Right. I'm listening to the God Delusion (R. Dawkins) and he's sort of annoying me. I'll probably post the bits that annoy me here. It's cathartic. Who else here has read? He's a bother. The thing is - and I think another poster here has mentioned it prior :D - is portrayed as an epistle. "Please see this chapter if you feel trapped in the religion of your upbringing". "Please consult this chapter if you actually believe in a God, you fool". And so on. Now, this is all well and good, but maybe it should indeed be said that he is in fact preaching. I liked some of his previous work well enough, but now he's bothering me.

Mutatis mutandis :D - and a reverse but accurate description of his proclamation - there are indeed no theist children of any kind, but also no athiest children either. All could be at best considered agnostic. It smells like the complaint of someone who feels, hidden in his office, that he is being publicly trod upon.

Also, why does he assume athiests need to be or ever have been apologetic about anything? Why is atheism indicative of a "healthy mind"? I know any number of theists with healthy minds, and atheists with unhealthy minds, and I submit that the health of a mind is a far more complex thing than one's position on religion.

More to come, as I see fit. Devour, thou swine!

Best,

Geoff

Hmm...object to the implication that faith is a psychiatric disorder.

I find the darwin thumping atheist only slightly less annoying than say someone like Sandy or Adstar.

Frankly i've met Atheists that make me want to believe in god. Zealotry and knowest moreth than thou - really piss me off no matter the source.

I have no idea what the hell you guys are talking about. I read the book and found it interesting, comprehensive, and reasonable.

"Faithheads"??

Childhood indoctrination...and he applies intelligence only to those that reject religious perspective. Unfair, and absurd.

Also - why is a mysticism of nature common to anyone? (Ignoring my recent mystic sideline in another thread...I'm motivated only by absurdity, humour and a grasping attention to understanding there anyway.) Why should anyone of Dawkin's keen insight romanticize anything at all about nature?

His wife also cites Sagan's bit about how no religion allows that science's picture is better than theirs - which is unfair, as the Catholic Church has accepted at least the idea of evolution. Invective getting in the way of his points.

I also criticize the mystical rapture that Darwin himself spoke of - how is this naturalistic? Does a dog stop to admire a waterfall? They bloody don't. They urinate in it, and drink from it - and usually both - but I find it hard to believe they sit gaping at it. These loftier notions are the byproducts of an unjustifiably overactive cortex. Sagan doesn't, so far as I'm concerned - and certainly not bloody Dawkins - evoke any "transcendant wonder". What has such admiration to do with empiricism? It's a damnfool position - either it is naturalistic, or it isn't. Anything else is cosmic navelgazing.

"Richness to human life", my arse. Naturalism or bloody not.

I can't respond much to questions - sorry guys - but I'll continue to provoke as I go. Of any of evolution's architects, I'll say I find Dawkins the most extreme and sometimes unfairly so, and drop it at that.

My theory is that at alpha=0.05 in a two-tailed t test of significance, the people can be considered normal (whatever that is).

The idiots rest overlap at either end of the distribution and provide a constant source of media entertainment to the rest.

"Believing in belief" - fair enough. There are some like that, certainly. I appreciate that he has to refute the whole Einsteinian support of religion. Seems a bit pointless though; but not for everyone, I do expect.

Guh...more anthropomorphosizing nature (26 min)...this time by Einstein. Same complaint as above. It's naturalism or it isn't. Einstein is not immune here.

28 min - shall we challenge the concept of religious expertise? Can one be called a religious expert, even though we would refute the interest of an accredited "faerieologist"? I leave this one to you lot. It's possible. Yet we do allow those with interests in mythology all sorts of credibility within their area. Can religion not be based on knowledge? Do not these texts reflect a sort of historical record, in extremis? Why romanticize anything, which Dawkins also admits to? What is love but a biochemical reaction? Bah.

Hmm...relegation to possibility of God as panthiesm. Describes Einsteinian God as an allowance to natural process behind a phenomenon; refutes unknowable or incomprehensible causation. Well, I don't know. My brother doesn't understand algebra, but I use it. Doesn't mean algebra is God, or a substitute for God. If God is part of the universe, doesn't that make him also naturalistic? Processes we don't understand and all that? Hmm.

That's all for now.

Best,

Geoff

No, a God would not be naturalistic if it can disobey nature's laws.

I read the book 'The God Delusion' and what I took away from it was different. Moths navigate their environment with starlight. It's a survival advantage; however, many moths cannot tell the difference between a star and a lightbulb and as a result they mis-navigate to your porch. By anology, humans navigate their environment with belief. It's a survival advantage; however, many humans cannot tell the difference between truth and ficton. The result is they mis-navigate to delusion, oppression, extremism, progress-retardation, etc. It's natural but I agree with Dawkins that it's dangerous.

Think about it this way. In 500 million years this planet will be too hot for all mammilian life to survive (the ocean will literally be boiling). Will Jesus, Allah, ... <gods ad infinitum> save us from that fate or will science do so? The question is of course rhetorical; however, delusional belief by its very nature seeks to supress / dismantle truth and therefore is really a threat to our species.

Think about it this way. In 500 million years this planet will be too hot for all mammilian life to survive (the ocean will literally be boiling). Will Jesus, Allah, ... <gods ad infinitum> save us from that fate or will science do so? The question is of course rhetorical; however, delusional belief by its very nature seeks to supress / dismantle truth and therefore is really a threat to our species.
Us?
We won't be there.
Or to put it another way, whatever is there will not be us - according to scientists - it will be some other kind of thing. Science will not save you.

Us?
We won't be there.
Or to put it another way, whatever is there will not be us - according to scientists - it will be some other kind of thing. Science will not save you.

too right - the average lifespan of a mammalian species is a few million years
not for us to worry what happens at some very distant point in the future, we won't be there + we'll be v.v.lucky if our descendants are there

remember, 500 million years is about the duration of the Phanerozoic so far, and this period has already known at least 5 major extinction events

I have no idea what the hell you guys are talking about. I read the book and found it interesting, comprehensive, and reasonable. I just read the book, finally - Geoff is not reading, he's listening. And he seems to be hearing stuff I didn't read in the book - epistles and whatnot, annoying directions.

Anybody have a take on the audiobook versions of things like this ? I have a feeling it depends on the reader voice and the organizational setup.

Maybe print books don't push people around as much, intrinsically ?

Another factor: most atheists that theists find confronting them are adult converts - and they have some of the same tendencies that people have who by an effort of will and denial quit smoking, drinking, or eating meat. {edited for extreme priggishness}

Us?
We won't be there.
Or to put it another way, whatever is there will not be us - according to scientists - it will be some other kind of thing. Science will not save you.

When I refer to 'us' in this context I am including of course any future species where homo sapiens become an ancestor. If I were a betting man, I would bet on the probability that 'we' will begin asserting much greater control over our environment as science gives us a greater understanding of reality.

Options for surviving past the natural lifetime of mammals on earth might include:

* Genetic alterations.
* Populating the galaxy.
* Making planets mobile (ex. to stay an optimal distance away from the sun).

I think these are realistic potential results; however, delusional belief is a threat to such outcomes.

Pinch me, I must be dreaming.

Me, Kadark, actually agreeing with something GeoffP has to say? Well, knock me over with a feather!

Say, Geoff, are you an athesit/agnostic?

No, a God would not be naturalistic if it can disobey nature's laws.

it's completely natural to be able to disobey natural laws. if we are not supernatural, why do people say that cars and computers are unnatural?

Think about it this way. In 500 million years this planet will be too hot for all mammilian life to survive (the ocean will literally be boiling). Will Jesus, Allah, ... <gods ad infinitum> save us from that fate or will science do so?

god has already saved us by giving us immortal souls. so it doesn't really matter what happens to our 'species' after 500 million years.

it's completely natural to be able to disobey natural laws. if we are not supernatural, why do people say that cars and computers are unnatural?

No, it isn't. Cars and computers may be called "unnatural", but they obey all natural laws.

I think these are realistic potential results; however, delusional belief is a threat to such outcomes.


god has already saved us by giving us immortal souls. so it doesn't really matter what happens to our 'species' after 500 million years.

Case and point.

No, it isn't. Cars and computers may be called "unnatural", but they obey all natural laws.

they are called unnatural because they are made by beings with free will. we aren't controlled by laws of nature because we have free will, we are supernatural, and yet we are a part of nature...

Case and point.

death (change, transformation) is not a bad thing. all physical things wear out and must die some day. it's their fate. these physical bodies are just an advanced form of clothing. don't worry about the death of the clothes/species, we can always make new ones.

Also, why does he assume athiests need to be or ever have been apologetic about anything? Why is atheism indicative of a "healthy mind"? I know any number of theists with healthy minds, and atheists with unhealthy minds, and I submit that the health of a mind is a far more complex thing than one's position on religion.


Firstly, you should actually read the book. Listening to it can lose a lot of its meaning.

Secondly, atheists are often assumed to actually need to apologise because of the extent to which some theists take offense to even the smallest thing. No one is allowed to offend religion. His quote of Douglas Adams is quite true to be honest. (On page 20 of the book)...

Thirdly, he speaks of an "unhealthy mind" in the sense that it is quite unhealthy to simply believe in something like God, or the tooth fairy, even without proof. Would you deem a grown man who believed in the tooth fairy, prayed to the tooth fairy and left offerings to said fairy as being one of healthy mind? Now replace the tooth fairy with God. See the connection? It is unhealthy because as a child, you are indoctrinated into belief. And you keep that particular dream alive by doing the same to your children. It is unhealthy because some people take it to such an extreme that they are willing to kill for their God. They are willing to disown their own children and family for their beliefs in God. It is unhealthy because people stop thinking for themselves. They stop using their mind, instead preferring to accept, instead of questioning God's existence. Read the book and you'll see for yourself.

Another factor: most atheists that theists find confronting them are adult converts - and they have some of the same tendencies that people have who by an effort of will and denial quit smoking, drinking, or eating meat. {edited for extreme priggishness}

Ah yes, why did I not realise this? You are a marvel indeed!:p

More to come, as I see fit. Devour, thou swine!


First off, could you share the link to what it is you're watching?

Secondly, you're not the first to say that, but on the other hand, there are those who don't get the same impression, some opposite.

Do you view him the same way in all of his videos?

Do you get the same impression when you read his books?

Ah yes, why did I not realise this? So attributing those attitudes and levels of sophistication to "atheism" itself is a mistake - similar to attributing the same of streetcorner preachers to "theism".

I have no idea why you do not seem to realize this. Rhetorical tactic ?

