The Power of Prayer?

[Shellhead]

From MSNBC:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12082681/

"NEW YORK - In the largest study of its kind, researchers found that having people pray for heart bypass surgery patients had no effect on their recovery. In fact, patients who knew they were being prayed for had a slightly higher rate of complications.

"Researchers emphasized that their work can't address whether God exists or answers prayers made on another's behalf. The study can only look for an effect from prayers offered as part of the research, they said.

"They also said they had no explanation for the higher complication rate in patients who knew they were being prayed for, in comparison to patients who only knew it was possible prayers were being said for them.

"The work, which followed about 1,800 patients at six medical centers, was financed by the Templeton Foundation, which supports research into science and religion. It will appear in the American Heart Journal."

Based on this one study, it appears that God is indifferent to our prayers. Even so, it seems peculiar that patients who knew that they were being prayed for had more complications. Maybe they were scared because the prayers made them more conscious of the dangers of the situation, and the stress caused by that fear made them experience more complications.

According to a poll in that article, only 55% thought that praying works, while 20% thought that it didn't work. What do you think, does praying work?

[Bloopinator]

I don't know if it truely works but I'm making the people I know pray for me if I have to get surgery or something.

[Chiasm]

Perhaps those being prayed for have a tendency to rely on prayer for healing rather than taking every medical step they could. A prayer person - "that wound won't get infected if I just bandage it and pray a lot." A non prayer person - "give me antibiotics."

[darkkeeperjr]

[QUOTE=Shellhead]From MSNBC:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12082681/


Based on this one study, it appears that God is indifferent to our prayers.


well he never appears indifferent to my prayers.

Another study would be to put 2 men in a lions pit. one prays and the other don't.

still gotten keep the faith under the knife. right?

[StoneGold]

Maybe we're just praying for the wrong god?


Oh Ba'al, how have we angered you?

[Paul McEnery]

Everyone involved in the experiment needs a smack in the head. But especially the scientists, because the design of the experiment was rubbish.

As any fule kno, the key to successful "faith-healing" is personal engagement with the person getting healed. Having some bunch of guys off in a monastery praying for random people they've got no genuine interest in -- well, surprise!

[Night]

Well, since it had an inverse placebo effect, it appears that God is not indifferent, only that He won't play the puppet for some circus stunt. That we already knew when Jesus faced Herod and many other times during Jesus's walk on Earth.

First of all, the people doing the study messed with the results: It seems they got the outcome they were looking for. They weren't earnestly seeking God, they just wanted to act as judge to God. God don't play that.

Second, they found 3 groups of Christians who were willing to pray for strangers, but only for specific strangers (actually they didn’t say whether or not they were told specifically not to). Being a Christian and brought with that to mind... I would be likely to pray for all of them or for the talent of the hospital staff or the hospital itself.... especially if they dumped 1200 names in my lap. They also didn't specify the size of any of the groups or whether any of the groups had any spiritual gifts in healing or prayer.

They you got the fact that they mentioned to the family and friends and even the patients that they were studying that they were doing this study. This also affects the results even thought they said that it was “unethical” to change their habits. Say they were studying the benefits of Vitamin C instead of prayer. Lets say they told family and friends that they were doing the study and the patient might get Vitamin C or Sugar Pill. I don’t know about any of your moms but unethical or no I’d end up taking 3000mg of Vitamin C a day if they told her that. I mean you’re talking about the life of someone these people love. Do you really think they care about some silly study over that?

[Forefinger]

Maybe we're just praying for the wrong god?


Oh Ba'al, how have we angered you?
"I now pray to you Al Bundy, please help me recover from my surgery so I can follow in your footsteps and sell women's shoes."

[Wesley Dodds]

As any fule kno, the key to successful "faith-healing" is personal engagement with the person getting healed. Having some bunch of guys off in a monastery praying for random people they've got no genuine interest in -- well, surprise!

OK, the problem with this is that you have to control for things like that in experiments. Peopl say prayer did it. Fine, test for prayer. You want to test for "personal engagement", fine, that's what you test for.

But there are a whole bunch of people who do believe that prayer works because God hears prayers and acts on them. That's what this experiment was testing.

[JeffreyWKramer]

Prayer is nonsense, God doesn't exist. Of course studies confirm this... it isn't exactly news.

[HomerJay]

"Help me Jesus, help me Jewish guy, help me Tom Cruise!"

[HomerJay]

Prayer is nonsense, God doesn't exist. Of course studies confirm this... it isn't exactly news.
Lousy athiest. I hate you more than I hate gays or Muslims.

[JeffreyWKramer]

Lousy athiest. I hate you more than I hate gays or Muslims.


But what about gay Muslims?

[HomerJay]

But what about gay Muslims?
At least they believe in something. ;)

[Winslow]

This just in!

Scientists cannot prove the existence of God!

:eek:

[JeffreyWKramer]

This just in!

Scientists cannot prove the existence of God!

:eek:


The shocking thing is that people persist in believing in things for which there is zero evidence.

[HomerJay]

The shocking thing is that people persist in believing in things for which there is zero evidence.
Take it outside, you heathen:
http://forums.comicbookresources.com/showthread.php?t=116026

[Winslow]

The shocking thing is that people persist in believing in things for which there is zero evidence.

There's evidence - just not the scientific variety.

Materialism isn't the only philosophy "in the house."

[JeffreyWKramer]

There's evidence - just not the scientific variety.

Right. Evidence of the same level as that for the existence of elves and fairies. Definitely something from which to take great comfort and solace.

Materialism isn't the only philosophy "in the house."
Sadly, no. But it *is* the only one which is verifiably consistent with actual, observable reality.

[Cosmic Average]

There's evidence - just not the scientific variety.

You have evidence? That's independetly verifiable?

Materialism isn't the only philosophy "in the house."

You can show that the world is more than what can be observed and studied? And yet that's contradictory; if you could demonstrate that, then your evidence would fall into the category of concrete existence.

[Winslow]

I honestly don't want to get into a philosphical debate - I'm merely pointing out that the study is absurd.

Both materialists and idealists can agree on that (for different reasons).

[Cosmic Average]

I honestly don't want to get into a philosphical debate

Then why state you have evidence? Can you provide an example of this evidence?

I'm merely pointing out that the study is absurd.

How exactly was it absurd? The studied the effects of prayer by observing patients who had been prayed for and those who hadn't received any prayers, which were further divided into two categories.

The observations were then studied and they came to a conclusion based on the effect of prayer.

Both materialists and idealists can agree on that (for different reasons).

[west3man]

Didn't we just have a thread in which some folks from each side complained that they wouldn't have a problem with theists/atheists, if they weren't so doggone confrontational?

I don't know that this thread is a fair representational of each side, but it doesn't make my side look too good.

[Winslow]

Then why state you have evidence? Can you provide an example of this evidence?

My conversion.

*shrugs*

[Cosmic Average]

In what way is that evidence?

[west3man]

Then why state you have evidence? Can you provide an example of this evidence?My guess is that he stated it because he wanted to. Posters aren't obligated to provide reams of statistical data for ANYbody.

If Winslow were trying to convince you, me, or anyone else, I'm sure he'd have made a greater effort. Try not to make the common mistake of confusing a reluctance to get into a debate with an inability to effectively debate.

How exactly was it absurd?I'm curious about that one, myself. I don't buy Paul's explanation, but I wouldn't fault Winslow or anyone else for failing to be inspired to devote a bunch of energy to a debate with a fairly predictable conclusion.

[JeffreyWKramer]

I honestly don't want to get into a philosphical debate - I'm merely pointing out that the study is absurd.

Both materialists and idealists can agree on that (for different reasons).


The article doesn't provide me with enough information to tell whether the study design is reasonably sound or not, so I'll withhold judgment there until I see something more detailed. I don't see anything absurd about studies which seek to test the claims made by religious proponents, though. I know the religious don't like such things, but tough titties, really - if people are gonna make extraordinary claims, they should be able to provide extraordinary evidence for them, or at very least provide a better explanation for lack of said evidence than the standard non-answers like "you can't measure God."

[JeffreyWKramer]

My conversion.

*shrugs*


One of my clients recently came to the realization that he was the reincarnation of Moses. He was formerly an athiest. Should we count his experience as evidence for the existence of God?

[Valmore]

In what way is that evidence?

It's evidence enough to him, which is really all that matters when it comes to personal faith. That's the funny thing about faith - it works on evidence only apparent to the person(s) believing in it. Winslow could explain why he believes all day, and the evidence would only be concrete to him. Might it possibly convert others? Maybe, but not entirely likely.

[JeffreyWKramer]

*razzinfrazzin double post*

[Winslow]

In what way is that evidence?

Our presuppositions to interpreting a subjective experience are so far apart there is no reconciliation.

Not to say exploring philosophical differences is futile – it is a great exercise in developing critical thinking, and sharpening the mind. It was not the reason I posted in the thread.

I posted in the thread to mock the experiment - see below.

How exactly was it absurd?

I'm curious about that one, myself. I don't buy Paul's explanation, but I wouldn't fault Winslow or anyone else for failing to be inspired to devote a bunch of energy to a debate with a fairly predictable conclusion.

I was mocking the experiment. My point is that the experiment is absurd.

Materialist: God is a concept that cannot be proven, therefore he does not exist. Why don’t we develop an experiment that tries to measure and quantify this? Absurd.

Idealist: God’s existence cannot be proven and must be taken on faith. Why don’t we develop and experiment that proves this? Absurd.

One of my clients recently came to the realization that he was the reincarnation of Moses. He was formerly an athiest. Should we count his experience as evidence for the existence of God?

If his experience was consistent with people from all ages and all countries for the past 2,000 years . . . than maybe (I said maybe) :D

[Winslow]

double post

[JeffreyWKramer]

Didn't we just have a thread in which some folks from each side complained that they wouldn't have a problem with theists/atheists, if they weren't so doggone confrontational?

I don't know that this thread is a fair representational of each side, but it doesn't make my side look too good.


Me, I believe it is a good thing to confront unreason, superstition and nonsense with logic, facts and reality. If that makes me so doggone confrontational, so be it.

[west3man]

Me, I believe it is a good thing to confront unreason, superstition and nonsense with logic, facts and reality. If that makes me so doggone confrontational, so be it.
Oh no. THAT's not what makes you doggone confrontational.

[JeffreyWKramer]

I was mocking the experiment. My point is that the experiment is absurd.

Materialist: God is a concept that cannot be proven, therefore he does not exist. Why don’t we develop an experiment that tries to measure and quantify this? Absurd.

Except this study wasn't designed or intended to test the existence of God. It was designed to test specific claims often made by the religious - that prayer has the power to heal. It's bad enough for one to argue for an intangible, immaterial, imperceptible God, but should we also believe that we can't tell whether or not healing has occurred?

[JeffreyWKramer]

Oh no. THAT's not what makes you doggone confrontational.


Verboten that such responses are, the only response I can make to that is LOL!

[Winslow]

Except this study wasn't designed or intended to test the existence of God. It was designed to test specific claims often made by the religious - that prayer has the power to heal. It's bad enough for one to argue for an intangible, immaterial, imperceptible God, but should we also believe that we can't tell whether or not healing has occurred?

O.K.

I don't believe that prayer has the ability to heal. I believe that God does. A huge distinction.

The experiment is intended to measure a response to a request. There are both objective and subjective reasons to deny or agree to a request. It's not measureable data - therefore it is absurd.

[JeffreyWKramer]

O.K.

I don't believe that prayer has the ability to heal. I believe that God does. A huge distinction.

The experiment is intended to measure a response to a request. There are both objective and subjective reasons to deny or agree to a request. It's not measureable data - therefore it is absurd.


But while the study can't tell why a request was denied or agreed to, it can tell us whether or not something observable happened. And in this case, nothing observable happened. That is data. At very least, it provides us with data documenting God failing to respond to prayer. Given the existence of such data, those who want to keep claiming God does respond to prayer - or that prayer does have power, which some do claim - had better be able to put up some data to support their claim.

Time for those making such claims to put up or shut up.

[Winslow]

But while the study can't tell why a request was denied or agreed to, it can tell us whether or not something observable happened. And in this case, nothing observable happened. That is data. At very least, it provides us with data documenting God failing to respond to prayer. Given the existence of such data, those who want to keep claiming God does respond to prayer - or that prayer does have power, which some do claim - had better be able to put up some data to support their claim.

Time for those making such claims to put up or shut up.

It's impossible to prove scientifically.

I mentioned last week, that a friend of mine had a documented heart blockage.

He was admitted for surgery. In preparing for surgery, its was discovered that the blockage had cleared, with no medical explanation.

We had prayed for him between the two events.

Is that scientific evidence? No.

[JeffreyWKramer]

It's impossible to prove scientifically.
Nonsense.

I mentioned last week, that a friend of mine had a documented heart blockage.

He was admitted for surgery. In preparing for surgery, its was discovered that the blockage had cleared, with no medical explanation.

We had prayed for him between the two events.

Is that scientific evidence? No.

But if someone could demonstrate that this happens any more commonly in people who are prayed for than in people who are not prayed for, that would be scientific evidence. In other words, if rather than proclaiming "It happened in this one case, it's a miracle", someone actually studied a large number of cases and used a control group and such... if then they found that yes, the prayed-for people had statistically significant, demonstrably better outcomes, then you'd have scientific evidence that prayer had an effect.

This, by the way, is the same way we prove that medicines or psychotherapies or surgical procedures work - by demonstrating an effect above and beyond what occurs in the absence of treatment (or compared to another treatment, if you're testing for supremacy of one form of treatment over another).

As is, you have no such evidence. And as such, there's no reason people should believe or take seriously such outlandish claims. If prayer really works, than the effects should be visible, and they should show up if one compares data of prayed-for folk to those not prayed-for. While this is science, it isn't exactly rocket science - it's the most basic threshold of proof.

Unfortunately for your argument, prayer has thus far failed to reach that threshold.

[Cosmic Average]

Our presuppositions to interpreting a subjective experience are so far apart there is no reconciliation.

Evidence is not subjective, but rather objective. Otherwise it's a mere claim, with nothing to support it.

Not to say exploring philosophical differences is futile – it is a great exercise in developing critical thinking, and sharpening the mind. It was not the reason I posted in the thread.

I don't believe we're discussing philosophy. No, we're discussing your statement of possessing evidence.

I posted in the thread to mock the experiment - see below.

And you failed to do so in any meaningful way.

I was mocking the experiment. My point is that the experiment is absurd.

So, the experiment is absurd because it's absurd?

Materialist:

It seems to me that you're attempting to promote a view of relativism. If you dislike the fact that you're unable to furnish evidence, since the burden of proof is on you, you attempt to define requiring proof as a 'philosophy', one that's equally valid to your own, which requires no evidence backing up one's claim.

God is a concept that cannot be proven, therefore he does not exist. Why don’t we develop an experiment that tries to measure and quantify this? Absurd.

As Kramer stated, the experiment was studying the effects of prayer.

Also, since gods have no actual evidence to support their existence, the claim that they exist must be dismissed.

Idealist: God’s existence cannot be proven and must be taken on faith. Why don’t we develop and experiment that proves this? Absurd.

A statement where proof is not needed, where study is not wanted, but is actively discouraged.

If his experience was consistent with people from all ages and all countries for the past 2,000 years . . . than maybe (I said maybe) :D

What exactly does that have to with anything? Stage fright is consistent and yet is irrational.

[Doug Strange]

Is there anything more boring than an angry athiest?

[JeffreyWKramer]

Is there anything more boring than an angry athiest?

Your posts, generally.

[Naldo]

I've just never understood the need to anthropomorphize the deity. How/why does a deity get angry? offended? jealous?

Seems to me God was created in mans image rather than the other way around.

How else to explain the very human range of emotions that have been ascribed to God?

[Doug Strange]

Your posts, generally.Granted I'm pretty dull, but nothing beats dudes like you and Cos here, railing against believers because...why, again?

Your time on this planet is very limited. Try to enjoy it.

[Cosmic Average]

Granted I'm pretty dull, but nothing beats dudes like you and Cos here, railing against believers because...why, again?

And how am I 'railing against believers'? Winslow stated he had proof. I merely asked him to supply it.

Your time on this planet is very limited. Try to enjoy it.

Personally, I am. :D

[JeffreyWKramer]

Granted I'm pretty dull, but nothing beats dudes like you and Cos here, railing against believers because...why, again?
Because we care.

Your time on this planet is very limited. Try to enjoy it.
The less superstitious nonsense thinking there is in the world, the more it will be enjoyable for everyone.

That said, I do a pretty good job of enjoying my time.

[Doug Strange]

And how am I 'railing against believers'? Winslow stated he had proof. I merely asked him to supply it.

Personally, I am. :DDon't get cute. You're fucking with Winslow just to fuck with him. And it's tiresome.

In your head, he hasn't got any proof. What are you expecting here? You want him to break down in tears? Realize how wrong he's been all these years? Thank you for lifting his blinders?

Quit fooling yourself into thinking you're engaging in some type of meaningful discussion. You're needling someone, and that's all.

[Doug Strange]

The less superstitious nonsense thinking there is in the world, the more it will be enjoyable for everyone.Hogwash. Superstitious nonsense is fun as hell.

That said, I do a pretty good job of enjoying my time.Mmmm, yes. It's tons of fun reminding people God doesn't exist. On and on. Ad nauseum.

[Valmore]

Granted I'm pretty dull, but nothing beats dudes like you and Cos here, railing against believers because...why, again?

Your time on this planet is very limited. Try to enjoy it.

You know what's funny - in believing, you tend to harm nothing. When you die, if you're wrong, all you did was believe in something while you lived, and you're not really penalized. However, if a person who doesn't believe is wrong, when that person dies, they're pretty much screwed.

Logically, it makes more sense to hedge your bet by believing in a higher power. Why take the chance on being completely screwed in the afterlife because you didn't want to believe in a higher being when you were alive?

(Yes, that's an extremely shallow reason for believing and no, it is NOT my reason for believing. I'm just making a logical point.)

[JeffreyWKramer]

Hogwash. Superstitious nonsense is fun as hell.

