Wait, Joseph of Arimathea hangs around Israel for a while then travels across the entire Roman Empire to plant his staff in a backwater province in England? Go figure.
Still, don't see why anyone would want to damage a community's heritage. A thoughtless, harmful act that served no purpose but to upset.
While I don't really consider this tree a "sacred" site. It is a shame that this tree was destroyed for the people that did. I found it interesting that the tree had once before been chopped down by the puritans, during the English Civil war.
I was unaware the current tree wasn't the original. Hopefully they can plant a new one. I sad hearing about the 16th century church burned down in Finland. This is more depressing...
LordofHats wrote:I was unaware the current tree wasn't the original. Hopefully they can plant a new one. I said hearing about the 16th century church burned down in Finland. This is more depressing...
That was probably Atheists, Scandinavia has a huge problem with very aggressive Atheists who have burned down a lot of churches.
LordofHats wrote:I was unaware the current tree wasn't the original. Hopefully they can plant a new one. I said hearing about the 16th century church burned down in Finland. This is more depressing...
That was probably Atheists, Scandinavia has a huge problem with very aggressive Atheists who have burned down a lot of churches.
My understanding is that the situation in Scandinavia is apparently related to Black Metal bands and neo-paganism, not atheists. A lot of it happened the 90's and in Norway. The one I'm thinking of happened in 07 I think, and I only ever saw one article on it and have never heard anything else since.
Oh, well carry on then. I do remember a lead singer of a Black metal band (honestly can remember which one) being sent away for life because he torched a couple churches.
The guy that burnaed down all the churches in norway is called Varg Vikernes. He was released from prison last year after serving a murder sentance(most likely spelled wrong).
And regarding the burning of the churches it's a loss win sitaution becouse the goverment pays and builds new ones.
saitani wrote:
The guy that burnaed down all the churches in norway is called Varg Vikernes. He was released from prison last year after serving a murder sentance(most likely spelled wrong).
And regarding the burning of the churches it's a loss win sitaution becouse the goverment pays and builds new ones.
LordofHats wrote:I was unaware the current tree wasn't the original. Hopefully they can plant a new one. I said hearing about the 16th century church burned down in Finland. This is more depressing...
That was probably Atheists, Scandinavia has a huge problem with very aggressive Atheists who have burned down a lot of churches.
Its sad news, terrible in fact, but so is all needless vandalism. And of course the perpetrators should be punished to the full extent of the law, but saying "its the atheists" is absolutely ridiculous. Im an atheist, but oddly enough i genuinelly love Churches, i can always appreciate the architecture and the effort that was put into them, and i regularly visit the famous one in my City.
York Minster if anyone is interested.
No educated man would want to destroy something beautiful or of historic interest. It was more than likely done by scummy teenage vandals, for no other reason than it was there, and some of these ridiculous comments are typical of brainwashed (almost always American) Christians who wish to demonise people that dont hold to their big book of desert fables.
Atheists are nice people, and statistically are less likely to commit crimes than believers. Deal with it chaps!
Who do you guys honestly think would be more likely to needlessly wreck something?!
This means that with the stump still intact the tree should grow back in due course, although we won't know until the spring.
..well, let's hope so anyway.
hmm...
I am from Australia and visited the Holy Thorn tree as part of my journey to various holy places- it was a highlight of my trip, and I have a photo of the original tree. I would hope that the locals will find time to take the broken pieces and utilise these to ensure that more trees are allowed to grow, bearing in mind that when the original was hacked in the time of Cromwell, pieces of the Holy Thorn also survived in other places. Australia has for years depended upon the Queen and her Christian faith to ensure that this country never fell into the condition that the US has done, with the loss of its integrity and denigration of its faith (regular blasphemy is the go over there). It should be nipped in the bud and an appropriate response from the local community to ensure that people there will remain resolute and carry on the fine tradition of so many centuries of faith. JOHN D. DIQUE, BRISBANE.
@mattyChavs can be atheists too. Frankly you have a rose tinted view of atheism Matty. Persecution is alive and kicking here in the Uk. I know this for a fact because a friend of mine was stabbed to death for being a Christian and I myself have suffered abuse enough times. and no you dont need to do or say antything to deserve this, being known as what you are is often enough.
It's nothing new, in fact on a far milder level just being a Christian here on Dakka is enough to become a magnet for accusation or trolling.
In fact just a couple of weeks ago you accused me of hating Islamics because I was Christian, wheras in fact I hate Islamic fundamentalism (subtle difference) for clear reasons and little different from why you also do. Those conclujsions were clearly stated to, but that didnt stop you from conclusing instead that I came to them instead 'because I was a Christian'.
Killing trees. Saying that I have no reason to expect or suspect that militant atheism had anything to do with chopping down the tree. The Daily Mail hasn't either, but that wont stop them drawing that conclusion. Islamics might do this sort of thing, but they tend to violate war memorials instead for the dual reason that statues are 'idolotry' and anything military is considered a target due to the Gulf war.
Historic trees are jugular strikes for certain types of vandal, I remember many such outrages in the press. Without Googling the ones I remember of at the top of my head: the Treaty Oak poisoned by a vandal, a specific tree also in the US considered sacred to a native Americans by a disgruntled lumberjack. This tree had a legend behind it that its loss would signal the end of the tribe, the vandal disappeared sometime after the act and is still missing. Two years ago the remains of the Wickerman (a sort of tree) used for the 1973 film were cut down and stolen by suspected souvenier hunters.
There was a case local to me. in Watford there was an empty plot of land in what used to be the Cassiobury House Estate. The parts of the estate not taken over as a muniipal park were built over with luxury housing. A housing development suroiuhnded a ploy of land preserved because of a large tree planted by Sir Walter Raleigh from a seed brought back from the Americas. as the tree was still very healthy a property developer who owned the land had thugs attack the roots with chains, so thet it fell over during the next winter storm. There were witnesses at ther time, but they were too scared to come forward so the bastard got away with it, waited until the tree collapsed then built houses on the land freed up.
Historic trees are so easy to destroy with a little planning, often remote and it is easy to get away with the crime. Frankly I don't think chavs responsible, chavs would likely be completely unaware the tree had any significance as it cannot play footie or sing in X factor. Normally we are looking at a different type of scum who is a little more clued up, has a festering resentment and pre-plans this sort of activity. the Cassiobury tree was an exception, it was just in the way of someones profits.
Copycat?
In yesterdays student protests some scum set fire to the christimas tree in Tafalgar Square. While I think thev government has really goofed with this policy I am sickened that the students picked that target. For those who do not know the Christmas treein Trafalgar Square is an annual gift from the people of Norway in memory of thosed whot their lives trying to free Norway from ther Nazis. To try and burn the teee is pissing on the memory of veterans and our nation and is a good reason to suppose that the protests are all about defending handouts to scroungers rather than building a future in education.
While unconnected I wonder if the Trafalgar square attack got some little minds going, though it would have made 'sense' to burn the tree instead.
Weather you believe in religious ideals or not, its completely disrespectful to damage/destroy religious things. Period. I hope they find out who did that and punish them something fierce for it
Orlanth, surely that is not the case because i always presumed that if you were a white UK citizen people just sorta presumed that you ARE a Christian?
I have never heard of persecution of Christians because we live in a nation where, unlike America, people arent very vocal about their Religion, and its viewed as more of a private thing. But as a result, dont we just assume that most people are Christians by default?
I mean, almost all of us get baptised, and its not like we feel strongly enough to go get it reversed, im still "C of E" whenever i get asked for example.
And regards rose tinted glasses, could I not put the same to you mate, and just say that you have an unfairly negative view of Atheism? I mean, i am an atheist, but i like Churches, i would never dream of not respectfully bowing my head and shutting up if someone at the table said a prayer (happend this year cos i was at my GFs aunt in CA for thanksgiving!) I still refer to myself as C of E when filling in medical docs or whatever, and i really dont see how my lack of belief in God affects my daily life and my relationship with other people.
Atheism is merely a different view of how the world/universe works, why does it have so many negative stereotypes surrounding it?
The only bit of good news here is that because the tree is not a single landmark, but a generrational landmark. Its loss and rgrowth/replacement is part of its story.
The Puritans ordered it destroyed, now Vandals have destroyed it. Renew it and give the vandals the finger.
Like many fake relics the tree's history is likely to have begun in the early medieval era. Perhaps the first seed or sapling was brought back from Outremer during the age of the crusades and its legend was quickly backdated. This could account for how the Glastonbury tree was where it was.
What I particularly dont like is that the crime will not be taken very seriously because its 'only a tree'. Frankly I find cultural rape (which is what this is) worse than raping people, and if the courts dont prosecute rapists then they need to have their gonads removed by members of the public with knives. But enough of empty wishes.
Avon and Somerset police have begun an investigation but because there was no tree preservation order on the Holy Thorn, it means the vandals are unlikely to be prosecuted. The land on which the Holy Thorn stood is owned by Edward James, who was arrested this week in connection with an investigation into failed currency exchange firm Crown Currency Exchange, of which he is a director.
According to the administrator’s report, Crown Currency collapsed owing £16million with little more than £3million in the bank. Last night there was speculation that the attack on the Holy Thorn may have been part of a vendetta against him.
MeanGreenStompa wrote:Might have been for other reasons...
Avon and Somerset police have begun an investigation but because there was no tree preservation order on the Holy Thorn, it means the vandals are unlikely to be prosecuted. The land on which the Holy Thorn stood is owned by Edward James, who was arrested this week in connection with an investigation into failed currency exchange firm Crown Currency Exchange, of which he is a director.
According to the administrator’s report, Crown Currency collapsed owing £16million with little more than £3million in the bank. Last night there was speculation that the attack on the Holy Thorn may have been part of a vendetta against him.
He owns the site of the tree, but does he generate money from people visiting? If not, I doubt that people that are owed millions would cut down a tree to 'Even the score'. I doubt it greatly.
mattyrm wrote:
Atheism is merely a different view of how the world/universe works, why does it have so many negative stereotypes surrounding it?
Because atheist dickheads spout offensive tripe like this?
mattyrm wrote:typical of brainwashed (almost always American) Christians who wish to demonise people that dont hold to their big book of desert fables.
mattyrm wrote:Orlanth, surely that is not the case because i always presumed that if you were a white UK citizen people just sorta presumed that you ARE a Christian?
Technically, as in christian based culture, which is what your describing. Funnily enough the ex-nominal Christian base are often the people I get the most grief from, not Jews or Moslems. Not once has an Islamic come up to me and said this or that because I was infidel. Actually most Islamics have a measure of backhanded respect for actual practicing Christians. The weakness they see in the west comes from the ideas of godlessness, loose living and leftist dogma etc.
mattyrm wrote:
And regards rose tinted glasses, could I not put the same to you mate, and just say that you have an unfairly negative view of Atheism?
I dont think so. I am fully aware that some 'Christians' go off the wall. I also know of plenty of decent minded atheists. Though the only formal atheism I see is via the Humanist society and on the odd occassion we meet i am yet to find one who hasd not treated me politely and respectfully.
The atheists who cause real trouble arent real atheists, and you can disown them no less than I can disown Westboro Baptists et al. They are just God-haters, which is a difference. The sad thing is there are actually a fair few of them, far more than the religious equivalent outside of dodgy mosques.
I wanted to challenge the idea that your definition of atheists as nice intellectuals and the opposite of chavs. Atheism is a broad based ideal and yes some are quiet intellectuals, others are something else. atheists can be educated, but atheist doesnt necessarily mean educated. People arent atheist because they understand the universe or are better educated, they may well be as individuals, but they are atheists because they choose to believe in no God. Not all do with the intellectual integrity you like to display, and others are downright nasty.
Actually, IIRC something like only 20% of the population get baptised these days.
I think you will find he means "our" generation. Those of us in our 30's & 40's would of been dipped as it was still the done thing. It would be interesting to see if the drop off has swung around with all those fake christians trying to get their kids into church schools
Orlanth wrote: To try and burn the teee is pissing on the memory of veterans and our nation and is a good reason to suppose that the protests are all about defending handouts to scroungers rather than building a future in education.
Not really. The memory of veterans, and handouts to scroungers are not connected.
One can hate veterans, and still want to build a future in education just as easily as one can love veterans, and want to defend handouts to scroungers.
That is, of course, assuming that the tree was targeted for its historic significance, and not simply because it was there, and it was flammable.
Actually, IIRC something like only 20% of the population get baptised these days.
I think you will find he means "our" generation. Those of us in our 30's & 40's would of been dipped as it was still the done thing. It would be interesting to see if the drop off has swung around with all those fake christians trying to get their kids into church schools
"I've met Catholics, Jews, and Muslims. Some have been good, some have been bad. But why is it every atheist I've met has been a prick?"
I somewhat agree. I don't think all Atheists are bad, but I've actually seen far more hate coming from them than the Religious. Which is saying something.
Again, I know not all Atheists feel the need to attack Religion, but on the internet, most of them do.
As a Catholic, having mindless vandalism like this performed here is beyond my capability to understand. Why was just this tree targetted? Was it a jibe at Christianity? Was it just a tree the scum who did this thought people would miss?
Why people feel the need to do things like this still mystifies me.
If I ever find one of those tw*ts, I might just take a saw to his limbs and see how he feels about it; same goes for the rest of them. I can live with jail time if i've managed to teach somebody something, like not to hack a sacred symbol to pieces.
Im quite firmly atheist myself but i cant understand this, why would you cut down a tree and not use it? i mean if it was the last source of firewood for miles and you die otherwise fair enough but just mindlessly killing something purely to annoy locals? its just stupid.
The article is quite stright forward in that the land owner is a bit of a knob and owed money. The suspicion is that the tree was cut down as some kind of revenge or act of retribution.
Never mind, take a cutting and grow another. It's not like this very tree was the original one anyway. You can cut trees quite harshly and it will grow back, it's called pollarding and becuase it's been done in the winter it will probably come back quite strong in the spring.
Orlanth wrote: To try and burn the teee is pissing on the memory of veterans and our nation and is a good reason to suppose that the protests are all about defending handouts to scroungers rather than building a future in education.
Not really. The memory of veterans, and handouts to scroungers are not connected.
One can hate veterans, and still want to build a future in education just as easily as one can love veterans, and want to defend handouts to scroungers.
That is, of course, assuming that the tree was targeted for its historic significance, and not simply because it was there, and it was flammable.
Agreed, the tree was there so it was a target. That is no excuse, the memories of veterans sacrifices can be 'pissed on' either deliberately on unthinkingly. In either case students are by definition expected to number amongst the educated, so any ignorance of the meaning behind the Trafalgar Square tree is no defence.
The point remains, students acted in a manner that symbolises: 'we want, and if we don't get, society will pay.' Noone can accuse the Trafalgar Square tree's owners or doners of hiking up tuition fees, nor didanyone in whose memory it represents. Crossing pickets outside Westminster makes some sense, the random acts of wanton violence do much to discredit their cause. Especially when they damage the memory of people who have a lot better understanding of paying into society than the grasping fething students will ever know.
BTW Sorry about the appalling typos in that earlier post, even worse than usual.
Bill Maher. This guy is the poster child Atheist, and oddly enough, is a total Ahole as far as pushing his ideals on others. I think that helps a bit on why many people think of Atheists as the same
KingCracker wrote:Bill Maher.
This guy is the poster child Atheist, and oddly enough, is a total Ahole as far as pushing his ideals on others. I think that helps a bit on why many people think of Atheists as the same
I would consider the 'poster child' atheists are the people Matty appears to envision: University seated intellectuals using long words while wearing tweed, pipe smoking optional.
By and large they do a good job as the public face of atheism. Not always though, Dawkins for example of late appears to have more angst than reason behind his view on religion. It also doesn't help that the atheist elite share university positions with people who are just as smart and tweedy who also openly practice one or other religion.
KingCracker wrote:Bill Maher.
This guy is the poster child Atheist, and oddly enough, is a total Ahole as far as pushing his ideals on others. I think that helps a bit on why many people think of Atheists as the same
I would consider the 'poster child' atheists are the people Matty appears to envision: University seated intellectuals using long words while wearing tweed, pipe smoking optional.
You mean C.S. Lewis? Or Charles Dodgson?
Also, Bill Maher is a tool, and isn't just becuase he's an atheist, he's also a member of PETA.
I m'self am Atheist, but even so, it's a real shame to see something ancient and arguably part of the culture of the local area wrecked, most likely for some sort of bad joke. I mean, whether you're religious or not, there's beauty in everything, and it's a great pity to see that beauty vandalised. After all, religion has produced nice things, like the ornate churches, beautiful pieces of art and my local vicar, who's as nice a guy as you could want to meet.
I'm Atheist, but I respect others beliefs as long as they dont go out of there way to upset others. As with most things in life moderation is key.
I am also a trainee wood butcher (carpenter) so am responsible for my fair share of dead trees, but this was more than a tree, it was a symbol of the faith of millions. Even as a non believer I think this was an incredibly dickish thing to do. Seeing as those responsible will probably not be caught and even if they are will get no more than a slap on the wrist I can only hope they get arse cancer.
Am suprised that there wasn't a preservation order on it though.
LordofHats wrote:I was unaware the current tree wasn't the original. Hopefully they can plant a new one. I said hearing about the 16th century church burned down in Finland. This is more depressing...
That was probably Atheists, Scandinavia has a huge problem with very aggressive Atheists who have burned down a lot of churches.
LordofHats wrote:I was unaware the current tree wasn't the original. Hopefully they can plant a new one. I said hearing about the 16th century church burned down in Finland. This is more depressing...
That was probably Atheists, Scandinavia has a huge problem with very aggressive Atheists who have burned down a lot of churches.
im pretty sure that church was burned by drunks
Ironically that makes me feel better. At least they were impaired XD
Im 8 pints deep so forgive typos, but really don't understand why people have to get so offended. I don't see my stance as "aggressive" atheism, but more "defensive" atheism.
If nobody talked about Religion, then i wouldnt talk about it either, but Religious people arent happy with it that way are they?
They demand preferential treatment, they demand tax breaks when everybody else pays their taxes, they demand the right to lie to children and fly in the face of widely accepted Science. They demand the right to knock on my bloody door when im hungover on a Sunday morning and talk gak to me when im in my dressing gown. Do atheists like me go doorknocking?!
It is pure tomfoolery on the Religious lobbies part! I can happily rub along with Religious people, one of my best mates is a creationist, and sure we argue about it when were leathered, but thats about as far as it goes. I can be and am friends with Religious people because 99.99% of our time isnt spent talking about it.
But when you try to have one rule for you, and another one for everybody else, i get very very angry. It offends me outrageously, and i will argue until the cows come home to get it sorted. What is aggressive about that?!
