# Pope John Paul II Given Last Rights



## MaxPower (Jan 30, 2003)

I just got a CNN news Bulletin that Pope John Paul II has been given the last rites of the Roman Catholic Church as his health deteriorates, a Vatican source tells CNN.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

"Sacrament of the Sick" - not last rights.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Macdoc, from CNN "Pope John Paul II has been given the last rites of the Roman Catholic Church as his health condition deteriorates, a Vatican source tells CNN. A Vatican official had earlier confirmed that the pope was suffering from a high fever caused by a urinary tract infection and was being treated with antibiotics."


----------



## Moscool (Jun 8, 2003)

From the Beeb:

"Pope John Paul II is suffering from a very high fever caused by a urinary tract infection", the Vatican has said in a statement. 

Spokesman Joaquin Navarro-Valls said the 84-year-old pontiff was receiving "appropriate antibiotic therapy". 

Another senior Vatican official said later the Pope's his condition had stabilised but it was still serious. 

The Pope was also given the last rites - the Catholic sacrament for the sick and dying, unconfirmed reports say. 

The emergency department chief at Rome's Gemelli hospital said on Thursday the Pope would not be taken to hospital for the time being. 

Small groups of faithful have gathered at St Peter's Square in Rome to pray for the Pope's speedy recovery.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Hmmm seems some confusion the Vatican guy on CTV downplayed it as something done when people are sick as a matter of course.
Out of my purvue.


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

The Vatican will deny any developments as "speculation" until there is a concrete reason to be forthcoming. Given that the darn media has been on a death-watch for the past two years, I don't blame them. His condition sounds very fragile. A minor infection could be fatal. However, if he recovers, he will still be too frail to perform his "duties" without compromising his already poor health. Would it not be more sensible to resign and allow the election of a new Pope within his life time?

I don't know the Catholic traditions, but traditions surely aren't more important than dignity and sensibilities.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

_
Italian media said the 84-year-old Pontiff, who is struggling to recover from throat surgery, had received the *sacrament for the sick and dying, commonly known as the Last Rites.* It is given to the very seriously ill but does not mean necessarily that death is imminent. 
_

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/index.cfm?c_id=2&ObjectID=10118166


----------



## autopilot (Dec 2, 2004)

MacDoc said:


> Hmmm seems some confusion the Vatican guy on CTV downplayed it as something done when people are sick as a matter of course.
> Out of my purvue.


well, the mark of solid journalism is not to sensationalise a story. let the public come to the own conclusions about how to feel about a piece of news. don't show your own feelings about what you're sharing.

something the sun should bear in mind for its headlines...


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

I am not Catholic, nor am I particularly religious, but I do believe in God.

This man they call Pope John is perhaps one of the finer statesman I have seen in my 60 plus years on this earth.

I wish him well, but if he is called, I applaud the end of his suffering and the good he has done.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

He meddled in Ukrainian Catholic vs. Ukrainian Orthodox debate in Ukraine. Something that has divided the Ukrainian people for a very long time and he knew he was meddling in a very divisive issue in Ukraine.

He installed a Ukrainian Catholic bishop in Canada that refused to annoint married priests in direct violation to the age old deal made with the Ukrainian Orthodox church that broke away to become the Ukrainian Catholic church.
Luckily Ukrainian Catholics rose up and voiced their outrage and eventually this bishop and lackey of Rome was removed.
During the reign of this bishop, married prospective priests were forced to fly to Ukraine to become annointed.

When the Pope was bishop he closed Ukrainian Catholic churches in Poland. One such church was in my father's village.

Sorry to say, but I won't miss him.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> Sorry to say, but I won't miss him.


One is entitled to one's viewpoint.

Sorry to hear you can find not one bit of good in all he has done, but that of course is your loss.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

_All that glitters is not gold._


----------



## GWR (Jan 2, 2003)

As he lies on his deathbed, I think we should all join in prayer for him. I, personally, believe that he was the worst Pope the Catholic Church has ever had, but I still believe we should pray for him. For those of you that don't know how to pray, I wold ask that you simply ask God to not be too hard on him. The more you are given the more is asked of you, and JPII was given responsability over the spiritual lives of billions of souls, may God have mercy on him.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

GWR said:


> As he lies on his deathbed, I think we should all join in prayer for him. I, personally, believe that he was the worst Pope the Catholic Church has ever had, but I still believe we should pray for him. For those of you that don't know how to pray, I wold ask that you simply ask God to not be too hard on him. The more you are given the more is asked of you, and JPII was given responsability over the spiritual lives of billions of souls, may God have mercy on him.



I would rather ask God to not be too hard on those children that go to bed hungry and/or homeless.


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> I would rather ask God to not be too hard on those children that go to bed hungry and/or homeless.


... and he in turn may ask you what you've done to feed the hungry and shelter the homeless. 
If he doesn't now he apparently will when you check out of this life. MATT: 25 v31-46
I'm sure the pope would support your prayers of concern and concrete actions to help the poor and homeless. 

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

> ... and he in turn may ask you what you've done to feed the hungry and shelter the homeless.


I don't think publicizing one's charity is appropriate, so when He does ask, I'll answer.


----------



## Moscool (Jun 8, 2003)

*Don't knock a man on his death bed but...*



SINC said:


> This man they call Pope John is perhaps one of the finer statesman I have seen in my 60 plus years on this earth.


Sinc: I'll keep my powder dry until JP2 passes away but I'll put a marker down against your statement. Peace on earth in the meantime.


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> I don't think publicizing one's charity is appropriate, so when He does ask, I'll answer.


And you'd be quite right in keeping it to yourself. True charity isn't done to gain the praise of others.

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

When the Vatican starts selling it's treasures and properties, and the Pope and Cardinals start living in hospices rather than a palace and that money then given to the poor... then I think they can start talking about Charity.


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

da_jonesy said:


> When the Vatican starts selling it's treasures and properties, and the Pope and Cardinals start living in hospices rather than a palace and that money then given to the poor... then I think they can start talking about Charity.


And how are the beds at your hospice?

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

MacGuiver said:


> And how are the beds at your hospice?


I am not a church now am I? However if I had a couple of DaVinci or Raphael paintings and sculptures I would probably sell them and at least donate some money to the cancer society or heart&stroke foundation.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

if want to have a look at a "what if" sitatuion with the Church, charity and geo-politics, rent the movie "The Shoes of the Fisherman" with Anthony Quinn playing a priest, recently released from a Soviet gulag, who becomes Pope makes a controversial decision to avoid a possible world war, and changes the face of the Church forever.

Lots of interesting insight into the papacy, espeically papal election and the pomp and circumstance of the papcy.

A bit long, but very interesting.
Well worth renting.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0063599/

_
After twenty years in a Siberian labor camp, Kiril Lakota, the Metropolitan Archbishop of Lvov, is set free. The Catholic Archbishop is released and sent to Rome, where the ailing Pope makes him a Cardinal. The world is in a state of crisis - a famine in China is exacerbated by United States restrictions on Chinese trade and the ongoing Chinese-Soviet feud. When the Pontiff dies, Lakota finds himself elected Pope. But the new Pope Kiril I is plagued by self-doubt, by his years in prison, and by the strange world he knows so little about. This movie contains extensive information about Catholic faith & practice, as a television news reporter steps in from time-to-time to explain the procedures involved in selecting a new Pope.
_


----------



## MaxPower (Jan 30, 2003)

The latest CNN news Bulletin:

Vatican says pope's condition has worsened, breathing has become shallow.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

What might happen if the Pope slips into a long coma? When he dies, may it be peacefully in his sleep. Pax.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

If he's not going to recover (and it certainly doesn't look like he will) I certainly hope he doesn't suffer. No one deserves to die painfully.

However, as a completely non-religious outsider, the death of a Pope is interesting and fraught with possibility, as is the death of any other important geo-political figure (I wish the Pope wasn't important, but there's no denying that he is).

What is exciting to me is the possibility that a new pontiff may guide the Catholic Church out of the middle ages, and, in doing so, help mitigate some of the terrible problems facing the modern world: overpopulation - change the churches policy WRT birth control, for example.

Is there any hope that a more realistic world view will take hold in the Vatican after the death of JP2?


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

> Is there any hope that a more realistic world view will take hold in the Vatican after the death of JP2?


is this still April Fools?


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

bryanc said:


> Is there any hope that a more realistic world view will take hold in the Vatican after the death of JP2?


Hi Brian,

Unless David Suzuki, Maurice Strong or the CEO of Planned Parenthood is actually the second coming of the Son of God I highly doubt it. Barring that, they'll likely continue to consult God's word on policy issues.

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## GWR (Jan 2, 2003)

MacGuiver said:


> Hi Brian,
> 
> Unless David Suzuki, Maurice Strong or the CEO of Planned Parenthood is actually the second coming of the Son of God I highly doubt it. Barring that, they'll likely continue to consult God's word on policy issues.
> 
> ...


I do hope you are right, but I fear for the worse. There are many, many pagans out there that exert an awful lot of pressure, and would love nothing more than a Pope that ignores everything the Church has ever stood for (namely Tradition) and embraces the views of David Suzuki, Maurice Strong or the CEO of Planned Parenthood. Let's pray for the successor of JPII as much as for JPII himself.


----------



## Fink-Nottle (Feb 25, 2001)

Da Jonesy,

I would actually consider it a responsibility of the Catholic Church to look after the artwork and historic building it posesses and keep them accessible to the public. It's not like they could sell St. Peters for example, and stripping their churches of the magnificent art created to decorate them seems barbaric to me... ask the Greeks how they feel about the Parthenon marbles being in London. The likely buyers of any art would not be cash strapped museums but rich, private collectors.

Every country and institution has its priorities... would you say that Canadian art museums should sell their art so we could afford more social housing, or that we should sell the Canadian Parliament buildings to 'Holiday Inn' and find somewhere more economical? You want Bill Gates to install the Baldacchino in his Seattle home office?


----------



## mmp (Oct 20, 2001)

The anti-Catholic sentiment in the world really troubles me and at this particular time amazes me. This pope in particular has gone to lengths to apologize for misgivings of the church and especially in a time when apologies were not given freely by anyone. I live in a community where Ukrainian Catholics and Roman Catholics have an equal respect for the papacy and this pope in particular.

I am the pricipal of the lone publicly funded Catholic high school in my city and the Ukrainian Catholic priest has either celebrated or concelebrated every mass our division in which the clergy were involved as a group. One of the Ukrianinan Catholic priest's sons attends the school I work at and his other children attend our school system. He sees our school system as a blessing as his former communities did not have options of Catholic education.

My own heritige is Ukrainian and to charatcterize this papacy as purely anti-Ukrainian or Ukrainian Catholic, in my opinion, is just plain wrong. Without the contributions of this particular pope there would have been much more bloodshed in the Eastern Block with the fall of communism- this is unquestionable. My relatives were the direct benefactors of this spirit brought to cold war politics at it's end.

John Paul II is a great man and should be remembered for the great he has done. A Catholic should especially understand that the position of pope at least as greatly limits as it does free the man from his personal convictions. It is an awesome responsibility.

As a Catholic I don't feel that we have the market cornered on morality or that our church is perfect. But at the same time I am proud of my faith, this pope in particular, and the uniform outpouring of love expressed by the world toward him at this most sacremental time in his life. This pope has reached out to other faiths, Christian and non-Christian alike and I personally use his example to stand on firm ground in my personal life. For example we do not allow headwear of any kind to be worn in our school. We have a number of recent immigrant Muslim students in our school and a symbol of respect to their faith we allow the islamic females to wear their headwear as an exception to the rule to validate their beliefs. I have no desire to "convert" these students in fact the second question I ask these students after "how do you like Canada?" has invariably been "do you know where the local mosque is?" They agree to come to our religious celebrations and we allow them to remain comfortable in their new surroundings to see that Canada is about tolerance. Our school is richer for their presence. This pope has opened the eyes of the catholic to see that we must be an example to others if we expect to see the same in return

As for the "treasures" of the church, I too agree that these are to be cared for in the spirit of stewardship. Funny how this pope has spent effort in returning "treasures" to homelands and home churches but this apparently is not seen as important.

Must suck to go through life with the glass half empty.

To see this pope stand up to world powers and for the beliefs of his faith in a time where just the will of the group in majority is important is refreshing. He will be a strong influence on me and I only wish my five year old would have seen more of him as a role model.

I rarely post in the "everything else" because people mainly use it as a dumping ground to gripe, complain and take shots at people and groups. Life itself is a celebration of and in humanity, thankfully that spirt is alive and well in our world and John Paul II's passing, although sad, will truly be a celebration of humanity.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

> My own heritige is Ukrainian and to charatcterize this papacy as purely anti-Ukrainian or Ukrainian Catholic, in my opinion, is just plain wrong.


who said that?
is the Pope above question?
this Pope has indeed meddled in Ukrainian Catholic affairs to the detrement of the community

I wouldn't say this Pope was _purely_ anti-Ukrainian, but would say that he did have a hand in trying to diminish the Ukrainian Catholic Church


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

He's likely to be dead within the next few hours, or a day or two, at best.

What say we let him rest in peace at this point.

Fair enough?


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

BTW...this is coming from someone who was baptised as a Catholic, but who has recovered from that, in recent years. I definitely didn't agree with quite a bit of what Pope John Paul said during his long papacy, or what he stood for. But I respect the man. I also respect his warrior spirit.

