Evidence For Moses, Exodus, Plagues

DENIED "The counsel of the Lord standeth forever, the thoughts of his
heart to all generations" The Exodus events are "declared" and are
accurate down to the smallest detail.

Except it never happened.

--
JD

"If ANYONE will not welcome you or listen to
your words, LEAVE that home or town and shake
the dust off your feet." Matthew 10:14

Bob Officer

2016-04-12 17:42:23 UTC

DENIED "The counsel of the Lord standeth forever, the thoughts of his
heart to all generations" The Exodus events are "declared" and are
accurate down to the smallest detail.

Except it never happened.

This clown some how has a belief of screaming a word negates the evidence
or lack of evidence. He is as thick as a brick and is just an example
Pavlov's dog...

--
Just his head is still connected to his body... It still prove Pavlov's
point.

Christopher A. Lee

2016-04-14 07:26:47 UTC

On Mon, 11 Apr 2016 19:15:53 -0700, Jeanne Douglas

DENIED "The counsel of the Lord standeth forever, the thoughts of his

Idiot.

Post by Kaptain Krunch
heart to all generations" The Exodus events are "declared" and are

Post by Kaptain Krunch
accurate down to the smallest detail.

idiot.

You can't use the Bible to "prove" itself.

Post by Kaptain Krunch
Except it never happened.

The troll calling himself Kaptain Krunch added
alt.religion.christianity, alt.messianic.yeshua, sci.skeptic and
talk.politics.mideast to the newsgroups list.

The troll known as Mad Joe Bruno the Loono started the thread in
alt.atheism with his usual unsolicited, rude, stupid nonsense that was
supposed to be "evidence" that things in the OT which are clearly myth
and legend, actually happened.

Richard Heathfield

2016-04-14 07:41:04 UTC

On 14/04/16 08:26, Christopher A. Lee wrote:

<snip>

Post by Christopher A. Lee
The troll calling himself Kaptain Krunch added
alt.religion.christianity

That's where I came in. In which group was the OP? Or are you about to
answer that question?

Post by Christopher A. Lee
The troll known as Mad Joe Bruno the Loono started the thread in
alt.atheism with his usual unsolicited, rude, stupid nonsense that was
supposed to be "evidence" that things in the OT which are clearly myth
and legend, actually happened.

It may be obvious to you that these events in the OT are clearly myth
and legend, but it is not quite so obvious to me. I wasn't present at
the events in question (or lack thereof), so I can't be quite as
categorical as you. Presumably you /were/ present? :-)

Starting a thread in alt.atheism on the subject is a clear case of
trolling. Now that the thread has been cross-posted to
alt.religion.christianity, however, I would ask alt.atheism subscribers
to bear in mind that, just as "God obviously exists" stuff can be
considered trolling in a.a, so "God obviously doesn't exist" stuff can
be considered trolling in a.r.c, and we've had a certain amount of the
latter in the part of the thread that I've seen.

If we're going to have a thread that's cross-posted between a.a and
a.r.c, I hope that we can manage it with courtesy and respect on both sides.

--
Richard Heathfield
Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line 4 vacant - apply within

Jeanne Douglas

2016-04-14 13:03:22 UTC

Post by Christopher A. Lee
The troll calling himself Kaptain Krunch added
alt.religion.christianity

That's where I came in. In which group was the OP? Or are you about to
answer that question?

It may be obvious to you that these events in the OT are clearly myth
and legend, but it is not quite so obvious to me. I wasn't present at
the events in question (or lack thereof), so I can't be quite as
categorical as you. Presumably you /were/ present? :-)
Starting a thread in alt.atheism on the subject is a clear case of
trolling. Now that the thread has been cross-posted to
alt.religion.christianity, however, I would ask alt.atheism subscribers
to bear in mind that, just as "God obviously exists" stuff can be
considered trolling in a.a, so "God obviously doesn't exist" stuff can
be considered trolling in a.r.c, and we've had a certain amount of the
latter in the part of the thread that I've seen.
If we're going to have a thread that's cross-posted between a.a and
a.r.c, I hope that we can manage it with courtesy and respect on both sides.

So K.K. tried to start a war? He really is a jerk.

Let's not let him get away with it. Remove the added newsgroups and
stick with where you first saw the thread.

--
JD

"If ANYONE will not welcome you or listen to
your words, LEAVE that home or town and shake
the dust off your feet." Matthew 10:14

Alex W.

2016-04-14 21:04:33 UTC

Post by Christopher A. Lee
The troll calling himself Kaptain Krunch added
alt.religion.christianity

That's where I came in. In which group was the OP? Or are you about to
answer that question?

What distinguishes myth from history is corroborating archaeological
evidence.

While we may accept that there could be a kernel of historical fact at
the core of many if not all episodes from the OT (if only for the sake
of the debate :-), the stories as told are not supported by evidence.
Thus, it is possible that the story of Noah and the flood may have its
origin in a dimly remembered catastrophe of a local flood which
destroyed the area a tribe had settled (such as the Black Sea floods),
but the absence of any archaeological or geological evidence as well as
the physical impossibility of such an event put it squarely in the realm
of myth. The same can be argued for the fabled exodus: while groups of
Jews may have made the trek back to the Homeland from Egypt, the
wholesale migration of the entire Chosen People is in no way supported
by any hard evidence. Again: myth. And so on.

Kaptain Krunch

2016-04-15 00:12:35 UTC

Post by Christopher A. Lee
The troll calling himself Kaptain Krunch added
alt.religion.christianity

That's where I came in. In which group was the OP? Or are you about to
answer that question?

What distinguishes myth from history is corroborating archaeological
evidence.
While we may accept that there could be a kernel of historical fact at
the core of many if not all episodes from the OT (if only for the sake
of the debate :-), the stories as told are not supported by evidence.
Thus, it is possible that the story of Noah and the flood may have its
origin in a dimly remembered catastrophe of a local flood which
destroyed the area a tribe had settled (such as the Black Sea floods),
but the absence of any archaeological or geological evidence as well as
the physical impossibility of such an event put it squarely in the realm
of myth. The same can be argued for the fabled exodus: while groups of
Jews may have made the trek back to the Homeland from Egypt, the
wholesale migration of the entire Chosen People is in no way supported
by any hard evidence. Again: myth. And so on.

GREAT STATEMENT. There is NO EVIDENCE so why are you wise guys
continually looking for it? Seems like you would take a lesson
somewhere along the line. TO WIT: There is NO EVIDENCE. So if you are
waiting for some evidence
you are making a mistake. God explained thru his servant Paul that he
deselected "evidence" and chose another way called TRUST. He chose the
"foolishness of preaching" to save them that believe." HE DOESN'T DO IT
THATAWAY!
MORE RULES "All scripture is given by inspiration of God and is
profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in
righteousness that the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished
unto all good works." (2 Tim 3:16 KJV)
THE PLATFORM "The preaching of the cross is to them that perish
foolishness but unto us which are saved it is the power of God" (1 Cor
1:18 KJV)
"God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son that
whosoever believeth in him should not perish but have everlasting life"
(John 3 KJV)
SEE HOW EASY IT IS? You don't have to do any heavy lifting at all!
Jimbo

--
http://www.olypen.com/gerrit/index.php

Jeanne Douglas

2016-04-12 02:16:37 UTC

DENIED

...and, of course, the timing between elements
would have been *Way* off.

Still waiting for the scripture stating this "deselection".

--
JD

"If ANYONE will not welcome you or listen to
your words, LEAVE that home or town and shake
the dust off your feet." Matthew 10:14

Bob Officer

2016-04-12 17:42:23 UTC

DENIED

...and, of course, the timing between elements
would have been *Way* off.

Still waiting for the scripture stating this "deselection".

The idiot believes using scripture to prove scripture is a valid method of
argument.

He can try to disconnect from reality, but if it wasn't religion, he would
be institutionalize dash mentally unfit.

--
People following invisible voices are mentally unfit, unless it involves
religion. If his voices agree with your beliefs he is speaking with god. If
they disagree he is listen to the devil. If he hears no voices his is
inhuman, or so I have been told. How can the majority of humanity be
mentally unfit?

Richard Heathfield

2016-04-12 19:36:31 UTC

On 12/04/16 18:42, Bob Officer wrote:

<snip>

Post by Bob Officer
The idiot believes using scripture to prove scripture is a valid method of
argument.

Fair comment. It is simply not possible to prove to another person
either that God exists or that God does not exist. God's existence is
unfalsifiable.

For the benefit of those who may not know that term, for a theory to
count as 'scientific', it must be possible to devise an experiment that
is capable of proving the theory false. Even the most scientifically
illiterate fundamentalist will, I think, agree that it is not possible
to devise an experiment to prove the /non/-existence of God; and,
because of this very fact, we must draw a clear distinction between
scientific reasoning and theological reasoning.

We should not, however, make the mistake of thinking that because the
idea of God is unscientific it is therefore wrong. The only reason it's
unscientific is because we have no way to prove it's wrong!

Rather, the wise man will simply accept that theological reasoning is a
different species to scientific reasoning. But, again, that doesn't mean
that theological reasoning is without merit. The rules of logic apply
just as rigorously in theology as they do in science. One simply starts
from a different place, that's all. In theology, it's okay to take God's
existence as axiomatic. In science, it isn't.

Once this important distinction is understood, it becomes clear that
scientists who argue against God's existence are wrong-headed and
foolish - just as wrong-headed and foolish, in fact, as those
non-scientists who argue /for/ God's existence.

Those who have personally experienced the grace and mercy of God know
perfectly well that He exists, but that kind of experience has no place
in a rigorous scientific argument. It cannot be repeated at will, its
essence cannot be communicated to others, it cannot be demonstrated to
be genuine, and it cannot be demonstrated to be false.

Likewise, scripture cannot be proved or disproved. The best one can do
with it, scientifically, is to try to establish whether the historical
aspect of scripture fits in with the currently understood model of the
universe. Very often, it doesn't.

When that happens, we have some choices. We can say "scripture is
demonstrably wrong", but that's risky because the currently understood
model of the universe has a nasty habit of changing under us. For
example, in the 19th century, there were those who held that the story
of the trial of Jesus was fabricated because a reference to a place
known as "The Pavement" was completely specious - there was no such
place. Then, finally, the archaeologists found "The Pavement". The
scientific model changed, and in this case the change brought it into
line with scripture-as-history (in this regard, at least).

So we should be wary of saying "science has proved the Bible wrong".
Science never proves /anything/ wrong. The best it can do is say "this
is what we currently think is the most likely explanation - but we could
be mistaken". Any scientist who claims more than that (about any theory
whatsoever, including PV=k and F=ma) has misunderstood the nature of
science.

--
Richard Heathfield
Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line 4 vacant - apply within

e***@hotmail.com

2016-04-12 20:49:46 UTC

Post by Bob Officer
The idiot believes using scripture to prove scripture is a valid method of
argument.

Fair comment. It is simply not possible to prove to another person
either that God exists or that God does not exist. God's existence is
unfalsifiable.
For the benefit of those who may not know that term, for a theory to
count as 'scientific', it must be possible to devise an experiment that
is capable of proving the theory false. Even the most scientifically
illiterate fundamentalist will, I think, agree that it is not possible
to devise an experiment to prove the /non/-existence of God; and,
because of this very fact, we must draw a clear distinction between
scientific reasoning and theological reasoning.
We should not, however, make the mistake of thinking that because the
idea of God is unscientific it is therefore wrong. The only reason it's
unscientific is because we have no way to prove it's wrong!
Rather, the wise man will simply accept that theological reasoning is a
different species to scientific reasoning. But, again, that doesn't mean
that theological reasoning is without merit. The rules of logic apply
just as rigorously in theology as they do in science. One simply starts
from a different place, that's all. In theology, it's okay to take God's
existence as axiomatic. In science, it isn't.
Once this important distinction is understood, it becomes clear that
scientists who argue against God's existence are wrong-headed and
foolish - just as wrong-headed and foolish, in fact, as those
non-scientists who argue /for/ God's existence.
Those who have personally experienced the grace and mercy of God know
perfectly well that He exists, but that kind of experience has no place
in a rigorous scientific argument. It cannot be repeated at will, its
essence cannot be communicated to others, it cannot be demonstrated to
be genuine, and it cannot be demonstrated to be false.
Likewise, scripture cannot be proved or disproved. The best one can do
with it, scientifically, is to try to establish whether the historical
aspect of scripture fits in with the currently understood model of the
universe. Very often, it doesn't.
When that happens, we have some choices. We can say "scripture is
demonstrably wrong", but that's risky because the currently understood
model of the universe has a nasty habit of changing under us. For
example, in the 19th century, there were those who held that the story
of the trial of Jesus was fabricated because a reference to a place
known as "The Pavement" was completely specious - there was no such
place. Then, finally, the archaeologists found "The Pavement". The
scientific model changed, and in this case the change brought it into
line with scripture-as-history (in this regard, at least).
So we should be wary of saying "science has proved the Bible wrong".
Science never proves /anything/ wrong. The best it can do is say "this
is what we currently think is the most likely explanation - but we could
be mistaken". Any scientist who claims more than that (about any theory
whatsoever, including PV=k and F=ma) has misunderstood the nature of
science.
--
Richard Heathfield
Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line 4 vacant - apply within

They found the Labyrinth (or at least something that matches the description of the Labyrinth) that doesn't mean the Minotaur is real.

Kaptain Krunch

2016-04-12 23:11:34 UTC

Post by Bob Officer
The idiot believes using scripture to prove scripture is a valid method of
argument.

Fair comment. It is simply not possible to prove to another person
either that God exists or that God does not exist. God's existence is
unfalsifiable.
For the benefit of those who may not know that term, for a theory to
count as 'scientific', it must be possible to devise an experiment that
is capable of proving the theory false. Even the most scientifically
illiterate fundamentalist will, I think, agree that it is not possible
to devise an experiment to prove the /non/-existence of God; and,
because of this very fact, we must draw a clear distinction between
scientific reasoning and theological reasoning.
We should not, however, make the mistake of thinking that because the
idea of God is unscientific it is therefore wrong. The only reason it's
unscientific is because we have no way to prove it's wrong!
Rather, the wise man will simply accept that theological reasoning is a
different species to scientific reasoning. But, again, that doesn't mean
that theological reasoning is without merit. The rules of logic apply
just as rigorously in theology as they do in science. One simply starts
from a different place, that's all. In theology, it's okay to take God's
existence as axiomatic. In science, it isn't.
Once this important distinction is understood, it becomes clear that
scientists who argue against God's existence are wrong-headed and
foolish - just as wrong-headed and foolish, in fact, as those
non-scientists who argue /for/ God's existence.
Those who have personally experienced the grace and mercy of God know
perfectly well that He exists, but that kind of experience has no place
in a rigorous scientific argument. It cannot be repeated at will, its
essence cannot be communicated to others, it cannot be demonstrated to
be genuine, and it cannot be demonstrated to be false.
Likewise, scripture cannot be proved or disproved. The best one can do
with it, scientifically, is to try to establish whether the historical
aspect of scripture fits in with the currently understood model of the
universe. Very often, it doesn't.
When that happens, we have some choices. We can say "scripture is
demonstrably wrong", but that's risky because the currently understood
model of the universe has a nasty habit of changing under us. For
example, in the 19th century, there were those who held that the story
of the trial of Jesus was fabricated because a reference to a place
known as "The Pavement" was completely specious - there was no such
place. Then, finally, the archaeologists found "The Pavement". The
scientific model changed, and in this case the change brought it into
line with scripture-as-history (in this regard, at least).
So we should be wary of saying "science has proved the Bible wrong".
Science never proves /anything/ wrong. The best it can do is say "this
is what we currently think is the most likely explanation - but we could
be mistaken". Any scientist who claims more than that (about any theory
whatsoever, including PV=k and F=ma) has misunderstood the nature of
science.

GREAT PRESENTATION. That is, what you (representing science) have to
say about the Bible. FLIP-SIDE. What does the Bible have to say about
you (as the science rep)?
Jimbo

--
http://www.olypen.com/gerrit/index.php

Richard Heathfield

2016-04-13 06:18:39 UTC

<an explanation of why it's daft to argue the toss about proving or

disproving God>

GREAT PRESENTATION. That is, what you (representing science) have to
say about the Bible.

It can't have been that great a presentation, because (a) I wasn't
trying to represent science any more than I was trying to represent
religion - if anything, I was trying to represent logic (which is not
the same thing as science!), and (b) I didn't actually say very much
about the Bible. I said a lot more about the nature of reasoning and the
difference between natural science and theology than I did about the Bible.

FLIP-SIDE. What does the Bible have to say about you (as the science rep)?

I don't think I /am/ the science rep. But what does the Bible have to
say about me (as me)? It tells me that my very life stems from God; it
tells me that God loves me enough to give me the choice whether to
follow God's way or my own way (because someone without that choice is a
slave, not a friend); it tells me that my own way is bound to lead to
trouble; it tells me that every step I take away from God increases the
distance between God and myself; it tells me that that distance becomes
so great as to be unbridgeable for me; it tells me that God loved me
enough to find a way to bridge that distance (and that not without
cost); it tells me that God is always ready to welcome me back, but the
choice has to be mine to make; it tells me that a life without God is a
pale shadow of a life with God; it tells me to put God at the centre of
my life, not for God's sake but for my own; it tells me that someone who
does put God at the centre will become loving, joyful, peaceful,
patient, kind, good, gentle, faithful, self-controlled. And it tells me
that God is bigger than death.

These are truths that cannot be proved except in the furnace of personal
experience. Science has nothing meaningful to say about them (which
hasn't stopped some scientists having a try).

Both scientists and Christians (and yes, those two sets have a non-empty
intersection) could save themselves a lot of time and trouble if they
simply accepted that science and Christianity are each valid (in some
sense at least, because logic applies to them both), each real (in some
sense), and each to a very large extent unrelated to the other.

To judge Christianity by science's rules, or to judge science by
Christianity's rules, is like mixing up chess and football. It's no
different from trying to send off the bishop for a foul on the
opponent's kingside rook, and putting the ball down three squares from
the king so that the pawn can take a penalty kick. Imagine a chess
player who says football can't be a real game because the pitch is too
big, the teams are too small, and of course there's no such thing as a
referee.

--
Richard Heathfield
Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line 4 vacant - apply within

Kaptain Krunch

2016-04-13 07:00:41 UTC

<an explanation of why it's daft to argue the toss about proving or

disproving God>

GREAT PRESENTATION. That is, what you (representing science) have to
say about the Bible.

FLIP-SIDE. What does the Bible have to say about you (as the science rep)?

I don't think I /am/ the science rep. But what does the Bible have to
say about me (as me)? It tells me that my very life stems from God; it
tells me that God loves me enough to give me the choice whether to
follow God's way or my own way (because someone without that choice is a
slave, not a friend); it tells me that my own way is bound to lead to
trouble; it tells me that every step I take away from God increases the
distance between God and myself; it tells me that that distance becomes
so great as to be unbridgeable for me; it tells me that God loved me
enough to find a way to bridge that distance (and that not without
cost); it tells me that God is always ready to welcome me back, but the
choice has to be mine to make; it tells me that a life without God is a
pale shadow of a life with God; it tells me to put God at the centre of
my life, not for God's sake but for my own; it tells me that someone who
does put God at the centre will become loving, joyful, peaceful,
patient, kind, good, gentle, faithful, self-controlled. And it tells me
that God is bigger than death.
These are truths that cannot be proved except in the furnace of personal
experience. Science has nothing meaningful to say about them (which
hasn't stopped some scientists having a try).
Both scientists and Christians (and yes, those two sets have a non-empty
intersection) could save themselves a lot of time and trouble if they
simply accepted that science and Christianity are each valid (in some
sense at least, because logic applies to them both), each real (in some
sense), and each to a very large extent unrelated to the other.
To judge Christianity by science's rules, or to judge science by
Christianity's rules, is like mixing up chess and football. It's no
different from trying to send off the bishop for a foul on the
opponent's kingside rook, and putting the ball down three squares from
the king so that the pawn can take a penalty kick. Imagine a chess
player who says football can't be a real game because the pitch is too
big, the teams are too small, and of course there's no such thing as a
referee.

IT SOUNDS LIKE YOU ARE HAPPY. But, I guess you know, that the Athiests
on this ng will come out of the closet and try to upset your happiness,
mostly by asking allot of time consuming questions. They have no peace
and don't like you to have any either.
Let me ask two questions. Have you ever stated publicly (in someone
else's ears) that Jesus Christ is the Saviour of the World? Second one:
Do you believe God rose Jesus Christ from the dead?
Jimbo

--
http://www.olypen.com/gerrit/index.php

Richard Heathfield

2016-04-13 07:38:53 UTC

<an explanation of why it's daft to argue the toss about proving or

disproving God>

GREAT PRESENTATION. That is, what you (representing science) have to
say about the Bible.

