Christianity - Plague of the MIND

[thalbergmad]

Jesus (8–2 BC/BCE — 29–36 AD/CE)

possibly, the Star of Bethlehem woz 7BC.

Thal

[prometheus]

I agree with you to an extent. Some people do use their religion as an exuse to do whatever they feel like. But I think that is more of a critisism against the individual person than it is against the Church.

Ok, lets be precise now. I have used this argument as well. And I think this argument is accurate. But only when it is aimed at the dogma and not the people themselves. Because this argument is about the dogma.

Christians aren't only christians. They are also humans. This means that they will never act in the way described. How sinful they are may not matter for this particular interpretation of christianity. It will matter for them as humans, just like all humans care about doing good things, eventhough that is subjective.

As for the church. You may want to think about why the church came up with this kind of religious dogma.

I have never encountered a church that preaches that sort of idealism.

I have seen people support it. Also, this dogma is old. It generally doensn't stand up to our more civilised ethics.

prometheus made an excellent point very early on in this discussion, saying that blindly complying with a religion is ultimatley harmful. But I think that can be said about politics, nationality, government, etc as well. If that was the point he was trying make, than I couldn't agree more.

Now, again, lets be careful. Being political active doesn't mean that you accept dogma by sheer authority. Actually, one could argue that if you do that you do something wrong. If you have democratic politics, for example, accepting dogma because of authority would mean it cannot be democratic.

But in religion it is often the case that you do accept dogma. It is exactly the point. It goes from up to down. One does not invent or discover religion for yourself, you accept the religion that is given to you. I mean, if you are going to invent a religion for yourself, what is the chance you one will come up with christianity? And even if you take all the religions that exist on earth and you pick the one you like most the chance that you end up with christianity is also quite small. Evenmore so because of the strange dogma christianity has.

So really it would be inaccurate to say that exactly the same happens in politics. Because in religion accepting dogma is essential, it is exectly the point.
It is the way it functions. In politics it will either be one of the many possibilities or an incident. You have political parties that expect their members the strictly follow the policies of the party.

With nationalism it is a bit different. It does come a lot closer, but still not quite. But let's not get into nationalism as well. Let me just say that I think nationalism is bad too(, which a few exceptions), for the same reason.

[berceuse]

Ok, this is starting to get difficult for me to put into words but I will give it a shot. The definition of dogma is a belief that is just accepted and cannot be disputed, which is used to describe the less-known. But over time, these lesser-know things became more explainable with writings such as St. Thomas Aquinas'Summa Theologiae in which contains the five arguments for the existense of God (unmoved mover, first cause, necessity, perfection, design) so as time goes by, the belief in God is not soley explained by dogma. I am in no way saying anyone should reject dogmatism, because somethings with never be explainable, Aquinas is showing the dogmatic views hold true (if that makes any sense). Keep in mind, the Bible was not written by Jesus, but by followers of Jesus, who could not put the existence and perfections of God into words. They lived during Jesus' life so when passing the word onto others, perhaps knowing they would not be believed, could only describe His existence by dogma.

As far as non-religions dogma is concerned, I think it is used in every facet of life. In politcs, one would hope to reject all forms of dogmatism but to assume an imperfect human is capable of this is nonsensical. Science even contains dogma, the scientific method could be seen as dogmatic considering Darwin, himself, had many doubts.

"How can Non-existence come from Existence? Existence alone existed in the beginning" - Hindu scriptures

I'm off to listen to some Arvo Pärt

[le_poete_mourant]

amen,

Maybe not as harsh as the way you describe it, but I can say I'm not the most religious person around

Me neither.  On Sunday, I went to a Catholic mass, the first time I have ever attended one.  (By blood I am Jewish, but my family is not practicing.)  I went to support someone who lost a very close relative six months ago; the mass was dedicated to that person. 

I am one of those people who believes that the Vatican, and many other religions are behind the times, and still attempt to use old advice to solve new problems, which simply will not work (e.g., on contraception & homosexuality, etc.). 

But the most important thing I saw, I liked.  Religion can give solace, comfort, and closure to people in pain.  There are not many things that can do that.  (Even music only goes so far.) 

Whether or not there is heaven, I do not know.  Lately, I have found myself thinking that perhaps there is some existance after this.  Perhaps I think this because I want it to be true.  But for those who truly and wholly believe in it, it is a great comfort to think that it is possible for them to be reunited with the ones they love. 

That's why I say Christianity is not a plague.  Unfortunately, it has been misused in the past to justify some very terrible things.  But doesn't the fault then lie with the people and not the idea? 

[berceuse]

Unfortunately, it has been misused in the past to justify some very terrible things.  But doesn't the fault then lie with the people and not the idea? 

This is exaclty what I was trying to say earlier but you put it into words better than I did. I'm glad to hear you had an uplifting experience at Mass.

[maul]

No.

[le_poete_mourant]

No.

No what?  I believe this is not what you originally said.  You are wise to have changed it. 

The idea is neither ridiculous nor stupid.  Neither are the people.  Indeed, how would you judge stupidity?  You are confusing stupidity with trust.  The people who follow the idea trust that it is at least true to some degree.  People have become less trusting, and that they still can trust religion is an admirable thing. 

What is stupid is snubbing other people's opinion simply because you disagree with it. 

[le_poete_mourant]

Look at what the fundamentals of Christianity were originally:
It was about generosity, kindness, charity, love. 

Isn't that a very intelligent thing to value?  Aren't those things what are most important in life?  Strip away the excess ideas, and these are what you are left with, and these are what Christianity has in common with many other faiths.  It just has a different method of approaching it. 

(apologies for the double post)

[prometheus]

But over time, these lesser-know things became more explainable with writings such as St. Thomas Aquinas'Summa Theologiae in which contains the five arguments for the existense of God (unmoved mover, first cause, necessity, perfection, design) so as time goes by, the belief in God is not soley explained by dogma.

Without getting too much into the arguments, which I think don't prove or disprove anything, the fact that they are made is unique. And yes, it would be something that contradicts that what we would expect from dogma. But how many christians do you think know arguments like these? And how many of them believe in god because of these arguments? In the end believing in god is exclusively dogma. And almost all that follows as well.

I am in no way saying anyone should reject dogmatism, because somethings with never be explainable,..

Uuh, do you mean that since something is not explainable we should just make up a fairy tale and make it dogma and accept that? How can you say one 'needs' dogma in such a case?

Aquinas is showing the dogmatic views hold true.

No he didn't. He showed that arguments can be made in support of dogma. And if we, for the sake of argument, presuppose his arguments are exactly right then it would only show that in some cases dogmatic views can be true. You say that all of them hold true.

But still this ignores the main point. If one of your views is a dogma then you accept it without critisism. It doesn't even matter if it is true or not. You don't want to know what is true or not. It is inherently unreasonable. The fact that it is probably true, maybe true, might be true, etc has no relevane at all.