Just so you know.


----------



## gwillikers (Jun 19, 2003)

mmp said:


> I rarely post in the "everything else" because people mainly use it as a dumping ground to gripe, complain and take shots at people and groups. Life itself is a celebration of and in humanity, thankfully that spirt is alive and well in our world and John Paul II's passing, although sad, will truly be a celebration of humanity.


mmp, I think your post on this topic was spot on, and well stated. I hope you reconsider and post more in this forum, because, for me (and I'm sure many of us) the logical and considerate posts are like gems. Thankfully I've found that the gems are quite plentiful on ehMac.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

*Then*.....









*Now*....









Change in the Catholic view on abortion and birth control??
.........is the pope Catholic????" ..........I think would be the appropriate ironic comment. 

Indeed Bryanc, it's an interesting exercise in anthropological observation of the species - one could wish it were int he same realm as that of looking at Easter Island's *current* state of religious activity. 

I DID always find the term "primate" amusing in these contexts.........

•••••••

So GW, you want "peace and light and celebration of humanity" and respectful posts when the sole environment for our species is dying, and in no small part due to the policies of the organization this particular **** sapien represents and heads.

http://www.fire.benton.wa.us/philosophy/dawkinsinterview.html 

Sun Tzu had it right......"know thy enemy".

One wonders who will "pull the plug" in this case??


----------



## mmp (Oct 20, 2001)

I am not going to get into a tit-for-tat but John Paul II has done much to strengthen and pay attention to the lesser populated and lesser known rites in the Catholic church. The pope is in fact not above question, in fact that is the pupose of The Holy See, to be the point of question and the beginning of the answer. The old saying... what is right is not always popular and what is popular is not always right. Ask Ghandi, ask Mother theresa, ask Mandella, and _yes_ from the radical (in the churches terms radical) views of people like Sister Joan Chittister, ask this Benedictine sister. They all from a philisophical stance differentiate what is right and wrong and will in fact be consistent in what they say. The ethnocentric views from which we operate are not shared by all by definition, in fact it is in the common ground that we actualize change.

Do I agree with every single thing this pope has said or done? Of course not but for people that seek that kind of black and white simplicity in life, life must be easy. The human spirit and what one does to advance the human spirit is the measure of greatness.

Could this pope make all the changes everyone wants?, a fairly naieve opinion to think that could be done in 25 or 26 years, make 1 billion people all happy plus those outside the church, good luck. 

I don't feel sorry for the people for which the church has not changed quickly enough... change is a irriversible process that changes all forever, like a fire (Senge) that consumes during it's existence and can not be reversed. I do feel sorry for those who have seen great change in the church and can not deal with the change. Church is about structure and there is a certain comfort in that structure. The celebration of this pope's funeral mass will be _comforting_ in a way to Catholics, this is because of the beliefs and the familiarity found in the structure of the funeral mass.

Religion is in fact one of the seven basic needs of man. The choice not to believe is in fact a religion unto itself. Again members of a particular faith or church do not have the market cornered on morality or goodness, I for one am glad John Paul II has remained a beacon in a world obsessed with the darkness. 

I have been following CNN and CBC Newsworld closely and in this man's dying we are seeing stories of celebration on life, not just his but of many lives he has touched, exactly what the church believes about death; it in turn creates life and should be a celebration. Refreshing for mainstream media which you would expect to be focused on the details of his suffering, not the stories of humanity.


----------



## GWR (Jan 2, 2003)

mmp said:


> I am not going to get into a tit-for-tat but John Paul II has done much to strengthen and pay attention to the lesser populated and lesser known rites in the Catholic church.


He hasn't done very much for the True Roman Rite (aka Tridentine Rite), apart from his Motu Proprio Ecclesia Dei, where he grudgingly allows the Traditional Rites of the Church under certain conditions, and only with the accord of the local ordinary (wich is incredibly difficult to get). The Rite that has produced the vast majority of Catholic Saints, is still considered outlawed!  
So, yes he has been friendly to Muslims, Jews, Protestants, Hindus, Budists, African Witch Doctors, etc. But to some of his most loyal children he has been handing them stones rather than bread. Let us pray for him, that God will not be too hard on him, because wether we like it or not, he is our (Catholics) common father.


----------



## mmp (Oct 20, 2001)

GWR,
Hanging onto your missal from 1962 by any chance? 

Again back to the focus of the thread... he is near death and his dying is bringing focus to many.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Well, it's over for John Paul II at 2:37 EST today.

May he rest in peace.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

May he now rest in peace. Pax.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Sinc, two minds with but a single thought. Check out the times for our last two posts. He shall be missed by many.


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=8068176



Reuters said:


> VATICAN CITY (Reuters) - Pope John Paul II, who headed the Roman Catholic Church for 26 years, died on Saturday evening, the Vatican said in a statement.
> 
> The news was immediately announced to around 60,000 gathered in St Peter's Square and was met with a long applause, an Italian sign of respect. Bells tolled and many people wept openly.
> 
> ...


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Quite a coincidence indeed, Dr. G.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

For insight into internal workings at the Vatican after the death of a Pope I invite you to rent *The Shoes of the Fisherman*

You'll see all the pagentry and ritual taking place after the passing of the Pontiff.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

"Quite a coincidence indeed, Dr. G." True.


----------



## MaxPower (Jan 30, 2003)

I recall seeing Pope John Paul II during his visit to Midland approximatly 20 years ago. I was around 13 and I remember the Pope coming up the driveway of the Cathedral in the "Popemobile".

Being a young child, my friend and I desperatly tried to get the pontif's attention by jumping up and down. I remember the Pope looked at us (or perhaps it was in our direction) gave us a smile and a wave. That made my day. The Pope waved to me!! I couldn't concttain my excitement. All the way home, all I could talk about was the Pope waving to me.

I'm not Catholic, nor do I believe much in the Catholic church, butfrom that moment on, I could tell what a good, caring man he was.

May he rest in peace.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

mmp said:


> The anti-Catholic sentiment in the world really troubles me and at this particular time amazes me. This pope in particular has gone to lengths to apologize for misgivings of the church and especially in a time when apologies were not given freely by anyone.


That is the issue isn't it... apologies for past misgivings (wrong word sorry, how about... atrocities) such as the dark ages, crusades, inquisitions, witch-hunts... shall I go on?

How about more recent history... The silent consent of of the holocaust, sexual abuse, preventing safe sex education and resources from reaching the most impoverished people on the planet.

Don't get me wrong... faith and spirituality are wonderful things. Things that need to be treasured. Organized religions that spout dogma as a ritualistic institution do more harm than good.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

Fink-Nottle said:


> Every country and institution has its priorities... would you say that Canadian art museums should sell their art so we could afford more social housing, or that we should sell the Canadian Parliament buildings to 'Holiday Inn' and find somewhere more economical? You want Bill Gates to install the Baldacchino in his Seattle home office?


Excellent agrument... I think my point was comming from "what is the nature of charity". Given that the church is not a government or a private corporation (I maybe wrong in how it is structured) it's relationship to the nature of charity sets it apart from those others.


----------



## Fink-Nottle (Feb 25, 2001)

Hi da_jonesy,

I would agree that the Church, as a follower of Christ's teachings, has a higher obligation to be charitable. However, the RC Church is in a sense, both a government (Vatican Inc. if you like) and a private organization funded by its members.

I would imagine that their magnificent collection of art is in some senses a burden. They can't sell it yet the cost of keeping it safe and insured must be quite staggering. I would imagine that you have to pay to see some of it (I've never visited the Vatican... perhaps someone could confirm.) but there are many churches, even in Canada, which are magnificent places to visit and charge nothing.

If you have ideas about how the church could raise money from its art while keeping it intact and inaccessible to the public, I'd be interested.

Regards,


----------



## Moscool (Jun 8, 2003)

I remember the Pope switching from the popemobile to the popeboat during his visit to Ottawa (1984?) and cruise down the Rideau canal... What a difference between that time (the epoch of tarmac kissing) and the last 5 years or so. If cardinals are not allowed to vote after the age of 80, why shouldn't the Pope have to retire then?


----------



## gwillikers (Jun 19, 2003)

MacDoc said:


> So GW, you want "peace and light and celebration of humanity" and respectful posts when the sole environment for our species is dying, and in no small part due to the policies of the organization this particular **** sapien represents and heads.


His death deserves a moment of reflection on the good that this particular human being has done in his life. This thread has many references to those good deeds. To use his death as a pivot point for argument, because of the organization that he lead, is in bad taste. Criticism of the Catholic church is a separate topic to the death a fellow human being.


----------



## Bosco (Apr 29, 2004)

Fink-Nottle said:


> I would imagine that their magnificent collection of art is in some senses a burden. They can't sell it yet the cost of keeping it safe and insured must be quite staggering. I would imagine that you have to pay to see some of it (I've never visited the Vatican... perhaps someone could confirm.) Regards,


First off it was a very sad day. IMHO we lost a kind, gentle man who was a great inspiration to millions.

I was in Rome in '93 and attended a Mass in St Peter's square with the Pope and at least 100,000 people. I didn't count them, that's just what I heard. Quite the event.

I don't recall being charged for any tours but I have to say that the sight of all these incredible works of art and architecture is enough to make you religious. St Peter's was beautiful. Nothing I've seen comes close to it. And all the other churches I saw in Italy were more like Art Museums than churches. And they also have Art Museums.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

*I should know better, but I can't leave it alone...*



mmp said:


> Religion is in fact one of the seven basic needs of man. The choice not to believe is in fact a religion unto itself.


Hi mmp,

I have to take issue with this statement. Bearing in mind that I absolutely agree with and value your freedom to believe whatever you like, as an educator, it is your responsibility not to present your irrational beliefs as facts.

You may _think_ religion is a basic need, but those (many) of us free of this form of mental illness may beg to differ. It certainly is not an accepted fact, and you should not present it as such.

You may _think_ atheism or agnosticism are religions, but they are not. I do not choose my beliefs. I am _compelled_ to believe by reason and evidence. In absence of reason and evidence, I have no belief. This is not a religion.

By all means enjoy your superstitions and rituals, but don't project your irrationalities onto others and try to dignify it as fact.

Nothing personal, BTW, I just find that religious people often can't comprehend the non-religious paradigm, and I object to rational skepticism being identified as a religion, so I had to correct you on this.

Cheers


----------



## Peter Scharman (Jan 4, 2002)

bryanc said:


> Bearing in mind that I absolutely agree with and value your freedom to believe whatever you like, as an educator, it is your responsibility not to present your irrational beliefs as facts.
> 
> You may _think_ religion is a basic need, but those (many) of us free of this form of mental illness may beg to differ.


I you value freedom of belief, then you don't call those who have opposing views "menatlly ill" and "irrational". State your opposition to the view but hold the insults. It detracts from credibility of opinion. As you said, " I just had to corrcect you on this"

Cheers.


----------



## mmp (Oct 20, 2001)

Peter, thanks, I could not have said it better myself. I shall rephrase my statement... it is my belief that there are seven basic needs of man, religion being one of them. Again here we are in everything else with people degrading things by taking shots, big surprise.

Moscool, your question about a retired pope is an interesting one. Although I do not mean to speak for the faithfull, or directly from the Catechism of the Church, my feelings and the feelings of many in the church are that I would have some problem with a retired pope...here's why.

The pope is believed by Catholics to be a direct link from Peter to today as the person chosen to carry out Jesus' work (as an apostle) in His absence of His human form on Earth. The pope is beleived to be guided by the Holy Spirit as the leader of the faith and serves as the apostle to guide the flock until death (this is actually a charge to all bishops, but particularily to the pope). How then can this person retire if he is, for lack of a better term, leader for life? It is an interesting problem for the church to decide if a pope could retire and if so how is he replaced. Hopefully this simplistic expalnation provides some answers.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Peter Scharman said:


> I you value freedom of belief, then you don't call those who have opposing views "menatlly ill" and "irrational". State your opposition to the view but hold the insults. It detracts from credibility of opinion. As you said, " I just had to corrcect you on this"
> 
> Cheers.


Fair enough. However, I don't think describing someone as 'mentally ill' is necessarily insulting. I do believe that religions are a contagious form of mental disease, very much analogous to computer viruses, but much more complex and insidious. But I don't dislike or fault anyone for being infected with such a memetic virus anymore than I fault them for having a cold.

Similarly, when someone's beliefs or behaviors are demonstrably irrational, describing it as such is not insulting, it's simply accurate. I may not like it when someone points out my irrationality, but I will certainly examine my behavior to determine if their assessment has merit, and if it does, I will change (to the extent that I am able).

So, while you are perfectly correct, that insulting people has no place in reasonable discussion, accurately stating one's views is not only acceptable, it is necessary, and if some people are insulted by my views, that was not my intent.

Cheers


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Perhaps using the term "neurosis" is a gentler approach. 
Religious belief has obviously has had some evolutionary benefit to the species as there is a genetic component identified and it is wide spread and in many cases has beneficial community benefits.
Charisma is another element in human makeup and when you combine a charismatic and a group inclined to "irrational beliefs" you end up with Waco and episodes like Jonestown and those factors can be manipulated as in the the Raelians for personal gain.