I think it is just as dangerous to take all mysticism away from life - or to generally stive towards debunking all mysteries which still exist. Dawkins is an extremist, and I dislike his approach. He is, of course, entitled to his educated opinion, but he is seriously generalizing the religious community. For many people, religion is only a frame-work - a save haven, so to speak, which gives them stability and certainty in life. Faith doesn't kill creativity or deep thinking, since if it does, then the person has no capability to be creative and / or a deep thinker to begin with as far as my opinion is concerned.

Comparing God to a tooth-fairy is just as superficial, to be honest. The concept of God has roots in our various mythologies, and has been recorded ever since we were able to write. Tooth-fairy, on the other hand, doesn't. Tooth-fairy doesn't represent the entity that God does, for God - whatever it may be - is generally associated with either life or warmth. The concept might not be tangible, but the effects which it is often related to are.

Dawkins might be rational, but I doubt that he has a deep understanding of human emotions. Plus, he would be just as ready to fight and die for science as some people are for religion, so his point regarding this matter becomes somewhat obsolete. Religion isn't dangerous - the human mind, in general, is. If one studies christian ethics, for example, and takes them to heart ( as many religious people do ), then he or she will actually make an effort to live better.

The whole claim that religion is with-helding our growth as intelligent beings is bogus as well. Human kind has been religious ever since the stone-age, yet progress has still happened - constantly. The christian church might have tried to prevent it in the middle-ages, but it doesn't do so anymore. Like somebody said, even the catholic church approves the idea of evolution - even if the approach is a bit cautious.

For the price of a couple of burgers... (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0618918248)

So attributing those attitudes and levels of sophistication to "atheism" itself is a mistake - similar to attributing the same of streetcorner preachers to "theism".


I will agree here. Even adult converts to theism can be hard to take.

I think it is just as dangerous to take all mysticism away from life - or to generally stive towards debunking all mysteries which still exist. Dawkins is an extremist, and I dislike his approach. He is, of course, entitled to his educated opinion, but he is seriously generalizing the religious community. For many people, religion is only a frame-work - a save haven, so to speak, which gives them stability and certainty in life. Faith doesn't kill creativity or deep thinking, since if it does, then the person has no capability to be creative and / or a deep thinker to begin with as far as my opinion is concerned.



Why do people need to have that "safe haven"? Are they too weak to face life and the world without it? Do people really need to feel that they are being watched by a great daddy in the sky to make them feel better about themselves? You have pretty much made the point of why it is unhealthy. People who assume that one can only be creative, moral, good, etc, if they believe in God and/or religion are selling themselves short. They are doing themselves a disservice. Because any good a person does is not attributed to themselves or to their own ability to do good, but to a non-existing God. Are humans that incapable of doing good by themselves?

Comparing God to a tooth-fairy is just as superficial, to be honest. The concept of God has roots in our various mythologies, and has been recorded ever since we were able to write. Tooth-fairy, on the other hand, doesn't. Tooth-fairy doesn't represent the entity that God does, for God - whatever it may be - is generally associated with either life or warmth. The concept might not be tangible, but the effects which it is often related to are.
To a small child, it is. So is Santa and the Easter Bunny. A child is 'good' so that they are rewarded by Santa for example. Do you think telling a child there is no Santa will automatically mean that child becomes suddenly bad? Is Santa the only thing keeping that child in line? The same goes for God. Is the belief in God the only thing that is stopping everyone from killing each other? As an atheist, I can assure you, I have never killed a person. Am I somehow abnormal? After all, I don't believe in God, but I also have morals.

So when you tell a child there is no Santa, or tooth fairy or Easter Bunny, you are taking away their warmth and a security blanket. But we do it nonetheless, because well, none of those things exist, do they? So why do adults persist to indoctrinate their children about God in a similar fashion? The effects of believing in both are the same. Santa = be good and you will be rewarded... be bad and you get nothing for Christmas or coal. God = be good and you will be rewarded (heaven).. be bad and you get nothing but pain in hell. See the connection? One keeps the children in line and the other keeps everyone in line.

Dawkins might be rational, but I doubt that he has a deep understanding of human emotions. Plus, he would be just as ready to fight and die for science as some people are for religion, so his point regarding this matter becomes somewhat obsolete. Religion isn't dangerous - the human mind, in general, is. If one studies christian ethics, for example, and takes them to heart ( as many religious people do ), then he or she will actually make an effort to live better.
On the contrary. If one were to study the Christian ethics and take them seriously to heart, then we would be arresting homosexuals and imprisoning them (if they are lucky.. otherwise we kill them and send them to hell), for one thing. We would also ban all forms of contraception and abortion (even for medical emergencies). I could go on.. So would all that make life better do you think?

The whole claim that religion is with-helding our growth as intelligent beings is bogus as well. Human kind has been religious ever since the stone-age, yet progress has still happened - constantly. The christian church might have tried to prevent it in the middle-ages, but it doesn't do so anymore. Like somebody said, even the catholic church approves the idea of evolution - even if the approach is a bit cautious.
Saying human beings have been religious since the stone age does not favour your argument. Because you are basically saying that human beings have been unable to move beyond the stone age in the manner and matter of their beliefs. In short, their minds still belong in the stone age while others have been able to move on.

Why do people need to have that "safe haven"? Are they too weak to face life and the world without it? Do people really need to feel that they are being watched by a great daddy in the sky to make them feel better about themselves? You have pretty much made the point of why it is unhealthy. People who assume that one can only be creative, moral, good, etc, if they believe in God and/or religion are selling themselves short. They are doing themselves a disservice. Because any good a person does is not attributed to themselves or to their own ability to do good, but to a non-existing God. Are humans that incapable of doing good by themselves?

Oh, we do, my friend. We are all weak enough to search the comfort and safe haven from around us - for some it is God, for some it is sports, video-games, or a combination of the above... Actually, we are so weak at facing life that we rather escape it than move towards it - 'thus our tendency to consume alcohol and watch excessive amounts of television; anything that can aid us in our escape. My point wasn't about religious people being more creative and intelligent, but that faith doesn't make a person *less* capable at being creative and intelligent.

Why should it matter to you what the motivation is behind a good deed, ( or the idea of 'being good' ) by the way? According to basic psychology, a 'good deed' is always commenced in the hopes of a reward - perhaps one unconciously believes that if he is nice to a person, people will also be nice to him. Or perhaps it will make him feel better about himself in general. Or perhaps he wants to satisfy God, who he believes is watching his every step, by fulfilling the law "love your neighbour as you love yourself". Why should it matter to you? We are never capable of doing a good deed without any selfish purposes anyhow, and the fact remains that both parties - the maker of the deed and the receiver of the deed - win something from the situation. Why is it better if a person's motivation doesn't involve God, since we are incapable of performing a completely selfless act of good regardless?


To a small child, it is. So is Santa and the Easter Bunny. A child is 'good' so that they are rewarded by Santa for example. Do you think telling a child there is no Santa will automatically mean that child becomes suddenly bad? Is Santa the only thing keeping that child in line? The same goes for God. Is the belief in God the only thing that is stopping everyone from killing each other? As an atheist, I can assure you, I have never killed a person. Am I somehow abnormal? After all, I don't believe in God, but I also have morals.

I never said that atheists don't have a sense of morality. This defensive thought-pattern is seemingly rooted in your own head - it is you who constantly looks for 'dividing factors' between faithful and faithless people. You need to realize that there is nothing different in you versus a religious person. You probably find comfort and balance from some thoughts / things, while a religious person has his Bible. Different paths, same conclusion.

My point was, if you look carefully, that having faith doesn't necessarily harm a person - it might even give the person the frame-work he / she needs for self-improvement. It is only in fundamentalism where I can sense danger and blindness, too, and very few of the christians I know personally are fundamental.

So when you tell a child there is no Santa, or tooth fairy or Easter Bunny, you are taking away their warmth and a security blanket. But we do it nonetheless, because well, none of those things exist, do they? So why do adults persist to indoctrinate their children about God in a similar fashion? The effects of believing in both are the same. Santa = be good and you will be rewarded... be bad and you get nothing for Christmas or coal. God = be good and you will be rewarded (heaven).. be bad and you get nothing but pain in hell. See the connection? One keeps the children in line and the other keeps everyone in line.

Actually, you are wrong here. Christian doctrine doesn't blanket a person in the way the idea of Santa Claus does. It isn't about being 'good' or being 'bad' - it is about being humble in front of God. It's all about being able to admit that one has faults and needs a companion - be it God, or another human being - in this life to help him out. I find nothing wrong with this thought-pattern. You see why it might even be important to one's self-improvement? It actually encourages you to face yourself just as you are - a fragile individual in search of solace. Modern society is pushing people towards cynicism - why is that any better? We can never shake our inner child away completely, nor should we.


On the contrary. If one were to study the Christian ethics and take them seriously to heart, then we would be arresting homosexuals and imprisoning them (if they are lucky.. otherwise we kill them and send them to hell), for one thing. We would also ban all forms of contraception and abortion (even for medical emergencies). I could go on.. So would all that make life better do you think?

This paragraph unfortunately shows that you know nothing about Christian ethics. First of all, ruling out gay people is part of the old testament - which, by christian doctrine, represents the previous relationship between humanity and God. The new relationship came with Jesus Christ, who never encouraged people to condemn each other. In fact, Jesus encouraged us to love each other, forgive each other and respect each other. He saved a whore, which - by your definitions of Christian ethics - should have been stoned and sent to hell. Replace the whore with a gay person and He would have done the same. You are seemingly clinging on to the extremist ideals and views of christianity, which - I agree - are harmful. But you are seriously narrowing your view on christianity in general if you think that every religious person thinks like you think they do.


Saying human beings have been religious since the stone age does not favour your argument. Because you are basically saying that human beings have been unable to move beyond the stone age in the manner and matter of their beliefs. In short, their minds still belong in the stone age while others have been able to move on.

We haven't. We might have advanced technologically, but we are still homo sapiens. Our mathematical and practical thinking might have evolved, but we still share the exact same needs and desires as our stone-age counterparts. This includes the desire to worship a 'greater entity' - be it God, money or a car, for example. What makes you think that we are superior, in that sense, than our ancestors?

Oh, we do, my friend. We are all weak enough to search the comfort and safe haven from around us - for some it is God, for some it is sports, video-games, or a combination of the above... Actually, we are so weak at facing life that we rather escape it than move towards it - 'thus our tendency to consume alcohol and watch excessive amounts of television; anything that can aid us in our escape. My point wasn't about religious people being more creative and intelligent, but that faith doesn't make a person *less* capable at being creative and intelligent.

