Global warming one big hoax?

[Ionstormsucks]

In Germany everyone is talking about global warming at the moment, which has probably much to do with the fact that we had an extremly mild winter this year. Two months ago or so I read an interview with a climate expert in the German magazine "Der Spiegel," and I was very surprised that this expert was having serious doubts about the global warming phenomenon. From that point on I began to read up of global warming and found that it is a rather controversial topic. A few days ago I stumbled across this video from the BBC:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4499562022478442170&q=global+swindle&hl=en

Now, the video does of course show just one side of the discussion. Still, I think it's kinda interesting.

What do you think? Is the global warming just a big hoax, and not nearly as dangerous as experts are saying? Or is it indeed something we should pay attention to?

[fatBastard()]

If you want the other side of the debate you should watch Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth".

As far as I'm concerned the question is not whether Global Warming is an issue or not because there are a myriad of evidence that this is indeed the case (glaciers melting all over the world, the polar ice getting thinner and thinner, deserts growing, etc, etc). No, the real debate is whether the Global Warming we're experiencing is caused by man or if it is a natural cyclic phenomena.

Either way mankind has a tendency to turn the blind eye when money is involved. All the way up until well into the 90'ies a so called "study" would pop up and claim that smoking was in no way dangerous to your health every time another study would say that smoking was indeed bad for your health. Of course these counter studies were paid for by the tobacco companies and there was not a single shred of scientific evidence in them. They were all smoke and mirrors (no pun intended).

The same is true today. If we really want to do something about the green house gas emissions and vastly reduce the CO2 emissions and all the other causes for Global Warming, it would mean a drastic change in our daily life. Specifically it would shatter the power the oil companies have today and I can't see them give up that power without a fight, just like the tobacco companies did for decades. This time around, however, I don't think we HAVE decades if we want to do something before it is too late ...

Then again, I can only speak for myself and I'm not exactly known as Mr. Positive Optimist, so I may have donned my :end: sign too early, but I'd rather be positively surprised than fatally disappointed.

[txa1265]

When you look at what impacts what in terms of chemistry, it is really impossible for rational people to believe that the amount of noxious gases we continuously pump into the environment cannot have some impact. Seriously, this is just like all of those companies taking the 'dilute away the impact' theory to the extreme of dumping all kinds of crap into rivers and expecting that it would all be diluted into harmlessness.

My basic thought on this is the bottom-line common sense rule - would a reasonable person think that there is a negative impact of certain activities? That goes for personal health as well as environmental health. Is it reasonable to think that smoking had no impact after it was declared hazardous in the 60's? No, but people who had a vested interest in believing that it was benign chose to believe the bad science that let them keep smoking or marketing to kids. Same is true here - we pump poison into the air and cut down acres of forests and expect no impact? There is very likely a cyclical aspect to nature, but that is a 'dog ate my homework' excuse.

[nameless hero]

I don't know enough on the subject to have a detailed opinion, but I know that over the last 40 years, climate has been getting hotter. Last year when I visited Germany, there was 40 degrees (celcius). I don't need to be an expert to know that THAT is DAMN HOT for any European country connected with the Baltic sea.

[Maylander]

There can't be much doubt anymore that we're, pardon my French, screwing ourselves up the ***. This has been known for quite a few years: You only need basic chemistry lessons to realize the magnitude of the damage our ozone layer is taking from all the pollution the human race is pouring out as we speak.

The ozone layer is capable of repairing itself, but not nearly fast enough to cope with our pollution. We're getting bigger and bigger holes in the layer, and once the layer is thin enough, we'll not only see the dramatic climate changes we've seen so far, but also a huge increase in the number of people affected by skin diseases (cancer and similar).

All in all this is a race against time - if we can stop polluting before the ozone layer has reached a point of no return, we're saved. If not, we're screwed. Even if we are capable of coping with the climate changes, the melting polar regions and so on, we won't be able to cope with the increase in UV rays that is incoming. Certainly, humans can run around with sunblock 2000 on at all times, but the ecosystem can't, and once that is shot.. and we're on top of a food chain that is no more.. we're doomed.

Yes, I know I sound a tad negative about all of this, but I really have no faith in anyone being able to turn this. It's been known for so long, but only recently anyone started to care about the environment. You can't shut down pollution in a heartbeat and expect the planet to restore itself - in general, the planet evolves over centuries and millenniums, not days or weeks.

We need to act right now or tomorrows generation will have drought, lack of food and a ruined ecosystem. We don't want that for our children, do we?

[nameless hero]

I never knew the Ozone could repair itself...Interesting.

[JemyM]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6SX2PMz-iMQ

[Ionstormsucks]

As far as I'm concerned the question is not whether Global Warming is an issue or not because there are a myriad of evidence that this is indeed the case (glaciers melting all over the world, the polar ice getting thinner and thinner, deserts growing, etc, etc). No, the real debate is whether the Global Warming we're experiencing is caused by man or if it is a natural cyclic phenomena.


Yes, I'm sorry... I should have made myself more clear. That's of course the question we're dealing with.

To be honest, I pretty much agree with what most people here were saying, but for the sake of this discussion I'll play the devil's advocate. I can only recommend to watch the BBC documentary (I know it's rather longish), it is interesting... as I said, it is problematic since you hear only one side of the story, but it's still very informative.
Their strongest argument is probably that we all believe that Co2 is responsible for the atmosphere heating up, but that it is in fact vice versa - the heating of the atmosphere is responsible for the increase of Co2 (they claim that there is an 800 year time lag between the atmosphere warming up and the increase of Co2). There are of course many more arguments, but that was in fact the one that made me think - what if the very basis of the theory of man-made global warming is wrong?

Now, I have to admit that I'm a person who is usually very much for the protection of the environment, and I think that this is probably one of the most valuable outcomes of the whole global warming discussion, that for the first time in maybe 20 years the majority of the western world (including the USA) has become aware of environmental issues.
On the other hand, I see that most politicians focus on golbal warming and are not really interested in a more general discourse about how we should treat our planet. Just to give you an example of what I mean - whenever there is a discussion about global warming going on in Germany, it doesn't take long until the first politician pops up and suggests that we should build more nuclear power plants, after all it's such a "clean" source of energy. They seem to be fairly ignorant to the fact that here one environmental issue is replaced with another one...

One of the topics covered in the BBC documentary that very much impressed me was the one dealing with energy production in Africa. Let's face it - the first world fucks Africa whenever possible. We do it on a daily basis, we're basically living in relative wealth and Africa pays the bill. No matter who is right or wrong in this discussion, can we really expect countries like Africa to use alternative sources of energy production, when it hinders their development?

[Moriendor]

@ Maylander: Aren't you mixing up two different subjects there? As far as I know, there is only a very small correlation between the ozone layer issue and the greenhouse effect. Yes. The greenhouse effect is marginally increased by the lack of the ozone layer in the polar regions because more UV rays reach the surface but since this only happens to a larger degree in the polar regions, it isn't really a major factor. After all it's not the carbon dioxide that destroys the ozone layer. It's the fluor carbon hydro stuff (dunno the English term... FCKW in German) that is responsible for the destruction of the ozone layer. The emission of FCKW has already been heavily reduced 15+ years ago. Positive effects are already apparent since the hole in the ozone layer at least in the Northern hemisphere is receding and the hole in both polar regions has become much smaller over the years. Therefore, I believe that we need to be vigilant but that we can call the ozone hole problem nearly fixed. It doesn't seem to be a big issue anymore.

Now on the topic of global warming being a hoax or not... who really cares? What do we have to lose if we reduce the carbon dioxide emissions? Right. Absolutely nothing. We can all only benefit from reducing the emissions. A large variety of diseases of the respiratory system is caused by industrial emissions. Even if global warming is a hoax (which is very questionable) our quality of living will only improve if we reduce the carbon dioxide emissions. So why not just do it regardless of whether it will really reduce the greenhouse effect or not? It will be beneficial for us and our environment in the long run so why not just do it? Do we really need the risk and danger of impending doom to get our asses in gear? Obviously yes or these hoax debates wouldn't exist... *sigh*

[Moriendor]

what if the very basis of the theory of man-made global warming is wrong?

How can it be totally wrong? What is happening to the man-made CO2? Is it -contrary to natural CO2- leaving the earth's atmosphere and flying to the moon or what? :biggrin:
OK. Seriously. If we go by that study that you mentioned, it should take 800 years for the effects of man-made global warming to show up, right? Well, why not begin now to do something about it? We do have a responsibility for future generations long beyond our own lives IMHO. We have pumped trillions of metric tons of CO2 into the earth's atmosphere since the industrial age began. If the 800 year theory is correct then it will bite us ("us" as in mankind) in the arse one day. The sooner we do something about it, the better.

One of the topics covered in the BBC documentary that very much impressed me was the one dealing with energy production in Africa. Let's face it - the first world fucks Africa whenever possible. We do it on a daily basis, we're basically living in relative wealth and Africa pays the bill. No matter who is right or wrong in this discussion, can we really expect countries like Africa to use alternative sources of energy production, when it hinders their development?

I think it makes sense to prevent African, Asian and South American nations who are on the verge of entering the industrial age from repeating the mistakes we made in the 1st world. I agree that we are scewing them over badly enough lots of times but as far as alternative sources of energy production are concerned, it will be for their and our benefit in the long run.

[Cleric]

Comparing the documentary linked to in the first post with Gore's, I'd have to say that the evidence is severely tilted in Gore's favor. The scientists in the first video presented next to no scientific evidence to support their claims, other than the comparison of solar activity vs world temperature over the last 100 years.

Interestingly enough, I notice that the scientists in the first video agree with Gore's technique of measuring temperature and CO2 levels from glacial core samples. If they accept that information as true, then I don't see how they can argue with the core sample evidence Gore presents showing the correlation of temperature and CO2 levels for the last 650,000 years. Which, by the way does show that there has been a little cooling tick over the last thousand years.

All in all, the information they present is interesting, but it just can't compare with the 650,000 years worth of evidence from the glacial record presented by Gore.

[Ionstormsucks]

How can it be totally wrong? What is happening to the man-made CO2? Is it -contrary to natural CO2- leaving the earth's atmosphere and flying to the moon or what? :biggrin:
OK. Seriously. If we go by that study that you mentioned, it should take 800 years for the effects of man-made global warming to show up, right? Well, why not begin now to do something about it? We do have a responsibility for future generations long beyond our own lives IMHO. We have pumped trillions of metric tons of CO2 into the earth's atmosphere since the industrial age began. If the 800 year theory is correct then it will bite us ("us" as in mankind) in the arse one day. The sooner we do something about it, the better.

No, you slightly misunderstood something here... I have to admit I wasn't very clear, but it's not that easy to explain. Ok, the general consensus is that there is a direct connection between an increase in Co2 and the atmosphere becoming warmer. According to the "consensus theory" there is first an increase in Co2 and therefore the atmosphere is heating up. So the Co2 is directly responsible for the rising temperature.
The "contrarian view" is featuring a different theory. They say that Co2 is not causing the temperature increase, but is following the increase. First the temperature goes up and then Co2 follows. So for them Co2 is not responsible for an increase in temperature (they trace the earth's rising temperature back to solar activity). If you look at how Co2 is actually produced (in nature) that makes sense. The ocean is in fact the biggest source of Co2 - if the temperature goes up then the direct consequence is that more Co2 will go from the ocean into the atmosphere.

And this is really where the question of the 3rd world comes in. If Co2 is not responsible for global warming can we we still demand that... let's say Africa... should not use its coal as a reliable source of energy? It is as you're saying, the industrialized countries of the 1st world have nothing to lose if they reduce their emission of Co2 since we have nuclear power to replace it. Africa on the other hand... The problem is that solar energy or better the technology to produce it is expensive, but Africa is poor. And it is inefficient compared to coal-burning power plants. So, while we might have nothing to lose, the 3rd world has.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not speaking in favour of this particular argument, but I thought it would be a good thing to mention it, because it complicates things.

[Ionstormsucks]

Interestingly enough, I notice that the scientists in the first video agree with Gore's technique of measuring temperature and CO2 levels from glacial core samples. If they accept that information as true, then I don't see how they can argue with the core sample evidence Gore presents showing the correlation of temperature and CO2 levels for the last 650,000 years. Which, by the way does show that there has been a little cooling tick over the last thousand years.

All in all, the information they present is interesting, but it just can't compare with the 650,000 years worth of evidence from the glacial record presented by Gore.

That's not quite true. They admit that there is a correlation, but they say the conclusions that consensus experts drew were wrong. See what I wrote above.

[Cleric]

I understand what you're saying. But it brings us to a "which came first, the Chicken or the Egg?" scenario. Unfortunately, as I stated previously, they only present information of solar activity for the last 100 years.

So you can interpret it one way based on 100 years of data, or interpret it the other way based on 650,000 years of data.

But if we wait for another 100 years of solar data and Gore's right, many of our coastal cities will be under water, millions of people will have died or been driven from their homes and it will be too late to do anything about it.

Considering that we're talking about something this major, I simply don't feel that we can afford to take the risk.

[Squeek]

I'm ready to accept that global warming is really happening and that it's probably an effect of industrialization. I'm just not thrilled with the solutions being advocated.

If I'm understanding it right, the US and its allies are supposed take a big financial hit while other countries all over the world start experimenting with nuclear energy. No thanks.

There are alternative energy sources being developed now, but they all depend on a strong US economy to move ahead and eventually compete with fossil fuel. Hurting ourselves economically will make those solutions less likely to mature or succeed and will make alternatives like nuclear power inevitable.

[roqua]

It doesn't really matter if its a hoax or not. Science, facts, and proof are now propaganda tools. People have made up their mind, closed it, and the subject is not open to debate. Science loses to fiction whenever a political issue is involved.

[Moriendor]

I'm ready to accept that global warming is really happening and that it's probably an effect of industrialization. I'm just not thrilled with the solutions being advocated.

If I'm understanding it right, the US and its allies are supposed take a big financial hit while other countries all over the world start experimenting with nuclear energy. No thanks.

There are alternative energy sources being developed now, but they all depend on a strong US economy to move ahead and eventually compete with fossil fuel. Hurting ourselves economically will make those solutions less likely to mature or succeed and will make alternatives like nuclear power inevitable.

Well, I think that your country could save a couple billions here and there if it would bury its global domination fantasies or whatever you want to call it and if it would focus more on life preserving issues instead of the destruction of lives ;) . Anyway, if only a fraction of the money spent on the military and missile defense systems would be invested in the research of alternative energies, we'd probably make some real progress in that area really fast.

Also, the argument of "cost" of alternative energies in general is a very short-sighted one if you neglect to factor in the cost (of possibly human lives and definitely cash) of the consequences of global warming.
The costs of the relocation of coastal cities, the damages caused by mega hurricanes and floods or droughts and other environmental catastrophes will exceed the investments in alternative energy sources by a factor beyond our imagination.

The economy doesn't even have to suffer. No one is suggesting to turn off power plants over night. What everyone is talking about is a long term plan (over several decades, not just a few years) to slowly phase out the sources of high CO2 emission and to replace them with alternative, renewable energy sources. This process is going to affect the economies of all Western nations much less than the consequences that are expected from further global temperature increases.

[Squeek]

Well, I think that your country could save a couple billions here and there if it would bury its global domination fantasies or whatever you want to call it and if it would focus more on life preserving issues instead of the destruction of lives ;) .I suppose you Germans know a thing or two about global domination fantasies. OK. I'll concede the point ;) .

Seriously though, I do see what you mean. I'm all for the goverment spending money intelligently. All my life people have been asking for that. When is that ever going to start happening, anyway?

[magerette]

In my opinion, this is an issue of guilt and ego, not science and fact. Human beings like to feel they have power and control, and one of the few things they have little control over is nature and the cosmos.

I agree there are too many little human bugs crawling around on the face of the earth leaving a trail of pollution and waste. We know it's wrong, we feel guilty about it, we demonize ourselves and make laws about it. Whether this is something that will resonate through the ages by destroying an entire planet is another thing.

I have no idea who's right or wrong, but I am willing to listen to those on both sides who might. (I have a good friend with a Masters in Environmental Science and he literally shudders with disgust every time the GW phrase is mentioned.)

Anyway, here's a rather long article playing Devil's advocate by a scientist--not by an Activist, Politician, or "Environmentalist"--(my Bold):

Global Warming: The Cold, Hard Facts

By Timothy Ball

Monday, February 5, 2007

Global Warming, as we think we know it, doesn't exist. And I am not the only one trying to make people open up their eyes and see the truth. But few listen, despite the fact that I was the first Canadian Ph.D. in Climatology and I have an extensive background in climatology, especially the reconstruction of past climates and the impact of climate change on human history and the human condition. Few listen, even though I have a Ph.D, (Doctor of Science) from the University of London, England and was a climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg. For some reason (actually for many), the World is not listening. Here is why.

What would happen if tomorrow we were told that, after all, the Earth is flat? It would probably be the most important piece of news in the media and would generate a lot of debate. So why is it that when scientists who have studied the Global Warming phenomenon for years say that humans are not the cause nobody listens? Why does no one acknowledge that the Emperor has no clothes on?

Believe it or not, Global Warming is not due to human contribution of Carbon Dioxide (CO2). This in fact is the greatest deception in the history of science. We are wasting time, energy and trillions of dollars while creating unnecessary fear and consternation over an issue with no scientific justification. For example, Environment Canada brags about spending $3.7 billion in the last five years dealing with climate change almost all on propaganda trying to defend an indefensible scientific position while at the same time closing weather stations and failing to meet legislated pollution targets.

No sensible person seeks conflict, especially with governments, but if we don't pursue the truth, we are lost as individuals and as a society. That is why I insist on saying that there is no evidence that we are, or could ever cause global climate change. And, recently, Yuri A. Izrael, Vice President of the United Nations sponsored Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) confirmed this statement. So how has the world come to believe that something is wrong?

Maybe for the same reason we believed, 30 years ago, that global cooling was the biggest threat: a matter of faith. "It is a cold fact: the Global Cooling presents humankind with the most important social, political, and adaptive challenge we have had to deal with for ten thousand years. Your stake in the decisions we make concerning it is of ultimate importance; the survival of ourselves, our children, our species," wrote Lowell Ponte in 1976.

I was as opposed to the threats of impending doom global cooling engendered as I am to the threats made about Global Warming. Let me stress I am not denying the phenomenon has occurred. The world has warmed since 1680, the nadir of a cool period called the Little Ice Age (LIA) that has generally continued to the present. These climate changes are well within natural variability and explained quite easily by changes in the sun. But there is nothing unusual going on.

Since I obtained my doctorate in climatology from the University of London, Queen Mary College, England my career has spanned two climate cycles. Temperatures declined from 1940 to 1980 and in the early 1970's global cooling became the consensus. This proves that consensus is not a scientific fact. By the 1990's temperatures appeared to have reversed and Global Warming became the consensus. It appears I'll witness another cycle before retiring, as the major mechanisms and the global temperature trends now indicate a cooling.

No doubt passive acceptance yields less stress, fewer personal attacks and makes career progress easier. What I have experienced in my personal life during the last years makes me understand why most people choose not to speak out; job security and fear of reprisals. Even in University, where free speech and challenge to prevailing wisdoms are supposedly encouraged, academics remain silent.

I once received a three page letter that my lawyer defined as libellous, from an academic colleague, saying I had no right to say what I was saying, especially in public lectures. Sadly, my experience is that universities are the most dogmatic and oppressive places in our society. This becomes progressively worse as they receive more and more funding from governments that demand a particular viewpoint.

In another instance, I was accused by Canadian environmentalist David Suzuki of being paid by oil companies. That is a lie. Apparently he thinks if the fossil fuel companies pay you have an agenda. So if Greenpeace, Sierra Club or governments pay there is no agenda and only truth and enlightenment?

Personal attacks are difficult and shouldn't occur in a debate in a civilized society. I can only consider them from what they imply. They usually indicate a person or group is losing the debate. In this case, they also indicate how political the entire Global Warming debate has become. Both underline the lack of or even contradictory nature of the evidence.

I am not alone in this journey against the prevalent myth. Several well-known names have also raised their voices. Michael Crichton, the scientist, writer and filmmaker is one of them. In his latest book, "State of Fear" he takes time to explain, often in surprising detail, the flawed science behind Global Warming and other imagined environmental crises.

Another cry in the wilderness is Richard Lindzen's. He is an atmospheric physicist and a professor of meteorology at MIT, renowned for his research in dynamic meteorology - especially atmospheric waves. He is also a member of the National Academy of Sciences and has held positions at the University of Chicago, Harvard University and MIT. Linzen frequently speaks out against the notion that significant Global Warming is caused by humans. Yet nobody seems to listen.

I think it may be because most people don't understand the scientific method which Thomas Kuhn so skilfully and briefly set out in his book "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions." A scientist makes certain assumptions and then produces a theory which is only as valid as the assumptions. The theory of Global Warming assumes that CO2 is an atmospheric greenhouse gas and as it increases temperatures rise. It was then theorized that since humans were producing more CO2 than before, the temperature would inevitably rise. The theory was accepted before testing had started, and effectively became a law.

As Lindzen said many years ago: "the consensus was reached before the research had even begun." Now, any scientist who dares to question the prevailing wisdom is marginalized and called a sceptic, when in fact they are simply being good scientists. This has reached frightening levels with these scientists now being called climate change denier with all the holocaust connotations of that word. The normal scientific method is effectively being thwarted.

Meanwhile, politicians are being listened to, even though most of them have no knowledge or understanding of science, especially the science of climate and climate change. Hence, they are in no position to question a policy on climate change when it threatens the entire planet. Moreover, using fear and creating hysteria makes it very difficult to make calm rational decisions about issues needing attention.

Until you have challenged the prevailing wisdom you have no idea how nasty people can be. Until you have re-examined any issue in an attempt to find out all the information, you cannot know how much misinformation exists in the supposed age of information....

Dr. Tim Ball, Chairman of the Natural Resources Stewardship Project (www.nrsp.com), is a Victoria-based environmental consultant and former climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg.

[Corwin]

What is most intriguing for me in this article, is that I could say exactly the same sort of thing about the THEORY of evolution as he is saying about climate change or global warming. There is NO proof for that either, but if you challenge it, you're told 'intelligent design' (for example) is not science, while evolution has to be!! It's not good logic either!!!! :)

A most interesting read, thank you!!

[Hindukönig]

There ARE proofs for evolution, like fossils and their order in the layers of earth. Only creationists and their friends, the "intelligent designers", say there is no proof, just because they don't understand them.

[Corwin]

The fossil layers as such does not exist, and those fossils which have been found, do nothing to prove evolution!! If there were proofs, it would no longer be a THEORY, and that's all it is. Do a search on the probability mathematics of evolution; it's close to 1 over infinity!!

[Hindukönig]

Um, you should read some stuff about evolution. The fossils are the _reason_ we have this theory now.
BTW, in science evolution is treated as a fact. The _theory_ of evolution on the other side describes the mechanics how the evolution works - for example Darwin's theory is: the fittest survives.

[Ionstormsucks]

The fossil layers as such does not exist, and those fossils which have been found, do nothing to prove evolution!! If there were proofs, it would no longer be a THEORY, and that's all it is. Do a search on the probability mathematics of evolution; it's close to 1 over infinity!!

Biologists all over the world agree that evolution is pretty much unquestionable - there is more than enough proof that evolution takes place. It is not a theory. What is a theory, or better theories, is how evolution works - the exact mechanisms of evolution are not known to us in every tiny detail. That is a farily big difference.

It's kinda sad that groups like the creationists are still doubting it. The "creationist probability" that you're bringing forward as an argument is deeply flawed. It is based on the believe that an evolutionary process consists of a long sequence of events that leads to a particular outcome. But that is wrong - an evolutionary process has a multitude of results... not one particular.
To simply it a bit: Imagine someone would give you a dice and tell you to roll it 100 times and write down the numbers that you rolled. After you did that a creationist would look at the sequence of numbers and tell you that the chance that this particular sequence of numbers would occur is so small that it is minuscule.
Fact is however that you were never aiming at rolling this particular sequence of numbers - therefore the creationist argument is deeply flawed and in no way scientific. The chance that this particular sequence of numbers would occur is as high as that of any other possible sequence of numbers to occur. It's the same with evolution.

[Maylander]

On the other hand, the human race as a whole contradicts evolution. Oh, sure, we've evolved physically, but we still fight over the same pathetic causes we did 10.000 years ago. "It's mine!", "No it's mine!", "Give it here!".. bang, smack, there we go. Basic instincts do not evolve whatsoever it seems.

DNA evolves, of that I think there is no actual doubt, but what is evolution really? To most it means making progress, and in this regard there is no evolution. Animals and humans alike still have the same limited instincts and reactions we did ages ago.

At any rate, back on topic. I feel the US has slightly more responsibility right now than the rest, because George W. Bush decided to withdraw from the Kyoto agreement and increase pollution only a few years ago. We all need to get back on track and tighten the grip so we can create a realistic plan on how much to reduce pollution per year in the near future.

[Ionstormsucks]

At any rate, back on topic. I feel the US has slightly more responsibility right now than the rest, because George W. Bush decided to withdraw from the Kyoto agreement and increase pollution only a few years ago. We all need to get back on track and tighten the grip so we can create a realistic plan on how much to reduce pollution per year in the near future.

Well, the problem is that most politicians give a damn about pollution. Pollution has nothing do to with global warming (in their eyes). After all were talking about Co2 here which is an absolutely natural product. Therefore the political discussion is very much focussing on the Co2 reduction. As I mentioned before I consider this to be a problem since the easiest way to reduce Co2 is nuclear power. I mean what are we gonna tell out children? "Guys, the good news is that we saved you from global warming - the bad news is all the nuclear waste that you'll have to get rid of?" Believe me, it will take us a looooooong time until alternative energy sources will produce enough energy to replace our traditional energy sources.


On the other hand, the human race as a whole contradicts evolution. Oh, sure, we've evolved physically, but we still fight over the same pathetic causes we did 10.000 years ago. "It's mine!", "No it's mine!", "Give it here!".. bang, smack, there we go. Basic instincts do not evolve whatsoever it seems.

DNA evolves, of that I think there is no actual doubt, but what is evolution really? To most it means making progress, and in this regard there is no evolution. Animals and humans alike still have the same limited instincts and reactions we did ages ago.


You have to be careful with "basic instincts," because that is an aspect that belongs to the field of sociology as much as it belongs to biology. Sociobiologists would argue that the fact that human beings are still influenced by their basic instincts backs up the model of evolution.
The approach that evolution means progress in terms of morality is a very philosophical one. But evolution in a scientific sense mean to adapt and serves survivability.

[Corwin]

Evolution is not 'unquestionable'!! It is a massively flawed THEORY and by definition, can NEVER be a fact!! I have studied this in great depth!! I hold several degrees and I don't simply accept the fabricated arguments evolutionists use. However, this needs to be a separate thread.

[Ionstormsucks]

Evolution is not 'unquestionable'!! It is a massively flawed THEORY and by definition, can NEVER be a fact!! I have studied this in great depth!! I hold several degrees and I don't simply accept the fabricated arguments evolutionists use. However, this needs to be a separate thread.

Cool, I'm in for it...

[fatBastard()]

Evolution is not 'unquestionable'!! It is a massively flawed THEORY and by definition, can NEVER be a fact!! I have studied this in great depth!! I hold several degrees and I don't simply accept the fabricated arguments evolutionists use. However, this needs to be a separate thread.
And this is exactly my point from before. We start off discussing Global Warming and before long we are debating whether something that ought to be as clearly acceptable as gravity or Newton's 3 laws is indeed fact or theory.

Nothing ever gets done by mere words. As Moriendor already said:
Now on the topic of global warming being a hoax or not... who really cares? What do we have to lose if we reduce the carbon dioxide emissions?
Even if it turns out that Global Warming isn't caused by humans after all (or isn't even a problem at all), then I'm pretty certain that just going outside and taking a deep breath without starting to cough and choke on the smog cloud that most major cities are covered by nowadays, would justify the investments.

Regarding the article brought forth by Magerette I have to say that apart from a severe case of ego boosting ("I have a Ph.D. from here and another Ph.D. from there") and a good yell against the hostile reception any counter theory to accepted consensus generally receives (not a bad point by the way), then he doesn't produce one tiny ounce of counter evidence to the Global Warming consensus. He says that a consensus isn't necessarily right, which is true ... but then again a consensus isn't necessarily wrong either, a point which he gracefully skips and moves on. An interesting read, but as a personal view on the science community in general and not as science in itself.

[roqua]

I would like to point out that no matter what our actions are, the earth is in no danger. We might endanger ourselves, but not the earth. It was here long before us, and will be here long after us. Even after a nuclear war, we might put a couple dents in her, but nothing she couldn't handle. Life will persist, and the face of the world will change, but nothing she would find significant in the long run. Hell, she might even be happy we killed each other off. Looking at it that way, it is our civic duty to engage in nuclear war.

[Maylander]

That's true. The planet itself will be restored in time, whether it takes ten thousand years or a million. It heals slowly, but surely. In this regard, I like the saying:

"To say that humans are insignificant, is to give ourselves credit".

I think I heard it in Heroes of Might & Magic 4.

[Hindukönig]

Evolution is not 'unquestionable'!! It is a massively flawed THEORY and by definition, can NEVER be a fact!! I have studied this in great depth!! I hold several degrees and I don't simply accept the fabricated arguments evolutionists use. However, this needs to be a separate thread.

Yeah, start one. I need a good laugh.

Creationists. Hah.

[Squeek]

Creationists. Hah.
I get a good laugh out of Piltdown Man, Nebraska Man and Java Man.

[magerette]

And this is exactly my point from before. We start off discussing Global Warming and before long we are debating whether something that ought to be as clearly acceptable as gravity or Newton's 3 laws is indeed fact or theory.

Nothing ever gets done by mere words.

On the contrary, words are what has sparked this whole debate. And words are one of the most malleable media available. They can be twisted and manipulated to prove almost any point. I think it is wise to distrust them.


Regarding the article brought forth by Magerette I have to say that apart from a severe case of ego boosting ("I have a Ph.D. from here and another Ph.D. from there") and a good yell against the hostile reception any counter theory to accepted consensus generally receives (not a bad point by the way), then he doesn't produce one tiny ounce of counter evidence to the Global Warming consensus. He says that a consensus isn't necessarily right, which is true ... but then again a consensus isn't necessarily wrong either, a point which he gracefully skips and moves on. An interesting read, but as a personal view on the science community in general and not as science in itself

Thanks for taking the time to read the article fB. I agree Dr. Ball is emphasizing his credentials a bit defensively, but I also think he does so in order for his opinion not to be dismissed as irrelevant, which of course, it is anyway. :) I agree that other than saying he feels all the data so far can be explained by normal climate variation, that he does not introduce any proofs.

If you would like a little more detailed argument, this one from the former editor of the New Scientist magazine, Nigel Calder(once again, my Bold):

Twenty years ago, climate research became politicised in favour of one particular hypothesis, which redefined the subject as the study of the effect of greenhouse gases. As a result, the rebellious spirits essential for innovative and trustworthy science are greeted with impediments to their research careers. And while the media usually find mavericks at least entertaining, in this case they often imagine that anyone who doubts the hypothesis of man-made global warming must be in the pay of the oil companies. As a result, some key discoveries in climate research go almost unreported.

Enthusiasm for the global-warming scare also ensures that heatwaves make headlines, while contrary symptoms, such as this winter’s billion-dollar loss of Californian crops to unusual frost, are relegated to the business pages. The early arrival of migrant birds in spring provides colourful evidence for a recent warming of the northern lands. But did anyone tell you that in east Antarctica the penguins and Cape petrels are turning up at their spring nesting sites around nine days later than they did 50 years ago? While sea-ice has diminished in the Arctic since 1978, it has grown by 8% in the Southern Ocean.

So one awkward question you can ask, when you’re forking out those extra taxes for climate change, is “Why is east Antarctica getting colder?” It makes no sense at all if carbon dioxide is driving global warming. While you’re at it, you might inquire whether Gordon Brown will give you a refund if it’s confirmed that global warming has stopped. The best measurements of global air temperatures come from American weather satellites, and they show wobbles but no overall change since 1999.

That levelling off is just what is expected by the chief rival hypothesis, which says that the sun drives climate changes more emphatically than greenhouse gases do. After becoming much more active during the 20th century, the sun now stands at a high but roughly level state of activity. Solar physicists warn of possible global cooling, should the sun revert to the lazier mood it was in during the Little Ice Age 300 years ago.

Climate history and related archeology give solid support to the solar hypothesis. The 20th-century episode, or Modern Warming, was just the latest in a long string of similar events produced by a hyperactive sun, of which the last was the Medieval Warming.

The Chinese population doubled then, while in Europe the Vikings and cathedral-builders prospered. Fascinating relics of earlier episodes come from the Swiss Alps, with the rediscovery in 2003 of a long-forgotten pass used intermittently whenever the world was warm.

