The Problem with Atheism

(This is an edited transcript of a talk given at the Atheist Alliance conference in Washington D.C. on September 28th, 2007)

To begin, I’d like to take a moment to acknowledge just how strange it is that a meeting like this is even necessary. The year is 2007, and we have all taken time out of our busy lives, and many of us have traveled considerable distance, so that we can strategize about how best to live in a world in which most people believe in an imaginary God. America is now a nation of 300 million people, wielding more influence than any people in human history, and yet this influence is being steadily corrupted, and is surely waning, because 240 million of these people apparently believe that Jesus will return someday and orchestrate the end of the world with his magic powers.

Of course, we may well wonder whether as many people believe these things as say they do. I know that Christopher [Hitchens] and Richard [Dawkins] are rather optimistic that our opinion polls are out of register with what people actually believe in the privacy of their own minds. But there is no question that most of our neighbors reliably profess that they believe these things, and such professions themselves have had a disastrous affect on our political discourse, on our public policy, on the teaching of science, and on our reputation in the world. And even if only a third or a quarter of our neighbors believe what most profess, it seems to me that we still have a problem worth worrying about.

Now, it is not often that I find myself in a room full of people who are more or less guaranteed to agree with me on the subject of religion. In thinking about what I could say to you all tonight, it seemed to me that I have a choice between throwing red meat to the lions of atheism or moving the conversation into areas where we actually might not agree. I’ve decided, at some risk to your mood, to take the second approach and to say a few things that might prove controversial in this context.

Given the absence of evidence for God, and the stupidity and suffering that still thrives under the mantle of religion, declaring oneself an “atheist” would seem the only appropriate response. And it is the stance that many of us have proudly and publicly adopted. Tonight, I’d like to try to make the case, that our use of this label is a mistake—and a mistake of some consequence.

My concern with the use of the term “atheism” is both philosophical and strategic. I’m speaking from a somewhat unusual and perhaps paradoxical position because, while I am now one of the public voices of atheism, I never thought of myself as an atheist before being inducted to speak as one. I didn’t even use the term in The End of Faith, which remains my most substantial criticism of religion. And, as I argued briefly in Letter to a Christian Nation, I think that “atheist” is a term that we do not need, in the same way that we don’t need a word for someone who rejects astrology. We simply do not call people “non-astrologers.” All we need are words like “reason” and “evidence” and “common sense” and “bullshit” to put astrologers in their place, and so it could be with religion.

If the comparison with astrology seems too facile, consider the problem of racism. Racism was about as intractable a social problem as we have ever had in this country. We are talking about deeply held convictions. I’m sure you have all seen the photos of lynchings in the first half of the 20th century—where seemingly whole towns in the South, thousands of men, women and children—bankers, lawyers, doctors, teachers, church elders, newspaper editors, policemen, even the occasional Senator and Congressman—turned out as though for a carnival to watch some young man or woman be tortured to death and then strung up on a tree or lamppost for all to see.

Seeing the pictures of these people in their Sunday best, having arranged themselves for a postcard photo under a dangling, and lacerated, and often partially cremated person, is one thing, but realize that these genteel people, who were otherwise quite normal, we must presume—though unfailing religious—often took souvenirs of the body home to show their friends—teeth, ears, fingers, knee caps, internal organs—and sometimes displayed them at their places of business.

Of course, I’m not saying that racism is no longer a problem in this country, but anyone who thinks that the problem is as bad as it ever was has simply forgotten, or has never learned, how bad, in fact, it was.

So, we can now ask, how have people of good will and common sense gone about combating racism? There was a civil rights movement, of course. The KKK was gradually battered to the fringes of society. There have been important and, I think, irrevocable changes in the way we talk about race—our major newspapers no longer publish flagrantly racist articles and editorials as they did less than a century ago—but, ask yourself, how many people have had to identify themselves as “non-racists” to participate in this process? Is there a “non-racist alliance” somewhere for me to join?

Attaching a label to something carries real liabilities, especially if the thing you are naming isn’t really a thing at all. And atheism, I would argue, is not a thing. It is not a philosophy, just as “non-racism” is not one. Atheism is not a worldview—and yet most people imagine it to be one and attack it as such. We who do not believe in God are collaborating in this misunderstanding by consenting to be named and by even naming ourselves.

Another problem is that in accepting a label, particularly the label of “atheist,” it seems to me that we are consenting to be viewed as a cranky sub-culture. We are consenting to be viewed as a marginal interest group that meets in hotel ballrooms. I’m not saying that meetings like this aren’t important. I wouldn’t be here if I didn’t think it was important. But I am saying that as a matter of philosophy we are guilty of confusion, and as a matter of strategy, we have walked into a trap. It is a trap that has been, in many cases, deliberately set for us. And we have jumped into it with both feet.

While it is an honor to find myself continually assailed with Dan [Dennett], Richard [Dawkins], and Christopher [Hitchens] as though we were a single person with four heads, this whole notion of the “new atheists” or “militant atheists” has been used to keep our criticism of religion at arm’s length, and has allowed people to dismiss our arguments without meeting the burden of actually answering them. And while our books have gotten a fair amount of notice, I think this whole conversation about the conflict between faith and reason, and religion and science, has been, and will continue to be, successfully marginalized under the banner of atheism.

So, let me make my somewhat seditious proposal explicit: We should not call ourselves “atheists.” We should not call ourselves “secularists.” We should not call ourselves “humanists,” or “secular humanists,” or “naturalists,” or “skeptics,” or “anti-theists,” or “rationalists,” or “freethinkers,” or “brights.” We should not call ourselves anything. We should go under the radar—for the rest of our lives. And while there, we should be decent, responsible people who destroy bad ideas wherever we find them.

Now, it just so happens that religion has more than its fair share of bad ideas. And it remains the only system of thought, where the process of maintaining bad ideas in perpetual immunity from criticism is considered a sacred act. This is the act of faith. And I remain convinced that religious faith is one of the most perverse misuses of intelligence we have ever devised. So we will, inevitably, continue to criticize religious thinking. But we should not define ourselves and name ourselves in opposition to such thinking.

So what does this all mean in practical terms, apart from Margaret Downey having to change her letterhead? Well, rather than declare ourselves “atheists” in opposition to all religion, I think we should do nothing more than advocate reason and intellectual honesty—and where this advocacy causes us to collide with religion, as it inevitably will, we should observe that the points of impact are always with specific religious beliefs—not with religion in general. There is no religion in general.

The problem is that the concept of atheism imposes upon us a false burden of remaining fixated on people’s beliefs about God and remaining even-handed in our treatment of religion. But we shouldn’t be fixated, and we shouldn’t be even-handed. In fact, we should be quick to point out the differences among religions, for two reasons:

First, these differences make all religions look contingent, and therefore silly. Consider the unique features of Mormonism, which may have some relevance in the next Presidential election. Mormonism, it seems to me, is—objectively—just a little more idiotic than Christianity is. It has to be: because it is Christianity plus some very stupid ideas. For instance, the Mormons think Jesus is going to return to earth and administer his Thousand years of Peace, at least part of the time, from the state of Missouri. Why does this make Mormonism less likely to be true than Christianity? Because whatever probability you assign to Jesus’ coming back, you have to assign a lesser probability to his coming back and keeping a summer home in Jackson County, Missouri. If Mitt Romney wants to be the next President of the United States, he should be made to feel the burden of our incredulity. We can make common cause with our Christian brothers and sisters on this point. Just what does the man believe? The world should know. And it is almost guaranteed to be embarrassing even to most people who believe in the biblical God.

The second reason to be attentive to the differences among the world’s religions is that these differences are actually a matter of life and death. There are very few of us who lie awake at night worrying about the Amish. This is not an accident. While I have no doubt that the Amish are mistreating their children, by not educating them adequately, they are not likely to hijack aircraft and fly them into buildings. But consider how we, as atheists, tend to talk about Islam. Christians often complain that atheists, and the secular world generally, balance every criticism of Muslim extremism with a mention of Christian extremism. The usual approach is to say that they have their jihadists, and we have people who kill abortion doctors. Our Christian neighbors, even the craziest of them, are right to be outraged by this pretense of even-handedness, because the truth is that Islam is quite a bit scarier and more culpable for needless human misery, than Christianity has been for a very, very long time. And the world must wake up to this fact. Muslims themselves must wake up to this fact. And they can.

You might remember that Thomas Friedman recently wrote an op-ed from Iraq, reporting that some Sunni militias are now fighting jihadists alongside American troops. When Friedman asked one Sunni militant why he was doing this, he said that he had recently watched a member of al-Qaeda decapitate an 8-year-old girl. This persuaded him that the American Crusader forces were the lesser of two evils.

Okay, so even some Sunni militants can discern the boundary between ordinary crazy Islam, and the utterly crazy, once it is drawn in the spilled blood of little girls. This is a basis for hope, of sorts. But we have to be honest—unremittingly honest—about what is on the other side of that line. This is what we and the rest of the civilized, and the semi-civilized world, are up against: utter religious lunacy and barbarism in the name of Islam—with, I’m unhappy to say, some mainstream theology to back it up.

To be even-handed when talking about the problem of Islam is to misconstrue the problem. The refrain, “all religions have their extremists,” is bullshit—and it is putting the West to sleep. All religions don’t have these extremists. Some religions have never had these extremists. And in the Muslim world, support for extremism is not extreme in the sense of being rare. A recent poll showed that about a third of young British Muslims want to live under sharia law and believe that apostates should be killed for leaving the faith. These are British Muslims. Sixty-eight percent of British Muslims feel that their neighbors who insult Islam should be arrested and prosecuted, and seventy-eight percent think that the Danish cartoonists should be brought to justice. These people don’t have a clue about what constitutes a civil society. Reports of this kind coming out of the Muslim communities living in the West should worry us, before anything else about religion worries us.

Atheism is too blunt an instrument to use at moments like this. It’s as though we have a landscape of human ignorance and bewilderment—with peaks and valleys and local attractors—and the concept of atheism causes us to fixate one part of this landscape, the part related to theistic religion, and then just flattens it. Because to be consistent as atheists we must oppose, or seem to oppose, all faith claims equally. This is a waste of precious time and energy, and it squanders the trust of people who would otherwise agree with us on specific issues.

I’m not at all suggesting that we leave people’s core religious beliefs, or faith itself, unscathed—I’m still the kind of person who writes articles with rather sweeping titles like “Science must destroy religion”—but it seems to me that we should never lose sight of useful and important distinctions.

Another problem with calling ourselves “atheists” is that every religious person thinks he has a knockdown argument against atheism. We’ve all heard these arguments, and we are going to keep hearing them as long as we insist upon calling ourselves “atheists. Arguments like: atheists can’t prove that God doesn’t exist; atheists are claiming to know there is no God, and this is the most arrogant claim of all. As Rick Warren put it, when he and I debated for Newsweek—a reasonable man like himself “doesn’t have enough faith to be an atheist.” The idea that the universe could arise without a creator is, on his account, the most extravagant faith claim of all.

Of course, as an argument for the truth of any specific religious doctrine, this is a travesty. And we all know what to do in this situation: We have Russell’s teapot, and thousands of dead gods, and now a flying spaghetti monster, the nonexistence of which also cannot be proven, and yet belief in these things is acknowledged to be ridiculous by everyone. The problem is, we have to keep having this same argument, over and over again, and the argument is being generated to a significant degree, if not entirely, over our use of the term “atheism.”

So too with the “greatest crimes of the 20th century” argument. How many times are we going to have to counter the charge that Stalin, Hitler, and Pol Pot represent the endgame of atheism? I’ve got news for you, this meme is not going away. I argued against it in The End of Faith, and it was immediately thrown back at me in reviews of the book as though I had never mentioned it. So I tackled it again in the afterword to the paperback edition of The End of Faith; but this had no effect whatsoever; so at the risk of boring everyone, I brought it up again in Letter to a Christian Nation; and Richard did the same in The God Delusion; and Christopher took a mighty swing at it in God is Not Great. I can assure you that this bogus argument will be with us for as long as people label themselves “atheists.” And it really convinces religious people. It convinces moderates and liberals. It even convinces the occasional atheist.

Why should we fall into this trap? Why should we stand obediently in the space provided, in the space carved out by the conceptual scheme of theistic religion? It’s as though, before the debate even begins, our opponents draw the chalk-outline of a dead man on the sidewalk, and we just walk up and lie down in it.

Instead of doing this, consider what would happen if we simply used words like “reason” and “evidence.” What is the argument against reason? It’s true that a few people will bite the bullet here and argue that reason is itself a problem, that the Enlightenment was a failed project, etc. But the truth is that there are very few people, even among religious fundamentalists, who will happily admit to being enemies of reason. In fact, fundamentalists tend to think they are champions of reason and that they have very good reasons for believing in God. Nobody wants to believe things on bad evidence. The desire to know what is actually going on in world is very difficult to argue with. In so far as we represent that desire, we become difficult to argue with. And this desire is not reducible to an interest group. It’s not a club or an affiliation, and I think trying to make it one diminishes its power.

The last problem with atheism I’d like to talk about relates to the some of the experiences that lie at the core of many religious traditions, though perhaps not all, and which are testified to, with greater or lesser clarity in the world’s “spiritual” and “mystical” literature.
Those of you who have read The End of Faith, know that I don’t entirely line up with Dan, Richard, and Christopher in my treatment of these things. So I think I should take a little time to discuss this. While I always use terms like “spiritual” and “mystical” in scare quotes, and take some pains to denude them of metaphysics, the email I receive from my brothers and sisters in arms suggests that many of you find my interest in these topics problematic.

First, let me describe the general phenomenon I’m referring to. Here’s what happens, in the generic case: a person, in whatever culture he finds himself, begins to notice that life is difficult. He observes that even in the best of times—no one close to him has died, he’s healthy, there are no hostile armies massing in the distance, the fridge is stocked with beer, the weather is just so—even when things are as good as they can be, he notices that at the level of his moment to moment experience, at the level of his attention, he is perpetually on the move, seeking happiness and finding only temporary relief from his search.

We’ve all noticed this. We seek pleasant sights, and sounds, and tastes, and sensations, and attitudes. We satisfy our intellectual curiosities, and our desire for friendship and romance. We become connoisseurs of art and music and film—but our pleasures are, by their very nature, fleeting. And we can do nothing more than merely reiterate them as often as we are able.

If we enjoy some great professional success, our feelings of accomplishment remain vivid and intoxicating for about an hour, or maybe a day, but then people will begin to ask us “So, what are you going to do next? Don’t you have anything else in the pipeline?” Steve Jobs releases the IPhone, and I’m sure it wasn’t twenty minutes before someone asked, “when are you going to make this thing smaller?” Notice that very few people at this juncture, no matter what they’ve accomplished, say, “I’m done. I’ve met all my goals. Now I’m just going to stay here eat ice cream until I die in front of you.”

Even when everything has gone as well as it can go, the search for happiness continues, the effort required to keep doubt and dissatisfaction and boredom at bay continues, moment to moment. If nothing else, the reality of death and the experience of losing loved ones punctures even the most gratifying and well-ordered life.

In this context, certain people have traditionally wondered whether a deeper form of well-being exists. Is there, in other words, a form of happiness that is not contingent upon our merely reiterating our pleasures and successes and avoiding our pains. Is there a form of happiness that is not dependent upon having one’s favorite food always available to be placed on one’s tongue or having all one’s friends and loved ones within arm’s reach, or having good books to read, or having something to look forward to on the weekend? Is it possible to be utterly happy before anything happens, before one’s desires get gratified, in spite of life’s inevitable difficulties, in the very midst of physical pain, old age, disease, and death?

This question, I think, lies at the periphery of everyone’s consciousness. We are all, in some sense, living our answer to it—and many of us are living as though the answer is “no.” No, there is nothing more profound that repeating one’s pleasures and avoiding one’s pains; there is nothing more profound that seeking satisfaction, both sensory and intellectual. Many of us seem think that all we can do is just keep our foot on the gas until we run out of road.

But certain people, for whatever reason, are led to suspect that there is more to human experience than this. In fact, many of them are led to suspect this by religion—by the claims of people like the Buddha or Jesus or some other celebrated religious figures. And such a person may begin to practice various disciplines of attention—often called “meditation” or “contemplation”—as a means of examining his moment to moment experience closely enough to see if a deeper basis of well-being is there to be found.

Such a person might even hole himself up in a cave, or in a monastery, for months or years at a time to facilitate this process. Why would somebody do this? Well, it amounts to a very simple experiment. Here’s the logic of it: if there is a form of psychological well-being that isn’t contingent upon merely repeating one’s pleasures, then this happiness should be available even when all the obvious sources of pleasure and satisfaction have been removed. If it exists at all, this happiness should be available to a person who has renounced all her material possessions, and declined to marry her high school sweetheart, and gone off to a cave or to some other spot that would seem profoundly uncongenial to the satisfaction of ordinary desires and aspirations.

One clue as to how daunting most people would find such a project is the fact that solitary confinement—which is essentially what we are talking about—is considered a punishment even inside a prison. Even when cooped up with homicidal maniacs and rapists, most people still prefer the company of others to spending any significant amount of time alone in a box.

And yet, for thousands of years, contemplatives have claimed to find extraordinary depths of psychological well-being while spending vast stretches of time in total isolation. It seems to me that, as rational people, whether we call ourselves “atheists” or not, we have a choice to make in how we view this whole enterprise. Either the contemplative literature is a mere catalogue of religious delusion, deliberate fraud, and psychopathology, or people have been having interesting and even normative experiences under the name of “spirituality” and “mysticism” for millennia.

Now let me just assert, on the basis of my own study and experience, that there is no question in my mind that people have improved their emotional lives, and their self-understanding, and their ethical intuitions, and have even had important insights about the nature of subjectivity itself through a variety of traditional practices like meditation.

Leaving aside all the metaphysics and mythology and mumbo jumbo, what contemplatives and mystics over the millennia claim to have discovered is that there is an alternative to merely living at the mercy of the next neurotic thought that comes careening into consciousness. There is an alternative to being continuously spellbound by the conversation we are having with ourselves.

Most us think that if a person is walking down the street talking to himself—that is, not able to censor himself in front of other people—he’s probably mentally ill. But if we talk to ourselves all day long silently—thinking, thinking, thinking, rehearsing prior conversations, thinking about what we said, what we didn’t say, what we should have said, jabbering on to ourselves about what we hope is going to happen, what just happened, what almost happened, what should have happened, what may yet happen—but we just know enough to just keep this conversation private, this is perfectly normal. This is perfectly compatible with sanity. Well, this is not what the experience of millions of contemplatives suggests.

Of course, I am by no means denying the importance of thinking. There is no question that linguistic thought is indispensable for us. It is, in large part, what makes us human. It is the fabric of almost all culture and every social relationship. Needless to say, it is the basis of all science. And it is surely responsible for much rudimentary cognition—for integrating beliefs, planning, explicit learning, moral reasoning, and many other mental capacities. Even talking to oneself out loud may occasionally serve a useful function.

From the point of view of our contemplative traditions, however—to boil them all down to a cartoon version, that ignores the rather esoteric disputes among them—our habitual identification with discursive thought, our failure moment to moment to recognize thoughts as thoughts, is a primary source of human suffering. And when a person breaks this spell, an extraordinary kind of relief is available.

But the problem with a contemplative claim of this sort is that you can’t borrow someone else’s contemplative tools to test it. The problem is that to test such a claim—indeed, to even appreciate how distracted we tend to be in the first place, we have to build our own contemplative tools. Imagine where astronomy would be if everyone had to build his own telescope before he could even begin to see if astronomy was a legitimate enterprise. It wouldn’t make the sky any less worthy of investigation, but it would make it immensely more difficult for us to establish astronomy as a science.

To judge the empirical claims of contemplatives, you have to build your own telescope. Judging their metaphysical claims is another matter: many of these can be dismissed as bad science or bad philosophy by merely thinking about them. But to judge whether certain experiences are possible—and if possible, desirable—we have to be able to use our attention in the requisite ways. We have to be able to break our identification with discursive thought, if only for a few moments. This can take a tremendous amount of work. And it is not work that our culture knows much about.

One problem with atheism as a category of thought, is that it seems more or less synonymous with not being interested in what someone like the Buddha or Jesus may have actually experienced. In fact, many atheists reject such experiences out of hand, as either impossible, or if possible, not worth wanting. Another common mistake is to imagine that such experiences are necessarily equivalent to states of mind with which many of us are already familiar—the feeling of scientific awe, or ordinary states of aesthetic appreciation, artistic inspiration, etc.

As someone who has made his own modest efforts in this area, let me assure you, that when a person goes into solitude and trains himself in meditation for 15 or 18 hours a day, for months or years at a time, in silence, doing nothing else—not talking, not reading, not writing—just making a sustained moment to moment effort to merely observe the contents of consciousness and to not get lost in thought, he experiences things that most scientists and artists are not likely to have experienced, unless they have made precisely the same efforts at introspection. And these experiences have a lot to say about the plasticity of the human mind and about the possibilities of human happiness.

So, apart from just commending these phenomena to your attention, I’d like to point out that, as atheists, our neglect of this area of human experience puts us at a rhetorical disadvantage. Because millions of people have had these experiences, and many millions more have had glimmers of them, and we, as atheists, ignore such phenomena, almost in principle, because of their religious associations—and yet these experiences often constitute the most important and transformative moments in a person’s life. Not recognizing that such experiences are possible or important can make us appear less wise even than our craziest religious opponents.

My concern is that atheism can easily become the position of not being interested in certain possibilities in principle. I don’t know if our universe is, as JBS Haldane said, “not only stranger than we suppose, but stranger than we can suppose.” But I am sure that it is stranger than we, as “atheists,” tend to represent while advocating atheism. As “atheists” we give others, and even ourselves, the sense that we are well on our way toward purging the universe of mystery. As advocates of reason, we know that mystery is going to be with us for a very long time. Indeed, there are good reasons to believe that mystery is ineradicable from our circumstance, because however much we know, it seems like there will always be brute facts that we cannot account for but which we must rely upon to explain everything else. This may be a problem for epistemology but it is not a problem for human life and for human solidarity. It does not rob our lives of meaning. And it is not a barrier to human happiness.

We are faced, however, with the challenge of communicating this view to others. We are faced with the monumental task of persuading a myth-infatuated world that love and curiosity are sufficient, and that we need not console or frighten ourselves or our children with Iron Age fairy tales. I don’t think there is a more important intellectual struggle to win; it has to be fought from a hundred sides, all at once, and continuously; but it seems to me that there is no reason for us to fight in well-ordered ranks, like the red coats of Atheism.

Finally, I think it’s useful to envision what victory will look like. Again, the analogy with racism seems instructive to me. What will victory against racism look like, should that happy day ever dawn? It certainly won’t be a world in which a majority of people profess that they are “nonracist.” Most likely, it will be a world in which the very concept of separate races has lost its meaning.

We will have won this war of ideas against religion when atheism is scarcely intelligible as a concept. We will simply find ourselves in a world in which people cease to praise one another for pretending to know things they do not know. This is certainly a future worth fighting for. It may be the only future compatible with our long-term survival as a species. But the only path between now and then, that I can see, is for us to be rigorously honest in the present. It seems to me that intellectual honesty is now, and will always be, deeper and more durable, and more easily spread, than “atheism.”

By Sam Harris | October 2, 2007; 12:34 PM ET Save & Share:
Previous: Logical Path from Religious Beliefs to Evil Deeds | Next: McCain is Wrong

Comments

Please report offensive comments below.

Although I can share most of the reasons Sam gives fornot labelling ourselves as 'atheists' I still see some more strategic reasons to do so. Maybe (but correct me if I am wrong) this has to do with my European, and even with my Dutch background. Compared to the United States, the number of fundamentalistic Christians is very low and most of the time fundamentalist Chrisians are not very aggressive or political active. So they are silly, but not dangerous. Most Christians in the Netherlands however are, what I would like to call 'inclusivists': they tend to include everything and everybody in their own group. I am absolutely sure that the majority of Dutch Christians will consider Sam a companion, simply because he points out that the mystic experience is important for him. This is also the case for me, but I don't want to be seen as a Christian any longer, period. I don't want to be seen a connected with any form of organized religion. For the sake of clarity therefor, I will remain labelling myself an atheist, and as long as atheims isn't as widespread as anti-racism I will keep doing so, hoping (probably in vain) to keep all this christian softies from my back.

Posted by: Patrick Altena | August 6, 2008 9:30 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Could Science be a Religion? Could a Natural Born Humans Species on a Planet, that does not Know about the High Tech Science Human Species, of flying up in the air on a throne, and out into Space in a fiery chariot, become a religion of for Natural Born Humans?

Did this happen on New Guinea during WW2? The Natural Born Natives that did not Know about the High Tech of the USA, in the 1940s, called our pilots Gods and started a Cargo Cult for them.

Could this be how the High Tech Science Knowledge in Genesis was translated also, by Natural Born Humans that did not Know about the High Tech Science of airplanes and spaceships, and also started God religions?

An interesting article on Salon.com, 'What's wrong with Science as a religion', by Karl Giberson.
http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2008/07/31/religion_science/

"When Salon interviewed me about my new book, "Saving Darwin", I suggested that science doesn't know everything, that there might be a reality beyond science, and that religion might be about God and not merely about the human quest for a nonexistent God. These remarks got me condemned to whatever hell (PZ)Myers believes in. -

"I am incredibly impressed with the achievements of science. But I don't think science is omniscient and I am not convinced that science will ever know everything."

That is why I call GOD, the Source of the Atom and Electro-Magnetic Force Elements. I do not think Humans, even High Tech Science Humans, can ever Know the Source of the Elements, that make Life as we Know it, in the Seen and Unseen Universes.

Posted by: Dolores Lear | August 3, 2008 1:13 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Posted by: Anonymous | July 22, 2008 7:45 AM
Report Offensive Comment

This article is more proof atheism is in itself a form of religion. Its view of the world is narrow, and is based on the premise that lack of evidence is evidence of lacking, which is employed using as much illation as any religion. Its existence is infested with ad hominen, which can skew any truth-finding effort and is not a worthy goal of any endeavor. Atheist activism ("atheism") engages in activities suspiciously similar to proselytizing and has its missionaries, endeavoring to push their ideology with as much zeal and arrogance accused of any religion (call it the Atheist Crusades). And as such, the human race will suffer the same problem-causing biases and dogmatic narrow-mindedness as has been seen with those they oppose.

It is important to mention that scientific theories should be taught in school but also with the full understanding of the concepts of the scientific method - and as long as teachers’ influence over students are not abused to push their viewpoints. Religion is already absent from public curriculums and thus should anti-religion. Along with the theories should also be taught the biased course a theory has taken. With this said, it should be noted that the United States of America preserves the freedom to believe as one would wish, and if a local population of people happen to vote a theory of science out of a public curriculum to your dismay, you have the freedom to live somewhere else.

As a scientist, I deplore how science is used as a tool to push or attack an ideology that has nothing to do with the science it employed to begin with. I understand the reaction to centuries of pushing how the world is by people with religious power to do so (is atheism any different today)? Those pontificators err greatly in that they miss the point, which is that by its nature, theism holds that religious views should come entirely from deity. Most were never claimed as such and many a view formed that shouldn’t have (the same thing is occurring in atheism). So most of the dubious beliefs not claimed to be officially sanctioned by deity that has drawn opposition for centuries, came solely from anthropological conceptualizing. This is hardly a reason to bash the entire notion deity (AKA intelligent life with influence over the physical) might exist beyond this realm of existence. Such a notion is indeed as much a narrow-minded and biased view as any religious one opposed.

The main point is this… if consideration is given to the unproven notion that everything of order, including life, came from pure chance and thus God doesn’t exist, or that perhaps extraterrestrial intelligence were somehow involved in such order (even extradimensional beings), then why not consider the notion of the existence of a God or Gods? The latter is of course in the language of religion, which has a different purpose than science. If this language was translated to the language of science, would atheists breathe a little easier?

Posted by: Grabe, MD | July 21, 2008 11:18 PM
Report Offensive Comment

jdkigbmo ztwmqufp tlnmvczq adihxp dhgmfu ndkqzvty bthgdcojm

Posted by: ynox nctwdxa | July 13, 2008 3:15 AM
Report Offensive Comment

I find it troubling that people who don't believe in the nonsense of religion, have no real exposure to the public. We have no PR, so to speak, and those people who might join with us, don't read about us or see us or hear us. We have no representation on religious pages of the newspapers as an alternative to religion. We don't sponsor schools or hospitals. We have no charities. We don't minister at births and deaths. We don't councel the troubled or visit prisons. We have no "perks" like "afterlives in heaven" or "72 virgins" or "blessings from god". We offer nothing to supplant the things offered by religion. Why would a Christian give up his seat in heaven to accept atheism? We have no real legitimacy as far as the public is concerned. The delusional people point at us and say we are crzy. People are deluged with religios information and speakers but we, who should be educating the public to come out of the dark ages of belief in miracles and afterlives and messiahs, have no voice. Nowhere in people's daily lives, do we appear, to offer rational-thinking people an alternative to the delusions of religion., except on the internet. What, if anything, can we do? The blacks got their time in the spotlight and now the gays, but the atheists need the same thing- a war; a fight for public recognition and acceptance; a war of rational versus irrational thinking; an exposure of the bible for what it is; a book of fairy tales. All I can think of is that the time is getting closer for real confrontation, but, like the messiah, I think it will never come.

Posted by: George Lippman | July 6, 2008 4:57 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Sam Harris is one of the best intellect of all times. His comment on understanding our mind is well presented. Only through personal contemplation and understanding our mind where we can truly recognize the true nature of things as it is. More power to you SAM.

Posted by: Carlos Cheng, PE | July 2, 2008 12:30 PM
Report Offensive Comment

It is true Sam Harris and other anti-theists in general are extremely successful in converting other anti-theists to anti-theism. Who would have imagined that the super-rational anti-theists, who mock Christians for believing in a Messiah, were waiting for a messiah themselves and would find one in Sam Harris?

Posted by: Anonymous | June 9, 2008 4:01 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Until I discovered Mr. Harris and his writings, I have lived my life much in the same way, that I can only imagine, the children of the sect of Warren Jeffs lived theirs under his tight reign. I've spent the majority of my life succumbing to world and immediate peer pressure regarding westernized Christianity. I tried so hard, against every fiber of my existence, to accept the illogical and ridiculous tenants of what authority figures whom I loved and trusted as a child, put every faith in, only to be betrayed at every turn by constant confusion and dishonesty to keep the "faith" dream alive. Mr. Harris' words, for me, have soothed and sorted out decades of writhing pain and obfuscated misdirection to the extent that I now have a verifiable reason to wake up in the morning and actually feel like I belong in this world. Mr. Harris has provided me a freedom and an inner solice though his logical words and arguments I strenously doubt would ever have been possible for me without them. Thank you, Mr. Harris, for your passion, inexhaustable efforts, interminable intellect and understanding of the thoughts and feelings of those who share your beliefs without a single reservation. I couldn't be more happy to be a part of your team, and look forward to contributing in the many various ways I know that I can.

Sincerely,

James Cornwell

Posted by: james cornwell | June 8, 2008 4:05 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Sincerely,

James Cornwell
Fresno, California

Posted by: james cornwell | June 8, 2008 4:04 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Lindajean, I could not reply to your post or to Soja's. I'm having trouble posting anything I want to say. I don't know if it is just this forum or all. However, it looks like my time on this post has come to an end.

Best wishes everyone. I have enjoyed chatting with you all. Thank you for expanding my faith!

Posted by: Peter Huff | May 23, 2008 8:42 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Peter said, "The foolish thing is not your gift of intelligence but how you are using it. It is a personal preference to have a disbelief. "

I "choose" not to believe the earth revolves around the sun instead of the sun revolving around the earth? That is not a choice. My rational mind knows the difference and the only “choice” I have is that I can tell my rational mind the earth does not revolve around the sun. But my mind will still accept it as true because it is.

Unless I want to live with complete cognitive dissonance, my mind does not "choose" to believe the unbelievable.

Posted by: lindajean | May 21, 2008 6:16 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Hi Lindajean,

LJ: "If God gave me the mind that he did, somewhere in my mind (he gave me) the ability to reason and critically analyze the world. Doing so has made me an unbeliever in God and I can no more “believe” in God than I can believe I am a dog or cat. There is nothing “foolish” about not being able to believe in something per se, and it is not necessarily a personal preference to have a disbelief. There is nothing I can do to change my belief that there is no God. Just as there is nothing I can do to change my belief that I am not a dog or a cat (even if I really wanted to believe I am a dog or cat.)"

I apologize for being so direct here but I don't want to mask the answer.

The foolish thing is not your gift of intelligence but how you are using it. It is a personal preference to have a disbelief. You choose not to believe because to believe questions your authority and would mean submission to His. The Word of God calls you to faith, to change your mind, to repent of your supposed autonomy and confess your helplessness before God in asking for His mercy. There is no probability claims in the Bible that God exists; He does. And yet you go against the evidence, supposing that you can actually make sense of anything, let alone morals, truth, logic, reality, existence, without God. He is the precondition for intelligence for He made all things in His infinite wisdom.

In your world view where does your authority come from and how can you know it is true? You have no absolutes in your world view, in your morals, so whose position are you going to take as the "good"? Which man/woman decides for you, for in your world view mankind is the ultimate judge. Looking at life from an atheist's point, why should I take your view or someone else's view of good when I can choose my own? No it all takes faith, and a leap on your part. You are accessible to the truth just like I am. God's word is truth (John 17:17).

LJ: "How does one believe in something when one’s mind does not believe it? If I wake up tomorrow and “decide” I am going to believe in God, how can I be sincere and honest about believing in God? I can tell others I believe in God; I can even tell myself 100 times a day I believe in God. I can go to church every Sunday and can pray every morning, noon and night to God , but how can I accept God when my mind will not believe in him? If I say that I believe in God, but I really don’t believe in God, then am I still foolish? Am I a lair? Am I a hypocrite? Just as I can say I love my brother, if I actually do not love him, how can I profess that I do? I have no control over who I love. I either love them or I do not. How can I believe in God if I do not believe in God?"

You say you do not believe in Him but your world view gives you nothing in which to make sense of the world. Where do we come from? You don't know; you have no answers. Why are morals binding and who determines good? For you it is culturally relative. But which men/women decided it was to be so in the first place and why? How do they know? How do you know something is certain? You don't even know if your philosophy about life is certain. How do you know things in nature will remain constant and uniform? How can you without absolutes? You can only say that it has been so in the past and so you believe it will be so in the future, but there are no guarantees, just personal opinion in which you base your confidence. You have no concrete basis or foundation to rest your world view on. It constantly shifts as the culture does. Where does your authority come from, science? Science has been wrong in the past and will be wrong in the future, especially when it talks of origins in which no man has witnessed. The evidence has to be interpreted and it takes faith to believe what you believe.

I have an authority in Him that I do not need to look into to accept as my final authority because to look into Him, to validate Him as my final authority would then make me the authority to validate His authority thus becoming an authority over Him. His authority can only be authority if it truly is authority. You want to make yourself the final authority over God and therefore will not submit to Him.

You are not willing to put your trust in the Savior to be made a new creature, with a new mind, a new heart. You are not willing to release your believed autonomy to One wiser than you. You want the last say. It is easier to doubt than believe because you can then perceive that you have no one to answer to but yourself in the way you conduct your life. You are your own ultimate authority in deciding all things and this is the way you want it.

Posted by: Peter Huff | May 20, 2008 10:09 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Hi Soja,

For some reason I'm being blocked in replying to your latest post. Sorry.

Posted by: Peter Huff | May 20, 2008 7:07 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Andy, many thanks for your very kind words.

I am unable to make any useful comment about your latest attempt to define God and man since the ideas you expressed is simply too complex for me. But as you pointed out yours is still a work in progress. I understand that as a philosopher it is natural for you to work out intellectual constructs about God and you are employing philosophy, physics and psychology to aid you in it. Believers on the other hand have faith first and some have experiences of differing intensity, and the intellectual constructs (if they should indulge in the exercise) are merely expressions of that faith and experience. As a simple believer I'm convinced that behind and through your striving, God, who is not just a construct of your mind, is drawing you to Himself. I wish with all my heart you will find Him in God's time and way, the God who is not just a construct of your mind but as He really is.

God speed!

Soja

Posted by: Soja John Thaikattil, Sydney, Australia | May 19, 2008 7:38 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Hi Soja!

You said to Peter:

"Understanding God with our finite mind is a lifelong journey and nobody should be so foolish as to believe they have understood it all at any time in their life. So I remain open. If spiritually advanced people are to be believed, it is possible for everyone to love God. ... God is infinite and we get to perceive only glimpses of Him in many ways as He reveals Himself in different ways to different persons."

This is wonderful. You have the gift of clear vision in these matters.
My revelation is still unfolding. For me, the Holy Trinity looks like this:

Boss, the "background of spatiotemporal structures," is the natural environment for all our efforts. Physicists study the Boss, which may be analogous to the "ground luminosity" of which Buddhist meditators speak. Given the astonishing depth and subtlety of the layers of being revealed by modern physics, this manifestation of the divine mystery deservesthe deepest respect.

Susie, the "self underlying subjective inner experience," is the mental space within which all our dealings with reality seem to be located. Psychologists have hardly begun to understand its nature in scientific terms, but it is clear from my efforts n this field that the challenge is huge and will occupy us for a long time. Modern neuroscience offers a good way to get started, but as with the Boss there are mysteries here that deserve to be called divine.

Golf, the "genetics of living forms," is the mysterious attractor informing the evolutionary tree of DNA life on Earth. Golf is an attractor for our natural strivings that reflects the activity of what Dawkins calls our selfish genes. A primitive (but still potent) precursor of Golf is Goof, the "God of our fathers." For humans, breaking free of Goof is breaking free of our "specieism" to embrace the deeper attractor of Golf. This wider embrace is natural enough for a modern person blessed by Susie, but usually falls short of embracing the Boss with similar intensity.

The Goof forerunner of Golf is analogous to a human personal self, as a sort of guiding ideal, acting at the level of our species. Humans are human because they have in evolutionary time recognized the Goof in one of the countless forms that human history records. A god of another species would be made in the image of that species. The breakthrough represented by worship of the Abrahamic God was that of internalizing a previously external form (an idol) and relating the attractor directly to a familial but transcendent (hence genetic) ideal.

When framed by the Boss and Susie, Golf becomes a potential object of scientific study in some distant future. Meanwhile, the smaller challenge of studying the Goof is still difficult. First, we need to put the politics of religion aside. As humans, we also need to put natural feelings aside, and do so without ruining our own humanity. A tall order!

Anyway, thanks for setting such a noble example.

Andy

Posted by: andy ross | May 18, 2008 2:44 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Hi Lindajean,

Nice to hear from you again. I'm working this weekend so I will respond on Monday or Tuesday.

Posted by: Peter Huff | May 18, 2008 9:19 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Hi Peter!

Thanks for your detailed replies and quotes. I do not want to prolong this discussion by going into them and start a whole new cycle. Besides I mentioned that this is anti-theist blog, not one for Christians to debate among themselves splitting hairs.

Today the Catholic Church celebrates the Feast of the Holy Trinity. So Happy Holy Trinity Day to you! May you be filled with the joy and peace Jesus promised and may the gift of the Holy Spirit be renewed everyday. (John chapters 14-17)

Btw, I must let you in on a secret - I don't have a single original interpretation of any Bible verse!!! Hundreds of Christians of all denominations have dedicated their lives to understanding the message of God as revealed in the Bible. I have merely read a tiny bit of it, including the Bible for myself, and accept what I believe the Holy Spirit gives me the grace to believe. Understanding God with our finite mind is a lifelong journey and nobody should be so foolish as to believe they have understood it all at any time in their life. So I remain open. If spiritually advanced people are to be believed, it is possible for everyone to love God. However I do not share your view that your interpretation alone is the only absolute interpretation. That would imply others who have spent as much time or more on reading and praying the Scriptures are wrong and God did not honor their commitment. God is infinite and we get to perceive only glimpses of Him in many ways as He reveals Himself in different ways to different persons. You only need to have some basic criteria to discern the spirit. The Catholic Church has a whole specialty area devoted to it. You might find a pearl or two there.

C S Lewis was Anglican - atheist - Anglican; Dom Bede Griffiths was Anglican - atheist - Catholic; Professor Francis Collins was an atheist and is now an Evangelical. Their experiences are unique and I'm sure they don't share the interpretation of all the Bible verses with you.

Relax and let go after you have said your piece. Leave the results of your efforts to God. Have the courage and humility to accept rejection of your interpretation of every Bible verse. Maybe with time you could come to terms with the fact that not every Christian needs to interpret every single Bible verse like you in order to be a real Christian.

I wish to leave you on that note and thank you once again for your dedicated sharing on this thread. Who knows how many may be deeply influenced by what you wrote. Let the Holy Spirit take the lead in using your words for God's glory, now that you have done your part.

God bless!

Soja

Posted by: Soja John Thaikattil, Sydney, Australia | May 18, 2008 7:09 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Peter: You said (to Soja),
"So the reason I’m circular and keep going back to the basics is because only the Christian believer has an answer for the questions I continue to ask these skeptics. They are without reason and without excuse. I do not want to let them away with their foolish thinking. I want them to show me why they have any warrant for believing what they do is right and true. They don’t. They want to influence and power their belief into the forefront of thinking and yet are unwilling to provide an answer as to why it is true other than personal preference. In such a case why is their personal preference any more valid than mine or Adolph Hitler’s? Should I just let them away with their thinking without even discussing it with them, without getting them to justify the why and the how? Should I not argue or reason with them out of concern for their eternal well-being to show them the error and destructiveness of their ways and point them to the truth? Is it worthwhile for me to do so; is it worth my sacrifice of time and effort? ..."

If God gave me the mind that he did, somewhere in my mind (he gave me) the ability to reason and critically analyze the world. Doing so has made me an unbeliever in God and I can no more “believe” in God than I can believe I am a dog or cat. There is nothing “foolish” about not being able to believe in something per se, and it is not necessarily a personal preference to have a disbelief. There is nothing I can do to change my belief that there is no God. Just as there is nothing I can do to change my belief that I am not a dog or a cat (even if I really wanted to believe I am a dog or cat.)

How does one believe in something when one’s mind does not believe it? If I wake up tomorrow and “decide” I am going to believe in God, how can I be sincere and honest about believing in God? I can tell others I believe in God; I can even tell myself 100 times a day I believe in God. I can go to church every Sunday and can pray every morning, noon and night to God , but how can I accept God when my mind will not believe in him? If I say that I believe in God, but I really don’t believe in God, then am I still foolish? Am I a lair? Am I a hypocrite? Just as I can say I love my brother, if I actually do not love him, how can I profess that I do? I have no control over who I love. I either love them or I do not. How can I believe in God if I do not believe in God?

Do those who believe in God have some innate ability to do so that I lack? Do those who believe in God simply “will” themselves to believe? Does it simply take a strong-willed person to believe in God? If I have enough will and determination I too can believe in God? How does one acquire this will? Are Atheists just weak-willed people who don’t have what it takes? Did God make us weak-willed?

Believing in God is an act of faith. So if I don’t have faith how can I have belief? And if I don’t have belief, how can I have faith?

I've observed that many former atheists were religious believers. I have not observed many religious converts who were formerly atheists. Is there a reason for that?

Posted by: lindajean | May 17, 2008 3:43 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Soja, I am being blocked from quoting any more of Bahnsen. I recommend if you have any interest in understanding this you pick up the book. He says it better than I ever could.

Posted by: Peter Huff | May 16, 2008 10:23 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Hi Soja,

To answer Timmy, for me the main point under discussion here is more than interpretation, it's ultimate authority. Yes interpretation plays a crucial, vital point but it is more who you look to for the answers to make sense of truth, good, and the rest of the package.

And Soja, the point is well taken if you ask the question from an atheist's point of view - which man's authority are you going to take as the ultimate view on authority, the final standard and how do you know this for certain? He has no authority, no standard but himself; he has created an idol in himself in which he acts as his own god, thereby breaking the first commandment (and second for that matter) , "You shall have no other gods before Me." (Exodus 20:3)

Soja, as a sister in Christ and part of the family of God I hope you will consider what has been said as encouragement?

"And we also thank God continually because, when you received the word of God, which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men, but as it actually is, the word of God, which is at work in you who believe." (1 Thessalonians 2:13)

Posted by: Peter Huff | May 16, 2008 10:17 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Peter,

Obviously Soja knows that your interpretation of the Bible is the only correct one, but she is pretending to not see that, and pretending to see it another way, because she wants to be her own boss and follow her own words.
Right?

I mean, she couldn't possibly be mistaken about it, because God's word is so perfect that it can not be misinterpreted, so she must see it your way, but be lying about the truth, and making up her own version, because she doesn't like having a boss. Right?

Posted by: timmy | May 15, 2008 3:54 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Hi Soja,

To continue on yesterdays thoughts,

So Soja, this is the case whenever you appeal to another system of belief outside the Bible, outside the final authority of God’s Word (i.e. other religions as valid or authoritative).

To continue on this reasoning, Bahnsen adds further that either a person thinks in terms of the final authority being Scripture, and thus making your reason and all its activities subject to its authority or else you act on your own ultimate authority. He says you cannot have it both ways as to your final standard and reference point. So you presuppose and reason either according to the authority of God's word or according to some other authority. He says on the footnote on page 91 of the same book, "The complaint will be heard that, if we are arguing over whether God exists and has final authority, we may not take that authority for granted while we are arguing about it. But the complaint is reversible, is it not? The Christian may reply: "If we are arguing over whether God exists and has final authority, we may not take for granted that He is not the final authority; the attempt to authorize (substantiate) His authority by some other standard would amount to the ruling that whatever authority He has cannot be final." A person’s presuppositions are (as such) presupposed even when someone is discussing or arguing about them. For example, philosophers who argue for the truth or validity of the laws of logic do not put aside logic while arguing for it."

This is an important distinction. You either "Let God be true and every man a liar" (Romans 3:4) or you undermine God's authority by placing yours above it.

Posted by: Peter Huff | May 15, 2008 11:52 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Nice speech. I'm finding myself liking Harris more and more every day. I've been moving towards a similar intellectual direction myself over the years, not just generally with regard to atheism, but on the specifics issues he raises as well.

Posted by: Miguel Chavez | May 15, 2008 5:08 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Hi Soja,

SOJA: “That explains my love of the old world, my attraction to time tested religions and rituals associated with such a religion, even if I do not look upon the ritual as an end in itself by merely as a means to express one's devotion to God.”

Your phrase “time test religions” implies to me again that you believe in the truth claims of more than one religion. Please correct my understanding if I am wrong. In my understanding, such a view undermines the authority of the Word of God and in such circumstances you act in the same manner as an unbeliever would, treating God’s revelation of Himself as of secondary authority with others above. Please let me use Greg Bahnsen to explain the concern more fully in Van Til's Apologetics, Readings & Analysis,

“…Van Til’s insights have such a revolutionary effect on most people. He insists (as does Scripture) that the way in which we use our minds – the way in which we reason, how we evaluate claims of truth, the standards we adopt for knowing, etc, - is itself an ethical matter.” P.90 “’Intellectualism in the church has often made an easy compromise with the Socratic dictum that knowledge is virtue. Men often speak as though the only thing that the sinner needs is true information. This…is not the case. Man needs true interpretation, but he needs to be made a new creature…Sin is not only misinformation, it is also a power of perversion in the soul.’ The non-Christian’s opposition to the truth about God or the gospel does not rise from legitimate intellectual problems with the faith, but from a rebellious and rationalizing heart. ‘The sinners problem from his point of view is to cast doubt upon this evidence, to make it appear as though the evidence were not clear….It is the effort of every man to put the blame for his failure to serve God upon the elusive character of the evidence for God’s existence.’ The two opponents in an apologetic encounter are thus intellectually living by two different ethical standards, but they are also arguing according to conflicting final standards for knowledge itself. They disagree on the ultimate authority that should be used to warrant or justify what a person believes as true.” P. 91

Posted by: Peter Huff | May 15, 2008 12:44 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Hi Soja,

SOJA: "I was only drawing to your attention the fact that debates with anti-theists/atheists has never ever been brought to a conclusion although debates have been carried on by many religious scholars for many centuries. Nobody ever converts to a religious belief because of having lost in a debate to a believer if their intention was to convert the other person. An anti-theist converting to a belief as a result of a debate is as unlikely as a Christian missionary converting to atheism as a result of losing to an atheist. People come to God because they search for Him, they have an experience that brings down their atheistic convictions like a house of cards, their reason leads them in ways that makes atheism look incomplete...Real faith in God cannot be instilled by force or coercion."

My intent was not to convert, I don't believe I can, only God can, whether He was to use my words, your words or some other circumstances to bring a person to the true faith, if He chooses. My intent was to stand firm and share the truth of God's word to the best of my ability and to show how the unbeliever has built his foundation on sinking sand and cannot make sense of why his house is folding around him as Jesus' words take effect, the Lord willing (Matthew 7:24-27).

Best wishes also!

Posted by: Peter Huff | May 15, 2008 12:40 AM
Report Offensive Comment

SOJA: “As for morality, you misunderstood my point. I was emphasizing the need for a religion to arrive at universal morals.”

Religion other than the one true faith cannot arrive at universal morals except when it borrows truth from Christianity for it takes different methods and starts with different presuppositions that are opposed to truth, just keeping a smattering of it in the mix so that it sounds wise and wonderful. It is the same old scenario, “Did God really say?” Yes He did.

SOJA: “Religions are unpopular precisely because they demand high morals which cater not to the lowest need of selfish human beings but to the happiness and stability of the whole society including the happiness of the weakest and the most vulnerable.”

I think religions, including atheism, are popular because they change and twist the truth so that it appeals to the itching ears of those who want to hear something that fits with their idea of a god but misses the mark of truth revealed by the one and only true God. Atheism puts the subjective person on the throne of their own life, judging all things from the grounds of their own judgment so that they become their own god and worship themselves as the highest authority that can be known. Yes, they do borrow from the truth when it suits their needs and ideas.

SOJA: “Thanks for your response once again. I do wish that Jesus will use your love for Him in ways and with people who really will benefit from your knowledge of the Bible.”

That is my hope also but that alone is God’s choice.

SOJA: “Thanks for sharing so much here. I'm sure it will help those who are really seeking answers in Christianity. Anti-theists are missionaries dedicated to destroying all religions, hence you cannot expect to get anywhere in your discussions with them. I don't do it anymore after I went through the cycle of repeat arguments a few times.”

Sometimes it is good not to let the atheist away with their pat answers. They have no way of answering these questions and my constantly repeating and rephrasing them will hopefully show them that their worldview is foolish. Theirs is just personal preference, mere opinion that wants to dictate the way things “should be” without a standard of why it “should be” and that can only stand up as backyard bullying, nothing else. It is a worldview devoid of answers to meaning.

You are right; I don’t expect to get anywhere unless God has mercy on them and uses what I have said to make the seed of faith grow (see 1 Corinthians 3:5-15). I am not under the delusion that they are able to hear the message unless also God has made it so (1 Corinthians 1:18-2:14) but I can point out the foolishness of their belief. That is a purpose in my response, to show that their answers (or lack there of much of the time) in this conflict we are engaged in is unable to make sense of itself.

Posted by: Peter Huff | May 14, 2008 11:34 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Hi Soja,

SOJA: “Your attempt to convert me to your interpretation of all the verses in the Bible has not been successful because it is possible to interpret those verses in different ways and still be a Christian. I do wonder about your need to convert even Christians to your interpretations of every Bible verse and to jump into the conclusion anyone who doesn't get converted is not a Christian at all."

With respect dear sister, I can't convert, only God can and if one is a Christian they are already converted by His grace, but they need to rightly discern His Word, otherwise they are in error.

SOJA: "You seem to be running into the same difficulty with your Bible study group. I find it rather unusual that a Christian finds it necessary to convert another Christian.”

It is not a matter of converting but of admonishing in the teaching of sound doctrine. Paul reminded Timothy and Titus (and the same warning is for each of us) to watch our lives and doctrine closely, and to endure and persevere in it (1 Timothy 4:16; Titus 2:1). There is only one true gospel as Paul reminded the church in Galatia,

“I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you by the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel – which is really no gospel at all. Evidently some people are throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ. But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned.” (Galatians 1:6-8)

Paul opposed Peter at Antioch because he was clearly in the wrong on some of his doctrine. So Soja, if you feel I am and let me continue in my error you are doing me no favors. That is why I boldly continue to point out to you some of matters of faith from God's word in the hopes that God will use what is said. I am willing to reason from the Scriptures with you because the Scriptures are not contradictory; many are clear and are from Him who cannot lie.

It is not a case of the possibility of interpreting the verses in different ways and still being a Christian but in finding the correct way of interpreting God’s word. And you are right that a Christian can interpret a passage in error and still be a Christian, depending on what is being compromised, but as Christians we should be in submission to God’s truth, not doubters of it like Eve, not autonomous as the atheist, a law unto self, and just like Eve was we do not want to be deceived and led away into false teaching. It is easy to be carried away by every kind of false doctrine. Truth is narrow and two interpretations on a passage that believe contrary things cannot both be true. Put all things to the test of God’s Word. We are commanded to worship God not only in spirit but also in truth, for these are the kind of worshipers that God seeks.

“Yet a time is coming and has now come when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and in truth, for they are the kind of worshipers the Father seeks. God is Spirit, and His worshipers MUST worship in spirit and in truth.” (John 4:4:23-24).

Contend for the faith as it was once for all delivered to the saints. (Jude 3) Be on your guard against error. If I err point it out and explain from Scripture how I do so that I may not be wise in my own eyes but rather wise in His wisdom. Remember that “All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.” (2 Timothy 3:16) And I am not talking of the Hindu Scriptures, neither is Paul (1 Thessalonians 2:13).

As a matter of fact see the extortions that Paul gave Timothy in the previous verses to 2 Timothy 3:16,

“In fact, everyone who wants to live a godly life in Christ Jesus will be persecuted, while evil men and impostors will go from bad to worse, deceiving and being deceived. But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have become convinced of, because you know those from whom you have learned it, and how from infancy you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus.” (vs. 12-15)

It is not man’s wisdom that is able to make you wise for salvation but His Holy Word.

Posted by: Peter Huff | May 14, 2008 11:19 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Hi Soja,

I can't convert, only God can and if one is a Christian they are already converted by His grace, but they need to rightly discern His Word, otherwise they are in error.

SOJA: "You seem to be running into the same difficulty with your Bible study group. I find it rather unusual that a Christian finds it necessary to convert another Christian.”

As a matter of fact see the extortions that Paul gave Timothy in the previous verses to 2 Timothy 3:16,

It is not man’s wisdom that is able to make you wise for salvation but His Holy Word.

Posted by: Peter Huff | May 14, 2008 10:03 PM
Report Offensive Comment

On a final note on this thread Peter, by *all* means do complete writing your rebuttals to GAD! I find your rebuttals instructive. I was only drawing to your attention the fact that debates with anti-theists/atheists has never ever been brought to a conclusion although debates have been carried on by many religious scholars for many centuries. Nobody ever converts to a religious belief because of having lost in a debate to a believer if their intention was to convert the other person. An anti-theist converting to a belief as a result of a debate is as unlikely as a Christian missionary converting to atheism as a result of losing to an atheist. People come to God because they search for Him, they have an experience that brings down their atheistic convictions like a house of cards, their reason leads them in ways that makes atheism look incomplete...Real faith in God cannot be instilled by force or coercion.

Wishing you all the best now and always!

Soja

Posted by: Soja John Thaikattil, Sydney, Australia | May 14, 2008 9:37 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Soja,

You type. I comment.
No one is saying that you have to debate me.
You just have to have your comments here, commented on, by me.
You are, of course, welcome to make a comment about my comment, but that would pretty much be a debate.

Best wishes
Timmy

Posted by: timmy | May 13, 2008 7:50 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Timmy, I notice that we are no closer to having a meaningful debate now than we were earlier. All points have been already discussed as I mentioned in my post to Peter. So we shall agree to disagree, okay?

Best wishes
Soja

Posted by: Soja John Thaikattil, Sydney, Australia | May 13, 2008 4:50 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Christianity, which is two thousand years old, is built on the foundation of Judaism which is considered five thousand years to date. Christians share the same Scripture as the Jews, even if the Jews do not accept Jesus Christ as the promised Messiah of their Scripture. That makes Christianity a religion that has its roots in something that is actually at least five thousand years old.

My Hindu ancestors at the time of their conversion to Christianity in 52 AD by Thomas, the Apostle of Jesus, belonged to the oldest and most orthodox version of Hinduism, which is considered by some to be even older than Judaism. That explains my love of the old world, my attraction to time tested religions and rituals associated with such a religion, even if I do not look upon the ritual as an end in itself by merely as a means to express one's devotion to God.

The Sacraments of the Catholic Church are not empty rituals but deal with deep articles of the Christian faith.

Posted by: Soja John Thaikattil, Sydney, Australia | May 13, 2008 3:06 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Soja said:

"I'm an "old world" person who loves unbroken traditions that have lasted two thousand years"

Obviously.

Here are some more traditions that lasted over 2000 years.

Slavery
Misogyny
Human sacrifice
Homosexual persecution
Honor killings
Arranged marriages
Altar boy diddling

Things that last as traditions for thousands of years are good.
These things are to be revered.
These are things to have a soft spot for.
Because if it lasts for thousands of years, there must be some value in it.
Right?

Fool!
Dupe!
Lemming!
Drone!
Blind bat!
Part of the problem!

Posted by: timmy | May 12, 2008 10:20 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Hi Peter!

Thanks for your detailed response. I need to explain that you misunderstood my post, hence this reply.

The mention about the ego was not in connection with your Bible based responses, but about the need to continue a debate where every argument is merely being repeated in cycles every few weeks.

I may not interpret the Bible in all points as you do, but I share the same basic beliefs as all Christians regarding the divinity of Jesus, Resurrection etc. I remain a Catholic (a liberal, belong originally to an Apostolic Eastern Church going back to 52 AD, and which came under the communion of the Roman Catholic Church 400 years ago but still retains autonomy and follows a Syrian rite) and have been attending Latin rite Church since the age of about fifteen due to lack of access to my denominational church. I have been greatly enriched by the contact I have had with Protestants. I continue to find great meaning and beauty in the Catholic Sacraments and I'm an "old world" person who loves unbroken traditions that have lasted two thousand years.

Your attempt to convert me to your interpretation of all the verses in the Bible has not been successful because it is possible to interpret those verses in different ways and still be a Christian. I do wonder about your need to convert even Christians to your interpretations of every Bible verse and to jump into the conclusion anyone who doesn't get converted is not a Christian at all. You seem to be running into the same difficulty with your Bible study group. I find it rather unusual that a Christian finds it necessary to convert another Christian.

Anyway that wasn't the point I was trying to make in my post at all.

As for morality, you misunderstood my point. I was emphasizing the need for a religion to arrive at universal morals. Religions are unpopular precisely because they demand high morals which caters not to the lowest need of selfish human beings but to the happiness and stability of the whole society including the happiness of the weakest and the most vulnerable.

Thanks for your response once again. I do wish that Jesus will use your love for Him in ways and with people who really will benefit from your knowledge of the Bible. Thanks for sharing so much here. I'm sure it will help those who are really seeking answers in Christianity. Anti-theists are missionaries dedicated to destroying all religions, hence you cannot expect to get anywhere in your discussions with them. I don't do it anymore after I went through the cycle of repeat arguments a few times.

God bless!

Soja

Posted by: Soja John Thaikattil, Sydney, Australia | May 12, 2008 5:23 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Hi Soja,

I said I would reply to Gad's rebuttal, all seven of them, and hopefully, the Lord willing, I continue to.

Soja: "As a believer, I'm wondering if you should ask yourself if it is your ego that keeps you trapped in a debate the atheists themselves have abandoned."

It is possible, and I say this with love, just like it is possible that it is your ego that causes you to doubt the trustworthiness of His Word at times and to smuggle in man made philosophy. You can’t compromise the truth of Scripture to fit it with human philosophy. You have to stand firm in the trustfulness of the Gospel and all of Scripture. There is only one way that man can be right with God and that is through His Son, not through Hindu philosophy or any man-made philosophy of this world. Contend for the gospel.

As the Apostle Paul said,
“Now I want you to know, brothers, that what has happened to me has really served to advance the gospel. As a result, it has become clear throughout the whole palace guard and to everyone else that I am in chains for Christ. Because of my chains, most of the brothers in the Lord have been encouraged to SPEAK THE WORD OF GOD more courageously and fearlessly. It is true that some speak Christ out of envy and rivalry, but others out of goodwill. The latter do so in love, knowing that I am put here for the defense of the gospel. The former preach Christ out of selfish ambition, not sincerely, supposing that they can stir up trouble for me while I am in chains. But what does it matter? The important thing is that in every way, whether from false motives or true, Christ is preached. And because of this I rejoice.” (Philippians 1:12-18a)

So Soja, God has and will continue to judge and weigh my motives as to whether they are pure of selfish and I will receive what is just for my efforts and for all those who put their hope in the Lord Jesus Christ we will also receive God’s mercy as well. Thank goodness for that for I see my weakness and inabilities daily. No one need remind me of them. That is why Paul could also say, “I can do everything through Him who gives me strength” or “But He said to me, ‘My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness…For when I am weak, then I am strong ’” (Philippians 4:13; 2 Corinthians 12:9, 10b)

I am thankful for Him and that I do not rely on my own ability but on His for salvation. There is nothing I can do to merit it, it is a gift from God.

One of the elders at the Wednesday night Bible study told me when I questioned the current trend in Christian thinking concerning the rapture and on another occasion Armenianism that these are subjects that are best left alone because Scripture does not give a definite answer on them either way. Yes it does, but there was no possibility of a discussion because cherished beliefs were in danger of being exposed if I did, so in order to not discourage brothers not mature in sound doctrine I left the matter for another time. We should be more concerned about what God’s Word actually says than the current trend in Christian thinking.

We are called to set aside Jesus Christ as Lord and as such hold to His wisdom and understanding for in Him are “all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge” (Colossians 2:8). Do you believe that Soja; if not you undermine the Lordship of the Lord of Glory, the Lord Jesus Christ. If He is not Lord then who is?

Constantly in the New Testament the Apostle Paul exhorted others to reason in the Scriptures and to challenge worldviews that set themselves up against the truth of God’s Word, whether from a believer or non-believer.

What was happening in the Bible Study I attend was a form of censorship rather than a study and training in righteousness. The only view that was going to be tolerated was the view held by the majority of Christendom, right or wrong it did not matter. Out of love for my brothers and sisters in Christ I did not want to be contentious even though I do not believe their view to be Scriptural and in this particular case we were not more noble than the Thessalonians (Acts 17:11) and we did not test everything and weigh it carefully (1 Thessalonians 5:21), holding onto the teachings that were once and for all delivered to the saints (2 Thessalonians 2:15; Jude 3). Hopefully that will be for another time?

God's word has "divine power to demolish strongholds. We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ." (2 Corinthians 10:3-5) That is what I am attempting here Soja, to show the unbeliever that they cannot make sense of the world and that their belief is foolish. I do this to the best of my abilities that God has given me. That may not be as sophisticated or powerful as some but it is what God has given me, an interest in apologetics. Why should I fear man or any argument that the unbeliever can throw out. As Paul said, "Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world?" The answer is yes. You would do well to believe that God has made foolish the wisdom of this world too for a Christian undermines the trustfulness of God's word when they do not believe what God has said. (Rev. 22:6; Ps. 119:42, 160; Ps. 56:4; Prov. 3:5; Rom. 3:4)

By God's grace alone the unbeliever comes to faith, but God's word will show any philosophy that goes against what God says for what it is, foolish. My hope is that God will use what I have said on this forum to make these people question why they believe what they do, because as Christian's we are the only ones who offer the truth about life and can make sense of the world. It is only possible if God makes it so, otherwise I have labored in vain. And I am not boasting on myself or my ability here but on Christ, for it is His truth that we offer the world.

Soja: "Is there something you hope to prove in a debate that has gone in circles for over six months here and over eighteen months on other Sam Harris threads and could go on for six millennium without arriving at a conclusion, with the same arguments rehashed in cycles every few weeks."

Yes there is, that the atheist have no defense for his/her position. With the atheist the whole idea is to tear down the Christian position in order for his/her position to be the position of power, for under an atheist worldview power is the name of the game. Not so for the Christian. Our main concern is for the salvation of souls and the hope that God would use our apologetics, our theology, our evangelism, our philosophy, our worldview to bring the unbeliever to faith, for if we are Biblical in our apologetics, theology, evangelism, philosophy we will be thinking God’s thoughts after Him.

So the reason I’m circular and keep going back to the basics is because only the Christian believer has an answer for the questions I continue to ask these skeptics. They are without reason and without excuse. I do not want to let them away with their foolish thinking. I want them to show me why they have any warrant for believing what they do is right and true. They don’t. They want to influence and power their belief into the forefront of thinking and yet are unwilling to provide an answer as to why it is true other than personal preference. In such a case why is their personal preference any more valid than mine or Adolph Hitler’s? Should I just let them away with their thinking without even discussing it with them, without getting them to justify the why and the how? Should I not argue or reason with them out of concern for their eternal well-being to show them the error and destructiveness of their ways and point them to the truth? Is it worthwhile for me to do so; is it worth my sacrifice of time and effort? The Lord sacrificed more than His life for my benefit (Philippians 2:5-8).

Greg Bahnsen in his book, “Van Til’s Apologetics, Readings and Analysis” said,

“According to Van Til, apologetics aims to defend the Christian faith by answering the variety of challenges leveled against it by unbelievers, thereby vindicating the Christian philosophy of life (worldview) over against all non-Christian philosophies of life (word-views). There are many ways in which Christian truth claims come under attack. Their meaningfulness is challenged. The possibility of miracles, revelation, and the incarnation is questioned. Doubt is cast upon the deity of Jesus Christ or the existence of God. The historical or scientific accuracy of the Bible is attacked. Scriptural teaching is rejected for not being logically coherent. Conscious life following physical death, everlasting damnation, and the future resurrection are not readily accepted. The way of salvation is found disgusting or unnecessary. The nature of God and the way of salvation are falsified by heretical schools of thought. Competing religious systems are set over against Christianity. The ethics of Scripture is criticized. The psychological or political adequacy of Christianity is looked down upon. These and many other lines of attack are directed against biblical Christianity. It is the job of apologetics to refute them and demonstrate the truth of the Christian proclamation and worldview – to “cast down reasonings and every high thing that is exalted against the knowledge of God” (2 Corinthians 10:5).
One of the distinctive insights that Van Til has given to presuppositional apologetics is that every line of reasoning that is exalted against the knowledge of God, and every kind of objection or challenge to the faith that is raised by unbelievers, arises from an attitude of the heart and within the intellectual context of a world-and-life view. Everybody thinks and reasons in terms of a broad and fundamental understanding of the nature of reality, of how we know what we know, of how we should live our lives. This philosophy or outlook is “presupposed” by everything the unbeliever (or believer) says; it is the implicit background that gives meaning to the claims and inferences drawn by people. For this reason, every apologetic encounter is ultimately a conflict of worldviews or fundamental perspectives (whether this is explicitly mentioned or not).
The Christian must not only recognize this for the purpose of developing and responding to arguments with an unbeliever, but also be aware that the particular claims which the apologist defends are understood within the context of the entire system of the doctrine revealed by God in the Scriptures. It is this entire underlying worldview that is being defended, even when we answer a more narrow, particular attack. We cannot talk about everything at once, of course, but the specific matters about which we argue with the unbeliever are always understood and defined within the broader framework of God’s full revelation. Thus, we do not attempt to defend the resuscitation of a particular human corpse, and then attempt to add an argument that this revived individual is also a divine person (etc.); rather, we set forth and defend the resurrection of the incarnate Son of God. Likewise, the Christian apologist does not argue for just any kind of abstract, general theism (“a god of some sort or other”), but rather for the specific concept of God revealed within the Christian Scriptures. Thus, when all is said and done, apologetics becomes the vindication of the Christian worldview as a whole, not simply a piecemeal defense of isolated, abstractly defined, religious points.
Therefore, apologetics involves intellectual reasoning and argumentation regarding the Christian worldview. This is more than personal testimony and autobiography. It is a matter of intellectual analysis and confrontation. The loathing of such things in many quarters of the modern Christian community is unhealthy. Reasoning is not an unspiritual activity to be shunned, nor does “argument” automatically denote personal contentiousness.” P.29-31.

Soja: "I read that the devil can use even seemingly good things to lead us astray, even make complete fools of ourselves. I speak from personal experience you know."

Yes, an effective way is for him to say "Did God really say" and put doubt in the mind or "you will not surely die" or “after death there is nothing” or "there is no such place as hell" or "the Bible is myth, old wives tales" or on the other hand, "you will be like God" (Genesis 3:4) When you eat, or in the case of the atheist, think as good something that God has told you not to eat or is not good you will believe you are autonomous, a law unto yourself, the ultimate authority for you, having the ability to decide what is good and evil for yourself, and when every man decides for himself watch out for division - arguments, squabbles, revolts, wars, murder, etc, for then good becomes a matter of what the individual wants to make it, a matter of preference and force, instead of what God intended good for, that we may live in peace, one with another.

SOJA: "I'm not about to join in the discussion, so please take this as a one time pop-in comment."

I was reading some of your outlook on another forum and was hoping you would investigate the books I have suggested previously in this forum. Did you ever look into any of them or simply dismiss them because I recommended them?

SOJA: "There is no empirical test to prove or disprove God; believers and atheists cannot agree on a method that could be a good substitute for an empirical test."

There are empirical tests and lots of evidences for the existence of God but I think they are weak proofs, except for the Bible itself. The problem with unbelievers is that they look at the evidences through their own world-view, their own rosy colored glasses. But more effectively, there are presuppositional proofs that show that without the Christian view nothing can be made sense of. The only reason the unbeliever can make sense of this world is when he/she borrows capital from the Christian position.

SOJA: "Universal morality cannot be defended from an atheist point of view since an atheist feels answerable only to their own individual definition of morality."

You have that right! That is a presuppositional argument.

SOJA: "Wishing you the wisdom and guidance of the Holy Spirit!"

Thank you! And with you also!

Posted by: Peter Huff | May 11, 2008 4:42 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Anonymous said:

"You wish to destroy Christianity"

I wish for the end of all primitive superstitious thought.

"two thousand years old"

So?

"shaped the most powerful civilization the world has ever known"

A much better civilization would have developed were it not for Christianity. And much much sooner.

"two billion followers"

Fewer and fewer every day. That is what is important.

"Scripture available for free on the Internet and hard copies distributed free of charge by many organizations"

So? Now the truth is also available for free on the internet. And that will be the end of your cult.

"You want it to become like Scientology"

I want it to be as small, as insignificant, and as laughed at, as Scientology is. It will be one day. I have no doubt.

"Be careful what you wish for. Read up about Scientology before you indulge your wish any further. Good luck!"

I've read plenty. I'm not alarmed in the slightest.

Nice try.

Posted by: timmy | May 10, 2008 10:26 PM
Report Offensive Comment

You wish to destroy

Christianity

two thousand years old

shaped the most powerful civilization the world has ever known

including the one in which you live and the benefits you enjoy

two billion followers

Scripture available for free on the Internet and hard copies distributed free of charge by many organizations

You want it to become like Scientology

Be careful what you wish for

Read up about Scientology before you indulge your wish any further

Good luck!

Posted by: Anonymous | May 10, 2008 8:03 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Nice try Anonny, but you will not succeed in this attempt to deflect negative attention away from Christianity and on to Scientology.

Scientology affects my life zero ways.

Christianity affects my life in a negative way every day, all day long.

Like I said, we anti theists need to worry about Scientology like superman needs to worry about J-walkers.

But nice try.

Posted by: timmy | May 10, 2008 2:20 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Operation Snow White, Fair Game intimidation etc doesn't really sound laughable at all. Never underestimate your opponent. Don't let CoS catch you calling them silly. If only it was a silly cult not worth taking seriously. It takes only about half a million dollars and a billion years of sworn loyalty to read their science fiction.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 10, 2008 10:45 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Anony,

The goal of the anti-theist is to have Christianity one day reach the current status of Scientology. That of a silly, laughable, fringe cult.

Posted by: timmy | May 9, 2008 5:47 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Anonymous says:
"L Ron Hubbard is worth many a long and deep thought by anti-theists"

Nope.

Just like Superman should not bother himself with J-walkers.
Bigger fish to fry.

Posted by: timmy | May 9, 2008 4:10 PM
Report Offensive Comment

L Ron Hubbard is worth many a long and deep thought by anti-theists. His spirit would be disappointed if anti-theists didn't honor him with at least a few years of intensely brilliant unrelenting attacks...if they are not afraid of the "Fair Game" tactics of his ardent followers.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 9, 2008 8:26 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Anonymous,

Perhaps we will concern ourselves more with the Scientologists when it becomes virtually impossible to get elected to public office in the United States unless one declares them-self to be a Scientologist.

For now, we should concentrate on the Abrahamic God.
The genocidal maniac, all powerful crybaby, that apparently just loves us to death. Literally. That God.

Surely this is more pressing than concerning ourselves with Vinny Babarino and that nut-job who danced on Oprah's couch.

Don't you think?

Posted by: timmy | May 9, 2008 7:40 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Anti-theists should take Scientology the "science fiction - master race" religion apart one teaching at a time. It is making news recently.

Enough has been written against Christianity.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 9, 2008 3:20 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Hi Soja,

No time to reply to your post this week, hopefully Monday.

Blessings!

Posted by: Peter Huff | May 7, 2008 11:58 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Soja said:

"Universal morality cannot be defended from an atheist point of view"

Atheists do not believe in a "universal morality" so there is nothing to defend.

Soja continued:

"since an atheist feels answerable only to their own individual definition of morality"

An atheist feels answerable to the laws that govern his or her society. Beyond that, morality is subjective. Unless of course you want to make up some "magic man in the sky" fantasy as some do. But that is primitive thinking. These people are to be laughed at. Like when we laugh at monkeys who throw their dung at each other.

Posted by: timmy | May 7, 2008 1:54 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Peter, I popped in and am amazed at how long this discussion has been active. As a believer, I'm wondering if you should ask yourself if it is your ego that keeps you trapped in a debate the atheists themselves have abandoned. Is there something you hope to prove in a debate that has gone in circles for over six months here and over eighteen months on other Sam Harris threads and could go on for six millennium without arriving at a conclusion, with the same arguments rehashed in cycles every few weeks. I read that the devil can use even seemingly good things to lead us astray, even make complete fools of ourselves. I speak from personal experience you know.

I'm not about to join in the discussion, so please take this as a one time pop-in comment.

There is no empirical test to prove or disprove God; believers and atheists cannot agree on a method that could be a good substitute for an empirical test.

Universal morality cannot be defended from an atheist point of view since an atheist feels answerable only to their own individual definition of morality.

Wishing you the wisdom and guidance of the Holy Spirit!

Best wishes
Soja

Posted by: Soja John Thaikattil, Sydney, Australia | May 7, 2008 1:43 AM
Report Offensive Comment

GAD: “Reply to Peter Huff's long list of crap Part III”

Peter Huff said:

"You said, “no (or ever knowable) reason.” How do you know this? You can’t if you have no reason, or knowable reason, and yet you state it as though I can’t either. Once you state no reason or no ever knowable reason, how do you know this to be true? Again you have no reason. Precisely the point I have been making about the atheist all along. He is dictating what "should be" and is without a reason for why it is. “This is the way things happened.” “Why?” “No reason, just because I say so.”"

GAD: “You only need a "reason" if something came from nothing (like bible creation)

How do you know that the Bible creation came from nothing? How do you know anything for certain without an absolute, ultimate, objective, universal standard?

GAD: “You only need a "reason" if something came from nothing (like bible creation), if something (matter) is the default state then there is no reason, it didn't "come" from anywhere, it just is (like your idea of god). There is no law that says something can only come from nothing. If something (matter) is the default state we can never know, because we can never go back to a time when there was nothing because there never was nothing there was always something.”

First, God not matter is the default state and the precondition for making sense of this world. Without Him there would be no matter, no reasoning, no logic, no truth, no universals, and no ethical standard, and for that matter, nothing would matter.

Second, and it ties into the first, I doesn’t reason that something came from nothing, for God is the cause and He is eternal, therefore He is, was and ever will always exist and the something came from Him. So your reasoning is faulty in saying that the Bible creation came from nothing.
“Through Him all things were made; without Him nothing was made that has been made.” John 1:3

Third, Carl Sagan said, “The cosmos is all that is or ever was or ever will be.” If that is true then something must have come from nothing because the current view of the universe is that it began, it had a beginning.

Fourth, to believe something without a reason is to put blind faith into your belief. It is like me saying, “Why do you believe that” and you answering, “Just because.” Atheists are the ones accusing Christians of this kind of belief, but when it comes down to it the atheist is the one with the blind faith. He has no explanation for his worldview, no way to certify truth other than subjective opinion, no objective, ultimate, absolute standard that comes from outside of him. He is the self wise, self governing, self law, self judge; judging all things according to his evaluation and speculation.

GAD: “On the other side of the argument, if something came from nothing, then there is a creation point (like bible creation).”

Again, this is not the Biblical argument, for the something came from God. He created it, it did not create itself. In eternity past He alone existed, then at a point in time (time is meaningless to an eternal Being – time was created for man’s benefit and reference) He created the universe and everything in it.

GAD: “And what I state is that if there was a creation point and no god then we can never know the cause or creation (why there is something instead of nothing) because we can not go back to a point before creation.”

Again my point, you speak of things you do not know and cannot make sense of for without God it is impossible to make sense of anything ultimately. The only reason you are able to function in this world is that you keep robbing from the Christian world-view in order to make sense of things. You are living on borrowed capital, all the time thumbing your nose at the Lender. The reason the Christian can know is because God has revealed the truth.

GAD: “I also said if there was a creation point and a god then we can only know "why there is something instead of nothing" if said creator told us.”

And He has. “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth…” We can also, to a point know how – He spoke the universe into being, He just said, “Let there be” and there was, as simple to Him as that and yet not something His creature can do, create something physical by speaking it into existence.

According to the atheist, life comes from matter, where does matter come from? You have admitted that you have no answer. It’s your god if you believe matter is the default state. Wow, that rock is smart! Intelligent life from pond scum, biological soup! Your world-view can only speculate; it cannot make sense of why or how.

All we ever see is life coming from life, intelligence, logic and reason coming from a mind, so it is up to the atheist to prove that this is what actually happened and he has not done that.

GAD: “My argument is reasonable, covers all sides (including creation) and is logically bullet proof.”

Check your vest. You are bleeding to death.

GAD: “Scoreboard: GAD 6, Peter 0”

By Gad’s reasoning.

Posted by: Peter Huff | May 7, 2008 12:13 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Peter Huff there is wisdom in shaking one's feet and moving on at the right time. Delay can be a waste of time at best.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 6, 2008 6:42 AM
Report Offensive Comment

IV for the atheist.

GAD: "Reply to Peter Huff's long list of crap Part IV:"

Peter Huff said:
"You said the corner stone of your belief is reason but where does your reason come from? Non-living, matter does not think. Why should I have reason to believe that it can cause itself to think? Why should I have reason to believe that something that has a beginning had no cause or that something that wasn't came into being. How can anything create itself? It would have to be before it could create. Again, you have to leap to tremendous conclusions to go from nothing to thinking/reasoning human beings."

GAD: “Again all your reasoning above comes from believing that "something can ONLY come from nothing".”

No, that is an atheist world-view not mine. I don’t believe that at all. You have yet to explain where the universe comes from. If it had a beginning what was before it? Do you know this for a fact? If there was nothing before it then think it out. If something was before it then what is this something and how do you know for sure? You have no explanation and cannot make sense of it, my contention all along. You have a word-view that is not intelligent.

GAD: “That is not my belief, nor an answer that I ever gave you. In either case, there was always something or something came into being, Evolution from simple to complex over vast periods of time is what produced all that we see today.”

You say that there was always something or something came into being. Well the universe came into being according to current science so something or SOMEONE brought everything into existence or it came from nothing. That is something that your world-view fails to identify. There are not just the two possibilities, there are four that I know of – something created itself (which is impossible), something always existed, Someone that always exists created everything or everything is illusion (also an impossible). What was before the Big Bang?

GAD: “Evolution from simple to complex over vast periods of time is what produced all that we see today.”

Evolution from what? The atheist has no answer, talk about mystery. Once upon a time, long, long ago…

GAD: “You see thinking, life, love etc as a separate substances, essences or forces then the matter they are made from, which is a completely unfounded view i.e. no proof in science or in religion. My view is not how can thinking come from a rock, but that some rocks think.......... When you understand that, you'll understand me.”

For your information Gad rocks do not think. They are lifeless matter. That statement does it make sense. You have to explain how something lifeless, unintelligent, amoral, material, physical, empirical can birth something thinking, intelligent, abstract, non-physical and intangible. Rocks are incapable of concepts, only a mind is capable of that.

GAD: “In any case most of what you wrote was not what I ever claimed and Evolution was and is my answer to the rest, so in fact I did give you an answer.”

Evolution is not a reasonable answer, it is just an assertion. Facts do not speak for themselves, they need to be interpreted. A fossil does not come stamped, "Died in 100,000 B.C." The date is something you read into the fossil depending upon your world-view. You provided no explanatory power, talk about the artful dodger. It is a game the Jehovah's Witnesses play when you take them to a passage of Scripture, they take you on a magical tour of every verse but the one in context to avoid the questions.

Posted by: Peter Huff | May 5, 2008 11:33 PM
Report Offensive Comment

GAD: “I did give Peter an answer to the where when and how of morals in my world view, that he doesn't like it or doesn't think it is true is not the same as his claiming I never gave him an answer, so I did what I said I did…”

You're right I don't like it but even more, your answer is without reasoning, it is just a naked assertion. You have not demonstrated how, where, when any of this is possible or true. In other words your answers have no explainable power or truth to them. It is just so because Gad wishes it to be so and he is going to bully his view as being correct. Correct is an ethical norm and Gad needs an absolute standard to determine ethics; else it is just personal feelings or cultural preference in which the “biological animal” is responding to the stimuli around it. But don’t call it morals. Reason it, don't bully it.

To continue then,

GAD: "Reply to Peter Huff's long list of crap Part V:"

GAD said:
"I am an atheist, and I say so, and when any theist tells me I can't be good or moral or decent because I don't believe in their god, I ram every last horror of their religion down their throat. And if all reason fails what is left but ridicule....."

Peter Huff said:
You may do that but you have no reason for doing that because by criticizing any theist you must first demonstrate that you have a standard for good that is measurable against something concrete, something objective, something absolute, something ultimate. Otherwise how do you know it is good? It is just you mere preference. In that case why are you telling me that me preference is wrong?

GAD: “Are you kidding me!? Peter, read my lips!”

I can’t see your lips to read them. They are just like your worldview.

GAD: “I'm an atheist, there is no god in my world view, if there is no god then there is no moral absolute, if there is no moral absolute then everything is relative, a matter of preference, survival, reward and punishment and the evolved mental state of the rock(s) doing the thinking.”

I never said you could not be ethical, just that your world-view has no way of explaining ethics without borrowing capital from the Christian world-view. Your world-view is a most ridiculous world-view to have because when everything becomes relative good and bad all moral values disappear. There is always a shifting standard in which nothing can be determined. Good and bad just becomes individual subjectivism, good is nothing more than feelings and preference. So the atheist cannot say anything is wrong or right, just a personal preference. Rationality is out the window because now there is just preference to why Hitler’s Germany was wrong. The atheist’s objectives are just personal feeling. He has no ability to tell anyone why they are wrong other than at the point of a gun or by bullying the weaker “animal” in any manner that gets the job done. It’s all one mans preference over another’s. There is no consistency in what good is.

Peter Huff said:
Why is there such a thing as horror in a world where everything originated from an amoral, random, blind, chance beginning? In such a worldview things are just doing what things do and you and I are included.

GAD: “Because everything originated from an amoral, random, blind, chance beginning.“

There again, you presuppose this to be true and rest your faith on this basic assumption.

GAD: “Horror is not a substance, essence, or force that is separate from the rocks, it is a relative reaction of the configuration of the constituent matter of the rocks to configuration of the constituent matter around them that they interact with. In such a worldview things are just doing what things do and you and I are included, but to say that a rock can not make a relevant judgment as to whether it likes (pleasure) or dislike (pain) something without knowing an absolute standard first is just nonsense.”

This is precisely the point I am making so let’s expand on what you have said in your last statement. Horror is not a tangible, physical property like matter, it is a concept and as such non-material, abstract and non-tangible in its nature. SO HOW DOES SOMETHING NON-MATERIAL, ABSTRACT AND NON-TANGIBLE COME FROM MATTER? How can something thinking and living come from an empirical, tangible process? You can't touch, feel, see, hear or sense an abstract concept for it is not physical. You can only understand it in a non-physical way. So your world-view fails to explain this but borrow from the Christian one in order to operate.

When you say that horror is a relative reaction of the configuration of the way atoms collide or how the chemicals react, then there is no justification for the way one bag of biological matter reacts to another bag of biological matter. Both are just doing what things do and there are no morality to it, for good needs an absolute standard in order to be good. Without absolutes how do you determine what good is? It is just your personal preference and there is no “good” in it. Your whole world-view is inconsistent and irrational.

GAD: “ Our animal friends are a good example, that don't about any absolute moral standard but behave (on average) as morally as any religious person does (on average).

You continue to uses moral terminology without any way to establish what “good” is. Why are your animal friends a “good” example? Animals kill other animals without any justice being done. What one animal does to another animal is just one animal behaving in one way and another behaving in another. There is no good or bad about it. Good or bad only become relevant in a Christian worldview where it can be determined because it sets forth what good and evil are from an absolute standard.

Peter Huff said:
My biological matter is reacting in a particular way and yours is reacting in another way, so don’t tell me that what happened in the Bible is horrible unless you can demonstrate a reason that you can make sense of horror or wrong.

GAD: “First, I like that your only measure of horror is relative to the prefect god that created it.”

That is right. Horror is meaningless without a perfect standard of good in which to measure evil against. It just becomes personal preference in your world-view. Inflicting pain on a child is exciting and pleasurable to one and ghastly and wrong to another. It all depends on how the individual is wired. There is no good or evil about it. Your world-view has no explainable way to justify itself.

GAD: “Second, even though I have a naturally evolved sense of like and dislike, I needn't use here, the bible is horrible relative to your own beliefs.”

There again, you have no other standard other than a relative standard to compare anything to. It is all meaningless. Your world-view depends as to how your particular biological bag of matter responds to stimuli as to how you form your thoughts and perform your actions. Someone else depends on the way their particular bag of matter responds and if and when it responds differently who are you to say it is wrong and be justified in your assertion? There is no significance in the word horror or the actions that produce horror because, like everything else in your world-view, it changes.

GAD: “You say god is the absolute moral standard, but the bible says that god kills people, and lots of them and in really horrible ways, so either killing and hurting people is morally OK or god is not perfectly moral.”

God has a perfectly good reason for allowing and bringing about whatever happens as the First Cause, but the creature as the second cause is also doing what he does by his/her own self-will to create the horror in rebellion against God’s good standard. The creature is substituting himself/herself as the standard, the self as law and determiner in place of the only wise and good God.

GAD: “Your past responses that god owns us and/or is just teaching a lesson and therefore killing and hurting people is morally OK for god is just nonsense and a part of your world view that you have no sensible answer for. You believe god is perfect and the bible is his perfect word and you’re going to make the two fit together no matter what absurd and ridiculous extreme you have to go to do so..............”

That is just it Gad, without God there is no fit, there is no good, there is no justice for good and evil are meaningless and any standard without God is unjust because what “right” does one biological bag of matter in motion has to tell another biological bag of matter in motion that his/her way is moral?

GAD: “Scoreboard: GAD 8, Peter 0, Pending 1”

In Gad’s view of determining score.

GAD: “Next 1 Peter has no clue what I am saying because he believes that something can ONLY come from nothing.”

I have never said that. All things come from God. I have only mimicked your world-view and its inability to reason logically and reasonably by saying that from your world-view something comes from nothing. What is the origin of life? What did life come from? If you take the living God out of the equation life would have to happen from non-life and who knows where? All the matter that we see and witness around us would have to come from somewhere and something. Where do you ever see life coming from non-life? Where do you ever see something coming from nothing and yet your world-view expects one to believe that all this just happened without any reasonable explanation?

Order and purpose is everywhere abundant. You believe that the design, purpose and order we see all around us came about from a chance, random, blind, meaningless, and hence purposeless explosion. Go figure? Something is nutty here. Yet what you constantly witness every day goes against such an irrational world-view being possible.

Where does this something all come from Gad? What caused the Big Bang? Why does this universe show a beginning; at least that is what the current view of science is telling us, the universe is expanding, it is waxing old, and it will die a heat death? If something had a beginning did it spring from nothing by chance, random, blind happening or was it created from something or Someone that was eternally existent, or is everything just illusion? Those are your possibilities and only ONE can make sense of all of this.

If you say, as some do, that the universe eternally existed then you go against the current trend of science (of an expanding universe that had a beginning), the very science you use to prove your stupid theory of evolution, and then you are still left with the dilemma of how life came about. You still believe life emerged from the non-living. As I said and continue to say, your world-view is incapable of reasoning.

Posted by: Peter Huff | May 5, 2008 1:04 PM
Report Offensive Comment

I'm not quite done yet responding to Gad's unreasoning assertions.

Posted by: Peter Huff | May 5, 2008 12:03 PM
Report Offensive Comment

May this thread rest in peace. Amen!

Posted by: Anonymous | May 5, 2008 6:44 AM
Report Offensive Comment

VI continued,

GAD: "Well the truth is I am typing this, so that is a truth without god, so you can only mean moral truth and that is just garbage..."

No, it is not a truth without God for you are using what He gave you, you are using logic to put words together and form sentences, although your conclusions are wrong because they start from the wrong premise - no God - so I do mean all truth. Along with morality logic does not come from stones or some prehistoric soup, it comes from persons using an intangible, non-physical, abstract basis rather than what would be necessary from an atheistic world-view, an empirical, material, tangible, impersonal basis and event.

A good article on brute facts (the kind atheists like to palm off as meaningful) can be found at the National Reformed Association website. To summarize, the atheist, just like the theist has a ultimate commitment called a core presupposition in which the ultimate authority is assumed in any defense of the persons position, so there is no neutrality there and when you get to the core of the matter the reasoning becomes circular. But the ultimate question is which world-view makes sense or intelligible the nature of reality.

Core or basic beliefs, those that are central to our network of beliefs are what form our opinions.

So the atheist will not undermine their ultimate commitment, or presupposition, or starting point because it is the way they see everything else from, the way they interpret everything, even though as I have demonstrated, they cannot make sense of it.

Ultimate commitments are limited to two positions, that of God or that of man. Atheists can only appeal to other men as ultimate authority. Since God created all facts and all facts reveal Him man is continually suppressing the truth of God, and as the article explains, "either places himself upon God's throne or some other aspect of the creation of his choosing. Man arrogates to himself the position of the creator of meaning. Thus, all facts exist as "brute" facts: without connection to each other and without meaning until man connects them and assigns meaning to them."

"All the facts have their meaning and interpretation in Christ because God has given them that interpretation. In order for us to know facts, we must follow God in His interpretation."

So when Gad says that the Christian is using circular reasoning, don't let him fool you, he is using it to. To make this point clearer I return to the article,

"...one assumes the authority of the conclusion of the argument in order to arrive at that conclusion. And so it is. But in order to perform any function of life, one must perform it in accordance with a certain construction of reality. All arguments start from some ultimate commitment to a view of things....The unbeliever is the interloper on God's territory. Everything he uses to construct his system has been stolen from God's "construction site.""

"So you ask the person why they believe what they believe. You gradually peel away the layers of subsidiary commitments until you finally lay bare the basic, ultimate commitment. The way you recognize it is that they can give no reason for holding it. If they could, it would obviously not be ultimate since it would rely on another commitment."

To show the basis of the atheistic world-view as foolish and that he/she cannot make sense of reality all I have to do is put myself in the presuppositional place of the atheist and show "how a commitment to their presuppositions actually results in the destruction of knowledge, logic, science, morality, the dignity of man, and personal freedom. Only the Christian worldview provides an adequate basis for the discussion of these areas."

Make no mistake that what is at stake here in the battle for the hearts and minds so that the atheist can have their way, which will result eventually in total chaos. As the article goes on to explain in the debate between Gordon Stein and Greg Bahnsen,

"Bahnsen explained that atheists believe that the universe is nothing more than matter in motion. The laws of logic, however, are neither material nor in motion. They are static, abstract, non-material, and universal. Therefore, upon Stein's ultimate commitment, the laws of logic were impossible and non-existent and, therefore, by showing up, Stein had lost the debate!"

As Bahnsen says,

"God's revelation is more than the best foundation for Christian reasoning; it is the only philosophically sound foundation for any reasoning whatsoever. Our point here is not that you've got to have the revelation of God if you'd come to theological truth. Van Til says you've got to have the revelation of God if you would come to any kind of truth."

Richard Pratt says,

"The disenchantment of the unbeliever with his way of thinking comes about as the Christian effectively shows him that his rejection of Christ is based on a self-contradicting and self-frustrating perspective which can therefore never lead to true knowledge of himself, the world, or God.... This inherent futility is shown to the non-Christian by the believer as he points to the internal inconsistencies within the unbelieving system of thought. In this capacity the apologist becomes a messenger of judgment revealing to his opponent the hopelessness and futility of his rejection of Christ."

That is the reason that so often the atheist will fly off the handle and start spewing out
unpleasantries to the Christian in my personal opinion.

The article goes on to say,

"If he, for example, claims that his system provides certainty about the truth of the world, well, he cannot claim to have been everywhere and seen everything. How can he claim to have certainty about the evidence when new evidence is continually coming to light? For example, every scientific advance brings with it unintended consequences. We see it in the lawsuits over products previously thought to be safe but now are revealed to produce birth defects or other health problems. On the other hand, if one claims to be uncertain and that the consequences of actions are unknown, the person is making a claim of certainty about uncertainty, one, and, two, how does one advance, holding consistently to such a view? If, for example, one is uncertain about the outcome of a policy, one either does nothing, or one leaps blindly out into the Void. Such uncertainty, at its bottom, does not rely upon moral standards; therefore, one can as easily make a choice for evil as well as good, since at this level of corrosive uncertainty, labels such as good and evil lose their meaning. Thus, man becomes like God, creating and defining good and evil."

"The unbeliever's world-view, thus, oscillates between crushing all freedom under a load of certainty, or makes it impossible to build a coherent system that does not fly apart due to total uncertainty...The Christian world-view, controlled by biblical thinking, provides the only coherent system that, in turn, corresponds to reality."

GAD: "...you believe to get you through your miserable day,..."

Actually my day has not been miserable.

GAD: "...telling your self that it's OK if you and your children struggle and have pain in life because you will be rewarded after your dead. But you won't, there is nothing after death but oblivion, and so a life(s) wasted..."

Ah yes, the all knowing Gad is telling it as it is although he does not know how to establish truth in any absolute sense. What hope do you atheists have for a future?

GAD: "... But on a positive note after your dead you'll never know that you wrong and didn't get your rewards, death is bliss in this regard."

Or on a negative note, rejecting God finds the atheist before the judgment of God to answer for his/her rejection of Him and spending eternity in torment reflecting, unless of course God has mercy on the person and brings him/her into the truth.

GAD: "Scoreboard: GAD 9, Peter 0, Pending 1"

Gad's scoreboard from Gad's unsure perspective!

Posted by: Anonymous | May 1, 2008 10:17 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Timmy et al.
All my Sam forum posts on one page:
www.andyross.net/panpsychology.htm

Posted by: andy ross | May 1, 2008 3:27 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Peter,

That is just more pointless nonsensical circular reasoning. There is nothing left to discuss.

Posted by: GAD | May 1, 2008 11:13 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Hi Gad,

I've been meaning to correspond to your "Reply to Peter Huff's long list of crap" for some time so I'll tackle six of the seven replies as some final thoughts to you unless you choose to go into more detail.

Starting with VI:

ME: "Well Gad, first you have to show me how you are using your reasoning in determining where morals come from, how something can and has come from nothing, and all the other arguments I have presented against your world-view before you call mine childish. You have no accounting for yours."

GAD: "Once again something from nothing is what you claim, not me."

So are you saying that the Big Bang was not the cause of the universe, that there was a greater cause before it? Pray tell, what was it? Or are you one of those who chooses to believe another "theory" that goes against the most widely held belief today? How do we determine which one is true? Mmmm? Was the Big Bang planned or did it come about by chance? If planned there must have been an intelligence to plan it for a thing cannot plan anything that I am aware of. If not planned then chance was its cause. What caused the chance? Something? Nothing? You don't know?

The facts do not speak for themselves Gad, they have to be interpreted and your interpretation comes with basic presuppositions that cannot make sense of the whys. You perceive certain things to be true without being able to explain why they are. Your world-view has zero answerability for why there is something rather than nothing, how this something came to be or what it came from, along with the rest of the gambit that we have been through numerous times.

GAD: "And once again claiming that I can not know what makes the world that I live in better or worse with respect to me, and in the future for my children, unless I know an absolute truth and/or believe in your make believe god first is a nonsensical argument."

Is that statement absolutely true? How much of it can I believe to be true and how do you determine it to be true. What is your standard - your autonomy, your "self-law?"

Actually it is not. You have to borrow from the Christian framework to make sense of it. Without absolute truth it is just mere opinion, yours against mine and nothing can be known for sure. God is the precondition for intelligibility or truth.

ME: "It would be going against what is self evident and within reason to say that there are no objective moral truths and at the same time for me to believe that you could come up with any truth for morals, for as I have been saying all along, without God it is all meaningless and there is no truth, just force and coercion."

GAD: "self evident and within reason" and what is your claim of "self evident and within reason" the words of lying and superstitious men written down 2000 years ago!"

An absolute, sovereign, almighty Being whom is the standard for all things and without which nothing can be known for certain.

GAD: " No, self evident and within reason is that the bible is not the word of any perfect god! As for "truth for morals" I don't claim any,..."

I know you don't because you can't claim truth for morals from your world-view. That has been my point all along. You can't establish what good is outside the Christian framework because good is always changing depending on who is in power and who controls the might. It is just personal or cultural preference. Your world-view is a might mentality.

ME: "So don't ever talk about truth if you can't demonstrate its origin. Evolutionary science cannot talk about the truth of the Big Bang. No human was there. You just suppose it to be so, and that after a complicated argument in which you also suppose hundreds, thousands, millions, trillions of other things to be so."

GAD: "First, I don't have to demonstrate the origin of moral truth, because I don't claim there is any."

Are you certain of that? So again your world-view has zero capacity and capability in answering why I should believe that you know what good is. It is again just your personal preference. Gad says it so you had better believe it, as long as he is in control. That doesn't work for me. It worked for Hitler though, for a time.

GAD: "Second in your whacked out view of god, you weren't there either! You follow the words of lying and superstitious men written down 2000 years ago because you FEEL that it is truth not because you know that it is truth, nor can you prove that it is the truth."

You can't make sense of the whys or hows without God, or at least you have yet to show that you can. That is going to be a long wait.

Posted by: P. Huff | May 1, 2008 1:35 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Hi Andy,

I have to read your post 5 more times, before I attempt to comment. I'll get to it soon. Thanks for the input.

Posted by: timmy | April 28, 2008 2:52 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Timmy says:
Get it published in a respectable scientific journal if you want your crazy idea to carry any weight with me.

I say:
I guess you're right. Back to the grindstone. But thanks for the moral support. I'm grateful.

Posted by: andy ross | April 28, 2008 12:59 PM
Report Offensive Comment

This was absolutely amazing. Well laid out, well argued.

Posted by: Andy | April 28, 2008 2:57 AM
Report Offensive Comment

I said:
"There is still something much bigger and deeper to think about than the meaning that we give our own personal lives"

Then Gad said:

"Yes, and in all instances it reduces to dreaming about our own immortality, even if it is by proxy"

No it doesn't. That is just you making up stuff.
It is simply thinking about the bigger picture of what is life? What is our situation in the grand scheme of things?
We are the first life form in the billions of years history of this planet (all life that we know) that has the ability to even think about it's own situation in the universe. The first and only life form in the billions of years history of life on this planet that can imagine the likelihood of other life forms existing elsewhere in the universe, or even outside of our universe. Thinking about that, or wondering about that, is not dreaming of our own immortality. That is just you making false accusations, yet again.

Gad says:
No Timmy, I have thought about them long and hard and came to the conclusion that there is no reason or we can never know the reason"

Good for you. But until there is some verifiable scientific study that reaches the same conclusion that Gad has reached, I shall do the honest thing, and leave it in the unanswered question category, that remains open for contemplative thought. No dreaming, no wanting, no wishful thinking. Just open minded scientific intrigue. You don't like it, and neither does Peter Huff. You both want me to agree that your conclusion is the right one. I don't, and for the same reason. There is no evidence for either of your conclusions. You both just want closure.

Gad says:
"I can dream about the "what ifs" as well as any, but I know where the line is, when you stop just dreaming about the "what ifs" and start searching for them you have crossed the line. That is all"

So before there was any evidence of the possibility of radio signals traveling through the air and across oceans, back when it was just somebody's "what if" dream, they would have crossed Gad's line when they started searching for such a thing? Get real. Almost every great scientific discovery ever has come from someone's imaginative, way out there, "what if". You are way off base here sir.

Try all you want, Gad, you can not make me look like some crazy, supernatural wishful thinker. All of my thoughts are scientific. You, just like Peter Huff, can't stand the fact that people won't accept the conclusion that you have come to. Get it published in a respectful scientific journal if you want your crazy idea to carry any weight with me. Otherwise, it is just Gad's conclusion. That is all.

Posted by: timmy | April 27, 2008 5:17 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Timmy said:
There is still something much bigger and deeper to think about than the meaning that we give our own personal lives.

Yes, and in all instances it reduces to dreaming about our own immortality, even if it is by proxy.

Timmy said:
What is it all doing here? How did it all get here? What was, before the big bang? What is, outside of our universe? I think that these are things to think about. You do not. That is all.

No Timmy, I have thought about them long and hard and came to the conclusion that there is no reason or we can never know the reason. My conclusions may not be very exciting, but they are inline with the facts as we know them today. I can dream about the "what ifs" as well as any, but I know where the line is, when you stop just dreaming about the "what ifs" and start searching for them you have crossed the line. That is all.

Posted by: GAD | April 27, 2008 2:03 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Timmy says:
Children of believers or cultists, have no more reason to follow in the superstitious brainwashed footsteps of their parents than anyone else anymore. The internet, TV, media in general. Cultist parents can no longer keep the truth from their kids.

I say:
Sure, this is inevitable. But early conditioning counts for a lot. Rational scientists can nurse a corner of their mindworld that hosts the most egregious religiosity just because their first years were illuminated by faith. Such people see the cognitive dissonance intellectually but don't seem to mind, and make no effort to spotlight the contradictions. It reminds me of people with neural deficits who don't recognize faces or admit that they have been crippled by a stroke. Faith as an opiate -- that was an inspired analogy.

Timmy says:
But what are your ideas of how we can tap into the instinctive wellspring of genetic yearning celebrated in the cults. I am still unsure that this yearning needs to be replaced by anything but rational thinking.

I say:
Set forth a future that promotes excitement and hubristic joy, with goals that are generations away. You are lucky enough to have been wired by the promise of genetic tinkering, and I by the Lifeball vision, but most people miss this sort of neural circuit building. For them, rationalism is precisely the dry pedantry of mathematics. There's no eschatology, no promise of transcendent improvement to raise the thrill that rewires neurons. Whereas the cultist brainwashing has been honed to perfection in this regard.

Timmy says:
I see that you have identified an unsatisfied yearning. Have you a satisfier for it?

I say:
There is a gap between understanding a fact and living the fact, understanding orgasm, say, and having one. As rationalists, we need first some understanding of the state we wish to promote and then a plan to implement that state reliably. The state is one of vibrant joy in anticipation of a splendid future state of being, tempered by steady resolve to do what it takes to realize that state of being in the present, to be able to thrill to its enjoyment here and now. To promote that anticipation and its realization rationally, using information media, is a high art. To do so without descending to the mind games that cultists tend to exploit is extremely difficult.

Somehow we need to extract from the progress we see in science and technology a direction and a goal that work for us and our descendants as an attractor. For hints on how to do this, what better way than to study the goofy vision of our souls just doing time here but touched with the promise held out to believers of joining a heavenly host? To be rational, the goal must make sense in terms of our best understanding of nature. We must see the destiny of our genes as transcending their human vessels and finding ways to organize stuff that allow universal consciousness unfettered by animal rivalries, memory boundaries, bandwidth bottlenecks, bugs, age, whatever. In short, we need to be able to see and measure progress in the direction of becoming godlike.

Posted by: andy ross | April 27, 2008 8:03 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Gad says:
"The purpose of life is its self. Dream all you want"

I didn't say anything about dreaming. I said that I wonder and ponder, and contemplate. No dreaming. No wanting. No wishful thinking.

"Just don't think when you get to the kill screen that anything happens but the end"

What end? What is the end? I know what the end is for me. Death. But what about life itself. Is there an end? When our sun dies? But what about life on other planets, or elsewhere in the universe? What was, before the big bang? Was there life? You don't care, and think that it is useless to wonder about. I don't.

Gad says:

"The lights won't come on, and god, aliens, the universe or something we haven't thought of won't come out from behind the curtains and shake your hand and tell you congratulations"

Yeah I know. This seems highly unlikely. Who ever said that it would go down this way?

There is still something much bigger and deeper to think about than the meaning that we give our own personal lives.

What is it all doing here? How did it all get here? What was, before the big bang? What is, outside of our universe? I think that these are things to think about. You do not. That is all.

Posted by: timmy | April 26, 2008 11:11 PM
Report Offensive Comment

The purpose of life is its self. Dream all you want, Timmy, I do. Just don't think when you get to the kill screen that anything happens but the end. The lights won't come on, and god, aliens, the universe or something we haven't thought of won't come out from behind the curtains and shake your hand and tell you congratulations.

Posted by: GAD | April 26, 2008 9:48 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Andy says:

"I think fusion is the next step, Borg style"

I buy that. To what end though. And then what? I know, I'm getting way ahead of myself here. One step at a time right? I know, but I can't help my self. My mind always just goes to "what's next?" "and then what?"

Andy says:
"The cultists will outbreed the rationalists unless or until the rationalists learn to tap the instinctive wellspring of genetic yearning celebrated in the cults. We're trying, with our celebration of pop culture and sensual lifestyles, but it's all rather basic"

True dat. But outbreeding in this context is soon to me moot. Children of believers or cultists, have no more reason to follow in the superstitious brainwashed footsteps of their parents than anyone else anymore. The internet, TV, media in general. Cultist parents can no longer keep the truth from their kids. The power in cultist brainwashing has always been in the lack of access to information and education for the masses. that day is over. And so is the day for religion. Just a matter of a couple of more generations.

But what are your ideas of how we can tap into the instinctive wellspring of genetic yearning celebrated in the cults. I am still unsure that this yearning needs to be replaced by anything but rational thinking. This does not mean cold mathematical thinking. Just rational. Rational can still be imaginative, wondrous, deep. I consider all of my wondering and contemplative thought to be completely rational, even though Gad would disagree. But don't listen to that old grump.

Andy says:
"This has nothing to do with the bogosity of the the God solution to the Goof yearning. Some people see that and go for the religion anyway, just because they like the high-minded company"

I know people like this. I think that their problem is not thinking deeply enough, rather than thinking too deeply.

Andy says:
"The genetic tug remains unaddressed. My goofy gloss on genocentricity is a start"

I see that you have identified an unsatisfied yearning. Have you a satisfier for it?

Posted by: timmy | April 26, 2008 6:35 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Great stuff Andy,
Thank you for your thoughts. This is the discussion I was looking for.

Andy says:

"The life question remains unanswered, therefore the claim to be in charge of it is vacuous. In charge of what? We are riding a tiger."

True dat. But what is this tiger? What is the purpose of this tiger? More importantly, where is the tiger going? Nowhere? That's what Gad thinks. There is no answer to this question and he is annoyed by anyone who asks it. To me it is the most profound of questions, the contemplation of which, is possibly the coolest thing that a human can spend their time on. Not all of their time, of course. None of us can expect to answer this question, or expect this question to be answered in our lifetime, so the majority of our time should be spent enjoying what we have and making the most out of it that we can. That is what I do. 98% of my day, I spend acting as an incompatibilist dertiminist would. But I do spend a little time every day, (usually in the shower, or the first half hour of lying in bed before sleep) pondering the great mystery of why is it all here? What is life? I can't help it. My mind just goes there, on a daily basis. Life is pure survival, but to what end? Now that we seem to be (somewhat) in charge of our own evolution, and the evolution of all living things on this planet, this is a question that we need to ponder I think.

Gad says that makes me a wishful thinker, longing for a greater purpose, unsatisfied with plain old life as we know it. This is of course not true. I long for nothing. I ponder, because there is something to ponder. I love a great mystery. There are unanswered questions that Gad considers non-questions. Illigitimate questions. Or questions that we can never possibly know the answer to so why bother thinking about it.

If all we need to think about is survival, the first step for humans now is to get global warming, overpopulation, war and famine under control. Find a sustainable, almost utopian way of life. Then on to the next problem of survival. Finding a new planet or environment where we, (life) can continue on beyond the life of our planet and sun. And of course, finding a way to get there. And then what after that. What does it all mean? What should we be doing? Like I said before, all of the troubles that we are making for ourselves right now are the result of us not having an end goal to shoot for. Like the squirrel who has a lifetime supply of nuts, what to do now? The squirrel will likely get into all kinds of trouble with it's main purpose removed from the picture. Our purpose has always been procreate procreate procreate to live on. Well now procreation is no longer the thing that we need to do to survive. We are too good at that. So we have to find something else to do with our time. And the things that we have found to do, are generally causing us trouble. With no end goal, no purpose, we're just getting into trouble all over the place.

It seems obvious to me that if everyone just forgets about the big question, and just tries to make the most of their own life, (we're here for a good time, not a long time) then we are going to get into the kind of trouble that we are currently in.

I know that my use of the word "purpose" here will make Gad go all batty again, but that's okay. he can think what he wants. We do have a purpose. It is survival. But to what end? No end? No reason? Nothing nothing nothing. It has always been and always will be and just shut up about it because that's all there is to know so stop asking questions.

I can't. Anyone with kids knows that the question "why" is a never ending instinct within us. Every answer just leads to another "why". Gad thinks we should stop asking at some point and just accept that there is no more why. The answer is nothing, so just shut up and go about your life. To me this is the same unmoved mover as God. God is the answer, so stop asking. Nothing is the answer so stop asking. What a bunch of bunk. Keep asking people. Keep asking. Keep searching, in science, in your mind, in your imagination. Don't listen to Gad, he's just a grump who doesn't want to think about it anymore. If you do think about it, you must surely be searching for god you supernatural thinker you. Poppycock!

Posted by: timmy | April 26, 2008 5:32 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Timmy says:
But now, and now only, we, one species, through birth control, and the future genetic science (that is imminent) will have complete control of, not only how our species evolves, but how all life evolves from here on out.

I say:
A historical precedent hints at the benefits. Individual humans have always had some control over their own one step of evolution via mate selection, and those with social power often used it to surround themselves with kin and sycophants. And we have long bred animals for traits we valued, as Darwin described at length. We certainly shall soon have much more control than hitherto, but complete control is chimerical. First, we need to adapt our selections to the facts about which genes do what and how they express in the targeted organisms and environments. Then we shall be challenged to design and implement scenarios on the basis of those facts to push in a preferred direction.

We shall find, first, that what genes do and how they work is so tightly constrained that we have little freedom for maneuver, and second, that our very designs and preferences are natural products of our evolutionary heritage. For the most part, we shall probably end up simply endorsing what natural selection has already given us, and find delight in appreciating as if for the first time how "wise" mother nature was in making us as "she" did. By chance, I read last night that the healthiest feet in the world are on people who still go barefoot, and that our whole multi-thousand-year experiment with footwear has done more harm than good. Well, it brought us "boots on the ground" and other priceless concepts, I suppose.

Timmy says:
What is life? Why has it evolved one way for billions of years, since the beginning of time, and now we have something entirely new. One species is in charge of it all. At a genetic level.

I say:
The life question remains unanswered, therefore the claim to be in charge of it is vacuous. In charge of what? We are riding a tiger. One life, one species, one genome. Ein Volk, ein Reich, ein Führer. We need only plant one set of rogue genes to ruin the whole show. And even quantum hypercomputers will be unable to simulate nature to the level she simulates herself at every turn, in a planetwide molecular-scale computation that runs 24/7 with no downtime for bug fixes. So the risks are bigger than for any previous human adventure.

Agreed, we have a breakthrough that may be even greater in scope than that of computing, which brought us the vé-vé-vé (in a French transliteration of the German). Perhaps a company will come to dominate gene updates and find a patented delivery medium, such as a DNA strand caged in a polymer ball and administered like a (bio) virus. Then we shall all become hooked on our nightly bug fixes. Forget an update and go down with an exotic flesh-melting ailment. Apply the wrong gene patches and watch your genitalia shrivel away. All this and more will be everday life in the brave new world.

Timmy says:
What direction shall we take evolution. It's up to us. There are worse problems to have I guess. I find it all very exciting. What a time to be alive!

I say:
As you study the facts, your horizons will probably close in. When we discovered internal combustion engines and aircraft, we thought, wow, we can go anywhere now! Rocketry brought dreams of conquering the galaxy. Nuclear power would bring electricity too cheap to meter. Returning to the question, human evolution is already bracketed by technology. I think fusion is the next step, Borg style. Seamless interaction with the world of machines. Put our flesh in robocans and forget the biotweaks. For consider what out genes do. They code for proteins. And proteins are just carbon-based macromolecules. The whole bioworld is molecular Lego-world. Nature has already tried all the options for those pieces. Their limitations (mechanical, thermal, and so on) are what hold us back. And our machines can already correct for that.

My guess in the early 1990s was that we shall create what I called in my novel "quagmire" life (a quagmire is a quasi-Gaianized mechatronic-infotonic-robionic exosphere, where mechatronics is the fusion of mechanics and electronics, infotonics is the fusion of informatics and photonics, and robionics is the fusion of robotics and bionics) as the primordial soup for Susupteq (the superconscious superorganism planted in the terrestrial quagmire) and then the Lifeball, which transmutes our six-zettaton rockball into a single living organism.

Timmy says:
I don't have an appreciation of God to start with, so there is nothing for me to raise. But as for Goof, you are right, I do not fully understand your idea. If you'd like to have another go in your best layman's terms, I'm all ears.

I say:
Life on Earth finds a temporary and provisional realization in a landscape in which humans are the top predators. Humans revel in the glory of their own incarnations and feel like replicating their own success. But they sense too the imperfection of the creation as they experience it and its dependence on stuff beyond their control. In awe at the challenge, they surround themselves with taboos and fetishes. The Abrahamic God was a big step forward because its focal confabulation for all the taboos and fetishes related directly to the primary genetic imperative to go forth and multiply. The result was traditions that are in effect highly organized fertility cults.

So the Goof traditions are fertility cults. From them grew science and rationality, which rejected the taboos and fetishes but put nothing in their place except the purely intellectual desire to cultivate a better society. This desire is the tiny tip of a huge iceberg. The Goof cults found some deeper resonances in that iceberg, for the believers, and we need to recover them in order to replace those cultic practices with something more amenable to reason. Pursuit of rationality alone is no use for replication. It's more like a Buddhist striving for nirvana. The cultists will outbreed the rationalists unless or until the rationalists learn to tap the instinctive wellspring of genetic yearning celebrated in the cults. We're trying, with our celebration of pop culture and sensual lifestyles, but it's all rather basic.

Timmy says:
Every year, more and more people decide that they no longer believe in magic men in the sky. There is no yearning for "institutionalized spirituality" in these people. They just realize one day, that this God thing is all bogus.

I say:
Sure, this is no contest. Even deep religionists say the men in the sky are illusions. Yet some people still go for ET and UFO cults. The yearnings are very amorphous. They lead people to New Age superstition and a vague interest in esoteric stuff and fringe philosophy. When such people see what nonsense they find attractive, some wish for more institutional guidance. They go hunting for a religion that can work for them, and suffer years of frustration. This has nothing to do with the bogosity of the the God solution to the Goof yearning. Some people see that and go for the religion anyway, just because they like the high-minded company.

We all grow up in families and most of us have early experiences of a father figure. The genetic tug that the Goof cults celebrate finds a natural psychological expression in a supernatural father figure. If you don't care about reason and what may or may not be bogus, relaxing back into such a supernatural family with a safely remote father figure is sweet repose compared with living in the hard clarity of the here and now in an autonomous mindset. What drives the flight from the churches is, first, the absurdity of the doctrines of magic men and so on, and second, the smooth machinery of the welfare state that makes the social safety net the church used to offer superfluous. The genetic tug remains unaddressed. My goofy gloss on genocentricity is a start.

Posted by: andy ross | April 26, 2008 4:08 AM
Report Offensive Comment

As for genetics, birth control and the future of evolution, as far as I can see, my original point goes unchallenged. We are a product of mutations that helped our predecessors be successful at procreation being naturally selected over billions of years. This has been the only kind of evolution in all living things since the beginning of time. But now, and now only, we, one species, through birth control, and the future genetic science (that is immanent) will have complete control of, not only how our species evolves, but how all life evolves from here on out.

I think that Lindajean has been watching too many science fiction movies if she thinks that some mad man could get ahold of this science and rule the world, and force us to be what he wants us to be. There is no reason to think this. We, as a democratic society are going to have to decide how we choose to evolve. This is not a predicament. It is a wondrous blessing, and it brings up some very profound and interesting questions. What is life? Why has it evolved one way for billions of years, since the beginning of time, and now we have something entirely new. One species, is in charge of it all. At a genetic level.

What do we do with that power. Lindajean seems to want to close her eyes and pretend that it does not exist for fear that some mad man might try to tell her what she can do with her body, even though, as you and I pointed out, there are already hundreds and hundreds of laws on the books that tell her what she can and can not do with her body.

What direction shall we take evolution. It's up to us. There are worse problems to have I guess. I find it all very exciting. What a time to be alive!

Posted by: timmy | April 25, 2008 5:35 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Andy says:
"If we can raise our appreciation of God to the Goof level we win"

I don't have an appreciation of God to start with, so there is nothing for me to raise. But as for Goof, you are right, I do not fully understand your idea. If you'd like to have another go in your best layman's terms, I'm all ears.

Andy says:
"But people still yearn for standardized and institutionalized spirituality"

Fewer and fewer every day. As I said, "non religious" is the fastest growing demographic in thew world. That is because information (education) is free and everywhere now (TV, the internet, etc). Every year, more and more people decide that they no longer believe in magic men in the sky. There is no yearning for "institutionalized spirituality" in these people. They just realize one day, that this God thing is all bogus. And that the only reason they believed in the first place is because they were brainwashed (not voluntarily) as children. These people do not have great difficulty getting over religion. They just wake up one day and get it. Nothing but reason need replace religion. And it's happening. And thanks to the internet, it will continue to happen at an exponential rate from here on in. Just more and more of what we are doing by criticizing religion and breaking the taboo (spell) is all that is necessary. That, and removing theocratic dictators from power should do the trick in a couple of centuries, tops.

Posted by: timmy | April 25, 2008 5:07 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Timmy says:
Goof is not God. Goof is not religion.
I am talking about religion. (Christianity, Judaism, Islam)
Religion is a problem in our society. Goof is not.
I have been talking about crushing religion. Not Goof.
You have a habit of trying to find an argument where none exists.

I say:
True. Well done. There is something here for science to study.
If we can raise our appreciation of God to the Goof level we win.
I have a habit of finding points where a sharper approach can help.
This is of course argumentative. Such is life, take it or leave it.

Timmy says:
Talking about shooting pregnant women is not assertive. It's creepy.
There is nothing realistic about your "popping them full of lead" analogy.

I say:
I never talked about shooting pregnant women. Check my words.
The drill sergeant analogy is mood music and nothing to do with bullets.
I want women to think twice before having unprotected sex with studs.
A shooting metaphor is provocative, but not to be taken literally.

Timmy says:
Religion is institutionalized superstition administered to the masses through brain washing, fear, and keeping the hordes ignorant. The Priests and Imams may work together, but the flock are just brainwashed drones. The fact that you do not see this suggests to me that you do not understand religion.

I say:
I see it, but brainwashing is a matter of degree and can be voluntary.
If I see my bread-and butter issues are solved in a church, hey, why not?
Those, not intellectual issues, are what count for most people.
You and I are exceptions. Intellectual scruples are a luxury.

Timmy says:
It's just a matter of a couple of more generations with ultimate access to information (the internet) and this religion thing will be a fringe cult that is laughed at by your average enlightened human.

I say:
You may be right. We have enough information to need a new approach.
But people still yearn for standardized and institutionalized spirituality.
Not many people want to go it alone and spend years in the wilderness.
We shall laugh as fashions change. Will it be progress? Who knows?

Posted by: andy ross | April 25, 2008 2:42 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Andy says:

"You haven't understood my great discovery. Goof, the God of our fathers, exists and is real, and is a potential object of scientific analysis"

And

"Goof is great, and Dawkins is his prophet! Why crush that?"

I say:

Goof is not God. Goof is not religion.
I am talking about religion. (Christianity, Judaism, Islam)
Religion is a problem in our society. Goof is not.
I have been talking about crushing religion. Not Goof.
You have a habit of trying to find an argument where none exists.
One more time. Goof is not a problem. Religion is.
I have never said anything about crushing Goof.
Got it?

Andy says:

"And since when did IQ equate to quality? This is all very unkosher, young man!"

I say:

I don't know, I did not say anything to that effect. Only that if we discover a gene that is responsible for low intellect, and we were capable of using this science to avoid having babies with low intellect, we will likely do just that.
Got it?

Andy says:

"Or any other shade of trashiness, to complete the thought that you are evidently too squeamish to post online, for Google and others to archive for digital eternity"

Sure, why not get rid of any trashiness if we can? I have no problem saying that. Evidently you misread me again.

Andy says:
"Creepy, to me, is the opposite of assertive. Standing up for yourself is not creepy, by definition."

Assertive is good.
Talking about shooting pregnant women is not assertive. It's creepy.
There is nothing realistic about your "popping them full of lead" analogy.

Andy says:
"And religions are societies of billions of people, working together because it pays off. The fact that you show no awareness of this truth suggests to me that you do not understand religion"

This is just one way to describe religion, but it is far from the best way. Religion is institutionalized superstition administered to the masses through brain washing, fear, and keeping the hoards ignorant". The Priests and Imams may work together, but the flock are just brainwashed drones. The fact that you do not see this suggests to me that you do not understand religion.

Andy says:
"And the fact that you think it is any more possible to crush religion it than it was, say, to crush the entrepreneurial spirit in communist societies shows, again, your breathtaking naiveté"

Poppycock! 100% of the worlds population used to be religious. Now it's down to about 60%. Most of that loss of people's hearts and minds has come in the last century or two. And it's speeding up exponentially.
"Non religious" is the fastest growing demographic in the world right now. Faster than Islam. 5 atheists books on the best sellers list. We are well on our way, and I am very very optimistic. It's just a matter of a couple of more generations with ultimate access to information (the internet) and this religion thing will be a fringe cult that is laughed at by your average enlightened human. You must be naive to think otherwise.

Posted by: timmy | April 24, 2008 10:16 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Timmy says:
We all have the goal of making the religious people come to their senses, and come to realize what we know full well: that God does not exist. I call that crushing religion.

I say:
You haven't understood my great discovery. Goof, the God of our fathers, exists and is real, and is a potential object of scientific analysis. Goof is the attractor behind genetic determinism, the proof that natural selection acts at the level of genes, not of individuals or groups. Goof is great, and Dawkins is his prophet! Why crush that? It's precisely the discovery we need to revive the flagging birthrates in the first world. The birthrate among natives in most of the first world is well below replacement. The USA is only the exception because it has so many other "races" in the mix.

Timmy says:
"White trash" is white trash. You know. .... People of low intellect.

I say:
White trash carry the genes of greatness. Just their hard luck that the bum genes won out in their personal chromosome recombination stakes. Every now and then a genius comes from such unpromising stock. We need to take care here. And since when did IQ equate to quality? This is all very unkosher, young man!

Timmy says:
I said that if we discover a gene ... that is responsible for white trashiness, then we would ask the doctor/scientists to engineer their babies without the "low intellect" gene.

I say:
Or any other shade of trashiness, to complete the thought that you are evidently too squeamish to post online, for Google and others to archive for digital eternity.

LJ says:
I hesitate to get between you and a hard place because your words do make me squeamish. But I’m not getting out of the kitchen quite yet, even it is a sadist who is trying to push me out.

I say:
I have no ambition to push. I just wish to pep up the debate to a level where it has a hope of engaging with the real isues here. I am also no sadist. But living in a country where one is elbowed mercilessly aside when one does not assert oneself aggressively (especially at 200 on the autobahn), I have learned to say what I have to say with vigor and confidence.

LJ says:
How about you (and your disgusting offspring) endangering their lifestyle? Who is going to decide you shouldn’t be around anymore? Maybe I should be the decider.

I say:
Well, they are welcome to try. People have been reacting this way toward me for half a century, so I'm used to it. This seems to be the default state in our civilized society, each discreetly disgusted with the others. Civilization controls the expression of such disgust, not its existence.

LJ says:
The idea is educate and self-sufficiency. If you don’t hold ideals that promote improvements for humanity, then you can call it whatever comes to mind including imperialism. Imperialism exists. But it is not coming from non-governmental organizations who work to stabilize starving and war-tattered people. You can call it self-righteous, but you are missing the boat and you are killing the messenger.

I say:
Wait, who said I have anything against sending in the stormtroopers of cultural imperialism to sort out the "lesser breeds without the law" (note those quotation marks and the distancing from literalism they imply). I see it as one of the greater glories of our culture that we are still ready to go out and put the world to rights. Fortress America will be a sad development, and I'm glad we still have awhile to keep the melting pot bubbling.

LJ says:
If we decide to let the “cooler heads prevail” and to hell with the Constitution as Gad espouses, and then glass a few irresponsibles, then we might as well be in bed with the Taliban.

I say:
This is careening from one extreme to the other. The Taliban understand nothing, as I said clearly enough, and all we can learn from them is to have the courage of our convictions. If something is right, it's right to fight for it.

LJ says:
First world countries are the major problem of over population. The problem in the USA is over-consumption, not over population. We are only 5% of the world’s pop but we consume 25% of the world’s resources. That is not sustainable.

I say:
Error. The USA, for all its faults, is stilll the shining castle on a hill, still the repository of the hopes and dreams of humanity. Why else has the USA been educating all the worlds's smartest people in its universities for the last few decades? The USA is the great exception, and has a free pass to consume exceptionally just so long as it keeps delivering the goods. That period is ending, true, and its consumption should be throttled accordingly. I see high-tech solutions to all our resource and environment problems, even global warming. We just need to keep the faith, and stay on message when it comes to fighting down the zombies who want to swamp us all with trash of all hues.

LJ says:
You (and others) seem to be caught up in this world-view that has no options and is going to result in “someone” making genetic decisions for the rest of us in the best interest of us. Sorry, I don’t trust authority figures who want what is in “my best interest.”

I say:
There are plenty of options. But most of them require some stern moral fiber to implement. We have no serious option but to trust authorities on so many things, it hardly makes sense to draw the lines with our gonads. Who are we to judge what traits we should express in our offspring when there are geneticists who know more than we do to help us? Our role is to insist on a proper power structure among medical and other authorities to ensure that their verdicts are properly validated.

LJ says:
AR is a nukes freak.

I say:
No, I'm a former physicist who sees nukes as the key to globalizing politics. Without nukes, there would be no horror to prevent WW2 levels of militarism from breaking out regularly. Nukes need to be controlled globally and internationally. This will happen, but first we need to shock and awe the barbarians who don't believe in our will to prevail. The biggest question with nukes is whether we still have the balls to use them. Hillary Clinton has. Good for her.

LJ says:
And you expect me to sit here and smile while ya’ll decide how and what restrictions you will bestow upon me/females?

I say:
Yes. Islamic women do it every day. We all accept restrictions on our personal freedom for the sake of public peace. We wear modest clothing and make way for each other at crowded doorways. We accept police surveillance and speed limits. Men suffer as much as women, just differently.

Timmy says:
Although you really sound like you'd like to be the one pointing the gun and pulling the trigger. It doesn't sound like you lament that it might come to this, but rather that you can't wait until it does. Creepy.

I say:
Game theory says that the rational play is often the loser. To win, you have to be ready to burst out in irrationalism at the first affront. Think of all the pushy people who get their way in this world. Show too much understanding and you're pushed aside. Creepy, to me, is the opposite of assertive. Standing up for yourself is not creepy, by definition.

Timmy says:
No one is trying to stop sex. You are confusing sex with having babies.

I say:
Sadly, I'm not. Some people have a poor track record when it comes to contraception. Fornicating without contraception is fine with some people. It can even add a spice of excitement. If a welfare state picks up the tabs for the baby, who cares? For trash, this is a no-brainer.

Timmy says:
1. Religion is not a life form.
2. I do understand it.
3. We do have convincing reason to crush it.

I say:
It is on my goofy theory. Our individualism is an illusion at various levels. Each of us is a society of trillions of cells, working together because it pays off. And religions are societies of billions of people, working together because it pays off. The fact that you show no awareness of this truth suggests to me that you do not understand religion. And the fact that you think it is any more possible to crush religion it than it was, say, to crush the entrepreneurial spirit in communist societies shows, again, your breathtaking naiveté.

Timmy says:
But plain old Islam, without the militant part, is still a serious problem where population control in concerned. As well as other problems.

I say:
Yes, indeed. We need to get to the heart of that and reconstitute it in rational mode to revive our birthrates. Then, and only then, can we roll up our sleeves and take out the trash.

Posted by: andy ross | April 24, 2008 3:30 PM
Report Offensive Comment

One more thing LJ,

Do you realize that when we talk of the possibility of government regulations on people having babies that those regulations are equally applied to men. Do you realize that it takes both a man and a woman to have a baby? That if the government tells women that they can't have babies that they are also telling men that they can have babies.

This topic has absolutely nothing, NOTHING, to do with evil men trying to dictate what a woman can do with her body. For you to even suggest that there is anything sexist or misogynist about this discussion is as hideous as a black person playing the race card where it is entirely inappropriate. Talk about paranoid. You are very angry at men LJ. Very angry. And very transparent.

Posted by: timmy | April 24, 2008 3:20 PM
Report Offensive Comment

LJ says:
"LOL, do you actually think the world is reading our blogs and that they are going to “get it” after digesting a Timmy or LJ post?"

We all do our little part. Sam writes his books, we participate in these blogs, it's all for the same goal. Everyone out their actively criticizing religion is doing their part. What is your motivation for being here and talking to the believers if you don't think that we are doing anything useful? We all have the goal of making the religious people come to their senses, and come to realize what we know full well: that God does not exist. I call that crushing religion. You might not like the way that I word it, but don't try to pretend that you don't have the same goal.

LJ says:
"Who is “we” and what exactly is “white trash”

"we" are any couple who are going to have a baby.
"White trash" is white trash. You know. White trash. Don't you? Do you really not know what I mean by "white trash?' It's a common term that most everyone knows what it means. It is not anything that anyone would want to be, or want their children to be. People of low intellect. The one's who cling to guns and religion when those dang mexicans greaseballs are taking their jobs. But generally, people of low intellect.

LJ asks:
"and who is going to determine if someone is “white trash” and that their future children’s genes need to be tweaked?"

No one is going to determine if anyone is white trash. I said that if we discover a gene ("we" being the scientists on behalf of society) that is responsible for white trashiness, (low intellect) then we (any perspective parents) would ask the doctor/scientists to engineer their babies without the "low intellect" gene. Get it? People would of course be free to ask the doctor to leave the low intellect gene in their baby, but I don't know why they would want to do that?

LJ says:
"You (and others) seem to be caught up in this world-view that has no options and is going to result in “someone” making genetic decisions for the rest of us in the best interest of us."

No I don't. Your knee jerkiness is showing again. My vision for the future is very optimistic.

LJ says:
"while you are singing the virtues of government restrictions and regulations."

Why do you exaggerate and lie here? I do not sing the praises of government restrictions and regulations. I said that they may end up being necessary, and they might. I hope they won't. But they might. You can't deal with the reality of this scenario. Singing the praises? YOU ARE LYING!

LJ says:
"You have already claimed that education and diplomacy are not going to work"

No I didn't. I said that hopefully they will work. But they may not work in time.
Do you understand the difference between saying that something may not work, and claiming that something will not work? If you do, why did you screw it up this time? Do you not read carefully? Or is your knee jerkiness showing again.

LJ says:
: You call me “out of line” because I protest your ideas and voice my opinion. Kill the dissenter"

Wow! Add super paranoid to the list.

LJ says:
"When you speak of restrictions what can you possibly have in mind except to restrict what a woman does with her body? And you expect me to sit here and smile while ya’ll decide how and what restrictions you will bestow upon me/females?"

You are so blind that you think this is about men controlling what a woman can do with her body. Do you think that prostitution should be legal? I guess you do. That is telling a woman what she can and can not do with her body. Why are you not out there protesting the prostitution laws?

It is very simple LJ. If diplomacy and education do not work in time. And over population gets to a point where there is mass famine, and wars, what do you think will have to be done then. You can't just close your eyes and pretend that this will not happen. It likely will. Hopefully not. But quite likely. What then? If you do not have an answer, please refrain from judging those who are discussing the possible outcomes.

