this approach. Given some of the stuff in the bible (Leviticus, anyone?) that would lead to some pretty wild encounters...


----------



## Macfury

CubaMark said:


> And I found the cartoon humourous. All the moreso since MF just can't stand it...


I can certainly stand it... it's just that I'm perpetuaually amazed by the anti-intellectual culture of the left.


----------



## CubaMark

Macfury said:


> I can certainly stand it... it's just that I'm perpetuaually amazed by the anti-intellectual culture of the left.


_"...anti-intellectual culture of the left."_ :lmao:

Now *that* was funny.

All I ever heard from the old guy in the newsroom at my first job as a reporter was how eggheads were a bunch of commie pinko bastards. He was a wonderful old grandfatherly type, or would have been, if he could just keep his politics in check. His hourly newscasts were like auditions for the Reform Party Cheerleader Pack. Some of the things he believed would have made Preston Manning blush.

I think perhaps you need to check the dictionary for the word "intellectual". I do not think it means what you think it means.


----------



## Macfury

Professors in some universities might be leftists, but they're far from intellectual. They're people with ideas so vapid they could never exist outside of the la la land of academia. 



CubaMark said:


> _"...anti-intellectual culture of the left."_ :lmao:
> 
> Now *that* was funny.
> 
> All I ever heard from the old guy in the newsroom at my first job as a reporter was how eggheads were a bunch of commie pinko bastards. He was a wonderful old grandfatherly type, or would have been, if he could just keep his politics in check. His hourly newscasts were like auditions for the Reform Party Cheerleader Pack. Some of the things he believed would have made Preston Manning blush.


----------



## fjnmusic

As far as images of Jesus, I think the black Jesus concept is an interesting variation.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/codeswitch...ndocks-creator-asks-what-would-black-jesus-do


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury

fjnmusic said:


> As far as images of Jesus, I think the black Jesus concept is an interesting variation.


Certainly not a new variation.


----------



## MacGuiver

I find it odd discussion of the current world crisis situation with ISIS sweeping through Syria and Iraq, declaring a Caliphate and mercilessly executing and torturing anyone that does not submit to their religious ideology, even fellow Muslims, has never been brought up in this thread or elsewhere on here. That and the fact we have Canadian born Muslims supporting and even going over and fighting with this diabolical plague. If we have people born in Canada signing up for this, we obviously have a problem with radical Muslim indoctrination within our borders. Likewise most European countries are experiencing the same thing even on a greater level. Doesn't make one feel too safe when you have Canadians anxious to go over and decapitate the infidels (us).
We've seen much outrage and passionate debate and opinion here over issues like creationism but barely a peep about a religious interpretation currently spawning mass genocide, kidnappings and threatening to destabilize the entire middle east and even our own backyards. Given the religious origins of this situation I'm shocked it's never come up in this thread. Are people too frightened to talk about this issue or are they actually just indifferent?


----------



## Macfury

They're only worried about committed Christians.


----------



## fjnmusic

MacGuiver said:


> I find it odd discussion of the current world crisis situation with ISIS sweeping through Syria and Iraq, declaring a Caliphate and mercilessly executing and torturing anyone that does not submit to their religious ideology, even fellow Muslims, has never been brought up in this thread or elsewhere on here. That and the fact we have Canadian born Muslims supporting and even going over and fighting with this diabolical plague. If we have people born in Canada signing up for this, we obviously have a problem with radical Muslim indoctrination within our borders. Likewise most European countries are experiencing the same thing even on a greater level. Doesn't make one feel too safe when you have Canadians anxious to go over and decapitate the infidels (us).
> 
> We've seen much outrage and passionate debate and opinion here over issues like creationism but barely a peep about a religious interpretation currently spawning mass genocide, kidnappings and threatening to destabilize the entire middle east and even our own backyards. Given the religious origins of this situation I'm shocked it's never come up in this thread. Are people too frightened to talk about this issue or are they actually just indifferent?



It's come up now. I don't know enough about it to render much of an opinion. I did hear a Muslim person on the CBC talk about how the actions of ISIS have nothing do with Islam though. He said they may look like Muslims and they may pray like Muslims, but they are not Muslims. They are dangerous people hiding behind religion as a cause. Like many other dangerous people in the world. These are true terrorists, whose sole purpose is to scare the living **** out of the rest of the world.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury

Wasn't it you who said that such people might be freedom fighters and that terrorism was impossible to really define?



fjnmusic said:


> These are true terrorists, whose sole purpose is to scare the living **** out of the rest of the world.


----------



## screature

MacGuiver said:


> I find it odd discussion of the current world crisis situation with ISIS sweeping through Syria and Iraq, declaring a Caliphate and mercilessly executing and torturing anyone that does not submit to their religious ideology, even fellow Muslims, has never been brought up in this thread or elsewhere on here. That and the fact we have Canadian born Muslims supporting and even going over and fighting with this diabolical plague. If we have people born in Canada signing up for this, we obviously have a problem with radical Muslim indoctrination within our borders. Likewise most European countries are experiencing the same thing even on a greater level. Doesn't make one feel too safe when you have Canadians anxious to go over and decapitate the infidels (us).
> We've seen much outrage and passionate debate and opinion here over issues like creationism but barely a peep about a religious interpretation currently spawning mass genocide, kidnappings and threatening to destabilize the entire middle east and even our own backyards. Given the religious origins of this situation I'm shocked it's never come up in this thread. Are people too frightened to talk about this issue or are they actually just indifferent?





Macfury said:


> They're only worried about committed Christians.





fjnmusic said:


> It's come up now. I don't know enough about it to render much of an opinion. I did hear a Muslim person on the CBC talk about how the actions of ISIS have nothing do with Islam though. He said they may look like Muslims and they may pray like Muslims, but they are not Muslims. They are dangerous people hiding behind religion as a cause. Like many other dangerous people in the world. These are true terrorists, whose sole purpose is to scare the living **** out of the rest of the world.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk





Macfury said:


> Wasn't it you who said that such people might be freedom fighters and that terrorism was impossible to really define?


ISIS isn't really a religious organization. Just like Al-Qaeda and their ilk, they *hide* behind their religion as being the basis for their organization. 

But it isn't true true at all.

They are all really *political * organizations.

Most imams, priests, or rabbis will say the same thing. Even the Muslim world is concerned about ISIS. Iran included. 

ISIS and like organizations are a scourge that need to be eradicated...

If carpenter ants or termites are destroying your home they absolutely need to be exterminated, no if ands or buts... do it post haste before the damage done is irreversible.

Their tactics have displayed that there is no "negotiating" with these *men/psychopaths* it is simply the "rule of the jungle".

Run away, kill or be killed.

ISIS is worse than Hamas IMO.

Israel may be better off in the long run focusing their military on ISIS rather than Hamas.

In the big picture, IMO, Hamas is a mosquito compared to the real threat that ISIS is for the security of Israel going forward.


----------



## MacGuiver

Although it's the politically correct thing to do, you can't divorce the activities of ISIS from the religion of Islam. There are verses of the Koran that support everything they're doing. Moderate Muslims simply ignore them. Certainly not saying every Muslim would ascribe to ISIS theology but the verses are there in the Koran to justify what they're doing.


----------



## fjnmusic

Macfury said:


> Wasn't it you who said that such people might be freedom fighters and that terrorism was impossible to really define?



Yup, and I still believe that to be true. The word terrorist depends which side you're on; to some, infidel is the better choice. Either way, we know it when we see it, and ISIS is clearly trying to get the world's attention right now. They have a violent political agenda and behead their hostages on YouTube. You cannot negotiate with this type of operative. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## screature

MacGuiver said:


> *Although it's the politically correct thing to do*, you can't divorce the activities of ISIS from the religion of Islam. There are verses of the Koran that support everything they're doing. Moderate Muslims simply ignore them. Certainly not saying every Muslim would ascribe to ISIS theology *but the verses are there in the Koran to justify what they're doing.*


It is not about "political correctness" it is about the way things really are both historically and currently.

There are plenty of imams who would disagree with you. What specific verses are referring to?

Remember the verses of the Koran, like any "holy" book (Torah, Bible, etc...) are all open to human interpretation so depending on who you talk to the meaning is not the same.

That is why, Islam (like Christianity and Judaism) is not monolithic in its construct, it has many sects, or in Christian terms denominations, that do not all believe or follow the same interpretation of the Koran. Thus why Muslims are killing Muslims.

Again it isn't so much a religious struggle as it is political... Which sect/denomination represents the "true" interpretation of the word of Allah, i.e., who has the power.


----------



## MacGuiver

> It is not about "political correctness" it is about the way things really are both historically and currently.
> 
> There are plenty of imams who would disagree with you. What specific verses are referring to?


I agree many imams would disagree but unfortunately, not all. 
[ame="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UygWCY1PuxA"]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UygWCY1PuxA[/ame]

Here is an excellent link with plenty of verses calling for violence against unbelievers. Real eye openers. 
The Quran's Verses of Violence



> Remember the verses of the Koran, like any "holy" book (Torah, Bible, etc...) are all open to human interpretation so depending on who you talk to the meaning is not the same.


I agree and I've stated not all Muslims see these verses as a call to violence, they interpret them differently or just ignore them. Many however do interpret them as a call to violence against non Muslims or unfaithful Muslims as history and current events testify.



> That is why, Islam (like Christianity and Judaism) is not monolithic in its construct, it has many sects, or in Christian terms denominations, that do not all believe or follow the same interpretation of the Koran. Thus why Muslims are killing Muslims.


Agreed. Not all Muslim sects ascribe to the violence sited in the Quran. Many do however. Even among Muslims that may oppose ISIS (Iran for example) gays are publicly executed, women are stoned to death and Jews are hated and viewed like vermin that should be exterminated. 



> Again it isn't so much a religious struggle as it is political... Which sect/denomination represents the "true" interpretation of the word of Allah, i.e., who has the power.


Can't agree here. Saying the religion has nothing to do with the violence we're seeing is simply ignoring reality. Much of what we are witnessing with ISIS, in countries like Saudi Arabia, Iran, Afghanistan etc. etc. are people following the precepts of their holy book.


----------



## screature

MacGuiver said:


> I agree many imams would disagree but unfortunately, not all.
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UygWCY1PuxA
> 
> Here is an excellent link with plenty of verses calling for violence against unbelievers. Real eye openers.
> The Quran's Verses of Violence
> 
> I agree and I've stated not all Muslims see these verses as a call to violence, they interpret them differently or just ignore them. Many however do interpret them as a call to violence against non Muslims or unfaithful Muslims as history and current events testify.
> 
> Agreed. Not all Muslim sects ascribe to the violence sited in the Quran. Many do however. Even among Muslims that may oppose ISIS (Iran for example) gays are publicly executed, women are stoned to death and Jews are hated and viewed like vermin that should be exterminated.
> 
> Can't agree here. *Saying the religion has nothing to do with the violence *we're seeing is simply ignoring reality. Much of what we are witnessing with ISIS, in countries like Saudi Arabia, Iran, Afghanistan etc. etc. are people following the precepts of their holy book.



I didn't say that religion has *nothing* to do with the violence. What I did say was:



> Again it *isn't so much a religious struggle* as it is political...


I stand by that. 

ISIS is predominantly killing other Muslims in a bid for power not because those other Muslims interpret the Koran differently from them.

It is also why they are actively recruiting Western Muslims to radicalize them, it isn't for religious reasons, it is to try and destabilize and terrorize the West for political purposes not religious. 

Pretty much everything I have heard and read by expert analysts are saying as much. If it was just a jihad ISIS would only be killing non-Muslims but that is by far and large not the case. So there is something else afoot which is that it is mostly political in nature, i.e. they are seeking power.

ISIS



> The Islamic State (IS)[5][7][61] (Arabic: الدولة الإسلامية‎ ad-Dawlah l-ʾIslāmiyyah), formerly the Islamic State of Iraq (ISI /ˈaɪsɪ/) or the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL /ˈaɪsɪl/) or the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS /ˈaɪsɪs/),[a] is a Sunni jihadist group in the Middle East. In its self-proclaimed status as a caliphate it claims religious authority over all Muslims across the world[62] *and aspires to bring much of the Muslim-inhabited regions of the world under its political control*,[63] beginning with Iraq, Syria and territory in the Levant region, which includes Jordan, Israel, Palestine, Lebanon, Cyprus and an area in southern Turkey that includes Hatay.


----------



## MacGuiver

> The Islamic State (IS)[5][7][61] (Arabic: الدولة الإسلامية‎ ad-Dawlah l-ʾIslāmiyyah), formerly the Islamic State of Iraq (ISI /ˈaɪsɪ/) or the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL /ˈaɪsɪl/) or the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS /ˈaɪsɪs/),[a] is a Sunni jihadist group in the Middle East. In its self-proclaimed status as a caliphate it claims religious authority over all Muslims across the world[62] and aspires to bring much of the Muslim-inhabited regions of the world under its political control,[63] beginning with Iraq, Syria and territory in the Levant region, which includes Jordan, Israel, Palestine, Lebanon, Cyprus and an area in southern Turkey that includes Hatay.


True and that political system would be Sharia Law which is Islamic canonical law based on the teachings of the Koran and the traditions of the Prophet. So their political aspirations are really religious ones.


----------



## fjnmusic

MacGuiver said:


> True and that political system would be Sharia Law which is Islamic canonical law based on the teachings of the Koran and the traditions of the Prophet. So their political aspirations are really religious ones.



Yes, but it is not the belief system or interpretation shared by ALL Muslims, just as the rejection of blood transfusions by Jehovah's Witnesses do not represent the views of ALL Christians.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## MacGuiver

fjnmusic said:


> Yes, but it is not the belief system or interpretation shared by ALL Muslims, just as the rejection of blood transfusions by Jehovah's Witnesses do not represent the views of ALL Christians.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Yeah ive been quite clear its not the creed of every Muslim. 
Nor did most Germans ascribe to the principles of the Nazis. You don't need total adherence to pose a threat to world security. With 1.6 billion adherents world wide, even 10 to 20% radicalized pose a significant threat. Especially if they're ready to employ the barbaric tactics of groups like ISIS, al qaeda or the taliban.

Again I'm amazed how often outspoken critics of all things Christian become apologists for Islam or are completely silent about it. Especially given its significant and real threat to freedom and safety around the world.


----------



## Macfury

MacGuiver said:


> Again I'm amazed how often outspoken critics of all things Christian become apologists for Islam or are completely silent about it. Especially given its significant and real threat to freedom and safety around the world.


It bothers them more that a Southern Methodist has a squirrel gun--now THAT'S OUTRAGEOUS!!!


----------



## screature

MacGuiver said:


> Yeah ive been quite clear its not the creed of every Muslim.
> Nor did most Germans ascribe to the principles of the Nazis. You don't need total adherence to pose a threat to world security. With 1.6 billion adherents world wide, even 10 to 20% radicalized pose a significant threat. Especially if they're ready to employ the barbaric tactics of groups like ISIS, al qaeda or the taliban.
> 
> Again I'm amazed how often outspoken critics of all things Christian become *apologists for Islam* or are completely silent about it. Especially given its significant and real threat to freedom and safety around the world.


Whose is being an apologist?

What ISIS is doing is shear barbarism. I am merely stating their motivations are more political than they are religious.


----------



## screature

MacGuiver said:


> True and that political system would be Sharia Law which is Islamic canonical law based on the teachings of the Koran and the traditions of the Prophet. So their political aspirations are really religious ones.


They want power that is political, not religious.


----------



## MacGuiver

screature said:


> Whose is being an apologist?
> 
> What ISIS is doing is shear barbarism. I am merely stating their motivations are more political than they are religious.


Not aimed at you Screature but this thread in general. Pretty much 508 pages of whining over the horrors of Christianity with barely a peep about Islam. All the while people are being blown up in the streets, kidnapped, decapitated, hung, shot, crucified and tortured in the thousands each year to the cries of Allah Akbar. But some Christian wanting to teach intelligent design or opposes gay marriage is the devil incarnate.

Regarding ISIS Political vs Religious motivations. I say both but we can agree to disagree.


----------



## Macfury

If any politicians in North America state their Christian principles, they're pilloried here for attempting to mix "church and state" and accused of trying to establish a theocracy. The beliefs of a church Stephen Harper once attended are dragged out repeatedly.

To make the fine point that ISIS is attempting to establish a political, not religious, stronghold seems a little disingenuous to me in that context.


----------



## fjnmusic

I am leery of groupthink in any form. Make me skin crawl little regardless of religious, political or other affiliation. Too often people surrender their brains at the door when they join a club. ISIS included.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## screature

Macfury said:


> *If any politicians in North America state their Christian principles, they're pilloried here for attempting to mix "church and state"* and accused of trying to establish a theocracy. *The beliefs of a church Stephen Harper once attended are dragged out repeatedly.
> *
> To make the fine point that ISIS is attempting to establish a political, not religious, stronghold seems *a little disingenuous to me in that context.*


Here, yes it does seem that way. But not by all media that counts in NA.

Repeatedly? Maybe by trash talkers and lame a** blogs but repeatedly in the mass market public media?... 

I can't think of the last time I read/heard any journalist from the Sun, Star, Citizen, NP, G&B, CBC, CTV or Global citing Stephen Harper's religious beliefs as a reason for criticism of him.

I agree it happened early on, on a a regular basis before he was PM and even for a while after.

But that day has been done for a long time now. 

Some stupid members of the opposition (media included) once in a while will try to make a fuss about PMB's that seemingly want to reopen the abortion debate and how that Harper allows it to happen (which is complete and utter BS) which could be considered religious in nature by some (but isn't really because it is a philosophical/moral issue regardless if one has "faith" or not).

Disingenuous? Really?

disingenuous |ˌdisinˈjenyo͞oəs|
adjective
not candid or sincere, typically by pretending that one knows less about something than one really does.

Hardly. I meant every word I said from what I "know" via what I have read, watched and heard. I completely reject your assertion, it borders on being insulting.

Scratch that, it is insulting to me.

There is no reason to use such loaded adjectives to attempt to belittle my opinion/me simply because you disagree with it/me.

If you disagree with my position fine, but then defend your disagreement and counter argument. 

But please do not put my character into question.


----------



## screature

MacGuiver said:


> *Not aimed at you Screature but this thread in general*. Pretty much 508 pages of whining over the horrors of Christianity with barely a peep about Islam. *All the while people are being blown up in the streets, kidnapped, decapitated, hung, shot, crucified and tortured in the thousands each year to the cries of Allah Akbar. But some Christian wanting to teach intelligent design or opposes gay marriage is the devil incarnate.*
> 
> Regarding *ISIS Political vs Religious motivations. I say both but we can agree to disagree.*


Ok fair enough.

I understand where you are coming from but it is a little bit like appless and oranges.

We here in the West are primarily a secular society now (at least in governance) and so when there is a hint of mixing state and church it is reasonable to expect an out cry.

I think for the most part people here and elsewhere in the West understand that our value of separation of church and state is not the way of the middle eastern world, Israel included.

I say both as well. My only assertion is that the primary motivation for ISIS is political and not religious. As I said before, if it was really a jihad, they would only be killing non-Muslims but they are not. They are primarily killing other Muslims who don't agree with them.


----------



## Macfury

screature said:


> They are primarily killing other Muslims who don't agree with them.


Why can this not be religiously motivated?


----------



## Macfury

fjnmusic said:


> I am leery of groupthink in any form. Make me skin crawl little regardless of religious, political or other affiliation. Too often people surrender their brains at the door when they join a club. ISIS included.


I don't believe any secular humanist would be uncomfortable with any of your comments here on EhMac.


----------



## screature

> They are primarily killing other Muslims who don't agree with them.





Macfury said:


> Why can this not be religiously motivated?


It is both. But primarily political IMO.

Where is it in the Koran that a jihad (which is the supposed premise that ISIS is operating on) does it mention that killing other Muslims/people who believe in Islam and the prophet Mohammad is part of a jihad?

From what I have read It doesn't anywhere.

That is why.


----------



## Macfury

screature said:


> Where is it in the Koran that a jihad (which is the supposed premise that ISIS is operating on) does it mention that killing other Muslims is part of a jihad?
> 
> That is why.


A Jihad is simply a struggle, not a Holy War.


----------



## screature

Macfury said:


> A Jihad is simply a struggle, not a Holy War.


Look it up. 

It is not *simply a struggle *at all.

That is like saying "left" is only which hand you write with.

Jihad 


> Muslims and scholars do not all agree on its definition. Within the context of the classical Islamic law it refers to struggle against those who do not believe in the Islamic God (Allah) and do not acknowledge the submission to Muslims,[6] and so is often translated as "Holy War"


----------



## Macfury

A Holy War is a particular type of jihad.


----------



## screature

Macfury said:


> A Holy War is a particular type of jihad.


So what type of jihad do you think ISIS is conducting based on what we as Westerns know of this particular jihad?

Is it part religious and part political or is it purely religious?


----------



## Macfury

screature said:


> So what type of jihad do you think ISIS is conducting based on what we as Westerns know of this particular jihad?
> 
> Is it part religious and part political or is it purely religious?


I think the effort is to consolidate political power for religious purposes.


----------



## screature

Macfury said:


> I think the effort is to consolidate political power for religious purposes.


Ok so ISIS is both religiously and politically motivated, as I have indicated all along... kind of like the Crusades and the Inquisition.

So now tell me how my posts were disingenuous.


----------



## Macfury

screature said:


> Ok so ISIS is both religiously and politically motivated, as I have indicated all along... kind of like the Crusades and the Inquisition.
> 
> So now tell me how my posts were disingenuous.


I think they are religiously motivated, and trying to consolidate religious power. If you say that's political, it's a distinction not worth beating the bushes over.


----------



## fjnmusic

I believe trying to make a distinction between something that is religiously vs politically motivated is a little like declaring where the Atlantic Ocean ends and the Pacific Ocean begins. It's all the same ocean! The fish don't know the difference. Likewise, there can be so much corruption in an organization that just because its stated goal is religious doesn't mean it won't use political or military or terrorist tactics to achieve it. So it is with ISIS. So it is with the American Christian Crusades today, in which the US attempts to make over the whole world in its own image via TV, music, dress codes, morals or lack thereof, Monsanto, culture in general. It is this Americanization, which really verges on evangelization, that so many middle eastern countries object to. They despise American values. Really, any religious war boils down to a war about values. So does every political one.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## screature

Macfury said:


> I think they are religiously motivated, and trying to consolidate religious power. I*f you say that's political, it's a distinction not worth beating the bushes over.*


The devil is always in the details compadre.

Not to mention you are splitting hairs as much as I am, it is just that you think your hair splitting is more correct than mine.

You think you are correct.

I think I am correct.

But we can talk about it and simply (in a civil society) agree to disagree without resorting to calling into question the other debater's character.

So you still have not answered my question that I asked you previously.



> So now tell me how my posts were disingenuous?


----------



## MacGuiver

fjnmusic said:


> I believe trying to make a distinction between something that is religiously vs politically motivated is a little like declaring where the Atlantic Ocean ends and the Pacific Ocean begins. It's all the same ocean! The fish don't know the difference. Likewise, there can be so much corruption in an organization that just because its stated goal is religious doesn't mean it won't use political or military or terrorist tactics to achieve it. So it is with ISIS. So it is with the American Christian Crusades today, in which the US attempts to make over the whole world in its own image via TV, music, dress codes, morals or lack thereof, Monsanto, culture in general. It is this Americanization, which really verges on evangelization, that so many middle eastern countries object to. They despise American values. Really, any religious war boils down to a war about values. So does every political one.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


American Christian Crusades? Pretty much everything being exported you mentioned is firmly in the control of secular America (music, dress, morality, TV, Monsanto) I see what you mean though. America is labeled a Christian nation and these secular exports are viewed as the fruits of Christianity. As a Christian I find much music, TV, morality and dress as corrupt and as morally bankrupt as many Muslims.


----------



## Macfury

screature said:


> So you still have not answered my question that I asked you previously.


Not yours specifically. I meant that a commentator who sees Stephen Harper as a religious ideologue and at the same time declares ISIS to be a political movement is disingenuous.


----------



## screature

Macfury said:


> Not yours specifically.* I meant that a commentator who sees Stephen Harper as a religious ideologue and at the same time declares ISIS to be a political movement is disingenuous.*


I have never stated or implied that Stephen Harper is a religious ideologue so I don't know where that is coming from. 

So maybe, just this once, you could publicly acknowledge that you calling me disingenuous in a public forum was uncalled for and untrue.

Let your guard down just for a few seconds and talk to another person like they are sitting in front of you across a table.

IMO it would be helpful.


----------



## Macfury

Let me be more succinct, I was not addressing you! Only those people who met the two criteria I mentioned.



screature said:


> I have never stated or implied that Stephen Harper is a religious ideologue so I don't know where that is coming from.
> 
> So maybe, just this once, you could publicly acknowledge that you calling me disingenuous in a public forum was uncalled for and untrue.
> 
> Let your guard down just for a few seconds and talk to another person like they are sitting in front of you across a table.
> 
> IMO it would be helpful.


----------



## screature

Macfury said:


> Let me be more succinct, I was not addressing you! Only those people who met the two criteria I mentioned.


Ok now I see what you are saying...

Disingenuous? Really?


----------



## MacGuiver

I agree with Macfury and its pretty much the crux of my argument. When it comes to any commentary of Islam many people and media are disingenuous or suddenly sensitive as to not offend someones religious beliefs. They know of the very real threat it poses to the world yet insist its benign and really a peaceful religion. Insisting the decapitations, suicide bombings, raging antisemitism, trampling of women's rights, "honour" killings and kidnappings are motivated by outside factors when the recipe for radicalism is spelled out clearly in the pages of the Quran and those very people instigating the violence will happily reference them. 
Thank God the majority of Muslims are not as adherent as the violent radicals but there are enough to cause great concern.


----------



## fjnmusic

MacGuiver said:


> I agree with Macfury and its pretty much the crux of my argument. When it comes to any commentary of Islam many people and media are disingenuous or suddenly sensitive as to not offend someones religious beliefs. They know of the very real threat it poses to the world yet insist its benign and really a peaceful religion. Insisting the decapitations, suicide bombings, raging antisemitism, trampling of women's rights, "honour" killings and kidnappings are motivated by outside factors when the recipe for radicalism is spelled out clearly in the pages of the Quran and those very people instigating the violence will happily reference them.
> 
> Thank God the majority of Muslims are not as adherent as the violent radicals but there are enough to cause great concern.



Ever watch "Little Mosque on the Prairie" on CBC? The show went a long way toward taking away the fear of Islam and portraying Muslims as pretty much regular people with some different customs, at least here in Canada. Furthermore, the characters were not all the same and has individual variations on Islam. As well, the show was a comedy, a much needed counterbalance to the general portrayal of Muslims in the press. There are far too many portrayals of Muslims as jihadists, from True Lies to Homeland. Most are not like that, just as most Christians are not bloodthirsty crusaders.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury

Fiction is not proof of anything. The _Little Mosque_ is no more "true" than _Homeland_.



fjnmusic said:


> Ever watch "Little Mosque on the Prairie" on CBC? The show went a long way toward taking away the fear of Islam and portraying Muslims as pretty much regular people with some different customs, at least here in Canada. Furthermore, the characters were not all the same and has individual variations on Islam. As well, the show was a comedy, a much needed counterbalance to the general portrayal of Muslims in the press. There are far too many portrayals of Muslims as jihadists, from True Lies to Homeland. Most are not like that, just as most Christians are not bloodthirsty crusaders.


----------



## Vandave

Macfury said:


> Fiction is not proof of anything. The _Little Mosque_ is no more "true" than _Homeland_.


Beat me to it. Radical Islam is a serious problem. Playing dress-up doesn't change that reality.

When you get right down to it, the inherent problem is the Quran itself. There is no getting around the violent dictates of god in that document. Some try to argue it's just metaphor, but it's not.


----------



## fjnmusic

Vandave said:


> Beat me to it. Radical Islam is a serious problem. Playing dress-up doesn't change that reality.
> 
> 
> 
> When you get right down to it, the inherent problem is the Quran itself. There is no getting around the violent dictates of god in that document. Some try to argue it's just metaphor, but it's not.



But that's the whole point. It's not playing dress up. Radical Islam is a danger, and so is radical Christianity, radical Judaism, and most radical things. Little Mosque went a long way to showing that nor everyone who has brownish skin and reads the Q'uran is dangerous, in an age where racial profiling runs rampant. Christians have similarly been persecuted at many times in our human history for so something as simple as professing their faith, as have Jews. Dismissing a TV program because it tries to promote a more tolerant world view is ridiculous. Dismissing it because it is fiction is hypocritical: pretty much all religious literature is fictional on most levels. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Dr.G.

fjnmusic said:


> But that's the whole point. It's not playing dress up. Radical Islam is a danger, and so is radical Christianity, radical Judaism, and most radical things. Little Mosque went a long way to showing that nor everyone who has brownish skin and reads the Q'uran is dangerous, in an age where racial profiling runs rampant. Christians have similarly been persecuted at many times in our human history for so something as simple as professing their faith, as have Jews. Dismissing a TV program because it tries to promote a more tolerant world view is ridiculous. Dismissing it because it is fiction is hypocritical: pretty much all religious literature is fictional on most levels.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Valid points, fjn. Paix, mon ami.


----------



## fjnmusic

Dr.G. said:


> Valid points, fjn. Paix, mon ami.



Merci, Monsieur. If we couldn't gleam wisdom for fictional sources, we'd have to throw out all Holy Books including the bible. I'm pretty certain Jonah did not live inside of a whale for any length of time, but we can all be consumed by the problems in our lives at times.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Dr.G.

fjnmusic said:


> Merci, Monsieur. If we couldn't gleam wisdom for fictional sources, we'd have to throw out all Holy Books including the bible. I'm pretty certain Jonah did not live inside of a whale for any length of time, but we can all be consumed by the problems in our lives at times.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


I actually liked the show. I found it a bit far-fetched, but it was enjoyable and it provided a bit of relief from the reality of the problems of the day. I don't use TV as an escape from reality, since I watch far too much news on TV, but there are times when I just want to give my brain a bit of a break from reality.


----------



## Vandave

fjnmusic said:


> But that's the whole point. It's not playing dress up. Radical Islam is a danger, and so is radical Christianity, radical Judaism, and most radical things. Little Mosque went a long way to showing that nor everyone who has brownish skin and reads the Q'uran is dangerous, in an age where racial profiling runs rampant. Christians have similarly been persecuted at many times in our human history for so something as simple as professing their faith, as have Jews. Dismissing a TV program because it tries to promote a more tolerant world view is ridiculous. Dismissing it because it is fiction is hypocritical: pretty much all religious literature is fictional on most levels.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


I don't buy into this relativism or equivalence. There is far more extremism present in Islam than the religions you cite. If I told you radical Buddhists hijacked an airline and crashed into buildings, you'd certainly be more surprised than if it was Islamists.

Whilst the Islamic world is a century behind us, I think the cause of violence is more than this cultural lag. The violence is in the teachings themselves. That may be true of the Old Testiment as well but it's to a lessor extent and it's pretty much non existent in buddhism.


----------



## fjnmusic

Dr.G. said:


> I actually liked the show. I found it a bit far-fetched, but it was enjoyable and it provided a bit of relief from the reality of the problems of the day. I don't use TV as an escape from reality, since I watch far too much news on TV, but there are times when I just want to give my brain a bit of a break from reality.



I learned a lot about the importance of the hijab and why Muslims are careful about dating. I also learned that there are many kinds of Muslims, from very traditional (like Bober) to Rayann (progressive, but still very much rooted in her traditions). The reactions of the other townsfolk to the Muslim townsfolk were very endearing and for the most part quite accepting, save for the few extremists (in both camps, actually). I thought CBC did a very positive thing in the midst of all the mid-2000's hysteria over Islam and terrorism by showing us that there is much more to the culture than what we think we know or see, ironically, on TV.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## fjnmusic

Vandave said:


> I don't buy into this relativism or equivalence. There is far more extremism present in Islam than the religions you cite. If I told you radical Buddhists hijacked an airline and crashed into buildings, you'd certainly be more surprised than if it was Islamists.
> 
> 
> 
> Whilst the Islamic world is a century behind us, I think the cause of violence is more than this cultural lag. The violence is in the teachings themselves. That may be true of the Old Testiment as well but it's to a lessor extent and it's pretty much non existent in buddhism.



No question that Buddhism seems to be much more pacifist in its teachings than with Islam or Christianity. But if you try to see the world from different point of view, it is also clear that Islam does not view the proliferation of American culture (the infidels) as a good thing. To say they're "a century behind us" implies that we are better, while that may not actually be the case at all. The thing that American fundamentalist religions protest about American culture today is much the same thing as Islam riles against: the lax morals, the over-promotion of sexuality and promiscuity, the lack of respect for our environment, you name it. And they may be right: the American culture and way of life cannot be sustained without big sacrifice. 20 trillion dollars in debt cannot be wished away. I am not saying I agree with the critics, but I can see where they're coming from.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury

fjnmusic said:


> Merci, Monsieur. If we couldn't gleam wisdom for fictional sources, we'd have to throw out all Holy Books including the bible.


It is simply your opinion that the Bible is fiction.


----------



## fjnmusic

Macfury said:


> It is simply your opinion that the Bible is fiction.



Uh huh. Mine and most of the rest of the thinking world. Bible means "collection of stories." STORIES. Not non-fiction accounts. Even the writers of the bible knew this when they wrote the stories. The problem comes when we try to take the whole thing literally. Only then does it not make sense.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury

fjnmusic said:


> Uh huh. Mine and most of the rest of the thinking world.


This is the result of your groupthink.


----------



## fjnmusic

Macfury said:


> This is the result of your groupthink.



Sure. I figured it out on my own, thank you very much. All the classic hallmarks of mythology are baked into the stories. Every one. I imagine the writers put them sure just to make sure people wouldn't read this and think they were reading a literal history. There are hundreds of other Virgin birth stories, for example, and many other saviours born around the time if the winter solstice that predate the New Testament. Christianity does not have the market cornered on miracle-performing saviours. The bible has plenty of symbolic importance and contains much insight about the human psyche. Just not much in the way of "facts" as we currently use the term. No need to throw the baby out with the bath water, but take it for what's worth for God's sake.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Dr.G.

Macfury said:


> This is the result of your groupthink.


Well, great minds do think alike. Paix, mon ami.


----------



## MacGuiver

Vandave said:


> I don't buy into this relativism or equivalence.


That's another thing that annoys me. Its pretty clear to any thinking individual with an eye on current world news that equating the danger posed by Christian extremists or that of any other religion to Muslim extremists is simply laughable. Yet they insist its 6 of one and half a dozen of another. 
Again its a form of Muslim apologetics they engage in void of any facts.