FLIP-SIDE. What does the Bible have to say about you (as the science rep)?

I don't think I /am/ the science rep. But what does the Bible have to
say about me (as me)? It tells me that my very life stems from God; it
tells me that God loves me enough to give me the choice whether to
follow God's way or my own way (because someone without that choice is a
slave, not a friend); it tells me that my own way is bound to lead to
trouble; it tells me that every step I take away from God increases the
distance between God and myself; it tells me that that distance becomes
so great as to be unbridgeable for me; it tells me that God loved me
enough to find a way to bridge that distance (and that not without
cost); it tells me that God is always ready to welcome me back, but the
choice has to be mine to make; it tells me that a life without God is a
pale shadow of a life with God; it tells me to put God at the centre of
my life, not for God's sake but for my own; it tells me that someone who
does put God at the centre will become loving, joyful, peaceful,
patient, kind, good, gentle, faithful, self-controlled. And it tells me
that God is bigger than death.
These are truths that cannot be proved except in the furnace of personal
experience. Science has nothing meaningful to say about them (which
hasn't stopped some scientists having a try).
Both scientists and Christians (and yes, those two sets have a non-empty
intersection) could save themselves a lot of time and trouble if they
simply accepted that science and Christianity are each valid (in some
sense at least, because logic applies to them both), each real (in some
sense), and each to a very large extent unrelated to the other.
To judge Christianity by science's rules, or to judge science by
Christianity's rules, is like mixing up chess and football. It's no
different from trying to send off the bishop for a foul on the
opponent's kingside rook, and putting the ball down three squares from
the king so that the pawn can take a penalty kick. Imagine a chess
player who says football can't be a real game because the pitch is too
big, the teams are too small, and of course there's no such thing as a
referee.

IT SOUNDS LIKE YOU ARE HAPPY.

Happy? Not always, no. Joyful? Yes, I think so.

Post by Kaptain Krunch
But, I guess you know, that the Athiests
on this ng will come out of the closet and try to upset your happiness,
mostly by asking allot of time consuming questions. They have no peace
and don't like you to have any either.

Well, they're welcome to share mine, such as it is.

Post by Kaptain Krunch
Let me ask two questions. Have you ever stated publicly (in someone
Do you believe God rose Jesus Christ from the dead?

That would be yes and yes. These are, however, theological questions,
not questions of science. It is not possible to devise an experiment
that could in principle falsify the claim that God rose Jesus Christ
from the dead. The claim is therefore unscientific, but that doesn't
mean it's false. It just means scientists have no way to decide, and the
better ones know this.

--
Richard Heathfield
Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line 4 vacant - apply within

Kaptain Krunch

2016-04-13 18:30:36 UTC

<an explanation of why it's daft to argue the toss about proving or

disproving God>

GREAT PRESENTATION. That is, what you (representing science) have to
say about the Bible.

FLIP-SIDE. What does the Bible have to say about you (as the science rep)?

I don't think I /am/ the science rep. But what does the Bible have to
say about me (as me)? It tells me that my very life stems from God; it
tells me that God loves me enough to give me the choice whether to
follow God's way or my own way (because someone without that choice is a
slave, not a friend); it tells me that my own way is bound to lead to
trouble; it tells me that every step I take away from God increases the
distance between God and myself; it tells me that that distance becomes
so great as to be unbridgeable for me; it tells me that God loved me
enough to find a way to bridge that distance (and that not without
cost); it tells me that God is always ready to welcome me back, but the
choice has to be mine to make; it tells me that a life without God is a
pale shadow of a life with God; it tells me to put God at the centre of
my life, not for God's sake but for my own; it tells me that someone who
does put God at the centre will become loving, joyful, peaceful,
patient, kind, good, gentle, faithful, self-controlled. And it tells me
that God is bigger than death.
These are truths that cannot be proved except in the furnace of personal
experience. Science has nothing meaningful to say about them (which
hasn't stopped some scientists having a try).
Both scientists and Christians (and yes, those two sets have a non-empty
intersection) could save themselves a lot of time and trouble if they
simply accepted that science and Christianity are each valid (in some
sense at least, because logic applies to them both), each real (in some
sense), and each to a very large extent unrelated to the other.
To judge Christianity by science's rules, or to judge science by
Christianity's rules, is like mixing up chess and football. It's no
different from trying to send off the bishop for a foul on the
opponent's kingside rook, and putting the ball down three squares from
the king so that the pawn can take a penalty kick. Imagine a chess
player who says football can't be a real game because the pitch is too
big, the teams are too small, and of course there's no such thing as a
referee.

IT SOUNDS LIKE YOU ARE HAPPY.

Happy? Not always, no. Joyful? Yes, I think so.

Well, they're welcome to share mine, such as it is.

Post by Kaptain Krunch
Let me ask two questions. Have you ever stated publicly (in someone
Do you believe God rose Jesus Christ from the dead?

GLAD YOU RETURNED my request. I noticed you are already drawing fire
from the unbelievers.
NOTE this text as it applies to you: "If thou shalt confess with thy
mouth the Lord Jesus and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath
raised him from the dead thou shalt be saved" (Rom 10 KJV). Referring to
your "yes and yes" above this promise in the Bible is something you can
always refer back to. God will ABSOLUTELY NEVER go back on a promise.
Jimbo

--
http://www.olypen.com/gerrit/index.php

Richard Heathfield

2016-04-13 20:12:02 UTC

On 13/04/16 19:30, Kaptain Krunch wrote:

<snip>

Post by Kaptain Krunch
GLAD YOU RETURNED my request. I noticed you are already drawing fire
from the unbelievers.

(a) Everyone believes some things, and consequently does not believe
other things. Thus, the word "unbeliever" is rather unhelpful, since it
doesn't actually apply to anyone;
(b) I haven't noticed any fire as yet. A little smoke, maybe, but no fire.

--
Richard Heathfield
Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line 4 vacant - apply within

b***@m.nu

2016-04-14 18:42:27 UTC

On Wed, 13 Apr 2016 21:12:02 +0100, Richard Heathfield

Post by Kaptain Krunch
GLAD YOU RETURNED my request. I noticed you are already drawing fire
from the unbelievers.

(a) Everyone believes some things, and consequently does not believe

entirely bullshit.... belief requires faith, and faith is for the
stupid and uneducated

Post by Richard Heathfield
other things. Thus, the word "unbeliever" is rather unhelpful, since it
doesn't actually apply to anyone;
(b) I haven't noticed any fire as yet. A little smoke, maybe, but no fire.

Wisely Non-Theist

2016-04-14 20:51:36 UTC

Post by Richard Heathfield
(a) Everyone believes some things, and consequently does not believe

entirely bullshit.... belief requires faith, and faith is for the
stupid and uneducated

Bullcrap yourself.
Everyone who acts sensibly believes a lot about the immediate effects of
their own actions and the nature of their current environment.

I, for one, believe, and will continue to believe until proven wrong,
that the sun will continue to rise at close to 24 hour intervals at my
current location.

b***@m.nu

2016-04-14 23:56:35 UTC

Post by Wisely Non-Theist

Post by Richard Heathfield
(a) Everyone believes some things, and consequently does not believe

entirely bullshit.... belief requires faith, and faith is for the
stupid and uneducated

Bullcrap yourself.
Everyone who acts sensibly believes a lot about the immediate effects of
their own actions and the nature of their current environment.

That just does not even make sense

Post by Wisely Non-Theist
I, for one, believe, and will continue to believe until proven wrong,
that the sun will continue to rise at close to 24 hour intervals at my
current location.

No you don't believe that, you know that FOR A FACT and that is a HUGE
difference than believing

Richard Heathfield

2016-04-14 21:08:34 UTC

Post by b***@m.nu
On Wed, 13 Apr 2016 21:12:02 +0100, Richard Heathfield

Post by Kaptain Krunch
GLAD YOU RETURNED my request. I noticed you are already drawing fire
from the unbelievers.

(a) Everyone believes some things, and consequently does not believe

entirely bullshit.... belief requires faith, and faith is for the
stupid and uneducated

Presumably, when you do Usenet, you are not hang-gliding or parachuting
or whatever, so I suppose you are resting on some surface (a chair at a
desk, or maybe the floor, the bed, whatever).

Do you believe that that surface is capable of taking your weight?

If you don't, then why put your weight on a surface you don't trust? And
if you do, then you are displaying a belief in the ability of that
surface to take your weight.

You are misusing the word "faith", as so many people do, to mean "stuff
you believe even though it ain't so". What faith really means is
/continuing/ to believe in something you know /is/ so, when that belief
is being put to the test. For example, I believe that the gcc compiler
works properly, but very occasionally gcc exhibits very, very strange
behaviour, and it /seems/ like there's a bug in the compiler. But even
though my code seems perfectly correct and gcc seems like it's out to
lunch, I don't submit a report to the GNU guys. Instead, I search /my/
code for the bug. And, of course, eventually I find it. I have more
faith in gcc than in my own code, and with good reason.

[Let's see that quote again]

Post by b***@m.nu
entirely bullshit.... belief requires faith, and faith is for the
stupid and uneducated

Continued belief does indeed sometimes require faith (as in my gcc
example). But if I didn't have faith in the gcc compiler, I'd be
submitting bug reports to GNU several times a week, and /that/ would be
stupid and uneducated.

--
Richard Heathfield
Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line 4 vacant - apply within

b***@m.nu

2016-04-15 00:13:12 UTC

On Thu, 14 Apr 2016 22:08:34 +0100, Richard Heathfield

Post by b***@m.nu
On Wed, 13 Apr 2016 21:12:02 +0100, Richard Heathfield

Post by Kaptain Krunch
GLAD YOU RETURNED my request. I noticed you are already drawing fire
from the unbelievers.

(a) Everyone believes some things, and consequently does not believe

entirely bullshit.... belief requires faith, and faith is for the
stupid and uneducated

This is just as freaking dumb as the last persons example. I know for
a fact that the chair I bought will support my weight, I know this
because of the specifications listed on the box when I bought the
chair. There is no faith required... And this is why theists are
mentally ill. EVERY FUCKING ONE OF THEM!!!

Post by Richard Heathfield
You are misusing the word "faith", as so many people do, to mean "stuff
you believe even though it ain't so". What faith really means is
/continuing/ to believe in something you know /is/ so, when that belief
is being put to the test. For example, I believe that the gcc compiler

Dude you can give whatever definition or excuse for your mental
deficits but this is faith....

Full Definition of faith
plural faiths play \'faiths, sometimes 'fathz\1
a : allegiance to duty or a person : loyalty
b (1) : fidelity to one's promises (2) : sincerity of intentions
<these don't apply>

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/faith
<these apply to you and this situation>
2a (1) : belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2) : belief in the
traditional doctrines of a religion
b (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2) :
complete trust
3: something that is believed especially with strong conviction;
especially : a system of religious beliefs <the Protestant faith>

the most important here is 2b: firm belief in something for which
there is no proof

<snip stupid shit>

Post by Richard Heathfield
[Let's see that quote again]

Post by b***@m.nu
entirely bullshit.... belief requires faith, and faith is for the
stupid and uneducated

be·lief
b?'lef/
noun
trust, faith, or confidence in someone or something.
https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=belief

Post by Richard Heathfield
Continued belief does indeed sometimes require faith

<snip crap that does not even have anything to do with anything we are
discussing>

now any belief in magical fairies <the good and the bad> REQUIRE
FAITH and that is all there is to it. and just to reiterate

faith is a firm belief in something for which there is no proof

in other words something that could EVER be proven. Hence your mental
illness for believing in magical fairies

Richard Heathfield

2016-04-15 10:28:36 UTC

On 15/04/16 01:13, ***@m.nu wrote:

<snip>

Post by b***@m.nu
And this is why theists are
mentally ill. EVERY FUCKING ONE OF THEM!!!

Ah, the cut and thrust of intellectual argument! The finesse! The
subtlety of the reasoning! (Not.)

Okay, you can join Christopher A. Lee in the bozo bin. Bye now.

--
Richard Heathfield
Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line 4 vacant - apply within

b***@m.nu

2016-04-15 13:01:57 UTC

On Fri, 15 Apr 2016 11:28:36 +0100, Richard Heathfield

Post by b***@m.nu
And this is why theists are
mentally ill. EVERY FUCKING ONE OF THEM!!!

Ah, the cut and thrust of intellectual argument! The finesse! The
subtlety of the reasoning! (Not.)
Okay, you can join Christopher A. Lee in the bozo bin. Bye now.

I just made you look like the mentally ill fairy worshiper you are...
and you get mad and cut my post and chose not to respont to the rest
of it, but hey that is ok because you are in the wrong group. You are
WAYYYY out of your league and you will simply be put in your place
everytime you open you mentally ill mouth

Jeanne Douglas

2016-04-16 00:19:23 UTC

Post by b***@m.nu
On Fri, 15 Apr 2016 11:28:36 +0100, Richard Heathfield

Post by b***@m.nu
And this is why theists are
mentally ill. EVERY FUCKING ONE OF THEM!!!

Ah, the cut and thrust of intellectual argument! The finesse! The
subtlety of the reasoning! (Not.)
Okay, you can join Christopher A. Lee in the bozo bin. Bye now.

He's not responsible for KK having added the religious newsgroups to
a.a. So he hasn't invaded a.a; therefore, you need to give him some
slack on that part of it.

--
JD

"If ANYONE will not welcome you or listen to
your words, LEAVE that home or town and shake
the dust off your feet." Matthew 10:14

b***@m.nu

2016-04-16 00:24:17 UTC

On Fri, 15 Apr 2016 17:19:23 -0700, Jeanne Douglas

Post by b***@m.nu
On Fri, 15 Apr 2016 11:28:36 +0100, Richard Heathfield

Post by b***@m.nu
And this is why theists are
mentally ill. EVERY FUCKING ONE OF THEM!!!

Ah, the cut and thrust of intellectual argument! The finesse! The
subtlety of the reasoning! (Not.)
Okay, you can join Christopher A. Lee in the bozo bin. Bye now.

He's not responsible for KK having added the religious newsgroups to
a.a. So he hasn't invaded a.a; therefore, you need to give him some
slack on that part of it.

Jd that is just an excuse for him. He does not have to respond to me,
he could have deleted A.A out of the NG list.

Kaptain Krunch

2016-04-15 03:39:52 UTC

Post by b***@m.nu
On Wed, 13 Apr 2016 21:12:02 +0100, Richard Heathfield

Post by Kaptain Krunch
GLAD YOU RETURNED my request. I noticed you are already drawing fire
from the unbelievers.

(a) Everyone believes some things, and consequently does not believe

entirely bullshit.... belief requires faith, and faith is for the
stupid and uneducated

QUESTION: Why are you posting? We were all unbelievers some time ago
and are aware of your anxieties. We had them. But we needed a Saviour
and there is only one. "There is none other name under heaven given
among men whereby we must be saved" The speaker was talking about Jesus
Christ. (Acts 4) This is our last contact (between you and me).
Jimbo

--
http://www.olypen.com/gerrit/index.php

Jeanne Douglas

2016-04-13 11:55:05 UTC

<an explanation of why it's daft to argue the toss about proving or

disproving God>

GREAT PRESENTATION. That is, what you (representing science) have to
say about the Bible.

FLIP-SIDE. What does the Bible have to say about you (as the science rep)?

I don't think I /am/ the science rep. But what does the Bible have to
say about me (as me)? It tells me that my very life stems from God; it
tells me that God loves me enough to give me the choice whether to
follow God's way or my own way (because someone without that choice is a
slave, not a friend); it tells me that my own way is bound to lead to
trouble; it tells me that every step I take away from God increases the
distance between God and myself; it tells me that that distance becomes
so great as to be unbridgeable for me; it tells me that God loved me
enough to find a way to bridge that distance (and that not without
cost); it tells me that God is always ready to welcome me back, but the
choice has to be mine to make; it tells me that a life without God is a
pale shadow of a life with God; it tells me to put God at the centre of
my life, not for God's sake but for my own; it tells me that someone who
does put God at the centre will become loving, joyful, peaceful,
patient, kind, good, gentle, faithful, self-controlled. And it tells me
that God is bigger than death.
These are truths that cannot be proved except in the furnace of personal
experience. Science has nothing meaningful to say about them (which
hasn't stopped some scientists having a try).
Both scientists and Christians (and yes, those two sets have a non-empty
intersection) could save themselves a lot of time and trouble if they
simply accepted that science and Christianity are each valid (in some
sense at least, because logic applies to them both), each real (in some
sense), and each to a very large extent unrelated to the other.
To judge Christianity by science's rules, or to judge science by
Christianity's rules, is like mixing up chess and football. It's no
different from trying to send off the bishop for a foul on the
opponent's kingside rook, and putting the ball down three squares from
the king so that the pawn can take a penalty kick. Imagine a chess
player who says football can't be a real game because the pitch is too
big, the teams are too small, and of course there's no such thing as a
referee.

What a load of crap.

You invade our home and then try to blame us for reacting to our
disgusting rudeness.

--
JD

"If ANYONE will not welcome you or listen to
your words, LEAVE that home or town and shake
the dust off your feet." Matthew 10:14

Richard Heathfield

2016-04-13 12:38:52 UTC

<snip>

Post by Kaptain Krunch
IT SOUNDS LIKE YOU ARE HAPPY. But, I guess you know, that the Athiests
on this ng will come out of the closet and try to upset your happiness,
mostly by asking allot of time consuming questions. They have no peace
and don't like you to have any either.

What a load of crap.
You invade our home and then try to blame us for reacting to our

ITYM "reacting to your" rather than "reacting to our"?

Post by Jeanne Douglas
disgusting rudeness.

A Usenet article hardly counts as a break-in. If you don't want to read
the guy's articles, you could check out NewsWatcher's filtering
capability. It will do your blood pressure no end of good. :-)

http://www.smfr.org/mtnw/docs/Filters.html

--
Richard Heathfield
Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line 4 vacant - apply within

BruceS

2016-04-13 18:08:33 UTC

<an explanation of why it's daft to argue the toss about proving or

disproving God>

GREAT PRESENTATION. That is, what you (representing science) have to
say about the Bible.

Your presentation was fine. The fault lies with the reader.
Presenting sensible discussion to a raving half-wit invokes UB.
FWIW, I think your position is right in line with most of the atheists
I've read in sci.skeptic.

<snip>

Richard Heathfield

2016-04-13 20:08:27 UTC

<an explanation of why it's daft to argue the toss about proving or

disproving God>

GREAT PRESENTATION. That is, what you (representing science) have to
say about the Bible.

Your presentation was fine. The fault lies with the reader.
Presenting sensible discussion to a raving half-wit invokes UB.

<cough>Hi, Bruce.</cough>

Post by BruceS
FWIW, I think your position is right in line with most of the atheists
I've read in sci.skeptic.

I'm not sure whether I should be worried by that. :-)

--
Richard Heathfield
Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line 4 vacant - apply within

BruceS

2016-04-14 13:55:44 UTC

<an explanation of why it's daft to argue the toss about proving or

disproving God>

GREAT PRESENTATION. That is, what you (representing science) have to
say about the Bible.

Your presentation was fine. The fault lies with the reader.
Presenting sensible discussion to a raving half-wit invokes UB.

<cough>Hi, Bruce.</cough>

I thought you'd like that bit.

Post by BruceS
FWIW, I think your position is right in line with most of the atheists
I've read in sci.skeptic.

I'm not sure whether I should be worried by that. :-)

Not at all. It's quite reasonable that science and faith should be
considered separate.

Richard Heathfield

2016-04-14 14:15:11 UTC

[talk.politics.mideast removed, since it's hardly relevant. Likewise
alt.messianic.yeshua.]

On 14/04/16 14:55, BruceS wrote:

<snip>

Post by BruceS
It's quite reasonable that science and faith should be
considered separate.

Which is not to say that science does not itself require a certain
amount of faith on the part of the scientist. For example, most of us
are perfectly content to believe that there is such a thing as an
electron, even though we have no direct experiential evidence to justify
that belief.

--
Richard Heathfield
Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line 4 vacant - apply within

Alex W.

2016-04-14 15:08:20 UTC

Post by Richard Heathfield
[talk.politics.mideast removed, since it's hardly relevant. Likewise
alt.messianic.yeshua.]
<snip>

Post by BruceS
It's quite reasonable that science and faith should be
considered separate.

Addendum:

Which is not to imply that science does not get things wrong.

It does.

The difference is that science is self-correcting. Faulty ideas and
assumptions are proven wrong and discredited sooner or later and are
discarded, overhauled and/or replaced.

This process, again, does not require faith because self-correction is
the most perfect summary of the history of science. Dead ends, false
assumptions and flawed theories are what makes up the backstory of every
discipline.

Religion, by contrast, only accepts a correction when all else has
manifestly failed ... and even then, it does so kicking and screaming.
As often as not, such corrections are characterised by schisms and epic
bloodshed.

