We are all products of our times, products of our culture. In this culture, here in the West, Science dominates, replacing religion as the primary justification for whatever savagery we decide to indulge in. We rape the Planet, we rape all the other life forms, we rape each other. Physically, mentally, whichever way we can. Then we justify it by logical, ‘scientific’ principles. All is kosher.

Simple religious beliefs, on the other hand have a lot more humility. I am talking about the lady next door who believes in compassion, (she calls it Christianity), neighbourliness, tolerance, humility, modesty, charity -- even, sometimes, holding the other cheek.

Does it matter that she believes in “The Great Potato Chip In The Sky”?

When I meet a scientifically trained rational human being who displays the same human qualities as that little old lady does next door, I will be thrilled to have found someone both ‘rational’ and kind.

Just like a cell in the human body would feel threatened, had it any hint of the body, sustaining it, dying of a deadly disease: we can’t help feeling threatened by symptoms of our decaying culture. Yes, it is all connected.

"Every death diminishes me - the fire that burns there, burns here!"

(PS. The 'we' I used in this post does not imply inclusion of skdadl. )

[ 17 March 2004: Message edited by: Francis Mont ]

Bah ! This is absolutely outrageous trite. I see the dichotomy of God, 'man', and nature in religion as a root cause of much of the destruction of the Earth. As a scientist, environmentalist and agnostic, I see humankind as part of nature, not above it. I have never heard of a study on religion vs. environmentalism, but I think you've got things reversed. Scientists tend to be environmtalists, especially in the fields of biology, environmental science and geography. Anecdotally, I cannot think of a colleague who believes in God. I also cannot think of one who is not disgusted by the destruction of the world's ecosystems.

Quote by Francis Mont: Simple religious beliefs, on the other hand have a lot more humility. I am talking about the lady next door who believes in compassion, (she calls it Christianity), neighbourliness, tolerance, humility, modesty, charity -- even, sometimes, holding the other cheek.

I think it's delightful if people of any faith or lack thereof possess such traits. Clearly, however, these characteristics come from within. Christians tell us that we are born evil that we must overcome this. I think we are born peaceful and that there is nothing stopping us from staying that way. I don't need some 1950 year-old book to tell me these things... and if you read it critically, you would find it full of hatred, injustice and contradiction, too.

Quote from Francis Mont: Just like a cell in the human body would feel threatened, had it any hint of the body, sustaining it, dying of a deadly disease: we can’t help feeling threatened by symptoms of our decaying culture. Yes, it is all connected.

quote:

---

We rape the Planet, we rape all the other life forms, we rape each other.

---

quote:

---

I see the dichotomy of God, 'man', and nature in religion as a root cause of much of the destruction of the Earth. As a scientist, environmentalist and agnostic, I see humankind as part of nature, not above it.

---

Absolutely agreed, though I think your last sentence is too mild. Unless one doesn't believe in evolution, humanity's place in nature, alongside the noble bacterium, slime mold and slug is crystal clear. It follows then, that debates about whether we are "naturally good" or "naturally evil" are as important and as meaningful when they concern the bacterium or the slime mold.

The essence, in my view, is humility. The Greeks had it right: our hubris will probably be our undoing as a species, just as it is responsible for virtually all the world's misery.

In the end, I don't think it matters whether humility is born of religious/spiritual considerations and awe before the "numinous" or from the uncluttered realism of a rational view of the "poor, forked radish".
Humility can save us.

I also agree with other posters who've mentioned that the split between man and nature that religion articulates is a huge source of our disastrous exploitation of the planet's resources.

People clinging to religion, whether it's their own, or that of their enemies, is also the source of a lot of abuse, murder, and widespread social destruction. It's what allows some people to judge that those other people are less than human, or that they're evil.

quote:

---

Why religion is refreshing?

---

Because it's got the great taste of lemon and lime.

God won't ask what kind of car you drove, He'll ask how many people you drove who didn't have transportation.
God won't ask the square footage of your house, He'll ask how many people you welcomed into your home.
God won't ask about the clothes you had in your closet, He'll ask how many you helped to clothe.
God won't ask what your highest salary was, he'll ask if you performed your job to the best of your ability.
God won't ask how many friends you had, He'll ask to whom you were a friend.
God won't ask in what neighbourhood you lived, He'll ask how you treated you neighbours.
God won't ask about the colour of your skin, He'll ask about the content of your character.
God won't ask why it took you so long to seek Salvation, He'll lovingly take you to your mansion in heaven, and not to the gates of Hell.
God won't ask how many people you forwarded this to, He'll ask if you were ashamed to pass it on to your friends.

For me, "religion" isn't about the liturgy, the doctrine, and such. It more about what James wrote about:

quote:

---

Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world.

---

[ 17 March 2004: Message edited by: paxamillion ]

There's no need for the church if all god and religion is meant to do is keep people on a compassionate and honest straight-and-narrow. In fact, couldn't one argue that relying on the church for such direction is just a way to shirk personal responsibility and self-determination?

