JackC

Good post there Shaiziel, nail --> head. Ain't that the truth!

no he didn't, but we should try to save them, shouldn't we... this is where you and I will always differ... I think it IS possible to discern the mind and will of God. It appears to me that you do not. Am I correct? If God is omniscient, he would know about the premature baby. If God is also omnipotent he has the power to stop premature births. The fact that premature births continue to happen must mean it is either his intention for this to happen, he doesn't care or he doesn't exist. If he intentionally ignores evil stuff he can easily fix, then I don't think he is worthy of anything other than contempt, if he doesn't care then why should I care about him? And if he doesn't exist, well.... Regarding the Catholic Church excommunicating scientists; I don't see the down side. Science and religion are orthogonal concepts anyway. I'd recommend returning the favour though. We should stop delivering their subscription to Scientific American.

OK I'll rephrase the question. What special insight into morals do you find the Bible to have? Good grief Bill, you've got to get down low and squint to make that one work. How would you explain to a child which bits are important? Do you go through the bible with a highlighter and tell little Johnny to ignore the rest? What arbitrary method do you use to decide if "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live." is important? What about "Ye shall keep the sabbath... every one that defileth it shall surely be put to death"? In order to figure out which bits of the Bible are "important" you have to send the whole thing through your own internal bullshit flter. If you are capable of doing that, why do you need the bible in the first place? I didn't say the Bible has a placebo effect, I said religion has a placebo effect. Belief in and of itself does have a measurable effect on the brain. http://www.davidbyrne.com/journal/misc/new_scientist_1_28_06.php#delusion Mein Kampf can be used as a moral guide. What makes the Bible a good moral guide and Mein Kampf not?

OK, religion has a placebo effect but then so do sugar pills. But what special insight does the Bible bring to the table when it comes to morals? No. What's your point? You don't have to employ similar filters to the bible? Morality is best developed through intelligence and thought. Without that, the Bible is worse than useless. With it, the bible is not necessary.

I share that belief. But then what exactly makes the bible of any more consequency than say Moby Dick or Pride and Prejudice or Henry V? They too were written by fallible humans. Mody Dick is not intended to be 100% true, that's why they call it fiction. What's the difference? So it serves the same purpose then as Henry V? You can learn quite a bit about morals from Shakespeare or Melville or even Tarantino. Not all of them good but that's not too different from the Bible either is it? Right but they are the laws you have to live by whether you like it or not, even if those laws are contradictory and ambiguous. But aren't actual real life legal rules that really do apply to everyone a better place to start than any arbitrary and optional religion? Fair point but George Lucas can change the Star Wars script more easily than anyone can change the constitution. Where is the line that separates Jedi as not a religion and Scientologist which is? Most people would argue that the KJV and the NIV bibles may say slightly different words but the meaning is the same. When was the last time any of it was scrapped completely or a new gospel was added to clarify a point? That gets done to law all the time. You'd think a triple-O god wouldn't need the "Gospel Acording to John Ammendment Act (1856) superceded by The Gospel According to Luke Ammendment Act (2004)". Why would you?

I seem to remember us butting heads on Gould's NOMA princliple before. I still tend to buy into Dawkin's idea that NOMA is "intellectual flabbiness" and therefore not very satisfying. That may be but religions do tend to be rather difficult to interpret. Many people interpret some aspects to justify all sorts of ugly ideas. That in itself causes me some problems. Quite so, science is just about facts, it has no moral position. Any idea that one particular genetic code is "superior" to any other relys on a particular definition of "superior". Moral judgements on what "superior" in the scientific sense may mean isn't part of science. Nor can it be. But some do, others believe to a lesser extent as you suggest. But the big question is which bits do you believe? You obviously can't believe all of it because it leads to all sorts of unresolvable problems. But it was all written by god or by some other divine method, shouldn't it be perfect? How do you tell which bits are god given fact, which are parable, which are political ad-ons, which are abitrary embelishments and which are downright lies? I don't think you can tell and that makes the whole thing a confusing mess. I think throwing it all out and starting with a clean slate might be a better option. Hell, even "the big fat book of US law" would be more use. At least it is relevant to the world as it is now. The US constitution can be changed a hell of a lot easier than any religion plus it has the added benefit of being the recognised law of at least one entire continent even if some of the population don't like it. You say that changes to a religion do not invalidate that religion. Surely if that religion is handed down by god then you have to wonder why he would need to change it? Did god change his mind? Did man reinvent gods word? These questions should at least be enough to make you think abotu the validity of it. Until the matter of provenance is resolved (I can't see that it ever will) how can you place any weight in the meaning of it? Maybe you could argue that the only objective reality as far as morals go is that which the collective opinion of the land believes and hold to be the law as in the constitution. Isn't that a better position than some so-called divine book of unproven provenance? At least we can then alter laws that don't work and produce better laws that do. If man does that to a religion, by definition you've just removed the god part. Other than the placebo effect, I still can't see what "truth" religion has. It honestly baffles the crap out of me.