----------



## SINC

No question in my mind that Muslim extremists are a very real threat to world peace.


----------



## Vandave

SINC said:


> No question in my mind that Muslim extremists are a very real threat to world peace.


I hear Little Mosque on the Prairie is the fancy (all the rage) of the Middle East right now. The Taliban, ISIS and Al Queda are now ready to embrace Canadian values and lay down their arms and aspirations for a Caliphate. Thank you CBC.


----------



## fjnmusic

MacGuiver said:


> That's another thing that annoys me. Its pretty clear to any thinking individual with an eye on current world news that equating the danger posed by Christian extremists or that of any other religion to Muslim extremists is simply laughable. Yet they insist its 6 of one and half a dozen of another.
> 
> Again its a form of Muslim apologetics they engage in void of any facts.



The terrorists you refer to are quite simply not Muslims. They are using terrorism to spread their political agenda. Simple as that. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury

fjnmusic said:


> The terrorists you refer to are quite simply not Muslims. They are using terrorism to spread their political agenda. Simple as that.


So no Muslim can be a terrorist?


----------



## Macfury

This is about the most common opinion out there these days. Don't be ashamed of being part of the group on this one.

It appears, by the way, that your research is so minimal that you don't even understand why Christ's birth happens to be in December--and it ain't the solstice. 



fjnmusic said:


> Sure. I figured it out on my own, thank you very much. All the classic hallmarks of mythology are baked into the stories. Every one. I imagine the writers put them sure just to make sure people wouldn't read this and think they were reading a literal history. There are hundreds of other Virgin birth stories, for example, and many other saviours born around the time if the winter solstice that predate the New Testament. Christianity does not have the market cornered on miracle-performing saviours. The bible has plenty of symbolic importance and contains much insight about the human psyche. Just not much in the way of "facts" as we currently use the term. No need to throw the baby out with the bath water, but take it for what's worth for God's sake.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## fjnmusic

Macfury said:


> So no Muslim can be a terrorist?



That's not what I said. It's just that not everything about Islam is relatable to terrorism. Much of Islam is actually quite tolerant. Jesus is regarded as a prophet, which is more lip service than the bible gives to Mohammed. I am not Muslim myself, nor do I profess to know a great deal about its precepts, but what I do know is that if you take its holy scriptures seriously, from what I have read about it, it is actually a peaceful religion, about as war mongering as the holy bible (a back-handed compliment to be sure, but nonetheless true). There are a number of biblical passages in which God also commands a slaughter of the innocents, but by and large the central message is about how to life a good life. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## fjnmusic

Macfury said:


> This is about the most common opinion out there these days. Don't be ashamed of being part of the group on this one.
> 
> 
> 
> It appears, by the way, that your research is so minimal that you don't even understand why Christ's birth happens to be in December--and it ain't the solstice.



Do some research yourself, MF. It certainly is the solstice and the fact that there was a pagan festival already being celebrated at that time of the year that the early Christians piggy-backed on. Part of the reason for choosing this date was practicality; the early Christians could secretly celebrate their faith alongside the pagans without worrying about being found out and put to death. It allowed them to blend in.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury

You have the groupthink down pat. If Christians established December 25th "to fit in," when did they do so, and with whom did they wish to fit in?



fjnmusic said:


> Do some research yourself, MF. It certainly is the solstice and the fact that there was a pagan festival already being celebrated at that time of the year that the early Christians piggy-backed on. Part of the reason for choosing this date was practicality; the early Christians could secretly celebrate their faith alongside the pagans without worrying about being found out and put to death. It allowed them to blend in.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury

fjnmusic said:


> That's not what I said. It's just that not everything about Islam is relatable to terrorism.


Then why can ISIS members not be Muslims?



fjnmusic said:


> Jesus is regarded as a prophet, which is more lip service than the bible gives to Mohammed.


Overlooking the obvious fact that every book in the Bible was written centuries prior to Mohammad.



fjnmusic said:


> *I am not Muslim myself, nor do I profess to know a great deal about its precepts*...


Read the Koran, then. How can you profess any opinion at all without taking that minimal step?


----------



## fjnmusic

Macfury said:


> Then why can ISIS members not be Muslims?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Overlooking the obvious fact that every book in the Bible was written centuries prior to Mohammad.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Read the Koran, then. How can you profess any opinion at all without taking that minimal step?



I'll bet you are loads of fun at parties. Got work to do today. Not. Taking. The. Bait.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury

Can. 

Not. 

Support. 

What. 

He. 

Has. 

Written.



fjnmusic said:


> Not.
> 
> Taking.
> 
> The.
> 
> Bait.


----------



## Rps

Macfury said:


> You have the groupthink down pat. If Christians established December 25th "to fit in," when did they do so, and with whom did they wish to fit in?


Actually, FJN is correct in his summary of why the 25th was chosen.....and as to whom did they wish to fit in with......everybody. In the developmental days of the Christian faith, religions were as abundant as Tim Hortons and many areas uses religion to control not only the populace but the leaders of city states, who would probably be classed as a monarchy back then.

As for the ridiculous notion that all Muslims are terrorists, I think we can safely say that the KKK is to Christianity as Terrorists are to Islam. But, there is no denying that the recent increase in recruiting members of terrorist groups through the use radical Islam is a concern, not only for the non Islamic populace but for the Islamic populace as well.


----------



## Macfury

Rps said:


> Actually, FJN is correct in his summary of why the 25th was chosen.....and as to whom did they wish to fit in with......everybody. In the developmental days of the Christian faith, religions were as abundant as Tim Hortons and many areas uses religion to control not only the populace but the leaders of city states, who would probably be classed as a monarchy back then.


Why don't you wade in where fjn fears to tread. 

When was this date chosen and with whom did the first group who chose it wish to fit in? 

If you were afraid of being put to death, why celebrate Christ's birthday at all? If someone wished to persecute you for worshiping Christ, do you think they would have gotten a free pass for doing so during a solstice celebration?


----------



## Rps

Macfury said:


> Why don't you wade in where fjn fears to tread.
> 
> When was this date chosen and with whom did the first group who chose it wish to fit in?
> 
> If you were afraid of being put to death, why celebrate Christ's birthday at all? If someone wished to persecute you for worshiping Christ, do you think they would have gotten a free pass for doing so during a solstice celebration?


The Christian faith has long been an assimilative one ... I'm also not going to get into a philosophical debate on its origins. While raised in a Christian culture I am not a religious man so I will let those who maintain the faith carry that banner ..... and there are literally tonnes of literature out there chronicling the development of this religion so I am sure you can research these yourself.

For me, one either has faith or doesn't .... And I respect the beliefs of both.


----------



## Macfury

With all due respect, Rps--if someone believes that Christ's birth was "set" to reflect a Pagan feast, then I expect the person who says that has good reason for believing it. I won't do that person's work for them by digging through voluminous tomes to help them prove their point.



Rps said:


> The Christian faith has long been an assimilative one ... I'm also not going to get into a philosophical debate on its origins. While raised in a Christian culture I am not a religious man so I will let those who maintain the faith carry that banner ..... and there are literally tonnes of literature out there chronicling the development of this religion so I am sure you can research these yourself.
> 
> For me, one either has faith or doesn't .... And I respect the beliefs of both.


----------



## fjnmusic

Rps said:


> Actually, FJN is correct in his summary of why the 25th was chosen.....and as to whom did they wish to fit in with......everybody. In the developmental days of the Christian faith, religions were as abundant as Tim Hortons and many areas uses religion to control not only the populace but the leaders of city states, who would probably be classed as a monarchy back then.
> 
> 
> 
> As for the ridiculous notion that all Muslims are terrorists, I think we can safely say that the KKK is to Christianity as Terrorists are to Islam. But, there is no denying that the recent increase in recruiting members of terrorist groups through the use radical Islam is a concern, not only for the non Islamic populace but for the Islamic populace as well.



Thank you, Rps. Your words are more to the point.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury

To what point? Neither of you provided any detail about--or reasoning for--your positions.



fjnmusic said:


> Thank you, Rps. Your words are more to the point.


----------



## MacGuiver

> As for the ridiculous notion that all Muslims are terrorists,


Nobody is making that argument.



> I think we can safely say that the KKK is to Christianity as Terrorists are to Islam.


True they both have roots or claim them in their respective religions, but what have the Klan been up to lately that even remotely compares to the butchery we read about daily from the Islamic radical? How would they score comparing lives taken for their cause? Which poses a greater threat to world peace and stability? Which group has the most adherents?
More importantly, what do their respective Holy Books have to say about their actions?



> But, there is no denying that the recent increase in recruiting members of terrorist groups through the use radical Islam is a concern, not only for the non Islamic populace but for the Islamic populace as well.


I agree. If your are not the proper brand of Islam you could be killed by other Islamists.


----------



## Macfury

The KKK is a nationalist/Democrat group born of Civil War veterans. There really is no religious affiliation here. Even the notion of cross burning was invented by director D.W. Griffith for his 1916 silent film _Birth of a Nation_. That powerful imagery was later adopted by the KKK, with life imitating art.



MacGuiver said:


> True they both have roots or claim them in their respective religions, but what have the Klan been up to lately that even remotely compares to the butchery we read about daily from the Islamic radical? How would they score comparing lives taken for their cause? Which poses a greater threat to world peace and stability? Which group has the most adherents?


----------



## Rps

Macfury said:


> The KKK is a nationalist/Democrat group born of Civil War veterans. There really is no religious affiliation here. Even the notion of cross burning was invented by director D.W. Griffith for his 1916 silent film _Birth of a Nation_. That powerful imagery was later adopted by the KKK, with life imitating art.


Really .... The president of a Virginia Ku Klux Klan group claims that the KKK is a faith-based Christian organization that does not condone violence.

"We don't hate people because of their race. We are a Christian organization," Frank Ancona, the imperial wizard of the Traditional American Knights of the KKK, told NBC 12, distancing himself from the Klan's violent history, asserting that he is seeking to "set the record straight."


----------



## Macfury

Look at the history of the organization, Rps, not the opinion of the current head of a local chapter.



Rps said:


> Really .... The president of a Virginia Ku Klux Klan group claims that the KKK is a faith-based Christian organization that does not condone violence.
> 
> "We don't hate people because of their race. We are a Christian organization," Frank Ancona, the imperial wizard of the Traditional American Knights of the KKK, told NBC 12, distancing himself from the Klan's violent history, asserting that he is seeking to "set the record straight."


----------



## Rps

Macfury said:


> Look at the history of the organization, Rps, not the opinion of the current head of a local chapter.


True, but what has it evolved into .... The 20s to 60s were an extremely violent era for the Klan..... For the most part they hated anyone who was not white and Protestant. Funny how times have changed ... Spawned as an anti-Republican organisation, we probably associate the Klan today as a supporter of the Conservative Right ... Which most would view as Republican .... But this is more a discussion for the Political Thread, even if it appears impossible to separate politics and religion.


----------



## MacGuiver

According to what I've read, the KKK does and will accept atheists as members. All they need is the belief in the supremacy of whites and not to trash the beliefs of the theists in the group.


----------



## Macfury

Rps said:


> Spawned as an anti-Republican organisation, we probably associate the Klan today as a supporter of the Conservative Right...


I certainly don't. It is a club of racists.


----------



## Rps

Macfury said:


> I certainly don't. It is a club of racists.


On that we can most certainly agree!


----------



## Macfury

To be honest, he 20th Century Klan took on some religious trappings, inspired by the Griffith film. However, its basis was Xenophobia.


----------



## CubaMark




----------



## Macfury

What is it about being a leftist that makes one lose their sense of humour? Then again, I might be mixing up cause and effect.


----------



## Macfury

Here is the crux of what we are seeing on this thread:

Rise of Islamist extremism fails to stir progressives | Toronto Star



> Today, conservatives are predominantly — almost exclusively — among those calling for government action to support victims of Islamist extremism. This is problematic for various reasons.
> 
> First, it inaccurately portrays the issue as one that can be fixed at a set point along the left-right spectrum. This is preposterous, given that no mainstream Canadian in the 21st century (regardless of their voting preferences) could possibly be neutral toward groups like ISIS. Just as there is a clear political consensus against murder, rape and torture (all of which the forces of ISIS and the Iranian regime commit), there can only be consensus about the growing Islamist threat to human rights in Middle East.
> 
> Second, the predominance of conservative voices makes it easy for some to dismiss the cause as reflecting nothing more than Islamophobia. While this may be true for some, it is grossly unfair to make such generalizations of the many well-meaning conservatives who are motivated by the overwhelming merits of the issue. Our disgust with those few Canadians who are bigoted toward Muslims should by no means prevent us from acting to help the millions of Muslims victimized by their co-religionists in the Middle East.
> 
> Third, *the absence of liberal voices against rising Islamism* effectively means that we have been unable to leverage the immense talents and energy of progressive activists on this issue. Canadians who campaigned for women’s and LGBT rights, for example, need look no further for a cause that pits liberal values against the world’s most retrograde forces.
> 
> *The absence of left-of-centre activists on this issue is a tragic failing given the urgent state of affairs in the Middle East. Events today may change the region for generations to come.*


----------



## CubaMark

Macfury said:


> Here is the crux of what we are seeing on this thread:
> 
> Rise of Islamist extremism fails to stir progressives | Toronto Star


The comment by cdayo to that article is pretty spot-on...



> The rise of ISIS can be blamed single handedly on years of failed American foreign policy in the middle east. If you can remember through the coups, the wars and the lies (remember those weapons of mass destruction?) you will remember days when millions of activists (progressives) worldwide took to the streets to protests the invasion of Iraq. The result, nothing. The war went on, Iraq was destroyed and now groups like ISIS, radicalized by a dirty war, use American weapons left over from the conflict to slaughter people. +1 west? How did they overlook this? People said it would happen.
> 
> Progressive voices loudly criticized the Libyan affair and the ousting of Gaddafi. The result of that conflict? Labelling progressives as goofs who don't understand foreign policy and who support a dictator. The narrative from NATO was Gaddafi has to go, so they got him. The result? Another destabilized region, soldiers flying to Iraq to fight with ISIS and more weapons in the hands of extremists.
> 
> It's textbook. When progressives are criticized for speaking out against this kind crap and things fall apart, what more can we do? Obviously we criticize ISIS. People are dumb enough to think that because we don't support interventionism we are pro-ISIS or pro-rape or pro-homophobia. Bombs are bad foreign policy and it's been said for years. We are painted as anti-western or anti-democratic as seen in the comments below. These are simple criticisms of a movement that has consistently been anti-war with the understanding that war often radicalizes. Now we are somehow on the hook to clean up the mess?


----------



## Macfury

CubaMark said:


> The comment by cdayo to that article is pretty spot-on...


It isn't as though "progressive" political forces have never screwed around with interventionist Middle East foreign policy. The comment is typical leftist fingerpointing.

Nobody is asking the "progressive" wing to cock a rifle or light a fuse. What is being criticized is its curious mixture of silence and apology on behalf of ISIS.


----------



## screature

Macfury said:


> *It isn't as though progressive political forces have never screwed around with interventionist Middle East foreign policy. *The comment is typical leftist fingerpointing.
> 
> Nobody is asking the progressive wing to cock a rifle or light a fuse. What is being criticized is its curious mixture of silence and apology on behalf of ISIS.


Too true dat or anywhere else in the world for that matter.

My only criticism of your post is that you probably should have put the word progressive between quotation marks.


----------



## Macfury

screature said:


> Too true dat or anywhere else in the world for that matter.
> 
> My only criticism of your post is that you probably should have put the word progressive between quotation marks.


Agreed. I'm getting lax. Hold on...


----------



## fjnmusic

CubaMark said:


>



As the French would say, exactement.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury

Pensées by fjn...

Now that you're not so busy, why not fill in those blanks about why Christmas is a pagan celebration.



fjnmusic said:


> As the French would say, exactement.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## screature

Macfury said:


> Agreed. I'm getting lax. Hold on...


Great! Now I can 100% agree with your previous post.

Well said.


----------



## Macfury

The Far Left Side:

John Kerry says that the Bible insists that the US should protect Muslim countries from global warming:



> “Confronting climate change is, in the long run, one of the greatest challenges that we face, and you can see this duty or responsibility laid out in Scriptures clearly, beginning in Genesis. And Muslim-majority countries are among the most vulnerable. Our response to this challenge ought to be rooted in a sense of stewardship of Earth, and for me and for many of us here today, that responsibility comes from God,” he continued.


Kerry: Scripture Says U.S. Should Protect Muslim Countries Against Global Warming | Washington Free Beacon


----------



## fjnmusic

Macfury said:


> Pensées by fjn...
> 
> 
> 
> Now that you're not so busy, why not fill in those blanks about why Christmas is a pagan celebration.



I wish I were not so busy, but I'm back in school again (Maxwell plays the fool again, teacher gets annoyed). Anyway, the pagans didn't call it Christmas; they called it Saturnalia and it was celebrated every December 25, just after the winter solstice. 

Here, let me Google that for you:

http://www.simpletoremember.com/vitals/Christmas_TheRealStory.htm


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury

Seriously, if you felt that you would be persecuted for your Christian beliefs in a society dominated by Roman pagans, what sense would it make to publicly celebrate the birth of Christ during Saturnalia?

In fact, Christmas has nothing to do with Saturnalia. However, the gift-giving of Christmas bears a slight resemblance to _sol invicta_, the celebration intended by Roman emperors to replace Saturnalia. Jesus' birth date was calculated according to the date of the Annunciation and other fixed time points, so it logically fell nine months after April 25th. The approximate overlap of _sol invicta_ and Christmas is a coincidence, although the gift giving tradition is probably not.





fjnmusic said:


> I wish I were not so busy, but I'm back in school again (Maxwell plays the fool again, teacher gets annoyed). Anyway, the pagans didn't call it Christmas; they called it Saturnalia and it was celebrated every December 25, just after the winter solstice.
> 
> Here, let me Google that for you:
> 
> Origin of Christmas | The history of Christmas and how it began
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## fjnmusic

Macfury said:


> Seriously, if you felt that you would be persecuted for your Christian beliefs in a society dominated by Roman pagans, what sense would it make to publicly celebrate the birth of Christ during Saturnalia?
> 
> 
> 
> In fact, Christmas has nothing to do with Saturnalia. However, the gift-giving of Christmas bears a slight resemblance to _sol invicta_, the celebration intended by Roman emperors to replace Saturnalia. Jesus' birth date was calculated according to the date of the Annunciation and other fixed time points, so it logically fell nine months after April 25th. The approximate overlap of _sol invicta_ and Christmas is a coincidence, although the gift giving tradition is probably not.



Well that date might work if April 25 were nine months before December 25, but it's not. It's only eight months. Which means March 25 (my birthday as well as Elton John, Aretha Franklin and Sarah Jessica Parker) is the date of the feast of the Anunciation as well as the first day of the new year in the Roman Calendar. But why quibble about details? 😉


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury

What sort of Catholic School do you teach in, fjn? March 25th _is_ the Feast of the Annunciation—it's not in April.



fjnmusic said:


> Well that date might work if April 25 were nine months before December 25, but it's not. It's only eight months. Which means March 25 (my birthday as well as Elton John, Aretha Franklin and Sarah Jessica Parker) is the date of the feast of the Anunciation as well as the first day of the new year in the Roman Calendar. But why quibble about details?


----------



## fjnmusic

Macfury said:


> What sort of Catholic School do you teach in, fjn? March 25th _is_ the Feast of the Annunciation&#151;it's not in April.



Well you're the one who said April 25 if you re-read your post, Macfury.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury

fjnmusic said:


> Well you're the one who said April 25 if you re-read your post, Macfury.


Got me there! (But I'm not a Catholic!)


----------



## fjnmusic

Macfury said:


> Got me there! (But I'm not a Catholic!)


:clap:


----------



## screature

John Baird referred to ISIS/ISIL as not being so much a "religious group" but as being more a "cult" in Committee today.

Thoughts?


----------



## fjnmusic

screature said:


> John Baird referred to ISIS/ISIL as not being so much a "religious group" but as being more a "cult" in Committee today.
> 
> Thoughts?


Cults usually are religious groups. The mainstream tend to view them as fanatics, but there's no doubt the Islamic State has an intentional religious association. Moderate Muslims probably view their actions as abhorrent and not in the spirit of Islam however. This is how religions work. Nobody agrees.


----------



## Macfury

fjnmusic said:


> Cults usually are religious groups.


Agreed. Cults aee the religious groups nobody likes.


----------



## screature

fjnmusic said:


> Cults usually are religious groups. The mainstream tend to view them as fanatics, but there's no doubt the Islamic State has an intentional religious association. Moderate Muslims probably view their actions as abhorrent and not in the spirit of Islam however. This is how religions work. Nobody agrees.





Macfury said:


> Agreed. Cults aee (sic) the religious groups nobody likes.


Cults can be secular, religious, and/or political.

For example, what religion was Charles Manson's cult based on?


----------



## screature

.


----------



## fjnmusic

screature said:


> Cults can be secular, religious, and/or political.
> 
> 
> 
> For example, what religion was Charles Manson's cult based on?



Charles Manson created his own faith loosely based on Beatles songs from the White Album. He was setting the stage for a great race war called Helter Skelter and was starting with the murders of celebs or Piggies such as Sharon Tate and the LaBiancas. He certainly had followers over whom he exerted a messiah-type influence and who committed murders in his name. He believed he was some type of prophet. He was also heavily influenced by drugs and mental illness, the latter of which is actually quite common among cult leaders and certain religious people.

I don't know of many cults that do not have a religious dimension on some level, even if the interpretations are whacked out. Jim Jones would be another example, as would David Koresh.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## MacGuiver

screature said:


> John Baird referred to ISIS/ISIL as not being so much a "religious group" but as being more a "cult" in Committee today.
> 
> Thoughts?


Politicians will tread carefully here. We're facing an Islamic threat from ISIL but thankfully not a brand of the religion the majority are onboard with. Leaders will fall all over one another to distance ISIL from Islam so as not to cause any actions against them to be interpreted as an attack on the religion itself. If this starts to look like a religious war, we could see many added to the ranks of our enemy.


----------



## Macfury

screature said:


> Cults can be secular, religious, and/or political.
> 
> For example, what religion was Charles Manson's cult based on?


Not all cults are religions, but any religion can start as a cult. However in this case, I believe the original post was referencing a religious cult--as opposed to the religion itself.


----------



## screature

fjnmusic said:


> Charles Manson *created his own faith* loosely based on Beatles songs from the White Album. He was setting the stage for a great race war called Helter Skelter and was starting with the murders of celebs or Piggies such as Sharon Tate and the LaBiancas. He certainly had followers over whom he exerted a messiah-type influence and who committed murders in his name. He believed he was some type of prophet. He was also heavily influenced by drugs and mental illness, the latter of which is actually quite common among cult leaders and certain religious people.
> 
> I don't know of many cults that do not have a religious dimension on some level, even if the interpretations are whacked out. Jim Jones would be another example, as would David Koresh.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


I know very well Manson's history. There was nothing religious about his "philosophy". You say messiah and prophet, to make it sound religious but he was simply a madman leader of a cult of his making.


----------



## fjnmusic

screature said:


> I know very well Manson's history. There was nothing religious about his "philosophy". You say messiah and prophet, to make it sound religious but he was simply a madman leader of a cult of his making.



One could say the same about a great many religions and their origins.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## CubaMark




----------



## Macfury

Jill has been reading 60-year-old science-fiction.


----------



## MacGuiver

Funny but sadly true.

[ame="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PyotLRHMOIk"]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PyotLRHMOIk[/ame]


----------



## screature

fjnmusic said:


> One could say the same about a great many religions and their origins.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Name one that is comparable? 

If they were religious they started out being religious. That was not the case with Manson. 

His words were Just the ramblings of a schizoid psychotic in a drug induced haze to others who were borderline psychotics also in a drug induced haze that believed his schizoid psychotic ramblings.

There is nothing religious in his "philosophy". All religions believe in a god there was no "god figure" i.e the/a creator in Manson's doctrine.


----------



## Macfury

Manson certainly wasn't starting a religion, but he likely borrowed some of his ramblings from the Process Church. 



screature said:


> Name one that is comparable?
> 
> If they were religious they started out being religious. That was not the case with Manson.
> 
> His words were Just the ramblings of a schizoid psychotic in a drug induced haze to others who were borderline psychotics also in a drug induced haze that believed his schizoid psychotic ramblings.
> 
> There is nothing religious in his "philosophy". All religions believe in a god there was no "god figure" i.e the/a creator in Manson's doctrine.


----------



## screature

*Questioning Darwin*

Questioning Darwin










It isn't great, but it is good (better than the score it received IMO) but very relevant to this thread.

All things should be open for debate.... and we shouldn't be afraid of it...


----------



## CubaMark

*So.... Merry Christmas*


----------



## Macfury

That's just idiotic. Thanks for posting such a stupid message on Christmas.


----------



## chasMac

Lot of 'nevers' there. Never advocated a carbon tax too, I suppose. Guess that's a positive. But yeah, pretty f-ing stupid.


----------



## fjnmusic

CubaMark said:


> *So.... Merry Christmas*



Truth hurts, apparently. Have a great Christmas and a Happy Festivus, Mark!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## CubaMark

Here I am, offering a defensory commentary on their saviour, and all I get is grief.... what a world....


----------



## fjnmusic

CubaMark said:


> Here I am, offering a defensory commentary on their saviour, and all I get is grief.... what a world....



It's funny, but there's a lot of people that don't realize Jesus was not a Christian. Or that his central message was forgiveness, not retribution. Then again, we all tend to create god in our own image. 😉


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury

Remaking Christ as an affable "progressive" fool is hardly a compliment. 

You're both intellectually bankrupt when it comes to Christianity fellows... give it rest.


----------



## fjnmusic

Macfury said:


> Remaking Christ as an affable "progressive" fool is hardly a compliment.
> 
> 
> 
> You're both intellectually bankrupt when it comes to Christianity fellows... give it rest.



Remaking Christ into some kind of conservative Republican is fundamentally misguided. He was an anti-establishment progressive hippy, whether you like it or not. Read your gospels.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury

fan, you're out of your depth.




fjnmusic said:


> Remaking Christ into some kind of conservative Republican is fundamentally misguided. He was an anti-establishment progressive hippy, whether you like it or not. Read your gospels.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## MacGuiver

fjnmusic said:


> Remaking Christ into some kind of conservative Republican is fundamentally misguided. He was an anti-establishment progressive hippy, whether you like it or not. Read your gospels.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


I've read the gospels and describing Christ as and anti-establishment progressive hippy is ridiculous. Progressive, yes somewhat in theological terms, but little or nothing in common with what you might describe as a "progressive anti-establishment hippy" today.


----------



## CubaMark

Macfury;1867465You're both intellectually bankrupt when it comes to Christianity fellows... give it rest.[/QUOTE said:


> Hey man, I paid my dues, I'm allowed to comment. All of those years of suffering Sunday Baptist services and the oh-so-enlightening "Sunday School" sessions.... "Thank God" my folks weren't fundamentalist bible-thumpers, and I quickly made my way into the real world.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> +
> YouTube Video
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ERROR: If you can see this, then YouTube is down or you don't have Flash installed.


----------



## Macfury

The "real world" of "progressive" academia isn't the real world.



CubaMark said:


> Hey man, I paid my dues, I'm allowed to comment. All of those years of suffering Sunday Baptist services and the oh-so-enlightening "Sunday School" sessions.... "Thank God" my folks weren't fundamentalist bible-thumpers, and I quickly made my way into the real world.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> +
> YouTube Video
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ERROR: If you can see this, then YouTube is down or you don't have Flash installed.


----------



## CubaMark

Macfury said:


> The "real world" of "progressive" academia isn't the real world.


??? Who said anything about academia??? Ah, that would be you.


----------



## Macfury

Yes. That is_ me_ saying that _you_, _CubaMark_, live in an unreal world of progressive academia. Didn't I make myself clear enough?



CubaMark said:


> ??? Who said anything about academia??? Ah, that would be you.


----------



## fjnmusic

MacGuiver said:


> I've read the gospels and describing Christ as and anti-establishment progressive hippy is ridiculous. Progressive, yes somewhat in theological terms, but little or nothing in common with what you might describe as a "progressive anti-establishment hippy" today.



Except for the long hair. Name me one Republican other than Dennis Miller with long hair.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury

What makes you believe Jesus had long hair? Think it through.



fjnmusic said:


> Except for the long hair. Name me one Republican other than Dennis Miller with long hair.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## fjnmusic

Macfury said:


> What makes you believe Jesus had long hair? Think it through.



What makes you think he wouldn't? I'll bet you wish he had a crew cut.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury

This sort of cramped reasoning demonstrates what an establishment type thinker you are.



fjnmusic said:


> What makes you think he wouldn't? I'll bet you wish he had a crew cut.


----------



## fjnmusic

Macfury said:


> This sort of cramped reasoning demonstrates what an establishment type thinker you are.



Now there's irony for you! This sort of comment demonstrates your lack of ha ha. In any event, the Roman soldiers were able to cut their hair, so it's not like Jesus had to appear as a long haired hippy. He just was. Everything he said was progressive and turned the old order upside down. He called himself the New Covenant. The scribes and the Pharisees and the chief priests were none too impressed. He was a rule breaker. But if you want to regard him as a conservative, well I guess that's your prerogative. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury

You seem to slowly be catching on to the fact that the style of the day was short-haired.

But your cramped, dusty thinking seems to correlate revolutionary with "progressive." Today's progressivism is simply a sort of retrograde engineered groupthink for weak minds. It dishonours the true thinkers who came before it. 

Jesus was revolutionary, but you can't capture either the essence or magnitude of that in the tiny cramped box of "progressivisim." 



fjnmusic said:


> Now there's irony for you! This sort of comment demonstrates your lack of ha ha. In any event, the Roman soldiers were able to cut their hair, so it's not like Jesus had to appear as a long haired hippy. He just was. Everything he said was progressive and turned the old order upside down. He called himself the New Covenant. The scribes and the Pharisees and the chief priests were none too impressed. He was a rule breaker. But if you want to regard him as a conservative, well I guess that's your prerogative.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## MacGuiver

As obviously wrong as it is to equate Jesus with modern progressives he doesn't neatly fit in a conservative box either. That said I would say conservatism would more closely reflect his teachings. In fact much of modern liberal progressive thought is anti-christ, anti-gospel.


----------



## fjnmusic

MacGuiver said:


> As obviously wrong as it is to equate Jesus with modern progressives he doesn't neatly fit in a conservative box either. That said I would say conservatism would more closely reflect his teachings. In fact much of modern liberal progressive thought is anti-christ, anti-gospel.


Have you ever seen the film Jesus of Montreal? It's an interesting allegory of the life of Jesus in modern times, with the RC church standing in for the Jewish church in Jesus' time. Jesus in my world view was a risk-taker who definitely challenged the establishment. Anyone who proclaims Himself the New Covenant is bound to ruffle a few feathers.


----------



## Macfury

Of course he upset the apple cart, and ruffled some feathers. There's little to disagree with there. 

What does that have to do with the film, though? It was only an actor playing Jesus in a Passion Play.



fjnmusic said:


> Have you ever seen the film Jesus of Montreal? It's an interesting allegory of the life of Jesus in modern times, with the RC church standing in for the Jewish church in Jesus' time. Jesus in my world view was a risk-taker who definitely challenged the establishment. Anyone who proclaims Himself the New Covenant is bound to ruffle a few feathers.


----------



## fjnmusic

Macfury said:


> Of course he upset the apple cart, and ruffled some feathers. There's little to disagree with there.
> 
> 
> 
> What does that have to do with the film, though? It was only an actor playing Jesus in a Passion Play.



The film would show how in modern times, what was once progressive, like the RC church following in the footsteps of that rebel, Jesus, has become the conservative hierarchy, more concerned with maintaining its position of power than proclaiming the Good News. Of course, Pope Francis appears to be challenging the establishment in much the same way JC did, so there is progress after all.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury

I don't believe the RC church was ever considered anything other than a conservative hierarchy--and it still preaches the Good News. 

Pope Francis is more of a left-wing politician than a Pope. That's just a regression to the new stodgy "progressivism" that seems to have numbed modern thinking.



fjnmusic said:


> The film would show how in modern times, what was once progressive, like the RC church following in the footsteps of that rebel, Jesus, has become the conservative hierarchy, more concerned with maintaining its position of power than proclaiming the Good News. Of course, Pope Francis appears to be challenging the establishment in much the same way JC did, so there is progress after all.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## MacGuiver

fjnmusic said:


> The film would show how in modern times, what was once progressive, like the RC church following in the footsteps of that rebel, Jesus, has become the conservative hierarchy, more concerned with maintaining its position of power than proclaiming the Good News. Of course, Pope Francis appears to be challenging the establishment in much the same way JC did, so there is progress after all.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Its fine to make this claim but can you back it up with some actual fact? What are some examples of the teachings "rebel" Jesus promoted in the gospels and thus do modern progressives that the power hungry Church opposes?


----------



## screature

Macfury said:


> I don't believe the RC church was ever considered anything other than a conservative hierarchy--and it still preaches the Good News.
> 
> *Pope Francis is more of a left-wing politician than a Pope.* That's just a regression to the new stodgy "progressivism" that seems to have numbed modern thinking.


I don't agree with that at all. IMO he is the people's not a Cardinal's or Bishop's Pope, like those that came before him... they were all also politicians BTW.

You can call it left or right all you want all Popes are politicians. It is the nature of the job.

If by saying "Francis is more of a left-wing politician" he is trying to modernize the RCC so that it is more reflective of the reality of the 21st century, which is what he seems to be doing, then I am all n favourite of it.

I don't see that as a right or left issue it is just a matter of keeping up with the reality of the times instead of trying to rule the church by 2000 year old doctrine that really has very little to do with current times.


----------



## fjnmusic

He has very much socialist tendencies; feeding the poor and living a modest life are central to his own life and teachings. If that isn't left wing or progressive thinking, I don't know what it is. He is also echoing his namesake, St. Francis of Assisi, who in turn was living the teachings of Jesus, particularly with respect to the vow if poverty. To ignore this central tenet of Pope Francis' life is to miss the whole point of why he was elected Pope. His example is meant to counteract the great wealth the RC church has accumulated over the centuries. It is the largest landholder in the world—hardly a vow if poverty.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury

fjnmusic said:


> He has very much socialist tendencies; feeding the poor...


Jesus fed the poor himself through a miracle. Any other enjoinder to feed the poor was done so at the individual level. Invoking kindness is hardly socialism or leftism. Likewise these were all messages that reflect exactly those of the Old Testament. No revolution here.



fjnmusic said:


> ...living a modest life are central to his own life and teachings.


