Non Aviation & Not For The Faint Hearted

[DEFCON]

When the Bible, or any other old text mentions a 'supreme being', they're describing something that sounds like it belongs to our physical reality and not of the realm of a spiritual deity. I think it's quite likely that men of the biblical age, coming from a time where no one knew anything of science, probably bestowed the title of God(s) upon alien visitors?

GDR mentions the 'mountain of good' done by Christian NGO's. I think it would be interesting indeed to compare that mountain of good against the mountain of bad they've done.

In the modern time the results of the activities of NGO's should be causing the world to stop and engage in some serious sober second thinking in this respect. For instance; in 2010 the Haitian earthquake brought all sorts of NGO's in to help out. The Salvation Army ran a radio ad seeking donations. With this ad they let us know that they had been in Haiti helping out for sixty years and suggested that we should send our donations to them, the ones that knew what they were doing, versus giving money to one of the newer and unproven entities.

If we were to stop and evaluate the S.A's work product, things start to become questionable. Sixty years ago there were less than a million Haitians living in squalor and poverty. Today the population is I think over ten million and they too subsist in squalor and poverty. The unwashed masses of the modern day remain illiterate for the most part and lacking in the social graces in spite of the massive amount of resources that have been thrown into the problem over the decades.

The same sad tale repeats itself worldwide unfortunately wherever the Christian NGO's have and continue to do their 'good' work.

So, while a lot of people may want to believe they're 'helping' with either their donations, or assistance in field, someone's got to ask if their cause isn't producing a lot more trauma for those being helped, and the global community in general. In that regard, can anyone say they honestly believe the outcome of the massive unchecked emigration from the third world that's going on at present is going to produce a good ending for anyone in Europe?

[GDR]

Well, there are a number of things to mention. You talk about the harm done by Christian NGO's and then talk about the apparent lack of success in Haiti. In the first place, lack of success does not equate to harm, and secondly you can only see the country as it is, not as how it would have been without the work of the NGO's.

In your last paragraph your point seems to be that by attempting to help others you are doing yourself harm, and so we shouldn't go down that route. If that is secularism I want no part of it.

Whether a prime mover exists or not we all have religion or its equivalent. In the west the most prominent god is the god of mammon with its temples being our financial institutions. In those temples we see messiahs that are corrupt in many cases and drawing salaries and bonuses far beyond what the average adherent of that particular faith earns, and yet society carries on worshiping at those temples.

I made a case against atheism earlier in this thread and no one seems to want to argue with it. If we accept that there is most likely a prime mover then we have to wonder what we can learn about such an entity. Much of the post enlightenment west has been founded on Epicureanism which is essentially desim. (God created the world and then deserted it.) Frankly, I don't think that is much more reasonable than atheism. Why would a creative intelligence bring this universe into existence and then take no further interest and simply remove himself/herself/itself? I contend that the most logical or reasonable cause of our existence is a theistic god.

Religion then is man's attempt, based on what we do know and can observe in the world, in ourselves and in each other to determine the nature of a theistic god. As I mentioned earlier, the one thing that we do find in common in the vast majority of religions and many other institutions is the idea that we should love others as we love ourselves. It seems reasonable then to assume that this is the fundamental nature of any deity or deities and that this is something that we should live up to. Unfortunately, whether it be in our religious institutions, in our financial institutions, in our governments or even as individuals we not only don't live up to it, but more often than not fall far short of that ideal.

It is pointless to blame religion for our problems. The problem lies in our humanity. However, we should point out where and when our institutions whether religious or not fall short of the mark and on that we agree.

[DEFCON]

"The problem lies in our humanity"

So simple, but all too true.

I can appreciate your finding the notion of secularism offensive to your Christian self. It's bold, but think that you, like others, are in some deep way compelled to help. That being the case, what consideration should the motivated Christian give to his fellow countryman that is of the other view, the side that adheres to a somewhat more secular position?

I guess I'm attempting to understand how we can resolve the different perspectives and their potential consequences; is it a matter of religious conscience, or democratic principles?.

[GDR]

Heck I don't find secularism offensive at all. There are lots of things I disagree with people about but that doesn't mean I find them offensive. I do find the things that some people do offensive and that includes what some Christians do.

As far as what the a motivated Christian should do to someone of another belief, be it religious or secular, is give them respect and consideration.

