The religious right and "smart" people...

@ absentia

I don't believe there is a god, actually. I was just responding to the claim that there is no evidence of anything supernatural. There are plenty of sightings, photographs, and things that people have perceived that are unexplained, and while I don't assume all or even most of it is true, there is still plenty of it for which we have no explanation.

And not only do the oppressive practices you mention not have anything to do with belief in ghosts (as an example), they also aren't supported by all religious people, even among the laity of churches where that is the official doctrine.

I agree there are some pretty vile things in religious texts, but alongside that they also deal with questions of morality and philosophy that are still relevant today.

hsfreethinkers wrote:

Fidel, you put a lot of effort into this.  Are you struggling with the question of whether there is a supernatural?  Well, there's no evidence for it. Sorry.

Well at first glance, those in the 19th century would have thought so. Some scientists then believed that everything knowable was known to them. Today's theoretical scientists speak of the nature of reality and matter in ways that approach the mystical(Tom Harpur, Life After Death, 1992). One Cambridge physicist describes a theoretical universe where information is a key part of the universe. In his mind, our thoughts and actions have consequences for the creation of new universes with every choice we make and for every action we pursue. For David Deutsch, the Hugh Everett's other worlds theory is true in addition to Darwinian evolution. For him, it's the only way to explain the amount of matter in this expanding universe since its creation. According to David Deutsch, a self-described atheist, new worlds are created all the time and infinity has no bounds. For another, Brian Greene of New York, our entire world and existence is merely a hologram of light dancing back to us from Planck boundaries at the edge of the universe and projected toward focal points in this locale. the result of two dimensional data that exists somewhere in another universe. Some people might be reminded of the Apostles description of many mansions prepared for us by God.  In the biblical narrative Jesus said to his apostles, If it were not so, I would have told you. And for physicists like Fritjof Capra, the supernatural is not the far fetched. Capra theorizes that we derive our creativity and intuition from interaction with other worlds on a daily basis. In his view, the human mind is intimately connected to alternate universes at levels of intuition, creativity, dream state, and even on psychic levels. And some anthropologists will tell us that ancient peoples have believed similar things for a long time. For some ancient peoples, shamans and medicine men and women were the first scientists. They believed they were tapping into the spirit world by deep meditation of the mind by isolating themselves in caves and deep underground where sounds and light from the ambient world could not reach. Shamans and medicine men experimented with drugs in order to induce altered states of consciousness. Meditation, rhythmic drums in combination with the right spiritual places were key to accessing the spirit world. Infinite reality is an old idea that seems to be shared by human cultures around the world and transcending time and even scientific points of view.

Well I guess if the Church was eliminated, it should finally put an end to child abuse for all time. There should be no more corruption of people anywhere, and the world would live happily ever after. I imagine this is what the smart people are saying.

Smart people are saying: "Kids need protection from ads - and Bible Bashers". It wouldn't put an end to child abuse, but it would certainly help if adults didn't indoctrinate children.

Fidel wrote:

Well I guess if the Church was eliminated, it should finally put an end to child abuse for all time. There should be no more corruption of people anywhere, and the world would live happily ever after. I imagine this is what the smart people are saying.

Naw... People will still behave badly. They invented religion (as well as money, aristocracy, blood sports, prostitution, patriarchy, etc.) to give bad behahiour a legal protective framework. Eliminate religion, and you deprive bad behaviour of one hiding place, that's all.

6079_Smith_W wrote:

@ absentia

...... And not only do the oppressive practices you mention not have anything to do with belief in ghosts (as an example), they also aren't supported by all religious people, even among the laity of churches where that is the official doctrine.....

Jews not circumsizing their sons? Good news. Catholics, not telling their daughters they'll go to confession or burn in hell - your choice? Excellent! Fundamentalist Christians letting gays get married and unwed teenagers have abortions and terminal cancer patients get suicide assistance? What a pleasant surprise! Okay then; we're making progress. 

Quote:

I agree there are some pretty vile things in religious texts, but alongside that they also deal with questions of morality and philosophy that are still relevant today.

Of course. Those things have always been with us, in all societies. They won't go away the minute we stop believing that a kind, generous God needed his only son horribly killed, so he could forgive the people misbehaving.

Atheism is extremist? There are not enough smiley faces to put here. Religion is good. God is great,. Non-belief in God is what, exactly?

Sineed wrote:

 This Week In Holy Crimes 

Wow! I read it, going back to the last week of 2009.

Thanks unionist. I had no idea the NDP were big on that ol' time religion.

Those 3.3 percent must be the ones who realize that atheism is an extremist point of view as far as science is concerned.