What does the Intergovernmental Panel do with such emphatic evidence for an alternation of warm and cold periods, linked to solar activity and going on long before human industry was a possible factor? Less than nothing. The 2007 Summary for Policymakers boasts of cutting in half a very small contribution by the sun to climate change conceded in a 2001 report.

Disdain for the sun goes with a failure by the self-appointed greenhouse experts to keep up with inconvenient discoveries about how the solar variations control the climate. The sun’s brightness may change too little to account for the big swings in the climate. But more than 10 years have passed since Henrik Svensmark in Copenhagen first pointed out a much more powerful mechanism.

He saw from compilations of weather satellite data that cloudiness varies according to how many atomic particles are coming in from exploded stars. More cosmic rays, more clouds. The sun’s magnetic field bats away many of the cosmic rays, and its intensification during the 20th century meant fewer cosmic rays, fewer clouds, and a warmer world. On the other hand the Little Ice Age was chilly because the lazy sun let in more cosmic rays, leaving the world cloudier and gloomier.

The only trouble with Svensmark’s idea — apart from its being politically incorrect — was that meteorologists denied that cosmic rays could be involved in cloud formation. After long delays in scraping together the funds for an experiment, Svensmark and his small team at the Danish National Space Center hit the jackpot in the summer of 2005.

In a box of air in the basement, they were able to show that electrons set free by cosmic rays coming through the ceiling stitched together droplets of sulphuric acid and water. These are the building blocks for cloud condensation. But journal after journal declined to publish their report; the discovery finally appeared in the Proceedings of the Royal Society late last year...

..Where does all that leave the impact of greenhouse gases? Their effects are likely to be a good deal less than advertised, but nobody can really say until the implications of the new theory of climate change are more fully worked out.

The reappraisal starts with Antarctica, where those contradictory temperature trends are directly predicted by Svensmark’s scenario, because the snow there is whiter than the cloud-tops. Meanwhile humility in face of Nature’s marvels seems more appropriate than arrogant assertions that we can forecast and even control a climate ruled by the sun and the stars.





As I said earlier, I don't feel that I have the knowledge or expertise in the field to determine which side is right or wrong. Pollution is a serious issue and needs to be addressed. I think most people realize the need, but are hazy on just how to go about it. Unfortunately opportunists with their own agenda, like Mr. Gore, are only too willing to make use of their guilt. If you think that governments and U.N. committees and politicians are supporting the theory of global warming because they altruistically want to help the planet, I would suggest you try to find any other example of their altruism. It's about power, control, votes, and MONEY, IMnotsoHO. :)

[Cm]

Somehow between movies, news reports, and school, my 9yr old Grandson came to me the other night upset and unable to sleep because he was worried about global warming and was the ocean flooding half the world.

I couldn't find the right words at first to comfort him. I couldn't look at him and say it will never happen. I did ease his mind and he got to sleep. But maybe the powers that be, and all of us as adults on this planet need to have a 9 year old look you in the eye and say he is scared and ask what should we do. I still don't have a good answer.

[Squeek]

But maybe the powers that be, and all of us as adults on this planet need to have a 9 year old look you in the eye and say he is scared and ask what should we do. I still don't have a good answer.Great point, Cm. Kids certainly aren't stupid, are they? From their point of view, it must make sense to be scared.

I would offer your grandson candor, perspective, comfort and hope for the future. Earthquakes, tornados, lightning...there's a lot that can go wrong, and children have to come to terms with all of that stuff eventually. Global warming is something else to add to that list.

What are the chances that all these calamities will really happen? Enough for concern, I would say. Beyond that, the picture just isn't clear, not yet. In the meantime a volcano could explode somewhere and pollute the planet a lot worse in just a matter of hours. Or a meteor could strike. Those are real possibilities.

Your grandson needs to find a way to understand all of that and not lose sleep over it. Maybe you could start by explaining why you don't. You can assure him that science doesn't completely agree with Al Gore (They didn't agree with him when he claimed to have invented the Internet, either).

He's right about some things, though. Somebody somewhere should develop new ways to utilize solar, geothermal and wind power or harness the power of the ocean (its movement and temperature variations). All it would take to solve global warming would be a discovery of a newer, significantly-better kind of battery power.

When I was a kid, they assurred us that we'd all be zipping around in jet packs by now! What's up with these scientists? Someone should give them a swift kick in the pants. I want my jet pack!

[magerette]

I completely agree, Squeek. It's sad that children who are so vulnerable to the fears and uncertainties of the adult world, should be frightened at the prospect of growing up in the world they live in.

When CM and I were kids, as I'm sure she remembers, we lived through countless Air Raid Drills, learned about fallout shelters, radiation, and how to hide under our desks if they "dropped the bomb". I don't think the fears instilled then can ever truly disappear. But it made Fallout very believable ;)

It's a shame that in our lifetime we have seen so little progress toward a sane world.

[Ionstormsucks]

It's a shame that in our lifetime we have seen so little progress toward a sane world.

While I am of course sorry to hear that a child is scared by the consequences of global warming that climate experts predict, I also think that fear has become a necessary requirement for change. People are fucking stupid. If you tell them, "Guys, the consequences of climate change might not be as bad as predicted, and anyway we're not quite sure if reducing our emission of Co2 will change anything, but it makes sense that we stop polluting our planet," then they will think, "It can't be that bad," and then they'll go out and buy the biggest car possible. But if you fear them by telling them of floods, droughts, hurricanes, etc. then they'll listen - it's sad, but true.

The discussion about global warming vividly shows how stupid humanity really is. There are certain things people just don't want to hear. One of these things is that they are powerless. After all we're not discussing if global warming exists, we're discussing if it's manmade or not. If the consensus is wrong it just means that we won't be able to do anything against global warming, it does not mean that our atmosphere won't heat up. Somehow I think it might be a good idea to take into account this possibility...

[magerette]

ISS wrote:
The discussion about global warming vividly shows how stupid humanity really is. There are certain things people just don't want to hear. One of these things is that they are powerless. After all we're not discussing if global warming exists, we're discussing if it's manmade or not.

I would be the last to disagree with any argument advancing the incredible stupidity of humanity--that is a given :)

Pollution is without argument man-made. My problem about global warming(other than Gore) is that I wonder why the people who are behind it are...so...behind it.Could it be because it gives them importance and power?

I would be fine with the whole thing if I believed that it would indeed address the largest source of pollutants--Big Bucks Industry--and force compliance with basic, commonsense anti-pollution regulations.

These types of regulations can indeed work--you have only to travel to Mexico City to see the difference in air quality between a regulated environment in the U.S. and an environmental free-for-all.

And no logical person could say it makes sense to depend on a non-renewable power source that is controlled by a hostile regime.

Where my conditioned distrust of government and politicians kicks in is how the GW proponents plan to do their regulation. Third world countries, individual consumers--yes, they need to address the issue on many levels. But I wonder how effective all this feel-good save the world environmentalism will be when dealing with the main polluters of our planet. The big companies will cry,moan,bribe and lie as they always have done, saying that the regs will drive up prices(which they will, because there will be no question of absorbing the costs rather than passing them on to the consumers.)

In the end, my fear is that my entire life will be legislated and taxed into a politically correct "Green" state, and the real criminals will get a slap on the wrist.

Color me paranoid, but this is pretty much how things seem to work in the real world.

[Squeek]

The discussion about global warming vividly shows how stupid humanity really is.
Back in school there was a science teacher who tried his best to explain scientific theories, even the ones he didn't completely understand. Looking back, I'd say he was probably a pretty good guy. But he epitomized what can go wrong with science.

Some of the theories we studied back then eventually turned out to be flawed or altogether wrong. They seemed right to most people at the time, and he would defend them. Whenever he felt backed into a corner, trying to answer difficult questions about them, he would look the asker right in the eye and assure him that, "greater minds understand."

Some people treat facts the way others treat religious beliefs. They get self-righteous about it. Normally, that guy would never be so rude as to question anyone's intelligence. But he made exceptions whenever he felt someone really deserved it.

That teacher rejected reasonable -- and sometimes correct -- points of view in order to defend what he thought were valuable scientific truths. Forrest Gump's Mama sometimes said, "Stupid is as stupid does." I imagine greater minds probably understand that too.

[mytgroo]

I am appalled at the idea that big industry and big government will solve anything, you don't go to the place that created the problem to find the best solutions. There are more than enough solutions that are available, however, it is more of a game going on -- can I grab a piece of the solution, before we implement it, conservative (in the sense of old and powerful not necessarily political affiliations) institutions in big government and big business want the pieces of the pie the solution before they implement it. New things create change. Standard Biodiesel, or General Nanobattery, are probably not going to be run by the same people as Standard Oil, or General Electric.

[dteowner]

you don't go to the place that created the problem to find the best solutions.Begging your pardon, but it would seem to me that the experts in the field are, strangely enough, in the field. You ask for chaos when you give decision making to people that don't know which end of a hammer is which. Better yet, those same rubes then expect some poor bastard (aka engineer) to implement their ridiculous solutions for free.

While I'm speaking universal truths, I think it's applicable to energy companies just fine.

[JemyM]

What is most intriguing for me in this article, is that I could say exactly the same sort of thing about the THEORY of evolution as he is saying about climate change or global warming. There is NO proof for that either, but if you challenge it, you're told 'intelligent design' (for example) is not science, while evolution has to be!! It's not good logic either!!!! :)

The theory of evolution is not a yes/no question, it's a workfield that several scientific fields have used as basis for the past 150 years.
And yes, Intelligent Design is not science but an obscured attack on crucial sciences including modern medicine and crimefighting.

Archaeology have found that the alternative "Genesis" is in fact stolen from earlier Canaan myth such as the Ugarit myth of Elohim, the babylonian Gilgamesh epos, as well as several local tales in mesopotamia and sumeria. Given that the Exodus is impossible for several reasons and there are still no evidence to support the existence of the patriarchs (but plenty of evidence against them) I say that there really are no case to take the "alternative" seriously in the academic world as well as in the rest of the world where knowledge is power.

[mytgroo]

Really, how about if the "experts" regularly kill the ways out in the name of profit. How come there are no workable electric cars, how come America does not have a workable train system, how come there are a very limited number of trolleys in major American cities, how come we have giant SUVs with low gas mileage.

There is too much invested in being the "expert" source of what we should do, which comes down to invest in corn ethanol, a giant dead end, invest in coal, more pollution, prepare for more nuclear power plants in the future-- suck up all our water resources for nuclear power plants, go for more pie in the sky.

The more expensive the solution, the more the pundits talk about it. You don't see government saying look we have a cheap way to do this, cheaper than gasoline, or we could do the following to make energy cheaper, carbon less impactful.

You never hear our energy plan say, refurbish our hydroelectric plants so they are more efficient, build more landfill gasification plants, expand waste to energy systems to reduce pollution and provide clean energy, you never hear anyone say geothermal is cheap non-intermittent and probably a more reliable source of energy than solar, expand wind energy it is the fastest growing alternative energy source, invest in wave turbines -- they have the potential to provide a permanent offshore non-intermittent source of power.

You hear pie in the sky nonsense-- hydrogen energy sometime in our far future will have cars that are perfect. The experts are pushing nonsense so they can make the dollar roll along. Where is the push for biodiesel made from waste feeds, old frier oil, and vegetable oil. Biodiesel is a far more reliable source of energy than ethanol. Instead you watch milk prices go through the roof and corn prices become expensive because ADM and General Mills are making profits on an unreliable source of energy.

The experts don't want to invest in alternatives. Exxon has stated they are an oil company nothing else. The same goes for most of the big energy companies. This year a renewable portfolio standard of 20% renewable energy by 2020 was killed in congress because it was too expensive for southern state power companies in the United States. They flatly stated they did not want to invest in alternative because it was too expensive.

Pay more attention to your experts...

Here is a nice little bitty piece on carbon emissions, you might not like the source, but industry doesn't want carbon caps until at least 2015

http://www.worldchanging.com/archives/007044.html

[Corwin]

Sorry, but the weight of evidence is actually in favor of Biblical archaeology. The great flood is recounted in the histories of many civilizations for example. There is NO evidence to disprove the book of Genesis, while there IS archaeological evidence to prove much of it. Still, where is your solid, scientific evidence for evolution? Where is the 'missing link', why is it still not happening? You need to examine both sides of the issue with an open mind as I have!!

[txa1265]

Sorry, but the weight of evidence is actually in favor of Biblical archaeology. The great flood is recounted in the histories of many civilizations for example. There is NO evidence to disprove the book of Genesis, while there IS archaeological evidence to prove much of it. Still, where is your solid, scientific evidence for evolution? Where is the 'missing link', why is it still not happening? You need to examine both sides of the issue with an open mind as I have!!

While the science of evolution might be disputable in the context of pro-con biblical references, the fact that evolution as basic genetic science exists is as clearly true as things like quantum mechanics and crystal lattice structures and the like - things that have been able to be seen in laboratory settings for many years that were simply theory before.

So I guess I am saying that you can argue logically about whether the entire basis of our planet is based on evolution, but calling the science of evolution based on genetics a theory is like calling calculus a theory.

[Squeek]

The problem I see with the Theory of Evolution is the fossil record. The idea was that we'd all start digging, find a bunch of fossils, and those would substantiate the theory, right?

But for some reason a lot of the fossils we were expecting to find are missing. Where's all the good in-between stuff? Where's the all the fish with the half-legs, the pigs with the half-wings, etc., stuff that would clearly indicate the process of animals evolving? Some have been found here and there, but shouldn't we have found a lot more by now?

Maybe it's me, but I get a little nervous whenever anybody starts insisting that their claims are facts. I remember when they started putting people in jail based on DNA evidence. Back then it was supposed to have been incredibly accurrate. So if DNA evidence said someone was guilty, you had to be pretty stupid not to believe they were guilty.

But today a lot of those people are being released from prison as a result of better science. The original DNA facts were depicted as virtually certain. The new ones are being depicted that same way again now.

I suppose judges are accepting the new facts, and that's not surprising. We're all supposed to accept new facts if we don't want to be considered stupid. On the other hand, it turns out that the folks who doubted the old new facts weren't so stupid after all. When it comes to science, sometimes you just have to get lucky with new facts, apparently.

[dteowner]

Really, how about if the "experts" regularly kill the ways out in the name of profit. How come there are no workable electric cars, how come America does not have a workable train system, how come there are a very limited number of trolleys in major American cities, how come we have giant SUVs with low gas mileage.

There is too much invested in being the "expert" source of what we should do, which comes down to invest in corn ethanol, a giant dead end, invest in coal, more pollution, prepare for more nuclear power plants in the future-- suck up all our water resources for nuclear power plants, go for more pie in the sky.

The more expensive the solution, the more the pundits talk about it. You don't see government saying look we have a cheap way to do this, cheaper than gasoline, or we could do the following to make energy cheaper, carbon less impactful.

You never hear our energy plan say, refurbish our hydroelectric plants so they are more efficient, build more landfill gasification plants, expand waste to energy systems to reduce pollution and provide clean energy, you never hear anyone say geothermal is cheap non-intermittent and probably a more reliable source of energy than solar, expand wind energy it is the fastest growing alternative energy source, invest in wave turbines -- they have the potential to provide a permanent offshore non-intermittent source of power.

You hear pie in the sky nonsense-- hydrogen energy sometime in our far future will have cars that are perfect. The experts are pushing nonsense so they can make the dollar roll along. Where is the push for biodiesel made from waste feeds, old frier oil, and vegetable oil. Biodiesel is a far more reliable source of energy than ethanol. Instead you watch milk prices go through the roof and corn prices become expensive because ADM and General Mills are making profits on an unreliable source of energy.

The experts don't want to invest in alternatives. Exxon has stated they are an oil company nothing else. The same goes for most of the big energy companies. This year a renewable portfolio standard of 20% renewable energy by 2020 was killed in congress because it was too expensive for southern state power companies in the United States. They flatly stated they did not want to invest in alternative because it was too expensive.

Pay more attention to your experts...

Here is a nice little bitty piece on carbon emissions, you might not like the source, but industry doesn't want carbon caps until at least 2015

http://www.worldchanging.com/archives/007044.htmlOh, this will be fun. I'll try and work my way thru each question.
#1- Mass transit generally fails in the US due to it being unreliable and inconvenient. Routes and stations are generally determined by pencil neck politicians who have no interest in the needs of the consumer.
#2- You have huge SUVs because people buy them. Lots of them.
#3- You don't hear about buying/upgrading existing technology because it's not cost effective to do so. For example, gas prices could be significantly reduced by the addition of a new refinery (existing US refineries are running 104% rated capacity IIRC), but environmental laws have made it prohibitively expensive to construct a new one. Protecting the environment is good. The cost? $3.00 a gallon. Nothing is free, folks.
#4, 5, and 6- Alternative sourcing is also a nice idea, but again it comes down to dollars and cents. Do you spend a billion dollars developing and constructing new sources when you have viable and functional sources already online? At some point, the cost analysis says yes, but apparently we ain't there yet. And let us not forget that someone is going to pay for that billion dollars up front. Did I hear you sign up to double your electric bill for the next few years to fund a new, green nuclear power plant, which by the way, we'll be building just down the street from your house since you're so supportive of the idea? At some point, enough people will be willing to agree to that deal that it will happen. Until then, it will seem like some evil corporation is putting a lid on a magical fix to all our energy problems.

Not aiming at you personally, but it all comes down to this: "Open your wallet or shut your mouth". I sympathize with the whole green movement, but somehow they always seem to forget their checkbook.

[JemyM]

Sorry, but the weight of evidence is actually in favor of Biblical archaeology.

There's currently not a single evidence for old testament prior to about 800-600bc. The Bible is very detailed in it's history, events, places etc, and it would have been a piece of cake to favor the bible, but when compared to the actual world it does not start to fit in until after it is believed to be written (around 650bc).

The bible is very important to many people. Not only because they want an afterlife, but also because the idea of a "promised land" which is very important politically. Because of this, for 200 years scientists have spent time down in the desert, examining every page of the bible for things that can be proven. 200 years later, there's zip.
The earliest version of the old testament were written around 650bc and only when you look on the events by the knowledge that it was written 650bc things start to make sense. Most of the villages, places etc that are mentioned within the bible corresponds to that year, not 1-2000 years sooner like in the biblical timeline. This is also true to the supposed scientific level, tools they used, how cities work etc, all corresponds to around 650bc not sooner.

There's plenty of evidence to make the events in the old testament unproven, unlikely and impossible. There are several cathegories of such evidence. The first is the evidence of lack of evidence. The old testament is very detailed in it's supposed history making it very easy to prove. The evidence which you could basicly just go over there and get did not exist. Examples are the drowned army of egyptians. There would be truckload of remains, there are none. Another is remains of 600,000 people in the desert for 40 years. There are none. Egyptians who were actually a huge civilization at the time of Exodus, kept great documentation of everything that was going on. They left no records of a such escape, which they would if supposed 2 million slaves left (which would be a huge blow to the egyptian economy). Some great cities described in the bible left no trace and never existed.

The second evidence is the inconsistency of the timeline of mentioned events and places. For example, the conquest of Aj became a village first several hundred years after the bible claim it was a great city that was conquered. What was previously believed to be Jericho turned out to be remains that was several thousand years older than when it was supposed to be conquered. In fact, at the time it was supposed to be conquered, the place had been abandoned for a long time. Actually the majority of the supposed cities that was conquered was not inhabitated in the time of their supposed conquest. They were in 650bc ofcourse.
The well in Beer Sheva that were supposed to solve an argument with the philistines are according to the bible built 1000 years before the philistines are known to have entered Canaan. Gerar have the same problem, the city is much yonger than when it appears in the bible. Even the great kingdoms described in the bible were just villages at the time they were supposed to be large and great. The ruins that we actually have down there of stuff which is actually mentioned in the bible, were built much later.

Then there are the evidence that makes parts of the bible impossible. The desert that Moses and friends were supposed to walk through was at the time occupied by egyptian forces making a such walk impossible. We have extensive records from them. The area were littered by garrisons and lookout points and they sent letters in which they recorded everyone passing through their area. Even a small group of people would have been mentioned. There are none.
Even worse, throughout the entire time of Exodus, Canaan was an egyptian province that have left a wealth of historical evidence. In fact, in the search for old testament evidence, archaologists have dug up plenty of egyptian ruins. They were the master of the country. Moses had no reason to escape to Canaan to escape the egyptians, because Canaan was egyptian!

Then there are the evidence of Israels real history that speaks a whole different story. The migration from the north (Abraham etc) is widely discarded as well as the Exodus. The people of the area are known to be of a local stock, not from elsewhere. All summoned historical evidence we have today points to a very different story regarding the history of Israel than what you find in the old testament. The earliest Israelites up north were not immigrants, they were nomads who started to build settlements and started to build up an economy through making olive oil. The small settlements eventually grew into a kingdom. Then there are the Jews down south who live up in the high mountains, an area that was very poor. All remains shows that they were polyteistic, worshipping many mountain gods. One very interesting part regarding the southern settlements was that there were no pigbones anywhere. They did have pigs in the highland so there was no reason for this. Juda did not grow into a significant state until around 800bc and with that they became literate. The archaeological and historical evidence start to match the bible around 650bc. This was also the era in which the pagan god Jehova grew into the "one" god.

The great flood is recounted in the histories of many civilizations for example.

All four canaan civilizations, far older than Juda, have their own mythology that involves the flood (Ugarit, Babylonia, Sumeria and Mesopotamia). This is not surprising since the area around Canaan often floods. Compare this with the the northern tale about Ragnarok that begins with three years of winter. Pagan myths were always about weather.

Talking about which. The Ugarit flood god was called JV. Ring a bell? What if I spell it in hebrew, JHVH? Pure english... Jehova.
The Ugarit flood god was the son of Elohim, and the son of the snake godess who in pure english was called Eve. She was the keeper of the tree of life. Ugarits reason for the flood was that JV fought the evil Ugarit god of Baal.

There is NO evidence to disprove the book of Genesis

Both geology, biology and archaeology disproved genesis ages ago. In several of our key sciences like chemistry and astronomy it's impossible to use genesis as a base hypothesis anymore.

Instead Genesis have been mapped out to be traditional myth.
Two key discoveries, the discovery of the Gilgamesh Epos 1872 and the stone tablets in Ras Shamra (Ugarit) 1928, have given historians a good insight in the pagan myths that inspired Genesis. Other tales like the babylonian genesis Enma Elish, and the book that covers almost the entire first part of the old testament; the canaan epos "Atrahasis", have helped to complete the picture. The book of Genesis was simply taken from pagan myths around the area. The earliest known version of the tale that inspired Adam and Eve is the sumerian legend of Adapa that is over 5000 years old.

Two fun sidenotes: 1. The egyptian book of the dead that contains the egyptian version of the ten commandments are dated to several thousand years older than the earliest known old testament.
2. Some evidence, including some passages from the old testament itself, suggests that the Juda version of Jehova was a volcano. It's quite hillarious that christians chant protectionspells by summoning an ancient Israelan pagan volcanogod/floodgod.

while there IS archaeological evidence to prove much of it.

What archaeological evidence would be able to prove Genesis? Genesis is a creation myth that attempts to explain a few things such as the first family and the creation of earth. It's incompatible with geology, archaeology, history, medicine and some other scientific disciplines. The very first bit, the seven days, was inspired by Enuma Elish, a babylonian tale (pagan myth) that is at least 1000 year older than Genesis.

Still, where is your solid, scientific evidence for evolution?

Back in the first years the science of evolution tracked fossils, species and flies. 150 years later evolution have grown into tracking DNA code which is currently used to track families, criminals, parents. We also use evolution to track genes, gentic mutations, flaws, some neurological damages and other stuff.
A child of two parents with brown eyes have brown eyes. A child with two parents with blue eyes have blue eyes. A child with two parents with different eyecolor might end up somewhere inbetween or either color. Same with hair and looks. The human species and our differences like nords having problems with sun, asians cant handle alcohol, africans are resistant to heat etc, it's all genetic and evolution. Evolution is vital to modern medicine, both to eridicate side effects of drugs, to find new cures, to fight harmful bacteria and viruses.

The basics of evolution is what you read in school because when you get into an university there are plenty of sciences in which evolution is the core of that science. Imagine working within electronics without believing in electricity, that's what evolution is to modern science.

Where is the 'missing link', why is it still not happening? You need to examine both sides of the issue with an open mind as I have!!

I actually think you have locked your mind and see the whole thing backwards. Evolution is not a door that needs to be unlocked. Instead it have proven to be the only key that fits the lock. Now 150 years later it opens many doors that previously been locked to us, doors that opened up to discoveries that we take for granted in our everyday lives such as medicine or why not genetic breeding to get new food etc. Evolution were never something that needed to be proven since it's a tool that simply always worked and still does.

[Bartacus]

But if we wait for another 100 years of solar data and Gore's right, many of our coastal cities will be under water, millions of people will have died or been driven from their homes and it will be too late to do anything about it..

Now this is is a fable and can simply be proven: put some ice cubes in a glass of water and see it it gets to a higher level after they melted.

What is true is that it's a good thing that people care about the environment now. Although the global warming thing is not caused by men alone and I don't give us even a big impact on it, we do have an impact.

About the evolution thing: Not so long ago it has been discovered that 'c' (speed of light) is not the constant we always presumed it was. The speed of light would have been higher at the Big Bang and has got smaller since then. With this aspect in mind, our theory of the correct date of the big bang might be much closer to our existence then we presumed so far. Btw, don't forget that it was the catholic church that pushed the idea of the Big Bang.

Evolution doesn't work so simple as one thinks now. Otherwise the marriage of a smart man with a smart woman would lead to the birth of a smart child. Survival of the fittest is an oversimplification which is today not widely accepted anymore. There are many more roads in evolution, the the theories we knew of till some decades ago.

[Moriendor]

Now this is is a fable and can simply be proven: put some ice cubes in a glass of water and see it it gets to a higher level after they melted.

Errr... Antarctica is a continent, Bart :) . It's not an "ice cube" floating in water. Ice that is melting down there (at least the continental ice) is adding to the volume of the oceans. That's not a fable but a fact.
Another fact is that -while the Arctic is indeed basically a huge "ice cube"- if the water melted, it would still also cause a rise of the ocean levels because of the effects of Earth's gravity. Unless you're totally old school and still believe in the pre-Gallilei theory that Earth is a disc, you'd have to acknowledge that the Earth is not perfectly flat. The water from the Arctic will not distribute equally across the ocean surface as would happen with a flat surface in a glass of water. It will "migrate" towards the equator region and cause quite a bit of havoc (flooding of coastal areas) on its way if the models that have been calculated so far are true.

[Pladio]

Sorry, I'll state my opinion tomorrow, but I have to give this link for the debate of Evolution versus Creationism. Anyone who needs more information or wants to talk or read about it... Only 250 pages worth... I stopped reading and speaking after page 150 or so I think as I got busy, but here it is.
Evolution versus Creationism debate thread on Taleworlds forums. (http://forums.taleworlds.net/index.php/topic,16182.0.html)

[mytgroo]

I do open my wallet regularly, I invest in alternative energy. There are a lot of things which look both good and viable. The way things are going we will be importing our solar cells from Germany, Japan, and China, our wind turbines from the Dutch, our ethanol from Brazil, and our hydrogen technology from Canada and it will happen a lot sooner than you might think. A new peak oil estimate is out which says 4 years from now is the oil decline. This may be why there is such a crazy rush into alternative energy, global warming is the tip of a much deeper iceberg.

It has nothing to do with being evil, it has everything to do with being shortsighted and feeling a need to have what you want now... no matter what the consequences. The price of oil is becoming a lot more than just dollars, the western worlds enemies hold a large portion of the supply...

http://news.independent.co.uk/sci_tech/article2656034.ece

[bjon045]

I think Global warming is closely related to overpopulation/pollution, some of the same products will lead to both of these occurring. While we might be able to adapt to a hotter planet would we really want to if the whole place is covered in refuse and you have to live in a tiny cubicle. That is the way the world is going if something isn't done to stop it.

It would be nice if we could make a fresh start on a new planet with our current technology available but that is looking less and less likely it is likely we would have to settle for a crappy planet that isn't half as good as earth. (Think an Arid planet in Master of Orion vs a Gaia planet, which would you want to live on?)

[zakhal]

You hear pie in the sky nonsense-- hydrogen energy sometime in our far future will have cars that are perfect. The experts are pushing nonsense so they can make the dollar roll along.

I have always thought stuff like that as religion. People put their faith on science that it will som miracelous way always save them, no matter how bad they screw up things. Its a perfectly good excuse to do anything (like been ignorant) just like belief to god was in dark ages.

[JemyM]

I have always thought stuff like that as religion. People put their faith on science that it will som miracelous way always save them, no matter how bad they screw up things. Its a perfectly good excuse to do anything (like been ignorant) just like belief to god was in dark ages.

The structure and philosophy behind religion and science is completely different.

Our education system is founded on whats verifiable. As an aspiring student you are forced to go through old results and try them for yourself to verify their validity to see that it's likely true. You do this to learn that you should never trust something which is not verified multiple times.
There are no such thing as Japanese Science or Swedish Science, it's all the same. All the large universities in the western world are founded on the same discoveries. When a new discovery is made, highly educated people from all over the world will look into the claim and verify if it holds solid or not. As a scientist you do not make a claim unless you have tried it enough times to eliminate every possible angle of it. You will then be torched and torn inside out by highly intelligent and supremely educated people from all around the globe.
If your claim is proven false by someone else, if you have been sloppy or if you have made a lie, you risk your entire career, therefore you never make a claim you havnt tested and that you cannot back up with more evidence than is required.

In religion you are expected to have faith. You are also told that knowledge is bad and not listen to anybody else because they are the devil. Looking into or questioning faith is unethic and in many places around the globe punished by death.

[zakhal]

There are no such thing as Japanese Science or Swedish Science, it's all the same.

What about different theories? One scientist believes his whole life that ball is flat. Another one believes its round. Neither has real proof. Both of them spend their lifes to find answers that would prove right what they believe.


In religion you are expected to have faith.

Faith comes before religion. Person who does not have faith is not a believer of the religion. Noone is expecting you to believe. If you dont have faith then in reality you just arent a believer. Its simple as that.

If you believe into somthing unknown (flying hydrogen cars from mars will save you if you destroy the planet) then that is faith too and certainly does sound like a religion. In the least you are a believer.

You are also told that knowledge is bad and not listen to anybody else because they are the devil. Looking into or questioning faith is unethic and in many places around the globe punished by death.

Depends on the religion. Punishment by death is hardly a common trademark atleast in modern times. Science can be bad too like racial sciences of the early last centry around there world. Genetically inferior people were killed or "stopped from reproducing" so that that the blood of the race would stay cleaner.

[Ubereil]

I believe some pepole believe in science like some other pepole believe in religion. If you say something, and has a "scientist" vertify it, you can make "normal" pepole believe anything (potatoes cause cancer! CO2 cause global warming!). "Normal" pepole doesn't have enought energy to keep up on universitylevel, so they don't know which theories are true, and which are false. Yet they believe in science.

So that claiming that zakhal is all wrong just because science on the top level is pretty accurate (most of the time) isn't looking at the whole picture. Because science isn't only practised on universitylevel.

Übereil

[magerette]

I agree with Zakhal and Uberiel. Both science and religion are man's attempts to deal with the unknown and answer the questions of existence. The end result for the uninformed or uninvolved is exactly the same--they have answers which to a large extent they accept without truly understanding. I.E., is there any significant difference in how "the man in the street" sees the transmutation of blood to wine, or how he sees sub-atomic theory? Could he explain either one to himself or anyone else? No, they are both accepted without personal proof, on hearsay and faith.

Science is the modern god, and the answers it provides are at least founded on a rational process. I personally prefer those answers, but those who live a faith based life might find the emotional and spiritual explanations of religion more satisfying. I think human beings have a desparate need for control ("Knowledge is power")to place themselves in the universe and give life significance.

Religion has been behind a lot of bloodshed(and still is) but the hands of Science are not completely clean either. I think an objective view would have to state that they can both be tools for good or for destruction.

[txa1265]

I think an objective view would have to state that they can both be tools for good or for destruction.
And I also think that using either one blindly to make decisions for you or to justify decisions you've made is a mistake. Religion and science both encourage skepticism - I know that might sound shocking based on so many of the 'religious right' who advocate blind faith, but think of the many parables that encourage soul-searching and discovery of self.

As a scientist myself I cringe at the way science is misused ... part of my job is as a statistician, which is one of the most abused areas of science. But true scientists are looking to discover the truth, whether it is theirs or others. Sure we all start with our own idea (null hypothesis) but then apply rigorous testing to disprove it - if we are good scientists. Anyone doing testing to prove something true is misguided at best, for that can never be conclusively done. All we can do is gather evidence to reject the null hypothesis (i.e. prove ourselves wrong).

[JemyM]

What about different theories? One scientist believes his whole life that ball is flat. Another one believes its round. Neither has real proof. Both of them spend their lifes to find answers that would prove right what they believe.