Keep in mind, the Bible was not written by Jesus, but by followers of Jesus,

Actually, the NT was not written by the disciples. Let me give you the mainstream estimates of when the gospels were written:
* Mark: c. 68–73
* Matthew: c. 70–100
* Luke: c. 80–100
* John: c. 90–110

The writers of these works are unknown. But they were almost certainly not written by eye witnesses.

As far as non-religions dogma is concerned, I think it is used in every facet of life. In politcs, one would hope to reject all forms of dogmatism but to assume an imperfect human is capable of this is nonsensical. Science even contains dogma, the scientific method could be seen as dogmatic considering Darwin, himself, had many doubts.

There may be dogma's in non-religious aspects or life. Like in politics. But dogma is not the point of politics. Therefore it would be silly to attack politics in general because dogma can exist within it. I would be able to just attack the dogma. But dogma is the main point of religion. Religion equals dogma. I can't attack dogma in religion and not attack religion itself. Religion, at least those that we are talking about, is dogmatic in nature.

As for scientists. Claiming that science is dogmatic because Darwin has doubts absolutely makes no sense to me. I have no idea what you are talking about but having doubts is not a part of dogma; it is actually the opposite.

As for scientific method being dogmatic. Surely scientific method has proven its usage. The fact that we are able to talk with each other while being on other sides of the globe proves that scientific method works. So I don't see how scientific method is a dogma. If scientific method wouldn't have learned us anything of the world it would have been rejected long ago.  Scientific method has proven its worth. Also, there are still people thinking about how we can improve the method of finding out how nature works. The ideas in this field of philosophy are both new and old. People are still questioning scientific method. But most of this will be about specific and/or new fields of science.


Scientists don't care about dogma. Yes, scientists are human too and they do make mistakes. But they are of a very different nature then refusing to try to refute respectable scientific theories and being dogmatic. Nothing in science is holy.

[berceuse]

In regards to my comment about Darwinism as being dogmatic, this more or less is what I was trying to say.

"On another front, Michael Denton, an Australian biologist and self-described agnostic, has also challenged Darwinian faith. His book Evolution: A Theory in Crisis shows that evolution's intellectual foundations have been steadily eroding and that only a philosophical "will to believe" in Darwin remains. New findings of biology are bringing us very near to a "formal, logical disproof of Darwinian claims," Denton says."

Here's the entire article: (Doubts About Darwin: In the face of mounting evidence, more scientists are abandoning evolution.) https://www.apologetics.org/articles/doubts.html

[pianistimo]

prometheus, if you are so smart - how come you say Christ died 29 years after he died?  (actually, this is not your problem).  it's just something people wonder about.  why couldn't they count correctly.  it's like we know BC is more accurate.  but according to the calendar that is supposedly correct - he's alive several years before he's born and dead many years after he's dead.  maybe we want a year zero and that somebody thought people would be confused as to the date of birth or death if they just made it one point in time.  or was it two points?  did we ever literally have a birth date and death date - or was it combined into a zero point on the calendar. 

just wondering.  i rest my case after this.  prometheus, you may believe anything you wish. i am not trying to make you believe anything.  simply arguing my side lamely (as you say).  it doesn't really make me ashamed, though, because we are told to rightly divide the truth.  and, if you believe in God - you believe that is where truth is found.  it may sound like dogma, but to me it is real.  i would not know what goodness and truth were unless Christ explained it to me through the bible.  christian morality is not found in all civilizations.

now, i'm not saying that the ideal was always there in the supposedly 'christian' based civilizations either.  as you say - we are all human and have elements of humanness that won't go away until we die and are freed from this body.  but, if Christ died as a sort of 'first-fruit' then we also will be like his ressurrection as we are the 'fruits' that follow.  brahms wrote of this in his requiem.  that we fade like grass.  but, the husbandman patiently waits for the early and latter rains.  that would be Christ.  He is literally 'waiting ' for the harvest of mankind.  He doesn't want anyone to perish, but for all to have eternal life.  it is a gift and only one that He can give.

the disciples understood many things and passed things on verbally.  the beginning of each gospel says 'the gospel according to _____'  and fills in each disciple's name.  luke explains the origins best.  'inasmuch as MANY have undertaken to compile an account of the things accomplished among us, just as those who from the beginning  were eyewitnesses and servants of the word have handed them down to us, it seemed fitting for me as well, having investigated everything carefully from the beginning, to write it out for you in consecutive order, most excellent theophilus;'

now, as i understand it, the apostle john lived the longest and wrote not only the gospel of john but the book of revelation.  perhaps he was greatly used in the transcribing of literal texts from each disciple and also finding scribes to help him?  i don't really know.  i think i'll look into it.

perhaps the word 'dogma' is less important than 'faith.'  faith isn't exactly knowing ahead of time what you will be facing or how you will deal with something.  you get to the moment and you put it in God's hands and say 'let me understand, or help me, or heal me, or protect me.'  you don't know the outcome for certain - but you have 'faith' that 'all things work together for good for those that love God.'  we know this because God's word always proves faithful and true.  His own prophecies of Himself coming were in isaiah and even back to moses time - when he said a prophet of their own people would come - and to listen to Him.

as i see it, we have a choice to focus soley on the nature of God or the nature of ourselves and our need for an Almighty.  someone much bigger and stronger to help us live our lives as we were created to.  (to have a divine spirit placed within us).  if you believe you are just like the animals - then there is no sense that we are special or have any responsiblity to live according to any rules of any sort.  sort of a non-sensical existence.  i do not believe this, but would agree that we are not to judge one another on beliefs.  simply to 'rightly divide the word of truth' - and if we are on the side of faith - to not doubt our faith simply because someone else says 'that's dumb.  or they take it on blind faith - therefore they cannot think.'  what if God is wiser than all mankind put together?  what if His wisdom is infinite and we can step into His frame of mind by simply asking Him questions and waiting for responses or asking for Him to reveal His mind through His Word?   

[prometheus]

In regards to my comment about Darwinism as being dogmatic, this more or less is what I was trying to say.

Oh, you were talking about Darwinism. Well. it is not that strange that Darwin had doubts. He had just created a new field all by himself. He did not have time and resourches to test his new theory. He did not know about DNA, that would have been discovered much later on.

Fact is that no one adheres the form of darwinism Darwin himself formulated and contrary to creationist claims like that site you gave me, no one has been able to refute darwinism.

The site you give me. It is called 'apologetics', it talks about creationism. It is not a scientific course. I don't really feel like picking apart all the things, and total non-sense, creationists have put on the net. But I see one argument being made against darwinism. It is one that has been refuted. It does not just claims there are not enough transitional fossils. It claims there are none. All this comes forth from the idea that the fossil record can give us a conplete record of how evolution happened. We will never know because the fossils do not exist.