Islam is my favourite to pick on, because i was born and baptised (with no say in the matter obviously) C of E and am therefore slightly biased, so ill start there. It is inherantly anti woman, anti gay, and anti common sense. And if i point this out i am being aggressive?! How does that work? And what planet do you have to be on to think that it is FAIR? Is pointing out the sky is blue aggressive?
I think a great many of you know deep down that your position is unfair, but you wont admit it. And ive been here long enough for you lot to get to know me and therefore to say so. I would happily go for a pint with Orlanth, Frazz, and almost all of the well meaning Christians that frequent this forum, because our Religious beliefs dont rule our whole lives, we can be pals and just avoid the subject, but lets be honest with ourselves eh? Was anything i said there REALLY that far off base?
The NHS spends 80 million pounds a year on priests?! Cant we just buy ambulances?!!
Anyway, i cant argue the toss anymore tonight, as im up early for work. We shall doubtless continue this on the morrow!
LordofHats wrote:I was unaware the current tree wasn't the original. Hopefully they can plant a new one. I said hearing about the 16th century church burned down in Finland. This is more depressing...
That was probably Atheists, Scandinavia has a huge problem with very aggressive Atheists who have burned down a lot of churches.
Is there some kind a OT Dakka law that says every 3rd or 4th thread has to turn into atheists vs Christians? Seriously someone needs to do an analysis..I mean really get down into it and give us some statistics which show how many posts in.. before the first grenade is tossed and who usually throws the first grenade.
LordofHats wrote:I was unaware the current tree wasn't the original. Hopefully they can plant a new one. I said hearing about the 16th century church burned down in Finland. This is more depressing...
That was probably Atheists, Scandinavia has a huge problem with very aggressive Atheists who have burned down a lot of churches.
Angry Angry Atheists?
is there any other kind?
Ansty Angry Atheists.
A lower level creature.
generalgrog wrote:Is there some kind a OT Dakka law that says every 3rd or 4th thread has to turn into atheists vs Christians? Seriously someone needs to do an analysis..I mean really get down into it and give us some statistics which show how many posts in.. before the first grenade is tossed and who usually throws the first grenade.
LOL
GG
Well, 1 in 5 OT threads turning religious is par for the course on Dakka. But it's Christmas Season, the time of plenty and sharing! Enjoy your flaming-religion present!
mattyrm wrote: It was more than likely done by scummy teenage vandals, for no other reason than it was there, and some of these ridiculous comments are typical of brainwashed (almost always American) Christians who wish to demonise people that dont hold to their big book of desert fables.
As an American and a Chirstian, I am offended by this statement. I dont understand why you would lump all of America (The MOST diverse country in the world) into one group of ignorance. And without Christianity, many old works of literature would have been lost.
mattyrm wrote: It was more than likely done by scummy teenage vandals, for no other reason than it was there, and some of these ridiculous comments are typical of brainwashed (almost always American) Christians who wish to demonise people that dont hold to their big book of desert fables.
As an American and a Chirstian, I am offended by this statement. I dont understand why you would lump all of America (The MOST diverse country in the world) into one group of ignorance. And without Christianity, many old works of literature would have been lost.
Lots of sculptures, paintings, etc. too. Though to be honest, the muslims deserve some credit too.
That said, I could believe a bunch of drunk idiots did it. I'm a college student. I've seen the effects of alcohol on the already impaired
mattyrm wrote: It was more than likely done by scummy teenage vandals, for no other reason than it was there, and some of these ridiculous comments are typical of brainwashed (almost always American) Christians who wish to demonise people that dont hold to their big book of desert fables.
As an American and a Chirstian, I am offended by this statement. I dont understand why you would lump all of America (The MOST diverse country in the world) into one group of ignorance. And without Christianity, many old works of literature would have been lost.
Lots of sculptures, paintings, etc. too. Though to be honest, the muslims deserve some credit too.
That said, I could believe a bunch of drunk idiots did it. I'm a college student. I've seen the effects of alcohol on the already impaired
Yes, the muslims did a lot. We would be in a whole different world without them. I usually dont have a problem with Muslims, as long as they arent trying to kill US citizens.
Monster Rain wrote:I didn't think I could like him less.
I was wrong.
I, however, thank him for introducing me to Reginald Foster.
Skip ahead to :46 to see the interview.
Best. Priest. Ever.
You know I watched that movie after it came out on video...and the thing that struck me was that the guy picked a bunch of easy targets. It would be hilarious to see Bill Mahr interview a real apologist..you know someone that has actually studied logic, ancient greek and theology.
generalgrog wrote:You know I watched that movie after it came out on video...and the thing that struck me was that the guy picked a bunch of easy targets. It would be hilarious to see Bill Mahr interview a real apologist..you know someone that has actually studied logic, ancient greek and theology.
GG
I also noted how (for the most part) his targets were easy enough. Of course, I think that was one of his points. If your average follower of the faith can't even answer some of the more basic doctrinal issues why are they following that faith in the first place?
generalgrog wrote:
You know I watched that movie after it came out on video...and the thing that struck me was that the guy picked a bunch of easy targets. It would be hilarious to see Bill Mahr interview a real apologist..you know someone that has actually studied logic, ancient greek and theology.
You know that the guy in the clip was a Latinist to the Pope, right?
generalgrog wrote:
You know I watched that movie after it came out on video...and the thing that struck me was that the guy picked a bunch of easy targets. It would be hilarious to see Bill Mahr interview a real apologist..you know someone that has actually studied logic, ancient greek and theology.
You know that the guy in the clip was a Latinist to the Pope, right?
So?
He was barely forming sentences. I don't know what that clip was supposed to prove.
I wasn't impugning religion, I actually have a lot of respect for that guy's take on Catholicism. Namely, healthy skepticism with respect to doctrine.
Regardless, the point was the Maher didn't make him look foolish. He actually came off as well educated and thoughtful, at least in my eyes. I suppose you might also say that the larger point was that exchanges between educated apologists and skeptics don't tend to play out the way that GG seems to have envisioned; primarily because educated apologists tend to give as much ground as they gain, just as educated skeptics do. The "true" apologists that never give an inch tend to be absolutely ignorant of logic, regardless of which side of the debate that they occupy.
If you want me to find examples of people that do a terrible disservice to religion, I would be happy to provide them. In nearly every case they present themselves as being entirely logical, only to proceed to absolutely butcher logic by completely ignoring the is-ought problem.
Monster Rain wrote:Why do you think the people that he chose for the film represent the average follower?
Point.
Although I don't think he specifically went out and looked for slowed people to make religion look bad. For example, he talked to an Imam, and Psychologist (that ex-Gay guy?) and a (Dr.)Reverend. These are all people that should know something about what they're doing. Sure he threw in a stop at the truck stop church, but that alone doesn't render his argement as rubbish.
KingCracker wrote:Bill Maher.
This guy is the poster child Atheist, and oddly enough, is a total Ahole as far as pushing his ideals on others. I think that helps a bit on why many people think of Atheists as the same
I would consider the 'poster child' atheists are the people Matty appears to envision: University seated intellectuals using long words while wearing tweed, pipe smoking optional.
By and large they do a good job as the public face of atheism. Not always though, Dawkins for example of late appears to have more angst than reason behind his view on religion. It also doesn't help that the atheist elite share university positions with people who are just as smart and tweedy who also openly practice one or other religion.
There is an inverse correlation between religiosity and high education attainment.
As for the tree, I never knew it was there, although I was aware of the legend since it forms part of King Arthur. Even though not religious myself, I strongly disagree with wanton vandalism of things of beauty.
One theory behind the destruction is that locals fed up with the Glastonbury Festival may have done it.
dogma wrote:I wasn't impugning religion, I actually have a lot of respect for that guy's take on Catholicism. Namely, healthy skepticism with respect to doctrine.
Sprinkled in among a lot of grunts and sentence fragments, sure.
dogma wrote:Regardless, the point was the Maher didn't make him look foolish. He actually came off as well educated and thoughtful, at least in my eyes.
I'm not Catholic, but if I was I think I'd find it depressing that senior priests in the Vatican are that cynical.
dogma wrote:If you want me to find examples of people that do a terrible disservice to religion, I would be happy to provide them. In nearly every case they present themselves as being entirely logical, only to proceed to absolutely butcher logic by completely ignoring the is-ought problem.
There's some apologists out there that make sense, but you already know that I'm sure.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Emperors Faithful wrote:
Monster Rain wrote:Why do you think the people that he chose for the film represent the average follower?
Point.
Although I don't think he specifically went out and looked for slowed people to make religion look bad. For example, he talked to an Imam, and Psychologist (that ex-Gay guy?) and a (Dr.)Reverend. These are all people that should know something about what they're doing. Sure he threw in a stop at the truck stop church, but that alone doesn't render his argement as rubbish.
There's a lot of Christians out there, you know? The larger a group, the higher the number of wingnuts associated with that group is going to be.
Monster Rain wrote: I'm not Catholic, but if I was I think I'd find it depressing that senior priests in the Vatican are that cynical.
My dad is a minister, and he's even more cynical than that guy. We laugh quietly whenever I'm home, and he has recently lead Bible study.
Like philosophy, most people do not have the skill set to adequately address theological questions. They don't like being told this, so its more of a carrot-and-stick approach; following a bit of cathartic appreciation from the clergy.
Monster Rain wrote:
There's some apologists out there that make sense, but you already know that I'm sure.
Sure, but none of them claim the logical necessity of belief, or even the necessity of God. In general they play the realistic necessity card. In other words, they argue that people should believe what they need to in order to continue their lives. I don't disagree with this point, but its not really a response to charges of absurdity; which are what Maher normally levels.
Monster Rain wrote:Why do you think the people that he chose for the film represent the average follower?
Point.
Although I don't think he specifically went out and looked for slowed people to make religion look bad. For example, he talked to an Imam, and Psychologist (that ex-Gay guy?) and a (Dr.)Reverend. These are all people that should know something about what they're doing. Sure he threw in a stop at the truck stop church, but that alone doesn't render his argement as rubbish.
There's a lot of Christians out there, you know? The larger a group, the higher the number of wingnuts associated with that group is going to be.
More Christianity = More Wingnuts
Less Christianity = Less Wingnuts
Christian - Wingnuts = 0
Therefore: Christianity = Wingnuts
Monster Rain wrote:Why do you think the people that he chose for the film represent the average follower?
Point.
Although I don't think he specifically went out and looked for slowed people to make religion look bad. For example, he talked to an Imam, and Psychologist (that ex-Gay guy?) and a (Dr.)Reverend. These are all people that should know something about what they're doing. Sure he threw in a stop at the truck stop church, but that alone doesn't render his argement as rubbish.
There's a lot of Christians out there, you know? The larger a group, the higher the number of wingnuts associated with that group is going to be.
More Humans = More Wingnuts
Less Humans = Less Wingnuts
Humans - Wingnuts = 0
Therefore: Humans = Wingnuts
Kilkrazy wrote:The recent debate between Tony Blair and Christopher Hitchens was very interesting. While Hitchens won, Blair made some very good points.
In particular: "Religion may be a source of fanaticism, but if you removed all religion from the world, would you remove all the fanaticism too?"
I wasn't seriously suggesting otherwise. Just scoring cheap points.
In particular: "Religion may be a source of fanaticism, but if you removed all religion from the world, would you remove all the fanaticism too?"
No, but you would have removed all fanaticism promising a glorious afterlife if you murder people opposed to your particular flavour.
But you would not have removed all fanaticism promising a glorious life if you murder people opposed to your particular flavour.
The fundamentalist atheism practiced under communism was/is very similar to the concepts of fundamentalist aggression we see in Jihadist, Zionist and Crusader movements. The ideal that the world will be better when the religious have been persecuted was a notable part of Soviet and Maoist dogma and confirmed repeatedly in histories of those times.
This is one of the most dangerous fallacies that have arisen regarding atheism: the belief that atheism will end 'relgious' fundamentalist violence and killing. Atheism is a religion in its own right, ultimately a faith of no-God. Many are atheists through non practice, others form large communions, often armed hostile, thoroughly dogmatic and under a red flag. An abolition of religion, not that it could occur, would not far from free man from religious terror, it would change the name of the God for which people are made rto suffer from a particular named diety to the concept of no-God. Especially as an abolition of religion would most likely take place under an atheistic faith based society such as much of the world suffered under for much of the twentieth century.
Atheists can be progressive, but atheism does not equal progress.
In my view, people have various types of personalities and take elements from their culture and religion that support their personality.
That is why some Christians can be so strongly homophobic, while others are unconcerned, but both find justification in the Bible for their views. This isn't a dig at religion or Christianity BTW. You can see similar kinds of authoritarianism in political movements.
Orlanth wrote:
Atheism is a religion in its own right, ultimately a faith of no-God.
No, this is false. Atheism is not a religion in any sense. Neither is theism. Pretending otherwise is tacit to homogenizing the belief in God; ie. theists believe X, where X is not simply the existence of a God.
So....They chopped down the branches...But left the stump? How did they manage to do that? Wouldn't it have just been easier to cut the whole thing down? Stupid Vandals.
Anyway, that's pretty sad. The history behind it makes it rather insignificant in the first place, seeing as the current tree was only 60 years old...But sad nonetheless.
Samus_aran115 wrote:So....They chopped down the branches...But left the stump? How did they manage to do that? Wouldn't it have just been easier to cut the whole thing down? Stupid Vandals.
Anyway, that's pretty sad. The history behind it makes it rather insignificant in the first place, seeing as the current tree was only 60 years old...But sad nonetheless.
Samus_aran115 wrote:So....They chopped down the branches...But left the stump? How did they manage to do that? Wouldn't it have just been easier to cut the whole thing down?
No, as the tree itself is surrounded by "scaffolding" to prevent the misbehaviour of rapscallions, to an extent anyway.
Saying that there is no God is as much as an article of faith as saying there is one. No one can know for sure.
Sure, but atheism also includes the position "I don't believe in God" which is not the same as "There is no God".
Regardless, Da Boss has hit it, the point I was making is that atheism is a category, not a religion, just like theism; meaning that atheism is no more comparable to Christianity than theism is.
I find the extreme views in this thread support my decision to rarely tell people my religion. I said it at the start because what I read wasn't really all that close-minded, but after reading some of the later comments... well it just reminds me why I don't necessarily like people knowing that i'm religious.
I don't like arguing about my religion or being questioned on the basis that if I don't have an answer, i'm not Relgiious at all, or if I do have an answer then i'm stupid for not sharing the views of people that follow science or i'm asked another question until there's one where I cannot answer, at which point i'm told that i'm told that i'm not really a Catholic because I can't answer it.
It might just be the general people in my area, but it seems to me that I cannot win either way.
Then you get people that go around calling followers of religion all sorts of baseless crap because they believe in something that other people don't.
There's also the stereotype enforcers. Suddenly, because i'm a Catholic, i'm homophobic (despite being openly bisexual...), i'm a pedophile, i'm a nutjob, I shouldn't swear, i'm not allowed to hit anyone...
To be honest, I don't force my views onto people (I don't care what religion you are, or your skin colour, gender, sexual orientation etc.) and get (rightly) p***ed off when other people try to denounce my faith and/or mock me for it.
I've lost a lot of respect for people I once thought were okay thanks to this thread.
Can't some of you just respect someone else's views on life? It is their life after all, and they are welcome to whatever they believe. It may or may not be correct, but it is not up to you to try and convince them of that.
Monster Rain wrote:
Some flavors of atheism doesn't have structure?
I've heard one too many FSM arguments to believe that. It's the "John 3:16" of Atheist doctrine.
Here's the thing, you're attributing a structure to the whole of a category on the basis of nothing other than membership in that category. Its like saying that all theists believe that Jesus was the son of God because Christians believe that Jesus was the son of God. Clearly neither is true, yet one of them persists.
Its funny really, because Western society seems to view atheism and Islam in much the same light. In essence, both are seen as being monolithic in the sense that all Muslims believe X, just as all atheists apparently believe Y. Its sort of ridiculous really.
Avatar 720 wrote:
Can't some of you just respect someone else's views on life? It is their life after all, and they are welcome to whatever they believe. It may or may not be correct, but it is not up to you to try and convince them of that.
Well, its also our lives. What other people do has an effect on us all, so we question one another. I mean, life would be really, really boring if we didn't.
dogma wrote:Its funny really, because Western society seems to view atheism and Islam in much the same light. In essence, both are seen as being monolithic in the sense that all Muslims believe X, just as all atheists apparently believe Y. Its sort of ridiculous really.
I would have thought that the "some flavors" qualifier in the quote of mine that you used would have have made it clear that I didn't think that...
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ahtman wrote:So if atheism is a religion does that mean that ∅ is now a number as well?
I didn't say it was a religion, I said it was equally as much of a leap to say that there is a Higher Power/Spiritual Truth than to positively state that there isn't.
There's a difference.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
dogma wrote:Here's the thing, you're attributing a structure to the whole of a category on the basis of nothing other than membership in that category.
I'm actually attributing structure based on observed behaviors of people that identify themselves as members of that group.
Monster Rain wrote:
I would have thought that the "some flavors" qualifier in the quote of mine that you used would have have made it clear that I didn't think that...
It would have had you not been responding to Da Boss in a manner that suggested that atheism was a religion.
To reiterate, my point is that neither atheism nor theism are religions. There are some religions that are theistic, and some that are atheistic, but the categories of atheism and theism are not related to religion such that we can say that some forms of atheism are religious, or some forms of theism are religious.
Monster Rain wrote:
I didn't say it was a religion, I said it was equally as much of a leap to say that there is a Higher Power/Spiritual Truth than to positively state that there isn't.
There's a difference.
Clearly, but since atheism is a negation it is nominally thought to include all response that are not yes with respect to the question "do you belive in God".
As such, I can simply say no, indicating the lack of a belief, and still be an atheist that does not actively believe in the absence of a God.
Monster Rain wrote:
I'm actually attributing structure based on observed behaviors of people that identify themselves as members of that group.
Sure, but what part of the group?
Again, I could state that all theists believe in the divinity of Jesus because I have observed theists that believe ine divinity of Jesus. I don't do that, because I instead choose to classify people according to what they say. In essence, some theists believe in the divinity of Jesus and I call them Christians, just as some atheists like the FSM and I call them atheists that like the FSM (or some yet to be determined proper name).
And, now that I think about it, there is no reason that one cannot be religious and a follower a conventionally theistic religion if that religion does not require the acceptance of any particular thing as explicitly divine.
Not that it matters, we should all be hunting bass anyway.
Avatar 720 wrote:
Can't some of you just respect someone else's views on life? It is their life after all, and they are welcome to whatever they believe. It may or may not be correct, but it is not up to you to try and convince them of that.
Well, its also our lives. What other people do has an effect on us all, so we question one another. I mean, life would be really, really boring if we didn't.