 LJ asks:
"Why am I out of line for objecting to your ideas about procreation?"

You are out of line for not reading posts properly, and accusing me of all kinds of ideas that I never expressed, and for acting like we are all fascists, and for being so self righteous when you will not send your extra money to Africa, and for generally getting this whole discussion wrong.

 "And why would I agree with your argument that clings to doom as the final destiny?"

Here you go again. You are out of line. I have never expressed a view of doom as the final destiny. You are LYING! LYING! LYING! And you are out of line!

 "And who says that education and diplomacy are “exhausted”?"

Not me. So shaaaaadaaaaap!

 "What efforts have been exhausted?" 
"When were they exhausted?"
 "Who determined they were?" 
"What criteria was used?"
 "Where do you base your beliefs about this?"
 "When is “stating the obvious” a work against itself?" 
"When is “stating the obvious” equivalent to not being practical or possible?"

I have never said any of these things. So Shaaaaaadaaaaaaap!

LJ says:
"In all seriousness, you surely understand that my $500 is not going be even a drop in the bucket to solve this world-wide problem. This is a collective problem and will require a collective force and entity to solve it. One LJ with $500 is nothing."

You obviously know nothing of the power of setting an example and the viral effect it can have. What a pathetic excuse. In reality, you just want to keep your money and gripe about how we are not doing anything to help. LOL dear blogger. LOL

LJ says:
"Those who want to prevent me (and females) from choosing what we can/can’t do with our own bodies. That’s who!"

Well that's not me so shaaaaaaadaaaaaaap!

Posted by: timmy | April 24, 2008 6:59 AM
Report Offensive Comment

AR:
You are in full throttle this evening.
I hesitate to get between you and a hard place because your words do make me squeamish. But I’m not getting out of the kitchen quite yet, even it is a sadist who is trying to push me out.

(But if I bow out later you will know the reason why.)

LJ says:
"3rd world dictators are a big part of the problem and of course religious ideologies. We must find a way to deal with these knaves or we will resort to violence which I do not favor."

AR says:
Knaves? They are the saviors of their peoples. How about first world dictators? Bush 43, perhaps? If they're all knaves then none are, in any sense that stings. What is violence? Force and speed. Sounds good to me, if it works. The trick is to do it right. America can do a good Blitzkrieg. It's the follow-up that's weak. Gulf War I was a big success because we pulled out fast. Gulf War II was a flop only because we hung around like a bunch of aimless stiffs after we won the speed trial. We should have pulled out fast and just let the baddies kill each other any way they wanted. They're doing it anyway, just draining US lives and dollars for nothing, nix, nada.

AR’s view says “might makes right” : whoever has the power has the right.

My script says people have the power and the right not to let the sadists use their might.

LJ says:
I said earlier (something like) using money, humanitarian approaches, education and diplomacy ... Gad, Andy ... are ready to send in the SS to enforce laws restricting people (and taking away their rights) and glassing, killing and making all kinds of aggressive moves to “solve” the problem.

AR:
Rights? To endanger my lifestyle with their disgusting offspring? Let's first get clear on what our rights really are. Start with the golden rule: Do not do unto others what you would not like to have done to you. To deflect the obvious countermove, I would like others to glass me over if I become so obnoxious that no-one wants me around any more. I find that prospect acts as a bracing constraint on my more overtly antisocial tendencies.

How about you (and your disgusting offspring) endangering their lifestyle?
Who is going to decide you shouldn’t be around anymore?
Maybe I should be the decider.

AR siad: “Talking about repugnant things is not doing them, just as calling a teddy bear Muhammed is not blasphemy.”

This is true. But likewise, those making the repugnant remarks, cannot exile those who call the repugnant remarks repugnant out of the kitchen, simply because they don’t like their remarks.

LJ says:
And because we are a superpower we have a moral obligation to help the world’s poor pull itself up by its bootstraps. ... Third world countries need our help, not our scorn. They are victims of a meaningless cycle of poverty, etc. ... We must offer them help and give them hope.

AR say:
Here we go again. We call them victims in a self-righteous attempt to legitimize our own eagerness to go in and sort them out. Our aid workers are the stormtroopers of cultural imperialism. Make the victims dependent and infantilize them. Then sell them ice cream and SUVs and get them hooked for as long as Pax Americana prevails on the surface of Rockball 3 in system Sol.

Your opinion.

The idea is not dependency. The idea is educate and self-sufficiency. If you don’t hold ideals that promote improvements for humanity, then you can call it whatever comes to mind including imperialism. Imperialism exists. But it is not coming from non-governmental organizations who work to stabilize starving and war-tattered people. You can call it self-righteous, but you are missing the boat and you are killing the messenger.

Posted by: lindajean | April 23, 2008 9:01 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Timmy said (to AR):

"It won't come to that. Although you really sound like you'd like to be the one pointing the gun and pulling the trigger. It doesn't sound like you lament that it might come to this, but rather that you can't wait until it does. Creepy."

That's exactly right, Timmy: creepy.

And that is exactly my point!

Posted by: lindajean | April 23, 2008 8:27 PM
Report Offensive Comment

LindaJean said:
"There are real solutions to overpopulation. Practical solutions that require education, sound policy and problem-solving ... We are a Superpower, for god’s sake!"

AR said: “Just before the fall of the Wall, the Soviet superpower was a first-rate military menace, despite its third-world economy. Now the USA is a menacing military power but an economic also-ran. Correcting for purchasing power parity (which means the overvalued dollar) you will find that both Europe and East Asia are richer than the USA. The end is nigh. The USA cannot impose a military or any other solution on the third-world population explosion. The best Americans can do now is ride the storm and avoid going under to pestilence, war, famine and death (the four horsemen) themselves.”

Riding the storm will be the precursor to any nukes we decide to implode?

LindaJean said:
"It would take real commitment and rolling up the sleeves. And while we are at it, we could also eliminate poverty, illiteracy, AIDS and the dying of 30,000 children everyday from preventable diseases."

AR:
It won't happen. Fortress America will come first, to ward off the four horsemen raging beyond the oceans. I could mount a detailed argument to make this sound more plausible, but I don't have the time.

Are you the expert now?
This sounds like Peter Huff incarnate.
Well then, damn the torpedos. The British are coming.
And Chicken Little is right.

LindaJean said:
"A woman gets pregnant and she has “exceeded” the allowable number of children you have deemed she can have? ... Just what are you willing to do to this pregnant woman?"

AR: “Exactly. In a liberal democracy it doesn't compute. But the Taliban would have an answer, at least if they were capable of understanding the problem.”

Are we agreeing here, AR?
If we decide to let the “cooler heads prevail” and to hell with the Constitution as Gad espouses, and then glass a few irresponsibles, then we might as well be in bed with the Taliban.

Posted by: lindajean | April 23, 2008 8:14 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Timmy said, “Using money to stop people in other countries from having babies?
How? This is not an idea unless you get specific about how that would work. Pay people to not have babies? Are you talking about money for education? That is what I am talking about. Education. Education that Allah does not need you to have babies because Allah does not exist.....This is what I was talking about when I told you that the government should do the very opposite of promoting more marriage and families. People who choose to be single and not start families will be our saviors.”

Yes, I say! Money for educating people about b/c and over population problems. Education to eliminate illiteracy and reduce/end poverty. Stats show the more education a woman has the fewer children and the less religious she is.
No, the Gov. does not “support” marriage. Gov promotes healthy lifestyles that benefit children. Promoting smaller families is along this line.

Timmy, “And yes, while the population boom is worst in the third world, even in the western world, we still make too many babies for the amount of resources there are on the planet. Even our level will have to drop dramatically....”

First world countries are the major problem of over population. The problem in the USA is over-consumption, not over population. We are only 5% of the world’s pop but we consume 25% of the world’s resources. That is not sustainable. We are also the most obese/ over weight people to ever live on this planet. We are gluttonous fat cats, not rabbits...think SUVs, IPODS, McMansions.....mentality.

Timmy: “...So when I say "crush religion", I am talking about the long drawn out process (generations) of exactly what you and I are doing by participating in these Harris and Dawkins blogs. You and I right now LJ are in the process of crushing religion and supernatural driven lifestyles that are harmful to our planet.”

LOL, do you actually think the world is reading our blogs and that they are going to “get it” after digesting a Timmy or LJ post?

Timmy: “I have never said anything about glassing anyone, or killing anyone, or throwing pregnant ladies in jail, or any of the horrible things you have accused me of. Please keep your arguments with Andy and his apocalyptic vision of the future separate from my very optimistic, peaceful and harmonious vision for humanity.

Well, not so fast here...”crush religion” was a term you used to eradicate overpopulation. I took it to mean squash, annihilate, destroy religion in a forceful way. Granted, I did take it too literally, but it was the tone of the argument that got my attention, not simply the words:
I quote you here:
Any thoughts on the solution to the population problem.
Regulation of child birth. Licensing for child bearing.... But this idea that it is everyone's basic right to reproduce as much as they want will have to go away, don't you think....Well I don't think we would need to kill any currently live human beings in a cull or anything, but certainly if we discover genes that are responsible for white trashiness we would gradually engineer that out of our future offspring.”

Who is “we” and what exactly is “white trash” and who is going to determine if someone is “white trash” and that their future children’s genes need to be tweaked?

These are the kinds of words that make me squeamish. You (and others) seem to be caught up in this world-view that has no options and is going to result in “someone” making genetic decisions for the rest of us in the best interest of us. Sorry, I don’t trust authority figures who want what is in “my best interest.”

I don’t envision this no-options scenario. Look at global warming for example. Ten years ago it was viewed as left-wing, radical, extreme environmental propaganda. Today it is mainstream. Do you not see a shift in the public’s understanding of it in just 10 years? Even Bush is accepting it is real. And the religious right is out hugging trees and being God’s care taker for the planet now.

Gad wants to rape the Constitution. AR is a nukes freak. You want “cooler minds” to prevail while you are singing the virtues of government restrictions and regulations. What exactly are we talking about here? What action are cooler minds going to bring upon us? You have already claimed that education and diplomacy are not going to work. You call me “out of line” because I protest your ideas and voice my opinion. Kill the dissenter.

When you speak of restrictions what can you possibly have in mind except to restrict what a woman does with her body?
And you expect me to sit here and smile while ya’ll decide how and what restrictions you will bestow upon me/females?

Why am I out of line for objecting to your ideas about procreation?
And why would I agree with your argument that clings to doom as the final destiny?
And who says that education and diplomacy are “exhausted”?
What efforts have been exhausted?
When were they exhausted?
Who determined they were?
What criteria was used?
Where do you base your beliefs about this?
When is “stating the obvious” a work against itself?
When is “stating the obvious” equivalent to not being practical or possible?

Timmy said, “Regulations may have to be imposed one day. If you have evidence that education and diplomacy will do the trick in plenty of time, please share so we can all put our mind at ease.”

No, if you have evidence that education and diplomacy have even been tried on a mass scale, with determination, with money to back it up and with the commitment needed to make it work, then please bring forth.

Timmy said, “You can start helping yourself right now and set a selfless example. Start by taking $500 a month out of your families budget and sending it to aid organizations in Africa. Are you telling me that you can not find $500.00 a month to help out the third world.....”

In all seriousness, you surely understand that my $500 is not going be even a drop in the bucket to solve this world-wide problem. This is a collective problem and will require a collective force and entity to solve it. One LJ with $500 is nothing.

BTW: I do contribute to non-profits working to eliminate poverty and disease in the 3rd world. It is estimated poverty can and will be eliminated in 2 decades if the will and money are there. I believe over population can be stabilized as well.

Timmy: “So the population problem is a small campfire?”

Today it is. Tomorrow it may not be.

I said:
"But accepting the inevitability of GE does not equate, in any way, in believing that future madmen could not control its destiny. And closing my eyes to that possibility is not something I am willing, able or ever going to do"

Timmy: “Who said you had to?”

Those who want to prevent me (and females) from choosing what we can/can’t do with our own bodies. That’s who!

Timmy: “Why soon. Why not right now....Go write that $500 check right now....nothing is in your way...”

When I use “soon” I mean ASAP.

And there are obstacles. Money is certainly one of them. I don’t have any (I’m a teacher--not exactly in the $250,000 tax group.) If I were a philanthropist I would do something worthy.

But I have a good idea. Get started on that book we were talking about. A best seller by all means.
You could call it “The End of Faithfulness: The demise of marriage in the 21st century.”
We could start a non-profit with the proceeds.
You could be the President (you’re the kind of guy who likes to be in charge, I can tell.)
I’ll be the grunt that takes care of all the details.
We will promote the end of marriage and the use of BC.

What do you think? Are you down on that idea?

Posted by: lindajean | April 23, 2008 7:02 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Andy says:
""Pop one and you're dead, you loathsome scum!"

I say:
It won't come to that. Although you really sound like you'd like to be the one pointing the gun and pulling the trigger. It doesn't sound like you lament that it might come to this, but rather that you can't wait until it does. Creepy.

Andy says:
"Imagine telling Americans in the 1930s that within a few years people would be dying hideous and violent deaths worldwide by the tens of millions and you would have been accused of rampant apocalypticism'

???? Are you on drugs? 8 years after the end of WW1 you think people would have been shocked to think that it was gearing up to start all over again? You are really weird these days.

Andy says:
"Oooh! Regulations! That'll stop people having sweet forbidden sex when no-one's looking"

No one is trying to stop sex. You are confusing sex with having babies.

Andy says:
"Yo, a glint of reason here. How about bombs, tanks, guns, applied reasonably?"

Of course. Kill the dictators. instead of glassing the people. One good. One bad.

Andy says:
"Overpopulation, evolution, genetic enhancement and so on are not ideas for the squeamish. Participants need to wise up or leave the kitchen. Talking about repugnant things is not doing them, just as calling a teddy bear Muhammed is not blasphemy"

I agree. But that doesn't mean that killing babies and pregnant women on mass is even a slightly realistic look into the future. I just don't see it coming to that.

Andy says:
"Is peace what you make with a Peacemaker missile?"

Peace is what we have here in Canada. It's quite lovely. It's not perfect. But relatively speaking, it blows the doors off of what goes on in the third world.

Andy says:
"Not me, boyo. I want to understand it first. I don't hold with crushing lifeforms before we have a convincing reason to do so"

1. Religion is not a life form.
2. I do understand it.
3. We do have convincing reason to crush it.

Andy says:
"Religions are endangered species that promise insights aplenty to the patient observer"

We can still learn from it after it has been crushed.Just as we can still learn from slavery.

Andy says:
"To parry an obvious move, militant Islam is not a religion but a political atavism that we understand only too well already"

Sure. But plain old Islam, without the militant part, is still a serious problem where population control in concerned. As well as other problems.

Andy says:
"Er, excuse me but we all have to die,"

Duh. What does that have to do with killing people?

Posted by: timmy | April 23, 2008 6:59 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Damn Andy, your on a roll! In common English no less!

Posted by: GAD | April 23, 2008 5:41 PM
Report Offensive Comment

I say, I say, what a fine firestorm we have burning here.

Timmy says:
Pay people to not have babies? Are you talking about money for education? ... Education that Allah does not need you to have babies because Allah does not exist. And education that there are many fulfilling and meaningful things that you can do with your life without having a family.

I say:
Pay people enough not to have babies and they'll have babies. That's what people do when they have plenty of money and no-one to fight with. No, we have to ratchet up the tension. Drill-sergeant tension: "Pop one and you're dead, you loathsome scum!" That might put them off burdening themselves with offspring until they sort things out first.

Timmy says:
And yes, while the population boom is worst in the third world, even in the western world, we still make too many babies for the amount of resources there are on the planet. ... We can set and example ... You and I right now LJ are in the process of crushing religion and supernatural driven lifestyles that are harmful to our planet.

I say:
LOMA! So we're in the process of crushing religion "and supernatural driven lifestyles" (oops, I forgot that God is not a natural expression of inchoate yearnings but a supernatural driver) as we trade CPC (cocktail party conversation) on a Christian forum? Let's set an example by castrating ourselves and saying to all those fertile studs just waiting to take over the world, "Hey, I did it, so you can do it too!" LOMA!

Timmy says:
Please keep your arguments with Andy and his apocalyptic vision of the future separate from my very optimistic, peaceful and harmonious vision for humanity.

I say:
Prepare for the worst, hope for the best. Apocalypse is not so unlikely. Imagine telling Americans in the 1930s that within a few years people would be dying hideous and violent deaths worldwide by the tens of millions and you would have been accused of rampant apocalypticism.

Timmy says:
I have spoken with Gad about the possibility of us not succeeding in our efforts to get it under control before the tipping point of mass famine, war and the deterioration of societies everywhere. If it gets too bad, something may have to be done ... There may need to be some laws passed to save us from the horror of mass overpopulation.

I say:
LOMA! Some laws! "Thou shalt not have have thy daily bonk without a condom on that conk" and the like. Look, you're not thinking in the right league yet. You might as well try to resist a tidal wave with a Canutian edict (hint: historical reference). I have spoken with "God" on this and "He" says get real, punk.

Timmy says:
Regulations may have to be imposed one day. If you have evidence that education and diplomacy will do the trick in plenty of time, please share so we can all put our mind at ease.

I say:
Oooh! Regulations! That'll stop people having sweet forbidden sex when no-one's looking. How about we (gulp) rap them on the knuckles if we catch them? Educating women to want the privileges (and the toys) men have is the only strategy that has a ghost of a chance. That will make them fight tooth and nail not to get laid by the first charmer who comes their way.

Timmy says:
I find it all very knee jerky, emotional sans reason, and self righteous.

I say:
Well, that is a risk here. One is in Zugzwang, as the Germans say. Another night, another move. And we all think we have right on our side. There are signals in the noise, I venture to conjecture.

LJ says:
"3rd world dictators are a big part of the problem and of course religious ideologies. We must find a way to deal with these knaves or we will resort to violence which I do not favor."

I say:
Knaves? They are the saviors of their peoples. How about first world dictators? Bush 43, perhaps? If they're all knaves then none are, in any sense that stings. What is violence? Force and speed. Sounds good to me, if it works. The trick is to do it right. America can do a good Blitzkrieg. It's the follow-up that's weak. Gulf War I was a big success because we pulled out fast. Gulf War II was a flop only because we hung around like a bunch of aimless stiffs after we won the speed trial. We should have pulled out fast and just let the baddies kill each other any way they wanted. They're doing it anyway, just draining US lives and dollars for nothing, nix, nada.

Timmy says:
How will we get rid of third world dictators without force?

I say:
Yo, a glint of reason here. How about bombs, tanks, guns, applied reasonably?

I say:
Rights? To endanger my lifestyle with their disgusting offspring? Let's first get clear on what our rights really are. Start with the golden rule: Do not do unto others what you would not like to have done to you. To deflect the obvious countermove, I would like others to glass me over if I become so obnoxious that no-one wants me around any more. I find that prospect acts as a bracing constraint on my more overtly antisocial tendencies.

Timmy says:
I started a discussion about all the repugnant ideas emanating around here and there was no comment on your part.

I say:
Overpopulation, evolution, genetic enhancement and so on are not ideas for the squeamish. Participants need to wise up or leave the kitchen. Talking about repugnant things is not doing them, just as calling a teddy bear Muhammed is not blasphemy.

I say:
Here we go again. We call them victims in a self-righteous attempt to legitimize our own eagerness to go in and sort them out. Our aid workers are the stormtroopers of cultural imperialism. Make the victims dependent and infantilize them. Then sell them ice cream and SUVs and get them hooked for as long as Pax Americana prevails on the surface of Rockball 3 in system Sol.

Timmy says:
Everyone knows what a disease is. Cure both heart disease and Cancer. Cure both STD 1 and STD 2. And so on. And any more that you care to add to the list. Eventually you will run out of diseases to list. But we won't run out of cures. Not the way that science is advancing at exponential speed.

I say:
There are plenty of easy cases to get us started, sure. Enough to put off the day when we realize that our polynomially (but not exponentially, for resource reasons) increasing robotic powers will never catch up with the combinatorial cussedness of macromolecules that don't have a clue about our ever more artfully contrived ideas about what constitutes health and well-being (any more than the rationals will catch up with the reals, in the mathematical coup de foudre due to Georg Cantor, visioneer of paradise).

Timmy says:
Everyone knows what "peace" and "harmony" mean. One group might not like sexual promiscuity being shown on TV, while another group might like it fine. But they both know what "peace" is.

I say:
Is peace what you make with a Peacemaker missile? With its multiple megaton warheads you can make a lot of it. Or is it what passeth all understanding when you die? Or is it what Joseph Chamberlain made "for our time" at Munich in 1938? As for harmony, what about the harmony of nations in Europe, or of proletarian consciousness in China?

Timmy says:
We all know what we're talking about when I say religion. Stop this acting like these are vague undefined terms I am using. We are all on these blogs because we are trying to "crush" religion.

I say:
Not me, boyo. I want to understand it first. I don't hold with crushing lifeforms before we have a convincing reason to do so. Religions are endangered species that promise insights aplenty to the patient observer. To parry an obvious move, militant Islam is not a religion but a political atavism that we understand only too well already.

Timmy says:
No one has to die. It means preventing more births, not killing already born people. Give it a rest with this killing of babies. No one has to kill anyone to stop the population problem. ... Hundreds of years of education and the spreading of democracy will end religion.

I say:
Er, excuse me but we all have to die, unless you go with Ray Kurweil's idea that medical science will move so fast that we have a shot at high-tech immortality. He forgets that legions of young thugs, eager to live their worthless lives to the full, will move in and terminate the high-tech survivors unless the robots get to nurse us all in their gentle grip first. Then we become juice pods in the Matrix.

Posted by: andy ross | April 23, 2008 4:12 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Timmy said,

"BOBYRDHAEPOLFTFOHDY!

Sorry, I know you're not up on all the new computer speak.
That one above is a common acronym for:
"Boy oh boy you really do have an extremely pessimistic outlook for the future of humanity, don't you?"

LOL, I am down on that one!
You are rocking tonight, blogger!

Posted by: lindajean | April 22, 2008 8:54 PM
Report Offensive Comment

LJ says
"I said earlier (something like) using money"

Using money to stop people in other countries from having babies?
How? This is not an idea unless you get specific about how that would work. Pay people to not have babies? Are you talking about money for education? That is what I am talking about. Education. Education that Allah does not need you to have babies because Allah does not exist. And education that there are many fulfilling and meaningful things that you can do with your life without having a family. If we are to keep our population at a sustainable number, we will have to move on to a norm where most people do not start families. This is what I was talking about when I told you that the government should do the very opposite of promoting more marriage and families. People who choose to be single and not start families will be our saviors.

And yes, while the population boom is worst in the third world, even in the western world, we still make too many babies for the amount of resources there are on the planet. Even our level will have to drop dramatically. We can set and example by starting to promote this idea here at home, whilst still working on the problem of convincing the Allah fearing third world that they too should look at alternative lifestyles. (i.e. not coupling for the purpose of making a big family) But before we can even start to convince them to stop having so many babies, we have to convince them that God does not exist. Because that is their reason for having so many babies. So when I say "crush religion", I am talking about the long drawn out process (generations) of exactly what you and I are doing by participating in these Harris and Dawkins blogs. You and I right now LJ are in the process of crushing religion and supernatural driven lifestyles that are harmful to our planet.

I have never said anything about glassing anyone, or killing anyone, or throwing pregnant ladies in jail, or any of the horrible things you have accused me of. Please keep your arguments with Andy and his apocalyptic vision of the future separate from my very optimistic, peaceful and harmonious vision for humanity.

I have spoken with Gad about the possibility of us not succeeding in our efforts to get it under control before the tipping point of mass famine, war and the deterioration of societies everywhere. If it gets too bad, something may have to be done that goes beyond simple cooperation and love and understanding. There may need to be some laws passed to save us from the horror of mass overpopulation. Hopefully it won't come to that. But it may have to. What is the alternative? You have offered nothing.

Lindajean says:
humanitarian approaches, education and diplomacy ...to help give people a REASON for reducing populations---that ought to be the starting point"

Yes yes, that is what I just went through. But we were talking about what happens if none of that works in time to save us. You are out of line, and way off base if you think that we all are not assuming all of the best efforts in diplomacy and education are not exhausted before we would have to resort to making laws. Our discussion was, "what if none of that works in time?" And it is a pertinent discussion, because it seems highly likely that all of that won't work in time. Regulations may have to be imposed one day. If you have evidence that education and diplomacy will do the trick in plenty of time, please share so we can all put our mind at ease.

LJ says:
"But you, Gad, Andy...are ready to send in the SS to enforce laws restricting people (and taking away their rights) and glassing, killing and making all kinds of aggressive moves to “solve” the problem"

Sow me where I have endorsed one iota of any of that horse-sh*t you mentioned above. You are way out of line! Get it together!
LJ said:
"Knee jerkiness...."

This defines well your reaction to our discussion. Add in unfounded self righteousness and we have your current stance.

LJ says:
"I started a discussion about all the repugnant ideas emanating around here and there was no comment on your part"

That is because I don't relate to your take on what is being discussed. I find it all very knee jerky, emotional sans reason, and self righteous.
LJ says:
"Likewise I tossed a few questions out there and again, no commentary from you, only a barrage of inflammatory nonsense for me to digest"

This "barrage of inflammatory nonsense" you refer to was my reaction to being called a fascist and other horrible names by you in one of your many emotional reactionary rants on this subject. Calm down. Take a deep breath. You have still offered no practical specific ideas of how to deal with the problem that any of us have not already thought of and moved beyond. We are discussing what if none of that education and diplomacy works in time? And you are calling us fascists for discussing it.

LJ says:
"3rd world dictators are a big part of the problem and of course religious ideologies. We must find a way to deal with these knaves or we will resort to violence which I do not favor. It does not solve the root of the problem and Iraq is a perfect example. It is wasteful and uses too many resources that could be used more wisely and productively"

Nice. Here, as usual, you have told us what doesn't work, and you have stated the obvious that all of us know, but what do you think will work? How will we get rid of third world dictators without force? Thanks again for telling us what the problem is, and what wont work. But what will work Lindajean? Do you have anything here?

LJ says:
"So we start with the obvious. Work on building positive relationships with the world. Our tainted reputation has injured our ability to do good work in the world. We will have to start from the bottom (Bush’s legacy) and work up. Our next president is going to be vital in helping get this rolling. We can’t hide our heads in the sand any longer. And because we are a superpower we have a moral obligation to help the world’s poor pull itself up by its bootstraps. We need an infusion of good medical, education, literacy, agricultural, economic and self-sufficiency programs all wrapped around the very necessity of birth control availability. Third world countries need our help, not our scorn. They are victims of a meaningless cycle of poverty, etc...We must offer them help and give them hope."

First of all, Duh. Thank you again for stating the obvious.
Second of all, you don't have to wait for everyone else to get with the program LJ. You can start helping yourself right now and set a selfless example. Start by taking $500 a month out of your families budget and sending it to aid organizations in Africa. Are you telling me that you can not find $500.00 a month to help out the third world. You know there are things that you and your family can cut back on to the tune of $500.00 a month. Things that you like, and enjoy, but are not really necessary to your happiness. After all you have each other, and a roof over your heads. So why not take the kids out of baseball and send that money over seas. Why not skip that monthly or weekly dinner out and send that money to Africa? Why not forgo Christmas presents this year and tell the kids you're all sending that money to Africa. Why wait for everyone else to do it. Just do it yourself right now? Why not? If you do, you can then keep spewing this self righteous horse crap that you are spewing. But if you don't shaaaadaaaap!

LJ says:
"Have you noticed how many of the world’s problems go hand-in-hand? Poverty, illness, starvation, genocide, population explosions, draughts, high infant mortality rates, illiteracy...? This is not a coincidence. Nor it is a one issue or one solution problem. We need to take the bull by the horns but we need to realize there are no simplistic solutions. And we need to start doing something soon."

Why soon. Why not right now. Go write that $500.00 check right now LJ.
Why do you want everyone else to go first? You start it. Go. Nothing is in your way. Do it or stop preaching.
LJ says:
"But reacting to a small campfire as though it were a burning skyscraper with sleeping infants inside of it is crass, silly and futile"

So the population problem is a small campfire?

LJ says:
"But accepting the inevitability of GE does not equate, in any way, in believing that future madmen could not control its destiny. And closing my eyes to that possibility is not something I am willing, able or ever going to do"

Who asked you to?

Posted by: timmy | April 22, 2008 7:20 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Hi Timmy:
Do you actually read my posts or do you just enjoy ranting about them?

I have responded giving several ideas previously, but you seem too keen on mocking and LYAO to understand anything I have written.

I said earlier (something like) using money, humanitarian approaches, education and diplomacy ...to help give people a REASON for reducing populations---that ought to be the starting point. But you, Gad, Andy...are ready to send in the SS to enforce laws restricting people (and taking away their rights) and glassing, killing and making all kinds of aggressive moves to “solve” the problem.

Knee jerkiness....

I started a discussion about all the repugnant ideas emanating around here and there was no comment on your part. Likewise I tossed a few questions out there and again, no commentary from you, only a barrage of inflammatory nonsense for me to digest.

3rd world dictators are a big part of the problem and of course religious ideologies. We must find a way to deal with these knaves or we will resort to violence which I do not favor. It does not solve the root of the problem and Iraq is a perfect example. It is wasteful and uses too many resources that could be used more wisely and productively.

So we start with the obvious. Work on building positive relationships with the world. Our tainted reputation has injured our ability to do good work in the world. We will have to start from the bottom (Bush’s legacy) and work up. Our next president is going to be vital in helping get this rolling. We can’t hide our heads in the sand any longer. And because we are a superpower we have a moral obligation to help the world’s poor pull itself up by its bootstraps. We need an infusion of good medical, education, literacy, agricultural, economic and self-sufficiency programs all wrapped around the very necessity of birth control availability. Third world countries need our help, not our scorn. They are victims of a meaningless cycle of poverty, etc...We must offer them help and give them hope.

Have you noticed how many of the world’s problems go hand-in-hand? Poverty, illness, starvation, genocide, population explosions, draughts, high infant mortality rates, illiteracy...? This is not a coincidence. Nor it is a one issue or one solution problem. We need to take the bull by the horns but we need to realize there are no simplistic solutions. And we need to start doing something soon.

But reacting to a small campfire as though it were a burning skyscraper with sleeping infants inside of it is crass, silly and futile.

Do I think we can stop or avoid genetic engineering (GE)?
Are you kidding”
LOL
Why would I think that?
But accepting the inevitability of GE does not equate, in any way, in believing that future madmen could not control its destiny. And closing my eyes to that possibility is not something I am willing, able or ever going to do.

Posted by: lindajean | April 22, 2008 5:56 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Andy says:

"Naiveté again. What is a disease?"

Poppycock! I knew you would go with this. It's just silliness. Everyone knows what a disease is. Don't try and pretend that it is a vague subjective term. It's not. Nice try.

"Cure heart disease and people live long enough to get cancer. Cure sexually transmitted disease 1 and people have more sex and get STD 2."

Cure both heart disease and Cancer. Cure both STD 1 and STD 2. And so on. And any more that you care to add to the list. Eventually you will run out of diseases to list. But we won't run out of cures. Not the way that science is advancing at exponential speed.

Andy says:
"It is shameful to be so uncritical about the meaning of words that are used shamelessly by shamans and politicians"

BS. Everyone knows what "peace" and "harmony" mean. One group might not like sexual promiscuity being shown on TV, while another group might like it fine. But they both know what "peace" is. There is a difference of opinion in America about such moral behavior, but we still live in peace on that issue. Little gripes here and there, but the political system of democracy and live and let live within reason works quite well. The Mennonites, for example, live in relative peace and harmony with the western Hollywoodized world. No problem. Just a little democracy and common sense. Peace and Harmony. Again, you pretend that these are subjective terms. They are not.

Andy says:
"Soon after come the gene tweakers who say all that body hair is disgusting, and while you're at it how about a nose job, a boob job, a brain job, and painless sterilization at no extra cost?"

So? People can do all of those things to themselves all they want. How does it hurt me if my neighbor wants to remove all of his body hair. He can't force me to. That is what democracy is all about. People have boob jobs, and painless sterilization done all the time, right now, every day. What is the problem? Why do you think it will go all Mad Max? There is no reason for this dire prediction. Unless you are working out ideas for another sci-fi novel.

Andy says:
"And what is religion? Reading books about Jesus? Watching Deepak Chopra videos?"

Here we go again with this pretending that these terms are subjective. We all know what we're talking about when I say religion. Stop this acting like these are vague undefined terms I am using. We are all on these blogs because we are trying to "crush" religion. In our case, we are contributing to the eventual demise of religion by debating with those who are brainwashed by ancient superstition. We hope to have people use reason instead of primitive folk lore to make their decisions. Again you pretend that it is a grey fuzzy line, when in fact it is a solid hard easily definable line between religion and non religion.

Andy says:
"The only effective solutions involve reducing numbers. That means people dying, and anyone who claims to be in control must accept the blame for the deaths"

Poppycock! No one has to die. It means preventing more births, not killing already born people. Give it a rest with this killing of babies. No one has to kill anyone to stop the population problem. We just have to educate until everyone realizes that there is not only no more need for everyone to pump out the maximum number of babies that they can, in the name of their God or whatever, but in fact, most people should forgo this unnecessary ritual by choice, for the good of us all. Hundreds of years of education and the spreading of democracy will end religion. Then it will be simple to convince people to stop having babies just for the sake of having babies because that is the only tradition that they know.

BOBYRDHAEPOLFTFOHDY!

Posted by: timmy | April 22, 2008 3:57 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Timmy says:
"We have cured diseases in the past. Why oh why do you think that we, with time, can not cure them all?"

Naiveté again. What is a disease? Attention deficit disorder? Asperger's syndrome? Pink nipples? Anyway, cure one and another one pops up. Cure heart disease and people live long enough to get cancer. Cure sexually transmitted disease 1 and people have more sex and get STD 2. And so on. It's a roll for the medical profession and a disaster for medical insurance premiums.

Timmy says:
"How can it be shameful to dream of peace and harmony?"

It is shameful to be so uncritical about the meaning of words that are used shamelessly by shamans and politicians. Define your terms, as Oxford philosophers are wont to say.

Timmy said:
"They don't have to tolerate something that is not happening. Do you have a real life example in stead of this made up Hollywood stud thing?"

Western corporations pushing decadent lifestyle vectors like cable television, movies, pop music, pornography, junk food, carbonated beverages, alcohol and cigarettes into traditional communities. Soon after come the gene tweakers who say all that body hair is disgusting, and while you're at it how about a nose job, a boob job, a brain job, and painless sterilization at no extra cost?

Timmy said:
"But obviously we will need to crush religion before we can get there. But if it does have to come down to some sort of law, you, again, greatly exaggerate the consequences with regards to killing babies. ... Cooler heads will prevail."

Obviously. And what is religion? Reading books about Jesus? Watching Deepak Chopra videos? Parading in the streets waving knives with blood streaming down your head? Pro-life demonstrations? As for killing babies, what do you do if a population is multiplying out of control, like a tumor? Hand out baby formula and kill the mosquitos for them? The only effective solutions involve reducing numbers. That means people dying, and anyone who claims to be in control must accept the blame for the deaths.

LindaJean said:
"There are real solutions to overpopulation. Practical solutions that require education, sound policy and problem-solving ... We are a Superpower, for god’s sake!"

Just before the fall of the Wall, the Soviet superpower was a first-rate military menace, despite its third-world economy. Now the USA is a menacing military power but an economic also-ran. Correcting for purchasing power parity (which means the overvalued dollar) you will find that both Europe and East Asia are richer than the USA. The end is nigh. The USA cannot impose a military or any other solution on the third-world population explosion. The best Americans can do now is ride the storm and avoid going under to pestilence, war, famine and death (the four horsemen) themselves.

It won't happen. Fortress America will come first, to ward off the four horsemen raging beyond the oceans. I could mount a detailed argument to make this sound more plausible, but I don't have the time.

LindaJean said:
"A woman gets pregnant and she has “exceeded” the allowable number of children you have deemed she can have? ... Just what are you willing to do to this pregnant woman?"

Exactly. In a liberal democracy it doesn't compute. But the Taliban would have an answer, at least if they were capable of understanding the problem.

Timmy said:
"LMAO"

Laugh my ass off? Is this one of those cute nuggets of American folk wisdom? A workout routine for an English as a Shouted Language class at Li Yang's new "Crazy English Tongue Muscle Training House" in Beijing?

Posted by: andy ross | April 22, 2008 2:23 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Lindajeans says:
"If we just get our “heads out of our asses” we could end over population in less than a decade. We are a Superpower, for god’s sake!"

What on earth are you talking about? End it how? You haven't mentioned one single solution. Not even a hint at one possible plan of action that could help us get over population under control. Just "get our heads out of our asses"? What are you talking about?

You have no ideas, no plan. "We are a superpower for god's sake!" What in blazes does that mean? How can we use our superpowerness to stop the third world from spitting out endless babies? What are you talking about, Lindajean?

As for genetically engineered and improved humans? You think you can stop it? LMAO

Posted by: timmy | April 22, 2008 7:58 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Timmy said, “I am down with that. Without religion, reasonable people should not have a problem opting out of the baby assembly line, given the perril for all human kind if we don't. But obviously we will need to crush religion before we can get there. But if it does have to come down to some sort of law, you, again, greatly exaggerate the consequences with regards to killing babies. Stealing is illegal. But we don't kill people who steal. We have more humane ways of dealing with law breakers. I just don't see this Mad Max world that you are predicting. Cooler heads will prevail.”

Well, what precisely do you see, Timmy?
What kind of “cooler” heads are you talking about?
You’re going to “crush” religion?
How might you do that? (I am going to sleep a little better tonight knowing you are not in alignment with AR glassing and killing.)

And what “law breakers” are you talking about? A woman gets pregnant and she has “exceeded” the allowable number of children you have deemed she can have?
Are you going to imprison her?
Are you going to force an abortion? (Like they do in China)
Are you just going to fine her?
Sterilize her?
Make her promise never to do it again?

Just what are you willing to do to this pregnant woman?
What is this pregnant woman going to have to do to make you happy so the world will be safe from itself?

Posted by: lindajean | April 21, 2008 7:40 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Timmy said, “Since I have heard you on many an occasion talk of the impending doom of overpopulation, what do you suggest we do about it? If we don't regulate birth rates, we will overpopulate, simple as that. Starvation, death, war, will soon follow. What is your solution? You should offer one before you start calling people who are talking about the only possible solution ‘fascists’.”

It sounds fascist when I hear talk of killing babies, controlling fertility of women (whatever the hell that means), “regulating” births, eliminating “white trash” and improving the “engineering next time around.” And what is moving science quickly into “perfection?” What exactly is “perfection?” Are you simply discussing termination of disease and mental illness? Those are lofty but who is going to decide what else is “perfection?”

The majority of the population explosion is occurring in the Third World. In case you haven’t noticed, we don’t represent people in those countries. They are their own sovereign nations. Are we going to send in some military people and act like Big Brother, forcing them to take birth control and keep those poor, illiterate people from reproducing?

There are real solutions to overpopulation. Practical solutions that require education, sound policy and problem-solving (and a few bucks thrown into the kitty). The reason we are exploding in population is the same reason we see global warming. We close our eyes to the big problems in our own part of the world with pathetic policies that promote more problems and more pathetic policies. And in the Third World, where massive overpopulation problems are endemic, we roll over for punk-ass dictators (who are in bed with Corporations). If we just get our “heads out of our asses” we could end over population in less than a decade. We are a Superpower, for god’s sake!

It would take real commitment and rolling up the sleeves. And while we are at it, we could also eliminate poverty, illiteracy, AIDS and the dying of 30,000 children everyday from preventable diseases. We don’t need genetics to do any of that. We just need good leadership, good will, good policy and humanitarian approaches to solving very human problems. Let’s try some diplomacy for a change too.

Posted by: lindajean | April 21, 2008 7:27 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Andy says:
"As for perfect human beings, what are they? Nazi stormtroopers, perhaps?"

No. Just disease free. Mental illness free.
We have cured diseases in the past. Why oh why do you think that we, with time, can not cure them all?

Andy says:
"As for "sustainable, peaceful and harmonious," shame on you for such PC cant"

How can it be shameful to dream of peace and harmony?
How is that PC?

Andy said:
"Go tell the Islamists that they are not perfect until they peacefully and harmoniously tolerate Hollywood stud material impregnating every womb in the world"

They don't have to tolerate something that is not happening. Do you have a real life example in stead of this made up Hollywood stud thing?

I will gladly tell the islamists that they can not dictate the morality of others in a peaceful and harmonious democracy.

Andy said:
"The only solution here is almost intolerable patience, as we persuade those birthers of fundamentalist freedom fighters to give it a rest."

I am down with that. Without religion, reasonable people should not have a problem opting out of the baby assembly line, given the perril for all human kind if we don't. But obviously we will need to crush religion before we can get there. But if it does have to come down to some sort of law, you, again, greatly exaggerate the consequences with regards to killing babies. Stealing is illegal. But we don't kill people who steal. We have more humane ways of dealing with law breakers. I just don't see this Mad Max world that you are predicting. Cooler heads will prevail.

Posted by: timmy | April 21, 2008 6:17 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Timmy, thanks 2U2. You're smart enough to say a few good things, unlike some onliners.

To work. You said:
"Assuming we survive all of our current perils such as global warming and religion, will our science never catch up to natural selection? Will we never learn enough about our own genetics to engineer perfect human beings who learn to live in a sustainable, peaceful and harmonious way?"

Almost certainly not, because of the law of unintended consequences. As for perfect human beings, what are they? Nazi stormtroopers, perhaps? As for "sustainable, peaceful and harmonious," shame on you for such PC cant. Go tell the Islamists that they are not perfect until they peacefully and harmoniously tolerate Hollywood stud material impregnating every womb in the world.

You said:
"As for the 'sacred' original germline, is it not that of a single celled organism? What we have become since then is simply a result of random mutations that were favored due to their tendency to help us reproduce. Now that such random mutations will no longer be selected, we are in charge of where the germline goes from here. What it currently is is nothing more than the result of mutations helpful to procreation. What is sacred about that, now that procreation is nothing special?"

Poor logic. It's a line, and it goes on and on. Now it's found a new way to expand the combinatorial space of possible mutations (which may never have been random in your sense) by harnessing our computers. Not that this makes much difference, since the effective computational power of a few billion sets of gonads hosting molecular computing (which may exploit quantum parallelism) is much more than we can yet muster. On randomness, google Greg Chaitin, who defines it as algorithmic incompressibility. Random mutations are just ones we don't have a simple explanation for. On quantum computing in biological macromolecules, google Johnjoe McFadden, who in his 2000 book points out that molecular jigglings can "test" combinatorial possibilities before settling on a mutation. Just a little lookahead there could transform those numbers that people use to poo-poo the chance of a 747 self-assembling in a junkyard.

And you said:
"Since I have heard you on many an occasion talk of the impending doom of overpopulation, what do you suggest we do about it? If we don't regulate birth rates, we will overpopulate, simple as that. Starvation, death, war, will soon follow. What is your solution?"

Helping LindaJean out here, let me just say that most babies come from sex, and there the law is an ass. Enforcing a ban on sexual procreation would mean regular infanticide of healthy babies, and that just would not work. The only solution here is almost intolerable patience, as we persuade those birthers of fundamentalist freedom fighters to give it a rest. Or we kill all the mothers, maybe glass over their homes. I say fight the fighters, f*** the mothers, feed the babies. All with as much cunning, charm and caring as we can muster.

Posted by: andy ross | April 21, 2008 4:13 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Lindajean,

Since I have heard you on many an occasion talk of the impending doom of overpopulation, what do you suggest we do about it? If we don't regulate birth rates, we will overpopulate, simple as that. Starvation, death, war, will soon follow. What is your solution? You should offer one before you start calling people who are talking about the only possible solution "fascists".

Posted by: timmy | April 21, 2008 2:21 PM
Report Offensive Comment

That was nonsense, LJ.

Timmy, I have a thread on the Sam Harris site that is along the same lines as this. It is a better site with no restrictions.

www.samharris.org/forum/viewthread/9811/

Posted by: GAD | April 20, 2008 10:57 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Timmy said, "Any thoughts on the solution to the population problem.
Regulation of child birth. Licensing for child bearing. Certainly religion will have to be dealt with first, and then what? Any thoughts? We have the intelligence and imagination to find a sustainable way of living on. But this idea that it is everyone's basic right to reproduce as much as they want will have to go away, don't you think?"

This is the stuff good fascists and good eugenics is made of. Perhaps you need to read up on social Darwinism.

No ethics? No problem.

Surely this is the devil's advocate in disguise.

Posted by: lindajean | April 20, 2008 6:36 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Timmy said:
Any thoughts on the solution to the population problem.
Regulation of child birth. Licensing for child bearing. Certainly religion will have to be dealt with first, and then what? Any thoughts? We have the intelligence and imagination to find a sustainable way of living on. But this idea that it is everyone's basic right to reproduce as much as they want will have to go away, don't you think?...........

Rights like god are man made, and what man giveth man can take away. Yes, we have to get past that. Regulation of child birth, Licensing for child bearing, limits on the number of children etc and sterilization for offenders should be put in place.

Posted by: GAD | April 20, 2008 5:19 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Hi Andy,

Thank you for your recent posts. his is certainly the discussion I was looking to have and I knew that your insights would be enlightening.

You said:
"Goof transcends our best efforts in genetic tinkering as vastly as the Sun outshines our biggest H-bomb."

And this will still be the case say 1000 years from now?
Again, assuming we survive all of our current perils such as global warming and religion, will our science never catch up to natural selection? Will we never learn enough about our own genetics to engineer perfect human beings who learn to live in a sustainable, peaceful and harmonious way? Then we can work on finding another home other than earth, which of course is doomed.

You said:
"Robots cleverer than humans within a generation! They said that a generation ago too"

So they were of by a generation or two. It will happen. No?

You said:
"As I see it, genetic science is evolution, ratcheted up a notch"

I think that's sort of what I am saying.

You state:
"We are the agents of an embodied intelligence, so to speak, vaster than our own imaginations."

If this vast intelligence is within us, then so is the ability to control it, and to harness it, and to use it fully. No?

As for the "sacred" original germline, is it not that of a single celled organism? What we have become since then is simply a result of random mutations that were favored due to their tendency to help us reproduce. Now that such random mutations will no longer be selected, we are in charge of where the germline goes from here. What it currently is is nothing more than the result of mutations helpful to procreation. What is sacred about that, now that procreation is nothing special?

Posted by: timmy | April 20, 2008 4:34 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Gad said:

"And if we do doom our self's who else would be to blame"

No one would be at fault. It would be a case of, "that's just nature".
Determinism. If it's going to happen it's going to happen. Unless randomness miraculously saves us.

But I don't think that it will happen. Because unlike those uncountable number of species that you mentioned, that have been too successful at breeding, we, and we alone, after billions ad billions of years of one order, have a special power to understand our predicament, and the intellect to create science to fix our predicament, and the imagination to find our way through it. And then we will find ourselves in the position of having to define life. Because we will be able to do anything with our evolution, and the evolution of all living things, that we can imagine.

Any thoughts on the solution to the population problem.
Regulation of child birth. Licensing for child bearing. Certainly religion will have to be dealt with first, and then what? Any thoughts? We have the intelligence and imagination to find a sustainable way of living on. But this idea that it is everyone's basic right to reproduce as much as they want will have to go away, don't you think?

Posted by: timmy | April 20, 2008 4:05 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Timmy said:
It sounds like you're really down on your species, Gad. You think we're doomed, and we damn well deserve it. Maybe I'm misreading you but this is my honest impression based on your latest comments

Not at all, Timmy. I think the probability of a mass correction is high, but we will survive. And if we do doom our self's who else would be to blame...........

Posted by: GAD | April 20, 2008 3:34 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Timmy, your naiveté is not so much amusing as staggering:

"Well I don't think we would need to kill any currently live human beings in a cull or anything, but certainly if we discover genes that are responsible for white trashiness we would gradually engineer that out of our future offspring."

The politics of this is the killer. Imagine we discover a gene that expresses as a rabid fascoid mindset. We'd have pressure groups to euthanize infants with the gene, to lock up adults with it, to force parents to have their gonads screened for it. Imagine a dozen equally dangerous genes, and imagine hypothetically that they appear with high frequency in, say, Jews, who are genetically distinct enough to make something like this conceivable in principle. I think you would find there were a few pogroms in response. So I say we need to be prepared for the worst as we hope for the best.

"I think that the science will move very fast, perhaps to perfection in no time. They might figure it all out at once. The theory of everything. And then our only limitation is our imagination."

This is an example of foolish wishful thinking. Only someone who had never tried to do some serious science could say this about a patch of science where a lot remains to be sorted out. You would be astonished how much, at how humble a level, can go wrong in the attempt to realize such a vision. Stephen Hawking speculated bombastically about a theory of everything a few years ago, and it all went as horribly wrong as it did for Lord Kelvin, who said something similarly foolish a century earlier. Hawking had less excuse, since half a century earlier Kurt Gödel proved a math result that applies to physics too and makes the Hawking dream simply impossible, as Hawking has in effect quietly admitted since. You sound like Ray Kurzweil celebrating the Singularity. Robots cleverer than humans within a generation! They said that a generation ago too.

"Certainly proceed with caution. But sacred? Nonsense. Unless you believe in God or some higher meaning or purpose for our original germline. The original was designed by old clunky evolution. Genetic science is much better than evolution."

Hubris here reaches its hubristic peak. Designers trying to design complex machines where a lot of things need to be optimized at once nowadays resort to evolutionary algorithms, in effect running evolution inside a big computer. If you try this, you will learn much more respect for biological evolution, which has optimized a lot of our features in a truly vast combinatorial space during a colossal parallel computation that has gone on uninterrupted for about a billion years. We don't have the ghost of a chance of doing better. Nature is the computer. Read Stephen Wolfram. We can tinker, we can fiddle at the edges, we can speed up some developments and smooth out the natural rough edges. As I see it, genetic science is evolution, ratcheted up a notch. We are the agents of an embodied intelligence, so to speak, vaster than our own imaginations. For lack of a better name, I call it Goof. Goof transcends our best efforts in genetic tinkering as vastly as the Sun outshines our biggest H-bomb.

Posted by: andy ross | April 20, 2008 2:20 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Hi Andy,

Please accept my apologies, I had no way of knowing that was a quote. It sounded like you just venting. I hope you understand my confusion when I saw the words "lesser breeds" coming from a guy who has discussed glassing the middle east. Especially since the discussion was involving the problem of overpopulating the earth (the third world being the worst offenders in that regard)

I didn't realize that you were just referring to to white trash of the world.

You said:
"You know the phenomenon as "white trash" and I guess they would be among the first to go in a big cleanup."

Well I don't think we would need to kill any currently live human beings in a cull or anything, but certainly if we discover genes that are responsible for white trashiness we would gradually engineer that out of our future offspring.

You said:
"We shall need a lot of patience to identify, isolate, and replicate a winning hand for all"

Indeed. And imagination.

You wrote:
"Victim mentality is for losers"

Sure. But recognizing people as victims is not "victim mentality".

You said:
"Let us not lunge into engineering lifeforms we lack the courage to kill if we don't like them"

Again, I don't think we're going to have to do much killing, if any. Just better engineering next time around. But I think that the science will move very fast, perhaps to perfection in no time. They might figure it all out at once. The theory of everything. And then our only limitation is our imagination.

You said:
"Let us define a firebreak and hold the line against all attempts to fiddle with our germline before we know exactly what we are doing. The simplest way to do this, given the way people are now architected, is to make it taboo, like a religious taboo. The germline is sacred, is the GOOF. Worship Goof, o ye minions!"

Certainly proceed with caution. But sacred? Nonsense. Unless you believe in God or some higher meaning or purpose for our original germline. The original was designed by old clunky evolution. Genetic science is much better than evolution. It will make the old us look like the difference between playing X-Box 360 and Pong on the old Atari.. But some people still do hold Pong sacred. I don't know why though.

Posted by: timmy | April 20, 2008 8:08 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Gad said:

" I doubt we can even count the number of creatures that been "too successful at breeding". The result has always been, they peak and collapse due to resource depletion, disease, change in habitat or some natural disaster"

None of them had a clue as to what was happening. They had neither the capacity to be aware of what was happening, nor the science and technology to fix it.

It sounds like you're really down on your species, Gad. You think we're doomed, and we damn well deserve it. Maybe I'm misreading you but this is my honest impression based on your latest comments. I am much more optimistic about our future. I think that we will not be destroyed by terrorism, or theocracy, or out-breeding by the goddies, or global warming. (I'm least confident about that last one, but still confident) I think that the economic inequities that create the third world are going to be eliminated within a hundred years. I think that religion will be greatly diminished and relegated to almost cult status within 200 years.

All of the questions I have been asking about the future of natural selection as it sits in our hands, are questions based on us surviving all of these smaller issues. If we do, science will soon bring us to a point where we will need to decide how to evolve not only our own species, but all life on the planet. (All life that we know of) We will be defining life. So there is the meaning that we all give our own individual lives with our relationships with our families and friends and loved ones, and then there is the meaning of life in general, that we are going to have to define one day soon. Like it or not.

If we survive for another thousand years, human beings of that time will be vastly different genetically. And of course, it won't be the old school natural selection that made them that way. It couldn't be, it doesn't move that fast. It will be our genetic science that will be responsible for the difference, because it will be so much quicker and a million times more efficient than old school evolution. A relic.

But I'm sure you'll say "Ha. we'll never survive that long, we're so pathetic"

Posted by: timmy | April 20, 2008 7:21 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Timmy, your quotes in """ """:
"""
And it seems like I am the only one who marvels at the significance of the fact that humanity now finds itself dealing with a problem that no other living creature in the billion year history of life on earth has ever had to deal with. What do do about being too successful at breeding. Natural selection is over. Human selection is here. But humans are natural, so I guess it's still natural selection. But very very different from the natural selection of the last several billion years. Billion!
"""

Not at all. I discussed this billennial singularity exhaustively in my 1996 novel Lifeball. The hero realized he was at the cusp of a big event on planet Earth that would probably lead to its evolving into a lifeball, a single integrated planetary organism. Gaia had just grown its www neuronet and was waking up. To cut a long story short, the hero seeded the brew and online agents called angels took over. The top angel -- Global Ontic Driver -- delegated discipline to another angel called Supreme Angelic Terminator of Antigod Nihilists.

"""
I would expect this kind of blatant racist talk from your average Brit living in Germany, but up until now, I did not think that you were an average Brit living in Germany. You live in Germany 2008 but you talk like someone in Germany circa 1941. Can you bee specific about who these "lesser breeds" are?
"""

No, because our science there is too primitive. I was merely quoting from Rudyard Kipling, who coined "lesser breeds without the law" over a century ago. Of course I am not a blatant racist. German orthodoxy circa 1941 was based on several misapprehensions that are entirely foreign to me. But like numerous breeders of fine thoroughbreds, I see the difference between wellbred specimens (who may nevertheless be overbred and inbred) and illbred mongrels (who may nevertheless be strong and noble and carriers of worthy traits). In fact, most illbred people are are to be found among the background populations of the thoroughbreds. You know the phenomenon as "white trash" and I guess they would be among the first to go in a big cleanup.

Every day I meet individuals from the cultures you list who are as noble as your average white bread. I welcome them as brothers and sisters. But lesser specimens are not far behind, in any culture, and we need to hold the scum at bay. The genetic stakes are in part a lottery. Each one of us holds tens of thousands of cards, some good, some bad. We shall need a lot of patience to identify, isolate, and replicate a winning hand for all.

There will be mistakes. For example, imagine a fashion sweeps America for upgrading with genes for big boobs. Then, a few years later, we find the gene also causes the big-boobed ladies to lose all their IQ points, or whatever. Too late! We have a few million defective products out there. Imagine the lawsuits! Worse, imagine the decades of welfare payments. Recall the thalidomide generation. Nice enough people, deserving of the greatest compassion, but without arms or legs. Do we kill them all as soon as possible? Maybe we should rather kill people like me for letting such thoughts rage unchecked over their neuronets!

"""
It is a fact that every Arab child born, every African child born, every Philipino child born, have exactly the same capacity for intelligence, and compassion, and living the same kind of lives that you and I live. They were just born in a disadvantaged place. that is the only difference. They are victims.
"""

Victim mentality is for losers. Capacity is for dreamers. If capacity is all, then every sperm is sacred (this is a Monty Python quote, in case you decide to accuse me of semenophilia). The words "fact" and "exactly" in your PC rant are incorrect. The words "just" and "only" are poor choices too. Your use of the word "disadvantaged" betrays your real opinion. You see yourself as an advantaged one. Okay, have the courage of your convictions and go help the disadvantaged. Give up your surfing and your comic capers and go wipe the bums of a few disadvantaged infants in some malarial swamp.

"""
I am not one who is easily offended. But your use of the word "lesser breed" and Gad's slightly less offensive version of the same racist slag "morons" is quite hideous and appalling. I am truly disgusted. No wonder you think that Hitler types will rule the future. You seem to be one. If this is what you meant by this subject being "not for the squeamish", maybe I am squeamish. But cary on. I'm keen to hear more about these lesser breeds. I'll just buckle up for one hell of a ride.
"""

Now you see it. Believe me, I am as compassionate and unwilling to offend as you are. But the topic requires a lack of squeamishness that borders on the superhuman. That was the problem with the Nazi effort. They took on more than we, at this point in the evolution of our species and civilization, can chew. It's easy to say that this or that group is worthless so let's just kill them all. But implementing cleanly is hard. It was too hard for the Nazis. Therefore, to push away the day when we have to go that way again, we say, for now, never again.

This is why I say keep the tradition in view here. Philosophers and religious thinkers have long pondered questions of life and death. Perhaps a lot of what they said was nonsense, but even a trace of wisdom is better than nothing here. Let us not lunge into engineering lifeforms we lack the courage to kill if we don't like them. Let us define a firebreak and hold the line against all attempts to fiddle with our germline before we know exactly what we are doing. The simplest way to do this, given the way people are now architected, is to make it taboo, like a religious taboo. The germline is sacred, is the GOOF. Worship Goof, o ye minions!

Posted by: andy ross | April 20, 2008 3:21 AM
Report Offensive Comment

anti theism works fine for me ...i went from agnostic to anti-theism [i.e i didn't stop for coffee]

keep up the good work.

vote democratic, vote with your head. if you have children, let them decide on how they'd like to be programmed.

be well.

Posted by: alogicbit | April 20, 2008 3:01 AM
Report Offensive Comment

And by the way, I find comparing theists with racists very demeaning. Just proves that you don't have to believe in God to be a jackass.

Posted by: Rick | April 20, 2008 2:55 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Isn't the substance of this argument clumsily addressed by the badge of "Brights"

I always hated that term, but I also feel (like Harris) that the label of Atheist should not even exist. It says nothing about me except that I don't believe in a god or gods. That is it. Nothing more, and nothing less.

Posted by: Andrew | April 20, 2008 2:52 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Great idea, let's take it one step further. I won't label you an "Atheist", and you don't label me a "Theist" or a "Christian" or a "Hindu" etc. Let's just see each other as individuals who see ourselves and our world in our unique way. Labels suck.

Imagine...

Posted by: Rick | April 20, 2008 2:51 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Timmy said:
And it seems like I am the only one who marvels at the significance of the fact that humanity now finds itself dealing with a problem that no other living creature in the billion year history of life on earth has ever had to deal with. What do do about being too successful at breeding.

Huh? I doubt we can even count the number of creatures that been "too successful at breeding". The result has always been, they peak and collapse due to resource depletion, disease, change in habitat or some natural disaster.

Posted by: GAD | April 19, 2008 10:05 PM
Report Offensive Comment

BTW Andy,

"lesser breeds"??

I would expect this kind of blatant racist talk from your average Brit living in Germany, but up until now, I did not think that you were an average Brit living in Germany. You live in Germany 2008 but you talk like someone in Germany circa 1941.

Can you bee specific about who these "lesser breeds" are?
Arabs? Persians? Africans? Phillipinos? What makes them "lesser".

It is a fact that every Arab child born, every African child born, every Philipino child born, have exactly the same capacity for intelligence, and compassion, and living the same kind of lives that you and I live. They were just born in a disadvantaged place. that is the only difference. They are victims.

I am not one who is easily offended. But your use of the word "lesser breed" and Gad's slightly less offensive version of the same racist slag "morons" is quite hideous and appalling. I am truly disgusted.

No wonder you think that Hitler types will rule the future. You seem to be one. If this is what you meant by this subject being "not for the squeamish", maybe I am squeamish. But cary on. I'm keen to hear more about these lesser breeds. I'll just buckle up for one hell of a ride.

Posted by: timmy | April 19, 2008 5:53 PM
Report Offensive Comment

AR said:

"Tell that to the lesser breeds without the law who are still breeding like maggots. Given our goofy morality, we have hobbled ourselves from culling them, so what do we do? Hand out welfare until we all starve? Malthus in action!"

You tell me? You've done a good job of pointing out the problem. What about the solution? Nuke'em all?

This is the discussion I want to have. I am not squeamish. Let'er rip.

And it seems like I am the only one who marvels at the significance of the fact that humanity now finds itself dealing with a problem that no other living creature in the billion year history of life on earth has ever had to deal with. What do do about being too successful at breeding.

Natural selection is over. Human selection is here.
But humans are natural, so I guess it's still natural selection. But very very different from the natural selection of the last several billion years. Billion!

Posted by: timmy | April 19, 2008 4:27 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Bloody hell,

I can't figure out why this stupid blog is censoring my "part two".
So it's over on Gad's blog in the "Problem with Atheism" section.

Enjoy

Posted by: timmy | April 19, 2008 4:11 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Part one of two:

Yeah! Here we go. Finally, we're off that stupid purpose and supernatural crap and into a real discussion of real issues. Thank you!

I said:
"Not true anymore. This is what I am getting at. Number of offspring is now moot to the future evolution of the species. Genetics and birth control are the future"

Gad said:

"Not true!"

True!

Gad continued:
"Everything we have is based on technology not control of genetics or mutations. Technology is progressing at a geometric rate, not human genetics, we have hardly changed at all in 50,000 years"

True but irrelevant to the point. Yes, technology is progressing at a geometric rate, and so will genetics be, very very soon. I said genetics and birth control are the future, not the now. But the future of genetically engineered human beings is right around the corner. We need to start thinking about, and making our plans for that future now. When it starts, it will go at breakneck speed. We better have been thinking about this for a long long time when this day (coming sooner than we all think) arrives.

Gad continues:
"And right now morons across the world are trying to breed an army for god that will raise up and destroy the ungodly"

Not morons.
Brainwashed, uneducated victims. I repeat. VICTIMS.
The attitude that they are morons, (less capable of intelligence than you or I) is the wrong way to look at it. This is just a base reaction out of fear. They are humans just like us with all of the same plusses and minuses that we have. We need to destroy religion, not "the morons".

Gad continues:
"Technology is helping them grow that army, and when that army matures it will have more technology to use to destroy the ungodly."

Wrong! Technology will aid the army that they grow, but technology will not help them grow that army. That is just simple baby-making and brainwashing. They don't need technology for that.

Gad continues:
"Couple this with the fact that the earth can barely support all the morons now and the future is pretty bleak"

Let's ignore your use of the anger inspired term "morons" for now and focus on a very important point you bring up. We are overpopulating the earth. This is the point that I bring up as well. Survival of all living creatures up until now has always been about how many kids you can breed. Now we find ourselves in a situation that no other living creature has ever found itself in. We are too successful at breeding. The basic survival instinct of breed breed breed is now a negative force on our survival not a plus. Now we have to decide how to control and cull our breeding. That is why mutations that help us succeed at procreation will no longer be selected and become part of our new selves. Even without genetic engineering, we can, simply by means of birth control, (like dog breeding) decide which mutations or characteristics, that we wish to carry on and breed into ourselves.

But first of all, we have to decide as a society (world society) what we are going to do about birth control. Obviously the third world is breeding too much, and we are (in relation) breeding too little. If this situation were to continue on for hundreds of thousands of years, or millions of years, eventually, natural selection would favor whatever mutations happen to be coming out of people in the third world. But to be concerned about that, you would have to be a moron, who thinks that this situation, where the third world is uneducated and outbreeding us by a landslide, is going to continue for hundreds of thousands, or millions of years. It's not. This problem of third world inequities and lack of education will be over in a hundred years. Genetic engineering will be advanced enough for us to control evolution long before natural selection can keep up. Genetics doesn't have to move faster than technology. Just faster than natural selection. And of course it is.

End of Part one

Posted by: timmy | April 19, 2008 3:58 PM
Report Offensive Comment

AR said:
Malthus in action!

The sub-prime mess, weakening dollar, rapid rise in oil prices and the absurd food crops for gas plan has lead to a steep rise in food prices around the world. In a report from the world bank it said that over 30 countries were facing starvation and civil unrest or even war, food riots have already started in some places............

AR said:
Perhaps we can use our "slave" evolution (the new golem) to fashion bugs that infect the unwashed poor and spare the medicated rich. But control is key here:

Watch "I am Legend" . The news clip that opens the movie sent a chill down my spine.

BTW I liked what you said over on the SH site; that if just one person suffering is sufficient to prevent the rest of us from improving ourself, then we are all doomed.

Posted by: GAD | April 19, 2008 11:53 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Timmy said:
Number of offspring is now moot to the future evolution of the species. Genetics and birth control are the future.

I say:
Tell that to the lesser breeds without the law who are still breeding like maggots. Given our goofy morality, we have hobbled ourselves from culling them, so what do we do? Hand out welfare until we all starve? Malthus in action!

Timmy said:
Democracy and cooperation may, and most likely will, rule the day. Then we will have to decide as a society, as a collective, together, with our thoughts and ethics, and our imagination, where to take our own evolution from here. It is highly unlikely that a Hitler type will be making that decision. We will do it as a collective society. And that is why I am bringing it up for discussion.

I say:
Democracy will give us Hollywood action heroes for sons and airhead starlets for daughters. Could be worse, but they'll still have to do battle with the lesser breeds. Mad Max here we come. Seriously, we have no precedent for responsible decision making on reproductive questions except the sanctity of marriage (in goofy tradition a socially hallowed setting for the raising of kids) and the Hippocratic oath (but medical science is not so far advanced that we could just let scientists design our kids for us). I see chaos until we learn to live with a more robust and nuanced ethic of life and death. I think the best precedents here are the more philosophical debates in the Judeo-Christian tradition.

Timmy said:
Evolution is our slave now. And this is a significantly different situation than that of the last billion or so years. Monumentally different. This is the point that I am trying to explore.

I say:
Oh, no, it isn't. Sure, we can in principle do much more than before, but actually doing it effectively is something else. Again, what about the demographic time bomb that needs action now? The planet is drowning in demographic waste. We have no technology for a big cleanup that does not seem filthier than the disease (think industrial holocaust and nuclear apocalypse). Perhaps we can use our "slave" evolution (the new golem) to fashion bugs that infect the unwashed poor and spare the medicated rich. But control is key here: think of our incompetence at handling AIDS, which would be a goofy prototype of how to prune the stock. As you see, this is not an issue for the squeamish.

Posted by: andy ross | April 19, 2008 3:17 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Timmy:

I've been censored again.
Please go to Gad's blog.

Posted by: lindajean | April 18, 2008 7:10 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Timmy asked: "Can you do me a favor and never mention the words supernatural, or cosmic purpose again? They have no relevance to the discussion that I started."

Of course I can, Timmy.
All you had to do was ask.

Posted by: lindajean | April 18, 2008 5:27 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Timmy said:
Not true anymore. This is what I am getting at. Number of offspring is now moot to the future evolution of the species. Genetics and birth control are the future.

Not true! Everything we have is based on technology not control of genetics or mutations. Technology is progressing at a geometric rate, not human genetics, we have hardly changed at all in 50,000 years. And right now morons across the world are trying to breed an army for god that will raise up and destroy the ungodly. Technology is helping them grow that army, and when that army matures it will have more technology to use to destroy the ungodly. Couple this with the fact that the earth can barely support all the morons now and the future is pretty bleak. Until we evolve past hate, selfishness, ignorance and superstition nothing will change. Remember that everything we do and believe is from evolution, so we haven't evolved past crap! Your taking one tiny thing birth control, more correctly reproductive success and claiming we own evolution, that's BS.

Posted by: GAD | April 18, 2008 5:21 PM
Report Offensive Comment

LJ asks:
"Are we talking about multiuniverses and the supernatural, purpose and humanity, or natural selection?"

Give me a bloody break. Jesus!
NEWS FLASH!
I DID NOT BRING UP THE SUBJECT OF THE SUPERNATURAL. YOU DID!
I NEVER EVER EVER EVER WANT TO EVER DISCUSS ANYTHING THAT HAS ANYTHING TO DO WITH THE SUPERNATURAL BECAUSE NOTHING SUPERNATURAL EXISTS!

I DID NOT BRING UP "PURPOSE" YOU AND GAD DID!
I DO NOT WANT TO DISCUSS ANY SPECIAL OR COSMIC PURPOSE FOR US SPECIAL HUMANS. I HAVE MADE THAT CRYSTAL CLEAR.

LJ said:
Because every time I “think” I understand what you are saying it keeps changing.

NO IT DOESN'T. I HAVE BEEN SAYING OVER AND OVER AGAIN THAT I WANT NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS DISCUSSION OF SUPERNATURAL AND SPECIAL PURPOSES AND MEANINGS THAT YOU GUYS BROUGHT UP AND YET IN EVERY RESPONSE YOU GIVE YOU GO ON AND ON ABOUT SPECIAL COSMIC PURPOSES AND SUPERNATURAL MEANINGS. IT COULD NOT BE MORE CLEAR WHAT I AM INTERESTED IN DISCUSSING.

EVOLUTION AND GENETICS! THAT IS ALL.
THE ONLY REASON I MENTIONED THE MULTIUNIVERSE IS BECAUSE YOU SAID THAT ANYTHING OUTSIDE OF OUR UNIVERSE, OR BIGGER THAN OUR UNIVERSE WOULD BE CONSIDERED BY MOST PEOPLE TO BE SUPERNATURAL. AND I SAID "WHAT ABOUT THE MULTIUNIVERSE? MOST REGULAR JOES HAVE HEARD ABOUT THAT, AND KNOW ABOUT THAT, BUT THEY DON'T THINK THAT IT IS SUPERNATURAL. THEY THINK THAT IT IS SCIENCE.

LJ said:
And if this is what you want to talk about.... (genetics and evolution)
I have issues with the ethical side of it.

What issues? What ethics? Yes yes yes. This is the discussion I want to have.

Can you do me a favor and never mention the words supernatural, or cosmic purpose again? They have no relevance to the discussion that I started.

Posted by: timmy | April 18, 2008 5:18 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Any said:

"Purpose? Ask the Templeton winners."

Who said anything about purpose? not me.

Andy said:
"The winners have more kids, the rest go under."

Not true anymore. This is what I am getting at. Number of offspring is now moot to the future evolution of the species. Genetics and birth control are the future.

Andy said:
"If Adolf or Vladi grab pole position and say they want clones, we evolve that way. Or not, depending on who fights back. Survival of the feistiest"

Or not. Democracy and cooperation may, and most likely will, rule the day. Then we will have to decide as a society, as a collective, together, with our thoughts and ethics, and our imagination, where to take our own evolution from here. It is highly unlikely that a Hitler type will be making that decision. We will do it as a collective society. And that is why I am bringing it up for discussion.

Andy said:
"a proof of our slavery to evolution"

Evolution is our slave now.
And this is a significantly different situation than that of the last billion or so years. Monumentally different. This is the point that I am trying to explore.

Andy said:
"If you feel helped, good, if not, bygones."

Bygones it is then, I guess.

Posted by: timmy | April 18, 2008 4:52 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Timmy: you need to decide what topic you are going to talk about. It continues to digress ---even more so with AR weighing in.

Are we talking about multiuniverses and the supernatural, purpose and humanity, or natural selection?
Because every time I “think” I understand what you are saying it keeps changing.

And if this is what you want to talk about....

“Either way, I was just interested in a scientific discussion about the fact that humanity is the first creature in the history of living organisms that will no longer evolve based on mutations that help get us to the age of procreation, as has been the case for billions of years, and as far as we know the entire history of the universe since the mysterious big bang. Now and now only, we and we only have full control over the future of our own evolution, and eventually the evolution of all living things. As genetic science advances at breakneck speed, the only limitation to our future evolution will be our imagination, which doesn't seem all that limited.....”

I have issues with the ethical side of it.

Posted by: lindajean | April 18, 2008 4:50 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Timmy says help, there's no intelligent life down here. Gad knows I'm fortified with panpsychic experiences.

1) Timmy says:
What about the multiuniverse? That is bigger than our universe and outside of our universe what is supernatural about that? Move on from this cosmic or special meaning and purpose that you've gotten into your head. I am asking scientific questions about the future of natural selection and genetic science.

I say:
Multi, schmulti, who cares so long as it's between physicists? We can spin the math, pile on the words, eke out the evidence, all we like. In the end it fizzles out into wild ideas that fail to refer coherently. Purpose? Ask the Templeton winners. My impression was it's anything that moves us. We set a goal, we go for it. We have sex, we have kids. They want to do better, some do. The winners have more kids, the rest go under. Purpose? Ha! If Adolf or Vladi grab pole position and say they want clones, we evolve that way. Or not, depending on who fights back. Survival of the feistiest.

2) Timmy says:
This is an interesting scientific conversation that we can have. I said that there is something bigger to think about than our own personal meaning that we give our own personal lives. Global warming is one example. Our situation in the universe is another. What we are to do with our new found power over natural selection is another.

I say:
What is a person? Our personal concerns are universal. We expand to fill the vacuum placed before us, albeit thinly. A person can be more than a body. General Motors is a legal person. The God of our fathers is a moral person, for whom the more conscientious among us perform miracles of self-alienation in genuflection to the idol. All persons are godlike because the gods are persons writ large. We project, then genuflect, forgetting the self-emptying that made the god. Even the Goof is such a projection, albeit a forced one, compelled by our genes, a proof of our slavery to evolution. We see virtue in intergenerational sacrifice.

3) Timmy says:
Your personal relationships with your family and friends are so much smaller that these subjects. This does not diminish your personal meaning in any way. It's just that you are a bip of a blip, and nothing more in the grand scheme of things.

I say:
Big and small are relative and contingent. If the Goof is as small as a gene, does that diminish His Mighty Power? If Hawking is as big as the schmultiverse, does that help him move his fingers? Therefore, blips of blips can be bigger than big. And your big can be my small, my big your small. Agreement is moot, all devolves to politics.

Summary: so many words, so little result. But small is the new big. If you feel helped, good, if not, bygones.

Posted by: andy ross | April 18, 2008 3:59 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Gad said:
"He can keep changing the name but the discussion is still the same, the some special greatness of humanity in the universe/multi-verse.......... A rose is a rose by any other name."

Except that I have never talked of "some special greatness" or "some special purpose" or Some "cosmic meaning" for humanity... Ever. This is all your invention.

Notice how, if I use the word "meaning" in a sentence, you have to add the word "special" in front of it, and the words "for humanity" after it to make it sound like I am talking about god. Just as Lindajean decided to throw in the word "cosmic" for the same reasons. My words just don't sound crazy enough on their own, so you have to embellish.

LJ you say that it is the way that I am wording it that makes it seem like I am talking about the supernatural, but don't you see that it is the way that you are wording it that makes it sound that way?

Either way, I was just interested in a scientific discussion about the fact that humanity is the first creature in the history of living organisms that will no longer evolve based on mutations that help get us to the age of procreation, as has been the case for billions of years, and as far as we know the entire history of the universe since the mysterious big bang. Now and now only, we and we only have full control over the future of our own evolution, and eventually the evolution of all living things. As genetic science advances at breakneck speed, the only limitation to our future evolution will be our imagination, which doesn't seem all that limited. I find this a fascinating area of discussion but I can see that I will have to find this scientific discussion elsewhere because the folks around here seem more interested bible study 101 with Peter Huff, and smoking out closet believers disguising themselves as atheists. Good job. You got me.

carry on.

Posted by: timmy | April 18, 2008 3:03 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Gad said, "What I said was I'm no longer going to get into any long protracted discussions with you, because they tend to go no where. I have nothing personal against you, just when we go beyond discussing something to arguing about it the point of diminishing returns comes quickly."

Sweet reason has returned.

Posted by: lindajean | April 18, 2008 1:10 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Gad,

I said:
And if you are insinuating that such a discussion must unfold into a discussion and belief in the metaphysical, then go girl.

Gad said, "Well, it will. For the faithful there is no choice, everything that we learn must fit into the bible, period. If we find aliens they must either have come from god or be the devils spawn......"

Well of course it will FOR THE FAITHFUL---Agreed, and that was both of our points earlier, but I don't think Timmy is even talking about religious notions in his discussions, and I am willing to say I think he would agree with our point. The religion point is irrelevant to Timmy's discussion about purpose in the universe and he is looking at it strictly from a scientific perspective.

Gad said, " But I digress, what I was insinuating was that Timmy started with something greater for us in the universe, then threw n the the multi-verse and then moved to global warming. He can keep changing the name but the discussion is still the same, the some special greatness of humanity in the universe/multi-verse.......... A rose is a rose by any other name."

Well, I interpreted his argument a little differently (once we got a few things clarified).

The global warming remark was in reference to people only thinking about their own happiness at the expense of others and humanity. It was a digression from the mulituniverse discussion.

The multi-universe discussion was about contemplating a purpose larger than humanity. So I think when you say he is suggesting there is some special greatness in humanity, that is not how I understood it.

I think he is actually arguing something bigger. Something as complex as the multi-verse could bear a purpose or meaning for all of the cosmos (not just us little blobs here on earth), and that purpose could thereby give us meaning and purpose indirectly.

If that is what he is saying, I don't find that particularly unreasonable or wrong. Attributing something in the universe to something meaningful that may serve a meaningful or purposeful state--albeit indirectly-- to humanity, does not strike me as calling something a different name than a rose.

Wondering about this multiuniverse and a hypothetical purpose to it does not qualify someone as believing in the supernatural. And contemplating a purpose or meaning in the universe that could provide a purpose or meaning to all of the cosmos (and thereby humanity) does not either.
Is that what you are insinuating?

We are talking about two different things here:

1. that some religious people will embrace it as a supernatural (IF it were ever true); and

2. contemplating it in scientific terms and discovering a universal purpose or meaning..

Number 1 is calling a rose by a different name. Number 2 is talking about a possible phenomenon extrapolated from a possible scientific discovery.

Posted by: lindajean | April 18, 2008 12:51 PM
Report Offensive Comment

LJ said:
I thought you weren't conversing with me anymore...
a change of heart, perhaps?

What I said was I'm no longer going to get into any long protracted discussions with you, because they tend to go no where. I have nothing personal against you, just when we go beyond discussing something to arguing about it the point of diminishing returns comes quickly.

Posted by: GAD | April 18, 2008 12:43 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Gad said,
"OK, I'm on the same page now.'

I thought you weren't conversing with me anymore...
a change of heart, perhaps?

Posted by: lindajean | April 18, 2008 12:02 PM
Report Offensive Comment

LJ said:
And if you are insinuating that such a discussion must unfold into a discussion and belief in the metaphysical, then go girl.

Well, it will. For the faithful there is no choice, everything that we learn must fit into the bible, period. If we find aliens they must either have come from god or be the devils spawn...... But I digress, what I was insinuating was that Timmy started with something greater for us in the universe, then threw n the the multi-verse and then moved to global warming. He can keep changing the name but the discussion is still the same, the some special greatness of humanity in the universe/multi-verse.......... A rose is a rose by any other name.

LJ said:
No, a lack of understanding about science would lead people to believe that if there were a scientific discovery of a multiuniverse they would probably believe it would be metaphysically designed with a metaphysical purpose. (They would attribute some God-design and purpose to it.)

OK, I'm on the same page now.

Posted by: GAD | April 18, 2008 11:49 AM
Report Offensive Comment

LJ: "A theocracy does not allow freedoms and individual rights. It is based on the laws of God."

Peter: "Sure it does."

Give me an example of such a theocrcy.

LJ: "The laws of God do not allow one to question or criticize authority or change/amend God laws."

Peter: "It is hard to change perfection."

Then you no longer have a democracy. That is why a theocracy cannot work under the guise of a democracy. You have just proven my point.

LJ: "So, Peter, if you favor a theocracy, you cannot favor individual/civil rights or a government that promotes these ideals."

Peter: "Sure I can. An individual is free to live within the rights of the law of God. If he chooses to break those laws, just like in any other society, there are consequences (And without Christ in the long run, eternal ones)."

You are trying to grow apples on an orange tree. You cannot live under the laws of God and be free. This is a contradiction.

Posted by: lindajean | April 18, 2008 9:11 AM
Report Offensive Comment

I wrote to Timmy, ""I don’t think you are saying it would be a supernatural purpose, but my point was that most people would think that a mulituniverse, with a purpose, would be a supernatural concept."

Gad wrote,"A rose by any other name..."

We are not talking about roses and calling them daisies. We are talking about a multiuniverse and what (if anything) it would mean to humanity and the universe.

And if you are insinuating that such a discussion must unfold into a discussion and belief in the metaphysical, then go girl.

Gad said,
"So it is a lack of scientific understanding that leads people to believe that there is no special meaning or purpose for humanity in the universe/multiverse.........."

No, a lack of understanding about science would lead people to believe that if there were a scientific discovery of a multiuniverse they would probably believe it would be metaphysically designed with a metaphysical purpose. (They would attribute some God-design and purpose to it.)

Posted by: lindajean | April 18, 2008 8:59 AM
Report Offensive Comment

"I don’t think you are saying it would be a supernatural purpose, but my point was that most people would think that a mulituniverse, with a purpose, would be a supernatural concept."

A rose by any other name...........

"I am not saying you believe this, only that I think most people would see it that way because of a lack of scientific understanding of such complex systems."

So it is a lack of scientific understanding that leads people to believe that there is no special meaning or purpose for humanity in the universe/multiverse..........

Posted by: GAD | April 18, 2008 3:04 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Hi Lindajean, one final post.

LJ: "In response to your most recent post to me, either you favor a theocracy (or some form of dictatorship) that is a type of totalitarian government, or you favor a government that allows freedoms based on liberty, individual rights and civil liberties found in true democracies."

Freedom to do what Lindajean? Freedom to do anything?

LJ: "A theocracy does not allow freedoms and individual rights. It is based on the laws of God."

Sure it does. You are free to live within the confines of God's laws, just as in a democracy or for that matter any form of government you are free to live within the scope of its laws. An individual is free to do what is within the boundaries of the law.

LJ: "The laws of God do not give people individual rights. The laws of God punish individual rights."

Rubbish (see above).

LJ: "The laws of God do not allow one to question or criticize authority or change/amend God laws."

It is hard to change perfection.

LJ: "So, Peter, if you favor a theocracy, you cannot favor individual/civil rights or a government that promotes these ideals."

Sure I can. An individual is free to live within the rights of the law of God. If he chooses to break those laws, just like in any other society, there are consequences (And without Christ in the long run, eternal ones).

LJ: "So which do you favor?"

I still favor God's law because I know it is just. How do you determine justice; who decides? Hitler - then eliminate the Jews, the defective?
Stalin? Communist Red China? USA where a criminal can walk free for any number of crimes after a "fair trial."

Posted by: Peter Huff | April 18, 2008 2:59 AM
Report Offensive Comment

LJ: “ And this is what I mean by terrorism a slip-sliding into a totalitarian government. Because total and unequivocal submission to any authority is completely in opposition to the Constitution of the US of A and western culture. You want the rights of the majority to be honored and embraced by the government, but when the majority no longer is in agreement with you then you want their rights abolished.”

It is exactly what you are fighting for is it not? You want your views to be honored but you cannot tell me why they are right. Why are your “rights” right, because you prefer them to be?

LJ: “Please explain to me how that is not a form of repression and terrorism.”

Doing what is right is good even for those who do not see it as such. How can doing what is right ever be wrong? It wouldn't be right if it was wrong. Without an objective, absolute standard it is just your opinion. What makes your opinion right, because you hold it? In God’s law, once established that a person has committed a murder, that person will never become a multi-repeated murderer. Justice will be done.

LJ: “Especially when the rights of the people you disagree with involve behaviors you do not approve of, and you want to make criminals out of those people you do not agree with.”

There again with any standard it depends on what it is based on. Is it an absolute ultimate standard or just one based on personal or cultural preferences? If so what happens when in five years it changes again? Then who is right? It the right standard for you always the one that is currently in place? If not then what makes it wrong? Why was abortion and homosexuality considered wrong forty years ago and punished as wrong if it is in fact right? Who makes it right? Who is in the wrong, the society then or now? No Lindajean, your right is arbitrary and meaningless if it is not based on an absolute standard.

Peter: “What makes Hitler's Germany right in murdering millions, just as abortion has done? Is the woman the one who determines the fetus to be a baby? Is the fetus a fetus until after it has been born, when it all of a sudden becomes a baby? Who decides, each individual? Why is it still wrong in some countries to abort a baby? Why was it wrong in your country until recently and why is it now right? Because someone has convinced you that it is right? Who makes it right? It is just ethics by force. The ruling party determines what will be right for the country or society. So why was Germany's extermination of six million Jews wrong?”

LJ: “You are equating Hitler to people who have abortions? “

Both abortion and extermination are murder.

LJ: “If you cannot figure out the difference between the two I won’t be able to successfully explain it to you.”

No you won’t. I don’t believe you have an argument that can.

LJ said: "Your argument is that the government is squashing your rights as a Christian because it does not pass laws that “honor” and “obey” your god."

Peter: “No, my argument is how do you determine right without God's standard? It is all by force or coercion which is just another evil form of government, different but how do you determine it being any better than Totalitarianism if it is not based on absolute justice. You need an absolute standard to gauge ‘better’.”

LJ: “Once again, if you cannot determine the difference between totalitarian governments and governments based on freedom, individual rights and civil liberties I cannot help you here. You will need to take an ethics course, a course in Constitutional law and probably get some psychoanalysis.”

What is your idea of “better?” What is your standard for better? Anything that opposes the standard I hold? So who is right?

Peter: “God counts as the only absolute authority of good and right. Without Him you cannot make sense of it, it keeps changing....”

LJ: “Then democracy, individual rights, civil liberties, freedom and Constitutional government are dead.”

When not based on God's laws they are lessons on what happens when man acts as his own god.

Peter: “Do you consider Germany to be wrong in murdering six million Jews? Why?”

LJ: “I already answered this months ago. I am not going to answer questions I have already spent many hours answering.”

Peter: “Well, the fact is that not long ago abortion was considered wrong by the majority in your country. What makes it right by the majority now?”

LJ: “Well the fact is that not so long ago the majority of the people supported witch burnings, slavery and raping one’s wife was legal in all 50 states. Not long ago the majority favored segregation of schools, restaurants , public bathrooms and many if not all public places. What makes those wrong now?”

What made them right in the first place? In a society without an absolute standard, or a society that mutilates God’s law anything is possible, just like Hitler’s Germany. The point is why are they wrong? Who decides?

Peter: “Yes I would (prefer a theocracy over a democracy). As long as it was based on the laws of the God of the Bible and not on some false god.

LJ: ”Yuck.”

LJ: “You believe in terrorism and totalitarianism.”

As what right? No I don’t. You are the one telling me I do. I don’t believe in terrorism, but I do believe in the sovereignty of God. Without God’s laws terrorism is always possible depending on who comes to power.

LJ: “ This is the ultimate “creepy”.

The ultimate creepy is where everyone decides for themselves what is right in their own eyes.

Posted by: Peter Huff | April 18, 2008 2:42 AM
Report Offensive Comment

LJ: "Totalitarianism under any guise is terrorism."

Peter: “No, it is not. Absolute authority that is just and good is not terror. Terror is having done what is unjust and unfair.”

LJ: “If you mean that absolute authority requires a person to follow all of God’s laws (there are so many and they are so contrary),”

No they are not contrary. It takes context to understand what is going on, whom the law is addressing and under what circumstances. Please show me where you believe them to be contrary.

LJ: “ and that breaking those laws, like committing adultery or having sex with your own gender, would land a person in jail, then we are talking about a totalitarian form of government and that is a form of terrorism.”

No we are not; we are talking about justice for breaking God’s laws, for in theory justice should be sought when someone breaks a law of the land of the country in which they live otherwise you live in anarchy.

The question to an atheist is how do you justify your laws? To an atheist it is wrong because someone decided it is wrong. Who made them right? It is a question the atheist has no justification for. Only the Christian worldview can make morals intelligent.

LJ: “ Your God does not respect individual rights and freedoms. A government that does not allow civil liberties is a form of totalitarian government. Your theocracy would be a totalitarian government because your God is a totalitarian God.”

God does respect rights and freedoms. Since He is the ultimate right and you have broken His good standard eventually your lifestyle will catch up to you.

You immediately jump to the conclusion that in a theocracy there are no civil liberties. Again, and I will say it for the third time, God rules justly and rightly. Who are you to say otherwise? First, within any society a person is free to act within the guidelines of the established order. Second, an atheist has no way of determining justice or rightness. Justice or doing right is just a preference to you, whether that be of a few or the many. Why is one view right over another? It can ONLY be if it comes from an absolute, ultimate, objective source otherwise it is pure preference.

Peter: “On whose authority do you establish what is good Lindajean?”

LJ: “I have answered that question many, many times.”

You may have attempted to answer it but you cannot validate or justify your answer. How can you? It is just your personal, subjective, speculative preference. There is no outside objective standard. You’re it. In an atheistic universe it doesn’t matter. There is no ultimate meaning so go and eat drink and be merry for tomorrow you die. Go for the gusto, seek pleasure no matter what the cost, do anything you can get away with, you are not accountable to anyone when you are dead.

LJ: "The right to abortion is not squashing the voice of the majority. If you look at any poll, the majority of Americans SUPPORT the right to abortion.”

The majority doesn’t make it right. How can it be wrong ten, twenty years ago and oh so right today? How can something wrong become right and who determines right? Who was right, the majority back then or the majority now? You live in an upside down world Lindajean. Someone has switched the price tags on you.

LJ: “You see it as "squashing" because you don't agree with it and because it "squashes" your will to prevent women from having one. The right to abortion is the epitome of how a democracy works: the majority voice is heard."

Why is it a right to take another persons life? Why is it a right to take the life one minute before birth and a crime one minute after birth? A democracy is not God Lindajean, it does get things wrong. It can only get things right in as much as it bases it values on the objective standards of God.

Peter: “What makes the majority right?”

LJ: “You are the one that was complaining about the rights of the majority getting squashed. You wrote:
“...By not allowing us to honor God's word for one. Obedience is a form of worship. By squashing the voice, in many cases of the majority by oppressing it and undermining it until it becomes the minority.....”
LJ: “You were referring to the case of abortion.”

I was just using one of your own arguments about majority. That is a standard atheistic argument. You base things on the judgment of the majority in a democracy. If you are going to do so then I appeal to the majority also. Majority makes nothing right unless it takes the correct view. To you the majority is the correct view, until of course you come to Mr. Hitler’s Germany.

LJ: “I was simply correcting you ( in my statement above) that the rights of the majority favor abortion and now you are questioning why the “majority” in this case should have their voice heard and who gives them the right to have their voice heard? Since it is now a voice that you adamantly oppose you don’t want them to have that right any longer.”

You adamantly oppose the Christian view of life. The difference is you cannot account for why it “should” or why it “ought” to be so. “Ought” implies a standard and your standard is one that can change at any time. The only reason why it so often does not is because man inherently knows there is an objective standard and even though he suppresses that standard in so many areas of life he cannot live life without it and still make sense of anything.

For instance, in an atheistic worldview everything emerged from a “natural, material” Big Bang. So how does the atheist account for abstract, intangible universal principles or laws like logic? If reasoning is just a natural function of the brain then how can anyone have bad reasoning? Bad implies an ethical standard and a brain does what a brain does naturally so what makes reasoning bad? We are just (as Greg Bahnsen so effectively said) “biological bags of matter.” Reasoning in such a case is just the way ones brains particular atoms collide and create a particular impulse. Some people love their neighbors and other people eat them.

As for the other part to your last sentence, I oppose it because it is wrong. A majority of individuals is not absolute. They cannot set an absolute standard, they can only follow the one laid down by God. If all right is preference or subjective opinion then Hitler’s Germany was right. The only reason you are not living under his right is because he did not get away with it, as decreed by God thank goodness.

LJ: “This is the severe danger in your hubristic beliefs, and your desire to unleash your God and his vengeance onto anyone who does not agree with you.”

It is a war of ideas Lindajean. You are trying just as hard to voice your own “hubristic beliefs” but the difference is you have a standard that is firmly fixed in mid air.

Posted by: Peter Huff | April 18, 2008 2:23 AM
Report Offensive Comment

To continue Lindajean,

ME: “That is easy. Compare what is said in the Book of Mormon and the Bible. There are glaring contradictions. Compare the prophet - Joseph Smith - with what is said about a prophet of God in the Bible (Deuteronomy 18:20-22; Jeremiah 14:14-15; 29:8-9)”

LJ: “My point is none of these beliefs, Bible, Koran, book of Mormon come to us wrapped in anything other than “faith.” If it were real evidence science would embrace it.”

Evolutionary science is also a belief and as such is wrapped in faith.

LJ: "A hypothetical: If it is against God's laws (in this theocracy we are discussing) to break one of the Ten Commandments and someone breaks one of them--i.e. I don't "worship" on the Sabbath--- then what is my punishment? Do I go to jail? Do I lose my job, house, car? How does the government enforce something you call "god's laws"? If you cannot force someone to believe in God, then why (and how) do you force them to follow his "laws"?"

I'll stick to what I know.
To be honest I have not worked out or studied the Sabbath in how it ties in with the New Covenant. I have not researched it as with other commandments. Is it a jurisdictional, social, or moral law? I am only speculating on this subject, but here is my view that is possibly not the view held in Scripture. In my limited knowledge of the Sabbath it would fall under the Mosaic administration and economy and would be a picture or type of what the kingdom will be when Christ returns. In the Mosaic economy Sabbath breakers were stoned just as in the coming kingdom those outside Christ will be cast out.

As it is said, “In Him was life, and that life was the light of men. The light shines in darkness, but the darkness has not understood it. “(John 1:4-5), and again, "because in Christ Jesus the law of the Spirit of life set me free from the law of sin and death. For what the law was powerless to do in that it was weakened by the sinful nature, God did by sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful man to be a sin offering. And so He condemned sin in sinful man, in order that the righteous requirements of the law might be fully met in us, who do not live according to the sinful nature but according to the Spirit. Those who live according to the sinful nature have their minds set on what that nature desires...The mind of sinful man is death, but the mind controlled by the Spirit is life and peace..." (Romans 8:2-5a, 6)

Jesus Christ, in His time on earth instituted the New Covenant by the shedding of His blood (or giving of His life on the behalf of the believer) and His teaching on the New Covenant was instituted in part by the sayings of the Sermon on the Mount, “You have heard it said to the people long ago….But I tell you that…” Matthew 5:21-2; 27-28; 31-32; 33-34; 38-39; 43-44. (See Matthew 5-7) The Lord rose on the Sunday, the Lord’s Day, and that is the day that I as a Christian set aside to worship with other Christians and celebrate His goodness to us.

As for how do you force someone to believe in God, you can’t; only God can bring a person to belief? How do you force them to obey His laws? The same way you do any law in any society that enforces justice for wrong doing, by punishing those who break them.

Peter: “As for forcing someone to obey a law what is done in the privacy of one household is not something that can be enforced unless it is witnessed. But in the same way that you break a law by running a red light so it is in breaking a law of God. It has to be seen to be enforced.”

LJ: “So you are saying if I don’t “honor” the Sabbath (whatever definition you wish to use there are many), which is one of the 10 commandments, and it is witnessed by Joe Blow, then I am breaking the law and I could hypothetically go to jail... This is what you are saying?”

How the Sabbath relates to the New Covenant I am not sure, but you have raised a valid concern and I am trying to figure it out.

As for breaking the laws of God what Joe Blow witnessed is just hearsay and would not hold up in a theocracy.

“One witness is not enough to convict a man accused of any crime or offense he may have committed. A matter must be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses. If a malicious witness takes the stand to accuse a man of a crime, the two men involved in the dispute must stand in the presence of the LORD before the priests and the judges who are in office at the time. The judges must make a thorough investigation, and if the witness proves to be a liar, giving false testimony against his brother, then do to him as he intended to do to his brother. You must purge the evil from among you. The rest of the people will hear of this and be afraid, and never again will such an evil thing be done among you. Show no pity: life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot.” (Deuteronomy 19:15-21)

Posted by: Peter Huff | April 18, 2008 1:55 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Hi Lindajean,

ME: “ Your authority is removed by twenty centuries from what actually took place. The evidence backs up the Biblical authority on so many points.”

LJ: “It does not and cannot otherwise it would no longer be “faith” and it would be evidence.”

But it is evidence. You can see it and read it, it confirms itself as eyewitness accounts, and parts of the gospel accounts are based on historically verifiable facts.

Any evidence on origins or history, whether evolutionary or Christian takes faith to believe in. As an evolutionist you rely on faith as much and more so. Evolutionary science or abiogenesis or spontaneous generation cannot recreate how it all started. They can only build models on how they believe it started. No one was there to witness it, except God.

Supposedly your origins came from something
empirical. That is something that can be verified by the senses such as taste, touch, sight, smell or hearing. And yet you use logic, an abstract, intangible, which is not empirical to confirm all of this. How does something abstract come from something physical? Is logic tasty, noisy, visible, aromatic or contacted by feel? So how do you get something intangible and abstract from the physical realm?

You have a belief that says if I can’t see it it is not provable, since God is not visible. That is like saying you cannot confirm your car is in the parking lot unless you can see it. Does that mean it is not real? Does that mean you cannot know whether or not it is there?

Posted by: Peter Huff | April 18, 2008 1:28 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Peter:

That last one was from me (anonymous).

Posted by: lindajean | April 17, 2008 9:09 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Peter:

In response to your most recent post to me, either you favor a theocracy (or some form of dictatorship) that is a type of totalitarian government, or you favor a government that allows freedoms based on liberty, individual rights and civil liberties found in true democracies.

A theocracy does not allow freedoms and individual rights. It is based on the laws of God. The laws of God do not give people individual rights. The laws of God punish individual rights. The laws of God do not allow one to question or criticize authority or change/amend God laws.

So, Peter, if you favor a theocracy, you cannot favor individual/civil rights or a government that promotes these ideals.

So which do you favor?

Posted by: Anonymous | April 17, 2008 9:06 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Part 2 of 2

Timmy,

I said:
"So, yes I could say, I am neutral. I know nothing so I don’t have an opinion. But you asked me what do I believe and I said I don’t have a belief that something exists.

Timmy said, “Neither do I.
I do not have a "belief" that something (the multiuniverse for example) exists. I do not have a belief that it doesn't exist either. But here is your exact quote:

‘so I am left with believing there is nothing.’

That is not a lack of belief. That is a belief. You believe that there is nothing. Why do you believe that, as opposed to not knowing one way or another? Or did you just miss speak. Maybe you didn't mean to say "I believe there is nothing". Because you would then be saying that you believe that the multiuniverse does not exist. And you have no reason to "believe" that. I think you just miss spoke. Yes?”

It is a lack of belief. I believe there is nothing to indicate that there is something to believe in. I am not saying the multiuniverse doesn’t exist. I am saying I know nothing of its existence. Therefore I don’t have anything to believe. I believe there is nothing to believe in at this time. You are right, I have no reason to believe that the multiuniverse doesn’t exist. And I am not saying that.

I said:
"Well, then you could say, “Unless you have some evidence there isn’t why don’t you believe in God?”

Timmy said, “I don't know about you, but I don't believe in God because of all of the evidence that he doesn't exist. I have evidence for that. Plenty.”

That is because to believe in God you would have to believe in the supernatural. The multiuniverse may exist because it is not (most likely) a supernatural entity.

Timmy, “You do realize the significant difference between saying "I don't believe that something exists" and saying "I believe that nothing exists" right?”

Saying you don’t believe “something” exists is saying you don’t know that a certain thing exists for sure. Saying you believe “nothing” exists is saying you don’t believe there is a possibility that it could exist.

Timmy: “I don't "believe" that the multiuniverse exists. Because there is not enough evidence for me to form that belief.But I also do not "believe" that it does not exist, because there is not enough evidence for me to form that belief.”

I agree.
____
Timmy: “But I really wish you'd let this Gadian style insinuation of supernatural thought go, and focus on my questions and thoughts about the future of natural selection and genetics. This is an interesting scientific conversation that we can have if you'd just let go of this "sciencer than thow" attitude. You are doing to me, what Gad has done to both of us in the past and it's rather disgusting. Grow up.”

Well, I noticed that both Gad and I picked up on this “meaningful /purpose” idea and it suggests to me that you were saying something to insinuate you thought there was some meaning/purpose behind the multiuniverse. Especially since you began your argument here talking about meaning and purpose in the universe. So perhaps it would be fair and accurate to suggest that you did not clarify your position initially but now you have done so and now I understand what your point is.

...And when you are thinking to yourself or even saying publicly “grow up” and “holier than thou” kind of remarks towards me, I suggest that it could be a red flag to you that honing in and fine-tuning your communication skills may be beneficial in helping me to understand what indeed you are talking about. I am not a mind-reader.

Timmy, “I said that there is something bigger to think about than our own personal meaning that we give our own personal lives. Global warming is one example. Our situation in the universe is another. What we are to do with our new found power over natural selection is another. Your personal relationships with your family and friends are so much smaller that these subjects. Important to you, yes. But important to humanity? Not in the slightest I'm sorry to say. There are much bigger things to ponder. This does not diminish your personal meaning in any way. It's just that you are a bip of a blip, and nothing more in the grand scheme of things.”

Yes, we are all blips and we all know this. There is a ripple effect you have not mentioned (kind of like the butterfly effect in science.) So I disagree with you that relationships and the “small” stuff do not have an effect on humanity. You really don’t know what kind of effect one person can have on others, the world or even a small speck of the world.

end 2 of 2

Posted by: lindajean | April 17, 2008 7:47 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Timmy,

Since one of my posts kept getting rejected and it had absolutely nothing to do with my language or content, I thought perhaps it was due to length, so I am going to divide this one up into two parts and see if it accepts them. No potty mouth here.

This is part one of part two.

I said:
"Once again, what is the relevance and what does it have to do with purpose and meaning? If there is a cosmic purpose are you not assuming it is going to give us answers about that purpose'

Timmy: “Why are you babbling on about a cosmic meaning or purpose?
You were saying that you don't believe that there is anything bigger out there than us, and you insinuated that if there was it would be supernatural, and I said, "what about the multiuniverse? That is bigger than our universe and outside of our universe what is supernatural about that?" And now you are rambling on about cosmic meaning and purpose. All I said was that we can speculate about things that exist outside of our universe without talking about the supernatural.”

I don’t see this as babbling. You mentioned previously that you were wondering about a universal purpose and meaning. I said I did not believe there is anything objective to indicate there is a universal purpose and that most people, generally speaking---when you talk about “purpose” ---apply it to a supernatural. You then brought up the mulituniverse concept and I wondered if you were trying to insinuate that if there is a multiuniverse, then somehow it will explain a purpose for the cosmos. Knowing you from the perspective that I do, I don’t think you are saying it would be a supernatural purpose, but my point was that most people would think that a mulituniverse, with a purpose, would be a supernatural concept. I am not saying you believe this, only that I think most people would see it that way because of a lack of scientific understanding of such complex systems. (Most scientists don’t even understand a lot of this, let alone the common Joe Blow who worships some fantasy God.)

I said:
"What I am saying is if there is something bigger than us, whatever that may be, people in general will tend to believe it is supernatural"

Timmy said, “Yes, you did say that, and I thought is was a bizarre unfounded statement, so I said "what about the multiuniverrse? that is bigger than us" and then you started babbling on about cosmic meaning and purpose. Stop it. Move on from this cosmic or special meaning and purpose that you've gotten into your head. Go back and look at my posts. I am asking scientific questions about the future of natural selection and genetic science. This "special meaning or purpose" thing is your side tangent, not mine. Let it go.”

Well, I can move on, but it would be futile to have a discussion here if we are talking about different things. Before one can move on, one has to clarify and understand. I think it is clarified now, at least on my end.

end part one of 2
_______

Posted by: lindajean | April 17, 2008 7:41 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Timmy:

I just posted the "censored" one on Gad's.
Go figure.

Posted by: lindajean | April 17, 2008 6:59 PM
Report Offensive Comment

LJ said:
"Once again, what is the relevance and what does it have to do with purpose and meaning? If there is a cosmic purpose are you not assuming it is going to give us answers about that purpose'

Why are you babbling on about a cosmic meaning or purpose?
You were saying that you don't believe that there is anything bigger out there than us, and you insinuated that if there was it would be supernatural, and I said, "what about the multiuniverse? That is bigger than our universe and outside of our universe what is supernatural about that?" And now you are rambling on about cosmic meaning and purpose. All I said was that we can speculate about things that exist outside of our universe without talking about the supernatural.

You said:
"What I am saying is if there is something bigger than us, whatever that may be, people in general will tend to believe it is supernatural"

Yes, you did say that, and I thought is was a bizarre unfounded statement, so I said "what about the multiuniverrse? that is bigger than us" and then you started babbling on about cosmic meaning and purpose. Stop it. Move on from this cosmic or special meaning and purpose that you've gotten into your head. Go back and look at my posts. I am asking scientific questions about the future of natural selection and genetic science. This "special meaning or purpose" thing is your side tangent, not mine. Let it go.

You said:
"So, yes I could say, I am neutral. I know nothing so I don’t have an opinion. But you asked me what do I believe and I said I don’t have a belief that something exists.

Neither do I.
I do not have a "belief" that something (the multiuniverse for example) exists. I do not have a belief that it doesn't exist either. But here is your exact quote:

"so I am left with believing there is nothing"

YOU said:
"Well, then you could say, “Unless you have some evidence there isn’t why don’t you believe in God?”

I don't know about you, but I don't believe in God because of all of the evidence that he doesn't exist. I have evidence for that. Plenty.

You do realize the significant difference between saying "I don't believe that something exists" and saying "I believe that nothing exists" right?

I don't "believe" that the multiuniverse exists. Because there is not enough evidence for me to form that belief.

But I also do not "believe" that it does not exist, because there is not enough evidence for me to form that belief.

And if you can't pass you other response to me by the sensors you potty mouth, just post it on Gad's blog.

But I really wish you'd let this Gadian style insinuation of supernatural thought go, and focus on my questions and thoughts about the future of natural selection and genetics. This is an interesting scientific conversation that we can have if you'd just let go of this "sciencer than thow" attitude. You are doing to me, what Gad has done to both of us in the past and it's rather disgusting. Grow up.

I said that there is something bigger to think about than our own personal meaning that we give our own personal lives. Global warming is one example. Our situation in the universe is another. What we are to do with our new found power over natural selection is another.

Your personal relationships with your family and friends are so much smaller that these subjects. Important to you, yes. But important to humanity? Not in the slightest I'm sorry to say. There are much bigger things to ponder. This does not diminish your personal meaning in any way. It's just that you are a bip of a blip, and nothing more in the grand scheme of things.

Posted by: timmy | April 17, 2008 3:11 PM
Report Offensive Comment

I said:

"No I am not saying it has to be supernatural, only traditionally that is what most people would think. That is where the insinuation comes from."

Timmy: “What? There actually is a current theory that there is something out there beyond our universe, it's called the multiuniverse. And this theory is that our universe exists in this multiuniverse. And we know nothing about this multiuniverse except that it is outside of our universe, if it exists. And then of course this would lead to the theory that the multiuniverse may exist in a multiuniverse universe.”

That could be the case. Once again, what is the relevance and what does it have to do with purpose and meaning? If there is a cosmic purpose are you not assuming it is going to give us answers about that purpose? Maybe it will and maybe it won’t (if it even exists) but I’m not willing to make any assumptions about any of it.

Timmy, “What is supernatural about that? I don't understand why you say that talking about things that may exist outside of our universe is generally thought to be supernatural? I just have no idea what you are talking about here, and why you would bring "supernatural" into this scientific conversation. Everything is natural. There is no such thing as the supernatural.”

What I am saying is if there is something bigger than us, whatever that may be, people in general will tend to believe it is supernatural (and the job of science will be to show it is not.) Remember once long ago people believed the sun was supernatural (a god). And I am unclear if you are applying meaning and purpose to this multiuniverse. Do you think it is going to answer your questions about the universal purpose of life?

I said:
"I wallow in not knowing anything about it (not by choice just by circumstance) so I am left with believing there is nothing"

Timmy: “I don't get it. If you know nothing about it, why do you believe one way or the other. If you don't know, you should be neutral. There either is or there isn't and you don't know. What information leads you to say that you believe that there isn't?”

Belief requires either something you believe in or something you do not. You can’t be neutral about what you believe in. So, yes I could say, I am neutral. I know nothing so I don’t have an opinion. But you asked me what do I believe and I said I don’t have a belief that something exists.

I said:
"but always open to the possibility there could be. What more can you ask from a skeptic?"

Timmy: “Being equally skeptical about the theory that there is nothing out there as you are about the theory that there is. Neutrality.
Unless you have some evidence that there isn't. Why wouldn't there be?”

Well, then you could say, “Unless you have some evidence there isn’t why don’t you believe in God?”

I said:
"I don’t have anything to indicate to me there is anything out there, so I choose not to think there is until I get more info."

Timmy: “You don't have anything to indicate that there is nothing out there and yet you state that you "believe" that there isn't. Where does this belief come from?”

It comes from the fact that there is nothing to base my belief on so I believe not to believe. There is no evidence of life on Mars, so I don’t believe there is any. But if it makes you happy, I am neutral. LOL.

Timmy said, “Do you have anything to indicate to you that there are aliens out there? No you don't. So do you believe that they are not there until further evidence? Is talk of aliens, supernatural?

No, of course they are not supernatural. Why would I think that? But I don’t believe there are any aliens within the realm of our technology. I can only say there are possibilities of them existing outside the range of our technology. No evidence, no belief. Oops! No evidence, I am neutral!

Timmy: “Oh yeah, and why do you only care about humanity until 500 years from now? You didn't answer that one.”

Well, I have tried to do that but it keeps getting rejected for no known reason to me. If I can’t get it posted I will send you an email.

Posted by: lindajean | April 17, 2008 1:33 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Gad said:
"SO? A multiverse, if there is one doesn't give any special meaning or purpose to us"

So? Who said that it did?

Posted by: timmy | April 17, 2008 6:44 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Timmy said:
There actually is a current theory that there is something out there beyond our universe, it's called the multiuniverse. And this theory is that our universe exists in this multiuniverse. And we know nothing about this multiuniverse except that it is outside of our universe, if it exists. And then of course this would lead to the theory that the multiuniverse may exist in a multiuniverse universe.

SO? A multiverse, if there is one doesn't give any special meaning or purpose to us.

Posted by: GAD | April 16, 2008 11:22 PM
Report Offensive Comment

LJ said:

"No I am not saying it has to be supernatural, only that traditionally that is what most people would think. That is where the insinuation comes from."

What?
There actually is a current theory that there is something out there beyond our universe, it's called the multiuniverse. And this theory is that our universe exists in this multiuniverse. And we know nothing about this multiuniverse except that it is outside of our universe, if it exists. And then of course this would lead to the theory that the multiuniverse may exist in a multiuniverse universe.

What is supernatural about that?
I don't understand why you say that talking about things that may exist outside of our universe is generally thought to be supernatural? I just have no idea what you are talking about here, and why you would bring "supernatural" into this scientific conversation. Everything is natural. There is no such thing as the supernatural.

LJ said:
"I wallow in not knowing anything about it (not by choice just by circumstance) so I am left with believing there is nothing"

I don't get it. If you know nothing about it, why do you believe one way or the other. If you don't know, you should be neutral. There either is or there isn't and you don't know. What information leads you to say that you believe that there isn't?

LJ said:
"but always open to the possibility there could be. What more can you ask from a skeptic?"

Being equally skeptical about the theory that there is nothing out there as you are about the theory that there is. Neutrality.
Unless you have some evidence that there isn't. Why wouldn't there be?

You said:
"I don’t have anything to indicate to me there is anything out there, so I choose not to think there is until I get more info."

You don't have anything to indicate that there is nothing out there and yet you state that you "believe" that there isn't. Where does this belief come from?

Do you have anything to indicate to you that there are aliens out there? No you don't. So do you believe that they are not there until further evidence? Is talk of aliens, supernatural?

Oh yeah, and why do you only care about humanity until 500 years from now? You didn't answer that one.

Posted by: timmy | April 16, 2008 9:34 PM
Report Offensive Comment

I'm having difficulty posting a response to your April 16 5:54 pm post. I'll try it again tomorrow.

Posted by: lindajean | April 16, 2008 9:32 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Hi Timmy,

I said:
" Otherwise you are tending to insinuate there is something bigger than us out there (supernatural.)

Timmy, “Why would something bigger than us out there have to be supernatural? You are sounding like Gad here with the accusations of supernatural belief.”

It is all speculation. It was in my view an insinuation, nothing more. It could be
either/or or none. I just happen to think it is none. I don’t know it for a fact but I don’t know for a fact that it is material or supernatural either. I don’t have anything to indicate to me there is anything out there, so I choose not to think there is until I get more info.

Timmy: “Let me ask you this LJ. Where is the universe? Where is it located? Are you saying that anything that lies outside of what we know as the universe is supernatural? What are you saying?”

No I am not saying it has to be supernatural, only that traditionally that is what most people would think. That is where the insinuation comes from.

I wallow in not knowing anything about it (not by choice just by circumstance) so I am left with believing there is nothing, but always open to the possibility there could be. What more can you ask from a skeptic?

Posted by: lindajean | April 16, 2008 8:19 PM
Report Offensive Comment

LJ said:
" Otherwise you are tending to insinuate there is something bigger than us out there (supernatural.)

Why would something bigger than us out there have to be supernatural? You are sounding like Gad here with the accusations of supernatural belief.

Let me ask you this LJ. Where is the universe? Where is it located? Are you saying that anything that lies outside of what we know as the universe is supernatural? What are you saying?

Posted by: timmy | April 16, 2008 6:33 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Gad said:
"Nope. This is just a restatement of your past higher meaning and purpose beliefs"

Nope

Posted by: timmy | April 16, 2008 6:05 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Hi Lindajean,

From your comments where you don't see how birth control effects natural selection, it seems that you don't have a clear understanding of how natural selection works. I will try to clarify for you.

Random mutations occur in living organisms.
If one of these random mutations helps that organism (completely by fluke) to survive long enough to procreate, that random mutation is passed on to it's offspring and no longer becomes a random mutation but part a normal part of this new line. Now we have a whole family with this new part that helps them procreate more successfully. So this random (at one time) mutation multiplies and spreads and eventually dominates and then becomes part of this new successful species. And so it has been for billions of years. And this natural selection process continues today in all living creatures except for one. Us.

Because there are no more random mutations possible that could help us procreate any more successfully than we already are. In fact, as I have said, we are now having to curb our procreation because we are too successful. So successful in fact, that we can now control those random mutations and either stop them from occurring in our genetically engineered offspring, or create mutations that we desire and make them happen in our offspring. Our success as a species has rendered old style natural selection moot.

Billions and billions of years of one kind of evolution, over. Done. A new day. A new creature. The first creature to transcend old school natural selection. A creature that can outsmart billions and billions of years of the old natural order and control life and it's own evolution. No other creature in history has ever had to decide how it shall evolve. We do. We have to decide. Old school natural selection is simply not going to occur anymore in our species because procreation is no longer an issue. And it no longer needs to take millions of years because of genetic science. We can get at it right now. And we soon will.

This is something "bigger" to think about than our own personal subjective experiences. This is fascinating conversation to me. Scientific conversation. But if you prefer arguing over the finer points of the bible with primitive minds like that of Peter Huff, then by all means, carry on.

PS: And I'm glad to hear you say that you do not believe in anything supernatural. me neither. But I was beginning to worry about you, so thanks for clarifying.

LJ said:
"The new “selection” could be millions of years from now. To be frank, who cares? Unless you can show me there is some relevance to it in our lives today or in the next 500 years."

Actually as I have shown, with genetic science here to stay, the old "millions of years long" evolution is over. It will very soon start occurring at break neck speed, and at our hand. Don't you see that?

And what a ridiculous statement you make above. You only care about what happens in the next 500 years? Why 500? Why not 100? or 200? Or 700? Or 2000 years? Where did you get the number 500? You are concerned about your children, and your grand children, and your great grand children, and your great great grandchildren all the way up to your great great great great great great great great great grandchildren, and then screw the rest of them after that? lol.

Posted by: timmy | April 16, 2008 5:54 PM
Report Offensive Comment

To continue Lindajean,

No we are not; we are talking about justice for breaking God’s laws, for in theory justice should be sought when someone breaks a law of the land or country in which they live otherwise you live in anarchy. The question to an atheist is how do you justify your laws? To an atheist it is wrong because someone decided it is wrong. Who made them right?

God does respect rights and freedoms. Since He is the ultimate right and you have broken His good standard eventually your lifestyle will catch up to you (i.e. death and judgment).

You immediately jump to the conclusion that in a theocracy there are no civil liberties. Again, and I will say it for the third time, God rules justly and rightly. Who are you to say otherwise? An atheist has no way of determining justice or rightness. Justice or doing right is just a preference to you, whether that be of a few or the many.

Peter: “On whose authority do you establish what is good Lindajean?”

LJ: “I have answered that question many, many times.”

That doesn’t make it right. How can it be wrong ten, twenty years ago and oh so right today? How can wrong become right? You live in an upside down world Lindajean. Someone has switched the price tags on you.

Peter: “What makes the majority right?”

I was just using one of your own arguments about majority. That is a standard atheistic argument. You base everything on the judgment of the majority in a democracy. If you are going to do so then I appeal to the majority also. Majority makes nothing right unless it takes the correct view. To you the majority is the correct view, until of course you come to Mr. Hitler’s Germany.

For instance, in an atheistic worldview everything emerged from a “natural, material” Big Bang. So how does the atheist account for abstract, intangible universal principles or laws like logic? If reasoning is just a natural function of the brain then how can anyone have bad reasoning? Bad implies an ethical standard and a brain does what a brain does naturally so what makes reasoning bad? Reasoning in such a case is just the way ones brains particular atoms collide and create a particular impulse. Some people love their neighbors and other people eat them.

As for the other part to your last sentence, I oppose it because it is wrong. A majority of individuals is not absolute. They cannot set an absolute standard unless they follow the one laid down by God. If all right is preference or subjective opinion then Hitler’s Germany was right.

LJ: “This is the severe danger in your hubristic beliefs, and your desire to unleash your God and his vengeance onto anyone who does not agree with you.”

It is a war of ideas Lindajean. You are trying just as hard to voice your “hubristic beliefs” but the difference is you have a standard that is firmly fixed in mid air.

It is exactly what you are fighting for is it not? You want your views to be honored but you cannot tell me why they are right. Why are your “rights” right, because you prefer them to be?

LJ: “Please explain to me how that is not a form of repression and terrorism.”

Doing what is right is good even to those who do not see it as such. Once established that a person has committed a murder, that person will never become a multi-repeated murderer. Justice will be done.

LJ: “Especially when the rights of the people you disagree with involve behaviors you do not approve of, and you want to make criminals out of those people you do not agree with.”

There again with any standard it depends on what it is based on. Is it an absolute ultimate standard or just one based on personal or cultural preferences? If so what happens when in five years it changes again? Then who is right? Is the right standard for you always the one that is currently in place? If not then what makes it wrong? Why was abortion and homosexuality considered wrong forty years ago and punished as wrong if it is right? Who makes it right? Who is in the wrong? No Lindajean, your right is arbitrary and meaningless if it is not based on an absolute standard.

LJ: “You are equating Hitler to people who have abortions? “

Both are murder.

LJ: “If you cannot figure out the difference between the two I won’t be able to successfully explain it to you.”

No you won’t. You have no argument that can.

LJ said: "Your argument is that the government is squashing your rights as a Christian because it does not pass laws that “honor” and “obey” your god."

What is your idea of “better?” What is your standard for better? Anything that opposes the standard I hold? So who is right?

Peter: “God counts as the only absolute authority of good and right. Without Him you cannot make sense of it, it keeps changing....”

LJ: “Then democracy, individual rights, civil liberties, freedom and Constitutional government are dead.”

They are lessons on what happens when man acts as his own god.

Peter: “Do you consider Germany to be wrong in murdering six million Jews? Why?”

LJ: “I already answered this months ago. I am not going to answer questions I have already spent many hours answering.”

Peter: “Well, the fact is that not long ago abortion was considered wrong by the majority in your country. What makes it right by the majority now?”

Peter: “Yes I would (prefer a theocracy over a democracy). As long as it was based on the laws of the God of the Bible and not on some false god.

LJ: ”Yuck.”

LJ: “You believe in terrorism and totalitarianism.”

No I don’t. You are the one telling me I do. I don’t believe terrorism, but I do believe in the sovereignty of God. Without God’s laws terrorism is always possible depending on who comes to power.

LJ: “ This is the ultimate “creepy”.

The ultimate creepy is where everyone decides for themselves what is right in their own eyes.

Posted by: Peter Huff | April 16, 2008 5:27 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Hi Lindajean,

ME: “ Your authority is removed by twenty centuries from what actually took place. The evidence backs up the Biblical authority on so many points.”

LJ: “It does not and cannot otherwise it would no longer be “faith” and it would be evidence.”

But it is evidence. You can see it and read it, it is eyewitness accounts, it is based on historically verifiable facts.

Another point is that any evidence on origins takes faith to believe in. Evolutionary science or abiogenesis cannot recreate how it all started. They can only build models on how they believe it started. No one was there to witness it, except God.

Peter: “That is easy. Compare what is said in the Book of Mormon and the Bible. There are glaring contradictions. Compare the prophet - Joseph Smith - with what is said about a prophet of God in the Bible (Deuteronomy 18:20-22; Jeremiah 14:14-15; 29:8-9)”

LJ: “My point is none of these beliefs, Bible, Koran, book of Mormon come to us wrapped in anything other than “faith.” If it were real evidence science would embrace it.”

Evolutionary science is also a belief and as such is wrapped in faith.

LJ: "A hypothetical: If it is against God's laws (in this theocracy we are discussing) to break one of the Ten Commandments and someone breaks one of them--i.e. I don't "worship" on the Sabbath--- then what is my punishment? Do I go to jail? Do I lose my job, house, car? How does the government enforce something you call "god's laws"? If you cannot force someone to believe in God, then why (and how) do you force them to follow his "laws"?"

To be honest I have not worked out or studied the Sabbath in how it ties in with the New Covenant. Without looking into the matter in any great detail I am only speculating on this subject, but here is my view that is possibly not the view held in Scripture. In my limited knowledge of the Sabbath it would fall under the jurisdiction of the Mosaic administration and economy and would be a picture or type of what the kingdom will be when Christ returns. In the Mosaic economy Sabbath breakers were stoned just as in the coming kingdom those outside Christ will be cast out. As it is said, “In Him was life, and that life was the light of men. The light shines in darkness, but the darkness has not understood it.“ (John 1:4-5, and again, in John 3:18-21)

The Lord rose on the Sunday, the Lord’s Day, and that is the day that I as a Christian set aside to worship with other Christians and celebrate His goodness to us.

As for how do you force someone to believe in God, you can’t, only God can? How do you force them to obey His laws? The same way you do any law in any society that enforces justice for wrong doing, by punishing those who break them.

How the Sabbath relates to the New Covenant I am not sure, but you have raised a valid concern and I am trying to figure it out, the Lord willing.

As for breaking the laws of God what Joe Blow witnessed is just hearsay and would not hold up in a theonomy.

LJ: "Totalitarianism under any guise is terrorism."

Peter: “No, it is not. Absolute authority that is just and good is not terror. Terror is having done what is unjust and unfair.”

LJ: “If you mean that absolute authority requires a person to follow all of God’s laws (there are so many and they are so contrary),”

No they are not contrary. It takes context to understand what is going on, whom the law is addressing to, under what circumstances. Please show me where you believe them to be contrary.

Posted by: Peter Huff | April 16, 2008 5:16 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Timmy said:

“For billions and billions of years, all life (on this planet) has evolved through natural selection. Only now, after billions and billions of years, has one species (us) evolved to the point that it now controls natural selection and will control it from here on in. I repeat, we now control our own natural selection, and will control it from here on.”

You have to explain to me how birth control is now controlling our biological destiny. Since BC came about, our populations continue to double and triple. We may have “control” over reproduction but I don’t see much “control” actually taking place. Our population world-wide has doubled in about 30 years and will double again by 2050.

Timmy asked: “Is there a right thing that we should be doing with this power?
Or a wrong thing?
A right direction to go in, or a wrong one?
Can we just do whatever we want with it?
No other living species has ever had to make this decision, but we now do. How shall we evolve. I repeat, no other living species has ever had to ponder this question.”

What power? That we can use birth control? What direction --right or wrong---do you have in mind? What decision are we going to make? How many children to have? That still does not change the dynamics of our biology. If I decide to have one child instead of twenty how is that going to change natural selection? Can you give some examples?

Timmy asked, “And why, after billions and billions of years of natural selection, and billions of species of life, that never had any control over their own evolution, do we now find ourselves in charge and completely in control of our own evolution.
Has life reached, or is it approaching, some sort of pinnacle?”

We are simply choosing (some of us) not to have as many children.

Timmy asked, “How can you say that the meaning of life is just about your relations with your family and whatever you make of it yourself, when we now stand at a point in time when one living species has transcended the natural order that has been for billions and billions of years? There is something much bigger to think about than our own individual meaning that we give our own personal lives. Don't you think?"

Because as far as I can see that is all we have. If there is some other purpose that is all-encompassing, please let on. Otherwise you are tending to insinuate there is something bigger than us out there (supernatural.) Of course that possibility is there, and I won’t argue against the possibility, but I won’t make any claim of it either. If you want to search for the Big One then be my guest, but I am going to stay with the subjective and try to find some meaning in it. Life is too short to do otherwise, IMO.

Posted by: lindajean | April 15, 2008 7:34 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Timmy said, “You keep talking about individual purpose. I'm talking about the purpose of life in general. Why dose it exist? What is the end game. There isn't one?”

I don’t know that you can separate the two. We are all part of the universe. Whatever purpose there is (up to this point) beyond the biological, it is still subjective experience. And I am not willing to state there is any other general purpose than the biological (and the subjective individual experiences) unless you know something I don’t know or believe in something metaphysical (I don’t.)

Natural selection and biology only explain one aspect of purpose and that is the continuation of the species. How is that going to change just because we invented birth control? That need will still continue on in our genes for thousands or millions of years. My understanding of natural selection is it is slow and takes a long time. We will be ashes and dust long before any natural selection makes any significant changes in our biology. There is also the possibility at some time 90% of the population could die off suddenly due to disease, virus, bacteria, nuclear weapons, a meteor, etc... (think dinosaurs). We could be back at square one trying to just get food on our table.

You said, “Since evolution seems to be the thing that explains the most, my main question is, what will natural selection select next?”

The new “selection” could be millions of years from now. To be frank, who cares? Unless you can show me there is some relevance to it in our lives today or in the next 500 years.

Posted by: lindajean | April 15, 2008 7:07 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Timmy said:
There is something much bigger to think about than our own individual meaning that we give our own personal lives. Don't you think?

Nope. This is just a restatement of your past higher meaning and purpose beliefs.

Posted by: GAD | April 15, 2008 6:37 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Here are some more thoughts and clarifications about what I am asking.

For billions and billions of years, all life (on this planet) has evolved through natural selection. Only now, after billions and billions of years, has one species (us) evolved to the point that it now controls natural selection and will control it from here on in. I repeat, we now control our own natural selection, and will control it from here on.

Is there a right thing that we should be doing with this power?
Or a wrong thing?
A right direction to go in, or a wrong one?
Can we just do whatever we want with it?
No other living species has ever had to make this decision, but we now do. How shall we evolve. I repeat, no other living species has ever had to ponder this question.

How should we choose to evolve our species now that we have complete control of natural selection?
And why, after billions and billions of years of natural selection, and billions of species of life, that never had any control over their own evolution, do we now find ourselves in charge and completely in control of our own evolution.
Has life reached, or is it approaching, some sort of pinnacle?

How can you say that the meaning of life is just about your relations with your family and whatever you make of it yourself, when we now stand at a point in time when one living species has transcended the natural order that has been for billions and billions of years?

There is something much bigger to think about than our own individual meaning that we give our own personal lives. Don't you think?

Posted by: timmy | April 15, 2008 4:47 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Hi Lindajean,

You ask:

maybe you are using “responsibility” in a different context.

Irresponsible people don't use birth control. I was kind of joking.
And I'm talking about natural selection. It does not select that which helps our species survive. It selects mutations that make people more likely to have many children. Natural selection does not care how we raise our chidren. Only whether or not we have them. In fact if you don't raise your children properly, they are more likely to be irresponsible about birth control. Do you see what I am getting at? What is natural selection going to select now?

You said:
"I don't believe there is one specific objective purpose for all of humanity beyond the biological ones including procreation, cooperation and using our intelligence. These purposes insure our species' survival"

To what end?
Like I said, we have survival to the age of procreation down. There is no room for improvement in that area. In fact we are having to use pills and condoms to keep from procreating too much. And we're still over populating the earth. But natural selection is all about what helps us to do exactly what we are taking pills to stop doing. So what now for natural selection? is it over? That's what I am asking.

You ask:
What is left but individual choices about finding meaning and purpose in one's life?

The reason we have to find meaning and purpose is because we don't know what to do with ourselves now that we have survival down. That was the only meaning and purpose for all living things for all time until us humans came along. We conquered survival. Now what? Enjoy? Take up a hobby? Ride it out. Retire from survival and just kick our feet up?

You saId:
If you are asking, "Is there purpose outside our biology and our own subjective experiences?.... My answer is no. What do you think?

Our purpose is survival. But we have that down. What now?
From your comments, I can only gather that your answer is the equivalent of "take up a hobby"

I'll say it again. We have survival way way down. Too down. We don't know what to do next? That seems to be the cause of most of our strife. Our whole society is like some punk teenager with rich parents and no job and no direction in life, so he just gets into all kinds of trouble. And we are.

You keep talking about individual purpose. I' talking about the purpose of life in general. Why dose it exist? What is the end game. There isn't one?

What is the universe? What is life? Why is it here? Why does it evolve? To what end?

The reason we all have to make our own meaning for our own lives is because we don't know what the real meaning of it all is. So we just make up our own.

Since evolution seems to be the thing that explains the most, my main question is, what will natural selection select next?

Posted by: timmy | April 15, 2008 8:39 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Hi Lindajean,

Wow, you are really sharpening your sword. I will try to respond Wednesday or Thursday, more likely Thursday since my brother-in-law arrives Wednesday for a visit.

Posted by: Peter Huff | April 14, 2008 11:05 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Peter said,
“ Your authority is removed by twenty centuries from what actually took place. The evidence backs up the Biblical authority on so many points.”

It does not and cannot otherwise it would no longer be “faith” and it would be evidence.

Peter: “That is easy. Compare what is said in the Book of Mormon and the Bible. There are glaring contradictions. Compare the prophet - Joseph Smith - with what is said about a prophet of God in the Bible (Deuteronomy 18:20-22; Jeremiah 14:14-15; 29:8-9)”

My point is none of these beliefs, Bible, Koran, book of Mormon come to us wrapped in anything other than “faith.” If it were real evidence science would embrace it.

I asked: "A hypothetical: If it is against God's laws (in this theocracy we are discussing) to break one of the Ten Commandments and someone breaks one of them--i.e. I don't "worship" on the Sabbath--- then what is my punishment?Do I go to jail? Do I lose my job, house, car? How does the government enforce something you call "god's laws"? If you cannot force someone to believe in God, then why (and how) do you force them to follow his "laws"?"

So you are saying if I don’t “honor” the Sabbath (whatever definition you wish to use there are many), which is one of the 10 commandments, and it is witnessed by Joe Blow , then I am breaking the law and I could hypothetically go to jail... This is what you are saying?

I said: "Totalitarianism under any guise is terrorism."

Peter: “No, it is not. Absolute authority that is just and good is not terror. Terror is having done what is unjust and unfair.”

If you mean that absolute authority requires a person to follow all of God’s laws (there are so many and they are so contrary), and that breaking those laws, like committing adultery or having sex with your own gender, would land a person in jail, then we are talking about a totalitarian form of government and that is a form of terrorism. Your God does not respect individual rights and freedoms. A government that does not allow civil liberties is a form of totalitarian government. Your theocracy would be a totalitarian government because your God is a totalitarian God.

Peter: “On whose authority do you establish what is good Lindajean?”

I have answered that question many, many times.

LJ: "The right to abortion is not squashing the voice of the majority. If you look at any poll, the majority of Americans SUPPORT the right to abortion. You see it as "squashing" because you don't agree with it and because it "squashes" your will to prevent women from having one. The right to abortion is the epitome of how a democracy works: the majority voice is heard."

Peter: “What makes the majority right?”

You are the one that was complaining about the rights of the majority getting squashed. You wrote:

“...By not allowing us to honor God's word for one. Obedience is a form of worship. By squashing the voice, in many cases of the majority by oppressing it and undermining it until it becomes the minority.....”

You were referring to the case of abortion..

I was simply correcting you ( in my statement above) that the rights of the majority favor abortion and now you are questioning why the “majority” in this case should have their voice heard and who gives them the right to have their voice heard? Since it is now a voice that you adamantly oppose you don’t want them to have that right any longer.