A transitional fossil is a transitional fossil when the ancestor and far-offspring have already been found. But it is just as much a complete creature in its own right. It is just the way we have the snap shots of the evolution. This goes for the way we categorize species based on fossils as well. There is nothing special about that state in evolution, except that we find a fossil of exactly that point. So because of the nature of fossilization we will always find huge gaps inbetween the creatures we find. Sometimes they are so big that we can't even identifiy their ancestor. This is not something that is wrong with evolution. It is something that is 'wrong' with the fossil record.

So saying that evolution cannot be true because we don't have complete knowledge of the development of all creatures that even lived on earth is silly.

Also, for a long time creationists are claiming that Darwinism is on the way back and that it will soon collapse from inside out.
If it collapses a scientist, not a creationist, will collapse it. I think that the main principles of darwinism will hold, just like Newtonian vs Einsteinian laws.
But creationists are just saying this to bully you into their camp. There is no crisis in darwinism. There are a lot of doubts and questions and research is being done, by scientists.

At the same time creationists can't even postulate an alternative. They know just as little as 4000 years ago. And in 4000 years they will still now nothing more than 'god did it'.

Even if god 'did it' I want to know more. Actually, just because 'god did is' sounds so amazing and strange I want to know more. How, why, when, etc. To me 'God did it' means exactly the same as 'I don't know and I don't care, I have god.'

Here's the entire article: (Doubts About Darwin: In the face of mounting evidence, more scientists are abandoning evolution.) https://www.apologetics.org/articles/doubts.html

Which mounting evidence? I didn't read the whole article but the only thing I read was transitional fossils, which I went into and they hinted at 'new developments in genetics, biochemistry', etc.
I also get the feeling this article may be 15 years or so old because of the dates inside


Also, I don't want to counter all the sites you can find. If you post more sites then I will post sites of my own. If you are willing to read the sites and base your own arguments on them then I will reply. I can't refute everything that people put on the internet.

[prometheus]

prometheus, if you are so smart - how come you say Christ died 29 years after he died?

Because everyone thinks that Jesus died 29 years after you think he died.


I don't care what you believe. The problem is that one cannot have an argument with you, regardless of what you believe. Even if you agreed with about everything I say I would still have to give up.

if you believe you are just like the animals - then there is no sense that we are special or have any responsiblity to live according to any rules of any sort.  sort of a non-sensical existence.  i do not believe this,

If you don't understand why one would take all responsibility for her or his life then surely you must be the exception of the rule that says that while humans are animals, they also have unique special properties.

Also, I don't believe I am an animal. Everyone knows that we are both animals.

[outstretchedarm]

hi people....first time poster, long time lurker (probably because blues piano is more my thing than classical) 

I've been following this thread, and have seen it progress a bit one-sided-ly.  I thought I'd throw myself into the mix.  As a minister and a seminarian, I enjoy this sort of thing...

There have really been way too many assertions made to address in one post, so let me just put forth my point of view, very succintly, and then I invite you to ask questions/provoke/flame me 

1) It is very possible for a reasonable, educated, and psychologically healthy individual to be a disciple of Christ, aka a Christian.

2) The Bible is actually a very reliable document, well-thought out one might say, that is, both internally consistent and consistent with external historical documents.

3) The Bible is reliable both in its ancient forms and in its modern translations.  This is because we have literally thousands of manuscripts, and literally millions of people who can read these original languages.  I for one can read Biblical Greek (but not Hebrew).

4) This faith is a meaningful way of life, not because it is a cohesive thought system (though it is that), but because it represents a powerful relationship with a very interesting and provocative person God.

How can I hold these views?  You'll just have to engage the thread and find out 

till later,
O

[johnny-boy]

Outstretchedarm,

I think you’re just the breath of fresh air this thread needs. I'll be following this thread for sure.

Best, John

[wishful thinker]

The atheist states that God does not exist.
The faithful say that he does.
The atheist says that he cannot see Him.
The faithful says he has. 

[thalbergmad]

2) The Bible is actually a very reliable document, well-thought out one might say, that is, both internally consistent and consistent with external historical documents.

Welcome to the forum long time lurker.

My question is, are there any documents apart from the Bible, that give credence to the Crucifiction?

Thanks

Thal

[outstretchedarm]

Good question. 

Here it is.  I'll also supply links if you want to investigate further:

1) There is this testimony from Tacitus, in his "Annals":
"Christus, the founder of the name, was put to death by Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judea in the reign of Tiberius: but the pernicious superstition, repressed for a time broke out again, not only through Judea, where the mischief originated, but through the city of Rome also..."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacitus_on_Jesus

2) The second is from Lucian, in his "The Passing of Peregrinus"
"Then, too, their first lawgiver persuaded them that they are all brothers...after they have thrown over and denied the gods of Greece and have done reverence to that crucifed sophist himself and live according to his laws."
https://www.tektonics.org/jesusexist/lucian.html

3) Thirdly, we have the historian Jospehus, in "Antiquities" XVIII, iii, 3
"About this time appeared Jesus, a wise man (if indeed it is right to call Him man; for He was a worker of astonishing deeds, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with joy), and He drew to Himself many Jews (many also of Greeks. This was the Christ.) And when Pilate, at the denunciation of those that are foremost among us, had condemned Him to the cross, those who had first loved Him did not abandon Him (for He appeared to them alive again on the third day, the holy prophets having foretold this and countless other marvels about Him.) The tribe of Christians named after Him did not cease to this day."
https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08375a.htm

There are perhaps a dozen more primary sources referring to Jesus that still survive, but these refer to his death, which is what you requested.

Hope that helps.

[prometheus]

1) It is very possible for a reasonable, educated, and psychologically healthy individual to be a disciple of Christ, aka a Christian.

Yes, but not because a person is reasonable.
Plus, being a disciple of christ does not make one a christian by modern standards. Because then all muslims would be christians. Now I do view both religions as jewish sects but most people view it differently because they put a lot of emphasis on little details. One must not only accept that Christ is god herself. But one most also accept that the only way to salvation and heaven is to accept Christ as your personal savior.

2) The Bible is actually a very reliable document, well-thought out one might say, that is, both internally consistent and consistent with external historical documents.

The bible is not reliable. For example genesis claims that birds were created before 'land animals'. Which is wrong. It also claims that grass, a flower-type plant, was created before all animals were created. Which is also very wrong. Of course you can try to bend the interpretation so far as to claim that it does make sense. But you can't read the bible and expect to learn about the things it tries to tell you about.


The bible also contadicts itself.
There are two stories about creation in genesis, chapter one and two both tell of the events of the creation. But in one Adam and Eve are created together and in the other  Eve is created out of Adam's rib.