I don't question athiests about why they don't believe in God, but I should have to put up with people questioning (if it is ever just questions) my beliefs because the other alternative is boredom?
Avatar 720 wrote:
I don't question athiests about why they don't believe in God, but I should have to put up with people questioning (if it is ever just questions) my beliefs because the other alternative is boredom?
Yes.
Well, or you can violently oppose it, but that seems like a poor alternative; what, with jail and all.
If you want a better reason, then you should realize that it isn't going to stop, because people are curious, and you should thus find a way to cope.
If you want an even better reason: being uncritical of ones own beliefs is pathetically lazy, and indicative of a lack of conviction. If you really want to go with gusto with respect to your beliefs, then you should question them every day. If not, then you shouldn't give a damn about the questions others ask.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Monster Rain wrote:I'm a big proponent of the idea that an idea isn't worth haven't unless its been challenged.
If you ever come to Chicago, we may need to have a drink or two.
Avatar 720 wrote:
Can't some of you just respect someone else's views on life? It is their life after all, and they are welcome to whatever they believe. It may or may not be correct, but it is not up to you to try and convince them of that.
Well, its also our lives. What other people do has an effect on us all, so we question one another. I mean, life would be really, really boring if we didn't.
I don't question athiests about why they don't believe in God, but I should have to put up with people questioning (if it is ever just questions) my beliefs because the other alternative is boredom?
avatar, I'm a Christian and I don't have any problem whatsoever with people asking me about or challenging my faith. I only get angry when they do it disrespectfully.
I think being challenged is healthy to someone that is genuinely trying to enhance their walk with God. Knowing why you believe what you believe is very important, and is in fact a trait encouraged and praised by Paul the apostle.
GG
Automatically Appended Next Post:
dogma wrote:
generalgrog wrote:
You know I watched that movie after it came out on video...and the thing that struck me was that the guy picked a bunch of easy targets. It would be hilarious to see Bill Mahr interview a real apologist..you know someone that has actually studied logic, ancient greek and theology.
You know that the guy in the clip was a Latinist to the Pope, right?
Yes but latin is the language of Rome, while Greek is the language of the New testament. Also I would agree with a lot of what Father Reginald said..except the Hell part, unless I misunderstood his position.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I would agree with the premise that pure atheism is not religious. The problem is that most atheists aren't pure, and have some religious adoration of atheism. I give you Richard Dawkins as exhibit A, and Christopher Hitchens as exhibit B.
Now if you are talking about faith, then yes atheists certainly do exhibit faith, when they say that there is no God, because everyone knows that you cannot scientifically prove the nonexistence of God. Just as you cannot scientifically prove the existence of God. You can only point to evidence of either position and use faith from that point on.
generalgrog wrote:I would agree with the premise that pure atheism is not religious. The problem is that most atheists aren't pure, and have some religious adoration of atheism. I give you Richard Dawkins as exhibit A, and Christopher Hitchens as exhibit B.
I would certainly hope that Richard Dawkins is not an example of most atheists.
Now if you are talking about faith, then yes atheists certainly do exhibit faith, when they say that there is no God, because everyone knows that you cannot scientifically prove the nonexistence of God. Just as you cannot scientifically prove the existence of God. You can only point to evidence of either position and use faith from that point on.
GG
I think you are confusing 'I don't believe in God' with the positive affirmation 'I believe that God does not exist'.
generalgrog wrote:I would agree with the premise that pure atheism is not religious. The problem is that most atheists aren't pure, and have some religious adoration of atheism. I give you Richard Dawkins as exhibit A, and Christopher Hitchens as exhibit B.
I would certainly hope that Richard Dawkins is not an example of most atheists.
Now if you are talking about faith, then yes atheists certainly do exhibit faith, when they say that there is no God, because everyone knows that you cannot scientifically prove the nonexistence of God. Just as you cannot scientifically prove the existence of God. You can only point to evidence of either position and use faith from that point on.
GG
I think you are confusing 'I don't believe in God' with the positive affirmation 'I believe that God does not exist'.
Doesn't matter.... both of those beliefs require faith.
The argument about faith vs belief has been rehearsed on DakkaDakka before.
There is a distinction between belief in a reasonable yet incomplete set of facts, and faith in something for which evidence is lacking.
The non-existence of a deity does not require positive proof, unless you make the prior assumption that a deity is necessary for the universe to exist. If the universe can be explained from observed evidence, without recourse to a supernatural explanation, then no faith is required to disbelieve in a deity.
generalgrog wrote:
I would agree with the premise that pure atheism is not religious. The problem is that most atheists aren't pure, and have some religious adoration of atheism. I give you Richard Dawkins as exhibit A, and Christopher Hitchens as exhibit B.
First off, there is no such thing as "pure" atheism. You are either an atheist, or you aren't., that's the end of it.
Second, atheism is a category, like theism, it necessitates only the absence of a a belif in God.
Honestly, I don't understand why this is difficult
generalgrog wrote:
Now if you are talking about faith, then yes atheists certainly do exhibit faith, when they say that there is no God, because everyone knows that you cannot scientifically prove the nonexistence of God. Just as you cannot scientifically prove the existence of God. You can only point to evidence of either position and use faith from that point on.
GG
Atheism is not the belief in the absence of God, it is merely the lack of beliief in God.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
generalgrog wrote:
Doesn't matter.... both of those beliefs require faith.
GG
Please, explain to us how the absence of s belief rehires faith of any sort.
Dogma, i think i have argued with Orlanth and GG about this on about 6 seperate occasions. You can't get them to accept the point, because if everyone is Religious, then it makes their position look better. I would'nt bother going on about it anymore and merely agree to disagree.
All I simply say is that i do not have "faith" that there is no God either, i just think their is a lack of empirical evidence for it. Im not 100% certain that there is nothing out there, im humble enough to realise the extent of my intellect, and the scope of the cosmos, and there is a slim chance that there is a prime mover of sorts.. some sort of force or God or whatever.
Does that make me an aggressive agnostic and not an atheist?
I dont much care what the label is, It means nothing to me. I just really know that Chrisitianity and Judaism and Islam are false for numerous reasons.
I have no real issue with Deism. Whatever floats your boat, and those type of people dont try and force their opinions on to me. I have real issues with the big three because their faith affects MY life, and i dont like it one bit.
mattyrm wrote:Dogma, i think i have argued with Orlanth and GG about this on about 6 seperate occasions. You can't get them to accept the point, because if everyone is Religious, then it makes their position look better. I would'nt bother going on about it anymore and merely agree to disagree.
That is because your point doesn't make sense, and you apply beliefs in contradiction to it.
mattyrm wrote:
All I simply say is that i do not have "faith" that there is no God either, i just think their is a lack of empirical evidence for it. Im not 100% certain that there is nothing out there, im humble enough to realise the extent of my intellect, and the scope of the cosmos, and there is a slim chance that there is a prime mover of sorts.. some sort of force or God or whatever.
You don't know, but you continue to affirm a choice anyway. That is faith.
You either know or you do not, faith is the 'evidence of things unseen' when belief takes over beyond what is provided for.
I have no 'faith' in the sun and the moon, I have faith that God will be there for me.
mattyrm wrote:
Does that make me an aggressive agnostic and not an atheist?
Perhaps, but you say atheist, and you say atheist when you bash religion. So atheist it is, unless atheists disown you.
mattyrm wrote:
I just really know that Chrisitianity and Judaism and Islam are false for numerous reasons.
You just know they are all false. Thats a statement of faith right there. There is no proof of any of this, yes the above creeds are mutually exclusive to some degree.
I cannot disprove Islam, I choose to believe an alternative.
mattyrm wrote:
I have no real issue with Deism. Whatever floats your boat, and those type of people dont try and force their opinions on to me. I have real issues with the big three because their faith affects MY life, and i dont like it one bit.
Actually you do seem to have an issue with it Matty, quite frequently actually. The amount of times you have critiqued people for following a "book of desert fables" and affirming that you believe it should have no place in our society is:
- focring your opinions on others
- going it with emotional force.
Not only is that faith, its fundamentalism.
I don't know how to amend this, its clear, but too direct so it looks a lot crabbier than I intend it to be. Matty appears a nice guy, and not a viscious dogmatist, I just don't think he thinks through his theology.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kilkrazy wrote:
The non-existence of a deity does not require positive proof, unless you make the prior assumption that a deity is necessary for the universe to exist. If the universe can be explained from observed evidence, without recourse to a supernatural explanation, then no faith is required to disbelieve in a deity.
If the defining concept of a deity is am immaterial being with invisible influence on the universe, which doesn't cover all gods but does cover the better known ones, then the inability for empirical science to find it is no guarantee that is is not there.
You don't search for stars by checking the attic.
The next question is: if there is no evidence no matter how far we look, why bother believing. The answer is that there is evidence within.
So let us assume science was able to find categoric proof we descended from apes, which we are close to doing to the extent we can track the path. Seventh day adventists go nuts over this, I do not. I am a creationist not an Intelligent Design believer because I don't believe in Intelligent Design, its just creationism with the medieval assumptions taken out, its not in any way new.God
Where is God in all this. If evolution is random apes might not have resulted in humans, it could have resulted in anything. However apes did result in us, this to science is random, but it may well have been the decision of a God.
This makes better sense theologically than other options. God ordered the universe, and all subsequent acts indicated he obeys his own rules. Hence Jusdaic Law (or Koranic if you believe that way). Hence why Jesus had to die on the cross for sin, God could have chosen to just let us in anyway.
If God is bound by his laws then perhaps like us he lives within them. an honest man who obeys the law of the land influcens society around him by honest living. A true God living within the law of the universe decides which way fate goes, he creates man by setting the path that leads to man.
This of itself means nothing, but I do know something that does. Prophesy.
Prophesy is when God talks to you and makes promises or predictions. It has happened to me numerous times, God said to me go there and you will see this. I did and I did see what I was told I would see, what I heard was immaterial, what I saw was material. It was no delusion, the consequences were real, and it was no cause and effect. I had no control on whether what I was promised would be there or any logic of itself to believe it would be there.
This normally involved supposed 'chance' meetings with people, on two occassions it led me to a small amount of lost money. Some churches like to call these events 'God-insidence', and its happens rather a lot.
This does not happen as often as it once did, perhaps my faith is not as good now, or my walk with God less close.
Some of the best examples of this come on the book Cross and the Switchblade, where Rev Wilkinson stumbled blindly into a ministry with New York street gangs, did many unsafe things amnd ended up with a string of veery positive long odds coincidences from them. It would have been lunacy he he not clearly heard from God go there and this will happen, after awhile you get to trust in the truth:
God is out there, and He is in control.
Please, explain to us how the absence of s belief rehires faith of any sort.
Because there is a reason why someone has an"absence of belief". Belief doesn't exist in a vacuum. There are influences, doctrines, evidences that lead someone to making a belief choice. You don't just wake up one day and say "I believe there is no God" You wake up one day and say "I believe there is no God BECAUSE of X and Y".
Orlanth wrote:
That is because your point doesn't make sense, and you apply beliefs in contradiction to it.
Actually you do seem to have an issue with it Matty, quite frequently actually. The amount of times you have critiqued people for following a "book of desert fables" and affirming that you believe it should have no place in our society is:
- focring your opinions on others
- going it with emotional force.
Not only is that faith, its fundamentalism.
No mate, because you can be a "man of faith" but deny being Religious, and believe in a "God" but not any of the big three monotheistic belief systems.
I have such an issue with them, because they allow their Religion into the public sphere with lawmaking. Abortion is still illegal in Ireland, Stem Cell research was suspended and science was stymied under Bush, Gay marriage is being rejected, and i like to think that you know, we should make all people equal?
All of these things impact my life, so i have no issue with a man who says he believes in a higher power, because he doesnt have a big book of rules he has to try and force onto me. I was absolutely appalled and disgusted about prop 8 in California, when Black Americans voted to send Gay Blacks to the back of the bus on the same day that a Black President was elected. And lets not have any denials, the number one reason that the right was taken away from homosexuals was because of the Religious lobby.
Again, i take issue with Religion because it affects other people who do not follow the faith, can you really not see why that would annoy me? Atheism doesnt affect other people, because not believing in a God (or thinking there might not be one or thinking that there is little evidence for one) doesnt have any rules. And there isnt a big book of unbelief that we all must follow.
Would it annoy you if Sharia law was imposed upon the UK?
You know it would!
And you know that what I am saying is entirely fair, you just dont want to give an inch because your a devout bloke and it is an argument you want to win. Thats fair enough and i can understand your point entirely, and i have toned down my anti religious rants somewhat because i spend alot of time talking with guys like you and i can see you are a reasonable kind of chap, but ulimately i feel that my stance is not aggressive but simply defensive, because you guys get an unfair slice of the pie! If science and education and foreign policy and human rights and equality were in no way affected by Religion, then i wouldnt feel the need to talk about it at all, hence my Deism argument.
Why do Religious people have more of a say than non Religious people? Is that fair?
Anyway, not believing in God can not be classed as a Religion anymore than not playing 40k can be classed as a hobby. I follow no holy books, have no holy buildings, dont pray, dont meet anybody else, dont have "faith" that there is no God (just a Theistic one) and dont really give a gak other than the fact that i dont want people ramming their rules down everybody elses throats.
But as i said, we have had this out before, and you insist it is a Religion and I don't, and I am happy to leave it there.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Im going on my rowing machine for an hour or two, and when i get back we can continue the "rowing" on here.
generalgrog wrote:
Because there is a reason why someone has an"absence of belief". Belief doesn't exist in a vacuum. There are influences, doctrines, evidences that lead someone to making a belief choice. You don't just wake up one day and say "I believe there is no God" You wake up one day and say "I believe there is no God BECAUSE of X and Y".
that = faith.
GG
No, you clearly don't understand what I wrote. Well, or you do, and your argument is from willful ignorance.
There is a difference between believing that there is no God, and not believing in God; but both entail atheism according to parametric (conventional) logic.
The latter is the default position, the position of ignorance, in your argument.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Orlanth wrote:
Perhaps, but you say atheist, and you say atheist when you bash religion. So atheist it is, unless atheists disown you.
No, that is, among other things, a fallacy of necessity.
X does not define Y when Y is a general category, and X is a specific incident.
Induction requires far, far more than 1 person speaking to 1 idea.
It is futile to assume that atheist and theistic choices are intellectual matters, they are not, they are emotional matters at the core. One can apply them with intellect, but the deep seated emotion positive or negative will always surface.
With regards to choice of religion, we become as we choose.
One might try to hide behind mathematics, but at the core you me and everyone else chooses, and the choice comes from within. I could give 'excuses' for why I am a Christian, examples of what God has done in my life and others, reasons why I beleive and many are intellectual arguments but ultimately they are excuses, the fact is I chose to believe at some point.
I challenge anyone to say different, we all made choices, even if we intend to review those choices later. Even if the choice is intended to be temporary.
This is how things are. Its what makes fundamentalists, and fanatics and saints, martyrs and why atheism has its share of all the above. It's why Dawkins for all his posturing of intellectualism, 'just cant let it go'. It's why many atheists here no matter how they try to hide behind formulae are subject to the same emotional pressures as Grog and I.
Orlanth wrote:It is futile to assume that atheist and theistic choices are intellectual matters, they are not, they are emotional matters at the core. One can apply them with intellect, but the deep seated emotion positive or negative will always surface.
I know thats kinda off topic, but i don't want to have another Religious argument with you guys.
I actually feel really sorry for the guy, because is his record Scientifically not excellent?
Nowadays people try to make him out to be stupid, try to slate his work, say he is a "bad Scientist" but would anybody say that about him in say.. 2001? Wouldnt he be pretty well regarded as a great Biologist?
I remember seeing the Farraday Christmas lectures he did in the early nineties, and it is a very distinguished thing to do. He was also in one of the top jobs in Oxford, and his seminal work on Biology (The Selfish Gene) is pretty much required reading for Biology students, he famously coined the term MEME and .. well.. there are literally hundreds of accolades you could put at the blokes door.
Basically i feel sorry for him because I think that he has become so famous as THE ATHEIST his works seem to have been largely forgotten. I often wonder if he regrets the whole God Dellusion thing and wishes he could just go back to being " that good Biologist who was invited to give the Farraday Christmas lectures a few times and wrote the Selfish Gene"
What do you lot think? Bear in mind i am interested in your opinions here, and i am not a Scientist, and i didnt go to Uni, so all i know is what i have read (i read alot though) and in my mind, he is a good Scientist, as he is well regarded by other Biologists.
But i don't know for sure, im a killer not a Biologist!
mattyrm wrote:
Nowadays people try to make him out to be stupid, try to slate his work, say he is a "bad Scientist" but would anybody say that about him in say.. 2001? Wouldnt he be pretty well regarded as a great Biologist?
I've always thought that he was bad for essentially the same reasons I accost people here: insufficient information.
So thats your opinion, and it may be correct, i mean, I am no Scientist, but your still a student right(i don't mean that disrespectfully, but in the sense that you have not won a nobel prize or anything!) Would you say that would be a common thing among his peers?
I read a collection of essays called "How a scientist changed the way we think" and It had some guys in it that are surely well thought of in Scientific circles themselves singing his praises (Steven Pinker and David Haig from Harvard for example) and also some space was also given to writers were not in full agreement with the bloke. Other guys who i admire that arent involved with science, like.. Phillip Pullman for example. and many others. And mainly they all said good things about him.
So say you asked a hundred guys who were elected to the National Academy of Sciences, if they thought he was a "good" biologist, do you think they would say he sucked/made no significant contribution?
mattyrm wrote:So thats your opinion, and it may be correct, i mean, I am no Scientist, but your still a student right(i don't mean that disrespectfully, but in the sense that you have not won a nobel prize or anything!) Would you say that would be a common thing among his peers?
Yeah, its nominally a love v. hate sort of thing.
mattyrm wrote:
I read a collection of essays called "How a scientist changed the way we think" and It had some guys in it that are surely well thought of in Scientific circles themselves singing his praises (Steven Pinker and David Haig from Harvard for example) and also some space was also given to writers were not in full agreement with the bloke.
They love him for his popular advocacy. Thing is, when you translate nuance to masses, the nuance is lost.
mattyrm wrote:
So say you asked a hundred guys who were elected to the National Academy of Sciences, if they thought he was a "good" biologist, do you think they would say he sucked/made no significant contribution?
They would probably say he was a good biologist in the same sense that I would say Ken Waltz is a good political scientist; which is to say I wouldn't say that without a wink and a grin.
It does not really matter than Dawkins was or is a biologist, he also puts his hand at being a theologian.
His theology is clearly an emotive subject rather than a purely intellectual one because of the emotion he charges it with. That in itself would not be problematic, were the emotion not negative.