[ 17 March 2004: Message edited by: Lizard Breath ]

quote:

---

God won't ask how many people you forwarded this to, He'll ask if you were ashamed to pass it on to your friends.

---

This line should be required reading for Manipulation 101.

[ 17 March 2004: Message edited by: Sisyphus ]

quote:

---

Why would an omniscient being be grilling me anyway? Doesn't He/She know whether I've been naughty or nice?

---

He does! And he keeps a list, goes around the world in a single night, slides down chimneys and leaves presents for all the good little boys and girls.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lizard Breath:
There's no need for the church if all god and religion is meant to do is keep people on a compassionate and honest straight-and-narrow. In fact, couldn't one argue that relying on the church for such direction is just a way to shirk personal responsibility and self-determination?

---

I certainly don't shirk responsibilities and pass off my determination to act. It's my choice to be a member of a faith community. It's my choice to apply my will in a manner that seems to be consistent with my faith.

quote:

---

Perhaps, given the relative youth of rational-empiricism, its track record could be considered even worse than that of religion, if for no other reason than it has given us the power to do so much more damage.

---

Well said Sysyphus! Consider the basic numbers. If you add up all the people killed, tortured, etc during the worst 500 years of the church (including the SPanish Inquisition) one is hard pressed to come up with 30,000.

Stalin killed that many before breakfast. Consider those other sterling stalwarts of "science" and "progress" -- Mao Tse Tung, Pol Pot, Mengistu Haile Mariam, Samora Michel, Slobodon Milosivic....the list is long...and tragic!

Religion has been consistently painted as being a cause of division and suffering by an unsympathetic and secular controlled media. The truth is considerably different. When it comes to choosing as a neighbour a self proclaimed intellectual who thinks he's "progressive" and "scientific", versus the little old lady who prays in Sunday School, for me, at least, its a no brainer

[ 17 March 2004: Message edited by: Freedom Fighter ]

quote:

---

But to me, nonreligious philosophies of ethics and morals are far less captive to prejudices and ossified dogma than religion.

---

It sounds as though you've never lived in a Marxist country. I have, and I can assure you that Marxism -- a nonreligious philosophy -- is every bit as captive to prejudices and ossified dogma than most fundamentalist religions. The same, I think, can be said of true secular humanism, which increasingly is becoming the de facto "default" moral/ethical system of our day.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Freedom Fighter:
When it comes to choosing as a neighbour a self proclaimed intellectual who thinks he's "progressive" and "scientific", versus the little old lady who prays in Sunday School, for me, at least, its a no brainer

---

Not for me. You could get a really nice old Christian lady who is the salt of the earth - or you could just as easily get the nice little old lady who prays in Sunday School but whose gossip in Women's groups and during after church coffee hour would curl your hair - and living next door, guess who would be the subject of the gossip!

I guess the point I'm making, which is the same as the post that started this thread, is that religion has been too maligned in the corporate controlled media. It highlights the failings of the "church" (witness the way the pedophile charges against priests are broadcast far and wide) while the crimes of corporations go unnoticed. Why is it that most grade school children know about the Crusades hundreds of years ago, but don't know that Stalin deliberately starved to death over 10 million kulaks?

quote:

---

Perhaps the troll means a country under a Stalinist dictatorship? Or perhaps, being a right-wing troll and all (notice how they always have agressive, Rambistic handles?) he is simply referring to Saskatchewan...

---

Lagata, I certainly wasn't referring to Saskatchewan. Take almost any country built on Marxist ideology (dialectical materialism) which claimed to be based on progressive science: Soviet Union; China; Cambodia; Laos; Vietnam; Ethiopia under the Dergue; Mozambique under Samora Machel....etc.

Wherever this ideologoy was applied, it brought horror and suffering.

And to point this out makes me a right wing troll?

The point I was trying to make is: I am sick of the arrogance of our culture that pretends that there is a rational explanation, solution, justification for everything.

When all the babbling is over, the bottom line is always: what have we done? How kind have we been to each other?

Often I find a simple faith more refreshing than all the scientific mumbo-jumbo put together.

The little old lady, who says: "I won’t hurt him, because it isn’t right” is far superior in my mind, as a human being, to the scientist who finds compelling reasons to build an even deadlier WMD.

The young man who is drafted into an army, and refuses to go, because “killing isn’t right” is far superior to the one who swallows all the bullshit they feed him and agrees to become a killing machine.

What we need is: humanistic moral values we are willing to die for (if necessary), but not kill for.

What we need is more people who have simple faith in their humanity and won’t let clever demagogues rob them of it. (Imagine if most young people, all over the world, refused to become trained killers and just stayed home?)

Like the little old lady next door, who says: “I do it, because it is the right thing to do”.

The alternative?

The world we live in now, where everything can be ‘rationally justified’ by our clever lawyers and clever politicians.

...and the killing continues...and there is ALWAYS a very good REASON for it. And very little FAITH to help us refuse to go along...

