Sunday, December 22, 2013

Pope Frank the Pin Up Boy



As we go into the Christmas period, we see how humanity craves a superman.  For the last two thousand years, many in the world have been transfixed by the about to be birthday boy, Jesus.  The adoration often eschews objectivity.  I am yet to see an ugly portrait of Jesus.  Humanity is so transfixed by JC that all representations are as unrealistically beautiful as a fashion model after Photoshop.  No weight problem or retreating hair line in JC’s portraits.
Now that need to bestow adulation on an anointed one has been transferred to His most important earthly representative – Pope Francis I.  Frankie One is the “Time Person of the Year” and consequently the object of op-ed pieces by opinion writers without the wit or imagination to think up their own end of annum hero.  This blog is no exception although to be fair, assessing religious figures is core business for this blog.
It seems that it is part of the human cognitive response is that we must venerate the great and invest in those idols a magical ability to solve all of our problems both global and individual.  Where that person exhibits frailties, like a recent member of the Over Venerated Club, President Obama, disappointment quickly kicks in (notwithstanding my continuing reverence.  My views are not shared by many of his fellow Americans).  Vaulting expectations can be unrealistic and I expect that will soon happen to Frankie.  But for the moment, I am joining the conga line of fans. Yep, I am the biggest sell out in the atheistic firmament.
 Catholicism is an interesting contradiction – at the same time growing gang busters in Asia and Africa as it depletes in its traditional heartlands. The growth areas in Africa where it is locked in a bloody struggle with Islam belies the poisoned well of Europe, USA and Oz.  It is sick here.  The sexual abuse scandal has demoralised the congregations and demonised the vocation of priesthood.  The venality of the Vatican is appalling. This is all well known.  The systemic issues are woeful – archaic, complicated, irrelevant, self serving and autocratic structures that resist reform.
My view is that this reform aversion means you need 5 Francis like reforming Popes filling the committees and corridors of power with armies of change junkies.  If Francis is followed by a conservative, then anything he tries will be fruitless.  His reform agenda is still being rolled out but it is useless without at least a 20 year program of follow up.  The lovely Pope John XXIII was the Times Man (sic) of the Year fifty years ago.  His breath of fresh air was transitory. He was followed by Paul VI whose myopia killed off the chance of Catholicism to be anything but the laughing stock that it is in many parts of the West. The three conservatives following John ignored the abuse crisis until it was too late and did nothing to challenge the Vatican with its expense, high handedness, links to crime and odour of corruption.
The last papal Times Laureate - a wonderful man with a short papacy whose successors were distrastrous.

Francis interestingly the first Jesuit after 500 years of that Order’s existence, made a number of symbolic gestures repudiating the Vatican venality.  Unlike his predecessor who appeared obsessed with the various frocks of office, he has embraced simplicity of dress, demeanour and apartments.  This has a symbolic power in a world where inequality (difficult to measure) seems to have grown in recent decades.  But more importantly it is a signal to the Vatican – the gravy train has to stop.  He has called in the auditors on the Vatican Bank.  That is a tick.
He has spoken up for the environment (big tick) whilst at the same time the leadership of the Australian Church has attacked carbon pricing.
The ticks also include his statements (but not much action) on child abuse, the role of women and the need to love gays and lesbians.  Whilst he has changed the rhetoric of the gay and lesbian issue, he has said that this is not a harbinger for rule change in his time.  This is clever.  He must understand that the ranks of the Cardinals and Bishops are populated by nasty reactionaries such as Cardinal Pell in Oz.  It will take several popes, a couple of decades deploying similar rhetoric before the institutional change can happen.  My own modest experience with organisational leadership is that organisations, populated as they are with change resistant officers, will undermine reforming leaders.  One needs many reformers over many years to see change eventuate.  Asian and African leaders, reputed to be more conservative, are gaining increasing influence in the Church because they are the growth areas.  I am pessimistic that the Church will be capable of major change in the absence of a major crisis.
Francis has described priestly celibacy as a matter of tradition rather than faith.  This is an opening to change.  Francis will not make that change.  This is bad for the church for the priestly vocation will look to many people outside the faith as a magnet for weirdoes. 
And despite some encouraging statements, he still has orthodox positions on contraception, abortion, ordination of women, campaigning nuns in the USA and liberation theology.  He talks a big show but will only embrace incremental change.  He must appreciate that too much change threatens the whole idea of “mystery”.  How can you embrace a Church which relies on faith and mystery to underpin the rules and practices when those rules and practices are subject to radical change imposed from the top? So the change will need to be a sophisticated project of give and take, alteration and conservatism.  He will need help.
Fifty years ago, Time Magazine promoted a lovely reforming Pope as a global hero.  Because of the Popes that followed, the Catholic Church is mired in abuse, crime and sin.  Will it be the same with another Times laureate, Pope Francis?
What is your view?
Is Francis a one off?
What will it take change the Church?
Are individuals capable of resisting the ineluctable slide into a secularised world?
Over to you...and Merry Christmas

165 comments:

  1. Ah Dick, you're kindness and generosity is reflected in the way you search for the good in everyone!

    As CEO of the most corrupt, dysfunctional, hypocritical and immoral organisation on the planet, this pope wins no brownie points from me.

    Why not turn his summer palace into a home, hospital and education centre for the needy? After all, Jesus seemed to get along without a summer palace, why should the pope need one?

    How about recognising woman are the equals of men? Nah, never gonna happen - not even Jesus was that crazy!

    Why not crumble the hierarchy in the CC and in doing so remove the costly (both financial and immoral) power structure? Jesus didn't have that level of bureaucracy and he would never have condoned the ridiculous structure of the CC that has been built in his name. But then Jesus was a communist (in it's purest form, not the distorted forms of communism we see in operation today) and that's not something our modern believers like to think about.

    The total dismantling of the CC would be a great blessing to the planet.

    Merry Christmas to you too Dick and to my fellow Dick followers...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ah Dick, *your* kindness and generosity...

      Delete
    2. Hey Kate, I'm interested to know what you mean by Jesus being a communist.

      I think Jesus was pretty clearly a monarchist!

      Delete
    3. Hi Mark, it's always struck me as a rather delightful juxtaposition that Jesus seemed very interested in sharing wealth equally while he was alive, yet today very few of his followers actually follow his example - far too much emphasis on the accumulation of personal wealth. Jesus didn't seem too keen on the wealthy being surrounded by luxury while there were people starving and suffering - yet we see that constantly in Christianity (think TV evangelists, Christian authors, etc) and the CC. Jesus seems to have embraced some very pure communist ideals to me.

      I think your point about him being a monarchist is accurate too - it's not his fault that he didn't know that there was no one sitting on the throne. It was an ignorant time to be alive and not surprising that people attributed things they couldn't explain to a god. It totally flummoxes me that with all we know about science and the universe that people continue this practice, but that's a discussion for another day.

      Delete
    4. Og agog6:00 PM

      From Zed's soulful moggy quoted below- The Archdruid Report

      "Here are the passages I found in which Jesus tells his followers that they have a duty to take care of children, the poor, and other vulnerable people:
      Matthew 18:6, 18:10, 19:21, 23:14, and 25:31-46; Mark 9:36-37, 10:21, and 12:40; and Luke 10:30-37, 11:41, 12:33, 14:12-14, 18:22, and 20:47.
      Here are the passages in which Jesus tells his followers to pay their taxes without complaining:
      Matthew 5:42, 17:24-27, and 22:19-21; Mark 12:14-17; and Luke 6:30 and 20:21-25.
      Here are the passages in which Jesus tells his followers that they aren’t supposed to obsess about other people’s sins, but should leave that to God, and attend to their own moral failings instead:
      Matthew 7:1-5 and 9:10-13; Mark 2:15-17; Luke 6:37, 6:41-42, 7:44-48, 15:2, 18:10-14, and 19:7; and John 8:2-11."
      If only Christians would follow the teachings of Christ.

      Delete
    5. Kate,

      I'm not so well versed on political systems, but that seems more like socialism than communism to me - The difference to my mind being socialism says (like Jesus) "Take care of people who can't take care of themselves", while communism says "share ownership of things with everyone" (which the disciples did in Acts, so maybe the difference is smaller than I'm perceiving!).

      I believe Jesus teaches more on money than he does sex - I do agree that Christians need to be more generous!

      But it's no surprise - the Bible's pretty clear on the failings of humanity.

      Delete
    6. The bible is pretty clear on the failings of god. It's also an excellent example of failing to apply rational thought, lack of historical and scientific accuracy and it purports the the bullshit notion that humans were once perfect. The bible; a collected work of nonsense, nastiness and untruths.

      Delete
    7. Well, that escalated quickly!

      All I meant was that I find the Bible far and away the most insightful text on the human condition I've ever come across.

      Delete
    8. Og agog4:20 AM

      And we respect your right to believe in what ever you want.. but this is an atheist blog we expect you to respect our disbelief. There is nothing original in the Bible, many parables are far older, the old testaments are Chaldean based, the new Roman. Remember, as card carrying atheists we discuss the Bible, the Koran, Bagavad gita and the Egyptian book of the dead etc quite often. We are not ignorant of the message or of the details.
      I have known boundless ecstasy in my life, I know some would see this personal experience as divine, but I live in a time of science and reason which explains greatly the complexity of the human mind/body condition, information unknown 2000 years ago.
      btw Shakespeare nails it for me.

      Delete
    9. RalphH 30/126:06 AM

      “I think your point about (Jesus) being a monarchist is accurate too - it's not his fault that he didn't know that there was no one sitting on the throne. It was an ignorant time to be alive and not surprising that people attributed things they couldn't explain to a god. It totally flummoxes me that with all we know about science and the universe that people continue this practice, but that's a discussion for another day.” (Kate12:10 AM - addressed to Mark's comment)


      Kate, I think one of the most interesting aspects of Jesus was that he claimed to be a king but not of this world. He claimed a much higher form of kingship than a political one (see John 18:33-37). Jesus was well aware of the political forces at play. Many times during his life/ministry he was tempted to take sides politically because the Jewish obsession was to throw off the yoke of their Roman masters, but refused to do so.

      Jesus operated on the higher level of truth and goodness as it effects individual human minds. Political systems come and go but the rule of truth/reality is above all of them. Just about any political system can be used as an instrument to champion the common good and welfare of others or as an instrument of oppression and elitism depending on the moral and ethical quality of the individuals who comprise and command it.

      People (of Jesus' time and earlier) or later for that matter) did not “attribute() things they couldn't explain to a god”. People attribute things to God because this provides by far the best and most sensible explanation of existence and life.

      The discoveries of science merely reveal the intermediary causes in a chain of causation. The more we learn about science and the universe (God’s creation) the more capable we are of understanding God and how He operates.

      What “flummoxes” me is how people can go on denying God in the face of evidence showing that matter is basically empty space dependent on the organisation of minute particles where organisation is shown everywhere to be a function of mind and also where certain existences and outcomes (quantum mechanics) can be shown to be influenced by an observer i.e. the presence of (a) mind.

      The idea that these amazing things just happen out of nothing/nowhere I find nothing short of incredulous but some people for some strange reason would rather deny God than update their concept of who and or what God might be.

      Delete
    10. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    11. Mark, what escalation? I've never held back on what piece of shit I think the bible is; in fact, that's unfair to shit, which is at least useful. The bible, whose premise is stupid, at best, and deeply ugly and manipulative, at worst, is a book filled with such fear, hatred and ignorance that it is not a book worthy of any reverence; just disgust. Exactly what does perfection look like and why was necessary to say that humans once were and now are not? Well, that's easy; guilt and control. If you find that helpful to your life, interesting or whatever, then that's your lookout. To me it remains one of the most vile books ever written.

      Delete
    12. Ralph, you are the Ray Comfort of this blog; totally ignorant of genuine science and evidence but attempting to twist actual science and evidence to suit your purpose. You can provide no scientific evidence that supports the notion of the existence of any god/s, let alone your god.

      Your faith is stronger than your understanding and would appear to lead you down the path to find answers that suit the beliefs you already hold. Nothing you have ever written is backed by science; it's backed only by your your beliefs and your faith. This is demonstrated in your hideously bigoted beliefs about human sexuality, your belief in homoeopathy and your repeated displays of your gross misunderstanding of science. Also amply demonstrated by your assertion that "Jesus operated on the higher level of truth and goodness as it effects individual human minds". You have no evidence to back up such an extraordinary claim.

      Quoting the bible to prove a point about Jesus is circular reasoning and proves nothing. Shall I quote JK Rowling to prove the existence of Hogwarts? Nice enough chap Jesus, but totally deluded about being the son of a god and a virgin.

      The rest of your post is just another failed version of the watchmaker argument and again, only serves to demonstrate that you are incapable of thinking beyond your unsupported beliefs.

      Delete
    13. Og agog2:07 PM

      @Ralph
      "update their concept of who and or what God might be"
      You should be trying to convince your Creation mates not us. Evolution's a bitch to closed minds.
      Truth, reality, evidence? All the faith in the world and not a sign of evidence, sometimes I think I need a translator to read your posts.
      btw I hope you had a Merry Christmas, Ralph.

      Delete
    14. Og agog

      "I live in a time of science and reason which explains greatly the complexity of the human mind/body condition, information unknown 2000 years ago."

      I get that we know a lot more about the chemical processes in the brain now, but what I meant was more like this: I have never found motivation or behaviour in myself or others that falls outside of a Biblical framework for understanding humanity.

      I think Shakespeare comes as close to nailing a description of the human condition as anyone. That's one reason I love Shakespeare! I think the fact that we can still identify with it hundreds of years later is a testament to this!

      But I think the Bible takes it to another level by not just describing, but also explaining the human condition.

      Delete
    15. Kate,

      "What escalation?"

      Sorry, I was just a bit surprised by your eagerness to so heavily criticise the Bible when I didn't think the conversation was gonna go that way! I thought we were talking more about the political affiliations of Jesus!

      "To me it remains one of the most vile books ever written."

      I can't see it myself. To be honest, I think the method, timespan, history, and purpose of composition don't warrant such a harsh conclusion.

      Delete
    16. You come to an atheist blog and you're surprised to discover an eagerness to criticise of the bible? You might want to reconsider your expectations.

      The bible condones and repeatedly encourages murder, rape, incest, racism, genocide, slavery, bigotry and supports bullshit man-invented beliefs such as the evils of eating a prawn and you can't see how vile it is?