If you read the account of the cruxifiction of christ and compare what the different gospels have to say then it also does not work out. Matthew and Mark claim Jesus his lasts words were "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" John says they were "It is finished" But then Luke claims, "Father, into thy hands I commit my spirit." So we have four people that make three different statements about Jesus his lasts words. The only way it could be more inconsistent was 4 out of 4. So 3 out of 4 is not very good to say the least.

The bible claims that pi equals 3. This is also false.


There are more things in the bible that are not right. But I can't quote them right off the top of my mind. There are things in the bible that contradict historical records about the history of the region.

The fact that some things in the bible are reliable doesn't mean it is all right. I have seen Pianistimo make this claim. Because of the nature of the bible it is based on actual stories and actual events. Just like the story of the Illiad. The story is fiction but Illium probably existed. These stories all get a life of their own and develop on their own. Illium may have existed, though some still doubt it. The event of the Troyan war is doubtful also. Maybe there have been many wars and the story doesn't tell the story of any of them. Maybe it does tell the story of a long siege. But then, does anyone believe that all words written down about Achilles his speech are totally correct?

Not to forget that there are indications that the bible has been deliberately edited for political gains. If you know something about power and politics then this is what one would expect.

3) The Bible is reliable both in its ancient forms and in its modern translations.  This is because we have literally thousands of manuscripts, and literally millions of people who can read these original languages.  I for one can read Biblical Greek (but not Hebrew).

You already made that point. But you added another argument. I don't see what the number of people that can read the text have got to do with the reliability of the text. I could go into an Reductio ad absurdum but I really don't see any need for it. This statement obviously makes no sense.

I can already point out translation mistakes.

4) This faith is a meaningful way of life, not because it is a cohesive thought system (though it is that), but because it represents a powerful relationship with a very interesting and provocative person God.

No one can tell me what god is. So I don't understand the nature of this relationship. How can you have a relationship with someone, or something I don't even know which word to use, you don't even know?

[prometheus]

Good question. 

Here it is.  I'll also supply links if you want to investigate further:

1) There is this testimony from Tacitus, in his "Annals":
"Christus, the founder of the name, was put to death by Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judea in the reign of Tiberius: but the pernicious superstition, repressed for a time broke out again, not only through Judea, where the mischief originated, but through the city of Rome also..."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacitus_on_Jesus

The obvious problem with is is that Christ is a title and not Jesus his name. They crucified a king or influencial person of some nature. Whoever this person was is not known. This is in the same way that Ceasar doesn't mean Julius. The wiki article points this out.


Also, one would expect to read that this person was somehow resurrected after his death.


Lucian's The Passing of Peregrinus, isn't that a satire? Isn't it a pagan view of christianity?

As for Josephus:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus_on_Jesus#Testimonium_Flavianum

[thalbergmad]

Thank you outstretchedarm for your answers.

I will do some further reading for i am indeed a non - believer.

I guess though that believing in Christ is probably more a question of faith than research.

Thanks

Thal

[johnny-boy]

Maybe I’m missing something here but…

I can’t understand why atheists completely rule out creationism, but accept “random chance” theories. If an atheist found an old manuscript of a great piece of music, and the author was unknown, I’m sure they wouldn’t think this creation occurred through random chance. They would have no doubt it was created by someone.

However, the greatest work of art ever created; mankind, with the complexities that boggle the most intelligent minds on Earth; the atheist chooses to believe it came to be by accident or some “Big Bang” random choice theory rather than by an intelligent Creator (God).

Best, John

[jolly]

Manmade. Fear used as tactic to develop morality. 2,000 year old hand picked madness. Outdated ridiculous theories. Brainwashed from birth. Spread like virus. Modern caveman thought. Subconcious splintering. Limiting factors of technology. Boundaries, not infinity. Money.

Continue.

Don't have to.

It is quite evident that you are scared of God, or you wouldn't have bothered to denigrate religion so.

Life changes perspective...have a nice day.

[prometheus]

Uuh, no one thinks the bible evolved, all think it was written. So your analogy about finding an old music manuscript goes wrong.

As for 'chance theory'. There is your problem. You do not understand the theory of evolution. At least not the Darwinistic version.

So why would anyone understand a theory they do not understand? That's the question you need to ask yourself. Your problem lays not with those who adhere Darwinism but with your own lack of understanding of Darwinism.

The point is that Darwinism doesn't operate throught chance. It merely uses chance to create possibilities. Then they are selected. Natural selection isn't random.

Even if you can't imagine it to be true, I can't even say I can. I just don't try because I cannot trust the judgement it creates. We know for a fact that darwinism occurs in nature. The question of if we can imagine it or not is totally trivial and irrelevant.


The fact that you put the big bang in with this also shows your ignorance because it has totally nothing to do with Darwinism.

The fact that, I think, I have pointed this out to you before is probably the worst part, if I do actually remember this correctly. Evolution does occur, but in this case the nature of our debate is exactly the same as before.


Also, I don't completely rule out creationism. I don't have to. It is not impossible that Extraterrestial intelligence vitised earth and genetically manipulated the an ape ancestor into what today is human. But if you look at the evolution of humans there are some problems. Humans learned to walk upright long before they became truely intelligent. Humans already looked exactly like humans and they were pretty smart, before they became really smart. I am talking about the step from Habilis to erectus and then to sapiens. I don't see some huge big leap. The problem is that the hole in the fossil record isn't big enough. If extraterrestial life interferred in an attempt to create intelligent life then they did not leave the unambigious mark of creation. It looks like evolution.

But it is totally irrelevant if it is not excluded or not. It is not probable. Therefore it does not matter. There are billions of things that are not excludable but that are totally improbable and which no one ever gives any thought.

[outstretchedarm]

Thank you for your thought, Prometheus.

Allow me reply, hopefully as respectfully and kindly as I can.  

You said: "But one most also accept that the only way to salvation and heaven is to accept Christ as your personal savior."

I'm perfectly fine with that, because the Christ of the Bible is fine with it.  After all, it wasn't christians, rather Christ, who said, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No man comes to the Father except through me." (John 14:6)

You said: "The bible is not reliable. For example genesis claims that birds were created before 'land animals'. Which is wrong."

- Why is this wrong?  Because it contradicts a theory that you hold to be true with religious fervor.  The only way we could be sure which was created first would be if we were there and recorded the incident.  In the absense of that, any theory which claims to explain the order of events with certainty (I assume you're using the theory of evolulution here) are being just as dogmatic as the religious folk.

You said: "The bible claims that pi equals 3. This is also false."

- I'm unfamiliar with the text that claims this.  I'd want to study it context.  Why is context important to me?  Because the most importatn aspect of studying an ancient document is to understand the original intent of the author.  I often explain this to my science-oriented friends: you have to understand a document in terms of what it is trying to accomplish.  