There is a deep seated anger running in Dawkins work.
Aye there is, i remember reading an old book (I think it was cClimbing Mount Improbable) and he finished a chapter after talking about evolution denialists with "im off to dig the garden"
But do you not think its fair to be angry? He equates it in his new book with a History teacher having to take time out from his teaching to argue with people that say the Romans never existed.
Wouldnt it make YOU angry?
It seems kinda fair to be pissed about it if you ask me, and im not a Biologist, but i think i would be angry as well if people who arent Scientists were interfering with my Science.
Its like someone who has never been to Afghanistan telling me how easy a tour out there is!
This is not an issue of knowledge vs ignorance, no matter what Dawkins and some atheists would imply. There are solid reasons to back up a faith choice, some expressed by great minds.
Were this not so, were the choices not blurred this whole issue would have ceased to exist centuries ago. There have been many cults and creeds that do not hold any logical sense, they fall. the major remaining relgions have all passed some sort of logic test. People have been pondering the holy texts of the various faiths for centuries or millenia, many who did so were wise and educated men capable of great thoughts and works.
I dont see it as fair to write off all this, only prideful arrogance. The idea that Dawkins is the great intellectual and others are idiots that do not require answering is quite onoxious really. I do not doubt that Dawkins is a first rate biologist, he would not occupy his seat were he not, however here are theologians as well as biologists at Oxford too, mental giants alike to C.S. Lewis can still be found today.
Its like someone who has never been to Afghanistan telling me how easy a tour out there is!
You are falling into the trap of thinking your creed alone has knowlede and experience to back it up its claims.
a fairer comparison would be for someone who has been to Afghanistan to say that things are not as bad as you make out.
mattyrm wrote:Dogma, i think i have argued with Orlanth and GG about this on about 6 seperate occasions. You can't get them to accept the point, because if everyone is Religious, then it makes their position look better. I would'nt bother going on about it anymore and merely agree to disagree.
The problem here is that athiests bristle when you tell them they have faith. I believe they are in denial, because in their world view, athiesm is superior to deism because[u] deists use faith. I.E. they are insulted by the notion that they use faith, because they see it as an equalization of world views and they "just can't have that".
So they will squirm and twist and fight to try and argue that they do not use faith. Classic denial syndrome. You should see dawkins' nostrils flare up when he is "accused" of having faith.
Yes GG but that argument aside, isn't our choice more like just an opinion? Ie. "I don't think there is a god, or at least there is no good evidence for it" and yours is "I am 100% sure"
mattyrm wrote:Dogma, i think i have argued with Orlanth and GG about this on about 6 seperate occasions. You can't get them to accept the point, because if everyone is Religious, then it makes their position look better. I would'nt bother going on about it anymore and merely agree to disagree.
The problem here is that athiests bristle when you tell them they have faith. I believe they are in denial, because in their world view, athiesm is superior to deism because[u] deists use faith. I.E. they are insulted by the notion that they use faith, because they see it as an equalization of world views and they "just can't have that".
So they will squirm and twist and fight to try and argue that they do not use faith. Classic denial syndrome. You should see dawkins' nostrils flare up when he is "accused" of having faith.
GG
I don't think you truly understand the Atheist worldview, GG. I actually would argue that faith is not the reason most people are atheist, nor is a superior feeling why we choose that path. I am atheist because I genuinely neither believe in nor care about the existence of a God. Whether Deists believe or not is completely irrelevant to me. It is like that with most other people who are atheist, with only a few exceptions.
Anyway I'm tired of having the "not having faith is actually faith" argument for the hundredth time, so I will let dogma crack on and I'm going to read "high fidelity" which seems a bit feminine but my missus recommended it.
Do you believe that 40k Space Orks are actually out there in the universe somewhere? No, you do not.
Is it an article of faith to you that "Space Orks are False!"? No, also, probably not.
Your LACK of belief in the existence of Space Orks does not mean that you are a member of a No Space Orks religion.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Orlanth wrote:This is not an issue of knowledge vs ignorance, no matter what Dawkins and some atheists would imply. There are solid reasons to back up a faith choice, some expressed by great minds.
Were this not so, were the choices not blurred this whole issue would have ceased to exist centuries ago. There have been many cults and creeds that do not hold any logical sense, they fall. the major remaining relgions have all passed some sort of logic test. People have been pondering the holy texts of the various faiths for centuries or millenia, many who did so were wise and educated men capable of great thoughts and works.
It is my opinion that there are certainly faiths out there which have been handed down and survived through centuries that do not "hold any logical sense." And conversely, that there have been other, equally or more functional and beautiful faiths and modes of religion that have gone extinct for various reasons having to do with the clash of cultures and societies.
Great minds exist in many faiths, but logic can be a means of going wrong with confidence if one builds one's logical edifice on false or mistaken grounds/assumptions. I remember the discussion in The Rainbow Cadenza comparing the belief systems of C. S. Lewis to those of Ayn Rand, and noting that each made logical sense based on the assumptions each held.
On a side note, I'm pleased to see that you guys have more polite, functional conversations in here than the last time I popped my head into a religion discussion. Well done, everyone.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Oh, and on the original topic, I'm always saddened by the desecration of any ancient tree. They're all sacred, as far as I'm concerned.
Actually its still a faith choice, just with an undisclosed percentage attached.
Mannahnin, I can believe in a specific God and not be part of that religion out of choice. Being part of the religion is not relevant. Faith and membership are not guaranteed even though they logically follow on from each other.
Lack of belief is defacto belief of lack because the question within is undeniable. One can have a lack of belief in many things, and ignore then entirely if one doesn't encounter them. God is different, the concept of God is all encompassing and ever present. All things are touched by the concept of God, at no point can you encounter a material or concept to which the question 'is God there?' is avoided.
Thus an attempted lack of belief must therefore be actively applied to all things, and inevitably becomes a faith in no-God.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
dogma wrote:Its almost as if you don't know anything about logic......
....Again, you don't appear to know anything about logic.
Dogma, you are up to your old tricks. Grog has made his point clearly, and you have made no actual attempt to rebuke them. Ad hominem attacks do not of themselves add anything but grief.
Either stick to the issues or bow out. No more trolling please.
Orlanth wrote:Mannahnin, I can believe in a specific God and not be part of that religion out of choice
“I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.” - Stephen Roberts
Orlanth wrote:Grog has made his point clearly. Ad hominem attacks do not of themselves do anything to refute them.
Either stick to the issues or bow out. No more trolling please.
Clarity doesn't have much to do with logic. You can make a point as plain as day and it can still be illogical. Pointing out something that is incorrect isn't trolling or an ad hominem attack.
Orlanth wrote:Mannahnin, I can believe in a specific God and not be part of that religion out of choice
“I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.” - Stephen Roberts
I still find that a poor quality quote.
One cannot believe in both one and no-God simultaneously. So I contend we are not both atheists.
It also makes no sense to dismiss a God on the grounds that someone else dismisses all others. Most faiths are mutually exclusive, and thus to choose one is to reject the others, this choice can vary from person to person.
Mr Roberts appears to be assuming that any dismissal of other Gods is intolerance and thus to be met with intolerance. It is consistent, not intolerant. One dismisses other faiths not necessarily out of hatred or intolerance but in following the belief in the path one has chosen. One can only be on two roads while at a junction.
To choose to dismiss various gods purely on opposite reaction to others acceptance on them is not any stable belief at all, just flighty, contrary and unfounded. Thus is evidently not a source of wisdom to quote.
Ahtman wrote:
Orlanth wrote:Grog has made his point clearly. Ad hominem attacks do not of themselves do anything to refute them.
Either stick to the issues or bow out. No more trolling please.
Clarity doesn't have much to do with logic. You can make a point as plain as day and it can still be illogical. Pointing out something that is incorrect isn't trolling or an ad hominem attack.
Dogma made no attempt to say why the point was illogical, he just declared it as such. Sadly this is pretty much his modus operandi when dealing with different opinions.
Orlanth wrote:Mannahnin, I can believe in a specific God and not be part of that religion out of choice
“I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.” - Stephen Roberts
I still find that a poor quality quote.
One cannot believe in both one and no-God simultaneously. So I contend we are not both atheists.
I find this shocking. That fact that you seem to miss the point of the quote is also equally shocking. It has more to do with understanding how atheists think than denying god. I would be willing to be you don't believe in Kali, Shiva, Krishna, ect ect. Take how honestly you believe that it is wrong and you'll see how atheists feel about your religion.
There are faiths that aren't mutually exclusive, it's just that you learned that from yours.
Agreed, Ahtman. As a religious person, I've never had any difficulty comprehending that quote's rhetorical point. But then, my faith doesn't claim exclusive access to truth.
Orlanth wrote:Mannahnin, I can believe in a specific God and not be part of that religion out of choice. Being part of the religion is not relevant. Faith and membership are not guaranteed even though they logically follow on from each other.
Agreed. And this is part of the point I'm trying to make to Grog.
Orlanth wrote:Lack of belief is defacto belief of lack because the question within is undeniable. One can have a lack of belief in many things, and ignore then entirely if one doesn't encounter them. God is different, the concept of God is all encompassing and ever present. All things are touched by the concept of God, at no point can you encounter a material or concept to which the question 'is God there?' is avoided.
Thus an attempted lack of belief must therefore be actively applied to all things, and inevitably becomes a faith in no-God.
Many (most? Impossible to say for sure) people never personally encounter any deity. It is entirely possible to live a life without addressing the concept of deity, although unlikely given the interconnectedness of our cultures, and their having conveyed the major religions to the ends of the Earth.
Mannahnin wrote:Dogma pointed out the illogic twice, IIRC, before giving up before Grog's intransigence.
A lack of belief in any given thing is categorically different from a positive faith statement of a thing's definite nonexistence.
Well..that is why I asked dogma to "help me" understand him.
I'm not being intransigent..I truly have a hard time differentiating the two concepts.
Heck.. give me some technical terminology and I'll look it up myself.
GG
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Mannahnin wrote:Agreed, Ahtman. As a religious person, I've never had any difficulty comprehending that quote's rhetorical point. But then, my faith doesn't claim exclusive access to truth.
Orlanth wrote:Mannahnin, I can believe in a specific God and not be part of that religion out of choice. Being part of the religion is not relevant. Faith and membership are not guaranteed even though they logically follow on from each other.
Agreed. And this is part of the point I'm trying to make to Grog.
Not wanting to speak for Orlanth but I think you missed his point.
Can you see the difference between my space ork examples?
generalgrog wrote:
Mannahnin wrote:
Orlanth wrote:Mannahnin, I can believe in a specific God and not be part of that religion out of choice. Being part of the religion is not relevant. Faith and membership are not guaranteed even though they logically follow on from each other.
Agreed. And this is part of the point I'm trying to make to Grog.
Not wanting to speak for Orlanth but I think you missed his point.
GG
No, he was right that I got a bit imprecise. Being part of a religion which holds There Are No Space Orks as an article of dogma is not the same thing as personally believing There Are No Space Orks.
Orlanth wrote:Mannahnin, I can believe in a specific God and not be part of that religion out of choice
“I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.” - Stephen Roberts
I would be willing to bet that Stephen Roberts isn't the first guy to use that line, because I have heard it parroted by a few other famous athiests. And I agree with Orlanth that it is a poor argument. In fact the reason for the dismissal are coming from two totally different world views and experiences. An Athiest hasn't yet experienced God, whereas a true Christian has, and therefore has no need to believe in any other false gods. (waits patiently for the zues reference)
Mannahnin wrote:Do you believe that 40k Space Orks are actually out there in the universe somewhere? No, you do not.
Is it an article of faith to you that "Space Orks are False!"? No, also, probably not.
Your LACK of belief in the existence of Space Orks does not mean that you are a member of a No Space Orks religion.
Sorry... but you are trying to equate not believing in space orks to not believing in God? kind of like the santa shtick dogma came up with?
Dogma didn't come up with the santa comparison. It's probably been around longer than he's been alive.
I chose space orks as a convenient (and relevant to this website) thing I could be reasonably confident that you don't believe in, but also don't hold the nonexistence of as an article of faith. Does that not make sense?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
generalgrog wrote:
Ahtman wrote:“I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.” - Stephen Roberts
I would be willing to bet that Stephen Roberts isn't the first guy to use that line, because I have heard it parroted by a few other famous athiests. And I agree with Orlanth that it is a poor argument. In fact the reason for the dismissal are coming from two totally different world views and experiences. An Athiest hasn't yet experienced God, whereas a true Christian has, and therefore has no need to believe in any other false gods. (waits patiently for the zues reference)
GG
Are you claiming that every Christian has a direct personal experience of your god? I do not believe this to be true.
You don't believe in my gods, and go so far as to label them "false", but I believe most human beings are capable of not believing in either my gods or your god, without having to actively declare any of them "false".
generalgrog wrote:I would be willing to bet that Stephen Roberts isn't the first guy to use that line, because I have heard it parroted by a few other famous athiests.
Becuase other people quoted him doesn't mean he isn't the originator.
generalgrog wrote:And I agree with Orlanth that it is a poor argument.
I can't begin to tell you how suprised I am at that revelation.
generalgrog wrote:In fact the reason for the dismissal are coming from two totally different world views and experiences.
Oh, so you would consider yourself Jewish or Muslim than? Or perhaps Catholic? They aren't from radically different worldviews or experiences.
generalgrog wrote:An Athiest hasn't yet experienced God
The number of converts to athiests or other religions says that is a bunch of baloney.
generalgrog wrote:whereas a true Christian has, and therefore has no need to believe in any other false gods
And a true Scottsman knows that is a load of dogmatic hooey. Just in case though I talked to a Hindu priest and he agrees, you shouldn't follow false gods like the Christian one. Come over to Brahman. A true Hindu has experienced the oneness with the ultimate supreme and knows the truth. He just wants to help you.
Can you see the difference between my space ork examples?
.
Yes I can.. but I don't think they are the same thing as what dogma was presenting. And I also think you are arguing something different than dogma, even though you may think you are arguing the same thing. Or maybe you don't understand it yourself. (no insult intended)
Anyway you didn't answer my question.... are you trying to equate not believing in space orks to not believing in God?
If so, it would be like comparing the flying spaghetti monster to God.
Anyway, the reason why I do not think they are comparable is that we know that space orks, santa claus and the flying spagetti monster were made up creations, we can actually document when and where they came from. You can't do that with God.
If I have missed your point I apologize.
GG
Automatically Appended Next Post:
generalgrog wrote:I would be willing to bet that Stephen Roberts isn't the first guy to use that line, because I have heard it parroted by a few other famous athiests.
Ahtman wrote:
Becuase other people quoted him doesn't mean he isn't the originator.
No but it shows that they sure aren't very original.
generalgrog wrote:In fact the reason for the dismissal are coming from two totally different world views and experiences.
Ahtman wrote:
Oh, so you would consider yourself Jewish or Muslim than? Or perhaps Catholic? They aren't from radically different worldviews or experiences.
Athiests and Christians don't have different world views?
generalgrog wrote:An Athiest hasn't yet experienced God
Ahtman wrote:
The number of converts to athiests or other religions says that is a bunch of baloney.
So someone that doesn't believe in a thing has experienced that thing?
generalgrog wrote:whereas a true Christian has, and therefore has no need to believe in any other false gods
Ahtman wrote:
And a true Scottsman knows that is a load of dogmatic hooey. Just in case though I talked to a Hindu priest and he agrees, you shouldn't follow false gods like the Christian one. Come over to Brahman. A true Hindu has experienced the oneness with the ultimate supreme and knows the truth. He just wants to help you.
Yes... I agree, poor form on my part..I should have phrased that differently.
No, of course I'm not trying to equate space orks to god. I already explained why I chose the example I did.
We know the origins of your god as well as we know the origins of my gods. But you seem to have no trouble labeling mine "false".
This is the point of Ahtman's quote. If you have difficulty comprehending an atheist's perspective, a useful thought experiment may be to imagine feeling the same way about your god as you feel about mine.
I feel like we are having the conversation from A Bug's Life .
Flik: Here, pretend this is a seed.
Dot: But it's a rock.
Flik: I know, I know, but let's for a minute pretend it's a seed, lets use our imaginations. You see our tree? Everything that is in that giant tree is contained inside this tiny seed. All it needs is some time, a little sunshine and rain, and voilá!
Dot: This rock will be a tree?
Flik: Seed to tree, you have to stay with me. Now, it may seem that you can't do anything, but that's just because you're not a tree yet. You just have to give yourself more time. You're still a seed.
Mannahnin wrote:No, of course I'm not trying to equate space orks to god. I already explained why I chose the example I did.
We know the origins of your god as well as we know the origins of my gods. But you seem to have no trouble labeling mine "false".
This is the point of Ahtman's quote. If you have difficulty comprehending an atheist's perspective, a useful thought experiment may be to imagine feeling the same way about your god as you feel about mine.
Wait, you keep saying that you have gods and also talk about athiesm. Are you a polytheist, pantheist or an athiest?
GG the Sweet wrote:Athiests and Christians don't have different world views?
An atheist and a Christian can agree on everything except the belief that Jesus was the Jewish messiah and son of God. They don't have to have different world views. Thinking that we should be nice to each other, shouldn't steal, shouldn't murder, that America is really nifty and all sorts of things are not exclusive to Christians.
Ahtman wrote:I feel like we are having the conversation from A Bug's Life .
Flik: Here, pretend this is a seed.
Dot: But it's a rock.
Flik: I know, I know, but let's for a minute pretend it's a seed, lets use our imaginations. You see our tree? Everything that is in that giant tree is contained inside this tiny seed. All it needs is some time, a little sunshine and rain, and voilá!
Dot: This rock will be a tree?
Flik: Seed to tree, you have to stay with me. Now, it may seem that you can't do anything, but that's just because you're not a tree yet. You just have to give yourself more time. You're still a seed.
Orlanth wrote:Mannahnin, I can believe in a specific God and not be part of that religion out of choice
“I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.” - Stephen Roberts
I still find that a poor quality quote.
One cannot believe in both one and no-God simultaneously. So I contend we are not both atheists.
I find this shocking. That fact that you seem to miss the point of the quote is also equally shocking. It has more to do with understanding how atheists think than denying god. I would be willing to be you don't believe in Kali, Shiva, Krishna, ect ect. Take how honestly you believe that it is wrong and you'll see how atheists feel about your religion.
How atheists think is denying God, one way or another.
I don't believe in Krishna etc, I also don't have issues with people who do.
The person you quoted obviously does have issues, if we take his own words as evidence, as he claims to shape his own theology around the rejection choices of others.
Essentially it comes down to religion: go pick one. We have pantheons, monothestic deities, animism, etc, even the choice not to accept any at all.