When did Jesus say that people should not have wealth? Be specific.



fjnmusic said:


> He is also echoing his namesake, St. Francis of Assisi, who in turn was living the teachings of Jesus, particularly with respect to the vow if poverty.


When did Jesus tell people to undertake a vow of poverty? Be specific.



fjnmusic said:


> To ignore this central tenet of Pope Francis' life is to miss the whole point of why he was elected Pope. His example is meant to counteract the great wealth the RC church has accumulated over the centuries.


Sorry--are you saying that the Catholic Church elected him Pope so that he would expunge the wealth of the Catholic Church?


----------



## Macfury

screature said:


> I don't see that as a right or left issue it is just a matter of keeping up with the reality of the times instead of trying to rule the church by 2000 year old doctrine that really has very little to do with current times.


The church is supposed to be an authority. If it reflects the current low state of morality, simply to be more popular it is not doing its job. "The times" should have no influence on the doctrine.


----------



## fjnmusic

Macfury said:


> Jesus fed the poor himself through a miracle. Any other enjoinder to feed the poor was done so at the individual level. Invoking kindness is hardly socialism or leftism. Likewise these were all messages that reflect exactly those of the Old Testament. No revolution here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When did Jesus say that people should not have wealth? Be specific.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When did Jesus tell people to undertake a vow of poverty? Be specific.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry--are you saying that the Catholic Church elected him Pope so that he would expunge the wealth of the Catholic Church?



It is harder for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven than for a camel to enter the eye of a needle.

How does it profiteth a man if he gaineth the world bye loseth his soul?

There's two starters for you. I'm sure you can find some way to manipulate them for your own ends.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury

fjnmusic said:


> It is harder for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven than for a camel to enter the eye of a needle.
> 
> How does it profiteth a man if he gaineth the world bye loseth his soul?


Jesus noted it was difficult for the rich to enter the Kingdom of Heaven if they loved riches more than anything else. Likewise, if a rich person stored up only wealth on Earth, without considering good works, he would lose his soul. 

Neither is a socialist idea and neither requires a rich person to become poor.


----------



## screature

fjnmusic said:


> *He has very much socialist tendencies; feeding the poor and living a modest life are central to his own life and teachings. If that isn't left wing or progressive thinking, I don't know what it is.* He is also echoing his namesake, St. Francis of Assisi, who in turn was living the teachings of Jesus, particularly with respect to the vow if poverty. To ignore this central tenet of Pope Francis' life is to miss the whole point of why he was elected Pope. His example is meant to counteract the great wealth the RC church has accumulated over the centuries. It is the largest landholder in the world—hardly a vow if poverty.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


That is a reflection of your own personal political proclivities and to suggest that the left owns the the issue of feeding the poor and living within ones means is pure bunk.

It is a matter of the methods involved to solve the problem.

"Give a man a fish and you feed him for one day", (the leftist way) "teach a man how to catch fish and you feed him for a lifetime", the way of the right.

To try and ascribe either "left or right" leaning to Francis is pure small minded political partisanship IMO and does not address the much, much larger picture of political relevance at a certain point in time/history.

Francis is a product of his experience, upbringing and where he came from, not of some political ideology as you and MF are suggesting. 

IMO he is much more down to earth and grounded in the realities of the modern world than he is concerned about one political dogma over another. As he should be.

Primarily, from what I have seen of his actions thus far, Francis is a pragmatist, and once again I see that is a good thing. Neither the left or the right owns the patent on pragmatism.


----------



## Macfury

screature said:


> To try and ascribe either "left or right" leaning to Francis is pure small minded political partisanship IMO and does not address the much, much larger picture of political relevance at a certain point in time/history.
> 
> Francis is a product of his experience, upbringing and where he came from, not of some political ideology as you and MF are suggesting.


Francis is a product of Liberation Theology--that is his upbringing and where he came from. His suggestions for the world are not simply moral but political. His speech to the UN:



> .... contribution to this equitable development will also be made both * by international activity aimed at the integral human development of all the world’s peoples and by the legitimate redistribution of economic benefits by the State*, as well as indispensable cooperation between the private sector and civil society.





screature said:


> Primarily, from what I have seen of his actions thus far, Francis is a pragmatist, and once again I see that is a good thing. Neither the left or the right owns the patent on pragmatism.


I see it as a bad thing. Pragmatism is the pursuit of "what appears to work," irrespective of the morality or philosophical underpinnings of those choices. The pragamatist is the modern willow in the wind.


----------



## jef

Macfury said:


> I see it as a bad thing. Pragmatism is the pursuit of "what appears to work," irrespective of the morality or philosophical underpinnings of those choices. The pragamatist is the modern willow in the wind.


The Pope is infallible -pragmatism is the new divine.


----------



## Macfury

jef said:


> The Pope is infallible -pragmatism is the new divine.


That isn't remotely accurate. Papal infallibility is extremely limited.


----------



## fjnmusic

Papal infallibility when speaking on matters "ex cathedra" is another myth, created by the church so people would stop asking too many tough questions. Same with immaculate conception, which is not the same as virgin birth (despite popular misunderstanding). However, fallible or not, Pope Francis is a good leader and stays a lot closer to what I understand Jesus' message to be about. He has a big influence on people just due to his position as head of the RC church, which is a nice change from the more conservative Ratzinger/Benedict.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury

Here's a nice thought experiment. Tell us what this Pope is saying, but imagine Jesus is speaking those words--then post it here.



fjnmusic said:


> Papal infallibility when speaking on matters "ex cathedra" is another myth, created by the church so people would stop asking too many tough questions. Same with immaculate conception, which is not the same as virgin birth (despite popular misunderstanding). However, fallible or not, Pope Francis is a good leader and stays a lot closer to what I understand Jesus' message to be about. He has a big influence on people just due to his position as head of the RC church, which is a nice change from the more conservative Ratzinger/Benedict.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## fjnmusic

You first. It's your idea.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury

I can't imagine Jesus speaking the politically charged messages of the Pope.



fjnmusic said:


> You first. It's your idea.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## fjnmusic

Can you be more specific? Give an example of a "politically charged message" you can't picture Jesus saying. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury

The premise was yours, fjn--that the current Pope speaks as Jesus would speak. If you don't intend to back up your premise, I certainly understand.



fjnmusic said:


> Can you be more specific? Give an example of a "politically charged message" you can't picture Jesus saying.


----------



## fjnmusic

Macfury said:


> The premise was yours, fjn--that the current Pope speaks as Jesus would speak. If you don't intend to back up your premise, I certainly understand.



The challenge was created by you. I understand if you're not up to the task. I don't know about exact words, but the message of caring for the poor is certainly exemplified by the new pope. Of course, you'll probably somehow rationalize that caring for the poor was never part of the Jesus socialist message.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury

The Pope is not asking people to care for the poor as Jesus commanded them to--he is exhorting politicians to tax their citizens to redistribute income. There is a huge gulf between these messages. Jesus speaks to individuals about their personal response. The current Pope speaks as a bureaucrat.


----------



## fjnmusic

I'm really not sure what your point is, MF. You're splitting hairs for the sake of arguing. It's the same message. Do what you can within your own sphere of influence. I help out at the hope mission now and again. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## fjnmusic

fjnmusic said:


> I'm really not sure what your point is, MF. You're splitting hairs for the sake of arguing. It's the same message. Do what you can within your own sphere of influence. I help out at the hope mission now and again. We collect for the food bank at school. It's the same concept; think beyond your own needs. Help out others in need. That's a pretty socialist concept if you think about it. It's the opposite of capitalism, and every man for himself. It has little to do with conservatism either.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk






Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury

You may be so mired in dogmatic "progressive" thinking that you can no longer see the difference. 



fjnmusic said:


> I'm really not sure what your point is, MF. You're splitting hairs for the sake of arguing. It's the same message. Do what you can within your own sphere of influence. I help out at the hope mission now and again.


----------



## Rps

fjnmusic said:


> I'm really not sure what your point is, MF. You're splitting hairs for the sake of arguing. It's the same message. Do what you can within your own sphere of influence. I help out at the hope mission now and again.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


If I may, the difference between the populace helping and the government helping is almost as fundamental as the Catholic Church itself ....... Agency.


----------



## Rps

On a different but related note, there was a movie released quite awhile ago called The Body, I recommend it to all who visit this site, believers or non.


----------



## MacGuiver

One thing I've learned with Pope Francis is that there is a lot of Pope fiction going around. Prime example, "who am I to judge?". The media were giddy with joy that rainbow flags and drag queen weddings were coming to a Catholic Church near you. Gay activists ran with it, my Facebook page lit up with picture quotes from CHINOs and other progressives happy that the church was finally catching up to their modern/progressive moral relativist worldview.
In reality and context the pope was saying that if someone was gay yet was Faithful to church teaching (celebrate) that who was he to judge. That has been the Catholic understanding on moral matters since day one. nothing new here folks. Thats just one example.


----------



## Macfury

Bang on, Rps! Without agency, there is no morality.



Rps said:


> If I may, the difference between the populace helping and the government helping is almost as fundamental as the Catholic Church itself ....... Agency.


----------



## fjnmusic

WWRJD? Good news! There are versions of Jesus all over the place that may fit with your philosophy! What would Republican Jesus do?









Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## fjnmusic

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## fjnmusic

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## fjnmusic

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury

When I come up with examples of what "progressives" ascribe to Jesus, they come from real life--from you and CM, for example. I don't relate to the cartoons you posted at all.


----------



## fjnmusic

Macfury said:


> When I come up with examples of what "progressives" ascribe to Jesus, they come from real life--from you and CM, for example. I don't relate to the cartoons you posted at all.



Perhaps they are not meant for you.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury

Why post them then, in the middle of a discussion? Who did you post them for?



fjnmusic said:


> Perhaps they are not meant for you.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## fjnmusic

Macfury said:


> Why post them then, in the middle of a discussion? Who did you post them for?



I would have to say I posted them for anyone who might be mildly interested in this kind of humour when reading something called "the religious thread." I also posted them because I laughed my ass off when I saw them. I'll bet Mark would find them funny. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## fjnmusic

MacGuiver said:


> One thing I've learned with Pope Francis is that there is a lot of Pope fiction going around. Prime example, "who am I to judge?". The media were giddy with joy that rainbow flags and drag queen weddings were coming to a Catholic Church near you. Gay activists ran with it, my Facebook page lit up with picture quotes from CHINOs and other progressives happy that the church was finally catching up to their modern/progressive moral relativist worldview.
> 
> In reality and context the pope was saying that if someone was gay yet was Faithful to church teaching (celebrate) that who was he to judge. That has been the Catholic understanding on moral matters since day one. nothing new here folks. Thats just one example.



Not just "if someone was gay" but "if someone wishing to be a priest" was gay. That's a pretty big step for a traditionally homophobic institution to take to say "who am I to judge." I think Pope Francis has done much to help us "CINO's" to reconsider our self-imposed exile. Good for him.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## SINC

Posting those kinds of multiple images says more about frustration than opinion of an individual.


Sent from my iPhone NOT using tappawhatever.


----------



## MacGuiver

fjnmusic said:


> Not just "if someone was gay" but "if someone wishing to be a priest" was gay. That's a pretty big step for a traditionally homophobic institution to take to say "who am I to judge." I think Pope Francis has done much to help us "CINO's" to reconsider our self-imposed exile. Good for him.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


The churches policy has never disallowed men that struggle with same sex attraction provided they were obedient to the celibacy requirements of all priests. There are all kinds of gay priests long before Francis. Some seminaries had reputations for recruiting gay men but celibacy wasn't on the menu.


----------



## Macfury

I'm pretty sure Mark would find them funny--because they misrepresent conservative thought in a way that would delight "progressives."



fjnmusic said:


> I would have to say I posted them for anyone who might be mildly interested in this kind of humour when reading something called "the religious thread." I also posted them because I laughed my ass off when I saw them. I'll bet Mark would find them funny.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury

Absolutely. Anyone with any historical understanding of the RC church should know this.



MacGuiver said:


> The churches policy has never disallowed men that struggle with same sex attraction provided they were obedient to the celibacy requirements of all priests. There are all kinds of gay priests long before Francis. Some seminaries had reputations for recruiting gay men but celibacy wasn't on the menu.


----------



## MacGuiver




----------



## screature

Macfury said:


> The Pope is not asking people to care for the poor as Jesus commanded them to--*he is exhorting politicians to tax their citizens to redistribute income.* There is a huge gulf between these messages. Jesus speaks to individuals about their personal response. The current Pope speaks as a bureaucrat.


extortion |ikˈstôrSHən|
noun
the practice of obtaining something, esp. money, *through force or threats.*

Perhaps you are aware of something that I am not but I don't see where the word extortion or extorting is applicable to Pope Francis and the tenets he is espousing.


----------



## screature

MacGuiver said:


> *The churches policy has never disallowed men that struggle with same sex attraction provided they were obedient to the celibacy requirements* of all priests. There are all kinds of gay priests long before Francis. Some seminaries had reputations for recruiting gay men but celibacy wasn't on the menu.





Macfury said:


> Absolutely. Anyone with any historical understanding of the RC church should know this.


But in real terms we all know how well that has worked...

In fact history has shown that such dogma has just resulted in decades if not centuries of RC priests conducting sexual abuse and paedophilia, whether they be gay or just run of the mill pedophiles.


----------



## fjnmusic

screature said:


> extortion |ikˈstôrSHən|
> 
> noun
> 
> the practice of obtaining something, esp. money, *through force or threats.*
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps you are aware of something that I am not but I don't see where the word extortion or extorting is applicable to Pope Francis and the tenets he is espousing.



I must agree with you Screature. I was under the impression he was just setting a good example. Modest apartment, no red Prada shoes, using public transit, for example.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury

That's nonsense. Being gay or straight _and celibate_ doesn't lead to paedophelia and sexual abuse--that's simply the moral choice of the abuser, whether homosexual or heterosexual. Although abuse by priests is often widely reported because they are in a position of trust, there is no statistically significant difference between incidents of abuse in the priesthood and outside of it.



screature said:


> But in real terms we all know how well that has worked...
> 
> In fact history has shown that such dogma has just resulted in decades if not centuries of RC priests conducting sexual abuse and paedophilia, whether they be gay or just run of the mill pedophiles.


----------



## Macfury

Exhort not _extort_.



screature said:


> extortion |ikˈstôrSHən|
> noun
> the practice of obtaining something, esp. money, *through force or threats.*
> 
> Perhaps you are aware of something that I am not but I don't see where the word extortion or extorting is applicable to Pope Francis and the tenets he is espousing.


----------



## fjnmusic

Macfury said:


> That's nonsense. Being gay or straight _and celibate_ doesn't lead to paedophelia and sexual abuse--that's simply the moral choice of the abuser, whether homosexual or heterosexual. Although abuse by priests is often widely reported because they are in a position of trust, there is no statistically significant difference between incidents of abuse in the priesthood and outside of it.



Yes, except that in the priesthood there should be NO cases of sexual abuse—gay or straight—if the vow of celibacy actually means something.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury

Right--if they promise to be celibate they should be celibate. However, attempting to be celibate does not lead to child abuse.



fjnmusic said:


> Yes, except that in the priesthood there should be NO cases of sexual abuse—gay or straight—if the vow of celibacy actually means something.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## screature

Macfury said:


> That's nonsense. *Being gay or straight and celibate doesn't lead to paedophelia and sexual abuse--that's simply the moral choice of the abuser, whether homosexual or heterosexual.* Although abuse by priests is often widely reported because they are in a position of trust, there is no statistically significant difference between incidents of abuse in the priesthood and outside of it.


I agree. I am just saying the policy of celibacy for RC priests hasn't reduced the outcomes for such people who seem to have such tendencies, i.e. there is no evidence that a "sworn oath" of celibacy actually reduces the incidences of sexual abuse and pedophilia in the RCC relative to the general population which you just as much admitted.


----------



## Macfury

Or to put it another way--paedophiles are unlikely to take their oath of celibacy seriously.



screature said:


> I agree. I am just saying the policy of celibacy for RC priests hasn't reduced the outcomes for such people who seem to have such tendencies, i.e. there is no evidence that a "sworn oath" of celibacy actually reduces the incidences of sexual abuse and pedophilia in the RCC relative to the general population which you just as much admitted.


----------



## fjnmusic

You are right, and you are right. You are also right. Perhaps it is the "oath of celibacy" part that is virtually impossible for the human animal. Celibacy was not always a requirement for RC priests, and there were several married popes, even after marriage marriage had been disallowed in the papacy. In fact, it wasn't until the Second Lateran Council in 1139 that celibacy for priests became officially official.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## screature

Macfury said:


> Or to put it another way--paedophiles are unlikely to take their oath of celibacy seriously.


Or to put it another way, celibacy is not natural for animals of any kind, let alone humans (to paraphrase the Bible, "be fruitful and multiply") and so for an institution/organization/group to impose celibacy as a tenet of their belief structure is unrealistic to begin with so the failure to live up to that tenet is not surprising.


----------



## screature

Macfury said:


> Exhort not _extort_.


My bad. I misread your post.

That being said, thanks to your correction of my misreading of your post, I see nothing wrong with Francis exhorting what he is... all Popes in the past have exhorted all kinds of things, it is just in the case with Francis you disagree with him.

As I said before, all Popes are also politicians, it is just a matter of whether you agree with them or not.

Same as it ever was.


----------



## Macfury

Celibacy is a difficult discipline. If you have no stomach for it, don't become a priest.



screature said:


> Or to put it another way, celibacy is not natural for animals of any kind, let alone humans (to paraphrase the Bible, "be fruitful and multiply") and so for an institution/organization/group to impose celibacy as a tenet of their belief structure is unrealistic to begin with so the failure to live up to that tenet is not surprising.


----------



## screature

Macfury said:


> Celibacy is a difficult discipline. If you have no stomach for it, don't become a priest.


So it seems you support an unnatural way of being for priests in the RCC. 

To what benefit, for anyone?


----------



## Macfury

It's not a matter of what I support. It's the requirement. Likewise, it doesn't matter if I support a requirement for a police officer to have weapons training or not, that's also the requirement.

The stated goal of celibacy is to encourage the practitioner to focus on no other relationships except those with God and with the parishioners the priest serves.



screature said:


> So it seems you support an unnatural way of being for priests in the RCC.
> 
> To what benefit, for anyone?


----------



## screature

Macfury said:


> *It's not a matter of what I support. It's the requirement.* Likewise, it doesn't matter if I support a requirement for a police officer to have weapons training or not, that's also the requirement.
> 
> The stated goal of celibacy is to encourage the practitioner to focus on no other relationships except those with God and with the parishioners the priest serves.


Ok.

So as to save a lot of time bantering back and forth over details how about we just get down to the crux of the matter.

Do you believe that the tenets/rules/regulations/laws/practices, etc. of the RCC throughout it's existence are at the very least partially the creation of man or the verbatim word of God.


----------



## Macfury

My personal belief on priests and marriage? I believe this is a tradition created by the Catholic Church.



screature said:


> Ok.
> 
> So as to save a lot of time bantering back and forth over details how about we just get down to the crux of the matter.
> 
> Do you believe that the tenets/rules/regulations/laws/practices, etc. of the RCC throughout it's existence are at the very least partially the creation of man or the verbatim word of God.


----------



## MacGuiver

Macfury said:


> My personal belief on priests and marriage? I believe this is a tradition created by the Catholic Church.


You would be correct. As FJN said earlier, celibacy wasn't always a requirement though it was encouraged from the beginning of the Church. 

Jesus says "And everyone who has given up houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or children or lands for the sake of my name will receive a hundred times more, and will inherit eternal life" (Matt. 19:29)

32 I would like you to be free from concern. An unmarried man is concerned about the Lord’s affairs—how he can please the Lord. 33 But a married man is concerned about the affairs of this world—how he can please his wife— 34 and his interests are divided. An unmarried woman or virgin is concerned about the Lord’s affairs: Her aim is to be devoted to the Lord in both body and spirit. But a married woman is concerned about the affairs of this world—how she can please her husband. 35 I am saying this for your own good, not to restrict you, but that you may live in a right way in undivided devotion to the Lord.

There are other scriptures as well but these make the point. Regarding the difficulty some have with accepting the idea that someone can live celibate, I think they're basing that opinion more on their own libido than any facts of human biology. Scripture says not all people were cut out for celibacy and those that can't imagine life without an orgasm would be likely counted among them.


----------



## Macfury

As rps pointed out, the exhortation lack any sense of agency. He's skipping the people themselves and going straight to the governments to "redistribute wealth." 



screature said:


> That being said, thanks to your correction of my misreading of your post, I see nothing wrong with Francis exhorting what he is... all Popes in the past have exhorted all kinds of things, it is just in the case with Francis you disagree with him.
> 
> As I said before, all Popes are also politicians, it is just a matter of whether you agree with them or not.
> 
> Same as it ever was.


----------



## Macfury

I never understood the interest of non-Catholics in having this abolished. If you don't think you can manage this, then don't become a priest.



MacGuiver said:


> Scripture says not all people were cut out for celibacy and those that can't imagine life without an orgasm would be likely counted among them.


----------



## MacGuiver

Macfury said:


> I never understood the interest of non-Catholics in having this abolished. If you don't think you can manage this, then don't become a priest.


In some religious circles, maybe they feel the celibacy requirement of Catholic priests is a judgement against their own belief that celibacy isn't a requirement for clergy? 
From a secular perspective maybe they believe since man needs orgasms like he needs oxygen to live, that married priests wouldn't desire to sodomizing teen boys and each other anymore because they'd have a woman in their life to pleasure them. I can't blame people for this rationalization since our culture is fixated on sex.


----------



## Macfury

MacGuiver said:


> In some religious circles, maybe they feel the celibacy requirement of Catholic priests is a judgement against their own belief that celibacy isn't a requirement for clergy?
> From a secular perspective maybe they believe since man needs orgasms like he needs oxygen to live, that married priests wouldn't desire to sodomizing teen boys and each other anymore because they'd have a woman in their life to pleasure them. I can't blame people for this rationalization since our culture is fixated on sex.


I also agree that animals are not naturally celibate, but this is a poor argument. My dog sticks his nose in the rumps of other dogs to greet them. If the guy down the street started doing this, I doubt he would get much traction by excusing his behaviour as "natural."


----------



## MacGuiver

Macfury said:


> I also agree that animals are not naturally celibate, but this is a poor argument. My dog sticks his nose in the rumps of other dogs to greet them. If the guy down the street started doing this, I doubt he would get much traction by excusing his behaviour as "natural."


LOL!! :lmao: 
Yeah when you lower the acceptable/natural behaviour bar to that of mere animals, there isn't a heck of a lot of what we classify as unacceptable behaviour that isn't just natural.


----------



## fjnmusic

There are also thousands of married Roman Catholic priests in both Canada and the US who did not have to renounce their vows when they married (often with nuns, not surprisingly). They do not currently practice as priests but if there were a shortage, they could be called in. In Canada's north, where the population is sparse and priests are few, there are cases of married RC priests. Also, if say a married Lutheran or Anglican priest were to convert to RCism, they would be able to maintain their married status. 

All I'm saying is that the celibacy rule is not quite so hard and fast as you might think it is.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury

That's about as hard and fast as I thought the celibacy rule was.



fjnmusic said:


> There are also thousands of married Roman Catholic priests in both Canada and the US who did not have to renounce their vows when they married (often with nuns, not surprisingly). They do not currently practice as priests but if there were a shortage, they could be called in. In Canada's north, where the population is sparse and priests are few, there are cases of married RC priests. Also, if say a married Lutheran or Anglican priest were to convert to RCism, they would be able to maintain their married status.
> 
> All I'm saying is that the celibacy rule is not quite so hard and fast as you might think it is.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## screature

Macfury said:


> My personal belief on priests and marriage? I believe this is a tradition created by the Catholic Church.


Ok.

So seeing as the tenets/rules/regulations/laws/practices, etc. of the RCC were established by men they can then also be changed by men can they not?


----------



## screature

Macfury said:


> I never understood the interest of non-Catholics in having this abolished. If you don't think you can manage this, then don't become a priest.


I was raised RC and always thought celibacy was a pointless abstract tenet created by men. Procreation is called for in the Old Testament. So why should it be that in the New Testament RC priests should be forbidden to practice that which is called for by God, "be fruitful and multiply"?

Celibacy is not a requirement of the Lord for priests and was simply created by men, and thus can be changed by men.


----------



## Macfury

Celibacy is thought of as a better state. People could change it, but they would also need to believe that the change was positive for the church, and not mere pandering, or change for the sake of change, or some misguided swipe at being "modern."



screature said:


> Celibacy is not a requirement of the Lord for priests and was simply created by men, and thus can be changed by men.


----------



## MacGuiver

screature said:


> I was raised RC and always thought celibacy was a pointless abstract tenet created by men. Procreation is called for in the Old Testament. So why should it be that in the New Testament RC priests should be forbidden to practice that which is called for by God, "be fruitful and multiply"?
> 
> Celibacy is not a requirement of the Lord for priests and was simply created by men, and thus can be changed by men.


True it was never a requirement but a preferred state for religious (Christ himself says so in scripture) and yes that requirement can change. Jesus himself and most of his apostles lived celibate lives.


----------



## fjnmusic

MacGuiver said:


> True it was never a requirement but a preferred state for religious (Christ himself says so in scripture) and yes that requirement can change. Jesus himself and most of his apostles lived celibate lives.



Peter had a wife… Or at least he had a mother-in-law.
http://www.catholic.com/magazine/articles/did-peter-have-a-wife


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## screature

Macfury said:


> *Celibacy is thought of as a better state. *People could change it, but *they would also need to believe that the change was positive for the church, and not mere pandering, or change for the sake of change, or some misguided swipe at being "modern."*


By men at the time. 2000 years ago. Perhaps for similar reasons as it was thought by Islam that women should cover their faces so that men could avoid temptation.

The two principles are not that very far apart...

So what does it mean "to be good for the Church"? In what day and age? In 1AD or 2015AD?

Principles and circumstances do change over time... Even the RCC has acknowledged as much over the course of history.

Francis' calls for change seem to stick in your craw for some reason or another, and you are entitled to that in a non-sectarian world. But as a RC the Pope is your supreme leader on earth. If you are to remain faithful and be a good member of the RCC should you not abide by his exhortations and not disparage or publicly dispute them?

As a parishioner who are you to question the word of the Pope?


----------



## Macfury

screature said:


> By men at the time. 2000 years ago. Perhaps for similar reasons as it was thought by Islam that women should cover their faces so that men could avoid temptation.
> 
> The two principles are not that very far apart...
> 
> So what does it mean "to be good for the Church"? In what day and age? In 1AD or 2015AD?


I believe the RC church _HAS_ decided that this is still a good idea in 2015.



screature said:


> Francis' calls for change seem to stick in your craw for some reason or another, and you are entitled to that in a non-sectarian world. But as a RC the Pope is your supreme leader on earth. If you are to remain faithful and be a good member of the RCC should you not abide by his exhortations and not disparage or publicly dispute them?


The thing I disagree with Pope Francis about is his redistributionist message aimed at governments. I don't believe he has said anything else that sticks in my craw.



screature said:


> As a parishioner who are you to question the word of the Pope?


I'm not Catholic.


----------



## screature

MacGuiver said:


> True it was never a requirement but a preferred state for religious (Christ himself says so in scripture) and yes that requirement can change.* Jesus himself and most of his apostles lived celibate lives*.


We do not know that for sure. There are plenty of alternate accounts that say otherwise.

It was a time of myth making and I suspect celibacy was one of them.


----------



## screature

Macfury said:


> I believe the RC church _HAS_ decided that this is still a good idea in 2015.
> 
> The thing I disagree with Pope Francis about is his redistributionist message aimed at governments. I don't believe he has said anything else that sticks in my craw.
> *
> I'm not Catholic.*


Wow!! :yikes:

Ok.

So how do you define yourself in religious terms?


----------



## Macfury

Christian.



screature said:


> Wow!! :yikes:
> 
> Ok.
> 
> So how do you define yourself in religious terms?


----------



## screature

Macfury said:


> Christian.


Well that is a very wide scope now isn't it? 

Why all the defence of the tenets of the RCC if you only define yourself as a Christian?

There are very many denominations of Christianity that have dissociated themselves from the Papacy and the RCC.


----------



## Macfury

Which tenets in particular?



screature said:


> Why all the defence of the tenets of the RCC if you only define yourself as a Christian?


----------



## screature

Macfury said:


> Which tenets in particular?


At the very least the one we have been discussing. 

Playing dumb doesn't suit you MF. You can do much better than that.

Being a robot does not reflect well on anyone or their opinion.

This isn't the HoC QP.

I had hoped when it comes to such discussions here we could be just honest and open on a forum such as this.

If not I just need to go back to work and spit out the same drivel.

Same as it ever was... All too sad and disappointing.


----------



## Macfury

I'm asking for a very good reason. If you don't want to answer, I guess you'll just have to retreat to the corner of the sad and disappointed.


----------



## screature

Macfury said:


> I'm asking for a very good reason. *If you don't want to answer, I guess you'll just have to retreat to the corner of the sad and disappointed.*


Sorry I was little terse in my comment.

But your defence of the RCC here is legendary. Maybe you you should choose a starting point.

It came as a surprise to me that you are not RC as your defence of RC doctrine is legendary here. Why not just be truthful instead of being provocative?

IMO plain speaking can be helpful in understanding one another as opposed to debating where one feels the need to get a "leg up" on an "opponent".


----------



## Macfury

Somebody asked me awhile back if I was RC and I said I wasn't--why would that matter anyway? When you ask me if I support the RC church's "tenets" I am not sure whether you're asking if I am offering blanket agreement. Often, I argue my support simply because I believe the position of the RC church is not being fairly presented, or that it is being unfairly or unreasonably attacked.


----------



## MacGuiver

screature said:


> It came as a surprise to me that you are not RC as your defence of RC doctrine is legendary here. Why not just be truthful instead of being provocative?
> 
> IMO plain speaking can be helpful in understanding one another as opposed to debating where one feels the need to get a "leg up" on an "opponent".


I'm not following where you feel Macfury is being untruthful? 
He's actually much better informed on Catholicism than the majority of Catholics I've encountered and nothing he's posted to the best of my knowledge is deceptive about the RC Church. You don't have to share a belief system to recognize when others are going off the rails with it if you're knowledgeable about it.


----------



## screature

Macfury said:


> *Somebody asked me awhile back if I was RC and I said I wasn't*--why would that matter anyway? When you ask me if I support the RC church's "tenets" I am not sure whether you're asking if I am offering blanket agreement. Often, I argue my support simply because I believe the position of the RC church is not being fairly presented, or that it is being unfairly or unreasonably attacked.


Sorry I missed that exchange. It mattered at the time of my posting because you said this:



Macfury said:


> I never understood the interest of non-Catholics in having this abolished. If you don't think you can manage this, then don't become a priest.


Which I mistakenly interpreted as being a statement of vested interest on your part.

But just to add you and others have been critical of certain tenets/exhortations/practices/etc. of Islam, a religion of which you and the others here do not belong to. So why is what is good for the goose also not good for the gander?

I think that when entering into such discussions about the specific tenets/exhortations of religious denominations, it also enters into the realm of human rights, democracy, politics and other factors. I think your criticism regarding Francis demonstrates that becuase it seems you think he is overstepping his grounds regarding certain exhortations. 

The Pope while he is the Pope is effectively the supreme voice of the RCC. It seems in some ways you want to have your cake and eat it too. You, as a non RC can disagree with/be critical of certain tenets/actions/exhortations etc. of the RCC, but other non-RCs can't.

Oh and BTW...



> If you don't want to answer, I guess you'll just have to retreat to the corner of the sad and disappointed


was more than a little uncalled for.


----------



## Macfury

screature said:


> But just to add you and others have been critical of certain tenets of Islam, a religion of which you and the others here do not belong to. So why is what not good for the goose is also not good for the gander?
> 
> I think that when entering into such discussions about the specific tenets/exhortations of religious denominations, it also enters into the realm of human rights, democracy, politics and other factors. I think your criticism regarding Francis demonstrates that becuase it seems you think he is overstepping his grounds regarding certain exhortations.
> 
> The Pope while he is the Pope is effectively the supreme voice of the RCC. It seems in some ways you want to have your cake and eat it too. You, as a non RC can disagree with/be critical of certain tenets/actions/exhortations etc. of the RCC, but other non-RCs can't.


I don't understand what you're saying. Anyone can criticize anything, from the inside or out. Geese and ganders get the same sauce.



screature said:


> Oh and BTW...
> was more than a little uncalled for.


You were over-reacting big time and I used your own words to point it out.


----------



## screature

Macfury said:


> *I don't understand what you're saying. Anyone can criticize anything, from the inside or out. Geese and ganders get the same sauce.
> *


This:



Macfury said:


> *I never understood the interest of non-Catholics in having this abolished. *If you don't think you can manage this, then don't become a priest.





Macfury said:


> *You were over-reacting big time and I used your own words to point it out.*


How and where on this subject?

The only place that I mentioned being disappointed was in regards to the allegations against Bill Cosby, a whole different subject altogether.


----------



## Macfury

screature said:


> How and where on this subject?
> 
> The only place that I mentioned being disappointed was in regards to the allegations against Bill Cosby, a whole different subject altogether.


A few messages up on this page, where you said my "dishonesty" was "sad and disappointing."



screature said:


> At the very least the one we have been discussing.
> 
> Playing dumb doesn't suit you MF. You can do much better than that.
> 
> Being a robot does not reflect well on anyone or their opinion.
> 
> This isn't the HoC QP.
> 
> I had hoped when it comes to such discussions here we could be just honest and open on a forum such as this.
> 
> If not I just need to go back to work and spit out the same drivel.
> 
> Same as it ever was... *All too sad and disappointing.*


----------



## screature

I humbly retract that statement. It was was based on a misinterpretation of your statements on my part.

Mea Culpa.


----------



## Macfury

> I never understood the interest of non-Catholics in having this abolished. If you don't think you can manage this, then don't become a priest.


To be more succinct--why would it matter to a non-Catholic if the Catholic Church asks its priests to remain celibate, and priests voluntarily submit themselves to the priesthood and to this vow? I might understand a Catholic worrying that not enough priests were entering the priesthood or about other practical matters affecting the church, but not someone who has no vested interest in that church.

An analogy: if some church forbade people to wear hats and refused membership to hat wearers, it would be no business of mine.