PS. We need 'good faith' to stand up to 'bad reason'.

[ 17 March 2004: Message edited by: Francis Mont ]

quote:

---

windymustang and paxamillion, a good conscience could do the same job for you, don't you think
...In fact, couldn't one argue that relying on the church for such direction is just a way to shirk personal responsibility and self-determination?
...I think religions without churches, rules, tithes or rituals are refreshing.

---

quote:

---

1. Agreed LB, it's just that our conscience is based in our faith which atolls acts of generousity, selflessness and faithfulness. These are tennants we live by as we live lives of faith.

---

That's great, but I don't live a life of faith, as you put it, and I am quite generous, selfless, and compassionate. All on my own accord too. I vehemently disagree with the underlying presumption in your post that conscientiousness is necessarily linked to faith and religious tenets.

quote:

---

2. Most religions give direction to take personal responsibility for our actions, so your arguement is groundless.

---

quote:

---

As an agnostic, pacifist scientist, I find your arguments baseless, contrived and contradictory. But then again, you've admitted an aversion to rational thought, so there's probably no point in debating with you.

---

Ubu, I think you're missing a very valid point. Just because someone rejects religion does not mean that they are, at the same time, adopting "rational thought" (witness the mass delusion in our academic instituions two decades ago where marxism was fashionable) I had one professor who told me that he didn't see how anyone could be intelligent and not a marxist -- this a York university. Well where are all those armchair marxists now? Most are off on the latest political trend.

Contrary to what you might think, most religious people do have the ability to reason and while they base their world view on "faith", it is often a rational faith. They might come to different conclusions than you do, but that doesn't mean they are inferior.

quote:

---

Evidence is not the same as proof, but it does show that there is rational justification for believing in God

---

quote:

---

What most atheists fail to acknowledge is that it takes faith -- sometimes a lot more faith -- to believe that we are all descended from a rock, than to believe in the intelligent design of the universe.

---

Who ever suggests that we're descended from a rock? Most atheists I know believe that we're all descended from other animals.

Others don't care for the burden of trying to explain how the universe began, and eschew the whole thing, other than to add that there's currently no more evidence that we were created by an omnipotent space being than there is that...well, that we were descended from a rock.

Both religion and science provide multitudinous examples in history of people behaving horribly in the name of their beliefs. Living what I call an "ethical life" is a personal decision; secular and religious people usually just have different reasons for making that decision.

Although I am in no way religious, I am a strong believer in the golden rule on which many of the major world religions are founded: Treat others as you would like them to treat you.

Anybody else read Dr. Rob Buchman's "Can We Be Good Without God?"

If you reread the two posts I made, you might see that religion was not the essence of what I was talking about. Probably the closest I came to expressing my point was by saying: “What we need is: humanistic moral values we are willing to die for (if necessary), but not kill for. What we need is more people who have simple faith in their humanity and won’t let clever demagogues rob them of it. ”

It so often happens that average, well meaning people get confused by clever sophistry and support policies that result in tragedies. “The end justifies the means” is one of the most dangerous human attitudes. If we adopt that, then all we need is do the justification. Justification is most often done by faulty logic and/or incorrect assumptions.

I don't believe that the 60% or so Americans who supported the Iraq war are all bloodthirsty war-mongers. A large majority of them are confused and think that they are supporting the fight against evil by accepting a "smaller collateral damage". They got convinced by the "reasons" presented to them: first protecting themselves, then liberating the Iraqis.

Had they had some basic, unshakable faith in their humanity (or God's commandments or the universal life force, or...), they would have said: "You can't achieve noble goals by killing innocents. There must be another way (as, of course, there was).

Your average citizen out there, who isn’t skillful with logical manipulation, may get convinced that he has no choice but go along.

Now comes the main point: If this average citizen had the moral strength to refuse to go along with the logic, even if he doesn’t know how to refute it, because he has faith in something (be it God or Gaia or his own humanity) we would have a lot less evil happening in the world.

When Albert Einstein was approached during WWII and asked to support the Manhattan Project, his answer was: “Gentlemen, your reasons are unanswerable, your justification is irrefutable, your case is compelling - however, I will not do it. Why? Because it is wrong!”

PS. For the record: my education is in Theoretical Physics, my profession is in Computers and I do not believe in any particular God. However, I do keep an open mind.

[ 18 March 2004: Message edited by: Francis Mont ]

PS. Blame the little old lady I met yesterday who said: "I don't think it is nice to bomb people. I don't think God likes it".

quote:

---

PS. Blame the little old lady I met yesterday who said: "I don't think it is nice to bomb people. I don't think God likes it".

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Francis Mont:
PS. Blame the little old lady I met yesterday who said: "I don't think it is nice to bomb people. I don't think God likes it".

