For most of us, there are viewpoints or ideas that we greet with howls of derision. Which points of view are dissed depends on the community we identify with, mostly, and what we've been taught.

On babble, neo-Nazis, Ayn Randian individualist/capitalists, straight laissez-faire capitalists, their Libertarian cousins, hard-line Zionists, Roman Catholics, Christians of other denominations, scientific method champions, science sceptics and NDP policy wonks are all groups who have met more or less derision. I'd say the groups listed after "libertarian cousins" all have enough supporters or apologists that any contempt heaped on them did not go unopposed (in fact, the last 3 are pretty strong).

On freedominion, the list looks quite different.

Are some points of view inherently inferior to others, and are there universal criteria?

Why is it stupid to be a racist when my sources tell me that race x is inferior to race y?

Is logic and evidence sufficient, or is there a moral standard?

In what circumstances do people have to justify their beliefs?

On the "Gawd" thread, the following exchange occurred:

quote:

---

Well, if it looks, feels and smells like bullshit, chances are it is. I've yet to see any coherent defence of theism mounted here beyond attacks on the fallibility of the scientific method, the limitations of our knowledge of what is true and teh belief in equivilancy between ideas. Which, to me, is bunk.

---

BD, why should I trust your "bullshit" detector?

As ronb alludes in his reply, quantum mechanics is filled with outrageous conclusions. Einstein thought it was highly suspect.

I could argue wrt to belief in God, that Faith requires an object and cannot spring up acausally. The harmony and precise values of the basic physical constants which allowed the evolution of Life capable of worshipping God is evidence that the Universe was created with purpose. A purposeful Creator (God) follows.

You might say that the conclusion isn't inevitable (to you) from the observations, but, if it is to me, then I have evidence of God.

Most new ideas that turn out to be true(commonsense definition) appeared ludicrous at first sight.

Why did the idea that people shouldn't be responsible for their own behaviours (regardless of difficult circumstances) merit such condemnation on this board that it resulted in a poster being banned?

That viewpoint would have been applauded on freedominion.ca.

Do we ever have the right to mock certain beliefs?

Religion in some form is - and has ever been - so widespread among human beings that it must have some basis. Not necessarily in objective fact, but certainly in subjective perception, in intellectual conceptualization, in emotional need.
There is some reason for it to have begun as an idea and to continue as a force in people's lives.

Think of the religious view as a way of describing the world - just as music, painting, cinema, economics, biology, physics and other disciplines are ways of describing the world. Each has its own language and imagery; each has a different point of view. Human beings are able to understand two or more of these descriptions - at the same time. None is a perfect or complete explanation; each adds a dimension to our understanding of the world.

quote:

---

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, if it looks, feels and smells like bullshit, chances are it is. I've yet to see any coherent defence of theism mounted here beyond attacks on the fallibility of the scientific method, the limitations of our knowledge of what is true and teh belief in equivilancy between ideas. Which, to me, is bunk.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

BD, why should I trust your "bullshit" detector?

---

You needn't. That's why I included the qualifier "to me..."

quote:

---

Do we ever have the right to mock certain beliefs?

---

It's just a cousin of the endless "moral relativism" debate. Whether we actually have the right to judge or mock other's beliefs or even actions is uncertain. However, we can always count on the fact that there will be people who will take it upon themselves to judge or mock other's beliefs or actions.

quote:

---

: do we have the right to judge or mock those who judge or mock other's beliefs or actions?

---

Cute.

nonesuch, well-said. Upon re-reading my earnest, hand-wringing post that started this thread, I realized that it suggests a view that's just more tolerant and sensitive than I am, or care to be.

Some viewpoints ARE ridiculous, in my view, and should be treated as such. If I can't defend my views in the context they're being attacked, then I can discredit the context, learn to argue better or change my views.

When I was a theist, I found that logic and proof weren't at the core of my Faith and it wasn't logical refutation or new evidence that caused me to abandon it.

I think this thread is just an attempt to turn what is essentially a question of rudeness into a major soul-searching angst-fest. Or at least that's how it looks to me now.

Fact is, there are groups of people who'll mock any viewpoint it's possible to hold. Babblers, as a group, just have a different subset, as do we all. Babble policy flatly outlaws certain of these.

After thinking about it, I don't think it's really such a big deal: If one's beliefs can't stand some derision from rude, close-minded ideologues, then they're probably not worth entertaining.

Edited again to add: People who believe in supply-side economics are even more clueless than children who believe in the tooth fairy. My son
really does find a twoonie replacing his tooth when he puts it under his pillow!

Damn, but that felt goooo-ood!

[ 25 September 2003: Message edited by: Sisyphus ]

The way I figure it, I'm just not psychologically pre-disposed to be religious and others, their relative intellectual properties notwithstanding, are. I even allow that my psychological state of being can be affected by events and maybe someday I will be religious.

Having that viewpoint, I find it not just rude, but kind of incongruous to mock or belittle the viewpoints of others. I even recognise that spiritual models for experiencing the cosmos are often not just pro-social, but even elegant and beautiful. This ranges from a natural animist spirituality to the almost over articulated religious models which are as crafted as a fugue or a drawing by Raphael.

The closest I come to this is just a feeling I may get when walking alone in the country, or in a canoe on a still wilderness lake. This I just experience, with my brain merely an observer. I have no wish to give this experience a name, to analyse it, or to join with like minded people to do it.

My problem with other belief systems comes from proslytising. That many people who believe in the literal interpretation of the Book of Revelations try to bend US government policy to their beliefs I find dangerous. I don't object to racism because it is objectively misguided, but because it is dangerous, and causes harm. I don't mock those beliefs, but I'll battle them.

[ 25 September 2003: Message edited by: oldgoat ]

Sometimes, however, there's room for one of those infamous "me too" posts, just to show that such a (in my view, reasonable) point of view is more widely represented than one might guess from the, ah, more hostile approaches to the subject.

In my experience, some of the people who feel most driven to mock and deride the religious are those who have had to deal with much peer-pressure to accept someone else's religion. This does not excuse the rudeness, but may help to explain how over-defensiveness may turn into overt hostility. I've been known to get sarcastic along those lines when some folk - often well-intentioned - tell me that I couldn't possibly really not believe in their God. I try not to let that lash out, though, at those who haven't intruded on my personal belief space, so to speak.

quote:

---

Having that viewpoint, I find it not just rude, but kind of incongruous to mock or belittle the viewpoints of others.

---

quote:

---

My problem with other belief systems comes from proslytising.

---

If you want to see things get nasty, look up an old "gun control" thread, for example. What makes it OK to mock someone who believes that they have a right to responsibly own a gun? Surely no opinion on that thread could be any more emotional, less logical, or more harmful overall than the belief that there's an all-powerful, invisible being somewhere who made you and watches you and will judge you. So why is the rudeness OK?

quote:

---

What makes it OK to mock someone who believes that they have a right to responsibly own a gun?

---

[ 26 September 2003: Message edited by: Rebecca West ]

This brought up two points for me. First, this business of "harm". I stayed away from what looked like a "Science did/does more harm vs. Religion did/does more harm" argument for a couple of reaons. In general, lots of bad things have happened in the name of both, but most often, IMO, when the line between them gets blurred or when people who want power and were going to do terrible things anyway, want a plausible excuse.
None of this relates to the content of either religious or scientific ideas and so I think it's irrelevant.

Both religion and science have been civilising and inspirational additions to human culture and have inspired courageous individuals to do great things.

Who's got an exact cost-benefit accounting on either side?

True ideas may be "harmful" depending on your perspective:

The idea of the heliocentric solar system was seen to be very harmful at the time, for instance.

"Better to battle than to mock". Good advice for preserving social discourse, and preventing one or both sides from just walking away, muttering "Asshole."

Thing is, it seems to me that rightly or wrongly (and it's often wrong), mockery can be a useful weapon against ideas we don't like. It can stifle debate.

Magoo, you're right about the kinds of ideas that aren't discussed with respect here on babble, but I'm coming to the conclusion that unless people in the main can agree on what constitutes "evidence", which values (e.g. freedom vs. compassion) are more "valuable", one person's self-evident truth is always going to be another's "tooth fairy".

Maybe we just need to be more tolerant? Tolerant of racism, sexism or a justice system that punishes child molesters less harshly than welfare scammers? A generally tolerant society just lets the intolerant impose their will on the rest (at least in the short-term).

It's a group norm. There's no universal rule and never will be.

[ 26 September 2003: Message edited by: Sisyphus ]

quote:

---

I stayed away from what looked like a "Science did/does more harm vs. Religion did/does more harm" argument for a couple of reaons. In general, lots of bad things have happened in the name of both, but most often, IMO, when the line between them gets blurred or when people who want power and were going to do terrible things anyway, want a plausible excuse.

---

quote:

---

I entered into that debate for precisely the same reason you avoided it.

---

I find the defensiveness of some of my well-educated friends here to be curious. It seems odd to me that people as confident as some claim to be of certain rationalist views would be so prickly about discussions that they could instead dismiss as easily as many others dismiss, eg, foodie/recipe threads, or threads about body hair, or banter threads.

I mean, we all know that not everyone is interested in everything. And I should have thought that a-theists would just not be interested in threads about religious/spiritual thought in a general sense.

I quite understand why anyone with healthy politics might have a word or two to say about the pope and his curia, or about USian newborns and other evangelicals -- that sort of thing. But that is politics -- to me, it has next to nothing to do with religion or spirit.

I have usually taken great care to couch my own posts in these discussions in the broadest possible terms -- yet even a vague reference to philosophical inquiry into spirit will get me the back of someone's hand, and I find that odd. I think that defensive is a fair word for that reaction.

Lastly, do I think that deep thought about gun control and deep thought about the nature of human consciousness/spirit are the same kind of deep thought?

Shucks, Magoo: no, I don't.

quote:

---

Lastly, do I think that deep thought about gun control and deep thought about the nature of human consciousness/spirit are the same kind of deep thought?

Shucks, Magoo: no, I don't.

---

Gee, you could knock me over with a feather! Hopefully you at least realize this is just your particular value judgement. You don't really like guns, and probably not the people who own them either, and somehow you believe that every religious nitwit who goes to church, stands when told to, kneels when told to, and sits quietly during the sermon on the evils of homosexuality is on some kind of "quest", and that it's all some kind of deep personal exploration, rather than the uncritical following that it typically is. Why do you think Jesus is always shown surrounded by sheep and children?

Edited to add:

quote:

---

Why do you think Jesus is always shown surrounded by sheep and children?

---

Holy shit, Magoo, I hope this is an uncharacteristic lapse because from what I've seen you post before, this is beneath you.

[ 26 September 2003: Message edited by: Sisyphus ]

quote:

---

I think Magoo just very nicely demonstrated the kind of treatment that concerns me as well.

---

Ah yes. The nail that stands up is the nail that gets hammered down. I've also suggested, further up on this thread, that if anyone wants to see even more examples of posts that, IMHO, are at least as patronizing or insulting as me suggesting that most churchgoers aren't really in "curiousity" mode, they're readily available.

And at the risk of getting dismissed as a relativist yet again, nobody has, as yet, provided any real justification for why some opinions are apparently considered worthy of mocking (or, looked at the other way, simply not considered worthy of basic respect), while others seem to be sacrosanct, to wit: religious belief. I'm sorry, but it's simply not self-evident to me that some opinions, purely by dint of what they are (and in some cases, who they're owned by) are not worthy of the same respect as any other opinion. Not agreement, mind you, but respect.

quote:

---

I don't know who Magoo hunts/shoots with, but, yeah, those metaphysical, ontological and epistemological discussions do get pretty intense at the hunt camp!

---

For what it's worth, I haven't fired a gun in years. I also don't drive an SUV, and I seldom patronize McDonalds. So I have no great personal stake in any of these topics. But I've noticed long before this thread that certain opinions on these and other subjects seem to declare "open season" on the poster, and patronizing, insulting or mocking responses most often go entirely overlooked.

quote:

---

I'm asking you to pony up here.

---

No you're not. you're constructing a hypothetical gun hating Jesus loving skdadl and then puking all over her. It's your MO. Fucking tiresome for the most part.

quote:

---

And at the risk of getting dismissed as a relativist yet again, nobody has, as yet, provided any real justification for why some opinions are apparently considered worthy of mocking (or, looked at the other way, simply not considered worthy of basic respect), while others seem to be sacrosanct, to wit: religious belief. I'm sorry, but it's simply not self-evident to me that some opinions, purely by dint of what they are (and in some cases, who they're owned by) are not worthy of the same respect as any other opinion. Not agreement, mind you, but respect.

---

And you will recall, I have also, consistently, opposed the liberal gun registry act. My only argument has been against people I would consider unreasonable on the pro-gun side. Namely I believe arguing you want a gun for "defense" in Canada is a non-starter and only serves to scare people into the pro-registration camp.

But, yes, you take a view different than the norm and watch the abuse flow, eh? Maybe you, Magoo, are unreasonble. Maybe both of us are. Or maybe debate is not really the point? What do you think Magoo?

[ 26 September 2003: Message edited by: WingNut ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by nonesuch:
Anyway, it seems to be okay to mock - in the most insulting terms: Christianity, religion in general; church-going, belief in God.
It seems not okay to say anything rude about Islam in particular.
It's absolutely taboo to say anything negative about Judaism. (I was astonished to see Dr. Conway treat Judaism with respect.)
These are not religious or intellectual or polite standards: they are political ones.

