Heartland

andymackem wrote:Moreover you could argue that once you debate the existence of anything it is called into being...

Hasn't worked with us discussing a new Sisters album has it?

andymackem wrote:I was under the impression that, philosophically speaking, you cannot find negative proof. In other words you cannot prove that something does not exist, all you can do is question the evidence for its existence.

Well, I'm pretty sure that you could prove the non-existence of a married bachelor, because of the conflicting definitions of the words married and bachelor.

andymackem wrote:Moreover you could argue that once you debate the existence of anything it is called into being because you are generating the concept under discussion...

This is starting to sound suspiciously like Anselm's ontological argument for the existence of God. (No it doesn't make any sense to me either!)

andymackem wrote:Also, the type of god I don't believe in directly affects how concerned I might be about my lack of faith. My non-existent god isn't going to smite me mightily, or damn me into eternity just because of my scepticism. By the sounds of it, yours might

And now Pascal's Wager?

Married bachelor is an oxymoron or a paradox. You could argue that disproving that is simply a matter of grammar rather than existentialism. Alternatively, if someone has taken a deep-seated commitment to bachelor-ism, could he not be married to bachelor-ism in the same way you might say someone was married to a job? And thus, a (linguistically valid) married bachelor.

And as Anselm and Pascal would probably have to concede, there's nothing new in theology. It just makes a change from shuffling footballing cliches around for a living.

The boy God, at the end of the day, he done good. And, as the crowd sang, "He's here, he's there, he's every fackin' where; non-specific infinite creative impulse behind the known universe (or what maybe what Wittgenstein called the 'unspeakable')", proving that football crowds have a remarkable grasp of adapting melody to fit unpredictable rhythm and meter.

I'd just like to say this thread has made excellent reading.

Well done chaps!

I bet you don't get this level of intellectual debate on just any band's forum.

straylight wrote:I'd just like to say this thread has made excellent reading.

Well done chaps!

I bet you don't get this level of intellectual debate on just any band's forum.

and we haven't really tried yet

oooh, you tease!

straylight wrote:oooh, you tease!

try me

straylight wrote:I'd just like to say this thread has made excellent reading.

Well done chaps!

I bet you don't get this level of intellectual debate on just any band's forum.

Flattery will get you anywhere. I'm easily bought.

I bet other bands' forums (fora?) have mundane matters like new material to discuss, though. This is quite literally the devil making work for idle minds. Except the devil doesn't exist either according to Markfiend's argument, because there is obviously good in the world as well as evil

[yes, I know that isn't a fair summation of your argument, but I was wandering past the cage with a stick in my hand and couldn't resist poking it through the bars ]

andymackem wrote:there's nothing new in theology

Theology: from Greek; theos (god) and logos (word)
"The word about God," talking about God, the study of God.

Up there (for one that does not believe in God) with such other fruitful pursuits as chocolate teapot manufacture.

andymackem wrote:Except the devil doesn't exist either according to Markfiend's argument, because there is obviously good in the world as well as evil

Interesting corollary to my argument

Of course one of the logical outcomes of my argument was that "God is not good"...

However, if the existence of evil is evidence against an benevolent omnipotent being, then I'll happily grant that the existence of good is also evidence against a malevolent omnipotent being. Which is a bit of a relief frankly.

Although it would be hard to see how someone who rejects the literal existence of one character of a mythology would accept the literal existence of another character of that same mythology (Laveyan Satanists are excused; as far as I can gather, Satan in their mythology is conceived as not having a literal existence, rather it/he is a symbolistic representation of humanity's will to power, etc.)

I have never met Jesus, and will probably never do.

I'm not even part of the swedish church anymore (left 20 years ago, never regret it)

But I do respect people who believes. And I hope that they respects me.

For some people, God can be very helpful (drug addicts etc) and that's just fine. But it's not for me. I just keep taking my drugs......

rian wrote:But I do respect people who believes. And I hope that they respects me.

randdebiel² wrote:as an agnost I always find very offensive that atheists are sometimes as dogmatic as the most devout christians...
with the exception they THINK they have science on their side although science doesn't even cover the same grounds as religion (and this I say as a mathematician with serious knowledge of philosophy of science...)

straylight wrote:I bet you don't get this level of intellectual debate on just any band's forum.

Thanks to those of you who have made today's discussion indeed more constructive. Initially it seemed as though the thread could be heading toward a proposal to have all religious members register and show avatars of yellow crosses.