Most people, (not all), of all beliefs from Christianity to Islam to Judaism to atheism generally want the same thing regardless of their beliefs. Essentially we all want to feel safe, secure and cared for. There is no reason that our religious or non-religious beliefs should divide us. We all have our own views. Today I had a discussion with my wife concerning capital punishment. She believes that it has a place in our justice system and I don't. So we don't agree - so what - we don't get mad about it. There will always be extremists that won't operate by that code but it seems to me that there is a much smaller percentage of those now than there were centuries ago.

It seems to me that in some ways the message is that we are all called to be one tribe. We have a long way to go, but when you look at the history of humanity it does seem to me that progress is being made in spite of the horrors that still exist today.

[DEFCON]

Simply because I know I don't have absolute answers, I'm always a little fearful of being blasphemous and so, for the record; I think there’s a much bigger picture surrounding the tiny little reality of our physicality. Over the millennia men have been attempting to frame the impossible; the Bible is a good example of that effort. Unfortunately, countless religions have popped up along the way which attempt to bring order to the credulous masses often employing tools of evil to impress the church’s principles upon them. Nonetheless, truth is to be found within the good book, I think; it’s just a matter of teasing it out from within all the nonsensical static contained within.

Here perhaps is a ‘for instance’?

The Book of Genesis attempts to interpret our beginning using the tools available to the men of the day. Apparently, the story was passed on through one vessel, or another to arrive fairly intact in the present day. The story is maintained in the form of the written word and describes an event which essentially claims that there once existed a big dark empty void containing but one thing, what must have been, a very bored God sitting in the middle for all of eternity doing nothing. He apparently decided to make some changes to his realm when he uttered the command; ‘let there be light’. As it would be, there was light.

Come forward many thousand years to the present day and we find that we’ve come into possession of another story intended to explain our beginnings; the ‘big bang’. This version of creation is a product of modern physics and expressed in the language of mathematics. It too considers a big dark empty void save and except for a tiny ball of energy containing everything that ultimately would be. When compressed sufficiently, this energy ball allegedly exploded in a manner that ultimately resulted in the universe we experience today. Funnily enough, the first particle produced in this explosion was the photon, the particle of light.

Both iterations of ‘creation’ do continue on in parallel with each other.

I don’t know, but from my perspective, these stories are far too similar to be considered coincidence; both attempt to describe the same event, but only through different languages. In this regard, I think it’s quite unfortunate that time has given man the opportunity to screw up the ‘biblical truth’ so badly that he’s managed to get most everyone on the planet locked into believing in fairy tales and prepared to kill their fellow man in the name of their god.

[IFG]

.... Here perhaps is a ‘for instance’?

The Book of Genesis attempts to interpret our beginning using the tools available to the men of the day. Apparently, the story was passed on through one vessel, or another to arrive fairly intact in the present day. The story is maintained in the form of the written word and describes an event which essentially claims that there once existed a big dark empty void containing but one thing, what must have been, a very bored God sitting in the middle for all of eternity doing nothing. He apparently decided to make some changes to his realm when he uttered the command; ‘let there be light’. As it would be, there was light.

Come forward many thousand years to the present day and we find that we’ve come into possession of another story intended to explain our beginnings; the ‘big bang’. This version of creation is a product of modern physics and expressed in the language of mathematics. It too considers a big dark empty void save and except for a tiny ball of energy containing everything that ultimately would be. When compressed sufficiently, this energy ball allegedly exploded in a manner that ultimately resulted in the universe we experience today. Funnily enough, the first particle produced in this explosion was the photon, the particle of light.

Both iterations of ‘creation’ do continue on in parallel with each other.

I don’t know, but from my perspective, these stories are far too similar to be considered coincidence; both attempt to describe the same event, but only through different languages. In this regard, I think it’s quite unfortunate that time has given man the opportunity to screw up the ‘biblical truth’ so badly that he’s managed to get most everyone on the planet locked into believing in fairy tales and prepared to kill their fellow man in the name of their god.

Hi, Defcon - The point of similarity that you highlight is a pretty slim one. Darkness to light has always signalled beginnings, since stories began to be told. And, a relentless search for patterns to 'explain' apparent coincidences often yields specious similarities. In the question of religiosity, an allegorical tale of origin (setting aside the beliefs of those who take that stuff literally!), that ultimately serves a moral (or other) purpose, should not be conflated or confused in any way with the utterly neutral presentation of fact, deduction and informed speculation surrounding the Big Bang theory.

.... Whether a prime mover exists or not we all have religion or its equivalent. In the west the most prominent god is the god of mammon with its temples being our financial institutions. In those temples we see messiahs that are corrupt in many cases and drawing salaries and bonuses far beyond what the average adherent of that particular faith earns, and yet society carries on worshiping at those temples.