----------



## screature

Macfury said:


> *To be more succinct--why would it matter to a non-Catholic if the Catholic Church asks its priests to remain celibate, and priests voluntarily submit themselves to the priesthood and to this vow?* I might understand a Catholic worrying that not enough priests were entering the priesthood or about other practical matters affecting the church, but not someone who has no vested interest in that church.
> 
> *An analogy: if some church forbade people to wear hats and refused membership to hat wearers, it would be no business of mine.*


The reason being is because the tenet fundamentally goes against nature/humane nature. 

Almost *all* creatures on this earth are sexual. Except for in extremely rare circumstances that are often imposed and have been/are, historically/currently cruel and violent. It is genetically ingrained in 99.9% (my uncorroborated estimation) of living things by genetics to be sexual in nature.

So from a human rights/livings things perspective I find the tenet, whether voluntarily subjected to or not, an unreasonable requirement to "belong to this club" and thus a human rights issue. The tenet/requirement is fundamentally wrong IMO.

Now that is just a silly analogy. Wearing hats has nothing to do with our genetic makeup.


----------



## fjnmusic

screature said:


> The reason being is because the tenet fundamentally goes against nature/humane nature.
> 
> 
> 
> *All* creatures on this earth are sexual, except in extremely rare and often imposed circumstances. It is genetically ingrained in living things.
> 
> 
> 
> So from a human rights/livings things perspective I find the tenet, whether voluntarily subjected to or not, an unreasonable requirement and thus a human rights issue. The tenet/requirement is fundamentally wrong IMO.
> 
> 
> 
> Now that is just a silly analogy. Wearing hats has nothing to do with our genetic makeup.



As I said earlier, the RC church itself did not make celibacy official until 1139, and it certainly wasn't required in Jesus time. Maybe the apostles did have wives and they just weren't mentioned. The ruling had something to do with land claims and the church trying to protect its property rights from the offspring of priests. It actually has nothing to do with morality or devotion. You can look it up.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## screature

Also just to add if the RCC was more focused on humanity rather that piety, I may have turned out to be a follower to this day.

At the age of 13 I thought about becoming a priest due to my faith at the time.

But as I grew older and my natural way of being came into play, i.e, hormones, I thought this is ridiculous. 

I have to resist for the rest of my life the natural inclinations that God gave to me, just because of the rules of some stupid self important men!?

Devotion to another human being does not in any way diminish one's devotion to "god".

In fact it accentuates it IMO.


----------



## screature

fjnmusic said:


> As I said earlier, the RC church itself did not make celibacy official until 1139, and it certainly wasn't required in Jesus time. Maybe the apostles did have wives and they just weren't mentioned. The ruling had something to do with land claims and the church trying to protect its property rights from the offspring of priests. It actually has nothing to do with morality or devotion. You can look it up.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Thanks but MF did raise it as a devotional issue and that is why I posted what I did.

1139 or not, the human made tenet created for land rights at the time certainly should have not have any bearing in the 21st century when such land rights have not been in effect for centuries.

So fjnmusic what do think about celibacy when it comes to the rules the RCC?


----------



## Macfury

I have spoken to people who are celibate and read the writings of others who are celibate and they speak highly of their choice as right for them. Many people are asexual or non-sexual beyond defining their own gender. Are they unnatural? Others simply never have an opportunity and are unwilling to engage in prostitution. There is a vast continuum of "the natural." 

Based on both that and the fact that people are free to choose how they live their lives, I can see no successful argument that any such agreement entered into voluntarily without infliction of violence is an abrogation of human rights. 

In the same way, I don't believe people who play out their sex lives as dominants and submissives are abrogating human rights because they are engaging in slavery--it's a choice.

We have canine teeth and our digestive systems are designed to digest meat and receive nourishment from it. If a vegetarian organization demanded that its members be vegetarian, I would not weigh in that they are forcing their adherents into making a choice that goes against nature.

A priest who buys your argument and feels he is in danger of abrogating his own human rights simply needs to quit his job and renounce his vows. It is not a "right" to both be a priest and to refuse to abide by the requirements of the RC priesthood. 



screature said:


> The reason being is because the tenet fundamentally goes against nature/humane nature.
> 
> *All* creatures on this earth are sexual. Except for in extremely rare circumstances that are often imposed and have been/are, historically/currently cruel and violent. It is genetically ingrained in 99.9% (my uncorroborated estimation) of living things by genetics to be sexual in nature.
> 
> So from a human rights/livings things perspective I find the tenet, whether voluntarily subjected to or not, an unreasonable requirement to "belong to this club" and thus a human rights issue. The tenet/requirement is fundamentally wrong IMO.
> 
> Now that is just a silly analogy. Wearing hats has nothing to do with our genetic makeup.


----------



## Macfury

A good thing you chose against the priesthood. You're obviously not priest material and the RC church is not for you. Did you find a religion that focused more on humanity?



screature said:


> Also just to add if the RCC was more focused on humanity rather that piety, I may have turned out to be a follower to this day.
> 
> At the age of 13 I thought about becoming a priest due to my faith at the time.
> 
> But as I grew older and my natural way of being came into play, i.e, hormones, I thought this is ridiculous.
> 
> I have to resist for the rest of my life the natural inclinations that God gave to me, just because of the rules of some stupid self important men!?
> 
> Devotion to another human being does not in any way diminish one's devotion to "god".
> 
> In fact it accentuates it IMO.


----------



## fjnmusic

screature said:


> Thanks but MF did raise it as a devotional issue and that is why I posted what I did.
> 
> 
> 
> 1139 or not, the human made tenet created for land rights at the time certainly should have not have any bearing in the 21st century when such land rights have not been in effect for centuries.
> 
> 
> 
> So fjnmusic what do think about celibacy when it comes to the rules the RCC?



I think celibacy is stupid and unnatural. Having said that, I know at least one Basilian Ukrainian Greek Orthodox priest who chose the monastic life, not because it was required but because he wanted it. Great man and a great priest. 

For some people, it is exactly what they are looking for, but I have issues with it being a "requirement," especially since most Christian denominations do not require it. Even the RC church makes some exceptions for married priests, as I noted earlier. Celibacy is a relic that makes no sense most of the time. 

I had the pleasure of hearing John Shelby Spong speak once at a united church in Edmonton, and he mentioned that his wife was also there. You could tell who she was because she was the most beautiful person in the room, he said. The man is in his 90's now, but I've never met a more inspiring person in matters of faith. Being married certainly didn't interfere with his devotion.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury

fjnmusic said:


> I had the pleasure of hearing John Shelby Spong speak once at a united church in Edmonton, and he mentioned that his wife was also there. You could tell who she was because she was the most beautiful person in the room, he said. The man is in his 90's now, but I've never met a more inspiring person in matters of faith. Being married certainly didn't interfere with his devotion.


Did being married lead to his renouncing most of Christianity?


----------



## fjnmusic

Macfury said:


> Did being married lead to his renouncing most of Christianity?



Not at all. The man still loves Christianity, but believes it needs to change or it will die. Hence the title of the book. Have you read it?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury

Some of it. I didn't think it was worth finishing. Christianity would be better off dying than listening to him.

Thankfully, Christianiy will outlive his ideas.



fjnmusic said:


> Not at all. The man still loves Christianity, but believes it needs to change or it will die. Hence the title of the book. Have you read it?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## screature

Macfury said:


> A good thing you chose against the priesthood. You're obviously not priest material and the RC church is not for you. Did you find a religion that focused more on humanity?


Despite your obvious condescension, I agree with you, at least not RCC priest material.

I have not belonged to any religion since I was a teenager because I found them all to be hypocritical in one manner or another, some more than others.

As I have already stated here countless times here I am a an agnostic.


----------



## fjnmusic

screature said:


> Despite your obvious condescension, I agree with you, at least not RCC priest material.
> 
> 
> 
> I have not belonged to any religion since I was a teenager because I found them all to be hypocritical in one manner or another, some more than others.
> 
> 
> 
> As I have already stated here countless times here I am a an agnostic.



I'm not sure exactly why we have to classify ourselves as any particular thing. Or why you can't belong to more than one club if you choose to, like the way Pi Patel chose to be Hindu, Christian and Muslim at the same time. 

It's like political parties. Why must one choose one or the other? Must you always vote the same way each election? These divisions into "like-minded" groups are pretty arbitrary at the best of times. If you compare, for example, the number of self-declared RC's in the world versus the number of RC's who go to church every Sunday, the numbers would be staggeringly different. 

I classify myself as **** sapiens sapiens (most of the time), because the biology suggests that I am not quite the same as my cat or my dog. However, what I choose to believe can vary quite greatly at different times of my life. And there is nothing wrong with that. I believe the need to identify as a particular school of thought is ultimately a sign of insecurity, not strength.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## SINC

fjnmusic said:


> I'm not sure exactly why we have to classify ourselves as any particular thing. Or why you can't belong to more than one club if you choose to, like the way Pi Patel chose to be Hindu, Christian and Muslim at the same time.
> 
> It's like political parties. Why must one choose one or the other? Must you always vote the same way each election? These divisions into "like-minded" groups are pretty arbitrary at the best of times. If you compare, for example, the number of self-declared RC's in the world versus the number of RC's who go to church every Sunday, the numbers would be staggeringly different.
> 
> I classify myself as **** sapiens sapiens (most of the time), because the biology suggests that I am not quite the same as my cat or my dog. However, what I choose to believe can vary quite greatly at different times of my life. And there is nothing wrong with that. I believe the need to identify as a particular school of thought is ultimately a sign of insecurity, not strength.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


This makes perfect sense to me. 

Full disclosure, I have voted for all three political parties over the years and attended the United, Presbyterian and Church Of God as well. Now I do not even attend, but to be honest, my political and religious beliefs have changed very little over the past 50 years.


----------



## fjnmusic

SINC said:


> This makes perfect sense to me.
> 
> 
> 
> Full disclosure, I have voted for all three political parties over the years and attended the United, Presbyterian and Church Of God as well. Now I do not even attend, but to be honest, my political and religious beliefs have changed very little over the past 50 years.



See, I can respect that, Don. It's much more believable when someone says, "Honestly, I'm not sure," than to claim to have all the answers. It's like the blind men and the elephant; each man had been exposed to part of the truth, but no man could claim to know the complete truth, even though from his own point of view, each was right. Well I kind of see religion, political partisanship and most forms of groupthink the same way. 

ISIS would be a notable exception in this world, I think, in terms of the defensibility of their actions, like beheading random people, and their intolerance due to their own rigid belief system has led to much needless bloodshed. I suppose from a different point of view one might say the same thing about those who have invaded other counties, like the US invasion of Iraq. The rightness or wrongness of one's actions or supposedly "moral" high ground always depends on one's point of view.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury

It's not condescending. I absolutely agree with your choice. But religiously speaking, it doesn't matter how much humanity a church practices--since you are agnostic anyway.



screature said:


> Despite your obvious condescension, I agree with you, at least not RCC priest material.
> 
> I have not belonged to any religion since I was a teenager because I found them all to be hypocritical in one manner or another, some more than others.
> 
> As I have already stated here countless times here I am a an agnostic.


----------



## Macfury

fjnmusic said:


> I'm not sure exactly why we have to classify ourselves as any particular thing. Or why you can't belong to more than one club if you choose to, like the way Pi Patel chose to be Hindu, Christian and Muslim at the same time.


You don't have to identify as anything. However, nobody can truly belong to all three groups simultaneously, since some of their beliefs are mutually exclusive. There are fundamental differences in these religions that can't be overlooked.



fjnmusic said:


> Well I kind of see religion, political partisanship and most forms of groupthink the same way.


I guess you provide an exception for "progressive "groupthink, then.



fjnmusic said:


> The rightness or wrongness of one's actions or supposedly "moral" high ground always depends on one's point of view.


By that standard, there is no right or wrong. If you wait long enough, a new set of morals will excuse you. Yes?



fjnmusic said:


> I believe the need to identify as a particular school of thought is ultimately a sign of insecurity, not strength.


Why you see it as a "need," or identify it with security, is beyond me. It is merely an intellectual recognition that we share values with others.


----------



## fjnmusic

Hate to say it, Macfury, but I actually agree with most of your last statement. I don't think "progressive" is a particularly good label any more than "conservative" is. I have some progressive beliefs and some conservative beliefs, particularly when it come to money. Furthermore, I don't think our current PC or C governments are the least bit conservative they spend money recklessly (and I ain't talking about the CBC). 

In Alberta, for example, the Heritage Trust Fund was worth about $12 billion, not much less than it's worth today. How is that possible with compound interest and the high interest rates of the 1990's? It's only possible if you're skimming off the top to create an artificially "balanced" budget. That is not being frugal; it is deception. Unless the definition of being conservative fiscally includes being deceptive, this party in Alberta has no business calling themselves conservative. And it's the same government for going on 44 years. They are pros at saying one thing and doing another.

To me, politics is just another variation of groupthink, just like religion is, and I am wary of anyone who is to me too fervent in their embrace of either system of beliefs. As far as "absolute" right or wrong, I would have to say yes, I think it comes down to moral relativism. We can rationalize just about anything we want, the slaughter if innocents for example, if it serves a higher purpose. This is why the US can drop bombs on civilians in Iraq (or many other places), ISIS can behead people and put it on the Internet, and jihadists can feel justified killing political cartoonists. Everyone honestly believes they are doing the right thing for the right cause.

Myself, I do not agree with the justifications for killing in any of these examples, but that's from my comfortable point of view sitting on the couch typing on my iPhone in my heated first world home. Perhaps I'd feel different if I were in a different time or place, raised in a different society. So yes, I would have to say that though I think I understand right and wrong, I don't think it's accurate to assume the rest of the world would necessarily share my view.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury

Good post, fjn.

Many conservative governments believe they can do big government "smarter" and so are too reckless with cash. This is why I'm happy to see Stephen Harper actually reign in the scope of government. At the same time, I wasn't often unhappy with the Chretien/Martin team, while Chretien was PM because they seemed at least to see taxpayer money as valuable to the taxpayer.

I have a big problem with moral relativism, because it always seems to end with either amoralism, moral ambiguity or simple moral confusion. I prefer to see some things as "always wrong" and then to decide what sort of guilt should be associated with that act, from zero (it was pretty much unavoidable and necessary to prevent something worse from happening) to 100 (it was completely unnecessary and inexcusable).




fjnmusic said:


> Hate to say it, Macfury, but I actually agree with most of your last statement. I don't think "progressive" is a particularly good label any more than "conservative" is. I have some progressive beliefs and some conservative beliefs, particularly when it come to money. Furthermore, I don't think our current PC or C governments are the least bit conservative they spend money recklessly (and I ain't talking about the CBC).
> 
> In Alberta, for example, the Heritage Trust Fund was worth about $12 billion, not much less than it's worth today. How is that possible with compound interest and the high interest rates of the 1990's? It's only possible if you're skimming off the top to create an artificially "balanced" budget. That is not being frugal; it is deception. Unless the definition of being conservative fiscally includes being deceptive, this party in Alberta has no business calling themselves conservative. And it's the same government for going on 44 years. They are pros at saying one thing and doing another.
> 
> To me, politics is just another variation of groupthink, just like religion is, and I am wary of anyone who is to me too fervent in their embrace of either system of beliefs. As far as "absolute" right or wrong, I would have to say yes, I think it comes down to moral relativism. We can rationalize just about anything we want, the slaughter if innocents for example, if it serves a higher purpose. This is why the US can drop bombs on civilians in Iraq (or many other places), ISIS can behead people and put it on the Internet, and jihadists can feel justified killing political cartoonists. Everyone honestly believes they are doing the right thing for the right cause.
> 
> Myself, I do not agree with the justifications for killing in any of these examples, but that's from my comfortable point of view sitting on the couch typing on my iPhone in my heated first world home. Perhaps I'd feel different if I were in a different time or place, raised in a different society. So yes, I would have to say that though I think I understand right and wrong, I don't think it's accurate to assume the rest of the world would necessarily share my view.


----------



## MacGuiver

fjnmusic said:


> I'm not sure exactly why we have to classify ourselves as any particular thing. Or why you can't belong to more than one club if you choose to, like the way Pi Patel chose to be Hindu, Christian and Muslim at the same time.


Because the tenants of those faiths contradict each other on the most fundamental teachings. Along the same lines as being a member of PETA, The Fur Trappers Association, The NRA and an anti-gun lobby group.


----------



## fjnmusic

MacGuiver said:


> Because the tenants of those faiths contradict each other on the most fundamental teachings. Along the same lines as being a member of PETA, The Fur Trappers Association, The NRA and an anti-gun lobby group.



And yet a person could be friends and have conversations with members of all four of those groups. And so it is with religion. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## MacGuiver

fjnmusic said:


> And yet a person could be friends and have conversations with members of all four of those groups. And so it is with religion.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Sure you can have a social relationship with anyone in those groups. I guess if you see membership as merely an association with the people and not an embrace or acceptance of key tenants that define the group you could be a member of just about anything.


----------



## fjnmusic

MacGuiver said:


> Sure you can have a social relationship with anyone in those groups. I guess if you see membership as merely an association with the people and not an embrace or acceptance of key tenants that define the group you could be a member of just about anything.



Exactly. There is nothing intrinsically biological about membership in a religion, even though some people almost approach it that way. I was not born Catholic; I was baptized at an early age, too young to decide for myself (womb to tomb, they call it), and so became Catholic because of the influence of my parents. I think that's how it goes for most people, unless they convert to something else later in life, or reject religion altogether. Either way, once one is old enough to figure things out for themselves, religion is an option, not mandatory. It is something we choose to believe, even that "choice" may have been hardwired since infancy.

I sincerely believe this is why we find it so hard to understand another person's religious beliefs that are quite different from our own, simply because we have been believing this way for so long. We may not want a different world view. Take the sun for example. We've been looking at it all our lives. But we see is a bit of an illusion. It takes the light from the sun eight minutes to reach the earth; therefore, the sun is actually eight minutes further along its path in the sky than what we see. What we see is where it used to be (another illusion, since it stays in one place while we rotate). But we live with this illusion and don't even think about it because it doesn't really affect us. If it doesn't concern us, we pay no heed. But if a bomb goes off in your neighborhood or hits the news, suddenly other people's religious beliefs matter greatly. We are at a loss for context.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury

I think about these things all of the time.


----------



## CubaMark

*Tens of thousands of Muslims flee Christian militias in Central African Republic*










_Tens of thousands of Muslims are fleeing to neighboring countries by plane and truck as Christian militias stage brutal attacks, shattering the social fabric of this war-ravaged nation.

In towns and villages as well as here in the capital, Christian vigilantes wielding machetes have killed scores of Muslims, who are a minority here, and burned and looted their houses and mosques in recent days, according to witnesses, aid agencies and peacekeepers. Tens of thousands of Muslims have fled their homes.

The cycle of chaos is fast becoming one of the worst outbreaks of violence along Muslim-Christian fault lines in recent memory in sub-Saharan Africa, tensions that have also plagued countries such as Nigeria and Sudan.


* * *

On Friday, thousands of Muslims hopped aboard trucks packed with their possessions, protected by soldiers from Chad, and drove out of Bangui, as Christians cheered their departures or tried to loot the trucks as they drove through Christian areas. At least one Muslim man, who fell from a truck, was killed by a mob. Meanwhile, thousands more Muslims huddled at the airport in a crowded hangar, waiting to be evacuated.

“They are killing Muslims with knives,” said Muhammed Salih Yahya, 38, a shopkeeper, making a slitting motion across his throat. He arrived at the airport Wednesday from the western town of Yaloke with his wife and five children. “I built my house over two years, but the Christians destroyed it in minutes. I want to leave.”

Christians have also been victims of violence, targeted by Muslims in this complex communal conflict that U.N. and humanitarian officials fear could implode into genocide. Several hundred thousand Christians remain in crowded, squalid camps, unable or too afraid to return home.

But attacks on Muslims in particular are intensifying, aid workers said.
_

(WashingtonPost)


----------



## Macfury

Never mind Boko Haram, slaughtering thousands or all of the attacks on Christians in Nigeria, some Christians finally attacked some Muslims and that's BIG NEWS!!!!


----------



## MacGuiver

Macfury said:


> Never mind Boko Haram, slaughtering thousands or all of the attacks on Christians in Nigeria, some Christians finally attacked some Muslims and that's BIG NEWS!!!!


Many evangelical atheists are desperate to tar Christianity with the same brush as radical Islam, hence the glee to find this little nugget and share it. Just read the comments section on any story of the latest Islam inspired butchery and you'll see atheists bitter that the Catholics and other Christians are not being slammed too, with irrational statements of "all religions are the same", "the Catholic Church is no better", the sooner we get rid of religion the better. We've seen what the "godless" are capable of and it isn't pretty. Makes the Crusades and the inquisition look like a picnic.


----------



## Macfury

CM will probably provide his typical fey response: "I just posted that because I thought people here might be interested. No context for it at all."


----------



## CubaMark

God forbid someone should post a relevant link in a thread on religion. 

You will note that the quoted piece above includes information on muslim attacks on christians. Or did your outrage prohibit your eyes from moving that far down the screen?

Nevermind. Go ahead and talk amongst yourselves... you seem to enjoy it.


----------



## Macfury

Yes, CM--you earned your wings by not excising the final paragraph.


----------



## Macfury

As I was saying earlier....



> Venezuela's Bishops Have A Message For Pope Francis on Communism
> 
> In a refreshingly powerful and direct statement, Venezuela's bishops Monday blamed "Marxist socialism" and "communism" by name for the horrors and chaos gripping their country, according to a story in El Universal.
> 
> The bishops said the long lines of people trying to buy food and other basic necessities and the constant rise in prices are the result of the government's decision to "impose a political-economic system of socialist, Marxist or communist," which is "totalitarian and centralist" and "undermines the freedom and rights of individuals and associations."
> 
> The Venezuelan bishops specifically stated that the private sector was critical for the well being of the country. ...
> 
> ... they also warned that communism harms the poor most of all.
> 
> ... More interestingly, the timing comes just as a certain former colleague of theirs from another part of South America continues to denounce free-market economies.
> 
> The Venezuelan archbishops make the useful observation that if capitalist economies have problems, socialist alternatives are far worse for the poor and needy.


Press Ignores Venezuelan Bishops' Strong Denunciation of 'Marxist Socialism'


----------



## CubaMark

_If there is a hell, surely there is a roped-off section of particularly devilish tortures reserved for televangelists like this guy, and Pat Robertson, Jimmy Falwell, those odd folks at 100 Huntley Street, and so many more...._

*God Wants American Pastor Creflo Dollar To Have A Luxury Gulfstream Private Jet*









PHOTO: Daily Beast​


> An American charlatan televangelist needs $65 million to a buy a luxurious private jet. God wants him to have it, you see, so Reverend Creflo Dollar launched an online appeal on Friday requesting members of his flock “sow $300 or more” to help fund the pricey purchase of a Gulfstream G650 - that's the fastest private jet on the market, boasting two Rolls Royce engines, multichannel satellites and high-speed Internet.
> 
> Why would a humble man of the book require such earthly ostentation, you might ask? Because Dollar is head of the World Changers Church International, a kooky Christian offshoot that promises earthly riches to anyone that tithes 10% of their income to the church. That’s 10% of every member's income.





> On Friday a video appeared on the pastor's personal website requesting the extra $300 (on top of the 10%) so that Dollar could “continue to blanket the globe with the Gospel of grace.” Within the film, Dollar details two incidents in which the ministry’s current 30-year-old jet nearly crashed – incidents that revealed to Dollar that it was “time to begin to believe God for a new airplane."


(HuffPo)


----------



## Macfury

Why do you get angry when people willingly give their money to this guy? It's not like he's doing this behind anyone's back. Whenever you statists need cash to fund one of your kook-fringe pipe dreams you go straight for tax funding, so nobody has a choice. Fidel Castro, anyone? 

Next time have the decency to ask for it, like those pastors.


----------



## CubaMark

*This guys is a laugh-riot... great comedian... only problem is, people think he's serious.... He's not serious, is he? Um. You mean it's not an act? Oh, Lord.... *

*VIDEO: Ezra Levant calls Pope un-Catholic, inspired by "mass-murdering" dictator*










Is the Pope Catholic?

According to Ezra Levant: no.

Reacting to Pope Francis' encyclical call for action on climate change, the former oil lobbyist and Sun TV host accused the head of the Roman Catholic Church of "replacing Catholic theology with the superstitious cult of green extremism" and insinuated he was inspired by a "mass-murdering Marxist"...

* * *

Levant goes on to suggest the leader of the Catholic Church is:


an elitist who lives in a "golden palace" (in fact, Pope Francis passed on the palace for a "no-frills" Vatican guesthouse);

preaching "Paganism not Catholicism" (in fact, Pope Francis has condemned the Pagan worship of money and power, as well as "the adoration of idols," calling them "enemies of the cross"); and

leading the world to North Korean-style famines (in fact, the Pope is on the record as being very much opposed to hunger).

For those keeping track at home, the Pope joins Preston Manning and Tim Hortons on the growing list of people and companies who've been targeted by an Ezra Levant smear campaign in the last year. 

(PressProgress)


----------



## Macfury

The current Pope is way off base on this and other issues. Some of what Levant says is true. Are you saying ALL OF IT is untrue, CM?


----------



## CubaMark

Levant is a liar and instigator of hate. In most cases, one should debate the issues without attacking the person. But that doesn't apply to dishonest people who intentionally mislead and deceive. Nothing that comes out of his mouth is worthy of consideration. He receives far too much attention as it is.


----------



## Macfury

CubaMark said:


> Levant is a liar and instigator of hate. In most cases, one should debate the issues without attacking the person. But that doesn't apply to dishonest people who intentionally mislead and deceive. Nothing that comes out of his mouth is worthy of consideration. He receives far too much attention as it is.


I never see Levant's material unless you post it. So since you posted it, is it all untrue?


----------



## fjnmusic

CubaMark said:


> *This guys is a laugh-riot... great comedian... only problem is, people think he's serious.... He's not serious, is he? Um. You mean it's not an act? Oh, Lord.... *
> 
> 
> 
> *VIDEO: Ezra Levant calls Pope un-Catholic, inspired by "mass-murdering" dictator*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is the Pope Catholic?
> 
> 
> 
> According to Ezra Levant: no.
> 
> 
> 
> Reacting to Pope Francis' encyclical call for action on climate change, the former oil lobbyist and Sun TV host accused the head of the Roman Catholic Church of "replacing Catholic theology with the superstitious cult of green extremism" and insinuated he was inspired by a "mass-murdering Marxist"...
> 
> 
> 
> * * *
> 
> 
> 
> Levant goes on to suggest the leader of the Catholic Church is:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> an elitist who lives in a "golden palace" (in fact, Pope Francis passed on the palace for a "no-frills" Vatican guesthouse);
> 
> 
> 
> preaching "Paganism not Catholicism" (in fact, Pope Francis has condemned the Pagan worship of money and power, as well as "the adoration of idols," calling them "enemies of the cross"); and
> 
> 
> 
> leading the world to North Korean-style famines (in fact, the Pope is on the record as being very much opposed to hunger).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For those keeping track at home, the Pope joins Preston Manning and Tim Hortons on the growing list of people and companies who've been targeted by an Ezra Levant smear campaign in the last year.
> 
> 
> 
> (PressProgress)



Ezra Levant will burn in the lake of eternal hell fire anyway, so his opinion really doesn't count for much. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## fjnmusic

Macfury said:


> The current Pope is way off base on this and other issues. Some of what Levant says is true. Are you saying ALL OF IT is untrue, CM?



I'm surprised at you Macfury. If you know anything about Catholic theology at all, you'd know that the Pope is infallible when speaking on matters ex cathedra. In other words, what either you or Levant says is pretty much irrelevant. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury

I seem to know Catholic theology better than you do. An encyclical is not considered infallible.



fjnmusic said:


> I'm surprised at you Macfury. If you know anything about Catholic theology at all, you'd know that the Pope is infallible when speaking on matters ex cathedra. In other words, what either you or Levant says is pretty much irrelevant.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## fjnmusic

Macfury said:


> I seem to know Catholic theology better than you do. An encyclical is not considered infallible.



Not the encyclical itself, no, but the Pope himself, yes. And since an encyclical IS the Pope speaking on matters ex cathedra, then his infallibility is definitely assumed. Sorry, you lose this round.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury

You're so off base here it's obscene. Check your facts.



fjnmusic said:


> Not the encyclical itself, no, but the Pope himself, yes. And since an encyclical IS the Pope speaking on matters ex cathedra, then his infallibility is definitely assumed. Sorry, you lose this round.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## fjnmusic

Macfury said:


> You're so off base here it's obscene. Check your facts.



I have, and I would strongly suggest you look up the meaning of "ex cathedra" with regard to encyclicals. You talk like you know so much about all things Catholic, but apparently you missed this lesson.

http://www.catholic.com/quickquesti...where-did-the-catholic-church-come-up-with-it


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury

A papal document, such as an encyclical is not typically made ex cathedra. It _may_ contain infallible truths, if it reflects "unchanging teachings" of the RC Church even if the entire document is not infallible. For example, the recent environment encyclical exhorted the faithful to rebuke the practice of abortion. In this matter, the encyclical is infallible.

However, regarding any new material, the encyclical must meet all three of these requirements:
1) the subject is a matter of faith or morals
2) the pope must be teaching as supreme pastor, and 
3) the pope must indicate that the teaching is infallible.

Pope Francis has not claimed that his environment encyclical is either infallible, or a binding matter of faith.



fjnmusic said:


> I have, and I would strongly suggest you look up the meaning of "ex cathedra" with regard to encyclicals. You talk like you know so much about all things Catholic, but apparently you missed this lesson.
> 
> What does the term ex cathedra mean, and where did the Catholic Church come up with it? | Catholic Answers
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## fjnmusic

Macfury said:


> A papal document, such as an encyclical is not typically made ex cathedra. It _may_ contain infallible truths, if it reflects "unchanging teachings" of the RC Church even if the entire document is not infallible. For example, the recent environment encyclical exhorted the faithful to rebuke the practice of abortion. In this matter, the encyclical is infallible.
> 
> 
> 
> However, regarding any new material, the encyclical must meet all three of these requirements:
> 
> 1) the subject is a matter of faith or morals
> 
> 2) the pope must be teaching as supreme pastor, and
> 
> 3) the pope must indicate that the teaching is infallible.
> 
> 
> 
> Pope Francis has not claimed that his environment encyclical is either infallible, or a binding matter of faith.



Fair enough. However, I am not so sure he hasn't claimed infallibility on this matter. Remember, it is the Pope himself, not the document, that is considered infallible, and if some of the matters, such as abortion, are considered ex cathedra, it is kind of nitpicking to say, oh he was only referring to this limited part of the whole document. The rest was just an opinion. For Catholics, the Pope's opinion matters, big time. Especially a Pope who is as popular as this one.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury

In the entire history of encyclicals, the Pope has claimed infallibility only twice. The standard argument is that an encyclical may contain statements that are infallible, and you will recognize them simply because the Pope has previously declared them infallible. For example, the message that Catholics cannot both love the environment and support the destruction of life in the human womb--clearly, the Pope has spoken about abortion before and declared it infallible. The point is that having an infallible truth in an encyclical does not make the entire encyclical infallible. 

The Pope's opinion matters, of course, and an encyclical requires Catholics to give the message due consideration. While the teachings in the encyclical may be fallible, the RC Church states that following those teachings will not lead you _away_ from faith.



fjnmusic said:


> Fair enough. However, I am not so sure he hasn't claimed infallibility on this matter. Remember, it is the Pope himself, not the document, that is considered infallible, and if some of the matters, such as abortion, are considered ex cathedra, it is kind of nitpicking to say, oh he was only referring to this limited part of the whole document. The rest was just an opinion. For Catholics, the Pope's opinion matters, big time. Especially a Pope who is as popular as this one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## MacGuiver

An encyclical is simply a teaching document. Not a declaration of infallible Church teaching. He can be wrong in this and in his endorsement of the Al Gore narrative I believe he is. No Catholic is obligated to accept his position on Climate Change as infallible.


----------



## fjnmusic

MacGuiver said:


> An encyclical is simply a teaching document. Not a declaration of infallible Church teaching. He can be wrong in this and in his endorsement of the Al Gore narrative I believe he is. No Catholic is obligated to accept his position on Climate Change as infallible.



Sounds an awful lot like the cherry picking you've described in earlier arguments.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury

If it sounds like that to you it's because your are, again, spectacularly wrong about your understanding of Catholicism. These are fundamentals of Catholic theology you are mistaken about, not esoteric concepts.

It would be the equivalent of mistaking Canada's Food Guide for dietary law.



fjnmusic said:


> Sounds an awful lot like the cherry picking you've described in earlier arguments.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## fjnmusic

Macfury said:


> If it sounds like that to you it's because your are, again, spectacularly wrong about your understanding of Catholicism. These are fundamentals of Catholic theology you are mistaken about, not esoteric concepts.
> 
> 
> 
> It would be the equivalent of mistaking Canada's Food Guide for dietary law.



You can quite politely **** off with your condescending attitude about how much you know about Catholicism and how little you assume I or anyone else knows. I grew up Catholic my whole life along with my family and friends; you did not, so you are in no position to pass judgement. You are an "expert" in the same way one has studied European traditions but never actually been to Europe. Or one who has read everything there is to know about guitar but doesn't know the first thing about how to actually play a D chord. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury

fjnmusic said:


> You can quite politely **** off with your condescending attitude about how much you know about Catholicism and how little you assume I or anyone else knows. I grew up Catholic my whole life along with my family and friends; you did not, so you are in no position to pass judgement.


fjn, you are factually in error and I am perfectly comfortable telling you that--facts are not relative, no matter how many years you've attended mass. 

That said, I'm surprised to see you suddenly taking ownership of your Roman Catholicism when you've spent the last couple of years here telling people how you don't really take its beliefs very seriously.



fjnmusic said:


> You are an "expert" in the same way one has studied European traditions but never actually been to Europe. Or one who has read everything there is to know about guitar but doesn't know the first thing about how to actually play a D chord.


I recall you lecturing people here about the culture of Quebec following a short vacation in la Belle Province.

Lighten up man!


----------



## fjnmusic

Macfury: has anybody pointed out to you that you simply like to argue? Someone could observe that something is green and you would be unrelenting in pointing out its inherent redness, just to have something to regale against us. I am born and bread RC from day one, something you ca not take away from me, something you have claimed you are not, and yet you claim to I understand RC-ism better than those of us who are and have been all our lives. Like it or not, I KNOW what it is to be RC, hypocrisy and mistakes and all, and you know what's it's like to read about being RC.