Ahtman wrote:
There are faiths that aren't mutually exclusive, it's just that you learned that from yours.
Here it comes, the claim that those of a particular faith cannot see beyond it. A propoganda tool used to give the accuser a false mental edge as the one who is 'knowledgable'.
Yes some faith are not mutually exclusive, which is why I pointed to that in my earlier reply:
Most faiths are mutually exclusive, and thus to choose one is to reject the others, this choice can vary from person to person.
Orlanth wrote:
The person you quoted obviously does have issues, if we take his own words as evidence, as he claims to shape his own theology around the rejection choices of others.
No, that's not what that quote entails. Roberts very clearly arrived at his own conclusion (to the extent that anyone can do so), he is merely using the choices of others in order to communicate his choice analogically.
Orlanth wrote:
Here it comes, the claim that those of a particular faith cannot see beyond it. A propoganda tool used to give the accuser a false mental edge as the one who is 'knowledgable'.
No, Ahtman didn't make a general claim about all people of a particular faith. He made a specific claim about you, and your faith.
generalgrog wrote:OK.. so educate me then. What's the difference between "a lack of belief in santa" and a "possible belief in the lack of santa".
GG
No, you've gotten it wrong again.
Position 1 = a belief in the lack of Santa
Position 2 = a lack of belief in Santa
For Position 1 to be correct, there cannot be a Santa anywhere.
Position 2, by contrast, makes no claim to correctness. Its literally a statement of indifference.
I can't explain it more clearly then that. If you still don't understand, then its on you.
However you are not applying your indifference very well.
Talking about Santa is a smokescreen. Santa is not presumably everywhere. However God is how to word it neutrally: reputed to be omnipresent.
So is God in your computer, is God in your car, is God at your workplace. You have to really make a choice to these statements: yes or no.
Here the waters muddy and where the division of understanding occurs. Grog and I and the other Christians or members of other similar faiths cannot say: YES.
However we can only believe yes. That belief however taken is a yes. Furthermore I believe so is similar to I wish so and I hope so, they are all forms of yes.
Likewise, I am not sure, I dont know, I dont want to think about it are all forms of NO. Noone can say a categoric no, there is no proof in no-God.
If I said there was a seven toed sloth in Borneo you could believe disbelieve or not consider the matter, your lack of belief could be neutral.
However if I said there was a seven toed sloth God everywhere, then your entire worldlook, if taken with any honesty, would either have to accept or reject the claim. There is no neutral option regarding an omnipresent deity, you beleive or you do not, its a boolean set with no third option.
Those who believe God often claim he intends it this way, the Bible also makes frequent comment as such, though it just makes the statement, it does not give the above logic.
Orlanth wrote:
However you are not applying your indifference very well.
I'm indifferent to whether or not God exists, but I'm very engaged by people making bad arguments.
Orlanth wrote:
Talking about Santa is a smokescreen. Santa is not presumably everywhere. However God is how to word it neutrally: reputed to be omnipresent.
No, its actually an example.
Orlanth wrote:
Here the waters muddy and where the division of understanding occurs. Grog and I and the other Christians or members of other similar faiths cannot say: YES.
However we can only believe yes.
The question is about belief, so yes, you can say yes.
Orlanth wrote:
Noone can say a categoric no, there is no proof in no-God.
Yes, yes they can.
Orlanth wrote:
If I said there was a seven toed sloth in Borneo you could believe disbelieve or not consider the matter, your lack of belief could be neutral.
However if I said there was a seven toed sloth God everywhere, then your entire worldlook, if taken with any honesty, would either have to accept or reject the claim. There is no neutral option regarding an omnipresent deity, you beleive or you do not, its a boolean set with no third option.
No, that's absolutely wrong.
First, Boolena Sets contain, by necessity, at least 3 positions in any instance where sets interact. So, unless you're positing that there is only one question to be engaged, you have no recourse to presume that the response must be one of the two options that you've referenced. Really, I have no idea why you mentioned Boolean sets at all, because we're not actually debating anything that follows from set theory.
Second, you clearly don't understand the point that you're trying to make, because you've essentially agreed with me unintentionally. Note that not believing in God is not the same thing as believing that there is no God. The absence of belief in God is the neutral option, and it is encompassed by the same "not yes" response that categorizes people as atheists.
Orlanth wrote:
The person you quoted obviously does have issues, if we take his own words as evidence, as he claims to shape his own theology around the rejection choices of others.
No, that's not what that quote entails. Roberts very clearly arrived at his own conclusion (to the extent that anyone can do so), he is merely using the choices of others in order to communicate his choice analogically. .
Yes its his own conclusion as in he arrived at it by free will
dogma wrote:
Orlanth wrote:
Here it comes, the claim that those of a particular faith cannot see beyond it. A propoganda tool used to give the accuser a false mental edge as the one who is 'knowledgable'.
No, Ahtman didn't make a general claim about all people of a particular faith. He made a specific claim about you, and your faith.
I would have thought the distinction was obvious.
It is not lost on me that the accusation was about my personal faith, I was merely pointing out that is is a rhetorical strategy used in general to denegrate an opposed point of view.
Besides Ahtman has ignored quite a large volume of threads from the past, in which I have consistently proven a reasonable understanding of religious issues from a Christian perspective and otherwise. The fact that you and he do not agree with my findings is no fair critique of this, having an informed opinion need not mean sharing your or his opinion.
mattyrm wrote:Dogma, i think i have argued with Orlanth and GG about this on about 6 seperate occasions. You can't get them to accept the point, because if everyone is Religious, then it makes their position look better. I would'nt bother going on about it anymore and merely agree to disagree.
The problem here is that athiests bristle when you tell them they have faith. I believe they are in denial, because in their world view, athiesm is superior to deism because[u] deists use faith. I.E. they are insulted by the notion that they use faith, because they see it as an equalization of world views and they "just can't have that".
So they will squirm and twist and fight to try and argue that they do not use faith. Classic denial syndrome. You should see dawkins' nostrils flare up when he is "accused" of having faith.
First, thankyou for adressing my viewpoint politely. I am commited to showing you the same respect.
dogma wrote:
Orlanth wrote:
However you are not applying your indifference very well.
I'm indifferent to whether or not God exists, but I'm very engaged by people making bad arguments.
That makes no sense, either the argument is irrelevant or it is relevant. If the argument is irrelevant it would not engage you.
This is clearly at some level a heart issue for you, that is no condemnation, its ultimately a heart issue for anyone.
dogma wrote:
Orlanth wrote:
Here the waters muddy and where the division of understanding occurs. Grog and I and the other Christians or members of other similar faiths cannot say: YES.
However we can only believe yes.
The question is about belief, so yes, you can say yes.
Orlanth wrote:
Noone can say a categoric no, there is no proof in no-God.
Yes, yes they can.
How can they? There is no categoric no because there is no proof in no-God.
There is only a personal choice to disbelieve.
Likewise any yes is also not categoric, it involves a personal choice.
Both can be backed up with the evidence of ones choice, depending on what you prefer to beleive. Neither are categorically proven.
dogma wrote:
First, Boolena Sets contain, by necessity, at least 3 positions in any instance where sets interact.
I will concede that, I meant boolean switch On/Off, Yes/No, 1/0 not boolean set. Apologies for the confusion.
dogma wrote:
Second, you clearly don't understand the point that you're trying to make, because you've essentially agreed with me unintentionally. Note that not believing in God is not the same thing as believing that there is no God. The absence of belief in God is the neutral option, and it is encompassed by the same "not yes" response that categorizes people as atheists.
There is no neutral option, this point you are ignoring the fact that the question exists on a different scale to other choices. As the concept of the existance of God, or not, effects everything then any look at anything has to take into account ones choice in the matter.
The only way to have a neutral option is not never have heard of the concept of an onmipresent God, or to have completely forgotten it. At which point one may be a pure atheist, but would undoubtably not be aware of such.
You me and everyone else here has heard of the possibility of an onmipresent God, and thus the question arises of itself during point of our worldview. Sure one may not look at God all the time, but an essential choice is made, either its true or its baloney, any attempt at a neutral response has to fall into one camp or the other.
There is evidence to back this up, the fervour with which this debate is addressed. There is no such thing as fervid indifference, either one is indifferent or one has fervour. It would be vain to deny some measure of fervour for any participant of this arguement, as ones theological choices affect for good ior ill ones personality. Fervour is not of itself wrong, nor is is fanatical, but it can lead to fanaticism.
One does not sit on the fence anger, not if the fence one sits is in your own mind. For emotions to be engaged a personal choice has to be engaged. After all we are not robots.
The argument may seem pety but there is a lot at stake.
Some theists proport that the difference between the two statements you made is insufficient to deny that a faith responce has been enacted.
Discussing this is the only relevant point. How atheists word the way they stand is less important to how they think.
Many atheists like to beleive that their opinion is not a faith choice, if this is considered true then they can divorce atheism from religion entirely, then at least some atheists can claim to be above relgious distinctions and potentuially free from the negative social history of religious movements.
If this is considered false then atheism can be fairly seen as yet another religion. Should this viewpoint prevail then it will raise claim that atheism is, of itself, no inherent solution to religious turmoil and its effect on society.
In terms of social application both arguments hold merit, historically societal atheism has proven to be a dangerous religious dogma used to oppress many. However other atheists can and have risen above religous differences for their own betterment or the betterment of others.
Yes Orlanth is quite a bit more eloquent than I, but I believe he is saying the same thing as I am. Now that dogma has explained the difference as he sees it, I agree that there is a technical difference in the two statements, it seems to me just a difference in degree. It seems almost as if one statement is one of athiesm and the other is one of agnosticism. Regardless of which choice you make, I still stand by the statement I made that belief doesn't exist in a vacuum. Belief or lack thereof is a result of experiences, whether that experience is through knowledge experience, emotional experience, or physical experience. This holds true for the polytheist, pantheist, athiest, agnostic and deist.
Also we have been talking about the "lack of belief" vs "unbelief" in regards to God. We haven't discussed the faith that athiests use, in regards to their version of the origin of the universe. The universal "Why are we here". What is their alternative explanation? Whatever answer they give is going to be based on faith. I even heard Dawkins say that humanity needs to suppress the "why" question because it is an unnecessary question. Why does dawkins think it unnecessary to ask why are we here?
One point I would like to address that has come up. And that is the notion that athiests can be good people and because they can be good people there is no need for a God. I would like to ask a few questions on this point.
A: Where did the athiest get the "will" to do good?
B: If there is no God and if our actions/behaviors are the result of purely random/inherited traits from our DNA through our ancestors, how can you say that there is evil? It seems to me that a consistent athiest would say that there is no good or evil and therefore there is no need to punish people for doing what they do "naturally". Why was Stalin/Moa/Pol Pot wrong for doing what they did? They were just excersizing there evolutionary right to engage in survival of the fittest. Why should an athiest care about morals and good works? (also before people start hand wringing about my survival of the fittest example, I'm not saying that survival of the fittest is evil, just the the way it was applied in athiestic societies)
If God does not exist than everything is permissible...Dostoyevsky
generalgrog wrote:One point I would like to address that has come up. And that is the notion that athiests can be good people and because they can be good people there is no need for a God
No one brought that up, you just did. The only thing that might be close to that is when it was said that Christians and non-Christians can hold similar world views, which isn't even remotely close to what you are saying.
generalgrog wrote:Where did the athiest get the "will" to do good?
That is going to depend on the atheist as to what answer you get. For a spiritual answer it is going to depend on what religion of the person you ask is. The answer of a Sikh will be different than tat of a Buddhist, which will be different than a Lakota, ect ect.
generalgrog wrote:If there is no God and if our actions/behaviors are the result of purely random/inherited traits from our DNA through our ancestors, how can you say that there is evil?
The question of evil isn't now nor has it ever been limited to a simple Cristian answer, ignoring the fact the even within Christiandom you will get different answers to that question. Another aspect is that not all atheist or religions believe that evil exists. There are things we like (good) and things we don't like (evil) and that generally our capacity to understand events on a universal scale makes it impossible to comprehend.
generalgrog wrote:
If God does not exist than everything is permissible...Dostoyevsky
GG
Now I'm off to watch MAN-U beat Arsenal
Well I haven't read the whole thread. BUT i've seen you're argument before that atheism is a type of faith. The argument falls apart when you think of the implications that faith is a type of atheism.
Do you believe in any of the following?
* Baldr - God of beauty, innocence, peace, and rebirth. Consort: Nanna
* Borr - Father of Óðinn, Vili and Ve. Consort: Bestla
* Bragi - God of poetry. Consort: Iðunn
* Búri - The first god and father of Borr.
* Dagr - God of the daytime, son of Delling and Nótt.
* Delling - God of dawn and father of Dagr by Nótt.
* Eir - Goddess of healing.
* Forseti - God of justice, peace and truth. Son of Baldr and Nanna.
* Freyja - Goddess of love, sexuality, fertility and battle. Consort: Óðr
* Freyr - God of fertility. Consort: Gerð
* Frigg - Goddess of marriage and motherhood. Consort: Óðinn Can also be pronounced Frigga
* Fulla - Frigg´s handmaid.
* Gmot - God of the moon. Brother of Re`es andWeth.
* Gefjun - Goddess of fertility and plough.
* Hel - Queen of Hel, the Norse underworld.
* Heimdallr (Rígr) - One of the Æsir and guardian of Ásgarð, their realm.
* Hermóðr - Óðinn´s son.
* Hlín - Goddess of consolation and protection.
* Höðr - God of winter.
* Hœnir - The silent god.
* Iðunn - Goddess of youth. Consort: Bragi.
* Jörð - Goddess of the Earth. Mother of Þórr by Óðinn.
* Kvasir - God of inspiration.
* Lofn - Goddess of love.
* Loki - Trickster and god of mischief and fire. Consort: Sigyn (also called Saeter)
* Máni - God of Moon.
* Mímir - Óðinn´s uncle.
* Nanna - An Ásynja married with Baldr and mother to Forseti.
* Nerþus - A goddess mentioned by Tacitus. Her name is connected to that of Njörðr.
* Njörðr - God of sea, wind, fish, and wealth.
* Nótt - Goddess of night, daughter of Narvi and mother of Auð, Jörð and Dagr by Naglfari, Annar and Delling, respectively.
* Odin god of war (also the King of the gods)
* Re`es-God of heat*Óðinn (Wodan) - Lord of the Æsir. God of both wisdom and war. Consort: Frigg.
* Sága - An obscure goddess, possibly another name for Frigg.
* Sif - Wife of Thor.
* Sjöfn - Goddess of love.
* Skaði - Goddess of winter Njörðr's wife.
* Snotra - Goddess of prudence.
* Sol (Sunna) - Goddess of Sun.
* Thor (Donar) - God of thunder and battle. Consort: Sif.
* Tiki- God of Stone
* Tree-Goddess of life*Týr (Ziu, Saxnot) - God of war and justice.
* Ullr - God of skill, hunt, and duel. Son of Sif.
* Váli - God of revenge.
* Vár - Goddess of contract.
* Vé - One of the three gods of creation. Brother of Óðinn and Vili.
* Víðarr- Son of Odin and the giantess Gríðr.
* Vör - Goddess of wisdom.
* Weth-Goddess of anger
How about from this list?
* Aakash
* Acyutah
* Adimurti
* Aditi
* Aditya
* Agni
* Amman
* Ammavaru
* Anala
* Anila
* Anumati
* Anuradha
* Ap * Apam Napat
* Aranyani
* Aravan
* Ardhanari
* Ardra
* Arjuna
* Aruna
* Arundhati
* Aryaman
* Aslesa
* Asura
* Asvayujau
* Aswini
* Ayyappan
* Ayyanar
* Ayya Vaikundar
(those are just the A's from hindism)
If you don't, then you ALSO are an atheist. I don't believe in your god for the same reasons you don't believe in these. It has nothing to do with being faithful.
But then... I could just misconstrue what your talking about by not reading the rest of the thread. I just find the Atheists are faithful idea to be total horse when you look at it this way.
In addition... in the same way you're saying atheists cut down this tree...
I have no issue with those with faith, I'm probably consider myself Agnostic rather than Athiest.
However I do have a massive personal issue with Organised Religion, because I have no doubt in mind if Jesus walked the earth today based on what is written about him, you would not find him here.
The hatred sprouted by these so called organised religions (especially that one) against things such as Homosexuality means I could never be a member of 'their' combined faith.
Of course in the case of the individual I am friendly with many who consider themselves Devout Christians, which as I said above is no issue, as long as they don't try and bring me into the fold, we're all good.
I must pause and note mind, I do find it greatly amusing how 'God' is sacred, pure and true, while Gaia, Zeus and Odin and other pagan or ancient Gods are not.
My personal real belief is it has been a 'keep me in power' tool, while giving the down trodden something to look up to after a lifetime of toil.
Today it is used as a coping mechanism to the thought of death, even though Science is contridicting the truths of the 'book' with each passing year.
I have no other real views other than that, no Christian is going to convince me to go to church and pray for their version of 'God' and I don't expect to sway anyone away from their faith either.
How do the other gods have any relevance to the Christian one?
Frankly, I don't know for sure if some spiritual being that calls itself Ptah is running around out there somewhere and I'm not sure what bearing it would have on my life if I did.
"Thou shalt have no other Gods before me" could easily be understood to mean that there are other powers out there. Pick a team.
Monster Rain wrote:"Thou shalt have no other Gods before me" could easily be understood to mean that there are other powers out there. Pick a team.
On a more serious note though, God was originally reffered to as 'The God in the Mountains', by the Egyptians I believe. I can't recall Moses' response to that though.
Monster Rain wrote:"Thou shalt have no other Gods before me" could easily be understood to mean that there are other powers out there. Pick a team.
On a more serious note though, God was originally reffered to as 'The God in the Mountains', by the Egyptians I believe. I can't recall Moses' response to that though.
Yea but Christianity kicked the crap of the Norse gods so...
Monster Rain wrote:"Thou shalt have no other Gods before me" could easily be understood to mean that there are other powers out there. Pick a team.
On a more serious note though, God was originally reffered to as 'The God in the Mountains', by the Egyptians I believe. I can't recall Moses' response to that though.
Yea but Christianity kicked the crap of the Norse gods so...
Well... technically the Norse gods sent their armies of Germanians and Vikings and other Norse folk, beat the crap out of the Christians, and then converted. Apparently the Christians were good talkers
Frazzled wrote:Germans are Norse, thats news to me. Still smarting from that whole crossing the Rhine thing...
I came. I saw. I noodled.
-Julius's younger brother Bob Caesar, on crossing the Rhine.
The Romans were still pagan at the time of Gaius Julius. So Christianity can't take the credit for that one... Christianity didn't even exist yet... EDIT: By the time Christianity became the predominant religion of the Empire it had already passed its peak.