      As indicated previously, the bible's purpose is deeply flawed, its historical claims are inaccurate and its method of belittling and judging humanity is truly despicable. I have no idea what you mean about "timespan".

      Delete
    17. Og agog5:25 PM

      @Mark "motivation or behaviour "
      Motivation and behaviour IS the human condition, Mark, no deity needed. If you had never heard about Christianity you wouldn't be Christian, just a human living his life with all the loving friends and family, trying to satisfy those desires for hunger, sex, sympathy and love, a non-theist (you need human intervention to become religious), and, yes, conformity to the group/tribe, the very conformity that power mad people of all times manipulate to serve a selfish end. Religion is nothing without it's twisted parables, it's offer of the impossible and the appeal to mortal circumvention. We Godless do not need a book of instructions, except of course, if we are caught pants down without a bog-roll. ;)

      Delete
    18. RalphH 30/126:02 PM

      “Ralph, you are the Ray Comfort of this blog; totally ignorant of genuine science and evidence but attempting to twist actual science and evidence to suit your purpose. You can provide no scientific evidence that supports the notion of the existence of any god/s, let alone your god.” (Kate1:52 PM)

      I didn’t know about Ray Comfort Kate so I looked him up. I do not agree with his claim that he has scientific evidence that ‘proves’ the existence of God but do agree that there is heaps of anecdotal evidence that logically supports confirms and supports that belief.

      “Your faith is stronger than your understanding and would appear to lead you down the path to find answers that suit the beliefs you already hold. Nothing you have ever written is backed by science; it's backed only by your your beliefs and your faith.”

      My faith is stronger ‘because’ of my understanding. Belief is an important tool in opening the mind but it only works for those things that are actually true. If one finds one’s beliefs are dispelled by actual evidence one can always change one’s belief but if one initially closes one’s mind they will never attain to the truth.

      “This is demonstrated in your hideously bigoted beliefs about human sexuality, your belief in homoeopathy and your repeated displays of your gross misunderstanding of science.”

      I do not have a “bigoted belief() about human sexuality”. I have a common sense and rational belief on the subject. The raison d'être of sex is that two different things may co-operate to become one. The modern fad and fetish of homosexuality is not based on science but on feelings and opinion.

      No one is born homosexual. Some are born with homosexual feelings or tendencies which they may affirm or reject. If they chose to affirm them and form same-sex relationships they will be of an entirely different nature than those based on a complementary relationship. Hence it is not rational (or logical) to attempt to place these two completely different types of relationship under the same umbrella.

      “your belief in homoeopathy and your repeated displays of your gross misunderstanding of science.”

      The only ‘problem’ with homeopathy arises when people make it an either/or situation with allopathy. There are many doctors who are not close-minded to alternatives who make use of both. There are many nasty side-effects with conventional medicine and also the growing problem of immunity of bugs to antibiotics.

      I do not have a “gross misunderstanding of science”. That is a gross generalisation. I have a keen interest in and love of science but I do not close-mindedly believe that science has or ever will have ‘all’ the answers.

      “Also amply demonstrated by your assertion that "Jesus operated on the higher level of truth and goodness as it effects individual human minds". You have no evidence to back up such an extraordinary claim.”

      That’s what the Bible is all about. It’s not a history, or a political or socio-economic text-book or about science. It’s about the human heart and the human spirit. I suggest reading (or re-reading) the gospels in an open-minded way.

      “Quoting the bible to prove a point about Jesus is circular reasoning and proves nothing. Shall I quote JK Rowling to prove the existence of Hogwarts? Nice enough chap Jesus, but totally deluded about being the son of a god and a virgin.”

      It’s not circular or deluded if you believe Jesus to be who he claims to be.

      “The rest of your post is just another failed version of the watchmaker argument and again, only serves to demonstrate that you are incapable of thinking beyond your unsupported beliefs.”

      It’s obviously failed for you which demonstrates why you believe it to be “unsupported”.

      Delete
    19. RalphH 30/128:14 PM

      “You should be trying to convince your Creation mates not us. Evolution's a bitch to closed minds.” (Og agog2:07 PM)

      Sorry to have given you the wrong impression Og but I am not a “Creationist”, not in the sense you imply anyway. I do believe in Creation but as a process, an ongoing process rather than a one-off occurrence at some point in time.

      Evolution, which merely means change, is part of that process but the concept of a mindless (it just happened) evolution is way off my radar. To believe that any such process could ‘just happen’ involves, IMO, a lot of close-mindedness.

      Truth, reality, evidence? All the faith in the world and not a sign of evidence, sometimes I think I need a translator to read your posts.

      Are truth and reality such foreign concepts? The truth is a statement of what’s real. Reality explained is truth. The important thing to know is that Truth/Reality Itself (in it’s totality) is beyond our comprehension. Our vision/understanding of what is really real and truly true is limited by our experiences and how we interpret them. Those experiences can include evidence of the senses and also what we are told by others.

      They also include dreams, visions and spiritual experiences (of our own and others). Everything needs to be interpreted not simply taken at face value. Interpretation is based not merely on physical appearances but on reason and the heart (the inner will/desire which is the real person).

      I hope you had a Merry Christmas too.

      Delete
    20. MalcolmS8:30 PM

      Mark: "I find the Bible far and away the most insightful text on the human condition I've ever come across"

      Really?

      So, which particular "human condition" does it have in mind?

      Delete
    21. Og agog10:39 PM

      I know you're not a creationist Ralph but you do throw your hat into the ring of Christianity, and by guilt of association....
      Who says everything just happened? When we look to the night sky we see infinity, it's not a stretch from there to imagine there was no beginning, the big bang one event in an endless cosmic kaleidoscope, Creation out of nothing not needed.
      The terms truth and reality are cannon fodder for semantics, there are degrees of truths, personal truths, mathematical truths.
      reality the same. Truth and reality are evolving, we are so fortunate to be able to stand on the shoulders of giants and push that envelope a little further, the Buddhist's ever opening lotus flower is as close to truth of existence as I can find, of this I think we are both nearly of the same mind. But a human created God has historically stifled free thinkers with it's hierarchic sexism, sacrifice, secrecy and insistence of absolute truth, the dusty ancient tomes of hell and brim-fire still held precious by those who turn their backs to "reality".
      So where does vision end and spiritual experience start? Reality has no place in defining this line, it's a personal truth, a truth without evidence or reason.

      Delete
    22. Ralph can you please supply peer-reviewed papers to support these statements...
      "The raison d'être of sex is that two different things may co-operate to become one."
      "No one is born homosexual."

      Can you also provide a peer-reviewed paper that shows homoeopathy has ever cured anyone of anything? Thanks.

      The rest of your long-winded post was another demonstration that you are incapable of using logic (beautifully illustrated in this bullshit comment "Belief is an important tool in opening the mind but it only works for those things that are actually true"), that you don't understand circular reasoning (having demonstrated it yet again with this clanger "It’s not circular or deluded if you believe Jesus to be who he claims to be"), that you have no idea of the scientific process and how scientific evidence works ("...there is heaps of anecdotal evidence that logically supports confirms and supports that belief") and that you fail to understand why the watchmaker argument is such a very poor one. Here's a few people who explain it much better than I ever could...
      http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-a-schwartz/intelligent-design-watchmaker_b_1730878.html
      http://freethoughtblogs.com/crommunist/2012/02/27/the-watchmaker-analogy-not-an-argument/
      http://www.atheist-community.org/faq/#watchmaker

      Delete
    23. MalcolmS5:45 AM

      RalphH: "Belief is an important tool in opening the mind but it only works for those things that are actually true"

      So, how do you know which of your "beliefs" are true and which "beliefs" are false?

      If you can know which is true and which is false, then, "belief" was not necessary in the first place!

      Get it?

      Delete
    24. RalphH 31/122:27 PM

      “So, how do you know which of your "beliefs" are true and which "beliefs" are false?

      If you can know which is true and which is false, then, "belief" was not necessary in the first place!

      Get it?” (MalcolmS5:45 AM)

      So what are you asking or expecting me to “get” Malcolm? I think it’s fairly obviously one doesn’t know ahead of time which beliefs are true and which ones are false.

      Personal belief in God (God to the individual being their highest possible concept of goodness - something external to us that we can align with and strive for) does not begin until one’s rational begins to develop. A child’s ‘belief’ is a mirror or reflection of their parents and mentors.

      One first believes in something because it makes sense in the context in which one finds oneself. If one really believes in God for example, they follow His rules of life and discover that they work - which reinforces the ‘sense’ that was seen in potential in the first place. As a result, the belief is strengthened and faith increases.

      This becomes an ongoing process - applying revealed truth to life as it unfolds. Adapting one’s life to live in concert with these truths rather than blindly following one’s natural urges, results in someone developing their fullest potential because they are mirroring their life (according to their own unique loves and understanding) on the omniscient wisdom of God.

      This process does not take place with those who claim to believe in God but do not follow the rules. Failure to follow the rules means that one does not really have faith in the one who made the rules but have faith in something else - maybe one’s own ability to work things out for one’s own perceived, temporal advantage.

      If a person chooses not to believe in God they can still discover and live God’s rules (and benefit from them) because they’re out there to be discovered but they will not form a connection with God (because they don’t believe in God) or believe that the rules and the power for good and creativity in them originate from God.

      They may live a very successful and to external appearances a good, useful and fulfilling life in a worldly sense by being unselfish and caring about the happiness and well-being of others. But their chosen lack of belief and connection to God (i.e. rejection of God) becomes a serious limitation in the afterlife because God is eternal life/life in it’s fulness and abundance. God cannot force this on anyone. To do so would destroy their humanness - their ability to understand and chose their spiritual life/destiny for themselves. It has to be chosen - with understanding and love.

      If one doesn’t believe in God/or eternal life they don’t believe in an ultimate responsibility for their actions.

      Delete
    25. MalcolmS5:19 PM

      RalphH: "I think it’s fairly obviously[sic] one doesn’t know ahead of time which beliefs are true and which ones are false"

      That's the point!

      In other words "belief" in the absence of evidence or in contradiction of the evidence is irrational.

      So, why "believe"? It's for morons!

      Get it?

      Delete
    26. RalphH 31/12/1410:05 PM

      “That's the point!

      In other words "belief" in the absence of evidence or in contradiction of the evidence is irrational.

      So, why "believe"? It's for morons!

      Get it?” (MalcolmS5:19 PM)

      I “get” lots of things Malcolm, it would appear more than you do. Everyone believes something so according to you everyone is a moron including yourself. I don’t agree with you.

      Someone who believes in contradiction to irrefutable evidence might be but if you’re thinking that includes a belief in God or an afterlife, I suggest you reassess. Absence of a particular evidence is not evidence of absence.

      I suggested that an initial belief is usually in something that makes sense. Unless the person is totally deluded or completely uneducated only a reasonable or potentially rational proposition would make sense.

      A belief lends itself to testing so if one tests their belief and has a good result, they have their evidence. When a belief is tested in this way and found to be true, the belief does not go away. It is heightened and believed more strongly because of the evidence. So much for belief being for morons.

      Delete
    27. MalcolmS11:42 PM

      RalphH: "I suggested that an initial belief is usually in something that makes sense"

      Who cares about your "suggestion" Ralph? It makes no sense. It's as irrational as your "belief." There is nothing unusual about your childhood belief in God or an afterlife given to you by your parents. I had a similar experience. The difference is that you became determined to "believe" come what may. Now, as a cognitively crippled adult, you are determined to cling to your "belief" even though you still have no more evidence for God or an afterlife than in your childhood. My childhood experience amounted to "I don't get it" and that was all I needed for salvation of sanity. With maturity I came to understand that one cannot accept a premise in the absence of evidence since that's what is known as an *arbitrary hypothesis* and leads only to the dead end of faith.

      Get it?

      Delete
    28. RalphH 1/01/146:25 AM

      “Who cares about your "suggestion" Ralph? It makes no sense. It's as irrational as your “belief.”" (MalcolmS11:42 PM)

      If you’d had a more sensible idea of God presented to you it may have made sense.

      “There is nothing unusual about your childhood belief in God or an afterlife given to you by your parents. I had a similar experience. The difference is that you became determined to "believe" come what may.”

      I’ve already told you that I believed because the concept I grew up with made a lot of sense. Now that I’ve had a lifetime to grow that concept through education, experience and understanding, it makes even more sense.

      “Now, as a cognitively crippled adult, you are determined to cling to your "belief" even though you still have no more evidence for God or an afterlife than in your childhood.

      “cognitively crippled”! You’re joking, I have a far greater span of knowledge than you because I don’t leave religion out of my portfolio.

      “My childhood experience amounted to "I don't get it" and that was all I needed for salvation of sanity.”

      So, you made a ‘baby out with the bath-water’ determination as a child (when you weren’t actually prepared to/knowledgeable enough do so) and since then your knowledge of God has remained at Sunday School level.

      How do you know your “sanity” has been saved? If, after the demise of your physical body you still find yourself alive (albeit in a more substantial spiritual body) you might need to do a re-think on that.


      “With maturity I came to understand that one cannot accept a premise in the absence of evidence since that's what is known as an *arbitrary hypothesis* and leads only to the dead end of faith.”

      Granted but the reason for your absence of evidence in the case of God is your lack of belief. If one close-mindedly and stubbornly disbelieves something at all costs, they’re not even open to evidence even though it may be staring them in the face.

      I’d say “the dead end of faith” is having faith in something that leads to a dead end - like atheism for example - no eternal life equates to just about as “dead end” as it gets.

      “Get it?”

      I hope that one day you “get it”! Have a happy new year either way.

      Delete
    29. MalcolmS7:17 AM

      RalphH: "If, after the demise of your physical body you still find yourself alive (albeit in a more substantial spiritual body) you might need to do a re-think on that"

      ROFLMAO

      Well, at least I won't need to do push-ups :)

      Delete
    30. RalphH 1/01/141:11 PM

      “Ralph can you please supply peer-reviewed papers to support these statements...
      "The raison d'être of sex is that two different things may co-operate to become one."
      "No one is born homosexual."

      Can you also provide a peer-reviewed paper that shows homoeopathy has ever cured anyone of anything? Thanks.” (Kate11:21 PM)

      So Kate, you have faith in peer-reviewed papers and I have faith in God, reason and common-sense. Although I wouldn’t rule them out (because God operates through people to reveal the truth) I believe that “peer-reviewed papers” are only as good as the intellect and integrity of those who write and read them. Is your highest criterion of truth that something has been “peer-reviewed” and given the tick? Isn’t that just a more educated form of opinion? Isn’t something true because it’s true regardless of the most educated opinion to the contrary?

