On Tue, 28 Mar 2006 20:24:33 +0100, "Mary Fisher"
wrote:


"Mike Halmarack" ... wrote in message
.. .

I could go on...

Steve S

I'll bet she's glad she *didn't* ask you now. :-)


You don't know me, do you!

Not very well but I think I'm getting the idea.

Also, you're singling out religion as the cause of the unpleasantness
you list above but the characteristics you're describing are
tendencies of human groups in general.

Oh, I needn't have bothered replying to him :-)

My pleasure. :-)


Mary


--
Regards,
Mike Halmarack

Drop the (EGG) to email me.

"Mary Fisher" wrote in message
t...

"Steve S" wrote in message
k...

"Mary Fisher" wrote :

Those who argue against religious beliefs are the ones who should do the
thinking. We've already done it.

What's your problem?

You didn't ask me, but I'll tell you anyway.

I have a problem with the untold suffering and bloodshed that has been
inflicted throughout history, and continues to this day, in the name of
religion.

I have a problem with the hypocrisy, particularly of many Christian
sects.

I have a problem with a religion that can shuffle paedophile priests from
one parish (hunting ground) to another.

On a more cerebral front, I have a problem that there are so many
religions each claiming to be the only true one. They can't all be right.

I have a problem in believing something that cannot be either proved or
disproved.

I could go on...

Do you believe that all these sad aspects of life are peculiar to
religions?


No, I don't, not all of them, but religion seems a bloody pathetic excuse
for them.

It was peculiar to religion that pre-pubescent boys were castrated so that
the Catholic church could have soprano voices -- women were banned.

It is peculiar to religion that women are genitally mutilated today.

It is peculiar to religion that children are being born with HIV in Africa
because their parents are denied contraception.

I suppose that because it's religion it makes it all right. No? Well what
gives you the right, as a believer in religion, so say that your religion is
right and the others are wrong?

Steve S

The message
from "Mary Fisher" contains these words:

Well, just try thinking.

Mary, I ain't going to argue about it. I've thought it through, there is
no god. You've thought it through and come to a different conclusion
based, oddly, on roughly the same input. That's humans for you.

--
Skipweasel
Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain.

In message .com,
Tournifreak writes

Nigel Molesworth wrote:
On Mon, 27 Mar 2006 19:09:22 +0100, Steve Firth wrote:

Religion is something that people should keep to themselves

Religion is for fanatics, idiots, and the over-eighties.
Nigel M

Please help me - I'm a Christian, age 29. I have two degrees from a top
university and a very well paid job as an electronic engineer.

So I guess (in your eyes) I'm "religious". I know I'm not over eighty.
I guess I'm not an idiot.

So you spend an academic life learning about things which are based on
provable scientific principles

You then base your life on something which isn't provable by facts or
experiment

something which is based on a book which has a significant number of
contradictions, with a blind faith in a god who has a complete makeover
between old and new testaments

Either the warring god of fire and brimstone suddenly changes into a
fluffy bunny or they are two completely different entities

.... but you see no problem with that

I could go on, but then you should be using your analytical brain to do
this yourself - the problem is that most xtians seem incapable of doing
this

--
geoff

Mary Fisher wrote:

Well, just try thinking. You might go right, you never know :-)

Belief I can understand and accept, organised religion otoh I cannot
understand at all. If someone believes in %deity, why would they feel
the need to have some other human interpret what %deity required of them?

Lee
--
Email address is valid, but is unlikely to be read.

"Guy King" wrote in message
...
The message
from "Mary Fisher" contains these words:

Well, just try thinking.

Mary, I ain't going to argue about it. I've thought it through, there is
no god. You've thought it through and come to a different conclusion
based, oddly, on roughly the same input. That's humans for you.

I just can't believe that humans are the most superior power there is :-)

Steve S wrote:

snip

It was peculiar to religion that pre-pubescent boys were castrated so that
the Catholic church could have soprano voices -- women were banned.
Yes, sometimes religious people (and the organisations they are a part
of) do terrible things.

It is peculiar to religion that women are genitally mutilated today.
I strongly suspect this is much more to do with culture than religion.
I've never heard a religious reason given for it anyway.

It is peculiar to religion that children are being born with HIV in Africa
because their parents are denied contraception.
This is just silly. People are being born with HIV because people (men,
that is) often have multiple sexual partners. Using prostitutes has
become part of the culture. You can try to patch over the problem by
handing out hundreds of millions of free condoms or you can encourage
people to change their lifestyles. One is sustainable, the other isn't.
And there are many more "religious" organisations caring for people
with HIV, setting up treatment centres and trying to educate people
than non-religious ones. In general (and it is a generalisation of
course) religious people care more for all sorts of reasons.

I suppose that because it's religion it makes it all right. No? Well what
gives you the right, as a believer in religion, so say that your religion is
right and the others are wrong?
I don't think anyone actually said that here did they? Anyway, various
religions make truth claims about themselves. (Some don't, like
Buddhism and some forms of Hinduism) Logically, at most, one can be
correct. It could be that all are incorrect too of course. That's where
we have to apply our minds to try to discover what the truth is. We
look at al the available evidence and decide on who is most likely
telling the truth. You can't prove everything though, so the rest is
down to faith.