It would be, if people didn't actually believe in it. That leads to many bad things, starting with ignorance and leading all the way through stuff like suicide bombers. Fantasy fiction is great. Fantasy used as a basis for social policy or interacting with others is a really bad thing.

Mmmm, yes. It's tons of fun reminding people God doesn't exist. On and on. Ad nauseum.

Oh, I don't do that for fun. That comes more from a sense of duty to he community.

But hey, I'll go on doing my thing, and if you being pissy is your thing, by all means go for it. I'll just go on ignoring you like I generally do.

[Cosmic Average]

You know what's funny - in believing, you tend to harm nothing.

Ah, yes, but what about the time wasted with the belief? How many hours are spent in the church or spent prostrating, or hell, proselytizing?

What of the science lost with the belief? If one believes in a god, then they're not very likely to puzzle out the mysteries of the universe, e.g., how it came about.

What if one believes that they must enforce their god's will? Such as preventing two consenting adults from marrying or forcing a woman to carry her rapist's fetus to term?

[JeffreyWKramer]

You know what's funny - in believing, you tend to harm nothing.

No, not true at all. When belief translates to action, it all too often results in real harm. Christian Scientists who let kids die from treatable diseases. Anti-gay amendments. People not learning to tell science from nonsense, and society losing out on potential scientists - and thus progress - as a result.

Now, it's true that scientific advances have also resulted in some less-than-wonderful things. Gunpowder and atomic weapons are good examples. But it also brings us things like vaccines and computers and electricity. It keeps paying us dividends. Perhaps at one point religion was necessary, and really served some purpose other than social control, but it's time now to move past superstition and nonsense.

[HomerJay]

Granted I'm pretty dull, but nothing beats dudes like you and Cos here, railing against believers because...why, again?
I already posted the link, but check out this thread for more believers-are-silly-idiots/atheists-are-intellectually-superior goodness: http://forums.comicbookresources.com/showthread.php?t=116026

[Valmore]

No, not true at all. When belief translates to action, it all too often results in real harm. Christian Scientists who let kids die from treatable diseases. Anti-gay amendments. People not learning to tell science from nonsense, and society losing out on potential scientists - and thus progress - as a result.

And then you have belief from the other side leading to action that they don't agree with such as questionable ethics in cloning and other things in the name of "scientific progress." Oh, and transmutable science that serves an agendas purpose - hey, we discovered a gene that makes people do this - let's take away personal accountability.

See, it's funny - who says what YOU believe is correct?

[JeffreyWKramer]

See, it's funny - who says what YOU believe is correct?

Well, I do have scientific evidence - you know, actual proof of something testable and demonstrable - on my side. Y'know... something completely lacking in the case of religion. Aside from that inconvenient fact, you almost have a real argument.

Well, okay. Not really. But I'm trying to be nice.

I'm not saying bad things don't also come out of science sometimes - heck, in the post you responded to, I stated quite the opposite - but that reflects human action, not the inherent nature of science. In contrast, real-world religions do include statements such as "homosexuality is sin" and "suffer not a witch" and such things.

[JeffreyWKramer]

I already posted the link, but check out this thread for more believers-are-silly-idiots/atheists-are-intellectually-superior goodness: http://forums.comicbookresources.com/showthread.php?t=116026

Hey, there can never be too much of that!!!

[HomerJay]

...if you being pissy is your thing...
Calling someone's beliefs (especially religious) "nonsense" over and over tends to bring out pissiness in people.

[Hoss]

This Sunday, the teacher of the Bible fellowship class that I was visiting did a lecture that was about the "Case for God." I really have no interest in getting into that debate here. But I was saddened by how condescending and insulting he was towards unbelievers. A trait that I see too much in lay believers and in Church leadership alike. He just assumed that folks who did not believe in Christ as Savior were either fundamentally flawed in their thinking or did not have all the facts.

I'm sorry to say that I'm seeing the same thing from some of the atheist in this thread. I really wish more folks on both sides of the debate could be more modest and more capable of saying "I don't know." I do take solace that some of the greatest scientific minds that have existed were a lot more humble about their opinions on God and believers than have been expressed here.

As far as proof, well, the scientific community has a very specific definition of proof. And really, short of a doctor proclaiming Christ on the cross dead then proclaiming fully resurrected or actually being present as Jesus performed miracles, some folks will never believe. Even then, they’d look for a way to debunk Him.

[JeffreyWKramer]

Calling someone's beliefs (especially religious) "nonsense" over and over tends to bring out pissiness in people.

I'm gonna pull a West here...

My Websters says "Nonsense...n. Words, actions, etc. that are absurd or meaningless."

It also says "Absurd... adj. So unreasonable as to be ridiculous."

People believing in supernatural beings and events for which there is a complete lack of evidence. Hm...

Sounds right to me. And that perhaps those offended might do well to either grow some thicker skin, or rethink their beliefs.

[Valmore]

Well, I do have scientific evidence - you know, actual proof of something testable and demonstrable - on my side. Y'know... something completely lacking in the case of religion. Aside from that inconvenient fact, you almost have a real argument.

Well, okay. Not really. But I'm trying to be nice.

I'm not saying bad things don't also come out of science sometimes - heck, in the post you responded to, I stated quite the opposite - but that reflects human action, not the inherent nature of science. In contrast, real-world religions do include statements such as "homosexuality is sin" and "suffer not a witch" and such things.

Can you prove homosexuality ISN'T a sin? See, funny thing, there's no science for that. You simply believe it isn't. Others believe it is. Can you prove it anymore than I can? No. When you speak of social mores, there's no real science to it, just a system of beliefs from different sides of the coin. You have a side that thinks homosexuality is hunky-dory. You have a side that thinks it's the spawn of Satan. Then you have a bunch of people in the middle who don't really like to think about it.

[Doug Strange]

It would be, if people didn't actually believe in it. That leads to many bad things, starting with ignorance and leading all the way through stuff like suicide bombers. Fantasy fiction is great. Fantasy used as a basis for social policy or interacting with others is a really bad thing.Fantasy and superstition (and religion) do not by themselves lead to suicide bombers. Hatred and alienation are the main ingredients there. Hatred and alienation caused much of the time by some jackass in their face screaming about how their god doesn't exist.
But hey, I'll go on doing my thing, and if you being pissy is your thing, by all means go for it. I'll just go on ignoring you like I generally do.I'm pissy, Jeffrey, with bullies and malcontents.

[JeffreyWKramer]

Can you prove homosexuality ISN'T a sin?

Since "sin" is defined as the violation of a religious proscription, its a meaningless word in real-world terms. In reality, it exists only to the extent fairies and unicorns exist - as a concept.

I prefer to go with the concept of objective harm. That's something which can be directly observed or easily inferred from observed fact. Homosexuality isn't objectively harmful, or at least no more or less so than heterosexuality.

[JeffreyWKramer]

Fantasy and superstition (and religion) do not by themselves lead to suicide bombers. Hatred and alienation are the main ingredients there. Hatred and alienation caused much of the time by some jackass in their face screaming about how their god doesn't exist.

Seems suicide bombing is a very different phenomenon in whatever dimension you come from. In mine, people commit suicide bombings because they belong to a branch of their religion that says they get to go to heaven and screw a bunch of virgin girls if they kill someone their religion says is a bad person.

Beyond that, there isn't a lot of anyone telling folks Allah doesn't exist in the places from where suicide bombers tend to come... largely because they kill people who say that in those countries.

I'm pissy, Jeffrey, with bullies and malcontents.

So go find some of them. I'm busy here.

[JeffreyWKramer]

...some of the greatest scientific minds that have existed were a lot more humble about their opinions on God and believers than have been expressed here.

Progress is a good thing.

[Cosmic Average]

Fantasy and superstition (and religion) do not by themselves lead to suicide bombers.

Except, you know, when the religion states that a believer who dies fighting infidels will receive seventy-two virgins in heaven.

Hatred and alienation are the main ingredients there.

Yes, religion does foster hatred and alienation. I mean, how do you think a closeted gay teen feels when his parents are True Believers?

Hatred and alienation caused much of the time by some jackass in their face screaming about how their god doesn't exist.

As opposed to passing laws restricting a person's rights just because they happen to love the wrong person?

I'm pissy, Jeffrey, with bullies and malcontents.

[Ed Cunard]

The awesome thing about atheism is that it's so not a unified thing that I don't feel guilty for other atheists acting like gits.

I meant to mention this in the other thread, but I'll do it here--it really is starting to seem (at least, to me) that some atheists are really codified in their atheism, and that strikes me as a little off. Some Christians say "I need no proof, because I know there is a God who loves me," and some atheists say "I need no proof, because I know there is no god." Both seem to have some kind of faith involved... Is there a useful distinction between someone who believes there is no god, and a person that doesn't believe in god (or, well, anything)? Like, should I start calling myself... um... an adevotist?

I don't to be an existentialist, because I don't look good in berets.

[HomerJay]

I meant to mention this in the other thread, but I'll do it here--it really is starting to seem (at least, to me) that some atheists are really codified in their atheism, and that strikes me as a little off. Some Christians say "I need no proof, because I know there is a God who loves me," and some atheists say "I need no proof, because I know there is no god." Both seem to have some kind of faith involved... Is there a useful distinction between someone who believes there is no god, and a person that doesn't believe in god (or, well, anything)? Like, should I start calling myself... um... an adevotist?
Bravo, Ed. This is the level-headedness that compelled me to vote you for Citizen of the Month.

[Doug Strange]

What of the science lost with the belief? If one believes in a god, then they're not very likely to puzzle out the mysteries of the universe, e.g., how it came about.This is really, really off-base. At least in my case. What kind of scientist rules out possibilities without a reason? Just because you don't have a test for it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

What if one believes that they must enforce their god's will? Such as preventing two consenting adults from marrying or forcing a woman to carry her rapist's fetus to term?Well, again, I don't believe that acts like these are due to religion. Rather the opposite. The indoctrination of hate.

[Grazzt]

You know what's funny - in believing, you tend to harm nothing. When you die, if you're wrong, all you did was believe in something while you lived, and you're not really penalized. However, if a person who doesn't believe is wrong, when that person dies, they're pretty much screwed.

That doesn't make any sense. If a person who believes in a religion is wrong, there are two outcomes:

1) There is no actual deity out there. Nothing bad happens.

2) There is an actual deity out there, and now he doesn't want you by him/her/it because what you were praying to wasn't him/her/it. At best you're probably going to be a second class citizen in that deity's afterlife. At worst, your going to that deity's hell.

[Ed Cunard]

Bravo, Ed. This is the level-headedness that compelled me to vote you for Citizen of the Month.

Yeah, but don't bowdlerize the snide opening line. I may have ended up somewhat level, but that was only after rolling down a hill.

[Winslow]

And I concede my testimony is not "evidence" as typically defined - however testimony is given weight in a court of law (is not necessarily considered proof).

However, and attempting to get back on topic: God healing someone in response to prayer IS a miracle. A miracle (by definition) is something that occurs contrary to science and laws of nature - hence it cannot be measured or quantified, or reproduced.

So I still contend the experiment is absurd. :D

[Grazzt]

However, God healing someone in repsonse to prayer IS a miracle. A miracle (by definition) is something that occurs contrary to science and laws of nature - hence it cannot be measured or quantified, or reproduced.

What makes it contrary to the laws of nature if someone heals themselves in a way that is not entirely unprecedented? And really, there aren't that many laws of nature as opposed to a series of more or less reliable guidelines.

[HomerJay]

Yeah, but don't bowdlerize the snide opening line. I may have ended up somewhat level, but that was only after rolling down a hill.
Well, what I meant was that you actually have the audacity to respectfully disagree with someone without resorting to name-calling or ridiculing their beliefs. This is something in short supply around here lately, especially in this thread.

[west3man]

I'm gonna pull a West here...
Only one tug? I want my money back.

[Cosmic Average]

And I concede my testimony is not "evidence" as typically defined -

That's good. Thanks. :)

however testimony is given weight in a court of law (is not necessarily considered proof).

However, and attempting to get back on topic: God healing someone in response to prayer IS a miracle. A miracle (by definition) is something that occurs contrary to science and laws of nature - hence it cannot be measured or quantified, or reproduced.

I'm not certain I follow. If it happened, then it can be observed. If it can be observed then it can be quantified and measured.

So I still contend the experiment is absurd. :D

[west3man]

Verboten that such responses are, the only response I can make to that is LOL!Laugh as loudly or as heartily as you like.
You're using a hammer when a tap on the shoulder would do just fine.

If you think there's something hypocritical about that coming from me, fine. I, of course, disagree, but that doesn't make me wrong.

[foswell]

I never understood praying for someone is ill or dying.Surely god created the circumstances of the persons suffering in the first place

[Winslow]

I'm not certain I follow. If it happened, then it can be observed.

True. However, from a purely scientific viewpoint, there are some things that occur that are not explained, or repeatable.

If it can be observed then it can be quantified and measured.

Only if it can be repeated and a hypothesis developed to predict future results.

Prayer cannot be measured using the scientific method.

God may choose to heal this time, and choose not to the next.

Or . . .He doesn't exist, and the phenomena is random.

[Doug Strange]

Seems suicide bombing is a very different phenomenon in whatever dimension you come from. In mine, people commit suicide bombings because they belong to a branch of their religion that says they get to go to heaven and screw a bunch of virgin girls if they kill someone their religion says is a bad person. First, I have to apologize. The last two posts of mine were not worded very carefully. I'm at work and not paying full attention. But bugger the excuses, I shouldn't have posted the words I did. That last one especially. You guys are probably having a field day with that one as I type.

I don't actually mean to say that there aren't harmful beliefs and bad religion. There's plenty of ignorance in the world. Of course, duh. But the people spewing that type of bullshit...why do you think it comes so easy for them? Is that strictly because religion exists? Or is it due to other factors, maybe?

Why does the athiest message here need to be anti-god? For what reason? Why not anti-blowing shit up/denying folks rights/being all-around cunts? That stuff doesn't happen because of a belief in God. If it did, we'd have literally several billion more people on the planet pulling those kinds of stunts.

[Doug Strange]

Yeah, but don't bowdlerize the snide opening line. I may have ended up somewhat level, but that was only after rolling down a hill.I do the same thing, usually. Starting off badly, I mean. But from there I get worse and worse.

[HomerJay]

Why not anti-blowing shit up/denying folks rights/being all-around cunts?
Because then that would be a morality issue which would leave no room for some athiests' intellectual superiority complexes or give them the opportunity to ridicule those who disagree.

[JeffreyWKramer]

and some atheists say "I need no proof, because I know there is no god." Both seem to have some kind of faith involved...

And then there are those athiests who say "I believe there is no God because the evidence for God is completely nonexistent, and I prefer evidence and reason to blind faith."

[JeffreyWKramer]

What kind of scientist rules out possibilities without a reason? Just because you don't have a test for it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Lack of evidence that something exists is a fairly good reason to suspect it does not exist. When the things someone believes turn out to be contrary to observable reality, that's a good reason to move from doubting something to disbelieving that something.

Well, again, I don't believe that acts like these are due to religion. Rather the opposite. The indoctrination of hate.

Religion isn't the only source of hate, but it is all too often one source. When religion teaches that people who believe differently are wrong, and often evil heretics - and most religions do teach this, in one form or another - that goes a long way toward reinforcing the hatred of those outside the group.

[JeffreyWKramer]

However, and attempting to get back on topic: God healing someone in response to prayer IS a miracle. A miracle (by definition) is something that occurs contrary to science and laws of nature - hence it cannot be measured or quantified, or reproduced.

So I still contend the experiment is absurd. :D

Again, nonsense. If something occurs, it or its effects can be observed. As such, it can be measured, and potentially quantified. We may not be able to tell what causes the occurrence, but we should at least be able to tell that something has occurred.

The problem is, there don't appear to be any miracles which stand up to even the most basic of scrutiny. Some studies find no evidince anything is occurring at all. Others I've cited before, which have found some evidence that something occurs, haven't shown that the "something" is anything specific to prayer or to either religion in general, or any specific belief system. Either way, the evidence for the power of prayer is just plain not there.

[JeffreyWKramer]

Laugh as loudly or as heartily as you like.
You're using a hammer when a tap on the shoulder would do just fine.

If you think there's something hypocritical about that coming from me, fine. I, of course, disagree, but that doesn't make me wrong.

I don't think there's anything hypocritical there. However, I don't think the soft tap on the shoulder does the job - or, rather, as with many things, I think the combo of both tap and hammer gets you farther than just the carrot or just the stick. The problem is, in regard to illogic and unreasoning faith, those speaking out at all have all too often been just doing the tap on the shoulder. Time for the hammer, too. Time to just lay things out as they are. Some beliefs are simply illogical and irrational, and are not backed up by any sort of evidence - and indeed, evidence that does exist tends to refute some beliefs. By definition, such beliefs are nonsense.

I don't think candy coating this serves any purpose.

[west3man]

Lack of evidence that something exists is a fairly good reason to suspect it does not exist.You're not just saying you suspect it does not exist, though.
You say it DEFINITELY does not exist and that contrary thoughts or suggestions are nonsense.

The former is what I, and apparently Ed, think is somewhat similar to faith, but it's mostly with the latter that I find fault.

[Winslow]

Either way, the evidence for the power of prayer is just plain not there.

Scientific evidence that supports a hypothesis? Yes. I agree. See my post # 79. The last sentence you probably agree with.

We're looking at the same coin from two different sides.

[west3man]

I don't think there's anything hypocritical there. However, I don't think the soft tap on the shoulder does the job - or, rather, as with many things, I think the combo of both tap and hammer gets you farther than just the carrot or just the stick. The problem is, in regard to illogic and unreasoning faith, those speaking out at all have all too often been just doing the tap on the shoulder. Time for the hammer, too. Time to just lay things out as they are. Some beliefs are simply illogical and irrational, and are not backed up by any sort of evidence - and indeed, evidence that does exist tends to refute some beliefs. By definition, such beliefs are nonsense.

I don't think candy coating this serves any purpose.
The question, then, is what is "the job?" What's your goal of purpose?

[JeffreyWKramer]

I don't actually mean to say that there aren't harmful beliefs and bad religion. There's plenty of ignorance in the world. Of course, duh. But the people spewing that type of bullshit...why do you think it comes so easy for them? Is that strictly because religion exists? Or is it due to other factors, maybe?