Richard Heathfield

2016-04-14 15:47:37 UTC

Post by Richard Heathfield
[talk.politics.mideast removed, since it's hardly relevant. Likewise
alt.messianic.yeshua.]
<snip>

Post by BruceS
It's quite reasonable that science and faith should be
considered separate.

Which is not to imply that science does not get things wrong.

Agreed...

Post by Alex W.
It does.

...and again agreed... (can you sense a 'but' coming?)

Post by Alex W.
The difference is that science is self-correcting. Faulty ideas and
assumptions are proven wrong and discredited sooner or later and are
discarded, overhauled and/or replaced.

I think that's true of theology, too. It's certainly true of Biblical
translation (modern English translations are vastly superior to the KJV,
which of course doesn't cut any ice with those for whom the KJV is the
"one true translation"). And it's true of our understanding of God's
character. This can be seen in the Bible itself (which is a work written
by men, not by God, despite what some fundamentalist Christians would
have us believe); there is a definite progression of man's understanding
of God's character throughout the text, until (for example) we arrive at
Galatians 5: "But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience,
kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control; against such
things there is no law". This idea would not have been completely alien
to the writer of, say, Deuteronomy, but it would nevertheless have
seemed very much at odds with his own view of God.

What's more, even those who loathe and despise Christianity and think
it's fraudulent foolishness can surely find little to object to in a
text that encourages people to be loving, joyful, peaceful, patient,
kind, good, faithful, gentle, and self-disciplined.

Post by Alex W.
This process, again, does not require faith because self-correction is
the most perfect summary of the history of science. Dead ends, false
assumptions and flawed theories are what makes up the backstory of every
discipline.

I agree that science is self-correcting in the long run. I disagree that
faith is not required. I cite, again, the electron. I've never seen one.
To accept its existence requires faith on my part. If you, personally,
/have/ seen one, on its own, individually, identifiably, then perhaps
you don't need that faith; but even then, you *haven't* seen its
electrical charge, so you have to take that on faith too.

Now, there's a huge body of scientific evidence in favour of the
electron - and we take that evidence on faith, too. We might do a few
experiments at school, and the teacher might explain that the two sheets
of gold leaf separate because of the huge number of electrons gathered
thereon - but we take the teacher's word for it. Very few of us actually
conduct hands-on experiments with electrons.

Post by Alex W.
Religion, by contrast, only accepts a correction when all else has
manifestly failed ... and even then, it does so kicking and screaming.

Maybe. Personally, I think of "religion" as "that which binds" (from
religo, "I bind"), and I associate it with human power structures. I
have no wish or desire to defend it. It deserves all it has coming to
it. I'm not talking about popes and chancels and imams and mosques and
relics and crusades and so on. I'm talking about personal experience.
And my own view of God has changed over the years, not because God has
changed but because my understanding has grown.

Post by Alex W.
As often as not, such corrections are characterised by schisms and epic
bloodshed.

I don't doubt it for a moment, but a secularist who self-righteously
proclaims that religion is steeped in blood is on very, very, very shaky
ground indeed.

--
Richard Heathfield
Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line 4 vacant - apply within

BruceS

2016-04-14 19:15:04 UTC

Post by Richard Heathfield
[talk.politics.mideast removed, since it's hardly relevant. Likewise
alt.messianic.yeshua.]
<snip>

Post by BruceS
It's quite reasonable that science and faith should be
considered separate.

Which is not to imply that science does not get things wrong.

Agreed...

Post by Alex W.
It does.

...and again agreed... (can you sense a 'but' coming?)

I accept the scientific view of something as being the best model we
have at the moment, not the Ultimate Truth of it. There may not
actually be anything like an electron, but using that model fits the
results well enough to facilitate all sorts of technological progress.
Plus, as one of the millions who have measured the charge of a single
electron, I have a vested interest in that model.

Post by Alex W.
The difference is that science is self-correcting. Faulty ideas and
assumptions are proven wrong and discredited sooner or later and are
discarded, overhauled and/or replaced.

I think that's true of theology, too. It's certainly true of Biblical
translation (modern English translations are vastly superior to the KJV,
which of course doesn't cut any ice with those for whom the KJV is the
"one true translation"). And it's true of our understanding of God's
character. This can be seen in the Bible itself (which is a work written
by men, not by God, despite what some fundamentalist Christians would
have us believe); there is a definite progression of man's understanding
of God's character throughout the text, until (for example) we arrive at
Galatians 5: "But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience,
kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control; against such
things there is no law". This idea would not have been completely alien
to the writer of, say, Deuteronomy, but it would nevertheless have
seemed very much at odds with his own view of God.
What's more, even those who loathe and despise Christianity and think
it's fraudulent foolishness can surely find little to object to in a
text that encourages people to be loving, joyful, peaceful, patient,
kind, good, faithful, gentle, and self-disciplined.

Sure, as long as those people ignore all the parts that encourage or
celebrate murder, slavery, rape, genocide, and the rest. It's a good
thing that Christians today don't take Jesus at his word, when he said
that not even the smallest part of the rules would change until the
world was destroyed. Much better that they follow the interpretation of
a dream reported by one of his followers. Or take the "fulfilled" part
as somehow making the end of the world part not count. The Bible is a
living document.

There's a difference between faith, at least as I understand the term,
and trust or belief based on objective evidence. That said, we have to
start *somewhere*, like believing our own senses. I believe we sent
humans to the Moon and back, even though I've never met any of those
men, nor been to the Moon myself, nor even seen any direct evidence.
The whole reflector bit could easily have been faked. For that matter,
I've never been to Paris, and have to trust others that it exists.
That trust is distinct from faith in something that has no objective
evidence, though more in a matter of degree than of fundamental nature.

Post by Richard Heathfield
Now, there's a huge body of scientific evidence in favour of the
electron - and we take that evidence on faith, too. We might do a few
experiments at school, and the teacher might explain that the two sheets
of gold leaf separate because of the huge number of electrons gathered
thereon - but we take the teacher's word for it. Very few of us actually
conduct hands-on experiments with electrons.

But we know that we *can* do experiments, like the Millikan Oil Drop I
reference above. I trust that dogs have hearts despite never having
opened one up myself, but I also know that I could do so.

Post by Alex W.
Religion, by contrast, only accepts a correction when all else has
manifestly failed ... and even then, it does so kicking and screaming.

Unfortunately, a great many theists want to not only defend their
beliefs, but also to force their particular belief system on everyone
else, including different kinds of theists. Fortunately, the more
enlightened religions now do this without resort to murder and torture,
but there's still a lot of that sort going on from the more primitive
types.

Post by Alex W.
As often as not, such corrections are characterised by schisms and epic
bloodshed.

I don't doubt it for a moment, but a secularist who self-righteously
proclaims that religion is steeped in blood is on very, very, very shaky
ground indeed.

Not all religion is steeped in blood, but some certainly are. Judaism
and Christianity have matured past their bloody roots, but those roots
are there. Meanwhile, their brother Islam still encourages the worst
behaviors.

Richard Heathfield

2016-04-14 21:12:05 UTC

Post by BruceS
Plus, as one of the millions who have measured the charge of a single
electron, I have a vested interest in that model.

Excellent! But you haven't /seen/ that charge, have you? :-)

I lack the time to reply to you properly right now, but your reply
(which I have only scanned very quickly) looks well-argued and very much
worth a proper response, so I promise to get back to it as soon as I
can. (I'll mark it unread as a reminder.)

--
Richard Heathfield
Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line 4 vacant - apply within

Christopher A. Lee

2016-04-14 21:23:04 UTC

On Thu, 14 Apr 2016 22:12:05 +0100, Richard Heathfield

Post by BruceS
Plus, as one of the millions who have measured the charge of a single
electron, I have a vested interest in that model.

Excellent! But you haven't /seen/ that charge, have you? :-)
I lack the time to reply to you properly right now, but your reply
(which I have only scanned very quickly) looks well-argued and very much
worth a proper response, so I promise to get back to it as soon as I
can. (I'll mark it unread as a reminder.)

Provide as much evidence for your hypothetical god as there is for the
charge of an electron, or stop being so dishonest.

Nobody is demanding evidence for it that would convince a solipsist.

Just that theists put up or shut up.

But your repeated copouts confirm that you can't put up - so the flip
side is shutting up by keeping it inside your religion.

That way, you won't beg the question you cannot answer.

Richard Heathfield

2016-04-15 10:18:13 UTC

Post by Christopher A. Lee
On Thu, 14 Apr 2016 22:12:05 +0100, Richard Heathfield

Post by BruceS
Plus, as one of the millions who have measured the charge of a single
electron, I have a vested interest in that model.

Excellent! But you haven't /seen/ that charge, have you? :-)
I lack the time to reply to you properly right now, but your reply
(which I have only scanned very quickly) looks well-argued and very much
worth a proper response, so I promise to get back to it as soon as I
can. (I'll mark it unread as a reminder.)

Provide as much evidence for your hypothetical god as there is for the
charge of an electron, or stop being so dishonest.

It is becoming evident that you either can't or won't read what I write
or, if you do, you don't understand what you read. Otherwise you would
not have written that paragraph.

To save you the trouble of writing (which can at times be almost as
difficult as reading), I'm going to add a filter to my newsreader that
will prevent me from seeing your articles. Thus, there's no point in
your replying to me ever again.

If you have anything intelligent to say (which seems unlikely), no doubt
someone else will think of it too and make the same point in a more
lucid and courteous way, so no harm will be done.

I believe the traditional expression is: *plonk*.

--
Richard Heathfield
Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line 4 vacant - apply within

a***@b.c

2016-04-15 14:03:57 UTC

On Fri, 15 Apr 2016 11:18:13 +0100, Richard Heathfield

Post by Christopher A. Lee
On Thu, 14 Apr 2016 22:12:05 +0100, Richard Heathfield

Post by BruceS
Plus, as one of the millions who have measured the charge of a single
electron, I have a vested interest in that model.

Excellent! But you haven't /seen/ that charge, have you? :-)

Don't they have instrumentation on your planer, imbecile?

Or were you just being using a dishonest analogy which compares the
disputed because it is unevidenced, with the results of objective
research?

Which is clearly all you've got.

Post by Richard Heathfield
I lack the time to reply to you properly right now, but your reply
(which I have only scanned very quickly) looks well-argued and very much
worth a proper response, so I promise to get back to it as soon as I
can. (I'll mark it unread as a reminder.)

The arrogance of the brain-dead theist.

Post by Christopher A. Lee
Provide as much evidence for your hypothetical god as there is for the
charge of an electron, or stop being so dishonest.

Clearly, you couldn't.

Post by Richard Heathfield
It is becoming evident that you either can't or won't read what I write
or, if you do, you don't understand what you read. Otherwise you would
not have written that paragraph.

Translation: you couldn't.

It is becoming evident that you can't stop lying, and are also
incapable of understanding the world and people outside your religion.

If you're going to bullshit about some hypothetical god OUTSIDE YOUR
RELIGION, prove it first. And when you can't, STOP RUDELY AND STUPIDLY
BEGGING THE QUESTION which wouldn't otherwise be asked.

Show us the courtesy you expect to be shown. Which includes your
acknowledging that only Christians believe the stuff you presume, and
that we're not Christians. Also that we don't hold the beliefs you
imagine we do. After all, we are outside the Christian paradigm.

Then you will get the kind of response your self-image expects.

Post by Richard Heathfield
To save you the trouble of writing (which can at times be almost as
difficult as reading), I'm going to add a filter to my newsreader that
will prevent me from seeing your articles. Thus, there's no point in
your replying to me ever again.

You merely reap what you sow, Show some honesty and intelligence
instead, and you will reap what _that_ sows.

Post by Richard Heathfield
If you have anything intelligent to say (which seems unlikely), no doubt

Project much, imbecile?

Post by Richard Heathfield
someone else will think of it too and make the same point in a more
lucid and courteous way, so no harm will be done.

Is it courteous to keep talking about something only Christians
belief, where you know your audience isn't Christian, sociopath?

Is it courteous to "argue" by analogies which insulate the
intelligence?

Is it courteous to invent beliefs people outside your religion don't
have, when they'd have to be inside it to have them?

Is it courteous to dismiss explanations of all this as "ranting"?

Post by Richard Heathfield
I believe the traditional expression is: *plonk*.

The hypocrite rudely and stupidly posts his unsolicited nonsense where
he knows nobody takes it seriously, and killfiles those who point it
out.

Like most Christians, he doesn't seem to understand that he simply
reaps what he sows.

Or that while there is a place for religion, it is not in the atheist
and science newsgroups.

Richard Heathfield

2016-04-15 14:29:21 UTC

On 15/04/16 15:03, ***@b.c wrote:

<a lot of nonsense which shows almost no understanding of what I've written>

Post by a***@b.c
Or that while there is a place for religion, it is not in the atheist
and science newsgroups.

Check the cross-posts. I don't subscribe to either alt.atheism or
sci.skeptic - I don't know where this thread was started, but at some
point it was cross-posted to alt.religion.christianity (to which I do
subscribe).

Either:

(a) it is reasonable for alt.atheist subscribers to post atheist
apologetics to a thread that is cross-posted to
alt.religion.christianity, in which case it's reasonable for
alt.religion.christianity subscribers to post Christian apologetics to
that same thread, so what's your problem? Or
(b) it isn't, in which case why are you posting atheist apologetics in
the first place?

My own view is that, with a little courtesy and respect on both sides,
it is possible for an interesting debate to take place across
alt.atheism and alt.religion.christianity, in which participants from
both sides can benefit.

But if one side insists on sticking their fingers in their ears and
shouting "you're wrong you're wrong you're wrong you're an idiot you're
a moron you're an imbecile", it doesn't do much for the credibility of
that side and it doesn't advance the debate.

Bruce talked about "those who can't go beyond adolescent insults". Alas,
most active newsgroups have at least a few of such people, but this
thread seems to have brought a great many of them to the surface.

If you want me not to reply to you (so that you can have the last word),
your best bet is to call me names. It won't hurt me or offend me (I've
been on Usenet for a fair old while now, so I have the requisite thick
skin), but I don't wish to waste time on people who don't know how to
debate properly, so I'll simply kill-file you. And then you can pretend
you've won, and won't /that/ be nice?

--
Richard Heathfield
Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line 4 vacant - apply within

d***@e.f

2016-04-15 17:01:11 UTC

On Fri, 15 Apr 2016 15:29:21 +0100, Richard Heathfield

Post by Richard Heathfield
<a lot of nonsense which shows almost no understanding of what I've written>

Post by a***@b.c
Or that while there is a place for religion, it is not in the atheist
and science newsgroups.

Don't be so fucking stupid - in spite of what ignorant Christians
imagine, atheism isn't an ideology and needs no apologetics.

Post by Richard Heathfield
alt.religion.christianity, in which case it's reasonable for
alt.religion.christianity subscribers to post Christian apologetics to
that same thread, so what's your problem? Or

And you'll continue to get treated as the in-your-face, psychopathic
morons this tells us you are.

Post by Richard Heathfield
(b) it isn't, in which case why are you posting atheist apologetics in
the first place?

WHAT FUCKING "ATHEIST APOLOGETICS" are you lying about?

Post by Richard Heathfield
My own view is that, with a little courtesy and respect on both sides,

So show some.

And that includes not talking at us as if your hypothetical god were
as "real" for us as it is for you (including your bad analogies), as
well as not misrepresenting atheism, not using "arguments" which
insult the intelligence of anybody living in the world of reality, not
lying about "atheist apologetics", etc.

Which means not presume your religion's god to people outside your
religion, no matter how seriously you take it.

This is the only reason you get asked for proof - or haven't you heard
of "put up or shut up"?

Because we don't go looking for theists to demand it.

Your constant copouts, bad analogies, red herrings, etc just make
things worse.

Post by Richard Heathfield
it is possible for an interesting debate to take place across
alt.atheism and alt.religion.christianity, in which participants from
both sides can benefit.

Bollocks.

Reality isn't up for debate, and neither is what is merely somebody
else's religion that only has importance to them.

All you need to do, is think outside the box when talking to people
outside it.

Post by Richard Heathfield
But if one side insists on sticking their fingers in their ears and
shouting "you're wrong you're wrong you're wrong you're an idiot you're
a moron you're an imbecile", it doesn't do much for the credibility of
that side and it doesn't advance the debate.

What "debate"?

So far, it is just somebody stupidly talking at people outside their
religion as if its god were as "real" for them as it is for him.

And using ridiculous analogies while demanding evidence for the
everyday and mundane, which would convince a solipsist - as you did
with your analogy between your hypothetical (and disputed) god and
electrons.

You have nothing to debate with us.

Post by Richard Heathfield
Bruce talked about "those who can't go beyond adolescent insults". Alas,
most active newsgroups have at least a few of such people, but this
thread seems to have brought a great many of them to the surface.

Only because, like most Christians, you have no idea how to talk
outside your religion and you imagine that reaping what you sow is
unjustified.

Eg, analogies that assume the thing in dispute, isn't.

Post by Richard Heathfield
If you want me not to reply to you (so that you can have the last word),
your best bet is to call me names. It won't hurt me or offend me (I've
been on Usenet for a fair old while now, so I have the requisite thick
skin), but I don't wish to waste time on people who don't know how to
debate properly, so I'll simply kill-file you. And then you can pretend
you've won, and won't /that/ be nice?

What an arrogantly stupid, nasty, hypocritical, but all-too-typical
Christian.

You spout the must ignorant, stupid nonsense and then whine when you
reap what you sow, and now you say you're wasting _your_ time when you
have been wasting ours since your first post here.

Get an education, and while you're at it, learn how to talk outside
your religion.

Jeanne Douglas

2016-04-16 07:27:17 UTC

Post by Richard Heathfield
<a lot of nonsense which shows almost no understanding of what I've written>

Post by a***@b.c
Or that while there is a place for religion, it is not in the atheist
and science newsgroups.

It was cross-posted by an obnoxious troll we've been interacting with
for a couple of weeks. He's been getting his ass kicked so he decided to
add the cross posts and start a flame war across groups.

Let's all laugh at him and remove the cross-posted groups.

--
JD

"If ANYONE will not welcome you or listen to
your words, LEAVE that home or town and shake
the dust off your feet." Matthew 10:14

BruceS

2016-04-14 22:56:55 UTC

Post by BruceS
Plus, as one of the millions who have measured the charge of a single
electron, I have a vested interest in that model.

Excellent! But you haven't /seen/ that charge, have you? :-)

LOL, no, and that's exactly the kind of thing when I say we have start
with *some* beliefs. I also trusted that the frogs and flatworms we
dissected were the genuine articles, and not something put together to
trick us a la Slartibartfast's work.

Thanks. I'm impressed at how many replies you've made in this thread,
even to those who can't go beyond adolescent insults. Not that I don't
play that game from time to time myself.

Christopher A. Lee

2016-04-14 23:05:29 UTC

Post by BruceS
Plus, as one of the millions who have measured the charge of a single
electron, I have a vested interest in that model.

Excellent! But you haven't /seen/ that charge, have you? :-)

Thanks. I'm impressed at how many replies you've made in this thread,
even to those who can't go beyond adolescent insults. Not that I don't
play that game from time to time myself.

He simply reaps what he sows.

Far too many theists can't make the connection between our atheism
(ie, not being theist) and our not even giving a thought to the god
they thoughtlessly presume when they talk at atheists about it as if
it meant anything to us, as long as they kept it where it belongs.

Which means the Christian newsgroups, and only those.

It's their presumption, and part of their worldview, not ours.

From our POV it's merely somebody else's religious belief - but then
we're outside the barriers Christianity has erected around their minds
to keep out reality,

BruceS

2016-04-15 15:47:27 UTC

Post by BruceS
Plus, as one of the millions who have measured the charge of a single
electron, I have a vested interest in that model.

Excellent! But you haven't /seen/ that charge, have you? :-)

Thanks. I'm impressed at how many replies you've made in this thread,
even to those who can't go beyond adolescent insults. Not that I don't
play that game from time to time myself.

He simply reaps what he sows.

I must have missed the post where he acted like an emotionally-
challenged child, hurling insults without provocation and leaving off
any sensible commentary. Perhaps you could link to that.

Post by Christopher A. Lee
Far too many theists can't make the connection between our atheism
(ie, not being theist) and our not even giving a thought to the god
they thoughtlessly presume when they talk at atheists about it as if
it meant anything to us, as long as they kept it where it belongs.

I agree that far too many theists are far too pushy. I despise those
who come to my door without invitation, or annoy me in public places
when I'm minding my own business. I haven't seen Richard Heathfield do
anything like that.

Post by Christopher A. Lee
Which means the Christian newsgroups, and only those.