This is the severe danger in your hubristic beliefs, and your desire to unleash your God and his vengeance onto anyone who does not agree with you. And this is what I mean by terrorism a slip-sliding into a totalitarian government. Because total and unequivocal submission to any authority is completely in opposition to the Constitution of the US of A and western culture. You want the rights of the majority to be honored and embraced by the government, but when the majority no longer is in agreement with you then you want their rights abolished. Please explain to me how that is not a form of repression and terrorism. Especially when the rights of the people you disagree with involve behaviors you do not approve of, and you want to make criminals out of those people you do not agree with.
]

You are equating Hitler to people who have abortions? If you cannot figure out the difference between the two I won’t be able to successfully explain it to you.

I said: "Your argument is that the government is squashing your rights as a Christian because it does not pass laws that “honor” and “obey” your god."

Peter: “No, my argument is how do you determine right without God's standard? It is all by force or
coercion which is just another evil form of government, different but how do you determine it being any better than Totalitarianism if it is not based on absolute justice. You need an absolute standard to gauge ‘better’.”

Once again, if you cannot determine the difference between totalitarian governments and governments based on freedom, individual rights and civil liberties I cannot help you here. You will need to take an ethics course, a course in Constitutional law and probably get some psychoanalysis.

Peter: “God counts as the only absolute authority of good and right. Without Him you cannot make sense of it, it keeps changing....”

Then democracy, individual rights, civil liberties, freedom and Constitutional government are dead.

Peter: “Do you consider Germany to be wrong in murdering six million Jews? Why?”

I already answered this months ago. I am not going to answer questions I have already spent many hours answering.

Peter: “Well, the fact is that not long ago abortion was considered wrong by the majority in your country. What makes it right by the majority now?”

Well the fact is that not so long ago the majority of the people supported witch burnings, slavery and raping one’s wife was legal in all 50 states. Not long ago the majority favored segregation of schools, restaurants , public bathrooms and many if not all public places. What makes those wrong now?

Peter: “Yes I would (prefer a theocracy over a democracy). As long as it was based on the laws of the God of the Bible and not on some false god.
Yuck.

You believe in terrorism and totalitarianism. This is the ultimate “creepy”.

Posted by: lindajean | April 14, 2008 8:27 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Timmy states:
“Natural selection will simply favor the genes of those who choose to have more babies that the rest of us. We control how much we wish to reproduce now. Heck, we use contraception to avoid it now. Perhaps responsibility will be naturally selected out of us.”

Why would responsibility be selected out and how would that improve our means to survive? By “responsibility” I am talking about the care and nurturing of raising children. If we don’t have responsible parents then I would assume that “responsibility” being selected out of our genes would be a detriment to helping the species survive. So I am not quite following you on that one and maybe you are using “responsibility” in a different context.

Please clarify.

Posted by: lindajean | April 14, 2008 7:19 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Hi Timmy,

You asked:

"It all comes back to the burning question of why we are here? Why is life? Why is survival a driving force. To what end? You can pretend that there is no reason....."

I don't believe there is one specific objective purpose for all of humanity beyond the biological ones including procreation, cooperation and using our intelligence. These purposes insure our species' survival.

Putting aside biological purposes--and metaphysical ones for which we have no evidence to make claims to--what is left but individual choices about finding meaning and purpose in one's life?

The choices are expansive and seem infinite: vocation, family, children, aesthetics, education, religion....to name a few.

If you are asking, "Is there purpose outside our biology and our own subjective experiences?....

My answer is no.

What do you think?

Posted by: lindajean | April 14, 2008 6:53 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Hi Gad,

GAD: "It is fact that the Enuma elish is written long before Genesis."

Whether or not it was written before or after the Genesis account of creation is speculation on your part.

ME: "You appeal to all these twentieth century findings that are built on liberal speculations."

GAD: "And you appeal to twenty century old goat herder superstitions."

They were around during the events described, no twentieth century armchair liberal theologian was.

ME: "So what you are implying, if I am reading your word correctly, and please correct me if I am not, is that there was actually something existing before God created the heavens and the earth, for He created the heavens and the earth from WITHIN the framework of the preexistent watery expanse."

GAD: "That's what the bible says, that's what the Jews and the Catholic church say it says, only you in your childish fantasy pretend it doesn't. Any other quote from the bible that you say says otherwise just makes for a contradiction."

The Bible says that God created everything by His spoken word. He said it, it was so. It also says that everything was created in six days. You need to do the math.

You were the one who said that, "Did God create everything? Not in the Bible."

Posted by: Peter Huff | April 13, 2008 10:15 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Hi Lindajean,

ME: "No, the onus of proof is on the atheist to show that the Bible is not in fact the word of God. What is his authority in doing so, some liberal scholar twenty centuries removed from the times?"

Isn't it interesting how null and void the atheist is of providing substantial proof, for every time you call on them to do so they defer the question, create some other diversion. Your authority is removed by twenty centuries from what actually took place. The evidence backs up the Biblical authority on so many points.

LJ: "No, the onus of proof is on the Christian to show the Koran is not in fact the word of God. What is his authority in doing so, some fundamentalist scholar 10 centuries removed from the times?"

Just look at who influenced Muhammad. Islam is a smorgasbord of different faiths; Zoroastrianism, Judaism, paganism and aberrant Christianity. See how what is said in the Qu'ran lines up with what is real. Considering Islam came 600 years after Christ, compare the Scriptures from both religions and also other sources of information for the times. See what evidence both offer to substantiate their claims.

The Westminister Confession of Faith defines God's word as the self attesting truth and uniquely authoritative. That is proved time and time again in history as well as in ethics and morals.

LJ: "No, the onus of proof in on the Baptist to show the Book of Mormon is not in fact the word of God. What is his authority in doing so, some preacher scholar 175 years removed from the times?"

That is easy. Compare what is said in the Book of Mormon and the Bible. There are glaring contradictions. Compare the prophet - Joseph Smith - with what is said about a prophet of God in the Bible (Deuteronomy 18:20-22; Jeremiah 14:14-15; 29:8-9)

Jesus Christ is the fulfillment of prophecy and Scripture is closed and complete.

"In the past God spoke to our forefathers through the prophets at many times and in various ways, but in these last days He has spoken to us by His Son..." (Hebrews 1:1-2a)

We don't need another prophet to explain to us what God has done. It has all been completed in His Son.

"The Son is the radiance of God's glory and the exact representation of His being, sustaining all things by His powerful word." (Hebrews 1:3)

"I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book. And if anyone takes words away from this book of prophecy, God will take away from him his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book." (Revelation 22:18-19)

LJ: "A hypothetical: If it is against God's laws (in this theocracy we are discussing) to break one of the Ten Commandments and someone breaks one of them--i.e. I don't "worship" on the Sabbath--- then what is my punishment?
Do I go to jail? Do I lose my job, house, car? How does the government enforce something you call "god's laws"? If you cannot force someone to believe in God, then why (and how) do you force them to follow his "laws"?"

The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath. It is a day of rest, a day of worship that we as Christians honor on the Sunday, the Lord's Day, because on the Sunday He rose from the dead, conquering death. We benefit from a day of rest. (1 Corinthians 16:2; Acts 20:7) Is it necessary to keep shops open on Sundays? No it is a family day and a day to honor the Lord, for those who are Christians.

The punishment for breaking God's laws is describe in God's word. A murderer is put to death if it can be established by two or more witnesses and the evidence lines up that he actually did the crime. In this way justice is done - an eye for an eye. He will never murder again. In this way the governing body is not responsible for financing costly expenses in housing a murderer indefinitely, if it can be established he did the crime, he only commits it once and then pure justice is done when he meets his Maker.

As for forcing someone to obey a law what is done in the privacy of one household is not something that can be enforced unless it is witnessed. But in the same way that you break a law by running a red light so it is in breaking a law of God. It has to be seen to be enforced.

And no, one cannot be forced to believe in God. Only God can bring a person to repentance and a saving knowledge by His grace and mercy, but for justice a society based on the laws the one and only true God of the Bible that He has established, they are the only laws that can be called good and just.

ME: "As are the atheist regimes of the twentieth century enough to give Christians nightmares; Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Ceauşescu, Castro."

LJ: "Totalitarianism under any guise is terrorism."

No, it is not. Absolute authority that is just and good is not terror. Terror is having done what is unjust and unfair. On whose authority do you establish what is good Lindajean?

If you take Hitler's Germany, it was one of the most highly advanced, literate societies, if not the most of its day. How could a society as educated and advanced as this murder 11 million people? Because the highly intelligent, highly literate citizens believed the lie of evolution and were convinced by the mood of the day, of which Hitler expressed quite nicely, that there was a favored race, as in turn Darwin had expressed in the very title of his work, On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. They were lead to believe that there were favorable races and inferior races that were just above those of other evolved animals such as apes.

This just shows you that given the right circumstances a well educated intelligent society will buy into anything, just as you, Lindajean, have bought into the theory of evolution.

What makes the majority right? What makes Hitler's Germany right in murdering millions, just as abortion has done? Is the woman the one who determines the fetus to be a baby? Is the fetus a fetus until after it has been born, when it all of a sudden becomes a baby? Who decides, each individual? Why is it still wrong in some countries to abort a baby? Why was it wrong in your country until recently and why is it now right? Because someone has convinced you that it is right? Who makes it right? It is just ethics by force. The ruling party determines what will be right for the country or society. So why was Germany's extermination of six million Jews wrong?

LJ: "Your argument is that the government is squashing your rights as a Christian because it does not pass laws that “honor” and “obey” your god."

No, my argument is how do you determine right without God's standard? It is all by force or
coercion which is just another evil form of government, different but how do you determine it being any better than Totalitarianism if it is not based on absolute justice. You need an absolute standard to gauge "better."

LJ: "God does not count as the majority. Only the people count in this form of government. We live in a democracy, not a theocracy."

God counts as the only absolute authority of good and right. Without Him you cannot make sense of it, it keeps changing. Todays right may very well be tomorrows wrong. So how do you know right? Because someone in power tells you it is so? Because a woman feels that her body is to be autonomous? If each woman decides for herself there is no such thing as right or wrong, it is just your preference or her preference, in the same manner that what is right in society is constantly changing. It all boils down to personal or societal preferences, so Germany's preference to murder six million Jews cannot be considered wrong on such grounds.

Do you consider Germany to be wrong in murdering six million Jews? Why?

LJ: "This is the best example you can give me? A weak one---your facts are not even correct about the majority being against abortion."

Well, the fact is that not long ago abortion was considered wrong by the majority in your country. What makes it right by the majority now?

LJ: "Am I open to a theocracy?
LOL, what do you think?"

Precisely my point as reveled in God's Word.

LJ: "Are you saying you would prefer a theocracy over a democracy?"

Yes I would. As long as it was based on the laws of the God of the Bible and not on some false god.

Posted by: Peter Huff | April 13, 2008 9:45 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Just checking in.
Same old same old huh?
The circular arguments continue.

Questions:

Is natural selection over? At least where us humans are concerned?
It is supposed to naturally select mutations that help the species survive in it's environment long enough to reproduce. But we haver that down now. There are no more improvements possible that would help us reach the point of reproduction any more that we do now. We have that down. What next? Natural selection will simply favor the genes of those who choose to have more babies that the rest of us. We control how much we wish to reproduce now. Heck, we use contraception to avoid it now. Perhaps responsibility will be naturally selected out of us. Any thoughts?

This has been the case for a very long time now. Since the beginning of civilization basically. What next? This is the perplexing question that leads to religion. We have survival and procreation down. What are we supposed to be striving for now? What next? We beat the game. We got to the Donkey Kong kill screen. Now what? Just live and enjoy and suffer? All other animals do nothing but survive. We have that down. What next? Anyone? (except Peter of course. We know what he'll say. "Just serve our master" or some bunk like that)

A comedian friend of mine does a joke about how squirrels spend 99% of their time looking for nuts. So he bought a giant sack of nuts and left it out for the squirrel in his back yard. A lifetime supply of nuts. Now the poor squirrel has nothing to do. It just sits there wondering what to do with itself. It has no more purpose. Is that not the situation humanity finds itself in now? We have our nuts. Now what are we supposed to be doing? Or what should we be doing? We want to know. But we don't. That is where religion comes from. We have basic survival down and now we want to know what to do with ourselves?

It all comes back to the burning question of why we are here? Why is life? Why is survival a driving force. To what end? You can pretend that there is no reason. That this is an invalid question. Life is, just cuz. Deal with it. I think that is a cop out. There is a mystery to life. I don't like Peter's answer to what that mystery is. And I don't agree with Gad's answer that there is no mystery. It's all here just cuz. There is something out there for us to figure out still. And none of us know what that is. But it is worth thinking about. This "just cuz" thing is as much bunk as God.

Posted by: timmy | April 13, 2008 5:59 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Peter: “There is a proper interpretation of God's laws.”

Interpretations can be subjective.
Interpretations can be arbitrary .

Peter: “God's laws are just, fair and good. How can the laws of any culture be just, fair and good unless they are based on the absolute standard, which is God? Some of the laws of societies around the world are based on the Biblical code of ethics in part but when man makes his own rules anything is possible.”

Because you attempting to convince yourself that a belief --that God’s laws are an absolute standard---are a fact.
They aren’t.

Peter: “When Hitler came to power in 1933 his agenda was to remove some of those laws in favor of Darwinian evolutionary principles, the speeding up of natural selection for the favored races.....”

Hitler’s “mad-scientist” approaches were an experiment in Social Darwinism. Charles Darwin did not write about Social Darwinism. Social Darwinism is not a product of Darwin or evolution. Social Darwinism is not a science. Social Darwinism is dead.

Peter: “As for your other questions, I will plod away at them as I think them over Lindajean. Unfortunately I do not have the time I used to when I first entered this forum.”

No need to knock yourself out trying...

Posted by: lindajean | April 13, 2008 4:18 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Peter Huff said:
"That is your assertion. Ever consider that you have it backwards? The Enuma elish and other folk lore was written after the Genesis accounts which were handed down from generation to generation and became Scripture when God told Moses to write them down."

It is fact that the Enuma elish is written long before Genesis.

Peter Huff said:
"You appeal to all these twentieth century findings that are built on liberal speculations."

And you appeal to twenty century old goat herder superstitions.

Peter Huff said:
"So what you are implying, if I am reading your word correctly, and please correct me if I am not, is that there was actually something existing before God created the heavens and the earth, for He created the heavens and the earth from WITHIN the framework of the preexistent watery expanse."

That's what the bible says, that's what the Jews and the Catholic church say it says, only you in your childish fantasy pretend it doesn't. Any other quote from the bible that you say says otherwise just makes for a contradiction.

Posted by: GAD | April 13, 2008 3:37 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Hi Gad,

To continue,

GAD: "The cosmogony written is Genesis (and else where) is clearly taken from the older Enuma elish and mixed with other myths of the time."

That is your assertion. Ever consider that you have it backwards? The Enuma elish and other folk lore was written after the Genesis accounts which were handed down from generation to generation and became Scripture when God told Moses to write them down. The Enuma elish and other ancient accounts are the myths. A myth is usually built around something that existed but that has been exaggerated and embellished over time. The accounts of these early descendants were exaggerated as the cultures spread apart at Babel and as man said to himself, "Did God really say?"

You are trying to put together the puzzle thousands of years after the fact by forcing the pieces into places they are not design to fit into. You appeal to all these twentieth century findings that are built on liberal speculations.

Posted by: Peter Huff | April 13, 2008 1:37 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Hi Gad,

GAD: "Did god create everything?"

Yes, EVERYTHING.

GAD: "Not in the bible."

Yes, in the Bible.

GAD: "One only need to read Genesis 1:1 - 1:10 to see that there was a water universe of chaos preexisting that god created the heaven and earth within."

So what you are implying, if I am reading your word correctly, and please correct me if I am not, is that there was actually something existing before God created the heavens and the earth, for He created the heavens and the earth from WITHIN the framework of the preexistent watery expanse. Does that also mean that you are suggesting that God did not create the watery expanse, since you said that in the Bible He did not create everything? There is a difference between making something OUT OF and making something within something else.

Your assertions are something that even a child in the faith could refute. You are definitely reading something into the texts that is not there. Just compare Scripture with Scripture concerning God's creation to find out what God created.

"Through Him ALL things were made, without Him nothing was made that has been made." (John 1:3)

Nothing means zero, nil.

"yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom ALL THINGS CAME and through whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom ALL THINGS COME and through whom we live." (1 Corinthians 8:6)

So all things come from God, period. So the Bible says all things. That includes everything in my books. Of course, if you are a relativist it could mean anything that you create it to mean.

"He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For by Him ALL things were created: THINGS in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; ALL THINGS WERE CREATED BY HIM AND FOR HIM. He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together." (Colossians1:15-17)

"but in these last days He has spoken to us by His Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, and through whom He made the universe." (Hebrews 1:2)

"By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God's command so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible." (Hebrews 11:3)

But they deliberately forget that long ago BY GOD'S WORD the heavens WERE FORMED out of water and by water." (2 Peter 3:5)

Notice the tense, "were formed" so He made the heavens out of water and by water. That is what the heavens were made of when He made them - water. The distinction is that He made the heavens out of water, not from within something that was already there that He did not create.

"By the word of the LORD were the heavens made, their starry host by the breath of His mouth...He spoke, and it came to be." (Psalm 33:6, 9)

"Praise the LORD, you highest heavens and you waters above the skies. Let them praise the name of the LORD, for He commanded and they were CREATED." (Psalm 148:4-5)

"This is what the LORD says - your Redeemer, who formed you in the womb: I am the LORD, who HAS MADE ALL THINGS, who alone stretched out the heavens, who spread out the earth by Myself,..." (Isaiah 44:24)

"It is I who made the earth and created mankind upon it. My own hands stretched out the heavens; I marshaled the starry host." (Isaiah 45:12)

"For this is what the LORD says - He who created the heavens and the earth, He grounded it; He did not create it to be empty, but formed it to be inhabited..." (Isaiah 45:18)

"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. [that includes everything, and from the beginning He created first the heavens and the earth and then all that is in them] Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters." [The word "Now" is a continuation on from verse 1 describing the state of the creation after He spoke it into existence.]

Verses 3-26 is a description of the order of creation of the activities God did on each particular day, after creating the heavens and the earth.

"For in SIX DAYS the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but He rested on the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy." (Exodus 20:11)

Posted by: Peter Huff | April 13, 2008 1:22 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Hi Lindajean,
Just a quick note.

LJ: "God's laws are arbitrary depending on who "defines" and "interprets" them."

There is a proper interpretation of God's laws.

LJ: "God demands perfect obedience."

Yes, God demands perfect obedience, which was provided in His Son.

LJ: "He is a totalitarian God. Any kind of government that forces God's laws on its own people will be a theocracy and a totalitarian government."

God's laws are just, fair and good. How can the laws of any culture be just, fair and good unless they are based on the absolute standard, which is God? Some of the laws of societies around the world are based on the Biblical code of ethics in part but when man makes his own rules anything is possible.

When Hitler came to power in 1933 his agenda was to remove some of those laws in favor of Darwinian evolutionary principles, the speeding up of natural selection for the favored races. He was greatly influenced by Darwin, Haeckel, and Darwin's cousin, Frances Galton on whom a lot of the German eugenics program was influenced by. Eugenics would eliminate the disabled, mentally ill, feeble minded, those with cancers and the chronic ill, those blind and deaf, etc, etc, etc, because such people would be a burden to the state and hamper the spread of the favored races. By enforcing the eugenics program some estimated 11 million people were killed/murdered, including six million Jews and three million Russian prisoners of war who were starved to death. In two days alone the Nazis shot 33,771 people, mostly Jews and buried them in a mass grave yard (the Babi Yar ravine).

Tom DeRosa records in his book, Evolution's Fatal Flaw p. 177,

"An SS officer stated, 'What was uppermost in my mind at that time was that shootings were a great strain on the men involved and that strain would be removed by the use of the gas-vans.'"

Here are a few quotes from Mein Kampf in which you can see the evolutionary trend coming through as he talks about favored races, the very title of Darwins Origins in which Hitler was so greatly influenced.Notice also Hitler's mention of folk ideas,

"Over against all this, the VÖLKISCH concept of the world recognizes that
the primordial racial elements are of the greatest significance for
mankind. In principle, the State is looked upon only as a means to an
end and this end is the conservation of the racial characteristics of
mankind. Therefore on the VÖLKISCH principle we cannot admit that one
race is equal to another. By recognizing that they are different, the
VÖLKISCH concept separates mankind into races of superior and inferior
quality. On the basis of this recognition it feels bound in conformity
with the eternal Will that dominates the universe, to postulate the
victory of the better and stronger and the subordination of the inferior
and weaker. And so it pays homage to the truth that the principle
underlying all Nature's operations is the aristocratic principle and it
believes that this law holds good even down to the last individual
organism. It selects individual values from the mass and thus operates
as an organizing principle, whereas Marxism acts as a disintegrating
solvent. The VÖLKISCH belief holds that humanity must have its ideals,
because ideals are a necessary condition of human existence itself. But,
on the other hand, it denies that an ethical ideal has the right to
prevail if it endangers the existence of a race that is the
standard-bearer of a higher ethical ideal. For in a world which would be
composed of mongrels and negroids all ideals of human beauty and
nobility and all hopes of an idealized future for our humanity would be
lost forever.

On this planet of ours human culture and civilization are indissolubly
bound up with the presence of the Aryan. If he should be exterminated or
subjugated, then the dark shroud of a new barbarian era would enfold the
earth.

To undermine the existence of human culture by exterminating its
founders and custodians would be an execrable crime in the eyes of those
who believe that the folk-idea lies at the basis of human existence.
Whoever would dare to raise a profane hand against that highest image of
God among His creatures would sin against the bountiful Creator of this
marvel and would collaborate in the expulsion from Paradise.

Hence the folk concept of the world is in profound accord with Nature's
will; because it restores the free play of the forces which will lead
the race through stages of sustained reciprocal education towards a
higher type, until finally the best portion of mankind will possess the
earth and will be free to work in every domain all over the world and
even reach spheres that lie outside the earth.

We all feel that in the distant future many may be faced with problems
which can be solved only by a superior race of human beings, a race
destined to become master of all the other peoples and which will have
at its disposal the means and resources of the whole world.

It is evident that such a general sketch of the ideas implied in the
folk concept of the world may easily be interpreted in a thousand
different ways. As a matter of fact there is scarcely one of our recent
political movements that does not refer at some point to this conception
of the world. But the fact that this conception of the world still
maintains its independent existence in face of all the others proves
that their ways of looking at life are quite difierent from this. Thus
the Marxist conception, directed by a central organization endowed with
supreme authority, is opposed by a motley crew of opinions which is not
very impressive in face of the solid phalanx presented by the enemy.
Victory cannot be achieved with such weak weapons. Only when the
international idea, politically organized by Marxism, is confronted by
the folk idea, equally well organized in a systematic way and equally
well led--only then will the fighting energy in the one camp be able to
meet that of the other on an equal footing; and victory will be found on
the side of eternal truth.

But a general conception of life can never be given an organic
embodiment until it is precisely and definitely formulated. The function
which dogma fulfils in religious belief is parallel to the function
which party principles fulfil for a political party which is in the
process of being built up. Therefore, for the conception of life that is
based on the folk idea it is necessary that an instrument be forged
which can be used in fighting for this ideal, similar to the Marxist
party organization which clears the way for internationalism.

And this is the aim which the German National Socialist Labour Movement
pursues.

"What makes a people or, to be more correct, a race, is not language but
blood. Therefore it would be justifiable to speak of Germanization only
if that process could change the blood of the people who would be
subjected to it, which is obviously impossible. A change would be
possible only by a mixture of blood, but in this case the quality of the
superior race would be debased. The final result of such a mixture would
be that precisely those qualities would be destroyed which had enabled
the conquering race to achieve victory over an inferior people. It is
especially the cultural creativeness which disappears when a superior
race intermixes with an inferior one, even though the resultant mongrel
race should excel a thousandfold in speaking the language of the race
that once had been superior. For a certain time there will be a conflict
between the different mentalities, and it may be that a nation which is
in a state of progressive degeneration will at the last moment rally its
cultural creative power and once again produce striking examples of that
power. But these results are due only to the activity of elements that
have remained over from the superior race or hybrids of the first
crossing in whom the superior blood has remained dominant and seeks to
assert itself. But this will never happen with the final descendants of
such hybrids. These are always in a state of cultural retrogression.

We must consider it as fortunate that a Germanization of Austria
according to the plan of Joseph II did not succeed. Probably the result
would have been that the Austrian State would have been able to survive,
but at the same time participation in the use of a common language would
have debased the racial quality of the German element. In the course of
centuries a certain herd instinct might have been developed but the herd
itself would have deteriorated in quality. A national State might have
arisen, but a people who had been culturally creative would have
disappeared.

For the German nation it was better that this process of intermixture
did not take place, although it was not renounced for any high-minded
reasons but simply through the short-sighted pettiness of the Habsburgs.
If it had taken place the German people could not now be looked upon as
a cultural factor.

End of quote.

http://www.gutenberg.net.au/ebooks02/0200601.txt

Tom DeRosa notes in Evolutions Fatal Fruit, p. 172-173,

"For Hitler, science would ultimately push the myths of Christianity away. He said,
'The dogma of Christianity gets worn away before the advances of science. Religion will have to make more concessions. Gradually the myths crumble. All that is left is to prove that in nature there is no frontier between the organic and the inorganic. When understanding of the universe has become widespread, when the majority of men know that the stars are not sources of light but worlds, perhaps inhabited worlds like ours, then the Christian doctrine will be convicted of absurdity.'" (Quote from John Cornwell, Hitler's Scientists, p. 35-36)

These are just a few example of what can happen when a nation or people reject God and His laws because when you reject God all that is left is subjective or situational ethics where anything is possible.

As for your other questions, I will plod away at them as I think them over Lindajean. Unfortunately I do not have the time I used to when I first entered this forum.

Posted by: Peter Huff | April 13, 2008 2:31 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Peter said, "No, the onus of proof is on the atheist to show that the Bible is not in fact the word of God. What is his authority in doing so, some liberal scholar twenty centuries removed from the times?"

No, the onus of proof is on the Christian to show the Koran is not in fact the word of God. What is his authority in doing so, some fundamentalist scholar 10 centuries removed from the times?

No, the onus of proof in on the Baptist to show the Book of Mormon is not in fact the word of God. What is his authority in doing so, some preacher scholar 175 years removed from the times?

Posted by: lindajean | April 10, 2008 6:27 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Peter, can't post a reply here it is being blocked. Even just my blog URL. See my blog for a reply.

Posted by: GAD | April 10, 2008 3:35 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Peter said, "First, God establishes His covenants with man. Some are specific to an individual or a nation and some apply to all. Second, when someone breaks the covenant or law, as in any society there are consequences, just as there are in your own country. As for someone refusing to abide by God's standards and covenants and be reconciled to Him through His Son, He will judge them on their own imperfect merit.'

God's laws are arbitrary depending on who "defines" and "interprets" them. God demands perfect obedience. He is a totalitarian God. Any kind of government that forces God's laws on its own people will be a theocracy and a totalitarian government.

A hypothetical: If it is against God's laws (in this theocracy we are discussing) to break one of the Ten Commandments and someone breaks one of them--i.e. I don't "worship" on the Sabbath--- then what is my punishment?
Do I go to jail? Do I lose my job, house, car? How does the government enforce something you call "god's laws"? If you cannot force someone to believe in God, then why (and how) do you force them to follow his "laws"?

Peter said, "As are the atheist regimes of the twentieth century enough to give Christians nightmares; Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Ceauşescu, Castro."

Totalitarianism under any guise is terrorism.

Peter: : "Actually that is the very thing Christians are fighting to maintain today, their right to worship."

LJ: "Explain how the government is preventing Christians from worshiping."

Peter: "By not allowing us to honor God's word for one. Obedience is a form of worship. By squashing the voice, in many cases of the majority by oppressing it and undermining it until it becomes the minority. I think Greg Bahnsen explains it very nicely in By This Standard,

"In the United States, the most important
historical incident in this shift [talking about a shift in perspective from Christian values] was the decision of the United States Supreme Court to strike down state laws against abortion, the infamous Roe v. Wade decision of 1973. That decision made philosophy a life and death issue. It brought to the forefront the inescapable reality of a philosophical position that Dr. Bahnsen and other defenders of biblical law have long argued, namely, that there is no such thing as neutrality.
The issue of abortion has graphically illustrated
the truth of this conclusion. Either the unborn
child is left alone to mature in the womb, or else it is executed — in this case, by a state-licensed medical professional. (It is illegal, at present, to commit an abortion for a fee unless you are a licensed physician; to do so would involve practicing medicine without a license, and the Supreme Court would uphold your being sent to jail for such a crime against humanity – "humanity" being defined as an exceedingly profitable medical monopoly.) There is no third possibility, no neutral zone between life and death: except for the rare case of an aborted child who somehow survives the executioner initially, and
is born alive in the abortionist's office. This medical possibility has created havoc for humanism's legal theorists. It has been called by one medical authority 'the ultimate complication." Once out of the womb, must the abortionist regard the baby as a legal person, or can he legally destroy it?
A legal dilemma such as this one can only arise
in a civilization which has turned its back on God
and His law. Humanist lawyers need humanistic
principles of 'casuistry" – the application of permanent general laws to concrete cases — in order to deal with such dilemmas, just as surely as Christian legal thinkers need biblical principles of casuistry. Yet Christian casuistry has been ridiculed by secular historians.
We should not forget: it is never a question
of casuistry vs. no casuistry; it is always a question of which kind of casuistry?
What has become clear to a growing minority of
Christians with respect to the "medical and social
neutrality" of abortion is also becoming clearer with respect to such social evils as pornography, inflation, officially neutral tax-supported education ("values clarification"), homosexuality, globalism, the "New World Order, New Age humanism, and contemporary Western theories of national defense (mutually assured destruction, or MAD).” end quote

The right to abortion is not squashing the voice of the majority. If you look at any poll, the majority of Americans SUPPORT the right to abortion. You see it as "squashing" because you don't agree with it and because it "squashes" your will to prevent women from having one. The right to abortion is the epitome of how a democracy works: the majority voice is heard.

I could use your same argument about the Iraq War (or a slew of other issues.) “By squashing the voice, in many cases of the majority by oppressing it and undermining it until it becomes the minority” the government is “squashing” the rights of the majority who want us to get out of Iraq.

Your argument is that the government is squashing your rights as a Christian because it does not pass laws that “honor” and “obey” your god. God does not count as the majority. Only the people count in this form of government. We live in a democracy, not a theocracy.

This is the best example you can give me? A weak one---your facts are not even correct about the majority being against abortion.

Posted by: lindajean | April 9, 2008 8:25 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Peter said: "I was reading over your last three post. You are not going to agree with anything that I say regarding a theocracy. That is the nature of unbelief. You would not be an unbeliever if you believed. I can give you many Biblical passages to give you a glimpse of what a theocracy would look like. Are you open to them?"

Am I open to a theocracy?
LOL, what do you think?

Are you saying you would prefer a theocracy over a democracy?

Posted by: lindajean | April 9, 2008 6:35 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Hi Gad,

One other thing I should say regarding your words below is that history and archaeology along with many other kinds of evidences confirm the truthfulness of the Bible, so it does not depend on the testimony alone of supernatural events and miracles although there is no greater testimony that God Himself. The eyewitness testimony is not "all there is." There are places, peoples, nations, events that confirm the testimonies. These are real in time.

GAD: "When you believe in the supernatural anecdotal testimony is all there is, therefore it has to be taken as evidence otherwise you would have nothing to hang your faith on."

One thing I would say to you Lindajean about our conversation from way back in which we talked about something extraordinary would require extraordinary evidence and when I offer it to you both you and Gad want to discount it as not being worthy. Go figure?

ME: "there is testimony in the Bible that collaborates the evidence of the virgin birth and the resurrection, such as trying to explain away the empty tomb"

GAD: "LOL! How do we know the tomb was empty, because the "story" says so! LOL! Same old crap!"

Let me ask you some questions concerning the empty tomb. You have these people (Christians) going about a short while after Jesus is crucified telling everyone that they have seen Him risen from the dead.

How would you squash such rumors?

By producing a body of their crucified Lord would have ended the spread of Christianity.

Can you produce any records that that was done?
Would that not have been the simplest method of ending it once and for all?

With the Old Testament prophesies of the crucifixion alone, along with over three hundred other Messianic prophesies speak of something unusual, especially when these early eyewitnesses write gospel accounts that tie into the Old Testament prophesies, how can these events all come to pass without divine power? (See Psalm 22 and Isaiah 53 for two OT prophesies on the crucifixion)

Can you explain the accounts of these disciples of Jesus, upon witnessing the crucifixion, boldly proclaim the gospel message (shortly after giving accounts of seeing Him alive again) at the risk of death, and most of them (recorded by secular historians as well as in some cases the Bible itself and the early church fathers) as suffering excruciating deaths for what, a lie?

Would you die for something you knew was a lie?
Would you claim something as true to intentionally mislead millions of people down through the ages just to establish something that never really happened, all the time recording other events, peoples, places that were true?
Would you teach people to be people of integrity and to go the extra mile for others and their needs, to think of others more highly than yourselves, teach them to tell the true and have the highest moral standards and love for others all the time lying to them on one of the most crucial issues that Christianity revolves around, the Resurrection, or for that matter the virgin birth?

No, the onus of proof is on the atheist to show that the Bible is not in fact the word of God. What is his authority in doing so, some liberal scholar twenty centuries removed from the times?

How does the atheist explain how sixty six different books can all have the same theme and unity being written so many centuries apart in many cases all pointing either ahead to the Messiah or back to the Messiah?

No, the atheist is an unbeliever and he must try to fit the evidence into his worldview or deny his worldview. Since he is not willing to deny his worldview, in which he plays king, the self-imposed ruler of his own domain, the one who justifies and validates everything he believes, he must dispute the evidence at every turn. "Did God really say."

That is the nature of unbelief. But he substitutes another belief to do so. It does not stack up well with what is true, with what is real.

How does he explain evil? What is his highest authority? How does he justify "his truth?" To what standard does he apply truth to as a test? To what standard does he apply morality to?

Once upon a time, long, long ago (13.7 billion, give or take plus or minus .02 to .03 billion for now)...Which theory does he hold to on the universe; the Big Bang, the modified Big Bang theory, the multiple universe theory, The Steady-State Theory, the cyclic model?

How does something living and thinking come from something non-living and non-thinking? Where has the atheist ever witnessed this happening? If he has not observed it, if it has never been witnessed then he is placing his faith in something that cannot be confirmed as having actually happened.

Sweet dreams are made of these my once upon a time originating from a fine feathered friend or a monkeys uncle, well maybe not the fine feathered friend! How does that song go? The whale bone is connected to the leg bone, the pigs tooth is connected to Nebraska man. Oh yeah! Ah the scientific mind apart from God!

Posted by: Peter Huff | April 9, 2008 1:50 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Hi Lindajean,

If you are really interested in how a biblical theonomy could look like I invite you to read Greg Bahnsen's "By This Standard" or "Theonomy in Christian Ethics."

LJ: "Congress sets the ethical standards of civil activity by passing laws that make certain acts illegal (along with the states.) The Constitution spells this out very clearly as well (as opposed to you who thinks it is the Bible and its moral absolutism that ought to set the standards and law.) (LOL, this is basic government civics here, Peter. This is the stuff 4th graders are taught.)

God has set THE standard Lindajean. You have bought into the same idea and lie offered to Eve in the Garden, "Did God really say?" In doing so you deceive yourself.

LJ: "If “freedom” and “liberty” take on the derivations you have described, then our laws will reflect such meanings and we will become a theocracy. (We are already beginning to see some inklings of that.) I think you have just told me what your definition of a theocracy is. The problem with all of this (obviously) is, who will define what one’s “covenant “ must be with God and what happens if someone in your theocracy breaks that convenant or refuses to have this relationship with God?"

First, God establishes His covenants with man. Some are specific to an individual or a nation and some apply to all. Second, when someone breaks the covenant or law, as in any society there are consequences, just as there are in your own country. As for someone refusing to abide by God's standards and covenants and be reconciled to Him through His Son, He will judge them on their own imperfect merit.

LJ: "Peter, have you ever thought about the fact you cannot force people to accept your God? As soon as you apply this belief into a legal system you have now become a dictator."

I can't force anyone to accept God Lindajean, the Bible makes that clear,

"...the sinful mind is hostile to God. It does not submit to God's law, nor can it do so. Those controlled by the sinful nature cannot please God." (Romans 8:7-8)

"What, after all, is Apollos? And what is Paul? Only servants, through whom you came to believe - as the Lord has assigned to each his task. I planted the seed, Apollos watered it, but God made it grow. So neither the one who plants nor the one who waters is anything, but only God who makes it grow." (1 Corinthians 3:5-7)

LJ: "The Constitution says nothing about “moral” freedom or a “covenant between God and man.” These are words that Christians make passionate love to, but to attribute them to the Constitution is absurd. Whatever your "man of the hour's" interpretation of the "community" (or the Constitution) was in regards to himself and his God, it only reveals his religiously tainted view of how he believed the community or Constitution ought to work. The same can be said for you."

As you reveal your religious taint also Lindajean on how it "ought" to work (ought implies a moral standard. Who establishes it? Why is it just? Who decides just?). For the atheist the highest authority and first place of worship is to himself/herself. They are their own moral law, their own truth, their own self-righteousness, their own justification.

LJ: "It’s enough to give this atheist nightmares."

As are the atheist regimes of the twentieth century enough to give Christians nightmares; Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Ceauşescu, Castro.

ME: "Actually that is the very thing Christians are fighting to maintain today, their right to worship."

LJ: "Explain how the government is preventing Christians from worshiping."

By not allowing us to honor God's word for one. Obedience is a form of worship. By squashing the voice, in many cases of the majority by oppressing it and undermining it until it becomes the minority. I think Greg Bahnsen explains it very nicely in By This Standard,

"In the United States, the most important
historical incident in this shift [talking about a shift in perspective from Christian values] was the decision of the United States Supreme Court to strike down state laws against abortion, the infamous Roe v. Wade decision of 1973. That decision made philosophy a life and death issue. It brought to the forefront the inescapable reality of a philosophical position that Dr. Bahnsen and other defenders of biblical law have long argued, namely, that there is no such thing as neutrality.
The issue of abortion has graphically illustrated
the truth of this conclusion. Either the unborn
child is left alone to mature in the womb, or else it is executed — in this case, by a state-licensed medical professional. (It is illegal, at present, to commit an abortion for a fee unless you are a licensed physician; to do so would involve practicing medicine without a license, and the Supreme Court would uphold your being sent to jail for such a crime against humanity – “humanity” being defined as an exceedingly profitable medical monopoly.) There is no third possibility, no neutral zone between life and death: except for the rare case of an aborted child who somehow survives the executioner initially, and
is born alive in the abortionist’s office. This medical possibility has created havoc for humanism’s legal theorists. It has been called by one medical authority ‘the ultimate complication.” Once out of the womb, must the abortionist regard the baby as a legal person, or can he legally destroy it?
A legal dilemma such as this one can only arise
in a civilization which has turned its back on God
and His law. Humanist lawyers need humanistic
principles of ‘casuistry” – the application of permanent general laws to concrete cases — in order to deal with such dilemmas, just as surely as Christian legal thinkers need biblical principles of casuistry. Yet Christian casuistry has been ridiculed by secular historians.
We should not forget: it is never a question
of casuistry vs. no casuistry; it is always a question of which kind of casuistry?
What has become clear to a growing minority of
Christians with respect to the “medical and social
neutrality” of abortion is also becoming clearer with respect to such social evils as pornography, inflation, officially neutral tax-supported education (“values clarification”), homosexuality, globalism, the “New World Order, New Age humanism, and contemporary Western theories of national defense (mutually assured destruction, or MAD).

PROLOGUE Xii- xiii

What makes a Christian society appear visibly different from any other kind of society? The
answer today is exactly what it was in Moses’ day: ethics.

PROLOGUE Xii- xiii

God is glorified when His law is enforced by
those who honor Him. Similarly, God is outraged
when men turn their backs on His law, for in doing
so, they turn their backs on the social and legal
restraints that alone keep man from destroying himself and the creation. Someone has called God’s law a “user’s manual” for the creation, but it is more than this: it is a user’s manual for life, God’s laws, when imparted to men redeemed by grace through faith in Christ, are the laws of life.

PROLOGUE XV

Posted by: Peter Huff | April 9, 2008 12:18 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Hi Lindajean,

I was reading over your last three post. You are not going to agree with anything that I say regarding a theocracy. That is the nature of unbelief. You would not be an unbeliever if you believed. I can give you many Biblical passages to give you a glimpse of what a theocracy would look like. Are you open to them?

Galatians 5:13-14; 6:1-2, 10; Romans 12:1-13:10; 15:1-2; Ephesians 4:2-3, 28, 32; 5:2-21; Colossians 3:12-25; 1 Thessalonians 5:11-22. The list is long. It is a call for Christians in all generation, whether living in a theocracy or not.

Only God can grant you repentance and a change of heart. What I can do is try to show you the inconsistencies of your worldview hoping God will be merciful to you. Until the Lord returns our best is going to be second best because we are sinners, we sin and fall short of God's glory (and standards). The difference between the Christian and the unbeliever is God's mercy and grace.

Posted by: Peter Huff | April 8, 2008 12:49 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Hi Gad,

GAD: "One thing I will address is where you said;

ME: "It takes a lot of faith to believe what you believe Gad."

GAD: "No Peter, it takes no faith to believe there is no god, it takes faith to believe there is one."

Every belief system or worldview takes faith to believe in Gad. It takes faith to believe there is no God for you have to view everything you see came about by another means and since something cannot create itself for it would have to exist, what is your explanation? Every effect you witness has a cause does it not? Since the CURRENT accepted worldview on the cause of the universe is the Big Bang, what is the cause of it?

No it takes faith to believe any worldview. An atheist has tremendous faith in something that has not been proved. No one (except God), and that includes you Gad, was around when the universe began. You can only speculate and draw conclusions from those speculation, as you have done. But are they reasonable and are they true?

faith

1. Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.
2. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. See synonyms at belief, trust.
3. Loyalty to a person or thing; allegiance: keeping faith with one's supporters.
4. often Faith Christianity. The theological virtue defined as secure belief in God and a trusting acceptance of God's will.
5. The body of dogma of a religion: the Muslim faith.
6. A set of principles or beliefs.

belief

1. The mental act, condition, or habit of placing trust or confidence in another: My belief in you is as strong as ever.
2. Mental acceptance of and conviction in the truth, actuality, or validity of something: His explanation of what happened defies belief.
3. Something believed or accepted as true, especially a particular tenet or a body of tenets accepted by a group of persons.

[Middle English bileve, alteration (influenced by bileven, to believe), of Old English gelēafa.]

SYNONYMS belief, credence, credit, faith. These nouns denote mental acceptance of the truth, actuality, or validity of something: a statement unworthy of belief; an idea steadily gaining credence; testimony meriting credit; has no faith in a liar's assertions. See also synonyms at opinion.
ANTONYM disbelief

It all takes faith Gad, or are you telling me that you have no faith in what you believe? That would be an extremely shaky foundation. It is anyway since true knowledge comes from God. That is my presupposition and from it I can make sense of truth and what is real. Truth and what is real is when I see things in God's light and think His thoughts after Him.

Posted by: Peter Huff | April 7, 2008 7:45 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Hi Peter,

This is the same old stuff that we've been through before. I've answered all your question many times over and have no desire to do so again.

One thing I will address is where you said;

"It takes a lot of faith to believe what you believe Gad."

No Peter, it takes no faith to believe there is no god, it takes faith to believe there is one.

Posted by: GAD | April 6, 2008 2:09 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Hi Gad,

Just a quick note found on Google under anecdotal evidence.

"In science, anecdotal evidence has been defined as:

* "information that is not based on facts or careful study"

[On this ground alone Gad I contend that the Christian faith IS based both on facts and careful study.]

* "non-scientific observations or studies, which do not provide proof but may assist research efforts"

[Again, the Christina faith has many verifiable scientific studies that confirm the pages of the Bible are reliable in what they reveal.]

* "reports or observations of usually unscientific observers"
* "casual observations or indications rather than rigorous or scientific analysis"

[Here again I contend the observations and writings are not based on casual observations, but a careful study.]

* "information passed along by word-of-mouth but not documented scientifically"

[The information was documented thoroughly.]

A common way anecdotal evidence becomes unscientific is through fallacious reasoning such as the post hoc fallacy, the human tendency to assume that if one event happens after another, then the first must be the cause of the second.

[Case in point, evolution.]

Another fallacy involves inductive reasoning. For instance, if an anecdote illustrates a desired conclusion rather than a logical conclusion, it is considered a faulty or hasty generalization.

[Case in point, evolution.]

Law

Witness testimony is a common form of evidence in law, and law has mechanisms to test witness evidence for reliability or credibility. Legal processes for the taking and assessment of evidence are formalized. Some witness testimony could be described as anecdotal evidence, such as individual stories of harassment as part of a class action lawsuit. However, witness testimony can be tested and assessed for reliability. Examples of approaches to testing and assessment include the use of questioning, evidence of corroborating witnesses, documents, video and forensic evidence. Where a court lacks suitable means to test and assess testimony of a particular witness, such as the absence of forms of corroboration or substantiation it may afford that testimony limited or no "weight" when making a decision on the facts."

End of quote.

So I contend that the Biblical evidence meets the requirements of valid eyewitness testimony as well as factually and that evolutionary evidence does not. No one was around when the earth was formed but God Himself. So your evidence I would link under anecdotal for some of the following reasons.

Where have you ever witnessed life originating by non-living chemical means? All we ever witness is the living giving birth to life. Were do you ever witness something non-personal giving birth to personality? Where do you ever find something non-thinking producing a thinking being? How do you get logic from something that is not intelligent? Without a mind how do you know anything, so were does awareness come from? Only from living things. Were do you ever find something non-living having intent? Where have you ever witnessed something amoral giving birth to morals? Were have you ever witnessed a non-living, physical object reasoning? Show me where you have ever witnessed any of these things or can prove that they originate from non-living matter? You can't. It takes a lot of faith to believe what you believe Gad.

On the other hand, it takes very little faith to believe that only life gives birth to the living, that only personality fathers personhood, that only intelligence produces logical, thinking, reasoning beings, that only a moral being is able to produce other beings capable of morals because that is all we ever witness.

How do you explain intangible, incorporeal ideas from a theory that starts with the physical, tangible, material, empirical? A rock does not have a mind, either do chemicals so show the proof how this can happen by evolutionary means. How can something concrete, physical, non-living produce thought?

Empirical evidence is dependent on something that is observable by the senses. Explain and show how senses come from matter? Explain how you get the laws of logic from something empirical?

Posted by: Peter Huff | April 5, 2008 10:59 PM
Report Offensive Comment

lindajean said:
"Peter believes anecdotal testimony (an empty tomb) is scientific evidence."

When you believe in the supernatural anecdotal testimony is all there is, therefore it has to be taken as evidence otherwise you would have nothing to hang your faith on.

Posted by: GAD | April 5, 2008 11:43 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Hi Lindajean,

My last post was not accepted and I can't get it through. I will try again Monday but this is frustrating.

Posted by: Peter Huff | April 4, 2008 9:18 PM
Report Offensive Comment

OP Sharma said, “Bertrand Russell says somewhere, in what would appear to be an echo of the Upanishads, that mere increase in knowledge, without a corresponding increase in wisdom, would amount to 'increase in sorrow.’”

Russell was a professed atheist. An increase in wisdom does not require a belief in the metaphysical (which you imply in your post.)

OP SHarma: “ ...but according to the Svetasvatara and other Upanishads, a greater achievement would be if human being also successfully accessed his inner space, the spiritual center of his being and of the entire cosmos. Both explorations should go hand in hand for complete knowledge and ‘fulfillment’. After all, it is only when one becomes a Self-realised soul, "seeing oneself in all and all in oneself", that lasting good can result from his manifold activities --- in this world or out of it. Without the necessary spiritual evolution, howsoever intellectually bright he may be, "man but unwittingly goes from death to death". If such an unregenerate person, who has not evolved from self-centeredness to Self-centeredness (where the Self stands for the Supreme Divine Reality informing the entire creation); who doesn’t think of others but only of himself; who, as Mahatma Gandhi would say, is not desirous of catering to his ‘need’ so much as to his ‘greed’; were to reach some distant star or planet and construct habitation for himself there, he will, in course of time, only...”

Do you have any evidence that exploring your “inner child” is going to make you a more virtuous person?

OP Sharma: “....succeed in polluting and ruthlessly exploiting that place as he has
polluted and ruthlessly exploited this good earth of ours. Not only this, he’ll even think of constructing military bases over there to conduct successful warfare against his ‘enemies’ on earth. No wonder, the Hindu shastras recommend, as Jesus Christ too did, that one had better seek the Kingdom of God...."

It sounds like you are bashing Christianity. The Christians (via Bush) are most certainly constructing military bases and conducting war “over there"; they are deserving of much "bashing."

Posted by: lindajean | April 4, 2008 8:45 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Peter believes anecdotal testimony (an empty tomb) is scientific evidence.

Posted by: lindajean | April 4, 2008 8:26 PM
Report Offensive Comment

You said:

“The early constitutional framers, similar in perspective as Witherspoon, were convinced that there was an intrinsic connection between morality and good government. In practical terms this means that non-Christians are not exempt from God’s moral law. An atheist, for example, cannot appeal to his atheism and freely live as an ethical anarchist.While the State certainly has no jurisdiction over his beliefs, it does have something to say about how he acts. This moral and civil authority remains an irritant for many in our day. All people, however, answer to some standard of behavior. The question is this: In a religiously diverse society, what ethical standard should the civil magistrate use to make moral judgments about civil activity? This question is the essence of the debate about a ‘Christian America.’ “

The debate about Christian America is whether the government has the right to establish a religion or laws that promote religious beliefs (such as the 10 commandments or prayer in schools.) The Gov does not have this right, and the first amendment states the government does not have this right, and even a 3rd grader can read the words and determine this.

Congress sets the ethical standards of civil activity by passing laws that make certain acts illegal (along with the states.) The Constitution spells this out very clearly as well (as opposed to you who thinks it is the Bible and its moral absolutism that ought to set the standards and law.) (LOL, this is basic government civics here, Peter. This is the stuff 4th graders are taught.)

Unfortunately, the Christian Right is eroding the first amendment because of their political clout in Congress, The Supreme Court and the White House.

You said, “Freedom and liberty, ideals cherished by all Americans, were rooted in a biblical moral order. Liberty was not license. Freedom was not the right always to do what one pleased.”

There is no evidence that these values originated in the Bible. But I agree that the Bible has its own specious definitions and interpretations of all kinds of things--freedom and liberty as well.

LOL! Perhaps you ought to publish a Biblical dictionary so that we can understand the real meaning of the English language according to the Bible. Do we also have a different meaning for “love” and “compassion” and “family” and “wealth” and “poverty” and “slavery” and “adultery” and “divorce” and....

You said, “ For Winthrop, success was much more explicitly tied to the creation of a certain kind of ethical community than it is for most Americans today.His idea of freedom differs from ours in a similar way. He decried what he called “natural liberty,” which is the freedom to do whatever John Winthrop described the group of Puritans who formed Massachusetts Bay Colony as “a Company professing ourselves fellow members of Christ.... True freedom—what he called “moral” freedom, “in reference to the covenant between God and man”—is a liberty “to that only which is good, just and honest.” “This liberty,” he said, “you are to stand for with the hazard of your lives.”17 Winthrop’s definition of liberty is far from the modern meaning of liberty. As it is usually defined today, liberty is freedom from moral restraints. One is not truly free, according to the contemporary use of the term, if one is bound by any moral code’

If “freedom” and “liberty” take on the derivations you have described, then our laws will reflect such meanings and we will become a theocracy. (We are already beginning to see some inklings of that.) I think you have just told me what your definition of a theocracy is. The problem with all of this (obviously) is, who will define what one’s “covenant “ must be with God and what happens if someone in your theocracy breaks that convenant or refuses to have this relationship with God?

Peter, have you ever thought about the fact you cannot force people to accept your God? As soon as you apply this belief into a legal system you have now become a dictator.

The Constitution says nothing about “moral” freedom or a “covenant between God and man.” These are words that Christians make passionate love to, but to attribute them to the Constitution is absurd. Whatever your "man of the hour's" interpretation of the "community" (or the Constitution) was in regards to himself and his God, it only reveals his religiously tainted view of how he believed the community or Constitution ought to work. The same can be said for you.

It’s enough to give this atheist nightmares.

Posted by: lindajean | April 4, 2008 8:18 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Please publish this in any suitable columns of yours. Thanks.
--- by O.P. Sharma

Bertrand Russell says somewhere, in what would appear to be an echo of the Upanishads, that mere increase in knowledge, without a corresponding increase in wisdom, would amount to 'increase in sorrow'. Arthur C. Clarke, who recently passed away, gave the much-needed 'intellectual drive', according to the scientists of the US, to exploration of outer space ---- to man's landing on the moon. This last was a great achievement no doubt, and so were Clarke’s, but according to the Svetasvatara and other Upanishads, a greater achievement would be if human being also successfully accessed his inner space, the spiritual center of his being and of the entire cosmos. Both explorations should go hand in hand for complete knowledge and ‘fulfillment’. After all, it is only when one becomes a Self-realised soul, "seeing oneself in all and all in oneself", that lasting good can result from his manifold activities --- in this world or out of it. Without the necessary spiritual evolution, howsoever intellectually bright he may be, "man but unwittingly goes from death to death". If such an unregenerate person, who has not evolved from self-centeredness to Self-centeredness (where the Self stands for the Supreme Divine Reality informing the entire creation); who doesn’t think of others but only of himself; who, as Mahatma Gandhi would say, is not desirous of catering to his ‘need’ so much as to his ‘greed’; were to reach some distant star or planet and construct habitation for himself there, he will, in course of time, only
(1)
succeed in polluting and ruthlessly exploiting that place as he has
polluted and ruthlessly exploited this good earth of ours. Not only this, he’ll even think of constructing military bases over there to conduct successful warfare against his ‘enemies’ on earth. No wonder, the Hindu shastras recommend, as Jesus Christ too did, that one had better seek the Kingdom of God (which is within us --- isvara sarvabhutanam hridesherjuna tishti, as Sri Krishna, in the Bhagvad-Gita, maintained), and acquire dharma (God’s righteousness) first, even before “trying to wrap up the skies like leather.” Thus he’ll become useful to himself and others also. The famous German professor, F. Max Mueller, will, consequently, be seen to have rightly observed (in his Three Lectures on the Vedanta Philosophy, London, 1894, p.7): ‘But if it seems strange to you that the old Indian philosophers should have known more about the soul than Greek or medieval or modern philosophers, let us remember that however much the telescopes for observing the stars of heaven have been improved, the observatories of the soul have remained much the same.’ This shortcoming needs to be rectified if one were to become truly universal, which one cannot by ‘just physically exploring the universe.’ A supremely realized soul, as mentioned above, will see himself in all others, and behave towards them as he would towards himself (atmavatsarvabhuteshu). In fact, he’ll see no ‘others’, no enemies, no evil nations or people to be wiped out altogether--- he’ll have transcended all limitations of time and space etc.. (desha, kala, nimitta), overcome the ignorance of duality.

--------------------xxxxx------------------------xxxxx---------------------
(2)

Posted by: Om Prakash Sharma | April 4, 2008 7:34 AM
Report Offensive Comment

"there is testimony in the Bible that collaborates the evidence of the virgin birth and the resurrection, such as trying to explain away the empty tomb"

LOL! How do we know the tomb was empty, because the "story" says so! LOL! Same old crap!

Posted by: GAD | April 4, 2008 2:54 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Peter:

You: If you don't like the rules then you would have the option of moving to another country in which they were more to your liking. I think that living in a biblical theocracy would be more beneficial to loving your neighbor than living in Hitler's Germany or in any other country.

Only beneficial if I followed your biblical script. You still haven’t answered my question. What happens to the atheist that doesn’t follow your Bible? What happens to someone who breaks one of the 10 commandments?

You:
Actually that is the very thing Christians are fighting to maintain today, their right to worship.

Explain how the government is preventing Christians from worshiping.

You: The Declaration of Independence which came before the Constitution states,

"“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.—That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,—That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

That is a declaration for independence, It is not the law of the land. Only a philosophy about the rights and freedoms of people. It was their version of what man is entitled as a human being and based on Enlightenment views.

You: “Many of the men who framed the Constitution were Christians and believed in God. Their minds would have, as such been influenced by their beliefs.”

They were so greatly influenced they didn’t even mention god in the constitution which is the supreme law of the land.

You: “Here again you are making an absolute statement. The "best" implies that there is no better.”

The best implies we are human and we have limitations.

Posted by: lindajean | April 2, 2008 7:54 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Peter--

Only beneficial if I followed your biblical script. You still haven’t answered my question. What happens to the atheist that doesn’t follow your Biblical laws?

You:
Actually that is the very thing Christians are fighting to maintain today, their right to worship.

Explain how the government is preventing Christians from worshiping.

You: The Declaration of Independence which came before the Constitution states,

That is a declaration for independence. It is not the law of the land. Only a philosophy about the rights and freedoms of people. It was their version of what man is entitled as a human being.

You: “Many of the men who framed the Constitution were Christians and believed in God. Their minds would have, as such been influenced by their beliefs.”

They were so influenced they didn’t even mention god in the constitution which is the supreme law of the land.

You: “What do you expect me to tell you about living in a theocracy, that your will is what will rule the rest?”

You: “Here again you are making an absolute statement. The "best" implies that there is no better.”

The best implies we are human and we have limitations.

Posted by: lindajean | April 2, 2008 6:10 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Peter:

You: “Do you count testimony as evidence?"

Testimony that falls within the realm of “normal” (physical laws) would be more inclined to be considered evidence. Not all of "normal" testimony is evidence. Testimony saying Jesus was born of a virgin is not “normal”. Testimony saying little green men live on mars is not valid evidence either.

Posted by: lindajean | April 1, 2008 6:34 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Hi Lindajean,

I'm working today so I will try and answer your questions tomorrow or Thursday.

Posted by: Peter Huff | April 1, 2008 8:43 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Peter:

LJ: "Where do you draw the line?"

You: What does it matter where I draw the line, it is where God draws the line that matters. The only theocracy worth its weight is the one in which Jesus Christ is ruling and reigning. And when He rules and reigns those who oppose will be separated from His presence for what does light and darkness have in common?

It matters where you or whoever is running your (hypothetical) theocracy draws the line.

You: I don't have any rights to limit freedoms, only the sovereign Lord has exclusive right to mandate what His creatures are free to do and not to do. But living in a Biblical theocracy the evil that abounds in the world at present would not be as evident, and living under the rule and reign of Christ on earth there would be no evil for the sheep and goats would be separated. In a Christian theocracy before the return of the Lord the mandate would be, as the apostle Paul said..’

What happens to people in your theocracy that don’t believe in God?

You: When Christ returns it would be completely pure, until then there would be shortcomings, but things would not be like they are at present in most countries where almost anything goes or is now possible.

I am not talking about Christ returning. I am talking about a hypothetical theocracy under Christian rule instead of the type of constitutional democracies we see in western societies.

You: “There again, by-in-large the theocracies that you speak of are not biblical theocracies. The USA may have been built on Christian ideals but it is no longer there.”

No, but that is what I am trying to engage you in. A conversation about a Christian theocracy. What would it look like?

LJ: "Why do you need to "quell" others' words in your God-loving theocracy?"

Peter: "It depends on what is said. It would not be a theocracy based on truth long if it was not governed by the principles of the one and only true God."

LJ: "What exactly does it "depend on"?

You: “It depends on God's word, the one and only true God, the Biblical God.”

You are not answering may question. I’ll try another way. Which human beings get to decide what is “god’s word?” There are hundreds, thousands, of versions.

You: Nothing to people who do not speak my "ordained truth." If God has not said it you are believing a lie. That is why I back up what I say with Scripture, if you would like to call what I say into question. Only if what I say lines up with God's word would it be ordained truth. If I am saying something contrary to it then call me on it.”

Nothing happens to people who don’t worship your God in this hypothetical theocracy? Get real. How does a theocracy work when there are all these interpretations of god’s word?

Posted by: lindajean | March 31, 2008 7:03 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Hi Lindajean,

Use http://www before address

americanvision.com/index.asp?PageAction=VIEWPROD&ProdID=905

americanvision.org/downloads/America's%20Christian%20History%20Web.pdf

From the pdf file,

The early constitutional framers, similar in perspective as Witherspoon, were convinced that there was an intrinsic connection between morality and good government. In practical terms this means that non-Christians are not exempt from God’s moral law. An atheist, for example, cannot appeal to his atheism and freely live as an ethical anarchist.
While the State certainly has no jurisdiction over his beliefs, it does have something to say about how he acts. This moral and civil authority
remains an irritant for many in our day. All people, however, answer to some standard of behavior. The question is this: In a religiously diverse society, what ethical standard should the civil magistrate use to make moral judgments about civil activity? This question is the essence of the debate about a “Christian America.”

Freedom and liberty, ideals cherished by all Americans, were rooted in a biblical moral order. Liberty was not license. Freedom was not the
right always to do what one pleased.

For Winthrop, success was much more explicitly tied to the creation of a certain kind of ethical community than it is for most Americans today.
His idea of freedom differs from ours in a similar way. He decried what he called “natural liberty,” which is the freedom to do whatever John Winthrop described the group of Puritans who formed
Massachusetts Bay Colony as “a Company professing ourselves fellow members of Christ.”
... True freedom—what he called “moral” freedom, “in reference to the covenant between God and man”—is a liberty “to that only which is good, just and honest.” “This liberty,” he said, “you are to stand for with the hazard of your lives.”17
Winthrop’s definition of liberty is far from the modern meaning of liberty. As it is usually defined today, liberty is freedom from moral
restraints. One is not truly free, according to the contemporary use of the term, if one is bound by any moral code."

End of quote.

Posted by: Peter Huff | March 31, 2008 5:42 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Hi again,

Peter: "Tyranny is a form of government based on cruelty and injustice. God is completely just and fair and those breaking His law get what they deserve, unless God is merciful to them by His grace. You don't earn mercy. It is something that is given to the undeserving. The rest will be justly punished.'

LJ: "Why do you think our forefathers (the men who wrote the Constitution) rebelled against England, the Monarchy and the Church?"

Peter: "I'm sure there were many reasons, but many who first settled America were Puritans, fleeing from religious persecution, so they built into your constitution a clause so that men would have the right to worship freely, as they were denied."

LJ: "Exactly my point. They were crucified by a Monarchy and State Religion."

One that was not true to Scripture.

LJ: "Those words are very clear. Gov cannot tell me who to worship and Gov cannot prevent me from worshiping whom I want. It doesn't get any clearer."

LJ: "You only see one side of the coin. There is the right to worship without the government intervening."

And you only see the other. You were the one who asked me about a theocracy and I responded. In a biblical theocracy just like in any government there are rules. An atheist does not like these rules because they want to be autonomous and are opposed to them. If you don't like the rules then you would have the option of moving to another country in which they were more to your liking. I think that living in a biblical theocracy would be more beneficial to loving your neighbor than living in Hitler's Germany or in any other country.

LJ: "No one is trying to keep you from worshiping God in this country. You have that freedom."

Actually that is the very thing Christians are fighting to maintain today, their right to worship.

LJ: " The other side of the coin is the government does not have the right to tell you who to worship, who your God is and force you to believe something you do not want to believe."

Well the government is represented by the people in a democracy and if enough people can change the law then the government will have the power to tell you what freedoms you do have, as they do now. At the moment we have certain rights in worship.

As for who God is, there is only one living and true God and He is the One who determines what is right and who is in power.

Peter: "I believe some of these people who framed your constitution wanted the church to influence government."

LJ: "There is no mention of God in the Constitution. So whatever influence they wanted in the Gov they must had not wanted it very badly. Why would they want church influence when they fought a war with Britain to get out from under a monarchy dictated by the Church of England?

The Declaration of Independence which came before the Constitution states,

Many of the men who framed the Constitution were Christians and believed in God. Their minds would have, as such been influenced by their beliefs.

LJ: "In a theocracy there is no choice about who you will worship."

Peter: "In an atheist regime there is no worship, except of man worshiping himself. "I am so wise, there is nothing I cannot do."

LJ: "And you believe the Government ought to tell me (an atheist) who and what to worship? Who and what to believe? That is CREEPY."

You asked me about a theocracy. I have told you why a biblical theocracy would be better than a government that did not believe in God. I don't expect you to like it, it is opposed to what you believe.

LJ: "You keep dancing around this. Why not tell me what you really think?"

See above and the previous post.

Peter: "The scary thought Lindajean is a relative, postmodern, pluralistic world in which truth is whatever you choose to make it. In such a world anything is morally possible, anything is socially acceptable and all things are permissible as long as you can find the strength in numbers to enforce your belief. Heaven help you if you are in the minority."

LJ: "Exactly. "Heaven help" me. I am in the minority (Atheist) and from your words you want the Gov to start deciding what "truths" I ought to believe."

What do you expect me to tell you about living in a theocracy, that your will is what will rule the rest?

LJ: "You support truth with the Bible. That is no different than me supporting truth with some thing else. Our truths are relative."

That is not true. It is different. God's word is the absolute, true standard. Our truths are not relative. One is true the other is not. Either there is a God who decrees what will be or there is not. There cannot be and not be a God who decrees and does not decree whatever comes to pass. It is an either/or, not an and/both. Either there is an absolute basis for truth or truth is false, it changes depending on who is calling it true. I say one thing, you another and never the two shall meet or be reconciled. Red is green, up is down, I'm here physically at my computer and I'm not here at my computer physically at this very minute. It does matter what you believe.

LJ: "The best we can do is behave in ways that minimize harming others. And coveting my neighbor or "forgetting" the Sabbath , etc...have nothing to do with that."

Here again you are making an absolute statement. The "best" implies that there is no better. How do you know there is no better? Are you all knowing? Can you see into the future to determine that the decision you make now will be the best later? Do you know One who is all knowing that you can determine best? If best is relative then my best is better than your best. Can you picture me sticking my tongue out at you? (:

It is late. Bye for now Lindajean.

Posted by: Peter Huff | March 31, 2008 3:46 AM
Report Offensive Comment

To continue Lindajean,

Peter: "" But the fact is still there that in its pages over and over and over again it claims to be the word of God. That is evidence.'"

LJ: "Claiming something makes it "evidence."?
Only in the minds of the religious."

Do you count testimony as evidence? That is what the gospel accounts are, eyewitness testimony among other things such as historical texts. They are evidence whether you choose to try and discredit them or not.

"Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word." (Luke 1:1-2)

"To the elders among you, I appeal as a fellow elder, a witness of Christ's sufferings and one who will share in the lory to be revealed..." (1 Peter 5:1)

"We did not follow cleverly invented stories when we told you about the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of His majesty." (2 Peter 1:16)

"That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our own eyes, which we have looked at and our hands have touched - this we proclaim concerning the Word of life. The life appeared; we have seen it and testified to it, and we proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and has appeared to us. We proclaim to you what we have seen and heard, so that you also may have fellowship with us. And our fellowship is with the Father and with His Son, Jesus Christ. We write this to make our joy complete." (1 John 1:1-7)

"...how shall we escape if we ignore such a great salvation? This salvation, which was first announced by the Lord, was confirmed to us by those who heard Him. God also testifies to it by signs, wonders and various miracles, and gifts of the Holy Spirit distributed according to His will." (Hebrews 2:3-4)

LJ: "The Koran (or one of its off-shoots) claims killing infidels will get you 72 virgins in heaven. That's evidence?"

Peter: "Yes, but how well does it coincide with what is real? Studying the life of Muhammad shows he was influenced by a number of religious teachings; Zoroastrianism, Judaism, Christianity and the local pagan deity of the half moon."

LJ: "Exactly my point and how does Jesus being born from a virgin "coincide with what is real?" Only because you believe it is coming from God"

Not only because I believe it comes from God and is true but because it is. Truth has no relevance on whether or not I believe it, truth is true despite how I feel about it for how can truth be false? Research Muhammad more and find out what influenced him. Find out how consistent Islam is with what is real, what is true. Remember both Christianity and Islam cannot both be true because they both make different claims. I know you would contend that neither is, but that is something you would have to provide proof for, as you require me to do the same.

There is historical evidence stating such that claims to be the very word of God. He was not born in the usual manner, a seed from a male for then He would have inherited Adams nature and disposition after the Fall like the rest of us have.

Your worldview is not reasonable. In all you ever witness where can you show me life or mind or intent coming from a non-living, non-thinking, non-intentional thing? There is no evidence. How about answering some of those questions? You do so well to avoid them, but of the many times I have put these questions to you or any other atheist all I get is avoidance or a change of subject.

LJ: "What about the impossibility of Jesus rising from the dead?

Peter: "Not impossible for God, although I don't expect you to grasp that fact since you live in the realm of possibility only in a natural world."

LJ: "Of Jesus being born of a Virgin?
"Of Jesus feeding hundreds with a couple of dead fish?
"Of Jesus bringing people back from the dead?"

Peter: "Yes.'

LJ: "How does any of this "coincide with evidence"? none. You demand other religions to coincide with evidence and you do not demand it from your own--or you claim your religion has evidence but it has no more evidence than anyone else. You are taking the word evidence which has several different definitions and you are applying them to religion. The "evidence" in a critique of religion requires "proof" not "testimony"."

There is historical proof that the Bible is accurate when it names people, places, events. There is proof that the Bible is accurate when it tells future events like the fall of Jerusalem in 70A.D. that was predicted by Jesus before His death around forty years earlier. I can get into this aspect if you like. There is proof if you consider the integrity of the apostles and their message in these and other areas. There is proof in changed lives that come from the preaching of the message. Reliability is established in a court of law by eyewitness testimony. The Bible gives the grounds for determining eyewitness testimony. It is determined on the grounds of two to three reliable eyewitnesses. So even though Lindajean does not accept it as evidence it is done so in a court of law.

LJ: "In a court of law, you must prove (beyond a reasonable doubt) that someone is guilty. You, Peter, must prove to me beyond a reasonable doubt that Jesus was born of a Virgin. And someone's eye-witness "testimony" is not proof."

Lindajean, the nature of a skeptic is skeptical. Any evidence I give you you will brush off as evidence unless God opens your heart, mind, ears, eyes to the truth. You have built your worldview on presuppositions that are contrary to the Gospel and Word of truth. Your very base would crumble if you changed your belief. You would not be the autonomous person you believe you are, you would be dependent for your very next breath on Someone greater than you. That is not something you want to face. Ever seen a literal physical stone breath? Where is the evidence that you can point to of anything non-living that has ever given birth or produced something living and breathing?

I have evidence that I can point to that only something living gives birth to life, only something thinking gives birth to mind, only something that has a mind has intent. Your worldview is bleak to say the least. There is no meaning or purpose to life, you are "just dust in the wind."

Peter: "Absolute truth implies at least two things: 1) that whatever is true at one time and in one place is true at all times and in all places, and 2) that whatever is true for one person is true for all persons. Absolute truth does not change [for God cannot lie]" When Skeptics Ask, p. 255-256.

LJ: "The Bible contradicts its own absolute truth if we go by this definition."

Peter: "Oh really, how does it do that Lindajean?"

LJ: "It claims that we ought to love our neighbors as ourselves and then it says an eye for an eye."

Yes we "ought to" but what happens when we don't? When we don't justice is needed.

In your worldview you cannot explain why your brand of ethics is right. Cultures change from age to age and place to place so why should I adopt your cultures view of things? What makes your cultures view of things right when another culture or another age has a completely different view of right. Which culture actually has the right view?

LJ: "It says we ought to forgive and then it says you will go to hell if you don't believe. Those are contradictions of absolute truths. There are more."

There reason people go to hell is because they have broken God's perfect laws. Why do you expect anything less than justice from a just God? Mercy is getting what we don't deserve. You don't deserve God's grace, neither do I. God gives it in His Son for those who will believe, for those whom He has mercy on, for those whom He appoints to eternal life. Do you have ears to hear? Do you have eyes to see the truth?

"In reply Jesus declared, "I tell you the truth, no one can see the kingdom of God unless he is born again....Jesus answered, "I tell you the truth, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit....For God so loved the world that He gave His one and only Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish but have eternal life." (John 3:3, 5, 16)

I will finish on another post Lindajean.

Posted by: Peter Huff | March 31, 2008 2:43 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Hi Lindajean,

How was your weekend?

LJ: "When you say, "Praising God, rejoicing in the [your] truth" this means you want a theocracy that denies a person's freedom of speech?"

Peter: "Not my truth Lindajean, God's truth, and as such all human beings are to be treated fairly, although justly, but in any fair and just government there are certain freedoms to be enjoyed. Freedoms have limitations and as such justice is still required. To be free to do anything is not healthy. It only takes a little yeast to spread through the whole batter of dough. Freedom in everything is anarchy. Freedom of speech to degrade and abuse another verbally is cruelty, or slander and misrepresent can be a criminal offense. Where do you draw the line?"

LJ: "Where do you draw the line?"

What does it matter where I draw the line, it is where God draws the line that matters. The only theocracy worth its weight is the one in which Jesus Christ is ruling and reigning. And when He rules and reigns those who oppose will be separated from His presence for what does light and darkness have in common?

LJ: "What freedoms are too much? What freedoms do you want to limit and at what price?"

I don't have any rights to limit freedoms, only the sovereign Lord has exclusive right to mandate what His creatures are free to do and not to do. But living in a Biblical theocracy the evil that abounds in the world at present would not be as evident, and living under the rule and reign of Christ on earth there would be no evil for the sheep and goats would be separated. In a Christian theocracy before the return of the Lord the mandate would be, as the apostle Paul said,

"So I tell you this, and insist on it in the Lord, that you must not live as the Gentiles do, in the futility of their thinking. They are darkened in their understanding and separated from God because of their ignorance that is in them due to the hardening of their hearts. Having lost all sensitivity, they have given themselves over to sensuality so as to indulge in every kind of impurity, with a continual lust for more.
You, however, did not come to know Christ that way. Surely you heard of Him and were taught in Him in accordance with the truth that is in Jesus. You were taught, with regards to your former way of life, to put off your old self, which is being corrupted by its deceitful desires; to be made new in the attitude of your minds; and to put on the new self, created to be like God in true righteousness and holiness.
Therefore each of you must put off falsehood and speak truthfully to his neighbor, for we are all members of one body. In your anger do not sin" : Do not let the sun go down while you are still angry, and do not give the devil a foothold. He who has been stealing must steal no longer, but must work, doing something useful with his hands, that he may have something to share with those in need.
Do not let any unwholesome talk come out of your mouths, but only what is helpful for building others up according to their needs, that it may benefit those who listen. And do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, with whom you were sealed for the day of redemption. Get rid of all bitterness, rage and anger, brawling and slander, along with every form of malice. Be compassionate to one another, just as in Christ God forgave you." (Ephesians 4:17-32)

The kind of rule in a biblical theocracy would incorporate these kinds of limits to freedom along with others Paul mentions in the next two chapters - 5:1-6:9 and are mentioned elsewhere throughout the pages of Scripture.
Please notice how these verses, along with the ones I cited relate to the Ten Commandments if you choose to read them. That is how I picture in part a biblical theocracy on the earth at present. When Christ returns it would be completely pure, until then there would be shortcomings, but things would not be like they are at present in most countries where almost anything goes or is now possible.

And that is how Christians are called to live in this present evil age, whether we live in a theocracy or a dictatorship. Living in a biblical theocracy would definitely be a better world in which to live.

Peter: "Freedom of speech has limitations even in the USA. Some things a person should be accountable for."

LJ: "Freedom of speech does have limitations. But people in Western society do not get killed for speaking against their government. In a theocracy there would be a large price for speaking out against the "God." This occurs in current theocracies."

There again, by-in-large the theocracies that you speak of are not biblical theocracies. The USA may have been built on Christian ideals but it is no longer there.

LJ: "Why do you need to "quell" others' words in your God-loving theocracy?"

Peter: "It depends on what is said. It would not be a theocracy based on truth long if it was not governed by the principles of the one and only true God."

LJ: "What exactly does it "depend on"?

It depends on God's word, the one and only true God, the Biblical God.

LJ: "Who decides what it depends on? So much for absolute truth."

God decides, we abide for He is sovereign. We, as Christians are called to trust and obey. That is not possible unless we have been born anew or regenerated by the Holy Spirit, for as I said before what do darkness and light have in common?

LJ: "What will happen to the people who don't believe and who do not speak your ordained "truth"?"

Nothing to people who do not speak my "ordained truth." If God has not said it you are believing a lie. That is why I back up what I say with Scripture, if you would like to call what I say into question. Only if what I say lines up with God's word would it be ordained truth. If I am saying something contrary to it then call me on it.

I'll continue on the next post Lindajean.

Posted by: Peter Huff | March 31, 2008 1:28 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Hi Peter:

You said, "Lindajean, that theocracy will never come until the Lord Jesus Christ returns. In the mean time the best we could ever achieve is a poor second. But a society based on Biblical truths is better than one based on little truth. A society that lived in harmony with the Lord's teaching would be one that loved its neighbor and only wanted the best for its neighbor, one in which the needs of the poor would be looked after, others would be honored and thought of above the interests of oneself, where the virtues of love,joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, gentleness and self control would be sought after, where going the extra mile for not only your enemy, but also your neighbor would be the norm, where what is evil is hated."

Utopia. Unreality. Love your neighbor is a good standard.But such love is basically part of our genetic makeup with some cultural aspects thrown in.

LJ: "When you say, "Praising God, rejoicing in the [your] truth" this means you want a theocracy that denies a person's freedom of speech?"

Where do you draw the line? What freedoms are too much? What freedoms do you want to limit and at what price?

Peter: "Freedom of speech has limitations even in the USA. Some things a person should be accountable for."

Freedom of speech does have limitations. But people in Western society do not get killed for speaking against their government. In a theocracy there would be a large price for speaking out against the "God." This occurs in current theocracies.

LJ: "Why do you need to "quell" others' words in your God-loving theocracy?"

Peter: "It depends on what is said. It would not be a theocracy based on truth long if it was not governed by the principles of the one and only true God."

What exactly does it "depend on"? Who decides what it depends on? So much for absolute truth.

What will happen to the people who don't believe and who do not speak your ordained "truth"?

Peter: "" But the fact is still there that in its pages over and over and over again it claims to be the word of God. That is evidence.'"

LJ: "Claiming something makes it "evidence."?
Only in the minds of the religious."

Peter: "Dictionary:evidence n.1. A thing or things helpful in forming a conclusion or judgment: The broken window was evidence that a burglary had taken place. Scientists weigh the evidence for and against a hypothesis.
2. Something indicative; an outward sign: evidence of grief on a mourner's face.
3. Law. The documentary or oral statements and the material objects admissible as testimony in a court of law.
tr.v., -denced, -denc·ing, -denc·es.
1. To indicate clearly; exemplify or prove.
2. To support by testimony; attest."

"Prove" --right on. No proof in your words or bible.

LJ: "The Koran (or one of its off-shoots) claims killing infidels will get you 72 virgins in heaven. That's evidence?"

Exactly my point and how does Jesus being born from a virgin "coincide with what is real?" Only because you believe it is coming from God

LJ: "What about the impossibility of Jesus rising from the dead?

Peter: "Not impossible for God, although I don't expect you to grasp that fact since you live in the realm of possibility only in a natural world."

LJ: "Of Jesus being born of a Virgin?
"Of Jesus feeding hundreds with a couple of dead fish?
"Of Jesus bringing people back from the dead?"

Peter: "Yes.'

How does any of this "coincide with evidence"? none. You demand other religions to coincide with evidence and you do not demand it from your own--or you claim your religion has evidence but it has no more evidence than anyone else. You are taking the word evidence which has several different definitions and you are applying them to religion. The "evidence" in a critique of religion requires "proof" not "testimony". In a court of law, you must prove (beyond a reasonable doubt) that someone is guilty. You, Peter, must prove to me beyond a reasonable doubt that Jesus was born of a Virgin. And someone's eye-witness "testimony" is not proof.

LJ: "The Bible contradicts its own absolute truth if we go by this definition."

Peter: "Oh really, how does it do that Lindajean?"

It claims that we ought to love our neighbors as ourselves and then it says an eye for an eye. It says we ought to forgive and then it says you will go to hell if you don't believe. Those are contradictions of absolute truths. There are more.

LJ: "Why do you think our forefathers (the men who wrote the Constitution) rebelled against England, the Monarchy and the Church?"

Exactly my point. They were crucified by a Monarchy and State Religion.

Peter: "I believe you are wrong. I believe it was to protect their right to worship God as they saw fit, so that no one could take that right away as many are in the process of trying to do now in your land. If you want to protect your own right to worship as you believe, then you have to grant others the same right to worship as they see fit, for the very fact that one day the religious principles that your constitution was founded on may be in jeopardy."

This is part of the first amendment called the establishment clause. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

Those words are very clear. Gov cannot tell me who to worship and Gov cannot prevent me from worshiping whom I want. It doesn't get any clearer.

You only see one side of the coin. There is the right to worship without the government intervening. No one is trying to keep you from worshiping God in this country. You have that freedom. The other side of the coin is the government does not have the right to tell you who to worship, who your God is and force you to believe something you do not want to believe.

Peter: "I believe some of these people who framed your constitution wanted the church to influence government."

There is no mention of God in the Constitution. So whatever influence they wanted in the Gov they must had not wanted it very badly. Why would they want church influence when they fought a war with Brittain to get out from under a monarchy dictated by the Church of England?

LJ: "In a theocracy there is no choice about who you will worship."

Peter: "In an atheist regime there is no worship, except of man worshiping himself. "I am so wise, there is nothing I cannot do."

And you believe the Government ought to tell me (an atheist) who and what to worship? Who and what to believe? That is CREEPY.

You keep dancing around this. Why not tell me what you really think?

Exactly. "Heaven help" me. I am in the minority (Atheist) and from your words you want the Gov to start deciding what "truths" I ought to believe.

You support truth with the Bible. That is no different than me supporting truth with some thing else. Our truths are relative.
The best we can do is behave in ways that minimize harming others. And coveting my neighbor or "forgetting" the Sabbath , etc...have nothing to do with that.

Posted by: lindajean | March 28, 2008 7:32 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Hi Lindajean,

Interesting post. I will try and explain why the Ten Commandments address the issues you talked about. Sorry I don't have time now. Work comes early.

Let me sum it up quickly now and I will return to it at a later date, the Lord willing.

"Let no debt remain outstanding, except the continuing debt to love one another, for he who loves his fellowman has fulfilled the law. The commandments, "Do not commit adultery," "Do not murder," "Do not steal," "Do not covet," and whatever other commandment there may be, are summed up in this one rule: "Love your neighbor as yourself." Love does no harm to its neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law." (Romans 13:8-10)

So this rule sums up the law. I'll explain more later, the Lord willing.

LJ: "You never answered my theocracy questions."

LJ: "Peter, so you are saying you would want to live in a theocracy that “quells the words of LJ and atheists” as long as you could worship your God?"

Lindajean, that theocracy will never come until the Lord Jesus Christ returns. In the mean time the best we could ever achieve is a poor second. But a society based on Biblical truths is better than one based on little truth. A society that lived in harmony with the Lord's teaching would be one that loved its neighbor and only wanted the best for its neighbor, one in which the needs of the poor would be looked after, others would be honored and thought of above the interests of oneself, where the virtues of love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, gentleness and self control would be sought after, where going the extra mile for not only your enemy, but also your neighbor would be the norm, where what is evil is hated.

LJ: "When you say, “Praising God, rejoicing in the [your] truth” this means you want a theocracy that denies a person’s freedom of speech?"

Not my truth Lindajean, God's truth, and as such all human beings are to be treated fairly, although justly, but in any fair and just government there are certain freedoms to be enjoyed. Freedoms have limitations and as such justice is still required. To be free to do anything is not healthy. It only takes a little yeast to spread through the whole batter of dough.
Freedom in everything is anarchy. Freedom of speech to degrade and abuse another verbally is cruelty, or slander and misrepresent can be a criminal offense. Where do you draw the line?

LJ: "If the answer is yes, what other freedoms are you willing to quell? You already have the right to worship your God (under the Constitution or the Canadian equivalent.)"

Freedom of speech has limitations even in the USA. Some things a person should be accountable for.

LJ: "Why do you need to “quell” others’ words in your God-loving theocracy?"

It depends on what is said. It would not be a theocracy based on truth long if it was not governed by the principles of the one and only true God.

ME: "“ But the fact is still there that in its pages over and over and over again it claims to be the word of God. That is evidence.’"

LJ: "Claiming something makes it “evidence.”?
Only in the minds of the religious."

The Bible claims it is the word of God and as such I appeal to it as evidence. Whether you wish to see it that way or not does not change the fact that its pages claim to be the very words of God, over and over. As such it is evidence.

Dictionary:
evidence

n.

1. A thing or things helpful in forming a conclusion or judgment: The broken window was evidence that a burglary had taken place. Scientists weigh the evidence for and against a hypothesis.
2. Something indicative; an outward sign: evidence of grief on a mourner's face.
3. Law. The documentary or oral statements and the material objects admissible as testimony in a court of law.

tr.v., -denced, -denc·ing, -denc·es.

1. To indicate clearly; exemplify or prove.
2. To support by testimony; attest.

LJ: "The Koran (or one of its off-shoots) claims killing infidels will get you 72 virgins in heaven. That’s evidence?"

Yes, but how well does it coincide with what is real? Studying the life of Muhammad shows he was influenced by a number of religious teachings; Zoroastrianism, Judaism, Christianity and the local pagan deity of the half moon.

ME: “Science believes the universe and this world had a beginning, whereas God proclaims He is without beginning, so which is more feasible? That is evidence.”

LJ: "Something without beginning is more feasible than something with a beginning?
This is evidence?"

It is when you look at the nature of this world and the living. No where do we see or has anyone ever witnessed life coming from non-life and yet that is a pet theory of evolution. How is it possible? The same could be said for the current most popular scientific theory of origins, the Big Bang. Supposedly this universe had a beginning according to this theory (and I would agree, but not on the time frame or method), yet in order for something it come into being in all we ever witness something had to give it being. Life gives birth to life and nothing we ever witness creates itself from nothing.

ME: “As I said before, the evidence is the impossibility of the contrary.’"

LJ: "What about the impossibility of Jesus rising from the dead?

Not impossible for God, although I don't expect you to grasp that fact since you live in the realm of possibility only in a natural world.

LJ: "Of Jesus being born of a Virgin?"

Yes.

LJ: "Of Jesus feeding hundreds with a couple of dead fish?"

Yes.

LJ: "Of Jesus bringing people back from the dead?"

Yes.

ME: “It makes sense that only a mind can give birth to or create another mind.”

LJ: "Evolution makes sense. A birth of my son with a thinking mind is from evolution. That thinking mind evolved."

Okay, please explain how it can happen and where you have ever witnessed it happening that a non-thinking, non-logical, mindless, non-living process or for that matter a physical, mindless, unthinking, non-living material has given birth to a living, thinking, being. You live by one massive leap of faith Lindajean, unless you can do that, the kind of faith that fairy tales of made of. "Once upon a time, long, long, long ago..."

ME: "Absolute truth implies at least two things: 1) that whatever is true at one time and in one place is true at all times and in all places, and 2) that whatever is true for one person is true for all persons. Absolute truth does not change [for God cannot lie]" When Skeptics Ask, p. 255-256.

LJ: "The Bible contradicts its own absolute truth if we go by this definition."

Oh really, how does it do that Lindajean?

ME: “Your country was built on the concepts and principles of God. It is no longer so because, just like Israel in ancient times, they forgot the One who was true.’

LJ: "The Constitution was built on ideals."

Those ideals in large came from minds that were influenced by faith in the living God.

ME: “Praising God, rejoicing in the truth and inviting, as God has called Christians to, others to share in His mercy and grace.”

LJ: "A government based on God is a form of tyranny."

Tyranny is a form of government based on cruelty and injustice. God is completely just and fair and those breaking His law get what they deserve, unless God is merciful to them by His grace. You don't earn mercy. It is something that is given to the undeserving. The rest will be justly punished.

LJ: "Why do you think our forefathers (the men who wrote the Constitution) rebelled against England, the Monarchy and the Church?"

I'm sure there were many reasons, but many who first settled America were Puritans, fleeing from religious persecution, so they built into your constitution a clause so that men would have the right to worship freely, as they were denied.

LJ: "Why do you think there is the exclusion clause in the first amendment."

For the very reason I stated above.

LJ: "Because they did not want the State to be influenced by the Church AND they wanted people to have the right to worship whoever they wanted (or not to worship whoever they wanted.)"

I believe you are wrong. I believe it was to protect their right to worship God as they saw fit, so that no one could take that right away as many are in the process of trying to do now in your land. If you want to protect your own right to worship as you believe, then you have to grant others the same right to worship as they see fit, for the very fact that one day the religious principles that your constitution was founded on may be in jeopardy.

I believe some of these people who framed your constitution wanted the church to influence government.

LJ: "In a theocracy there is no choice about who you will worship."

In an atheist regime there is no worship, except of man worshiping himself. "I am so wise, there is nothing I cannot do."

ME: “The scary thought Lindajean is a relative, postmodern, pluralistic world in which truth is whatever you choose to make it. In such a world anything is morally possible, anything is socially acceptable and all things are permissible as long as you can find the strength in numbers to enforce your belief. Heaven help you if you are in the minority.”

LJ: "Heaven help you if you are in the minority in a theocracy."

Rather He who is in heaven help you.

LJ: "I am not fearful of “depth”. I seek it out."

ME: “You are not seeking it out here. Open-mindedness is not always a good thing. How do you arrive at truth if all views are acceptable (except the Christian view) and yet they are all contrary? They all make different claims. Can they all be right?”

LJ: "No they are not all right. I have never claimed “all views are acceptable.”"

I give you credit for that!

LJ quote: “Rational arguments do not work on religious people, otherwise there would be no religious people.”—Dr. House"

Rational arguments do not work on atheists, otherwise there would be no atheists." - Peter Huff

What is your point? Anyone can make a statement. The question is whether it is true. First you have to show me how you can know it is true.

"The fool says in his heart, 'There is no God.'"
Quote from God, Psalm 14:1.

Posted by: Peter Huff | March 26, 2008 11:16 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Hi Peter:

You quoted me: "Nothing is absolute."

You: “There is a logical problem with making a statement like this Lindajean. As soon as you say "nothing" you have crossed the boundary of limited knowledge into the realm of the absolute, so your statement is self-refuting. It can't be true, for in order for it to be true you would have to absolutely know everything and if that were the case something would be absolute. The problem in denying absolutes is that you have to state one to deny one. It just shows the utter irrationality of your position.”

Well, you need to put the whole quote together in context : “Nothing is absolute. The closest we have to absolute is in the physical, material world through the laws of physics and nature. But even on the quantum level things begin to change.”

And by that statement I meant it in reference to human beliefs and opinions which are subjective and ever-changing. Change is inevitable. I am not saying we should not have any (moral) absolutes, because we should. Humans should all agree that abusing and killing innocent people is immoral (for example). That child abuse is wrong, that taking an innocent life is wrong. That mutilating the genitals of young females is wrong, that stoning a woman for adultery is wrong, that genocide is wrong, that slavery is wrong, etc...There are some things so atrocious we ought to be against them because they harm people and they take away people’s individual rights. So, you are taking my statement very literally (not a surprise.) It’s implied meaning was that the truths you speak of (from the Bible for example ) are not absolute. They are not absolute because people and cultures vary over time and place. Once again, I agree with you that we need some moral absolutes, although you and I are probably not going to agree on all/most of them.

LJ: "In particular we ought to have laws against corrupt and religiously inclined governments that torture their own people. There is no sane reason on this planet why young girls are forced to have their genitals mutilated, women are stoned to death for having “illicit” sex, children die from malnutrition, lack of clean water and preventable, women are raped and children are sexually molested. There is no reason why 6 billion people on this planet allow such moral atrocities to happen."

You: “I agree with you and would point to God's perfect standard, the Ten Commandments. But try keeping them and you will soon realize that you need a Savior. You are guilty of breaking them just as much as I am.’

Your 10 commandments say nothing about slavery, female circumcision, stoning women to death, etc... as being immoral. It says not honoring your parents is immoral, coveting your neighbor is immoral, not “keeping” the Sabbath holy is immoral. These are not issues of immorality!!!! LOL! These are issues of someone's social convention. These are moral “in-absolutes”. Who cares if my neighbor covets me? Who cares if I don’t go to church on Sunday. Who cares if I swear and say God’s name in vain? Who cares if children who have monsters for parents don’t honor them? “Honor” is not a moral issue. Explain how all of the 10 commandments keeps people from truly acting immorally given all of the world’s outrageous atrocities.

You, “Again you make statements that are absolute. How do you know "all" morals are subjective? How could God ever be subjective since by definition He is the knower of all things and is perfectly wise? How do you know the Bible is subjective? Is that your subjective opinion? Why would I put any trust in your subjective opinion? You have no standard to appeal to that can make sense out of morals without God. Why in your world-view was Hitler's Germany wrong? In an evolutionary world-view it was the strong exploiting the weak, just as rape or the law of the jungle could be as well in an evolutionary worldview. You have even pointed this out before if my memory serves me correctly.”

Well, considering the theory of evolution has been around about 150 years then what justified all the horrors of the world before "the strong exploiting the weak?" Humans have been acting immoral long before Darwin's theory came along to "justify" everything as you claim.

In the physical world there are absolutes. The earth rotates around the sun. That is a true absolute physical law. But can we say killing babies in Darfur is an absolute immorality? Well, you and I would agree it is immoral. We can say Peter and Linda believe killing babies in Darfur is always immoral. It is absolute in our minds, but it isn't absolute in the minds of those doing the killing. How can it be a moral “absolute” if there are people in the world that apparently don’t think it is immoral. That is what I mean when I say there are no absolutes. I wish there were moral absolutes. The world would be a better place. In general morals are absolute only because you believe they are or because you believe they ought to be.

The problem is people will never agree from culture to culture or person to person what is moral. And even people like you and I are not going to agree. So saying the Bible or 10 commandments are moral absolutes is simply your opinion. I don’t agree that “honor” is a moral issue. I don’t agree that saying “god” in a swear word is immoral. I don’t agree that worshiping graven images is immoral. These are not immoral acts, Peter. Not in my mind. Not in others’ minds.

Your moral absolutes are no more absolute than anyone else’s or mine.

LJ: "The best we can do is agree that certain immoral acts (like the ones I listed above) need to be stopped."

You: “Why should we agree?’

Because the belief that it is wrong has evolved. Most people in civilized society--the civilized society of the 21st century would agree it is immoral. There is a general understanding, knowledge, that certain acts (we call immoral) are not to the benefit of our species. We know that harming others is not beneficial to their well being. And we know that empathy and altruism are behaviors that have evolved in us over time. We know that some of these traits are found in other primates and mammals. We also know that without them we would not survive as a species.

You: “No we can do better. We can call something that is wrong wrong and be certain it is wrong because an absolute, objective, infinitely wise Being who created us has told us it is so or we have no validity to make a complaint. No God = all things possible. All things possible = anything goes. Anything goes = who are you to say otherwise?”

We cannot call something wrong because you believe in a God who tells you it is wrong. We must believe it is wrong because we know it harms people and that it is not beneficial to our species. (I would also add that with the increase in world population, we are beginning to lose sight of our evolved cooperative states--it is as though we have started rationalizing why it is OK to create wars, genocide, holocausts, etc... We are getting to the point where there are so many people we see each other as liabilities instead of assets. When the population was smaller we had a real need for each other just to stay alive.)

LJ: "And people who perpetrate these kinds of immoral acts need to be reduced to nothing so they cannot continue their sadism and hate."

You: “In an atheist, evolutionary world why? It all depends on whom is in power. That is the bottom line.”

It has nothing to do with who is in power. Only that those in power can act out their “wrongness” and get away with it. But those who are in power do not get to tell me (as an individual) what is moral. Otherwise I would have to agree with Bush that his ugly little war is moral. No way!

LJ: "Preaching the Bible isn’t going to stop the pathologies of the world. The only thing that can stop pathology is to look it straight in the eyes and prevent the pathological people from continuing it. It comes to raw power over corrupt and pathological power."

You: “That is all evolutionary thought can do is control by power and might. Right and wrong become the flavor of whoever is in power. Who decides on what is corrupt? The porn industry? Your loco politician? How far will they go?”

We’ve already had this conversation Peter. Go back and read what I said in earlier posts.

You: “Whatever you want to call it the fact remains that the majority either went along with or were caught up in the movement, just as they were in Mao's cultural revolution in which an estimated 80-100 million people were put to death.”

LJ: "Yes, like the Catholic Church that got caught up in Hitler’s extermination of the Jews. So much for moral “authority.” It just went down the tubes."

You: “Hey, the majority believe in evolution.”

The majority believe in evolution? Not sure that is true. The majority don’t even understand evolution.

LJ: "Not. Without absolute democratic governments that understand the concept of “individual rights” and “civil rights” will you have “the powers that be get away with [it].”

You: “How absolutely sure are you of that? You throw a lot of absolutes around for someone who does not believe there are any Lindajean. I point this out to hopefully make you realize again the weakness of your argument. It is like doublethink in George Orwells 1984. The Ministry of Truth or in your case evolutionary indoctrination has really done its number well!”

Democratic Gov is the best we have. Granted it isn’t perfect, but nothing in this life is.

BTW: You never answered my theocracy questions.

Posted by: lindajean | March 26, 2008 7:48 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Timmy:
You said : You misread me. I'm not testy at all. Just matter of fact.

I am pretty good at “reading” people. Reading people on a blog is more difficult.
Matter of fact trumps testy.
So I will take you at your word.

I said:
"My idea is for Gov to educate and provide knowledge to people about successful ways to raise healthy and well-adjusted children. This isn’t rocket science and understood only by the intellectual elite. Well-adjusted children grow up tho be responsible, employable and literate citizens."

You said: “This debate would never have gotten started had you said:
‘My idea is for Gov to educate and provide knowledge to people about successful ways to raise healthy and well-adjusted children’.

If I remember correctly, I said that the Gov ought to give tax breaks to people who have children. I did make a correction after first saying “married people with children” but then I corrected that statement, because that wasn’t what I meant. That was many comments ago.

You: “But what started this debate was you making the statement that government should promote MARRIAGE.”

Please find the quote. I probably said something like the Gov. needs to promote healthy relationships and research shows that married people are more “stable” and this is a good thing for for children. If the research is correct, then Gov ought to promote what is good for children. However, you have made a good argument that marriage with its 52% ending in divorce clouds the picture and so maybe we need to look at the research a little more thoroughly.

Timmy: “I have shown quite well that not only is marriage "not for everyone" but in fact it is "not for most people". It is a bad idea for most people. Unless you think that 85% cheating is a good thing. Or unless you have some solution to that problem other than, those people should have been honest enough to know that marriage is not for them in the first place.”

Blogger, you have made a good argument. Much of it is very logical and so it is hard to argue with the black and white numbers. What I have argued is that life is not always black and white. There is a lot of gray. I tend to see gray. You see black and white. That probably has a lot to do with the way we look at the world (and some of it is gender differences.)

You: “As for monogamy? I still see you as a "head in the sander".
Meaning you know that the problem exists. But you see no reason for anyone to take any action on it. Onward ho with the status quo. Everyone just keep getting married because it's working for Lindajean.”

I understand that for men monogamy is less common. And I definitely understand that a problem exists. And it isn’t JUST about me. That would be silly. But, yes, to be honest, part of it is tied into my own perspectives based on my own experiences and knowledge. It is hard to separate because it does involve the personal, just as it involves your own personal experiences and perspective. I am not going to apologize for that even if you want to call it sticking my head on the sand.

But I think you are ignoring the fact that I am, generally speaking, an open minded person and I am tolerant and even accepting of other lifestyles that are different than my own. In fact, I encourage people to beat their own drums and be genuine about who they are. So you can say “onward ho with the status quo” but only to the extent if that is what people want for themselves.

BTW: I would be interested in knowing how many women would even have this conversation with you and agree with you as much as I do. We actually agree on many points here. Certainly few religious women would. So that is about 80% right there.

You: “I think that in spite of all I have shown, you still think that most people should get married and be monogamous, and that the men just need to smarten up and stop being so damn promiscuous. Maybe a little counseling will do the trick?”

Not necessarily. I have always said that people ought to be honest and cheating is unethical. I have always said people ought not get married unless they want to. If men are so anti-monogamous they ought to stop getting married. That is what I have said. This comes down to personal choices for individuals. I think counseling can help people communicate better with each other and a person’s marriage can be strengthened by good communications skills. A lot of people lack this. Also, counseling can help give people a better understanding of the other person’s perspective. That can also help relationships. But, I am not saying counseling is going to change any great rifts or differences in a marriage or help align one person’s values with another’s.

You: “I have offered up a solution. People need to start being honest about the reality of monogamy not being the norm, and accept the fact non-monogamy is the norm. We need to change this paradigm to something that is more in line with reality. You are either in agreement with this, or you have some other solution, or you are a "head in the sander". Onward ho with the 85% cheating status quo.”

That remains to be seen. I’ll just have to ponder it some more.

Posted by: lindajean | March 25, 2008 6:17 PM
Report Offensive Comment

LJ said:
"You seem a little testy in these Easter Day comments from yesterday. Perhaps you are getting weary of our conversations"

You misread me. I'm not testy at all. Just matter of fact.

Posted by: timmy | March 25, 2008 2:34 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Hi Lindajean,

You said:
"My idea is for Gov to educate and provide knowledge to people about successful ways to raise healthy and well-adjusted children. This isn’t rocket science and understood only by the intellectual elite. Well-adjusted children grow up tho be responsible, employable and literate citizens."

This debate would never have gotten started had you said:
"My idea is for Gov to educate and provide knowledge to people about successful ways to raise healthy and well-adjusted children"

I am in complete agreement with that.
But what started this debate was you making the statement that government should promote MARRIAGE.

I have shown quite well that not only is marriage "not for everyone" but in fact it is "not for most people". It is a bad idea for most people. Unless you think that 85% cheating is a good thing. Or unless you have some solution to that problem other than, those people should have been honest enough to know that marriage is not for them in the first place.

As for monogamy? I still see you as a "head in the sander".
Meaning you know that the problem exists. But you see no reason for anyone to take any action on it. Onward ho with the status quo. Everyone just keep getting married because it's working for Lindajean.

I think that in spite of all I have shown, you still think that most people should get married and be monogamous, and that the men just need to smarten up and stop being so damn promiscuous. Maybe a little counseling will do the trick?

I have offered up a solution. People need to start being honest about the reality of monogamy not being the norm, and accept the fact non-monogamy is the norm. We need to change this paradigm to something that is more in line with reality. You are either in agreement with this, or you have some other solution, or you are a "head in the sander". Onward ho with the 85% cheating status quo.

Posted by: timmy | March 25, 2008 2:30 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Hi Lindajean,

ME: “....Without an absolute, ultimate, objective standard how do you determine they are "good"? You may need them, but two opposing views of good becomes a problem in determining which view is actually good if either is.”

LJ: "Nothing is absolute."

There is a logical problem with making a statement like this Lindajean. As soon as you say "nothing" you have crossed the boundary of limited knowledge into the realm of the absolute, so your statement is self-refuting. It can't be true, for in order for it to be true you would have to absolutely know everything and if that were the case something would be absolute. The problem in denying absolutes is that you have to state one to deny one. It just shows the utter irrationality of your position.

LJ: "The closest we have to absolute is in the physical, material world through the laws of physics and nature. But even on the quantum level things begin to change."

The next question is how did the laws get there? I can point to human law and know that where there is a law there is a lawgiver. How does a process create a law? How does information come from anything but a mind. A stone does not think and is not mindful. The same is true of mixing chemicals together. So every example I could find in reality only points to a being creating laws. So whose worldview is more logical? Again your precious theory of evolution is useless in explaining any of this for that very reason; it goes against everything we see and witness.

LJ: "We ought to have some absolute morals about how we treat each other."

We do, you just fail to see them.

LJ: "I will not argue that at all."

Smart move!

I agree with you and would point to God's perfect standard, the Ten Commandments. But try keeping them and you will soon realize that you need a Savior. You are guilty of breaking them just as much as I am.

ME: “Whose acceptable standard? Whose past experience? Whether it is your subjective experience or that of another or a group of others how do you determine good when to viewpoints are opposite each other, both claiming to be the good.”

LJ: "All morals are subjective. God is subjective. The Bible is subjective."

Again you make statements that are absolute. How do you know "all" morals are subjective? How could God ever be subjective since by definition He is the knower of all things and is perfectly wise? How do you know the Bible is subjective? Is that your subjective opinion? Why would I put any trust in your subjective opinion? You have no standard to appeal to that can make sense out of morals without God. Why in your worldview was Hitler's Germany wrong? In an evolutionary worldview it was the strong exploiting the weak, just as rape or the law of the jungle could be as well in an evolutionary worldview. You have even pointed this out before if my memory serves me correctly.

LJ: "The best we can do is agree that certain immoral acts (like the ones I listed above) need to be stopped."

Why should we agree?

No we can do better. We can call something that is wrong wrong and be certain it is wrong because an absolute, objective, infinitely wise Being who created us has told us it is so or we have no validity to make a complaint. No God = all things possible. All things possible = anything goes. Anything goes = who are you to say otherwise?

LJ: "And people who perpetrate these kinds of immoral acts need to be reduced to nothing so they cannot continue their sadism and hate."

In an atheist, evolutionary world why? It all depends on whom is in power. That is the bottom line.

That is all evolutionary thought can do is control by power and might. Right and wrong become the flavor of whoever is in power. Who decides on what is corrupt? The porn industry? Your loco politician? How far will they go?

ME: “Whatever you want to call it the fact remains that the majority either went along with or were caught up in the movement, just as they were in Mao's cultural revolution in which an estimated 80-100 million people were put to death.”

LJ: "Yes, like the Catholic Church that got caught up in Hitler’s extermination of the Jews. So much for moral “authority.” It just went down the tubes."

Hey, the majority believe in evolution. Majority does not make something right. Right has to have something to set itself against and that standard is God. Any other standard is just the in thing and is like sifting sand. That is evidenced by looking at what was thought wrong two decades ago that is today considered right.

ME: “Without an absolute standard it is not a matter of right or wrong but what the powers that be get away with. If Hitler is in control your telling him that murdering 6 million Jews is wrong is of no consequence because he makes the rules that determine what is good, just like in ancient times the monarchy was the absolute rule. Opposition results in death and silence to other views.”

LJ: "Not. Without absolute democratic governments that understand the concept of “individual rights” and “civil rights” will you have “the powers that be get away with [it].”

How absolutely sure are you of that? You throw a lot of absolutes around for someone who does not believe there are any Lindajean. I point this out to hopefully make you realize again the weakness of your argument. It is like doublethink in George Orwells 1984. The Ministry of Truth or in your case evolutionary indoctrination has really done its number well!

LJ: "It wasn’t Christianity that saved the world from Hitler. It was the “free” world. The Allied forces."

Based on the Christian ideals of right and wrong.

March 18, 2008 7:48 AM

ME: "By delusional I mean that your world view is untrue and you are willingly deceived into believing it, even though it does not conform to what is real. So you are believing a lie."

LJ: "I would agree that is what I think about your world view as well. That you are believing a lie but that does not mean you are "pathologically" or "dysfunctionally" delusional."

I realize that for God's word has already confirmed it.

Thanks for your thoughts. As always I enjoy your posts! I agree with Soja. Great discussion on marriage.

Posted by: Peter Huff | March 25, 2008 3:15 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Timmy:

I said, "Physically” is not “weird”"

You said, “I said it was "weird" that you put it twice.

You’re right. I put it twice (after looking at it again.) I meant to say, “psychologically/mentally, emotionally and physically”...

I said, "Just as psychological stress can definitely effect a person’s physical blood pressure, heart beat, etc....You cannot separate physical from mental, psychological and emotional. Including x."

Timmy said, “Nice try. But even crapy X is a stress reliever. i.e. healthy for you physically. It's quite a stretch to say that X with love is healthier for you "physically" with than X without love. They are both stress relievers, and good physical exercise.

When I said “healthier” I am meaning more physically satisfying. I guess I didn’t make that distinction. Yes, it is “healthy” physically but I am arguing it is physically more satisfying for women --x with love. That is what I mean. Do you understand what I mean and that there is a difference and a distinction. I did not clarify that very well in the last post. I stand corrected.

Timmy said, “This idea that love makes X more physically beneficial is really reaching. You stick with it if you like, but I give it no weight in this debate.”

Well, you are the one that said, love and x are wonderful (but not necessary). If love doesn’t make it more “beneficial” then what would you call it? And now you are saying it has “no weight”.

LOL! What are you saying? It is difficult to pin you down on this one. Are we still on Venus and Mars?

Posted by: lindajean | March 24, 2008 8:06 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Timmy:

You said: “The world needs fewer people getting married and having kids not more. In case you hadn't noticed we have a population problem looming. The human race no longer needs to struggle for survival by numbers. We have that down. The old paradigm of "everybody do their part to propagate the species and multiply as much as possible" has not been necessary for hundreds and hundreds of years. We now need for most people to actually opt out of that game because there are just not enough resources for continued growth of the human race. Not until we find another planet. But until then, people of course have the right to have all the babies they want, but we should stop pushing it as everybody's obligation to continue in this tradition.”

Absolutely. And I’m aware of the population problem. It will double by 2050 if we keep going at this rate (12 billion).

Timmy: “Having kids should now be only something that people who are really into should do. Not a thing that we all think is the normal thing that we all should do automatically.’

Agreed.

Timmy: “Lindajean. Don't you think that there would be a lot better parenting out there if it was not something that EVERYONE was told they should do if they are normal. If it was something that only people who are really really into it and dedicated to it decided to do? Don't you see how many people get married and have kids like drones, without even thinking that much about it? This is because it is considered abnormal if you don't. So everyone just does it. And most don't work out.”

I’ve never argued any different. You are “preaching” to the choir here. But "into it" and dedicated are two different things. People can think they are "into it" (initially) but end up not being very dedicated.

Timmy: “We don't need more kids from everyone. We need quality not quantity. Government promoting marriage (which almost never works) gives us quantity, not quality.”

There is nothing that indicates Gov has to promote “bad” policy. Only that they have a responsibility to promote/educate parents on how to raise healthy and well-adjusted children.

Timmy: “Where as a government promoting the idea of more people opting out of that whole enterprise and putting their energy and talents to other uses for mankind, frees up natural resources for the rest of us, and ensures that only people who are really dedicated to raising kids do so.”

I think promoting the "opting" out will not be accepted by too many "traditional-thinking" people such as in religious people.

Timmy: “Stop the drone mill that spits out multitudes of crappy kids.
The world doesn't need more mouths to feed.”

More agreement.

My idea is for Gov to educate and provide knowledge to people about successful ways to raise healthy and well-adjusted children. This isn’t rocket science and understood only by the intellectual elite. Well-adjusted children grow up tho be responsible, employable and literate citizens.

The Gov also has a responsibility for poor and poverty-stricken children and their parents deserve some kind of tax breaks. It is poor children who often suffer the most.

Too many people marry, have children and are completely ignorant about raising them and basic child development.

I don’t think we can expect only “good” parents to reproduce. It is, after all, a “natural” biological function much as seed-spreading is. We do need more Gov. accessible birth-control and with all this education. Promoting abstinence is about as effective as a 55 mph speed limit on interstate highways.

You seem a little testy in these Easter Day comments from yesterday. Perhaps you are getting weary of our conversations.

Posted by: lindajean | March 24, 2008 6:55 PM
Report Offensive Comment

LJ said:

"Physically” is not “weird”"

I said it was "weird" that you put it twice.

LJ said:

"Just as psychological stress can definitely effect a person’s physical blood pressure, heart beat, etc....You cannot separate physical from mental, psychological and emotional. Including x."

Nice try. But even crapy X is a stress reliever. i.e. healthy for you physically.
It's quite a stretch to say that X with love is healthier for you "physically" with than X without love. They are both stress relievers, and good physical exercise. This idea that love makes X more physically beneficial is really reaching. You stick with it if you like, but I give it no weight in this debate.

Posted by: timmy | March 24, 2008 3:05 PM
Report Offensive Comment

LJ said:

"Well, my answer has always been the Gov. ought to promote healthy lifestyles that benefit children. What those lifestyles are are obviously up for debate"

And as long as they are up for debate, the government should stay out of it. In other words, as long as 52% are getting divorced while the kids are still in school, and 85% are cheating on each other, the government should not be promoting marriage.

The world needs fewer people getting married and having kids not more. In case you hadn't noticed we have a population problem looming. The human race no longer needs to struggle for survival by numbers. We have that down. The old paradigm of "everybody do their part to propagate the species and multiply as much as possible" has not been necessary for hundreds and hundreds of years. We now need for most people to actually opt out of that game because there are just not enough resources for continued growth of the human race. Not until we find another planet. But until then, people of course have the right to have all the babies they want, but we should stop pushing it as everybody's obligation to continue in this tradition.

Having kids should now be only something that people who are really into should do. Not a thing that we all think is the normal thing that we all should do automatically.

Lindajean. Don't you think that there would be a lot better parenting out there if it was not something that EVERYONE was told they should do if they are normal. If it was something that only people who are really really into it and dedicated to it decided to do? Don't you see how many people get married and have kids like drones, without even thinking that much about it? This is because it is considered abnormal if you don't. So everyone just does it. And most don't work out.

We don't need more kids from everyone. We need quality not quantity. Government promoting marriage (which almost never works) gives us quantity, not quality.

Where as a government promoting the idea of more people opting out of that whole enterprise and putting their energy and talents to other uses for mankind, frees up natural resources for the rest of us, and ensures that only people who are really dedicated to raising kids do so.

Stop the drone mill that spits out multitudes of crappy kids.
The world doesn't need more mouths to feed.

Posted by: timmy | March 23, 2008 7:01 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Peter said:

"BTW where are the answers to my questions?"

I told you. They have all been answered many times. You just don't like the answers.

Posted by: timmy | March 23, 2008 6:23 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Timmy:

You quoted me saying:

"For some x without love is simply not satisfying."

This response came out of a comment you made a long time back saying,

“...90% of men will not be interested in monogamy for life. And love has nothing to do with it. You need to separate love form sex. Or just keep your head in the sand like the rest of society.”

When you said “you need to separate love from x” I took that very literally (my error now I can see.) I see now that you meant that I/women need to understand that x and love can be separate and for men it is more common and easier. I do not think (anymore) you are saying I (or women in particular) need to separate x from love.

So yes, I think we have come to an understanding on this.

Posted by: lindajean | March 23, 2008 8:35 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Yes Timmy, a thing. A process is a thing. Hey, BTW where are the answers to my questions?

Posted by: Peter Huff | March 23, 2008 8:35 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Hi Timmy:

Timmy: “This has been my claim all along. But in your last post, you referred women who "don't" separate love from X. And you also referred to women who "can't" separate love from X. I argued that there is no one who "can't". Only those who "don't" because they prefer not to.”

Sometimes there is a fine line between “can’t” and “don’t”.

Timmy: “I don't know about "physically". And you put that one twice, which is weird.
I agree with the others, I have always said the same thing. But physically? I'm not sure what you mean here.
Either way, the point is, that yes, for most people, X is a heightened, more emotionally rewarding, almost transcendent experience with love. Nothing I have said stops people from having love with their X.”

“Physically” is not “weird”. Why would physical be any less of an issue than psychological, mental and emotional? A person’s psychological, mental and emotional can certainly effect their physical state and her physical response (to x). Just as psychological stress can definitely effect a person’s physical blood pressure, heart beat, etc....You cannot separate physical from mental, psychological and emotional. Including x. (And if you need a short lesson in female sexuality ---because female xuality involves the integration of all of these physical and mental domains for xual satisfaction much of the time--then I will refer you to some books/websites based on scientific research.)

Timmy: “And as my answers hopefully pointed out, different strokes for different folks.
I don't like your attitude that the government should promote the lifestyle that fits your personal choice.”

Well, my answer has always been the Gov. ought to promote healthy lifestyles that benefit children. What those lifestyles are are obviously up for debate.

Posted by: lindajean | March 23, 2008 8:31 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Hi Timmy:

You said: “No one asked you to accept it as a lifestyle for yourself.
But as a lifestyle of most men, you better accept it. (especially since you haven't got a clue as to how to fix it)...Accept it, or be bitterly disappointed for the rest of your life.”

Bitterly disappointed? That’s a bit of a stretch. If nothing else comes out of this discussion, I will have learned from you that virtually all men want to be promiscuous. I won’t be bitterly disappointed if promiscuity becomes more acceptable as a lifestyle. Just concerned that more men will adopt it as their own lifestyle, as well, and there will be fewer truly monogamous men.

LJ said:
"Because this will be the norm in your “new world” scenario. Marriage goes down the tube because men are now “honest.” (And marriage/monogamy WILL go down the tube. More on that later.)"

Timmy said: “All because of honesty eh?
Boy this marriage thing really must be something special if it can be destroyed by honesty. lol.

I have never said marriage should not have honesty. We are saying the same thing here. But I am also saying if men were honest with their wives, then they would probably end up divorced. The divorce statistics already indicate something is going on when 50% of marriages end in divorce and 75% of married men are cheating on their wives. The divorces are already happening. If more men were honest, I suspect those numbers would increase.

LJ said:
"Women won’t have to be promiscuous, but if the norm changes toward promiscuity, then there will certainly be more “pressure” to follow the norm. It will be a choice, but like marriage is today, there will be pressure to conform to it"

Timmy: “No.
No one said that the norm would change to promiscuity. That is your word, and your idea. I have never said anything about promiscuity. Only that the norm would not be to marry for life. There will still be many who will choose monogamy, and others will choose something that is very close to monogamy. Many who are accepting of reality will have open relationships. These relationships exist right now LJ and they are on the rise. And they don't resemble any of the crazy examples that you have invented to make such relationships look bad.”

I am using deductive reasoning.
Something has to give here. Either married women are going to acquiesce to their husbands cheating (accept this honest husband and continue their marriage), or they are going to divorce and women will have to think about being promiscuous themselves, or be celibate. I don’t think women are going to opt out for celibacy. Maybe they will go along with husbands cheating, and accept that their husbands will be promiscuous....that is an unknown factor in your scenario. The other unknown factor is if monogamous men will stay monogamous. Like I said, something has got to give. (For every action there is a reaction.)

Timmy: “Again, the only thing that will change is honesty. I can't believe you are arguing against the introduction of honesty because of the destructive force it will be.”

I am not arguing against honesty. I have never made any statements saying people should not be honest. I am trying to reason through this logically. I don’t think things will be exactly the same. I think women are going to react to this. I am not sure in what way but I am willing to say it is possible they will seek out divorce. They do not want to knowingly be in relationships with men that are not monogamous. (I think some would actually prefer it stay under the radar.)

Timmy: “Also, there is not such thing as someone who "can't" separate love from X. Only people who "don't".

Well my last post to you discussed that. Technically, you are right. Women can have x without love. Otherwise rape would be impossible. Women can have x without love but I am saying many women cannot have “good” or “satisfying” x without love. There is such a thing as “good/great” x; “bad” x which is x that is not satisfying on many different levels; and there is is also x that just sucks!

LJ said:
"Unless you completely remove love from X (no way!) you are still going to have jealousies and dishonesty"

Timmy: “(Yes way!)
Like I said. No need to remove love from X.
X is not attached to love in the first place. Unless you attach it yourself. So don't. And jealousy also has nothing to do with love. It is more related to X.”

This is a big point of disagreement. Most women are not going to detach x from love. Why should we? It is not satisfying.

LJ said:"In your honest new world scenario, the tables are turning on them. Monogamy is scarcer and promiscuity is more common. More men are more likely to become promiscuous as well because the floodgates are open."

Timmy said: ‘LJ, you remind me of those people who think that if they legalize marijuana, the people will go crazy and start smoking pot all over the place...”

I hold no fears or alarmist views about making pot legal or being honest about x. Now you are the one getting dramatic. I am outlining a potentially real hypothesis about how this will be played out. I am assuming that if women do not want to be in non-monogamous relationships because their partners are now being promiscuous then monogamy will become scarcer and promiscuity more common. Can you entertain that thought for a moment as a hypothetical?

For every action there is a reaction.

LJ said:
"Can you agree with me that most men do not want the women they love to be promiscuous?
Are men going to accept promiscuity in women they are in love with?"

Timmy: “Men are going to have to accept that if they get to have other X partners, then their spouse also gets to have other X partners. That is only fair. Many men will opt for a monogamous relationship for this reason. And this monogamous arrangement will last as long as it lasts. But it would be ridiculous and stupid for these two to try to codify that arrangement in a ritualistic ceremony complete with legal contract. Because the odds of it lasting forever are not good. It could happen. But no ceremony or vow is going to help it last. It will end when it ends.”

I hypothesize that men are NOT going to accept this scenario. They do not want the woman they love to be promiscuous.

LJ said:
"Do you believe (for example) a man who is madly in love with a woman, a woman whom he has gotten pregnant, a woman who is going to have his child, is going to want her to be promiscuous? She tells him she is 2 months pregnant but she is going to go out and have x with another man that very night? A man is going to say “OK” to that? No way. Please explain this to me?"

Timmy: “Here is a classic example of the kind of childish, and alarmist, scenarios you like to invent to make your point. I don't see the above scenario taking place at all. Why do you think that being honest about X is going to turn people into insensitive irresponsible jerks? These are all just your inventions, Lindajean.”

These are hypotheticals. You seem to not want to discuss situations that I think could be very real in your honest new world. Are you willing to discuss the possibility that a man might become jealous or upset with a woman he has gotten pregnant that is promiscuous? Are you willing to discuss the fact that in your new honest world not everything will be the same as before if women decide to be more promiscuous instead of just being in one-sided non-monogamous relationships where their husband has other partners? There is nothing alarmist about this. These are very real possibilities.

LJ said: "Isn’t this how/why marriage came about in the first place?"

Timmy: “85% cheat. Good plan! Great solution! lol.”

You didn’t answer the question.

LJ said:
"Don’t you think most women will divorce their husbands when they learn the husband is cheating because now he is going to be honest about it? And in non-married monogamous relationships, the woman will leave also, when her partner shares all? My answer: yes."

Timmy: “They would only leave if they thought that they could go out and find a man who will be monogamous. But the reality will tell them that that is not likely. So now the only reason they would leave is if they are no longer in love. And that would be the right thing to do. Damn that honesty. Who invented it? What a trouble maker.”

No they will leave because they are pissed off that their husband/partner lied to them and cheated on them. They may decide they do not love a man who is a liar and cheater and has deceived them. And they may later decide that since only 10% of men are monogamous, and at least 50-60 or more of women are, then they are going to have to be with promiscuous men, or they are going to have to be celibate or they will just decide to be promiscuous themselves.

LJ said:
"I don’t have an answer, Timmy. But I suggest that your answer is very good for men, up to a point, until they fall in love"

Timmy: “And then honesty is no longer the best policy????
Now it's time to start denying the truth?
What the hell are you saying?”

I am not saying dishonesty is the best policy. I am saying that honesty will change some of the dynamics of relationships and I am saying men will still NOT want the woman they love to be promiscuous. I am saying you are still going to have monogamous women who want monogamous men. That is not going to change, but the dynamics will change because it is very probable that there will be more promiscuous men and fewer monogamous men. I can guarantee you almost 100% that monogamous women living with non-monogomous men is not going to cut it at all. Why do you think men lie to their wives now? They lie because they know 100% that their wife would be completely pissed off. And they don’t want their wives having x with other men. Do you think being honest is going to change a woman’s reactions or feeling to her husbands promiscuity? They will just roll over like a dog and say “OK, Hubby, I don’t have a problem with you having x other women?

LOL! Get real, Timmy. This is some fantasy of yours!

Timmy: “I don't know what you are disagreeing with? Honesty?
That's all I am promoting here”

I am disagreeing with you on the effect of honesty and how it more than likely will change the dynamics of relationships. I am not positive how this will be played out. I have suggested a few scenarios that you have labeled “alarmist.” You are saying NOTHING will change only that honesty will be the norm. You are saying honesty will enhance overall quality of life. I am not sure of that. Honesty will shine light on the problem but it isn’t going to enhance or make life better except for the promiscuous men.

Timmy: “The real bottom line.
90% of men are not going to be monogamous.
We can either continue doing it behind your back, or out in the open. You decide if you prefer to live in a state of denial, or a state of reality. If denial is less painful to you, so be it. Onward ho with this marriage thing I guess. Don't ask don't tell?”

I don’t live in a state of denial (unless my husband is really promiscuous and I am not picking up on the signs). I don’t have any reason to believe he is so what am I personally in denial about? I agree with you that 90% of men (or something close to that---it might not be exactly that high..) are promiscuous. I agree that about 60-75% of men cheat on their wives. So I am not disagreeing on the context of your argument.

Timmy: “I just don't know what you are disagreeing with LJ.
Do you think that anything I have said affects your relationship with your husband? Do you think that your relationship would be any different in my world of honesty? How so?”

No, I don’t think anything you have said affects my personal relationship, but I do think (it is possible and probable) that if men are honest about their promiscuity then it will be more attractive to men who are now monogamous. That could indeed affect my personal relationship although I do not know for a fact that it would. That is something I will never know unless your new world comes into being. So hypothetically (not as an alarmist) I would say that it could affect me personally although there is no way of knowing that until the “honesty” becomes a reality.

Timmy: “And if not. What is your concern?”

My concern is that our disagreements are a matter of degree and yet they are very important differences (and I am concerned because you seem not to be able to see those differences, acknowledge those differences and understand those differences).

I believe honesty will change the dynamics of gender relationships but will not necessarily enhance or improve a person’s quality of life.

You believe honesty will make (promiscuous men’s ) lives more bearable because they won’t have to lie (it’s similar to gays coming out of the closet.)

For you it is a matter of honesty at all cost. (Damn the torpedos!)

For me it is a matter of what makes gender relationships valuable, worthwhile and important? It is not exclusively honesty.

We lie to children about Santa Claus. Do you propose we start telling them the truth? There is a cost to honesty. I am not saying to lie, only to understand that honesty has ramifications and is not a free ride.

Besides the fact that men will be openly more promiscuous are we really better off? If you are a monogamous woman currently with a monogamous man, the chances are probably not.

To put this is purely personal terms it will be “better” for you but not for me.

Posted by: lindajean | March 23, 2008 7:51 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Hi Peter

Many thanks for your Easter greetings and the gospel song. I trust you are having a wonderful Easter!

Best wishes
Soja

Posted by: Soja John Thaikattil, Sydney, Australia | March 23, 2008 1:48 AM
Report Offensive Comment

To TIMMY:

On Sam Harris' thread, 'The Empty Wager' I posted more of my thoughts on the same topic on the following dates (including a list of books, which were also posted in Feb 2007 on another thread):

http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/sam_harris/2007/04/the_cost_of_betting_on_faith/all_comments.html

Ref posts:

26 May 2007 5:24 AM

19 July 2007 12:35 AM

20 July 2007 1:46 AM

4 Sept 2007 7:11 AM

9 Sept 2007 5:49 AM

Posted by: Soja John Thaikattil, Sydney, Australia | March 23, 2008 1:46 AM
Report Offensive Comment

To TIMMY:

Just popped in and noticed that you are engaged in a long running debate about sex, love and marriage. I appreciate your honest portrayal of reality concerning sexual morals as they are actually practised even if I do not agree that the way it is being practised is the best way to ensure happiness for all in society. As I mentioned very early on in this thread, sexual promiscuity gives the sexually adept more sexual partners than they need, inflating their egos with a never ending need while leaving the legitimate needs of others out in the cold.

Here for your reflection, some thoughts I posted elsewhere on The Washington Post On Faith forum over a year ago (23 February 2007):

"Emancipation or no emancipation, no matter what form emancipation may take, I personally believe that the best advice regarding love based relationships was given through an Indian poster displayed at the International AIDS Conference in Berlin 1993, titled: “Many positions with one is better than one position with many.” Referring to the author of Kamasutra, Dr Kakar wrote, “On four occasions in the text he insists that the main purpose of the Kamasutra is not the promotion of passion. On the contrary, a person who truly understands the book knows how to control his senses. The Kamasutra thus begins with the sutra, "He who wishes to preserve virtue, wealth and love in this world and the next must have a thorough knowledge of this treatise and, at the same time, master his senses" and ends with the admonition, "A wise man, proficient in all things, considering both his ethics and material interest, must not be a sensualist, thirsty for sex but must establish a stable marriage. The disjunction between virtue and sexuality is most clearly seen with regard to adultery which is unequivocally condemned as a great sin in the dharma texts.”

In my opinion, Dr Kakar’s interpretation of spirituality has some limitation. I wish to make the following observations:

1. Dr Kakar’s views on ‘Eroticism and Celibacy in Hinduism’ are the perspective of an agnostic Indian, NOT a Hindu Indian. His training in the Western school of Freudian psychoanalysis seems to be reflected in the sceptical tone discernible in his interpretation of eroticism and celibacy in Hinduism. Freudian psychoanalysis after all isn’t very open to religious concepts and has a unique interpretation of the role of sex in the human psyche.

2. When Dr Kakar sceptically states that gurus and yogis are supposed to be celibate but it doesn’t always happen, that St Theresa of Avila implied eroticism when she referred to the passion of the soul for God, and that St Augustine gave in to his lust but finally gave it up, what does he really mean? It is quite clear that St Theresa of Avila did not mean eroticism in the way Dr Kakar implies. In fact she even forbade nuns from praying for missionary priests if they noticed that the praying for a male priest became a pretext to indulge in disguised erotic thoughts about him. St Augustine supposedly fathered a child outside marriage, BEFORE he was converted, but after his conversion to Christianity, he remained celibate for the rest of his life.

3. It remains a fact that many yogis and gurus DID remain faithful to their vow of celibacy and went on to be great teachers. The number of yogis or anyone else who failed to live up to expectations does not negate the goal of celibacy in the spiritual traditions of not only Hinduism, but also Buddhism and Christianity.

4. Mahatma Gandhi chose Brahmacharya or celibacy because of his conviction that it was a powerful means to realise God. Gandhi was a passionate married man who tried to live like a sannyasi in the world, abandoning his wife only sexually but had her around him. Since he did not live like a recluse in the forest safely out of reach of worldly temptation, it is to be expected that he must have struggled with remaining celibate. But one must view his sense of deep guilt about sexuality from an incident in his life which has little to do with his religious belief. The deeply traumatising incident happened on the night his father died. It turned out that his father passed away in the night while he was making love to his wife. He had been keeping vigil with his father that night, and retired to his room shortly before his father passed away. Gandhi felt it was his lust that had prevented him from being with his father when he breathed his last. That is most likely the source of his irrational guilt regarding sexuality which has nothing to do with his views on celibacy in Hinduism. Could Gandhi have been an equally effective politician if he had not chosen Brahmacharya? We don’t know. Maybe yes. But the point is that he was acting in accordance with his convictions. Was Gandhi an infallible man? No. He achieved so much because he did everything with great passion, and his religious practice to attain God-realisation was definitely the most important part of his life, and he considered his politics only a fruit of his religion. It turned out that in the process Gandhi didn’t get it right always. For instance he carried his diet fad to a ridiculous extreme. Although he mentions in his autobiography that his carnal desires for his wife disappeared sometime after he took his vow of Brahmacharya, as per the incident related in your post, if it is true, then it seems he did have his quirk with his vow of Brahmacharya late in life, and driven by the deep seated guilt mentioned earlier, probably made an irrational associations. But the fact remains that Gandhi he was a psychologically healthy man who was willing to sacrifice anything (including his life as he claimed) to achieve his goal of God-realisation and achieved much more in his life than most ordinary mortals do. He is the man about whom Einstein said that in generations to come the world would scarce believe that such a man walked the face of this earth.

5. Dr Kakar asks, “Should one be celibate or should one celebrate sexuality?” It should be noted that celibacy was not forced on anyone in Hinduism. So why is there a need for an either/or question? In fact many great Yogis and teachers in answering the call of God ran away from their homes against the wishes of their families who wanted them to get married. (Males have the responsibility to take care of parents.) But does that mean that every person who left home in search of God was going to be infallible and destined for greatness? Does that make the genuine calling of celibacy questionable as a valid path to realise God? What exactly does Dr Kakar mean by celebrating sexuality in a spiritual way? Does any Hindu text prohibit celebration of sex by married partners?

6. I agree with Dr Kakar that a sexual union based on love maybe the only form of transcendence that most human beings may ever know. But I’m of the opinion that such a relationship should form part of a love relationship, not merely a commitment to have a sexual relationship, no matter how spiritual, free and without constraints it may be. I’m not sure however what Dr Kakar means by confined or constrained. Does it refer to the technicalities of the sexual relationship or with regard to commitment? Since some Indians consider his books controversial because it introduces the Western idea, it must refer to the nature of the relationship rather than technicalities of sex. Many will recall the Indian Guru from Poona, Rajneesh (later known as Osho) and his sexually liberating spirituality. He offered a modified form of Tantric Hinduism to his followers. The only Indians who considered him a spiritual guru were sexually emancipated film stars. The ordinary Indian referred to him as “ sex-guru” and was of the opinion that Rajneesh was popular only among those who wanted uninhibited sex with no commitment for he offered them a way deal with their sense of guilt and shame (most of them from the West being conditioned by their Christian culture) by calling such sexuality spiritual.
7. Despite arranged marriages conducted when one is quite young, which adequately meets one's sexual needs in a safe manner, it is understandable that some Indians welcome the sexual emancipation recommended through Dr Kakar’s books, after all not every Indian is happy to follow the strict moral code enforced by the society. At least in some cases it can be said that virtue is merely lack of opportunity or fear of society. The sexual emancipation will herald a new era in India, where there will be less sexual hypocrisy and any effort on Dr Kakar’s part to reduce hypocrisy must be applauded.