There are other factors involved, too. But make no mistake, religion is part of the problem, and in some ways can facilitate those other factors, toward bad results.

Why does the athiest message here need to be anti-god?

I can't speak for athiests in general, but for me personally, I believe it is time for people, and for our cultures, to put aside nonsensible, supernatural beliefs. There are real problems which need to be tackled with real solutions - not with prayer or with the idea that the One True Faith will make things work out - and we have the tools to potentially tackle those problems if people would stop wasting their time with nonsense.

Why not <speak out against - JWK edit> anti-blowing shit up/denying folks rights/being all-around cunts? .
I do speak out against those folk too. I tend to speak out more against religion in general, though, because it's all part of the same problem. When religion causes people to mistake science for nonsense, and convinces them to send money to con men and snake oil salesemen, that does harm. This harm may may not be as dramatic as a bunch of fanatics flying an airplane into a building, but is harm nonetheless.

EDIT: Then there's the fact that at least here, where I'm typing this, I don't see a whole lot of pro-suicide-bombing sentiment, but there are a lot of people spouting irrationality as truth.

[JeffreyWKramer]

You're not just saying you suspect it does not exist, though.
You say it DEFINITELY does not exist and that contrary thoughts or suggestions are nonsense.

The former is what I, and apparently Ed, think is somewhat similar to faith, but it's mostly with the latter that I find fault.

Yes, I do. There is no evidence for the underlying hypotheses of religion, and the evidence we have about how the world actually does function suggests that it functions by principles completely different than what religion tells us - i.e., quantifiable, naturalistic processes absent a creator, intelligent design, etc.

To me, that combo is good enough reason to state with certainty - at least as much certainty as we can state anything, anyhow - that religion is hooey. Is it theoretically possible I'm wrong here? Sure, I admit that. But anything is theoretically possible. It's also theoretically possible that the Greek myths are true. In practical terms, though, not all things are true, and I'll bet that the truth is the side that has actual evidence. That makes a lot more sense than believing that the truth is the side for which there is no evidence.

[JeffreyWKramer]

Scientific evidence that supports a hypothesis? Yes. I agree. See my post # 79. The last sentence you probably agree with.

We're looking at the same coin from two different sides.


The difference is, we have different views of what those two sides are. You think they are "science" and "God". I see no evidence for the "God" side, and regard the lack of evidence for that side - and all the evidence to the contrary - as reason to conclude the coin's two sides are "reality" and "non-reality."

And I do agree with your last sentence, yes. Further, I see no evidence which would support any other conclusion.

[JeffreyWKramer]

The question, then, is what is "the job?" What's your goal of purpose?

Attack illogic and superstition and nonsense. Attack it relentlessly. Bring it down and finish it off.

Religion is not the only type of illogical nonsense in the world, but it is the biggest and strongest, and the one which supports most of the rest. Read Sagan's DEMON-HAUNTED WORLD for an explanation of this concept.

Take religion down, the rest follows.

Am I gonna do that myself? Of course not. But if enough people do their part, we've rid society of one negative influence, which frees up resources for tackling the other problems.

[west3man]

Yes, I do. There is no evidence for the underlying hypotheses of religion, and the evidence we have about how the world actually does function suggests that it functions by principles completely different than what religion tells us - i.e., quantifiable, naturalistic processes absent a creator, intelligent design, etc.

To me, that combo is good enough reason to state with certainty - at least as much certainty as we can state anything, anyhow - that religion is hooey. Is it theoretically possible I'm wrong here? Sure, I admit that. But anything is theoretically possible. It's also theoretically possible that the Greek myths are true. In practical terms, though, not all things are true, and I'll bet that the truth is the side that has actual evidence. That makes a lot more sense than believing that the truth is the side for which there is no evidence.A big chunk of the above is firmly rooted in the idea that God and those quantifiable, naturalistic processes are mutually exclusive.

You place an incredible amount of value in that which we do know or that which we suspect, but place little to no value on that which we do not know. Considering how substantial the latter is, the only reason to disregard it would be faith in the former.

[Winslow]

The difference is, we have different views of what those two sides are. You think they are "science" and "God". I see no evidence for the "God" side, and regard the lack of evidence for that side - and all the evidence to the contrary - as reason to conclude the coin's two sides are "reality" and "non-reality."

The coin is the scientific method.

You look at prayer through the scientific method and conclude it has no basis in reality (This is a rational response - don't misunderstand me - I'm not attacking the scientific method or materialism).

I look at prayer through the scientific method and say the method is inadequate to measure something that exists outside of reality (an appeal to the will of God).

We come to the same conclusion, but through a different worldview lens.

[west3man]

Attack illogic and superstition and nonsense. Attack it relentlessly. Bring it down and finish it off.

Religion is not the only type of illogical nonsense in the world, but it is the biggest and strongest, and the one which supports most of the rest. Read Sagan's DEMON-HAUNTED WORLD for an explanation of this concept.

Take religion down, the rest follows.

Am I gonna do that myself? Of course not. But if enough people do their part, we've rid society of one negative influence, which frees up resources for tackling the other problems.So you believe religion does more harm than it does good?

[JeffreyWKramer]

A big chunk of the above is firmly rooted in the idea that God and those quantifiable, naturalistic processes are mutually exclusive.

In any meaningful sense, they are mutually exclusive. There is a supernatural, or there is only the natural. Religion tells us that things occur which have no possible naturalistic explanation, events and beings which function in ways not possible within the rules we recognize as possible in the natural world. The problem with religion is, we heve no evidence at all suggesting there are things that actually exist that do not function by the same naturalistic principles which govern everything else.

You place an incredible amount of value in that which we do know or that which we suspect, but place little to no value on that which we do not know. Considering how substantial the latter is, the only reason to disregard it would be faith in the former.

I know that there are tons of things we don't know. But I don't see any evidence that religion offers any real answers, or anything real that cannot be grasped without religion. Further, we have no evidence that the things we don't know are either unknowable or something qualitatively different than those things we do know - all of which are naturalistic, quantifiable things.

[JeffreyWKramer]

So you believe religion does more harm than it does good?

At this point in time, absolutely. At some earlier points in the development of our species, possibly not.

I also believe that good which does result from religion can happen just as effectively without religion.

[darkkeeperjr]

This just in!

Scientists cannot prove the existence of God!

:eek:


More breaking news: Scientists is still trying to figure out how a fish became a man.

More "where the hell is that link?" at 11:00

[west3man]

In any meaningful sense, they are mutually exclusive. There is a supernatural, or there is only the natural. Religion tells us that things occur which have no possible naturalistic explanation, events and beings which function in ways not possible within the rules we recognize as possible in the natural world. The problem with religion is, we heve no evidence at all suggesting there are things that actually exist that do not function by the same naturalistic principles which govern everything else.Saying that these things "have no possible naturalistic explanation" is very assumptive.

Terms like "supernatural" and "magic" are pretty relative. I'm sure a lot of what we do now would seem magical to some of our ancestors. The very suggestion that such things were possible would be viewed and confidently labeled as nonsense.

That doesn't make it true.

I know that there are tons of things we don't know. But I don't see any evidence that religion offers any real answers, or anything real that cannot be grasped without religion. Further, we have no evidence that the things we don't know are either unknowable or something qualitatively different than those things we do know - all of which are naturalistic, quantifiable things.Like opinions, not all evidence is of equal value. To say something is unknowable is to make your opponents' case for them.

[JeffreyWKramer]

We come to the same conclusion, but through a different worldview lens.


I don't think so. You assume, or conclude, there is a "something else" besides reality, which is real. I believe that assumption, or conclusion, to be very much mistaken.

The sides of the coin, as I see them, are "reality" and "fiction." And, as I've said many times before, I see no problem with fiction, and in fact believe that fiction has much to offer, in terms of teaching us things, in terms of escapism, etc. However, fiction is a poor ground upon which to base social policy, or our interactions with other people.

Now, as much as I understand some of Paul's beliefs, he believes fiction is real to some extent - or that it is a metareality, I guess. That's an interesting concept upon which to base works of fiction - THE INVISIBLES, THE MATRIX, etc... but again, I don't see any evidence it is so, and when I try to read works which seriously suggest this hypothesis... well, frankly they tend to make my head hurt. A lot of it I plain don't follow, and that I am able to follow looks to me like a chain of illogic, wiggle words and metaphor mistaken for actuality.

The real world - physics, astronomy, the Grand Canyon, deep sea fishes, babies, sex, acts of human kindness - that's amazing enough for me, thanks. I don't have to believe there is something beyond the real to believe things are amazing and meaningful.

[Hoss]

It really does amaze me how supposed intellectuals use the rash and totalitarian actions of some folks to damn all religious folks. Should we judge atheism from the actions of Hitler, Stalin and Pol Pot? If I wanted to put on blinders and use logic as a weapon instead of a tool, I could argue that the greatest atrocities committed in the history of man were committed in the last century by atheist. But then someone would bring up the Catholic Church's record during times like Inquisition and round and round we would go.

I notice the while the religious right is (rightfully) lambasted no one ever acknowledges that faith was what drove and sustained Dr. King and Gandhi. It seems that in the world of some unbelievers these men were irrational, delusional folks who somehow managed to vastly improve the state of man and change the course of nations and empires despite their ridiculous reliance on faith.

Trust me, I understand the resentment that many folks feel towards the oppressive tendencies that many supposed people of faith exhibit. In some ways, I think being a Christian and a Progressive is the hardest sets of beliefs to have right now in America. There really is no safe port. But it is down right ignorant to view intolerance as being a problem that stems from believing in a higher power and not from basic flaws in human nature.

[west3man]

At this point in time, absolutely. At some earlier points in the development of our species, possibly not. So, it could at some later points in the development in our species as well, or not.

But we don't know.

I also believe that good which does result from religion can happen just as effectively without religion.There's big difference between what "can" and what "will" happen.

I have little doubt that you see religion as a crutch. Your approach is the equivalent of walking up to a little old lady in a cast and knocking her walker, crutches, or wheelchair from beneath her... just because you *think* she can walk without them.

[Solaris]

From MSNBC:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12082681/

"NEW YORK - In the largest study of its kind, researchers found that having people pray for heart bypass surgery patients had no effect on their recovery. In fact, patients who knew they were being prayed for had a slightly higher rate of complications.

"Researchers emphasized that their work can't address whether God exists or answers prayers made on another's behalf. The study can only look for an effect from prayers offered as part of the research, they said.

"They also said they had no explanation for the higher complication rate in patients who knew they were being prayed for, in comparison to patients who only knew it was possible prayers were being said for them.

"The work, which followed about 1,800 patients at six medical centers, was financed by the Templeton Foundation, which supports research into science and religion. It will appear in the American Heart Journal."

Based on this one study, it appears that God is indifferent to our prayers. Even so, it seems peculiar that patients who knew that they were being prayed for had more complications. Maybe they were scared because the prayers made them more conscious of the dangers of the situation, and the stress caused by that fear made them experience more complications.

According to a poll in that article, only 55% thought that praying works, while 20% thought that it didn't work. What do you think, does praying work?


I think the part I bolded probably does play a part---they associate the certainty that people are praying for them with the idea that so many things can go wrong... and it increases stress and fear. It's also possible that some experience anxiety over the possiblity that they may "fail those who are praying for me" by not recovering well.

I think it's likely associated with their own views of being asked to pray for someone: when it's asked, it's usually for something serious, something life-threatening, or loss by death. Whether they realize it or not, these people may be projecting themselves into the "negative conception" of severe risk, etc., that they see in others, when they are asked to *pray* for others.

It may also give them the idea that "procedures etc. are problematic, and that the only true way to healing is if God intervenes"... a sort of "doubt in the doctors and human ability." I can see how that would stress some people: it's eroding their faith that the procedure will work right, and also puts them in the stance of "am I good enough for God to help?" in their minds, causing fear and anxiety on two fronts. They're already going through something that's a "brush with death;" doubting their doctors ability, and questioning their own worth to God, will just make more stress.

Bottom line, I think it has to do with how these people perceived such prayers in the first place.

If they were able to see it in the way Madeline L'Engle described it (via a character) once, they might feel better about it:

[paraphrasing]"When I pray for someone, it is an act of Love: I am picking them up and placing them in God's Hand, with love." The idea is that of prayer expressing love for the person, and asking God to make them aware that God loves them, too, and that however things turn out, All Will Be Well, because of that love. Anything that is loved is never forgotten, never lost, never vanished. Many waters cannot quench love.

So basically, prayer for someone is a way of saying "I love you, and God loves you, and All will be well, because of that, and we (God and I) are with you in heart and in spirit... with you, whatever trials you face." It's a strengthening thing, knowing that you are not going through something alone, and are Never Alone.

If more people saw "being prayed for in time of crisis" in that fashion (as somthing comforting and sustaining, rather than a cause for doubt and fear)... the results of the survey might be very very different.


As to the question "does prayer work", of course it does. No love expressed is ever lost or wasted, and that's what a prayer is: love.

Does it always get the results we hope for, ask for, long for? No. Praying for someone to survive surgery doesn't mean they automatically will. There are many factors that go into survival, and death *is* a part of life. But whether the person survives or not, the love that goes into a prayer is a good thing, and I believe that in some way or another it *does* help the person, whether it may help with their healing/survival, or in other ways.

Love is the spiritual realm's gold. Creating it, feeling it, and giving it always causes some form of enrichment, to the person, to the giver, and to our world... and it is imperishable. In some ways I see it as being all around us, like the air we breathe---a sort of an "atmosphere" of love, a "vibe" if you will. The more love you feel and put out, the more you're adding to that "psychic" atmosphere and vibe.

Ever walk into someone's home, and either feel "at home" right away (a warmth), or "chilled", as if the place has a "cold, sterile" feel to it, or even an "angry" feeling? Sometimes the decor, etc. can contribute to that, but sometimes it's also just the "vibes" that the people living there have "put into the air," so to speak. I can walk into two identically-furnished living rooms (same arrangement, color scheme, etc.), and if there's been a lot of strong emotion experienced in the room, I often tune into it. One room may feel welcoming; the other, rejecting. Sometimes the arrangement has to do with it (getting into a touch of feng shui here)---but often people arrange their furniture, and choose color schemes, to express something about themselves. I absolutely HATE having a couch set with it's back to the entry point into the room... because it's saying "I turn my back to you." If it's turned toward the entry point, it's saying "come in and sit down."

Ah, I digress. Anyway, I think love, and prayer, matter.

[JeffreyWKramer]

More "where the hell is that link?" at 11:00

The links are quite prominent in the fossil record. Anyone who thinks otherwise is completely ignorant of the facts, and is buying bullshit creationist arguments which have been thoroughly discredited for decades.

[Doug Strange]

Lack of evidence that something exists is a fairly good reason to suspect it does not exist.Hard to disagree with that. But that isn't where you started. "God does not exist" is not the same thing as "I suspect (or even strongly suspect) that God does not exist."When the things someone believes turn out to be contrary to observable reality, that's a good reason to move from doubting something to disbelieving that something. Also in agreement here. But nothing I (and some others in this thread) personally believe IS contrary to observable reality.

Religion isn't the only source of hate, but it is all too often one source. When religion teaches that people who believe differently are wrong, and often evil heretics - and most religions do teach this, in one form or another - that goes a long way toward reinforcing the hatred of those outside the group.Religion doesn't teach anything. People do. If someone's been indoctrinated to do evil things, it's by another person or group of people. Corrupt people with personal agendas outside religion.

I don't know. I suppose there could be some inherently evil, harmful religions out there, but the biggies are not. Harm done in the name of Christianity, Islam, Judaism, whatever...that has nothing to do with the actual tenets of those faiths, and I'm surprised to hear someone as learned as you insisting otherwise.

[macul]

There are times when I'm embarrased to call myself an athiest. One of our major complaints is that religious people supposedly just can't leave us alone and that they are always shoving their beliefs down our throats. It seems nowadays to be the opposite. These days we have the angry athiest running around shouting "there is no god!" as loud and obnoxiously as they can.

I don't get. I really don't. At one point all we wanted was to be left alone. We didn't want to be ridiculed. We didn't want to be scorned. We just wanted to be left alone with our beliefs (or lack of). Did we forget those days? Or did we decide that now it's our turn to be the Asshole?

As for the topic, I can see prayer working and helping. Does that mean some higher power will suddenly take notice and make things right? No, but I can see prayer working if it helps the person clear their mind of troubles.

[JeffreyWKramer]

It really does amaze me how supposed intellectuals use the rash and totalitarian actions of some folks to damn all religious folks. Should we judge atheism from the actions of Hitler, Stalin and Pol Pot? If I wanted to put on blinders and use logic as a weapon instead of a tool, I could argue that the greatest atrocities committed in the history of man were committed in the last century by atheist. But then someone would bring up the Catholic Church's record during times like Inquisition and round and round we would go.

As I've noted, all evil does not come from religion, but it does its part.

I notice the while the religious right is (rightfully) lambasted no one ever acknowledges that faith was what drove and sustained Dr. King and Gandhi. It seems that in the world of some unbelievers these men were irrational, delusional folks who somehow managed to vastly improve the state of man and change the course of nations and empires despite their ridiculous reliance on faith.

I'd agree with that. They accomplished what they did despite the blinders. Certainly not because of them.

Trust me, I understand the resentment that many folks feel towards the oppressive tendencies that many supposed people of faith exhibit. In some ways, I think being a Christian and a Progressive is the hardest sets of beliefs to have right now in America. There really is no safe port. But it is down right ignorant to view intolerance as being a problem that stems from believing in a higher power and not from basic flaws in human nature.
All religion represses. If nothing else, it oppresses rational thought.

You are correct that ultimately, most evils are the result of flaws in human nature. However, religion adds to the problem, in ways I've already mentioned. Beyond that, good also results from human nature. Since religion apparently offers nothing indespensible to the equation, and offers much which impedes progress, it is better done away with... not by force of law or at gunpoint, but through the light of logic and fact and rationality and common sense.

[JeffreyWKramer]

So, it could at some later points in the development in our species as well, or not.

But we don't know.