---

There are a number of reasons for these treatments.

Islam. All too often, and even more so than those who confuse Christian fundamentalism for all of Christianity, many people in Anglo-America almost instinctively trash Islam and refer to believers of Islam in terms of the caricature of the suicide-bombing extremist. This sort of gross and egregious stereotyping is correctly being countered and attacked where necessary.

Judaism. First a personal statement: Just because I dislike organized religion generally and Mishei's bombast in particular does not mean I am incapable of appreciating the lack of an evangelistic-proselytizing strain in that religion or of appreciating some of the subtleties that underlie the Jewish ethnocultural gestalt. Second, an overall statement: Judaism in general is going to be like any other religion: composed of varying schools of thought and with a minority strain of fundamentalism.

Christianity. Even I know the difference between Presbyterianism and Jerry Falwell's Southern Baptism. However, I think we in Anglo-America have a little more licence to criticize Christian fundamentalism especially given the rearguard action that the Big Cheeses in the fundamentalist "tent" are fighting with the aid of the Republican party to introduce a pro-Christian cant to US government policies in violation of the US Constitution. In point of fact, Christianity in its myriad forms is the dominant religion in this country and in the USA - if only by proof of the fact that no Jewish or Islamic holiday is secularized into statutory holidays by force of law.

Furthermore, as I have repeatedly stated before, it is standard practice to swear a person on a Bible in judicial proceedings while a person must specifically ask to be allowed to affirm the truth instead.

In every way and shape and form, Christianity is clearly embedded in Anglo-America's basic culture. Yet the fundamentalists have this bizarre idea that the religion is in mortal danger of being vanquished and have a siege mentality that causes them to advocate ridiculous notions such as the idea that feminism means teaching women witchcraft and lesbianism.

And nonesuch wonders why Christian fundamentalism in particular is often held up for ridicule.

[ 26 September 2003: Message edited by: DrConway ]

That said one has to always remember that we are talking about the merits of ideas not people. "Your views are silly and idiotic" not "you are an idiot" . Also one area where I plead guilty from time to time is treating posts like oral language. They are not. They are cold and can be taken the wrong way so easily by someone who doesn't see the twinkle in your eye when you said it.

----Homer J. Simpson.

Not apropo of anything, just came to mind.

Come on. Some things are mockable. There are those who wonder at life, the universe and everything and honestly question and come up with their own answers, and sometimes those answers come down to believing in some kind of prime mover.

But all these other faerie tales?

It's mockable.

Some of my ideas are mockable too. Sometimes, I even mock my own ideas.

quote:

---

think that people should feel free to ridicule anything that they think is ridiculous. I think that people who are not active in the electoral process and think they are full citizens hold ridiculous views and I have said so.

---

quote:

---

Come on. Some things are mockable. There are those who wonder at life, the universe and everything and honestly question and come up with their own answers, and sometimes those answers come down to believing in some kind of prime mover.

But all these other faerie tales?

---

Anyway, the equation doesn't hold. You're comparing apples and ball-bearings.

Religion is an organic part of human cultures. A belief-system, with its mythology and ritual, comes down through the course of a people's experience. It defines who they are, what they hold dear, how they relate to other living things, how they view the universe. It is a characteristic of that people and it influences every member of that culture - even estranged members.

quote:

---

Maybe you, Magoo, are unreasonble. Maybe both of us are. Or maybe debate is not really the
point? What do you think Magoo?

---

Well, I think I'm reasonable, in the sense that in discussion I prefer reason to emotion, and in the sense that I can be reasoned with. What do you mean when you ask whether debate is maybe not the point? This is interesting.

quote:

---

These are not religious or intellectual or polite standards: they are political ones.

---

This is also interesting.

quote:

---

A belief-system, with its mythology and ritual, comes down through the course of a people's experience.

---

I'm gonna still maintain that this "experience" mostly consists, at least here, of going to Sunday School, celebrating Christian holidays, saying the Lord's prayer in school, and most often attending the same church as your parents and your parents parents. If religion were truly a source of curiosity and questioning and self-exploration for most people, I'd find it all more interesting than I do, and I'd be a lot more inclined to regard it as something active instead of passive - and as such a human endeavour worthy of respect - but having been in plenty of churches in my day, I can't help noticing that the preacher-to-listener ratio is still pretty skewed towards acceptance rather than questioning. I believe that most people who would regard themselves as religious are consumers of religion, rather than producers of it.

quote:

---

What do you mean when you ask whether debate is maybe not the point? This is interesting.

---

If it is any of the former, then successful debate hinges on reasonable people. If I am to persuade or be persuaded or just to walk away with a better understabding than when I began I must be open to what you have to say. I must listen. I must hear. And I must respond in such a way that you will listen, hear and respond also.

But if it is the latter, then it really doesn't matter.

Of course, in a public forum such as this, I might be debating with you but have no intention of persuading you of anything nor of being persuaded by you of anything or even walkiing away with a deeper understanding. I might be playing to the wider audience.

And if so, is that reasonbable debate or masturbation. I would think masturbation. Because if I can't persuade, or at the very least reach a level of understanding with you, then I will not be reaching those in the wider audience who share your viewpoint. I would be playing to those with whom I already agree.

quote:

---

Originally posted by nonesuch:
What's ridiculous about fairy tales? Or folk-tales? Or legends? Or Mythology?

---

Snipped good paragraph about religion in order to keep the quote brief.

So, nonesuch, would you be willing to bet me 10 bucks that if I went out and worshipped the Great Big Potato Chip in the sky that I would not be subject to ridicule and being the butt of jokes, in direct contrast to the solemnity and dignity lent to Christian rituals, which I personally find to be just as silly?

quote:

---

Anyway, the equation doesn't hold. You're comparing apples and ball-bearings.

---

Actually, the saying is "apples and oranges". Not to be pedantic, but I think it's Vitus that we keep our Berringstrait.

Go ahead, mock my geography joke. It's mock worthy, along with my alleged sense of humour.

Anyway, there's nothing wrong with fairy tales and myth etc, as long as no one is saying they are true.

Or claiming that because they believe in pixies, they don't have to go to jail for not allerting authorities when it comes to your attention that other pixie believers are raping children.

And that's my beef. Religion is too often used--and accepted-- as an excuse for bad behavior for me to not view it with a certain degree of disdain.

quote:

---

I'm gonna still maintain that this "experience"

---

You're talking about individual, mundane experience, which

quote:

---

mostly consists, at least here, of going to Sunday School, celebrating Christian holidays, saying the Lord's prayer in school

---

quote:

---

and most often attending the same church as your parents and your parents parents.

---

quote:

---

If religion were truly a source of curiosity and questioning and self-exploration for most people

---

quote:

---

I'd find it all more interesting than I do, and I'd be a lot more inclined to regard it as something active instead of passive - and as such a human endeavour worthy of respect

---

quote:

---

- but having been in plenty of churches in my day, I can't help noticing that the preacher-to-listener ratio is still pretty skewed towards acceptance rather than questioning. I believe that most people who would regard themselves as religious are consumers of religion, rather than producers of it.

---

quote:

---

And that's my beef. Religion is too often used--and accepted-- as an excuse for bad behavior for me to not view it with a certain degree of disdain.

Religion isn't fundamental to our humanity; Rather, it is fundamental to our inhumanity

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by DrConway:
So, nonesuch, would you be willing to bet me 10 bucks that if I went out and worshipped the Great Big Potato Chip in the sky that I would not be subject to ridicule and being the butt of jokes, in direct contrast to the solemnity and dignity lent to Christian rituals, which I personally find to be just as silly?

---

quote:

---

If you can seriously tell me with a straight face that societies place an equal value on all religions

---

quote:

---

and that religions are not purely social constructs designed to give some kind of structure to the quite human trait of wishing to believe there is a controlling entity in the universe that takes care of all of us, even if in some purely distant fashion

---

quote:

---

then I have a bridge I would like to sell you, because you know and I know that any number of professing Christians, who would never in their lives think to question the usefulness of sprinkling water on a baby's forehead in order to give some kind of special weight to the naming of the baby, would laugh, nudge each other and smirk at the ridiculousness (to them) of the sacred rituals of us Great Big Potato Chip worshippers.

---

quote:

---

Well, of course religions are social constructs! Economies are social constructs. Political systems are social constructs. Legal systems are social constructs.

---

Anyway Nonesuch, you're valiant attempt to avoid the cliche is noted, however,

quote:

---

Your disdain would more constructively be directed at the abusers, rather than the idea.

---

I will have to respectfully remain in disagreement. Religion isn't about being a guide to the straight and narrow; the ideal moral life; respect for creation. Rather, it's a veneer to cover up acts which go against those ideals.

So, yes, while the abusers do deserve our disdain, at heart the very foundation of the idea of religion is tautological, groundless in fact, and bereft of even provisional truths.

As such, the idea, whether originally concieved for nefarious purposes or not so easily lends itself to them that in the final analysis, the idea is disdain worthy.

crap.

I'm writting like William F. Buckley talks.

quote:

---

When you put it that way, it makes them all look like equally good candidates for respect. Or mockery.

---

quote:

---

It happened over 30,000 years, one little step at a time. And it took root, and lasted and grew because...
that's how people are.

---

Now that I've aquired 22 years of seniority at my place of employment, I'm somewhat attracted to the concept of continuing old mistakes because they are, well old.

But it's a fallacious argument. The appeal to senority or something or other.

quote:

---

Religion isn't about being a guide to the straight and narrow; the ideal moral life; respect for creation. Rather, it's a veneer to cover up acts which go against those ideals.

---

How is he responsible?

Going back to DrC's example, a religion is founded on the basis of worshipping th eBig Potato Chip in the Sky. It is a simple faith whereby adherents sit at home, watch football, drink the sacramental beer and indulge in the deep examination of potato chips before consigning to one's saintly oral repository.

But, let's say in a few years a political movement is born in Vancouver where the majority of potato worshippers live. And let's say the founder of this new movement owns the Humpty Dumpty franchise. And let's say out on Vancouver Island there is a new movement worshipping the Great Oil Cooked Kernel in the Sky threatening the franchise of this new leader. So, in the name of the Great Potato Chip, he forms an army, invades Vancouver Island, smites the disbelievers, re-populates their homes with Big Potato Chip followers and assigns a governor to maintain "peace" over the island.

Is the Great Potato Chip responsible?

Religion like politics or any other is a human institution. Country, the fatherland, the motherland, has been invoked in concert with religion as a reason for atrocities committed by man and then a few separate and apart from religion (and religion separate and apart from country) but we don't hate the concept of country. Okay, I do. But not terribly. I could get used to it. Have in fact. But you see what I mean.

Just to add a short note, in the last century we also had the opportunity of witnessing the name of "human rights" being invoked to wage war against humans and commit terrible atrocities. First used in the Spanish-American war which resulted in those fighting for "human rights" massacring hundreds of thousands of Filipino civilians all of whom were human with, presumably, rights.

[ 27 September 2003: Message edited by: WingNut ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by WingNut:
Still works. The Catholic Church wasn't formed to fght the crusades or carry out the Inquisition.

---

That's true. But what WAS it formed for? After all, people were worshiping just fine in their small house churches before the Catholic Church as an institution came along, so I don't think it was formed as merely an aid to worship.

quote:

---

Religion like politics or anyother is a human institution.

---

Yes, that was my point exactly above. The religion is the human institution, it is not the entity or object of worship (or at least it's not supposed to be) in itself. The only point I was countering above was your contention that Tommy was blaming an entity that he doesn't believe exists, when actually he was not referring to the entity itself, but the religion.

I could be wrong, but I don't believe that I have ever posted to the gun-control threads. I don't see how anyone could know what I know or think about guns or gun ownership.

Magoo, what you wrote to me above was sheer projection and, as ronb said, spew. I accept your apology, if you know in full what you're apologizing for.

I use the word relativist as a criticism when I consider that someone is equating things that I cannot accept are equal. As a student of history, I often make relativist arguments myself, however, on the basis of a paradox: I consider that deep cultural traditions always make intellectual and humane claims on the serious student, although the deep traditions of different cultures often confront one another in hostile mode. I think that we should be able to hold both those thoughts in the mind at the same time.

If Magoo is making the point that people who grow up with guns and who hunt responsibly are living out a deep cultural tradition, I might be semi-willing to accept that argument. Certainly, in the case of aboriginals who are still living at least partly off the land, I am willing to accept it. But most of the gun threads on babble have been noisy arguments about the Liberals' registry, and since I find all sides of that discussion beside the point, I just plain stay away.

Further, as a supporter of the OSPCA, I have learned a little something about the gun and hunting lobby in Ontario. I do not see them as a phenom of deep traditional culture. I see them as an exceptionally well-funded lobby group in Ottawa, obviously getting a lot of money from U.S.ian gun-lobby groups. It is my impression, actually, that they are quite nasty people, some of them.

Do I think that those guys deserve my thoughtful attention in the same way that, say, Augustine or Aquinas or Niemoeller or Bonhoeffer or Garry Wills might?

I often find it easy to sort out different levels of seriousness. I also often find it difficult.

