The Undead World Of Supernatural Junk Thought

Hi TTWSYFAMDGGAHJMJ,

I would recommend anything by William Webster. This is his newest in refuting the apostolic succession, among other things.

http://www.monergismbooks.com/The-Church-of-Rome-at-the-Bar-of-History-p-17995.html

Hi TTWSYFAMDGGAHJMJ,

Sorry I have not been able to reply to your last post yet. Please check in another week. Thanks!

To continue of Steven's train of thought,

PETER: "You are the one claiming that my statements are subjective assertions, but I claim that they come from a source that is outside myself, objective, all knowing and the only means to truly knowing. As I said before the evidence is the Word of God, the Bible. There is no higher authority that I can appeal to in order to make sense out of existence."

STEVEN: "In other words, your claim about your source of objectivity is a subjective assertion, as it is rooted not on a claim about Existence, but tries to subsume Existence while you hope I'm not looking."

What is the source for your naked assertions? Is it the same as your source for Existence - nothing?

Although I am subjective and not all-knowing the source I look to claims to be the ultimate, objective, absolute standard and is the only way that these issues we have been discussing can be made sense of. As I said before God is the precondition for intelligibility.

Your source for detecting truth is from inside yourself, mine is not.

You discount that source because you look at life from within yourself as the ultimate, highest authority.

PETER: "Without God it is all subjective opinion"

STEVEN: "Without Existence, it is all subjective opinion."

Pardon? Says who?

STEVEN: "If you claim to know your god before you are aware of Existence, you have some explaining to do, and I doubt you will be able to make much of a case without resorting to religious claims."

I claim to know my God because He has caused me to exist and because He has made Himself known to me by His mercy and grace. The whole earth, the whole universe and everything in it declares His glory and majesty. I claim your mind is poisoned by your unbelief.

PETER: "Logically speaking we either were created, we came about by accident chance, we always existed or everything is illusion. Can you think of another possibility? In an atheist forum the prevailing view is that we came about by accidental chance happenings - evolution. The question is how do you make sense of existence by any but the God hypothesis?"

STEVEN: "Your final question is a non-sequitur. As to your earlier statements: Existence exists, and we happened within it. How that came about is very interesting and still being understood. The question of how consciousness happens appears to me to be far less difficult than the identifying the specifics of the origins of biochemistry. If you want to know how it happened, then I suggest making an effort in that direction other than declaring that your god made it all by fiat. My religion has a creation story, too, and it is very important to me. It helps me understand how to think about myself within Existence."

STEVEN: "But if I want to know what *happened*, I'll talk with the chemists, physicists, and biologists."

Ah yes, your ultimate standard. Which ones since they all assert different things?

PETER: "either logic comes from a Mind or it comes from illogical matter."

STEVEN: "Logic is something a mind learns to do in order to maintain its models reliably. Logic is not a thing with separate existence. Fail to learn logic at least implicitly, and Existence will remove your mind from the scene, permanently."

Why would a biological bag in motion have any inclination to think and that logically? How do you get the intangible out of the physical, something that does not have any physical properties, no weight, occupies no space, is not physical in nature? How does a chance chaotic explosion produce logic?

PETER: "Demonstrate how matter can think or the process at which illogical matter can become thinking mind?"

STEVEN: "See my earlier discussion with Spiderman for a start on a topic that is large, but not nearly as large as biochemistry."

Will do when I find it.

PETER: "So are you saying that from physical non-living impersonal matter the intangible non-physical, living, thinking, personal mind comes into existence?"

STEVEN: "Mind is a process operating in physical matter. It has no objectively knowable existence apart from that matter. It is effectively more of a verb than a noun. I expect that you will not like that answer. Tough."

So the way your particular electro-chemical reactions take place are what determines the way you act? Again you need to explain how something physical produces the non-physical and why it should govern the mind to act with intention and logic? Physical non-living, inorganic matter does not have a mind, intent or logic. Why should we since we are a chip off the old block?

PETER: "If so then make sense of morals. On that ground tell me why it it wrong for me to murder another human being? "

STEVEN: "Easy! If Morality is supposed to be a set of general principles, and it is moral for you to murder another human being, then it is moral for another human being to murder you, and your morality has just removed you from the scene. If you want to live, you need a morality. If you don't, or if you believe, as your religion does, that we're all better off dead, then you can believe anything you want."

Without God you can justify anything.

‘If a person doesn’t think there is a God to be accountable to, then—then what’s the point of trying to modify your behaviour to keep it within acceptable ranges? That’s how I thought anyway. I always believed the theory of evolution as truth, that we all just came from the slime. When we, when we died, you know, that was it, there is nothing…’

Jeffrey Dahmer, in an interview with Stone Phillips, Dateline NBC, Nov. 29, 1994.

STEVEN: "Your problem with Morality, Peter, is that you don't know what it is, and will likely fight against knowing it for as long as you live. Knowing what Morality is requires more responsibility than you seem to want to engage."

Why should/ought one biological bag of matter be responsible to another when all we are is electro-chemical reactions taking place?

PETER: " but I am not asking the questions because I don't have an answer for them, I'm asking the questions to show that unless one presupposes God there are no answers"

STEVEN: "Your demonstration fails on fundamental grounds."

Naked assertion.

STEVEN: "PETER, QUOTING HIS GOD: 'I will destroy the wisdom of the wise; the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate.'"

STEVEN: "Put this line into the mouth of a person, Peter. What kind of person is this? Such a person is simply a destroyer, an egomaniac who can't deal with the success of anyone but himself. This is no one I want to know. If you know him, and your morality is guided by him, I'm sure I don't want to know you either."

You, the creature, with limited knowledge want to dictate to the Creator what wisdom and knowledge are? You the creature want to rebel against your Maker and dictate what is right and good and moral when you have no ultimate standard for morality? Why do you think the world is in such a mess in the first place? Ever consider it is because everyone wants to be their own autonomous god? (Judges 21:25)

STEVEN: "In my religion, we don't bow down before our gods: we look them in the face, which is as it should be."

Exactly my point. You will not humble yourself before your Maker but instead try to usurp His authority to determine what "should" be and make yourself equal with the One who made you?

STEVEN: "And when we do well and make something of ourselves, they are happy for us and share in our pride. You can have your god and your morality. You can die to make your god happy that you're dead, know nothing, be nothing, do nothing. I'd rather live as I can, know what I can, be what I can, and try to do something good."

Pride comes before the fall my friend (James 4:6-9; 1 Peter 5:5-6) Yes, all I, I, I. The Christian God asks us to put ourselves aside and serve Him by serving others and in doing so truly find what it means to live.

STEVEN: "Your thinking is non-existent. You believe what you are told to believe. I believe what I can discover. We've made our choices.

Thanks for the ad hominem! I believe the only One who can make sense of existence and who gives true meaning and purpose to life.

As for believing what you can discover, you place you at the center of it all as to what is true and right and just in the place of God.

STEVEN: "This thread is stale. I won't be returning to it."

Oh yes! The old bale out when the going gets tough! Thanks for making sense of all this for me! Your worldview certainly has the answers!

You can't mock God Steven. One day you will bow to Him, hopefully as a redeemed child rather than a rebellious unbeliever.

Hi Steven T Abell,

PETER: "I'm questioning how you can answer meaning, purpose, truth, objectivity, logic, existence, morality, unless you presuppose God, and not just any god, the Christian God. How do you make sense of these things unless you presuppose an objective, absolute, ultimate starting point which is God?"

STEVEN: "Existence exists."

That does not make sense of it. You are using a tautology. "Either it will rain tomorrow or it will not rain tomorrow" does not explain the how or why of that statement.

STEVEN: "Objectivity means agreeing to stick to that."

Are you the standard of objectivity that determines we agree to stick to that? I disagree.

STEVEN: "Truth means several things; in this paragraph it means "isomorphic to Existence"."

I don't understand.

STEVEN: "Logic is a means of thinking about Existence in such a way that that isomorphism can be reliably maintained. A Morality is a set of choices made by a conscious entity to preserve that which it values, which is usually but not always, first and foremost, itself. Meaning and purpose are also choices of a conscious entity that wants to make more of its time being conscious than just existing."

So let's see how morality or meaning can be reliably maintained, for what you are saying is that each individual chooses their own morality and meaning.

Suppose I value people of a distinct skin color and type of features because I deem them to be racially superior to other skin colors and types (i.e. Hitler's Aryan race). What is to stop me from eliminating all people of inferior race and type as long as I have the might to do so and justifying it as right? It is the choice I make and am able to convince others of the same skin type and features it is the right course of action based on Darwin's "On The Origin of Spicies by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life".

By the way, you are of the wrong skin type and features so you are going to be exterminated. Although you may "feel" I'm wrong in pursuing this course of action, you are the one in fact who is wrong.

Suppose I have convinced the majority of those who have the same religious belief that I do, or at least the radicals that seem to hold the sway of power (because they hold it in a ruthless fashion and are willing to do anything for it) that flying planes into huge population groups is a way to either bring those opposed to my worldview into submission to it or to create a fear base and punish those who say otherwise, thus making my religious belief the one and only that is practiced, who are you to tell me that my choice and the choice of those who share a like choice is wrong?

When you have no absolute, objective, ultimate standard anything is possible as long as you have the might to carry it through. And what makes something "right" is based on subjective feelings and opinion, so every standard has the potential of being different. "Right" becomes arbitrary. Every person can judge "right" differently, so don't tell me your "right" is right. What makes it "right" is who legislates or enforces it. So you have no bases to judge anything as bad or good, just as personal preference and feeling.

In the same culture at different eras two opposing viewpoints can both be legislated as "right." Abortion has be legislated as legal at one point and illegal at another and at a point in the future the legality may be swapped again. As I said you cannot make sense of the ought or must or why. It is always up in the air and constantly changing. Values are arbitrary so don't tell me "it is right."

STEVEN: "The starting point of my thinking and of my religion is Existence. You ask me to tell you who created it. My answer to that is far simpler than yours: no one. It was. It is. It will be, in some form or another.

Sounds like Carl Sagan.

If no one created the universe (it always existed), and subsequently the personal from the universe, then what you are saying is the universe is eternal and personality just happened by some chance freak occurrence and that the personal has come from the impersonal - something we never witness as happening, or the universe is personal and therefore "being" and you are a pantheist/panenthesist?

As such you go against the current and majority Big Bang theory in which the universe had a beginning. So who is right in their opinion, you or the Big Bangers? Why is "your" truth truer than their truth? It is something that you cannot give any certainty to because there is no unchanging reality to base you certainty on.

STEVEN: "If you find this inconceivable, then I will have to ask you who created your god. If you try to tell me that your god is eternal and has always existed, you have exposed your fraud."

Not at all. You are making all kinds of assumptions. Science deals with cause and effect. There is a causal connection between every thing in this world. Every EFFECT has a cause, a beginning, and the primary causality of everything is God since there must be something that started the effects (He is not caused, not the result of an effect). Something would have to be uncaused to cause anything else.

You are a secondary cause of things happening in that by your intention you throw a ball to second base in order to get the runner out before he gets there. The number of actions created by your intentions is what results (hopefully) in the ball arriving at second base before the runner gets there.

The evolutionary outlook is that you get everything without a primary cause and without intent. All causal reactions result from a non-thinking, random, chance beginning. Go figure. And yet we see meaningful intent and purpose all around us.

You can't have an effect without a cause so you can't have good without the standard for good. And good is meaningless without a mind that can distinguish ideas and ideas are not physical; they differ from matter in that ideas have no shape or form that fills up space, no weight, no tangibility because they are abstract, so how do ideas come from something that is supposedly just physical (i.e. the universe)?

"Mind is no matter, so matter is never mind."

STEVEN: "The Mormons at least have an answer for this, although I don't know that they get to an ultimate beginning, and so would just be pushing the problem farther away."

???

PETER: "Your thinking is futile."

Your thinking is non-existent. You believe what you are told to believe. I believe what I can discover. We've made our choices.

This thread is stale. I won't be returning to it.

Hi Steven T Abell,

STEVEN: "You might be so invested in what you've been fed and are propagating that you can't understand anything else..."

That is precisely what the Word of God says of you and your philosophy.

"...in order that we may know the mystery of God, namely Christ, in whom are hidden ALL the treasures of wisdom and knowledge. I tell you this so that no one may deceive you by fine sounding arguments...See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the basic principles of this world rather than on Christ." (Colossians 2:2b-4; 8)

No one comes to the table neutral. You have formed your worldview on the denial of God and suppression of His truth. It is an either or situation.

You build your worldview and your mythology on the word of man, on a constantly changing structure of learning as old ideas are disproved by new ones. Your foundation is as stable as sinking sand.

One for instance is the theory of evolution. Evolutionary thought is always evolving and changing as new evidence is brought to the table. The age of the universe is a prime example.

As I said before, in order for there to be truth, certainty and stability you need to build your worldview on a structure, on a foundation, that does not change and that is constantly and consistently true and right. I have been asking you to show me what that structure is and how you can do that?

"The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness...For although the knew God, they neither glorified Him as God nor gave thanks to Him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened...They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator - who is forever praised. Amen...Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, He gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not be done." (Romans 1:18, 21, 25, 28)

Your thinking is futile. I ask atheists all the time the epistemological certainty of the true of their thinking and the standard answer is 99.99999% certain. But when I dig deeper the skepticism is in every area of life. More on this later in reply to your other post.

"No one can serve two masters. Either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other." (Matthew 6:24)

STEVEN: "You might be so invested in the intellectual fraud you've been fed and are propagating that you can't understand anything else."

That is the Word of God's contention against your worldview, that it is based on the standards of this world rather than the standards of God.

"For although we live in the world, we do not wage war as the world does. The weapons we fight with are not the weapons of this world. On the contrary, they have divine power to demolish strongholds. We demolish strongholds and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and we take hold of every thought to make it obedient to Christ." (2 Corinthians 10:3-5)

What I am trying to show you is that to make sense of the world you need to start with God rather than man. Man's thoughts and ideas are foolish compared to God's. With any man made philosophy the question becomes "Says who?"

Whose "wise" foundation are you basing truth on?

IN REPLY TO (IRT)
PETER HUFF
“THE PRIMACY OF PETER”

ANS:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12260a.htm#I

“The proof that Christ constituted St. Peter head of His Church is found in the two famous Petrine texts, Matthew 16:17-19, and John 21:15-17.

'And I say to thee that thou art Peter [Kipha, a rock], and upon this rock [Kipha] I will build my church [ekklesian], and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven."

It is Peter who is the rock of the Church. The term ecclesia (ekklesia) here employed is the Greek rendering of the Hebrew qahal, the name that denoted the Hebrew nation viewed as God's Church.

Aramaic is one and the same; this renders it evident that the various attempts to explain the term "rock" as having reference not to Peter himself but to something else are misinterpretations

St. Peter is mention in the New Testament 199 times compared to some 29 times for St. John who is the second most mentioned Apostle.

When the Apostles are asked a question, it is Peter speaking for them. Before the Ascension Jesus asks Peter to feed His sheep, three times signifying Peter as the head of the flock.

The New Testament is replete with passages that indicate the leadership of Peter as the head of the Apostles and God’s Church.

The only Apostle that Jesus changed his name was Peter. “As Christ's coming agreed so little in power and glory with the expectations of the Messias, many different views concerning Him were current.

While journeying along with His Apostles, Jesus asks them: "Who do men say that the Son of man is?" The Apostles answered, "Some John the Baptist, and other some Elias, and others Jeremias, or one of the prophets".

Jesus said to them, 'But who do you say that I am?' Simon said, 'Thou art Christ, the Son of the living God.' And Jesus answering said to him, 'Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona: because flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in heaven.

“The word for Peter and for rock in the original Aramaic is one and the same; this renders it evident that the various attempts to explain the term 'rock' as having reference not to Peter himself but to something else are misinterpretations."

In making Peter the rock on which Jesus builds His Church, Jesus also gives Peter the power to bind and loose on earth.

"It is Peter who is the rock of the Church. The term ecclesia (ekklesia) here employed is the Greek rendering of the Hebrew qahal, the name that denoted the Hebrew nation viewed as God's Church

And upon this rock I will build my Church. . ." Here then Christ teaches plainly that in the future the Church will be the society of those who acknowledge Him, and that this Church will be built on Peter.

The expression presents no difficulty. In both the Old and New Testaments the Church is often spoken of under the metaphor of God's house (Numbers 12:7; Jeremiah 12:7; Hosea 8:1; 9:15; 1 Corinthians 3:9-17, Ephesians 2:20-2; 1 Timothy 3:5; Hebrews 3:5; 1 Peter 2:5). Peter is to be to the Church what the foundation is in regard to a house.

He is to be the principle of unity, of stability, and of increase. He is the principle of unity, since what is not joined to that foundation is no part of the Church.

As to stability, since it is the firmness of this foundation in virtue of which the Church remains unshaken by the storms which buffet her; of increase, since, if she grows, it is because new stones are laid on this foundation."

Hence when the Pope is speaking as the head of the Church, as the Vicar of Christ, the Visible Head of the Church on Earth (Jesus being the Head of the Church, viz. "I am the Vine and you are the branches"), what Peter binds on Earth is bound in Heaven. Hence, not only is Peter made the head of the Church, but is given the power to be the head of the Church.

Moreover, this binding is substantiated by the Holy Spirit protecting the Pontiff from error in the teachings of the Magisterium (John 15:26-27; Mt 28:20; Mt 10: 20).

Then Jesus commanded His disciples, that they should tell no one that He was Jesus the Christ (Matthew 16:13-20; Mark 8:27-30; Luke 9:18-21).

By the word ‘rock’ the Savior could not have meant Himself, but only Peter, as is so much more apparent in Aramaic in which the same word (Kipha) is used for "Peter" and ‘rock’.

Through this foundation (Peter), the Kingdom of Christ would be unconquerable. This meaning becomes so much the clearer when we remember that the words 'bind' and 'loose' are not metaphorical, but Jewish juridical terms.

This foundation created for the Church by its Founder could not disappear with the person of Peter, but was intended to continue and did continue (as actual history shows) in the primacy of the Roman Church and its bishops.”

In addition, Jesus wasn’t giving the keys of the Kingdom to Himself but to Peter. Moreover, Jesus addressed Peter as Peter, the Rock.

Further, the line of Popes is not broken. Hence, St. Peter (32-67); St. Linus (67-76); St. Anacletus (Cletus) (76-88); St. Clement I (88-97); St. Evaristus (97-105); St. Alexander I (105-115); St. Sixtus

The unanimous testimony of the manuscripts, the parallel passages in the other Gospels and the fixed belief of pre-Constantine literature furnish the surest proofs of the genuineness and untampered state of the text of Matthew."

As to Paul rebuffing Peter, read again Acts 15: 1 cf. Paul goes to Jerusalem to seek Peter’s advice over circumcision, and Peter at the Jerusalem Council settles the question and it is not a problem again.

Peter was not wrong, he always approved of the Gentiles sharing in the Kingdom of God and His Church without the Jews strict jurisdiction of its previous customs.

IN REPLY TO (IRT)
MR MARK
“RELIGION IS A MESSAGE OF FEAR AND FANTASY”

ANS:
The Church’s message is not of fear but God’s love; nor is it fantasy but Truth. God is real and so is His love. It is the atheists who fears the truth; the Catholic knows the truth.

What has Atheism and Agnosticism (A/A) to offer but pain and suffering? What does suffering mean to A/A but a quick exit from life, viz. Abortion, Euthanasia, Suicide, and the Culture of Death that is encapsulating the American culture today. Suicide, a mark of A/A, is an explicit fear to face life. Life has no meaning to A/A.

Our Judeo-Christian heritage has made us one of the greatest countries in the world and the reason is that our political beliefs were based on the inviolable rights of man, NOT given by man but by God. If they were from man, they wouldn’t be inviolable. Can you figure out why?

Christianity has proven itself, and so has atheism. Atheism has brought death and destruction as history is its witness. Contrast the atheistic North Korea (NK) to the Christian Natural Morals of South Korea. Missionaries tell of the tragic life the atheists ruled people live in NK.

NK stories of a mother poisoning her five children, or a mother jumping off a bridge because of the starvation of their children are told.

Contrast the former Communist East Germany to West Germany. It was like walking from day into night, a night of suppression, doom, and gloom.

What has atheism wrought in America? We just starved to death a woman named Terri Schiavo in a land of plenty because her husband, shacked up with a concubine who had bore him three children, wished it.

Dr. Ronald Cranford, who publicly labels himself "Dr. Humane Death," a Hemlock Society death monger starved her to death in 14 days of infamy and agony despite her family’s effort to care for her.

Human life is becoming no different than that of animal. Dogs, in misery, are put to sleep. Schiavo was put into excruciating pain for 14 days until she could take it no longer and died.

Because of the lack of recognition of the inherent sacred dignity of the human person, compassion for Schiavo was less than we show for a dog. Under the auspices of A/A, the little unborn becomes Justice Blackmun’s “thing” in his FANTASY Trimester Theory.

Blackmun redefine the nature of man to circumvent the Constitutional protection of human life in the Fourth and Fifth Amendments, viz. man has a right to be secure in his own person. Consequently, making man a “thing,” we can unconsciously eliminated him with impunity.

The Court usurped the authority of God’s Natural Law. The Court has no more authority to redefine human nature than it has to rule it Unconstitutional for the Sun to shine.

That authority is ordained to the providence of God who created all things and ordered his them according to the Natural Law. Hence, all things must act according to their nature except one, man. Man is given freewill to chose his fate. God does not force man to love Him; man’s love must be freely given.

Animals act on instinct; they have no choice. When they are hungry they must eat. Animals cannot do anything that they perceive will harm them because they are endowed with a power of self-preservation. Man can refuse to eat when he’s hungry, smoke when knowing it’s injurious to his health, and commit suicide, a rebuke of his human nature and God’s love for him.

“America the Beautiful” lyrics are “God shed his grace on thee,” but A/A, is a turning from God and man become his own God Agnostics live in a false world. Subsequently, suicide is becoming America’s major cause of death.

St Augustine wrote, “Lord you have created us for yourself; our hearts are restless till they rest in you.” However, A/A places it trust in the fleeting vanities of a transitory world and the world consumes the foolish that choose it.

Every man is born with an insatiable thirst to love and be loved. Thus, our nature cries out to us that there must be something that is greater than the entire Universe that the soul’s eternal yearning seeks. It is the Love of an Eternally Loving and Omniscient God.

It is written, “No man has greater love for another than he who lays down his life for the good of others.” God has loved us so much that He gave His only begotten Son, who offered His life up, so that man may share eternal happiness with God in Heaven. That’s repulsive to atheists and agnostics.

So why be foolish and believe in A/A when all things that are good await you, as has God has so promised. So love God who loves you. As it is written, “For the Son of Man did not come to be served by others but to serve, and to give His own life up as a ransom for many—cf. Mat. 20: 20” God is not a fantasy but a reality.

PETER: "PS. I found your thinking very muddled."

You might be so invested in what you've been fed and are propagating that you can't understand anything else, kinda like a lifelong Fortran programmer who's been dropped in to a Lisp shop: no familiar concepts to grab onto, and yet it computes and takes hardly any code to do it.

PETER: "PS. I found your thinking very muddled."

You might be so invested in the intellectual fraud you've been fed and are propagating that you can't understand anything else.

Hi Steven,

I have run out of time and am working this weekend. Please tune in Monday or Tuesday for a reply.

PS. I found your thinking very muddled.

Hi TTWSYFAMDGGAHJMJ,

TTWSYFAMDGGAHJMJ: "The “Sola Scriptura” is the belief that the teachings of the Church are found only in Scripture. That is not true. There is also Tradition, that is, that the Truth is passed down by word of mouth as well."

Yes, passed on by word of mouth as long as what is said conforms to THE Word. Whatever God intended for us to know about creation, salvation, faith, living a godly life, the Church, as well as knowledge about Him is contained in His Word. He is the perfect Communicator and has given us everything we need.

The Bible is God's Word in written form. This is the testimony of Scripture (2 Timothy 3:14-17; 2 Peter 1:20-21). Constantly we find in the OT "Thus saith the Lord" or in the NT "It is written." And any form of tradition that claims God as its origin must be subjected to the highest authority we have - God's word, for God does not contradict Himself.

Yes, Scripture was once taught by tradition as well as by letters but it is the written word that God has preserved for our edification. It is true and living. It is our blueprint, our final authority.

God chose a people to make Himself and His plan of Redemption known in OT times and to record His Word just as He has in the apostolic era for the purpose of enscripturating it. That process has come to an end.

TTWSYFAMDGGAHJMJ: "It was some 65 to 70 years after Jesus’ Ascension before the Scriptures were completed. Hence, the written word was not the only source of teachings; there was Scripture and preaching or Divine Tradition—Lk1:1-4; Jn20: 30-31; 1Thes2: 13; These are a few of the many proofs of the authority of Tradition."

Until the completion in written form of God's revelation to us.

TTWSYFAMDGGAHJMJ: "Hence Scripture is replete with the Word of God being passed down the preachers of the faith."

2Jn 1: 12,”Though I have much to write to you, I would rather not use paper and ink, but I hope to see you and talk to you face to face so that our joy may be made full.” These traditions are not man made traditions but Divine Tradition.

Again, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit until the Canon was completed.

TTWSYFAMDGGAHJMJ: "Hence, God did not condemn Tradition but inspired St. Paul to speak of Tradition in terms that it was part of the Divine deposit of faith. Luke writes, “That thou mayest know the verity of those words in which thou hast been instructed. Luke 1:4.”"

Yes, again until the enscripturation was complete.

TTWSYFAMDGGAHJMJ: "In addition, Jesus said to Peter “Thou art Peter and upon the Rock I will build my Church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven. What ever you shall bind on earth shall be bound in Heaven and what ever you shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.—Mat 16: 18-19;"

The apostle Paul opposed Peter to his face because he was clearly in the wrong (Galatians 2:11). So much for Peter's authority and infallibility concerning matters of faith. The early church fathers do not have the same interpretation of this passage as current Roman Catholics do. It came two centuries after the time of Christ. The RC Church supports its teachings on the authority of Peter based on the interpretation of three passages; Matthew 16:18; Luke 22 and John 21.

Here are a couple of passages for you:

"They were all baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea. They all ate the same spiritual food and drank the same spiritual drink; for they drank from the spiritual ROCK that accompanied them, and THAT ROCK WAS CHRIST." (1 Corinthians 10:3-4)

"As it is written: See, I lay in Zion a stone that causes men to stumble and a ROCK that makes them fall, and the one who trusts in Him will never be put to shame." (Romans 9:33)

Peter was the first to lay the foundation upon the rock in preaching the gospel and opening up the kingdom of God to men.

What is the "It" spoken of in Matthew 16:18? Was Peter the only one given the keys to the kingdom? What about the other apostles?

Since I am running out of time tonight and I am working this weekend we can discuss this further on Monday or Tuesday if you so wish. I do not have time to address the Scriptures you have provided or your other quotes now, but the teaching on Mary are fantastic and not Scriptural (for instance were is Mary ever called "sovereign" in Scripture, or where is it ever implied?) and I will take some time Monday or Tuesday to address them.

Blessings!

PETER: "I'm questioning how you can answer meaning, purpose, truth, objectivity, logic, existence, morality, unless you presuppose God, and not just any god, the Christian God. How do you make sense of these things unless you presuppose an objective, absolute, ultimate starting point which is God?"

Existence exists. Objectivity means agreeing to stick to that. Truth means several things; in this paragraph it means "isomorphic to Existence". Logic is a means of thinking about Existence in such a way that that isomorphism can be reliably maintained. A Morality is a set of choices made by a conscious entity to preserve that which it values, which is usually but not always, first and foremost, itself. Meaning and purpose are also choices of a conscious entity that wants to make more of its time being conscious than just existing.

The starting point of my thinking and of my religion is Existence. You ask me to tell you who created it. My answer to that is far simpler than yours: no one. It was. It is. It will be, in some form or another. If you find this inconceivable, then I will have to ask you who created your god. If you try to tell me that your god is eternal and has always existed, you have exposed your fraud. The Mormons at least have an answer for this, although I don't know that they get to an ultimate beginning, and so would just be pushing the problem farther away.

PETER: "You are the one claiming that my statements are subjective assertions, but I claim that they come from a source that is outside myself, objective, all knowing and the only means to truly knowing. As I said before the evidence is the Word of God, the Bible. There is no higher authority that I can appeal to in order to make sense out of existence."

In other words, your claim about your source of objectivity is a subjective assertion, as it is rooted not on a claim about Existence, but tries to subsume Existence while you hope I'm not looking. As a religious claim, I accept that you believe that. As a claim of logical necessity that I supposedly *must* accept for myself, it doesn't cut it, and following this by making another such assertion won't cut it either.

PETER: "Without God it is all subjective opinion"

Without Existence, it is all subjective opinion. If you claim to know your god before you are aware of Existence, you have some explaining to do, and I doubt you will be able to make much of a case without resorting to religious claims.

PETER: "Logically speaking we either were created, we came about by accident chance, we always existed or everything is illusion. Can you think of another possibility? In an atheist forum the prevailing view is that we came about by accidental chance happenings - evolution. The question is how do you make sense of existence by any but the God hypothesis?"

Your final question is a non-sequitur. As to your earlier statements: Existence exists, and we happened within it. How that came about is very interesting and still being understood. The question of how consciousness happens appears to me to be far less difficult than the identifying the specifics of the origins of biochemistry. If you want to know how it happened, then I suggest making an effort in that direction other than declaring that your god made it all by fiat. My religion has a creation story, too, and it is very important to me. It helps me understand how to think about myself within Existence. But if I want to know what *happened*, I'll talk with the chemists, physicists, and biologists.

PETER: "either logic comes from a Mind or it comes from illogical matter."

Logic is something a mind learns to do in order to maintain its models reliably. Logic is not a thing with separate existence. Fail to learn logic at least implicitly, and Existence will remove your mind from the scene, permanently.

PETER: "Demonstrate how matter can think or the process at which illogical matter can become thinking mind?"

See my earlier discussion with Spiderman for a start on a topic that is large, but not nearly as large as biochemistry.

PETER: "So are you saying that from physical non-living impersonal matter the intangible non-physical, living, thinking, personal mind comes into existence?"

Mind is a process operating in physical matter. It has no objectively knowable existence apart from that matter. It is effectively more of a verb than a noun. I expect that you will not like that answer. Tough.

PETER: "If so then make sense of morals. On that ground tell me why it it wrong for me to murder another human being? "

Easy! If Morality is supposed to be a set of general principles, and it is moral for you to murder another human being, then it is moral for another human being to murder you, and your morality has just removed you from the scene. If you want to live, you need a morality. If you don't, or if you believe, as your religion does, that we're all better off dead, then you can believe anything you want. Your problem with Morality, Peter, is that you don't know what it is, and will likely fight against knowing it for as long as you live. Knowing what Morality is requires more responsibility than you seem to want to engage.

PETER: "Where does existence come from?"

See above.

PETER: " but I am not asking the questions because I don't have an answer for them, I'm asking the questions to show that unless one presupposes God there are no answers"

Your demonstration fails on fundamental grounds.

PETER, QUOTING HIS GOD: 'I will destroy the wisdom of the wise; the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate.'

Put this line into the mouth of a person, Peter. What kind of person is this? Such a person is simply a destroyer, an egomaniac who can't deal with the success of anyone but himself. This is no one I want to know. If you know him, and your morality is guided by him, I'm sure I don't want to know you either.

In my religion, we don't bow down before our gods: we look them in the face, which is as it should be. And when we do well and make something of ourselves, they are happy for us and share in our pride. You can have your god and your morality. You can die to make your god happy that you're dead, know nothing, be nothing, do nothing. I'd rather live as I can, know what I can, be what I can, and try to do something good.

Hi Steven,

PETER: "Who is playing the dirty pool here? Why is your evidence true? What makes your subjective opinion truth? Since God created all facts to know a fact as it truly is one must think His thoughts after Him, as He has revealed them."

STEVEN: "You are. I ask you to show me objective evidence and you give me subjective assertions. You make one assertion after another, stated as if they are axiomatic. Once again, you are insisting on assuming that which you are supposedly trying to demonstrate. That is logically corrupt, and you know it."

I'm questioning how you can answer meaning, purpose, truth, objectivity, logic, existence, morality, unless you presuppose God, and not just any god, the Christian God. How do you make sense of these things unless you presuppose an objective, absolute, ultimate starting point which is God?

You are the one claiming that my statements are subjective assertions, but I claim that they come from a source that is outside myself, objective, all knowing and the only means to truly knowing.
As I said before the evidence is the Word of God, the Bible. There is no higher authority that I can appeal to in order to make sense out of existence.

PETER: "Since you do not accept the revelation of the Christian God how do you know you are being logical? How does an irrational, spontaneous, non-thinking, chance happening create rational, ordered, thinking human beings? How does logic come from the illogical, how does the abstract come from the physical, how does conscious mind come from matter?"

STEVEN: "And now you're trying to change the subject. This is funny, but in a pathetic sort of way. Since you *do* accept the "revelation" of the Christian god, how do you know that *you* are being logical?"

He is the precondition for making sense out of existence. The Bible's claim is that God is the original knower and maker of all things, and from Him we derive knowledge. You are insisting that you know things apart from this God and I'm asking the questions on how and still waiting for you to make sense of the how and why. Without God it is all subjective opinion and personal preference and therefore arbitrary. In a universe originating by chance (i.e. not planned and ordered by a Mind) how is anything governed other than by chance. How do spontaneous chance beginnings create order, design, complexity?

STEVEN: "Cyclic or otherwise bald assertions are not allowed in your arguments if you expect me to accept them as logical. As for your other questions, see my earlier discussion with Spiderman for a start, but recognize that you are changing the subject. Why are you feeling the need to do this, Peter?"

Logically speaking we either were created, we came about by accident chance, we always existed or everything is illusion. Can you think of another possibility? In an atheist forum the prevailing view is that we came about by accidental chance happenings - evolution. The question is how do you make sense of existence by any but the God hypothesis? My claim is you can't and I'm asking you to do so. Is that unreasonable?

ME: "How does logic come from the illogical?"
STEVEN: "Who said that it did?"

Well, reasoning it out, either logic comes from a Mind or it comes from illogical matter. Demonstrate how matter can think or the process at which illogical matter can become thinking mind? In other words, make sense of it.

ME: "How does the abstract come from the physical?"
STEVEN: "Another non-sequitur. The physical relates to Existence."

So are you saying that from physical non-living impersonal matter the intangible non-physical, living, thinking, personal mind comes into existence? Are we just a biological bag of molecules in motion? Is what I think and what I am dependent on the way my electromagnetic impulses react? If so then make sense of morals. On that ground tell me why it it wrong for me to murder another human being? It's just the way my atoms are colliding. My atoms are telling me it is ok. Again, make sense of it.

STEVEN: "Do you remember Existence, Peter? It's that thing you apparently don't like to talk about. Abstractions are mental constructs we use to make our thinking take less time and space. They are derived from Existence, not the other way around."

Where does existence come from? If from a blind, random, chance happening how did consciousness and personality come about? Make sense of these things if you can. Logically, where do you ever see personality coming from the impersonal? Where do you see life coming from something not living? Where do you see in "Nature" the ability to express logical abstract ideas, other than from the mind of man? Now supposedly they came from a Big Bang.

What was the cause of this supposed Big Bang? Every effect has a cause does it not? What was the cause of the supposed Big Bang? Make sense of it if you can?

STEVEN: "Two of your other questions are characterized by "I don't see how..." Your ability to ask questions you can't answer doesn't mean the opposite must be true, it only means you don't know something."

That is true, I am asking the question that I do not see how, but I am not asking the questions because I don't have an answer for them, I'm asking the questions to show that unless one presupposes God there are no answers, so logically speaking, unless you presuppose God, and not just any god, you cannot make sense of them.

PETER: "I'm still waiting for you to make sense of things."

STEVEN: "No, you're hoping for exactly the opposite."