One can make the same argument about sickle cell anemia, or smallpox. I prefer to deal with the present. Right now, it gets in the way. If it turns out useful, it will come back. Time to try riding without the training wheels and the blindfold, though.

[Hoss]

Personally, I pray for results. I pray for wisdom, guidance, strength, integrity etc. I know that from a physical universe POV folks would say that other kinds of meditations can garner similar results. For me they never have but I'm willing to concede that might be an individual thing.

Either way, my view of science is that it explains the way God works. I believe that as long as I am willing to concede that there are many more things that I don't know than there are things I do know, then there are no contradictions between science and my Christian faith. I will admit that I sometimes get frustrated with believers who put down good sound scientific discoveries because it does not jive with their reading of scripture.

I also get frustrated with non-believers who are so myopic and self-assured that they can’t conceive the possibility that somewhere down the road science will discover that there is a pattern and a connectedness that will be very much like the God that our genetics tells us exists. And by genetics, I'm referring to the fact that I know of no culture in the history of man that did not have a concept of a greater, supernatural force that shaped and created man.

[JeffreyWKramer]

Also in agreement here. But nothing I (and some others in this thread) personally believe IS contrary to observable reality.

Please explain to me, then, by what process of the natural world miracles and supernatural events - you know, the sorts of concepts religion is based around - can occur.

If you take the supernatural out of religion, you have something different - philosophy. I have no problem with philosophy, though like all ideas, some philosophies are better than others.
I don't know. I suppose there could be some inherently evil, harmful religions out there, but the biggies are not. Harm done in the name of Christianity, Islam, Judaism, whatever...that has nothing to do with the actual tenets of those faiths, and I'm surprised to hear someone as learned as you insisting otherwise.

The greatest harm, in many ways, is the intellectual harm done. People beliving in things which are not true, and things which counteracts that which is true. As such, people mistake nonsense for truth, pseudoscience and superstiton for fact, and ignorance for knowledge. Thus we have people fighting to teach mythology in evolution classes, people who believed one crazy thing (standard religions) being pre-set by culture to believe even stupider things (Scientology, televangelist hucksters, pseudoscientific gobbledegook). These things do real harm... not as dramatic as fanatics with car bombs, mind you, but in the long run, this harm directly impacts more people, and thus does more overall harm.

Again, I encourage those who want to seriously look at these ideas to check out Sagan's THE DEMON-HAUNTED WORLD. Sagan does a much better job of explaining these things than I can, both due to space constraints and due to him simply being a better writer and a smarter guy than me.

[JeffreyWKramer]

There are times when I'm embarrased to call myself an athiest. One of our major complaints is that religious people supposedly just can't leave us alone and that they are always shoving their beliefs down our throats. It seems nowadays to be the opposite. These days we have the angry athiest running around shouting "there is no god!" as loud and obnoxiously as they can.

I don't get. I really don't. At one point all we wanted was to be left alone. We didn't want to be ridiculed. We didn't want to be scorned. We just wanted to be left alone with our beliefs (or lack of). Did we forget those days? Or did we decide that now it's our turn to be the Asshole?

I decided it's time to stop sitting silent and watching ignorance and nonsense continue to reign.

As for the topic, I can see prayer working and helping. Does that mean some higher power will suddenly take notice and make things right? No, but I can see prayer working if it helps the person clear their mind of troubles.

As I've noted in previous threads, there is some evidence based on previous studies that prayer can have some beneficial effects on healing. It is exactly the same degree of effect that non-spiritual meditation, self-hypnosis and similar phenomena can produce, and there is no difference noted between these types (or between different faiths, for the prayer).

[JeffreyWKramer]

And by genetics, I'm referring to the fact that I know of no culture in the history of man that did not have a concept of a greater, supernatural force that shaped and created man.


It's not genetics. It's cultural development. Freud does a good job of covering this in "The Future of an Illusion."

[macul]

I decided it's time to stop sitting silent and watching ignorance and nonsense continue to reign.

Is it not better to live and let live? If they aren't bothering you, then so what? What's the point? What do you hope to accomplish?

If during the course of a casual conversation with someone in a coffee shop that person happens to mention they are Christian, will you break out this routine? Will you compare their beliefs with those of fairies, elves, and so on? Will you accuse them of repressing others? Of being ignorant?

If so, then I assume you'd have zero problems with a Christian taking the opposite stance with you, right?


As I've noted in previous threads, there is some evidence based on previous studies that prayer can have some beneficial effects on healing. It is exactly the same degree of effect that non-spiritual meditation, self-hypnosis and similar phenomena can produce, and there is no difference noted between these types (or between different faiths, for the prayer).

Probably no difference, but if that's the method the person chooses and it helps them, then more power to them. It isn't my place to tell them otherwise.

[Matt Algren]

I'm having a weird flashback to the movie Amadeus. The movie made me sad too.

[darkkeeperjr]

The links are quite prominent in the fossil record. Anyone who thinks otherwise is completely ignorant of the facts, and is buying bullshit creationist arguments which have been thoroughly discredited for decades.

Discredited by who?

[west3man]

One can make the same argument about sickle cell anemia, or smallpox. I prefer to deal with the present. Right now, it gets in the way. If it turns out useful, it will come back. Time to try riding without the training wheels and the blindfold, though.
Are you saying that sickle cell and smallpox were largely beneficial to society at one point and may be, again, one day?

[JeffreyWKramer]

Is it not better to live and let live? If they aren't bothering you, then so what? What's the point? What do you hope to accomplish?


I've already explained the point, several times. And, I don't think it's just a live-and-let-live matter... we aren't talking something trivial like favorite baseball teams or hairstyles here. The supernaturalist point of view has a very real impact on a lot of aspects of the world, and I'm convinced that impact is more a negative than a positive one.

If during the course of a casual conversation with someone in a coffee shop that person happens to mention they are Christian, will you break out this routine? Will you compare their beliefs with those of fairies, elves, and so on? Will you accuse them of repressing others? Of being ignorant?

Nope, because that's the wrong venue. Similarly, I don't discuss these matters in the conduct of my professional activities. When religious matters come up with clients, I encourage them to seek out religious guidance if that is what they think they need to do. But, this is a discussion board, a place for open discussion of topics. Similarly, if someone in a coffee shop invited a discussion or debate about beliefs, yep, I'd say pretty much what I have said here. In fact, I've done so on several occasions, with various people.

If so, then I assume you'd have zero problems with a Christian taking the opposite stance with you, right?
I've had any number of Christians do exactly that over the years. The difference is, they had nothing but dogma and rhetorical tricks to back up their arguments.

Interestingly, my observation over the years has been that generally speaking (there are of course exceptions in both directions, as with most things involving people), the more generally informed religious people are - about science, politics, history, other religions, philosophy, the news, etc. - the less traditional or dogmatic they tend to be regarding their faith, and the more they conceptualize their religion in philosophical terms, vs. actually believing in supernatural beings and events. Often they have come to understand that the supernatural aspects of their faith are fictional, and they tend to view concepts such as angels, God, miracles and heaven as metaphor and allegory, rather than truth. That I have no real problem with, and if that was the way religion was taught and viewed in society, I'd not be taking the stand I'm taking here. But, sadly, the reality is that most people continue to think about and teach religion as if the fables were literal - vs. symbolic, or literary, or metaphoric - truths. That, I have lots of problems with, obviously.

Probably no difference, but if that's the method the person chooses and it helps them, then more power to them. It isn't my place to tell them otherwise.
I wouldn't tell them not to do it, either, but I think we are better off as a society correctly identifying the active component of such "miracles" - and the evidence doesn't suggest it is anything supernatural or spiritual. If you know that certain altered states of consciousness can promote healing - and that is pretty much what the available data suggests, in a nutshell - that's knowledge you can use. Hell, I use it frequently, in the form of meditation, self-hypnosis and guided imagery, for pain control and various other effects. Focus on the part that actually promotes an effect, and toss aside the superstition and claptrap trappings and misplaced faith.

[JeffreyWKramer]

Discredited by who?

Pretty much anyone with an IQ larger than his or her shoe size who has actually studied the data. Hell, even the *Vatican* - about as conservative and traditionalist a religious organization as there is - doesn't argue against evolution any more.

Missing links are all over the fossil record, and in some cases, readily available among living animals. Consider the lungfish, the coelecanth, sharks, the archaeopterex, the various early hominids. There are fossils of transitional-form whales, in which the evolution from leg to flipper is writ large in the stone.

Or, look at genetics. The genetic record demonstrates the steps in evolution, and the various branching-off points, quite clearly.

Physiology, same story. Science has all the evidence of the real world on its side. Religion has books written ages ago, full of demonstrably nonsense stuff. The earth isn't thousands of years old*, it's billions of years old.

Really, go educate yourself rather than believing what you're told by some backward, willfully-ignorant fundamentalist ignoramus. Go actually study some biology beyond the high school level.



* And before someone goes with that old "maybe the Bible didn't really, literally, mean days" nonsense, I say fine. If you want to argue that the Bible is metaphor, fine. But you can't have it both ways. You can't claim it's literal truth when you want, then fall back on the "metaphor" argument when what the text says is clearly hooey. The ancient Jews knew the concept of days, months, years, and if they meant "era" instead of "seven days" they would have said that. It's myth, not reality, on par with the Greek myths. Deal with it.

[Drew Van T.]

In the largest study of its kind, researchers found that having people pray for heart bypass surgery patients had no effect on their recovery. In fact, patients who knew they were being prayed for had a slightly higher rate of complications.


Not sure if this has come up already (man, for such a silly survey, this thread is long) but a logical explanation for the last part might be that patients knowing that they were being prayed for were worried about letting the praying people down. Because as pointless as it is, it's still a kind of charity they're receiving, which also makes it a kind of a social exchange. And because those patients had to worry about this in addition to everything else, they experienced more stress, and while stress is certainly not a direct cause of medical complications, it still doesn't HELP.

[JeffreyWKramer]

Are you saying that sickle cell and smallpox were largely beneficial to society at one point and may be, again, one day?

The same genes which, when present in double-recessive form, cause sickle cell anemia also provide resistance to malaria. These days we have drugs for that, but that wasn't always the case. Hell, it isn't even always the case in parts of Africa - where malaria is most common - even today. Those genes definitely served an adaptive function, and still do for some people. Unfortunately, they also spell trouble for a few people who inherit the wrong mix of genetic traits.

Smallpox - and diseases of all kinds, really - serve as a natural method of evening populations. Thankfully, we aren't slaves to nature's whims. That can come to cause problems, though - overpopulation, for one. I think the benefit is worth the cost, but who knows about the future?

Further, many disease bacterium and virii mutate easily and frequently. We have no idea today what other, earlier - and potentially beneficial - forms smallpox might have taken, but we do know that many cataclysmic diseases reflect either a mutation from a form which was originally neutral, symbiotic or somewhat beneficial to something harmful, or something that was neutral, symbiotic or beneficial within its original environment and/or host species branching out to impact another environment or species for which it is harmful. So, yeah, for all we know, the ancestor of smallpox might have been something beneficial - and it might also be possible that smallpox, allowed to continue, might have someday evolved into something beneficial.

Mind you, I'm not saying that because these things "might be", we should release smallpox into the population again, or not seek cures for sickle cell anemia. Actually, I'm saying quite the opposite - the world is a better place with smallpox having been defeated, and it will be a better place once we have genetic therapies which can cure sickle cell. And, the same thing is true of religion. Just because it did arguably serve a purpose at some point in the past, and might conceivably serve a purpose in some hypothetical future, that's no reason to ignore the negative effects superstitious thinking has on progress in the here and now.

[Spackling Compound]

"They also said they had no explanation for the higher complication rate in patients who knew they were being prayed for, in comparison to patients who only knew it was possible prayers were being said for them.



I was sitting with a group of investors one day and we were discussing how to finance a certain project that needed another 2.5 million dollars to get under way for a charity. One man, a millionaire and business man, said, "What about raffling off a car?"

After that, everyone at the table became dejected.
Was that a bad idea? No. But when there is no hope left save for raffles, then....it's over.

I think when someone is very ill, and they are told, "Well, we'll pray for you" there may be a sense of giving up. When a doctor's response to your illness is, "I hope you're a praying man", then you probably won't be too damn happy.

I wonder if these people were a. people of "faith" and b. people who see prayer as a last resort?

If so, I can see the complications increasing.

[Paul McEnery]

All religion represses. If nothing else, it oppresses rational thought.
To echo Solaris, so does falling in love. But I'm still looking forward to the next time I do.

But no, all religion does not repress, nor does it repress rational thought necessarily. As always, it's valuable to read Mary Douglas's Purity and Danger for some genuine anthropology of the way "primitive" religion works.

Essentially, rain magic never gets done except when it's the rainy season -- which is a pretty smart idea. Do the magicians believe they're "causing" the rain? Not really. What they're doing is creating a narrative in which they participate in the seasons, in some way adding personality to the occasion.

Among other things, this is what goes on when you pray for someone. You personalize and take control of the situation, which is utterly vital when you've lost control and you're facing the ultimate in depersonalization -- death.

Again, the flaw in looking at religion and ritual as somehow separate from secular observances throws up false difficulties. We all participate in ritual observances all the time, whether its something as pointless as wearing a tie to work, or as fun as tapping your smokes before you draw one out, or any number of other things. They all create meaning, they all personalize our reality.

The question is not whether we should get rid of ritual, but to exercise choice over which rituals we choose to play in and with. What you're missing here is that viewing reality through magico-religious filters does actually add a level of meaning. Not all of that meaning is healthy, true; but it can be if you choose it.

[JeffreyWKramer]

What you're missing here is that viewing reality through magico-religious filters does actually add a level of meaning.

No, it adds a level of illusion and decoration, at best. There's nothing innately wrong with illusion and decoration, of course, but it's better to not mistake such things for reality - and as such, it's better to deal with reality as it is, not as we wish it was.

[Paul McEnery]

No, it adds a level of illusion and decoration, at best. There's nothing innately wrong with illusion and decoration, of course, but it's better to not mistake such things for reality - and as such, it's better to deal with reality as it is, not as we wish it was.
No, you're 100% absolutely and demonstrably wrong here.

And actually, that's a fairly insulting attitude. Not that I'm insulted :) but I can see that others would be.

What's more, it may not be obvious to you, but what you're doing here is accepting the terms of reference of orthodox Christianity. These are not the only terms of reference available to speak of these matters.

[Winslow]

Jeffrey - What do you think of Carl Jung?

Just curious. 'Cause you speak highly of symbols, myth, and archetype, yet dismiss their spiritual relevance. Which confuses me.

[JeffreyWKramer]

No, you're 100% absolutely and demonstrably wrong here.
Big claim. Please demonstrate.

What's more, it may not be obvious to you, but what you're doing here is accepting the terms of reference of orthodox Christianity. These are not the only terms of reference available to speak of these matters.

Not really. I'm speaking more in Christian terms because the audience is predominantly Christian, and because this country - currently the predominant one, and one of the few potentially ready to move beyind mystic bullshit - is where I'm at and where CBR is mostly centered... but I don't buy Hinduism or Islam or Buddhist mysticism or Wicca any more than I buy Christianity.

[JeffreyWKramer]

Jeffrey - What do you think of Carl Jung?

Just curious. 'Cause you speak highly of symbols, myth, and archetype, yet dismiss their spiritual relevance. Which confuses me.


Jung was a very smart guy who made some very astute observations about a wide variety of cultures and about anthropology and archaeology, but often ended up coming to the wrong conclusions. He saw meaning where in fact there is only cooincidence and random chance (gestalt errors). Also, as with so many of Freud's disciples and spin-offs, he had an unfortunate tendency to mistake model and metaphor for literal reality, and his interest in the mystical led to lots of wooly-headed pseudoscience psychobabble.

At best I find Jung interesting.

As to symbols, myths and such, they have a value - same as the works of great writers - in that art and stories can convey meaningful ideas. There's nothing mystical about that, though - they don't evoke Platonic pure forms, they don't have a power beyond that granted by their cultural prominence, and most importantly, they aren't identical to reality.

I'm also not a strong believer in dream analysis, and certainly not in the classic Jungian or Freudian terms. First off, some dream content is purely the result of random neural activity during sleep. Second, to the extent dream content is symbolic, the symbols have a much more personal (vs. archetypal) meaning than the analysts would have people believe. Snakes and fires and things like that don't mean the same thing to all people, or even all people within the same culture - there are culturally-derived (and possibly, in some cases, instinctual) connotations, but personal experience can change these markedly. For example, dreams of sex can have vastly different meanings for different people, depending on their experience of and beliefs about sex.

[Paul McEnery]

Big claim. Please demonstrate.



Not really. I'm speaking more in Christian terms because the audience is predominantly Christian, and because this country - currently the predominant one, and one of the few potentially ready to move beyind mystic bullshit - is where I'm at and where CBR is mostly centered... but I don't buy Hinduism or Islam or Buddhist mysticism or Wicca any more than I buy Christianity.
Demonstration coming up once I get home. It'll take a bit.

But that's only yes and no that you're talking in Christian terms. Point of fact, they're orthodox Christian terms by way of US evangelical traditions. As you say, those terms of reference are outmoded.

[Gary_B]

My sister has lived with Type 1 diabetes since she was three years old (she's 46) and now has many complications from the disease. 10 years ago she developed neuropathy in her stomach and it looked like she was going to die. At the time she had two young boys (6 and 12 at the time). During that scary period of her life she prayed to god and begged him to let her live long enough to see her boys finish school and become young men. Not too long after that the neuropathy went away. Her boys are now young men and she draws great comfort from her decision to appeal to god and is very thankful that she has lived long enough to see them grow up in her home.

I'm an atheist and think that coincidence is the reason why her health improved after she made a deal with god. However, I draw comfort from the fact that she draws comfort from the "deal" she made.

[JeffreyWKramer]

I'm an atheist and think that coincidence is the reason why her health improved after she made a deal with god. However, I draw comfort from the fact that she draws comfort from the "deal" she made.

I don't have a big problem with that on the individual level, either. That's why, even if ethical and professional standards didn't generally preclude such behavior, I wouldn't get involved in rocking the ideological boats of those of my clients who have a spiritual bent - most of the people I work with are just too fragile. Beyond that, I have more than enough on my hands dealing with a person's psychiatric illnesses and trauma-induced symptoms without tackling culturally-induced delusional thinking - particularly since that isn't why people come to see me in the first place.