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by paxamillion:

Yeah, definitely her fault you opened this thread.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Francis Mont:
I am deeply honoured to have so many experts here on my motivational psychology. Why not leave the analysis of each other's thought processes out of it and respond to arguments? Anyway, I am done with the topic for the time being, having said what I thought was important to say.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mr. Magoo:
Before you go though.. this little old lady that we should be trying to be more like: she doesn't discriminate against homosexuals, and approves of their right to marry just like anyone else, right?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Francis Mont:
I am deeply honoured to have so many experts here on my motivational psychology. Why not leave the analysis of each other's thought processes out of it and respond to arguments? Anyway, I am done with the topic for the time being, having said what I thought was important to say.

---

quote:

---

Funny though that apparently to you "descended from a rock" is the height of absurdity, whereas "created from dust by a magical being who wants supplicants to worship him" makes an intuitive kind of sense

---

Not a "magical being", an entity which exists outside of space and time as we understand it. This is far easier to accept by faith than that we descended from animals, who descended from one celled creatures, who descended from inanimate chemicals (Ie rocks and minerals).

quote:

---

Evidence is not the same as proof, but it does show that there is rational justification for believing in God
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Please explain this statement.

---

quote:

---

Not a "magical being", an entity which exists outside of space and time as we understand it.

---

Then how is it that so many people of faith claim to know and understand so much about this being, who exists in a realm outside of any understanding? They seem to know what he likes, what he doesn't, who he hates... A whole lotta stuff.

quote:

---

Not a "magical being", an entity which exists outside of space and time as we understand it.

---

You exist in time and space and 'it' doesn't. Then how does it get involved with you in the first place. Surely, if it is going to interact with you, or create you or damn you to eternal suffering, it must come into contact with you in 'time and space" (at least to be able to observe you in 'time and space') and so must somehow "exists inside of space and time as we understand it," (not the it that is the being 'it' but the 'it' that is the 'time and space' it.)

Also, if it exist outside "time and space" as we understand it, then how do you understand that it exist outside of time and space?

And, if it exist outside "time and space" as we understand it, then how do you understand it? That would seem to be important if you were, say, Moses?

I don't understand you.

Unless you were 'it' that you postulated above, in which case it is perfectly comprehensible that you would be incomprehensible, based on your the incomprehensiblty principle you formulated.

Please explain.

[ 18 March 2004: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Freedom Fighter:

A full explanation would take volumes.

---

quote:

---

If it is "specified", there must be a 'specifier", just as a computer program implies a programmer.

---

quote:

---

This is far easier to accept by faith than that we descended from animals, who descended from one celled creatures, who descended from inanimate chemicals (Ie rocks and minerals).

Either way, it takes "faith".

---

Not so much really. You might be able to quibble about whether or not it's proof, but we have some pretty concrete physical evidence of evolution.

We've had this discussion a bazillion times, and it is a little tedious to go over and over the same old arguments.

quote:

---

But one small example of the evidence for "intelligent design" can be found in the DNA code.

---

Yup. And evidence of the Virgin Mary can be found in oil stains on driveways, window reflections, and tortilla chips. Same same.

quote:

---

Some of the older ladies at our church do.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mr. Magoo:
Cool. What about the war though? Any of 'em support it?

---

quote:

---

It's also begging the question.

---

quote:

---

But one small example of the evidence for "intelligent design" can be found in the DNA code. Scientists almost universally refer to "specified complexity" when describing DNA. If it is "specified", there must be a 'specifier", just as a computer program implies a programmer.

---

DNA evolved from RNA.

More basically, Spinoza refuted the "argument from design" in 1679. But at that time, critics claimed it was "man" who was so perfect that he required a creator.

When the evolution of humans from shown to all but the most obdurate as historically true, the claim regressesd one step. "Ok, so man evolved, but eyes had to be created".

Then, when all sorts of near-eye phenomena are shown to exist in the world of nature, and likely evolutionary tracks shown, there is further backpedalling.

So now it's DNA, (even though there is good evidence of DNA evolving from predecessor chemical compounds).

Eventually we will get back to square one, which is: "The universe is so perfect it requires a creator."

And the answer they will demand: "God".

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sisyphus:

Thank you, Jingles! I find it refreshing to see that phrase used correctly once in a while.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Andy Social:
Here's the ultimate example of begging the question:
"God exists because it says so in the Bible. How do we know that the Bible is true? It has to be, because it's the word of God."

---

Also a touch of circular reasoning, too, isn't it?

quote:

---

Originally posted by red2:
i like religion because it really is the opiate of the masses , and everybody needs a hit once in a while.
faith based on stupidity, irresponsible pandering and drivel. its like porn without the fun.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rufus Polson:
It was a lot like Mel's movie, actually.

---

quote:

---

Then how is it that so many people of faith claim to know and understand so much about this being, who exists in a realm outside of any understanding? They seem to know what he likes, what he doesn't, who he hates... A whole lotta stuff.