I'm not hoping anything. I know that without God you have not been able to do so nor can you.

"For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. For it is written:
'I will destroy the wisdom of the wise; the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate.'
Where is the wise man? Where is the scholar? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know Him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe." (1 Corinthians 1:18-21)

Yes, God has made foolish the wisdom of this world.

IN REPLY TO (IRT)
PETER HUFF:
“QUEEN OF ANGELS AND SAINTS, QUEEN OF HEAVEN AND EARTH.

The “Sola Scriptura” is the belief that the teachings of the Church are found only in Scripture. That is not true. There is also Tradition, that is, that the Truth is passed down by word of mouth as well.

It was some 65 to 70 years after Jesus’ Ascension before the Scriptures were completed. Hence, the written word was not the only source of teachings; there was Scripture and preaching or Divine Tradition—Lk1:1-4; Jn20: 30-31; 1Thes2: 13; These are a few of the many proofs of the authority of Tradition.

Hence Scripture is replete with the Word of God being passed down the preachers of the faith.

2Jn 1: 12,”Though I have much to write to you, I would rather not use paper and ink, but I hope to see you and talk to you face to face so that our joy may be made full.” These traditions are not man made traditions but Divine Tradition.

Hence, God did not condemn Tradition but inspired St. Paul to speak of Tradition in terms that it was part of the Divine deposit of faith. Luke writes, “That thou mayest know the verity of those words in which thou hast been instructed. Luke 1:4.”

In addition, Jesus said to Peter “Thou art Peter and upon the Rock I will build my Church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven. What ever you shall bind on earth shall be bound in Heaven and what ever you shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.—Mat 16: 18-19;

“And if he will not hear them; tell the Church. And if he will not hear the Church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican. Amen I say to you, whatsoever you shall bind upon earth, shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever you shall loose upon earth, shall be loosed also in heaven—Mt18: 17-18

“And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words: going forth out of that house or city shake off the dust from your feet—Mat 10: 14.

“He that heareth you heareth Me: and he that despiseth you despiseth Me: and he that despiseth Me despiseth Him that sent Me.—Luke10:16.”

Thus, Jesus has given the authority of God to the Church to speak for God. God speaks to man through His Church. These teaching are both written and preached, by Scripture and Tradition.

Now the Vicar of Christ, the visible head of the Church on Earth, was Peter to whom God gave the keys to Heaven. That chain of authority has never been broken up to Benedict XVI. Hence, Pope Pius XII, by the authority of Christ, proclaims from the authority of Divine Tradition that Mary is Queen Angels and Saints.

http://www.newadvent.org/library/docs_pi12ac.htm

His Holiness Pope Pius XII
Encyclical on Proclaiming the Queenship of Mary
Promulgated October 11, 1954

“From the earliest ages of the Catholic Church a Christian people, whether in time of triumph or more especially in time of crisis, has addressed prayers of petition and hymns of praise and veneration to the Queen of Heaven.

And, never has that hope wavered which they placed in the Mother of the Divine King, Jesus Christ; nor has that faith ever failed by which we are taught that Mary, the Virgin Mother of God, reigns with a mother's solicitude over the entire world, just as she is crowned in heavenly blessedness with the glory of a Queen.”

The Virgin Mary which is venerated at Fatima was being crowned with a golden diadem.[3] We Ourselves called this the heralding of the "sovereignty" of Mary,” Pius XII said.

From early times, He "will reign in the house of Jacob forever,"[5] "the Prince of Peace,"[6] the "King of Kings and Lord of Lords."[7] And when Christians reflected upon the intimate connection that obtains between a mother and a son, they readily acknowledged the supreme royal dignity of the Mother of God.

9. Hence, it is not surprising that the early writers of the Church called Mary "the Mother of the King." And they called her "the Mother of the Lord," basing their stand on the words of St. Gabriel the archangel, who foretold that the Son of Mary would reign forever.[8]

And on the words of Elizabeth, Mary was greeted with reverence and called "the Mother of my Lord."[9] Thereby they clearly signified that Mary derived a certain eminence and exalted station from the royal dignity of her Son.”

Pope Pius XII relates the history of Mary’s Queenship throughout the history of the Church confirming her Queenship through Tradition, viz. “Mary has always been viewed of Divine Royalty in her role of the Mother of God. In one of the homilies attributed to Origen, Elizabeth calls Mary "the Mother of my Lord." and even addresses her as "Thou, my Lady."[14]

The authority, given by God to the Church that enjoys the gift of infallibility (John 15:26-27; Mt 28:20; Mt 10:20), to bind and to loose, has pronounced on the authority of Tradition that Mary is the Queen of Angels and Saints.

PETER: "Who is playing the dirty pool here? Why is your evidence true? What makes your subjective opinion truth? Since God created all facts to know a fact as it truly is one must think His thoughts after Him, as He has revealed them."

You are. I ask you to show me objective evidence and you give me subjective assertions. You make one assertion after another, stated as if they are axiomatic. Once again, you are insisting on assuming that which you are supposedly trying to demonstrate. That is logically corrupt, and you know it.

PETER: "Since you do not accept the revelation of the Christian God how do you know you are being logical? How does an irrational, spontaneous, non-thinking, chance happening create rational, ordered, thinking human beings? How does logic come from the illogical, how does the abstract come from the physical, how does conscious mind come from matter?"

And now you're trying to change the subject. This is funny, but in a pathetic sort of way. Since you *do* accept the "revelation" of the Christian god, how do you know that *you* are being logical? Cyclic or otherwise bald assertions are not allowed in your arguments if you expect me to accept them as logical. As for your other questions, see my earlier discussion with Spiderman for a start, but recognize that you are changing the subject. Why are you feeling the need to do this, Peter?

"How does logic come from the illogical?" Who said that it did? "How does the abstract come from the physical?" Another non-sequitur. The physical relates to Existence. Do you remember Existence, Peter? It's that thing you apparently don't like to talk about. Abstractions are mental constructs we use to make our thinking take less time and space. They are derived from Existence, not the other way around.

Two of your other questions are characterized by "I don't see how..." Your ability to ask questions you can't answer doesn't mean the opposite must be true, it only means you don't know something.

PETER: "No, it boils down to two worldviews in which the foundations are entirely different."

That is certainly true.

PETER: "I'm still waiting for you to make sense of things."

No, you're hoping for exactly the opposite.

Hi Steven T Abell,

Just a few quick thoughts. I will try to answer your other objections later.

Recap:

PETER: "So to recap, the first evidence I would give is that without a final, objective, ultimate, absolute, all-knowing reference point - God - nothing can be known for certain...."
STEVEN: "To which I reply: Sez you!"
PETER: "No, says the God of Christianity. What does it matter what I say if it does not correspond to what God has revealed?"

STEVEN: "Let's see here: you claim as "evidence" in your first statement *that which you are trying to demonstrate*, namely that your god is a necessary precondition to knowing anything. In other words, in order for me to argue against your premise to your satisfaction, I first must accept your premise. I do not. Furthermore, I *can* not, and still maintain any logical integrity. What you are doing is dirty pool, and I think you're smart enough to know it."

Who is playing the dirty pool here? Why is your evidence true? What makes your subjective opinion truth? Since God created all facts to know a fact as it truly is one must think His thoughts after Him, as He has revealed them.

Since you do not accept the revelation of the Christian God how do you know you are being logical? How does an irrational, spontaneous, non-thinking, chance happening create rational, ordered, thinking human beings? How does logic come from the illogical, how does the abstract come from the physical, how does conscious mind come from matter?

No, it boils down to two worldviews in which the foundations are entirely different. I'm still waiting for you to make sense of things.

Hi Chris Everett,

ME: "the first evidence I would give is that without a final, objective, ultimate, absolute, all-knowing reference point - God - nothing can be known for certain."

CHRIS: "You're begging the question by asserting that God is the necessary reference point. I say it's nature. And who says that epistemic certainty is necessary, achievable or even important?"

Epistemic certainty is important if you want to arrive at truth.

CHRIS: "No, God is no precondition for truth, only an objective reference point. Nature. Your assertion about the God of Christianity is totally gratuitous - says who? Balderdash."

Unless objective truth and values are attainable all truth becomes is personal belief and ergo what I say is true.

When truth becomes personal belief, devoid of God, throw reasoning and logic out the window. The mind does not receive the facts as they are but as it interprets them to be, hence the constant shift in evolutionary science as new "facts" shed "light" on the relationship to old facts. No one was around when the universe (uni - one, verse - spoken) came into being (except for the Creator, of course) so all the facts are interpreted. The fossil does not come stamped as to when it died or its age.

If man is the final arbiter of truth, which man? Make sense of it???

CHRIS: "Now you've lost all credibility (not that you had any in the first place). Bible quotations aren't evidence for anything - there's alot of crap in alot of different books. Just because your mind is captive to this particular book doesn't make it true."

It depends on how you look upon the Bible, as it says it is - God's revelation to man, or merely a human book. We come to the evidence of the Bible from two different perspectives and we arrive at two different conclusion. Your rebellion and suppression of the truth of God's word results in your skepticism. You are making yourself the ultimate authority. "Did God really say?"

My point of reference is found in the Christian God, a Person from which personhood comes; yours is found in a mindless process you call "Nature."

In this world I all I witness is persons giving birth to persons where as you have yet to show me an example of the impersonal giving birth to the personal. Rocks do not have minds, they do not reason, they are not living; only persons reason, only life gives birth to life.

Until you can show me how this can take place from the impersonal, non-living, physical matter it is my contention and has been all along that you cannot make sense of this world in which you live whereas the Christian can.

CHRIS: "I hope you can see that when you base your "truth" on the Bible you're kicking the stool out from under any claim to objectivity or universality and falling into an infinite loop of circular reasoning. ALL "holy books" claim truth. That doesn't make them true."

We all fall under circular reasoning if you dig deep enough. Evolutionary science uses evolutionary thought to prove evolutionary science.

CHRIS: "Face it. You're a Bible Beater. That's the long and the short of it. You can kind of recite learned "arguments" that support your belief, but those arguments are bogus. You believe because you believe."

I believe because of His grace and mercy to me, not from my ability to fathom apart from His grace and truth.

Hi Chris Everett,

CHRIS: "I agree. And nature is the absolute, objective, ultimate reference point."

So what are you saying, that something that had a beginning in time, and that from a random, spontaneous, chance explosion, has created a universal order of some kind in which we get laws such as logic and gravity?

CHRIS: "Physical evidence is that part of nature to which we have access, hence the evidence-based scientific method as the legitimate means of discerning truth."

You are assuming that your hypothesis are as good as God's, that the way you see the facts (your interpretation) is true, even though you only see in part the fact, not every possible aspect of it, as God sees it all since He created it. You are assuming that your authority is correct and yet I ask how certain are you that it is so?

Facts do not interpret themselves, we gather information about them in relation to other facts that relate to their condition. As such, you or I can only know in part and cannot be totally objective about anything, unless of course God has revealed the truth of the matter to us.

You're starting with a non-thinking process "Nature" that does not interpret and ending with mind and reason that does. How can Nature be objective, be free of personal bias and opinion, as in an objective evaluation? Only a person has a mind that is able to understand objectivity and only an all-knowing God is able to be totally objective, without bias, because He sees the whole picture, every possible outcome and facet of everything.

ME: "You can carry that idea to morals and ethics too"

CHRIS: "Wrong. Ethical rulemaking is the codification of social consensus...."

Oh yes, which one?

CHRIS: "The sense of conscience is shared because we are all human beings. It's not absolute, any more than taste in food is absolute."

So flying a plane into a building is good, depending on which social consensus is sought?

One cultural consensus says gay marriage is good, another bad. Which is good? Which is right? Why is your standard the good standard? Because you say so? So make sense of why yours is good?

IN REPLY TO (IRT)
MR MARK
“A WASTE OF TIME”

IRT:
You waste the mental powers you devote to thinking about the non-existent when you could be finding the cure for the common cold.

ANS:
Did you ever stop to think that we’ve murdered over 48 million unborn children and all the Beethovens. Einsteins, Edison, and all the great scientists we’ve washed down the drain by the Agnostic and Atheistic (A/A) abortionist.

IRS:
“Second, you waste the time of everybody you assault with your ridiculous beliefs.”

ANS:
What beliefs are these that are ridiculous?

IRT:
“You lose the possible friendships of people who might enrich your life but for the fact that they know your religious beliefs are wacko, and who find your totalitarian belief positions to be anathema to civil discourse and just plain common courtesy.”

ANS:
You want to know what real crap is. Who has wacko beliefs but the A/A. Look at what A/A has generated. First, the Sexual Revolution, that has generated the Culture of Death. It is a Culture that has murdered over 48 million unborn. A/A has a legacy of death and destruction because the virtues of chastity and the sacredness of conjugal love in marriage isn’t taken seriously by the foolhardy. Consequently, there’s the spread of STDs because of the Culture of Promiscuity, reckless sex, and sex only for pleasure. The latest ignominy is a group of high school girls in a pregnancy pack.

Homosexuality has caused the death of over 26 million victims of AIDS worldwide, not to mention the innocent people they infected and have died because gays never took Christianity seriously. How many more have been infected with STDs because of this ideology sexual license proffered by the Sexual Revolution.

The frustration that is overshadowing our nation is personified by the A/A who can find no purpose in life, who place all there trust in the vanities and whims of a transient world that ends up consuming them.

We are today witness the increase of frustration in Mall Shooters University and High School shootings, kidnapping and rape of children and college students. Why because the world is consuming and they are seeking for a purpose in life and can’t find it in a transient world.

How about taking time to look at all the nations that believed like you and don’t believe in God even if they claim they do like Hitler, Stalin, and Mao and Kim Il-sung..

Let’s start with China’s Mao Zedong. His Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution are blamed, by critics from both within and outside China, for being responsible for the deaths of 44.5 to 72 million people . He was an atheist who didn’t want anyone to force their morals on him. Does that sound familiar?

Then there’s Uganda’s Idi Amin, a Muslim who didn’t believe in God’s Natural Moral Law either. His rule was characterized by human rights abuses, political repression, ethnic persecution, extra-judicial killings, and the expulsion of Asians from Uganda. The number of people he caused the death of killed because of his regime is unknown; estimates from human rights groups range from 100,000 to 500,000.

Hitler committed suicide by shooting himself while simultaneously biting into a cyanide capsule. To the A/A suffering has no meaning but death for them.

The legacy of atheism is a legacy of moral despondency and the scourge of human nature. A legacy that is about to make suicide the leading cause of death in America.

You can talk all you wish about the rationale A/A, but its fruits have a historical legacy of death and destruction.

Every civilization and society who has tried to live without the True God ended up either being destroyed because they were a threat to society like Nazi Germany or like the USSR, that imploded from its own immorality. So smile and give your face a holiday.

PETER: "So to recap, the first evidence I would give is that without a final, objective, ultimate, absolute, all-knowing reference point - God - nothing can be known for certain...."
STEVEN: "To which I reply: Sez you!"
PETER: "No, says the God of Christianity. What does it matter what I say if it does not correspond to what God has revealed?"

Let's see here: you claim as "evidence" in your first statement *that which you are trying to demonstrate*, namely that your god is a necessary precondition to knowing anything. In other words, in order for me to argue against your premise to your satisfaction, I first must accept your premise. I do not. Furthermore, I *can* not, and still maintain any logical integrity. What you are doing is dirty pool, and I think you're smart enough to know it.

The only objective reference point we have between us is Existence, Peter. I can't negate Existence, of which I am a part, without negating myself. I'm quite willing to grant that you are a part of Existence, too, and that you and I are subject to the same constraints within it and have the same privileges to knowledge of it. If you expect to communicate anything, your arguments are only assertions unless you work with that frame. Try to prove the existence of your god from that, without invoking some non-objective assertion along the way. You will fail.

STEVEN: "You have made a bald assertion and backed it up with more assertions. If you happen to buy this, that's your choice. But don't pose this as reason, because it isn't."
PETER: "Sure it is."

See above.

PETER: "You have not answered the question how you can make sense of anything without an absolute, ultimate, objective reference point. Reason that one out."

You left out "all-knowing" this time. Good move, not that it matters. The meaning of "objective" is "not subject to reasonable disagreement between us, based on freely observable evidence." The only *objective* frame of reference is Existence. Deal with it.

PETER: "What is your ultimate, objective, absolute reference and standard,..."

See above.

STEVE: "a mythical god of your own preference,..."

You like your mythical god better than mine. I like my mythical god better than yours. You are not required to agree with me or approve of my likings any more than I am required to agree with you or approve of your likings, which is to say: not at all. Deal with it.

PETER: "crafted in your own image,..."

Didn't. Odin is very old. Tyr is very older, probably older than Yahweh.

STEVEN: "or just plainly yourself?"

Are you saying I shouldn't rely on my own perceptions and reasoning? Whose then? Yours? Or your god's? That is the claim of the con man from time immemorial. If I am supposed to listen to your god, it would be nice if he had something to say to me. He doesn't. Since I seem to be defective in that regard, shall I accept what you say about him? Why? Especially since there are a lot of people out there who will disagree with you. Or maybe your god doesn't have anything to say to me because I'm somehow just not doing it right. I suspect I'll have to go a long time before I figure out how to do it better, but there will be no shortage of people along the way telling me to just do it their way, because their way is "right". Or you can just take your con somewhere else, Peter. If your god is good for you, that's great. If you want any more visible respect in this regard, you can become more visibly respectable, a point on which you are failing miserably now.

PETER: "What kind of evidence is there that Odin and what he says conforms to what is real and true? These are fair questions."

The same quality of evidence that appeals to you about your god: the myths of my religion speak truth to me in ways that are hard to describe, but truth to me nevertheless. The myths of your religion make no sense to me whatever. If they appeal to you, that's your business, but don't try to claim that your "evidence" is objective. It isn't. Deal with it. When you do, you'll be a lot less likely to torture and kill people over your religion, c.f. Eyvind Kinriffi and Raud the Strong, to name only two.

PETER: "If Odin is the supreme being he has done a poor job in convincing the world. From another of your posts you imply he does not even care what the world thinks - some god who will not defend and protect his integrity."

You are trying to understand one religion from the standpoint of another religion that is very different. That doesn't work, Peter.

Odin has a job to do. He will do it. He doesn't care if you approve. He doesn't have to. He doesn't care if you know. He doesn't have to. There are people who know him and his family and companions by a variety of means. These people do so without the pretzel logic, arm-twisting, badgering, uncivility, and just plain bad manners so typical of so many Christians when it comes to living in a world of many religions. Many of these people are ex-Christians, and they are much happier now. Asatru is not for everyone. It doesn't have to be. It is for those that it is for. That clearly doesn't include you, and if that's a problem for anyone, it's not a problem for me. Grow up.

PETER: "Surely a gospel (good news) of such magnitude and significance that reveals the Creator would have been proclaimed and followed throughout the world? Surely God would make it so that people could know Him? Is Odin someone that you would die for? How many accounts of his revelation have been preserved? How does what he say stack up with what is real, with the way the world is, with the way people are, with the history of the world? How many prophesies of his have come true? Does he even make them to show that he is an all-knowing, all seeing god? Does he claim eternality? Is his word infallible. How has it been preserved? Do you know it to be without error? How about answering some of these questions if you can?"

These questions all assume their viewpoint as their answer. It's like trying to understand a fish when the only questions you're asking are about fruit. Some of your questions have meaningful answers, but you wouldn't like them. They would make no sense to you at all, and I don't care. Do you want a sound-bite description of Asatru? Here it is:

There are some old stories out of Northern Europe. Those old stories are still important to some people. I am one of them.

If you want to know more than that, you're going to have to put some effort into it. Asatru is often called "the religion with homework". I've named some books you can read. If you see a religion in them, fine. If not, also fine. If you don't want to read them, fine. If you want to be a Christian, fine. But don't try to tell me that the argument for your god and only your god, as presented here or very likely anywhere else, means anything that a person must accept by virtue of objective reason or evidence. It doesn't.

When a person says they got a "bolt from the blue," some people interpret that as inspiration from god. It can't be proven. The bolt, like God himself, is invisible.

When a person says they're "walking on air" everyone knows they're just describing how they feel, because everyone can see that their feet are firmly planted on the ground.

Seems like whenever something is invisible or can't be explained otherwise, God gets the credit.

and the less people are disturbed by uncertainty, the less need they have for God.

Hi Steven T Abell,

ME: "First you say: "Just this for starters: Without an absolute, objective, ultimate reference point for truth it is all a matter of conjecture and subjective opinion, the question is WHOSE?"

STEVEN: "And then you say:

"So to recap, the first evidence I would give is that without a final, objective, ultimate, absolute, all-knowing reference point - God - nothing can be known for certain...."

STEVEN: "To which I reply: Sez you!"

No, says the God of Christianity. What does it matter what I say if it does not correspond to what God has revealed?

STEVEN: "You have made a bald assertion and backed it up with more assertions. If you happen to buy this, that's your choice. But don't pose this as reason, because it isn't."

Sure it is. You have not answered the question how you can make sense of anything without an absolute, ultimate, objective reference point. Reason that one out.

What is your ultimate, objective, absolute reference and standard, a mythical god of your own preference, crafted in your own image, or just plainly yourself? What kind of evidence is there that Odin and what he says conforms to what is real and true? These are fair questions.

If Odin is the supreme being he has done a poor job in convincing the world. From another of your posts you imply he does not even care what the world thinks - some god who will not defend and protect his integrity.

Surely a gospel (good news) of such magnitude and significance that reveals the Creator would have been proclaimed and followed throughout the world? Surely God would make it so that people could know Him? Is Odin someone that you would die for? How many accounts of his revelation have been preserved? How does what he say stack up with what is real, with the way the world is, with the way people are, with the history of the world? How many prophesies of his have come true? Does he even make them to show that he is an all-knowing, all seeing god? Does he claim eternality? Is his word infallible. How has it been preserved? Do you know it to be without error? How about answering some of these questions if you can?

Hi TTWSYFAMDGGAHJMJ,

First of all my friend in Christ, I would like to say I think you have done a great job on your rebuttals of evolutionary dogma! Where we part company is on some of your views of Mary and other particular views shared in Roman Catholic circles.

TTWSYFAMDGGAHJMJ: "This comes from a holy woman who supposedly [SUPPOSEDLY?] has visions of the then Three Mysteries of the Rosary, The Joyful, The Sorrowful, and The Glorious."

TTWSYFAMDGGAHJMJ: "In her book, she gives elaborate and vivid pictures of what she sees. They seem [SEEM?] very reasonable except for one thing she said, and that is that God put a soul into Hell and had to bring it out. Well that has nearly debunked the whole book, because God does not make mistakes."

You lose credibility when you go beyond God's Word and says what is contrary to it.

TTWSYFAMDGGAHJMJ: "Still, I cannot vouch for what this visionary says as being true, but it would seem [SEEM?] to be reasonable that the Queen of Angels and Saints, as Mary has been named by the Church, that God would not let anything happen to His Mother and that the Angels would hover over her and protect her."

Yes, named by the Church, but where do you find this in Scripture? I've heard it said the the title uses in the Roman Catholic Church "Queen of Heaven" also applies to Mary, which is a shame too since this title is used in Jeremiah 44:15-28 in an idolatrous way.

Your references to Queen of Angels and Saints and the popular title Co-Redemptrix is also something that you do not find in Scripture. This is a prime example of reading something into the Bible that is not there and is not supported by God's word.

"That is, we make up an answer, without any evidence. The real answer is - we don't know yet."

E Favorite, excellent post. Humans need to stop making up answers without evidence, or at least avoid doing so, because it's a matter of our survival.

IN REPLY TO (IRT)
MR MARK
“A WASTE OF TIME”

IRT:
[Remember this, if I am wrong I lose nothing, for to live according to God’s laws has always, been proven throughout history to be for the good of man.]

“What an absolute crock. What do you lose? First off, you lose a crap load of time wasted believing in imaginary beings. You waste years in worship to non-existent gods when you could be out helping the less fortunate.”

ANS:
Don’t be so foolish; the greatest NGO Charity in the world is the Catholic Church personified by Her Catholic Charities. She has more hospitals Universities, and orphanages than the rest of the world combined.

And what do you find so repulsive about the two greatest Commandments of Christianity, “Love your neighbor as you love yourself and as God so Loves you,” and “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you?" Is that repulsive?

Moreover, what do you find so disrespectful and offensive in the Ten Commandments, honor your mother and father?, thou shalt not kill?, lie, commit adultery, and covet thy neighbor’s wife and goods or the God who gave them to us? Is that crap?

Who more than the Catholic Church defends the sacred sanctity of human life? Who in the entire world defends marriage more than the Catholic Church? Is not marriage the foundation of the family and therefore the underpinnings of all society? Are you against marriage?

Who could rival the human benevolence and love for mankind more than Mother Theresa, who still is honored and personified in the streets of Calcutta.

In a land of waste that knew not love for man, that knew not charity, Theresa was a shining light for all to see what a love for God had wrought.

The sick and the dying lay in the Calcutta streets and a garbage truck routinely picked them up and dump both living and dead on a dump for burning.

Theresa, who saw Jesus in every person, would pick them out of the gutters and the garbage heaps sometimes covered with the rancid stench of rotten flesh and maggots.

She gave them comfort because they were God’s people. She washed them, treated their sores, and sickness. She gave them her love and a happy death on a clean bed.

She would feed the hungry children, and teach them to read and write and to love God who made them. Was she wasting her time; was it all crap?

In the middle of a violent Israeli and Palestinian war, Mother Theresa walked between them and treated the wounded and dying in the refugee camps gave them food and water. The war ceased until she left.

Mother Theresa asked the women seeking abortion to bring their child to her. Instead of the atheistic agnostic solution of abortion, the Church offers houses, clothing, food, for unwed mothers, adoption agencies for those who do not want their child.

Mother Theresa, in a context of Christian hostility became India’s national hero. She asked for nothing that she didn’t give to the poor and dying. Her time was never wasted. Her true treasure was stored in heaven; her treasures on earth she gave to the poor.

After Theresa died, as her body was carried through the streets of Calcutta in a motorcade, the anti-Catholic government officials, Muslims, Sikhs, Buddhist, Hindus, and all of India mourned; hundreds of thousands, lined the streets to pay her homage.

Your contemptuous remarks show you know the Church not. GK Chesterton wrote that Christianity has been often found wanting by those who never have tried it. Isn't that you?

What NGO institution has succored to the poor more than the Catholic Church? When the UN aided the tsunami victims, the Church was already there, the Church helped the poor. The UN raped the victims' children not on behalf of the UN but their amoral godless troglodytes.

Ask the poor African AIDS victims, who rejected God’s moral laws and engaged in Agnostic and Atheistic (A/A) gay sex, what disasters ensued. Who is at the forefront of succoring to the AIDS victims' needs but the Church’s Dream Program whose volunteers freely aid the victims?

The A/A solution for unwed pregnancies is to abort. The oxymoron Planned Parenthood's (PP) purpose is to prevent parenthood. It counsels the poor to have an abortion at PP's aboratoriums.

PP, once against abortion, found abortion death mills financially lucrative. Hence, they positioned some 70 percent of there death mills in the areas of the Black poor.

Bill Cosby said over seventy percent of Black pregnancies occur out of wedlock. Marriage is an institution created by God to protect the child and stabilize the family.

Cosby also noted that some 55 percent of Black pregnancies end in abortion. “Abortion,” said the Reverend Jesse Jackson, before it became politically expedient to be pro-abortion, "was Black Genocide."

The Catholic Church undauntedly and resolutely defends the inviolable Right to Life; the A/A defends a mother’s right to have her child murdered. Which side have you chosen? So smile and give your face a holiday.

Anonymous wrote: "Astrology, anyone?"

Not for me, thanks.

I did once know a group of women who were seriously involved in astrology. There was one very interesting discussion in which I asked "How can you believe this stuff?" The immediate reply was "It's just a way of talking about things." What they were doing seemed to me to make more of it than that, but I thought it was interesting, and that comment is partly responsible for getting me to the religious stance I have today.

Parker, the scientific issue is what caused the children to have those characters or personality traits.

I don't discount the possibility that the blessing you mentioned may have set some "metaphysical" forces in motion that endowed the children with those personalities. But to give that possibility any serious consideration, we must examine all the possible natural causes.

Certainly all parents strive for equal treatment of their children. But as a parent myself, I know that equal treatment and identical treatment are not the same thing. Children's personalities are noticeable at a few months, and perhaps this subconsciously drove the father's inspirations.

Or, if personality is rooted in the genes, perhaps the same genes affect the body chemistry in ways that can be detected through sweat odor, and people pick up on these on a subconscious level. It's already known that schizophrenia causes a chemical change in sweat.

I'm not suggesting that either of those is the definite cause. My point is that any theory about a natural cause factors in current knowledge about physical universe, in this case about human physiology and psychology. Asserting a "metaphysical" cause not only ignores that knowledge, and not only rejects all possible natural causes, but also makes an assertive leap with no basis.

"I agree basically, but I'm not sure that it isn't testable - seems to me that anyone who's ever suffered brain damage is a pretty good test - no frontal lobes, no inspiration. In fact, no thought."

Valid point. The key test is falsifiability - looking at a claim of a mental experience, one cannot tell from the outside if the person is telling the truth, is honestly mistaken, or is deliberately lying.

"As an artist myself, I can tell you that inspiration comes from many places, including one's own brain. All of them are thoroughly and completely natural."

I agree. The burden of proof is on any assertion that the source is from outside humanity.

Astrology, anyone?

Parker

I agree, we are not on the same page AT ALL. If this is your religion and belief, then that is fine. But, it is a God-idiom that I do not uderstand.

When I used this word "God-idiom" in communicating with Ryan Haber, who freely discusses his Cahtolic beliefs, he did not know what I meant. By God-idiom, I simply mean, "your language of God." It is such a specialized and esoteric language that you cannot really expect people, in general, to understand it. If you want to communicate casually in this language, you should do so with others who understand it, people in your own church and Sunday School, people who will know EXACTLY what you are talking about and not think you are crazy.

Of course, I realize that you and people like you, Angela, or or Ryan Haber for example, may be speaking your special God-idiom on this blog, because it is a blog, where normal standards of conduct do not apply.

Pam, E Favorite, Mark, Tonio, Daniel ITLD,
Thanks all for your thoughts and observations. I don't feel like belaboring any more points on this topic, but will conclude my side of this discussion with a personal multi-experience:

In my religion, the dad (usually, if active) gives to each of his children a naming "blessing" during the communion service within a few weeks or months after the birth of the child. In doing so, I felt "inspired" to identify a major character or personality trait of each of my "babies" at the time of doing that naming blessing. A skeptic may say that they "became" the person as they were treated in the home, but I think I have treated them fairly equally yet one is "gregarious" and has a love of humor just as his blessing said he would be, one is "meek" though a gifted athlete and gracious leader as recently voted by his teachers as "student citizen of the year", "meekness" being his pre-identified gift, a daughter is a natural "peacemaker" which we observe repeatedly in the interactions among siblings and with her parents (she is now 19). Another son has great love of country and is a compelling/motivating speaker as "predicted" by "inspiration" in his naming blessing as a baby.

So you see, we are not on the same page. Our life experiences differ. All the best to each of you.

"Parker, we don't know if those geniuses were speaking literally or metaphorically. It's certainly possible that the inspiration may have seemed like it was coming from an exterior source. But since it's experiential on the mental level, it's more than just subjective, it doesn't even qualify as evidence since it's not testable. The burden is on any claim that the inspiration did not arise in the consciousness."

I agree basically, but I'm not sure that it isn't testable - seems to me that anyone who's ever suffered brain damage is a pretty good test - no frontal lobes, no inspiration. In fact, no thought.

As an artist myself, I can tell you that inspiration comes from many places, including one's own brain. All of them are thoroughly and completely natural.

excuse typos - SO many things; it makeS sense

To me it seems that wondering about the source of inspiration is like wondering about the source of thunder.

our predecessors thought thunder was from the Gods. We now understand it scientifically.

We don't understand the source of inspiration yet, so some of us assume it's from God (these days, most people just believe in one god). That is, we make up an answer, without any evidence. The real answer is - we don't know yet. I think that, just as in the case with thunder and some many things, some day we'll find a scientific explanation.

Until then, I think it make more sense to just say we don't know.

Parker, we don't know if those geniuses were speaking literally or metaphorically. It's certainly possible that the inspiration may have seemed like it was coming from an exterior source. But since it's experiential on the mental level, it's more than just subjective, it doesn't even qualify as evidence since it's not testable. The burden is on any claim that the inspiration did not arise in the consciousness.

Wiccan:

"It's said that Pagans are born, not made."

Slightly off topic: the same is said of many things, where the adjective "great" precedes whatever noun is present. I certainly believe this is true for programmers. You can learn to be competent, but you can't learn to be fabulous.

"I posted a long time ago on Post Global that there were no "good" or "bad" religions; the good man would find that in his religion which supported his tendencies, and so would the bad man."

I agree, although I wonder if some religions make this easier or harder than others. For some religions, expressing good through them seems to be a matter of deciding which parts to ignore, which then leaves one open to charges of heresy or apostasy or some other asy thing by those for whom discernment and discretion are unknown arts.

Parker writes:

"The evidence is experiential, so it is subjective, but the point is that many creative geniuses have said in so many words, "I didn't do that all on my own--I was inspired beyond myself and my own knowledge."

That puts me in mind of Handel composing his oratorio, "Messiah." This from npr:

"Handel is said to have emerged at some point (usually, it is noted, after finishing the "Hallelujah" chorus,) and proclaimed: "I did think I did see all Heaven before me, and the great God himself!

"A practical reason that Handel could compose this work and others so quickly was that he often drew upon music composed earlier. While self-borrowing was far more common in the 18th century than it became once the cult of originality emerged in the 19th, Handel took it to new extremes, not to mention borrowing a large degree from other composers as well. His practices aroused attention in his own day, even from his collaborator Charles Jennens, who deftly compiled the libretto for Messiah.

"The borrowings in Messiah, which for the most part come from Handel's own works, are fascinating as they invite us to reconsider the "inspired" relation between the words and music. The music for the joyous chorus "For unto us a Child is born," for example, which seems so perfectly to capture the celebratory words from Isaiah, was originally written for a profane, indeed frivolous, duet for two sopranos castigating "blind Cupid" and "cruel beauty." There are other such examples from Messiah, which in no way diminishes the glory of the music, but does help to explain how Handel could compose so rapidly. It should make us somewhat cautious in talking about the sources of the composer's inspiration."

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6581236

Steven-

It's said that Pagans are born, not made.

"Goodness in a person is not correlated with their specific religion, although it will have an effect on how they express their goodness."

I posted a long time ago on Post Global that there were no "good" or "bad" religions; the good man would find that in his religion which supported his tendencies, and so would the bad man. I need to expand that, for I have found "good" atheists on this forum, and wouldn't want to leave them out. Can't really say I've met any "bad" atheists, but I have run across some obnoxious ones! ;-)

Tonio,
The evidence is experiential, so it is subjective, but the point is that many creative geniuses have said in so many words, "I didn't do that all on my own--I was inspired beyond myself and my own knowledge."

Wiccan:

"Ever read about the "noosphere"?"

I've run across the word, never really engaged with it, though.

"I know what you mean; even as a child when I would read about the Gods and Goddesses it was more like remembering than learning. When you were a child, would the stories of the Christian God just baffle you, while the stories of the Old Ones made sense?"

Yes, and yes.

I do know fine and honorable people for whom the Christian stories and beliefs are important parts of their lives. I don't know how they do that, but there it is. I also know Christians whose mere presence gives me an uncontrollable urge to bathe. And the same can be said of people in my religion, and those of other religions, and those of no religion at all. Goodness in a person is not correlated with their specific religion, although it will have an effect on how they express their goodness.

"Inspiration also a 'cosmic force'? If one chooses to call it that, then yes."

Are you describing a metaphor for some part of the human consciousness, or some actual force that resides in the universe outside of the consciousness? That's the whole issue - any consideration of the latter requires evidence.