Also, Pope Francis is the best pope we have seen in modern times, maybe of all time, and he succeeds in bringing back lapsed Catholics because he GETS IT. Sadly, you don't, and you likely never will.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury

I notice when people are wrong... and only generally argue when they are VERY wrong. I don't care how long you've been an agnostic member of the Roman Catholic church. You've made it clear here how little you respect your church, its beliefs and its traditions and how its very underpinnings are false--and only now you've had a moment of faith?

On the matters of fact at hand you are demonstrably wrong.


----------



## fjnmusic

Macfury said:


> I notice when people are wrong... and only generally argue when they are VERY wrong. I don't care how long you've been an agnostic member of the Roman Catholic church. You've made it clear here how little you respect your church, its beliefs and its traditions and how its very underpinnings are false--and only now you've had a moment of faith?
> 
> 
> 
> On the matters of fact at hand you are demonstrably wrong.



There is no cure for assholism, which would seem to be your affliction for longer than I have been an "agnostic Roman Catholic." Better watch out; I suspect there are far more of us than the other kind. In any event, I still have the club membership, while you peer in through the windows.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury

Typically, when someone's been owned they turn their rage outward...



fjnmusic said:


> There is no cure for assholism, which would seem to be your affliction for longer than I have been an "agnostic Roman Catholic." Better watch out; I suspect there are far more of us than the other kind. In any event, I still have the club membership, while you peer in through the windows.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## fjnmusic

Macfury said:


> Typically, when someone's been owned they turn their rage outward...



Well, that explains your rage then I suppose. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury

Yes, that's me. Angry all the time because your arguments are like a steel trap.



fjnmusic said:


> Well, that explains your rage then I suppose.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## MacGuiver

I'm glad to see your reversion from agnosticism FJN with your embrace of the teaching authority of the Catholic Church. You won't be on "the right side of history" by secular world standards but you'll have a better chance of being on the right side of eternity. Welcome home!


----------



## fjnmusic

MacGuiver said:


> I'm glad to see your reversion from agnosticism FJN with your embrace of the teaching authority of the Catholic Church. You won't be on "the right side of history" by secular world standards but you'll have a better chance of being on the right side of eternity. Welcome home!



Well thanks, MacGuiver. It's like I never left. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## MacGuiver

fjnmusic said:


> Well thanks, MacGuiver. It's like I never left.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


So you no longer ascribe to your often stated belief that Jesus death on the cross had no merit since we were in no need of a saviour? This is the very cornerstone of Catholicism and Christianity in general. I seem to recall you questioning the very existence of Jesus as just another religious mythology. The old fjn sounded unmistakably agnostic.


----------



## fjnmusic

MacGuiver said:


> So you no longer ascribe to your often stated belief that Jesus death on the cross had no merit since we were in no need of a saviour? This is the very cornerstone of Catholicism and Christianity in general. I seem to recall you questioning the very existence of Jesus as just another religious mythology. The old fjn sounded unmistakably agnostic.



As is the new one. It's all the same FJN. 😎 However, I see no reason to have to renounce the faith I was born into any more than any of the other Catholic hypocrites out there. In fact, I don't see why anyone should have to declare anything ever. I like Pope Francis. He gets it. He is the Pope the church has been needing for a VERY long time, so I'm glad to see him as the guy in charge. 

No, there are tons of doctrines I disagree with, but so what? Being a Catholic does not mean being mindless; the Good Lord gave me a functioning mind and I'm gonna use it. For example, if Adam and Eve (who would have had exactly the same DNA, by the way, since she was basically cloned from one of his ribs) were actually metaphorical, which is the view of the Catholic Church, then the talking snake and the temptation and therefore original sin were also metaphorical. There is no way around this. 

If there was no original sin, then there was nothing mankind needed to be saved from. Which yes does make Jesus existence really superfluous, AS LONG AS one believes that was the only purpose for his existence. I don't believe salvation is necessary. At all. However I do respect the teachings of Yeshua, or Jesus, because I believe they lead to a better life in the here and now. Kindness goes a long way. There is much to learn, but I believe you can learn it much more meaningfully in a soup kitchen than at Sunday mass. 

So there's that. But thanks for asking. I hope it doesn't mean we can't still have meaningful if somewhat heated discussions from time to time.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury

Oh gosh, dragging out those lame old saw arguments about Original Sin again. 

Glad to see you believe Pope Francis "gets it" though--that means you can't be en environmentalist if you don't protect life in the womb against abortion. It also means you reject gay marriage and transgenderism.

No need to renounce your faith all at once--you're doing fine in bite-sized chunks!


----------



## fjnmusic

Macfury said:


> Oh gosh, dragging out those lame old saw arguments about Original Sin again.
> 
> 
> 
> Glad to see you believe Pope Francis "gets it" though--that means you can't be en environmentalist if you don't protect life in the womb against abortion. It also means you reject gay marriage and transgenderism.
> 
> 
> 
> No need to renounce your faith all at once--you're doing fine in bite-sized chunks!



You are still the same old either/or simpleton as always, Macfury. It's not refreshing but at least it's consistent. 

Explain to me, just one time, how it is possible to have a mythical Adam and Eve and an actual original sin. The church knows that you cannot have one without the other, which is why they never go there. Maybe pope Francis will, though it's a pretty big taboo to address openly.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## MacGuiver

FJN you say you see no reason to renounce your faith but that is exactly what you've done time and time again in your posts. Dismissing the very core belief that defines Christianity, Salvation through the atoning sacrifice of Christ. The only thing you don't seem to want to shake is the title. Maybe its job related or fear of disappointing Mom? I find that perplexing. 
If I shared you're disenting views the last thing I would identify as is Roman Catholic. Sorta like insisting you're a vegetarian because you won't eat a squirrel but you'll eat and enjoy any other meat put in front of you. It seems illogical.
And fear not, we can still have meaningful and somewhat heated discussions.


----------



## Macfury

Tell me honestly whether or not you realize that this the _fourth_ time you've delivered that hoary chestnut in this thread alone.



fjnmusic said:


> You are still the same old either/or simpleton as always, Macfury. It's not refreshing but at least it's consistent.
> 
> Explain to me, just one time, how it is possible to have a mythical Adam and Eve and an actual original sin. The church knows that you cannot have one without the other, which is why they never go there. Maybe pope Francis will, though it's a pretty big taboo to address openly.


----------



## fjnmusic

MacGuiver said:


> FJN you say you see no reason to renounce your faith but that is exactly what you've done time and time again in your posts. Dismissing the very core belief that defines Christianity, Salvation through the atoning sacrifice of Christ. The only thing you don't seem to want to shake is the title. Maybe its job related or fear of disappointing Mom? I find that perplexing.
> 
> If I shared you're disenting views the last thing I would identify as is Roman Catholic. Sorta like insisting you're a vegetarian because you won't eat a squirrel but you'll eat and enjoy any other meat put in front of you. It seems illogical.
> 
> And fear not, we can still have meaningful and somewhat heated discussions.



I like to order vegetarian pizza with ground beef. It's easier than specifying all the particular vegetables I want. And one thing I definitely don't need to do is justify my beliefs to someone I've only ever chatted with on an Internet forum. I don't need or seek your approval. You can believe anything you want. Not really my business unless you want to talk about it. And I would bet there are far more CINO's out there than are "true believers" anyway. 


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## fjnmusic

Macfury said:


> Tell me honestly whether or not you realize that this the _fourth_ time you've delivered that hoary chestnut in this thread alone.



Should I care? You have failed to nullify the assertion yet again. I suppose you take Adam and Eve as literal.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury

fjnmusic said:


> IAnd one thing I definitely don't need to do is justify my beliefs to someone I've only ever chatted with on an Internet forum.


I doubt anyone would evee accuse you of justifying your beliefs, fjn...



fjnmusic said:


> And I would bet there are far more CINO's out there than are "true believers" anyway.



Yes, Christ talked about that very thing!



> Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, _*and many there be which go in thereat*_:


----------



## Macfury

fjnmusic said:


> Should I care? You have failed to nullify the assertion yet again. I suppose you take Adam and Eve as literal.


I only ask because I have successfully nullified your assertion each time.


----------



## fjnmusic

Macfury said:


> I doubt anyone would evee accuse you of justifying your beliefs, fjn...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, Christ talked about that very thing!



Christ talked about CINO's did He? Catholics In Name Only? Interesting, since Catholics, let alone Christians, did not exist yet. Always fun talking with you, MF.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## fjnmusic

Macfury said:


> I only ask because I have successfully nullified your assertion each time.



Really? I have read nothing of the sort from you. Do you believe Adam and Eve were real or metaphorical? Sorry to be so insistent, but it's kind of a key point.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## fjnmusic

> Adam and Eve: Real People
> 
> It is equally impermissible to dismiss the story of Adam and Eve and the fall (Gen. 2–3) as a fiction. A question often raised in this context is whether the human race descended from an original pair of two human beings (a teaching known as monogenism) or a pool of early human couples (a teaching known as polygenism).
> 
> In this regard, Pope Pius XII stated: "When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty. For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains either that after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parents of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents. Now, it is in no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the teaching authority of the Church proposed with regard to original sin which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam in which through generation is passed onto all and is in everyone as his own" (Humani Generis 37).
> 
> The story of the creation and fall of man is a true one, even if not written entirely according to modern literary techniques. The Catechism states, "The account of the fall in Genesis 3 uses figurative language, but affirms a primeval event, a deed that took place at the beginning of the history of man. Revelation gives us the certainty of faith that the whole of human history is marked by the original fault freely committed by our first parents" (CCC 390).


http://www.catholic.com/tracts/adam-eve-and-evolution

As you can see, the concept of first parents, Adam and Eve, even though the biblical passage uses "figurative language" to tell a story, is absolutely essential to the establishment of "original sin"—a concept absolutely essential to Catholic doctrine. There is no way around it. Since I do not accept Adam and Eve as anything more than a fairy tale, albeit a good one, then this is one if the ways that I and many many good Catholics must part ways with the official interpretation of the Catechism. A story cannot both use figurative language and be literally true—not at the same time. It defies logic, and since my avatar represents logic, this is the Higher Power I am faithful to, although I can see what the CCC did there.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury

That would be FINOs--faithful in name only.



fjnmusic said:


> Christ talked about CINO's did He? Catholics In Name Only? Interesting, since Catholics, let alone Christians, did not exist yet. Always fun talking with you, MF.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## MacGuiver

fjnmusic said:


> Adam, Eve, and Evolution | Catholic Answers
> 
> As you can see, the concept of first parents, Adam and Eve, even though the biblical passage uses "figurative language" to tell a story, is absolutely essential to the establishment of "original sin"—a concept absolutely essential to Catholic doctrine. There is no way around it. Since I do not accept Adam and Eve as anything more than a fairy tale, albeit a good one, then this is one if the ways that I and many many good Catholics must part ways with the official interpretation of the Catechism. A story cannot both use figurative language and be literally true—not at the same time. It defies logic, and since my avatar represents logic, this is the Higher Power I am faithful to, although I can see what the CCC did there.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


You're not parting with the official interpretation of the Catechism on a lesser matter like fasting on Friday or the necessity of attending weekly Mass, you're parting with the entire premise of Christianity. The absolute core belief that Jesus is the Son of God and his death on the cross was a perfect sacrifice for our redemption. And upon rejection of this core principle all other Catholic teachings fall in ruin or loose relevance. Claiming to be Catholic or even Christian for that matter and rejecting this essential truth is totally illogical. If you're faithful to logic then you'd have to drop the Catholic title. Identifying as Catholic is as illogical as the vegan steak lover.


----------



## Macfury

Christ's sacrifice ended the practice of sacrificing animals to God to purify oneself from sin, because he was the ultimate sacrifice. From that point on, one could ask God for forgiveness directly and make restitution. These sins for which one can ask forgiveness are _actual_ sins--the exercise of choice to commit acts contrary to the will and law of God, for which we are responsible.

The consequence of original sin was physical death. Christ's promise was that through his sacrifice and death, all could seek eternal life. 

So even if you wish to declare that Christ was wrong about original sin and eternal life, his sacrifice was still necessary to pardon us from _actual sin_.




fjnmusic said:


> Adam, Eve, and Evolution | Catholic Answers
> 
> As you can see, the concept of first parents, Adam and Eve, even though the biblical passage uses "figurative language" to tell a story, is absolutely essential to the establishment of "original sin"—a concept absolutely essential to Catholic doctrine. There is no way around it. Since I do not accept Adam and Eve as anything more than a fairy tale, albeit a good one, then this is one if the ways that I and many many good Catholics must part ways with the official interpretation of the Catechism. A story cannot both use figurative language and be literally true—not at the same time. It defies logic, and since my avatar represents logic, this is the Higher Power I am faithful to, although I can see what the CCC did there.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## fjnmusic

MacGuiver said:


> You're not parting with the official interpretation of the Catechism on a lesser matter like fasting on Friday or the necessity of attending weekly Mass, you're parting with the entire premise of Christianity. The absolute core belief that Jesus is the Son of God and his death on the cross was a perfect sacrifice for our redemption. And upon rejection of this core principle all other Catholic teachings fall in ruin or loose relevance. Claiming to be Catholic or even Christian for that matter and rejecting this essential truth is totally illogical. If you're faithful to logic then you'd have to drop the Catholic title. Identifying as Catholic is as illogical as the vegan steak lover.



So tell me, do you believe in the literal story of Adam and Eve? Did they have belly buttons? Was she created from his rib? Did they eat a poisoned apple after being tempted by a talking snake? If you honestly believe all that, then you have no issue with the concept if original sin. Good for you.

If you don't believe in it literally, then you're an even bigger hypocrite than me. So what do you believe? 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## fjnmusic

Macfury said:


> Christ's sacrifice ended the practice of sacrificing animals to God to purify oneself from sin, because he was the ultimate sacrifice. From that point on, one could ask God for forgiveness directly and make restitution. These sins for which one can ask forgiveness are _actual_ sins--the exercise of choice to commit acts contrary to the will and law of God, for which we are responsible.
> 
> 
> 
> The consequence of original sin was physical death. Christ's promise was that through his sacrifice and death, all could seek eternal life.
> 
> 
> 
> So even if you wish to declare that Christ was wrong about original sin and eternal life, his sacrifice was still necessary to pardon us from _actual sin_.



The church makes no mention of actual sin; only Original Sin, which came with the fall of man in the Garden of Eden. Basic Catholic/Christian doctrine. However, one cannot claim that Original Sin is real if Eve, Adam, the talking snake and the garden itself are metaphorical, since that story is the necessary basis for the concept of Original Sin. And the concept is absolutely essential to redemption, not something one can manouver around for the sake of convenience. Two teachings—the virgin birth of Jesus and the Immaculate Conception of Mary—were created specifically to disconnect both Jesus and Mary from Original Sin. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## eMacMan

fjnmusic said:


> The church makes no mention of actual sin; only Original Sin, which came with the fall of man in the Garden of Eden. Basic Catholic/Christian doctrine. However, one cannot claim that Original Sin is real if Eve, Adam, the talking snake and the garden itself are metaphorical, since that story is the necessary basis for the concept of Original Sin. And the concept is absolutely essential to redemption, not something one can manouver around for the sake of convenience. Two teachings—the virgin birth of Jesus and the Immaculate Conception of Mary—were created specifically to disconnect both Jesus and Mary from Original Sin.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


The concept of faith was created in an attempt to over-ride logic. The two are usually but not always mutually exclusive. 

I never used to believe in the concept of original sin, however we have politicians creating wars entirely for the sake of their enriching their already rich buddies. These wars kill some of our finest men and women, devastate regions of the world that pose no threat to us, and leave future generations on the hook for the bill. That debt is as good of an example as any of the concept of original sin. Throw in the fact that in piling up the debt we killed a lot of fathers, daughters, brothers and cousins and all those left staring at the mangled pieces of relatives and homes have more than sufficient motivation to come back and try to exact some sort of payment at a later date. Perhaps another form of original sin?


----------



## Macfury

You've really got to learn more about your own religion, fjn. You are stunningly out of the loop on what it says regarding sin.



fjnmusic said:


> The church makes no mention of actual sin; only Original Sin, which came with the fall of man in the Garden of Eden. Basic Catholic/Christian doctrine. However, one cannot claim that Original Sin is real if Eve, Adam, the talking snake and the garden itself are metaphorical, since that story is the necessary basis for the concept of Original Sin. And the concept is absolutely essential to redemption, not something one can manouver around for the sake of convenience. Two teachings—the virgin birth of Jesus and the Immaculate Conception of Mary—were created specifically to disconnect both Jesus and Mary from Original Sin.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## fjnmusic

eMacMan said:


> The concept of faith was created in an attempt to over-ride logic. The two are usually but not always mutually exclusive.
> 
> I never used to believe in the concept of original sin, however we have politicians creating wars entirely for the sake of their enriching their already rich buddies. These wars kill some of our finest men and women, devastate regions of the world that pose no threat to us, and leave future generations on the hook for the bill. That debt is as good of an example as any of the concept of original sin. Throw in the fact that in piling up the debt we killed a lot of fathers, daughters, brothers and cousins and all those left staring at the mangled pieces of relatives and homes have more than sufficient motivation to come back and try to exact some sort of payment at a later date. Perhaps another form of original sin?



I would agree wholeheartedly that these are all terrible actions, terrible sins even if they violate the rules of one or more religions in the world. But this is a metaphorical extension of the teaching "thou shall not kill" which is a slippery slope indeed. Killing what? Killing who? My understanding from the Commandment referred to anyone from the 12 tribes of Israel; anyone outside that group was fair game. 

The catechism regarding the actual meaning of Original Sin, however, is very specifically tied to Genesis. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## fjnmusic

Macfury said:


> You've really got to learn more about your own religion, fjn. You are stunningly out of the loop on what it says regarding sin.



And still you evade the question. Do you believe literally in the story of Adam and Eve as laid out in Genesis?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury

I believe that Genesis reflects as accurate a view of that period as the writer was capable of understanding and recounting.



fjnmusic said:


> And still you evade the question. Do you believe literally in the story of Adam and Eve as laid out in Genesis?


----------



## Macfury

Lesson 6 from the Baltimore Cathechism:



> *63. Is original sin the only kind of sin?*
> 
> Original sin is not the only kind of sin; there is another kind, called actual sin, which we ourselves commit.
> 
> *64. What is actual sin?*
> 
> Actual sin is any willful thought, desire, word, action, or omission forbidden by the law of God.





fjnmusic said:


> The church makes no mention of actual sin; only Original Sin, which came with the fall of man in the Garden of Eden. Basic Catholic/Christian doctrine. However, one cannot claim that Original Sin is real if Eve, Adam, the talking snake and the garden itself are metaphorical, since that story is the necessary basis for the concept of Original Sin. And the concept is absolutely essential to redemption, not something one can manouver around for the sake of convenience. Two teachings—the virgin birth of Jesus and the Immaculate Conception of Mary—were created specifically to disconnect both Jesus and Mary from Original Sin.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## fjnmusic

Macfury said:


> I believe that Genesis reflects as accurate a view of that period as the writer was capable of understanding and recounting.



So you do believe that Adam and Eve actually existed as described in Genesis?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury

fjnmusic said:


> So you do believe that Adam and Eve actually existed as described in Genesis?


I believe, as the Catholic catechism says, that it is a recounting told in figurative style that reflects truth--therefore, I neither disbelieve the specific names of the people involved, nor know enough about the writing of it to claim it is objective. However, I believe it successfully underpins the concepts of both original and actual sin.


----------



## fjnmusic

Macfury said:


> I believe, as the Catholic catechism says, that it is a recounting told in figurative style that reflects truth--therefore, I neither disbelieve the specific names of the people involved, nor know enough about the writing of it to claim it is objective. However, I believe it successfully underpins the concepts of both original and actual sin.



And you accept that Eve was created from Adam's rib? And that Adam and Eve begat three sons: Cain, Abel and Seth?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury

fjnmusic said:


> And you accept that Eve was created from Adam's rib? And that Adam and Eve begat three sons: Cain, Abel and Seth?


This seems to be going down another old path where bad ideas go to die. Why don't you cut to the chase? Is this the one about incest?


----------



## fjnmusic

Macfury said:


> This seems to be going down another old path where bad ideas go to die. Why don't you cut to the chase? Is this the one about incest?


Just asking what you honestly believe, Macfury, No need to get huffy. Either you believe it or you don't, same as me.


----------



## Macfury

fjnmusic said:


> Just asking what you honestly believe, Macfury, No need to get huffy. Either you believe it or you don't, same as me.


You're mistaking impatience and boredom for huffiness.

If you're going to keep on going with a long shopping list of "do you believes" without any intellectual pay-off, I'll lose interest.


----------



## fjnmusic

Macfury said:


> You're mistaking impatience and boredom for huffiness.
> 
> 
> 
> If you're going to keep on going with a long shopping list of "do you believes" without any intellectual pay-off, I'll lose interest.



Then I will cut to the chase: do you personally believe the account in Genesis to be true? You've been avoiding directly answering the question so far, sidestepping officially saying "no" with a few carefully placed caveats. It is a crucial part of the argument you present, though you perhaps do not understand that yet.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury

I believe that it _represents _something true. I don't give the names or identities of the individual people a lot of thought until much later, when the accounts of the Bible dovetail with historical accounts. So if you're trying to get me to say that I know for a fact what the names of the three brothers are, I simply don't know.



fjnmusic said:


> Then I will cut to the chase: do you personally believe the account in Genesis to be true? You've been avoiding directly answering the question so far, sidestepping officially saying "no" with a few carefully placed caveats. It is a crucial part of the argument you present, though you perhaps do not understand that yet.


----------



## fjnmusic

Macfury said:


> I believe that it _represents _something true. I don't give the names or identities of the individual people a lot of thought until much later, when the accounts of the Bible dovetail with historical accounts. So if you're trying to get me to say that I know for a fact what the names of the three brothers are, I simply don't know.



Not just the brothers; the whole story. Adam (or whatever name you want to call him), Eve's creation from Adam's rib (which would give them identical DNA), the decree that they could eat from any tree in the garden save one, the temptation by the talking snake, the choice to eat the Apple (which is necessary for the story to exist at all), and the consequent fall of man and all that entails after Adam and Eve ate the fruit from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil and became mortal. And Eve and all women being punished (for the sin of disobedience apparently) with the pain of childbirth thereafter. And the rest that follows after that...

If you really believe that whole story literally, then I'm pretty amazed at your naïveté for an otherwise rational person. For me, it's a great story, a highly educational myth, but absolutely not literally true. There is just no way that it could be. But if you toss out Adam and Eve as fictional, then Original Sin as established by Adam and his descendants, through, Noah, through David, through Joseph and ultimately to Jesus, must also be fictional. A true and literal Original Sin cannot evolve from a fictional account. And the bloodline for Original Sin is definitely linked back through the generations from Jesus to Adam, which is what makes the world today only 6000 years old, by the same account. And you cannot refer to some abstract idea of disobeying God in a general sense; Catholic Catechism ties Original Sin to one very specific transgression by one very specific individual right at the start of mankind. There are kit two or kore bloodlines—one bloodline links all of mankind according to the old and Bew Testament. 

(In fact, the account of the blood line of Jesus is rather bizarre anyway, since He was conceived by the power of the hole spirit and therefore not actually part of the Joseph family tree except by adoption. In fact that would make a great chapter: "The Adoption of Jesus.")

Why I am focussing so much on this is that you have taken swipe after swipe at my beliefs without actually declaring your own. When pressed, you either get very defensive or feign boredom. Either way, it seems clear to me that this is a discussion you wish to avoid, probably because the logical follow-through is that it could upset your whole firmly established belief system. I can't blame you for being a little scared. However, I accept that when we are talking religion we are really talking mythology, no matter what the religion is, and it becomes easier to accept and see the connections between world religions and where they got their ideas from. You are on a different path than I, obviously, but we're all going to end up in the same place once this life is through. Hopefully providing some kind of nourishment for trees.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury

I'm going to respond to your candid post in chunks, fjn. The bottom is a good place to start. If this is the crux of your approach--that Christianity and Catholicism are mythological and that your existence terminates as compost--then I don't know why you bother to call yourself either Christian or Roman Catholic. You appear to reject every underpinning of Christianity as a fabrication.

I may like borscht, and believe that Fyodor Dostoyevsky "taught some good lessons" but that doesn't mean it makes any sense to call myself a Russian.

I am not saying you are neither Christian nor Roman Catholic. Just asking--how close am I to the mark?



fjnmusic said:


> However, I accept that when we are talking religion we are really talking mythology, no matter what the religion is, and it becomes easier to accept and see the connections between world religions and where they got their ideas from. You are on a different path than I, obviously, but we're all going to end up in the same place once this life is through. Hopefully providing some kind of nourishment for trees.


----------



## fjnmusic

Macfury said:


> I'm going to respond to your candid post in chunks, fjn. The bottom is a good place to start. If this is the crux of your approach--that Christianity and Catholicism are mythological and that your existence terminates as compost--then I don't know why you bother to call yourself either Christian or Roman Catholic. You appear to reject every underpinning of Christianity as a fabrication.
> 
> 
> 
> I may like borscht, and believe that Fyodor Dostoyevsky "taught some good lessons" but that doesn't mean it makes any sense to call myself a Russian.
> 
> 
> 
> I am not saying you are neither Christian nor Roman Catholic. Just asking--how close am I to the mark?



I think what I call myself is irrelevant. I am asking you what YOU believe. I was baptized long before I ever had any choice in the matter—womb to tomb, like most Catholics—so as far as the Sacraments are concerned, you bet I'm as Catholic as the next guy. 

Now you have stated in the past that you are not Catholic, which is fine, but so far I don't recall you ever stating what you are. Only what you are not. I don't think it's fair to put only my faith under a microscope if you want to have a real discussion about this. So.....what are you?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury

fjnmusic said:


> I think what I call myself is irrelevant. I am asking you what YOU believe. I was baptized long before I ever had any choice in the matter—womb to tomb, like most Catholics—so as far as the Sacraments are concerned, you bet I'm as Catholic as the next guy.


So you deem false those things your faith deems essential, but there are a lot of you. Got it. That's important to the way I deal with the rest of your OP.



fjnmusic said:


> Now you have stated in the past that you are not Catholic, which is fine, but so far I don't recall you ever stating what you are. Only what you are not. I don't think it's fair to put only my faith under a microscope if you want to have a real discussion about this. So.....what are you?


I did. I'm Protestant.


----------



## fjnmusic

Macfury said:


> So you deem false those things your faith deems essential, but there are a lot of you. Got it. That's important to the way I deal with the rest of your OP.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I did. I'm Protestant.



There are many variations of Protestantism. Any particular flavour? 


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury

First Church of Heinz--57 Varieties.



fjnmusic said:


> There are many variations of Protestantism. Any particular flavour?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## fjnmusic

Macfury said:


> First Church of Heinz--57 Varieties.



So how do you decide which one to go to on Sunday mornings?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury

fjnmusic said:


> So how do you decide which one to go to on Sunday mornings?


The character of churches changes quickly depending on who heads up each individual church. I like churches that attempt to reach me intellectually, but that's usually an approach taken by the individual minister, not the church.


----------



## Macfury

Back to the question of Original Sin, Catholicism and Jesus. Essentially you're saying that it is all a myth, however if the RC Church wants to claim it is real, then the story Adam and Eve needs to be real for Christ's crucifixion to mean anything. Correct?


----------



## MacGuiver

FJN you argue that you are Catholic because you received all the sacraments but if you believe its merely mythology, the sacraments you received were powerless, empty theatre. You had some water spilled on your head as an infant and some crazy guy in a costume uttered some impotent magical words over you at your confirmation. Logic would tell you that nothing magical happened and you're no more locked in for life a Catholic than if you stayed in a Holiday Inn Express.


----------



## Macfury

MacGuiver said:


> FJN you argue that you are Catholic because you received all the sacraments but if you believe its merely mythology, the sacraments you received were powerless, empty theatre. You had some water spilled on your head as an infant and some crazy guy in a costume uttered some impotent magical words over you at your confirmation. Logic would tell you that nothing magical happened and you're no more locked in for life a Catholic than if you stayed in a Holiday Inn Express.


But that crazy Pope who believes all of these myths "gets it" and is encouraging even more non-believers to attend church. 

Hallelujah!


----------



## fjnmusic

Macfury said:


> Back to the question of Original Sin, Catholicism and Jesus. Essentially you're saying that it is all a myth, however if the RC Church wants to claim it is real, then the story Adam and Eve needs to be real for Christ's crucifixion to mean anything. Correct?



Yup. In a nutshell. I have yet to read a satisfactory response to this rather obvious conundrum.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## fjnmusic

MacGuiver said:


> FJN you argue that you are Catholic because you received all the sacraments but if you believe its merely mythology, the sacraments you received were powerless, empty theatre. You had some water spilled on your head as an infant and some crazy guy in a costume uttered some impotent magical words over you at your confirmation. Logic would tell you that nothing magical happened and you're no more locked in for life a Catholic than if you stayed in a Holiday Inn Express.



Not just me. You as well. 

How do you really know what someone else believes? By what they tell you? They could be lying. It's also possible that someone may accept something as true at one point in their life and reject it later. Many people switch religious affiliations. What makes them wrong and you right? For all I know, you're just bluffing about what you profess to believe. Fire insurance, I believe it's called. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## fjnmusic

Macfury said:


> But that crazy Pope who believes all of these myths "gets it" and is encouraging even more non-believers to attend church.
> 
> 
> 
> Hallelujah!



Pope Francis is a decent man first. He has the power to help people today in the real world, not just some imagined world in the hereafter. He actually cares about the poor and he is doing what he can to help them. He is far more influential than you or I. That is why I respect him. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## fjnmusic

At the risk of pushing even more buttons, I submit this this: 









Because someone said so is a weak argument to prove anything, including religious premises. Far more can be learned by how we treat each other in this life, quite apart from religious teaching. It's not that religion is wrong....just very limited in its scope.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury

fjnmusic said:


> How do you really know what someone else believes? By what they tell you? They could be lying. It's also possible that someone may accept something as true at one point in their life and reject it later. Many people switch religious affiliations. What makes them wrong and you right? For all I know, you're just bluffing about what you profess to believe. Fire insurance, I believe it's called.


That's a pretty weak statement. If you believe everyone is bluffing, why even bother having a discussion about anything? Macguiver is commenting on what you say you believe. I have found most people to be relatively honest, but if you're simply prone to lying and see everyone else as a liar, that doesn't affect anyone else.



fjnmusic said:


> Pope Francis is a decent man first. He has the power to help people today in the real world, not just some imagined world in the hereafter. He actually cares about the poor and he is doing what he can to help them. He is far more influential than you or I. That is why I respect him.


You said that it was a good thing that he was bringing more people to the RC church, not that he was some guy who wants tax policies changed.

Though I doubt his proclamations against abortion, gay marriage and transgenderism are packing them into the pews.



fjnmusic said:


> At the risk of pushing even more buttons, I submit this this:


Why would old crappy memes push anyone's buttons?


----------



## fjnmusic

Macfury said:


> You said that it was a good thing that he was bringing more people to the RC church, not that he was some guy who wants tax policies changed.
> 
> 
> 
> Though I doubt his proclamations against abortion, gay marriage and transgenderism are packing them into the pews.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why would old crappy memes push anyone's buttons?



True. I disagree with his take on some of the more controversial sexuality-infused views that he has, but as a CINO, I am totally fine with cherry-picking the policies I agree with. He is a damn sight more relatable than Benedict was on my view. 

As to the meme, I think there's a lot of truth there. Who gets to decide whose religion is better and truer than everyone else's? If I say "mine" then it is really just narcissism wrapped up in the guise of "moral authority." Again, for me it comes down to how we treat others, which is coincidentally what I understand to be the gist of the Golden Rule in one of its many forms.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury

fjnmusic said:


> True. I disagree with his take on some of the more controversial sexuality-infused views that he has, but as a CINO...


I think today you've graduated from being a CINO and can justifiably remove the letter "C." No fire insurance left either. 



fjnmusic said:


> He is a damn sight more relatable than Benedict was on my view.


Why do you even care what Popes do or think?



fjnmusic said:


> As to the meme, I think there's a lot of truth there. Who gets to decide whose religion is better and truer than everyone else's?


I think God gets to decide.


----------



## fjnmusic

Macfury said:


> I think today you've graduated from being a CINO and can justifiably remove the letter "C." No fire insurance left either.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you even care what Popes do or think?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think God gets to decide.



Yup, pretty simplistic. Not even grounded in Protestantism to tell you the truth. Seems to give you a great thrill though to call out someone else due to the fact they believe differently than what you think they ought to believe. Just not sure why you care so much. What if you were to discover that you are actually God, and so is everyone else. Bet that wouldn't fit your little schema too well. 

I'll leave you with the words of the Master: judge not, lest ye be judged. 

I'm tired. Goodnight.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury

fjnmusic said:


> Yup, pretty simplistic. Not even grounded in Protestantism to tell you the truth. Seems to give you a great thrill though to call out someone else due to the fact they believe differently than what you think they ought to believe.


fjn, it isn't that I care what you believe or that I'm telling you what to believe. It's that you say what you believe and it doesn't meet the Pope's requirements for being Catholic. It is the good man who cares for the poor who says you don't fit the bill.



fjnmusic said:


> I'll leave you with the words of the Master:_ judge not, lest ye be judged._


If you judge, then be prepared to be judged yourself. It is not a call to suspend judgement.

But I'm not judging you. If salt came to the door and said he wanted to sweeten my coffee, I'd have to gently tell him to take a hike. He simply doesn't meet the requirements of sugar, even if he wrapped himself in one of those little paper envelopes you find in coffee shops.



fjnmusic said:


> What if you were to discover that you are actually God, and so is everyone else. Bet that wouldn't fit your little schema too well.


It wouldn't even fit my big schema. Neither would it fit my schema too well if my dog turned into a cat overnight.


----------



## CubaMark

*Well.... as entertaining as ^^this^^ has been.... down here in Latin America everyone is talking about Pope Francis' big South American tour:*










*Pope Francis Lands in Ecuador to Begin South America Trip*

Met by indigenous children in traditional garb and a stiff Andean wind that blew the white skullcap off his head as he emerged from his airplane, Pope Francis arrived here on Sunday to start a three-nation tour that will take him to some of the poorest and yet most environmentally rich countries of his native continent.

* * *​
The first pope from Latin America, Francis later drove through the streets of Quito, the capital, standing in the back of a white car with open sides. Thousands of enthusiastic followers packed the route, throwing flower petals, locally made Panama hats and other items at him. 