I made a case against atheism earlier in this thread and no one seems to want to argue with it. If we accept that there is most likely a prime mover then we have to wonder what we can learn about such an entity. Much of the post enlightenment west has been founded on Epicureanism which is essentially desim. (God created the world and then deserted it.) Frankly, I don't think that is much more reasonable than atheism. Why would a creative intelligence bring this universe into existence and then take no further interest and simply remove himself/herself/itself? I contend that the most logical or reasonable cause of our existence is a theistic god.

Religion then is man's attempt, based on what we do know and can observe in the world, in ourselves and in each other to determine the nature of a theistic god. As I mentioned earlier, the one thing that we do find in common in the vast majority of religions and many other institutions is the idea that we should love others as we love ourselves. It seems reasonable then to assume that this is the fundamental nature of any deity or deities and that this is something that we should live up to. Unfortunately, whether it be in our religious institutions, in our financial institutions, in our governments or even as individuals we not only don't live up to it, but more often than not fall far short of that ideal

Hi again,GDR - To the point about all of us having religion "or its equivalent": only under an idea of religion so broad as to make the distinction between having, and not having it, a pointless one. If the notion of religion is to co-opt all wonder, awe, or decency of any kind, I guess I'd hope we all have it, for our own good. But the important distinction to me is whether one believes, and partakes in acts of petition to supposed 'higher' authority, in search of improved fortune. This is the aspect of religion most subject to misuse or outright charlatanry. Not to mention of course the lack of any verifiable validation or predictability. To such, much faith is attached.

As for no one arguing the case you claim "against" atheism, it's likely more a reluctance to offend or anger than an "accept[ance] that there is most likely a prime mover". Two of your principle arguments revolved around a reluctance to accept that life had a prosaic beginning, and an apparent similarity in teachings such as the Golden Rule. In a spirit of exploration rather than argument , let's look at each.

I think perhaps you trivialize the origin story that is evolving from curiosity, rigorous examination, and careful, informed speculation. If remotely true (and I certainly don't find it implausible at all), there is surely wonder and awe to be found in the long and repeatedly timely coincidence of events that precipitated all this ... life. For sure, without so many things breaking as they did, WE, with all our beauty and filth, would not be here at all. The universe would still be unfolding (as it should, or was going to anyway, depending on ones outlook), but WE would be appreciating that outcome about as much as our long dead ancestors are enjoying the universe now, which is to say, we can feel central to our own existence, but everything else hums along with or without us. We can appreciate some virtues from that idea, humility perhaps first among them. "Religion" not required.

The apparent commonality of some of the 'teachings' of religion could surely represent the learning, by most intelligent folk, from experience. The Golden Rule is not mystical truth, it is readily apparent to anybody with the wits to differentiate between what we can loosely term good and bad behaviour. The same principles are more cynically encompassed in "what goes around, comes around", or H. L. Mencken's Bierce-ian definition of conscience as the voice that tells you somebody may be watching. My central distinction here is between the notions of 'teaching', upon which most religion is founded, and 'learning' (not merely as object of teaching), through experience, experiment, and reason.

Hope you don't think I'm trying to rattle your cage, GDR, you sometimes take things in a thought-provoking direction, an occasional diversion from AC v .WJ, & the many idiocies of managers & pax, much to the delight of at least a few of us.

Cheers, IFG

p.s. As a side note, it's interesting how in this context, some people find the more scientific explanations of life-origin implausible ("what are the chances" etc.), but in a discussion of life elsewhere in the universe, that's turned on it's head with assertions that in all the billions and billions of stars, indeed galaxies, why surely there must be life elsewhere. Math is funny that way ...

[DEFCON]

Good morning IFG

" In the question of religiosity, an allegorical tale of origin (setting aside the beliefs of those who take that stuff literally!), that ultimately serves a moral (or other) purpose, should not be conflated or confused in any way with the utterly neutral presentation of fact, deduction and informed speculation surrounding the Big Bang theory."

But isn't 'the utterly neutral presentation of fact, deduction and informed speculation' a process that could also describe the recording of the biblical story of creation? IOW's, if we were to accept the big bang 'theory' as a fair recounting of the origin of the universe etc., aren't we going out on the same weak limb of credibility the theist clings to.

[Mitch Cronin]

A huge difference is that nobody claims the Big Bang is "fact". It's just the current, most popular, best theory which -so far- tends to explain what's observed. An ancient book of tales of supernatural events and beings is neither neutral, nor informed speculation.