I take tenth-generation bagpipers very seriously. I do not take pop groups manufactured by marketing guys in Burbank quite so seriously. Anyone who equates them I will, in my critical mode, call a relativist. So sue me.

[ 27 September 2003: Message edited by: skdadl ]

quote:

---

it is a human organization that claims to be following the Christian belief system.

---

So churches didn't just come to North America to abuse natives. Rather they came to North America on behalf of Governments to assist in pacifying natives. Likewise, Presbyterians didn't just decide to settle in Ulster and engage Catholics in 500 years of low intensity warfare. Rather they were re-settled there by the English government looking for away of ensuring colonizers didn't begin to sympathise with the colonized.

quote:

---

There is a thousand-year-old oak tree in the middle of the parking lot

---

Now whose comparing apples and a nicely greased roller bearing?

quote:

---

That is not true at all Tomm and you know it.
If people use religion as a veneer that is hardly religions fault. Remember the followers of the messiah who said "love your enemy" massacred the inhabitants of Jerusalem, enemy and otherwise, in his name.

---

I may be wrong, Wingnut. I may be thick headed; I may be stubborn, and I, like all humans have my biases, but I don't know where I've ever willfully and knowingly lied here.

The thing is, religion has no self correcting mechanism. What was "true" two thousand years ago must be "true" today, even if the facts show otherwise.

The very underpinnings, then make neccesary a certain flexibility of reality, a skill that teaches the practitioner hypocricy as the order of the day.

Not that scientists can't be hypocritical. But the ethic here is to be aware of it and, as best as humanly possible expunge it.

quote:

---

I may be wrong, Wingnut. I may be thick headed; I may be stubborn, and I, like all humans have my biases, but I don't know where I've ever willfully and knowingly lied here.

---

quote:

---

The thing is, religion has no self correcting mechanism. What was "true" two thousand years ago must be "true" today, even if the facts show otherwise.

---

quote:

---

The very underpinnings, then make neccesary a certain flexibility of reality, a skill that teaches the practitioner hypocricy as the order of the day.

---

quote:

---

Not that scientists can't be hypocritical. But the ethic here is to be aware of it and, as best as humanly possible expunge it.

Not, as religion does, utilize it as a weapon.

---

Religion has only weilded the weapons science has provided.

And,as has been established time and time again, with the right money industry and politicians can have scientists scientifically demonstrate anything from the safety of smoking, to the benign nature of depleted uranium and this: "WASHINGTON -- Non-profit organizations with ties to energy interests are promoting a controversial new study as proof that prevailing views of global warming are wrong.

The scientists who wrote the study contend that the global warming of recent decades is not without precedent during the past 1,000 years, as other scientists have claimed. In fact, they say the Earth was even warmer during what is known as the "medieval warm period" between A.D. 900 and 1300."

And yes, other scientists will say that is not true but the debate will go back and forth until the day the earth dies.

For fun and profit, like the old days.

quote:

---

What? Of course it does. Even religion must adapt to the reality of the day. The church may have brought the inquisition to Gallileo but eventually also had to acknowledge the sun does not rotate around the earth.

---

quote:

---

That's true. But what WAS it formed for? After all, people were worshiping just fine in their small house churches before the Catholic Church as an institution came along, so I don't think it was formed as merely an aid to worship.

---

quote:

---

I wasn't trying to suggest dishonesty, Tommy, Just that logically it is false.

---

quote:

---

And all these examples of psuedo or junk science you continue to site, you know them as such why? Because the Bible, Qua'ran, or Talmund tells you so, or do you have some other method?

---

If one expert can contradeict another expert and governmemts can choose to select the advice of theone expert over the other because they and industry prefer the fndings, then how is a poor like myself without any science background to know?

Well, probably a lot like millions of others. I just know, based on nothing but my own sense of belief, that you can't pump hundreds of millions of tons of carbon dioxide and particles of all sort into the atmosphgere to breathe without generating a negative effect.

When someone like Simon Rushton tells me my Vietnamese friend is my superior and my English friend with black skin is my inferiorm well I do not have a degree in sociology to dispute him. Even though that do can only dispute his findings in an academic arena. They can't actually disprove his findings. But I knows, as do millions of others without any scientific background or knowledge and based upon nothing but belief and interaction with my friends aqndothers, that we share the same vlues, the same idiosyncrocies, the same love for the inane if not the same inanities. And we share relatively equal levels of education and success.

I don't know anything about economics either. But I can tell you that a recovery that only benefits a small per centage of those who never suffered is not a recovery. I can tell you that an economy that manufactures nothing while importing everythng cannot be sustained on Big Macs, Wal-Marts, and call centers. How do I know? Just a belief.

[ 28 September 2003: Message edited by: WingNut ]

[ 28 September 2003: Message edited by: Rebecca West ]

quote:

---

That's a pretty skimpy point. You can't call the Catholic Church (and, let's face it, we're not talking about any other religion here, because this board is overwhelmingly Christian-centric)self-correcting when the Church takes hundreds or even thousands of years to grudgingly admit what is long-proven fact, and one of the primary functions of scientific method is to be self-correcting on an ongoing basis.

---

quote:

---

Like many similar institutions, the Catholic Church's intention is to make the world Catholic. Spiritual imperialism of a particularly invasive, culturally destructive and punitive nature. Like all empires, it has elements of good, brilliant thinkers among its ranks, etc. But it suffers under the weight of having committed monstrous atrocities in the name of spiritual imperialism, its crimes against humanity, ongoing, are massive. It has been government, controlled government, but has never been the tool of government. It is a thing unto itself, archaic, elitist and powerful enough to remain above the law for about 1,500 years.

---

As for the rest, every so-called great nation on earth is guilty of the same and similar crimes. So why just single out the Catholic Church? I mean, you can, I just wonder why you do.

Also, the Catholic Church is separate and apart form every other. Why condemn all churches for the sins of one? Is that the scientific method? What atrocities have the Unitarians committed? The Bahais? The Quakers? What about those conspiring, evil, cloaked in sheep's clothing, Amish?

quote:

---

Nah, I'm sure you were thinking of that other word when you accused him of knowingly saying something untrue. What's that word again...? Anyway, when defending the right to believe something that we've all established has no logical veracity whatsoever, doncha think calling others on their logic is kind of, well, funny?

---

quote:

---

However, science is always self-correcting is it? Much faster than churches to respond? Okay. I will buy that. So I can expect then, the dispute between scientists over the expanding hole in the ozone layer to be solved any day now? I can expect the practioners of science to announce, one way or another, on the benefits or hazards of sea bed minig?

---

quote:

---

That is just untrue. It has been government, yes indeed. But it has also been the tool of government in the last 500 years of colonization. I will let history argue that one for me.

---

quote:

---

As for the rest, every so-called great nation on earth is guilty of the same and similar crimes. So why just single out the Catholic Church? I mean, you can, I just wonder why you do.

---

quote:

---

Also, the Catholic Church is separate and apart form every other. Why condemn all churches for the sins of one? Is that the scientific method? What atrocities have the Unitarians committed? The Bahais? The Quakers? What about those conspiring, evil, cloaked in sheep's clothing, Amish?

---

quote:

---

You can choose what you want to believe, Rebecca. That is an advantage of living in our "christian" based western society. But "we've all decided?" Have we? I suppose you used the scientific method to arrive at that conclusion.

---

[ 28 September 2003: Message edited by: Rebecca West ]

quote:

---

You can bet it will be one hell of alot sooner than the next 1,500 years.

---

quote:

---

The thing about science is that its methods are constantly improving,

---

quote:

---

so the more we know, the faster we are able to debunk incorrect theories. What bad science, science in the pay of corporate interest, does to censor or disparage information that is counter to particular interests, has little to do with science itself, just as what the Catholic Church does in its own interest has little to do with Christian love or forgiveness.

---

quote:

---

Anyway, the things you've cited have been debated for a matter of decades. You want to compare that to the hundreds of years the Church stifled ANY debate on its doctrine through a campaign of terror and mass murder? Or compare it to hundreds of years when debate was allowed but got nowhere to a few decades of debate over the ozone layer, which the scientific community overwhelmingly recognizes as a real and present threat?
[quote]
Yes. We cvan commuincat enow across the glonbe in seconds. We couldn't do that 1500 years ago. So I think it is fair to say that in the age of information thatyes, I would expect pressing issues to be resolved sooner.

And you can call it junk science. And so can I. But sol long as Bush calls it evidence and passes the law it matters not a bit.
[quote]
I would prefer that you cite actual historical events, but if you'd rather not, then let's just let it stand as true. Unless you have other supporting evidence to back your assertions up.

---

quote:

---

Um, because we're talking about religion. And because the institution of the Catholic Church best illustrates the points I'm making. Besides, since when did the universality of institutionalized brutality make it right? It's absurd to say, "well, they're not the only ones who have committed atrocities".

---

quote:

---

First, you wonder why I separate the Catholic Church out for example, and then you accuse me of condemning all churches. Which is it?

---

quote:

---

But long story short, the Catholic church, out of favor in merry olde England, was still permitted to operate in alol areas of the British empire and were ferried there upon English vessels. Because they were far more adept at pacifying native peoples and wiping out their culture than was the English coonial governments.

---

quote:

---

I didn't say it did make it right, did I? I think it is equally absurd to point at a single institution and say "look, they have blood on their hands" when surrounded by those with blood on their hands.

---

quote:

---

Quite logically both. You said we are talking about religion but you speak almost exclusively about the catholic church. Well what are we talking about? The Catholic church or religion?

---

All that's been established is that people do good and bad things in the name of science and religion, but beyond that, the two are too different, in structure and purpose, to really stand up to much comparison. Your fallback position is consistently "science does bad things". No, people use science for bad things. My position is, always, that people do bad things, but in the cases where religion is used to do bad things, there's no internal logic system that prevents correction of those things, so they go on and on, doing untold damage, for hundreds and hundreds of years, because the nature of religion is to keep people spiritually in thrall. That is its primary tool for success. With science, you can use your mind, your intellect, you can learn enough about a particular subject to challenge an assertation that seems false or harmful. When enough people understand what is false or harmful, change can result. That's what activism is, that is its purpose. That is why self-correction in science happens much faster than self-correction in religion.

quote:

---

Sorry, but your logic eludes me.

---

quote:

---

If you're trying to say that I can't use the term "Catholic Church" where applicable in one part of a debate, and then use the term "religion" where it differently applies in another part, without one smearing the other, then I'm afraid there is no point in pursuing this at all, since your "rules of engagement" seem to change every time they stop working for you.

---

quote:

---

That is because, in my opinion, the Catholic church suits your argument.
A scientist would not look at a single example and say that it is representative of all, would he?

---

You know, I represent a moderate position. I've already made it clear in recent threads that I'm very fond of, philospohically and morally, many aspects of several religions, most of them of the less destructive and invasive variety. I have also stated that I do not hold those religions'supernatural aspects as my own, as I am atheist. Yet you insist on criticizing me for things I have not said, positions I do not hold, and in general are trying to pillory me for being anti-religion, when I point out some very basic facts about one religious institution, the Catholic Church, whose actions, presently and historically, are frequently indefensible.

What is becoming increasingly clear, is that you and a few others here want to stifle criticism of the Catholic Church in specific and religion in general. You attack science, at every opportunity sneer at the idea that someone might use logic and reasoning to form an opinion. "Is that what a scientist would do?" "Oh, I suppose you used scientific reasoning to come up with that", etc. Really, can't you do better than that?

I mean, what is it you really object to. Is it atheism? Deductive reasoning? It can't really be science and technology - you're sitting in front of a computer. Most of today's most destructive weapons have computerized components. And I'm pretty sure that when you're ill, you make use of the scientific advances in healthcare.

quote:

---

Originally posted by DrConway:
So, nonesuch, would you be willing to bet me 10 bucks that if I went out and worshipped the Great Big Potato Chip in the sky that I would not be subject to ridicule and being the butt of jokes, in direct contrast to the solemnity and dignity lent to Christian rituals, which I personally find to be just as silly?

---

During those exchanges the same “Great Potato Chip In The Sky” was mentioned as ‘proof’ of the utter ridiculousness of religious beliefs.

I also remember using the same arguments when I was sixteen, except I called it an ‘invisible fairy’ standing on my palm. Both arguments try to illustrate that: “If we can not physically experience it, then it doesn’t exist” until and unless we do. Correct scientific-method principle.

However, in those long ago posts, I also tried to illustrate the theoretically possible limitations of science and the theoretical possibility that the Universe (meaning everything there IS) is so much larger than human capacity to experience and understand, that it is also theoretically possible to miss something entirely, even in infinite (meaning greater than anything we can think of) time.

I thought I hade made Doc consider my points, since he never challenged my last post on the topic, and so I thought I had managed to contribute something to his take on the subject. That is why I was so surprised to see the same “Great Potato Chip In The Sky” line being dragged out again.

By itself, the “Great Potato Chip In The Sky” is quite harmless. What bothers me in this kind of reasoning (and this ties in very nicely with Sisyphus's first post of this thread) is what I perceive as intellectual arrogance, intolerance, short-sightedness, cultural chauvinism, lack of depth and maturity.