Neurotic behaviour is generally harmless to both the individuals and society as a whole. Astrology, rabbits feet, lucky hat are all mild and sometimes ejoyable delusionary behaviour....like every teen thinks they will live forever.

When that behaviour ie Tulip mania, "go forth and multiply", gambling addiction etc becomes widespread enough to harm society or in the case of an individual to ruin their life it goes into the realm of a psychosis or mental illness. I think Bryanc is referring to this aspect.

Right NOW hmanity faces an incredible threat from overpopulation and wielding the power of influence over a billion believers requires responsible, rational action in that arena in particular.

When a "meme" and the organization sponsoring it becomes a threat to the whole species the time for namby pamby respect is over.

Trujillo was a horrible dictator in the Dominican Republic yet he did wonderful long term benefit to the ecological benefit of that small nation.
How do we view him, monster or beneficial ruler.

Sorry GW but it's the persona of the head of an organization being lauded or dissed here, not an"individual". Your claim to "respect" is exactly the ongoing idiocy that prevents the open societal discussion needed of the negative impacts of religion as well as the positive.

Worth reading this
http://www.fire.benton.wa.us/philosophy/dawkinsinterview.html

It speaks exactly to the kind of "appeal" you are making. 
Organized religions are human organizations, created and run by members of the species and as such deserve oversight and treatment like any other organization.

And when the head of one such organization promulgates an irrational approach to a danger to the species - it needs to be illuminated and challenged in the strongest possible manner.

Damn it took forever just to Big Tobacco under control and tackle McDs.

Big religion will take some huge effort.........and it starts in discussions like this that challenge.
•••••••
"Progress.....one death at a time".


----------



## Peter Scharman (Jan 4, 2002)

I think some religious belief is generally a good thing for society.....as long as it encourages decent behaviour and a sense of responsibility to the world around.
The pope, as leader of the Catholic church, can promote and dictate the "standards" expected of the flock. There are both changeable and unchangeable aspects to the teachings and regulations of the church. Changeable items are such things as priesthood celebacy, language of the mass, allowance of birth control, female priests, etc. The conservative wing of the church has been able to hold the "old tradtional" rules in effect all these years.
The world today demands some careful review of these rules. The very survival of the Catholic church demands it. There is a great shortage of priests within the faith and a large percentage of the faith doesn't abide by the birth control ban, so that's enough reason alone to loosen the strings.
Hopefully, the more liberal-minded of the cardinals can influence the others to elect a more "in-tune" pope who will address the issues at hand. 
About the only changes that I can easily remember over the years has been the changing of the mass language from Latin to English (or other) and alowing girls to be altar servers. There needs to be more to keep the church relevant to the times, without attacking the core values.
The Catholic church is an autocratic institution: may the next leader be as influential as Pope John Paul II but more understanding of the need for changes.

On a side note, it has been insinuated that the overpopulation of the world is partly due to the Catholic church's stand on birth control. I would be interested in any statistics that can separate the various overpopulated pockets of the world and tell us what the dominant religion is in these pockets. As well, it must be determined what percentage of these people are having large families because of their faith teaching or just because they don't _have_ any birth control available. Are the real causes faith, poverty, ignorance, or a combination of two or more?


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

Don't forget that Pope John Paul II did recognize that Galileo was correct and that the earth does, in fact, revolve around the sun. This is progress..... 

I think it is fitting to show respect for a man who was revered by one sixth of the worlds population. Regardless of your views on organized religion or the Popes accomplishments while in office, he touched many people and his passing requires appropriate reflection.

With respect to moral compasses, I would kindly request that this be left to individuals and that the most any organization should do is to lead by example.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

used to be jwoodget said:


> With respect to moral compasses, I would kindly request that this be left to individuals and that the most any organization should do is to lead by example.


That's a pretty nasty example in the case of the church don't you think?

Inquisitions, witch hunts, sexual abuse....


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

Fink-Nottle said:


> If you have ideas about how the church could raise money from its art while keeping it intact and inaccessible to the public, I'd be interested.


Nope... I think I have to eat my hat on this one, you have got me stumped for idea's. Everything I can think of involves corporate sponsorship, private collectors, etc...

I find it incomprehensible that all those priceless artifacts cannot in someway be used to benefit charitable causes, but here we are...


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Peter you only have to look at the numbers in Quebec and Ireland to see the change when both populations moved out from under the thumb of the Church.
And you only need to look at the Red States versus Blue State figures in the US to see clear impact of Western religions on population growth. The bible belt is the growth belt - the US is the ONLY first world nation with positive population growth and its significant in the red states.

Time to put away childish fariy tales - there is no room left on the planet.
There is no "divinity" that is going to step in and make the planet habitable and restore the species lost and the habitat ruined.










The Norse in Greenland didn't learn either. 450 years and all that's left. The shell of their kirk.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Peter Scharman said:


> On a side note, it has been insinuated that the overpopulation of the world is partly due to the Catholic church's stand on birth control. I would be interested in any statistics that can separate the various overpopulated pockets of the world and tell us what the dominant religion is in these pockets....


I would be interested in these data as well, but regardless of any religious adherence among people who are having more children than our environment can support (and that may include many of us...North American children consume vastly more resources than children in the developing world), the Catholic Church's use of it's political power to undermine any and all population control efforts made by the UN and other NGOs over the past few decades is one of many things they've got to answer for.

Why is it that the Vatican even has a seat on the UN in the first place?!? There is no other 'nation' in the world that has no women or children, and no other organization is given such influence.

Cheers


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

used to be jwoodget said:


> With respect to moral compasses, I would kindly request that this be left to individuals and that the most any organization should do is to lead by example.


UTBJWG

I agree in part. You can't legislate someone to think morally but we do have laws that enforce morality. A man can not marry his sister, a man can't have sex with an animal. An adult can't have sex with a 13 year old (although 14 year olds are open season) A man can't beat his wife or children. There are those that think driving 100km/hr through a school zone is perfectly acceptable but we don't let them do it.
Despite our best efforts, there are those who don't have a moral problem with doing things the majority feel is immoral. 

If morality is relative as you suggest, why bother having laws at all since they are all grounded on moral principles?

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## Peter Scharman (Jan 4, 2002)

MacDoc said:


> Peter you only have to look at the numbers in Quebec and Ireland to see the change when both populations moved out from under the thumb of the Church.


I wasn't really thinking of Quebec and Ireland as being the parts of the world having a population crisis, although you are correct about the influence of the church in those regions in the past. We also have large Mennonite families. Is that a cultural (e.g. demographic desirable) influence or religious? Did Irish and French people have large families because they liked/needed them or did the priests weild a stick of guilt over them? I've also known many Protestant families that had 6 or more children, although most of them came from rural backgrounds. 
Many offspring of large families go on to have large families themselves and proclaim it to be the most treasured part of their lives. They would recommend it to others, but for me, it's "no thank you". Is that personal or religious influence?
Besides, yesterday was yesterday and today is today. What part does the Catholic Church play in todays problems in overpopulated countries that are in crisis. Was it influential in creating the proplems in those countries? How about China? What size families do Islamic, Budddhist, Jewish, Hindu or Animistic people have?


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

MacGuiver said:


> UTBJWG
> I agree in part. You can't legislate someone to think morally but we do have laws that enforce morality. A man can not marry his sister, a man can't have sex with an animal. An adult can't have sex with a 13 year old (although 14 year olds are open season) A man can't beat his wife or children. There are those that think driving 100km/hr through a school zone is perfectly acceptable but we don't let them do it.
> Despite our best efforts, there are those who don't have a moral problem with doing things the majority feel is immoral.
> 
> ...


My point is that religions do not have a monopoly on dictating moral behaviour and that society, comprised of individuals can manage quite well if all opinions are recognized. The idea that religious organizations are, in any way, guardians of morality is an anathema to me. However, I have no problem with religious organizations contributing to debates over morality. But it would help if we all cut out the "holier than thou" attitudes.

Morality is relative, as our moral values have changed dramatically over the centuries. Are we more enlightened? I certainly think so - as a consequence of greater participation and questioning of society in general. One could ask whether we have simply replaced a few old Cardinals/Bishops/Holy Men with a few old judges, but there is clearly greater awareness and representation of minorities than previously. Some may long for the good old days of the past, but I think this is a fantasy where the realities of life were hidden behind curtains or locked doors.

Today's society may leave a lot to be desired, but turning the clocks back is no answer.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

If you've studied ethics, this comes down to the question of deontological vs consequentialist ethical theories. Those who hold that religions provide moral frameworks generally do so because they believe actions are 'right' or 'wrong' in and of themselves (deontological ethics), whereas those who believe that the ethical ramifications of an action require analysis of its (intended) consequences (consequentialist ethics) have no need for reference to some supernatural framework.

Despite the religious history of our legal and ethical systems, more rational consequentialist paradigms are generally being adopted about as rapidly as possible. I think this is a good thing, but many religious authorities disagree.

Cheers


----------



## iMatt (Dec 3, 2004)

MacGuiver said:


> A man can not marry his sister, a man can't have sex with an animal. An adult can't have sex with a 13 year old (although 14 year olds are open season) A man can't beat his wife or children. There are those that think driving 100km/hr through a school zone is perfectly acceptable but we don't let them do it.
> Despite our best efforts, there are those who don't have a moral problem with doing things the majority feel is immoral.
> 
> If morality is relative as you suggest, why bother having laws at all since they are all grounded on moral principles?


MacGuiver, all of the examples you cite can be quite easily justified as being "good laws" on grounds other than religiously defined morality.

Incest: inbreeding is known to lead to high rates of serious genetic defect and consequent disability/illness.
Bestiality: the animal cannot give consent by any reasonable definition of "consent". 
Underage sex: the child cannot give consent according to our society's standards of consent. (Yet note how this "age of consent" differs from place to place. Strange for an ostensibly absolute concept...)
No domestic violence: assault does harm to others -- it's immaterial who the victim is, our system of secular laws says one may not injure another physically except in self-defence. Another value that is demonstrably not uniform throughout the world.
Speeding: poses a risk to public safety.

I suppose you could argue that underlying concepts such as "consent" require a definition founded in an absolute concept of morality, and that the very idea that "consent" is a required and valued condition must come from some higher place. 

And yet different societies do define consent differently, and it would not surprise me to learn that there are societies where there is no such concept per se (though I'm not sure that there are). The point is that all of these concepts of right and wrong, even when framed in religious terms as they so often are, come down to values easily accepted by any well-socialized atheist: personal responsibility, no harm to others, promotion of public health and safety. 

None of these core values truly, essentially needs to be founded in scripture, because they all share a simple common element: they help human beings get along with each other in defiance of raw animal instinct. <i>Scripture may say just that, but that does not prove anything more than the existence of scripture as a formulation of such principles.</i> 

In my opinion, the desire to defy animal instinct is a consequence of the evolution of our particular form of consciousness and intelligence. We have the ability to reflect on our own condition, communicate, record and cooperate as no other species and we can see the benefits of those activities, so we seek to promote and perpetuate them.

Religion is one approach to fulfilling that fundamental desire. It is not a bad or harmful approach per se, but it does become a frightening and potentially dangerous phenomenon when it is used as justification for demonizing all other attempts at social organization, and for prescribing One True Way of living. 

If believers want to follow their own path, that's fine by me as long as it doesn't do harm to others...and, especially, as long as the religiously prescribed path is not mandatory for all of us. Personally I would prefer a society where laws keep us from doing harm to each other or punish us when we do, but where laws do not criminalize the private lives of consenting adults. Where laws are by the people and for the people, not simply applied arbitrarily to all because one religion prescribes them for its adherents.


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

Hi iMatt,

Abortion: An living unborn child is cut to ribbons with a knife and a life is ended. Many women suffer physical and emotional scars for life as a result. The unborn child can not give its consent to its death sentence.

I'm a person of faith but if I denounced my faith tomorrow, that would still seem more than enough moral justification to at least limit the procedure and the acceptable circumstances for it. 

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## iMatt (Dec 3, 2004)

Sure, MacGuiver, one can take principled opposition to abortion on grounds that are not religiously based. No argument there, as far as I'm concerned. Personally I believe that an abortion is a tragedy, and an unnecessary one at that, but that making it a crime is only a path to even more misery; and faced with two evils, isn't it sensible (even <i>right</i>) to choose the lesser one? I can see no way to convince myself that the path of <i>greater</i> misery is the lesser evil.

We had at least a partial discussion of this issue earlier, but we reached an impasse: I argued that prevention (especially birth control) and education were the way to take abortion out of the picture; you said we need to reset our moral compass. Sorry, I don't know what that means and I neglected to ask last time. Care to elaborate?


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

Hi iMatt,

Yeah I never did get the chance to elaborate on that. I'll give you an example of what I mean. Moral shortcomings have a domino effect of negativity on the individual and society. Here's an example of how it can snowball:
Girl at 13 or 14 starts to feel by putting out boys will like her. Music videos, movies and friends seem to tell her this. Boy takes advantage of her for his pleasure also feeling social pressure to be the man. Condom breaks, girl gets pregnant and boy takes off leaving her to get an abortion.
Peers isolate her and tensions rise at home. Girl has abortion, feels guilty and rejected, starts drink heavily with friends to forget. Out drinking starts experimenting with drugs. Girl's grades in school plummet and she drops out.
Drugs help her escape her pain and she starts using regularly. Girl gets kicked out of the house and goes into social housing. Boys still come in and out of her life having sex with her yet none with the intention of staying with her. Just havin fun at her expense. Her drug addiction starts to cost too much so she starts stealing. Pimp offers easy way to make some fast money and she starts prostituting herself. Dignity hits rock bottom and suicide becomes a thought. 
Girl becomes infected with HIV etc. etc. etc..

