Religion survives by indoctrination of children shocker...

Mike, I can smell the vein in the side of your head pounding away, so to calm you down, here is a picture of a lovely fluffy kitten playing with some string.

Perhaps worth pointing out that not all Christians view homosexual acts as sinful. So much heat generated by this inessential point. I actually agree with Mike D on this one - Christians (the ones with issues, at any rate) need to take a long hard look at their attitudes to sexuality, and "get over themselves".

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Lacey:
I did wonder if "hate the sin, love the Sinner" would be too subtle for you, to be honest. Then again, you may be deliberately missing the point.

Simpler ( maybe ) anaology: I may hate tap dancing. You may be a tap dancer, but you are not "tap dancing" per se and this would be no reason to dislike you.

The sin is not the Sinner.

Some questions.

Do you as a Christian believe that homosexuality is a sin?

Do you as a Christian hate homosexuality?

If no to the above, do you sympathize with other Christians who do believe that homosexuality is a sin and who hate homosexuality?

Thanks,
Daniel

quote:

then correctly they shold have advised you to pray and repent

Ah yes, prayer: how to do nothing and think you're still helping.

I am constantly amused by the way in which religious apologists always see the argument for the atheist point of view and then ignore it, only to recycle the argument THEY have made previously, as if the point had not been made.

Example: It is demonstrably true that homosexuality is a perfectly natural and therefore "normal" condition that represents roughly 10% of any mammalian species (including humans) right across the board. It's in the genes.

Non-awareness of this small bit of general knowledge can properly be called ignorance, in this case.

The "Dalai Lama" seems not to know this salient fact, otherwise, why would he describe it as "sexual misconduct"?

Ergo: he is ignorant. Also bigoted, though he tries to disguise his bigotry in a cloak of dewey-eyed smiling "holiness"....


I await a religious rejoinder regarding the Dalai Lama's views on gay sex to be defended once again, further down the line, by a religious victim once again, missing the point.


Nice kitten.

The religious response to human disaster:

There's this swivel-eyed nut case -
http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2...r/entry6092717.shtml

and a response from our own "official" version Mr Sentamu on R4 this morning that Robertson shouldn't say these things because jesus wouldn't like it (or somesuch drivel) - not a word about what a lot of ridiculous bilge the man talks, almost as if he agreed with Robertson that it was somehow "god's judgement".

Also, an interview with some American "christian missionaries" on Haiti who were, what, staying to help out because of their deeply felt humanity that springs out of their "faith" (which of course, you need before you can do any moral acts of any kind)?

No. Getting on a plane and leaving...

PS: No doubt praying in the plane on the way home. So that's O.K., then.

Blimey! I see Mr Dudley’s still ranting on with this thread. All very strange - 70-odd posts of invective on this and related topics, much of it presumably designed to provoke and irritate the religious amongst us, and on a specialist Hi-Fi Forum!

Isn’t it all a bit odd? What’s the motive? If it’s to persuade folk to become atheists Mr Dudley has somehow overlooked the importance of not antagonising one’s audience when trying to get one's viewpoint across. Or perhaps he needs to convince us he’s intellectually astute? Sadly, failed.

Still, perhaps he’s listening to some nice music when he's on the computer.

This is not a HiFi forum.

Mike,

You call the Dalai lama an ignorant bigot but you admire Dan Dennett - what a chump you are.

The Dalai Lama's view may well be coloured by the fact that Tibet had many monastic universities each housing upwards of 10,000 monks and who had taken vows of celibacy (for good reason)and where it was obvious over time that homosexual acts were not conjucive to spiritual development - it is not a judgment per se (especially not one based on hate)just common sense based on the experience of countless abbots in hundreds of monasteries over hundreds of years witnessing the fact that monks in homosexual relationships don't progress spiritually as fast as those who are celibate.

quote:

spiritual development

Which is.... what, exactly?

I am very sorry that Mike Dudley has chosen to use the terrible occurrence of the Haiti earthquake as a cheap and rather callous shot to illustrate his increasingly desperately-expressed p.o.v., rather than to express any empathy or concern for the poor people involved.

I realise that with his sense of intellectual and moral superiority he delights in calling people of faith (quote) "imbeciles", and thus that they are incapable of any thought process beyond that of the average 5-year old.