The problem is, things don't exist just on the individual level, and the same thing which might bring comfort to an individual instills ignorance and nonsense-thinking among the masses. The problem is really more of a social one than an individual one.

[Winslow]

However, I draw comfort from the fact that she draws comfort from the "deal" she made.

How is she doing?

You started a thread about her a few weeks ago, right?

[Winslow]

At best I find Jung interesting.

So much for my appeal to the concept of Synchronicity.

But doesn't the commonality of archetype/symbols across cultures say something about the human spiritual experience?

[Paul McEnery]

So much for my appeal to the concept of Synchronicity.

But doesn't the commonality of archetype/symbols across cultures say something about the human spiritual experience?
I think so. But not what Jung thought it did.

I mean, I see the appeal of the collective unconscious idea, and I dip in and out of the idea that we are all at a deep level one spirit, but at the end of the day, it seems obvious to me that what we all share is a similar hard-wiring, a limited number of possible symbols and the same existential issues that require symbolization.

Jung (and Eliade and Campbell) have to gloss over the differences in cultures to draw their grand conclusions. Close examination shows that their essentialist confidence is misplaced.

[JeffreyWKramer]

So much for my appeal to the concept of Synchronicity.

But doesn't the commonality of archetype/symbols across cultures say something about the human spiritual experience?

It says a lot less than what Jung would have you believe. For one thing, while he's correct that a lot of symbols appear in multiple cultures, they don't really tend to mean the same thing across cultures. The swastika and variants, for example, meant different things in India and in Native American cultures - and something else entirely when appropriated by the Nazis.

Interestingly, the symbols which appear across cultures most frequently are those which are symmetrical - circles, triangles and things like the swastika, for example. The most likely explanation for this apparent commonality is that we have a natural attraction to symmetry. That tendency is also evident in who we find attractive - while things like preferred weight or build, or facial hair, or hair length - vary from culture to culture and across time, across all cultures, people tend to find people with more symmetrical features more attractive than those with less symmetrical features. This may be instinctual, and reflecting the fact that the presence severely asymetrical features generally corresponds to poor health, and can be a sign of genetic abnormalities.

[JeffreyWKramer]

Hey, Paul and I agree on something in this discussion!

[Paul McEnery]

At the same time, anecdotally, I've had interesting dreams that have sent me to my Eliade and Jung to find cultural analogs.

I mean, I haven't been to the Serengetti -- hell, I don't know how to spell it, even. But I did have a world tree dream in which I was in the Serengetti -- I think -- with my back against the tree and a lion under one arm and an antelope under the other. I forget which side, now, but these are indeed symbols for the two sides of human nature in Hindu mythology, with exactly the same emotional content as the dream offered.

Now you could say that the symbols are obvious, which in some sense I suppose they are; then again, I didn't know those animals were directly connected to chakra work in exactly the way that I was studying it.

And no, I hadn't subliminally read that page before.

So I don't know.

[Gary_B]

How is she doing?

You started a thread about her a few weeks ago, right?

To answer in generalities - she doing pretty good. I'll resurrect the thread and explain further a little bit later.

Thanks for asking, Winslow.

[Winslow]

To answer in generalities - she doing pretty good. I'll resurrect the thread and explain further a little bit later.

Thanks for asking, Winslow.

Your welcome and glad to hear it.

[Cosmic Average]

Religion doesn't teach anything.

You're absolutely right on that score! :p

People do. If someone's been indoctrinated to do evil things, it's by another person or group of people. Corrupt people with personal agendas outside religion.


"Therefore let those fight in the way of Allah, who sell this world's life for the hereafter; and whoever fights in the way of Allah, then be he slain or be he victorious, We shall grant him a mighty reward."

Quran, 4:74

"As for the thief, both male and female, cut off their hands. It is the reward of their own deeds, an exemplary punishment from Allah. Allah is Mighty, Wise. "

Quran, 5:38

"They desire that you should disbelieve as they have disbelieved, so that you might be (all) alike; therefore take not from among them friends until they fly (their homes) in Allah's way; but if they turn back, then seize them and kill them wherever you find them, and take not from among them a friend or a helper."

Quran, 4:89

"Men are in charge of women, because Allah hath made the one of them to excel the other, and because they spend of their property (for the support of women). So good women are the obedient, guarding in secret that which Allah hath guarded. As for those from whom ye fear rebellion, admonish them and banish them to beds apart, and scourge them. Then if they obey you, seek not a way against them. Lo! Allah is ever High, Exalted, Great. "

Quran, 4:34

"O Prophet! say to your wives and your daughters and the women of the believers that they let down upon them their over-garments; this will be more proper, that they may be known, and thus they will not be given trouble; and Allah is Forgiving, Merciful."

Quran, 33:59


"Bring ye up", it shall be said, "The wrong-doers and their wives, and the things they worshipped- "

"Instead of Allah, and lead them to the path to hell; "

Quran, 37:22-23

The Quran (http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/)

[Valmore]

Since "sin" is defined as the violation of a religious proscription, its a meaningless word in real-world terms. In reality, it exists only to the extent fairies and unicorns exist - as a concept.

I prefer to go with the concept of objective harm. That's something which can be directly observed or easily inferred from observed fact. Homosexuality isn't objectively harmful, or at least no more or less so than heterosexuality.

And therein lies your problem and why you'll NEVER get anyone on the other side to agree with your opinion - you have a general lack of knowledge of how actual society works. Much as those that scream out with the worst of fundamentalism are the same way. Basically, in a way, you're like the "scientific" equivalent of Fred Phelps - and that's NOT a good thing.

Society works on a basis of ideas and beliefs, however, it's a system of many different ideas and beliefs, many that come into conflict with each. The key to harmonious interaction is to find a middle ground that people can agree on. Whenever one side uses vitriole to completely discredit a belief of the other side in their own mind, that side automatically loses any chance of ever finding a harmonious middle ground, and thus polarizes their idea or belief even more, whether or not they actually discredit the other side's belief or not.

Thus, when you equate religion with unicorns, it's small surprise nobody gives a flying fuck what you say afterwards, and become even more hardened against your viewpoint. It's the rule of fair play - it works for both sides. A better way of putting it is this: "You'll catch more flies with honey than with vinegar." You basically discredit yourself by using terrible tactics.

Basically, by trying to tell one side of society that they shouldn't have any sort of influence in how society works, you've generally given up your own right to shape society your own way as well.

So what is your goal? Changing society? Your tactics are back-asswards for that. You'll turn those who disagree with you even more against you, which then goes against what you're trying to do in the first place - your idea of enlightenment.

The fact is, society includes the religious - a LOT of religious people, actually. And only a small fraction of them are the blazing fundamentalists. The majority actually are willing to listen; but why should they if you openly mock and ridicule them?

After all, has any religious person ever converted an atheist by calling them rotten Godless heathen? How can you expect to convert the religious by calling them unicorn-chasing daydream believers?

[west3man]

I dunno, JWK. From what I saw in Valmore's quote of your words, that kinda reasoning is the same that's used by folks who say homosexuality IS harmful.

"Lookit all the AIDS!"

Why be so discriminatory, though? Let's ban heterosexual sex, too, so we can REALLY be sure to lock down the problem. What else? Oh. No more blood transfusions for anybody.

Bah. My heart's just not in this. Besides disagreeing with you so thoroughly I'm also worn out from wrestling with Comcast all evening.

I don't even have the energy to catch up with the rest of the thread. Umm... Let's just say that everybody with a vowel in their names is wrong and everybody with a consonant is right. Yeah. That'll do.

G'nite!

[darkkeeperjr]

Pretty much anyone with an IQ larger than his or her shoe size who has actually studied the data. Hell, even the *Vatican* - about as conservative and traditionalist a religious organization as there is - doesn't argue against evolution any more.

Bah! the data is flawed and tainted.




Missing links are all over the fossil record, and in some cases, readily available among living animals. Consider the lungfish, the coelecanth, sharks, the archaeopterex, the various early hominids. There are fossils of transitional-form whales, in which the evolution from leg to flipper is writ large in the stone.

Or, look at genetics. The genetic record demonstrates the steps in evolution, and the various branching-off points, quite clearly.

All that the genetics prove is that we come from the same planet.


Physiology, same story. Science has all the evidence of the real world on its side. Religion has books written ages ago, full of demonstrably nonsense stuff. The earth isn't thousands of years old*, it's billions of years old.

Bah! the tools designs to see how old the earth is wrong.


Really, go educate yourself rather than believing what you're told by some backward, willfully-ignorant fundamentalist ignoramus. Go actually study some biology beyond the high school level.

Your logic is so flawed, I can't even begin to tell you where you're wrong at.



* And before someone goes with that old "maybe the Bible didn't really, literally, mean days" nonsense, I say fine. If you want to argue that the Bible is metaphor, fine. But you can't have it both ways. You can't claim it's literal truth when you want, then fall back on the "metaphor" argument when what the text says is clearly hooey. The ancient Jews knew the concept of days, months, years, and if they meant "era" instead of "seven days" they would have said that. It's myth, not reality, on par with the Greek myths. Deal with it.



Seven days ! not seven thousand! That's the power of an awesome GOD!

[JeffreyWKramer]

Bah! the data is flawed and tainted.

Assuming you are not simply a troll, oh brilliant one, please explain how this is so.

All that the genetics prove is that we come from the same planet.
No, and suggesting that demonstrates how little you understand about genetics. Humands and chimps have a higher percentage of shared genes than do humans and other primates (and more with the apes than the monkeys), and less than with other animals. All mammals have certain genes in common, indicating shared ancestry at that point. Etc., etc.

Bah! the tools designs to see how old the earth is wrong.
Oh, that's a brilliant argument.

Your logic is so flawed, I can't even begin to tell you where you're wrong at.

And your grasp of grammar is so poor, I doubt anyone could understand what you were saying if you tried.

Seven days ! not seven thousand! That's the power of an awesome GOD!
And here you demonstate you don't even understand the basic Biblical stuff, either. Not surprised.

[JeffreyWKramer]

After all, has any religious person ever converted an atheist by calling them rotten Godless heathen? How can you expect to convert the religious by calling them unicorn-chasing daydream believers?

Because unlike those other folk, I have hard data and facts and reality on my side, not superstition and illogic and myth.

To repeat a response to West, sometimes a gentle push can help persuade, other times a hammer works better. Overall, it's better to have both. This argument here, and my general approach, the hammer. It gets the attention of those who ignore the gentle push. There are plenty of other gentle-pushers, and I don't see them making much progress on their own. So, I'll pick up a hammer.

[JeffreyWKramer]

I dunno, JWK. From what I saw in Valmore's quote of your words, that kinda reasoning is the same that's used by folks who say homosexuality IS harmful.

"Lookit all the AIDS!"


Except their arguments ignore the fact that AIDS isn't exclusive to homosexuals, and that in fact, worldwide it is much more a disease among straight folk than gay ones. Again, there's the matter of fact and logic, which are not on the side of the religious.

[west3man]

Except their arguments ignore the fact that AIDS isn't exclusive to homosexuals, and that in fact, worldwide it is much more a disease among straight folk than gay ones. Again, there's the matter of fact and logic, which are not on the side of the religious.
And you're not ignoring the fact that zealotry, ignorance, lazy-thinking, violence, and general assholery aren't exclusive to the religious? I think you are.
I'd guess that most of the actual DEATHS that take place are due to secular concerns, not religious ones, in this day and age. America's certainly doing our part to support that theory.

You're still kickin' that old lady's walker.

[Spackling Compound]

But I did have a world tree dream in which I was in the Serengetti -- I think -- with my back against the tree and a lion under one arm and an antelope under the other.

Or was that a toga party at the Kappa Delt's? :)

[darkkeeperjr]

Oh, that's a brilliant argument.


No not really, but to explain in more than one sentence would take more time and engery than i want to give.

You can keep doing what you're doing, but for me IT IS Finished!!

[JeffreyWKramer]

You're still kickin' that old lady's walker.

No, that would be taking away her religion at gunpoint or through legislation. What I'm doing - confronting the nonsense, stating simple facts, appealing to logic - is more like suggesting the old lady put the walker aside and try walking on her own, and with good reason to expect she can do exactly that.

[JeffreyWKramer]

You can keep doing what you're doing, but for me IT IS Finished!!

Oh, darn. And I was prepared to be so dazzled by your brilliant responses.

[macul]

Oh, darn. And I was prepared to be so dazzled by your brilliant responses.

Just a suggestion, jeffrey. Perhaps you could listen to what valmore stated and understand why darkkeeper isn't interested in continuing the discussion. The two just might be linked.

[Ed Cunard]

No, that would be taking away her religion at gunpoint or through legislation. What I'm doing - confronting the nonsense, stating simple facts, appealing to logic - is more like suggesting the old lady put the walker aside and try walking on her own, and with good reason to expect she can do exactly that.

It doesn't sound like a suggestion at all, though--in fact, it sounds very much like evangelical atheism.

Honestly? I don't think scientific evidence can disprove religion. Can it disprove Intelligent Design? I think so. I mean, intelligent design isn't even science--it's philosophy. That's the thing--I think religion masquerading as science is a much more potent problem than, say, what someone chooses to believe in general.

[JeffreyWKramer]

Just a suggestion, jeffrey. Perhaps you could listen to what valmore stated and understand why darkkeeper isn't interested in continuing the discussion. The two just might be linked.


Or perhaps darkkeeper could make actual arguments and address the ones I make, rather than expecting that brilliant statements like "Bah! the tools designs to see how old the earth is wrong" are gonna carry the day.

[JeffreyWKramer]

It doesn't sound like a suggestion at all, though--in fact, it sounds very much like evangelical atheism.

Honestly? I don't think scientific evidence can disprove religion. Can it disprove Intelligent Design? I think so. I mean, intelligent design isn't even science--it's philosophy. That's the thing--I think religion masquerading as science is a much more potent problem than, say, what someone chooses to believe in general.

It is virtually impossible to prove a negative by any means, scientific or otherwise. Nobody can prove that the Greek gods don't exist. However, there is no rational reason to believe in ideas for which there is no evidence, and this is particularly true when there is solid evidence that the world functions in a manner contrary to those ideas.

And, I agree that religion masquerading as science is a big problem. What you apparently fail to realize is that when people get away as presenting religion as truth, that encourages people to mistake religious ideas for science. Further, it creates a mindset which more easily allows people to believe in all sorts of other nonsensible things.

As to "evangelical athiesm", if you replace "evangelical" with some equivalent but nonreligious term, I guess I don't have a problem with it. Some ideas need to be spread, and some deserve to die out. I consider rationalism to be in the former category, and religion to be in the latter.

[Joe Rice]

Jeff Kramer: Atheist Pat Robertson.

[HomerJay]

And therein lies your problem and why you'll NEVER get anyone on the other side to agree with your opinion - you have a general lack of knowledge of how actual society works. Much as those that scream out with the worst of fundamentalism are the same way. Basically, in a way, you're like the "scientific" equivalent of Fred Phelps - and that's NOT a good thing.

Society works on a basis of ideas and beliefs, however, it's a system of many different ideas and beliefs, many that come into conflict with each. The key to harmonious interaction is to find a middle ground that people can agree on. Whenever one side uses vitriole to completely discredit a belief of the other side in their own mind, that side automatically loses any chance of ever finding a harmonious middle ground, and thus polarizes their idea or belief even more, whether or not they actually discredit the other side's belief or not.

Thus, when you equate religion with unicorns, it's small surprise nobody gives a flying fuck what you say afterwards, and become even more hardened against your viewpoint. It's the rule of fair play - it works for both sides. A better way of putting it is this: "You'll catch more flies with honey than with vinegar." You basically discredit yourself by using terrible tactics.

Basically, by trying to tell one side of society that they shouldn't have any sort of influence in how society works, you've generally given up your own right to shape society your own way as well.

So what is your goal? Changing society? Your tactics are back-asswards for that. You'll turn those who disagree with you even more against you, which then goes against what you're trying to do in the first place - your idea of enlightenment.

The fact is, society includes the religious - a LOT of religious people, actually. And only a small fraction of them are the blazing fundamentalists. The majority actually are willing to listen; but why should they if you openly mock and ridicule them?

After all, has any religious person ever converted an atheist by calling them rotten Godless heathen? How can you expect to convert the religious by calling them unicorn-chasing daydream believers?

Well done, Valmore.
Since the above post perfectly sums up my POV here, I won't be wasting another work day on this thread.

[JeffreyWKramer]

Jeff Kramer: Atheist Pat Robertson.
I have better style sense than Pat, by far.

[Winslow]

I have better style sense than Pat, by far.

True.

But sometimes the quality of your posts and thought are undermined by the adjectives.

You make me think Jeffrey - always a good thing. :)

[Ed Cunard]

It is virtually impossible to prove a negative by any means, scientific or otherwise. Nobody can prove that the Greek gods don't exist. However, there is no rational reason to believe in ideas for which there is no evidence, and this is particularly true when there is solid evidence that the world functions in a manner contrary to those ideas.

But Intelligent Design can be disproven as science--that's what I'm getting at. It's not the religion behind it that's being disproven, it's the methodology of the thing, which isn't by any means reflective of the scientific method ("See this watch? Everything is like the watch. Or something.").

And, I agree that religion masquerading as science is a big problem. What you apparently fail to realize is that when people get away as presenting religion as truth, that encourages people to mistake religious ideas for science. Further, it creates a mindset which more easily allows people to believe in all sorts of other nonsensible things.

I'm an atheist, Jeff, but I don't think science is necessarily the only truth, either (or, perhaps, more specifically, our current level of scientific thought--as things advance, theories change, previous scientific conceptions are contradicted and eliminated from the scientific canon, etc). Only the ones who don't understand the difference between science and religion are confusing the two.

As to "evangelical athiesm", if you replace "evangelical" with some equivalent but nonreligious term, I guess I don't have a problem with it. Some ideas need to be spread, and some deserve to die out. I consider rationalism to be in the former category, and religion to be in the latter.