---

Because if God exists outside of space and time as we know it, and he created us for the purpose of communication and fellowship with Him, then it is logical to believe that, at some time (perhaps constantly) He has communicated with us. Then the question is which direct revelation (Koran, Bible, Baghavad Vida, etc) is true revelation. Thus the foundation for the disciplines of theology.

quote:

---

i like religion because it really is the opiate of the masses , and everybody needs a hit once in a while.
faith based on stupidity, irresponsible pandering and drivel. its like porn without the fun.

---

quote:

---

Here's the ultimate example of begging the question:
"God exists because it says so in the Bible. How do we know that the Bible is true? It has to be, because it's the word of God."

---

Yes, this is circular reasoning. But it is a straw dummy. This is NOT how any credible apologist for religion would argue the case for the existence of a Deity.

One argument for a deity (which I'm sure others could express much more eloquently) is based, not on the absurd circular logic cited above, but on true linear reasoning:

We exist, and we observe a universe that has design and order. It has laws that are predictable, and consistent (Ie mathematics and physics)

We infer from this (as in the example of DNA cited above) that there is a Creator. If there is a Creator, and because we are sentient, we can imagine that perhaps this Creator created us for some purpose. Then we then set out to determine, using logic, reason, and our brainpower, if this Creator has communicated with His creation. Which leads us to (as the case of the Abrahamic religions) the example and word of the prophets, and revealed sacred texts, and the example of history itself.

quote:

---

Because if God exists outside of space and time as we know it, and he created us for the purpose of communication and fellowship with Him, then it is logical to believe that, at some time (perhaps constantly) He has communicated with us. Then the question is which direct revelation (Koran, Bible, Baghavad Vida, etc) is true revelation.

---

If god exists outside space and time, and wanted us for communicatin and fellowship, why did he create us within space and time? Why not create another being outside space and time so he would have a tennis partner directly?

It's like me creating bacteria and wanting them to worship me. Pretty pathetic. Not only are they in a realm beyond my abilities to experience directly, but me, being super intelligent and all, would find a bacteria to be a pretty lame companion. What would we talk about? And after I smite a few, it would get pretty old. I'd probably just forget about them and their petri dish would dry up....but I digress.

As for the question of True Revelation, if this god was all-powerful, all-seeing, all-knowing, all-singing, all-dancing, etc, then revelations wouldn't be necessary, since everyone, everywhere, and at all time would have absolutely no doubt and no question about the nature of his being. Humans would have one constant, clear and unchanging religion without schizm, without variation, and without conflict. There would be no Mayan temples, Ra, Jehovah , Allah, Buffalo Woman, Zeus, Bacchus, Thor, and many thousands of other dieties, minor or major throughout the world. We wouldn't be having this discussion. If I were a god, you can be damn sure everyone knew it.

[ 18 March 2004: Message edited by: Jingles ]

No one is saying there aren't many mysteries. We "see through a glass darkly" at this time.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lizard Breath:
Am I an apologetic? What do you mean by that anyways?

---

No, no, no, LB. Apologetics is a branch of theology devoted to, amongst other things, proof for the existence of God. It has been my experience that conversations on such a topic tend to go over the same ground and accomplish little while seeming intense.

People are sometimes spoken of as being apologists for certain causes, or organizations. However, I wasn't trying to hang a label on you, LB, or suggest you were giving me a headache.

quote:

---

...In fact, couldn't one argue that relying on the church for such direction is just a way to shirk personal responsibility and self-determination?

2. Most religions give direction to take personal responsibility for our actions, so your arguement is groundless.

---

Actually, the question of personal responsibility is a tough question whether you believe in God of not. If you don't, and believe (like me) that we are physical systems, then it's hard to see how what we call "free will" (a prerequisite to any sense of responsibility more significant than the sense in which a nail is responsible for a flat tire) could be anything other than an illusion, hard-wired into us through natural selection (since the belief that you didn't have free will would obviously be highly maladaptive). If you do believe in God, then you have another problem- if God is the omniscient being that s/he is supposed to be, then s/he knows the future infallibly, including everything that you do, and it couldn't be otherwise, since for it to be otherwise would require God to be wrong, which is inconceivable. And if you couldn't do otherwise, than it's absurd to assign praise or blame for what you do. So again we have a situation where it's hard to make sense of free will.

I'm not trying to say that we should reject the idea of free will and hence personal responsibility. I merely point out that (1) we have a real problem here, and (2) neither theists nor atheists should cast stones at each other as the main source of the problem.

[ 18 March 2004: Message edited by: Mike Keenan ]

quote:

---

but religion is about as absolute as you can get.

---

quote:

---

What is interesting though, in all of these religions, despite their many differences, is the "golden rule" of "doing onto others as you would have them do unto you" (expressed in different wording, but ultimately saying the same thing) as opposed to the "liberal" gov't/corporate" golden rule, under which we are now living of "He who has the gold, makes the rules".

---

quote:

---

So again we have a situation where it's hard to make sense of free will.

---

quote:

---

Religiouse leaders within and outside of denominations are constantly debating the meaning of religious texts therefor there are no absolutes.