Daniel ITLD,
I can see how that particular comment could seem to have been a slam, but I was actually thinking about people who go through the motions of life day after day, maybe try and escape reality by drugs or drinking, the people of whom Thoreau wrote when he said, "we do not ride on the railroad. It rides on us." I shouldn't have said it in the context of my comment to you, and so I apologize again. I don't think of you or anyone whose comments I have read here in this forum in that way (except for maybe two people whose monikers I won't mention).

Tonio,
Inspiration a collaborative effort? Yes, I think so--very much so, and very importantly so. Inspiration also a "cosmic force"? If one chooses to call it that, then yes.

The writer yesterday who cited a brain scientist who had a blood clot that made her have a "one-sided brain" for a period of time, might explain it differently. I personally would explain it differently. But the point is, IMO inspiration does not totally originate in the mind of the person who "creates" or "invents" or "composes" a masterpiece.

I don't think Shakespeare would have attributed his personal creative genius to his own mind working alone. I suppose Einstein did. But many great minds haven't had that perspective on their own creative genius.

Parker

I am not trying to argue with you, but you drop little bombs throughout your posts such as this:

"Some may choose to be stagnant..."

If people do not believe as you do, that does not mean that they have "chosen" to be stagnant.

That is not a very nice attitude to take with people who could say just as bad, or even alot worse about you, and your beliefs.

Parker, no question that everyone seeks their own happiness. Although the questions of seeking happiness or determining the most effective paths to happiness are absolutely valid, those are not the issue. The issue is determining the nature and properties of the physical universe, and pursuing happiness in such ways that do not conflict with that determination.

"Some scientists may think so, but I doubt if every scientist thinks so."

Would you explain? Are you suggesting that most scientists belief in some cosmic force that inspires? While it's possible for such a force to exist, the question of its existence is a scientific matter. Or are you saying that inspiration is a collaborative effort between humans?

Daniel ITLD,
My apology for having misunderstood. I do feel that I can and do examine and discard whatever opinions, ideas, belief structures, even ways of life that others may have defended with all the power of their own persuasion, if those fall short of how my own life experience casts its shadow. So, I suppose each of us is a product of our experiences, but my point is that we can choose those and change those (especially what we read and think about) along the way.

IMO, we aren't static beings, even those who have a strong and stable "belief system." Some may choose to be stagnant in how they live, but I find a newness and a renewed richness to life including more to learn nearly every week, even in the midst of unpleasant realities such as family illnesses and the high cost of gas (meaning a tighter budget).

Parker

If you can freely choose your beliefs, then wouldn't you be able to change beliefs, at will? Wouldn't you be able to become an atheist by mere force of will-power? Or a Musim? Or a Catholic?

But that is not really how it works, is it? You are not as free as you think.

I didn't say nothing about the Big Bang.

I am always amazed at the things people "read" into my comments, which I neither said, implied, nor intended.

"Steven:

In my myth, existence created consciousness, and that all of consciousness, including the gods, are subject to its eternal laws."

Comrade! Brother! (Kisses Steven on both cheeks!)

That was an elegant and eloquent description of my philosophy about this existence. Ever read about the "noosphere"?

"When I heard those old stories about Odin and his family and friends for the first time, my immediate reaction was "Hey, I know them!" That continues to be my reaction. It wasn't like I was being told who they are, it was like being told the names of people I already knew."

I know what you mean; even as a child when I would read about the Gods and Goddesses it was more like remembering than learning. When you were a child, would the stories of the Christian God just baffle you, while the stories of the Old Ones made sense?

Daniel,
I suppose your response was to me. I don't even remotely think the thoughts you seem to have attributed to me. I disagree, though, that you can't own your thoughts or the direction they go. What--are we all just results of the Big Bang, such that the Big Bang made us all the way we are including every thought and thought process? I disagree. But we should part ways here. There are probably other subjects others will want to be discussing here. I've said enough as far as I'm concerned on this subject. I honestly hope your thoughts lead you where you want to be, and happily so.

I "believe" that each person believes according to an inner will, which cannot be coerced by outside force, and which even we cannot control or steer ourselves, but which merely unfolds and develops according to some process, unknown to each of us, and that we each experience our beliefs, rather than picking and choosing them.

I, at least, understand that. You do not seem to realize or comprehend that your belief sysstem is just one among many, which claims to be true above all others; yet, they cannot all be true. This kind of thinking only works when the group is cloistered and cut-off from other believers of other religions; it can only work, in ignorance of others. But who would choose to be ignorant? Would you? I would not.

When you come out of your cloistered and sheltered existence, you must give a little; you must become a little more flexible, in understanding about life, and about what it is to be a human being. You need to see things the way they really are, instead of clinging to your old beliefs, and insisting that there is somethignw wrong with everybody else, if they do not understand you, instead of trying to see the world more realistically, as it is.

Tonio and Daniel ITLD,
Thanks for your responses to my rough-hewn analogy. Each person or each family seeks their own happiness in life. Ultimately, I/we can share with others what "works" for us, but to say "my way is better" is of course so subjective that no one can really say that with authority. (They can take polls that attempt to find which group of people seem to be the most content with life as a group.)

Nonetheless, no amount of chicanery or bad-mouthing will remove the fact that the book I had mentioned that Susan had side-swiped in her essay was published in 1829, can be examined in a scholarly way and stand up to any scrutiny. But people can just ignore it, of course, and be just as well off as they were before they knew such a thing existed. They can "eat what they want to eat." That's what I really like about this life. We're all able to choose our own level of happiness--whatever works for us. Enjoy what works for you, and I'll do the same.

As to the issue of whether inspiration originates from within each mind or from an outside source that "inspires"--I would question whether every scientist in the world would say "there is not such thing as inspiration or creativity or imagination that did not originate in the mind of the person doing the thinking." Some scientists may think so, but I doubt if every scientist thinks so. This is one of the most fundamental differences of philosophy that perhaps explains why the United States has lead the world in inventions over the years. Food for thought, I hope.

"As such His word is true and the highest authority. Yes, that is the assertion or claim. To disbelieve it is to put another claim as a higher authority. But the test is in how any worldview, any claim to truth can make sense of the world. The Christian claim is that no other can."

And it's still just an assertion. You put all this stuff out there and act like it's reason, but when you get to the bottom of it, it's still just an assertion, and I guess you're hoping I won't notice that.
And in the continuation of your attempt, you'll design the definition of this "test" so that only your outcome succeeds, kind of like the bureaucrat who doesn't want to deal with open bidding, making sure his buddy gets the contract. It's dishohest.

"Disagreements come when people try to read into the text something that God has not said or take out of context what He said. You need to understand the text as the Author intend the text to be understood in order to get the Author's intended meaning, not read into the text what you want it to say."

And saying that does nothing to solve the problem, which continues to be unsolvable in practice, which means the problem is not solved. And the reason it's unsolvable is that any attempt to solve it ends up being subjective, despite your assertions to the contrary.

"So what is your religion? Let's examine it and see how it holds up. What are its main beliefs?"

It's called Asatru, the religion of Northern Europe before your guys arrived. As for seeing "how it holds up", does this mean that Peter Huff's subjective evaluation and assertions posing as reason will be the judge? I don't accept you or your assertions as a judge, Peter. And asserting that you're just a humble and honest frontman for your supposedly objective god won't fix the problem. People who deal in the kind of junk you've been posting here are either very foolish or else are anything but honest.

"STEVEN: "The stories from my religion say something to me, mean something to me, have value to me that is hard for me to describe and impossible for me to deny."

That still is the bare minimum and tells me virtually nothing about what you believe."

But when you get down to it, what I've said about my religions is really all you have to say in return about your religion, once we get rid of all the assertions.

If you want to read the myths, the Crossley-Holland anthology is the most accessible thing these days. If you want to read some of the poetry, get yourself a Bellows Edda, but it won't make much sense to you unless you've read the myths first. You can poke around on the web looking for the Nine Noble Virtues if you want to get a feel for the moral space. The book "Our Troth" goes into a lot of detail in its 1000+ pages. My book "Days in Midgard" might be interesting to you as a set of something resembling morality tales. If you see a religion in what you read, fine. Some people do. If you don't, fine, and I don't care.

"Truth is true regardless of whether you or I believe it."

You may have noticed that words often have more than one meaning. Sometimes the differences in meanings are subtle. In this discussion, you will try very hard to pretend this is not so. Your arguments bandy this word about as if it has only one meaning and that you are its executor, all the while using another meaning for yourself whenever it is convenient. No sale! Your fundamental premise is an assertion that has no logical necessity and that doesn't even make a good axiom.

"So what do you base your choice of your religion on, what makes you feel good? You like the sound of Odin's voice?"

When I heard those old stories about Odin and his family and friends for the first time, my immediate reaction was "Hey, I know them!" That continues to be my reaction. It wasn't like I was being told who they are, it was like being told the names of people I already knew. The stories from your religion are just stories to me, and not very good ones, but I won't tell you you shouldn't like them. People are different.

"Since you are asserting that your religion is equally valid let's put it to the test."

Which you will design so that only your religion can "pass". How stupid do you think I am? That trick may work with some people, but it won't work here. Once again, Peter, I do not accept you or your assertions as judge. You have not demonstrated the logical or moral qualities for that job.

As an example of your test-making skills, you posted some "qualifications" that supposedly make your god the right one. Let's see here: "personal", "triune", "all knowing". What is it about these things that a) make them known beyond the assertions of your book, and b) make them requirements for being the only legitimate god? The "triune" thing is especially entertaining in this regard. If having more than one god is important, Asatru has about a dozen major gods and a boatload of minor ones. I can even tell you the name of the boat. Clearly, Asatru must be better. And as for "all knowing", this creates logical problems that your religion has been trying to squirm out of since its inception, without any real success.

"STEVEN: "Don't even open your mouth to say that I must not be doing it right. I didn't have to do anything other than listen to know Odin and his family and friends. If you don't know them, I don't care, and neither do they: my gods are neither jealous nor insecure, and they don't need to have everyone in their camp."

Sounds like an easy out to me. Censor others, avoid answering any difficult questions."

Censor? How about "Don't waste my time with your subjective assertions." And I haven't avoided anything other than agreeing to drink your kool-aid.

"In other words you are saying I have no right to question and test your beliefs and your truth claims."

I'm saying your truth claims have to do either with reasoning that is obviously bogus, or with subjective assertions that you pose as necessarily objectively true. I won't ask you to excuse me while I laugh, because I'm going to laugh whether you like it or not.

""Right" is a moral judgment."

Morality is a code of values accepted by choice. Your morality is fixated on an assertion that that which your perfect god made is very badly flawed, and only "redeemable" if he admits being to being what his creator created him to be: evil. And then he's supposed to bow down and adore this guy that botched his engineering work so thoroughly. Furthermore, your morality insists that we're all better off dead. And I'm supposed to think this kind of thinking is "right"? Fat chance.

"What is your standard for right?"

My standard for "right" is my life in a knowable existence, where I acknowledge the existence of others in that same context.

"Is it Odin? Why is he the standard. Do you believe he is the ultimate reference point, absolute and objective? Let's examine your myth."

Very simply, Robert: in your myth, some eternal consciousness created existence, where that existence is subject to the whims of that consciousness. In my myth, existence created consciousness, and that all of consciousness, including the gods, are subject to its eternal laws.

Parker, while the "truth fruit" is a good analogy, it doesn't quite address the real issue about common human experience. To the best of our knowledge, such truths have no source other than the experience itself. Any idea about "divine providence" having any role in creating truths or scripture is an idea about the physical universe, and thus should be subject to scientific scrutiny. The hypothesis that divine providence inspired the writing gains us nothing, since the alternative hypothesis already adequately explains the existence of the writing.

Parker wrote:

"Suppose there is such a thing as a fruit tree that bears "truth fruit" that tastes really good and is very nourishing when eaten."

I do not think the basis of this argument makes much sense. I am not getting it.

It is alot to expect that non-Mormon people would believe the Book of Mormon.

The "truth fruit" of reality:

Moroni was a paranormal "pretty, horn-blowing thingie".

Joe Smith was a con man.

Mormonism is a business cult which has a religion as a front.

Awhile back, Chris Everett said:

"We're not in a purpose-built world of ultimate justice and eternal redemption, as tempting as those beliefs are."

I think that this sort of belief has a great deal in common with worship of stone idols, carved to look like men. It is a simple, non-thoughtful metaphor of all that we know, magnified into God proportions, greater than man, but essentially, very man-like.

Belief in the paranormal, psycic effects, and magic is a sort of short-cut to explain things without having to think any thoughts at all, but only to experience a reaction of "wonder."

E Favorite,
I had not seen your reply until this morning as I had a family reunion (enjoyable fun) last evening.

I'll answer with an analogy that I think is consistent with the Book of Mormon:

Suppose there is such a thing as a fruit tree that bears "truth fruit" that tastes really good and is very nourishing when eaten. (Don't conjure up an image of the garden of Eden--that's not where this analogy is headed.) It is near other fruit trees that have on them some fairly good, less nourishing fruit.

On that "truth fruit" tree there is delicious low-hanging fruit, easily picked and enjoyed. On that same tree there is also higher up more difficult to reach fruit that is perhaps more deeply nourishing as it sustains for longer.

Shakespeare, Susan Jacoby, Mark Twain, Thoreau, Emerson, Whitman, Lincoln, Tolstoy, even Darwin (whose essay style I love) in their writings produce some wonderful "truth fruit" that is enjoyable because it is the fruit of common human experience.

Was it inspiration that lead to the writing of the words on the page by such and thousands of other authors, which we can now enjoy? I think so--I don't think inspiration excludes "itself" from any "seeker after the fruit of common human experience". Some of those authors are/were able to write more vividly and exquisitely, because perhaps they brought more talent and perhaps also more human anguish experience to the writing of it.

As to the higher-hanging fruit, that is also there for the picking and eating and relishing and getting nourished. You know where I'm headed with this part of the analogy. I don't think divine providence dictated the writing of scripture per se, but inspired the writing through shared common human experience. Some of that writing has many shades and layers of meaning, to be repeatedly enjoyed and "learn something new" during a tenth or twentieth reading.

There are also other fruit trees in that analogy. Who put them there? People with good or perhaps not so good intentions. The fruit may taste OK, but the eaters of it may not realize what they are missing just a tree away.

Have a really good day.

Hi E-Favorite, Mr. Mark & Chris Everett,

Please excuse my delay in replying to you posts since time is very limited today for these matters. I will respond either tomorrow or Thursday, the Lord willing.

Arminius I also have some thoughts for you.

Hi Steven,

STEVEN: "I am aware that it is the belief of your religion that it is absolute, ultimate, and objective."

The Bible claims that God has revealed Himself to man in three main ways, through His creation - what has been made - through His Son and through His spoken word preserved in written form as He has interacted in history. As such His word is true and the highest authority. Yes, that is the assertion or claim. To disbelieve it is to put another claim as a higher authority. But the test is in how any worldview, any claim to truth can make sense of the world. The Christian claim is that no other can.

STEVEN: "This, in spite of the fact that followers of your religion can't seem to agree on anything but its most general features, if even that."

Disagreements come when people try to read into the text something that God has not said or take out of context what He said. You need to understand the text as the Author intend the text to be understood in order to get the Author's intended meaning, not read into the text what you want it to say.

STEVEN: "My religion is based on some old stories out of Northern Europe."

So what is your religion? Let's examine it and see how it holds up. What are its main beliefs?

STEVEN: "The stories from my religion say something to me, mean something to me, have value to me that is hard for me to describe and impossible for me to deny."

That still is the bare minimum and tells me virtually nothing about what you believe.

STEVEN: "The stories from your religion do not. In this regard, my religion is true and yours is not."

Truth is true regardless of whether you or I believe it. It cannot be anything but true. The question is is your assertion true that your religion is true. How about revealing more of what you believe.

STEVEN: "It's not that I don't know your religion, its stories, or its claims: I'm quite well educated in that regard. Your religion just doesn't do it for me."

So what do you base your choice of your religion on, what makes you feel good? You like the sound of Odin's voice?

Since you are asserting that your religion is equally valid let's put it to the test.

STEVEN: "Don't even open your mouth to say that I must not be doing it right. I didn't have to do anything other than listen to know Odin and his family and friends. If you don't know them, I don't care, and neither do they: my gods are neither jealous nor insecure, and they don't need to have everyone in their camp."

Sounds like an easy out to me. Censor others, avoid answering any difficult questions. In other words you are saying I have no right to question and test your beliefs and your truth claims. When you make moral statements are you not willing to back them up? "Right" is a moral judgment. What is your standard for right? Is it Odin? Why is he the standard. Do you believe he is the ultimate reference point, absolute and objective? Let's examine your myth.

STEVEN: "As one American to another..."

Actually I'm Canadian.

test

Arminius,

I agree that there are two ultimate reference points - the other being consciousness. As Descartes said, "I think, therefore I am." Ironically, in order to expand existence to include sensory input, he had to posit the existence of a God to guarantee that life wasn't just some illusory dream.

I have great sympathy for Buddhism, which sees consciousness as the ground of being, but I'm not willing to make that leap. Consciousneess SEEMS like the ground of being under both hypotheses, so the fact that we experience everything WITHIN consciousness doesn't advocate for either position.

I understand how cathartic it must be to live within an organizing principal that sees purpose in everything; that sees both the joyous and horrifying as the product of some transcendent, benevolent intent. I also understand the near inevitablility of shifting to this perspective when the horrifying does come. But when the question is asked, "how does this intention influence the physical world," we have been forced to retreat from the world of miracles to a world of demonstrated physical law, and there is really no place left for divine intent to apply its magic lever.

More for Peter Huff, who says that the Christian God is personal, triune in nature and essence, all knowing, a spirit and the precondition for truth. This is Peter Huff's true God, much better than the Gods of other religions. I'm not sure why, but so says Peter Huff.

So Peter, if you learn of a religion whose God has all these same characteristics, would that God be true as well, better than those other gods and equal to yours?

Dear Chris Everett -

Good response to Peter Huff.

Unfortunately, Peter asserts that belief in gods is "objective," when objectivity - being evidence based - cannot really enter into a belief in gods, for which there isn't a shred of evidence.

When objectivity itself is determined - as in Peter's case - by pure conjecture, then nothing of value or "truth" may ensue.

A house of cards is still a house of cards, even if the dealer insists that the deuces are aces.

Chris,

Ah, yes, the age-old debate over the absolute, objective, ultimate reference point.

And here I am, stuck in the middle again. As the rock song says, "Clowns to the left of me, Jokers to the right...". Not that you are either a joker or a clown.

So, then, the middle view is TWO ultimate reference points, both nature and God. That is my viewpoint; neither one cancels the other, neither one contradicts the other.

Difficult to explain? Hell, I'm still trying to apply words to it. But science, in my view and in the view of others, does not contradict religion. Nor does religion, with a proper viewpoint, contradict science. Of course, this depends on viewing religion as not inerrant, and viewing science as unable to directly disprove religion. To me, two parallel paths leading to the same truth. Non-provable. No problem with me, but it sure raises the hackles of those on either side. Lots of fun sometimes, but there can be unfortunate anger. Oh, well.

Hi, Parker -- I pretty sure you're not saying that The Merchant of Venice is on a par with the Book of Mormon, even though there's wisdom in both (and of course in many other books, as well).

The Book of Mormon is considered to be divinely inspired, is it not? While "Merchant" is just a well-written work of fiction. While there is some question in some circles about its authorship, no one suggests that God had a hand in it.

It's the intent of a book that would make it a hoax - not its content or writing style.

Hi, Steven T Abell, you said,

"The occasional misspelling is a fact of life. I reread my posts a few times before honking the button, then am horrified to see what slipped past me."

It's very nice to know that I am not alone.

Peter Huff:

"Without an absolute, objective, ultimate reference point for truth it is all a matter of conjecture and subjective opinion"

I agree. And nature is the absolute, objective, ultimate reference point. Physical evidence is that part of nature to which we have access, hence the evidence-based scientific method as the legitimate means of discerning truth.

"You can carry that idea to morals and ethics too"

Wrong. Ethical rulemaking is the codification of social consensus that represents a balance between freedom and a shared sense of conscience. The sense of conscience is shared because we are all human beings. It's not absolute, any more than taste in food is absolute.

"the first evidence I would give is that without a final, objective, ultimate, absolute, all-knowing reference point - God - nothing can be known for certain."

You're begging the question by asserting that God is the necessary reference point. I say it's nature. And who says that epistemic certainty is necessary, achievable or even important?

"God is the precondition for truth, and not any god like the pagans believe, but the God of Christianity."

No, God is no precondition for truth, only an objective reference point. Nature. Your assertion about the God of Christianity is totally gratuitous - says who? Balderdash.

"'Now this is eternal life: that they may know You, the only TRUE God, and Jesus Christ, whom You have sent.' (John 17:3) This is an important point for it opposes all other claims of gods and sees them as nothing more that man made idols, inventions of the mind. The ONLY TRUE GOD makes all other gods false by definition."

Now you've lost all credibility (not that you had any in the first place). Bible quotations aren't evidence for anything - there's alot of crap in alot of different books. Just because your mind is captive to this particular book doesn't make it true. I hope you can see that when you base your "truth" on the Bible you're kicking the stool out from under any claim to objectivity or universality and falling into an infinite loop of circular reasoning. ALL "holy books" claim truth. That doesn't make them true.

Face it. You're a Bible Beater. That's the long and the short of it. You can kind of recite learned "arguments" that support your belief, but those arguments are bogus. You believe because you believe.

Oops! Did it again. 5:09 is mine.

Robert: The occasional misspelling is a fact of life. I reread my posts a few times before honking the button, then am horrified to see what slipped past me.

Peter Huff, you're a nut. By the way, my God is Quadroon in nature, yours is not. Ha! I beat you by a roon!

Peter Huff:

First you say: "Just this for starters: Without an absolute, objective, ultimate reference point for truth it is all a matter of conjecture and subjective opinion, the question is WHOSE?"

And then you say "So to recap, the first evidence I would give is that without a final, objective, ultimate, absolute, all-knowing reference point - God - nothing can be known for certain. This ultimate reference, the final authority cannot be any god, for they all contradict each other in what is known and revealed and believed of them. The Christian God is personal, the god of the "New Age" is impersonal; the Christian God in triune in nature and essence, the god of Islam is not; the Christian God is all knowing, the gods of pagan myths are not; the Christian God is a Spirit who calls His worshipers to worship Him in spirit and in truth which requires that they understand Him as He has revealed Himself, as He actually is."

To which I reply: Sez you!

You have made a bald assertion and backed it up with more assertions. If you happen to buy this, that's your choice. But don't pose this as reason, because it isn't.

Hi Steven,

Sorry for mis-spelling your name - a typo. I will reply to your post tomorrow since I am out of time.

Hi Anonymous,

THE VAIL OF ANONYMITY: "Please give an example of an objective truth that is unique to your religion, along with the objective evidence that supports it."

Just this for starters: Without an absolute, objective, ultimate reference point for truth it is all a matter of conjecture and subjective opinion, the question is WHOSE? How do you make sense of subjective opinion when each one claims that his/her subjective opinion is true? Truth is not relative, it does not change in the sense that it is true for one and false for another. The claims there is a God and there is not a God cannot both logically be true for both state opposite beliefs. You can carry that idea to morals and ethics too. We can get into that.

We both presuppose certain things to be true when we form our worldviews. The ultimate question is in making sense of what you believe.

So to recap, the first evidence I would give is that without a final, objective, ultimate, absolute, all-knowing reference point - God - nothing can be known for certain. This ultimate reference, the final authority cannot be any god, for they all contradict each other in what is known and revealed and believed of them. The Christian God is personal, the god of the "New Age" is impersonal; the Christian God in triune in nature and essence, the god of Islam is not; the Christian God is all knowing, the gods of pagan myths are not; the Christian God is a Spirit who calls His worshipers to worship Him in spirit and in truth which requires that they understand Him as He has revealed Himself, as He actually is.

God is the precondition for truth, and not any god like the pagans believe, but the God of Christianity.

"Now this is eternal life: that they may know You, the only TRUE God, and Jesus Christ, whom You have sent." (John 17:3)

This is an important point for it opposes all other claims of gods and sees them as nothing more that man made idols, inventions of the mind. The ONLY TRUE GOD makes all other gods false by definition.

God has disclosed that He is truth and in order to know truth we must think His thoughts after Him, discover the Laws He has put in place, see the creation in His light, in His understanding, for every fact and every aspect of every fact is known to Him and in His light we see light, without Him we walk in darkness (Psalm 36:9; John 1:5; John 3:19-21, especially verse 21).

Now, since God has disclosed Himself as the truth you can go on His authority or you can go on your own limited self knowledge, but the point is that to disbelieve God's Word is to set yourself above it, becoming a supposed higher authority and thus become your own ultimate reference point, your own subjective standard of truth. Either you accept His authority, His standard, His truth as true, or you make yourself that standard. In putting yourself above Him let's see how you can make sense of this world. Are you game?

My objective evidence is the Word of God, the Bible, the highest authority, the standard for truth.

E Favorite,
Thanks for sharing your viewpoint. I enjoy the "Merchant of Venice" each time I read it, and find what I would call "common human truths to live by" in it, such as "the quality of mercy" passage spoken by Portia. Those "common human truths" are embedded within a dramatic story line and first person narrative, which provides a richer form of learning and feeling enriched by the experience of reading or watching the play than if the work were merely didactic.

The Book of Mormon is similar in those regards, except that it is often more complex in that there are editors within the context of the broad narrative who occasionally share their perspectives while they are at the same time compiling the stories of the people whose inscriptions they are reading and condensing. I think a diligent scholar would be hard-pressed to research it without wondering "how could such a complex book be dictated by a young farmer and written by scribes as they heard his dictation, without having any of the previous passages read back to him, day after day?"

Complex characterizations, unusual word patterns, passionate speech often from father to children or within a community gathering, are what one finds throughout the Book of Mormon. It does not suggest any exclusivity as you had surmised or one might expect if it had been a hoax. But enough--thanks for sharing your viewpoint. I hope your family is all well.

Hi, Parker - Nice to know I’m on your mind. I wanted to comment on one thing you said:

“Though Susan attempted it, the Book of Mormon cannot be explained away by calling it a hoax. That is like calling what Shakespeare (or de Vere) wrote a hoax. It is there for the reading.”

Let’s defuse it a bit and instead of referring strictly to the Book of Mormon, call it any book that makes a claim that its contents are revealed wisdom and strictly factual information as presented by the author(s) with no outside evidence necessary. Readers are expected to believe what’s in the books and guide their lives by it.

This applies to several holy books I know of. It does not apply to any of Shakespeare’s plays. They are not presented this way and are not received this way. If some people started believing that “The Merchant of Venice” was written by God or Shakespeare inspired by God and that every word it in had deep meaning that must believed in order to live a good life and be accepted by God, most of us would think that very strange. But in my opinion, the people would believed that would be very much like believers in other religions, in which each group thinks their holy book has the true path to God.
While they may respect other people’s right to believe as they wish, they at some level think all those others are wrong and they alone are right.

Personally, I don’t know if “Hoax” is the best word to describe so-called holy books, because that implies an intentional deception. Some religions may have started that way, but certainly many started simply as stories and myths that eventually became viewed as factual.

"I was questioning whether people who have religious experiences were comparing them to sensory observation, like having another sense."

The brain is a complex machine and from what I understand we harly ever experience the full potential of the right hemisphere of the brain which can be achieved through meditation, relaxation and some form of deep prayers.

Neurological researcher Jill Bolte Taylor suffered a stroke which left her unable to use the left side of her brain. She had a chance to study her brain from inside out and tells the whole experience in her book: my stroke of insight. When the chatter from the left side of her brain was shut down she experienced the total use of the right side of her brain.

You can listen to her moving TED lecture here:

http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/jill_bolte_taylor_s_powerful_stroke_of_insight.html

She also talks about her experience in an interview on NPR's fresh air.

She says that "feeling detached from normal reality, I felt as though I was observing myself in motion, as in the playback of a memory, as if my conscious mind was suspended somewhere between my normal reality and some esoteric space....

The harder I tried to concentrate, the more fleeting my ideas seemed to be. Instead of finding answers and information, I met a growing sense of peace. As the language centers in my left hemisphere grew increasingly silent, my consciousness soared into an all-knowingness, a "being at one" with the universe, if you will. In a compelling sort of way, it felt like the good road home and I liked it."

Somewhere else she says: "How many brain scientists have been able to study the brain from the inside out? I've gotten as much out of this experience of losing my left mind as I have in my entire academic career."

"STEVEM: "Fine. That is the belief of your religion. My religion has different beliefs."

That is right and both cannot be true for they contradict each other. Where does your truth come from? Is it absolute, ultimate and objective? Let's compare."

If what you mean by "truth" in this context is "absolute, ultimate, and objective", well...(bursts out laughing).

I am aware that it is the belief of your religion that it is absolute, ultimate, and objective. This, in spite of the fact that followers of your religion can't seem to agree on anything but its most general features, if even that. For an excellent and short third-party discussion of this phenomenon, see Chief Red Jacket's Message to the Missionary. Yes, I know about your insistence that only your religion is true. My religion has different beliefs.

My religion is based on some old stories out of Northern Europe. Your religion is based on some old stories out of the Middle East. The stories from my religion say something to me, mean something to me, have value to me that is hard for me to describe and impossible for me to deny. The stories from your religion do not. In this regard, my religion is true and yours is not. I do not expect you to have the same reaction to my religion, and I'm sure it's civil and appropriate for you to return the favor regarding me and your religion.

It's not that I don't know your religion, its stories, or its claims: I'm quite well educated in that regard. Your religion just doesn't do it for me. Don't even open your mouth to say that I must not be doing it right. I didn't have to do anything other than listen to know Odin and his family and friends. If you don't know them, I don't care, and neither do they: my gods are neither jealous nor insecure, and they don't need to have everyone in their camp.

As one American to another, go ahead and believe in your religion. Meanwhile, I will go ahead and believe in mine.

Peter Huff,

Please give an example of an objective truth that is unique to your religion, along with the objective evidence that supports it.

Hi Steven T Abell,

ME: "We have a more sure word than mere experience (2 Peter 1:19-21)."

STEVEM: "Fine. That is the belief of your religion. My religion has different beliefs."

That is right and both cannot be true for they contradict each other. Where does your truth come from? Is it absolute, ultimate and objective? Let's compare.

TTWSYF ------ fairy tales can be a beautiful thing. Especially when told with enthusiasm and conviction - the sign of a true shanache. There is always a lesson or two to be learned from great mythology.

Chris, certainly "supernatural" is an inadequate word. Some believers use "metaphysical" instead, but that word has other associations that aren't relevant here. I was using "supernatural" to refer to assertions about the existence of things that cannot be detected empirically.

You're absolutely right about standard of knowledge and about testable assertions. However, we can't assume that advocates for scientifically untestable assertions about the physical universe seek to deliberately deceive others. Many advocates appear to honestly believe in their assertions. Most such assertions seem to be misguides assumptive leaps as attempts to overcome gaps in knowledge.

Tonio:

"I was questioning whether people who have religious experiences were comparing them to sensory observation, like having another sense."

I seem to have wandered outside of your original question. Sorry.

The essence of communication is the concept of "common". That which we do not have in common communicates poorly, if at all. The basic assumption is that, barring some accident, we share at least our abilities to perceive and to reason about those perceptions. Anything beyond that is in "caveat emptor" territory.

TTWSYFAMDGGAHJMJ:

I thought it was a very lovely story, and you tell it so well, with such enthusiasm.

Tonio:

"Certainly it's possible for supernatural objects or phenomena to exist."

Please explain. What is "supernatural"? Doesn't a thing's existence necessarily imply it's being part of nature? Or do you posit some additional criterion, such as being amenable to mathematical modeling, for something to be natural? Is free-will a supernatural idea, since it can't be modeled (if it could, it wouldn't be "free"). What about quantum mechanics? Does it describe a semi-supernatural world, since it's predictions are only statistical?

No, the word "supernatural" is a nothing more than a smokescreen for hiding the ill-foundedness of naive ideas. Something is "supernatural" when it has no basis in objective fact, when it exists only in the minds of believers. In other words, "supernatural" is synonomous with "nonsense".

Of course there's alot about nature we don't know, and alot we experience that we can't yet, or possibly ever, explain. But no matter what the proposition, the same standard of knowledge applies. If a proposition makes testable assertions (prayer, esp, astrology, scriptural infallibility, miracles, etc...) then it is scientific, and any honest person invested in the proposition will be making honest efforts to demonstrate its truth using the methods of science. If they're not, the question is WHY NOT? Because the advocate is a charlatan.

What distinguishes say, Maxwell's equations from astrological tables? They both make predictions about how things will behave. But Maxwell's equations PAN OUT. If they didn't, you wouldn't be reading this right now. Astrological predictions DON'T pan out, at least no more than random chance would predict. In fact, why do we even HAVE Maxwell's equations? Because they are THAT WHICH PANS OUT. This is their only meaning, their only value, their only "truth". They were brought into existence for the sole purpose of explaining the evidence, and they do. What do "supernatural" explanations explain? Nothing.

IN REPLY TO (IRT)
SUSAN JACOBY
"ARE CHRISTIANITY AND THE SCRIPTURES FABRICATIONS?"

ANS:
Are the Scriptures and Christianity fabrications?

“In the Old Testament, considered not as an inspired book, but merely as a book having historical value, we find detailed the marvelous dealings of God with a particular nation to whom He repeatedly reveals Himself; we read of miracles wrought in their favor and as proofs of the truth of the revelation He makes.

We find the most sublime teaching and the repeated announcement of God's desire to save the world from sin and its consequences.

And, more than all, we find throughout the pages of this book a series of hints, now obscure, now clear, of some wondrous person who is to come as the world's savior.

We find it asserted at one time that He is man, at others that He is God Himself.

When we turn to the New Testament we find that it records the birth, life, and death of One Who, while clearly man, also claimed to be God, and Who proved the truth of His claim by His whole life—miracles, teachings, and death, and finally by His triumphant resurrection.

We find, moreover, that He founded a Church which should, so He said, continue to the end of time, which should serve as the repository of His teaching, and should be the means of applying to all men the fruits of the redemption He had wrought.

When we come to the subsequent history of this Church, we find it speedily spreading everywhere, and this in spite of its humble origin, its unworldly teaching, and the cruel persecution, which it meets at the hands of the rulers of this world.

And as the centuries pass, we find this Church battling against heresies schisms, and the sins of her own people-nay, of her own rulers.

Yet continuing, we see ever the same, promulgating ever the same doctrine, and putting before men the same mysteries of the life, death, and resurrection of the world's Savior.

Moreover, it was He Who had, so She taught, gone before to prepare a home for those who while on earth should have believed in Him and fought the good fight.

But, if the history of the Church, since New-Testament times thus wonderfully confirms, the New Testament itself, and if the New Testament so marvelously completes the Old Testament, these books must really contain what they claim to contain. Viz. they contain Divine revelation.

And more than all, that Person’s life and death were so minutely foretold in the Old Testament, and Whose story, as told in the New Testament, so perfectly corresponds with its prophetic delineation in the Old Testament. Therefore, it must be what He claimed to be, viz. the Son of God.

His work, therefore, must be Divine. The Church that He founded must also be Divine. Therefore, since the Church is the repository and guardian of His teachings, it must be Devine.

Indeed, we can truly say that for every truth of Christianity, in which we believe Christ Himself is our testimony. We believe in Him because the Divinity He claimed rests upon the concurrent testimony. [That testimony is] of His miracles, His prophecies His personal character, the nature of His doctrine. [More so, we believe because of] the marvelous propagation of His teachings.

[Thus, it has came about, even] in spite of its running counter to flesh and blood, the united testimony of thousands of martyrs. [And there is] the stories of countless saints who for His sake have led heroic lives.

The history of the Church herself, since the Crucifixion, and, perhaps more remarkable than any, the history of the papacy from St. Peter to Benedict XVI. show Her validity.