Thus, we must ask ourselves "what is the overal intent of the Bible"?  The answer is that the Bible attempts to give a man sufficient information to bring his/her soul into sync with God, through Chist.  That's it.  So its a bit unfair to evaluate the Bible in terms of what it is not trying to accomplish.  That would be like saying "Don Quixote is a horible book because it fails to properly represent the state of chivalry in the late middle ages."  Well, um, guess what?  That's not the purpose of "Don Quixote."  Its purpose is to entertain.  The Bible's purpose is to save.

You said :"There are things in the bible that contradict historical records about the history of the region."

- Such as?

You said: "I don't see what the number of people that can read the text have got to do with the reliability of the text. I could go into an Reductio ad absurdum but I really don't see any need for it. This statement obviously makes no sense."

- My statement was "The Bible is reliable both in its ancient forms and in its modern translations.  This is because we have literally thousands of manuscripts, and literally millions of people who can read these original languages."  Why does this not make sense.  I make two claims:

a) The bible is reliable in its modern form.  By this I mean that the reader of a modern bile, be it in an english translation or an original language, can with great confidence read it knowing it says what it said two thousand years ago, that is, what the original authors wrote.

How do we know this?  Concerning the New Testament, as I mentioned,there are literally thousand of extant manuscipts, spread out all over the world, that are centuries old.  Why is this relevant?  Allow me a loose metaphor.

Imagine an alien civilization came destroyed all human life.  Afterward, they wondered what our computing was like.  They do their archeology and find there are some computers that have this Windows program on it.  But one alien protests.  He says, how do we know this is what they really used?  And how we know this is what Windows was really like?  How do we know these weren't just a few techie weirdos who cracked the source code and made their own windows.  But they look into it, and upon research they find millions of more operating systems, spead out over 6 continents, from which, a few aberations aside, they must conclude that they windows they have discovered represents what these humans must have been using, because the likelihood of broad-scale tampering is highly unlikely.

This is the field known as Textual Criticism.  It is a highly scientific field.   I had to study for part of a semester back in school, which was boring at the time, but now I'm glad I did  .  Suffice to say that the conclusion of TC is that the New Testament that we hold in our hand today is 99.8% representative of what it was 2,000 years ago.  And regarding the .2% fluctuation (Variant readings), there is no doctrine at stake.  Read more about textual criticism here: https://www.bible.org/page.asp?page_id=1221

In regards to the Old Testament, interestingly, we have even more certainty.  If the Old Testament has been tampered with ad naseum, as critics claim, why were the Dead Sea Scrolls uncovered 50 years ago, whcih were handwritten 1800 years go, to reveal that the text was virtually unchanged?  Literally-- the DSC version of the book of Isaiah has only 17 different characters from the Masoretic text (9th century) of the Book of Isaiah.

b) I said millions of people can read these languages.  Why is this relevant?  because we have the ability to look at the texts and understand them.  They're not in an alien language.  Are you suspicious of the english tranlation you have in your hand?  Fine.  Enroll in class, study greek or hebrew, and study the manuscripts yourself.  Go to https://www.ntgateway.com/resource/image.htm.  Here you will find an image of every known manuscript of the New Testament.  You can compare the Sinaiticus with the Alexandrian text with an Nestle-Alland 2nd edition.  There's nothing to hide!

You said "Not to forget that there are indications that the bible has been deliberately edited for political gains."

- What indications?  That would be like Tony Blair trying to change the Bible for political ends.  Let'em try.  There are just too many extant copies spread too far around for him to be remotely effective.

You said "How can you have a relationship with someone, or something I don't even know which word to use, you don't even know?"

um...no.  You don't Him.  Its bad science to assume that because you don't know a being, therefore noone can know this being.  You are arguing from the instance to the universal, which is bad logic.  As for me, I do know Him.  

You said "The obvious problem with is is that Christ is a title and not Jesus his name. They crucified a king or influencial person of some nature. Whoever this person was is not known. This is in the same way that Ceasar doesn't mean Julius. The wiki article points this out."

- Which is why I included three references, not one.  

Hope that's helpful to all you readers.  This has been fun for me.

[prometheus]

- Why is this wrong?

Because it contradicts observations. The fossil records clearly show that animals only 'came into being'. Depending on how you define bird the first bird only occurded 120 to 80 million years ago. So there were animals living on land before birds came into existence.

Because it contradicts a theory that you hold to be true with religious fervor.

It's an observation. If you reject this then you throw all of geology out of the window. If you do that I will give up.

The only way we could be sure which was created first would be if we were there and recorded the incident.  In the absense of that, any theory which claims to explain the order of events with certainty are being just as dogmatic as the religious folk.

You claim one can know nothing about something unless one was there to observe it? That is total non-sense.

- I'm unfamiliar with the text that claims this.

1 Kings 7:23

The answer is that the Bible attempts to give a man sufficient information to bring his/her soul into sync with God, through Chist.  That's it.  So its a bit unfair to evaluate the Bible in terms of what it is not trying to accomplish.

By telling us stories about an all mighty entity that forces people to commit genocide?

- Such as?

For example the exile from Egypt. The story claims that the Pharaoh died in the red sea when the passage closed. But nothing of this is found in Egyptian records. Same for the 40 years walking aimlessly through the desert.

can with great confidence read it knowing it says what it said two thousand years ago, that is, what the original authors wrote.

If you define reliablity that way... I though we were talking about historical/factual accuracy. Still, no one has the original texts. Also, new texts are being discovered or are lost. Like the gospel of Judas that was recently found. And the Dead Sea Scrolls quite a while ago. We don't have the original texts and meanings of the bible.

Imagine an alien civilization came destroyed all human life.  Afterward, they wondered what our computing was like.  They do their archeology and find there are some computers that have this Windows program on it.  But one alien protests.  He says, how do we know this is what they really used?

You claimed that one can not know anything unless one was there to record the events.

But if we ignore this it will only prove that people used windows, or the bible. The question is how reliable the bible is. This element does not even exist in your analogy is it will be useless.

As for interpretations. A theologist once told me he knew 77 interpretations of the fist two scentences of Genesis 1. Sadly I do not have all 77 of them. But surely you can't deny that there is strong disagreement and discussion on the meaning of the biblical text. Just look at all the different kinds of Christianity.

This is the field known as Textual Criticism.  It is a highly scientific field. 

Are you sure what the word means? The use of scientific method doesn't mean something is science.

Ok you are going off on a tangent here. If you want to discuss these elements of the bible you will have to find someone else. They have nothing to do with the things I want to say. And I have no interest in discussing them.

- What indications?  That would be like Tony Blair trying to change the Bible for political ends.  Let'em try.  There are just too many extant copies spread too far around for him to be remotely effective.

That would be Tony Blair trying to fit the definition of terrorism.
One cannot truely know if the bible was edited or not because one can not exctract from the text itself who wrote it. But people try by analysis the structure of the text, the numberings of the paragraphs and the vocabulary.

um...no.  You don't Him.  Its bad science to assume that because you don't know a being, therefore noone can know this being.  You are arguing from the instance to the universal, which is bad logic.  As for me, I do know Him. 