But the 'faith' view of the world is somewhat different and more sophisticated than the childish infant school characature with which he has sought to endow it in order to suit his argument (whilst leaving totally unanswered many points that have been put to him in this and other threads).

Speaking from a mainstream Christian perspective, ‘creation’ isn’t just something done once, long ago, by God, by the wave of a ‘magic wand’. Creation is an ongoing process by God (he invites us to be part of it, through human love and procreation, for example).

The process of ongoing creation is a very complex one, which happens through huge physical forces like volcanoes, storms and earthquakes - observed by scientists and described in the laws and theories of physics, chemistry and biology. (The claim of a fundamental conflict between religion and science is a red herring, and a simplistic one at that).

And when it comes to the mystery of human existence, neither is God the ‘great puppet master in the sky’, controlling and determining our every move. He has given us the greatest gift of love – freedom – free will, freedom to choose.

The forces responsible for the earthquake (tsunami/volcano/etc) are the very forces of nature that have moulded and shaped and sustain the beautiful world as we know it today. These forces cannot simply be ‘switched off’.

Those who lost their lives, or who have suffered so terribly, have not done so because of an uncaring or even callous God. They are, sadly, victims of a catastrophic event in the natural world. And God loves them – dearly - in an eternal rather than merely temporal perspective.

But even God can bring something good out of tragedy and disaster - for example in the tremendous acts of courage that took place during the terrible event, and in the generous response of those of us who have watched this tragic situation unfold before our eyes. This is something that calls for an immediate generous response now in the first instance, to bring the basic necessities of food, water, clothing and shelter; and a continuing generous response over many months and indeed years to enable the rebuilding of lives and communities.

Mike - I believe in freedom of speech. I may not agree with you but - as they say - I would die to defend your right to say it (which is part of this Country's great freedoms for which so many have given their lives in the face of totalitarian anti-faith regimes). From all you have said, and the way you have said it, I am not sure you would do the same for me.

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Dudley:
[QUOTE]spiritual development

Which is.... what, exactly?[/QUOTE

Perhaps if you have to ask you really are not going to understand the answer.

Anyway, FWIWhere Wikiepdia has a bash. I rather like the idea that spirtuality can relate to pluralism and atheism and has an introspective quality, to do with the development of inner happiness and self awareness. It also relates to those ideas and concepts that are full of 'awe and wonder' or worthy of 'veneration'. You'll read that spirituality and religious practice are not equivalent.

Personally (as an atheist) my spirituality encompasses my emotional responses to situations and dilemmas as well as my own sense of wonder at human life, in all its poorly understood glory.

Last week a very elderly patient of mine who appeared quite well decided to die. She had little wrong with her in concrete terms that might end her life but she was just ready to 'check-out'. She arranged a visit from a solicitor to re-write some parts of her Will and died 24hrs later having rung various members of her family to say goodbye. I've no idea if she was religious but I'd say she reached a place of inner peace reflecting her spiritual as well as her personal life.

Bruce

The evidence for a god who is in any way involved in the evolution of the universe, from the formation of stars to the action of geological fault lines on earth and all points in between and outside, does not exist.

I fail to understand why you continue, in the light of this, to state an obvious fairy story as if it were a fact.

I can only conclude that you do not understand the difference and conflate the two due to some sort of malfunction.

Example: If this "god" of yours, who is so loving and caring and so on, has produced this universe over time (no evidence), why is it "designed" to kill and maim humans in disasters like Haiti, given that it's "creator" loves us so much?

Like everything else in religion - none of it stacks up against the facts.

Millions of christians the world over believe in the "literal truth" of the book of Genesis which, as you know, states that "god" created the world in six days which is as near to waving a magic wand as makes no difference. Leaving aside questions such as - why six days? Why not five, or twenty-six, or instantly? - you might want to inform these hordes of their mistake in the light of your current hypothesis.

At least they are sticking to their religious principles in accepting the whole book as true, instead of cherry-picking the bits they like and leaving the bits that don't fit in with current secular ethics and discoveries...

Be assured that were I put in that position, I would quite happily fight to maintain the freedom of speech that we enjoy against, for instance, the sort of religious idiocy that seeks to curtail it and bind all into whatever theocratic dictatorship they happen to be peddling, plenty examples of which can be found raising their strident, screeching gibberish all around us these days.