These [Her] testimonies are unanimous; they all point in one direction, they are of every age, they are clear and simple, and are within the grasp of the humblest intelligence.

And, as the Vatican Council has said, 'the Church herself, is, by her marvelous propagation, her wondrous sanctity, her inexhaustible fruitfulness in good works, her Catholic unity, and her enduring stability, a great and perpetual motive of credibility and an irrefragable witness to her Divine commission" (Const. Dei Filius)."

Steven T Abell,

You might be interested in the book "Kluge: The Haphazard Construction of the Human Mind", by Gary Marcus. I haven't read it yet but it is clearly a necessary approach to human consciousness.

"And if it's not a part of the physical universe, well, that's the only one I know and the only one I think there is. Otherwise, what does 'existence' mean?"

Steven, would you explain? I was questioning whether people who have religious experiences were comparing them to sensory observation, like having another sense.

Parker, thanks for your kind words. If we don't assume that your "experiment" was consciously designed, your point about belief systems is a good one.

Humans live in two separate universes. The first is the physical universe, the world of sensory data and empiricism. The second is the human experience, the consciousness, the world of thoughts and feelings. Although the latter has a biological basis, what matters is that humans perceive these universes as separate.

Belief systems apply only to the human universe. They are vehicles for humans to interpret and reflect upon their own experiences and perhaps learn from the experiences of others. As long as a belief system respects the division between these two universes, and sticks to the human experience, the system does not require scientific proofs. But any assertion by a belief system about some property of the physical universe implies that the nature of an object or phenomenon can be ascertained by belief alone.

Certainly it's possible for supernatural objects or phenomena to exist. However, we cannot assume that a supernatural has anything to do with the human experience. It's possible for supernatural beings to exist who are indifferent to human existence, or even unaware of it. Or it's possible for supernatural entities to exist that aren't even conscious.

Of course science doesn't currently understand everything about the universe, including its origin and the origin of life. There is nothing wrong with having and acknowledging that void. The problem arises when belief systems attempt to fill the void. Those origins are scientific questions and not belief questions. Science is about the "how" of the universe. Belief should not be about the "why" since that word is simply a restatement of how. Instead, belief systems should be about the "now what" of human existence. Meaning that science is about "how did I get here" and belief systems should be about "what can I be" or "what can I do with my life." Science can address where one has been, while belief systems should be about where one is going.

IN REPY TO (IRT)
PETER HUFF
ABOUT LEGIONS OF ANGELS:

ANS:
This comes from a holy woman who supposedly has visions of the then Three Mysteries of the Rosary, The Joyful, The Sorrowful, and The Glorious.

In her book, she gives elaborate and vivid pictures of what she sees. They seem very reasonable except for one thing she said, and that is that God put a soul into Hell and had to bring it out. Well that has nearly debunked the whole book, because God does not make mistakes.

However, in saying the mysteries of the Rosary, it seemed propitious to read her visions that help one to visualize the mysteries. Other than that one thing about Hell the rest of Her visions seem to be in accord of what might have happened in these mysteries.

Still, I cannot vouch for what this visionary says as being true, but it would seem to be reasonable that the Queen of Angels and Saints, as Mary has been named by the Church, that God would not let anything happen to His Mother and that the Angels would hover over her and protect her.

I believe the Catholic bookstore, from which I got the book, still sells it, but I haven’t been able to get there to buy it. If I find the name of it, I’ll give it to you.

IN REPLY TO (IRT)
SUSAN JACOBY
“WITHOUT GOD, HIS MYSTERIES ARE A CONUNDRUM.”

ANS:
Nice try to mix together the beliefs of Paganism with the Truth of Christianity, then claim they are all the same. It makes it a lot simpler to make the errors of the pagans the errors of Christianity.

On the contrary, the problem is Christianity is the antithesis of all pagan and non-Christian beliefs. There is no witchcraft, no voodoo, no awaiting virgins, no ghost, and no reincarnation in Christianity.

You ridicule the mysteries of Christianity because you deny there is a God. No one can understand Christianity without understanding who and what God is.

Aristotle solved the problem that there is a God from Reason. To deny God is to deny one’s own reason, and agnosticism and atheism (A/A) does just that. Therefore, A/A is irrational.

Now to debunk the irrationality of paganism makes it simple to debunk Christianity if, as you claim, there is no difference. That’s another irrational remark you make because there is a stark difference between the two.

Let’s ask the question, “Why had the USSR and now Russia, China, and all the Middle East, why Nazi Germany, why East Berlin were and are historically a cauldron of social turmoil?”

Iran has an exhaustible supply of fuel to vitalize its economy but its leaders' primary objective is war. Russia has more resources than America and yet the country is ravaged by social unrest, as is the Middle East. Why is that so? They have no God to trust in.

Lebanon was the vacation capitol of the world and it is now in a social din. Why have these countries been visited by the Four Horsemen of Apocalypse, famine, pestilence, war and death? One of two reasons, they either have the wrong God or they have no God, a.k.a. A/A.

A/A deny the events that have been unfolded before their very eyes, and they insist that the Old and New Testament are fabrications of the Truth. They rely on Science as the source of all knowledge until science rebukes them.

Hence, they deny the “conceived” is human in face of the most renowned scientists in the world who say it is human. The antagonists can’t explain how matter can cause spirituality, nor explain free will.

Christianity has historically proven its success by its fruits; Paganism has proven its failures by its fruits. Thus, the more a nation is in accord with the Christian principles and beliefs, the more proportionate is the order of its society. The less a nation is in accord with Christianity, the less is its social order.

Why? Man by nature is a social animal. Therefore, society is made for man. Any society that rebukes the nature of man is anti-social. Man has innate rights that all societies must recognize; they are our inalienable rights, given to man by God.

If there is no God, then human rights are at the whim of man. So proclaimed our Supreme Court when it violated the inalienable Right to Life for the unborn by usurping the authority of God’s Natural Law. No other institution has existed that defends the dignity and sanctity of man than the Catholic Church, none.

Rights don’t come from matter. Animals don’t have rights; man gives them their rights by respecting God and his creation. Creation, or the Universe, is given to man by God to use as a means to man’s final end. Destroy it and destroy the means to God.

Thus, it is written that man increase and multiply and go out and fill the earth and subdue it. God entrusted man with the dominion over all its creatures (Gen.1:27cf.).

Consequently, A/A claim that the State is the sole author of rights, not man and not God because there is no God for them.

That has led to the ignominies of the destruction of man, with such entities as Communism, Materialism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Fascism, Shintoism, and all the baggage that Paganism carries with it.

Christianity has grown because it represents the Truth and Paganism has stayed entrenched in discord and confusion, because it opposes the Truth. Its only success it when it mirrors the ideology of Christianity.

The A/A, since they no not God, cannot discern the mysteries of God who manifest them through his Church. The Church is the visible representation of God. God makes Himself known through His Church, which is both human and Divine. When God's Church speaks in its teachings, we hear the voice of God.

He speaks to man through the His visible Church in which he distributes his graces and the gifts of His Divinity. Hence, the A/A, who choose to deny God, only sees a material Church and, without a belief in God, God and His mysteries becomes an enigma to them.

In their, disarray the A/A strike out at belief in God, because, without God, they have no answer to their strife, disappointments, suffering and finally death on earth. Consequently, is a conundrum to them and suicide becomes an option in the throes of suffering for them, an option that is quickly becoming the major cause of death in America.

Parker, Parker, Parker,

Again, your life revolves around one "pretty, talking, horn blowing, fictional/paranormal thingie". This does not bother you????

Then there is the author of said Book of Mormon, the con man, Joe Smith to add additional credence problems to your beliefs.

All the "niceties" of the world will not change that.

Susan Jacoby, Tonio, Pam, E Favorite, Mark, Yo Yo, Chris, also Arminius,

I care about each of you in a personal way. Each time I think I am making or have made "one final comment" I find that I still think about you and have the wish inside of my thinking processes that I could reach you to allow for your own thinking to be slightly modified. Yet I realize that each person in this world is entitled, indeed better off by thinking for themselves. So what I write is only an attempt to persuade, not a desire to argue or to "win you over" to a different way of thinking.

This world is an amazing "experiment" in its allowance for every sort of belief system without ultimate "proofs" for which of those belief systems is sustainable by such "proofs". I think it's an amazingly successfully designed experiment.

Anyway, I do care about each of you. I hope you can feel that I do, and that I'm not like Spidey in how I regard you in any remote similarity.

Though Susan attempted it, the Book of Mormon cannot be explained away by calling it a hoax. That is like calling what Shakespeare (or de Vere) wrote a hoax. It is there for the reading.

Mark,
I associate each week with profound thinkers from many of the professions and from many walks of life. For you to say that my life is made the poorer by such associations is a bit of a stretch. You might want to try a different justification strategy. Some of those professionals fly to many parts of the world aiding in humanitarian causes, so your comments about "you could be helping the poor" recede into blathering for me when I read such. Many churches do a lot of helping in this world. I realize many atheists also do such helping, and I appreciate that.

All the best to each of you. Have a good day.

Steven T Abell wrote " Then you live in a very small mathematical world...The preferred techniques for such problems these days are genetic algorithms, which are patterned after analogies with DNA and evolution."

If that is the kind of math world you're talking about, Im out of it. Evolution is not a science. What you pertain to as "hack job" is where your world really belongs. First, you stated that biochemistry is a "hack job" and now you're saying that your science is based on "DNA analogies" and "genetic algorithm".

Good if you guys have deep knowledge about it. Create a brain first from scratch before you guys claim that you have CRACKED the analogies in DNA.

I won't be amazed if you guys will soon proclaim that you have the genes of Spiderman mapped out.

***

You wrote "Space travel and computers were once straight from the comic books."

That's not the comic books Im referring to. It's Goofy's comic books.

2:03 was me. Sorry.

Peter Huff:

"We have a more sure word than mere experience (2 Peter 1:19-21)."

Fine. That is the belief of your religion. My religion has different beliefs.

Spiderman:

"Steven T Abell, I can't believe an "engineer" can say such things. Maybe you're really teaching philosophy."

And maybe you're just in denial.

By the way: what's your name?

"In Differential Calculus, you won't escape the words "maxima" and "minima". Those words are not used in any other math branches."

Then you live in a very small mathematical world.

"Calculus is a unique way for solving problems. It's NOT just another way but in many cases, it's the only way or method to solve a specific problem."

So what's your point? There are also very practical problems, particularly having to do with maximization/minimization, that calculus is powerless to solve. The preferred techniques for such problems these days are genetic algorithms, which are patterned after analogies with DNA and evolution. They are very effective.

"To say that the brain was just an "accidental" resulting program from millions of programmers who never knew their goal seems like straight from the comic books. Try telling that to programmers and observe their faces how they would react to such statement. Im sure they would look at each other and SMILE."

Space travel and computers were once straight from the comic books. This is no longer in the realm of the far-fetched. You'll find more than a little CS literature on the topic of how minds are constructed if you care to look. As for spontaneous assembly, the important word is "epiphenomenon".

"The same reaction if they see you wear a spiderman suit."

Which is something you do often, from the looks of things.

Once again: what's your name, guy?

Hi Steven T Abell,

We have a more sure word than mere experience (2 Peter 1:19-21).

Spiderman2, well said!

TTWSYFAMDGGAHJMJ, well said for the most part. I question some of your beliefs about Mary, not of course the Virgin Birth, but where do you find such passages as "It’s said that Jesus’ Mother was surrounded by legions of Angels as she followed Jesus to the Cross" in God's Word?

Our final authority rests on God and His word of truth, nothing less, for anything less is conjecture in matters of faith.

Your points on evolution were appreciated on the last Susan Jacobs Forum as well as this one.

Tonio:

"Steven, would you explain what you mean by "religious experience"? I've never heard or read a good universal definition for that term."

Sorry, not sure I can offer you one. Perhaps a sense of connection to power outside yourself, to knowing beyond experience or deduction, to things very basic in existence, and I knew names for them. I'm sure other people would say other things. It's not a regular part of my diet, but quite memorable.

"However, many people who have such experiences claim that these represent evidence for things in the physical universe that humans cannot perceive."

If it can't be produced, reliably and repeatedly, even by people who don't "believe", then it doesn't qualify as evidence in experimental science. And if it's not a part of the physical universe, well, that's the only one I know and the only one I think there is. Otherwise, what does "existence" mean?

I agree that religious experiences are very personal. They may be transformative for individuals, and with adequate description, may be compelling for some who can listen. For those who can't, or who can't understand that particular experience or description, well, they just don't, and there's no honest payoff in making decisions for others based on such experiences.

Steven T Abell, I can't believe an "engineer" can say such things. Maybe you're really teaching philosophy.

In Differential Calculus, you won't escape the words "maxima" and "minima". Those words are not used in any other math branches. Calculus is a unique way for solving problems. It's NOT just another way but in many cases, it's the only way or method to solve a specific problem.

To say that the brain was just an "accidental" resulting program from millions of programmers who never knew their goal seems like straight from the comic books. Try telling that to programmers and observe their faces how they would react to such statement. Im sure they would look at each other and SMILE. The same reaction if they see you wear a spiderman suit.

PS, that last post was mine. Sorry.

Hi Susan,

I find it amusing to see atheists constantly bantering around words, ideas, facts with authority, certainty and absolutism all the while denying that an absolute, objectivity, ultimate authority and reference point can be known by their denial of the God who made them.

You Susan, speak with authority and certainty in the words and statements you paint such as "absolutely no difference" or "ALL supernatural belief is an attempt to avoid facing the reality..." The question is how do you know such things as certain? In other words, says who?

Your ultimate authority is self and evolutionary science, brute facts and materialism, which are all constantly changing as "new" evidence exposes the vulnerability of the old.

How many times have I heard (or read) an atheist say "There is no God" or "There is no way of knowing if God exists since if He does exist He has not presented us with the evidence" all the while living and breathing by His will and mercy the air He has provided. Ironic, isn't it?

The problem with such statements is we have the atheist stating to all that there is no God or no way of knowing that there is a God, as if their mind is the ultimate all-knowing reference point in determining such things. The question is how can someone who claims there is no God tell someone who knows there is One of God's non-existence? If they don't know with 100% certainty why not plead ignorance and leave it at that?

The answer is they want the position of power to dictate the "shoulds, musts, oughts" of life in order that people will fit their mold, all the while not being able to account for where the qualitative values they espouse originally came from or why they "should" be so.

I have continually asked atheists how they make sense of existence; life coming from non-life, personality arising from the impersonal, logic from chance happenings, order from chance happenings (why anything would choose to survive or evolve into higher life forms in order to become a favorable race in the "Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life" is still a mystery), morals from the amoral, knowledge from a mindless process? I'm still waiting for them to makes sense of this world as they attempt to sway public opinion into the evolutionary dogmatism of their worldview that has no accountability.

That was me at 10:51 p.m.

"Religious experience is powerful stuff. The trick is to know that power while maintaining perspective on what you are experiencing."

Steven, would you explain what you mean by "religious experience"? I've never heard or read a good universal definition for that term. You're exactly right about not labeling people based on such experiences. However, many people who have such experiences claim that these represent evidence for things in the physical universe that humans cannot perceive. While it would be unscientific to blindly reject that possibility, it would be even more unscientific to treat such personal testimony alone as sufficient evidence. I see no reason to elevate religious experience to the level of empirical evidence where the physical universe is concerned, or to treat the experience as having importance to the entire human race. Surely it would be reasonable for people to regard their individual religious experiences as having relevance for only their own individual lives. Partly because from the outside, such experiences sound as if they are deeply personal and unique. And partly because it's depressingly easy for someone with an agenda to claim to have had such an experience as justification for that agenda.

"But just *supposing* there was any kind of folks out here trying to see to people's spiritual well-being, you tell me. "

Paganplace, would you explain? How are you defining "spiritual well-being"? While certainly people can offer advice or suggestions to others along that line, I strongly suspect that ultimately such well-being is (or should be) only under the individual's power or control. Anything else would come across as people attempting to decide what is best for others.

What makes Spiderman2 a valuable poster in this blog is that his non-sense rants provokes logical, clear and refreshing responses for all visitors to read.

Please don't stop Sp2, so Steven T Abell can keep pounding, as earlier Mr. Mark and others did.

Peace to all,

JAC

Spiderman:

"I think it's the first time I heard somebody calls the human brain a "hack job"."

In the software sense, all of biology is a hack job. Real world DNA is like code that was written by a million programmers who knew nothing about each other, each intent only on fixing the bug-of-the-day. This process can discover some really amazing things, entirely by blundering around, but at the cost of vast numbers of stillbirths and early deaths. The only requirement for the survivors is that they work *somehow*. The mind is in the same category, but it appears to be much less complicated that biochemistry. Try to think about how such a thing can come about all by itself and you'll start to get somewhere. It's not all that hard.

"A lot of people who tried solving the mystery of the brain ended up humbled. One invested millions of dollars to find its secrets and he ended up being religious."

So what?

"What makes calculus a fascinating math subject is that its values APPROACHES zero. It puts accuracy in a very high level. Steven was somehow using that fact to confuse the reader. Those who are not familiar with it could easily be intimated by what he said."

Well, I clearly confused you, not that I was trying. Calculus doesn't treat "accuracy" any differently than the rest of mathematics. What it does is introduce another tool to work with. Look at the limit equations for derivatives and integrals without first putting the idea of limits into your head and they look simply pointless or impossible: you know, division by zero, multiplication by zero, adding up infinite numbers of zeros. If you want to make them work, the first order of business is to decide to find a way of thinking about them such that they do work. Throwing up your hands and declaring the task impossible will not get you there. Understanding the spontaneous appearance of something like a mind is in the same category. Not that I would expect you to do such a thing: you have far too much invested in your misuse of your mythology, not to mention your belligerence.

IN REPLY TO (IRT)
SUSAN JACOBY
THE REFUTATION OF THE JUNK SCIENCE OF THE ATHEISTS AND AGNOSTICS"

“For positive evidence of Immortality that the soul will continue after death in the possession of a conscious life, we must appeal to teleology and the consideration of the character of the universe as a whole.

All science proceeds on the assumption that the universe is rational, that it is governed by reason, law, and uniformity throughout. Theistic philosophy explains, justifies, and confirms this postulate in establishing the government of the universe by the providence of an infinitely wise and just Creator.

But the consideration of certain characteristics of the human mind reveals a purpose which can be realized only by the soul's continuing in the possession of a conscious life after death.

Firstly, there is in the mind of man, as distinguished from all the lower animals, the capacity to look back to the indefinite past and forward to the distant future, the impulse to project itself in imagination beyond the limits of space and time, to rise to the conception of endless duration.

There is an ever-increasing yearning for knowledge, a craving for an ever-fuller possession of truth. Truth expands the mind and grows with every advance of science. There is the character of unfinishedness in our mental life and development.

It is the contrast between the capabilities of the human intellect and its present destiny, "between the immensity of man's outlook and the limitations of his actual horizon, between the splendor of his ideals and the insignificance of his attainments" (Marshall), which all demand a future existence unless the human mind is to be a wasteful failure.

Again, there is the craving of the human will, the insatiate desire of happiness, universal throughout the race. This cannot be appeased by any temporal joy.

Finally, there is the ethical argument. Human reason affirms that the performance of duty is both right and reasonable in the fullest sense, that it cannot be better in the end for the man who violates the moral law than for him who observes it. But were this the only life this would often be the case.

It would assuredly not be a rational universe, and it would be in irreconcilable conflict with the notion of the moral government of the world by a Just and Infinite God, if vice were to be rewarded and virtue punished.

That the swindler, the murderer, the adulterer, and the persecutor should enjoy the pleasures of this world to the end, whilst the honest man, the innocent victim, the chaste, and the martyr may undergo lifelong injustice, privation, and suffering."

Such a dichotomy between good and evil without the presence of Justice is irrational and senseless. It rivals and contradicts everything that is innate in all man's sense of human nature.

IN REPLY TO (IRT)
SUSAN JACOBY
"LIFE AFTER DEATH vs. THE JUNK SCIENCE OF THE ATHEISTS AND AGNOSTICS"

Justification Of The Doctrine Of Immortality:

“As we have already observed, the immortality of the human soul is one of the most fundamental tenets of the Christian Religion. Consequently, every evidence for the Divine character of Christianity goes to prove and confirm the foundation upon which the whole edifice rests.

Catholic philosophers, however, with the exception of Scotus and his followers, have generally claimed to establish the validity of the belief apart from revelation.

Still its adequate treatment presupposes, as already demonstrated, some of the main theses of natural theology, ethics, and psychology. It is itself the crowning conclusion of this last branch of philosophy.

Only the briefest outline of the argument can be attempted here. For fuller discussion the reader may consult any Catholic text-book of psychology. The following are the chief propositions involved in the building up of the doctrine:

The human soul is a substance or substantial principle. It is a simple, or indivisible, and also a spiritual being, that is, intrinsically independent of matter.

It is naturally incorruptible. It cannot be annihilated by any creature. God is bound to preserve the soul in possession of its conscious life, at least for some time, after death.

Finally, the evidence all leads to the conclusion that the future life is to continue for ever. By the human mind, or soul, is meant the ultimate principle within me by which I feel, think, and will, and by which my body is animated.

A substance, in contrast with an accident, is a being which subsists in itself, and does not merely inhere in another being as in a subject of inhesion.

Now the ultimate subject to which my mental states belong must be a substance — even if that substance be the bodily organism.

Further, reflexion, memory, and my whole conscious experience of my own personal identity assure me of the present abiding character of this substantial principle, which is the centre of my mental life.

Again, the simplicity and spiritual character of many of my mental acts or states prove the principle to which they belong to be of a simple and spiritual nature. THE CHARACTER OF AN ACTIVITY EXHIBITS THE NATURE OF THE AGENT.

The Effect Cannot Transcend Its Cause. But careful psychological observation and analysis of many of my mental operations prove them to be both spiritual and simple in nature.

Our universal ideas, intellectual judgments and reasonings, and especially the reflective activity of self-consciousness manifest their simple or indivisible and spiritual character. They cannot be the activities of a corporeal agent or the actions of a faculty exerted by or essentially dependent on a material being.

Again, psychology shows that our volitions are free, and that the activity of free volition cannot be exerted by a material agent, or be intrinsically dependent on matter. If volition were thus intrinsically dependent on matter, all our acts of choice would be inexorably bound up with and predetermined by the physical changes in the organism.

The soul is thus a simple or indivisible, substantial principle, intrinsically independent of matter. Not a composite being, it is not liable to perish by corruption or internal dissolution nor by the destruction of the material principle with which it is united, since it is not intrinsically dependent on this latter being.

If souls perish at all, this must be by simple annihilation. But annihilation, like creation, pertains to God alone, for, as shown in natural theology, it can be effected only by the withdrawal of the Divine activity, through which all creatures are immediately conserved in existence.

God could of course, by an exercise of His absolute power, reduce the soul to nothingness; but the nature of the soul is such that it cannot be destroyed by a finite being."

IN REPLY TO (IRT)
SUSAN JACOBY
"LIFE AFTER DEATH and THE JUNK SCIENCE OF THE ATHEISTS AND AGNOSTICS"

If we assume the existence of God in order to show the intellect, a.k.a. soul, of man is immortal, than man’s soul is immortal is indisputably proven by Scripture, the word of God.

But, God’s existence has been proven by reason in Aristotle’s indisputable proof from Motion, without Scripture, and there’s the proofs from Divine Revelation, notwithstanding Aquinas, who proves God from both Scripture and his five proofs of God from reason. That's probably immaterial because atheists and agnostics are unreasonable.

Moreover, we know God exists from the miracles that have and still are occurring throughout history. In contemporary times, there are the incontestable miracles at Guadalupe, Lourdes and Fatima.

In addition, there are the miracles from the many saints that have been testified to even by atheists.

One in particular is a mother request for St Padre Pio’s intervention that miraculously restored the sight of a her daughter, who had no pupils. Notwithstanding St. Pio had been seen many times, while saying Mass, levitating during the Mass, at times, for over an hour. Let the materialist figure that one out.

In addition, the Old and New Testaments are replete with the many interventions of God to aid the plights of man. Like Abraham said, "If they won't believe the prophets, they won't believe one who rises from the dead."

Though you mock the Virgin’s birth of Jesus, Mary, the Mother of God, has appeared to many and performed a plethora of miracles verified by even the non-religious atheists and agnostics who witnessed them.

At Fatima, the recalcitrant public officials tried to suppress the crowds from witnessing these occurrences, they even threatened the three children with death.

Some seventy thousand were witness to the Miracle of the Sun and all the atheists in the world still cannot explain. It was caused by the Virgin Mother they don't believe in. There answer is seventy thousand people were mesmerized. It’s incredible how obtuse the skeptics are.

Again, it is bad enough to denigrate Jesus, who even forgave the contumacious, Jews who mocked Him after nailing Him to a cross. Jesus even forgave the Thief on the cross who cursed Him.

To deride God’s Mother is to impugns one's own integrity. They should consider God's wrath testified to in Scripture, like Sodom and Gomorrah who messed with two of God's Angels. They didn't get a chance to change their minds.

It’s said that Jesus’ Mother was surrounded by legions of Angels as she followed Jesus to the Cross. So to scoff at the virginity of God's Mother with contempt and necessitous scorn is not to wise.

Moreover, a God who formed Adam out of clay and woman out of Adam’s rib wouldn’t have any problem with a Virgin’s birth.

Further, the Son of God wasn’t just witnessed by Christians, but Jews, tax collectors, atheists, troglodytes, anarchists, pagans, gentiles, thieves, prostitutes, robbers, Romans, Greeks, and many became Christians.

The atheist, in order claim there is no God, though you never hear them prove it, must deny all the history recorded during the time of Christ, and all the Old Testament to be credible.

Further all the atheist, agnostic, and pagan philosophers that have attempted to do that have created the greatest social destruction known to mankind. Communism, Manichaeism, Monism, and Fascism are obvious examples that godlessness doesn't work.

The intellect is a spiritual entity. By spiritual is meant that which is without any characteristics of matter, the antithesis of matter. It has no dimensions, viz. it can’t be measured, no weight, length or breadth. It’s essence is not a composite therefore it is simple and spiritual. Hence, it is incorruptible and immortal.

Let’s have materialists first tell us how much room in man’s mind it takes to store a zillion ideas. Then ask how much would they weigh? Maybe he can explain that.

Steven T Abell, Mr. Mark and Arminius,
God is never wrong. God calls the atheists as fools. Your replies show it.

I think it's the first time I heard somebody calls the human brain a "hack job". A lot of people who tried solving the mystery of the brain ended up humbled. One invested millions of dollars to find its secrets and he ended up being religious.

What makes calculus a fascinating math subject is that its values APPROACHES zero. It puts accuracy in a very high level. Steven was somehow using that fact to confuse the reader. Those who are not familiar with it could easily be intimated by what he said.

It's not an engineering fact what he said. What's good about pure science is that you can't bend the rules. He tried doing it thinking he can escape with it. Typical of "scientists" cum philosophers. Human cum monkey like evolution.

Brambleton says:

" ---> And I'm confused that someone who bases their life completely on what science can prove to them ..."

Atheists life is not necessarily based on science, rather on reality. You don't need to be a scientist nor a person knowledgeable in science to know what looks real and what don't. But yes, to be atheist you do need to have a certain level of critical thinking, whether naturally developed or learned trough science.

Remember, atheists are not members of any particular club, sect or "ism". Atheist are just common people whose only common denominator is to be awaiting for a proof to the claim that a personal God exist and he expect certain behavior from us or else. And that proof has to pass the critical thinking examination.

Peace to all,

JAC

Mr. Mark,

"you lose a crap load of time wasted believing in imaginary beings. You waste years in worship to non-existent gods when you could be out helping the less fortunate. You waste the mental powers you devote to thinking about the non-existent when you could be finding the cure for the common cold."

---> Frankly, these comments are quite silly. How is it a waste of time if my prayers and worship give me peace and clarity? I've seen my non-Christian friends struggle with anxiety and despair over financial, job, and child-bearing issues and they simply have no outlet to properly cope. Sometimes they even question how I can be so calm and at peace with the difficulties that surround my family. So if giving my problems to God and praising him for my countless blessings is a "waste of time", then I hope and pray that I'm given considerable more time to waste.

"You lose the possible friendships of people who might enrich your life but for the fact that they know your religious beliefs are wacko, and who find your totalitarian belief positions to be anathema to civil discourse and just plain common courtesy"

---> Given, yelling and screaming at people aren't going to win you too many friends. But what about the friends I've made because of Christianity? Another waste of time? What about the people I've met that have never made a commitment to Christ but still reach out to me when they're searching for answers? What about the possible impact on the strangers who ask me why I'm so happy and simply hear the words, "Jesus Christ"?

"In short, your belief in god causes you to lose quite a bit in this life while gaining you nothing after death, as there is nothing after death."

---> Again, this is complete nonsense. A comparison of my life before and after Christ isn't even close. My involvement in the community and my commitment to family could never have reached this point without my relationship with Christ. Sure, there are probably a number of things that I might be missing because I'm a Christian, but I can't think of a single one that would be as beneficial to my life. Can you?

---> And I'm confused that someone who bases their life completely on what science can prove to them would argue that they know that there is nothing beyond today. Perhaps that's where the sad story of Enlightnment leaves many hopeless.

As for Spiderman, he's already called me an idiot, and I'm sure will do so again. It seems to be all he has to say.

Hi, Steven,

I agree with Mr Mark, good response to Spidey. The poor fellow cannot reason, apparently. I think Mr Mark is optimistic, I give Spidey one reply before he labels you (and the rest of us) stupid idiots.

Arminius

Dear Steve T Abell -

Pretty good responses to Spidey. I have no doubt you've sent him scurrying to the internet(s) to study up on the engineering he seems to be unaware of. He may have to find some engineering "proofs" for his god outside of the pap offered at the creationist websites.

I give Spidey three more responses until he starts calling you an idiot.

Spiderman:

"Steven T Abell, Im not sure if it's useful discussing with you. It seems to me that you are more of a philosopher than an engineer or mathematician."

It's probably not worth discussing your views with me, because discussion is not what you do.

An interesting observation: over the last few decades, the philosophy departments at many colleges have been merged with and in some cases replaced by the computer science departments. I think I know the reason for this: a computer scientist's philosophy is required to actually work.

"Effectively-zero" is NOT zero. And "very large numbers" are NOT infinite.

Then don't treat them as if they are.

"Is the human brain a "hack-job" in your opinion? You can't even make a worm and you call biochemistry a hack job?"

The brain is a very interesting hack job, and the mind is absolutely so. That doesn't mean it doesn't work.

You can't make a worm either, but then you aren't even trying. You're just pretending that your myth-based scientific "knowledge" is somehow superior to that of someone who's actually trying to know something scientific. I keep my myths where they belong and are useful.

TTWSYFAMDGGAHJMJ writes:

"Remember this, if I am wrong I lose nothing, for to live according to God’s laws has always, been proven throughout history to be for the good of man."

What an absolute crock.

What do you lose?

First off, you lose a crap load of time wasted believing in imaginary beings. You waste years in worship to non-existent gods when you could be out helping the less fortunate. You waste the mental powers you devote to thinking about the non-existent when you could be finding the cure for the common cold.

Second, you waste the time of everybody you assault with your ridiculous beliefs. You lose the possible friendships of people who might enrich your life but for the fact that they know your religious beliefs are wacko, and who find your totalitarian belief positions to be anathema to civil discourse and just plain common courtesy.

You also lose a great deal of money that you throw down the rat hole donating to your church, much of which is spent to promulgate a message of fear and fantasy to a world that deserves better and HAS better to offer, and the rest of which is spent in self-sustaining administrative costs to keep the whole charade alive and kicking.

As far as "living according to god's laws," by that, you mean that like every other religionist, you select which of "god's" laws to follow and which to ignore (question: did you execute your children when the sassed back to you? I believe god's laws demand stoning as the proper method of death. No? I rest my case.). You commit the most grievous offenses imaginable against your fellow beings in the name of your religion, comfortable in the belief that there is some get-out-of-jail-free card available to you in the form of divine forgiveness (a chimera that the atheists and rationalists are notably disabused of).

In short, your belief in god causes you to lose quite a bit in this life while gaining you nothing after death, as there is nothing after death.

In the end, Pascal's Wager is a sucker's bet. Looks like it's a bet that you've already doubled down on.

See http://wiki.faithfutures.org/index.php/082_Against_Anxieties for added discussion about Luke 12: 21cf.

Professor Crossan, a historical Jesus exegete and On Faith panelist concludes this passage is the real Jesus speaking. The Jesus Seminar breaks the passage into parts and gives ratings to various parts.

IN REPLY TO (IRT)
SUSAN JACOBY
“IMMORTALITY”

Remember this, if I am wrong I lose nothing, for to live according to God’s laws has always, been proven throughout history to be for the good of man.

However, woes to you who think God is a myth and ignore his precepts and moral laws for your own laws. For, if you are wrong, you have wasted your whole life living in a delusion, and in the end, all your accumulated treasures can do nothing for you and will dissipate into nothingness.

They merit not eternal happiness, a happiness that all generation yearn for, but can’t find in ephemeral whims and wayward vanities that are sought for pleasures in a transient world.

It is written, Lk. 12:21cf. “And he spoke a similitude to them, saying: The land of a certain rich man brought forth plenty of fruits. And he thought within himself, saying, 'What shall I do, because I have no room where to bestow my fruits?'

And he said, 'this will I do; I will pull down my barns and will build greater: and into them will I gather all things that are grown to me and my goods.

And I will say to my soul, 'Soul, thou hast much goods laid up for many years.' Take thy rest: eat, drink, make good cheer.

But God said to him, 'Thou fool, this night do they require thy soul of thee.' And whose shall those things be which thou hast provided? So is he that layeth up treasure for himself and is not rich towards God.

Hence, be not solicitous for your life, what you shall eat, or for your body, what you shall put on. The life is more than the meat: and the body is more than the raiment.

Consider the ravens, for they sow not, neither do they reap, neither have they storehouse nor barn, and God feedeth them. How much are you more valuable than they?

And which of you by taking thought can add to his stature one cubit? If then ye be not able to do so much as the least thing, why are you solicitous for the rest?

Consider the lilies, how they grow: they labor not, neither do they spin. But I say to you, not even Solomon in all his glory was clothed like one of these.

Now, if God clothe in this manner the grass that is to-day in the field and to-morrow is cast into the oven: how much more you, O ye of little faith?

And seek not what you shall eat or what you shall drink: and be not lifted up on high. For, all these things do the nations of the world seek. But your Father knoweth that you have need of these things.

But seek ye first the kingdom of God and his justice: and all these things shall be added unto you.

Fear not, little flock, for it hath pleased your Father to give you a kingdom. Sell what you possess and give alms. Make to yourselves bags, which grow not old, a treasure in heaven, which faileth not: where no thief approacheth, nor moth corrupteth. For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also."

PLATO’S ARGUMENT FOR IMMORTALITY:
“Throughout the universe opposites alternately generate and succeed each other. Death follows life and out of death, life is again generated. Man must be no exception to this general law.

The soul is a simple substance, akin in nature to the simple and immutable idea, and therefore, like the latter, incorruptible.

The essence of the soul is life and self-movement. Being a soul only in so far as it participates in the idea of life, it is incapable of death.

The process of learning is really only reminiscence, the recall of knowledge of a past life. Man is, therefore, to survive the present life.

Truth dwells in us; the soul is made for truth, but truth is eternal.

The soul is made for virtue, but advance in virtue consists in progressive liberation of oneself from bodily passions.

The soul is not a harmony, but the lyre itself.
Destruction can be effected only by a principle antagonistic to the very nature of a being.

Vice is for the soul the only principle of this kind, but vice cannot destroy the being of the soul, therefore the soul is indestructible. Otherwise the wicked would have no future punishment to expect.

Finally, he urges, in many forms, the argument from retributive justice and the necessity of future existence for adequate reward of the good and punishment of the wicked.”

Steven T Abell, Im not sure if it's useful discussing with you. It seems to me that you are more of a philosopher than an engineer or mathematician.