There are many other cultures that exist in the world today, holding our ‘scientific’, ‘democratic’, ‘consumer’ culture (obsessed with certainty, and fear of the unknown) in utter contempt, just as we hold theirs in same. Who is to tell who is right?

To be on the safe side: I bet on the side of open minded, tolerant, humble, curious, self-examining and doubting. I never go anywhere without John Ralston Saul’s “Doubter's Companion”.

[ 28 September 2003: Message edited by: Francis Mont ]

quote:

---

What is becoming increasingly clear, is that you and a few others here want to stifle criticism of the Catholic Church in specific and religion in general.

---

quote:

---

You attack science, at every opportunity sneer at the idea that someone might use logic and reasoning to form an opinion. "Is that what a scientist would do?" "Oh, I suppose you used scientific reasoning to come up with that", etc. Really, can't you do better than that?

---

What, Rebecca, I was responded to, that seems to have invited a less than friendly intervention from you was: " Religion isn't about being a guide to the straight and narrow; the ideal moral life; respect for creation. Rather, it's a veneer to cover up acts which go against those ideals."

Now, maybe my reading is not up to par, but Tommy says "religion, not "Catholic Church." And what he says might be true of some religions, even most religions, but not all religions.

quote:

---

I mean, what is it you really object to. Is it atheism? Deductive reasoning? It can't really be science and technology - you're sitting in front of a computer. Most of today's most destructive weapons have computerized components. And I'm pretty sure that when you're ill, you make use of the scientific advances in healthcare.

---

That does not exclude criticism. Not even strong criticism. But I have argued ridicule is disrespectful and counterproductive.

Still, others here insist that ridicule is fair and proper. And let us be fair, the argument has not been if it is okay to criticize religion but to mock it. And yes it is fair to mock it. So long as you care neither for the people you are mocking, and you are mocking people, their support on issues that matter, nor their good works whatever those may be, and as long as you and your beliefs are willing to stand up to equal doses of mocking.

Well, look how tense people become when you hold up their beliefs to ridicule.

I find it interesting.

And for the record, two things: being a technophile I love science and technology. I admire the possibilities and often hate the realities (i.e. wider democracy vs. Internet porn) and I belong to no church, no religion, practise no faith.

quote:

---

twisting around what I say, and inventing things I haven't, is a waste of everyone's time.

---

Finally, Rebecca, I have always admired your contributions on babble but don't expect me to shrink away because you laugh at me or offer sarcasm and derision to my posts.

[ 28 September 2003: Message edited by: WingNut ]

quote:

---

“If we can not physically experience it, then it doesn’t exist” until and unless we do. Correct scientific-method principle.

---

quote:

---

I also tried to illustrate the theoretically possible limitations of science and the theoretical possibility that the Universe (meaning everything there IS) is so much larger than human capacity to experience and understand, that it is also theoretically possible to miss something entirely, even in infinite (meaning greater than anything we can think of) time.

---

quote:

---

What is it we consider science? What is the essence? Most people identify science as the application of "The Scientific Method" as defined by Dr. Conway as "process of inquiry, observation, reasoning, and further inquiry". The Random House definition is: "a method of research in which a problem is identified, relevant data are gathered, a hypothesis is formulated from these data and the hypothesis is empirically tested"

---

[ 28 September 2003: Message edited by: Francis Mont ]

You are attempting to posit limitations in science that do not exist. You are creating a false dichotomy between the known and the unknowable, between science and spirituality, that does not exist. For what purpose, I can only speculate, but I suspect that regardless, it provides an excellent opportunity for people to put forward their own ideas about the ways things are, under the guise of "debate".

[ 28 September 2003: Message edited by: Rebecca West ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rebecca West:
You are attempting to posit limitations in science that do not exist.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Francis Mont:
If you read carefully what I said (in this and in the referenced thread) you will see it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rebecca West:
I see nothing of the sort.

---

Let me quote the first post from the "Is Consensus on Science possible on Babble?" thread. It shows exactly what I think about science.

quote:

---

1./ Nature. By definition (mine) everything that we can observe and/or be aware of is part of Nature. In this sense there can not be such a thing as ‘unnatural’ phenomena. The observed phenomena can be easily reproducible or intermittent, happening randomly, in an unpredictable way. If a phenomenon is not reproducible on demand, then we have to depend on eye-witness accounts. Frequency and consistency of these accounts on one hand, judgment of reliability of eye-witnesses on the other, give higher or lower weight to our assumption that the reported phenomenon exists.

2./ Science is a human tool invented to help us investigate nature. It is best defined by the ‘Scientific Method’ (described by The Random House) as: “a method of research in which a problem is identified, relevant data are gathered, a hypothesis is formulated from these data and the hypothesis is empirically tested”. Its essence is ‘empirically tested’. Without this crucial element, it is not science.

3./ The six steps of science are :

a./ Observation (experiencing, sensing, measuring, interviewing/evaluating eye-witnesses)

b./ Organization (describing, categorizing, statistical analysis, identifying pattern)

c./ Hypothesis (or logical model, that shows how the phenomenon is created, what its internal mechanism/logic is and how it consistently fits into our accumulated body of knowledge.)

d./ Predictions (drawing logical and mathematical conclusions from our hypothesis )

e./ Testing (empirical verification of both the hypothesis and the predictions of hypothesis)

f./ Confirmation/Rejection of hypothesis, always allowing for possibility of error.

4./ There is a non-zero probability that there are parts of nature science may never be able to explain because both experiments and testability are beyond conceivable human resources (e.g. Big Bang, colliding galaxies, superstrings, etc.). Scientific explanation means the creation of an empirically testable hypothesis, or logical model, that shows how the phenomenon is created, what its internal mechanism/logic is and how it consistently fits into our accumulated body of knowledge. However, hypothesis that cannot be tested empirically is, however minutely, grounded within previously observed phenomena. Also, from some untestable hypothesis it may be possible to draw logical/mathematical predictions that do fall into the scientifically testable domain.

5./ There is a non-zero probability that unusual (or para-normal) phenomena exists that appear to contradict, and/or fall completely outside of, our accumulated body of scientific knowledge. This phenomena (depending on its nature) have been called ‘miracles’, ‘ESP’, ‘precognition’, ‘telekinesis’, ‘mind-reading’, ‘ghosts’, ‘life after death’, etc. However, plausible descriptions can be made and knowledge may in the future progress to a point where an "unusual phenomenon" can be explained within the scientific method.

6./ If we assume 5./ to be true and there is no immediately available scientific tool to study these phenomena (most of them not necessarily reproducible on demand), then we may wait and see if one becomes available at a later time, or we may decide to use methods currently considered non-scientific to experiment and try to form a hypothesis.

7./ Dismissing the possibility for 4./ and 5./ and 6./ can unnecessarily limit humanity in our experiencing and understanding Nature and, as a consequence, unnecessarily reduce our tools for both survival and enjoyment of our existence.

8./ Attacking those who assume 4./ and 5./ to be true and seriously consider or practice 6./, is an unfair discrimination against, and abuse of, human beings, some of whom can be imaginative, creative, open minded individuals with full recognition of the value of science.

9./ There are, and have been, deplorable examples of sensationalism, charlatanism and fraud regarding both scientific and para-normal phenomenon. Some of it was innocent, much of it was deliberate attempt to take advantage of the easily credulous.

10./ Great care and critical thinking is required to differentiate between the rational approach to the para-normal, from the irrational, unjustified, fraudulent

11./ Science and 'para-normal investigation' (as suggested in 6./) are not 'either-or'. Unless we are dogmatic about our 'only true method', they can happily coexist, without hurting each other. Both methods can be used to study both groups of phenomena and both can fail or be successful in their endeavor.

---

The number 6 does not exist. You can draw one, and i can draw a unicorn, but neither of us has ever seen a unicorn or a 6 in the wild.
If you put 6 in a cafeteria line, it would not be served lunch. Probably, the unicorn wouldn't, either. 6 does very well in a postal code; unicorns look fine on family crests. They are not interchangeable, yet they can coexist in the same dimension; in the same mind, even.
I find it odd that people who are comfortable with mathematics have so much trouble with other kinds of symbolism.

(Just a too-little-too-late attempt to nudge this thread back toward its original subject.)

[ 28 September 2003: Message edited by: nonesuch ]

quote:

---

The number 6 does not exist.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by nonesuch:
(Just a too-little-too-late attempt to nudge this thread back toward its original subject.)

---

As far as science is concerned, there are two extreme views in circulation:

1./ Science is omnipotent, can explain everything (if not yet, soon) and everything outside the domain of science (God, ESP, spirituality) is pure superstition, to be dismissed out of hand

2./ Science is overrated, a useful tool in the material domain and totally without a clue when applied to important spiritual, emotional, social questions.

If we don't want to be simpletons on the subject, we may want to consider something between these two extremes.

To ridicule someone for beliefs that we have no proof to discredit is rude, ignorant and quite childish.

quote:

---

I find it odd that people who are comfortable with mathematics have so much trouble with other kinds of symbolism.

---

Anyway, on the subject of Ruston, etc, it didn't take a PhD to see through the bad data collection, the selective data collection, and the constant reification.

What it takes is a public savy in scepticism, and a media that searches beyond the current scale of useless to abysmal when it comes to science reporting.

We need this for the reasons you site. Things like GM foods, the current problems with the atmosphere need a scientifically literate society, because ordinary people are being sidelined from the debate because of their ignorance.

An ignorance that I do not think is accidental. I think the powers that be want us to be just literate enough in science and technology to be good consumers and a placid electoral flock, but not literate enough to actually participate in decision making.

Subject for another thread.

Anywho, back to the fray. What respect do I think I owe religion? It's a given that I respect that anyone has a right to believe as they wish in a free and democratic society.

But, when those ideas are proffered in a public forum, I owe them as much respect as they afford me.

quote:

---

If someone wants me to believe that the world, for example, is a mere 6,000 years old, created on a tuesday afternoon, and that Darwin was a fool, and that God put all those fossils there just to test and fool us, then it's my intelligence that has been insulted and mocked.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tommy_Paine:
If someone wants me to believe that the world, for example, is a mere 6,000 years old, created on a tuesday afternoon, and that Darwin was a fool, and that God put all those fossils there just to test and fool us, then it's my intelligence that has been insulted and mocked.

---

[ 29 September 2003: Message edited by: Francis Mont ]

Tommy P, if I'm reading Francis right, I think he is objecting to the way you keep starting off sounding reasonable, but then suddenly erect straw men as illustrations. You seem to equate everyone who thinks about spirit and human consciousness with "creationist" fundies, which to me, anyway, makes your arguments risibly reductive and way too easy to dismiss. It so often looks to me as though you, like a couple of other babblers I can think of, just plain can't help yourself -- midway through a post, no matter how reasonable you have tried to be at the outset, you just have to make all who disagree with you on this turf look as ridiculous as possible.

To me, anyway, that was the original problem, the reason that a few of us, of most varied backgrounds -- I think of swallow, eg, and Wingy, and nonesuch, none a conventional believer, yet none of us in full agreement with the others -- decided to call general attention to the primitive, raw, and abrasive tone of discussion of religion/spirituality/idealist thought on babble.

That said, I wanted to pick up on a long-ago point of nonesuch's:

quote:

---

Originally posted by nonesuch:

Logic = whatever chain of facts and deductions i choose to employ

---

In my biz, which isn't scientific but has definitely been more or less formally structured for thousands of years, logic as people nowadays use that term, meaning a tight commitment to tracing straight lines between causes and effects, is considered a mode of thought. That's a mode of thought, as in one mode of thought among many.

Observably, we have other modes of thought. Well, most people do. Since Aristotle (and, no doubt, before), students of poetics have worked to describe them systematically. Few have ever doubted that human beings know things, learn things, discover things through more complex webs of thought than straight-line cause-effect thought.

When I was young, it seemed for a time that many in the scientific community were interested in something then called systems theory, and I wonder what has happened to those discussions. People also played games with something called lateral thinking, and I wonder what has happened to that kind of understanding.

I read, for instance, very early on this thread, a brief exchange between people who were assigning exclusive causative responsibility for the rise of democratic consciousness in Western Europe to one source or another. It makes me very sad to think that, at this late date, intelligent people are still talking about history that way. Good historians don't. Good historians have become exceptionally nuanced, I think, at watching the interplay of technological, social, and economic history in producing groundswells that slowly become great enough that clever individuals or groups can finally direct them. I can't imagine reading any other kind of history any more.

So do I have a point? Yes. I am wishing for babble, most of the time, more and more civilized discussion the tougher the topics get. To me, civilized does not mean smart-mouthed -- it means more and more modest as the topics get tougher.

quote:

---

What is becoming increasingly clear, is that you and a few others here want to stifle criticism of the Catholic Church in specific and religion in general.

---

I don't believe anyone wants to stifle anything. Some people have asked for their own or others' religious beliefs to be treated with a degree of courtesy and respect, and taken issue with glib comparisons between rich traditions and individual whims.

When one of the main criticisms of religion is that it has committed terrible atrocities, the answer has been made several times: religion does not do any of that, people do it. People have often used religion to justify terrible atrocities. But that is also true for atheism: it can be taken to the same extreme and used to justify atrocity. Pol Pot's Cambodia is, i think, a good extreme example.