To my mind, it's an astonishingly odd situation to find, that even today, a single, old book, so obviously riddled with fantasy and superstition, and clearly void of any real knowledge of nature, has any standing at all in a conversation about the true workings of the universe.

Science is not a religion. Science isn't about belief, or faith.... It's about (as Feynman so eloquently put it: ) trying to find out how the world works. That's all. Books written only 2 years ago can easily be outdated by newer discoveries.... by the time they get to 2000 yrs old, there's not likely to be much of any use to science in them.

[GDR]

The Book of Genesis attempts to interpret our beginning using the tools available to the men of the day. Apparently, the story was passed on through one vessel, or another to arrive fairly intact in the present day. The story is maintained in the form of the written word and describes an event which essentially claims that there once existed a big dark empty void containing but one thing, what must have been, a very bored God sitting in the middle for all of eternity doing nothing. He apparently decided to make some changes to his realm when he uttered the command; ‘let there be light’. As it would be, there was light.

Come forward many thousand years to the present day and we find that we’ve come into possession of another story intended to explain our beginnings; the ‘big bang’. This version of creation is a product of modern physics and expressed in the language of mathematics. It too considers a big dark empty void save and except for a tiny ball of energy containing everything that ultimately would be. When compressed sufficiently, this energy ball allegedly exploded in a manner that ultimately resulted in the universe we experience today. Funnily enough, the first particle produced in this explosion was the photon, the particle of light.

Both iterations of ‘creation’ do continue on in parallel with each other.

I don’t know, but from my perspective, these stories are far too similar to be considered coincidence; both attempt to describe the same event, but only through different languages. In this regard, I think it’s quite unfortunate that time has given man the opportunity to screw up the ‘biblical truth’ so badly that he’s managed to get most everyone on the planet locked into believing in fairy tales and prepared to kill their fellow man in the name of their god.

The book of Genesis was never meant to be scientific. Some look at it that way as that is how we read modern material. In many ways though it goes beyond metaphor and was largely unique to that era. It tells of a monotheistic creator, who having created in whatever manner acknowledges that as humans if we have the ability to know wrong and right and to choose between them. This creator, prime mover, god or God also desires that we choose that which is good and that we exercise those right choices as stewards of the planet.

I suggest that any connection between the "big bang" and Genesis is strictly co-incidental and frankly of no real importance. It is when we try to read the Bible as a science text, or a newspaper, that we wind up in trouble and IMHO getting a skewed image of God. I'm a Christian. I understand the nature of God as seen in Jesus Christ who I believe perfectly embodied or incarnated the word and wisdom of God. This is the Jesus who said love your enemy which is obviously opposite to the idea of God telling His people to go down and slaughter all the Canaanites. If I read the Bible with a fundamentalist attitude I am now able to twist what I believe God wants me to do into pretty much any form I want in order to justify my actions.

I suggest also that Christian fundamentalism typifies a weakness that we have as humans. We want everything cut and dried with a place to go to find absolute answers and as a result some have turned the Bible into an idol. This allows them to come up with absolute answers when really there is considerable ambiguity. We don't like ambiguity. For example, what do we do about Isis. We know that what they are doing is very wrong and we want to end what it is they are doing. They are the enemy and we are called to love them. However we are also called to love those that they are slaughtering. What should we do? The answer is ambiguous but we can't just sit back and do nothing. As a Christian I don't have an absolute answer but it does give me a framework to consider what should be done. In the end though the only way that we win the war though is that hearts and minds are changed and IMHO that takes generations and happens in small steps. It will not happen in any one leader's term in office.

[GDR]

Hi, Defcon - The point of similarity that you highlight is a pretty slim one. Darkness to light has always signalled beginnings, since stories began to be told. And, a relentless search for patterns to 'explain' apparent coincidences often yields specious similarities. In the question of religiosity, an allegorical tale of origin (setting aside the beliefs of those who take that stuff literally!), that ultimately serves a moral (or other) purpose, should not be conflated or confused in any way with the utterly neutral presentation of fact, deduction and informed speculation surrounding the Big Bang theory.

Hi again,GDR - To the point about all of us having religion "or its equivalent": only under an idea of religion so broad as to make the distinction between having, and not having it, a pointless one. If the notion of religion is to co-opt all wonder, awe, or decency of any kind, I guess I'd hope we all have it, for our own good. But the important distinction to me is whether one believes, and partakes in acts of petition to supposed 'higher' authority, in search of improved fortune. This is the aspect of religion most subject to misuse or outright charlatanry. Not to mention of course the lack of any verifiable validation or predictability. To such, much faith is attached.