8. It is however simplistic to assume that all sexual problems would disappear with the advent of sexual freedom in India. The West has had to cope with unwanted teenage pregnancies and India when it goes down the path of unlimited sexual freedom, must brace itself for abortions in the millions. High divorce rates and single parent families also come with the freedom. Statistics in the West shows that sexual crimes such as incest and paedophilia have nothing to do with lack of sexual freedom. Many sexual tourists in Eastern countries are from the emancipated West. Sexual addictions in all its different variations haven’t automatically disappeared.

9. Uninhibited sexual freedom is a double edged sword and young Indians must be given very good sex education in schools which cover all aspects of sexuality in order that they may use their new found freedom with wisdom, learning from the mistakes of the West while accepting what is good.

Back to Hindu Spirituality:

Dom Bede Griffiths in the introduction to his book “River of Compassion” wrote, “In the Upanishads the understanding always was that in order to reach supreme knowledge or wisdom, jnana, it was necessary to retire to the forest and to meditate. Only the sannyasi, the monk, could attain moksha, liberation. Thus the Upanishads could only be a religion of a few. What changed everything was the doctrine of the Gita (mine - composed between 500 – 50 BC), that the householder, living an ordinary life but having bhakti, devotion to God, could reach this state of supreme union, not only as well as, but even more easily than the sannyasi. For the Bhagavad Gita, sannyasa is a difficult path for the few; bakthi is the normal path for the many. That is why the Gita has become a handbook for the Hindu, a kind of New Testament, because it is a teaching for the householder, the man living his ordinary life in the world, married and with children. By his devotion to Krishna, the personal God, he is able to reach moksha, to attain final liberation… It should be remembered that originally in the Vedas (mine – oldest surviving Scripture of the world whose oral composition was complete around 1500 BC after being composed for hundreds of years), karma means ritual work. There is a section of the Vedas concerned with ritual, but it was always considered inferior. When Adi Shankara (mine – originally a Nambudiri Brahmin from Kerala, who is credited with winning back most of the Indian Buddhists to Hinduism), the great doctor of Vedanta of the eighth century, said that nobody could reach moksha, liberation, through karma, he was simply saying that ritual will not suffice. After the Vedic period, the idea of karma was extended to include moral action in general and then social action.”

Sri Ramakrishna Paramahamsa (1836-1886) wrote: “God realisation is possible for all. The householders need not renounce the world; but they should pray sincerely, practice discrimination between the Eternal and the temporal and remain unattached. God listens to sincere prayer. Intense longing is the secret of success in spiritual life… Lust and greed are the two main obstacles to God realisation.”
…
Not just in Hinduism, but for anyone at all, life should be about celebrating sexuality within marriage for all who are married, or in a genuinely loving monogamous relationship for those who are not, and making a simultaneous vow of celibacy outside that relationship. The rare monk, nun, sannyasi or yogis called to a life of celibacy are not bound by the rules of society because they don’t belong to it. If they choose to take the vow of celibacy and make a mockery of that vow, it is really a matter for them to sort out with their God and not with the society of which they are no longer a part. If a spiritual seeker chooses to be instructed by a Guru who makes a mockery of his vow of celibacy, then the seeker has merely found what he has unconsciously searched for in the depths of his heart - after all a seeker has the freedom to move on at any time to a genuine guru of his choice.

(Posted by Soja John Thaikattil 23 February 2007)

Posted by: Soja John Thaikattil, Sydney, Australia | March 23, 2008 1:41 AM
Report Offensive Comment

LJ said:
"And here is my claim all along: Having x with love is not a necessity. It is a preference just as having x without love is"

This has been my claim all along. But in your last post, you referred women who "don't" separate love from X. And you also referred to women who "can't" separate love from X. I argued that there is no one who "can't". Only those who "don't" because they prefer not to.

LJ said:
"I will also argue (and argue determinedly) that for (many) people, x with love is more rewarding psychologically, physically, emotionally and physically"

I don't know about "physically". And you put that one twice, which is weird.
I agree with the others, I have always said the same thing. But physically? I'm not sure what you mean here.
Either way, the point is, that yes, for most people, X is a heightened, more emotionally rewarding, almost transcendent experience with love. Nothing I have said stops people from having love with their X.

LJ's rapid fire questions answered:

"Do you want to surf without waves?"

It's not possible.

"Do you want to golf without balls?"

It's not possible.

"Do you want cookies without milk?"

Always.

"Do you want cake without icing?"

Often.

"Do you want beer without pretzels?"

Always.

"Do you want music without orchestras?"

Most times.

"Do you want art without museums?"

Often.

"Do you want gardens without flowers?"

Sometimes.

"Do you want snow without mountains?"

No.

"Do you want life without aesthetics?"

Not possible

"Do you want x without love?"

Sometimes.

LJ said:
"Some things go together, and go together quite naturally, because they make life 1000x more pleasant and worthwhile."

And as my answers hopefully pointed out, different strokes for different folks.
I don't like your attitude that the government should promote the lifestyle that fits your personal choice.

LJ said:
"For some x without love is simply not satisfying."

Yes yes, we get it. What's the point? Who is saying they can't have X with love?

LJ said:
"So the real question is why should people who want x and love not have it?"

Who is saying they can't?
Just you in your wacked out scenarios that you dream up.

LJ asks:
"Why should someone that wants x with love settle for x without love?"

No one is saying they have to.

"Why should someone settle for cheap wine when she can have the good stuff?"

Who is saying they have to?
Just you as far as I can tell.

LJ said:

"Life is too short, Timmy!"

Indeed.

Posted by: timmy | March 22, 2008 9:03 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Hi Timmy:

You said: “I noticed that you did not answer my question about the different kinds of love that you referred to.”

I made a statement using chocolate as an analogy. That was my answer.

We are discussing two different points here so let’s ensure we are separating the two discussions.

First: We are discussing different kinds of love. You say love is love and there are no differences. I used the chocolate analogy to make my point that there are different kinds.

Second: We are discussing if you can separate love from x.

In matters concerning the first statement: I argue that from a philosophical and physiological point of view there are different kinds of love. (We need Andy Ross here to put in his two cents.)

And I will argue that in particular there is “falling in love” or eros and there is love for friends, family members, unconditional love known as agape. They are different. Now maybe “falling in love” is not really love in the sense you are talking about. And we can discuss that if you want. I argue it is all love. Just different kinds.

I also suggest that science will indicate the same. Below is just one recent article about “falling in love” that is available. Notice that the researchers indicate that sex and love are very different (I don’t think we are arguing that), but also that “eros” kind of love is a unique kind of love and is played out in the brain in unique ways.

http://www.the-aps.org/press/journal/05/9.htm

Quoted from the article:

Our participants who measured very high on a self report questionnaire of romantic love also showed strong activity in a particular brain region – results that dramatically increase our confidence that self-report questionnaires can actually measure brain activity. The research answered the “historic question of whether love and sex are the same, or different, or whether romantic passion is just warmed over sexual arousal.” He said, “Our findings show that the brain areas activated when someone looks at a photo of their beloved only partially overlap with the brain regions associated with sexual arousal. Sex and romantic love involve quite different brain systems.”

Using functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) and other measurements, he and his colleagues found support for their two major predictions: (1) early stage, intense romantic love is associated with subcortical reward regions rich with dopamine; and (2) romantic love engages brain systems associated with motivation to acquire a reward.

Brown explains some of these findings, commenting that “when our participants looked at a photo of his/her beloved, specific activation occurred in the right ventral tegmental area (VTA) and dorsal caudate body. These regions were significant compared to two control conditions, providing strong evidence that these brain areas, which are associated with the motivation to win rewards, are central to the experience of being in love. Humans have evolved three distinct but interrelated brain systems for mating and reproduction – the sex drive, romantic love, and attachment to a long term partner,” Fisher said, “and our results suggest how feelings of romantic love might change into feelings of attachment. Our results support what people have always assumed – that romantic love is one of the most powerful of all human experiences. It is definitely more powerful than the sex drive.”

End quoted article.

Notice the physical description of the brain is described in terms of romantic love/eros. Eros is interrelated with brains systems for sex and attachments to a long-term partners. Note, there is no discussion that this kind of chemistry is occurring when I love my brother or sister or best friend. Eros is a different and highly specialized kind of “love” that is intertwined with sex.

So describing this kind of chemistry in the brain as the generic word, LOVE, as you are doing is incorrect.

Referring to the second part of our discussion: separating x from love.

Notice that the research indicated , “Our findings show that the brain areas activated when someone looks at a photo of their beloved only PARTIALLY OVERLAP (my emphasis) with the brain regions associated with sexual arousal. Sex and romantic love involve quite different brain systems.”

I emphasized “partially overlap” because I think it is very clear that sex and love are not the same at all, but there is some indication that sex and love are not completely separate entities as you suggest. And I will argue that sex and love can be separate and they can be separate 100% in certain situations where 2 people having x do not love each other, but I also argue that if you have x with someone you love then you are going to have this “overlap” that is discussed in the article; albeit small. It is clear, this overlap is not a complete overlap, but there is something in the brains of those having x and love that does overlap, and hence the ability or desire to separate them completely in some people is not an accurate statement. Also notice that the researchers claim that sex,love and attachment are all interrelated within the brain. They are not completely infused but not completely separate either. A nice point of negotiation on our argument.

You said: “The point? Separating love from X is not something that anyone needs to do. They are separate things. Sometimes used in conjunction with one another. That is all. Having X is not an act of love anymore than giving a back massage, or getting your slippers for you, is an act of love. If you can separate those things from love, you ought to be able to separate love from those things.”

Notice you said “..is not something that anyone needs to do.” I think this is where we can agree. No one MUST separate them but no one must NOT separate them either. We are moving towards areas of preference within individuals.

And here is my claim all along: Having x with love is not a necessity. It is a preference just as having x without love is.

I will also argue (and argue determinedly) that for (many) people, x with love is more rewarding psychologically, physically, emotionally and physically.

The point here is not that a person must have x with love, only that for many, having x with love is the best way to have x. So when I say something like “monogamous women cannot separate x from love” I am saying they don’t want to have x without love because x with love is the best kind of x and having x without love is an act that feels cold and detached.

It’s like anything you have a passion for. Do you want to surf without waves? Do you want to golf without balls? Do you want cookies without milk? Do you want cake without icing? Do you want beer without pretzels? Do you want music without orchestras? Do you want art without museums? Do you want gardens without flowers? Do you want snow without mountains? Do you want life without aesthetics? Do you want x without love?

Some things go together, and go together quite naturally, because they make life 1000x more pleasant and worthwhile.

X without love (for some) is base, inferior, mediocre. And when x is base, mediocre or inferior it is very (I emphasize “very”) difficult to enjoy it. And I argue this is especially true for females because we all know that good x starts in the brain. Good x is 99% mental. If you are a person who wants love with x you are probably not going to function very well without the love part. The love part makes the emotional, psychological, mental and physical much more satisfying. For some x without love is simply not satisfying.

That is about as simple as it can get.
So the real question is why should people who want x and love not have it? Why should someone that wants x with love settle for x without love? Why should someone settle for cheap wine when she can have the good stuff?

Life is too short, Timmy!

Posted by: lindajean | March 22, 2008 4:20 PM
Report Offensive Comment

LJ said:
"I understand promiscuity. I don’t accept it as a lifestyle"

No one asked you to accept it as a lifestyle for yourself.
But as a lifestyle of most men, you better accept it. (especially since you haven't got a clue as to how to fix it)
The Iraq war might end in our lifetime. And you actually have an effect on that. (small as it may be)
The male infidelity statistics have been what they are for millennia, and will continue on long after our children's children's children are dead. And you have no effect on that. It is a fact of nature.
Accept it, or be bitterly disappointed for the rest of your life.

All because of honesty eh?
Boy this marriage thing really must be something special if it can be destroyed by honesty. lol.

No.
No one said that the norm would change to promiscuity. That is your word, and your idea. I have never said anything about promiscuity. Only that the norm would not be to marry for life. There will still be many who will choose monogamy, and others will choose something that is very close to monogamy. Many who are accepting of reality will have open relationships. These relationships exist right now LJ and they are on the rise. And they don't resemble any of the crazy examples that you have invented to make such relationships look bad.

LJ said:
"In your new honest world, for women who don’t want to be promiscuous and don’t/can’t separate x from love it will change. There are many women like this, probably the majority or close to it. At least 50% and probably more.

Again, the only thing that will change is honesty. I can't believe you are arguing against the introduction of honesty because of the destructive force it will be.

Also, there is not such thing as someone who "can't" separate love from X. Only people who "don't".

LJ said:
"Unless you completely remove love from X (no way!) you are still going to have jealousies and dishonesty"

(Yes way!)
Like I said. No need to remove love from X.
X is not attached to love in the first place. Unless you attach it yourself. So don't. And jealousy also has nothing to do with love. It is more related to X.

LJ said:
"In your honest new world scenario, the tables are turning on them. Monogamy is scarcer and promiscuity is more common. More men are more likely to become promiscuous as well because the floodgates are open."

LJ, you remind me of those people who think that if they legalize marijuana, the people will go crazy and start smoking pot all over the place. The streets will become one giant pot party. We'll have parents smoking joints in the car with their kids, and teachers smoking pot at school, it will be anarchy. Remember when they ended prohibition against alcohol and we all went crazy with our booze bingeing? It will be like that, only with X right? No. Nothing will change but honesty.

LJ said:
"Can you agree with me that most men do not want the women they love to be promiscuous?
Are men going to accept promiscuity in women they are in love with?"

Men are going to have to accept that if they get to have other X partners, then their spouse also gets to have other X partners. That is only fair. Many men will opt for a monogamous relationship for this reason. And this monogamous arrangement will last as long as it lasts. But it would be ridiculous and stupid for these two to try to codify that arrangement in a ritualistic ceremony complete with legal contract. Because the odds of it lasting forever are not good. It could happen. But no ceremony or vow is going to help it last. It will end when it ends.

Here is a classic example of the kind of childish, and alarmist, scenarios you like to invent to make your point. I don't see the above scenario taking place at all. Why do you think that being honest about X is going to turn people into insensitive irresponsible jerks? These are all just your inventions, Lindajean.

LJ said:
"Isn’t this how/why marriage came about in the first place?"

85% cheat. Good plan! Great solution! lol.

They would only leave if they thought that they could go out and find a man who will be monogamous. But the reality will tell them that that is not likely. So now the only reason they would leave is if they are no longer in love. And that would be the right thing to do. Damn that honesty. Who invented it? What a trouble maker.

LJ said:
"We can’t force men into monogamy and we can’t force women into promiscuity"

Well said. Now you're getting it.

LJ said:
"I don’t have an answer, Timmy. But I suggest that your answer is very good for men, up to a point, until they fall in love"

And then honesty is no longer the best policy????
Now it's time to start denying the truth?
What the hell are you saying?

LJ said:
"Bottom line: We are not going to agree on this. Period. No surprise"

I don't know what you are disagreeing with? Honesty?
That's all I am promoting here.

The real bottom line.
90% of men are not going to be monogamous.
We can either continue doing it behind your back, or out in the open. You decide if you prefer to live in a state of denial, or a state of reality. If denial is less painful to you, so be it. Onward ho with this marriage thing I guess. Don't ask don't tell?

I just don't know what you are disagreeing with LJ.
Do you think that anything I have said affects your relationship with your husband? Do you think that your relationship would be any different in my world of honesty? How so?

And if not. What is your concern?

Posted by: timmy | March 22, 2008 3:29 PM
Report Offensive Comment

I said: “I don't belong in this time.”

LJ said: "It is the only one you will ever have, Timmy"

Maybe.

Maybe the people from my real time will come and get me, and tell me that this was all just a big practical joke. Oh how we will laugh.

Posted by: timmy | March 22, 2008 2:04 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Peter asks:
"Which is the more rational and logical basis of faith, your evolutionary science or the Creator God?"

Well that's an easy one. Science, of course.

And I see you still think that natural selection is a thing, that selects things. Funny.

Posted by: timmy | March 22, 2008 7:13 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Hi Lindajean,

I noticed that you did not answer my question about the different kinds of love that you referred to.

I contend that there is only one. Love. Which is a deep caring for someone. You talk about "love plus X" as though it is a different kind of love altogether. I believe you called it "sensual love". Poppycock! It's just love plus X.

The point? Separating love from X is not something that anyone needs to do. They are separate things. Sometimes used in conjunction with one another. That is all. Having X is not an act of love anymore than giving a back massage, or getting your slippers for you, is an act of love. If you can separate those things from love, you ought to be able to separate love from those things.

Jealousy is another matter, that also has nothing to do with love.
Love is a deep caring for someone. That is all.

Posted by: timmy | March 21, 2008 10:58 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Hi Timmy and Lindajean,

I see you are still hedging the questions. Timmy, you especial talk about religion as being "ancient superstitious folklore" to which I would agree except for the Judeo-Christian faith. That is based on God's revelation regardless of how you chose to look upon it.

Which is the more rational and logical basis of faith, your evolutionary science or the Creator God? If you want to talk about logic and rationale then you need to show me how it is possible for life to come from non-life, personality from the impersonal, morals from an amoral process, thinking from matter. Where have you ever seen a lifeless material object that has the ability to think?

Then you need to show me where you have witnessed this happening today, or where anyone has ever witnessed it. Until you can do this I hold you as the ones believing in superstition.

All we ever witness and have ever witnessed is life coming from the living, persons from the personal, morals from moral beings, thinking from a mind, intention from a mind, so rationally what evidence do you have and have you witnessed to the contrary?

These are some of the biggest problems an atheist has and I have not seen either of you give a sufficient answer, or for that matter any atheist.

These are the questions I continue to see you both sidestepping. Can you make me aware of anywhere on this forum where you have given a logical, rational answer to any of them? Can you make me aware of anywhere where you two have personally witnessed, or anyone else has witnessed such things?

BTW Timmy, natural selection is not proof, it is an assertion. I'm asking how a non-thinking, unintelligent blind, random, chance process can select anything or how such a process actually becomes a thinking selecting intelligent process that can produce intelligent beings from the non-living?

PS. I will probably not be able to answer you both until Monday at the earliest, except possibly for a brief comment.

Posted by: Peter Huff | March 21, 2008 2:41 PM
Report Offensive Comment

I said to Peter: "Living in a theocracy is the antithesis of a constitutional democracy such as the US. You are telling me that you would rather live in such a system? A system that would quell and stifle the words of LJ and atheism? That is the world you want to live in? How would you spend all of your time Peter?..."

Peter said : “It depends on whose theocracy the society is based on, the God of the Bible or the god(s) of some make believe deity.”

and “Praising God, rejoicing in the truth and inviting, as God has called Christians to, others to share in His mercy and grace.”

Peter, so you are saying you would want to live in a theocracy that
“quells the words of LJ and atheists” as long as you could worship your God?

When you say, “Praising God, rejoicing in the [your] truth” this means you want a theocracy that denies a person’s freedom of speech?

If the answer is yes, what other freedoms are you willing to quell? You already have the right to worship your God (under the Constitution or the Canadian equivalent.)

Why do you need to “quell” others’ words in your God-loving theocracy?

Posted by: lindajean | March 21, 2008 10:12 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Timmy said (to Peter):
“I don't belong in this time.”

It is the only one you will ever have, Timmy.

Posted by: lindajean | March 21, 2008 7:34 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Hi Peter:

Peter said, “ But the fact is still there that in its pages over and over and over again it claims to be the word of God. That is evidence.’

Claiming something makes it “evidence.”?
Only in the minds of the religious.

The Koran (or one of its off-shoots) claims killing infidels will get you 72 virgins in heaven. That’s evidence?

Peter: “Science believes the universe and this world had a beginning, whereas God proclaims He is without beginning, so which is more feasible? That is evidence.”

Something without beginning is more feasible than something with a beginning?
This is evidence?

Peter: “As I said before, the evidence is the impossibility of the contrary.’

What about the impossibility of Jesus rising from the dead?
Of Jesus being born of a Virgin?
Of Jesus feeding hundreds with a couple of dead fish?
Of Jesus bringing people back from the dead?

Peter: “It makes sense that only a mind can give birth to or create another mind.”

Evolution makes sense. A birth of my son with a thinking mind is from evolution. That thinking mind evolved.

The Bible contradicts its own absolute truth if we go by this definition.

Peter: “Your country was built on the concepts and principles of God. It is no longer so because, just like Israel in ancient times, they forgot the One who was true.’

The Constitution was built on ideals.

Peter: “Praising God, rejoicing in the truth and inviting, as God has called Christians to, others to share in His mercy and grace.”

A government based on God is a form of tyranny. Why do you think our forefathers (the men who wrote the Constitution) rebelled against England, the Monarchy and the Church? Why do you think there is the exclusion clause in the first amendment. Because they did not want the State to be influenced by the Church AND they wanted people to have the right to worship whoever they wanted (or not to worship whoever they wanted.) In a theocracy there is no choice about who you will worship.

Peter: “The scary thought Lindajean is a relative, postmodern, pluralistic world in which truth is whatever you choose to make it. In such a world anything is morally possible, anything is socially acceptable and all things are permissible as long as you can find the strength in numbers to enforce your belief. Heaven help you if you are in the minority.”

Heaven help you if you are in the minority in a theocracy.

Look around.

LJ: "I am not fearful of “depth”. I seek it out."

Peter: “You are not seeking it out here. Open-mindedness is not always a good thing. How do you arrive at truth if all views are acceptable (except the Christian view) and yet they are all contrary? They all make different claims. Can they all be right?”

No they are not all right. I have never claimed “all views are acceptable.”

“Rational arguments do not work on religious people, otherwise there would be no religious people.”—Dr. House

Posted by: lindajean | March 21, 2008 7:31 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Hi Timmy:

You said: “They need to accept, and understand. (obviously, because it is reality)
Practice? Of course not. No guy is going to mind if his steady partner chooses not to have X with anyone else.”

Reality does not beget acceptance. Something can be a reality but does not require someone to accept it. Reality requires understanding/comprehension. One can understand (the reality) that we are fighting a war in Iraq. But one is not required to accept it. I, for example, do not applaud, favor, advocate, admire, popularize, etc.. the war in Iraq. But I comprehend its reality.

I understand promiscuity. I don’t accept it as a lifestyle.

LJ Says:
"In order for men to be promiscuous women also have to be promiscuous "

Timmy: No they don't. Only if they want to. Why would they have to?

Because this will be the norm in your “new world” scenario. Marriage goes down the tube because men are now “honest.” (And marriage/monogamy WILL go down the tube. More on that later.)

Women won’t have to be promiscuous, but if the norm changes toward promiscuity, then there will certainly be more “pressure” to follow the norm. It will be a choice, but like marriage is today, there will be pressure to conform to it.

Timmy: “Now here's the important part LJ. You would either be the type of person who could love someone who was not into monogamous X? Or you would be the type of person who is turned off by such promiscuity. In which case. honesty would have stopped you from becoming partners with that person in the first place. You would then have the option of trying to find one of those rare guys who are into monogamy. (they're out there) Or not being Xually active or intimate. Or reconsidering your thoughts on monogamy. Lot's of options. no reason for emotional problems.”

No reason for me, personally, in the present ( but that could change.) In your new honest world, for women who don’t want to be promiscuous and don’t/can’t separate x from love it will change. There are many women like this, probably the majority or close to it. At least 50% and probably more.

Do you agree?

In your honest new world scenario, the tables are turning on them. Monogamy is scarcer and promiscuity is more common. More men are more likely to become promiscuous as well because the floodgates are open.

A present day monogamous man (married or unmarried) may decide to hell with monogamy since it is now “abnormal.” I think monogamous men will “go for it” because it will be easier in your honest new world. Promiscuity would be the norm. Monogamous men, after all are still male; they think like males and act like males. And a monogamous man who is faithful today doesn’t mean he wouldn’t be promiscuous if he thought it would be OK or more acceptable. Monogamous men are monogamous because they choose to be. For a variety of reasons they are satisfied with their relationship. We both would agree this could (and even in today’s world can ) turn on a dime. Monogamous today, promiscuous tomorrow. Male monogamy (as you have made perfectly clear) is a tenuous circumstance. Monogamous males still have seed spreading genes. Monogamy today is no guarantee of monogamy tomorrow.

In your honest new world, women finding and keeping real monogamous relationships will be even less likely than they are today. It will not be the same as you suggest. In fact it will be very different. For truly promiscuous people (the x without love variety) life will actually get easier. For monogamous women life will get more difficult because the standard norm changes and they no longer are the “norm.” Fewer men will be monogamous because of changes in standards and acceptability. Less taboo. Women have fewer monogamous male “fish” to choose from in the ocean of promiscuity and the tide for “normal” is now against them.

Unless you completely remove love from X (no way!) you are still going to have jealousies and dishonesty. In fact I would say generally speaking men are more jealous than women, and they are much more likely to act out those jealousies through violence and aggression. Men cheat on their wives/partners, but most men do not like their wives/partners cheating on them. (These are usually relationships where they love their wife/partner but still cheat on them). You are not going to change the jealousy equation just by making things “honest.” And where there is love there is usually jealousy and where there is jealousy there is often dishonesty.

This is where it gets complicated: In your open-honest-run-of-the-mill-non-monogamous-no-strings-attached-xual-relationship, what happens if the man falls in love with a promiscuous female? (Remember he is no longer married. No attachments here.) He’s going to (naturally) not want her--his new love--to be promiscuous. He is OK with his own promiscuity and he is OK with the promiscuity of women he does not love, but he is not going to want “his” woman, that he loves, to be promiscuous. Men will still fall in love. That is not going to change. The double standard returns and it is a very deeply entrenched double standard. I would say this double standard is tied very closely to genetics.

Can you agree with me that most men do not want the women they love to be promiscuous?

Are men going to accept promiscuity in women they are in love with?

Do you believe (for example) a man who is madly in love with a woman, a woman whom he has gotten pregnant, a woman who is going to have his child, is going to want her to be promiscuous? She tells him she is 2 months pregnant but she is going to go out and have x with another man that very night? A man is going to say “OK” to that? No way. Please explain this to me? (And remember this started out as a no-strings-attached relationship---x without love.)

Isn’t this how/why marriage came about in the first place?

In a different scenario: in your new honest world, monogamous women are going to learn that their husbands are cheating. We can assume that, presently, many don’t know that their husbands are cheating, because even if they are aware of the statistics, they will be in denial about this. Human nature.

Don’t you think most women will divorce their husbands when they learn the husband is cheating because now he is going to be honest about it? And in non-married monogamous relationships, the woman will leave also, when her partner shares all? My answer: yes.

Eventually these (now divorced and already single) monogamous-prone women are going to either begin practicing promiscuity themselves or they are going to stop having x. The few men left who are practicing monogamy (if any), are not going to be enough numerically to fill the monogamy niche for 50% or more of the monogamous-prone women. Remember, these are women who have difficulty separating x from love. That is why they like monogamy in the first place. Now, some of these women are going to opt in for promiscuity. Do they have much choice? If they want x they are going to have to acquiesce or “accept” it as you state. How do they separate x from love? Remember, love is not willed, Timmy. Your words!

So what you have now is honesty in relationships where there is no love just x, which you probably had in the “old” world scenario anyways.

But you also have less x overall for monogamous females (frustrated females: not good) OR more females practicing promiscuity---which is not something they are naturally inclined to do--- but by doing it they unwillfully may fall in love with men that only want x not love. Great combination.

Don’t you agree that love and promiscuity don’t mix? You can’t love someone and not expect them to be monogamous? At least if you are male. Men who fall in love want their partners to be monogamous even as they (men) continue to be promiscuous.

As you can see, these scenarios get convoluted. And that is exactly the point. X, love and gender relationships are as gray and muddy and nonsensical as anything in reality can be.

So my point is this: what is exactly honest here? Communicating that you are promiscuous to your monogamous partner is honest. Agreed.

Are formerly monogamous women (who prefer monogamy over promiscuity) but are now practicing promiscuity because this is now the norm ---OR not practicing x at all--is this an honest lifestyle? I argue that it is not. And I argue it is not any more honest than a man conforming to monogamy.

Is it honest for promiscuous men to want the women they love to be monogamous? No it it not honest. It is a double standard.

Is a promiscuous women falling in love with a man that doesn’t love her a form of honesty?

I argue it is not. It is a form of heart-break even if he has been blatantly honest with her.

Is bringing children into these situations honest?
Explain to me how it is.

We are trading one form of dishonesty for another that is all.

If we are really honest we have to understand (not accept) that the differences between the majority of men and the majority of women is never going to change, if these differences are inherent. They definitely are for promiscuous men. Perhaps the case for monogamous females is cultural. That’s debatable. If it is cultural then “culture” has predominated throughout most of history. If, however, monogamous female sex is genetically inclined (I think it probably is) then we cannot change it. Trying to force men into monogamy has proven this. We can’t force men into monogamy and we can’t force women into promiscuity. Even if the former or later are the norm.

And we also can’t condone double standards between the genders because that is sexist and sometimes unethical.

So the real question is what do we do about it? We can change the variables but the facts will remain the same.

I don’t have an answer, Timmy. But I suggest that your answer is very good for men, up to a point, until they fall in love. Maybe the happiest people in the world are (men) who do not fall in love but can still enjoy x. Or women who can truly find monogamy (and love with x).

Bottom line: We are not going to agree on this. Period. No surprise. Your reality (as a promiscuous male) is very different than my reality (as a monogamous female).

Never the twain shall agree. Except, incidentally, on Sam Harris blogs about Atheism: a much easier topic.

Wouldn’t you agree?

Posted by: lindajean | March 21, 2008 6:23 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Peter,

All of your questions have been answered. You just don't like the answers.
You prefer ancient superstitious folklore, to science.

Posted by: timmy | March 21, 2008 3:44 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Hi Timmy,

BTW, you did not answer all my question, nor do you have the ability to from your atheistic framework. I understand that.

TIMMY: "BTW, I have answered every question you have put to me. There is no dodging here. You just don't like the answers.

March 16, 2008 3:11 PM"

ME: "So how did it become a living organism in the first place"

How did God become God in the first place?

Great answer Timmy!

ME: "Give me an example of anywhere were we witness something that is non-living giving birth to a living organism"

TIMMY: "Give me an example of anywhere were we witness a God creating anything. You have never seen it happen and can only speculate. YOU LIVE BY FAITH in something that is illogically impossible."

Great answer Timmy to my question on where you witness something that is non-living giving birth to a living organism. Explain to me how it is possible. Your tactics are more and more like those of the JW's. Whenever you start to pin them down they change the subject because they don't have the answers.

What about my numerous questions about intent? How can intent come from anything but a mind. Give me an example of where you have ever witnessed something other than a mind having intent? Everywhere you only witness intent coming from minds, so why should I believe otherwise?

Give me an explanation and evidence of how something that is non-thinking, non-intelligent can evolve into something that is thinking and intelligent? Your worldview has no answers except the magic formula of billions and billions of years. Hah!

ME: "He didn't have to but he did."

TIMMY: "Exactly my point! Making him, imperfect."

By his choice, the perfect yet limited creature willing chose (since his choice had to have the ability to act both ways or the creature would not have had a perfectly free ability to choose) to know the knowledge of both good and evil, creating the flaw and thus becoming imperfect. If we agree on this we agree. If you are saying that he was never perfect as I believe you are we still disagree and will have to remain so inclined.

Posted by: Peter Huff | March 21, 2008 2:27 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Hi Lindajean!

LJ: "I am not disputing the people, places and some of the events in the Bible. It probably has some historical truths. I am disputing the supernatural beliefs from the Bible. That Jesus was born a Virgin, that Jesus will return to earth, the Rapture..... NO amount of circumstantial evidence can prove any of this. There is nothing to “infer” here."

The Bible itself is the evidence I would appeal to first. I see two choices in regards to it. Either it is what it says it is, the Word of God or it is a myth, ancient folklore, make believe. Maybe you have another choice. But the fact is still there that in its pages over and over and over again it claims to be the word of God. That is evidence.

Then there is the evidence of something happening that caused these authors to write of Jesus not only in the New Testament, but also in the Old. The countless prophesies, over three hundred on Him alone show evidence that something unusual happened here.

Then there is the evidence that the New Testament authors were transformed by what they believed to be the risen Christ, on whom they testified earlier had been put to death and buried, only to be seen again in the flesh three days later. And these people suffered torturous deaths, for what, believing in something they believed was not true? Would you die for a lie? No they were convinced of something supernatural, something that does not happen. Why are their historical narratives so accurate? That is evidence.

Either this world was created or it somehow, and you have not been able to explain how this could happen, came into being. The same applies to the universe. Since something cannot create itself since it would have to exist before it could create anything the universe (or multi-universes) or God would have to be the self-existing cause of everything else. Science believes the universe and this world had a beginning, whereas God proclaims He is without beginning, so which is more feasible? That is evidence.

Since you cannot demonstrate how order can come from chaos, how thought can come from something that is non-thinking, how personality can come from the impersonal, how life can come from something non-living, how morals can come from something amoral, how logic can come from something without logic, and there are no examples that you have given as evidence, the evidence points to the God of the Bible who is self existent, eternal, personal, mindful, living, loving, moral, true, logical, supernatural, miraculous.

The reason I say all this is because you have never been able to show anything to the contrary in the natural world of these things happening. What is real conforms to God's word. You cannot show me what is real conforming to evolution for you cannot show me how a stone or a non-living substance can become a thinking, living, thinking, loving being. It goes against everything we know. You live by faith in something that has not been shown to be possible.

As I said before, the evidence is the impossibility of the contrary.

ME: “All wisdom and soundness of thought originates from God and when we think His thoughts after Him.”

LJ: "This is what I mean by not having evidence. There is nothing circumstantial (at best) about this statement."

First show me something that was non-living, non-thinking, non-personal, amoral becoming living, thinking, personal and moral. You can't. You take it by faith, an illogical one at that.

LJ: "If I want to infer that my dog can understand English because I have “circumstantial” evidence that she watches TV with me (when in fact all she is doing is sitting next to me on the sofa and looking at the TV) then I am free to believe she understands Geraldine Ferraro when she hears her on TV. But in reality, I am misunderstanding cause and effect relationships in this scenario. Many religious people tend to do just that."

Infer all you like, but if it does not conform to what is real your dog is just barking in the wind.

So do many atheists.

ME: “The proof is in the impossibility of the contrary.”

LJ: "Huhh....what is impossible about there not being a God?"

Before you rule out the supernatural, show me how the natural is possible in the areas I have mentioned to you many times. You can't. You, in your limited wisdom, are just speculating.

LJ: "You can say it is a mind he gave me."

ME: “Yes I can say that and you have no way of proving otherwise and no rational way of explaining otherwise.”

LJ: "I have lots of rational ways of explaining. It is your God that is irrational."

Yes, Lindajean, another great explanation! All you have done is make a statement that you have lots of rational ways of explaining otherwise. I have asked you numerous times to demonstrate and prove them and how. I'm still waiting.

ME: “Yes, you do have a wonderful mind and mind can only come from mind. You will never be able to show me how mind can come from anything but mind. And the mind that everything comes from is the Mind of God.’

LJ: "Where is the evidence (circumstantial or otherwise)? There is none Peter. You cannot prove to me that my mind comes from the Mind of God (whatever that may mean)."

It makes sense that only a mind can give birth to or create another mind. When you give birth, your son is a living, thinking being (with a mind). You cannot show me how a rock or a substance can produce a mind. Your magic ingredient is time, millions and billions of years in which there was supposedly no mind around to witness the birth of mind.

ME: “You can't establish any true judgment without an objective, ultimate, absolute standard. Anything else is just subjective opinion. The reason so many things we discover are true is because we are discovering or applying God's truth.”

LJ: "Well, you are half right. Most of everything is subjective."

Maybe, but a) how do you know that? and b)if there is not an absolute, objective, ultimate standard why should I take your word for it, or rather more to the point, what makes your word true, right, good? It is just your opinion and I have another, thank you very much. So how do you determine truth?

Without God truth is just something that happens to be the way it is today and there is no guaranteed that it will be so tomorrow, just because it has been so in the past. God is the sustainer of all things. We know that summer and autumn and winter and spring will continue because God has promised such things in His word and He does not lie.

There is a standard outside yourself Lindajean in which we can measure truth, goodness, justice, knowledge, etc., from.

"Absolute truth implies at least two things: 1) that whatever is true at one time and in one place is true at all times and in all places, and 2) that whatever is true for one person is true for all persons. Absolute truth does not change [for God cannot lie]" When Skeptics Ask, p. 255-256.

LJ: "It makes governments and societies a lot easier when there are no gray areas. But I don't see you clamoring to go live in a theocracy. Have you considered the idea? Are there any Christian theocracies in the making? I would guess you might embrace such an ideal??"

Your country was built on the concepts and principles of God. It is no longer so because, just like Israel in ancient times, they forgot the One who was true.

ME: “It depends on whose theocracy the society is based on, the God of the Bible or the god(s) of some make believe deity.”

LJ: "Living in a theocracy is the antithesis of a constitutional democracy such as the US. You are telling me that you would rather live in such a system? A system that would quell and stifle the words of LJ and atheism? That is the world you want to live in? How would you spend all of your time Peter?..."

Praising God, rejoicing in the truth and inviting, as God has called Christians to, others to share in His mercy and grace.

LJ: "Good god, that is a scary thought and gives me goose bumps."

The scary thought Lindajean is a relative, postmodern, pluralistic world in which truth is whatever you choose to make it. In such a world anything is morally possible, anything is socially acceptable and all things are permissible as long as you can find the strength in numbers to enforce your belief. Heaven help you if you are in the minority.

ME: " I invite you to look into it and test your suppositions if you wish to carry this further."

LJ: "I don't."

ME: “I don't blame you. It can get pretty in depth.’

LJ: "I am not fearful of “depth”. I seek it out."

You are not seeking it out here. Open-mindedness is not always a good thing. How do you arrive at truth if all views are acceptable (except the Christian view) and yet they are all contrary? They all make different claims. Can they all be right?

LJ: "I am only weary and frustrated with people who believe a Christian theocracy would be superior to a democracy like the US and who want to force their beliefs onto others who do not accept them."

Lindajean, I cannot force my beliefs on you, I can only point out why your beliefs do not make sense. The rest is up to God's mercy and grace. Whether you believe or not is not in my hands. But what I can do is converse with you until you tell me you have had enough.

Well, it is getting late. Shall I continue and risk staying up the other half of the night or shall I put the rest of your post aside until Monday?

I think I shall wish you a Happy Easter with your family and post the rest on Monday.

Posted by: Peter Huff | March 21, 2008 1:42 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Hi Peter:

TIMMY: "The same goes for Adam, Peter. He doesn't have to make a wrong choice to prove that he has the ability to make a wrong choice."

PETER: He didn't have to but he did.

Exactly my point! Making him, imperfect.

TIMMY: "He could make right choices his whole life, all the while having the ability to make the wrong choice."

PETER: He could have but he didn't.

Exactly my point! Making him imperfect.

Don't bother Peter. This point ends here. It is far to simple, and distilled down to a single point of contention for further discussion to help. Adam screwed-up. And a creature that screws up, even once, is not perfect.

Every day of my life, I have to give my head a shake, when the realization comes upon me, that there are fully grown adults, who actually believe this hyper leap of logic. This fairy tale. This bazar desire to be minions in the most brutal dictatorship ever imagined.

I don't belong in this time.

Posted by: timmy | March 21, 2008 12:34 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Hi Soja,

Happy Easter! The Lord is risen!

The spacious firmament on high,
With all the blue ethereal sky,
And spangled heav'ns, a shining frame,
Their great original proclaim.
Th' unwearied sun, from day to day,
Does his Creator's pow'r display,
And publishes to every land
The work of an Almighty hand.

Soon as the evening shades prevail,
The moon takes up the wondrous tale,
And nightly to the list'ning earth
Repeats the story of her birth;
Whilst all the stars that round her burn,
Confirm the tides as they roll,
And spread the truth from pole to pole.

What though in solemn silence all
Move round this dark terrestrial ball?
What though nor real voice nor sound
Amidst their radiant orbs be found?

In reason's ear they all rejoice,
And utter forth a glorious voice;
For ever singing, as they shine,
"The hand that made us is divine."

Author: Joseph Addison, 1712

Posted by: Peter Huff | March 20, 2008 11:59 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Hi Lindajean and Timmy,

Sorry to take so long in responding. I will try and sit down tonight, God willing.

Posted by: Peter Huff | March 20, 2008 12:59 AM
Report Offensive Comment

LJ Says:

"I am guessing you are saying they need to understand but not practice. Correct? Understanding does not mean a woman will accept it"

They need to accept, and understand. (obviously, because it is reality)
Practice? Of course not. No guy is going to mind if his steady partner chooses not to have X with anyone else.

LJ Says:
"In order for men to be promiscuous women also have to be promiscuous "

No they don't. Only if they want to. Why would they have to?

LJ SAYS:
"Women have 3 choices. That is it."

They have the same number of choices that they have now. Just more honesty.

LJ Says:
"But husbands who are promiscuous also sucks for women. The only difference is now they know their husband is cheating. That may be better from an ethical point but how is it better from an emotional point"

Because first of all, it wouldn't be a husband. It would be a best friend that you love deeply and often have X with. And you would be accepting that this person that you love is happiest when they have a variety of X in their life. And you would want them to be happy, because you love them.
Now here's the important part LJ. You would either be the type of person who could love someone who was not into monogamous X? Or you would be the type of person who is turned off by such promiscuity. In which case. honesty would have stopped you from becoming partners with that person in the first place. You would then have the option of trying to find one of those rare guys who are into monogamy. (they're out there) Or not being Xually active or intimate. Or reconsidering your thoughts on monogamy. Lot's of options. no reason for emotional problems.

LJ Says:
"Childish? Like immature? Having a temper tantrum? I am in the dark."

Childish about how you portray how non monogamous relationships would go. You always portray it in the worst possible light. These people, who are nothing more than honest versions of our current selves. They have no more reason to be irresponsible, dispassionate, and cruel than any of us currently do. They would take each others feelings into account and act like people who love each other. They just wouldn't be all hung up on a concept that doesn't exists for most people.

LJ"S Description of what I am saying:
"Timmy believes that marriage sucks"

Yes. For 90% of us. It is not an impossible arrangement. But certainly not something the government or society should promote as something that is healthy for all of us. (or even for most of us)

LJ Continues:
"Men are naturally promiscuous. When women marry them they are duped into believing that men will be monogamous but most are not. Men cheat on their wives and lie to them because they greatly desire x with other women"

This part is not my belief, but reality, based on statistics.

LJ continues: "When men cheat they have x without love"

Not necessarily. Some men have love with their cheating. They have either lost love for their wife, or it is also quite possible to love two or more women at once. Just like it is possible for a woman to love two or more men at once. Love has no numbers limit.

LJ continues:
"Women need to understand that men will have x without love even though for most women x without love is not natural or a choice they would make for themselves"

Yes. Yes. Yes.
Also, many many women have sex for pure lust as well.

LJ says:
Women who are married need to realize, understand and accept that their husbands are going to cheat on them and it has little to do with love"

There would be no husbands, and no promised monogamy, so there would be no cheating. Just other partners from time to time. And it is accepted by both parties, so there is no cheating.

LJ continues:
"Most men love their wives and some may even want to stay married. But most men do not want to be married"

No. There would be no marriages, except those extremely rare cases where the couple would stay monogamous. Like you and your hubby.

LJ says:
"If you want to be promiscuous then don’t get married. If you are married and cheat be honest about it. I have been saying that for days...weeks..."

Me too. But I have also been saying that this kind of honesty would lead to a world where less than 10% of us get married. and that works for me. That is exactly what I am talking about.

LJ says:
"I can tell you subjectively that the love I have for my husband is very very different than the love I have for my brother"

You should be able to describe the difference then.
Aside from X, what is it?
And what about the difference between your love for your husband and your love for your best friend. Besides X and living together, how is the love different?

Love is just a strong feeling of deep caring for someone. There are different reasons WHY you love, but love is love. And X has nothing to do with it.

LJ says:
"Marriage lasts until people decide to end it. That is what most people want. A marriage that lasts until we decide to separate"

That's just love. No marriage necessary. No need to make a vow that you don't really mean, you just hope that, what you promised is going to happen for sure, actually happens. Ridiculous. Just love and hope. Marriage is useless. Pointless. 90% will fail in their vows. What is the point?!!!

LJ says:
"When women realize this, crap will hit the fan...."

The question is. Why don't they realize it now? The facts and figures are all there.

Posted by: timmy | March 19, 2008 3:04 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Timmy said, "Exactly. Just add freedom, and monogamy is no longer the norm. It drops down to about 10% of society.But 85% still pretend..."

No, not exactly.

...."just add honesty" and your sentence will make more sense. Freedom is not the issue here that we are discussing (in western culture.)

Honesty is.

Posted by: lindajean | March 19, 2008 10:11 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Hi Timmy:

LJ SAYS:
"So are you saying (more) women need to understand this concept or (more ) women need to practice this concept?"

Timmy; Yes. The alternative is 85% of them continue getting cheated on.

You didn’t answer the question. There is an OR in that question. Do women need to understand the concept OR do they need to practice the concept? By “understand” they realize that men are going to have x without love in other relationships. Yes or no. By “practice” I mean woman go out and have X without love in various relationships? Yes or no.

I am guessing you are saying they need to understand but not practice. Correct?

Understanding does not mean a woman will accept it.

Timmy: “... I have never said that women need to be more promiscuous.”

In order for men to be promiscuous women also have to be promiscuous (that was the reason I asked you where are all of these women going to come from?) OR they are going to have to accept the fact that their husbands are being promiscuous and live with it OR they are going to have to live celibate lives and not have relationships.

Women have 3 choices. That is it.

Timmy: “Marriage sucks for women more than men. The men are not being monogamous, but the women think that they are and are being duped.”

But husbands who are promiscuous also sucks for women. The only difference is now they know their husband is cheating. That may be better from an ethical point but how is it better from an emotional point (or am I being childish now?). Whether my husband is promiscuous behind my back or in front of me, it is still emotional anguish. I don’t see that changing much, do you? Are women suppose to “get over” a husband’s promiscuous behavior?

Timmy: “.... Every time you make-up your version of how it would go, it is a very childish and angry vision of male female relations. It would go nothing like you said. Nothing. Your relationship with your husband would be exactly the same in my world. Nothing changes but honesty.”

I am not angry. I am inquisitive. I am struggling. I am a little unnerved. I’m tenacious.

I’ve only been kind of P.O.’d on this blog twice and it had nothing to do with you. That is all water under the bridge. There is nothing to be angry about here.

Childish? Like immature? Having a temper tantrum? I am in the dark.

Timmy: “Honesty. Acceptance of reality.
85% cheat. What is your alternative to what I am saying?”

I can’t have an alternative until I understand what you are saying. Whenever I try to clarify what you are saying I am accused of having some agenda here. Well at the risk of being accused of anger or childishness, I am going to attempt to paraphrase what you are saying:

Timmy believes that marriage sucks. Men are naturally promiscuous. When women marry them they are duped into believing that men will be monogamous but most are not. Men cheat on their wives and lie to them because they greatly desire x with other women. When men cheat they have x without love. Women need to understand that men will have x without love even though for most women x without love is not natural or a choice they would make for themselves. Women who are married need to realize, understand and accept that their husbands are going to cheat on them and it has little to do with love. Most men love their wives and some may even want to stay married. But most men do not want to be married.

Timmy: “The only change I am calling for is honesty. No one needs to get more promiscuous than they already are naturally. They will just start being honest about it.’

I have said that all along. If you want to be promiscuous then don’t get married. If you are married and cheat be honest about it. I have been saying that for days...weeks...

We are saying the same thing. Coming at it from a different angle.

Timmy: “There are not two different kinds of love, there is only one. Love.
X is something that we do with people we are attracted to.....
Can you explain the different kinds of love you speak of?
What is the difference between the love you have for your best friend, and the love you have for your husband, and the love you have for your brother. And don't say X..."

Philosophers have been discussing this for centuries. Plato was one of them. There are different kinds of love:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agap%C4%93

Read up on it and then we can discuss it if you want.

My comment for now is X is an act, it is not a feeling. Love is a feeling and I can tell you subjectively that the love I have for my husband is very very different than the love I have for my brother.

I love chocolate. Eating chocolate is an act, not a feeling. But I when I eat chocolate (the really good stuff) it produces a very nice feeling (not exactly love) but it is like no other feeling I get when I eat anything else. I might “love” pizza and pineapples. But the only food I get this “special” feeling with is chocolate. (Unfortunately for me, chocolate is addictive and fattening in large quantities so I have to eat it sparingly.)

LJ SAYS:
"Well, that is also my point. Don’t get married if you are promiscuous. Be honest."

Timmy: “85% of men would follow this advice if we were honest about marriage as a society in the first place. But then my world would exist, LJ. Most people would not be married or monogamous. All it takes for my world to exist, where marriage is a fringe thing and not the norm, is honesty.”

I don’t think it is quite that simple. But I agree that if honesty were in the equation, things would be a lot different.

LJ SAYS:
"The choice you have is that you can get married and take a vow and promise to love your spouse (for as long as possible) and there is nothing wrong with that as long as you are honest about it."

Timmy: “Notice how you had to clarify (for as long as possible)That is not what marriage was intended to be, and that is not how anyone sees it. Lindajean, you have a completely different definition of marriage here. And it is not the correct one. Nobody sees marriage as a promise to love as long as possible. They see it as it is worded, as a promise to love forever. That's what it is. And that is why it almost never works.”

That is when “hope” enters the picture. I don’t think you are going to get rid of people’s hopes. This kind of marriage is possible and is probably what most marriages end up being. People can say “till death do us part” but in reality, that doesn’t happen. Marriage lasts until people decide to end it. That is what most people want. A marriage that lasts until we decide to separate.

Timmy: “Lindajean. I am not calling for any change in male female X habits.
Just a change in the honesty about it.”

OK, I do see this from your angle now. I understand what you are saying-- be honest and let the cards fall as they may. Eventually marriage will no longer occur because women will not believe in “till death do us part” as a reality.

When women realize this, crap will hit the fan....

Timmy: “Why do you keep thinking that I am calling for more promiscuity?
I am calling for the same situation now, but with honesty?”

Because I think this conversation has evolved over time. In my mind you had a different argument basically saying to throw out marriage. I don’t think you are saying that now. You are saying that with time marriage will evolve into non-marriage.

Timmy: “What are you calling for?”

Honesty, hope in the future and lifestyles that don’t screw around with children’s emotional well-being (among other things).

Posted by: lindajean | March 19, 2008 8:19 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Hi Peter

Many thanks for your message. I wish you a wonderful Easter!

Best wishes
Soja

Posted by: Soja John Thaikattil, Sydney, Australia | March 19, 2008 6:19 AM
Report Offensive Comment

To Bernie from Soja, wishing you a Happy Easter!

ODE: INTIMATIONS OF IMMORTALITY FROM RECOLLECTIONS OF EARLY CHILDHOOD

by William Wordsworth

THERE was a time when meadow, grove, and stream,
The earth, and every common sight,
To me did seem
Apparelled in celestial light,
The glory and the freshness of a dream.
It is not now as it hath been of yore;--
Turn wheresoe'er I may,
By night or day,
The things which I have seen I now can see no more.

The Rainbow comes and goes,
And lovely is the Rose,
The Moon doth with delight
Look round her when the heavens are bare,
Waters on a starry night
Are beautiful and fair;
The sunshine is a glorious birth;
But yet I know, where'er I go,
That there hath past away a glory from the earth.

III

Now, while the birds thus sing a joyous song,
And while the young lambs bound
As to the tabor's sound,
To me alone there came a thought of grief:
A timely utterance gave that thought relief,
And I again am strong:
The cataracts blow their trumpets from the steep;
No more shall grief of mine the season wrong;
I hear the Echoes through the mountains throng,
The Winds come to me from the fields of sleep,
And all the earth is gay;
Land and sea
Give themselves up to jollity,
And with the heart of May
Doth every Beast keep holiday;--
Thou Child of Joy,
Shout round me, let me hear thy shouts, thou happy
Shepherd-boy!

Ye blessed Creatures, I have heard the call
Ye to each other make; I see
The heavens laugh with you in your jubilee;
My heart is at your festival,
My head hath its coronal,
The fulness of your bliss, I feel--I feel it all.
Oh evil day! if I were sullen
While Earth herself is adorning,
This sweet May-morning,
And the Children are culling
On every side,
In a thousand valleys far and wide,
Fresh flowers; while the sun shines warm,
And the Babe leaps up on his Mother's arm:--
I hear, I hear, with joy I hear!
--But there's a Tree, of many, one,
A single Field which I have looked upon,
Both of them speak of something that is gone:
The Pansy at my feet
Doth the same tale repeat:
Whither is fled the visionary gleam?
Where is it now, the glory and the dream?

Our birth is but a sleep and a forgetting:
The Soul that rises with us, our life's Star,
Hath had elsewhere its setting,
And cometh from afar:
Not in entire forgetfulness,
And not in utter nakedness,
But trailing clouds of glory do we come
From God, who is our home:
Heaven lies about us in our infancy!
Shades of the prison-house begin to close
Upon the growing Boy,
But He beholds the light, and whence it flows,
He sees it in his joy;
The Youth, who daily farther from the east
Must travel, still is Nature's Priest,
And by the vision splendid
Is on his way attended;
At length the Man perceives it die away,
And fade into the light of common day.

Earth fills her lap with pleasures of her own;
Yearnings she hath in her own natural kind,
And, even with something of a Mother's mind,
And no unworthy aim,
The homely Nurse doth all she can
To make her Foster-child, her Inmate Man,
Forget the glories he hath known,
And that imperial palace whence he came.

VII

Behold the Child among his new-born blisses,
A six years' Darling of a pigmy size!
See, where 'mid work of his own hand he lies,
Fretted by sallies of his mother's kisses,
With light upon him from his father's eyes!
See, at his feet, some little plan or chart,
Some fragment from his dream of human life,
Shaped by himself with newly-learned art;
A wedding or a festival,
A mourning or a funeral;
And this hath now his heart,
And unto this he frames his song:
Then will he fit his tongue
To dialogues of business, love, or strife;
But it will not be long
Ere this be thrown aside,
And with new joy and pride
The little Actor cons another part;
Filling from time to time his "humorous stage"
With all the Persons, down to palsied Age,
That Life brings with her in her equipage;
As if his whole vocation
Were endless imitation.

VIII

Thou, whose exterior semblance doth belie
Thy Soul's immensity;
Thou best Philosopher, who yet dost keep
Thy heritage, thou Eye among the blind,
That, deaf and silent, read'st the eternal deep,
Haunted for ever by the eternal mind,--
Mighty Prophet! Seer blest!
On whom those truths do rest,
Which we are toiling all our lives to find,
In darkness lost, the darkness of the grave;
Thou, over whom thy Immortality
Broods like the Day, a Master o'er a Slave,
A Presence which is not to be put by;
Thou little Child, yet glorious in the might
Of heaven-born freedom on thy being's height,
Why with such earnest pains dost thou provoke
The years to bring the inevitable yoke,
Thus blindly with thy blessedness at strife?
Full soon thy Soul shall have her earthly freight,
And custom lie upon thee with a weight
Heavy as frost, and deep almost as life!

O joy! that in our embers
Is something that doth live,
That nature yet remembers
What was so fugitive!
The thought of our past years in me doth breed
Perpetual benediction: not indeed
For that which is most worthy to be blest--
Delight and liberty, the simple creed
Of Childhood, whether busy or at rest,
With new-fledged hope still fluttering in his breast:--
Not for these I raise
The song of thanks and praise;
But for those obstinate questionings
Of sense and outward things,
Fallings from us, vanishings;
Blank misgivings of a Creature
Moving about in worlds not realised,
High instincts before which our mortal Nature
Did tremble like a guilty Thing surprised:
But for those first affections,
Those shadowy recollections,
Which, be they what they may,
Are yet the fountain light of all our day,
Are yet a master light of all our seeing;
Uphold us, cherish, and have power to make
Our noisy years seem moments in the being
Of the eternal Silence: truths that wake,
To perish never;
Which neither listlessness, nor mad endeavour,
Nor Man nor Boy,
Nor all that is at enmity with joy,
Can utterly abolish or destroy!
Hence in a season of calm weather
Though inland far we be,
Our Souls have sight of that immortal sea
Which brought us hither,
Can in a moment travel thither,
And see the Children sport upon the shore,
And hear the mighty waters rolling evermore.

Then sing, ye Birds, sing, sing a joyous song!
And let the young Lambs bound
As to the tabor's sound!
We in thought will join your throng,
Ye that pipe and ye that play,
Ye that through your hearts to-day
Feel the gladness of the May!
What though the radiance which was once so bright
Be now for ever taken from my sight,
Though nothing can bring back the hour
Of splendour in the grass, of glory in the flower;
We will grieve not, rather find
Strength in what remains behind;
In the primal sympathy
Which having been must ever be;
In the soothing thoughts that spring
Out of human suffering;
In the faith that looks through death,
In years that bring the philosophic mind.

And O, ye Fountains, Meadows, Hills, and Groves,
Forebode not any severing of our loves!
Yet in my heart of hearts I feel your might;
I only have relinquished one delight
To live beneath your more habitual sway.
I love the Brooks which down their channels fret,
Even more than when I tripped lightly as they;
The innocent brightness of a new-born Day
Is lovely yet;
The Clouds that gather round the setting sun
Do take a sober colouring from an eye
That hath kept watch o'er man's mortality;
Another race hath been, and other palms are won.
Thanks to the human heart by which we live,
Thanks to its tenderness, its joys, and fears,
To me the meanest flower that blows can give
Thoughts that do often lie too deep for tears.

***************************************

Posted by: Soja John Thaikattil, Sydney, Australia | March 19, 2008 6:17 AM
Report Offensive Comment

G'day Bernie! (hoping you may someday visit this website and read this)

On 5 March 2008 7:15 PM you wrote:

“Och Soja! Surely ye don't meant tae say ye'er leavin' us? Even more than Sam you are the main reason why I kept on here and had planned lots o' fab wee poems especially for you but also for you tae witness that even though Peter 'n you couldnae convert Gad 'n Timmy tae yer fundy eccentricities I would have em beggin' for more o' the poetry they so vehemently claim tae detest! Aye, and in the Scottish vernacular at that! Fr'instance, there was a Yankee Prof of English here not that long ago claiming it was impossible for sich a crude dialect as Scots tae express tender thoughts. If ye keep faith wi' me I'll show how wrang the bampot is so that even those two reprobates, Gad 'n Timmy will be in full agreement with me.
What d'ye say tae that?
If ye'er still determined tae leave then I'm off as well!”

My heartfelt thanks for your kind words which was truly balm to my soul: that you took the trouble to post English poems especially for me on Sam Harris' blog, although it isn't meant for that purpose (to be an English poetry blog I mean). But as you well know your poems are equally appreciated by LJ, so you could have continued the conversation with her and posted them for her sake too, as you always did.

As to the Yankee Professor of English who refused to be believe that Scots could express tender thoughts in such a wonderful dialect, tell him from me (if you happen to see him again), that American English is exactly Queen's English either; and if Americans can express tender thoughts in their dialect, then why can't the Scotch express their emotions in their own dialect? Tell him too that the problem he has is that he is unable to listen to Scotch with his heart.

I have truly enjoyed reading the poetry you posted, and I will always remember how you managed to awaken a love of English poetry in me (even if I am unlikely to spend much time reading English poetry). But as far as this blog goes, alas, even good things must come to an end sometime.

I wish that you find loving relationships (especially love with a special woman/women) in the context of your daily life in Scotland and whatever else you need to be truly happy in your life. Seeking substitute relationships on a blog is the best way to keep reality at bay.

With many thanks for the joy you brought me with your poetry on the Sam Harris blog, I close with an English poem for you (posted separately)!

Best wishes
Soja

Posted by: Soja John Thaikattil, Sydney, Australia | March 19, 2008 6:06 AM
Report Offensive Comment

LJ SAYS:
"What you are speaking of: “extremely low divorce rate, virtually no female infidelity and a much lower male infidelity” is from lack of freedom, "

Exactly.
Just add freedom, and monogamy is no longer the norm. It drops down to about 10% of society.
But 85% still pretend.
Silly.

Posted by: timmy | March 18, 2008 3:47 PM
Report Offensive Comment

LJ says:
"They are cheating because of the reasons you listed above POA, seed spreading, etc... but the dissatisfaction/problems in their marriage is how they justify it. (My wife is boring, a nag, takes me for granted.....so I am going to.....)"

For the ones who have unhappy marriages, yes, they can use this to justify their cheating actions. But for the ones who have happy marriages, they have to find some other justification. And they do. And they proceed with their affair. The reason for the cheating has not changed. Just that one of these guys has a little less guilt.

LJ SAYS:
"So are you saying (more) women need to understand this concept or (more ) women need to practice this concept?"

Yes. The alternative is 85% of them continue getting cheated on.

LJ says:
"but you seem to be implying that women, generally speaking, need to be more promiscuous since marriage sucks"

No, that is not what I am saying. I have never said that women need to be more promiscuous.

LJ:
"I think I have grasped that you believe marriage is unnatural for men and promiscuity is not, therefore in the case of men, marriage sks"

Marriage sucks for women more than men. The men are not being monogamous, but the women think that they are and are being duped.

LJ SAYS:
"Good, god, Timmy. Surely this this not what you mean"

Of course not. Every time you make-up your version of how it would go, it is a very childish and angry vision of male female relations. It would go nothing like you said. Nothing. Your relationship with your husband would be exactly the same in my world. Nothing changes but honesty.

LJ SAYS:
"I don’t think I am a stupid person. But I cannot get a grasp of this scenario. How is this going to work for women? What advantage are they going to have in this scenario over marriage or monogamy?

Honesty. Acceptance of reality.
85% cheat. What is your alternative to what I am saying?

"I am going to choose this kind of hideous lifestyle over the one I already have?"

Who has asked you to?

LJ says:
"(Yes, some will I understand that.) But if 100% of men are promiscuous and say only 50% of women are (at best) then how do we square the circle here? That is the part I do not understand."

That is the case now, Lindajean. What are you not getting about this? The only change I am calling for is honesty. No one needs to get more promiscuous than they already are naturally. They will just start being honest about it.

Once again, Lindajean, I am not calling for a change in sexual conduct. I'm calling for a change in honesty about the conduct that naturally has been occurring for millennia.

LJ SAYS:
"I don’t have X with my brother or best friend. You are talking about 2 different kinds of love. Platonic love and sensual"

There are not two different kinds of love, there is only one. Love.
X is something that we do with people we are attracted to.
Some people choose only to have X with someone they love.
This does not make their love different than any other love.
It's just love, with X thrown into the mix.

Can you explain the different kinds of love you speak of?
What is the difference between the love you have for your best friend, and the love you have for your husband, and the love you have for your brother. And don't say X. X is not a difference in love anymore than traveling with someone you love makes that a different kind of love than people you love but don't travel with.

LJ SAYS:
"Yes, that makes perfect sense. But that is not what you said. Or that is not the meaning you implied."

No, that is exactly what I said and what I implied.

LJ SAYS:
"Well, that is also my point. Don’t get married if you are promiscuous. Be honest."

85% of men would follow this advice if we were honest about marriage as a society in the first place. But then my world would exist, LJ. Most people would not be married or monogamous. All it takes for my world to exist, where marriage is a fringe thing and not the norm, is honesty.

Notice how you had to clarify (for as long as possible)
That is not what marriage was intended to be, and that is not how anyone sees it. Lindajean, you have a completely different definition of marriage here. And it is not the correct one. Nobody sees marriage as a promise to love as long as possible. They see it as it is worded, as a promise to love forever. That's what it is. And that is why it almost never works.

LJ SAYS:
"Then you are contradicting your own argument by saying too many women cannot separate love from X"

No, that is your argument. Are you kidding me here? I can quote you saying just that at least 6 times in this discussion.

LJ SAYS:
"I am arguing (from your point) that there are not enough women, too many are getting married and buying into the myth of monogamy and more women need to accept your point of view to level the playing field."

Lindajean. I am not calling for any change in male female X habits.
Just a change in the honesty about it.
Why do you keep thinking that I am calling for more promiscuity?
I am calling for the same situation now, but with honesty?
What are you calling for?

Posted by: timmy | March 18, 2008 2:32 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Timmy asked:

You know where monogamous marriage does work much better?
In religious theocracies. Extremely low divorce rate, virtually no female infidelity, (except rape) and a much lower male infidelity rate. But remove religious enforcement, and you get 85% cheating, and 52% divorced while the kids are still in school. Anyone want to take a stab at why that is?

Yes, I certainly will:

What you are speaking of: “extremely low divorce rate, virtually no female infidelity and a much lower male infidelity” is from lack of freedom, not from modern-day, westernized marriage. The idea in modern civilized societies is to make marriage a freedom for people and to allow people to make the choice to get married and to allow people the freedom to get out of the marriage if it doesn’t work.

Your descriptions are not even “marriages.” They are forced sexual and familial relationships. By today’s standards those relationships are a form of slavery. Marriage is not slavery in the 21st century when it takes place in civilized societies between two consensual adults. And the reason for your percentages is because people who are fortunate to live in a civilized democracy get to change their minds. This isn’t about marriage. It’s about hideous governments that don’t give people basic human rights because of some insidious belief in God.

Posted by: lindajean | March 18, 2008 2:04 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Gad said:
"Same argument as yours, just different players......"

lol
So you are agreeing with me?
Or you are just being sarcastic and have no point.

In fact they are not the same situation at all.
First of all, I did not advocate, nor is there any such thing as, a ritualistic ceremony that parents have with their children where they each pledge their love for one another until death do them part. That would be dumb dumb dumb dumb. Redundant and pointless. Just like marriage. Don't you think? No? If it's a good idea, why don't we do it now? I'll tell you why. Because it would be pointless and dumb.

Not to mention, roughly 90 % of people who take marriage vows, will break them and fall out of love.
However, when it comes to parents love for their children, I'm just guessing here, I don't have any stats on this, but challenge my guess if you like, I'm guessing that at least 90% of parents love their children till death do them part. And yet no public vows or ritualistic ceremonies.

So to recap the difference between these two things that Gad says are the same.

Marriage:
100% vow to love for life in public ritual.
10% live up to it.

Parent:
100% take no public vows or rituals to love, they just love.
90% (at least) love till death do them part. No vow necessary.

So very very far from the same argument.
But thank you for helping me illustrate yet again that public love vows in a ritualistic ceremony are pointless.

Posted by: timmy | March 18, 2008 1:36 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Timmy:

LJ: "I am saying that people cheat overall because there is something missing from their marriage and sometimes that "something" is lack of communication and marital conflicts, aging, (and good X)."

Timmy: “No that is not what you have been saying. You have been saying that women cheat for those reasons. But men, you said, cheat for a different reason. Variety. POA. Unchecked seed spreading, something younger, prettier etc.”

They are cheating because of the reasons you listed above POA, seed spreading, etc... but the dissatisfaction/problems in their marriage is how they justify it. (My wife is boring, a nag, takes me for granted.....so I am going to.....)

LJ: "If a guy is happy in his marriage, has good communication with his wife, is able to resolve conflicts with her, has good X, etc... I am guessing he may not be as inclined to cheat. Would you agree with that?"

Timmy: “No. Well, maybe with that wording "may not be as inclined to cheat". He may not, but most likely he would be just as inclined, because it most often has nothing to do with any of that. Even the good X part.”

That part is debatable. The truth is we don’t know. You have an hypothesis. That’s all.

Timmy: “I am not telling you that you need to separate your X and love. Did you think that is what I meant? Really? Come on. You can have all the X and love combination that you want. You go girl. X and love go extremely well together. Just like travel and love. I mean, traveling is nice and all, but it's really a heightened experience when you do it with someone that you love. So no, lindajean, I am not telling you that you can not have X and love together, anymore than I am telling you that you can not have travel and love together. You just need to understand that they are separate things, that go well together. But they are separate, and go just fine on their own as well.”

Well, your exact words were, “ "I deal with them fine. You do not. I can not help you. But I can tell you that reality will not change anytime soon. 100 years from now, just like 100 years ago, the stats will be the same. 90% of men will not be interested in monogamy for life. And love has nothing to do with it. You need to separate love from sex. Or just keep your head in the sand like the rest of society."

I take those words to be directed at me since I am female. You are making that statement to all women (whom you believe do not understand you can separate love from X.) Instead of saying “you need to separate love from X” I think you mean, “Women in general need to understand that love and X can be separate.” I argue that most women do understand that this can be done. But my point is so what? If women can understand this from a conceptual level, that does not mean they want to practice it. So are you saying (more) women need to understand this concept or (more ) women need to practice this concept?

Me: "And if it is natural for men to be promiscuous then by all means be promiscuous. Just don't expect me to be. And don't expect me to separate love from X because as a male you have a (natural) desire to be promiscuous"

Timmy: “I don't expect you to be anything, lindajean.”

Well, I don’t think you are expecting me personally to separate X from love, you are right, but you seem to be implying that women, generally speaking, need to be more promiscuous since marriage sucks (SKS)and so I am placing myself into this equation (as an example) because your statement seems to be aimed at women in general. And I am not quite sure what you are saying because you kind of bounce around from day to day on this.

I think I have grasped that you believe marriage is unnatural for men and promiscuity is not, therefore in the case of men, marriage sks. But I’m not sure what women are suppose to do with all of this. Are you saying that because marriage sks for men it therefore sks for women also? And if it sks for everyone then we all should just go out and have promiscuous X even though there are (probably) lots of women that are not into it but somehow we need to “get over it” and separate love from X, because with promiscuous X you really cannot have much love, because promiscuous X is usually rather short-lived, because once the guy has laid you a few times he is going to lose interest in you (because he never really loved you in the first place) and he is going to find some other hot-to-trot female, and you are suppose to be OK with that because you cannot fall in love with this guy, you can only have wild X with him, and when he is gone then you just get real girl, and go out and find another one who will do the the same pattern in a few weeks or months?

Good, god, Timmy. Surely this this not what you mean.

I know this sounds dramatic and you are not trying to say it this way, but I really don’t get what you are saying....I don’t think I am a stupid person. But I cannot get a grasp of this scenario. How is this going to work for women? What advantage are they going to have in this scenario over marriage or monogamy? I am going to choose this kind of hideous lifestyle over the one I already have? You think other women are going to do this also? (Yes, some will I understand that.) But if 100% of men are promiscuous and say only 50% of women are (at best) then how do we square the circle here?
That is the part I do not understand.

LJ: "How do you separate love from X?"

Timmy: “Easily. What does one have to do with the other?
You love your brother. You love your best friend. No X. People meet at a party. Find each other attractive. Get turned on. Have X. No love.
But X and love also go together incredibly well. Like fine wine and cheese.”

I don’t have X with my brother or best friend. You are talking about 2 different kinds of love. Platonic love and sensual.

Timmy: “I was referring to your repeated complaint that I was not taking into account the fact that women can't separate X from love as easily as men. That women are more emotional about X than men. So I said, in this world where 90% of men are not monogamous, it sucks to be a girl, given that they are naturally more emotional about X. Does that not make sense?”

Yes, that makes perfect sense. But that is not what you said. Or that is not the meaning you implied.

Timmy: “No You are demagoging an issue in a very over the top and insidious way. Shame on you. I've seen this move from you before. Very unattractive. Disgusting really.”

Well, disgusting is a bit strong. I think it appears when you are not explaining yourself very clearly. I am left with innuendoes and so that is the conclusion I infer.
No one is at fault here, Timmy. No shame. We are just trying to have a conversation. Sometimes words are unclear or misconstrued.

LJ: "My solution has not changed: Stop lying. Be honest"

Timmy: “No. That is my solution. Your solution is stop cheating and honor your vows.
If everyone who is cheating was honest, none of them would be married anymore, or would not have gotten married in the first place. The result of honesty, is that most people would not be married, or get married. That 85% would be people who should not get married. And that is my point. Marriage is not only "not for everyone". But is not for most people.”

Well, that is also my point. Don’t get married if you are promiscuous. Be honest. If you do get married and cheat, (because you discover later in life you are promiscuous) then at least be honest with your spouse that you are promiscuous or you are going to start being promiscuous. If people want marriage, then get married. If people want children then have children. But understand that promiscuity is not the best lifestyle for children because it tends to be more “unstable” and it destroys the “unit” (so does divorce.)

LJ: "I am calling for choice, hope, love and honesty."

Timmy: Me too. What does marriage have to do with any of that. What does monogamy have to do with any of that?

You can have all of those things in marriage. The choice you have is that you can get married and take a vow and promise to love your spouse (for as long as possible) and there is nothing wrong with that as long as you are honest about it.

LJ: "I do wonder: if men want to be promiscuous then where are they going to find all these women to be promiscuous with?"

Timmy: “OMG are you serious with this question?
The same place they are finding them now!
lol’

Then you are contradicting your own argument by saying too many women cannot separate love from X and that they ought to (if that is your argument). Inferring of course that if more women were doing just that there would be less marriage and more “free” X which is in your mind a very good thing. I am arguing (from your point) that there are not enough women, too many are getting married and buying into the myth of monogamy and more women need to accept your point of view to level the playing field.

Posted by: lindajean | March 18, 2008 11:29 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Timmy said:
"They have your everlasting love"

That's crazy talk! No one can promise to love their children forever. You can not will your self to love them always, to do so is to believe you have some supernatural power to do so. No parent should ever lie to their children and tell them that their love for them is everlasting, just tell them the truth that no parent can make that kind of promise.

It ridiculous for the government to spend my tax dollars to promote the ritual or parent responsibility! They should just stay the hell out of it!

Same argument as yours, just different players......

Posted by: Anonymous | March 18, 2008 9:24 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Hi Peter:

Definition you quoted about circumstantial evidence: “Evidence not bearing directly on the fact in dispute but on various attendant circumstances from which the judge or jury might infer the occurrence of the fact in dispute."

Peter: “From the manuscripts alone there is enough evidence to support the people, places, events that the Bible speaks of. These people, places, events are circumstantial evidence. Archaeology and secular history confirms many of the events, peoples, places the Bible speaks of as being of an accurate description.”

I am not disputing the people, places and some of the events in the Bible. It probably has some historical truths. I am disputing the supernatural beliefs from the Bible. That Jesus was born a Virgin, that Jesus will return to earth, the Rapture..... NO amount of circumstantial evidence can prove any of this. There is nothing to “infer” here.

Peter: “All wisdom and soundness of thought originates from God and when we think His thoughts after Him.”

This is what I mean by not having evidence. There is nothing circumstantial (at best) about this statement.

If I want to infer that my dog can understand English because I have “circumstantial” evidence that she watches TV with me (when in fact all she is doing is sitting next to me on the sofa and looking at the TV) then I am free to believe she understands Geraldine Ferraro when she hears her on TV. But in reality, I am misunderstanding cause and effect relationships in this scenario. Many religious people tend to do just that.

Peter: “The proof is in the impossibility of the contrary.”

Huhh....what is impossible about there not being a God?

LJ: "You can say it is a mind he gave me."

Peter: “Yes I can say that and you have no way of proving otherwise and no rational way of explaining otherwise.”

I have lots of rational ways of explaining. It is your God that is irrational.

Peter: “Yes, you do have a wonderful mind and mind can only come from mind. You will never be able to show me how mind can come from anything but mind. And the mind that everything comes from is the Mind of God.’

Where is the evidence (circumstantial or otherwise)? There is none Peter. You cannot prove to me that my mind comes from the Mind of God (whatever that may mean).

Peter: “You can't establish any true judgment without an objective, ultimate, absolute standard. Anything else is just subjective opinion. The reason so many things we discover are true is because we are discovering or applying God's truth.”

Well, you are half right. Most of everything is subjective.

Peter: “It depends on whose theocracy the society is based on, the God of the Bible or the god(s) of some make believe deity.”

Living in a theocracy is the antithesis of a constitutional democracy such as the US. You are telling me that you would rather live in such a system? A system that would quell and stifle the words of LJ and atheism? That is the world you want to live in? How would you spend all of your time Peter? Blogging with other Christians who want to stifle and quell the LJ’s of the world?

Good god, that is a scary thought and gives me goose bumps.

Peter: " I invite you to look into it and test your suppositions if you wish to carry this further."

LJ: "I don't."

Peter: “I don't blame you. It can get pretty in depth.’

I am not fearful of “depth”. I seek it out. I am only weary and frustrated with people who believe a Christian theocracy would be superior to a democracy like the US and who want to force their beliefs onto others who do not accept them.

Posted by: lindajean | March 18, 2008 8:21 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Hi Peter:

Peter: “So in Hitler's Germany and the cultural, political, moral, socio-economic conditions of that culture it is possible that you may have been one of those people who reasoned that it was for the best interests of the nation that the Jewish people be rounded up and put in concentration camps.....

Peter, forget Hitler and Germany. He WAS pathological. If I had lived in Germany at the time and defied Hitler I would have been dead. And probably not a quick death either. There is nothing rational about putting yourself on the line and getting killed for opposing your government that is megalomaniacal. Ditto with China. Anyone speaking out against dictators is dead meat. If you want to be a martyr then speak out and defy their policies. If you want to keep yourself, your family and your children alive then tow the line.

Peter: “ And why should/ought I listen to your subjective opinion and follow the examples of your personal experience if there are questions as to its truth or reality? On the chance that you could be right? On the chance that the masses have been right?"

You don’t have to follow my opinion. But I don’t have to follow the “opinion” of what you think God is, says or means.

Peter: “....Without an absolute, ultimate, objective standard how do you determine they are "good"? You may need them, but two opposing views of good becomes a problem in determining which view is actually good if either is.”

Nothing is absolute.
The closest we have to absolute is in the physical, material world through the laws of physics and nature. But even on the quantum level things begin to change.

We ought to have some absolute morals about how we treat each other. I will not argue that at all. In particular we ought to have laws against corrupt and religiously inclined governments that torture their own people. There is no sane reason on this planet why young girls are forced to have their genitals mutilated, women are stoned to death for having “illicit” sex, children die from malnutrition, lack of clean water and preventable, women are raped and children are sexually molested. There is no reason why 6 billion people on this planet allow such moral atrocities to happen.

Peter: “Whose acceptable standard? Whose past experience? Whether it is your subjective experience or that of another or a group of others how do you determine good when to viewpoints are opposite each other, both claiming to be the good.”

All morals are subjective. God is subjective. The Bible is subjective. The best we can do is agree that certain immoral acts (like the ones I listed above) need to be stopped. And people who perpetrate these kinds of immoral acts need to be reduced to nothing so they cannot continue their sadism and hate. Preaching the Bible isn’t going to stop the pathologies of the world. The only thing that can stop pathology is to look it straight in the eyes and prevent the pathological people from continuing it. It comes to raw power over corrupt and pathological power.

Peter: “Whatever you want to call it the fact remains that the majority either went along with or were caught up in the movement, just as they were in Mao's cultural revolution in which an estimated 80-100 million people were put to death.”

Yes, like the Catholic Church that got caught up in Hitler’s extermination of the Jews. So much for moral “authority.” It just went down the tubes.

Peter: “Without an absolute standard it is not a matter of right or wrong but what the powers that be get away with. If Hitler is in control your telling him that murdering 6 million Jews is wrong is of no consequence because he makes the rules that determine what is good, just like in ancient times the monarchy was the absolute rule. Opposition results in death and silence to other views.”

Not. Without absolute democratic governments that understand the concept of “individual rights” and “civil rights” will you have “the powers that be get away with [it].” It wasn’t Christianity that saved the world from Hitler. It was the “free” world. The Allied forces.

Posted by: lindajean | March 18, 2008 7:48 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Hi Peter:

You said, "By delusional I mean that your world view is untrue and you are willingly deceived into believing it, even though it does not conform to what is real. So you are believing a lie."

I would agree that is what I think about your world view as well. That you are believing a lie but that does not mean you are "pathologically" or "dysfunctionally" delusional.

You said, "Fair enough."

A consensus. Thanks for taking the time to clarify all of that with me.

Posted by: lindajean | March 18, 2008 7:12 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Gad said:

"But I will also tell them that the greatest tragedy in life is not love that didn't last, but never finding love you believed was everlasting"

They have your everlasting love.
So it will not be a tragedy if they do not find a love that they "believe" will defy the 90% against odds. But you tell them what you like.

And I am just blown away to hear an atheist of your enthusiasm level saying that it is not important if the statistics (science) says that 90% will break their marriage vows, What's important is that you "believe" and "hope" that it will last forever. A man who loves to call others "wishful thinkers" at the drop of a hat, now preaching the ultimate in wishful thinking. A fairy tale. The irony.

But I have no problem with this kind of wishful thinking. I have this kind of wishful thinking about my love. But you don't make vows, and sign legal contracts, and create rituals (that all normal people should follow) based on wishful thinking. You just have it. And enjoy it while it lasts.

And the government should stay the hell out of it!

Posted by: timmy | March 18, 2008 3:25 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Hi Lindajean,

YOU: "These people found love in marriage"

These people found love.
Marriage was the religious ritual, come societal norm, that they went through because everybody normal goes through it. Heck, a girls mom and aunts start hounding her as early as 18 years old who she is going to marry and when? Because every girl must get married. Meaning every girl must (if they are normal and lovable) find a man who will promise to love them forever. And every man, if he is normal, (read "with us" read "with God") should find a girl and offer to love her forever. This is normal. Other lifestyles are alternative, promiscuous... heathen.

Society teaches this. And we know full well that 90% of those who follow this ritual will fail. That is not "hope". That is delusion. Hope is what all people have, that their life will go well. And their lives will go better, when we stop teaching our children that they are abnormal if they do not find true love, like everybody else.

YOU:
"I am saying cheating on your spouse harms your marriage and destroys trust. That puts any love you may have with your spouse at odds"

I 100% agree. I am saying the same thing.

YOU:
"I am saying that people cheat overall because there is something missing from their marriage and sometimes that "something" is lack of communication and marital conflicts, aging, (and good X)."

No that is not what you have been saying. You have been saying that women cheat for those reasons. But men, you said, cheat for a different reason. Variety. POA. Unchecked seed spreading, something younger, prettier etc.

YOU:
"If a guy is happy in his marriage, has good communication with his wife, is able to resolve conflicts with her, has good X, etc... I am guessing he may not be as inclined to cheat. Would you agree with that?"

No.
Well, maybe with that wording "may not be as inclined to cheat". He may not, but most likely he would be just as inclined, because it most often has nothing to do with any of that. Even the good X part.

YOU:
"From your quote above: What is it I (personally) need to get past?"

I didn't say you (personally). I was responding to this:
"So how does a woman get past the fact that 90% of men will have multiple partners in their life, married or not?"

I assumed that by "a woman" you meant any woman. All women. You are any woman. Were you not asking how any woman could get past this. And are you not included in that category? Nothing personal. All women need to get past it. Because it's reality. And has been for a long time. And will be for a long time to come.

YOU: "I NEED to separate love from sex?"

I am not telling you that you need to separate your X and love. Did you think that is what I meant? Really? Come on. You can have all the X and love combination that you want. You go girl. X and love go extremely well together. Just like travel and love. I mean, traveling is nice and all, but it's really a heightened experience when you do it with someone that you love. So no, lindajean, I am not telling you that you can not have X and love together, anymore than I am telling you that you can not have travel and love together. You just need to understand that they are separate things, that go well together. But they are separate, and go just fine on their own as well.

YOU: "Having a monogamous relationship is incredibly satisfying and provides me with much pleasure"

You go girl. Just don't be telling me that the government should promote it just because it's working for you. It's not working for most.

YOU:
"And if it is natural for men to be promiscuous then by all means be promiscuous. Just don't expect me to be. And don't expect me to separate love from X because as a male you have a (natural) desire to be promiscuous"

I don't expect you to be anything, lindajean.

YOU: "How do you separate love from X?"

Easily. What does one have to do with the other?
You love your brother. You love your best friend. No X.
People meet at a party. Find each other attractive. Get turned on. Have X. No love.
But X and love also go together incredibly well. Like fine wine and cheese.

YOU:
"You know it sucks to be a girl? Have I ever said that?"

I was referring to your repeated complaint that I was not taking into account the fact that women can't separate X from love as easily as men. That women are more emotional about X than men. So I said, in this world where 90% of men are not monogamous, it sucks to be a girl, given that they are naturally more emotional about X. Does that not make sense?

YOU:
"So you are comparing "try being a guy in a false paradigm of monogamy..." with the girl's life I just described above?

No.
You are demagoging an issue in a very over the top and insidious way. Shame on you. I've seen this move from you before. Very unattractive. Disgusting really.

ME: "What is your solution to the 85%, lindajean?"

YOU: "My solution has not changed: Stop lying. Be honest"

No. That is my solution.
Your solution is stop cheating and honor your vows.
If everyone who is cheating was honest, none of them would be married anymore, or would not have gotten married in the first place. The result of honesty, is that most people would not be married, or get married. That 85% would be people who should not get married. And that is my point. Marriage is not only "not for everyone". But is not for most people.

YOU: "I am calling for choice, hope, love and honesty."

Me too. What does marriage have to do with any of that. What does monogamy have to do with any of that?

YOU:
"I do wonder: if men want to be promiscuous then where are they going to find all these women to be promiscuous with?"

OMG are you serious with this question?
The same place they are finding them now!
lol

Posted by: timmy | March 18, 2008 2:49 AM
Report Offensive Comment

OK, Timmy. We are only going in circles again, so never mind. I will tell my children that everlasting love is a rare and beautiful thing. But I will also tell them that the greatest tragedy in life is not love that didn't last, but never finding love you believed was everlasting.

Posted by: GAD | March 18, 2008 1:16 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Gad,

ME: "The vow doesn't say "hope to" it says "will""

YOU: "Pointless semantics"

lol. The only difference between "hope to" and "will" is semantics. lol

YOU: "Good then lets take supernatural power out of the discussion of marriage"

Not a chance.
I said that it was a coincidence that the couple were still in love, not that, to be able to love at will, is not a supernatural power. It is. Because it is not a natural power.

If I promised you that I was never going to let anyone hurt you. And then you went your whole life and no one hurt you. Did my promise have anything to do with that? Of course not. It was a fluke, and my promise only appeared to have been kept. But for that outcome to have anything to do with my promise, I would have to have supernatural powers.

Same goes for the promise to love forever. You have no more control over that than the other. I'm not saying that you believe in the supernatural because you made that vow, Gad. I'm saying that you made a promise that you have no control over the result of. You can certainly control whether or not you stay with your spouse. But if you think that you have any control over whether or not you will continue to love your wife forever, you would be imagining the supernatural power to love at will. And you would be believing in free will.

YOU:
"But they all have a chance at it, and just like lottery you can't win if you don't play. What would have us tell our children, you ain't got no hope in hell of ever having everlasting love so just take what you can get when it comes along."

What's wrong with the truth? Everlasting love? It's just like genius. It's rare. Special. And not something that you can just have with hard work. I wanted to be a rock star when I was 15. My parents didn't tell me that I had no chance in hell. They told me the odds, and the realistic chance that I had. They told me that while I would need to try hard, and work hard, that still might not be enough. I understood. I went for it anyway. But I wasn't a failure when it didn't happen. Because it was not entirely in my control. And so rare. Like the lottery.

So what should we tell our kids about everlasting love?
That it happens to about 10% of us if we're lucky. (as opposed to the current paradigm of "you are abnormal if you do not vow love for life with someone, and a failure if you do, and it goes south)
Tell them the truth.

Posted by: timmy | March 18, 2008 12:41 AM
Report Offensive Comment

You: "I am not arguing that multiple partners are "a better lifestyle than marriage", I am arguing that marriage does nothing to stop people from having multiple partners. I am arguing that multiple partners is a natural state of being and goes on with or without marriage...."

I called you dogmatic because you were arguing that promiscuity (multiple partners) is better than marriage and I felt that was your opinion and in my view you have nothing to back that up. If you are not arguing that then I do owe you an apology... I apologize. But this seems to be the undertone of your whole argument. After reading your quote above, you explicitly state otherwise. I will hold you accountable to that in any future references.

YOU: " But if you think that changing the marriage vows in this way is a good idea, why not, instead of scrapping all of the good things about religion along with religion itself, let's just change some of the words in the bible to show that it is metaphorical and not literal. Then we can all still go to church, and preach about love thy neighbor, and have bake sales and we can all call ourselves Christians and not believe in anything supernatural. It's the same thing, Lindajean......"

It is not the same. If people got rid of the supernatural in religion there would be no religion. You can have bake sales and talk about loving your neighbor without believing in God. If you changed and tweaked the Bible to be all metaphorical it would still not be simply Greek mythology. Do people who study Greek mythology believe in Zeus? Hardly. But people who study the Bible metaphorically still believe in God. You can take the literalism out of the Bible but you can't take God and supernatural out of Christianity and still be "religious."

You: "Fluke. Was going to happen with or without those vows. The vows were moot to the outcome. No?"

That is not the point. These people found love in marriage. Making a vow and having hope is not supernatural.

You: "Research indicates so far that religion wins also. Do you believe that research?"

I don't denounce it. It is possible (and common sense) that there are certain advantages to people's well-being who claim to believe in God. For one thing the vast majority of people do believe in God. When a vast majority hold such a view I would argue they would feel some kind of satisfaction in knowing that their belief in God is such an appealing belief. Yes, I believe religious people to some degree may be happier than non-religious people. That does not mean their belief in God is real. Only that their belief in God makes them feel a sense of happiness and peace. Big difference. And of course it does not mean they are better people.

Me: "But once again you are simplifying it as people (men) cheat because they no longer love their spouse. I argue they cheat because of boredom, stress, communication, loss of youthfulness... and not necessarily because they no longer love their spouse. There is a big difference."

You: " I am the one who says that you can love your spouse, and have sex with others at the same time. You are the one that seems to be arguing that having X with others is somehow at odds with love."

I am saying cheating on your spouse harms your marriage and destroys trust. That puts any love you may have with your spouse at odds.

You:
"Secret multiple X = Good for children
Open multiple X = Bad for children"

This is why I argue you are simplifying "multiple X".

You: "Here now, you are acting as though you think that cheating has to do with communication and conflicts? Before you had a very different reason for men cheating, saying that it has nothing to do with these elements of a relationship. So which is it? You think that better communication will improve the cheating stats? Seriously?"

Admittedly, I struggle with this answer because I think there are many reasons why people cheat. But I am saying that people cheat overall because there is something missing from their marriage and sometimes that "something" is lack of communication and marital conflicts, aging, (and good X). And if you are correct that men cheat because it is natural for them to do so, I think that if they are having problems in their marriage that is going to help them justify cheating. If a guy is happy in his marriage, has good communication with his wife, is able to resolve conflicts with her, has good X, etc... I am guessing he may not be as inclined to cheat.

Would you agree with that?

Me: "So how does a woman get past all the emotions when Mr. Wonderful says I am out of here after a 3 month "fling." Then another Mr. Wonderful comes along for another 3-6 months and leaves, and then another"

You: "I don't know about this woman in this childish example you provide above. I don't see open relationships working that way. ..."

This is human nature. To deny that women (in particular) will get emotionally involved with a man she has X with and to say that is "childish" ignores human (female) nature. I imagine there are also men who get emotionally attached to women they have X with. I don't see any of this as childish. It is part of falling in love. I find that to be rather beautiful.

Do you think it is "childish" for a wife to be emotionally hurt when her husband has X with another woman? Or for a husband?

Me: So how does a woman get past the fact that 90% of men will have multiple partners in their life, married or not?

You: I don't know. But I do know that you need to get past it somehow.
Have you tried accepting reality? Give it a whirl, it's worth a shot.

This is not about me personally accepting reality. I have a realistic view of (my) marriage and hold no fantasy that it is guaranteed to last the rest of my life (only hope that it will if I still feel the way I do about it in 20 years.) If there are 3 out of 4 chances my husband will cheat on me I understand that could be a possibility and someday a reality. I am not hiding my head in the sand. But I am hopeful that if it happens he will be honest with me and I am hopeful that there is also a chance it may never happen at all.

From your quote above: What is it I (personally) need to get past?

Me: "Men seem to be able to have X without all the emotional stuff in non-committed relationships, but I argue most women cannot. And how do you deal with jealousies which are innate in human emotions?"

You: "I deal with them fine. You do not. I can not help you. But I can tell you that reality will not change anytime soon. 100 years from now, just like 100 years ago, the stats will be the same. 90% of men will not be interested in monogamy for life. And love has nothing to do with it. You need to separate love form sex. Or just keep your head in the sand like the rest of society."

I don’t expect “help”. Just your (honest) view on the matter.

I NEED to separate love from sex? Why? I don't really want to have X without love because (from past experiences) I found it very cold, indifferent and heartless. I did not like it (very much) and it is not something I would want to incorporate into my lifestyle. I learned from my experiences as most intelligent people do. Having a monogamous relationship is incredibly satisfying and provides me with much pleasure.

You said long ago this discussion is not about my personal relationship (or yours) that we are talking about marriage in general. But now you are saying that I, LJ need to separate love from X? That is like me saying you should not be promiscuous. I have never said that. I've only said that cheating is unethical because it is dishonest. And if it is natural for men to be promiscuous then by all means be promiscuous. Just don't expect me to be. And don't expect me to separate love from X because as a male you have a (natural) desire to be promiscuous.

How do you separate love from X? Been there and done that. No romance. No satisfaction.

You: "85% cheat.
Monogamy for life is not impossible. Just highly highly improbable, and unnatural.
We can try to fight nature. But we usually loose. And that's when people get hurt. When they have unrealistic expectations."

That is not the only time people get hurt.

You: “...This we can fix. By changing our paradigm.
Do not teach children (especially poor little girls) that they will grow up and meet Mr. Wonderful, and that they will get married and stay married for life. You know, if they are NORMAL. If they choose to not get married, this would be an alternative lifestyle. Abnormal."

Go girl.

You: "I know it sucks to be a girl in this reality, Lindajean. But you should try being a guy in this false paradigm of monogamy for life...."

LOL. What is on your mind blogger friend? You know it sucks to be a girl? Have I ever said that? Not in my reality. If you are frustrated being male then I have some suggestions for you....

It certainly sucks for some females who are forced into arranged marriages at the age of 14, who are raped, who have to cover their total bodies when they go out in public, who will be stoned to death if they have sex outside of marriage , etc... we can both agree that would definitely suck, can't we?

So you are comparing "try being a guy in a false paradigm of monogamy..." with the girl's life I just described above? A white, middle class (wealthy?), intelligent man such as you who can probably have his choice of woman at the bat of an eye and who has a (natural) urge to be promiscuous at times?

Yeah, Timmy, life sure sucks!

I've never made any claims most women in Western culture have lives that suck. Only that if a woman is going to be promiscuous she is probably going to pay an emotional price for it; that if a woman's husband cheats on her she is probably going to have an emotional reaction to that (and will be hurt by it); and if a woman is going to cheat on her husband than she has some major problems in her marriage and it might be beneficial for her to ponder this and be honest with her husband. That is all I am saying (about women in general).

You: "You end up having to lie about your real instincts and Xual desires. It's not good. Honesty is better.
What is your solution to the 85%, lindajean?"

My solution has not changed: Stop lying. Be honest.

You: "I am calling for honesty.
You are calling for more denial, I guess, because you certainly have offered no solutions to 85% cheating."

I am calling for choice, hope, love and honesty. I have no control or power over the fact that 85% of married people cheat. You are right. I have no solutions. But logic will tell me that if marriage is not working for 85% of the people who start off wanting to be married and who actively seek it out, there are probably many reasons for that and I don't know that men's natural urges to be promiscuous are the one and only variable. But I am not willing to discount that your argument has substance. I do wonder: if men want to be promiscuous then where are they going to find all these women to be promiscuous with unless they want to start paying for it?

Well, that is nothing new under the sun.

You: "Honest acceptance of reality is good for children"

Up to a point.

Posted by: lindajean | March 17, 2008 3:46 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Timmy said:
"The vow doesn't say "hope to" it says "will""

Pointless semantics.

Timmy said:
"No, not a supernatural power."

Good then lets take supernatural power out of the discussion of marriage.

Timmy continued:
"Just coincidence. Unless you think that the reason it happened was because they promised each other it was going to happen. And that it wouldn't have happened unless they made that promise"

Well that is a very interesting question. Is the percentage of people who promise and succeed greater then those who don't promise? Do those who promise try harder then those who don't promise? Do those who promise have fewer partners then those who don't promise........

Timmy said:
"It (Everlasting love) is rare and special. Most kids have no hope in hell of ever having"

But they all have a chance at it, and just like lottery you can't win if you don't play. What would have us tell our children, you ain't got no hope in hell of ever having everlasting love so just take what you can get when it comes along.

Posted by: GAD | March 17, 2008 2:52 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Posted by: timmy | March 17, 2008 2:01 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Gad said:
"It does not take supernatural power to say that you will love someone till your dead, only hope"

LOL.
Like I said to Lindajean. The vow doesn't say "hope to" it says "will".
If the vow said "hope to" you would be right.
But it says "will", so I am right.
Unless you think that you can love at will.

Gad continued:

"And if even one (and there are far more then that) couple does love till death do them part, that's proves your argument is invalid, unless you claim it was supernatural power that made it possible"

No, not a supernatural power. Just coincidence.
Unless you think that the reason it happened was because they promised each other it was going to happen. And that it wouldn't have happened unless they made that promise.

I didn't say that everlasting love does not exist. I just maintain that it is extremely rare, as opposed to everyone's birthright. And if you think that society does not teach our children right now that it is practically their birth right, you are wrong. It does. All kids grow up thinking that the norm is everlasting monogamous love. And that is so very far from the truth. Monogamous marriage is for less than 10% of the population. Everlasting love is like genius. It's not everyone's to have with just a little hard work and hope. It is rare and special. Most kids have no hope in hell of ever having it. And that is Just reality. The divorce rates and cheating stats back this up.

Posted by: timmy | March 16, 2008 10:44 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Hi again,

ME: "...if you base validity on circumstantial evidence why do you discount the Bible, for it contains both circumstantial and direct evidence?"

Nonsense.

"circumstantial evidence
n.

Evidence not bearing directly on the fact in dispute but on various attendant circumstances from which the judge or jury might infer the occurrence of the fact in dispute."

From the manuscripts alone there is enough evidence to support the people, places, events that the Bible speaks of. These people, places, events are circumstantial evidence. Archaeology and secular history confirms many of the events, peoples, places the Bible speaks of as being of an accurate description.

The manuscripts claim to be handed down accounts and eyewitness testimonies of what actually transpired.

And the Bible itself claims itself to be the hand of God, a compilation of sixty-six different books penned by over 40 different human authors, all claiming to be inspired and lead of God to record His dealings and revelation of Himself to man. Through these 66 different books written over a timespan of hundreds of centuries there is a unity and consistency to the message, in other words common themes throughout, all pointing to man's rebellion and God's solution, the Lord Jesus Christ. The list goes on.

LJ: "The Bible can teach us some of this, I will not argue with that. But the Bible does not have a monopoly on wisdom and soundness. I would say the Bible has a very poor record of this in many instances."

All wisdom and soundness of thought originates from God and when we think His thoughts after Him.

ME: "The difference between your measure and mine is what I am contending for. God is truth; ultimate, objective, absolute truth. You have no way of disproving Him and yet you call those who believe in Him delusional? That is subjective unless you can offer some proof for your experience, that it is true."

LJ: "You have no way of proving him."

The proof is in the impossibility of the contrary.

LJ: "So at best you say I ought to accept him on faith and I am not willing to do that. Otherwise today the Bible, tomorrow the Koran."

Yes you ought to and are responsible to God for breaking His laws and decrees, but I also realize that you will not unless God has mercy on you and brings an end to your delusion, your deception, your hardheartedness to God.

There is only one truth, God's, as revealed in the Bible. All other religions are man's attempt to create God in his image.

ME: "All the time using the mind that God has given you."

LJ: "You can say it is a mind he gave me."

Yes I can say that and you have no way of proving otherwise and no rational way of explaining otherwise.

LJ: "I will just say it is a mind I have and appreciate and hope it will continue to work well as I age."

Yes, you do have a wonderful mind and mind can only come from mind. You will never be able to show me how mind can come from anything but mind. And the mind that everything comes from is the Mind of God.

ME: "There again you make your judgments based on your subjective experience. It's as circular as you claim my views are, and I would contend any argument can be when pushed far enough.'

LJ: "I am saying that judgements are based on subjective experience and knowledge about the world. I don't know of any other way to experience it. You of course want God in the equation. But that is your wish, not necessarily a fact."

You can't establish any true judgment without an objective, ultimate, absolute standard. Anything else is just subjective opinion. The reason so many things we discover are true is because we are discovering or applying God's truth.

ME: "So we both claim the other is delusional in their belief. So who is right? Is right to you the majority opinion?"

LJ: "Right is not the majority opinion--otherwise George Bush would not be president!"

LJ: "Right" is clear,reasonable thinking that is ethical and moral (not harmful to others)."

Ethical and moral as believed by who? Harmful by whose definition?

LJ: "Lots of gray areas in "right". In a theocracy, right is "god" --no gray areas."

That is right, if that god is the one and only God, the Christian God. The gray areas come when we read into instead of taking out of the Bible what it actually says.

It depends on whose theocracy the society is based on, the God of the Bible or the god(s) of some make believe deity.

ME: "There again, who is delusional, you or I? How do you know anything for sure? What is your bench mark? Self? A collection of subjective selves? If there is nothing objective out there then all anything is is irrelevant subjective opinion that is hard to prove as true for which standard are you going to use as a benchmark?"

LJ: "My benchmark is knowledge, reason and experience and some cultural values about ethics and morals"

There again, whose and why are they right?

ME: " I invite you to look into it and test your suppositions if you wish to carry this further."

LJ: "I don't."

I don't blame you. It can get pretty in depth.

LJ: "I believe there is some historical hypotheses that Jesus was actually a living, red-blooded person. I don't believe anyone has actually "proven" he existed."

ME: "You could say the same thing about Napoleon Bonaparte or any other historical figure who is no longer physically alive on this earth. I believe Napoleon is just some historical hypotheses that may or may not have actually existed."

LJ: "Napoleon did not claim to be God or God's son. He did not claim to come back and visit us and Rapture us into heaven. It is these kinds of claims I am challenging, not whether Jesus was born in Bethlehem and his father was a carpenter."

No Napoleon did not claim these things. Anyone who would claim such things would either be crazy, a liar or who he claimed to be. Those are the three choices that C.S. Lewis proposed. He would not have been a "good teacher" if in fact he was lying or crazy. When you study the Biblical accounts, the gospels and epistles, you see that they reveal a Person of high ethical character that is interested in the wellbeing of others and teaches love, first for God then for others.

ME: But if you look at the evidence for Napoleon's existence and that for the Lord Jesus Christ you would have to say, as any reasonable historian has done in the past, that these were actual historical people. Would you agree with that or do you still want to go on probability? Even that probability is hard to question and still go by the guidelines you gave earlier about circumstantial evidence as being valid.

LJ: "If there is the same kind of evidence I will agree both men lived in the past. But there is no evidence suggesting immortality or supernatural. This is the bone of contention."

The Bible claims to be a supernatural book. This is an evidence whether you choose to look at it that way or not. And something happened after the death of Jesus that changed the course of human history. Something happened to these men who claimed to be disciples of Jesus that transformed and continues to transform to the good peoples lives throughout the centuries.

I will have to leave it here tonight Lindajean. Time is short these days.

Posted by: Peter Huff | March 16, 2008 9:46 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Timmy said:

"Do you promise to love this person forever, till death do you part?"

"A person can only make this promise if they believe that they have the supernatural power to love at will."

That is an absurd statement. It does not take supernatural power to say that you will love someone till your dead, only hope. And if even one (and there are far more then that) couple does love till death do them part, that's proves your argument is invalid, unless you claim it was supernatural power that made it possible.

Posted by: GAD | March 16, 2008 9:22 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Lindajean says that I am being dogmatic because:

"Because you are arguing from an opinion and you don't have substance to back up your belief that multiple partners are a better lifestyle than marriage and that this will improve the quality of life for children"

I am not arguing that multiple partners are "a better lifestyle than marriage", I am arguing that marriage does nothing to stop people from having multiple partners. I am arguing that multiple partners is a natural state of being and goes on with or without marriage. Multiple partners is by far, the norm, compared to monogamy for life. The only thing that marriage does is make us lie about it. And my substance to back this up is the statistic that 85% of married people cheat on each other. Add in the people who don't ever get married and you have about 95% of the population not being monogamous. Once again, I am not arguing that multiple partners is better, just the norm, by far.

I am arguing that more honesty about this would probably improve the life of children. You are arguing that more sticking our heads in the sand about it is the way to go. Because you are not offering any solutions to the problem of people cheating. In fact, you admit that you don't even know why it is that they are doing so in such mass numbers.

YOU:
"It is dogmatic because it is YOUR----Timmy's-- opinion and you think it is a good idea. "

Having an opinion, and thinking that it is a good idea makes you dogmatic?
Explain yourself dear blogger. Do you not have ideas that you think are "good". Does this make you dogmatic?

You owe me an apology and a retraction of the "dogmatic" accusation, Lindajean.

YOU:
"It has nothing to do with supernatural. It has to do with hope in the future"

No, lindajean. You can not change the marriage vows to suit your argument. The word hope does not exist in the marriage vows. If it did, you would be right. But it doesn't, so I am right. Please examine the following examples.

"do you have hope that this union will last?"

A person can say "yes" here, and it requires no belief in supernatural powers.

However:

"Do you promise to love this person forever, till death do you part?"

A person can only make this promise if they believe that they have the supernatural power to love at will. Otherwise, this is like making the promise to never let any harm come to someone. It is a nice sentiment. But impossible to promise.

YOU:
"I am down on that!!! Been there, said that. Let's change them. Right now, today! Put out an ad in the LA Times and NYT! I am with you on this. 100%. 200%. Are you convinced I believe this is a great idea?"

People in love naturally hope that it will last forever. There is no need for this marriage thing. But if you think that changing the marriage vows in this way is a good idea, why not, instead of scrapping all of the good things about religion along with religion itself, let's just change some of the words in the bible to show that it is metaphorical and not literal. Then we can all still go to church, and preach about love thy neighbor, and have bake sales and we can all call ourselves Christians and not believe in anything supernatural.

It's the same thing, Lindajean. Just scrap it all together. We don't need the institution of religion for "love thy neighbor". And we don't need the religious institution of marriage, to have hope of everlasting love.

YOU:
"And because they want varied X then marriage overall is doomed and so get over it LJ and admit that marriage is antiquated and delusional. That is what you want me to agree to and I cannot and I do not ."

So be it.
Keep your head in the sand, and tell yourself that monogamy is the norm.

YOU:
"I will argue that marriage is delusional when religious beliefs enter into the picture stating that women submit to their hubs and they must "obey" them and all that crap. And yes it is delusional when people say "until death do us part" and actually believe those words literally and that by saying them something magical is going to happen to their spouse and he/she will never cheat on them.....that is delusional but sometimes it is not completely delusional because some people do stay faithful to their spouse a lifetime."

Fluke. Was going to happen with or without those vows. The vows were moot to the outcome. No?

YOU:
"Government should promote healthy relationships and "units" that benefit children. Research indicates so far marriage wins"

Research indicates so far that religion wins also. Do you believe that research?
But seriously, 85% cheat. So if marriage is good for children. So is cheating.

YOU:
"But once again you are simplifying it as people (men) cheat because they no longer love their spouse. I argue they cheat because of boredom, stress, communication, loss of youthfulness... and not necessarily because they no longer love their spouse. There is a big difference."

I have never said this. You keep saying that I have said this. But I haven't.
I have stated repeatedly and repeatedly that men cheat because monogamy is not natural to them. Not because they don't love their spouse. I am the one who says that you can love your spouse, and have sex with others at the same time. You are the one that seems to be arguing that having X with others is somehow at odds with love.

YOU:
"you argue that multiple X is not harmful to children and does not affect their sense of security and "unit." I argue you have nothing to back this up objectively and it is only your opinion"

No.
I argue that multiple X goes on in 85% of marriages, so it is you, by your argument that marriage is good for children, who argues that multiple X is good for children. Perhaps you argue that marriage is good for children, because the parents in a marriage are more likely to keep that multiple X secret from the kids, because they are keeping it secret from each other. Where as a couple who is being honest with each other (not married) in an open relationship, would be less likely to keep multiple X secret from their children.
Secret multiple X = Good for children
Open multiple X = Bad for children

YOU:
"But you are missing the point that cheating is complex and there are probably things married people can do to decrease the chances of it by communicating, and looking at conflicts in their marriage more honestly"

Here now, you are acting as though you think that cheating has to do with communication and conflicts? Before you had a very different reason for men cheating, saying that it has nothing to do with these elements of a relationship. So which is it? You think that better communication will improve the cheating stats? Seriously?

YOU:
"In multiple partner relationships your simplistic view ignores that when people have X there are emotional components to this act"

No it does not. There is nothing simplistic about my view. Just realistic.

YOU:
"So how does a woman get past all the emotions when Mr. Wonderful says I am out of here after a 3 month "fling." Then another Mr. Wonderful comes along for another 3-6 months and leaves, and then another"

I don't know about this woman in this childish example you provide above. I don't see open relationships working that way. But women in general have to deal with men as they are. Not as they would like them to be. They should not have been told when they were little girls, by society, that the norm is to be monogamous with prince charming for life. They were lied to. You were lied to. Now your expectations are not in line with reality.

So how does a woman get past the fact that 90% of men will have multiple partners in their life, married or not?
I don't know. But I do know that you need to get past it somehow.
Have you tried accepting reality? Give it a whirl, it's worth a shot.

YOU:
"Men seem to be able to have X without all the emotional stuff in non-committed relationships, but I argue most women cannot. And how do you deal with jealousies which are innate in human emotions?"

I deal with them fine. You do not. I can not help you. But I can tell you that reality will not change anytime soon. 100 years from now, just like 100 years ago, the stats will be the same. 90% of men will not be interested in monogamy for life. And love has nothing to do with it. You need to separate love form sex. Or just keep your head in the sand like the rest of society.

85% cheat.
Monogamy for life is not impossible. Just highly highly improbable, and unnatural.
We can try to fight nature. But we usually loose. And that's when people get hurt. When they have unrealistic expectations.

Conclusion? Marriage is not for most people.
And yet most people get married.
This we can fix. By changing our paradigm.
Do not teach children (especially poor little girls) that they will grow up and meet Mr. Wonderful, and that they will get married and stay married for life. You know, if they are NORMAL. If they choose to not get married, this would be an alternative lifestyle. Abnormal.

I know it sucks to be a girl in this reality, Lindajean. But you should try being a guy in this false paradigm of monogamy for life. You end up having to lie about your real instincts and Xual desires. It's not good. Honesty is better.
What is your solution to the 85%, lindajean? Onward ho? Head in the sand?

I am calling for honesty.
You are calling for more denial, I guess, because you certainly have offered no solutions to 85% cheating.

Honest acceptance of reality is good for children
Denial, secrecy and painting a false world through rose colored glasses is not.

Posted by: timmy | March 16, 2008 4:47 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Peter,

Jesus went from birth to death without ever sinning, right? Jesus was prefect, right? Was Jesus programmed? If so Christianity is a sham. If he had sinned he would not have been perfect and there would be no Christianity Prefect beings do not make imperfect choices. Your world view simply and logically can not support the perfection of God, Adam and Jesus, each one contradicts the perfection of the other two. It is an insolvable problem, to continue to try without changing any of your definitions is pointless and is wasted effort.

Posted by: GAD | March 16, 2008 4:04 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Lindajean:

As stated previously I'm no longer going to get into any long protracted discussions with you, because they tend to go no where.

This answers most of your post, which was therefore redundant questioning.

“Hell my incompatible views are more inline with Dennett's then your compatible ones.”

Beyond that go back and reread Dennett's views more carefully (assuming you did in the first place). Pay close attention to his materialist, deterministic and evolutionary views of free will. His "version" of free will does not supersede cause and effect, is it simply about the precision of the output in relation to the deterministic inputs. I.E. it is virtual i.e. it is an illusion .

Posted by: GAD | March 16, 2008 3:38 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Peter,

BTW, I have answered every question you have put to me. There is no dodging here. You just don't like the answers.

Posted by: timmy | March 16, 2008 3:11 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Peter,

Is God a programmed robot, because everything he does is right and good? Does this mean that God is an entity that is programmed to do only good, with no free will to make wrong choices? I mean, by your logic, God either makes some wrong choices from time to time, or he must be programmed to make only right choices. Right?

Posted by: timmy | March 16, 2008 3:08 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Peter said:

"He was created only knowing the good, but the option was there to know evil as well. If he was perfectly free to choose you're saying he would not choose evil. Then I'm saying if this was the case then his ability to choose was not completely free"

Yes it was.
What are you on about Peter?
You have the choice to kill other people right now. But you have chosen not to do so. Does the fact that you choose not to kill your neighbor, mean that you are a robot, programed not to kill? Or just that you made the free choice not to kill?

The same goes for Adam, Peter. He doesn't have to make a wrong choice to prove that he has the ability to make a wrong choice. He could make right choices his whole life, all the while having the ability to make the wrong choice. We wouldn't know until his death that he is perfect. Because he would have the opportunity to make a wrong choice and not be perfect right up until his death. But after he dies, we can look back and see that he was perfect. Because we know that he did have the choice to do bad or wrong, and yet he never did. That doesn't make him a programmed robot. That makes him a perfect human.

Get it?
Probably not.

Posted by: timmy | March 16, 2008 2:58 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Hi Lindajean,

To continue,

ME: "So how do you separate illusion from reality? How do you know that any of your experiences are anything more than illusion? It is a pretty fine line to walk and still make sense of life is it not? Am I just having an imaginary conversation with myself here? "

LJ: "That fine line is based on experience, good reasoning abilities, cultural conventions and individual/cultural morals."

So in Hitler's Germany and the cultural, political, moral, socio-economic conditions of that culture it is possible that you may have been one of those people who reasoned that it was for the best interests of the nation that the Jewish people be rounded up and put in concentration camps. In Mao's China your reasoning and the cultural conventions of the times may have persuaded you that sterilization and abortion and a limit of one birth per family was the way to go, and if you found out that your baby was going to be a girl abort it and hope the next one would be a boy.

ME: "Well without an ultimate, objective, absolute Authority how do you separate subjective opinion and subjective experience from reality, from what is real? Because you have found something in common with someone else? And why should/ought I listen to your subjective opinion and follow the examples of your personal experience if there are questions as to its truth or reality? On the chance that you could be right? On the chance that the masses have been right?"

LJ: "I don't need a God to tell me what is "real". If it's raining outside, does God tell me that? No, I look at the window and I have a physiological experience with my eyes, ears and brain that tells me it is raining outside . Why do you imply that I need God to verify what I experience is real?"

There are so many things that you cannot verify with your senses that are qualitative rather than quantitative, so there is no way that you can experience them with your ears, eyes or physical senses. Rain drops are some of the things you can, but how do you determine that your "experience" of "good" is actually good, especially when someone else is convinced their opposite contrary experience is good?

LJ: "I need good, sound, reasoning abilities and a brain that functions well."

Without an absolute, ultimate, objective standard how do you determine they are "good"? You may need them, but two opposing views of good becomes a problem in determining which view is actually good if either is.

ME: "So are you equating a valid experience to consensus? In that case Hitler's Germany and the death camps or 100 million Muslim extremists who condone suicide bombers must be right in their particular cultures."

LJ: "No, I am not. I am equating a valid experience to standard acceptable behaviors, conventional norms and what most reasonable people would tell me is "valid" along with my own past experiences."

Whose acceptable standard? Whose past experience? Whether it is your subjective experience or that of another or a group of others how do you determine good when to viewpoints are opposite each other, both claiming to be the good.

LJ: "I am talking about functional, sane people here. I am not talking about deranged, maniacal killers like Hitler who have no reasonable understanding of reality. You are really talking about true DELUSION. Hitler was a madman. The fact that millions of Germans went along with him tells us the POWER and FEAR a madman can instill in the masses. It's called "cognitive dissonance" and is a defense mechanism. Google it. There was also a survival instinct playing out in the German masses."

Whatever you want to call it the fact remains that the majority either went along with or were caught up in the movement, just as they were in Mao's cultural revolution in which an estimated 80-100 million people were put to death.

Without an absolute standard it is not a matter of right or wrong but what the powers that be get away with. If Hitler is in control your telling him that murdering 6 million Jews is wrong is of no consequence because he makes the rules that determine what is good, just like in ancient times the monarchy was the absolute rule. Opposition results in death and silence to other views.

Posted by: Peter Huff | March 16, 2008 2:42 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Hi Lindajean,

Sorry to take so long in responding to your last post.

LJ: "I would like to clarify what that means exactly when I call you "delusional" and likewise what (I think) it means when you call me that as well. (Let the record note that PH has used the word "delusional" in describing my beliefs on this blog.)"

LJ: "First, when you use the word "delusion" or "delusional" in reference to my words, I do not take it personally at all. And I assume the same when I use those words in reference to your beliefs."

LJ: "When I call you delusional, as when you call me delusional, I take that to mean that in your opinion you don't believe my views are sound or substantial---that I am not giving you a good enough or convincing enough argument to convince you they are true. Delusional implies that maybe one does not have the whole picture here, that they are "in love with" their own thoughts and words and are not looking at the other person's point of view seriously. It implies that there is not enough evidence to make those words ring true and that if you believe your own words, you are believing in something that is not necessarily "real" or believable to others. Delusional implies that you are dogmatic and unwilling to think outside the box."

LJ: "Would you agree that such a word can mean those kinds of things in relation to our discussions and using the word is not a frontal assault on some one's intelligence, their personality or their sanity? That it is not "insensible" to use such language in a debate over religion and atheism?"

I agree that because I call your worldview delusional it does not mean that I do not count you as a highly intelligent, loving, functional human being with dignity and worth.

By delusional I mean that your worldview is untrue and you are willingly deceived into believing it, even though it does not conform to what is real. So you are believing a lie.

LJ: "Because even though I believe you have "delusional" thoughts about religion, I would never say that PH is pathologically delusional; that he cannot function in everyday world events; that he is dysfunctional and lacks reasoning and logical skills in the everyday world of life. No, I would not say that about you or anyone else on this blog. Just as I don't believe you have suggested likewise with me.:

Fair enough.

Posted by: Peter Huff | March 16, 2008 1:22 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Gad said to me: “back at you.”

This is not an answer.
Only a defense at not answering.

Gad said, “It's a guaranteed conclusion that your idea of free will is incompatible with Dennett’s, so don't pat your own back to hard....”

Explain what is “guaranteed” about any idea I had that is incongruent with Dennett’s view of compatible determinism.

Gad said, “Hell my incompatible views are more inline with Dennett's then your compatible ones.”

Prove this. Show me how your “ incompatible determinism” is more in line with his “compatible determinism” and my “compatible determinism” and is different than his.

Gad said: “ As has become typical you are just following the leader that you think you can project your views on to give them some validity with the least effort possible without actually having to have a clue.”

Give an example of how I am “projecting my views” that are “clueless” in regards to Dennett.

On November 4 I posted the following to validate my views on compatible determinism which are similar to Dennett’s :

“And to paraphrase Daniel Dennett : We are free to make decisions, to have the ability to anticipate likely consequences and to act to avoid undesirable ones. While much of nature is deterministic and follows the rules of physical laws, as humans we have "elbow room" to make real choices in our behaviors.”

That is me agreeing with (by paraphrasing) his compatible determinism.

Just to refresh your memory, a definition of compatible determinism is below from Wikipedia:

“Compatibilism is the belief that free will and determinism are compatible ideas, and that it is possible to believe both without being logically inconsistent (people who hold this belief are known as compatibilists)....”
and... [it] is a theory that argues that free will and determinism exist and are in fact compatible.The compatibilist definition of free will states that free will is not the ability to choose as an agent independent of prior cause, but as an agent who is not forced to make a certain choice.”

This is the elbow room he speaks of.

Dennett also writes in Freedom Evolves that "Human freedom, is not an illusion; it is an objective phenomenon, distinct from all other biological conditions and found in only one species, us."

This quote was cited at :

http://www.reason.com/news/show/28782.html

This is not what you believe (if I understand you correctly) from your long ago comments about incompatible determinism.

More from Wikipedia:

“Incompatibilism [determinism]is the belief that free will and determinism are logically incompatible categories.This could include believing that determinism is reality, therefore free will is an illusion.... Determinists argue that all acts that take place are predetermined by prior causes. Because human decision is an act that is not exempt from prior cause, by this definition, some determinists known as hard determinists believe that free will thus becomes an illusion.”

This does not allow elbow room.

I do not believe in “Libertarianism” which is complete or total freewill. Neither does Dennett. But he is not an incompatible determinist as you insinutate from you recent post. You, on the otherhand have labeled yourself one back in Oct/Nov.

Have you changed your mind?

Dennett’s use of the word “illusion” (in your previous comments) is in response to libertarian freewill. He believes total freewill aka “Libertarianism” does not exist because of the deterministic state of the natural world. He does not say that “compatible determinism” is an illusion. Again, compatible determinism is the “elbow room “ that he speaks of.

From what I can see, you are no more a compatible determinist (like Dennett) than Peter Huff is an atheist.

Given the possibility you have had a change of mind or heart, then this discussion is no longer necessary. But perhaps in the best interest of full disclosure you would clarify if you are really an incompatible (as you claimed back in Oct/Nov) or if you have changed over to Dennett’s “compatible” version.

Set the record straight.

Posted by: lindajean | March 16, 2008 8:25 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Hi Timmy,

ME: "So how did it become a living organism in the first place"

TIMMY: "How did God become God in the first place?"

This is what you atheists are most good at - non answers. I can understand why Timmy, you don't have any concerning these matters.

God did not become. An eternal Being cannot become, He always is.

ME: "Give me an example of anywhere were we witness something that is non-living giving birth to a living organism"

TIMMY: "Give me an example of anywhere were we witness a God creating anything. You have never seen it happen and can only speculate. YOU LIVE BY FAITH in something that is illogically impossible."

Another great answer Timmy to my question!

You are living in it Timmy and you are a part of it. You just fail to recognizer it. God is the source of all life and intelligence. Life creates life, intelligence creates intelligence. Nowhere can you show me a case of the contrary and yet you chose to believe such hogwash. All you can show me is your wishful thinking.

ME: "Adams perfection was limited"

TIMMY: "lol. Limited perfection."

Yes, you can create a perfect car, one without defective workmanship and yet not put all the features or gadget in the car that you would put in the same model fully loaded.

ME: "The fact is that if Adam did not have the choice to sin, then he did not have a perfectly free will, the ability to decide for himself which path he would take. If the only choice Adam could make was to obey then he would have been a robot. He would have been programmed"

TIMMY: "Who said he didn't have a choice? We just said that he made the wrong choice, which is imperfection. We didn't say that he didn't have the free will to do the wrong thing. That is your invention, to dodge the impossibility of a so called perfect creature making the wrong choice."

There again, up until the time that he chose to disobey God he was in perfect health, without sin, without death, without moral shortcoming, not alienated from God.

TIMMY: "It is the definition of the word "perfect" that limits his ability to make the wrong choice, not the lack of free will."

The very fact that Adam had the ability to choose to sin or not to sin makes all the difference between having a completely free will to choose and a programmed will that could only choose the good. How could Adam have a perfectly free will to choose and not be able to choose to eat the fruit?

He was created only knowing the good, but the option was there to know evil as well. If he was perfectly free to choose you're saying he would not choose evil. Then I'm saying if this was the case then his ability to choose was not completely free.

TIMMY: "Your "programmed robot" argument is erroneous.
Much like your misunderstanding of the process of natural selection."

Again, you have failed to answer any of my questions I asked you on intent, intelligence, and life. That is a problem your worldview seems incapable of answering. Since it claims natural selection is the process that made all this possible why does it have zero capacity to explain how or why? I realize there is no why with natural selection. It is a purposeless and meaningless process for both purpose and meaning come from an intelligent thinking being. So here you are trying to make up a purposeful and meaningful argument in refuting the Christian position, all the time unable to explain why it should come from a blind, random, chance process? Your worldview makes all these fantastic claims but it is contradictory on what it says as opposed to the way things are. And this is the case time and time again.

Posted by: Peter Huff | March 16, 2008 1:41 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Peter,

Timmy answered your question quite well, I have nothing to add.

Posted by: GAD | March 16, 2008 12:20 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Peter Said:
"So how did it become a living organism in the first place"

How did God become God in the first place?

Peter asks:
"Give me an example of anywhere were we witness something that is non-living giving birth to a living organism"

Give me an example of anywhere were we witness a God creating anything. You have never seen it happen and can only speculate. YOU LIVE BY FAITH in something that is illogically impossible.

Posted by: timmy | March 15, 2008 10:20 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Peter said: "Adams perfection was limited"

lol. Limited perfection.

Peter said:
"The fact is that if Adam did not have the choice to sin, then he did not have a perfectly free will, the ability to decide for himself which path he would take. If the only choice Adam could make was to obey then he would have been a robot. He would have been programmed"

Who said he didn't have a choice? We just said that he made the wrong choice, which is imperfection. We didn't say that he didn't have the free will to do the wrong thing. That is your invention, to dodge the impossibility of a so called perfect creature making the wrong choice.

It is the definition of the word "perfect" that limits his ability to make the wrong choice, not the lack of free will.

Get it?
Probably not.

Your "programmed robot" argument is erroneous.
Much like your misunderstanding of the process of natural selection.

Posted by: timmy | March 15, 2008 10:07 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Hi Timmy,

ME: "Give me an example of where it [intelligence coming from non-intelligence]is happening today?"

TIMMY: "Give me an example of where God is creating these things today."

You are mixing the context as you do every so often. Here is the original context,

ME: "So how does intelligence come from non-intelligence?"

ME: "Give me an example of where it is happening today? Show me how a physical substance or object such as a stone can evolve and develop a will? You can crush it and mix it together with other substances all you like and still have nothing that produces intelligence."

So are you asking the question on where God is creating intelligence from non-intelligence today? God has never done that since He is the supreme intelligence and the source of all intelligence. He is sovereign and decrees what things will have intelligence and what will not.

Now if you are switching gears here and asking where God is creating anything new today, I would say that God's work of creating was finished on the sixth day, except of course for His work of creating a new heart in a person that they may believe the gospel. Now His word of power sustains all things and holds them together. (Colosians 1:15-17)

"For by Him all things WERE [past tense] created..." (Colossians 1:16)

TIMMY: "And Bonobos are learning on their own to make and use tools. They did not have the intelligence to do this before, and now they do. It seems that this intelligence came from nowhere."

How do you know they were not endowed with this ability from their Creator before and it has just been observed now? You don't. How long have the behaviors of these chimps been observed in the past? How many people have lived with them and seen their daily activities over a long period of time throughout the whole day?

ME: "Why would natural selection select if it was unintelligent?"

TIMMY: "Natural selection does not "select". It is not a thing that has an agenda."

So you are saying there is no intelligence in it. So how do we get intelligence from something that does not have intelligence? Intent, I contend, comes from a will.

TIMMY: "It is not a thing. It is a phrase of words that describes how anomalies in a living organism are passed on to it's offspring."

So how did it become a living organism in the first place. Give me an example of anywhere were we witness something that is non-living giving birth to a living organism. Where has non-life ever given birth to the living. You have never seen it happen and can only speculate. YOU LIVE BY FAITH in something that is illogically impossible.

TIMMY: "And so anomalies that help a creature survive to reproduce more and more, will become more and more common in that species until it becomes not and anomaly, but a part of the new species. There is no mind at work behind it. No one is doing any selecting."

So how can intelligence come from the non-intelligent?

This is one of the problems you atheists have no answer for and yet you scoff at the thought of God because it interferes with your perceived autonomy. These are points that I continue to make that you have zero ability in your worldview to answer. It is irrational.

TIMMY: "You are taking that term literally and out of context, like someone who is ignorant of how it works. Because you have God on the brain."

And you have evolutionary principles (that do not work) on your brain.

TIMMY: "I asked: "what order?""

ME: "The order in the universe - the orbits, the gravitational pull, the order needed to support life, a sustainable right amount of oxygen"

TIMMY: "Our planet and sun will die. Life will no longer be supported.
Obviously there is no "order" that supports life in any sustainable way."

Then why is there life and why is it being sustained on this planet?

If there was no order there everything would be random and there would be no "laws of nature." Things would just happen willy-nilly, haphazardly. There would be no seasons, no reasons, no logic, no plan, no order. The earth would have no constant orbit that we could figure out days or months or years from. And the list goes on.

TIMMY: "I asked: "What intent?""

ME: "The intent that comes from a mind in expressing itself."

TIMMY: "That intent comes from Natural selection"

How can intent come from something that has no intelligence, no mind? Juggle those stones, mix them together all you like and still no mind, no intelligence.

ME: "A random, blind, chaotic, chance explosion called the Big Bang does not produce intent. A mind produces intent"

TIMMY: "No. Natural selection does."

How does it do that Timmy? What a bunch of malarkey. As usual, the atheist position has no reasonable explanatory capability.

Back to you. How many of these questions are you going to slough-off this time my fine atheist friend?

Posted by: Peter Huff | March 15, 2008 7:46 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Hi Gad,

ME: "It still does not explain how intelligence comes from non-intelligence. Can you do any better?"

GAD: "You still have not explained how a perfect man made an imperfect choice. Can you do any better?"

Yeah, I contend I did. Adams remaining perfect was made conditional upon his obedience to God. Adams perfection was limited by the fact that Adam was not all knowing, by the fact that he was not designed with the same power that God had or the same ability. The fact is that if Adam did not have the choice to sin, then he did not have a perfectly free will, the ability to decide for himself which path he would take. If the only choice Adam could make was to obey then he would have been a robot. He would have been programmed.

How many questions of mine have been sloughed-off along the way? So let's see if the question about intelligence coming from non-intelligence is answered. I'll grant that you did supply your seven stage rebuttal to some of the objections I have to atheism, which incidentally I have to return to along with an answer to Lindajean and Timmy. Things are piling up.

Posted by: Peter Huff | March 15, 2008 6:34 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Lindajean said:

"Good grief!
Get your definitions straight!"

Back at you!

It's a guaranteed conclusion that your idea of free will is incompatible with Dennetts, so don't pat your own back to hard. Hell my incompatible views are more inline with Dennett's then your compatible ones. As has become typical you are just following the leader that you think you can project your views on to give them some validity with the least effort possible without actually having to have a clue.

Posted by: GAD | March 15, 2008 3:04 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Gad:

There is nothing new here at all. I argued this point with you months ago and (as usual) you choose to ignore it.

This is a quote from your own source:

"Dennett's stance on free will is compatiblism with an evolutionary twist – the view that, although in the strict physical sense our actions are pre-determined, we can still be free in all the ways that matter..."

Dennett is a "compatible determinist" as I also claim to be in my original argument. This is different than Libertarian free-will which claims there is complete free will. He IS NOT AN INCOMPATIBLE DETERMINIST as you are. There is a big difference. He (and I ) believe in "elbow- room" something you "incompatibles" do not.

Good grief!
Get your definitions straight!

Posted by: lindajean | March 15, 2008 2:00 PM
Report Offensive Comment

LOL! Dan Dennett is a determinest and views free will as an illusion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elbow_Room

or with a twist

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_Evolves

Posted by: GAD | March 15, 2008 12:26 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Timmy:

You said, " You need to explain how I am being dogmatic about marriage, just by criticizing it. You are the one who made a fallacious accusation here."

Because you are arguing from an opinion and you don't have substance to back up your belief that multiple partners are a better lifestyle than marriage and that this will improve the quality of life for children.

BELIEVE ME, if you could show me that there is a better way and a better way to keep families together I would embrace it wholeheartedly.

It is dogmatic because it is YOUR----Timmy's-- opinion and you think it is a good idea. It is subjective. Give me something OBJECTIVE to go to sleep on, dwell on and ponder, because I would revel in such information.

I really, really would.

I would love to believe you Timmy. But I can't believe a person who is trying to convince me that varied X partners are harmless just because you and 75% of married men seem to think the idea is great.

You: "You need to show that humans have the natural power to love at will. Otherwise, to promise that you WILL love someone forever, is believing that you have supernatural powers...."

It has nothing to do with supernatural. It has to do with hope in the future. We've been there and done this. Are you listening to me? You certainly sound like Gad saying to me meditation is a belief in the supernatural. Now you say marriage is a belief in the supernatural.......LOL!

You: "This would not be true, and my criticism of marriage would be nothing like my criticism of religion, if the standard marriage vows said "do you promise to try really really hard to make this thing work?" But they don't. The real marriage vows are delusional...."

I am down on that!!! Been there, said that. Let's change them. Right now, today! Put out an ad in the LA Times and NYT! I am with you on this. 100%. 200%. Are you convinced I believe this is a great idea?

You: "I am asking you why 75% of men cheat? There is a difference."

Why men cheat.....why 75% cheat. Same difference. They cheat for a myriad of reasons. What exactly is your point in the fact 75% of men cheat except to raise my awareness that this number indicates marriage isn't working and I have agreed with you that it is "in trouble."

Men cheat because they want varied X. You are making the claim they cheat because they no longer love their spouses. I am not convinced of that. They cheat because they want more sex and probably are not getting it at home. And the reason for this is varied. Poor communication skills, stress, too many responsibilities, the monotony of life ....They want something young and beautiful and full of vitality because they are fearing their own loss of youthfulness and aging.....the list is infinite.