We use the words "true" and "false" but in science it's more common to use words like "likely" and "unlikely" because it's considered unscientific to claim that you know for sure. We can never be sure. We can however determine that something is highly likely since we can predict the outcome of scientific experiments.

The greater we are to predict the outcome the sharper our tools are and we may grow to trust them, but we often go back to try again. Some of the more established experiments we give our students to try for themselves, thus something we pretty much know is true (highly likely) is continued to be tested over and over and over again. Sometimes someone find something new and then we reevaluate since our tools are sharpened.

No other field have this continued testing, experimenting, reevaluation process going on forever. For a scientist, that's his job, and usually we enjoy the fruits of their jobs and sometimes we do not care since it does not effect us that much. Take a battery for example. A simple battery is the product of science. It's highly predictable that a battery will work, so we use batteries, we trust in batteries. Still building your own battery is part of physics class just to verify that batteries work.

Faith comes before religion. Person who does not have faith is not a believer of the religion. Noone is expecting you to believe. If you dont have faith then in reality you just arent a believer. Its simple as that.
If you believe into somthing unknown (flying hydrogen cars from mars will save you if you destroy the planet) then that is faith too and certainly does sound like a religion. In the least you are a believer.

I personally use the "likely"/"unlikely" philosophy in my everyday life. When I say that I consider something to be highly likely you might say that I have faith. But I do not see faith as a good word. I just prefer to say that I have examined the evidence and I consider it to be likely.

Depends on the religion. Punishment by death is hardly a common trademark atleast in modern times. Science can be bad too like racial sciences of the early last centry around there world. Genetically inferior people were killed or "stopped from reproducing" so that that the blood of the race would stay cleaner.

The ethics within science have changed since then and is completely different for us today. Racial biology was already back then considered pseudoscience and it's use within politics was not scientific. Racial biology have changed. Not only because our ethics have changed, but because careful study have discovered that earlier claims was unfounded. Racial biology today have use within medicine as well as crimefighting (tracking race within DNA helps to reduce the suspects) and all ethnic groups and genders are welcome as scientists today.

Still christians consider homosexuals, nonchristians, pregnant teenagers etc as unpure since their book say so. In the current theologies around the globe people are executed and imprisoned on the grounds of religion.

[magerette]

Still christians consider homosexuals, nonchristians, pregnant teenagers etc as unpure since their book say so.

Their "book" also says to forgive them,help them and love them, btw. At least the New Testament part. I agree not all Christians live by the book, or any other religious group, but not all scientists are changing the world for the better either. You are making a lot of sweeping generalizations for someone espousing the scientific approach. :)

[JemyM]

Their "book" also says to forgive them,help them and love them, btw. At least the New Testament part. I agree not all Christians live by the book, or any other religious group, but not all scientists are changing the world for the better either. You are making a lot of sweeping generalizations for someone espousing the scientific approach. :)

Yes and no. Using the new testament as it is gives you a perfect excuse to forgive an axe murderer. It also gives you a perfect excuse to kill your own child for being disobedient or kill every nonchristian in your city because Jesus himself said so. The bible in itself is frozen in time. It's not updated when morals change or new discoveries are made. It also do not ask you to disprove it's content. Science is. It's not considered unethic or disrespectful to question scientific claims, instead you are asked to and much about the job as a scientist is to do exactly that.

Imagine if the job of an Imam was to rewrite the Quaran every day according to new ideas, new morals and new discoveries.

[dteowner]

I think this is the point where Corwin pops in to remind us that organized religion is not necessarily indicative of divine purpose, or something like that.

*pulling pin on the grenade*
For, as we all know, organized religion really boils down to a secular governance system that uses/abuses spirituality to appease and control the masses.
*slamming door*

[magerette]

As I said in my earlier post, it's all about control and people needing to find the answers. Of course that's a wonderful tool/excuse for power freaks and mass-murderers. Whether that is the true intent of religion or science is debatable, but the human element certainly can make it that way :)

I'm an agnostic pagan, personally. (which basically means I ain't believin any of it, but if I was going to worship something, it would be nature.)

@JemyM--Some good points and I can't argue with them. Global warming( to actually revert to the thread topic;) ) is a case in point, where scientists do debate both sides of the issue. Unfortunately, the human element enters in here as well, when the politically motivated and funded scientific establishment questions and sometimes maligns all scientific views that oppose their conclusions.:S

[JemyM]

@JemyM--Some good points and I can't argue with them. Global warming( to actually revert to the thread topic;) ) is a case in point, where scientists do debate both sides of the issue. Unfortunately, the human element enters in here as well, when the politically motivated and funded scientific establishment questions and sometimes maligns all scientific views that oppose their conclusions.:S

Well, im proud I live under a prime minister who used his one hour with president Bush to discuss what to do with the environment. :D

Sweden have a long scientific tradition and I feel that science and politics go hand in hand on many topics as a politic advisor, but it's the government that are the ones who use it for good or bad. Science is not a politic tool in itself.

[bjon045]

In MOO you just had to build a "Atmospheric Renewer". That would certainly be handy.

[fatBastard()]

Sweden have a long scientific tradition ...
And I bet that started back when you found out you could march an army over the frozen ice ... damn sneaky swedes :shakefist:
Stealing back Skåne, Halland and Blekinge that we rightfully stole from you many years before ;)

[Squeek]

...or kill every nonchristian in your city because Jesus himself said so.Jesus never even remotely suggested anything about killing non-Christians. Not to be nitpicky, but I think that's worth keeping straight, especially with what's happening in the world right now.

Science, like religion, is accomplished by human beings, and human nature has a similar effect on it. There's the scientific method, of course, but it's still up to people to do the science, and people just aren't perfect.

Last night I watched a cool show on TV that featured a story about the paleontologist who recently discovered that dinosaur bones sometimes still contain soft tissues. She recounted how she immediately rejected the results as impossible. But they were confirmed. When she announced the results to the scientific world, they were met with immediate universal skepticism. None of the other scientists could believe it either, because it was supposed to be impossible.

Paleontologists worked with dinosaur bones for decades without making that discovery. When it finally was made, it was due to an accident. Their human nature and faith in what they believed to be true caused them to think it was virtually impossible for soft tissues to exist in bones that were supposed to be millions of years old. So they never bothered to do a thorough check -- ever.

The fact is, unless you've performed the research yourself, you're expressing faith whenever you believe in or disbelieve a scientific result. Anyone who doesn't understand that, doesn't understand science. Or doesn't understand faith.

[JemyM]

Jesus never even remotely suggested anything about killing non-Christians. Not to be nitpicky, but I think that's worth keeping straight, especially with what's happening in the world right now.

The bad apple is Matt 11:20-24. Everytime you hear someone speak that unbelievers, sinners, teenage pregnancies and homosexuals are the cause for earthquakes, hurricanes, the tsunami or bad economy, then you see christianity in it's purest form. When you honestly believe in the bible and learn what happens to cities with unbelievers in them, then it's just plain self-defense to consider to enforce Deutoronomy. If you truly believed, would you risk afterlife because your neighbour have another religion? Many would not. Remember that other religions break the first commandment, the first (most important?) commandment within the "golden rules" given by the one true god.

Science, like religion, is accomplished by human beings, and human nature has a similar effect on it. There's the scientific method, of course, but it's still up to people to do the science, and people just aren't perfect.

Last night I watched a cool show on TV that featured a story about the paleontologist who recently discovered that dinosaur bones sometimes still contain soft tissues. She recounted how she immediately rejected the results as impossible. But they were confirmed. When she announced the results to the scientific world, they were met with immediate universal skepticism. None of the other scientists could believe it either, because it was supposed to be impossible.

Paleontologists worked with dinosaur bones for decades without making that discovery. When it finally was made, it was due to an accident. Their human nature and faith in what they believed to be true caused them to think it was virtually impossible for soft tissues to exist in bones that were supposed to be millions of years old. So they never bothered to do a thorough check -- ever.

The fact is, unless you've performed the research yourself, you're expressing faith whenever you believe in or disbelieve a scientific result. Anyone who doesn't understand that, doesn't understand science. Or doesn't understand faith.

Yes, humans are not perfect, but science is currently the sharpest tool we have to do our best.

[JemyM]

And I bet that started back when you found out you could march an army over the frozen ice ... damn sneaky swedes :shakefist:
Stealing back Skåne, Halland and Blekinge that we rightfully stole from you many years before ;)

You can have em. They do not speak our language anyway. :biggrin:

[dteowner]

Where's Corwin? I was curious how he was going to jump on my grenade.

On a side note, we seem to have 3 worthwhile topics going in the same thread: global warming, evolution, and general theology. Perhaps a little cut-n-paste by a friendly neighborhood moderator would be helpful?

[Bartacus]

Errr... Antarctica is a continent, Bart :) . It's not an "ice cube" floating in water. Ice that is melting down there (at least the continental ice) is adding to the volume of the oceans. That's not a fable but a fact.
Another fact is that -while the Arctic is indeed basically a huge "ice cube"- if the water melted, it would still also cause a rise of the ocean levels because of the effects of Earth's gravity. Unless you're totally old school and still believe in the pre-Gallilei theory that Earth is a disc, you'd have to acknowledge that the Earth is not perfectly flat. The water from the Arctic will not distribute equally across the ocean surface as would happen with a flat surface in a glass of water. It will "migrate" towards the equator region and cause quite a bit of havoc (flooding of coastal areas) on its way if the models that have been calculated so far are true.

Indeed but the antartica ice is growing and it's the Nordpole ice that's melting. Global warming does not mean what it actually says: not the whole world gets warmer, but large areas -> A shift, a ballance that gets out of ballance is a more precise point of view


Religion has been behind a lot of bloodshed(and still is) but the hands of Science are not completely clean either. I think an objective view would have to state that they can both be tools for good or for destruction.

WW1 and WW2 had much more to do with science then religion. Don't forget that the camps in WW2 provided a boost in the medical science, no matter how cruel it is to hear this.

The bad apple is Matt 11:20-24. Everytime you hear someone speak that unbelievers, sinners, teenage pregnancies and homosexuals are the cause for earthquakes, hurricanes, the tsunami or bad economy, then you see christianity in it's purest form. When you honestly believe in the bible and learn what happens to cities with unbelievers in them, then it's just plain self-defense to consider to enforce Deutoronomy. If you truly believed, would you risk afterlife because your neighbour have another religion? Many would not. Remember that other religions break the first commandment, the first (most important?) commandment within the "golden rules" given by the one true god.


Indeed, but what you call Christianity is a actually just a small part that believes that everything that has been put down in the Bible is the one truth and has to be taken like it is written. It was a verry common method not to tell everything exactly like it happened back then, but create a story about how they felt like it happened. I for one do not believe what 'people' put in the bible, because they were just' people'. I search for the meaning behind those lines and try to see it from that time perspective. My faith is that there is a god and that there was an extraordinary man called Jesus 2000y ago. I believe that he came to do good and give us an example of what good is. All the other things are questionable for me (some more then others).

[Corwin]

Matt 11: 20-24 has nothing to do with killing non-Christians!! He is using an analogy and referencing the Day of Judgement. He is using an example to illustrate how stubborn and ungrateful these people are. The key words in true Christian doctrine (as opposed to 'church' doctrines) are REPENT and FORGIVE. A Christian is called to a life of forgiveness and one way to tell if a person really is a Christian, is to check out that aspect of their life.

Dte, I actually agree with the main thrust of your point; some secular religions do just that. As I've said before, don't confuse what Jesus really taught with what many so called churches teach today; heresy is rampant in the so called 'Christian' church!! That's why several years ago, I left a large denomination (AoG) and went independant, I couldn't take the hypocracy and deceptions that were taking place, not to mention the heresies being spewed out of some pulpits, but that's a different debate!! :)

[Moriendor]

Indeed but the antartica ice is growing and it's the Nordpole ice that's melting.

Could you post a link to the source that says so, please? I only found something from 2005 (probably paid for by Bush & co :biggrin: ) that would confirm what you are saying.
However, countering these older studies, here's an article (http://www.livescience.com/environment/070515_antarctic_melt.html) that talks about a California-sized area of ice melting in Antarctica in 2005. The article says that the temperatures are still rather constant but that there are clear signs that periods of melting are taking place when the temperatures rise during the Southern hemisphere's summer.
Another article (http://www.livescience.com/environment/060302_antarctic_ice.html) (also newer than the 2005 stuff) states that the Antarctica is losing 36 cubic miles of ice every year (for comparison -as stated in the article- the city of L.A. consumes ~1 cubic mile of fresh water per year).

Here's a quote from the second article that I linked to that might confirm that your data/knowledge is out of date:However, computer models run in 2001 predicted Antarctica would gain ice during the 21st century due to increased precipitation in a warming climate. But the new study, based on satellite measurements between 2002 and 2005, shows the opposite.

[JemyM]

It's interesting how a thread about global warming often turns into a discussion about religion. I believe it's because religion see science as a threat and are therefore quick to attack new discoveries. The support for the theory of global warming as well as quantum theory, big bang and evolution, is much greater within countries where religion is rare than where religion is common.

Indeed, but what you call Christianity is a actually just a small part that believes that everything that has been put down in the Bible is the one truth and has to be taken like it is written. It was a verry common method not to tell everything exactly like it happened back then, but create a story about how they felt like it happened. I for one do not believe what 'people' put in the bible, because they were just' people'. I search for the meaning behind those lines and try to see it from that time perspective. My faith is that there is a god and that there was an extraordinary man called Jesus 2000y ago. I believe that he came to do good and give us an example of what good is. All the other things are questionable for me (some more then others).

Moderate christians ignore their own religion and thus waste their chance of an afterlife. Most new christians are given the bible and most are told it's the truth If it was not there would be no need for the bible itself anymore. Understanding christianity as a concept and the theory of a savior requires you to also believe in certain things and follow certain laws. Also you will hear people say to you that you should be like Jesus, that Jesus is good and by following his words you are good. Well, to know what he did you just have to read the bible?

As I grew up I realised that religion was the most important thing in life since it was the only key there was to the greatest part of my life: the afterlife. But I wanted to get closer to the actual stories and I could not be convinced the bible was it. Unlike many fellow christians I started to fear that the authors of the bible might have been the false prophets warned about! So I started to look up the background and the history of the bible.
I have studied many books. Ancient civilization, archaeological digs, comparative religions, other religions, biblical theology, the history of christianity and Europe and the bible itself.

At the end of my study I had reached certain conclusions. The bible is too inconsistent to be literal events and by examining the history as well as the stories within the bible the only rational explanation for it all is that they are fiction, not based on actual characters or events, except a few pages in the end of the old testament. Given the light of modern archaeology the Old Testament is little more than a political tool founded on local pagan religions in southern Israel. We know that the Israelites and the Jews did not migrate from the north or the west but were part of the local stock. We know the tales the first part is based on, that the middle is not possible and we also know the actual events the last bits are based on.
We also know that apocalyptic cults speaking about messiah was very common in the era of which the new testament was born, in fact we have the historical data on many of them in which the story about Jesus is no different from the rest. We know that many distinct cults gathered 325ac in northwestern Turkey under the emperor Constantine of Rome where it became what we know as Christianity. This meeting decided the outlook of the Bible, scrapped 61 books and banned a few of the cults. We have a few of thoose books, which reveals to us more about the political design of the new testament and the tales within.

Given the historical light of the Old Testament Jehova as an ordinary pagan god worshipped among many gods by an ordinary nomad people in the mountains of southern Israel, or the historical light of new testament as just one of many apocalyptic cults, do the Bible in itself hold any moral value or the key to good behavior?

No.

By modern standards the god of the old testament is a vicious tyrant at best. A raving lunatic that have every negative trait known to man. The god character is more of a guideline about how to NOT behave in a modern society than it is the opposite.
Then we have the Jesus character. If you examine the "good" behavior of this man, it's driving out demons from sick people who have been infected by sin. This tells you that sickness and weakness are their own fault. 2000 years later we have a very good grasp on where diseases come from and we know demons or sin have nothing to do with it. So rip all of that crap from the new testament and look at what you have left. Jesus is selective, intolerant, inconsistent, threatening, speaking and acting against his own teachings and often short-tempered and angry. Look at the acts Jesus consider is appropiate and whats not and you find a character who are very different from the modern values of good ethics and good behavior. Chanting "God is great" and "Jesus loves you" over and over and over again have made many believe that is the case, but many turned away from it after picking up the bible and actually compared it with what is today widely accepted as good morals and ethic behavior.

Here's an example of the difference between the ten commandments and modern ethics:
Do not worship any other gods = Learn about other cultures and do not fear strangers.
Do not make any idols = Do not copy someone else, instead believe in who you are.
Do not misuse the name of God = Do not provoke, respect others feelings.
Keep sabbath holy = Respect peoples right to rest and privacy.
Honour your father & mother = Respect your family and they will respect you.
Do not murder = Do not harm other people.
Do not steal = Respect other peoples right to their possessions.
Do not lie = Only tell others what you know is true.
Do not covet = Do not be greedy, instead share what you do not need.

And unlike the bible:
Respect women, respect children, respect animals, respect strangers, respect freedom, respect other peoples choices unless they challenge yours, pay taxes and try to keep your intake of fat and sugar to healthy levels.

That's an example of what good is.

[Ammon777]

Due to this thread, I did some looking into it. (Especially the videos on YouTube.)

All I can say is: holy crap, thats probably the best news for humanity evar!

[JemyM]

Matt 11: 20-24 has nothing to do with killing non-Christians!! He is using an analogy and referencing the Day of Judgement. He is using an example to illustrate how stubborn and ungrateful these people are. The key words in true Christian doctrine (as opposed to 'church' doctrines) are REPENT and FORGIVE. A Christian is called to a life of forgiveness and one way to tell if a person really is a Christian, is to check out that aspect of their life.

Many people have been tortured, mutilated and killed over that part alone.
Many tyrants have said the same words about thoose who questioned their power "You who have questioned me are ungreatful for not accepting me as your glorious leader". Modern ethics tells us that not believing everything you say is not the same as being ungreatful to you and a politician who openly condemn people who not yet trust his intentions will never be elected again.

All in all Matt 11:20-24 sounds very unforgiving and intolerant to me, and it's not the only time Jesus is both unforgiving and intolerant.
If you are the literal son of god, why would you go against your own teachings to threaten and curse three cities for not believing in your miracles?
A) Your manipulation have failed and now you try intimidation instead
B) You are only a human and you are frustrated.
C) The people who made you up were not bright enough to spot the inconsistency and flawed ethics of this behavior. After all, not many are.

Remember Matt 11:20-24 when you go to Matt 7:1 "Judge not and you shall not be judged". In my bible there are four pages between Jesus teaching others not to judge and then judging three whole cities rather angrily. Jump forth to Matt 23:13 and see Jesus uncontrolled anger, unforgiveness and judgement in full force. Then jump to Luke 23:34 "Father, forgive them..." words that are quite inconsistent with the curses Jesus hurled at his enemies before.

Theese inconsistencies gives us the insight of the new testament as a political statement more than a guide for moral behavior. It's ok to curse your enemies as long as you also say you should love your enemies (which is not as important as loving Jehova according to the same page). The strong emphasis on the difference between us and them, the believers and the disbelievers, our god and their god, our leader and their leader.

Fear is a very human emotion and pointing out enemies is an act of fear or a classic tool of manipulation. Thoose who have honest intentions do not need to point out enemies since they have nothing to hide and nothing to fear. Also you convince people to join you, you do not condemn them after your first try. Is it a coincidence that the enemies of Jesus are the current power of society as well as the well educated? Not when you see the new testament as a political statement to recruit members to their own agenda. Thoose who have honest intentions have never feared the truth. They have never feared "false prophets" or felt the need to point out who's the enemy, or the need to use threats and fear of tools to control their flock.

Compare theese words with other "good guys" through the ages. Check out the words of Mahatma Gandhi for example. He respected people who disbelieved in him. He wasted no time to point out enemies and he was consistent with his teachings. He had nothing to fear and nothing to hide, he just wanted peace.

Dte, I actually agree with the main thrust of your point; some secular religions do just that. As I've said before, don't confuse what Jesus really taught with what many so called churches teach today; heresy is rampant in the so called 'Christian' church!! That's why several years ago, I left a large denomination (AoG) and went independant, I couldn't take the hypocracy and deceptions that were taking place, not to mention the heresies being spewed out of some pulpits, but that's a different debate!! :)

I took that step 16 years ago. It took me another ten years to take the next one. :)

[Corwin]

Unfortunately, your reading of the Bible is flawed. I lecture in Hermeneutics and unless you follow certain principles (which you do not), you can make the Bible say anything (which you attempt to do)!! You make sweeping statements that have not been substantiated. You also need to examine the Bible using its original languages (which I do), rather than translations which frequently don't give the full meaning, or intent of the original!!

[txa1265]

Unfortunately, your reading of the Bible is flawed. I lecture in Hermeneutics and unless you follow certain principles (which you do not), you can make the Bible say anything (which you attempt to do)!! You make sweeping statements that have not been substantiated. You also need to examine the Bible using its original languages (which I do), rather than translations which frequently don't give the full meaning, or intent of the original!!

The only problem I have with this is that there is such a thing as a 'living bible' (or Quran or whatever) - it lives in the modern day interpretations of the ancient text. It is like making a statement that seems clear enough to you but is completely misinterpreted by your wife - you can argue plaintively forever, but the best you will ever get is having to deal with *both* interpretations at once. The other person's interpretation really matters.

What I am saying is that all things exist 'in context'.

[Corwin]

Definitely, but quoting the Bible Out of Context, is what most people do!! This is especially true of people who attack it!!

[txa1265]

Definitely, but quoting the Bible Out of Context, is what most people do!! This is especially true of people who attack it!!

I would argue that the so-called 'religious right' attack the Bible as much with their use of it as some sort of 'mystical hammer of justice' as those who perform frontal attacks on it.

[Ammon777]

I attack the Bible, and say it is a bunch of scrolls telling fictional fables based upon scattered historical events, without ever quoting anything from it. :D

And yes, I have read it numerous times, each reading more perplexing than the previous reading. There is nothing "truthful" in the Holy Bible. Rather, the entire group of scrolls is completely obscure, mythological-based, nonsensical fable that can be interpreted in endless variation, enough to create 1000 different religious cults that bear "witness" to a Hebrew God and/or to some guy named Jesus that was crueling disposed by Roman authorities.

Bunch of hogwash. The world would be better if they realize that its all bullshit.

[mytgroo]

Try to live by the bible-- literally and you will find it is impossible. Sections on what your are supposed to do contradict each other repeatedly. It reflects human nature which is self contradictory. Forget about interpretation for a moment and try to literally follow what it says. Even the simple parts become complicated.

[JemyM]

Unfortunately, your reading of the Bible is flawed. I lecture in Hermeneutics and unless you follow certain principles (which you do not), you can make the Bible say anything (which you attempt to do)!! You make sweeping statements that have not been substantiated. You also need to examine the Bible using its original languages (which I do), rather than translations which frequently don't give the full meaning, or intent of the original!!

So I am simply reading it all wrong then. I do not have high opinions of myself but my personal IQ level is 133. IQ is by no means the key to do everything right but it helps when it comes to putting things together. If I after an excess study of the content of this book after a previous life within christianity are still not able to read this book the "right" way, who does? You? Bush?

Would you need the same "please do not read this the wrong way" warning sticker on the book of Universal declaration of human rights (http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html)? I consider it to be an accurate document of what the majority of the western civilization agree to be good ethic behavior. It's straight forward, easy to read and there's no way people regardless of age of academic level would "read it wrong". Would you disagree with it's content? I know the christian bible does, including the ten commandments.

I have had my share of the earliest bibles, including the lost gospels. A noteworthy European "upgrade" after the 2nd world war was to rewrite 2 Samuel 12:31. In the new bibles, David put his prisoners under forced labour. In the earlier versions, he burns them in great ovens. The stuff I talked about earlier though have stayed the same from the earliest bible up to now.

[Ubereil]

Unfortunately, your reading of the Bible is flawed. I lecture in Hermeneutics and unless you follow certain principles (which you do not), you can make the Bible say anything (which you attempt to do)!! You make sweeping statements that have not been substantiated. You also need to examine the Bible using its original languages (which I do), rather than translations which frequently don't give the full meaning, or intent of the original!!

Original lauguages, you mean aichent hebrew? My religionteacher once said that the reason cristians is so against homosexuality, the "you shall not go to bed with other men the way you go to bed with women" is in fact a misstranslation, and that the word for women originally meant something more in the line of female prostitute. Meaning that homosexuality in itself is not wrong, buying sex is though. I just thought it made sence since I can't see what cristians could have against homosexuality in itself (apart from the fact that it's not something most pepole is. A bit like being black, so to speak. Cristianity has nothing against being black afaik). I just thought you'd might know more of this, if you know hebrew.

What's off topic? :rolleyes:

Übereil

[Pladio]

Global warming :

I believe that it's happening. I also believe that it doesn't matter if it's caused by humans or not. Like some other people said here before me: Reducing pollution will help everyone, I was in Shanghai for vacations and I can tell you that there's a constant cloud on the city. It's hard to see far away, no matter where you look and it's becoming like this in a lot of big cities. Pollution also causes many respiratory illnesses and it's not good for the nature as rain becomes sour ((zure regen in Dutch, I'm not sure it's sour in English), acid rain maybe ?). This hurts everyone. So stopping with the pollution will help everyone in the long run.

Alternative energy as we know it also has a lot of disadvantages. Examples :
-Ethanol based fuel costs a lot more to produce than regular fuel and it uses up other resources instead. Yes it reduces pollution, but it makes up for it in other areas.
-Windpower is again good to stop emmisions from Coal-based plants and sutff like that, but depending on where you put the mills and you need a lot more than one to produce enough energy. This means taking away valuable land from people or places where either something else was there or someone else. Birds also die because of the mills.
-Nuclear Power = Nuclear waste, other than that it gives a lot of power. It would be good to send all the waste into space since space is infinite anyway :D

So now the question, I believe, is : Do we invest in finding newer power/energy-producing technologies or do we invest in making the technolologies we already have better ?


Evolution - Creationism:

I don't understand why people can't accept both theories ?
Isn't it possible a greater being created the concept of evolution ?
Isn't it possible the greater being made the big bang in the first place and that it slowly but surely the human race was born through evolution ?

Theology - Bible :

First off, I believe translations are always off, even by a bit. Germans here should know as lots of series are dubbed in German, like Friends,...
Yes it's still funny, but it's not the same as the original. I prefer watching something in its original language as I prefer reading something in its original language...

With the Bible I believe it's the same thing. I'm not literate enough to understand the Bible in Ancient Hebrew, but what I do know is that it's not meant to be taken literally. IF it were everyone would be dead by now, since so many laws are punishable by dead.
I believe it's more of a book on how to behave, a book of ethics. Also many western societies have developed their laws according or following the Scriptures and its laws.
However it is a question of belief, of faith if you wish to believe in everything that happened in the book.


JemyM :
Do you mind telling me where you got the information about the bibel being written in 650BC ? and everything you said about the history of the bible ?
Because a lot of what I've heard and read suggests that the Bible is as close to an historic book of the periods written about in that time.

Also, as a side note, for believers it doesn't matter if traces of the Hebrew people haven't been found in the desert since it could easily have been god who destroyed all evidence of the exodus.

[Bartacus]

So I am simply reading it all wrong then. I do not have high opinions of myself but my personal IQ level is 133. IQ is by no means the key to do everything right but it helps when it comes to putting things together. If I after an excess study of the content of this book after a previous life within christianity are still not able to read this book the "right" way, who does? You? Bush?

Would you need the same "please do not read this the wrong way" warning sticker on the book of Universal declaration of human rights (http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html)? I consider it to be an accurate document of what the majority of the western civilization agree to be good ethic behavior. It's straight forward, easy to read and there's no way people regardless of age of academic level would "read it wrong". Would you disagree with it's content? I know the christian bible does, including the ten commandments.

I have had my share of the earliest bibles, including the lost gospels. A noteworthy European "upgrade" after the 2nd world war was to rewrite 2 Samuel 12:31. In the new bibles, David put his prisoners under forced labour. In the earlier versions, he burns them in great ovens. The stuff I talked about earlier though have stayed the same from the earliest bible up to now.

JennyM you're reading is flawed, because you think you actually need to follow the bible by every word that is written in it. Your IQ should be able to produce something better then what you wrote here so far. I can hardly imagine that what you say about your studies so far is true, cause of the ridiculous statements you make afterwards. You quote from the bible and point like: here do you see all christians are evil. A bit more of your generalisations and I think I'm gonna :puke:.
It is people who are responsible for their actions and not a relegion. You think you're so much better off believing that there isn't anything more then just life? That's a relegion too. And where do you draw your limits -> homosexuality wasn't always acceptable and so was it at the time the bible was written. What is acceptable by todays standards can be not acceptable by those of tomorrow. Imagine that sex with childeren (don't know the correct English term) becomes acceptable over a few years. Books that are written now, go directly against it and our laws tell us to punish that man or woman.
What you're saying is that any relegion that describes this as a fault that should be punnished would become worthless after reaching the level of acceptence of that fault.
You say that the bible speaks of punnishable by death -> well, when you see it at that timeframe untill a 100y ago, it is most common to get that kind of sentence.

I hope you will study on, because this opinion is nothing more then the propagandistic bullshit of atheïsts who actually form a relegion themselve.

Oh yeah and about the human rights thing: You call that straight forward?!?
No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. -> You can read as if you can not put someone in jail, because that is degrading. You can read as if you can give someone a lethal injection, because it is mercifull and quick.
There are a lot of blank spots in what you call straightforward.

[Squeek]

Whether you believe in it or not, The Bible has had more influence than any other book in the history of the world. It's been studied and discussed the most with, naturally, some amount of disagreement. But there's an obvious and clear concensus on its story and its general meaning, and I find that fairly amazing.

Religious lessons are expected to apply to everyone, all the time. No other lessons are like that. Normally, we teach babies one way, teach children a little differently, teach adolescents a certain other way, and teach university students at a level that's altogether different.

People change, and not just throughout their lives. People have changed throughout history. They were simpler in the time of Jesus. I imagine some of the lessons that were appropriate then would seem odd today. I suspect the one in Matthew was one of those.

My opinion about Jesus before reading this thread was that he was probably the last person who ever lived who would ever encourage anyone to go around killing people. I still think that.

[mytgroo]

The idea that investing in alternative energy will break the system is a false one. Oil and coal are mature industries approaching their peak capacity. Investing in oil and coal creates neither new jobs nor new technology. It perpetuates a mature system that is slowly cracking apart. You don't need a lot of people to run an oil refinery. The prices of oil products and coal products are going up to around the same price as the alternatives. Also the system which uses these sources are experiencing more and more difficulties, blackouts, supply problems, pollution, and other issues.

Most alternative technologies represent new industries and new technology, both of which create new jobs. A heavy investment in clean technology would create an initial boom much like the internet boom with a variety of new technical breakthroughs, intensive investment in education, and a whole new set of jobs for workers to do. This will not happen with investment in coal and gas and in some cases even nuclear energy.

There is a whole new set of products which would come out of biorefineries, landfill gasification plants would both create jobs and cleanup the environment. New lighter weight more energy efficient products like the Boeing 787 Dreamliner could revitalize industry. Creating a hydrogen or biodiesel infrastructure while costly initially would offer change for the better in the long run.

The idea that we would lose because we are investing in new technology is a giant falsehood. This is an example of a plan which would strengthen industry, improve economies, and help end dependence on foreign oil.
http://www.oilendgame.com/

[Squeek]

This is an example of a plan which would strengthen industry, improve economies, and help end dependence on foreign oil.
http://www.oilendgame.com/Impressive group of authors! I think I'd like to read that!

[JemyM]

I don't understand why people can't accept both theories ?
Isn't it possible a greater being created the concept of evolution ?
Isn't it possible the greater being made the big bang in the first place and that it slowly but surely the human race was born through evolution ?

You have missed the point of christianity and salvation. It's strictly based on Genesis. Without Adam, there's no point with Jesus as a savior. Unfortunally many of our sciences of today are based on evolution so you kind of need it for many disciplines.

I believe it's more of a book on how to behave, a book of ethics. Also many western societies have developed their laws according or following the Scriptures and its laws.
However it is a question of belief, of faith if you wish to believe in everything that happened in the book.

There are only two reason for anyone to claim this.
Either they have not actually read the bible. If they did they would see that the bible is very different from our laws and modern ethics.
Or they have, and in that case they are scary.

Do you mind telling me where you got the information about the bibel being written in 650BC ? and everything you said about the history of the bible ?
Because a lot of what I've heard and read suggests that the Bible is as close to an historic book of the periods written about in that time.

Church have their own pseudoscience going on to keep themselves hopeful. You see, back in the days there were many scientists went down to Israel and tried to search for truth for the bible. Now many teams instead use what they have found and try to get deeper understanding on the history of Israel and Egypt. Usually archaeology works that way. We dig, then we build a story around what we find. When something new pops up, we rebuild the story. In the case of the "bible scholars" they do the opposite. They take evidence they find and try to squeeze into the biblical timeline wether it make sense or not.