You get the picture. Had she not been made to feel sex was appropriate at her age or had she met boys that respected her and didn't expect or demand sex from her the whole mess could have been avoided. Ask a crack addict or a prostitute how they got there and I bet this scenario is not far fetched. Bad moral choices on their part or on the part of others lead them there.
I just feel the way we are approaching these issues now is just throwing a bandaid on a bullet hole while handing out more guns. It may mask the problem but it isn't addressing it at the root. I don't aspire to the theory that we can't change it therefore we must accept it. Maybe its naive on my part but I'd rather strive to fix the root problem than try cover it with bandaids. 
I know that you could argue with proper sex education she may have never gotten pregnant. True enough, but a different scenario could arise that I've seen time and time again with people I know. 
Girl meets guy and have heavy sexual relationship from the get go. They start thinking and feeling that they're madly in love and decide to get married. Once they get married they find that apart from great orgasms they have little else to hold the relationship together and really never loved each other to start with. Meanwhile a child has been born that ends up doing weekends with Dad and weekdays with mom or goes off with mom and never has a dad. 
Sex is a powerful drug that can dull better judgement, had this couple courted a while without sex the incompatibilities may have been obvious and a failed marriage been avoided. 
I don't see morals as rules to oppress us but rather guidelines to prevent us from getting hurt or hurting others. Just like I don't let my kids eat chocolate bars for supper, sure they like it and it tastes good but it would be detrimental to their health and irresponsible of me to condone or promote it. I could just pay the dental bills and get them liposuction but wouldn't it be better to just say no?

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## Chealion (Jan 16, 2001)

MacGuiver - Before some people dismiss your argument as a "gateway drug" theory, I have to point out something. Although your example is a worst case scenario, parts of the cycle occur everyday.

The cycle is similar to the cycle of domestic violence, in that when children do not have mentoring or parenting (no good role models available, parents have to work all day, parents have abandoned the children, etc.) they can easily assume what they are able to grasp from their guardians mixed with popular culture/entertainment must be reality.

Some people found American Pie to be an absolutely funny comedy, but others have found American Pie as a way to explain social norms and how they should act (not all). The cycle can be broken but requires a tremendous amount of support, people can't pick themselves right out of a rut that they've been entrenched in for years. It's similar in the reason why homeless people can't just get a job and get out of their poverty. People forget the basic necessities to get out of a rut are not readily available. (eg. Shower and clean clothes. Tried getting a job when you haven't bathed in 3 weeks?)

The point is that society has to work to help cure it's ills. Not stand by and just accept them as new fact.

Religion is often misconstrued due to its abuses (by people), general ignorance (from both extremes), and lack of coherence about many issues. My only wish is that people would practice more tolerance on the issue, accepting that people do believe in a virgin birth just as much as that some have come to the conclusion that science contradicts (or seems to in some cases) what the popular belief of how the world operates.


----------



## iMatt (Dec 3, 2004)

MacGuiver, 

Just a couple of comments:

First: I don't think we're as far apart as all that. Even though my reasons aren't religious, I also deplore a culture that helps children to gain a scattershot, anything-goes induction into the world of sexuality. But reading your scenario, I have to ask: where are the parents? Why is this child allowed a steady diet of music videos and the like? Where is her support network when she gets pregnant -- why is she afraid to ask for help, and if she isn't why doesn't she get any? There's not even one supportive parent in your scenario. I've known some messed up people in my time, but they all had at least one supportive parent.

Second: I don't actually believe that we can't change things and therefore must accept them, as you suggest. I <i>do</i> believe that better education, including religious education with a more pragmatic slant, is the way to get kids to take better care of their minds and bodies. (Because ultimately I think we agree that physical and psychological harm are what we want to prevent.)

Third: I'm sure your scenario isn't impossible, but please: the vast, vast majority of children simply do not turn out this way. And when they do, I'll bet there's usually some other factor that's more important than a permissive culture, such as actively abusive or severely neglectful parents.

Fourth: While I'm all for rearing children to be responsible and to take proper care of their bodies and minds, what worries me about strict religious (specifically Christian, because that's what's all around me) approaches is this: Christianity brands certain behaviours as mortal sins, and promises eternal damnation as punishment. It brands both the use of contraception and premarital sex in the same way. 

So if Christian teens commit one or both of these sins they will live in fear of eternal damnation; and while I haven't been a teenager for a while, I can well imagine that many teens, having transgressed in a way which they have been taught will lead them straight to hell, will be very scared of the earthly consequences, and will hide everything from their parents. And some, sadly, will come to the conclusion that committing one sin is better than committing two...and trust me, the one they pick won't be the contraception. (If they've even been adequately educated about it in the first place.)

Why am I not surprised, then, that teens who swear pledges of abstinence still get pregnant and still get STDs?

Anyway...sorry if I tend to ramble. It'll be a few days before I'm able to ramble any further. 

M.


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

It seems to me (someone who was once an altar boy) that relying on religious teachings is absolutely no substitute for parental guidance and effective schooling. The idea of having taboo subjects that cannot be discussed is not only ridiculous, its plainly dangerous. My daughter (now 19) told us the other day that none of her university friends ever had any discussions of sex education with their parents. If kids are given perspective and are engaged in a full disclosure discussion (rather than scare tactics), they can make educated decisions. One should not delegate codes of behaviour to any other authority as the child can simply choose to be selective or to revolt against that authority. This has nothing to do with today's subversive society. It is true that physiological sexual maturity now occurs at an earlier age than 100 years ago, but that is not the childs fault. They need advice and support and intelligent discussion - not a patronizing lecture telling them what they can't do. That is what leads to kids rebelling against their parents, church, whatever.

Our society is secular and it tolerates (in the true sense of the word) the freedom to practice any religion. When lack of strict religious belief is used to explain the "declining moral values" of society, I see it simply as part of an on-going recruitment drive. That's OK, but I really do not appreciate being told my morals are somehow inferior to those of the church. Live and let live.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

*religion != morality*



used to be jwoodget said:


> When lack of strict religious belief is used to explain the "declining moral values" of society, I see it simply as part of an on-going recruitment drive.


This is one of my all-time pet peeves about the proponents of religion. When I studied ethics, morality was explicitly defined as the principles that constrain someone's actions when they believe they are _not being observed_. For example, morality prevents me from stealing even when I'm sure I could get away with it.

Christians often tell me that without their God there is no basis for morality. How could this be true? If I understand the Christian faith correctly, they believe that their God is omniscient. Therefore their God will always know what choices anyone has made, so one is _never unobserved_. If one's choices are always made under observation, morality simply does not pertain. Perhaps these Christians would choose morally, but we'll never know, because they never believe that they are unobserved.

So, far from being necessary for morality, belief in an Omniscient God _precludes_ morality.

Cheers.


----------



## GWR (Jan 2, 2003)

I think that some people fail to realise that no matter how much education is given, some people still make the wrong choices. Especially when it comes to sex, wich is such a powerful drive. The root cause is clearly not a lack of education. The more sexual education that is given, the more teen pregnancies we seem to have. Teaching about sex in purely biological and emotional terms only serves to banalise the sexual act while arousing curiosity (as well as the libido). The problem is one of the will. Only the practice of Virtue can overcome a weak will. No amount of information can overcome a weakness of the will, wich almost all children and teens have. That is why, in almost every society, children used to be taght the practice of the virtues. Sadly, in our secular society Virtue has become a taboo subject.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

GWR said:


> The more sexual education that is given, the more teen pregnancies we seem to have. Teaching about sex in purely biological and emotional terms only serves to banalise the sexual act while arousing curiosity (as well as the libido).


What possible proof do you have to support this statement?


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

Yes, I'd like to here that explanation too. Ignorance is bliss, eh? Can't trust kids to make the right decision? Talk about patronizing! 

GWR, is that a suit of armour you're wearing? Which crusade are you on?


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Teen pregnancies have been dropping steadily over the past decade. WHERE do you get these stupid ideas that education leads to MORE pregnancies.

Every single society that gets out from under ignorant thinking like that sees dramtic drops in overall birth rates and teen pregnacies in particular. There is a ton of information on the web - educate yourself. 

http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=34169



> The Question: Can changes in sexual behaviors among high school students explain the decline in teen pregnancy rates in the 1990s?
> 
> The Answer: Care should be taken in attributing changes in pregnancy rates to changes in behavior. The data indicate that both delayed initiation of sexual intercourse and improved contraceptive practice contributed equally to this decline in teen pregnancies.
> 
> ...


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

used to be jwoodget said:


> Yes, I'd like to here that explanation too. Ignorance is bliss, eh? Can't trust kids to make the right decision? Talk about patronizing!


Well according to StatsCan he may have a point unless you think getting drunk, smoking pot and or sniffing glue are good decisions for a 12-15 year old?

Overall,*42% of*12- to 15-year-olds reported that they had consumed at least one drink of alcohol-a bottle of beer or wine cooler, or a glass of wine-at some point in their life. By age*15, the proportion rose to*66%.

More than one-fifth (22%) said they had been drunk at least once. Among those aged*15, this proportion was*44%.

In addition, about one-fifth (19%) of*12- to 15-year-olds reported having smoked marijuana. Again, the proportion among adolescents aged*15*rose to*38%.

The average age at which adolescents reported having their first drink was*12.4*years, with only a slight difference between boys and girls. The average age of being drunk for the first time was about a year older, at just past*13*years.

Glue-sniffing began at an average age of just over*12*years. For other drugs, including marijuana and hallucinogens, the average age of first-time use was older, between*13.1*and*13.8.

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## iMatt (Dec 3, 2004)

Yes, and those numbers are probably skewed downward by unwillingness to answer such questions honestly. If not, then I'd guess alcohol and marijuana use are way, way down since I was a teen in the 80s.

But what do we teach kids about intoxicants?

"They're all bad, don't ever do any of them." (Many kids probably get told this with the liquor cabinet in plain view.)

And then we profess surprise when kids experiment with a wide variety of them, on the sly. 

Maybe we should try telling kids "occasional, moderate marijuana use isn't a big deal for adults, but chronic use can seriously mess with your mental health and intellectual development" and "alcohol is potentially beneficial in very small doses, but lethal in large doses; you need to learn just how easy it is to take a lethal dose accidentally" and other <b>honest</b> things. 

But no, we keep saying "just say no" and, inevitably, kids discover that a <b>little bit</b> of booze or pot doesn't make them keel over and die, so the grownups must have been lying about the evils of stuff that really <i>is</i> horrifyingly nasty at any dose.

Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again, expecting a different result.

I guess we can't expect that kids will ever learn if adults never do.


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

Hi iMatt,

*"They're all bad, don't ever do any of them." (Many kids probably get told this with the liquor cabinet in plain view.)* 

Very perceptive! You picked up on something that the survey did as well. StatsCan found that the chances of kids getting into this stuff increased substantially if it was used at home. Peers were also a major influence.

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## Peter Scharman (Jan 4, 2002)

macdoc and GWR,
read this. There's support for both argunments, depending on what part of the stats you extract. "Stupid ideas" might have been a bit strong. Perhaps the more comfortable teens are with sexuality, the less tabu and the greater the chance of being comfortably active. Hence the figures showing no decline in the birth rate of sexualy active teens. I hear ads for "have safe sex...use a condom", but they don't highlight the "failure rate" of condom use. False security at its finest.


----------



## GWR (Jan 2, 2003)

da_jonesy said:


> What possible proof do you have to support this statement?


I would have thought that deductive reasoning and simple common sense would have been enough to demonstrate my case, but here is more for you.

Analysis of school-based health clinics and sex education:
http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/probe/docs/clinics.html

Safe sex and the facts:
http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/probe/docs/safesex.html


Research on the effectiveness of sex education programs that explain:

"Guidelines developed by SEICUS, for example, include teaching children aged five through eight about masturbation and teaching youths aged 9 through 12 about alternative sexual activities such as mutual masturbation, "outercourse," and oral sex. In addition, the SEICUS guidelines suggest informing youths aged 16 through 18 that sexual activity can include bathing or showering together as well as oral, vaginal, or anal intercourse, and that they can use erotic photographs, movies, or literature to enhance their sexual fantasies when alone or with a partner. Not only do such activities carry their own risks for youth, but they are also likely to increase the incidence of sexual intercourse."
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Family/BG1533.cfm

There's tons more information out there.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

*Oh please... how about checking your sources GWR*



GWR said:


> I would have thought that deductive reasoning and simple common sense would have been enough to demonstrate my case, but here is more for you.
> 
> Analysis of school-based health clinics and sex education:
> http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/probe/docs/clinics.html
> ...


Did it ever occur to you to check the bias of your sources? These are links to "Leadership U", a Christian fundamentalist mouthpiece funded by the Christian Leadership Ministries (the same fine people that bring you 'The Campus Crusade for Christ' and other evangelical freak-shows).



> There's tons more information out there.