No one in this thread says that non-belief in God is an extremist point of view.

I must strenuously object, Fidel.  All these years I have read your contributions to this message board and found them full of spirit, information and occasional wisdom. 

I will not stand for anyone saying you are "no one"-- not even you.

I think the salient point of religion and cases of child abuse and child sexual abuse is that it is institutional in nature in a way that the "Uncle Hermans" of the world are not.   It puts a nasty edge on things, and personally, I think whatever nasty comments slung at the various religions who have become parties to these attrocities and more deserve every missive fired their way and count themselves damn lucky that's all that is being fired at them.

But, they are not the only institution that has been known to do this.   In the past years I tried, pretty much in vain, to draw attention to the Cornwall Inquiry where we saw our own institution of justice behave in a similar manner.   

It's not a major story because, I don't doubt, our legal establishment called their PR buddies to call editors to make sure the story ran on page 16 below the fold. Which is what the church used to do when it could.

But as the people who keep following me everywhere keep saying, maybe I shouldn't be so paranoid.

absentia wrote:

6079_Smith_W wrote:

@ absentia

...... And not only do the oppressive practices you mention not have anything to do with belief in ghosts (as an example), they also aren't supported by all religious people, even among the laity of churches where that is the official doctrine.....

Jews not circumsizing their sons? Good news. Catholics, not telling their daughters they'll go to confession or burn in hell - your choice? Excellent! Fundamentalist Christians letting gays get married and unwed teenagers have abortions and terminal cancer patients get suicide assistance? What a pleasant surprise! Okay then; we're making progress. 

Quote:

I agree there are some pretty vile things in religious texts, but alongside that they also deal with questions of morality and philosophy that are still relevant today.

Of course. Those things have always been with us, in all societies. They won't go away the minute we stop believing that a kind, generous God needed his only son horribly killed, so he could forgive the people misbehaving.

Look. feel free to talk about those abuses of religion all you want; I agree with you that they are wrong. But I am not sure what sort of argument you are looking for, because your first response (and your post before it) has nothing to do with the point I was making. And I mean no offense, but I have no idea what you are trying to say with your second statement.

If you want to try again, I am interested to know what you mean (though I likely won't be able to respond until  tomorrow evening as I am in transit).

6079_Smith_W wrote:

absentia wrote:

6079_Smith_W wrote:

@ absentia

...... And not only do the oppressive practices you mention not have anything to do with belief in ghosts (as an example), they also aren't supported by all religious people, even among the laity of churches where that is the official doctrine.....

Jews not circumsizing their sons? Good news. Catholics, not telling their daughters they'll go to confession or burn in hell - your choice? Excellent! Fundamentalist Christians letting gays get married and unwed teenagers have abortions and terminal cancer patients get suicide assistance? What a pleasant surprise! Okay then; we're making progress. 

Quote:

I agree there are some pretty vile things in religious texts, but alongside that they also deal with questions of morality and philosophy that are still relevant today.

Of course. Those things have always been with us, in all societies. They won't go away the minute we stop believing that a kind, generous God needed his only son horribly killed, so he could forgive the people misbehaving.

Look. feel free to talk about those abuses of religion all you want; I agree with you that they are wrong. But I am not sure what sort of argument you are looking for, because your first response (and your post before it) has nothing to do with the point I was making. And I mean no offense, but I have no idea what you are trying to say with your second statement.

If you want to try again, I am interested to know what you mean (though I likely won't be able to respond until  tomorrow evening as I am in transit).

I don't particularly want to talk about 'abuses of religion'. The things i mentioned (not child molestation by Catholic priests - that was mentioned by other people) are integral to the practice of specific religions. If infant genital mutilation, or fear of hellfire, or honour-killing, is going out of style among the believers in this or that doctirine, i'm glad, but it's not relevant. That those practices were enshrined in those doctrines in the first place argues - at least to my mind - against the goodness of the philosphy and morality that religion is supposed to have given the human race.

Also, specific dogma is relevant to the original question. I was referring to the infringement and/or curtailment of other, non-religious, people's civil rights by the fundementalist Christians right. I advocate for a secular state, where laws are made by reasoning jurists, rather than preachers of any denomination - until it can be established, beyond a reasonable doubt, 1. that there is at least one god, 2. that s/he/t cares what humans do and 3. which particular things s/he/t wants done.