* * *​
“My heart is beating faster and faster,” said Filiberto Rojas, 38, a Colombian businessman who flew to Quito on Saturday and set up a small tent outside the park where Francis is to preside over a huge open-air Mass on Tuesday. The faithful will not be allowed into the park until Monday afternoon, but Mr. Rojas said the wait was worth it: “We haven’t had a pope like this in a long time, a humble pope, a pope of the poor, a pope of the people.”​
(NYTimes)


*Pope Francis drinks coca leaf tea on South American tour*

Pope Francis drank a tea of coca leaves, camomile and anise seeds on the plane to Bolivia from Ecuador to ward off altitude sickness upon arrival at the highest international airport in the world.

Coca is the main ingredient in cocaine but people in the Andean region have chewed coca leaves or drunk coca tea for centuries for its medicinal properties.

* * *​
For health reasons, the 78-year-old Francis, who lost part of one lung to disease when he was a young man, will be in La Paz – 3,650 meters above sea level – for only about four hours before moving on to Santa Cruz, Bolivia’s largest city, which is at much lower altitude.​
(TheGuardian)


----------



## Macfury

I'd like one of those Panama hats that they keep throwing.


----------



## fjnmusic

Sounds pretty exciting, Mark! The man definitely has charisma.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury

A tour of a nice man!


----------



## MacGuiver

Jesus nailed to the hammer and sickle of Communism. Who picked this up at the gift shop?
If the Pope's face were speaking it would be saying WTF?


----------



## Macfury

Is the guy showing the Pope how Communism crushes Christianity? Is it like the horse's head in the Godfather, offered as a warning?



MacGuiver said:


> Jesus nailed to the hammer and sickle of Communism. Who picked this up at the gift shop?
> If the Pope's face were speaking it would be saying WTF?


----------



## chasMac

JP2 would have excommunicated the guy on the spot.


----------



## Macfury

chasMac said:


> JP2 would have excommunicated the guy on the spot.


Sure, but if he does that, how can he pack the pews with lapsed Catholics and agnostics?


----------



## fjnmusic

MacGuiver said:


> Jesus nailed to the hammer and sickle of Communism. Who picked this up at the gift shop?
> If the Pope's face were speaking it would be saying WTF?


I don't think he looks too impressed. More like, what the **** were you thinking?


----------



## Macfury

Il Papa says:



> "The principle of the subordination of private property to the universal destination of goods, and thus the right of everyone to their use, is a golden rule of social conduct and “the first principle of the whole ethical and social order.”


Perhaps he's just choked up over receiving that communist trophy.


----------



## fjnmusic

fjnmusic said:


> Pope Francis is a decent man first. He has the power to help people today in the real world, not just some imagined world in the hereafter. He actually cares about the poor and he is doing what he can to help them. He is far more influential than you or I. That is why I respect him.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk



Not afraid to wade into politics and government, Pope Francis keeps waging the good fight against the subjugation of the poor by the rich. Gosh, he almost sounds....like a New Democrat!

http://www.edmontonjournal.com/Dung...alism+greed+pursuit+money/11208415/story.html


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury

Il Papa is not competent to wade into politics. Neither are most New Democrats. However, the Pope doesn't sound like a New Democrat but a totalitarian. The pope, however, is certainly not as greedy as the Alberta teacher's union.



fjnmusic said:


> Not afraid to wade into politics and government, Pope Francis keeps waging the good fight against the subjugation of the poor by the rich. Gosh, he almost sounds....like a New Democrat!
> 
> ‘Dung of the devil': Pope Francis denounces capitalism, greed and the pursuit of money


----------



## fjnmusic

How is the Alberta Teachers' Association (there is no such thing as an Alberta Teachers' Union—better update your sources) greedy? They take from my pocket, not yours, in terms of fees, and I'm not complaining. You pay no ATA fees. Period.

Also not sure how your misdirect even remotely responds to the link about the Pope and charity. You may know how to stir the pot, but you sure don't cook up any of your own points very well.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury

I used small letters. It was describing the activity of its members. I'm sure the Pope would find it unconscionable that some teachers make $100,000 while gas station attendants earn minimum wage. The Alberta Teachers' Association is greedily scooping up "the dung of the Devil" even as its Catholic teachers no longer revere the Roman Catholic church.



fjnmusic said:


> How is the Alberta Teachers' Association (there is no such thing as an Alberta Teachers' Union—better update your sources) greedy? They take from my pocket, not yours, in terms of fees, and I'm not complaining. You pay no ATA fees. Period.
> 
> Also not sure how your misdirect even remotely responds to the link about the Pope and charity. You may know how to stir the pot, but you sure don't cook up any of your own points very well.
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## fjnmusic

Macfury said:


> I used small letters. It was describing the activity of its members. I'm sure the Pope would find it unconscionable that some teachers make $100,000 while gas station attendants earn minimum wage. The Alberta Teachers' Association is greedily scooping up "the dung of the Devil" even as its Catholic teachers no longer revere the Roman Catholic church.



Boy, you're just inventing allegations right out of your arse now, Macfury. Maybe lay off the sauce for a while.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury

Do you think that the Pope wasn't talking about divesting teachers of their 6-figure salaries, fjn? Or do you think his case for "sharing fully "with the poor involves some magic space way up the food chain leaving you comfortable untouched? When Il Papa talks about a whole new "social order," and the subjugation of private property to public good, you folks are among the low-hanging fruit in his crosshairs.



fjnmusic said:


> Boy, you're just inventing allegations right out of your arse now, Macfury. Maybe lay off the sauce for a while.


----------



## fjnmusic

Macfury said:


> Do you think that the Pope wasn't talking about divesting teachers of their 6-figure salaries, fjn? Or do you think his case for "sharing fully "with the poor involves some magic space way up the food chain leaving you comfortable untouched? When Il Papa talks about a whole new "social order," and the subjugation of private property to public good, you folks are among the low-hanging fruit in his crosshairs.



I don't know of any teachers making six figure salaries, MF. I certainly don't. I do know however what it feels like to have a wage freeze for the past three years while the cost of living continues to rise, and MLA pay has risen 71% over the past five years (minus a 5% "rollback"—setting a good example, as Jim Prentice explained). I also know what it's like to teach 40 kids with special needs in a portable classroom designed for 20 while the temperature rises to +32 on the hot days because there is no AC, even though it's the newest school in the city (gov't policy is not to include AC in any new schools north of Red Deer). I'm pretty sure I'm familiar with those sorts of day to day details. To quote the Bee Gees, you don't know what it's like. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury

If there are people poorer than you are, fjn, the Pope wants your salaries and that of the MLAs. Doesn't matter whether you work hard for it.


----------



## heavyall

fjnmusic said:


> I don't know of any teachers making six figure salaries,


You know them, they just aren't telling you the truth about how much they make:


----------



## fjnmusic

heavyall said:


> You know them, they just aren't telling you the truth about how much they make:



Math is hard, said Jim Prentice. Those are five figure salaries, not six. Unless you count the cents, then they would be scene figure salaries.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## fjnmusic

Macfury said:


> If there are people poorer than you are, fjn, the Pope wants your salaries and that of the MLAs. Doesn't matter whether you work hard for it.



Source, please. You're talking out of your arse again.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury

heavyall said:


> You know them, they just aren't telling you the truth about how much they make.


That's after 10 years! They hit six figures in September 2015. But the Pope apparently wants to exempt teachers from his income redistribution plan.


----------



## Macfury

When the Pope started talking about radical income redistribution, who did you think he was going after--just millionaires? 

You though you were exempt and you were cheering him on! That's rich!!





fjnmusic said:


> Source, please. You're talking out of your arse again.


----------



## fjnmusic

Macfury said:


> That's after 10 years! They hit six figures in September 2015. But the Pope apparently wants to exempt teachers from his income redistribution plan.



Again, you're dreaming, Macfury. Check the actual collective agreements on the ATA website if you need to convince yourself. Starting salaries in Alberta are about $50,000, for teachers with 4 years of education, top salaries (after 10 years) are maybe $90,000, with a whopping 2% raise coming in September after a 3 year wage freeze. Those with 5 or 6 years of education can earn more. I have never complained about how much teachers make in Alberta, only the wage freeze that makes it hard to keep up with inflation. Teachers here are paid well for the work they do, especially compared to US and A. But there is NO way the AVERAGE salary in Alberta is $99,000. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## fjnmusic

Macfury said:


> When the Pope started talking about radical income redistribution, who did you think he was going after--just millionaires?
> 
> 
> 
> You though you were exempt and you were cheering him on! That's rich!!



We have this thing called taxes, Macfury. Perhaps you've heard of it? It's how we maintain this socialist state you're so afraid of. I'm pretty sure the Pope would have a lot of good things to say about Canada's record for looking after the poor compared with US and A and many other countries. Maybe not so great on honoring the rights of First Nations' peoples.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## CubaMark

God forbid we should pay teachers for doing their most essential job - educating the next generation. Far too many folks (not all of 'em are just in Texas and Alabama) would rather just put a preacher up in front of the class and have a properly-approved bible as the only textbook....


----------



## Rps

Fjn, not sure if the benefits are included in those numbers, but, yes, first year teachers are in the $45 to $50K range in many provinces. I, too, am an educator and I find many people are critics .... Doing what we do is not easy, and I don't think our issues are readily understood by those out side the field.


----------



## Dr.G.

Rps said:


> Fjn, not sure if the benefits are included in those numbers, but, yes, first year teachers are in the $45 to $50K range in many provinces. I, too, am an educator and I find many people are critics .... Doing what we do is not easy, and I don't think our issues are readily understood by those out side the field.


All too true, mon ami.

:clap::clap::clap::clap::clap:


----------



## fjnmusic

Rps said:


> Fjn, not sure if the benefits are included in those numbers, but, yes, first year teachers are in the $45 to $50K range in many provinces. I, too, am an educator and I find many people are critics .... Doing what we do is not easy, and I don't think our issues are readily understood by those out side the field.



Indeed. Benefits are definitely a nice perc, as they are in many jobs, but they are not included as part of the salary. In any event, I see no problem with paying people a fair and decent wage for their work. Professionals SHOULD earn more than most of the rig pigs with very little education, but that's not how it is in Alberta. They make much more, but in spurts. The advantage we teachers have is better job security. Most of the time. 

I'm amused by those that think teachers have it so easy. Why don't they go out and get themselves a bachelor of education degree? I mean it's only four years, plus tuition costs and the lack of income from whatever they would have been doing.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury

The Pope says it is not fair for you to keep that money when there are poor people in the world. 

Apparently he gets it.

Regarding the work of teachers--it may have its challenges, but see what happens if you resign. If your job doesn't get filled immediately by another qualified applicant, you can bet they don't consider it too onerous.




fjnmusic said:


> Indeed. Benefits are definitely a nice perc, as they are in many jobs, but they are not included as part of the salary. In any event, I see no problem with paying people a fair and decent wage for their work. Professionals SHOULD earn more than most of the rig pigs with very little education, but that's not how it is in Alberta. They make much more, but in spurts. The advantage we teachers have is better job security. Most of the time.
> 
> I'm amused by those that think teachers have it so easy. Why don't they go out and get themselves a bachelor of education degree? I mean it's only four years, plus tuition costs and the lack of income from whatever they would have been doing.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## Rps

Macfury said:


> The Pope says it is not fair for you to keep that money when there are poor people in the world.
> 
> Apparently he gets it.


I am charity begins at home sort of guy. We have a long way to go on the topic if wealth distribution, but getting a good education for all is a good start. It just so happens their is a group of highly trained, experienced, and for the most part, caring people who help others achieve their goals ..... They are called teachers.


----------



## Macfury

No, the Pope says that income redistribution is the answer. It's not fair that some people do well while others do not.



Rps said:


> I am charity begins at home sort of guy. We have a long way to go on the topic if wealth distribution, but getting a good education for all is a good start. It just so happens their is a group of highly trained, experienced, and for the most part, caring people who help others achieve their goals ..... They are called teachers.


----------



## fjnmusic

Macfury said:


> No, the Pope says that income redistribution is the answer. It's not fair that some people do well while others do not.



The Pope has said nothing of the sort. Source please? And why do you care? You don't have to follow his rules, even if he did. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury

You were whooping and a hollering that he was telling it like it is, when he was preaching that private wealth be radically redistributed to the word's poor. If you''ll simply admit that you want the Pope to keep his hands off your stash, I'll drop the issue.



fjnmusic said:


> The Pope has said nothing of the sort. Source please? And why do you care? You don't have to follow his rules, even if he did.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## fjnmusic

Macfury said:


> You were whooping and a hollering that he was telling it like it is, when he was preaching that private wealth be radically redistributed to the word's poor. If you''ll simply admit that you want the Pope to keep his hands off your stash, I'll drop the issue.



Source, Macfury. Source. You are fabricating again. Most of us pay taxes here and I have no problem with that, provided the money goes to where it is supposed to go, including helping the poor, the homeless, and those in need. If you can provide evidence that Pope Francis has said what it is you think he is saying, I'll drop the issue.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## fjnmusic

Macfury said:


> No, the Pope says that income redistribution is the answer. It's not fair that some people do well while others do not.



Don't even bother, Rps. When he gets fixated on something, he's like a dog holding tightly to a bone.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury

fjnmusic said:


> The Pope has said nothing of the sort. Source please? And why do you care? You don't have to follow his rules, even if he did.


The Pope is talking about centralized taxing authority-- a coalition with politics--not voluntary charity.


----------



## fjnmusic

Macfury said:


> The Pope is talking about centralized taxing authority-- a coalition with politics--not voluntary charity.



Again, is there a source where one may read about this further? The only "official" policy that I'm aware of that the Roman Catholic endorses is tithing.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## fjnmusic

I'm sure I'm gonna burn in hell for passing along this one, but like the prophet Pat Benetar says, hell is for children. 😉










Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury

Did you just think it was funny, or do you not see a reason to ask for something?


----------



## MacGuiver

I guess if you view God as an omnipotent ATM machine here to serve your wants and needs, the dialog of prayer and relationship with him seems foolish.


----------



## fjnmusic

MacGuiver said:


> I guess if you view God as an omnipotent ATM machine here to serve your wants and needs, the dialog of prayer and relationship with him seems foolish.



Interesting analogy. I always assumed I was pretty much talking to myself, but I imagine some kind of kindly presence hovering nearby. And you?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## fjnmusic

Macfury said:


> Did you just think it was funny, or do you not see a reason to ask for something?



When one lose one's keys or wallet, everyone can put aside atheism for just this once.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## MacGuiver

fjnmusic said:


> Interesting analogy. I always assumed I was pretty much talking to myself, but I imagine some kind of kindly presence hovering nearby. And you?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Being Catholic it goes without saying that I believe God is real and I can have a relationship with him and dialog through prayer. 
I don't see God as a kindly benevolent old man just waiting for my wish list. I see God as loving as in a parent/child relationship, and all the dynamics in play that make for good parenting and a good parent/child relationship.


----------



## Rps

MacGuiver, I am not a religious person and often feel that those who are have a type of gift, a way to get strength when times are trying. So good for you, and I mean this sincerely. Our species always needs to know answers, so I see G_d as the answer to the unanswered question.


----------



## MacGuiver

Rps said:


> MacGuiver, I am not a religious person and often feel that those who are have a type of gift, a way to get strength when times are trying. So good for you, and I mean this sincerely. Our species always needs to know answers, so I see G_d as the answer to the unanswered question.


Thanks RPS. I don't doubt your sincerity. The tolerance you've shown is a rare commodity these days. I appreciate someone that can discuss these matters openly and honestly while maintaining respectful dialog.

Have a great day!


----------



## Dr.G.

MacGuiver said:


> Thanks RPS. I don't doubt your sincerity. The tolerance you've shown is a rare commodity these days. I appreciate someone that can discuss these matters openly and honestly while maintaining respectful dialog.
> 
> Have a great day!


I agree. :clap::clap::clap:


----------



## CubaMark

*I'm surprised this hasn't been posted in the thread to date...*

*Stephen Fry explains what he would say if he was 'confronted by God'*





+
YouTube Video









ERROR: If you can see this, then YouTube is down or you don't have Flash installed.






_Staunch atheist Stephen Fry left a television host stunned when he explained what he would say if he was “confronted by God”.

The actor and author, who recently married his partner Elliot Spencer, made a series impassioned comments during an interview with Gay Byrne for RTÉ One’s The Meaning of Life.

The weekly show features discussions about the purpose of life, religion, and what happens after death. A clip released ahead of Sunday's screening saw Fry discussing his views on God from his perspective as an atheist._​
(Independent UK)


----------



## Macfury

Fry may be right. People may simply choose to go to Hell.


----------



## MacGuiver

I believe this to be true. If in this life you champion what is offensive to God you'll do the same in the next. Your rejection of God will go with you into eternity.
These days darkness is loved by many yet it masquerades as light.



> This is the judgment, that the Light has come into the world, and men loved the darkness rather than the Light, for their deeds were evil. 20"For everyone who does evil hates the Light, and does not come to the Light for fear that his deeds will be exposed.…


----------



## CubaMark

*So.... I guess you got to pay to pray?*

*Woman, 92, banned from church she has attended for 50 years for not paying tithes*

ENT]Josephine King cannot remember precisely how long she has been a member of the First African Baptist Church in the Georgia town of Bainbridge. It may be fifty years.

What the 92-year-old does know is that when her mobility was a little better, she attended the church every day. She also ensured she paid without fail a monthly tithe - ten per cent of her income – to the church.

But Ms King has now been told she is no longer welcome at the church after being accused of insufficient “financial and physical participation”.

* * *​
Ms King said she had stopped paying the tithe earlier this year amid concerns about a former pastor and what was being done with the money.

* * *​
Nobody from the church was available for comment on Thursday.​
(IndependentUK)


----------



## Macfury

Why doe she want to go to a church where she doesn't trust the pastor? A really bizarre non-article.


----------



## fjnmusic

CubaMark said:


> *So.... I guess you got to pay to pray?*
> 
> 
> 
> *Woman, 92, banned from church she has attended for 50 years for not paying tithes*
> 
> 
> 
> ENT]Josephine King cannot remember precisely how long she has been a member of the First African Baptist Church in the Georgia town of Bainbridge. It may be fifty years.
> 
> 
> 
> What the 92-year-old does know is that when her mobility was a little better, she attended the church every day. She also ensured she paid without fail a monthly tithe - ten per cent of her income &#150; to the church.
> 
> 
> 
> But Ms King has now been told she is no longer welcome at the church after being accused of insufficient &#147;financial and physical participation&#148;.
> 
> 
> 
> * * *​
> 
> 
> Ms King said she had stopped paying the tithe earlier this year amid concerns about a former pastor and what was being done with the money.
> 
> 
> 
> * * *​
> 
> 
> Nobody from the church was available for comment on Thursday.​
> 
> 
> (IndependentUK)



Kind of reinforces the notion of Religion as Social Club, don't it?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## CubaMark

Macfury said:


> Why doe she want to go to a church where she doesn't trust the pastor? A really bizarre non-article.


Or not. Your comment, though - "bizarre".

You missed the part where this has been her church for about a *half-century*? Pastors come and go. She stopped paying tithes _earlier this year _due to the unspecified concerns.


----------



## CubaMark

fjnmusic said:


> Kind of reinforces the notion of Religion as Social Club, don't it?


Yes, for a great many people Churches were exactly that - often the only mass social encounter they had off the farm. In some communities, not appearing at Church on Sunday out of choice was not only anti-social, it could have serious repercussions.. "forced social" you could say.


----------



## eMacMan

CubaMark said:


> *So.... I guess you got to pay to pray?*
> 
> *Woman, 92, banned from church she has attended for 50 years for not paying tithes*
> ENT]Josephine King cannot remember precisely how long she has been a member of the First African Baptist Church in the Georgia town of Bainbridge. It may be fifty years.
> 
> What the 92-year-old does know is that when her mobility was a little better, she attended the church every day. She also ensured she paid without fail a monthly tithe - ten per cent of her income – to the church.
> 
> But Ms King has now been told she is no longer welcome at the church after being accused of insufficient “financial and physical participation”.
> 
> * * *​
> Ms King said she had stopped paying the tithe earlier this year amid concerns about a former pastor and what was being done with the money.
> 
> * * *​
> Nobody from the church was available for comment on Thursday.​(IndependentUK)


Never, ever come between a Southern Baptist minister and his income.


----------



## CubaMark

eMacMan said:


> Never, ever come between a Southern Baptist minister and his income.


Ain't THAT the truth!


----------



## Macfury

I did not miss it.



CubaMark said:


> Or not. Your comment, though - "bizarre".
> 
> You missed the part where this has been her church for about a *half-century*? Pastors come and go. She stopped paying tithes _earlier this year _due to the unspecified concerns.


----------



## CubaMark

*What marriage would look like if we actually followed the Bible*

Social conservatives who object to marriage licenses for gay couples claim to defend “Christian marriage,” meaning one man paired with one woman for life, which they say is prescribed by God in the Bible.

But in fact, Bible writers give the divine thumbs-up to many kinds of sexual union or marriage. They also use several literary devices to signal God’s approval for one or another sexual liaison: The law or a prophet might prescribe it, Jesus might endorse it, or God might reward it with the greatest of all blessings: boy babies who go on to become powerful men.

While the approved list does include one man coupled with one woman, the Bible explicitly endorses polygamy and sexual slavery, providing detailed regulations for each; and at times it also rewards rape and incest.

* * *​
*New Testament endorses Old Testament*

Lest someone claim that the Old Testament doesn’t apply to modern Bible believers, please note that none of these norms or rules—is reversed or condemned by Jesus. Quite the contrary:

Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke or a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. (Matthew 5:17-18)​
*Bible believers or simply change-averse?*

* * *​
As humanity’s moral consciousness has evolved, coerced sex and marriage have become less acceptable. Today even devout Bible believers oppose sexual slavery. Marriage, increasingly, is a commitment of love, freely given.

Gay marriage is a part of this broader conversation, and opposition by conservative Christians has little to do with biblical monogamy. Many who call themselves Bible believers are simply change-resistant. What really concerns them is protecting the status quo, an ancient hierarchy with privileged majority-culture straight males at the top.(IndependentUK)​


----------



## fjnmusic

This is true. In biblical times, a man could have as many wives as he could afford, for instance, and as long as the wives were all fed and provided for, there were no rules banning polygamous or poly amorous marriages.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury

Old Testament, folks. You're 2,000 years too late.


----------



## fjnmusic

Macfury said:


> Old Testament, folks. You're 2,000 years too late.



Apparently you pick and choose the posts you read. Try reading Mark's post again before you shoot your uninformed load.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury

Seriously? That post convinced you that the New Testament fully endorsed the Old? 

Covenant or dispensational anyone?





fjnmusic said:


> Apparently you pick and choose the posts you read. Try reading Mark's post again before you shoot your uninformed load.


----------



## MacGuiver

All you need to know about marriage for a Christian is how Jesus himself defined it. 
…4And He answered and said, "Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE, 5and said, 'FOR THIS REASON A MAN SHALL LEAVE HIS FATHER AND MOTHER AND BE JOINED TO HIS WIFE, AND THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH '? 6"So they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate."…


----------



## Macfury

MacGuiver said:


> All you need to know about marriage for a Christian is how Jesus himself defined it.
> …4And He answered and said, "Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE, 5and said, 'FOR THIS REASON A MAN SHALL LEAVE HIS FATHER AND MOTHER AND BE JOINED TO HIS WIFE, AND THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH '? 6"So they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate."…


I don't know why people who aren't even nominally Christian are so eager to seek biblical approval for the legal union of same sex applicants.


----------



## fjnmusic

Racism...religionism....it all amounts to the same thing: ignorance. http://edmontonjournal.com/storylin...-your-people-die-for-appearing-to-be-a-muslim


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## MacGuiver

fjnmusic said:


> Racism...religionism....it all amounts to the same thing: ignorance. Student fires back after being spit at and told “I hope you and your people die,” for appearing to be a Muslim | Edmonton Journal
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Despicable alleged behaviour! No excuse for that whatsoever and the guy that said that is an asshole. 
That said I've noticed a campaign by liberals to highlight such incidents in what I think is an attempt to silence or shame any criticism of Islam. Liberals, though highly critical of all things Christian and Jewish seem to have a love for the Prophet and his followers. So much so that they become irrational and dogmatic. Case in point. Bill Maher whom I am no fan of, had our new Liberal Trade Minister Chrystia Freeland on his show. The issue of Islam came up and she represented the mental disconnect that liberals have regarding the faith. She defended its honour dogmatically but he made her look like an idiot with hard facts. She prattled on with the usual PC liberal talking points but to no avail. She then tried to do the Christian equivalency argument which is ridiculous to any thinking person who's read a newspaper in the past 20 years.

Chrystia Freeland argues with Bill Maher over liberal support of Islam | Watch News Videos Online


----------



## CubaMark




----------



## fjnmusic

MacGuiver said:


> Despicable alleged behaviour! No excuse for that whatsoever and the guy that said that is an asshole.
> 
> That said I've noticed a campaign by liberals to highlight such incidents in what I think is an attempt to silence or shame any criticism of Islam. Liberals, though highly critical of all things Christian and Jewish seem to have a love for the Prophet and his followers. So much so that they become irrational and dogmatic. Case in point. Bill Maher whom I am no fan of, had our new Liberal Trade Minister Chrystia Freeland on his show. The issue of Islam came up and she represented the mental disconnect that liberals have regarding the faith. She defended its honour dogmatically but he made her look like an idiot with hard facts. She prattled on with the usual PC liberal talking points but to no avail. She then tried to do the Christian equivalency argument which is ridiculous to any thinking person who's read a newspaper in the past 20 years.
> 
> 
> 
> Chrystia Freeland argues with Bill Maher over liberal support of Islam | Watch News Videos Online



I am no fan of the Prophet nor Sharia Law, but I believe nobody deserves to be harassed for their religious beliefs, unless those beliefs are causing actual harm to someone. Not all Muslims are hardliners, and the young lady in question was a lapsed Muslim at any rate. I believe this behavior would be called assault and there is no justification. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## MacGuiver

fjnmusic said:


> I am no fan of the Prophet nor Sharia Law, but I believe nobody deserves to be harassed for their religious beliefs, unless those beliefs are causing actual harm to someone. Not all Muslims are hardliners, and the young lady in question was a lapsed Muslim at any rate. I believe this behavior would be called assault and there is no justification.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


I agree with everything you said.


----------



## fjnmusic

Now we're getting sponsored ads in these threads??


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## eMacMan

Something most of us are aware of, but maybe never had a clear image in our heads.

This Forensic Recreation of Jesus Christ Is Not the Same Guy You Remember from Church


----------



## fjnmusic

Man creates God in his own image. For Europeans, that's going to look different than, say, the African or Palestinian Jesus. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## CubaMark

*Ah, those loveable, peaceful, God-fearing Christian types.....*

*Shelter forcibly converted children to Christianity, raided by police*








Forcibly converted to Christianity, hung by the wrists from a ceiling fan, starved for days and beaten mercilessly for failing to recite Bible passages — this is what a nine-year-old boy said he had to endure at an illegal shelter.

He was among 30 children, all from poor families, rescued on December 29 after police raided two homes run by the Emmanuel Seva Group in Greater Noida and Meerut. The child, who along with his younger sister and brother had been confined to the home for three years, said their stay was like a “jail term” during which his name was also changed.

“I was allowed to meet my parents once a month for only 15 minutes. The only thing I was taught was the Bible. They forced me to memorise its passages,” the boy told HT on Thursday and added that the children were forced to consume buffalo meat and “paraded” before potential donors.

“They gave us good clothes whenever visitors came. They made us stand in line and recite Bible passages. Faltering meant a beating with sticks and belts later,” he said. “Once the guests left, the shelter in-charge snatched away our clothes, sweets and gifts and we were back in rags again.”

His 11-year-old sister said the children were forced to sleep on a dirty floor that was littered with rodent droppings.

“They never allowed us to step outside. We were not given food for three days at a stretch if we forgot a Bible passage.”

* * *​
Their mother, whose complaint with a children’s helpline led to the raids, said she was approached by one Josua Devraj at a Delhi hospital around three years ago. “He said he will raise my children and make them IAS officers. He forced us to circulate pamphlets and copies of the Bible in public places but never paid us,” she said.

Their ordeal has not ended even after being rescued. The woman said the shelter’s employees came to her house on Tuesday night and threatened to take her three children back. “They pelted stones at our house and beat us up with batons. They fled when the neighbours gathered,”​(HindustanTimes)​


----------



## fjnmusic

CubaMark said:


> *Ah, those loveable, peaceful, God-fearing Christian types.....*
> 
> 
> 
> *Shelter forcibly converted children to Christianity, raided by police*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Forcibly converted to Christianity, hung by the wrists from a ceiling fan, starved for days and beaten mercilessly for failing to recite Bible passages — this is what a nine-year-old boy said he had to endure at an illegal shelter.
> 
> 
> 
> He was among 30 children, all from poor families, rescued on December 29 after police raided two homes run by the Emmanuel Seva Group in Greater Noida and Meerut. The child, who along with his younger sister and brother had been confined to the home for three years, said their stay was like a “jail term” during which his name was also changed.
> 
> 
> 
> “I was allowed to meet my parents once a month for only 15 minutes. The only thing I was taught was the Bible. They forced me to memorise its passages,” the boy told HT on Thursday and added that the children were forced to consume buffalo meat and “paraded” before potential donors.
> 
> 
> 
> “They gave us good clothes whenever visitors came. They made us stand in line and recite Bible passages. Faltering meant a beating with sticks and belts later,” he said. “Once the guests left, the shelter in-charge snatched away our clothes, sweets and gifts and we were back in rags again.”
> 
> 
> 
> His 11-year-old sister said the children were forced to sleep on a dirty floor that was littered with rodent droppings.
> 
> 
> 
> “They never allowed us to step outside. We were not given food for three days at a stretch if we forgot a Bible passage.”
> 
> 
> 
> * * *​
> 
> 
> Their mother, whose complaint with a children’s helpline led to the raids, said she was approached by one Josua Devraj at a Delhi hospital around three years ago. “He said he will raise my children and make them IAS officers. He forced us to circulate pamphlets and copies of the Bible in public places but never paid us,” she said.
> 
> 
> 
> Their ordeal has not ended even after being rescued. The woman said the shelter’s employees came to her house on Tuesday night and threatened to take her three children back. “They pelted stones at our house and beat us up with batons. They fled when the neighbours gathered,”​
> (HindustanTimes)​



Seems the spirit of the residential school system is alive and well. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## MacGuiver

fjnmusic said:


> Seems the spirit of the residential school system is alive and well.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Sad story. Glad they shut these charlatans down. Sounds like they were using the children as props to extort money from well intentioned Christians.

I do find it odd however that Mark is horrified by this story out in a country where he could have easily posted numerous, more horrific story led by...

Ah, those loveable, peaceful, Gods-fearing Hindu types.....
Ah, those loveable, peaceful, God-fearing Muslims types.....

I wonder why he doesn't?


----------



## CubaMark

MacGuiver said:


> I do find it odd however that Mark is horrified by this story out in a country where he could have easily posted numerous, more horrific story led by...
> 
> Ah, those loveable, peaceful, Gods-fearing Hindu types.....
> Ah, those loveable, peaceful, God-fearing Muslims types.....
> 
> I wonder why he doesn't?


Sorry - not my job to curate all of the ways that humans who continue to play make-believe in adulthood decide to harm one another. This one happened to come across my screen. You have something to share about Hindus, Muslims, Pastafarians, go to it!


----------



## Macfury

MacGuiver said:


> Sad story. Glad they shut these charlatans down. Sounds like they were using the children as props to extort money from well intentioned Christians.
> 
> I do find it odd however that Mark is horrified by this story out in a country where he could have easily posted numerous, more horrific story led by...
> 
> Ah, those loveable, peaceful, Gods-fearing Hindu types.....
> Ah, those loveable, peaceful, God-fearing Muslims types.....
> 
> I wonder why he doesn't?


Because they never randomly cross his screen--just links from the Hindustan Times.


----------



## CubaMark

*Life in the Christian Community.**

*32* The community of believers was of one heart and mind, and no one claimed that any of his possessions was his own, but they had everything in common.
*33* With great power the apostles bore witness to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and great favor was accorded them all.
*34* There was no needy person among them, for those who owned property or houses would sell them, bring the proceeds of the sale,
*35* and put them at the feet of the apostles, and they were distributed to each according to need.​
(USCCB)​


----------



## fjnmusic

CubaMark said:


> *Life in the Christian Community.**
> 
> 
> 
> *32* The community of believers was of one heart and mind, and no one claimed that any of his possessions was his own, but they had everything in common.
> 
> *33* With great power the apostles bore witness to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and great favor was accorded them all.
> 
> *34* There was no needy person among them, for those who owned property or houses would sell them, bring the proceeds of the sale,
> 
> *35* and put them at the feet of the apostles, and they were distributed to each according to need.​
> 
> 
> (USCCB)​













Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury

They did so voluntarily, *because* they were of one heart and mind.

*Acts 5:1-11New International Version (NIV)
*


> 5 Now a man named Ananias, together with his wife Sapphira, also sold a piece of property. 2 With his wife’s full knowledge he kept back part of the money for himself, but brought the rest and put it at the apostles’ feet.
> 
> 3 Then Peter said, “Ananias, how is it that Satan has so filled your heart that you have lied to the Holy Spirit and have kept for yourself some of the money you received for the land? 4 Didn’t it *belong to you* before it was sold? *And after it was sold, wasn’t the money at your disposal?* What made you think of doing such a thing? You have not lied just to human beings but to God.”





CubaMark said:


> *Life in the Christian Community.**
> 
> *32* The community of believers was of one heart and mind, and no one claimed that any of his possessions was his own, but they had everything in common.
> *33* With great power the apostles bore witness to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and great favor was accorded them all.
> *34* There was no needy person among them, for those who owned property or houses would sell them, bring the proceeds of the sale,
> *35* and put them at the feet of the apostles, and they were distributed to each according to need.​
> (USCCB)​


----------



## MacGuiver

Macfury said:


> They did so voluntarily, *because* they were of one heart and mind.
> 
> *Acts 5:1-11New International Version (NIV)
> *


Hasn't the socialism = Christianity myth been thoroughly debunked already? Its like wack-a-mole. It just keeps popping back up.


----------



## fjnmusic

MacGuiver said:


> Hasn't the socialism = Christianity myth been thoroughly debunked already? Its like wack-a-mole. It just keeps popping back up.



How can you characterize Jesus' teachings as anything but socialism? 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury

fjnmusic said:


> How can you characterize Jesus' teachings as anything but socialism?


Because it isn't. But go ahead and try to show us why it is--remembering that socialism is a system in which the government dictates how, when and where you share your hard-earned wealth and then dictates who you share it with.