The Germans had similar religious practices. Many of the same gods, slightly different names.
Frazzled wrote:Germans are Norse, thats news to me. Still smarting from that whole crossing the Rhine thing...
I came. I saw. I noodled.
-Julius's younger brother Bob Caesar, on crossing the Rhine.
The Romans were still pagan at the time of Gaius Julius. So Christianity can't take the credit for that one... Christianity didn't even exist yet... EDIT: By the time Christianity became the predominant religion of the Empire it had already passed its peak.
You're taking this internet thing just a little too seriously aren't you there Vern?
Monster Rain wrote:"Thou shalt have no other Gods before me" could easily be understood to mean that there are other powers out there. Pick a team.
On a more serious note though, God was originally reffered to as 'The God in the Mountains', by the Egyptians I believe. I can't recall Moses' response to that though.
When Moses asked God who should he say he was coming in the name of....God said tell them "I AM" sent you. My God is so awesome He just IS. He doesn't need a name even though we have given Him names such as Yahweh which simply means "The Lord".
Frazzled wrote:Germans are Norse, thats news to me. Still smarting from that whole crossing the Rhine thing...
I came. I saw. I noodled.
-Julius's younger brother Bob Caesar, on crossing the Rhine.
The Romans were still pagan at the time of Gaius Julius. So Christianity can't take the credit for that one... Christianity didn't even exist yet... EDIT: By the time Christianity became the predominant religion of the Empire it had already passed its peak.
You're taking this internet thing just a little too seriously aren't you there Vern?
Probably... It's finals week. What can I say, I'm bored
generalgrog wrote:
If God does not exist than everything is permissible...Dostoyevsky
GG
Now I'm off to watch MAN-U beat Arsenal
Well I haven't read the whole thread. BUT i've seen you're argument before that atheism is a type of faith. The argument falls apart when you think of the implications that faith is a type of atheism.
frigs it would really help if you did read the thread as we have allready talked about the stuff you are bringing up. I recommend you go back and read it.
generalgrog wrote:YeOne point I would like to address that has come up. And that is the notion that athiests can be good people and because they can be good people there is no need for a God. I would like to ask a few questions on this point.
A: Where did the athiest get the "will" to do good?
There has been a massive amount of research and philosophical thought put into it. It's worth taking some time to study. The short version of one of the major theories, basically, is that coorperating and working together is to our mutual benefit as a social species. Honesty, not murdering each other, and all the most common elements between different moral and ethical systems can be explained under this principle. Enlightened self interest.
generalgrog wrote:B: If there is no God and if our actions/behaviors are the result of purely random/inherited traits from our DNA through our ancestors, how can you say that there is evil? It seems to me that a consistent athiest would say that there is no good or evil and therefore there is no need to punish people for doing what they do "naturally". Why was Stalin/Moa/Pol Pot wrong for doing what they did? They were just excersizing there evolutionary right to engage in survival of the fittest.
This is a perverse notion, and I have to say I'm kind of insulted on the atheists' behalf. You can't possibly believe that the actions of mass murderers are in any way related to "survival of the fittest." That's insane. Those acts are repugnant, antisocial, and counter to the general welfare regardless of which ethical or moral system you follow.
generalgrog wrote:Why should an athiest care about morals and good works? (also before people start hand wringing about my survival of the fittest example, I'm not saying that survival of the fittest is evil, just the the way it was applied in athiestic societies)
They should care about morals and good works because they are to everyone's benefit as a society. Life is better for us all when we cooperate and act in a benevolent manner.
generalgrog wrote:If God does not exist than everything is permissible...Dostoyevsky
A morally idiotic statement. If a person's only motivation for doing the right thing is the fear of punishment/promise of reward, something is desperately wrong with that person.
So why not look up faith and belief in a dictionary, compare the terms, and come to a conclusion.
Why don't we just agree that Atheism is not a religion, but still has some faith in it. Basically, if you deny the existence of any god, you have faith that there is none. If you believe that there is no god, but admit it could be possible, thats more of your own belief.
generalgrog wrote:YeOne point I would like to address that has come up. And that is the notion that athiests can be good people and because they can be good people there is no need for a God. I would like to ask a few questions on this point.
A: Where did the athiest get the "will" to do good?
Mannahnin wrote:
There has been a massive amount of research and philosophical thought put into it. It's worth taking some time to study. The short version of one of the major theories, basically, is that coorperating and working together is to our mutual benefit as a social species. Honesty, not murdering each other, and all the most common elements between different moral and ethical systems can be explained under this principle. Enlightened self interest.
I wasn't asking the question looking for answer...I know what certain athiests believe on the subject. The question was asked to get people to think a little, witht he idea of showing what a different world view looks like. Of course Christian theology teaches that the will to do good comes from man being created in God's image. Again you need to excersize faith to accept either principle
generalgrog wrote:B: If there is no God and if our actions/behaviors are the result of purely random/inherited traits from our DNA through our ancestors, how can you say that there is evil? It seems to me that a consistent athiest would say that there is no good or evil and therefore there is no need to punish people for doing what they do "naturally". Why was Stalin/Moa/Pol Pot wrong for doing what they did? They were just excersizing there evolutionary right to engage in survival of the fittest.
Mannahnin wrote:
This is a perverse notion, and I have to say I'm kind of insulted on the atheists' behalf. You can't possibly believe that the actions of mass murderers are in any way related to "survival of the fittest." That's insane. Those acts are repugnant, antisocial, and counter to the general welfare regardless of which ethical or moral system you follow.
Of course it is a perverse notion, but there are perverse people out there. Stalin, Mao,Pol Pot for example. Was Stalins 5 year plans not beneficial to soviet russia? It could be argued that they made huge leaps forward economically due his atheistic inspired agenda. Also I never said that every atheist is a Stalin.
generalgrog wrote:Why should an athiest care about morals and good works? (also before people start hand wringing about my survival of the fittest example, I'm not saying that survival of the fittest is evil, just the the way it was applied in athiestic societies)
Mannahnin wrote:
They should care about morals and good works because they are to everyone's benefit as a society. Life is better for us all when we cooperate and act in a benevolent manner.
generalgrog wrote:One point I would like to address that has come up. And that is the notion that athiests can be good people and because they can be good people there is no need for a God. I would like to ask a few questions on this point.
A: Where did the athiest get the "will" to do good?
B: If there is no God and if our actions/behaviors are the result of purely random/inherited traits from our DNA through our ancestors, how can you say that there is evil? It seems to me that a consistent athiest would say that there is no good or evil and therefore there is no need to punish people for doing what they do "naturally". Why was Stalin/Moa/Pol Pot wrong for doing what they did? They were just excersizing there evolutionary right to engage in survival of the fittest. Why should an athiest care about morals and good works? (also before people start hand wringing about my survival of the fittest example, I'm not saying that survival of the fittest is evil, just the the way it was applied in athiestic societies)
You know what, I seriously don't fething get this line of argument. Are you claiming that if you didn't believe in God and divine punishment, you'd be going around killing people for the change in their pockets, whenever you felt you could get away with it? Seriously?
Because I am an atheist, but I still have empathy, I still know that when I do bad things other people suffer, and whether or not there is a God to punish me, I still consider the welfare of other people when I take my actions.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
generalgrog wrote:Of course it is a perverse notion, but there are perverse people out there. Stalin, Mao,Pol Pot for example. Was Stalins 5 year plans not beneficial to soviet russia? It could be argued that they made huge leaps forward economically due his atheistic inspired agenda. Also I never said that every atheist is a Stalin.
But you are claiming Stalin was inspired by atheism. Which is ridiculous, as you cannot be inspired by a non-belief. Stalin was certainly aggressively in his persecution of the church, and utterly wrong for it, but this was part of his belief in communism, not his belief in atheism.
Atheism does not prompt one towards good acts or towards bad ones. It can't.
Did someone cut down an ancient and symbolic tree or am I missing the point of the thread?
Honestly, if you started a discussion in off-topic about the soothing merits of a nice cup of Darjeeling it would end up as a big barney about the existence or otherwise of atheists.
The Germanic and Norse gods are one and the same Frazzled.
Orlanth wrote:
That makes no sense, either the argument is irrelevant or it is relevant. If the argument is irrelevant it would not engage you.
This is clearly at some level a heart issue for you, that is no condemnation, its ultimately a heart issue for anyone.
Yes, you're correct, but relevance isn't necessarily determined by my interest in a specific topic of argument.
I'm interested in argument and logic, it generally comes with be a logician, what that argument and logic might be applied to is nearly irrelevant to me.
I honestly can't explain it more clearly than that, and it really seems that this is more a matter of your projecting your own reason for engaging the topic onto me, rather than attempting to understand where I'm coming from.
Orlanth wrote:
How can they? There is no categoric no because there is no proof in no-God.
There is only a personal choice to disbelieve.
Which is all that's necessary to make a categorical statement. For example, God doesn't exist because I think God is supernatural, and no supernatural things exist.
Orlanth wrote:
Likewise any yes is also not categoric, it involves a personal choice.
Those aren't mutually exclusive things.
Orlanth wrote:
Both can be backed up with the evidence of ones choice, depending on what you prefer to beleive. Neither are categorically proven.
First, that standard of what constitues categorical proof is untenable. If you can offer evidence for something, you can categorically prove something; because proof is fundamentally about individual standards of evidence.
Second, a categorical statement doe not have to be proven to be made.
Orlanth wrote:
There is no neutral option, this point you are ignoring the fact that the question exists on a different scale to other choices. As the concept of the existance of God, or not, effects everything then any look at anything has to take into account ones choice in the matter.
Sure, but you're still not getting it. Simply not believing in something is not the same as believing that thing does not exist. I cannot explain it more clearly, its simply a self-evident truth.
The neutral option is the absence of a belief.
Orlanth wrote:
The only way to have a neutral option is not never have heard of the concept of an onmipresent God, or to have completely forgotten it. At which point one may be a pure atheist, but would undoubtably not be aware of such.
No, that's absolutely false. I can be fully aware that there is a concept of an omnipresent God, and simply not believe in it. This is, again, not the same thing as believing in the absence of such a God. Not believing in something allows for the possibility that it might exist, believing that in its absence does not.
Orlanth wrote:
There is evidence to back this up, the fervour with which this debate is addressed. There is no such thing as fervid indifference, either one is indifferent or one has fervour.
It isn't as though there is only one reason that someone might engage with the question "Do you believe in God?" As such, you cannot presume fervency to be indicative of a given person's belief with respect to the matter.
Orlanth wrote:
For emotions to be engaged a personal choice has to be engaged. After all we are not robots.
No, that's not true at all. Emotions can also be engaged by valuation, which isn't necessarily related to choice.
Unless we're going to posit that we somehow choose to value things like our parents, friends, etc.
So to sum up this thread, some jerks mucked up an historical monument and everyone with any sense, regardless of faith, thought it was a pretty crappy thing to do.
Ahtman wrote:So to sum up this thread, some jerks mucked up an historical monument and everyone with any sense, regardless of faith, thought it was a pretty crappy thing to do.
So long as the Pope isn't using his Jedi mind trick to make us think that
generalgrog wrote:
Of course it is a perverse notion, but there are perverse people out there. Stalin, Mao,Pol Pot for example. Was Stalins 5 year plans not beneficial to soviet russia? It could be argued that they made huge leaps forward economically due his atheistic inspired agenda. Also I never said that every atheist is a Stalin.
Stalin's action were inspired by his lack of belief (or belief in the lack of) in God? I thought his actions were inspired by the presence of a belief in Communism, mixed with a desire for power?
But, to answer your original question, there is no reason to punish anyone if nothing will be accomplished in doing so. Sometimes what is accomplished is simply the provision of catharsis to the mob such that order is maintained, other times its the creation of negative exemplars; just to name two things.
If you want a straight answer with respect to the belif in good and evil, then its simply that atheists aren't required to lack belief in either. Only relativists are required to believe that, well, at least insofar as good and evil are thought of as immutable.
generalgrog wrote:
Than why don't we?
GG
We don't? I thought there were hundreds of charity organizations, secular and otherwise, in addition to a large number of people who behave in a caring fashion with respect to family and friends; plus quite a few more that are at least not malicious with respect to random people.
People do bad things, and people do good things. On one hand this can be explained by the murky nature of morality, on the other it can be said that moral impulses need not be universal in order to be intrinsic characteristics of humanity.
generalgrog wrote:Where did the athiest get the "will" to do good?
Mannahnin wrote:There has been a massive amount of research and philosophical thought put into it. It's worth taking some time to study. The short version of one of the major theories, basically, is that coorperating and working together is to our mutual benefit as a social species. .
I wasn't asking the question looking for answer...I know what certain athiests believe on the subject. The question was asked to get people to think a little, witht he idea of showing what a different world view looks like. Of course Christian theology teaches that the will to do good comes from man being created in God's image. Again you need to excersize faith to accept either principle
Okay, I have multiple problems with what you just wrote here. First, I tried to politely point out that the development of ethics and morals CAN have an entirely secular basis, and that there's a lot of writing and research on the subject. If you were already aware of this, you asking the above as a rhetorical question makes no sense, and comes across as kind of dishonest. Second, what does "what certain athiests believe on the subject" have anything to do with it? I was summarizing a scientific theory; some of the people who think that theory makes sense are religious, and some aren't. Atheism has nothing to do with that theory. Third, you DON'T need faith to accept a scientific theory about human behavior. You do need a greater or lesser degree of faith to be CERTAIN that a given theory is correct, depending on how much evidence there is, but you don't need certainty.
generalgrog wrote:
generalgrog wrote:B: If there is no God and if our actions/behaviors are the result of purely random/inherited traits from our DNA through our ancestors, how can you say that there is evil? It seems to me that a consistent athiest would say that there is no good or evil and therefore there is no need to punish people for doing what they do "naturally". Why was Stalin/Moa/Pol Pot wrong for doing what they did? They were just excersizing there evolutionary right to engage in survival of the fittest.
Mannahnin wrote:This is a perverse notion, and I have to say I'm kind of insulted on the atheists' behalf. You can't possibly believe that the actions of mass murderers are in any way related to "survival of the fittest." That's insane. Those acts are repugnant, antisocial, and counter to the general welfare regardless of which ethical or moral system you follow.
Of course it is a perverse notion, but there are perverse people out there. Stalin, Mao,Pol Pot for example. Was Stalins 5 year plans not beneficial to soviet russia? It could be argued that they made huge leaps forward economically due his atheistic inspired agenda. Also I never said that every atheist is a Stalin.
I'm saying that YOUR association of "survival of the fittest", and Atheism, with the behavior of genoicidal dictators is perverse and insulting to a lot of people. Stalin's agenda wasn't inspired by atheism. It was inspired by his lust for power, and most likely, by his being a psychopath.
generalgrog wrote:Why should an athiest care about morals and good works? (also before people start hand wringing about my survival of the fittest example, I'm not saying that survival of the fittest is evil, just the the way it was applied in athiestic societies)
Atheism doesn't define a society. Religious and philosophical creeds are things which inspire people to do things. The LACK of belief in a thing does not. The societies you're talking about were nominally Communist, but in practice dictatorships, ruled in multiple cases by psychotics, like Stalin and Pol Pot. The people's belief in the philosophical and economic theories of Communism motivated them to follow leaders who misled them. Atheism had little or nothing to do with it. Hitler was nominally Christian, and his people were devoted Christians, but they were deluded into doing evil things out of a combination of misplaced loyalty, resentment about the consequences of WWI, and hatred/fear of an ethnic minority. I don't blame Christianity for the Third Reich, and you shouldn't be blaming atheism for Stalin's atrocities either.
generalgrog wrote:[
Mannahnin wrote:They should care about morals and good works because they are to everyone's benefit as a society. Life is better for us all when we cooperate and act in a benevolent manner.
Than why don't we?
I don't know about you, but I try to. And I'm sure Sebster tries to. That's a pagan and an atheist practicing morality and trying to do good works. We're not Christian, but we're moral. Can you accept that?
Everyone is missing the point - never mind arguing about believing in God, why the feth is anyone believing in the Daily Mail? Sensationalist gak.
Definitely a sad proof of the attitudes rife in this country, but anti-Christians? It was probably chavs doing what they do best - being destructive - and picked that tree because of the daft ribbons hanging from it.
Tend to agree Ulver.
By the amount of ribbons on the tree, it looks to be important to pagans. Pagans would be more upset about this than likely to commit the act.
Atheists would do this because?
The ribbons aren't daft btw It is a very old custom, a bit like Buddhist prayer flags
It happens everywhere. There was a piece on South Today last night about chavs who had vandalised a memorial to the Titanic's wireless operator, cracking a fountain, tearing up paving bricks etc. Caused about £8000 of mindless damage. Sad really.
sebster wrote:
You know what, I seriously don't fething get this line of argument. Are you claiming that if you didn't believe in God and divine punishment, you'd be going around killing people for the change in their pockets, whenever you felt you could get away with it? Seriously?
Because I am an atheist, but I still have empathy, I still know that when I do bad things other people suffer, and whether or not there is a God to punish me, I still consider the welfare of other people when I take my actions.
And you have two choices when it comes to why you have that empathy. Do we criticize the monkey when he beats up and kills the other monkey with a stick? No we say it is acting naturally. Do we criticize a lion for killing and eating a beautiful zebra? No, we say the zebra is acting naturally. If athiessim was consistent and really believed that we are just a higher form of animal, brought about by natural processes, running off of preprogrammed gene impulses. Then it is entirely inconsistent to criticize mankind for performing evil acts. If we are just animals acing naturally, why does it all of a sudden become "evil" to act like animals?
I prefer the other option, and that is that we are not animals, and are acting out of the sin nature within us.We have empathy because God gave us that empathy. We have a battle going on inside of us. Paul the apostle pointed this out in the epistle to the Romans chapter 7.
Rom-7:14-25(NIV)
14 We know that the law is spiritual; but I am unspiritual, sold as a slave to sin. 15 I do not understand what I do. For what I want to do I do not do, but what I hate I do. 16 And if I do what I do not want to do, I agree that the law is good. 17 As it is, it is no longer I myself who do it, but it is sin living in me. 18 For I know that good itself does not dwell in me, that is, in my sinful nature.[c] For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out. 19 For I do not do the good I want to do, but the evil I do not want to do—this I keep on doing. 20 Now if I do what I do not want to do, it is no longer I who do it, but it is sin living in me that does it.
21 So I find this law at work: Although I want to do good, evil is right there with me. 22 For in my inner being I delight in God’s law; 23 but I see another law at work in me, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin at work within me. 24 What a wretched man I am! Who will rescue me from this body that is subject to death? 25 Thanks be to God, who delivers me through Jesus Christ our Lord!
generalgrog wrote:If we are just animals acing naturally, why does it all of a sudden become "evil" to act like animals?