As for no one arguing the case you claim "against" atheism, it's likely more a reluctance to offend or anger than an "accept[ance] that there is most likely a prime mover". Two of your principle arguments revolved around a reluctance to accept that life had a prosaic beginning, and an apparent similarity in teachings such as the Golden Rule. In a spirit of exploration rather than argument , let's look at each.

I think perhaps you trivialize the origin story that is evolving from curiosity, rigorous examination, and careful, informed speculation. If remotely true (and I certainly don't find it implausible at all), there is surely wonder and awe to be found in the long and repeatedly timely coincidence of events that precipitated all this ... life. For sure, without so many things breaking as they did, WE, with all our beauty and filth, would not be here at all. The universe would still be unfolding (as it should, or was going to anyway, depending on ones outlook), but WE would be appreciating that outcome about as much as our long dead ancestors are enjoying the universe now, which is to say, we can feel central to our own existence, but everything else hums along with or without us. We can appreciate some virtues from that idea, humility perhaps first among them. "Religion" not required.

The apparent commonality of some of the 'teachings' of religion could surely represent the learning, by most intelligent folk, from experience. The Golden Rule is not mystical truth, it is readily apparent to anybody with the wits to differentiate between what we can loosely term good and bad behaviour. The same principles are more cynically encompassed in "what goes around, comes around", or H. L. Mencken's Bierce-ian definition of conscience as the voice that tells you somebody may be watching. My central distinction here is between the notions of 'teaching', upon which most religion is founded, and 'learning' (not merely as object of teaching), through experience, experiment, and reason.

Hope you don't think I'm trying to rattle your cage, GDR, you sometimes take things in a thought-provoking direction, an occasional diversion from AC v .WJ, & the many idiocies of managers & pax, much to the delight of at least a few of us.

Cheers, IFG

p.s. As a side note, it's interesting how in this context, some people find the more scientific explanations of life-origin implausible ("what are the chances" etc.), but in a discussion of life elsewhere in the universe, that's turned on it's head with assertions that in all the billions and billions of stars, indeed galaxies, why surely there must be life elsewhere. Math is funny that way ...

OK where do I start. The argument that I made against atheism was not in any way a repudiation of science. As a matter of fact when I want to understand how the universe came into existence I look to science and certainly not my religion. My point was that the incredibly complex science that got from nothingness, (whatever that means), to particles, to atoms, to molecules, to incredibly complex single cells, to life, to conscious life, to sentient life and to morality all from mindless origins requires more faith than I can muster. I am simply saying that the science involved certainly indicates that there is an intelligent prime mover(s). My argument was not in any way negating the science but is an argument against atheism.

Religion involves our human understanding of the nature of the prime mover and what if any desires he has for our lives. As I said we worship all sorts of deities whether we call them religious or not. I know it is meant to be tongue in cheek, but think of that bumper sticker that says, "he who dies with the most toys win" is in a sense a form of religion.. That is essentially how many people in our society unconsciously see as a call on their life.

[DEFCON]

Mitch

“A huge difference is that nobody claims the Big Bang is "fact". It's just the current, most popular, best theory which -so far- tends to explain what's observed. An ancient book of tales of supernatural events and beings is neither neutral, nor informed speculation. To my mind, it's an astonishingly odd situation to find, that even today, a single, old book, so obviously riddled with fantasy and superstition, and clearly void of any real knowledge of nature, has any standing at all in a conversation about the true workings of the universe”

From what I’ve seen, here on the AEF too, most people seem to take the biblical story with a grain of salt. They appear to appreciate the good book as a story book that’s attempting to explain that which was not explainable in the period, just as scientific ‘theory’, not fact, attempts to do today. I see the Bible as a primitive expression of mans interest in the sciences.

“Science is not a religion. Science isn't about belief, or faith.... It's about (as Feynman so eloquently put it: ) trying to find out how the world works. That's all. Books written only 2 years ago can easily be outdated by newer discoveries.... by the time they get to 2000 yrs old, there's not likely to be much of any use to science in them.”

Doesn’t science start with an idea, or a belief that something is? If I have to go to my minders seeking cash for an experiment that I think may prove, or disprove a theory, I’m doing so because I have scientific faith in a concept. The science book that you studied in say, Grade nine, presented some information to the student as if it were fact when in ‘fact’ said information has now been proven to be in error. The stories contained within the Bible have remained in circulation for many millennia now, but without being up-dated as a mathematical model, which makes it look out of step with what are little more than modern fictions produced by physicists such a Hawking, Greene et al in the hope it will inspire and motivate others to pursue their religion, ‘theoretical physics’.