"Effectively-zero" is NOT zero. And "very large numbers" are NOT infinite. Is the human brain a "hack-job" in your opinion? You can't even make a worm and you call biochemistry a hack job?

Well, maybe this is just another proof that idocy has no cure.

***

Hi Farnaz, thanks for the kind words.

I can't comment about the American Indians. Im not familiar with their situation.

"If you believe that inanimate objects can give life to themselves without an "intelligent input", then you are a lousy engineer."

An assertion pulled out of the air, or perhaps someplace smellier.

Interesting things sometimes happen beginning with thoughts such as "Of course, we can't do this, but if we could, what would it be like?" Calculus comes to mind: effectively dividing by zero and getting something finite and definite (differentiation) or adding up infinite numbers of effectively-zeros and getting something non-zero and definite (integration). And you find that you *can* do it and that it's not all that hard.

Of course, you personally will never get there with biology because you're stuck on validating your mythology by assertion. The advantage to you is that it makes you feel superior while keeping you from having to think about a very difficult problem. Quite a bargain.

Apparently you are not aware that there are lots of flavors of mathematical infinity. And Paganplace is quite correct in saying that "very large" is equivalent to none of them.

A fundamental lesson of biochemistry for an engineer is that a molecule only has to work. It doesn't have to work well. It doesn't have to be efficient. It just has to work. Some people look at biological systems and see design. Others see an intense lack of it. If you want to see examples of efficient molecules carefully designed, then read Drexler. If you want to see amazing hack jobs that somehow manage to work, look at biochemistry.

"I can't understand it either why an engineer would love mythology unless of course he treats science as "cartoonish" also."

And yet you are a Christian in abject denial of modern biology because of your mythology.

If you say you can't understand something but keep arguing against it, then you are arguing from ignorance, which is not a very persuasive argument. If you don't understand my religious thinking, there's no law that says you have to: it's personal. If you happen to understand it, great. If not, then go your own way. But you have no excuse for telling me that I'm wrong.

Hi Spiderman,

You're right when you say the devils speak louder than angels. I think it's always been that way. The thing is that when you get a panel together as we did, you're able to ask questions, disagree, speak louder, if necessary.

In our case it wasn't necessary for anyone to raise his/her voice. The group we brought to the College were people who didn't hesitate to place the blame on their own countries when and where it was due. We knew who they were before we brought them in, and we didn't hesitate to challenge them, nor did the students when we and they saw fit. The panelists came in good faith and with good will, saw 9/11 as a tragedy of inhuman proportions, as, in fact, it was. Nothing can justify it. Absolutely nothing.

As for American Indians, as you know, they are not foreigners. How is it possible that they are living and suffering as they are? How can it be that we have honored almost none of our treaties with them?

You are a good person, Spiderman. Can you tell me why these people are still going to bed hungry? Have such high infant mortality rates? Is this right?

I hope you are wrong that worse is coming to us. We, the people of this country, are not to blame for everything done in our name. We are not asked for our opinions on everything that is done in our name.

Be well, Spiderman, my friend.

Farnaz.

Steven T Abell wrote " I too am an engineer, practicing nearly 30 years now. Degree in mathematics."

If you believe that inanimate objects can give life to themselves without an "intelligent input", then you are a lousy engineer. I can't understand it either why an engineer would love mythology unless of course he treats science as "cartoonish" also. Mythology and science don't mix but there are scientists who are expert in mixing both. Evolution is a very good example of that kind of "science".

Paganplace, you are not an engineer and as usual, you don't know what you're talking about. Infinity in math means infinity. If you write the exact value of pi, you would need a writing space as big as the universe.

Farnaz, you are an expert in historical facts and I admire you for that. My only worry is you tend to listen to people from third world countries and take their opinion about the U.S as truthful. Im familiar with the "complaints" of such people. There are devils and angels out there. The problem is the devils out there tend to speak LOUDER than the angels. And devils don't speak the truth. They are expert in half-truths.

There are more 9/11s to come. A thousand times more destructive. The main reason why it is still coming is because people don't understand the real problem. It's all written in the Bible.

and, oh, yeah, Bush's grampy actually did kinda, err, finance the Nazis. That kind of thing is usually more obvious than some would prefer.

How about Joe Kennedy? Look, can we get off the Nazis for awhile? I know you want to argue, but how about arguing about the paranormal, for instance?

Or something besides the election that's in the news? Your choice.

People spin fears and sling mud, but, actually, what makes us feel so helpless... the monster in the radiator, is made of shadow, and the Emperor is starkers.
------------
Does this mean you will stop making me into a monster and blaming me?
-------------
Hardest part is realizing it ain't that hard. Second hardest part is actually working, but we're not really so bad at that as we are taught to think, here in America.
--------------
I think the problem is that there are those in government wedded to special interests such as the transnationals, and to more local special interests, who don't necessarily broadcast to the American people what they're up to.

I remember some of my students in the wake of 9/11 wanting to know, earnestly wanting to know why "they hate us so much." We, my colleagues and I, were at pains to say that "they" is a big word, and to explain the complexities of the problems. Finally, we brought in scholars from third-world countries, who spoke about some of what the US did and was doing in their countries.

This was a cross-disciplinary affair. Everyone was involved, even the most conservative faculty.
We preceded it with readings, newspaper articles.

We were careful to make sure they understood the INTERNAL, intra-national sources of oppression within those third world countries that had nothing to do with the US government.

Did these presentations make a difference? YOu bet. Students became more active, wrote to their representatives. We now have a student organization that deals with international exploitation, cooperates with NYPIRG, which is also on campus.

In the Fall, we are going to have speakers from two Indian reservations, who will bring pictures, not to be believed (I've seen some), along with statistics on child mortality, alcoholism, incomve (6,000 or so annually).

WE are not bad, not bad at all. WE are not doing these things. But we are living in a country that is. It doesn't have to be this way, not here. There is no feudal class here as there is in developing nations, yet we have Indian Reservations that are on par with the poorest among the third-world states. Why? What say we get rid of them, and give the Indians (who don't like to be called Native Americans) a break?

We, the people, are a great nation. We can do this.

and, oh, yeah, Bush's grampy actually did kinda, err, finance the Nazis. That kind of thing is usually more obvious than some would prefer.

"Also, it isn't to the point of this thread. I'd like for all of us, including yours truly, and Susan Jacoby, goddess of reason, to think more rationally, more justly."

Eh, she is *not* the Grey-Eyed One, even if that Goddess often favors those who bend no knees.... it's possible that, well.

" We don't need to have poverty in America. Americans should have healthcare. We don't need to exploit the wretched of the earth."

Most certainly we do not. People shouldn't even have to be too wretched about it.

"Americans don't know the half of what we've done."

Nothing's forgotten. Something these arguments about 'Who's bad' tend to miss.

"When those who are willing to know discover it, they are horrified."

Remember what I just said about blame? And leadership? A spanking and absolution are not what's called for. What's called for is a sense of our power for good. Not our fears.

" This isn't the America they want. They want the greatness of the American promise. They can have that, I firmly believe, but not without struggle."

Or.

We pick up all our mighty stuff we still got and *do something.*

People spin fears and sling mud, but, actually, what makes us feel so helpless... the monster in the radiator, is made of shadow, and the Emperor is starkers.

Hardest part is realizing it ain't that hard. Second hardest part is actually working, but we're not really so bad at that as we are taught to think, here in America.

Explanations aren't always what people actually *need.* We can explain a whole bunca stuff these days, and it doesn't seem to improve a whole lot of things

What I mean is, for example, psychics, people who have helped police solve crimes, and these people exist. The answer is often that one day science will have an explanation for this sort of thing. It's on this thread. I dunno. There are institutes studying the paranormal. Some day, maybe someone will have an answer, but for now, it's paranormal, IMHO. Intuition, as we define it, doesn't account for these phenomena, anymore than it does for my own foreknowledge experiences, and I'm no psychic.

" No idolatry, as anyone who knows you will tell you in a minute."

Knows me? What, all my friends are like, 'We like you, PP, except all that *#&$ idolatry of yours. :)

"However, the experiences I had were so far removed from the ordinary that no one, not my scientist brothers and uncles, my colleagues, no one, could explain them. We can say that one day science will have an explanation, if we'd like."

If you think 'explaining' yer monsters will solve anything, well, in the meantime, we do the best we can.

Explanations aren't always what people actually *need.* We can explain a whole bunca stuff these days, and it doesn't seem to improve a whole lot of things. It's kinda why people leap to blame 'idolaters' for various monsters.

Another 'explanation' that doesn't always .... help. I do enjoy arguing, but, fact is, someone says 'help' someone can footnote it later. and they usually do. It doesn't always go well for some folks I care about.

PaganPlace:

"Just on this: Who's 'They?' Why did this come up? "

I don't want to start all this up again. Look at the Carlin and Crossin thread, on which I also posted a bibliography. There are people who cannot accept that some ancestors of the group or institution to which they belong have done some horrible things.

There are Americans, for instance, who either refuse to know what really happened at Abu Graib or deny it, even to this day. There are others who justify it. Interesting, since the high-ranking officer who investigated it did not justify it, no sir, not by a longshot.

Also, it isn't to the point of this thread. I'd like for all of us, including yours truly, and Susan Jacoby, goddess of reason, to think more rationally, more justly. We don't need to have poverty in America. Americans should have healthcare. We don't need to exploit the wretched of the earth.

Americans don't know the half of what we've done. When those who are willing to know discover it, they are horrified. This isn't the America they want. They want the greatness of the American promise. They can have that, I firmly believe, but not without struggle.

The rational, understood as multi-perspectival, is a good thing.

Ludicrous defense? Is someone attacking somebody?

But that's what I'm trying to tell you, have been, lo these 90 posts. I'm not the enemy. Never bought into that ludicrous pagan defense, as I posted below.

There is no argument. You can keep lifting sentences out of context, and I can keep recontextualizing them, but to what end? It's simply not there. I don't buy into it, never have.
THERE IS NO EVIDENCE. Do you understand?

Again, you need ask yourself, who would benefit from such a silly argument? This is not to say pagans have never erred. They have, of course, as have Jews, Christians, atheists, agnostics, etc.

What is important, or at any rate, what I thought important to consider, is the irrational, nonrational, how it travels, magical thinking.

------
As for the paranormal, I agree that some of what we attribute to the paranormal can be thought of as intuition. However, I have had a few experiences that cannot be thought of that way, and I'm not referring to the Monster. (He came in a dream.) Now, in me you have the empiricist, par excellence. NO BS. No idolatry, as anyone who knows you will tell you in a minute.

However, the experiences I had were so far removed from the ordinary that no one, not my scientist brothers and uncles, my colleagues, no one, could explain them. We can say that one day science will have an explanation, if we'd like.

I mean, humor me, I'm a humble dweller in the 'undead world of supernatural junk thought' ...if I had to be 'Right' all the time, monsters that come out of the radiator would necessarily confound me. and then where would we be?

"Why would I? How could I? Now, you tell me, who, which population, would have the most interest in mounting such a ludicrous defense? And they mount it for the reasons I was trying to explore. Fear of the truth."

Just on this: Who's 'They?' Why did this come up?

Speaking of monsters.

Well, I just picked that name out of a hat, but OK. The general thing about nasties that seem to come out of shady places like, say, radiators, is, like most 'demons' they are things which createa litle fear, and then grow stronger by the human tendency to *amplify* that fear. if you got a poem out of it, you may not have a 'monster' there, anymore.

Except that that's a funny, if not exactly unprecedented, way for someone to end an argument.

Monsters and all. You were kinda actually shouting there, all unbidden.

Also may have again missed that bit about who's not an enemy.

Biggest lie your Devil ever told was saying he existed, and all.

Re: Monsters

I don't think it's a problem. He seesms to have returned to Monster Land. Anyway, he resulted in a journal entry, then a poem, which has had some good fortune. IMHO, he wasn't the nicest of all monsters, but sometimes lemons bring lemonade.

If the Vrigin Mary had anything to do with the poem, then I thank her.

Is this what you want:

I never said this: "instead you have some bS you repeat about Baltic people being those naughty 'Germanic Pagans'" REPEAT. I didn't say this.
-----------

Btw., I know pagans, have been perusing Triple Goddess, etc. Pagan friend gave me a gift, and when I got into it, others gave me more stuff. This whole discussion is insane. It's in your head. I've never bought into the "pagan" theory of nazism. It's not a theory. It's a silly defense. No one takes it seriously as the impetus for the genocide.

Why would I? How could I? Now, you tell me, who, which population, would have the most interest in mounting such a ludicrous defense? And they mount it for the reasons I was trying to explore. Fear of the truth.

Ok. I've crossed posts with you, here:

"I'd rather talk about monsters, nonhuman ones that is, one of which I had an encounter with, but I guess you aren't interested. (He came out of the radiator, btw., and was neither pagan nor "Abrahamic" nor atheist.)"

Understand that none of that stuff has anything to so with any of these arguments. If you've encountered something distressing, you ask for my help, you get the best I got, and you can go ahead and thank the Virgin Mary for it later if you like. this is how that goes.

PaganPlace:

I did answer you. I posted to you a few times.

No answer?

How bout this, then.

Do you have the slightest idea how not F'n funny that stuff you said is?

How bout this. Would you like to meet an actual Neopagan? I swear to the Gods the only swastika in the house is on this book I use to say how the Nazis were full of it.

Frankly, I don't care what you "buy." You're like the schoolyard bully, who knows she's wrong, and can't admit it.

You clipped my paragraph. I've never at any point said pagans, Germans or otherwise were responsible for the HOlocaust. You're lying, and that settles it, IMHO.

Then you want to blame me for defending myself. NOt interested.
-------------------

I'd rather talk about monsters, nonhuman ones that is, one of which I had an encounter with, but I guess you aren't interested. (He came out of the radiator, btw., and was neither pagan nor "Abrahamic" nor atheist.)

I don't believe you. You know I wasn't being randomly insulting. People do prefer fantasy. That was the point of my entire post.

As for Obama (also not my main point, but what can you do), there are good reasons for supporting Obamam, among them Bill (not Hillary) style neoliberalism, if that's your bag. IMHO there aren't good reasons for idolizing him, and that happened. There aren't good reasons for idolizing anyone. It's dangerous, dichotomous thinking, and I've been guilty of it myself, at times. I have to watch it. We all do.

If you are one of the 46, 000,000 Americans without healthcare, and understand you won't have it if McCain is elected, may not have it if Obama is elected, you aren't idolizing. If you were one of the two thousand people who showed up at a weekend clinic (a clinic open for two days) in Tennessee to get follow up on your breast cancer surgery of two years ago, open heart surgery, dental care for your children because it was free, you aren't idolizing the candidates, I hope.

Idolizing is dangerous to the candidates themselves. Look at the reaction to Obama's support of FISA. As well, and try to follow me now, he's never been fully investigated by the DNC. Do you know what this means? One discovered past misstep, and who knows what the reaction will be. He's ripe for a fall. He's been set up for a fall, not deliberately, I don't think, but he's been set up. What might be given relatively short shrift with another candidate won't be with him.

I wanted to see major change, not only in foreign policy, but in domestic policy. The economy is a disaster. There is poverty all over America. Wikepedia describes life on the Indian Reservations as comparable to the poorest among developing nations. Neoliberals do not bring about radical change. They are the concervatives of yesteryear. Bill Clinton was a neoliberal as is Barack Obama.

McCain is not an option for me. I respect him in some ways, but would never vote for him, not under any circumstances. Obama currently has an eight-point lead. What this means is difficult to say. Some Clinton supporters say they won't vote for him, but will. Some Republicans say they won't vote for McCain (too liberal), but they will.

This is not a good time to be an new idol. New idols fall a lot farther, break more easily than humans.

I'll also note you were far more interested in calling me a 'liar' than actually saying, 'I'm not calling Pagans Nazis,' ...instead you have some bS you repeat about Baltic people being those naughty 'Germanic Pagans'

Hitler ran as a Christian values candidate, btw. And if the tenor of you trying to claim otherwise from previous discussions came through while you were typing in all caps....

Pardon if I am missing the sensitivity there.

Eh, I'm still not even buying it. You were abusive about it before, and constantly defending assertions that the Nazis were a 'neopagan' religion, in spite of all explications. You shout this stuff over and over and then claim you aren't saying it, and where did it come from in the first place, here? We were talking about completely different things, and you bring up this 'Obama thinks he walks on water' thing.

My next question is, if I have in fact missed a protracted bout of sarcasm, why in the Holy Holly Hel did you even *bring it up?*

Actually, I clipped the first sentence cause it seemed you were just randomly being insulting. When you type in all caps, pardon if the inclination isn't to give it a close reading.

PaganPlace: You eliminated the first sentence of the paragraph, and you know you did. That is intellectual dishonesty, tells me that you simply want to win. I've repasted that paragraph several times, along with explanations. Here is the first sentence in CAPS, along with the paragraph and another explanation. Let me know if you understand, please.
------------------------------
PEOPLE PREFER FANTASY. "Obama walks on water (still does), and only sociopathic, German "pagans" participated in the Holocaust. The same must be true of all those Americans from the South we see in films lining the streets screaming unrepeatable things during the civil rights marches of the 1960s. None of these racists, none of those who supported segration, could possibly have been "ordinary people" who went to church. Only German "pagans" committed atrocities, and racism only existed in the South."

As I said before, and will say again. The first sentence is the "topic sentence," meaning it contains the main idea. What follows are the fantasies people prefer. One of the fantasies people prefer is that "only German pagans committed atrocities...." Another fantasy people prefer is that "racism existed only in the South...."

And let's not forget that in the previous discussion you dragged up, you rebuffed all explications of what the SS actually were about in defense of your notion that 'Neopagans' were responsible for the Holocaust, despite me pointing out that the SS dealie had much more to do with those fluffy New Age crystal-wavers, and Blavatsky's 'Aryans' and Atlanteans and Ascended Masters, who, among the select few of the SS, who were aggressively bred, were taught that Adolf Hitler was a similar figure to 'Odin,' who was not portrayed as a God, but actually a dim memory of an Atlantean sorta dude?

Remember that?

Or did you not want to hear that?

The SS dealie was a mishmash of whatever seemed useful in a secret military society context, and to a lesser extent, looked good in parades.

The Nazis were not a force of 'germanic pagans' appearing out of nowhere to try and take over the world and for some unexplained reason kill Jews and gays and Gypsies... They came to power saying far less 'exotic' things.

Ok, Farnaz, how about at 11:04, when, after shouting how I was a liar about your previous insistences in a thread you referred to, that the Nazis were all about 'neopaganism,' you caled me a 'liar, and then said:

"Obama walks on water (still does), and only sociopathic, German "pagans" participated in the Holocaust. The same must be true of all those Americans from the South we see in films lining the streets screaming unrepeatable things during the civil rights marches of the 1960s. None of these racists, none of those who supported segration, could possibly have been "ordinary people" who went to church. Only German "pagans" committed atrocities, and racism only existed in the South."

Is that what you meant? Or have I missed a protracted bout of sarcasm still having something to do with Obama supporters and 'neopagans' being responsible for Naziism, a point you previously insisted on when I was trying to note to a misguided young fellow that falling leaves don't increase the circumference of the Earth?

And just so we understand each other, if that's possible, post the paragraph in which these statements of mine occur.

You see, I've taught this, published on it. I never have, never could have claimed these statements as facts.

I guess I gotta quote you again. If you recall the context where you were claiming the 'Germanic Pagans' of the Baltic states were so anxious to kill Jews that the Germans apparently had to hold them back, and when I said, 'Hey, what you talking about, you shouted:

"THIS WAS ALL THE BUSINESS OF GERMAN PAGANS,"

------------
All right, I'll bite. For the last time. Where did I say this? Date of post? And paste it, please.

"The mayhem that ensues is truly impressive."

You ought to see the Tain Bo Culaigne, Steven. Now *that's* a grudge match. ;)

I guess I gotta quote you again. If you recall the context where you were claiming the 'Germanic Pagans' of the Baltic states were so anxious to kill Jews that the Germans apparently had to hold them back, and when I said, 'Hey, what you talking about, you shouted:

"THIS WAS ALL THE BUSINESS OF GERMAN PAGANS,"

and then called me a liar for ...quoting what you said....

How's the dead horse smelling, or you just trying to spread some stink?

PaganPlace:

I'm done. This is insane. There have been practically 80 posts with me defending against your nonsense, one stupid, dishonest accusation after another. You want someone to fight with, and, I like a fool, took you seriously. If you haven't been drinking, then maybe you need to get to the Guinness.

Something ain't right with you. That poor old horse is in shreds.

Goodnight, and hope you regain some clarity in the morning.

"Oh, and, when you make a mistake, as in, falsely accuse, admit it. That's the most important ot these words, to the wise, that is."

Ok, did you or did you not say that thing I twice quoted you as saying, while you were apparently calling me a liar for pointing out that you were saying things you in fact went on to defend saying, while denying you said them?

Or do I need to quote you again.

PaganPlace:

"Actually, all I want to do is mention that as I rather laboriously documented, previously, your accusations of 'Neopaganism' being responsible for Nazism appearing out of nowhere were completely off-base"
--------------------
This is a lie. You never documented it. You simply lied. And you are lying now. I've explained it several times. I didn't use the word "neopaganism" either. The topic sentence of that paragraph states that people prefer fantasy.
The idea of "German pagan" responsibility is one such fantasy.

I gave a list of the possible reasons why you don't comprehend this. As for the "backstory lie," again see the Carlin thread, the Crossin thread, and see below.

I'm not going to explain it to you again. I'll simply paste. You are lying about me, and that is a dangerous game. Word to the wise: You open the door for people to do that to you.

In this, I mean no disrespect: Have you been drinking?

We might need to get out the water hose real soon now.

Wanna read a good book? Njal's Saga (Viking-age Icelandic) is a great story, probably largely true, about two friends whose wives don't like each other and who really don't know when to quit. The mayhem that ensues is truly impressive.

Seriously. I'm on one thread, people are saying someone made up my whole religion in 1956, and in his one I'm being blamed for the *Nazis.* Never mind the BS about the progressive candidate that's somehow supposed to be associated with all this. Does that seem right to you?

And as for 'Pagans' being responsible for the Nazi thing, are you out of our *mind?* It's a much more liberal America, seventy years later, and we can't *open a tea shop* without someone gunning for us.

More words to the wiser: Don't have a chip on your shoulder. Don't be paranoid. Be open to what others say.

Oh, and, when you make a mistake, as in, falsely accuse, admit it. That's the most important ot these words, to the wise, that is.

"All you seem to want to do is dishonestly accuse and fight. "

Actually, all I want to do is mention that as I rather laboriously documented, previously, your accusations of 'Neopaganism' being responsible for Nazism appearing out of nowhere were completely off-base.

Why you insist on dragging Senaor Obama into these ideas, I still don't know. Only people intimating anyone thinks he can 'walk on water' or would care if he could, are Limbaugh's dittoheads.

He's a good candidate. Not a King. Him getting elected will not matter unless we the people hold him to some promises. Trying to disillusion people about it will not help us.

Does that mean you're going to stop "flogging the horse," falsely accusing, etc.?

Word to the wise: Don't play a player.

Well, it appears so, Steven. This would appear to be about the third go-round.

Re: Your July 20, 2008 12:51 AM

I don't comprehend a word you're saying. I don't have a conspiracy theory. Having made more than clear during the last several months that I'd like nothing better than to see business as usual disrupted, I'm at a loss.

Wanting change, however, doesn't make me a gullible moron, and. fortunately, I'm not alone in that. I wasn't the only one unsurprised, albeit disappointed when Obama supported FISA.

All you're doing in your posts is make my point. Is that your desire? To make my point? All you seem to want to do is dishonestly accuse and fight. That's not why I logged on, so, if that's all you want to do, I'll log off.

Some of those present might want to stop flogging the horse. It will only smell worse, and nothing will have been accomplished.

PaganPlace:

Did you read my 12:33 and 12:46 posts? Are you going to stop accusing me of things I haven't said, positions I don't hold?

Or do you just want to win? If you just want to win, declare yourself the winner, of whatever battle you're in.

My only interest is in the idea that magical thinking is part of the sociohistorical process, denial of facts is part of that process, etc., etc. Is it analogous to the paranormal? Probably not. Does it make communion with it? I think so.

Again with your fantasy about your fantasy of WWII.

Again with trying to associate a certain very human senator from Illinois with your sense of 'Someone besides people like me must be to blame for the fact that 'this can't be happening, there is a flag and a cross involved,' ...is not good enough.

'it's not my fault, it's not my fault, punish someone else,' that's the Orwellian *BS* of *this* particular iteration of the *same darn people* tring to lead people to jingoism.

They don't *care* whether or not Obama is elected, they just want to make sure that if he *is* he can't disrupt the usual order of *business as usual.*

It doesn't even have to make *sense,* which is why they laugh at 'atheists.' Atheists tend to offer, 'It *is* your fault, but there's no hope,' and wonder why no one buys that cold comfort when it's so much 'hotter' to blame others for what you *keep insisting on doing.*

How does something like a holocaust happen?

All someone has to do is make it easy.

PaganPlace:

Evidently, you have one or more of the following problems:

1. A decoding problem, an inability to read.

2. An inability to distinguish the main idea from supporting points.

3. A major hang-up with the Holocaust

4. A major hang-up with Obama

My point concerned irrational thinking, magical thinking. In this I used Obama, the civil rights movement, and the Holocaust. I was responding to a post in which you had written that "explanations just don't take away the good stuff." I believe that people, including yours truly, do resist unpleasant facts. The idea that atheism, or "science" is proof against this tendency is not only false it's silly.

Here is another example. When Edward Said wrote about Yeats being a postcolonialist, my colleagues went ballistic. Said was crazy, he'd lost it, etc. However, Yeats was a postcolonialist. They must believe that all postcolonialists are lefties. It was downright scary.

I, for one, am sick of these unjustiafiable tirades.

Farnaz: Not sure what I wrote that conflicts with what you said. Antisemitism is old stuff, and easily orthogonal to other kinds of belief, whether Christian, pagan, or otherwise. The WWII era Nazis had appropriated some Asatru symbols (e.g. the swastika and some runes) and were steeped in German culture and nationalism, but they weren't Asatru, and the current heathen revival generally wants nothing to do with their memory.

Paganplace: Actually, I'm not any kind of occultist, but a few runes here and there never hurt anything. Well, unless Odin is involved, which case it might be dicey. But if runes are involved, then Odin *is* involved, isn't he?

My involvement is mythical, not magical. For me, the word "supernatural" kind of self-destructs. Of course, not all heathens agree with me on that point, but some do.

And let's get this straight, Farnaz. While *you* expect to not-outlive-your-denial-about-how bad-stuff-happens, and be off in your so-righteous afterlife waking up to milk-and-honey samosas, some of the people you like to blame for people thinking *just like you do* expect to still be here. Waiting for the next one.

You Abrahamics. Always blaming the random little guy for what you clamor for *on your watch.* Diddlysquat. Not again, not now. Look at the damn situation and stop defending fantasies cause *you* think the whole universe is based around *blame.*

What. Do. You. Want. To. Do. Now.

What you wrote about the backstory is a lie, an outright lie. Please read the following pasted below for your convenience, so that you will not have to scroll down. Please read slowly. Be especially attentive to the first two sentences in boldface. Then read on. Then look at the sentence you lifted out of context and see if you understand the context. Capiche?

(The topic sentence is "People prefer fantasy.")

THE TOPIC SENTENCE OF THE SECOND PARAGRAPH, THAT IS THE FIRST SENTENCE, SPEAKS TO WHAT PEOPLE, NOT I PREFER TO BELIEVE. ONE THING THEY PREFER TO BELIEVE IS THAT GERMAN "PAGANS," WERE RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL THE KILLING. NEITHER GERMANS NOR PAGANS NOR THOSE WHO WERE OFFICIALLY MEMBERS OF THE NAZI PARTY WERE OFFICIALLY RESPONSIBLE.

The Holocaust is an even more dramatic and consequential example. There are simple well-documented facts about who did what to whom, that the Holocaust was a world-wide phenomena, involving ordinary, often religiously observant people, who took the opportunity of German occupation to slaughter Jews
quite on their own. In Ukraine and in Lithuania, the nazis had to put a stop to citizen-initiated slaughter because it was too disorganized.

People prefer fantasy. Obama walks on water (still does), and only sociopathic, German "pagans" participated in the Holocaust. The same must be true of all those Americans from the South we see in films lining the streets screaming unrepeatable things during the civil rights marches of the 1960s. None of these racists, none of those who supported segration, could possibly have been "ordinary people" who went to church. Only German "pagans" committed atrocities, and racism only existed in the South.

As for 'demonizing,' you do realize that Karl Rove crap about 'Attack others for what you're brazenly doing' only fools people for *so long?*

As for calling me a *liar,* Farnaz, which is fighting words, let me repeat my post of the *last* time you called me a 'liar' for quoting your own words back to you:

" Paganplace:

So, it was false of me to say that you said, oh, I dunno, something to the effect of:

"THAT THIS WAS ALL THE BUSINESS OF GERMAN PAGANS,"

Just so I'm not getting you wrong, here."

Unquote.

Capiche?

And Blavatsky.

The German populace was *not* literate in some 'Pagan antisemitism:' In fact the *antisemitism' was a radition of the medieval church... complete with elaborate conspiracies how 'witches' were conspiring with lepers and Jews to poison wells...

All of the above is the case. There was no "pagan antisemitism" that I know of in the early myths. It was a late nineteenth century add-on along with the theosophy.
--------------
The antisemitism continued in the churches, and among the people.
--------------
Pagan elements had a syncretic connection with the medieval church. Some were used in the interest of antisemitism.
------------
Not unlike the pious conspiracy theories of today that just happen to get Obama's name dropped among them.

I still don't know what "conspiracy theories" you're talking about.

-------------

Your "backstory" business is a lie. Get it yet?

------------
The point, if it can ever be regained, is magical thinking, irrational, nonrational, herizing, demonizing thinking.

And I'm personally getting a little sick of you blaming the Holocaust on *people that got killed by it,* then *trying to relate it to the current election. *

"PaganPlace: The "backstory" you attribute to me is a lie. I have now tried everything short of drawing my position in crayon for you, and there's no more I can do."

Actually, you've repeatedly *shouted* your original assertion that 'Nazis were cause of 'neopagans' and simultaneously accused me of making up the words you *keep saying.*

Hitler ran as a 'Christian Values candidate.' it's just so. Nazi 'occult' stuff was largely-secret and did not have to do with any Pagan conspiracies to overwhelm 'good Christian folk.'

You keep saying, even in all caps, that it was 'Germanic Pagans,' but it's ...just not so.

"Hitler's ideologues developed this "pagan religion" further. I should add that elements of it are to be found in Wagner"

And Blavatsky.

The German populace was *not* literate in some 'Pagan antisemitism:' In fact the *antisemitism' was a radition of the medieval church... complete with elaborate conspiracies how 'witches' were conspiring with lepers and Jews to poison wells...

Not unlike the pious conspiracy theories of today that just happen to get Obama's name dropped among them.

And correct me if I'm wrong, Steven: If you're a 'Nordic occultist,' do you put four Sigel runes on your elite soldiers' *heads,* or is that not recommended procedure? :)

"We're not in a purpose-built world of ultimate justice and eternal redemption, as tempting as those beliefs are."

where is the empirical evidence for this statement? For someone who claims knowledge of reality is based strictly on verifiable evidence I fail to see how that statement is supported by science; it is but conjecture and personal opinion.

Eh, Steven, always the scapegoats. You'd think if people were looking for 'occult' connections to how WWII played out, they might be more disposed to thinking, 'Wait a minute, did Hitler just go insane, get hooked on all manner of drugs, and somehow throw a monkeywrench into his own well-laid plans for inexorable European domination?

Ain't no justice, I tell you. ;)

Steven T. Abell:

That is not quite correct. Germanic pagan myths were revived in the late nineteenth century and were intricately tied in with nationalism, and nationalist antisemticism. They included figures like "Germanicus," the notion that Germanic essence was inherent in the blood and land, and that true Germans could access their "Germaness" through the soil, blood and soil. It was mystical at its core and included mystical antisemitism.

Hitler's ideologues developed this "pagan religion" further. I should add that elements of it are to be found in Wagner. It was part of Nazi life which permeated all aspects of Nazi culture in Germany. However, many Germans remained Lutheran or Catholic, and although Germany was the starting point of the Holocaust it was not confined there. Whatever civilian involvement may have occurred with regard to German Jewish people living in Germany, it was invariably provoked by the Party.

This was not the case elsewhere. "Primitivism" was a part of the politics of modernity, indeed of modernism, but that is another story. Other countries did have their German pagan equivalents, but they did not gain much of a foothold among the leading fascist parties. For the record, my position is that ordinary God-fearing people, Lutherans, Catholics, and Orthodox among the Ukrainians, slavic, Baltic peoples, the French, etc., simple citizens (a) engaged in slaughtering Jews and/or (b) turned them over to the nazis as soon as they set foot on their soil. These countries had a history of institutionalized antisemitism, and slaughtering Jews was not new to them. Slaughtering them on this scale had not happened in recent times, with the single exception of Russia/Ukraine.

It should be noted that German Jews did not obtain the rights of full citizenship until after WWI.

The current "contratemps," as you put it, either comes from PaganPlace's inablility to comprehend what I've blogged time and time again, or an unwillingness to do so. Anyone who is literate can easily see that what I've posted here is completely consistent with what I've posted below, on the Carlin thread, and on the Crossin thread.

Steve, I posted a bibliography that touches on all of the above on Crossin's thread last week. You can access it if you'd like.
---------------------
PaganPlace: The "backstory" you attribute to me is a lie. I have now tried everything short of drawing my position in crayon for you, and there's no more I can do. The larger point, which you seem to have missed, is that often we do prefer "magical thinking" to the truth. Heroizing, demonizing, refusing to look at facts are "magical thinking." I like Anon's phrase, will use it.

WRT the current contretemps about German pagans in the Nazi era, here's the standard history on this topic in Asatru circles (not validated by my own research but I'll report it anyway).

An essential ingredient in Naziism was national pride. This had been a part of German cultural development for a long time before the Nazis came along. Revival of native Germanic folk religion was a part of this. Some of the early Nazis were explicitly Wotanist/Asatru. There are supposedly verified documents about a discussion of this topic from a few years later, once Hitler and friends had acquired some real power, in which it was decided that reviving widespread belief in Odin was a bad idea. Hitler thought he was a Christian, and that Naziism was a fulfillment of that religion in the German context. When the genocides began, the first religious minority to be targeted were the Asatruar, who had been operating in the open as they believed they were approved of. These people and their families were *completely* wiped out.

Farnaz and anonymous, together again.

But, of course, what do I know... I apparently reside in some 'undead world of supernatural junk thought,' but at least I can get the geography straight. ;)

Anon,

If you're still there, I've read "Mytholgies," know what you mean. Thanks for explaining.

Farnaz

Ok, Farnaz. So you still would like to shout at me that I'm lying about you for quoting back at you what you insist upon saying, in spite of all explications to the contrary.

You brought all this up. I was suggesting we talk about monsters, and look what we get. :)

PaganPlace:

1. YOUR 10:39 POST IS AN OUTRIGHT UNTRUTH. IT IS FALSE, CATEGORICALLY FALSE. MY POSITION IS AS I DESCRIBED IT BELOW, WITH RESPECT TO GERMAN IDEOLOGUES. THERE HAS BEEN DENIAL SINCE THE BEGINNING, THAT GOD-FEARING PEOPLE PARTICIPATED IN THE SLAUGHTER, THAT THOSE WHO DID SO WERE "PAGANS." REREAD THE FIRST PARAGRAPH FROM BELOW FROM MY 10:14 POST.