You have to go to real history books regarding Israel. The fruits of the digs around there is public domain. I first got in contact with it via the internet but I bought a few books on the subject. If you want to go strict on the biblical stuff there's a 400 page book called Bible Unearthed that is supposed to sum it all up but it's 7 year old now. My books are more recent but they are in swedish. There are two documentaries on youtube you can check up. "Who wrote the bible?" is a british documentary that was shown last year on television. You can also watch the documentary version of Bible Unearthed.

This is also the kind of stuff that you will learn about if you start to study theology on an university. You do not get the church version of christianity there.

Also, as a side note, for believers it doesn't matter if traces of the Hebrew people haven't been found in the desert since it could easily have been god who destroyed all evidence of the exodus.

That kind of thinking is not even rational for a christian.

[JemyM]

It is people who are responsible for their actions and not a relegion.

Promising people an afterlife if they do certain things bribe them to do things they would not normally do. It's as simple as that really.

What you're saying is that any relegion that describes this as a fault that should be punnished would become worthless after reaching the level of acceptence of that fault.

What I am saying is that the teachings of the bible is based on false background and that it is out of line with modern ethics.

I hope you will study on, because this opinion is nothing more then the propagandistic bullshit of atheïsts who actually form a relegion themselves.

Atheism is as much a religion as anti-anarchy is a political ideology. The fact that someone have made up a word for not being part of a specific ideology is silly.

No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. -> You can read as if you can not put someone in jail, because that is degrading. You can read as if you can give someone a lethal injection, because it is mercifull and quick. There are a lot of blank spots in what you call straightforward.

If that is what you have to say about the human rights fine. Just do not blame me for understanding your religion better than you do.

[Pladio]

You have missed the point of christianity and salvation. It's strictly based on Genesis. Without Adam, there's no point with Jesus as a savior. Unfortunally many of our sciences of today are based on evolution so you kind of need it for many disciplines.

But if god made the big bang happen he actually created Adam (which could be a representation of the human race which developed/evolved from other creatures).


By the way, I actually believe Christianity, or Catholicism to be more precise is one religion which doesn't follow the Bible as it doesn't even follow one of its most basic Principles of the Ten Commandments : You can't have a representation of god or something like that. I don't know the exact words, sorry.


So, if Adam (Adam= Human in Hebrew) did exist, and Genesis happened (not literally), then why can't both concepts be true ?

There are only two reason for anyone to claim this.
Either they have not actually read the bible. If they did they would see that the bible is very different from our laws and modern ethics.
Or they have, and in that case they are scary.

I'm talking about the basic ethics, not the punishment for them, even though some countries do carry those punishments out.

I'm talking about the way you are supposed to treat your family, the days of resting, the part of no killing, no stealing,...
Yes, some of those ways have evolved now, but the Bible was the base of the ethics of today.



About Bible Unearthed, are you talking about the National Geographic Documentary ?

That kind of thinking is not even rational for a christian.

Who says christians are right? Who says jews, muslims, buddhists, confucianists, hindus, pagans are right?

Maybe it's just their belief that god wouldn't do that ? But why ? He could, no ? If he was the greater being he is supposed to be ?

[dteowner]

@mytgroo: Can't say I disagree with anything you said there. I think you answer your own question, though. From a business standpoint, an existing asset, fully developed and fully capacitized, is far preferrable to writing a big frickin check to the R&D department. It's far cheaper and has a much quicker ROI to squeeze a little more out of the equipment you already own.

[Ionstormsucks]

By the way, I actually believe Christianity, or Catholicism to be more precise is one religion which doesn't follow the Bible as it doesn't even follow one of its most basic Principles of the Ten Commandments : You can't have a representation of god or something like that. I don't know the exact words, sorry.


There is no representation of god in Catholicism. There are of course representations of Jesus Christ, but that's not quite the same.

[magerette]

ISS--come back to see how your thread has mutated? I'm staying out of the now nicely boiling cauldron myself ;)

[JemyM]

But if god made the big bang happen he actually created Adam (which could be a representation of the human race which developed/evolved from other creatures).

More likely a defense for someone who have something to win on keeping christianity in it's current form.

So, if Adam (Adam= Human in Hebrew) did exist, and Genesis happened (not literally), then why can't both concepts be true ?

That question take the bible version for granted and discard the evidence that Genesis was copied from the older local religions that we know about today. Traces of the pagan religions it was based on is even within the bible. If you really want to get to the root of Genesis as a tale, you should read the other myths, especially Ugarit religion, atrahasis, enuma elish and gilgamesh. You will discover how Genesis as a tale grew from a rather traditional pagan mythology, not more spectacular than other pagan mythologies like northern, egyptian or greek mythology. We even have the physical artifacts of theese older religions, idols, stonework etc, where the pagan god Jehova pops up here and there.

So why not discard the existance of the other myths and mentally block yourself from that evidence? Well, first of all, Genesis do not blend with several of our key sciences. It's actually impossible to use the rather small chapter of Genesis when you begin to spend 5-10 years of your life to study what we know about the world and what evidence we found so far. Now Christian Ultra Fundamentalism use political influence to halt or stop theese sciences. This political activity to halt/stop/delay/mess with the core of several of our key sciences cause great harm to one of the key pillars of our civilization. The reason Evolution won over Intelligent Design in court was that scientists could show just how much evolution is used today and what it offers our species in terms of medical progress to help people, cure diseases, create vaccines, track criminals etc. Intelligent Design could not show anything more than a attempt to disrupt science to gain political influence. It should be a concern to you that the theory of Intelligent Design is on a chemical level incompatible with our progress in medicine. Would you like to teach biology students an "alternative" that will cause them to fumble like monkeys in a medical lab? Would you want to use a medicine that is more of a thrown together coctail than a designed drug? That is a problem and the court agreed, that's why ID was banned and that is one of the problems with "letting people believe what they want".
Only in the US this happens. The rest of the developed world do not defend their greatest strengths in court from religious interests.
It should also warn you that the US are falling behind more and more every year when it comes to education and scientific progress.

Second of all, Genesis is discrimating to women in a way that I find unexcuseable. Not even in the pagan myths that inspired Genesis, they were that degrading to "the first lady". When you distance yourself from Genesis and understand the concept of women evolving next to men, not after them, and that they never messed around with any apple, then you realise just how moraly offensive Genesis is by modern ethics of gender equality. If I ever get a girl, I will tell her to never ever let anyone tell her that she were created after men, or that she is a second class human. I will tell her that she or her family line have done nothing wrong and evolved next to men and have the same value.

I'm talking about the basic ethics, not the punishment for them, even though some countries do carry those punishments out.

I'm talking about the way you are supposed to treat your family, the days of resting, the part of no killing, no stealing,...
Yes, some of those ways have evolved now, but the Bible was the base of the ethics of today.

Jesus... family values?
He reminds some guys that god have said that spoiled children should be put to death.
His comment "For I have come to turn a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law" is well known.
Even worse, this is how to get eternal life: "And everyone who has left houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or children or farms for My name's sake, will receive many times as much, and will inherit eternal life."
He even dissed his own mother Mary when she came to visit him, basicly ignoring her prescence and telling the rest of his party that they were his family now.

Is that is the base of the ethics of today?

The "no killing" is common sense for any non christian. In fact, the "no killing" rule was in effect in Egypt 1000-3000 years prior to the first old testament were written. Would you say "no killing" is important? Then let me ask you why it's the sixth commandment, placed after laws like "Do not make any idols" and "Do not worship any other gods" and why there are tales within the bible in which they kill people who do that.

We all know what happens if you kill someone and we do not want to die ourselves. This is basic common sense. Throughout history, christians have killed many many people and tend to mess up the simple concept rather than leaving it to common sense, this because the bible ask people to kill people all the time for all stupid reasons. This is not ethic but rather the corruption of ethic behavior. People do anything when they are egoistic enough to pursue afterlife before thinking on their fellow human beings.

Finally the rule of no stealing is also common sense. Try to take a bone from a dog, then tell me from what bible he learned that stealing his bone is wrong. The bible idea of possessions is as messed up as the rest of it. Jesus is the great father of communism. Not only is he the first figure who openly give us the communist philosophy, he also lives within one of the first known communist communities there is.

About Bible Unearthed, are you talking about the National Geographic Documentary ?

http://www.amazon.com/Bible-Unearthed-Archaeologys-Vision-Ancient/dp/0684869128

Whoever made the documentary I do not know. I think the youtube version is from history channel. My favorite book is "Den Jesus som aldrig funnits" (The Jesus who never existed), a 650 page book that dissects the entire bible to point out it's holes compared to what we already know. It's great because it always tell you the sources of the information, what museums to visits, books that go deeper into specific topics etc. That helped me to verify the information within. I simply have to visit the british museum when I can.

Who says christians are right? Who says jews, muslims, buddhists, confucianists, hindus, pagans are right?
Maybe it's just their belief that god wouldn't do that ? But why ? He could, no ? If he was the greater being he is supposed to be ?

I havnt checked up the Buddhist, Confucians and Hindus. They do not seek political influence in my world. The philosophic beauty of the buddhists make Jesus sound like a redneck, but that does not mean I feel the need to be buddhist.

I have studied and personally debunked the basis of Jew, Muslim and Christian religion.

Pagan religions are quite fun, especially when you write a roleplaying adventure. But they are obviously just attempts to give names to weather phenomenons than having any actual evidence. You can call them very early scientific theories.

[Corwin]

You're still quoting out of context!! I've lectured and taught Ethics as well, and you display a very limited understanding of the historical complexities inherent in the subject!! Let's debate Aristotle sometime!! :)

[fatBastard()]

There is so much I could say about religion and the Evolution vs. Intelligent Design debate but I'll spare you because JemyM is doing it so much better than I ever could.

Thank you for putting words, and very eloquently and systematically to boot, to all the thoughts and feelings I've harbored for years concerning the subject of religion. It has been a real pleasure (and educational) to read your comments JemyM. My hat is off to you:salute::worship:

[JemyM]

You're still quoting out of context!! I've lectured and taught Ethics as well, and you display a very limited understanding of the historical complexities inherent in the subject!! Let's debate Aristotle sometime!! :)

Wise men do not agree and the simpleminded follow whoever come to them first. The bible is either very simple, or its very complicated. For two thousand years biblical scholars have tried to decipher it's content, attempting to find meanings in rather simple words.
The common apology is that what's written is not there. God works in mysterious ways. You are reading it wrong. You are missing context. It's from his time, it's not like that anymore. etc.
They say we are meant to live our lives according to the bible. That it's the foundation of our culture. Your sig says "if god says it, that settles it" which is a politically charged smackdown argument that only holds power within christian communities. I have heard that argument used on stuff that is not even in the bible, but instead in specific branches of the christian community in some countries. Branches that use the christian spell to gain votes for not so friendly agendas.
Someone who want to tell me that the bible shows family value are not only reading out of context, they make things up from the air. Or maybe christians just say "family values" when they actually mean "we hate them gay people".

As someone who live in an average sized city which is also the center of phone advertisement in sweden, I deal with liars every day. I have learned the value of being a sceptic and I personally go with the one who tell me the evidence before the one who tell me to ignore the evidence. I find this to be a rational philosophy.

I have my own head and I do not need others explanations. I am not reading things less or more right than anyone else. I am not reading out of context either. I have compared the bible to it's time, I have compared the bible to other religions, I have compared the bible to what we know about history, I have compared the bible to modern culture, modern cults, modern manipulation techniques and most importantly I have compared the bible to itself. I have spent way more time with this book and it's history than your average christian have done. I cannot tell you exactly when I passed from devoted christian to a militant atheist but it was part of my struggle to get closer to god by learning more.

Placing it all together, the new testament is an apocalyptic religion which was quite popular around the region at the time. From within the writings themselves I see that Matthew, Luke, Mark, John and Paul have a different agenda, all using "Jesus" as catalyst for their different views. Using context I find that the stories are highly contradicting within themselves and their messages are quite different compared to the "christianity primer" of today.

[mytgroo]

Here goes. There has been no new investment in refineries by the oil companies. From a business standpoint, it costs too much to build new oil refineries. All of the existing oil refineries are close to full capacity. In the last year for example 97 new ethanol refineries were built in the United States. There is a need to build more fuel capacity. Increases in profitability come from increases in efficiency and design for oil. This generates more money for existing operations and does not create new jobs or improve the economy. It is a cash cow that requires little investment or improvement for a focused group to make money. It is good for a small group of people, but it increasingly is becoming a danger to economic stability because of the high prices which concentrate wealth excessively. Monopolies on wealth are generally broken up eventually. The best way to do it is free competition-- Exxon, BP should be broken into smaller companies that are more competitive, much like Ma Bell was broken up.

The majority of new fuel capacity in terms of refineries is for ethanol and biodiesel. It is a slow process initially, but there will eventually be expanded capacity for biomass fuels taking up a lot of slack for energy. More cars are becoming flexible fuel E85, and it is becoming easier to buy biodiesel for diesel engines. The process is already happening. It is a choice of how the process is going to go formward. The cost for corn ethanol is very high for example. However, with research and investment, cellulosic ethanol, sugar cane ethanol, rapeseed or algae biodiesel could replace corn ethanol fairly quickly. It really is a matter of how quickly we want to change.

[Squeek]

Thank you for putting words, and very eloquently and systematically to boot, to all the thoughts and feelings I've harbored for years concerning the subject of religion. It has been a real pleasure (and educational) to read your comments JemyM. My hat is off to you:salute::worship:I felt the same way about this quote from the movie, Secondhand Lions:

Sometimes the things that may or may not be true are the things a man needs to believe in the most. That people are basically good; that honor, courage, and virtue mean everything; that power and money, money and power mean nothing; that good always triumphs over evil; and I want you to remember this, that love... true love never dies. You remember that, boy. You remember that. Doesn't matter if it's true or not. You see, a man should believe in those things, because those are the things worth believing in.

You're welcome to your points of view, JemyM and fatBastard, but I don't mind saying I feel a lot better about mine.

[JemyM]

You're welcome to your points of view, JemyM and fatBastard, but I don't mind saying I feel a lot better about mine.

Points of view about evidence is ok. Completely ignoring evidence is delusional.

[Bartacus]

If that is what you have to say about the human rights fine. Just do not blame me for understanding your religion better than you do.

You don't understand zip about it, Jenny and you're full of shit. I expect better from a woman who has your IQ (and I would like to note it's less then mine) If you tell that family values are not important in the bible it's you who made up things out of thin air


I will tell her to never ever let anyone tell her that she were created after men, or that she is a second class human. I will tell her that she or her family line have done nothing wrong and evolved next to men and have the same value.

Where the hell did you get that idea? It tells about that man was created before woman, but never does it tell that a woman is created as a second class human, that 's just you dillusional mind playing parts.


Jesus... family values?


Yes, more then you do now, because he looks to the whole world as brothers and sisters, while you try to see the differences.

About your commandments -> it's called then ten commandments because they all have the same value, so your previous quote about tells me again your reading of the bible is flawed!

The bible itself never asks to kill people, it is people who read it flawed, like you, but unlike you (I hope) used it for their own power and benefits.


As someone who live in an average sized city which is also the center of phone advertisement in sweden, I deal with liars every day. I have learned the value of being a sceptic and I personally go with the one who tell me the evidence before the one who tell me to ignore the evidence. I find this to be a rational philosophy.

Now that eplains a lot -> you see a web of lies everywhere even when there isn't one.

Points of view about evidence is ok. Completely ignoring evidence is delusional.
Indeed, so why are you delusional?

[Ionstormsucks]

ISS--come back to see how your thread has mutated? I'm staying out of the now nicely boiling cauldron myself ;)

Haha, ya... well, I always followed the thread, but I had never expected that it would become so explosive. A bit of a shame that we're discussing two very interesting topics in one thread, but I admit it - mea culpa (and that of some others who couldn't resist the temptation).

But you know, the thing that bothers me in the "whole evolution vs. clever design" discussion is that people on both sides always seem to advocate the most extreme position possible. That certainly has to do with the fact that most natural scientists are atheists and that religion is traditionaly measured in strength of faith. And that basically leads to what happens in this thread - suddenly it's not anymore about certain aspects of science or religion, it's about whole concepts.

I believe that religion is an absolutely great concept. I have to admit that I'm something of an atheist, but it must be great if you have the strength to believe in something. It certainly makes life easier. For example in times of crisis, etc. But I also have to tell you that I think religion has a problem - it never questions itself. If you develop a scientific theory the first ones to take it apart will be your fellow academics. Criticism comes mainly from the inside. Religion however doesn't do that - criticism comes, with very few expetions, from the outside.
Since Darwin came up with his theory it was questioned again and again from academics as well as the ouside world (e.g. religious groups, etc.). It somehow has survived all this criticism... And this is just one field of science - similar processes happen in all natural sciences on a daily basis.
In the last 500 years the Catholic Church has questioned itself exactely once and that had rather tragic consequences.

And that is exactely why I think that discussing evolution with religious people or groups is an absolute waste of time. Not because of what they believe in is necessarily wrong, but because they are not willing to question it.

[JemyM]

You don't understand zip about it, Jenny and you're full of shit. I expect better from a woman who has your IQ (and I would like to note it's less then mine) If you tell that family values are not important in the bible it's you who made up things out of thin air

I understand all of it. I am also not a woman. I would not understand any woman who agree they should be classed second rate humans because religion say so... have they no pride?

Yes. The bible is terrible when it comes to family values. Neither Jesus or Paul had a family nor did he any respect towards families. The Jesus character is a apocalyptic prophet who's basic idea about family is: "The world is ending, drop everything you have and join me, including your family". That's all. The bit about leaving family is stressed in at least four places.

The idea that Jesus is a role model for family values is BS.

Where the hell did you get that idea? It tells about that man was created before woman, but never does it tell that a woman is created as a second class human, that 's just you dillusional mind playing parts.

Men was not created before women. Female seduction/stupidity did not doom mankind to eternal suffering. Women have the right to speak. Women have the right to education. If you are a christian you deny yourself all theese rights. Maybe you never took the chance to read what you are trying to promote?

"The women are to keep silent in the churches; for they are not permitted to speak, but are to subject themselves, just as the Law also says.
If they desire to learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is improper for a woman to speak in church."

"Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as it is fit in the Lord."

"As for younger widows, do not put them on such a list. For when their sensual desires overcome their dedication to Christ, they want to marry. Thus they bring judgment on themselves, because they have broken their first pledge. Besides, they get into the habit of being idle and going about from house to house. And not only do they become idlers, but also gossips and busybodies, saying things they ought not to. So I counsel younger widows to marry, to have children, to manage their homes and to give the enemy no opportunity for slander. Some have in fact already turned away to follow Satan."

No self respecting woman would support dogma like that.

Yes, more then you do now, because he looks to the whole world as brothers and sisters, while you try to see the differences.

Actually, he only looks to his community as brothers and sisters and condemn everybody else. Christianity is a sect that seeks world dominion, not charity, tolerance or friendship. It's all there, in the bible. Did you knew that the most common reason people give why they converted from christianity to atheism? They actually read the bible.

About your commandments -> it's called then ten commandments because they all have the same value, so your previous quote about tells me again your reading of the bible is flawed!

Not at all. Jesus speaks very clear on this regard when he's pushed with the question "what is the most important thing". He enlists love for god as the most important virtue. Most sober adults would probably say "do not kill".

The bible itself never asks to kill people, it is people who read it flawed, like you, but unlike you (I hope) used it for their own power and benefits.

The bible itself tells you repeatidly who you should kill. If you havnt even read your own bible, why do you support it?

Now that eplains a lot -> you see a web of lies everywhere even when there isn't one. Indeed, so why are you delusional?

Im not the one blindly supporting a dogma I have not read. I am an openminded individual so I have read it all.

[Pladio]

Like I said in my PM; (I also know you're talking about it more because you know more about it, but) religion is not only Christianity. Most people also believe that the Bible is not to be read literally, Judaism has more books explaining the Old Testament than the Old Testament has. Judaism has the Talmud, the Gmara, the Mishna, which are all divided in more books. Buddhism has a lot of scholars researching their old scriptures too. You're also forgetting that there are more than one view/perspective for every religion.
You can't even take Christianity as one religion.


There is no representation of god in Catholicism. There are of course representations of Jesus Christ, but that's not quite the same.

Jesus is part of the Holy Trinity. Now there are two possibilities here. Either Jesus is also God and there are depictions of him, even in Churches (Mostly Catholic churches I believe), or you have three Gods, God, the Holy Spirit and Jesus which isn't even monotheism then.

The "no killing" is common sense for any non christian. In fact, the "no killing" rule was in effect in Egypt 1000-3000 years prior to the first old testament were written. Would you say "no killing" is important? Then let me ask you why it's the sixth commandment, placed after laws like "Do not make any idols" and "Do not worship any other gods" and why there are tales within the bible in which they kill people who do that.

Because that's the whole point of the ten commandments, which is to show that not obeying to any those commandments was punishable by death.
There is also a problem here where belief states the Old Testament wasn't written in 650 B.C. but about 1000 years earlier.
And you are mistaken about no killing being common sense as you can see that first of all people still do it and I read an article in the papers about clans in Afghanistan murdering each other for trespassing (this even happens in the US actually). In the most 'civilized' country in the world people have an organization rooting for weapons. It's a right in the US to carry weapons and you're saying it's common sense not to kill ?
For me it is, but it isn't for everyone. Even here in Belgium the prisons are overpopulated, because they are stealing, killing... (which two simple rules written thousands of years ago and if adhered to, then this would not be happening...)


Actually, he only looks to his community as brothers and sisters and condemn everybody else. Christianity is a sect that seeks world dominion, not charity, tolerance or friendship. It's all there, in the bible. Did you knew that the most common reason people give why they converted from christianity to atheism? They actually read the bible.

Either some thing's wrong with Christianity then or people are reading it wrong...


Second of all, Genesis is discrimating to women in a way that I find unexcuseable. Not even in the pagan myths that inspired Genesis, they were that degrading to "the first lady". When you distance yourself from Genesis and understand the concept of women evolving next to men, not after them, and that they never messed around with any apple, then you realise just how moraly offensive Genesis is by modern ethics of gender equality. If I ever get a girl, I will tell her to never ever let anyone tell her that she were created after men, or that she is a second class human. I will tell her that she or her family line have done nothing wrong and evolved next to men and have the same value.


I don't believe it was meant to mean that women are inferior to men.
I think that in Judaism, women are regarded on a higher spiritual level than men and that is why they are not supposed to practice all the same rituals men do.
All higher scholars from most religions also don't believe it was an apple but a grapevine (I think that's how you're supposed to say it in English).

Also about homosexuality, according to religious beliefs, it is not natural for someone to be with someone of the same sex. The most important reason being is that they cannot reproduce as normal couples would.

"The women are to keep silent in the churches; for they are not permitted to speak, but are to subject themselves, just as the Law also says.
If they desire to learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is improper for a woman to speak in church."

Jesus said this ?

I have my own head and I do not need others explanations. I am not reading things less or more right than anyone else. I am not reading out of context either. I have compared the bible to it's time, I have compared the bible to other religions, I have compared the bible to what we know about history, I have compared the bible to modern culture, modern cults, modern manipulation techniques and most importantly I have compared the bible to itself. I have spent way more time with this book and it's history than your average christian have done. I cannot tell you exactly when I passed from devoted christian to a militant atheist but it was part of my struggle to get closer to god by learning more.

Have you also read the Jewish and Muslim sides of the Bible ?
Not just reread the bible in Arab or Hebrew, I mean with all their explanations in it.
Many Rabbis and Jewish historians have been trying to decipher the meaning of each word in the Bible for millennia. I don't believe that just reading the Bible in its self gives you enough information about it.

I am not interested enough to study theology or for that regard study the whole bible from A to Z, but I know for a fact it isn't as easy as just reading it as a novel...


Points of view about evidence is ok. Completely ignoring evidence is delusional.

Not really. Do you know how many people have been falsely convicted of crimes because there was evidence against them found with systems that now seems to be flawed. Evidence changes over time.

More likely a defense for someone who have something to win on keeping christianity in it's current form.

Why? If god exists then he can do everything he wants. So anything is possible, no ?

[Alrik Fassbauer]

*zaps in*

Unfortunately the discussions are not being led by Geologists.

I've studied this for several years and I can - no, must - say that climate changes are NORMAL - seen from a certain perspective.

During the Ice Ages, we actually had warm intervals with a jump of several grades Celsius within a few hundred years !

Climate changes are normal for me - from THAT pojnt of view.

What definitively is N OT normal to me is how humans are raping the Earth with their greed ror raw materials. Cutting down huge forests for Soy is only the latest problem, and the Orang Utan is currently being hunted and killed in its home territories because of huge monocultures of palm trees - for their oil, which becomes more & more used by the inustries.

Enormous holes are being dug for raw materials, leaving nothing but - holes. For the later generations.

Our current generations are so much consuming MASSES of raw materials and of energy that the later genrations - I'm absolutely convinced of that - will seek out our waste deposits as very, very valuable, even precious resources ...

We are currently simply acting like Vampyres : Sucking the future of our following generations out of this planet.

So, to me, RPGs like Fallout aren't just pure imagination; to me, they are indeed a possible future of this planet, seriously.


*zaps out*

[Ubereil]

Why? If god exists then he can do everything he wants. So anything is possible, no ?Can God create a stone that is so big not even God can move it? ;)

And on the US being the most civilized country in the world, let me quote Oscar Wilde: "America is the only country that went from barbarism to decadence without civilization in between." (I don't know if it's true, but it sure is funny :p.)

Übereil

[Bartacus]

I understand all of it. I am also not a woman. I would not understand any woman who agree they should be classed second rate humans because religion say so... have they no pride?

Yes. The bible is terrible when it comes to family values. Neither Jesus or Paul had a family nor did he any respect towards families. The Jesus character is a apocalyptic prophet who's basic idea about family is: "The world is ending, drop everything you have and join me, including your family". That's all. The bit about leaving family is stressed in at least four places.

The idea that Jesus is a role model for family values is BS.

Men was not created before women. Female seduction/stupidity did not doom mankind to eternal suffering. Women have the right to speak. Women have the right to education. If you are a christian you deny yourself all theese rights. Maybe you never took the chance to read what you are trying to promote?

"The women are to keep silent in the churches; for they are not permitted to speak, but are to subject themselves, just as the Law also says.
If they desire to learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is improper for a woman to speak in church."

"Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as it is fit in the Lord."

"As for younger widows, do not put them on such a list. For when their sensual desires overcome their dedication to Christ, they want to marry. Thus they bring judgment on themselves, because they have broken their first pledge. Besides, they get into the habit of being idle and going about from house to house. And not only do they become idlers, but also gossips and busybodies, saying things they ought not to. So I counsel younger widows to marry, to have children, to manage their homes and to give the enemy no opportunity for slander. Some have in fact already turned away to follow Satan."

No self respecting woman would support dogma like that.

Actually, he only looks to his community as brothers and sisters and condemn everybody else. Christianity is a sect that seeks world dominion, not charity, tolerance or friendship. It's all there, in the bible. Did you knew that the most common reason people give why they converted from christianity to atheism? They actually read the bible.

Not at all. Jesus speaks very clear on this regard when he's pushed with the question "what is the most important thing". He enlists love for god as the most important virtue. Most sober adults would probably say "do not kill".

The bible itself tells you repeatidly who you should kill. If you havnt even read your own bible, why do you support it?

Im not the one blindly supporting a dogma I have not read. I am an openminded individual so I have read it all.

All what you're posting here are nothing but simplistic lies, you're nothing but a very poor minded soul and open for nothing then your own truth.
Never did Jesus encourage people to leave their homes, they chose to follow him. You say men wasn't created before woman -> How would you know, you weren't there, so cut the crap with your 'I have all the knowledge and wisdom' act.
If you actually read the bible you will find no such BS as you have quoted here about wives. Is it the lord that was speaking? NO! It was about someone writing down a story from his point of view and that he might be womenunfriendly doesn't make the bible.

Atheïsm is a sect that seeks to eliminate any religion and seeks for world domination. Your openminded approach is a hoax, cause we are all doomed by our origins. Your blind with your atheïstic dogma's that all religions are evil and certainly the ones that have a voice (publical party) in your country.

[Pladio]

I actually think both of you are a bit too extreme in your views... :(

God should be able to create a stone that he cannot lift. As he will be able to make it so that he can lift it and not lift at the same time.

[Ionstormsucks]

All what you're posting here are nothing but simplistic lies, you're nothing but a very poor minded soul and open for nothing then your own truth.
Never did Jesus encourage people to leave their homes, they chose to follow him. You say men wasn't created before woman -> How would you know, you weren't there, so cut the crap with your 'I have all the knowledge and wisdom' act.
If you actually read the bible you will find no such BS as you have quoted here about wives. Is it the lord that was speaking? NO! It was about someone writing down a story from his point of view and that he might be womenunfriendly doesn't make the bible.

Atheïsm is a sect that seeks to eliminate any religion and seeks for world domination. Your openminded approach is a hoax, cause we are all doomed by our origins. Your blind with your atheïstic dogma's that all religions are evil and certainly the ones that have a voice (publical party) in your country.

Yes! Burn all atheists! They seek for world domination and don't want to accept that the earth is flat!

[Moriendor]

Atheïsm is a sect that seeks to eliminate any religion and seeks for world domination.

Ummm. What? Nope. Let me rephrase that: WHAT. THE. FUCK??? :biggrin:
Was that meant to be serious in any way, shape or form, Bart, or were there... substances involved before you made your post?

[magerette]

I wasn't going to dive back into this raging cauldron of confusion, but wot the hell...

Science, religion and philosophy(including aethism) are all fallible because they originate in the human mind, which is fallible. God or a Divine Power may or may not exist, but religion is man's interpretation of what he thinks God wants from him. I don't think anyone can physically prove or disprove that God was dictating the words he wrote down in the Old or New Testament, the Talmud, the Quoran or the texts of Buddhism; this is a matter solely of faith. Faith is not a bad thing, it is frequently needed in life, but each individual has to decide where he or she is going to put it.

Yes, religion has been and is being used as an excuse for violence and murder. People decide to do this, and they like to ease their conscience by saying it's all God's idea. Who's going to say their wrong? God is notoriuosly silent on the subject.

Science is used not so much to justify violence (because we have God for that) as to enable it in new and exciting ways because it is the knowledge jihad: man's search for knowledge at any expense, and put to any use, is justifiable and indeed, mandated. Scientists say so.

Philosophy just shakes it's head and tries to propound ideas that ask people to think about what they're doing and examine their actions and motives, then live by a personal ethos. No wonder it has fewer adherents.

All the violence, all the murder, and all the fault for it needs to be placed where it belongs--on individuals who act immorally and who force or entice others to do the same using the tools listed above. If someone is a bigot, he finds something to justify his stance. If someone is compassionate, he finds someone to help. Either one might say he was following the dictates of his religion, his scientific quest for truth, or his philosophy.

Stop passing the buck to these faceless concepts and vague entities. It's people and individuals that murder, rape, and disrespect each other and the planet. It's also people who can change, who can help and support each other and the planet.

All the things that are being argued here are interpretations stemming from people's observations and opinions and are hearsay evidence that each individual believes to be fact. None of you have convinced me of anything; rather you have confirmed my deep personal belief that no one knows what the hell is going on.:)

[Pladio]

Just a correction magerette, if I may. The Talmud and Quran weren't written by god, no one ever claimed that. Nor were most of the New and Old Testament.
The Quran was written by Muhammad, but the angel Gibril (or Gabriel) told him what to write. The Talmud was written by Jewish men who discussed the meaning of the Old Testament and its laws. The New testament was written by many different authors, such as Mark, Matthew... Most of the Old Testament was written by prophets. Even the Torah isn't written by god but by Moses, passed on through god (about the same as with the Quran, except god himself :) )
I'm not sure about Buddhism.

Sorry, another thing.
Actually science is responsible, indirectly, for murder. With the law of the fittest, Hitler justified killing handicapped people, because they would just be a strain on society. The law of the fittest would have killed most handicapped people if people weren't so humane in helping them, so Hitler decided to kill them.
Science coupled with people's selfishness also allowed for the earth to become as polluted (to return on-topic :P ) as it is now. Because of science the whole world is getting overpopulated and everyone wants the same thing the other has (i.e.:luxury, car, money...).


For most of the other things you say, I completely agree.

[magerette]

Thanks Pladio, for correcting the way I stated that :) My meaning actually was that men wrote those texts; as you state, many different men and not God, but that they nonetheless all purport to be a message from a divine entity. The Ten Commandments were given directly to Moses from God, the Angel somebody or other spoke to Joseph Smith(Mormons) and I would be really surprised if Muhammed didn't claim that Allah was endorsing his message, but the study of religion is not my major field of knowledge, so I apologize if I was inaccurate as to detail. :)

(I think Buddha is the only one who never claimed to be a god, but he ended up one anyway after he died.)