That to me is the crux of the whole thing. If I rationally think about religion or even the whole god concept it doesn't fit with observable reality and it makes no logical sense. In order to buy into religion, sooner or later you have to suspend some aspect of rational thought. To me, suspention of rational thought is a bad thing. You may argue that religion in itself is not a bad thing (although I think it is) but it does, by necessity, legitamise irrational thought processes. People put an awful lot of time and effort into what they believe which makes them reluctant to review their beliefs on a regular basis. That is understandable because some stability in belief is necessary or we would get buried in confusion. But unless one is willing to review ones beliefs in the light of new evidence, we quickly run the risk that those beliefs will become more and more out of touch with objective reality. In this event, something has to give. Either one accepts that deep held beliefs have failed and changes accordingly, or one becomes steadily further removed from reality with all the associated problems. Religion is a very rigid structure, change does not come easily to it. Nor can it becuase it is stuck in mythology and superstition. Change can only come from divine intervention and that isn't going to happen. Each time someone claims it has happened, you just end up with a new sect. Weasle words and self inconsistency are the obvious outcome of trying to understand a logically incoherent concept that cannot be changed or questioned. On the other hand, religion is at once understandable and entirely explained as soon as one realises it is man made fiction.

Commandment # 3: You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain, for the Lord will not hold him guiltless who takes His name in vain. Hey, blasphemy is a victimless crime. If I'm proved wrong when I die, I'll walk straight up to god and punch the sadistic fucker in the mouth.

What about the second half ot that verse? The bit were it says "and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in.". It's convenient to ignore that bit isn't it? Then there's all the other flat earth stuff like Daniel4:7-8, Mathew4:8 and Genesis11:4. If you take the Bible literally, it makes no sense whatsoever. If you take it as a collection of parables, it's so vague it could mean anything and frequently means nothing at all. That in itself makes the book completely useless in my opinion. If God really was the author don't you think he'd have made a better job of writing it? Honestly, from the so-called devinely inspired scriptures the only thing I can get is that this God is an incompetant retard when it comes to PR. His biggest publication is an insult to trees.

Two things I don't like about riding in the rain. The first drop that trickles down the back of your neck and the first drop that trickles down round your nuts. Oh and fogged up visors. Now hail, that's no fun at all. It's like being grit blasted.

How smart I am today.

I'd go for a mig, unless you're building a trawler.

So what happens to those who don't have any understanding? Free ticket to heaven?Do over? I can't for the life of me understand this whole god concept. Do I get a do over? No. I have no interest in that religion so it does not apply. Ahh, so religion applys only to those who are interested. Religion is a bit like a hobby then. I've learned quite a bit in this thread. Christianity is not a religion but atheism is. Even if you have never heard of a concept you are still actively not-believeing it. Your immortal soul is destined for hell unless you have no interest in that particular religion in which case it doesn't apply. Babies have got a get out of jail free card because they are ignorant and grown ups get their get out of jail free card if it's their hobby. This religion stuff is confusing.

So, there must be an infinite number of things I must be actively not doing, not believeing or not thinking at any given moment. I didn't know I was so busy. If I tell my boss about this, will I get a raise?

Sure inaction can be dangerous but that's not what I'm talking about. I don't see how I can actively not do something. How can I be actively inactive?