He's posting from alt.religion.christianity, to which someone cross-
posted this thread. FTR, I'm posting to sci.skeptic, and don't
subscribe to either a.r.c or alt.atheism. I'm an atheist, but don't
have nearly the interest in religions to actually subscribe to any ng
oriented around religious positions. Maybe I should check out a.a to
see what's of interest there, or if it's just shooting down the loons
and trolls attracted to the name. I know of Richard from another ng,
unrelated to traditional religion, and can't recall having seen him
post anything there about his religious positions, except as regard The
Standard, the written work which we Faithful in that group hold dear
and abide by (may it keep us safe and on the Narrow Path, free from the
Casting of Malloc's Return). His participation in this thread is in
keeping with the set of newsgroups involved.

Post by Christopher A. Lee
It's their presumption, and part of their worldview, not ours.
From our POV it's merely somebody else's religious belief - but then
we're outside the barriers Christianity has erected around their minds
to keep out reality,

Most days, I don't even think about gods or magic. When I see someone
post about them to groups where they don't belong, I generally ignore
them. Here in sci.skeptic, I may read or may ignore, partly depending
on the writer. It takes quite a provocation, however, for me to reply
to one with nothing more substantive than insults, however.

Christopher A. Lee

2016-04-15 18:11:16 UTC

Post by BruceS
Plus, as one of the millions who have measured the charge of a single
electron, I have a vested interest in that model.

Excellent! But you haven't /seen/ that charge, have you? :-)

Thanks. I'm impressed at how many replies you've made in this thread,
even to those who can't go beyond adolescent insults. Not that I don't
play that game from time to time myself.

He simply reaps what he sows.

I must have missed the post where he acted like an emotionally-
challenged child, hurling insults without provocation and leaving off
any sensible commentary. Perhaps you could link to that.

You missed where he talked AT us as if atheists were closet
Christians?

Is it courteous debate or stupidity to use analogies which presume his
god is as "real" for people outside his religion as it is for him?

At some level, he knows that atheists don't presume his god.

Yet he uses analogies which presume it.

Is he talking to us or himself?

If it seems we have a hair trigger, it is because we get this sort of
thing all day and every day from people who should know better.

And I despise those who crash the atheist newsgroups, begging the
question that they always cop out of answering.

Especially when they do it over and over again.

I also despise those who invent positions we don't have, which presume
their god is real AND we believe it isn't.

Especially when they've been corrected that outside Christianity, it's
just somebody else's religious belief that we wouldn't give a thought
to, if they had the courtesy and commonsense to keep it where it
belongs.

Post by Christopher A. Lee
Which means the Christian newsgroups, and only those.

Neither do most atheists.

Post by BruceS
Maybe I should check out a.a to
see what's of interest there, or if it's just shooting down the loons
and trolls attracted to the name. I know of Richard from another ng,
unrelated to traditional religion, and can't recall having seen him
post anything there about his religious positions, except as regard The
Standard, the written work which we Faithful in that group hold dear
and abide by (may it keep us safe and on the Narrow Path, free from the
Casting of Malloc's Return). His participation in this thread is in
keeping with the set of newsgroups involved.

He doesn't seem to understand just how stupid his bad analogies are.

All they do is tell us how he, subjectively, sees something. Which we
know anyway because he's a Christian.

Comparing the complete lack of any evidence for his hypothetical god
with "you've never seen an electron so you take that on faith". earned
the contempt it deserved.

They don't like their religion's god being described as hypothetical,
but that's all it is in two of the three cross-posted newsgroups.

Most days, I don't even think about gods or magic. When I see someone

I don't, either.

I'm on alt.atheism to discuss issues of interest to atheists - and the
putative existence of the god of somebody else's religion is hardly an
issue for us.

But every time we try to discuss something, either an issue that
affects us or just something we find interesting, it degenerates into
that because of theist intruders.

We find many of the topics discussed in talk.origins interesting,
including big bang cosmology and leading edge physics, not to mention
abiogenesis research.

Many of the same loonies who hang out there, get trounced and come
here repeating the same nonsense.

Which is something I can't understand.

I used to subscribe to talk.origins when it was set up to educate
creationists - but now the lunatics have taken over the asylum.

Post by BruceS
post about them to groups where they don't belong, I generally ignore
them. Here in sci.skeptic, I may read or may ignore, partly depending
on the writer. It takes quite a provocation, however, for me to reply
to one with nothing more substantive than insults, however.

We all do - but they ignore the substance to focus on the
well-deserved epithets.

They know atheists (and even non-Christian theists) don't share their
beliefs, so any presumption of them as fact is both rude and stupid -
rude because they know their audience doesn't believe and haven't the
courtesy to find any common ground, and stupid because communication
requires that common ground.

But the only common ground is that we live in the real world where
electrons are er... electrons and his computer wouldn't work if they
weren't, and where he believes something that we don't.

A real world where he imagines there is some equivalence between
demanding evidence of electrons which would convince a solipsist and
his not being able to back up his claims for his hypothetical god.

Which are only asked in the vein of "put up or shut up" where he knows
they're not granted a priori.

Jeanne Douglas

2016-04-16 07:24:41 UTC

Post by BruceS
Plus, as one of the millions who have measured the charge of a single
electron, I have a vested interest in that model.

Excellent! But you haven't /seen/ that charge, have you? :-)

Thanks. I'm impressed at how many replies you've made in this thread,
even to those who can't go beyond adolescent insults. Not that I don't
play that game from time to time myself.

He simply reaps what he sows.

I must have missed the post where he acted like an emotionally-
challenged child, hurling insults without provocation and leaving off
any sensible commentary. Perhaps you could link to that.

You missed where he talked AT us as if atheists were closet
Christians?
Is it courteous debate or stupidity to use analogies which presume his
god is as "real" for people outside his religion as it is for him?
At some level, he knows that atheists don't presume his god.
Yet he uses analogies which presume it.
Is he talking to us or himself?
If it seems we have a hair trigger, it is because we get this sort of
thing all day and every day from people who should know better.

And I despise those who crash the atheist newsgroups,

Except that Heathfield DIDN'T crash a.a; KK crashed his group by adding
his cross-posts and took us with him on his crash.

So, it's time for everybody to remove the cross-postings from the
newsgroup list on the message and go back to normal.

--
JD

"If ANYONE will not welcome you or listen to
your words, LEAVE that home or town and shake
the dust off your feet." Matthew 10:14

Christopher A. Lee

2016-04-16 10:44:06 UTC

On Sat, 16 Apr 2016 00:24:41 -0700, Jeanne Douglas

Post by BruceS
Plus, as one of the millions who have measured the charge of a single
electron, I have a vested interest in that model.

Excellent! But you haven't /seen/ that charge, have you? :-)

Thanks. I'm impressed at how many replies you've made in this thread,
even to those who can't go beyond adolescent insults. Not that I don't
play that game from time to time myself.

He simply reaps what he sows.

I must have missed the post where he acted like an emotionally-
challenged child, hurling insults without provocation and leaving off
any sensible commentary. Perhaps you could link to that.

You missed where he talked AT us as if atheists were closet
Christians?
Is it courteous debate or stupidity to use analogies which presume his
god is as "real" for people outside his religion as it is for him?
At some level, he knows that atheists don't presume his god.
Yet he uses analogies which presume it.
Is he talking to us or himself?
If it seems we have a hair trigger, it is because we get this sort of
thing all day and every day from people who should know better.

And I despise those who crash the atheist newsgroups,

Except that Heathfield DIDN'T crash a.a; KK crashed his group by adding
his cross-posts and took us with him on his crash.
So, it's time for everybody to remove the cross-postings from the
newsgroup list on the message and go back to normal.

He still deserved the well-earned conrempt for his dishonest cop out
of saying nobody had seen an electron either, after begging the
question by presuming his god here.

They simply can't think outside their religion.

And it is actually immaterial that it was cross-posted - he knew he
was talking to an atheist when he did that.

Richard Heathfield

2016-04-15 09:22:39 UTC

[This thread is at some serious risk of longarticlitis, and in these
situations a quotectomy is generally required. I have performed the
operation, and I hope it was successful, but some consulting of parent
articles may be required in some circumstances. The sub-subject
currently in focus is 'belief'.]

Post by BruceS
I accept the scientific view of something as being the best model we
have at the moment, not the Ultimate Truth of it.

So do I. Am I right in deducing that you think that belief means
unreasoning, unthinking conviction of the truth of something with no
supporting evidence?

Just in case I /am/ right in deducing that, I beg to differ. Bob comes
home with lipstick on his cheek. Alice asks him how it got there. Bob
says he met his sister in town. Bob has a sister, known to live in the
same town, known to be ready to hug and kiss people at the drop of a
hat; and Bob has a track record of reliability and honesty. So Alice
/believes/ Bob's account. As you say, it's the best model she has at the
moment. If the facts available to her later change (for example, if she
discovers Bob in flagrante delicto), her belief in Bob may change. When
the facts change, wise people change their minds.

Let's think about what your life would be like if you refused to believe
*anything*.

You can't sit down, because you can't believe the chair will support
you. It's no good testing it, because you can't believe the result of
the test. You can't visit a friend because you can't believe he won't
try to kill you. You can't drink a cup of water from the tap because you
can't believe it's not poisoned.

It's ludicrous.

When normal people say "I believe this to be true", they mean "this is
the explanation that I think best thinks the facts", and the unspoken
rider is that they are prepared to change their minds when the facts
change. This is not how my opponents in this debate are using the word.
That's fine as long as they define their terms, but not only do they not
do that, but also they assume that I'm using words with /their/
definitions, and then they're laughing with glee because they think I'm
falling into their heffalump traps.

Well, I'm not using words like "faith" and "belief" the way they mean.
I'm using them in what I consider to be the ordinary way.

Here's an online dictionary definition of "belief" [with my annotations
in square brackets]:

1. The mental act, condition, or habit of placing trust or confidence in
another. [When someone says "I believe in NASA's ability to get to
Mars", this is the sense they mean.]
2. Mental acceptance of and conviction in the truth, actuality, or
validity of something. [When someone sits on a chair, this is the belief
they are demonstrating.]
3. Something believed or accepted as true, especially a particular tenet
or a body of tenets accepted by a group of persons. [A slightly
recursive definition there, but never mind that. This is the sense that
people mean when they say 'scientists believe...' or 'Methodists
believe...'.]

Nowhere in this definition is there any requirement to continue
believing something if the facts change. Facts /do/ change, sometimes. I
believe the chair I'm sitting on can support me. But if I feel it
wobble, I may feel moved to examine it for soundness, and I might well
replace it if I think it's damaged in some way, in which case I am
showing that my belief in that chair has vanished.

Post by BruceS
There may not
actually be anything like an electron, but using that model fits the
results well enough to facilitate all sorts of technological progress.

Yes, of course there may not actually be anything like an electron.
Nevertheless, lots of people do believe they exist. Here's an extract
from an article written elsethread: "Every time you use electricity, you
confirm electrons." [Message ID:
<***@4ax.com>]

Maybe you, Bruce, don't "believe" that electrons exist, but the author
of that article (who, admittedly, may well be hard of thinking, as he
thinks CAPITAL LETTERS constitute an argument) clearly does. And I have
to agree with him, because I believe they exist, too. But if the facts
change, I am perfectly prepared to change my mind.

Post by BruceS
Plus, as one of the millions who have measured the charge of a single
electron, I have a vested interest in that model.

I'm not sure whether that matters, does it? I believe you have
sufficient scientific integrity to lay aside your vested interest if it
turns out that there really is no such thing as an electron. (Excuse me,
Bruce, while I address everyone *else* for a moment: Anyone who thinks
I'm an electron-denier needs to look up 'if' in the dictionary.)

The difference is that science is self-correcting. [...]

I think that's true of theology, too. [...]
What's more, even those who loathe and despise Christianity and think
it's fraudulent foolishness can surely find little to object to in a
text that encourages people to be loving, joyful, peaceful, patient,
kind, good, faithful, gentle, and self-disciplined.

Sure, as long as those people ignore all the parts that encourage or
celebrate murder, slavery, rape, genocide, and the rest.

By the same token, we need to ignore the parts of science that say that
there are five elements (air, earth, etc), that the Sun, moon, and stars
are nailed to crystal spheres, that vacuums cannot exist, and the rest. So?

There's a difference between faith, at least as I understand the term,
and trust or belief based on objective evidence.

Belief can be based either on objective evidence or on subjective
evidence. I'm a bit of a sceptic when it comes to evidence - I think
/all/ evidence is subjective.

Furthermore, our beliefs change as the evidence changes. I would suggest
that 'faith' is related to 'belief', and might be thought of as a kind
of inertia, a force that is capable of resisting scepticism, up to a
point. Consider a coin!

A little while ago, I asked you to post a coin to me. Do you remember?
No? Well, you fished into your pocket, and you drew out a quarter, or a
fifty-pence, or a drachma or whatever it was (how should *I* know what
country you're from?), and you posted it to me. Now, I *believe* in your
sense of fair play, so I *believe* you've sent me a fair coin.

I toss the coin. It comes down heads. Here's the result history:

H

Fair enough. I toss it again. It comes down heads again:

HH

That can happen. I still think it's a fair coin. I toss it again, and it
comes down heads *again*:

HHH

I still believe it's a fair coin. Runs of three aren't that uncommon.

HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

Now I'm starting to worry a little. My faith in the coin is being
tested. My faith in /you/ is being tested. Have you sent me a weighted coin?

HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

My faith is stretched to the very limit. I still /want/ to trust you,
but there is now a significant body of evidence that suggests I
shouldn't. I'm beginning to be sceptical.

HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHT

Now, what am I to make of /that/? Well, a weighted coin might well
produce an occasional tail. I'm still sceptical, but the result is
nevertheless noteworthy.

HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHTHHHHHHHHH

That's it! Enough! That's a weighted coin...

HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHTHHHHHHHHHTTHTHTHHTTHTTTHTHTHTTHTT

...or maybe not. Faith cosy, faith challenged, faith stretched to the
limit, faith eventually broken, faith restored. All of these things can
and do happen to Christians.

Post by BruceS
That said, we have to start *somewhere*, like believing our own senses.

I agree entirely. I also think we should believe our own minds, because
otherwise what's the point of believing our senses? But, whilst I should
believe *my* mind, I see no reason why I should necessarily believe
*your* mind. If you say you have had an encounter with God, why should I
trust you? You might be a fool or a charlatan. But if I have an
encounter with God myself, well, I can certainly trust /me/.

And quod is precisely what I was trying to demonstrandum.

Post by BruceS
I believe we sent humans to the Moon and back, even though I've never met any of those
men, nor been to the Moon myself, nor even seen any direct evidence.

At last! Yes, I believe that too, even though the same caveats apply.

Post by BruceS
The whole reflector bit could easily have been faked. For that matter,
I've never been to Paris, and have to trust others that it exists.
That trust is distinct from faith in something that has no objective
evidence, though more in a matter of degree than of fundamental nature.

What is "objective evidence"? Is it "evidence other than that which
comes through our senses"? If so, can you give me an example? And if
not, can you explain what it is?

<snip>

Personally, I think of "religion" as "that which binds" (from
religo, "I bind"), and I associate it with human power structures. I
have no wish or desire to defend it. It deserves all it has coming to
it. I'm not talking about popes and chancels and imams and mosques and
relics and crusades and so on. I'm talking about personal experience.
And my own view of God has changed over the years, not because God has
changed but because my understanding has grown.

Unfortunately, a great many theists want to not only defend their
beliefs, but also to force their particular belief system on everyone
else, including different kinds of theists.

And that's pretty dumb, isn't it? We see much the same kind of behaviour
nowadays from leaders of supposed democracies, who are trying to force
other countries to accept democracy. It doesn't work for democracy, and
it doesn't work for other belief systems either.

Post by BruceS
Fortunately, the more
enlightened religions now do this without resort to murder and torture,
but there's still a lot of that sort going on from the more primitive
types.

Alas, democracies qualify as the more primitive types.

As often as not, such corrections are characterised by schisms and epic
bloodshed.

I don't doubt it for a moment, but a secularist who self-righteously
proclaims that religion is steeped in blood is on very, very, very shaky
ground indeed.

Judaism? Maybe. Christianity? No, I don't think so. Those who follow
Christian teachings don't go round murdering people or torturing people.
Islam? I don't know enough about it to judge. Don't confuse Islam with
what you see in the newspaper.

Or are you going to lay the Crusades at the door of Christianity? The
Church was the dominant political structure of the time, and thus those
who sought power joined the Church and ignored pretty much all of its
teaching. The Popes of the day were power-brokers. They might,
conceivably, have been Christians, but not particularly good ones. The
First Crusade was a power play by one of these Popes, and the following
Crusades were basically re-matches. It was the use of power to gain more
power, and had about as much to do with Christianity as Benny Hinn.

The death toll resulting from the Crusades is staggering: one estimate
puts it at 1.7 million. If X=100,000, then we have:

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

That's bad. Now let's take a look at the Spanish Inquisition (since
we're here):

.

Oh. Only a twentieth of a cross. Still appalling, still horrifying, but
just a flyspeck on the screen. (About 3,000 to 5,000.)

Now let's see how well the secularists do.

World War I:
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

World War II:
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Whenever such huge numbers of people are killed, always you will find
behind it some human being who is trying to gain or preserve power. They
might claim to be doing so in the name of Christ (Urban II), or in the
name of democracy (Blair/Bush), or for revenge (Austria-Hungary), or for
lebensraum (Hitler), but that's irrelevant. What matters is that their
stated reason conceals their real motivation, which is power over
others. To attempt to lay the casualties of the Crusades at the door of
Christianity itself betrays an overly simplistic understanding of history.

--
Richard Heathfield
Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line 4 vacant - apply within

x***@y.z

2016-04-15 15:19:53 UTC

On Fri, 15 Apr 2016 10:22:39 +0100, Richard Heathfield

Post by Richard Heathfield
[This thread is at some serious risk of longarticlitis, and in these
situations a quotectomy is generally required. I have performed the
operation, and I hope it was successful, but some consulting of parent
articles may be required in some circumstances. The sub-subject
currently in focus is 'belief'.]

Post by BruceS
I accept the scientific view of something as being the best model we
have at the moment, not the Ultimate Truth of it.

So do I. Am I right in deducing that you think that belief means
unreasoning, unthinking conviction of the truth of something with no
supporting evidence?

"Belief" carries too many meanings.

But tin the context you have established, yes.

Post by Richard Heathfield
Just in case I /am/ right in deducing that, I beg to differ. Bob comes
home with lipstick on his cheek. Alice asks him how it got there. Bob
says he met his sister in town. Bob has a sister, known to live in the
same town, known to be ready to hug and kiss people at the drop of a
hat; and Bob has a track record of reliability and honesty. So Alice
/believes/ Bob's account. As you say, it's the best model she has at the
moment. If the facts available to her later change (for example, if she
discovers Bob in flagrante delicto), her belief in Bob may change. When
the facts change, wise people change their minds.

Argument by bad analogy.

Post by Richard Heathfield
Let's think about what your life would be like if you refused to believe
*anything*.

Equivocation on the word "belief"

Post by Richard Heathfield
You can't sit down, because you can't believe the chair will support
you. It's no good testing it, because you can't believe the result of
the test. You can't visit a friend because you can't believe he won't
try to kill you. You can't drink a cup of water from the tap because you
can't believe it's not poisoned.

The usual dishonest analogy which equated the disputed for lack of
evidence, with something ordinary and mundane for which there is
plenty of evidence?

If you had provided as much evidence for your hypothetical god as
there is for chairs, you might have had a point.

Theists use these ridiculous analogies all the time, even though they
know their usually involuntary audience doesn't share their beliefs.

Which tells us plenty about them, none of it very flattering.

Post by Richard Heathfield
It's ludicrous.

Your analogy certainly was.

Post by Richard Heathfield
When normal people say "I believe this to be true", they mean "this is
the explanation that I think best thinks the facts", and the unspoken

Only sometimes.

Religious belief comes from childhood brainwashing.

And most religionists, including you, don't leave it as just a belief.

For example, in your analogies which presume your hypothetical god is
as real outside your religion as chairs are.

All an analogy does,is show how the person using it, sees something -
but then we already know how theists see things.

They prove nothing.

You know that only theists see their hypothetical god as being as real
as chairs.

But you also know that people outside your religion, doesn't.

Yet you talk at them as if they did.

Do you "honestly" imagine this achieves anything, let alone the
"debate" you seem to want?

Post by Richard Heathfield
rider is that they are prepared to change their minds when the facts
change. This is not how my opponents in this debate are using the word.

What "debate"?

Post by Richard Heathfield
That's fine as long as they define their terms, but not only do they not
do that, but also they assume that I'm using words with /their/
definitions, and then they're laughing with glee because they think I'm
falling into their heffalump traps.

You're the one who is equivocating between "belief" in something
without evidence (your hypothetical god) and with evidence (chairs).