(My guess is Elliot Spitzer still loves his wife.)

And because they want varied X then marriage overall is doomed and so get over it LJ and admit that marriage is antiquated and delusional. That is what you want me to agree to and I cannot and I do not .

I will argue that marriage is delusional when religious beliefs enter into the picture stating that women submit to their hubs and they must "obey" them and all that crap. And yes it is delusional when people say "until death do us part" and actually believe those words literally and that by saying them something magical is going to happen to their spouse and he/she will never cheat on them.....that is delusional but sometimes it is not completely delusional because some people do stay faithful to their spouse a lifetime.

You: "I'm not questioning this. I am just clarifying that you believe that 75% of men are unethical.
Is this innate in our gender you think? This lack of ethics?
Why is it, you think, that 75% of men are unethical?"

Well I think 75% of men are unethical because they cheat and at the time the cheating (having X) is happening it becomes the most important thing in their lives for that particular period of time. This means that they are human, because for most people the particular moment they are having X is the most important thing in their life. In other words they get caught up in the moment, which is a very human thing to have happen to a person and everything else goes flying out the window, even the most important things like wife, children and possibly the demise of their marriage.

Having said that we are probably all unethical at times because we are not 100% truthful in a black and white way. That is indeed part of human nature. So being unethical and lying to your spouse about cheating is wrong, but I am willing to state it is understandable and definitely human nature. But by doing it you are certainly harming your spouse and possibly your children.

You: "But the government should promote this?
Gag."

Government should promote healthy relationships and "units" that benefit children. Research indicates so far marriage wins.

YOU:
" 75% of men are against monogamy. (more actually)
Monogamy is a delusion for 85% of the people who think they are monogamous. Monogamy is not the norm. We only pretend that it is. The old head in the sand mentality. This is what the government should promote more of? Get real."

You and are agreeing on the facts concerning marriage. The stats. But once again you are simplifying it as people (men) cheat because they no longer love their spouse. I argue they cheat because of boredom, stress, communication, loss of youthfulness... and not necessarily because they no longer love their spouse. There is a big difference.

You argue that multiple X is not harmful to children and does not affect their sense of security and "unit." I argue you have nothing to back this up objectively and it is only your opinion.

Me:
"I will agree there is some "delusion" in marriage but overall marriage is more problematic than delusional"

You: 'We're getting there. I sense you are starting to see the light."

Don't get too optimistic here. I don't want to disappoint you. When I say it is delusional I am referring to some of the religious connotations that go with marriage as stated above. I don't think exchanging vows are delusional in the sense that you are saying it.... but I agree that saying till death do us part is unrealistic....and can be delusional if you take it literally (which most people do not.)

You: "85% of people do that now! They just lie about it.
I am proposing that we stop lying about it.
You are proposing that 85% of people just need to stop doing what they have been doing since the beginning of time.
I think, to stop lying about it, is a far less delusional goal, than to think that we are ever going to stop doing it. Don't you think?"

Yes, we agree lying is a problem here and I have said that all along. But you are missing the point that cheating is complex and there are probably things married people can do to decrease the chances of it by communicating, and looking at conflicts in their marriage more honestly.

In multiple partner relationships your simplistic view ignores that when people have X there are emotional components to this act. I am probably correct in saying this is especially true for women. So how does a woman get past all the emotions when Mr. Wonderful says I am out of here after a 3 month "fling." Then another Mr. Wonderful comes along for another 3-6 months and leaves, and then another.....

LOL, how does one emotionally separate from all of this? It sounds very masochistic to me. High drama. Romance novels come to life.

Men seem to be able to have X without all the emotional stuff in non-committed relationships, but I argue most women cannot. And how do you deal with jealousies which are innate in human emotions?

You: "If you were debating me in this debate, Lindajean, you would have a chance.
But you are debating reality. And you have no chance.
Reality is.And monogamy aint it."

The numbers are real but the cause and effect are not. The cause and effect are your subjective opinion.

Here is a short and true story just occurring last night between my spouse and me that you may appreciate:

"LJ, why are you so grumpy this evening?"
"Because I am blogging about marriage with a guy named Timmy and he is driving me crazy with his views on marriage."
"How so?"
"He argues marriage is doomed because 85% of men and women combined cheat on their spouse."
"That doesn't sound very promising. Maybe he is correct."

LOL, even my husband is teetering!

Posted by: lindajean | March 15, 2008 7:40 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Hi Lindajean,

I think we're making some headway.
Some.

I did not say that you are being dogmatic about religion. I said that I am being no more dogmatic about marriage than you are about religion. I agree that you are not being dogmatic about religion. You need to explain how I am being dogmatic about marriage, just by criticizing it. You are the one who made a fallacious accusation here.

As for whether or not there is any difference between my criticism of marriage and your criticism of religion, you need to show that humans have the natural power to love at will. Otherwise, to promise that you WILL love someone forever, is believing that you have supernatural powers. This would not be true, and my criticism of marriage would be nothing like my criticism of religion, if the standard marriage vows said "do you promise to try really really hard to make this thing work?" But they don't. The real marriage vows are delusional.

YOU:
There are too many dynamics going on here. Men don’t just cheat because one day they wake up and no longer are in love with their mate.

You keep thinking that I'm asking you "why men cheat?"
I'm not. You are right. There are many many reasons of various complexity.
I am asking you why 75% of men cheat? There is a difference.

YOU: "75% of married men cheat--that is irresponsible and unethical."

ME: "75% of men are irresponsible and unethical?"

YOU: Yes, they must be if we follow the logic. Why are you even questioning this?

I'm not questioning this. I am just clarifying that you believe that 75% of men are unethical.
Is this innate in our gender you think? This lack of ethics?
Why is it, you think, that 75% of men are unethical?

(My answer) Because marriage is wrong for 75% of men.
Monogamy is obviously the wrong choice for 75% of men.
When they make this wrong choice, and promise to be faithful, it causes them to act in an unethical way. 75% of men should never have made that promise. Marriage is wrong for 75% of men. And 35% of women. And those are just the cheaters. Add in the people who don't cheat, but for whom, marriage is not the right choice for other reasons, and that really doesn't leave us with a lot of people who monogamy and marriage is right for, does it.

But the government should promote this?
Gag.

YOU:
"Thinking about it more, I decided men cheat because they are in denial of their own aging, demise and death"

lol. So naive. Men cheat because society sucked them into thinking that marriage is for everyone. And it is not for everyone, by a long shot. So men, in order to fit in, make promises they can not keep. There is no magic love that shuts down the desire to spread the seed. It's not true. Just like God.

Men who do not cheat, or do not have to fight the urge to cheat, constantly, are anomalies, not the norm. Marriage is not for most men.

 YOU:
"Any kind of monogamous relationship would view X outside the relationship as cheating. You are not arguing against marriage, you are arguing against monogamy"

75% of men are against monogamy. (more actually)
Monogamy is a delusion for 85% of the people who think they are monogamous. Monogamy is not the norm. We only pretend that it is. The old head in the sand mentality. This is what the government should promote more of? Get real.

YOU:
"Well you seemed to be cozying up to the 2 cheaters in Lost in Translation and raving about how wonderful they were. Are they wonderful or are they immoral? Make up your mind"

They are an example of why marriage is not for most people.
Marriage is not right for more than 85% of people.

YOU:
"If I caught my dad and the neighbor's wife how would he explain it?"

The very same way that your parents would explain to your what they were doing if they were irresponsible enough to get caught having sex in front of their children."

YOU:
"That kid is going to be creeped out that his parents are not having X with each other. That is what I find wrong with this equation"

First of all, you won't find a lot of kids out there who would be creeped out to find out that their parents are not having X. Most would be creeped out to find out, not only that their parents are having X, but how much X their parents are having. But it's really none of their business.

But if a child must accidentally find out about his parents sex life, it would only creep him out to know that his parents sometimes have other sexual partners, if he grew up in a world that is in denial about how normal non-monogamy is. 85% normal. But yes, lindajean, in todays world of denial and religious rituals guiding us through male female relations, a child might get creeped out to learn that Mommy and Daddy sometimes have other X partners.

YOU:
"I will agree there is some “delusion” in marriage but overall marriage is more problematic than delusional"

We're getting there. I sense you are starting to see the light.

YOU:
"This is utopian. You are proposing a fairy tale. We just live together and have X with others and life will be wonderful. NOT."

As opposed to.............

85% of people do that now! They just lie about it.
I am proposing that we stop lying about it.
You are proposing that 85% of people just need to stop doing what they have been doing since the beginning of time.
I think, to stop lying about it, is a far less delusional goal, than to think that we are ever going to stop doing it. Don't you think?

85% of married people are not monogamous.
Probably close to 100% of unmarried people are not monogamous.

Why should children be "creeped out" by non-monogamy any more than they are creeped out by monogamy. Why would they be creeped out by the situation that is far more the norm? Oh yeah. Because we are all lying to them, as well as to ourselves, that monogamy is the norm.

If you were debating me in this debate, Lindajean, you would have a chance.
But you are debating reality. And you have no chance.
Reality is.
And monogamy aint it.

Posted by: timmy | March 14, 2008 6:09 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Timmy:

I’m posting (back on this blog) my responses to your latest comments from Gad’s blog. At the risk of sounding trivial, I don’t want to “junk” up Gad’s blog with my “babbling” and monotonous arguments. It is after all, his domain, not mine. I would be presumptuous to revisit it after his most latest and blatant remarks.

I substituted “X” for sex to throw off the censors.

You asked me: "75% of men are unhappy in their marriage?"

There are too many dynamics going on here. Men don’t just cheat because one day they wake up and no longer are in love with their mate.

You: "Rape is not natural. What are you talking about?

No implication meant that you personally want to rape women. Or that most men do.
It is “natural” in the sense it makes some biological sense.
Biologically speaking, if a woman won’t “submit” then force her to. It spreads a lot more seeds and is more efficient than wining and dining and buying her diamonds.
Rape is very common in certain situations, war in particular.
I am not condoning rape at all. Only that it makes (some) biological sense (in a very perverse way.)

Murder does not make biological sense. It reduces human populations, rape increases them.

You: "You are arguing in favor of the continuation of [marriage]. More of the same. And you offer no solutions to the problem of infidelity. In fact, you admit yourself, that you don't even understand the reason why 75% of men cheat."

Thinking about it more, I decided men cheat because they are in denial of their own aging, demise and death. Most men are attracted to younger women. They represent youth and vitality. This is a challenging question you have offered up here. I don't have a lot of solid answers. It is interesting to think about.

You: "75% of marriages are bad? "already gone to hell"?

By "bad" I mean it is "troubled". Something isn't working. But who claimed that marriage is going to be a walk in the park? When you live with someone day in and day out, you're going to have conflicts and disagreements. There is nothing simple about male/female relationships especially those involving X and intimacy.

YOU: "I am not blaming [cheating] on marriage. I am saying it goes on with or without marriage. Marriage just forces people who are going to do it, to do it in a sneaky and dishonest manner........."

Any kind of monogamous relationship would view X outside the relationship as cheating. You are not arguing against marriage, you are arguing against monogamy. Because monogamy involves some kind of understanding that you will be faithful. So even an unmarried person would have to be sneaky in a monogamous relationship.

You: 75% of men have a lack of commitment?
75% of men are bored in their marriage? And you argue in favor of this institution?"

Yes, they get bored but not necessarily fall out of love. They break their commitment but that doesn’t mean they don’t love their wives. There is more going on here than simply falling out of love. There are communication problems, aging issues, changes in life...

You: "And here, you offer another reason: "Men cheat because they can"
What the hell does that mean? Women can't cheat? Or men are so frivolous that the only reason they need is "they can"????"

It means that they think they can get away with it. That their wives won't find out. What is so surprising about that?

I said:
"Women cheat because they want emotional satisfaction (and their husbands are not giving them what they need--emotionally"

You responded: "Why did these women marry a man who does not satisfy them emotionally? Was that smart? Or was it probably caused by the myth that all little girls are taught by society that all girls get to grow up and marry their prince charming and live happily ever after."

There are a lot of myths out there. That is definitely part of the problem. Why people marry each other is often far from “smart”. There are many psychological and emotional aspects to attraction and love that philosophers and social scientists have been pondering for eons.

Me:
"You are saying women who cheat have a stronger X drive and this makes them more "human" and that "faithful" women have low sex drives. I can only speak from my own experience to say "not true" unless I am the exception to the rule"

You: "Don't twist my words, Lindajean. I did not say that faithful women have low sex drives. Did I. Don't twist my words........”

I am not (intentionally) twisting your words. Just trying to get some clarification because that is how it sounded to me. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

You: I do think that cheating is immoral. I am not condoning it.

Well you seemed to be cozying up to the 2 cheaters in Lost in Translation and raving about how wonderful they were. Are they wonderful or are they immoral? Make up your mind.

You: "My way is reality. The stats show your way to be delusional."

I think delusional is too strong of a word. "Problematic" is a better word.

You: "The only pertinent fact here is that marriage does nothing to stop [break ups]..... So, while you can argue that it is a premium environment for a child to grow up in a home with two parents who love each other, you can not argue that marriage is good for children, until you can show how marriage can make love last any longer than it would under say, a common law situation. ...”

Marriage doesn't stop it you are right. I argue it is a "premium environment" but you are right the stats are not on my side here. That's why it is problematic. That is why I think there is more to it than your simplistic hypothesis.

YOU: "Devotion and dedication don't come naturally when you love someone?
Are you saying that people who love each other and are living common law together, won't " realistically work to keep (their) "unit" together because (they) understand that creating such a unit is a positive way to raise children"??"

I am saying that married people tend to take the commitment more seriously than just living together. Once you are married you are more serious about sticking together. I think that is why research shows marriages are better for children. I am not saying people living together are not committed. I am saying in marriage that commitment is a little more defined and structured (generally speaking of course.)

I said: (on promiscuity)
" No moral judgments are being made --just cold, rational definitions"

You: "I accept those definitions. You see that as a negative? Do you think that promiscuity is bad? By what moral authority?"

It can be “wrong” or “harmful” ---not “bad” in the moral sense. Something can have a negative affect without being immoral.

Me:
"but you have not convinced me that your Plan B is a good choice or even feasible."

You: "85% cheating. It seems that your plan A is not very feasible."

85% are cheating we can agree on (rough estimate) but we can't agree on the exact reasons and the solutions.

You: ".... I was just trying to find out if you though promiscuous was a bad thing? And by what moral authority? But you say that you do not think that it is immoral. So we're all good here I think."

You think? You are not sure yet? Some lingering doubts that I am making a moral judgement?

You: "But moderate promiscuity kept secret from kids just as "normal" married couple keep their X lives from their kids is no more harmful than monogamous married X.'

Disagree! If I caught my mom and dad they might be embarrassed but they would not have to lie to me. If I caught my dad and the neighbor's wife how would he explain it? Promiscuity doesn't allow parents to be honest with their children about relationships. That kid is going to be creeped out that his parents are not having X with each other. That is what I find wrong with this equation.

You: "Why is it so difficult for you to comprehend that marriage is not necessary for any of that [love and devotion]. That all of those things come naturally with love. And that no vow to "love forever" can change the termination date of that love."

Because you make it too simplistic. I agree in part with your argument but only about 50%.

Me:
"Why have relationships at all? ....Forget one-on-one! I want more. I want fun. I want excitement....!"

You: "Wow! Got something on your mind?"

Trying to make a point.
And checking to see if you are still paying attention....(you passed).

You: " I am being no more dogmatic about marriage than you are being about religion. It is the same form of criticism. You just don't like being on the side of the delusional for a change.'

Not. I explained why this is not the same analogy as religion. Wrong argument, Timmy. I don't buy it at all. And by saying I am dogmatic about religion you are discounting all the validity to atheists’ arguments. (Those arguments are often precise and sound while yours is lacking and simplistic.)

I will agree there is some “delusion” in marriage but overall marriage is more problematic than delusional.

ME: "I'm not following the logic here. Mom and dad are having X with other people and it is consensual and this is considered "normal" and dad is more likely to stick around?"

You: "No it is not considered normal right now.
What is considered normal right now is, just dad's mostly having sex with other women, and it is not consensual, because they are married, but dad will stick around as long as he doesn't get caught. This has been normal for the last several thousand tears. Personally I think the consensual thing is more healthy.”

Consensual would be more honest than cheating.

Me:
"How can he be sticking around when he is out with other women? "

You: "How can married mom and dad be sticking around when they're out on a date at the theater? Or away on a business trip? What's the difference?"

LOL! This is comical. You are equating mom and dad going to the movies or on a business trip with mom or dad having X with someone else!!!!!!! You can tell your child the truth about the movies and business trip. What do you tell your 15 year old daughter when she asks why you came home at 4 am in the morning with lipstick all over your collar? Children are very vigilant.

Me: "You ought to consider the emotional consequences of non-monogamy . You are not paying attention to this. You have shrunk away from it and you have throw it out like dirty water in a bathtub."

You: "What emotional consequences?
............there are no more emotional consequences (in non-monogamous relationships than there are in any fairy tale monogamous relationship."

This is utopian. You are proposing a fairy tale. We just live together and have X with others and life will be wonderful. NOT.

Me: "75% of married men cheat--that is irresponsible and unethical."

You: "75% of men are irresponsible and unethical?"

Yes, they must be if we follow the logic. Why are you even questioning this?
Make up your mind. You can't say it is wrong to cheat and then question my statement that it is unethical.
Sum: We are not going to agree on this are we?

Posted by: lindajean | March 13, 2008 9:32 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Peter Huff said:
"It still does not explain how intelligence comes from non-intelligence. Can you do any better?"

You still have not explained how a perfect man made an imperfect choice. Can you do any better?

Posted by: GAD | March 13, 2008 11:30 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Hi Timmy,

Just a quick comment,

ME: "So how does intelligence come from non-intelligence?"

TIMMY: "The same way that fingers come from non fingers. Natural selection. Step by step. Over billions of years."

Wow! What kind of tripe is this Timmy? There is no explanatory power in this answer. It still does not explain how intelligence comes from non-intelligence. Can you do any better?

Got to go.

Posted by: Peter Huff | March 13, 2008 9:15 AM
Report Offensive Comment

testing

Posted by: timmy | March 12, 2008 8:47 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Lindajean babbled:
"Speaking of Gad....
Have you noticed his low-key approach lately?
He is downright obscure these days.
Hiding in the shadows from my last "glassing" comment to him (he must be embarrassed) and from all of your marriage questions...."

That you think that that pointless nonsense that you wrote added anything of value to the discussion is why I haven't and won't bother wasting my time responding. That you think I should be embarrassed makes me embarrassed for you.

Lindajean babbled:
"He can't stand much of a challenge lately, since he apparently seeks refuge in Peter Huff."

When everyone is making the same kinds of pointless circular arguments, it really doesn't matter who I respond to does it.

To be fair, unlike you or Peter, Timmy does make some good points sometimes from of his own ideas. But he turns them in to all or nothing propositions i.e. if he makes 10 statements and even one is true he expects you to agree with everything else he stated. That's not really much a discussion, it was kind of fun and entertaining for a while but I have become quite bored now.

I've been hitting other sites to see what else is out there. Haven't found much to my interest yet, although I did end up finding out who our fiery bunny friend was and had a revealing conversation with them.

Posted by: GAD | March 12, 2008 8:31 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Timmy:

It will be a few days before I get back to your comments on Gad's blog.

Speaking of Gad....
Have you noticed his low-key approach lately?
He is downright obscure these days.
Hiding in the shadows from my last "glassing" comment to him (he must be embarrassed) and from all of your marriage questions....

He can't stand much of a challenge lately, since he apparently seeks refuge in Peter Huff.

Posted by: lindajean | March 12, 2008 6:21 PM
Report Offensive Comment

On Tuesday, March 11, 2008 the headlines in my local newspaper read:

"Female Suicide Bomber in Bagdad Kills Three"

What is the rationale for a female suicide bomber?Does she get 72 male virgins in heaven?

72?
Male virgins?

Yuck.
Double Yuck.

Posted by: lindajean | March 12, 2008 6:15 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Peter asks:
"So how does intelligence come from non-intelligence?"

The same way that fingers come from non fingers. Natural selection. Step by step. Over billions of years.

Peter asks:
"Give me an example of where it is happening today?"

Give me an example of where God is creating these things today.

And Bonobos are learning on their own to make and use tools. They did not have the intelligence to do this before, and now they do. It seems that this intelligence came from nowhere.

Peter asks:
"Why would natural selection select if it was unintelligent?"

Natural selection does not "select". It is not a thing that has an agenda. It is not a thing. It is a phrase of words that describes how anomalies in a living organism are passed on to it's offspring. And so anomalies that help a creature survive to reproduce more and more, will become more and more common in that species until it becomes not and anomaly, but a part of the new species. There is no mind at work behind it. No one is doing any selecting. You are taking that term literally and out of context, like someone who is ignorant of how it works. Because you have God on the brain.

I asked: "what order?"

Peter said:
"The order in the universe - the orbits, the gravitational pull, the order needed to support life, a sustainable right amount of oxygen"

Our planet and sun will die. Life will no longer be supported.
Obviously there is no "order" that supports life in any sustainable way.

I asked: "What intent?"

Peter said: "The intent that comes from a mind in expressing itself."

That intent comes from Natural selection

Peter said:
"A random, blind, chaotic, chance explosion called the Big Bang does not produce intent. A mind produces intent"

No. Natural selection does.

Posted by: timmy | March 12, 2008 4:11 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Hi Timmy,

ME: "The irreducible complexity of life from the microscopic to the magnificence of the universe shows how marvelously and wonderfully we are made"

TIMMY: "Actually natural selection shows that just fine. No intelligent designer necessary."

So how does intelligence come from non-intelligence?

Give me an example of where it is happening today? Show me how a physical substance or object such as a stone can evolve and develop a will? You can crush it and mix it together with other substances all you like and still have nothing that produces intelligence.

Why would natural selection select if it was unintelligent? A random process needs information to work repeatedly and consistently. Who or what supplied that information?

ME: "How does order or intent spring forth from random, chance, chaotic beginnings? Why? Let's here your speculations"

TIMMY: "What order?"

The order in the universe - the orbits, the gravitational pull, the order needed to support life, a sustainable right amount of oxygen, the order you use to construct an intelligent sentence, the order of winter, spring, summer and fall, the order of conception, gestation, birth, growth, death, the order in man's design, the order in natures design. Look around you Timmy, order is everywhere.

TIMMY: "What intent?
I see none."

The intent that comes from a mind in expressing itself. Does a stone have intent. Does it intend to skip across the water when thrown? Does it intend to become a paper weight on my desk? Does it intend to collect moss? Does a tree intend to provide shade for me? No, but I intend to seek the shade on a hot day. I have a purpose for seeking it. How does intent come from a mindless process?

A random, blind, chaotic, chance explosion called the Big Bang does not produce intent. A mind produces intent.

So look around you Timmy. Open your eyes.

TIMMY: "What are you talking about?"

No, what are you talking about?

Have a good weekend. I will most likely not be able to reply until Monday to any questions. Take care!

Posted by: Peter Huff | March 12, 2008 3:08 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Peter said:
"The irreducible complexity of life from the microscopic to the magnificence of the universe shows how marvelously and wonderfully we are made"

Actually natural selection shows that just fine. No intelligent designer necessary.

PETER:
"How does order or intent spring forth from random, chance, chaotic beginnings? Why? Let's here your speculations"

What order?
What intent?
I see none.
What are you talking about?

Posted by: timmy | March 12, 2008 2:04 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Hi Gad,

Not absurd, just something you do not want to admit to, that someone besides yourself is in control of your life - when, where, and how you will die and the circumstances that will come into your life. And then that you, of all people will have to answer to Him for your willful rejection of His laws and commands.

God is not arbitrary. He as the First Cause has determined from eternity all things that will come to pass, still allowing the second cause, the will of the creature, man, to function in His creation.

The thing that appeals to the atheist is that one can play make believe and make the rules Gad, being ones own god. For now the atheist can justify in his mind his sinful behavior by pretending that there is no evidence for God that he is aware of.

The irreducible complexity of life from the microscopic to the magnificence of the universe shows how marvelously and wonderfully we are made. What a mind that could put together such variety and diversity and yet such unity and order. There is intent in the way things operate.

How does order or intent spring forth from random, chance, chaotic beginnings? Why? Let's here your speculations.

Posted by: Peter Huff | March 12, 2008 11:02 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Peter said:

"I have lost focus and am stating the same thing over and over."

For a very long time now.

Posted by: timmy | March 12, 2008 3:48 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Hi Timmy,

I was almost to the end of a reply to your post when I went to hit the arrow up and instead hit the delete key. Here we go again.

TIMMY: "No, Peter.
I didn't say that a perfect creature COULDN'T do bad.
I said that it WOULDN'T do bad.
There is a difference.
A creature that has the ability to do bad, would never opt for that choice that it has, because it is perfect. A perfect creature also has the choice to kill. But none of them ever do because they are perfect and killing is bad.
Just because a creature never does bad, doe not mean that it can not do bad or that it is only programed to do good. It just means that given the choice, it chose the right choice every time. Because it is perfect."

Perfect. but limited. Limited in knowledge, since God made us in His likeness, but not all knowing, all wise, all powerful, everywhere present, as He Himself is. WE are limited in countless ways since we are not God.

ME: "You are able, you have achieved 100% in all your math exams and tests the first semester of college. You are perfect in your grade average. In the second semester you achieve a 99%. You are now no longer perfect"

TIMMY: "You never were perfect."

I take it you are using the generic "you" of the above example, because I would be the first to agree with you if you are referring to me specifically. I was never perfect in God's sight until He saved me through His Son. Now Christ's moral perfection is imputed to me as a believer. He has done everything I could never do and one day I will be physically perfect too!

And in the example I used above, during the first semester the student aced ever math test, which means there were more than one. So during the first semester his grade average was perfect and his ability to ace every test was perfect. He achieved perfection in the first semester. So he was perfect up until the second semester.

The same can be said for Adam. He was perfect in his standing towards God up until the time that sin was committed. And the Bible does not tell us how long before that happened, only how long he lived. So up until that time, he was not flawed, he was still innocent, still morally pure, still physically perfect. His choice to know good and evil is what caused the Fall and hence the flaw.

TIMMY: "You only got one perfect score on a math test. That is not a perfect human being. Many imperfect humans can get a perfect score on one test. The fact that you did not get 100% on the next test proves that you were never perfect in the first place. You just got lucky on one test and appeared to be perfect."

Actually that is not what I said. The student achieved many perfect tests and if he only took one semester of math, he would have remained perfect in his grade average forever.

TIMMY: "Also, why would God create creatures who are perfect, but start to decay in their perfection so quickly that the very first thing that Adam did was to do something so bad that he cursed all mankind forever. Some perfect creature."

Again the time line is not disclosed in Scripture as to how long after creation the Fall took place.

TIMMY: "He exists for a blip and all of a sudden his perfection has decayed to the point where he is thumbing his nose in his creators face? This does not sound like a perfect creation by a perfect creator to me. Maybe you have a faulty concept of the definition of perfect. Because if Adam is your idea of a perfect creation, I don't want to know what imperfection looks like."

There again, God put man on probation in the Garden, warning him that he was free to eat of any tree in the Garden but one. For man to remain in a perfect state before God man would have to choose to not know the knowledge of both good and evil, but to remain in his innocences knowing only good.

I'll say it again, man was perfect up until the Fall, but limited in knowledge. He did not know what evil was until he disobeyed God.

When man chose to know both good and evil by disobeying God he forfeited/lost his perfect standing before God, perfect moral and physical well being as well as perfect innocence.

TIMMY: "Just because a creature never does bad, doe not mean that it can not do bad or that it is only programed to do good. It just means that given the choice, it chose the right choice every time. Because it is perfect."

Can you be programmed and still have free choice?

Since God by His providence made a creature that had the ability to choose that ability must include both the ability to choose to eat or not to eat of the fruit of the knowledge of both good and evil. Otherwise there would be no choice. The creature would just be programmed, and in one direction without the ability to choose the other direction. Programming, I contend, is not a free choice. The creature would have to be perfectly able to choose and decide between the two options otherwise its will would be programmed and not free. That is why I contend that Adam (and only Adam - not us) had a free will in his ability to choose between the choices God had laid before him. If he could not choose bad did he actually have a choice? If a perfect creature would never have the possibility to choose bad then would that creature be perfectly free in its choices? Its choice would be restrained. It would have a disposition towards only making the right choice and an inability to make a wrong choice.

In my reasoning, the creature cannot both be perfectly free in its choices and not have the ability to choose bad in that it would never have the possibility to do so. To state it another way, if it does not have the possibility of choosing bad then it is not perfectly free to choose.

Okay, I'm getting tired and have to go to bed. I have lost focus and am stating the same thing over and over.

Posted by: Peter Huff | March 12, 2008 3:09 AM
Report Offensive Comment

BTW: A perfect man could never make the wrong choice, otherwise he wouldn't be perfect.

Posted by: GAD | March 12, 2008 2:53 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Peter Huff said:
"Robert Reymond said it well in his book, Systematic Theology,"

LOL, god is above the law, he can kill or torture us, whatever he wants, because he owns us and he is perfect.

Robert Reymond is a absurd and a waste of human life.

Peter, that grown men can believe such nonsense is nothing less then madness.

Posted by: GAD | March 12, 2008 2:45 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Hi Gad,

I thought I would respond to your post first today.

GAD: "Adam had free will
Adam was perfect
Adam choose wrong
Adam was not perfect"

Yes, I contend Adam had free will, but limited in knowledge. His will was free in the sense that he was free to choose to obey God or to disobey God. He was influenced by both God and Satan and he chose to believe a lie instead of the truth. Before his disobedience he was perfect in the sense that had he not taken of the fruit he would have lived forever in perfect fellowship with God, without death, without disease, without decay, without guilt, without condemnation. But he was made with the ability to choose to know good and evil, with its consequences and that is the choice he took. Because of the choice of Adam our wills are no longer free, in the sense that we no longer have the ability within ourselves not to sin. Only Adam had that choice.

God is perfect.
God chose to make a creature, man, with certain limitations. The creature does not have certain abilities, like the ability to fly or the ability to be all knowing. If the creature had the ability to know everything it would not be like God, but God. God did not design the creature to function this way.
The creature was limited in knowledge but without fault [i.e. perfect] in its limited knowledge, in the sense that it was not disobedient to its Creator.
The creature was given the ability to choose to obey God or not to obey God, but disobedience comes with consequences. One of the consequences was that the creature would no longer be innocent of the knowledge of evil and of doing evil. This would result in the loss of innocence and the creation of a flaw within the creature. So how does this look:

God created a creature, man, with limited knowledge but perfect in innocence towards evil with the ability to choose to remain perfect forever, or the ability to become flawed or corrupt by both knowing and doing evil.
By obeying God the creature would remain perfect.
By disobeying God the creature would become flawed/corrupt.
The creature chose to disobey God and became flawed/corrupt.

GAD: "Adam was not prefect
If Adam was not perfect then god can not be perfect"

Adam was created perfect with the ability to chose evil which would result in imperfection.

GAD: "How does imperfection come from perfection."

By making the wrong choice. He was innocent until he chose to sin. He had perfect moral rightness and perfect physical being before God up to the point of eating the fruit.

GAD: "Adam did not have the knowledge of good and evil
Adam was not complete
Adam was not perfect"

Adam did not have knowledge of good and evil UNTIL he chose to know the difference by eating the fruit.
Adam was complete up to the point of eating the fruit; completely innocent, completely free of guilt, completely free of moral and physical consequences.
Adam became flawed by the choice he made.

GAD: "Adam did not have the knowledge of good and evil

True.

GAD: "Adam was made ignorant"

True, ignorant of knowing what evil was. Evil is doing what is opposed to God's good decrees. He makes the rules, the rules that you are in rebellion to, that you deny by wishing God to not exist. That is the simple truth of the matter.

GAD: "Adam was held accountable for being made ignorant"

No he was held accountable for not believing his Creator and breaking His command. He was not ignorant of the fact that God had warned him that to partake of the fruit would result in moral corruption and a fall from grace. Both moral and physical corruption came with the Fall.

GAD: "The story is a sham"

No, you just choose not to believe it so that you can be your own "free" moral agent, answerable to no one, able to be "autonomous" in deciding what you deem is right and wrong, to the limited ability that you can so determine it without an absolute standard. But upon death will come the judgment and a knowledge of the truth. You can only wait not knowing for sure until that time, because you, like Adam, have chosen to disbelieve God. My hope is that He will have grace and mercy on you as He did Adam.

"Did God really say?" Yes He did. You do not know God and yet you pass judgment on Him for which He will hold you accountable, unless He extends His mercy and grace to you.

As for your premises below, the syllogism is all wrong.

GAD: "God is prefect
God kills
Killing can not be wrong"

Robert Reymond said it well in his book, Systematic Theology,

"Men are responsible for their thoughts, words, and actions because there is a Lawgiver over them who will call them to account (Rom. 14:12). But God is not "responsible" for His thoughts, words, and actions because there is no lawgiver over Him to whom He is accountable. Contrary to what some might think, He is not obligated to keep the Ten Commandments as the human creature is. The Ten Commandments are His revealed precepts for men. They do not apply to Him as the ethical norm by which He is to live. He cannot worship another God because there is none. He cannot dishonor His father and mother because He has no parents (we are not considering at this moment the Incarnation), He cannot murder because all life is His to do with as He pleases, He cannot steal because everything already belongs to Him, He cannot lie because His nature disallows it, He cannot covet anything that does not belong to Him because, again, everything is His already. And because He is the absolute Sovereign over the universe, He cannot be called into account by a more ultimate lawgiver (there is no such being) for anything He does or ordains someone else to do. Because He is sovereign, whatever He decrees and whatever He does in accordance with His eternal decree are proper and right just because He is the absolute Sovereign. Did He decree the horrid crucifixion of Christ? The Bible says He did. Then it was proper and right that He did so. Did He predestine some men in Christ before the foundation of the world to be His sons while He foreordained others to dishonor and wrath for their sins? The Bible says He did. Then it was proper and right that He did so. Did He determine that He would call men to account for their transgressions against Him? The Bible says He did. Then it is proper and right that God should regard us as the chargeable, responsible causes of our sin." p. 376

Posted by: Peter Huff | March 12, 2008 12:57 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Timmy:

You said:" You [LJ] say that the faith of marriage vows are not like religious faith because religious faith is belief in the supernatural and that marriage vows are not belief in the supernatural. I beg to differ."

and gave this example: "I promise to love, honor and cherish, till death do us part"

and then you said, "We do not control love. The notion that you can know with enough certainty that you will be able to "love someone forever" by will or by vow, that you could promise and swear in front of everyone you know that you will fulfill this promise, would mean that you would have supernatural powers. We know of no human being who can control love, or love at will."

No, not supernatural powers, only "hope triumphing over reason."

Big difference, Timmy. One is a human construct: hope.

Some people do marry for life. It is not supernatural to hope that.

The other is human delusion: faith in a supreme being. No such thing that we know of.

You said : "Do you guys have ceremonies with your best friends, and promise them that you will be best friends forever? Why not? Don't you love them? Don't you care about them? Are you not committed to them? I think the government should promote friendship alliances complete with ceremonial oaths. Because they are surely a healthy thing for our society. Also, I think that people should take oaths when they take a job with a company, that they intend to work there until they retire. Even though we know that most people don't just have one job for life, it would be nice if we made this symbolic gesture. In fact I think that the government should promote it because I think that it surely would be good for society."

These are not "intimate relationships." Big difference, Timmy.

You said: "WAKE UP!
RAISE YOUR AWARENESS!"

There is no doubt you are trying very hard to do that. Do you always do things with so much gusto?

Posted by: lindajean | March 11, 2008 7:16 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Timmy:

It is certainly true that marriage in the 21st century is problematic and I agree with many of your points (and have all along.)

You said: "How is that any more of a commitment than people who don't get married?"

There is probably not a lot of difference. But I think people want to go through these rituals, ceremonies and symbolic ways of expressing their love because it is something that makes them feel good. You may scoff at it, and logically speaking you make your case well in doing so, but when it comes to matters of the heart, such as love and marriage, there is not always much logic behind it.

You: "And with any of those things that you listed above, would you hold a ceremony, and and sign a contract, and swear in front of everyone you know that you will make them come true? ..."

No. Probably not. But marriage is a sincere rite of passage for many people. And while love and marriage are not logical phenomenons, the ceremony offers people much hope and solace. I don't find that necessarily offensive unless it becomes extremely delusional (as religion can be). The "till death due us part" is certainly unreasonable to take literally, but is it actually "delusional"? That's a bit strong, since there are people who do stay married a lifetime. And in nature there are animals that mate for life. (Many birds and wolves come to mind.)

There is a saying that "marriage is the triumph of hope over reason." This is probably all that marriage is, all that it will ever be and all that we can hope it to be.

You: "I have faith that my wife will love me forever. But I mitigate that faith with "sweet reason" and I come to the conclusion that it is foolish to promise everyone that I know, including my wife that I will love her forever and expect her to make that same promise to me. There is a mountain of evidence, not only that feelings change over time, but that people can be madly in love for 2 years, and hate each other passionately by year 5."

Absolutely correct and I do not argue that at all. My spouse and I both understand that we may not love each other forever. We tend to live in the present on this. "I love you today and I hope to love you tomorrow and in ten years." But if that does not happen we are not going to hate each other if things change. That's just being realistic. I actually think married people figure this out after a few years. It really is a no-brainer.

You: "Name anything else in life where we know of such a 50/50 hit/miss ratio, and yet we hold a ritualistic ceremony to swear in front of everyone that the coin will lands heads?"

Probably none. But love and marriage stem from the heart. The head cannot figure it out heads or tails (pun intended.)

You: "Of course. Me too. Just don't be so delusional as to hold a ritualistic ceremony and swear in front of everyone that it will come true. That's just setting yourself up to look foolish."

That is not to say we don't have some delusional things going on here with marriage. But this is where you seem too dogmatic and almost simplistic in your thinking: that other relationships are not as convoluted as marriage. It seems when one discusses matters of sex, love and gender differences there is nothing simplistic about it at all. In fact I would argue these matters---that we are discussing about intimate relationships---are the most complicated matters in human nature. Married or unmarried, life doesn't get any more entangled than that.

Posted by: lindajean | March 11, 2008 6:56 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Lindajean,

New post for you over on Gad's blog.
Also, there's a couple of new ones for you above.
Enjoy.

Posted by: timmy | March 11, 2008 2:47 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Gad, I just read your last post and, by golly you're right.
Peter's story of a perfect creator has got to be false.
Gee, I wonder if Peter knows?
As cruel as it sounds, someone should really tell him, so he can find a new hobby.
:)

Posted by: timmy | March 11, 2008 2:44 PM
Report Offensive Comment

God has free will
God is perfect
God never choose to do wrong

God is prefect
God kills
Killing can not be wrong

Adam had free will
Adam was perfect
Adam choose wrong
Adam was not perfect

Adam was not prefect
If Adam was not perfect then god can not be perfect

How does imperfection come from perfection

Adam did not have the knowledge of good and evil
Adam was not complete
Adam was not perfect

Adam did not have the knowledge of good and evil
Adam was made ignorant
Adam was held accountable for being made ignorant
The story is a sham

Posted by: GAD | March 11, 2008 11:09 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Peter said:
"If a creature could only make right choices and choose good it would not have the ability to choose bad. The would be no option to choose bad"

No, Peter.
I didn't say that a perfect creature COULDN'T do bad.
I said that it WOULDN'T do bad.
There is a difference.
A creature that has the ability to do bad, would never opt for that choice that it has, because it is perfect. A perfect creature also has the choice to kill. But none of them ever do because they are perfect and killing is bad.
Just because a creature never does bad, doe not mean that it can not do bad or that it is only programed to do good. It just means that given the choice, it chose the right choice every time. Because it is perfect.

Peter said:
"You are able, you have achieved 100% in all your math exams and tests the first semester of college. You are perfect in your grade average. In the second semester you achieve a 99%. You are now no longer perfect"

You never were perfect. You only got one perfect score on a math test. That is not a perfect human being. Many imperfect humans can get a perfect score on one test. The fact that you did not get 100% on the next test proves that you were never perfect in the first place. You just got lucky on one test and appeared to be perfect.

Also, why would God create creatures who are perfect, but start to decay in their perfection so quickly that the very first thing that Adam did was to do something so bad that he cursed all mankind forever. Some perfect creature. He exists for a blip and all of a sudden his perfection has decayed to the point where he is thumbing his nose in his creators face? This does not sound like a perfect creation by a perfect creator to me. Maybe you have a faulty concept of the definition of perfect. Because if Adam is your idea of a perfect creation, I don't want to know what imperfection looks like.

Posted by: timmy | March 11, 2008 3:03 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Hi Timmy,

TIMMY: "Where did we get our minds, and our logic and our being?"

You already know that Timmy. God created us with the ability to make choices, with the ability to think logically, with the ability to use our minds. We are most logical when we think God's thoughts after Him, when we discover how His laws operate, when we listen to what He says, because He is infinite in wisdom and knowledge.

Peter said:
"If the creature could only make the right choices then the creature would be programmed by God to only choose good"

TIMMY: "Not necessarily."

How do you figure that? As you say below, it would just be an illusion. If a creature could only make right choices and choose good it would not have the ability to choose bad. The would be no option to choose bad. There could be no ability to choose good or bad if it was just programmed to do good. The word "choice" implies the ability or option to decide. And God created Adam with the ability to choose between good and evil by eating or not eating of the tree in the Garden. By choosing to eat of any other tree in the Garden Adam was scoring 100% correctly and had perfect grades.

TIMMY: "The creature could be programmed to have the choice of doing either good or bad, but because the creature is perfect, and because all of the creatures are perfect, none of them would exercise their choice to do bad, giving the illusion that they don't have that choice at all, but rather, they are merely programmed to do only good. But the truth is, they do have that choice. It's just that they are so perfect, that none of them made the wrong choice."

That is the point, the creature, Adam, had a will to choose so the creature (Adam) was not programmed. He was created innocent, without sin, with the ability to choose to obey his Creator or the ability to find out what "bad" or "evil" was by choosing to disobey. The creature was not created as God, all knowing, all wise, everywhere present, but with limitations, but not flaws. He was not created as a bird with the ability to fly, or like a fish with the ability to live under water, but his makeup was perfect in the way that God made him. And that was different from the animals in that he, Adam (also you and I) were made in the image and likeness of God in our ABILITY to reason and think in the same manner as God, except in a limited way - not all knowing, all wise, eternal, etc.

TIMMY: "That would be how the world would look, if God were perfect and omniscient. As though everyone was programmed to do only good. But this would just be an illusion. They would all have the choice of doing bad at any time. But because they are all perfect, created by a perfect God, it appears as though the choice to do bad does not exist."

That is right. If we were all programmed there would be no choice in the matter. Bad is a choice, and since God offered man that choice in the Garden, "If you eat of the tree of good and evil" that choice would mar mans perfection. He would know what evil or bad was.

TIMMY: "Back to the drawing board, Peter.
A perfect creature will always choose to do good. Not because it is programmed to do only good, but because it is perfect, and therefore always chooses good. When Adam chose to defy God, he showed himself to be flawed. He did not choose to become flawed. He was flawed from the get go."

There again Timmy, there was no death, no disease, no decay, no guilt, no condemnation. The world and its creatures were in a perfect state, free from all these things. A perfect creature could be able to choose if it had a free will, which I contend Adam had. You and I no longer have free wills in our ability to obey God, because our desires, our longings will always be to choose what appears as we see best in our own limited self interests.

When Adam chose to disobey God he became flawed. Here is a human analogy. Can something you Timmy make, that you judge as perfect, become marred? Can it become damaged? Just drop it and it is marred. Here is another lousy human analogy.

You are able, you have achieved 100% in all your math exams and tests the first semester of college. You are perfect in your grade average. In the second semester you achieve a 99%. You are now no longer perfect. So at some point in time you were perfect in achieving perfect grades, but not any longer. Did you have the ability to achieve the 100% perfect grade average? Yes. So up to that point in time your ability was perfect in acing the math course you were taking. With the score of 99% you are no longer perfect in your ability to ace the course. So perfection can be lost in such a case. Why can it not be lost in the case Adam? God made him with the ability to choose between good and evil and gave him the consequences in advance for the wrong choice. So up to the point of sin entering the world Adam was perfect.

Death, disease, decay, guilt, condemnation had entered the perfect, pristine world with Adams action, and at that point he was no longer perfect, he had fallen.

Now the only One who is able to make you stand perfect before a perfect God is Jesus Christ. He is able (He has the ability) to keep you in a perfect state of innocents before the Judge, of whom we must all give account.

"...because by one sacrifice He has made perfect forever those who are being made holy." (Hebrews 10:14)

"Therefore He is able [He has the ability] to save completely those who come to God through Him, because He always lives to intercede for them." (Hebrews 7:25)

"To Him who is able to keep you from falling and to present you before His glorious presence without fault [i.e. perfect] and with great joy - to the only God our Savior be glory, majesty, power and authority through Jesus Christ, before all ages, now an forever! Amen." (Jude 24, 25)

God has forgiven man's sin in only Jesus Christ and those He died for. His sacrifice was of infinite worth in that it was the only one that could merit the righteousness, the justice, and appease the wrath, the judgment of an angry God who said that the soul that sins shall surely die. His life given was of pure righteousness, without sin, and His willingly dying in the place for those He would/will save is the only thing that can make amends with God and fulfill God's perfect law, that is always good, that is always right. We blew it in the Garden.

Posted by: Peter Huff | March 11, 2008 1:28 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Hi Timmy:

I just posted responses to your previous comments on Gad's blog.

Posted by: lindajean | March 10, 2008 7:16 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Peter said:
"With what, with our minds, with our logic, with our being"

Where did we get our minds, and our logic and our being?

Peter said:
"If the creature could only make the right choices then the creature would be programmed by God to only choose good"

Not necessarily. The creature could be programmed to have the choice of doing either good or bad, but because the creature is perfect, and because all of the creatures are perfect, none of them would exercise their choice to do bad, giving the illusion that they don't have that choice at all, but rather, they are merely programmed to do only good. But the truth is, they do have that choice. It's just that they are so perfect, that none of them made the wrong choice.

That would be how the world would look, if God were perfect and omniscient. As though everyone was programmed to do only good. But this would just be an illusion. They would all have the choice of doing bad at any time. But because they are all perfect, created by a perfect God, it appears as though the choice to do bad does not exist.

Back to the drawing board, Peter.
A perfect creature will always choose to do good. Not because it is programmed to do only good, but because it is perfect, and therefore always chooses good. When Adam chose to defy God, he showed himself to be flawed. He did not choose to become flawed. He was flawed from the get go.

Posted by: timmy | March 10, 2008 5:53 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Hi Lindajean,

I think I will take your last post to me in segments as time becomes available. You know how wordy I can be.

Posted by: Peter Huff | March 10, 2008 5:23 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Hi Timmy,

Peter: "What is your point? God gave us the ability to reason and judge, but we are the ones who perform the actions in that WE reason and judge."

TIMMY: "With what? What do we reason and judge with? What ability do we have that enables us to perform the function of reasoning and judgement. And where did we get this ability from?"

With what, with our minds, with our logic, with our being. We think for ourselves, God does not think for us. He does not program us to think what we think, but warns us of the consequences of thinking apart from Him. He gave us the ability to think and act for ourselves, but when we think and act contrary to His will we run into big trouble.

"For My thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are My ways your ways," declares the LORD.
"As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are
My ways higher than your ways and My thoughts higher than your thoughts." (Isaiah 55:8-9)

Peter: "Are you attributing to God faulty workmanship?"

TIMMY: "Yes."

Then I contend that you misunderstand God. He made man perfect in the garden with the ability to do what was right in God's eyes and the ability to do what was wrong. If Adam had chosen to believe God and obey His good, pleasing and perfect will then man would have still been in a state of perfection. But Adam chose to act on his own accord, the same way that you do. The consequence of Adam's sin was the cause of man becoming faulty.

PETER: "Are you saying that He cannot make something the way He chooses to make it, that He can't do with His creation as He chooses?"

TIMMY: "Are you saying that he purposely made a faulty product?"

No, see above.

PETER: "Are you suggesting that His perfect plan of redemption will not be carried out?"

TIMMY: "I am suggesting that he does not exist."

And I'm saying He does. Big deal. You don't know, the believer does. You are at a disadvantage already.

"I am the Good Shepard; I know My sheep and My sheep know Me..." (John 10:14)

PETER: "If He made a creature that could only do what He programmed it to do, would He not have made a robot?"

TIMMY: "Yes.
He could have made a creature that makes it's own choices, but the right choices. Not the wrong choices. You know, a perfect creature. He could have made a perfect world with perfect creatures. Why didn't he?"

If the creature could only make the right choices then the creature would be programmed by God to only choose good, whereas God created His creature, man, with the ABILITY to choose to know the difference between good and evil, just by disobedience evil would come to pass and become reality. Hence, man would become faulty, no longer perfect. And the penalty that God would impose would be a world that was no longer "very good." And this was so man would learn that he cannot live without God and everything still function perfectly.

Posted by: Peter Huff | March 10, 2008 5:19 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Do you guys have ceremonies with your best friends, and promise them that you will be best friends forever? Why not? Don't you love them? Don't you care about them? Are you not committed to them? I think the government should promote friendship alliances complete with ceremonial oaths. Because they are surely a healthy thing for our society. Also, I think that people should take oaths when they take a job with a company, that they intend to work there until they retire. Even though we know that most people don't just have one job for life, it would be nice if we made this symbolic gesture. In fact I think that the government should promote it because I think that it surely would be good for society.

WAKE UP!
RAISE YOUR AWARENESS!

Welcome to the 21st century.

Posted by: timmy | March 10, 2008 4:28 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Lindajean,

You say that the faith of marriage vows are not like religious faith because religious faith is belief in the supernatural and that marriage vows are not belief in the supernatural.

I beg to differ.

"I promise to love, honor and cherish, till death do us part"

We do not control love. The notion that you can know with enough certainty that you will be able to "love someone forever" by will or by vow, that you could promise and swear in front of everyone you know that you will fulfill this promise, would mean that you would have supernatural powers. We know of no human being who can control love, or love at will.

And the changes that you are talking about making to the marriage vows are redundant because that's just common law.

What's not to get? Good grief.

Posted by: timmy | March 10, 2008 4:01 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Who could get?

Marriage is on the decline.
Common law arrangements are on the rise.
Open and alternative relationships are on the rise.

It seems that more and more people every day "can get".

Welcome to the 21st century.

All of your arguments are not with me, they are with reality. I am simply presenting reality. And you are arguing with that.

Posted by: timmy | March 10, 2008 3:39 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Gad said:

"Who could get!"

Anyone with a lick of sense.

You, for example, have not been able to counter a single point I've made.
You actually do get it, Gad. You just won't admit that Timmy is right.

Posted by: timmy | March 10, 2008 2:22 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Timmy said:
"I certainly do. You just still don't get it yet."

Who could get!

Posted by: GAD | March 10, 2008 11:28 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Lindajean said:

"That is how I interpret it because we all know that divorce is a 50/50 proposition. Hub and I will try hard to make this relationship work and if it doesn't work we will have to discuss what our options are. That is how it works in the real world. If you want to do it differently then go girl!

That is how it is in the real world. That is how I live my life. But that is not marriage.
For the love of mud, Lindajean what is this commitment you speak of? "We commit to stay together until it is apparent that it is not working anymore"? How is that any more of a commitment than people who don't get married?

Lindajean said:
"One can also have faith that my children will grow up strong and healthy and kind-hearted, that my family and friends will care for me if I get deathly ill, that the world is a relatively good place, that my friends are decent people and won't stab me in the back, that my job will give me great satisfaction, that my husband will still love me in ten years...these are all acts of faith in life and in its goodness. This is not a faith or belief in any religion or god. Big difference!"

And with any of those things that you listed above, would you hold a ceremony, and and sign a contract, and swear in front of everyone you know that you will make them come true? Would you hold a ceremony and promise yourself and others that your friends will be decent people and won't stab you in the back? Of course not. That would go beyond a little harmless wishful thinking, to something delusional. That goes for any of those faiths that you listed. You wish for them to come true. You don't promise everybody that you know that they will come true.

I have faith that my wife will love me forever. But I mitigate that faith with "sweet reason" and I come to the conclusion that it is foolish to promise everyone that I know, including my wife that I will love her forever and expect her to make that same promise to me. There is a mountain of evidence, not only that feelings change over time, but that people can be madly in love for 2 years, and hate each other passionately by year 5.

Name anything else in life where we know of such a 50/50 hit/miss ratio, and yet we hold a ritualistic ceremony to swear in front of everyone that the coin will lands heads?

Lindajean said:
"I can't predict the future, but I can have a sense of hope/faith that the future will offer me some positive things."

Of course. Me too. Just don't be so delusional as to hold a ritualistic ceremony and swear in front of everyone that it will come true. That's just setting yourself up to look foolish.

Lindajean said:
"LOL, Timmy, one ought to have faith in something good in this life. If you don't then I feel sorry for you. Just shoot yourself. (Just kidding of course.)"

I certainly do. You just still don't get it yet.

Posted by: timmy | March 10, 2008 4:58 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Timmy:

I have more to post on Gad's blog. Probably tomorrow.

Posted by: lindajean | March 9, 2008 6:44 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Timmy quoted me:

"I thought we were pursuing sweet reason on this blog?"

And his comment was: "This from a person who thinks that we should stand in front of a room full of everyone we know and promise to love someone till death do us part, when we have no control over love. And when challenged on this, she says "people don't take those vows literally, just metaphorically or symbolically."

Only if you choose. That is how I interpret it because we all know that divorce is a 50/50 proposition. Hub and I will try hard to make this relationship work and if it doesn't work we will have to discuss what our options are. That is how it works in the real world. If you want to do it differently then go girl!

Timmy: "This is the same reasoning that says it's okay for the minister to tell us that Jesus died on the cross for our sins, when no such thing actually happened, because people should just take it metaphorically and not literally."

No it is not the same "reasoning". Religion is based on belief in the supernatural. I am not claiming any belief or faith in that.

I have faith that my relationship will be a positive attribute in my life. If I am wrong, then I will have to change my views. I am willing to change my views because I understand completely that my faith my be incorrect.

One can also have faith that my children will grow up strong and healthy and kind-hearted, that my family and friends will care for me if I get deathly ill, that the world is a relatively good place, that my friends are decent people and won't stab me in the back, that my job will give me great satisfaction, that my husband will still love me in ten years...these are all acts of faith in life and in its goodness. This is not a faith or belief in any religion or god. Big difference!

This is faith and trust in the life I live. I may be wrong about some of these beliefs, but I won't be too dogmatic about them if they change or do not pan out the way I way I want them to. I'll adjust to the reality that my husband may no longer love me, that my friends are really my enemies, that my children are ass-holes and that life sucks if it comes about that these things are true.

I can't predict the future, but I can have a sense of hope/faith that the future will offer me some positive things.
LOL, Timmy, one ought to have faith in something good in this life. If you don't then I feel sorry for you. Just shoot yourself. (Just kidding of course.)

This is not religious faith. It is a sense of well-being that life can offer me some positives and I am going to jump at those opportunities when they are there for me.
YOU: "Vowing that your love will last forever is making a promise based solely on faith, pure and simple. Sweet reason is the kind of honesty that I have in my marriage, which you and Gad mock as "Very Romantic!""

Faith or hope that love can last. Not a denial when it does not. Big difference here.

Posted by: lindajean | March 9, 2008 6:26 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Lindajean said:

"I thought we were pursuing sweet reason on this blog?"

This from a person who thinks that we should stand in front of a room full of everyone we know and promise to love someone till death do us part, when we have no control over love. And when challenged on this, she says "people don't take those vows literally, just metaphorically or symbolically.

Where oh where is the "sweet reason" in that?

This is the same reasoning that says it's okay for the minister to tell us that Jesus died on the cross for our sins, when no such thing actually happened, because people should just take it metaphorically and not literally.

Vowing that your love will last forever is making a promise based solely on faith, pure and simple. Sweet reason is the kind of honesty that I have in my marriage, which you and Gad mock as "Very Romantic!"

Your idea of romance is a faith based idea. Only through faith can one promise to love someone forever.

"I promise to love you forever"
=
"I promise to never let anything bad happen to you"

These are both nice sentiments. But it is certainly not reasoned thinking to assume that you can keep such a promise by sheer will.

Posted by: timmy | March 9, 2008 3:51 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Hi Lindajean,

I posted a reply on gad's forum.

Posted by: timmy | March 9, 2008 7:08 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Hi Gad:

LOL!

After counting all the "WTFs" you hurled at me (6 at least--a record number no doubt on this blog), I will agree with you wholeheartedly that this conversation needs to end and needs to end with great haste.

But before that can happen, I cannot ignore your erroneous remarks that I want to "glass the Mideast" and I offer more comments to deflect them.

I reviewed the "conversation" you spoke of that took place earlier on this blog about nuclear strikes. The conversation began on or around Jan 29 and came about as a slight diversion to Bernie Bees "baby torture" question and comments about WWII. Here are some pertinent excepts from a long conversation that took place over several days between BB, Andy Ross, Timmy, you and myself. Notice my comments show no indication of wanting to provoke nuclear strikes. At one point, you offer me a bouquet of flowers with a fine compliment on my exact words against such a move.

1/28 BB: "What are we supposed to do if we wait until a small boat is anchored in the approaches to London or New York with a nuclear device primed to go off and given an option we can't refuse? Should we wait that long?"

1/28 Timmy: "But with all of the information I have today, I would not have dropped those bombs on those cities. I do not think that it was necessary. But from Truman's perspective, it may have been. That is why I do not consider it a war crime. But if the Nazis had bombed us, it would have been."

1/28 Gad: (to Timmy) "For sure no one would ever answer yes to killing that one innocent baby, yet here you are saying you would kill thousands of innocent babies, and not for any reason as grand as ending all pain and suffering in the world, but because they might grow up and not like you (us)........"

1/28 BB: "For Christ's sake Gad haven't ye caught on! It's either them or us! Whose side are ye on!"

1/28 Timmy: "It's not "them or us", Bernie, it's religion or us. We are not at war with a people. We are at war with an ideology that is harmful and dangerous."

and,

"Bernie if you believe anything that you yourself say about Islam, then you should know that the muslim populous are victims of that religion. They need help, not nuclear bombs. Nukes kill people, not ideologies."

1/29 Andy Ross; "If they nuke one city, we shall have a pretext to glaze over half the Middle East with radioactive silicate and thus bury the hotheads once and for all."

[Note to Gad: Hummm...That sounds like a "glassing" comment. I, (LJ), did not make it, AR did.]

1/29 Timmy to Bernie: "But with all of the information I have today, I would not have dropped those bombs on those cities. I do not think that it was necessary...."

1/29 Gad to all: "How easy it is for all of us to sit here at our computers and say that we would push the button and kill all those babies to end their suffering and make the world a better place knowing damn well we will never have to while telling those who might that it is justified if they did for us."

1/29 Andy Ross: "I fear Bernie is right here. This is an existential crisis. Militant Islam is mad clot disease. (The prophet Pbuh said humans grow from clots of blood. A clot is a fool in some English dialects.)"

and,

"The propagation vector for harmful and dangerous ideologies is people, people who become mad clots, like zombies in all those horror movies, where the hero has to cull them or die."

1/29 Timmy to AR: "Is this your assessment of the vast majority of the population in muslim countries? Are the good majority of them mad zombies beyond rescue? Are you saying that destroying the civilian population in muslim countries is the only way to defeat the ideology?"

and,

"Bernie seems to be for a preemptive nuking.
You seem to be with Bernie.
Are you for a preemptive nuking?"

1/29 Gad asked Timmy: "And would you push that button your self?"

[Note to Gad: Hmmm... where is LJ in this conversation? She isn't even having the discussion about glassing the Mideast........Her blogging brothers are the ones deep in conversation here....]

1/29 Timmy to Gad:

"You mean would I nuke the entire middle east now, before the extremists get their hands on a nuclear device and destroy one of our cities?
No. Have my posts not made that clear?
I'm pretty sure Bernie is saying that he would push that button now.
And I'm still waiting to see if that's what Andy means by his comments.
How about you?"

1/29 Enter LJ: "......I do not agree with BB. Killing babies on any side of the fence is immoral. I know that collateral damage--in times of war---- is used as an argument to justify doing so. But war is a sloppy excuse to kill people much of the time. Iraq is a perfect example. And while I believe there are "just wars" the vast majority are not. They are simply excuses to show one's might, power and potency. Statistics done on recent wars show that more civilians are ever killed than military people. Most civilians killed are the elderly, women and children. If it comes down to us against them, we ought to be prepared for the worse, but we ought to do everything in our power to make us against them as minimal a problem as possible."

[Note to Gad: LOL! That sounds like I (LJ) wants to glass the Mideast!!!!! Yes it does and don't try to argue with me that it does not.]

1/29 Gad to BB: "Wow! So the greed, decadence, brutality and self-righteous indifference of its ruling class had nothing to do with it! They didn't kill enough people…"

1/29 BB: Y'know Gad, that could be word for word the reason given by Islamic psychopaths for planting bombs in night-clubs, cinemas, or anywhere folk gather to enjoy moments of leisure, just anything that these maniacs claim upsets Allah."

and BB to Timmy:

"Well now Timmy when you consider it was only a few days after those bombs were dropped Japan finally surrendered and so ended WW2 compared with conservative estimates that otherwise the carnage would have gone on for at least another year it was a good reason for taking the decision to use those bombs?
In any case, by that time Japanese cities had long been subjected to conventional bombing that resulted in devastating fire-storms. What would ye say was the diff between incineration by either method? The fact is, had Germany got possession of those bombs there would have been no hesitation in using them. Indeed, given the chance, wartime Britain would have splattered Germany in the same way!
But that would only have been the case provided it was just one of the belligerents with access to such destruction with no chance of retaliation in the same manner. America and the Soviets held back as both were aware such immense destruction could never be worth any gain.But retaliation would not put off the mad mullahs; these crazies would consider many millions of Muslim casualties neither here nor there as the price for destroying even one Western city.So, yes, if such barbarous primitive people were about to acquire the means of making nuclear weapons I'd nuke em alright!"

BB to Me (Lindajean): "Pay close attention here Lindajean; It was war that has made us what we are today!"

[Here comes the bouquet of flowers from you, Gad]

1/29 Gad to LJ: "Lindajean,I think you've found the forest......... I was very moved by your last post (a first for me on a blog)."

[Note to Gad: LOL! You still believe I want to glass the Mideast? You are even jumping on my bandwagon here! I guess you want to glass the Mideast also?]

1/30 Timmy to Gad:
"Although, moral and ethical reasons would still play a partial roll I think.
There is a big difference between, accepting your indirect roll in world suffering by just being alive in the first world, and personally pushing the button annihilating a city with hundreds of thousands of innocent lives in a blip."

1/30 AR to Timmy: "Earlier I said: "Nuking those cities is what kept us alive during the Cold War. Without an example not only of how big a nuclear bang was but also how crazy the maniacs in command were, we would surely not have escaped a thermonuclear exchange with the Soviets."

Timmy replied: "This sentence would have credibility if you changed the word 'surely' to 'possibly'. Because you simply don't know that. You don't have to blow up a city with real people in it to show how big your bomb is, or how prepared you are to use it."

My (AR) new reply (1):
"In my semantics, 'surely' has the same truth conditions as 'with high probability' and the additional perlocutionary force of urging the height of the probability. I would judge that the statement thus parsed has nonzero credibility, and that your sentence would therefore have more credibility if you inserted the qualifier 'more' before 'credibility'. In any case, to return from metalanguage to the original assertion, I think anyone who has reflected on the psychology of Stalin and other leading Soviets would agree that a live demonstration of the atomic bomb exploding over an enemy city was probably the least that would get through their thick hides."

1/30 LJ to BB: "And if we had not been shaped by war, is it possible we might not have the immense human suffering we see before our eyes? What we are made of today, is not necessarily something I feel pride over as a modern day human."

[Note to Gad: More glassing of the Mideast?]

1/31 BB to LJ: "So far as it goes, I truly believe Islam to be a bigger danger to humanity than even Nazism. There were those who did not take seriously Hitler's intentions as set out in his book Mein Kampf and it seems to me the same applies to the mad Mullahs and their book which states just as clearly to take over the world for Allah no matter what. They should be confronted, taken on before much longer."

1/31 LJ to BB: "... I understand that you were referring to our vast and long history of war. And I agree there is an innate quality to humans being warlike. But my reference to war being a "sloppy excuse" was to make a more precise point about war. There are "just" wars and there are indeed "unjust" or unnecessary wars. In my opinion, most, the vast, great majority of them are unjust, unnecessary and a sloppy reason to kill people. The war in Iraq, sadly, is a perfect example of that. I could name many, many more, but have to sign off for tonight."

[Note to Gad: More glassing here?]

end of quoted conversations..

As you can see, I made NO reference to favoring nuclear strikes. I am agreeing with you and Timmy on this about 200%. Perhaps you confused me with BB and AR (we all think so much alike it could be unclear sometimes...)

I have never asked or expected you to agree with me. All I ask (as I would with any other person) is to bring forth some effort to represent my words in the true nature in which they are spoken/written. Anything less is malevolent and slanderous.

So do you sincerely believe I would support nuclear strikes in the Mideast?
Is this an accurate portrayal of my views?
Do you believe I would condone such barbarism?

LOL!
Where do these beliefs originate from?
I thought we were pursuing sweet reason on this blog?
Apparently, I am the fool here.....

Posted by: lindajean | March 8, 2008 1:40 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Hi Peter:

Before I get started today with a conversation about religion, I would like to throw a few things your way.

Another blogger on this forum (we all know who I'm talking about) has made some outrageous statements about me that I find utterly ridiculous. One of his views is that I am calling you delusional and by doing so I am completely off the cuff. That while it is unacceptable for me to refer to his words as "ignorant" and "prejudicial" simply because he finds it offensive to him personally; it is also (for some reason) unacceptable for me to refer to your words as "delusional" because I am "insensible" in doing so. I would like to clarify what that means exactly when I call you "delusional" and likewise what (I think) it means when you call me that as well. (Let the record note that PH has used the word "delusional" in describing my beliefs on this blog.)

First, when you use the word "delusion" or "delusional" in reference to my words, I do not take it personally at all. And I assume the same when I use those words in reference to your beliefs.

When I call you delusional, as when you call me delusional, I take that to mean that in your opinion you don't believe my views are sound or substantial---that I am not giving you a good enough or convincing enough argument to convince you they are true. Delusional implies that maybe one does not have the whole picture here, that they are "in love with" their own thoughts and words and are not looking at the other person's point of view seriously. It implies that there is not enough evidence to make those words ring true and that if you believe your own words, you are believing in something that is not necessarily "real" or believable to others. Delusional implies that you are dogmatic and unwilling to think outside the box.

Would you agree that such a word can mean those kinds of things in relation to our discussions and using the word is not a frontal assault on some one's intelligence, their personality or their sanity? That it is not "insensible" to use such language in a debate over religion and atheism?

Because even though I believe you have "delusional" thoughts about religion, I would never say that PH is pathologically delusional; that he cannot function in everyday world events; that he is dysfunctional and lacks reasoning and logical skills in the everyday world of life. No, I would not say that about you or anyone else on this blog. Just as I don't believe you have suggested likewise with me.

Back to our conversation:

You sated: "If it is a subjective experience how do you know it is true? What authority but yourself do you appeal to? The subjective experience of someone else?"

I recognize it is subjective and accept it as such an experience. I'm not going to question its validity unless I have reason to and then I will indeed question it. There is a saying that people who question their own sanity are never insane. It is people who never question their sanity that usually are. I am willing to accept that most of my subjective experiences are simply subjective experiences and not try to analyze them too much. However, there is always the possibility that a subjective experience can be pathological (I hear voices telling me to kill my brother...) and so I need to be aware that as a human it is possible for me to cross over a line into insanity......But I do not believe God is hovering over me and is going to be able to tell me if my subjective experiences are true or not or if I am sane or insane.

You: "So how do you separate illusion from reality? How do you know that any of your experiences are anything more than illusion? It is a pretty fine line to walk and still make sense of life is it not? Am I just having an imaginary conversation with myself here? "

That fine line is based on experience, good reasoning abilities, cultural conventions and individual/cultural morals.

You: "Well without an ultimate, objective, absolute Authority how do you separate subjective opinion and subjective experience from reality, from what is real? Because you have found something in common with someone else? And why should/ought I listen to your subjective opinion and follow the examples of your personal experience if there are questions as to its truth or reality? On the chance that you could be right? On the chance that the masses have been right?"

I don't need a God to tell me what is "real". If it's raining outside, does God tell me that? No, I look at the window and I have a physiological experience with my eyes, ears and brain that tells me it is raining outside . Why do you imply that I need God to verify what I experience is real? I need good, sound, reasoning abilities and a brain that functions well. If I don't have these, when I look outside I might see cats and dogs falling from the sky instead of water. That would be delusional or "unreal".

You: "So are you equating a valid experience to consensus? In that case Hitler's Germany and the death camps or 100 million Muslim extremists who condone suicide bombers must be right in their particular cultures."

No, I am not. I am equating a valid experience to standard acceptable behaviors, conventional norms and what most reasonable people would tell me is "valid" along with my own past experiences. I am talking about functional, sane people here. I am not talking about deranged, maniacal killers like Hitler who have no reasonable understanding of reality. You are really talking about true DELUSION. Hitler was a madman. The fact that millions of Germans went along with him tells us the POWER and FEAR a madman can instill in the masses. It's called "cognitive dissonance" and is a defense mechanism. Google it. There was also a survival instinct playing out in the German masses.

You: "...if you base validity on circumstantial evidence why do you discount the Bible, for it contains both circumstantial and direct evidence?"

Well the "circumstantial evidence" you refer to is not so circumstantial. It is the best we have to go with. It is called reasonable, sane, prudent judgement based on eons of experience from our fathers and forefathers. It's called conventional wisdom. It's called "learning" , "education" and "knowledge". The Bible can teach us some of this, I will not argue with that. But the Bible does not have a monopoly on wisdom and soundness. I would say the Bible has a very poor record of this in many instances.

You: "The difference between your measure and mine is what I am contending for. God is truth; ultimate, objective, absolute truth. You have no way of disproving Him and yet you call those who believe in Him delusional? That is subjective unless you can offer some proof for your experience, that it is true."

You have no way of proving him. So at best you say I ought to accept him on faith and I am not willing to do that. Otherwise today the Bible, tomorrow the Koran.

You: "All the time using the mind that God has given you."

You can say it is a mind he gave me. I will just say it is a mind I have and appreciate and hope it will continue to work well as I age.

You: "There again you make your judgments based on your subjective experience. It's as circular as you claim my views are, and I would contend any argument can be when pushed far enough.'

I am saying that judgements are based on subjective experience and knowledge about the world. I don't know of any other way to experience it. You of course want God in the equation. But that is your wish, not necessarily a fact.

ME: "So we both claim the other is delusional in their belief. So who is right? Is right to you the majority opinion?"

Right is not the majority opinion--otherwise George Bush would not be president!

"Right" is clear,reasonable thinking that is ethical and moral (not harmful to others). Lots of gray areas in "right". In a theocracy, right is "god" --no gray areas. It makes governments and societies a lot easier when there are no gray areas. But I don't see you clamoring to go live in a theocracy. Have you considered the idea? Are there any Christian theocracies in the making? I would guess you might embrace such an ideal??

You: "The Bible is a good topic..."

Not...

You: "There again, who is delusional, you or I? How do you know anything for sure? What is your bench mark? Self? A collection of subjective selves? If there is nothing objective out there then all anything is is irrelevant subjective opinion that is hard to prove as true for which standard are you going to use as a benchmark?"

My benchmark is knowledge, reason and experience and some cultural values about ethics and morals

You: " I invite you to look into it and test your suppositions if you wish to carry this further."

I don't.

I said: "I believe there is some historical hypotheses that Jesus was actually a living, red-blooded person. I don't believe anyone has actually "proven" he existed."

You: "You could say the same thing about Napoleon Bonaparte or any other historical figure who is no longer physically alive on this earth. I believe Napoleon is just some historical hypotheses that may or may not have actually existed."

Napoleon did not claim to be God or God's son. He did not claim to come back and visit us and Rapture us into heaven. It is these kinds of claims I am challenging, not whether Jesus was born in Bethlehem and his father was a carpenter.

YOU: But if you look at the evidence for Napoleon's existence and that for the Lord Jesus Christ you would have to say, as any reasonable historian has done in the past, that these were actual historical people. Would you agree with that or do you still want to go on probability? Even that probability is hard to question and still go by the guidelines you gave earlier about circumstantial evidence as being valid.

If there is the same kind of evidence I will agree both men lived in the past. But there is no evidence suggesting immortality or supernatural. This is the bone of contention.

I said: "But I am willing to give people like you the benefit of the doubt that he probably existed as a man who tried to change the world, to challenge the politics of his day and to transform people's beliefs about how to be "decent" people. Once again, there is no evidence of this, only anecdotal stories that are not solid."

YOU: "Not solid in whose opinion though? You have thousands of manuscripts that testify that He existed, you have the apostles as eyewitnesses to His life and resurrection, all willing to die an excruciating death rather than recant and deny Him as Lord or His resurrection. Were they all hallucinating? Were they all delusional?"

Well we need to define "solid". If you have solid evidence he lived and roamed the earth around 30 AD then that is one thing. If you claim to have "solid" evidence that he was born from a virgin, turned water into wine and was resurrected after dying then there is no solid evidence. I will "give" you that he lived on the earth. There is nothing unbelievable about a man named Jesus living on the earth and walking around telling people he is God's son. I can believe such a person existed. But I cannot believe the mythical claims made about him or that he really was the son of God. There is a big difference.

YOU: 'Why would they be so truthful in so many matters and yet make up a story of a man resurrecting from the dead? What gain was in it for them? They died for what, a lie? Would you die for something you knew was a lie, just to deceive as many as you could? Do their accounts give you reason to believe deception? No, the Biblical accounts show they were men of integrity."

Stranger things have happened. Men of "integrity" are also known to cheat on their wives and beat their kids.

You: "And Jesus did not try to change the world, He did change it! As C. S. Lewis said, you cannot say He was a good man, a good teacher, if He was a liar or lunatic, only if He was who He claimed to be, Lord of all. Someone who deliberately lies to others is not a good man. Someone who is delusional or on the fringe is not a good man. Someone who put others interests above His own, who taught the Sermon on the Mount and to love your neighbor, whether friend or foe - that is a good Man! Someone who sacrificed their life for the sake of others, that is a good Man. Someone who taught others how to "be decent people", that's a good Man."

Well, that is a good man. I'm not saying Jesus (if he lived) was not a good man. Martin Luther King was a good man. FDR was a good man. Abe Lincoln was a good man. My husband is a good man. Peter Huff is a good man. I am not disputing any one's virtue here. I am disputing claims that he is immortal and he is the son of God.

You: "That is because of the way you look at the evidence. You cannot afford for you to be wrong. You cannot afford for the fact that the Bible is true because it means that you are answerable to the ultimate higher power, God. You cannot afford for the Bible to be true because that means you are not autonomous. So again, who is delusional?"

I can afford to be wrong. I am not infallible. LOL! Why would you think I have to be "right" all the time. You are talking to the wrong atheist blogger here. You are thinking of another athirst blogger who clearly believes he is not wrong. Not LJ! I am saying there is not enough evidence to make these claims just because someone 2000 years ago made claims of supernatural beings.

I said: "That might be your defining question but it is not mine and personally I don't care if we never know the answer to it. I see it as chasing rainbows in the sky."

You said: "That is because you have a worldview that cannot make sense of it, therefore it is easier to bush it off. But who is believing the delusion? Show me some proof that something as complex as our brains and thinking process can come from non-living, unthinking matter? Where does this happen in our world? Where has it ever happened? Your worldview is the one making that claim, not mine. None of these pet theories of evolutionary science have been proved. I think it is foolish to believe such nonsense. You are the one talking about me proving God, well a proof is in the impossibility of the contrary...."

We've been down this road too many times PH.

You: "It is not magical, it is supernatural, beyond nature. Magic is something coming from nothing, life from non-life, intelligence from non reasoning, non thinking processes. That is magic.'

OK, let me rephrase : I don't need supernatural to appreciate my life...."

You: "Well you have faith too, and faith in things that are untrue. The important thing about faith is what you rest your faith in. Experience is not all you have, you have an innate knowledge of God that you suppress, just as you have an intangible part of you that is not material in nature, in composition - your spirit that is unique, that is God given, that makes choices and makes you who you are."

So you keep saying....

Posted by: lindajean | March 8, 2008 1:18 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Hi Timmy:

I posted my comments at Gad's blog:

http://atheistgods.blogspot.com/2007/11/problem-with-atheism.html

under "linda"

comment number 7

Posted by: lindajean | March 8, 2008 7:56 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Gad,

For some strange reason I accept the writer's label for her movie and my wife's assessment of it more than your wife's assessment. But that's love I guess. Oh yeah, and the critics and award shows agree with us. But forget "Lost in Translation". How about Casablanca or The English Patient, or the hundreds of other extremely popular movies about secret love affairs. No it doesn't "prove" anything. But it demonstrates quite convincingly, that society sees love and romance in infidelity all the time. And in fact there is probably more romance going on in extra marital affairs than there is in most marriages. You think marriage vows are romantic? They are ritual. Tradition. Religion. Followed blindly by lemmings, who never bother to look at the reality of how few people are ever able to keep them. There is nothing noble about making them, any more than there is something noble about faith. Same thing after all.

Gad said:

Nothing that shows that there is any secular benefit to marriage whatsoever.

Nothing to justify expending any government resources promote it.

Nothing that counters anything I have said about it.

Posted by: timmy | March 8, 2008 5:03 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Timmy said:
"It was universally considered a romance. That is what is relevant."

No, in fact it was more often listed as a comedy/drama, and even if it were considered romance it isn't relevant to..... hell I'm lost I don't what you think it proves.

I asked my wife if she remembered the movie, she said oh yea that wasn't that good was it. I asked her if she thought that is was romantic and she said, I quote, "an old married guy with a young married girl, yuck."..............

Where I said (grammar fixed);

"So what was your vows? I love screwing you today, but I can't promise that I will love screwing you tomorrow. Very romantic!"

It was all sarcasm, in reference to your claim that marriage is moot and that no one can really promise what say in their vows, to love and be faithful for the rest of their lives. Yet you are married, so I was just wondering if you told you wife at your wedding that it was all moot and that you couldn't really know if you would still love her and not be screwing other girls down the road.Very romantic!

Posted by: GAD | March 8, 2008 3:08 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Peter said:
"What is your point? God gave us the ability to reason and judge, but we are the ones who perform the actions in that WE reason and judge."

With what? What do we reason and judge with? What ability do we have that enables us to perform the function of reasoning and judgement. And where did we get this ability from?

YOU: "Are you attributing sin to God?"

No. Faulty judgement.

YOU: "Are you attributing to God faulty workmanship?"

Yes.

YOU: "Are you saying that He cannot make something the way He chooses to make it, that He can't do with His creation as He chooses?"

Are you saying that he purposely made a faulty product?

YOU: "Are you suggesting that His perfect plan of redemption will not be carried out?"

I am suggesting that he does not exist.

YOU: "What are you saying?"

See above.

YOU: "If He made a creature that could only do what He programmed it to do, would He not have made a robot?"

Yes.
He could have made a creature that makes it's own choices, but the right choices. Not the wrong choices. You know, a perfect creature. He could have made a perfect world with perfect creatures. Why didn't he?

Posted by: timmy | March 8, 2008 1:25 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Hi Timmy,

What is your point? God gave us the ability to reason and judge, but we are the ones who perform the actions in that WE reason and judge.

Are you attributing sin to God?
Are you attributing to God faulty workmanship?
Are you saying that He cannot make something the way He chooses to make it, that He can't do with His creation as He chooses? Are you suggesting that His perfect plan of redemption will not be carried out? What are you saying?

If He made a creature that could only do what He programmed it to do, would He not have made a robot? If He made a creature, man, with the ability to choose to do what He commanded and also the ability to choose not do what He commanded, would He not have made a creature with the ability to willfully/voluntarily choose?

This is what we find happened. Adam had the ability to obey God and the ability to disobey God. Adam chose to disobey and the rest is His Story. We, as creatures have inherited that nature of Adam, and we no longer have the ability to obey God perfectly, which a perfect obedience God requires of His creatures. He as the Creator requires us to live under His laws. Only Christ was/is able to do that - the Second Adam. And anyone found in Christ is a new creation and is counted right by God based on Christ's mediatorial work, credited righteousness and atoning sacrifice. He has paid the price of our rebellion in full and reconciled those in Christ to God.

Posted by: Peter Huff | March 7, 2008 9:42 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Hi Timmy:

I must now be as "explicit" as you are. I tried to post my response to your marriage comments about 1 hour ago and it is not on here. I will check again tomorrow and if it has been "censored" then I'll post it on Gad's. (Unless he has banned me as well.)

Posted by: lindajean | March 7, 2008 8:59 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Gad said:
"As for "Lost in Translation" it just wasn't that good and your argument was absurd."

No problem. Good is subjective. And moot to my point.
It was universally considered a romance. That is what is relevant.
But you agree with me here so there is no reason to argue.
The point is that romance can be one night, or a lifetime, or anything in between.

"So what was your vows? I'm screwing today, but I make no promise to screw you tomorrow. Very romantic!"

What did this mean, then? If not what I said.
Was there no sarcasm here? Explain your comment.

Posted by: timmy | March 7, 2008 7:18 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Gad said:

"Everything else I have already answered, and I see no reason to reiterate."

Did you?
I guess we are in agreement then. Marriage is useless and there is no reason for the government to promote it. Because I don't recall you giving any secular reason for marriage, other than "I just want to".

Legal contracts? Covered by common law.
Kids? We are in agreement that marriage does nothing to ensure that kids grow up with two parents.

I also don't recall you answering this one.
Do you choose to love who you love? Can you control when or if that love will end?

Did you answer these?
Nowhere that I can see.

You have absolutely no counterpoint to my points. You just have a soft spot for the fantasy of marriage vows, and you like disagreeing with Timmy.

Posted by: timmy | March 7, 2008 7:10 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Timmy said:
"Bad grammar aside, are you not insinuating here that temporary affairs are not romantic? That only promises to screw forever are romantic? Is that not the sarcastic point you were trying to make? And then Lindajean seconded this comment. Both of you acting as though I didn't know what true romance was because I claim that marriage vows are not within our control to keep or not keep."

Yes really and everything you think I meant is wrong and only in your head. As for what LJ meant only she knows, if she meant what I meant then the universe is likely about to end.

Everything else I have already answered, and I see no reason to reiterate. As for "Lost in Translation" it just wasn't that good and your argument was absurd.

Posted by: GAD | March 7, 2008 6:33 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Gad said:

"I don't recall anyone here (or anywhere for that matter) saying that you can't have love and romance without marriage...."

Really? Remember this comment"
""So what was your vows? I'm screwing today, but I make no promise to screw you tomorrow. Very romantic!"

Bad grammar aside, are you not insinuating here that temporary affairs are not romantic? That only promises to screw forever are romantic? Is that not the sarcastic point you were trying to make? And then Lindajean seconded this comment. Both of you acting as though I didn't know what true romance was because I claim that marriage vows are not within our control to keep or not keep.

But now you are agreeing with me that romance does not require such a commitment. That it can be, and most often is, fleeting. Even with your spouse.

So what is the secular reason for marriage then?
I know, you just want to, right?
Well you are welcome to it. Just don't be telling me that the government has any business promoting something that you have no good reason to do?

You are claiming that marriage is god for society.
How does marriage ensure that a child will grow up with two loving parents?

Answer: It doesn't

So how is marriage good for society?
Why should the government promote it?

These are the questions that you have not been able to answer.
Nor will you ever be able to.

Gad said:
"the only conversation you are having on this issue is with your self."

Really? So you agree with me? If you do, then why are you arguing with me? If you don't agree with me, then how can I be having a conversation with myself?

Gad said:
"BTW "Lost in Translation" was not that great."

This makes sense. To someone who thinks that marriage vows have any secular validity whatsoever, I could see you missing the modern artistic statement of this film. It would then seem like just a boring little story about a sleazy old man.

Welcome to the 21st century, dad.

Posted by: timmy | March 7, 2008 5:28 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Personally, I think that the government should ban movies like "lost in Translation" because they don't promote good healthy marriages. :)

lol

Or at the very least, they should fund movies about healthy marriage to counter act these heretical movies about secret love affairs. That's not love! Marriage is love! More tax dollars to promote marriage! That's the ticket.

lmao
:)

Posted by: timmy | March 7, 2008 5:00 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Damn Timmy, do you love the sound of your words or what! You must have been hitting the pipe extra extra hard this week because the only conversation you are having on this issue is with your self.

Last time: Love and romance don't "need" marriage, people in love like to get married. I don't recall anyone here (or anywhere for that matter) saying that you can't have love and romance without marriage....

BTW "Lost in Translation" was not that great.

Posted by: GAD | March 7, 2008 4:59 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Gad and Lindajean,

Have you seen the movie "Lost in Translation"?
If you haven't, you really should, it's a great movie with Bill Murray and Scarlet Johansson, written and directed by Sofia Coppola. It is a romance. Some would call it a romantic comedy because Bill Murray is in it, but it is really just a romance with funny moments. It was heralded as a romance. It won awards as a romance. Sofia Coppola wrote it as a modern romance. Women all over the world love this movie, because it is a romance. My wife, in particular, loved this movie, as a romance. There is no disputing that this movie is considered one of the most successful romances of our time.

It is about a married man in his fifties, having an affair on the road, with a married girl in her twenties.

It is understandable how old fuddy duddies might not see this movie as a romance. After all, how could a movie about two married people breaking their marriage vows be a romance? For shame! Especially an older man and a much younger woman. For shame! Surely a man wrote this impostor of a romance.

No. Just a modern woman, who's awareness has been raised. Someone who knows that romance does not require marriage, and that marriage does nothing for romance. Marriage is moot to romance. The two have nothing to do with one another. Romance lives without marriage. And many many a marriage, lives without romance. That they ever go together, is coincidence.

Posted by: timmy | March 7, 2008 3:58 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Peter,

God gave us choice.
In order to exercise that choice, we must use our reasoning and judgement. Who gave us the reasoning and judgement that we use to make that choice?

Posted by: timmy | March 7, 2008 2:26 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Gad said:
"At the point you promise to love someone until death, that promise was determined by what came before it.

Yes.

"in 2 years when you want to get with a newer, younger, hotter woman that is determined by what happen in the 2 years since you made the promise added to everything that lead up to the promise."

Yes. So when you made that initial promise, the next two years of events were already on the path to being. Including your desire to have another woman. What could possibly happen in those next two years that was not going to happen anyway? How is that desire for another woman in two years time, something that you can stop from happening with your vow? lol. Actually lmao.

Gad said:
"But your real goal is not that you are really that interested in causation and determination but that you want to prove that you are right and that marriage vows are lies.

Well I am right, but not that Marriage vows are lies, I never used that word. You are the one who is saying that marriage vows are lies, because you are saying that the people who make those vows are in control of the outcome. I am right that we do not choose who we will love and for how long. It goes how it goes, and no one can predict their future feelings towards someone. To pretend that you can is a feel good fantasy. Like Heaven. And the truth is, that most marriage vows turn out to be false promises. Promises that should never have been made, as opposed to lies. Your argument is that most of them are lies, because stats show that most of them will not hold up, and according to your current argument, we have control over love, and so it was a choice to stop loving, when you promised that you would never stop loving. In my scenario, you had no choice. You stopped loving without your own permission. It just happened. Your marriage vow was not a lie. It was just silly and naive of you to make that promise in the first place.

You are not arguing with me dummy. You are arguing with reality. But keep it up. Maybe the divorce and infidelity rates will change, the more you insist. lol.

Gad said:
"No!"

YES!

Are you saying that love is a choice? Something you can choose to do, or not do? Something you can start, or stop, or continue forever, by will, or by promise?

I have read up on all of those things you have listed, Gad. Have you? It seems that I understand them better than you, because they all lead to my conclusion not yours. You may have some odd Gadian take on these things, but they all lead to the conclusion that love is not a choice we can make, or a promise that we can make, and choose to keep.

I don't need to prove that I'm right Gad. I just am. You need to prove that loving someone is a choice, and something that we have control over enough that we can promise to do it for life. It isn't, we don't, and we can't.

If you want to show me to be wrong, Gad, you need to show how love is a choice, and something that we decide to do or not do. Good luck with that, determinist.

Posted by: timmy | March 7, 2008 2:15 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Timmy said:
"You can not claim that free will does not exist, but we somehow have the power and knowledge to be able to make and keep a promise to love someone until death."

Man are you being dense. At the point you promise to love someone until death, that promise was determined by what came before it, in 2 years when you want to get with a newer, younger, hotter woman that is determined by what happen in the 2 years since you made the promise added to everything that lead up to the promise.

Timmy said:
"All the bad weather and randomness and determinism going on out there, and you think that you have any control over who you will love? And who will love you?"

WTH are you talking about? I'm talking about causation and determination and your talking free will and control, that's nothing I said. But your real goal is not that you are really that interested in causation and determination but that you want to prove that you are right and that marriage vows are lies.

Timmy said:
"To make a marriage vow is to claim to have the free will to live up to it."

No!

It is to believe that you will live up to it.

You should really read more about this stuff if your really interested. The below all have wikipedia entries:

# uncertainty
# uncertainty principle
# chaos theory
# Probability theory
# Randomness
# stochastic process
# Quantum mechanics

Posted by: GAD | March 7, 2008 2:27 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Peter: "Again, men have wills." And not only wills Peter, but accordin' tae you they also have willies, and that's basically the cause of a lot o' bother for you an your ilk.
I mean tae say Peter, can ye tell us, does your god have a willie? And is your god on a par with the randy Greek 'n Roman gods?
Well it looks like your god musta had a willie tae knock up the virgin Mary or is that too much for you tae contemplate? If so can ye tell us how else tae go about knockin' up a virgin?
God luv ye!

Posted by: Bernie Bee | March 7, 2008 12:03 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Hi Timmy,

TIMMY: "You simply can not say that man is flawed, and that he who made man is perfect. Do you not see the obvious logical fallacy here? It is inescapable. If God created man, God is responsible for man's flaws. We can not create flaws in ourselves that were not there from the beginning. Every flaw has a cause. So what was the cause of Adam's flaw? God is the only answer. Adam can not create his own flaw. He can choose an action, but if he chooses a wrong action, that is a flaw that is innate in him. It could only come from God."

TIMMY: "Inescapable Peter. You can not get around it. No matter how much you put the blame on man, God created man. The buck stops here. The terminus of responsibility for all that is wrong with man, and this world, stops at your obviously not so perfect God."

What I see you are suggesting is that God is the Author of sin.

Again, men have wills. They choose. God's perfect plan still carries on in that He decrees all things that come to pass. God is not the Author of sin nor the chargeable cause of sin. He ordained that all things would come to pass according to His wisdom and glory, but sin precedes from men, not from God. God gave man the responsibility to do what was good and the consequences for not doing so. As the Lawgiver God will hold man responsible. As Dr. Robert Reymond said in "A New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith,"

"If at the moment of willing, the man wanted to do the thing being considered for reasons sufficient to him, then Reform theology declares that he acted freely. There is, Reformned theology would affirm in other words, a liberty of spontaneity....To illustrate: Was Adam aware of God's prohibition and warning respecting the tree of knowledge of good and evil at the moment he ate the fruit? Reformed theology says yes. Did Adam have the capacity and power to do God's preceptive will respecting the fruit. Reformed theology says yes. Did Adam, for reasons sufficient to him, come to the place cognitively where he wanted to eat the fruit? Reformed theology says yes again. (Reformed theology would also insist at this point, over against Armenianism, precisely because Adam had his reasons, that he was not exercising an "indifferent" will.) Was Adam forced to eat the fruit against his will? Reformed theology would say no. Therefore, because Adam acted knowingly, willingly, spontaneously, for reasons sufficient to himself, with no violence being done to his will, Reformed theology insists that he was a free moral agent in his transgression. But if someone should ask: Was Adam total free from God's eternal decree, Reformed theology would say, of course not. Could Adam have done differently? Again, from the viewpoint of the divine decree, the answer is no...[for] God, who works everything in conformity with His eternal purpose (Eph. 1:11), purposed before the foundation of the world to save a multitude of sinners who would fall in Adam...." p374.

Since God is the first cause of all things they work together to His perfect plan, but since He decreed the creature, man, as the second cause man chose to eat of the fruit spontaneously, by his own will. As Dr. Reymond said,

"...While He certainly decreed all things, God decreed that all things would come to pass according to the nature of "second causes," either 1) necessarily, as in the case of planets moving in their orbits, or 2) freely, that is, voluntarily, with no violence being done to the will of the creature, or 3) contingently, that is, with due regard to the contingencies of future events, as in His informing David what Saul and the citizens of Keilah would do to him if David remained in the city of Keilah (1 Samual 23:9-13)" p373.

TIMMY: "You have the manufacturer blaming it's product for having flaws? Too rich."

Again, in the creation of Adam, Adam was created perfect in that he was innocent of any wrongdoing before he chose, of his own will, to act in rebellion to God's warning. It was the choosing that caused the flaw and imperfection. Adam freely chose the evil, in that he disobeyed what God had declared good and is thus responsible for his disobedience.

Could God have chosen to make a creature that would not have the ability to choose, just like a robot? Yes, but He chose to make a creature that had that ability [as God is able] to choose his course of action.

What you are missing is the responsibility part. Again, Reymond goes on to explain,

"In short, a man is a responsible moral agent if he can and will be required to give an account to a lawgiver for any and all infractions he commits against the law imposed on him by the lawgiver...Free will has nothing to do with the establishment of responsibility. What makes a person "responsible" is whether there is a lawgiver over him who has declared that He will require that person to give an account to him for his thoughts, words, and actions." p375.

Again Reymond explains,

"...The ultimate end which God decreed He regarded as great enough and glorious enough that it justified to Himself both the divine plan itself and the ordained incidental evil arising along the foreordained path to His plan's great and glorious end." p 377.

Sorry, Timmy, I will have to leave it here since I am working this weekend and 5:30 AM comes early.

Posted by: Peter Huff | March 6, 2008 10:35 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Hi Lindajean

I'm working this weekend but look forward to your response.

Posted by: Peter Huff | March 6, 2008 4:12 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Gad said:
"If what came before was different then your "decision" would be different."

Like Peters perfect God, this makes no sense.
You can not claim that free will does not exist, but we somehow have the power and knowledge to be able to make and keep a promise to love someone until death. It just doesn't work, Gad.

All the bad weather and randomness and determinism going on out there, and you think that you have any control over who you will love? And who will love you?
Capital "L" capital "O" capital "L"
Nice try.

Also with regards to bad weather. How is that ever a surprise. Everything is determined by the past, including weather. How could weather be random? The chemical make-up of the universe dictates that the weather will be exactly what it will be. It was set in stone since the big bang. Every storm that happens, was going to happen, because everything is determined by what came before it. Where does randomness come from? That means that something had to not be determined by the past. Otherwise it wouldn't be random.

To make a marriage vow is to claim to have the free will to live up to it.

Yes!

Posted by: timmy | March 6, 2008 2:59 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Interesting.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080306/sc_nm/happiness_genes_dc

Posted by: GAD | March 6, 2008 2:01 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Timmy said:
"One needs free will to be able to honor marriage vows. if free will is an illusion. So is the marriage vow."

No.

At the point you decide to dishonor your vows, your "decision" is determined by what came before. If what came before was different then your "decision" would be different.

Posted by: GAD | March 6, 2008 11:33 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Gad said: "No"

Yes.

One needs free will to be able to honor marriage vows. if free will is an illusion. So is the marriage vow.

Yes.

Posted by: timmy | March 6, 2008 6:46 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Timmy said:
"Probability? What does that mean in this context? This is not an answer without further explanation."

Simple example, the weather.

Timmy said:
Randomness? What causes randomness, if every that happens is determined by the past.

Simple example, flip a coin to make a decision. The outcome is determined by the result but the result is not predetermined.

Timmy said:
You said "everything" is determined by the past, not "almost all things". Which is it?

Everything. Causation, the next state is determined, not necessarily predetermined, by the state that came before it even if the state transition was probabilistic or random.

Gad said: "Free will is an illusion."

Timmy said:
"Yes. Like marriage vows. Believe in one, and you are believing in the other. No?"

No.

Posted by: GAD | March 6, 2008 4:08 AM
Report Offensive Comment

PS Soja,

I also recommend this book on the atonement,

http://www.jude3.net/bertoc.htm

http://www.monergism.com/free_online_books.php

Posted by: Peter Huff | March 6, 2008 3:16 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Hi Soja,

Thanks for your last post. Hope you check in again to read this.

SOJA: "Thank you for your detailed response. I'm beginning to understand your standpoint as a Christian. I suppose you are a Christian fundamentalist. I have some difficulty with your attempt to prove that everything in the Bible should be taken literally. One would have immense problems with the Book of Revelation, which has far too much symbolism..."

I don't like the word fundamentalist because of the connotations it conveys with it, but I believe that there are certain truths of Scripture that cannot be denied and a person still be a Christian.

I think you misunderstand my position somewhat. I don't believe everything in the Bible should be taken literally, just plainly for the most part.

When God uses terms such as "like" or "as" or any figurative use such as a parable or paints a picture I take it for what it is, but before you could ever have figurative language you would have to have something literal or real to base it on.

In this sense the Bible interprets itself. All the figures of speech such as "the Lamb of God" or the references to "the blood of Christ" are based on real events and lessons from the Old Testament in which God paints a picture of the Messiah to come, instructs His people to sacrifice an actual physical, living animal for the sins of the nation. The references to the blood of Christ points to His laying down His life on our account, for the life of the animal was in the blood. When you lose your blood, you lose your life.

SOJA: "Having always been a Catholic I'm not directly acquainted with such fundamentalism as yours. Even Protestants (btw anything non-Catholic I refer to as Protestant) I have known did not interpret the Bible so literally as you do."

It's all about taking God at His Word.

"Trust in the LORD with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding; in all your ways acknowledge Him, and He will make your paths straight." (Proverbs 3:5-6)

Straight paths in a crooked world! Isn't that great!

In any language, and with most speakers, (except for the Postmoderns) words in context have specific meaning that the author conveys and intends you to pick up if you want to understand him/her correctly, just like is now hopefully taking place between you and I. The same is true of God. When you (generic you as well as specific you) read something into the Scriptures that is not there in which the Speaker has not said or inferred, you read into them your interpretation, not the Author's intent. There is a lot that can be inferred from Scripture, but we cannot lift out of it something that it does not contain or infer. That is reading into it. Remember, Scripture interprets Scripture.

As for your Roman Catholic views, it is not what man says that the Christian should necessarily go by but God's word. Test the teaching to see if what is said is true. (Acts 17:11)

I don't place my faith in an institution, but in Christ Jesus. Only He is able to save, no church can do that. That is what the Reformers brought to light - Scripture alone, faith alone (not man made works to earn salvation - Ephesians 2:8-10), Christ alone. Some of the clearest teachings come from the Reformers that pointed to the Lord Jesus Christ and what He has done. I recommend A.W Pink on two accounts, the Sovereignty of God and the atonement of Christ that he exposited in his books. These are a good start to Reformed teachings. Test to see if what is said is true with Scripture.

http://www.pbministries.org/books/pink/Hebrews/hebrews.htm
http://www.pbministries.org/books/pink/Sovereignty/sovereignty.htm

SOJA: "If you feel that your way is good for you, then why not? I only wish you would be more open to the fact that God speaks also to non-fundamentalists using the same Scripture that you do."

It is not a question of whether it is good for me but whether it is true. Yes, God speaks using the same Scriptures to both, but with any conflicting/contradictory views both cannot be true because they are saying completely different things.

SOJA: "A Happy Easter in advance!"

Best wishes and a Happy Easter to you. May the LORD bless you and keep you and make His face to shine upon you and be gracious to you and give you peace! (Numbers 6:25)

PS. If you want a revealing look at the Book of Revelation I would suggest Gary Demar's, Last Days Madness. I think there is a lot of misinformation on the Book of Revelation being feed to the Body of Christ.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0915815354/ref=sib_dp_pt/102-5980980-0306568#reader-link

Posted by: Peter Huff | March 6, 2008 2:56 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Lindajean:

I said :
I didn't care for hippies.

You said:
That makes me "ignorant, prejudicial and spiteful, narrow and close-minded, unsophisticated, obstinate, erroneous and maleficent, dysfunctional lacks mindfulness, education and has uncultured tendencies, and is nefarious in nature"

I said:
WTF? How does not liking hippies make me "ignorant, prejudicial and spiteful, narrow and close-minded, unsophisticated, obstinate, erroneous and maleficent, dysfunctional lacks mindfulness, education and has uncultured tendencies, and is nefarious in nature"?

You said:
OK, I'm really talking about meditation.

I said:
I didn't say anything bad about meditation in my post.

You said:
OK, well you have a history of saying bad things about meditation.

I said:
WTF? Giving my opinion about meditation makes me "ignorant, prejudicial and spiteful, narrow and close-minded, unsophisticated, obstinate, erroneous and maleficent, dysfunctional lacks mindfulness, education and has uncultured tendencies, and is nefarious in nature"?

I said:
That's BS! You have no justification for saying that I am "ignorant, prejudicial and spiteful, narrow and close-minded, unsophisticated, obstinate, erroneous and maleficent, dysfunctional lacks mindfulness, education and has uncultured tendencies, and is nefarious in nature" because I made a statement about meditation.

You said:
I am justified in saying what I said because you don't have the knowledge and personal experience to have a negative opinion of meditation.

I said (in the meantime to Timmy):
"Let me show you what is really nonsensical. Someone who sits on this blog idolizing Sam Harris who slams Islam and theists in general, has conversations about glassing the middle east and tells people like Peter Huff they are delusional, then on a dime says that anyone who says they don't like hippies is"

I said:
WTF! I'm as justified in having an opinion about meditation as you are in having one about Islam. And made this argument;

"Have you read the Koran, prayed to Allah 5 times a days and went on the hodge? If not where do you get off criticizing Islam? Your experience and knowledge of Islam comes from the same place my experience and knowledge of meditation comes from, reading and watching and talking to other people about it, you didn't need to practice it to come to your negative conclusion about it."

You said:
Everything your saying is nonsense GAD. How can you say Islam is not a threat to the world.

I said:
LOL! What nonsense is that?

You said:
Then you started in with all this Sam Harris nonsense (none of which has anything to do with the original issue).

I said:
Your losing it!

You said:
No GAD, you are losing it and just trying to make up stuff (like Sam Harris wants to nuke Islam) to cover things up.

I said:
WTF! are you talking about! I never said that.

You said:
Well then I don't know what your talking about and I don't think you do either.

I'm saying now, if you don't understand WTF I'm talking about then WTF are you going on about!

OK, last thing I'm going to explain on this.

Where I said;

"Someone who sits on this blog idolizing Sam Harris who slams Islam and theists in general"

This is in reference to YOU.

"has conversations about glassing the middle east"

This is in reference to YOU. In reference to our past discussion ( which included YOU) about could we push the button on Islam, should we do it now before they do etc etc.......

"and tells people like Peter Huff they are delusional, then on a dime says that anyone who says they don't like hippies is"

This is in reference to YOU.

Three separate, comma separated, statements about you. Sam Harris doesn't idolize himself so that had to be about YOU in context. Sam Harris didn't have "conversations about glassing the middle east", we did, so that couldn't be about Sam Harris it could only be about YOU. And Sam Harris did not tellPeter Huff he was delusional, so again that could only be about YOU!

A 5th grader could of gotten that, to say you didn't is pretty bad.

You have rambling on pointlessly, changing your story at every turn and then trying and tell me it's me LOL!

In any case I give up, you win! I don't want to wast any more time on this nonsense. I have learned a valuable lesson, any discussion that goes over more then one post with you is a waste of time, cause you ain't getn it and you ain't never going to get it...........

Posted by: GAD | March 5, 2008 11:15 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Peter:

I owe you a response. This weekend most likely.

Posted by: lindajean | March 5, 2008 7:54 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Och Soja! Surely ye don't meant tae say ye'er leavin' us? Even more than Sam you are the main reason why I kept on here and had planned lots o' fab wee poems especially for you but also for you tae witness that even though Peter 'n you couldnae convert Gad 'n Timmy tae yer fundy eccentricities I would have em beggin' for more o' the poetry they so vehemently claim tae detest! Aye, and in the Scottish vernacular at that! Fr'instance, there was a Yankee Prof of English here not that long ago claiming it was impossible for sich a crude dialect as Scots tae express tender thoughts. If ye keep faith wi' me I'll show how wrang the bampot is so that even those two reprobates, Gad 'n Timmy will be in full agreement with me.
What d'ye say tae that?
If ye'er still determined tae leave then I'm off as well!

Posted by: Bernie Bee | March 5, 2008 7:15 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Hi Gad:

I wrote over a month ago: "Here I am on a Sam Harris site and I don't feel that I can have an honest discussion about him with you without being accused of something that isn't true."

This fact still holds true weeks later. Do you see that we are going in circles here?

You: "I didn't say anything about Sam Harris glassing the middle east...."

The record shows this is what you said, "Someone who sits on this blog idolizing Sam Harris who slams Islam and theists in general, has conversations about glassing the middle east......"

You are either saying I am having conversations about glassing or Sam is. I haven't had any conversations about this so I was left with the inference that you were talking about Sam Harris.

You, " As stated you didn't comprehend what was stated and invented what you wanted to see."

Well this is half correct (the first part...)

These are my actual words,"I'm trying to figure out what (if anything) in this statement bears any relevance to anything. I must admit I am only grasping at straws here, so you will have to give me the benefit of the doubt that I will hit the bulls eye. Having said that, my chances of hitting it will probably be slim to none. It's like trying to make a salad from a cake mix."

So that is the point, Gad. I have no idea what you are talking about. You are right, I do not comprehend you. Period. This was about the lamest, weakest conversation you have had with me to date. Then you say I am "inventing" my own interpretation. Well, when one is lost in a quagmire of meaningless words, one is left with inferences. If my inferences are wrong, then I don't have enough information.

You said: "In the context of the current discussion I didn't state anything inflammatory or derogatory about Sam Harris. The only comment I made was 'Sam Harris who slams Islam and theists' as part of a larger argument which was stated as a fact not an inflammatory or derogatory remark. So as stated you didn't comprehend what was stated and invented what you wanted to see."

Well at least now you are attempting to explain what you meant. Thank you for offering me this information. But I have to disagree. What got me back into knee-jerky mode was the "glassing" comment about the Mideast. I took that to mean you were indeed making derogatory remarks about SH and that you believe he wants to annihilate the Mideast with nuclear weapons. If you did not mean that then what are you referring to? That, I , LJ wants to do it? That is very absurd, don't you think? Please explain yourself. That is all I am asking of you here. Say what you mean and mean what you say.

You: "In any case I don't care if you like, love, idolize, admire, whatever word you want to use for Sam Harris,.....:

I'm not asking you to "care." Who said anything about "care." You sound like you are getting a little knee-jerky here yourself, Gad.

You: " You have a degree in psychology, what do you think that means? Not that I really care outside of you make-believing that I am some how using Sam Harris to get at you, weird, very weird............."

No, not weird. I only have a BA in psychology so I'm not licensed to practice psychotherapy. And psychologists do not typically analyze themselves. That would be like a surgeon doing heart surgery on herself. Not cool at all.

But I am willing to offer you some insignts into your own behavior and thoughts....
One word comes to mind: Projection! And it is defined as "a defense mechanism in which one attributes to others one's own unacceptable or unwanted thoughts and/or emotions."

Check it out at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection

A good read for you, Gad (and very relevant.)

You: " I guess that depends on how deep you want to keep digging that hole your in. When you get tired of groping in the dark I'll be here waiting in the light of reason."

If I'm in a hole, you are in it with me. But I really don't see it as a hole. Let's just agree we look at the world in 2 vastly different ways.

And there is one thing we definitely have in common: we both are madly in love with " sweet reason."

Now that is not such a bad thing is it?

Posted by: lindajean | March 5, 2008 6:18 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Timmy quoted me in a response to Soja saying, "And [I] asked Lindajean if she thought it was just because men were pigs, and she got offended that I would assume that. But she did not then go on to give her reason why."

Timmy, Timmy, Timmy, settle down dear blogger. I am still out here and I need time, patience and understanding. I will get back to you on all of this, but I have a few distractions right now. I want to give my full attention to your latest marriage post and I don't like to rush in too fast. I need some time to digest all of this. And I wasn't offended by your "pig" statement.

Posted by: lindajean | March 5, 2008 5:45 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Thanks y'all!
Bye

Posted by: andy ross | March 5, 2008 3:40 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Gad said:
"Our lives are not predetermined. Probability and randomness."

Probability? What does that mean in this context? This is not an answer without further explanation.

Randomness? What causes randomness, if every that happens is determined by the past. You said "everything" is determined by the past, not "almost all things". Which is it?

Gad said: "Free will is an illusion."

Yes. Like marriage vows.
Believe in one, and you are believing in the other.
No?

Posted by: timmy | March 5, 2008 2:34 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Timmy said:
"Fatalism, determinism, what's the dif? You tell me."

Everything. Look it up and learn something.

Timmy said:
"If you don't believe that incompatibilist determinism means that every microsecond of our lives from now until the day we die is set in stone, then what are the variables?"

Our lives are not predetermined. Probability and randomness.

Timmy said:
"There is no free will."

Free will is an illusion.

Timmy said:
What other variables could change the future?"

You can't change what hasn't happened. When the future becomes the present it's state is determined by the past.

Timmy said:
"Unless you are thinking of Dennet's brand of determinism with free will elbow room elbow room?"

Not unless by free will elbow room he means probability and randomness, which really isn't free will.

Posted by: GAD | March 5, 2008 11:45 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Dear Andy

On Sam Harris blog we "met," so on this blog I wish to take my leave.

Thank you for sharing whatever you did. It has helped me not only to get a glimpse into your soul, but also into my own. Looking at myself through your eyes highlighted issues that I need to deal with, no matter how painful they may be. What causes us most pain is our greatest teacher, so the wise tell us.

I wish for you everything that God wishes for you. It is my earnest desire that you will find God in His time and that God will lead you to Himself in the way He chooses. God's ways are mysterious, but you can trust Him to be faithful in leading you, if you are really seeking Him.

My apologies for any shame and embarrassment I may have caused you. It was not intentional. I hope that we may only cherish the good thoughts and ideas we shared, and with a breath of kindness blow away what was not kind or loving.

Best wishes
Soja

Posted by: Soja John Thaikattil, Sydney, Australia | March 5, 2008 6:47 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Soja said:
It is heartening to hear anti-theists discuss the merits or otherwise of marriage (which I thought all anti-theists considered a chain put on them by religions).

They will when they raise their awareness. :)

Soja said:

"The merit of monogamy without divorce and adultery should be discussed next. For me as a Catholic it would be interesting to read a debate by anti-theists"

I'd like to know what people think the reason is, why as high as 75% of men have affairs, and 35% of women have affairs?

Those are staggering numbers, and I'd hazard to guess that the number for men could be higher than that. But let's just focus on the men right now. Why do most men cheat on their wives? And asked Lindajean if she thought it was just because men were pigs, and she got offended that I would assume that. But she did not then go on to give her reason why.

I said it is because monogamy is not natural for men. And Gad makes a comment that I think that anything natural goes and what a stupid notion that is. Well marriage doesn't seem to be stopping it. And It's had thousands of years to make some headway, but no go. I don't think that we can expect men to evolve out of this any time soon. There are only two options as far as I can see. We stop kidding ourselves and sticking our heads in the sand, pretending that it doesn't go on, and accept reality and make it an open thing that is not taboo or shameful. Or we can grab onto the good-book with it's wonderful ways of controlling our sexuality with it's moral standards from God that override our evil natural urges. And stick our heads in the sand and pretend it doesn't go on.

Or men can just grow the hell up and stop being such dirty pigs.

Anyone have any other solutions besides these?

Posted by: timmy | March 5, 2008 6:16 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Gad said:
"And it is not just semantics your idea of determinism is very different then my idea determinism, and it in fact has a different name as well, it's called Fatalism."

Fatalism, determinism, what's the dif? You tell me.
If you don't believe that incompatibilist determinism means that every microsecond of our lives from now until the day we die is set in stone, then what are the variables? There is no free will. What other variables could change the future? You have some say in who you will love, and for how long?

Unless you are thinking of Dennet's brand of determinism with free will elbow room?

Please feel free to put this one in a first grade comprehension level because I admit to being confused about your idea of determinism.

Posted by: timmy | March 5, 2008 5:55 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Hi GAD, Timmy, Linda

Many thanks for your recent responses. I'm a finger tied believer now, unable to find the right words to respond. It is amazing that this discussion is still so active. It is heartening to hear anti-theists discuss the merits or otherwise of marriage (which I thought all anti-theists considered a chain put on them by religions). The merit of monogamy without divorce and adultery should be discussed next. For me as a Catholic it would be interesting to read a debate by anti-theists.

There is no merit in the Mormon idea of eternal marriage for it leaves no room for remarriage of widows. Jesus said that there is no marriage in heaven, hence every partner is free to marry after the death of their spouse.

My time on this blog has been interesting, a very good learning experience. It has been nice 'meeting' you all.

Wishing you all, including Bernie a Happy Easter in advance! May your wishes for whatever is good for your greatest good come true.

Best wishes
Soja

Posted by: Soja John Thaikattil, Sydney, Australia | March 5, 2008 3:52 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Hi Peter

Thank you for your detailed response. I'm beginning to understand your standpoint as a Christian. I suppose you are a Christian fundamentalist. I have some difficulty with your attempt to prove that everything in the Bible should be taken literally. One would have immense problems with the Book of Revelation, which has far too much symbolism...

Having always been a Catholic I'm not directly acquainted with such fundamentalism as yours. Even Protestants (btw anything non-Catholic I refer to as Protestant) I have known did not interpret the Bible so literally as you do.

If you feel that your way is good for you, then why not? I only wish you would be more open to the fact that God speaks also to non-fundamentalists using the same Scripture that you do.

It is time for me to stop posting more comments as it is long past my bedtime as far as this blog is concerned. I have said all I have to say.

You do have the capacity to keep the anti-theists engaged, so I wish you a meaningful debate.

A Happy Easter in advance!

Best wishes
Soja

Posted by: Soja John Thaikattil, Sydney, Australia | March 5, 2008 3:31 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Hi Bernie

I'm relieved that you were not offended.

Your theory that only men and women who do not get married are happy and feel the greatest thrill only when they are cheating their partners is somewhat cliche you know. There are plenty of happily married couples to prove that such a claim made by cheating partners/sexually promiscuous males and females is an outright lie. Those who enjoy having affairs with married people: How on earth are the crumbs of attention/sex that one picks up from another man's wife or another woman's husband supposed to be the bringer of supreme joy? Married people can play games in a way no single person can because a married person who thrives on the love and attention of their spouses is only looking for a bit of fun. A single person seems boring in comparison because they expect more from a relationship (not having their needs met by an another partner).

Ego driven persons mistake the games the ego plays with them for love. They feel a great sense of thrill and accomplishment when they successfully cheat, deceive, lie, are hypocritical and one-upping an unsuspecting partner and don't care a damn about how the trusting partner might feel. What on earth does that have to do with love??? Love for self and one's ego, yes; but for anybody else?

Of all the happily married couples I have known two stand out most in my memory. My maternal grandparents. My grandmother married my grandfather when she was fourteen years old and he was nineteen. They were deeply in love like teenagers till my grandfather died in his late seventies. My grandmother lived for over a decade as a widow before she passed away. (Since men die when they are younger, women should actually marry younger men to avoid spending many years as widows!) The other couple that comes to mind is an Aussie one: The man was eighty two years old and his wife eighty years old when I met them. They had been married for over sixty years and were still very much in love.

That is the kind of love and marriage I always dreamed of. Believe me, some of us have quite a different idea of romance and cannot be convinced that cheating spouses is what makes life exciting.

Posted by: Soja John Thaikattil, Sydney, Australia | March 5, 2008 3:07 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Lindajean said:
"That post about Sam Harris "glassing" the mideast is out there"

I didn't say anything about Sam Harris glassing the middle east. As stated you didn't comprehend what was stated and invented what you wanted to see.

Lindajean said:
"and throwing every other permutation you could think of into the mix was a desperate attempt at more offensive tactics"

As stated you didn't comprehend what was stated and invented what you wanted to see.

Lindajean said:
"when the name Sam Harris enters the picture I suddenly lose all reasoning abilities and sense and sensibilities. LOL, this is quite a stretch even for you."

If a spade is a spade, right.

Lindajean said:
"But I do love your imagination. You ought to start writing some fiction. Maybe you could write a best seller and then Sam will take you out for lunch."

That would be cool.

Lindajean said:
"I guess I was naive to think you would try to tone your inflammatory words about him knowing that we have been through all of this---been there and done that--to no satisfaction on my part at all. Maybe the real pattern here, Dr. Shrink is that you have a hell-bent pattern on bringing up SH in derogatory ways to see what kind of a reaction you can get from me. I think that is the more accurate pattern."

In the context of the current discussion I didn't state anything inflammatory or derogatory about Sam Harris. The only comment I made was "Sam Harris who slams Islam and theists" as part of a larger argument which was stated as a fact not an inflammatory or derogatory remark. So as stated you didn't comprehend what was stated and invented what you wanted to see.

Lindajean said:
"there are Sam Harris ideas that I do not agree with, there are words that Sam Harris has spoken and written that I think are wrong, inaccurate and false; and I realize Sam Harris is human and is not infallible and he is not perfect"

Sacrilege!
In any case I don't care if you like, love, idolize, admire, whatever word you want to use for Sam Harris, the point is you freak out whenever someone says you do or even disagrees with him. Hell in the 4 horsemen video all I commented was that I thought he was kind riding along and you went off the wall. You have a degree in psychology, what do you think that means? Not that I really care outside of you make-believing that I am some how using Sam Harris to get at you, weird, very weird.............

Lindajean said:
"Is that going to help you get out of your pattern? and back into the sense and sensibility mode?"

Ha ha ha, classic! LOL!

Lindajean said:
"Perhaps in our next conversation we ought to just talk about the weather. It seems less tumultuous, and perhaps given the nonsense I've been reading from you lately, highly more interesting."

I guess that depends on how deep you want to keep digging that hole your in. When you get tired of groping in the dark I'll be here waiting in the light of reason.

Posted by: GAD | March 5, 2008 2:16 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Gad said:
"From your statement above it is clear that your idea of determinism is very different then my idea determinism"

Timmy said:
"Not at all. It's just the semantics of how you wish to talk about it. If every point in time id determined by what came before it, then there is a determined outcome for every point in your life from conception until death, and there is nothing you can do to alter that path. (unless of course you believe in free will) All of the outcomes for the rest of our lives, while not "predicted", are set in stone. They will happen the way they will happen. You and I do not have the free will necessary to make a vow of eternal love. Even though it was predetermined that we would make that vow in the first place. The bottom line is, we have no choice in the matter. What will be will be. I'm not saying there's some magic chrystal ball that holds all of our futures in it. I'm saying what determinism says. What will follow, will follow. No?"

No. And it is not just semantics your idea of determinism is very different then my idea determinism, and it in fact has a different name as well, it's called Fatalism.

Posted by: GAD | March 4, 2008 9:52 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Aw Soja, that last post to you was meant tae make ye smile, indeed to produce guffaws in the manner it did with Gad! You have a good grasp of English but it looks like the laughs I sometimes play for may just be a wee bit too subtle for you? You’re just an innocent wee lassie so ye are.

But what are we tae make o’ Timmy, Gad and the Ivory Tower tenant, Andy, with their ‘marriage needs love’ and even the reverse, ‘love needs marriage’
What nonsense!

Until as recently as a matter of just decades ago marriage was for such reasons as to make a union of families or as an economic arrangement to survive or to provide children to keep names alive, a system very much still customary to this day in Cyprus and Italy for example.

Romance, love affairs, and such dalliance were for outside of marriage, a la Arthur/Guenevere/Lancelot!
And surely ye don’t need much imagination tae see that had Romeo ‘n Juliet gone on to have a couple of kids they’d have been at each other’s throats what with Romy expecting to be out with the lads down the pub most nights!
Being in love has been accurately defined as a form o’ insanity with our sense of reasoning almost defunct while the condition lasts.

Here’s a handy corrective from the 17c poet Sir John Suckling

Song: Why So Pale

Why so pale and wan, fond lover?
Prithee why so pale?
Will, when looking well can't move her,
Looking ill prevail?
Prithee why so pale?

Why so dull and mute young sinner?
Prithee why so mute?
Will, when speaking well can't win her,
Saying nothing do't?
Prithee why so mute?

Quit, quit, for shame, this will not move,
This cannot take her;
If of herself she will not love,
Nothing can make her;
The devil take her!

And here he is again in which the divine afflatus is bathetically reduced to metaphorical flatus:

‘Love is the fart
Of every heart;
It pains a man when ‘tis kept close
And others doth offend when ‘tis let loose.’

As Andy might put it, “The Symbolism of the fart is presumably cognate with that of Wind, which is the fecundating principle, the creative breath, but also suggestive of the violent eruption of the unconscious elements into the unguarded psyche. According to one esoteric Creation Myth, life on earth began when God the Farter first broke wind. This image of the Almighty Cosmic Fart can be interpreted as a primitive version of the Big Bang Theory.”

And here are a few quotes from that other great Scottish wordsmith, the very epitome of the romantic poet, on how to conduct an affair in the civilised Italian manner:

She was a married woman; 'tis convenient,
Because in Christian countries 'tis a rule
To view their little slips with eyes more lenient;
Whereas if single ladies play the fool
( Unless within the period intervenient
A well-timed wedding makes the scandal cool ),
I don't know how they ever can get over it,
Except they manage never to discover it.

Besides, within the Alps, to every woman,
(Although, God knows, it is a grievous sin,)
'Tis, I may say, permitted to have two men;
I can't tell who first brought the custom in,
But "Cavalier Serventes" are quite common,
And no one notices nor cares a pin;
And we may call this (not to say the worst)
A second marriage which corrupts the first.

However, I still think, with all due deference
To the fair single part of the creation,
That married ladies should preserve the preference
In tête-à-tête or general conversation ---
And this I say without peculiar reference
To England, France, or any other nation ---
Because they know the world, and are at ease,
And being natural, naturally please.

"Tis true, your budding Miss is very charming,
But shy and awkward at first coming out,
So much alarm'd, that she is quite alarming,
All Giggle, Blush; half Pertness, and half-Pout;
And glancing at Mamma, for fear there's harm in
What you, she, it, or they, may be about,
The nursery still lisps out in all they utter ---
Besides, they always smell of bread and butter.

I love the language, that soft bastard Latin,
Which melts like kisses from a female mouth,
And sounds as if it should be writ on satin,
With syllables which breathe of the sweet South,
And gentle liquids gliding all so pat in,
That not a single accent seems uncouth,
Like our harsh northern whistling, grunting guttural,
Which we're obliged to hiss, and spit, and sputter all.

I like the women too (forgive my folly),
From the rich peasant cheek of ruddy bronze,
And large black eyes that flash on you a volley
Of rays that say a thousand things at once,
To the high dama's brow, more melancholy,
But clear, and with a wild and liquid glance,
Heart on her lips, and soul within her eyes,
Soft as her clime, and sunny as her skies.

But on the whole, they were a happy pair,
As happy as unlawful love could make them;
The gentleman was fond, the lady fair,
Their chains so slight, 'twas not worth while to break them;
The world beheld them with indulgent air;
The pious only wish'd "the devil take them!”
He took them not; he very often waits,
And leaves old sinners to be young ones' baits.

But they were young: Oh! What without our youth
Would love be! What would youth be without love!
Youth lends it joy, and sweetness, vigour, truth,
Heart, soul, and all that seems as from above;
But, languishing with years, it grows uncouth ---
One of few things experience don't improve,
Which is, perhaps, the reason why old fellows
Are always so preposterously jealous.

From ‘Beppo’ one of his lengthy narrative poems well worth a perusal by one and all in here.

Posted by: Bernie Bee | March 4, 2008 9:38 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Hi Gad:

You said, "BTW "which you term as "glassing ---you probably mean gassing" No glassing is the term I meant, it's what happens when a nuclear bomb fuses sand (as in a desert as in the middle east) into glass i.e. glassing the middle east as in turning it into a sheet of glass by dropping nuclear bombs on it. "

Thank you. I honestly was not familiar with the term and didn't even realize this could occur in a nuclear explosion in the desert. But when I think about it the phenomenon makes a lot of sense.

You said, "Are you kidding me with this? Seriously! The only mumbo-jumbo here is your ever changing and increasingly comical attempts to justify your completely off the wall rant."

Yes, seriously. Why is it when I want you to clarify what in the world you are talking about I suddenly morph into a loose screw (according to you) and you try (vainly) to look composed and all-knowing? I will stand by my words. That post about Sam Harris "glassing" the mideast is out there......and throwing every other permutation you could think of into the mix was a desperate attempt at more offensive tactics.

You said, "Just a friendly observation. I was thinking about how on one post you comprehend subjects very well and on others you don't seem to have any comprehension at all. Then I saw the pattern, the more you feel pressure to defend your self or ideas the more incoherent your posts become and when I say things like you Love, have a crush on, or idolize Sam Harris they become very incoherent and you twist everything said to meet your view."

Well thank you kindly for the psychoanalysis (this is sarcasm btw).
How interesting. You are so acutely aware of some kind of pattern I have that when the name Sam Harris enters the picture I suddenly lose all reasoning abilities and sense and sensibilities. LOL, this is quite a stretch even for you.

But I do love your imagination. You ought to start writing some fiction. Maybe you could write a best seller and then Sam will take you out for lunch.

I am going to try (again) to be fair and look at what you say objectively. I will admit (and have before) that when you dis SH I have a knee jerk reaction. I guess it was dumb of me to acknowledge this "weakness" and then not expect you to jump on every opportunity to elicit it at every turn. I guess I was naive to think you would try to tone your inflammatory words about him knowing that we have been through all of this---been there and done that--to no satisfaction on my part at all. Maybe the real pattern here, Dr. Shrink is that you have a hell-bent pattern on bringing up SH in derogatory ways to see what kind of a reaction you can get from me. I think that is the more accurate pattern.

Well, I am going to counter that reaction of yours. And I am going to tone down that reaction of yours by telling you that yes, I do like Sam Harris, and yes, I do like him a lot, and yes, I do favor him over many people on this planet. BUT, and I do emphasize the BUT, there are Sam Harris ideas that I do not agree with, there are words that Sam Harris has spoken and written that I think are wrong, inaccurate and false; and I realize Sam Harris is human and is infallible (just like you Gad) and he is not perfect and he is not a person I idolize (only a benign kind of admiration instead); and there is in all honesty not one person I idolize on this planet and yet there are probably quite a few that I do admire.

Is that going to help you get out of your pattern? and back into the sense and sensibility mode?

Perhaps in our next conversation we ought to just talk about the weather. It seems less tumultuous, and perhaps given the nonsense I've been reading from you lately, highly more interesting.

Posted by: lindajean | March 4, 2008 7:44 PM
Report Offensive Comment

18% of married couples are divorced by year 5
35% of married couples are divorced by year 10
48% of married couples are divorced by Year 15
67% of married couples are divorced by year 25
80% of married couples are divorced by year 35

52% divorced while their kids are still in school.

As high as 75% of men cheat on their spouses.
As high a 35% of women cheat on their spouses.
Most marriage vows are not kept.
Being from a broken home is a very harmful social stigma, because marriage that lasts forever is the supposed norm. To not marry, is to live in sin. To divorce is shameful. Failure.

Andy says: "it works" and "for now we make do as best we can with what we've got".

Gad say:s "personal desire" "What do you careif people want to get married if they want to?"

Lindajean says: "You just want to be free to spread your seed. Well not on my watch, buddy"

Timmy says: What a bunch of old fuddy duddies. Welcome to the 21st century.

Posted by: timmy | March 4, 2008 7:27 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Gad said:

"Secular reasons and personal desire already stated"

Common law covers the only valid secular reason that you gave, rendering it moot. Leaving no more reasons. "Just cause I want to" is not a valid reason.

You have given no other secular reason for marriage. Therefore my point that it is not necessary or even helpful to society is correct. Therefore my insistence that the government not spend a nickel of my tax dollars to promote marriage is valid.

What are you arguing with? That people have the right to marry? I never said that they shouldn't, any more than you are saying that people shouldn't be allowed to practice religion. If you are arguing that marriage is helpful, let's hear something other than "we just want to" or "personal desire". lol.

And any comprehension level you want to put it in is fine with me. I am not the one who mistook clear points and questions for rambling.

Posted by: timmy | March 4, 2008 6:46 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Timmy said"
"No rambling sir. Just simple questions that you obviously have no answer for."

Everything you list below has stated and/or agreed to, so yes pointless rambling.

1. Does love need marriage? = No
2. Does marriage help love last longer than it would otherwise. = No
3. If "no" to 1 and 2. What is marriage good for? = Secular reasons and personal desire already stated.
4. Is the damage done by the stigma of failed marriages not more trouble than it is worth? = What stigma (at least in the USA)? If everyone is the same then no one is different.

Still confused?
Let me know and I'll try stating it again at a 1st grade comprehension level.

Posted by: GAD | March 4, 2008 4:15 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Any said:
"What stars will dawn when the self dissolves and the body corrupts?"

Probably none. Nothingness is the most likely scenario. But who knows?

Andy said:
"Until we refashion society to handle kids some other way, we need some such institution."

I just can not believe the silliness of these kind of statements coming from atheists. Marriage is on the decline. It is being naturally selected out, not in. More and more people are just doing what married people do, without getting married. It's called common law, and it works every bit, if not better than, marriage. Give me a bloody break with this BS about "we need something to replace marriage". Right. Just like we shouldn't ditch religion until we have something to replace it. BS BS BS.

Andy said:
"It works, and the ramifications around it contain a lot of hidden wisdom (like so many of evolution's creations, there's a logic behind some of the apparent contingency of it all)

Wrong. First of all it doesn't work any better than non marriage. (common law) Second, when you use phrases like "like so many of evolution's creations, there's a logic behind some of the apparent contingency of it all" you are talking like someone who doesn't understand natural selection, yet I know that you do. There is no logic or plan behind natural selection. Natural selection has no creations with intent. Religion is not a helpful mutation. Marriage is not a helpful mutation. Both of these useless mutations (actually one is just a part of the other) are being naturally selected out, not in.

Welcome to the 21st century.

Posted by: timmy | March 4, 2008 3:55 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Timmy, you said: "I'm in the dark about this new G-d thing you have going on here. Can you elaborate, or link me?"

The semantics of this "G-d" word have puzzled me for years. Some people seem to know what they mean by it and even succeed in deriving wise sayings from that purported knowledge. So I persevered. And now I think I have a sensible interpretation that makes some such purported knowledge, at least, defensible. Naturally, the word is so beset with false and confused interpretations and sheer demagogic charlatanry that one hesitates to use it at all. But the core significance is so interesting, and the need for a word with that significance so hard to deny, that I guess the best thing is to make the best of it.

Still. it's hard to explain, and the last thing I want is to cite a reading list that happened to work for me but in all probability would fail to do so for anyone else. I want to mull it over until I can find metaphors and so on to make my interpretation (since it probably is mine, and partly idiosyncratic) come over vividly enough to work well. For me, the messiness of the whole business was materially reduced by the discovery of Goof, as glossed in earlier posts here. Genocentric evolutionary theory can really shed light on this whole tangle. That's where I want to get my thoughts more coherently together. If I can convince Richard Dawkins, I guess I'm home and dry.

From the inside, independently of theoretical biology, the feeling is one explored in various ways by just about all philosophers and deep thinkers. The hall or mirrors of discursive thought gives out somewhere, and one is left with a constructed self dissolving into the shining, as it were. The sensed blend of integrated autonomy with dependence on the great externality is an identifiable state of being, not perhaps of mind or of body, since these are precut concepts that hinder union with the shining, but of being, which soon burgeons forth into familiar categories and leaves one back in everyday reality, just a tad more enlightened. Fascinating!

Timmy, you also said: "People are afraid of life ending. This is what heaven is for. People are afraid of love ending. This is what marriage is for."

The popular idea of heaven is a psychic pacifier that people deploy to fend off brooding thoughts of death. But behind it is a trace of awareness that the post-death state of being, from the inside, is radically unknown. What is, the domain of being untrammeled by thought and reflection, must be like something from down close beyond the buffers of thought and sensory orchestration. My favorite metaphor is that the end of a human life is like the sunset on a day. Night follows, and stars become visible that were previously obscured by daylight. What stars will dawn when the self dissolves and the body corrupts?

As for marriage, this is a social convention designed (largely unconsciously via the hidden hand of evolution by natural selection) to enhance and protect procreation. Until we refashion society to handle kids some other way, we need some such institution. It works, and the ramifications around it contain a lot of hidden wisdom (like so many of evolution's creations, there's a logic behind some of the apparent contingency of it all). But in a world like ours it can go wrong very easily and in very many ways. What do we do? Junk it? What for? I don't see a viable alternative yet. What we need is a postmodern equivalent of a tribal village.

Posted by: andy ross | March 4, 2008 2:25 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Gad said:
"Well I'm not sure what your point is, you just seem to be rambling"

Not at all. My point could not be more clear. I speak in plain english. Why does love need marriage? I ask this question in plain english and you have no answer so you accuse me of rambling. Just answer the question.