Religion is something at times cultural, but is largely personal. randdebiel²'s sentiment is largely mine as well. Anyone who is intolerant at either end of the spectrum (whether pushing certain religious beliefs or attacking them) is in the wrong. It is like nationalism. There is little wrong in having pride in one's nationality, but to put others down because they are different nationalities crosses the line. Intolerant beliefs and intolerant non-beliefs are comparably condemnable.

List me among those (or the only for all I know) here who holds religious beliefs. Any surprises by that? As about many things, I am fairly libertarian about religion. It is something personal, so I have no say in the matter if someone else has different views. I am not going to condemn someone for thinking differently than I. For instance, markfiend writes that he is atheist. That is not going to stop me from sending him reweeds which he wants from me down the road. From dealing with him in the past, I am sure that he would say the same. As rian wrote, I will show respect, but I hope that the respect is not a one-way street. I am not too convinced of that now, though.

Martin

Whoops, double post - one's long enough as it is!

andymackem wrote:Selective extracts from Boudicca on a different thread:

True, but an astonishingly high proportion have been created either in support of, or reaction against a prevailing belief system or philosophy. It would be unfair to describe Solzenitsyn as a communist writer, or Shostakovich as a communist musician but it is unlikely either would have produced what they did had communism not existed. The impact of religion and religious faith on the way it has shaped society (even our current secular, post-God society) is astronomical. Sisters of Mercy, anyone (oops, close to coming on topic here!).

I don't deny the power and influence faith in God has had on some of mankind's achievments and on civilzation as we know it. However, rather than creating the human abilites that gave rise to all these works of art and flashes of genius, I think it simply focused them. I think we are perfectly capable of generating other focuses for that insatiable drive to achieve (something which I think screams out in favour of evolution over creationism) - life for life's own sake would be a good place to start.

andymackem wrote:
So do you believe in anything at all? Do you have any aspirations and hopes, either personally or more generally (aside from unspeakable acts with short-arsed bad-tempered singers )? I have faith (for want of a better word) that I am capable of achieving certain things in the future that are currently beyond me. Professional aspirations, that sort of thing. Nothing too extreme. There are good reasons why these may not happen (spending too much time in the office arguing on here, for instance ), but I'd rather believe that I _can_ do it and strive to achieve rather than pay too much attention to the doubters. Does that materially differ from having a "close-minded" belief in a God or philosophy/belief system?

I don't know whether I should be taking offence at this, as I'm not sure whether you're suggesting I'm some kind of lifeless cynic who can't see an ounce of purpose or meaning in anything. Or not. I believe in certain principles and ideas, but I'm not sure this is the post to reel them off as you've given me other, more specific questions to answer. So as briefly as I can - it's about a certain view rather than any supernatural-type thing like reincarnation or God or ghosts and ghouls. I believe in the things which appear to me to exist - nature, the universe, the creative and destructive forces that operate within it. Nothing that would offend the rationalists or the scientists, to be sure, but I know that our understanding of it all could be flawed. I look at these things as the best bet, if you like, and it saddens me that more people can't find a sense of awe and divinity in them - always looking for something 'beyond'. To me, the scientific is not necessarily divorced from the religious. But underneath all of that, my only certainty is Reality - whatever bizarre form that may take! - which leaves a lot of room for manoevre. I might seem like a fence-sitter, but the more I learn the more I realise I never knew **** before, and probably never will.

I certainly have a great deal of 'faith' of the kind you just described - belief that I can do certain things in the future if I set my mind to it. I'm a very ambitious and hopeful person. I've got so many aspirations it's not even funny, and only one of them includes unspeakable acts with a singer who is not as bad tempered or short as I am. Mind you, at 5'5'' it's close on the second one...
In answer to your question, I really don't think the kind of faith you say you have (and I know I have) is the same as believing in life after death, saints and angels, and the Big Man. I know all my goals are quite easily attainable if I try hard enough - I can't say anything about yours but I suspect they are - so the 'faith' required is nothing fancy, nothing 'otherworldly', it's something perfectly human, and it's no less powerful for being that. Life has provided the evidence for my 'faith' - I've seen virtually no-one fail in the kind of things I wish to do without lack of effort, or a serious change in circumstances. I've seen the evidence of my own hard work paying off. I simply cannot claim to have seen evidence for the existence of God and his chums that was in the least bit convincing unless I disengage my entire brain (which I have been known to do). And even then.... I just feel that to be convinced by it requires total abandonment of all our mental abilities, which many 'believers' seem to see as a positive thing as it's all about the 'soul' - coming from the starting point I mentioned earlier of believing the things that are apparent to me, the existence of my own brain is something I have relative confidence in (I think, therefore I think I think) and I don't think we should treat our own brains with such disrespect.

andymackem wrote: Depends what you would regard as a transformation. Arguably with plastic surgery and elocution lessons you could make yourself into a passable imitation. Can't imagine _why_, but I can't stand the woman anyway. Throw in a well-planned abduction/assassination and you might be able to effectively appropriate Ms Lumley's life. Hugely implausible, but arguably not impossible - certainly no more difficult that many of the achievements discussed at the start. I really hope you're not sufficiently unhinged to try this, btw. I'll be watching the news closely!.