Why should it matter to you what the motivation is behind a good deed, ( or the idea of 'being good' ) by the way? According to basic psychology, a 'good deed' is always commenced in the hopes of a reward - perhaps one unconciously believes that if he is nice to a person, people will also be nice to him. Or perhaps it will make him feel better about himself in general. Or perhaps he wants to satisfy God, who he believes is watching his every step, by fulfilling the law "love your neighbour as you love yourself". Why should it matter to you? We are never capable of doing a good deed without any selfish purposes anyhow, and the fact remains that both parties - the maker of the deed and the receiver of the deed - win something from the situation. Why is it better if a person's motivation doesn't involve God, since we are incapable of performing a completely selfless act of good regardless?


Why should it matter to me. Good question. It does because it invariably affects everyone.

I never said that atheists don't have a sense of morality. This defensive thought-pattern is seemingly rooted in your own head - it is you who constantly looks for 'dividing factors' between faithful and faithless people. You need to realize that there is nothing different in you versus a religious person. You probably find comfort and balance from some thoughts / things, while a religious person has his Bible. Different paths, same conclusion.

My point was, if you look carefully, that having faith doesn't necessarily harm a person - it might even give the person the frame-work he / she needs for self-improvement. It is only in fundamentalism where I can sense danger and blindness, too, and very few of the christians I know personally are fundamental.

Firstly, I was merely mirroring statements made by many theists on these forums. I do not particularly care if someone believes in God or fairies. At the end of the day, both are one and the same to me. Imaginary. But many view their morality as being derived from the imaginary. That without that great being in the sky, we would all fall into a pit of hopelessness. I happen to disagree. I think we, as a human species, are selling ourselves short in how we believe. We restrict our potential. Advancement in science becomes restricted due to its being contrary to religious teachings. People are restricted in how they live their lives, due to religious doctrines.

There is always a danger. Fundamentalism does not need to exist for it to be dangerous. When you have the Catholic Church, as one example, restricting governments of third world countries from teaching sex education and allowing the sale of contraception and condoms, it becomes extremely dangerous. When you have women sticking a coat hanger up into her uterus to perform an abortion on an unwanted child because she cannot legally get one, then it becomes dangerous and harmful.

Actually, you are wrong here. Christian doctrine doesn't blanket a person in the way the idea of Santa Claus does. It isn't about being 'good' or being 'bad' - it is about being humble in front of God. It's all about being able to admit that one has faults and needs a companion - be it God, or another human being - in this life to help him out. I find nothing wrong with this thought-pattern. You see why it might even be important to one's self-improvement? It actually encourages you to face yourself just as you are - a fragile individual in search of solace. Modern society is pushing people towards cynicism - why is that any better? We can never shake our inner child away completely, nor should we.
On the contrary. I think it gives people a way out. Harm someone and beg for forgiveness from God and all is fine. Instead of facing the pain they may have caused someone, all they need to ask is for God to forgive them. It gives them an 'out'. That is where there is solace.

This paragraph unfortunately shows that you know nothing about Christian ethics. First of all, ruling out gay people is part of the old testament - which, by christian doctrine, represents the previous relationship between humanity and God. The new relationship came with Jesus Christ, who never encouraged people to condemn each other. In fact, Jesus encouraged us to love each other, forgive each other and respect each other. He saved a whore, which - by your definitions of Christian ethics - should have been stoned and sent to hell. Replace the whore with a gay person and He would have done the same. You are seemingly clinging on to the extremist ideals and views of christianity, which - I agree - are harmful. But you are seriously narrowing your view on christianity in general if you think that every religious person thinks like you think they do.
I guess the Catholic priests who refuse to give communion to practicing homosexuals must have missed that bit in the New Testament. I guess they are following the OT when they refuse to give a homosexual communion. But then again, it (NT) classifies homosexual acts and homosexuality in general as being a 'degrading passion', does it not, along with fornication and adultery, all of which are deemed sin's in the eyes of God.

It is nice to comfort one's self with the thought that homosexuals and homosexuality is embraced by one's church. Makes one feel all warm and fuzzy inside. The reality is that discrimination of homosexuals and their families who support and stand by their homosexual relatives are turned away from the church, denied the sacrament and also advised of the grievous sins they are committing.

We haven't. We might have advanced technologically, but we are still homo sapiens. Our mathematical and practical thinking might have evolved, but we still share the exact same needs and desires as our stone-age counterparts. This includes the desire to worship a 'greater entity' - be it God, money or a car, for example. What makes you think that we are superior, in that sense, than our ancestors?
In other words, we are still backwards and think like cavemen. We still need to believe in something because we are simply too stupid not to. After all, all those stars in the sky, it is inconceivable that they were not created by God almighty. We need to believe in God because we are simply incapable to actually facing the reality. We fear death to such an extent that we are quite willing to accept that a great father figure in the sky will take us to a magical place and make things all better again.

Where's that "degrading passion" bit Bells?

Where's that "degrading passion" bit Bells?

It is how it is described. Sorry, next time I'll be sure to be exact and say 'debased mind'. I would suggest you read Paul's words in Rom. 1:24-28, 32.. "Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due. And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a debased mind, to do those things which are not fitting;...who, knowing the righteous judgment of God, that those who practice such things are deserving of death, not only do the same but also approve of those who practice them"..

The NT confirms the OT quite soundly, wouldn't you say?

Paul, an apostle, confirms that acts of homosexuality should be condemned with death. Yes, big change there from the OT, eh?

Now imagine people who actually take those words to heart, as all believers of the Christian faith are meant to. Actually no, I do not want to imagine it, because to imagine it would be to imagine the death of millions of people. And if you reject Paul's comments, you also reject the word of God, especially when one reads Lev. 18:22, 20:13.

I wonder, if a Christian kills a homosexual, and then begs for forgiveness, does that person go to heaven? Or hell? Does he even have to ask for forgiveness? Or is that just a something that is given naturally by the almighty God? The Christian groups around the US who began protesting against anti-discrimination laws which "prohibited" harassing and abusing homosexuals on university campuses would probably say hell, don't you think? Did you get to that part in the book Geoff? As Dawkin's states, hate speech is hate speech until it is claimed to be religious speech. So Christian groups protesting to be allowed to harass and abuse homosexuals hide behind the religious freedom, then it becomes 'free speech'. Nice, eh?

So how's the book coming Geoff? Enjoying it?

I really have to wonder how any person can be so accepting of a religious faith that explicitly states that one group's punishment is deserving of death.. all because they happen to be born homosexual. How can one believe in a God who actually decries acts such as condemning a homosexual to death as being a moral? On the contrary, any person who makes or believes as such is not moral. But hey, God is God and he/she/it must be followed to the letter and sadly, some do.

Mutatis mutandis :D - and a reverse but accurate description of his proclamation - there are indeed no theist children of any kind, but also no athiest children either. wrong!, how could you come to this conclusion.
Surely you know what atheist means.
It comes from the greek "Atheos" "A" = without and "Theos" = god, the same as Asymetry means without symetry, It's that simple.
So to say that "there are no athiest children either", is clearly wrong, children can be nothing other than atheist. All could be at best considered agnostic.How so, agnosticism requires knowledge of the subject, children until they aquire said knowledge and wish to accept or use this said knowledge, cannot be deemed agnostic.
Also, why does he assume athiests need to be or ever have been apologetic about anything? Why is atheism indicative of a "healthy mind"? I know any number of theists with healthy minds, and atheists with unhealthy minds, and I submit that the health of a mind is a far more complex thing than one's position on religion. what he means in this instances is that the religious mind, can be altered by it's religion, (sometimes to the detriment of others) however this can never be the case with the atheist, He is either already unhealthy minded (as you say), or not, (but this is very unlikely, to be unhealthy minded requires a trauma of some kind. Thus an atheist would not be an atheist, if he wasn't thinking clearly.)

The whole claim that religion is with-helding our growth as intelligent beings is bogus as well. Human kind has been religious ever since the stone-age, yet progress has still happened - constantly. The christian church might have tried to prevent it in the middle-ages, but it doesn't do so anymore. Like somebody said, even the catholic church approves the idea of evolution - even if the approach is a bit cautious.

Embryonic stem cells come to mind. Efforts to teach ID instead of science in public schools come to mind. You must not be in the USA.

Bells: then there Paul and I diverge. Nor, moreover, will I simply permit him to go his own way, either.

audible: atheist in the conventional definition defines a choice. Children haven't made any such choice. One might be atheistic in the strict sense of the definition, but children could not said to be athiest. As for the healthy mind bit, you again make the assumption that atheism requires a healthy mind. Can a theist be a theist whilst still thinking clearly?

More later on; or not, possibly. Busy, busy week this week. Many grant info requires much analysis and bullshit.

Best,

Geoff

Comparing God to a tooth-fairy is just as superficial, to be honest. The concept of God has roots in our various mythologies, and has been recorded ever since we were able to write. Tooth-fairy, on the other hand, doesn't

I don't get your argument to be honest. Because god was written about by imaginative stupid ancient people and the tooth fairy was written about by modern imaginative stupid people that the two cannot be compared?

Is there something about a text being written by people that thought the world was flat as a pancake that has merit where modern day text does not?

There's assumed to be eyewitnesses in the period; ergo, the Gospels etc.

There's assumed to be eyewitnesses in the period; ergo, the Gospels etc.exactly assumed(fabricated), no factual stuff.
take a look at Iasions threads you'll find there are no eyewitness accounts.

There's assumed to be eyewitnesses in the period; ergo, the Gospels etc.

I see, so if someone claims to have seen a leprechaun and writes it down it has merit? :bugeye:

I find the darwin thumping atheist only slightly less annoying than say someone like Sandy or Adstar.

Frankly i've met Atheists that make me want to believe in god. Zealotry and knowest moreth than thou - really piss me off no matter the source.

You should meet yourself more often. You are what you hate.


All Praise The Ancient Of Days

Atheists have yet to prove the nonexistence of God.

Atheists have yet to prove the nonexistence of God.

:bugeye:

Yeah, and we've all yet to prove the nonexistence of leprechauns and invisible flying space banjos. Whatever is your point?

Atheists have yet to prove the nonexistence of God.
*************
M*W: It's not our place to prove the non-existence of a non-existing being. That burden of proof is on those who believe a god exists. Now, when you prove a god exists, I feel sure many atheists will opt to disprove your findings when we find out what your evidence is to support such a bogus theory.

*************
M*W: It's not our place to prove the non-existence of a non-existing being. That burden of proof is on those who believe a god exists. Now, when you prove a god exists, I feel sure many atheists will opt to disprove your findings when we find out what your evidence is to support such a bogus theory.