Which is why intelligent people don't use the word "believe" to mean
the acceptance of objective fact, especially when they're around
theists - except when using irony that is usually over the theist's
head.

Post by Richard Heathfield
Well, I'm not using words like "faith" and "belief" the way they mean.
I'm using them in what I consider to be the ordinary way.

Bullshit.

You're equivocating.

Post by Richard Heathfield
Here's an online dictionary definition of "belief" [with my annotations
1. The mental act, condition, or habit of placing trust or confidence in
another. [When someone says "I believe in NASA's ability to get to
Mars", this is the sense they mean.]
2. Mental acceptance of and conviction in the truth, actuality, or
validity of something. [When someone sits on a chair, this is the belief
they are demonstrating.]
3. Something believed or accepted as true, especially a particular tenet
or a body of tenets accepted by a group of persons. [A slightly
recursive definition there, but never mind that. This is the sense that
people mean when they say 'scientists believe...' or 'Methodists
believe...'.]

So what?

Belief is normally taken as being less than knowledge.

Unfortunately, theists conflate the two. As you do in your analogies.

Eg, you don't need to merely believe that the Golden Gate Bridge links
San Francisco and Marin County.

Most of us don't use the word, except in specific circumstances,
because there are always better and less ambiguous terms which carry
the intended meaning so it can't be "interpreted" into something else.
.

Post by Richard Heathfield
Nowhere in this definition is there any requirement to continue
believing something if the facts change. Facts /do/ change, sometimes. I
believe the chair I'm sitting on can support me. But if I feel it
wobble, I may feel moved to examine it for soundness, and I might well
replace it if I think it's damaged in some way, in which case I am
showing that my belief in that chair has vanished.

Provide as much evidence for your hypothetical god as there is for
chairs.

Then you might have a point.

Until then, you don't.

Post by BruceS
There may not
actually be anything like an electron, but using that model fits the
results well enough to facilitate all sorts of technological progress.

Yes, of course there may not actually be anything like an electron.
Nevertheless, lots of people do believe they exist. Here's an extract

There you go, again.

They don't merely "believe" in electrons, They are a conclusion from
objective research, without which the computer you're using wouldn't
work,

Post by Richard Heathfield
from an article written elsethread: "Every time you use electricity, you
Maybe you, Bruce, don't "believe" that electrons exist, but the author
of that article (who, admittedly, may well be hard of thinking, as he
thinks CAPITAL LETTERS constitute an argument) clearly does. And I have
to agree with him, because I believe they exist, too. But if the facts
change, I am perfectly prepared to change my mind.

You don't need to merely believe it.

And you still haven't provided the same kind of evidence for your
hypothetical god,

Which you have to do BEFORE using analogies which assume an
equivalence with things that are accepted because of the evidence for
them.

Unlike gods, electrons (and pretty well every other nouns) are the
labels for something observed or concluded.

Post by BruceS
Plus, as one of the millions who have measured the charge of a single
electron, I have a vested interest in that model.

Unlike theists and their god.

But you only brought this up as a dishonest analogy which assumes an
equivalence between something whose label came after evidence for it
was discovered, and something for which there is no evidence.

The difference is that science is self-correcting. [...]

I think that's true of theology, too. [...]

Bullshit.

Theology is worthless mental masturbation, outside its whichever
religion.

What's more, even those who loathe and despise Christianity and think

The standard paranoid Christian lie, from someone whi is incapable of
understandinmg that it's the behaviour of a certain kind of Christian,
to which people object.
.

it's fraudulent foolishness can surely find little to object to in a
text that encourages people to be loving, joyful, peaceful, patient,
kind, good, faithful, gentle, and self-disciplined.

So why are so many Christians the opposite, including you?

Post by BruceS
Sure, as long as those people ignore all the parts that encourage or
celebrate murder, slavery, rape, genocide, and the rest.

Idiot.

I agree that science is self-correcting in the long run. I disagree that
faith is not required. I cite, again, the electron. I've never seen one.

They don't have instruments on your planet? Or even electric lights?

To accept its existence requires faith on my part. If you, personally,

And you pretend you don't understand why you're treated as the liar
which this kind of stuff shows you are?

/have/ seen one, on its own, individually, identifiably, then perhaps
you don't need that faith; but even then, you *haven't* seen its
electrical charge, so you have to take that on faith too.

Liar.

Post by BruceS
There's a difference between faith, at least as I understand the term,
and trust or belief based on objective evidence.

He equivocates between the two.

It's dishonest, and fools no-one. Not even himself.

Post by Richard Heathfield
Belief can be based either on objective evidence or on subjective
evidence. I'm a bit of a sceptic when it comes to evidence - I think
/all/ evidence is subjective.

If somebody punched you in the face, would you have imagined that?

Post by Richard Heathfield
Furthermore, our beliefs change as the evidence changes. I would suggest
that 'faith' is related to 'belief', and might be thought of as a kind
of inertia, a force that is capable of resisting scepticism, up to a
point. Consider a coin!

The usual bad analogy which proves nothing.

Post by Richard Heathfield
A little while ago, I asked you to post a coin to me. Do you remember?
No? Well, you fished into your pocket, and you drew out a quarter, or a
fifty-pence, or a drachma or whatever it was (how should *I* know what
country you're from?), and you posted it to me. Now, I *believe* in your
sense of fair play, so I *believe* you've sent me a fair coin.

Idiot.
So what?

Post by Richard Heathfield
H
HH
That can happen. I still think it's a fair coin. I toss it again, and it
HHH
I still believe it's a fair coin. Runs of three aren't that uncommon.
HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
Now I'm starting to worry a little. My faith in the coin is being
tested. My faith in /you/ is being tested. Have you sent me a weighted coin?
HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
My faith is stretched to the very limit. I still /want/ to trust you,
but there is now a significant body of evidence that suggests I
shouldn't. I'm beginning to be sceptical.

None of which has anything to do with the fact that you rudely and
stupidly presume your religion's god outside your religion, and invent
positions, beliefs etc that people outside it don't even have.

Nor the fact that you neither put up nor shut up about it.

Post by Richard Heathfield
...or maybe not. Faith cosy, faith challenged, faith stretched to the
limit, faith eventually broken, faith restored. All of these things can
and do happen to Christians.

And you block it out, because you are utterly certain that your
fantasies are real.

Post by BruceS
That said, we have to start *somewhere*, like believing our own senses.

WHAT FUCKING GOD?

Once again, you presume it outside your religion.

Post by Richard Heathfield
And quod is precisely what I was trying to demonstrandum.

So when are you going to demonstrate it?

Post by BruceS
I believe we sent humans to the Moon and back, even though
I've never met any of those men, nor been to the Moon myself,
nor even seen any direct evidence.

You don't need merely to "believe" it.

Post by Richard Heathfield
At last! Yes, I believe that too, even though the same caveats apply.

Provide as much evidence for your hypothetical god as there is for
the moon, for the Apollo project, etc.

Post by BruceS
The whole reflector bit could easily have been faked. For that matter,
I've never been to Paris, and have to trust others that it exists.

Not really, any amateur can bounce signals off it.

Post by BruceS
That trust is distinct from faith in something that has no objective
evidence, though more in a matter of degree than of fundamental nature.

What is "objective evidence"? Is it "evidence other than that which
comes through our senses"? If so, can you give me an example? And if
not, can you explain what it is?

Idiot.

It's real world evidence that won't un-happen just because you're in
denial about it.

Instead of going off on this kind of dishonest red herring, why not
provide actual evidence for your hypothetical god instead of all your
bad analogies?

What God?

The one that is merely somebody else's religious belief that they
haven't the sense to keep inside their religion so they assume
everybody else presumes it?

Post by BruceS
Unfortunately, a great many theists want to not only defend their
beliefs, but also to force their particular belief system on everyone
else, including different kinds of theists.

So why not have the courtesy not to keep presuming it outside your
religion, or insulting people's intelligence with analogies that
presume it is as "real" for them as it is for you?

Post by BruceS
Fortunately, the more
enlightened religions now do this without resort to murder and torture,
but there's still a lot of that sort going on from the more primitive
types.

Alas, democracies qualify as the more primitive types.

????

As often as not, such corrections are characterised by schisms and epic
bloodshed.

I don't doubt it for a moment, but a secularist who self-righteously
proclaims that religion is steeped in blood is on very, very, very shaky
ground indeed.

It is, imbecile.

Forgotten Charlemagne? The conquistadors? The Reformation? Slavery
"justified" by saying the slaves were Hamites, condemned to be the
servants of servants? The holocaust (it's not atheists who regard Jews
as Christ-killers)? etc.

Post by BruceS
Not all religion is steeped in blood, but some certainly are. Judaism
and Christianity have matured past their bloody roots, but those roots
are there. Meanwhile, their brother Islam still encourages the worst
behaviors.

We see the appalling behaviour of Christians every day - although
there is vastly much less killing than there used to be, but there
was still the recent slaughter of Muslims in the former Yugoslavia,
the Lord's Resistance "Army" in Africa, the "Army" of God killing
doctors and bombing clinics, etc.

Not to mention both George Bush and Tony Blair saying God had told
them to invade Iraq. Americans didn't seem to mind, but it horrified
the British that a Prime Minister would have said that, because
they're not as god-soaked as America,

Post by Richard Heathfield
Or are you going to lay the Crusades at the door of Christianity? The

Why not?

Post by Richard Heathfield
Church was the dominant political structure of the time, and thus those
who sought power joined the Church and ignored pretty much all of its
teaching. The Popes of the day were power-brokers. They might,
conceivably, have been Christians, but not particularly good ones. The
First Crusade was a power play by one of these Popes, and the following
Crusades were basically re-matches. It was the use of power to gain more
power, and had about as much to do with Christianity as Benny Hinn.

And people believed the religious excuse/justification .

Post by Richard Heathfield
The death toll resulting from the Crusades is staggering: one estimate
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
That's bad. Now let's take a look at the Spanish Inquisition (since
Oh. Only a twentieth of a cross. Still appalling, still horrifying, but
just a flyspeck on the screen. (About 3,000 to 5,000.)
Now let's see how well the secularists do.

"Secularists" don't do anything because they are secular.

The Germans. Austro-Hungarians and Russians were ruled by lunatics who
felt they had a divine right, and the countries were predominantly
Christian.

Post by Richard Heathfield
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Hitler was a Catholic, and his motivation/justification for the
holocaust was that the Jews were Christ-killers - which the good
Christian Catholics and Lutherans of Germany accepted.

Post by Richard Heathfield
Whenever such huge numbers of people are killed, always you will find
behind it some human being who is trying to gain or preserve power. They

But atheists (also secularists, they're not the same thing) have one
less motivation/justification than theists.

Post by Richard Heathfield
might claim to be doing so in the name of Christ (Urban II), or in the
name of democracy (Blair/Bush),

They both claimed God told them to do it.

Post by Richard Heathfield
or for revenge (Austria-Hungary), or for
lebensraum (Hitler), but that's irrelevant. What matters is that their
stated reason conceals their real motivation, which is power over
others. To attempt to lay the casualties of the Crusades at the door of
Christianity itself betrays an overly simplistic understanding of history.

Bwaaaaaaaaaaaahahahahaha....

Power over others may be part of it, but it is dishonest to claim they
knew they were doing bad and used religion as an excuse, It is also
dishonest to leave out the fact that their followers accepted it.

Now, how about providing the evidence for your hypothetical god, and
addressing the actual issues instead of going off on all sorts of red
herrings?

Alex W.

2016-04-14 21:20:50 UTC

Post by Richard Heathfield
[talk.politics.mideast removed, since it's hardly relevant. Likewise
alt.messianic.yeshua.]
<snip>

Post by BruceS
It's quite reasonable that science and faith should be
considered separate.

Which is not to imply that science does not get things wrong.

Agreed...

Post by Alex W.
It does.

...and again agreed... (can you sense a 'but' coming?)

There's a dirty joke somewhere in there, but I am not going to touch it
with a ten-foot pole...
:-)

Post by Alex W.
The difference is that science is self-correcting. Faulty ideas and
assumptions are proven wrong and discredited sooner or later and are
discarded, overhauled and/or replaced.

Query: when talking of "the bible", are you referring to the New
Testament only, or to the whole package including the Old Testament?
Because if you include the OT, I must warn you that my personal
understanding very strongly suggests that the god you believe in suffers
from severe schizophrenia. To me, that is the only explanation of the
transmogrification of the jealous angry god who smote all humanity and
commanded the faithful to kill entire peoples (down to babes in arms and
their domestic animals) to the NT god of eternal love.

I would further argue that these changes are not so much self-correction
as changes in interpretation.

Post by Richard Heathfield
What's more, even those who loathe and despise Christianity and think
it's fraudulent foolishness can surely find little to object to in a
text that encourages people to be loving, joyful, peaceful, patient,
kind, good, faithful, gentle, and self-disciplined.

If only that were all it is.

But you and I know that it is rather more than that. Were one to toss
out the OT in its entirety, declare it to be utterly without merit and
irrelevant, you might have a case. But as long as Christians use their
scripture and their god to persecute, cause harm and deny others the
right to be loving, joyful, peaceful, patient, kind, good, faithful,
gentle, and self-disciplined in their own preferred manner, I will
dispute you on this.

Like Islam, Christianity is an absolutist, no, totalitarian faith by
nature. It lays claim to be the one and only true universal faith and
demands that all of humanity profess allegiance to it, and only to it.
This undermines -- and in some varieties actually negates -- its virtues
as you listed them.

I agree that science is self-correcting in the long run. I disagree that
faith is not required. I cite, again, the electron. I've never seen one.
To accept its existence requires faith on my part. If you, personally,
/have/ seen one, on its own, individually, identifiably, then perhaps
you don't need that faith; but even then, you *haven't* seen its
electrical charge, so you have to take that on faith too.
Now, there's a huge body of scientific evidence in favour of the
electron - and we take that evidence on faith, too. We might do a few
experiments at school, and the teacher might explain that the two sheets
of gold leaf separate because of the huge number of electrons gathered
thereon - but we take the teacher's word for it. Very few of us actually
conduct hands-on experiments with electrons.

Which is true in principle. The decisive factor, however, is that we
*could* conduct such experiments if we so desired, and that the results
would match previous iterations conducted by others. I may take it on
faith that electrons exist and have a negative charge, but I have a
fundamental and provable basis for that faith. Proof could be obtained,
and failure to do so is a matter of convenience, not blind belief.

Post by Alex W.
Religion, by contrast, only accepts a correction when all else has
manifestly failed ... and even then, it does so kicking and screaming.

Being personal, your experience is by its nature not suited for
confirmation through demonstration or repetition. This makes it quite
unprovable.

That being so, how does your belief differ in nature from any other
superstition?

Post by Alex W.
As often as not, such corrections are characterised by schisms and epic
bloodshed.

I don't doubt it for a moment, but a secularist who self-righteously
proclaims that religion is steeped in blood is on very, very, very shaky
ground indeed.

My study of history leads me to shake my head in sadness...

Richard Heathfield

2016-04-15 10:14:24 UTC

<snip>

Post by Alex W.
The difference is that science is self-correcting. Faulty ideas and
assumptions are proven wrong and discredited sooner or later and are
discarded, overhauled and/or replaced.

+++++

Post by Richard Heathfield
I think that's true of theology, too. It's certainly true of Biblical
translation (modern English translations are vastly superior to the KJV,
which of course doesn't cut any ice with those for whom the KJV is the
"one true translation"). And it's true of our understanding of God's
character. This can be seen in the Bible itself (which is a work written
by men, not by God, despite what some fundamentalist Christians would
have us believe); there is a definite progression of man's understanding
of God's character throughout the text, until (for example) we arrive at
Galatians 5: "But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience,
kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control; against such
things there is no law". This idea would not have been completely alien
to the writer of, say, Deuteronomy, but it would nevertheless have
seemed very much at odds with his own view of God.

+++++

Post by Alex W.
Query: when talking of "the bible", are you referring to the New
Testament only, or to the whole package including the Old Testament?
Because if you include the OT, I must warn you that my personal
understanding very strongly suggests that the god you believe in suffers
from severe schizophrenia.

I am referring to the progression of man's understanding of God that is
reflected in the changing nature of the Bible as it progresses from
Genesis through to Revelation.

Post by Alex W.
To me, that is the only explanation of the
transmogrification of the jealous angry god who smote all humanity and
commanded the faithful to kill entire peoples (down to babes in arms and
their domestic animals) to the NT god of eternal love.

I've already answered this. Above, I have surrounded the relevant
paragraph with "+++++" marks, so that you can re-read it. It addresses
your point adequately, I think.

Post by Alex W.
I would further argue that these changes are not so much self-correction
as changes in interpretation.

Maybe, although there are only so many ways one can interpret "kill them
all, burn down their houses, let down their tyres, and sink their
speedboats" (not an actual quote, you understand). I think it makes more
sense to view the shift as a change in man's understanding of the nature
of God. (Note: we don't hold scientists in scorn because Aristotle
thought there were only five elements.)

If only that were all it is.

That's pretty much all it's supposed to be, at least in behavioural terms.

Post by Alex W.
But you and I know that it is rather more than that. Were one to toss
out the OT in its entirety, declare it to be utterly without merit and
irrelevant, you might have a case.

Well, then I have a case. The New Testament (it won't take you long to
establish independently the truth of my claim that "New Covenant" would
be a better description) does indeed replace the Old Testament, the "Old
Covenant". The New Testament gives a much more modern understanding of
the nature of God. The Old Testament does retain /some/ merit insofar as
it provides contextual background for the New Testament.

Post by Alex W.
But as long as Christians use their
scripture and their god to persecute, cause harm and deny others the
right to be loving, joyful, peaceful, patient, kind, good, faithful,
gentle, and self-disciplined in their own preferred manner, I will
dispute you on this.

You won't need to, because I will stand shoulder to shoulder with you in
that fight.

Post by Alex W.
Like Islam, Christianity is an absolutist, no, totalitarian faith by
nature. It lays claim to be the one and only true universal faith and
demands that all of humanity profess allegiance to it, and only to it.

Citation needed. I don't know what you're talking about.

Post by Alex W.
This undermines -- and in some varieties actually negates -- its virtues
as you listed them.

Then perhaps you could explain what you mean.

<electrons>

Post by Alex W.
Which is true in principle. The decisive factor, however, is that we
*could* conduct such experiments if we so desired, and that the results
would match previous iterations conducted by others. I may take it on
faith that electrons exist and have a negative charge, but I have a
fundamental and provable basis for that faith. Proof could be obtained,
and failure to do so is a matter of convenience, not blind belief.

Absolutely right. You have faith, and it's justified, not blind. Well,
my belief isn't blind either. What do you take me for?

There is, however, a difference, and a very important one, between
"belief in the electron" and "belief in God". As you rightly say, you
can recreate every experiment ever performed by any scientist anywhere,
and thus build up your own experience of science so that you don't have
to take anything on trust. What's more, this will only take you a few
thousand (million?) man-years to achieve.

It is not, however, possible to reproduce interactions between humans
and God in the laboratory. Imagine the scene: a Christian is losing his
hearing; he prays to God for healing; nothing happens; he goes to sleep;
he wakes up to find his pillow soaked in ear-wax, and he can hear just
fine. He tells this story to a scientist friend, who says "great! Now,
let's just stuff all this ear-wax back in, and then you can ask God to
do it again, and this time we'll get some video". The very idea is
ridiculous.

And *that* is why the existence of God is unfalsifiable. If God does
exist, He's got better things to do than hang around laboratories doing
tricks. And if He doesn't, He doesn't. Either way, He remains
unfalsifiable and therefore unscientific in nature.

That's why we have theology, which doesn't insist quite so strongly on
falsifiability, and relies more on logic and reasoning. This enables us
to talk intelligently about God without having to demonstrate His
existence or otherwise.

Post by Alex W.
Religion, by contrast, only accepts a correction when all else has
manifestly failed ... and even then, it does so kicking and screaming.

Being personal, your experience is by its nature not suited for
confirmation through demonstration or repetition. This makes it quite
unprovable.

Absolutely true, yes.

Post by Alex W.
That being so, how does your belief differ in nature from any other
superstition?

When did you stop beating your wife?

Still, let's look it up:

"1. a belief or notion, not based on reason or knowledge, in or of the
ominous significance of a particular thing, circumstance, occurrence,
proceeding, or the like."

My beliefs are based on my experience (from which comes knowledge, just
as stubbing your toe imbues you with the knowledge that stubbing one's
toe is painful) and my reasoning about that experience. And I have no
truck with omens.

"2. a system or collection of such beliefs."

This refers to 1, and as such does not apply to my beliefs, which are
based on reason and knowledge.

"3. a custom or act based on such a belief."

This refers to 1, and as such does not apply to my beliefs, which are
based on reason and knowledge.

"4. irrational fear of what is unknown or mysterious, especially in
connection with religion."