THE TOPIC SENTENCE OF THE SECOND PARAGRAPH, THAT IS THE FIRST SENTENCE, SPEAKS TO WHAT PEOPLE, NOT I PREFER TO BELIEVE. ONE THING THEY PREFER TO BELIEVE IS THAT GERMAN "PAGANS," WERE RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL THE KILLING. NEITHER GERMANS NOR PAGANS NOR THOSE WHO WERE OFFICIALLY MEMBERS OF THE NAZI PARTY WERE OFFICIALLY RESPONSIBLE.

The Holocaust is an even more dramatic and consequential example. There are simple well-documented facts about who did what to whom, that the Holocaust was a world-wide phenomena, involving ordinary, often religiously observant people, who took the opportunity of German occupation to slaughter Jews
quite on their own. In Ukraine and in Lithuania, the nazis had to put a stop to citizen-initiated slaughter because it was too disorganized.

People prefer fantasy. Obama walks on water (still does), and only sociopathic, German "pagans" participated in the Holocaust. The same must be true of all those Americans from the South we see in films lining the streets screaming unrepeatable things during the civil rights marches of the 1960s. None of these racists, none of those who supported segration, could possibly have been "ordinary people" who went to church. Only German "pagans" committed atrocities, and racism only existed in the South.

AGAIN, WHAT YOU HAVE ACCUSED ME OF IS FALSE, ABSOLUTELY FALSE. YOUR "BACKSTORY" IS FALSE. AMPLE EVIDENCE TO THE CONTRARY MAY BE FOUND ABOVE, ON MY POSTS ON THREAD, ON THE CARLIN THREAD, ON THE CROSSIN THREAD.

Do you get it yet?

I mean, I know this is technically an atheist thread. But just *supposing* there was any kind of folks out here trying to see to people's spiritual well-being, you tell me. Are we getting paid enough? ;)

So, it was false of me to say that you said, oh, I dunno, something to the effect of:

"THAT THIS WAS ALL THE BUSINESS OF GERMAN PAGANS,"

Just so I'm not getting you wrong, here.

"I think I've been blogging here long enough for it to be apparent, know I have for it to be obvious that I'm a liberal. "

Looks a little more like 'Operation Chaos' to me. You're the one who brought up all manner of random stuff about 'Pagan Germanic Nazis.' In the *Baltics* no less.

You don't like Obama accepting funding the troops that were already sent, ...what you want, someone who voted *for* the war and then said, 'Let's cut corners. This is supposed to 'pay for itself,' anyway, like Cheney said...'

My ethnicity relates to you randomly bringing up 'Germanic Pagan Nazis' ....to what purpose, again?

PaganPlace:

PaganPlace: (The backstory on this Farnaz thing, is s/he basically came up with a notion that Hitler didn't run on a Christian Values ticket, heavily suppported, in fact, by one Prescott Bush of Connecticut, but rather it was all some 'occult commie conspiracy' to ally the state with corporate interests and for gays to put themselves in concentration camps. Apparently because there wasn't any kind of thousand-year long anti-Semitic Church doctrine and ritual of passion plays or anything, but rather 'a whole bunch of 'neopagans' we tree-huggers are supposed to have something to do with

THIS IS ABSOLUTELY FALSE. I NEVER SAID THAT, NEVER WOULD HAVE, NEVER COULD HAVE. I SAID PRECISELY THE OPPOSITE ON MORE THAN ONE OCCASION. I SAID IT ON THE CARLIN THREAD AND I SAID IT ON THE CROSSAN'S THREAD LAST WEEK. I SAID IT IN MY POSTS BELOW.

THE EXACT OPPOSITE OF WHAT YOU CLAIM.

YOU ARE CONFUSING ME WITH SOMEONE ELSE. WHAT YOU ARE SAYING ABOUT ME, THAT THIS WAS ALL THE BUSINESS OF GERMAN PAGANS, THAT I MADE THAT CLAIM IS CATEGORICALLY FALSE, AN OUTRIGHT UNTRUTH.

GET YOUR FACTS STRAIGHT. I'M BEING KIND HERE. I'M NOT ACCUSING YOU OF DELIBERATELY LYING, BUT GET YOUR FACTS STRAIGHT.

PaganPlace: Err, Farnaz, you're the one who brought up your crazy theory about 'Germanic Pagans' being responsible for Nazism taking over the Baltic states,

Farnaz: I said the precise opposite. You might want to reread my original post and read my 10:14 post if it crossed with yours. I said the precise opposite of what you assert.

PaganPlace: Then you start trying to say he was 'flip-flopping' about the war, when actually, he stood against it. And when it happened anyway, he stood for not sending our boys and gals over with inadequate and substandard gear.

Farnaz: As US senator, he voted twice for UNCONDITIONAL additional funding for the war in Iraq.

PaganPlace: But why be troubled about details when you're trying to scare people about Obama, or an Irish chick like me, right? )

Farnaz: The "details" business I covered above. That you accuse me of trying to [s]care people goes to my point, which concerns "mythical thinking," denial of facts, etc. I think I've been blogging here long enough for it to be apparent, know I have for it to be obvious that I'm a liberal. Would I want to scare people into voting for McCaine? No. Further, unless you think all Americans are absolute morons, I doubt anyone could do that with the facts I presented.

Here is what I wrote in my original post:

This is not to say that Obama, should were he elected (and I, for one, hope he is), will have a disastrous presidency, but is to recognize that he will not take positions that a leftist might hope for. FISA should have surprised no one. As a neo-liberal, he will not support mandatory healthcare, while some of us do, and should recognize now, rather than later, that we will have to fight for it.

This goes to realism, not scare tactics, political realism.

On your Irish ethnicity, I don't know what to say. How does it relate to the topic?

(The backstory on this Farnaz thing, is s/he basically came up with a notion that Hitler didn't run on a Christian Values ticket, heavily suppported, in fact, by one Prescott Bush of Connecticut, but rather it was all some 'occult commie conspiracy' to ally the state with corporate interests and for gays to put themselves in concentration camps. Apparently because there wasn't any kind of thousand-year long anti-Semitic Church doctrine and ritual of passion plays or anything, but rather 'a whole bunch of 'neopagans' we tree-huggers are supposed to have something to do with.

Speaking of magical thinking. ;)

Anyway, Farnaz, got a handle on what you 'keep saying' yet? Or do you just want an excuse to keep saying it?

"I was referring to processes like heroizing"

I think it's a bad and very American habit, especially in an information age when people are busy trying to knock people off imaginary pedestals before they even get to be the human beings that, believe it or not, we could kinda use right now.

Farnaz:

Re: Mythical thinking
I was referring to processes like heroizing. There's a book called "Mythologies" by Roland Barthes. Basically it says that any person X must have a,b,c qualities. It's like stereotyping but isn't exactly the same thing. Mythologies, as Barthes calls them, are culturally embedded.

Err, Farnaz, you're the one who brought up your crazy theory about 'Germanic Pagans' being responsible for Nazism taking over the Baltic states, (Actually, Lithuanian and Estonian Paganism is much more related to the Finnish than the Teutonic, anyway. But why be troubled about details when you're trying to scare people about Obama, or an Irish chick like me, right? )

Then you start trying to say he was 'flip-flopping' about the war, when actually, he stood against it. And when it happened anyway, he stood for not sending our boys and gals over with inadequate and substandard gear.

Anon,

What do you mean by "mythical thinking"?

PaganPlace:

I dunno, Farnaz, you're the one ranting about Obama having something to do with 'Germanic Pagan Nazis' among Baltic peoples.

Certain 'powers that be' are very interested in making sure, not so much that Obama doesn't get elected to take the blame for the fallout of Reagan/Bush/Clinton/Bush, ...but that ability he has to *inspire people to take practical measures* is thoroughly-defused before he can take office.

He does not need to walk on water. He does have the most consistently-liberal record of our previous choices, ...Apart from not wanting yet another election to be about Republican indignance that Bill Clinton had some sex, Hillary was my *third* choice. On the issues.

There is no conspiracy of 'pagan Nazis' here .
___________________
I'm having a lot of trouble trying to understand what you mean, but I'll do my best to answer. On your first paragraph, I haven't a clue as to what you're talking about. Your second paragraph sounds "conspiratorial" to me. I don't know what "powers that be" you're referring to. Charisma doesn't do it for me; neither does inspiratation. Good speeches are good speeches. Nice to listen to. When they are backed up by something, as was the case with Martin Luther King, they are something more.

I've read this business about his having the most consistently liberal voting record, so a few weeks ago, I accessed the Congressional Record, which you can also do. He doesn't. HIs and Clinton's were about identical. Edwards was to the left of Clinton, Clinton to the left of Obama--"on the issues." As a person of the left, that concerns me.

When you say no Nazi "pagan" political conspiracies, I don't know what you mean. What I can say, is that many, many people insist that all nazis were pagans. It is true that the nazis did, i.e., the German ideologues did promote a mythic pagan alternative to Christianity that developed in the nineteenth century. That is as far as it goes.

The point of my post, as Anon evidently sees, is that we do engage in dichotomous and irrational thinking all the time, that science, "reason," do not protect us against this. The great German theorist Theodor Adorno wrote a great deal about this matter. You can go to Douglas Kellner's website and read some of Adorno. If I recall correctly, Kellner posted a chapter from "The Dialectics of the Enlightenment." I think you would enjoy it.:-)

Actually, suddenly-Anonymous, Obama was among the few who *did* vote against the Iraq war. And when *that* was a fait accompli, he voted to not short our soldiers on the *gear.*

Frankly, this 'surge' thing is just covering up for the fact that no one listened to the generals that kept having to resign in protest when they said, 'If you're committed to this Charlie Foxtrot, which I do not advise, a la 'Pottery Barn,' you need more troops and more mustering time to not screw it up.'

You bet Obama voted for better gear. Bush had such a *ahem* for his war he went off half-cocked and our troops were scavenging armor. And to protect no-bid contracts, soldiers had to go ballistically-bare-nekkid, even if GI Joe's *Mom* saved her pennies to buy her kid the better stuff commercially and send it over.

Being against the war doesn't mean being *for* sticking a 'Support Our Troops' magnet on the SUV and screwing them.

Paganplace:

Re: Magical Thinking
Arguably, you're right, of course, in the technical sense. However, Obama couldn't have voted to support the Iraq war because he is Obama is, arguably, magical cognition. I've heard the equvalent of this any number of times.

In lieu of magical thinking, one might use intellectual surrender, denial, reification, etc., mythical thinking, as used by social scientists.

"I'm still not certain what you mean by "conspiracy theories."

I dunno, Farnaz, you're the one ranting about Obama having something to do with 'Germanic Pagan Nazis' among Baltic peoples.

Certain 'powers that be' are very interested in making sure, not so much that Obama doesn't get elected to take the blame for the fallout of Reagan/Bush/Clinton/Bush, ...but that ability he has to *inspire people to take practical measures* is thoroughly-defused before he can take office.

He does not need to walk on water. He does have the most consistently-liberal record of our previous choices, ...Apart from not wanting yet another election to be about Republican indignance that Bill Clinton had some sex, Hillary was my *third* choice. On the issues.

There is no conspiracy of 'pagan Nazis' here .

This is about what the country needs. Leadership. Not a *king.* Leadership. That means the election that some try to make as dirty and wearisome as they can, is only the start.

We get the government we deserve, and we're way behind on the work to be done.

"Belief in the paranormal and magical thinking aren't very far apart. "

In a pathological sense, 'magical thinking' and beliefs called 'paranormal' are actually *quite different things.*

'Magical thinking' is a symptom common to schizotypal or schizophrenic persons, or sometimes those subject to manic psychosis, where unrelated events are believed to have been caused by each other. It's actually a misnomer if you want to apply it to cultures or belief systems which have a 'magical' component.

The pathology will say, 'I had to cross the street because my shoes are blue' There's no rhyme or reason to that. This is different from living in a different mythic or cultural perception, even though the prevailing culture here isn't predisposed to see the difference, ...even if they'll try to legislate, 'People drove planes into the Twin Towers Cause We Weren't mean Enough To Gays.'

PaganPlace:

Ah, yes, I see what you meant. I guess I could go back through this blog, for one thing, to summon evidence, but it would take me too long. I should add, though, that besides hysteria, there was a kind of denial, a refusal to engage in discussion of the rather important points I mentioned. Interestingly, the case was often different, in my experience, with Clinton supporters. I think this may have been due to their having ruled out sexiness and charisma from the start, leaving them freer to be realistic on the issues.

I'm still not certain what you mean by "conspiracy theories."

Farnaz:

Belief in the paranormal and magical thinking aren't very far apart. Those who think they have a grasp on "science" and "reason" are often the worst culprits when it comes to to the social, political, and historical realms, the most blind and the most ignorant.

"Also, what do I keep saying?"

Shouldn't you *know,* if the direct quote wasn't good enough?

PaganPlace:

Also, what do I keep saying?

PaganPlace:
"You keep saying that, Farnaz, but that doesn't make it coincide with reality. Or grant any credence to ridiculous conspiracy theories about the man."

But I don't have any "conspiracy theories." What conspiracy theories are you referring to? I do think that he is deeply enmeshed with the Carterites, but these enmeshments, with Carter and Daily, have been reported in both the Times and, amazingly, in the Washington Post. Are they what you are referring to? Or something else?

"For Obama supporters, any facts that mitigated their notion that he walked on water was unacceptable."

You keep saying that, Farnaz, but that doesn't make it coincide with reality. Or grant any credence to ridiculous conspiracy theories about the man.

PaganPlace writes to Arminius: To my experience, Arminius, explanations just don't take away the Good Stuff. As much as people hope for or fear just that, or how big a mess they're willing to make about it. :)

Actually, for many of us, I think they often do, not only in the scientific realm, but also, even moreso in the political and the historical. The idolatry and demonizing in the recent Democratic presidential primary are, I think, an excellent case in point. For Obama supporters, any facts that mitigated their notion that he walked on water was unacceptable. That on both health care and immigration, he was to the right of Clinton, that his foreign policy advisors could make one's hair stand on end, that both he and his wife were and are enmeshed with the transgenerational Chicago Daily Political Machine, that as US senator, he twice voted for unconditional increased funding for the war in Iraq are simple facts that drew near hysterical reactions from his supporters. Tranquilizers were in order.

Other, reasonable, responses were available to these, realistic responses that would have enabled them to continue to support Obama over Clinton, but they could not summon them.

The Holocaust is an even more dramatic and consequential example. There are simple well-documented facts about who did what to whom, that the Holocaust was a world-wide phenomena, involving ordinary, often religiously observant people, who took the opportunity of German occupation to slaughter Jews
quite on their own. In Ukraine and in Lithuania, the nazis had to put a stop to citizen-initiated slaughter because it was too disorganized.

People prefer fantasy. Obama walks on water (still does), and only sociopathic, German "pagans" participated in the Holocaust. The same must be true of all those Americans from the South we see in films lining the streets screaming unrepeatable things during the civil rights marches of the 1960s. None of these racists, none of those who supported segration, could possibly have been "ordinary people" who went to church. Only German "pagans" committed atrocities, and racism only existed in the South.

Let us look at the reasoning in these cases. In the case of Obama, if a candidate appears to have integrity, he cannot support, be involved with, act in a way, I deem questionable. If people act attrociously, they must, in some way, be different from everyone else, certainly from me, sociopathic.

These "explanations" allow us hold on tightly to that "the good stuff" in the short run, but we pay a price in the long run. How many genocides have occurred since the Holocaust? Biafra, Uganda, the former USSR, Cambodia, Rwanda, etc.

Since the last Democratic idol's disastrous presidency, that of Jimmy Carter, we had another with Republican, Ronald Regan. Deregulation, anyone? This is not to say that Obama, should were he elected (and I, for one, hope he is), will have a disastrous presidency, but is to recognize that he will not take positions that a leftist might hope for. FISA should have surprised no one. As a neo-liberal, he will not support mandatory healthcare, while some of us do, and should recognize now, rather than later, that we will have to fight for it.

A Thurber fable ends "O, why must the shattermyth be such a dampenglee?" Well, we know why, but resisting certain kinds of myths to begin with means no glee, just, perhaps, a better, albeit less Hollywoodized world.

So, Brambleton, you don't need proof of your beliefs, but neither do you need 'proof' to go calling people 'Evil' or demanding obedience?

Whaddaya mean, there's no pink fairies! Pink fairies are real. A big book written a long time ago told me that. That author(s) said it, I believe it, that settles it. And you're going to a very bad place when you die if you don't believe in pink fairies, too!

BTW, welcome, Steve Abell. I'm another one of the Pagans that frequent this board. I'm not Asatru, but am friends with several of them. Y'all are good folks.

I've posted this in another thread, but the music group Live summed up it like this:

I don't need no one to tell me about heaven
I look at my daughter, and I believe.
I don't need no proof when it comes to God and truth
I can see the sunset and I perceive

Personally, I've lived the life that was void of the relationship with God. But why would I give up the beauty and peace I've discovered simply because I can't offer tangible proof of my belief? (And this whole idea that I'm somehow less "restrained" or "lazy" is the biggest pile of cow dung I've ever heard. Sad, really.)

If you're in a place where you limit yourself by what people can prove at this very moment, that's okay too. I've been there. My hope is that God has a plan for you.

P.S. Only one "hope" has an answer for evil. The myth of progress (i.e., the Enlightenment) has failed to give us any hope that mankind is marching to the great utopia.

Oh, Arminius, I meant *fun* monsters, like Nessie or Sasquatch or Champy or the like. :)

Hi, Steven T Abell,

Very pleased to meet you! I have got on pretty well with all the Pagans here, and I - well, to be honest, I purely adore them. A great, compassionate and hugely friendly group.

Asatru I am not familiar with in its modern form. I have a limited knowledge of the 'mythology' background. Would be pleased to learn more.

Arminius

Hi, Paganplace!

Monsters? Cool. Define 'monster' and give three examples. Is a monster really bad (Hitler, Stalin, trolls, orcs, rocs, etc), or just possibly dangerous and maybe friendly (dragons, unicorns, yeti, etc). Is Spidey a monster?

Arminius

As for little societies, isn't everywhere, Steven. But this, sometimes, well, it's a ritualized pillow-fight between various trolls, atheists, Fundies, and people with some crazy notion communication could be helpful. ;)

(And, pardon the bit of merriment, I wasn't mocking any of us in particular, it's just a dull mood lifting. :) )

Arminius, meet Steven, he's one of those folks I try to mention might not agree with my tendency to overgeneralize. :)

And this is Arminius, a pretty cool Christian. :)

Arminius: Nice to meet you. Yes, I'm Asatru.

Paganplace: Good to see you again.

I was here once before, quite a while ago. Is this an ongoing little society here?

(hi, to you, too, Arminius. :) )

How about *monsters?* Everybody loves monsters. I was just singing Synchronicity II in traffic today, darkly, tongue in cheek. Not really a long suit of us wicky-poo types, strictly speaking, those epic struggles with monsters.

*cueing In Search Of theme*

Many miles... away... :)

Hi, Steven T Abell,

I thought you might be a Nordic Pagan. I think that's pretty cool - I have several Pagan friends on these blogs, including Paganplace. By the way, I am Christian.

Arminius

"Meanwhile, if anyone else would like to have a discussion that's interesting, rather than entertaining, please let's do."

Hey, it's our Asatru friend. :) Good to see you, Steven. :) You know, if we're the ones supposed to be from 'supernatural worlds of junk thought,' we ought to be able to come up with something extra-junky to talk about. :) Or something interesting. :)

Gotta be some interesting junk lying around here, somewhere. :) Let's see.

Steven T Abell,

Well, to get back to the subject (sort of) regarding the paranormal. I contend that Spidey is paranormal. He obviously exists, but defies any rational explanation.

Hey Spiderman:

I too am an engineer, practicing nearly 30 years now. Degree in mathematics. Know something about infinity. Your conclusions are entertaining. Your attitude is even more so. I'm told you have a lot of entertaining ideas. Love to hear about them.

Meanwhile, if anyone else would like to have a discussion that's interesting, rather than entertaining, please let's do.

"In science or mathematics, there is a term called INFINITY. There are math equations that lead to infinity. I've check the science behind organic matter and guess what I've found? I've seen a lot of INFINITY in it."

Mathematical infinity and 'very large numbers' are two different things, even if you can't grasp the distinctions, Spidey. Your 'Creation Science' may make a lot of obfuscation about claiming they are the same, (say by claiming that life is so mind-bogglingly-improbable according to certain human scales, that it must be mind-bogglingly-improbable on far bigger scales, unless it was an artifact.) But they're not.

Given the scales and numbers involved in what you think to claim authority about, what seems extremely unlikely on a human scale becomes a statistical inevitability. This is not the same as equations that solve out to infinities: in fact, an equation that solves out to infinities generally is taken as being able to quantify nothing, if not erroneous in the first place.

I repeat: Very big numbers are not the same as infinities.

In mathematics, there is also a "no solution" answer.

It is different from a "wrong solution".

Idiot scientist don't know such a term exist. They ALWAYS have solutions even if it's WRONG.

Our teacher gives us 1 point for a "no solution" answer while deducts 2 points for a WRONG SOLUTION.

IDIOTS ALWAYS THINKS THERE IS ALWAYS A SOLUTION FOR EVERYTHING.

I am less and less inclined to see any meaningful distinction between "natrual" and "supernatural". To me, if it exists in fact, it exists in nature and is therefore "natural". Even if there were a God, whose ways were unfathomable, and who influenced our concrete reality from outside space and time, that would still be "natural". Coversely, Newton's law of universal gravitation, which posits an immaterial action at a distance between bodies, was initially derided as quasi-supernatural until it's explanatory power overshadowed the criticism.

So the meaningful distinction is not whether a belief is natural or supernatural, but whether it is scientific, i.e. based in evidence. It is the PROCESS of developing a belief that is at issue. It all goes back to knowing HOW to know. Those who know how to know believe in things that are by and large true by any practical standard, subject to the usual caveats of scientific contingency and new evidence. Those who don't - those who are superstitious - believe in a random assortment of largely circumstantial things based on indoctrination and psychological tendencies.

In sum, categorize the believer (rational vs. superstitious), not the belief.

As to WHY so many people don't know how to know, DITLD sums it up better than I can:

"People believe in paranormal things and supernatural things, because it is a way to believe complicated things without thinking or worrying. Knowing real stuff takes some effort, and some interest. Putting togething a real and true concept of existence takes a lifetime of thinking and gathering up facts and truths. It is easier just to believe in 'magic.'"

I would add that it takes DISCIPLINE and SELF RESTRAINT. There's a big difference between what we'd like to be true and what IS true. We're not in a purpose-built world of ultimate justice and eternal redemption, as tempting as those beliefs are.

Ah, Spidey, the Blasphemer, you are back.

I'm sure Steven T Abell would be highly entertained by your 'prophesies', which you claim can be understood by any. Strangely, none of the other six billion of us can figure it out. And you, of course, don't explain, because you don't know. Or, you could regale Steven with your outrageous 'expanding earth' theory about the Noah's flood myth.

C'mon, Spidey, we all need a good laugh.

Steven T Abell wrote "Then he's trying to conflate two meanings of "cannot": "simply not able to" vs. "hasn't yet".

Poor boy. If you believe that given more time, science will be able to make pink roses from scratch, forget it. It's the same as believing there is a treasure at the end of the rainbow. Iam an engineer and I know what is impossible and what is probable.

In science or mathematics, there is a term called INFINITY. There are math equations that lead to infinity. I've check the science behind organic matter and guess what I've found? I've seen a lot of INFINITY in it.

If you can wait that long, then GOOD LUCK. Now we'll be able to test which is longer : stupidity or infinity?

The idiots will surely bet on STUPIDITY.

Mr. Mark:

"Spidey's implication is that science cannot explain how inanimate matter became animate matter"

Then he's trying to conflate two meanings of "cannot": "simply not able to" vs. "hasn't yet". Given our lack of a time machine, the best science will ever be able to do with a complex question such as this is to understand a lot of relevant issues in detail, while filling in the gaps with some well-founded appeals to plausibility. For people who demand to understand the specifics of life, the universe, and everything in a sound bite, or a few pages in a storybook, this will never be adequate.

This is not to say that the storybooks aren't worth reading. It is to say that everything has its place. My religion's creation story is very important to me. That doesn't mean I think we were actually made from a couple of trees.

To my experience, Arminius, explanations just don't take away the Good Stuff. As much as people hope for or fear just that, or how big a mess they're willing to make about it. :)

Hi, Paganplace,

I have had four life-changing experiences that I can't explain. I could add another, which profoundly changed me, but it is explainable. I don't wish to detail them on a blog. None of these experiences caused me to acquire a blanket acceptance of all paranormal stuff. Of the four non-explainable ones, one was bad, one was scary, and two were incredibly good and beautiful. The fifth explainable one was good and beautiful too.

So do I have a skeptical attitude, learned in that proverbial school of hard knocks. It took for readings of the Gospels before I bought back in to Christianity.

Arminius

Dear Steve T Abell -

Welcome to the magical world of trying to talk logic and science to Spidey.

I see that Spidey has moved on to rose petals these days. This is a variation on Spidey's old chestnut, "show me an example of brain coming from soil!!"

Spidey's implication is that science cannot explain how inanimate matter became animate matter, or how soil evolved into the human brain. Spidey presents this as proof positive that evolution could not have happened, and that we're all idiots for thinking otherwise.

Which is kinda strange when you think about it as Spidey's beloved Bible postulates that god created man out of the "dust of the Earth"...ie: a Biblical example of "brain being created from soil" if there ever was one. ;)

Hee, Arminius. Gods know I've had more than my share, despite what I like to think is a naturally-skeptical eye. I think that eye has served me well: it certainly takes a lot to impress me. :)

Hi Paganplace,

"I once again find myself seeming to stand between one group of people saying, 'You're all insane!' and another group saying, 'You're all damned!'"

Welcome to the club.

Many of us have had experiences that defy any rational explanation. I certainly have had a few.

Arminius

I once again find myself seeming to stand between one group of people saying, 'You're all insane!' and another group saying, 'You're all damned!'

I know it's horribly non-controversial, but given people pretty routinely experience some stuff, how about we start with sane reactions to it rather than screaming at each other about which way to try to make it seem to go away till it happens again we ought to be enforcing?

Stuff we like to call 'Paranormal' occurs in our experience all the time. No one said it had to break your world. Well, actually, a lot of people say that. But you don't have to listen to them.

To Spiderman2:

"There are no pink fairies"

But there is a god called Jehovah? An interesting pair of assertions.

"but there are lots of pink roses and NO scientist (dead or living) knows how it all came about. NOBODY can reproduce it from scratch coz they don't know how it really works."

Not yet. It used to be asserted that only your god new how to make organic compounds. The people who said that weren't the ones who figured out how to do it.

"IDIOCY HAS NO CURE and Im sure you don't understand what I just said about the pink rose."

Condescension and smugness also have no cure.

"What a crazy world and it's about to meet its DOOM."

Which you know all about because of your mythology? In the mythology of my religion, doomsday (Ragnarok) happens after a winter that lasts for several years. I haven't seen that recently, so I'm not worried.

To Tonio:

You ask some interesting questions. Do I hear voices in my head? Not in the way I think you mean. The inside of my head is a pretty busy place, and one might describe the different aspects of what's going on there as voices. See the stories in my book "Days in Midgard" for examples of what sometimes happens there.

Campbell's notions of experience and myth are useful. One problem with that discussion is that dismissive adjectives such as "only" or "merely" or "just", or misunderstood nouns such as "myth" and "legend" that invite them, come into play too cheaply. I do know a few literalist heathens who bristle at the word "archetype", but I'm not one of them.

Religious experience is powerful stuff. The trick is to know that power while maintaining perspective on what you are experiencing. This helps to keep it in the "asset" column and not the "liability" column. And I won't tell anyone they're evil or defective if they don't or don't want to deal with such experience.

Autonomous,

IIRC, Canyon would routinely call for the immediate nuking of Mecca. Even Spidey doesn't do that, although he never does have anything nice to say.

Engineer and theologian? I would not call Spidey a theologian. I did know, long ago, a very fine man who was a nuclear engineer and an Episcopal priest.

CCNL - do you really think Spidey is Canyon Shearer? Now I'll admit that Spidey has cleaned up his composition considerably (always a good thing) - but Canyon seemed far beyond Spidey in both his compositional skills and his rather broad if slanted grasp of all things biblical (and given his Calvinist leanings) - of course flaming fundamentalism remains the same, regardless the level of erudition.

I believe Canyon was the product of formal theological training - do we really see that with Spidey? Hmmmmm - an engineer AND a theologian??

That very possibility approaches the paranormal.

Spiderman2 aka Canyonshearer,

You need to take a course in biochemistry.

E-Fav wrote "If a person were a firm believer in a cadre of pink fairies ..."

There are no pink fairies but there are lots of pink roses and NO scientist (dead or living) knows how it all came about. NOBODY can reproduce it from scratch coz they don't know how it really works.

IDIOCY HAS NO CURE and Im sure you don't understand what I just said about the pink rose.

The stupidity among atheists is just UNIMAGINABLE. I can't believe a lot of these people are allowed to teach in schools. What a crazy world and it's about to meet its DOOM.

Soja, you say, "(it goes without saying that atheists are created in the image and likeness of God too whether they believe in Him or not)."

If a person were a firm believer in a cadre of pink fairies as the creators of the universe, would it then go without saying that Christians are created in the image and likeness of pink fairies too whether they believe in them or not?

Or does this only apply to the god that you believe in?

Steven, would you explain what you mean by "telling a part of myself that it didn't get to talk"? Do you mean that you heard a voice in your head? Or are you talking about part of your conscience or personality? And are you using "experience" and "representations" in the John Campbell sense, where gods and myth are allegories for aspects of the human experience?

I became religious when I got tired of telling a part of myself that it didn't get to talk. Nothing changed, really. Existence still exists, and it still is what it is, and now there's another viewport into experiencing it. Hail Thor! Hail Odin! Hail Tyr! Hail Freya especially!

You might say this is just a metaphor, only an analogy. But such representations can indeed have referents in reality that don't require "belief" to justify having them. Letting the representations take on a life of their own can be either a good thing or a bad thing, but they're not a useless thing.

I believe in the Supernatural! It's on Thursday nights at 9 PM on the CW network, right after the Smallville! :D

I loves me some Winchester brothers!

"Because as far as neurology researchers can determine, the sequence of keystrokes and data associated with them occurs faster than nerves & synapses can work. This means our understanding of nerves is incomplete, or wrong."

The answer is asynchronous parallel processing. Since the brain is not synchronous, it does not need to be very fast. Different parts of the brain can be working on controlling movements of different fingers at the same time. E.g. one set of nerves might work on every third keystroke.

JED ROTHWELL writes about the people playing music fast:

"That was my comment, not D.I.T.L.D.'s..as far as neurology researchers can determine, the sequence of keystrokes and data associated with them occurs faster than nerves & synapses can work. This means our understanding of nerves is incomplete, or wrong."

Agreed. Our understanding is obviously incomplete as hundreds if not thousands if not hundreds of thousands of musicians in the world have no problem playing "faster than possible."

ARMINIUS writes:

"I don't run Vista. As I understand, it is the Antichrist of operating systems. Sooner or later, I must, as will we all, since XP is no longer supported. Or perhaps Linux...."

I'm on Mac OS X at home, THE superior OS, IMHO. I run XP at work...which is another reason that work sucks when compared to home!

Some people are just simply dumb like Jacoby. With all the science we have, upto now, NOBODY knows how to make a "solar panel" directly from ordinary soil but that is exactly what all the millions of plants have been doing for "millions" of years.

Sorry Susan, there is still no medicine for that kind of stupidity.

Mr Mark wrote:

"Daniel in the Lion's Den wrote:

'People can type or play the piano faster than it would seem possible.'

Of course, the fact that certain people can do so is proof that it IS possible to do so. It only "seems" impossible to those less adept. In fact, being able to do so is "improbable," not, "impossible."

That was my comment, not D.I.T.L.D.'s. You have missed the point. It is neither improbable nor impossible. The behaviors are widespread, especially typing. However, it is an unexplained mystery. (Or it was a decade ago.) Because as far as neurology researchers can determine, the sequence of keystrokes and data associated with them occurs faster than nerves & synapses can work. This means our understanding of nerves is incomplete, or wrong.

Mr Mark,

I don't run Vista. As I understand, it is the Antichrist of operating systems. Sooner or later, I must, as will we all, since XP is no longer supported. Or perhaps Linux....

Interesting about the 'faster' notation in music. On another tack, Tchaikovski, when he composed his wonderful violin concerto, dedicated it to a famous violinist. Said fiddler took one look at it, and declared it unplayable. Took Pytor a year to find someone who would tackle it. The rest is history.

Arminius

Daniel in the Lion's Den wrote:

"People can type or play the piano faster than it would seem possible."

Of course, the fact that certain people can do so is proof that it IS possible to do so. It only "seems" impossible to those less adept. In fact, being able to do so is "improbable," not, "impossible."

That said, there are two wonderful examples of composers asking the impossible of their performers.

In Charles Ives' Organ Piece "Variations on America," he asks that a certain section be played "faster than humanly possible."

And, I believe that Mozart asks that a section in one of his horn concertos to be played "as fast as possible," and a few bars later asks the player to play "even faster."

Arminius mentions:

""In nomine Bill Gates, et Microsoft, et Window XP"."

You mention only three horsemen of the apocalypse. I doubt that even the most-seasoned computer hand was prepared for the pestilence that is Vista.

Daniel in the Lion's Den wrote:

"Flocks of birds and schools of fish coordinate . . .

People can type or play the piano faster than it would seem possible, based on neurology. . . .

I have noticed these kinds of things before. But I do not consider this to be 'paranormal.' This is just the 'wonder' of life, and of existence."

Well, lots of things that are part of the wonder of life are well understood, such as rainbows and DNA. The examples I mentioned cannot be explained by natural science, yet. (As far as I know.) In a previous era they might have been ascribed to the paranormal. And they might involve the use of senses we have not yet discovered, similar to the magnetic sensitivity of some birds.

The research I assisted with blinded guppies indicated that many behaviors we assume are governed by sight are not, or at least that other senses can substitute for sight.

Mr Mark!

That is priceless! I'm still laughing! Thanks!

Reminds me of the time when I told my manager - actually a very fine person - that the code would mutate in the computer overnight, and that's why it would not compile. He almost believed it, but not quite.

Arminius

Arminius -

Re: your computer story.

About 10 years ago, I had a job in desktop publishing. The owner of the company came late to computers and had some crappy Dell computer while we were all using Macs. He wasn't very computer literate.

At one point, I installed a speech-recognition software that allowed simple commands to be executed. I set up a number of commands like "Open Internet" and "Open Quark." The owner came by my desk one day, and just to be a jerk, I spoke a few voice commands.

"What are you doing?"

"What? What do you mean?

"Are you talking to your computer?"

"Yeah. What about it?"

"You can do that?"

"Er...yeah...that's how it works, isn't it? I mean, that's what all of us have been doing for the last five years. What do you do?"

"Uh, I type in a command..."

"Type? Why type when you can just tell the computer what to do, like Scotty does in Star Trek?"

"Are you kidding me?"

"No. In fact, all this negativity your spewing is probably going to hurt my computer's feelings and it will probably shut itself down any second..."

At which point I pushed the "off" button on my surge protector with my foot, the computer shut down and the owner walked away quite bewildered...

;)

Susan Jacoby wrote:

"People--

Any problems you've had with the Web site today are the result of problems with the server. Not censorship."

That has to be true. Only a computer could screw up the filtering process as badly as this one has done.

I posted several test messages that tell the story. I suggest you bring them to the attention of the technical staff. They may be able to suss out the problem by looking the messages I used to crash the server. They can contact me anytime via LENR-CANR.org for details.

Mr Mark,

Oh, good grief. Prayer group? Gimme a break, I'm an old computer hand.

A story here. When, at work, a co-worker had a computer lock up, I would come over, bow my head, make the sign of the cross at the computer, and chant "In nomine Bill Gates, et Microsoft, et Window XP". I would then turn to the person, who was either slack-jawed in bewilderment or laughing hysterically, and tell them to reboot, all will be well. Worked every time.