And other people consider otherwise--me, for one. While I'm not a believer by any stretch, I also don't want to force others to come to my way of thinking. That's not a point of pride, either--I recognize that it comes entirely from being self-absorbed and having a lack of regard for others. I just don't care enough about this issue to try to convince others to see it from my perspective.

I'll also echo everyone else who thinks your shoulder-tapping/hammer analogy isn't working well for you in practice. If you really want to change people, saying "hey, retard--stop being so retarded" isn't working with surgical precision. If you really want people to come to your way of thinking, I'd suggest you skip dismissing other peoples' beliefs and addressing why you find them fallacious.

[Ed Cunard]

I have better style sense than Pat, by far.

Spoken like someone who has never watched the 700 CLUB. He's a snappy dresser, that Pat Robertson. You should see him rock the cowboy hat and jeans in his weight-loss commercials--he just ex...

Ok. I can't pretend you're wrong on that one. God, I hates me some Pat Robertson.

[macul]

Or perhaps darkkeeper could make actual arguments and address the ones I make, rather than expecting that brilliant statements like "Bah! the tools designs to see how old the earth is wrong" are gonna carry the day.

I understand. However, I don't think you are seeing the other side of the argument. Keep in mind, this is coming from an athiest, but your arguments consist of little more than darkkeeper's. You are just a bit more forceful and arrogant. Not trying to be rude, but that's just how you are coming across. All you are really doing is repeating that there is no science to prove the existence of a god, which I agree with, but that's hardly going to do anything.

You can't expect a person of faith to utilize your scientific standards. You can disagree with them. I do. But don't expect them to change, especially with the way you are treating them.

[OzBat!]

Now c'mon, everybody stop picking on Jeffrey. The man has a hammer. It's a perfectly good hammer, and by God, he's not afraid to use it!

[JeffreyWKramer]

True.

But sometimes the quality of your posts and thought are undermined by the adjectives.

You make me think Jeffrey - always a good thing. :)


That's the goal, because I think that with enough thinking, enlightenment will come.

[JeffreyWKramer]

And other people consider otherwise--me, for one. While I'm not a believer by any stretch, I also don't want to force others to come to my way of thinking.

And where have I mentioned force? I specifically state - multiple times - this isn't going to come about by force, and shouldn't even if it could.

Forceful arguments - yeah, I think those are needed. Decades of the skeptic movements have produced virtually squat. Something under 1% of school programs in the US have utilized their critical thinking cirriculum. Instead, we're seeing a resurgence of the creationist lunacy.

I just don't care enough about this issue to try to convince others to see it from my perspective.

And I do care about getting people to think differently about things. I see the current state of affairs as very harmful, and as impeding our society, and perhaps our species.

If you really want people to come to your way of thinking, I'd suggest you skip dismissing other peoples' beliefs and addressing why you find them fallacious.

I do that, too. Pointing out the realities of geology and genetics and physics and history and psychology - and rules of evidence, stuff that this thread started with, in fact. There's the specific - this particular idea is ludicrous and unrealistic because XYZ - and then there's the general - people should stop believing in things for which there is no evidence, and in things which are impossible under the rules by which reality appears to function.

[JeffreyWKramer]

Spoken like someone who has never watched the 700 CLUB.

Regretfully, I have watched it. Many times, in fact. It always made me grit my teeth, and there were times I thought I could feel the brain cells dying in the face of such illogic and hate, but it is important to know one's enemies.

God, I hates me some Pat Robertson.

Well, at least we come to some common ground. Gotta watch that use of "God", though.

[Valmore]

And again - forceful arguments don't work well, if at all. Mainly because society doesn't change on whims. It takes many years to change indoctrinated ideas and beliefs - possibly decades. Which is why appealing to the middle ground with tactful arguments without ridicule makes more sense.

For instance, let's take one of your favorites - gay rights legislation, in particular, the hot botton topic of gay marriage. The idea of gay marriage being taboo has been indoctrinated into the societal psyche for countless generations. However, society has come to a point where it's willing to change a little, if given the right opportunity.

So you have two "extreme" sides - those that want to prevent any sort of union between consenting gay adults; and those that want to completely legalize marriage right here, right now. Both sides, however, are still minute when compared to the middle ground, and the middle ground is who is going to change society.

A couple years ago, the state of Massachusetts decided forbidding gays to marry is unconstitutional, this coming after the mayor of San Francisco went against state law and handed out marriage licenses to gay couples. On a Constitutional basis, they're right. However, from a sociological standpoint, they were bad decisions, because it basically struck for the one extreme side. In retaliation, the other extreme side (who, by the way, aren't comprised of idiots) used legal jargon to get state laws that would prevent all gay unions on ballots and got them passed. Many people thought they were just outlawing the term of gay marriage while leaving civil unions open when they weren't. Cause and effect by the extreme sides.

Most polls have shown that a high percentage of people - almost completely within the middle ground - would be willing to see laws that give legal (or civil) unions to gay couples that give legal rights of marriage, but don't call them marriages. Is it the radical change the pro-gay marriage side seeks? No. But does it change society towards their goal? Hell yes. Sure, they might grumble about semantics or whatever, but you sure would see a whole lot of gay couples flocking to the court houses to get their civil unions. Would it piss off the no unions crowd? Yep. But they'd still claim a "victory" by saying they prevented actual marriage from happening.

The net result is that society does change. No, not as radically as some might want, and almost completely against what some want. But it does change, and it comes from the middle ground - not from the extremist point on either side.

Many religious people are like exactly how Hoss described himself - he can reconcile almost all science as proving God's work. That's a middle ground - he can accept science, and he puts it into the framework of his belief system. It's not exactly what you want, but it certainly comes a lot closer than those who reject all science or whatever. And it's people like Hoss you stand to alienate when you use tactics of vitriole and ridicule. And the people like Hoss are higher in number than those that aren't.

[JeffreyWKramer]

And again - forceful arguments don't work well, if at all. Mainly because society doesn't change on whims. It takes many years to change indoctrinated ideas and beliefs - possibly decades. Which is why appealing to the middle ground with tactful arguments without ridicule makes more sense.

Not true at all. You're right that change takes time, but it takes more than just time and logic and gentle persuasion. I've been spending a lot of time over the past couple decades analyzing social movements, and that analysis has convinced me pretty clearly that the change only comes when there are the more forceful and strident voices, as well as the more moderate ones. The tap and the hammer, again.

Let's look at gay rights. The movement would have gotten nowhere without the in-your-face tactics of some of those in the movement. It also wouldn't have gotten far if everyone was like that, but those voices did their part... especially early on, when they were virtually the only ones speaking.

Let's take civil rights. I'm firmly convinced that a lot less change would have happened in the relatively brief period if not for the voices of both Dr. King and Malcolm X. I've analyzed this at great length on this board before, and if someone cares I can do so again, but it comes down to the idea that American society had the choice of dealing with Dr. King, or else they were going to have to deal with a lot more in-your-face people like Malcolm. Things were much the same in India. Gandhi gets all the credit for Indian independence, but there were also increasing numbers of less peaceful protests.

Same with the issue of the permeation of illogic and nonsense in society, with religion being a primary offender. The evolution/creationism fight has been going on for decades, and though they lose as often as Batman villains, the creationists just keep changing costumes and coming back for more. Clearly, just going for the slow and quiet approach isn't winning the race. The skeptic movement has been putting out good, well-argued works for a couple decades now, yet remained almost invisible. Stephen Jay Gould's stuff sold well in its time, but that was about a lot of things other than skepticism. Other than that, the best-seller was Sagan's DEMON-HAUNTED WORLD, and I think that sold mostly because of the timing, and his death. Since then, nothing. The voices of reason are drowned out in the thunder of nonsense, and when a movement has to have people die to be noticed, it has some problems (Christianity's success aside).

Obviously my approach doesn't sit well with some. I can live with that, and I don't apologize for it. I have reasons for taking the approach I am taking, and I hope more will take this approach in more venues, with time. Meanwhile, at least people notice the discussion.

[west3man]

No, that would be taking away her religion at gunpoint or through legislation. What I'm doing - confronting the nonsense, stating simple facts, appealing to logic - is more like suggesting the old lady put the walker aside and try walking on her own, and with good reason to expect she can do exactly that.You're kicking her walker.
By your own admission you're not "suggesting" anything. You're "attacking," "tak[ing it] down," and "finish[ing] it off."

Attack illogic and superstition and nonsense. Attack it relentlessly. Bring it down and finish it off.

Religion is not the only type of illogical nonsense in the world, but it is the biggest and strongest, and the one which supports most of the rest. Read Sagan's DEMON-HAUNTED WORLD for an explanation of this concept.

Take religion down, the rest follows.

[Matt Algren]

It's a bit close to Easter for this, but what the heck.

http://www.misfit-studios.com/img/martyr.gif

Now if you'll excuse me, I have to return to being a cancer on the backside of progress.

With thanks to Evan Waters for the image.

[darkkeeperjr]

Or perhaps darkkeeper could make actual arguments and address the ones I make, rather than expecting that brilliant statements like "Bah! the tools designs to see how old the earth is wrong" are gonna carry the day.

You know how much research i have to do to counter your arguments? Do you see how much data you bring in a post?

Not including the facts i have to look up to carry my own arguments up to your standards. much less find my dictionary.

And when you get down to it, you're not gonna change your mind. telling people there's no GOD is part of who you are.

Nothing I say will have you look for GOD or for any proof that he exist.

I had my say in the thread,But to counter your arguments all day seems pointless.

Like i said before it takes a lot of energy and time to combat your "facts". so keep fighting the fight, Cause as history shows, GOD had always be a part of the society and always will!

[Hoss]

Because unlike those other folk, I have hard data and facts and reality on my side, not superstition and illogic and myth.

To repeat a response to West, sometimes a gentle push can help persuade, other times a hammer works better. Overall, it's better to have both. This argument here, and my general approach, the hammer. It gets the attention of those who ignore the gentle push. There are plenty of other gentle-pushers, and I don't see them making much progress on their own. So, I'll pick up a hammer.

The problem with picking up a hammer is that you might force the other side to pick up a bat. But I'm getting the feeling that your beef with religion mostly comes from the way some very prominent Americans are using their faith to attack science and rational thought. And I can most certainly empathize with you because I have the same problem with many of those folks.

Ultimately, Christ teaches that religion with out faith is meaningless*. And faith is a belief that does not require tangible proof. By definition, it isn’t entirely rational and for someone who is 100% a rationalist there is no room for it. I do wonder that if being supposedly 100% rational is actually not just the same type of crutch that being a believer supposedly is. After all, in an big mysterious universe and in a planet were suffering, pain and death are all part of the equation, I can see how people would need to cling to a belief that there is no intelligence behind things and that creation has no purpose or meaning in order to not collapse under the grief and enormity of it all.



*And yes, I know how convenient that must seem to Atheist.

[Hoss]

On a side not, I am currently listening to Lee Strobel's "A Case for Christ" in the car. I'm not looking to use any of the arguments he makes because as I just said, it is about Faith. I am reading the book more to learn about the history of Christ and less to be able argue the facts.

I do find myself at times seeing that Strobel's line of questioning and reasoning is colored by his desire to believe in Christ. Maybe I should back up. Lee Strobel was an atheist and a journalist who after seeing the affect that conversion had on his wife decided to go out and investigate all of the claims that are made by Christians about Christ. He went out and talked to a bunch of academic News Testament apologetics. Strobel ended up having a Damascus experienced when he wrote the book.

Well, even though the was supposedly being "neutral" you could tell that at some level Strobel wanted the case for Christ to bear out and that was influencing his choices and behavior.

[Shellhead]

Like i said before it takes a lot of energy and time to combat your "facts". so keep fighting the fight, Cause as history shows, GOD had always be a part of the society and always will!

Which god are you speaking of? Zeus? Odin? Allah? Coyote the Trickster? Quetzalcoatl? Amaterasu?

Does it trouble you that references to your judeo-christian god show up relatively late in human history? That various cultures have worshipped various gods with various moral codes? That your "God" is just one of a multitude, and there is no more evidence for one than another?

[darkkeeperjr]

On a side not, I am currently listening to Lee Strobel's "A Case for Christ" in the car. I'm not looking to use any of the arguments he makes because as I just said, it is about Faith. I am reading the book more to learn about the history of Christ and less to be able argue the facts.

I do find myself at times seeing that Strobel's line of questioning and reasoning is colored by his desire to believe in Christ. Maybe I should back up. Lee Strobel was an atheist and a journalist who after seeing the affect that conversion had on his wife decided to go out and investigate all of the claims that are made by Christians about Christ. He went out and talked to a bunch of academic News Testament apologetics. Strobel ended up having a Damascus experienced when he wrote the book.

Well, even though the was supposedly being "neutral" you could tell that at some level Strobel wanted the case for Christ to bear out and that was influencing his choices and behavior.

Yeah i read that a while back. You can tell he was on christ side. He did ask all the right questions a neutal person would ask, even so it made the christ case stronger. good book!

[darkkeeperjr]

Which god are you speaking of? Zeus? Odin? Allah? Coyote the Trickster? Quetzalcoatl? Amaterasu?

Does it trouble you that references to your judeo-christian god show up relatively late in human history? That various cultures have worshipped various gods with various moral codes? That your "God" is just one of a multitude, and there is no more evidence for one than another?

Nope doesn't trouble me at all. There is no evidence that i can show you why i belive.

[Grazzt]

You know how much research i have to do to counter your arguments? Do you see how much data you bring in a post?

Not including the facts i have to look up to carry my own arguments up to your standards. much less find my dictionary.

And when you get down to it, you're not gonna change your mind. telling people there's no GOD is part of who you are.

Nothing I say will have you look for GOD or for any proof that he exist.

I had my say in the thread,But to counter your arguments all day seems pointless.

Like i said before it takes a lot of energy and time to combat your "facts". so keep fighting the fight, Cause as history shows, GOD had always be a part of the society and always will!

Nope doesn't trouble me at all. There is no evidence that i can show you why i belive.

These posts seem to contradict each other. Which is it? The evidence is too hard to gather, or there is no evidence?

[Hoss]

Yeah i read that a while back. You can tell he was on christ side. He did ask all the right questions a neutal person would ask, even so it made the christ case stronger. good book!

Yeah, my only problem is that so far has been the sole representative of the skeptical side. So, we basically have a layman who has just begun studying a topic going up againt academic giants.

He emphasizes that he is acting the way a lawyer or journalist would and is even speaks of putting the facts on trial. Well, how is that possible when he only spoke to New Testament apologetics? Which experts and academics got to testify for the other side and rebuke the arguments being made? Maybe he does seek the other side of the argument later in the book.

[HomerJay]

"If you wanna play blind man, then go walk with a Shepherd. But me, my eyes are wide fuckin' open."

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v655/HomerJay64/samuel_l_jacksonpulp-fiction-med.jpg

[Hoss]

These posts seem to contradict each other. Which is it? The evidence is too hard to gather, or there is no evidence?

I'll give you my persepective on this. Though you might no find it satisfactory.

Once you're a believer, there is ample and total evidence in the existence of God. However, that proof won't mean anything to a on-believer because it has to be coupled with a basic faith.

When you accept God, you don't lose your faculties. You don't lose your ability to reason. My guess is that if unreasonable and ignorant believers lost their faith they would become unreasonable and ignorant atheist. The converse also applies.

It really concerns me that the modern pharisees that claim to speak for so many Christians are risking real longterm gains in spreading the Gospel in order to gain personal power through a radical, legalisitic reading of the Bible.

[Typo Lad]

* And before someone goes with that old "maybe the Bible didn't really, literally, mean days" nonsense, I say fine. If you want to argue that the Bible is metaphor, fine. But you can't have it both ways. You can't claim it's literal truth when you want, then fall back on the "metaphor" argument when what the text says is clearly hooey. The ancient Jews knew the concept of days, months, years, and if they meant "era" instead of "seven days" they would have said that.

Well, not to nitpick Jeffrey, but no, they would say "yomim". Which depending on context can mean "days", "years", or "generations". Much of this context is lost in translations.

The problem, if I may be frank, with much of your commentary above is you're approaching it from a very advesarial position. You remind me of some overly-religious people I know.

Religion does not replace facts. Some of the greatest scientists beleived in a G-d. Sure, some of the greatest tyrants did to, but as someone else pointed out, there were plenty of Athiest tyrants out there.

The fact is that a lot of bad people exist. Bad people like to find excuses to be bad. Religion can be one. It can also, however, be a tool one uses to further oneself.

Just saying.

[Grazzt]

I'll give you my persepective on this. Though you might no find it satisfactory.

Once you're a believer, there is ample and total evidence in the existence of God. However, that proof won't mean anything to a on-believer because it has to be coupled with a basic faith.

When you accept God, you don't lose your faculties. You don't lose your ability to reason. My guess is that if unreasonable and ignorant believers lost their faith they would become unreasonable and ignorant atheist. The converse also applies.

It really concerns me that the modern pharisees that claim to speak for so many Christians are risking real longterm gains in spreading the Gospel in order to gain personal power through a radical, legalisitic reading of the Bible.

I find your perspective on this satisfactory. However, I will still be waiting for darkkeeperjr to comment in, since that might not be what he meant. Given his prior posts, I doubt he has as eloquent of an explanation as you do. :)

[Hoss]

Well, not to nitpick Jeffrey, but no, they would say "yomim". Which depending on context can mean "days", "years", or "generations". Much of this context is lost in translations.



Hey Typo, is there a central tenet in Judaism that is the root of belief? I guess I'm wondering since Christianity boils down to whether you believe that Christ is God, He died on the cross to redeem our sins and was resurrected. Other belief is important, but it is the belief in the resurrection and divinity of Christ that ultimately defines us.

[Hoss]

I find your perspective on this satisfactory. However, I will still be waiting for darkkeeperjr to comment in, since that might not be what he meant. Given his prior posts, I doubt he has as eloquent of an explanation as you do. :)


Cool. Thanks.

[Typo Lad]

Hey Typo, is there a central tenet in Judaism that is the root of belief? I guess I'm wondering since Christianity boils down to whether you believe that Christ is God, He died on the cross to redeem our sins and was resurrected. Other belief is important, but it is the belief in the resurrection and divinity of Christ that ultimately defines us.