Ya got that right. Now if only you could figure out that some of it ain't exactly credible.

Cheers


----------



## GWR (Jan 2, 2003)

bryanc said:


> Did it ever occur to you to check the bias of your sources? These are links to "Leadership U", a Christian fundamentalist mouthpiece funded by the Christian Leadership Ministries (the same fine people that bring you 'The Campus Crusade for Christ' and other evangelical freak-shows).
> 
> 
> 
> ...


And what, exactly, do you consider "credible"? Mainstream liberal propaganda? There are a variety of differing opinions out there. Just because they are not of the liberal variety does not mean that they are not credible. If you want to have a truely "balanced" opinion, shouldn't you at the very least consider a differing opinion? Doesn't the statement "the same fine people that bring you "The Campus Crusade for Christ" and other evangelical freak-shows" show a clear bias on your part?


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Having had direct experience with the dishonesty of the CCC on several occasions, I am certainly biased against them. I'd be insane not to be.

However, when discussing the efficacy of sex-education, referring to 'studies' done by organizations that are religiously opposed to sex-education without a disclaimer is certainly not credible.

If these people came to the conclusion that sex-ed was great and it was working well, it might be noteworthy. But showing that the Christian Leadership Ministry says sex-ed doesn't work is like showing that the Tobacco Industry isn't convinced that second-hand smoke is harmful. These are not credible sources in the debate. Don't use them unless you want your credibility similarly tarnished.

Every source has it's biases. But using a source that is so biased as to be meaningless is not helpful.

Cheers


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Bryanc - you ain't gonna win this argument. 

WhenEVER did rational, scientific method, peer reviewed information etc ever intrude into ontologies based on anecdotal tales appropriate to nomadic middle eastern tribes reconstituted and retranslated to suit the power structure and superstitions of the period.

All I can say is I'm very glad the internet is available for teens and others to get a wide range of information instead of the drivel put out the religious right.

Consider the approach of the individual at topic



> In his life, he brought magic and miracles back to the church, granting legitimacy to the sort of weeping statues, faith-healing saints and mystical sects that had almost disappeared from the Roman Catholic Church.


Absolutely hilarious....what next .....REAL sacrificial lambs back in vogue.....

As PT Barnum put it so succinctly...."There's one born every minute".........


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

MacDoc said:


> Bryanc - you ain't gonna win this argument.
> 
> As PT Barnum put it so succinctly...."There's one born every minute".........


Yep, he did, but unlike you, the majority of the human race chooses to believe in some form of religion.

So let me get this straight. That must mean that so-called self appointed intellectuals like you and bryanc are right and the majority of the world are wrong? Hardly.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

"majority" isn't the best proof for being "correct"


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> "majority" isn't the best proof for being "correct"


So "minority" is then?


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

i stand by my well crafted statement
your extrapolation of the complementary statement is not logical

_So "minority" is then?_
is NOT the complement of
_"majority" isn't the best proof for being "correct"_

somewhere my 2nd year math logic prof. is smiling


----------



## Peter Scharman (Jan 4, 2002)

Not taking sides here, but what Sinc was saying is that if "majority" isn't the best proof for being "correct", then that doesn't mean the minority is neccesarily any more correct. Sometimes the majority is "right" and sometimes the minority is "right", but outnumbered by the disillusioned. However, no-one has a monopoly on being correct. Perception is reality. Proclaiming to have superior intellect and reasoning over another smacks of arrogance and intolerance and polarizes the thought sharing.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Exactly my meaning Peter, thank you.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> Not taking sides here, .....have superior intellect and reasoning over another smacks of arrogance and intolerance and polarizes the thought sharing.


 

Stick to your day job - that's just about most muddled piece of nonsense I've come across in along time. You don't even have a definition of "right". You're mixing, political concepts, metaphysical concepts and some vague class angst.

Gravity is not subject to a vote.


----------



## iMatt (Dec 3, 2004)

GWR said:


> I would have thought that deductive reasoning and simple common sense would have been enough to demonstrate my case, but here is more for you.


No, it doesn't demonstrate your case at all, since your argument amounts to "the less you know, the better off you are." That makes no sense whatsoever. If that attitude guided humanity, we'd still be gathering berries in the woods and hoping the gorillas don't get there first.

GWR, if you want to argue, please argue against <b>the points that people are actually making.</b> Don't pull some material off a web site, call it proof, and consider the job done, especially if your material bears no resemblance to anything anyone here is actually saying.

I don't know about anyone else in this thread, but when I say "education is the way to reduce unwanted pregnancies", I mean that children need to know exactly how pregnancy is caused, and they need to know exactly how it's prevented. (Including abstinence, yes. But day after day the studies come out: abstinence-only education is not enough.) I <b>do not</b> mean that the Kama Sutra ought to be a high school textbook.

We're adults, and these things seem so obvious to us that we say "well, uh, that's obvious." In fact, children do not magically develop this knowledge on their own. If they don't know it, they can and do get pregnant accidentally. Do you want children running around spreading and believing tragic (and I do mean tragic) urban legends like "you can't get pregnant the first time" and "douching with Coca Cola is effective birth control" and so on? 

Well, that's exactly what happens when schools are forbidden to teach the facts of life. Some kids get good info from their parents, others linger in the dark because their parents are too shy to talk about sex, or are in denial. Others go to church and hear "don't do it, it's a sin." Surely that works for a percentage, but what about the ones it fails to reach? Do we just consign them to eternal hellfire and forget about them?


----------



## Peter Scharman (Jan 4, 2002)

MacDoc said:


> Stick to your day job - that's just about most muddled piece of nonsense I've come across in along time. You don't even have a definition of "right". You're mixing, political concepts, metaphysical concepts and some vague class angst.
> 
> Gravity is not subject to a vote.


Dave, you should take a holiday...you're a bit cranky and belligerent lately.  It's not becoming of someone of your intelligence and knowledge. I'm under stress too and could blurt out what I'm really thinking, but I elect to check my tongue until the ire passes. I WON'T reply in kind. And since when does a person have to be within your league to have and express an opinion or thought? Maybe I like "vague class angst", whatever that is.
The term "right" was put in quotaion marks to indicate a generic, commononly used adjective indicating correctness of thought or action (i.e. "you're right and I'm wrong.") It wasn't meant to be specific...I was just countering MACSPECTRUM's twisting of SINC's response to him. (Where have I seen that before???)
My commentary on some people exhibiting a monopoly on being correct, having superior intellect and being arrogant has just been reinforced. 
I still love ya anyway, Dave! Take the day off and loosen up. I'll have Dr. G wrote a note for your employer. Peace!


----------



## Peter Scharman (Jan 4, 2002)

iMatt said:


> I don't know about anyone else in this thread, but when I say "education is the way to reduce unwanted pregnancies", I mean that children need to know exactly how pregnancy is caused, and they need to know exactly how it's prevented. (Including abstinence, yes. But day after day the studies come out: abstinence-only education is not enough.) I <b>do not</b> mean that the Kama Sutra ought to be a high school textbook.


iMatt, that's exctly what I support. "Sex education" seems to have a wide perception (or misconception) and it seems to vary widely if you read (or believe) everything said on the net. The clarification of exactly what you are endorsing should leave no-one with any argument. It just makes sense to educate youth on these matters so they have a better understanding of sexuality and their bodies and encourage them to make informed decisions on what they will do with their bodies and sexual urges. Teaching them how to be aroused and have better sex would be another matter. Obviously some seem to feel that the school's sex education somehow promotes experimentation and promiscuity. If that were the case, it would be troubling, but I haven't seen it to be the case in our system.


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

MacDoc said:


> Gravity is not subject to a vote.


Your assuming there's no proof that God exists but I beg to differ. Scam artists aside there is lots. I've seen my sister cured of scoliosis at a healing mass 15 years ago. A cancerous tumor disappear from my father's neck (Lymphoma) the day after prayer and many other inexplicable events. One time, for no reason at all I stopped at a green light only to see a car go speeding through the red that would have slammed through my door. This not to mention millions of testimonials from people around the world that have experienced similar phenomenon. People that have come off the gurney after death and were forever changed by what they experienced.

So like gravity, God's power can be seen for those that have an open mind and look for it. I remember during debate about creationism, you and some other self-professed atheists criticized scientists that reject your theories claiming they were prejudiced by religious beliefs. That may be so but I suggest you're making the same mistake with God. Your so convicted in your atheism that he doesn't exist that no evidence could ever convince you otherwise.

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

There's a difference in believing in a God, and believeing in organized religion. There's something to be said about blindly following an organization that is not free of it's own sins, without the presence of mind willing to question it.


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

« MannyP Design » said:


> There's a difference in believing in a God, and believeing in organized religion. There's something to be said about blindly following an organization that is not free of it's own sins, without the presence of mind willing to question it.


Manny,

You won't find a man on earth immune from sin inside or outside organized religion. The very man this thread was dedicated to who held the highest seat of the Catholic faith went to confession regularly seeking forgiveness for his transgressions.

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

SINC said:


> Yep, he did, but unlike you, the majority of the human race chooses to believe in some form of religion.


Yep. The majority of people are fundamentally irrational. I've known that for decades. That doesn't mean they aren't nice people, but it does go a long way towards explaining the bloody and miserable tale that is human history. 

The first step in developing conceptual schema that is consistent with reality is recognizing that one cannot _choose_ what to believe. I recognize that most people don't care about having beliefs that are consistent with reality, and are perfectly happy believing in a magical sky-daddy that will make everything all right after they die, but I'd much prefer the truth, even if it means discovering that we're on our own in a universe governed by nothing but the laws of physics.

As a philosopher and scientist, I don't get to choose what I believe. I am compelled to believe by reason and evidence. And no, MacGuiver, your anecdotes about magical healing ceremonies, and cancers cured by praying are not evidence. If you can conduct a double-blind trial with suitably significant numbers, and show a non-random effect, that would mean something. An ideal experiment would be to have a several large groups of patients with similar prognoses, one of which is simply treated by conventional medicine, one is being prayed for by Christians, one by Muslims, one by Satanists, etc. and one not being treated. Then see if one of the groups showed significantly better outcomes. We probably won't get a pass from the ethics committee for this sort of thing, but we could probably try it with SCID mice injected with identical numbers of tumour cells. I'm skeptical that prayer would have any effect, but, I'm willing to be convinced.

Cheers


----------



## iMatt (Dec 3, 2004)

MacGuiver said:


> Hi iMatt,
> 
> *"They're all bad, don't ever do any of them." (Many kids probably get told this with the liquor cabinet in plain view.)*
> 
> Very perceptive! You picked up on something that the survey did as well. StatsCan found that the chances of kids getting into this stuff increased substantially if it was used at home. Peers were also a major influence.


Sorry I missed this one earlier, MacGuiver.

Seems to me that this is the essence of culture: from our elders and peers, we learn the ways of our people. When some people introduce ways that are harmful to individuals who follow them, there's a struggle for effective influence.

The existence of peer influence (and of course pressure) is not something that's easily denied or countered. The key thing, I think, is to make sure that there isn't an unbridgeable cultural gap between parents and children. Exactly how to do that is something I'm not sure about, though I'm reasonably sure that witholding honest, accurate information is not a good start.

Ultimately, I think almost everything comes down to inculcating an appropriate -- <i>but not overzealous</i> -- sense of respect for dangerous things. For example, fire can be deadly and horribly destructive. Yet nobody would suggest outlawing it outright, or teaching children to "just say no" to fire. Instead we teach them appropriate respect for it: we don't let them play with matches and we manufacture lighters with safeguards, but we do give them supervised instruction in lighting and safely extinguishing a candle, a fireplace, a Coleman stove, or a campfire.

The reason is of course that fire is one of the things that makes civilization possible. But when it comes to risky things that are ultimately about fun and luxury, we have a more ambivalent attitude, so we can't unanimously agree on a single approach. I think that's a shame, because I think our self-evidently sensible approach to fire is one that could be useful elsewhere: treat it with respect, understand the risks, but forget any unrealistic attempt to eliminate it entirely.


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

MacDoc said:


> All I can say is I'm very glad the internet is available for teens and others to get a wide range of information instead of the drivel put out the religious right.


You make it sound like outside the internet all you can get is the "drivel." That's just not so, there is lots of drivel from the looney left and dog knows what other groups both off the internet and on.

And of course, all of it is useless to teens without a the guidance of a parent.


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

IMatt,

You really come across as a decent guy. You and I have been batting theories back and forth from different although sometimes similar perspectives yet you haven't resorted to the usual "shower of insults" tactics we see here so often. 
I'll admit when it happens, I sometimes feel like shooting back and probably have on occasion but what good does that do? I have nothing but respect for your opinion and you bring constructive argument to the table. Not because I'm necessarily in agreement with you but because you deliver it with respect and eloquence. Good on you.

I think you and I agree on some key principles. When you said. "I think almost everything comes down to inculcating an appropriate -- but not overzealous -- sense of respect for dangerous things." I agree wholeheartedly. I want my kids to have sex education but when its started and how its implemented is where the problem lies for me. My friends mother automatically put her on the pill at 14. Although her mother felt she was doing the responsible thing, my friend saw it as the green light to get sexually active, which she did. You made the analogy of matches which was good but teach a kid how to handle fire responsibly then hand him a bic lighter at 11 or 12 and theirs a good chance he'll start playing with fire even though he really isn't ready to handle the responsibility. 
Like my friends in high school that took drivers education only to end up doing donuts in the school parking lot with their newfound driving skills.