I pretty much agree with you about the role of science, but again, not ALL science. Medical advances, computers ;) and many other things we rely on every day have changed our civilization for the better.

My take is that it's people who make bad religions and bad science, as well as the good versions of both, so I would say instead of this:

Because of science the whole world is getting overpopulated and everyone wants the same thing the other has (i.e.:luxury, car, money...).

it's more like this: Because of human nature and the greed of individuals and large corporations , enabled by science and unrestrained by a personal code of morals, the world is getting as you describe.

Other than that, as you said, we agree. :)

[JemyM]

Like I said in my PM; (I also know you're talking about it more because you know more about it, but) religion is not only Christianity. Most people also believe that the Bible is not to be read literally, Judaism has more books explaining the Old Testament than the Old Testament has. Judaism has the Talmud, the Gmara, the Mishna, which are all divided in more books. Buddhism has a lot of scholars researching their old scriptures too. You're also forgetting that there are more than one view/perspective for every religion.
You can't even take Christianity as one religion.

Christianity is the bible. There are different churches with different interpretions but the majority of them basicly gives you the bible, ask you to read it and then come back and tell them what you think, or they claim to follow the bible, draw inspiration from the bible and then decide what to do. When you visit different communities you will find that interpretion of the bible is as random as a dicebag because the bible is also a contradicting mess.
Since the bible was originally created with a political agenda it is no surprise that there are communities who have decided to take up the political agenda. While communities disagree between eachother they are more likely to take side with other christian communities than with non-christian communities, especially on the political stuff. Most christians never actually read the bible at all, they just give in to whatever ideas is agreed on within their community.

And thats basicly the problem with "different interpretions" and "if everybody would just follow my version it would all be fine". History shows that a combination between education and using your head prevents disaster better than religion while religion makes people less capable of distinguishing right from wrong and speaking up against them who are the true villians of this world.

Jesus is part of the Holy Trinity. Now there are two possibilities here. Either Jesus is also God and there are depictions of him, even in Churches (Mostly Catholic churches I believe), or you have three Gods, God, the Holy Spirit and Jesus which isn't even monotheism then.

Yeah. I heard many versions of this enigma, where only one made complete sense. When Constantine gathered the many cults to unify them under one strong religion within the roman empire, the cults had many different ideas about this. Some believed in one god. Some believed in Jesus as a human. Some believed in Jesus as god. Some believed Jesus was divine, the son of god. Some still used the pagan religions. Some had all angels as separate gods. Then there were thoose who worshipped the entity known as the "holy spirit".

There was a great argument and they agreed on a few things... first to remove the pagan gods (even if some are still mentioned in the bible such as Baal, Lilith and Belzebub). Then they decided the angels where not gods. Then they decided to agree on the whole trinity gizmo that is on some middle ground between Jesus as divine and as god, while the holy spirit is mentioned, and important, but still few have a clue what the holy spirit really was. For now it's only evoked in protection spells (or was it prayers?) and then it's also unforgiveable sin to deny the holy spirit, a conlusion that I bet suited the cult who believed in the holy spirit as the highest divine being.

Because that's the whole point of the ten commandments, which is to show that not obeying to any those commandments was punishable by death.
There is also a problem here where belief states the Old Testament wasn't written in 650 B.C. but about 1000 years earlier.
And you are mistaken about no killing being common sense as you can see that first of all people still do it and I read an article in the papers about clans in Afghanistan murdering each other for trespassing (this even happens in the US actually). In the most 'civilized' country in the world people have an organization rooting for weapons. It's a right in the US to carry weapons and you're saying it's common sense not to kill ?
For me it is, but it isn't for everyone. Even here in Belgium the prisons are overpopulated, because they are stealing, killing... (which two simple rules written thousands of years ago and if adhered to, then this would not be happening...)

People are born without an understanding of the world and that gives us a few problems.

I don't believe it was meant to mean that women are inferior to men.
I think that in Judaism, women are regarded on a higher spiritual level than men and that is why they are not supposed to practice all the same rituals men do.
All higher scholars from most religions also don't believe it was an apple but a grapevine (I think that's how you're supposed to say it in English).Also about homosexuality, according to religious beliefs, it is not natural for someone to be with someone of the same sex. The most important reason being is that they cannot reproduce as normal couples would.

There are ways to look at this back and forth. Taking the old testament the women are worth little more than cattle (compare the last commandment where women are considered a possession like a mule or ox). There are dozens of wierd reasons why a woman should be killed, including getting raped. Reading the old testament with a modern education, it's idea about women belongs somewhere along the line of "brutal" or "barbaric". How judaism have cleaned up that mess I do not know, I only have the part of Judaism that is present in my christian bible. As a sect, Judaism is rather small and considering the past tension I am fine with simply proving their foundations of their beliefs wrong, no need to compare brutality between judaism and christianity. I have much respect to the secular jews and I support their culture just as much as I support muslim apostates.

When it comes to homosexuality, there's quite alot to say about it. There are good rebukes for every mentioning of homosexuals in the bible and there are even three possible homosexual relationships. For some, calling yourself a christian seems to be a nice defense for just hating people you never met, while the good people unfortunally take side with the bad ones as long as they share the same religion.

Jesus said this ?

They are direct quotes from Paul. Paul wrote several letters to early christianity explaining how church should be controlled. He declared himself a messenger from god. Historically he's far more important to christianity than Jesus himself since it's him who defined how the religion should work and he's also the one who created the philosophy of Jesus as a savior. Mark/Matthew/Luke/John was written long after Paul founded the sect, not the other way around. When you read Paul you realise he really had no clue about anything said in the stories about Jesus, still he is the original founder.

Have you also read the Jewish and Muslim sides of the Bible ?
Not just reread the bible in Arab or Hebrew, I mean with all their explanations in it.
Many Rabbis and Jewish historians have been trying to decipher the meaning of each word in the Bible for millennia. I don't believe that just reading the Bible in its self gives you enough information about it.
I am not interested enough to study theology or for that regard study the whole bible from A to Z, but I know for a fact it isn't as easy as just reading it as a novel...

It's impossible to read every angle of the book. There are no right ones, there are no wrong ones, but we know alot more about it than some people think and I believe it's time to universally treat it as little more than the national epos of Israel, with the same value as King Arthur or Tristan and Isolde. As long as the book gives birth to bad ideas, there is an issue. Trying to find new meanings within the book like it give better insight than the later political philosophies is a major waste of time and money, stopping people from dealing with the more serious issues. We only need to know that some people are prepared to go to war and reduce civil liberties becuse they believe the book is litteraly true and the rest of the religion support the fundies before they support human values. There's a direct relationship, statistically, between the amount of pain and suffering and how strong religion is. Western Europe and Japan have currently the lowest rate of the social issues as well as the lowest amount of believers, while the US are as bad as the middleeast on some problems like the spread of HIV, murders and teenage pregnancies. Within Europe, the strong catholic countries like Spain, Italy, Poland and Ireland are statistically the worst on many similar issues.

Not really. Do you know how many people have been falsely convicted of crimes because there was evidence against them found with systems that now seems to be flawed. Evidence changes over time.

A few 100 years ago you could be burned to the stake for black magic. We should be happy that science evolves.

Why? If god exists then he can do everything he wants. So anything is possible, no?

People who speak about what god wants, always speak about what they want.

[JemyM]

All what you're posting here are nothing but simplistic lies, you're nothing but a very poor minded soul and open for nothing then your own truth.

Facts hun, facts.
You have not been able to give any facts to support your statements yet.

If you actually read the bible you will find no such BS as you have quoted here about wives.
Never did Jesus encourage people to leave their homes, they chose to follow him.

You simple prove again and again that you never read your own bible.
Facts are on my side on this one.

You say men wasn't created before woman -> How would you know, you weren't there, so cut the crap with your 'I have all the knowledge and wisdom' act.

I came from my mother. She's a woman. See?
What do you have to go on?

I do not know how you can live with yourself looking down on your gender like that.

Is it the lord that was speaking? NO! It was about someone writing down a story from his point of view and that he might be womenunfriendly doesn't make the bible.

Ah. The "I am christian, I just do not believe we can follow the christian bible" argument.

Here's some random quotes from theese "womenunfriendly bible". Pay note to Deutoronomy, because that's what Jesus speaks about when he say:
"Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfil. For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled."

The Tenth Commandment
Exodus 20:17 "You shall not covet your neighbour’s house; you shall not covet your neighbour’s wife, or male or female slave, or ox, or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbour."
Deuteronomy 5:21 Neither shall you covet your neighbour’s wife. Neither shall you desire your neighbour’s house, or field, or male or female slave, or ox, or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbour."

1 Corinthians 14:34-35
Let the women keep silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be in submission, as the Law also says. If there is anything they desire to learn, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is a disgrace for a woman to speak in church.

1 Tim 5:13
As for younger widows, do not put them on such a list. For when their sensual desires overcome their dedication to Christ, they want to marry. Thus they bring judgment on themselves, because they have broken their first pledge. Besides, they get into the habit of being idle and going about from house to house. And not only do they become idlers, but also gossips and busybodies, saying things they ought not to. So I counsel younger widows to marry, to have children, to manage their homes and to give the enemy no opportunity for slander. Some have in fact already turned away to follow Satan.

Deuteronomy 22:28-29
If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her.

Deuteronomy 22:23-24
If within the city a man comes upon a maiden who is betrothed, and has relations with her, you shall bring them both out of the gate of the city and there stone them to death: the girl because she did not cry out for help though she was in the city, and the man because he violated his neighbors wife.

Deuteronomy 20:10-14
As you approach a town to attack it, first offer its people terms for peace. If they accept your terms and open the gates to you, then all the people inside will serve you in forced labor. But if they refuse to make peace and prepare to fight, you must attack the town. When the LORD your God hands it over to you, kill every man in the town. But you may keep for yourselves all the women, children, livestock, and other plunder. You may enjoy the spoils of your enemies that the LORD your God has given you.

Judges 5:30
They must be dividing the spoils they took: there must be a damsel or two for each man, Spoils of dyed cloth as Sisera's spoil, an ornate shawl or two for me in the spoil.

Zechariah 14:1-2
Lo, a day shall come for the Lord when the spoils shall be divided in your midst. And I will gather all the nations against Jerusalem for battle: the city shall be taken, houses plundered, women ravished; half of the city shall go into exile, but the rest of the people shall not be removed from the city.

Atheïsm is a sect that seeks to eliminate any religion and seeks for world domination.
Your blind with your atheïstic dogma's that all religions are evil and certainly the ones that have a voice (publical party) in your country.

Atheism is simply a "I do not believe your claims" statement and christians felt they had to give a word for the people who were not part of their sect. We do this in every day of our lives. Is it a religion to not believe in communism? Nazism? Do organised anti-dictatorship people trying to seek world domination as well?

Please. You are acting like a child or someone who blatantly failed social science.

Your openminded approach is a hoax, cause we are all doomed by our origins.

Who told you that?

Nevermind. I find it useless to discuss with someone who are better to deny facts than to present them. You are not adding anything to my knowledge more than you waste my time.

[JemyM]

I don't think anyone can physically prove or disprove that God was dictating the words he wrote down in the Old or New Testament, the Talmud, the Quoran or the texts of Buddhism; this is a matter solely of faith.

For an open mind there is no faith, there's just a wager of evidence.

Religious faith is a virtue of ignorance, the act of mechanically rejecting knowledge for the hope that you will be rewarded if you do. It's a powerful mindlock fueled by human emotions such as hope, greed and fear of the unknown. It keeps the mind locked up whenever our five senses attempts to break it free.

Scientific "faith" of the same kind is purely driven by pride. A scientist who start to take shortcuts or fail to look into other scientists insight have given up their ethics in a pursuit for a personal agenda.

The key difference is that scientist knows alot more about the world than your average person while a religious person knows alot less about the world than your average person. Within science you may loose your job if you make claims without being able to back them up. Within religion you earn your job if you make claims without being able to back them up.

When it comes to the scientific claims regarding global warming they have alot to say. Much of it is quite difficult to get into without having spent many years studying the subject. But at least it's based on insight and evidence where evidence speaks against evidence and I rather have opinions on evidence than nothing.

When it comes to the religious claims regarding global warming they are more like "meh, the world is ending within 50 years anyway, so who cares?".

Video (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/max-blumenthal/rapture-ready-the-unauth_b_57826.html)
Story (http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Delay_US_and_Israel_to_enjoy_0726.html)

[Squeek]

Do you have time to explain a few more things, JemyM? What role does ego play in science? Where does arrogance fit in? At what point does earnest discussion stop and mental masturbation begin?

[Corwin]

Quote from Jemy
"The key difference is that scientist knows alot more about the world than your average person while a religious person knows alot less about the world than your average person. Within science you may loose your job if you make claims without being able to back them up. Within religion you earn your job if you make claims without being able to back them up."

Such a display of arrogant ignorance!!

Squeek, I love your questions!! :)

[Pladio]

I really don't agree with that statement Jemy. I know some religious people who are professors in universities, others teach at schools and most of them know multiple languages, know more about politics, history and some even about sciences than other people. A lot of religious people even go as far as study sciences to try and find ways to prove what they believe is right. Others are scholars in many fields of study and know more about a lot of things than other people.

In Belgium (and I believe you can ask Bartacus for confirmation) the Jesuit schools are seen as the best schools with the best educational system in Flanders. Now consider Flanders' high schools were ranked in the top 10 in the world in mathematics and I think physics too and then you'll see a strive to become better, a 'quest' for knowledge of the religion and other 'worldly' things.

To clear things up, I'm not a Jesuit.

And what happened to the other topics in this topic ?

[Pladio]

Thanks Pladio, for correcting the way I stated that :) My meaning actually was that men wrote those texts; as you state, many different men and not God, but that they nonetheless all purport to be a message from a divine entity. The Ten Commandments were given directly to Moses from God, the Angel somebody or other spoke to Joseph Smith(Mormons) and I would be really surprised if Muhammed didn't claim that Allah was endorsing his message, but the study of religion is not my major field of knowledge, so I apologize if I was inaccurate as to detail. :)

(I think Buddha is the only one who never claimed to be a god, but he ended up one anyway after he died.)

I pretty much agree with you about the role of science, but again, not ALL science. Medical advances, computers ;) and many other things we rely on every day have changed our civilization for the better.

My take is that it's people who make bad religions and bad science, as well as the good versions of both, so I would say instead of this:



it's more like this: Because of human nature and the greed of individuals and large corporations , enabled by science and unrestrained by a personal code of morals, the world is getting as you describe.

Other than that, as you said, we agree. :)

Didn't see your post. But, again I agree with you. I might have misunderstood your first post then if you meant what I have written :)


Christianity is the bible.

This is completely false. What about the Muslims (just one billion, I believe) and the Jews (about 13-14 million), the Bahai (another 6 million) and other sects/religions who follow the bible ?

And thats basicly the problem with "different interpretions" and "if everybody would just follow my version it would all be fine". History shows that a combination between education and using your head prevents disaster better than religion while religion makes people less capable of distinguishing right from wrong and speaking up against them who are the true villians of this world.

I agree with this.

People are born without an understanding of the world and that gives us a few problems.

What do you mean ?

There are ways to look at this back and forth. Taking the old testament the women are worth little more than cattle (compare the last commandment where women are considered a possession like a mule or ox). There are dozens of wierd reasons why a woman should be killed, including getting raped. Reading the old testament with a modern education, it's idea about women belongs somewhere along the line of "brutal" or "barbaric". How judaism have cleaned up that mess I do not know, I only have the part of Judaism that is present in my christian bible. As a sect, Judaism is rather small and considering the past tension I am fine with simply proving their foundations of their beliefs wrong, no need to compare brutality between judaism and christianity. I have much respect to the secular jews and I support their culture just as much as I support muslim apostates.

That's why Judaism doesn't take the Old Testament literally, since they (the Talmudists, forgot the names given to them) explained everything (or most of it) in more modern ways. I think there's even a book on how people should treat and be with their families. A lot of laws also protect the woman. Even though it's right that if you just the read the Bible as it is, it will seem barbaric and maybe even horrific.
Muslims seem to be looking at the Old Testament in a more literal way, in treating women, I mean.
Christianity seems to have settled it with modernism taking over, giving women more rights...

What are Muslim 'apostates'?

They are direct quotes from Paul. Paul wrote several letters to early christianity explaining how church should be controlled. He declared himself a messenger from god. Historically he's far more important to christianity than Jesus himself since it's him who defined how the religion should work and he's also the one who created the philosophy of Jesus as a savior. Mark/Matthew/Luke/John was written long after Paul founded the sect, not the other way around. When you read Paul you realise he really had no clue about anything said in the stories about Jesus, still he is the original founder.

Do people read the gospels as laws or as stories ? If Paul is the original founder, as you say he is, then Christianity has certainly changed since then and you should maybe look into more modern Christianity instead of focusing only on the 'ancient' basis of Christianity.


It's impossible to read every angle of the book. There are no right ones, there are no wrong ones, but we know alot more about it than some people think and I believe it's time to universally treat it as little more than the national epos of Israel, with the same value as King Arthur or Tristan and Isolde. As long as the book gives birth to bad ideas, there is an issue. Trying to find new meanings within the book like it give better insight than the later political philosophies is a major waste of time and money, stopping people from dealing with the more serious issues. We only need to know that some people are prepared to go to war and reduce civil liberties becuse they believe the book is litteraly true and the rest of the religion support the fundies before they support human values. There's a direct relationship, statistically, between the amount of pain and suffering and how strong religion is. Western Europe and Japan have currently the lowest rate of the social issues as well as the lowest amount of believers, while the US are as bad as the middleeast on some problems like the spread of HIV, murders and teenage pregnancies. Within Europe, the strong catholic countries like Spain, Italy, Poland and Ireland are statistically the worst on many similar issues.

Maybe this means the religious leaders are as corrupt and bad as most other leaders. Have you seen what happened in Russia when there was a period without religions ? Just Stalin killing several millions of people. Others were sent to the Gulag, other tortured ... Communism (or to be more precise, dictatorial Communism) isn't a religion, just a form of government where people keep dying... Really, North Korea, even now, still has concentration camps.
Eastern Europe: Serbia, Kosovo, there were concentration camps there too. This wasn't about religion, but about nationalism.

It's just human beings fighting. It has been around for ages and will always be there as long as human beings exist. Three fights : Fighting over women, over land and over religion. IF you remove religion, then something else will come up in its stead.
It doesn't mean religion in itself is bad, just that human beings are selfish and moronic.

But, you're right about one thing. You can't read the bible from every angle.

A few 100 years ago you could be burned to the stake for black magic. We should be happy that science evolves.

Yup, after that, people were killed because they were black, then because they were something else. Look above, people have always liked killing, since the beginning of time (Cain and Abel :p ) .

People who speak about what god wants, always speak about what they want.

Maybe, but he would be able to do it, no ? (if he exists, that is ?)

[JemyM]

I really don't agree with that statement Jemy. I know some religious people who are professors in universities, others teach at schools and most of them know multiple languages, know more about politics, history and some even about sciences than other people. A lot of religious people even go as far as study sciences to try and find ways to prove what they believe is right. Others are scholars in many fields of study and know more about a lot of things than other people.

Many studies have been made on this subject that have shown that there's a direct relationship between higher education and lack of faith. Also there are a direct relationship between higher IQ and lack of faith. It is still possible to be at the peak of your academic career and still have faith but they are very rare. The mindspell works quite fine on people with high IQ as long as they are children when indoctrinated, but IQ often means higher education with obvious results. In the US, only 4% of the lead scientists claim to have religious beliefs. There's also a relationship with what field of science you have. Phycisists within the US have a higher percentage of believers where Biologists have the lowest.

Move outside the US and the percentage is far lower, especially in the countries who look up to knowledge and have a scientific tradition such as western Europe or Japan.

Theology is also heavily corrosive to religious beliefs. Many theologians begun as a strong believer and ended up atheist or agnostic after spending some time studying what we know. I am not a theologian myself but I went that path (got to know too much because my faith drew me there).

You see, within scientific tradition there is a few philosophies you really need to become a sucessful scientist. Theese philosophies are in themselves heavily corrosive to religion because religion have always warned for theese philosophies. All religion warns you from the unknown, calling it satan or seduction down to hell. As a scientist you are forced to overthrow all that and look to nothing but evidence. When you are forced to learn that philosophy to get through your education and then work with it for every day of your life, religius grip on you begins to fade.

In Belgium (and I believe you can ask Bartacus for confirmation) the Jesuit schools are seen as the best schools with the best educational system in Flanders. Now consider Flanders' high schools were ranked in the top 10 in the world in mathematics and I think physics too and then you'll see a strive to become better, a 'quest' for knowledge of the religion and other 'worldly' things.
To clear things up, I'm not a Jesuit.
And what happened to the other topics in this topic ?

Private schools tends to be more focused/controlled which is an advantage to things like math. You can be both intelligent and logic and still believe as long as you live within a community where belief is socially more accepted than disbelief. Faith/Lack of faith is simply a difference between how much you know and how much you want to learn. However, ask a student of a faith school about their understanding of world history and other cultures and they are usually less aware of what's going on.

[Corwin]

Let's see, I have an extremely high IQ, several degrees, have taught both Mathematics and Philosophy, lecture in Theology and have written courses in Ancient and Mediaeval History and as an ordained minister, I have a very high level of Faith!! I think something might be wrong with your analysis!!!!

PS. I play RPG's as well!! :)

[JemyM]

Im tired so sorry if there's things here that do not make any sense.

This is completely false. What about the Muslims (just one billion, I believe) and the Jews (about 13-14 million), the Bahai (another 6 million) and other sects/religions who follow the bible ?

Muslims = Quran
Jews = Torah
Bahai = Bayan
Christians = The old and new testament = The Bible

What do you mean ?

Ouch. Part of my reply must have been deleted.

It's a theory that is complex to explain but rather simple.

I'll try to explain:

Everything we see is filthered through our memories.

Our memories is what tells us whats right, whats wrong and what's the right decision in a situation we are exposed to.

If your memorybank is limited or twisted by bad experiences you are more likely to make a weak/dangerous decision because you are less capable of imagining the consequences.

This have a few problems since every child are born with a blank head and must be taught. An even greater problem is that we are born with a fear of the unknown and an instinct to attack the unknown. Every child is therefore a potential murderer unless taught the right things at an early age.

So every child is capable of doing bad things and proper education is a very good way to keep them from doing them. A doctrine that makes you fear education and tell you that everybody outside your group are worshippers of satan or demons is not a good one.

That's why Judaism doesn't take the Old Testament literally, since they (the Talmudists, forgot the names given to them) explained everything (or most of it) in more modern ways. I think there's even a book on how people should treat and be with their families. A lot of laws also protect the woman. Even though it's right that if you just the read the Bible as it is, it will seem barbaric and maybe even horrific.
Muslims seem to be looking at the Old Testament in a more literal way, in treating women, I mean.
Christianity seems to have settled it with modernism taking over, giving women more rights...

I cannot discuss judaism more than I know the roots of their religion.

What are Muslim 'apostates'?

Apostate is a muslim word for someone who left their religion.
http://www.apostatesofislam.com

Do people read the gospels as laws or as stories ? If Paul is the original founder, as you say he is, then Christianity has certainly changed since then and you should maybe look into more modern Christianity instead of focusing only on the 'ancient' basis of Christianity.

Enough christians consider the bible to be a most exalted rulebook that should be the foundation to our society, a few consider it to be above the law of the country they live in. The Christian Ultra Fundamentalists are a very strong american lobby group in the US that stands behind the bible as literal truth and the law that should control society.

http://adultthought.ucsd.edu/Culture_War/The_American_Taliban.html

Maybe this means the religious leaders are as corrupt and bad as most other leaders. Have you seen what happened in Russia when there was a period without religions ? Just Stalin killing several millions of people. Others were sent to the Gulag, other tortured ... Communism (or to be more precise, dictatorial Communism) isn't a religion, just a form of government where people keep dying... Really, North Korea, even now, still has concentration camps.
Eastern Europe: Serbia, Kosovo, there were concentration camps there too. This wasn't about religion, but about nationalism.

It's just human beings fighting. It has been around for ages and will always be there as long as human beings exist. Three fights : Fighting over women, over land and over religion. IF you remove religion, then something else will come up in its stead.
It doesn't mean religion in itself is bad, just that human beings are selfish and moronic.

But, you're right about one thing. You can't read the bible from every angle.
Yup, after that, people were killed because they were black, then because they were something else. Look above, people have always liked killing, since the beginning of time (Cain and Abel :p).
Maybe, but he would be able to do it, no ? (if he exists, that is ?)

You see any wars in western Europe anytime soon?

We in the western world have managed to combine a coctail of liberalism, socialism, capitalism and democracy that is currently working rather well dont you think? Nazi germany was 60 years ago now and every child is indoctrinated to know that nazism is BAD for you. In a recent study 97% of the swedish students claimed that nazism is evil. Most of them could also give ideas of why it happened. School teachers are given special training in how to see and respond to nationalistic behavior among their pupils, dissolving such ideas as quickly as possible. Yes, neonazis do exist, but noone takes them seriously.
Education is very important to learn about the world and to keep bad apples out from the regimes. But we are way behind on recognizing religions as political ideologies.

Now communist dogma is not much different from christian dogma. They do not excuse eachother.

They are based on closed groups, a hostility to criticism, the promise of the ultimate truth, a black and white worldview, a hostility towards education and scientists, a glorious and charismatic leader etc. When placing extremist groups next to eachother you might be surprised how similar they are to eachother. The solution, as always, is education, free speech, democracy etc, everything that theese closed groups hate.

[JemyM]

Let's see, I have an extremely high IQ, several degrees, have taught both Mathematics and Philosophy, lecture in Theology and have written courses in Ancient and Mediaeval History and as an ordained minister, I have a very high level of Faith!! I think something might be wrong with your analysis!!!!

Title: Leading scientists still reject God
Authors: Larson, Edward J.; Witham, Larry
Publication: Nature, Volume 394, Issue 6691, pp. 313 (1998). (Nature (http://www.nature.com/index.html))
Publication Date: 07/1998

Table 1. Comparison of survey answers among "greater" scientists.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v394/n6691/images/394313at.001.gif

1986 the economist Burnham Beckwith put together the results of 30 studies that compare higher education and more IQ and it's impact on faith. Article is known as "The Effect of Intelligence on Religious Faith".
16 more surveys have been done after that.
Four studies shows no effect, the rest show that IQ and higher education lowers your faith.

Within the NAS, National Academy of Sciences, only 7% claim to have a personal belief.

According to Norris & Inglehart 2004a,b, societies that managed to create a social security and equality are less likely to believe in god. The less secure someone feels, the more likely they are to turn to the comfort of religion.
http://www.worldvaluessurvey.org/statistics/some_findings.html

In a recent danish/american study it was found that atheists have an average of 5.8 points higher IQ than believers.

In a study of 34 countries 2006, Miller et al found that knowledge in genetics is a strong factor to support evolution. It also shows that fundamentalist countries are the least likely to have such knowledge. The United States end up in the bottom compared to every other country in the study, including Turkey. Best overall knowledge in genetics was among danish, swedish and icelandic people.

The failure of the american public education system is well known and notorious all over the developed world.

[Corwin]

There are 3 degrees of lies: Lies, Damned Lies, and Statistics!! I can twist statistics as well as anyone, but I refuse to lower myself to that level!!

[JemyM]

There are 3 degrees of lies: Lies, Damned Lies, and Statistics!! I can twist statistics as well as anyone, but I refuse to lower myself to that level!!

Unless you cough up something at all that is actually based on any sort of facts, evidence, proof etc I can only see this as a moot discussion. Im not learning anything from it and you do not seem to have anything of value to present to support your claims.

[Bartacus]

Facts hun, facts.
You have not been able to give any facts to support your statements yet.
Neither have you!


You simple prove again and again that you never read your own bible.
Facts are on my side on this one.
I came from my mother. She's a woman. See?
What do you have to go on?

I came from my mother ... This proves that you do't have any idea either were we are comming from!


I do not know how you can live with yourself looking down on your gender like that.

I don't look down on gender, you read the bible in a dispicible way.


Ah. The "I am christian, I just do not believe we can follow the christian bible" argument.
Here's some random quotes from theese "womenunfriendly bible". Pay note to Deutoronomy, because that's what Jesus speaks about when he say:
"Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfil. For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled."
The Tenth Commandment
Exodus 20:17 "You shall not covet your neighbour’s house; you shall not covet your neighbour’s wife, or male or female slave, or ox, or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbour."
Deuteronomy 5:21 Neither shall you covet your neighbour’s wife. Neither shall you desire your neighbour’s house, or field, or male or female slave, or ox, or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbour."
1 Corinthians 14:34-35
Let the women keep silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be in submission, as the Law also says. If there is anything they desire to learn, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is a disgrace for a woman to speak in church.
1 Tim 5:13
As for younger widows, do not put them on such a list. For when their sensual desires overcome their dedication to Christ, they want to marry. Thus they bring judgment on themselves, because they have broken their first pledge. Besides, they get into the habit of being idle and going about from house to house. And not only do they become idlers, but also gossips and busybodies, saying things they ought not to. So I counsel younger widows to marry, to have children, to manage their homes and to give the enemy no opportunity for slander. Some have in fact already turned away to follow Satan.
Deuteronomy 22:28-29
If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her.
Deuteronomy 22:23-24
If within the city a man comes upon a maiden who is betrothed, and has relations with her, you shall bring them both out of the gate of the city and there stone them to death: the girl because she did not cry out for help though she was in the city, and the man because he violated his neighbors wife.
Deuteronomy 20:10-14
As you approach a town to attack it, first offer its people terms for peace. If they accept your terms and open the gates to you, then all the people inside will serve you in forced labor. But if they refuse to make peace and prepare to fight, you must attack the town. When the LORD your God hands it over to you, kill every man in the town. But you may keep for yourselves all the women, children, livestock, and other plunder. You may enjoy the spoils of your enemies that the LORD your God has given you.
Judges 5:30
They must be dividing the spoils they took: there must be a damsel or two for each man, Spoils of dyed cloth as Sisera's spoil, an ornate shawl or two for me in the spoil.
Zechariah 14:1-2
Lo, a day shall come for the Lord when the spoils shall be divided in your midst. And I will gather all the nations against Jerusalem for battle: the city shall be taken, houses plundered, women ravished; half of the city shall go into exile, but the rest of the people shall not be removed from the city.

As I said: your reading is flawed, because you're taking things out of context. Those parts were common at that time, so you should read them for that time. You simply don't seem to understand that, most likely due to a lack of intelligence I thought (but you have said you were quite smart, so that makes it even worse.)


Atheism is simply a "I do not believe your claims" statement and christians felt they had to give a word for the people who were not part of their sect. We do this in every day of our lives. Is it a religion to not believe in communism? Nazism? Do organised anti-dictatorship people trying to seek world domination as well?

[QUOTE=JemyM;37878]
Please. You are acting like a child or someone who blatantly failed social science.

So do you, JennyM, you who are believing that it's common sense to deny the goodness of a relegion of about a billion people on this world


Nevermind. I find it useless to discuss with someone who are better to deny facts than to present them. You are not adding anything to my knowledge more than you waste my time.
You're so full of yourself that you can't take it that someone actually dares to fight your believes. No wonder that you give up so quickly, cause you don't bring any facts in here.

[Bartacus]

Unless you cough up something at all that is actually based on any sort of facts, evidence, proof etc I can only see this as a moot discussion. Im not learning anything from it and you do not seem to have anything of value to present to support your claims.

Neither have you, JennyM, because a research like that is always made from a certain point of view.

[Bartacus]

They are based on closed groups, a hostility to criticism, the promise of the ultimate truth, a black and white worldview, a hostility towards education and scientists, a glorious and charismatic leader etc. When placing extremist groups next to eachother you might be surprised how similar they are to eachother. The solution, as always, is education, free speech, democracy etc, everything that theese closed groups hate.
Funny, the black and white worldview is just how you view upon Christianity is.
BS about the hostility on education and scientists -> A lot of schools are created by monks and a lot of Jezuits( don't know the English term of it) are in fact very good scientists. As I told you the theory of the Big Bang was created by one of them.
Indeed extreme groups are suprisingly similar to each other: militant atheïsts are one of them (not atheïsts as a whole) and they are suprisingly similar to extrem Christian factions.
About the Free speech: How come that it's still unimaginable to say that one denies the camps of WW2? If I take Free speech above all even that has to be able to be spoken out. (I do believe that it happened, so don't go saying that I'm a 'negationist'.) I say that the open view that you claim to have is a hoax and nothing more then another form of obstruction that has to broken trough.

As you already have guessed possibly (if you read my posts very carefully) I'm not a believer of anything. I call myself somewhat like a Christian, but I don't see it as the truth. In my opinion there can be many versions of the truth, as there can be many lies as well. I want you to break that last boundry of faith, JennyM, cause what you're doing now is just a childish revenge on things you once believed in.