Jed Rothwell said:

"Just to give two other well known examples of seemingly impossible or paranormal behavior:

Flocks of birds and schools of fish coordinate their movements to an astounding extent. You hardly ever see members collide. We are so used to seeing this we take it for granted, but at least a few years ago the mechanism by which they coordinate was unknown."

People can type or play the piano faster than it would seem possible, based on neurology. They recall and execute sequences of keystrokes at a rate that seems to exceed the ability of neurons to "fire" and deliver the instructions."

I have noticed these kinds of things before. But I do not consider this to be "paranormal." This is just the "wonder" of life, and of existence.

People believe in paranormal things and supernatural things, because it is a way to believe complicated things without thinking or worrying. Knowing real stuff takes some effort, and some interest. Putting togething a real and true concept of existence takes a life time of thinkinig of gathering up facts and truths. It is easier just to believe in "magic."

Susan Jacoby writes:

"People--

Any problems you've had with the Web site today are the result of problems with the server. Not censorship."

Tell us, does On Faith form a prayer group to fix the problem, or do they call in the tech staff? ;)

People--

Any problems you've had with the Web site today are the result of problems with the server. Not censorship.

I know a lot of you don't believe this, but apart from obscene language and rank insults to large groups of people, there is no censorship on this site. Your comments would probably be rejected if you said that Jews drink the blood of babies or that Christians are all out to murder people of other religions. There are no "key phrases" or "key words" that get rejected--apart from obscenities.

Fish Schooling
By Prentice K. Stout

Schooling of fish has very little to do with their education. It does have much to do with their ability to survive and reproduce in sufficient numbers. Schools are composed of many fish of the same species moving in more or less harmonious patterns throughout the oceans. A very prevalent behavior, schooling is exhibited by almost 80 percent of the more than 20,000 known fish species during some phase of their life cycle.

Many of the world's fishing industries rely on this behavior pattern to increase their catch size, especially for species such as cod, tuna, mackerel, and menhaden.

Aristotle, over 2,400 years ago, observed this behavior in fish. Perhaps he sparked the interest humans have had in this fascinating trait of certain fishes.

Why school? For one, there are ecological advantages. Some species of fish secrete a "slime" that helps to reduce the friction of water over their bodies. Also the fish swim in fairly precise, staggered patterns when traveling in schools, and the "to-and-fro" motion of their tails produces tiny currents called "vortices" (swirling motions similar to little whirlpools).

Each individual, in theory, can use the tiny whirlpool of its neighbor to assist in reducing the water's friction on its own body.

Another advantage is the safety factor against predators. A potential predator breeding hunting for a meal might become confused by the closely spaced school, which can give the impression of one vast and frightening fish. Additionally, there is the concept of "safety in numbers"—a predator cannot consume and unlimited quantity of prey.

The sheer number of fish in a school allows species to hide behind each other, thus confusing a predator by the alteration of shapes and colors presented as the school swims along. Of course, those on the outside edges of the school are more likely to be eaten than those in the center. Predatory fish also gain from schooling because it gives them the ability to travel in large numbers in search of food. Bluefish (Pomatomus saltatrix) in pursuit of menhaden are a good case in point.

Schooling fish respond quickly to changes in the direction and speed of their neighbors. Anyone who has swum in a school of fish can attest to their ability to change direction swiftly while still retaining their closely knit swimming pattern. They can move from one configuration to another and then regroup almost as one unit.

When young, most fish species do not exhibit the schooling pattern. As they mature, they begin to swim in pairs and then in larger and larger clusters until they attain the classic parallel pattern. Thus, schooling can be said to be a formed behavior pattern imprinted on the genetic material.

Research leads us to believe that as the sense organs of the young mature, their schooling behavior strengthens. The first sense used is that of sight, which begins to function immediately after birth to allow for feeding. Fish eyes cannot focus directly forward because they are located on the sides of the head. This placement does, however, permit the eyes to be especially sensitive to lateral movement—a very helpful attribute in schooling. The fish can see what other members of the school are doing in relationship to themselves and respond accordingly.

Of interest is the acoustico-lateralis, the much-studied lateral line system on the sides of some fish. This is a line of special neuromast cells that runs down either side of a fish body. The scientific name for these lines gives us a clue to their function: "acoustico" means sound, and sound waves produce pressures; and "lateralis" alludes to the sides of the fish's body.

These two lateral lines are highly sensitive to movements and the displacement of water as the fish swims close to its neighbor. They aid in keeping the fish in a neat, orderly pattern. Some fish do not have lateral lines, nor the sensitive cells, and thus rely on their eyesight. Research suggests that if fish are blinded and their lateral lines cut, schooling does not take place; but if the lateral lines are left in place, the fish are still able to school. The lateral lines are especially important to fish living in the highly murky waters of the estuarine environment where sight is not particularly useful. The silver strip of the Atlantic silversides (Menidia menidia) affords us a good representation of the lateral lines of a typical species.

We are now ready to attempt a definition of schooling—no easy thing to arrive at. An accepted version could be a "grouping of fish based on mutual attraction and exhibiting a geometrical relationship." We say "mutual attraction," for fish of different species are almost never found intermingled. Fish stay with their own kind in a schooling configuration.

Schooling has some other interesting aspects. In the spring along the New England coast the alewife (Pomolobus pseudoharengus), in response to an ancient biological urge to reproduce, begins to form in large schools. They begin just where the rivers pour into estuaries and then, seemingly without a central signal, they migrate up the rushing currents. So large are their numbers that the bottom of the stream cannot be seen, and the whole picture is one of wriggling, bluish bodies swimming against the current. Alewives are "anadromous" fish that, much like salmon and shad, mature in salt water but spawn in fresh water. (Eels, on the other hand, are "catadromous," meaning just the reverse—they grow in fresh water and spawn in the sea.) the shad (Alosa sapidissima), first cousin to the alewife, also schools in large numbers in the spring. They are the source of the highly prized "shad roe," the millions of eggs that will not reach maturity because they are frying in our breakfast pans.

In many ways fish schools are much like herds of land animals or flocks of airborne birds. There is that undefined need to stay together. In some instances this herding has been the undoing of certain species. The now-extinct passenger pigeon flocked in such staggering numbers that it was rather a simple task in the predawn hours to take a club and sweep a branch of roosting birds into a sack for future eating. There are stories of the sky being darkened by the passage of these relatives of today's mourning doves.

For centuries, wildebeest and antelope have formed huge herds that have crossed the endless African plains in search of greener pastures or to migrate to their ancestral breeding grounds. Indeed, if one looks at the huge cities of today's society one wonders if we humans are not prone to schooling. We live and move in vast numbers controlled by the technology of our society.

Return to Rhode Island Sea Grant Fact Sheets

Parker, Parker, Parker,

Your Moroni is just one example of the paranormal i.e. the topic for this week. i.e. there is apparently substantial interest in all things paranormal so why skip any discussion thereof?

Do you have evidence that Moroni is actually real other than the word of a con man?

We have to admit this "paranormal" has done well i.e. a $30 billion business cult using religion as a front, beautiful temples, great choirs and great football teams.

Or is the following correct:

"Britannica Concise Encyclopedia: Moroni

Town (pop., 1995: 340,168), capital of the Comoros Islands, located on Grande Comore (Njazidja) island in the Indian Ocean. Founded by Arabic-speaking settlers, it is the largest settlement of the Comoros and has served as the capital since 1958. The port of Moroni consists of a small quay in a natural cove. The town retains an Arabic character and has several mosques, including Chiounda, a pilgrimage centre"

Said Moroni of the Comoros was apparently visited by one Captain Kidd, one of Joe Smith's favorite characters. Hmmmm?

The detailed Gallup Poll about this topic shows the percentage of Americans that believe in each of ten paranormal phenomena: ESP, haunted houses, ghosts/spirits of dead people, telepathy, clairvoyance, astrology, witches, reincarnation and channeling (possession by spirits).

Latter it says: “A special analysis of the data shows that 73% of Americans believe in at least one of the 10 items listed above...”

We all know that more than 73% of Americans believe in a God [no need of citation].

Is there a link between these two statistics?

If yes, in what direction goes the causality: those who believe in at least one paranormal phenomena tend to believe in God or God’s believers tend to believe in at least one paranormal phenomena?

Peace to all,

JAC

Last sentence rejected repeatedly. Part of sentence:

Something like the ability to control . . .

REJECT

SERVER CRASH

If anyone at WaPost is reading this, I advise you to fix your filtering software. This is ridiculous.

My comment didn't go through the first time...

"It is equally unscientific to declare that the event did not happen, or that it must have been experimental error, or fraud, simply because we cannot explain it."

While you're right in principle, most scientists do not deal in such flat declarations. Instead, they point out that all those things are possible alternate explanations, and each one must be analyzed.

"In short, why do they want to know, if not because of the spiritual and life-on-other planets implications?"

What implications do you see for life on other plants?

Different people go into science to answer different questions, but the overall goal is the pursuit of knowledge for its own sake.

"To say that only the realm of science can answer that question is to put one's head in the sand, as far as I'm concerned."

How so? YoYo is absolutely right that "how we came to be" is a reality issue. I propose that religion focus instead on "what can I be" and "what can I do with my life." Science can address where we've been, while religion can address where we're going.

Huh . . . That worked.

Test sentence 2. One of two that rejected:

It is even conceivable that scientific evidence for the existence of God may be discovered.

CRASH SERVER:

Build error in template 'Comment Error Template': Error in tag: Can't find included template module 'Footer'

Test sentence 1

I do not think it is possible to rule out absolutely, with 100% certainty, the possibility that some phenomena cannot be understood even in principle -- that there IS no explanation for X or Y macroscopic event.

That was me at 2:08 p.m.

Talking of science...

Nothing in the last five hundred years has had so great an effect on the human spirit as the discoveries of modern science. Just think of the effect of the discoveries of Copernicus, Galileo, and Hubble in astronomy, and Darwin, Wallace, and Mendel in biology. We find that the earth on which we live is a speck of matter revolving around a commonplace star, one of billions in a galaxy of stars , which itself is only one of trillions of galaxies. Even more chilling , we ourselves are the end result of a vast sequence of breedings and eatings, the same process that as also produced the clam and the cactus.

Steven Weinberg, Facing Up. page 42

Cleaver wrote:

"Essays are automatically rejected when they are too long, it seems."

No, I have made this one shorter and shorter, down to 4 sentences. It seems to be rejecting a specific word or phrase. Perhaps:

the existence of God

Did that work?

That would be an odd phrase to reject.

It sometimes says the message is being held for review by the blog owner, and at other times it crashes with a server error.

- Jed

Tonio wrote:

"When faced with an event that cannot be explained by current knowledge of natural causes, it's unscientific to make the assumptive leap that the only cause is a supernatural one."

It is equally unscientific to declare that the event did not happen, or that it must have been experimental error, or fraud, simply because we cannot explain it. I know many scientists such as John Huizenga who have done that in recent years, with regard to cold fusion.

- Jed

Jed;

Essays are automatically rejected when they are too long, it seems.

"Tell me, do you love anyone, or do you have chemical reactions that promote the continuation of your genes?"

The answer to this is "Yes."

You have chemical reactions, etc. We experience this as what we call "love."

Logic -001. It is a BIG universe therefore there is a God.

It is a Beautiful universe therefore there is a God.

Whow! Why didn't Voltaire or Einstein see the logic in that? They just didn't get it did they?

Scientists should stop looking for answers to all the big mysteries of life. God did it.

This makes perfectly good sense - if you are religious.

[Part 2 rejected. Here is the last part of part 2:]

If you want absolute certainty, you must turn to religion. Science offers only likelihood for this or that. The degree of assurance may increase over time, and it may asymptotically approach certainty, but it can never reach it. Nothing is ever certain, and it is big mistake to declare that all so-called paranormal behaviors such as ESP or dowsing are certainly, definitely, ruled out. As far as I know there is no such thing as ESP, but there are enough reports of reading people's minds at a distance and so on that I think it would be foolish to declare we know for certain such things cannot happen. As I said, I have seen guppies do things that any sensible, educated person would declare a priori impossible.

- Jed

[Message rejected for some reason. Partial copy:]

Just to give two other well known examples of seemingly impossible or paranormal behavior:

Flocks of birds and schools of fish coordinate their movements to an astounding extent. You hardly ever see members collide. We are so used to seeing this we take it for granted, but at least a few years ago the mechanism by which they coordinate was unknown.

People can type or play the piano faster than it would seem possible, based on neurology. They recall and execute sequences of keystrokes at a rate that seems to exceed the ability of neurons to "fire" and deliver the instructions.

[end of part 1]

If you have to keep using terms such as "clearly" and "obviously" and claims that your position is self evident... well, it doesn't mean you are necessarily wrong, but you really need to re-examine your argument if you have any hope of appearing to be rational yourself.

As for evidence, I believe what I have seen evidence of with my own eyes, and heard with my own ears.

"Obviously" I'm an idiot to trust my own senses. "Clearly" any personal experience not extensively studied and reproduced is completely invalid.

Tell me, do you love anyone, or do you have chemical reactions that promote the continuation of your genes?

Test

Test

from Stephen Hawking;

Its natural to think the stars and planets are much closer than they really are - in everday life we have no experience of the huge distances of space.
In one second a beam of light will travel 186,000 miles, so a light year is a very long distance.
The nearest star, other than our own sun, is called Proxima Centauri (also known as Alpha Centauri C), which is about four light years away. That is so far that even with the fastest spaceship...a trip to it would take about ten thousand years.

Ancient people tried hard to understand the universe, but they hadn't yet developed our mathematics and science. Today we have powerful tools; mental tools such as mathematics and the scientific method, technological tools like computers and telescopes.With the help of these tools, scientists have pieced together a lot of knowledge about space. But what do we really know about the universe and how do we know it? Where did the universe come from? Where is it going? Did the universe have a beginning,and if so what happened before then? What is the nature of time? Will it ever come to an end?
Can we go backward in time? Recent breakthroughs in physics, made possible in part by new technology, suggests answers to some of these long standing questions. Someday these answers may seem as obvious to us as the earth orbiting the sun - or perhaps as ridiculous as a tower of turtles. Only time (whatever that may be) will tell.

Stephen Hawking. "A Briefer History of Time". pub.Bantam Books.2005.

Parker,
Here is the quote from you that I was replying to. Note the words within asterisks.

"Atheists resort to the *paranormal*, which is defined as "not scientifically explainable," when they explain the origin of life on this planet or the random conditions under which that life flourishes. I have asked them to explain their answers in detailed and specific scientific cause and effect relationships that are irrefutable. They can't do it, resorting to name-calling and the *club mentality*--"since all of my friends believe this, I will too."

Parker:

Tonio,
Isn't it possible that the "origin of life" being a "scientific matter" has ramifications that are important to non-scientists? Don't you see that by implying that only experts in astrophysics can fully explain or understand the possibilities of the scientific explanations for the potential origins of life, atheists can hide behind that non-answer by in essence saying, "I'm not an expert, but I trust the experts and they have studied this and said thus and so, (thereby letting me off the hook from thinking for myself on this issue)."

If I might get in on this...

Parker.The origin of life is a reality issue, and the only way,(if there is a way), to understand it, has to be through science.
It is inevitable then that it takes a scientist, or a scientific journalist to explain these things to us.
Just because something is really hard to understand and explain, doesn't mean it ain't true.
Our understanding of molecular biology is very hard to understand and explain, as is the workings of the brain. That's why they are the domains of experts.
Atheists are not hiding behind anything...what a bizarre statement. Atheists are skeptics at heart, and prefer to believe what makes sense. The supernatural skygod hypothesis makes no sense at all, and has to be rejected by anyone seeking the truth about the way things are.
The god idea blocks the way to the actual truth, as shown by your comments.
Everything we know about the world has been revealed, and continues to be revealed to us by to us by scientists.
In the old days this was the role of religion. And what a crazy, cruel and superstitious world it was back then.

Tonio,
I respect you and your perspective, but your assertion that "spiritual perspectives must not drive the investigation" leaves something out, I think.

Time is a precious and scarce resource that everyone has. Those scientists who are spending that scarce resource on such questions must have motives, correct? What are those motives? Of course there are "spiritual implications" to the answers to such questions. I agree that those spiritual implications should be set aside and disregarded if a scientist is doing research and experimentation in that field, but why do it all, when there are so many other scientific endeavors that involve the here and now that could be explored by those same expert minds? In short, why do they want to know, if not because of the spiritual and life-on-other planets implications?

Of course humankind wants to figure out "how we came to be". To say that only the realm of science can answer that question is to put one's head in the sand, as far as I'm concerned. Of course you'll differ with me, but by these differences our lives are made the richer and more interesting. All the best to you.

"Isn't it possible that the 'origin of life" being a "scientific matter' has ramifications that are important to non-scientists?"

Would you explain? Certainly people can derive philosophical or spiritual perspectives from scientific investigation into the origin of life. But philosophical or spiritual assumptions must not drive the investigation.

"implying that only experts in astrophysics can fully explain or understand the possibilities of the scientific explanations for the potential origins of life"

I make no such implication. I'm saying that any investigation has to adhere to scientific principles. One need not be an expert to adhere to those principles. And even experts can err sometimes by starting with assumptions rather than data.

CCNL/talking parrot,
As a follow-up, I doubt if anyone visiting this website is at all interested in any interaction we might have on any of these subjects. I hope they will skip over these items and read what Jed Rothwell has had to say, which was very substantive--thankfully so.

Folks, please do scroll down to Jed Rothwell's entries. Have a fantastic day, all.

Buffoon/clown/jester,
With all due respect, my life revolves around my family. What about yours? Have a nice day.

Parker, Parker, Parker,

Your life revolves around one "pretty, talking, horn blowing, fictional/paranormal thingie". This does not bother you????

Then there is the author of said Book of Mormon, the con man, Joe Smith to add additional credence problems to your beliefs.

Tonio,
Isn't it possible that the "origin of life" being a "scientific matter" has ramifications that are important to non-scientists? Don't you see that by implying that only experts in astrophysics can fully explain or understand the possibilities of the scientific explanations for the potential origins of life, atheists can hide behind that non-answer by in essence saying, "I'm not an expert, but I trust the experts and they have studied this and said thus and so, (thereby letting me off the hook from thinking for myself on this issue)."

"I doubt that any two answers would be remotely similar unless one writer was a student of another participant."

Or unless two of them were well-studied not just in general science but in the latest research in abiogenesis. That field involves very specialized knowledge like astrophysics. I don't see the lack of similarity as a problem. The larger issue is that the origin of life is a scientific matter and not a "spiritual" or philosophical one.

"I said that some phenomena that have been considered paranormal are, in fact, real, but as far as anyone knows they have naturalistic causes."

Exactly. The burden of proof is on any claim that these do not have natural causes.

"It turns out they probably detect the earth’s magnetic field. They literally have “extra-sensory” perception, meaning senses other than hearing, vision and touch."

Technically, it does involve the birds' vision, since the magnetically sensitive chemicals in their eyes. But you make a good point. When faced with an event that cannot be explained by current knowledge of natural causes, it's unscientific to make the assumptive leap that the only cause is a supernatural one. That's merely "God of the gaps" in mystic's garb.

Pam,
Since your last post attributed some things to me that I don't remember having thought or written (although I did like the part about "imagination" having a role in scientific thought and was surprised to read that you took issue with that), I waited to respond to see if someone else would understand that you were perhaps quoting them. Since that didn't happen, I'll respond briefly:

"groupthink of atheists"--I suppose you're right. If one were to take twenty well-studied atheists and ask them to spend a couple of hours writing their most scientifically reasonable answers including the impact of laws of probability in response to the questions of "how life began on planet earth in a detailed step-by-step sequence," and "how the earth became the habitable planet we have today in a detailed step-by-step sequence", then I doubt that any two answers would be remotely similar unless one writer was a student of another participant.

Have a good day, sincerely wished.

>Why do you speak on behalf of Christopher Hitchens?

I don't. He said it himself.

>I appreciate the way Mr Hitchens does not impose his anti-theism on his children and gets them to learn about religions giving them the freedom to choose for themselves.

It would be nice if everybody did that and did it without prejudice.

>Yes I did look at the Hubble images and looking at the vast universe, I say: GOD IS TRULY GREAT WHO CREATED SUCH A MIND BOGGLING UNIVERSE!

That is NOT the very narrow-minded, ego-ethnocentric god of the babble. But, more than that, you don't need a god to explain the Hubble images. In fact, some of them fly in the face of the god of Universal order. They show the Universe as a very disorganized and chaotic place .

Dr. Benway:

Soja: "I'm convinced atheists have many little gods of their own too. They just have different names and are quite ordinary compared to the big God religious people worship. Believers just don't feel satisfied with the little gods, that's all."

You've convinced yourself of a lie! I find the god of the wholly babble to be very small when compared to just about anything that is real. The god of the babble is large only when compared to other gods that did not exist. Inorder to be large, a thing has to have substance. Christopher Hitchens and I urge you to take a look at the Hubble images and see how vast and how much bigger nature is than any human creation.

July 17, 2008 7:18 AM

=====================================

Dr Benway

Why do you speak on behalf of Christopher Hitchens? I appreciate the way Mr Hitchens does not impose his anti-theism on his children and gets them to learn about religions giving them the freedom to choose for themselves.

Yes I did look at the Hubble images and looking at the vast universe, I say: GOD IS TRULY GREAT WHO CREATED SUCH A MIND BOGGLING UNIVERSE!

E Favoourite

Either I didn't express myself clearly enough or you misunderstood regarding little "gods." I meant simply the things atheists and believers love and idolize in this world - people and things.

The EXTRA God believers worship is naturally the Creator of the universe, the Absolute and Eternal Reality, the Source of all, beyond images, forms and names, time and space, One who is also imminent in His creation, including in us created in His image and likeness (it goes without saying that atheists are created in the image and likeness of God too whether they believe in Him or not).

Mr Mark wrote:

"Jed - can you cite respectable scientific studies that support the idea of paranormal existence, operative words being "scientific" and 'respectable?'"

There is no support for the idea of paranormal existence, and I did not say there was. I said that some phenomena that have been considered paranormal are, in fact, real, but as far as anyone knows they have naturalistic causes. For example, until some decades ago some people thought that migrating birds and homing pigeons had some sort of magical or paranormal ability to sense direction. It turns out they probably detect the earth’s magnetic field. They literally have “extra-sensory” perception, meaning senses other than hearing, vision and touch.

When I was in college in the 1970s I helped Prof. Watanabe (Okayama Nat. U.) do tests with guppy behavior, such as what might be called “fish curiosity” (the urge to explore), and their ability to navigate and avoid obstacles blinded or in complete darkness. There are any number of inexplicable behaviors in fish, chipmunks and other animals. These behaviors would have been considered paranormal if they had been discovered in previous eras. The ones I worked on may be explained by now but back then they were published in perfectly respectable peer-reviewed journals and nobody had the slightest idea how or why they came about, or how the fish managed to function the way they did.

As I mentioned, I have seen studies on dowsing and some other effects are real. I don’t recall the details or where I read that. I am not much interested in the subject. I mentioned that there have been tests run by so-called skeptics in which they buried PVC pipes and ran water through them, and asked dowsers to find which pipe had water. That is a classic example of an absurd experiment that can never work, and that violates the fundamentals of behavioral biology. It reminds me of a lecture Watanabe gave once where he hauled out a turtle and rabbit and put them on a table in front of the class and said, “You have all heard, I suppose, that hares are faster than turtles. Is this one going faster?” The poor thing was shaking with fear and not going anywhere, whereas the turtle was lumbering off (as he knew it would). His point was that animal behavior is not simple or predictable and that you can’t treat animals like machines. (He was usually nice to animals, and that particular rabbit was never mistreated otherwise.) If you want to test people’s dowsing abilities you must put them into a situation in which a naturally evolved ability to find water might work. People are obviously not evolved to smell or detect water flowing through PVC pipes a meter underground!

My larger point is that we know little about nature and it is not a "scientific" point of view to dismiss puzzling phenomena that appear to have no conceivable explanation, or that have been previously ascribed to magic or paranormal causes. The supposed cause has no bearing on whether the phenomenon is actually real or not.

- Jed

Here's paranormal - at the moment of the Big Bang, or Planck time, the present universe was estimated to be very small - approximately 1 trillion times smaller than the estimated size of a proton (one half of the proton/neutron atomic nucleus - nevermind the quark breakdown). It might be fair to say that neither common sense nor anything in our present material reality could give us a sense of how small that really is - in fact, it it real?

Only mathematically...otherwise we have to take on faith the fact that our entire universe, including the dark matter and the dark energy, was contained in that micro-point. Did something actually come from nothing then? Or do we still have in essense, nothing? As soon as we pin down an actual atom and it's constituent parts, we may be able to say for sure.

I'm beginning to wonder if "paranormal" is a misnomer or at least a confusing term.

I think of it as being in the same category as supernatural, but perhaps it's better described as that which we do not yet understand.

Hi Jed - I've got your information on dowsing and much more besides in a book by Colin Wilson entitled ' The Occult - A History'. He's a remarkable author with broad interests.

No one has done a more extensive recording of these peculiar phenomena than this particular Englishman, and the author of the noted work, 'The Outsider'.

Dowsing is a particular intuitive talent, without a doubt.

Hi Jed - I've got your information on dowsing and much more besides in a book by Colin Wilson entitled ' The Occult - A History'. He's a remarkable author with broad interests.

No one has done a more extensive recording of these peculiar phenomena than this particular Englishman, and the author of the noted work, 'The Outsider'.

Dowsing is a particular intuitive talent, without a doubt.

Susan Jacoby wrote:

"No, the existence of the paranormal is not supported by any respectable scientific studies."

Jed Rothwell wrote:

"That's not quite right."

Jed - can you cite respectable scientific studies that support the idea of paranormal existence, operative words being "scientific" and "respectable?"

Thanks.

Parker wrote:

"...scroll down to 'what is meant by scientific proof'.'

Don't you people (i.e., believers) ever look at sites or read books that are about actual science, or do you all always go to "magical thinking" sources? The definiton of "scientific proof" on this site is partial at *best*.

Parker also wrote:

"Science starts with imagination (I have an idea – what if) then moves to belief ( a hypothesis – this might work) and then we move to understanding through scientific means or direct experience"

Again, as with so many of your arguments, a complete mischaracterization. Science begins not with imagination - whole cloth fantasies from nowhere - but with *observation*. This is absolutely key! The scientist first observes phenomena, then formulates a hypothesis that explains all aspects of the observations, makes predictions, and is falsifiable. Then he designs experiments to test the hypothesis.

Not the same thing at all.

BTW, while I would normally hesitate to recommend Wikipedia as a reliable resource, its article on abiogenesis is actually a pretty good summary of the current work in this field. None of the areas of inquiry rely on anything "paranormal", nor do they rely on groupthink.

Susan Jacoby wrote:

"No, the existence of the paranormal is not supported by any respectable scientific studies."

That's not quite right. There is some evidence for the existence of various phenomena that have been called "paranormal" in the past, but there is no evidence that these phenomena have supernatural origins. Take, for example, "dowsing" -- finding water with a stick. There have been some persuasive tests showing that some people can find natural sources of water by this method. (They cannot find water in buried PVC pipes, pace Robert Park, but you would not expect them to; this would not be an evolved skill.)

People and other animals have an incredible ability to find water, and people's hands are adept and sensitive, as you see with pianist, typist or watchmaker. It seems likely to me that dowsing is a method of amplifying minute signals from the sense of smell or vision. Nerves and reactions tie together in many surprising ways; it may be that clues from the sense of smell can be subconsciously and easily directed to hand movements, similar to the way we coordinate visual clues while driving to hand movements, in order to steer the car. Once you learn how to do drive, and the motions become subconscious, the reaction time and sensitivity are astounding.

"In the same fashion, animals frequently flee before earthquakes because their hearing and other senses are attuned to vibrations that the human sensory system cannot perceive at such an early stage."

There is no doubt that some animals detect earthquakes, but I doubt it is by hearing or vibrations. As far as I know, the mechanism (senses) they employ are completely unknown.

Beware of assuming you know the answer. Scientific knowledge often turns out to be wrong, or incomplete. As Martin Fleischmann says, when you hear people describe a field as "closed and uninteresting because there is nothing more to be discovered" you know that they actually know nothing and the field is about to undergo a revolution. Felix Franks described our incomplete knowledge of water:

"Physicists claim a much better understanding of esoteric substances like liquid helium or liquid nitrogen than they have of liquid water . . . The fact is that water offends against nearly all the criteria of normality laid down by physicists and chemists . . ."

There are countless unsolved mysteries in nature, and there always will be. It seems highly unlikely to me that any are supernatural in origin, but until we know everything (which is impossible, even in principle), we cannot rule that out with absolute certainty. We can only say that it is increasingly unlikely.

- Jed

CCNL,
Thanks. You reinforced every point I made (mostly by example). Way to go. Have a good evening.

Parker, Parker, Parker,

Susan simply needed to note your paranormal Moroni to make her point.

Once again a quick review of "beyond the normal experience or scientific explanation of "pretty/ugly, talking (horn blowing in some cases) thingies."

Some background on these "beyond the range of normal experience" thingies:

Joe Smith had his Moroni.

Jehovah Witnesses have their Jesus /Michael the archangel, the first angelic being created by God;

Mohammed had his Gabriel (this "tinkerbell" got around).

Jesus and his family had Michael, Gabriel, and Satan, the latter being a modern day demon of the demented.

The Abraham-Moses myths had their Angel of Death and other "no-namers" to do their dirty work or other assorted duties.

Contemporary biblical and religious scholars have relegated these "pretty/ugly wingie thingies" to the myth pile. We should do the same to include deleting all references to them in our religious operating manuals. Doing this will eliminate the prophet/profit/prophecy status of these founders and put them where they belong as simple humans just like the rest of us.

Some added references to "tinkerbells".

"Latter-day Saints also believe that Michael the Archangel was Adam (the first man) when he was mortal, and Gabriel lived on the earth as Noah."

Apparently hallucinations did not stop with Joe Smith.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07049c.htm
"This belief in guardian angels can be traced throughout all antiquity; pagans, like Menander and Plutarch (cf. Euseb., "Praep. Evang.", xii), and Neo-Platonists, like Plotinus, held it. It was also the belief of the Babylonians and Assyrians, as their monuments testify, for a figure of a guardian angel now in the British Museum once decorated an Assyrian palace, and might well serve for a modern representation; while Nabopolassar, father of Nebuchadnezzar the Great, says: "He (Marduk) sent a tutelary deity (cherub) of grace to go at my side; in everything that I did, he made my work to succeed."

Catholic monks and Dark Age theologians also did their share of hallucinating:

"TUBUAS-A member of the group of angels who were removed from the ranks of officially recognized celestial hierarchy in 745 by a council in Rome under Pope Zachary. He was joined by Uriel, Adimus, Sabaoth, Simiel, and Raguel."

And tinkerbells go way, way back:

"In Zoroastrianism there are different angel like creatures. For example each person has a guardian angel caled Fravashi. They patronize human being and other creatures and also manifest god’s energy. Also, the Amesha Spentas have often been regarded as angels, but they don't convey messages, but are rather emanations of Ahura Mazda ("Wise Lord", God); they appear in an abstract fashion in the religious thought of Zarathustra and then later (during the Achaemenid period of Zoroastrianism) became personalized, associated with an aspect of the divine creation (fire, plants, water...)."

"The beginnings of the biblical belief in angels must be sought in very early folklore. The gods of the Hittites and Canaanites had their supernatural messengers, and parallels to the Old Testament stories of angels are found in Near Eastern literature. "

"The 'Magic Papyri' contain many spells to secure just such help and protection of angels. From magic traditions arose the concept of the guardian angel. "

For added information see the review at:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angel

Meg.

A believer (belief in God, not in all things paranormal) here to torment you 

What I found most interesting in your post was

“I'd guess that if we were to see the hand of a designer anywhere, it would be in the fundamental principles, the final laws of nature, the book of rules that govern all natural phenomena. We don't know the final laws yet, but as far as we have been able to see, they are utterly impersonal and quite without any special role for life.” (Very Buddhist of you. BTW )

And

“As Richard Feynman has said, when you look at the universe and understand it's laws "the theory that it's all arranged as a stage for God to watch man's struggle for good and evil seems inadequate."

Even as a believer I couldn’t agree more with both points. Is it possible that the reasons these statements could stand in contrast to conventional spiritual beliefs (i.e. religion) could be that the original definition of God and his/her/its role in the physical realm are off.

We don’t call these new theories or definitions on God proof by any stretch, but it can take you down another line of thinking. A different starting point could increase the possibility of a theory turning out to one day be proven as factual.

The list on this site shows many scientists that were ridiculed for their theories ranging from microbiology to cosmology were later proven correct. http://amasci.com/weird/vindac.html

Also look at http://www.cfpf.org.uk/articles/background/scientificproof/scientificproof1.html and scroll down to “what is meant by scientific proof.”

Science starts with imagination (I have an idea – what if) then moves to belief ( a hypothesis – this might work) and then we move to understanding through scientific means or direct experience.

We should be careful not blindly set policy or law based on belief, but we should not render ideas as false just because they are beyond our capabilities to test.

Tonio,
My use of the term "purpose of life" was cryptic and lacked depth, but I didn't intend for it to mean "absolute purpose of life" as though I know what that is. As far as I'm concerned, there are as many purposes for life as there are/have been people, so no one is in a box as far as I'm concerned. I have purposes for my life, and you for yours. I have often enjoyed your comments, so I am aware that you are a deep thinker which is enjoyable in this forum, and has added depth to my thinking. Thanks.

Parker, thanks for your reply. You may be right that the Book of Mormon may have useful insights into human relationships. My issue is with the concept of "the purpose of life." There is no evidence for an absolute purpose of life, so the likelihood is that any purpose of life is created by humans through the process of thought and experience. Plus, the concept of absolutism itself is dangerous, not just to scientific inquiry but also to human freedom.

Tonio,
Thanks for your comment and tone. One of the interesting literary aspects of the Book of Mormon is its inclusion of "chiasmas" which is a Hebraic poetry form that is fairly complex but observable, basically a structure of ABCDEEDCBA in thoughts or ideas within a piece of writing such as a speech.

Who'd a thought a ghost-writing committee or person could come up with such a thing in 1829? This/these writers were amazing!

P.S. You have me on "abiogenesis" as I had never heard of the word but have read a couple of the latest explanations. I will note that I have not been a casual reader of the Book of Mormon, having read it over 40 times and learned more each time I have read it about insights into human relationships and the purpose of life. You might give it a first reading. It's available on the internet.

Parker, although I'm not a true atheist, I will address your points...

I haven't read the Book of Mormon, so for the purposes of my point I won't question your description of its contents. We have two proposed theories for the book's origin, the Moroni theory and the Smith theory. You may be right that Smith was probably not capable of producing such a work by himself. If that is true, that does NOT automatically prove or lend any credence to the Moroni theory. That's because the assumptive leaps in the Moroni theory are far more numerous and problematic than the ones in the Smith theory. We cannot treat these two theories as the only possible or likely ones. One possibility that hasn't been considered here is that Smith had a human co-author or ghostwriter.

"Atheists resort to the paranormal, which is defined as "not scientifically explainable," when they explain the origin of life on this planet or the random conditions under which that life flourishes."

That mischaracterizes the half-century of research into abiogenesis. Pointing out any probability for a natural origin for life is not atheistic - it's possible to do that and still believe in a supernatural. While we cannot reject the possibility of divine origins, we need evidence for such theories to have any credibility. Abiogenesis theories, like any other scientific theories, draw on existing knowledge and laboratory experimentation, whereas divine origin claims rely on presupposition and assumption. Finally, scientific theories differ from religious claims in that theories are not presented as irrefutable fact or absolute truth.

To Tonio:

Yes to your question.

To Norrie Hoyt:

No, the existence of the paranormal is not supported by any respectable scientific studies. But there is a good deal of junk science directed at proving that paranormal phenomena exist. Whenever anything paranormal (such as the power of prayer to heal the sick) has been studied in a double-blind scientific study, it proves to have no effect at all.