---

Have they ever debated the existence of God? By any chance, does that debate (if it even occurs) consistently end the same way? Have they ever debated God's gender? How'd that end?

I'm talking about genuine doubt as to the nature of this being-from-another-time-and-space, and you're talking about debating how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

quote:

---

What is interesting though, in all of these religions, despite their many differences, is the "golden rule" of "doing onto others as you would have them do unto you"

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sisyphus:
Pride in our ability to "fix the Earth" or in our special status as creatures formed "in the Image of God" will sink us.

---

We broke it. We better fix it.

Someone in here must have had the experience of having one's mother or father admonish them to repair a window broken by an errant baseball.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Freedom Fighter:
Not a "magical being", an entity which exists outside of space and time as we understand it. This is far easier to accept by faith than that we descended from animals, who descended from one celled creatures, who descended from inanimate chemicals (Ie rocks and minerals).

Either way, it takes "faith".

---

The first front is that it assumes that it is difficult for complex things to emerge from simple things. But actually large numbers of purely random interactions can produce quite complex systems. We are just beginning to scratch the surface of the science of chaos and complexity, but there is enough knowledge about this to realize that over very long periods of time, enough randomness can produce all sorts of organisms, to all sorts of detail.

quote:

---

Originally posted by windymustang:


God has given us free will, the will to choose our own path. S/He is omnipotent in that S/He knows what is and will and what has happened, but usually doesn't step in to control our everyday lives barring a miracle.

---

quote:

---

Have they ever debated God's gender? How'd that end?

---

This is taking me back almost 20 years, so I apologize in advance for errors. As I recall, Hebrew contains the structure for depicting a being as neither male nor female. God was depicted as such in the Old Testament. We don't have such a structure in English which has caused problems.

quote:

---

And how do you know God didn't "spake" to Charles Darwin?

---

Perhaps God did "spake" to Darwin, (as He does to all of us at times), but, like many of us who don't always listen, Darwin likely ignored what he was hearing.

For me, at least, the "From goo to you by way of the zoo" theory just doesn't cut it. There's just way to little empirical scientific evidence for it.

For any of you who seriously want to investigate this issue from the "other side"

http://www.straight-talk.net/evolution/fossil.htm

http://www.straight-talk.net/evolution/arguments.shtml

http://www.ridgenet.net/~do_while/sage/index.htm

http://www.ridgenet.net/~do_while/sage/v1i1r.htm

http://www.ridgenet.net/~do_while/sage/v5i10f.htm

My parents gave me life, and my humanity provides my free will. As a result of what I've learned thus far in life, I have a sense of myself and my humanity such that I feel responsible to the planet that sustains me and to my fellows with whom I share this earth. It has nothing to do with a divine omnipotence. It has everything to do with simply being a sentient and compassionate animal with an ability to relate to the other sentient beings around me.

I choose my actions based on internal drives and needs, be they physical necessities or intellectual desires. My personal predelictions are informed by past experiences, and information gathered from my environment.

I also reject the notion that we don't have to fix this planet, because god's gonna do it, or it's his job or something. We live here, the planet provides us with all of our livelihoods, and we are the only entities responsible for its demise. We are the only real thing. Our lives on this planet, and the other life that we share them with (plants, animals etc.) are all that we have, all that there is, and hoping or expecting something else to come from outside of time and space to help us is at best, dreaming.

[ 19 March 2004: Message edited by: Lizard Breath ]

quote:

---

I also reject the notion that we don't have to fix this planet, because god's gonna do it,

---

The first presents a fundamental misunderstanding of evolution, based in part around the 'no transitional forms' canard, and treats Darwinism as the only expression of evolution, when in fact Darwin was working in a evidntial vacuum which has since been filled. Specifically, evolution does not operate by the gradual transition of one form to another. To take one case, the development of a whale's blowhole did not involve the migration of the nose from the center of the face slowly up to the top of the head, but rather a mutation featuring a radical shift in nose position which conferred adaptive benefits to the mutant, and therefore ensured this genetic mutation was more likely to be passed on to its descendants.

In the second, footnoted references consistently were inaccurate, referring to anti-evolution webpages that made no reference to what they were purported to. (3/3 tested, hey, I've got other priorities than fact-checking each link, but I stand by my claim)

The third presents sweeping unsourced and inaccurate statements about evolution, while making general unproven assertions.

The fourth presents four 'ads' each presenting a fundamental misunderstanding of evolution along the 'no transitional forms' line mentioned above, and also makes the claim the SAGE is a secular organization

The fifth debunks the previous page's claim that SAGE is a secular organization, by arguing in favour of creation scientists and provides a rating scheme along an evolution/Christianity scale.

quote:

---

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Sisyphus:
Pride in our ability to "fix the Earth" or in our special status as creatures formed "in the Image of God" will sink us.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

We broke it. We better fix it.

Someone in here must have had the experience of having one's mother or father admonish them to repair a window broken by an errant baseball.