      I wasn’t very impressed with your watchmaker argument detractor arguers or a few others that links led me to. I’m particularly amused by the one that claims the watchmaker argument is self-refuting because the greater world is merely the background or contrast to a humanly ordered or designed object. It has an appearance of order/being ordered but really isn’t’ - basically because that’s how the writer wants to perceive it.

      Delete
    31. My childhood experience amounted to "I don't get it" and that was all I needed for salvation of sanity. With maturity I came to understand that one cannot accept a premise in the absence of evidence since that's what is known as an *arbitrary hypothesis* and leads only to the dead end of faith.


      That is one of many fallacies committed by materialists/nominalists who regard "ideas" as not fully real. You need to grasp that an idea/concept, once formed, is a mental concrete.

      I'll give you this much twiddles, you never fail to entertain ;) lol

      Delete
    32. "The raison d'être of sex is that two different things may co-operate to become one."

      I see Ralph still can't stop lying.

      Delete
    33. "People (of Jesus' time and earlier) or later for that matter) did not “attribute() things they couldn't explain to a god”."

      Yes they did.

      "The discoveries of science merely reveal the intermediary causes in a chain of causation. "

      Your opinion, which is based on ignorance and the need to have god exist.

      "What “flummoxes” me is how people can go on denying God in the face of evidence showing that matter is basically empty space dependent on the organisation of minute particles where organisation is shown everywhere to be a function of mind and also where certain existences and outcomes (quantum mechanics) can be shown to be influenced by an observer i.e. the presence of (a) mind."

      Why do you keep lying? Mind is not needed to organise matter. The observer in QM does not have to be a mind, it can be a machine. You keep talking about things you have no understanding of.

      "The idea that these amazing things just happen out of nothing/nowhere I find nothing short of incredulous"

      People like you are the only ones stupid enough to think that happens. You are also dishonest enough to pretend science doesn't explain how things work.

      Delete
    34. "I have never found motivation or behaviour in myself or others that falls outside of a Biblical framework for understanding humanity."

      Then you haven't looked.

      Delete
    35. "My faith is stronger ‘because’ of my understanding. "

      Your faith is stronger because of your ignorance, you do not understand anything about reality.

      "I do not have a “bigoted belief() about human sexuality”."

      Yes you do Ralph, there's nothing sensible about your ignorant beliefs.

      "The modern fad and fetish of homosexuality is not based on science but on feelings and opinion."

      It's not a modern thing, and the science that has been done doesn't agree with your bigoted bullshit. Why do you keep lying?

      " If they chose to affirm them and form same-sex relationships they will be of an entirely different nature than those based on a complementary relationship. "

      People of the same gender can complement each other. Why do you keep lying?

      "I do not have a “gross misunderstanding of science”."

      Yes you do, you don't know anything about reality and you make shit up and pretend it's factual.

      " I have a keen interest in and love of science"

      Liar, any science that shows you to be wrong is incorrect in your eyes.

      "It’s not circular or deluded if you believe Jesus to be who he claims to be."

      Ralph is so stupid and deluded he can't even see that it is circular

      Delete
    36. MalcolmS6:01 PM

      "I'll give you this much twiddles, you never fail to entertain"

      I'll give you this much tosser, you never fail to obfuscate.

      Delete
    37. RalphH 1/01/146:26 PM

      “*”The raison d'être of sex is that two different things may co-operate to become one.”* (RH)

      I see Ralph still can't stop lying.” (Stranger2:52 PM)

      I see Stranger that you are still indiscriminately using the ‘liar card’.

      So, is there a new ‘Andrew’ mathematics/reality? C = A + B but also = A + A and B + B even though A and B are different. In conventional reality same things A + A may = D and B + B may = E but neither same dual-grouping will ever = C despite all the wish-thinking in the world.

      Delete
    38. MalcolmS6:58 PM

      RalphH: "The raison d'être of sex is that two different things may co-operate to become one"

      Er.. so a copulating couple only has one soul Ralph?

      My, what great powers the physical has over the God-given :)

      Delete
    39. "I see Stranger that you are still indiscriminately using the ‘liar card’."

      If that was the case I'd be calling everyone liars, so that's another lie from you Ralph.

      Delete
    40. Well Ralph, I have to say that I'm a little disappointed; I felt sure your love of science would lead you to dig up something that supported your bullshit notions, but you've got absolutely nothing. What doesn't surprise me is that, when faced with nothing to back up your bigoted beliefs, you've resorted to the time-honoured, standard theist defence (of the indefensible); a passive-aggressive attack on me.

      Your claim to have "reason and common-sense" (Ralph-speak for "whatever I say is reasonable and as you disagree with me you don't have common sense) is delightfully absurd; especially when taken in context with your following comments about an educated opinion over a non-educated opinion. A delicious display of a total absence of reason and sensibility.

      "So Kate, you have faith in peer-reviewed papers" is an incredibly poor assumption on your part and demonstrates exactly how very lacking in reason and common sense you actually are. I never stated peer-reviewed papers were the truth, only your poor logic took and inability to find any evidence to support your vile opinions took you to that pathetic conclusion. However, I do trust the scientific process; they investigate and actively search for the truth and when science gets it wrong, they admit it and celebrate finding out something new. You and religion haven't ever admitted to being wrong or changed your minds about anything when provided with evidence that is contrary to your beliefs. Even one peer-reviewed paper Ralph, would have shown that at least one educated person has spent time researching and investigating the things you claim and found some evidence to support your (lack of) understanding of human sexuality. But you have nothing, just your ignorance (remember that you refused to read the 4 or 5 peer-reviewed papers on human sexuality I provided a couple of blogs back - deity of your choice forbid you should read something that conflicts with your ill-informed, uneducated opinions), your fear, your total lack of empathy, reason, decency, morality and sense of any kind, common or otherwise.

      "Is your highest criterion of truth that something has been “peer-reviewed” and given the tick?" Yes, people who have studied something for many years, tested their hypotheses and written papers that then other people have also tested and reviewed is far more reliable and more plausible than the fact-lacking, abhorrent opinion-based bullshit that you froth.

      Delete
    41. [sic] you never fail to obfuscate.

      Translation to english.

      Twiddle[sic] is confused by his own idiotology.

      Well; Given that that your idiotology is just a bunch of random brainfarts held together with unresolved adolescent resentment, that's hardly surprising.

      Perhaps you could get Kate to coach you in the tenets of "True Communism".
      That would at least add another string to your bow... ;) lol

      Delete
    42. MalcolmS6:25 PM

      Thanks for your interest tosser.

      I'm well aware of the "tenets of "True Communism"" thank you.

      Oh... and so glad you recognised your name :}

      Delete
    43. Ralph, I wonder whether you would spend 6 minutes and 25 seconds listening to someone who is considerably more educated than you and can discuss genes and evolution with genuine authority - unlike you.
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MHDCAllQgS0&feature=youtube_gdata_player

      Delete
    44. so glad you recognised your name :}

      WTF? You copied a quote straight from my comment ya fuknuckle

      http://bitly.com/KlvWfb
      See?

      Do try to stay in focus commieboy

      Delete
    45. MalcolmS6:32 PM

      Thanks for your continuing interest tosser.

      Er... and for one more link I don't have to open.

      Oh... and so glad you recognised your name again :-}

      My... the powers of a "progressive" education!

      Delete
    46. Er... and for one more link I don't have to open.

      Ha ha bullshitter. You clicked the link.
      Bitly doesnt lie (unlike you ya commie tossrag)

      Perhaps you should just stick to burbling your usual infantile fantasies at ralfie instead of trying to take on big boys who understand how the real world works.

      Hmmm? ;) lol

      Delete
    47. MalcolmS8:30 PM

      Kate, I enjoyed and agreed with your analysis of Ralph's religious position[Kate 1:05 AM]. Essentially he won't be able to answer that and probably won't try.

      However you do yourself no justice in recruiting Dawkins to the cause. His myth of the "gay gene" is as dysfunctional as is Ralph's myth of Mary's virginity. There is no evidence for any such thing. We certainly inherit our sex but not our sexual preferences. Dawkins' "gay gene" is as erroneous as is his theory of "memes." He is a populist and can certainly sell books in this gullible age but is not a scientist's boot-lace.

      Delete
    48. http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/the-gay-gene-what-has-been-found-and-what-does-it-actually-mean-how-do-homosexuals-feel-about-the-discovery-what-is-a-gene-anyway-answers-provided-by-steve-connor-and-tom-wilkie-1485604.html

      Delete
    49. Malcolm, I don't think Dawkins is arguing with any definite view that there is a gay gene - I don't think anyone ever has.

      Only yesterday I was advised to read studies on human sexuality with a view to genetic indicators by various authors including Stein, Hamer, Mustanski, Nelson and Rice, with the advice that "generally studies show and agree regarding additive genetic variance having a role BUT how, we don't yet know" but I haven't had a chance to locate those studies as yet.

      Interestingly Ralph claims to have all the answers - no bloody evidence, but all the answers just the same - and this from a man who claims reason and common sense amongst his powers of thought!

      I don't think that there's a gene for being an arsehole, but if Ralph were to be tested, I may be proved wrong.

      Delete
    50. MalcolmS1:03 AM

      Thanks for the link Andrew.

      From the first paragraph: " the researchers in the United States whose findings were announced last week have not found a gene that causes homosexuality and they have not proved that homosexuality is hereditary"

      Says it all really.

      Delete
    51. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    52. "Says it all really."

      Uh no. Also from that article

      "They believe they have evidence linking a region of the X chromosome - which men inherit from their mothers - with the sexual orientation of some gay men. If they are right, they have uncovered hard evidence of a genetic basis of homosexuality."

      Delete
    53. MalcolmS5:27 AM

      "They believe they have evidence linking a region of the X chromosome - which men inherit from their mothers - with the sexual orientation of some gay men. If they are right, they have uncovered hard evidence of a genetic basis of homosexuality."

      "Believe"? Is Ralph one of the researchers?

      "Linking" does not mean causal.

      Only "some" gay men? Why not the rest of gay men? Why not lesbians?

      It is not "hard evidence of a genetic basis of homosexuality" if it does not apply to *all* gay men and women. They haven't even studied lesbians.

      Don't be so gullible Andrew. All you can conclude from that "research" is that government grant allocation time is approaching!

      Delete
    54. Kate, I enjoyed and agreed with your analysis ...

      Thanks for the link Andrew.


      Well just look at that! Two very un-tossrag-like responses there Malcolm. Well done!

      Now if you can maintain that civility and keep your over-inflated sense of entitlement under control you should be able to land a basic customer service role.
      For instance Macca's are always looking for hard working people willing to start at the bottom and work their way up into a position of responsibility.

      What can I say? Theres hope for you yet lad. Hope for you yet!

      Delete
    55. "Don't be so gullible Andrew. All you can conclude from that "research" is that government grant allocation time is approaching!"

      Fallacy of being a twat.

      Delete
    56. RalphH 04/013:22 PM

      “Well Ralph, I have to say that I'm a little disappointed; I felt sure your love of science would lead you to dig up something that supported your bullshit notions, but you've got absolutely nothing. What doesn't surprise me is that, when faced with nothing to back up your bigoted beliefs, you've resorted to the time-honoured, standard theist defence (of the indefensible); a passive-aggressive attack on me.” (Kate1:05 AM)

      You certainly know how to go over the top Kate. I could never accuse you of being “passive-aggressive”. You could just admit that our ideas and premises differ without all the melodramatics. I don’t do BS or have “bigoted beliefs”. I did not intend to put down the ‘peer-review’ process (it has it’s merits for secular subjects) but it doesn’t really work for theology or morality/ethics. By the way, I didn’t “refuse” to look at your previous links. I probably just never followed up on them for some reason.

      “Your claim to have "reason and common-sense" is delightfully absurd; especially when taken in context with your following comments about an educated opinion over a non-educated opinion. A delicious display of a total absence of reason and sensibility.”

      Could you please explain why you think my comment was lacking reason? I’ve re-read it and see no problem. Remember that I made the comment in the context of there being something higher than opinion i.e. truth.

      “I never stated peer-reviewed papers were the truth, only your poor logic () and inability to find any evidence to support your vile opinions took you to that pathetic conclusion.”

      Good, that’s basically the same thing I’m saying about PRP’s. I assume that by “vile opinions” you’re referring to my belief that no one is born homosexual. There is nothing “vile” about that opinion. To believe that someone is, is to deny free-will. Note that I don’t deny that some people are born with inclinations/tendencies/orientations but an inclination is not an actuation.

      I believe it’s an important distinction that can save a lot of people from making a bad choice because they have been led to believe that they have no option. I think it’s extremely cruel to stereotype people as homosexual (unable to fulfil their sexuality or reproduce) and that includes doing so to oneself.

      Maybe when you can get beyond accusing me of “(a) total lack of empathy, reason, decency, morality and sense of any kind, common or otherwise” we could have a proper discussion about the subject.

      Delete
    57. RalphH 04/013:46 PM

      “Ralph, I wonder whether you would spend 6 minutes and 25 seconds listening to someone who is considerably more educated than you and can discuss genes and evolution with genuine authority - unlike you.
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MHDCAllQgS0&feature=youtube_gdata_player “

      (Kate12:55 PM)

      Well Kate, I listened to it a number of times trying desperately to find something of value but unfortunately there’s nothing there. You could’t have picked a worse person than Richard Dawkins what with determinism and his idle, meaningless speculation.

      I agree with what Malcolm said about him (MalcolmS8:30 PM) - except for his uneducated remark about Mary) that is. If we’re to believe Dawkins people are merely a product of their genes without any recourse to free-will, rationality or morality.

      Delete
    58. "I don’t do BS or have “bigoted beliefs”."

      Yes you Ralph.

      "There is nothing “vile” about that opinion."

      Yes there is because you use it to denigrate gay people. Sexuality is not a choice most people make, even if you did.

      " I think it’s extremely cruel to stereotype people as homosexual (unable to fulfil their sexuality or reproduce) "

      Being homosexual is fulfilling their sexuality and gay people can reproduce, it's only sterile people that can't.

      "Maybe when you can get beyond accusing me of “(a) total lack of empathy, reason, decency, morality and sense of any kind, common or otherwise” we could have a proper discussion about the subject."

      The only thing you have from that list is morals.