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## Carex (Mar 1, 2004)

> Like my friends in high school that took drivers education only to end up doing donuts in the school parking lot with their newfound driving skills.


All the education in the world is still not enough to overcome... teenage hormones!!

Remember, we are just the ones that were lucky enough to survive.


----------



## iMatt (Dec 3, 2004)

Thanks for the kind words, MacGuiver, but I'm afraid that my intention of staying calm and polite isn't always reflected in my posts (as you can see a few posts up in my reply to GWR from this morning). From what I've seen you do at least as well as me in that regard...

No time to get back into the substance of the discussion right now; have a great evening.


----------



## GWR (Jan 2, 2003)

bryanc said:


> An ideal experiment would be to have a several large groups of patients with similar prognoses, one of which is simply treated by conventional medicine, one is being prayed for by Christians, one by Muslims, one by Satanists, etc. and one not being treated. Then see if one of the groups showed significantly better outcomes. We probably won't get a pass from the ethics committee for this sort of thing, but we could probably try it with SCID mice injected with identical numbers of tumour cells. I'm skeptical that prayer would have any effect, but, I'm willing to be convinced.
> 
> Cheers


I seem to remember a sceptical group of people saying "Let Him come down from the cross if He is the Messiah, then we will believe Him.", in spite of countless healings, raisings from the dead, and other miracles too numerous to count. The problem is that certain people don't like His moral teachings and therefore refuse to believe. No amount of miracles could convince them. He said so Himself "They have Moses and the prophets... if they wont hear them then they will not be convinced even if someone were to rise from the dead." There is abundant proof for the existance of God from nature alone, as St. Paul has clearly shown. Those who refuse to believe are clearly being irrational. They don't like His moral teachings and so they refuse to believe.


----------



## Fink-Nottle (Feb 25, 2001)

bryanc wrote:


> I recognize that most people don't care about having beliefs that are consistent with reality, and are perfectly happy believing in a magical sky-daddy that will make everything all right after they die, but I'd much prefer the truth, even if it means discovering that we're on our own in a universe governed by nothing but the laws of physics.


Everyone prefers their own truth... and scientifically proving there is no God (or to use your pointedly pejorative term, "skydaddy") is just as impossible as proving there is one. Paley's teleological argument for the existence of God (that we and the earth, like a watch, show the evidence of design) is based in rationality. More to the point, reason and rationality leave too many gaps in metaphysics and cosmology (ie. Has the universe always existed? What was there before? If there was a 'Big Bang', what caused it? Is our universe infinite? Does it have borders? If so, what's beyond it?) and belief in a God is a way to fill them.

Are you certain there is no God? If so, you must be a man of great faith...

"... it is wrong for a man to say he is certain of the objective truth of a proposition unless he can provide evidence which logically justifies that certainty." 
T.H. Huxley - an agnostic (in fact he coined the term) and a biologist, which means we both have something in common with him


----------



## GWR (Jan 2, 2003)

iMatt said:


> No, it doesn't demonstrate your case at all, since your argument amounts to "the less you know, the better off you are." That makes no sense whatsoever. If that attitude guided humanity, we'd still be gathering berries in the woods and hoping the gorillas don't get there first.


Common sense and deductive reasoning does *that ?!?!* 


> GWR, if you want to argue, please argue against <b>the points that people are actually making.</b> Don't pull some material off a web site, call it proof, and consider the job done, especially if your material bears no resemblance to anything anyone here is actually saying.


I only claim that this is material that supports my argument.


> I don't know about anyone else in this thread, but when I say "education is the way to reduce unwanted pregnancies", I mean that children need to know exactly how pregnancy is caused, and they need to know exactly how it's prevented. (Including abstinence, yes. But day after day the studies come out: abstinence-only education is not enough.) I <b>do not</b> mean that the Kama Sutra ought to be a high school textbook.


 But in far too many instances it (or similar books) is. And ,besides, the links that I provided call into question the "studies" that you are refering to.


> We're adults, and these things seem so obvious to us that we say "well, uh, that's obvious." In fact, children do not magically develop this knowledge on their own. If they don't know it, they can and do get pregnant accidentally. Do you want children running around spreading and believing tragic (and I do mean tragic) urban legends like "you can't get pregnant the first time" and "douching with Coca Cola is effective birth control" and so on?
> 
> Well, that's exactly what happens when schools are forbidden to teach the facts of life. Some kids get good info from their parents, others linger in the dark because their parents are too shy to talk about sex, or are in denial. Others go to church and hear "don't do it, it's a sin." Surely that works for a percentage, but what about the ones it fails to reach? Do we just consign them to eternal hellfire and forget about them?


 My point is, and always has been, that the sex drive is such a powerful force, that once it is aroused it is extremely difficult to control. We cannot just expect to arouse the sex drive in children and expect them to control it without teaching them the practice Virtue.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> And of course, all of it is useless to teens without a the guidance of a parent.


 ......what a naif.

Try a google on "racism is learned behaviour".

All the religious dogma and drivel is "learned behavior" and no study has ever shown "religiousity" = less unethical or criminal or devious behavior. In fact the inverse is true.

Your assumption is that "guidance" is preferable to assessment by an independent mind with a WIDE range of views to be exposed to.
"Give me a chlld until he is seven and I have the man".............The Jesuits knew what they were doing. Pomp, myth, incense glitter ......all the fine trappings of moral suasion without reason.

You dis the heathens and practice magic..........steal the pagan holidays for nonsensical celebrations detached from the planet that birthed you.

Create misogynst societies in place of matriarchical knowledge and common sense that guided humans for millenia.

Yeah tell me about guidance...............a continuing "learned" stream of ignorance and superstition....

as I was saying Bryanc........;rolleyes:


----------



## Carex (Mar 1, 2004)

Sadly this thread has deteriorated into one about the supposed all-knowing theory of Intelligent Design. 

Fink_nottle's quote:



> If so, what's beyond it?) and belief in a God is a way to fill them.


You have just defined why religion came to be (partly). To explain the unexplainable. It likely started with cavemen trying to explain a great many things. Along the way, unfortunately for some, the scientific method was developed. I'll stick with that.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Carex said:


> Sadly this thread has deteriorated into one about the supposed all-knowing theory of Intelligent Design.


Yep, and guess who is the leader of the pack as usual?

And now he apparently has a kindred spirit in my back yard.

Poor misguided types all.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Scientific method??....me too.

The problem being there seems a retrograde movement afoot with more proponents of astrology than astronomy. 
Silly monkeys.......overrun they're little island in space and wonder what happened........

••••••

I do LOVE GoogleAds at times. :clap:


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

MacDoc said:


> Scientific method??....me too.
> 
> The problem being there seems a retrograde movement afoot with more proponents of astrology than astronomy.
> Silly monkeys.......overrun they're little island in space and wonder what happened........
> ...


The folly of one who is perhaps 5% of the population in their beliefs. (And that might be generous.)

The rest of us will continue to do well with out your beliefs thanks,


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

You dis the heathens and practice magic..........steal the pagan holidays for nonsensical celebrations detached from the planet that birthed you.

MacDoc,
You wouldn't be referring to this "in touch with nature" bunch would you? 










Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## Peter Scharman (Jan 4, 2002)

Looks like familiarity is breeding contempt. Again!  
Suddenly, I feel my belief in the Tooth Fairy has been shaken. Hard to imagine I once went to bed on time so she would come to visit.  How could I have been so stupid, and worse yet, modified my behaviour because of a fantasy belief. (sounds of slapping oneself). Goodnight all! It's time for a dream.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Macdoc....

You are busily making a public embarassment out of yourself with your (well-entrenched and ideologically-driven) public views here on this thread.

You are doing all of this, while you could be doing so much MORE to promote your personal political stance on the "Truth about the Liberals" thread. 

And you have been SOOO terribly public on that particular forum, of late. Very vocal, really. Downright voiceiferous, actually!

So...why hide out here? On this distant thread??

The "Truth about the Liberals " thread is fertile ground for someone like yourself...just so long as you have a solid and valid position to work from, that is.

And this IS a pivotal time in the political history of Canada, after all. A watershed moment.

So, why are you absent? Why do you choose to remain completely silent at this singular moment in Canadian history...for the very first time in AGES??  

Anxiously awaiting your carefully considered reply. As are many others.

Trust me on this.


----------



## Chealion (Jan 16, 2001)

Macnutt - I think your call for defence of the Liberals was strong enough in the Truth About Liberals thread. For simplicity (and to not derail this thread), would it be possible to PM MacDoc instead?


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Just callin the old guy out of his cave....and asking him if he really CAN back up all of his publicly stated leftoid/Liberal drivel. 

If he cares to. Or if he CAN. 

Personally, I doubt if he is even remotely prepared to do so. Many others around here are thinking the very same thing, BTW. 

Macdoc is all bluff and bluster...and he's deeply involved with a now-failed sixties mindset. One that was carefully fed to him by his whacko-lefty professors back in the university days of the early seventies.

Which is sort of too bad. I rather like macdoc...and I have some respect for him. I just wish he could move his ideology into the twenty first century...instead of concentrating all of his ideals on stuff that was going on about forty years back.

Talk about dead ends! 

But I will bow to your recommendations Chealion.

All further jabs at macdoc on this particular subject will be sent via Private Message.

Promise.


----------



## Carex (Mar 1, 2004)

> You wouldn't be referring to this "in touch with nature" bunch would you?


Now would that be the Inca? Don't worry, a bunch of god-fearing, cross-carrying European crusaders wiped those heathens out a couple hundred years ago. Who's next?


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Chealion: Macnutt has made a thorough buffon of himself over the last couple of years - no use denying us the public entertainment element.
You should know a Tequila fueled rant by now - you've seen enough of them from the dweller in the uninhabited forest.....catch the time of day.

••

Carex as I was saying......hopeless.

•••

MG
At least they controlled their population growth. Those sacrificed warriors went to that great Inca place in the sky. You think your blood and body transubstantiation nonsense is an improvement??!!!! "Oh look how far we've come from those poor unenlightened heathens.............."

You put yourself in the same frame of ignorance and superstition as the Incas and Maya you're dissing.


----------



## Peter Scharman (Jan 4, 2002)

Here is an interesting quick read on the misguided perceptions and actions of humans within their faith. 
The religion doctrine isn't really the problem, it's the human element that screws things up. If we're to discredit religion (or any belief structure) based on the actions of the members, then we're partially blinding ouselves. An current example might be the Gomery inquiry revelations regarding the Liberal Party under Chretien. The western Conservatives think the current party should be promptly turfed for good because of the actions of a previous group. Others say to look past these misdeeds and focus on the positives of the current group. Is the party philosphy the probem or the elected members? I personally find it offensive when people point fingers at Christians, Muslems, Jehovas or any faith and paint them with a broad brush based on the failing of part of the membership. 
It's really easy to be an armchair critic of people you don't really know and yet have nothing positive to offer within _their_ perspective. A discussion (or argument) without empathy often just leads to deaper discord. That seems like a pretty simple concept to me, yet many people who are much more enlightened than me fail to understand it. My quick 2 cents worth this morning.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

GWR said:


> I seem to remember a sceptical group of people saying "Let Him come down from the cross if He is the Messiah, then we will believe Him.", in spite of countless healings, raisings from the dead, and other miracles too numerous to count.


That's funny... I seem to remember a _story_ about all of that. I've also read stories about adventurous hobbits and great wizards. But, as much as I love those stories, I don't confuse them with reality.



> The problem is that certain people don't like His moral teachings and therefore refuse to believe.


On the contrary. My morals are very similar to those promoted by Christianity, Islam, and most other religions (with some small variations). I have derived them from my personal philosophy on ethics (derivative of Millsian Utilitarianism, if you're interested... strictly consequentialist) after much thought and discussion with people whose opinions I've come to respect.



> No amount of miracles could convince them.


Again, on the contrary. I'm very open to being convinced. I don't even need a miracle. But I've never encountered data that requires supernatural explanation, so I don't have beliefs about the supernatural.



> There is abundant proof for the existance of God from nature alone


Gee. I guess that means you don't need faith then? Right?

Strangely enough, I have never seen any proof of the existence of god(s) after decades of studying philosophy. Care to send a link?



Fink-Nottle said:


> Are you certain there is no God? If so, you must be a man of great faith...


Of course I'm not *certain* there is no god. Just like I'm not *certain* that I'm not being followed by an invisible pink fire-breathing dragon. It's just that neither of these ideas offer any explanatory power with respect to the data I have, and they both require hugely unparsimonious changes to my model of the universe. So why would I believe such things?



> "... it is wrong for a man to say he is certain of the objective truth of a proposition unless he can provide evidence which logically justifies that certainty."
> T.H. Huxley - an agnostic (in fact he coined the term) and a biologist, which means we both have something in common with him


I agree with Huxley completely. That is why I am an agnostic atheist. (I can't have beliefs about that which I do not know, so I have no beliefs about gods. No-knowledge=agnostic. No-belief-in-god(s)=atheist).