Gad said:
"If people in love want to get married why do you care?"

If people want to worship Jesus, why do you care?

I criticize marriage as you criticize Jesus worship.
I have stated clearly, and with good reasons, (no rambling) why marriage is damaging to society, just like religion is. But you all need an awareness raising. You are all still blinded by religion's offer of eternal happiness. Not where heaven is concerned. But where coupling is concerned.

A couple will be happy together as long as they are happy together. Marriage guarantees nothing. In fact, I think that I, and the stats, make a good case for marriage causing more strife and break-ups than not marriage.

Love needs marriage like joy needs pressure.

No rambling sir. Just simple questions that you obviously have no answer for.

1. Does love need marriage?
2. Does marriage help love last longer than it would otherwise.
3. If "no" to 1 and 2. What is marriage good for?
4. Is the damage done by the stigma of failed marriages not more trouble than it is worth?

Still confused?
Let me know and I'll try stating it again at a 3rd grade comprehension level.

Posted by: timmy | March 4, 2008 2:03 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Gad said:
"From your statement above it is clear that your idea of determinism is very different then my idea determinism"

Not at all. It's just the semantics of how you wish to talk about it. If every point in time id determined by what came before it, then there is a determined outcome for every point in your life from conception until death, and there is nothing you can do to alter that path. (unless of course you believe in free will) All of the outcomes for the rest of our lives, while not "predicted", are set in stone. They will happen the way they will happen. You and I do not have the free will necessary to make a vow of eternal love. Even though it was predetermined that we would make that vow in the first place. The bottom line is, we have no choice in the matter. What will be will be. I'm not saying there's some magic chrystal ball that holds all of our futures in it. I'm saying what determinism says. What will follow, will follow. No?

Posted by: timmy | March 4, 2008 1:44 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Timmy said:
"As an incompatibilist Determinist, you of all people should be aware that a marriage vow is a crap shoot at best. What are the odds, determinist, you tell me?"

From your statement above it is clear that your idea of determinism is very different then my idea determinism. Determinism does not predict the future, every point in time is determined by what came before it, the point in time where you decide to get married is determined by what came before it, in ten years if you decide to stay married or get divorced is determined by all the came before it, so on and so forth.

Posted by: GAD | March 4, 2008 1:01 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Timmy said:
"The fact that marriage needs love, is moot. Of course it does. That is my point"

Well I'm not sure what your point is, you just seem to be rambling (seems to be going around lately), but we both agree that marriage needs love, a moot point or not.

If people in love want to get married why do you care?

Posted by: GAD | March 4, 2008 11:33 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Hi Bernie

I'm so delighted to hear that you have found a woman to love. If I mistook your, "if you were here..." bit, thank you for correcting my error. I told you that I don't consider blog/online sentiments real anymore. (Sharing ideas like in a debate is quite another thing.) Once such unwitting blunder is MORE than enough! I took your comments lightly of course, but I didn't want you to continue in that tone, that is all.

Once again it was pleasant reading your posts, especially your Scotch and selection of poetry. I reread Macbeth since you mentioned it. I agree it is a mighty fine piece, incredible insight into human nature.

Thanks for everything and good luck to you always.

Best wishes
Soja

PS: I have said all I needed to say to atheists many times over, so there is nothing to add.

Posted by: Soja John Thaikattil, Sydney, Australia | March 4, 2008 6:30 AM
Report Offensive Comment

And Gad,

As an incompatibilist Determinist, you of all people should be aware that a marriage vow is a crap shoot at best. What are the odds, determinist, you tell me?

Posted by: timmy | March 4, 2008 4:28 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Gad is a rat.

Timmy did not say "Love needs marriage"

Timmy said that love does NOT need marriage.

The fact that marriage needs love, is moot. Of course it does. That is my point. When love dies between two people, as it so often does, now there is this marriage thing to deal with. And the stigma of the failure. It doesn't need to be that way. Religion likes it that way. It is the religious way.

It is you who have it backwards, Gad. The question here is not if marriage needs love. It is: Does love need marriage?

I tell my wife that I love her at least ten times a day. That is real. Every day she knows that I love her. That is all that anyone can as for. Of course I can promise to love her forever. But she knows as well as I do that love is something that happens without our permission. We can not will ourselves to love someone. We either do, or we don't. We also can not will ourselves to continue to love someone. We either continue to, or we don't. I understand the romantic sentiment in marriage vows and the transcendent feeling they give us. Just like I understand the transcendent feeling that believing in heaven gives some people. It is a fantasy. Some people are more into fantasies than others.

The vast majority of marriage vows are broken.
You are not arguing with me. You are arguing with reality.

Posted by: timmy | March 4, 2008 4:17 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Timmy said:
"Love needs marriage"

I think you have it backwards, marriage needs love.

Posted by: GAD | March 4, 2008 2:58 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Lindajean said:
"If you care to actually explain any of this mumbo-jumbo I am listening, but if you choose not to I'll know the real reason is because you are too embarrassed to even broach it."

Are you kidding me with this? Seriously! The only mumbo-jumbo here is your ever changing and increasingly comical attempts to justify your completely off the wall rant. And what's embarrassing is your rambling on about how my points are so wrong and then justifing what I said, and what you just claimed was so wrong, in your next sentence, that's embarrassing. Go back and read it all again, slowly and calmly and maybe you'll get it.

Just a friendly observation. I was thinking about how on one post you comprehend subjects very well and on others you don't seem to have any comprehension at all. Then I saw the pattern, the more you feel pressure to defend your self or ideas the more incoherent your posts become and when I say things like you Love, have a crush on, or idolize Sam Harris they become very incoherent and you twist everything said to meet your view.

BTW "which you term as "glassing ---you probably mean gassing" No glassing is the term I meant, it's what happens when a nuclear bomb fuses sand (as in a desert as in the middle east) into glass i.e. glassing the middle east as in turning it into a sheet of glass by dropping nuclear bombs on it.

Posted by: GAD | March 4, 2008 2:44 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Love needs marriage like joy needs pressure.

Posted by: timmy | March 4, 2008 2:33 AM
Report Offensive Comment

People are afraid of life ending. This is what heaven is for.

People are afraid of love ending. This is what marriage is for.

Posted by: timmy | March 4, 2008 2:27 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Andy said:
"Until then, we make the best of what we have."

No we don't. We adapt. We evolve. We move on.

Posted by: timmy | March 4, 2008 2:21 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Andy,

I'm in the dark about this new G-d thing you have going on here. Can you elaborate, or link me?

Posted by: timmy | March 4, 2008 2:11 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Andy said:
" But love and marriage go together like a horse and carriage. Deal with it."

Jesus is the only way! Deal with it.

Posted by: timmy | March 4, 2008 2:01 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Timmy said: "I sometimes get the sense that you guys think that I have something against everlasting love, like Romeo and Juliet, and Wesley and Buttercup. I don't. I think that those are beautiful and inspiring stories. I'm just practical about what a rare a thing that is."

Yes, it's rare. All the more valuable. Even rarer is love of "G-d" (whatever) -- all the more valuable. If you can't be content with loving "G-d" then the best you can do is to bond with a significant other -- just don't expect the deal to be perfect! It's only second best.

Timmy also said: "Lindajean made the point that 'families are the fabric of our society.' Will this continue to be the case in the future?"

Let's relativize our claims to our society. When people grow in pods on production lines instead of in human bellies, the game changes, of course. Until then, we make the best of what we have.

He also said: "People in love are the true happy ones. Marriage is moot."

I'm down with that. But love and marriage go together like a horse and carriage. Deal with it.

Posted by: andy ross | March 4, 2008 12:54 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Gad:

You had a conversation with Timmy recently and I am assuming you were referring to me when you said:

"Let me show you what is really nonsensical. Someone who sits on this blog idolizing Sam Harris who slams Islam and theists in general, has conversations about glassing the middle east and tells people like Peter Huff they are delusional, then on a dime says that anyone who says they don't like hippies is
'ignorant, prejudicial and spiteful....."

LOL!

You go from breathtaking to discombobulated faster than a speeding bullet!

I'm trying to figure out what (if anything) in this statement bears any relevance to anything.
I must admit I am only grasping at straws here, so you will have to give me the benefit of the doubt that I will hit the bulls eye. Having said that, my chances of hitting it will probably be slim to none. It's like trying to make a salad from a cake mix.

What is this blogger saying?

Because I happen to like Sam Harris' books (you call it "idolizing" LOL--we are back to the same old BS that I thought we had already squared all of this away); and because Sam Harris has an instinctive and visceral fear of Islamic fundamentalism because it's tenets propose the complete and total annihilation of western civilization (including BTW your nice and comfortable and middle class lifestyle and your freedom to NOT believe in any crazy maniacal religion), which you term as "glassing ---you probably mean gassing--the Mideast (can you in all honesty say this is not a real threat and Sam is just dreaming up fallacious, malicious lies about others because that is how he gets his kicks and he simply wants to blow up the Islamic world like some mad scientists; and that somehow calling PH delusional because he believes in magic and myth and fairy tales is insincere and all of this adds up to not making sense? ??

...And that because I like Sam Harris, have a genuine fear of the crazy boys who lust after virgins in heaven and fear they want to take me down with them, and because I think religions like PH's have a degree of delusional qualities to them, then somehow this makes my comment to you, that was prejudicial,"nonsensical"?

LOL! This is where Alice in Wonderland begins to look real. And this is where blogging begins to look so surreal and distorted, I'm not sure what is up and what is down.

If you care to actually explain any of this mumbo-jumbo I am listening, but if you choose not to I'll know the real reason is because you are too embarrassed to even broach it. I understand how you might actually feel that way. But I won't hold it against you. We are all, after all just human.

Posted by: lindajean | March 3, 2008 8:55 PM
Report Offensive Comment

"And if people in love want to get married, what's wrong with that!"

Um, I think I've been through that.
I am not calling for a law against marriage, any more than you are calling for a law against religion. I am just criticizing marriage, (not living together and loving one another) as you criticize religion, because I think that it is religion.

Posted by: timmy | March 3, 2008 7:59 PM
Report Offensive Comment

"Gad and Andy: Your recent words countering Timmy are some of the most brilliant I have read in a good long while."

No one has countered me. Andy went off about love which I have, recommend, and adore. I have never said a negative word about true everlasting love. I believe in it. I respect it. I admire it. I do my best to live it. Nothing that Andy said countered anything that I have said.

Same goes for Gad. He thought that I was against contracts for couples who decide to merge their life financially and with children. I am not. He thought that I was against children growing up in homes with two parents who love each other. I am not. He thought that people getting remarried changed the divorce statistics not realizing that the statistic is for all marriages, not first marriages. People who get married twice, generally get divorced twice.

You guys are not arguing with me. You are arguing with what you think you hear me saying because you need an awareness raising. You can't separate marriage from love and think that Love requires marriage, or is enhanced by marriage. The opposite is true. Love needs Marriage like joy needs pressure. Silliness.

""So what was your vows? I'm screwing today, but I make no promise to screw you tomorrow. Very romantic!"

I took the same vows you all took. And they are as moot as yours. I love my wife as much as the day I met her. And I would whether I had made those silly religious vows or not. I am lucky that , unlike most people who get married, that I did not change so much that I came to hate the person I once loved. But MOST people who get married are not so lucky. And then they are that guy in "Paradise By The Dashboard Light".

I never break my promise or forget my vow (because that's what we're all supposed to do)
But god only knows what I could do right now. (Grow distant and bitter. Start having affairs)

That is most marriage.
True love. Everlasting love, can exist without the very religious institution of marriage.

Gad said: "it is after all just a good song, not an objective truth."

BS with a capital B and capital S.
That song is a timeless classic that people go crazy for at parties and on the dance floor for one reason. IT'S SO BLOODY TRUE! Everyone loves that song, because they all relate to it. Bigtime! If not with their current "love", then with their ex "love".
That song is a ginormous universal hit because it is as close to an objective truth for the general populous as any song ever has been. Nice try pal.

You guys aren't arguing with me, you are arguing with reality.
Or, as I said, with what you think you hear me saying.

Posted by: timmy | March 3, 2008 7:54 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Gad said:

"... Some people on this blog claim that meditation helps them deal with reality, and I've grown to accept that."

You just took my breath away.
I'm down on that!

Posted by: lindajean | March 3, 2008 7:25 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Timmy:

It is going to take a while for me to digest through your marriage stuff. But I will get back to you "soon".

BTW: I think there are more people agreeing with me on this one. Sorry, you are out there on your own.

Gad and Andy: Your recent words countering Timmy are some of the most brilliant I have read in a good long while.

Kudos!

And Gad said, "So what was your vows? I'm screwing today, but I make no promise to screw you tomorrow. Very romantic!"

Priceless!
Indeed!

Posted by: lindajean | March 3, 2008 6:39 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Hi Gad:

First, I recently read Timmy's "censored" post on your blog so thank you for giving us the opportunity to use it as a kind of "side kick" and as a personal "sanctuary" for me earlier (when I was in the "creeped-out" mode.)

You said: "Sorry, I hate to have to keep calling you out on this issue...."

There is no need to apologize in calling me out. I would expect you do that on any occasion, if needed, even in the most quarrelsome of times.

You: "..that did nothing to answer the question of why you were justified in claiming that I am...."

Well, here is my justification:

When people make prejudicial (etc..) statements I will call them on it.

Your statement, "I can't stand hippies....[All] hippies are into free-love and drugs...." was a prejudicial (etc..) remark.

Notice: I am NOT saying you are prejudicial, ignorant, nefarious, etc...

Only that your statement is.
There is a big difference.

In fact, for the record, I don't see you that way AT ALL. You are intelligent, well-educated, articulate, tolerant and a decent person.

But your statement was not

On meditation: Your statement was ignorant.
Once again, I am not saying your are ignorant.
Your remark was.
Another big difference.

Here is analogy:

I think astronomers are wacky and weird.
I think astronomers don't deal with reality.
Astronomers spend all their time gazing at celestial objects.
How boring!
What a waste of time!
Astronomers are self-absorbed.
Astronomers need psychotherapy.
Astronomers are escaping their own thoughts.
Astronomers believe in the supernatural.

Prejudicial, ignorant, spiteful, etc...

And BTW, I would expect others to call me on the table for similar remarks.

Anything else is negligent, inattentive and sloppy. Don't you agree?

Oh, and one last thing....

You said, "Your argument is the same as the theists you discount, if you haven't read and studied our holy book and practiced our religion then you can not know anything about it......."

No. My argument is not the same. My argument is not based on a belief in the supernatural and trying to ram it down your throat. My argument is that before you judge something you ought to know something about what it is your judging. The theist argues that I must NOT judge anything that the theist believes is true. You can judge meditation all you want. You can judge my interest in it all you want. But my argument is have some knowledge about what it is you are judging. Because not to have some knowledge about it is a form of ignorance. It is not clear to me you have knowledge about it. If you do, you have made a very poor case of showing me that you do. So I will judge you on your lack of knowledge and in the future if you can show me that you have some authentic knowledge about this topic then I will no longer call you ignorant about it.

Prove it to me, Gad. Show me what you know.

Lastly, you stated, "Finally, you said you were just trying to make a point and that we were now beyond that. I agree with the last part, the first part is still a mystery.'

I trust the mystery has been solved.

Have a nice evening.

Posted by: lindajean | March 3, 2008 6:06 PM
Report Offensive Comment

While I love "Paradise by the Dashboard light" (the whole album "Bat out of hell" was great) it is after all just a good song, not an objective truth.

"Wesley and Buttercup" now that was true love, and "Princess Bride" one of the great movies of all time.

"People in love are the true happy ones. Marriage is moot."

And if people in love want to get married, what's wrong with that!

Posted by: GAD | March 3, 2008 5:29 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Timmy said:
And Gad, I can not believe that you of all people would be making the argument that we can take this religious institution of marriage, and somehow filter the religion out of it for use in a secular society under the same name. Is this not exactly the argument you make against meditation? That it is useless in secular society, because it can not be completely separated from it's religious origin?

I am an atheist, I am married, my vows were secular, I take my vows to my wife and hers to me seriously, love and commitment don't require any religion, religion hijacked them, they stand on their own.

My argument for meditation was that people practicing it believe it can lead them to transcend reality, and I say it can't. Some people on this blog claim that meditation helps them deal with reality, and I've grown to accept that.

So what was your vows? I'm screwing today, but I make no promise to screw you tomorrow. Very romantic!

Posted by: GAD | March 3, 2008 5:16 PM
Report Offensive Comment

One more summation point.

If you add up the divorce statistics, with the infidelity statistics for both men and women, it's pretty safe to say that 90% of all marriage vows are not kept.

But we should just keep on keepin on with all of this vowing right?
Just smile and pretend. And when the statisticians come around asking questions, tell them you are happy.

Married people are happier than non-married people like Christians are happier than atheists.

People in love are the true happy ones. Marriage is moot.

Posted by: timmy | March 3, 2008 5:11 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Welcome back Andy,

I have a question for you. You seem to be quite the futurist in your philosophy. Lindajean made the point that "families are the fabric of our society." Will this continue to be the case in the future? You know, when the angel-bots are a reality. Will the standard Mom and Pop household with 3.25 kids still be the fabric of our society?

Posted by: timmy | March 3, 2008 4:16 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Andy said:
"Timmy, you evidently don't have a clue what real love is"

lol.
Do you?
Please describe it.
BTW, I wasn't dissing love, just marriage.

Andy said:
"Declaring one's love of another unto death before "G-d" and the world can be an existential moment"

Yes it can. It can be a moment.
But can you make it last forever? Most fail to do so. and the idea that such a thing lasting forever is the norm, is a damaging idea. And an impossible ideal to live up to. Romantic idealism is on your side. Reality is on mine.

Andy said:
"the twistor upward to eternal splendor for a pair who otherwise live in grubby normalcy"

"Grubby normalcy" is the norm.
"Eternal splendor" is not.
Pretending otherwise is setting people up for false hopes, which of course leads to bitter disappointment and feelings of failure.

Andy said:
"Anyone who cannot find that moment of truth has lost the only thing that makes life worthwhile"

I found that moment of truth, just like many people do.
What does it have to do with the religious institution of marriage?

Andy said:
"Go for true love or forever hold your peace."

By all means, go for it. Just be realistic about it.
You are not arguing with me, you are arguing with the stats.
Most spousal love does not last forever. Pretending that it should, if you are normal, is stupidity.

Andy you are confusing my issue with marriage, with love.
I have nothing against love. I have nothing against declaring your love publicly. Just against vowing to love one particular person forever. That is not noble. That is stupid. Unrealistic.

Posted by: timmy | March 3, 2008 4:03 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Meatloaf said:

So now I'm praying for the end of time.
So hurry up man arrive.
Cause if I got to spend another minute with you,
I don't think that I could really survive.
I never break my promise or forget my vow,
but God only knows what I could do right now.
I'm praying for the end of time, so that I can do, ooooh ooooh.
Praying for the end of time, so that I can end my time with you!

Is the man singing this song stupid?
Or is it the societal pressure, that coerced him into taking that vow if he wants to fit in and be normal, that is stupid.

I sometimes get the sense that you guys think that I have something against everlasting love, like Romeo and Juliet, and Wesley and Buttercup. I don't. I think that those are beautiful and inspiring stories. I'm just practical about what a rare a thing that is. Teaching kids that this is the norm, and if you don't find such a thing then you are different, or lacking in some way, is what is damaging to children. Everlasting love and monogamy is not the norm. Break-ups and affairs are the norm. Who are we all kidding? Ourselves it seems.

And Gad, I can not believe that you of all people would be making the argument that we can take this religious institution of marriage, and somehow filter the religion out of it for use in a secular society under the same name. Is this not exactly the argument you make against meditation? That it is useless in secular society, because it can not be completely separated from it's religious origin?

Posted by: timmy | March 3, 2008 3:26 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Timmy, you evidently don't have a clue what real love is. Declaring one's love of another unto death before "G-d" and the world can be an existential moment, the moment of truth in a world of shifting facades, the twistor upward to eternal splendor for a pair who otherwise live in grubby normalcy. This, by the way, is the vision of Mormon marriage, of celestial partnership for all time. You can keep your unions of convenience, your instrumental sex with fancy techniques and contraceptives, your legal loopholes and nuptial contracts. Anyone who cannot find that moment of truth has lost the only thing that makes life worthwhile. Let the rats breed like rats. Go for true love or forever hold your peace.

Posted by: andy ross | March 3, 2008 3:11 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Gad said:
"Interesting argument(s) regarding marriage, but I think you left out some important considerations"

I did not, as we will soon see.

Gad said:
"Secular marriage is a legal contract that gives rights and protection to the parties entering the contract"

I never said anything against legal contracts.
There is nothing wrong with contracts, that's what lawyers are for. There is no reason why a couple can not have a contract to deal with a split when they have decided to merge financially as well as lovingly, and where kids are involved. But this contract need not in any way involve a pledged commitment to remain in love with, and stay together forever with, your chosen partner. That is the stupidity that I object to. And the stats are on my side here given that "till death do us part" almost never happens. In fact, the existence of the legal marriage contract is evidence that people now know the futility of promising a lifetime commitment of love. There didn't used to be a legal contract for marriage, because they were not supposed to ever end, no matter what. The legal contract is just one of the baby steps towards the futuristic thinking that I employ. Practicality, over blind idealistic (religious) leaps of faith.

Gad said:
" Every positive statistic I know of shows that children with 2 parents come out ahead."

All children start out with two parents, Gad. The question is whether or not having a marriage ceremony, where one person pledges to never stop loving another till death do us part, ensures that the child's parents will remain together any more than they will without such a ceremony and civil contract. Clearly it does not have any bearing on how long a couple stays together. People should stay together as long as they are happy together and not one minute longer. You honestly think that people, not in love anymore, should stay together for the sake of the children? Is that good for the children? Everyone living a lie to fit a societal norm that comes from religious thinking?

Gad said:
"Your statistics don't show how many remarried"

What does that have to do with anything? My position is that the promise to love someone forever is stupid. You think that people going back for a second round of stupidity is making your point somehow? Those people who go out and get remarried fall into the same divorce statistics as the one's doing it for the first time.
18% divorced (again) by year 5.
35% divorced (again) by year 10
48% divorced (again) by year 25
etc.

Gad said:
"The bottom line, all religion aside, people are any countries greatest asset and promoting marriage is just damn good business, and there isn't ANY statistic that I know of that shows otherwise.................."

How you get from "people are any countries greatest asset" to "promoting marriage is just damn good business" I'll never know. What the hell does one have to do with the other?

For those of you arguing against my points here, please tell me what is good about making a public and legal promise to love someone forever, when love is an emotion that one can not just choose to have for someone. Have you guys never listened to the words to Paradise By The Dashboard Light?
:)

Posted by: timmy | March 3, 2008 2:07 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Timmy,

Interesting argument(s) regarding marriage, but I think you left out some important considerations.

- Secular marriage is a legal contract that gives rights and protection to the parties entering the contract, such as division of money, property, children, liability and responsibilities. You can call it another name if you want but any two people entering into merger need a way to un-merge if things go wrong.

- Every positive statistic I know of shows that children with 2 parents come out ahead. It's a false comparison to say that 52% divorced while their kids are still in school because the stats say the 48% are better off. And you presented no data that shows if the children of divorced parents still had a positive benefit over children who never hod both parents.

- Your statistics don't show how many remarried, most people I believe remarry so the total stays higher. Although cohabitation is raising fast today I don't know what the % is with children involved.

The bottom line, all religion aside, people are any countries greatest asset and promoting marriage is just damn good business, and there isn't ANY statistic that I know of that shows otherwise..................

Posted by: GAD | March 3, 2008 1:00 PM
Report Offensive Comment

ME: "If it is a subjective experience how do you know it is true? What authority but yourself do you appeal to? The subjective experience of someone else?"

LJ: "Well, that is what Gad and I were debating. We both came to the conclusion (at least I did, I don't want to speak for him..) that subjective experiences can in some ways be seen as illusions because they are private and individual and personal."

So how do you separate illusion from reality? How do you know that any of your experiences are anything more than illusion? It is a pretty fine line to walk and still make sense of life is it not? Am I just having an imaginary conversation with myself here? :(

LJ: "No one else can experience my subjective experiences. We can describe them and discuss them and explain them to each other and we can get a sense of what someone is experiencing but they are individual islands in and of themselves. So why do I need an "authority" to validate my subjective experience."

Well without an ultimate, objective, absolute Authority how do you separate subjective opinion and subjective experience from reality, from what is real? Because you have found something in common with someone else? And why should/ought I listen to your subjective opinion and follow the examples of your personal experience if there are questions as to its truth or reality? On the chance that you could be right? On the chance that the masses have been right?

LJ: "If it is my own how could anyone authorize it? I will answer my own question by saying that when we experience something subjectively in order for it to be "valid" to others it must have something substantial to back it up...."

So are you equating a valid experience to consensus? In that case Hitler's Germany and the death camps or 100 million Muslim extremists who condone suicide bombers must be right in their particular cultures.

LJ: "So, in sum, I would say that subjective experiences that can be validated by some kind of circumstantial evidence are "valid" and those that cannot are "invalid" or possibly delusional. (And if you think about someone who is truly delusional their experiences are indeed invalid.)"

There again, if you base validity on circumstantial evidence why do you discount the Bible, for it contains both circumstantial and direct evidence?

LJ: "BTW: This is where (in my opinion) religion begins to take on a delusional tone. When you start "experiencing" god and making statements about those experiences as though they are based on something substantial, this is where you and I are going to depart. "God has a vision (a calling) for me to have 5 children and to become a dentist...." Not valid. It may be valid that you are experiencing a "desire" to have 5 children and become a dentist, but not that God is sending you his vision of this."

God has spoken to us Lindajean in His Word, by His
Spirit and by what has been made. That is substantial, not a subjective vision of five children and a profession of dentistry.

LJ: "Well, this is the world of "subjectivity". It is pitting my experiences against yours."

The difference between your measure and mine is what I am contending for. God is truth; ultimate, objective, absolute truth. You have no way of disproving Him and yet you call those who believe in Him delusional? That is subjective unless you can offer some proof for your experience, that it is true.

LJ: "Which ones are valid, which are delusional? And coming to some consensus on what is "valid." God does not need to be whispering in my ear to validate my experiences. Why would that have to be the case. I can use my own reasoning abilities and those of others to help me figure this out."

All the time using the mind that God has given you.

LJ: "And yes, it is all subjective, so there is gray area here to contend with. But once again, I have to make some judgment about whether my subjective experiences are "illusions" or if they are actually delusional. If they are delusional, then I need to get help. If they are simply illusions but backed up with some validation, then I am "OK"."

There again you make your judgments based on your subjective experience. It's as circular as you claim my views are, and I would contend any argument can be when pushed far enough.

ME: "So we both claim the other is delusional in their belief. So who is right? Is right to you the majority opinion?"

LJ: "Well, very good question. Back to validation. That is my standard. Yours is "if God says it is truth then it is." How do I know your God isn't delusional as well? There is some evidence to suggest he is. All you have to do is read the Bible."

The Bible is a good topic. I would like to finish what we started on the Lord Jesus Christ, but I will offer a few thoughts later.

LJ: "So if there is a hint of delusion, why should I buy into it? I don't want delusion running my life. I seek out clarity and knowledge. Not delusion."

Start out by asking God for mercy, eyes to see, ears to hear and a heart to understand. Ask yourself where does knowledge originate from - physical, material, non-thinking, non-living, unintelligent compounds forming together in random, chance ways, or from a knowing, thinking, living, loving, intelligent Being? Ask yourself what examples you can pull together of physical, non-thinking, non-living, unintelligent matter ever becoming living, knowing, thinking its way into being and existence?

ME: "As for making you believe the evidence for God's existence, I can't, only God can do that. And He confirms that deep down we know He exists but we suppress that truth in unrighteousness. There is no excuse, and one day we will answer to Him. He confirms that repeatedly by His word. You are the one who is making His out to be a liar, by discrediting His word, even though you have been made in His image and likeness in your ability to think and reason.'"

LJ: "That sounds delusional to me..."

There again, who is delusional, you or I? How do you know anything for sure? What is your bench mark? Self? A collection of subjective selves? If there is nothing objective out there then all anything is is irrelevant subjective opinion that is hard to prove as true for which standard are you going to use as a benchmark?

ME: "Lindajean, the Bible is part of the evidence ...."

LJ: "It isn't evidence. More delusion....."

Oh yes it is evidence.

"Manuscript Support for the
Bible's Reliability
by Ron Rhodes

Manuscript Evidence for the New Testament

There are more than 24,000 partial and complete manuscript copies of the New Testament.

These manuscript copies are very ancient and they are available for inspection now.

There are also some 86,000 quotations from the early church fathers and several thousand Lectionaries (church-service books containing Scripture quotations used in the early centuries of Christianity).

Bottom line: the New Testament has an overwhelming amount of evidence supporting its reliability."

End of quote.

Over and over and over again, the pages of the Bible claim to be the written Word of God, His revelation to us. They describe accurately historical and archaeological events, peoples and places that are confirmed by secular sources as well. Then you have the unity and consistent themes running throughout the Bible all pointing towards God and revealing the Lord Jesus Christ on every page. Unity from over forty human authors and 66 different books spanning a time of thousands of centuries. Alone there are over three hundred prophecies of the Messiah that reveal specific things concerning Him including where He would be born and the type of death He would die. The list of evidence goes on and on. I invite you to look into it and test your suppositions if you wish to carry this further.

Many of the ancient religions and beliefs have in them accounts of a massive or global flood and accounts of gods or a god, which depending on how you look at it suggests that there is an original event and Being that people embellished and twisted over the centuries in order to fashion a god in their own image, not as He is.

Then there are the early church fathers and the witness of millions of people who have faith in the Lord Jesus Christ who have had their lives changed by the grace of the living God.

That is evidence.

ME: "Let's take the evidence for Christ first. Do you believe that there is any evidence that points to Him as a real person? If so what would you say that evidence is? After you disclose what you believe I will point out to you some of the evidences."

LJ: "I believe there is some historical hypotheses that Jesus was actually a living, red-blooded person. I don't believe anyone has actually "proven" he existed."

You could say the same thing about Napoleon Bonaparte or any other historical figure who is no longer physically alive on this earth. I believe Napoleon is just some historical hypotheses that may or may not have actually existed.

But if you look at the evidence for Napoleon's existence and that for the Lord Jesus Christ you would have to say, as any reasonable historian has done in the past, that these were actual historical people. Would you agree with that or do you still want to go on probability? Even that probability is hard to question and still go by the guidelines you gave earlier about circumstantial evidence as being valid.

LJ: "But I am willing to give people like you the benefit of the doubt that he probably existed as a man who tried to change the world, to challenge the politics of his day and to transform people's beliefs about how to be "decent" people. Once again, there is no evidence of this, only anecdotal stories that are not solid."

Not solid in whose opinion though? You have thousands of manuscripts that testify that He existed, you have the apostles as eyewitnesses to His life and resurrection, all willing to die an excruciating death rather than recant and deny Him as Lord or His resurrection. Were they all hallucinating? Were they all delusional?

Why would they be so truthful in so many matters and yet make up a story of a man resurrecting from the dead? What gain was in it for them? They died for what, a lie? Would you die for something you knew was a lie, just to deceive as many as you could? Do their accounts give you reason to believe deception? No, the Biblical accounts show they were men of integrity.

And Jesus did not try to change the world, He did change it! As C. S. Lewis said, you cannot say He was a good man, a good teacher, if He was a liar or lunatic, only if He was who He claimed to be, Lord of all. Someone who deliberately lies to others is not a good man. Someone who is delusional or on the fringe is not a good man. Someone who put others interests above His own, who taught the Sermon on the Mount and to love your neighbor, whether friend or foe - that is a good Man! Someone who sacrificed their life for the sake of others, that is a good Man. Someone who taught others how to "be decent people", that's a good Man.

LJ: "But I think it is plausible or possible that a man named Jesus roamed the earth around 30 AD or thereabouts, that he challenged "authority" and was staked up on a cross as punishment and died a rather brutal death. But that is about all I can call possible or plausible to this story."

That is because of the way you look at the evidence. You cannot afford for you to be wrong. You cannot afford for the fact that the Bible is true because it means that you are answerable to the ultimate higher power, God. You cannot afford for the Bible to be true because that means you are not autonomous. So again, who is delusional?

ME: "The question for you is how did our brains come to be wired like this? It shows design, from what, a random, chance, blind, non-intelligent beginning?"

LJ: "That might be your defining question but it is not mine and personally I don't care if we never know the answer to it. I see it as chasing rainbows in the sky."

That is because you have a worldview that cannot make sense of it, therefore it is easier to bush it off. But who is believing the delusion? Show me some proof that something as complex as our brains and thinking process can come from non-living, unthinking matter? Where does this happen in our world? Where has it ever happened? Your worldview is the one making that claim, not mine. None of these pet theories of evolutionary science have been proved. I think it is foolish to believe such nonsense. You are the one talking about me proving God, well a proof is in the impossibility of the contrary.

LJ: "It doesn't make my life any different or any better to have the answer to that question. What is important to me is that I can have certain subjective experiences and I can appreciate the experience without turning it into something "magical." I don't need magic to appreciate my life and all the wonder and beauty in it."

It is not magical, it is supernatural, beyond nature. Magic is something coming from nothing, life from non-life, intelligence from non reasoning, non thinking processes. That is magic.

LJ: "I just appreciate it without having an explanation. Because in my world view, there probably is no explanation possible."

You said it, no probable explanation in your worldview. And I can appreciate it because a Being to marvelous to fully comprehend, with an infinite mind and eternal Spirit created me in His image so that I can comprehend what beauty is, for He is the standard of aesthetics!

ME: "Faith in God rests on more than experience. We do not see God, He is not visible for He is Spirit, but His Word and Spirit confirm the truthfulness of what He says by what has been made, why it functions the way it does."

LJ: "That's why it is called "faith" and that is why I don't accept it. And "experience" is all I've got. My own and others."

Well you have faith too, and faith in things that are untrue. The important thing about faith is what you rest your faith in. Experience is not all you have, you have an innate knowledge of God that you suppress, just as you have an intangible part of you that is not material in nature, in composition - your spirit that is unique, that is God given, that makes choices and makes you who you are.

Posted by: Peter Huff | March 3, 2008 1:45 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Lindajean:

Sorry, I hate to have to keep calling you out on this issue but it wouldn't be anything less then "negligence, inattentiveness and sloppiness on your my part" not to do so.

Well that was a long winded song and dance that did nothing to answer the question of why you were justified in claiming that I am;

"ignorant, prejudicial and spiteful, narrow and close-minded, unsophisticated, obstinate, erroneous and maleficent, dysfunctional lacks mindfulness, education and has uncultured tendencies, and is nefarious in nature, on a survivalist level and my brain is in "reptilian" mode"

Because I said I didn't like hippies, which you sidestepped to an attack on meditation, which you sidestepped to a history of remarks about meditation, which you now seem to say is justified because I didn't qualify it with "but I don't begrudge others who do it because maybe there is a possibility it is helpful to them.".

Then you try and say my opinion would only be valid (i.e. I wouldn't be all the bad words you called me) if it were "based on some experience and knowledge". Oh really! Have you read the Koran, prayed to Allah 5 times a days and went on the hodge? If not where do you get off criticizing Islam? Your experience and knowledge of Islam comes from the same place my experience and knowledge of meditation comes from, reading and watching and talking to other people about it, you didn't need to practice it to come to your negative conclusion about it. Your argument is the same as the theists you discount, if you haven't read and studied our holy book and practiced our religion then you can not know anything about it, and therefore to make any statement regarding it makes you "ignorant, prejudicial and spiteful, narrow and close-minded, unsophisticated, obstinate, erroneous and maleficent, dysfunctional lacks mindfulness, education and has uncultured tendencies, and is nefarious in nature"....................

Also, if your going to call someone a long list of bad names, just do it, don't try and qualify it by implying that you are so good and righteous and hate to do such bad things but to do anything less would be "negligence, inattentiveness and sloppiness on your own part". That is just adding insult to injury and is yet another theist tactic.

Finally, you said you were just trying to make a point and that we were now beyond that. I agree with the last part, the first part is still a mystery.

Posted by: GAD | March 2, 2008 7:21 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Hi Lindajean,

LJ: "We are right back to the same argument where you believe I must prove where the physical/material begins, or if I cannot prove it then there must be a God."

You don't have to prove them, but you can't make sense of them. Your worldview does not allow it. And anyone who engages in a philosophical conversation about about the existence of God, about beginnings, about life, about meaning and purpose, about morals, who does not have an explanation for these things, in my opinion, should think about them first.

Your worldview has no explaining power in regards to the things that you discount. You say that it is not important to know how we got here, or even if God exists, just that we are, and yet discredit the only explanation that can make sense of the deeper questions in life.

LJ: "I don't have to prove anything to not believe in a God."

You do if you want credibility in your assertion that God is a delusion. You are the one who claims that He is a delusion because you do not see Him. There are lots of things that you do not see in life, like the wind, but you see the effects and can ascertain there is such a thing, or in the case of God, Being.

LJ: "You on the other hand must show some evidence that there is one and you have not done that sufficiently. However, I will say, that I don't know for a fact that there is not a supernatural force of some sort. I don't know if there is or isn't and I cannot say either way for sure because I do not have enough information to make such a claim."

That is because your worldview has blinded you to the evidence for God. If you can't say for sure whether there is a supernatural force - God - then it is best not to say that He is a delusion. You just don't know, and yet you keep suppressing the truth of God.

ME" "And why should the same process happen with the same results over and over again? That suggests design. Are you proposing that there is a designer? Then you have taken your first baby step towards God!"

LJ: "No, I'm not proposing there is a designer. Sorry to disappoint. And a process happening over and over again with the same results does not suggest any kind of an intelligent "designer." Where do you go from repetition to ID? That's a leap."

How does a process that started out in random, chance, blind chaos build anything into itself? Why would a chance occurrence repeat itself? How does a chance occurrence build into itself information and intelligent design? We know that humans create intelligent designs, and we have been created in the image and likeness of our God.

There is precision in mathematical and natural laws throughout the universe. WE know as humans that any laws we make need a lawgiver. They don't just happen. You assume that the natural laws come from blind chance happenings. How do you know this from personal experience. Where do you see chance, blind, chaotic happenings arranging information or intelligent and wonderful designs? Where have you ever seen a human law just happen?

We can follow the orbit of the earth around the sun because it follows a predictable and tuned path/course. If it were closer or further away could life on earth be sustained? Why does it continue to orbit in the same pattern from a random, chance beginning? If the moon were further or nearer to the earth the tides that aerate the oceans would be too great or not great enough to do us good. If the composition of the atmosphere where different would we still be alive? The complexity of DNA molecule that contains the information of life is so complex scientist are just starting to grasp its complexity. How does a beginning from random, chance, chaotic beginnings arrange such complexity?

For you as an atheist it all comes down to chance beginnings that are without explanation. You cannot make sense of life, why it is here and yet you believe my worldview is delusional?

I will continue on another post so as to give you a rest to ponder.

Posted by: Peter Huff | March 2, 2008 6:03 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Hi, guys!

Just dropped by on a whim to see how long this thread has gotten. Whew!

Lo and behold, LindaJean has posted message #2005 for me (do we have a psychic connection?):

"I read your article about robots/dinosaurs/homo-superiors. It was very, very good. Very interesting. Very imaginative. I liked it a lot. ... Couldn't find anything about our friend Sam on there. If you or someone else reading this could send me in the right direction I would be happy to read your "take" on him."

Thank you for the feedback. I'm still working on a tidy write-up of this G-d stuff. A year ago I packaged some raw notes for a Sam chapter as:
http://www.andyross.net/gash.pdf

Best wishes to y'all ...

Posted by: andy ross | March 2, 2008 5:03 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Hi peter,

Well I've filtered through your last post to me and it's just more of the same circular reasoning. You simply can not say that man is flawed, and that he who made man is perfect. Do you not see the obvious logical fallacy here? It is inescapable. If God created man, God is responsible for man's flaws. We can not create flaws in ourselves that were not there from the beginning. Every flaw has a cause. So what was the cause of Adam's flaw? God is the only answer. Adam can not create his own flaw. He can choose an action, but if he chooses a wrong action, that is a flaw that is innate in him. It could only come from God.

Inescapable Peter. You can not get around it. No matter how much you put the blame on man, God created man. The buck stops here. The terminus of responsibility for all that is wrong with man, and this world, stops at your obviously not so perfect God.

You have the manufacturer blaming it's product for having flaws? Too rich.

Posted by: timmy | March 2, 2008 2:35 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Hi Lindajean,

Okay, I can't get it through on this blog. This is so silly.
So I've posted it on Gad's overflow blog that he created for this forum, where I see you had a brief conversation with him during the Burning Rabbit BS. Thanks Gad, for providing an uncensored forum. Here's the link so everyone who wants to follow along can.

http://atheistgods.blogspot.com/2007/11/problem-with-atheism.html

My post is under the name "anonymous" at the end of your last conversation with Gad. Enjoy.

Posted by: timmy | March 2, 2008 2:06 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Hi Soja:

You stated: "Atheists are going to be extremely disappointed if they think they can wipe out faith in God with natural explanations."

I'm not proposing that atheists wipe out your faith in God, so I won't set myself up for that kind of disappointment (if it doesn't happen). I am not an activist atheist in any real sense of the word. Just someone who likes to talk about ideas relating to atheism and ponder the implications.

But I am a person that does not believe in the myth that the religious cling onto. As I have told Peter, I don't want to run around the rest of my life thinking delusions are real. Life is simply too short. This is an individual choice that I am making. You can make a different choice.

My main problem with religion is its claim to know the Truth and if people do not accept that Truth then they are dead wrong (and are going to be punished for it.) I don't "buy into" punitive ideologies or lifestyles, religious or not.

The darkest side of religion is its accepting of beliefs that intentionally harm other people. And there is a moral issue here that I simply cannot ignore. As a human being I have an obligation to question and reject immoral acts against humanity (and to prevent them if I can). And immoral acts--physical and psychological harm against innocent people-- are an extremely serious problem that most religious people make light of. I find that chilling and creepy. The irony of course is that religious beliefs create immorality. Yet it is the religious who claim to have the moral upper-hand. Pathological.

But it is my problem, not yours. Because I am the square peg that can't fit into the round hole. And I am the one that can't sleep at night. Only the religious can afford such solemn slumber. Because they can rest their weary heads on their soft pillows at night and dream about myth and magic.

My dreams are not of that order. Because myth and magic are not real and I know my dreams are not real. But it is the religious who believe dreams are real. And it is the religious who will go to all costs to ensure that the rest of us believe their dreams are real as well.

Posted by: lindajean | March 2, 2008 11:10 AM
Report Offensive Comment

GAD:

Thank you for your latest post to me. I am glad to see we are still on speaking terms.

In my most recent words to you I have been trying to make a point. That time has passed---you are not willing to understand my point of view, so I am just ready to move on. I thought I had gotten my point across, but you disagree with what I say, and "never the twain shall meet" as the saying goes, so be it. That's life. I don't see that as backsliding.

But I will take some time to look at it all in depth since you have made the effort to do so as well.

I said, "You always throw out these kinds of accusations when you don't agree with me."

You replied, "So I should agree with you when you say that I am...."

No. Absolutely not. I am not saying you should ever agree with me. I don't have any expectations that you and I will agree on much of anything. That is not what I get off on..... people having to agree with me. If I wanted to spend my time communicating with people I agree with, I WOULD exit this blog immediately and go hang out at the local pub. I'm not into just "gabbing" and making small talk. That's not what I find interesting at all.

You said, "Oh, please forgive me for not agreeing with your absurd self-absorbed, self-righteous rantings."

This is the problem right here in these kinds of statements that are laced through-out this blog that you have directed towards me. Look, I am a big girl. I can take a lot of "crap" from people and I don't take it (too) personally. Most of what people say will go in one ear and out the other. So a few chide remarks thrown at me on a blog will at worst leave me indifferent most of the time. I can even see humor in it sometimes and get a good chuckle out of it.

Generally speaking, I am tolerant of what people direct at me in the real world as well as on a blog. But you seem (and I use that word because it is my subjective perception) to like to hurl "crap" when I don't agree with you. When I post something, you turn it on a dime and mock it and say something nasty about it and most of the time dismiss it like an annoying dribble of water leaking from a faucet. Your attitude is: I don't have time for this nonsense. This is beneath me what LJ has to say. So I would argue you are the master at disagreement and putting personal twists on words you don't like. And if you see me doing what I see you doing, I am doing it in defense, while you are playing offense. Big difference between the two.

I said, "And I am talking not about hippies (that is really water under the bridge) but your remark about meditation is not water under the bridge and is the real issue here."

You said, That's backsliding BS!"

Well, OK, maybe it is but as far as I'm concerned it is time to move on. Like I said, I made my point, you don't like it, let's kiss and make up on this one, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt (as I seem to do more than you do with me)....life goes on, let's get over it...it probably was a "tad" inflammatory, I was a bit harsh.....I'm not perfect like you.....blah, blah, blah.

You said, "As for meditation Vs drugs, six of one half dozen of the other, both are nothing more then attempts to avoid talking to ones self.......Which is my opinion, and I think it a good and fair one. But in any case I didn't say anything about disliking people who meditate, only that I see it as another form of escape like drugs."

Well, this once again is the real issue (not the hippies) and this is what I mean when I say you are close-minded and uneducated, etc...It is very obvious it is your opinion but when someone has a unsophisticated and unintelligent opinion, based on very little knowledge, then I will call a spade a spade.

And it is not only this (somewhat benign) statement about meditation that you have made. No, Gad, it is a pattern and a repetition that goes back many, many months of inflammatory remarks that are just your knee-jerk reaction to statements I have made that you (for some reason) find intolerable. It is all a mystery to me why this harmless act of meditating seems to send you out into orbit.

Whether you see it or not, your remarks do indeed show me how ignorant you really are about meditation. That may seem self-righteous and if it is truly that then I will admit it, but I beg to differ. If you change the word "self-righteous" to "informed" then we are getting somewhere. On this matter, you are not (informed) and I am.

You said, (quoting me in part) " ...and your opinion of meditation puts you light years ahead of me (anyone who doesn't share your opinion) --- on a level of abstract thinking and intellectual pondering beyond us non-meditaters!"

Only in the sense that I have knowledge and understanding about meditation because I have read and learned about it and practiced it and you know nothing about it all. You throw your opinion around which is indeed ignorant as though you actually know something about IT.

If you told me something like, "LJ, I have practiced meditation, took some classes to learn it, read about it, talked about it with others....and I think it is a waste of time and stupid..." THEN, I would be able to accept you opinion because it is based on some experience and knowledge.

I am NOT saying all people have to like, love, practice, embrace meditation because I (self-righteously) believe it is a superior form of behavior. I am not saying that at all. I don't give a rat's ass if no one but myself practices it, as long as they come to their conclusions about it from some facts or personal experience.

But because you apparently have not, then I suggest you could say something like, "LJ, I've never practiced it, I have no interest in it, I find it silly and even stupid, but I don't begrudge others who do it because maybe there is a possibility it is helpful to them."

What is the harm in that?

It would be a reasonable, intelligent and acceptable statement. But you seem beyond reason and intelligence and acceptability on this one.

You said, "...then be warned, in "reptilian" mode turn about is fair play. And if you don't think it's defensible then you had no reason for saying what you said other then it being a self-absorbed, self-righteous rant!

Well, I hope that remark has been buried in the graveyard. If not, then I guess it will be like fighting fire with fire. I trust between the two of us we don't need to start burning things down to have a conversation.

BTW: I have a few comments to make on statements you made to Timmy but will return to them later.

Posted by: lindajean | March 2, 2008 10:48 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Hi Peter:

Yes, you are right and that was my quote, not yours. Thanks for catching that one. No wonder I thought it was a good quote (seeing that it was mine!) But I don't want to sound narcissistic by saying that or I'll be accused of "self-righteousness.... Instead, I am appreciative that you pointed it out. I guess that means you don't agree with it after all. Well, I ought not be surprised by that, right?

Posted by: lindajean | March 2, 2008 7:39 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Timmy:

Why don't you just use the word "LOVE" in quotes and we will know what you mean. Or use "X" in quotes and we will get it. If that doesn't work I'll send you an email but I think EVERYONE needs to be in on this one...

I know we can outsmart a computer. It's only the 21st century.

Posted by: lindajean | March 2, 2008 7:27 AM
Report Offensive Comment

http://ultimatequestions.org/UQ_Booklet.pdf

More like ultimate nonsense. This is the same old stuff you always quote but don't understand. Every argument uses a slight of hand to make it's point and is intellectually dishonest.

http://media.richarddawkins.net/video/2007/DennettDinesh_all.mov

Man that was long. Dinesh is a good talker, much better then Dennett, but that doesn't make anything he says right. And in any case he said he believed in the Big Band, Evolution, and that atheist can be moral without god. All of which you say goes against god and the bible, so he is not a real Christian, so you shouldn't try and use him to prove your points.

Posted by: GAD | March 2, 2008 3:23 AM
Report Offensive Comment

To my atheist friends,

http://ultimatequestions.org/UQ_Booklet.pdf

http://media.richarddawkins.net/video/2007/DennettDinesh_all.mov

Posted by: Peter Huff | March 2, 2008 12:09 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Hi Lindajean,

Well it's not much of a surprise, but my post to you on marriage got stopped for review, just like the one to soja did. There is nothing graphic in there, but I guess the word sex too many times or something. I'm not sure what to do. You can email me at him@tmrykert.com and I can send it to you by email, or I can try and find out what they are flagging and alter it, but I can't figure out what it is. I'll try again.

We'll see.

Posted by: timmy | March 1, 2008 11:43 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Hi Lindajean,

I just wanted to clear up something you attributed to me that you actually said,

LJ: "You said, "If you simply said you had an experience that you felt connected to the universe without saying it is a connection to the supernatural world, or God, then I would not discount that. I believe you can experience a connectedness---somehow our brains are wired to experience this---just as we are wired to experience other phenomenon like love, compassion....this is after all, part of being human."

That is your quote, not mine.

LJ: "Thank you for saying that. It is nice to know we can agree on something realistic."

I'm sure there is lots we agree on, but apparently not on the subject of God.

Posted by: Peter Huff | March 1, 2008 11:22 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Bernie Bee said:
"Wish I’d got tae know Suki years ago. Fr'instance, I don't have tae fork out on taking Suki out to an expemsive restaurant and watching it smoke throughout the meal and hearing it whinge about its ovaries and period pains and stress."

I'm laughing so hard I got tears in my eyes! I give you the award for the funnest post to date! Even funnier then the story about your poor old uncle and his coffin problems.

Posted by: GAD | March 1, 2008 10:14 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Soja, ye keep advisin’ me alang the lines, “Looking for love and sex on this discussion blog is like looking for gold in the rainforest…feeling evoked by online contacts can be dangerous… If I were you, I wouldn’t bother to waste flattery on a woman like me. I’m hoplessly immune to it… ”, and so on and so forth.

But wait a minit Soja, and for goodniss sake slow doon a bit! Have ye no’ considered ye might be jist a teeny-weeny wee bit presumptuous in jumpin’ tae sich conclusions?

What if I told ye I have a perfectly satisfactory sex-life, especially since the day afore last Christmas when all the way from Hong Kong the gorgeous Suki arrived all smiles ‘n affection? Can even speak some words o’ English.
It’s true I was taken aback somewhat by the sudden, jack-in-the-box, self-inflation on openin' the box but Suki’s been as good as gold ever since and I wouldn’t part with Suki now I’ve got tae know her (includin’ in the biblical sense)

Wish I’d got tae know Suki years ago. Fr'instance, I don't have tae fork out on taking Suki out to an expemsive restaurant and watching it smoke throughout the meal and hearing it whinge about its ovaries and period pains and stress.

They’re sayin’ there’s even more wondrous models on the drawin’ board but no matter, I’m content and would never dream of replacin’ Suki for a newer model. If I’m nuthin else at least am faithfu’ which is more than can be said for the likes o’ Timmy tae name but one!

I'm away now for a wee cuddle and for sure happy dreams.
Nighty night.

Posted by: Bernie Bee | March 1, 2008 9:40 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Lindajean said:
"You always throw out these kinds of accusations when you don't agree with me."

So I should agree with you when you say that I am;

Oh, please forgive me for not agreeing with your absurd self-absorbed, self-righteous rant!

Lindajean said:
"And I am talking not about hippies (that is really water under the bridge) but your remark about meditation is not water under the bridge and is the real issue here"

That's backsliding BS! You said;

"To feel disdain for others, who simply seek out alternative lifestyles, who cause little harm or malice towards others, belies your own prideful and arrogant frame of mind."

My "disdain" was for hippies and that was quite clear in my post. On mediation I said;

"As for meditation Vs drugs, six of one half dozen of the other, both are nothing more then attempts to avoid talking to ones self"

Which is my opinion, and I think it a good and fair one. But in any case I didn't say anything about disliking people who meditate, only that I see it as another form of escape like drugs.

But that's all water under the bridge. So now tell me how my opinion about meditation makes me;

"ignorant, prejudicial and spiteful, narrow and close-minded, unsophisticated, obstinate, erroneous and maleficent, dysfunctional lacks mindfulness, education and has uncultured tendencies, and is nefarious in nature" and lets add I am "on a survivalist level and my brain is in "reptilian" mode"

and your opinion of meditation puts you light years ahead of me (anyone who doesn't share your opinion) --- on a level of abstract thinking and intellectual pondering beyond us non-meditaters!

If you think it is defensible to tell someone, solely because their opinion is different then yours, that they are;

then be warned, in "reptilian" mode turn about is fair play . And if you don't think it's defensible then you had no reason for saying what you said other then it being a self-absorbed, self-righteous rant!

Posted by: GAD | March 1, 2008 6:35 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Andy Ross:

I know you are no longer with us on here, but by chance you sometimes scroll through this blog, a few words for you.

I read your article about robots/dinosaurs/homo-superiors. It was very, very good. Very interesting. Very imaginative. I liked it a lot. I didn't think I would. So I was surprised.

I see you in a whole new light. Because on this blog you get wrapped up in jargon at times. In your article it was straight up, intelligent, thought-provoking.

Anyway, nice job and thanks for the good read.

BTW: Couldn't find anything about our friend Sam on there. If you or someone else reading this could send me in the right direction I would be happy to read your "take" on him.

Posted by: lindajean | March 1, 2008 4:14 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Gad:

Soja's comparison of atheists to hippies is so moot and utterly ridiculous there was no sense in making comment.

This is not about drawing my line in a different place than yours or me being self-absorbed and self-righteousness. (Please provide me with a quote that shows I am self-absorbed or self-righteous.) You always throw out these kinds of accusations when you don't agree with me. There is an explicit pattern here and it is all on the record.

Simply and straightly put, you are between a rock and a hard spot and feel the need to "fight" back. And I am talking not about hippies (that is really water under the bridge) but your remark about meditation is not water under the bridge and is the real issue here. You are on a survivalist level and your brain is in "reptilian" mode. My brain is light years ahead of yours--- on a level of abstract thinking and intellectual pondering. Well, all is fair in love and war, so I am not surprised by your reactions.

This is more about not seeing the forest from the trees (a reoccurring theme on this blog) and knee-jerk reactions.

And I don't get off on chastisement, but apparently you do.

In spite of our differences, I trust you will have a nice day and you will come to understand that differences in perspectives and ideas (from yours) does not a narcissistic person make.

Posted by: lindajean | March 1, 2008 4:01 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Timmy said: "Religion is bad for humanity. Just wanted to be post number 2000."

You are a sneaky SOB. I have been waiting days to be number 2000. I took a break from my computer for a few hours at 1998 to enjoy some (long overdue) 60 degree weather outside only to return to it to find you claiming number 2000.

Damn! Life sucks sometimes!

BTW: I am ready for anything you sling my way.

Posted by: lindajean | March 1, 2008 3:48 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Timmy said:
"But adding hippies to that list above is pretty over the top and quite nonsensical."

Well my point was that we all have groups or (stereo) types of people that we don't like, I was dividing by don't like, not the degree of dislike or badness of a group or type. But fair enough I did use extreme examples.

Let me show you what is really nonsensical. Someone who sits on this blog idolizing Sam Harris who slams Islam and theists in general, has conversations about glassing the middle east and tells people like Peter Huff they are delusional, then on a dime says that anyone who says they don't like hippies is

And this knee slapper

"To feel disdain for others, who simply seek out alternative lifestyles, who cause little harm or malice towards others, belies your own prideful and arrogant frame of mind."

Now that's nonsensical!!!!

Posted by: GAD | March 1, 2008 3:04 PM
Report Offensive Comment

"Consciousness is Nothing but a Word"

So is "life" "love" "hate" "happiness" "the universe" "time" etc.

If you have life, love and happiness then you also have consciousness. These are all words of the same nature. One of them (consciousness) is not less real than the others, so there is no need to single it out.

Lindajean and Peter,

I will hopefully respond to your posts today or tomorrow. Brace yourself LJ. Another dose of reality coming. :)

Posted by: timmy | March 1, 2008 2:07 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Religion is bad for humanity.

Just wanted to be post number 2000.

Posted by: timmy | March 1, 2008 1:42 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Gad said to LJ:
"Do you like, pedophiles, drug addicts, rapists, Satan worshipers etc etc.. Well then all you have done is draw your line in a different place then I have!

Yikes! Seriously dude? You draw a line, and put hippies on the same side of that line as pedophiles, drug addicts, rapists, Satan worshipers? Let me guess, your first love left you for a hippie, right?

There is nothing wrong with your original statement of "I don't like hippies". This a a perfectly valid position to hold. Most of them don't wash their hair very much (if at all) and they have other annoying habits as well, albeit combined with some very fine qualities of peace and love. None the less, I can certainly see someone making the statement "I don't much care for hippies. But adding hippies to that list above is pretty over the top and quite nonsensical. Everything in moderation. This includes hippie disdain. But not religion :)

Posted by: timmy | March 1, 2008 1:40 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Hi Peter:

You asked, "Would you not say that some practitioners of Buddhism do?" [Experience transience without believing in a supernatural].

Yes and no. Some may, but the tenets of Buddhism suggest that there is something supernatural going on when they make claims about nirvana, enlightenment, karma, rebirths, etc... Buddhists I have talked to tell me they make no claims or disclaims about a god. Perhaps not a god-figure as you do in your Christian faith, but they seem to hold some beliefs about assumptions endorsing the supernatural. That's where I depart. But as I have said all along, you can have a transient experience without believing in the supernatural. However, I have learned that by saying this I need to be very precise about how I define a transient experience. Because others hold to an opposite view (that transience is a belief in the supernatural.)

You said, "But you and Gad bring up an interesting point from an atheist perspective, this idea of "connectedness" that supposedly arose from a physical, matter oriented beginning. If "connectedness" or for that matter logic, is just a brain function, an idea in response to an electro-chemical impulse that results when your atoms collide in a certain manner how does such a process arise from a blind, chaotic, order less, non-intelligent, chance beginning?'

We are right back to the same argument where you believe I must prove where the physical/material begins, or if I cannot prove it then there must be a God. I don't have to prove anything to not believe in a God. You on the other hand must show some evidence that there is one and you have not done that sufficiently. However, I will say, that I don't know for a fact that there is not a supernatural force of some sort. I don't know if there is or isn't and I cannot say either way for sure because I do not have enough information to make such a claim.

You, "And why should the same process happen with the same results over and over again? That suggests design. Are you proposing that there is a designer? Then you have taken your first baby step towards God!"

No, I'm not proposing there is a designer. Sorry to disappoint. And a process happening over and over again with the same results does not suggest any kind of an intelligent "designer." Where do you go from repetition to ID? That's a leap.

You ask, "If it is a subjective experience how do you know it is true? What authority but yourself do you appeal to? The subjective experience of someone else?"

Well, that is what Gad and I were debating. We both came to the conclusion (at least I did, I don't want to speak for him..) that subjective experiences can in some ways be seen as illusions because they are private and individual and personal. No one else can experience my subjective experiences. We can describe them and discuss them and explain them to each other and we can get a sense of what someone is experiencing but they are individual islands in and of themselves. So why do I need an "authority" to validate my subjective experience. If it is my own how could anyone authorize it? I will answer my own question by saying that when we experience something subjectively in order for it to be "valid" to others it must have something substantial to back it up. If you tell me that Paris Hilton is madly in love with you and you are experiencing some kind of love for her because you believe this about her, I will not validate your experience. I will say to you, "Peter, there is no evidence that Paris HIlton is in love with you, therefore what ever feelings you are experiencing for her are probably delusional."

If, on the other hand you come to me and tell me your wife is madly in love with you and you are feeling warm fuzzies for her then I will probably tell you, "This is a normal experience (in the sense that husbands and wives do indeed have loving feelings towards each other) and even though it is subjective and I am not experiencing this personally (with your wife) I would expect it is a valid experience."

So, in sum, I would say that subjective experiences that can be validated by some kind of circumstantial evidence are "valid" and those that cannot are "invalid" or possibly delusional. (And if you think about someone who is truly delusional their experiences are indeed invalid.)

BTW: This is where (in my opinion) religion begins to take on a delusional tone. When you start "experiencing" god and making statements about those experiences as though they are based on something substantial, this is where you and I are going to depart. "God has a vision (a calling) for me to have 5 children and to become a dentist...." Not valid. It may be valid that you are experiencing a "desire" to have 5 children and become a dentist, but not that God is sending you his vision of this.

You said, "You are raising some good points about his (Gad) worldview, and yours.As I have maintained all along, without God all it is is one subjective opinion against another. There is nothing to fix the concept of love or compassion or value or truth to. Whose word or position are you going to believe? It is just one person's subjective idea opposed to another with the victor being the one who can amass the most votes in favor of his/her side or the one who can voluntarily conscript the most opposition."

Well, this is the world of "subjectivity". It is pitting my experiences against yours. Which ones are valid, which are delusional? And coming to some consensus on what is "valid." God does not need to be whispering in my ear to validate my experiences. Why would that have to be the case. I can use my own reasoning abilities and those of others to help me figure this out. And yes, it is all subjective, so there is gray area here to contend with. But once again, I have to make some judgment about whether my subjective experiences are "illusions" or if they are actually delusional. If they are delusional, then I need to get help. If they are simply illusions but backed up with some validation, then I am "OK".

I''m OK, your OK , right Peter?

You asked, "So we both claim the other is delusional in their belief. So who is right? Is right to you the majority opinion?"

Well, very good question. Back to validation. That is my standard. Yours is "if God says it is truth then it is." How do I know your God isn't delusional as well? There is some evidence to suggest he is. All you have to do is read the Bible. So if there is a hint of delusion, why should I buy into it? I don't want delusion running my life. I seek out clarity and knowledge. Not delusion. (BTW: I'm willing to admit that I am not "clear" 100% of the time. No one is. That's delusional as well. Sam Harris calls these "blind spots". I'm sure I have them. We all do. My job is to find them, challenge them and shake them down.)

You said, "As for making you believe the evidence for God's existence, I can't, only God can do that. And He confirms that deep down we know He exists but we suppress that truth in unrighteousness. There is no excuse, and one day we will answer to Him. He confirms that repeatedly by His word. You are the one who is making His out to be a liar, by discrediting His word, even though you have been made in His image and likeness in your ability to think and reason.'

That sounds delusional to me...

You said, "Lindajean, the Bible is part of the evidence ...."

It isn't evidence. More delusion.....

You asked, "Let's take the evidence for Christ first. Do you believe that there is any evidence that points to Him as a real person? If so what would you say that evidence is? After you disclose what you believe I will point out to you some of the evidences."

I believe there is some historical hypotheses that Jesus was actually a living, red-blooded person. I don't believe anyone has actually "proven" he existed. But I am willing to give people like you the benefit of the doubt that he probably existed as a man who tried to change the world, to challenge the politics of his day and to transform people's beliefs about how to be "decent" people. Once again, there is no evidence of this, only anecdotal stories that are not solid. But I think it is plausible or possible that a man named Jesus roamed the earth around 30 AD or thereabouts, that he challenged "authority" and was staked up on a cross as punishment and died a rather brutal death. But that is about all I can call possible or plausible to this story.

You said, "If you simply said you had an experience that you felt connected to the universe without saying it is a connection to the supernatural world, or God, then I would not discount that. I believe you can experience a connectedness---somehow our brains are wired to experience this---just as we are wired to experience other phenomenon like love, compassion....this is after all, part of being human."

Thank you for saying that. It is nice to know we can agree on something realistic.

You asked, "The question for you is how did our brains come to be wired like this? It shows design, from what, a random, chance, blind, non-intelligent beginning?"

That might be your defining question but it is not mine and personally I don't care if we never know the answer to it. I see it as chasing rainbows in the sky. It doesn't make my life any different or any better to have the answer to that question. What is important to me is that I can have certain subjective experiences and I can appreciate the experience without turning it into something "magical." I don't need magic to appreciate my life and all the wonder and beauty in it. I just appreciate it without having an explanation. Because in my world view, there probably is no explanation possible.

You state, "Faith in God rests on more than experience. We do not see God, He is not visible for He is Spirit, but His Word and Spirit confirm the truthfulness of what He says by what has been made, why it functions the way it does."

That's why it is called "faith" and that is why I don't accept it. And "experience" is all I've got. My own and others.

Thanks for the discussion. It has been honest and unpretentious...Sometimes a rarity on this blog.

Posted by: lindajean | March 1, 2008 12:35 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Hi Soja,

SOJA: "The Bible is a combination of history, allegory etc. It is necessary to learn to differentiate, without making simplistic literal interpretation which then turns out to have logical contradictions, including many historical and scientific errors."

What did you come to believe when you heard the Word of God, that what He said was truth, even though man can twist that truth? Is every word of His true?

In interpretation, how do you learn how to differentiate? This is an important point, a point that brings many into error over the Scriptures. I'm not saying that all Scripture is easy to interpret, not at all, but as with interpreting any language there is a need to interpret within the context and also plainly where it can be interpreted plainly. A case in point is your very next passage.

SOJA: "Could Noah's ark have, according to the measurements given in the OT, have acommodated all the animals of the world?"

First of all, God is the Master communicator. He did not say to bring all the animals of the world into the ark, just two of every kind and seven of certain kinds.

"You are to bring into the ark two of all living creatures, male and female, to keep them alive with you. Two of every kind of bird, two of every kind of animal and of every kind of creature that moves along the ground will come to you to be kept alive....Take with you seven of every kind of clean animal, a male and its mate, and also seven of every kind of bird, male and female, to keep their various kinds alive throughout the earth...." Genesis 6:19-20; 7:2, 3)

I would contend that "kind" is a classification that is used differently in the Bible than it is in a biological textbook. A horse, a zebra, a donkey are all the same kind, just like a lion, a leopard, a civet cat are all the same kind. As with humans, like the animals, God made us with the ability to adapt to over environments, to adapt in kind but not to change kinds. So it is not inconceivable to fit two of every kind on the ark, especially if the animals and creatures were young or babies. Considering the limited space this would be the smartest option, I would contend.

SOJA: "Jesus Himself taught with parables to explain spiritual truths. So why should not it be true of some of the other passages of Scripture."

It is true in some of the other passages, but Scripture always interprets Scripture and in passages like the Flood or Eden, they are not meant to be taken as a parable, but as an account of what took place, an historical narrative. God, in His word goes to great length to establish the genealogies of these people, tracing their descendants both before and after the Flood, because through these people the human lineage of the Messiah would be traced, in whom people from every tribe and tongue, men and women, free and slave would be saved.

Are you telling me that Noah was not a real person? Or Adam? If you are look again at the passages that speak of these events. If you believe he was, which parts of the Biblical account of him do you take as literal and which as figurative? I think this is important because it is exactly the kind of thing the atheist does in his reasoning of the Scriptures. He takes it as a mythic tale because a worldwide flood is something that we have never witnessed or can fathom, or a man living to 969 years of age is not something that man today has witnessed or can fathom, or the crossing of the Red Sea is not something that we have witnessed and cannot fathom. These are miracles, events that go against the natural order of things, which God orchestrated in showing His power.

But Jesus treated the Flood as an historical event, as did Peter and the author of Hebrews to name a few. (2 Peter 2:5; Hebrews 11:7)

So how do you determine the correct way of handling Scripture? (2 Timothy 2:15, 3:16) And as an allegory, how do you avoid it being open to any interpretation?

SOJA: "Could not a God who created this mind boggling universe not have had another solution to finding a wife for Cain besides mandating incest? How sad if you must stretch your imagination in that fashion to prove that every word in the Bible should be taken literally."

What do the Scriptures reveal? Is there any evidence in them to reveal such a scenario? Do we all trace our ancestry back to Adam and Eve as the Bible lays out in Genesis or were there many lines/branches along an evolutionary tree in which we descended from the apes? Where is the Biblical evidence for the last scenario?

Ask yourself what are you doing? Are you taking out of the Scriptures what they say or are you reading into them what you want them to say?

Which words are you going to believe are plain and which are allegory, and then which spin are you going to put on that allegory to make it conform to your own private interpretation? If you don't treat it as you would in reading any other language it can mean whatever you have fancied it to mean. Words in context have specific meaning relating to that context, so in other words, you need to determine if they are plain, literal, figurative by the context.

SOJA: "As you know Catholic priests are trained over a period of at least nine years for the priesthood. As part of their training they have to learn philosophy before they start learning theology. It does help to have intellectual discussions about God's word, and to do it with other people. The Catholic Church with all its faults did after all keep Christianity alive for fifteen centuries and influenced the history and civilization of Europe. One can experience God without any scholarly knowledge of Scripture."

God kept Christianity alive, not the Catholic church.

Yes, one can experience God without a scholarly knowledge of Scripture, but when ones knowledge of God is inaccurate there is a danger of apostasy and turning away from the faith, or making for oneself a god out of ones own imagination, instead of the God who is real. But if we do worship God in ignorance, the only reason we do not stray from the faith is for the fact that God keeps those He saves safe from falling by leading them into the truth. (John 10) Truth is narrow. You do not need a vast knowledge of Scripture, but you need to trust His word, for His word is truth and He did call us to worship Him with our whole being; mind, body, spirit and heart. (John 17:17) When two different views are held, one taking an historical narrative plainly and another turning it into a parable, who is right? Does the context give any reason for turning an historical narrative into an allegory or figurative speech or visa versa?

SOJA: "But when it comes to understanding more complex parts of Scripture, remember even Jesus spent a lot of time with the Rabbis of His day. Simplistic literal interpretations can get some things wrong."

So can simplistic allegorical interpretations.

SOJA: "Not all are called to preach. I can't quote the exact Bible verse (maybe Hebrews, letters of James, Peter or John) which explains that God has given each one a different gift. If everyone is forced to preach, it puts immense pressure on believers if they are expected to start preaching as soon as they have accepted the faith, especially if they are not called to preach. It is dangerous to have people who have not grown in the faith to start preaching. The ridiculous situation of preaching to convert Christians from other denominations is not uncommon."

Two points from your last paragraph,
1)"How then, can they call on the one they have not believed in? And how can they believe in the one of whom they have not heard? And how can they hear without someone preaching to them? And how can they preach unless they are sent?" (Romans 10:14-15a)

Can you answer me that?

Did Paul not give Timothy the charge to preach the Word; be prepared in season and out of season; correct, rebuke and encourage-with great patience and careful instruction. For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear." (2 Timothy 4:2-4)

In season and out of season, when it is popular to preach and when it is life threading or unpopular to preach, when one is open and when one is closed, etc.

So I ask, upon a person hearing the good news in Christ are they going to share it or are they going to keep it to themselves and watch others perish? It's like the parable of the talents or the hidden treasure. How do we use what we have been given and is what we have of exceedingly great joy that we are willing to risk persecution that others might believe also? (Matthew 25:14-30 or 13:44-46)

2)Yes, some Christians have a gift for preaching, for God has made it so, but are we not all compelled to tell others the Good News?

SOJA: "Of course you are right in presenting your point of view, but in a debate preaching is not appropriate. At least that is my personal opinion. I wish you would listen to the debate of Rabbi Wolpe. He is an example of how one should debate with anti-theists."

Preaching the Word of God is always appropriate, I would contend (2 Timothy 4:2-4), but I will agree that the manner of preaching is not always. I think that is where you have your main beef with me? We preach not only in words but in actions also.

SOJA: "By all means you should answer questions put to you. But that is not the same as preaching. Trying to force your faith on all without their willingness to listen may be the problem. Although I am religious myself, I would be irritated if someone tried to preach to me in every conversation. This is a debate. This is not a missionary venture."

"Convince a man against his will, he remains the same unchanged still."

I can never force my faith on someone who does not want to believe, but I can be faithful in proclaiming the faith that was once, for all delivered to the saints. I do not know in who's heart God is at work. What I have done will be shown for what it is when God examines the motives of my heart when I stand before the judgment seat of Christ. The important thing is whether what I have said is troubling to my conscience
(as it has been on numerous occasions) and whether I speak the truth of Scripture or not. As for this not being a missionary venture, how do you know that? How do you know whose life God's Word is working in?

"For My thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways My ways," declares the LORD. "As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are My ways higher than your ways and My thoughts higher than your thoughts. AS the rain and the snow come down from heaven, and do not return to it without watering the earth and making it bud and flourish, so that it yields seed for the sower and bread for the eater, so is My word that goes out of My mouth: It will not return to Me empty, but it will accomplish the purpose for which I have sent it."
(Isaiah 55:8-11)

SOJA: "So if you were to follow the rules of a debate, there should be no problem at all. There are other places and occasions where preaching would be the right thing to do, but this is not one of them. I'm sure I have made the error myself, trying to slip in a sermon or two without meaning to."

There again, I have a high regard for the Word of God; that it is in fact His very words to us. His word is able to express things more clearly than I ever could. Christ is the cornerstone and we should take care in how we build, I agree.

SOJA: "In order to do justice to the value of God's word, it is also necessary not to throw it at people who are not seeking it. Keep a debate a debate. Preach when it is right to preach. Knowing when to do what is the key."

Yes, I am aware of the Scripture that talks about throwing pearls....

"Since then, we know what it is to fear the Lord, we try to persuade men. What we are is plain to God, and I hope it is plain to your conscience...For Christ's love compels us, because we are convinced that One died for all, and therefore all died. And He died for all, that those who live should no longer live for themselves but for Him who died for them and was raised again...Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has gone the new has come! All this is from God, who reconciled us to Himself through Christ and gave US the ministry of reconciliation: that God was reconciling the world to Himself in Christ, not counting men's sins against them. We are therefore Christ's ambassadors, as though God were making His appeal through us. We implore you on Christ's behalf: Be reconciled to God. God made Him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in Him we might become the righteousness of God." (2 Corinthians 5:11, 14, 15, 17-21)

If the "us" in the previous passage does not include Christians alive today the message of Good News would have died out along with these early apostles of Christ.

Every one comes to the table with their own agenda. I did not come to this or any other forum merely to quarrel about words and ideas, but to proclaim the truth of Christ and give a reason for the hope within to the best of the ability that God has given me. This involves setting down every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God. (2 Corinthians 10:3-5) For me, that involves showing the inadequacy of any other belief in answering the important questions of life. As Christians we come boldly proclaiming the Good News. If I feel the time is right and feel I have outstayed my welcome, I will shake the dust off my feet and move on. In the mean time please pray for these dear people, that God would have mercy on them, for they will not believe unless He does, regardless of what is said.

SOJA: "Wishing you all the very best, even in your continued debate on this blog. It has been nice 'talking' to you."

Best wishes to you also!

Posted by: Peter Huff | March 1, 2008 3:31 AM
Report Offensive Comment

lindajean said:
"Bla,bla,bla".

What a ridiculous and pointless post that was. Oh my fricking god, I don't care for hippies, sitting around getting high and having orgies. BFD! Not to mention my reply was to Soja's statement that atheism was an "attempt to revive the hippie philosophy". As absurd as that statement is you had nothing to say about that, but god forbid I state that I don't like hippies! Do you like, pedophiles, drug addicts, rapists, Satan worshipers etc etc.. Well then all you have done is draw your line in a different place then I have!

"narrow and close-minded" is your self-absorbed, self-righteous rants about you own greatness! How that's chastisement :)

Posted by: Anonymous | February 29, 2008 9:04 PM
Report Offensive Comment

The following words to Gad are not words I take any pleasure at all in writing. Sometimes it is best to simply ignore the ignoble. But, alas, this blogger (in this instance) has a tendency to not follow her own wisest words and will no doubt pay a price.

Gad said, "Yes when your a teenager it seems that way, your empty and lost and looking to fill that hole inside and be found. That's a process, a phase not a philosophy. Hippies try and turn that into a philosophy, because they are losers, even as a teenager I couldn't stand to be around them and considered them worthless losers. As for meditation Vs drugs, six of one half dozen of the other, both are nothing more then attempts to avoid talking to ones self.........."

Your comments go beyond even "weird and wacky." They are ignorant, prejudicial and spiteful. That you "can't stand hippies" is a narrow and close-minded statement and strikes deeply at your unsophisticated, obstinate and nefarious nature. To feel disdain for others, who simply seek out alternative lifestyles, who cause little harm or malice towards others, belies your own prideful and arrogant frame of mind.

Likewise, your comment about meditation is so erroneous and maleficent it is extremely difficult for me to fathom where such ideas and thoughts can originate, take root and grow. Any self-proclaimed insights you claim to posses are actually shadows and are non-existent; that your understanding has never seen one inkling of light and that you know nothing of what you speak can result only in your prancing and parading under a dysfunctional and sorrowful charade.

I don't personally ascribe to chastisements and I find them painfully abhorrent. This is a free and open forum for you (Gad) as well, and I will defend your rights to speak and this forum's integrity until the end. Also I can in all honesty find redeeming qualities and much substance in many of your arguments. But sometimes moments such as this, that rear their ugly head, and when one's lack of mindfulness, education and uncultured tendencies transpire, it all must be called onto the table. Anything less is negligence, inattentiveness and sloppiness on my own part.

Posted by: lindajean | February 29, 2008 8:01 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Soja said:
"That by the way is my main gripe with religion bashers, the reason why it is hard to take them seriously. Ignoring masses of positive evidence for religion while focussing narrowly on the negative (fully explained with free will) is extremely bad science. All one-sided hysterical hot air produced by anti-theists deserve to be thrown into the rubbish heap!"

The above is why it is hard to take the religious seriously. Running around saying god is ALL good and perfect love, and when someone points out that god does horrible things they say your just focussing narrowly on the negative..... Please!

Freewill? LOL! Here meditate on this, if a man put a gun to your head and said he was going to slowly torture you to death in the most horrible way imaginable unless you satisfied his every desire, would that be OK? I mean whatever happens is based on your freewill, right. Well that is the same "freewill" choice god has given you, please his every desire or be tortured in hell forever! And let us not forget that god created everything and that includes HELL, the greatest negative of all, the gun that he holds at our heads.

Soja said:
"Atheists are going to be extremely disappointed if they think they can wipe out religion or faith in God with natural explanations"

That's the point unreasonable things can't be made reasonable by reason. Faith means without evidence or contrary to it. If I could some day take you back in time and show you that Jesus was not gods son, or maybe even didn't exist at all, even face to face with the evidence you would deny it and claim something like god changed the past to keep man faithful.

Posted by: GAD | February 29, 2008 8:00 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Soja said:
" Believers have nothing against any kind of explanation that atheists might think up."

Really? I don't think that you can speak for al believers, because clearly Peter has a problem with evolution, as do many believers.

Gad said:
"You closet Hippie! Drugs do not expand your mind and if you think they do, your still high or brain damaged!"

Do you have any evidence of this or are you just guessing?
Also, I didn't say "expand". Drugs can certainly alter perception and make you think about things that you would not otherwise have thought about. No one is saying that they are improving the mind, simply that they can be a way of temporarily altering perception for the purposes of experimentation. Also, without drugs, there would be no Pink Floyd music :)

Posted by: timmy | February 29, 2008 7:21 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Hi Linda

I'm sorry that I have not responded to the posts you addressed to me. I think they require no answers.

Reading your brilliantly articulated posts here has been useful to me. However from a believer's point of view, there is nothing to be said about an atheist's attempt to explain religion and the achievement of religion down the ages, as a purely natural phenomenon. Of course God who created nature works in it and through it. How else and where else would God work? How could God be missing from nature if He created it? But God is more than nature and is not nature itself (God is reflected and imminent in nature), just as an artist is more than his art, and is not his work of art itself, yet his work reflects him.

Go right ahead trying to explain everything as a purely natural phenomenon. It is still no evidence that God does not exist. The zillion year debate can go on... Believers have nothing against any kind of explanation that atheists might think up. It does not impact on their faith in the least. Atheists are going to be extremely disappointed if they think they can wipe out religion or faith in God with natural explanations. Science, to explore certain aspects of nature empirically, the creation of God, is very much a part of religion.

Best wishes
Soja

Posted by: Soja John Thaikattil, Sydney, Australia | February 29, 2008 6:38 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Hi Bernie

What I wrote in an earlier post seems to have gone missing, so I'll repeat.

Looking for love and sex on this serious discussion blog is like looking for gold in the rainforest. Some people win lotteries, but depending on lotteries is not the wisest way to live. Feelings evoked by online contacts can be dangerous if there is no real life component to it. Go out into the real world where you live and look...BTW, when I wrote 'love and peace' in my post addressed to Andy Ross on this public blog, it meant something, it was not virtual at all. It was written long after he signed off that way in a post addressed to me (Sally Quinn blog Feb 07). That very public blunder (very obvious on this thread) has taught me to take personal communication on a blog with a sack or two of salt. I am not a blog person at all. I merely post sporadic comments on The Post forum.

Iranian mothers sending out their children to clear minefields (if there is evidence they really did that) is the most macabre example of how religion was used to pervert a human mind. Please don't try the usual religion bashing atheist tactic to come up with negative examples of religion, while completely ignoring all the good religion has done. That by the way is my main gripe with religion bashers, the reason why it is hard to take them seriously. Ignoring masses of positive evidence for religion while focussing narrowly on the negative (fully explained with free will) is extremely bad science. All one-sided hysterical hot air produced by anti-theists deserve to be thrown into the rubbish heap!

Posted by: Soja John Thaikattil, Sydney, Australia | February 29, 2008 6:21 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Timmy said:
"I think that meditation and drugs are both methods of exploring the nature of ourselves, not avoiding it."

You closet Hippie! Drugs do not expand your mind and if you think they do, your still high or brain damaged!

Welcome back!

Posted by: GAD | February 29, 2008 4:54 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Hi Timmy!

Posted by: Peter Huff | February 29, 2008 4:53 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Soja said to Gad,

"Don't make judgments about meditation without first trying to find out more about it. Practicing it for thirty years without fail is a good place to start. Write your disdain after that."

I'm pretty sure that Gad has given meditation a good study before he commented on it. And I said "there's nothing wrong with a little experimentation". But 30 years, before you can comment? That's a little ridiculous. Everything in moderation. Except religion of course. With religion, it's all or nothing. A little religion makes no sense at all.

Posted by: timmy | February 29, 2008 1:20 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Hi guys,

Sorry I've been AWOL. I was working on the road and busy defending Sam Harris on another blog from accusations of being a racist. I felt that was more important to address than the accusation that he is not a true atheist. Anyway, myself and others put that idiot in his place, and now I'm back. I'm way behind on the discussion now, but I will try to catch up this weekend.

For now, I'll just comment on this little tidbit.

Gad said:
"As for meditation Vs drugs, six of one half dozen of the other, both are nothing more then attempts to avoid talking to ones self..........

Drugs make you stop talking to yourself? News to me. Speaking from personal experience, as a regular user of "the devil weed", I have to ask myself before I smoke every joint, "Okay, am I prepared for the conversation I am having with myself to go from 0 to 60 in a flash, for the next 3 hours?"

I think that meditation and drugs are both methods of exploring the nature of ourselves, not avoiding it. Nothing wrong with a little experimentation.

Posted by: timmy | February 29, 2008 1:04 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Hi Lindajean,

LJ: "What I am trying to determine with Gad is can a person have a transcendental experience (this "connectedness" I refer to) without believing, as you do, in a supernatural (God)?"

Would you not say that some practitioners of Buddhism do?

LJ: "I would suggest that if you (Peter Huff) feel a "connection" and you claim it is God, then I am going to refute that and question it because I have no evidence (and you have been unable to convince me with anything close to evidence) that what you are having is a relationship with God."

There is lots of evidence Linda jean. Your mindset will not look upon it that way.

But you and Gad bring up an interesting point from an atheist perspective, this idea of "connectedness" that supposedly arose from a physical, matter oriented beginning. If "connectedness" or for that matter logic, is just a brain function, an idea in response to an electro-chemical impulse that results when your atoms collide in a certain manner how does such a process arise from a blind, chaotic, order less, non-intelligent, chance beginning? And why should the same process happen with the same results over and over again? That suggests design. Are you proposing that there is a designer? Then you have taken your first baby step towards God!

How in a material universe do we even come up with concepts that are non-physical, non-material, intangible and intelligent? How can a non-intelligent "natural" process select anything let alone in a random disorderly manner? Are you proposing intelligence out there to arrange this matter and information in an orderly manner? Your second baby step towards God Linda jean!

Alright, I'm pulling your leg, but try explaining these things.

You can't point to one inorganic, non living material thing in this universe that can think and yet you suppose that life can come from such?

LJ: "But what I am saying to Gad is "How do you (Gad) explain the "connection" I feel to the universe realizing we are all connected on the physical world to it, since I hold no claims that it is supernatural?" In fact I deny any claims what-so-ever. I claim it is only an "experience" just as we humans encounter many, many experiences (subjective) throughout our lives."

If it is a subjective experience how do you know it is true? What authority but yourself do you appeal to? The subjective experience of someone else?

LJ: "If he claims that my connectedness feeling is delusional then he must also claim many other subjective experiences are delusional also. He doesn't seem to be able to explain to me why some experiences like love, compassion and ecstasy can be real but others (connectedness) are delusional. I am asking him to clarify for me how to determine which is real and which is not real. What are Gad’s criteria?"

You are raising some good points about his worldview, and yours.

As I have maintained all along, without God all it is is one subjective opinion against another. There is nothing to fix the concept of love or compassion or value or truth to. Whose word or position are you going to believe? It is just one person’s subjective idea opposed to another with the victor being the one who can amass the most votes in favor of his/her side or the one who can voluntarily conscript the most opposition.

LJ: "Peter, you, on the other hand are delusional because you believe any connectedness you feel is from something we have no evidence is real (God). You have been unable to convince any of us on this blog that anything you have claimed about God is real."

So we both claim the other is delusional in their belief. So who is right? Is right to you the majority opinion?

As for making you believe the evidence for God's existence, I can't, only God can do that. And He confirms that deep down we know He exists but we suppress that truth in unrighteousness. There is no excuse, and one day we will answer to Him. He confirms that repeatedly by His word. You are the one who is making His out to be a liar, by discrediting His word, even though you have been made in His image and likeness in your ability to think and reason.

LJ: "Unless you can give me something beyond your belief in the Bible, I will continue to call it delusional. And I don't need any "authority" (someone else's approval or your God) to make this conclusion; I am not discounting your evidence because up to this point in time there has simply been no evidence to discount. (I have discounted many of your words, but not any evidence.) Peter, please give me evidence, and then if I "discount" your evidence, evidence that is real and authentic (hence not Biblical which is counter-evidence) then you can accuse me of "discounting" on my limited knowledge. (Warning: if it is real evidence then I won't discount it so we won't have anything or much at all to argue about anymore, will we?)"

Again Lindajean, the Bible confirms over and over again that the man/woman without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God for they are foolishness to him/her. (1 Corinthians 2:14) It is not that there is no evidence, or that the evidence is illogical, it is that the evidence is not believed.

Lindajean, the Bible is part of the evidence I offer to you as proof of God's existence. You, as an atheist, would not take to defending your position of evolution without using evolutionary science. Why would I deny offering as proof to you the very thing that explains my worldview? You refuse to see it as the Word of God because you will not allow yourself to go there. There are many proofs, some of which are the impossibility of the contrary in explaining anything, especially values and truth. You need an objective, absolute, ultimate standard for value and truth. I would contend that the Bible as God's Word is evidence for God's existence, as is Jesus Christ and the creation we are apart of.

Let’s take the evidence for Christ first. Do you believe that there is any evidence that points to Him as a real person? If so what would you say that evidence is? After you disclose what you believe I will point out to you some of the evidences.

LJ: “If you simply said you had an experience that you felt connected to the universe without saying it is a connection to the supernatural world, or God, then I would not discount that. I believe you can experience a connectedness---somehow our brains are wired to experience this---just as we are wired to experience other phenomenon like love, compassion....this is after all, part of being human.”

The question for you is how did our brains come to be wired like this? It shows design, from what, a random, chance, blind, non-intelligent beginning?

Faith in God rests on more than experience. We do not see God, He is not visible for He is Spirit, but His Word and Spirit confirm the truthfulness of what He says by what has been made, why it functions the way it does.

“The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of His hands. Day after day the pour forth speech; night after night they display knowledge. There is no speech or language where their voice is not heard. Their voice goes out into all the earth, their words to the ends of the world.” (Psalm 19:1-4a)

From: February 23, 2008 12:08 PM

Posted by: Peter Huff | February 29, 2008 11:52 AM
Report Offensive Comment

I find this to be rewarding and revealing and the most forward writing with much thought an indeed truth. It makes one thin and look at the real truth. As you say religion does give you a feeling of comfort if you can beleive if you need it.
I say all this possibly bacause I too am an "Atheist". Thank you for your wonderful article and I do wish others would see the light.

Posted by: Rosalind T Brookman | February 29, 2008 10:35 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Hi Bernie

As far as the Ten Commandments go, I notice that you only have problem with worshipping God and the prohibition of adultery. At least that is something - atheists and believers have some common ground.

God's commandments are based on love (I get terribly annoyed when the word love and sex are used as synonyms) for all human beings, including the weak ones. It is thus about protection of the weak from the oppression of the abusive and exploitative strong. Of course commandments must be understood in spirit and in truth. People who don't do that get stuck on trifles and externals. That is what Jesus taught through His life and example. Obedience to God's commandments based on love for Him and love for all human beings is what real religion is about. The Judeo-Christian belief is that we are all born with a sinful nature, and we tend to selfishness. Reminder that there is a God who cares for all and will hold us accountable is not meant to threaten anyone, but to force us to treat others as we would like to be treated.

You are the one who has never been really in love if you think a "little on the side" aka adultery, is perfectly normal and the partner who is being cheated is not hurt by it.

Crying into one's beer and talking of love for the children doesn't count as love either.

Thank you for your kind words. If I were you, I wouldn't bother to waste my flattery on a woman like me. I'm hopelessly immune to it if I'm not in love. (Falling in love happens to me about once in ten years!) Platonic friendships with males is another matter, but I wouldn't want it to be built on such flattery. Trying to lace everything with eroticism simply spoils friendships.

Posted by: Soja John Thaikattil, Sydney, Australia | February 29, 2008 8:06 AM
Report Offensive Comment

GAD wrote:

G'day Soja!

That was more weird and wacky then LJ's post! I have no idea how you got from atheism to hippie philosophy.........

"promiscous sex (known as "love") plus drugs plus rock an' roll = utopia"

Yes when your a teenager it seems that way, your empty and lost and looking to fill that hole inside and be found. That's a process, a phase not a philosophy. Hippies try and turn that into a philosophy, because they are losers, even as a teenager I couldn't stand to be around them and considered them worthless losers. As for meditation Vs drugs, six of one half dozen of the other, both are nothing more then attempts to avoid talking to ones self..........

February 28, 2008 11:28 AM

-------------

G'day GAD!

Look at the thanks I get for trying to help! ;)

If you can do better than that, then by all means prove it! I can't be better than myself you know. I never claim to know it all, but I try to be open to learning and understanding other points of view, no matter how weird and wacky they may sound at first. LJ is an extremely bright and eloquent atheist. I admire her writing and fervor but alas
atheists even as bright as she is are going to have a hard time proving that their ideas are original. Borrowing from the work of religion done over millennia and then expressing it with fancy vocabulary still counts as plagiarism.

Don't make judgments about meditation without first trying to find out more about it. Practicing it for thirty years without fail is a good place to start. Write your disdain after that.

Posted by: Soja John Thaikattil, Sydney, Australia | February 29, 2008 7:43 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Heres one of my favorite commentaries on the 10 commandments.

http://www.flamewarrior.com/tencomm.htm

General reference (info most theist don't know).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ten_Commandments

Posted by: GAD | February 29, 2008 1:48 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Soja: “Please reflect on Commandments 3-10 and see if they have any positive social implications.”

Well OK Soja, since there’s nae dispute the 1st two commandments could only emanate from some dementit, deranged, critter let’s ha’e a look at numbers 3 tae 10.

Honour yer faithir ‘n yer mithir… well it all depends what kinda faithir ‘n mithir ye get! Check with the poet who has been voted in these parts as the greatest of all 20th century poets, which is tae say, Phil Larkin, and see what he has tae say about parents in his ‘This Be the Verse”

Soja: “Keeping the Sabbath day holy: Using one day in the week tae rest, pray and be with the family, keeps the family sense of community”

Aye, keepin’ the Sabbath holy can be that strict (as Jesus found for hisel’) it can be taken tae crazy lengths.

Soja: “Not to kill…useful?” But Soja! What ordinary, decent human being would not be aware that ‘not tae kill’ was MORE than useful? Humans already knew that long afore a murderous stonemason carved it out in salt tablets for that other psychopathic killer, Moses!

Soja: “Not only not steal, but do not even covet a neighbour’s goods which is theft” Well me thinks jist coveting a neighbour’s goods is hardly theft! And we all know well anuff to steal from another is definitely wrong.

Soja: “Not only not commit adultery, but do not even covet another man's wife, which leads to adultery…. “
But Soja, there are many and various reasons for ‘a bit on the side’ other than what you cite. In any case Jesus considered adultery less than a capital offence and for why? Because he musta known that most o’ us daffy humans are programmed that way!

Soja: “Not to bear false witness against another”.
Again Soja, humans knew to do that was wrong long afore the critter in the burnin’ bush (none other than Auld Nick hisel!… nae wunner the bush was burnin’!) drilled it out on the salt tablet with his wee Bunsen burner!

Soja: “Worshipping only God ensures that we do not worship fallible human beings whose love is fleeting, whose accomplishments, while worthy of admiration, is not worthy of worship”

So ye’ve never been in love Soja! Ye’ve never really been in love! Nor, it’s plain tae see, have ye ever known what it is tae cherish a child of yer own or ye couldnae come away with sich empty platitudes !

Take if frae me Soja, no matter what others tell ye, it is impossible for a normal human being tae love a chimera, an imaginary being, more than another human being no matter how fleetingly! Unless some kind o’ hypnotic subterfuge is used it’s just not possible. If ye can be convinced otherwise then you would, e.g. no doubt be prepared as Iranian parents were for their children to run across minefields to clear the way for the Iranian regular Army in the Iraq Iran war! Even now it still upsets me to remember how despite promises of going straight to Paradise lots of those children were still frightened but forced to run hand in hand over the mines all the while being blown up right and left!

As for tenth edict that goes on about covetin’ sich as yer neighbours ox an even his ass, nuff said!

Despite all the above I have tae say the picture I have built up o’ ye is as a charming, dusky, sloe-eyed gal in early forties with what I’d bet is a seductive speaking voice, in other words ye'er a right wee vamp!
If only ye were hereabouts I’d love tae invite ye tae have a look at my etchings and even discuss yer beloved W. Shakespeare. Oh aye, I’m a fan as well for how astonishing is the range o’ that Bard’s language, the way it is at one and the same time sae rich and so exact, so descriptive and yet so melodic that the cadences of his verse seem themselves to become a form of perception. If WS had written just the one play, the shortest one, which is tae say ‘Macbeth’ and even as we have it with the missing parts, it would still seem tae me the work o’ a god!

And let me tell ye Soja something a lot of us hereabouts know about the King James Bible. Fr’instance it is a fact Shakespeare had a covert hand in the translation. Well, jist look at this: In 1610, as the Revision Committee met in Stationers' Hall in London to prepare the work for publication the following year, Shakespeare was 46; and the 46th word from the beginning of the 46th psalm, and the 46th word from the end, are "shake" and "spear" respectively.
This kind of word-game is not out of character with someone who delighted in puns and puzzles, and it is also a plausible personal signature, a discrete Easter Egg, possible in a project that was, with good purpose, intended to be as anonymous as possible -- the members of the commission weren't interested in tooting their own horn; they simply wanted to make the Bible accessible.
The King James Bible still stands. Revisions and alternative translations and gross simplifications have flooded the market, but the Authorized Version packs a stranger, more powerful lyrical punch. Shakespeare's hand would not alone account for its durability, but I’m sure ye’ll agree the possibility adds an odd, attractive piece to that particular puzzle: Why is it that this version of the Bible rings deeper than subsequent adaptations? There is no real answer, and the question itself is dubious: Is the King James Version really better than the rest? For sure I think it is. How say you?

Posted by: Bernie Bee | February 29, 2008 12:31 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Sam Harris is my hero... at last someone to stand up to religious hegemony.. His book End of Faith has changed my life.

Hopefully we can begin to provide the proper level of ridicule and scorn to people like the Republican candidates for President who stood up on TV and proclaimed they didn't believe in evolution. Instead of faith being seen as a "virtue", it should be seen for what it is -- a dangerous product of lazy thinking.

Go get 'em Sam !!

Posted by: mark kesler | February 28, 2008 12:09 PM
Report Offensive Comment

G'day Soja!

That was more weird and wacky then LJ's post! I have no idea how you got from atheism to hippie philosophy.........

"promiscous sex (known as "love") plus drugs plus rock an' roll = utopia"

Posted by: GAD | February 28, 2008 11:28 AM
Report Offensive Comment

PS Bernie

On a final note on this never ending debate: God exists - no He doesn't and your negative mention of the first two commandments:

Please reflect on Commandments 3- 10 and see if they have any positive social implications.

Honouring father and mother ensures that older people are not discarded as rejects when their utility has ended;

Keeping the Sabbath day holy: Using one day in the week to rest, pray and be with the family, keeps the family and sense of community;

Not to kill -- useful?

Not only not steal, but do not even covet neighbour's good which leads to theft;

Not only not commit adultery, but do not even covet another man's wife, which leads to adultery. - Saves a lot of heartache and unnecessary competition, energy can be used in other creative pursuits, keeps the family together, provides secure environment for children, sense of belonging, no lonely elderly women and widows (because men have moved on to younger versions of wives), makes sure the physically advantaged do not get an over abundance of partners while the less fortunate are left out in the cold...God wants everyone to be happy you know, even the weakest;

Not to bear false witness against another;

Worshipping only God ensures that we do not worship fallible human beings whose love is fleeting, whose accomplishments, while worthy of admiration, is not worthy of worship...Loving and admiring the accomplishment of a human being without worship ensures that the person does not have undue power over us. We can accept the failings of human beings better in our stride, including our own failings if we do not give in to the illusion of being gods or making gods of anyone.

Posted by: Soja John Thaikattil, Sydney, Australia | February 28, 2008 5:02 AM
Report Offensive Comment

G'day GAD!

I wish to share a couple of thoughts on interpreting the lastest posts you found difficulty with.

The personal impression I get is this (I could well be wrong, and I am sharing my thoughts only for your consideration):

It seems to be an attempt to revive the hippie philosophy:

promiscous sex (known as "love") plus drugs plus rock an' roll = utopia

promiscuous sex is called "free love,"meditation has taken the place of drugs to achieve that "feeling of oneness" (which seems to apply only in an erotic sense as the hippies did, and the oneness and universal "love" is mostly restricted to objects of erotic desire) and sing John Lennon's "Imagine."

Once you do that I think the sense would become clearer, even if it is all clothed in sophisticated vocabulary, and the word atheism, passion and reason has been added to detach itself from the hippie scene which is a well known failed experiment.

I would be more than happy if it is all truly new, and to be mistaken in my present interpretation.

I hope that helps.

Best wishes
Soja

Posted by: Soja John Thaikattil, Sydney, Australia | February 28, 2008 4:49 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Hi Bernie

I thought I ought to add that I love Shakespeare much more than Kahlil Gibran. Shakespeare's language and knowledge of human nature is miles ahead of Kahlil Gibran. Gibran's thoughts are sometimes too New Agey for my taste. I could critique some of his writing from the point of view of a Christian.

You have infected me with your love of English poetry on the Sam Harris blog. Thank you for your carefully selected poems. I have loved reading your Scotch, and I'm sure you are a fun person to be around.

Take good care of yourself always.

Best wishes
Soja

Posted by: Soja John Thaikattil, Sydney, Australia | February 28, 2008 4:36 AM
Report Offensive Comment

GAD:

You said, "Your last post to me was just so weird and wacky, I don't know what to say. Maybe I'll find the energy later to try hack though it, but I doubt it. Just letting you know."
Well, thank you for letting me know. I appreciate such open communication.

Well, of course my words seem "weird and wacky" to you!

It's apparent from some of your recent posts that you are "over-worked", "worn-out", "working more than one hour per week", lacking "energy", etc...

All work and no play makes Gad a dull boy.

There must be nothing more boring, trite and dim than a man who works too many hours.

So here is a friendly suggestion:

Seek out some diversions, pleasures and joy.
Put aside this silly blog for a moment, push yourself away from the computer and take a few days off from the office.

"Grab some beer, a bag of candy and some girls...." as you would say.

Because you are in need of something!

Take heart, act accordingly, make haste and I promise when you return you will see things in a whole new light.

And after you've had some well deserved R and R, if you want to continue this conversation, I am game. And if not we'll agree to disagree (once again).

BTW: Thanks for the two links. I am reading them.

Posted by: lindajean | February 27, 2008 6:34 PM
Report Offensive Comment

This article seemed relevant to current discussions.

Consciousness is Nothing but a Word:
http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/08-02-27.html

Consciousness:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consciousness

Posted by: GAD | February 27, 2008 12:16 PM
Report Offensive Comment

PS Bernie:

Many, many thanks for the poems you posted on the Sam Harris blog. I have enjoyed every one of them. I don't react emotionally to them as I explained over and over again.

I do wish that you will find love and companionship in real life. I have enjoyed 'meeting' you on this blog, enjoyed reading your arguments against God and religions, even though I disagree with everyone of them.

Wishing you whatever it is that you wish for yourself, as long as it makes you truly happy and it is for your best.

Best wishes
Soja

Posted by: Soja John Thaikattil, Sydney, Australia | February 27, 2008 7:18 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Hi Peter

Thanks for your post. Here a quick response. It is not in the best interests of this debate with anti-theists to start a side show of debate between Christians. So I hope you understand why I think a long drawn discussion between us is not appropriate here.

PETER:

So to you Soja, is there any history in the Bible? Did God actually reveal Himself to an historical people, or do we just take that as figurative speech? Did the Israelites actually sacrifice animals as an atonement in the OT to be obedient and right with God and to have fellowship with Him, and did Jesus actually come into history as a Man, did He actually die on a cross, did He actually pay the penalty for sin for those He died for? (Matthew 1:21) Did God actually make Adam and Eve and place them in Eden? If He didn't, then was Jesus lying when He said, "But in the beginning of creation God made them male and female." (Mark 10:6; Matthew 19:4) Is the Bible lying when it says that sin entered the world through one man, and in this way death came to all men? (Romans 5:12) How about the many accounts in the Book of Acts and elsewhere? (Acts 2:22-24; 5:30; 7:2-53: Hebrews 1:1-2, etc, etc)

When the passage speaks in terms of an historical narrative why would you take it as a figurative narrative? You don't do that when you read any other historical narrative unless the narrative gives you license to do so do you? If the passage gives no indication to do so, how do you know you are rightly interpreting the Scriptures by interpreting it figuratively? For that matter, is there a right way of interpreting the Scriptures and does it go against logic? (2 Timothy 2:15; 3:16)
The Scriptures also interpret the Scriptures. What gives one warrant to read into God's word something that He has not said? This is an important point.
Take for instance Jesus' parable about the Sower and the Seed. The clear meaning is explained by Jesus Himself. (Luke 8:1-15; Matthew 13:2-23; Mark 4:1-20) If the Scriptures where not precise in their meaning anyone could interpret them in any way they like and bring to the context any means so desired (and this happens - that is why there are many cults and sects that deny the fundamental teaching of Scripture). If I interpret a Scripture one way and you another, both having contradictory meanings, who is right? Can the Scriptures mean anything you want them to? No because the Scriptures reveal as much. We need to interpret as God has said, not reading into them something that is not there; in other words, the Author's meaning, not the reader's meaning, what is actually said, not one wants the Scriptures to say because it fits into their pet philosophy of life.

SOJA:

The Bible is a combination of history, allegory etc. It is necessary to learn to differentiate, without making simplistic literal interpretation which then turns out to have logical contradictions, including many historical and scientific errors. Could Noah's ark have, according to the measurements given in the OT, have acommodated all the animals of the world? Jesus Himself taught with parables to explain spiritual truths. So why should not it be true of some of the other passages of Scripture.
Could not a God who created this mind boggling universe not have had another solution to finding a wife for Cain besides mandating incest? How sad if you must stretch your imagination in that fashion to prove that every word in the Bible should be taken literally.
As you know Catholic priests are trained over a period of at least nine years for the priesthood. As part of their training they have to learn philosophy before they start learning theology. It does help to have intellectual discussions about God's word, and to do it with other people. The Catholic Church with all its faults did after all keep Christianity alive for fifteen centuries and influenced the history and civilization of Europe. One can experience God without any scholarly knowledge of Scripture. But when it comes to understanding more complex parts of Scripture, remember even Jesus spent a lot of time with the Rabbis of His day. Simplistic literal interpretations can get some things wrong.

PETER:
So are you saying that Jesus did not die a physical death on a cross as a propitiation for your sin?
SOJA:
Of course I do believe Jesus died a physical death, was crucified and rose from the dead. I believe in the Trinity. Remember my Hindu ancestors were converted to Christianity within nineteen years of the Resurrection of Jesus by none less than Apostle Thomas who needed the most convincing about the event.
PETER:
Yes, the context reveals whom is being spoken to and some of the principles applied specifically, but all Scripture is beneficial for our learning. The question becomes, "Is God able to communicate effectively to His creatures?" Is He who created all things able to preserve His communication to us, and in a way that it is still His sovereign, inerrant, infallible word? (Matthew 24:35; Psalm 119:160; Proverbs 30:6; John 17:17, etc)
SOJA:
All Scripture is beneficial for our learning. I agree. God also communicates through reason, our intellect and through the words of people alive today. That is what Jesus meant that He would send the Holy Spirit to teach us. If Jesus is alive, then one should not be surprised that He continues to teach through the power of the Holy Spirit even today.

PETER:
I disagree. It takes faith on both the part of the Atheist and the Christian to believe, since neither were around at the beginning and have to interpret the evidence according to their worldview, their basic presuppositions. Beginnings is not something that can be duplicated.
SOJA:
Have you read any argument here that has not been discussed several times before? This debate is old. It is just that it was confined to philosophers and theologians. Our egos can get so easily trapped in a discussion such as this. What exactly are you trying to achieve? Anti-theists are not looking for God. They are actively bashing religions. That is not the place to preach. Jesus preached only to those who wanted to listen. People who came to Him with questions He answered without trying to convert them. Jesus set an example. The disciples also set an example of how they went about preaching. It is wise to learn from them.
PETER:
Are you and I as Christians not told to preach the gospel, to tell others the good news? (Matthew 28:19; Romans 10:14-17; Mark 13:10; Philippians 1:15-18; 1 Peter 3:15, etc)
To me this forum is an exchange of ideas in which different worldviews are all competing for validity, claiming their views are true, because why would anyone believe something they thought was not true? I like to point out that without the Christian God it is hard to make sense of truth. That is pre-evangelism in that it goes to the root problem of epistemology, how can we know anything as truth unless there is an ultimate, absolute, objective reality that is God.

SOJA:
Not all are called to preach. I can't quote the exact Bible verse (maybe Hebrews, letters of James, Peter or John) which explains that God has given each one a different gift. If everyone is forced to preach, it puts immense pressure on believers if they are expected to start preaching as soon as they have accepted the faith, especially if they are not called to preach. It is dangerous to have people who have not grown in the faith to start preaching. The ridiculous situation of preaching to convert Christians from other denominations is not uncommon.
Of course you are right in presenting your point of view, but in a debate preaching is not appropriate. At least that is my personal opinion. I wish you would listen to the debate of Rabbi Wolpe. He is an example of how one should debate with anti-theists.

PETER:
I'm expressing myself through my faith. People have told me in the past that they do not want to chat with me any longer and I have respected their wishes, unless/until they started up the conversation again. When you are not welcome any longer the example that Jesus gave the disciples was to move on, to shake the dust off the feet so to speak. Some of the people on this forum are still asking questions as to the relevance of Christianity, all the time denying it of course, since they believe their own worldview is true. I'm testing the spirit, the authority, the truth of their presuppositions to the best of my ability, which at times I admit is not that good. These are smart and worldly people. But they are not able to answer the whys and the hows with anything but absurdity.

SOJA:
By all means you should answer questions put to you. But that is not the same as preaching. Trying to force your faith on all without their willingness to listen may be the problem. Although I am religious myself, I would be irritated if someone tried to preach to me in every conversation. This is a debate. This is not a missionary venture. So if you were to follow the rules of a debate, there should be no problem at all. There are other places and occasions where preaching would be the right thing to do, but this is not one of them. I'm sure I have made the error myself, trying to slip in a sermon or two without meaning to.
PETER:
Thank you! It is not about me or my views, it is about Him. I constantly reflect on the most effective way of proclaiming the Good News all the time. To every person it requires different approaches. Some people are not ready to hear the gospel. They need to know why the Christian worldview is sensible. That delves into the issues that any viable worldview needs to answer; why are we here, is there meaning and purpose, how do we know, why is it important, who cares. I have a hard time is answering some questions. They are not easy to find an answer to. But it is God alone who can bring a person to faith by the preaching of His word, not you or I. (1 Corinthians 3:5-15)

SOJA:
In order to do justice to the value of God's word, it is also necessary not to throw it at people who are not seeking it. Keep a debate a debate. Preach when it is right to preach. Knowing when to do what is the key.
Do make your arguments by all means, but do not expect anti-theists to change their minds based on them. You are doing an admirable job with great patience and placidity.

Wishing you all the very best, even in your continued debate on this blog. It has been nice 'talking' to you.

Best wishes
Soja

Posted by: Soja John Thaikattil, Sydney, Australia | February 27, 2008 6:05 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Sojo said:
"See why I am alone?"

Sadly yes, you have no self esteem and you try and fill that hole with religion and tell yourself if you don't have love then god didn't want it to be. But even an atheist knows that god doesn't "make" someone love you or "make" them stop loving you.

Posted by: GAD | February 27, 2008 2:18 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Lindajean:

Your last post to me was just so weird and wacky, I don't know what to say. Maybe I'll find the energy later to try hack though it, but I doubt it. Just letting you know.

Posted by: GAD | February 27, 2008 1:40 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Hi Lindajean,

I did post in response to your last post. For some reason it did not take. I will repost Friday.

Posted by: Peter Huff | February 26, 2008 10:08 PM
Report Offensive Comment

It's good for yer sowel Lindajean that ye found the quoted excerpt, and that ye obviously liked what ye found jist as I'm sure Soja will too.

I shooda telt ye all ye had tae dae was type intae Google 'A thing of beauty' which wooda provided all ye needed as the whole poem is rather lengthy, but believe me, even with all the allusions tae Greek myth, still worth reading all the way through.
Well the story goes that the beautiful youth Endymion, a son o' Zeus, captivated so many goddesses, (never mind teeny boppers!), tae sich an extent they begged for him tae stay as sweet as he was forever, never tae grow old so the poor lad was put tae sleep tae preserve his youth 'n beauty but even as a somnambulent he still impregnated fifty an more gals which seems tae me less far-fetched than the virin birth myth.
So without going intae it too deeply here, bring back Greek mythology sez I!

Posted by: Bernie Bee | February 26, 2008 8:44 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Hi Gad,

You said, "Well, I thought it was clear from the beginning.........."

It's only clear if you are under the impression that you know what you are talking about.

In the meantime, those who don't know what you are talking about, are suppose to make logical sense from what you are talking about?

And your response is an explanation that has been "clear from the beginning?"

LOL!

I beg to differ.

Frankly, I have doubts that this is an honest discussion anymore.

It seems more of a mockery or word game when I read this gobbly-goop:
"... Knowing/believing that that is an "illusion" riding on top of genetic programing doesn't seem to affect those feelings at all, but it does greatly affect how I perceive feelings such as "connectedness to the universe"......

Let's just turn the tables on this with the following:

Knowing/believing that it is an illusion [feeling connected to the universe], riding on top of the genetic programming doesn't affect those feelings at all [feeling like I'm connected to the universe], but it does greatly affect how I perceive feelings such as loving your own children....

If I read you correctly, you are stating your own genetic programming and illusions are valid and mine are not.

Yet, you fail to give sound reason to back up your opinion.

The real question to pose is: So what?
Gad had different perceptions than me.
Gad has different illusions than me.
Gad has different genetically programed "feelings" than me.

What brilliance!

Because it is not my feelings that make "connectedness" valid. It is the fact I am human and I'm capable of having these experiences/illusions without making unsubstantiated claims about these experiences. And likewise for you. And whether one experiences connectedness to the universe, love of one's children, or something different altogether, what needs to come to light is that each experience is personal, unique and certainly worthy of consideration and contemplation.

To ignore these factors is to ignore our "humaness".

But that's just my opinion.......

Posted by: lindajean | February 26, 2008 5:54 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Hey, BB, I found it:

A THING of beauty is a joy for ever:
Its loveliness increases; it will never
Pass into nothingness; but still will keep
A bower quiet for us, and a sleep
Full of sweet dreams, and health, and quiet breathing. 5
Therefore, on every morrow, are we wreathing
A flowery band to bind us to the earth,
Spite of despondence, of the inhuman dearth
Of noble natures, of the gloomy days,
Of all the unhealthy and o’er-darkened ways 10
Made for our searching: yes, in spite of all,
Some shape of beauty moves away the pall
From our dark spirits. Such the sun, the moon,
Trees old and young, sprouting a shady boon
For simple sheep; and such are daffodils 15
With the green world they live in; and clear rills
That for themselves a cooling covert make
’Gainst the hot season; the mid forest brake,
Rich with a sprinkling of fair musk-rose blooms:
And such too is the grandeur of the dooms 20
We have imagined for the mighty dead;
All lovely tales that we have heard or read:
An endless fountain of immortal drink,
Pouring unto us from the heaven’s brink........

Posted by: lindajean | February 26, 2008 8:39 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Lindajean said:
"Thank you for answering my question. It was a long time coming...."

Well, I thought it was clear from the beginning..........

Lindajean said:
"By saying this you are dismissing all experiences you personally have had in your lifetime as simply illusions. Experiences with your children that induce feelings of love, caring and connectedness are not real?"

I don't dismiss anything, I accept them for what they are, virtual. I "feel" everything for my children, my life and my happiness are second to their life and their happiness. Knowing/believing that that is an "illusion" riding on top of genetic programing doesn't seem to affect those feelings at all, but it does greatly affect how I perceive feelings such as "connectedness to the universe"......

Posted by: GAD | February 25, 2008 7:33 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Gad:

Thank you for answering my question. It was a long time coming....

You have stated subjective experiences are illusions. By saying this you are dismissing all experiences you personally have had in your lifetime as simply illusions. Experiences with your children that induce feelings of love, caring and connectedness are not real?

Perhaps you are saying you never feel such experiences? You've never experienced ecstasy or joy or love?

If not, then what exactly do you experience? Nothing? You, Gad the blogger doesn't have subjective experiences?

Posted by: lindajean | February 25, 2008 6:11 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Bernie Bee:

You said, "Well now Lindajean, since it does take a minimum o' two tae make a marriage then, if ye follow me, a certain amount o' ambiguity can creep in when ye come away with 'never the twain shall meet' in sich a context. After all could mean unconsummated marriage?"

Well, yes dear blogger, you can certainly insinuate any meaning imaginable with whatever words you choose to do so. But I can counter your interpretation by saying your are way off the cuff on that one, and while I attribute none of it to your self-professed "dirty mind", I would be extremely inclined to believe you have an overly active imagination.

You said, "Also the repetitive reference tae pizza where ye go on about, 'I like to eat pizza every night', 'I will give up my freedom tae eat pizza', 'might sacrifice my desire tae eat pizza every night', 'giving up pleasures (eating pizza every night)' made me wonder if the insistence on repeatin' pizza was in case we might think it really wasn't pizza ye were on about! Like I say, reminded me of that build up for what would be 'afters' upstairs in that randy film."

Be that as it may, I am also inclined to remind you that my "pizza" argument was a hypothetical; not to be taken with any degree of literalism in mind, but as a mechanism for making a (valid) point to Timmy (that) in the true spirit of marriage there most certainly is an expectation that a healthy marriage requires some degree of negotiation and compromise to survive. I wasn't "on about" anything except to say that sometimes marriage requires a few changes in our behaviors and a few minor losses of freedom.

Our seed-spreading blogger, on the other hand, holds counter views to that which you seem to be in agreement with me on. He espouses that marriage ought to simply be a free-for-all; a do-your-own-thing; a whatever-I-want- arrangement that automatically ensures everyone's immediate and steadfast happiness.

BTW: this an almost perfect example of never-the-twain-shall-meet minus, of course, the physical/sensual domain.

Timmy, seemingly, believes anything less than this results in a marriage poisoned and rife with jealousies, insecurities and insincerities..

LOL! How can such a man go so wrong?

You said, "And how could it be anything else [a sewer] since the human brain has for its base the reptilian brain that is still there? No doubt Peter will find something in his Bumper Book o' Magic tae tell us the reptile part o' our brains was put there as one o' his god's wee jokes in mem'ry o' the talkin' snake thingy in Eden?

Maknind may have a "sewer" for a mind but I would guess much of the reptilian demeaner is more about all of his violent nature and his inability to control his emotions at times to the detriment of others. As far as I'm concerned the sewer part of it is benign compared to the violent part.

You said, "But it is a fact, us humans have a right high, auld opinion o' oursels compared wi the rest o' creation. It takes a Robert Burns with his, "O wad some Power the giftie gie us, tae see oursels as ithirs see us!" And that southern Bard, Will Shakespeare who described mankind as, 'a poor forked animal', 'chance product o' this dungy earth.'Aye, right anuff, we shoudnae get too far above oursels."

Are you directing those words to you, me or someone else or just people in general?

Keats is his own form of beauty, but you failed to give me the title of the poem. A google search shows about 150 published poems of his. Hard to track it down.

Posted by: lindajean | February 25, 2008 6:02 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Lindajean said:
"So I suggest we call it "an illusion.""

OK. BTW when would you say an illusion becomes a delusion?

Lindajean said:
"And an addendum to this remark: There is nothing supernatural about experiencing this illusion. Likewise with this experience of "connectedness." Do you agree with this statement also?"

As long as you understand that it is only an illusion in your mind.

Lindajean said:
"You have not answered my question about other non-material experiences such as love, compassion, etc."

All the same, illusions.........

Posted by: GAD | February 24, 2008 10:05 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Well now Lindajean, since it does take a minimum o’ two tae make a marriage then, if ye follow me, a certain amount o’ ambiguity can creep in when ye come away with ‘never the twain shall meet’ in sich a context. After all could mean unconsummated marriage?

Also the repetitive reference tae pizza where ye go on about, ‘I like to eat pizza every night’, ‘I will give up my freedom tae eat pizza’, ‘might sacrifice my desire tae eat pizza every night’, ‘giving up pleasures (eating pizza every night)’ made me wonder if the insistence on repeatin’ pizza was in case we might think it really wasn’t pizza ye were on about! Like I say, reminded me of that build up for what would be ‘afters’ upstairs in that randy film.

The rest was another o’ my wee jokes, (‘a dirty mind is a joy forever’, ‘marriage is a duty that can annoy for ever’) a play on the lovely words of John Keats’ poem that begins:

“A thing of beauty is a joy forever
“Its loveliness increases; it will never
“Pass into nothingness; but still will keep
“A bower quiet for us, and a sleep
“Full of sweet dreams, and health, and quiet breathing.
(Ye should Google the complete poem for ye’r sure tae like it)

Fact is, my durty mind is no different from anyone else’s, since after all, the human mind has been accurately described as a sewer! And how could it be anything else since the human brain has for its base the reptilian brain that is still there? No doubt Peter will find something in his Bumper Book o’ Magic tae tell us the reptile part o’ our brains was put there as one o’ his god’s wee jokes in mem’ry o’ the talkin’ snake thingy in Eden?

But it is a fact, us humans have a right high, auld opinion o’ oursels compared wi the rest o’ creation. It takes a Robert Burns with his, “O wad some Power the giftie gie us, tae see oursels as ithirs see us!” And that southern Bard, Will Shakespeare who described mankind as, ‘a poor forked animal’, ‘chance product o’ this dungy earth.’
Aye, right anuff, we shoudnae get too far above oursels.

Posted by: Bernie Bee | February 24, 2008 4:49 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Gad:

You said, "If feeling connected to the universe is all in your head; a genetically programmed response to a pattern match, then believing that you actually connected to the universe could fall under delusion; something that is believed to be true or real but that is actually false or unreal.In any case, perhaps delusion is to strong a word, what other word do you like better that fits the context?"

Well there are 2 different ideas getting tossed around here that need to be looked at.

1. If I experience something we are calling "connectedness" and you believe it is not real and are willing to call it "delusional" I would argue that word is overkill. To be truly delusional, one would have to be delusional about much of reality, not simply an experience such as the one I am describing. So I suggest we call it "an illusion." Just as when I gaze at the full moon low on the horizon, it looks much bigger than when it is directly over my head. This is an illusion because as the moon rises it does not actually get any smaller. I only think it does because of some mathematical and optical/sensory explanation about how my eyes and brain are perceiving it. So (hypothetically) if I experience something we call "connectedness" but it is only a sensory experience and not real, it is actually an illusion not a delusion. Do you agree?

And an addendum to this remark: There is nothing supernatural about experiencing this illusion. Because I think I see the moon as a larger circle in the sky on the horizon, and a smaller circle directly overhead does not mean I am having any supernatural beliefs about it. Likewise with this experience of "connectedness." Do you agree with this statement also?

2. You have not answered my question about other non-material experiences such as love, compassion, etc...You claim these experiences, like connectedness are genetically programmed responses. But are they also delusions (or illusions)? Yes or no. A simple response.

Posted by: lindajean | February 24, 2008 2:13 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Lindajean said:
"You leaped from "genetically programmed responses" to "delusion." (in less than one paragraph.) I don't follow that."

If feeling connected to the universe is all in your head; a genetically programmed response to a pattern match, then believing that you actually connected to the universe could fall under delusion; something that is believed to be true or real but that is actually false or unreal.

In any case, perhaps delusion is to strong a word, what other word do you like better that fits the context?

Posted by: GAD | February 24, 2008 12:05 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Hi Gad,

GAD: "From the above you could argue that "sons and daughters" came after Seth, but then you would need to go down the path that Adam and Eve were the first people of god, but not the first people."

Why would you "need" to go down that path, that Adam and Eve were not the first people? The Bible tells the reader that they were. And why would you need to "argue" that sons and daughters came after. Is that not what the Scriptures tell us? That is my point. Anything else is private interpretation, reading something into the Scriptures that is not there, commonly called eisegesis.

Posted by: Peter Huff | February 24, 2008 9:12 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Gad:

You say,
"Love, ecstasy, empathy, compassion, "connectedness" etc "are not" substances, essences or forces i.e. they "are not" material things. If that is the case, and I believe it is, then what are you experiencing when you "feel" them; A genetically programmed release of chemicals triggered by a pattern match to past reward and punishment reinforced experiences.'

To paraphrase ( I have to put this in LJ "think" not Gad "think"): Substances, essences and forces are material and of the physical world. Love, empathy, compassion, connectedness are not. They are genetically programmed responses (through the release of chemicals) experienced in humans.

If that is what you are saying I agree.

Now comes your great "leap of faith".

You said, "This is Timmy's favorite tactic, everything he believes is justifiable because he calls it "natural". Six of one, half dozen of the other. Semantics aside, neither one of you can prove that your "connectedness" is anything other then a delusion."

You leaped from "genetically programmed responses" to "delusion." (in less than one paragraph.)

I don't follow that. Here is your logic.

Immaterial experiences are genetically programmed responses.

Love and compassion and connectedness are immaterial experiences.

Love compassion, empathy, connectedness ...are genetically programmed responses.

Love, compassion,connectedness ...are delusional.

How did we get from"genetically programmed responses" to "delusional"?

(And if you are thinking to yourself, "This Lindajean is dense, she can't follow my logic" it is your job --as a debater to take me from dense to comprehension. Because yours is a big leap for even the brightest stars out there.)

I'll respond to the rest of your post later.

Posted by: lindajean | February 23, 2008 1:57 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Hi Bernie Bee:

A couple of catch ups with you.

First, thank you for the reminder about K. Gibran's "Children" poem. I have loved that poem for many years and find it simply stunning. It is magical in the purest sense of poetry. Really, a genius at work here.

Secondly, I would like to return to your Feb. 20 post with comments about my ambiguous words. I did not give justice to your comments due to time constraints.

You said, "Well lass, I suppose it is possible for marriages tae have nuthin' tae dae with religion but…but… a big but… never the twain shall meet?!"

Yes, I stand by that statement. I am referring to the "twain" of marriage and religion. As married atheists why would two people who question and shun religion, God and the Bible in all other aspects of our lives, not question and shun it in our marriage? Would it make sense that we embrace Biblical views of marriage and shun it in the rest of our lives? Views that we find abhorrent? I am not sure why you would think otherwise.

You state, "What kinda marriage is it if the twain never meet! If neither will agree on some arrangement surely they should at the very least try tae meet in the middle?"

You seem to be referring to the "twain" as the married couple, and I am referring to the "twain" as marriage and religion. Of course the married couple must "meet in the middle." In fact (if you have been following my discussions with Timmy) I am arguing that exact point. He seems to think a married individual can just do "his/her own thing" in a marriage and it requires no "giving up" of anything. I argue you do give up some freedoms, make some sacrifices because marriage requires negotiation and compromise. So I agree with you, the married couple (the twain), must meet.

You state, "And what's the following really about? Have ye seen the Albert Finney film 'Tom Jones'? It's about a foundling who grows up and has various amorous adventures including an outrageously sexy meal portrayed in much the same way you describe devourin' a pizza, as here..."

Yes, I am familiar with Tom Jones and his wanderlust, seed-spreading inclinations. But what is your point, because you are the one being ambiguous here.

You state, "Probably it is jist my filthy mind kickin' in as per usual but then as the poet never said, 'a durty mind is a joy forever' or to further improvise, 'marriage is a thing of duty and can annoy forever' See what I mean?"

No, I do not "see what you mean?" I'm not sure what "duty" you refer to and if it is such an "annoyance" then I suggest the person bearing those words not get married. As far as your "filthy mind" goes, well, there is probably no reason to elaborate on something if you think it is so. My guess is it is probably moot or something I'm not going to find very interesting......

You said, "But ye do see how even you, like the rest o' us can, here 'n there at times, be a wee bit ambiguous in what ye write."

Yes, I can see how my words could be ambiguous unless someone follows precisely every single word I write on this blog. (I don't expect anyone is doing that), but I do expect people to question me on my ambiguities and challenge me on them, and likewise I will do the same.

Are you clear now?

Posted by: lindajean | February 23, 2008 1:14 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Lindajean,

Egad, I don't know how you got what you got from what I wrote. OK, I will restate in closed statement form.

Love, ecstasy, empathy, compassion, "connectedness" etc "are not" substances, essences or forces i.e. they "are not" material things. If that is the case, and I believe it is, then what are you experiencing when you "feel" them; A genetically programmed release of chemicals triggered by a pattern match to past reward and punishment reinforced experiences.

Lindajean, said:
"Peter may be feeling a connectedness and feels it is God. He takes a leap and says it is supernatural. I feel a connectedness but I make no claims that it is supernatural. There is a big difference between experiencing something and experiencing something and saying it is supernatural."

This is Timmy's favorite tactic, everything he believes is justifiable because he calls it "natural". Six of one, half dozen of the other. Semantics aside, neither one of you can prove that your "connectedness" is anything other then a delusion.

Lindajean, said:
"And what are these substances, essences and force you keep referring to? You seem to say they are real but only by your own definition. Connectedness is obviously not part of your definition, but love, compassion and ecstasy are? How do you make the distinction?"

Material things Vs non-material things. If you think connectedness, love, compassion or ecstasy material things then make an argument for that and we can debate it, if not then we share the same definition Vs me having my own.

Posted by: GAD | February 23, 2008 12:56 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Hi Peter:

Nice to hear from you again.

You quoted me saying, "Peter may be feeling a connectedness and feels it is God. He takes a leap and says it is supernatural. I feel a connectedness but I make no claims that it is supernatural. There is a big difference between experiencing something and experiencing something and saying it is supernatural."

You respond, "The question for the atheist is how do you know it is the Christian who is the disillusioned one? It is something you and other atheists presuppose Lindajean. What authority does the atheist have to make such absolute, such all knowing claims? Are you/they not discounting the evidence on their limited knowledge?"

What I am trying to determine with Gad is can a person have a transcendental experience (this "connectedness" I refer to) without believing, as you do, in a supernatural (God)?

I would suggest that if you (Peter Huff) feel a "connection" and you claim it is God, then I am going to refute that and question it because I have no evidence (and you have been unable to convince me with anything close to evidence) that what you are having is a relationship with God.

But what I am saying to Gad is "How do you (Gad) explain the "connection" I feel to the universe realizing we are all connected on the physical world to it, since I hold no claims that it is supernatural?" In fact I deny any claims what-so-ever. I claim it is only an "experience" just as we humans encounter many, many experiences (subjective) throughout our lives. If he claims that my connectedness feeling is delusional then he must also claim many other subjective experiences are delusional also. He doesn't seem to be able to explain to me why some experiences like love, compassion and ecstasy can be real but others (connectedness) are delusional. I am asking him to clarify for me how to determine which is real and which is not real. What is Gad's criteria? (and BTW: Gad gives me soft, velvety-like "food for thought" remarks ---instead of directly facing my question. I understand he is working hard these days and is "worn-out" so I will kindly give him the benefit of the doubt for the present.)

Peter, you, on the other hand are delusional because you believe any connectedness you feel is from something we have no evidence is real (God). You have been unable to convince any of us on this blog that anything you have claimed about God is real. Unless you can give me something beyond your belief in the Bible, I will continue to call it delusional. And I don't need any "authority" (someone else's approval or your God) to make this conclusion; I am not discounting your evidence because up to this point in time there has simply been no evidence to discount. (I have discounted many of your words, but not any evidence.) Peter, please give me evidence, and then if I "discount" your evidence, evidence that is real and authentic (hence not Biblical which is counter-evidence) then you can accuse me of "discounting" on my limited knowledge. (Warning: if it is real evidence then I won't discount it so we won't have anything or much at all to argue about anymore, will we?)

If you simply said you had an experience that you felt connected to the universe without saying it is a connection to the supernatural world, or God, then I would not discount that. I believe you can experience a connectedness---somehow our brains are wired to experience this---just as we are wired to experience other phenomenon like love, compassion....this is after all, part of being human.

Posted by: lindajean | February 23, 2008 12:08 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Peter,

Good grief, go back and read what I wrote again. The only argument that I made was that Cain's wife was his sister and that any other argument to the contrary is problematic.

Posted by: GAD | February 23, 2008 12:03 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Hi Gad,

Please show me where you can support your statements below from Genesis 5:4 or elsewhere,

Genesis 5:4 "And the days of Adam after he had begotten Seth were eight hundred years: and he begat sons and daughters"

GAD: "From the above you could argue that "sons and daughters" came after Seth"

So what would that prove other than he married a younger sister?

GAD: "but then you would need to go down the path that Adam and Eve were the first people of god, but not the first people."

I don't follow your lack of reasoning here. Please go on and explain more.

GAD: "But that's problematic for many reasons, besides being moot, since everyone dies in the flood except Noah and his family, so if there were other people that were not of god they are all gone now (as well as the race of giants that came from Angels taking human women)."

There again you read into the Scriptures, not take out of them what can be taken out of them. There is no inference anywhere in the Scriptures that suggest that there were any humans before Adam and Eve. Please give me one reference.

Posted by: Peter Huff | February 23, 2008 8:40 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Bernie Bee and Gad:

There's a bit of tension between the loving Christians. Perhaps we ought to sit back and and watch the show. After all, since when do they need any facts or reason to support their claims?

And surely they recognize (from a Biblical perspective) "incest is best."

Posted by: lindajean | February 23, 2008 8:19 AM
Report Offensive Comment

For goodniss sake Gad! Why but in wi' a bit o' rationality when Pete 'n Soja know better'n that!
As they say hereaboots, away 'n bile yer heid!

Posted by: Bernie Bee | February 22, 2008 9:42 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Cain's wife could only be his sister. The bible only lists three of Adam and Eve's children by name, Cain, Abel and Seth, but they had others. You have to remember that in the bible god made woman to serve man, and listing your slaves (womens) names in your family tree was not done unless that slave (woman) was important to gods plan for the man she begot, would begot, or who owned her.

Genesis 5:4 And the days of Adam after he had begotten Seth were eight hundred years: and he begat sons and daughters:

From the above you could argue that "sons and daughters" came after Seth, but then you would need to go down the path that Adam and Eve were the first people of god, but not the first people. But that's problematic for many reasons, besides being moot, since everyone dies in the flood except Noah and his family, so if there were other people that were not of god they are all gone now (as well as the race of giants that came from Angels taking human women).