      Delete
    59. Finally Ralph, something we can agree on! You're right I don't engage in passive-aggressive arguments; they are cowardly and dishonest. For example "You certainly know how to go over the top Kate" and "...all the melodramatics". No OTT or melodramatics from me, but certainly more passive-aggressive, personal and cowardly attacks from you when you have not a single fact to present.

      As for this pathetic attempt at justification "...but it doesn’t really work for theology or morality/ethics" ok, but we're not talking about theology, morality or ethics. Human sexuality is none of those things.

      "I believe it’s an important distinction that can save a lot of people from making a bad choice because they have been led to believe that they have no option." Opinionated, bigoted bullshit at it's finest. Homosexuality is not a "bad choice", only your lack of willingness to learn something about human sexuality is a bad choice; you are choosing religious dogma over knowledge and rejoicing in your wilful ignorance. Go back to this blog (http://godlessgross.blogspot.com.au/2013/09/how-kevin-could-have-given-less-absurd.html) and read some of the papers I provided - the evidence is substantial that sexuality is not a choice - only you choose to cling to that perverted notion.

      Ralph you present your opinions as fact and yet you never provide any evidence that supports your opinions. This displays your total lack of scientific thought, reason and common sense. Stop presenting your opinion as fact, reason and common sense and I will refrain from chastising you on that front. Present some evidence to support your bullshit opinions and a "proper discussion" may be possible.

      You repeatedly write horrible, judgemental opinions about homosexuality that displays your total lack of empathy, decency, morality and your lack of willingness to put aside your bigoted religious opinions and learn something new. Stop being judgemental about homosexuality and I will no longer call your opinions bigoted.

      "I think it’s extremely cruel to stereotype people as homosexual (unable to fulfil their sexuality or reproduce) and that includes doing so to oneself." Possibly the nastiest, most vile comment you have ever posted. The only person doing the stereotyping is you. The only person who proclaims that homosexual people should not "fulfil their sexuality" is you. You are such an ignorant bigot on this topic that you don't even understand that homosexual people can and do reproduce.

      Ralph you make it easy for me to accuse you of having a total lack of "empathy, reason, decency, morality and sense of any kind, common or otherwise" because of the unsupported (not a single facts or any evidence), nasty, opinionated, bullshit beliefs that you write. You are condemned not by me, but by your own words. I chose not to stand silently by while you practice such inhumanity and deliberate cruelty.

      Delete
    60. " idle, meaningless speculation."

      And yet that's exactly what you do Ralph.

      Delete
    61. Ralph, I should have known that you are too emotionally immature to actually listen to someone you don't like and put your inane dislike to one side. "You could’t have picked a worse person than Richard Dawkins what with determinism and his idle, meaningless speculation." Of course he's speculating - he openly refers to the "three theories" (using the laymen's use of the word); but why does that make said speculation idle and meaningless? He's eminently educated to speculate on this topic, unlike you. More passive-aggressive judgemental opinion from you.

      I really don't think Dawkins would give a toss about your personal opinion of him, so why not try the mature, reasoned thinking approach of discussing what he actually said, rather than making childish jibes about the man himself? Another display of no reason and no common sense from you.

      Funnily enough you and Dawkins share a trait of determinism; that you should criticise him for it is very amusing but sadly, also illustrates how blind you are to your own behaviours.

      "...his uneducated remark about Mary" Huh? What comment about Mary? There is not a single reference to the bible or any biblical figure. BTW, just because you don't agree with what someone says about your religion, does not mean that that person is uneducated about your religion.

      Please provide one quote, in full and in context, from Dawkins that supports your comment that he believes "people are merely a product of their genes without any recourse to free-will, rationality or morality."

      Delete
    62. MalcolmS7:57 PM

      RalphH: "... I don’t deny that some people are born with inclinations/tendencies/orientations..."

      Would you care to name one.

      Delete
    63. RalphH 06/016:01 AM

      “Finally Ralph, something we can agree on! You're right I don't engage in passive-aggressive arguments; they are cowardly and dishonest.” (Kate5:17 PM)

      I don’t reckon I do either Kate. I actually looked it up and read about it. I think you may have misdiagnosed. I probably would fit some of the criteria but then most people would. There are times when I poke a bit of fun (I thought that’s what you were referring to - it’s never a “personal attack” - I like most other people am just amused by things I find illogical) but I am not “cowardly” (I openly speak my mind) and I am not “dishonest” (I firmly believe what I say). The only real problem I see is that we disagree. I’m not angry about that, I simply express my opinion.

      “As for this pathetic attempt at justification "...but it doesn’t really work for theology or morality/ethics" ok, but we're not talking about theology, morality or ethics. Human sexuality is none of those things.”

      Well I believe sex/sexuality is far more than biological. It embraces the whole person - body and soul. Of course, if one believes that there is no soul or that any inner life is entirely dependent on the body (or the biological) that could explain our difference of opinion. I’m definitely a ‘top-down’ person rather than a ‘bottom-up’ one (as I saw it expressed in a side link off one of your previous links).

      “Homosexuality is not a "bad choice", only your lack of willingness to learn something about human sexuality is a bad choice; you are choosing religious dogma over knowledge and rejoicing in your wilful ignorance.”

      I think you make a mistake in writing all religious teaching off as “dogma”. Genuine religious teaching involves knowledge of the inner life. I am not ignorant, I think from different premises. I’ve found the links you gave and will have another look when I get time.

      “You repeatedly write horrible, judgemental opinions about homosexuality that displays your total lack of empathy, decency, morality and your lack of willingness to put aside your bigoted religious opinions and learn something new. Stop being judgemental about homosexuality and I will no longer call your opinions bigoted.”

      I’m wondering if it’s possible to have a “judgemental opinion” about an activity. One can form a ‘judgement’ of it but doesn’t judgemental refer specifically to people. If I was judgemental of people I would be “bigoted” but I’m not. I don’t believe people are inexorably tied to their behaviour - even smokers can be redeemed though it is far harder for some than others and we don’t have to be judgemental if they can’t.

      “Possibly the nastiest, most vile comment you have ever posted. The only person doing the stereotyping is you. The only person who proclaims that homosexual people should not "fulfil their sexuality" is you.

      I’m not sure how you work that out. I treat all people as ordinary people without placing some in a special category and you say I’m “stereotyping”. I believe all people should fulfil their sexuality (male or female), I just don’t make up special categories based on various attractive feelings.

      “You are such an ignorant bigot on this topic that you don't even understand that homosexual people can and do reproduce.”

      That could probably do with some explanation unless you mean when they are not acting out homosexual behaviour.

      Delete
    64. RalphH 06/016:16 AM

      “Funnily enough you and Dawkins share a trait of determinism; that you should criticise him for it is very amusing but sadly, also illustrates how blind you are to your own behaviours.” (Kate7:15 PM)

      It’s late so I’ll be brief. How do you see me as being deterministic when I argue all the time for free-will and free choice?

      "...his uneducated remark about Mary" Huh? What comment about Mary?”

      The reference to Mary was made by Malcolm who I was talking about in that sentence. I then jumped back to talking about RD in the next sentence. Could have been confusing if read quickly.

      “Please provide one quote, in full and in context, from Dawkins that supports your comment that he believes "people are merely a product of their genes without any recourse to free-will, rationality or morality.” “

      What about your own example? Dawkins is looking for (treating as factual - even though there is no evidence for it) a gene that determines homosexuality.

      Delete
    65. Would you care to name one.

      Lets start with Twiddles... ;)

      Delete
    66. Here ya go...

      http://bitly.com/1gzdyKm

      Hmmm
      Youre a fan of the renaissance arent you Twiddles?

      Delete
    67. " I probably would fit some of the criteria"

      Especially this one Ralph: " This type of person insists on seeing themselves as the blameless victims in all situations."

      "I am not “dishonest”"

      Yes you are, you might believe the things you say, like you accept science, but you are being dishonest because you don't accept science.

      "Well I believe sex/sexuality is far more than biological. It embraces the whole person - body and soul."

      Reality is not dependent on what you want to be true Ralph.

      "I think you make a mistake in writing all religious teaching off as “dogma”."

      I think you don't know what dogma means.

      ". I am not ignorant, "

      You are ignorant of almost every scientific fact.

      "I’m wondering if it’s possible to have a “judgemental opinion” about an activity."

      Of course one can, and you do it all the time.

      " If I was judgemental of people I would be “bigoted” but I’m not."

      Yes you are.

      " I treat all people as ordinary people without placing some in a special category and you say I’m “stereotyping”"

      No you don't as you have stereotyped homosexuals as indulging in harmful/wrong activities.

      " I believe all people should fulfil their sexuality (male or female),"

      No you don't. You don't believe homosexuals should fulfill their sexuality. That's a lie you make.

      " I just don’t make up special categories based on various attractive feelings."

      Neither does anyone else. You pretend there aren't categories and insist everyone behaves like you do.

      "That could probably do with some explanation unless you mean when they are not acting out homosexual behaviour."

      Wow you really are ignorant. You've never heard of IVF, or the old turkey-baster method?

      "What about your own example? Dawkins is looking for (treating as factual - even though there is no evidence for it) a gene that determines homosexuality."

      Actually Dawkins says 'there is no such thing as the gay gene'
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MHDCAllQgS0&feature=player_detailpage

      Delete
    68. MalcolmS7:38 PM

      Stranger: "Dawkins says 'there is no such thing as the gay gene'"

      Actually Dawkins offers a hypothesis for a "gay gene" for which there is not one shred of evidence. We already know that a gene is a purely physical entity - a bunch of chemicals. Yet he reckons a gene can determine our *ideas* which are volitional. This is the sort of nonsense that modern sceptics/materialists/determinists are driven to when they eschew consciousness. It also makes a hash of his argument for atheism. His argument for a gay gene is as futile and as loony as any of Ralph's dogmas.

      Delete
    69. MalcolmS7:40 PM

      RalphH: "How do you see me as being deterministic when I argue all the time for free-will and free choice?"

      Because you are contradictory on that issue. What else is the meaning of the Christian myth that man is evil by nature? They even practise exorcism for it: it's called baptism.

      Or do you regard evil as one of those "inclinations/tendencies/orientations" you now appear too timid to name? :)

      Delete
    70. We already know that a gene is a purely physical entity ...

      No it isn't tossrag.
      Genes carry information. Information isn't physical.

      Not surprised you didn't know that...

      Delete
    71. MalcolmS12:14 AM

      magicsausagetosser: "No it isn't tossrag. Genes carry information. Information isn't physical"

      What you call "information" in a gene is entirely physical. It's also the case with any "information" in a book. Or in a computer. Surprised you didn't know that...

      So how's your "progressive" education looking now dopey? Are you likely to graduate from remedial kindy anytime soon?

      Delete
    72. What you call "information" in a gene is entirely physical. It's also the case with any "information" in a book. Or in a computer. ...

      or in a brain.

      Well done magicsausagetossrag

      Glad you recognised your name ;)

      Delete
    73. RalphH 06/011:41 PM

      “Because you are contradictory on that issue. What else is the meaning of the Christian myth that man is evil by nature? They even practise exorcism for it: it's called baptism.” (MalcolmS7:40 PM)

      I don’t know what you mean by the “Christian myth” Malcolm but I have never been taught, nor do I believe, that “man is evil by nature”. Man is neither evil nor good by nature, he/she is the determiner of his/her own fate. Why else is he/she gifted with a rational mind to be able to understand and the free-will to choose one or the other?

      Baptism is not/is nothing like exorcism. Baptism is a symbolic sign of acceptance of a desire to avoid and fight against evil (or with a child, of a parent’s accepting responsibility for teaching and leading the child away from evil i.e. of acting like a true parent).

      “Or do you regard evil as one of those "inclinations/tendencies/orientations" you now appear too timid to name? :)”

      Every person inherits inclinations to evils of various kinds in the sense that it is natural to place the self (one’s comfort and desires) as more impotent than others. The Christian/religious message is that it is evil to act from such inclinations because it destroys the common good. The strong and/or intellectually superior take advantage of and lord it over the weaker which destroys the happiness of all.

      This selfish attitude is the source of all evil. Evil (all of which begins as an inclination) can be avoided (or removed if it has already been indulged/chosen) by learning that it is wrong and applying that knowledge/truth to negate it. This is a mental cleansing process which is represented by the physical cleansing action of water (which is representative of truth - that which does the cleansing).

      The contradiction (in your mind) is because you have misunderstood the Christian message possibly because you have seen people claiming to be Christians abusing that message and usurping God’s power (which is universal forgiveness which takes it effect whenever a person accepts responsibly and makes the effort to change) to themselves.

      In humans (finite creatures) power corrupts (because it can be effected by the natural inclination to evil) but in God it can’t because God is not in a position of choosing between good and evil. (He) is Good Itself. We are meant to use God’s power but always maintain the acknowledgement that it is only on loan and is to be used only for good/unselfishness.

      Delete
    74. RalphH 06/013:56 PM

      In the 5th paragraph above (my 1:41 PM post) it should read "Every person inherits ............) as more important than others. (not impotent - I was out smarted by the spell-checker and didn't pick it up)

      Delete
    75. MalcolmS5:54 PM

      magicsausagetosser: "or[sic] in a brain"

      You're learning!

      Three cheers for dopey!

      Hip, hip, hip... 'ray!

      Three cheers for remedial kindy :}

      Hip, hip, hip... 'ray!

      ROFLMAO

      Delete
    76. MalcolmS8:40 PM

      RalphH: "I don’t know what you mean by the “Christian myth” Malcolm but I have never been taught, nor do I believe, that “man is evil by nature”"

      That myth, as you well know, is the myth of Adam and the Garden of Eden. The myth is that Adam gave up his God-given perfection by sinning and that that imperfection is inherent in everyone following that event. That has been the prevailing view in Judeo/Christianity ever since. You do not have a monopoly on the interpretation of revelation and dogma Ralph. Your rewriting of Christianity to remove the awkward bits simply turns you into an obfuscator and/or liar. It was from the sin of Adam that Jesus allegedly came to save us. Pity the project was such an unmitigated disaster!

      "Baptism is not/is nothing like exorcism"

      That's exactly what it is. Witchcraft!

      "Baptism is a symbolic sign of acceptance of a desire to avoid and fight against evil..."

      Rubbish! If that's the case innocent infants would not be baptised... the belief is that they have inherited Adam's sin. Which means they are evil by nature and can't be otherwise. Innocent, guiltless babies! Such is the evil of Christianity for which people such as yourself, who perpetuate such a myth, deserve to burn in Hell if such a place existed!