As an aside Mitch; I’m sure you’re aware that anytime you see the symbol for, or a reference to, ‘infinity’ in a physics equation, you’re following a trajectory based on pure mathematical BS from that point on.

[DEFCON]

GDR

I responded to Mitch above and then came across your considered responses. I believe the response I passed on to Mitch addressed some of the points you’ve just made.

“I suggest also that Christian fundamentalism typifies a weakness that we have as humans. We want everything cut and dried with a place to go to find absolute answers and as a result some have turned the Bible into an idol. This allows them to come up with absolute answers when really there is considerable ambiguity. We don't like ambiguity. For example, what do we do about Isis. We know that what they are doing is very wrong and we want to end what it is they are doing. They are the enemy and we are called to love them. However we are also called to love those that they are slaughtering. What should we do? The answer is ambiguous but we can't just sit back and do nothing. As a Christian I don't have an absolute answer but it does give me a framework to consider what should be done. In the end though the only way that we win the war though is that hearts and minds are changed and IMHO that takes generations and happens in small steps. It will not happen in any one leader's term in office.”

To the paragraph quoted above; are you suggesting the substantially Christian based military forces of the west should be dropping bombs on the heads of Muslims that hold to a religious belief system offensively different than our own and as always, the apparent motivation for their cleansing the land of infidels? Are we saying the fundamental religious belief system of ISIS is worthy of less consideration than our own values and for that reason, we’re offended and will take steps to support the lesser held theological view? No matter how you cut it, we’re now engaged in war like activities in support of religious freedom and a whole lot of people are going to exit planet earth as men go about determining who’s God, or faith is dominant this time out. For this reason and because men are inherently corrupt, I find the notion of any organized religion to be offensive to the notion of peace & love..

[Mitch Cronin]

Hi Defcon...

You're right, those text books did at least appear to present things as fact, but I've since learned that science doesn't do that... it's people that make that mistake. Science, and it's honest practitioners, will only ever present data with error bars, and an understanding that everything is only as certain as the tests it's been put to.

As an aside Mitch; I’m sure you’re aware that anytime you see the symbol for, or a reference to, ‘infinity’ in a physics equation, you’re following a trajectory based on pure mathematical BS from that point on.

That is an interesting 'aside', and I'm not sure why you included it, but it's been my observation that physicists seem rather annoyed when they run into mathematical infinities in their attempts to find answers.... In fact, that's sometimes used as the 'simple explanation' for why it is that quantum mechanics and General Relativity are incompatible.... "You get all kinds of nutty answers that don't make any sense!" (says Feynman, again) "Like Infinitiy, ...or zero..."

[DEFCON]

Theoretical physics employs infinity as a mathematical tool to get the user somewhere when the real answer isn't obvious and some times even possible, but every so often one is replaced with factual math, which can then result in the validation of a theory. So, while 'infinity' may be useful to the expansion of the theoretical process, it tells the real mathematician he's just run into a wall with his query.

I think 'zero' is an interesting concept in that it's intended to represent 'nothing', but at the same time is a 'value', which represents something; a paradox of sorts?

[GDR]

To the paragraph quoted above; are you suggesting the substantially Christian based military forces of the west should be dropping bombs on the heads of Muslims that hold to a religious belief system offensively different than our own and as always, the apparent motivation for their cleansing the land of infidels? Are we saying the fundamental religious belief system of ISIS is worthy of less consideration than our own values and for that reason, we’re offended and will take steps to support the lesser held theological view? No matter how you cut it, we’re now engaged in war like activities in support of religious freedom and a whole lot of people are going to exit planet earth as men go about determining who’s God, or faith is dominant this time out. For this reason and because men are inherently corrupt, I find the notion of any organized religion to be offensive to the notion of peace & love..

Hi Defcon

I'm certainly opposed to dropping bombs on anyone because they hold different religious beliefs even if we find them abhorrent. I find the idea of dropping bombs on anyone abhorrent. However, I also found the actions of people like Willi Picton, Clifford Olsen and on a larger scale Hitler or Stalin to be abhorrent. It isn't their beliefs that is the problem, it's their actions, and in the case of Isis their actions involve the genocidal killing of thousands of people. The answer of what to do about it isn't easy. Do we leave them to sort it out on their own? That is a bit like watching a mugger beat up a little old lady and doing nothing about it. On the other hand if we drop bombs on them we are creating divisions between us and them and will create an environment that once again passes the message that might is right. It hardly builds bridges to a future of mutual understanding and respect. I wish there was some easy answer as to how to apply the cause of peace and love to this situation. I wish I had a brilliant answer.