Nope, not afraid one bit.

"5. any blindly accepted belief or notion."

Nope, my belief is founded firmly on my experience, knowledge, and
reason. Can I prove it? No, for reasons that have been discussed ad
nauseam. Would I change my beliefs if the facts changed - that is, if my
experience, knowledge, and reasoning suggested that my past analysis was
incorrect? Yes, of course I would. There is nothing blind about my belief.

Post by Alex W.
As often as not, such corrections are characterised by schisms and epic
bloodshed.

I don't doubt it for a moment, but a secularist who self-righteously
proclaims that religion is steeped in blood is on very, very, very shaky
ground indeed.

My study of history leads me to shake my head in sadness...

I know. Nobody wins, do they?

--
Richard Heathfield
Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line 4 vacant - apply within

Jeanne Douglas

2016-04-15 07:57:49 UTC

Post by Richard Heathfield
[talk.politics.mideast removed, since it's hardly relevant. Likewise
alt.messianic.yeshua.]
<snip>

Post by BruceS
It's quite reasonable that science and faith should be
considered separate.

Which is not to imply that science does not get things wrong.

Agreed...

Post by Alex W.
It does.

...and again agreed... (can you sense a 'but' coming?)

Post by Alex W.
The difference is that science is self-correcting. Faulty ideas and
assumptions are proven wrong and discredited sooner or later and are
discarded, overhauled and/or replaced.

I think that's true of theology, too. It's certainly true of Biblical
translation (modern English translations are vastly superior to the KJV,
which of course doesn't cut any ice with those for whom the KJV is the
"one true translation"). And it's true of our understanding of God's
character. This can be seen in the Bible itself (which is a work written
by men, not by God, despite what some fundamentalist Christians would
have us believe); there is a definite progression of man's understanding
of God's character throughout the text, until (for example) we arrive at
Galatians 5: "But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience,
kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control; against such
things there is no law". This idea would not have been completely alien
to the writer of, say, Deuteronomy, but it would nevertheless have
seemed very much at odds with his own view of God.
What's more, even those who loathe and despise Christianity and think
it's fraudulent foolishness can surely find little to object to in a
text that encourages people to be loving, joyful, peaceful, patient,
kind, good, faithful, gentle, and self-disciplined.

Because there's just as much, or even more, text demanding that people
commit genocide, and the god of the book committing genocide. And
capturing virgin girls after slaughtering their families and turning
them into sex slaves. And stoning people.

The bible is one of the most evil books every published.

I agree that science is self-correcting in the long run. I disagree that
faith is not required. I cite, again, the electron. I've never seen one.

So what?

Post by Richard Heathfield
To accept its existence requires faith on my part. If you, personally,
/have/ seen one, on its own, individually, identifiably, then perhaps
you don't need that faith; but even then, you *haven't* seen its
electrical charge, so you have to take that on faith too.

You do know, I hope, how ridiculous that is???

But we could if we wished to put in the work.

Post by Alex W.
Religion, by contrast, only accepts a correction when all else has
manifestly failed ... and even then, it does so kicking and screaming.

Post by Alex W.
As often as not, such corrections are characterised by schisms and epic
bloodshed.

I don't doubt it for a moment, but a secularist who self-righteously
proclaims that religion is steeped in blood is on very, very, very shaky
ground indeed.

Why is that?

(Hey, folk, is he going to bring up the usual idiotic nonsense that
always get brought up and which have been refuted thousands of times?)

--
JD

"If ANYONE will not welcome you or listen to
your words, LEAVE that home or town and shake
the dust off your feet." Matthew 10:14

Richard Heathfield

2016-04-15 10:39:04 UTC

[Stuff I've already dealt with in another reply has been snipped
mercilessly. Only so many hours in a day...]
<snip - done all that, see elsethread>

Post by Richard Heathfield
I don't doubt it for a moment, but a secularist who self-righteously
proclaims that religion is steeped in blood is on very, very, very shaky
ground indeed.

Why is that?
(Hey, folk, is he going to bring up the usual idiotic nonsense that
always get brought up and which have been refuted thousands of times?)

Probably not. But please bear in mind that I'm reading this thread in
alt.religion.christianity, not alt.atheism or sci.skeptic. So:

(a) I'm not familiar with a.a's or s.s's history of "usual idiotic
nonsense". But my nonsense is rarely usual or idiotic, and it sometimes
actually makes sense.
(b) In a.r.c, your choice of language ("usual idiotic nonsense") as
applied to Christianity can be considered trolling. I suspect you don't
intend to troll, that you're brighter than that, but that you didn't
notice the cross-posting. Now that your attention has been brought to
it, I hope you can start behaving more like a grown-up. Thank you.

--
Richard Heathfield
Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line 4 vacant - apply within

Jeanne Douglas

2016-04-15 11:14:52 UTC

Post by Richard Heathfield
[Stuff I've already dealt with in another reply has been snipped
mercilessly. Only so many hours in a day...]
<snip - done all that, see elsethread>

Post by Richard Heathfield
I don't doubt it for a moment, but a secularist who self-righteously
proclaims that religion is steeped in blood is on very, very, very shaky
ground indeed.

Why is that?
(Hey, folk, is he going to bring up the usual idiotic nonsense that
always get brought up and which have been refuted thousands of times?)

What else can I call it. It's insanity believing in something without
evidence for it, especially when you use it as the basis for your life.
So what else am I supposed to call it. Certainly not "that charming
fantasy".

Post by Richard Heathfield
as
applied to Christianity can be considered trolling. I suspect you don't
intend to troll, that you're brighter than that, but that you didn't
notice the cross-posting. Now that your attention has been brought to
it, I hope you can start behaving more like a grown-up. Thank you.

--
JD

"If ANYONE will not welcome you or listen to
your words, LEAVE that home or town and shake
the dust off your feet." Matthew 10:14

Richard Heathfield

2016-04-15 12:07:10 UTC

Post by Richard Heathfield
[Stuff I've already dealt with in another reply has been snipped
mercilessly. Only so many hours in a day...]
<snip - done all that, see elsethread>

Post by Richard Heathfield
I don't doubt it for a moment, but a secularist who self-righteously
proclaims that religion is steeped in blood is on very, very, very shaky
ground indeed.

Why is that?
(Hey, folk, is he going to bring up the usual idiotic nonsense that
always get brought up and which have been refuted thousands of times?)

What else can I call it. It's insanity believing in something without
evidence for it,

Your mistake is to assume that experiential evidence is not evidence.

--
Richard Heathfield
Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line 4 vacant - apply within

Jeanne Douglas

2016-04-16 00:35:02 UTC

Post by Richard Heathfield
[Stuff I've already dealt with in another reply has been snipped
mercilessly. Only so many hours in a day...]
<snip - done all that, see elsethread>

Post by Richard Heathfield
I don't doubt it for a moment, but a secularist who self-righteously
proclaims that religion is steeped in blood is on very, very, very shaky
ground indeed.

Why is that?
(Hey, folk, is he going to bring up the usual idiotic nonsense that
always get brought up and which have been refuted thousands of times?)

What else can I call it. It's insanity believing in something without
evidence for it,

Your mistake is to assume that experiential evidence is not evidence.

It's not. Unless there's evidence that proves it wasn't some kind of
hallucination.

--
JD

"If ANYONE will not welcome you or listen to
your words, LEAVE that home or town and shake
the dust off your feet." Matthew 10:14

Christopher A. Lee

2016-04-16 01:17:20 UTC

On Fri, 15 Apr 2016 17:35:02 -0700, Jeanne Douglas

Post by Richard Heathfield
[Stuff I've already dealt with in another reply has been snipped
mercilessly. Only so many hours in a day...]
<snip - done all that, see elsethread>

Post by Richard Heathfield
I don't doubt it for a moment, but a secularist who self-righteously
proclaims that religion is steeped in blood is on very, very, very shaky
ground indeed.

Why is that?
(Hey, folk, is he going to bring up the usual idiotic nonsense that
always get brought up and which have been refuted thousands of times?)

What else can I call it. It's insanity believing in something without
evidence for it,

Your mistake is to assume that experiential evidence is not evidence.

It's not. Unless there's evidence that proves it wasn't some kind of
hallucination.

The problem is that they conflate belief with knowledge and
rationalise evidence where there is none.

Richard Heathfield

2016-04-16 20:44:45 UTC

<snip>

Post by Richard Heathfield
Your mistake is to assume that experiential evidence is not evidence.

It's not. Unless there's evidence that proves it wasn't some kind of
hallucination.

Since all evidence is experiential, that leaves us kind of stuck. Are
you saying that we can't trust our own senses to interpret the external
world, and we can't trust our minds to deal with sensory data correctly?
Because when you say that experiential evidence is not evidence, that's
precisely what it sounds like to me.

--
Richard Heathfield
Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line 4 vacant - apply within

Richard Heathfield

2016-04-16 20:56:46 UTC

Post by Richard Heathfield
Your mistake is to assume that experiential evidence is not evidence.

It's not. Unless there's evidence that proves it wasn't some kind of
hallucination.

Jeanne, I've just seen that you're trying to dial this back, which is
fine by me. By all means ignore the above if you want (or, if you want
to continue the debate, that's fine if we can come to some kind of
accommodation about mutual courtesy, and if we can define some terms).

--
Richard Heathfield
Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line 4 vacant - apply within

a***@bb.cc

2016-04-15 18:16:25 UTC

On Fri, 15 Apr 2016 04:14:52 -0700, Jeanne Douglas

Post by Richard Heathfield
[Stuff I've already dealt with in another reply has been snipped
mercilessly. Only so many hours in a day...]
<snip - done all that, see elsethread>

Post by Richard Heathfield
I don't doubt it for a moment, but a secularist who self-righteously
proclaims that religion is steeped in blood is on very, very, very shaky
ground indeed.

Why is that?
(Hey, folk, is he going to bring up the usual idiotic nonsense that
always get brought up and which have been refuted thousands of times?)

Or his dishonest analogies and his falsehoods about at heiosts, what
atheists "believe", etc.

Basically, we're supposed to treat him with the courtesy he soesn't
show us.

So, when will you?

z***@z.z

2016-04-15 18:14:21 UTC

On Fri, 15 Apr 2016 11:39:04 +0100, Richard Heathfield

Post by Richard Heathfield
[Stuff I've already dealt with in another reply has been snipped
mercilessly. Only so many hours in a day...]
<snip - done all that, see elsethread>

Post by Richard Heathfield
I don't doubt it for a moment, but a secularist who self-righteously
proclaims that religion is steeped in blood is on very, very, very shaky
ground indeed.

Why is that?
(Hey, folk, is he going to bring up the usual idiotic nonsense that
always get brought up and which have been refuted thousands of times?)

Probably not. But please bear in mind that I'm reading this thread in
(a) I'm not familiar with a.a's or s.s's history of "usual idiotic
nonsense". But my nonsense is rarely usual or idiotic, and it sometimes
actually makes sense.
(b) In a.r.c, your choice of language ("usual idiotic nonsense") as
applied to Christianity can be considered trolling. I suspect you don't
intend to troll, that you're brighter than that, but that you didn't
notice the cross-posting. Now that your attention has been brought to
it, I hope you can start behaving more like a grown-up. Thank you.

Your dishonest equivalence between not being able to provide evidence
for electrons that would convince a solipsist, and the lack of _Any_
evidence for your religion's gos after yo talked about it as if it
were real outside your religion, wasn't idiotic?

I hope YOU can start acting like a grown-up.

That way, you won't get treated as a stupid child.

Christopher A. Lee

2016-04-15 15:21:24 UTC

On Fri, 15 Apr 2016 00:57:49 -0700, Jeanne Douglas

Post by Richard Heathfield
[talk.politics.mideast removed, since it's hardly relevant. Likewise
alt.messianic.yeshua.]
<snip>

Post by BruceS
It's quite reasonable that science and faith should be
considered separate.

Which is not to imply that science does not get things wrong.

Agreed...

Post by Alex W.
It does.

...and again agreed... (can you sense a 'but' coming?)

Post by Alex W.
The difference is that science is self-correcting. Faulty ideas and
assumptions are proven wrong and discredited sooner or later and are
discarded, overhauled and/or replaced.

I think that's true of theology, too. It's certainly true of Biblical
translation (modern English translations are vastly superior to the KJV,
which of course doesn't cut any ice with those for whom the KJV is the
"one true translation"). And it's true of our understanding of God's
character. This can be seen in the Bible itself (which is a work written
by men, not by God, despite what some fundamentalist Christians would
have us believe); there is a definite progression of man's understanding
of God's character throughout the text, until (for example) we arrive at
Galatians 5: "But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience,
kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control; against such
things there is no law". This idea would not have been completely alien
to the writer of, say, Deuteronomy, but it would nevertheless have
seemed very much at odds with his own view of God.
What's more, even those who loathe and despise Christianity and think
it's fraudulent foolishness can surely find little to object to in a
text that encourages people to be loving, joyful, peaceful, patient,
kind, good, faithful, gentle, and self-disciplined.

Because there's just as much, or even more, text demanding that people
commit genocide, and the god of the book committing genocide. And
capturing virgin girls after slaughtering their families and turning
them into sex slaves. And stoning people.
The bible is one of the most evil books every published.

I agree that science is self-correcting in the long run. I disagree that
faith is not required. I cite, again, the electron. I've never seen one.

So what?

You do know, I hope, how ridiculous that is???

But we could if we wished to put in the work.

Post by Alex W.
Religion, by contrast, only accepts a correction when all else has
manifestly failed ... and even then, it does so kicking and screaming.

Post by Alex W.
As often as not, such corrections are characterised by schisms and epic
bloodshed.

I don't doubt it for a moment, but a secularist who self-righteously
proclaims that religion is steeped in blood is on very, very, very shaky
ground indeed.

Why is that?
(Hey, folk, is he going to bring up the usual idiotic nonsense that
always get brought up and which have been refuted thousands of times?)

He did.

And any way, it's a red herrinmg - part of the usual Christian dodge
ball when he can't address what people say.

Alex W.

2016-04-14 15:08:25 UTC

Post by Richard Heathfield
[talk.politics.mideast removed, since it's hardly relevant. Likewise
alt.messianic.yeshua.]
<snip>

Post by BruceS
It's quite reasonable that science and faith should be
considered separate.

Not "taken on faith" -- taken as a given.

A scientist will proceed in the confidence that his baseline assumptions
are proven and can be proven again if so needed. No faith is required
for a scientist to "believe" in the existence of electrons because their
existence, mass, charge and properties (both as waves and particles)
have been demonstrated and confirmed repeatedly in experiments.
(1)

Faith is confidence without rational basis, without evidence. To go to
the races utterly convinced that this time the 25-1 horse will be a big
winner is faith. To go to the races knowing that the 25-1 horse will
win because one is the owner and has doped the nag to the gills is
confidence.

(1) As for anyone who seriously doubts the existence of electrons, I
recommend they stick a wet finger into a live socket for an immediate
and personal introduction.

Richard Heathfield

2016-04-14 15:49:36 UTC

Post by Richard Heathfield
[talk.politics.mideast removed, since it's hardly relevant. Likewise
alt.messianic.yeshua.]
<snip>

Post by BruceS
It's quite reasonable that science and faith should be
considered separate.

Not "taken on faith" -- taken as a given.

But you repeat yourself.

<snip>

Post by Alex W.
Faith is confidence without rational basis, without evidence.

That's not what I mean when I use the word "faith". Our dispute is
therefore at least partly terminological and hence pointless.

--
Richard Heathfield
Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line 4 vacant - apply within

Christopher A. Lee

2016-04-14 21:15:40 UTC

On Thu, 14 Apr 2016 15:15:11 +0100, Richard Heathfield

Post by Richard Heathfield
[talk.politics.mideast removed, since it's hardly relevant. Likewise
alt.messianic.yeshua.]
<snip>

Post by BruceS
It's quite reasonable that science and faith should be
considered separate.

However, the evidence is there - unlike the pretend friend you rudely
and stupidly presume outside your religion.

As usual, a dishonest theist uses an analogy which pretends an
equivalemce between the disputed and unevidenced, and the undisputed
and evidenced.

Here's a clue....

Science's expllanations are tested against reality.

Every time you use electricity, you confirm electrons.

Now provide the same kind of evidence for your pretend friend.

b***@m.nu

2016-04-14 23:50:57 UTC

On Thu, 14 Apr 2016 16:15:40 -0500, Christopher A. Lee

Post by Christopher A. Lee
On Thu, 14 Apr 2016 15:15:11 +0100, Richard Heathfield

Post by Richard Heathfield
[talk.politics.mideast removed, since it's hardly relevant. Likewise
alt.messianic.yeshua.]
<snip>

Post by BruceS
It's quite reasonable that science and faith should be
considered separate.

Which is not to say that science does not itself require a certain
amount of faith on the part of the scientist. For example, most of us

are you serious??? Are you that ignorant to think that you actually
know what people of science think? The problem is that you and people
like you can not even imagine a universe without a magical fairy in
it. You have no idea what it is like to live in a world without a fear
of another magical fairy that exists in an imaginary world that is
supossed to be so evil. But as your myths would have it, the good
fairy that lives in another magical imagined world is the one that
does all the killing torture and rape of the human species, Not to
mention the fact that your "Good" fairy tells all of his worshipers to
start wars and murdder humans. So according to your myths the good
fairy requires people to worship it and murder for it but the bad
fairy requires you to not be around the good fairy. How fucked up is
that???

Do you understand why theists are mentally ill?

Post by Richard Heathfield
are perfectly content to believe that there is such a thing as an
electron, even though we have no direct experiential evidence to justify
that belief.

There is no direct evidence of an electron?? HOW FUCKING STUPID ARE
YOU... you do know how the lights come on.. the computer you are
reading this on operates aand what they use as power???

Post by Christopher A. Lee
However, the evidence is there - unlike the pretend friend you rudely
and stupidly presume outside your religion.

He is a mentally ill theist, He will NOT EVER understand

Post by Christopher A. Lee
As usual, a dishonest theist uses an analogy which pretends an
equivalemce between the disputed and unevidenced, and the undisputed
and evidenced.
Here's a clue....
Science's expllanations are tested against reality.
Every time you use electricity, you confirm electrons.
Now provide the same kind of evidence for your pretend friend.

Oh wait let me try.....

The sun shines.... No that is nuclear fusion

The wind blows.... No that is caused by atmosphereic temprature
changes

Well I guess he is fucked.. LOL

Christopher A. Lee

2016-04-15 03:31:22 UTC

Post by b***@m.nu
On Thu, 14 Apr 2016 16:15:40 -0500, Christopher A. Lee

Post by Christopher A. Lee
On Thu, 14 Apr 2016 15:15:11 +0100, Richard Heathfield

Post by Richard Heathfield
[talk.politics.mideast removed, since it's hardly relevant. Likewise
alt.messianic.yeshua.]
<snip>

Post by BruceS
It's quite reasonable that science and faith should be
considered separate.

Which is not to say that science does not itself require a certain
amount of faith on the part of the scientist. For example, most of us

Careful - he'll accuse you of not being capable of holding civilised
debate.

But these idiots don't seem to understand that reality isn't up for
debate - at least the way he seems to want.

And this one doesn't understand that he begs the question he cops out
of answering, every time he talks as if his god were as "real" for us
as it is for him.

It's his presumption, not ours. But far too many theists don't realise
just how much they take for granted that those outside their religion
don't.

Refusing even to try to use common ground is hardly "civilised
debate".

And the only common ground is (a) that he _believes_ something we
don't, and (b) the real world.

Post by Richard Heathfield
are perfectly content to believe that there is such a thing as an
electron, even though we have no direct experiential evidence to justify
that belief.

There is no direct evidence of an electron?? HOW FUCKING STUPID ARE
YOU...

Very. He's a goddidit Christian, totally out of touch with reality and
arguing that his own little virtual reality is the real one - with
people living in the real one, who aren't actually interested.

Post by b***@m.nu
you do know how the lights come on.. the computer you are
reading this on operates aand what they use as power???

God waves its magic wand and makes it happen.

Post by Christopher A. Lee
However, the evidence is there - unlike the pretend friend you rudely
and stupidly presume outside your religion.

He is a mentally ill theist, He will NOT EVER understand

Serious religion does that to people.

But it still amazes me just how stupid it often makes people.

They say the most stupid things in the most inappropriate places and
get upset when they reap what they sow.

Post by Christopher A. Lee
As usual, a dishonest theist uses an analogy which pretends an
equivalemce between the disputed and unevidenced, and the undisputed
and evidenced.
Here's a clue....
Science's explanations are tested against reality.
Every time you use electricity, you confirm electrons.
Now provide the same kind of evidence for your pretend friend.

Oh wait let me try.....
The sun shines.... No that is nuclear fusion
The wind blows.... No that is caused by atmosphereic temprature
changes
Well I guess he is fucked.. LOL

That's about the level of it.