My problem is with the idea that morality comes from religion, originates in religion. Of course the language of god-fearing is still present in our laws and state documents: the Christian church had political control of Europe for 1800 years. That doesn't mean there was no law or philosophy or morality or social contract before Christianity. Pre-Christian, even pre-Judaic, societies had rules of behaviour. All of the civilazions we know about had rulas; many had laws carved in stone. Fairly similar laws, as one would expect: don't kill your neighbour, don't cheat your customer, don't take another guy's ox - like that. Pre-civilized societies, who didn't write stuff down, also had similar rules of behaviour. Did they all have religion, as well? Very likely. Does this prove that religions, however different from one another, yet produce similar morality? Or can we infer that morality is an integral part of human society, and religious doctrine is one way to codify that morality?

Looking farther back, to pre-human societies, we find rules of social behaviour - but no religion. So, i conclude that morality predates religion by several million years. Therefore, gods can't take the credit for decent behaviour among primates.... but they each have to take the blame for the specific bad actions they demand of their believers. So, i think, excluding them from our law-making wouldn't be a net loss.     

Yes, in general we do agree.

Religions have served peoples more or less well - the main purpose being tribal/national cohesion through ritual and taboo. This was fine, as long as the tribe, city-state or nation was monolithic - all one little gene pool. Whenever these discrete groups came into contact with one another, they faught or traded. The more xenophobic their religions, the more likely one was to wipe out or enslave another. So, it worked better for strong tribes than weak ones. The bible's full of it.

Anyway, the amount of evil in the world is not determined by institutions, but institutions can be a means of entrenching and protecting certain evils. Like stock markets protect greed and aristocracy protects oppression and religion protects hypocrisy. As an institution gains political clout, it becomes untouchable, it resists reform: greater and greater quantities of evil can take refuge inside it, and it can wield the coercive mechanism of the state against its victims, critics or reformers.

But even that isn't the main problem for us, now. The main problem is that we have a heterogeneous society, which a single religion is determined to control. I suspect a bad outcome for many citizens, includining the believers themselves. 

Thanks Tommy. I concur. I am so tied of religious people whining about oppression.

And to those of you who stated that religion has been both good and bad - clearly you are not a female. Get back to me when women write a book about the lowly status of men (as ordained by "God") then we can talk. Until then - religion can kiss my ass. Those books have been used for centuries to justify the second place status of women.

Tommy_Paine wrote:

But non-believers who then declare that there is no god or deities, or something along the lines of a supernatural based on zero scientific evidence against this being the case, is an extremist point of view.

 

Well, no it's not.   There's simply just no need to invoke the idea of a supernatural being to explain anything, no evidence to suggest one or ones exist, so it's really not extremist at all not to believe in one.

 

It's rather normal.

 I was talking about the way scientists regard the issue in general. They don't know and are not in the habit of trying to disprove the existence of God. Most scientists will tell you it's a fool's errand. Most scientists don't discuss the issue with any kind of authority, like you're attempting to do here.

Whether you realize it or not, you do advocate extreme views wrt the supernatural, Tommy. You are not satisfied to simply disbelieve based on a lack of evidence. You claim to know what science does not. Do you have any empirical, measurable physical proof for us? Lord Rees and a number of sicentists, as well as billions of people, would like to know. And here you are holding out on us with the goods in hand. Please share. I'm not saying you are a fool, Tommy. I think you're really an agnostic, or a non-believer due to a lack of measurable evidence. In other words, you simply don't know. And that is what is considered normal.

But claiming to know what no other person can possibly know is extraordinary. It's an extreme point of view not so different than the religious right who declare that God exists absolutely, and that he supported crazy George Dubya in doing his part for imperialism. They are extremists, too.

Fidel wrote:

Tommy_Paine wrote:

But non-believers who then declare that there is no god or deities, or something along the lines of a supernatural based on zero scientific evidence against this being the case, is an extremist point of view.

 

Well, no it's not.   There's simply just no need to invoke the idea of a supernatural being to explain anything, no evidence to suggest one or ones exist, so it's really not extremist at all not to believe in one.

 

It's rather normal.

 I was talking about the way scientists regard the issue in general. They don't know and are not in the habit of trying to disprove the existence of God. Most scientists will tell you it's a fool's errand. Most scientists don't discuss the issue with any kind of authority, like you're attempting to do here.

Whether you realize it or not, you do advocate extreme views wrt the supernatural, Tommy. You are not satisfied to simply disbelieve based on a lack of evidence. You claim to know what science does not. Do you have any empirical, measurable physical proof for us? Lord Rees and a number of sicentists, as well as billions of people, would like to know. And here you are holding out on us with the goods in hand. Please share. I'm not saying you are a fool, Tommy. I think you're really an agnostic, or a non-believer due to a lack of measurable evidence. In other words, you simply don't know. And that is what is considered normal.