The truth is out there...

Jon.

On Tue, 28 Mar 2006 19:56:37 GMT, raden wrote:

In message .com,
Tournifreak writes

Nigel Molesworth wrote:
On Mon, 27 Mar 2006 19:09:22 +0100, Steve Firth wrote:

Religion is something that people should keep to themselves

Religion is for fanatics, idiots, and the over-eighties.
Nigel M

Please help me - I'm a Christian, age 29. I have two degrees from a top
university and a very well paid job as an electronic engineer.

So I guess (in your eyes) I'm "religious". I know I'm not over eighty.
I guess I'm not an idiot.

So you spend an academic life learning about things which are based on
provable scientific principles

You then base your life on something which isn't provable by facts or
experiment

something which is based on a book which has a significant number of
contradictions, with a blind faith in a god who has a complete makeover
between old and new testaments

Either the warring god of fire and brimstone suddenly changes into a
fluffy bunny or they are two completely different entities

... but you see no problem with that

I could go on, but then you should be using your analytical brain to do
this yourself - the problem is that most xtians seem incapable of doing
this

In the past most people had the same unswerving faith in religion that
you're demonstrating that you have in science now. Today most people
believe in science as an act of faith, usually not having the time
energy or capacity to test for themselves the scientific theories they
fuzzily believe in. In the future a large part of what is held to be
scientifically true today will be replaced. The new guard will
discredit the old guard because that's the way to power,wealth and
fame. Truths come and go, even great ones.
--
Regards,
Mike Halmarack

Drop the (EGG) to email me.

"Tournifreak" wrote in message
oups.com...


The truth is out there...

I don't know what it is. Jesus of Nazareth didn't give an answer to Pilate.

But others, it seems, do believe that they know. They are well represented
on this ng :-)

Mary

"Tournifreak" wrote in message
oups.com...

Steve S wrote:

snip

It was peculiar to religion that pre-pubescent boys were castrated so
that
the Catholic church could have soprano voices -- women were banned.
Yes, sometimes religious people (and the organisations they are a part
of) do terrible things.

So isn't there enough suffering in the world without religion adding to it?


It is peculiar to religion that women are genitally mutilated today.
I strongly suspect this is much more to do with culture than religion.
I've never heard a religious reason given for it anyway.

It's commonly regarded as a pagan practice. Where 'pagan' means 'primitive
religion that grown-up religions look down on'.


It is peculiar to religion that children are being born with HIV in
Africa
because their parents are denied contraception.
This is just silly. People are being born with HIV because people (men,
that is) often have multiple sexual partners. Using prostitutes has
become part of the culture. You can try to patch over the problem by
handing out hundreds of millions of free condoms or you can encourage
people to change their lifestyles. One is sustainable, the other isn't.

And in the meantime thousands suffer. How thoughtful.

And there are many more "religious" organisations caring for people
with HIV, setting up treatment centres and trying to educate people
than non-religious ones. In general (and it is a generalisation of
course) religious people care more for all sorts of reasons.

I dispute that.

snip

Logically, at most, one can be
correct. It could be that all are incorrect too of course. That's where
we have to apply our minds to try to discover what the truth is. We
look at al the available evidence and decide on who is most likely
telling the truth. You can't prove everything though, so the rest is
down to faith.

The truth is out there...


There is no evidence. Only faith/superstition/whatever you were brought up
with.

Steve

The message
from "Mary Fisher" contains these words:

I just can't believe that humans are the most superior power there is :-)

That's your limitation, not mine.

--
Skipweasel
Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain.

In message , Mike Halmarack
writes
I could go on, but then you should be using your analytical brain to do
this yourself - the problem is that most xtians seem incapable of doing
this

In the past most people had the same unswerving faith in religion that
you're demonstrating that you have in science now.

How do you come to that erroneous conclusion ?

Today most people
believe in science as an act of faith, usually not having the time
energy or capacity to test for themselves the scientific theories they
fuzzily believe in.

I do have a degree in physics, which on the whole seems to provably work
- your computer, TV, car etc all rely on it

In the future a large part of what is held to be
scientifically true today will be replaced.

Since the world hasn't fallen apart - I doubt it

We are more likely to find that the laws of physics are special cases of
the fuller picture like Newton was to Einstein


--
geoff

Steve S wrote:
"Tournifreak" wrote in message
oups.com...

Steve S wrote:

snip

It was peculiar to religion that pre-pubescent boys were castrated so
that
the Catholic church could have soprano voices -- women were banned.
Yes, sometimes religious people (and the organisations they are a part
of) do terrible things.

So isn't there enough suffering in the world without religion adding to it?
That's like saying, "white youths form gangs and harass old people -
let's get rid of all the white youths". The problem is with people.
People screw up. People are in a mess. Humankind sucks. Now, some
humans are religious, some are not. That's just not the root cause of
the problem. It has been said, "The heart of man's problem is the
problem of man's heart". In very many cases, religion brings all kinds
of good into the world. In some cases it doesn't.