But that criticism does extend to this:

quote:

---

The idea that atheism and an intellectual devotion to science equate being a closed-minded materialist is, to say the least, odious. At best, it is a fallacy.

---

I don't believe anyone is in fact saying this. What i object to is what you quite rightly call "dogmatic materialism, arrogant ignorance." And i also object to its counterpart in religion, including the dogmatic ignorance of the hierachy in my own church. Millions do, in fact. I think that religion contains as much intellectual ferment as scientific inquiry, and it's false to make any sweeping statements about what religion is. Like this:

quote:

---

the nature of religion is to keep people spiritually in thrall.

---

Not at all. The nature of religion is a search for meaning. What you're talking about is the nature of government.

quote:

---

religion does not do any of that, people do it.

---

quote:

---

swallow: People have often used religion to justify terrible atrocities

---

But people used race, colour, sex, language, eating habits, physical appearance, some forms of disease, mating habits, skull bone-structure, lifestyle, level of education, unusual abilities and political convictions to justify terrible atrocities.

quote:

---

Why pick on religion?

---

Because while phrenology, eugenics, Lamarckianism, the harmlessness of Thalidomide, and many other ills of science have been acknowledged and dealt with, religion is still here, and ills are still being committed in the name of various gods. The attempt by one church, which shall go unnamed, to extort politicians to ban same-sex marriages is just one recent example.

As a society, we do have some input into science. Certainly we're free to investigate on our own, and occasionally science gets turned on its ear and survives. Religion doesn't seem so adaptable. Sure, you can eat meat on a Friday now without being doomed to hell, but there are an awful lot of ways by which religion still seeks to control us, and not the other way around. Ironically, it even seeks to control the non-faithful, and I think that's why so many of the non-faithful push back as hard as they do.

edited to add: I've started a thread here to discuss this last point, as I believe that one of the chief causes of a reaction to religion is the fact that none of us, regardless of our belief, is entirely free of it.

[ 29 September 2003: Message edited by: Mr. Magoo ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Francis Mont:
Why pick on religion?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mr. Magoo:
Sure, you can eat meat on a Friday now without being doomed to hell, but there are an awful lot of ways by which religion still seeks to control us, and not the other way around.

---

This thread is specifically about some babblers’ attitude toward some other babblers. It has been said, I don’t know how many times, that those of us who do have some spiritual beliefs (be it religion, belief in the paranormal or what-have-you) object to the tone of those babblers who ridicule our experiences, beliefs, spiritual insights.

This thread is not about organized religion, politics of religious organizations or historical role religious institutions played over the centuries. This is about good manners.

If I tell you that I have had spiritual experiences in my life, I don’t want you to call me a liar or deluded, unless you have evidence to back it up. Since none in the jeering section have evidence of any kind, resorting to cheap mockery is rude and pathetic.

I don’t want you to respect my beliefs. I don’t want to convince you about it. I don’t want to change the way you live. But if I discuss my experiences or beliefs with someone, I want you to go somewhere else that interests you. Last year we had a few very good threads discussing spiritual experiences and it was really enjoyable until the sneering started by those who were not provoked by anything other than their perceived opportunity to feel superior and lecture us on their narrow vision of the universe.

I don't actually know what your religious beliefs are, and so if I've criticized them it hasn't been personal. The reason why I haven't criticized them personally is because you haven't (to my knowledge) used them to try and control me or others in any way, and so I leave you to your beliefs. Perhaps you're Amish, or Buddhist. Perhaps you have a personal religion not shared with anyone else.

On the other hand, if you want to try and outlaw, say, sex ed. in high school on the grounds of your religion, or if you want to belong to a religion that will do it for you in your name, then we might have words.

I don't care what you believe, in and of itself. I have no desire to police your mind, nor convince you that I'm right, but if you want to base real world laws or real world actions on something that you believe but cannot prove, then I think you're over the line. Salman Rushdie is currently under a death sentence because he may have offended a God for whom there is no evidence of existence whatsoever. A real, living, breathing man, condemned to die, and he can't even face his accuser. Any harm done in the name of religion is basically the same: harm for what? A guess, and a gamble.

But if you keep it to yourself, what do I care? If you aren't using your faith in something (which I don't share) to harm or control me, then what do I care? It's the exact same reason I'm in favour of same sex marriage. What do I care?

[ 29 September 2003: Message edited by: Mr. Magoo ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mr. Magoo:
But if you keep it to yourself, what do I care?

---

I know it's not a full excuse, but I've so rarely encountered religious thought or discussion that doesn't cross my boundaries or religious people who don't either actively or passively support repressive moralism in the name of their religion.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mr. Magoo:
I'll admit that I might very well be one of the rude ones.

---

quote:

---

It so often looks to me as though you, like a couple of other babblers I can think of, just plain can't help yourself -- midway through a post, no matter how reasonable you have tried to be at the outset, you just have to make all who disagree with you on this turf look as ridiculous as possible.

---

It's beginning to look alot like censorship to me.

And don't get me started on how irked I am about the following assumptions that have been repeatedly put forward:

- atheists can't see how amazing the universe is

- math and science geeks lack imagination and cannot embrace abstractions

- atheists lack spirituality and a sense of wonder

- atheists are arrogant and narrow-minded

- science represents an intellectual dead end

We have some babblers who are ‘religious’, like pax and swallow who seem to represent the best of their religion’s ideals. When we trash the stories that are the foundation of their faith with ridicule I’m truly sorry if they feel personally insulted. That is not the intent. The intent is to be aggressive and take on the enemy where they are at their weakest – rationality and consistency.

I cannot emphasize enough how big a threat many of us perceive much of organized religion to be. We fight it any way we can and if some good people get their feelings hurt by some harsh or dismissive rhetoric that is a shame, but they are not the targets. They stand to get their feelings hurt. I feel I have much more at stake.

[ 29 September 2003: Message edited by: JimmyBrogan ]

quote:

---

I feel I have much more at stake.

---

I believe that in many respects you do. When I think of the Phelps and his ilk show up at funerals or other rallies with "God Hates Fags" signs, I probably see a similar shade of red.

quote:

---

Originally posted by JimmyBrogan:
I cannot emphasize enough how big of a threat many of us perceive much of organized religion to be. We fight it any way we can and if some good people get their feelings hurt by some harsh or dismissive rhetoric that is a shame, but they are not the targets. They stand to get their feelings hurt. I feel I have much more at stake.

---

The only kind I am concerned about is the uncalled-for attacks on people who have a quiet and relaxed conversation among themselves about their spiritual experiences. Sort of sharing stories and speculations. Then, without any provocation or excuse, comes along Doc with a comment like:

quote:

---

Doc: "So why don't we just surrender all knowledge and go back to saying Zeus throws down lightning bolts from the sky?"

---

quote:

---

Please, scientists, don't bog this down in our-way-or-it's-bullshit arguments, which will then get us into endless examples of scientific failures and blind alleys, and yes, but it's self-correcting, etc.
People might want to share unexplained experiences, but won't, for fear of having to defend themselves ad nauseum.
Just concede, for the moment, that your way hasn't yet covered all the bases, and i'll gladly accede that someday it will.

---

quote:

---

Apemantus: I would say my reason for not accepting that that happened is it sounds like the result of an emotional situation, and one in which you had intensities of feelings, and it is possible (and this is just my analysis of it, but it is what I subscribe to) that after the event, your memory of it has got jumbled, how you feel about the events themselves and people who question those feelings all clouds how you analyse it, so you are convinced it happened. I understand that, and as it happened to you, to all intents and purposes, in your world, your universe, it DID happen, and this explains your strength of feeling about it. That does not mean it really happened.

---

[ 29 September 2003: Message edited by: Francis Mont ]

quote:

---

As pax, I too sympathize with your experience. However, it only proves that ALL KINDS of bigotry is wrong.

---

quote:

---

It's beginning to look alot like censorship to me.

---

Censorship would be: "You can't say that around here. Do it one more time and you're banned."
This is the prerogative of moderators. Rank-and-file babblers can't do it. The most we can do is: "This babbler should be watched."

On the other hand, "Your reasoning is faulty.", "You are dead wrong." or "Nonesuch, go scew yourself!" would be another person exercising hir freedom of speech. This is the price of my freedom to say whatever i want; therefore i gladly accept it.

JimmyBrogan - While the threat from certain churches is very real, you can't defent yourself against it by trashing every person who expresses a spiritual belief. All that does is turn away people who might otherwise listen to you. The hard-liners probably won't change, and no amount of ridicule or anger will change them. But all the fuzzy edges are open to negotiation, persuasion, reason, compromise - IF people can talk about these matters. Softly, softly.

[ 29 September 2003: Message edited by: nonesuch ]

quote:

---

While the threat from certain churches is very real, you can't defent yourself against it by trashing every person who expresses a spiritual belief.

---

Not doing that. I was very specifically (and carefully) talking about 'much of organized religion'. The problem is when you attack organized religion and the ideas and stories that are its foundation, in an agressive and uncompromising way, innocent and good people get offended. I am truly sorry, for they deserve no offence.

It is however a weapon I am unwilling to give up, particulary when I see many of the world's most pressing problems flow from the irrationality of organized religion.

quote:

---

Softly, softly

---

Shouting at genuine Christians, the undecided and people already on your side doesn't accomplish much. I won't turn against you on any real issues, just because you yell at me for having a different perspective (hell, i'm an atheist and i get yelled-at for considering the possibility that believers aren't all wet), but i won't be eager to discuss anything with you next time. So neither of us will learn much about the other's thoughts. This will make it more difficult for us to act in concert; to convince the undecided, or to change the minds of traditionalists with good intentions and poor understanding.

quote:

---

I was very specifically (and carefully) talking about 'much of organized religion'.

---

Not the those within the United Church who have accepted homosexulas within their church as equals and have also married them?

quote:

---

Me, personally, I’m very afraid of organized religion. And it’s not all ancient history by any means. As a gay, agnostic, socialist, I feel deeply threatened on a personal level by the activities of much of organized religion. If you can tell me why I shouldn’t be afraid, I’m all ears.

---

quote:

---

But those homophobes who belong to know faith and believe in no God but nevertheless hate gays out of some ignorance or even just because, them you have no concerns about?

---

Honestly, if you want some of the most liberated thinkers I know, try New York Catholic nuns. I'm quite serious here. They're quite willing to tell the Pope that they don't like his policies and don't find them in tune with Biblical scripture and Church history. S'fascinating to watch from a semi-outside perspective.

Now, are these nuns reflecting the American civil rights movement, within a religious instead of a political context? Or perhaps within the context of the politics of a religious establishment (a subtle but important distinction). I wonder if one can have a sort of free-wheeling Catholicism, similar perhaps to pre-Constantine Christianity, which would yet remain recognizably Catholic in doctrines and practices. And if so, is that where Catholicism is headed, or do people prefer the more traditional structure of the "Princes of the Church"?

quote:

---

Originally posted by nonesuch:
Wouldn't it be interesting to discuss how government is downloading many of its responsibilities - and none of its powers - on the churches?

---

I've taken a passing interest in this since it actually wasn't more than 200 years ago that churches were the primary vehicle for what, today, we would lump under "social programs". As a result, implementation of such things as the Speenhamland laws in England, or the provision of food or shelter to the homeless, was a haphazard and ill-coordinated affair, especially by late-1970s standards of organizing the welfare state (notice I don't use 2000s standards, because they're a joke as far as I'm concerned).

For instance, under Speenhamland, if you lived in a relatively well-off parish whose bishop or priest was conscientious about collecting for the "rates", then if you were poor you could collect a fairly decent amount of money to be able to survive until you found work on a farm or something like that. (Ironically, the Speenhamland era in England, because the parish "rates" were required by law, could be considered the most socialist time period England ever experienced - certainly the Beveridge era of the 1950s through to the 1970s could certainly win in extent and efficiency, but its comparatively brief endurance in a still-very-stratified society means that Speenhamland actually does compare)

However, the danger with letting churches handle "relief" was that they would use the opportunity to proselytize the poor. As well, the inconsistent handling of the responsibility of providing such relief meant that one's luck often depended on which church one happened to land up next to.

So it is with considerable trepidation that I see our federal government winding the clock back to this era by, as you say, downloading this responsibility onto nongovernmental charity groups of which churches are a significant component.

In point of fact, in Ontario, a similar phenomenon of clock-rewinding has occurred. The last time municipalities themselves were directly responsible for "relief" was in the Great Depression through to the early 1950s. Guess what, folks? Under Mike Harris, the Ministry of Social Services got downloaded onto the municipalities. Ontario has been rewound into the 1930s, folks. And it all happened while Mike Harris bribed you with a tax cut.

quote:

---

I wonder what The Great Potato Chip in the Sky sect does for Thanksgiving.

---

We of course sanctify the humble potato with an ooga booga dance, throw them in the air, and solemnly bless the ground upon which said potatoes land. Thereever after no one may step on such ground without first waving a potato chip over the area.

[ 30 September 2003: Message edited by: DrConway ]

quote:

---

Tommy P, if I'm reading Francis right, I think he is objecting to the way you keep starting off sounding reasonable, but then suddenly erect straw men as illustrations. You seem to equate everyone who thinks about spirit and human consciousness with "creationist" fundies, which to me, anyway, makes your arguments risibly reductive and way too easy to dismiss.