Or is it only windows that need to be fixed and not planets

---

If you read my quote carefully, you'll see the emphasis was on "Pride in our ability to fix the Earth".

It's pretty clear that for economic (mostly) and scientific (exploited by those focused on the former) reasons, that we've been very caavlier about the effects of our technological apprenticeship on the planet: global warming, "superbugs", toxic waste dumps, storage of fissle byproducys, WMD, hormone analoguesand other contributors to the toxic loasd on the global biomass...

We either deny the problems or sit, complacent, trusting that out ability it equal to the task.

I'm not suggesting that we don't use every technology and hard-won piece piece of scientific understanding to try to fix the problems, but any assertion that we will be able to do so is based on blind faith.

It is this faith --served with a heaping side of greed-- that got us into this trouble in the first place.

Nobody has any idea what the effects of shitting in our house on the scale that we have really are, so there is no way to predict the effects of any attempts to "fix" things.

Doing less of what we have done in the past, rather than adding new variables to the equation seems to me the wiser course of action, but the horse has left and barn door's nailed open...

So, yes, we have to do something, even if it's just fiddling while Rome burns. If we're lucky it won't be adding fuel to the fire

[ 19 March 2004: Message edited by: Sisyphus ]

Ah, sisyphus, I see where you're going with that now. I think I would argue that the folks most seriously responsible for the destruction of the planet (Big Oil, warmongers, etc.) have no interest, never mind faith, in our ability or lack thereof to fix the planet. They simply don't give a shit, and that's why they've lost all view of reasonable limits or mitigating the damage done.

quote:

---

Have they ever debated God's gender? How'd that end?

---

quote:

---

Ah, sisyphus, I see where you're going with that now. I think I would argue that the folks most seriously responsible for the destruction of the planet (Big Oil, warmongers, etc.) have no interest, never mind faith, in our ability or lack thereof to fix the planet. They simply don't give a shit, and that's why they've lost all view of reasonable limits or mitigating the damage done.

---

Agreed, hence my crude attempt to divvy up the blame. Still, as someone who works closely with scientific researchers, I feel compelled to point out that these last, even if quite cynical and sophisticated about the world in general, tend to allow themselves to be blinded to the implications of their work outside its scientific context. As a result, they furnish the "the folks most responsible for the destruction of the planet" (FMRFDP), with the tools to destroy the planet and get rich while doing it.

The scientists are rewarded with prestige and funds, both important tools with which to continue the noble pursuit of science, leaving aside the less noble practitioners of the discipline for now.

I agree that the above analysis is a bit simplistic, largely because I think the practice of basic science is different than technology dvelopment, though the line has been blurred, in my area of endeavour, predominantly by agribusiness and pharmaceutical companies, but that's another issue.

I had harped earlier about Humility. I'm of the opinion that what makes science a respectable pursuit is its regard for the principles of skepticism and humility (particulary in the more empirical sciences that I'm partial to).

quote:

---

And indeed, someday everyone shall know, without any question or doubt, this awesome and powerful God.

---

Whooooosh.....

If god is so awesome and powerful, what's the hold up? I mean, "someday"? That's a weak dodging of the question, falling back on the non-answer "It's part of god's mysterious plan". That just doesn't cut it.

quote:

---

but just because we do not understand all that this Supreme Being is doing or planning, does not mean that we have proof -- or even evidence -- that He does not exist.

---

Once again, you make the claim for existence, you must provide the proof. If I claim a giant squirrel is really running the world (which would be awesome), I must provide proof for that claim. I can't demand you disprove it because, everyone say it with me now, you can't prove a negative.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jingles:
Is God circumcised?

---

quote:

---

If I claim a giant squirrel is really running the world

---

That would explain why the world is full of nuts.

(sorry)

[ 19 March 2004: Message edited by: Sarcasmobri ]

quote:

---

Things like this are debated all the time in religious groups. How did it end? It didn't. These are ongoing debates among thoughtful people.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mr. Magoo:

Really? 'Cuz I could have sworn it ended with all Christian religions agreeing that God is male. Are you suggesting that some Christian religions refer to God as "she"? Or that some assert that God is neither male nor female (thus contradicting any assertion that we were made in "its" image)?

---

quote:

---

Seriously, if you're not gonna question some basic assumptions about your belief system, then it's pure delusion. Faith is little more than a shirking of the responsibility to think and act for oneself. It is a mindset that practically begs to be manipulated by those who know what buttons to push. It is the mindset of slavery.

---

People of faith are just that, people of FAITH. We believe it is a rational faith because it is based on logical, scientific, and experiential evidence. If we had PROOF, then it wouldn't be FAITH.

quote:

---

Is God male?

---

God is supposed to be jealous, petty, quick with the smiting, has violent mood swings, and appears as a burning bush...sounds like an ex-girlfriend.

quote:

---

has violent mood swings, and appears as a burning bush

---

quote:

---

But the preponderance of evidence suggests that Intelligent Design is more credible than "goo to you through the zoo"

---

There is no evidence for, and no reason to believe in "intelligent design". Nothing in the natural world suggests it to anyone whose understanding of science has progressed beyond that of the early nineteenth century.