----------



## fjnmusic

Macfury said:


> Because it isn't. But go ahead and try to show us why it is--remembering that socialism is a system in which the government dictates how, when and where you share your hard-earned wealth and then dictates who you share it with.



Well, I think the operative word here is "share." The social justice aspect of Christianity is absolutely rooted taking care of the less fortunate, as opposed to capitalism, which is more of an every man for himself concept. Jesus was not part of the government, but his philosophy certainly aligns with socialism. He has a lot more in common with Bernie Sanders than Donald Trump. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Dr.G.

fjnmusic said:


> Well, I think the operative word here is "share." The social justice aspect of Christianity is absolutely rooted taking care of the less fortunate, as opposed to capitalism, which is more of an every man for himself concept. Jesus was not part of the government, but his philosophy certainly aligns with socialism. He has a lot more in common with Bernie Sanders than Donald Trump.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Very true, Frank. Same goes for the Jewish faith. Paix, mon ami.


----------



## MacGuiver

fjnmusic said:


> Well, I think the operative word here is "share." The social justice aspect of Christianity is absolutely rooted taking care of the less fortunate, as opposed to capitalism, which is more of an every man for himself concept. Jesus was not part of the government, but his philosophy certainly aligns with socialism. He has a lot more in common with Bernie Sanders than Donald Trump.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


In the absence of capitalism, socialist countries have a pretty poor track record of helping anyone. They just generate more poor people.


----------



## Macfury

MacGuiver said:


> In the absence of capitalism, socialist countries have a pretty poor track record of helping anyone. They just generate more poor people.


Also, I know nothing about Sanders' personal life. Only that he is an authoritarian who wants to force people to share with others of his choice.


----------



## MacGuiver

Macfury said:


> Also, I know nothing about Sanders' personal life. Only that he is an authoritarian who wants to force people to share with others of his choice.


Yes and the "helpful" choices some socialists make on our behalf are hard to reconcile with the teachings of Jesus.


----------



## Macfury

MacGuiver said:


> Yes and the "helpful" choices some socialists make on our behalf are hard to reconcile with the teachings of Jesus.


When Jesus said:

"Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these."

I don't think he meant that they should be aborted by the millions.


----------



## MacGuiver

Macfury said:


> When Jesus said:
> 
> "Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these."
> 
> I don't think he meant that they should be aborted by the millions.


Yeah I can't think of a more deplorable, un-Christ-like act than that.


----------



## fjnmusic

Macfury said:


> Also, I know nothing about Sanders' personal life. Only that he is an authoritarian who wants to force people to share with others of his choice.



Seems to me that Jesus didn't consider sharing to be optional either. 



> Matthew 6:24-25
> 
> “No one can serve two masters, for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and money. “Therefore I tell you, do not be anxious about your life, what you will eat or what you will drink, nor about your body, what you will put on. Is not life more than food, and the body more than clothing?
> 
> Luke 3:10-11
> 
> And the crowds asked him, “What then shall we do?” And he answered them, “Whoever has two tunics is to share with him who has none, and whoever has food is to do likewise.”
> 
> 1 John 3:17
> 
> But if anyone has the world's goods and sees his brother in need, yet closes his heart against him, how does God's love abide in him?
> 
> Matthew 19:21
> 
> Jesus said to him, “If you would be perfect, go, sell what you possess and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me.”


https://www.openbible.info/topics/sharing_wealth




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury

He obviously sees sharing as a personal virtue, with the level of sharing to be decided in a personal relationship with God. He is not commanding people to share everything on demand, nor is he appointing Bernie Sanders to decide how much you should share and with whom.



fjnmusic said:


> Seems to me that Jesus didn't consider sharing to be optional either.


----------



## fjnmusic

Macfury said:


> He obviously sees sharing as a personal virtue, with the level of sharing to be decided in a personal relationship with God. He is not commanding people to share everything on demand, nor is he appointing Bernie Sanders to decide how much you should share and with whom.



Perhaps, but he's also not saying you don't have to share if you don't feel like it. I'd like to see your scriptural support for every man for himself. 


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## MacGuiver

2 thessalonians, ch 3

Not every man for himself but certainly points out that there are people undeserving of charity. 




> 6
> we instruct you, brothers, in the name of [our] lord jesus christ, to shun any brother who conducts himself in a disorderly way and not according to the tradition they received from us.*
> 7
> for you know how one must imitate us. For we did not act in a disorderly way among you,
> 8
> nor did we eat food received free from anyone. On the contrary, in toil and drudgery, night and day we worked, so as not to burden any of you.d
> 9
> not that we do not have the right. Rather, we wanted to present ourselves as a model for you, so that you might imitate us.e
> 10
> in fact, when we were with you, we instructed you that if anyone was unwilling to work, neither should that one eat.f
> 11
> we hear that some are conducting themselves among you in a disorderly way, by not keeping busy but minding the business of others.g
> 12
> such people we instruct and urge in the lord jesus christ to work quietly and to eat their own food.
> 13
> but you, brothers, do not be remiss in doing good.
> 14
> if anyone does not obey our word as expressed in this letter, take note of this person not to associate with him, that he may be put to shame.
> 15
> do not regard him as an enemy but admonish him as a brother.h
> 16
> may the lord of peace himself give you peace at all times and in every way. The lord be with all of you.i


----------



## fjnmusic

MacGuiver said:


> 2 thessalonians, ch 3
> 
> 
> 
> Not every man for himself but certainly points out that there are people undeserving of charity.



This is a letter from Paul, yes?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## MacGuiver

fjnmusic said:


> This is a letter from Paul, yes?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Of course it is.


----------



## fjnmusic

MacGuiver said:


> Of course it is.



So then it's not actually the words of Jesus. Just Paul's interpretation. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury

Your main misinterpretation is that you confuse charity with socialism, fjn.


----------



## MacGuiver

Actually there was a socialist in the Bible. His name was Judas.
He was outraged that Mary poured HER expensive perfume on Jesus feet that could have been sold for 300 denari and given to the poor. Jesus swiftly rebuked him. If Jesus had been a socialist, he would have insisted she sell the oil and hand it over to Judas.


----------



## fjnmusic

Whatsoever you do to the least of my brothers, that you do unto me.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Dr.G.

fjnmusic said:


> Whatsoever you do to the least of my brothers, that you do unto me.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


:clap::clap::clap:


----------



## Macfury

And you quoted this because...?



fjnmusic said:


> Whatsoever you do to the least of my brothers, that you do unto me.


----------



## Dr.G.

Macfury said:


> And you quoted this because...?


Paix, mon ami.


----------



## fjnmusic

Dr.G. said:


> Paix, mon ami.



Exactly. The meaning is pretty universal no matter which deity you prefer.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## fjnmusic

He is risen! 

And by He, I mean me, but I'm going back to bed for a little bit now. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## SINC

There is just so much truth here it hurts a tiny bit.


----------



## fjnmusic

SINC said:


> There is just so much truth here it hurts a tiny bit.



Coincidence? I think not. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury

to be fair, SINC, they're not exactly powerful countries either.


----------



## SINC

Sure, but I would trade powerful for peaceful any old day.


----------



## fjnmusic

SINC said:


> Sure, but I would trade powerful for peaceful any old day.



Exactly. Especially if one has to live in these places. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury

SINC said:


> Sure, but I would trade powerful for peaceful any old day.


I understand. I'm just saying that they lack the capacity for much war mongering as well.


----------



## CubaMark

_I have a low tolerance for idiots. But idiots who claim to take orders from some magical sky being as an excuse to persecute and destroy? That's a special kind of stupid. _

*Jehovah's Witnesses Destroy Ancient Indigenous Temple in Mexico*

Members of the Christian sect Jehovah's Witness reportedly destroyed a sacred Indigenous archaeological heritage site in central eastern Mexico in an act of apparent religious intolerance, claiming the traditional rituals practiced at the ancient ceremonial place were “not Christian,” local media reported Monday.

The attack on the more than 7,000 year-old Makonikha sanctuary in the central Mexican state of Hidalgo destroyed at least a dozen stone structures used as altars in the spirituality of the Otomi Indigenous people.

Jehovah's Witnesses have fessed up to being behind the destruction of the stone altars, but have not taken responsibility for a hole that has reportedly been drilled in the base of a pyramid at the San Bartolo Tutotepec archeological site.

Members of the Christian sect say the destruction was motivated by a belief that the ancient Indigenous religion involved devil worship. The perpetrators claim that they were following the word of god by destroying the temple site.​
(Telesur)


----------



## Macfury

CubaMark said:


> _I have a low tolerance for idiots. But idiots who claim to take orders from some magical sky being as an excuse to persecute and destroy? That's a special kind of stupid. _


That's easy to say if, like you, one worships the Devil.


----------



## fjnmusic

Macfury said:


> That's easy to say if, like you, one worships the Devil.



And you know this how? 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury

fjnmusic said:


> And you know this how?


Not so much through the post as the fact that he once posted photos of himself, in cahoots with a demon.


----------



## Macfury

It might have been a familiar--hard to tell with some photographs.


----------



## fjnmusic

I don't know how people here would react, but I'm really enjoying that AMC show Preacher. I like it when religion is fun and a little dangerous. Jesse Custer (JC) is possessed by an entity named Genesis that is both pure good and pure evil, and he hasn't yet quite figured out how to use that power. He always has the capacity to do good things, but the temptation always lurks to use the power for selfish reasons. It's like if Superman had a dark side. It's a bit of a metaphor for the way we all must wrestle with our demons, perhaps not quite as intensely, but still.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury

The show's OK so far.


----------



## fjnmusic

Macfury said:


> The show's OK so far.



I'll bet it took a while to figure out how to word that response....


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury

fjnmusic said:


> I'll bet it took a while to figure out how to word that response....
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


That's all it gets for now. It's a mixed bag. Too much kung fu and some bad narrative decisions undercut a promising premise.


----------



## fjnmusic

New episode Sunday. Here's how Preacher's first seven episodes rate in IMDb. Not too shabby.










Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury

The numbers aren't too shabby, but there are also not too many votes--not even 500 for the last episode. For television, it's generally fans who rate the episodes. Others stop watching so they can't rate them. Different for movies where fans and non-fans will see the same film and all rush to rate it.


----------



## fjnmusic

All day Preacher marathon on AMC Sunday, July 31, leading into the season finale Sunday evening.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## fjnmusic

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury

That certainly negated most of the first season's character development. One giant red herring.


----------



## fjnmusic

Macfury said:


> That certainly negated most of the first season's character development. One giant red herring.




It brings the story to where the comic begins, with a little back story to make some sense of it all. There is certainly no shortage of characters to explore; check the Wikipedia entry. 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Preacher_characters


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## CubaMark

+
YouTube Video









ERROR: If you can see this, then YouTube is down or you don't have Flash installed.


----------



## Freddie_Biff

CubaMark said:


> +
> YouTube Video
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ERROR: If you can see this, then YouTube is down or you don't have Flash installed.




Exactly! Sort of like Pre-Blessed Food. 

https://youtu.be/j9JUqS4Q2A0


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## CubaMark




----------



## Macfury

Well... no.


----------



## Freddie_Biff

Macfury said:


> Well... no.



Explain. Ricky makes a very good point about religious preferentialism. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Freddie_Biff

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury

I generally call God "God" and generally refer to the laws of physics as "the laws of physics."


----------



## Macfury

Not believing in 2700 gods--or a million gods--still makes you an atheist as long as you don't believe in at least one of then. Believing in a single god does not even require disbelief in anything else.



Freddie_Biff said:


> Explain. Ricky makes a very good point about religious preferentialism.


----------



## Freddie_Biff

Macfury said:


> Not believing in 2700 gods--or a million gods--still makes you an atheist as long as you don't believe in at least one of then. Believing in a single god does not even require disbelief in anything else.
> 
> 
> 
> elieving in one god is the anthisesesis of not belieiving in 2699



Sense. Your post makes no. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury

Don't know where that extra line came from--just disbelieve in that line.


----------



## CubaMark

_*Nice to see Christians standing up to this jackass...*_

*Local Christian leaders band together to stop controversial evangelist from speaking in Vancouver*










Members of Vancouver's Christian community and city officials are furiously trying to stop a controversial Christian evangelist Franklin Graham from speaking to thousands of people at an event next week at Rogers Arena.

Graham is speaking at the Festival of Hope event that's being organized by the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association.

"This is unusual for us to deal with in Vancouver — this kind of individual and this kind of hate rhetoric," said Vancouver City Councillor Tim Stevenson.

Graham is a polarizing figure who has drawn attention for comments that denigrate minorities. He's been quoted calling on the U.S. "to use weapons of mass destruction if need be" and referring to Islam as "a very evil and a very wicked religion."

Most recently, Graham took the spotlight for reading a passage of scripture at the inauguration of U.S. President Donald Trump. 

In the past, he's made disparaging remarks about homosexuals, once praising Russian President Vladmir Putin for his oppressive stance toward members of the LGBTQ communty.

"We live in a country that has free speech, but there's a difference between free speech and hate speech" said Stevenson, an ordained minister, himself, of the United Church of Canada.
(CBC)​


----------



## Macfury

Calling something "hate speech" is the last resort of those who don't really believe in free speech. The notion that one can ban an idea is laughable in the age of the Internet.


----------



## Beej

Macfury said:


> Calling something "hate speech" is the last resort of those who don't really believe in free speech. The notion that one can ban an idea is laughable in the age of the Internet.


I have changed my mind on this one over the years, thanks to events and, in part, your contributions. Salman Rushdie refers to the alternative as a "but brigade" (not in this video):
[ame]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dqMPyIHdgqc[/ame]


----------



## Freddie_Biff




----------



## Macfury

That one is funny!


----------



## SINC

Really old too. Been around for many years in the west.


----------



## Macfury

SINC said:


> Really old too. Been around for many years in the west.


That's why the bear looks so bored!


----------



## Freddie_Biff

Macfury said:


> That's why the bear looks so bored!




Maybe with different sauces....


----------



## Freddie_Biff




----------



## Freddie_Biff

Sorry, Dr. G. Controversial, I know, but some things about religion just don't make a lot of sense.


----------



## SINC

When one has to apologize in advance, the image would be better never posted.


----------



## Macfury

SINC said:


> When one has to apologize in advance, the image would be better never posted.


Throw a hornet's nest into Passover celebrations because someone found another stupid meme and didn't have the self-control not to post it. Appalling behaviour.


----------



## Freddie_Biff

Negative nellies abound. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury

Poor Freddie, victimized again. Good grief.


----------



## Freddie_Biff

Macfury said:


> Poor Freddie, victimized again. Good grief.



Poor Macfury. Just full of bitchiness. Let it go, dude. The world does not require your opinion every time. 

As to the subject: why does God favour some children and not others? Shouldn't God be neutral as far as the innocents go? The picture gives one pause to contemplate, despite your knee jerk reaction.


----------



## Macfury

Freddie, you don't have the subtlety or knowledge to discuss these things with any depth.


----------



## Freddie_Biff

Macfury said:


> Freddie, you don't have the subtlety or knowledge to discuss these things with any depth.



Says the king of short snappy responses. Try me. Unless of course you have nothing to say on the subject apart from uninformed insults.


----------



## Macfury

No more, Freddie!



Freddie_Biff said:


> Says the king of short snappy responses. Try me. Unless of course you have nothing to say on the subject apart from uninformed insults.


----------



## screature

Freddie_Biff said:


> Sorry, Dr. G. Controversial, I know, but some things about religion just don't make a lot of sense.


That was completely unnecessary, what could you have possibly imagined that you would accomplish by posting that piece of chite, especially in this day and age.

Shame, shame on you. You clearly have a problem, I think you are bordering on what is called sociopathy. You should seek professional help and get on some meds or something.

That post indicates how far you have fallen from being a respectable and reasonable human being. Basically, aside from a couple of threads, all you want to do is to create conflict. I think you should just go away for a while to a peaceful place and not have anything more to do with ehMac because for one reason or another it brings out the worst in you.

Seeing as I have been around here for 10 years, the fjnmusic that I once knew bears no resemblance to Freddie_Biff. Just leave this place alone for a good long time, I think it may help you to feel better. I know when I did it made me feel better, and then eventually I felt like I could come back.

Anyway, all of that is just my opinion and take it or leave it for what it is worth.

Peace.


----------



## Freddie_Biff

screature said:


> That was completely unnecessary, what could you have possibly imagined that you would accomplish by posting that piece of chite, especially in this day and age.
> 
> 
> 
> Shame, shame on you. You clearly have a problem, I think you are bordering on what is called sociopathy. You should seek professional help and get on some meds or something.
> 
> 
> 
> That post indicates how far you have fallen from being a respectable and reasonable human being. Basically, aside from a couple of threads, all you want to do is to create conflict. I think you should just go away for a while to a peaceful place and not have anything more to do with ehMac because for one reason or another it brings out the worst in you.
> 
> 
> 
> Seeing as I have been around here for 10 years, the fjnmusic that I once knew bears no resemblance to Freddie_Biff. Just leave this place alone for a good long time, I think it may help you to feel better. I know when I did it made me feel better, and then eventually I felt like I could come back.
> 
> 
> 
> Anyway, all of that is just my opinion and take it or leave it for what it is worth.
> 
> 
> 
> Peace.



Jeez, Steve, don't hold back. Tell me how you really feel.

At the heart of it, this pic is right on the money. I've long wondered what kind of a God plays favourites with only some of his creatures. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury

As long as you can heap praise on yourself for being "right on the money" all is right with the world. See how simple complex philosophical issues really are?



Freddie_Biff said:


> Jeez, Steve, don't hold back. Tell me how you really feel.
> 
> At the heart of it, this pic is right on the money. I've long wondered what kind of a God plays favourites with only some of his creatures.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## CubaMark

Freddie_Biff said:


> At the heart of it, this pic is right on the money. I've long wondered what kind of a God plays favourites with only some of his creatures.


*The First Passover*
_12 For I will go through the land of Egypt on that night, and will strike down all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, both man and beast; and against all the gods of Egypt I will execute judgments-- I am the LORD. 

13 The blood shall be a sign for you on the houses where you live; and when I see the blood I will pass over you, and no plague will befall you to destroy you when I strike the land of Egypt. 

14 Now this day will be a memorial to you, and you shall celebrate it as a feast to the LORD; throughout your generations you are to celebrate it as a permanent ordinance.…_​New American Standard Bible​
Being the non-religious kinda fella that I am.... what's the controversy here? Is it inaccurate? Or just uncomfortable to those who don't like to deal with the rather despicable aspects of the god they worship?


----------



## screature

Freddie_Biff said:


> Jeez, Steve, don't hold back. Tell me how you really feel.
> 
> At the heart of it, this pic is right on the money. I've long wondered what kind of a God plays favourites with only some of his creatures.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Actually I did hold back a lot. What pissed me off was you mentioning Dr. G directly.

What goddamn major religion in this whole wild world in not supposed to play favorites?

Your f**cking meme was antagonistic at best, use your own words, that would be a start! I don't know how many times I tell you this and you continue to ignore me so I shall but it it more bluntly. The constant use of memes shows a definite lack of language skills or at least a willingness not to use use them to make some kind of anti-literary point.

Why can you not actually say for yourself something?

At any rate, get help you need it. I was once there and it does wonders. Just go away from here for a long time, it will make you better.


----------



## screature

CubaMark said:


> *The First Passover*
> _12 For I will go through the land of Egypt on that night, and will strike down all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, both man and beast; and against all the gods of Egypt I will execute judgments-- I am the LORD.
> 
> 13 The blood shall be a sign for you on the houses where you live; and when I see the blood I will pass over you, and no plague will befall you to destroy you when I strike the land of Egypt.
> 
> 14 Now this day will be a memorial to you, and you shall celebrate it as a feast to the LORD; throughout your generations you are to celebrate it as a permanent ordinance.…_​New American Standard Bible​
> Being the non-religious kinda fella that I am.... what's the controversy here? Is it inaccurate? Or just uncomfortable to those who don't like to deal with the rather despicable aspects of the god they worship?


What the f**k! It is just a matter of common respect and tolerance, basic common Canadian principals, written into our Rights and Freedoms. If you disagree with it just stay where you are.


----------



## CubaMark

screature said:


> What the f**k! It is just a matter of common respect and tolerance, basic common Canadian principals, written into our Rights and Freedoms. If you disagree with it just stay where you are.


Question: What is offensive in the image and text posted? What in it is untrue? Why exactly are you so angry about this?


----------



## SINC

CubaMark said:


> Question: What is offensive in the image and text posted? What in it is untrue? Why exactly are you so angry about this?


Oh, I dunno. Perhaps the fact that Freddie knew full well it might offend Dr. G., but chose to post it anyway? With apologies in advance? How about that for a start?

Only someone who has no respect for a fellow member would do such a thing? Do ya think?


----------



## Freddie_Biff

Macfury said:


> As long as you can heap praise on yourself for being "right on the money" all is right with the world. See how simple complex philosophical issues really are?



You are so shallow. I am complimenting the picture. For once, Macfury—just once—post something of your own instead of knocking someone else's contribution. You're like a one trick pony.


----------



## Freddie_Biff

CubaMark said:


> *The First Passover*
> 
> _12 For I will go through the land of Egypt on that night, and will strike down all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, both man and beast; and against all the gods of Egypt I will execute judgments-- I am the LORD.
> 
> 
> 
> 13 The blood shall be a sign for you on the houses where you live; and when I see the blood I will pass over you, and no plague will befall you to destroy you when I strike the land of Egypt.
> 
> 
> 
> 14 Now this day will be a memorial to you, and you shall celebrate it as a feast to the LORD; throughout your generations you are to celebrate it as a permanent ordinance.…_​
> New American Standard Bible​
> 
> 
> Being the non-religious kinda fella that I am.... what's the controversy here? Is it inaccurate? Or just uncomfortable to those who don't like to deal with the rather despicable aspects of the god they worship?



Thank you, Mark. It is odd how some people don't like to consider the favouritism aspect of whichever god they worship.


----------



## Freddie_Biff

screature said:


> Actually I did hold back a lot. What pissed me off was you mentioning Dr. G directly.
> 
> 
> 
> What goddamn major religion in this whole wild world in not supposed to play favorites?
> 
> 
> 
> Your f**cking meme was antagonistic at best, use your own words, that would be a start! I don't know how many times I tell you this and you continue to ignore me so I shall but it it more bluntly. The constant use of memes shows a definite lack of language skills or at least a willingness not to use use them to make some kind of anti-literary point.
> 
> 
> 
> Why can you not actually say for yourself something?
> 
> 
> 
> At any rate, get help you need it. I was once there and it does wonders. Just go away from here for a long time, it will make you better.




With all due respect, Steve, stick your head up your arse and take some deep breaths. You don't own this forum, you don't make the rules, and you don't get to dictate how others should post. Unless of course you ARE the moderator. If you don't like what I post, please feel free to put me on ignore.


----------



## Freddie_Biff

CubaMark said:


> Question: What is offensive in the image and text posted? What in it is untrue? Why exactly are you so angry about this?



I think Steve needs to go take his own advice and go away for a long time. It does wonders.


----------



## Freddie_Biff

SINC said:


> Oh, I dunno. Perhaps the fact that Freddie knew full well it might offend Dr. G., but chose to post it anyway? With apologies in advance? How about that for a start?
> 
> 
> 
> Only someone who has no respect for a fellow member would do such a thing? Do ya think?



I certainly didn't apologize to you, Don. And I wouldn't even consider it. You still think I'm FUXL for fack sakes. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Freddie_Biff




----------



## CubaMark

SINC said:


> Oh, I dunno. Perhaps the fact that Freddie knew full well it might offend Dr. G., but chose to post it anyway? With apologies in advance? How about that for a start?
> 
> Only someone who has no respect for a fellow member would do such a thing? Do ya think?


Hm. I think I'll reserve comment until I see what Dr.G. has to say. I have a few thoughts on the rage that has erupted, but will hold off for the moment.


----------



## Freddie_Biff

CubaMark said:


> Hm. I think I'll reserve comment until I see what Dr.G. has to say. I have a few thoughts on the rage that has erupted, but will hold off for the moment.



Only because I know Dr. G is Jewish, but I also know he has a pretty good understanding of the world and of commentary on a forum called "The Religious Thread." And as Mark demonstrated, this is exactly what the Old Testament says. It is just put a little more bluntly on the cartoon. The OT is also a part of my religious heritage, so I believe I am not singling out anyone who celebrates Passover so much as observing how in some religions, God really does play favorites. I didn't create the illustration, but I noticed it in my travels and thought it would make for a good discussion among mature people. Perhaps I overestimated. 

The hypocrisy of those who criticize me for posting this picture while simultaneously trolling every thread they can find on ehMac just so so they can **** all over them is really quite pathetic. However, it seems that is the only "conversation" some are capable of having.


----------



## Macfury

It was rude, unthinking gesture, particularly on Passover. Maybe you can get Dr. G. to give you a pass, but he is not the only person of Jewish heritage who might have seen it. 

Stop being a victim and man up once in awhile.


----------



## Freddie_Biff

Macfury said:


> It was rude, unthinking gesture, particularly on Passover. Maybe you can get Dr. G. to give you a pass, but he is not the only person of Jewish heritage who might have seen it.
> 
> 
> 
> Stop being a victim and man up once in awhile.



I apologize for agreeing that God choosing to slaughter Egyptian children and spare the Hebrew ones is a twisted concept.


----------



## Macfury

You agreed that the concept was twisted? And now you're apologizing for agreeing?



Freddie_Biff said:


> I apologize for agreeing that God choosing to slaughter Egyptian children and spare the Hebrew ones is a twisted concept.


----------



## Rps

You know guys, it might be time for the "Guns of August" approach to this thread....... just sayin'


----------



## Macfury

Rps said:


> You know guys, it might be time for the "Guns of August" approach to this thread....... just sayin'


Go directly to World War One?


----------



## Rps

Macfury said:


> Go directly to World War One?


No, avoiding one.


----------



## screature

CubaMark said:


> *The First Passover*
> _12 For I will go through the land of Egypt on that night, and will strike down all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, both man and beast; and against all the gods of Egypt I will execute judgments-- I am the LORD.
> 
> 13 The blood shall be a sign for you on the houses where you live; and when I see the blood I will pass over you, and no plague will befall you to destroy you when I strike the land of Egypt.
> 
> 14 Now this day will be a memorial to you, and you shall celebrate it as a feast to the LORD; throughout your generations you are to celebrate it as a permanent ordinance.…_​New American Standard Bible​
> Being the non-religious kinda fella that I am.... what's the controversy here? Is it inaccurate? Or just uncomfortable to those who don't like to deal with the rather despicable aspects of the god they worship?


Uhmm I don't think any modern day Jew believes that stuff verbatim. It was clearly meant to be offensive. I'm not Jewish I don't believe in any god and I found it offensive. or at the very least intolerant, insensitive, tasteless and unnecessary.


----------



## screature

Freddie_Biff said:


>


You're hopeless when it comes to trying to get along with anyone, you, provoke and provoke and provoke. You didn't expect to have a reasonable mature discussion by posting the Passover meme, how the hell stupid do you think others are here? Obviously you think the rest of us are all a bunch of morons. We know your MO. Provocation was all that you were seeking and well, you achieved it. Congratulations.

You wouldn't make for a very good diplomat at the UN.


----------



## Macfury

Provocation is the name of his game--then whining and sniveling when others call him on either his intent or content. "Wahhhh! I'm being trolled. Nobody gets me. Nobody understands how witty I am. I'm playing the long game."



screature said:


> You're hopeless when it comes to trying to get along with anyone, you, provoke and provoke and provoke. You didn't expect to have reasonable mature disscussion by posting the Passover meme, how the hell stupid do you think others are here? Obviously to you the rest of us are all a bunch of morons. We know your MO. Provocation was all that you were seeking and well, you achieved it. Congratulations.
> 
> You wouldn't make for a very good diplomat at the UN.


----------



## Dr.G.

I have received four PMs from various people wanting to know why I have not posted in this thread and taken sides and made my views known. In political threads, I have no problem with this sort of position. From what I have been reading in this thread, with my name used back and forth, I feel I would rather just keep my views to myself.

On this Passover/Easter period, I shall become a "Livertarian", a person who believes that there is enough hatred in the world to go around, and for a short time we should just try to "live and let live". So, for those four people who are waiting for me to reply to their PM, this is my reply to one and all. 

Please, regardless of your faith, or non-faith, hold firm to your beliefs, but leave a little room for compassion and understanding of other points of view. This is the only way we shall be able to coexist in a civilized society.

Peace, Paix, Shalom mes amis.


----------



## CubaMark

There he goes again, taking the high road, and putting the rest of us to shame.

Dr.G. just does not fit in here_ at all_.....


----------



## screature

Dr.G. said:


> I have received four PMs from various people wanting to know why I have not posted in this thread and taken sides and made my views known. In political threads, I have no problem with this sort of position. From what I have been reading in this thread, with my name used back and forth, I feel I would rather just keep my views to myself.
> 
> On this Passover/Easter period, I shall become a "Livertarian", a person who believes that there is enough hatred in the world to go around, and for a short time we should just try to "live and let live". So, for those four people who are waiting for me to reply to their PM, this is my reply to one and all.
> 
> Please, regardless of your faith, or non-faith, hold firm to your beliefs, but leave a little room for compassion and understanding of other points of view. This is the only way we shall be able to coexist in a civilized society.
> 
> Peace, Paix, Shalom mes amis.


Great post Marc. You are a wise man.

Peace.


----------



## screature

Dr.G. said:


> I have received four PMs from various people wanting to know why I have not posted in this thread and taken sides and made my views known. In political threads, I have no problem with this sort of position. From what I have been reading in this thread, with my name used back and forth, I feel I would rather just keep my views to myself.
> 
> On this Passover/Easter period, I shall become a "Livertarian", a person who believes that there is enough hatred in the world to go around, and for a short time we should just try to "live and let live". So, for those four people who are waiting for me to reply to their PM, this is my reply to one and all.
> 
> *Please, regardless of your faith, or non-faith, hold firm to your beliefs, but leave a little room for compassion and understanding of other points of view. This is the only way we shall be able to coexist in a civilized society.
> *
> 
> Peace, Paix, Shalom mes amis.


Great post Marc. You are a wise man.

Amen, I think this is what Canadian values, on the whole, are based upon. Forgive me for putting words in your mouth (as an academic you are probably used to that) but possibly it is one of the reasons you emigrated here. I could be dead wrong but based on some of your past posts it seems plausible to me. 

Peace, Paix, Shalom and Salam.


----------



## eMacMan

Dr.G. said:


> I have received four PMs from various people wanting to know why I have not posted in this thread and taken sides and made my views known. In political threads, I have no problem with this sort of position. From what I have been reading in this thread, with my name used back and forth, I feel I would rather just keep my views to myself.
> 
> On this Passover/Easter period, I shall become a "Livertarian", a person who believes that there is enough hatred in the world to go around, and for a short time we should just try to "live and let live". So, for those four people who are waiting for me to reply to their PM, this is my reply to one and all.
> 
> Please, regardless of your faith, or non-faith, hold firm to your beliefs, but leave a little room for compassion and understanding of other points of view. This is the only way we shall be able to coexist in a civilized society.
> 
> Peace, Paix, Shalom mes amis.


Not one of those who PMd. You seem entirely capable of expressing your views clearly. We occasionally disagree, but you always express yourself in a manner that earns my respect.


----------



## Dr.G.

CubaMark said:


> There he goes again, taking the high road, and putting the rest of us to shame.
> 
> Dr.G. just does not fit in here_ at all_.....


 Paz, mi amigo.


----------



## Dr.G.

screature said:


> Great post Marc. You are a wise man.
> 
> Peace.


Merci, mon ami. Peace to you as well.


----------



## Dr.G.

eMacMan said:


> Not one of those who PMd. You seem entirely capable of expressing your views clearly. We occasionally disagree, but you always express yourself in a manner that earns my respect.


Thank you, eMacMan. Paix, mon ami.


----------



## Dr.G.

screature said:


> Great post Marc. You are a wise man.
> 
> Amen, I think this is what Canadian values, on the whole, are based upon. Forgive me for putting words in your mouth (as an academic you are probably used to that) but possibly it is one of the reasons you emigrated here. I could be dead wrong but based on some of your past posts it seems plausible to me.
> 
> Peace, Paix, Shalom and Salam.


No problem, screature. Paix, mon ami.


----------



## Dr.G.

screature said:


> Great post Marc. You are a wise man.
> 
> Amen, I think this is what Canadian values, on the whole, are based upon. Forgive me for putting words in your mouth (as an academic you are probably used to that) but possibly it is one of the reasons you emigrated here. I could be dead wrong but based on some of your past posts it seems plausible to me.
> 
> Peace, Paix, Shalom and Salam.


I came to Canada nearly 40 years ago, thinking I would stay 2-3 years and then move on. Well, that was nearly 40 years ago, and as I post on my signature "I chose Canada".


----------



## screature

Dr.G. said:


> I came to Canada nearly 40 years ago, t*hinking I would stay 2-3 years and then move on.* Well, that was nearly 40 years ago, and as I post on my signature "I chose Canada".


Sorry, I just have to ask, why did you think you would be here for such a short period of time and then stayed so long? It is a personal question so if you choose not to respond, I understand.


----------



## Dr.G.

screature said:


> Sorry, I just have to ask, why did you think you would be here for such a short period of time and then stayed so long? It is a personal question so if you choose not to respond, I understand.


There was a pool taken at The University of Georgia, where I got my doctorate, that I would use Memorial University as a stepping stone to get to another position at a US university. My initial appointment at Memorial was two years, and even the head of my department thought I would stay for the two year tenure-track period, experience two winters in St. John's, and then move on. I proved everyone wrong. 

I hated winters in St. John's, but liked Canada, so I chose to stay. Memorial was, back then, a small university, but I brought a lot of new ideas to the Fac. of Education, and they gave me a free hand to do innovative things. So, I chose to stay there ................... and I chose to stay in Canada. I do NOT regret my decision.

I retired from being a full professor at Memorial after 38 1/2 years, but have been teaching online for Memorial here in Lunenburg as a sessional. So, when I complete my online course this Spring for Memorial, it will be the final semester of my 40 years. I hope to teach for Memorial comes the Fall ............... the best way to start my 41st year teaching there. We shall see.

Paix, mon ami.


----------



## Freddie_Biff

Rps said:


> No, avoiding one.



Agreed. I'm ready to move on.


----------



## Macfury

Like a tramp who takes a dump on the sidewalk... ready to move on.



Freddie_Biff said:


> Agreed. I'm ready to move on.