[Pladio]

Private schools tends to be more focused/controlled which is an advantage to things like math. You can be both intelligent and logic and still believe as long as you live within a community where belief is socially more accepted than disbelief. Faith/Lack of faith is simply a difference between how much you know and how much you want to learn. However, ask a student of a faith school about their understanding of world history and other cultures and they are usually less aware of what's going on.

The people I know, who are very religious, know more about history than anyone except my high school history teachers. I even think one of them studied history in college, but all of them just read millions of books millions of different subjects.


Muslims = Quran
Jews = Torah
Bahai = Bayan
Christians = The old and new testament = The Bible

The Quran is mostly the Torah, Zabur and another book. But the Torah is the base of the Old Testament.
The Torah is only the Pentateuch. The Jews read the whole Old Testament and then more books have been written over time which have become (almost) 'cannon', such as : the Talmud, Gmara...
Christians have the Old Testament and the New Testament (Gospels...).
So the base of these three religions are the same.
But you're right I made a mistake :p

About the Bahai, I thought they had the Old Testament as base too. Another mistake.

So every child is capable of doing bad things and proper education is a very good way to keep them from doing them. A doctrine that makes you fear education and tell you that everybody outside your group are worshippers of satan or demons is not a good one.

That's true, except I don't know a lot of religious people who think I'm a worshiper of Satan or demons. Most of them know the differences between good and evil. They also know killing isn't good. So, again, is it religion in its self which is bad or their leaders which make people do bad things?

Apostate is a muslim word for someone who left their religion.

Thank you :)

Enough christians consider the bible to be a most exalted rulebook that should be the foundation to our society, a few consider it to be above the law of the country they live in. The Christian Ultra Fundamentalists are a very strong american lobby group in the US that stands behind the bible as literal truth and the law that should control society.


Then the US might relive the European middle ages if they become too powerful. hehe :)
I think every voice should be allowed to speak. Just don't let them get power and it'll be alright.


We in the western world have managed to combine a coctail of liberalism, socialism, capitalism and democracy that is currently working rather well dont you think? Nazi germany was 60 years ago now and every child is indoctrinated to know that nazism is BAD for you. In a recent study 97% of the swedish students claimed that nazism is evil. Most of them could also give ideas of why it happened. School teachers are given special training in how to see and respond to nationalistic behavior among their pupils, dissolving such ideas as quickly as possible. Yes, neonazis do exist, but noone takes them seriously.
Education is very important to learn about the world and to keep bad apples out from the regimes. But we are way behind on recognizing religions as political ideologies.

Now communist dogma is not much different from christian dogma. They do not excuse eachother.

They are based on closed groups, a hostility to criticism, the promise of the ultimate truth, a black and white worldview, a hostility towards education and scientists, a glorious and charismatic leader etc. When placing extremist groups next to eachother you might be surprised how similar they are to eachother. The solution, as always, is education, free speech, democracy etc, everything that theese closed groups hate.

So listen to what you're saying. Religion in itself isn't bad, extremism is. Any form of extremism is bad for the world and doesn't allow for the other side to speak their mind. Religion however, as long as practiced normally, gives hope to people, helps other people live their lives in happiness (and actually reduces the number of divorces :p).

[JemyM]

As I said: your reading is flawed, because you're taking things out of context. Those parts were common at that time, so you should read them for that time. You simply don't seem to understand that, most likely due to a lack of intelligence I thought (but you have said you were quite smart, so that makes it even worse.)

I gave you the opportunity to start adding facts to support your claims, and this is the best you can do?

So do you, JennyM, you who are believing that it's common sense to deny the goodness of a relegion of about a billion people on this world

There are not a billion christian fundamentalists in this world. Outside the US they are quite rare. Religion is already a minority within western europe and they have started to loose their rights. Atheists are also the fastest growing minority in the US. The only minority that do not belong to any group.

You're so full of yourself that you can't take it that someone actually dares to fight your believes. No wonder that you give up so quickly, cause you don't bring any facts in here.

I have posted plenty of facts in this thread, including the correct names of several of the mythologies that inspired the bible, plenty of quotes, statistics etc. All you have shown here so far is your capacity of using denial to avoid to explain facts.

[Myrthos]

I always found the Bible an awesome book. Its possible to read and interpret it too fit whatever belief (or disbelief) you have. They should make laws like that....
This thread just has too many text for me to read all of it, but from what I read I would say that JenyM is the better advocate.
Then again being an atheist, I might just interpret what she says in a manner that better fits my personal beliefs :)

[mytgroo]

I challenge you to live the bible literally in every sense of the word. Not to interpret the bible, but live by its principles. You will find that it is impossible to not interpret the bible on some level if you try to live by what it says literally. It is self-contradictory because religion by its nature is there to show you how to deal with human nature, overcome impossible situations, and deal with tough spiritual and moral quandries. Even those who choose to live by its principles completely like the Amish are forced to interpret its contents to live by its sayings.

In a sense it teaches you faith, a way to deal with contradictory human situations. The bible was written down by people and people hear and interpret whatever they have read in different ways. Even translating the bible into different languages changes its contents. It is like a long line of telephone going back to the original text in aramaic, each time it got copied, it got altered slightly through translation, or human error which is part of what makes it the bible.

[Myrthos]

I challenge you to live the bible literally in every sense of the word. Not to interpret the bible, but live by its principles.
Yeah right, like I will consider doing that. I don't expect a religious person to change his/her beliefs because of anything I say. Just as much as I won't change my beliefs just because of what is written in the bible.

You will find that it is impossible to not interpret the bible on some level if you try to live by what it says literally. It is self-contradictory because religion by its nature is there to show you how to deal with human nature, overcome impossible situations, and deal with tough spiritual and moral quandries.
I think I'll manage those things also without being religious. Just as there are people who do find guidance in religion to accomplish all that. Then again there are of course also people who use their religion to justify about anything.

I've read the bible more than once and I still don't have faith in the existence of God. I've read Lord of the Rings also multiple times and I still don't have mounted enough faith to belief it to be true either. And yes to me the bible is indeed a book like others. And yes, at the same time I do accept that it isn't just a book for others at the same time.
I do have faith, but then in some people, but that has nothing to do with the bible.

[Rendelius]

The bible recounts a couple of historical facts. Archeology proves them. This is something I can agree on. And then my agreement stops, because conclusions are drawn that are simply not valid.

Example: The bible reports about an immense flooding. Science is able to prove at least two instances after the last ice age where these floodings happened: The Black Sea (which wasn't an ocean until after the ice age, when the sea level of the mediterranean sea rose), and the canal of Dover.

Now, the big flooding is reported in other and older texts as well. Here sciences proves these facts for the other texts as well.

BTW, a lot of things found in the bible can be tracked back to older texts, mainly those of the Sumerians. The story of Moses is actually an old tale from the region of today's Irak. It was recorded way earlier there than in the bible.

Now: creation vs. evolution. Evolution doesn't mean that there was no creation. If you accept the findings of evolutionists, you just simply cannot believe that God created the world in the way the bible describes that. At least not word by word. You still can believe that God created the universe and thus everything in it. You can still believe that God created everything. You can still believe in God, and you can still believe that the bible is inspired by God. You just have to stop to believe that the Bible describes creation like a textbook about chemistry describes chemistry.

Religion isn't science. Science isn't religion. When religion demands to be treated as science (but refuses to accept scientific practices), I don't like that - and I don't like it when science refuses to be questioned, which, of course, doesn't happen too often :-)

[dteowner]

I get a bit worried when the stock response to questioning is, "Oh, you're reading it wrong." How does one decide the "right way"? Who's the guy that knows the right way? Jimmy Swaggart? Osama? Perhaps Corwin and Bart? It's all so arbitrary and seems to lend credence to my theory that (100% real, 100% fiction, or somewhere in between) it's all designed to give a select group of people power over the masses.

[Pladio]

It's like art :) Some people see things others do not. Part of them even see different things than the others.

[bjon045]

It is impossible to refute the hand of god in this world. Jessica Alba is my case in point. Science cannot explain where everything came from nor can explain the paradox of eternal time.

Discussion closed. Jessica Alba 1: Science 0.

[Ubereil]

Religion can't prove God. Why should we believe in God when there's a (big IMO) chance that he doesn't even exist? And if we should, WHICH God should we believe in? Christianity? Islam? The Flying Spaghetti Monster (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/6e/Touched_by_His_Noodly_Appendage.jpg/800px-Touched_by_His_No%20odly_Appendage.jpg)? As it is now, all you can do is guess. I choose not to ;).

Übereil

[dteowner]

It's like art :) Some people see things others do not. Part of them even see different things than the others.I don't have time for my art critic rant, but suffice to say I think they have even less "authority" to make judgements than the religious leaders do. Subjectivity would be just fine if it weren't so darn subjective.

[Squeek]

Maybe it's time for a few quotes:

"Our scientific power has outrun our spiritual power. We have guided missles and misguided men." -- Martin Luther King Jr.

"Science has proof without any certainty. Creationists have certainty without any proof." -- Ashley Montague

"Science without religion is lame; religion without science is blind." -- Albert Einstein

[JemyM]

"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it." (Albert Einstein, 1954, The Human Side, edited by Helen Dukas and Banesh Hoffman, Princeton University Press)

[Squeek]

I guess I shouldn't be surprised by your response, JemyM. You're welcome to your point of view. A lot's been said about Einstein and his views on religion and God. Here's (http://www.ctinquiry.org/publications/reflections_volume_1/torrance.htm) a good place to start if you decide you want to find out more.

Some quotes from that link:

In a recent book Max Jammer, Rector Emeritus of Bar Lan University in Jerusalem, a former colleague of Albert Einstein at Princeton, claims that Einstein's understanding of physics and his understanding of religion were profoundly bound together...

Friedrich Dürrenmatt once said, "Einstein used to speak of God so often that I almost looked upon him as a disguised theologian." I do not believe these references to God can be dismissed simply as a façon de parler, for God had a deep, if rather elusive, significance for Einstein which was not unimportant for his life and scientific activity. It indicated a deep-seated way of life and thought: "God" was not a theological mode of thought but rather the expression of a "lived faith."

[Bartacus]

"Science has proof without any certainty. Creationists have certainty without any proof." -- Ashley Montague

I specialy like this one. This describes exactly how a faithfull man can look upon the world, while others (like me) will never have any certainty. I do not know which relegion is correct nor weather there is a god or more then one at all. All I know is that there was a man called Jesus, a man called Mohamed, a man called Sidarta (first Boedha as I recall -> there were many boedha's if I remember correctly. something to do with reïncarnation). What they all did was an inspiration of a whole group of people, but what they actually wanted or meant is unclear. That is because they didn't write the text we read today.


I get a bit worried when the stock response to questioning is, "Oh, you're reading it wrong." How does one decide the "right way"? Who's the guy that knows the right way? Jimmy Swaggart? Osama? Perhaps Corwin and Bart? It's all so arbitrary and seems to lend credence to my theory that (100% real, 100% fiction, or somewhere in between) it's all designed to give a select group of people power over the masses.
Indeed and so I proved it with the Human rights thingie JennyM was so certain about. You can read everything wrong and use it for your own purpose, or you can read it like it was meant to be and make a better world of it.

@Ubereil That's why I'm calling atheïsm a relegion, cause you believe that there is no god. And that's exactly why it can also be called a sect like JennyM likes to do with Christianity. The priest of today is called a psychiatrist (hope I spelled it right) and rationalism is the most distinctive trademark.

[fatBastard()]

You can read everything wrong and use it for your own purpose, or you can read it like it was meant to be and make a better world of it.
(highligthed passage by me)
And then we're back to the original question: Who decides how it is meant to be read/understood?

[Pladio]

Jemy, I think you missed a post of mine. (page 7) I think you were replying to Bart at the time. The one before your last post on page 7.

[Corwin]

I can't prove God exists (or doesn't), else there would be no need for Faith. However, I can KNOW that He exists in many ways. Ever seen 'miraculous' inexplainable (by doctors) healings after prayer? I have!!

[JemyM]

Friedrich Dürrenmatt once said, "Einstein used to speak of God so often that I almost looked upon him as a disguised theologian." I do not believe these references to God can be dismissed simply as a façon de parler, for God had a deep, if rather elusive, significance for Einstein which was not unimportant for his life and scientific activity. It indicated a deep-seated way of life and thought: "God" was not a theological mode of thought but rather the expression of a "lived faith."[/I]

"Oh my GOD! O_O ", "Jeeeesus... :rolleyes: " "Speaking about the devil! :biggrin: "

Such comments is a manner of speech. They are not that different from (and sorry if some of theese do not make sense in english, they are all swedish expressions) "He have gnomes in his attic", "Speaking about the trolls!", "Poor soul...", "There's none in there but the ghosts", "He's a real UFO" etc. Such comments do not state a belief. Many also claims that they have a religion/faith when they talk about a belief in humans or science.

Many within religion believes that only if a few scientists speak up for their case, they are safe. The part with Einstein is just another urban legend within church where most people just take things for granted without the need for questioning. Many scientists and politicians within religious areas use the same language and sometimes they feel forced to claim that they belong to the organisation (religion) when they do not. When celebrities etc started to question religion around here in the 70'ies, it took 1-2 generations and now the rules are pretty much reversed. Suddenly it was ok to not believe and now people dare to speak about it openly while many christians feel they need to hide their faith and not speak openly about it since you will be seen as a nutcase if you talk about god here and there. Nowhere in the world christianity is as hostile to civil liberties and science as it is within the US. Second in line is probably Poland.

[JemyM]

I can't prove God exists (or doesn't), else there would be no need for Faith. However, I can KNOW that He exists in many ways. Ever seen 'miraculous' inexplainable (by doctors) healings after prayer? I have!!

Ever saw trolls? People 200 years ago saw them all the time because they believed they were there. Where are they now?

Our brains are wired to fill gaps. "God" is a such gap. Instead of asking yourself what's going on here, you simply assume that god did it. Doing so you deny yourself to actually learn what happened because you believe you already have the answer, so what if christians die all the time and god never once healed an amputee right?
This line of thinking becomes dangerous when you also fill gaps with "satan", "evil forces", "hell" and "demons".

[JemyM]

It is impossible to refute the hand of god in this world. Jessica Alba is my case in point. Science cannot explain where everything came from nor can explain the paradox of eternal time.

Discussion closed. Jessica Alba 1: Science 0.

While I know you are joking, this is a rather common logic that have been used by many religions to justify their beliefs. I believe it's sad that credit go to an old Israelan volcano god instead of thoose who actually did it; her parents and her own hard work. (Yes, it takes more than just luck to look like that). If you had to pick between religion and science you should probably thank science that invented cosmetics and helped us to find a healthy diet.

[JemyM]

Such a display of arrogant ignorance!!

Thoose who are not used to be questioned and believe that some things are holy/sacred from it, have problems seeing the difference between arrogance and simple questions.

[JemyM]

That's true, except I don't know a lot of religious people who think I'm a worshiper of Satan or demons. Most of them know the differences between good and evil.

You would be surprised. There are recent examples that are so absurd you do not believe they are true. Just ~10 years ago there was a south american city that had a grizzly murder. A son killed his parents, littered the house with satanic symbols and then killed himself. The town assumed it was the work of the devil so they called in priests to teach them how to detect demons and possessed people. The police confiscated all occult books in the library and demanded a list of all people that had borrowed them. Also, hardrock music was blamed. For some time there was a widespread fight where people tried to determine who were good and who were infected by demons, until a Journalist did what the police should have done, he interviewed the boys friends. they told the journalist that he hated his catholic parents and them forcing him to faith school so he had planned to do something like that for a long time as he knew it was the ultimate humiliation to them and their faith. He also hated how his parents invaded his interests (rock music) and he was deep into drugs.

It was not too long ago that a child was wrapped up in sheets and beaten with sticks because he was believed to be possessed by demons. He died. He had an epileptic seizure that is harmless when you know how to deal with it, and doctors is a phonecall away. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3181637.stm

This is kinda what you expect to happen 200 years ago, or maybe in the deep middleeast, but this is America in recent times. Demonism is not a dead idea and it's stronger the more christians there are in a society.

http://www.nisbett.com/child-ent/lion_king.htm

Have a google search on the whole Harry Potter controversy as well. It teaches children "occult magic". The fact that many christians honestly believe in witchcraft and magic should make you worried, giving their history of witchhunts. That Harry Potter is actually about a good person who help his friends, stand up for what's right and fight evil seem to be forgotten.

They also know killing isn't good. So, again, is it religion in its self which is bad or their leaders which make people do bad things?

Ignorance is what makes people support bad people and faith is little more than the virtue of ignorance.

For many the bible is a catalyst for their own ethic standpoints. There is something within the bible for everyone. Unfortunally, religion makes bad people and good people one, meaning that good people sooner defends evil people within religion than they defend good people outside religion. This is fairly obvious when you look at the political agendas like homosexuality. Jesus himself never once mentioned homosexuality, still christians almost universally will tell you that homosexuality is a sin even if they happen to debunk Pauls opinion on everything else. If all christians were as tolerant as they claim Jesus is, they would fight homosexual oppression just like everything else. This is the problem with christian moderates, they do not fight what they believe is right, they fight what christianity say is right and people who do not support their group is expelled.

Then there are thoose who buy the whole message and start to believe the bible is literally true. Theese people grow more and more insane the further they go into this psychosis. Since Jesus basicly tells you that you should mutilate yourself if you feel sexual urge or kill your children if they disbehave, some ultra fundamentalists have done this. People who show theese signs outside religion is locked up in asylums and are treated before they do something bad but "religious tolerance" stops society from helping them.

Then there are thoose who actually made faith into a political weapon. The evangelicals in the US holds a great political power and build mega-churches that holds thousands of people in which they use biblical messages to gain votes on specific topics. Their standpoint on global warming have meant alot to the political discussion within the US and they are powerful enough to force the president. Their followers are called the "flock" for a reason. It's a large cult where people are never asked to think for themselves so they pretty much follow what their leaders tells them to do.

The pope is another political figure. He's probably the one man who contributed the most to the widespread HIV epidemia in Africa which can only be called genocideal stupidity.

Then the US might relive the European middle ages if they become too powerful. hehe :)
I think every voice should be allowed to speak. Just don't let them get power and it'll be alright.

They are already in the president seat. Also the christian revisionism and christian nationalism is widespread in the US. Now it's just a question what that means for everybody else.

So listen to what you're saying. Religion in itself isn't bad, extremism is. Any form of extremism is bad for the world and doesn't allow for the other side to speak their mind. Religion however, as long as practiced normally, gives hope to people, helps other people live their lives in happiness (and actually reduces the number of divorces :p).

I think I have explained the direct opposite above. Moderate religion is a shield for fundamentalist religion. It's the fertile soil for bad seeds to grow, both for christian fundamentalists and secular ideologies who know how to manipulate religious ignorance for their own agendas.

[fatBastard()]

I can't prove God exists (or doesn't), else there would be no need for Faith. However, I can KNOW that He exists in many ways. Ever seen 'miraculous' inexplainable (by doctors) healings after prayer? I have!!
What *I* see when I look around the world is millions of starving people on various continents, child abuse/molestation/pornography, terrorist blowing up just about anything and everyone, good old slave trade for the sweatshops in Asia or for prostitution in the rest of the world, rape, murder, civil war or plain old regular war, the rich taking advantage of the poor and corporations like Monsanto (if ever there was born the Antichrist he would be working on the executive floor in the Monsanto corporation) ... I could go on and on.

What I see is that there simply *CAN'T* be a God with all this going on ... or if there is then he/she/it either don't care what happens down here on Earth and thus can't be bothered to intervene, in which case said "God" doesn't deserve to be praised or believed in or else he/she/it CAN'T intervene which makes "God" not so much omnipotent as just impotent in which case I can't see WHY we should waste any time or faith or such a being. The last scenario is that "God" just WON'T intervene, that life on Earth is a "Test". Well I'm sorry, but such an mean sadistic prick won't get my prayers, belief or faith.

"God works in mysterious ways" ... from where I'm sitting, he just doesn't work at all, period.

[JemyM]

Let me add one thing to what fatBastard() just said... how moral is it to say that pain and suffering is the result of lack of faith/prayers/morals? How moral is it to say that a child with cancer is a sinner? Possessed by demons? The result of her parents sin?

All jesus did was to expell demons. He never really cured anyone. There are good doctors and nurses who spend their entire lives doing their best to ease suffering and cure disesases and help people to live a normal life, not only do christians claim that all their hard work is the result of an ancient volcano god, many of them also fight to stop it.

[Bartacus]

(highligthed passage by me)
And then we're back to the original question: Who decides how it is meant to be read/understood?

The writer offcourse, who else???

And fatBastard, lighten up -> you see millions dying in horrible conditions, but you forget the millions living in relative good circumstances (relative good =! western civ -> we live above the standards)
The way people see 'god' is in what others see as normal things, an example: sunsets. Often a sunset is looked upon as a masterpiece and a sign of god. You can't ever see that when you don't have faith in god. It's very difficult to explain it, but I hope you understand what a faithfull man can see sometimes in those everyday things.

@JennyM The pope is in no way responsible for what happens in Africa. You should know that even when you take a person responsible for a dissease that you understand what they really said -> No sex before or outside the marriage. If one does follow that rule, there would have been way less problems. The problem is that some African 'wizards' (or how they call themselve) have told the people infected by aids could be cured by having sex with virgins.
About the other things -> a large group in the US also reacted against LotR: The Two Towers, because of the name made them remember 9/11. There are a lot of people that overreact and this has nothing to do with relegion. You speak still of all the evidence you brought up so far, while I say it's only evidence of the bad side of human nature and nothing else. You still are filled with those pitty revenge feelings against relegion and therefore you're not counted as an openminded woman as you see yourself.

[Prime Junta]

The ancient Greeks defined two modes of knowing: "mythos" and "logos." The Western world mostly remembers them for "logos" -- knowledge through reason. For them, however, "mythos" was equally valid: their myths weren't just stories, but ways of experiencing and explaining things that go beyond reason.

I'm an agnostic (specifically, when asked "do you believe in God?" my answer has to be "I don't understand the question").

My wife, however, is a practicing Roman Catholic (of Middle Eastern culture). The interesting thing is that her faith isn't what most Westerners think of as faith (as exemplified in this discussion, for example). It's not a matter of accepting a set of proposal as "factually true" the same way that, say, a scientifically literate European would accept the general theory of relativity, biological evolution, or continental drift as "factually true." Rather, it's a matter of belonging to a certain (imagined) community and following a certain number of practices. She's not interested in finding proof for the existence of God, let alone dogma like the Immaculate Conception or the Resurrection. What matters is that she finds it meaningful to light a taper for St. Francis or St. Anthony of Padova when passing by a church or make the sign of the cross when throwing away a piece of stale bread, or occasionally going to mass or taking the Eucharist. They're rituals that have a value for her that is, for want of a better word, spiritual. She doesn't try to explain, systematize, or understand her faith; she experiences and lives it. Nor does she look for "truths" (in the "logos" sense) in Roman Catholic dogma. (In fact, I believe that if she got quizzed by one of the nitpickier types of priest, she'd turn out to be, um, pretty heterodox.)

I believe this is pretty much what the Greeks understood by "mythos." It's not in conflict with "logos" since it deals with things that are beyond "logos" -- meanings, values, and experiences.

"Logos" as exemplified by science and reason is very powerful at helping us understand what things are. However, it's not much good at all if we want to figure out what they *mean.* For that, I believe we could do with a dose of "mythos" -- even us staunchly secular agnostic rationalist types.

And it's precisely in this realm that I believe that religion (or, if you prefer, spirituality) will have to find its role in today's world. The attempt to force the mythological thinking of religion into the realm where logical thinking works better -- whether it's in science, like creationism or "ID", or politics like in religious integrism or other forms of messianic missions -- will, I believe, ultimately fail, simply because logic just plain *works* better in those realms. They deal with concrete, tangible things with concrete, tangible limits that are accessible to reason, after all.

That's why I think this whole religion/science debate is a huge error to start with. The two shouldn't be in conflict at all: "logos" has the power to explain while "mythos" has the power to inject meaning into our existence. We need both, in one form or another, to be complete human beings.

[fatBastard()]

The writer offcourse, who else???
Well, that's a bit of a problem when the book in question is almost 2000 years old. :floating:

And fatBastard, lighten up -> you see millions dying in horrible conditions, but you forget the millions living in relative good circumstances (relative good =! western civ -> we live above the standards)
I'm not forgetting about them. I just can't see how it is possible to justify all the wrongs happening in the world ... but that is just how I feel about. I was never baptized because my parents wanted me to make up my own mind and by the time the rest of my classmates started the preparations for the "confirmation" (sp?) ritual I chose not to participate because even back then I couldn't get my head around to how there could be a God with so much crap happening all around me.

The way people see 'god' is in what others see as normal things, an example: sunsets. Often a sunset is looked upon as a masterpiece and a sign of god. You can't ever see that when you don't have faith in god. It's very difficult to explain it, but I hope you understand what a faithfull man can see sometimes in those everyday things.
I think I do understand what you mean, but to me, the "knowing" that the reason the sun is red during the rising and setting is because of dust and pollution in the air, sort of takes the "magic" out of it. On that note I guess one could argue that "ignorance is bliss" but even though it would be nice to sometimes be able to close my eyes, ears and mind to what goes on in the world and just take everything at face value, it just isn't in my nature to do so.

[JemyM]

Your post is great Junta, however, I have a few problems with it.

1. Why do she feels she need a label when she do not agree with others who have the same label.
Do she feels that she belongs within a community? A family? What would happen if she one day said no. Would they still welcome her as a friend? A family member?

2. Why do you feel that religion offers people a meningful existence?
Ask yourself, what does roman catholicism actually offer your wife in value and what do they ask in return?
Is it more than a claim they cannot prove, in exchange for her time, support and money? Is that the same as giving an individual a "meaning", or is it more like robbing an individual of their "meaning" to create a drone for a greater cause?

[Prime Junta]

Your post is great Junta, however, I have a few problems with it.

1. Why do she feels she need a label when she do not agree with others who have the same label.


Because, to her, agreeing with them is not the point. She agrees about any number of things with any number of people from any number of backgrounds. To her, the point is belonging and participating. The fact that there are many Catholics who would disagree with her violently on a number of points of dogma is beside the point. (As an aside, I would submit that communities, real or imagined, that enforce complete doctrinal conformity are (a) rare, (b) small, and (c) generally very nasty.)


Do she feels that she belongs within a community? A family? What would happen if she one day said no. Would they still welcome her as a friend? A family member?


Most definitely. For her, walking into a church is very much like visiting a friend's home.

Should she leave the Catholic church, I don't think many of her friends would reject her (most of them aren't Catholic anyway) and I'm pretty certain nobody in her family, extended or immediate, would. However, she would cut herself off from an "imagined community" that is, for her, very important. So I rather doubt she will.


2. Why do you feel that religion offers people a meningful existence?


Because I've seen it happen. If my wife is upset or sad, going to Mass, lighting a taper, or taking the Eucharist makes her feel better.


Ask yourself, what does roman catholicism actually offer your wife in value and what do they ask in return?


I don't understand the question.


Is it more than a claim they cannot prove, in exchange for her time, support and money? Is that the same as giving an individual a "meaning", or is it more like robbing an individual of their "meaning" to create a drone for a greater cause?


Yes, I rather think it is more than that. Moreover, I resent your characterizing her as a drone for a greater cause.

In an earlier post, you argued that all religion is bad because moderate believers serve as a breeding ground for fanatical believers, and are less likely to criticize them than non-believers. My question to you would be, why single out religion? You can make exactly the same claim about *any* imagined community with equal validity.

(Note: I use the term "imagined community" in the sociological sense. A "real community" is one where the members of the community know each other. An "imagined community" is one where they don't; instead, they're grouped around a shared set of symbols and/or values. So, for example, active RPGWatch forum participants constitute a real community, while "cRPG fans" constitute an imaginary, if very loose, one. Most of the time, the term is used about things like "nations" or "religions" or "political parties.")

[JemyM]

I will not reply to your entire post, I will just say I appreciate your reply.

Yes, I rather think it is more than that. Moreover, I resent your characterizing her as a drone for a greater cause.

Your wife seem to have a strong self awareness and do not appear to be a brainwashed person.

In an earlier post, you argued that all religion is bad because moderate believers serve as a breeding ground for fanatical believers, and are less likely to criticize them than non-believers. My question to you would be, why single out religion? You can make exactly the same claim about *any* imagined community with equal validity.

While there are many who live in the borderline between religion and the normal world, there are thoose who stress it's core. While there are thoose who deny or hide this core, it includes everything you need to start and control a sect. This makes christianity in it's core an extremist group. The only thing that differs the sane from the unsane is how much the community distance itself to it's own dogma. Extreme groups are different from regular groups in several key points that take a book to explain. I oppose all such groups, however, most secular extremist groups like the mafia or the neonazis are widely known to be bad while religion instead have a shield of a culture who feel that it's unethic to question religion for no other reason than it's religion.
This have allowed this sect to infiltrate the white house. Most sects do not make it that far, and many who belongs to the specific branch that infiltrated the white house are not of the sane kind.

i have a major headache so sorry if that did not make any sense

[Moriendor]

What *I* see when I look around the world is millions of starving people on various continents, child abuse/molestation/pornography, terrorist blowing up just about anything and everyone, good old slave trade for the sweatshops in Asia or for prostitution in the rest of the world, rape, murder, civil war or plain old regular war, the rich taking advantage of the poor and corporations like Monsanto (if ever there was born the Antichrist he would be working on the executive floor in the Monsanto corporation) ... I could go on and on.

What I see is that there simply *CAN'T* be a God with all this going on ... or if there is then he/she/it either don't care what happens down here on Earth and thus can't be bothered to intervene, in which case said "God" doesn't deserve to be praised or believed in or else he/she/it CAN'T intervene which makes "God" not so much omnipotent as just impotent in which case I can't see WHY we should waste any time or faith or such a being. The last scenario is that "God" just WON'T intervene, that life on Earth is a "Test". Well I'm sorry, but such an mean sadistic prick won't get my prayers, belief or faith.

"God works in mysterious ways" ... from where I'm sitting, he just doesn't work at all, period.

I agree with you 100%. At least as far as the Christian God is concerned. I don't know if there is another God but the so called "almighty" Christian God can not possibly exist unless he is indeed a mean, perverted, sadistic prick.

In addition to what you said (billions living in poverty, child mortality, people dying from violent acts left, right and center etc etc etc)... and leaving older historical atrocities aside, how can an almighty God let things happen like WW I+II, Nazi concentration camps, ... or from a lot more recent history the massacre of Srebrenica, the genocide in Ruanda and Congo or the school hostage massacre of Beslan... the list goes on and on and on.
If the Christian God does indeed exist as proclaimed by the church and if he is truly almight then I want nothing to do with him as long as he sits idly by while such horrible things happen every day.

Which is why I don't believe that he (the almighty Christian God) exists. The church is and always has been driving its own agenda. Depite the separation of clergy and secular powers in our Western world, the church remains a political entity at its core. The entire Catholic catechism is nothing but a political manifest that is very loosely based on what the charismatic, political figure Jesus Christ of Nazareth claimed to be messages from God. That's all there is to it in my opinion. Christianity is nothing else but the continuation of a lone man's 2000 year old agenda.

Oh well, I guess we'll all find out whether there is a Christian God or not when we die. Or -if he doesn't exist- maybe we won't if our awareness and our memory is wiped and fading into blackness the moment we die. Either way is fine with me. You won't have the chance or time to be disappointed about there being no afterlife if your awareness and memory is wiped out in the very instant of death.

[Prime Junta]

I will not reply to your entire post, I will just say I appreciate your reply.

Your wife seem to have a strong self awareness and do not appear to be a brainwashed person.

Certainly.

You know what, though? I've met a quite a few "brainwashed persons" -- or fanatics, or what have you -- over the years. Not all of them were religious. I've known die-hard Communists, I've talked to the occasional Nazi, several utterly convinced Objectivists, as well as your usual assortment of fundamentalist Christians, hard-line Muslims, Scientologists, and Hare Krishnas. I've formed a theory.

Fanaticism is a character trait. It is brought out by fear.

Meaning, a certain number of people will gravitate towards any system of beliefs that will give them absolute certainty and a sense of righteousness. Some people will do this regardless of circumstances; others will only do it if confronted with an existential fear.

They may exercise a certain amount of discretion in choosing the system, and they may even convert between systems, but the end result is the same -- they end up as fanatics. Whether they end up as rabid Islamists, hard-line Zionists, thought-police Stalinists, Bible-thumping Biblical Literalists, mantra-chanting Hare Krishnas, glassy-eyed Scienos, or clench-jawed Objectivists depends more or less on what happens to be available.

So even if you could get rid of religion, you wouldn't do a damn thing about fanaticism; you'd just get a different flavor of fanatic.