The thing that really irks me, really really irks me, is the pitting of science and religion against each other. It's stupid. Religion explains how things work from a spiritual perspective. Science explains how things work from a material perspective. It is entirely possible to accommodate both in the same sane, intelligent mind, without undue conflict.

quote:

---

We believe it is a rational faith because it is based on logical, scientific, and experiential evidence.

---

Which is it? Is faith a rational, logical, and scientific, or is it beyond rationality? You can't have it both ways. If it is rational, logical, and scientific than it isn't "faith". Faith by its defintition is beyond proof. So to say that faith is arrived at scientifically either displays a profound misunderstanding of what science does, or is a cynical attempt to hijack the language of science to mask the immense shortcomings of the belief system.

If faith was scientifically determined, why is it that the conclusion is, surprise surprise, the same as your premise? That ain't science. I'm not gonna bother explaining the difference either. It should be self-evident.

quote:

---

People of faith are just that, people of FAITH. We believe it is a rational faith because it is based on logical, scientific, and experiential evidence.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by paxamillion:
As a person of faith, FF, I ask you to speak for yourself.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hinterland:
My religious upbringing taught me that anti-intellectualism is a sin.

---

quote:

---

It is entirely possible to accommodate both in the same sane, intelligent mind, without undue conflict.

---

Well said! True religion AND true science do not have to be in conflict. For some, this concept appears threatening.

quote:

---

Originally posted by windymustang:
You have been given the right to choose. God knows the choice you will make. You still are choosing which direction you are taking, S/He is not forcing you to make that decision.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Freedom Fighter:

And the flip side of that is that non-religion (or atheism) is not necessarily based on "science". At the end of the day we chose to believe either way based on "faith"....to state that one is scientific and "logical" while the other is "irrational" is simply disingenuous.

---

Atheism is not the only form of non-religion. One can be an agnostic as well. To be a true atheist, i.e. to say one is certain that God does not exist, is to have a faith of sorts, but to be an agnostic is not.

That said, a few things do still have to be taken on faith- that the external world exists and is not an illusion, that the world is comprehensible, etc. I simply don't think God is one of those things.

[ 19 March 2004: Message edited by: Mike Keenan ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mike Keenan:
Atheism is not the only form of non-religion. One can be an agnostic as well. To be a true atheist, i.e. to say one is certain that God does not exist, is to have a faith of sorts, but to be an agnostic is not.

---

Religion is a human-created structure that houses faith or belief. If anyone is looking for definite "proof" of the presence or absence of a god or gods in the universe, it just isn't possible. I believe it is a matter of mindset, of inclination, and perhaps of cultural context and upbringing, that leads one to either belief in or deny the existence of a god or gods.

quote:

---

The thing that really irks me, really really irks me, is the pitting of science and religion against each other. It's stupid. Religion explains how things work from a spiritual perspective. Science explains how things work from a material perspective. It is entirely possible to accommodate both in the same sane, intelligent mind, without undue conflict./QUOTE]
Well said Rebecca. I guess we people of faith, yes I know not you, are not totally clueless about science and technology, and try and keep up to date and informed.
Originally posted by Mike Keenan:
[QUOTE] otherwise the possibly exists that you will do something other than that which God predicts.

---

quote:

---

There's nothing wrong with having faith, or religion, or being atheist, or anti-religion. What matters is how we treat each other and how we impact the earth by our stay on it.

---

quote:

---

To be a true atheist, i.e. to say one is certain that God does not exist, is to have a faith of sorts, but to be an agnostic is not.

---

This definition of atheism is a bit flawed. I could just as easily say that the refusal to believe in Odin is a form of faith. The certainty that Odin does not exist, or that Loki and Thor will battle it out at the end of time, is simply a matter of faith.

For many atheists, the dismissal of God simply doesn't enter their minds. It takes no faith to ignore a concept completely.

[ 20 March 2004: Message edited by: Sarcasmobri ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rebecca West:
Actually Mike, and FF, neither of you is entirely correct. Atheism is not a non-religion. It is the absence of a belief that there is a god or gods who created the universe and everything in it. There are religions that do not require a belief in a god or gods, just as there are people who believe in a god, but reject religion outright.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by windymustang:
Utter nonsense. God is not predicting what choice I will make. God knows what choice I will make, but it is still my choice.

---

But is it really? If you couldn't do otherwise, how can it be called a free choice?

"Men became scientific because they expected Law in Nature, and they expected Law in Nature because they believed in a Legislator. In most modern scientists this belief has died: it will be interesting to see how long their confidence in uniformity survives it. Two significant developments have already appeared—the hypothesis of a lawless sub-nature, and the surrender of the claim that science is true. We may be living nearer than we suppose to the end of the Scientific Age’