You BELIEVE there is no God therefore if you wish to prove that, you must find evidence and eventually, proof.

:bugeye:

Yeah, and we've all yet to prove the nonexistence of leprechauns and invisible flying space banjos. Whatever is your point?

That you BELIEVE there is no God. Leprechauns and flying space banjos are obviously disproved by simple science. However, God is entirely different. That is an unknown, which both sides must prove or disprove.

That you BELIEVE there is no God. Leprechauns and flying space banjos are obviously disproved by simple science. However, God is entirely different. That is an unknown, which both sides must prove or disprove.

Do you believe in Zeus? Can you prove that he does not exist?

Bells: then there Paul and I diverge. Nor, moreover, will I simply permit him to go his own way, either.


He has already gone his own way, and is firmly embraced by the Church. And each time you stand up and recite The Nicene Creed and say those fateful words;

" We believe in the Holy Spirit,
the Lord, the giver of life, who proceeds from the Father and the Son.
With the Father and the Son he is worshiped and glorified.
He has spoken through the Prophets. We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church.
We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.
We look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen."

you affirm the words of God through the "prophets" (ie. Paul) and you affirm their stance on homosexuality, and the plethora of things the church stands firmly against, be it contraception, stem cell research and IVF. The Creed is your affirmation of belief in God and the Church. Now can you see the part of the "unhealthy mind" when having to recite such things in Church? You blindly follow and even if you find their treatment of homosexuals to be abhorrent, you have no choice but to go along with it if you wish to remain in the Church. In fact, you support their stance and most importantly, 'affirm it', each time you recite that prayer.

Each time the Gospels speak of Romans, you affirm their stance of homosexuality, as well as adultery and pre-marital sex, by just sitting and listening to it, and then crossing over your forehead, lips and heart, and then saying “Praise to you, Lord Jesus Christ”, when the priest affirms said Gospel. Not to mention saying "Alleluia" and "Praise God" or "Praise be to God" during the Gospel.

So tell me Geoff, how exactly would you part ways with Paul when you reaffirm it each time you go to Church? Do you stand up and walk out? Protest loudly about how the Church is discriminating against so many in the community? Do you tell the priest that Paul's words in regards to homosexuals, adulterers, those who have sex before marriage, etc, are deserving of death, as being wrong? You embrace the Church and the words of God spoken through the prophets, you also embrace their stance on all those matters and you do it and say "Amen" each time.

Now can you see some aspect of what Dawkins means by an "unhealthy mind"?

Children haven't made any such choice. One might be atheistic in the strict sense of the definition, but children could not said to be athiest.
Do you think a child is born believing that there is some supernatural power like God? Or do the parents begin to instill such beliefs in their children from the time they are babies? Children are born without belief. They are, in atheists in the purest form. It is the adults around them who indoctrinate them into believing, be it in God, Santa or the Easter Bunny, as well as the tooth fairy and everything else. Your children take their cues of belief from you.

There's assumed to be eyewitnesses in the period; ergo, the Gospels etc.
Including Paul when he claims that homosexuals are deserving to being put to death.. tell me, do you think those words and his gospels come directly from God? After all, you claim yourself the Gospels are spoken by the prophets who were "eyewitnesses in the period".

Atheists have yet to prove the nonexistence of God.
Neither have theists.

I could tell you there are little green men living in the back of my garden and I lay offerings of food for them every night and I know they are there because the food is gone each morning. Are you going to tell me I am wrong because they do not exist? Can you get my drift?...

Can you, as a theist, prove that God exists? Because if you can, then you will have done more than any Church or religious group has been able to do. Because they are yet to prove the existence of God or any other deity. All they have left to go on is faith, blind faith, and like sheep, many just follow along blindly.

By the way, I have a bridge for sale. The little green men in my back yard built it and now I have nowhere to store it. You interested?:)

That you BELIEVE there is no God. Leprechauns and flying space banjos are obviously disproved by simple science. However, God is entirely different. That is an unknown, which both sides must prove or disprove.

1) Which god exactly? (Repo touched on this in the last post).

2) How are leprechauns or flying space banjos 'disproved' by science exactly?

3) How is this god of yours 'entirely different' other than on the simple basis that it's the garbage you personally believe in?

4) To get further into the issue would require further details of this supposed entity. If for instance you believed in a god that struck people down on the spot if they blasphemed then it can be shown false if one of us tested it and said something like; "god's a knobhead".

So, to 'disprove' a notion one must have some details of what that notion actually entails. Alas I've yet to meet two theists that match up on the details and there is the problem. "Disproving" a god can therefore only be done on an individual basis. So, if you have your own personal little space fairy then give me the details and I shall go about trying to "disprove" it's existence. Of course when that's done theists fall back on their "god is beyond human comprehension" nonsense and it then dawns on you that they're ultimately just a bunch of simple minded twonks.

5) I don't "BELIEVE there is no god", I simply do not have a belief that there is. There's a difference in there, albeit one theists appear to be blind to. There might be a god, there might be a flying spaghetti monster - I do not have a belief that either does exist and will not do so until there is evidence to suggest that they do. You too undoubtedly operate in this very same manner with everything except for the one exception - which is done merely to provide you with some hope that your miserable little life isn't all for nothing. That your failures are forgiven, that everything you ever wanted to be but never will be doesn't ultimately matter because you'll get your chance to shine in life part II. Frankly I find it weak, no, pathetic.

Then obviously if you don't believe it is there, you believe it is not there. If I believed santa clause wasn't real, I would believe he is fake.

Which God? Any God, a higher superior being the Creator.


Therefore, my point is you have no proof that there is no God. Not that theists have much proof that there is, but certainly much more so than atheists.

Do you believe in Zeus? Can you prove that he does not exist?

No, but I can choose not to believe in him. However, that would be a BELIEF not a FACT.


Also, to Snake, the reason they are disproved by science is because we've been all over and haven't seen a single one.

No, but I can choose not to believe in him. However, that would be a BELIEF not a FACT.

That is how I feel about every creation myth I've heard so far.


Also, to Snake, the reason they are disproved by science is because we've been all over and haven't seen a single one.

They're invisible to non-believers. Prove me wrong.

Then obviously if you don't believe it is there, you believe it is not there. If I believed santa clause wasn't real, I would believe he is fake.

It might be there, (whatever 'it' is and wherever 'there' is). I'm not saying anything is "fake", I am saying there is absolutely no valid reason, (other than personal emotional needs), to believe in the existence of these things that might exist without evidence to suggest they do. But not accepting a claim that lacks any and all evidence is not saying the claim is false.

Which God? Any God, a higher superior being the Creator.

The flying spaghetti monster?

Therefore, my point is you have no proof that there is no God. Not that theists have much proof that there is, but certainly much more so than atheists

Sorry, what "proof" do theists have for any claim they ever make? Do note I would advise in future you use the word "evidence" as opposed to "proof".

The thing is as time progresses theist idiocy and their gods vanish further and further into the void. It was only a short while ago where demons were blamed for all kinds of natural occurrences such as headaches. It was only a short while ago that stone, bronze and iron were dated from the supposed time of creation a few thousand years back, (from a theist perspective dinosaurs were walking the earth around 7000 years ago). The list is simply endless. All of these things have been shown false but the religious continue with their bullshit regardless.

There are some that honestly still believe that around 7000 years ago there was a man and woman in a garden alongside a talking snake. It's simple stupidity and yet here we are in the year 2008 and some believe it to be true. The lesser faithful call it "metaphor", which is the polite way of saying "bollocks", not even realising that even they dismiss the majority of the very book they claim are the words of their god. It's merely a matter of faith. The everyday average christian doesn't have as much as they would claim they do.

So, might there be some god entity? Perhaps. Is there a god entity that created the world and universe 7000 odd years ago? Absolutely not, it's scientific reality pal. The universe and our world are not 7000 years old.

Also, to Snake, the reason they are disproved by science is because we've been all over and haven't seen a single one.

See how you adopt double standards? Put your very own statement back to you with god included in the 'they'. Do you see a problem with your statement now?

As for having "been all over". Do me a favour, keep an eye on how many new species of animal are found all the time. Just check google.. http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=new+species+found&meta=

I see, so if someone claims to have seen a leprechaun and writes it down it has merit?

Well, in fact it's an element of the scientific process - observation. The question is whether or not the observation is justified. :D I think it could be generously argued that the Gospels represent the position of several observers. The similarity between the Greek and Aramaic forms is high; the differences therein are those of items, not dogma. But that's an argument for another time.

He has already gone his own way, and is firmly embraced by the Church. And each time you stand up and recite The Nicene Creed and say those fateful words;

" We believe in the Holy Spirit,
the Lord, the giver of life, who proceeds from the Father and the Son.
With the Father and the Son he is worshiped and glorified.
He has spoken through the Prophets. We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church.
We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.
We look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen."

Excellent words. Interestingly that's not the same Nicene Creed I've heard! Search ye the other; it may be a dragon even more fitting your spears!

you affirm the words of God through the "prophets" (ie. Paul) and you affirm their stance on homosexuality, and the plethora of things the church stands firmly against, be it contraception, stem cell research and IVF.

Strangely, I do recite those words again these days, and yet I do not affirm the latter items you suggest. I think you would also find a surprisingly large percentage of the people around me sharing my viewpoint on the specifics. It is a surprising thing, the difference between rite and attitude.

Also, Paul was not a prophet.

The Creed is your affirmation of belief in God and the Church.
Now can you see the part of the "unhealthy mind" when having to recite such things in Church? You blindly follow and even if you find their treatment of homosexuals to be abhorrent, you have no choice but to go along with it if you wish to remain in the Church.

:bugeye: Oh? Are they going to excommunicate me, then? Throw me out? I think you miss the "Catholic" and "apostolic" elements there. But if they will, so be it. Luther also is known to me.

Each time the Gospels speak of Romans, you affirm their stance of homosexuality, as well as adultery and pre-marital sex, by just sitting and listening to it, and then crossing over your forehead, lips and heart, and then saying “Praise to you, Lord Jesus Christ”, when the priest affirms said Gospel. Not to mention saying "Alleluia" and "Praise God" or "Praise be to God" during the Gospel.

Strangely, I've never heard the elements of either OT or NT that you describe being read in the Homily or anything else. The matters I've listened to have been those of spirituality, not regulation, throughout the entirely of my churchgoing experience. We do not have the "Divine Altar of the Gay Smasher" sect here, seemingly.

Yet, I thank you for your kind remembrances of Church symbology. Ah, rite.