It is peculiar to religion that women are genitally mutilated today.
I strongly suspect this is much more to do with culture than religion.
I've never heard a religious reason given for it anyway.

It's commonly regarded as a pagan practice. Where 'pagan' means 'primitive
religion that grown-up religions look down on'.
No, Paganism is a very specific form of religion. And female genital
mutilation is definately not a part of it. FGM is associated with
various uneducated, superstitious african cultures though.

It is peculiar to religion that children are being born with HIV in
Africa
because their parents are denied contraception.
This is just silly. People are being born with HIV because people (men,
that is) often have multiple sexual partners. Using prostitutes has
become part of the culture. You can try to patch over the problem by
handing out hundreds of millions of free condoms or you can encourage
people to change their lifestyles. One is sustainable, the other isn't.

And in the meantime thousands suffer. How thoughtful.

Like I said...
And there are many more "religious" organisations caring for people
with HIV, setting up treatment centres and trying to educate people
than non-religious ones.

In general (and it is a generalisation of
course) religious people care more for all sorts of reasons.

I dispute that.

I say that because they have more reason to care. And here I refer to
Christianity because it's what I know best. Followers of Jesus (at
least in theory) see the value of human life though God's eyes. So
natural human compassion is added to by a sense that God cares for
these people, therefore I should too. Jesus associated with the dregs
of society - those no-one else would go near - for example, the HIV
sufferers in today's context. And his followers should be aiming for
the same thing.

This is backed up with hard evidence such as the fact that the average
Christian (particularly those in the evangelical camp - but let's not
go there right now) give far more to charitable causes that the average
non-religious person. Around 15 times IIRC. Will try to find an online
source for that some time.


Logically, at most, one can be
correct. It could be that all are incorrect too of course. That's where
we have to apply our minds to try to discover what the truth is. We
look at al the available evidence and decide on who is most likely
telling the truth. You can't prove everything though, so the rest is
down to faith.

The truth is out there...


There is no evidence. Only faith/superstition/whatever you were brought up
with.

That's quite a statement to make. Are you really saying that there is
"no evidence" for the truth of Christianity? (Or Islam/Judaism?) To say
you think the evidence is insufficent to convince you is one thing, but
to say there's no evidence at all is very brave.

Regards,
Jon.

"Guy King" wrote in message
...
The message
from "Mary Fisher" contains these words:

I just can't believe that humans are the most superior power there is :-)

That's your limitation, not mine.

LOL!

--
Skipweasel
Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain.

On Tue, 28 Mar 2006 21:27:12 GMT, raden wrote:

In message , Mike Halmarack
writes
I could go on, but then you should be using your analytical brain to do
this yourself - the problem is that most xtians seem incapable of doing
this

In the past most people had the same unswerving faith in religion that
you're demonstrating that you have in science now.

How do you come to that erroneous conclusion ?

How do you come to the erroneous conclusion that I came to an
erroneous conclusion?

Today most people
believe in science as an act of faith, usually not having the time
energy or capacity to test for themselves the scientific theories they
fuzzily believe in.

I do have a degree in physics, which on the whole seems to provably work
- your computer, TV, car etc all rely on it

Do you assume that I think TV's are magic?

In the future a large part of what is held to be
scientifically true today will be replaced.

Since the world hasn't fallen apart - I doubt it

You doubt it since the world hasn't fallen apart?
That smacks of religion to me.
The world would do just fine without science or religion.

We are more likely to find that the laws of physics are special cases of
the fuller picture like Newton was to Einstein

That does seem to be the current trend. Why build new castles in the
air when you can comfortably modernise old ones, regardless of their
obsolescence.
--
Regards,
Mike Halmarack

Drop the (EGG) to email me.

On Tue, 28 Mar 2006 22:54:14 +0100, Mike Halmarack ... wrote:

On Tue, 28 Mar 2006 21:27:12 GMT, raden wrote:

In message , Mike Halmarack
writes
I could go on, but then you should be using your analytical brain to do
this yourself - the problem is that most xtians seem incapable of doing
this

In the past most people had the same unswerving faith in religion that
you're demonstrating that you have in science now.

How do you come to that erroneous conclusion ?

How do you come to the erroneous conclusion that I came to an
erroneous conclusion?

Today most people
believe in science as an act of faith, usually not having the time
energy or capacity to test for themselves the scientific theories they
fuzzily believe in.

I do have a degree in physics, which on the whole seems to provably work
- your computer, TV, car etc all rely on it

Do you assume that I think TV's are magic?

In the future a large part of what is held to be
scientifically true today will be replaced.

Since the world hasn't fallen apart - I doubt it

You doubt it since the world hasn't fallen apart?
That smacks of religion to me.
The world would do just fine without science or religion.

We are more likely to find that the laws of physics are special cases of
the fuller picture like Newton was to Einstein

That does seem to be the current trend. Why build new castles in the
air when you can comfortably modernise old ones, regardless of their
obsolescence.

Night, Night. Don't forget to say your periodic table. :-)
--
Regards,
Mike Halmarack

Drop the (EGG) to email me.