---

In my very first post on the subject, I said,

quote:

---

Come on. Some things are mockable. There are those who wonder at life, the universe and everything and honestly question and come up with their own answers, and sometimes those answers come down to believing in some kind of prime mover.

But all these other faerie tales?

---

In which I thought I differentiated between people honestly groping for answers to the unanswerable, and those who, I'm sorry, believe in fairy tales.

Religion is an idea like any other, subject to the same scrutinies as other ideas. In public debate, there are no sacred cows.

Some issues strike me viscerally, and I react to them without looking to the evidence and facts as are known, and hey, you know what? I have gotten, get and undoubtedly will get, my ass kicked.

It stings when it happens, but you know what? I don't think I've ever shifted the blame from the weakness of my argument to the meaness of the ass kicker.

It's hot in the kitchen sometimes.

Religion of any type, by the way, does not have a monopoly on the spiritual or spirituality.

And, I really suck an any math beyond basic algebra. Very basic algebra.

quote:

---

As George III said to Edward Gibbon, Another fat book, eh, Mr Gibbon? Scribble scribble scribble.

---

Edit, edit, edit. A Gibbon tidbit. Gibbon's father (grandfather? maybe I am mistaken) was implicated in investment fraud during the infamous "South Sea Bubble" scandle of the time. Edward was so well respected as a scholar and gentleman that the authorities were quite reluctant to pursue charges.

Of course, after that early debacle in the stock market, people were never as gullible, less given to take things on faith, and there's never been another stock market bubble or fraud since.

he he.

[ 30 September 2003: Message edited by: Tommy_Paine ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by JimmyBrogan:
Wingnut I'd ask you what part of 'much of organized religion' you don't understand, but well it's pretty obvious isn't it?

and you think I'm not concerned because??

---

Well, Jimmy, I have been knocking on doors in this election. And believe me, I have no love for the evangelists. And when I knocked on thier doors, they wanted to talk about same-sex marriage. But you know what? When I presented to them that was one issue of many and that education, heath care and seniors issues were to important to be sacrificed for that one issue, they listened. I know I reached some of them. Particularly with the arguments about tuition for post-secondary education.

But the non-religious biggots, Jimmy? They wouldn't even give 30 secs. They've made up their minds.

My concern is Jimmy that your problem is bigorty. But how do you target those bigots who are anonymous in society? You can't spot a bigot in a crowd. So instead you focus your anger on organized religion which, admittedly, includes many bigots. But decent people too.

quote:

---

Slice potatoes thinly and give to each child.

Cut out shapes with the cookie cutters.
Place on a cookie sheet and sprinkle with salt.
Bake until crisp.
Eat as a snack

---

quote:

---

I'll admit that I might very well be one of the rude ones.

---

quote:

---

Censorship would be: "You can't say that around here. Do it one more time and you're banned."

---

Wingnut brought up some very salient points about the inherent dangers of science and technology when it is used badly or exploited for the benefit of a few at the expense of many, and no reasonable propenent of scientific inquiry would disagree. Yet, when those of us who view much of organized religion in the same way, who favour deductive reasoning over faith and view the universe through the lens of, say, astrophysics instead of the supernatural, we're treated to things like, "isn't it funny how people who are good at math don't get symbolism" or "gee, you sound so reasonable at first (as long as you agree with me), and then you're just mean and narrow-minded (when you disagree with me)" or "I suppose you used science (insert sneer) to come to that conclusion".

What a load.

It doesn't seem to matter how well-qualified some statements are (see the exceptionally reasonable and fair-minded post from Jimmy, and its less-so response) or how clearly and consistently we distinguish between individuals' beliefs and oppressive systems of institutionaized belief, the message is loud and clear: there are things you may not criticize.

And that's the road to censorship.

And allowing the criticism in the other direction, casually insulting individuals for their intellectual choices while holding sacred the spiritual beliefs of others, that's just hypocrisy.

[ 01 October 2003: Message edited by: Rebecca West ]

Otherwise, casual insults about others' intellectual choices: well, that's the problem, isn't it? -- and is always going to be.

I mean, I'm happy to confess that my own training and reading have made me hypersensitive to a certain kind of thought that I trace to the early/mid-C19, and yes, I have a hard time not sounding rude when I meet, eg, utilitarians.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rebecca West:
"isn't it funny how people who are good at math don't get symbolism"

---

quote:

---

nonesuch: I find it odd that people who are comfortable with mathematics have so much trouble with other kinds of symbolism.

---

[ 01 October 2003: Message edited by: Francis Mont ]

quote:

---

If you quote, Rebecca, do it right.

---

quote:

---

By changing words, you give a different meaning to what you quoted. It is not hard to quote the actual words, and it is more honest.

---

And, if I may be so bold, might I add that I find your style of listing points alphanumerically just a trifle tedious and pedantic? Just a comment.

quote:

---

But I'll try to play nicer. I will. *grinds teeth*

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rebecca West:
And, if I may be so bold, might I add that I find your style of listing points alphanumerically just a trifle tedious and pedantic?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Francis Mont:
I use it as a last resort, to illustrate a chain of logic, when nothing else seems to work.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rebecca West:
Yes, that is a good example of censorship. But long before that happens, people start saying things like, "it's wrong to criticize that" or "you can't attack that idea", etc.

---

quote:

---

On the other hand, "Your reasoning is faulty.", "You are dead wrong." or "Nonesuch, go scew yourself!" would be another person exercising hir freedom of speech. This is the price of my freedom to say whatever i want; therefore i gladly accept it.

---

quote:

---

And that's the road to censorship.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rebecca West:
And are you meeting with much success?

---

quote:

---

I'd love to give your post the point by point attention it deserves. I just don't have that kind of time on my hands. I do see your chain of thought more clearly now...

---

When something is very complex, it helps to illustrate.

quote:

---

Originally posted by nonesuch:
On the other hand, ... "Nonesuch, go screw yourself!" would be another person exercising hir freedom of speech. This is the price of my freedom to say whatever i want; therefore i gladly accept it.

---

quote:

---

Did they, in fact, say that? Or did they say that it's logically inconsistent to use a part to represent the whole; or that it's not necessary to scrap an idea because one, some or all of its institutional incarnations have behaved badly?

---

Throughout these religion/science/spirituality threads, people who criticize ASPECTS OF INSTITUTIONIZED RELIGION (should I repeat that phrase a few hundred fucking times, so people get that that's all I'm really talking about, or at this point should I just bend over and take it?) are accused of smearing all personal spiritualities and organized religions. Protest against such an accusation is greeted with more criticism, attacks against "logic", attacks against the mindset, etc. Never, "oh gee, I thought you were targeting all spirituality/religion, but you've made it clear you're not. Sorry".

Not that I expect that kind of reasonable response or anything. It just reveals, pretty clearly to me, that there are things people don't want to hear, and in that event they'll use any means necessary to shut their opponents down.

And that's why it feels like censorship. And I don't give a rat's ass whether it feels that way to anyone else. If it's true for me, then it's true in the only way that counts. (A sentiment I express with regard to religion - if you believe there's a god, then there is.) And it doesn't matter whether you are a Vietnamese Zen Master or a Viennese physicist, in more ways than you can count, perspective not only informs reality - it sometimes is reality.

[ 01 October 2003: Message edited by: Rebecca West ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rebecca West:

Throughout these religion/science/spirituality threads, people who criticize ASPECTS OF INSTITUTIONIZED RELIGION ..... are accused of smearing all personal spiritualities and organized religions.

---

quote:

---

Personally Skdadl, I'm big on content, less so on form. If I've really pissed you off, I'd prefer it if you told me to go to hell.

---

No, Rebecca: that closing line of mine was meant ironically and was applied explicitly to utilitarians. I used utilitarians as an example of a kind of thinking I seriously cannot stand; and I picked that group specifically because I thought that no one here was one and therefore no one would take my tooth-grinding personally.

quote:

---

And that's why it feels like censorship. And I don't give a rat's ass whether it feels that way to anyone else. If it's true for me, then it's true in the only way that counts. (A sentiment I express with regard to religion - if you believe there's a god, then there is.) And it doesn't matter whether you are a Vietnamese Zen Master or a Viennese physicist, in more ways than you can count, perspective not only informs reality - it sometimes is reality.

---

Ah, i finally see! It's about feelings. Well, in that case, you're absolutely, uncontestably right. Subjective emotional reaction trumps both reason and faith.

Oh...Okay.
Besides, i wanted to fix that typo.

[ 01 October 2003: Message edited by: nonesuch ]

M'self, I don't mind people talking out of the corners of their mouths, being wise-guys, if they can do Bogart/Bacall really well (local Bogart/Bacall seem to be Tommy P and Rebecca).

It's always hard to know when other babblers are going to react to smart-mouthedness. I sometimes am really irritated by it in others, and yet there are smarty-pantses around here whom I admire and defend, and I still haven't figured out what makes the difference.

There's a difference, eg, between just swearing and being able to turn a sharp phrase. I can't accomplish it, nor can I define it, but I know it when I see it.

But honestly, I should have thought that everyone posting to this thread was more or less on the same side on this issue -- more civil libertarian than not.

I continue to feel, none the less, that there have seldom been pile-ups against the scientific method on babble (I mean, honestly ... ), whereas it often happens that as soon as an issue of idealist faith arises, someone is bound to zing in with that crass and most unfunny metaphor about the Great Potato Chip.

quote:

---

Originally posted by skdadl:
I continue to feel, none the less, that there have seldom been pile-ups against the scientific method on babble (I mean, honestly ... ), whereas it often happens that as soon as an issue of idealist faith arises, someone is bound to zing in with that crass and most unfunny metaphor about the Great Potato Chip.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by skdadl:

No, Rebecca: that closing line of mine was meant ironically and was applied explicitly to utilitarians.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by skdadl:
I continue to feel, none the less, that there have seldom been pile-ups against the scientific method on babble (I mean, honestly ... ), whereas it often happens that as soon as an issue of idealist faith arises, someone is bound to zing in with that crass and most unfunny metaphor about the Great Potato Chip.

---

Well, excuuuuuuse me.

However, I get the definite feeling (from people like Lima Bean, for example, if I may cite L.B.) that some people are quite willing to discount the scientific method and look down upon it precisely because it doesn't leave room for spirituality or ethereal planes or any explanation for why something happens that does not have some origin in a physical manifestation of something.

Which is why, when people trash science (at least, when I perceive that they do so), it is why I reply with the rejoinder about Zeus and the bolt of lightning, since if we're to start disregarding the increase in understanding about the world around us because "science is destructive", or some such balderdash, then why bother with retaining any of the understanding of the world about us that has been wrought via science?

As for the Potato Chip.

As Rebecca West states, and with whom I agree, I get more than a little tired when it becomes abundantly clear that people who praise religion and spirituality are often somewhat selective about what it is they're praising, especially when it comes to people who arrive at it from a Christian perspective.

It also seems to me that people seem to utterly miss or ignore my basic, simple, lesson that I am trying to elucidate with my over-the-top comments about the Potato Chip:

1. People refer to "God" or "Jesus Christ" as supreme beings which have a real existence whose basic nature must be "taken on faith" - and how allergic I am to that, by the way! - before said deity will deign to show me that he, she, or it, exists for real. Yet, if I were to pray to the Great Big Potato Chip, clearly anybody with a working brain would think I was an idiot for believing a humongous, universe-spanning, invisible, potato chip would deign to place all its attention on little ol' me and massage my concerns and capriciously deal me the cards of fate amid my vain prayers that it stack the deck in my favor.

When we deal with this in children we explain that imaginary friends won't help them in the long run, and often we have to restrain a giggle when a child says "Steve did it!" when we know there is no such person. Yet, adults freely and with all grave manner of much import will hesitate to giggle when someone refers to a chat with his imaginary friend named "God".

Of course the explanation at root is in social psychology and all the anthropology of religion and whatnot, but the salient point remains: What makes your imaginary friend better than mine?

2. The ritual and pomp that surrounds group assemblies that worship said imaginary friend are, to some degree, ridiculous when viewed through the eyes of an atheist. The fundamental beauty in the physical universe around me doesn't need a God to make it better, as I see it. Yet, when I solemnly discuss the sanctification of the holy ground upon which a potato has fallen, anybody with a working brain would clearly think me daft, and they'd be right.

So what makes your solemn ritual less giggle-worthy than mine?

A final note: Argument by appealing to the fact that "the majority" says that Christian rituals and deities are acceptable are an example of the logical fallacy of appeal by reference to the masses.

quote:

---

You aren't a utilitarian, are you?

---

quote:

---

Ah, i finally see! It's about feelings.

---

The young man began to speak and asked me if I ever wondered why, if there is a God, he never intervenes on Earth? Why he never acts to stop evil events.

No, I told him, I know why.

He was surprised, but let me finish.

It is because God is too busy, I told him. He laughed and I continued. God has an entire staff of people sitting in front of their compuetrs consumed with the work of the universe. God doesn't have time for us.

They both laughed. They asked me if I ever considered religion. I don't believe in religion I answered. They asked why. I said, because I am a pragmatist. I said religion comes with dogma which views a world of black and white. I said there are many grays. They asked for an example, I raised same-sex marriage.