----------



## screature

Dr.G. said:


> There was a pool taken at The University of Georgia, where I got my doctorate, that I would use Memorial University as a stepping stone to get to another position at a US university. My initial appointment at Memorial was two years, and even the head of my department thought I would stay for the two year tenure-track period, experience two winters in St. John's, and then move on. I proved everyone wrong.
> 
> I hated winters in St. John's, but liked Canada, so I chose to stay. Memorial was, back then, a small university, but I brought a lot of new ideas to the Fac. of Education, and they gave me a free hand to do innovative things. So, I chose to stay there ................... and I chose to stay in Canada. I do NOT regret my decision.
> 
> I retired from being a full professor at Memorial after 38 1/2 years, but have been teaching online for Memorial here in Lunenburg as a sessional. So, when I complete my online course this Spring for Memorial, it will be the final semester of my 40 years. I hope to teach for Memorial comes the Fall ............... the best way to start my 41st year teaching there. We shall see.
> 
> Paix, mon ami.


Wow! Thanks for sharing Marc that is amazing. To me it just goes to show that the "road of life" is not only long, it is also wide, which I have always beleived.

Peace, happiness, good health, long life, prosperity and love to you my friend.

Steve


----------



## Dr.G.

screature said:


> Wow! Thanks for sharing Marc that is amazing. To me it just goes to show that the "road of life" is not only long, it is also wide, which I have always beleived.
> 
> Peace, happiness, prosperity and love to you my friend.
> 
> Steve


Screature, the path of one's life is never in a straight line. I was told in high school that I might not graduate ............ and then went on to obtain four university degrees. 

Yes, the "water is wide in the crossing", but on the other side is a new life.

Paix, mon ami.


----------



## screature

Rps said:


> You know guys, it might be time for the "Guns of August" approach to this thread....... just sayin'


I was not familiar with your reference, but I did some research and now understand where you are coming from at least in a general sense. 

But I think there was a whole lot more going on politically in pre-WWI and while the war was going on. To me what is happening here is just a minor skirmish of differences of opinion. The approach or principal doe not really apply IMO.

There are much more simpler ways to settle our arguments, like:

While I do not agree with your opinion or religion, I respect your right to believe in whatever religion you choose, even if you choose none in which to believe. Or something like that.

Also colour, sexual orientation, gender identification and a whole lost of other stuff would have to be mentioned as well but that is for finer wordsmiths than me to work out.

It really isn't that simple, but if we take these basic components into mind while we are posting it could probably go a long way to make for less "testy" and "nasty" posts in general.


----------



## screature

Dr.G. said:


> Screature, *the path of one's life is never in a straight line.* I was told in high school that I might not graduate ............ and then went on to obtain four university degrees.
> 
> Yes, the "water is wide in the crossing", but on the other side is a new life.
> 
> Paix, mon ami.


There are rare occasions where it actually does happen. My life long friend and current Dr. always new from grade school \that he wanted to be a Dr., a vet. The only thing that changed was that when he was in HS he changed his mind and wanted to become GP for humans, other than that that he never waived from the path the he set out for himself.

So it does happen sometimes, but in my experience not very often.


----------



## Freddie_Biff

Dr.G. said:


> I have received four PMs from various people wanting to know why I have not posted in this thread and taken sides and made my views known. In political threads, I have no problem with this sort of position. From what I have been reading in this thread, with my name used back and forth, I feel I would rather just keep my views to myself.
> 
> 
> 
> On this Passover/Easter period, I shall become a "Livertarian", a person who believes that there is enough hatred in the world to go around, and for a short time we should just try to "live and let live". So, for those four people who are waiting for me to reply to their PM, this is my reply to one and all.
> 
> 
> 
> Please, regardless of your faith, or non-faith, hold firm to your beliefs, but leave a little room for compassion and understanding of other points of view. This is the only way we shall be able to coexist in a civilized society.
> 
> 
> 
> Peace, Paix, Shalom mes amis.



A mature and well-considered response to a sticky situation, Marc. Sorry if I offended you. Hope you have a nice weekend.


----------



## Freddie_Biff

Dr.G. said:


> I have received four PMs from various people wanting to know why I have not posted in this thread and taken sides and made my views known. In political threads, I have no problem with this sort of position. From what I have been reading in this thread, with my name used back and forth, I feel I would rather just keep my views to myself.
> 
> 
> 
> On this Passover/Easter period, I shall become a "Livertarian", a person who believes that there is enough hatred in the world to go around, and for a short time we should just try to "live and let live". So, for those four people who are waiting for me to reply to their PM, this is my reply to one and all.
> 
> 
> 
> Please, regardless of your faith, or non-faith, hold firm to your beliefs, but leave a little room for compassion and understanding of other points of view. This is the only way we shall be able to coexist in a civilized society.
> 
> 
> 
> Peace, Paix, Shalom mes amis.



A mature and well-considered response to a sticky situation, Marc. Sorry if I offended you. Hope you have a nice weekend.

ETA: such a nice post apparently I had to compliment you twice.


----------



## Dr.G.

screature said:


> I was not familiar with your reference, but I did some research and now understand where you are coming from at least in a general sense.
> 
> But I think there was a whole lot more going on politically in pre-WWI and while the war was going on. To me what is happening here is just a minor skirmish of differences of opinion. The approach or principal doe not really apply IMO.
> 
> There are much more simpler ways to settle our arguments, like:
> 
> While I do not agree with your opinion or religion, I respect your right to believe in whatever religion you choose, even if you choose none in which to believe. Or something like that.
> 
> Also colour, sexual orientation, gender identification and a whole lost of other stuff would have to be mentioned as well but that is for finer wordsmiths than me to work out.
> 
> It really isn't that simple, but if we take these basic components into mind while we are posting it could probably go a long way to make for less "testy" and "nasty" posts in general.


"The Guns of August" by Barbara W. Tuchman, is focused upon the first month of World War I. It shows how treaties were written and then once the Archduke was killed, the various sides started to prepare for war. No one wanted to back down, and each side figured that the war would be over by Christmas. Little did they know. These entangled international alliances formed into the Central Powers and the Allied powers. Some have said that the First World War WWI was caused by a family feud, others saw it as a premeditated war of aggression and conquest.

This is one reason why I chose to stay neutral and remain out of this conflict that seems to be going on in this, and other threads. I shall not be like Pres. Wilson and propose a 14 point peace plan and try to broker some sort of an end to the constant back and forth bickering that is seen in various threads. There shall be no League of ehMacLanders to serve as a forum to moderate grievances. Many posters here in ehMacland have chosen to leave the forum entirely. As for me, I choose to post only in those threads where I feel that I want to have my words and thoughts read by others. Such is Life.

Paix, mes amis.


----------



## Freddie_Biff

There are far too many battles waged over religion in this world. And I would say that there's a lot of similarity between religious differences, political differences, and other world view differences. It would be great if we could agree to disagree, both at a personal level and a much larger societal level, but I suspect the truth is that an attraction to conflict is part of the human condition. I can do my part I suppose, regardless of whether others do the same. 

Amen. And Shalom.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Dr.G.

Freddie_Biff said:


> There are far too many battles waged over religion in this world. And I would say that there's a lot of similarity between religious differences, political differences, and other world view differences. It would be great if we could agree to disagree, both at a personal level and a much larger societal level, but I suspect the truth is that an attraction to conflict is part of the human condition. I can do my part I suppose, regardless of whether others do the same.
> 
> Amen. And Shalom.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Some interesting and valid points, FB. Do your part to end some of these conflicts and help "the human condition". Paix, mon ami.


----------



## SINC

Dr.G. said:


> Some interesting and valid points, FB. Do your part to end some of these conflicts and help "the human condition". Paix, mon ami.


Yep, very true. Odd thing being that could have been accomplished by not posting that image in the first place. Apology included or not.


----------



## Macfury

SINC said:


> Yep, very true. Odd thing being that could have been accomplished by not posting that image in the first place. Apology included or not.


If one recognizes sensitivity about religion, why throw a hornet's nest into it?


----------



## Beej

Unasked for opinion:

I generally favour offending religious taboos for fun (Life of Brian is one of the greatest comedy movies of all time, to me), while not being malicious about it. What I do have a problem with is where posters pick one or two religions as free game, while "politely" avoiding others. They are all beyond ridiculous to me, but the fair game policy seems to be politically motivated.

That appears to be the heart of this ehmac scuffle. How sharply can a joke highlight the morals of one text on an important day to that religion, and would that poster do the same for another text?

My preference is public politeness, but when in a smaller group having a rowdy discussion, the gloves come off. beejacon


----------



## Freddie_Biff

Beej said:


> Unasked for opinion:
> 
> 
> 
> I generally favour offending religious taboos for fun (Life of Brian is one of the greatest comedy movies of all time, to me), while not being malicious about it. What I do have a problem with is where posters pick one or two religions as free game, while "politely" avoiding others. They are all beyond ridiculous to me, but the fair game policy seems to be politically motivated.
> 
> 
> 
> That appears to be the heart of this ehmac scuffle. How sharply can a joke highlight the morals of one text on an important day to that religion, and would that poster do the same for another text?
> 
> 
> 
> My preference is public politeness, but when in a smaller group having a rowdy discussion, the gloves come off. beejacon



Good points, Beej. I have nothing against Judaism, per se. In fact, I think it's a pretty cool religion out of those that exist, and it is the basis for my own Catholic faith as well. That doesn't mean it can't be hypocritical, however, and I find hypocrisy in all its guises a tough thing to ignore. I find the idea that a loving God would drown the Egyptian army, there by breaking his own "Thou Shall Not Kill" commandment in the process, as strange as killing all the Egyptian children, who should be blameless in my way of thinking. Of course, this is how religions tend to work; a mythological framework for explaining how some of the things in our world came to be, but it tends to be full of contradictions if you look too closely.

As the guy in the crowd explained when someone appeared surprised at the pronouncement "Blessed are the cheese makers:" obviously it's not meant to be taken literally. It refers to all manufacturers of dairy products.


----------



## Freddie_Biff

Mary, Mary, quite contrary. 



> Here’s who Mary Magdalene was: one of Jesus Christ’s original followers, the last to stay with him while he was nailed to the cross and, Christians believe, the first to see his empty tomb and his resurrection.
> 
> Here’s who she wasn’t: a reformed or forgiven prostitute.
> 
> Yet on Easter Sunday, Christianity’s holiest day, that’s exactly how she will be described in some sermons and how she continues to be portrayed in much of popular culture.
> 
> The woman dubbed in the Bible the “Apostle of the Apostles” has spent two millennia being reduced to a seductress. In some ways, Mary Magdalene’s story is the story of modern women everywhere.
> 
> From the relentless focus on the looks of female leaders to the nude photos being circulated of female Marines, women who dare to work among men as equals get sexualized and marginalized.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> An illustration showing Jesus appearing to Mary Magdalene after the resurrection. (Religion News Service)
> 
> From lab, to Olympic podium to White House, accomplished women are still dismissed
> 
> In Mary Magdalene’s case, it’s a 2,000-year-old slut-shaming that a group of Christian women is trying to stop.
> 
> The Junia Project, a California group preaching egalitarian theology, is using social media to spread its public service announcement: “As you preach this Sunday, please note: Mary Magdalene was NOT a prostitute. Thank you.”
> 
> They have to be proactive.
> 
> Even a popular Easter sermon on the website Sermon Central repeats the myth. “Mary Magdalene was a forgiven prostitute,” reads the second line of the sermon reminding people what to remember about the first Easter.
> 
> Hollywood loves casting Mary Magdalene as a sex worker. She was a hooker in “Jesus Christ Superstar” in 1973, in “The Last Temptation of Christ” in 1988, in “The Passion of the Christ” in 2004 and even in last year’s “Risen.”
> 
> 
> It’s a delicious story, Jesus being so cool that he even forgives a prostitute. It’s “Pretty Woman” in the tunics-and-sandals age.
> 
> Gail Wallace, one of the co-founders of the Junia Project, hates the way Mary Magdalene gets maligned.
> 
> “For me, the bottom line is that we are fed up with the way women’s stories in the Bible have been retold in a way that sexualizes them unnecessarily and in ways that aren’t supported by the biblical texts,” she said.
> 
> Biblical scholars and historians have been trying to make the same point for decades. The Catholic Church acknowledged and tried to correct the widespread misperception in 1969.
> 
> But somewhere along the telephone game that is Christian history, the prostitute label stuck.
> 
> “Women looking to the Bible for inspiration already have limited choices of female role models,” wrote Chicago nun and professor Barbara Bowe, before her death in 2010. “When we suddenly cut Mary Magdalene off at the knees and turn her into some kind of evil sex pervert, we deprive men and women, but especially women, of a figure with whom they can identify.”
> 
> 
> Kate Wallace Nunneley, another of the Junia Project’s co-founders, said she saw the Mary Magdalene myth repeated in modern seminary texts, too.
> 
> That’s okay, though. Because now Team Mary’s got the Internet. And every year, after the Junio Project runs their PSA about Mary Magdalene on social media, they hear from people about what was said in church.
> 
> “Around Easter is really one of the only times in general evangelicalism that women get preached about,” Nunneley said. “After we first ran that PSA . . . we heard from so many women who said they still heard [the myth]. One woman told me, ‘I sent this to my pastor and he still preached about her being a prostitute.’ ”
> 
> This is, of course, part of a larger debate about the way women are treated in other arenas.
> 
> 
> Take those women in the Marines who have been serving their country in the most macho branch of the military. How did the guys who couldn’t handle their success deal with it? They circulated nude pictures of them. Even after they were busted, they kept at it.
> 
> Nunneley considers that the modern parallel to Mary Magdalene.
> 
> “As we see with the story about the women in the Marines, their personhood gets overlooked and the men want to only focus on their sexuality,” she said.
> 
> Local Headlines newsletter
> 
> Daily headlines about the Washington region.
> 
> It’s an old story. A tired story. And it’s time for it to end.




https://www.washingtonpost.com/loca...a1fb24d4671_story.html?utm_term=.039cc4b93263


----------



## screature

Freddie_Biff said:


> Mary, Mary, quite contrary.
> 
> https://www.washingtonpost.com/loca...a1fb24d4671_story.html?utm_term=.039cc4b93263


I think if you asked 1000 young women today who Mary Magdalene was, about 90 - 95% of them wouldn't have a clue and wouldn't really care.


----------



## Freddie_Biff

screature said:


> I think if you asked 1000 young women today who Mary Magdalene was, about 90 - 95% of them wouldn't have a clue and wouldn't really care.



Except for all the ones who read The DaVinci Code of course.


----------



## screature

Freddie_Biff said:


> Except for all the ones who read The DaVinci Code of course.


I can't find any facts on the matter and have researched it, but I suspect that if you throw having read the DaVinci Code into the equation, i.e. filtered by do you have any idea who Mary Magdalen was *and* have you read the DaVinci Code as a factor for the results, the results would be more like 95 - 99% of young women would have have no idea who Mary Magdalene was... and even if they did they would still not really care.


----------



## Freddie_Biff

screature said:


> I can't find any facts on the matter and have researched it, but I suspect that if you throw having read the DaVinci Code into the equation, i.e. filtered by do you have any idea who Mary Magdalen was *and* have you read the DaVinci Code as a factor for the results, the results would be more like 95 - 99% of young women would have have no idea who Mary Magdalene was... and even if they did they would still not really care.



I dunno. I mean, I teach in a catholic high school, but most kids there are familiar with Mary Magdalene. Plus there's the whole JC Superstar crowd, for whom Mary M is a pretty central part of the story.


----------



## Rps

Freddie_Biff said:


> I dunno. I mean, I teach in a catholic high school, but most kids there are familiar with Mary Magdalene. Plus there's the whole JC Superstar crowd, for whom Mary M is a pretty central part of the story.


Ah! But which one, Western Christianity or Eastern ( read Orthodox ) as they have two extremely different views of her.


----------



## screature

Freddie_Biff said:


> I dunno. I mean, I teach in a catholic high school, but most kids there are familiar with Mary Magdalene. Plus there's the whole JC Superstar crowd, for whom Mary M is a pretty central part of the story.


Well sure, you teach Catholic School but in a random sampling across Canada of 1000 young females, a statistical study, where Catholics in Canada sure are not the majority I stand by my statement so there is a likelihood of a + or - 5% error ratio or so... or maybe much more...

Disclaimer:

This is not a statistical study and is only based the anecdotal experience of screature, a fictional character who could have his head up his ass but his heirs, of which he has none are not responsible for any financial damages due to his statements after his death.


----------



## Rps

Screature you might be right..... would this be a gap in cultural literacy or absence of religious training. I was at a pharmacy this spring and was talking about the " what do you mean you don't know that" moments we older generations see in our youth. As a test I asked the pharmacist, who was about my age, and his younger assistant what the "grassy knoll" was...... he got it, she didn't.......cultural literacy gap...... I wonder.


----------



## Beej

Are we comfortable with lampooning religion in general, or just a couple easy targets?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Muhammad

Unclear to me, but maybe this was debated and I missed it.


----------



## Freddie_Biff

Rps said:


> Ah! But which one, Western Christianity or Eastern ( read Orthodox ) as they have two extremely different views of her.



Tell me, what is the Eastern view? I know from attending Ukrainian masses that they also emphasize the Mary, ever-virgin thing—which means she had to remain a virgin even after Jesus was born. Not sure how Joseph would have felt about that, but they don't refer to HIM as ever-virgin. Is the Eastern view more sympathetic or less sympathetic to Mary M? 


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## Freddie_Biff

screature said:


> Well sure, you teach Catholic School but in a random sampling across Canada of 1000 young females, a statistical study, where Catholics in Canada sure are not the majority I stand by my statement so there is a likelihood of a + or - 5% error ratio or so... or maybe much more...
> 
> 
> 
> Disclaimer:
> 
> 
> 
> This is not a statistical study and is only based the anecdotal experience of screature, a fictional character who could have his head up his ass but his heirs, of which he has none are not responsible for any financial damages due to his statements after his death.



Funny.  I think if there's anyone we sinners could identify with, it would be Judas and Mary M—at least the version wrongly identified as the woman if the previous paragraph by Pope Gregory in something like the 6th century. 


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## Freddie_Biff

Rps said:


> Screature you might be right..... would this be a gap in cultural literacy or absence of religious training. I was at a pharmacy this spring and was talking about the " what do you mean you don't know that" moments we older generations see in our youth. As a test I asked the pharmacist, who was about my age, and his younger assistant what the "grassy knoll" was...... he got it, she didn't.......cultural literacy gap...... I wonder.



But I'll bet if some young punk asked what a "dank meme" is, you'd be puzzled. They develop their own language, these youngsters.


----------



## Freddie_Biff

Beej said:


> Are we comfortable with lampooning religion in general, or just a couple easy targets?
> 
> 
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Muhammad
> 
> 
> 
> Unclear to me, but maybe this was debated and I missed it.



Personally, I'm fine with it, but then I'm not Muslim. If I can poke fun at my own God, I don't see why others should be off limits. I'd like to think of God as having a pretty good sense of humour anyway. 

https://youtu.be/UaZDcS-rMf4


----------



## Macfury

Freddie_Biff said:


> But I'll bet if some young punk asked what a "dank meme" is, you'd be puzzled. They develop their own language, these youngsters.


No puzzlment. The stuff is right there in the open now. Secret lingo seems a thing of the past.


----------



## Rps

Freddie_Biff said:


> But I'll bet if some young punk asked what a "dank meme" is, you'd be puzzled. They develop their own language, these youngsters.


And thus we have a cultural literacy gap in process.


----------



## Macfury

Rps said:


> And thus we have a cultural literacy gap in process.


Much easier to keep up with current vernacular than for the current crop of kids to keep up with old references/


----------



## Freddie_Biff

Rps said:


> And thus we have a cultural literacy gap in process.



Exactly.


----------



## Macfury

I think rps, that there was always a cultural literacy gap. However, younger kids today are more ignorant of the past than prior generations. That is, as a teen I knew all of my parents' cultural references and also my own.


----------



## SINC

Macfury said:


> I think rps, that there was always a cultural literacy gap. However, younger kids today are more ignorant of the past than prior generations. That is, as a teen I knew all of my parents' cultural references and also my own.


This is painfully obvious every day. Even people in their 30s have no clue of their own cultural background.


----------



## Freddie_Biff

Despite my iconoclastic ways, it really is nice to sit down with my family for turkey on Easter Sunday. God bless communal gatherings. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Beej

Macfury said:


> I think rps, that there was always a cultural literacy gap. However, younger kids today are more ignorant of the past than prior generations. That is, as a teen I knew all of my parents' cultural references and also my own.


Sometimes I have to double check that I'm not looking at a parody account online or somebody having an isolated stupid moment. There are some monumentally clueless people out there. Hopefully they are disproportionately loud, and not representative.


----------



## Beej

Macfury said:


> Much easier to keep up with current vernacular than for the current crop of kids to keep up with old references/


I keep meaning to read up on Kekistan. Quite a sad history, but the people remain hopeful.


----------



## Freddie_Biff




----------



## SINC

Where do you find this crap anyway?


----------



## Macfury

SINC said:


> Where do you find this crap anyway?


It seems the stuff is carefully curated for weak-mindedness. I think it's even been posted here before by the same person.


----------



## Freddie_Biff

Why don't you kids actually read them and comment on the message instead of your standard ad hom comments? The Repubs have Jesus' message pretty much exactly backwards. Think. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury

The Democrats are the party of abortion. "Let the children come unto me... unless you get to them first." See how easy that was? Jesus was apolitical, and focused on personal responsibility. Mapping political ideology onto his message fails. 



Freddie_Biff said:


> Why don't you kids actually read them and comment on the message instead of your standard ad hom comments? The Repubs have Jesus' message pretty much exactly backwards. Think.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## SINC

Freddie_Biff said:


> Why don't you kids actually read them and comment on the message instead of your standard ad hom comments? The Repubs have Jesus' message pretty much exactly backwards. Think.


You might want to try your own advice and think, Frank.

I asked where you found this kind of crap, but did not attack you personally. No ad hom involved.

Here is the definition for you in case you forgot what it means:

_Ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person", short for argumentum ad hominem, is now usually understood as a logical fallacy in which an argument is rebutted by attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself._


----------



## Freddie_Biff

Yes, I know, Don. I found this posted by one of my Facebook friends. Your ad hom attack is against the originator of the meme, and this you completely disregard the message itself. The message is pretty accurate. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury

Uh, no.



Freddie_Biff said:


> The message is pretty accurate.


----------



## Freddie_Biff

Macfury said:


> Uh, no.



Please explain where it is not accurate then. It is exactly in keeping with the Trump administration and the GOP proposals regarding the social safety net. You appear to be misinformed where these are concerned. Quoting Democrats about abortion really doesn't answer the question. At all.


----------



## Macfury

What has the GOP done to the social safety net?



Freddie_Biff said:


> Please explain where it is not accurate then. It is exactly in keeping with the Trump administration and the GOP proposals regarding the social safety net. You appear to be misinformed where these are concerned. Quoting Democrats about abortion really doesn't answer the question. At all.


----------



## Freddie_Biff

Macfury said:


> What has the GOP done to the social safety net?



Do you even follow the news at all? There is really little point in arguing with you.


----------



## screature

Freddie_Biff said:


> Why don't *you kids* actually read them and comment on the message instead of your standard ad hom comments? The Repubs have Jesus' message pretty much exactly backwards. Think.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


I think that is what Don is talking about. There was no need for that except that it expressed a certain amount of disrespect toward SINC and MF.

Sorry Frank but most of the time you come across as have a chip on your shoulder about almost everything. You are predominantly negative in your posts. You are not alone in that here, by far and large the words spoken here are negative, they seem to garner more response than positive words. Probably for the same reason that most media, it does not matter what kind, almost universally publish first and foremost negativity because that is going to get a "rise" out of people.

It might be helpful if you took another tack and responded rather than reacted. Just a thought.

Peace.


----------



## Freddie_Biff

Nope, Steve. When those two begin showing respect, so will I. There are no fee rides . And I certainly don't need a lecture from you about it. Speak kind words and you will hear kind echoes. I gave up being nice about the same time the others did. Their approval is not something I am interested in. I post for other people to read, not the trolls. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury

Freddie_Biff said:


> Do you even follow the news at all? There is really little point in arguing with you.


It should be really easy if it's that predominant. Then we can go into each issue and imagine what Jesus might think of it.


----------



## screature

Freddie_Biff said:


> Nope, Steve. When those two begin showing respect, so will I. There are no fee rides . And I certainly don't need a lecture from you about it. Speak kind words and you will hear kind echoes. I gave up being nice about the same time the others did. Their approval is not something I am interested in. I post for other people to read, not the trolls.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Ok. No lectures just my personal observations, opinions and ideas, you can take them or leave them.

Here is just another idea (one that I am trying to work on), just be kind. If no one starts to be nice then how is it ever going to change? I am not only talking to you here, but myself, MF, SINC, FeXL etc.

We should all think about it. No wonder hardly anyone comes here anymore! It is just a constant struggle of wills and opinions. There is rarely actually anything new. Some do try, CubaMark and Dr.G stand out for me, but in the end this place has become one big honking pile of stinking and rotting negativity.


----------



## Dr.G.

screature said:


> Ok. No lectures just my personal observations, opinions and ideas, you can take them or leave them.
> 
> Here is just another idea (one that I am trying to work on), just be kind. If no one starts to be nice then how is it ever going to change? I am not only talking to you here, but myself, MF, SINC, FeXL etc.
> 
> We should all think about it. No wonder hardly anyone comes here anymore! It is just a constant struggle of wills and opinions. There is rarely actually anything new. Some do try, CubaMark and Dr.G stand out for me, but in the end this place has become one big honking pile of stinking and rotting negativity.


Thanks for the compliment, screature. I too tire of the back and forth bickering in this, and other threads. At times, I just go to the Weather and Shangri-La thread and leave the others be. Such is Life.

Paix, mon ami.


----------



## screature

Dr.G. said:


> Thanks for the compliment, screature. I too tire of the back and forth bickering in this, and other threads. At times, *I just go to the Weather and Shangri-La thread and leave the others be.* Such is Life.
> 
> Paix, mon ami.


It was not a compliment Marc, at least I didn't mean it that way. But if you took it that way that is great, it was just based on my observation. Just trying to keep things real.

I know you do Marc and I have noticed that you hardly participate in the other threads anymore... and with good reason.


----------



## Dr.G.

screature said:


> It was not a compliment Marc, at least I didn't mean it that way. But if you took it that way that is great, it was just based on my observation. Just trying to keep things real.
> 
> I know you do Marc and I have noticed that you hardly participate in the other threads anymore... and with good reason.


No problem. I just took it as a compliment that CubaMark and I try to be positive in most threads.

I participate in various threads when I have something positive to add or just want to provide my support for a valid comment someone like yourself has made.

Paix, mon ami.


----------



## CubaMark

*Stupid humans.*

*Stephen Fry under police investigation for blasphemy after branding God an 'utter maniac'*

Stephen Fry is being investigated by Irish police over blasphemy claims more than two years after his outspoken comments about God on RTE's The Meaning of Life went viral.

Mr Fry described a hypothetical creator as “stupid” and an “utter maniac” for designing a world filled with undue suffering.

Asked in 2015 by the programme's host, Gay Byrne, what he would say to God if he arrived at the pearly gates of heaven, the actor and author replied: “I’d say, bone cancer in children? What’s that about?”

The committed atheist added: “How dare you? How dare you create a world to which there is such misery that is not our fault? It’s not right, it’s utterly, utterly evil.

“Why should I respect a capricious, mean-minded, stupid god who creates a world that is so full of injustice and pain?

“We have to spend our life on our knees thanking him? What kind of god would do that?

“The god who created this universe, if it was created by god, is quite clearly a maniac, an utter maniac, totally selfish.”
(Independent UK)​


----------



## CubaMark

Perhaps of interest to some....

*Allen Barra: The Islamic Jesus - Book Review*










Mustafa Akyol, a columnist for, among other publications, the International New York Times, and author of “Islam Without Extremes,” has written “The Islamic Jesus: How the King of the Jews Became a Prophet of the Muslims”—a book that tells Christians, Muslims and Jews exactly what we all have in common and how we got this way. It reaches us not a minute too soon.

“As a faithful Muslim,” Akyol writes early on, “and thus a believer in the all-compassionate God, the god of Abraham—I found much of the Christian scripture quite appealing and inspiring.” The roadblock for Akyol, as with all Muslims, is the Christian belief in the divinity of Jesus. “To my Muslim mind, Jesus as a messenger of God was a very familiar, appealing theme. But Jesus as God was anathema.”

The Islamic Jesus: How the King of the Jews Became a Prophet of the Muslims Purchase in the Truthdig Bazaar

When his friends were asked to read a passage from the New Testament, he says, “This is very similar to the Qur’an,” and “Are you sure this is from the Christian Bible?” 

The passage that elicits these reactions is the Epistle of James; the part of the New Testament that Muslims cannot accept comes from St. Paul. Akyol quotes biblical scholar James D. Tabor: 

“There are two completely separate and distinct Christianities embedded in the New Testament. One is quite familiar and became the version of the Christian faith known to billions. … Its main proponent was the apostle Paul.”

The other is championed by “None other than James, the brother of Jesus.”
(Read more at TruthDig)​


----------



## Macfury

I came across that when I read the Koran.


----------



## CubaMark

More proof that there ain't no god:

_This asshole is still ticking along...._

*Pat Robertson Recovering From a Stroke*
*87-year-old '700 Club' founder is expected to recover*










*Related:*
*10 Craziest Things Pat Robertson Has Said*

Men with “rebellious” wives should live where wife-beating is legal
You should cast demons out of secondhand clothes you buy, lest their previous owner’s evil infect you
God punishes people for having too much education.
Women just discovered porn, and quite possibly sex
Beware “scamsters in religious garb.”
The government is gearing up to round up Americans for unspecified reasons.
Abortion is a lesbian conspiracy.
Atheists are trying to steal Christmas to make you miserable
The earthquake punished Haitians for overthrowing slavery.
Divorce is wrong, unless your wife gets sick.


----------



## Macfury

Or it could be proof that there is a God...


----------



## Freddie_Biff

Something to ponder that I discovered on another forum: 

Doctor: I'm sorry. You have cancer.

Patient: Oh my god!

Doctor: Don't worry. We have ways to treat it.

Patient: Thank goodness! What will it involve, surgery? Chemotherapy?

Doctor: All of those things may work, but we're going to stick to thoughts and prayers.

Patient: Wat?

Doctor: Yes, even though we have an ability to treat your cancer that has worked with other patients, we choose to abstain from any of those things. Instead, we will keep you in our thoughts and prayers

Patient: That's bull****!

Doctor: Not sure what you mean! Many people said that this would be quite comforting.






Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury

I think they should pass a law making cancer illegal. That would solve everything.


----------



## Freddie_Biff

Why do they say Jesus rose on the third day? If he was crucified on Good Friday and rose in the morning on Easter Sunday, that's only two days. Where did the third day come from?


----------



## eMacMan

Freddie_Biff said:


> Who do they say Jesus rose on the third day? If he was crucified on Good Friday and rose in the morning on Easter Sunday, that's only two days. Where did the third day come from?


Actually less than 2 days according to the sun-dial, unless you go by Canada Customs regulations. Then it is indeed 3 days.


----------



## Freddie_Biff

eMacMan said:


> Actually less than 2 days according to the sun-dial, unless you go by Canada Customs regulations. Then it is indeed 3 days.




3 and a half in Newfoundland.


----------



## Macfury

Is that a real question? Crucified on Friday, the first day. Saturday was the second day. Resurrected on Sunday, the third day.



Freddie_Biff said:


> Why do they say Jesus rose on the third day? If he was crucified on Good Friday and rose in the morning on Easter Sunday, that's only two days. Where did the third day come from?


----------



## Freddie_Biff

Macfury said:


> Is that a real question? Crucified on Friday, the first day. Saturday was the second day. Resurrected on Sunday, the third day.




Apparently you don't know how to tell time. From, say, 3 pm Friday to 3 pm Saturday is one day. One day has past. Sunday morning marks two days—not even. You're inventing the third day by not counting properly.


----------



## Macfury

Apparently you don't understand the numbering of days. Friday, Saturday, Sunday... 1, 2, 3.



Freddie_Biff said:


> Apparently you don't know how to tell time. From, say, 3 pm Friday to 3 pm Saturday is one day. One day has past. Sunday morning marks two days—not even. You're inventing the third day by not counting properly.


----------



## CubaMark

*Seems like one of Trump's buddies is about ready to advocate for a Christian hijab.....*

*Christian pastor: Women who dress provocatively are committing sexual assault on men*










Carl Gallups is a right-wing Christian pastor, conspiracy theorist, and was a frequent speaker at Trump rallies during the 2016 campaign. So it shouldn’t be surprising to hear that he has some *unique* views when it comes to women and sexual assault, but try and wrap your head around this one.

On his radio program this Friday, Gallups interviewed Mike Shoesmith, who recently argued in a Facebook post that women who dress provocatively around men are guilty of sexual assault.

_If a woman wears sexually suggestive clothing around a man is that not also sexual assault? Men are visually stimulated and unwanted stimulation should meet the basic definition of assault. I am not condoning bad behavior by men but women need to understand that by walking around in their little sister’s skirt they are guilty of indecent visual assault on a man’s imagination which does cause mental anguish and torment especially on men who really are trying to live in harmony and respect toward women; something made more difficult when every ripple and curve are exposed to the men around you. Something to think about._​
Gallups chimed in, saying that if a man paraded around the workplace in a “sexually suggestive outfit,” he would immediately be accused of sexual harassment.

“We are just discussing what should be obvious,” Gallups said. “The science supports us in it.”

(DeadState)​


----------



## Macfury

This guy wants to make it illegal to wear these outfits?


----------



## Freddie_Biff




----------



## wonderings

Freddie_Biff said:


>


Guess I miss the point or humour in this one. Religions are not all the same thing and preach very different things. Few religions are promoting the death of non believers these days.


----------



## Freddie_Biff

wonderings said:


> Guess I miss the point or humour in this one. Religions are not all the same thing and preach very different things. Few religions are promoting the death of non believers these days.




I believe the meme is pointing out how religious belief is based on preference as opposed to logic. Of course all religions do not preach the same thing.


----------



## Macfury

No not all religions are based on simple preference. They contain internal logic and unique philosophies.


----------



## Freddie_Biff




----------



## wonderings

c2d by B P, on Flickr


----------



## Freddie_Biff

wonderings said:


> c2d by B P, on Flickr




Good observation.


----------



## Macfury

Does anyone here eat Froot Loops? I liked them when I had calories to spare, but I don't think I ever identified one colour as a favourite flavour.


----------



## Freddie_Biff




----------