Hey Hoss.

There’s an old parable about the heads of the two major Talmudic “schools” of Jewish thought – Hillel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillel_the_Elder) and Shammai (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shammai). It seems a skeptic wished to know the entirety of Jewish knowledge “while standing on one foot” (a Talmudic euphemism for “in three sentences or less”, basically). When he went to Shammai he was jeered and chased out. When he came to Hillel the sage got up, stood on one leg and stated:

"What is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow man: this is the whole Law; the rest is mere commentary"

That’s right, the Golden Rule. That’s it in a nutshell.

The problem is that many people mistake the medium for the message.

[Michael P]

I do wonder that if being supposedly 100% rational is actually not just the same type of crutch that being a believer supposedly is. After all, in an big mysterious universe and in a planet were suffering, pain and death are all part of the equation, I can see how people would need to cling to a belief that there is no intelligence behind things and that creation has no purpose or meaning in order to not collapse under the grief and enormity of it all.
Whenever I meet a proselytizing rationalist, I always think back to how even Spock admitted there were some problems logic could not solve.

[macul]

Whenever I meet a proselytizing rationalist, I always think back to how even Spock admitted there were some problems logic could not solve.

Women?
.......

[Typo Lad]

Part of my problem with a study like this is how you do it.

What sort of prayers are you saying? What faith? To what deity? Who is doing the praying? Is that a factor? Is there a control group? How, exactly, can there be, if no two souls have the same sins/merits?

Simply put, I don't see how prayer is quantifyable.

[Ed Cunard]

Whenever I meet a proselytizing rationalist, I always think back to how even Spock admitted there were some problems logic could not solve.

Because you are a giant nerd.

It's why I love you so.

[Winslow]

Simply put, I don't see how prayer is quantifyable.

Where were YOU yesterday.

;)

[Typo Lad]

Where were YOU yesterday.

Trying to figure out if I hate French people because of a knee-jerk reaction or recent conditioning.

[Winslow]

Trying to figure out if I hate French people because of a knee-jerk reaction or recent conditioning.


For me it's the berets, and the nasally laugh.

I hate that.

[Drew Van T.]

Trying to figure out if I hate French people because of a knee-jerk reaction or recent conditioning.

Get to know French people...you know, real ones...and the answer comes quickly.

[darkkeeperjr]

These posts seem to contradict each other. Which is it? The evidence is too hard to gather, or there is no evidence?


The gathering of evidence to counter his arguements would be time consuming.


The evidence of why i belive could be told ,but wouldn't be accepted by some others belief system. Therefore no evidence.

[darkkeeperjr]

[. Given his prior posts, I doubt he has as eloquent of an explanation as you do. :)[/QUOTE]


If i knew how to spell a quarter amount of the words i want to use , it may be half as eloquent of an explanation as above

[Hoss]

Simply put, I don't see how prayer is quantifyable.

right. Cause if those people weren't praying to Jesus then they were praying to the Devil and that explains why they didn't do so hot. :D :D

[Hoss]

Get to know French people...you know, real ones...and the answer comes quickly.

Yeah, they're all smelly snobs and their women don't shave.*


*For those who can't spot a joke - My step-father who raised me is a French national .

[Grazzt]

right. Cause if those people weren't praying to Jesus then they were praying to the Devil and that explains why they didn't do so hot. :D :D

Please, if Faust has taught us anything, its that the Devil is more likely to answer prayers directed to him. :p

[Typo Lad]

Get to know French people...you know, real ones...and the answer comes quickly.

Can I still hate the Irish?

[Joe Rice]

Can I still hate the Irish?

Yes.










.

[Michael P]

Please, if Faust has taught us anything, its that the Devil is more likely to answer prayers directed to him. :p
"I wish I had a Formula One Racer."

"That can be arranged..."

"Eh, I changed my mind."

"Bart! Stop pestering Satan!"

[Drew Van T.]

Yeah, they're all smelly snobs and their women don't shave.

That's what I mean...you don't pick up on a persistent lack of deodorant until after you get to know somebody.*


*still with the kidding, Jerry Lewis

[Paul McEnery]

right. Cause if those people weren't praying to Jesus then they were praying to the Devil and that explains why they didn't do so hot. :D :D
It always works for me. :evilsmile

[JeffreyWKramer]

Well, not to nitpick Jeffrey, but no, they would say "yomim". Which depending on context can mean "days", "years", or "generations". Much of this context is lost in translations.

And, what is meaning suggested in the original, or as close to same as we have?

[JeffreyWKramer]

The gathering of evidence to counter his arguements would be time consuming.


The evidence of why i belive could be told ,but wouldn't be accepted by some others belief system. Therefore no evidence.

So, we should take it on faith that your arguments are meaningful, and that somehow all of genetics, geology, geophysics, biology, paleontology and a bunch of other sciences are wrong, and you are right.

Yeah, great argument there.

[Winslow]

And, what is meaning suggested in the original, or as close to same as we have?

The argument over the time taken in the creation story has been around in the Christain Church at least since Augustine.

It's not a recent discussion based on Creationist theories.

Just so ya know . . . . .

[Grazzt]

The argument over the time taken in the creation story has been around in the Christain Church at least since Augustine.

It's not a recent discussion based on Creationist theories.

Just so ya know . . . . .

Really? What was Augustine's position on it?

[Michael P]

Really? What was Augustine's position on it?
If he was smart, it was "You people are asking the wrong f-ing question."

[JeffreyWKramer]

The argument over the time taken in the creation story has been around in the Christain Church at least since Augustine.

It's not a recent discussion based on Creationist theories.

Just so ya know . . . . .


No, but it's used to back up a lot of creationist "explanations" of why we should take the Bible as fact, when there is plenty of nonsense.

Besides, Genesis didn't originate with Christianity. I'm interested in the earlier draft.

[Drew Van T.]

The argument over the time taken in the creation story has been around in the Christain Church at least since Augustine.

It's not a recent discussion based on Creationist theories.

Just so ya know . . . . .

Did he have a beer too many while considering the shape of the italian peninsula? Did he take one nap or two after throwing up the Rockies? Did he feel up Eve prior to giving her the spark of consciousness? So many agonizing questions.

[Winslow]

Really? What was Augustine's position on it?

Augustine (and Origen) believed creation was an alleorical story.

He thought the time was relative to God, and since God is infinite, it has no human boundary.

[west3man]

So, we should take it on faith that your arguments are meaningful, and that somehow all of genetics, geology, geophysics, biology, paleontology and a bunch of other sciences are wrong, and you are right.

Yeah, great argument there.
Nah. I think dkjr was saying, more or less, that even God couldn't convince you that He's real.

[Paul McEnery]

No, it adds a level of illusion and decoration, at best. There's nothing innately wrong with illusion and decoration, of course, but it's better to not mistake such things for reality - and as such, it's better to deal with reality as it is, not as we wish it was.
Okay Jeffrey.

Rough day at work, so this is going to be sketchy. I knew I should have done this last night. :o

First thing: buried assumption is that culture is illusion and decoration. Fair enough, if that's what you believe, but culture most certainly is reality. Apart from anything else, it's codification of social relations and existential possibilities.

Any artist knows that culture -- symbolic structures -- have a life of their own. With good art, you're not in control of the work, the work is in control of you. You're a conduit for the self-determination of memes, if you like.

Given that symbolic structures have a life and even a pseudo-volition of their own, it's well to engage with them. What I'm finding in your argument with authoritarian religion -- and God knows if there's one person on the board who understands your point about pathological religion and its wounds, that would be me -- is a category error about what you're doing when you apply materialist scientism to religion (strangely enough, I find the same in Dennett; surprise!).

This is where West is very nearly right in calling science a belief system (which it isn't, but...). The scientific method is a tool, and it produces utilitarian conclusions within a specific framework. However, there are areas of prediction it can't touch -- like chaotic weather systems. That's because it relies on the fundamental tool of rationalism.

However, rationalism isn't the best tool for all jobs. In the last analysis, it's a simplified model that allows us to make decisions; like the ego, it excludes enough information to make it possible to function. But that only produces rational truth; the heart, as they say, has its own reasons.

When rationalism speaks to chaos, it can only reduce chaos to rationalism's own terms -- which innately falsifies. It's at this point that the category error occurs. What seems to be the analysis of a system is actually two domains of discourse conversing -- at the level of discursive conversation, and not of analysis. This is my truth, now tell me yours, sort of thing.

Which is to say, the level of objective truth has been left behind, and we are now talking in terms of epistemological space: the kinds of information and existential position available to particular models. Which sounds like saying one is objective and the other subjective, but I don't think that's the case. It's perfectly possible to be objective about emotional and cultural issues, but you have to use different tools than, say, a slide rule.

Basically, this takes us to Wittgenstein's insight about language games. Each game has different rules and allows us to experience different things.

[Fenris]

To repeat a response to West, sometimes a gentle push can help persuade, other times a hammer works better. Overall, it's better to have both. This argument here, and my general approach, the hammer. It gets the attention of those who ignore the gentle push. There are plenty of other gentle-pushers, and I don't see them making much progress on their own. So, I'll pick up a hammer.

We're your friends, Jeffrey, not your plywood.

Or, more precisely: we're your friends, Jeffrey, not a captive audience for your social experiments.

[darkkeeperjr]

So, we should take it on faith that your arguments are meaningful, and that somehow all of genetics, geology, geophysics, biology, paleontology and a bunch of other sciences are wrong, and you are right.

Yeah, great argument there.

Damn! how did i wind up standing against all the sciences of the world?

Oh. By saying i belive in GOD.

Then yes you should take on faith that everything you belive is bullshit and i'm right!

[Drew Van T.]

Basically, this takes us to Wittgenstein's insight about language games.

A schoolteacher gave his class an algebra problem. He gave them some information about a farm and the students had to work out the total number of sheep in a field.

They struggled for twenty minutes, then the teacher got impatient. He picked up his chalk and started to write on the blackboard, saying "suppose that X is the number of sheep in the field..."

A boy in the front row immediately piped up "But Sir, what if it isn't?"




( It's as good a defense of the irrational as any, Paul. It just needed a gratuitous Wittgenstein joke. :D )

[JeffreyWKramer]

Nah. I think dkjr was saying, more or less, that even God couldn't convince you that He's real.

If so, I dunno what the heck that has to do with the arguments he was making before, about science being all wrong when it comes to things like the age of the earth, evolution, etc.

[JeffreyWKramer]

We're your friends, Jeffrey, not your plywood.

Or, more precisely: we're your friends, Jeffrey, not a captive audience for your social experiments.

I'll state the views I wish, thanks. As long as I do so within CBR rules, that's my call. Nobody's captive. Everyone is free to take part, or read, or ignore as he or she wishes.

[JeffreyWKramer]

Damn! how did i wind up standing against all the sciences of the world?

Oh. By saying i belive in GOD.

Then yes you should take on faith that everything you belive is bullshit and i'm right!

Another stellar - and grammatically stunning - argument.

I'm still waiting to hear about how science is incorrect about the age of the earth, how all the genetic and fossil information which confirms evolution is incorrect, etc. Please, either inform us, or stop acting like you have a real argument beyond "I believe this because that's what I believe, so there."

[Fenris]

I'll state the views I wish, thanks. As long as I do so within CBR rules, that's my call. Nobody's captive. Everyone is free to take part, or read, or ignore as he or she wishes.

When your friends tell you that you're being unfriendly, and your response is that you have a legal right to be unfriendly... that's a bad sign, Jeffrey.

I don't know what's going on with you; but this is a terrible idea, and I wish you'd stop, because I like you. That's all.

[JeffreyWKramer]

Okay Jeffrey.

Rough day at work, so this is going to be sketchy. I knew I should have done this last night. :o

First thing: buried assumption is that culture is illusion and decoration. Fair enough, if that's what you believe, but culture most certainly is reality. Apart from anything else, it's codification of social relations and existential possibilities.

Any artist knows that culture -- symbolic structures -- have a life of their own. With good art, you're not in control of the work, the work is in control of you. You're a conduit for the self-determination of memes, if you like.

Given that symbolic structures have a life and even a pseudo-volition of their own, it's well to engage with them. What I'm finding in your argument with authoritarian religion -- and God knows if there's one person on the board who understands your point about pathological religion and its wounds, that would be me -- is a category error about what you're doing when you apply materialist scientism to religion (strangely enough, I find the same in Dennett; surprise!).

This is where West is very nearly right in calling science a belief system (which it isn't, but...). The scientific method is a tool, and it produces utilitarian conclusions within a specific framework. However, there are areas of prediction it can't touch -- like chaotic weather systems. That's because it relies on the fundamental tool of rationalism.

However, rationalism isn't the best tool for all jobs. In the last analysis, it's a simplified model that allows us to make decisions; like the ego, it excludes enough information to make it possible to function. But that only produces rational truth; the heart, as they say, has its own reasons.

When rationalism speaks to chaos, it can only reduce chaos to rationalism's own terms -- which innately falsifies. It's at this point that the category error occurs. What seems to be the analysis of a system is actually two domains of discourse conversing -- at the level of discursive conversation, and not of analysis. This is my truth, now tell me yours, sort of thing.

Which is to say, the level of objective truth has been left behind, and we are now talking in terms of epistemological space: the kinds of information and existential position available to particular models. Which sounds like saying one is objective and the other subjective, but I don't think that's the case. It's perfectly possible to be objective about emotional and cultural issues, but you have to use different tools than, say, a slide rule.

Basically, this takes us to Wittgenstein's insight about language games. Each game has different rules and allows us to experience different things.

Word games is right. Your argument, I mean.

Of course culture is real. And as such, myths and fables and symbols exist as real things. However, the content of the myths - the stuff I'm talking about - stuff like "God and angels and stuff like that really exists " is not true. They don't exist, except as concepts which are not reflected in actual, physical reality.

So, yes, of course religion is real, in that it exists. But the content of religion? No, that stuff doesn't really exist, except as concepts. And concepts of things that don't actually exist can be interesting - hell, I love myths and superhero comics and stuff like that - but they shouldn't be mistaken for reality... which is my argument all through this.

As to rationalism failing in the face of chaos, I take it you don't think much of chaos theory?

Me, I'll stick with the stuff we have evidence for. I don't find chaos particularly scary. I regard it as just more stuff to try to understand, and think about what more we might learn as we figure it out.

[JeffreyWKramer]

When your friends tell you that you're being unfriendly, and your response is that you have a legal right to be unfriendly... that's a bad sign, Jeffrey.

I don't know what's going on with you; but this is a terrible idea, and I wish you'd stop, because I like you. That's all.


I've explained it as best I can, at multiple points in the thread.

Me, I don't consider it "unfriendly" to point out the difference between nonsense and reality. It can be jarring, no doubt, and I wish that wasn't the case, but them's the breaks. People often don't like to hear things expressed bluntly, but I think that's the most effective way for me to frame this argument and discuss this matter.

But hey, I like you, too, Richard. Hell, I don't hold any personal animosity toward anyone in this thread, though I have a lot of animosity toward a couple of the alleged arguments some folk are making.

[Gorthaur]

Or perhaps darkkeeper could make actual arguments and address the ones I make, rather than expecting that brilliant statements like "Bah! the tools designs to see how old the earth is wrong" are gonna carry the day.Oh, I don't know. I think this board could always use more posters who borrow their verbal presentation from Dr. Doom.

[Joe Rice]

I've explained it as best I can, at multiple points in the thread.

Me, I don't consider it "unfriendly" to point out the difference between nonsense and reality. It can be jarring, no doubt, and I wish that wasn't the case, but them's the breaks. People often don't like to hear things expressed bluntly, but I think that's the most effective way for me to frame this argument and discuss this matter.

But hey, I like you, too, Richard. Hell, I don't hold any personal animosity toward anyone in this thread, though I have a lot of animosity toward a couple of the alleged arguments some folk are making.

So it doesn't matter if your friends think you're being unfriendly, it only matters how you feel. That's nice. Totally awesome.

[Typo Lad]

And, what is meaning suggested in the original, or as close to same as we have?

While there is some debate, the majority of texts I have studied uses the "generational measurement" explanation. Mind you, I am not a Scholar in the true sense. And this debate is not minor. Recently several "hard core" Jews were so offended by a book explaining how the redactors of the Talmud did not have access to modern scientific method and, among other shocking facts, stating that "days" was allegorical that they demanded it be banned.

Cooler heads did prevail, btw.

If he was smart, it was "You people are asking the wrong f-ing question."

Grasshopper is wise.

G-d doesn't need us fighting to make sure everyone believes His word. That's up to them.

[Typo Lad]

I think, at this point, I am going to take myself away from this thread.

Jeffrey, I respect your right to believe or not believe as you wish. I suppose I'm just a tad curious why it seems that you don't respect people's rights to believe.

Still, I'm not curious enough to stay here as this rapidly turns into a flame war.

Good night all.

[JeffreyWKramer]

Jeffrey, I respect your right to believe or not believe as you wish. I suppose I'm just a tad curious why it seems that you don't respect people's rights to believe.
People have the right to believe what they wish. Not all beliefs are equal, though; some make more sense than others.

[darkkeeperjr]

Another stellar - and grammatically stunning - argument.

I'm still waiting to hear about how science is incorrect about the age of the earth, how all the genetic and fossil information which confirms evolution is incorrect, etc. Please, either inform us, or stop acting like you have a real argument beyond "I believe this because that's what I believe, so there."


I have already said that i have no "real" argument for you. I'll just state that i believe in GOD and the power of prayer!
:p

[Joe Rice]

I think, at this point, I am going to take myself away from this thread.

Jeffrey, I respect your right to believe or not believe as you wish. I suppose I'm just a tad curious why it seems that you don't respect people's rights to believe.

Still, I'm not curious enough to stay here as this rapidly turns into a flame war.

Good night all.

Wise, Typo. I believe I'll follow suit and allow Jeffrey to prove his critics right.

[JeffreyWKramer]

So it doesn't matter if your friends think you're being unfriendly, it only matters how you feel. That's nice. Totally awesome.

Does it matter? Yes. Feelings do matter. But sometimes the right thing to do pisses some people off, or hurts feelings.