I suggested I couldn't care less if two people of the same sex wish to marry. It won't effect my life, my street, my community or my country in any negative way. I said it is not a matter for religion. And besides, it is between them and thier God if they have one.

We then had a long and pleasant discussion about God, the universe even GM foods. I didn't join a church, and maybe they are not entirely convinced that they ought to turn their attention to saving all life through preaching ecological activism, but at least they listened.

And we all went away feeling good from a fun and perhaps even educational discussion.

That wouldn't have happened had I slammed the door or told them I think their faith is equitable to that of believing in fairy tales or the big potato chip in the sky.

And I learned something too. Jehovahs consider same-sex relationships a personal matter. They consider it contrary to their interpretation of God's plan, but they do not campaign against it. Or at least, that is what I was told.

In spite of all appearances, I am not religious. I never had any spiritual experience myself (other than my Mother announcing the death of her close relatives hours before we got the telegram). I am aware of the historical role of organized religions in horrible atrocities. I can even go as far as saying that some of the rituals look pretty weird.

After all these admissions, I am aware of the fact that all these religious feelings and precepts came about for some reason. That these rituals mean a lot to a lot of people. That religious feelings satisfy some kind of profound human need in billions of human beings, from all walks of life, including many world class scientists who are highly intelligent and highly educated. I am aware of the fact that religions have had a very important part in all cultures from the beginning of history. I know that I don’t know everything and there may be thoughts, feelings and experiences all through human history and all over the planet that I can’t even imagine, let alone understand. I know that I have been often wrong in my logical conclusions and so have been accomplished scientists.

So what do I do? Keep an open mind. Keep my ears and eyes open, wonder about possibilities, curious about people who are different from me, play a lot of “what if?” games.

I am not interested in organized religion – that is just politics. I am interested in what people really feel and think and how much of their religion is for real, deep down there. Whatever they have that is natural, deeply felt, real awe, like what I feel when I face nature, I do have respect for and treat it with gentle (and sometime envious) curiosity.

If it is the same depth as I have for whales and abandoned kittens and elephants and sunsets, then I want them to know that I am on their side. Because the capacity of feeling so deeply and profoundly about something is what makes us truly human and makes those of us capable of it truly brothers and sisters.

To hurt it, damage it, mock it, ridicule it, trample all over it with half-baked (even fully baked) logic is sacrilege in the non-religious sense of the word. It makes the aggressor a bull in a china store.

quote:

---

The real issue is respect for each other’s humanity when it comes to real feelings of awe and wonder.

---

quote:

---

Forget about organized religion (or discuss it in ‘Politics’) – the real issue is respect for each other’s humanity when it comes to real feelings of awe and wonder.

---

It would be difficult to deny that the universe is a wonderous thing, regardless of where you stand spiritually or philosophically. There are many, many ways of perceiving it. And there is nothing wrong with thinking that some ways of seeing it are inherently 'better' or 'worse' than others. Everyone does, otherwise, why would they make the choices they make? Why choose a religion/spirituality/philosophy/scientific approach at all, if none is any better or worse than any other?

I also agree with much of what you say regarding organized religion and its political nature. But, like politics, those who believe in a particular doctrine, dogma, philosophy, spiritual reality, who attach themselves to a religion or party, believe they have a right to say how others, who do not belong to their religion/party, should live, who they love, how they love, how independent of or dependent on her husband/father a woman should be and whether she may vote, learn to read, hold office, be a priest, etc., etc., etc. And sometimes a challenge to these ideas that a few people wish to impose on many results in the horrible torture and death of the challengers, not to mention innocent bystanders.

You cannot always separate an individual's spiritual choices from their choice of dogma. Often the two are one and the same, and if we do not, repeatedly, say "that belief system is very dangerous to society in general, and certain people in particular", then we run the risk of sitting on our hands while horrendous crimes are committed in the name of religious belief, because we hold the right to that belief sacred.

That does not mean we have the right to trash, belittle or demean individuals for their beliefs, and that should in no way prevent us from our fascination in what others think and believe, but where there is harm, great harm to others within that belief system, we must have the strength of our conviction, our conviction that some belief systems or religions or philosophies, are 'better' or 'worse' than others.

[ 02 October 2003: Message edited by: Rebecca West ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rebecca West:
You cannot always separate an individual's spiritual choices from their choice of dogma. Often the two are one and the same, and if we do not, repeatedly, say "that belief system is very dangerous to society in general, and certain people in particular", then we run the risk of sitting on our hands while horrendous crimes are committed in the name of religious belief, because we hold the right to that belief sacred.

That does not mean we have the right to trash, belittle or demean individuals for their beliefs, and that should in no way prevent us from our fascination in what others think and believe

---

However, great care needs to be taken to decide whether someone's spirituality implies any danger to others.

What I tried to demonstrate with my posts on this thread is the attitude of some babblers (I don't have to name them, they all know who they are) who gleefully trash deeply held spiritual beliefs of others, who are in no way danger to anyone (what harm can come from someone believing in ghosts or precognition?).

What I sense in this attitude is the desire to act superior to others, based on half-digested scientific principles and methods. In the other threads I linked to earlier, I quoted about a dozen Nobel prized physicists who explain how they perceive their science and its limitations.

As usual, the more you know, the more you realize how much you don't know and how uncertain is what you think you know. It teaches you modesty, humility and respect for other possibilities.

On the other hand, those who know a little, often think that they have all the answers to all possible questions, so they feel confident trashing anything outside of their limited universe.

[ 02 October 2003: Message edited by: Francis Mont ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Francis Mont:
(what harm can come from someone believing in ghosts or precognition?).

---

I have to quibble with this little parenthetical phrase. Unfortunately, practically no deeply-held belief has been entirely harmless, historically speaking. People believing in precognition, for instance, believed in the "prophecies" of the group known as Heaven's Gate...

Usually, such persons do the most harm to themselves. People who believe that a doctor can be guided by the ghost of a long-dead, brilliant surgeon - an actual case - may make unwise decisions to trust themselves to his knife, even for ills they haven't actually got. Look up the history of spiritualism (from a historian's perspective, rather than a spiritualist's) and you'll find a hundred sad tales of hope, health, and wealth given up in pursuit of phantoms. Tragic, but one cannot call it "harmful" to others than the believers.

Unfortunately, people who take it on themselves to make such choices may also make it for their children - the most common manifestation of "harm to others" - or sometimes to others in their community. Innocent people have occasionally gone to prison largely because a "psychic" claims to have special knowledge of a crime from some sort of ghostly vision. The psychic is not solely to blame - they generally pick up on a character with a motive and/or circumstantial case as given by the papers, which is what weighs most heavily against the defendant at trial - but they may turn a vague suspicion on the part of the police into a false certainty, thus setting in motion the whole works. (And, it has sadly been shown, once an arrest is made, sometimes police and prosecutors will defend it far past the point where the evidence will take them; sometimes even in the face of contrary evidence.)

Just as nothing is too serious to be laughed at, on some level, ("Springtime for Hitler...") nothing is too ludicrous to be taken by somebody, somewhere, as motivation for the most serious act. Sometimes those acts are transcendantly beneficial to humanity, and sometimes... the opposite. Sometimes bits of both are mixed in there.

quote:

---

Originally posted by April Follies:
I have to quibble with this little parenthetical phrase.

---

I. do. not. trash. anyone's. personal. feelings. of. wonderment. at. anything.

If I have to repeat this using drawing and stick figures I'm going to check myself into a mud bath or something.

Yet I have people trying to take sideswipes at me because I choose to ask the question of why society, ostensibly secular in nature, conditions people to believe that certain religious customs and rituals should be given the support of the state and if not state support, then certainly preferential treatment in everyday activities.

Have I not also often asked how something can break my leg or pick my pocket? Well, the question applies here too.

Who chooses to worship what deity or plane of existence or what have you neither breaks my leg nor picks my pocket, provided that no repercussions come to me through that belief.

As long as that condition holds, it isn't any concern of mine as far as personal belief systems go. Believe whatever you want; I'm hardly going to stop you.

My concern, as I have to keep nigletizingly pointing out, is when the clear question of preferential treatment for people arises when stating that one believes in a particular set of writings gets one's "foot in the door", as it were.

Incidentally, another question arises:

quote:

---

Why is it illegitimate to question the Bible except insofar as it comes to questioning the legitimacy of the Israeli claim to that particular chunk of land in the Mediterranean?

---

And maybe Doc I missed your "nigletizingly" detailed statements outside of your Potato Chip in the Sky statements.

quote:

---

ostensibly

---

Like a shopping-mall: everybody chooses a religion - or doesn't - and with it comes a passle of dogma that's going to hurt somebody sometime down the road - or not - so the ones who did, shouldn't have, and the ones who didn't were right all along, so there!
I don't think that's really how it happened. I don't think that's really not how it works. But, then, what do we unfeeling, humourless and superstitious (all at the same time!) robots know?

It started out as a polite question about why it's okay tp razz believers.
Rebeacca West did an admirable two and a half twist: I'll ridicule you all i want, because some of you did some of us wrong; if you object, i'll whine about being persecuted and censored, even if it never happened, i feel like like it might have, so that's as good as done, and now i'll pretend i was rational the whole time. Dr. Conway brought in the Potato Chip, which was never relevant to anything but is glib enough in the unreal context of the shopping mall philosophy to sound as if it were.
I missed some, and skipped some and ignored some... sorry.
Bottom line: it's okay to razz religious folks (except Judaim), because they've hurt people, but very bad form to razz antireligious folks, because....
...sorry, i didn't quite understand the reason...

[ 03 October 2003: Message edited by: nonesuch ]

And, it's a cheap, if all to frequent last refuge of the scoundrelous arguer to resort to "you're bigoted against me", when the facts are unfortunately arranged against one.

I thought we all agreed on that earlier? Unusual that we don't come to some concensus on a religious debate around here.

quote:

---

Originally posted by nonesuch:
Rebeacca West did an admirable two and a half twist: I'll ridicule you all i want, because some of you did some of us wrong; if you object, i'll whine about being persecuted and censored, even if it never happened, i feel like like it might have, so that's as good as done, and now i'll pretend i was rational the whole time. Dr. Conway brought in the Potato Chip, which was never relevant to anything but is glib enough in the unreal context of the shopping mall philosophy to sound as if it were.
I missed some, and skipped some and ignored some... sorry.

---

Yeah, I got sucked in for sure. I let you get under my skin. I hope I at least provided the kind of entertainment value you were looking for. I know I've certainly enjoyed the spectacle watching you behave like an asshole. It's nice when everyone walks away with something, eh?

Now, if you'll excuse me, there's a tube of Pringles awaiting my subservient adoration and worshipful respect. Amen brothers and sisters.

Edited to add: This was a genuine question...

quote:

---

Tell me nonesuch, from your point of view, does having an emotional attachment to a particular argument, no matter how relevant or well-constructed, invalidate that position?

---

Oh, and another question. Are we to assume that, by your standards, a protest against insult and belittlement always equates "whining"? Or does it vary, depending on the person who's doing the protesting?

[ 03 October 2003: Message edited by: Rebecca West ]

By the way, I think that what you quoted from nonesuch is a masterpiece of condensed and accurate description of my own impression. I wish I could do it so well!

PS. Now you can find some other four letter word that describes your opinion about my post. Shoot, I am ready (closes his eyes and braces for impact)

[ 03 October 2003: Message edited by: Francis Mont ]

quote:

---

I'm assuming you ignored it because you were too busy fishing around for something else to sneer at. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

---

quote:

---

Oh, and another question. Are we to assume that, by your standards, a protest against insult and belittlement always equates "whining"? Or does it vary, depending on the person who's doing the protesting?

---

quote:

---

Depends more on the form than the content.

---

quote:

---

Rebecca, that was damn near brilliant.

---

1. There is no proof of any god’s existence
2. There is substantial evidence that the Earth’s formation and evolution does not occur according to any creation story.
3. There are many different religions and they all think theirs is correct. Christians and Jews believe in only one of all of the gods mentioned on the Earth. In other words, they are almost atheist, but continue believing in one god, despite the lack of evidence. Without a clear rationale to accept one set of claims, while rejecting the rest, the most likely conclusion is that they are all nonsense, and all based on the same human error – wishful thinking.
4. It is possible to use the text of the Bible to support war, racism, mysogyny and even genocide and this has occurred in the past (eg. Crusades, Nazi Germany) and the present (eg.,tensions in Ireland, Indonesia, or the west’s wars and oppression against Islamic nations)
5. It is irrational to “believe in something for which there is no definition.” Do you believe in fumblethwarps? No, you can’t, because you don’t know what they are.
6. When people try to explain what god(s) is (are), they are inconsistent, incoherent and self-contradictory. Most simply say it’s not possible to understand god, which begs the question “why believe”? Faith in something for which there is no proof is illogical and closed-minded wishful thinking.
7. People who believe in the Bible say that there is an omnipotent god. If this were true, why would he regularly turn a blind eye to the terrible struggles of the ill, disabled and impoverished? Were there a god, (s)he would therefore be evil – or s(he) isn’t really omnipotent? If there is a god whose power has limits, then millions of Christians and Jews have been misled.
8. The judgments, morals and values of God in the bible are seriously flawed and his murderous acts are evil in my mind. I believe that most individuals have better judgment than the god of the Bible. Specifically, the Judeo-Christian god is a repeat mass-murderer who supports torture, misogyny, genocide, homophobia and cannibalism. His punishments are unjust (see list of cruelties below).
9. The Pope tells people in Africa not to use condoms, while millions die
10. The Vatican supported Hitler.
11. Many priests protect paedophilic colleagues.
12. Religious people are shunned by their peers if they fail to assign religion to children through traditional rites.