In message .com,
Tournifreak writes
There is no evidence. Only faith/superstition/whatever you were brought up
with.

That's quite a statement to make. Are you really saying that there is
"no evidence" for the truth of Christianity? (Or Islam/Judaism?) To say
you think the evidence is insufficent to convince you is one thing, but
to say there's no evidence at all is very brave.

I presume he means real, hard tangible evidence of a god, the sort of
thing which would stand up to scientific scrutiny

Nothing which should be too difficult for an all powerful omnipresent
being to provide

--
geoff

In message , Mike Halmarack
writes
On Tue, 28 Mar 2006 21:27:12 GMT, raden wrote:

In message , Mike Halmarack
writes
I could go on, but then you should be using your analytical brain to do
this yourself - the problem is that most xtians seem incapable of doing
this

In the past most people had the same unswerving faith in religion that
you're demonstrating that you have in science now.

How do you come to that erroneous conclusion ?

How do you come to the erroneous conclusion that I came to an
erroneous conclusion?

You seem to have run out of reasoned answers there, you've
misinterpreted what I said


Today most people
believe in science as an act of faith, usually not having the time
energy or capacity to test for themselves the scientific theories they
fuzzily believe in.

I do have a degree in physics, which on the whole seems to provably work
- your computer, TV, car etc all rely on it

Do you assume that I think TV's are magic?

You see, you can't answer the questions - you sidestep and throw another
question back to deflect your non answer


In the future a large part of what is held to be
scientifically true today will be replaced.

Since the world hasn't fallen apart - I doubt it

You doubt it since the world hasn't fallen apart?
That smacks of religion to me.

Err no - it's held together by physical forces

no religion or quasi-religion about it



The world would do just fine without science or religion.

We are more likely to find that the laws of physics are special cases of
the fuller picture like Newton was to Einstein

That does seem to be the current trend. Why build new castles in the
air when you can comfortably modernise old ones, regardless of their
obsolescence.

Not very comfortable with technical things are you

--
geoff

raden wrote:
In message .com,
Tournifreak writes
There is no evidence. Only faith/superstition/whatever you were brought up
with.

That's quite a statement to make. Are you really saying that there is
"no evidence" for the truth of Christianity? (Or Islam/Judaism?) To say
you think the evidence is insufficent to convince you is one thing, but
to say there's no evidence at all is very brave.

I presume he means real, hard tangible evidence of a god, the sort of
thing which would stand up to scientific scrutiny

Well, that's not what he actually said, but you're probably right. I
await his answer.

Nothing which should be too difficult for an all powerful omnipresent
being to provide

What would you like God to do? How about create some objects of such
incredible beauty that even with all our scientific explanations, we
are just left in awe of their complexity. Or maybe create a universe so
vast that when we contemplate the billions of stars in the billions of
galaxies we are unable to take it in. Or perhaps inspire his followers
with such powerful conviction that they follow his lead in creating
objects of sublime beauty in art and architecture. Or perhaps appear to
people in dreams and visions? Maybe he could take the lives of his
followers and turn them upside down and inside out and make them into -
shock - nicer people? Or even, perhaps he could appear in the form of a
human being and actually come and explain to us all we need to know
about what God is like. Perhaps while he was knocking around planet
earth he could explain to us where we've been going wrong all these
years, and tell us how we could make our peace with each other and God?


But perhaps if God did actually come in human form we wouldn't actually
like it much. Perhaps we'd just crucify him like some sort of 1st
century criminal?

Regards,

Jon.

In message .com,
Tournifreak writes

raden wrote:
In message .com,
Tournifreak writes
There is no evidence. Only faith/superstition/whatever you were brought up
with.

That's quite a statement to make. Are you really saying that there is
"no evidence" for the truth of Christianity? (Or Islam/Judaism?) To say
you think the evidence is insufficent to convince you is one thing, but
to say there's no evidence at all is very brave.

I presume he means real, hard tangible evidence of a god, the sort of
thing which would stand up to scientific scrutiny

Well, that's not what he actually said, but you're probably right. I
await his answer.

Nothing which should be too difficult for an all powerful omnipresent
being to provide

What would you like God to do?

He could go on Parkinson, relieve poverty, perform a few real magic
tricks, talk like Brian Blessed - that sort of thing

How about create some objects of such
incredible beauty that even with all our scientific explanations, we
are just left in awe of their complexity.

I think that nature's already been there - you really need to be
original when you're doing this sort of thing

Or maybe create a universe so
vast that when we contemplate the billions of stars in the billions of
galaxies we are unable to take it in.

We have one of those already

Or perhaps inspire his followers
with such powerful conviction that they follow his lead in creating
objects of sublime beauty in art and architecture. Or perhaps appear to
people in dreams and visions?

For ****s sake, stop this starry eyed, self delusional crap

Maybe he could take the lives of his
followers and turn them upside down and inside out and make them into -
shock - nicer people?

Not really done a very good job on that one, has he

Or even, perhaps he could appear in the form of a
human being and actually come and explain to us all we need to know
about what God is like. Perhaps while he was knocking around planet
earth he could explain to us where we've been going wrong all these
years, and tell us how we could make our peace with each other and God?