So tell me Geoff, how exactly would you part ways with Paul when you reaffirm it each time you go to Church? Do you stand up and walk out? Protest loudly about how the Church is discriminating against so many in the community? Do you tell the priest that Paul's words in regards to homosexuals, adulterers, those who have sex before marriage, etc, are deserving of death, as being wrong? You embrace the Church and the words of God spoken through the prophets, you also embrace their stance on all those matters and you do it and say "Amen" each time.

Well, no one brings these matters up to me and I've never heard that part of Romans mentioned during any public service. If it were, I would indeed stand up and walk out, as you suggest.

Simply put, there are many positions on a great many matters in the Catholic Church; as many or more as in islam, or Judaism, or almost any other religion, I would imagine. I think you'd be quite surprised. So I don't embrace this attitude and I have no compunction whatsoever about making that clear as the topic arises. I do so by vote, speech and criticism. Yet, I don't stand up in service and yell out my complaints, though. That would be rude.

Now can you see some aspect of what Dawkins means by an "unhealthy mind"?

No. It is not an exclusive thing, as I think you can see.

Do you think a child is born believing that there is some supernatural power like God? Or do the parents begin to instill such beliefs in their children from the time they are babies? Children are born without belief. They are, in atheists in the purest form.

No. They are rather without choice as yet. Atheism is a selection.

Including Paul when he claims that homosexuals are deserving to being put to death.. tell me, do you think those words and his gospels come directly from God?

No. You'll note he diverges sharply in Romans 1:24 from the "let he who casts the first stone" stance adopted by his actual employer.

After all, you claim yourself the Gospels are spoken by the prophets who were "eyewitnesses in the period".

Not prophets. Followers only. Disciples. What's this prophets business? I don't accept parts of Leviticus either. I simply feel that the correspondance among Mark, Luke and Matthew are pretty good, really. It's suggestive to me, and beyond that I have faith. I believe Paul erred in places; and why Timothy was selected as canonical is a mystery (or perhaps not, if it smacks more of the political).

You seem to be feeling that I must select and affirm the entirety of my faith's precepts, purported, argued, or otherwise. I must not. Instead, I will select and choose among them according to my conscience and the original message of my actual prophet, upholding and denouncing by the tone of the message. If I am wrong in the end, so be it: but I will astound you with my heresy, if you call it so.

And, in the end, my dialectic will prevail.

Your Friend in Faith :D

Geoff

Excellent words. Interestingly that's not the same Nicene Creed I've heard! Search ye the other; it may be a dragon even more fitting your spears!


Those words have been repeated over and over again in every single Catholic Church I have ever been unfortunate enough to have stepped into and every mass I have ever attended. Be it in Australia and overseas. Maybe you just doze off or do not pay attention?

Strangely, I do recite those words again these days, and yet I do not affirm the latter items you suggest. I think you would also find a surprisingly large percentage of the people around me sharing my viewpoint on the specifics. It is a surprising thing, the difference between rite and attitude.

Also, Paul was not a prophet.

Actually, I think you would be surprised at just how little people actually think or understand. They recite and affirm it like sheep. Can you baaaa for me Geoff?

Oh? Are they going to excommunicate me, then? Throw me out? I think you miss the "Catholic" and "apostolic" elements there. But if they will, so be it. Luther also is known to me.
Excommunicate you? I doubt it. The numbers are falling, so they need to keep all they can get. After all, can't let those coffers run dry. You support and go to a Church that openly discriminates against a whole group of people. You support and attend a Church that holds as one of its founding stones, a book that speaks of support of killing a whole group of people in society. But you claim you stand by everything else, just not that. It's easy to just gloss over it all and claim you do not support such a stance. Yet you still attend the same Church, affirm the same gospels and bow down and cross yourself each time. You still don't get the unhealthy mind thing? Again, can you baaa for me Geoff?

Strangely, I've never heard the elements of either OT or NT that you describe being read in the Homily or anything else. The matters I've listened to have been those of spirituality, not regulation, throughout the entirely of my churchgoing experience. We do not have the "Divine Altar of the Gay Smasher" sect here, seemingly.

Yet, I thank you for your kind remembrances of Church symbology. Ah, rite.
You obviously have not read your bible. Naughty! Sinner! You only hear what you want to hear Geoff. It is the same for all believers. When confronted by the truth of what their Church stands for, most turn away in disgust, ashamed but unwilling to dare go against the doctrines. I have seen so many Catholics shake their heads in disgust when seeing a gay individual being turned away from the altar as they go to receive their 'body of Christ', but they will step up and open their mouths or hold out their hands just the same, even though they have just witnessed someone being turned away simply because they are gay. There's spirituality for you. Tell me, do you think the priests who turn a homosexual away are doing it out of spiritual goodness or "regulation"?

Oh I am well aware of Church rituals. It's one of those things most memorise by heart by the time they are 5.

Well, no one brings these matters up to me and I've never heard that part of Romans mentioned during any public service. If it were, I would indeed stand up and walk out, as you suggest.

Simply put, there are many positions on a great many matters in the Catholic Church; as many or more as in islam, or Judaism, or almost any other religion, I would imagine. I think you'd be quite surprised. So I don't embrace this attitude and I have no compunction whatsoever about making that clear as the topic arises. I do so by vote, speech and criticism. Yet, I don't stand up in service and yell out my complaints, though. That would be rude.
I did stand up and walk out when I heard it as a child. I remember my mother being mortified for embarrassing her. I think it is something she will never forgive me for. She thought I was a rebellious teenager at the time. I attend weddings and funerals of loved one's, but that is out of respect of those loved one's, not the Church. That was the day I declared my contract with God as being over.

I am well aware of the stances the Church has taken in the past. On some matters there is no budging however. I would be surprised if the Church ever gave an openly and practicing gay individual communion, because so far to date, those individuals have always been turned away.

You adhere and support their stance by attending. But that is something between you and your God. If you can reconcile yourself to such actions, so be it.

No. They are rather without choice as yet. Atheism is a selection.
Did I select to become or be an atheist? No. I simply am. I don't believe there is a God. If there is, so be it. If there is not, so be it.

No. You'll note he diverges sharply in Romans 1:24 from the "let he who casts the first stone" stance adopted by his actual employer.

Homosexuals are deemed to have cast the first stone by sinning and being with another of their own sex.

His words still stand and seen to be Gospel. That the Church does not recite those particular readings during mass does not mean it has divulged itself of this belief.

Not prophets. Followers only. Disciples. What's this prophets business? I don't accept parts of Leviticus either. I simply feel that the correspondance among Mark, Luke and Matthew are pretty good, really. It's suggestive to me, and beyond that I have faith. I believe Paul erred in places; and why Timothy was selected as canonical is a mystery (or perhaps not, if it smacks more of the political).
I'm sorry, disciples.

And as you say, it is suggestive to you because you are open to it. You desire there to be a God, so you are easily led to believe. As I told Norsefire, I have a bridge for sale, "you bai? Cheap! Cheap!"..

You seem to be feeling that I must select and affirm the entirety of my faith's precepts, purported, argued, or otherwise. I must not. Instead, I will select and choose among them according to my conscience and the original message of my actual prophet, upholding and denouncing by the tone of the message. If I am wrong in the end, so be it: but I will astound you with my heresy, if you call it so.
Next time you recite the Creed, be sure to select what you do and do not affirm. But as I said, you affirm simply by planting your rotund backside on the bench and line up for the sacrament. You do not need to astound me or anyone else. You need only astound yourself.

Your Friend in Faith :D
Baaaa for me boy!

Baaaa like you mean it!

I think it could be generously argued that the Gospels represent the position of several observers

Not really given the dating, contradictions and so on. Of course even if you did have 3 or 4 claimed observers, you would need to establish that these people were not lying, delusional, mad, on crack, or just writing an imaginative piece of fiction that they collaborated on.

The amount of claimed alien adbuctees is quite staggering, the similarity between events is staggeringly high, and so on and so forth. Does that mean you believe in alien abduction?

The good thing at least with abductees is that you can interview them personally, check their history, analyze their mental state etc etc.

How many of the above can you ever do with the couple of people that made largely contradictory claims in the gospels? A big fat zero. So why would you consider one unjustified and the other justified?

That is how I feel about every creation myth I've heard so far.

Yet you believe in a mysterious explosion that happened with no discernable cuase billions of years ago?




They're invisible to non-believers. Prove me wrong.

No believers have found them either.

No believers have found them either.

With regards to leprechauns there are plenty of eye witnesses.

Yet you believe in a mysterious explosion that happened with no discernable cuase billions of years ago?

That's a rather poor strawman of the BBT. Why does adding an anthropomorphic ghost make the scenario more plausible? When we do not know how or why something has happened, the best thing to do is to admit that we do not know how or why it happened.

People! There is no god just admit it! The theory of evelution is no longer a theory it's fact as for the big bang I can't say it happend because there's no proof. But to believe in something that someone created this all is stupid! That like saying that a car runs on god power god created the most sophisticated systhem on earth the nervus system. HEY LOOK GODS THE VERY FIRST COMPUTER GEEK!!!!! A few months ago my brother was killed and everyone says that god needed him. Yah! Well he has a 6year old son that was left behind and a girlfriend that would give her life for him. So where the hell was God HUH! I'l' tell you where he was smoking a big fatty...... OK!!! No I'm not angry at the fact that every one It's just that's totally stupid. My brother wasn't taken by the word of god he KILLED by his friends ignorance. Not God.... Ignorance! When you can show me proof that god is real than i will believe. But for those who do believe I'm not going to tell you that you should stop believing all I'm gonna say is keep your mind open as will I!

If you are wondering why existence does indeed exist, then god is as good as any other answer. If you are are wondering why your crops are withering, I would suggest you gravitate towards science.

Politics are very likely a better place to get answers to that question.

People! There is no god just admit it! The theory of evelution is no longer a theory it's fact as for the big bang I can't say it happend because there's no proof. But to believe in something that someone created this all is stupid! That like saying that a car runs on god power god created the most sophisticated systhem on earth the nervus system. HEY LOOK GODS THE VERY FIRST COMPUTER GEEK!!!!! A few months ago my brother was killed and everyone says that god needed him. Yah! Well he has a 6year old son that was left behind and a girlfriend that would give her life for him. So where the hell was God HUH! I'l' tell you where he was smoking a big fatty...... OK!!! No I'm not angry at the fact that every one It's just that's totally stupid. My brother wasn't taken by the word of god he KILLED by his friends ignorance. Not God.... Ignorance! When you can show me proof that god is real than i will believe. But for those who do believe I'm not going to tell you that you should stop believing all I'm gonna say is keep your mind open as will I!