Nietsche says god is dead. I think the most likely scenario is that there is no god at all.

Here are some examples of how cruel God is in the Old and New Testaments. To have faith in something, you have to choose to do so. Why would you choose faith in this tripe...

1. God forces Isaac to murder his son – Genesis 22:2
2. Abraham murders his son - Genesis 22:10
3. God didn’t like the look of Er when born so he murdered him – Genesis 38:7
4. God murders again – Genesis 38:10
5. God threatens to murder Pharoah’s firstborn son – Exodus 4:23
6. God considers murdering Moses for not slicing off his son’s foreskin – Exodus 4:24
7. God commits genocide against all firstborns, animals and gods in Egypt – Exodus 12:12 (does this not imply that there are other gods?)
8. God is defined as a “man of war” – Exodus 15:3
9. God cuts people into pieces – Exodus 15:6
10. God refers to other gods in Egypt again (after drowning people by blowing water with his nostrils)– Exodus 15:11
11. He makes the Earth swallow people in - Exodus 15:12
12. God drowns horses and their riders – Exodus 15:19
13. God says children who disobey their parents should be murdered – Exodus 21:15
14. If an ox gores someone God says the ox and its owner should be killed – Exodus 21:29
15. You must not revile the gods (more than one god?) – Exodus 22:28
16. God supports sacrificing sons – Exodus 22:29
17. God will murder anyone who works on a Sunday – Exodus 31:15
18. God tells people to murder all those who danced naked with swords – Exodus 32:27
19. God will kill both parties to adultery – Leviticus 20:10
20. God will kill people who have sex with their parent’s new spouse – Leviticus 20:11
21. God will kill anyone who is into bestiality – Leviticus 20:12
22. God will kill homosexuals – Leviticus 20:13
23. God hates all of the above people (I thought He was supposed to love everyone) – Levi 20:23
24. All witches or wizards should be stoned to death – Leviticus 20:27
25. Priests must not shave the corner of their beard (why not?)– Leviticus 21:5
26. If a priests daughter sleeps around, she will burn to death – Levitucus 21:9
27. God hates all handicapped people and they cannot approach the altar – Levi 21:17–21
28. Anyone who “blasphemes” (me) should be put to death by public stoning by the congregation– Levi 24:16
29. God supports “eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth” punishment - Levi 24:20
30. Follow God’s laws or he will bring terror, disease and blindness and make enemies eat your children. Then he will kill you in front of your enemies. Then (if this doesn’t work) he will punish you seven more times with plague. Then (if this doesn’t work) he will send beasts to steal your children. Then, you will be forced to eat your children (didn’t your enemies already eat them?). Then he mentions enemies eating you again if that doesn’t work. Very confusing stuff here. – Levi 26:16-39
31. God kills again with plague – Numbers 11:33
32. God kills a guy for picking up sticks on a Sunday – Numbers 15:32-36
33. God kills another 250 people – Numbers 16:35
34. God kills another 14,700 people with plague – Numbers 16:45-49
35. When people complained about a lack of food and water, God killed them with dragon-like snakes – Numbers 21:6
36. God’s people should kill like a lion and drink the blood of the victims – Numbers 23:24
37. God asks people to hang people’s heads in front of him because he is angry with Israel– Numbers 25:4
38. God decides to end a plague because a murder made him happy (so only 24000 died)– Numbers 25:8
39. God tells some Israeli men to kill all of the men and all the non-virgin females, but to keep all of the virgins for themselves – Numbers 31:17
40. God commits a brutal genocide - Deuteronomy 2:33-34
41. God tortures and tortures and tortures (absolutely disgusting)- Deuteronomy 28:20-34
42. More brutality – Deuteronomy 32:24-27
43. More genocide - Joshua 6:21
44. God commits some more cruelty – Joshua 7:25
45. God commits more genocide - Joshua 10:10
46. God throws stones to kill people – Joshua 10:11
47. Joshua follows God’s orders to commit genocide – Joshua 10:39
48. More brutality and cruel punishment (cutting toes off) - Judges 1:4-10
49. God couldn’t drive people out because they had iron chariots (not omnipotent then) - Judges 1:19
50. Lots more brutality in Judges too numerous to mention
51. God kills 50000 + people - 1Samuel 6:19
52. God kills man, woman, child and animals- 1Samuel 15:3
53. David is a brutal deranged killer - 2Samuel 4:12
54. A human sacrifice is performed for God - 2Samuel 21:8-9
55. More genocide - 1King’s 15:29
56. Genocide leaving not even anyone who so much as “pisseth against a wall” - 1King’s 16:11
57. Elijah proves he is a “man of God” by having god kill 51 people – 2King’s 1:10-13
58. Punishment with leprosy – 2King’s 5:27
59. Back to killing he the “pisseth against the wall” again – 2King’s 9:8
60. God gives leprosy as punishment – 2King’s 15:5
61. Pregnant women are systematically slaughtered – 2King’s 15:16
62. 2King’s 15:30 and 15:32-33 are totally contradictory !
63. God kills thousands of Assyrians – 2King’s 19:35
64. God kills Uzza for touching an ark – Chronicles 13:10
65. God kills 70,000 people – Chronicles 21:14
66. To show a love of god, Solomon kills 22000 oxen and 150000 sheep - 2Chronicles 7:5
67. God will kill anyone who does not believe in him – 2Chronicles 15:13
68. Once again, God seems to like war – Psalms 18:34
69. Mercy will be granted to people who killed great Kings – Psalms 136:17, 136:18
70. Mysogyny? Confusing. – Proverbs 22:14
71. People should hit their children with rods so that they will no longer be foolish? - Proverbs 22:15
72. Children must be beaten with rods so that their souls will be delivered from hell 23:13-14 (God also says that he will make sure that a child doesn’t die when you beat him)
73. Birds will eat the eyes of children who disobey their parents – Proverbs 30:17
74. Brutality – Isaiah 9:19-20
75. Children killed and cut into pieces, wives raped and houses destroyed, not even unborn babies are spared – Isaiah 13:15-18
76. Children whose fathers are bad must be slaughtered – Isaiah 14:21
77. God is a cruel, brutal, vengeful monster – Isaiah 34:2-8
78. More genocide – Isaiah 37:36
79. Dig up the dead of Jerusalem and spread their bones out like shit in the face of God because they are bad (is this not racist and sacrilege?)– Jeremiah 8:1-3
80. God inflicts famine onto the families of warriors (who he has killed by the sword) – Jeremiah 11:22
81. God is wicked – Jeremiah 14:12, 14:16
82. God forces cannibalism – Jeremiah 19:7-19:9
83. Peaceful men (those who can control their anger and not kill) will be cursed (this contradicts with “thou shalt not kill”)– Jeremiah 48:10
84. People complain about God’s brutality – Lamentations 2:20-21
85. To prove that he is the Lord, God kills young girls - Ezekiel 26:6-8
86. To prove that he is the Lord, God brings pesilence and blood to the streets – Ezekiel 28:23
87. God kills unborn children - Hosea 9:14-16
88. Samaria rebels against God, so god kills her children and cuts them up into pieces – Hosea 13:16
89. God punishes men with killings, disease and a horrible stench for their nostrils – Amos 4:10
90. If a man looks at a married woman with lust, he has committed adultery. If you don’t like the way a man looks at a woman, pluck out his eyeball. If you don’t like what he does with his hands, then cut them off - Matthew 5:29-30
91. Anyone who swears in front of their parents should be murdered – Matthew 15:4
92. Anyone who swears in front of their parents should be murdered - Mark 7:10
93. Eye for an eye punishment (really nasty stuff) – Mark 9:43-48
94. Everyone must preach the gospel to all creatures. If you do not believe, you will be damned to Hell. If you are baptized, you are saved. Period. 16:15, 16:16
95. Killing enemies again - Luke 19:27
96. He that believes shall live forever. He that refuses to believe shall die and face the wrath of God. John 3:36 I also noticed that 3:32 and 3:33 are contradictory
97. God lies and causes hardship as a result – 2Thessalonius 2:11-12
98. Punishment must involve blood or remission is impossible – Hebrews 9:22

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rebecca West:
So, are you saying the aesthetic of an argument is important enough to merit comment, but its content isn't?

---

quote:

---

Personally Skdadl, I'm big on content, less so on form.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ubu:
To have faith in something, you have to choose to do so. Why would you choose faith in this tripe...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by clersal:

Am I missing something? I am not trying to be dense but I do not understand where the problem lies...

---

Sorry, Francis, but I am not sure what you meant by my proving your point.

Take it to alt.atheism, where it'll be welcome, and where you quite possibly got some of that screed. Here ain't the place. Note the spelling: "babble". Not like "atheism". See? Not hard at all.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ubu:
Sorry, Francis, but I am not sure what you meant by my proving your point. Perhaps you are referring to the fact that I am not showing respect for your religion?

---

I see your point. I never claimed to be a great debater, but I do think I am on solid ground in terms of the logic behind my argument.

The point I was trying to make is that, when it comes to religion, people make a choice when they "choose" faith. If the Bible were beautiful, I would understand their choice, even if I am a non-believer. They would be choosing something good. However, I find it to be an offensive document and list 103 reasons why. Therefore, I am showing why I believe faith to be a detrimental choice. Why would anyone make a choice to have faith in such a hateful document? Therein lies the relevance of my list. The fact that I do not believe in God is irrelevant because the audience I am expecting are those who have faith in his/her/it's existence.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Francis Mont:
Excellent!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by nonesuch:
Dr. Conway brought in the Potato Chip, which was never relevant to anything but is glib enough in the unreal context of the shopping mall philosophy to sound as if it were.

---

You have utterly ignored the basic point I was trying to draw, and in fact deliberately discounted by changing the amounts you would be willing to bet.

You did not seem to see that I was trying to frame the question of social support for religious dogma in the secular realm and the natural extension of this to preferential treatment for those who profess of a certain belief even though official law takes no note of religious preference except to guarantee freedom of such belief.

quote:

---

Originally posted by WingNut:
You would never catch Rebecca or DrConway argue the cruelty of something they believe doesn't exist.

---

It is, however, true that in the Bible, the justification for the atrocities so committed is that "God" told the people to do them.

That having been said, I want to make an aside to Ubu:

I used to be like you, actually. I used to hate the hell out of Christianity in general and I used to be a lot more willing to cheer the act of splashing the salacious acts of the Bible in one page in order to shock people.

However, I've mellowed for a number of reasons; chief among them is I found a better balance in my life, and I've transferred my all-fired pissed-off attitude to bashing the unfairness of things that affect our everyday lives, like our tax system.

In short, I'm still an atheist, but I no longer feel the desire to argue the atheist case using the same methodology that the National Enquirer uses to sell newspapers.

You may want to take a breather and ask yourself if there's a more reasonable way to make your case - although I fundamentally agree that people who use the Bible as a moral guide without acknowledging the many immoral acts that were allegedly sanctioned by "God" are not practicing caveat believer.

[ 03 October 2003: Message edited by: DrConway ]

[ 03 October 2003: Message edited by: DrConway ]

PS. Someone just reminded me. Thanks!

[ 03 October 2003: Message edited by: Francis Mont ]

quote:

---

You have utterly ignored the basic point I was trying to draw, and in fact deliberately discounted by changing the amounts you would be willing to bet.

---

To adopt the specious reasoning that my hair length effects political outcomes would be rediculous; worthy of ridicule.

But what if I convinced many people that this was true? Is it less worthy of ridicule then?

Your above post seems to indicate just this, Nonesuch.

I'm a big believer in democracy, but unfortunately some things are outside the scope of the will of the majority. The majority of people still seem to believe in the earth centered solar system. But the earth moves as it always does, regardless of what we believe.

Let me ask you, TP, is it really necessary to mock and ridicule someone's deeply held belief, if there is no actual or implied harm to anyone involved? Just imagine that the person in question is convinced (s)he can communicate with lost loved ones via séances that require some hocus-pocus that seem ridiculous to you. Is it really necessary to point out how ridiculous it appears to you? And what if you are wrong? What if you are mocking something that is part of the reality of some, but has been denied to you?

Why not keep an open mind and keep your automatic negative reaction to yourself and wonder instead if there could be something to it after all?

And if you are tempted to say that there is harm implied because organized religion....bla...bla...bla...(description of past and present evils nobody has argued with)... can't you see that a single individual who does not belong to any of these evil institutions, can not be held responsible, or punished for, those evil things you (and any sane person) object to.

Should there not be some judgement applied as to whom we ridicule and whom we don't? In over two years of Babble experience, I have not seen much evidence of this judgement from many of the babblers I have been calling rude in this thread.

What I have seen from many is an almost automatic, instantaneous, knee-jerk reaction when someone mentions faith of any kind and spiritual beliefs in anything usually called Para-normal.

quote:

---

fills a need in people's lives

---