In all honesty, I don't wish to look like Ms. Lumely. It's a means to an end! If I was transforming, I'd go for Siouxsie, but really I'm **** hot and more than happy in my own skin. Anyway this was all my attempt to demonstrate something impossible that it would be stupid to have faith in. I still maintain that it is impossible, because what I meant was actually being someone else, not just looking like them. Everything I know currently indicates that this is completely out of the question. That's what it comes down to - if you claim something is possible/exists, there has to be strong evidence. The same could be said for impossibility/non-existence - I would offer the majority of human beings experience through our five senses and our brain. That won't satisfy many, though.

andymackem wrote: True enough. But look at the persistent role of the "outsider" in popular mythology. Look at the number of geniuses (genii?) who were initially dismissed as crazy? In the Russian Orthodox tradition the Yurodivy, or Holy Fool is a key agent in bridging the gap between church and people (that was the way in for charlatans like Rasputin to gain influence, but also the inspiration for Dostoevsky's tragic hero Myshkin in The Idiot). People like Terence McKenna have made similar arguments in respect of Shamanism and the use of psychodelics - the garnering of insight from "madness".

It's ironic that this is addressed to me, as you have hit on one of my pet "bring out the soapbox" subjects. I couldn't agree more that there is a very fine line between genius and madness - and I suspect the one which is drawn is essentially only a product of the human mind, incapable as it is of understanding things with out labels and lines -and very often they co-exist. Both are examples of minds which are not 'normal'. Minds which go places others don't, and is it really surprising that they mind find wonderful and terrible things while they are there?
Having said that, I see a difference between the genius who is called mad because his way of thinking is so different from the herd's, and the person, genius or not, who is seen as mad because he makes statements or acts on ideas which are not based on any kind of evidence or logic.
The first kind of person could have a lot of rational evidence to support his way of thinking - it could be that it is the herd who are making huge jumps in logic simply because everyone else is. I think it is quite possible, and common, for a whole society to 'go mad' in this sense.
The second kind could be saying - well, here's a common one - that he's God Himself, without providing a shred of evidence other than his word.

I don't know, the more I talk about it, the more I realise how ill defined these things are - concepts like 'evidence' for example. I can only work on what seems to make the most sense to me at this moment in time - you see, this is why I'm a fence sitter, man! I don't have a **** clue about anything. But isn't it comforting to know what one day the Bomb's going to drop and it'll all be a load of pointless chit-chat after all?

@ Petseri: Fair points, and I don't doubt your sincerity. But doesn't most religion have an inbuilt "us-and-them" attitude? After all, Christian theology tells us that God will damn unbelievers into hell for the rest of eternity. If you believe in and worship that God, aren't you complicit in the damnation of Markfiend, even while you trade your tapes? That could make your respect appear somewhat lukewarm.

@Boudicca: wow, that was long. Thought I was bad Can I get back to you after I've eaten? Glad to hear you're happy not being Joanna Lumley, at least Do you want to post something in the pic gallery and we can judge the "s**t hot" claim?

And no, you shouldn't take offence at my questions. My statements, on the other hand, are fair game

andymackem wrote:@ Petseri: Fair points, and I don't doubt your sincerity. But doesn't most religion have an inbuilt "us-and-them" attitude? After all, Christian theology tells us that God will damn unbelievers into hell for the rest of eternity. If you believe in and worship that God, aren't you complicit in the damnation of Markfiend, even while you trade your tapes? That could make your respect appear somewhat lukewarm.

@Boudicca: wow, that was long. Thought I was bad Can I get back to you after I've eaten? Glad to hear you're happy not being Joanna Lumley, at least Do you want to post something in the pic gallery and we can judge the "**** hot" claim?