Okay, so, uh, let me get this straight: you're saying evolution disproves God's existence? :confused:

Not really given the dating, contradictions and so on. Of course even if you did have 3 or 4 claimed observers, you would need to establish that these people were not lying, delusional, mad, on crack, or just writing an imaginative piece of fiction that they collaborated on.

Actually, speaking either as an observer or a participator, the accounts are actually highly similar. If anything, one would argue they're too similar.

The amount of claimed alien adbuctees is quite staggering, the similarity between events is staggeringly high, and so on and so forth. Does that mean you believe in alien abduction?

It's an interesting question: I would consider it a lot more likely if thousands of people saw such an abduction simultaneously, which is the case for some of the events in the Bible. You might argue there were no eyewitness accounts for the miracles, but you could as easily argue that all history is written in perspective anyway. Our recording system is a bit better these days, of course.

Those words have been repeated over and over again in every single Catholic Church I have ever been unfortunate enough to have stepped into and every mass I have ever attended. Be it in Australia and overseas. Maybe you just doze off or do not pay attention?

Maybe you do? Sorry, but those are definitely not the words we use. What do you want me to say? Why do you keep going, if you hate it so much? Do you simply become lost on the way to the liquor store?

Actually, I think you would be surprised at just how little people actually think or understand. They recite and affirm it like sheep. Can you baaaa for me Geoff?

Feeling lusty? :D

Anyway, my comment was about their social positions. Your position appears to be that they can't have any, because they're all stupid. All...rightie then.

You support and go to a Church that openly discriminates against a whole group of people.

Oh? A comparison: you're Australian, Bells. Is gay marriage legal in Australia? How about gay adoption? Has Australia been guilty of, say, racist citizenship or immigration policies in the last fifty years? Twenty-five years? Are you going to renounce your citizenship, then?

Or perhaps you might work for change instead from inside Australia.

You support and attend a Church that holds as one of its founding stones, a book that speaks of support of killing a whole group of people in society. But you claim you stand by everything else, just not that.

Yep - and, excuse me: "claim"? Watch it.

Now, I reiterate: I've never heard any Catholic service even bring up that part of Romans. Sorry. And it would be pretty hard to do so in the context of a forgiving Saviour. So, in short: Paul was wrong. Period. Missed the memo. It's well within my rights as a Catholic and a Christian and a human being to believe exactly that. Does any faith have to justify every single passage of its book? Or are they - as I reiterate again and again about one faith in particular - allowed to reject it out of hand? I think they are, and that everyone is, according to their humanity. Are all Americans Bush supporters?

It's easy to just gloss over it all and claim you do not support such a stance. Yet you still attend the same Church, affirm the same gospels and bow down and cross yourself each time. You still don't get the unhealthy mind thing? Again, can you baaa for me Geoff?

Again: tear up your citizenship, Bells.

Or start bleating.

You obviously have not read your bible. Naughty! Sinner! You only hear what you want to hear Geoff.

Rather, I hear the message of peace, and stick with that. I'll leave Paul and Timothy to their empty ruminations until I can get them out of the Book.

I have seen so many Catholics shake their heads in disgust when seeing a gay individual being turned away from the altar as they go to receive their 'body of Christ'

*cough* Uh-huh. You were right there, then. Were they holding out their gay identity card, then? No? Perhaps a handbag? Buttless chaps and Gay Pride Day costume? How, exactly, did the priest identify them? Merely curious. :)

Tell me, do you think the priests who turn a homosexual away are doing it out of spiritual goodness or "regulation"?

If you've actually seen it occur, then regulation, obviously. You expected something different? Now, where is that passport of yours? The scissors are waiting.

Oh I am well aware of Church rituals. It's one of those things most memorise by heart by the time they are 5.

The five year olds, eh? Right. That certainly defines every church service I've ever been to. Instead of running around in the aisles and poking each other, they sit in perfect order, like little stone angels, genuflecting on command.

Right.

I did stand up and walk out when I heard it as a child. I remember my mother being mortified for embarrassing her. I think it is something she will never forgive me for. She thought I was a rebellious teenager at the time. I attend weddings and funerals of loved one's, but that is out of respect of those loved one's, not the Church. That was the day I declared my contract with God as being over.

Well were you a teenager or a child? Which are you now? Did the Churchmen chase you into the street and turn you into a newt? This is your right, by the way, Bells, which I am not impugning in any way, nor even demeaning. Yet you attack mine.

I am well aware of the stances the Church has taken in the past. On some matters there is no budging however. I would be surprised if the Church ever gave an openly and practicing gay individual communion, because so far to date, those individuals have always been turned away.

Again: how are they identified? And speaking of sin, how are other 'sinners' identified at Communion, out of curiousity? How is a couple living together before wedlock identified and scorned, since we're speaking of lifestyles here? Do they carry a sign? Where is this "not bloody you, mate" line that you think appears? I've gone to service with openly gay people and nothing is ever said.

You adhere and support their stance by attending. But that is something between you and your God. If you can reconcile yourself to such actions, so be it.

Why, thankyou. Very kind. Now: do muslims support sharia just by going to mosque? Dhimmitude? FGM? No. There is some percentage with that opinon in the islamic community, but the act of observing islam itself is not inimical to anyone, and all communities have percentages of one thing or another.

Did I select to become or be an atheist? No. I simply am. I don't believe there is a God. If there is, so be it. If there is not, so be it.

It was a choice. You said yourself above that you terminated your "contract". Ergo, a choice, Bells. So yes, you "selected to become an atheist".

Homosexuals are deemed to have cast the first stone by sinning and being with another of their own sex.

They most certainly are not. Not in any Catholic church I've ever heard of. Let me illustrate something to you here: in the story about casting the first stone, was the adulteress woman in the example then meant herself to have cast the first stone via adultery?? You do realize that Jesus used that bit to get her off the docket? How can he criticize them for wanting to throw the first stone when - as your comment above suggests you think - she's supposed to have already done so. Don't re-write gospel bass-ackwards. You clearly have no idea what you're talking about.

His words still stand and seen to be Gospel. That the Church does not recite those particular readings during mass does not mean it has divulged itself of this belief.

But most of its believers have.

And as you say, it is suggestive to you because you are open to it. You desire there to be a God, so you are easily led to believe.

And you desire not, so you are easily led not to believe. A choice, good Bells!

Next time you recite the Creed, be sure to select what you do and do not affirm.

I always do. :) Nothing offensive in it, unless you object to iconographical perspective, which is exaggerated.

But as I said, you affirm simply by planting your rotund backside on the bench and line up for the sacrament. You do not need to astound me or anyone else. You need only astound yourself.

...calls me fat, then tells me I only need astound myself, which is meant to mean...ugh. Pointless. Bells, you are as incognisant of me as you are incognisant of everything else you don't agree with in your life. Which, so far, is quite a lot.

Baaaa for me boy!

Baaaa like you mean it!

Relations with the hubby a little strained? Now, now: I'm a married man.

Best,

Geoff

Maybe you do? Sorry, but those are definitely not the words we use. What do you want me to say? Why do you keep going, if you hate it so much? Do you simply become lost on the way to the liquor store?


Maybe I do? Geoffy boy! I laugh at your lame attempts to turn this back on me. HAHA! <--- That was me laughing.

Those words are used as part of the Gospels Geoff. Maybe the Catholic Church is attempting to change its visage to the dumbed down sheep who attend, lest they be seen to be politically incorrect. It is in the Bible, Geoff, and it has been part of the Gospels. Why would you want to support a religious organisation that preached from a Bible that states homosexuals deserve death? I find the whole thing to be quite confusing. You harp on about other religions that kill homosexuals, but you support a religious organisation that follows a book that deems homosexuals worthy of death. Pot.. kettle.. black perhaps?

I don't attend Church anymore. I am an atheist. I don't believe there is a God. I also believe the Catholic Church to be one of the most dangerous and hypocritical organisations on this planet. I guess my eyes opened from a very young age.

Feeling lusty?
Yes, but not for lamb. I am in the mood for beef to be honest.

Anyway, my comment was about their social positions. Your position appears to be that they can't have any, because they're all stupid. All...rightie then.
Ermm lets see.. They believe in a all supreme God who watches their every move from the sky... Ya.. smart one's they are.

Oh? A comparison: you're Australian, Bells. Is gay marriage legal in Australia? How about gay adoption? Has Australia been guilty of, say, racist citizenship or immigration policies in the last fifty years? Twenty-five years? Are you going to renounce your citizenship, then?

Or perhaps you might work for change instead from inside Australia.
Yes. I am an Australian citizen. And no, homosexuals are not allowed to marry and have in the past, as well in the present, exhibited racist tendencies. And guess what Geoff, I am working for change in the system. Do you think you are encouraging change in Catholic doctrines by attending church every week and forking out the money when the little tray comes around? Have you written to the Holy See to demand the Catholic Church abandons their belief in the Biblical teachings and Gospels about homosexuals? My guess to those questions is a 'no'?

Righteo then. Moving right along..

Yep - and, excuse me: "claim"? Watch it.

Oh, how delicious. A threat perhaps? Going to put me in my place with your words on the screen? I am feeling excited anticipation Geoff. Really.:)

Now, I reiterate: I've never heard any Catholic service even bring up that part of Romans.
But it is in your Bible and is deemed to be part of the Gospels, Geoff. So why support and believe in a Church that views homosexuality as being deserving of death?

Sorry. And it would be pretty hard to do so in the context of a forgiving Saviour.
Mmmm hmmm..

So, in short: Paul was wrong. Period. Missed the memo.
Do you want to tell the Catholic Church that? Because he is still lauded as being saintly in the Church. You going to tell them he is wrong? You going to campaign for the Church to be more accepting of homosexuals and to remove or strike out those Gospels from the Bible? Yes?... No?.. Instead, you will attend Church every week, kneel down, recite the Creed, take holy communion and then kneel down and beg for forgiveness for all your sins, knowing deep down the Church you are currently defending holds the Bible as being the words of truth and goodness, the very same Bible that claims homosexuals are deserving of death.

But hey, you say Paul was wrong. Shame the Church you happen to support does not agree with you, now isn't it?

It's well within my rights as a Catholic and a Christian and a human being to believe exactly that. Does any faith have to justify every single passage of its book? Or are they - as I reiterate again and again about one faith in particular - allowed to reject it out of hand? I think they are, and that everyone is, according to their humanity. Are all Americans Bush supporters?
Why are you defending yourself Geoff? At the end of the day, you attend a Church that follows a book that deems homosexuals as being deserving of death. You are, a Catholic. You can claim Paul was wrong all you like. You have a choice whether to attend said Church or not. Americans do not have a choice as to where they live. They can try to vote for the other party. But you have a choice. You choose to exercise it by continuing to attend.