By the way, there is no "mystery" as to how humans have come to be the way they are, that's what evolution is all about. No magic, just nature.

[/QUOTE

Perhaps if you have to ask you really are not going to understand the answer.

Anyway, FWIWhere Wikiepdia has a bash. I rather like the idea that spirtuality can relate to pluralism and atheism and has an introspective quality, to do with the development of inner happiness and self awareness. It also relates to those ideas and concepts that are full of 'awe and wonder' or worthy of 'veneration'. You'll read that spirituality and religious practice are not equivalent.

Personally (as an atheist) my spirituality encompasses my emotional responses to situations and dilemmas as well as my own sense of wonder at human life, in all its poorly understood glory.

Last week a very elderly patient of mine who appeared quite well decided to die. She had little wrong with her in concrete terms that might end her life but she was just ready to 'check-out'. She arranged a visit from a solicitor to re-write some parts of her Will and died 24hrs later having rung various members of her family to say goodbye. I've no idea if she was religious but I'd say she reached a place of inner peace reflecting her spiritual as well as her personal life.

Bruce[/QUOTE]

In "The Hitch-hiker's Guide to the Galaxy", there is a scene where the survivors of a crashed spaceship have organised themselves into a meeting to discuss the way forward. One of the characters (a "fully trained Management Consultant") insists that the rock that the Chairman is sitting on be referred to as a "chair".

Not unreasonably, "Ford Prefect" asks - "Why not call it a rock?"

Having a sense of wonder is - having a sense of wonder.

Having an emotional response is - having an emotional response.

Why not describe things as what they are? I see no reason at all to attach to them, a word for something that nobody seems to be able to describe, perhaps not surprisingly. After all, if I claimed that I was experiencing "Glumxionasity", you might well be prompted to ask me what

quote:

that

was... Hmm?

Sorry, must do better with the "quotes" and italics functionalities...

75...

Well at least you can count. Well done. Any contribution/refutation to add to the actual argument?

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Dudley:
Millions of christians the world over believe in the "literal truth" of the book of Genesis which, as you know, states that "god" created the world in six days which is as near to waving a magic wand as makes no difference. Leaving aside questions such as - why six days? Why not five, or twenty-six, or instantly? - you might want to inform these hordes of their mistake in the light of your current hypothesis.

But what is a 'day' though? You have highlighted the genuine problem in taking/quoting one passage out of context. Reading the Bible does require taking the Bible as a whole into consideration. So, elsewhere we read 'a thousand days - in another place years - are but a day - or moment in God's sight'.

Held against this internal consistency, what does 'day' in Genesis mean? Does it refer to a temporal 24hrs or something 'bigger'.

There is a great tendency for intellectual pride to believe that 'we' (or at least 'we' since the Enlightenment) are cleverer than the ancients. The ancients were perfectly clever, just as clever as us, "if we see further it is only because we are standing on the shoulders of giants" (Newton, I believe?) and all that...

To me, the amazing thing is that, written probably 3,000 years ago and with an oral tradition before that, without the benefit of either electron microscope or Hubble telescope, and in radical contrast to the typical ancient Middle Eastern world view of creation (book of Gilgamesh etc), using the beautiful language of poetry not of the science text book, the book of Genesis speaks of the creation from nothing of the universe, the world and all that is in a continuity by stages, each building upon the last. (Evolution!) With the first human beings as the pinnacle. The first human beings (and there must have been some as the first example of a distinctive new species, science thinks that!) are spoken of in Genesis as ‘Adam’ and 'Eve'. And just like the word 'Genesis' itself - a word deriving from the Greek for ‘Origins’, these are not names as such in the contemporary way we understand them, but rather descriptions - Adam means ‘man’ and Eve means ‘mother’.

And this 'literal 6 day' thing is so often bandied around (by people who don't really know) as being the 'Christian' or 'Bible' view of creation. But the fundamentalist 'literal 6 day' thing is in fact not that much older!! It derives only from the early 1930s, and even then as a political expedient not rather than a theological expression.

The mainstream Christian tradition is that the description of Book of Genesis is symbolic, and this is stated explicitly by some of the leading theologians of the early Christian centuries.