      “Every person inherits inclinations to evils of various kinds in the sense that it is natural to place the self... as more [important] than others"

      If those "inclinations to evils" are "natural," then, you have no choice in the matter and they are beyond the province of morality. I note you do not claim an "inclination to good" in your obfuscation! Ask yourself "why?" sometime! Nobody can be required to act contrary to their nature! If we have such a "natural" inclination then that's how we should "incline"! End of story!

      The simple fact is that there is no difference between "evil by nature" and "inclination to evil." Both reduce to the same phenomenon in spite of the pleading of pathetic beady-eyed little mystics such as yourself.

      "This selfish attitude is the source of all evil"

      Let's get something else perfectly straight mystic. If a human being is to lead a moral/proper life he must *discover* what that involves and it only involves his *choices* - not his genes or "inclinations"! That which furthers his life is the *good* and what detracts from or destroys his life is the *evil.* He requires such a moral code in order to *live* - here and now and on this Earth! In other words morality is a *selfish* requirement for every individual if he is to live. It's required for life - that individual's life! Nor does it require the sacrifice of others as you state. Selfishness, in this sense, is the good - it is the morality for living on this Earth.

      Unlike Christianity which is the morality of self-sacrifice, self-renunciation, self-immolation and of death!

      Now scurry back to your goat-herd, Ralph, but remember your "inclinations to evil." You may not be able to help it but the goat may take exception!

      Delete
    77. magicsausagetosser: "or[sic] in a brain"
      You're learning!
      Three cheers for dopey!
      Hip, hip, hip... 'ray!
      Three cheers for remedial kindy :}
      Hip, hip, hip... 'ray!
      ROFLMAO


      Jesus!
      Lay off the meth son.
      You're embarrassing yourself

      Delete
    78. Ralph, Stranger has most succinctly pointed out all the flaws in your statements.

      Ralph, it's not that we disagree that I care about. What is so galling is that you make cruel and judgemental statements about human sexuality, people (things you repeatedly demonstrate that you know nothing about) and you never back up those statements with any facts or evidence. That is dishonest.

      You've made claims about Dawkins that the briefest of searches can refudiate, yet you refuse to back down from your original position. That is dishonest; it's also immature, selfish and demonstrates how very fixed you are to your own thoughts.

      You have never failed in your repeated assertions about human sexuality to provide any evidence that supports your bigoted opinions; when presented with evidence that conflicts with your ignorance, you choose not to educate yourself. Instead you remain wedded to your ignorant, bullshit opinions. That is also dishonest and demonstrates a complete lack of integrity.

      Hence forth, I will always hear your posts starting with the words "In my opinion..." because that's all you have; no facts, no evidence, no education, no support from any quarter for your nonsense (except your hate-filled, fear-mongoring religion) - just your bullshit opinions.

      Ralph's bullshit opinions; ignorance and bigotry in motion.

      Delete
    79. RalphH 07/012:23 PM

      “Ralph, Stranger has most succinctly pointed out all the flaws in your statements.” (Kate2:21 PM)

      Kate, I would be highly surprised if Stranger has ever “succinctly pointed out” anything. Beyond nay-saying and liar calling he seldom has anything to say.

      “Hence forth, I will always hear your posts starting with the words "In my opinion..." because that's all you have; no facts, no evidence, no education, no support from any quarter for your nonsense (except your hate-filled, fear-mongoring religion) - just your bullshit opinions.”

      Have you ever believed any differently? Have I ever claimed that my opinions are more than opinions (albeit they could well be true or tending in that direction)? I wouldn’t believe them if I thought they were otherwise. Nothing is true because we believe that we have ‘facts or evidence’ to prove it so. It’s true solely if it is true.

      What one person sees as ‘facts and evidence’ another may see as wish-thinking. It all depends on the basic underlying questions and premises. E.g. Do we live in a world of order and purpose or of unexplainable, mindless chaos?

      Do you have any ‘facts or evidence’ that ‘my’ religion is “hate-filled” or fear-mongering”? (That’s rubbish because it’s just the opposite). I can quite truthfully claim that you don’t know enough about it to make that call or even to know if my expressed opinions are in concert with it. You probably don’t want to know about it. That’s OK if that’s what you want but you can’t at the same time claim the knowledge to form an educated opinion about it.

      Your belief that I am “cruel and judgemental”, dishonest and uneducated, hate filled and fear-mongering has no basis in fact or evidence. The fact that you don’t like some of my opinions because they disagree with your beliefs, doesn’t make it so.

      Your denigration of my opinions and beliefs may score Brownie points with some but do not help your cause if you really do want to discover the underlying cause and purpose of life. Maybe you don’t but some people do.

      Delete
    80. Ralph, you can look at Cory Bernardi's new book if you like - it's hate-filled and full of the type of fear-mongoring that is the outpouring of a bigoted, ignorant Christian in action and is a direct extension of the nasty bullshit that is Christianity.

      The fact that I find your bullshit, ignorant opinions revolting wins me no Brownie points with anyone - I just refuse to stand quietly by while you spout such nasty rubbish. Your bullshit ignorant opinions have the power to hurt real people; people who are not doing any harm to anyone. I won't stand by and see your bullshit ignorant opinions go unchallenged and in doing so allow harm to others.

      "...but do not help your cause if you really do want to discover the underlying cause and purpose of life." Classic passive aggressive emotive bullshit argument - Ralph you never fail to amuse!

      Delete
    81. " Have I ever claimed that my opinions are more than opinions "

      Yes.

      "Nothing is true because we believe that we have ‘facts or evidence’ to prove it so."

      That's exactly how we tell if something is true or not. Just wanting something to be true, as you do, does not make it true.

      "What one person sees as ‘facts and evidence’ another may see as wish-thinking."

      Facts and evidence can be demonstrated. Your bullshit can't, that's why it's wishful thinking.

      "Do you have any ‘facts or evidence’ that ‘my’ religion is “hate-filled” or fear-mongering”? "

      Your posts.

      "Your belief that I am “cruel and judgemental”, dishonest and uneducated, hate filled and fear-mongering has no basis in fact or evidence."

      Yes it does, your posts.

      "Your denigration of my opinions and beliefs may score Brownie points with some but do not help your cause if you really do want to discover the underlying cause and purpose of life"

      There you go insisting your unevidenced beliefs are true.

      Delete
    82. Ralph, "I would be highly surprised if Stranger has ever “succinctly pointed out” anything." I don't think you understand the meaning of succinct, so here you go...

      succinct (/səkˈsɪŋ(k)t/) adjective
      1. (especially of something written or spoken) briefly and clearly expressed.

      Stranger is the perfect example of succinct, unlike you and I, who frequently embody "long-winded".

      "Your belief that I am “cruel and judgemental”, dishonest and uneducated, hate filled and fear-mongering has no basis in fact or evidence." Actually, you have provided the evidence for your judgmental shit in this series of clangers - and all from the one post...
      "... if you really do want to discover the underlying cause and purpose of life. Maybe you don’t but some people do."
      "...that you don’t know enough about it to make that call"
      "You probably don’t want to know about it. That’s OK if that’s what you want..."

      I'm not stopping anyone from doing anything Ralph - you are free to continue spewing your bigoted, ignorant nonsense. However, you don't get the option to regurgitate your bile without being challenged. I am free to continue voicing my own opinion of your bigoted, ignorant bullshit opinions.

      Delete
    83. RalphH 08/017:18 PM

      “*”Nothing is true because we believe that we have ‘facts or evidence’ to prove it so.”* (RH)

      That's exactly how we tell if something is true or not. Just wanting something to be true, as you do, does not make it true.” (Stranger5:58 PM)

      Stranger, my statement said nothing about “wanting something to be true”. If you’re thinking that then you have missed the point and it’s incorrect to say “That's exactly how we (do it).” One’s belief that one has “facts and evidence” is a belief not necessarily a fact.


      “Facts and evidence can be demonstrated. Your bullshit can't, that's why it's wishful thinking.”

      Whether or not something can be demonstrated successfully depends (in the final analysis) on the capacity and will of the recipient to understand. A deluded or deceiving person may convince some people (of slow intellect or already prejudiced) that something is factual and evidenced when in reality it isn’t.

      “*”Do you have any ‘facts or evidence’ that ‘my’ religion is “hate-filled” or fear-mongering”? “* (RH)

      Your posts.”

      My posts are primarily evidence of me (not my religion) but if I am intelligent and honest my opinions are informed by my religious teachings. Under the scrutiny of any intelligent, honest and impartial observer my posts would not be judged as “hate-filled” or fear-mongering” (quite simply and openly because they’re not), nor would my religion.

      “*”Your denigration of my opinions and beliefs may score Brownie points with some but do not help your cause if you really do want to discover the underlying cause and purpose of life”* (RH)

      There you go insisting your unevidenced beliefs are true.”

      Stranger, I commented on Kate’s response to my opinions. I did not “insist” on anything. You formulate your response before you’ve even read or comprehended what you’re supposedly commenting on. Please try and pay attention.

      Delete
    84. Fucking piece of shit software swallowed yet another post. Fuck this.

      Delete
    85. MalcolmS8:03 PM

      Temper, temper, Andrew! Try the KISS rule[keep it simple stupid] instead. Save those posts before you paste and post them! The world simply can't afford to lose your epistles into the ether :)

      Delete
    86. "Whether or not something can be demonstrated successfully depends (in the final analysis) on the capacity and will of the recipient to understand. A deluded or deceiving person may convince some people (of slow intellect or already prejudiced) that something is factual and evidenced when in reality it isn’t."

      Oh, the delicious irony!

      Delete
    87. MalcolmS8:42 PM

      RalphH: "Your denigration of my opinions and beliefs may score Brownie points with some but do not help your cause if you really do want to discover the underlying cause and purpose of life"

      OK I'll bite! Let's start with a simple example.

      What is the "underlying cause and purpose" of the large weed which I just observed growing in my row of beans Ralph? I won't pull it out until I know the truth. Er... and what does it "underlie"? :)

      Delete
    88. RalphH 10/015:43 AM

      “succinct (/səkˈsɪŋ(k)t/) adjective
      1. (especially of something written or spoken) briefly and clearly expressed.

      Stranger is the perfect example of succinct, unlike you and I, who frequently embody “long-winded”." (Kate7:00 PM)

      Stranger certainly has “briefly” pinned down Kate, but “clearly expressed” or even any attempt to explain anything - you have to be joking.

      "Actually, you have provided the evidence for your judgmental shit in this series of clangers - and all from the one post…”

      [RH] *“… if you really do want to discover the underlying cause and purpose of life. Maybe you don’t but some people do.”*

      I thought that it’s part of atheistic philosophy to believe that there is no objective purpose underpinning the existence of the universe and life. I was not being “judgemental”. I was stating a fact.

      [RH] *“…that you don’t know enough about it to make that call”*

      This was said WRT you denigrating ‘my’ religion. It’s completely true, you don’t know enough about it because the things you said about it are false.

      [RH] *"You probably don’t want to know about it. That’s OK if that’s what you want…”*

      There’s nothing “judgemental” about that. It’s speculation based on the fact that many times you have stated that you’re not interested in religion or Biblical references. I said it’s “OK if that’s what you want…" so how is that judgemental or cruel?

      “I am free to continue voicing my own opinion of your bigoted, ignorant bullshit opinions.”

      You’re perfectly free to keep voicing your opinion (provided you stay within the rules of the moderator). You’re perfectly free to believe that my opinions are “bigoted … ignorant … (and) BS ….” but your judgement and belief doesn’t make them so - as I have demonstrated above..

      Delete
    89. Ralph, you have never demonstrated anything, other than the fact that you hold bullshit, ignorant, bigoted opinions. If you ever demonstrate that you can support those bullshit, ignorant, bigoted opinions with some evidence or facts, then you might have demonstrated that you actually do have something on which to base your opinions. But until that day, they remain bullshit, ignorant, bigoted opinions.

      "I thought that it’s part of atheistic philosophy to believe that there is no objective purpose underpinning the existence of the universe and life. I was not being “judgemental”. I was stating a fact." Again, you demonstrate how, even after all these years of debating atheists, you fail abominably to understand anything about atheism and atheists. There is no "atheistic philosophy". Still not a single fact from you, so you're back (not that you ever left) to being judgemental and from the position of total ignorance.

      "...you have stated that you’re not interested in religion or Biblical references." Jeez, you're having a bad day. I have never stated any such thing. I have repeatedly stated that religion is a vile concept and needs to be demolished - that shows rather a strong interest in religion. I have repeatedly used biblical references to show how despicable the bible is - another demonstration of my interest in that odious book. What I have repeatedly said is that quoting the bible is not evidence of anything (other than how disgraceful the book and the various biblical religions are) unless what's in the bible can be corroborated by other historical sources. Most of the crap in the bible can't be corroborated anywhere, so quoting the bible as evidence of anything is nonsensical. Quoting the bible to prove the existence of your god or as evidence as something Jesus said is circular reasoning, but I know you have trouble understanding that concept so I won't push it.

      Delete
    90. Kate

      Paul Barnett (Honorary Assoc. of Ancient History at Macquarie Uni) has documented 16 clear instances in the writing of Luke (covering roughly 70 years of history) that sync with known world history. They are corroborated by other historical sources. These are not part of the narrative so much as they are used by Luke to give context to the reader.

      Do you think this lends weight to the historical reliability of the narrative? It clearly shows Luke has researched his books at the very least. New Testament events are quite easily placed in the context of known world history.

      Delete
    91. Ralph & Kate

      ""I thought that it’s part of atheistic philosophy to believe that there is no objective purpose underpinning the existence of the universe and life. I was not being “judgemental”. I was stating a fact." Again, you demonstrate how, even after all these years of debating atheists, you fail abominably to understand anything about atheism and atheists. There is no "atheistic philosophy". Still not a single fact from you, so you're back (not that you ever left) to being judgemental and from the position of total ignorance."

      It sounds like Ralph is saying that Atheists don't generally hold to a teleological philosophy. I thought that was true as well - are we wrong, Kate, or is your point that Ralph seems to assume a coherent philosophy of atheism that doesn't exist?

      Delete
    92. Mark, it sounds like Ralph is saying any old thing he likes; free from fact and any knowledge, but loaded with judgement, just like usual.