Again: tear up your citizenship, Bells.

Or start bleating.
Refer to above. You see Geoff, Australia is attempting to right the wrongs of the past. Has the Catholic Church taken such steps? Yes? Or no? My guess is 'no' since Paul is still such a big figurehead in the Church and in the Bible it follows.

You were saying about 'bleating'?

Rather, I hear the message of peace, and stick with that. I'll leave Paul and Timothy to their empty ruminations until I can get them out of the Book.
You mean you sit, with your hands over your ears and sing 'la la laaaaa'?

You won't get Paul out of "the Book". I strongly advise you to go to the Vatican website and search on homosexuality. Then you'll see just how accepting they happen to be. In short, peaceful my arse.

*cough* Uh-huh. You were right there, then. Were they holding out their gay identity card, then? No? Perhaps a handbag? Buttless chaps and Gay Pride Day costume? How, exactly, did the priest identify them? Merely curious.
Are you trying to be blind? No, seriously, are you?

Usually if the priest knows the individual is a homosexual or the person is wearing a pin or scarf to identify their support for homosexuals (rainbow pattern or sash) or are homosexuals themselves have been refused communion, sometimes even asked to leave.

I have heard of parents of homosexuals supporting their children also being turned away and refused communion.

If you've actually seen it occur, then regulation, obviously. You expected something different? Now, where is that passport of yours? The scissors are waiting.

As I said Geoff, I am no longer a Catholic. And I am working to change the system in Australia. Question is, are you working to change the belief system in the Catholic Church? Having paid a visit to the Pope's website, my guess would be you are not succeeding in that regard. But you still defend them. Strange.

The five year olds, eh? Right. That certainly defines every church service I've ever been to. Instead of running around in the aisles and poking each other, they sit in perfect order, like little stone angels, genuflecting on command.

Right.
Yes, actually we did. We weren't allowed to run around in Church as children. Doing so would result in the whole family being asked to leave. But then again, as a small child, I lived in a country (not Australia) where pews were reserved for white people and anyone of colour was relegated to the back. If a person of colour dared to sit in the front, the white Catholic priest would be sure to order you to move before and during the mass. So coloured children like myself were not allowed to move around and run in the aisle during mass. We had to genuflect upon command, because not doing so would mean being ordered to leave.

I have seen supposedly 'peaceful' Catholic priests abuse and insult a dark coloured elderly woman for daring to sit in the second row in Church, telling her she did not belong. Such experiences mark one from a very young age. So please, spare me the "message of peace" crap. I have seen the worst in the Church and frankly, the day I turned my back on it as a child was the best day of my life.

Well were you a teenager or a child? Which are you now? Did the Churchmen chase you into the street and turn you into a newt? This is your right, by the way, Bells, which I am not impugning in any way, nor even demeaning. Yet you attack mine.

I was about 13 at the time actually. I was only going to mass to please my parents. And that day, enough was enough. I asked my father for the car keys and I got up and walked out and sat in the car for an hour until my parents came out and we went home. Stony silence and anger on their behalf. Sadness from me. Because not only did I no longer even want to associate with such an organisation, but I knew then without a doubt that I did not believe in God. Especially a God that was portrayed in the Bible.

Am I attacking you? I guess so, yes. I suppose I find extraordinary how someone can abuse and insult others because their religion actually kills homosexuals while still believing so strongly in a religion that follows a Book which views homosexuals as being deserving of death. I see a level of hypocrisy that is astounding to be honest.

Again: how are they identified? And speaking of sin, how are other 'sinners' identified at Communion, out of curiousity? How is a couple living together before wedlock identified and scorned, since we're speaking of lifestyles here? Do they carry a sign? Where is this "not bloody you, mate" line that you think appears? I've gone to service with openly gay people and nothing is ever said.
Don't pretend to be so blind Geoff. Stupidity does not become you.

How do you think this couple (http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20061210/gays_communion_061210/20061210?hub=TopStories)were identified?

And if you happen to wear a rainbow sash, you will be denied, homosexual or not.

So tell me Geoff, how are you going to get them to understand they are wrong? Protest will result in your being denied (http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0500678.htm) the holy sacrament. Read question 5. (http://www.catholicdoors.com/faq/qu31.htm#answer6) Amusing if it weren't so damn pathetic.

Why, thankyou. Very kind. Now: do muslims support sharia just by going to mosque? Dhimmitude? FGM? No. There is some percentage with that opinon in the islamic community, but the act of observing islam itself is not inimical to anyone, and all communities have percentages of one thing or another.
Right. So next time you have a go at a Muslim member for their support of their religion, I shall be quite correct in pointing out the hypocrisy of your argument when one considers you support and adhere to a religion that preaches from a book stating homosexuals are deserving of death? Righteo!

Because you are not practicing what you are preaching Geoff. You accuse Islam of being backward when you belong to the Catholic Church, which is, equally backwards. Again.. pot.. kettle.. black..


It was a choice. You said yourself above that you terminated your "contract". Ergo, a choice, Bells. So yes, you "selected to become an atheist".
No dear. I became an atheist because I honestly believed there was no God and I left the Catholic Church because of its belief system. My disbelief in a higher being had been confusing me quite a bit for a few years as a child. But one day, in Church, it all became quite clear. And that was it.

They most certainly are not. Not in any Catholic church I've ever heard of. Let me illustrate something to you here: in the story about casting the first stone, was the adulteress woman in the example then meant herself to have cast the first stone via adultery?? You do realize that Jesus used that bit to get her off the docket? How can he criticize them for wanting to throw the first stone when - as your comment above suggests you think - she's supposed to have already done so. Don't re-write gospel bass-ackwards. You clearly have no idea what you're talking about.
Oh I do pet. Do you think Jesus would have been as forgiving if she had been a homosexual? She was a sinner in the eyes of the people. She was a sinner in the eyes of Christ. She was saved by Christ because he viewed that she could only be judged by God and that no one had a right to cast that first stone. Now, homosexuals have two choices in the Bible. They can repent and become celibate, or he can live in unforgivable sin in the eyes of man, only to be judged for his sin's by God. In the meantime, he will be deemed to be deserving of death and denied communion. Hmmmm.. So tell me again Geoff, do you think if she had been a homosexual, that Jesus would have dared to use the 'he who casts the first stone' as a means to save her? Somehow I doubt it. A sinner casts the stone against themselves Geoff. But as Jesus argued, it is not for man to judge her for her sins, but for God the father to do so. That is why Jesus saved her. Not because she was innocent. But because it is not for man to judge her and punish her for her sin, because the only judge for a person's sin is God. Get it?.. Follow me now?..

But most of its believers have.
Really? So why is it still in the Bible then, Geoff?

And you desire not, so you are easily led not to believe. A choice, good Bells!
Actually no. Desire does not come into it. I really do not believe there is a God. I would desire there be a God to stop the carnage around the world, but there is not. I would desire for anything to have the power to stop the violence and the killing around the world. But alas, there is no one with that kind of power.

I always do. Nothing offensive in it, unless you object to iconographical perspective, which is exaggerated.
Of course it is Geoff.

...calls me fat, then tells me I only need astound myself, which is meant to mean...ugh. Pointless. Bells, you are as incognisant of me as you are incognisant of everything else you don't agree with in your life. Which, so far, is quite a lot.
We disagree with a lot of things in life Geoff. Which is why you amuse me so much.:D See? You get emotional at my saying your backside is rotund! Tis funny.

Relations with the hubby a little strained? Now, now: I'm a married man.
Sorry my dear, but I am not into hairy men with girlish voices.

:)

Maybe I do? Geoffy boy! I laugh at your lame attempts to turn this back on me. HAHA! <--- That was me laughing.

No, I reiterate: why do you keep going then, if you hate it so much? This isn't a turnback, but a reasonable question. Is someone making you go or something? Have you slipped a gauge somewhere?

Those words are used as part of the Gospels Geoff. Maybe the Catholic Church is attempting to change its visage to the dumbed down sheep who attend, lest they be seen to be politically incorrect. It is in the Bible, Geoff, and it has been part of the Gospels.

It appears to be a part largely unknown to me, then. I reiterate: I have never heard it cited in aid of anything in the Catholic church, at any time. Given your back-and-forth about being Catholic as a kid, or then a teen, or then still going but hating it, I wonder if you've actually ever set foot in a Catholic church at all. It seems a bit more likely you've associated with some small evangelical extremist group.

Why would you want to support a religious organisation that preached from a Bible that states homosexuals deserve death?

Again: when are you tearing up your Australian passport?

I find the whole thing to be quite confusing. You harp on about other religions that kill homosexuals, but you support a religious organisation that follows a book that deems homosexuals worthy of death. Pot.. kettle.. black perhaps?

Oh? Then you'll be so good as to indicate the last execution of a homosexual by religious Christian law in the West, please. Thankee.

I don't attend Church anymore.

But you just said you did, and hated it! Which is it?

Yes, but not for lamb. I am in the mood for beef to be honest.

Given your arguments, I would have suspected something lying behind said beef, but as you will.

Ermm lets see.. They believe in a all supreme God who watches their every move from the sky... Ya.. smart one's they are.

Can you disprove the observations of the Apostolic books of the Bible? If so, by all means do so.

Yes. I am an Australian citizen. And no, homosexuals are not allowed to marry and have in the past, as well in the present, exhibited racist tendencies. And guess what Geoff, I am working for change in the system.

Halleluiah! Go, Sister! Go! Now, what change have you worked for? Have you, say, written to Canberra about their policies? Marched? Maybe bitched about it a little in the checkout line, even? Me, I've brought it up quite openly to everyone who asks; I disagree both with priest celibacy, and with discrimination against homosexuals. So far, no excommunication. I shall await albino priests with Glocks.

Do you think you are encouraging change in Catholic doctrines by attending church every week and forking out the money when the little tray comes around?

Do you think you are encouraging change in Australian doctrines by observing Australian citizenship and forking out your tax money when the little letter from Canberra comes around?

Have you written to the Holy See to demand the Catholic Church abandons their belief in the Biblical teachings and Gospels about homosexuals? My guess to those questions is a 'no'?

There you are correct, for a change. I haven't written them. I will do so tomorrow, when my papers have been finished. Now: what change have you worked for? Have you written to Canberra about their policies? My guess to that question is a 'no'. Moving right along.