So choosing not to be religious is being religious? If I choose not to buy into astrology am I being astrological? I'll give you that believing God does not exist is a belief, but not that it is a belief system. Religion with it's rituals, worship, martyrs, sacred places, etc. is a belief system. A person with no awareness of religious beliefs, and therefore no opinion on them, would not have a belief in God. Using your logic, they would be religious. Just to reiterate, because I get a lot of questions that obviously try to corner me as anti-God or anti-religious. I have no problem accepting others religious beliefs as valuable to them, and respecting them and their beliefs as long as they stick to matters of faith - such as belief in God's existence. I do take issue, and strongly oppose any attempt to institutionalize dogmatic beliefs that are proven untrue (such as the Earth being created in 7 days and other such tripe). I agree completely. But there is a subtle difference between the statements: "I do not believe in god" and "I believe there is no god". Both statments of atheism but meaning different things. Although I still can't get my head around how someone can actively not do something. Not doing something seems to be about as inactive as you can get. Tonight I'm going to actively not do the washing up, I'm going to actively not do my paperwork and I'm going to actively not go to the gym. In other words, I'm going to actively sit on my arse and do fuck all.

Exactly how deeply rooted? Very. One might even say "evangelical". Hypothetical of course.

First you'd need to define what you meant by religious behaviour. From what I think your definition is, ie anything done with passion, you could desribe almost anything as religious behaviour - skydiving, beer drinking, republicanism, a deep rooted rubber fetish. I think this definition is so wide it's useless. So I'll stick to the usual "religion=god belief" definition. And how, pray tell, does one "practice" atheism? Are you a practicing FSM/thor/zeus/ganesh/helios/hotei /mithras/njord/etc etc atheist?

I think the overlap that people make between science and religion is big enough for it not to be ignored. Both Michelle and Royd have made comments to the effect that no theory (god included) should be ignored when trying to explain natural phenomenon. My point is that god doesn't explain anything so we would be wise to ignore it. That said, science and religion shouldn't overlap. If you try to apply one to the other it doesn't work so something has to give. That doesn't stop people trying, as the intelligent design crowd illustrate. Science doesn't say anything about god and most religions don't try to take the place of science but they do try to promote some type of theory on subjects that science does better at explaining. For me, if I apply the scientific method to religion, religion fails on all counts. Unfortunately I can't suspend the scientific side of my brain long enough to take religion seriously.

I remember in 9th grade earth science being introduced to the concept of universe after universe. I said to myself,"Somewhere out there it all has to stop. It can't just go on forever." The concept of neverending universes can blow the mind, so I just accept it as true. I'm not going to spend my life trying to disprove it, just because my finite mind can't grasp an infinite number of universes. I don't get it. What's your point?

No religious texts give any decent answer to serious scientific questions. With the god hypothesis, there are no predictions that can be made, no mechanisms that can be tested. In short, as an explanative tool to unravel the mysteries of the universe, the concept of a god is singularly useless. Saying "godidit" is the intellectual equivalent of saying "I haven't got a clue how this works, it must be magic". Dismissing the the whole thing out of hand is just about the only thing left to do.

Picky.

Disbelief in unobservable, unphysical entities who are indistinguishable from their non-existence is both natural and correct. cf. fairies, leprichauns, goblins, medusas, dragons, mermaids, phoenix, warewolves, vampires etc. etc.

I'm sorry you took it that way Mockingbird, truly I am but you walked into that one with your eyes wide open. You first say "we can't learn anything from mans religion" and then essentailly say "except for christianity". Death by irony, it's excruciating. I suggest you be a bit more critical in your writing if you want to avoid such obvious rebuttals in future. I'm not going to treat your beliefs with special respect and if you leave yourself open to such comments you must expect to recieve them. I would expect you to treat my words in the same way, it's called debating. But I appologise for any offence caused. I have no contempt for you, I enjoy these conversations and I do understand your position but I just find the whole concept of god completely perplexing. I hope you will be able to avoid giving people the oportunity for similar comments in future. That's the point, the bible is written by man, which is exactly why your comments were ironic. I'm glad you recognise that. This is the issue we were debating but your comment was so funny, I just had to point it out. You are missing the point I think, you want us to start the debate from the position "god exists" and probably even that "the bible is the word of god". I agree with neither of these statements. I'm willing to consider that I might be wrong and if you have any real evidence I'll reconsider my opinion. But if you're not even willing to entertain the idea that god may not exist, then perhaps you should review your statement about the openness of br0k3n's mind?

They do say the darndest things