      I really can't believe this has to be said for the 47,546,315,988th time... Atheism is simply the acceptance that there is no credible scientific or factually reliable evidence for the existence of a god, gods or the supernatural. That's it; no philosophy, no world view, no teleological philosophy, no rules, no pyramid schemes, no collection plate, no crazy hats or frocks for men (unless they wish to), no bullshit and we don't worship Dawkins, Darwin, Hawking, Dennett, deGrasse Tyson, but many of us think Hitchens was pretty cool.

      As for your comment re Paul Barnett, as you haven't provided a source and I couldn't find any, it's hard for me to comment. If he's found "16 clear instances" then I suggest it lends weight to those 16 instances; it does extrapolate any further to the rest of Luke or the rest of the bible.

      "New Testament events are quite easily placed in the context of known world history." I would agree with your statement had it started with "Some NT events...". Out of curiosity, why do Christians, generally, never try to substantiate the OT?

      Delete
    93. "it does extrapolate any further to the rest of Luke or the rest of the bible." Damn, missing a vital "not"!

      ...it does not extrapolate any further to the rest of Luke or the rest of the bible.

      Delete
    94. Kate

      "I really can't believe this has to be said for the 47,546,315,988th time... "

      Sorry, it does seem my question was unclear. Malcolm pulled me up on it below, and I explained there.

      I was simply curious about the idea of there being "no objective purpose underpinning the existence of the universe and life." But you left it unanswered, so I tried to ask again.

      "As for your comment re Paul Barnett, as you haven't provided a source and I couldn't find any, it's hard for me to comment. If he's found "16 clear instances" then I suggest it lends weight to those 16 instances; it does extrapolate any further to the rest of Luke or the rest of the bible."

      Righto, check out Paul Barnett "Gospel Truth", p. 58-61. It sounds like you're suggesting that any time, in any historical document, something is mentioned that is not externally corroborated (no matter how reliable the rest of the document), it cannot be trusted. Or do you only hold the Biblical texts to this standard (which, being many sources in one collection, do actually provide multiple attestation)?

      "Out of curiosity, why do Christians, generally, never try to substantiate the OT?"

      That's a good question. For me, it's because Christianity stands or falls on the resurrection of Jesus. Therefore, that's the focus.

      Otherwise, there's probably just less to talk about with the Old Testament. Sources that old are a lot trickier. We can point to things like the 'Merneptah Stela' as one of the oldest examples of external evidence. The later you get, the better the external evidence. So discussing things like the Exodus and how the story was recorded gets tricky. There's no external evidence, but you wouldn't expect the Egyptians to record a massive bunch of slaves just taking off like that. So things like the Merneptah Stela (that tells us Israel was an established and agricultural society by whatever-the-date-is can only provide a piece of the puzzle).

      But once we get to the New Testament, you're able to cross-reference things like Luke with a much larger cross-section of known world history.

      Delete
    95. Mark, you really need to stop making assumptions - you are exceedingly bad at them.

      "Or do you only hold the Biblical texts to this standard..." Moronic assumption.

      "It sounds like you're suggesting that any time, in any historical document, something is mentioned that is not externally corroborated (no matter how reliable the rest of the document), it cannot be trusted." It may sound that way to you but you are inferring things I have never implied or suggested, not even remotely. Documents are only reliable once they have been proved to be so; usually by the existence of supporting evidence and/or validation in other documents.

      Re what atheists believe, I believe I answered your question quite thoroughly - even though it was a stupid question. You may have as well asked me if I owned a pink or a green unicorn? If the question is based on a fallicy then I cannot give you an answer that you want.

      My whole point was there is no set of "atheist beliefs" - except for the lack of evidence about god - outside of that, there's nothing. I don't pretend to speak for other atheists nor assume I know their beliefs.

      For myself, I can answer that yes I accept that there is "no objective purpose underpinning the existence of the universe and life". Before you launch into another false assumption, this acceptance, does not mean that I give no meaning to life; be it mine, an eathworm's, or any other living thing, I simply do not attribute meaning as coming from some external source.

      Delete
    96. "There's no external evidence, but you wouldn't expect the Egyptians to record a massive bunch of slaves just taking off like that." That's quite possibly because there were no slaves. But I, again, disagree with your assumption "you wouldn't expect the Egyptians to record..." the Egyptians were excellent record keepers, which is why we know so much about them. They were the first civilisation, that we know of, to have O&HS laws - they were actually very protective of their workers.

      There is also no archeological evidence to support the story of the exodus, Noah's ark, and much of the OT, but thanks for being honest enough to say so. From this side, honesty is refreshing in a theist - especially when it concerns the bible.

      Delete
    97. Kate

      ""Or do you only hold the Biblical texts to this standard..." Moronic assumption."

      Well, it was a question, not an assumption. "Do you hold all texts to this standard or only the Bible?" By it's very nature, it's not an assumption.

      "It may sound that way to you but you are inferring things I have never implied or suggested, not even remotely. Documents are only reliable once they have been proved to be so; usually by the existence of supporting evidence and/or validation in other documents."

      So when the writings of Luke are supported by other documents in a bunch of different areas, it is shown as more reliable than not.

      "My whole point was there is no set of "atheist beliefs" - except for the lack of evidence about god - outside of that, there's nothing. I don't pretend to speak for other atheists nor assume I know their beliefs."

      Fair enough. I get that what unites atheists is the lack of belief in God. I thought that particular position generally led to an ateleological worldview. So I think it's still a valid question, however poorly worded on Ralph's part.

      Thanks for your answer, too.

      "There is also no archeological evidence to support the story of the exodus, Noah's ark, and much of the OT, but thanks for being honest enough to say so. From this side, honesty is refreshing in a theist - especially when it concerns the bible."

      I cringe when people talk about those Noah's Ark doco's that try and show they've found it. I'm pretty skeptical of that! A wooden boat surviving thousands of years? Unlikely.

      And as I said, you wouldn't expect archaeological evidence to support a story of nomadic wanderings. There's obviously plenty of evidence of cities being destroyed, but it's common to find destruction layers in ancient cities. The archaeological evidence (as far as I know) points to a fairly slow 'invasion', but things like the Merneptah Stela show clearly an Israelite nation appearing in the area.

      Delete
    98. Mark, it was an assumption. If it wasn't you would not have needed to ask the question.

      Delete
    99. My assumption was fair treatment of all sources, so was surprised by your seemingly harsh standards of historicity on only a few documents.

      Perhaps assuming an assumption is easier than you assumed!

      Delete
    100. While I love this, "Perhaps assuming an assumption is easier than you assumed!" your first paragraph is just another wacky assumption on your part with this "your seemingly harsh standards of historicity on only a few documents." I haven't made any such pronouncement on any documents - because we haven't discussed any other historical documents.

      I understand why believers feel the need to jump to the defence of the bible, but it usually seems to stem from the fact that they have never challenged the book at all - it always seems to me that most of the bible is just taken on face value, yet no one would do that with other books. For it's contirbution to the recording of history, I judge the bible no more harshly than any other text - but it does have to be held to the same level of scrunity as other texts - which it frequently isn't. So often, people just quote the bible as though that answers everything and trumps every other source - for me, and (look out I'm about to do a Ralph) anyone with a truly inquiring mind (see what I did there...) it should be questioned, reviewed and corrected (never gonna happen) like all other books of history.

      Yes, I know the bible is more than a source of history and there I do judge it harshly - but that's because it's a moral vacuum that purports to be only answer for goodness - instead it's a how to guide for sexism, racism, bigotry, hatred, etc.

      Delete
    101. Sorry, Kate, I'll clarify. I assumed you would hold all texts to a particular standard. The standard I could see you holding the Bible to (historiographically speaking) was higher than the standards historians hold most other sources to (in my perception, of course).

      So I was left with thinking you held ALL historical texts to an unusually high standard, or only the Biblical texts. That was my question. But you're right - we haven't discussed other sources so I didn't have much else to go on - hence my question!

      "I understand why believers feel the need to jump to the defence of the bible, but it usually seems to stem from the fact that they have never challenged the book at all"

      I think that's disappointingly true in many instances. Jesus never expects that kind of attitude to the Bible (quite the opposite, in fact!).

      Delete
  2. Dear Katie,

    Thanks for this. I love your opening line "CEO of the most corrupt, dysfunctional, hypocritical and immoral organisation on the planet". It is impossible to argue. Actually more than a communist he was an excorcist. It always amazes me to see how often Jesus expels evil spirits in the New Testament. These exorcisms demonstrate to me how primitive the bible is. It really is beyond belief. Thanks again for your comments through the year. See you in the next year but not in the next life (which doesn't exist).

    Dick

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks Dick, but few things make me don my cranky pants faster than the CC and those opposing gay marriage - so not too much of a stretch for me to get vocal on this issue.

      Delete
    2. Hey Dick,

      I think it's interesting that the Biblical authors never try and defend the stories about Jesus expelling spirits.

      Considering the fact that these texts were so widely believed an accepted, do you think it likely that people at the time experienced these phenomena? You seem to be suggesting that the common experience across a multitude of cultures was somehow a wrong experience.

      I have friends who have been to Africa who report that these kids of experiences are fairly widespread there.

      I am not claiming these spiritual experiences are real. I'm simply pointing out that you may be jumping to conclusions!

      Delete
    3. And there you have the danger of the bible. The bible is also widely refuted and rejected. Exorcism, just more made up bullshit to be found in the bible and other ignorant belief systems. Mark you are jumping to conclusions that the bible is accurate and true and there is no evidence to support that leap,

      Delete
    4. Kate,

      "Mark you are jumping to conclusions that the bible is accurate and true and there is no evidence to support that leap,"

      No, I haven't jumped to that conclusion.

      All I suggested was that it was interesting to note the gospel writers never try and defend or prove the existence of exorcisms. It seems that, whatever did in fact happen, exorcisms and spiritual activity like that were widely experienced at the time. In fact, they're widely experienced in our time, too.

      My point is - It's clearly not something just made up by the gospel writers.

      Delete
    5. Mark, this is a huge leap of faith...
      "... It's clearly not something just made up by the gospel writers"
      You have absolutely no evidence to support that incredibly naive assumption.

      It's hard to doubt that someone experienced something, what we can doubt with great ease is their interpretation of that experience.

      Delete
    6. Kate

      I'm a little confused by this statement: "You have absolutely no evidence to support that incredibly naive assumption".

      Followed by this statement: "It's hard to doubt that someone experienced something..."

      Because your second statement is exactly what I had said, and exactly what you called incredibly naive.

      Here's my point. Many and various people experienced something. The authors recorded those experiences. To deny those experiences is to deny the evidence. This says nothing about the interpretation of those experiences.

      For Dick to say reports of spiritual experiences mean the Bible is 'primitive...beyond belief' is to not engage with evidence.

      Delete
    7. Mark, do you have evidence, from a source other that the bible, that what the authors of the gospels wrote was the truth? I'm guessing not, so my first statement stands.

      Yes, people experience something - it does not follow that they understand what they have experienced. People performing an exorcism is no proof that they were ever possed by a demon, the devil or the tooth fairy in the first place. My friend once performed Reiki on me - that does not equate to proof that I needed Reiki.

      The bible is not evidence of anything. It is a collected work of stories written by ignorant goat herders. For the most part the stories in the bible can't be validated by any other source, so it fails the evidence test. So my second statement stands.

      Delete
    8. All I was saying was that the Gospel accounts assume something to be the common experience of people, so make no attempt to prove the experience. This points us to the conclusion that people did in fact commonly experience some sort of spiritual phenomenon.

      I never said this proves spirits are real. I said this demonstrates common experience.

      I can then tentatively suggest that, just because those people experienced something we don't, we shouldn't necessarily call the people 'primitive' based on that different experience.

      "It is a collected work of stories written by ignorant goat herders".

      Who is it that you think wrote the Bible?

      Delete
    9. "This points us to the conclusion that people did in fact commonly experience some sort of spiritual phenomenon." No it doesn't.

      "I can then tentatively suggest that, just because those people experienced something we don't, we shouldn't necessarily call the people 'primitive' based on that different experience." You suggest anything you like, but compared to our current understanding and level of technology, folks back then were certainly primitive. In another 100 or 1,000 years people will probably call us primitive. So what.

      I think the bible was written by racist, bigoted, sexist, uneducated, fear-mongoring, power-hungry, deluded, ignorant, primitive folk who may or may not have been employed in the ruminant industry.

      Delete
    10. I think the bible was written by racist, bigoted, sexist, uneducated, fear-mongoring, power-hungry, deluded, ignorant, primitive folk who may or may not have been employed in the ruminant industry.

      Nobjectivists? lol

      Delete
    11. MalcolmS11:05 PM

      magicsausagetosser: "Nobjectivists?[sic]"

      Er... they have been falsely accused of many things but, to my knowledge, never writing the Bible.

      Batten down the hatches folks.

      Remedial kindy is closed for the weekend :-D

      Delete
    12. Kate,

      ""This points us to the conclusion that people did in fact commonly experience some sort of spiritual phenomenon." No it doesn't."

      Well, I gave my supporting argument, but you have only given a contradictory statement. I can't really do anything with this.

      Yes, people 2000 years ago knew less than we do now. I don't see how that necessarily invalidates anything they had to say. I also think we use the term 'primitive' very dismissively instead of constructing a coherent argument.

      Delete
    13. Kate

      "I think the bible was written by racist, bigoted, sexist, uneducated, fear-mongoring, power-hungry, deluded, ignorant, primitive folk who may or may not have been employed in the ruminant industry."

      How do you reconcile the picture we get of Paul in 1 Thessalonians 2:1-12 with this view?

      Delete
    14. "Nobjectivists?[sic]"

      Er... they have been falsely accused of many things but, to my knowledge, never writing the Bible.


      rofl @ magicsausagetossrag

      knows its name ;)

      Delete
  3. Og agog3:08 PM

    Good morning Dick
    One swallow does not a spring make, but he is a charmer and I wish him well his heart seems to be in the right place. But he is in a pit of vipers, I see only an ephemeral facade, the resultant struggles he faces will consume his attention corrupting any or all social progress. He has the power of the religious edict but so far we only get proselytising platitudes. His true legacy, his true heart, will only be revealed once he feels secure in his job, time will tell, meanwhile all the horrors of indoctrination are foisted upon the third world as the power mad "Pells" of his organisation abandon the critical secularism of the west to luxuriate in the adoration of the ignorant multitudes. White guys berating johny-foreigner again, the blond leading the blind, to affirm their life choice of a belief in fantasy and to impoverish those that are already close to, if not on, the bread line. I have little faith in faith based institutions, I'm with Kate, to hell with them.