Oh, how delicious. A threat perhaps? Going to put me in my place with your words on the screen? I am feeling excited anticipation Geoff. Really.

Well, it's rather more that you risk self-identification as a idiot and slanderer when you accuse me of homophobia or whatnot. I suppose illustrating your errors to those who run the site wouldn't help, of course.

But it is in your Bible and is deemed to be part of the Gospels, Geoff. So why support and believe in a Church that views homosexuality as being deserving of death?

See above. Why are you still an Australian citizen? Why not move to Holland? Why do you continue to support a homophobic and racist institution with your tax dollars and citizenship? Or are you still trying to "take on Australia from the inside"?

Mmmm hmmm..

Ah! Agreement! You have a pair of brain cells to rub together! Excellent.

Do you want to tell the Catholic Church that? Because he is still lauded as being saintly in the Church. You going to tell them he is wrong? You going to campaign for the Church to be more accepting of homosexuals and to remove or strike out those Gospels from the Bible?

Yep. I'm going to check first and make sure that wasn't a translational issue (unlikely) and then write in and complain.

You going to do any of that in Australia?

No.

Instead, you will attend Church every week, kneel down, recite the Creed, take holy communion and then kneel down and beg for forgiveness for all your sins, knowing deep down the Church you are currently defending holds the Bible as being the words of truth and goodness, the very same Bible that claims homosexuals are deserving of death.

In case you missed it - and you have - I'm also there for my sins. You understand this, yes? The act of contrition is about the individual, not forcing the institution organizing such contrition to also make contrition. You've bought into all the old ridiculous stereotypes, and seem to be trying to force me into a mold of your own creation. Why such anger?

But hey, you say Paul was wrong. Shame the Church you happen to support does not agree with you, now isn't it?

It is a shame. Paul's part in that early chunk of Romans is being avoided, instead of recognized and shamed or removed. It's amazing that you can attack someone for actually having a moral perspective on this.

Why are you defending yourself Geoff?

Because my personal character - along with my religion - is being attacked by a hysterical git.

Americans do not have a choice as to where they live.

This would be a lie. They do have every choice, as a free people, to live anywhere they like; and so do you, by the way, my hypocritical friend.

Refer to above. You see Geoff, Australia is attempting to right the wrongs of the past.

Haw! A dollar for the Abos, then? Pittance and a foot out the door? Right.

You were saying about 'bleating'?

Again: tear up your citizenship, Bells.

You mean you sit, with your hands over your ears and sing 'la la laaaaa'?

It's rare that someone can so categorically misunderstand a person, or their morality, or their position. I decided to colour-code this example.

You won't get Paul out of "the Book".

Oh, but I will. ;) Will you get the racism out of Australia, as you continue to be a member thereof?

Usually if the priest knows the individual is a homosexual or the person is wearing a pin or scarf to identify their support for homosexuals (rainbow pattern or sash) or are homosexuals themselves have been refused communion, sometimes even asked to leave.

Uh-huh. Because homosexuals have a club badge. I see. You are quantifiably insane.

Interestingly, when I searched on the term on www.catholic.org, I got this:

http://www.catholic.org/search_site.php?search_term=homosexual&qqq=Encyclopedia

Seems unfilled.

As I said Geoff, I am no longer a Catholic. And I am working to change the system in Australia. Question is, are you working to change the belief system in the Catholic Church?

Already answered.

Having paid a visit to the Pope's website, my guess would be you are not succeeding in that regard. But you still defend them. Strange.

Are you making much headway against your government then? No. Strange you defend them. Have I defended homophobia in the Church? No. I merely question the, shall we say, legitimacy of some of your supposedly first-hand observations. I'm sure it occurs. I've just never seen it.

Yes, actually we did. We weren't allowed to run around in Church as children. Doing so would result in the whole family being asked to leave. But then again, as a small child, I lived in a country (not Australia) where pews were reserved for white people and anyone of colour was relegated to the back. If a person of colour dared to sit in the front, the white Catholic priest would be sure to order you to move before and during the mass. So coloured children like myself were not allowed to move around and run in the aisle during mass. We had to genuflect upon command, because not doing so would mean being ordered to leave.

Well, this is an issue of local racism rather than religion per se, I'd say. Have you turned your back on Australia too? Just curious.

Am I attacking you? I guess so, yes.

No kidding.

I suppose I find extraordinary how someone can abuse and insult others because their religion actually kills homosexuals while still believing so strongly in a religion that follows a Book which views homosexuals as being deserving of death. I see a level of hypocrisy that is astounding to be honest.

I criticize elements of that other religion as they apply to human rights and freedoms. Denying someone the right to Communion is not the same level of offense as denying someone the right to oxygen. Were they to give those elements up - which, as you note, encompasses actually killing people, as opposed to Paul's whining - I would have no complaints at all. If I have given you the impression that I disapproved of that religion in toto, then I apologize for that misconception. However, your complaints, as always, appear to eminate from your sense of personal offense.

And if you happen to wear a rainbow sash, you will be denied, homosexual or not.

So tell me Geoff, how are you going to get them to understand they are wrong? Protest will result in your being denied (http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0500678.htm) the holy sacrament. Read question 5. (http://www.catholicdoors.com/faq/qu31.htm#answer6) Amusing if it weren't so damn pathetic.

Then so be it: I will be denied the Holy Sacrament.

...hasn't happened yet, but let's all be hopeful, shall we? It might.


Right. So next time you have a go at a Muslim member for their support of their religion, I shall be quite correct in pointing out the hypocrisy of your argument when one considers you support and adhere to a religion that preaches from a book stating homosexuals are deserving of death? Righteo!

Please do: I am not responsible for the ignorance of your arguments.

In response: I do not attack their support of their own religion - as I have made clear several times, but which children sometimes miss - but some of the elements thereof. I have repeatedly stated that reform in behaviour is required; I have even offered, true, liturgical change as a possible remedy. But I have not blanketed islam wholesale as wrong, nor do I so believe. Given that the Quran contains many elements of various humanitarian value, this would be categorically impossible. If you think otherwise, please prove it or shut your yapping. People are much free to think as they like, regrettably. It is what they do that enters into humanitarian morality.

Because you are not practicing what you are preaching Geoff. You accuse Islam of being backward when you belong to the Catholic Church, which is, equally backwards. Again.. pot.. kettle.. black..

Oh? Am I preaching Romans 1:24? Had I even heard of it, until now? Do I support it?

No dear. I became an atheist because I honestly believed there was no God and I left the Catholic Church because of its belief system. My disbelief in a higher being had been confusing me quite a bit for a few years as a child. But one day, in Church, it all became quite clear. And that was it.

Oh I do pet. Do you think Jesus would have been as forgiving if she had been a homosexual?

Of course. It's implicit in the issue of throwing the first stone.

Really? So why is it still in the Bible then, Geoff?

Internal politics, obviously. You assume that the Catholic church is immune?

Actually no. Desire does not come into it. I really do not believe there is a God. I would desire there be a God to stop the carnage around the world, but there is not. I would desire for anything to have the power to stop the violence and the killing around the world. But alas, there is no one with that kind of power.

And I would desire for there not to be a God. I would actually prefer it. I am not a good Christian. I sin. I err. I covet. I would prefer, since I consider myself irreparrably damaged, not to be, after a miserable, drawn-out struggle with death, to be judged and sent into a fiery afterlife for all time. This is something I imagine you cannot properly contemplate. Yet, I feel differently to you. You may tolerate such difference, or carry on as you do. Strangely, I have yet to attack atheism.

Yet I'm apparently the member of the offensive faith system.

How odd.

Best,

Geoff

Actually, speaking either as an observer or a participator, the accounts are actually highly similar. If anything, one would argue they're too similar.


Remember that the issue is that these people are all supposedly observers, which seemingly cannot be so given the dating etc.

You said: "I think it could be generously argued that the Gospels represent the position of several observers"

and then argue similarity as somehow supporting that. Needless to say it does not. The Noah flood is clearly a later copy with addition to the flood saga seen in the Epic of Gilgamesh, containing exact duplicated details and so on. It's very doubtful, given the dating and story itself, that both authors could have been observers of the event.

Likewise, the dating and so on of the gospels indicate that they could not have all been observers.

It's an interesting question: I would consider it a lot more likely if thousands of people saw such an abduction simultaneously, which is the case for some of the events in the Bible.

Fine, let's put this into perspective:

You find a report by some individual you have never met, will never meet and simply do not know that claims he was abducted by aliens and that thousands of people witnessed the event.

No, you cannot interview or hear from any of those claimed eyewitness. Ever.

You find another report by another man that you do not know and will never know that details incredibly similar things. The aliens look the same, the spaceship interior is described identically and this man too claims that there were thousands of eyewitnesses, (none of whom you can ever interview).

What do you ultimately have?

Yes, you have a claim made by complete strangers followed by a claim that thousands of people can attest to the truth of it, and writings by some other complete stranger that detail incredibly similar things and also have thousands of witnesses.

You read the case and say it is true, and amusingly it is true because "there were thousands of eyewitnesses" and "it's very similar".

So where do the double standards come from?

No, it isn't. Cars and computers may be called "unnatural", but they obey all natural laws.

Saying cars and computers are unnatural is like saying that a beavers dam is unnatural?

Remember that the issue is that these people are all supposedly observers, which seemingly cannot be so given the dating etc.

They may not be direct observations, true, but I recall that some of them at least date prior to 100 AD, and might only be secondhand observation.

You said: "I think it could be generously argued that the Gospels represent the position of several observers"

and then argue similarity as somehow supporting that.

Well, actually I could. Similarity among several observers suggests a correct vein.

Needless to say it does not. The Noah flood is clearly a later copy with addition to the flood saga seen in the Epic of Gilgamesh, containing exact duplicated details and so on.

Well I think hardly anyone would reasonably point to Noah as being correct or likely; yet how is it that it is "clearly" a later copy? How is this "clear"? It sounds to me more like supposition, whether accurate or otherwise. But we don't take supposition, however reasonable, as evidentiary.

You read the case and say it is true, and amusingly it is true because "there were thousands of eyewitnesses" and "it's very similar".

So where do the double standards come from?

...? Actually they don't. Actually I'm not following where this is going; when I said above they actually seemed too similar, if anything, it was in respect of the argument that there's a lot of variance among them, and thus that that proves their fallibility.

Here's another thing to consider, which has never to my knowledge emerged in the discussion: it might be argued - and has - that in vein of my point above that the Gospels are too similar, too close. Therefore, that they must have been co-written. Yet I don't think anyone would have thought to demand multiple o