Well, then you are the first person. I also think the bible claims that humans cannot know god, which is why Christ exists.
Up until now I only knew it was something that is all powerful, everywhere, eternal and holy which are meaningless words.

[outstretchedarm]

Why are these words meaningless?  I could give you a defiition of each of these words, one by one.

As far knowing God, you're right, without Christ he cannot be known.  But the good news (the "gospel") is that through Christ, we can know Him.  This relationships saves us.

Heb 8:11 "No longer will a man teach his neighbor,
      or a man his brother, saying, 'Know the Lord,'
   because they will all know me,
      from the least of them to the greatest."

John 17:3 "Now this is eternal life: that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent."

Deuteronomy 34:10 "Since then, no prophet has risen in Israel like Moses, whom the LORD knew face to face."

Relationship with God, who created us and knows us, is key.  Why is this so unreasonable?

[maul]

It is quite evident that you are scared of God, or you wouldn't have bothered to denigrate religion so.

It is quite evident that you are afraid of the truth, and logic. You push it aside because your scrambled neural connections just... can't... grasp it. Infact your response reveals the backwards nature of the mush we call your brain, indeed. It simply makes no sense, and it saddens me. I don't believe in your manufactured God... you know... the one that has been stabbed into your brain the day you were born like a rusty knife. Watch out for the tetanus. No, I don't have to be afraid of your ridiculous fairytales in order for me to be a good human being. SURPRISE SURPRISE. Sorry old buddy old pal.

[outstretchedarm]

nasty.  is that how people on this forum talk to each other?

[prometheus]

Why are these words meaningless?  I could give you a defiition of each of these words, one by one.

Because being all mighty, all knowing, do not only contradict each other. They also are absurd in their own right. Something cannot be all mighty. I think I already went into this in this topic. Just look back.

Relationship with God, who created us and knows us, is key.  Why is this so unreasonable?

That's not a relationship. At least in the general sence no one would ever recognise that as a relationship. You need to know the other, in this case, god as well. You must interact with someone for there to be a relationship.

[outstretchedarm]

why is two persons, though of different natures (one spiritual and one natural) interacting with each other with love and conversation not a relationship?

later on, after work, I'll make some time to be with Him.  I'll read His book, He'll encourage me, give me new strength for the rest of the week.  I'll articulate how good he's been to me, and thanks for what he's done.  This is not only relationship, it is the very form of relationship from which all other relationships should take their cue.

Pretty simple.  I go to Him.  He loves me, I love Him back.  Nothing illogical about that.

[ada]

noooooooooooooooooooo

Prometheus please stop it, you're just coaxing them out of the woodwork 

They're multiplying! Like broomsticks in the Magician's Nephew!

[thalbergmad]

This is beginning to sound like the monkey trial.

Thal

[outstretchedarm]

The only difference is that I'm not out to change anyone's belief.

I simply want want atheists and scientists to acceed that an intelligent person can believe in God.  I don't necessarily even want them to believe in God.  But the rhetoric, such as the one that started his thread, insinuates that anyone who believes in God is an idiot and/or psychologically unhealthy.  To this I must protest.

I can see why an intelligent person would be an atheist/darwinian.  I simply request the same respect in return, for one to say "I don't believe in God, but I can see why an intelligent person who believes they have experienced Him would."  But rarely do they return the same courtesy.

[prometheus]

I can see why an intelligent person is deluded. It has nothing to do with intelligence.


Anyway, if we apply your definition of a relationship then someone obsessively reading Harry Potter has a relationship with Harry Potter. Or maybe with the writer. Both are possible.


When I  talk about a relationship I talk about something else.

[outstretchedarm]

I can see why an intelligent person is deluded. It has nothing to do with intelligence.


Anyway, if we apply your definition of a relationship then someone obsessively reading Harry Potter has a relationship with Harry Potter. Or maybe with the writer. Both are possible.


When I  talk about a relationship I talk about something else.

if harry potter objectively came out of the book and began changing said reader's life, then I would say that person has a relationship with harry.  However, I've never known this to happen.  I have seen God change my life over the years.  In fact, I'm much more certain of His existence than of any of yours.  After all, I just met you cats today, and the only thing I have to go on is pixels on a screen.    

When somebody (especially some stranger on the web) tells me my God doesn't exist, its sorta like a stranger telling me my mother doesn't exist.  I lived in her womb, nursed at her breast, felt her loving touch.  She's a huge part of my life, and so is God.  I've experienced Him almost every day for years now; we have history.  It just supercedes all your cute thought experiments. 

[thalbergmad]

Lovely words.

If you have that kind of relationship with God, i am envious for i have not.

Thal 

[ramseytheii]

The only difference is that I'm not out to change anyone's belief.

I simply want want atheists and scientists to acceed that an intelligent person can believe in God.  I don't necessarily even want them to believe in God.  But the rhetoric, such as the one that started his thread, insinuates that anyone who believes in God is an idiot and/or psychologically unhealthy.  To this I must protest.

I can see why an intelligent person would be an atheist/darwinian.  I simply request the same respect in return, for one to say "I don't believe in God, but I can see why an intelligent person who believes they have experienced Him would."  But rarely do they return the same courtesy.

In Ohio, where a nationally watched Governor's race is taking place, it is getting truly ugly.  Political religion has gotten so overblown here, that the Democrats put up a preacher, Ted Strickland, to fight against the slimy Secretary of State Kenneth Blackwell, who recently reassured voters he wasn't going to be a religious fanatic, since he believes in "religious liberty," meaning for him, in his words, "People have a right to be wrong."  By People, I assume he means atheists, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, probably Catholics, and every other religion that is not born-again Evangelical Christianity.   It sparked an interesting opinion column about how in America, or at least in Middle America, the "Heartland," "Christian" in politics really refers to one kind of Christianity, the Bible-thumping, morally legistlating, unforgiving Evangelical Puritanism that has swept the country at various times.  Even in the times of Emily Dickinson, in New England, born-again Puritanism was all the rage.  It dies and comes back.  Unfortunately we are experiencing a nauseating upheaval.

Any atheist that sees believers as idiotic, or psychologically unhealthy, is fundamentally insecure about their own choice of beliefs.  Noam Chomsky said courteously, "I find no reason to believe in God," though he didn't criticize anyone who did; but the reverse is also true, that there is no reason not to.

Walter Ramsey

[ramseytheii]

Maybe I’m missing something here but…

I can’t understand why atheists completely rule out creationism, but accept “random chance” theories. If an atheist found an old manuscript of a great piece of music, and the author was unknown, I’m sure they wouldn’t think this creation occurred through random chance. They would have no doubt it was created by someone.