    Seasons greetings old friend, stay true.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks oh Great and Powerful Og! See you next year! And yes, I think your perspective is very popular.
      The Dickster

      Delete
  4. http://thearchdruidreport.blogspot.com/2013/12/a-christmas-speculation.html

    lol

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. A very interesting blog. Thanks. It argues that the most right wing politicians in the USA essentially ignore the social and philanthropic parts of the bible and follow a satanic view of life even though they are church going Christians. Very peruasive. Dick

      Delete
  5. MalcolmS8:36 PM

    RalphH: "Your denigration of my opinions and beliefs may score Brownie points with some but do not help your cause if you really do want to discover the underlying cause and purpose of life"

    What is it with this obsession you seem to have about us all allegedly seeking "Brownie points" Ralph? What is a "Brownie point"? Does it have something to do with your inadequate potty training?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. MalcolmS8:38 PM

      Oops, wrong spot!

      Delete
    2. See?

      Told ya to lay off the meth didn't I...

      Delete
    3. If anyone would like to award me some Brownie points in the form of actual Brownies, please forward to me at the University of Melbourne. It would be nice to have something sweet for morning tea.

      Delete
    4. MalcolmS10:34 PM

      "Told ya[sic] to lay off the meth[sic] didn't I...[sic]"

      Uh... Oh... remedial kindy's out! LOL

      Delete
  6. MalcolmS7:36 PM

    Mark: "It sounds like Ralph is saying that Atheists don't generally hold to a teleological philosophy. I thought that was true as well - are we wrong, Kate, or is your point that Ralph seems to assume a coherent philosophy of atheism that doesn't exist?"

    Your problem, Mark, is that you did not listen to Kate who dealt quite succinctly with that issue: "There is no "atheistic philosophy."" She was quite explicit and you simply ignored her. I think you owe her an apology.

    On the issue of 'teleology' there is nothing in being an atheist per se to be pro or con teleology. An atheist could be either. It is the theist who has a philosophy/theology and an atheist's claim[qua atheist] is simply that he has not adequately demonstrated the existence of his alleged god. Period.

    Now, if you would like to demonstrate your prowess on matters teleological, perhaps you could assist Ralph and tell me what the "purpose" of the weed which is growing in my vegetable patch is! When it comes to practical matters Christian teleologists appear to be hopelessly inept at demonstrating their beliefs!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ah...yes.

      Perhaps I didn't express the question very well, then. I certainly didn't ignore Kate. I thought perhaps Kate didn't answer the question because she just focused on the misunderstanding of a unifying 'atheist philosophy'.

      Basically, I was asking for the answer YOU just gave on teleology!

      Could you think of an example of an atheist with a teleological world view? I can't quite think WHAT the purpose would be to the universe.

      I don't claim to KNOW the purpose of anything, especially the weed in your garden. To be honest, I haven't really been following that discussion! I'd say it's purpose COULD range from destroying your vegetables so you go to a shop to buy veggies and at the shop you meet someone. It COULD be so that we discuss teleology on this thread to get you or me or Ralph or some random person reading this to think about it. It's not hard to think up POSSIBLE purposes. A Christian teleological worldview says GOD knows the purpose, not us. So to be honest, I think this example is a bit of a red herring...

      Delete
    2. MalcolmS4:53 AM

      Mark: "Could you think of an example of an atheist with a teleological world view?"

      Most atheists don't have a worldview but one whose works spring to mind is Dawkins. I think you could interpret his theory of the 'selfish gene' and 'memes' as teleological up to a point but suspect he may not agree. That's one possible interpretation but is really not relevant since his theory is false.

      "I can't quite think WHAT the purpose would be to the universe"

      The universe is causal but not purposive. Purpose does not apply to the universe. Purpose presupposes consciousness and the universe is not conscious.

      "I don't claim to KNOW the purpose of anything, especially the weed in your garden"

      The weed has no purpose. The weed simply is. It was only another example to demonstrate to Ralph that his position is false and, quite frankly, stupid. Weeds have no consciousness to set, or pursue, purpose. They simply act in the way their nature determines, i.e., causally. Period.

      "I'd say it's purpose COULD range from destroying your vegetables so you go to a shop to buy veggies and at the shop you meet someone. It COULD be so that we discuss teleology on this thread to get you or me or Ralph or some random person reading this to think about it. It's not hard to think up POSSIBLE purposes"

      You aren't really serious are you?

      "A Christian teleological worldview says GOD knows the purpose, not us"

      Once again you confuse "belief" and fact. Firstly you would have to prove/validate/demonstrate that this mythical God existed. Then you would have to study Him in order to devise His attributes. Given the history of theology I'm not holding my breath.

      Delete

    3. Most atheists don't have a worldview... blah blah wank wank ...They simply act in the way their nature determines, i.e., causally. Period.

      Pity stupidity isn't an Olympic event. You'd be a shoe in for a medal...

      Delete
    4. Malcolm

      "Most atheists don't have a worldview"

      A worldview is the way you think about the world. Are you saying most atheists don't think about the world?

      Interesting thoughts about Dawkins, though.

      "The weed has no purpose...Weeds have no consciousness to set, or pursue, purpose. They simply act in the way their nature determines, i.e., causally. Period."

      So you're saying purpose necessitates consciousness? Why is that? I give purpose to things I create, and they have no consciousness.

      "You aren't really serious are you?"

      Yes, I'm serious. I thought you were asking "in a Teleological worldview, what purpose would my weed have?"

      "Once again you confuse "belief" and fact. Firstly you would have to prove/validate/demonstrate that this mythical God existed. Then you would have to study Him in order to devise His attributes. Given the history of theology I'm not holding my breath."

      Well, that's what that particular worldview says, regardless of its validity.

      Delete
    5. MalcolmS8:53 PM

      Mark: "A worldview is the way you think about the world"

      And *what* you think about the world. A worldview necessarily includes both metaphysics and epistemology.

      "Are you saying most atheists don't think about the world?"

      No, I didn't say that. What I was getting at was that most atheists unwittingly follow the precedent set by the sceptic David Hume. His position was that, since man can have no absolute knowledge or certainty of anything, he could not know God even if He existed. That is a very weak position and one I do not hold.

      "So you're saying purpose necessitates consciousness?"

      I am saying that consciousness is a prerequisite for a purposive being - as is its existence.

      "I give purpose to things I create, and they have no consciousness"

      The source of that purpose is *your* consciousness - not the consciousness of your creation.

      "Yes, I'm serious. I thought you were asking "in a Teleological worldview, what purpose would my weed have?""

      I do not presume a teleological worldview - Ralph does. However such a worldview by theists always consists of a series of *floating abstractions* which they are incapable of tying back to the real world in which we live. That was eloquently demonstrated by my weed example [even if I do say so myself :)] You can make an [invalid] argument for divine teleology if you are waffling about angels, virgin birth or miracles but not when presented with some particular that actually exists [my weed].

      Delete
    6. "What I was getting at was that most atheists unwittingly follow the precedent set by the sceptic David Hume."

      That's an interesting observation. I'll have to think more about that one!

      "I am saying that consciousness is a prerequisite for a purposive being - as is its existence.
      "I give purpose to things I create, and they have no consciousness"
      The source of that purpose is *your* consciousness - not the consciousness of your creation."

      Ah, so you're saying the weed doesn't have a purpose because there was no consciousness that created it and thus no consciousness to give it purpose. I get it.

      A Christian worldview says there IS a consciousness behind the weed. I guess that's what's stopping you accepting a teleological worldview as valid. So I don't see much point in trying to show the validity of it without that basic starting point!

      Delete
    7. MalcolmS8:33 PM

      Mark: "Ah, so you're saying the weed doesn't have a purpose because there was no consciousness that created it and thus no consciousness to give it purpose"

      Correct. And no consciousness of its own to create its own purpose.

      "A Christian worldview says there IS a consciousness behind the weed"

      Yes, that's what a Christian worldview says but without any validation. It's presented as an arbitrary assertion to be accepted on faith.

      "I guess that's what's stopping you accepting a teleological worldview as valid. So I don't see much point in trying to show the validity of it without that basic starting point!"

      You cannot show its validity from any rational starting point. There is nothing mysterious or otherworldly about a weed. The actions of a weed, like anything which actually exists, can be explained by its *nature.* Which means it is *causal* and, in the case of the weed, ateleological.

      Delete
    8. Well done twiddlehead and chum.

      You've successfully established that weeds don't have brains.

      The race is on for the gold now!!

      roflmao ;)

      Delete
    9. MalcolmS10:27 PM

      magicsausagetosser: "... wank wank ..."

      Excuse me small child... would you mind doing that behind the hedge... you're frightening the chooks.

      Don't fret.. remedial kindy returns in a few weeks.. :}

      Delete
    10. MalcolmS10:42 PM

      magicsausagetosser: "You've successfully established that weeds don't have brains"

      Don't be so sure dopey.

      We didn't discuss that!

      You do know what teleology is I hope... don't you?

      You may discover that Mark believes his God has no brain.

      Why don't you discuss it with him?

      Er.. you are capable of discussion.. aren't you??

      Delete
    11. Are you trying to rag me rag boy?

      roflmao ;)

      Delete
    12. Malcolm

      "You cannot show its validity from any rational starting point. There is nothing mysterious or otherworldly about a weed. The actions of a weed, like anything which actually exists, can be explained by its *nature.* Which means it is *causal* and, in the case of the weed, ateleological."

      This has got me thinking - how do you establish the validity of how you see the world?

      Delete
    13. magicsausagetosser: "You've successfully established that weeds don't have brains"

      Don't be so sure ...


      lol
      Well?
      Have you figgered it out yet tossrag?
      roflmao!

      Delete
    14. MalcolmS8:05 PM

      Mark: ".. how do you establish the validity of how you see the world?"

      LOL You sure know how to ask the biggies Mark! That's a question philosophers have been asking since the original philosopher - Thales of Miletus.

      Briefly, all human beings gain and hold knowledge in conceptual[abstract] form and this is the function of the rational faculty. Where do our concepts come from? From the mental integration of the evidence of the senses. Our senses are the only contact we have with the external world.

      So, how do you know whether your concepts are valid? Strictly speaking you should be able to reduce your concepts to the sensory level. For example, the reduction of the concept *dog* to the sensory level would be to observe entities such as Spot, Fido, Rover, Lassie, etc in sensory experience and you have validated the concept *dog.* However, validating a concept such as *angel* or *bunyip* by this method would indicate that the concept/s *angel* or *bunyip* are invalid since they appear to have no referent/s in sensory experience. More complex concepts [e.g. *justice*] are more difficult but are validated in the same way. Of course the subject as a whole is far more complex than this and is the object of an entire branch of philosophy: epistemology. I'm not going into that here but that's where you should look if you want a bit more depth.

      Delete

    15. the original philosopher - Thales of Miletus.


      You forgot Thales's dad again... ya tossrag.

      lol


      Mark: ".. how do you establish the validity of how you see the world?"



      So, how do you know whether your concepts are valid?


      Any number of heuristics can be used.

      An extremely useful one is "does adhering to this conceptualisation get the people who hold it killed"? -

      If yes - ditch it immediately

      That rule is always a goody to have in your toolkit. (Hard to progress to "rule two" if you're a corpse)

      Also, I do find it interesting how the validity of a concept can be affected by time.

      For instance General Douglas Haig was a cavalry officer, had played polo for England and argued that "the machine gun is an overrated weapon — especially against the horse."

      W .. T .. F .. ?

      For some reason, Haig continued to believe in cavalry long after the war that he was fighting at the time (World War I) had proven mounted soldiers absurdly vulnerable and

      obsolete.

      I wonder what he would have said at the sight of a fleet of somalian technicals...
      Charrrrrge!?!?!?

      Anyhoo, we could talk about heuristics all day, but I'd just like to share one goody with you.

      If the nobjectivist tossrag promotes it - just ditch it

      I'm fascinated by how well that works in all times, contexts and situations!! rofl!

      Having shared that "pearl of obvious" heres something else that might cause a wiggle in your concept validation strategy.
      If not ... well at least it's entertainingly written and interesting

      http://takimag.com/article/world_war_i_taki/print

      Delete
    16. Oh ... By the way...


      magicsausagetosser: "You've successfully established that weeds don't have brains"

      Don't be so sure ...



      Weeeeeell?

      Have you figgered it out yet tossrag? lol

      I'll give you a hint... The Tenets of True Communism" you love to study so much will not help in the least

      roflmao!

      Delete
    17. Hey Malcolm,

      Thanks for that answer - very interesting.

      Sensory perception -> rational faculty = concepts (very simplistically speaking)?

      That more answers how you know things, not why you think that's a valid way of knowing things.

      Delete
    18. MalcolmS5:09 AM

      Mark: "Sensory perception -> rational faculty = concepts (very simplistically speaking)?"

      Yes, as simple as I can put it but that's only the start.

      "That more answers how you know things.."

      True, and how you *must* know things. There is no other way than employing the particular consciousness nature has bequeathed you. You have a rational faculty, not the consciousness of a rat or gnat and that's what you must use.

      "..not why you think that's a valid way of knowing things"

      Validity of your concepts is established by reduction to the *given* of consciousness: sensory perception. For more information you'll need to read some epistemology.

      Delete

    19. Validity of your concepts is established by reduction to the *given* of consciousness: sensory perception. For more information you'll need to read some epistemology.


      Just be careful you don't read an idiots epistemology, otherwise:

      That is one of many fallacies committed by materialists/nominalists who regard "ideas" as not fully real. You need to grasp that an idea/concept, once formed, is a mental concrete.

      Magic cats will appear...

      Hey Dick... remember this?

      http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/blogs/godless-gross/why-i-do-not-believe-in-god-20090911-fknm.html

      Good times good times. Whatever happened?

      http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/blogs/godless-gross/fin-de-sicle-20130228-2f7ae.html

      Oh yeah
      Oh well. Everything comes to an end

      Delete
    20. MalcolmS3:31 PM

      magicsausagetosser takes his hand off briefly and giggles once more: "You need to grasp that an idea/concept, once formed, is a mental concrete"

      Has it never occurred to you that the final stage of a child's concept formation is the formation of a *word*? A word is necessary so that he doesn't have to form the concept every time he wants to use it. The concept is an abstraction but the word is a perceptual particular, i.e., a "mental concrete." Get it? Well done dopey!