Cheers


----------



## Chealion (Jan 16, 2001)

MacDoc said:


> Macnutt has made a thorough buffon of himself over the last couple of years - no use denying us the public entertainment element.
> You should know a Tequila fueled rant by now - you've seen enough of them from the dweller in the uninhabited forest.....catch the time of day.


Regardless of what many feel about Macnutt he is entitled to his opinion and has the right to say it. I don't agree with his tactics, but to quote John Diefenbaker: "Freedom includes the right to say what others may object to and resent... The essence of citizenship is to be tolerant of strong and provocative words." (This goes both ways)

But enough of this tangent, it should be laid to rest and let the thread keep on topic.


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

Peter Scharman said:


> Here is an interesting quick read on the misguided perceptions and actions of humans within their faith.
> The religion doctrine isn't really the problem, it's the human element that screws things up. If we're to discredit religion (or any belief structure) based on the actions of the members, then we're partially blinding ouselves. An current example might be the Gomery inquiry revelations regarding the Liberal Party under Chretien. The western Conservatives think the current party should be promptly turfed for good because of the actions of a previous group. Others say to look past these misdeeds and focus on the positives of the current group. Is the party philosphy the probem or the elected members? I personally find it offensive when people point fingers at Christians, Muslems, Jehovas or any faith and paint them with a broad brush based on the failing of part of the membership.
> It's really easy to be an armchair critic of people you don't really know and yet have nothing positive to offer within _their_ perspective. A discussion (or argument) without empathy often just leads to deaper discord. That seems like a pretty simple concept to me, yet many people who are much more enlightened than me fail to understand it. My quick 2 cents worth this morning.


Peter.
You have a gift for putting things in their proper perspective. Excellent post.

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## Peter Scharman (Jan 4, 2002)

MacGuiver said:


> Peter.
> You have a gift for putting things in their proper perspective. Excellent post.
> 
> Cheers
> MacGuiver


Thanks MacGuiver! It's sometimes a struggle to come up with the nerve to post and wait for the gunfire. I appreciate the show of support. I'm not well educated or well read, but I know what I feel and I respect others' perspectives, agree with them or not. There's a lot to learn with respectful dialogue, but not a whole lot gets learned when attitude or baltant dismissal of anothers beliefs enters the picture. That's 4 cents worth now for today.
Goodnight!


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

A quote from Pete the Wise -- "I personally find it offensive when people point fingers at Christians, Muslems, Jehovas or any faith and paint them with a broad brush based on the failing of part of the membership. It's really easy to be an armchair critic of people you don't really know and yet have nothing positive to offer within their perspective. A discussion (or argument) without empathy often just leads to deeper discord."

How true and wise you are, mon frere.


----------



## Fink-Nottle (Feb 25, 2001)

Hi bryanc,



> I agree with Huxley completely. That is why I am an agnostic atheist. (I can't have beliefs about that which I do not know, so I have no beliefs about gods. No-knowledge=agnostic. No-belief-in-god(s)=atheist).


You define "atheist" as "No belief in god(s)"... but in that case it is redundant to describe yourself as an "agnostic atheist" as agnostic alone would cover it. If you define atheist as I, the OED, and many others do, "a belief there is no God/s", then the term "agnostic atheist" is a contradiction. Huxley certainly felt this... that's why he coined the term "agnostic" in the first place.

From what you've written, and please correct me if I'm wrong, you seem to be an atheist of the heart with a strong gut feeling there is no God (and some disdain for those who disagree), but an agnostic of the head, realizing that science can't prove things either way. I'm of a similar mind... but I am not comfortable in criticizing other beliefs as irrational. I certainly don't have all my answers myself, nor to my satisfaction at least, does anyone else. You also said earlier in the thread that, "one cannot choose what to believe"... and this suggests to me you believe that belief itself is not rationally based. So what is there to argue? 

Cheers!


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Bryanc
I'd also say there was an inherent conflict in "agnostic atheist".

The latter denies godhead of any sort the former "don't know, or don't care or unknowable therefore out of mind."

I'd tend to put you in the atheist "box" as you hold strong opinion as do I about lack of supernatural or deity and the irrelevance of speculation about it.

I would suspect the tinge of agnostic comes from the strangeness of the universe which does not disallow vastly greater ( than human) intelligences which could easily be interpreted as dieties.

Clarke got that aspect in one memorable line. "_Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic._"

One aspect that is not often discussed is the concept of "memes" and how some instill harmful or violent behaviour and others beneficial or peaceful behavior.

This is the heart of Peter's issue are we talking about "individuals" or a "party".

Liberalism is a meme encompassing political and social behaviour that has evolved over time.

Religions and philosophies are also memes - they have "life" of their own over time and outside the individual.
Scientific method is another meme.

You can discuss the success or failure of memes by their ability to attract adherents, function in a universe of conflicting memes.

Codification of memes in the form of texts or ethical systems form the basis of the "over time" aspect - replacing the oral traditions that preceded them.

Agricultural practices can be memes as well and what may have been a successful one say in the rich earths of England may be a failed one in the different ecosystem of Australia.

So too with religious and philosophical and political memes.
Conditions change over time and what may have worked effectively in a certain time period or within a certain population may fail to transplant or adapt to new conditions.

( The current issue with RC priests marrying in Africa is an example and has been an issue over the centuries especially in Ireland and of course with the Anglican split ).

With 6 billion people growing toward 9 billion, little room to avoid each other and constant worldwide communication ala Teilhards noosphere - never before have memes seen such collisions nor immense consequences of the results of those conflicts to very existence of a human livable planet )

A classic confrontation was Global Communism confronting "Free Nations" where a variety of diametrically opposed memes just about trashed the planet in a nuclear exchange ( neither "side" was composed of a single meme, there were political, economic, philosophic and religious memes in play. )

Globalization is a current powerful meme affecting the human society right around the planet and has it's proponents and opponents.

Religions with their roots in the past and developed under conditions unlike those today have seen their relevance called into question, their ability to adapt challenged ( gay rights) and their very validity challenged as "useful to human society memes" given the conditions of the planet and the species.

How does a "chosen people" meme play these days??....too close to the "almost failed" racism meme.

So discussing religions as memes means looking to the actions they engender in their adherents and judging those actions both in your individual terms and in terms of the benefit or danger to the whole of humanity.

Bin Laden has developed a meme attracting adherents, and is being effective .....but.... in all but a few eyes - it's dangerous.....and mixed into the meme of Islam negatively affecting that meme.

Scientific method has developed a meme of widespread benefit in understanding the and making use of the properties of the physical universe and in general seen as benefical by "most" but not all. It also is involved with the meme of secularism or lack of religion. But it can be dangerous when technology for it's own sake takes no note of the consequences ( the conundrum the Einsten dealt with about the atomic bomb and it's use )

It's the effort of the US founders to separate the religious meme of the time from the secular/political meme of "all men equal" that shows how the memes come into conflict and opposition.....and often live together in the same society in an uncomfortable balance.

So the view of the death of the leader of a meme both "strong over time" and in numbers is mourned by the adherents............

Those that see that same meme over time as dangerous or irrelevant have a different response to his death.

There ARE opposing ideas, there ARE dangerous ideas, .......but dangerous to who??

In determining that lies the difficulty.

Open discussions of the real life consequences that memes invoke is far too often missed.

How does the embedded idea of celibacy for RC priests play out in the real world...that's a consequence.

How does the meme of globalization play out for the cotton farmer in Africa....that's a consequence.

The wide information now available to an enormous number of humans means that they all have an ability to evaluate consequences both from the past and present in manner never before available.

The days of protected enclaves are gone in wind as the divine right of kings has been swept away by new political memes.

The first steps in evaluating your personal memes involve stepping back, looking at how others view them and what alternatives are there.

Only THEN can you follow Elliot and "return from whence you came and know it for the very first time".

You may freely step back into the mindset, rules and traditions..... knowing the alternatives, knowing some of the consequences and failings, the strengths and illusions with respect to others available.

Then you freely choose. 
This kind of discussion can offer that "variegated" viewpoint - the warts and wisdom of various memes.

Bryanc has looked and evaluated...... being irreligious is NOT another form of religion. It's a rational choice amongst various offerings of competing memes of which religious memes comprise one part. He's rejected those, as have I, through choice based on knowledge. ( Yes I grew up in a fundamentalist household and have a degree in Eastern Religion and Philosophy so I've got a good overview and personal experience. )

Religious memes are faith based and if you choose that route it's quite straight forward to say "it's a belief I have", nothing more.....as nothing more is required and no proofs available or needed.

BUT...look at the consequences of the choice and the dictates of the meme you embrace.
Your belief is yours, the consequences of your actions in adhering to those beliefs affect others.

By all means keep your beliefs if you so choose, but please for the planet's sake discuss the consequences both logical and in real life and look openly at alternatives.

You may beleive you have magic armor on but if you step into the path of a bus physics will prove you wrong.

What ARE the consequences to the planet if the influence of the Catholic Church upon a billion humans leads to disaster....as it has for many indigenes in the past.

Eugenics gets discussed that way, political systems get discussed that way..........religions and the consequences should be no different.

Step back.......look at the real life consequences and the logical conclusions of the meme....there IS no alternative planet.

••••

Hmm the phrase "quick reply" seemed quite ironic.


----------



## Peter Scharman (Jan 4, 2002)

That WAS a long "quick reply".  It was also the most interesting and informative one supporting your and Bryanc's atheist positions. I hadn't had the meme perspective explained well before. The best part was that it drew me in as an interested reader rather than insulting an opposing point of view, however naïve it may seem to you. 
I understand that "faith" can be a dificult concept to swallow for some. It's intangible and unprovable; sort of the "doubting Thomas" scenario, I guess. Do we have satisfactory scientific explanations for the "out of body" experiences some have experienced when dying and then being brought back to life? Plato, Homer and others have addressed this phenominum. And the notion of spirituality/soul is entrenched in many religions. These OBEs are considered by the religious camp to be the spirit trying to leave the body. Any thoughts on this area?


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Here ya go........might keep you occupied for a while  *http://www.memecentral.com/*

••••••

As to modern memes of great power to persuade for good or ill.........catch the tale of L Ron Hubbard. Much will sound familiar and if you project this out say a couple hundred years........

http://www.rotten.com/library/bio/religion/cult/l-ron-hubbard/

BTW I make no judgement on LR or his Scientology Church other than killing myself laughing about what he speculated could be done in his sci-fi he actually undertook and achieved.......

As such it's a remarkable window into the birth and progress of a large scale meme which influences millions and conflicts on a major scale with other memes.

Now ask yourself honestly how you would react on hearing of HIS death.......

I'm all ears.......


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

*Atheism/Agnosticism*



Fink-Nottle said:


> You define "atheist" as "No belief in god(s)"... but in that case it is redundant to describe yourself as an "agnostic atheist" as agnostic alone would cover it. If you define atheist as I, the OED, and many others do, "a belief there is no God/s", then the term "agnostic atheist" is a contradiction.


This comes up in almost every discussion of religious philosophy. When you look at the philosophical position of atheism, as opposed to the common usage (OED, by the way, explicitly accepts 'common usage' as the de facto definition of a word... so they do not define meanings so much as document how words are currently being used) you'll find that there are two related but logically distinct 'flavors' of atheism. "Strong atheism" asserts the non-existance of god(s). This is obviously a type of Faith, and I've never met anyone who adheres to this position. I certainly don't. "Weak atheism" disclaims any belief in god(s). This is the position of rational scepticism which I and every other 'atheist' I've ever met promotes as a starting point for thinking about these issues. Given that this latter position is held by the vast majority of people who describe themselves as 'atheist', that it is the position articulated by philosophers (c.f. Bertrand Russell's famous essay 'Why I am an atheist'), and that it is most closely related to the literal meaning of the word 'atheist' ('theism'==beliefs about gods; 'atheism'=no/without beliefs about gods), I contend that this is a reasonable interpretation of what someone means when they say "I'm an atheist."

Agnosticism means "without knowledge [about gods]". Thus rational agnostics will also be atheists, in that, in the absence of knowledge, one will not form beliefs.

However, it is at least formally possible to be an agnostic theist (don't know but believe anyway) or an atheist that isn't agnostic (claim to know that god(s) don't exist). While I've never met anyone who claims to be the latter, I have met people who are the former.



> Huxley certainly felt this... that's why he coined the term "agnostic" in the first place.


I think Huxley coined the term 'agnostic' in order to get a fair hearing. Many people, even today, react extremely negatively to the term 'atheist' and won't listen to anything you have to say if you describe yourself as such. Huxley certainly didn't believe in gods, and would therefore be an atheist in the philosophical sense, but did not want to be banded as such in the political arena. He therefore cleverly invented a new label. The adoption of this new terminology has resulted in the common usage of the word 'atheism' to mean what philosophers call 'strong atheism', which, as I've discussed above, is a position that really more of a philosophical curiosity than a widely-held belief.



> From what you've written, and please correct me if I'm wrong, you seem to be an atheist of the heart with a strong gut feeling there is no God (and some disdain for those who disagree), but an agnostic of the head, realizing that science can't prove things either way.


Pretty close. I'd back away from 'disdain'... many of my best friends are theists, and some are adherents of various organized religions. There are certainly times when I am very hard on the philosophical and political positions of religion, but I usually manage to separate the conceptual frameworks, for which I do have disdain, from the individuals, who I do try to respect, even if I believe they are in error.