Bill O'Reilly telling Dave Silverman "Tides go in, tides go out,
therefore God"...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/06/oreilly-god-causes-tides_n_805262.html

Richard Heathfield

2016-04-15 10:23:20 UTC

Post by b***@m.nu
On Thu, 14 Apr 2016 16:15:40 -0500, Christopher A. Lee

Post by Christopher A. Lee
On Thu, 14 Apr 2016 15:15:11 +0100, Richard Heathfield

Post by BruceS
It's quite reasonable that science and faith should be
considered separate.

Which is not to say that science does not itself require a certain
amount of faith on the part of the scientist. For example, most of us

are you serious???

Uh, yeah.

Post by b***@m.nu
Are you that ignorant to think that you actually know what people
of science think?

I hope you're not going to turn out to be one of these knee-jerkers.

Post by b***@m.nu
The problem is that you and people
like you can not even imagine a universe without a magical fairy in
it.

That sure looks like knee-jerking to me. If you want me to compose a
full reply, please make your article intelligent and thoughtful in
future. Thanks.

--
Richard Heathfield
Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line 4 vacant - apply within

b***@m.nu

2016-04-15 12:58:51 UTC

On Fri, 15 Apr 2016 11:23:20 +0100, Richard Heathfield

Post by b***@m.nu
On Thu, 14 Apr 2016 16:15:40 -0500, Christopher A. Lee

Post by Christopher A. Lee
On Thu, 14 Apr 2016 15:15:11 +0100, Richard Heathfield

Post by BruceS
It's quite reasonable that science and faith should be
considered separate.

Which is not to say that science does not itself require a certain
amount of faith on the part of the scientist. For example, most of us

are you serious???

Uh, yeah.

Post by b***@m.nu
Are you that ignorant to think that you actually know what people
of science think?

I hope you're not going to turn out to be one of these knee-jerkers.

Post by b***@m.nu
The problem is that you and people
like you can not even imagine a universe without a magical fairy in
it.

That sure looks like knee-jerking to me. If you want me to compose a
full reply, please make your article intelligent and thoughtful in
future. Thanks.

No, the problem we have here is you read the truth and you even
understood what I said, but you refuse to accept it. LOL you I guess
still cant see how religon is destroying hte world

Christopher A. Lee

2016-04-15 15:27:19 UTC

Post by b***@m.nu
On Fri, 15 Apr 2016 11:23:20 +0100, Richard Heathfield

Post by b***@m.nu
On Thu, 14 Apr 2016 16:15:40 -0500, Christopher A. Lee

Post by Christopher A. Lee
On Thu, 14 Apr 2016 15:15:11 +0100, Richard Heathfield

Post by BruceS
It's quite reasonable that science and faith should be
considered separate.

Which is not to say that science does not itself require a certain
amount of faith on the part of the scientist. For example, most of us

are you serious???

Uh, yeah.

Post by b***@m.nu
Are you that ignorant to think that you actually know what people
of science think?

I hope you're not going to turn out to be one of these knee-jerkers.

Post by b***@m.nu
The problem is that you and people
like you can not even imagine a universe without a magical fairy in
it.

That sure looks like knee-jerking to me. If you want me to compose a
full reply, please make your article intelligent and thoughtful in
future. Thanks.

Any lie rather than even try to understand why people react negatively
rto Christians who can't keep their beliefs where they belong, and who
spout such remarkable ignorance.

Post by b***@m.nu
No, the problem we have here is you read the truth and you even
understood what I said, but you refuse to accept it. LOL you I guess
still cant see how religon is destroying hte world

It's a Christian doing what Christians do when they can't keep their
beliefs where they belong, showing his ignorance of the world beyond
his religion.

p***@q.r

2016-04-15 15:24:41 UTC

On Fri, 15 Apr 2016 11:23:20 +0100, Richard Heathfield

Post by b***@m.nu
On Thu, 14 Apr 2016 16:15:40 -0500, Christopher A. Lee

Post by Christopher A. Lee
On Thu, 14 Apr 2016 15:15:11 +0100, Richard Heathfield

Post by BruceS
It's quite reasonable that science and faith should be
considered separate.

Which is not to say that science does not itself require a certain
amount of faith on the part of the scientist. For example, most of us

are you serious???

Uh, yeah.

And you wonder why you get treated as an idiopt?

Post by b***@m.nu
Are you that ignorant to think that you actually know what people
of science think?

I hope you're not going to turn out to be one of these knee-jerkers.

You certainly turned out to be one of those lying Christians

Post by b***@m.nu
The problem is that you and people
like you can not even imagine a universe without a magical fairy in
it.

That sure looks like knee-jerking to me. If you want me to compose a

Even though it's true.

He's part of the real world beyond your religious fantasies,
describing what you look like to people outside your religion.

Intelligent Christians don't make that mistake.
.

Post by Richard Heathfield
full reply, please make your article intelligent and thoughtful in
future. Thanks.

Take your own advice, brainwashed, hypocritical moron.

Jeanne Douglas

2016-04-13 09:34:45 UTC

Post by Bob Officer
The idiot believes using scripture to prove scripture is a valid method of
argument.

And absolutely no reason to believe it's true.

--
JD

"If ANYONE will not welcome you or listen to
your words, LEAVE that home or town and shake
the dust off your feet." Matthew 10:14

Richard Heathfield

2016-04-13 10:11:51 UTC

<snip>

Post by Richard Heathfield
We should not, however, make the mistake of thinking that because the
idea of God is unscientific it is therefore wrong. The only reason it's
unscientific is because we have no way to prove it's wrong!

And absolutely no reason to believe it's true.

If your only yardstick is the scientific method, that's correct. You
are, however, discounting personal human experience, which science can
only go so far in analysing. Personal experience cannot offer a proof
that something (anything) is true, but it can offer evidence in favour
(or indeed against). Not scientific evidence - it can't be measured,
tested, analysed, diced, bottled - but evidence nonetheless. Such
evidence, as I have already suggested, will not convince the sceptic
(and I should point out that I consider scepticism to be a virtue, not a
fault!), but it can convince the person who experiences it.

If you seek proof, you will always be disappointed. Nothing in theology
or science can be proved. Only mathematicians have the luxury of proof,
and even mathematics has its problems in that regard. Firstly, to be
useful, a formal system must have a number of axioms, which users of
that system have to take on faith. Secondly, Goedel showed that any
formal system sufficiently powerful to be useful must, perforce, be
either incomplete (some true things cannot be proved, and/or some false
things cannot be disproved) or inconsistent (some things can be proved
both true and false) or both.

So we can't rely 100% on mathematics. And we can't rely 100% on science,
either, because science relies to a large extent on reproducibility, and
true reproducibility is impossible, so science has to make do with a
reasonable approximation to reproducibility.

I have plenty of reasons for my beliefs, and those reasons are
sufficient to convince me, but they would not be sufficient to convince
you. Similarly, you have plenty of reasons for /your/ beliefs, and those
reasons are sufficient to convince /you/, but they would not be
sufficient to convince /me/. This is the very essence of personal
experience - it's, uh, personal.

--
Richard Heathfield
Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line 4 vacant - apply within

Jeanne Douglas

2016-04-13 11:52:33 UTC

And absolutely no reason to believe it's true.

If your only yardstick is the scientific method, that's correct.

Yep. Because that's the only way to evaluate things in the real world.

--
JD

"If ANYONE will not welcome you or listen to
your words, LEAVE that home or town and shake
the dust off your feet." Matthew 10:14

Richard Heathfield

2016-04-13 12:25:42 UTC

And absolutely no reason to believe it's true.

If your only yardstick is the scientific method, that's correct.

Yep. Because that's the only way to evaluate things in the real world.

Science is very good at evaluating some things, but very bad at
evaluating others, such as love, justice, beauty, poetry, music...
actually, I'll stop at music, because it's a fantastic example.

Science can tell us the pattern of strong and weak beats in a musical
composition; it can tell us the pitches and durations of notes; it can
measure the harmonics that add character to a musical instrument's tone;
it can even identify some of the characteristics that go to make up a
pleasing harmonic structure.

But science /can't/ tell us why the music is beautiful (or ghastly, as
the case may be). It can't tell us what story the music tells. It can't
tell us why we like (or dislike) that music.

Are we, then, to conclude that the story isn't there, or that the music
is neither beautiful nor ugly, simply because science fails to evaluate
those aspects of that music? Or are we to conclude that music isn't in
the real world? Or would it be truer to conclude that, actually, science
is /not/ the only way to evaluate things in the real world?

--
Richard Heathfield
Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line 4 vacant - apply within

Alex W.

2016-04-13 21:42:54 UTC

And absolutely no reason to believe it's true.

If your only yardstick is the scientific method, that's correct.

Yep. Because that's the only way to evaluate things in the real world.

Science is very good at evaluating some things, but very bad at
evaluating others, such as love, justice, beauty, poetry, music...
actually, I'll stop at music, because it's a fantastic example.
Science can tell us the pattern of strong and weak beats in a musical
composition; it can tell us the pitches and durations of notes; it can
measure the harmonics that add character to a musical instrument's tone;
it can even identify some of the characteristics that go to make up a
pleasing harmonic structure.
But science /can't/ tell us why the music is beautiful (or ghastly, as
the case may be). It can't tell us what story the music tells. It can't
tell us why we like (or dislike) that music.
Are we, then, to conclude that the story isn't there, or that the music
is neither beautiful nor ugly, simply because science fails to evaluate
those aspects of that music? Or are we to conclude that music isn't in
the real world? Or would it be truer to conclude that, actually, science
is /not/ the only way to evaluate things in the real world?

That is correct ... but it misses the crux of the debate.

A great many believers are not content to assert that their faith in a
god is an unprovable unquantifiable unfalsifiable assertion. They will
insist on the factual accuracy of their belief. And in support of that
claim, they will offer up events and phenomena which they ascribe to
their deity. In doing so, they move from the sphere of human emotion
and imagination into the area where science rules. They depart from the
eminently defensible position that the story exists, even that it may be
moving and inspiring and imparting underlying truths about the human
condition, and instead attempt to argue that the story is factually
accurate and provable.

In doing so, they not only conflate Truth and Fact, they lay themselves
open to legitimate scrutiny using the techniques of scientific enquiry
and logic. As long as someone argues that Shakespeare's King Lear is a
disquisition into morality, the nature of Reason and Nature, the moral
dangers of greed and succumbing to easy flattery, or the potential for
growth and maturity of the individual through suffering, they are on
sure ground. The moment they argue that Lear and his daughters were
historical personages and the events of the play actually took place,
they have to submit themselves to the rules of scientific and logical
inquisition -- a test they will inevitably fail.

So the problem is not belief. The problem is that too many believers
take that one step too far past belief. They not only believe their
story and derive pleasure, support, comfort and instruction from it,
they transpose it into the real world where it has no place.

Richard Heathfield

2016-04-13 23:14:48 UTC

<snip>

Post by Richard Heathfield
Are we, then, to conclude that the story isn't there, or that the music
is neither beautiful nor ugly, simply because science fails to evaluate
those aspects of that music? Or are we to conclude that music isn't in
the real world? Or would it be truer to conclude that, actually, science
is /not/ the only way to evaluate things in the real world?

That is correct ... but it misses the crux of the debate.

I will cheerfully concede that. I wanted to talk about something that's
actually interesting. :-)

Post by Alex W.
A great many believers are not content to assert that their faith in a
god is an unprovable unquantifiable unfalsifiable assertion.

A great many scientists are not content to assert that their lack of
faith in a god is an unprovable unquantifiable unfalsifiable assertion.
What's more, they will gloss over the fact that their faith in science
is /also/ an unprovable unfalsifiable assertion (you will note that I
omitted 'unquantifiable', since quantification is actually something
that science does very well indeed).

Post by Alex W.
They will
insist on the factual accuracy of their belief.

Again, this is no different to many scientists. They will insist on the
factual accuracy of their belief, right up to the moment when they
change their minds on the basis of new evidence. That's not a weakness.
It's a strength. I form my beliefs on the basis of the information
available to me. If new information comes to light, it has to be
factored in, and it can make me (and has made me) change what I believe.
I think I'm right in saying that scientists would consider this to be a
good thing, not a bad thing.

Post by Alex W.
And in support of that
claim, they will offer up events and phenomena which they ascribe to
their deity. In doing so, they move from the sphere of human emotion
and imagination into the area where science rules. They depart from the
eminently defensible position that the story exists, even that it may be
moving and inspiring and imparting underlying truths about the human
condition, and instead attempt to argue that the story is factually
accurate and provable.

Nothing is provable (except in mathematics, as I have already explained
upthread).

Post by Alex W.
In doing so, they not only conflate Truth and Fact, they lay themselves
open to legitimate scrutiny using the techniques of scientific enquiry
and logic.

I think that's a fair comment. I would be perfectly happy to defend my
faith on logical grounds, by the way - but scientific enquiry is the
wrong tool for that job. I will, however, grant you that scientific
enquiry is well-suited for investigating, say, the historicity of the
Exodus, or the exile into Babylon, or the building of the Temple.
Unfortunately, however, all too often such investigations are carried
out by people with an axe to grind, one way or the other. And that's a
shame.

Post by Alex W.
As long as someone argues that Shakespeare's King Lear is a
disquisition into morality, the nature of Reason and Nature, the moral
dangers of greed and succumbing to easy flattery, or the potential for
growth and maturity of the individual through suffering, they are on
sure ground. The moment they argue that Lear and his daughters were
historical personages and the events of the play actually took place,
they have to submit themselves to the rules of scientific and logical
inquisition -- a test they will inevitably fail.

Well, I think the historicity of Jesus is generally accepted by
scholars. He wasn't a character in a play. The same goes for a number of
Jesus's followers - Peter, Paul, and John spring to mind.

Post by Alex W.
So the problem is not belief. The problem is that too many believers
take that one step too far past belief. They not only believe their
story and derive pleasure, support, comfort and instruction from it,
they transpose it into the real world where it has no place.

Is your appreciation of music part of the real world? Is your
understanding of justice part of the real world? Is your perception of
beauty part of the real world? None of these things can be proved,
falsified, or quantified. That doesn't stop them being real.

--
Richard Heathfield
Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line 4 vacant - apply within

Bob Officer

2016-04-14 15:38:33 UTC

And absolutely no reason to believe it's true.

If your only yardstick is the scientific method, that's correct.

Yep. Because that's the only way to evaluate things in the real world.

Science is very good at evaluating some things, but very bad at
evaluating others, such as love, justice, beauty, poetry, music...
actually, I'll stop at music, because it's a fantastic example.
Science can tell us the pattern of strong and weak beats in a musical
composition; it can tell us the pitches and durations of notes; it can
measure the harmonics that add character to a musical instrument's tone;
it can even identify some of the characteristics that go to make up a
pleasing harmonic structure.
But science /can't/ tell us why the music is beautiful (or ghastly, as
the case may be). It can't tell us what story the music tells. It can't
tell us why we like (or dislike) that music.
Are we, then, to conclude that the story isn't there, or that the music
is neither beautiful nor ugly, simply because science fails to evaluate
those aspects of that music? Or are we to conclude that music isn't in
the real world? Or would it be truer to conclude that, actually, science
is /not/ the only way to evaluate things in the real world?

That is correct ... but it misses the crux of the debate.
A great many believers are not content to assert that their faith in a
god is an unprovable unquantifiable unfalsifiable assertion. They will
insist on the factual accuracy of their belief. And in support of that
claim, they will offer up events and phenomena which they ascribe to
their deity. In doing so, they move from the sphere of human emotion
and imagination into the area where science rules. They depart from the
eminently defensible position that the story exists, even that it may be
moving and inspiring and imparting underlying truths about the human
condition, and instead attempt to argue that the story is factually
accurate and provable.
In doing so, they not only conflate Truth and Fact, they lay themselves
open to legitimate scrutiny using the techniques of scientific enquiry
and logic. As long as someone argues that Shakespeare's King Lear is a
disquisition into morality, the nature of Reason and Nature, the moral
dangers of greed and succumbing to easy flattery, or the potential for
growth and maturity of the individual through suffering, they are on
sure ground. The moment they argue that Lear and his daughters were
historical personages and the events of the play actually took place,
they have to submit themselves to the rules of scientific and logical
inquisition -- a test they will inevitably fail.
So the problem is not belief. The problem is that too many believers
take that one step too far past belief. They not only believe their
story and derive pleasure, support, comfort and instruction from it,
they transpose it into the real world where it has no place.

This problem becomes worse, when believers feel they have a dictate from
these nonexistent gods to make everyone else follow their rules and
rituals.

Our founding fathers drew a line. It separates church and state. We do not
have anointed leaders. We have self selected leaders. I do not even believe
in the need for a god or super being or creator. These are primitive
superstitions held by early man.

These beliefs hold back a person, allowing them or actually encouraging
them to never develop critical thinking skills.

Because place is mentioned in a book of fiction, and then later found
something which resembles the pace in the work of fiction doesn't prove the
work of fiction is true..

--

Richard Heathfield

2016-04-14 15:51:43 UTC

On 14/04/16 16:38, Bob Officer wrote:

<snip>

Post by Bob Officer
Our founding fathers drew a line. It separates church and state.

Not so. Our head of state is also the head of the Church of England, so
there is no separation whatsoever.

"Our" is a funny old word, isn't it?

--
Richard Heathfield
Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line 4 vacant - apply within

Alex W.

2016-04-14 21:06:40 UTC

Post by Bob Officer
Our founding fathers drew a line. It separates church and state.

Not so. Our head of state is also the head of the Church of England, so
there is no separation whatsoever.
"Our" is a funny old word, isn't it?

Thankfully, Her Majesty also has the entirely laudable habit of not
commenting publicly on her religious convictions nor influencing the
church according to her whims and personal beliefs.

Note also that the "embedding" of the Church of England into the state
apparatus has had the -- presumably entirely unforeseen -- effect of
rendering it largely irrelevant.

Jeanne Douglas

2016-04-13 11:53:14 UTC

Post by Richard Heathfield
I have plenty of reasons for my beliefs, and those reasons are
sufficient to convince me, but they would not be sufficient to convince
you. Similarly, you have plenty of reasons for /your/ beliefs,

What beliefs would those be?

--
JD

"If ANYONE will not welcome you or listen to
your words, LEAVE that home or town and shake
the dust off your feet." Matthew 10:14

Richard Heathfield

2016-04-13 12:34:56 UTC

What beliefs would those be?

Your beliefs? Only you know that. But you certainly /have/ beliefs, and
presumably you have reasons for them. (For example, I expect you believe
that F=ma to a reasonable approximation at ordinary velocities when no
other factors are involved - a belief that I happen to share.)

My beliefs? Well, the ones that are most likely to be relevant to this
debate are *broadly* in line with the Evangelical Alliance's "Basis of
Faith", which can be seen here:

<http://www.eauk.org/connect/about-us/basis-of-faith.cfm>

--
Richard Heathfield
Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line 4 vacant - apply within

Olrik

2016-04-14 04:02:21 UTC

And absolutely no reason to believe it's true.

If your only yardstick is the scientific method, that's correct. You
are, however, discounting personal human experience

Does that include schizophrenia? Hallucinations? Mental defects? Drug use?

Post by Richard Heathfield
, which science can
only go so far in analysing. Personal experience cannot offer a proof
that something (anything) is true, but it can offer evidence in favour
(or indeed against). Not scientific evidence - it can't be measured,
tested, analysed, diced, bottled - but evidence nonetheless. Such
evidence, as I have already suggested, will not convince the sceptic
(and I should point out that I consider scepticism to be a virtue, not a
fault!), but it can convince the person who experiences it.
If you seek proof, you will always be disappointed. Nothing in theology
or science can be proved. Only mathematicians have the luxury of proof,
and even mathematics has its problems in that regard. Firstly, to be
useful, a formal system must have a number of axioms, which users of
that system have to take on faith. Secondly, Goedel showed that any
formal system sufficiently powerful to be useful must, perforce, be
either incomplete (some true things cannot be proved, and/or some false
things cannot be disproved) or inconsistent (some things can be proved
both true and false) or both.
So we can't rely 100% on mathematics. And we can't rely 100% on science,
either, because science relies to a large extent on reproducibility, and
true reproducibility is impossible, so science has to make do with a
reasonable approximation to reproducibility.
I have plenty of reasons for my beliefs, and those reasons are
sufficient to convince me, but they would not be sufficient to convince
you. Similarly, you have plenty of reasons for /your/ beliefs, and those
reasons are sufficient to convince /you/, but they would not be
sufficient to convince /me/. This is the very essence of personal
experience - it's, uh, personal.

--
Olrik
aa #1981
EAC Chief Food Inspector, Bacon Division

Richard Heathfield

2016-04-14 07:07:39 UTC

And absolutely no reason to believe it's true.