Let me tell you in simple words

its not going to happen



But perhaps if God did actually come in human form we wouldn't actually
like it much. Perhaps we'd just crucify him like some sort of 1st
century criminal?

Well, that would be a result


--
geoff

The message .com
from "Tournifreak" contains these words:

What would you like God to do?

Well, if he has to do anything, existing would be a good start.

--
Skipweasel
Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain.

Guy King wrote:
The message .com
from "Tournifreak" contains these words:

What would you like God to do?

Well, if he has to do anything, existing would be a good start.

OK, if you want to be philosophical about it, google for Ansel's
ontological argument. This formed the basis for Descartes'
Meditations.

Basicly it makes an association between three concepts: the concepts of
God, of perfection, and of existence. Very roughly, they state that
perfection is a part of the concept of God, and that perfection entails
existence, and so that the concept of God entails God's existence.

QED.

Jon.

On Tue, 28 Mar 2006 22:48:11 GMT, raden wrote:

In message , Mike Halmarack
writes
On Tue, 28 Mar 2006 21:27:12 GMT, raden wrote:

In message , Mike Halmarack
writes
I could go on, but then you should be using your analytical brain to do
this yourself - the problem is that most xtians seem incapable of doing
this

In the past most people had the same unswerving faith in religion that
you're demonstrating that you have in science now.

How do you come to that erroneous conclusion ?

How do you come to the erroneous conclusion that I came to an
erroneous conclusion?

You seem to have run out of reasoned answers there, you've
misinterpreted what I said

You're just waving your "scientist" badge. I'm duly impressed but only
by the dogmatism. Your using stereotypical bull**** devices to evade
the points I made and to impose your own protective conditions on the
discussion, just like any mullah might.

Today most people
believe in science as an act of faith, usually not having the time
energy or capacity to test for themselves the scientific theories they
fuzzily believe in.

I do have a degree in physics, which on the whole seems to provably work
- your computer, TV, car etc all rely on it

Do you assume that I think TV's are magic?

You see, you can't answer the questions - you sidestep and throw another
question back to deflect your non answer

A non answer to a non question. The waffle begins.


In the future a large part of what is held to be
scientifically true today will be replaced.

Since the world hasn't fallen apart - I doubt it

You doubt it since the world hasn't fallen apart?
That smacks of religion to me.

Err no - it's held together by physical forces

no religion or quasi-religion about it

Err indeed.
Earlier you attempted to give the impression that evasion was
"cheating".

The world would do just fine without science or religion.

We are more likely to find that the laws of physics are special cases of
the fuller picture like Newton was to Einstein

That does seem to be the current trend. Why build new castles in the
air when you can comfortably modernise old ones, regardless of their
obsolescence.

Not very comfortable with technical things are you

Certainly not some of them. Mainly because I don't understand them, or
have sufficient faith in those who claim that they do.

Take for instance the TV that you gave as an example previously.
You claim to be a card carrying physicist but if I asked you to
explain in scientific detail how a television worked, then you'd be
left in a difficult position.
If being dismissive and waving your scientist badge didn't work and
you had to come up with the goods you'd resort to quoting from
publications and documents that you don't fully understand. Documents
that will leave a lot of questions unanswered because human knowledge
doesn't extend far enough to fill in the blanks. You will accept the
validity of the contents of the documents as a matter of faith because
you are a scientist. How does that make you different from some
adherent to a faith based religion?
You're just a full of **** defective human being like the rest of us.
Come out from behind that badge.
--
Regards,
Mike Halmarack

Drop the (EGG) to email me.

On Tue, 28 Mar 2006 23:15:24 GMT, raden wrote:

In message .com,
Tournifreak writes

raden wrote:
In message .com,
Tournifreak writes
There is no evidence. Only faith/superstition/whatever you were brought up
with.

That's quite a statement to make. Are you really saying that there is
"no evidence" for the truth of Christianity? (Or Islam/Judaism?) To say
you think the evidence is insufficent to convince you is one thing, but
to say there's no evidence at all is very brave.

I presume he means real, hard tangible evidence of a god, the sort of
thing which would stand up to scientific scrutiny

Well, that's not what he actually said, but you're probably right. I
await his answer.

Nothing which should be too difficult for an all powerful omnipresent
being to provide

What would you like God to do?

He could go on Parkinson, relieve poverty, perform a few real magic
tricks, talk like Brian Blessed - that sort of thing

How about create some objects of such
incredible beauty that even with all our scientific explanations, we
are just left in awe of their complexity.

I think that nature's already been there - you really need to be
original when you're doing this sort of thing

Or maybe create a universe so
vast that when we contemplate the billions of stars in the billions of
galaxies we are unable to take it in.

We have one of those already

Or perhaps inspire his followers
with such powerful conviction that they follow his lead in creating
objects of sublime beauty in art and architecture. Or perhaps appear to
people in dreams and visions?

For ****s sake, stop this starry eyed, self delusional crap

Maybe he could take the lives of his
followers and turn them upside down and inside out and make them into -
shock - nicer people?