More to the point: I believe that attacking religion per se is a very bad idea in itself. Why? First, because it's wrong: it's an attempt to deprive many people of something that's genuinely meaningful and valuable to them. Second, because it's counterproductive: it'll just drive wedges and build walls between people who could/should/would cooperate and see eye to eye on any number of important practical issues (not to mention pushing people hovering on the edge of fanaticism over, simply because they feel threatened). And third, because it's very unlikely to work. Lots of things have been tried and they've met with, at best, limited success.

Getting people of different religions, or no religion at all, to work together on e.g. social/political issues may not seem easy either, but at least there are precedents of it working reasonably or even very well. Hell, even in everybody's favorite region of the world today -- the Middle East -- there are plenty of examples of it working.

Many years ago, I was active on the Usenet group alt.atheism. I followed quite closely the "deconversion" of a hard-line fundamentalist Southern Baptist. After a period of anger, depression, searching, and confusion, he ended up as an equally militant crusader for atheism. The trouble was that he would be equally uncritical about anything anyone ever wrote in defense of atheism or to attack religion as he formerly was about anything anyone ever wrote as a Christian apologetic. For example, he could quote an early 19th century pamphlet as an authoritative source on the evolution of Christianity (something we know a lot more about now than we did then).


While there are many who live in the borderline between religion and the normal world, there are thoose who stress it's core. This core includes demonising some people for who they are, then everybody who disagree with it. Then it ask you to snap ties to reality, attack knowledge, ask you to avoid specific information. Then you are asked to change the way you live your life and to avoid people who try to leave.


I believe many religious people would strongly disagree with you about your characterization of the "core" of religion. For many or even most, it's about experiencing and belonging, not judging, excluding, or demonising. In fact, what you're describing is the behavior of a fanatic of any flavor -- theistic, atheistic, or other. It's no more characteristic of religion than, say, the Bolshevik Party is of Platonic idealism.


This makes religion as it's core is an extremist group. The entire sect design is within the bible, so it's only a question how much your community distance itself to it's own religion. Extreme groups are different from regular groups in several key points that take a book to explain. I oppose all such sects, however, most secular extremist groups like the mafia or the neonazis are widely known to be bad while religion instead have a shield of a culture who feel that it's unethic to question belief.

The Mafia or neo-Nazis aren't very well known for criticizing their own either: it's the non-Mafia and non-neo-Nazis who do the criticizing. Exactly the same way that different religious groups "criticize" each other's fanatics (and, as you say, rarely their own).

Summa summarum, I think you're barking up the wrong tree. Religion isn't the problem; fanaticism is -- and fanaticism doesn't need religion to grow on. Fanaticism is based on a character trait that's activated by fear. To combat fanaticism, we should combat fear. Attacking religion as such is not only wrong; it only makes things worse by contributing to the atmosphere of fear an exclusion that pushes fanatical personality types into fanaticism.

[magerette]

Excellent post, Prime Junta.

And I can't refrain from saying this and hopefully will not offend anyone but as a woman I would like to make it clear:

JEMYM= JEMY(MALE NICKNAME FOR JAMES) IS NOT A WOMAN!!!

Thank you. :)

[JemyM]

Christian God can not possibly exist unless he is indeed a mean, perverted, sadistic prick.

“The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.” - Richard Dawkins

When you read the Old Testament, the christian Jehova actually fits that description and every word of it. Christians who are confronted with this "old god" usually tells you that Jesus did away with all that and now god is suddenly a much better person. Jesus is actually a much better character than Jehova. Jesus do not use as much brute intimidation to make his followers fear him, he just plays simple mindtricks to make people forget the world and everything else to follow him. Then you have Paul, who is a fundamentalist nutcase who invented the whole religion. Even in our own time with religious freedom and all that, Paul would probably be sent to an asylum.

[Moriendor]

“The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.” - Richard Dawkins

If this Old Testament God exists then bring it on. If he doesn't want me in heaven -fine- then I shall side with the anti-Christ and rule the galaxy as father and son with an iron fist (ummm... OK, must watch less Star Wars movies :biggrin: ).

Then you have Paul, who is a fundamentalist nutcase who invented the whole religion. Even in our own time with religious freedom and all that, Paul would probably be sent to an asylum.

Yep, that's probably quite accurate though -like Jesus- he must have been a very charismatic, natural leader type of person more so than a "nutcase" because it must have taken a very special person to get such a monumental movement as the Christian church going. He must have been quite gifted at convincing people of his beliefs and at making them do what he wanted them to do.

[Prime Junta]

“The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.” - Richard Dawkins

When you read the Old Testament, the christian Jehova actually fits that description and every word of it. Christians who are confronted with this "old god" usually tells you that Jesus did away with all that and now god is suddenly a much better person. Jesus is actually a much better character than Jehova. Jesus do not use as much brute intimidation to make his followers fear him, he just plays simple mindtricks to make people forget the world and everything else to follow him. Then you have Paul, who is a fundamentalist nutcase who invented the whole religion. Even in our own time with religious freedom and all that, Paul would probably be sent to an asylum.

Um, JemyM -- I think you could do with a bit of reading theology and the history of Christianity before making statements like that.

(1) The Christian God is not called Jehova, except by a number of fairly small sects. Jehova is a derivation from the Hebrew YHWH, which means "I am what I am." (Like Popeye, y'know.) The Old Testament God is a conflation of two deities, a Hebrew tribal war god and a Canaanite agricultural/fertility god. YHWH/Yahweh/Jehovah is used mostly about the former, while the latter remains as an element in names as "El" (e.g. Samuel, Gabriel, Michael).

(2) The Pauline hypothesis for the origin of Christianity has been, mostly, discredited. In reality, Christianity is an amalgam of a great many influences; St. Paul certainly was one of them, but nowhere nearly important enough to qualify as "inventor." (Other than Jesus of Nazareth, IMO if anyone deserves that title it would have to be Constantine.)

(3) The Christian view of God is far more complex than the "bearded guy sitting on a cloud" thing you apparently have in mind. The concept of the Trinity is fascinating in and of itself, in the way it smashes head-on the categories we try to conceptualize stuff with. If you're interested, I'd suggest looking up St. John of the Cross or Pseudo-Dionysios the Areopagite, for example.

(4) You seem a bit quick to dismiss the pretty fundamental difference between Christianity and Judaism introduced by Jesus of Nazareth with regards to the way the Scriptures are read. For Jews, the Talmud was and remains primarily a prescriptive text: it describes what, exactly, you have to do in order to be a good Jew, much like the Qur'an for Muslims, or the Declaration of Human Rights for followers of Enlightenment philosophy. Christianity approaches the Bible in a fundamentally different way -- or, rather, a great variety of fundamentally different ways. We have Biblical literalism, which approaches it like a combined text of natural philosophy and divine law (from which we get idiocies like creationism), we have Higher Criticism, which treats it like a historical source, we have any of a number of allegorical readings, and so on.

Again, JemyM, you're quite welcome to your views, but they would carry more weight if you understood a bit better what you're talking about. As far as I can tell, your reading appears to have been a bit one-sided -- using Richard Dawkins as a source for understanding Christianity is about as useful as using Mein Kampf to understand Judaism. I.e., not very.

[JemyM]

Certainly.

You know what, though? I've met a quite a few "brainwashed persons" -- or fanatics, or what have you -- over the years. Not all of them were religious. I've known die-hard Communists, I've talked to the occasional Nazi, several utterly convinced Objectivists, as well as your usual assortment of fundamentalist Christians, hard-line Muslims, Scientologists, and Hare Krishnas. I've formed a theory.

Fanaticism is a character trait. It is brought out by fear.

Meaning, a certain number of people will gravitate towards any system of beliefs that will give them absolute certainty and a sense of righteousness. Some people will do this regardless of circumstances; others will only do it if confronted with an existential fear.

They may exercise a certain amount of discretion in choosing the system, and they may even convert between systems, but the end result is the same -- they end up as fanatics. Whether they end up as rabid Islamists, hard-line Zionists, thought-police Stalinists, Bible-thumping Biblical Literalists, mantra-chanting Hare Krishnas, glassy-eyed Scienos, or clench-jawed Objectivists depends more or less on what happens to be available.

So even if you could get rid of religion, you wouldn't do a damn thing about fanaticism; you'd just get a different flavor of fanatic.

1. The bible teaches fear.
2. The other groups do not hold the president seat.
3. The other groups are not accepted by modern education/civilization/culture.
4. The bible teaches you to avoid the learned, attack science and education, which are the things our society relies on to make people less scared of the unknown.

More to the point: I believe that attacking religion per se is a very bad idea in itself. Why? First, because it's wrong: it's an attempt to deprive many people of something that's genuinely meaningful and valuable to them.

This is a very dangerous path you are taking since you call it wrong to question an ideology which contains the command to kill other human beings, no matter how you to ignore thoose passages, they are there, and the fact that there are so many who would like for thoose passages to take effect is enough to reconsider if it's worth being nice just because it gives some people meaning. You do not need to be disrespectful at all to your elders, you only need to introduce new information to the public school system and the rest fix itself within 1-2 generations. Here you actually find Genesis in "Myths" in litterature class, and Noa is compared with Gilgamesh to show where Noa came from. No disrespect at all, just simple info, even if it's ofcourse heavily corrosive to faith.

Second, because it's counterproductive: it'll just drive wedges and build walls between people who could/should/would cooperate and see eye to eye on any number of important practical issues (not to mention pushing people hovering on the edge of fanaticism over, simply because they feel threatened).

First commandment ruins this job. There are only two thing that will bring them together:
1. Abandon their religions.
2. Total annihilation/assimilation of everyone else.

And third, because it's very unlikely to work. Lots of things have been tried and they've met with, at best, limited success.

30 years ago the last law against questioning god dissappeared from sweden. Now we have 15% believers left and they live within closed circles. Actually, most of them belongs to the swedish church which have basicly officially ignored parts of the bible and as a priest you will be fired if you support thoose passages. You do not need to say "I am an atheist" here anymore either, it's understood and commonly assumed that you are. If you announce "I am a christian" you might get some respect from some, others will see you as a bit odd. If you start to speak openly about god though, you will pretty much be seen as a nutcase.

It's pretty much the same all over western europe now. It's a cultural change, as soon as people start to question religion in the open, it falls, since it have nothing to stand upon except maybe a cultural heritage (well, unless religions take up violence again).

Getting people of different religions, or no religion at all, to work together on e.g. social/political issues may not seem easy either, but at least there are precedents of it working reasonably or even very well. Hell, even in everybody's favorite region of the world today -- the Middle East -- there are plenty of examples of it working.

I support the apostates. I believe they need all help they can get now because people respect muslims much faster than they are eager to protect apostates. They live with deaththreats and noone cares.

Many years ago, I was active on the Usenet group alt.atheism. I followed quite closely the "deconversion" of a hard-line fundamentalist Southern Baptist. After a period of anger, depression, searching, and confusion, he ended up as an equally militant crusader for atheism. The trouble was that he would be equally uncritical about anything anyone ever wrote in defense of atheism or to attack religion as he formerly was about anything anyone ever wrote as a Christian apologetic. For example, he could quote an early 19th century pamphlet as an authoritative source on the evolution of Christianity (something we know a lot more about now than we did then).

Scepticism is something you learn in higher education. It's unfortunally not something you learn in lower grades.

I believe many religious people would strongly disagree with you about your characterization of the "core" of religion. For many or even most, it's about experiencing and belonging, not judging, excluding, or demonising. In fact, what you're describing is the behavior of a fanatic of any flavor -- theistic, atheistic, or other. It's no more characteristic of religion than, say, the Bolshevik Party is of Platonic idealism.

The bible Junta, the bible. I havnt seen a single christian church throwing it out yet.

The Mafia or neo-Nazis aren't very well known for criticizing their own either: it's the non-Mafia and non-neo-Nazis who do the criticizing. Exactly the same way that different religious groups "criticize" each other's fanatics (and, as you say, rarely their own).

Summa summarum, I think you're barking up the wrong tree. Religion isn't the problem; fanaticism is -- and fanaticism doesn't need religion to grow on. Fanaticism is based on a character trait that's activated by fear. To combat fanaticism, we should combat fear. Attacking religion as such is not only wrong; it only makes things worse by contributing to the atmosphere of fear an exclusion that pushes fanatical personality types into fanaticism.

See previous comments.

[Squeek]

On second thought, I've decided to opt out of this conversation. Sorry.

[Prime Junta]

1. The bible teaches fear.

Only fear?


2. The other groups do not hold the president seat.


In which country and which period? There are plenty of non-Christian, even atheist presidents and other political leaders all over the world and all over time. I for one would pick, say, Bill Clinton over Josif Stalin, to name one Christian and one atheistic leader.

Once more, you're barking up the wrong tree: religion isn't the problem; fanaticism is. I would not want a fanatic for a president, whereas I don't give a damn about their religion, or lack thereof.


3. The other groups are not accepted by modern education/civilization/culture.


Now who's being exclusionary and demonizing?


4. The bible teaches you to avoid the learned, attack science and education, which are the things our society relies on to make people less scared of the unknown.


Other than that (and fear), is that all it teaches? If so, how do you explain the pretty large number of people, both contemporary and past, who were scientists and/or educators and believers at the same time?


This is a very dangerous path you are taking since you call it wrong to question an ideology which contains the command to kill other human beings, no matter how you to ignore thoose passages, they are there, and the fact that there are so many who would like for thoose passages to take effect is enough to reconsider if it's worth being nice just because it gives some people meaning. You do not need to be disrespectful at all to your elders, you only need to introduce new information to the public school system and the rest fix itself within 1-2 generations. Here you actually find Genesis in "Myths" in litterature class, and Noa is compared with Gilgamesh to show where Noa came from. No disrespect at all, just simple info, even if it's ofcourse heavily corrosive to faith.


JemyM, please re-read my first post in your thread. You're arguing with someone, but whoever it is, it isn't me. For one thing, I'm very much in favor of a completely secularized educational system -- but one that includes courses in comparative religion. In today's globalized world, we simply *need* to know what world religions are about, no matter which one of them, or none, we personally belong to. Nor am I against criticizing ideologies that kill in the name of faith; quite the contrary.

However, I *am* against tarring everyone with the same brush -- which is what you're doing.

Second, your belief that religion will go away in a generation or two simply by changing the school curriculum is pretty poorly supported by experience. The Communist experiment lasted for over two generations, and did just that (not to mention doing all kinds of other stuff to excise religion from the public sphere). Yet, the minute the Party fell, up came the old religions, often stronger than ever. Why? Because, JemyM, as I said in my first post that you appear to ignore, for many/most people, religion isn't about "believing" -- it's about "belonging" and "experiencing."

Finally, re the secularization of (North-)Western Europe: we're very much the exceptions on a global scale. (Us and Iran, that is: it appears the mullahs there have managed what the Shah never did, drive people away from Islam.) North-Western Europe is a highly unusual place globally anyway: it would be extremely rash to draw any far-reaching conclusions about trends here. (Not to mention that it's only a chicken's step away from another type of messianism with which Western Europe has plenty of experience: the mission of bringing our enlightened culture to the benighted masses populating the rest of the planet.)

What's more, the picture doesn't appear to be as rosy (from an atheist POV) as you describe: I looked up the figures:

* Over 75% of Swedes belong to the Swedish Lutheran church. (What did I say about "belonging" again?)
* 23% of Swedes agree with the statement "I do not believe there is any God, spirit, or life force"
* 23% of Swedes agree with the statement "I believe there is a God"
* 53% of Swedes agree with "I believe there is some kind of spirit or life force."

IOW, you're not describing a triumphant march of secular rationalism; what you're seeing is an erosion of traditional faith and a gain of a variety of other, mostly irrational, beliefs and practices. Crystals, horoscopes, and football, for example.

(Oh, and -- I very much support the Muslim apostates you mentioned... but Euro-Islamic relations are a whole another can of worms that I don't think needs to be opened right now.)

[JemyM]

Um, JemyM -- I think you could do with a bit of reading theology and the history of Christianity before making statements like that. (1) The Christian God is not called Jehova, except by a number of fairly small sects. Jehova is a derivation from the Hebrew YHWH, which means "I am what I am." (Like Popeye, y'know.) The Old Testament God is a conflation of two deities, a Hebrew tribal war god and a Canaanite agricultural/fertility god. YHWH/Yahweh/Jehovah is used mostly about the former, while the latter remains as an element in names as "El" (e.g. Samuel, Gabriel, Michael).

Jehova is the most known name so i found it easier to use that name than El or simply "god". He's a pagan god, so his worship and role was different in different regions.

Within Ugarit, the greatest god was El, or Elohim. He's an old man with a beard who lives on the mountain lel (do not confuse that part with the whole "god on a cloud with long beard" myth). He's wise, strong and powerful but also calm and friendly. He bless and forgive, suffer with thoose who suffer and is happy who thoose who is happy. This is the god who later pops up in the bible known as El.

El have a wife. And that's where things start to get fun. El's wife is called Ashera. She had 70 kids (compare with Noa who got 70 kids). A second name that have been found for Ashera is Sinai which means "the snake godess". She's also known by the name Chawat, which in hebrew becomes Hawat, which in english means Eve.

Then you have the fertility god Baal who is the god of fertility, storms and thunder. Baal is the most worshiped god in canaan. Baal is a title (means Lord) and he was known by many names. Baal is in battle with the evil god Jam or Jav, who is Els son. Jav is the god of chaos, death, sea and rivers. His name is spelled JV or JHVH. JHVH have been found in many areas. We have found him in Syria up north down to Sinai and as far as Elfantine in Egypt. He was even used on coins in persia.

But enough about ugarit.

(2) The Pauline hypothesis for the origin of Christianity has been, mostly, discredited. In reality, Christianity is an amalgam of a great many influences; St. Paul certainly was one of them, but nowhere nearly important enough to qualify as "inventor." (Other than Jesus of Nazareth, IMO if anyone deserves that title it would have to be Constantine.)

Constantine gathered the sects to become orthodox christianity but he did not invent the myth.

(3) The Christian view of God is far more complex than the "bearded guy sitting on a cloud" thing you apparently have in mind. The concept of the Trinity is fascinating in and of itself, in the way it smashes head-on the categories we try to conceptualize stuff with. If you're interested, I'd suggest looking up St. John of the Cross or Pseudo-Dionysios the Areopagite, for example.

See the bottom.

(4) You seem a bit quick to dismiss the pretty fundamental difference between Christianity and Judaism introduced by Jesus of Nazareth with regards to the way the Scriptures are read. For Jews, the Talmud was and remains primarily a prescriptive text: it describes what, exactly, you have to do in order to be a good Jew, much like the Qur'an for Muslims, or the Declaration of Human Rights for followers of Enlightenment philosophy. Christianity approaches the Bible in a fundamentally different way -- or, rather, a great variety of fundamentally different ways. We have Biblical literalism, which approaches it like a combined text of natural philosophy and divine law (from which we get idiocies like creationism), we have Higher Criticism, which treats it like a historical source, we have any of a number of allegorical readings, and so on.

The only thing important to me regarding Judaism is that they have the same origin as Christianity. Beyond that point I have no interest in Judaism as a religion. When it comes to the christian approach, the bible have no disclaimer sticker on it's back and it's still unedited given out to new people with the claims that it's the word of god, the word of good, the foundation of our society, the base of our education system, the base of our morals and ethic behavior etc etc, all of which is not true and far from it.

Again, JemyM, you're quite welcome to your views, but they would carry more weight if you understood a bit better what you're talking about. As far as I can tell, your reading appears to have been a bit one-sided -- using Richard Dawkins as a source for understanding Christianity is about as useful as using Mein Kampf to understand Judaism. I.e., not very.

I do not know why you after reading my past posts in this thread would get the idea that I believe the "bearded guy sitting on a cloud" tale, why I would not understand the complexity of the trinity or that my only source of information is Richard Dawkins. I were a christian for about 20-25 years (I do not know exactly when I became agnostic) who used an excess amount of study before I snapped and finally confessed that this just could not be true. It's quite alot to go into because first you have the ancient civilizations and comparative religion. Then you have the old testament. Then you have the new testament. Then you have the history of christianity for 2000 years. Yes, I have read the whole trinity concept. I have read about the different sects who gave birth to the trinity concept, how it came to be, different interpretions of it and finally why it's a huge controversy if Jesus is divine or not and if he's god or not.

[Prime Junta]

I apologize for misunderstanding you. You clearly know a quite a lot about Christianity and its history. Thanks also for the autobiographical note: being a former Christian goes a long way towards explaining your antipathy towards it, especially if you grew up in a very closed-minded environment.

Just beware lest you slip into a similar fanaticism in your new set of beliefs. .

[Bartacus]

Tnaks PJ for doing a far better job sharing a similar point of view a my own. There isn't anyone around here where I could agree more too in this discussion.(and another ;) ) I wanted to show JM what it was that she just couldn't see, but I failed at that.

[Pladio]

Ioud = J , Hey = H, Vav = V, Hey = H is seen as just one of the many names god has in the Old Testament, which include: El, Elohim, Hamakom (or Makom), Ruach Hakodesh (Holy Spirit) and many others. This is according to the Jewish beliefs. Christianity then changed it so there becomes a Holy Trinity. Islam restores it to all of them meaning God, I believe.

Ba'al and Ashura are referred to in the Old Testament as pagan gods, which the Israelites start believing in when they conquer Canaan, then God punishes them. They come back to god, god punishes them...

Hebrew for Eve isn't Havat, it's Chava, by ch I mean the letter Chet and there is no letter in English which is pronounced the same way.


You would be surprised. There are recent examples that are so absurd you do not believe they are true. Just ~10 years ago there was a south american city that had a grizzly murder. A son killed his parents, littered the house with satanic symbols and then killed himself. The town assumed it was the work of the devil so they called in priests to teach them how to detect demons and possessed people. The police confiscated all occult books in the library and demanded a list of all people that had borrowed them. Also, hardrock music was blamed. For some time there was a widespread fight where people tried to determine who were good and who were infected by demons, until a Journalist did what the police should have done, he interviewed the boys friends. they told the journalist that he hated his catholic parents and them forcing him to faith school so he had planned to do something like that for a long time as he knew it was the ultimate humiliation to them and their faith. He also hated how his parents invaded his interests (rock music) and he was deep into drugs.


Yes, South America is one of the most fanatic christian movement in the world. We're talking about Europe here.
Here in Belgium the Christian party just won the elections. It doesn't mean the whole country is going to take up arms against rock'n'roll now. It just means they're going to try and help restore faith to Belgium. Apart from that, they'll do what's good for the country (and of course for their pockets, like any other good politician). They'll attract foreign investors and companies, they'll try and find ways to create more jobs. But they won't start a crusade to the Holy Land again.
This again shows it's not religion which is bad, but the more extremist parts of it. The second biggest party in Flanders is the Vlaams Belang (formerly, the Vlaams Blok). They're from the Extreme Right, if they ever get able to get a majority then they will try do their best to help the country in the way they think is best. They're not Catholic though, they are a nationalistic movement. Except that since they are extremists as well, they will probably send out all new(er) immigrants from Belgium to create jobs for the Belgians, instead of just educating Belgians more and/or better.
It's just extremism and fanaticism which is bad, not religion.
I understand that it's only a religion that managed to get to the white house, but 60 years ago it wasn't.


They are already in the president seat. Also the christian revisionism and christian nationalism is widespread in the US. Now it's just a question what that means for everybody else.

We've seen what it means. Bush sent young children to fight a war for god. He failed and now the evangelicals and such will lose these elections to the Democrats who will restore the White House to its stagnant state as it was before 9/11.

I think I have explained the direct opposite above. Moderate religion is a shield for fundamentalist religion. It's the fertile soil for bad seeds to grow, both for christian fundamentalists and secular ideologies who know how to manipulate religious ignorance for their own agendas.

This can be said about almost any idea. If two hundred of the best scientists in the world all get broadcast on CNN, Fox, Al Jazeera, France 2, RTL-TVI, ZDF,....
They all say the same thing that the world is facing an imminent threat from an possible explosion in one the US Nuclear facilities and that the only option for the world is to oppose nuclear power everywhere and shut every nuclear plant down . Then you can be sure they'll attract millions of followers, just because they are the best in their field. This is if scientists decide to manipulate the ignorance of the average Joe who has no idea how nuclear power works.

Yes, it probably won't happen, but it could.
A more realistic example would be how big corporations manage to sell their useless products to people. How many kinds of Monopoly do people need ? There's the Monopoly : Accountant , Monopoly : Soccer , M : Future, M : Past...
And they manage to sell all of them and you know why ? Because all the people are dumb (myself included; I didn't buy all those Monopolies though :p ) They will listen to anything and they will obey, intentionally or not, they will. It doesn't matter if it nationalistic extremism, environmental extremism (people chaining themselves to trees), or religion extremism. It's all the same. Smart people telling less smart people what to do and what to believe in.

While there are many who live in the borderline between religion and the normal world, there are thoose who stress it's core. While there are thoose who deny or hide this core, it includes everything you need to start and control a sect. This makes christianity in it's core an extremist group. The only thing that differs the sane from the unsane is how much the community distance itself to it's own dogma. Extreme groups are different from regular groups in several key points that take a book to explain. I oppose all such groups, however, most secular extremist groups like the mafia or the neonazis are widely known to be bad while religion instead have a shield of a culture who feel that it's unethic to question religion for no other reason than it's religion.
This have allowed this sect to infiltrate the white house. Most sects do not make it that far, and many who belongs to the specific branch that infiltrated the white house are not of the sane kind.

You're right about this except for the criminals not having a lot of power.


On a sidenote: Bart, it's Jemy and he's not a woman as far as I know.

[Bartacus]

I call him a 'she', because of a much earlier post (one of 'her' first statements about women within Christianity). I have no problem going on and on in a 'discussion' and making myself look like an ass. Hey, I have the perfect avatar to do that, don't you think :lol:

[Cleric]

Yup. I'm definately confining myself to watching this one from the sidelines!

[JemyM]

Only fear?

Yes, fear.
The old testament is a death cult in which you get killed for the slightest offense.
The new testament is an apocalyptic cult that say that the world will end and you will burn in hell for eternity if you do not accept Jesus as your leader or again do the slightest offense.

Have you any idea what that philosophy means for a child regardless about the teachings of "love"? If you really wish to mess a child up, tell them that there is an invisible man that reads their thoughts and that they will burn in fire for all eternity if they are the wrong ones. Tell them that their sexual urge when they get 12, is the call of satan and demonic forces. Tell them that evil is an entity and it infects thoose who break the laws.

In which country and which period? There are plenty of non-Christian, even atheist presidents and other political leaders all over the world and all over time.

G.W.B. We also had a polish politician that in the European Union advocated creation science in european schools. If he advocated racial biology there would have been a gigantic scandal and he would have been thrown out and poland shamed. Now it's just christians who many respect even when they try to spread lies in school, so there was no noise about it whatsoever.

I for one would pick, say, Bill Clinton over Josif Stalin, to name one Christian and one atheistic leader.

Would you call Benito Mussolini an "anti-anarch" leader?
If you disagree with anarchy, would you see yourself voicing the same ideas as him?

You are not part of something because you are not part of something.

Specifically pointing out a communist dictator as "atheist" is misguiding. It's the kind of de-enlightenment that is called christian revisionism and it's seriously rampart in some areas.

It's also insulting. The majority of the european politicians are atheists. That does not mean europe supports communism.

Other than that (and fear), is that all it teaches? If so, how do you explain the pretty large number of people, both contemporary and past, who were scientists and/or educators and believers at the same time?

Thoose do not mix well so they are rare.

JemyM, please re-read my first post in your thread. You're arguing with someone, but whoever it is, it isn't me. For one thing, I'm very much in favor of a completely secularized educational system -- but one that includes courses in comparative religion. In today's globalized world, we simply *need* to know what world religions are about, no matter which one of them, or none, we personally belong to. Nor am I against criticizing ideologies that kill in the name of faith; quite the contrary.

However, I *am* against tarring everyone with the same brush -- which is what you're doing.

I object the dogma, not it's victims. I support freedom and free speech, including the right to object the dogma as well as the respect it have been given. Until the dogma is removed or fit with a warning sticker that it's content is false, and that religion take politic interest, I feel the need to continue to spread information about it. This so my children may still have the chance to live up in a safe and free society.

Second, your belief that religion will go away in a generation or two simply by changing the school curriculum is pretty poorly supported by experience. The Communist experiment lasted for over two generations, and did just that (not to mention doing all kinds of other stuff to excise religion from the public sphere). Yet, the minute the Party fell, up came the old religions, often stronger than ever.

Our world is connected in a very different way today. I sit here and discuss religion with you even if I never met you, and we can exchange information and opinions. I can send you links with more information, you can send me pictures or even a video. This new world makes cultural phenomenons travel much faster than before and opinions spread faster but are now always met with their counterparts who have a chance to reply on the same page. We can be made aware of things now that previously we never would because noone bothered to bring home books or travel to other countries to spread information. This also means that thoose who have something to hide have a problem, because many things gets exposed on the internet and travel very quickly. The internet helped me to seek out many things I always wondered about but never could find good info on. Without internet I would only be able to access the local library and I would be forced to trust national television and my school 100%.

Brute intimidation do not work against beliefs, it never did. Beliefs are changed through knowledge which eventually gets people to change culture. That's exactly what happened throughout Europe.

Why? Because, JemyM, as I said in my first post that you appear to ignore, for many/most people, religion isn't about "believing" -- it's about "belonging" and "experiencing."

All three fits in. It's a sect afterall. When it's foundation turns out to be false however, it's no longer that interesting and when people start to take political action in it's name people begin to voice their concerns.

Finally, re the secularization of (North-)Western Europe: we're very much the exceptions on a global scale. (Us and Iran, that is: it appears the mullahs there have managed what the Shah never did, drive people away from Islam.) North-Western Europe is a highly unusual place globally anyway: it would be extremely rash to draw any far-reaching conclusions about trends here. (Not to mention that it's only a chicken's step away from another type of messianism with which Western Europe has plenty of experience: the mission of bringing our enlightened culture to the benighted masses populating the rest of the planet.)

What's more, the picture doesn't appear to be as rosy (from an atheist POV) as you describe: I looked up the figures:

* Over 75% of Swedes belong to the Swedish Lutheran church. (What did I say about "belonging" again?)
* 23% of Swedes agree with the statement "I do not believe there is any God, spirit, or life force"
* 23% of Swedes agree with the statement "I believe there is a God"
* 53% of Swedes agree with "I believe there is some kind of spirit or life force."

http://www.adherents.com/largecom/com_atheist.html

The numbers you shown above are misguiding. You are a member of church if you were baptized. Many swedes thus belongs to the church without ever setting their foot there and to "leave" you need to write a written letter to somewhere. I am personally a member there because I do not know the right adress to where to send that letter. There are some lobbying to change the right for parents to assign a lifetime membership to something they never agreed to.

IOW, you're not describing a triumphant march of secular rationalism; what you're seeing is an erosion of traditional faith and a gain of a variety of other, mostly irrational, beliefs and practices. Crystals, horoscopes, and football, for example.

There is a great difference between spiritualism and religion. I find the first to be acceptable since every child are born without memories and beliefs in wierd stuff usually go away after their teenage years, it's only bad if such spiritualism begin to take politic interest to push extreme ideas on everybody else, including pointing out people as "evil" because they were born differently.

[JemyM]

Just beware lest you slip into a similar fanaticism in your new set of beliefs. .

On the political compass I end up next to people like Mahatma Gandhi, Nelson Mandela and Dalai Lama in beliefs of freedom and human rights. If I am fanatic, I am fanatic against fanatics, but I believe that fanaticism is cured by information, not violence or forbidding laws.

I go beyond religion. I spend alot of time learning more about the left-wing extremists, the right-wing extremists, the radical feminists, sects and cults. My interest comes from a sociological standpoint, how theese groups come to be, what ideas do they have, how are they different from eachother, and at what point do they get dangerous. Finding ways to prevent such groups from taking up numbers without resorting to violence or laws is a way to keep society in peace. It's better when fanatics are isolated, which happens if you teach about them in school. When everybody are aware of the arguments, it's also easier to take them down when they pop up or in the worst case, freeze them out and make them deviants. Deviants have little chance to cause harm on society.

Today everybody here knows the danger of nationalism. This makes people extremely critical to nationalistic behavior and racism, which is unfortunally helping radical Islam instead. When it comes to communism, our school system have been a failure and they have changed the curiccilum recently to cure this problem. I hope that the next generation wont take as easy on communism as our generation have done. Leaving such information out from the curiccilum is not only stupid, it's lethally dangerous.

Now we are facing the threat from radical Islam and I would personally like to stick the Ultra Fundamentalist Christians of the southern USA as well as the Vatican into the same group of politically dangerous religions (the vatican is the main villian between the genocidal stupidity going on in Africa). I also see a problem with different ideologies that do not mix and are likely to go to war unless they agree that they are actually the same people to begin with, only divided by ancient ideas. A muslim apostate and I are essentially on an equal ground, it does not matter what our past ideas about the world used to be. That's an equal ground in which a moderate muslim and moderate christian will never be able to stand on for a long time.