Because we're using our natural tendency to reason to come to the conclusion that it's better for the survival of the species if we don't kill eachother and stop stealing things, but rather work together.
If we are using the bible as an authority can we also use the Bhagavad Gita as well? The Upanishads also had a few things to say about human nature, will you take those as facts as well GG?
If i could be arsed I could quote the Upanishads back at you GG.
Or the Origin of Species.
or Wind in the Willows
or Watership Down
but I can't.
Paul 33:19 For the Lord hath said that he that doth talk out of their buttocks in my name shall be eternally fricasseed in their own body fluids and sharp pointy things poked into their privvies.
generalgrog wrote: If athiessim was consistent and really believed that we are just a higher form of animal, brought about by natural processes, running off of preprogrammed gene impulses. Then it is entirely inconsistent to criticize mankind for performing evil acts. If we are just animals acing naturally, why does it all of a sudden become "evil" to act like animals?
I prefer the other option, and that is that we are not animals, and are acting out of the sin nature within us.We have empathy because God gave us that empathy. We have a battle going on inside of us. Paul the apostle pointed this out in the epistle to the Romans chapter 7.
We are not acting out our nature to sin. We evolved, became self aware and created language then invented morality to keep our petty differences in check such as jealousy and the desire to conquer in order to control more of what we perceive should be ours. That is what we see as sin. Our nature is to be more sociable, act in packs, pick our noses and reproduce. Sometimes both of the latter at the same time.
If we had not evolved we would still be in packs swinging through trees and being able to bite our own toe nails.
sebster wrote:
You know what, I seriously don't fething get this line of argument. Are you claiming that if you didn't believe in God and divine punishment, you'd be going around killing people for the change in their pockets, whenever you felt you could get away with it? Seriously?
Because I am an atheist, but I still have empathy, I still know that when I do bad things other people suffer, and whether or not there is a God to punish me, I still consider the welfare of other people when I take my actions.
And you have two choices when it comes to why you have that empathy. Do we criticize the monkey when he beats up and kills the other monkey with a stick? No we say it is acting naturally. Do we criticize a lion for killing and eating a beautiful zebra? No, we say the zebra is acting naturally. If athiessim was consistent and really believed that we are just a higher form of animal, brought about by natural processes, running off of preprogrammed gene impulses. Then it is entirely inconsistent to criticize mankind for performing evil acts. If we are just animals acing naturally, why does it all of a sudden become "evil" to act like animals?
First off, your examples are flawed. Monkeys don't beat up and kill other monkeys with sticks. Some apes use tools (like sticks) however. But even apes don't do that randomly; they fight other tribes of apes in territorial disputes. There's a purpose to it.
Second off, your premise is flawed. The behavior we see as "evil" is not really the same as functional, adaptive animal behavior.
We criticise people for committing "evil" acts because they harm the community, and threaten (either directly or by extension) our own safety, security, and prosperity. Humankind is a larger "tribe" than a group of apes in the jungle. Thanks to our highly developed brains and abilities to communicate, we are all capable of working in harmony, more or less. Obviously we still have nations and other separations which encourage us to behave more competitively, but for the most part most nations DO work together and compete peacefully. This is all part and parcel of our superior natural & evolutionary gifts, which have allowed us to rule the earth over pretty much every other species. A person who steals and murders is acting against our and their own interests as a thinking, speaking, social animal. They are NOT acting like a healthy animal, which typically make good choices to their own benefit.
Sebster is doing you the honor of engaging you with his human reality, and acting you to recognize it. Atheists are perfectly capable of making moral choices and recognizing the right thing to do, even without a deity threatening them with eternal punishment or the promise of eternal reward.
I don't think that's the only justification given in Christianity, though; or at least I hope not. Jesus reiterated the old proverb about treating others as you wish to be treated (Matthew 7:12, Luke 6:31). As noted this was proverbial before Jesus. The Golden Rule is a concept strongly embodying how we work and prosper as social animals, and as might be expected, has been articulated all over the world for thousands of years, in many different cultures.
If you say that we have evolved a sense of morality because it benefits us, where is your proof of this? This sounds more like philosophy or a religious doctrine than anything else. See...... athiests do you use faith.
We created a sense of morality once we started to become self aware and started to develop emotional links with actions. The proof? Really? Are you serious?
Elmodiddly wrote:We created a sense of morality once we started to become self aware and started to develop emotional links with actions. The proof? Really? Are you serious?
Precisely... where is your proof that us humans created this.
Elmodiddly wrote:We created a sense of morality once we started to become self aware and started to develop emotional links with actions. The proof? Really? Are you serious?
Precisely... where is your proof that us humans created this.
Elmodiddly wrote:We created a sense of morality once we started to become self aware and started to develop emotional links with actions. The proof? Really? Are you serious?
Precisely... where is your proof that us humans created this.
Elmodiddly wrote:We created a sense of morality once we started to become self aware and started to develop emotional links with actions. The proof? Really? Are you serious?
Precisely... where is your proof that us humans created this.
GG
OK I give in, it was the dolphins.
I'm being serious here..where's your proof that "We created a sense of morality once we started to become self aware and started to develop emotional links with actions"
That's a pretty loaded statement you made, and in a thread like this, you should have some back up evidence... or some thing... before entering the fray.
Elmodiddly wrote:We created a sense of morality once we started to become self aware and started to develop emotional links with actions. The proof? Really? Are you serious?
Precisely... where is your proof that us humans created this.
GG
OK I give in, it was the dolphins.
I'm being serious here..where's your proof that "We created a sense of morality once we started to become self aware and started to develop emotional links with actions"
That's a pretty loaded statement you made, and in a thread like this, you should have some back up evidence... or some thing... before entering the fray.
GG
Pot kettle black GG?
You entered the fray ages ago and there is not a single shred of evidence for your own personal God.
Which is more likely?
We all evolved a shared mentality because we are pack animals and have always been around other humans, which allows us to empathise with others, and that is why we feel guilty if we do terrible things. Also, we evolved under much harsher conditions, and in much much smaller nomadic groups. Therefore most people in your surrounds would be either related to you, or recognisable friends, who could reciprocate an act of kindness in the future. Some people however have neurological or psychological reasons for not having these feelings and as such have little or no empathy, but generally speaking people would not be happy commiting rape or shagging little kids.
OR.
Magic makes us good, and God puts a conscience into all of us with magic. But sometimes the magic fails, thats why we have rapists. Or God forgets to breathe the conscience into people because he cant be everywhere at once, i mean.. he is only God. He had to rest after 6 days work right? We all get pooped even if we are magic.
Or some people have the magic in them, but they rape anyway because they are "angry" with God, or don't believe in him, but ulitmately it all boils down to magic because it is "outside the realms" of Science, or it is "spiritual"
And everyone would be out raping everyone for fun, but they dont because God will do bad things to us. But we all would if it wasn't for that.
Science and evidence supports all of statement 1. And none of statements 2, 3 and 4.
And leaving all that aside, what do you think common sense tells you?
If i asked my 8 year old nephew i am pretty sure he would get the right answer, he has had a few Science lessons.
Again I am demonstrating your use of faith. Yes I have faith in the Bible, in God. You have faith in philosophical arguments and atheistic ideas. My argument isn't about "proving" the bible but about getting you to realize that you use faith in your belief system.
That's a pretty loaded statement you made, and in a thread like this, you should have some back up evidence... or some thing... before entering the fray.
GG
Obviously that was my mistake; thinking this was a battle to be had. You step up say "tosh, where's the proof" You might as well ask where is the proof that we invented language.
How's this; I give you a knife and say "That man there - kill him". Would you?
generalgrog wrote:If you say that we have evolved a sense of morality because it benefits us, where is your proof of this?
As I've repeatedly stated, there is a crapton of research out there into human and animal behavior, showing evidence of how it likely happened, and proving that one can explain WHY humans would develop morality, regardless of whether or not there is any deity out there. It's not my job to teach it all to you, I'm sorry. Take it up with your college professors. Or do some internet research and then go to the library.
One does not provide "proof" of a scientific theory; one provides evidence. You might as well demand proof of the Theory of Gravity. How about I ask you to prove to me that Gravity is what is holding me and the atmosphere on the Earth? For the sake of argument, I contend that it is the hands of the gods, holding each and every person and thing and molecule of atmosphere on the Earth. How will you prove Gravity?
generalgrog wrote:This sounds more like philosophy or a religious doctrine than anything else. See...... athiests do you use faith.
This is either a total lack of understanding of the scientific method, or just trolling.
And, I repeat, I'm not an atheist. My faith allows me to simultaneously believe that the gods inspire us, AND that we evolved and developed in a way comprehensible to the human mind.
generalgrog wrote:If you say that we have evolved a sense of morality because it benefits us, where is your proof of this?
As I've repeatedly stated, there is a crapton of research out there into human and animal behavior, showing evidence of how it likely happened, and proving that one can explain WHY humans would develop morality, regardless of whether or not there is any deity out there. It's not my job to teach it all to you, I'm sorry. Take it up with your college professors. Or do some internet research and then go to the library.
One does not provide "proof" of a scientific theory; one provides evidence. You might as well demand proof of the Theory of Gravity. How about I ask you to prove to me that Gravity is what is holding me and the atmosphere on the Earth? For the sake of argument, I contend that it is the hands of the gods, holding each and every person and thing and molecule of atmosphere on the Earth. How will you prove Gravity?
generalgrog wrote:This sounds more like philosophy or a religious doctrine than anything else. See...... athiests do you use faith.
This is either a total lack of understanding of the scientific method, or just trolling.
And, I repeat, I'm not an atheist. My faith allows me to simultaneously believe that the gods inspire us, AND that we evolved and developed in a way comprehensible to the human mind.
You and athiests have faith in the scientific method. This crap ton of evidence you spout, is all based on faith. You keep giving me examples of evidence, and philosophy. All of your posts are proving my point. Thank you very much.
generalgrog wrote:If you say that we have evolved a sense of morality because it benefits us, where is your proof of this? This sounds more like philosophy or a religious doctrine than anything else. See...... athiests do you use faith.
generalgrog wrote:If you say that we have evolved a sense of morality because it benefits us, where is your proof of this? This sounds more like philosophy or a religious doctrine than anything else. See...... athiests do you use faith.
GG
It can be proved with mathematical models.
You are seriously proposing to me that someone "proved" through mathematical modeling that morality evolved in humans. Really? I mean Really?
GG
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ulver wrote:
generalgrog wrote:You keep giving me examples of evidence, and philosophy. Thank you very much.
GG
Evidence: "distinction, clearness, obviousness"
Philosophy: lit. "love of wisdom"
You're welcome. I'm glad they could introduce some obviousness into your life
And enter the poster with 22 posts that jumps in and takes someone out context..this usually is the sign that the thread is coming to an end.
generalgrog wrote:If you say that we have evolved a sense of morality because it benefits us, where is your proof of this? This sounds more like philosophy or a religious doctrine than anything else. See...... athiests do you use faith.
GG
It can be proved with mathematical models.
You are seriously proposing to me that someone "proved" through mathematical modeling that morality evolved in humans. Really? I mean Really?
GG
What I am saying is that you can model "social" and "anti-social" behaviour in a population and they oscillate around average values rather than going to extremes.
For example, let's assume a population which contains two "personality" types. Type 1 will always fight aggressively when it meets a rival. Type 2 will back down. It would seem likely that type 1 would come to dominate the population, because it will always beat type 2 in a fight. However this does not happen, because when two type 1s meet each other, they do so much damage that their survival is compromised. If there are lots of type 1 in the population, they spend all their time killing each other rather than breeding, while the type 2s have more energy left for reproduction. Thus an equilibrium is maintained, with the number of type 1 at a level which gives them the best chance of usually meeting type 2 individuals.
This doesn't prove that "morality" evolved, however it proves a mechanism by which "morality" could evolve, and it provides part of a possible explanation for the behaviour we observe in nature.
As you do not believe in evolution, I suppose this would not interest you.
GG, your a nice guy mate, we should just stop talking about this stuff.
Ok, so i believe that we evolved thanks to physical evidence, the fossil record, plate tectonics, DNA evidence and a whole lot more.
How is it "faith" in the same way as God? That is "stuff" right there!
The only way you could argue it, would be maybe if you say that we are all living in the matrix or something, and as such we only have "faith" that physical things are real.
Is it "faith" that this screen is in front of my face?!
generalgrog wrote:If you say that we have evolved a sense of morality because it benefits us, where is your proof of this? This sounds more like philosophy or a religious doctrine than anything else. See...... athiests do you use faith.
GG
It can be proved with mathematical models.
You are seriously proposing to me that someone "proved" through mathematical modeling that morality evolved in humans. Really? I mean Really?
GG
What I am saying is that you can model "social" and "anti-social" behaviour in a population and they oscillate around average values rather than going to extremes.
For example, let's assume a population which contains two "personality" types. Type 1 will always fight aggressively when it meets a rival. Type 2 will back down. It would seem likely that type 1 would come to dominate the population, because it will always beat type 2 in a fight. However this does not happen, because when two type 1s meet each other, they do so much damage that their survival is compromised. If there are lots of type 1 in the population, they spend all their time killing each other rather than breeding, while the type 2s have more energy left for reproduction. Thus an equilibrium is maintained, with the number of type 1 at a level which gives them the best chance of usually meeting type 2 individuals.
This doesn't prove that "morality" evolved, however it proves a mechanism by which "morality" could evolve, and it provides part of a possible explanation for the behaviour we observe in nature.
As you do not believe in evolution, I suppose this would not interest you.
Wait that doesn't explain morality. That explains people levels, but doesn't support that either. Its an assumptive model designed to prove a preferred result.
There's nothing "assumptive" about that, Fraz. It's just one piece of the puzzle. One piece of evidence, in a larger pool which adds up to a plausible explanation.
Mannahnin wrote:There's nothing "assumptive" about that, Fraz. It's just one piece of the puzzle. One piece of evidence, in a larger pool which adds up to a plausible explanation.
But its not evidence.
Look I don't have a dog in this hunt, and you're not even discussing the usual 1 in every 5 threads about how reliosu people are stupid but using something else-morality to bootstrap an argument. However, the model noted is not a clean model. The problem is the baseline assumptions, and there are assumptions for any model or analysis thats the whole idea, are off. Every bit of human behavior is different in different times, different groups, et al. IE define baseline morality to test in the first place? Every time you try you will use cultural norms. Thats not reality, thats just the cultural norms of the analytic. Its great fun but it the mere attempt will create the result.
generalgrog wrote:This sounds more like philosophy or a religious doctrine than anything else. See...... athiests do you use faith.
This is either a total lack of understanding of the scientific method, or just trolling.
And, I repeat, I'm not an atheist. My faith allows me to simultaneously believe that the gods inspire us, AND that we evolved and developed in a way comprehensible to the human mind.
You and athiests have faith in the scientific method. This crap ton of evidence you spout, is all based on faith. You keep giving me examples of evidence, and philosophy. All of your posts are proving my point. Thank you very much.
No one needs to have faith in the scientific method. That's its whole point. You observe things carefully and honestly, you set up good experiments, you conscientiously factor out extraneous data, and the pieces of a puzzle slowly add up to give you a reasonably reliable conclusion. One that increases our understanding of the universe (Newton came up with the Theory of Gravity, and he was a devout Christian), and allows us to make real improvements in our lives.
Do you have "faith" in science because it has allowed us to basically eradicate smallpox? Or are you just happy that people were smart enough to figure it out using scientific methodologies and now people aren't dying in droves from it?
We have computers because of the scientific method. Are you a member of the "Scientific Method Religion" because you believe your computer works? Is it a faith proposition for you to believe that I'm an actual human being, and not just a complex program in your computer pretending to be a human being? Do you have faith that there is such a thing as the internet? Or do you simply observe the data available to your eyes and mind and conclude that yes, the internet really does exist?
Mannahnin wrote:There's nothing "assumptive" about that, Fraz. It's just one piece of the puzzle. One piece of evidence, in a larger pool which adds up to a plausible explanation.
But its not evidence.
Look I don't have a dog in this hunt, and you're not even discussing the usual 1 in every 5 threads about how reliosu people are stupid but using something else-morality to bootstrap an argument. However, the model noted is not a clean model. The problem is the baseline assumptions, and there are assumptions for any model or analysis thats the whole idea, are off. Every bit of human behavior is different in different times, different groups, et al. IE define baseline morality to test in the first place? Every time you try you will use cultural norms. Thats not reality, thats just the cultural norms of the analytic. Its great fun but it the mere attempt will create the result.
If there are problematic assumptions, feel free to point them out. KK broke down an example of animal behavior in groups, and pointed out that it shows how more cooperative and less aggressive behavior is actually a survival and reproduction advantage. Do you disagree that being cooperative is generally considered a good and moral thing in human culture? Do you disagree that being aggressive/combative is often synonymous with behaviors we see as immoral? Jesus said to turn the other cheek; this is an explanation of how his moral instruction is actually advantageous from an evolutionary perspective.
Frazzled wrote:Well part of the scientific method is knowing that eventually, some other theory is going to come along too. Just pointing that out.
I wouldn't say "knowing". More being open and accepting about the possibility or likelihood that you may be mistaken, or missing a piece of the puzzle, and some other theory may come along and prove to be more accurate. Definitely that.
Gravity and Evolution are two big examples of theories which don't seem likely to be supplanted any time soon.
Mannahnin wrote:There's nothing "assumptive" about that, Fraz. It's just one piece of the puzzle. One piece of evidence, in a larger pool which adds up to a plausible explanation.
But its not evidence.
Look I don't have a dog in this hunt, and you're not even discussing the usual 1 in every 5 threads about how reliosu people are stupid but using something else-morality to bootstrap an argument. However, the model noted is not a clean model. The problem is the baseline assumptions, and there are assumptions for any model or analysis thats the whole idea, are off. Every bit of human behavior is different in different times, different groups, et al. IE define baseline morality to test in the first place? Every time you try you will use cultural norms. Thats not reality, thats just the cultural norms of the analytic. Its great fun but it the mere attempt will create the result.
If there are problematic assumptions, feel free to point them out. KK broke down an example of animal behavior in groups, and pointed out that it shows how more cooperative and less aggressive behavior is actually a survival and reproduction advantage. Do you disagree that being cooperative is generally considered a good and moral thing in human culture? Do you disagree that being aggressive/combative is often synonymous with behaviors we see as immoral? Jesus said to turn the other cheek; this is an explanation of how his moral instruction is actually advantageous from an evolutionary perspective.