Posted by: GAD | February 22, 2008 9:22 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Well, come on now Soja, for you wimmin what's worse, tae be one o' Adam's ribs or one o' Cain's turds?
That's what it comes down to.

Posted by: Bernie Bee | February 22, 2008 8:32 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Alas Soja, ye havnae caught on tae that auld humbug Gibran! Oh aye! He was handsome but even wi' that silv'ry tongue o' his, hardly more than a gigolo considerin' the way he seduced sae many European wives so that their hubbies were chasing the chancer all over the place tae tear him apart!
Aye, nae doot he had a penchant for rogerin' Europian married wimmin!

And here's me, truly gentle, kind, meek, 'n mild, genuinly intent on gladness for all but as an atheist worthless tae you an your ilk!

Soja, how on earth can ye align yerself wi' the crazy belief's o' sich as Peter now that he's proclaimed auld Yaweh even creatit (not from a rib but from a turd) Cain's wife jist tae carry on the daft bugger's creation only tae end in disaster as would be obvious even if it was you as prime mover!

For adults sich as you 'n Peter tae insist ye believe sich guff is very depressin' so that it's nae wonder the wurld is in the mess it is!

Posted by: Bernie Bee | February 22, 2008 8:15 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Hi Lindajean,

LJ: "Peter may be feeling a connectedness and feels it is God. He takes a leap and says it is supernatural. I feel a connectedness but I make no claims that it is supernatural. There is a big difference between experiencing something and experiencing something and saying it is supernatural."

The question for the athesit is how do you know it is the Christian who is the disillusioned one? It is something you and other atheists presuppose Lindajean. What authority does the atheist have to make such absolute, such all knowing claims? Are you/they not discounting the evidence on their limited knowledge?

PS. Sorry, I have been busy lately and I'm working this weekend but will try to check in on Monday if not before. There are still lots of posts I would like to challenge, especially Gad's eight rebuttals, but they will have to wait for now.

Posted by: Peter Huff | February 22, 2008 3:44 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Hi Soja,

Interesting thoughts! So when you say,

"Of course I believe that the Bible is inspired by God. I treat it as Scripture. I treat it as spiritual guide. Yet I do not treat it as the only source of God's leading, neither do I treat it as a history textbook."

The Scriptures also interpret the Scriptures. What gives one warrant to read into God's word something that He has not said? This is an important point.

Take for instance Jesus' parable about the Sower and the Seed. The clear meaning is explained by Jesus Himself. (Luke 8:1-15; Matthew 13:2-23; Mark 4:1-20) If the Scriptures where not precise in their meaning anyone could interpret them in any way they like and bring to the context any means so desired (and this happens - that is why there are many cults and sects that deny the fundamental teaching of Scripture). If I interpret a Scripture one way and you another, both having contradictory meanings, who is right? Can the Scriptures mean anything you want them to? No because the Scriptures reveal as much. We need to interpret as God has said, not reading into them something that is not there; in other words, the Author's meaning, not the reader's meaning, what is actually said, not one wants the Scriptures to say because it fits into their pet philosophy of life.

Soja: "The accuracy of the historical account is irrelevant to my faith. The eternal principles of the teachings are important."

So are you saying that Jesus did not die a physical death on a cross as a propitiation for your sin?

Soja: "All of God's knowledge comes to us through an imperfect medium. Directions of God that might have been specific to that time should not be interpreted as eternal principles. For instance the instruction for women to cover their heads during worship. That is a social custom of the day, not a commandment with an eternal value."

Yes, the context reveals whom is being spoken to and some of the principles applied specifically, but all Scripture is beneficial for our learning. The question becomes, "Is God able to communicate effectively to His creatures?" Is He who created all things able to preserve His communication to us, and in a way that it is still His sovereign, inerrant, infallible word? (Matthew 24:35; Psalm 119:160; Proverbs 30:6; John 17:17, etc)

SOJA: "This is not a religious discussion.

I disagree. It takes faith on both the part of the Atheist and the Christian to believe, since neither were around at the beginning and have to interpret the evidence according to their worldview, their basic presuppositions. Beginnings is not something that can be duplicated.

SOJA: "It is a debate with atheists, there is no need to evangelize or use overly religious terms. Just my opinion. I do not belong to an evangelical church, nor do I feel called to be an evangelist. Not all are called to be evangelists. God has given different gifts to each one for the building of His Church, there is no need for everyone to evangelize at all times."

Are you and I as Christians not told to preach the gospel, to tell others the good news? (Matthew 28:19; Romans 10:14-17; Mark 13:10; Philippians 1:15-18; 1 Peter 3:15, etc)

To me this forum is an exchange of ideas in which different worldviews are all competing for validity, claiming their views are true, because why would anyone believe something they thought was not true? I like to point out that without the Christian God it is hard to make sense of truth. That is pre-evangelism in that it goes to the root problem of epistemology, how can we know anything as truth unless there is an ultimate, absolute, objective reality that is God.

SOJA: "Jesus never forced Himself on anyone, neither did He teach His disciples to do that. Preaching the Good News of Jesus like an Old Testament prophet, who were sent to warn people of God's destruction of their cities immediately before the event, tends to backfire. Remember the story of the rich man who came to ask Jesus for advice on how to be saved and going away disappointed because he was not willing to take the advice Jesus gave him? Did Jesus run behind the rich man, forcing His message on him? No. Did the father of the prodigal son run behind the son and force him to give up his ways and return to the father's house? No. There is a lesson for all of us there."

I'm expressing myself through my faith. People have told me in the past that they do not want to chat with me any longer and I have respected their wishes, unless/until they started up the conversation again. When you are not welcome any longer the example that Jesus gave the disciples was to move on, to shake the dust off the feet so to speak. Some of the people on this forum are still asking questions as to the relevance of Christianity, all the time denying it of course, since they believe their own worldview is true. I'm testing the spirit, the authority, the truth of their presuppositions to the best of my ability, which at times I admit is not that good. These are smart and worldly people. But they are not able to answer the whys and the hows with anything but absurdity.

SOJA: "Keep up your great work of bringing the Good News to as many people as you can. Maybe you should reflect about the most effective way to do it, and about discerning who is ready to receive the message you preach in the name of Jesus. After my personal experience with Andy Ross, I'm convinced that people do not accept anything until they are ready and are seeking themselves. Doesn't the Bible say, "You will find me when you search for me with all your heart."

Thank you! It is not about me or my views, it is about Him. I constantly reflect on the most effective way of proclaiming the Good News all the time. To every person it requires different approaches. Some people are not ready to hear the gospel. They need to know why the Christian worldview is sensible. That delves into the issues that any viable worldview needs to answer; why are we here, is there meaning and purpose, how do we know, why is it important, who cares. I have a hard time is answering some questions. They are not easy to find an answer to. But it is God alone who can bring a person to faith by the preaching of His word, not you or I. (1 Corinthians 3:5-15)

SOJA: "Best wishes"

To you as well!

SOJA: "PS: I meant wife for Cain, not Abel! If the Bible is to be taken as literally as you do, how does one find a wife for Cain?"

Very simple, he married one of his sisters. This is long before God found it necessary to restrict marriage within the immediate family because the gene pool was weakening from the effects of the Fall.

"When Adam had lived 130 years, he had another son in his own likeness, in his own image; and he named him Seth. After Seth was born Adam lived 800 years and had other sons and daughters." (Genesis 5:3, 4)

The Bible is interested in following the blood line, the genealogy, of the Messiah from the time of creation to His human birth. It does not list every person born during this time, or any other period of the history of mankind, mainly the lineage that trace the birth of the Messiah. (Luke 3:23-38; also Matthew 1:1-17)

Posted by: Peter Huff | February 22, 2008 3:29 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Gad:
You said,

"If love is not a substance, essence or force then what are you experiencing when you feel love? A genetically programmed release of chemicals triggered by a pattern match to past reward and punishment reinforced experiences? Same with "connectedness" if you really aren't or can't connect to anything else what is it your feeling when you think you have connected? "

Well, that is my question to you. You seem to be saying some experiences are "genetically programmed releases of chemicals" and others are simply delusions? How do you know which is which? Love is genetics and chemistry, but "connectedness" is not? How can you possibly know that?

You say,

"Think about Peter Huff, he believes that there is a god and feels love and connectedness to his god, we all tell him that there is no god, if we are right and we don't believe that he is lying about what he feels, then what is the love and connectedness he feels? Delusion? If so does that only apply to feeling/experiences with god, or does it extend to all feeling/experiences of things that are not a substance, essence or force?"

Peter may be feeling a connectedness and feels it is God. He takes a leap and says it is supernatural. I feel a connectedness but I make no claims that it is supernatural. There is a big difference between experiencing something and experiencing something and saying it is supernatural.

And what are these substances, essences and force you keep referring to? You seem to say they are real but only by your own definition. Connectedness is obviously not part of your definition, but love, compassion and ecstasy are? How do you make the distinction?

You said,"............ Food for thought........."

Possibly. Or maybe just "junk food."

Posted by: lindajean | February 22, 2008 6:32 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Hi Peter

Many thanks for the link to that beautiful gospel song.

Of course I believe that the Bible is inspired by God. I treat it as Scripture. I treat it as spiritual guide. Yet I do not treat it as the only source of God's leading, neither do I treat it as a history textbook. The accuracy of the historical account is irrelevant to my faith. The eternal principles of the teachings are important. All of God's knowledge comes to us through an imperfect medium. Directions of God that might have been specific to that time should not be interpreted as eternal principles. For instance the instruction for women to cover their heads during worship. That is a social custom of the day, not a commandment with an eternal value.

BTW, although I have known very many deeply spiritual persons, Fr Bede Griffiths (who was like a surrogate father figure to me for nearly nine years) was the only person who signed off his letters to me with "With love in Christ" or "With God's love and blessings." The others I have known would use ordinary forms of greetings only. That is why I signed off with Best wishes to you, not because I'm not a Christian. This is not a religious discussion. It is a debate with atheists, there is no need to evangelize or use overly religious terms. Just my opinion. I do not belong to an evangelical church, nor do I feel called to be an evangelist. Not all are called to be evangelists. God has given different gifts to each one for the building of His Church, there is no need for everyone to evangelize at all times. Jesus never forced Himself on anyone, neither did He teach His disciples to do that. Preaching the Good News of Jesus like an Old Testament prophet, who were sent to warn people of God's destruction of their cities immediately before the event, tends to backfire. Remember the story of the rich man who came to ask Jesus for advice on how to be saved and going away disappointed because he was not willing to take the advice Jesus gave him? Did Jesus run behind the rich man, forcing His message on him? No. Did the father of the prodigal son run behind the son and force him to give up his ways and return to the father's house? No. There is a lesson for all of us there.

Keep up your great work of bringing the Good News to as many people as you can. Maybe you should reflect about the most effective way to do it, and about discerning who is ready to receive the message you preach in the name of Jesus. After my personal experience with Andy Ross, I'm convinced that people do not accept anything until they are ready and are seeking themselves. Doesn't the Bible say, "You will find me when you search for me with all your heart."

Best wishes
Soja

PS: I meant wife for Cain, not Abel! If the Bible is to be taken as literally as you do, how does one find a wife for Cain?

Posted by: Soja John Thaikattil, Sydney, Australia | February 22, 2008 4:11 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Hi Timmy,

I think your point is valid in some respects. I actually don't believe that man's will is free in the sense that his will is not indifferent to the choices he makes, but he has the freedom to make those choices. There is always something that governs those choices, his sinful nature.

This is the quote I found on the Internet that I used, I can’t find the link any longer. It starts here,

"The basic elements in the theistic response to this problem are found in Augustine and
Thomas Aquinas. Theists since then have followed the contours of their thought. Both agreed on the response that can be stated as follows:

1. God is absolutely perfect.
2. God created only perfect creatures.
3. One of the perfections God gave some of his creatures was the power of free choice.
4. Some of these creatures freely chose to do evil.
5. Therefore, a perfect creature caused evil...

And it ends,

"Of course, a person uses the power of free choice to make free choices. However, the person is not free choice. He simply has free choice. It is wrong to say I am free choice; I simply have free choice. So, l am the efficient cause of my own free actions, but the power of free choice is the means by which I freely act."
End of quote."

"God produces the fact of free choice, but each human performs the act of free choice. God then is responsible for the possibility of evil, but we must bear the responsibility for the actuality of it."

You still have the freedom to chose, in that you make choices everyday, of your own volition, but you will never choose God unless He gives you the ability. In Eden the ability to freely choose Him was marred in our federal head, Adam.

Quote from your last post to me:

"Our judgement and reasoning are the cause of us making the wrong decision with the wonderful free will that God gave us. (by the way I thought you didn't use the term "free will") You use it constantly! Make up your mind.
So where did we get our judgement and reasoning? We didn't make us."

Technically, I only use it in the true sense of the word in Adam and Eve. They had a free will and ability to believe God in what He said as being true when Satan came to Eve and tempted her. Or they could believe what the Serpent said, that they would be like God knowing the difference between good and evil. Their will was free to choose, ours is not. Ours has been influenced by the Fall and the moral choice Adam and Eve made has hampered our ability in making the right choice. We no longer have the ability to refrain from evil. We have inherited it in our genetic makeup, passed down the line from Adam and Eve, the inability to believe and respond to God without Him first giving us the ability to respond by believing. So although we freely choose, we no long have the ability to make the right choice. This is what the Bible confirms,

“No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him, and I will raise him up at the last day.” (John 6:44)

“All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and whoever comes to Me I will never drive away…And this is the will of Him who sent Me, that I shall lose none of all that He has given Me.” (John 6:37, 39)

“The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned.” (1 Corinthians 2:14)

“As for you, you were dead in your transgressions and sins, in which you used to live when you followed the ways of this world and the ruler of the kingdom of the air; the spirit who is now at work in those who are disobedient.” (Ephesians 2:1-2)

Tell me what can a dead man do? You need God’s grace to respond because of your hatred towards Him.

“…the sinful mind is hostile to God. It does not submit to God’s law, nor can it do so. Those controlled by the sinful nature cannot please God.” (Romans 8:7-8)

I tell you these things in the hope Timmy that God will confirm in you through His word His calling to you to repent and believe the gospel. (Romans 10: 8-10, 17)

You do not have the ability to see or enter the kingdom of God unless God’s Spirit regenerates you.

“In reply Jesus declared, ‘I tell you the truth, no one can see the kingdom of God unless he is born again…I tell you the truth, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit. Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit…The wind blows where ever it pleases. You hear its sound, but you cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the Spirit.” (John 3:3, 5-8)

In other words, you have free choice in that you are the one who makes the actual choice that you make, but not free in that you no longer have the ability to choose to believe and trust God without Him working in your life through His Spirit and by His power by His written word and from those who proclaim it, if He so chooses to use someone for this purpose.

ME: "So God is responsible for making evil possible, but free creatures are responsible for making it actual"

Yes, Adam and Eve brought the knowledge of evil into this world when they became disobedient to what God said.

TIMMY: "Who made the free creatures and gave them their faulty judgement and reasoning?"

God made them free and gave them the ability to reason and judge. They were the ones who used that reason and judgment to do what is evil, not God. The faulty judgment came as a result of a finite being himself deciding what was good and best, instead of listening to He whose wisdom is infinite.

ME: "God is not responsible for the exercise of that free choice to do evil. God does not perform the free action for us"

What do you not understand about that?

TIMMY: "I know. We do it ourselves. Because we have flawed judgement and reasoning.
Who gave us that faulty judgement and reasoning? Where did it come from, this flaw of making the wrong choices? We make the choice, but who made us?"

God gave us (in Adam and Eve) the freedom to be able to choose. We (in Adam and Eve), using that ability made the wrong judgment. So it came from us (Adam and Eve). God DID NOT make the choice for us. He just gave us the consequences of what would happen if we chose our own judgment over His. We (in Adam and Eve) freely chose to listen to the serpent instead of God, just as you constantly listen to him in your daily life Timmy - "Did God really say?"

MY quote: "God then is responsible for the possibility of evil, but we must bear the responsibility for the actuality of it"

TIMMY: "Yes Peter. We are responsible for our decisions. And we have, all of us, made the wrong decisions, showing bad judgement.
Where did we get this bad judgement and reasoning from? Who is responsible for the existence of our bad judgement and reasoning?

Adam, as the federal head of humanity, the one who represented us, was responsible for the original bad judgment, just as you in turn because of the Fall, are responsible for your bad judgments. You are still the one making them because of your enmity towards God and your want for autonomy, with all its dire consequences.

My quote had in it: "So, l am the efficient cause of my own free actions, but the power of free choice is the means by which I freely act."

Yes, you are the cause of your own free actions. But God is the root cause of you, not your actions.

TIMMY: “It is inescapable, Peter. No matter how much you try to blame man, God made man. I am not missing the point about free will Peter. I get it. It is our decision. But you are the one who is avoiding that reality, that judgement and reason are responsible for what we do, not volition. And God created our judgement and reasoning. God created us Peter. He is of course, responsible for everything about us.”

It is not inescapable to me Timmy, but maybe to you. Your will is no longer free Timmy. It is governed by your nature and desire to do what is pleasing to you instead of pleasing to God, hence all the suffering in the world as a result of the one sin.

TIMMY: “Peter, you are suggesting here that humans are God, because you are suggesting that we created our own judgement and reasoning.”

Heaven forbid! No I am not suggesting anything of the kind, just that you are made in the image and likeness of God, but you are a creature, you have a beginning, you are not all knowing, neither am I, we both make mistakes.

TIMMY: “Do you admit that it is our judgement and reasoning that dictate our decisions?”

Yes. Your judgment and actions have been marred by the Fall.

TIMMY: “ If not, what does dictate our decisions?”

You make them, but you are not indifferent to the choices you choose although you freely choose them. You are in bondage to your sinful disposition. That does not mean that you are incapable of doing good deeds and actions. You are not capable of only doing good deeds and actions however.

TIMMY: “ If so, do you admit that God gave us our judgement and reasoning?”

The ability to judge and reason, yes.

TIMMY: “If not, where did our judgement and reasoning come from?
If so, God is flawed.”

No, God is not flawed, man is, as a result of Adam and Eves free choice; the only humans whose will’s had the ability to sin or not to sin, to obey or not to obey.

Here are some other thoughts on the freedom of the will by two extremely gifted Christian authors who are better able to explain their views than I am.

http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=7638E6A273D85A19
http://www.reformedreader.org/rbb/edwards/fowindex.htm

Posted by: Peter Huff | February 22, 2008 4:05 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Hi all:

So I wasn't a prophetess after all - this thread is still going strong, breaking all previous Sam Harris blog record of total number of responses!

Considering I blog under my real name, here just tying up a few loose ends that I noticed:

Hi Bernie!

I wrote 7 Feb 08 4:38 PM: "Twenty years ago I was thrown right in the middle of uni students in Koeln (Cologne), Germany, some of whom had lived in hippie communes."

I did not study at Koeln Uni. My German partner was a medical student at Koeln Uni and I hence had a merry crowd of Uni students around me.

8 Feb 08 5:47 AM I wrote: "I'm an Indian who lives in Australia. My first language is not English."

What I meant to say was that my mother tongue is not English. It is Malayalam. I started to learn English only at the age of eight. I did not hear English being spoken until then. Similarly when I lived in Germany, I spoke very little English. And in Australia, English is course the first language. Of all the languages I happen to know in an imperfect fashion, I happen to know English best. With all my limitations, English is the language I happen to think and "feel" in. All the other languages I speak I do without doing any thinking in it!

I wrote February 8, 2008 6:45 AM: "I'm sorry to hear that your marriage broke for no fault of your own. I know how it feels like to have one's romantic dreams shattered, in spite of having not one but two ceremonies in church to cement the fairly tale romantic union for life. In my case though poetic justice was done. The man died, (as the legal husband of another woman) five years ago of cancer, aged 48!"

When my German partner and I parted I did not regret it. There was only so much I could have done to keep the relationship going and the decision to end the relationship not being made by me, helped. I got over him emotionally much faster than I ever imagined possible although the other effects of the breakup lasted very long. I got in touch with him a few months before he died. So there was final closure, which helped immensely. Knowing that the then wife had not succeeded where I had failed helped too.

True, human relationships are complex. In hindsight I can say with conviction that for a relationship to work both partners must share the same values about relationships and what each one expects of the other must be fair to both.

I liked what Timmy wrote 18 Feb 2008 6:46 AM:
"We do things for each other out of love and by choice. There is no freedom given up here. What "freedoms" do we need to give up for love and companionship and security?...
Being true and faithful is about honesty..."

When a couple love each other truly they find that one partner is enough.

As to the prose poems by Kahlil Gibran, I quoted him for the first time very early on on the Sam Harris thread, mentioning how much I loved him. My selection this time was not addressed to you in particular. It was addressed to all, including Andy Ross (despite the fact that he has moved on from here). I had discussed the Kahlil Gibran prose poetry on 'passion and reason' with Andy in May 2007 in connection with the many discussions on sex, religion, marriage, adultery etc initiated by the On Faith forum, including discussion at length of one particular case.

Kahlil Gibran's thoughts on children has been my favourite for over thirty years. I always made it a point to remind my father about the wisdom of Kahlil Gibran whenever I had bitter disagreements with him!

In connection with marriage Gibran highlights also the importance of having parents as the glad bows in the hands of God to provide a stable and loving environment for children to grow and develop as individuals with the aim of fulfilling the unique purpose for which God created them, not merely as fulfillment of parents' own needs.

You quoted Gibran February 9, 2008 8:58 PM: “You are the bows from which your children as living arrows are sent forth. Let your bending, in the Archer’s hand, be for gladness.

Best wishes
Soja

Posted by: Soja John Thaikattil, Sydney, Australia | February 22, 2008 3:50 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Hi Timmy,

To continue our discussion.

You state: "There is still some confusion to clear up before we can agree to disagree. We should at least know what we are agreeing that we disagree on."

I agree.

You: "I didn't compare you to Falwell for "defending" marriage. I compared you to him for thinking that it should be pushed by the government and given special treatment. That is wrong."

It is wrong for the government to single out only married people who have children to give them tax breaks. I ought to say that the government is doing the right thing when it gives parents (married or unmarried) tax breaks. I do stand corrected on that and thank you for pointing it out. (It was a bit of the devil's advocate that spilled forth.)

But that is not the whole pie. I think the government has a responsibility to promote healthy relationships --regardless of marital status-- because families are the fabric of our society. We need quality education, health care, daycare and these kinds of things to help stabilize families and encourage financial stability. But policy is often in favor of marriage and promoting it as a benefit to society because marriage is viewed by the government as pro-family. If you can find any research or show me some evidence that marriage is not beneficial to children or that it is less beneficial then non-marital relationships, please do tell! If alternative lifestyles are better then I will change my mind. But I am not going to accept that they are better because you happen to believe it. I need something more substantial than your personal feelings about this.

You state: "...You need to show me that it [marriage] is a necessity for a healthy society. (If that is what you believe)."

I don't know that it is necessary or that I hold firmly to that view. I am only making suggestions that there seems to be some indication of a positive relationship between marriage and children and (yes adults) and it MAY be beneficial. I am suggesting that because research shows this connection we ought not hide from it. Let's talk about why this research shows this and the importance of these findings if they are indeed true. That is all, really.

(BTW: Your kind of free and open relationships are very confusing to young children. A young child needs to know who her father is. I am not necessarily saying it has to be her biological father, but it needs to be a male that she can recognize as a father figure and that he is an active part of her life and he has a positive relationship with her mother. Now it is all a bit perplexing to this young child if dad just takes off and leaves the family and meanwhile mom begins to entertain one or more "free" and "open" men to bed down with at night. This is not a positive way to raise a child. There is no sense of family in this helter skelter love fest. And the poor kid is caught in the middle of it all.)

YOU: "Religion poisons everything. And some of the things that it poisons run so deep, and so far back, that a great raising of awareness is necessary to see beyond what has become accepted norms. Religion doesn't poison marriage. That is not possible because religion invented marriage. No, religion poisons male female relations. And that poison is marriage. Monogamy is a religious idea. It is not natural in our species. It might be more natural for females than it is for males, but it is not natural...."

I think this is your opinion. I agree with it up to a point. But this talk of "natural" is moot. Wearing clothing in hot weather is not natural. Using a bathroom is not natural. Birth control is not natural. Having only 1 or 2 children or none is not natural.

I think you are missing a big point here. It seems spreading your seed is your justification for accepting non-monogamous relationships. Well, biologically, seed spreading is a good thing. But we live in a world with 6 plus billion and the number keeps growing. When there were only a million or 2 people around spreading the precious seed, it was vitally important for the continuation of the species. Spreading the seed had a purpose and it was an important job. The pleasure derived from spreading the seed was manifested to assure mother nature that the seed did indeed get spread around, but the pleasure is really only the side kick to the biological act. So sorry to disappoint you, Timmy, those days are gone. Modern day seed spreading has little to do with helping out the species and has a lot to do with seeking out lust and pleasure. I am not saying that is wrong, but let's just be clear on the exact purpose of spreading the seed historically and how that purpose is moot in the 21st century. (And with in vitro fertilization it isn't even necessary any more.)

You: "Those infidelity statistics you quote are proof of that. I know, you think that they are only proof that men are pigs....."

You know? Now you can read my mind as well?

LOL.

I do not think men are pigs. Get real! Like all groups of humans some men are bent on evil, some bent on good and some rather neutral. Most men are not evil even if they are unfaithful.

I understand gender differences influenced by biology. I understand seed spreaders and nesters. Infidelity does not make you a bad or immoral person. I am not saying infidelity is even immoral. But there are ethical considerations you tend to ignore or overlook.

What I am saying is infidelity can be harmful to others and can cause emotional pain Cheating on your spouse can cause emotional turmoil. Is this an act of love? Is this an act of kindness? Is this an act of caring? If someone does not want to get married or have a monogamous relationship then do not agree to do it unless both people agree that infidelity is acceptable. Don't pretend to buy into it and then decide to discard its value when the water gets too deep. And if you can't help yourself and you cheat on your spouse then at less 'fess up and don't hide under false pretensions, lies and distortions. It is this behavior I object to and the pain that is perpetrated by it.

If the marriage fails, then so be it. By all means end it if you must and don't live in misery because of it. That is what I am saying.

Promiscuity is harmful because I think it is difficult, generally speaking, for females to separate the "act" from an emotional response to the act. This results in emotional pain when the seed spreader moves on to another female. Maybe this is changing. And maybe I am just "old fashioned" to cling to this idea. You claim that open relationships are becoming more common. I do think alternative lifestyles are becoming more common and I have read that co-habitations actually outnumber marriages now (at least in the States). I would be interested knowing what is actually going on here. How do women feel about non-marital relationships? How do they really feel about their promiscuous relationships if they are being promiscuous. I would guess much of this is taking place with very young women in their 20's. There are so many dynamics going on here it is really difficult for me to know what exactly is transpiring in all of this.

You: "There is nothing smart or practical about signing a civil contract or even making a promise to love someone forever. That's about as dumb as it gets. How can you promise to love someone forever? Love is a choice? News to me. Marriage means, "I promise before God (or a justice of the peace) that I will stay with you forever, even if we stop loving each other and we regret this decision 20 years from now."

Taking a marriage vow cements your "hope" and commitment that this is important to you (personally) and that you are going to do your best to make this relationship work because it is with someone you care deeply about. Because divorce is a legal option, it can be used to justify the possibility that it may not actually work. That is why no-fault divorce laws are a civil rights issue. Taking away the right to divorce would indeed make marriage unacceptable. No one should have to promise to stick out a bad marriage. It is unrealistic and punitive and I don't think most people take marriage vows to mean that literally. Vows are more symbolic than anything else.

You: "However, a loving relationship, free from the marriage poison, can last a life time, or it can fade away if that is what happens naturally. But to say "I promise to love you forever"? Silly. Loving someone is not a choice. Marriage is an empty promise. There is no guarantee for love. That's reality. Marriage is not reality."

Love is not a choice but who you decide to share that love with is. And when it is based on a commitment to be together that seems to be a very basic aspect of being human. Does marriage need reform? Yes, most institutions in modern society could benefit from reform. Is it going to happen? My guess is not any time soon with any speed or diligence.

You: "Men didn't police women's sexuality because women were the problem. They policed women's sexuality because other men were the problem, but it was easier to blame women for it...."

Alright, if you say so.....

You: "Let me clarify again.
I said that NON MONOGAMOUS couples can have sex with others and still be "true" to each other because they are being honest. There is nothing unfaithful about this. One can be faithful, and "true" to their partner and not be monogamous.
MONOGAMOUS couples however have made a pledge, so they would not be being "true" if they slept with someone else. That would be infidelity. You were equating "true" with monogamy. And while monogamy requires being true, being true does not require monogamy. It only requires being honest. Clear?"

Perfectly..and I agree.

You: "Yes Lindajean, that is a lot of infidelity. And guess what? The actual number is higher than any of those statistics show. What does that tell you Lindajean? That all men are just pigs? Or that monogamy is unnatural. And that most marriage vows are a sham. What is the answer? For men to just smarten up? Or for us to have an awareness raising that monogamy is a completely religious idea that doesn't play out in the real world very well. Open relationships are on the rise. They only seem weird right now because our paradigm is still so poisoned by religion. But in actuality, it is monogamy that is weird."

It means that people are not being honest with each other. It is a problem concerning deceits and lies.

YOU: "Here you are mixing up fidelity with divorce again. This "more virtuous, soul-searching or self-actualization" theory of mine that you sarcastically refer to here is in reference to divorce, not fidelity. Infidelity is definitely about getting another piece of ass. Divorce rarely is."

So you are saying most men who seek out divorce actually are yearning for a place in Sam's cave (figuratively speaking?) That their desire to leave their wives of many years and their children is for this reason? That it has nothing to do with wanting a "piece of ass"?-- (your eloquent words, not mine). And that the men who are cheating on their wives actually want to stay married and just keep cheating on their wives and live a life of lies?

LOL.

I am truly baffled by that!

Posted by: lindajean | February 21, 2008 5:47 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Lindajean said:

"Have you noticed a certain quietude in Gad lately? He is not responding to my most recent posts to him. Do you think the poor boy is worn out?"

A bit worn, but also very busy with work (some of us have to put in more then 1 hour a week). A canceled meeting has allowed me a catch up.

Posted by: GAD | February 21, 2008 1:40 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Timmy said:
"All "observations", not conclusions."

Like the observation "we are here" and we got here in some way. But to say we can not say, or give a theory as to why or how, is what Darwin meant by data without generalizations is useless; facts without explanatory principles are meaning less. He said this in reply to criticisms that he should have only reported his "observations" that life seems to change over time and not give a reason (theory) as to the how or why. This mirrors your criticisms of my beliefs and theories of how we got here, if all I said was "we are here" that would be as pointless and meaningless as your criticisms. If you think my beliefs and theories are wrong, challenge them, but you can't, so instead you just claim that I can't have them..........

Timmy said:
"This Darwin quote doesn't even come close to justifying the conclusions that you present to the world as scientific certainties, or de facto certainties. "

It fully justifies my beliefs and theories. What law says that something can not be concluded unless it is right, and what are scientific certainties except beliefs and theories that have survived being challenged........ I fully accept that I may be wrong, prove it, telling me I can't know if what I believe is right is pointless and meaningless.

Timmy said:
"I have been saying all along, exactly what Dawkins was saying in that quote. And no he was not just being politically correct."

Yes, well as we are all aware you are careful to only say what other people believe. "And no he was not just being politically correct.", are you "certain"............... ;)

Posted by: GAD | February 21, 2008 1:27 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Lindajean said:
"How can "just this tiny piece of stuff" experience so-called peak experiences unless those experiences are completely delusional. Is love delusional? Is ecstasy? Is empathy and compassion?"

If love is not a substance, essence or force then what are you experiencing when you feel love? A genetically programmed release of chemicals triggered by a pattern match to past reward and punishment reinforced experiences? Same with "connectedness" if you really aren't or can't connect to anything else what is it your feeling when you think you have connected? Think about Peter Huff, he believes that there is a god and feels love and connectedness to his god, we all tell him that there is no god, if we are right and we don't believe that he is lying about what he feels, then what is the love and connectedness he feels? Delusion? If so does that only apply to feeling/experiences with god, or does it extend to all feeling/experiences of things that are not a substance, essence or force?............ Food for thought.........

Posted by: GAD | February 21, 2008 12:22 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Bernie Bee:

You said: "Well lass, I suppose it is possible for marriages tae have nuthin' tae dae with religion but…but… a big but… never the twain shall meet?!"

Look to LJ to set the standard on this.

You: "But ye do see how even you, like the rest o' us can, here 'n there at times, be a wee bit ambiguous in what ye write."

Ambiguous? I'll accept that. Better ambiguous than a "scorned woman."

I must be improving with age.

Posted by: lindajean | February 20, 2008 10:04 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Bernie Bee:

You said: "Well lass, I suppose it is possible for marriages tae have nuthin' tae dae with religion but…but… a big but… never the twain shall meet?!"

Look to LJ to set the standard on this.

You: "But ye do see how even you, like the rest o' us can, here 'n there at times, be a wee bit ambiguous in what ye write."

Ambiguous? I'll accept that. Better ambiguous than a "scorned woman."
I must be improving with age.

Posted by: lindajean | February 20, 2008 9:59 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Timmy:

BTW: Have you noticed a certain quietude in Gad lately? He is not responding to my most recent posts to him. Do you think the poor boy is worn out?

Posted by: lindajean | February 20, 2008 9:40 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Timmy:

The debate continues but not tonight.

Sam is "edgy"in the sense he says things most are not willing to say. The great taboo-breaker.

And like I said "I'm down on that!"

Posted by: lindajean | February 20, 2008 9:35 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Gad said:
"Dawkins is a huge fan of Darwin and Darwin said "data without generalizations is useless" and "all observations must be for or against some view to be of value".

All "observations", not conclusions.
Again, this is like Ockham's razor. It is for use in experimentation and hypothesizing, not for forming conclusions about unanswered questions. This Darwin quote doesn't even come close to justifying the conclusions that you present to the world as scientific certainties, or de facto certainties. It's for use in the scientific process of working out a MYSTERY.

YOU:
"So I think I understand and therefore agree with what Dawkins is saying but I don't agree that it supports your extreme (religious like) view of "Thou can not know and therefore thou shall never say, lest with any certainty" as fully as you think it does"

I have no such view.
You are hilarious. Same old Gad. Why can you not just quote what I actually said. Does it not sound crazy enough?
lol

I have been saying all along, exactly what Dawkins was saying in that quote. And no he was not just being politically correct. That tone and credible stance exists throughout Dawkins' dialogue at all times. You could learn some humility fro professor Dawkins. And my goodness is that saying something.

Posted by: timmy | February 20, 2008 7:08 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Lindajean,

I may write that book one day, but it is obviously premature. I have much more thinking and research to do on the subject before I have a good idea if there's anything to what I am saying. I think that there is, of course, but I would love to hear more counter argument from a fabulous debater such as yourself.

YOU: "You are even edgier than Sam Harris"

I don't find Sam Harris all that edgy from my perspective. But if brutally honest is edgy, then I guess Sam and I are edgy.

Posted by: timmy | February 20, 2008 6:49 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Timmy:

I suggest you write a book about your ideas: The End of Marriage.

Provocative+subversive+politically incorrect=Best Seller.

You are even edgier than Sam Harris.
LOL!
I am down on that!

Posted by: lindajean | February 20, 2008 5:48 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Timmy said:
"Oh, really? What is my version of atheism? You refer to what I "believe". Could you elaborate. Could you tell me what I believe that is different from what Dawkins believes? I'm really keen to hear this."

Dawkins is a huge fan of Darwin and Darwin said "data without generalizations is useless" and "all observations must be for or against some view to be of value". I do not take what Dawkins said as counter to what Darwin said and I think (only Dawkins knows for sure) it was stated in a way to make it more politically appealing. So I think I understand and therefore agree with what Dawkins is saying but I don't agree that it supports your extreme (religious like) view of "Thou can not know and therefore thou shall never say, lest with any certainty" as fully as you think it does.

Posted by: GAD | February 20, 2008 11:48 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Lindajean: “Can you agree that some marriages have nothing to do with religion and never the twain shall meet?”

Well lass, I suppose it is possible for marriages tae have nuthin’ tae dae with religion but…but… a big but… never the twain shall meet?!

What kinda marriage is it if the twain never meet! If neither will agree on some arrangement surely they should at the very least try tae meet in the middle?

And what’s the following really about? Have ye seen the Albert Finney film ‘Tom Jones’? It’s about a foundling who grows up and has various amorous adventures including an outrageously sexy meal portrayed in much the same way you describe devourin’ a pizza, as here:

Lindajean: “We definitely do things out of love and choice but sometimes they require giving up some freedoms. If I like to eat pizza every night for dinner but my partner does not and asks me to consider diversifying our meal choices and I decide to do so because I know it will make him happy, then I will give up my "freedom" of eating pizza every night to make our marriage more amicable. Sometimes you do little things for the other person because you know it will make them happy even though it might sacrifice my own desire to eat pizza every night. Don't you think those kinds of choices involve giving up a little of our own pleasures (eating pizza every night?) A good marriage balances this with compromise and negotiations.”

Probably it is jist my filthy mind kickin’ in as per usual but then as the poet never said, ‘a durty mind is a joy forever’ or to further improvise, ‘marriage is a thing of duty and can annoy forever’ See what I mean?

But ye do see how even you, like the rest o’ us can, here ‘n there at times, be a wee bit ambiguous in what ye write.

Posted by: Bernie Bee | February 20, 2008 10:55 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Hi Lindajean,

There is still some confusion to clear up before we can agree to disagree. We should at least know what we are agreeing that we disagree on.

YOU:
"I think the fact I am defending something that Falwell also defends (although to a lesser degree than he) is a point we can agree on, but my defense of it is not based on any religious beliefs about how it ought to be carried out."

I didn't compare you to Falwell for "defending" marriage. I compared you to him for thinking that it should be pushed by the government and given special treatment. That is wrong.

And just to clarify: You do not need to "defend" marriage as a personal choice. I do not attack it as such. You need to show me that it is a necessity for a healthy society. (If that is what you believe)

YOU:
"You are equating marriage with a religious institution. While the majority of marriages are sanctioned by the church, because most people who get married are religious, there are people who are not religious that are married and therefore do not conduct their relationship under the domain of religiosity. Can you agree that some marriages have nothing to do with religion and never the twain shall meet?"

Yes.
But here is my point. Religion poisons everything. And some of the things that it poisons run so deep, and so far back, that a great raising of awareness is necessary to see beyond what has become accepted norms. Religion doesn't poison marriage. That is not possible because religion invented marriage. No, religion poisons male female relations. And that poison is marriage. Monogamy is a religious idea. It is not natural in our species. It might be more natural for females than it is for males, but it is not natural. Those infidelity statistics you quote are proof of that. I know, you think that they are only proof that men are pigs. But you are wrong. (if that is what you think)

YOU: "Do you agree you can embrace marriage and not be part of its religious ideologies?"

It is a religious ideology, as I just pointed out. So you can embrace it, but what is the point? You don't need marriage to have a lasting loving healthy relationship with another human being. There is nothing smart or practical about signing a civil contract or even making a promise to love someone forever. That's about as dumb as it gets. How can you promise to love someone forever? Love is a choice? News to me. Marriage means, "I promise before God (or a justice of the peace) that I will stay with you forever, even if we stop loving each other and we regret this decision 20 years from now.

However, a loving relationship, free from the marriage poison, can last a life time, or it can fade away if that is what happens naturally. But to say "I promise to love you forever"? Silly. Loving someone is not a choice. Marriage is an empty promise. There is no guarantee for love. That's reality. Marriage is not reality.

YOU:
"Well I would argue there is some value in the Bible. And to throw out the baby with the bath-water is overkill"

So would I.
The baby is the loving caring relationship. The bathwater is marriage.

YOU:
"While I am sure you do agree with my view about how women are treated, you certainly must agree with me that you overlooked this in your remarks and by doing so it is like overlooking a mushroom cloud in the sky nearby."

I certainly must not agree that I overlooked this in my remarks anymore than I overlooked the sky being blue. I said that religious men invented the institution of marriage to police their own sexuality. That is true. The policing of women's sexuality was a byproduct of that. I'm sorry that all of that horror you listed was all just a round about way to police our own wild urges, but it was. Men didn't police women's sexuality because women were the problem. They policed women's sexuality because other men were the problem, but it was easier to blame women for it. Men already controlled everything about women, not just their sexuality. I am of course horrified that women were treated like an inferior species and the property of men for millennia, but that has no bearing on the fact that marriage was a religious invention to deal with the conflict between the male seed-spreading instinct, and the male jealousy instinct. Solution? Male ownership of women. You weren't consulted, because your opinion didn't matter. (attitude of the time, not mine)

I can point out that religious men invented marriage to police their own sexuality without needing to point out the obvious reality that they did it by making women, and female sexuality, the property of men. It's not an either/or scenario. I am not making a "one sided argument" here. I was talking about the root cause of all of that horror that you listed. Horror that goes without saying.

YOU:
"You seem to be saying that people can be monogamous but still have sex with others. That is not a conventional view of monogamy. If both parties are consenting to have sex with others, I would call that an "open" relationship, not monogamy. Please clarify this"

No that;s not what I'm saying. There is confusion here. Let me clarify again.
I said that NON MONOGAMOUS couples can have sex with others and still be "true" to each other because they are being honest. There is nothing unfaithful about this. One can be faithful, and "true" to their partner and not be monogamous.

MONOGAMOUS couples however have made a pledge, so they would not be being "true" if they slept with someone else. That would be infidelity.
You were equating "true" with monogamy. And while monogamy requires being true, being true does not require monogamy. It only requires being honest. Clear?

YOU:
"If I like to eat pizza every night for dinner but my partner does not and asks me to consider diversifying our meal choices and I decide to do so because I know it will make him happy, then I will give up my "freedom" of eating pizza every night to make our marriage more amicable"

No. You give up your DESIRE to eat pizza every night. Your freedom to eat pizza every night remains in tact. I asked what freedoms we need to give up for a loving relationship? (hint: "none" is the correct answer)

You can decide at any time to go back to pizza every night. And your partner can eat something else if they don't like it. That shouldn't make them unhappy. They should be happy that you are happy with pizza every night.

YOU:
"I agree that infidelity is not the only cause of divorce. But statistics show that at least 50% (as high as 75%) of married men cheat on their wives (although I am not saying they all end in divorce.) That's a lot of infidelity"

Yes Lindajean, that is a lot of infidelity. And guess what? The actual number is higher than any of those statistics show. What does that tell you Lindajean? That all men are just pigs? Or that monogamy is unnatural. And that most marriage vows are a sham. What is the answer? For men to just smarten up? Or for us to have an awareness raising that monogamy is a completely religious idea that doesn't play out in the real world very well. Open relationships are on the rise. They only seem weird right now because our paradigm is still so poisoned by religion. But in actuality, it is monogamy that is weird.

YOU:
"My point is ---in those cases---men are pursing something besides your more "virtuous" soul-searching or self-actualization as you seem to suggest"

Here you are mixing up fidelity with divorce again. This "more virtuous, soul-searching or self-actualization" theory of mine that you sarcastically refer to here is in reference to divorce, not fidelity. Infidelity is definitely about getting another piece of ass. Divorce rarely is.

Posted by: timmy | February 20, 2008 5:27 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Bernie Bee:

You said:

"I really meant it in good fun Timmy but the fact is most of us posting in here these days don't take enough time tae read through what we've written afore pressin' the 'post' button and I'm as guilty as any in that dept."

Whoa, Bernie. I don't know who you are referring to here but don't include me in your motley crew.

You said, "Ye should always check first tae see how others might not get yer meanin' when a wee bit more care would make all the difference."

Are you following your own advice?

Posted by: lindajean | February 19, 2008 9:31 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Gad,

You said:

"If you went into a cave and convinced your self that you had experienced "oneness" with the universe, what have you really achieved, how can you know if you have done anything other then convincing your self to believe that you had achieved something......."

How can the experience of "connectedness" be less authentic, or even nonexistent, than other subjective experiences?

How can connectedness be unsubstantiated if other experiences such as falling in love, feeling empathy or even physical ecstasy are considered real human experiences?

You seem to be saying that because experiences are subjective they are not real.

How can authenticated experiences be substantial and connectedness cannot? What is the difference between them?

You state:

"For me I know that I am made of the same stuff as everything else in the universe, that's it, there is no reason to go beyond that unless you think, feel or believe that you are more then just a tiny piece of the stuff of the universe."

How can "just this tiny piece of stuff" experience so-called peak experiences unless those experiences are completely delusional. Is love delusional? Is ecstasy? Is empathy and compassion?

Posted by: lindajean | February 19, 2008 6:29 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Hi Timmy:

Well, first I would like to start off by applauding your willingness to broach this subject and to take the time to actually have a worthy discussion of it. You are in contrast to those who wish to dismiss others' arguments with ridicule, impatience and accusations. This speaks volumes of your integrity and fortitude.

Secondly, I offer you an apology for any harshness or anger you felt came forth in the contents of my posts to you. I know it is hard to read between the lines in this format, but I would be more inclined to say I was simply speaking my honest and passionate views on this matter. All other regular bloggers have done the same, likewise with their heart-felt views. To offer debate void of passion and heart results in dullness. We must only remember to balance our passions ,as Andy Ross suggested, by accommodating them with reason. I believe I have not strayed from that practice. While I used words like "shameful" and "sweet reason" and "crazy" to emphasize my views-- and sometimes I tend to over use sarcasm and tung-in-cheek mannerisms---I thought my point was valid. And I don't think a judicious use of sarcasm is an unpardonable sin since this blog is steeped in it from beginning to end.

My questioning the devil's advocate intentions, while perhaps unfair to you personally (hence the apology), was elicited because I sincerely did have doubts. You have put those doubts to rest but I don't like to assume things and I thought it was necessary to bring it up. That we see differently on this does not and ought not reduce one person's views as demagoguery or religious, or be viewed as hostile.

I do not believe I am defending marriage from a religious point of view so comparing me to Falwell just doesn't quite make the argument. I think the fact I am defending something that Falwell also defends (although to a lesser degree than he) is a point we can agree on, but my defense of it is not based on any religious beliefs about how it ought to be carried out. In fact, I believe (and perhaps I haven't stated this very well) that marriage under the auspices of religion is excessively confining and in many cases immoral. As my list indicates, the acts against women throughout history have been mechanisms to keep women under control and religion was usually going along with it all the way. We both agree on religion's ugly role in all of this.

Believe me, as a female, I am acutely aware of this mechanism (atrocities against women) and just as black people today are still acutely aware of slavery and Jim Crow, it is (sometimes) difficult to be objective about it. I realize the fact I am willing to admit this "subjectivity" of mine does not make my arguments stronger, but I don't believe having it discounts them either.

If I lived in a different time or even a different part of the world today, if I were illiterate or uneducated or lived in extreme poverty, I would probably be exiled into a marriage of convenience and abuse. I could be experiencing some of the acts on my comprised list of atrocities. So what I manage to keep in my mind everyday is that I am an extremely fortunate person to have all the freedoms I do and to still be able to enjoy what I would call the benefits of marriage. And just from a personal point (and really the most significant reason for defending it) is because I have been both single and married, and by far, marriage is my cup of tea.

I do think we are having a problem with semantics. You are equating marriage with a religious institution. While the majority of marriages are sanctioned by the church, because most people who get married are religious, there are people who are not religious that are married and therefore do not conduct their relationship under the domain of religiosity. Can you agree that some marriages have nothing to do with religion and never the twain shall meet? Do you agree you can embrace marriage and not be part of its religious ideologies? I think a fair analogy would be an argument that there is absolutely nothing of value in the Bible. It is the scorn of mankind and ought to be annihilated. Well I would argue there is some value in the Bible. And to throw out the baby with the bathwater is overkill.

You are calling me a "smart ass" because I accused you of "overlooking" the control of female sexuality throughout history, and because I questioned your over-emphasis on male sexuality which I deem (pretty) moot when compared to female treatment. You chide me for this, as though I am suppose to know that you are in complete agreement with me (all the while skipping over female sexuality and waving your flag of male sexuality and how all these poor men have suffered because of religion's oppressive constraints on them), and that all the world knows this, and that I am just trying to throw fire your way to incite you and make you angry.While I am sure you do agree with my view about how women are treated, you certainly must agree with me that you overlooked this in your remarks and by doing so it is like overlooking a mushroom cloud in the sky nearby.

I will stay steadfast in my statement that many men in this world do not have the "luxury" of sharing your views about this. I call that a luxury because you have had many good opportunities in your life to help you along to this point. You probably had a very good education. (You were not memorizing the Koran in your elementary school days.) And you live in a culture that promotes democratic ideals like equality and justice. And you have a comfortable income and lifestyle that affords you the opportunity to think about all of these interesting things and even play out the role of devil's advocate. Can you not agree, that like me, you are a very fortunate person compared to the billions of humans that can barely stay alive each day? Can you agree that our cultural values of equality and justice give us a heads-up on the insanity and oppression of the marriage you so adequately describe? I'm on your side here, Timmy. We are simply seeing a few shades of gray differently as your comment about me "making your case" bears out. And when you say "The shame is on you for your false read, and subsequent fallacious accusation" let's just say that if it was a false read, it came about because your argument was very one-sided.

I said: "You are equating marriage to monogamy which I will agree are essentially the same"

You said: "No I am not. And no they are not.
Marriage is a religious institution that demands monogamy.Monogamy is a separate thing by itself. For those who want no part of the religious institution of marriage, but still want monogamy, it is a free choice that can be made by two consenting adults. It can be a temporary arrangement, or an indefinite arrangement or a life long promise. It can involve cohabitation but it does not require cohabitation."

I will agree with you that you don't have to have marriage to have monogamy. I only equated the two because I wanted to base this discussion on the assumption that when I use the word marriage I am using it within the context of a monogamous relationship. When people make a commitment to marriage (usually) monogamy is part of that commitment.

You said: "Raise your awareness, Lindajean. Marriage and monogamy are two separate things. One is a religious institution. The other is a completely secular idea. Monogamy by free choice, not by divine rule or civil contract."

We can all raise our awarenesses, but I don't think lack of it is the issue here. I think we are simply looking at this from different perspectives, but when it comes down to all these pages of blogging we see things closely---not very closely, but closely just the same. And I don't agree that marriage is always a religious institution as I addressed earlier.

I said:
"But for the sake of argument we are talking about people who are married with the assumption and commitment that they will be true to each other"

You said: "Being "true", and being faithful have nothing to do with monogamy. Non monogamous couples can be (and many are) true to each other and faithful. "True" and "faithful" are about honesty and commitment. If someone has been unfaithful, it is not because they had sex with someone else, it's because they promised not to have sex with someone else, and they did anyway.Raise your awareness, Lindajean. "True" and "faithful" are about honesty, not monogamy."

This is where we are parting. I don't think "true" is separate from monogamy--true means being honest with your partner, so if you are practicing monogamy with the commitment of being faithful and you have an understanding that you are going to be faithful to each other, then you would not be "true" if you were unfaithful. I guess my point is why would you claim to be monogamous with a person if you were not going to be true (keeping your promise) and instead you were unfaithful? My definition of monogamy includes fidelity. I think it is a general understanding that monogamous relationships involve fidelity and fidelity is part of monogamy. Your definition seemingly does not agree with this. You seem to be saying that people can be monogamous but still have sex with others. That is not a conventional view of monogamy. If both parties are consenting to have sex with others, I would call that an "open" relationship, not monogamy. Please clarify this.

You said: "Lindajean, I'm pretty sure that there are studies that show that religious people are much happier than atheists in general, so I don't know how much stock I put in these studies. But the point is, committed relationships do not require marriage or monogamy. Happy family units do not require marriage, or monogamy. In fact, I would argue that marriage is part of the reason why so many committed relationships go south, and children end up in broken homes."

That is your opinion, and you are entitled to it but it is an opinion. I don't agree that these studies are fallacious. I think they are rather revealing although I am willing to say they are not 100% infallible. I am wiling to say I find them interesting and worthy of notice.

I said: "You also, I would guess, view women as "equals" under the law and you don't view women as an extension of your property or the means of simply perpetuating your gene pool. But I would guess that many men are not in your position and so they do not have the comfort of holding similar, luxurious views about life and women"

You said: "I have no idea what you are getting at here. But it sounds like something sarcastic and off the mark again."

Well I tried to explain that in more detail in the above paragraphs. It really was not meant as sarcasm.

I said:
"Because they require a certain amount of giving that goes beyond your own needs and desires. I don't believe you can have a successful marriage without giving up some of your own freedoms and wants. That is simply the nature of relationships"

You said: I disagree. We do things for each other out of love and by choice. There is no freedom given up here. What "freedoms" do we need to give up for love and companionship and security?

We definitely do things out of love and choice but sometimes they require giving up some freedoms. If I like to eat pizza every night for dinner but my partner does not and asks me to consider diversifying our meal choices and I decide to do so because I know it will make him happy, then I will give up my "freedom" of eating pizza every night to make our marriage more amicable. Sometimes you do little things for the other person because you know it will make them happy even though it might sacrifice my own desire to eat pizza every night. Don't you think those kinds of choices involve giving up a little of our own pleasures (eating pizza every night?) A good marriage balances this with compromise and negotiations.

You say: "As for the minority of divorces, that are a result of infidelity, this also happens for a myriad of reasons and not, as you suggest, just because the man wants something younger, prettier etc. I dare say that you are revealing some personal vendetta with this ridiculous attempt to make it look like most divorces are the result of men wanting a younger piece of ass...."

I agree that infidelity is not the only cause of divorce. But statistics show that at least 50% (as high as 75%) of married men cheat on their wives (although I am not saying they all end in divorce.) That's a lot of infidelity. My point is ---in those cases---men are pursing something besides your more "virtuous" soul-searching or self-actualization as you seem to suggest. I am bringing "fidelity" or lack of it into the argument because it seems to be a significant part of this equation. Plus I have to admit from a personal point of view, if my husband just wanted to go into Sam's cave for a week or two and do some introspection, I would welcome his desire to do that. If he decided to cheat on me, I would not applaud that at all. And once again, from a personal perspective I understand marriages can have a lot of differences and those differences can lead to divorce, but I think many of these differences can be worked out between the two parties. But infidelity may not because it requires a loyal sense of trust. If that trust is broken, how can one go back to being trustworthy again?

I refer you to this link for more details about male infidelity--quite interesting really:

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1077/is_n1_v54/ai_21270363

You asked, "Something on your mind? Because it's not the divorce statistics."

No, not really. Only trying to sort through your words and acquire some meaning behind them. If that comes off as a vendetta, then I will refer you back to my apology.

Me: "Children born outside of marriage have more poverty ( and all the scourges that go with it), are less educated and tend to have all the societal ills that most of us want to eliminate so that the world can be a better place"

You:"I think that you are describing children outside of "loving family units" not children "outside of marriage"......"

Well, we are back to definitions and you may be right. I am citing the definitions used in the research. And while some out-of-wedlock relationships may do just fine, generally speaking that is not the case when children enter the equation. Once again, this is particularly true in poverty and low income situations.

It might be wise if we just agree to disagree on these thoughts. For when even Timmy misunderstands LJ and/or LJ misunderstands Timmy to the Nth degree, it is possible most of the "sweet reason" on this blog has flown out the window. Needless to say, I have enjoyed the conversation but there is a good reason that those who study gender differences claim that women are from Venus and men are from Mars. And we are, no doubt a perfect example of that adage.

Posted by: lindajean | February 19, 2008 6:12 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Gad said:

"That only applies to your version of atheism, all others are on a case by case bases. And what Dawkins says does not backup what you believe as fully as you think it does"

Oh, really? What is my version of atheism? You refer to what I "believe". Could you elaborate. Could you tell me what I believe that is different from what Dawkins believes? I'm really keen to hear this.

Besides, your comment about the license plate was directly referring to my statements which were virtually identical to the Dawkins lines I just quoted. I was just pointing out the very same thing that he is pointing out. If you agree with Dawkins' words above, then we agree. There's just been some misunderstanding or confusion up until now I guess. But if you disagree with Dawkins sentiments, then we are still at odds.

My version of atheism?
lol

Posted by: timmy | February 19, 2008 1:23 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Timmy said:
"Sounds like Dawkins needs to hear Gad's sarcastic idea for the atheist bumper sticker, "COME BE AN ATHEIST. WE DON'T HAVE ALL THE ANSWERS""

That only applies to your version of atheism, all others are on a case by case bases. And what Dawkins says does not backup what you believe as fully as you think it does.

Posted by: GAD | February 19, 2008 12:38 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Richard Dawkins: from The God Delusion

"It is an essential part of the scientific enterprise to admit ignorance, even to exult in ignorance as a challenge to future conquests. As my friend Matt Ridley has written, "Most scientists are bored by what they have already discovered. It is ignorance that drives them on." Mystics exult in mystery and want it to stay mysterious. Scientists, exult in mystery for a different reason. It gives them something to do."

"Admissions of ignorance and temporary mystification are vital to good science. It is therefore unfortunate, to say the least, that the main strategy of creation propagandists, is the negative one of seeking out gaps in scientific knowledge, and claiming to fill them with "intelligent design" by default. This creationist ploy undermines the scientists natural - indeed necessary - rejoicing in (temporary) uncertainty. For purely political reasons, todays scientists might hesitate before saying, "Hmmm."

Sounds like Dawkins needs to hear Gad's sarcastic idea for the atheist bumper sticker, "COME BE AN ATHEIST. WE DON'T HAVE ALL THE ANSWERS"
The nerve of him, suggesting that science should admit ignorance, never mind have a little humility. This Dawkins fellow must be very unsure of himself. Or maybe he is just aware that admission of ignorance is more credible than making up an answer. Even when the other side is all ready to jump all over your admission of ignorance.

Posted by: timmy | February 19, 2008 5:04 AM
Report Offensive Comment

if you say so, Bernie

Posted by: timmy | February 18, 2008 11:48 PM
Report Offensive Comment

What a right duffer ye are Timmy! Ye'r ayont redemption so ye are! Yer only hope now is that Peter can convert ye tae see the light. So afore it's too late get doon on yer knees an ask Peter tae intercede wi' the Creator tae save yer worthless sowel!
Gawd luv ye honest wee bachle that ye are!

Posted by: Bernie Bee | February 18, 2008 10:16 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Bernie,

YOU:
"Whatever ye dae Timmy, never in any circs use that phrase 'I'm completely honest' again!"

I'm afraid I just can not comply with your request. I have heard your argument. I simply do not agree that using those words can not be sincere. It can be, it was, and I stand by my declaration of complete honesty in this circumstance. It does not serve my interest to be anything but, in this particular discussion that I am having with Lindajean. I am trying to work out some thoughts. Any dishonesty on my part would hinder that process. I have no motivation or call to be dishonest.

Sorry buddy, you'll just have to cringe every time you see me use it.

Posted by: timmy | February 18, 2008 9:52 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Hi Timmy,

Good pick up on the last post of yours to me about free will. I will explain when I have more time. I am working tomorrow.

Posted by: Peter Huff | February 18, 2008 9:25 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Ye'er right Timmy, that last post o' mine was definitely more than a wee bit harsh in the chastisment I dished out.
I really meant it in good fun Timmy but the fact is most of us posting in here these days don't take enough time tae read through what we've written afore pressin' the 'post' button and I'm as guilty as any in that dept.
Ye should always check first tae see how others might not get yer meanin' when a wee bit more care would make all the difference.

In this instance what I was gettin at was when anybody starts talkin about how honest they are it should set the alarm bells ringin', put ye on guard as it were.
Whatever ye dae Timmy, never in any circs use that phrase 'I'm completely honest' again! Say sumthin' sich as 'I firmly believe' or 'it's my sincere advice' jist anythin' rather than expect us tae take yer honesty for a fact jist acos you say so.
Pip Pip.

Posted by: Bernie Bee | February 18, 2008 8:34 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Bernie said:
"What a pernickity, finnicky, humourless, literal-minded dude ye can be at times!"

Don't be callin me "dude" or I'll sock you one good.:)

And "literal minded" you say?
Bernie it was you who took my use of the phrase "completely honest" out of context and reported it to be so literal that you felt compelled to point out that I am kidding myself if I think that anyone is ever really completely honest. Uh... Duh.

"pernickity, finnicky"?

You mean like not being able to let a phrase like "I am being completely honest" go by without pointing out the delusion of anyone saying that and literally thinking that they could ever really be completely honest. You mean "pernickity and finnicky like that?

It's just that I'd rather you put your talents to use by commenting on the actual content of the discussion as opposed to grabbing little phrases and using them as an opportunity to use a quote from your vast reference library, which is impressive, but so very often irrelevant and confusing.

Common Bernie. Let's have some of your pithy jokes on the meat of the subject, not on out of context turns of phrase that you choose to put your own literal meaning on.

Posted by: timmy | February 18, 2008 8:06 PM
Report Offensive Comment

There ye go again Timmy! Ye were meant tae laff it off! What a pernickity, finnicky, humourless, literal-minded dude ye can be at times!
So ye want evidence that ye'er a liar? Well for sure when ye insist in claimin' ye'er completely honest then the safest tae mark ye down as not tae be trustit in any circs!
Trust me Timmy, I KNOW!
Now go an wash yer mouth out!

Posted by: Bernie Bee | February 18, 2008 5:50 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Oh, and just for clarity sake, the full quote was:

"I am completely honest, and clinical when discussing this issue."

I was not claiming to be completely honest all of the time.
I do my best like everyone else.

Posted by: timmy | February 18, 2008 5:15 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Hi Bernie,

I don't see how that quote confirms that there is no such thing as complete honesty. So until you have some better evidence of this claim, I will continue to state that I am being completely honest, when I am being completely honest. If you've caught me in a lie, bring forth your evidence and you will have a legitimate reason to question my claim of honesty. Otherwise, I guess you don't.

Posted by: timmy | February 18, 2008 5:10 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Aye Timmy, that was another of my corny wee jokes. But I'm surprised ye were unaware o' the humorous quote, "The louder he talked of his honour, the faster we counted our spoons."

Now its been brought tae yer attention ye'll no be likely tae make that claim o' complete honesty again, since there ain't no sich critter, fibber that ye are!

Posted by: Bernie Bee | February 18, 2008 3:28 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Peter,

Again you have wasted a lot of breath explaining something that is clear.
We are responsible for our own actions. Got it.
You just haven't gone back far enough to the ultimate buck stop.
We are responsible for our actions and decisions.
Our judgement and reasoning are the cause of us making the wrong decision with the wonderful free will that God gave us. (by the way I thought you didn't use the term "free will") You use it constantly! Make up your mind.
So where did we get our judgement and reasoning? We didn't make us.

YOU:
"So God is responsible for making evil possible, but free creatures are responsible for making it actual"

Who made the free creatures and gave them their faulty judgement and reasoning?

YOU:
"God is not responsible for the exercise of that free choice to do evil. God does not perform the free action for us"

I know. We do it ourselves. Because we have flawed judgement and reasoning.
Who gave us that faulty judgement and reasoning? Where did it come from, this flaw of making the wrong choices? We make the choice, but who made us?

"God then is responsible for the possibility of evil, but we must bear the responsibility for the actuality of it"

Yes Peter. We are responsible for our decisions. And we have, all of us, made the wrong decisions, showing bad judgement.
Where did we get this bad judgement and reasoning from? Who is responsible for the existence of our bad judgement and reasoning?

YOU:
"So, l am the efficient cause of my own free actions, but the power of free choice is the means by which I freely act."

Yes, you are the cause of your own free actions. Who is the cause of you?

It is inescapable, Peter. No matter how much you try to blame man, God made man. I am not missing the point about free will Peter. I get it. It is our decision. But you are the one who is avoiding that reality, that judgement and reason are responsible for what we do, not volition. And God created our judgement and reasoning. God created us Peter. He is of course, responsible for everything about us.

Peter, you are suggesting here that humans are God, because you are suggesting that we created our own judgement and reasoning.
Do you admit that it is our judgement and reasoning that dictate our decisions?
If not, what does dictate our decisions?
If so, do you admit that God gave us our judgement and reasoning?
If not, where did our judgement and reasoning come from?
If so, God is flawed.

Posted by: timmy | February 18, 2008 3:11 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Bernie quoted Timmy: "I am completely honest..."

Bernie commented: "When anybody makes that claim ye know it's time tae count the spoons!"

Sorry to be so daft, but I'm not sure what this means.
I know it's a joke, because it's Bernie, but I don't get it. Does it mean that if someone says that they are being honest, this is a sure fire way of telling that they are lying? That doesn't make any sense, so it must mean something else. Spoons?

Posted by: timmy | February 18, 2008 2:29 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Hi Peter,

Thanks for playing my game, your replies were very telling. For the most your answers were theist views of atheism, but again that tells me a lot. I don't know any atheists as shallow as the one you portray, you are a very poor atheist, which again explains a lot. Probably the most telling of your answers was the last "What is the meaning of life?".

Posted by: GAD | February 18, 2008 11:25 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Lindajean said:
"What I am asking you is Do you believe that because we (humans) have this awareness, this knowledge, this understanding that we have commonalities, a common denominator, can we experience this "common-ness" subjectively in our minds? Can I find a cave and contemplate about my connectedness to all of this vast space and time and actually experience that I am a part of all of this, that this is all a part of me, that in some respect I am a "oneness" with the universe?"

I think you can convince your self to believe just about anything, take religion for example, caves are optional.

Lindajean said:
"I am asking you this because people claim to do this through transience and mysticism. They have claimed to do this long before the sciences had proven we are connected through physical substances. If you can accept intellectually, then how do you defend that you cannot experience it in a transient state?"

If you went into a cave and convinced your self that you had experienced "oneness" with the universe, what have you really achieved, how can you know if you have done anything other then convincing your self to believe that you had achieved something.......

For me I know that I am made of the same stuff as everything else in the universe, that's it, there is no reason to go beyond that unless you think, feel or believe that you are more then just a tiny piece of the stuff of the universe.

Posted by: GAD | February 18, 2008 11:04 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Timmy: "I am completely honest..."

When anybody makes that claim ye know it's time tae count the spoons!

Posted by: Bernie Bee | February 18, 2008 8:08 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Hi Lindajean,

Wow. I'm not sure where to begin. Certainly I will do my best to be far more cordial, respectful and less accusing than you were to me in your post. I posed some food for thought, that I thought were provocative and interesting thoughts, and for some reason, this triggered some anger in you.

There are many areas of confusion on this issue which I must clear up. The first being this "devil's advocate" thing. You seem to be presuming, and sarcastically trying to point out, your strong conviction that I am using this term to hide my true beliefs about marriage. To me, Lindajean, you look quite the fool for this assumption. You have made an ASS out of U and ME. These questions I posed are questions that I do not pretend to have answers for. That is why I am asking questions. As I try honestly to work out these difficult questions in my head, I play a constant game of devils advocate with myself, as we all do when working through something in our head. And so this discussion that we are having, is about issues that I am still working out in my head, and so I am bringing some of the devil's advocate arguments from my head, into our forum. I have nothing to hide Lindajean. I am an open book. I am completely honest, and clinical when discussing this issue. From the tone of your last two posts to me, I'd say that, of the two of us, it is you who's clear headed reasoning on this subject seems clouded by emotion. I was very disturbed by your accusation that I was hiding behind the term "devil's advocate". Nothing could be further from the truth.

YOU: "Well, it isn't your questions that are "crazy" it is your answers"

I gave no answers, Lindajean, I only asked questions and offered hypotheses.

YOU: "I am left wondering about this "devil's advocate" .....on what flight has his sweet reason departed?"

None, as you will soon see, smart ass.

YOU:
LOL! With what?........may I ask ...... mere facetious threats of burning in hell?

Yes. That was my point. I didn't say they were smart men. I said they were religious men.

YOU: What you have failed miserably to mention---a slight oversight on your part, I do understand---is the policing of female sexuality throughout the course of history and its bold bolt into the 21st century.

lol.
I have also failed miserably to mention that the sky is blue, but like what you just mentioned above, it's kind of obvious. All of those things you talk about are a result of men policing their own sexuality. Jealousy is a biological part of our sexuality in both females and males (albeit for slightly different reasons). In a world where the male has physical dominance over the female, the combination of the male sex drive to spread the seed, and the male jealousy, was a conflict causing problem that found a solution in religion. That solution was called marriage. Women were already the property of men for purely physical reasons before religion got involved. Then religion came along and invented marriage (by men) which was designed to control everybody's sexuality, not just women's, and not just men's. I am the one making an argument against this horrible invention, and you are the one who is defending it.

YOU:
And this is not just an innocuous policing, as we see in the case of male behavior, correct?
More in line with slow torture, imprisonment and death for our wayward sisters.
Allow me to comprise a list of some of the most egregious and heinous acts in history against women and girls simply for the sake of being their own natural and biological selves:
witch hunting scarlet letters (you know about these two, correct?) burning at the stake stoning for adultery female genital mutilation denial of property, legal and civil rights denial of birth control denial of health care wife abuse foot-binding rape incest molestation polygamy child brides sex slaves prostitution homicide/murder chastity belts sodomy......
need I go any further?"

My goodness, Lindajean, it's not like you to use such demagoguery. Anyway, I hope I explained above how I was not ignoring any of these things, and I'm glad that you took the time to type them all out. It makes my case against the horrible religious institution called marriage that is the cause of all of these horrors listed above. And your next three paragraphs make my case even more but I will only reprint one of them to save space. Here is you, in your argument for marriage, going on about how it was invented for men to own women.

"But historically speaking, marriage was "invented" to distinguish one man's progeny from another's. Since throughout history, women were perceived by men as "property" , and therefore, it was important to have cultural (and religious) constraints to prevent women from having multiple fathers of their children. As a man, you wanted a wife (whose behavior would guarantee) that your children were biologically your own. Marriage has never really kept men from extra-marital affairs. So who are we kidding? But it generally kept women in a position of fear and curtailed any promiscuity, or a steep price was paid for any flaunting of it"

Yes Lindajean yes. It's an awful creation.

What price have men paid for promiscuity compared to women?

None. And that should go for both men and women, but there's that damned marriage thing that you are defending for some reason that makes it unfair in mens favor.

YOU:
"So let's begin first and foremost with a foundation based on reason, facts and history"

Okay

YOU:
"Because for you to claim that men are "policing their own sexuality" while ignoring the astonishing, stark and mind-numbing, cultural, social, psychological and individual power men have historically had over women, is, well.........about as creepy as you can get without actually being creepy, my dear blogger. Talk about shameful, indeed."

I have ignored nothing of the sort. The shame is on you for your false read, and subsequent fallacious accusation.

I said:
"But I don't see any of the things listed above [financial well-being, love, companionship...] as needing to have anything to do with monogamy or marriage"

You said: "Well, I do"

Please explain in more detail.

YOU: "You are equating marriage to monogamy which I will agree are essentially the same"

No I am not. And no they are not.
Marriage is a religious institution that demands monogamy.
Monogamy is a separate thing by itself. For those who want no part of the religious institution of marriage, but still want monogamy, it is a free choice that can be made by two consenting adults. It can be a temporary arrangement, or an indefinite arrangement or a life long promise. It can involve cohabitation but it does not require cohabitation.

Raise your awareness, Lindajean. Marriage and monogamy are two separate things. One is a religious institution. The other is a completely secular idea. Monogamy by free choice, not by divine rule or civil contract.

YOU:
"But for the sake of argument we are talking about people who are married with the assumption and commitment that they will be true to each other"

Being "true", and being faithful have nothing to do with monogamy. Non monogamous couples can be (and many are) true to each other and faithful. "True" and "faithful" are about honesty and commitment. If someone has been unfaithful, it is not because they had sex with someone else, it's because they promised not to have sex with someone else, and they did anyway.

Raise your awareness, Lindajean. "True" and "faithful" are about honesty, not monogamy.

YOU:
"As I have indicated before, most research (and there are some contradictions) indicate that generally speaking, married people are happier, have better health and are financially more stable"

Lindajean, I'm pretty sure that there are studies that show that religious people are much happier than atheists in general, so I don't know how much stock I put in these studies. But the point is, committed relationships do not require marriage or monogamy. Happy family units do not require marriage, or monogamy. In fact, I would argue that marriage is part of the reason why so many committed relationships go south, and children end up in broken homes.

YOU:
"So when I ask you to think about the implications of marriage, I am asking you to think of it from a sociological perspective, and not simply your own (devil's advocate) views"

Believe me, I am. But I feel I must ask the same of you.

YOU:
"You also, I would guess, view women as "equals" under the law and you don't view women as an extension of your property or the means of simply perpetuating your gene pool. But I would guess that many men are not in your position and so they do not have the comfort of holding similar, luxurious views about life and women"

I have no idea what you are getting at here. But it sounds like something sarcastic and off the mark again.

I asked: "To what end? Why do we need to sacrifice freedom, for love and companionship"

You answered:
"Because they require a certain amount of giving that goes beyond your own needs and desires. I don't believe you can have a successful marriage without giving up some of your own freedoms and wants. That is simply the nature of relationships"

I disagree. We do things for each other out of love and by choice. There is no freedom given up here. What "freedoms" do we need to give up for love and companionship and security?

ME: "It's not about someone younger or even someone else. It's about people change."

YOU:
"Your straw man (I mean.. devil) is about to topple over"

Nope. As we will soo see.

YOU:
Men do not divorce or cheat on their wives because they are trying to find themselves or are soul-searching the meaning of life (they would go into Sam's cave if they were going to do that.....and I don't see too many men rushing into that cave.) We know why some men seek out relationships outside of their marriage...........and I don't need to spell it out here...so such a claim has absolutely no leg to stand on.

Wow. Where to begin. In your first sentence here you combine divorce and cheating as though they are one thing so first I have to un-jumble that mess. Let's start with divorce. Most divorces are over irreconcilable differences not infidelity. Of those, there are a myriad of complex reasons none of which have anything to do with infidelity. That's the majority of divorces. As for the minority of divorces, that are a result of infidelity, this also happens for a myriad of reasons and not, as you suggest, just because the man wants something younger, prettier etc. I dare say that you are revealing some personal vendetta with this ridiculous attempt to make it look like most divorces are the result of men wanting a younger piece of ass. Something on your mind? Because it's not the divorce statistics

ME:
"I don't see marriage or monogamy as having anything to do with raising children. Love, compassion, role models, etc...But monogamy and marriage? Dispensable."

YOU:
"Once again, just look at the facts. Research indicates children born outside of marriage fare much more poorly than children who do not. The evidence is so over reaching, it should strike most people as a no-brainer, but the fact that it doesn't indicates to me a great discrepancy and bias people actually do have about marriage. Children born outside of marriage have more poverty ( and all the scourges that go with it), are less educated and tend to have all the societal ills that most of us want to eliminate so that the world can be a better place"

I think that you are describing children outside of "loving family units" not children "outside of marriage". Marriage is a religious institution that need not have anything to do with a committed relationship or a loving family unit. Monogamy, (which is a completely separate thing from marriage) also need not have anything to do with a committed relationship or a loving family unit.

YOU:
"One of the most positive phenomenons in a child's life is a strong, committed marriage between her mother and father"

Replace the word "marriage" with "relationship" and add the caveat that this "relationship" need not be sexual or monogamous, and I will accept this reasoning. Otherwise, I can not.

YOU
"Without it, it is almost guaranteed her life will be less productive and successful"

YOU:
"And just to stir the pot a bit, I would argue that as a society we have an ethical responsibility to promote "healthy" marriages, give large tax breaks to people who stay married with young children, subsidize daycare and early childhood education, promote marriage as a civic responsibility as we do with voting, paying our taxes, obeying the law, etc..."

Here you go with the Jerry Falwell talk again. You want the government to push and encourage a religious institution?
More shame, Lindajean, more shame!

Lindajean, you have failed to show why marriage is a necessity is our society, in fact I think you have done a very good job of making my case against it. As for children, they need a loving family unit and that is all. You have failed to show how either the religious institution of marriage or monogamy have any bearing on a "loving family unit".

Raise your awareness, Lindajean.
Marriage is a religious nightmare that hinders truly committed and loving relationships. It doesn't helps to create them or maintain them.
Being true and faithful is about honesty, not monogamy. Monogamy is about jealousy alone.

Posted by: timmy | February 18, 2008 6:46 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Soja, one of my favorite spiritual songs,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jVuetSYQ0qI&feature=related

A question from your last post. Am I to understand you that you don't take the Bible as God speaking to us plainly from its pages?

You said,

"My guess why Andy does not put us together into the same category of Christians is that I do not take the Bible as literally as you do, as the sole source of all knowledge pertaining to God, as a science treatise, as a history textbook. To me it is a spiritual guide, and the God I worship is a living God, He is not frozen in time and compressed into the pages of the Bible."

I take it literally only where the passage leads me to take it as such, as history where it gives reason to be taken in such manner, as figurative where the passage speaks in figurative language, but I do take it as His plain revelation to us, His spoken word captured in written word. He is not frozen in time, but His written revelation to us is because He has determined it to be so. Yes there are other ways to know about God for God speaks to us by what He has created, but only through His Son and by His Spirit can we truly come to know Him in Person. I dare even give a reason why the atheist will not know Him and sees no evidence for Him, because they will not earnestly and humbly seek Him with all there hearts.

Blessings in Christ!
Peter

Posted by: Peter Huff | February 17, 2008 11:51 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Hi Gad,

Here goes looking at life through an atheist's perspective, as I would envision it.

GAD: "... I want you to pretend you are an atheist and answer all your own questions to me. No fair just saying you don't know, can't think of any answers etc, you have to give the best answer you can from an atheist POV, i.e. there is no god.”"

QUESTION: "If there is no god:
Where did, matter, the universe, come from. (remember these things are, but you can' use god because your an atheist)?"

ANSWER from an atheist perspective: As an atheist it cannot be known where all the matter, and for that matter the universe came from. All an atheist can do is take a relative stab at it based on the evidence that is now available and might have been available in the distant past, in the atheist's frame work, billions of years ago, since what happened in the beginning, if there was a beginning, is nothing an atheist was privileged to witness.

An atheist can speculate on an eternal universe or multiple universes, but have no evidence for such other than imagination on why there is something instead of nothing. Based on the current line of thinking however, as an atheist, the evidence of an expanding universe, the gradual death and decay and wearing out of the universe all seems to point to a beginning but, as an atheist, it is only speculation from what.

QUESTION: "How did life come from an amoral, random, blind, chance beginning.. ( remember we are here so there must be a reason, but you can' use god because your an atheist)?

ANSWER from an atheist perspective: As an atheist the question can only be speculated upon, since an atheist does not see and has never seen life coming from blind chance beginnings. There is order and information (design) in all of nature, in everything seen, so how a random, chaotic process can produce this stuff over time is still a mystery that science will hopefully one day be able to give the answer to, because evolutionary science is the only thing that the atheist has hope of in being able to answer the deep questions of life. It takes faith to believe.

QUESTION: "How did love, compassion, thinking, personality, morals and truth come from non-living matter (remember that all these things are, so there must be a reason, but you can' use god because your an atheist)?"

Answer from an atheist perspective: The problem of ethics alone is one of the more puzzling problems an atheist has to answer, and that is how can something qualitative and intangible, immaterial such as a concept or idea like "good" come from physical, lifeless matter substance? Yes, the human race is connected to this terrestrial ball in that all the physical attributes needed to sustain human life are interconnected, but this does not explain how something that came from a rock stores knowledge and thinks and is able to make moral judgments. One of the preconditions for thinking, logic and intelligibility is a mind. The atheist has yet to hear a rock offer an intelligent defense for its existence, but maybe that is because the atheist does not think on the same plane that a rock does. Is that a possibility? Yes, it does seem foolish to believe, but hey, why not? It all depends on how the electromagnetic impulses in any particular mind are triggered. The human mind is such an amazingly complicated and apparently well designed piece of matter for the atheist to explain how it could come from chaotic beginnings and be able to think not only of physical, material concepts such as rocks, but also of immaterial, non-tangible concepts such as good, love, justice, right, wrong. But the alternative is not an alternative to an atheist - created by God.

How does one establish a moral principle "good" without first a standard to compare good too? In an atheist world from a unpredictable, chaotic, random, chance beginning it would be established by experience, trail and error. How an atheist first got to this point is hard to imagine, but even at this point, whose experience, whose trial and error? Why does ones ideal of good become the standard another "ought to" necessarily accept? Why is your "good" good? Whose choice of what "good" is is the right choice? As an atheist the only justification for good is just the mere opinion of what good is for what does the atheist mean by good? What things possess the properties of goodness? What is it rated against? To each his own idea. That is the atheist standard, himself, for good cannot be that which is to the benefit or happiness of the greatest number for any number of factors, such as the ability to determine the outcome and consequences of any given "good" action or decision.

QUESTION: "How did something come from nothing? ( remember we are here so there must be a reason, but you can' use god because your an atheist)?"

Answer from an atheist perspective: To an atheist something has never been witnessed coming from nothing, for from nothing, nothing comes. So it is reasonable to believe that something did come from something else, but what that something else is the atheist knows not. He can only speculate. Every effect that he has ever witnessed has a cause. What is the cause of the universe since the current trend is that it had a beginning? The atheist has no idea, just pure speculation, one being that of multiple universes that have eternally existed.

QUESTION: "What are people who are following the bible (or any religion) really following? (remember they do and even kill for it, so there must be a reason, but you can' use god because your an atheist)?"

ANSWER from an atheist perspective: The atheist believes they are following a pie-in-the-sky, a do to not die, a crutch of wishful thinking so that they do not have to face the fact that existence will soon be over and it will all be meaningless.

QUESTION: "What happens when you die. (remember we do die, but you can' use god because your an atheist)?"

Answer from an atheist perspective: "Nothing happens when you die because after you are dead you are nothing. Your essence, your nature ceases to be and your body and physical makeup are used to push up daisies and provide hey for another dumb beast to feed on, maybe even one that will ponder the same questions?

"Meaningless! Meaningless!" says the Teacher. Utter meaningless! Everything is meaningless." (Ecclesiastes 1:2)

QUESTION: "Why should anyone be nice to anyone else (remember that they are, so there must be a reason, but you can' use god because your an atheist)"

ANSWER from an atheist perspective: Because being nice may possibly be beneficial to the atheist. It's the selfish gene that calculates what benefit being nice will be to ones existence.

QUESTION: "How can we know what is good or bad or measure horror (remember we do so there must be a reason, but you can' use god because your an atheist)?"

ANSWER from an atheist perspective: We can't know, we can only decide what our perception of good and bad and horror will be. One atheists perception of good could be another atheists bad. Ones perception of horror could be another's joy and excitement.

QUESTION: "What is the meaning of life?"

ANSWER from an atheist perspective: Whatever you make it to be. There is no ultimate meaning or purpose in existence. There is nothing to look forward to once you are dead, so, "Eat, drink and be merry," for tomorrow you die! Go for the gusto! Get what you can out of life for you're going to be dead longer than you are alive. Don't worry about hurting someones feelings or even doing them bodily harm if you can get away with it and it is to your benefit, to the extent that you can determine that benefit.

Posted by: Peter Huff | February 17, 2008 7:38 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Gad said,

"What I hope is all water under the bridge is that when I disagree with your views that you won't view it as personal or because you are a woman. That is simply not the case, ideas are right wrong irrespective of character or gender, but that's not to say that ideas are not influenced by character or gender."

Well put and I will concur with the understanding that you will adhere to your own words as well.

Posted by: lindajean | February 17, 2008 2:15 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Timmy,

You are wrong, there is a cure pedophilia, and it only costs about a $1 per shot.

Posted by: GAD | February 17, 2008 1:48 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Lindajean said:
"Do we have issues??
I thought those were all water under the bridge...."

I think it is fair to say that our views of the world are different,and I don't really see that changing.

What I hope is all water under the bridge is that when I disagree with your views that you won't view it as personal or because you are a woman. That is simply not the case, ideas are right wrong irrespective of character or gender, but that's not to say that ideas are not influenced by character or gender.

Posted by: GAD | February 17, 2008 1:04 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Part two of 2 on marriage

Timmy:

You said, "But I don't see any of the things listed above [financial well-being, love, companionship...] as needing to have anything to do with monogamy or marriage.

Well, I do.

(First, let's make sure we have the right meanings here. You are equating marriage to monogamy which I will agree are essentially the same. There are exceptions to this as I stated before with gay people who can't legally marry but may have monogamous relationships through civil unions, etc... and there are some common law marriages, people who have lived-together forever and therefore are essentially married. Then you have all the other groups of people like co-habitators, one-night stands, long term affairs, blah, blah, blah...that I would not consider monogamous. But for the sake of argument we are talking about people who are married with the assumption and commitment that they will be true to each other. )

As I have indicated before, most research (and there are some contradictions) indicate that generally speaking, married people are happier, have better health and are financially more stable. So when I ask you to think about the implications of marriage, I am asking you to think of it from a sociological perspective, and not simply your own (devil's advocate) views. I imagine it is quite common for many men in Western society to hold your personal views---I mean the devil advocate's views---about marriage and question the real purpose of it in the 21st century. But I argue that most of the world is not quite like you, who is obviously educated, well-informed, financially well-off and secular in your views. You also, I would guess, view women as "equals" under the law and you don't view women as an extension of your property or the means of simply perpetuating your gene pool. But I would guess that many men are not in your position and so they do not have the comfort of holding similar, luxurious views about life and women.

You ask: To what end? Why do we need to sacrifice freedom, for love and companionship.

Because they require a certain amount of giving that goes beyond your own needs and desires. I don't believe you can have a successful marriage without giving up some of your own freedoms and wants. That is simply the nature of relationships.

You: "It's not about someone younger or even someone else. It's about people change."

Your straw man (I mean.. devil) is about to topple over. Men do not divorce or cheat on their wives because they are trying to find themselves or are soul-searching the meaning of life (they would go into Sam's cave if they were going to do that.....and I don't see too many men rushing into that cave.) We know why some men seek out relaltionships outside of their marriage...........and I don't need to spell it out here...so such a claim has absolutely no leg to stand on.

You: "I don't see marriage or monotony as having anything to do with raising children. Love, compassion, role models, etc...But monogamy and marriage? Dispensable."

Once again, just look at the facts. For a person, such as you, who thrives on facts, insists on facts and uses facts incessantly to defend his own point of view, he ought to consider them as well, when others use them to argue their points.

Research indicates children born outside of marriage fare much more poorly than children who do not. The evidence is so over reaching, it should strike most people as a no-brainer, but the fact that it doesn't indicates to me a great discrepancy and bias people actually do have about marriage. Children born outside of marriage have more poverty ( and all the scourges that go with it), are less educated and tend to have all the societal ills that most of us want to eliminate so that the world can be a better place.

One of the most positive phenomenons in a child's life is a strong, committed marriage between her mother and father. Without it, it is almost guaranteed her life will be less productive and successful (especially true for children in poverty or lower income situations.) Is this what we want for future generations? And just to stir the pot a bit, I would argue that as a society we have an ethical responsibility to promote "healthy" marriages, give large tax breaks to people who stay married with young children, subsidize daycare and early childhood education, promote marriage as a civic responsibility as we do with voting, paying our taxes, obeying the law, etc...

You: Just speaking philosophically, does marriage and monogamy serve any real purpose? Did it ever? Is monogamy just about jealousy and/or religion?

Sure, it's about all of those things and perhaps in a perfect world we wouldn't need marriage to provide security and stability to children and each other. But I think you are missing the point (as the devil) that it does provide positive value to society--just as a strong economy, good education, non-corrupt democracy, and clean air and water do.

And while I agree with your biological description that I am a nester and you are a spreader of seeds, marriage is too complex to examine it solely from that point of view. Because as with many genetic suppositions, humans have a way of defying some of their biological destines.

And finally, I have to take you to task on the "devil's advocate" I find dubious. Are you not simply hiding behind it to project your own personal views? If that is the case I suggest you simply embrace your views of marriage and come clean. Anything less than this is out of character for you.

More shame, Timmy, more shame!

Posted by: lindajean | February 17, 2008 6:26 AM
Report Offensive Comment

(marriage part one)

Timmy,

Here are some comments in response to your marriage questions:

You stated, "Thank you for your reply to my crazy questions."
Well, it isn't your questions that are "crazy" it is your answers.

I am left wondering about this "devil's advocate" .....on what flight has his sweet reason departed?

I'll begin with your last statement:
"Marriage seems to have been a religious invention by men to police their own sexuality."

LOL!
With what?........may I ask ...... mere facetious threats of burning in hell?
And who, may I ask is actually doing all of this self-appointed policing? (Isn't this similar to having the fox guard the hen house?)

What you have failed miserably to mention---a slight oversight on your part, I do understand---is the policing of female sexuality throughout the course of history and its bold bolt into the 21st century.

And this is not just an innocuous policing, as we see in the case of male behavior, correct?

More in line with slow torture, imprisonment and death for our wayward sisters.

Allow me to comprise a list of some of the most egregious and heinous acts in history against women and girls simply for the sake of being their own natural and biological selves:

witch hunting
scarlet letters
(you know about these two, correct?)
burning at the stake
stoning for adultery
female genital mutilation
denial of property, legal and civil rights
denial of birth control
denial of health care
wife abuse
foot-binding
rape
incest
molestation
polygamy
child brides
sex slaves
prostitution
homicide/murder
chastity belts
sodomy......

need I go any further?

Don't get me wrong. Religion most likely did invent marriage or at least perpetrated its moralistic and authoritarian nature. You know I am not going to defend that.

But historically speaking, marriage was "invented" to distinguish one man's progeny from another's. Since throughout history, women were perceived by men as "property" , and therefore, it was important to have cultural (and religious) constraints to prevent women from having multiple fathers of their children. As a man, you wanted a wife (whose behavior would guarantee) that your children were biologically your own. Marriage has never really kept men from extra-marital affairs. So who are we kidding? But it generally kept women in a position of fear and curtailed any promiscuity, or a steep price was paid for any flaunting of it.

What price have men paid for promiscuity compared to women? The list above certainly indicates there is at the very least a "minor" discrepancy. With women 100% dependent on men to take care of them financially, such interlopers have proven to work remarkably well as strong deterrents (and they still do in much of the world.)

Likewise, I am not going to argue that marriage as an institution is without fault or criticism---to the contrary. (Only that I am pondering the research on marriage which indicates a positive correlation between happiness, stability and good health; and from my own point of view I tend to favor it as a personal lifestyle.)

So let's begin first and foremost with a foundation based on reason, facts and history, while I depart slightly from my original argument favoring marriage, and; without basing it on your own personal affront to it (as the devil's advocate, of course); that marriage was and continues to be (in some places) a social construct with the intention to control female promiscuity and dominate female sexuality.

Because for you to claim that men are "policing their own sexuality" while ignoring the astonishing, stark and mind-numbing, cultural, social, psychological and individual power men have historically had over women, is, well.........about as creepy as you can get without actually being creepy, my dear blogger.

Talk about shameful, indeed.

Posted by: lindajean | February 17, 2008 6:16 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Gad:

I'm not defining "connectedness" to mean: all matter has a consciousness or cosmic consciousness that brings us all together. I am not saying that inanimate objects, the rock, the minerals, the sky, the clouds, the stars, the planets, etc..have consciousness and humans can "tap" into it through our experiences.

By "connectedness" I mean a commonality; kind of like a family. I am bonded to my family through blood and genes. We have a common denominator that makes me more like my family, at least on a genetic level than those outside my family. And because of this there is a certain connectedness I have with my family (blood is thicker than water.) And it is not atypical to "feel" that connectedness with one's family. (This is an analogy, not an exact comparison.) I am simply expanding that concept out into the cosmos to include everything. The difference is my family members all have consciousness and the inanimate objects do not. Only I can experience this "connectedness" in relation to the cosmos. Not vice verse or both. It is not reciprocal as it could or would be with my family.

What I am asking you is Do you believe that because we (humans) have this awareness, this knowledge, this understanding that we have commonalities, a common denominator, can we experience this "common-ness" subjectively in our minds? Can I find a cave and contemplate about my connectedness to all of this vast space and time and actually experience that I am a part of all of this, that this is all a part of me, that in some respect I am a "oneness" with the universe? I am asking you this because people claim to do this through transience and mysticism. They have claimed to do this long before the sciences had proven we are connected through physical substances. If you can accept intellectually, then how do you defend that you cannot experience it in a transient state? You know I am not talking about anything supernatural here. No god, no force, no power. And I will argue that it is indeed a transient state because most people do not typically walk around throughout the day experiencing it for any length of time.

You state:
"What we call consciousness is not some ability we have evolved to see, feel or understand some special property of the stuff, it is a byproduct of the configuration of the stuff that we are made out of. In this view consciousness is not a substance, essence or force that the stuff has, it is virtual, it changes as you change and when you are gone it is gone.'

I am not saying other objects must have consciousness to feel this oneness. It doesn't take two to tango in this case. All it takes is one person with this feeling of oneness to experience a state of transience and it does not in the slightest manner involve any super, natural "force". Only our own minds and states of consciousness. And if those minds and states of consciousness die when we do, then that is not really relevant to what I am asking because I am not claiming they don't "die" to experience the connectedness.

Having said that, I am not completely clear on what the difference is between "virtual" and substance, force or essence is. Perhaps you are saying consciousness is part of our own being, not something derived from a "force" or energy. It is not separate from us. When we die, it is gone and that is it. If it is a byproduct of the stuff we are made of then it is no different than our blood, bones and organs. If that is what you saying, then I understand that. But this has absolutely nothing to do with equating transience to supernatural forces. Nothing at all as my example explicitly indicates.

BTW: I watched the video. Very well done. But I've never seen clocks "procreate" and smoke afterwards... remarkable.

I do see a slight contradiction. If natural systems evolve through many intermediaries, slowly building complexity as the film indicates, then how can such work be accomplished in only a few generations as the clocks showed? I've never understood what determines the speed or the variation of speed in all of the "accomplishments" throughout the natural world.

Posted by: lindajean | February 17, 2008 6:05 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Bernie Bee:

Thank you for the kind words. It takes a Scottishman to sum it up so well.

Posted by: lindajean | February 17, 2008 5:56 AM
Report Offensive Comment

On Feb. 16 Gad said, "....I may have my own issues with Lindajean..."

Do we have issues??
I thought those were all water under the bridge....

Posted by: lindajean | February 17, 2008 5:54 AM
Report Offensive Comment

An analogy:

Peter Huff is to Gad

unanswered questions about animal suffering are to unanswered explanations about incompatible determinism

Not so artful dodging.

BTW Peter:

You stated, "Death and decay was brought into the world by the rebellion of man to his Maker. Corruption came by the willful disobedience to the good revealed by God. From that point onwards God subjected everything in the creation to the curse as a reminder. THE DIFFERENCE BEING IS THAT ANIMALS DO NOT SUFFER CONDEMNATION AND TORMENT FOREVER WHEN THEY DIE, AS MAN DOES WITHOUT CHRIST. Christ became that curse for those who believe. The penalty is paid in full."

My question had nothing to do with condemnation in the after life and you know very well it did not. Your answer is a dismissive, divergent, dodgeful ploy to not consider what you don't want to consider, not to answer what you don't want to answer and not to fathom what you possibly cannot fathom at all.

You cannot explain why God allows innocent animals, who did not "fall" and and did not disobey God to experience suffering. I asked you before, why are they not designed more like plants and rocks to bypass all of this unnecessary burden? Why would an ID make animals who feel basically the same kind of physical pain and are susceptible to basically the same kinds of torturous diseases as humans, if they have done no wrong in the eyes of God? They have broken no rules, they have no free will to rebel against God, and as stated before they are following his plan quite to the "T". Why oh, why is this Peter?

Artful dodging taken to a new and more artful level.

And Gad: Incompatible determinist? Have you forgotten Timmy's request? If you are going to claim a superior view then at least do us all the justice of explaining it to us in your words so we may scrutinize it thoroughly.

Posted by: lindajean | February 17, 2008 5:48 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Willard Bolinger:

Allow me to comment on your recent statement about "non-racism" by saying I think you are splitting hairs on this.

Are you suggesting the term "non-racists" was used during the civil rights movement (CRM) as a label for those who were active in eliminating racism and working in the movement? While the term may have been used in certain circumstances, for example, among the people working in the movement as a way to describe themselves, I question that it was used in the mainstream culture and media as a way of describing the movement. In fact I would argue use of the term itself would have implied that those outside the movement were indeed racists---something most Americans did not want to see themselves as, although truth be told, many were. ("If people in the movement are "non-racists" that means I am racists because I am not in the movement, or I don't agree with them, or I don't identify with them...")

With Atheism, the term is used sometimes derogatorily by non-Atheists, because non-Atheists see them (us) as subversive. And while it appears you had a personal experience in the movement, and you state that you used the term "against racism" to describe the movement, it seems that history has been more inclined to call it simply "the civil rights movement" or "people working against racism". People who fought the front line battles against racism, as you probably did, today are not called "non-racists" in the history books. They are called "people who stood up against racism" and these two terms are very different. "Non-racist" is simply a label. "People who stood up...." is a description of real action taken against racism. It is proactive. After all, what exactly does a "non-racist" do? The term tells us nothing about their behavior or the history/meaning of the civil rights movement.

Harris is saying instead of using the word "Atheist" lets refer to ourselves as people who are rational and reasonable and seek out these practices to live our lives. The analogy with the civil rights movement is appropriate --while it was "non-racist" people who went about their business challenging racism, they were not wearing the label on t-shirts and hats, so to speak.

So here is the analogy:

non-racism is to atheism as "people who stood up to fight racism" is to "people who use reason and clarity to debunk myths". The labels are moot. It is the action that holds significance.

"Non-racist" does not give credit to what actually transpired in the civil rights movement. In essence, it is a limiting term. I think this is what Sam Harris is saying about "Atheist"

You state: "Even those with Ph.D's in Divinity retreat to "faith" when reason fails them and I claim faith to be untenable,dishonest and unusable in any practical application."

Isn't that what Harris is saying when he states, "Why should we fall into this trap?.............Instead of doing this consider what would happen if we simply used words like 'reason' or 'evidence'. What is the argument against reason?"

BTW: I am not claiming to know more about the CRM than you do. (I was just a twinkle in my father's eye at that time in history). But it is the labeling that I am arguing about, not any particular experiences you may or may not have had.

Posted by: lindajean | February 17, 2008 5:36 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Hi Gad,

I have not forgotten your replies/questions, but have been busy this weekend. I will start answering them tomorrow, the Lord willing.

Posted by: Peter Huff | February 17, 2008 1:34 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Hello Gad, Timmy, Lindajean,

Since you all are under the assumption that God is not perfect if the create becomes flawed, let me work at this from another angel.

God is good, and he created good creatures with a good power called free will. Unfortunately,
they used this good power to bring evil into the universe by rebelling against their Creator. So evil did arise from good, not directly but indirectly, by the abuse of a good power called freedom. Freedom in itself is not evil. It is good to be free. But with freedom comes the possibility of evil. So God is responsible for making evil possible, but free creatures are responsible for making it actual.

Of course, other questions attach to this free choice solution to the origin of evil. One
is, what caused the first creature to choose evil?
Theists distinguish between the primary cause of a free action (God) and the secondary cause (a human being). God gave the power of choice. However, God is not responsible for the exercise of that free choice to do evil. God does not perform the free action for us. Human free choice is not a mere instrumental cause through which God works. Human
beings are the efficient, albeit secondary, cause of their own free actions. God produces
the fact of free choice, but each human performs the act of free choice. God then is responsible
for the possibility of evil, but we must bear the responsibility for the actuality of it.

[Timmy, read those last two sentences again and again and again until you get it]

God neither wills evil to be done, nor wills it not to be done. He wills to permit evil to be
done, and this is good.
But if God cannot will evil, then what is the cause of it? No action can be uncaused,
since this violates the first principle of causality that demands that every event has a cause.

To respond to this question it is necessary to unpack the nature of free choice. There
are three basic views of the nature of free choice:

In determinism, a free act is caused by
another; in indeterminism, it is uncaused, and in self-determinism it is caused by oneself.

Determinism would eliminate human responsibility, since another caused the action, not
ourselves.
Indeterminism is irrational, since a fundamental rule of reason is that every action has a cause. It follows, then, that every free choice must be self caused.

Of course, a person uses the power of free choice to make free choices. However, the person is not free choice. He simply has free choice. It is wrong to say I am free choice; I simply have free choice. So, l am the efficient cause of my own free actions, but the power of free choice is the means by which I freely act."
End of quote.

I hope you got that guys. And the fact remains that God had/has a perfect plan of redemption, a plan that will be perfectly resolved, where man will have life as God has it - totally free of moral corruption for those believing in Christ Jesus. He is perfect and always finds the best way of doing things.

With freedom of will comes the possibility of doing wrong/evil for the creature and this is what has happened. So another way of putting it is:

1) God is the Author of everything.
2) Evil is something.
3) Therefore, God is the Author of evil [in the sense that by giving Adam a free will, it became possibly for Adam to do what is not good]
4)God has a purpose in permitting evil. (for now)

Here is what the Westminister Confession of Faith says about God since you are getting confused by what I am saying:

CHAP. II. - Of God, and of the Holy Trinity.

1. There is but one only, living, and true God, who is infinite in being and perfection, a most pure spirit, invisible, without body, parts, or passions; immutable, immense, eternal, incomprehensible, almighty, most wise, most holy, most free, most absolute; working all things according to the counsel of His own immutable and most righteous will, for His own glory; most loving, gracious, merciful, long-suffering, abundant in goodness and truth, forgiving iniquity, transgression, and sin; the rewarder of them that diligently seek Him; and withal, most just, and terrible in His judgments, hating all sin, and who will by no means clear the guilty.

2. God hath all life, glory, goodness, blessedness, in and of Himself; and is alone in and unto Himself all-sufficient, not standing in need of any creatures which He hath made, nor deriving any glory from them, but only manifesting His own glory in, by, unto, and upon them. He is the alone fountain of all being, of whom, through whom, and to whom are all things and hath most sovereign dominion over them, to do by them, for them, or upon them whatsoever Himself pleaseth. In His sight all things are open and manifest, His knowledge is infinite, infallible, and independent upon the creature, so as nothing is to Him contingent, or uncertain. He is most holy in all His counsels, in all His works, and in all His commands. To Him is due from angels and men, and every other creature, whatsoever worship, service, or obedience He is pleased to require of them.

3. In the unity of the Godhead there be three persons, of one substance, power, and eternity: God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost: the Father is of none, neither begotten, not proceeding; the Son is eternally begotten of the Father; the Holy Ghost eternally proceeding from the Father and the Son.

CHAP. III. - Of God's Eternal Decree.

1. God from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely, and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass: yet so, as thereby neither is God the author of sin, nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures; nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established.

2. Although God knows whatsoever may or can come to pass upon all supposed conditions, yet hath He not decreed any thing because He foresaw it as future, or as that which would come to pass upon such conditions.

3. By the decree of God, for the manifestation of His glory, some men and angels are predestinated unto everlasting life; and others foreordained to everlasting death.

4. These angels and men, thus predestinated, and foreordained, are particularly and unchangeably designed, and their number so certain and definite, that it cannot be either increased or diminished.

5. Those of mankind that are predestinated unto life, God, before the foundation of the world was laid, according to His eternal and immutable purpose, and the secret counsel and good pleasure of His will, hath chosen, in Christ, unto everlasting glory, out of His mere free grace and love, without any foresight of faith, or good works, or perseverance in either of them, or any other thing in the creature, as conditions, or causes moving Him thereunto: and all to the praise of His glorious grace.

6. As God hath appointed the elect unto glory, so hath He, by the eternal and most free purpose of His will, foreordained all the means thereunto. Wherefore, they who are elected, being fallen in Adam, are redeemed by Christ, are effectually called unto faith in Christ by His Spirit working in due season, are justified, adopted, sanctified, and kept by His power, through faith, unto salvation. Neither are any other redeemed by Christ, effectually called, justified, adopted, sanctified, and saved, but the elect only.

7. The rest of mankind God was pleased, according to the unsearchable counsel of His own will, whereby He extendeth or witholdeth mercy, as He pleaseth, for the glory of His sovereign power over His creatures, to pass by; and to ordain them to dishonour and wrath for their sin, to the praise of His glorious justice.

8. The doctrine of this high mystery of predestination is to be handled with special prudence and care, that men, attending the will of God revealed in His Word, and yielding obedience thereunto, may, from the certainty of their effectual vocation, be assured of their eternal election. So shall this doctrine afford matter of praise, reverence, and admiration of God; and of humility, diligence, and abundant consolation to all that sincerely obey the Gospel.

CHAP. IV. - Of Creation.

1. It pleased God the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, for the manifestation of the glory of His eternal power, wisdom, and goodness, in the beginning, to create, or make of nothing, the world, and all things therein whether visible or invisible, in the space of six days; and all very good.

2. After God had made all other creatures, He created man, male and female, with reasonable and immortal souls, endued with knowledge, righteousness, and true holiness, after His own image, having the law of God written in their hearts, and power to fulfil it: and yet under a possibility of transgressing, being left to the liberty of their own will, which was subject unto change. Beside this law written in their hearts, they received a command, not to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, which while they kept, they were happy in their communion with God,and had dominion over the creatures.

CHAP V. - Of Providence.

1. God the great Creator of all things doth uphold, direct, dispose, and govern all creatures, actions, and things, from the greatest even to the least, by His most wise and holy providence, according to His infallible foreknowledge, and the free and immutable counsel of His own will, to the praise of the glory of His wisdom, power, justice, goodness, and mercy.

2. Although, in relation to the foreknowledge and decree of God, the first Cause, all things come to pass immutably, and infallibly; yet, by the same providence, He ordereth them to fall out, according to the nature of second causes, either necessarily, freely, or contingently.

3. God, in His ordinary providence, maketh use of means, yet is free to work without, above, and against them, at His pleasure.

4. The almighty power, unsearchable wisdom, and infinite goodness of God so far manifest themselves in His providence, that it extendeth itself even to the first fall, and all other sins of angels and men; and that not by a bare permission, but such as hath joined with it a most wise and powerful bounding, and otherwise ordering, and governing of them, in a manifold dispensation, to His own holy ends; yet so, as the sinfulness thereof proceedeth only from the creature, and not from God, who, being most holy and righteous, neither is nor can be the author or approver of sin.

5. The most wise, righteous, and gracious God doth oftentimes leave, for a season, His own children to manifold temptations, and the corruption of their own hearts, to chastise them for their former sins, or to discover unto them the hidden strength of corruption and deceitfulness of their hearts, that they may be humbled; and, to raise them to a more close and constant dependence for their support upon Himself, and to make them more watchful against all future occasions of sin, and for sundry other just and holy ends.

6. As for those wicked and ungodly men whom God, as a righteous Judge, for former sins, doth blind and harden, from them He not only withholdeth His grace whereby they might have been enlightened in their understandings, and wrought upon in their hearts; but sometimes also withdraweth the gifts which they had, and exposeth them to such objects as their corruption make occasion of sin; and, withal, gives them over to their own lusts, the temptations of the world, and the power of Satan, whereby it comes to pass that they harden themselves, even under those means which God useth for the softening of others.

7. As the providence of God doth, in general, reach to all creatures; so, after a most special manner, it taketh care of His Church, and disposeth all things to the good thereof."

End of Quote

Posted by: Peter Huff | February 17, 2008 1:29 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Gad said:

"So your humble opinion is that scientist's who say they don't know or could be wrong is the correct humble opinion, which isn't really humble at all"

Right. I said that we should be humble about the things that we do not know. And that is not a humble opinion, you're right. That is because I "know" that we should be humble, because I "know" that we do not know everything. There is no hypocrisy here. I didn't say that we should be humble about things that we do know.

"BTW Carl Sagen believed that life was everywhere, so why is he humble and I'm an embarrassment (in "your" humble opinion)

Because if I asked him if it was a certain fact that life was everywhere, he would say "of course not". You feel it necessary for some reason to not show weakness in such convictions. Must not show weakness.

Posted by: timmy | February 16, 2008 11:57 PM
Report Offensive Comment

I'm really upset at the gratuitously disgustin' attack that such as the broiler-bunny, also known as 'anonymous' has seen fit tae pile on Lindajean. I know I've gone in for a bit of banter here 'n there but for me Lindajean always came over as someone who applied intelectual thought to whatever she had to say and regardless of anything else I admired her for that. So take it frae me Lindajean, Timmy, Gad and I, forbye hosts o' others, luv ye for yer posts so keep em coming!
It is a fact that all bunnies eat their own dung and as can be seen here they spew it out as well!

Posted by: Bernie Bee | February 16, 2008 10:07 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Timmy said:
"It is the humble opinion of any scientist I have ever heard speak.It is also the opinion of many of my heros in the atheist/science world. Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, Dan Dennet, Carl Sagen etc. I agree with them. I disagree with you."

So your humble opinion is that scientist's who say they don't know or could be wrong is the correct humble opinion, which isn't really humble at all.

BTW Carl Sagen believed that life was everywhere, so why is he humble and I'm an embarrassment (in "your" humble opinion)?

Look, this is a new science book that claims to have found all the answers, even why there something instead of nothing.

http://www.nullphysics.com/

They are asking $60 a pop for all the answers to the universe, and here I am giving them away for free!

Posted by: Anonymous | February 16, 2008 7:49 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Gad,

Asking the cowardly rabbit to come forward with his real beefs is as futile as trying to cure a pedophile. He is physiologically incapable. Like pedophelia, this kind of cowardice is incurable. The rabbit is transparent. I know his type well. Between he and Lindajean, he is certainly the one to be pitied.

Posted by: timmy | February 16, 2008 3:31 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Gad said:
"Is that your humble opinion"

It is the humble opinion of any scientist I have ever heard speak.
It is also the opinion of many of my heros in the atheist/science world. Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, Dan Dennet, Carl Sagen etc. I agree with them. I disagree with you.

Timmy said:
"Is this one 0.000000001% possible" (The matrix theory)

Gad said:
"It is for me"

Well you sure give Peters Huff's God a lot more credit than I do if you put it on exactly the same probability scale as this scientific hypothesis. Have you read Peter's good book? You think these two hypotheses are equally plausible?

Gad said:
"What is it for you .1%"

Compared to what?
You give me your theory on the nature of our existence and I'll tell you where the matrix hypothesis fits on the probability scale in comparison to that.

Gad rephrased:
"We could be (it's even likely), only a 100 years or less from knowing that it all works the way I know it does"

Ahhh, that's the Gad we know and are embarrassed by. Good to have you back. :)

Posted by: timmy | February 16, 2008 2:39 PM
Report Offensive Comment

BurningBurningRabbit not BurningRabbit, Anonymous, Dumb Dodo, you or you all as the case may be, seem to have a personal issue against Lindajean. While I may have my own issues with Lindajean, I have to say taking pot shots from the shadows is pretty low. If you got something to say say it and lets get on with it.

Posted by: GAD | February 16, 2008 1:21 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Timmy said:
"This is the most untrue sentence I have ever seen attempted to be passed off as true. Man do you ever have it backwards."

Is that your humble opinion.

Timmy said:
"Is this one 0.000000001% possible"

It is for me, what is it for you .1%

Timmy said:
"I thought you already did."

Oh yeah, thanks, let me rephrase that;

We could be (it's even likely), only a 100 years or less from knowing that it all works the way I know it does.

Posted by: GAD | February 16, 2008 12:22 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Timmy said:
"This is the most untrue sentence I have ever seen attempted to be passed off as true. Man do you ever have it backwards."

Is that your humble opinion.

Timmy said:
"Is this one 0.000000001% possible"

It is for me, what is it for you .1%

Timmy said:
"I thought you already did."

Oh yeah, thanks, let me rephrase that;

We could be (it's even likely), only a 100 years or less from knowing that it all works the way I know it does.

Posted by: Anonymous | February 16, 2008 12:22 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Anonymous idiot, Sam Harris has thousands of fans around the world. He cannot devote special time to LJ even if he is flattered with her passionate devotion to his ideas. If she has converted to Andyrossism, then one less fan makes no difference to him.

Posted by: Dumb Dodo | February 16, 2008 4:47 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Or Sam Harris for that matter.

Posted by: Anonymous | February 16, 2008 4:26 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Bernie Bee, GAD, TIMMY,

Having read Sam Harris if you guys are unable to make sense of what LJ has been writing recently notice the changed tone since she announced she was going to check out AndyRoss' writing. LJ is no longer a SamHarrisite, she has converted to Andyrossism. AndyRoss has powers that Peter Huff does not. Poor Peter Huff!

http://www.andyross.net

Posted by: Anonymous | February 16, 2008 4:25 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Sam Harris is mistaken when he said that those of us who were active against racism did use the word "nonracist" though it as a movement was most commonly called "against racism" but still when referring to our personal position many of us claimed to be "nonracists" as individuals. Sam is also discounting many centuries of history of the use of the term "atheist". and "atheism" not only of our making. I find that I can use the Bible to agrue against hundreds of claims of any christian I have ever encounted in my 65 years. Even those with Ph.D's in Divinity retreat to "faith" when reason fails them and I claim faith to be untenable,dishonest and unusable in any practical application.

Posted by: Willard Bolinger | February 16, 2008 4:20 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Gad said:
"We could be (it's even likely), only a 100 years or less from knowing how it all works"

I thought you already did. :)

Posted by: timmy | February 16, 2008 4:09 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Gad said:
"There is a theory that that evolved species is us, and we created a matrix and that is what we (us) are living in"

I know. There's all kind of cool and wacky ideas out there. I dig'em.
Is this one 0.000000001% possible, or higher than that?

Posted by: timmy | February 16, 2008 4:05 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Gad said:
"Fortune favors the bold"

There is nothing bold about deciding that you know things on insufficient evidence. Faith is not a virtue. It is not "bold"

"humility is for those who believe they will fail........."

This is the most untrue sentence I have ever seen attempted to be passed off as true. Man do you ever have it backwards.

Posted by: timmy | February 16, 2008 3:51 AM
Report Offensive Comment

GAD,

Long live poetry!
You a poet too?
Great work, keep on,
Keep right on!

Writing poetry is easy:
One needs a hate,
Another needs love,
The third a love that is lost.

Rabbit is not running,
Taking break in reallife,
Out in the sun,
On doctor's orders.

Days of UCIA SS 379* over,
Stabbed in the back,
Bleeding, rehabilitating;
Mission accomplished.

Took aim and fired,
The mask was shattered,
Face attached torn off,
True face an ugly sight.

Mask is safely back in place,
Nobody cares.
For those who seek the truth
All is plain as day.

Cry not for me,
Cry for yourself
If cry you must.
Wounded but living,
Crying not in despair,
Life goes on for me.

* UCIA SS 379 = UnderCover Intelligence Agent Sniper Shooter 379

Posted by: BurningBurningRabbit not BurningRabbit | February 16, 2008 3:41 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Timmy said:
"We are monkeys. We should be humble. Good science requires humility, not brazen assuredness"

Fortune favors the bold, humility is for those who believe they will fail.........

Posted by: GAD | February 16, 2008 3:12 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Timmy said:
"Evolution proves that we are primitive compared to the future."

What evolution proves is that we are evolving, and that's all it proves, it says nothing about where we are at on the line (most likely an exponential curve) of evolution, especially with with respect to knowledge. We could be (it's even likely), only a 100 years or less from knowing how it all works.

Posted by: GAD | February 15, 2008 11:51 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Timmy said:
"Gad has provided, showing us the extreme likelihood of extensive deposits of intelligent life all throughout the universe, we have to consider an intelligent species that has evolved hundreds of millions of years beyond our current state."

There is a theory that that evolved species is us, and we created a matrix and that is what we (us) are living in.

Posted by: GAD | February 15, 2008 11:00 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Oh yeah, and I was just joking about the pot thing. I know I'm a self confessed. And I also know that a Floyd fan isn't necessarily a pot head. They could also be an acid head.:)

Posted by: timmy | February 15, 2008 10:52 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Clearly the most logical hypothesis is that life is innate, in the energy/matter that has "always been", and therefore it has always been right along with everything else that has always been. We are an example of the kind of life that evolves in this particular environment, in this current configuration of the energy/matter that we call our universe.

If we manage to survive as a species (or as a species that evolves from our line) for another 20,000 years, the science knowledge that we have today will seem primitive, and in the dark, about some very profound things. It is short sighted hubris that would make one see it any other way. And that's just 20,000 years. With the staggering numbers that Gad has provided, showing us the extreme likelihood of extensive deposits of intelligent life all throughout the universe, we have to consider an intelligent species that has evolved hundreds of millions of years beyond our current state.

To be making these pointed statements of certainty based on applying Ockham's razor to today's primitive science is incredible hubris. Ockham's razor does not tell you what you know. It gives you one hypothesis, that seems the least unlikely, based on 300 million year-old science.

Evolution proves that we are primitive compared to the future. So silly of us to answer their questions, even if it is only with "truth place-holders" and "no harm no foul" You know what else is no harm no foul? saying "I don't know". And saying "I know" when you don't is harm, because it is incredible. We are monkeys. We should be humble. Good science requires humility, not brazen assuredness. And so does defeating religion.

Posted by: timmy | February 15, 2008 10:36 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Gad,

You need to decide which criticism you have of me.
Am I too much a believer? Or not enough a believer?
I think your main criticism of both me and Sam is that we are not believers enough. Because neither of us have claimed to believe anything on the big questions, and that is your concern. We are supposed to believe the same things that you believe. Sam and I are guilty of saying "I don't know" too much according to you, not "I believe" too much. Saying "I don't know" too much is a much greater sin it would seem, than choosing a side and believing it.

Am I too much a believer? Or not enough of a believer?

Your perspective is askew, if you think that I have more belief than you.

Posted by: timmy | February 15, 2008 6:05 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Timmy said:
My correction to Gad's typo in parentheses.

Gad said:
"Nevertheless I did not always (pretend to) know everything"

LOL! I pretend to know everything like you pretend not to believe in the supernatural! :o

Posted by: GAD | February 15, 2008 4:52 PM
Report Offensive Comment

My correction to Gad's typo in parentheses.

Gad said:
"Nevertheless I did not always (pretend to) know everything"
;)

Posted by: timmy | February 15, 2008 4:31 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Timmy said:
"And you call me a pot head?"

A self confessed pot head, so I was stating a fact not making an accusation ;)

Nevertheless I did not always know everything, I was a teenager once, which lasted till I was about 30.

Posted by: GAD | February 15, 2008 4:22 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Rabbit Burning Rabbit Rabbit Burn said:

"A poem makes the world pay just as your performance as a comedian offers comic relief"

The difference being that my comedy is net cowardly, childish, and with sinister intent.

Posted by: timmy | February 15, 2008 3:22 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Gad said:
" I must have played Dark Side of the Moon 1000 times and The Wall at least 500"

And you call me a pot head?
:)

Posted by: timmy | February 15, 2008 3:16 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Timmy said:
"Awesome! Floyd!"

From my younger days. I must have played Dark Side of the Moon 1000 times and The Wall at least 500, and I saw their world tour in the late 80's. All just fading memories now...........

Posted by: GAD | February 15, 2008 2:35 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Awesome! Floyd!

Posted by: timmy | February 15, 2008 2:14 PM
Report Offensive Comment

For BurningBurningRabbit not BurningRabbit

Breathe, breathe in the air.
Don't be afraid to care.
Leave but don't leave me.
Look around and choose your own ground.

Long you live and high you fly
And smiles you'll give and tears you'll cry
And all you touch and all you see
Is all your life will ever be.

Run, rabbit run.
Dig that hole, forget the sun,
And when at last the work is done
Don't sit down it's time to dig another one.

For long you live and high you fly
But only if you ride the tide
And balanced on the biggest wave
You race towards an early grave.

Posted by: GAD | February 15, 2008 11:06 AM
Report Offensive Comment

TIMMY,

A poem makes the world pay just as your performance as a comedian offers comic relief.

Posted by: BurningBurningRabbit not BurningRabbit | February 15, 2008 7:41 AM
Report Offensive Comment

GAD,

The mind follows intention,
The heart follows the mind,
Such is our human condition,
Neither you nor I can undo the wiring.

Cyberspace draws the intention,
Cyberspace traps the mind,
Cyberflirt enslaves the heart,
Cyberflirt destroys real lives.

Can't help being poetic. ;)

BurningBurningRabbit not BurningRabbit

Posted by: Anonymous | February 15, 2008 5:23 AM
Report Offensive Comment

GAD,

The mind follows the intention,
The heart follows the mind,
Such is our human condition;
Neither you nor I can change the wiring.

Cyberspace traps the intention;
Cyberspace traps the mind;
Cyberflirt draws and blocks the heart;
Cyberflirt destroys real lives.

Can't help being poetic. ;)

Posted by: BurningBurningRabbit | February 15, 2008 5:18 AM
Report Offensive Comment

LOL

Burning Burning Burning Burning Rabbit Rabbit Rabbit

His problem is transparent. His issue is obvious. His torment is plain for all to see.

It's just not fair when guys who aren't as smart as you get all the girls. It's just not fair dammit. I'll show them. Buahahahahaha.

lol
The world must pay!
:)

Posted by: timmy | February 15, 2008 3:49 AM
Report Offensive Comment

BurningBurningRabbit,

That's seems like a lot of cyberbitterness, seems personal, were you once the dumb one waiting at home......

"Get yourself a better thesaurus. You word list is very small. :)"

It's not the size of my words that matters, it's the meaning behind them. ;)

cyberbedtime for me.

Posted by: GAD | February 15, 2008 3:13 AM
Report Offensive Comment

BurningBurningRabbit not BurningRabbit said:

"Am already in Cyberlove. Running amok because of a Cyberrival. Rivals keep cropping up like mushroom. Darn the Cyberworld! Nuking the Cyberlove might be a better idea."

So your on the cyberrebound? The whole thing sounds very cyberreligious.........

Posted by: GAD | February 15, 2008 2:55 AM
Report Offensive Comment

GAD,

Agreed, flirting with taste is not my area of expertise.

That takes thirteen years of practice while the dumb husband waits at home.

What is a BurningBurningRabbit not BurningRabbit to do for not having learned the tricks of the trade.

Must put up with the hate of the likes of you.

Get yourself a better thesaurus. You word list is very small. :)

Posted by: BurningBurningRabbit | February 15, 2008 2:52 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Replies BurningBurningRabbit not BurningRabbit:

"No more bored than wives of thirteen years. Just checking out if this is Cybersex Cafe. Your love is not worth having. My poems express where my kick comes from. :)"

Boohoo, here I thought we were bonding but you were only using me to get your kicks....... Biting poems thrown at random people in the middle of the night for kinks, drive-by poetry, serial poster, psycho-blogger, anything sounding familiar........

Well, I suppose if you don't want my love, I'll just hate you later.:)

Posted by: GAD | February 15, 2008 2:33 AM
Report Offensive Comment

GAD,

Am already in Cyberlove. Running amok because of a Cyberrival. Rivals keep cropping up like mushroom. Darn the Cyberworld! Nuking the Cyberlove might be a better idea.

BurningBurningRabbit not BurningRabbit

Posted by: BurningBurningRabbit | February 15, 2008 2:10 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Said GAD:

BurningBurningRabbit not BurningRabbit,

LOL! Are you just bored or slumming or what? Did god send you here, is he upset with our kinky little atheist orgy!

I'm game, step out of of your hole and lets see what you got, more than poems I hope because it will take a lot more then that to get my love. :)

February 11, 2008 3:48 AM

Replies BurningBurningRabbit not BurningRabbit:

No more bored than wives of thirteen years. Just checking out if this is Cybersex Cafe. Your love is not worth having. My poems express where my kick comes from. :)

Posted by: Anonymous | February 15, 2008 1:41 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Gad said:
"Unless an all energy life form could live in all the energy of our universe compressed to an infinite point and at infinite temperature"

I don't see why it couldn't. It's just energy, it doesn't have to breathe. And not necessarily a "life form" but life energy itself. Perhaps the universe itself is life, or innately filled with life that has no problem squeezing through the Big Bang and into this universal form from the last. Maybe. Certainly I think, one should not answer the question, "has life always been" with a "no".

Gad said: "They are all the same for me, there are no gods"

God is your word here. I am just talking about an all energy intelligence. Is that only 0.00000000001% possible? The same odds against as Yahweh?

Gad Said:
"always been" is the energy/matter that things are made of, not things them self per se.

Yes I know. And I'm asking, are you saying that the "energy/matter" has been for an eternity, but life something new since the big bang?

Gad: "What do you against them? (exclamation marks)

Nothing at all. In fact I love them. They are very telling.

Gad said:
"But there isn't or it isn't knowable. Even with the Big Bang science says you can't get back to or before the beginning"

LOL! Science also says you can't get to any other planets that may have intelligent life. It is physically impossible for us to get to them. There is no imagined technology that could achieve this. Just like going back to the big bang. It can't be done.

As for a "reason". You may not have to go back to the beginning to come to know the reason. (if there is one) It may become apparent, or revealed one day. We may need to evolve for millions of more years before we develop senses necessary to understand all of these questions that burn in our minds. (well, not yours of course. You have it all figured out already)

"Yes. And that is what I meant by a space-time traveling machine"

There is no such thing possible. Ergo, no knowable aliens = de facto no aliens.

"Well the Drake equation does try to account for civilization life-span and there is the idea that civilizations destroy them selfs in a relatively short time, but that is still an issue (see link)"

All we have to go on here are the most primitive civilizations imaginable. Our own predecessors. There is no evidence to suggest that a civilization could not last and evolve for billions of years.

But either way, it all amounts to no knowable aliens.
It is the same concept as your "no knowable reason" = no reason.
Science says we can't go back to the BB, and that very same science says that we can not build a time machine or bend the fabric of space. It is far more likely that if there is ever communication between us and them, it will be through some evolved connection to some kind of universal consciousness or all energy intelligence.

Posted by: timmy | February 14, 2008 7:29 PM
Report Offensive Comment

I was having a discussion with some friends about issues language translation SW and one of my friends mentioned using babel fish;

babelfish.altavista.com/

which made me think they took the name from the, The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, which they did;

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Babel_fish

I joked that if everyone would speck English the world would be a much better place, which made think the whole thing started from religion, which it did;

www.answers.com/main/ntquery?s=babel&gwp=13

which lead me back to the tower of babel story in the bible;

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tower_of_Babel

which reminded me that gods suppression on man, to keep us from becoming like him (as in Genesis) is the cause of so much of the problems of the world today, because lack of communication, because of god!

Posted by: GAD | February 14, 2008 2:24 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Lindajean,

I'm not sure of your meaning of "connection" here.

My view is that we (everything) are made of the same stuff, but not that the stuff we are made of has any property of consciousness or connection in this context to everything else. What we call consciousness is not some ability we have evolved to see, feel or understand some special property of the stuff, it is a byproduct of the configuration of the stuff that we are made out of. In this view consciousness is not a substance, essence or force that the stuff has, it is virtual, it changes as you change and when you are gone it is gone.

This discussion reminded of this great little video. Please check it out if you haven't seen it before.

http://richarddawkins.net/article,1322,Evolution-IS-a-Blind-Watchmaker,Chuck-Kopec-cdk007

Posted by: GAD | February 14, 2008 12:55 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Timmy said:
"What do you know, that indicates that life has not always been."

The Big Bang. Unless an all energy life form could live in all the energy of our universe compressed to an infinite point and at infinite temperature.

Timmy said:
"Is this one 0.00000001% likely as well, like Peters god? or slightly more likely, or a lot more likely than Peter's?"

They are all the same for me, there are no gods.

Timmy said:
In the place that has "always been". You know. "always space"
It's your theory, this "always been" thing. I'm trying to follow the logic, and I'm wondering why life also wouldn't logically have always been, along with everything else. Are you saying that "rocks that can love" are a relatively new thing in this eternity?

"always been" is the energy/matter that things are made of, not things them self per se.

Timmy said:
"And by possible, do you mean 0.00000001% possible, or more possible than that?"

The same possible that leads me to say, no.

Timmy said:
"What's with the exclamation point?"

What do you against them?

1 : a mark ! used especially after an interjection or exclamation to indicate forceful utterance or strong feeling.

Timmy said:
But if there is a reason, you could potentially find it, so you could know. This sentence makes no sense to me.

But there isn't or it isn't knowable. Even with the Big Bang science says you can't get back to or before the beginning.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_epoch

Timmy said:
How could we possibly find them? It's impossible. We would have to bend the fabric of space, or master the art of wormholes. can you imagine how that would work?

Yes. And that is what I meant by a space-time traveling machine.

Timmy said:
If you're using the odds that say how likely it is that intelligent life is out there, then those same odds would have to account for the extreme likelihood that some of the intelligent life out there is millions, perhaps hundreds of millions of years more evolved than us. Someone would have found us by now in this eternity, if it were possible. Don't you think?

Well the Drake equation does try to account for civilization lifespan and there is the idea that civilizations destroy them selfs in a relatively short time, but that is still an issue (see link)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermi_paradox

Posted by: GAD | February 14, 2008 11:40 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Gad said:

"Peter is always going on about "how can love come from rocks" implying that love, thinking etc is some special substance (matter), essence or force bestowed only upon humanity by a creator. I stated that love did not come from rocks but that some rocks love."

From a scientific perspective, and on a physical level we are all "quantum-ally" and chemically similar (just different derivatives and degrees.) "A rock is a tree is a fish is a dog is a boy" is not claimed only by the animal rights' community (with a similar adage to make a case against eating animals---but this is not where I am going...) but it is also claimed in Eastern philosophy with this adage: "Be noble for you come from stars, be humble for you come from dung." My point being that this perspective is played out in different words and causes spanning cultures, philosophies, religions and science.

You (Gad) have a high ability to intellectually understand that humans, animals, rocks, etc... are all the same/similar in this manner of speaking. Are you not saying that everything in the universe is connected by this similarity? Carl Sagan has made similar claims, correct?

If you agree there is a physical connection would you believe that people can subjectively, through their experiences, feel this connection as well? In other words, "connection to the universe" can be not only an intellectual reality but an experiential phenomenon too? Can those experiences be "real" or are they simply delusional? If they are only delusions, then why can they be intellectually correct but not experientially valid?

Posted by: lindajean | February 14, 2008 11:28 AM
Report Offensive Comment

When Gad posed a question wondering what original thoughts Sam Harris has had on religion, Timmy answered:

"1. A raising of awareness to the religious moderate's complicit roll in religious literalism and extremism. The idea that the religious moderate is, in ways, more delusional than the literalist. And more responsible for the continuation of religious extremism. I had not heard this argument put so clearly and damningly before Sam Harris.
2. That we do not need to paint all religions with the same brush. That we can criticize one as being more violent and dangerous that others. That we can focus our criticism on the most troublesome and dangerous one first. Like the tyrants of the world, let's worry about the ones with nukes before we worry about the ones with sticks and stones.
These were new ideas to me. And they are extremely valuable, and relevant. And if they have been said before, not like that. And they needed to be said again, and like that. History will remember Sam's book. Non fiction books with "no new ideas" seldom stay on the best sellers list for any length of time."

I will add:

Timmy, I am really, really down on that!...and I appreciate you pointing it out so well and with an emphasis on relevancy. Sam's book (EOF) has great depth and profundity (as a matter of record, I have been arguing this for the last 5 months exclusively, patiently and tenaciously on this blog.)

I can only add to your points by saying Sam has put URGENCY to this issue in a way no one else has ever gotten close to. It is this zealousness that others lack, but is crucial to stirring the minds of people and to deflating inertia-driven myths. The others (4 horsemen,etc.) have written very good books, excellent books, but it is Sam who has used a style of writing (unique to his own) to outline in great detail and forthrightness the dangers of fundamental extremist religions (and the myth of religion as a whole), and the direness in making these realities a conversation of the mainstream.

Sam isn't just writing an op-ed piece for the New York Times. He isn't just writing a college thesis on religious fundamentalism. Sam is writing on a visceral level. And some may argue he is more style than substance, but even if this were true ( I argue it isn't) it is his style --his word, and yes, even his passion, that elevates the substance to a level of compelling reality. I don't see where others have done this.

Additionally, Sam's writings are so much more threatening to the religious than any others. The necessity of hiring bodyguards to protect your own life and livelihood through mere authorship of a book proves this to be true. This speaks volumes because it indicates he is hitting a nerve, he is rattling the cages, he is putting himself on the sacrificial alter.

Those who yawn at my words because it is the same old same old, those who claim to have known much of this long before Sam published or long before LJ picked up his books, I can only admire you for your ability to be way ahead of the curve on this one. So I ask that you continue to converse, because it is what we all must do. But for people like me who have spent much of my life questioning and rejecting religion, Sam's books have helped me tremendously. He has put the icing on the cake for me, helped me understand my own biases ( as a liberal/progressive) and has given me the opportunity to hear others' viewpoints. I can't think of any other modern author who has had that much affect on me. (Maybe I'm not reading the right books.)

And finally: When Sam suggests we ought to have conversations, and others suggest we have been having those conversations all along and that those conversations are honest, it is Sam, through his style, substance and urgency that is suggesting whatever conversations we have been having are not authentic enough; they are conversations void of hard, cold facts about moderates and our own cultural biases towards "tolerance" and these conversations are dancing around reason and are bloated with our own mythologies and blind spots, and until we burst these bubbles we may not have a world worth living in in some distant future. That is Sam Harris at his most unique and at his best.

Posted by: lindajean | February 14, 2008 10:13 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Gad said:
"I don't, my opinion based on what I do know"

What do you know, that indicates that life has not always been.

GAD:
"No, just speculating as you ask, but is it a valid possibility. In any case it would be a vastly different god then Peters, inline with pantheism i.e. the universe is god"

Is this one 0.00000001% likely as well, like Peters god? or slightly more likely, or a lot more likely than Peter's?

I asked: "how do you know that "our form of life" could not have existed pre-BB?"

You answered:
"Where?"