Not really done a very good job on that one, has he

Or even, perhaps he could appear in the form of a
human being and actually come and explain to us all we need to know
about what God is like. Perhaps while he was knocking around planet
earth he could explain to us where we've been going wrong all these
years, and tell us how we could make our peace with each other and God?

Let me tell you in simple words

its not going to happen



But perhaps if God did actually come in human form we wouldn't actually
like it much. Perhaps we'd just crucify him like some sort of 1st
century criminal?

Well, that would be a result

Let me try to make it easier for you by using terms you'll be familiar
with in your comfy realm.

Is it not possible that god is a scientist conducting an experiment in
which we are a part?
--
Regards,
Mike Halmarack

Drop the (EGG) to email me.

The message om
from "Tournifreak" contains these words:

Basicly it makes an association between three concepts: the concepts of
God, of perfection, and of existence. Very roughly, they state that
perfection is a part of the concept of God, and that perfection entails
existence, and so that the concept of God entails God's existence.

Hang on a minute - the first stage of the argument, "perfection is part
of the concept of God" presupposes that there is a god. I deny such a
supposition.

--
Skipweasel
Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain.

Tournifreak wrote:
Nigel Molesworth wrote:
On Mon, 27 Mar 2006 19:09:22 +0100, Steve Firth wrote:

Religion is something that people should keep to themselves
Religion is for fanatics, idiots, and the over-eighties.
Nigel M

Please help me - I'm a Christian, age 29. I have two degrees from a top
university and a very well paid job as an electronic engineer.

So I guess (in your eyes) I'm "religious". I know I'm not over eighty.
I guess I'm not an idiot. So are you saying I must be a fanatic? If so,
would that be a fanatic in the sense that Martin Luther King was a
fanatic? Or perhaps Wilberforce, Booth or Ghandi? Please enlighten me.


No, just mildly deluded, but don't worry, all delusions pass at death,
and you will never live to see it.

Regards,
Jon.

BTW - I don't of course endorse any of the claptrap the OP posted (and
certainly not in theis DIY group!). Clearly there are some rather
deranged religious types around.

Mary Fisher wrote:
"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Malcolm Race wrote:
Why can't you (and others in this thread) make a comment without being
offensive? I can accept that you do not agree with the OP but why do
you have to use offensive language to make your point? What happend to
reasoned arguments?
There are no reasoned arguments about religion. Think about it for a
while.

Those who argue against religious beliefs are the ones who should do the
thinking. We've already done it.


We have too. Long and hard over a lifetime.
Occams razor is either something you accept, or you don't ;-)


What's your problem?


Its not me with the problem. Thats why religion is unnecessary in my life.

Mary

Steve S wrote:


I have a problem in believing something that cannot be either proved or
disproved.

Now that I don't, insofar as in order to be able to function at all
everyone believes in something,. even if it is only that they exist in a
world and are able to act in it.

What I object to is the 'multiplication of entities beyond necessity'
Particularly is such a blatantly anthropic way.

I MIGHT go alone with a nineteen dimensional supertwist god with a plan
so alien that we couldn't even begin to understand it. but a nice sort
of 'I made you in my image, I care about you, you can go out and play
but behave yourself or you'll be in detention and get no crumpets for
tea' is beyond belief...its an insult to anyone with any intelligence.

Guy King wrote:
The message
from "Mary Fisher" contains these words:

Well, just try thinking.

Mary, I ain't going to argue about it. I've thought it through, there is
no god. You've thought it through and come to a different conclusion
based, oddly, on roughly the same input. That's humans for you.


You do not arrive at god by thinking, you arrive by positing an
assumption, finding that it suits you, and choosing to behave as if the
assumption were true, because it feels better for some people.

God is for those who want/need the comfort, not the intellectual
clarity, that's all.

Apart from Aquinas, whose logic is flawed, I have never met/read a
Christian whose intellect I respected. Other things yes - humanity,
courage, very occasionally humility (but that is far rarer in the
Faithful) but intellect? No.

raden wrote:
In message .com,
Tournifreak writes

Nigel Molesworth wrote:
On Mon, 27 Mar 2006 19:09:22 +0100, Steve Firth wrote:

Religion is something that people should keep to themselves

Religion is for fanatics, idiots, and the over-eighties.
Nigel M

Please help me - I'm a Christian, age 29. I have two degrees from a top
university and a very well paid job as an electronic engineer.

So I guess (in your eyes) I'm "religious". I know I'm not over eighty.
I guess I'm not an idiot.

So you spend an academic life learning about things which are based on
provable scientific principles


Nothing is provable by scientific principles Raden.

You then base your life on something which isn't provable by facts or
experiment

We all do that.

something which is based on a book which has a significant number of
contradictions, with a blind faith in a god who has a complete makeover
between old and new testaments

There you have a far better point to make

Either the warring god of fire and brimstone suddenly changes into a
fluffy bunny or they are two completely different entities


Multifaceted apparently.

... but you see no problem with that

I could go on, but then you should be using your analytical brain to do
this yourself - the problem is that most xtians seem incapable of doing
this

Indeed.