However, the greatest work of art ever created; mankind, with the complexities that boggle the most intelligent minds on Earth; the atheist chooses to believe it came to be by accident or some “Big Bang” random choice theory rather than by an intelligent Creator (God).

Best, John

If a Big Bang created the univerise, wasn't that the most intelligent bang that was ever sounded?  Sorry, but why is a scientific theory about the origins of everything the opposite of an "Intelligent Creator," (I use scare quotes because in America that refers purely to Evangelical Christian God, not anything else, no matter how much proponents of Intelligent Design try and say otherwise). 

Furthermore, if this "Creator" is so intelligent, why are 99% of all species who ever walked the planet Earth extinct?

Walter Ramsey

[outstretchedarm]

the brand of christianity you described (in your first post) also concerns me deeply.  I don't subscribe to it.   I'm not a right-winger, which is why in my first post I discussed being a disciple of Christ, as opposed to christianity, because I wanted to avoid the political baggage that "christianity" now carries in the West.

I do believe in social action, but I don't believe policy changes people's hearts, which is why I am a prison chaplain and not a politician.

I want people to see another side to christianity, of a people who are loving, spiritual, and in tune with a realm that western pragmaticism has written off as imaginary.  A people who choose to be different from the selfish grain of our society, and instead follow the way of this spiritual master, Christ, in a lifestyle that is built around mercy and grace and, even more revolutionary, is other-centric.  Our culture needs deep people who can perceive what the ancients knew was always "right there."

A people who say, there is another kind of power to be tapped into, one that is not material, but spiritual.  the Bible discusses this "power," revealing it to be not a thing, not a force, but a Person, with mind, emotion, and desires.  Which to me is much more interesting, He is a lover to be pursued and, much like a human person, you never have Him totally figured out.

This is the exciting spiritual journey.

[prometheus]

if harry potter objectively came out of the book and began changing said reader's life, then I would say that person has a relationship with harry.

Ok. Wait. You make two statements. First off, if Harry Potter can change someones life or not. Surely he can. And since so many people read Harry Potter books I am sure it has happened. But Harry Potter jumping out of the book? I am not sure but I think Harry Potter books don't have images.

But what you are implying is that God did jump out of your bible. And that all those people that are christian are justified in being christian as long as God also jumped out of their bible.

If this is true then it will not be that hard to observe god jumping out of a book. And if this does actually happen and it is observed then scientists can research on how this happens.

[prometheus]

  Noam Chomsky said courteously, "I find no reason to believe in God," though he didn't criticize anyone who did; but the reverse is also true, that there is no reason not to.

Actually, I was a bit suprised to find out that Noam Chomsky and I agree on this subject since I based most of my though on people like Dawkins.

Let me quote:

CHOMSKY: You could be an intellectually respectable atheist in the 17th century, or in the fifth century. In fact, I don’t even know what an atheist is. When people ask me if I’m an atheist, I have to ask them what they mean. What is it that I’m supposed to not believe in? Until you can answer that question I can’t tell you whether I’m an atheist, and the question doesn’t arise.

I don’t see anything logical in being agnostic about the Greek gods. There’s no agnosticism about ectoplasm [in the non-biological sense]. I don’t see how one can be an agnostic when one doesn’t know what it is that one is supposed to believe in, or reject. There are plenty of things that are unknown, but are assumed reasonably to exist, even in the most basic sciences. Maybe 90 percent of the mass-energy in the universe is called “dark,” because nobody knows what it is.

Science is an exploration of very hard questions. Not to underrate the theory of evolution, that’s a terrific intellectual advance, but it tells you nothing about whether there’s whatever people believe in when they talk about God. It doesn’t even talk about that topic. It talks about how organisms evolve.


So this is why I say I am not an atheist if you define one as someone who believes god does not exist. That's what I said. I do not believe in god and I also do not beleive god does not exist. This is because I do not know what god is. There is no theory of god that is falsifiable. Therefore there is nothing to consider. I have asked outstretchedarm to tell me what god is. But she/he didn't do it, sadly. Until that happens I cannot consider the question.

So saying that Chomsky claims that there is no reason not to believe in god contradict that what he said in this interview.

Also from the same interview:
ON STEVEN JAY GOULD AND “NON-OVERLAPPING MAGISTERIA"

CHOMSKY: Steve Gould [was] a friend. But I don’t quite agree with him [that science-and-religion are “Non-Overlapping Magisteria”]. Science and religion are just incommensurable. I mean, religion tells you, ‘Here’s what you ought to believe.’ Judaism’s a little different, because it’s not really a religion of belief, it’s a religion of practice. If I’d asked my grandfather, who was an ultra-orthodox Jew from Eastern Europe. ‘Do you believe in God?’ he would have looked at me with a blank stare, wouldn’t know what I’m talking about. And what you do is you carry out the practices. Of course, you say ‘I believe in this and that,’ but that’s not the core of the religion. The core of the religion is just the practices you carry out. And yes, there is a system of belief behind it somewhere, but it’s not intended to be a picture of the world. It’s just a framework in which you carry out practices that are supposed to be appropriate.

Again, I have no problem that people believe in god. I have a problem with the line of thoughts they may use to come to the conclusion. For example outstretchedarm claims that there is some special condition that makes it reasonable for her/him to believe in God, but as till yet she/he has not been able to explain it.

If someone tells me "I believe in God." And then I tell them "But that is irrational." and then the person answers "Yes, but that is called faith." then I don't really have anything to bring against that. I would react in the same way if someone tells me she/he believes in fairies or dragons.
It changes when this person makes all kinds of silly conclusions based on this. There is also a problem when this person prefers irrationality over rationality.

Why? I don't think humans are rational creatures. We have a hard time being rational. I try to be but I am probably not aware of much of my irrational behavior. Therefore it would be hypocrisy for me to attack someone on an incident of irrationality, As long as they are aware of their irrationality and they try to treat their incident of irrationality as reasonable as possible I can't really blame them for anything.

Also, I don't have to refute arguments I think are incorrect, because none are made. And this is what outstretchedarm is doing. So I have to respons.
 

[johnny-boy]

noooooooooooooooooooo

Prometheus please stop it, you're just coaxing them out of the woodwork 

They're multiplying! Like broomsticks in the Magician's Nephew!

Them? We're compassionate human beings. I not sure what you are.

John

[ramseytheii]

Shoot, I forgot prometheus was here.  I have got to quit misquoting Chomsky. 
Though I don't think I misquoted him, it will be hard for me to prove.  I remember this statement coming from some video or another, vaguely my memory tells me a lecture he gave at a university in Colorado?  But I could be wrong about this.  I will search the banks and see if I come up with anything.  In the meantime, thanks for the information!