Thats his assumptioins that it would show that. Its also assumed that that an effective assumption in the first place which would have to be programmed in ie that alphas would compete. Another methord is that Alphas form a chain of dominance. That blows the model . A final note is comparison to reality. A final final note in thats not predictive of morality of but of alpha types and beta types. A final final final note doesn't fit in the spectrum of alphas and betas. Without looking at the model further I can't add more, but while fun, its not a prodicter of anything except some game theory.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Earth was flat except its not
sound barrier is a barrier but wait its not.
Frazzled can only eat two pizzas in one sitting Gott im Himmel did he just eat three?
It looks to me like you are jumping to conclusions about the model KK gave us a brief synopsis of, without bothering to learn any of the details about it.
You're right. I am going by the one paragraph of information given. However, I'm moving on as I absolutely hate everything about these threads, find them pointless, insulting, and asinine (sounds a lot like work and frankly life now that I think about it). Please continue the discussion but me gots ta go.
generalgrog wrote:If you say that we have evolved a sense of morality because it benefits us, where is your proof of this? This sounds more like philosophy or a religious doctrine than anything else. See...... athiests do you use faith.
GG
It can be proved with mathematical models.
You are seriously proposing to me that someone "proved" through mathematical modeling that morality evolved in humans. Really? I mean Really?
GG
What I am saying is that you can model "social" and "anti-social" behaviour in a population and they oscillate around average values rather than going to extremes.
For example, let's assume a population which contains two "personality" types. Type 1 will always fight aggressively when it meets a rival. Type 2 will back down. It would seem likely that type 1 would come to dominate the population, because it will always beat type 2 in a fight. However this does not happen, because when two type 1s meet each other, they do so much damage that their survival is compromised. If there are lots of type 1 in the population, they spend all their time killing each other rather than breeding, while the type 2s have more energy left for reproduction. Thus an equilibrium is maintained, with the number of type 1 at a level which gives them the best chance of usually meeting type 2 individuals.
This doesn't prove that "morality" evolved, however it proves a mechanism by which "morality" could evolve, and it provides part of a possible explanation for the behaviour we observe in nature.
As you do not believe in evolution, I suppose this would not interest you.
Wait that doesn't explain morality. That explains people levels, but doesn't support that either. Its an assumptive model designed to prove a preferred result.
It provides a mathematical proof of a mechanism of behavioural differences which if passed down to the offspring could lead to patterns of behaviour we view as being moral or immoral.
These kinds of behaviours are observed in animal populations.
If you want to explain them, you can say that God did it, or you can investigate and model the situation and see if it could arise through some kind of mechanism.
Morality is a sense of conduct which is defined by a moral code.
As KK correctly states we started to evolve this morality by differentiating between behaviour that is good and behaviour that is bad. This then became a set of values, a code of conduct if you like, whereby doing something which the group seems to be not in the general best interest of the group was frowned upon. This is prevalent, outside of our human societies, the most in apes and has also been demonstrated in dolphin society.
When language was formed and a more ordered society was created in humans this became some of the first sets of rules some of which are echoed in most religious texts as a way of living in harmony, although I am not referring to morality in that sense in this case.
generalgrog wrote:And you have two choices when it comes to why you have that empathy. Do we criticize the monkey when he beats up and kills the other monkey with a stick? No we say it is acting naturally. Do we criticize a lion for killing and eating a beautiful zebra? No, we say the zebra is acting naturally. If athiessim was consistent and really believed that we are just a higher form of animal, brought about by natural processes, running off of preprogrammed gene impulses. Then it is entirely inconsistent to criticize mankind for performing evil acts. If we are just animals acing naturally, why does it all of a sudden become "evil" to act like animals?
Every atheist will answer this question in a different way, we’re very diverse (as any group defined by non-belief in somebody else’s idea will be). For me, personally? I don’t hold much value in the notion of ‘evil’, I believe it is important for society to punish behaviour that is detrimental to society, and while I note social animal groups will exile members who are a threat to the group I don’t think having a parallel in the animal kingdom actually matters one bit. On a personal level, I have my own principles, and I have empathy, and I use these two things to attempt to muddle out the right course of action, same as everyone else does, whether they’re a believer in God or not.
I’m sure for other atheists the answer is very different. But however we get there, the simple fact that atheists are not any more likely to be sociopaths is evidence that a person can develop a moral code without a belief in God.
I prefer the other option, and that is that we are not animals, and are acting out of the sin nature within us.We have empathy because God gave us that empathy. We have a battle going on inside of us. Paul the apostle pointed this out in the epistle to the Romans chapter 7.
And you’re welcome to believe that, and I won’t call you a sociopath for believing it. Please extend me the same courtesy.
generalgrog wrote:If you say that we have evolved a sense of morality because it benefits us, where is your proof of this? This sounds more like philosophy or a religious doctrine than anything else. See...... athiests do you use faith.
GG
Well, obviously atheists have belief sets, it’s just those beliefs don’t extend to a belief in God. If you think the word faith extends as broadly as that, then you’ve made the word all but meaningless, which is a pity considering how powerful it is in describing a belief in God.
More importantly, I’ve seen you get very defensive about how Christianity and I’ve thought on most occasions you had good reason, because people were often declaring to Christians what a Christian should be, what they should think and why they’re hypocrites for holding any of those beliefs, or trying to catch out Christians by declaring some belief on their behalf.
I am disappointed you’ve displayed the exact same behaviour in this thread.
generalgrog wrote:You are seriously proposing to me that someone "proved" through mathematical modeling that morality evolved in humans. Really? I mean Really?
GG
They’ve undertaken models in which various elements of the group were given different moral codes, and they then interacted, with simple systems to gather food and replicate. The moral codes with strong elements of co-operation flourished.
In one of the most celebrated instances, people were tasked with writing codes that would be most successful. People wrote incredibly complex codes, but the code that won every single game was also the simplest ‘co-operate with everyone, until someone betrays me, then stop co-operating with that person’.
Frazzled wrote:And then there are lions that eat their young.
And there are people that eat their young. This is easily explained by the idea that evolution produces systems that are good enough, not ones that are perfect.
Frazzled wrote:But its not evidence.
Yes, it is. It isn’t a complete, indisputable piece of evidence that discredits all alternatives in and of itself, but it doesn’t have to be to be evidence.
It says that in a social group, the morale codes that tend to be successful in most circumstances are the ones that promote cooperation. These models could very well have produced the opposite answer, that aggressive, selfish behaviour was optimum, in which case we’d have to re-address our understanding, but they didn’t.
sebster wrote:I’m sure for other atheists the answer is very different. But however we get there, the simple fact that atheists are not any more likely to be sociopaths is evidence that a person can develop a moral code without a belief in God.
I never said anything opposite of what you just said. In fact I have been pointing out that our morality is an "imprint" from God. In fact Paul the apostle wrote that the Law was written in everyone's heart. In other words we all know good and evil, right and wrong. It's just that we can't help ourselves and we do wrong even though we desire to do right. Atheism takes that teaching, and turns it into a series of DNA inspired impulses and purely natural processes.
Again I find an inconsistency with the athiest philosophical world view, because you don't have an "ultimate authority" to fall back on. You just have DNA and nature. If it's all just DNA and nature and purely random processes, how can good and evil exist? This seems to say that our prisons are full of DNA evolutionary defects. Why not just exterminate them?
Isn't this what Stalin and Mao did? I could include Hitler too, but he wasn't an atheist, he was a Neo Pagan Pantheist.
generalgrog wrote:
You are seriously proposing to me that someone "proved" through mathematical modeling that morality evolved in humans. Really? I mean Really?
Yes, its been done, though not everyone agrees with the assumptions that underpin the coding.
You can do amazing things with higher level logic and mathematics.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
generalgrog wrote:
Again I find an inconsistency with the athiest philosophical world view, because you don't have an "ultimate authority" to fall back on. You just have DNA and nature. If it's all just DNA and nature and purely random processes, how can good and evil exist? This seems to say that our prisons are full of DNA evolutionary defects. Why not just exterminate them?
That's not a particularly good question, as there have been hundreds of logically consistent answers given. Look up some of the work by Philippa Foot, Rosalind Hursthouse, or G. E. M. Anscombe. All of them discuss certain immutable virtues in a way that has nothing to do with God by necessity. Remember, you can always substitute physical human nature for God, because ultimately we do not control our base responses to stimuli; like feeling pain when stabbed.
Personally, I don't buy virtue ethics, not in the common sense. I'm a utilitarian, and I don't believe in the same sort of good or evil that perfuses most religions.I see them as short-hand representations of actions that, if taken, generally result in negative consequences of greater significance than positive consequences, so the issue of an absolute, governing authority isn't problematic for me. Similarly, I regard virtues as characteristics that, in general, will produce positive results of greater significance than negative results, where negative and positive are contextually defined by society.
generalgrog wrote:
Isn't this what Stalin and Mao did? I could include Hitler too, but he wasn't an atheist, he was a Neo Pagan Pantheist.
Sure, and its actually a valid solution to the question if you don't suppose that things like compassion are valuable, or if you simply don't value them enough across all possible cases to establish a universal standard. Alternatively, you might simply be deliberately immoral, or amoral; because, despite what Aristotle said, some people amay actively intend to do evil.
However, the ultimate point is that you aren't likely to get many people to agree with that approach, as it often opens those in agreement to the same ultimate disposal via genocide. The one broad exception being cleansing pogroms based on relatively immutable characteristics like ethnicity, or religion; both of which have historically found broad support in certain populations.
generalgrog wrote:I never said anything opposite of what you just said. In fact I have been pointing out that our morality is an "imprint" from God. In fact Paul the apostle wrote that the Law was written in everyone's heart. In other words we all know good and evil, right and wrong. It's just that we can't help ourselves and we do wrong even though we desire to do right. Atheism takes that teaching, and turns it into a series of DNA inspired impulses and purely natural processes.
Again I find an inconsistency with the athiest philosophical world view, because you don't have an "ultimate authority" to fall back on. You just have DNA and nature. If it's all just DNA and nature and purely random processes, how can good and evil exist? This seems to say that our prisons are full of DNA evolutionary defects. Why not just exterminate them?
Atheism does not argue for, or anyway support, social darwinism. Stop putting assumed beliefs onto my belief set, it's very rude and I'm sure you'd find it very rude if I did the same to you.
Why not kill them... more to the point is why would atheism argue for the need to kill them? Under what tenet of atheism would you find the argument to kill them? You won't find any such thing, because atheism has no tenets that argue for any course of action.
Isn't this what Stalin and Mao did? I could include Hitler too, but he wasn't an atheist, he was a Neo Pagan Pantheist.
To the extent that Hitler had a religion, he was a Christian (followed out of a combination of political convenience and a love for Germanic tradition, which included German protestantism. The pagan thing is nonsense, a result of people taking Himmler's beliefs and extending them to Hitler and to the greater Nazi party - probably due to people wanting to distance Christianity from Nazism and because occult powered Nazis makes for some pretty stories.
And yes, Mao and Stalin did that, because they believed in communism, and communisn puts the state first and foremost, and then only considers the welfare of the people in material terms. But given that one can be an atheist and a libertarian, and that the most famous group of libertarians - the Randians, are that very thing, it's silly to think atheism drives one towards any kind of all powerful, murderous state government.
Atheism, in fact, doesn't do anything, it argues for nothing, it argues against nothing, it just says I don't believe in one thing that you believe in.
generalgrog wrote:If you say that we have evolved a sense of morality because it benefits us, where is your proof of this? This sounds more like philosophy or a religious doctrine than anything else. See...... athiests do you use faith.
You missed the point.
If there are possible solutions to the problem of morality that do not turn on the existence of God, then God does not have to exist in order to explain the presence of morality.
That's not a faith choice at all, its literally just a recognition of logical validity.
sebster wrote:I’m sure for other atheists the answer is very different. But however we get there, the simple fact that atheists are not any more likely to be sociopaths is evidence that a person can develop a moral code without a belief in God.
I never said anything opposite of what you just said. In fact I have been pointing out that our morality is an "imprint" from God. In fact Paul the apostle wrote that the Law was written in everyone's heart. In other words we all know good and evil, right and wrong. It's just that we can't help ourselves and we do wrong even though we desire to do right. Atheism takes that teaching, and turns it into a series of DNA inspired impulses and purely natural processes.
I believe that the gods inspire honor and truth in us. But in my world view that does not conflict with the idea that human beings developed codes of morality over long periods of time as they are evolutionarily advantageous. The two truths coexist in my mind and my faith. I feel sorrow that in your mind they conflict.
generalgrog wrote:Atheism takes that teaching, and turns it into a series of DNA inspired impulses and purely natural processes.
I disagree entirely. Atheism doesn't say ANYTHING about the teachings of your religion. It doesn't care one whit about your religion or my religion. A person who is an atheist DOES, however, take the evidence of human behavior and morality and explain it a different way than you do.
generalgrog wrote:Again I find an inconsistency with the athiest philosophical world view, because you don't have an "ultimate authority" to fall back on. You just have DNA and nature. If it's all just DNA and nature and purely random processes, how can good and evil exist?
From a purely secular view, good and evil are the things which are beneficial to people and detrimental to people. As we've already explained to you, there is evidence to suggest that even animals like apes have a sense that things which benefit the group are good. It makes perfect sense that behavior like lying, stealing, or murdering are seen to be detrimental to oneself, because they are detrimental to one's family, to one's tribe, and to one's larger society.
generalgrog wrote:This seems to say that our prisons are full of DNA evolutionary defects. Why not just exterminate them?
These kinds of irrational conclusions and strange questions about immoral acts make me very worried about you. Either you fundamentally misunderstand the concepts we are talking about, or you are a terrible, damaged and hateful person who only keeps his destructive impulses in check out of a fear of punishment by god. I am pretty confident that it is NOT the latter, but the former makes me frustrated.
generalgrog wrote:Isn't this what Stalin and Mao did?
No, not at all. What they did is gain power, and hold onto that power through murder, chaos, and engendering terror in the people who served them. Which has nothing whatsoever to do with any evolutionarily beneficial behavior. What they did was both monstrous from a moral perspective, and counterproductive from an evolutionary perspective.
generalgrog wrote:I could include Hitler too, but he wasn't an atheist, he was a Neo Pagan Pantheist.
NO HE MOST CERTAINLY WAS NOT. If you say that again, I shall lose all respect for you, and will conclude that you are either wilfully spreading lies or irrecoverably ignorant. Isn't there a prohibition on bearing false witness in Christianity?
To the extent that Hitler followed any religion, it was Protestant Christianity. His antisemitism, for example, was inspired in part by Martin Luther, and the latter's On the Jews and their Lies. Wiki:
Hitler often praised Christian heritage, German Christian culture, and professed a belief in an Aryan Jesus Christ, a Jesus who fought against the Jews.* In his speeches and publications Hitler spoke of his interpretation of Christianity as a central motivation for his antisemitism, stating that "As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice."
I will be more respectful to you than you are being to me by opining that he was not a good Christian, and acted very much contrary to the principles of your and his religion. Whoever told you that Hitler was a Neopagan is profoundly ignorant or actively trying to do evil in the world. I am a Neopagan.
*See Steigmann-Gall, Richard (2003), The Holy Reich: Nazi Conceptions of Christianity, 1919–1945
generalgrog wrote:I could include Hitler too, but he wasn't an atheist, he was a Neo Pagan Pantheist.
NO HE MOST CERTAINLY WAS NOT. If you say that again, I shall lose all respect for you, and will conclude that you are either wilfully spreading lies or irrecoverably ignorant. Isn't there a prohibition on bearing false witness in Christianity?
In court. I don't know whether this means they can do so outside of a courtroom, I doubt it. But that particular verse you're reffering to is in regards to a courtroom.
I will be more respectful to you than you are being to me by opining that he was not a good Christian, and acted very much contrary to the principles of your and his religion. Whoever told you that Hitler was a Neopagan is profoundly ignorant or actively trying to do evil in the world. I am a Neopagan.
Pffft, I've seen your posts. A Neo Paganislamist, I say!
A feature of the skyline surrounding the Somerset town, the tree has been visited by thousands retracing the steps said to have been taken by Joseph of Arimathea, who some say was Jesus’ great uncle.
Could this be any less certain? said to have been, some say.
The tree isnt even 2000 years old, its a replacement tree! Just get a cutting and plant another one.
probably not.
But a heading of 2,000 year old tree cut down could be considered wrong if the tree is 50 years old. And how is it considered sacred when its nothing more than a legend?
The thing itself is the focus of the reverence so if it is gone the history of it is diminished. As you say it is a 50 year old tree but it is reported to be a cutting taken from the original tree so in essence it is still the same tree as the one which was 2000 years old.
It's like the bible (and other religious texts before people start picking holes); the bible may have been printed last week but the message has been passed along for centuries and as such the book is revered.
Elmodiddly wrote:The thing itself is the focus of the reverence so if it is gone the history of it is diminished. As you say it is a 50 year old tree but it is reported to be a cutting taken from the original tree so in essence it is still the same tree as the one which was 2000 years old.
So the suggestion of, "take a cutting and grow a new tree," is a perfectly valid and acceptable solution.
Elmodiddly wrote:The thing itself is the focus of the reverence so if it is gone the history of it is diminished. As you say it is a 50 year old tree but it is reported to be a cutting taken from the original tree so in essence it is still the same tree as the one which was 2000 years old.
So the suggestion of, "take a cutting and grow a new tree," is a perfectly valid and acceptable solution.
A better solution would have been for whatever meatheads who chopped the tree up, not to have done it in the first place.
I cannot describe my loathing and despisement for such miserable, sour, small-minded vandalism.
At least Oliver Cromwell's men were on a religious mission.
Kilkrazy wrote:A better solution would have been for whatever meatheads who chopped the tree up, not to have done it in the first place.
I cannot describe my loathing and despisement for such miserable, sour, small-minded vandalism.
At least Oliver Cromwell's men were on a religious mission.
A better solution would be for the chap who owned land upon which such an important symbol resides not get into debt to the tune of £16 million and get arrested in connection with an investigation into failed currency exchange firm Crown Currency Exchange.
Elmodiddly wrote:The thing itself is the focus of the reverence so if it is gone the history of it is diminished. As you say it is a 50 year old tree but it is reported to be a cutting taken from the original tree so in essence it is still the same tree as the one which was 2000 years old.
So the suggestion of, "take a cutting and grow a new tree," is a perfectly valid and acceptable solution.
A better solution would have been for whatever meatheads who chopped the tree up, not to have done it in the first place.
I cannot describe my loathing and despisement for such miserable, sour, small-minded vandalism.
At least Oliver Cromwell's men were on a religious mission.
A better situation definitely, I'm with you there - it's not a solution though, because if it were the case there would be no case to warrant a solution. The point is, it has happened and it can't be undone, so all people can do is deal with it as best as possible.
However taking out the tree was a moronic thing to do.
when you look at it this way.