"Mike Halmarack" ... wrote :

I presume he means real, hard tangible evidence of a god, the sort of
thing which would stand up to scientific scrutiny

Well, that's not what he actually said, but you're probably right. I
await his answer.


Geoff is correct.


snip


But perhaps if God did actually come in human form we wouldn't actually
like it much. Perhaps we'd just crucify him like some sort of 1st
century criminal?

Well, that would be a result

Let me try to make it easier for you by using terms you'll be familiar
with in your comfy realm.

Excuse me, but it's the deluded god squad who inhabit the comfy realm. Cosy
in the "knowledge" that their god is the true one. Content to follow
whatever interpretation their spiritual leaders have put on their scriptures
this week.

Is it not possible that god is a scientist conducting an experiment in
which we are a part?

Two words: Occam's Razor

Now excuse me I have:

a) a goat to prepare for sacrifice
b) a plane to catch
c) a load of fundies to taunt
d) an appointment with the "Chief Scientist" to discuss eliminating John
Prescott from the "Great Experiment"
e) to prepare for a deeply philosophical debate on "The religious
significance of the strangely shaped toast burn mark and its implications on
third-world health issues"

Select from the above list according to your belief.

Steve S

Lee wrote:
Mary Fisher wrote:

Well, just try thinking. You might go right, you never know :-)

Belief I can understand and accept, organised religion otoh I cannot
understand at all. If someone believes in %deity, why would they feel
the need to have some other human interpret what %deity required of them?


Cf parable of sheep and shepherds.

Lee

Mary Fisher wrote:
"Guy King" wrote in message
...
The message
from "Mary Fisher" contains these words:

Well, just try thinking.
Mary, I ain't going to argue about it. I've thought it through, there is
no god. You've thought it through and come to a different conclusion
based, oddly, on roughly the same input. That's humans for you.

I just can't believe that humans are the most superior power there is :-)

Fairy Nuff, but why project a being with super-HUMAN qualities to fill
the void?

Mary Fisher wrote:
"Tournifreak" wrote in message
oups.com...

The truth is out there...

I don't know what it is. Jesus of Nazareth didn't give an answer to Pilate.

But others, it seems, do believe that they know. They are well represented
on this ng :-)


The truth is that the Truth is unknowable.

That's why we have Occam's Razor.

Thats the humility of science which passeth all understanding of the
faithful...

Mary

Tournifreak wrote:
raden wrote:
In message .com,
Tournifreak writes
There is no evidence. Only faith/superstition/whatever you were brought up
with.
That's quite a statement to make. Are you really saying that there is
"no evidence" for the truth of Christianity? (Or Islam/Judaism?) To say
you think the evidence is insufficent to convince you is one thing, but
to say there's no evidence at all is very brave.

I presume he means real, hard tangible evidence of a god, the sort of
thing which would stand up to scientific scrutiny

Well, that's not what he actually said, but you're probably right. I
await his answer.

Nothing which should be too difficult for an all powerful omnipresent
being to provide

What would you like God to do? How about create some objects of such
incredible beauty that even with all our scientific explanations, we
are just left in awe of their complexity.

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. So is awe. Look again. It is
whatever you want it to be, emotionally. Now work why you want it to be
that way, emotionally..


Or maybe create a universe so
vast that when we contemplate the billions of stars in the billions of
galaxies we are unable to take it in. Or perhaps inspire his followers
with such powerful conviction that they follow his lead in creating
objects of sublime beauty in art and architecture. Or perhaps appear to
people in dreams and visions? Maybe he could take the lives of his
followers and turn them upside down and inside out and make them into -
shock - nicer people? Or even, perhaps he could appear in the form of a
human being and actually come and explain to us all we need to know
about what God is like. Perhaps while he was knocking around planet
earth he could explain to us where we've been going wrong all these
years, and tell us how we could make our peace with each other and God?


Could do, but why on earth would he bother with all that crap?

Why not just pop in for tea, and say 'I'm real, here I am'.



But perhaps if God did actually come in human form we wouldn't actually
like it much. Perhaps we'd just crucify him like some sort of 1st
century criminal?


Perhaps he IS.

Frankly, he sucks.

First of all there he is, designing the Universe. Perfectly.

Then he designs man.

Imperfectly

Then he BLAMES man, for being imperfect and not struggling to find his
sort of perfection

A bad workman blames his tools, and a very bad workman blames the tools
he himself has made.

Frankly, I'd hang him on a cross any day if he comes round here giving
me what for about my lifestyle.

Tournifreak wrote:
Guy King wrote:
The message .com
from "Tournifreak" contains these words:

What would you like God to do?
Well, if he has to do anything, existing would be a good start.

OK, if you want to be philosophical about it, google for Ansel's
ontological argument. This formed the basis for Descartes'
Meditations.

Basicly it makes an association between three concepts: the concepts of
God, of perfection, and of existence. Very roughly, they state that
perfection is a part of the concept of God, and that perfection entails
existence, and so that the concept of God entails God's existence.