[deicer]

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-29038217

[DEFCON]

Evil personalities seem to possess an extraordinary Pied Piper like capability and more often than not employ fear as the ultimate trump card to eliminate any potential resistance to whatever philosophy they're advocating. I guess I'm sensitive to the apparently timeless effects of religion on the credulous mind and the continuing violence one adherent or another believes is necessary to support his faith. I don't know too much about the Coptic Christians, but I've come to understand the originals didn't believe there was a need for a church per sea, or priests etc.either; they took the approach that God can be found within one's self and a spiritualistic approach to practicing was all that was required.

[deicer]

Much like the firebombing of Dresden, and the nuclear bombings of Japan, the only way to combat violence is with greater violence.

Once the enemy sees that you are willing to go to greater lengths than they are, they will then back down.

Vietnam was the first conflict where the U.S. wasn't willing to engage the opponent on equal terms and we know how that ended.

Political correctness, and the 'Globalisation of Economies' is going to be the downfall of western civilisation in this latest iteration of Jihad.

[GDR]

Much like the firebombing of Dresden, and the nuclear bombings of Japan, the only way to combat violence is with greater violence.

Once the enemy sees that you are willing to go to greater lengths than they are, they will then back down.

Vietnam was the first conflict where the U.S. wasn't willing to engage the opponent on equal terms and we know how that ended.

Political correctness, and the 'Globalisation of Economies' is going to be the downfall of western civilisation in this latest iteration of Jihad.

Sure you can win battles that way but you won't win the war. After WW I we had the "Treaty of Versailles" which was designed to punish Germany and isolate them. What happened? We had WW II. After WW II the west, and particularly the Americans helped rebuild their former enemies and opened lines of communication. We are now best friends. Greater violence can only postpone more violence.

[deicer]

I agree with you Greg, that the U.S. did a magnificent job of educating and rebuilding their former enemies after the conflict.

However, I think where we disagree is in the fact they had to defeat them first.

[CanadaEH]

Hi Defcon

I'm certainly opposed to dropping bombs on anyone because they hold different religious beliefs even if we find them abhorrent. I find the idea of dropping bombs on anyone abhorrent. However, I also found the actions of people like Willi Picton, Clifford Olsen and on a larger scale Hitler or Stalin to be abhorrent. It isn't their beliefs that is the problem, it's their actions, and in the case of Isis their actions involve the genocidal killing of thousands of people. The answer of what to do about it isn't easy. Do we leave them to sort it out on their own? That is a bit like watching a mugger beat up a little old lady and doing nothing about it. On the other hand if we drop bombs on them we are creating divisions between us and them and will create an environment that once again passes the message that might is right. It hardly builds bridges to a future of mutual understanding and respect. I wish there was some easy answer as to how to apply the cause of peace and love to this situation. I wish I had a brilliant answer.

I don't think you can fix what is already wrong. In my mind it's religion but thats just me. Religion isn't going anywhere.

[GDR]

I agree with you Greg, that the U.S. did a magnificent job of educating and rebuilding their former enemies after the conflict.

However, I think where we disagree is in the fact they had to defeat them first.

I agree that there is a time to fight back and I agree that WW II is an example of that. However my contention is that VE and VJ days marked the end of the battles. It was the holding out a hand of forgiveness and friendship to our former enemies that actually won the war.

[GDR]

I don't think you can fix what is already wrong. In my mind it's religion but thats just me. Religion isn't going anywhere.

What matters in the end is truth. I have made an argument for a theistic prime mover. However as a Christian I believe more than that. Frankly the Christian faith hangs on one issue. That issue is the question of whether or not Jesus was bodily resurrected. I have read numerous debates on the issue. I have listened carefully to both sides. There is no evidence for the argument against. I acknowledge that it is virtually impossible to find evidence for a negative, however their argument is based on the position that we know that it couldn't have happened so any theory that supports that position is superior to the idea that it was an actual historical event.

There is considerable reason based on historic grounds to consider the resurrection as historical. Without going into a lot of detail I'll just make a couple of points. Firstly when you read the NT it is clear that all of the writers believed the resurrection to be historical. The question then boils down to whether or not they got it right. During the 100 years either side of the life of Jesus there were at least 26 other messianic movements that we know of including one led by Judas the Galilean around the time Jesus was 10. All of these movements resulted in the death of the leaders and many of their followers at the hands of the occupying forces. Some of those movements actually had a fair amount of military success but after the leaders were executed they were simply viewed as failed messiahs and the population went looking for another messiah to lead them.