> I'm of a similar mind... but I am not comfortable in criticizing other beliefs as irrational.


Even when they _are_ irrational?



> I certainly don't have all my answers myself, nor to my satisfaction at least, does anyone else. You also said earlier in the thread that, "one cannot choose what to believe"... and this suggests to me you believe that belief itself is not rationally based.


If one is compelled to believe by reason and evidence, one cannot choose what they believe. I don't choose to believe that I'm sitting on a chair, the evidence of my senses compels my belief. If shown that A > B, and B > C, I cannot choose to believe that A < C... logic compels me to believe that A > C... I have no choice.

It is true that I can't take credit for my rational beliefs, because I did not choose them. They are, nevertheless, rational.



> So what is there to argue?


It is by arguing that our irrationalities, inconsistencies and the factual errors of our assumptions are revealed and can therefore be corrected. By arguing with people who are better-educated, more articulate and just plain smarter than I am, I have greatly improved my understanding of many issues, including this one. I like arguing 

Cheers


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

A very interesting and generally well-thought-out discussion, MacDoc.



MacDoc said:


> Bryanc
> I'd also say there was an inherent conflict in "agnostic atheist".


As I've tried to explain above, I make no claims of knowledge about god(s), so I am an agnostic, and I have no belief in god(s), so I am an atheist. I see these philosophical positions as overlapping sets. It is possible to be an agnostic that is not an atheist, or an atheist that is not agnostic, but I would argue that both of these extremes are irrational positions. Rationally, if you don't have any knowledge, you can't have any beliefs.



> ....lots of interesting stuff about meme theory....


I'm a big fan of meme theory. One of my colleagues, a population geneticist, did his dissertation work comparing memetic and genetic phyologenies of pre-contact African cultures to determine what cultural characteristics were most 'viral' (horizontally transmitted) and what characteristics were most 'genetic' (vertically transmitted). Not surprisingly, religions were among the most viral cultural characters.



> Step back.......look at the real life consequences and the logical conclusions of the meme....there IS no alternative planet.


This is the reason I see religions and other irrational memes as dangerous, rather than as harmless curiosities. I really wouldn't mind if lots of people had irrational beliefs if they weren't destroying our planet as a result of these beliefs.

Cheers


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> This is the reason I see religions and other irrational memes as dangerous, rather than as harmless curiosities. I really wouldn't mind if lots of people had irrational beliefs if they weren't destroying our planet as a result of these beliefs


 :clap:

Exactly as with a neuroses versus a psychoses with an individual. One makes life interesting - the other is dangerous.

If you have a moment - take a look at the Level 3 area of the meme site..
He has an interesting take on how an irrational belief can be quite beneficial to the individual and that may be the evolutionary reason for the phenomena.

It's related to the placebo effect but it is a real affect and so can't be discounted.
"for god and country" has led to a number of heroic acts by individuals that are "irrational" but nonetheless effective in the circumstance ( leaving aside the issue of war anyway ).

My sense is a balance of memes creates a degree of stability over time something I believe orgainzed religion thrives on for good or ill. Even within an individual a sense of wonder in conjunction with "common sense" or practicality" is in my mind a healthy combo.

The Liberals are facing a meme imbalance of epic proportion at the moment in the political arena.  Economic track record versus impropriety.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

*Meme theory*

I think one of the great strengths of the meme theory of cultural evolution is that it provides a great way of explaining the persistence of obviously irrational/incorrect memes.

Memes don't have to be true to persist, they simply have to have some advantage over competing memes. Being true may or may not be an advantage, and, certainly, in the absence of real knowledge, some kinds of irrational beliefs have advantages over others.

Cheers


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Yeah the meme of the planet can hold the current population and everyone can aspire to a first world lifestyle seem a particularly pernicious one and very very hard to break.........more's the pity. 

Some memes are terminal....... Jonestown, Raelian, - "go forth and multiply............different time lines is all.


----------



## Fink-Nottle (Feb 25, 2001)

Bryanc, Macdoc,



> It is by arguing that our irrationalities, inconsistencies and the factual errors of our assumptions are revealed and can therefore be corrected. By arguing with people who are better-educated, more articulate and just plain smarter than I am, I have greatly improved my understanding of many issues, including this one. I like arguing


That is exactly the way I feel about this thread... thank you both for posting with such class and intelligence.

Cheers!


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

A clear example of a "in our lifetime" failure of a major meme for a relatively large population - and on topic for this thread - AND right in our backyard. This is the finishing article of a 7 part in the Star about the Catholic church in Quebec.



> The losing battle in Quebec
> Church's stand on birth control, divorce blamed
> 
> *Attendance drops from 90% in `60s to less than 7%*
> ...


I suspect a similar story could be written about Ireland as well. 90% to 7% in less than two generations.
Now if we can harness the same power for change to move the planet's people's to view the degradation of the environment, sustainable practices and overpopulation as PRIORITY ONE for the future.

That's one message from collapse...it IS a decision....by whole peoples and it NEEDS leadership both top down and bottom up.

BTW Quebec's and Ireland's population growth went from some of the highest in the first world to almost the lowest in that same period. Is there a connection??? You bet.


----------



## Peter Scharman (Jan 4, 2002)

MacDoc said:


> Now if we can harness the same power for change to move the planet's people's to view the degradation of the environment, sustainable practices and overpopulation as PRIORITY ONE for the future.
> 
> That's one message from collapse...it IS a decision....by whole peoples and it NEEDS leadership both top down and bottom up.


The numbers in Quebec are not so surprising. It is inevitable that a population so entrenched in a religious influence would experience a reversal of acceptance of such an influence. If Quebec had a more diverse collection of faiths, there would probably be more general participation in church-going. This is quite possibly a backlash against dominance. 
In contrast, my area churches, both Catholic and Protestant are pretty full every Sunday. The streets and parking lots are overflowing with cars. 
I would suggest that a good percentage of the drop in churchgoing is not because people had made any concerted decision to rebel...they're just being apathetic. It's an effort to drag your butt out of the house and spend an hour in a pew. Just like it's an effort to drag your butt down to a gym or go for a run. We're in a lazy society that embraces convenience and rejects inconvenience. That may be why, in your quoted article, "most people in the province continue to identify themselves as Catholics — "but they are basically cultural Catholics". They don't disassociate themselves from the church, they just don't practice church-going. These are probably the same people that come out of the woodwork each Easter and Christmas to jam the church full. The rest of the year, they belong to the Stay In Bed church.
So, if you call if you call on these people to" harness the same power for change to move the planet's people's to view the degradation of the environment", don't expect too much effort. These same people are quite probably buying food in dispoasable packaging, driving big vehicles, living in air-conditioned houses and not composting. 
Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to bear judgement on these folks. It's their choice. It's just the reasoning for their perceived "rebellion" that I'm questioning.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

How about the situation here Pete??? C'mon the apologia won't work. The planet can't afford this meme anymore.



> Apr.*16, 2005. 08:09*AM
> 
> *Filipinos drifting away from dogma*
> 
> ...


Archaic in a nutshell  "_* when in fact population is a generator of wealth."*
[/b]_....Archbishop Oscar Cruz


----------



## GWR (Jan 2, 2003)

Kinda strange how we here in Canada (and more specifically, Québec) have to have massive immigration just to keep the economy rolling and paying taxes and CPP (QPP) for all the baby boommers that are about to retire. Archaic? Common sense! Larger population=better economy! It's simple economics, really.


----------



## Peter Scharman (Jan 4, 2002)

That's a sad situation in the poorer regions of the world. Here, with the more educated and independant population, many, if not most most Catholics don't adhere to the birth control dogma. It just doesn't make sense. They are also not controlled by the church in their daily lives, other than maybe being concienscious of what's expected from a Christian. There are many teachings of the Catholic Church (and other religions) that seriously need to be addressed and changed. From me there is no argument on this.
However, you have not at all addressed the comments (on church attendance) in my previous post. 
This last post is just another reinforcement of your distain of organized religion. That's fine...and there's lots to criticize, but it's here, it's a reality, it's strong, and it has a good side to it as well.
Quebec is not the Philippines. Quebec is a modern, educated and prosperous society. So, getting back to the challenge of my last post, what about "the power of change" vs. apathy in Quebec. I'm looking for justification for your claim that there is an actual "energy" in ther reduction of church-going Catholics. Switching faiths might be an effort; just not going to any church and still calling yourself Catholic (or whatever fath) is just apathy and laziness. It's achoice not to bother. You will not and cannot harness this "energy" to address the other problems of the planet.
Now, YOU personally have an energetic passion to discredit religions. What do YOU do personally do with this energy to help the problems of the planet? By this I mean do you compost? Do you give to charitable organizations that try to save animals, save rain forests, fight pollution, fight for equal rights, etc.? Do you reduce your purchases of plastic packaged foods and other goods? Do you reduce the amount of gas and electricity used to heat and cool your home? Do you use flourescent lights wherever feasible? Do you and your family keep their showers brief and turn off the water while lathering? The list can go on. 
I'm not asking for an actual response to these question, nor am I insinuatiing that you don't do any of these things (you can tell us if you wish). It's just a mental check that we all need to take to see if we're "putting our money where our mouth is". I truly suspect that the people you think have an "energetic" resistance to the contradictions of religions (and problems of society) really have no "energy" at all (except their mouths). How many of the vocal people are all talk and no action?


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

*Please tell me you're joking*



GWR said:


> Kinda strange how we here in Canada (and more specifically, Québec) have to have massive immigration just to keep the economy rolling and paying taxes and CPP (QPP) for all the baby boommers that are about to retire. Archaic? Common sense! Larger population=better economy! It's simple economics, really.


I see the smilie at the end here, but I'd like to make sure this is intended as a joke. Overpopulation is not only the single biggest problem facing our species and the planet as a whole, but it is the root of most of our other problems as well.

Maybe my sense of humour is not as black as yours, but I just can't see that as funny.

And, WRT to Peter's very legitimate questions about what those of us who exhort others and society as a whole to cast off ancient superstitions and come to grips with the reality of our ecological limitations do about our own impacts, I admit that I don't do enough. I walk or ride my bike to/from work, I've given up eating meat (except oysters...I love oysters, and they're very low on the food chain so my occasional indulgence is of modest environmental impact), I have only one child, I recycle & compost, I've replaced most of the lightbulbs in my house with low-wattage fluorescents (except for a few that have fixtures that won't accept any fluorescents I've been able to find), I have a programmable thermostat that keeps the temperature low at night and when no one is home, I buy low/no packaging stuff whenever I can, I buy recycled paper and organic produce despite their higher costs, and finally, probably the biggest thing I do that reduces my environmental impact is that I'm a research scientist, so I don't get paid very much, so I can't afford to be a profligate consumer 

This thread seems to have strayed significantly from it's original topic. Anyone interested in starting a 'what do you do to reduce your ecological footprint?' thread?

Cheers


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Peter Scharman said:


> ...your distain of organized religion. That's fine...and there's lots to criticize, but it's here, it's a reality, it's strong, and it has a good side to it as well.


Yes, it has a good side. Lots of great music & art. Society certainly owes many religious organizations a debt for their roles in protecting & fostering both the arts and the sciences historically. I also can't bring myself to argue against the religious convictions of the terminally ill, or those in other hopeless situations...I wouldn't take crutches away from someone who needs them.

That being said, I see a lot more wrong with religion than right. Society still needs a moderating influence to curb unbridled technological progress; to facilitate sober reflection and the development of wise policies for new challenges, but I don't think religions are serving this purpose well, and they are costing us far too much.

Cheers


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Yeah It's a joke I would hope - that's the problem with western economies and "modern economies" is lack of sustainable patterns over time. There is an "assumption" that more of everything is better and it's built into to much of modern thinking.

A meme that is damaging is different than one that is irrelevant. Skull measurements as a indicator of intelligence is a meme that is irrelevant today yet did damage in it's time with it's false "racial superiority underpinnings". Few if any adherents today so it damaging aspect has ceased for the wider population.

That IS NOT true of the stance of "population = prosperity" and all the baggage of go forth and mulitiply. It is severely damaging to the wider goals of sustainable existence and damaging in the particular to the societies under it's thrall.

Doing "some good" while also doing unnecessary harm - especially on the scale of say the Phillipines .... needs to be challenged and thankfully is being in many areas.

Memes that put humans and their constructs into a balanced relation with the planet is Job 1 for humanity. Anything that acts against that?????..........battle lines. 

Immigration simply changes the location and sometimes the size of a impact footprint.
Japan if trends continue will have 1/2 the population it does today - in my mind that 's a positive thing. They've done a terrific job with their silva culture.

The negative aspect is their impact on the oceans and forests in South East Asia.....a pretty callous approach given the approach to their own forests.

It anyone watched Deep Jungle on Nat Geo - it's so ewasy to see the destruction and it's costs to the planet. With modern analysis researchers are coming to understand we likely only know 5% of the species remaining in the rain forests. They showed one species of moth theorized by Darwin 140 years ago that it MUST exist for a certain orchid to pollinate.....and sure enough a new species fluttered into the infrared lens.

Will we come to realize what we've lost too late.........don't know. 
Chants and incense won't bring them back. 
Fighting a pernicious meme that supports population growth might give the rest of the species a chance at least.


----------