Yawn. been there, done that. Flawed logic.


QED.

Jon.

On Wed, 29 Mar 2006 07:53:27 GMT, "Steve S" wrote:


"Mike Halmarack" ... wrote :


Let me try to make it easier for you by using terms you'll be familiar
with in your comfy realm.

Excuse me, but it's the deluded god squad who inhabit the comfy realm. Cosy
in the "knowledge" that their god is the true one. Content to follow
whatever interpretation their spiritual leaders have put on their scriptures
this week.

Them, not us eh?


Is it not possible that god is a scientist conducting an experiment in
which we are a part?

Two words: Occam's Razor

Which part of "long white beard" do you not understand?

Now excuse me I have:

I excused you way back, for what it's worth.



--
Regards,
Mike Halmarack

Drop the (EGG) to email me.

Mike Halmarack wrote:


Take for instance the TV that you gave as an example previously.
You claim to be a card carrying physicist but if I asked you to
explain in scientific detail how a television worked, then you'd be
left in a difficult position.

I wouldn't. I can tell you in detail *how* every single part of it works
up to an including the quantum theory inherent in the semicobductors.

I can't of course tell you *why* it works..why the world happens to be
the way it happens to be, though. But 'why' is such a HUMAN word. It
already implies design, and purpose..the moment we ASK the question WHY
is the world the way it is, we already IMPLY the existence of a God like
being with Manlike purpose who made it that way...there is indeed the
trap of false logic that leads to God.


The world is the way it is because it has to be some way or it wouldn't
be a world, and presumably its the way it is because if it wasn't, it
wouldn't be.



If being dismissive and waving your scientist badge didn't work and
you had to come up with the goods you'd resort to quoting from
publications and documents that you don't fully understand.

I have made it a point to try and fully understand everything I have
ever come across that is relevant to what I need to do. Especially
religion and philosophy and science.


Nothing in science precludes the idea of *A* god, but an awful lot of it
definitely counter-indicates the existence of *THE CHRISTIAN GOD*.

Particularly the one that the literal Christians believe in, who made
the world 5000 years ago in 7 days.


Documents
that will leave a lot of questions unanswered because human knowledge
doesn't extend far enough to fill in the blanks. You will accept the
validity of the contents of the documents as a matter of faith because
you are a scientist.

No, *I* won't. Fortuntately, unlike Religion of the Deocentric sort,
Science has a philosophy behind it which is actively pursued and
developed by people whose main purpose is to prevent science from
becoming an act of blind faith. Now faith in the existence of the world
as a valid concept is of course necessary for the pursuit of science,
and faith in the evidence of ones own experience also. In fact Science
is merely the logical examination of that experience insofar as it is
agreed upon by enough people to become reliable. That is all. Science
merely notes at the philosophical level that there is no *need* to
introduce an *anthropic* Power into the philosophical mix, in order to
explain our experience of the world.
And it does not rely on bad logic, or emotional arguments either.



How does that make you different from some
adherent to a faith based religion?

If it were true, it would not. However it is patently not true.

It is a complete mistake that nearly all Christians make, about science.

Lacking intellectual capacity, they find it inconceivable - literally -
that anyone can see the world through the cold and crystal clear eyes of
logic. They cannot accept that there is no Daddy, that nothing matters a
twopenny **** in any cosmological sense, and that whether they live or
die, sinner or saint, is of absolutely no concern to anyone who is not
directly or indirectly affected by their actions.

Its called emotional immaturity..

You're just a full of **** defective human being like the rest of us.
Come out from behind that badge.

Don't make the mistake of thinking that other people are just like you,
or even remotely like you. You have NO idea how far down other roads it
is possible for a man to go.

Mike Halmarack wrote:

Let me try to make it easier for you by using terms you'll be familiar
with in your comfy realm.

Is it not possible that god is a scientist conducting an experiment in
which we are a part?

Yes, its also possible that he is a Nazi concentration camp guard
torturing inmates because he can, and has no feeling for them whatsoever.

Its also possible that we are the residue on the Petri dish of life, and
will be scrapped shortly.

Its also possible that the world was created in a nanosecond just one
second ago, and everything you think you know about it was put in your
head by a clever genius trickster, whose one idea is to make you dance
to his tune.

Its also possible that the world doesn't exist at all, just a big dream
of it and its all in your head, and I am a figment of your imagination.

If we are going to talk possibilities, why stop with one?

Guy King wrote:
The message om
from "Tournifreak" contains these words:

Basicly it makes an association between three concepts: the concepts of
God, of perfection, and of existence. Very roughly, they state that
perfection is a part of the concept of God, and that perfection entails
existence, and so that the concept of God entails God's existence.

Hang on a minute - the first stage of the argument, "perfection is part
of the concept of God" presupposes that there is a god. I deny such a
supposition.

Ah, thats not good enough..there is a concept of god...because we are
using it right now...like there is a concept of unicorn...

Its all in the grand game of human ability to imagine things that aren't
there..a useful tool when it comes to working out where the next sabre
toothed tiger might be about to spring from, but terribly dangerous as s
guiding principle in understanding the universe..