Walter Ramsey

[pianistimo]

chomskey wouldn't mind because you're not an evangelical.  he'd only mind evangelicals misquoting him.  that's because his father was an ultra ultra orthodox jew.  and, we all know how close in thinking they are to other left-wing liberal thinkers.  (not sure this makes sense).  well, they do stare into space a lot - and sometimes don't answer questions.

i think it all boils down to respect.  if you don't say please and thank you too much (as quantum pointed out in another thread) you don't appear to be too 'righteous' for everyone else.  in fact, if you purposely act stupid once in a while - then the people on the other side might allow you to randomly one-up them.  even if they do know all about math and science. 

the purpose of misguided thinking is to confuse the opponent.  thus, winning due to confusion.  watch any intelligent person.  they don't even have to rely on intelligence.  it's more work than simply making a statement that is really confusing.  take 1=.99999

now in religious terms - God makes the confusion for us.  He says 'faith comes by hearing and hearing by the Word of the Lord.'  so, if you read the bible and someone is arguing with you that hasn't read the bible - then it's like two people (one having read a math/science textbook) and one not understanding the higher concepts due to not even having gotten past the first few pages.

[pianistimo]

i suppose that i could say i'd rather talk to an atheist about religion than a person who has beatific visions every week.  the believability factor is just more there for a person sincerely wanting to understand the factual evidence behind the smallest matter in the universe (which i understand to be spirit). 

for myself - i constantly refer to benjamin franklin.  i'm entranced by how electricity works.  i am much more interested in electricity than water or air.  although all these things are important.  i think it was the electrical box that i saw at the franklin exhibit that sends out these different types of currents.  you can literally watch all day.

did you know franklin came up with the idea of player pianos?  well, that's not this thread's topic - but i think he also believed in God.  he was a scientist, you know!

[ada]

Them? We're compassionate human beings. I not sure what you are.

John

I have no doubt that you are compassionate.

I also have no doubt that you are seriously deluded if you interpret the bible literally, especially the waaaaaay left of centre stuff like Genesis and Revelations.

I'm not going to buy into any asinine argument about whether or not god exists.

I don't have a problem with people having faith. I do however have a big problem with evangelicism, biblical  spamming and people who try and bring creationism into the classroom, and that is where my compassion ends, because what you are doing is dangerous and insidious.

I had heard about a US-based movement to teach creationism in schools a few years ago but I had never come across a real creationist before.

Thanks to PF I now have proof that it isn't a joke created by people who want to make Americans look stupid.

To understand people who can believe in creationism, or any kind of religious fundamentalist, including terrorists, it's necessary to get scientific (I know, science is anathema to you mob) and look at the neurology of belief.

One way that belief becomes embedded in the brain is through constant, low-level repetition, such as chanting, prayer and rituals. This repetition actually changes the way our brain cells are wired by reinforcing certain synaptic connections. ie, it is a passive form of indoctrination.

You'll find this a common brainwashing tactic of cults and this is why an embedded belief is almost impossible to shake, because it has literally become hardwired into the brain.

Other forms of thinking, such as communicating, working out mathematical equations or making moral decisions is achieved through a process of logical deduction, ie, we sift and evaluate new information in a wider context of what we know. ie, it is active.

These are not my ideas but those of scientists at the Oxford Centre for the Science of the Mind in the UK.

So the point is you can't argue with a religious fundamentalist, just as you can't argue with someone who believes they've been abducted by aliens. So this entire thread is pointless.

It may be possible to re-wire brains the brains of creationists through therapy like CBT. But this would raise a bit of an ethical issue...

[prometheus]

I have no doubt that you are compassionate.

I also have no doubt that you are seriously deluded if you interpret the bible literally, especially the waaaaaay left of centre stuff like Genesis and Revelations.

I'm not going to buy into any asinine argument about whether or not god exists.

As far as I can remember I think his faith was quite abstract. But he seems to have some problems with science and also atheists.

It is also quite possible that he is trying to provoke us.

But whatever we are we can be sure you and I and Johnny are exactly the same.


As for Chomsky on god. I think the stuff provided was the only think I have ever heard him speak on God. So it would be interesting if you can find what he said in the lecture you heard.


As for brainwashing religious people to counter the brainwashing or delusion they may have, I don't think it will be any improvement. They will remain brainwashed. I also think that falling in love is a delusion and may even be a mental disorder. But I do not think that these people should be forced to receive treatment. People do have the right to be wrong and deluded.

If they can't be reasoned with then maybe their children or their grandchildren.
Or maybe it will never happen. In that case we get what we deserve. And in terms of the destruction of the human race. Let's hope we don't cause any damage to the earth in the process. Maybe humans turning back into animal-like society will in the end be a good thing eventhough we don't like it now.

[pianistimo]

you mean go on all fours and eat grass.  that sounds more mental than falling in love.  i'd say it's only the first few weeks before and after marriage.  you do stupid things.  then, you become real again - until deluded again - and then real - then deluded - then real.  it's a cycle. 

i was thinking about electricity and circuits and simplistic thinking.  really, for people like  me (and i may have my own category) it's an advantage.  people know what to expect, for one thing.  and, if i make a mistake - it will be the same one three times in a row.  that's very reassurring - to some people around me.  now people who have these complex neural connections extending to mite dendrites in the furthest reaches of what would be gray matter in my head - they have to reach out - retrieve - and then follow all that path backwards.  it takes a certain amount of time.  for me, everything is quick.  therefore - i can get about 5 things accomplished in the time it takes (say, my husband) to find the keys.  but, if i need a complex answer - i just ask him. 

there's advantages to each type of person.  i think, also, just so i don't sound glib - that ministers (such as outstretchedarm) who are regularly kind and patient and loving are very necessary to prove the gospel is not just a gospel to the weak of mind - but to every aspect of humanity including intellectuals.  Christ referred to them as the 'rich.'  but, He did say that it was harder for a rich man to enter the kingdom - and said we have to unload that camel's burden to get through the eye of the needle (or tight space).  basically, giving up our loads to God so that we can enter the kingdom.  that tight space is the narrow one through Christ.  there is no other way to enter the kingdom of God.  not for the rich, the poor, the wise, the stupid.  in fact, a very stupid person could inherit billions (spiritually speaking) - if they kept their mouth shut and just listened.  God will have to forgive me for a lot of 'strange speak' - but it won't be without a lot of scriptures inbetween.  of which, He will like the fact that i DID repeat the Word.  and, it did prove effective. 

[berceuse]

As for brainwashing religious people.....

I have a quick question. As you claim any religious person is brainwashed from birth, how do explain this sudden growth of Christianity in China (as much as 600% in some provinces). This is happening in a country that goes as far as arresting anyone who is Christian. They harass any believer and demolish any of their churches. They also create organizations to control the any spread of Christianity. The government condems any sort of religious practice and promotes aetheism (through brainwashing?) in newspapers, on television, billboards, and whatever else.  So how can you claim the newly converted are brainwashed into believing Christianity when they are having atheism pushed on them by everyone including their government from the day they were born? Some sort of divine intervention perhaps?