EVerything people attribute to the paranormal is, in fact, perfectly natural. What is called "intuition" is also perfectly natural. When we love people, our minds are always taking in information about them, on a conscious as well as a subconscious level. Long before the man I loved was diagnosed with cancer, for example, I felt that something was wrong. There was nothing "telepathetic" or "paranormal" about it. I just sensed a change in his energy level because we were so attuned to each other.

In the same fashion, animals frequently flee before earthquakes because their hearing and other senses are attuned to vibrations that the human sensory system cannot perceive at such an early stage. There is nothing--I repeat, nothing--paranormal or supernatural about any of this.

Susan,
I have had a few purposes for visiting this website from time to time, one of which has been to enjoy some of your writing which is enjoyable, candid, and sparked with vitality. Thanks for that. Having made the glib and unstudied observation about "the appearance of an angel named Moroni to hand down the Book of Mormon in a field in upstate New York" in your essay here, I would challenge you as to whether you have read this book in a serious, non-caustic, scholarly way. Suppose that it was written by an unschooled country bumpkin. Could such an assumption stand up to the same scientific reasoning you herald? How did that country bumpkin come up with the material, the complex story lines that are internally consistent, the myriad of different "personas" using different speech patterns that are consistent in themselves but different than each other throughout the book? How did he write with such depth of expression and richness of language? No one can explain it without resorting to the glibness you have shown here.

Atheists resort to the paranormal, which is defined as "not scientifically explainable," when they explain the origin of life on this planet or the random conditions under which that life flourishes. I have asked them to explain their answers in detailed and specific scientific cause and effect relationships that are irrefutable. They can't do it, resorting to name-calling and the club mentality--"since all of my friends believe this, I will too."

I consider atheists as prisoners of their own narrow way of viewing the world around them. It's a self-imposed prison of their liking, and that's fine with me, but don't expect those outside of the prison to wish we could join them. There is far more depth within the thought processes that allow for a divine origin and purpose of the Book of Mormon (including the historicity of its origin) than within the thought processes that dimiss it as a hoax. That dismissal is based on shallow reasoning indeed.

Best to all. Have a good day.

Magic (Paranormal) and Religion are reviewed at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magic_(paranormal) .

Jacoby writes, "All supernatural belief is an attempt to avoid facing the reality eloquently described in the burial service in the Anglican Book of Common Prayer: Ashes to ashes, dust to dust." I have usually described it as an attempt to avoid facing the reality that we have almost no control over the universe. Would this amount to the same thing?

Soja,

Some astrophysicists have postulated the "Gib Gnab" i.e. the Big Bang in reverse and the whole process simply recycles itself every trillion years or so.

Soja, check this out; from HLMencken.

"Where is the graveyard of dead gods? What lingering mourner waters their mounds? There was a day when Jupiter was king of the gods, and any man who doubted his puissance was ipto facto a barbarian and an ignoramus. But where in all the world is there a man who worships Jupiter today? And what of Huitzilopochtli? In one year - and it is no more than five hundred years ago - fifty thousand youths and maidens were slain in sacrifice to him. Today, if he is remembered at all, it is only by some vagrant savage in the depths of the Mexican forest. Huitzilopochtli, like many other gods, had no human father; his mother was a virtuous widow ; he was born of an apparently innocent flirtation that she carried on with the sun. When he frowned, his father, the sun, stood still. When he roared with rage, earthquakes engulfed whole cities. When he thirsted he was watered with ten thousand gallons of human blood. But today Huitzilopochtli is as magnificently forgotten as Alien G.Thurmon. Once the peer of Allah, Buddha and Wotan, he is now the peer of General Coxey, Richmond P. Hobson, Nan Patterson, Alton B.Parker, Adelina Patti, General Weyler and Tom Sharkey.

"Speaking of Huitzilopochtli recalls his brother Tezcatilpoca. Tezcatilpoca was almost as powerful: he consumed twenty-five thousand virgins a year. Lead me to his tomb: I would weep, and hang a couronne des perles. But who knows where it is? Or where the grave of Quetzalcoatl is? Or Tialoc? Or Chalchihuitlicue? Or Xiehtecutli? Or Centeotl, that sweet one? Or Tlazolteotl, the goddess of love? Or Mictlan? Or Ixtlilton? Or Omacatl? Or Yacatecutli? Or Mixcoatl? Or Xipe? Or all the host of Tzitzimitles? Where are their bones? ...
Or that of Dis, whom Caesar found to be the chief god of the Celts? Or that of Tarves, the bull? Or that of Moccos, the pig? Or of Epona the mare? Or that of Mullo the celestial jackass? There was a time when the Irish revered all these gods as violently as they now hate the English. But today even the drunkest Irishman laughs at them."

HLMencken.Memorial Service,as quoted in "The Portable Atheist".

OK we have two Andrews here...fortunately we are both atheists.

Andrew.

Soja.

You seem to be using the Big Bang theory to prove your god exists. How bizarre. Never heard that one before.

You drag in the supernatural to explain the natural.
That is irrational.

As far as we know there are no Gods, and no supernatural world, except in one's imagination.

There is only the real world, and no supernatural dimension is known to exist, except (of course) amongst the superstitious.

Read a little science, it is very interesting.

Bye...

To those who insist on believing in spirits, ghosts, and gods, I submit:

A. Being able to imagine something, isn’t reason enough to believe in its existence; and,

B. Believing something is true, doesn’t make it so.

To those who believe in spirits, ghosts, and gods who claim to be open-minded, I submit that your door is open a bit too wide.

It pays to be discriminating with respect to theories on existence and reality.

As Professor Steven Weinberg has written.

It used to be obvious that the world was designed by some sort of intelligence. What else could account for fire and rain and lightening and earthquakes? Above all, the wonderful abilities of living things seemed to point to a creator who had a special interest in life.
Today we understand most of these things in terms of physical forces acting under impersonal laws. We don't yet know the most fundamental laws, and we can't work out all the consequences of the laws that we do know. The human mind remains extraordinarily difficult to understand, but so is the weather. We can't predict whether it will rain one month from today, but we do know the rules that govern the rain, even though we can't always calculate their consequences. I see nothing about the human mind any more than about the weather that stands out as beyond the hope of our understanding it as a consequence of impersonal laws acting over billions of years.

There do not seem to be any exceptions to this natural order, any miracles, I have the impression that these days most theologians are embarrassed by talk of miracles, but the great monotheistsic faiths are founded on miracle stories - the burning bush, the empty tomb, an angel dictating the Koran to Mohammed - and some of these faiths teach that miracles continue at the present day. The evidence for all these miracles seems to me to be considerably weaker than evidence for cold fusion, and I don't believe in cold fusion.
Above all, today we understand that even human beings are the result of natural selection acting over millions of years.
I'd guess that if we were to see the hand of a designer anywhere,it would be in the fundamental principles, the final laws of nature, the book of rules that govern all natural phenomena. We don't know the final laws yet, but as far as we have been able to see, they are utterly impersonal and quite without any special role for life. There is no life force.
As Richard Feynman has said,when you look at the universe and understand it's laws "the theory that it's all arranged as a stage for God to watch man's struggle for good and evil seems inadequate."

Steven Weinberg. "Facing Up" page 65

I think control is a big issue for us. Our species owes its survival to our ability to control our environment. But we coudn't control death, disease, earthquakes, storms (acts of "God") or droughts. Of course we tried to figure out how to control the uncontrollable. That's part of the push in science too. But just because it's a natural human instinct to believe in the supernatural doesn't make it true.

Spot on, Susan. Well said.

Thank you Susan for some fresh air in the middle of all this "faith".

When I was young, I was taught that there was a tooth fairy. I outgrew it. It was an assumption of responsibility on my part.

Outgrowing other fables, myths and propaganda [santa claus, boogeyman, sky daddy] is also healthy maturing and assumption of responsibility as an adult. Although it is tempting to rant and feel superior to others who cling to those things - those are not the actions of a mature, secure heart and mind who appreciates where others are coming from [and going to].

There are many atheists who define themselves negatively by ranting at the religionistas. But we can leave these quarrels behind and sail on - no fights, no yelling at those who won't listen anyway ... and define ourselves in a positive way.

I think it has been said that to call atheism a religion is like calling not collecting stamps a hobby. [credit?]

But I believe atheism has a call to it -- It is to assume responsibility for ourselves and our actions [No more "The devil made me do it." - Thanks, Geraldine] It is very scary. It requires flying out of the nest we grew up in and even leaving some things we love behind. Some can't do it.

Even more, it involves seeing ourselves as the source of good and evil in the world. [We have met the enemy and he is us. - Thanks, Pogo] [or as Yogi said: "You can see a lot by looking."] This leads to a more intense caring for each other than from religion. Since there are no magic tricks behind the clouds, it is our hands and hearts which must do good if we want it to exist in this world.

[BTW, Yogi is still kicking. He was at the All Star game Tuesday. GO YOGI! We love you.]

I have started a web site called "sentimentalstargazer" to explore the meaning of our world in a positive way without superstition or gods -- to show that you can be rational and emotional at the same time. This is for intelligent people with open minds. I could use some help here. garethharris@mac.com

Religious belief, of any kind, becomes by definition, closed, separative and ultimately violent. Once you take the first step into childish irrational belief systems, any subsequent violent behavior can be justified or, just as bad, tolerated.
The question is not whether there are "nice" Christians, Muslim or Jews, and "bad" versions.
The question is why do you think you need belief? Why do you want to follow? Why do you need a book or a priest to be generous and kind?
Believers believe out of fear or greed. They want to avoid something or get something.
All the money spent supporting preachers, priests, rabbis, imams, ayatollahs, churches, mosques and synagogues could be spent directly helping people. Believers give because they want to get, which is not giving. It’s a business transaction.
All the talk of tolerance and compassion is babble to make believers feel better.
It’s like prayer. It’s a placebo. It lets you think you’ve done something when you’ve done exactly nothing but talk to the air.
Terrorists at least do something, ugly, hateful and despicable as they are. The good news is, terrorists are revealing religious belief for what it is. The Christians tried terrorism during the Crusades. Now the Muslims are taking their turn at displaying the ignorance of religious belief.
You want to do something. Take the first step. Walk away from religious belief. Life is better on the sane side.

"What unites all believers in all forms of the supernatural and the paranormal is that they either require no evidence or invent evidence to fit the faith they already hold."

Susan,

Where have you been for the last many decades? The existence of paranormal phenomena has been quite conclusively established by impeccable scientific experiments. Paranormal phenomena are simply natural phenomena that uninformed people insist on calling "paranormal."

Regards.

Soja: "Believers have one EXTRA God which can't be compared to the little visible material gods atheists and believers alike worship."

Oh, I get it, you have more gods than I do and your gods are better than mine.

I'm eager to see if other Christians think this way. Maybe some will respond here. Also, maybe I'll ask some of my Christian friends, once I figure out a good way of framing the question. I suspect many of them will not be familiar with this concept. And frankly, I will have to practice keeping a straight face while I ask about it.

Soja: "I'm convinced atheists have many little gods of their own too. They just have different names and are quite ordinary compared to the big God religious people worship. Believers just don't feel satisfied with the little gods, that's all."

You've convinced yourself of a lie! I find the god of the wholly babble to be very small when compared to just about anything that is real. The god of the babble is large only when compared to other gods that did not exist. Inorder to be large, a thing has to have substance. Christopher Hitchens and I urge you to take a look at the Hubble images and see how vast and how much bigger nature is than any human creation.

Andrew, you say:

"I say...belief in a God may make sense to you, but you are not free to call it rational, when it is clearly a superstition, like astrology, which also cannot be justified as rational."

Andrew, I say: atheism may make sense to you but you are not free to call it rational for it is clearly superstition to believe the Big Bang simply happened out of nothing.

Andrew you say: "If it was rational it could be shown to be true by evidence and conclusions arrived at logically. Also, if it was rational, we'd all believe it. There wouldn't be any atheists."

I say Andrew, if a Big Bang could come out of nothing, we would all be making anything we wanted out of nothing. If it was rational - a universe coming into existence out of nothing - believers would feel no need for God. We'd all be atheists.

Andrew you say: "One of the strongest citicisms of religion by atheists is its total IRRATIONALITY. It makes no real sense."

I say, read my comments above.

Andrew you say: "Regarding the god I reject, it's more that I don't accept the god hypothesis. There is no god to reject, anymore than there's a Tooth Fairy to reject. One doesn't reject the Tooth Fairy. One simply refuses to accept the absurd (if quaint) idea of a tooth fairy - as a reality. Same thing with gods."

I say read my comments above.

Andrew you say: "Here's a short list of other hypothetical gods that I can't accept, ...
Apollo, Aphrodite, Zeus, Odin. Wodan.Hanuman.Ganesh. Shiva.Bal,
Gwydion,Mars,Vesta,Marduk,Enki,Tilmun,
Cronos,Belus,Tammuz,Nin,Istar,Pluto,
Dagda, Ceros, Potina, Memetona, Robigus,
Anath,Isis,Osiris,Shalem,Anubis, and last
but not least, Diana of Ephesus."

Andrew I say, the common denominator is that people believed in one god or the other at all times in human history. The names don't matter. Now the difference for me as a Christian is that I believe God took a human form once in human history in the person of Jesus. No other religion makes that claim.

Andrew you say: "No reason to believe in any of them.
Operative word - reason."

Andrew I say: You don't have to believe in any god if your reason doesn't support it. But believers believe in God as a result of logical conclusion about the origin of the Big Bang.

Operative word - reason.

Andrew: Regards...

July 17, 2008 12:55 AM

My regards to you too...
Soja

Soja; You say

"If you saw the "light" in atheism, good for you. I'm sure if I were to examine closely the god you rejected, I'd reject Him too. Atheists usually have an image of god that is not the God believers worship.

"If belief in a God makes more rational sense to me than atheism, you would allow me that, wouldn't you? (Not that I would care in the least if you didn't allow it.)"

I say...belief in a God may make sense to you, but you are not free to call it rational, when it is clearly a superstition, like astrology, which also cannot be justified as rational. If it was rational it could be shown to be true by evidence and conclusions arrived at logically. Also, if it was rational, we'd all believe it. There wouldn't be any atheists.
One of the strongest criticisms of religion by atheists is its total IRRATIONALITY. It makes no real sense.

Regarding the god I reject, it's more that I don't accept the god hypothesis. There is no god to reject, anymore than there's a Tooth Fairy to reject. One doesn't reject the Tooth Fairy. One simply refuses to accept the absurd (if quaint) idea of a tooth fairy - as a reality. Same thing with gods.

Here's a short list of other hypothetical gods that I can't accept, ...
Apollo, Aphrodite, Zeus, Odin. Wodan.Hanuman.Ganesh. Shiva.Bal,
Gwydion,Mars,Vesta,Marduk,Enki,Tilmun,
Cronos,Belus,Tammuz,Nin,Istar,Pluto,
Dagda, Ceros, Potina, Memetona, Robigus,
Anath,Isis,Osiris,Shalem,Anubis, and last
but not least, Diana of Ephesus.

No reason to believe in any of them.
Operative word - reason.

Regards...

andrew:

Soja;

You say...
"I'm convinced atheists have many little gods of their own too. They just have different names and are quite ordinary compared to the big God religious people worship. Believers just don't feel satisfied with the little gods, that's all."

Me.
Religion is like a steel trap for the mind. Your inability to consider that there are those who do not believe in the supernatural Skygod illustrates this quite well.
Most of us unbelievers are ex-believers who saw the light (if you will). There is no more reason to believe in gods than there is to believe in fairies. There just isn't. And that's a fact.

July 16, 2008 4:57 PM

=================================

Andrew

If you saw the "light" in atheism, good for you. I'm sure if I were to examine closely the god you rejected, I'd reject Him too. Atheists usually have an image of god that is not the God believers worship.

If belief in a God makes more rational sense to me than atheism, you would allow me that, wouldn't you? (Not that I would care in the least if you didn't allow it.)

Hmmm, the poll did not address belief in "pretty/ugly, wingie, talking thingies. Tis strange since one would assume they would be considered in the realm of the paranormal (definition- Beyond the range of normal experience or scientific explanation).

Some background on these "beyond the range of normal experience" thingies:

Joe Smith had his Moroni.

Jehovah Witnesses have their Jesus /Michael the archangel, the first angelic being created by God;

Mohammed had his Gabriel (this "tinkerbell" got around).

Jesus and his family had Michael, Gabriel, and Satan, the latter being a modern day demon of the demented.

The Abraham-Moses myths had their Angel of Death and other "no-namers" to do their dirty work or other assorted duties.

Contemporary biblical and religious scholars have relegated these "pretty/ugly wingie thingies" to the myth pile. We should do the same to include deleting all references to them in our religious operating manuals. Doing this will eliminate the prophet/profit/prophecy status of these founders and put them where they belong as simple humans just like the rest of us.

Some added references to "tinker bells".

"Latter-day Saints also believe that Michael the Archangel was Adam (the first man) when he was mortal, and Gabriel lived on the earth as Noah."

Apparently hallucinations did not stop with Joe Smith.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07049c.htm
"This belief in guardian angels can be traced throughout all antiquity; pagans, like Menander and Plutarch (cf. Euseb., "Praep. Evang.", xii), and Neo-Platonists, like Plotinus, held it. It was also the belief of the Babylonians and Assyrians, as their monuments testify, for a figure of a guardian angel now in the British Museum once decorated an Assyrian palace, and might well serve for a modern representation; while Nabopolassar, father of Nebuchadnezzar the Great, says: "He (Marduk) sent a tutelary deity (cherub) of grace to go at my side; in everything that I did, he made my work to succeed."

Catholic monks and Dark Age theologians also did their share of hallucinating:

"TUBUAS-A member of the group of angels who were removed from the ranks of officially recognized celestial hierarchy in 745 by a council in Rome under Pope Zachary. He was joined by Uriel, Adimus, Sabaoth, Simiel, and Raguel."

And tinkerbells go way, way back:

"In Zoroastrianism there are different angel like creatures. For example each person has a guardian angel caled Fravashi. They patronize human being and other creatures and also manifest god’s energy. Also, the Amesha Spentas have often been regarded as angels, but they don't convey messages, but are rather emanations of Ahura Mazda ("Wise Lord", God); they appear in an abstract fashion in the religious thought of Zarathustra and then later (during the Achaemenid period of Zoroastrianism) became personalized, associated with an aspect of the divine creation (fire, plants, water...)."

"The beginnings of the biblical belief in angels must be sought in very early folklore. The gods of the Hittites and Canaanites had their supernatural messengers, and parallels to the Old Testament stories of angels are found in Near Eastern literature. "

"The 'Magic Papyri' contain many spells to secure just such help and protection of angels. From magic traditions arose the concept of the guardian angel. "

For added information see the review at:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angel

E Favorite:

Soja: "I'm convinced atheists have many little gods of their own too. They just have different names and are quite ordinary compared to the big God religious people worship. Believers just don't feel satisfied with the little gods, that's all."

Your God's bigger than mine?

July 16, 2008 3:30 PM

=================================

E Favourite

You got me wrong. What I mean by little gods are the earthly gods (believers have them too, except we have one extra God) like our clay footed heroes and heroines, our favourite possessions, our hedonistic pass times etc etc.

No, no, no! Your gods are not bigger than mine. Believers have one EXTRA God which can't be compared to the little visible material gods atheists and believers alike worship.

Watch these Civil War ghosts. There are 13 of them.

http://www.ghoststudy.com/new6/new/gettysburg13.htm

To unbiased observer (and others)

Why did no one detect radio waves, light particles and molecules hundreds of years ago; because they didn’t know how. Just because you can’t see or scientifically prove something beyond a shadow of a doubt doesn’t mean you can’t take a leap of faith sometimes. Fortunately this never stopped people like Newton, Einstein and others from developing theories that later proved to be right or wrong ins some cases and in other cases the tip of the iceberg.

Same as a little doubt never hurt anyone, neither does a little belief.

Susan says:
"Why do people (and not only Americans) who profess some orthodox religion also continue to believe in ghosts..."

I tell you why I believe in ghosts. Because I saw and heard them. Never was I alone when these encounters happened but was among groups.
I am as critical minded as anyone else and when colleagues from my institution detect ghosts with their instruments; videotapes, thermometers, voltage detectors and sensitive heat sensors, that should be enough for anybody. I did not need this research since I know what I saw and heard a number of times.
http://www.ghostvillage.com/

How can people in the 21st century believe in this utter junk? Name one controlled study that shows any positive evidence for Astrology, Telepathy, or Ghosts. Distant stars affecting people's love lives (dependent on their month of birth)? Come on! Ghosts? What evidence do we have that consciousness is anything but an epiphenomenon of brain chemistry? Why have there been no controlled studies of telepathy, ESP, "past life experience", etc. that have yielded a positive result?

Of course, if you believe in most of the woo-woo from the major religions (people coming back from the dead after three days, talking snakes, talking donkeys, flying horses, djinnis), I guess you can believe anything. Right now Prof. P.Z. Myers is embroiled in a controversy involving some stolen crackers that are supposedly God incarnate.

Beliefs like this are relics of the stone age and would best be consigned to the dust bin of history. This type of thinking stifles us. Woo-woo is woo-woo, no matter how it's dressed up in pseudoscientific jargon. I recommend viewing Richard Dawkins's "The Assault on Reason". (Now on YouTube).

Great column, Susan. If only we could hope that it would put "paid" to this increasingly idiotic blog called On Faith.

Wiccan -

Funny, but the older I get, the more I see the coincidence in things. The less I respect conspiracy theories (both evil and divine).

We have only one way to view our personal histories, and that is backwards. Inevitably, we read history as a straight line that got us from Point A to Point X, and assume something has been guiding our lives, when the truth is that taking the left fork at Point M may have meant that we never got to Point X, but ended up over at Point 27.

To believe that something supernatural is behind our lives is to ignore three of the greatest powers on Earth: randomness, chaos...and human incompetence. Measure any "unexplainable" or "supernatural" event by those three powers and you'll almost always have an explanation for the "unexplainable."

Known anon;

Either you believe in a god or you don't.
If you don't you're an atheist (or an agnostic).
You are what you are.

If the pushiness of some atheists bothers you, don't feel bad. The pushiness of Christians has known no bounds. For hundreds if not thousands of years the religious have pushed nonbelievers around, drowning them, torturing them, burning them, making them say "OK,OK I BELIEVE!!"

Atheists are having their moment; they are pleased to have been right all along. And we can say it out loud now without being butchered; there is no god, there is no life after death, no heaven and no hell.
Thanks Voltaire, Thanks Hume, Thanks Locke,Thanks Darwin, Thanks Einstein et al for making all this possible.

Most of the people of the globe once believed the Earth was flat, that Earth was the center of the Universe, that Eucharistic wafers were "god hosts", that black cats were unlucky, that breaking a mirror would bring seven years of bad luck etc. Throw in all the horror movies, hallucinogenic drugs, alcohol binges, Gypsy con artists, the mumbo jumbo of religion, voodoo and other pagan rituals and "pretty/ugly wingie thingies aka angels, fairies and tinkerbells and it is no wonder that people still believe in: (from the referenced poll)

Extrasensory perception, or ESP
41 %

That houses can be haunted
37 %

Ghosts/that spirits of dead people can come back in certain places/situations
32

Telepathy/communication between minds without using traditional senses
31

Clairvoyance/the power of the mind to know the past and predict the future
26

Astrology, or that the position of the stars and planets can affect people's lives
25

That people can communicate mentally with someone who has died
21

Witches
21

Reincarnation, that is, the rebirth of the soul in a new body after death
20

Channeling/allowing a 'spirit-being' to temporarily assume control of body

9

Conclusion: Such beliefs separate us from the non-human elements of life and gives credence to some sort of life after death.

Amen, sister.

as Steven Weinberg notes...

"The historian Hugh Trevor-Roper has said that it was the spread of the spirit of science in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries that finally ended the burning of witches in Europe. We may need to rely again on the influence of science to preserve a sane world. It is not the certainty of scientific knowledge that fits it for this role, but its uncertainty. Seeing scientists change their minds again and again about matters that can be studied directly in laboratory experiments, how can one take seriously the claims of religious tradition or sacred writings to certain knowledge about matters beyond human experience?"

Steven Weinberg."What about God".
+

The religious are scared of doubt and a warned against it.Doubt is weak and waffling and leads to nonbelief. Quite the opposite of science, and the way of critical thinking, where doubt can lead to truth.

Soja,

You seem to be "convinced" of a lot of imaginary things.

Someone wrote, "The older I get, the less I believe in coincidence." That's because the older we get, the more we tend to impose retrospective patterns on our own lives, to persuade ourselves that "everything happens for a reason."

The classic example is the person who is late for a plane flight and the plane crashes. He attributes his survival to a guiding Hand that caused him to miss the plane. But it's just a coincidence. He was late, and the plane he intended to take crashed. The two events have nothing to do with each other. (This is actually a bad example, because, given the frequency of airline delays today, it's almost impossible to be late for a flight.)

Soja;

You say...
"I'm convinced atheists have many little gods of their own too. They just have different names and are quite ordinary compared to the big God religious people worship. Believers just don't feel satisfied with the little gods, that's all."

Me.
Religion is like a steel trap for the mind. Your inability to consider that there are those who do not believe in the supernatural Skygod illustrates this quite well.
Most of us unbelievers are ex-believers who saw the light (if you will). There is no more reason to believe in gods than there is to believe in fairies. There just isn't. And that's a fact.

OK, a little more seriously:

"What unites all believers in all forms of the supernatural and the paranormal is that they either require no evidence or invent evidence to fit the faith they already hold."

Or, if you accept 'Sturgeon's Law,' (98 percent of everything is 'junk,' ...if you accumulate a masive pile of junk, point to it and scream 'Junk!' then you get a big whoopdeedoo out of it. ;) )

"The distinguishing characteristic of junk thought and junk science (a branch of junk thought) is their inability to distinguish between coincidence and causation. "

The distinguishing characteristic of people who don't get it is thinking they're immune to this phenomenon, or projecting this on others. :)

"The stars were in a particular alignment on the night before a great battle, or the entrails of a goat were arranged in a certain formation, so that must be the reason why the battle was won or lost."

Or a professional caste of people used to dealing with rapacious and self-inflated kings back in the day, who thought that generally the Gods or God obviously wanted them to get more inflated, ... didn't need a goat to figure out good advice, and the goat was to make the likes of a Dubya figure what was being said was *important?*

Also to not-coincidentally remind O Great King what happens when you're wrong about running out with intent to go sticking sharp implements in living beings?

Stuart,

Not really a guiding hand; more of an interconnecting that wasn't obvious before.

"1. The older I get, the less I believe in coincidence."
*************************************
Or, the closer to the grave you get, the more you look for some evidence that there was a "guiding hand" in your life?

"The Undead World Of Supernatural Junk Thought"

Oh, that's *delightful.* I must remember to list that as my return address someday. :)

Soja: "I'm convinced atheists have many little gods of their own too. They just have different names and are quite ordinary compared to the big God religious people worship. Believers just don't feel satisfied with the little gods, that's all."

Your God's bigger than mine?

There is a supernatural or magial quality embedded within this existential reality which forms the landscape of our daily experience. And gradually, we discern this quality by way of science, and rare and brief moments of insight which science may motivate in some few people. And so we have now, at our disposal, a technology, that would have seemed like "magic" to someone from a previous age, all because we have learned, and are learning, how things work.

However, I have a feeling this question is referring more to the imaginings of men's minds, with its collection of fears and hopes, about what might be, without any regard for what really is.

Susan;

Great essay.

I've often thought of the enormous influence movies and television have on what we believe...especially on our attitude to magic and the supernatural.

It would be a interesting project for someone with the time and resources, to explore the influence of the supernatural in film, and how it contributes to the acceptance of the supernatural by the majority of us.
The supernatural is common-place in movies and television, and reinforces much of the nonsense that people are taught in church.

How can we ever expect people to conclude that there is no magic, no life after death, no God, and no supernatural world, when so many films suggest otherwise?

It reminds me of a moment years ago when leaving a theater after watching 'Close Encounters Of The Third Kind', I heard somebody say to someone else, "See, NOW do you believe in UFO's?"

AArrgggh...

If we dismiss the supernatural as impossible we are just as narrow minded as when we accept it as absolute truth. It is belief, in anything, that moves us forward (or backward).

Close minded belief holds us back or in some cases moves us backward. Open minded belief tends to move us forward.

What do we have today that 400 hundred years ago would have been seen as supernatural the devil’s work or a miracle?

Cell phones – voices out of thin air certainly could get one strapped to a stake; in the end simple science really. Let’s add in TV, telephones and other electronic devices. All would have been described as magical if not supernatural.

Radiation sickness – certainly the work of devils or an angry God(s). Today science explains it very clearly.

CPR – certainly raise the dead would be a supernatural feat.

How about people who heal by touch or meditation? Is it coincidence and for some unknown reason the disease or tumors just went away? These medical “miracles” are simply unexplained. And perhaps 400 years in the future we will learn the why’s and wherefores and this supernatural display or these “miracles” will simply be science.

Maybe the person ate extra boisenberries and they are a miracle cure. Maybe we can work mind over matter when it comes to our body (like a huge placebo effect)? Maybe we simply trick the body into doing something it is capable when we are not held back by a belief we can’t? One day we will have the answer.

I tend to think of supernatural as the possibility of some greater truth that we currently either can not understand / contemplate or can not provide sufficient evidence for the masses to accept.

I for one do like to move forward and will continue to believe (or not) with an open mind.

Susan,

As a great fan of Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens, I agree with everything you say, and would add that in this age of ubiquitous cell phone video cameras and legions of "ghost hunters" there is not one unambiguous piece of evidence to support a belief in supernatural phenomena.

Subjective human experience, however, is another matter. On two separate occasions in the 1980's, I was a guest of friends who own a chateau in France, and experienced an array of phenomena that to my mind were inexplicable (and alarming.) I've never before or since experienced anything like this. While I'm sure (sort of sure) that there are natural explanations for this, I think it's this kind of unexpected and indigestible "personal experience" that keeps interest in this subject alive into the 21st century--even among those of us who are rather ashamed to admit it.

1. The older I get, the less I believe in coincidence.

2. You will see what you allow yourself to see.

3. Who gets to decide what is supernatural? Things happen that I find perfectly natural that others would define as supernatural.

Let the games begin!

I found this on an atheist blog (link provided). The non-interventionist, non-religious, non-atheist, non-socialist, non-capitalist, romantic, existentialist, Freddie shares his views on New Atheism or anti-theism:

Saturday, July 12, 2008

I am not you, atheism by Freddie (L'Hote)

I don't believe in God, I guess, in any conventional terms, and I'm non-religious. But Jeezy Chreezy, the public face of atheism turns my stomach. It is an unrelenting, never ending foray into self-aggrandizement, debasement of one's opponents, and ridicule of things one doesn't believe in. If someone was a political commentator, and operated the way Meyers, Richard Dawkins, or Christopher Hitchens did, would anyone listen to them? No. As much as the success of the Ann Coulters of the world suggests otherwise, we largely understand that a basic level of decorum, mutual respect, and the assumption of good faith should under gird our national dialogue. Indeed, without these assumptions, the dialogue is not worth having.

But then there is atheism, where it is apparently the case that you can always come closer to righteousness by expressing still-greater contempt for those with which you don't agree. Now, this is all very strange; though growing, the atheist minority is stilled dwarfed in this country and in this world by the religious. And how can you possibly change people's minds if you're constantly ridiculing them? Doesn't make much sense.

But I suspect that it makes perfect sense. It makes sense because the goal of the new atheism has never been to convert. It has never been to include. It has never been to change minds. The ridicule is the goal; the contempt is the end; the sheer fun of sanctimony, self-righteousness and loathing are the purpose. Go to Youtube and look for all the young atheists proudly telling their webcams that Jesus is a lie and religion is a fantasy and God is a disease and on and on.... Do they really want to convince anyone? No. What they want is to feel that they are better than others. They want to insult for the joy of insulting. They want a sense of superiority, one I imagine is often denied in their lives, and by ridiculing something others find sacred, they find their method. This is classic adversary philosophy: I think this thing is true because in its being true it debases you and elevates me.

The new atheism has made its challenge, then. And here is my answer. I don't believe in God, in any meaningful way. I am not a Christian or a Muslim or a Hindu or a Buddhist or a Jew, or whatever else you will. In questions of public policy I feel religion has no place, and rational discourse has to rule. I don't want religious artifacts in the public square, I don't want creationism taught in public schools, and I don't want any religion privileged in any way by government. I am, in most every way that matters, a natural ally of atheism.

But atheism has expelled me. It has expelled me because it has in its heart contempt and loathing and fear of the other. So I reject it. I don't reject all atheists; many atheist are uninterested in ridiculing the religious-- they simply want to be left in peace, and not have religion forced on them or on the law. That, to me, is a principled atheism, and one I am happy to coexist with. But this new atheism, this anti-theism, has only contempt at its heart, and I reject it as thoroughly as it has rejected me.

http://lhote.blogspot.com/2008/07/i-am-not-you-atheism_12.html

Dear Ms Jacoby

As a Catholic, once a year, on Ash Wednesday, in a ritual I'm reminded that I'm to return to dust from which I was created and into whom God breathed the breath of life.

From Wikipedia:

"In the Christian calendar, Ash Wednesday is the first day of Lent and occurs forty days before Easter (excluding Sundays). It falls on a different date each year, because it is dependent on the date of Easter...

"The day gets its name from the practice of placing ashes on the foreheads of the faithful as a sign of repentance. The ashes used are gathered after the Palm Crosses from the previous year's Palm Sunday are burned. In the liturgical practice of some churches, the ashes are mixed with the Oil of the Catechumens[1] (one of the sacred oils used to anoint those about to be baptised), though some churches use ordinary oil. This paste is used by the clergyman who presides at the service to make the sign of the cross, first upon his own forehead and then on each of those present who kneel before him at the altar rail.

As he does so, he recites the words: "Remember O man that you are dust, and to dust you shall return."

If the Catholic World Youth Day held in Sydney, Australia this year, is anything to go by, young people are not about to give up religion. Some of them are genuinely unsatisfied with insatiable consumerism and the shallowness of materialism, and are looking for meaning. Isn't it wonderful that they find it in religion, even Catholicism? Atheists like you who would love to have religions disappear are going to live with the fact that your wishes won't come true; not in a long long time anyway. I suspect it won't come true as long as mankind lasts for religion in form or another is as old as mankind itself.

I'm convinced atheists have many little gods of their own too. They just have different names and are quite ordinary compared to the big God religious people worship. Believers just don't feel satisfied with the little gods, that's all.

Another excellent essay, Susan.

You wrote: "...because human beings could not bear the prospect of their own mortality."

I've been thinking about this, and I'm not sure that it isn't the mortality of their loved ones that is an even bigger push. Many people risk their own lives for love, country, or principle, and some even take their own lives; but when someone dear to them dies, that seems much more devastating to them.

I think about the times before antibiotics and vaccines, and still earlier, before antisepsis, and the horrendous child mortality rate. I'm interested in genealogy, and it's awful to see the early deaths of so many children - sometimes nearly every child in a family wiped out within days of each other by some disease that would be perfectly preventable today.

It must have been a crushing burden for parents to bear. I can't imagine ever becoming resigned or inured to it, even though it was common; and religion - the hope it offered of seeing them again in the afterlife - must have been all that kept them going.

Today, with most children surviving not only to adulthood, but into old age, religion should be losing its stranglehold. I think we do see this in declining church attendance, but we still have a looong way to go.

Both this and the Ingersoll arguments are great.

I live in Austin, TX which is sort of like the Bay Area stuck in the middle of Texas. People here are very liberal and many see themselves as "spiritual" rather than religious. Labeling oneself as spiritual often indicates that one has cobbled together a bunch of metaphysical garbage that clumsily supports one's tastes and prejudices. Unfortunately, this sort of inclination is much more common around here than the kind of thoughtful agnosticism you seem to embody.