I think I'm doing the right thing here, and I'm doing it in the way I think is best.

Some obviously disagree, which is their right, but it's not gonna dissuade me from my POV on this one.

[JeffreyWKramer]

I have already said that i have no "real" argument for you. I'll just state that i believe in GOD and the power of prayer!
:p


I have no problem with you admitting that, but that wasn't what you were arguing a couple pages back.

[JeffreyWKramer]

While there is some debate, the majority of texts I have studied uses the "generational measurement" explanation.

Not sure I'm following - the consensus of Talmud scholars is that the seven days talked about in the Book of Genesis means "seven generations" or something like that?

[Guapo Méndez]

I'll state the views I wish, thanks. As long as I do so within CBR rules, that's my call. Nobody's captive. Everyone is free to take part, or read, or ignore as he or she wishes.


We get that you don't believe. We get that you're a science guy. Hey, if I didn't understand english, I'd still get it.

But your tirade is tiresome. You're like the anti-smoker in the smoking thread, the vegetarian in the meat-eater thread or the non-drinker in the beer thread. Your efforts to "convert" or "enlighten" fall flat on those not interested in conversion. You are not swaying anyone, but you sure are alienating them.

I missed your posts when you went away, but now I find myself skipping your posts more and more thinking "oh, boy...here comes another 'religion is nonsense' rant."

[JeffreyWKramer]

Oh, I don't know. I think this board could always use more posters who borrow their verbal presentation from Dr. Doom.

Hard to argue against that point.

[Paul McEnery]

That was the throat-clearing.

Okay, now the fun part.

Every cultural event depends on suspension of disbelief, whether its a football game, an election, corporate shenanigans, falling in love, liking Pespi more than Coke, etc.

What we try really hard to ignore is that so does our personal life. More precisely, so does our personal identity. Get under the hood, and it's a shambles. We are not even slightly the unified front that we claim. To put it another way: personal identity is itself a language game.

Take that up a notch: ditto our intimate relationships.

Up another level: our jobs, communities, social relationships, hobbies, etc.

Up another level: our nation, our world view, etc.

All of these are the combination of two things: 1) the genetic inheritance bequeathed us by evolution, and Darwin knows, that's far from a rational business; 2) the free play of cultural signifiers, which have evolved to parasitize the minds we have (hence the fact that winning teams wear red, for one trivial example).

So, while it's the case that we do have a quantifiable material existence, the other side is narrative, and non-quantifiable.

The way in which we negotiate narratives is by emotional and objective cues. If we don't pay the rent, bad things will happen. That much is clear.

What is less clear is the necessity of language games in maintaining social cohesion. And if we don't pay the language games, bad things will happen.

It doesn't matter whether or not you attach supernatural entities or grand cosmologies to these language games -- they still have a religious character. Ask anyone who's in the military, or trapped in a corporate job, or still in high school. The rules you have to obey are anything but rational, they embody both ideology and social structure (I mean, in high school there are very strict endogamy rules for dating; the nerd does not get to have the cheerleader; and now there are strict exogamy rules for the corporation -- and, of course, for the military :D ), there are codes for clothes (note the English schoolgirl not allowed to wear the strict muslim outfit), observances for the time of day that are stricter than the muslim prayers, all sorts of things.

These are the real stuff of religion. And to an extent, you're right. The angels and saints, the dogma and definitions of the divine are merely decoration.

Except that, of course, they aren't.

Again, application of a materialist epistemology fails to engage with the narrative truth of emergent pseudo-volitional structures. You know, like human personalities, which are epiphenomenal in brains, and strongly depend on feedback loops with the external world to achieve structural integrity.

I don't know why we should accept human personalities as emergent fluid narrative structures with a material base, and then refuse to accept gods and fairies etc.

Which is another place where you give the whole game away. You're working with a false, essentialist, materialist conception of divinity which the Christian West has foisted upon you, thanks to its roots in Parmenides and Plato (i.e. in a word, and in the classical sense, idealism). And just as we're not living in the world defined by the theists, we're not living in the idealist world, either.

I mean, I can see the trap. It's the American ideology -- theology, really -- of individualism that demands an idealist reading of the world. But, you know, that's not the real world either.

[SUPERECWFAN1]

There are things in this world we can't explain. Even those with tons of College Degrees can't explain some things or why something happens like it does.

[Typo Lad]

Okay, I know I just said I was done for the night, but I had to come in and say something.

Paul, if we ever, ever meet, I owe you some single malt.

You're all witnesses.

[Paul McEnery]

Word games is right. Your argument, I mean.

Of course culture is real. And as such, myths and fables and symbols exist as real things. However, the content of the myths - the stuff I'm talking about - stuff like "God and angels and stuff like that really exists " is not true. They don't exist, except as concepts which are not reflected in actual, physical reality.

So, yes, of course religion is real, in that it exists. But the content of religion? No, that stuff doesn't really exist, except as concepts. And concepts of things that don't actually exist can be interesting - hell, I love myths and superhero comics and stuff like that - but they shouldn't be mistaken for reality... which is my argument all through this.

As to rationalism failing in the face of chaos, I take it you don't think much of chaos theory?

Me, I'll stick with the stuff we have evidence for. I don't find chaos particularly scary. I regard it as just more stuff to try to understand, and think about what more we might learn as we figure it out.
You're missing a couple of important technical points.

One: rationalism is technically defined as linear logic. Linear logic (and math) fail us when we approach chaos theory. It's at this point that non-linear math (which depends upon irrational assumptions and tools) is able to describe complexity to some degree, although it really can't get much closer than describing parameters and assigning probabilistic outcomes.

This is the area in which human relationships -- and all human psychology, ultimately -- operate.

Two: "Gods aren't real" belongs to a different language game than "Gods do not have material, empirical, or quantifiable existence". The latter is objectively true within the scientific language game (indeed, much as I want the idea "Bendis sucks" to be scientific objective truth, it isn't; science is the only objective truth; even if, in fact, it's no truth at all, but rather the exclusion of falsehood).

Gods, fundamentally, are a mixture of collective fiction (which embodies social truth) and a series of roles and stories which one may inhabit. Whether your materialism cares for the idea or not, the voodoun practitioner who has been possessed by the spirit of Erzulie knows that Erzulie is real. Erzulie is real in precisely the moment that the worshiper is possessed.

[OzBat!]

It's perfectly possible to be objective about emotional and cultural issues, but you have to use different tools than, say, a slide rule.Haven't you been paying attention? It's a HAMMER, dammit!

[Paul McEnery]

And now that my sleeves are rolled up:

The distinction between religious and secular (or religious and material) is itself a religious distinction.

It comes precisely from Catholic ordinances when establishing the church, for the purpose of establishing the churches own domain of power. For instance, clerics (or indeed clerks) couldn't be tried by the state; they had to go to a clerical court. (Among other things, pissing Henry II off about this is what got Thomas a Beckett knocked off.)

Which is, of course, around the time that the Church began to interfere with reproductive rights, and the transmission of information, which are the same issue: property rights, and the right of inheritance.

The theological justification for this legal sidestep are the words of Jesus: render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's, and unto God that which is God's. Not that Jesus was in the least bit interested in the creation of 12th, 16th, 18th, or 21st Century nation states; in fact, he was making a statement about graven images, and the relative standing of demiurges and the Ain Soph, but let that stand.

There is a very real sense in which the separation of church and state, as it was intended by the framers of the constitution, is exactly a repeat of the European structure devised by European popes, only reversed; the point is to give freedom for European protestants from the now thoroughly established Church-State monopoly. But the understanding is exactly the same as that which established the Church-State monopoly in the first place.

Now let's look at the twin (triplet?) professions of priesthood, psychiatry and medicine for a second.

In primitive societies, both come under the general heading of "medicine men". I'll use the word "shaman" only if we're understanding that the specific aggregation of talents by Siberian shamans are not the same the whole world over. In one part of Central America, the medicine men and women come in 11 different flavours, some of which are directly related to herbal remedies, some to divination, some to ur-psychotherapy, some to community worshhip, and some to tribal knowledge, and so on. With that sense that "shaman" means a bunch of different things to different people, let's continue.

Now the Roman Empire at the time of Christ had all of these magicians and more; it was as bad as San Francisco or New Orleans. But Judaism had expunged those traditions in the pursuit of the abstract G-d. The repressed, of course, returns; the fission of shamanic roles had been absorbed into the fission of rabbinical roles; and naturally, especially in "millennial" times, the figure of the healing mystic returned.

I mean, we know that Jesus had competition because of the figure of Simon Magus (whom I suspect did not have a fair shake in the Bible). But such figures were also typical of Greek philosophy: Empedocles was a faith healer, as was Pythagoras, who was also several other shades of mystic.

Okay, so time passes, and IT&C decide to sort out the young religion and own it for themselves. The groundwork has already been laid for them by Paul's (and the early church's) incorporation of Mithraism into the doctrine. Now they can lay legitimate claim to both paganism and Judaism under the auspices of apostolic succession. So they create a solid political hierarchy, primarily by picking fights with enemies like Marcion and Valentinus.

On the other side, you've got the gnostic party people. We've got a typical dichotomous split here between authoritarian and permissive, butch and femme, right and left brain. And them gnostic fagguts got their asses whupped, and went underground like sensible people.

So there's your first piece of the puzzle: the creation of the hierarchy via the desacralization of the laity (and therefore the priesthood, too).

Next, you get Constantine realizing these people would make a lovely Republican Guard, so he takes them on. And pretty soon, you've got Gregory, with the best intentions in the world repurposing monastic discipline as discipline of Christendom: the seven deadly sins and the confessional are instituted via the desacralization of meditative practice.

This is how we build secularism. We take the practices of folk religion and strip them of real experiential meaning; turning them instead into mental straightjackets -- and then, of course, literal straightjackets, iron maidens, and god knows what all with the Inquisition.

Following that, we get Richlieu's French state, with the Church-State monopoly, and then the Revolution, with the inversion of throwing out all religion and replacing it with rationality, and a nice ten month year, as I recall. And we know how that turned out. More return of the repressed. The French state eats alive Richlieu's innovations and gives us psychiatry (qv. lots and lots of Foucault).

And, of course, America follows suit, only without that pesky universal emancipation, and with precious little more than lip service towards rationalism. Again, the old structures of Western individualism and clerical authoritarianism are well-inscribed; and now in new genocidal Puritan flavour!

And this is how we build the new secular order: a further desacralization of what was already bone dry of humanity or magic; the creation of the French disciplines of medicine, hereinafter to become the new American religion.

I mean, we can argue that shrinks and quacks are fully armed with scientific method; and that's true, up to a point; but something important has been lost over 1900 years of Christian tyranny, and 2300 years of Parmenidean tyranny: the vision of the personal, and of a living reality in which we participate.

The techniques may have improved, but priests, psychiatrists and doctors remain shrouded in the mysteries of their arts -- which most admit to be as much art as science; the patient (what a giveaway that name is!) remains a supplicant to the dark arts of which s/he knows nothing, hoping to have the fluence put on him/her. And the psychiatrist's office is the same (though now doubly) desacralized space as the confessional booth; and as we might imagine, the patient is now doubly objectified, both as a non-agent and as a reductified material object of the scientific gaze.

This double desacralization, far from being the overturn of Catholic power, is its apotheosis. What Foucault calls the Technologies of the Soul have now been ground fine enough to drop a spritual EMP bomb into the seat of the human divine.

And that's about the length and breadth of the hammer you're carrying there, Jeffrey.

Not, I think, something to be proud of.

[Paul McEnery]

Haven't you been paying attention? It's a HAMMER, dammit!
Oh, he may be The Hammer, but dammit, I'm Nexus the Liberator!

(shh. ixnay about the cutions-exay.)

[Hoss]

How come the guy arguing pure ration can't see how irrational his actions are compared to his stated goal? Despite every bit of evidence that his arguments are falling on deaf ears and that he is actually pushing people away from his beliefs, Jeffrey keeps going and insisting that this is the best way to bring people over to his viewpoint. It is almost as if he were displaying a zealots faith in a belief even when the factual evidence was pointing in the other direction.

[Michael P]

What's the line from Pratchett's Small Gods? "That kind of atheism is almost as good as belief?"

[DarkBlade]

People have the right to believe what they wish. Not all beliefs are equal, though; some make more sense than others.

All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others.

[Spackling Compound]

How come the guy arguing pure ration can't see how irrational his actions are compared to his stated goal? Despite every bit of evidence that his arguments are falling on deaf ears and that he is actually pushing people away from his beliefs, Jeffrey keeps going and insisting that this is the best way to bring people over to his viewpoint. It is almost as if he were displaying a zealots faith in a belief even when the factual evidence was pointing in the other direction.
A therapist uses a hammer to shatter the prison walls to liberate the client. Sometimes someone needs to decimate "bad religion" so the captive can breathe again, feel the sand beneath his/her toes and know that there is not a mad, red eye watching you and playing you like a checker.

I consider what he does and who he is and give him props here. I don't think he's exactly cursing the candle in the darkness but the darkness that is disguised as a candle.

[Night]

People have the right to believe what they wish. Not all beliefs are equal, though; some make more sense than others. Yes, beliefs that have to be defended by calling it's opponents names or adding the "hammer" approach usually are signs that a certain belief doesn't make sense (you know the every action and equal reaction stuff...). Another sign that a belief doesn't make sense is when people who should be supporting your belief start to argue against you.

The only belief system that makes scientific sense is agnosticism, which you aren’t showing. You are showing clear hatred for even the possibility of any god. That is not scientific. You seem to be setting yourself up to be the savior of science, science doesn’t need one. So, we should take it on faith that your arguments are meaningful, and that somehow all of genetics, geology, geophysics, biology, paleontology and a bunch of other sciences are wrong, and you are right.

Yeah, great argument there. Almost as good as this one…. People who have actually done controlled, scientific research into these matters. You know, with stuff like control groups, double-blind research designs, etc. Google it. Go learn something. Provides no more evidence but does a nice job of shifting the burden of proof off on someone else, not to mention it has the added bonus of taking a cheap shot at someone.

BTW. If you Google on a topic like this, you’ll find all the extreme views and little facts. In the end you’re just taking someone else’s word for it anyway. That is unless you actually participate in such types of experiments. I have much to say on the religion/science side of things, but you seem to not be ready to discuss it. So like the others I’ll save it.

[OzBat!]

Oh, he may be The Hammer, but dammit, I'm Nexus the Liberator!

(shh. ixnay about the cutions-exay.)Why, is the hammer's name Maxwell?

[Brian Cronin]

I have no problem with you folks taking issue with Jeffrey's points. But take issue with Jeffrey's points TO Jeffrey, himself.

Don't talk about him with other posters in this thread. It just isn't fair to him, when you can just as easily direct your points TO him.

-Brian

[Paul McEnery]

The only belief system that makes scientific sense is agnosticism, which you aren’t showing.
Not at all.

Jeffrey's accurately arguing against the straw man of theistic authoritarianism. But he's failing to take into account the mode of what for the sake of argument I'm calling the divine. That's reasonable, because his experience of theistic authoritarianism is irritating (to put it politely). But his experience of what for the sake of argument I'm calling the divine is null.

None of this argues to "agnosticism" which is the worst cop out of the universe.

[Solaris]

People have the right to believe what they wish. Not all beliefs are equal, though; some make more sense than others.

And who determines what "sense" is? You? Dr. Spock? My aunt Matilda?

Honestly, Jeffrey, YOU ought to know that "what makes sense" to people depends on the person, their perceptions, and their experiences. As you mentioned once, it made perfect sense to that schitzophrenic man to cut off his own balls, because he heard voices he thought were God telling him to do so. In such an extreme case, yes, the majority can look at that and say "that didn't make sense, because it caused him extreme harm." Yet, we can also look at a bystander who got run over and killed after pushing a child out of the way of an oncoming car and say "that made sense," even though the person died.

My point is, you're attempting to line up "making sense" with "lack of scientific proof," and assigning your argument more weight because you feel scientific data (or lack thereof, to be more precise) backs you up. Yet you aren't arguing the premise that "there's no proof of God," you're arguing "there IS no God." Paul summed it up better:

...Two: "Gods aren't real" belongs to a different language game than "Gods do not have material, empirical, or quantifiable existence". The latter is objectively true within the scientific language game...

Your arguments have left the scientific "current lack of evidence" behind, and moved into the realm of "there is no proof, therefore your arguments and beliefs are hogwash." Can you not see how, by moving into the latter argument, you have insulted numerous people here? Basically, you're telling them they have no rights to their beliefs, or are idiots for believing such, because YOU don't believe in God, Gods, an Afterlife, etc.

In other words, my friend, you are being a bigot (and I don't *care* that that word has been overused lately here---I looked up the definitions, just to be sure):

Merriam-Webster: Bigot: a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices

Cambridge: Bigot: a person who has strong, unreasonable beliefs and who thinks that anyone who does not have the same beliefs is wrong

Does *any* of that ring a bell?

The bottom line is, Jeffrey, our existence is both objective, and subjective. We attempt to use science to define our world and our universe in an objective fashion... yet each of us *experiences* that world in a *subjective* fashion as well---something that is as unique as our fingerprints.

I have personally had experiences that I would label "demonstrable to me of the existence of a God force and of our spirits being imperishable." However, I am well aware that said experiences are subjective: they came via my own perceptions, and I know of no way to reliably demonstrate them to others, much less to provide any kind of quantitative proof of them. Yet, to me they were very real.

Your viewpoint may label them as products of an active imagination, of some form of brain misfire, or wishful thinking convincing myself, or any other number of ways you might describe it. Since I can provide no proof, I don't *expect* you to believe what I believe. I respect your right to form your own opinions and yes, beliefs about God or the nature of existence or whatever.

You are not extending the same respect to other people. Instead, you are telling them their subjective experiences and beliefs don't matter, because they can't be proved to YOU, and further, that said beliefs have as much value as yesterday's garbage---less, actually, since the garbage can be weighed and measured.

You crossed that line when you went from "we have no proof for God(s), therefore I don't believe in them" to "There ARE no God(s), and anyone who believes in them is indulging in fairy tales and fantasy."

The former is a valid, legitimate viewpoint. The latter is bigotry, plain and simple.