In the place that has "always been". You know. "always space"
It's your theory, this "always been" thing. I'm trying to follow the logic, and I'm wondering why life also wouldn't logically have always been, along with everything else. Are you saying that "rocks that can love" are a relatively new thing in this eternity?

GAD:
"I would say possible but I can't see how it would work"

:) I'd be very impressed with you if you could.
And by possible, do you mean 0.00000001% possible, or more possible than that?

GAD:
"If it's talking to me it better speak up because I ain't getting the message!""

Well don't be mad at it. What's with the exclamation point? :)
If it exists, it's nothing like Peter's God, it doesn't care about you or if you "get the message". It just is. And maybe it is speaking to you. And maybe you are getting the message. Not speaking to you as an individual of course, or with language, but with emotions and notions, and feelings, and inclinations. Maybe it's speaking to all of us. Maybe we couldn't function without it.

GAD:
"In the one case no matter what technology you have, even a space-time traveling machine you can never know, because if there is no reason then you can't find a reason"

But if there is a reason, you could potentially find it, so you could know. This sentence makes no sense to me.

"In the case of aliens with the right technology we can know, in fact we could find them or they could find us at any time"

How could we possibly find them? It's impossible. We would have to bend the fabric of space, or master the art of wormholes. can you imagine how that would work?

If you're using the odds that say how likely it is that intelligent life is out there, then those same odds would have to account for the extreme likelihood that some of the intelligent life out there is millions, perhaps hundreds of millions of years more evolved than us. Someone would have found us by now in this eternity, if it were possible. Don't you think?

Posted by: timmy | February 14, 2008 5:08 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Timmy said:
"How do you know the answer is "no""

I don't, my opinion based on what I do know.

Timmy said:
And here, you are considering God???? You?

No, just speculating as you ask, but is it a valid possibility. In any case it would be a vastly different god then Peters, inline with pantheism i.e. the universe is god.

Timmy said:
""if there is a multi-universe?" You mean you haven't taken a stand on whether or not there is one? Why not? Get off the fence dude, there are stands to be taken. :)"

If the odds are at best 50/50 and not 99.999999999/.000000001 sitting on the fence isn't so bad a place to be.

Timmy said:
"And how do you know that "our form of life" could not have existed pre-BB?"

Where?

Timmy said:
"And if there is no multi-universe, where did the big bang occur? What space did it fill when it started expanding?"

Either in "always space" or in space it created as it expanded, which I believe is what science says. If there is a multi-universe and it wasn't just "always" where did it come from and what space did it fill?

Timmy said:
This "all energy intelligence" you speak of. Could such an intelligence communicate with, say, us, or others, via some sort of transcendent consciousness or telepathy? Could this all energy intelligence be what we are evolving towards?

I would say possible but I can't see how it would work. If it's talking to me it better speak up because I ain't getting the message!

Timmy said:
"Doesn't "no knowable aliens" = de facto no aliens
Just like "no knowable reason" = de facto no reason?
Can you tell me why they are different?"

In the one case no matter what technology you have, even a space-time traveling machine you can never know, because if there is no reason then you can't find a reason. In the case of aliens with the right technology we can know, in fact we could find them or they could find us at any time. If we never know it is because we never got to the point where we could answer the question not because the question can not be answered as with the first case. You may view that as the same thing, but I do not.......

Posted by: GAD | February 13, 2008 6:31 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Gad,

I asked, "has life always been?
You answered: "No. Although an argument could be made for an all energy from of life (even god).

How do you know the answer is "no"
And here, you are considering God???? You?

YOU:
"At least our form of life. If there is a multi-verse then there could be other life before and outside the BB"

"if there is a multi-universe?"
You mean you haven't taken a stand on whether or not there is one? Why not? Get off the fence dude, there are stands to be taken. :)
And how do you know that "our form of life" could not have existed pre-BB?
And if there is no multi-universe, where did the big bang occur?
What space did it fill when it started expanding?

YOU: "In a multi-verse or an all energy intelligence perhaps"

This "all energy intelligence" you speak of. Could such an intelligence communicate with, say, us, or others, via some sort of transcendent consciousness or telepathy? Could this all energy intelligence be what we are evolving towards?

Timmy said:
Doesn't "no knowable aliens" = de facto no aliens
Just like "no knowable reason" = de facto no reason?

Gad said"
"No"

I'm pretty sure the concept you were pushing here, is that if something can not ever be known, then it is virtually the equivalent, at least in a practical sense for our purposes, of non existent.

Can you tell me why they are different?

Posted by: timmy | February 13, 2008 3:52 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Peter,

I don't understand what you are your references are talking about. The Big Bang does not say that something/everything came from nothing........

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang

Posted by: GAD | February 13, 2008 3:43 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Gad, I will be glad to answer your questions, as I perceive an atheist would answer them. I believe I already have answered them in a round-a-bout way in previous posts but will again.

The Lord willing, I will also answer the questions for the perfection of God and the imperfection of man as best as I can.

Again, I am pressed for time right now. Lindajean, I have not forgotten your post either. I hope that in the next few days I don't get lost in a sea of posts.

Posted by: Peter Huff | February 13, 2008 3:13 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Hi Gad,

It is going to take me awhile to wade through your posts. I have a hard time understanding some of it. But you are twisting my words when you state,

GAD: "Again all your reasoning above comes from believing that "something can ONLY come from nothing"."

That is not my reasoning at all. I have never thought that. I have looked at it from an atheist perspective in the questions I have asked you to answer and I claim it is from that perspective that such ideas come, but my own belief is that all things come from God.

"First there is nothing, then there is something. And the cosmologists try to bridge the two with a quantum flutter, a tremor of uncertainty that sparks it all off. Then they are away and before you know it, they have pulled a hundred billion galaxies out of their quantum hats... You cannot fudge this by appealing to quantum mechanics. Either there is nothing to begin with, in which case there is no quantum vacuum, no pre geometric dust, no time in which anything can happen, no physical laws that can effect a change from nothingness to somethingness; or there is something...." {Darling, David, "On Creating Something from Nothing," New Scientist, vol. 151, Sept. 14, 1996.}"

“A universe that came from nothing in the big bang will disappear into nothing at the big crunch. Its glorious few zillion years of existence not even a memory.”
Paul Davies

Let me try and find some of the more famous evolution quotes on the Big Bang and what is taught in textbooks, then you can again tell me it is not so. But it is evolutionary scientists/textbooks and their indoctrination that teaches this bunk. This may take some time. In the mean time, I am working the next couple of days so will not be able to respond to your last posts until the weekend.

BTW, I'm glad you explained the reference of the rock to Lindajean because it definitely needed one, just like some of your other comments do.

Posted by: Peter Huff | February 13, 2008 2:58 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Timmy said:

New questions:

Q:"Do you consider that life has always been, just as the universe has always been?"

No. Although an argument could be made for an all energy from of life (even god).

Q:"Or is life new since the big bang?"

At least our form of life. If there is a multi-verse then there could be other life before and outside the BB.

Q:"Do you consider that intelligent life may have existed on other planets for hundreds of millions, if not, billions of years, before our planet developed life?"

Yes.

Q:"Do you consider that there may have been intelligent life before the big bang?"

In a multi-verse or an all energy intelligence perhaps.

Timmy said:
Doesn't "no knowable aliens" = de facto no aliens
Just like "no knowable reason" = de facto no reason?

No.

Posted by: GAD | February 13, 2008 12:04 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Lindajean said:

"I agree about the animal statement but you lost me with the rocks. Can you elaborate?"

Peter is always going on about "how can love come from rocks" implying that love, thinking etc is some special substance (matter), essence or force bestowed only upon humanity by a creator. I stated that love did not come from rocks but that some rocks love. What I mean by this is that we are rocks, we are made from the same constituent matter as rocks and everything else in the universe, there is no special substance (matter), essence or force that we have that rocks don't have. So the question is not "how can love come from rocks" but "why do some rocks love", i.e. if we are made of the exact same stuff as rocks with nothing special added, then why do we feel love and they don't. My answer to this what you clipped from.

So rock(s) that love and think are us (living things).

Posted by: GAD | February 13, 2008 11:23 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Gad,

Oh yeah, and this one from before.

Doesn't "no knowable aliens" = de facto no aliens
Just like "no knowable reason" = de facto no reason?

Posted by: timmy | February 13, 2008 7:22 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Gad,

New questions:
Do you consider that life has always been, just as the universe has always been?
Or is life new since the big bang?
Do you consider that intelligent life may have existed on other planets for hundreds of millions, if not, billions of years, before our planet developed life?
Do you consider that there may have been intelligent life before the big bang?

Have you "taken any stands" on any of these questions?

Posted by: timmy | February 13, 2008 7:09 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Gad said:

.... but to say that a rock can not make a relevant judgment as to whether it likes (pleasure) or dislike (pain) something without knowing an absolute standard first is just nonsense. Our animal friends are a good example, that don't about any absolute moral standard but behave (on average) as morally as any religious person does (on average).

I agree about the animal statement but you lost me with the rocks. Can you elaborate?

Timmy:

Your latest questions were indeed provocative.
Because of recent under currents on this blog, I am going to be prudent and put them aside for awhile. (Plus I have to do a little "research" to validate some of my points.) It seems that a combination of provocative and forthrightness around here can be cataclysmic; it might be best to let sleeping dogs lie for the present.

I trust you get my drift on this.

Posted by: lindajean | February 13, 2008 5:11 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Reply to Peter Huff's long list of crap Part VIII (Final):

Peter,

Everything else you say is just a repeat or rewording of what I've already answered, and I'm not going to waste any more time on it. As I stated in my last post I have answered all your questions, that you don't like them or don't think they are true is not the same as claiming I never gave you an answer, so I did what I said I did.

So now it's my turn. I understand your world view of god, but do you understand my atheist world view. Here's my challenge to you, I want you to pretend you are an atheist and answer all your own questions to me. No fair just saying you don't know, can't think of any answers etc, you have to give the best answer you can from an atheist POV, i.e. there is no god.

If there is no god:

Where did, matter, the universe, come from. (remember these things are, but you can' use god because your an atheist)?

How did life come from an amoral, random, blind, chance beginning.. ( remember we are here so there must be a reason, but you can' use god because your an atheist)?

How did love, compassion, thinking, personality, morals and truth come from non-living matter (remember that all these things are, so there must be a reason, but you can' use god because your an atheist)?

How did something come from nothing? ( remember we are here so there must be a reason, but you can' use god because your an atheist)?

What are people who are following the bible (or any religion) really following? (remember they do and even kill for it, so there must be a reason, but you can' use god because your an atheist)?

What happens when you die. (remember we do die, but you can' use god because your an atheist)?

Why should anyone be nice to anyone else (remember that they are, so there must be a reason, but you can' use god because your an atheist)

How can we know what is good or bad or measure horror (remember we do so there must be a reason, but you can' use god because your an atheist)?

What is the meaning of life?

Posted by: GAD | February 13, 2008 2:25 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Reply to Peter Huff's long list of crap Part VI:

Peter Huff said:
"Well Gad, first you have to show me how you are using your reasoning in determining where morals come from, how something can and has come from nothing, and all the other arguments I have presented against your worldview before you call mine childish. You have no accounting for yours."

Once again something from nothing is what you claim, not me. And once again claiming that I can not know what makes the world that I live in better or worse with respect to me, and in the future for my children, unless I know an absolute truth and/or believe in your make believe god first is a nonsensical argument.

Peter Huff said:
It would be going against what is self evident and within reason to say that there are no objective moral truths and at the same time for me to believe that you could come up with any truth for morals, for as I have been saying all along, without God it is all meaningless and there is no truth, just force and coercion.

"self evident and within reason" and what is your claim of "self evident and within reason" the words of lying and superstitious men written down 2000 years ago! No, self evident and within reason is that the bible is not the word of any perfect god! As for "truth for morals" I don't claim any, that is not consistent with my world view. That is your line of BS and once again you have projected your beliefs on to me.

Peter Huff said:
"So don't ever talk about truth if you can't demonstrate its origin. Evolutionary science cannot talk about the truth of the Big Bang. No human was there. You just suppose it to be so, and that after a complicated argument in which you also suppose hundreds, thousands, millions, trillions of other things to be so."

First, I don't have to demonstrate the origin of moral truth, because I don't claim there is any. Second in your whacked out view of god, you weren't there either! You follow the words of lying and superstitious men written down 2000 years ago because you FEEL that it is truth not because you know that it is truth, nor can you prove that it is the truth.

Peter Huff said:
"God is the precondition for all truth."

Well the truth is I am typing this, so that is a truth without god, so you can only mean moral truth and that is just garbage you believe to get you through your miserable day, telling your self that it's OK if you and your children struggle and have pain in life because you will be rewarded after your dead. But you won't, there is nothing after death but oblivion, and so a life(s) wasted. But on a positive note after your dead you'll never know that you wrong and didn't get your rewards, death is bliss in this regard.

Scoreboard: GAD 9, Peter 0, Pending 1

I did give Peter an answer to the where when and how of morals in my world view, that he doesn't like it or doesn't think it is true is not the same as his claiming I never gave him an answer, so I did what I said I did. Point to me

Posted by: GAD | February 13, 2008 1:36 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Oh for the luva gawd Timmy 'n Gad leave off an' gie us all a break frae this daft, pedantic, footerin' aboot the meanin' o' wurds yeez use! The perra ye have become a right pain in the arse so ye have!
Sure poor wee literal-minded Lindajean isnae aw that bright, but that shouldnae mean settin' her up as the patsy for you two tae score aff each ither! Whatever her faults Lindajean sure disnae deserve any o' that kinna knockabout carry on you two go in for! So leave the wee lassie alone tae make a fool o' hersel' like the rest o' us which she can do very well wi'oot assistance frae eethir o' you two!

Posted by: Bernie Bee | February 13, 2008 1:17 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Timmy said:

"And here you greatly exaggerate what I said as usual."

These were your words quoted verbatim from your post, not mine. So half of everything you said was you arguing with yourself. LOL!

Posted by: GAD | February 12, 2008 9:57 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Gad said:
"No need to waste any time responding (even though you will),"

Yup. Got to.

I said: ""Set her up for the kill? Who's going to kill Lindajean?

Gad said:
And here you greatly exaggerate what I said as usual.

Wrong, Here I quote you verbatim, and I point out your over-exaggeration, with a little humor. How could I be the exaggerator? I am quoting you verbatim. The exaggeration is yours. I know it's a figure of speech. But why use an inflammatory figure of speech to exaggerate what I said, when you have my actual words? The fact is, I was not even figuratively "setting her up for the kill". I was not even figuratively handing her a knife. I was simply commenting on a conversation that I had some insight into. You just didn't like what I said.

I know you were speaking "figuratively" with "set her up for the kill. And I was answering you "figuratively" And I was trying to be funny. I guess I should have put a :) there.

And I realize that your phrase, "everyone is out to get her" is also a figure of speech. But again, it is a figure of speech that is meant for use in greatly exaggerating what someone said to make a point. And again, in this case, I wasn't even figuratively saying that everyone was out to get Lindajean. Not even close!

If you don't like people picking apart your hyper exaggerating figures of speech and showing them to be invalid, don't use such hyperbole. Speak honestly. Use real quotes from your opponent and counter their actual points. That way it's clear what we're all debating about. And we don't have to have any of these side conversations to decipher your hyperbole.

Posted by: timmy | February 12, 2008 9:10 PM
Report Offensive Comment

For goodniss sake Peter give over! Can't ye see what Gad is on about! It is stark staring ye in the face! Go back as far as ye like tae the Big Bang or whatever, ye jist cannae get away from the fact that nuthin' was creatit, everythin' evolved!
Evolved frae what ye ask and the simple answer is: frae what went afore!
Why d'ye havtae complicate everything with yer believin' some blithirin', bumblin', buffoon began it all only tae discover it made a mistake and like any poltroon put the blame elsewhere an' kilt all the critters it made in its own image except for an incestuous auld bachle that pretendit tae be drunk while havin it off wae his daughters?
If ye believe that for a fact Peter then all I can say is what we say wnen we come up that kinda thing hereaboots: away an bile yer heid!

Posted by: Bernie Bee | February 12, 2008 8:00 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Reply to Peter Huff's long list of crap Part V:

Are you kidding me!? Peter, read my lips! I'm an atheist, there is no god in my world view, if there is no god then there is no moral absolute, if there is no moral absolute then everything is relative, a matter of preference, survival, reward and punishment and the evolved mental state of the rock(s) doing the thinking.

Because everything originated from an amoral, random, blind, chance beginning. Horror is not a substance, essence, or force that is separate from the rocks, it is a relative reaction of the configuration of the constituent matter of the rocks to configuration of the constituent matter around them that they interact with. In such a worldview things are just doing what things do and you and I are included, but to say that a rock can not make a relevant judgment as to whether it likes (pleasure) or dislike (pain) something without knowing an absolute standard first is just nonsense. Our animal friends are a good example, that don't about any absolute moral standard but behave (on average) as morally as any religious person does (on average).

First, I like that your only measure of horror is relative to the prefect god that created it. Second, even though I have a naturally evolved sense of like and dislike, I needn't use here, the bible is horrible relative to your own beliefs. You say god is the absolute moral standard, but the bible says that god kills people, and lots of them and in really horrible ways, so either killing and hurting people is morally OK or god is not perfectly moral. Your past responses that god owns us and/or is just teaching a lesson and therefore killing and hurting people is morally OK for god is just nonsense and a part of your world view that you have no sensible answer for. You believe god is perfect and the bible is his perfect word and your going to make the two fit together no matter what absurd and ridiculous extreme you have to go to do so..............

Scoreboard: GAD 8, Peter 0, Pending 1

First 3 quotes not mine.
Next 2 quotes not my stated beliefs (or science).
Next 1 Peter needs to chose or I win.
Next 1 Peter has no clue what I am saying because he believes that something can ONLY come from nothing.
Next 1 I did give Peter an answer so I did what I said I did
Next 1 I did give Peter an answer so I did what I said I did

Posted by: GAD | February 12, 2008 6:39 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Timmy said:
"Can you do the same with this charge of me taking "every word on it's own and out of context to try and make a point?""

Heres a resent classic example:

I (part of) said:
"Also, stop answering for LJ! I know you feel some need to set her up for the kill"

Timmy said:
"Set her up for the kill? Who's going to kill Lindajean?
And here you greatly exaggerate what I said as usual.
"but you putting a knife in her hand and saying everyone is out to get her is part of the problem"
I said that everyone was out to get her? No I didn't.
But that is much easier to argue with than what I actually said isn't it. So that's how you represent my position, and then you argue with that. Classic Gadian strawman argument."

First you take one sentence out of the context of the whole paragraph then you slice out each word, kill, everyone etc. and act if as you have really have a point. I use figures of speech, you know damn well they are figures of speech and you know damn well that figures of speech are normal and common in human communication, and you know damn well what I meant by what I said! Yet, you state kill, who said kill, everyone, who said everyone etc. ha ha ha, look everyone GAD said words I didn't say, GAD greatly exaggerates, GAD just uses strawman arguments, even though you knew damn well what I meant you try to make up some counter point just by the way I said it not about what I said. That's BS. You had no point here you were just trying to deflect focus away from yourself after I called you on yet again speaking for and defending LJ. Rather then addressing my charge directly you do what do, take it out of context, slice and dice words and highlight figures of speech to try and make what I said seem silly pointless.

No need to waste any time responding (even though you will), I know you will deny it all. But one need only read back through all the posts to see that my points are valid.

Posted by: GAD | February 12, 2008 5:14 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Gad said to Peter:
"You wouldn't be so (as) confused if you weren't trying to take every word on it's own and out of context to try and make a point. Another Timmyism you've picked up"

Timmyism? I always give direct examples and quotes when I accuse you of the "Gadisms" that I have called you on.
Can you do the same with this charge of me taking "every word on it's own and out of context to try and make a point?"

Posted by: timmy | February 12, 2008 2:44 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Reply to Peter Huff's long list of crap Part IV:

Again all your reasoning above comes from believing that "something can ONLY come from nothing". That is not my belief, nor an answer that I ever gave you. In either case, there was always something or something came into being, Evolution from simple to complex over vast periods of time is what produced all that we see today. You see thinking, life, love etc as a separate substances, essences or forces then the matter they are made from, which is a completely unfounded view i.e. no proof in science or in religion. My view is not how can thinking come from a rock, but that some rocks think.......... When you understand that, you'll understand me.

In any case most of what you wrote was not what I ever claimed and Evolution was and is my answer to the rest, so in fact I did give you an answer.

Scoreboard: GAD 7, Peter 0, Pending 1

Posted by: GAD | February 12, 2008 2:26 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Reply to Peter Huff's long list of crap Part III:

Peter Huff said:
"You said, “no (or ever knowable) reason. How do you know this? You can’t if you have no reason, or knowable reason, and yet you state it as though I can’t either. Once you state no reason or no ever knowable reason, how do you know this to be true? Again you have no reason. Precisely the point I have been making about the atheist all along. He is dictating what "should be" and is without a reason for why it is. “This is the way things happened.” “Why?” “No reason, just because I say so.”"

You wouldn't be so (as) confused if you weren't trying to take every word on it's own and out of context to try and make a point. Another Timmyism you've picked up.

You only need a "reason" if something came from nothing (like bible creation), if something (matter) is the default state then there is no reason, it didn't "come" from anywhere, it just is (like your idea of god). There is no law that say something can only come from nothing. If something (matter) is the default state we can never know, because we can never go back to a time when there was nothing because there never was nothing there was always something. On the other side of the argument, if something came from nothing, then there is a creation point (like bible creation). And what I state is that if there was a creation point and no god then we can never know the cause or creation (why there is something instead of nothing) because we can not go back to a point before creation. I also said if there was a creation point and a god then we can only know "why there is something instead of nothing" if said creator told us.

My argument is reasonable, covers all sides (including creation) and is logically bullet proof.

Scoreboard: GAD 6, Peter 0

Posted by: GAD | February 12, 2008 1:23 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Hi Peter,

YOU:
"He gave you the ability to judge and reason and you chose to exercise that reason and judgment to disbelieve what He has said is true. Is it you who are doing that Timmy?"

Yes Peter. It is I who am flawed. Thank you for pointing that out. I am flawed. I was made by God. God is therefore not perfect.

YOU: "Evil is what is contrary to God's perfect nature and will"

Where did evil come from?

YOU: "Why do you will the way you do?"

How the heck should I know. You'll have to ask the manufacturer.

YOU: "To be unbiased you would have to be objective. Are you objective Timmy?"

I sure do try my best to be. That's all I can do.

YOU: "The point is that God did make everything good and man screwed it up by his moral choice to disobey God"

Yes yes yes Peter. How many times do you have to call man flawed, and for me to agree with you before you notice that God made a faulty product? Yes yes yes Peter, damn dirty old amoral man screwed up God's plan of perfection. I agree with you. Man is flawed. The manufacturer is responsible. The manufacturer is flawed. You can not escape this Peter. You keep saying "no Timmy, God made you perfect but you screwed it up by being bad". This is insanity talking Peter. Who's fault is it that I went bad? Mine? Did I create my own reasoning and judgement? No, God did.

Check-Mate, dude.

Peter your best bet is to admit that God has a few flaws. That is the only God scenario you can raise with me, because I have destroyed an argument for perfect God. If not by my argument, then by my ability to screw up his perfect plan for me by being imperfect and defying his (all powerful) will. Your world-view makes no sense at all Peter.

All powerful, all knowing, perfect God is a joke Peter. How you can believe and then pedal such obvious lies with a straight face is beyond me.

Faulty product = Faulty manufacturer
Faulty man = Faulty God
Faulty world = No perfect God

Posted by: timmy | February 12, 2008 12:52 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Reply to Peter Huff's long list of crap Part II:

GAD said:
An interesting side note here is that while the bible says god is the reason and purpose of "why is there something instead of nothing" it doesn't state the reason and purpose for him making that something..."

Peter Huff said:
"Yes it does Gad. What is created has been created for His glory and honor and pleasure. (Revelation 4:11; Ephesians 1:5, 9) He created it because He wanted to."

"His glory and honor and pleasure", this implies that god needs, needs to be glorified, honored and pleasured (which implies discontent), this is contradiction in terms with respect to "perfect being". If you say god doesn't need to be glorified, honored and pleasured then you have no reason for creation, if you say he does then god can not be perfect because perfection isn't wanting of anything. So either god is not perfect or the bible contradicts gods perfection, it can not be both, choose one otherwise you have no answer to my argument.

Scoreboard: GAD 5, Peter 0

First 3 quotes not mine.
Next 2 quotes not my stated beliefs (or science).
Next 1 Peter needs to chose or I win.

Posted by: GAD | February 12, 2008 12:16 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Reply to Peter Huff's long list of crap Part I:

Peter Huff said:
"You are telling me that evolutionary science is true, based on the evidence that the universe had a beginning as the “current” accepted mainline theory, the Big Bang, supposes this energy and matter came from nothing. In order for it to be a viable theory first you have to demonstrate how something material can come from nothing, for everything material we see comes from something else."

Wrong, you really should pick up a science book sometime Peter! The big Bang theory does not say something came from nothing that's what religion says.

Peter Huff said:
"What I am telling you is that without God you cannot make sense of any of this. You don’t have any evidence that something can come from nothing."

And what I am telling you is that I make perfect sense of it everyday. Wrong again, I don't need to show any evidence that something can come from nothing, because I never said that (ask Timmy) nor is that what I believe (which discounts your god) nor is that what science says (except perhaps on your false creation websites, which isn't science and why probably your so ignorant about what true science says).

Scoreboard: GAD 5, Peter 0

First 3 quotes not mine.
Next 2 quotes not my stated beliefs (or science).

Posted by: GAD | February 12, 2008 11:06 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Peter said to Timmy:

"I'll just tell you the way the Christian sees it. God made the world without flaw (Genesis 1:31) but decided to make man in His image and likeness."

I'm not saying anything new here, but LOL! Peter,you are such a contradiction of reasoning I ought to call you "The Oxymoron" (not to be confused with simply "moron").

The way the Christians see it???? is an acceptable answer to your defense? And we must accept that as the truth? Why ought I accept anything the "Christians" have determined? If man is flawed then why must I accept any interpretation from those who are imperfect?

It is beyond perplexing how one dwelling in the auspices of the "faithful thinker" (also an oxymoron) can utter the above quote with one giant and determined sweep that because Christians "see" it this way, it is truth.

We are getting close to "creepy" again.

You keep rattling off --how does something come from nothing ? but you are unable to answer how or why to its corollary: how can "flawedness" come from perfection? Why does perfection devolve into "flawedness"?

Posted by: lindajean | February 12, 2008 6:33 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Hi Timmy,

Glad you liked what Gad had to say on October 4! It just shows that some atheists do think alike! Sorry Gad, now I'm playing the devil's advocate.

TIMMY: "Where is the religious campaign against the scientific conclusion that the universe could not possibly have been created. There isn't one, because there is no such scientific conclusion."

Good question for Gad to gnaw over Timmy! Well done! You are thinking from the Christian framework on this one.

TIMMY: "I say that we should not pretend to know things that we do not know, and you, instead of showing that we do in fact know these things scientifically, you make a sarcastic comment that "Oh yeah, we should tell everyone to come and be an atheist because we have no answers! LOL!"

Timmy - I hope it is Timmy? - there is no knowledge without a knower. Since a rock does not know (outside of "The Thinker" anyway), has no capability of knowing then how does knowledge come from unknowing matter? If Gad can show me the evidence where this has happened, how it happened, or is happening today then we can perhaps question his "scientific conclusions" more thoroughly.

Posted by: Peter Huff | February 12, 2008 3:56 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Okay Gad, I apologize again for attributing to you something Timmy said. Those three quotes all came from the same post on October 4, 2007, right?

What I did was copy Timmy and your posts onto a Word document; you in yellow and Timmy in blue. I mixed up the one post, the others are from you.

You also started your post on October 23 @ 5:16 as "Peter Huff said." I said nothing of the kind. I'm taking it that that was your response, not mine? It goes to show that we both are capable of making mistakes.

What about the other 8 posts?
January 7, 2008 @ 7:01,
October 6, 2007 @ 3:20 PM,
Oct. 7 @ 2:35 AM,
Oct. 12 @ 2:30 AM,
Oct. 23 @ 5:16 PM,
Nov. 26 @ 2:39 AM,
Dec. 9 @ 10:11 PM,
Dec 27 @ 10:33 PM?

So ignore Timmy's post and answer the rest of my queries and questions.

Posted by: Peter Huff | February 12, 2008 3:32 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Yes perfect God Timmy!

TIMMY: "Again. Volition is choice. It does not make us do things, it just gives us options.
Our judgement and reasoning are what dictate what we do.
You are saying my judgement and reasoning are flawed.
God gave me my judgement and reasoning.
Therefore, God is flawed.

He gave you the ability to judge and reason and you chose to exercise that reason and judgment to disbelieve what He has said is true. Is it you who are doing that Timmy? Did He not make the world and everything in it "very good" before man reasoned that he would be like God in knowing both good and evil? Evil is what is contrary to God's perfect nature and will.

Why do you will the way you do? Is your reason and intellect neutral on every decision you make, or is your thinking all built on certain presuppostional foundations – a web of belief that has certain beginning presuppositions? When you start outside of God, you are not starting with a neutral, unbiased opinion. To be unbiased you would have to be objective. Are you objective Timmy?

TIMMY: "There is no way around it Peter. If the product (me) is flawed, then the manufacturer (God) is flawed. If God were perfect, so would his creation be perfect and our world would be perfect. We are not. So he is not. And therefore, if you are claiming that your god is perfect, your God does not exist. Unless you think that we created our own reasoning and judgement. But how could we do that? We are not Gods.

TIMMY: "BTW Peter,
I would not be able to make this same argument against the hypothesis of a very un-perfect, in fact extremely flawed, God. But that of course is not what you are proposing. So Check-mate on "perfect God."

Timmy, I am not going to tell you that you are making an error in your judgment. You would not believe me anyway. I’ll just tell you the way the Christian sees it. God made the world without flaw (Genesis 1:31) but decided to make man in His image and likeness. Part of the reflection of His image is that God made man the creature with the ability to make decisions, but in Adam, with a will unaffected by wrongful actions. God told the man, His creature, what he was not permitted to do. Adam, the first man had the ability to believe and listen to God or not listen to God and sin. God told the man what was good and permissible and what would keep man operating in this perfect state, in this perfectly created world, that God had made. Since Adam’s sin, our wills are no longer free and unbiased; they have a propensity to do that which is evil in God’s sight and in that action man was no longer able to do that which is perfect. Since the Fall God also imposed other limitations on His world, such as disease, death and decay. This is a reminder to man of the implications of living outside God’s will.

Could God have created a creature, given that creature a free will and then not allowed that creature to operate on that will? Yes, He could. Would we not have then been robots? Could God have made that creature knowing all along on what that creature would choose but provide a perfect plan to redeem the creature from His justice and the consequences of breaking His perfectly good will, in order to know a love that is beyond measure? That is what we find in the pages of Scripture.

What you are saying is that God who is perfect cannot choose to allow the imperfect for a time as a consequence of man’s disobedience. The point is that God did make everything good and man screwed it up by his moral choice to disobey God. God’s perfect will is still being fulfilled by His purposes in doing this. He has not explained, to my knowledge of Scripture, the reasons fully why He did it, just that His good pleasing and perfect will will go according to His plan (Romans 12:2 and Ephesians 1:11 esp.)

Our world will once again be perfect Timmy, in God’s time. God will separate the sheep from the goats, the believer from the unbeliever. Try to escape from His perfect justice without Jesus Christ and you will answer to the perfect Judge on your own merit and on what that merit has earned you. Then you will be made to pay accordingly. You have wronged an eternal and infinitely just God and you will be made to pay infinite and eternal consequences; that is without Christ. Best wishes!

Posted by: Peter Huff | February 12, 2008 2:54 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Hi Lindajean,

Thank you for your reply to my crazy questions.
Here is some more devil's advocacy for your replies.

You said:
"Security involves financial well-being, but is also tied to love, companionship, and an over all sense of OK."

Yes. But I don't see any of the things listed above as needing to have anything to do with monogamy or marriage.

"The difference between marriage and other relationships, in my opinion, is marriage requires certain expectations built right into the system and an understanding you are sacrificing some freedoms for this other person"

To what end? Why do we need to sacrifice freedom, for love and companionship?

"But I do question why someone would get married if they are thinking something like, “In 10 years if I get tired of this I will just duck out because I will want something different, better, younger, etc...”

Well they shouldn't. Obviously.
But that's not the case usually. Most people when they get married have every intention of "till death do us part". But over the course of the next 10 - 20 - 30 - 40 - 50 years, people change. And 20 years later you might not be able to stand the person you married anymore. It's not about someone younger or even someone else. It's about people change.

"But I don’t think the need for marriage is going to go away any time soon"

Again, playing devil's advocate, what is this need you speak of. I don't see marriage and monogamy as having anything to do with raising children. Love, caring, compassion, role models, etc. But monogamy and marriage? Dispensable.

I'm pretty new-age with my thinking on these kind of things. And I'm the opposite of a pack-rat. Meaning, I err on the side of throwing things out too soon, as soon as I perceive no more use for them. Just speaking philosophically, does marriage and monogamy serve any particular purpose? Did it ever? Is monogamy just about jealousy and or religion?

I think that it is quite obvious that our philosophical differences here match our biological differences. We have opposite powerful instincts. Yours to nest, and mine to spread my seed far and wide. As much as women say that it's a man's world, at least at this stage of the game, the norm is to live our lives more in line with the nesting than the spreading. Marriage seems to have been a religious invention by men, to police their own sexuality. Was it all just jealousy and religion, or was there a real need for it.

Weeeeeeeee, I'm being provocative. :)

Posted by: timmy | February 11, 2008 10:09 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Timmy said:

"I don't ever remember Gad speaking so sensibly. Sounds more like something I'd say"

LOL! Good one! See how funny you are when your not being serious........

Posted by: GAD | February 11, 2008 9:37 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Peter Huff said:

"There you have it folks - Gad's religion!"

Oh please, now your trying to copy Timmy. It's kind funny when Timmy says it, not so funny when you say it. Which is funny LOL!

Unlike your piece of crap bible that is above all criticism, criticism is an important part of science and Wikipedia to be a fair and proper source of information lists counter views, again something your bible can't do.

Sadly the only thing you took away from the whole article was the small part that your small mind could understand, that at least one person in the world didn't think it was true, and that's enough for you to reject it all because you already knew it wasn't the truth that you believe.

Carl Sagan contributed more to human knowledge and understanding then all of us combined (including Sam Harris), so if I'm wrong and there is no other life out there, at least I'm in far better companymake-believing aliens then sitting around make-believing there is a god with you!

Posted by: GAD | February 11, 2008 9:32 PM
Report Offensive Comment

LOL!

That's what I thought. I was reading Peter's post thinking, "I don't ever remember Gad speaking so sensibly. Sounds more like something I'd say"
:)

Posted by: Timmy | February 11, 2008 9:21 PM
Report Offensive Comment

LOL!

That's what I thought. I was reading Peter's post thinking, "I don't ever remember Gad speaking so sensibly. Sounds more like something I'd say"
:)

Posted by: Timmy | February 11, 2008 9:21 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Peter, good grief, the first 3 quotes that you quote me on are from Timmy! Sorry Peter, that post is to long for me to bother with if all it is misquotes from other people. Fix your errors and break it into smaller parts and I'll respond to each part in order.

Not me Timmy:
GAD: From the knowledge that everything in the universe is matter/energy including us, I imagine how I am connected to all of it, and what it means to be a part of the whole thing.

Not me Timmy:
GAD: "Also due to a lack of evidence, I can not say anything myself about the nature of our existence because that would be believing in something with insufficient evidence."

Not me Timmy:
GAD: "Why is there something instead of nothing?
Unknown.
Simple as that."

Posted by: GAD | February 11, 2008 9:01 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Timmy:

You’ve asked some interesting questions.
We do see things a little differently from the devil’s advocate position. Security involves financial well-being, but is also tied to love, companionship, and an over all sense of OK.

I realize security is a paradox. We think we have it but it is really an illusion because of the impermanence of life itself. So I use the word within a certain framework, believing that this framework, generally speaking in marriage, is the most secure adult relationship found in human culture. There are obvious exceptions and with marriage’s diversity and variance spanning the globe, in some cases it offers little actual security, hope or anything else.

The difference between marriage and other relationships, in my opinion, is marriage requires certain expectations built right into the system and an understanding you are sacrificing some freedoms for this other person. I don’t typically see that outside of marriage, except in the gay community where marriage is illegal.

People may not adhere to their marital expectations, and those expectations may vary from couple to couple, generation to generation and culture to culture. But almost all marriages have them.

I think one problem with marriage is many people enter into it believing it will make them complete. Religion plays a big part of this. As we all “know” Adam’s rib made Eve and then they were “one.” This is myth. No need to discuss other ill-conceived notions about marriage that stem from faith, as you are no doubt aware of them.

I think where you as the devil’s advocate and me will differ is in your view that marriage may not even be necessary anymore--- the argument being it is as archaic as the bible. But I don’t think the need for marriage is going to go away any time soon.

But I do question why someone would get married if they are thinking something like, “In 10 years if I get tired of this I will just duck out because I will want something different, better, younger, etc...”

My question regarding this is if a person is not willing to make an authentic commitment with the intention of keeping it then why not just grab the next cute babe at a party and get the ball rolling a little early by speeding things along? This scenario seems like a waste of time, so why even bother with marriage?

Another reason for marriage is children, but this seems too obvious to even comment on.

So the bottom line is this:
What do we know outside of religion about marriage that can help us?
We know that married couples (especially men) tend to have more satisfaction about their lives, better health and better financial success. One could question the causal relationship in this statement. But in my opinion, it is not a bad place to start.

I trust this made some headway with your questions.

Posted by: lindajean | February 11, 2008 8:55 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Maybe God Peter, but not perfect god, which means, not your God. That we know for certain.

Posted by: timmy | February 11, 2008 8:16 PM
Report Offensive Comment

There you have it folks - Gad's religion!

According to the same website,

"Since there exists only one known example of a planet with advanced life forms, some critics view the Drake equation as unreliable. However, based on Earth's experience, some scientists view intelligent life on other planets as possible and the replication of this event elsewhere is at least plausible.[9][10][11] In a 2003 lecture at Caltech, Michael Crichton, a science fiction author, stated that, "Speaking precisely, the Drake equation is literally meaningless, and has nothing to do with science. I take the hard view that science involves the creation of testable hypotheses. The Drake equation cannot be tested and therefore SETI is not science. SETI is unquestionably a religion."[12] Crichton's criticism might be flawed if extraterrestrial civilizations existed since the negative hypothesis (i.e., "extraterrestrial civilizations do not exist") could be tested: it would be falsified by the discovery of one of them."

End of quote.

Notice the words "unreliable" "based on the Earth's EXPERIENCE." Experience as opposed to what? Where? In everything that has been observed, where is the evidence? Just another religious probability as the site he provided states?

"The Drake equation cannot be tested and therefore SETI is not science. SETI is unquestionably a religion."

All it shows me is that this fine tuning and design of both the earth and universe points to God. Again, Gad is supposing the contrary possibility, evolution, and that is faith, but is it a rational/reasonable faith?

Posted by: Peter Huff | February 11, 2008 7:16 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Hi Gad,

On January 7, 7:01 PM, 2008 you said,

GAD: "Peter,
Your last post(s) is just a rehash of all your same old pointless and nonsensical views . I'm not going to waste any time on a response except to say that I have answered all of your questions on where life, morals, personality etc. come from."

The question I have for you Gad is where have you ever done any of what you have said? I will go back over some of your posts with that question in mind.

October 4, 2007, 3:23 PM:

GAD: From the knowledge that everything in the universe is matter/energy including us, I imagine how I am connected to all of it, and what it means to be a part of the whole thing.

You imagine. Right there you are going beyond the material world, beyond the scientific explanation.

That is precisely the point. Everything in the universe is not matter. Concepts are not material. You cannot produce an idea that I can physically grab hold of. You cannot physically touch a law such as gravity, but you can show it with something physical. What evidence do you have that that information, let alone a thinking individual can come from a material universe? There is none. No one has ever witnessed matter thinking. You have to presuppose it to be true, and that is what evolutionary science does.

So if my chemicals impulses react differently than yours, and I murder another human being, why should that be a moral issue? It is just the energy inside of me that made me do it. Nothing wrong with that is there?

GAD: "Also due to a lack of evidence, I can not say anything myself about the nature of our existence because that would be believing in something with insufficient evidence."

You just did. You said that you cannot say anything about the nature of your existence. That in itself says something about our existence and your belief. What you could have said is I can say nothing myself about the nature of our existence other than that there is insufficient evidence to say anything else about the nature of our existence. Either way, the atheist is left without a reason for why we are here and cannot make sense of it. That is what I have been saying all along.

GAD: "Why is there something instead of nothing?
Unknown.
Simple as that."

If that is the reason why Gad then what makes you believe that evolution is anything other than a religion, and one that does not have the answers?

It is not as simple as that. You are telling me that evolutionary science is true, based on the evidence that the universe had a beginning as the “current” accepted mainline theory, the Big Bang, supposes this energy and matter came from nothing. In order for it to be a viable theory first you have to demonstrate how something material can come from nothing, for everything material we see comes from something else.

What I am telling you is that without God you cannot make sense of any of this. You don’t have any evidence that something can come from nothing.

October 6, 2007, 3:20 PM:

GAD: "My view (other views vary) is this, if you follow any chain of questions back far enough you will come to the root of all questions, "why is there something instead of nothing".
An interesting side note here is that while the bible says god is the reason and purpose of "why is there something instead of nothing" it doesn't state the reason and purpose for him making that something..."

Yes it does Gad. What is created has been created for His glory and honor and pleasure. (Revelation 4:11; Ephesians 1:5, 9) He created it because He wanted to.

GAD: "Now following from the above, my answer to "why is there something instead of nothing" is "no (or ever knowable) reason". You have to understand the implicit context of "reason" here as inclusive of natural explanations and exclusive of supernatural ones i.e. willful reason and purpose or higher meaning."

You said, “no (or ever knowable) reason. How do you know this? You can’t if you have no reason, or knowable reason, and yet you state it as though I can’t either. Once you state no reason or no ever knowable reason, how do you know this to be true? Again you have no reason. Precisely the point I have been making about the atheist all along. He is dictating what "should be" and is without a reason for why it is.

“This is the way things happened.” “Why?” “No reason, just because I say so.”

Great answer!

October 7, 2007 2:35 AM:

When I say I am an atheist, I mean that I believe that there are no god or gods. But because the corner stone of my atheism is reason the shadow of my atheism falls beyond that and covers Spirituality, Mysticism, Buddhism, Meditation, Unicorns and pink elephants that pooped the universe into existence.

You said the corner stone of your belief is reason but where does your reason come from? Non-living, matter does not think. Why should I have reason to believe that it can cause itself to think? Why should I have reason to believe that something that has a beginning had no cause or that something that wasn't came into being. How can anything create itself? It would have to be before it could create. Again, you have to leap to tremendous conclusions to go from nothing to thinking/reasoning human beings.

As I have stated and will continue to state, atheistic, evolutionary belief has no answers, no reason why we should take their slant on beginnings.

October 12, 2007 2:30 AM:

GAD: "I am an atheist, and I say so, and when any theist tells me I can't be good or moral or decent because I don't believe in their god, I ram every last horror of their religion down their throat. And if all reason fails what is left but ridicule....."

You may do that but you have no reason for doing that because by criticizing any theist you must first demonstrate that you have a standard for good that is measurable against something concrete, something objective, something absolute, something ultimate. Otherwise how do you know it is good? It is just you mere preference. In that case why are you telling me that me preference is wrong?

Why is there such a thing as horror in a world where everything originated from an amoral, random, blind, chance beginning? In such a worldview things are just doing what things do and you and I are included.

My biological matter is reacting in a particular way and yours is reacting in another way, so don’t tell me that what happened in the Bible is horrible unless you can demonstrate a reason that you can make sense of horror or wrong.

October 23, 2007 5:16 PM:

GAD: "Your are perfect for god Peter, ignorant, childish, and without any reason whatsoever........ My statement is a first principle, a logical deduction, an axiom. It is self-evident, you know, like the one you obviously pretend to understand and use often, "something can not be both A and B the same time". Which is made all the funnier seeing as Christians claim that Jesus was both god and man at the same time......... So no it is not contradictory, it must be taken as self-evident as no objective moral truth can be proved (and no your claim that gods word isn't proof of anything except your ignorance)."

Well Gad, first you have to show me how you are using your reasoning in determining where morals come from, how something can and has come from nothing, and all the other arguments I have presented against your worldview before you call mine childish. You have no accounting for yours.

It would be going against what is self evident and within reason to say that there are no objective moral truths and at the same time for me to believe that you could come up with any truth for morals, for as I have been saying all along, without God it is all meaningless and there is no truth, just force and coercion.

So don't ever talk about truth if you can't demonstrate its origin. Evolutionary science cannot talk about the truth of the Big Bang. No human was there. You just suppose it to be so, and that after a complicated argument in which you also suppose hundreds, thousands, millions, trillions of other things to be so.

God is the precondition for all truth.

November 26, 2007 2:39 AM"

I said: ""How can a non-tangible thought, such as "love" come from a supposed material universe?"

GAD: "First of all, not all the wishful thinking of the religious nor the most advanced science has yet to provide a single shred of evidence for the "non-material" in this "material universe". The "material universe" is fact, "non-material" is what is supposed."

Wishful thinking huh? Facts still need to be interpreted. Are ideas non-material? Is evolution an idea? Then it is supposed by faith, just like I have contended.

GAD: "Love, like everything else, is a product of the "material universe". That love evolved from a cold "impersonal" "material universe" is a far more beautiful idea then it being given by a cold "impersonal" "non-material" god for the "soul" purposes of us loving to worship at his feet."

First of all, God is living, loving, personal and warm hearted. Evolutions is impersonal and how anything can evolve from nothing you still need to explain?

I'm still waiting for your answers Gad.

December 9, 2007 10:11 PM:

ME: "How do you explain personality, being able to reason and think in terms of ethics"

GAD: "E-VO-LU-TION ! Read a damn book!"

Isn't that a great explanations? How many times have you done that? You still have no explanation for personality and morals coming from an amoral, impersonal beginning. Yet in reality that is not what we witness or have ever witnessed. Beings always comes from persons, just as morals always come from a standard that has to be absolute for it to be true and sensible.

GAD: "You weren't around either, yet you claim to know what happened based on a book that has been proven beyond any reasonable doubt to be base on myth and false!

That is right. I have the explanation of the One who was/is and because of that can make sense of why I am here. You cannot.

GAD: "Facts do not speak for themselves, they require interpretation based on what is perceived to be the likely theory or explanation."
LOL! And in this case what is needed to interpret them is the self-righteous delusions of the Christian imagination!"

What makes you think that your delusion is anything other than evolutionary imagination? You have no explanation of how/where the thinking process came from. Again, you have deflected the questions that I have asked you as you always do.

First you have to show me how you make sense of why things are the way they are or else you are building your foundation on sinking sand, on faulty imaginations.

December 27, 2007 10:33 PM"

GAD: "This phrase so tiresome.... My foundation is the rock of knowledge it is your ignorant beliefs in myths that are sinking into the sands of time! As we speak science is marching on at an every accelerating pace, everyday new and wondrous things are being discovered! What is your religion doing, war on sex, war on condoms, war on who's going to hell, war on homosexuals, war on who has the right god or interpretation of gods word, keeping cancer drugs from girls (so they won't have sex), flying planes in to buildings etc. etc. Just as the dinosaurs gave way to the mammals myth will give way to science!"

ME: "How does truth come from a non-thinking, non-personal material beginning?"

GAD: "One more time! EVOLUTION!!!"

Great answer again Gad! You still have to show how a blind, random, chance process that supposedly began without purpose or meaning can add information, order, meaning, purpose and intelligence. You have no answers. Without God you cannot make sense of it, as I have contended all along.

Yes, I am repetitious. You (I include the whole atheist coalition - sorry, the coalition part makes me chuckle) keep avoiding the questions, actually have no ability from your (their) worldview to answer these questions, and yet believe that Christianity, that does have the answers, is wrong.

If God had not given the reason in His Word it would puzzle me to.

Posted by: Peter Huff | February 11, 2008 6:58 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Gad said:

"If you can find otherwise I will accept it, but in any case I heard it from Dawkins first"

All I have here is you saying that "to the best of your knowledge" Dawkins said it first. No examples or quotes or even a particular book reference. So I put the above quoted sentence back at you, replacing the word "Dawkins" with the word "Harris".

Gad said:
"For #2 are you kidding me! You needed Harris to tell you that nut jobs with Nukes in hand were a greater threat then nut jobs with bibles and "god hates fags" signs in hand!? LOL!

No actually. I read it and I said "yes! This is how I feel"
And I was pleased to be reading things that I have felt and thought, but that I had NEVER READ BEFORE, or never heard spoken publicly before. If others have, their message did not penetrate the general populous well enough to get to me, and obviously many others. So Sam's book was saying something new, at the very least, to most people who read it. In my opinion, It was more than just "an enjoyable read" with no new ideas. It was an important book. Like I said, non fiction books with nothing new to say seldom stay on the best sellers list for any length of time.

Posted by: timmy | February 11, 2008 6:20 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Gad said:

"Not at all. You think saying "maybe there is maybe there isn't" is some great feat of intellectualism"

No I don't. That is not a fair accusation/exaggeration. (what's new) I have never said that, nor did I ever give that impression. I have made it very clear that I only think of it as intellectual honesty, not "some great feat of intellectualism" as you say. Here you are misrepresenting my position. Over exaggerating it to make me look bad. It's that thing you do.

I know the odds that life is out there.
But the odds that intelligent life is out there, has to do with time, and the fact that there has been enough of it for intelligence to evolve. But in a universe that has always been, with life that has always been, what are the odds that intelligent life would not have developed the technology or evolved the senses to find the others by now? "always been" is a very long time. It seems bazaar that intelligent life would have first evolved only a few hundred million years ago after an eternity of existence.

"Maybe there is and maybe there isn't"
May be too wishy washy for the intelligent life question.

"Probably there is, and maybe there isn't"
This is a good one.

But "Certainly there is"
This is "special"

What's the point in believing it anyway Gad? You're never going get confirmation, right? Isn't that your argument against even hypothesizing about things like transcendent consciousness? What's the point if you can never know?

No knowable aliens = de facto no aliens.

Just like "no knowable reason" = de facto no reason

Right?

Posted by: timmy | February 11, 2008 5:57 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Timmy said,

"On, whether or not, Sam Harris brought anything new to the table with his books."

"For me he did. 2 new arguments that I had not heard."

For #1 to the best of my knowledge Dawkins was pushing that long before Harris. In fact I have always thought that Harris took that from Dawkins. If you can find otherwise I will accept it, but in any case I heard it from Dawkins first.

For #2 are you kidding me! You needed Harris to tell you that nut jobs with Nukes in hand were a greater threat then nut jobs with bibles and "god hates fags" signs in hand!? LOL!

Posted by: GAD | February 11, 2008 5:29 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Gad said:

"I can not prove or disprove intelligent life elsewhere in the universe, but I am certain it is there........"

Timmy said:

Are you kidding me? There is not a scrap of evidence for it. We can't even find signs of life anywhere else in the universe let alone intelligent life. There is no reason to think that it is out there. Just faith. Your criteria for belief is all over the place.

Not at all. You think saying "maybe there is maybe there isn't" is some great feat of intellectualism, I just say yea, there is, the probability that there isn't is just to high.

Here this just tries to give the odds of intelligent life in "just" our galaxy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drake_equation

Posted by: GAD | February 11, 2008 5:04 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Gad said:

"I can not prove or disprove intelligent life elsewhere in the universe, but I am certain it is there........"

Again, I don't know, so I am neutral. There may be, there may not be. But the hypothesis that there is, is not illogical, in fact it is quite logical. Just like transcendent consciousness. No evidence. But logical. Plausible.

Posted by: timmy | February 11, 2008 3:28 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Sorry, I don't mean to load you up, but one more thing.
On, whether or not, Sam Harris brought anything new to the table with his books.

For me he did. 2 new arguments that I had not heard.

1. A raising of awareness to the religious moderate's complicit roll in religious literalism and extremism. The idea that the religious moderate is, in ways, more delusional than the literalist. And more responsible for the continuation of religious extremism. I had not heard this argument put so clearly and damningly before Sam Harris.

2. That we do not need to paint all religions with the same brush. That we can criticize one as being more violent and dangerous that others. That we can focus our criticism on the most troublesome and dangerous one first. Like the tyrants of the world, let's worry about the ones with nukes before we worry about the ones with sticks and stones.

These were new ideas to me. And they are extremely valuable, and relevant. And if they have been said before, not like that. And they needed to be said again, and like that. History will remember Sam's book. Non fiction books with "no new ideas" seldom stay on the best sellers list for any length of time.

Posted by: timmy | February 11, 2008 3:18 PM
Report Offensive Comment

On consciousness:
There is nothing illogical about the hypothesis that it may transcend the self. In fact I find it quite logical. The argument that there is no evidence for it is true. But it would be silly of course to consider no evidence for, as evidence against this logical and perfectly plausible hypothesis. The absence of evidence could simply mean that we have not found the evidence yet, as has been the case with all scientific realities before the evidence for them was found. (see your examples) It may be possible that the evidence is not, as of yet, detectable to us in our current form.

When I say "we", I mean all living things. You believe in evolution, that means you know that we were once non vertebrates. Once there was no backbone, so standing could not have been imagined. Once there was no sight, so seeing could not be imagined. Once there was no hearing, so sounds could not be imagined. Once there was no imagination, so imagining could not be imagined. Are we done evolving Gad? Are there no more new senses yet to be gained by our species that are currently unimaginable? Does it not make perfect sense that those new senses may lie in the area of awareness and consciousness as our most recent evolutionary changes have been? But these things that I accept as possible hypotheses about consciousness are not to be considered because it is not likely that you will know about it before you die, so it's not worth wondering what strange things the future holds for our species? Have you no wonder, lad?

As we are aware that new senses are a part of our on going evolution, and as we become aware of quantum theories and multi-universes, and the uncertainty of physics, how incredible it is for you to be so determined to have closure. I just can not fathom the desire to give truth place-holders to these still open questions.

Do it if you like. But that is not science. And it is not atheism. And given that you have now admitted that you are "special", you should take no offense that I give it the label, Gadism.

Dan dennet said:

""We should all be open-minded and humble, and recognize that we don’t have all the answers. And about any large questions for which we really don’t have good answers yet, agnosticism is surely the position to adopt. But it is simply misplaced ‘diplomatic’ insincerity to declare oneself an agnostic about the existence of Thor, or Jehovah, or the divinity of Jesus Christ or the Virgin Birth, in my opinion."

Why should we not be "open-minded and humble, and recognize that we don’t have all the answers"?
Why?

Is it because only a 7 can defeat a 1?

Posted by: timmy | February 11, 2008 2:37 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Timmy said,

"Is it your theory right now that there is no intelligent life anywhere else in the universe? Is that the current scientific theory on the matter?"

I can not prove or disprove intelligent life elsewhere in the universe, but I am certain it is there........

Posted by: GAD | February 11, 2008 2:25 PM
Report Offensive Comment

PS Gad,

Is it your theory right now that there is no intelligent life anywhere else in the universe? Is that the current scientific theory on the matter?

Remember, there is no evidence that there is any, and so no reason to believe that there is any, and so we should all take our best scientific stab at this question and decide on an answer. We don't see any. We have no evidence that there are any. So stop looking. There are no intelligent aliens. That is the position we should take. And if we're proven wrong, hey, we took our best shot. No harm no foul. It was still the right thing to do to take a stand and say no aliens exist.

Posted by: timmy | February 11, 2008 12:58 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Gad:

"Please tell, because I am not aware of any law of physics that says that "something" has to come from "nothing"

No no, I didn't say that something came from nothing.
I said that it is more likely that something came from something rather than something has "always been", because in physics, everything has a cause. Like I said earlier, all of our world-views suffer the problem of infinite regression. Peter solves his with the unmoved mover. You solve yours with the uncaused cause (always been). And I don't pretend to have a solution for infinite regression at all but I sure do think that it's a fascinating thing to ponder. It is an unsolved mystery.

On your certainty against the idea of transcendent consciousness, you said:

"Yes pretty much because there is no reason to believe it is any other way"

Well first off, any other way than what? Your theory that consciousness is body bound? I'm not aware of any theory explaining the nature of consciousness that is a widely accepted as truth in the science community. Are you?

But 2nd, you are right. There is no reason to "believe" it.
And as I told you, I don't "believe" it. But you "believe".
You believe your theory about consciousness. A theory that doesn't exist in science.
Me, I am neutral, because no one knows the answer to this one.

"And if it is so but can't be proven then I can't be proven wrong"

LOL! Is that what's important to you? Taking a position that no one can prove you wrong on? Why not say that God exists. No one can prove that wrong either. You can go to your grave never having been wrong. LOL. Plus there is no reason to assume that it can not be proven, if it is true.

"nor would it matter what you believe since no one could ever know"

So people believing in God doesn't matter? Being wrong about your chosen certain answer about the nature of our existence is no biggie because no one will ever know that you are wrong?

"And if is and it can be proven, then I'm wrong, but at least I gave it my best shot, based on reason not religion and unless there is a penalty for being wrong, no harm no foul........"

This one kills me. "At least I gave it my best shot"?
LOL. That's what Peter did. That's what all theists do. They take a stab at explaining something they know nothing about. But yes, Gad your reasoning that you use in "taking a stab" at answering something you do not know is different than Peters reasoning. Your theism is science based. I get that part.

"Well I'm special!"

Yes, that is my point. It's just that earlier you were claiming to have the popular view, and calling me "special". So long as you are admitting to being the odd man out now.

"Was the earth not flat until it was proven, did the earth not circle the sun until every one believed it, was evolution not true until it was proved, no all these thing were true even when only a few people believed them"

I don't know why you'd want to make my point for me, but thanks. Perhaps one day, someone will add to this list, "was consciousness not body bound until it was proven otherwise?" Right now, only a few people believe it. But as you say, this certainly doesn't make it false. Oh those people who first got it in their head that the earth may be round. What wishful thinkers they were.

"That was funny as hell! I laughed my ass off!"

I thought so too. I mean there you were claiming to be both and atheist, and omniscient in one sentence. So silly. We know that only theists claim to know everything. Actually even theists don't claim to know everything. They claim that God knows everything and they know God. But you skip the middle man and go right to your own omniscience. I suppose that's why you took the moniker "Gad". Science God :)

Posted by: timmy | February 11, 2008 12:51 PM
Report Offensive Comment

BurningBurningRabbit not BurningRabbit,

LOL! Are you just bored or slumming or what? Did god send you here, is he upset with our kinky little atheist orgy!

I'm game, step out of of your hole and lets see what you got, more then poems I hope because it will take a lot more then that to get my love. :)

Posted by: GAD | February 11, 2008 3:48 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Timmy said:

"I don't see how though, you can give that same percentage of certainty 99.9999999 % that the universe could not be the scientific creation of some entity."

True enough, but if such an entity is material then the material of the entity carries the same certainty as "always been"....

So what do you think the odds are that we are "not" the scientific creation of some entity, 1 in a thousand 99.999, 1 in a million 99.999999 1 in a billion 99.999999999 1 in a trillion 99.999999999999, how many decimals places do you think you have to go before you say, no we were not created by aliens?

"In fact, "always been" breaks the laws of physics"

See now that is interesting! Please tell, because I am not aware of any law of physics that says that "something" has to come from "nothing".

"Same goes for a pantheistic, if you will, universal consciousness of some sort. The kind of stuff that Andy talks about at times where the universe itself has a consciousness just as it has life and we are a part of that, unaware. I don't believe in, or wish for, any of that stuff to be true. But do you give that stuff the same 99.99999999% certainty against? I don't see how you can."

Yes pretty much because there is no reason to believe it is any other way. And if it is so but can't be proven then I can't be proven wrong, nor would it matter what you believe since no one could ever know. And if is and it can be proven, then I'm wrong, but at least I gave it my best shot, based on reason not religion and unless there is a penalty for being wrong, no harm no foul........

"I don't think that science is 99.999999999% certain of these things. I have heard very few, (in fact none) scientists talk even close to being certain about any of these things. Skeptical yes. But 99.99999999% certain? I know of no one as certain as you on these issues."

Well I'm special! Was the earth not flat until it was proven, did the earth not circle the sun until every one believed it, was evolution not true until it was proved, no all these thing were true even when only a few people believed them.

BTW before where I said"

"As an atheist who knows everything I can tell you without reservation that I am not boring or a lifeless crank!!"

You said:

Prove it! :)
Just to correct a typo though, you accidentally put an "a" in front of the word "theist" here

That's was funny as hell! I laughed my ass off!

Posted by: GAD | February 11, 2008 3:18 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Probably best none of us even acknowledge this Rabbit creep.

Posted by: timmy | February 11, 2008 2:53 AM
Report Offensive Comment

GAD,

Try this:

Does LindaJean have a crush on Sam Harris;

Does Sam Harris have a crush on LindaJean;

Does GAD have a crush on LindaJean;

Does LindaJean have crush on GAD;

Does Bernie Bee have a crush on LindaJean;

Does LindaJean have a crush on Bernie Bee;

Does Timmy have a crush on LindaJean;

Does LindaJean have a crush on Timmy;

Does Peter Huff have a crush on LindaJean;

Does LindaJean have a crush on Peter Huff;

Does AndyRoss have a crush on LindaJean;

Does LindaJean have a crush on AndyRoss;

And so on...

Read all the posts for hidden personal cues and decide.

Posted by: BurningBurningRabbit | February 11, 2008 2:43 AM
Report Offensive Comment

BernieBee,

Don't envy the husband.
Feel sorry for him.
Scroll up the page
Read every single post
Of your wishful soulmate.
Read between the lines
Of every single post.
Wait till doomsday
Before a wife will admit
To playing any game.
The twenty first century game.
Be duped by eloquent fogging
And be a clown.

Posted by: BurningBurningRabbit | February 11, 2008 1:24 AM
Report Offensive Comment

LindaJean,

BurningBurningRabbit is not BurningRabbit.
BurningRabbit didn't turn into a poet.
Your conclusion was therefore wrong.
There are always more than one explanation.

The poem touched a raw nerve in you.
You are lashing out like mad.
The answer is for you to figure out.
Poems are meant to smoke the rat out of the gutter.

------BurningBurningRabbit not BurningRabbit

Posted by: BurningBurningRabbit | February 11, 2008 1:16 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Gad,

I am also 99.9999999999% certain that there is no personal god. Because any nature claims about such a God can be disproved.

I don't see how though, you can give that same percentage of certainty 99.9999999 % that the universe could not be the scientific creation of some entity. As vast as our universe or multi-universe is, it could easily be a spec of mold on a diner bun that fell behind the stove in someone else's universe. I don't see these hypotheses as any less logical than "always been". In fact, "always been" breaks the laws of physics, and seems far far from 99.9999999999% certain.

Same goes for a pantheistic, if you will, universal consciousness of some sort. The kind of stuff that Andy talks about at times where the universe itself has a consciousness just as it has life and we are a part of that, unaware. I don't believe in, or wish for, any of that stuff to be true. But do you give that stuff the same 99.99999999% certainty against? I don't see how you can.

99.999999999% certain there is no personal God?

Yes.

99.999999999% certain that it has "always been" and that consciousness, or awareness, do not transcend the self?

I don't see how. I don't see why?
I don't think that science is 99.999999999% certain of these things. I have heard very few, (in fact none) scientists talk even close to being certain about any of these things. Skeptical yes. But 99.99999999% certain? I know of no one as certain as you on these issues.

Posted by: timmy | February 11, 2008 12:18 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Timmy said:

A long time ago, in a post far far away.... Gad wrote:

"As I have stated, I can not prove or disprove that there is "a" god(s), but I believe that I can disprove any theist claim about the nature of god(s). That is what I believe and that is what I am arguing......

"The ideas that you can not prove or disprove god and that there is no evidence for or against god, gets stated 1000's of times on these forums (even by me), but that is very misleading. It is only true in the context of there being "a" god, not in the context of any knowledge claims of the nature of god. Theism makes claims about the nature of god and what his wants are, these can be "proven" wrong and/or be shown to have no evidence that supports them. In this context theism can and has been proven false."

"I am down with that!"

Ah, those were the days! When we were arguing about ideas and not words, figures of speech and who hurt who's feelings.........

No, change on my part Timmy. I can not prove or disprove god(s), but I am as certain there are none as I can be certain of anything. To 99.999999999999% which is as close to knowing anything for certain as we can get.

Posted by: Anonymous | February 10, 2008 11:15 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Hi Gad:
In response to your latest post to me:

It seems to me you like to use terms like "splitting hairs" when it is a discussion that you are getting weary of, or you want to just forget about, or when you want to move on to some other topic because you have lost interest in this one.

Sometimes debate requires some patience and a little diligence and understanding ; some discipline to hear out what your opponent is attempting to say. Perhaps you are sick and tired of me harping on you about what does a crush mean to you? Or why do you think I have a crush on Sam Harris? But you fail to realize that you are provoking me to confront you on this because I am either 1. very stupid and just do not understand your words; or 2. this is an issue I am not ready to let go of because I am concerned that if we do not get to the bottom of it then it is going to continue to rear its ugly head in the future. (BTW: The winner is number 2!).

I would like to get this over and done with so that, yes, perhaps there will be a good chance that we can have some other more interesting ideas to talk about.

You seem to indicate my "annoyance" is some beast of burden I am caring around and that I need to simply do some soul searching on behalf of my own psyche and get over it, get past it, let go of it Lindajean because this is your problem and not mine. Well, it is my problem in the sense I decide to enter this discussion in the first place and if I don't like it then I can just turn it off, but what is the use of me turning off conversations just because I feel a certain annoyance or frustration? I don't operate that way.

So, if I just say to you, "I am not hot for Sam Harris" LOL then you are going to drop this ?...and I will not hear any more rantings that I am a scorned woman because I don't like what you say, then OK, I will accept this as an offer and I will take it. But I believe I have tried this approach several times and it has been rather futile and that is why we are in this situation currently.

I can accept your view of Sam. But I have trouble accepting your view of my view of Sam because I think it is not based on the words I have written, but your own rather cynical and biased view of what you think my view of Sam is.

In addition, you have made some erroneous factual statements about Sam. I would like to call you on them, but I have reached the point that if I bring up anything about Sam Harris then you will twist it into a crush on him and then, this becomes a mode of operation and if I challenge you on it, then we go down this downward spiral.

Here I am on a Sam Harris site and I don't feel that I can have an honest discussion about him with you without being accused of something that isn't true.

Here is a friendly suggestion. When you disagree with me about Sam Harris, just say something like "LJ you are full of BS" or "you are wrong, incorrect, misinformed...."and then perhaps back it up with something substantial and leave out sex and crushes and anything that suggests you (or I) are playing the gender card.

That is really what this is all about.

Posted by: lindajean | February 10, 2008 10:14 PM
Report Offensive Comment

A long time ago, in a post far far away.... Gad wrote:

I am down with that!

Posted by: timmy | February 10, 2008 10:08 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Lindajean said:
" I do not view Gad as a cancerous or malingering problem to this blog."

Nor do I.
I also want to be clear on that.
My comments were only regarding the rift on the "schoolgirl crush" thing, and I commented because I have had the same sarcastic accusation thrown at me by Gad for "worshiping" Sam Harris to the point of not thinking straight.

Posted by: timmy | February 10, 2008 9:54 PM
Report Offensive Comment

A clarification regarding my "cancer" post is in order.

It was not directed at Gad.
While I agree with Timmy's response to Gad (regarding it) I do not view Gad as a cancerous or malingering problem to this blog.

I want to be clear on that.

The "cancer" post concerns a suppressive and intimidating tone from one poetic, fiery bunny.

Posted by: lindajean | February 10, 2008 9:08 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Lindajean,

Lets start back at the beginning, the post where I said "crush".

You said:
"I am at a loss in regards to your comment (made long ago) that Sam is just going along for the ride. Can you explain that better? What exactly is he doing, saying or not that makes him such a puppy dog?"

I said:
Not much, that's the point. He didn't do anything wrong, it just seemed like, in my opinion, he was more or less along for the ride.

See what I say here "He didn't do anything wrong" and "in my opinion". I watched the video, and gave my subjective opinion, no different then anyone else, right? Do I need a scientifically provable theory to state my feelings about a movie or a "poem"? No. So your remarks about my remarks can only be taken in the context that you were upset that my view was not the same as your, which is just damn strange!

You said:
"And while I am on it, I am simply doubly perplexed by Gad's long ago remark that Sam Harris is a "puppy" (my words) in relation to the Four Horsemen. I see nothing at all to back up this kind of remark and find it deeply annoying."

I said:
"deeply annoying"? That I don't see it like you think I should see it....... I suppose I get it, you have made Sam your hero and/or have a school girl crush on him, so anyone who says anything that is not inline with your expectations of his greatness and your fondness for him would be seen as "deeply annoying".

Now in the above you are "deeply annoyed" again that is damn strange considering I said "He didn't do anything wrong" and "in my opinion". So from my perspective what would make your remarks seem sensible, "you have made Sam your hero and/or have a school girl crush on him". First do note that I say "and/or" so if not hero "and/or" school girl crush give me another reason that "my opinion" of a video would upset and deeply annoy you..........

Then in later posts you get all upset over the word "crush", again that comes across as damn strange to me. You say that I am suggesting that you want to have sex with Sam, crush can mean that and can mean love as in you think someone is great and can't see any faults in them like a father figure. I assure you that I was not talking about sex, but even if I was or even if I said "you are just hot for Sam" a simple "no GAD I'm not hot for Sam LOL" would have been a perfectly acceptable reply. So your over the top response to the word "crush" is strange to me, and your the only who can know why.

Then I said:
Don't get me wrong, I have read and enjoyed Sam's books, but lets just be honest, there is not one new thing or idea that Sam has brought to the table. He is riding an atheist wave that started as a backlash to fundamentalism in America and became tidal after 9/11. His hard edged writings and rabble rousing against Islam fell right into the open arms of people like me. That said, I keep his work in perspective for what it is and what it isn't, new or great human knowledge. We need people like Sam to stir the pot, but his "problem with atheism" has dived the house and he may have done more harm then good, I suppose time will tell. Of course the Samites will tell us all today what the future out come will be.

Note here that I say "I have read and enjoyed Sam's books", so I wasn't feeling him in the video, how is that confusing? If I like his books I must like everything he ever does? That seems to be the inference. Notice what else I say "I suppose time will tell" meaning time will tell if "my opinion" is right or wrong.

OK Lindajean, I hope that helps you, we may disagree on things but I have nothing against you. Note that I am not going to spend any more time on this blog splitting hairs over simple words and figures of speech, if there is a cancer on this blog that is it, what a waste of energy...........

Posted by: GAD | February 10, 2008 2:43 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Hi Lindajean,

I'm sorry for the misunderstanding, I, of course, was not comparing you to Jerry Falwell, you know I don't think that you are anything like him. I was just pointing out that that statement could just as easily have been made by him. (although for very different reasons) I should have softened that line but I guess I was trying to prove that I don't automatically agree with everything you say, lest I get called a Lindajeanite. :)

My concern was with the word "dangerous" being used with "lust outside of the confines of a good marriage". Heck I am married so I certainly understand the benefits of monogamy, but I was single before that, and I let my lust run wild and free, and I enjoyed that time, and I was always honest about my intentions, and as far as I know, no one got hurt.

You said:
"Any other permutation does not offer me the security and the emotional and physical happiness that is so important to me"

I'm curious about the word "security" here. I'm pretty sure that you don't mean financial security. But what other kind of security is there? Is there any more security in a marriage than in a non committed relationship? Is that security just about the added difficulty of a break-up? Should couples vow commitment for life? What if they grow apart emotionally after 20 years, or change as we all do and become complete unsatisfied with the commitment? Should they not just move on? Or should they stay together because they promised to do so in front of a crowd of friends and family. Should they have promised that in the first place, knowing that people change.

When marriage was invented, people died at the age of 30 years-old. So "til death do you part" meant a maximum of 15 years. Now when people say those words "til death do you part" it's a 60 to 80 year commitment.

My questions. (and I'm kind of just playing devils advocate here)

Is the security that you speak of real?
Should any couple ever make a promise to stay together for ever?
If so, what happens if that relationship goes sour?
Break the promise?
Why make the promise in the first place?
Is it not impractical?

Posted by: timmy | February 10, 2008 2:17 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Timmy:

oops, that last one got cut off but should read:

"If I came across as moralizing other's behaviors that don't prescribe to my view, it was not meant intentionally."

Posted by: lindajean | February 10, 2008 7:03 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Hi Timmy:

You state:

"This statement could just as easily be a quote from Jerry Fallwell."

Well, I have been compared to many over the years, but never to the likes of this cad!

How you can hurt a girl!

Agreed, there is always the middle ground. And lust and love certainly can be experienced separately outside of marriage. But I do think sometimes such experiences can be emotionally very harmful and being aware of that possibility is wise.

My point of view is strictly from personal experience. Love and lust are best experienced together within the confines of a happy and healthy marriage. Any other permutation does not offer me the security and the emotional and physical happiness that is so important to me.

If I came across as moralizing other's behaviors that don't prescribe to my view, it was not meant i

Posted by: lindajean | February 10, 2008 6:55 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Bernie Bee:

I don't believe in a future life or destiny.
I don't believe in "soulmates", whatever the heck that means.

So count me out of any vision you have for us in the future.

BTW: Your last post to Soja was one of your best in a long time. Quite enjoyable.

Posted by: Lindajean | February 10, 2008 6:30 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Burning Burning Rabbit:

Do you have something you would like to say to me directly instead of hiding behind your false "poetry" that you have so cleverly created?

If you do then bring it forth upon the table like a real human being instead of a slithering snake who creeps around on his belly looking for rats to eat.

Let's shine some light on you and disinfect that black hole you live in.

You may be burning like a rabbit but your mind is in the gutter.

Posted by: lindajean | February 10, 2008 6:17 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Soja.

You stated:

"My guess is that this thread is likely to die out soon, now that LindaJean (who had kept everyone participating actively) and Andy have left...."

Would you like to explain this statement?
It sounds like you are claiming to know things you do not know about me.
Please quote where I said I was leaving this site.
Do you have something you would like to say to me directly instead of making inferences about my supposed departure?

LindaJean

Posted by: lindajean | February 10, 2008 5:59 AM
Report Offensive Comment

That was prose poetry ye liked there Timmy. So it looks like there's hope for you and Gad yet with plenty more of the same on the way!
We'll see!

Posted by: Bernie Bee | February 10, 2008 12:34 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Hey Lindajean! How I envy your hubby! But I do believe we are soul mates destined tae meet up in a future life!
For sure am with ye all the way when ye say a bit o’ lust adds spice tae luvin’ and it’s a fact I’ve met lots o’ lassies who telt me they adore men lecherously oglin’ them!
Its jist been my bad luck tae miss out this time around wae lassies who jist didnae appreciate their good fortune!
I mean tae say hiring the costumes cost a fortune and there shooda been Sultan Bernie sittin’ on his throne with slave girl belly dancer tae perform but never got beyond ‘Come wiz me tae the Casbah for I am he who luvs ye!’ Only for the idiot tae fall about laffin because as she put it, an Arab didnae have the Scottish burr! Well for goodniss sake the only word with the letter ‘r’ was ‘for’ but she said it soundit like ‘furrrrrrrrrrrrr’! Talk about deflatin’ never mind detumescence with no recovery! The same when I was Napoleon only tae be telt it looked like it worried me the way I kept my right hand on my inside wallet!
Unlike you Lindajean they silly lassies jist lacked the imagination tae join in the fun!

But that was nuthin compared with how I only got tae position number 9 o’ the Kama Sutra when fell off the bed dislocatin’ my left leg and ending up hobbling on crutches for more than two weeks all the while trying tae invent plausible reasons tae explain tae nosey folk how it happened and not a one o’ them believin’ a word o’ it!
So ye will no doubt understand why these days regardless of how borin’ it may seem tae some, the missionary position suits me fine, thank ye very much!
Roll on the next life sez I!

Posted by: Bernie Bee | February 10, 2008 12:21 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Gad said:

"No, Timmy that's what you do, like you just did, which was all BS!"

No. I did not misrepresent your position. I said that you commonly over exaggerate others positions in these debates, and then I backed it up by citing several examples. And your only retort is "that's just a bunch of BS!" Get specific. What exactly is BS so we can see if you have a point or not.

"Dude, don't waste your time telling me how bad you "think" I am, if I'm that bad don't post to me."

I didn't say you were "bad". I made specific points with examples, that you can address if you like. Here's another example from your most recent post for god's sake.

"Also, stop answering for LJ! I know you feel some need to set her up for the kill"

Set her up for the kill? Who's going to kill Lindajean?

And here you greatly exaggerate what I said as usual.

"but you putting a knife in her hand and saying everyone is out to get her is part of the problem"

I said that everyone was out to get her? No I didn't.
But that is much easier to argue with than what I actually said isn't it. So that's how you represent my position, and then you argue with that. Classic Gadian strawman argument.

Why can't you just say what I actually said, and then argue with that? I'll tell you why. Because there is nothing wrong with what I actually said.

Posted by: timmy | February 9, 2008 10:21 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Great post Bernie!

And if that was a poem at the end, I loved it!
But I don't think that it was a poem. Was it?

Posted by: timmy | February 9, 2008 9:29 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Right anuff Soja, us Scots are inclined tae exaggerate and embellish an’ go in for a wee bit o’ hyperbole here ‘n there but it is all part o’ the banter or patter as we call it. If ye were actually sitting here in our local hostelry alang with us so ye could see the smiles ‘n winks, eyes raised tae heaven, and so forth, (body language I believe it’s called), all the while as we blethered away, the meaning o’ what we had tae say would always be clear tae ye with nae room for misunderstandin’ as sadly happened wi’ ma pal Timmy.

Never mind that though, considering English isnae yer first language, I just have tae congratulate ye on the facility you have for writing in that lingo so nobody would ever guess it was yer second language. Aye Soja, ye write that well.
Only wish I could say the same for yer reasonin’ abilities!
Well, I mean tae say jist have a look at this from what ye addressed tae Timmy:

“As a married man, I'd like to hear your take as a husband on what she (Lindajean) wrote to me about fidelity in marriage from the perspective of a wife. Gandhi wrote that morality is the goal of all religions. All religions condemn adultery, and two out of the Ten Commandments are against it. Hence your view as an atheist is quite valuable to this discussion. Bernie brought up the topic. I feel that the discussion is not complete without hearing an atheist husband's view, especially since you are an attractive man who is probably exposed to more temptations that would lead to cheating your wife than ordinary men would be.”

Well, first off Soja, can we agree that forbye anythin’ else, Gandhi was a durty auld man who liked tae sleep, graspin’ in his decrepit clutches, two or more nubile wee lassies, jist tae see if he could resist havin’ an erection (and always tae no avail!) That was in the days afore Viagra. Speakin’ for maself I’d also like tae try that on a regular basis jist tae keep up tae scratch (Aye, and also wi’oot Viagra!) It’s like when my auld Uncle Gus joined a nudist colony and was thrown out because they insistit he didnae jump high anuff in their al fresco games o’ leap-frog.

As for the Ten Commandments that ye go on about; the first two show a god wi’ an inferiority complex! Surely ye can see right away that pettifoggin’ god is aware o’ other gods far superior then it is, hence the dire threats!

And for goodniss sake Soja, jist look at this: The Ten Commandments come in Exodus xx. They are issued by a deity that not long before, in Exodus xii, killed huge numbers o' Egyptian children and not long after, in Exodus xxiii, promises tae “blot out” the people o’ six inconvenient nations.
The First Commandment requires worship o’ this inferior god (a god that is aware o’ other gods but can’t bear the competition!). The second Commandment shows this dementit non-entity ready tae punish offences by punishing offenders' children, their children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren.
In Exodus xxii it is made clear that people who offend against the First Commandment shall be “utterly destroyed” which means that their spouses and children, and their servants and animals too, must be stoned tae death alongside the offenders themselves.
Now I ask ye Soja, what kinda morality is that tae teach children as literal truth!

And Soja, how on earth can ye quote all that Kahlil Gibran stuff yet leave out his wonderfu’ admonition tae parents tae avoid poisoning their children’s minds with the preconceived verbiage of their own conditioning as here:

“Your children are not your children.
“They are the sons and daughters of Life’s longing for itself.
“They come through you but not from you.
“And though they are with you, yet they belong not to you.
“You may give them your love but not your thoughts;
“For they have their own thoughts.
“You may house their bodies but not their souls,
“For their souls dwell in the house of tomorrow,
“Which you cannot visit, not even in your dreams.
“You may strive to be like them, but seek not to make them like you,
“For life goes not backward, nor tarries with yesterday.
“You are the bows from which your children as living arrows are sent forth
“Let your bending, in the Archer’s hand, be for gladness.

Aye, if only it could be that way instead of what we have!

Posted by: Bernie Bee | February 9, 2008 8:58 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Gad,

Let's hear them.

I don't think that we should stop criticizing religion, quite the opposite.
I don't think that meditation can save the world or that there is a place called nirvana that you can get to.
I don't believe that anything lies outside the realm of science, i.e nothing supernatural.
I don't think that Sam Harris is an infallible god, or even a genius.
I don't wish that God were true.
I don't wish that transcendent consciousness were true.
I don't disbelieve in incompatible determinism.

What actual views of mine do you disagree with. And why?

Posted by: timmy | February 9, 2008 8:45 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Timmy said:

"I have yet to hear one legitimate argument from you on Sam's actual points. Or on my actual points, or on Lindajean's actual points. You always have to exaggerate you opponents position in your arguments. They always start out with you lying about what your opponent said, and then you argue with that."

Yet another big steaming pile of BS!

Posted by: GAD | February 9, 2008 8:03 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Lindajean,

You said:
"In my experience a good marriage requires both love and lust. In fact they compliment each other. Without lust, marriage would soon be dry, boring and monotonous. Without love, it would be dead"

Yes.

You then said:
"Lust is dangerous when it runs wild and free, has no boundaries and is not confined to a relationship based on love and all the other fine qualities of a good marriage"

Hold the phone. This statement could just as easily be a quote from Jerry Fallwell.
There is a moderate middle ground between "wild and free" and "within the confines of a good marriage". And I actually don't think that there is anything wrong with "wild and free" unless by that you mean reckless abandonment.

Love and lust are two separate phenomenon that go extremely well together, but they also both work extremely well on their own. Lust without love is biological. Acting on that lust without love is an arrangement that can be made between mutually consenting adults, knowing full well that they are, for completely selfish reasons, going to play with natures insurance that we reproduce, (erogenous zones and orgasms) for personal pleasure and entertainment. This mutual arrangement is made by both people who love each other, and by those who just like each other, and even by those who don't really care for each other at all, in fact they find each other annoying, but hot!

And when this mutual arrangement is made by people who love each other, the pleasure derived from it is certainly heightened in a profound way, almost to the point of being, dare I say, transcendent. But none of this has anything to do monogamy. Love and sex together does not necessarily require monogamy or marriage. Monogamy and marriage are two completely separate mutual agreements made between consenting adults for completely different reasons. Practicality, social norms, religion, tradition, family pressures, tax credits.

Marriage and monogamy require both love and lust.
But love and lust, are things that can be enjoyed quite successfully without marriage and monogamy.

Posted by: timmy | February 9, 2008 7:58 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Timmy said:

"Why do you have to misrepresent your opponent's position by extreme exaggeration, or by complete invention, in order to counter their point? I know why."

No, Timmy that's what you do, like you just did, which was all BS!

Dude, don't waste your time telling me how bad you "think" I am, if I'm that bad don't post to me.

Also, stop answering for LJ! I know you feel some need to set her up for the kill, but you putting a knife in her hand and saying everyone is out to get her is part of the problem. When she thinks I have it in for her, even though I don't, you saying look how bad GAD is he's got it for you, is just reinforcing whatever misunderstanding or disagreement LJ and I are having!

Posted by: GAD | February 9, 2008 7:44 PM
Report Offensive Comment

BTW Peter,

I would not be able to make this same argument against the hypothesis of a very un-perfect, in fact extremely flawed, God. But that of course is not what you are proposing. So Check-mate on "perfect God."

Posted by: timmy | February 9, 2008 7:25 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Peter,

Again. Volition is choice. It does not make us do things, it just gives us options.
Our judgement and reasoning are what dictate what we do.
You are saying my judgement and reasoning are flawed.
God gave me my judgement and reasoning.
Therefore, God is flawed.

There is no way around it Peter. If the product (me) is flawed, then the manufacturer (God) is flawed. If God were perfect, so would his creation be perfect and our world would be perfect. We are not. So he is not. And therefore, if you are claiming that your god is perfect, your God does not exist. Unless you think that we created our own reasoning and judgement. But how could we do that? We are not Gods.

Posted by: timmy | February 9, 2008 6:37 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Gad,

Here we go again. Classic Gadian debate style.

"Hum, what about people who pretend to know that everyone who doesn't know what they know are pretending to know things they don't know........."

What about them? I don't know of any such people. I assumme here that you would be referring to me. But that is not my position, and you know it. My position is that evolution has enough scientific evidence that the entire science community accepts it as a truth. But there is no such scientific conclusion for the things that you are pretending to "know". It's not about what I know, Gad. It's about what science does not know, that you are pretending it does.

"Don't ever give Peter a hard time again about about his claim that everyone is pretending not to know god is truth as he does, because you are making the same claim, that everyone who doesn't know what you know is pretending not to know that what you know is the truth."

100% hogwash. As usual.

YOU:
"BTW my post was just for fun, to poke some fun at the superficial hit and run types like Linda who pop in here with a quick "Your the best Sam" and are off to the next person to praise on their list"

Superficial? I thought she made a well thought out point concisely.
Hit and run? Is everyone who does not stick around to have their position misrepresented by you a chicken or something?
And out of just one sentence, you have this Linda girl pegged as someone who has a list of authors to praise superficially in hit and run style? How do you know this about her?

Did Sam Harris sleep with your girlfriend or something?
Why do you show such a disdain to the point of slander, for anyone who happens to agree with Sam's speech? If Sam's points are so bad and wrong, can you not defeat them without resorting to such slander and misrepresentation of his position and that of those who agree with him?

I know that you have an argument against the idea that we should all stop criticizing religion and just go home and meditate. I am in agreement with this argument. But this is not Sam's argument. But in debating Sam's argument, this is the position you give him, so that you have something to debate with. Classic straw-man.

I know that you have an argument against Buddhism saving the world. I agree with this argument. But this is not mine, or Sam's or Lindajean's position that Buddhism can save the world. But you pretend that it is because you have a legitimate argument against that.

I have yet to hear one legitimate argument from you on Sam's actual points. Or on my actual points, or on Lindajean's actual points. You always have to exaggerate you opponents position in your arguments. They always start out with you lying about what your opponent said, and then you argue with that. That is the cancer that Lindajean is talking about.

Posted by: timmy | February 9, 2008 6:24 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Gad,

I think what Lindajean is referring to is your accusation that her views are not her own, so much as they are the direct result of a school girl crush, or infatuation with, Sam Harris. This is not honest debate. You would either have to be incredibly ignorant, or purposely misleading to make such an accusation. You and I know that one can find an author's points of view so in-line with their own, that they feel compelled to quote that author often when making their points. There is no reason at all to assume that Lindajean is just a Samite drone, nor is there any reason to assume the same about me. I quote Sam, and you accuse me of the same. I quote Dennet and you accuse me of the same. I quote Dawkins and you say things like "this your whole argument? Dawkins little chart?"

This thing that you do, Gad, is disingenuous. And frankly, I can see no other reason for it other than you are stumped by the argument made, and have no counter for it, other than to accuse Lindajean of having a crush on Sam Harris, which is to say that she really doesn't have a point, but rather, is just trying to impress her secret love.

You do this a lot, Gad. If I say that I do not discount transcendent consciousness, instead of providing some scientific evidence that does discount it, you make a sarcastic comment insinuating that I believe in the supernatural. I say that we should not pretend to know things that we do not know, and you, instead of showing that we do in fact know these things scientifically, you make a sarcastic comment that "Oh yeah, we should tell everyone to come and be an atheist because we have no answers! LOL!"

Why do you feel the need to debate like that? Why do you have to misrepresent your opponent's position by extreme exaggeration, or by complete invention, in order to counter their point? I know why. Because you have no honest counter to these arguments. You are stumped. So therefore, Lindajean just has a crush on Sam Harris. Come on dude. You know that's not true. You know that Lindajean is an intelligent atheist who happens to agree with Sam Harris where you do not. That is all.

Posted by: timmy | February 9, 2008 5:47 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Timmy said:

Gad said:

"What can we infer from what was stated: That Sam is a beacon of sanity, exciting and full of life because he does not know it all? "

Timmy said:

"No, silly. We can infer from the statement quite obviously, that he is a beacon of honesty and humility because he does not pretend to know what he does not know, as some atheists do."

Hum, what about people who pretend to know that everyone who doesn't know what they know are pretending to know things they don't know.........

Don't ever give Peter a hard time again about about his claim that everyone is pretending not to know god is truth as he does, because you are making the same claim, that everyone who doesn't know what you know is pretending not to know that what you know is the truth.

BTW my post was just for fun, to poke some fun at the superficial hit and run types like Linda who pop in here with a quick "Your the best Sam" and are off to the next person to praise on their list. Of course you like that because you like to count all such posts up to show that far more people believe what Sam believes, like you do, then not.............

Posted by: GAD | February 9, 2008 5:16 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Gad said:
"the only person I have been personally pissed off at was Timmy, but that is all water under the bridge now"

Good to hear.
And I believe you promised some insight into incompatibilist determinism for me. Remember, I don't disbelieve it. But I also don't "believe" it, as you do.

As for what science "knows":
The science community claims to "know" that evolution took place. There is a consensus amongst the scientific community that it is true, even though there is no absolute proof. There is obviously enough evidence for most scientists to stick their neck out and say "yes". We as a science community say that this is true. And it makes perfect sense to most people, so we all accept it as true. Not 100%, but close enough to say that it is true.

This of course has caused huge problems for religion, and we are all aware of the campaign of religion against evolution. But where is the religious campaign against the scientific conclusion that the universe has "always been". There isn't one, because there is no such scientific conclusion. Where is the religious campaign against the scientific conclusion that the universe could not possibly have been created. There isn't one, because there is no such scientific conclusion. Where is the Buddhist campaign against the scientific conclusion that consciousness and awareness are bound to the individual body? There isn't one, because there is no such scientific conclusion.

With evolution, there is enough evidence that virtually the entire science community agrees to call it a truth. This is not the case with the things that you pretend to "know". You are not waiting for enough scientific evidence to come in before you decide to "believe". You are not waiting for the same kind of evidence that confirms evolution well enough to get the official endorsement of the science community. You are jumping ahead on your own and making personal conclusions based on assumptions. And when you "assume", you make an "ass", out of "u" and "me". And when you "assume" as an atheist, you make an "ass" out of "u" and atheism.

Posted by: timmy | February 9, 2008 3:37 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Gad said:

"What can we infer from what was stated: That Sam is a beacon of sanity, exciting and full of life because he does not know it all? "

No, silly. We can infer from the statement quite obviously, that he is a beacon of honesty and humility because he does not pretend to know what he does not know, as some atheists do. Pretending to know things that you do not know is the same thing that we are asking theists to give-up on. Our request has no credibility if we do the very same thing.

"I do believe this reduces to "ignorance in bliss" in the case of Linda and and inferred on Sam by Linda"

Nope. Only if you don't understand the english language.
Here you would be equating "not knowing everything" with "ignorance". That in itself, is ignorance, or the position of a theist, who does indeed know everything.

"As an atheist who knows everything I can tell you without reservation that I am not boring or a lifeless crank!!"

Prove it! :)
Just to correct a typo though, you accidentally put an "a" in front of the word "theist" here.

"It would also seem that Linda equates not knowing with sanity and by extension knowing with insanity....."

No again. Is english your second language? Or are you distorting things on purpose as usual?
Linda clearly equates, not pretending to know something that you do not know, with sanity, and pretending to know things that you do not know, with insanity. Glad I could correct your confusion.

"In any case this just backs up what I have been saying all along, Sam Harris doesn't know anything Doh I mean everything!"

Right. Harris doesn't know everything. Only theists claim to know everything, and Sam is not theist.
And this can't be the point you have been trying to make all along, because it is the point that I have been trying to make all along.

Posted by: Timmy | February 9, 2008 3:07 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Hey Lindajean,

I don't have the time right now to reply to your last post to me, but will later today.

In the meantime I really don't get your last post, or see this blackness (cancer) your inferring? Can you be more specific? Speaking for myself I have no personal issues with you or anyone else here, the only person I have been personally pissed off at was Timmy, but that is all water under the bridge now.

Posted by: GAD | February 9, 2008 2:36 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Dear Bloggers:

It is quite obvious that there is developing on this forum an undertone, a lashing out that I believe can and most likely will send us hurling rapidly down a slippery slope into an abyss.

This is truly unfortunate, because it seems to me, in the 21st century, in this most enlightened and modern era, that a person's views (specifically one individual's views) are deemed so threatening, so subversive, so unacceptable, so hypocritical, so sexually deviant and perverse, that others are compelled to take matters into their own hands to silence her, discredit her, embarrass her and to send her running back home, locking the doors so her foolish and ignorant husband who knows not of her transgressions, can keep her in her place.

It is particularly ironic, that it is an "atheist" blog on which this unfortunate scenario is taking on a life of its own. A blog, which under normal conditions would encourage free and diverse thinking.

It greatly saddens me, most unequivocally to others' satisfaction, that instead of casting about in shadows and innuendos, straight, open dialogue is forfeited. That those who are threatened by my beliefs, words, manners, style, personality and sarcasm, wish to apply labels that reduce me to an unfaithful, hypocritical and deviant wife whose purpose is to seek and elicit immodest acts and words from fellow bloggers.

That we can no longer have honest interaction, because such hooligans perceive all of this as nothing more than verbal foreplay, is not only astonishingly erroneous, but terrifying and mind boggling.

While I am neither genius nor intellectual, I seek out those who are in many aspects of my life. And such willingness to engage in the minds and hearts of others is my own fault and folly. But it is my naivety, my own inability to see the culpability towards clear backstabbing behaviors and my immense trust in the human spirit towards camaraderie and debate that is indicative to the sticky situation I now find myself in.

There is an intense fear factor infecting this unique and viable connection, and it strikes at the very heart of this blog.

And like a cancer, once it seizes upon its prey, I suspect there is no going back.

Posted by: lindajean | February 9, 2008 1:53 PM
Report Offensive Comment

LindaJean said:

"BTW: There seems to be another "Linda" on board. To quell any confusion, in case there is any doubt, I did not post the 2/8/07 statement saying:

"As always, Sam, you stand as a beacon of sanity in a world too full of boring, lifeless cranks who think that to be an atheist is to know everything. Thank you."

But I have to admit I am down on that, "Linda.""

As an atheist who knows everything I can tell you without reservation that I am not boring or a lifeless crank!!

What can we infer from what was stated: That Sam is a beacon of sanity, exciting and full of life because he does not know it all? I do believe this reduces to "ignorance in bliss" in the case of Linda and and inferred on Sam by Linda. It would also seem that Linda equates not knowing with sanity and by extension knowing with insanity.....

In any case this just backs up what I have been saying all along, Sam Harris doesn't know anything Doh I mean everything!

And I'm down with that! :)

Posted by: GAD | February 9, 2008 1:48 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Bernie Bee said:

"Well Soja, since the last wee poem was less than a hit with Lindajean and not even worth a mention from you which looks now like ye both read it as something pertaining to sex when it was simply describing the bliss of being in love. However, I promise if this latest effort also sinks as with the previous one then for sure there will be no more."

Why separate the two? I took your fine poems to be extolling the human qualities of both love and sex (lust). My "spare me" remark was in regards to your own comparison to Peter H. I will encourage no one, including your BB, to take on PH's rambling and repetitive nature. (Sorry PH, this is nothing personal.)

In my experience a good marriage requires both love and lust. In fact they compliment each other. Without lust, marriage would soon be dry, boring and monotonous. Without love, it would be dead.

Lust is dangerous when it runs wild and free, has no boundaries and is not confined to a relationship based on love and all the other fine qualities of a good marriage.

LindaJean

Posted by: lindajean | February 9, 2008 6:58 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Soja,

You state:

"Harris' conclusion, "It is all about human conversations," is hardly original. Religions are about the human conversations too, although it starts with a belief in God. A belief in God as starting point gives the conversations a universal and eternal perspective that is all. "Love your neighbour as yourself, love your enemies..." if that isn't about human conversations, then what is it about? What about Harris' claim that moderates are dangerous because they supposedly support dangerous religious fanatics? Harris is entitled to his opinion of course, but even atheists disagree with his take on religion (Read: anti-theism) and moderates!"

Quite right. We are all entitled to disagree with each other and this blog is a perfect example of that right in progress.

And while the statement "It is all about human conversations" is hardly original, I would entertain the idea that having human conversations in the 21st century can end in the death of those who speak heresy to the dominant religion. I am speaking, of course, about Islam with all of its fine examples of "Infidels" who have been issued death threats and have gone under the radar because those conversations have precisely not been received by your "Love thy neighbor" philosophy. And I would suggest your own Christianity has not always been open to human conversations as well. It is easy to have "human conversations" and love your neighbor when everyone is singing the same song, with the same choir in the same church. The problem arises when those with different conversations or beliefs are deemed to Hell, death or ostracized because the dominant religion disapproves. What kind of conversations are we really having here?

So you may proclaim Sam's hat is unoriginal, archaic or repetitive, but when you do so, I believe you are gravely missing his point.

You : "What about Harris' claim that moderates are dangerous because they supposedly support dangerous religious fanatics?'

Yes, you got it. Just remove the word "supposedly."

Thanks for the discussion. Good hearing from you.
Lindajean

Posted by: lindajean | February 9, 2008 6:37 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Hi Peter Huff:

I have not forgotten you but have had a few other things on my mind lately.

It is interesting to me that you use "hypothesis" as a defense for your views. I especially was taken by this quote of yours, in your attempt to waylay science.

You: "A tentative supposition with regard to an unknown state of affairs, the truth of which is thereupon subject to investigation by any available method, either by logical deduction of consequences which may be checked against what is known, or by direct experimental investigation or discovery of facts not hitherto known and suggested by the hypothesis."

That, Peter, is exactly the point I am trying to make about the difference between science and faith, although I might take issue with "any available method" which seems rather vague. But there is no argument that science uses hypotheses for discovery about the unknown and this is part of the tried and true scientific method. Without it there would be no science.

Faith does none of this.

I can choose to believe many things about the world. As LJ, an atheist or "deprogrammer" I work pretty hard at focusing on the evidence at hand before I make determinations. I am not perfect. Sometimes I am swayed by emotions or counter beliefs because they make me feel good, I don't want to hurt people, the weather is bad, I'm hungry, tired ...or a host of other reasons that most likely are very illogical. But the difference between you and me is I am willing to take the evidence, common knowledge, and use it to make the most reasonable decisions in my life with as much awareness as one can muster. Not all decisions should be based on scientific reasoning. But much of what we choose to believe about the world, it seems to me, ought to, because otherwise we can easily deceive ourselves into thinking false claims.

And if you think about your own life, much of what you believe about the world (minus your religious beliefs) is based on facts. These are facts that more than likely give you adequate information about the decisions you make in your life----spanning what kind of clothes you wear, what food you choose to eat and what time you want your daughter home from a date. (Assuming you have a teenage daughter).

It is not about me having all the answers. I don't think I have to have all the answers to live a decent (or even virtuous life if that is what you think is important). But I need to have a reasonable understanding of how the world works, what makes it tick, so I can make the best choices to live my life. I don't think religion has that to offer me, even while acknowledging parts of religion are worth considering. But those parts have nothing to do with a belief in God.
Good day.

LindaJean

Posted by: lindajean | February 9, 2008 5:57 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Good Morning Gad:

You've been very quiet lately.
I hope this fine Saturday finds you well.

After reading your last post to me, which seemed highly agitated, I thought perhaps we could agree to seek out common ground.

If you are willing to do that, for the sake of harmony, I will take the lead and accept some of the responsibility in this situation.

I can acknowledge that on occasion I have a knee-jerk reaction when you (or others) give critical or reactionary views of Sam Harris and I realize that when the knee-jerkiness occurs, it can result in a blind-spot.

But the other side of the coin presents a slight imperfection on your part. You are making presumptions about me that are based on your opinion and you're stating them as facts.

So I suggest we start with semantics. I am perplexed by your word "crush." What does that word specifically mean to you?

I have my own definition: someone who has a physical attraction or yearning for another without reciprocity.

Does my quoting Sam Harris, commenting on his ideas and yes defending his views on occasion really justify such a harsh and inappropriate label?

What specifically have I stated to warrant it?

As the record shows, your own description of my behavior states:

" You defend Sam, you praise Sam, and you take it personally if someone disagree with Sam or your view of Sam",

....and this does not, to me, seem to reflect the severity and lewdness attached to my definition of the word "crush."

Personally, it seems reasonable to me, that an individual ought to be able to discuss, defend and even praise someone's views that they find interesting without it resulting in others' labeling that person as having a crush (or any other negative connotation.) In all honesty, perhaps I am not understanding the complete picture here.

Would you be willing to clarify your position on this? What is a "crush?"
Your honest response may actually help enlighten me.

If you are not willing to do that, then we will simply have to agree to disagree and leave it at that. Your choice.

My best, LindaJean

Posted by: lindajean | February 9, 2008 5:42 AM
Report Offensive Comment

LOL!

I took a temporary leave from this gathering to get a breath of fresh air (and meditate) and this blog turns upside down:

Gad deems me a "scorned" woman.
Timmy is censored for "explicit" language.
Bernie Bee believes I'm rejecting his poetry.
Andy swoons over Soja for her passion and harmonious nature.
MM goes into hiding.
BurningRabbit turns into a poet;
And Soja pronounces I have gone AWOL....ummm...I find it interesting how confidently,eagerly and assuredly she declared this to be true....

Peter Huff, you are the only constant in this equation. Your fervent cut and past approach to the Bible shall never waver.

This blog just keeps getting more and more interesting........

A footnote: If I were going to hightail it out of here, I would have the common decency to say farewell to one and all.

BTW: There seems to be another "Linda" on board. To quell any confusion, in case there is any doubt, I did not post the 2/8/07 statement saying:

"As always, Sam, you stand as a beacon of sanity in a world too full of boring, lifeless cranks who think that to be an atheist is to know everything. Thank you."

But I have to admit I am down on that, "Linda."

LindaJean

Posted by: Lindajean | February 9, 2008 5:30 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Clowns take note
The atheist who meditates
Is way ahead of the pack.
When rabbits compete
Any advantage decides
Who takes the booty home.

Don't ask me how I know
Remember I'm an old hand
The woman is yet to be born
Who can withstand my charms.

Playing hard to get
I take for just another game
I know to break her defenses
Patience and skill is my name.
The lines I've rehearsed
O so many times before
Does the trick;
Sooner, never later is she mine.

Posted by: BurningBurningRabbit | February 9, 2008 4:12 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Spring is in the air
I'm burning like a rabbit,
A bored wife looking for fun
That is my fare.
She seeks no love
She offers what I'm burning for.
She talks of morals she knows nothing about
Her pretense of love for her husband
Is a cosmic joke.

Men boast of their sexual conquests
But a woman must chaste appear
So the bored wife
Flirts with taste.
What she denies even to herself
She is honest about with me
Hypocrisy is no big deal
I like that about her.

Fools take note
This game is my life
Get yourself some lessons
Before you compete with me.
The bored wife
She interests me.

Posted by: BurningBurningRabbit | February 9, 2008 3:53 AM
Report Offensive Comment

As always, Sam, you stand as a beacon of sanity in a world too full of boring, lifeless cranks who think that to be an atheist is to know everything. Thank you.

Posted by: Linda | February 8, 2008 7:05 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Uh oh Soja,

I tried to reply to your marriage and fidelity quesiotns but my post has been held for review. They might automatically flag any posts with multiple uses of the word "sex" in them or something. I certainly wasn't graphic. We'll see if it shows up, if not I'll have to try again in a couple of days.

In the meantime: God does not exist. :)

Just kidding. Actually, I'm not one to really push that argument because I don't know for sure for sure, but I do push the argument that Christianity is a myth, based on superstition, because I am certain of that. But I am not even sure that you would completely disagree with me that it is a myth. That doesn't mean that I think that Jesus was not a real man, he may well have been, or maybe a character based on an amalgamation of many such prophets of the time. But the miracles, the virgin birth, the resurrection, heaven, hell, Yahweh, it's all allegorical myth. The mountain of logical fallacies in the Bible are all the proof anyone needs that this religion was invented by man, to control man, and to explain mystery.

I agree with you Soja, that the old "God does exist" "God does not exist" argument is never ending and pointless. But the evidence, that Christianity is a myth, is insurmountable. It could not be more clear exactly what Judaism, Christianity, Islam Hinduism, and Buddhism are. They are many things, but "true story" is not one them.

Is the Bible a wonderful records of human civilization and philosophy filled with invaluable nuggets of ancient ancestral wisdom? Yes.
Are the stories true? No.
Are there a lot of very horrible and dangerous ideas also in these books? Yes.
Does, pretending that the stories are true, make the dangerous ideas exponentially more dangerous and damaging? Yes.
Can the wisdom in these books be useful to us? Only if released from the horrible lies that surround them.

Posted by: timmy | February 8, 2008 3:38 PM
Report Offensive Comment

When my internet is slow, I sometimes end up staring at a post from way back in the first onslaught after the publishing of the article. This one I thought was very well written. Clever, tung in cheek, and right on the money.

Joe:

I also do not consider myself to be an atheist and generally dislike the term. It is too boxy and allows people to put you in a compartment that they are comfortable with.

I like to refer to myself as "unprogrammed", but that's just me. For the purposes of this discussion, however, I will stick to the common term, "atheist".

I don't believe in religion, but I agree there are other forms of enlightenment out there that we haven't tapped yet as atheists.

Religious people often are looking for deeper meaning in their lives. If we want to end the mass-hypnosis that is organized religion, then we have to have something to offer other than cold hard reason. That's pretty vanilla.

I think when people become born-again, part of their perceived joy comes from being around like-minded people and talking about their beliefs. Atheists can't offer that, because there isn't a whole lot to talk about other than making fun of religion - and that can get pretty tiresome.

The toughest nut to crack will be the ego-shattering realization that there is no soul. Even as I write this, it seems impossible for me to believe that once I die, all of my thoughts and experiences will evaporate. But it is true. It hurts. Bad.

I believe this is the core strength of religion. the promise that you get to keep what you have learned in the form of an eternal soul. Until we can find a way for that message to be less disturbing, it will be a hard sell.

Another strong feature of organized religions is the promise of eternal happiness that comes from converting the heathens. WE CAN STEAL THAT!

What I would propose is a form of evangelical atheism. Rather than a promise of, "Hey, you know the truth now, and it's pretty boring and logic-driven.", let's market the joy that comes from deprogramming religious people and relieving them from the burden of their belief system.

Not only will this eventually achieve longterm goals of deprogramming the masses, but it also give those in search of meaning something to focus their direction upon. "Now that you have seen the truth, go out there and show others."

That being said, I also think that this is a mission that needs jeweler's tools rather than sledgehammers. The trick is to challenge believers on the foolishness of their beliefs, and leave it at that. Satire works best, as it is often non-confrontational.

If believers want to continue the discussion, just keep hitting them with the illogical parables and blatant lies within their systems. Don't go overboard. Let the facts stew. Some people will never be convinced, but others in the room might be intrigued.

Anyway, that's my suggestion: evangelical deprogramming.

TIMMY SAYS: I am down with that!

Posted by: timmy | February 8, 2008 3:04 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Hi GAD!

You wrote regarding my appreciation for Rabbi David Wolpe:

"Did you actually understand what he was saying? Since he is a Jew there is no new covenant, therefore he is bound by two things, that god is only for the Jews and the Jews are under the laws of the OT."

As a Christian I do share the Old Testament with the Jews. So I guess it is not that difficult to understand a Jewish Rabbi. Don't forget Jesus Himself was considered a really smart radical Jewish Rabbi, if not anything else! As a Christian I also understand how the Jewish understanding of God can be universally applied.

You wrote, "In the first case for Jews to talk like god is for or cares about anyone other then the Jews is funny and not in the bible (OT). And in the second case Jews today don't follow the laws of the OT. When Sam ask why Jews don't kill their bad children like the bible says, his answer was, god didn't really mean that, he knew we would raise above that level LOL!"

Thanks to the fact I knew Fr Bede Griffiths for nearly nine years and imbibed some of his teaching as a result of staying long periods at his Christian Ashram although I didn't engage in any serious study, I'm able to look beyond the human failings in any religion. I posted my thoughts which is relevant to the question you raised in various threads here, eg Professor Dawkins,'Did Religions evolve'...

You wrote, "So Rabbi Wolpe walks around with a book under his arm that is filled with hate and contempt for anyone other then Jews but talks about love for all people and says that god didn't really intend for the Jews to follow his laws but to raise above them."

My guess is that you are getting mixed up with verses in the Quran and OT. The OT does NOT teach hatred for others! It is true that as a people the Jews kept to themselves and Judaism in its earliest form caters strictly to a particular group of people. But it is wrong to confine the understanding of God to the pages of a book. The Old Testament itself spans many centuries and the work of many prophets, kings etc. One notices how the understanding of God evolved in the OT. It is not God who changes, but man whose understanding grows. It is like a child who understands the universe more and more as he grows older. It is not the universe that changes. God is infinite and He will never be understood in His absolute nature by anyone at anytime. All we do is get glimpses of a reality that is beyond the human mind to grasp.

You wrote, "So when you say you found him "impressive" do you mean for not following any the laws of his professed religion?"

I am impressed with Rabbi Wolpe's personality, his humility, his confidence and his capacity to listen and respect the views of the other. Do you think the Ten Commandments which forms the corner stone of Judaism is a bad set of laws? Have you read the book of the prophets, the Psalms etc? I'm impressed that Rabbi Wolpe is open to understanding God ever deeper without being stuck in what is written in the OT. God is alive and one proves it by being open to learning more everyday. Judaism as a religion is the work of several holy people over several centuries anyway, so why shouldn't the trend continue? I admire the Jewish zeal in obeying God's law and their unceasing efforts to understand God's law. The Jews gave me Jesus Christ, and Christianity is founded on Judaism. So it is only natural that I feel a great sense of awe and gratitude to the Jews, and Rabbi Wolpe happens to be one of the Jews who represents the best of Judaism.

Best wishes
Soja

Posted by: Soja John Thaikattil, Sydney, Australia | February 8, 2008 8:10 AM
Report Offensive Comment

ATTENTION PETER HUFF!

andy ross:

Timmy, you patiently told me:

Many posts ago I said to Soja that I, as an atheist, am capable of gaining value from the nuggets of true ancestral wisdom found in the Bible, as well as in other religions, because I am free from the superstitious delusion that counter-acts any good that can come from them. She on the other hand, is not. Only an open minded atheist can benefit from the ancestral wisdom entrapped in religious dogma.

I think you may be right. I have tried as well as I can to sympathize with Soja's views in the hope that they would open a window on the wider "spiritual" eterprise that Bede Griffiths had embarked upon. Yet she is a faith-bound Christian who believes, apparently on the basis of Bede's work, that this is consistent with much of the Hindu tradition. Like you, I find the whole tendency of such a journey suspect. Why should we care how far the main threads of ancient Hindu tradition can be said to parallel historic threads in Christian belief?

Bede was tutored at Oxford by C.S. Lewis, whose children's books have been criticized as pernicious Christian propaganda, for example by Philip Pullman, whose own children's books by contrast are atheist. Bede then took holy orders as a Benedicine monk and later traveled to India, where he studied Hinduism and acquired a saintly reputation. TV mystic Andrew Harvey visited him and was deeply impressed. Since Harvey is a bright man who has made deep studies of Buddhism and Sufi belief as well as mystic Christianity (including a strange book on the androgynous "mystic" Jesus) I thought all this was worth further study.

Now I fear a lot of all this is nonsense. I am quite used to finding whole philosophical traditions reducing to nonsense under analytical scrutiny, and I have no qualms about thus condemning as nonsense whole strands of religious tradition, without in either case wishing to discredit the practitioners who were misled by the nonsense. I am quite happy to accept that Jesus was a supremely gifted man who did his level best to turn the messianic tradition in Jewish life to good account and accepted an early death as part of the deal, and I see this as consistent with most of what the pope said in his new book, but nothing here endorses Christian orthodoxy.
I think there are still very few people who can look with sympathy into the roots of Christian and Jewish belief and practice and remain firmly secular in their mindset, yet it is possible. I am as happy as anyone to propagandize against the excesses, such as circumcision or belief in resurrection, yet would insist that the traditions have also preserved much of value. Scientifically, I would rationalize this value in terms of a genocentric evolutionary story, but let that be my personal hobby horse for now.

Thanks for helping to keep me sane.

(Posted January 17, 2008 4:44 PM)

Andy Ross to Timmy January 19, 2008 4:39 PM :

Part of reading with understanding is entertaining the propositions presented sufficiently seriously to give the impression to a casual observer of having embraced the truth of those propositions. Then the full horsepower of the inner machinery goes to work and in the fullness of time delivers an authoritative verdict. I have made the effort of doing this anew for the central assertions of Jesus of Nazareth, courtesy of Pope Benedict XVI, and concluded that most modern Christians have got it all wrong.

However, I do not wish to embark upon an evangelical mission here, for the simple reason that the right view, for what it's worth, is almost trivial. Jesus probably really did believe a lot of that nonsense about Yahweh in the Old Testament. But he played his part with such consummate genius that he rose far above the Jewish context. He said stuff that can resonate for all people everywhere. He reflected our genocentricity as deeply as anyone else in history.

Posted by: Soja John Thaikattil, Sydney, Australia | February 8, 2008 7:37 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Hi Peter Huff!

Thanks for your response and your kind words.

As to reference to Andy, you are right, I had the following in mind:

"Is everybody a mad fool who does not hold to your view or just particular Christians (since you do not include Soja - not wanting to diminish the respect she already has for you) and Muslims?"

You wrote: “But from your posts with him and both your interests in Bede I perceived something that he and you possibility shared in common that you both respected in each other.”

My guess why Andy does not put us together into the same category of Christians is that I do not take the Bible as literally as you do, as the sole source of all knowledge pertaining to God, as a science treatise, as a history textbook. To me it is a spiritual guide, and the God I worship is a living God, He is not frozen in time and compressed into the pages of the Bible. God is alive and well and continues to speak to human beings in different ways as He has throughout the ages. I do believe the fundamentals of the Christian faith just like you do, but I believe that there is more to God and the world than the literal interpretation of the Bible. I do not for one take the creation story literally. I could not do that as a ten year old. According to Genesis Adam and Eva had two sons. Where did Abel's wife come from? Six days for the duration of creation is similarly symbolic. But none of it deters me from believing in God as the creator of the universe (how exactly God created the universe is impossible for any human being to know and can only construct theories about it; for me one theory is as good or bad as the next and I don't break my head about it because it is irrelevant to my faith in God as the Creator of the universe), and in Jesus Christ as a unique human manifestation of that God.

Andy did not know about Dom Bede Griffiths until I mentioned him and encouraged him to read. Last year after reading several posts of his on the On Faith forum (he sometimes responded to mine) I interpreted it as Andy being on an intense spiritual search. I felt that Fr Bede's thoughts would resonate with him, since Fr Bede had been an atheist and had read philosophers as part of his own search for God. I felt too that the fact Fr Bede had attended Oxford and was a student of C S Lewis would make him particularly interesting to Andy. I was hoping that Andy would find in Fr Bede common ground because of philosophy, Oxford, and Fr Bede's journey from atheism to Christianity.

Of course I have great respect for Andy's razor sharp intelligence and his knowledge. But that doesn't mean I agree with his views, nor that he and I have found common ground as persons. It took me a while to figure out that we did NOT have anything in common and what I imagined was common ground was wishful thinking on my part because of my enthusiasm. To err is human and I'm only human you know.

I suggest you read Fr Bede's books for yourself before concluding that he was not a Christian. Fr Bede was a visionary who engaged with Hinduism and Buddhism, but remained deeply Christian. That makes him special. He helps Christians to engage in meaningful dialogue with other religions, learn from them without giving up their own Christian faith. BTW, Fr Bede who was born into an Anglican family converted to Catholicism after he found his way to Christianity from atheism. C S Lewis' book, 'Surprised by Joy' also mentions Fr Bede, and there is a book published of correspondence between the two.

I have not read or listened to Ravi Zacharias.

Have a great weekend! And I wish you a great time blogging here. My guess is that this thread is likely to die out soon, now that LindaJean (who had kept everyone participating actively) and Andy have left, probably preferring to continue their dialogue elsewhere. I don't count myself as a regular on this blog, besides I have nothing new and clever to say to atheists anyway.

Best wishes
Soja

Posted by: Soja John Thaikattil, Sydney, Australia | February 8, 2008 7:32 AM
Report Offensive Comment

PS Bernie

I'm sorry to hear that your marriage broke for no fault of your own. I know how it feels like to have one's romantic dreams shattered, in spite of having not one but two ceremonies in church to cement the fairly tale romantic union for life. In my case though poetic justice was done. The man died, (as the legal husband of another woman) five years ago of cancer, aged 48!

I wish you all the very best in your life, the kind of love you dream of, a woman who loves many men and she makes sure you are only one of them.

Posted by: Soja John Thaikattil, Sydney, Australia | February 8, 2008 6:45 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Bernie you wrote, “Talk about the UK and USA being two countries divided by a common language! What a lot is being hopelessly misconstrued in here. Fr'instance, I enjoy a convivial dram or two with the emphasis on ‘convivial’ but here Soja berates me as a wife-beater and consigned me tae the alky-tank as a good-for-nuthin’ drunk! It’s a sad fact marriage was a failure for me but I was the innocent party and there ye are.”

BTW, I'm an Indian who lives in Australia. My first language is not English. So there is no common language dividing us at all. Sorry, I missed your emphasis on 'convivial,” when you wrote (in response to my suggestion) that you didn't want to attend AA meetings and get yourself a buddy because you were the co-founder of AU. I hope you are not serious when you write that I accused you of being a wife-beater and a good-for-nuthin' drunk. I suggest you look up all your posts since you started blogging on Sam Harris thread (? fourteen or fifteen months ago ) and count the number of times you mentioned your drinking. Maybe it is a Scottish joke, but pretty much everyone who read your posts seemed to think you weren't exactly joking; I concluded there must be at least a grain of truth to it.

It must comfort you to know that since you are blogging as Bernie Bee, nobody on earth knows who this Bernie Bee from Scotland really is. Your identity is safe, and any indiscretion on your part will not get traced to your real person. If you have no problem with alcohol at all, all the better. Why should the fact that people took your joke seriously matter to you at all?

Bernie, you wrote, “And Soja, the poet Shelley was advocating ‘free love’ not ‘free sex’, ‘lust’ or the ‘promiscuous sex’ that you imagine. Aye Soja, believe me, it is possible to love more than one person, and although by no means necessary, that could also include a sexual relationship.”

SBS Australia aired a program titled, “Sexual Utopia.” It was interesting to note how impractical poly relationships really are when people try to live it consciously. In poems everything is possible. Even the Quran had to admit that polygamy is not really possible if the husband has to love each wife equally. Mormonism banned polygamy for reasons of impracticability too.

Maybe it is possible to romantically love more than one person simultaneously. I am not one of them and I haven't met anyone with that capability yet. Being scientifically minded, I'd like to have verifiable proof before I take your (or anybody else's for that matter) claim seriously.

Bernie you wrote, “As ye no doubt know, and Peter will confirm, there’s nae marriage in Heaven (obviously tae prevent inevitable bickering!) Swearing a contract on oath to be true to one and one only is for no more than man-made commercial purposes. And there again, as Peter will verify, ye shouldn’t swear at all!”

It was Jesus Christ, not Peter who said that there is no marriage or giving in marriage in heaven. That is simply because marriage is limited to the bodily plane and the soul has no body and no gender. The Islamic idea of heaven is far too this worldly. The legal contract of marriage is to protect the best interests of the couple and their children, to keep them together when feelings of love run low, to be responsible for the commitment they made when there was love. “I do” is not a swear word, I swear!

Bernie you wrote, “All the great poets, including our own R. Burns, knew very well the difference between love and sexual desire per se. And as his plays show, Shakespeare knew all about the darker side of human nature. Shakespeare was also a very observant and tolerant man who understood how universal human motives can betray ordinary people into behaving badly. Have a look at his sonnet 129 where ye’ll see he throws up his hands at the destruction brought about by sexual desire.”

SOME great poets may know the difference between love and sexual desire. But the vast majority of marriages are entered into by ordinary folks, not great poets. The society is built by ordinary souls who need rules to live by that ensures the happiness of all, not just the romantically adept, not just the rich and powerful and successful who get or take what they want.

Shakespeare's knowledge of human nature is beyond compare. In my opinion he is the greatest psychoanalyst that ever lived. I mean that very seriously!

Bernie you wrote. “To go back even further, to ancient Roman times, to one known as Petronius Arbiter who arranged Nero’s orgies but became disgusted with it all, committed suicide when some of his secret written descriptions of that monstrous Emperor were discovered. Nero is reported to have said Petronius was fortunate to escape as he did. Too true!”

There is a story about a young Buddhist monk who had sexual fantasies, nothing but sexual fantasies when he sat down to meditate. After a few years of being plagued by sexual fantasies and getting nowhere close to the enlightenment Buddhists seek through meditation, he decided to leave the monastery. He went straight to the brothel to fulfill the sexual fantasies he had been obsessed with for years. But at the sight of the prostitute, he was enlightened. He went back to the monastery without touching the prostitute, and continued his meditation. The moral of the story is that when the monk was finally faced with what he had been fantasizing about, the emptiness of it all became clear to him. A visit to a brothel is after all the equivalent of Nero's orgies.

Bernie you wrote, “Well Soja, since the last wee poem was less than a hit with Lindajean and not even worth a mention from you which looks now like ye both read it as something pertaining to sex when it was simply describing the bliss of being in love. However, I promise if this latest effort also sinks as with the previous one then for sure there will be no more.”

Am I supposed to acknowledge the poems you address to LindaJean? It might be helpful to remember that what you consider “nice and naughty” may come across as “crude and vulgar” to women, at least to some. I'm sure you agree that we are all complete strangers here. Reading graphic details in a poem about what a stranger considers being blissfully in love on a blog provides no guarantee of evoking feelings of appreciation.

Thank you for your latest selection of poem, the language is beautiful as always. I'm sure couples visiting this blog who are truly in love with each other would appreciate it fully in the sense that you would like it to be appreciated.

Best wishes
Soja

Posted by: Soja John Thaikattil, Sydney, Australia | February 8, 2008 5:47 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Hi Timmy!

Here some specific questions to you based on what Linda wrote:

LJ wrote, "I am not saying that cheating on your spouse rarely occurs. Only that those who cheat on their spouse are probably not happy in their marriage."

This is a theory that I strongly disagree with. People do not cheat simply because they are unhappy. It may possibly be a contributing factor, but it need not be. People can well cheat because they do NOT want to say "NO" to a sensual/sexual experience/opportunity for one, and many other pleasurable feelings/perks associated with having a fling/relationship outside marriage.

Your view?

LindaJean wrote, "We are talking about degrees here. If my husband (Jaime) were indeed flirting with every women in sight and throwing himself onto them, that goes beyond flirting. I would call that pursuing or seducing (or even harassing.) Overall, small doses of flirting are harmless."

My questions to you: On what criteria is degrees determined? How does one know what exactly constitutes going beyond flirting? An action is defined as harassment only if the object of attention does not desire it. So if the person who is being flirted with enjoys being pursued and seduced, then what?

LindaJean wrote: "I don’t feel threatened by this small magnitude of flirting, because I don’t see it as harmful, and it is done tastefully and no one is offended so what is wrong with a little fun?"

My questions to you: How is tasteful flirting less offensive than tasteless flirting? What exactly constitutes tasteful flirting that is fun and what is tasteless flirting that is offensive?

LindaJean wrote: "I probably flirt with men from time to time as well, and it is always done in good faith and understanding."

My questions to you: What kind of flirting on th e part of your wife would you consider being done in good faith and understanding?

Please feel free to ignore my questions if they come across to you as too personal. I was merely seeking the husband version of what Linda wrote.

Best wishes
Soja

PS: Anyone else who is married (male or female) is welcome to answer the questions too. Since there is a big divide on this issue between believers and atheists, it would be quite interesting to hear honest open views. At least there is some hope of the questions being answered, unlike the question, Does God exist?

Posted by: Soja John Thaikattil, Sydney, Australia | February 8, 2008 4:28 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Hi Timmy!

My guess is that Linda will not return to continue discussion on this blog.

As a married man, I'd like to hear your take as a husband on what she wrote to me about fidelity in marriage from the perspective of a wife. Gandhi wrote that morality is the goal of all religions. All religions condemn adultery, and two out of the Ten Commandments are against it. Hence your view as an atheist is quite valuable to this discussion. Bernie brought up the topic. I feel that the discussion is not complete without hearing an atheist husband's view, especially since you are an attractive man who is probably exposed to more temptations that would lead to cheating your wife than ordinary men would be.

LindaJean wrote, "I think sexual fidelity is important to a happy marriage, or at least to my marriage. Fidelity involves a lot of shared values like honesty, trust and compassion for your partner. There are probably some happy marriages where extra-marital business occurs but it most likely is not typical. I am not saying that cheating on your spouse rarely occurs. Only that those who cheat on their spouse are probably not happy in their marriage.

"You asked: “Would you feel comfortable if your husband flirted with every attractive woman who crossed his path, kept his eyes and ears for female beauty all the time seeking it out at every opportunity and having sex whenever the opportunity and a willing woman presented herself?"

"Well, I think you are asking two different questions here. I already answered the one about infidelity but you also asked me about my comfort zone with a flirtatious husband. We are talking about degrees here. If my husband (Jaime) were indeed flirting with every women in sight and throwing himself onto them, that goes beyond flirting. I would call that pursuing or seducing (or even harassing.) Overall, small doses of flirting are harmless.

"Jaime, who is extremely extroverted, does on occasion flirt with women. We have been married almost 13 years, so with time I have created a well-padded comfort zone in my marriage. It helps to have a person (on both sides) who is understanding and open-minded and honest about their feelings. I don’t feel threatened by this small magnitude of flirting, because I don’t see it as harmful, and it is done tastefully and no one is offended so what is wrong with a little fun? I probably flirt with men from time to time as well, and it is always done in good faith and understanding.

"Marriage provides many opportunities for us to learn about what makes us tick and what drives us to the depths of despair."

Posted February 2, 2008 1:36 PM

Posted by: Soja John Thaikattil, Sydney, Australia | February 8, 2008 4:04 AM
Report Offensive Comment

And a poet said, "Speak to us of Beauty."

Where shall you seek beauty, and how shall you find her unless she herself be your way and your guide?

And how shall you speak of her except she be the weaver of your speech?

The aggrieved and the injured say, "Beauty is kind and gentle.

Like a young mother half-shy of her own glory she walks among us."

And the passionate say, "Nay, beauty is a thing of might and dread.

Like the tempest she shakes the earth beneath us and the sky above us."

The tired and the weary say, "beauty is of soft whisperings. She speaks in our spirit.

Her voice yields to our silences like a faint light that quivers in fear of the shadow."

But the restless say, "We have heard her shouting among the mountains,

And with her cries came the sound of hoofs, and the beating of wings and the roaring of lions."

At night the watchmen of the city say, "Beauty shall rise with the dawn from the east."

And at noontide the toilers and the wayfarers say, "we have seen her leaning over the earth from the windows of the sunset."

In winter say the snow-bound, "She shall come with the spring leaping upon the hills."

And in the summer heat the reapers say, "We have seen her dancing with the autumn leaves, and we saw a drift of snow in her hair."

All these things have you said of beauty.

Yet in truth you spoke not of her but of needs unsatisfied,

And beauty is not a need but an ecstasy.

It is not a mouth thirsting nor an empty hand stretched forth,

But rather a heart enflamed and a soul enchanted.

It is not the image you would see nor the song you would hear,

But rather an image you see though you close your eyes and a song you hear though you shut your ears.

It is not the sap within the furrowed bark, nor a wing attached to a claw,

But rather a garden forever in bloom and a flock of angels for ever in flight.

People of Orphalese, beauty is life when life unveils her holy face.

But you are life and you are the veil.

Beauty is eternity gazing at itself in a mirror.

But you are eternity and you are the mirror.

--------Kahlil Gibran

Posted by: Soja John Thaikattil, Sydney, Australia | February 8, 2008 3:30 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Many thanks for your recent posts addressed to me, Andy.

Posted by: Soja John Thaikattil, Sydney, Australia | February 8, 2008 3:25 AM
Report Offensive Comment

And a woman spoke, saying, "Tell us of Pain."

And he said:

Your pain is the breaking of the shell that encloses your understanding.

Even as the stone of the fruit must break, that its heart may stand in the sun, so must you know pain.

And could you keep your heart in wonder at the daily miracles of your life, your pain would not seem less wondrous than your joy;

And you would accept the seasons of your heart, even as you have always accepted the seasons that pass over your fields.

And you would watch with serenity through the winters of your grief.

Much of your pain is self-chosen.

It is the bitter potion by which the physician within you heals your sick self.

Therefore trust the physician, and drink his remedy in silence and tranquillity:

For his hand, though heavy and hard, is guided by the tender hand of the Unseen,

And the cup he brings, though it burn your lips, has been fashioned of the clay which the Potter has moistened with His own sacred tears.

----Kahlil Gibran

Posted by: Soja John Thaikattil, Sydney, Australia | February 8, 2008 3:23 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Then a woman said, "Speak to us of Joy and Sorrow."

And he answered:

Your joy is your sorrow unmasked.

And the selfsame well from which your laughter rises was oftentimes filled with your tears.

And how else can it be?

The deeper that sorrow carves into your being, the more joy you can contain.

Is not the cup that hold your wine the very cup that was burned in the potter's oven?

And is not the lute that soothes your spirit, the very wood that was hollowed with knives?

When you are joyous, look deep into your heart and you shall find it is only that which has given you sorrow that is giving you joy.

When you are sorrowful look again in your heart, and you shall see that in truth you are weeping for that which has been your delight.

Some of you say, "Joy is greater than sorrow," and others say, "Nay, sorrow is the greater."

But I say unto you, they are inseparable.

Together they come, and when one sits alone with you at your board, remember that the other is asleep upon your bed.

Verily you are suspended like scales between your sorrow and your joy.

Only when you are empty are you at standstill and balanced.

When the treasure-keeper lifts you to weigh his gold and his silver, needs must your joy or your sorrow rise or fall.

-------Kahlil Gibran

Posted by: Soja John Thaikattil, Sydney, Australia | February 8, 2008 3:21 AM
Report Offensive Comment

And a man said, "Speak to us of Self-Knowledge."

And he answered, saying:

Your hearts know in silence the secrets of the days and the nights.

But your ears thirst for the sound of your heart's knowledge.

You would know in words that which you have always know in thought.

You would touch with your fingers the naked body of your dreams.

And it is well you should.

The hidden well-spring of your soul must needs rise and run murmuring to the sea;

And the treasure of your infinite depths would be revealed to your eyes.

But let there be no scales to weigh your unknown treasure;

And seek not the depths of your knowledge with staff or sounding line.

For self is a sea boundless and measureless.

Say not, "I have found the truth," but rather, "I have found a truth."

Say not, "I have found the path of the soul." Say rather, "I have met the soul walking upon my path."

For the soul walks upon all paths.

The soul walks not upon a line, neither does it grow like a reed.

The soul unfolds itself, like a lotus of countless petals.

----Kahlil Gibran

Posted by: Soja John Thaikattil, Sydney, Australia | February 8, 2008 3:16 AM
Report Offensive Comment

And the priestess spoke again and said: "Speak to us of Reason and Passion."

And he answered saying:

Your soul is oftentimes a battlefield, upon which your reason and your judgment wage war against passion and your appetite.

Would that I could be the peacemaker in your soul, that I might turn the discord and the rivalry of your elements into oneness and melody.

But how shall I, unless you yourselves be also the peacemakers, nay, the lovers of all your elements?

Your reason and your passion are the rudder and the sails of your seafaring soul.

If either your sails or our rudder be broken, you can but toss and drift, or else be held at a standstill in mid-seas.

For reason, ruling alone, is a force confining; and passion, unattended, is a flame that burns to its own destruction.

Therefore let your soul exalt your reason to the height of passion; that it may sing;

And let it direct your passion with reason, that your passion may live through its own daily resurrection, and like the phoenix rise above its own ashes.

I would have you consider your judgment and your appetite even as you would two loved guests in your house.

Surely you would not honour one guest above the other; for he who is more mindful of one loses the love and the faith of both.

Among the hills, when you sit in the cool shade of the white poplars, sharing the peace and serenity of distant fields and meadows - then let your heart say in silence, "God rests in reason."

And when the storm comes, and the mighty wind shakes the forest, and thunder and lightning proclaim the majesty of the sky, - then let your heart say in awe, "God moves in passion."

And since you are a breath In God's sphere, and a leaf in God's forest, you too should rest in reason and move in passion.

---Kahlil Gibran

Posted by: Soja John Thaikattil, Sydney, Australia | February 8, 2008 3:13 AM
Report Offensive Comment