Now we have a messiah who is put to death by the Romans like all of the others. His followers go into hiding to avoid suffering the same fate. However something changed and their claim is that God had resurrected Jesus. There is no reason tho think that it was just wishful thinking as Jesus hadn't done anything that they thought a messiah was supposed to do. He hadn't led in battle against their enemies and he hadn't rebuilt the Temple. In fact he had all the appearances of someone who was a collaborator with the Romans as well as their puppets the Herodians.

At any rate if I didn't believe that the resurrection was an actual historic event I wouldn't be a Christian. In the end is all about truth and I agree that none of us can have absolute knowledge in our understanding of the truth and nature of God by whatever name you want to call him/her/it. However, like Bob Dylan said, "you gotta serve somebody". We all make our choices.

[IFG]

OK where do I start. The argument that I made against atheism was not in any way a repudiation of science. As a matter of fact when I want to understand how the universe came into existence I look to science and certainly not my religion. My point was that the incredibly complex science that got from nothingness, (whatever that means), to particles, to atoms, to molecules, to incredibly complex single cells, to life, to conscious life, to sentient life and to morality all from mindless origins requires more faith than I can muster. I am simply saying that the science involved certainly indicates that there is an intelligent prime mover(s). My argument was not in any way negating the science but is an argument against atheism.

Religion involves our human understanding of the nature of the prime mover and what if any desires he has for our lives. As I said we worship all sorts of deities whether we call them religious or not. I know it is meant to be tongue in cheek, but think of that bumper sticker that says, "he who dies with the most toys win" is in a sense a form of religion.. That is essentially how many people in our society unconsciously see as a call on their life.

Dangnabbit, GDR, I wish you'd listen to what I mean instead of what I say

Where to start? Well, not where you did. Even with limited comprehension, I've learned over the years here that you closely follow and respect the science, and ... I'm a tiny bit chagrined that I'd have to clarify that. But, I was a bit unclear, I'll try a little harder.

We could start with my stated reservation about your posit that "we all have religion or its equivalent". I won't re-state it here, but I would be interested in your reaction to my murmurs on what "having religion" might actually entail, particularly as regards petition for divine, but of course favourable intervention.

On the other two points, when I referred to your "reluctance to accept that life had a prosaic beginning", "prosaic" is a poor adjective, opaque as to my intent. It was certainly not to suggest you reject the science, but only that you had difficulty accepting randomness, or maybe purposelessness in the cause of events. I hear echoes of The Blind Watchmaker, which IMHO are well rebutted by Dawkins & Hitchens etc. I wasn't re-hashing that debate (interesting tho' it is), but rather made a clumsy attempt to show that even random events can be taken as awe-inspiring, and that great lessons can be learned therefrom, without the mysticism (superstition to some) associated with religion. The only element missing is that of petition for future interventions. That's pretty crucial, tho', ref. my original quibble.

And that was also the place from which I suggested you might be "trivializ[ing]" science's so-far explanations ... the sense that life itself couldn't just 'evolve' from proteins in a primordial soup. Rather than needing grand purpose in our origins, perhaps there's wonder enough to be found in the outcomes?

You didn't comment on my ramblings about teaching and learning, so, in the spirit of Thomas More (in A Man For All Seasons: "Silence gives consent..."), I'll assume your complete agreement .

Apologies for misunderstandings & lack of clarity. This is a tough medium for abstract discussion. I knew by the second line of your post that I'd failed to make myself understood, and across a table at Mary's, I'd have been going "no, no, that's not ...". Again, thanks for your patience and perseverance in even undertaking these sorts of dialogues

Cheers, IFG

[cp fa]

I don't think you can fix what is already wrong. In my mind it's religion but thats just me. Religion isn't going anywhere.

I've always thought that organized religion is divisive, but the vast majority of religious people are peace loving and tolerant. The old gun control adage "guns don't kill people, people do" can be applied here. Religion doesn't kill people, people do. Unfortunately, religious people with guns seem to be the worst offenders.

I think when it comes to choosing an ideology, people tend to gravitate towards one that most represents the amount of anger they have inside. So the problem isn't religion as a whole, it's the fact that violent religious fanatics are able to recruit followers. I think the key to solving the issue is to figure out a way to keep vulnerable people from becoming so angry and disenfranchised that they will join a criminal group, whether it's religious terrorists or a teen gang.