But claiming to know what no other person can possibly know is extraordinary. It's an extreme point of view not so different than the religious right who declare that God exists absolutely, and that he supported crazy George Dubya in doing his part for imperialism. They are extremists, too.

Fidel, I agree with Tommy. From your response, it appears that an aspect you are ignoring is probabilities. Given that there is no evidence for a supernatural and the probability that there is is extremely low, you are the extremist. It is extremist to live your life according to a worldview that is based on the remote possibility of a supernatural. Of course, many people claim it isn't remote and that there actually is a supernatural (and they point to anecdotal evidence, "miracles" and whatnot). They're misguided.

This is not a discussion you are going to solve. Like I said, atheism, deism,and belief in the supernatural are not extreme ideas per se. People have their own beliefs, and so long as they are not hurting others it is no one's business.

What is extreme is when people try to force their beliefs on others, and make false assumptions about what others believe, and why.

The fundamentalists are guilty of that, and so is Dawkins, even though he is correct in many other things.

You do realize Fidel that the real Fidel would want no part of this thing you defend called "religion". You need to change your name. Nor would Fidel advocate fighting against the system while promoting adherence to it.

Remind -

if and when you do talk to the old snowbird, the conversation doesn't have to be about religion. Because that isn't all that average people think about - in fact, they rarely think about religion at all: they simply have it as a framework for all the other things on their minds, like what to cook for company and when to go for a checkup and where they left the car keys. Discussion with an average person can be about any of their corcerns - which are very like our concerns - which is what you need to get across.

Because those 'pastors' have done a terrific job of disconnecting the mass of people from social/political leadership, by demonizing intellectuals and enshrining 'averageness' (by which they mean gullibility) as the only democratic virtue. Now they're trying to isolate and insulate their flocks from even casual contact with inhtelligent relatives and friends. It's working, too. They shun us; we give up on them. Thus, we hand over more and more of the mass mind to the extreme right.

By all means, if you can look at this relative as a human being in need of rescue, talk to her about democracy in general or any specific social issue. The main thing is to stay on topic... if only to prove that one smart person can.

.

hsfreethinkers wrote:

Fidel, are you [URL=http://stephenlaw.blogspot.com/2010/06/playing-mystery-card.html]playing the mystery card[/URL]?

Michio Kaku says that there used to be a joke told in the 1970s that string theorists could be found in unemployment lines.

I think it's possible that Samantha's spit has healing powers in a parallel world where laws of physics may be slightly or radically different.

Law is entirely free to offer his theory of everything to physics journals such as Physical Review D or Nuclear Physics B. Those people will give him the attention he seeks. They're fairly busy with reviewing superstring theories today though.

butterfly effect

[IMG]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v697/rabblerabble/LarvaToButterfly.gif...

remind wrote:

Freedom 55, think it was/is because  I think she is a fool (putting it nicely) for spending 370k on a motorhome, and that was 'on sale', or even because of my disagreeing with their "snowbirding" for that matter. Oh, and also disagree with her believing that those who get cancers from the oil and gas industry are sacrificing themselves so the rest of us can live well. Plus plus plus of course. Which makes me an "outsider" from the social norm of AB and Yuma AZ apparently.

 

Absentia, I speak my mind and never let a vacuum grow, however, I think maybe that this is a retaliation by their Pastor, as I had thought I was getting somewhere until this last foray down. Perhaps she spoke to them of what I debunked to her. It is going to take me a month to recover from the conversation, but I am going to follow through about  this with  them in August.

 

Now...having said that, I am getting pretty angry with the "educated elite" myself, or at least a portion thereof. As they are pretty much showing themselves to be the guardians of the gate for the 'elite' dominators, through keeping the masses in the trance. In fact, I consider those of the educated elite,  who perform this traitorish to humanity activity, to be exactly the same as the fundamentalist "pastors". Actually perhaps worse.

Good for you.

As for the educated elite, the operative word is elite.  (I don't mean the sneer with which this word is applied to perfectly decent sociologists and teachers; i mean the positions that carry real status.) There are several layers of clever people between the masses and the ultra-rich, doing very well from serving the mighty at the expense of the productive. Always. High priests comprise only one such class; administrators, money-changers, generals and scientists are a few more. Hard to tell which are greatest traitors... opinions vary.

PS Sounds as if what the 'average' person wants is some of what the old dear already has - and she doesn't want to know, because she doesn't want to share. That's not very Christian now, is it?

You forget though, remind, that you are among the true elite. Those fake elitists are only pretenders.

"Don't underestimate the Force" - Vader