As I have said elsewhere, amongst the greatest scientists in world history are people of religious faith, including Christians.

When Darwin first published 'On the Origin of Species' mainstream churchmen welcomed this as a wonderful unfolding of the things of God.

I tend towards a view similar to Einstein:

"Religions, arts and sciences are branches of the same tree. All these aspirations are directed toward ennobling man's life, lifting it from the sphere of mere physical existence and leading the individual towards freedom. It is no mere chance that our older universities developed from clerical schools. Both churches and universities — insofar as they live up to their true function — serve the ennoblement of the individual. They seek to fulfill this great task by spreading moral and cultural understanding, renouncing the use of brute force.

"The essential unity of ecclesiastical and secular institutions was lost during the 19th century, to the point of senseless hostility. Yet there was never any doubt as to the striving for culture. No one doubted the sacredness of the goal. It was the approach that was disputed."

'Moral Decay (1937); later published in 'Out of My Later Years' (1950)

Mike

You do not recognise the prsence of spirituality in yourself, I think we can all see that. Can you at least concede that millions of other perfectly sane and intelligent people experience spirituality (with or without a religious faith) and that scholarly definitions exist that are meaningful, intelligent and reasoned.

Your posts seethe with disdain for anyone for anyone who has a spiritual dimension to their life, let alone for organised religion.

Bruce

You said:

quote:

I realise that with his sense of intellectual and moral superiority he delights in calling people of faith (quote) "imbeciles", and thus that they are incapable of any thought process beyond that of the average 5-year old.

I cannot find this anywhere. Please present the evidence.

If I did, then I am happy to deal with the issue.

If I did not (as I believe), then you owe me an apology for lying misrepresentation.

Your latest post is just a tiresome reiteration of previous statements made by you and others that I and others have already dealt with - I just can't be bothered to deal with them all over again - you obviously are unable to understand really simple and obvious arguments without collapsing back into cant and obfuscation.

I await with interest your response to my first sentence in this post.

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Dudley:
Well at least you can count. Well done. Any contribution/refutation to add to the actual argument?

What argument? (77)

"millions of perfectly sane and intelligent people" - if that's not an assumption, I'd like to see the data.

Last time - you have not dealt with why an emotional response, for example, is not described as an emotional response (something which I do, from time to time, experience along with awe, wonder etc etc) but is described as "spiritual" rather what it is, but simply go on reiterating the same non-descriptive descriptive.

I have nothing but contempt for religion, although in a good mood I might describe my feelings as "amused". You might not like this. You might think it intemperate or rude, but there you are. It doesn't bother me and it shouldn't bother you but it doesn't mean I want to force you to agree with me or want to chop your head off or ban you from saying it or somesuch currently popular religious reaction.

Deal with the argument.

Here's a nice picture to cheer you up:

quote:

Mike, if Christians can "forgive" homosexual acts which they deem to be sinful, and accept the homosexual, that is to say the person, how can this be homophobic?

Because it's the hatred of the sin, not the sinner, that counts. If sinners are going to be imprisoned or hanged for their sins, as homosexuals were in 18th century England, they probably don't care that their Christian persecutors can forgive and love them. "Love the sinner" has never meant not punishing them.

-- Daniel

quote:

Originally posted by DanielP:

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Lacey:
I did wonder if "hate the sin, love the Sinner" would be too subtle for you, to be honest. Then again, you may be deliberately missing the point.

Simpler ( maybe ) anaology: I may hate tap dancing. You may be a tap dancer, but you are not "tap dancing" per se and this would be no reason to dislike you.

The sin is not the Sinner.

Some questions.

Do you as a Christian believe that homosexuality is a sin?

Do you as a Christian hate homosexuality?

If no to the above, do you sympathize with other Christians who do believe that homosexuality is a sin and who hate homosexuality?

Thanks,
Daniel

Questions I'll have to leave for others to answer.

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Dudley:
The evidence for a god who is in any way involved in the evolution of the universe, from the formation of stars to the action of geological fault lines on earth and all points in between and outside, does not exist.

I fail to understand why you continue, in the light of this, to state an obvious fairy story as if it were a fact.

Please present the evidence that God does not exist.