If your only yardstick is the scientific method, that's correct. You
are, however, discounting personal human experience

Does that include schizophrenia? Hallucinations? Mental defects? Drug use?

Science has filters that protect it against nut-jobs. So does theology.

Our scientific model of the world is not the work of one man, but the
product of many men's thinking over many centuries. We stand, as it
were, on the shoulders of giants. When a scientist announces a finding
that would seem to overturn that model (at least in part), he has his
work cut out. Consider, for example, the initial opposition to Boris
Belousov. His work was eventually accepted, but it took a while. And
that's fair enough - we don't expect science to take account of the
views of every nut-case with a weird idea, and so when someone comes up
with a weird idea that is actually a better explanation of the world
than the current one, there is bound to be some inertia on the part of
the establishment.

Similarly, our theological model of God is not the work of one man, but
the product of many men's thinking over many centuries. Although Alice
may not be able to /convince/ bright, sceptical Bob that she has
encountered God, she is able (and often willing) at least to /describe/
that encounter to him, and so a body of public knowledge will inevitably
emerge (and has emerged) about people's personal experience of God.
Anyone who wishes to overturn that view of God, even in part, has his
work cut out. For example, if someone claims that God told them to open
fire with an AK47 on a school playground, they're going to struggle to
find any theologians prepared to be expert witnesses for the defence.

In fact, such is the nature of mankind that there have been a number of
examples of people being executed for having the temerity to present a
new view of God. These people were not executed because they were
insane, but because they were not.

--
Richard Heathfield
Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line 4 vacant - apply within

Christopher A. Lee

2016-04-14 07:53:16 UTC

On Thu, 14 Apr 2016 08:07:39 +0100, Richard Heathfield

And absolutely no reason to believe it's true.

If your only yardstick is the scientific method, that's correct. You
are, however, discounting personal human experience

Does that include schizophrenia? Hallucinations? Mental defects? Drug use?

Science has filters that protect it against nut-jobs. So does theology.

Theology is the work of religious nut-jobs, imbecile, and is utterly
irrelevant in the real world.

Richard Heathfield

2016-04-14 08:10:17 UTC

Post by Christopher A. Lee
On Thu, 14 Apr 2016 08:07:39 +0100, Richard Heathfield

And absolutely no reason to believe it's true.

If your only yardstick is the scientific method, that's correct. You
are, however, discounting personal human experience

Does that include schizophrenia? Hallucinations? Mental defects? Drug use?

Science has filters that protect it against nut-jobs. So does theology.

Theology is the work of religious nut-jobs, imbecile, and is utterly
irrelevant in the real world.

Theology can be defined as the study of the nature of God and religious
belief.

If you have studied religious belief sufficiently closely to be able to
dismiss it with authority, you yourself are a theologian, and thus *by
your own argument* you claim to be a religious nut-job. Was that your
intent? I suspect not.

And if you have not, then why should anyone pay any attention to your
insults?

You can make all the assertions you like, and you can post as many
insults as you like, but if you wish to be treated seriously you're
going to have to start coming up with some arguments. Unfortunately, to
do so in a credible way, you're going to have to know something about
religious belief, and thus you're going to have to do a little theology,
and that's going to make you (by your own argument) a religious nut-job.
Tricky one, eh?

Please bear in mind that, in alt.religion.christianity (to which this
thread has been cross-posted), your diatribes constitute trolling. When
two groups such as alt.atheism and alt.religion.christianity are both
involved in the same thread, a little give-and-take is called for on
*both* sides if the debate is to have any merit, or indeed any point.

--
Richard Heathfield
Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line 4 vacant - apply within

Kaptain Krunch

2016-04-14 10:24:38 UTC

And absolutely no reason to believe it's true.

If your only yardstick is the scientific method, that's correct. You
are, however, discounting personal human experience

Does that include schizophrenia? Hallucinations? Mental defects? Drug use?

Science has filters that protect it against nut-jobs. So does theology.
Our scientific model of the world is not the work of one man, but the
product of many men's thinking over many centuries. We stand, as it
were, on the shoulders of giants. When a scientist announces a finding
that would seem to overturn that model (at least in part), he has his
work cut out. Consider, for example, the initial opposition to Boris
Belousov. His work was eventually accepted, but it took a while. And
that's fair enough - we don't expect science to take account of the
views of every nut-case with a weird idea, and so when someone comes up
with a weird idea that is actually a better explanation of the world
than the current one, there is bound to be some inertia on the part of
the establishment.
Similarly, our theological model of God is not the work of one man, but
the product of many men's thinking over many centuries. Although Alice
may not be able to /convince/ bright, sceptical Bob that she has
encountered God, she is able (and often willing) at least to /describe/
that encounter to him, and so a body of public knowledge will inevitably
emerge (and has emerged) about people's personal experience of God.
Anyone who wishes to overturn that view of God, even in part, has his
work cut out. For example, if someone claims that God told them to open
fire with an AK47 on a school playground, they're going to struggle to
find any theologians prepared to be expert witnesses for the defence.
In fact, such is the nature of mankind that there have been a number of
examples of people being executed for having the temerity to present a
new view of God. These people were not executed because they were
insane, but because they were not.

REASONABLE VIEW -EASY TO ACCEPT

--
http://www.olypen.com/gerrit/index.php

Christopher A. Lee

2016-04-14 07:35:25 UTC

Idiot.

Provide some kind of real world evidence for your hypothetical God, or
have the commonsense and courtesy not to talk outside your religion
as if it as if it were as "real" for everybody else as it is for you.

Post by Jeanne Douglas
And absolutely no reason to believe it's true.

If your only yardstick is the scientific method, that's correct. You
are, however, discounting personal human experience

What are these other yardsticks, imbecile?

Post by Olrik
Does that include schizophrenia? Hallucinations? Mental defects? Drug use?

These transparently dishonest idiots glibly claim alternative methods
of acquiring knowledge, but they never explain how they work, let
alone that they have any validity - while they reject the only one
proven to work.

So provide this evidence instead of just waffling.

Explain why it is evidence and defend it as such.

Instead of copping out.

Post by Richard Heathfield
If you seek proof, you will always be disappointed. Nothing in theology
or science can be proved.

Dishonest analogy.

Science is objective, and its explanations validated. While there is
always room for more knowledge. a scientific fact is something that
has had so much verification that it is perverse to withhold assent.

While theology is utterly worthless in the real world, and is merely
mental masturbation about baseless fantasies,

Post by Richard Heathfield
Only mathematicians have the luxury of proof,
and even mathematics has its problems in that regard. Firstly, to be
useful, a formal system must have a number of axioms, which users of
that system have to take on faith. Secondly, Goedel showed that any
formal system sufficiently powerful to be useful must, perforce, be
either incomplete (some true things cannot be proved, and/or some false
things cannot be disproved) or inconsistent (some things can be proved
both true and false) or both.

Idiot. That is irrelevant because the real world isn't a formal
system, and you don't have to take anything that is validated by
reality, on trust.

Post by Richard Heathfield
So we can't rely 100% on mathematics. And we can't rely 100% on science,
either, because science relies to a large extent on reproducibility, and

No, moron. It relies of confirmation by reality.

Its explanations are the result of objective research, and tested
against the real world - not plucked out of somebody's arse like your
religion's baseless claims.

Post by Richard Heathfield
true reproducibility is impossible, so science has to make do with a
reasonable approximation to reproducibility.

Get an education and stop making such a complete ass of yourself.

Post by Richard Heathfield
I have plenty of reasons for my beliefs, and those reasons are

The usual one is childhood brainwashing.

What theists claim are reasons are actually rationalisations for what
they already believe.

Post by Richard Heathfield
sufficient to convince me, but they would not be sufficient to convince

You were already convinced, and interpreted things you don't attempt
to justify, in terms of your existing beliefs

Post by Richard Heathfield
you. Similarly, you have plenty of reasons for /your/ beliefs, and those

What "our beliefs", imbecile?

Post by Richard Heathfield
reasons are sufficient to convince /you/, but they would not be

Idiot.

Post by Richard Heathfield
sufficient to convince /me/. This is the very essence of personal

Because you reject the world of reality.

Post by Richard Heathfield
experience - it's, uh, personal.

Idiot.

Richard Heathfield

2016-04-14 07:47:00 UTC

Idiot.

That's an assertion, not an argument. In fact, the whole of your article
appeared to consist of insults and assertions instead of arguments. If
that's the best you can do, please move over and make room for people
who understand debate. Thank you.

--
Richard Heathfield
Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line 4 vacant - apply within

Christopher A. Lee

2016-04-14 08:00:58 UTC

On Thu, 14 Apr 2016 08:47:00 +0100, Richard Heathfield

Idiot.

WHAT FUCKING GOD, IN THE REAL WORLD OUTSIDE YOUR RELIGION?

You idiots rudely and stupidly presume it where you know it's not
substantively different from humdreds of other deity beliefs.

Every time you do this, you beg the question which wouldn't get asked
if you had kept it inside your religion.

And which you dishonestly cop out of answering by bullshitting about
other ways to acquire knowledge - which you never explain, let alone
show that they have any validity.

Post by Richard Heathfield
That's an assertion, not an argument. In fact, the whole of your article
appeared to consist of insults and assertions instead of arguments. If
that's the best you can do, please move over and make room for people
who understand debate. Thank you.

No, liar - it's an observation.

If you don't like being treated as a dihonest idiot, at least try to
show some honesty and intelligence.

You certainly don't understand debate, nor is there actually anything
to debate until you can back up your nonsense in the real world.

But thank you for admitting you can't respond to the rebuttal and
refutation of your nonsense.

Richard Heathfield

2016-04-14 08:18:50 UTC

Post by Christopher A. Lee
On Thu, 14 Apr 2016 08:47:00 +0100, Richard Heathfield

Idiot.

WHAT FUCKING GOD, IN THE REAL WORLD OUTSIDE YOUR RELIGION?

You can shout and swear if you choose, but I am under no obligation to
treat your shouting and swearing seriously. If you wanted to debate, you
would have started doing so by now.

If other subscribers (whether in sci.skeptic, alt.atheism, or even here
in alt.religion.christianity) wish to continue the discussion, I am very
willing to do so too, but I see no value in carrying on a debate with
someone who shouts and swears instead of arguing.

<snip>

--
Richard Heathfield
Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line 4 vacant - apply within

Bob Officer

2016-04-13 19:22:40 UTC

Post by Bob Officer
The idiot believes using scripture to prove scripture is a valid method of
argument.

Fair comment. It is simply not possible to prove to another person
either that God exists or that God does not exist. God's existence is
unfalsifiable.

But claims which are made without evidence or valid observation s are and
should be be dismissible as being ridiculous.

Claims which require faith, rather than evidence or data are ridiculous.
There those claims are dismissible.

Post by Richard Heathfield
For the benefit of those who may not know that term, for a theory to
count as 'scientific', it must be possible to devise an experiment that
is capable of proving the theory false. Even the most scientifically
illiterate fundamentalist will, I think, agree that it is not possible
to devise an experiment to prove the /non/-existence of God; and,
because of this very fact, we must draw a clear distinction between
scientific reasoning and theological reasoning.
We should not, however, make the mistake of thinking that because the
idea of God is unscientific it is therefore wrong. The only reason it's
unscientific is because we have no way to prove it's wrong!

Actually, you are wrong.

There is no reasoning for any god.

Post by Richard Heathfield
Rather, the wise man will simply accept that theological reasoning is a
different species to scientific reasoning. But, again, that doesn't mean
that theological reasoning is without merit. The rules of logic apply
just as rigorously in theology as they do in science. One simply starts
from a different place, that's all. In theology, it's okay to take God's
existence as axiomatic. In science, it isn't.
Once this important distinction is understood, it becomes clear that
scientists who argue against God's existence are wrong-headed and
foolish - just as wrong-headed and foolish, in fact, as those
non-scientists who argue /for/ God's existence.
Those who have personally experienced the grace and mercy of God know
perfectly well that He exists, but that kind of experience has no place
in a rigorous scientific argument. It cannot be repeated at will, its
essence cannot be communicated to others, it cannot be demonstrated to
be genuine, and it cannot be demonstrated to be false.
Likewise, scripture cannot be proved or disproved. The best one can do
with it, scientifically, is to try to establish whether the historical
aspect of scripture fits in with the currently understood model of the
universe. Very often, it doesn't.

The entirety of the Old Testament is shown to be false.

The fables of the New Testament and it construction and editing are fairly
well documented.

The claim made by scripture are constructs were made in after 125CE and
most likely about 160CE.

--
God is an imaginary being created by primitive man to explain things he
simply didn't have the ability to understand.

Richard Heathfield

2016-04-13 20:46:06 UTC

Post by Bob Officer
The idiot believes using scripture to prove scripture is a valid method of
argument.

Fair comment. It is simply not possible to prove to another person
either that God exists or that God does not exist. God's existence is
unfalsifiable.

But claims which are made without evidence or valid observation s are and
should be be dismissible as being ridiculous.

I've just had a great idea for a song. That's a claim. I have offered no
evidence to support it, and nobody can make any objective observation
about its truth or falsity. Does that make the claim ridiculous? No. It
might be incorrect, but it's not inherently laughable. I conclude that
your statement is too general in nature, and cannot reasonably be
advanced as part of an intelligent, coherent, and sound argument.

But in any case, a /claim/ is an attempt to convince, and a wise person
will be sceptical of any claim that is not supported by good evidence.

If Alice has a personal experience of God, it is reasonable for her to
deduce that God exists; but she has no way to communicate that personal
experience to Bob. She cannot lead him to experience what she
experienced. God is not reproducible. And so it would be foolish of Bob
to believe Alice. He will never believe in God until/unless he has a
personal experience of God (and is willing to recognise it if/when it
comes).

So, in a sense, you're right - a claim (an attempt to convince others)
that God exists is logically futile, because the claim cannot be tested.
But, similarly, a claim (an attempt to convince others) that God does
/not/ exist is /also/ logically futile, for the same reason.

Post by Bob Officer
Claims which require faith, rather than evidence or data are ridiculous.

What about claims which require faith /as well as/ evidence or data?
Such as, for example, the claim that F=ma? You need a lot of faith for
that. Do you have faith that F=ma? Or perhaps you don't believe that
F=ma. I don't know.

Post by Bob Officer
There those claims are dismissible.

Any claim is dismissable, so you are trivially correct.

Actually, you are wrong.

That's an interesting reply. Perhaps you'd care to explain why I'm wrong.

Post by Bob Officer
There is no reasoning for any god.

That's an assertion, not an argument.

Post by Richard Heathfield
Likewise, scripture cannot be proved or disproved. The best one can do
with it, scientifically, is to try to establish whether the historical
aspect of scripture fits in with the currently understood model of the
universe. Very often, it doesn't.

The entirety of the Old Testament is shown to be false.

What makes you think so?

Post by Bob Officer
The fables of the New Testament and it construction and editing are fairly
well documented.

What makes you think so?

Post by Bob Officer
The claim made by scripture are constructs were made in after 125CE and
most likely about 160CE.

What makes you think so?

--
Richard Heathfield
Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line 4 vacant - apply within

b***@m.nu

2016-04-14 18:39:13 UTC

On Wed, 13 Apr 2016 19:22:40 +0000 (UTC), Bob Officer

Post by Bob Officer
The idiot believes using scripture to prove scripture is a valid method of
argument.

Fair comment. It is simply not possible to prove to another person
either that God exists or that God does not exist. God's existence is
unfalsifiable.

that is not the correct statement. gods existence is not falsified
which shows that it can not exist.

Post by Bob Officer
But claims which are made without evidence or valid observation s are and
should be be dismissible as being ridiculous.

They are except by theists. because they are mentally ill and believe
in fairies

Post by Bob Officer
Claims which require faith, rather than evidence or data are ridiculous.
There those claims are dismissible.

Hence the menally ill part in the previous statement

yes but get your terminology correct and your prefixes. The prefix un
is expressed with the meaning of opposite, thus giving the meaning of
you statement totally different than what you intended

the reason god is not or cant be explained through science is because
it is a freakin fantasy, that would be like trying to explain frodo
through science

Post by Bob Officer
Actually, you are wrong.
There is no reasoning for any god.

well that is not entirely accurate

When you get a bunch of uneducated people in a room who have a fear of
pretty much everything then words like god get thrown around alot

Post by Richard Heathfield
Rather, the wise man will simply accept that theological reasoning is a
different species to scientific reasoning. But, again, that doesn't mean

I dont consider anyone wise if they support the existence of a god

Post by Richard Heathfield
that theological reasoning is without merit. The rules of logic apply
just as rigorously in theology as they do in science. One simply starts
from a different place, that's all. In theology, it's okay to take God's
existence as axiomatic. In science, it isn't.

God is NOT a theoy it is fantasy, totally different ball of wax.

Post by Richard Heathfield
Once this important distinction is understood, it becomes clear that
scientists who argue against God's existence are wrong-headed and
foolish - just as wrong-headed and foolish, in fact, as those
non-scientists who argue /for/ God's existence.
Those who have personally experienced the grace and mercy of God know
perfectly well that He exists, but that kind of experience has no place
in a rigorous scientific argument. It cannot be repeated at will, its
essence cannot be communicated to others, it cannot be demonstrated to
be genuine, and it cannot be demonstrated to be false.
Likewise, scripture cannot be proved or disproved. The best one can do
with it, scientifically, is to try to establish whether the historical
aspect of scripture fits in with the currently understood model of the
universe. Very often, it doesn't.

The entirety of the Old Testament is shown to be false.

even the pope will and does agree with that one

Post by Bob Officer
The fables of the New Testament and it construction and editing are fairly
well documented.
The claim made by scripture are constructs were made in after 125CE and
most likely about 160CE.

Richard Heathfield

2016-04-14 20:55:54 UTC

Post by b***@m.nu
On Wed, 13 Apr 2016 19:22:40 +0000 (UTC), Bob Officer

Post by Bob Officer
The idiot believes using scripture to prove scripture is a valid method of
argument.

Fair comment. It is simply not possible to prove to another person
either that God exists or that God does not exist. God's existence is
unfalsifiable.

that is not the correct statement. gods existence is not falsified
which shows that it can not exist.

Can you really not see the self-contradictory nature of that claim?

--
Richard Heathfield
Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line 4 vacant - apply within

b***@m.nu

2016-04-15 00:14:22 UTC

On Thu, 14 Apr 2016 21:55:54 +0100, Richard Heathfield

Post by b***@m.nu
On Wed, 13 Apr 2016 19:22:40 +0000 (UTC), Bob Officer

Post by Bob Officer
The idiot believes using scripture to prove scripture is a valid method of
argument.

Fair comment. It is simply not possible to prove to another person
either that God exists or that God does not exist. God's existence is
unfalsifiable.

that is not the correct statement. gods existence is not falsified
which shows that it can not exist.

I meant to say a god CAN NOT be falsified so therefore it does not
exist.

Post by Richard Heathfield
Can you really not see the self-contradictory nature of that claim?

Bob Officer

2016-04-15 05:52:48 UTC

Post by b***@m.nu
On Wed, 13 Apr 2016 19:22:40 +0000 (UTC), Bob Officer

Post by Bob Officer
The idiot believes using scripture to prove scripture is a valid method of
argument.

Fair comment. It is simply not possible to prove to another person
either that God exists or that God does not exist. God's existence is
unfalsifiable.

that is not the correct statement. gods existence is not falsified
which shows that it can not exist.

Post by Bob Officer
But claims which are made without evidence or valid observation s are and
should be be dismissible as being ridiculous.

They are except by theists. because they are mentally ill and believe
in fairies

Post by Bob Officer
Claims which require faith, rather than evidence or data are ridiculous.
There those claims are dismissible.

Hence the menally ill part in the previous statement

They are unable to fathom a person without a need for a belief.

yes but get your terminology correct and your prefixes. The prefix un
is expressed with the meaning of opposite, thus giving the meaning of
you statement totally different than what you intended

There is no such thing as theological reasoning, if logic was involved,
there would be no theo prefixing the word logical. Theo-logical is like
military intelligence. Oxymoronic.

the reason god is not or cant be explained through science is because
it is a freakin fantasy, that would be like trying to explain frodo
through science

Or any other fantasy work of fiction.

Post by Bob Officer
Actually, you are wrong.
There is no reasoning for any god.

well that is not entirely accurate
When you get a bunch of uneducated people in a room who have a fear of
pretty much everything then words like god get thrown around a lot

Religion uses fear to make itself necessary. Fear of dying is the principle
fear they use. Also the fear of being different is often used among tribal
groups. All religion is a tool to control the masses.

Post by Richard Heathfield
Rather, the wise man will simply accept that theological reasoning is a
different species to scientific reasoning. But, again, that doesn't mean

I dont consider anyone wise if they support the existence of a god

Reasoning along would cause a rejection of religion.

God is NOT a theoy it is fantasy, totally different ball of wax.

Exactly.