And no, you shouldn't take offence at my questions. My statements, on the other hand, are fair game

My s**t hot-ness will be available for your viewing pleasure (god, that sounds bad!) in a short time, once I have figured out how to upload the stuff from my digicam. I am not friends with technology, but I do have faith that mastery of it is theoretically possible.

andymackem wrote:@ Petseri: Fair points, and I don't doubt your sincerity. But doesn't most religion have an inbuilt "us-and-them" attitude? After all, Christian theology tells us that God will damn unbelievers into hell for the rest of eternity. If you believe in and worship that God, aren't you complicit in the damnation of Markfiend, even while you trade your tapes? That could make your respect appear somewhat lukewarm.

Why? Nobody can make decisions for someone else. Others have to make his or her own decision on what he or she believes. The same Christian theology which you mention also has as one of its main principles to treat each other as you would want to be treated. It would be hypocritical to show disrespect based solely on opposing beliefs. (Yes, many hypocritical things can be done in the name of religion. I will not argue that.) I may react to what someone does, but I hope not for who they are (in this case, defining beliefs and opinions as characteristics, not actions).

The us-and-them attitude is not like an exclusive membership. Most (all?) religions are open or accessible. Besides, following your logic, how would you reconcile a prophet or a Messiah or a god among people (an occurance is various religions) interacting with respective non-believers?

[There is also the matter of what Hell in Christian theology is. It is not universally defined, as far as I know. That is a discussion for a theologian, though.]

Martin

Martin,

You're quite right, nobody can or should make decisions for others. It just strikes me that the whole punishment-and-reward, sheep-from-goats aspect that underpins many faiths is effectively doing precisely that.

It's also why most faiths have an evangelical aspect to them: logic would suggest if you believe you are on the way to a good thing you would want to share it with your friends. Similarly you might wish to spare your friends from a bad thing. But, is there are line where understandable evangelism becomes complicity in the whole sheep-and-goats process which is, by its nature, discriminatory and divisive. I might add that this carrot-and-stick approach adheres the church to the state by encouraging/intimidating the masses into quiet conformity (see medieval Europe) rather than enabling meaningful debate on the moral justice of the divide between wealth and power on the one hand, and the mass populace on the other.

Again, I'm not doubting the sincerity with which you respect the opinions of other faiths. Love thy neighbour as thyself, as you pointed out. I'm just curious as to have you reconcile that respect with the worship of a deity who explicitly doesn't - thou shalt worship no other God but me, and all that.

If I assume for the sake of argument that there is a God, it's hard to see that he would send people to Hell for using their (God-given) critical faculties to come to the conclusion that He doesn't exist.

And as I've said before, I do not doubt the sincerity of any* religious believer; I disagree with the belief, I may point out why I think the beliefs are mistaken, but in the end, if someone is equally convinced that I am mistaken, there is little to be gained in "is", "is not", "is", "is not", type argument.

* Well, almost any. There are some TV/Internet preachers who seem to me to be quite clearly "in it for the money." But that's a side issue.

I think it would be better to substitute the word religion in this thread with monotheïsm as there are religions that don't center around an omnipotent god ... (we should all convert to Buddha teachings anyway )

This reminds me of when I was at uni. One day in the uni bar a couple of guys came up to me and asked if i'd mind if i'd participate in a survey. They then told me that they were members of the uni's christian association.

The conversation went something like this:

Q1: Do you believe in god?
Me: No

Q2: Do you believe that Jesus was the son of god?
Me: Um... I just told you I don't believe in god... um... you know...

That threw them and they buggered off and left me alone after that.

BUT: they clearly were so brainwashed by their own "belief" that they hadn't even considered that someone would not believe, going out with a barely thought out and completely biassed survey which was fit for nothing.

Sorry to be a Johnney-come-lately on this thread, but I just found this:

"Dear President Bush,

Congratulations on your election victory and for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have learned a great deal from you and understand why you would propose and support a constitutional amendment banning same sex marriage. As you said "in the eyes of God marriage is based between a man a woman." I try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination... End of debate.

However, I do need some advice from you regarding some other elements of God's Laws and how best to follow them.

1. Leviticus 25:44 states that I may possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?

2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanness - Lev.15:19-24. The problem is how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.

4. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord - Lev.1:9. The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

5. I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2. clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself, or should I ask the police to do it?

6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination - Lev.11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this? Are there 'degrees' of abomination?

7. Lev.21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle-room here?

8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev.19:27. How should they die?

9. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev.19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? Lev.24:10-16. Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair, like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)

I know you have studied these things extensively and thus enjoy considerable expertise in such matters, so I am confident you can help.

Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging. "

That made my day