Beyond that I support gay rights, woman rights, the rights of autistic and epileptic children and the rights of several other minorities which the dogma "disagree" with, and I only see one solution which is learning more and spreading information that religion are unnatural ideas while the things it opposes are natural and should be accepted.

[JemyM]

Yes, South America is one of the most fanatic christian movement in the world. We're talking about Europe here.

In this timeline it's good to be aware of politic movements on a global scale, not just locally. Their ideas spread here. The spread of Intelligent Design makes that point.

Here in Belgium the Christian party just won the elections. It doesn't mean the whole country is going to take up arms against rock'n'roll now. It just means they're going to try and help restore faith to Belgium. Apart from that, they'll do what's good for the country (and of course for their pockets, like any other good politician). They'll attract foreign investors and companies, they'll try and find ways to create more jobs. But they won't start a crusade to the Holy Land again.

I am sorry for your loss. That's a step backwards for sure. I hope they wont start to abolish civil laws, they are less likely to add them. The "good for the country" comment from a christian standpoint is as frightening as if it was spoken by a communist or nazist. The black and white ideology grows more lethal the more who believes in it, and the first that fanatics attack is the school system to be able to easier manipulate people to their point of view. The situation in Poland is severe. You might not believe in the crusade now, but the more a dangerous ideology grows, the closer you are to it's true form which is the good old "we are the best, kill the rest". Liberalism/socialism/capitalism are the only ideologies that sucessfully managed to lead a country while keeping individual freedom.

This again shows it's not religion which is bad, but the more extremist parts of it. The second biggest party in Flanders is the Vlaams Belang (formerly, the Vlaams Blok). They're from the Extreme Right, if they ever get able to get a majority then they will try do their best to help the country in the way they think is best. They're not Catholic though, they are a nationalistic movement. Except that since they are extremists as well, they will probably send out all new(er) immigrants from Belgium to create jobs for the Belgians, instead of just educating Belgians more and/or better

I disagree. It is in fact religion in itself that is bad. Humans are humans and you have potential nutcases in every generation. It's just a question which ideology you deliver to them first, the one about democracy and free speech or the one with satan and hell. The "it's not religion which is bad, only people" is pretty much the same argument that is used by drug liberals and gun liberals you know. When people are universally aware of why religion might lead to danger, fanatics are isolated and made deviants. When people are not universally aware, they may elect them as leaders.

It's just extremism and fanaticism which is bad, not religion.
I understand that it's only a religion that managed to get to the white house, but 60 years ago it wasn't.

The fact that a firm believer of end times now have access to nuclear weapons should make you worried.
So should news like this (http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/feb2007/2007-02-07-10.asp).

Like I said, when people universally know the potential danger of an ideology, fanatics are isolated and made deviants. When they are not aware, they may elect them as leaders of their country.

We've seen what it means. Bush sent young children to fight a war for god. He failed and now the evangelicals and such will lose these elections to the Democrats who will restore the White House to its stagnant state as it was before 9/11.

We are not there yet, and the potential Democrat presidents are outspoken christians as well. In Sweden we elect leaders on their political agenda which usually only take up increasing liberties, changing taxes and the environment. We do not give a crap about their faith.

Have a look at this (http://www.data360.org/report_slides.aspx?Print_Group_Id=99). Americans are more likely to elect a homosexual than an atheist. Since beliefs is basicly ignorance to evidence and the US is a very strong nation this should make you worried.

This can be said about almost any idea. If two hundred of the best scientists in the world all get broadcast on CNN, Fox, Al Jazeera, France 2, RTL-TVI, ZDF,....
They all say the same thing that the world is facing an imminent threat from an possible explosion in one the US Nuclear facilities and that the only option for the world is to oppose nuclear power everywhere and shut every nuclear plant down . Then you can be sure they'll attract millions of followers, just because they are the best in their field. This is if scientists decide to manipulate the ignorance of the average Joe who has no idea how nuclear power works.

Yes, it probably won't happen, but it could.
A more realistic example would be how big corporations manage to sell their useless products to people. How many kinds of Monopoly do people need ? There's the Monopoly : Accountant , Monopoly : Soccer , M : Future, M : Past...
And they manage to sell all of them and you know why ? Because all the people are dumb (myself included; I didn't buy all those Monopolies though :p ) They will listen to anything and they will obey, intentionally or not, they will. It doesn't matter if it nationalistic extremism, environmental extremism (people chaining themselves to trees), or religion extremism. It's all the same. Smart people telling less smart people what to do and what to believe in.

Do you have any example of this ever taking place? The pope do something like that several times per year and he's one of the key people responsible for fueling the widespread HIV epidemia in Africa.

You're right about this except for the criminals not having a lot of power.

Politicians tend to have very strong eyes upon them. While we cannot see all corruption them who get caught are enough to make me feel that things are working as they should.

[JemyM]

Taken from a christian book "Why So Many Gods?":
“Humanists change their concept of truth whenever they find out some new piece of information. It’s never the same. Who’s to say people aren’t just making this stuff up as they go along? They’re really quick to give people lists of rules to live by, ways to do things. But they’re basing that on people, who change. In order to give someone absolute rules on stuff, you’ve gotta base your rules on something absolute. And we know the only ‘thing’ that doesn’t change is God.”

Now exchange the word "Humanists" with "Society" and change "God" with any radical political ideology as you would like. What you basicly have here is fascism dressed up as religion along with a rebutal of democracy. When you make "If God said it, then that settles it!!" as an accepted universal truth then you have a problem, since god have never spoken for himself you have to put someone in charge to decide what God actually said. This gives that person ultimate power and people who disagree disagree's not with that person, but with god, who as you might know is far more powerful than any human and should not be questioned.

The not so smart person who wish to control society try their best to be elected leader. The smart person who wish to control society take position beneath the leader, as an advisor or spokesperson. God is perfect for this since you really have no actual leader above you but you still have something which takes all the eyes away from you. If they speak against you, they speak against god, which is omnipotent and perfect in every way. Foolish are the ones who question him (you).

[Bartacus]

JemyM, you have just displayed you're even dumber then me when it comes to utter points of view. Unless you do the same as roqua, you're nothing more then an stupid spot on the face of the earth. Your point of view is absolutely a fanatics point of view if you utter an opinion about a party in my country that you have never heard of. You just are to blind to see anything else then that sect you're in now called atheïsm and do NOT tell anyone that you're agnostic, because that is something that you are far from.

[Pladio]

I am sorry for your loss. That's a step backwards for sure. I hope they wont start to abolish civil laws, they are less likely to add them. The "good for the country" comment from a christian standpoint is as frightening as if it was spoken by a communist or nazist. The black and white ideology grows more lethal the more who believes in it, and the first that fanatics attack is the school system to be able to easier manipulate people to their point of view. The situation in Poland is severe. You might not believe in the crusade now, but the more a dangerous ideology grows, the closer you are to it's true form which is the good old "we are the best, kill the rest". Liberalism/socialism/capitalism are the only ideologies that sucessfully managed to lead a country while keeping individual freedom.

You are quite wrong to say this, since it is very simple.
Yes, they are Christians, but they are not extremist in any way.

And you're talking about removing civil liberties. Then look at France, quite a big country and you know what ? People aren't even allowed to dress how they want in public. Religious people of any faith aren't allowed to wear their clothes, clothes which they have worn for generations. They can't by law wear them. And you're saying only religion will take civil liberties away.

In this timeline it's good to be aware of politic movements on a global scale, not just locally. Their ideas spread here. The spread of Intelligent Design makes that point.

Spread there ? Yes, maybe, no. They've been there for more than 400 years. Ever since the Spanish and Portuguese settled in South America.
You're right about being aware of political movements globally. What about Great Britain bringing armed men on the street for 'protection' of its civilians after the bombings and stopped bombings. Great Britain isn't really so religious, they have a socialist party at its top. All the arrests being made now... Are you telling me those are not invasions of civil liberties?


I disagree. It is in fact religion in itself that is bad. Humans are humans and you have potential nutcases in every generation. It's just a question which ideology you deliver to them first, the one about democracy and free speech or the one with satan and hell. The "it's not religion which is bad, only people" is pretty much the same argument that is used by drug liberals and gun liberals you know. When people are universally aware of why religion might lead to danger, fanatics are isolated and made deviants. When people are not universally aware, they may elect them as leaders.

But I'm not saying 'it's people', I'm saying 'it's extremism'.

The fact that a firm believer of end times now have access to nuclear weapons should make you worried.

It does, but since he hasn't detonated any nuclear bombs till now and he's going away next year, I don't see it as being a real problem anymore.

We are not there yet, and the potential Democrat presidents are outspoken christians as well.

So, you mean to say they'll bomb Sweden because it's an atheistic country ?

In Sweden we elect leaders on their political agenda which usually only take up increasing liberties, changing taxes and the environment. We do not give a crap about their faith.

So do most people in Belgium and in the rest of the world, including the US.

Have a look at this. Americans are more likely to elect a homosexual than an atheist. Since beliefs is basicly ignorance to evidence and the US is a very strong nation this should make you worried.Have a look at this.

Not really. Atheism as a sense of belief is quite new to the public. Not every one knows exactly what it stands for yet. AND if it stands for anti-religion fanaticism then people won't vote for atheists.
What does worry me is that so few people still wouldn't vote for homosexuals and that there are substantially less people who would vote for a woman.


Do you have any example of this ever taking place?

If you're talking about scientists, no. About corporations, I do though.

Politicians tend to have very strong eyes upon them. While we cannot see all corruption them who get caught are enough to make me feel that things are working as they should.

I think it was just a year ago that they declared a third mistrial in the case against John Gotti Jr., the son of John Gotti, leader of the Gambino family IIRC.
I even used to know people who were working in the Falconplein in Antwerpen. It used to be a place where you could get anything you wanted cheaper, since everything was stolen, just as you see in the mob movies and series. They hijacked trucks full of electronics and just sold them in their stores. After 20 years of successful business, most of them moved out of the country since the police were at last catching some of them. So, no, they're not really keeping criminals out.



Bart: I think the whole point of this topic is not to insult the debaters, but to debate.

[magerette]

Sitting where I sit ( in the middle U.S., close to the South, bordering Arkansas, Missouri and Texas) I frankly don't see this supposed sub-nation of right-wing bible-thumping fanatics as any kind of true challenge to established power. There are more aetheists in the practical sense(i.e., people who have never thought about belonging to any religion, rather than people who have made an intellectual decision about it ) in the present population of America than there are Christians. All you have to do to substantiate this statement is watch one night of reality TV.

Christians and the ultra-right are in a complete minority here. They talk in a loud voice, but they only get media attention because they are a curiosity. George Bush is a politician, not a man of religious belief. Espousing conservative religious values is a political position, and a lot of propaganda, not a true stance of any kind.If you disbelieve all his other lies, why would you believe this one?

The thing you should be worrying about is not the last gasps of a dying medieval faith, but the growing lack of any cohesive system of ethics, morals and values which leads to a self-centric culture where the desires and greed of the individual matter more than the good of society.

[dteowner]

It's unfortunate that Corwin shies away from this sort of discussion for fear of alienating people. His extensive knowledge on the topic might offer some additional insights and points of discussion. That said, I throw in a few thoughts.

First, kudos to everyone for a well-mannered discussion. With such an explosive topic, I think everyone's done a great job of being passionate without the aggression.

Second, as F_B pointed out, nobody has really made an honest attempt at answering my question of how Joe Nobody is to determine which robed guy with a beard and a book to listen to. They all say they are reading the book right and all the counter views are misguided, mistaken, or just plain evil.

Last, it really should come as no surprise that folks like JemyM (and, for the record, my personal views probably qualify me to be somewhere close to "folks like JemyM") cannot comprehend the appeal of religion. As Corwin mentioned a few pages back, at its core religion requires faith. A person must decide, without any concern to evidence for or against, that they're willing accept something as true. Without that faith, there's no acceptance. Now, the thoughtful twist I have for you is this: Nobody has ever shown me a quark. I've never seen evidence of one and would have no way to truly understand the validity of any evidence pro or con. I hear they taste good with ketchup. Since I accept the existence of quarks without concern for the evidence for or against, does that mean that I have faith in science? I suppose I could wear a robe and carry around a book of atomic theory, but my beard really looks scraggly on the rare occasion I let it go.

[magerette]

I

.... Now, the thoughtful twist I have for you is this: Nobody has ever shown me a quark. I've never seen evidence of one and would have no way to truly understand the validity of any evidence pro or con. I hear they taste good with ketchup. Since I accept the existence of quarks without concern for the evidence for or against, does that mean that I have faith in science?.....

IMO,Yes. You are taking someone else's word for it. That's why I said earlier that Science is today's God, the knowledge jihad. I think they have the potential to be equally dangerous and self-justifying exactly because of that point. When Galileo or Newton or whoever first propounded their scientific ideas, they were considered heretics and suppressed for precisely that reason--they were a huge threat as they were setting up the basis for a counter-movement that relied on people repudiating the current consensus.

But here I do fall into the Jemy camp and say that it's a better system overall, because it relies on reason and proof rather than arbitrary acceptance. But it's fallible as well, as are all human systems.

People need the answers though, they need to believe that there is more to life than just the messy process of birth,reproduction and death. Different systems provide that for different people. I don't think you'll ever have a time when the world operates on pure logic.

[zakhal]

Second, as F_B pointed out, nobody has really made an honest attempt at answering my question of how Joe Nobody is to determine which robed guy with a beard and a book to listen to. They all say they are reading the book right and all the counter views are misguided, mistaken, or just plain evil.

Count all the different religions that exist and have existed and choose one. Choose wrong and in many cases somthing really bad happens to you like eternal torture in som hellish place or another. For one thing god sure has a sense of humour.

Or then we need him more than he needs us so he is not really interested on forcing us to choose anything. Perhaps its just one god and people just intrepit it differently leading to various cults and sects who add their own salt into it.

In anycase the choice is really easy atleast for me. I choose a religion that is humane. If god doesnt like that then I rather live without god.

[Prime Junta]

And you're talking about removing civil liberties. Then look at France, quite a big country and you know what ? People aren't even allowed to dress how they want in public. Religious people of any faith aren't allowed to wear their clothes, clothes which they have worn for generations. They can't by law wear them. And you're saying only religion will take civil liberties away.

This is not true. The restrictions only apply to schools.

[ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_law_on_secularity_and_conspicuous_religious _symbols_in_schools ]

(Of course, it would be absurd to say that only religion will take civil liberties away, given the large number of entirely secular dictatorships we can point to. The French school dress law, however, is a long way from that IMO.)

[Bartacus]

This is not true. The restrictions only apply to schools.

[ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_law_on_secularity_and_conspicuous_religious _symbols_in_schools ]

(Of course, it would be absurd to say that only religion will take civil liberties away, given the large number of entirely secular dictatorships we can point to. The French school dress law, however, is a long way from that IMO.)
I can add to this that there are a few restrictions in Belgium as well -> You can't cover your face fully, unless in time of carnaval.
The law was meant against bandits, but it has a use against extremistic female moslims now. I would think it'd be funny though to see all of them wearing their 'boerka's' in public during carnaval.

[Pladio]

First of I had a reply written out and I know this sounds stupid, but my Internet client crashed when I was finding sources of interesting material for both sides of the aisle.
I'll try to remember what I was writing tomorrow, but I'm too tired now.

Just one comment. Aren't school children supposed to have the same rights as other human beings ? So, you're saying I could hit my child just because he's a child ? I can also not give him any clothes as that is not a right a child should have ? (extreme examples are just there to make a point)
So, why not the opposite ? Why can't they wear headscarves, kippot, turbans, ... ?
Your taking one of their rights away any way you want to twist it, you are.

[Corwin]

One minor point. The rules I teach for interpreting the Bible correctly, are not based on faith or blind obedience, but on sound, logical academic principles. One of the foremost of these, is the absolutely essential nature of determining scope and context. Only charlatans use quotes out of context, and often that context can be several layers deep. For example, there is the immediate context determined by the verses on either side; there is the context based on the theme or scope of the chapter in which the quote is found; then there is the context of the scope and purpose of the book in which it resides. All of these must be taken into account, along with the sense inherent in the choice of words used in the original language. There is MUCH more than this to proper Bible interpretation, but my point is that it ALL is based on academic rigor, not my preferred personal belief. To be honest, there are some passages in the Bible I don't like, but they are there and I have to deal with them. The problem we have today, is that there are far too many people out there with a very limited knowledge of proper Bible interpretation who are spouting forth their ignorance on both sides of the debate!!

[mudsling3]

Bible wasn't carved in stone by the finger of god. It's infallibility is certainly not solid. I always prefer plane words...If this self-proclaimed life instruction book needs an interpretation of a ph D. Maybe I don't need it.

[Corwin]

Actually much of it doesn't:- Thou Shall Not Kill- is fairly straightforward!! :) However, shall we say some sections have been misinterpreted.

[mudsling3]

Like I said, I only like the part that is carved in stone :)

[JemyM]

Actually much of it doesn't:- Thou Shall Not Kill- is fairly straightforward!! :) However, shall we say some sections have been misinterpreted.

Well, it's not. The original commandment was "You shall not kill your neighbour", which even in english can be interpreted into "You shall not kill the ones close to you". The word that have been translated into "neighbour" also have other meanings that would suggest a similar use. In context it can also be translated to "You shall not kill your fellow jew", "you shall not kill another worshipper", "You shall not kill someone from Israel", "you shall not kill someone in your city" etc. etc. All cases basicly means fair game on people outside your closest group. Makes more sense considering an estimate of 2 million deaths was brought out by the israelites and god in the bible.

Then there are thoose who would like to translate it to "You shall not murder" instead, which have another meaning.

The value of human life was not fully stressed until the humanism movement about 1400 years after the supposed birth/death of Jesus. Our society would have been very different without that movement which drew more inspiration from secular sources than biblical.

Pretty much the entire bible have several translations and several interpretions. As long as it is used as something else than fiction, it will cause people to do try to kill eachother: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20027027/?GT1=10150

[JemyM]

I would like to reply to you Pladio, but one of my 3 day migraines have started making it difficult for me to get words together.

[Corwin]

Exodus Chapter 20, verse 13 says Thou shall not Kill (some translations read Murder). There is NO mention of Neighbours!!

The word translated Kill is the Hebrew word Ratsach and means kill, slay, murder, or commit manslaughter. It is a purely Hebrew term having no cognate in the other ancient languages.

I usually charge for giving lessons in theology and ancient Hebrew!! :)

[Prime Junta]

Just one comment. Aren't school children supposed to have the same rights as other human beings ? So, you're saying I could hit my child just because he's a child ? I can also not give him any clothes as that is not a right a child should have ? (extreme examples are just there to make a point)
So, why not the opposite ? Why can't they wear headscarves, kippot, turbans, ... ?
Your taking one of their rights away any way you want to twist it, you are.

No, children aren't supposed to have the same rights as other human beings.

In most countries, children aren't allowed to vote, enter into many types of contracts, have sex, buy alcohol, buy tobacco, drive cars, work full-time, and so on. Most schools impose some kind of dress code. (Come to think of it, most workplaces do too, formally or informally.)

Of course, children also have some rights that adults don't.

The intent of the French school dress law isn't much different from the rules in certain Californian schools that forbid clothing articles of certain colors. In California, because the background is formed by potentially or actually hostile gangs that use the colors as markers, in France, because crosses, kippot, turbans, or hijabs are markers for potentially or actually hostile religious groups. In both cases, the attempt is to make school a neutral territory.

Personally, I very much doubt it'll work. In that kind of situation, the kids will know perfectly well who's a Blood, Crip, Christian, Jew, Sikh, Hindu, or Muslim with or without the external markers.

[Prime Junta]

One minor point. The rules I teach for interpreting the Bible correctly, are not based on faith or blind obedience, but on sound, logical academic principles. One of the foremost of these, is the absolutely essential nature of determining scope and context. Only charlatans use quotes out of context, and often that context can be several layers deep. For example, there is the immediate context determined by the verses on either side; there is the context based on the theme or scope of the chapter in which the quote is found; then there is the context of the scope and purpose of the book in which it resides. All of these must be taken into account, along with the sense inherent in the choice of words used in the original language. There is MUCH more than this to proper Bible interpretation, but my point is that it ALL is based on academic rigor, not my preferred personal belief. To be honest, there are some passages in the Bible I don't like, but they are there and I have to deal with them. The problem we have today, is that there are far too many people out there with a very limited knowledge of proper Bible interpretation who are spouting forth their ignorance on both sides of the debate!!

@Corwin -- I'm interested. Which method of exegetics do you mean? Historical-critical? Second, what do you do with the results -- do you try to tease the meaning out of the passages and apply it to your own life, or are you simply interested in understanding what the people who wrote it thought, whether you agree or not?

[JemyM]

Moses Maimonides (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maimonides) described the law as: "If one slays a single Israelite, he transgresses a negative commandment, for Scripture says, Thou shalt not murder. If one murders wilfully in the presence of witnesses, he is put to death by the sword. Needless to say, one is not put to death if he kills a heathen."

Maimonides is by no means the only one who have interpreted this line this way. Throughout history the "Thou shalt not kill" rule have always been interpreted "Thou should not kill thoose of your kind", and thus have not stopped to kill people outside your clan, tribe, nationality, race or religion as well as thoose who have broken rules which are seen as important for the group which includes murder, treason, witchcraft, blasphemy, rape, adultery, homosexuality etc etc. Deutoronomy is widely discussed if it still applies or not. Some say it does, since Jesus proclaimed that no law should be changed, and Deutoronomy is the law. Other say it does not since Jesus fulfilled the law and thus it what changed. In Deutoronomy almost everything is punishable by death.

Many christians object against gays openly. When you go through the bible and find the few instances that mentions something that can be explained as "homosexuality is wrong" and then read the rest of the same passages you will find that every single of them contains laws that would be absolutely barbaric in our modern society. But homophobes enjoy evoking the bible still to win arguments.

[Prime Junta]

Throughout history the "Thou shalt not kill" rule have always been interpreted "Thou should not kill thoose of your kind"...

You're backpedaling. You originally stated that the commandment explicitly referred to "neighbors" or "kin," but now you're stating that it has often been interpreted that way. That's rather different (not to mention something of a platitude).

[JemyM]

You are quite wrong to say this, since it is very simple.
Yes, they are Christians, but they are not extremist in any way.

How can you tell what version of all interpretions of the bible they believe in?

And you're talking about removing civil liberties. Then look at France, quite a big country and you know what ? People aren't even allowed to dress how they want in public. Religious people of any faith aren't allowed to wear their clothes, clothes which they have worn for generations. They can't by law wear them. And you're saying only religion will take civil liberties away.

I read about the law. I cannot say that I care. It's your authoritys decision what you can wear or not, and I see no reason why religion or political ideologies need to be treated with some form of exalted respect above everybody else. We sure do not give any respect to neonazis to use the swastika which have been forbidden around here for quite some time.

Spread there ? Yes, maybe, no. They've been there for more than 400 years. Ever since the Spanish and Portuguese settled in South America.
You're right about being aware of political movements globally. What about Great Britain bringing armed men on the street for 'protection' of its civilians after the bombings and stopped bombings. Great Britain isn't really so religious, they have a socialist party at its top. All the arrests being made now... Are you telling me those are not invasions of civil liberties?

UK is basicly in a political civil war regarding religious rights and it will take awhile to see who's the winner. A law has been presented that will reintroduce toughtcrimes, sodomy and reduce freedom of speech to please islam. It will take effect in 1-2 years unless rebuked. You have actual terror from Islam there as well. Several british schools received books with Intelligent Design before the school board banned the books right before christmas last year. Then you have, luckily, a rather strong atheism lobby. Earlier this year atheists from all over UK gathered money to buy copies of "The God Delusion" to send to every politician in their government. It took less than 2 months to gather enough money to buy the several hundred books needed. In a recent UK poll a majority voted that religion cause more harm than good although we ofcourse need to take such polls with a grain of salt. There have also been several british atheist documentaries on national television recently which have increased peoples awareness.

But I'm not saying 'it's people', I'm saying 'it's extremism'.

Every child have the potential of being an extremist. It's all depending on what they are learnt.

So, you mean to say they'll bomb Sweden because it's an atheistic country ?

There have been quite a few comments regarding sweden coming from the extreme groups which is uncomfortable.

So do most people in Belgium and in the rest of the world, including the US.

Not according to the polls.

Not really. Atheism as a sense of belief is quite new to the public. Not every one knows exactly what it stands for yet. AND if it stands for anti-religion fanaticism then people won't vote for atheists.
What does worry me is that so few people still wouldn't vote for homosexuals and that there are substantially less people who would vote for a woman.

There is a negative attachment to the word which is why many try to find different names to call themselves. Secular humanists, brights, disbeliever, sceptic, rationalist etc.

Im pretty proud over our recent group of leaders. Many of our top ministers are women, our finance minister is openly gay, our integrations minister is black, female and believe openly that Islam is dangerous. Our school minister also wants to abolish the right to open faithschools to radical groups. The only party who are against homosexual weddings (christian democrats) have less than 4% of the voters, however, the christian democrats have nothing against stemcell research or abortions. The first upgrade they did in our school curricilum was to make sure that children of today learned more about the dangers of communism.

If you're talking about scientists, no. About corporations, I do though.

Corporations gladly find people with academic titles to support them yes. I am not so happy about that, but at least it's considered unethic and they risk their careers.

I think it was just a year ago that they declared a third mistrial in the case against John Gotti Jr., the son of John Gotti, leader of the Gambino family IIRC.
I even used to know people who were working in the Falconplein in Antwerpen. It used to be a place where you could get anything you wanted cheaper, since everything was stolen, just as you see in the mob movies and series. They hijacked trucks full of electronics and just sold them in their stores. After 20 years of successful business, most of them moved out of the country since the police were at last catching some of them. So, no, they're not really keeping criminals out.

There's a difference between getting them in and throwing them out. We usually throw out leaders who misbehave. We have regulations on the regulators and when that do not help we have democracy on top of it.

[JemyM]

You're backpedaling. You originally stated that the commandment explicitly referred to "neighbors" or "kin," but now you're stating that it has often been interpreted that way. That's rather different (not to mention something of a platitude).

First you have the original texts, then you have translations, then you have interpretions. Originally the translations speak about "neighbor" which have in turn been interpreted as "the people closest to you". Also there are translators who claim that the word translated to "neighbor" is not "neighbor" at all, instead within context it can means many things. The point is, the bible is a mess to use for anything more than fiction. It cannot be used as a guide since it's too contradicting and can basicly be used to support everything depending on how you use it.

[Prime Junta]

First you have the original texts, then you have translations, then you have interpretions. Originally the translations speak about "neighbor" which have in turn been interpreted as "the people closest to you". Also there are translators who claim that the word translated to "neighbor" is not "neighbor" at all, instead within context it can means many things. The point is, the bible is a mess to use for anything more than fiction. It cannot be used as a guide since it's too contradicting and can basicly be used to support everything depending on how you use it.

Which translations would these be? I'm admittedly only a dilettante when it comes to exegetics, but I'm not aware of any translation that renders "thou shalt not kill" as "thou shalt not kill thy neighbor."

As to the Bible being a mess, that's a different question altogether. I rather prefer Woody Allen's way of putting it -- "God is a very uneven writer." ;-)

[Prime Junta]

This website is driven by one of George Bush's advisors:
http://www.godhatessweden.com


JemyM, I'm starting to dislike the way you play fast and loose with the facts. The Rev. Fred Phelps also runs this website [ http://www.godhatesamerica.com/index.html ].

Just because he's a religious nutjob doesn't mean he supports, let alone advises Bush.

[Bartacus]

I would like to reply to you Pladio, but one of my 3 day migraines have started making it difficult for me to get words together.

Is it that what makes you this person, because then I can have a small bit of sympathy again for you?

[JemyM]

JemyM, I'm starting to dislike the way you play fast and loose with the facts. The Rev. Fred Phelps also runs this website [ http://www.godhatesamerica.com/index.html ].

Just because he's a religious nutjob doesn't mean he supports, let alone advises Bush.

Sorry, you are right. I confused him with the southern baptists.

[Pladio]

Since I mostly forgot what I wrote down last time, I'll just link to several movies with people discussing what we are discussing now (on both sides of the aisle though).

(All these movies are shown on www.ted.com)

Atheist call to Arms, by professor Richard Dawkins (http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/view/id/113)

A life of purpose, by pastor Rick Warren (http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/view/id/71)

He's talking about finding your purpose of life by giving up as much as possible and about how people's materialism.

Rebuttal to pastor Rick Warren, by professor Dan Dennet (http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/view/id/94)

All of these movies are very interesting. I'm watching others too. I'll post other movies once I watch them.

[JemyM]

Christopher Hitchens (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PY8fjFKAC5k), speaks strongly about religion, the importance of free speech and the threat of radical Islam.

Bible Unearthed (http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=bible+unearthed&search=Search), the documentary based on the book that compares archeology and the bible.

Who wrote the bible? (http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=who+wrote+the+bible&search=Search), british documentary on youtube that tries to finds the root of the old testament, the new testament, how its translated and the agendas which changed the message over time.

Ken Miller (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JVRsWAjvQSg) (Roman Catholic) rips Intelligent Design apart in 2 hours and speaks about why Evolution won in court. The movie also tells about the recent discoveries regarding evolution.

The Naked Truth (http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=The+Naked+Truth+part+Document ary++jordan+maxwell&search=Search), a bit dated (slow paced) documentary comparing christianity and other religions, egyptian mythology and astrology.

[Pladio]

I saw this on the news last night.
It's not certain yet, but that's how it seems to be going.
Belgium is going to keep its nuclear power plants for two important reasons.
The first one is that it produces a lot of energy. The second one is that since Belgium has signed the Kyoto agreement, they will have to try and stand by it and nuclear power plants don't generate CO2.

So, now instead of having CO2 polluting the earth Belgium will produce more nuclear waste which will then be send to poor countries.
The only thing I see can help the earth against global warming is invest in new alternative technologies, since otherwise we just keep polluting the earth.

[Prime Junta]

I'd like to see more investment in (and publicity for) accelerator-driven subcritical nuclear reactors. The idea is that you point a particle accelerator at a suitable metal target, and surround the target with nuclear fuel. The particles from the accelerator knock slow neutrons off the target, which then maintain the fission reaction in the fuel. No chain reaction, and easily adjustable power output -- for more power, increase the particle flow, for less power, decrease it, for an emergency shutdown, just pull the plug on the accelerator.

The really nice thing, however, is that this type of reactor can produce electricity from a far wider variety of elements than conventional nuclear power -- in particular, nuclear waste. In fact, it's just about the only way we could actually process nuclear waste into a (relatively) innocuous form, *and* produce power into the bargain.

The downside is that it would be much easier to use this type of reactor as a "breeder" to produce Pu-239 or other weapons-grade stuff; IOW it's not something you'd want to just hand over to the North Koreans for example.

And, of course, it's not something you can knock together in your garage; there are significant technical problems to overcome. Still, if I had to put money on it, I'd bet that it'd be easier to pull off than commercial-level fusion power.

[ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subcritical_reactor ]

[Pladio]

Hasn't fusion still a long way to go before becoming a reality ?

[Prime Junta]

It's been "about 30 years from now" since 1950 or so. They're past the break-even point (i.e., more energy comes out than goes in), but yeah, they are a long way from commercializing it. That's why I think ADS has a better chance of success, not to mention that it'd get rid of that nasty waste we're currently producing.

[Pladio]

If it's past the break-even point, then it means they found out how to do it then why aren't they getting any further ?

[Prime Junta]

They are, but it's slow going. It's hard enough to build a containment chamber that'll keep the reaction going long enough that more energy comes out than went in to start it; it's much, much harder to build a containment chamber that'll keep the reaction going indefinitely, which is what you'll need to be able to produce electricity in commercially viable quantities.

[JemyM]

The technology for hydrogen is out there. There are already prototype cars running on it.

[Prime Junta]

That has nothing to do with nuclear fusion.

[mytgroo]

Nuclear fusion is a long way aways. It might be viable, but not for another twenty or thirty years.

Here are the real time energy solutions that probably will happen in the next five years. Out of a number of technologies these seem pretty promising.

1) Plasma furnace for incinerating garbage-- 99.99% conversion rate, almost no particulates. With a scrubber you get for practical purposes no emissions.

2) Wave turbines, like wind turbines but underwater, hydrokinetic energy.

3) Distributed hydroelectric-- smaller turbine generators for rivers, that can be distributed over a wide area without damming.

4) Low wind speed-- 5MPH wind turbines.

5) Ethanol from cellulose. Verenium is the chief proponent of this. Biodiesel from algae, Solix, Green Energy Technologies, Verasun, and a few other companies are working on this. Algae biodiesel in combination with cellulosic ethanol has the potential to produce as much energy as oil.

[Prime Junta]

I think that we'll be seeing something very much like that -- a mix of technologies, perhaps more distributed energy production. Nukes, in one form or another, will certainly be a part of the mix.