      Delete
    21. Has it never occurred to you that the final stage of a child's concept formation ... blah blah blah ...

      No I haven't forgotten that I'm dealing with a child. I'm your imaginary "friend" after all...

      There's me, Harry Potter Capitalism, and your favourite funny little black box, the nobjectivist "rational faculty"**?

      Remember? ;)

      Signed
      Billy the Magic Cat
      "He's not just as real as really real is ... He's realler!"


      ** Product disclosure
      Rationality may vary. Product consists of random brain farts in a binding agent of unresolved adolescent resentment.
      May also contain nuts.

      Delete
    22. MalcolmS2:46 PM

      magicsausagetosser: "... binding agent of unresolved adolescent resentment"

      Hand's back on I gather :-D

      Delete
    23. Nope, I'm finished.. Ahhhhhhh

      You just soak it up now tossrag

      Delete
    24. MalcolmS1:01 AM

      Is this a demand you place on all strangers magicsausagetosser??

      Delete
    25. RalphH 20/014:02 PM

      “I do not presume a teleological worldview - Ralph does. However such a worldview by theists always consists of a series of *floating abstractions* which they are incapable of tying back to the real world in which we live. That was eloquently demonstrated by my weed example [even if I do say so myself :)] You can make an [invalid] argument for divine teleology if you are waffling about angels, virgin birth or miracles but not when presented with some particular that actually exists [my weed].” (MalcolmS8:53 PM)

      Hi Malcolm, I’ve been away for a while at a church camp - learning more about reality. What’s “abstract” about a “teleological worldview”? Whatever one bases their world-view on it all comes down to a rational analysis of the evidence (whether it be scientific evidence or otherwise). Everything that exists has a cause and a purpose. It wouldn’t and couldn’t exist without these.

      It’s purpose is it’s reason for existing and it’s cause it what brings it into existence. This doesn’t apply to ‘the divine’ which is self-existent/existence in itself. Everything else (which is dependent on ‘the divine’ for it’s existence) comes from or manifests from the divine in some way.

      Scientific investigation has discovered some of the natural means of this creation but philosophy and religion are also needed to attain a fuller picture of the mental and spiritual antecedents to the world of Nature.

      Your “weed” is a weed only because of context - because it’s in the wrong place at the wrong time - or because you think it is. Many things that have been considered weeds have been found to be quite useful in various and unexpected ways.

      People can “waffle” about “angels, virgin birth or miracles” if they don’t understand them (you obviously don’t) but if one understands them they help to form a rational picture of what the world really is and how it works.

      Delete
    26. MalcolmS8:51 PM

      RalphH: "Hi Malcolm, I’ve been away for a while at a church camp - learning more about reality"

      Yeah?! I think you do this fairly regularly at this time of the year. Have you learned how to do miracles yet? Can you walk on water? Did you take away five loaves and two fish and feed the multitude? When do you put it up on You Tube?

      "What’s “abstract” about a “teleological worldview”?"

      You don't pay attention to your thisworldly teachers do you Ralph? *All* knowledge, including worldviews, are gained and held in abstract [conceptual] form! That's how our minds work.

      "Whatever one bases their world-view on it all comes down to a rational analysis of the evidence (whether it be scientific evidence or otherwise)"

      Only if the "evidence" originates in the evidence of the senses. Our senses are the only contact we have with reality. No matter what lies you were telling at the camp revelation and dogma don't qualify.

      "Everything that exists has a cause and a purpose"

      Correction. All entities have causes. Some, but very few, have a purpose. Existence itself has no cause and no purpose. Existence is eternal and purposeless. There are no alternatives to existence itself. Nonexistence is nonexistent - nonexistence is not an alternative form of existence!

      "It wouldn’t and couldn’t exist without these"

      It can and does.

      "Scientific investigation has discovered some of the natural means of this creation but philosophy and religion are also needed to attain a fuller picture of the mental and spiritual antecedents to the world of Nature"

      There is no such thing as "antecedents to the world of Nature." Religion fails spectacularly at discovering same.

      "Your “weed” is a weed only because of context.."

      All knowledge is contextual.

      ".. because it’s in the wrong place at the wrong time.."

      No it's not. It's where it had to be. However, since it contradicts *my* purpose, I pulled it out.

      "Many things that have been considered weeds have been found to be quite useful in various and unexpected ways"

      Especially when selectively bred for generations to produce the array of modern vegetables. They were not "unexpected" by the scientists who selectively bred them.

      "People can “waffle” about “angels, virgin birth or miracles” if they don’t understand them (you obviously don’t) but if one understands them they help to form a rational picture of what the world really is and how it works"

      Yet they are still only "floating abstractions" in your tiny little primitive, religious mind since you are incapable of demonstrating their relationship to reality. You can't even demonstrate the part of my simple weed in your alleged "teleological worldview."

      Delete
    27. Hey Ralph,

      What church (and church camp) do you go to (if you don't mind me asking)?

      Delete
    28. RalphH 22/016:18 AM

      “Hey Ralph,

      What church (and church camp) do you go to (if you don't mind me asking)?” (Mark.1:16 AM)

      Hi Mark, I belong to a group known as The New Church. The ‘new’ doesn’t refer to time (it’s been around since the late 1700’s) but to the teachings which are a new take on Christianity based on the Biblical interpretation of a Swedish scientist, philosopher and theologian who claimed to have been chosen to reveal the Bible’s inner spiritual meaning.

      Delete
    29. RalphH 23/0112:36 PM

      “Have you learned how to do miracles yet? Can you walk on water? Did you take away five loaves and two fish and feed the multitude? When do you put it up on You Tube?” (MalcolmS8:51 PM)

      One doesn’t ‘learn’ how to “do miracles”. Anything that occurs outside of our ability to understand is seen as a miracle. It’s because our current perspective is incomplete or insufficient - because our concepts of reality are limited by our physical and mental limitations.

      “Only if the "evidence" originates in the evidence of the senses. Our senses are the only contact we have with reality. No matter what lies you were telling at the camp revelation and dogma don't qualify.”

      I assume you mean the (five) physical senses. That idea assumes that objective reality exists in the ‘out there’ physical world yet modern science (atomic theory and quantum mechanics) is revealing that there is basically nothing substantial there. It’s really a matter of organisation and structure that depends on an ‘observer’ (mind) for it’s existence.

      The latest suggestion is that the universe is like a hologram that appears ‘real’ because we are a part of it. Our senses are merely receptors that our minds use to gather information of the external world. It is our minds/spirits that have contact with the ‘deeper’ reality that is the cause of the external (bounded by time and space) world.

      “Correction. All entities have causes. Some, but very few, have a purpose. Existence itself has no cause and no purpose. Existence is eternal and purposeless. There are no alternatives to existence itself. Nonexistence is nonexistent - nonexistence is not an alternative form of existence!”

      This is a massive assumption that makes no sense at all. Just because you can’t see a purpose behind things does not mean that there is no purpose - even for something as seemingly insignificant as your despised “weed”.

      “There is no such thing as "antecedents to the world of Nature." Religion fails spectacularly at discovering same.”

      Religion isn’t about “discovering” (that’s the role of science), it’s about revealing - things that are not discoverable by means of the physical senses.

      “No it's not. It's where it had to be. However, since it contradicts *my* purpose, I pulled it out.”

      Who (or what) determined that your ‘weed’ “had to be”? Saying it is determined by it’s ‘nature’ (your usual response) only begs the question. Who (or what) determined that ‘nature’?

      “Yet they are still only "floating abstractions" in your tiny little primitive, religious mind since you are incapable of demonstrating their relationship to reality. You can't even demonstrate the part of my simple weed in your alleged "teleological worldview.” “

      There is no such thing as a “tiny little primitive, religious mind”. A mind is a mind, period. Some people use their mind to think and reason about religious truths, other don’t. It’s a matter of choice.

      Delete
    30. MalcolmS7:06 PM

      Mark

      "The New Church" is also known as Swedenborgianism or the "Church of the New Jerusalem"

      If you go to the following link you will find a series of bullet points which have all been advocated by Ralph on this site at one stage or another:

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Church_of_the_New_Jerusalem

      For an account of further loony writings see: The Swedenborg Project

      http://www.swedenborgproject.org/2007/09/08/the-life-on-other-planets-question/

      and read,

      "The Last Judgment and Second Coming of Christ" a chapter at:

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emanuel_Swedenborg#The_Last_Judgment_and_Second_Coming_of_Christ

      Delete
    31. RalphH 23/014:48 AM

      “If you go to the following link you will find a series of bullet points which have all been advocated by Ralph on this site at one stage or another: …… For an account of further loony writings see: ….” (MalcolmS7:06 PM)

      Well thanks for the advertising Malcolm but where did the “loony” come in? It all looked pretty sensible to me but then I might be biased. Did you notice - no ‘original sin’, no ‘sacrifice’, no angry punishing God, no exclusiveness - “People of all faiths come into heaven if they have followed their beliefs sincerely and loved God and their neighbours”.

      The ‘Project’ was a new one to me but I thought it was done well. Plenty of room for thought if one is inclined to think and reason about things rather than just dismissing them out of hand because of prior prejudices.

      Do you have any thoughts on quantum mechanics and the hologram idea? IMO there are similarities with Swedenborg’s descriptions of the spirit world where there is no time and space. What about the implications for ‘objective reality’?

      Delete
    32. MalcolmS8:13 AM

      [Part 1]

      RalphH: "One doesn’t ‘learn’ how to “do miracles”. Anything that occurs outside of our ability to understand is seen as a miracle"

      Actually, anything that occurs outside of our ability to understand is something that can be understood if we take into account the evidence and apply our minds to it. A "miracle" is that which is said to contradict the laws of nature and there is no such thing! "Nature" is a synonym for existence. There is nothing *outside nature.*

      “I assume you mean the (five) physical senses. That idea assumes that objective reality exists in the ‘out there’ physical world"

      No, it most certainly does not. The external world is the part of reality of which a child is first aware[via the physical senses] but that does not mean it's the *only* part of reality. Eventually the child grasps that *something* is aware of the external world. That something is what we refer to as consciousness/mind/self/ego - the something which is *aware* of the external world. A something which is as natural, normal and as real as the external world. We do not observe consciousness via the senses but by a process known as introspection - which simply means that consciousness has the capacity to observe its own actions. This is what makes epistemology and psychology possible. This is what you refer to as the "inner world" and unnecessarily ascribe otherworldly and supernatural qualities to it when in fact it is as thisworldly and natural as the external world.

      ".. yet modern science (atomic theory and quantum mechanics) is revealing that there is basically nothing substantial there. It’s really a matter of organisation and structure that depends on an ‘observer’ (mind) for it’s existence"

      An "organisation and structure" of what? There is no such thing as an organisation and structure where there is "basically nothing substantial there." Once quantum "scientists" get to the stage of claiming that particle X can travel from one subatomic point to another subatomic point without traversing the intervening space, then, they are just playing loony tunes I'm afraid and of no more value than the local priest. The so-called "big bang theory," "string theory" and cataclysmic anthropogenic global warming are all examples of modern scientific incompetence as is quantum mechanics. It means that the 'age of science' is over[at least for the time being].

      Delete
    33. MalcolmS8:18 AM

      [Part 2]

      Ralph: "Just because you can’t see a purpose behind things does not mean that there is no purpose - even for something as seemingly insignificant as your despised “weed”"

      I think you are the one who despises it since you are still incapable of demonstrating what part it has in your alleged teleological worldview. As soon as I give a simple example which exists in the real world you are stymied by it since it is outside your nonsensical world of floating abstractions, gremlins and spooks. Furthermore, I rather like many weeds which I lovingly and regularly manicure - the ones I call my lawn :) The point you miss here, Ralph, is that *I* create *my* purpose and I know that the universe has none. You have yet to provide evidence of the contrary.

      “Religion isn’t about “discovering” (that’s the role of science), it’s about revealing - things that are not discoverable by means of the physical senses"

      Yes, hence religion's spectacular failure and science's magnificent achievements.

      “Who (or what) determined that your ‘weed’ “had to be”? Saying it is determined by it’s ‘nature’ (your usual response) only begs the question. Who (or what) determined that ‘nature’?"

      That is the only possible correct answer philosophically. If you want a *scientific* answer, then, the answer is that the 'law of evolution' is the determining factor of the weed. Weeds evolved from simpler life forms. This isn't rocket science Ralph :)

      "There is no such thing as a “tiny little primitive, religious mind”"

      Yes, there is Ralph.

      It's a mind with a particular *mindset.* It's a mind which automatically rationalises to what it *wishes or believes* as distinct from what *is.*

      Yours is the perfect exemplification of such a mind.

      Delete
    34. . That something is what we refer to as consciousness/mind/self/ego

      Whoopsy-daisy there Kap'n Koozer.

      Dontcha mean consciousness/mind/self/ego/spirit/soul/self/purpose/intelligence/thought/awareness/perception/rationality/foolosophy/idiotology/brainfarts?

      Hate for ya ta miss one... ;) rofl

      Delete
    35. Og, truly, agog1:16 PM

      @Malcoms
      "Once quantum "scientists" get to the stage of claiming that particle X can travel from one subatomic point to another
      subatomic point without traversing the intervening space, then, they are just playing loony tunes I'm afraid and of no more value than the local priest. The so-called "big bang theory," "string theory" and cataclysmic anthropogenic global warming are all examples of modern scientific incompetence as is quantum mechanics. It means that the 'age of science' is over"
      Wow! just wow
      There is quantum engineering in the computer under your very nose. None so blind as those that will not see, I suppose, sad really, you try so hard to appear intelligent.

      Delete
    36. MalcolmS4:51 PM

      Og: "There is quantum engineering in the computer under your very nose"

      No kidding. It's been around longer than that. X-ray machines for example. In fact there are many phenomena we can utilise without being able to demonstrate causality of the phenomena.

      That does not change the obvious, i.e., the "science" of sub-atomic physics is a basket case. Science cannot survive a sceptical age. Philosophy is prior to science.

      Delete
    37. MalcolmS5:16 PM

      Og: ".. you try so hard to appear intelligent"

      Not surprised you noticed dopehead :)

      Delete
  7. Mark, if it helps this little saying sums ups why I'm an atheist (remember though, that I speak for noone other than myself)...

    Atheism; because not once has the answer to anything ever turned out to be magic or supernatural.

    ReplyDelete

Followers