Metro Jacksonville

I have noticed lately that the Mathews Bridge is closed on Sundays.  These closures tie up traffic on University Boulevard during the time that folks are going to church.  You should see the mess that happens in the afternoon when Atlantic Boulevard is backed up from University Boulevard almost going back to Art Museum Drive. 
If First Baptist and other churches truly ran the city and its workings, would they not have demanded that the Mathews Bridge stay open on Sundays?  With the addition of other congregants from other churches commuting into town from the suburbs, one would think that there is a better way to move traffic for those who really don't need another excuse not to go to Sunday morning worship services.   ;)

My observation is that many in Jax have a perception of FBC that exceeds actual reality.

Yes, so they have a couple of people in authority in city government, has it abused at times? sure. But there has been other abuses in COJ by people that have nothing to do with FBC.

"Power" is relative in this case and when it comes to most of the comings and goings of greater NE Florida, their role is relatively minor.

Being that they own a significant portion of real estate in central COJ, it would be unusual if they didn't have an opinion on things, but compared to their actions, I would perceive they don't utilize it to the fullest.

More of a bogeyman than an actual threat.

True dat.  I am still stewing over Mathews Bridge closures on Sunday...

Funny you should point this out. I travel to Arlington both Saturday and Sunday almost every weekend, and 99% of the time the Mathews is open Sunday but not Saturday. I think that the schedule has been switched a little over the past two weeks because of the Monster Truck rally keeping it open last Saturday, but that's just my speculation.

actually, yes they are powerful....FBC asked the City to negotiate with FDOT to make sure the bridge was open on most Sundays

Quote from: tufsu1 on March 03, 2013, 10:46:55 PM
actually, yes they are powerful....FBC asked the City to negotiate with FDOT to make sure the bridge was open on most Sundays

So what! Why do so many people pick on the First Baptist Church! Lets not forget about the history that FBC has brought to Jacksonville Florida not all great but "let he who is without sin, cast the first stone." Let's not forget we all have the right to Freedom of Religion. :)

My aunt's neighbor's are FBC and are moving to Tupelo, Mississippi at the end of this month because Jacksonville is 'getting too big-city liberal.' Gays, Jews, Asians, uppity college kids, Indians, global warming, etc. blah blah blah.

Awesome. Good riddance!

FBC in the urban core is sorta like having a 500 pound nice guy stuck in the back seat of a cab with two 160 pounders on a long trip, so that there is no freedom to move.... you have to scrunch up.  Would be nice if the fellow weighed only 180 pounds, and even better, if he took another cab.  Of course, the two light fellows could take another cab too.  That's probably happened in the past.

"Chuck Norris can speak Braille."

FBC.... A Chamblin Perspective.

I see a historical novel in there somewhere.

Thanks BH.  Most things I say are from my perspective, and what I say regarding FBC is usually opposite to most other's perspectives.  It still confounds me as to how can so many other people can be wrong?  As we know, the majority in any population must be right. 

But... yes, although a historical novel is possible, I like the idea of writing a contemporary drama... which I'm currently working on.  It is set in downtown Jax. 

"Chuck Norris can slam a revolving door."   

Every great city has churches in them. To say that the reason Downtown Jacksonville Florida isn't working well is because FBC shouldn't be downtown is poppycock! The nonbelievers that hate FBC or God in general are humans without a soul. And I would rather be "wrong" in an atheist/narcissist mind then in God's eye.

^^If I loved you, I have that said that many times. Given examples, but some just don't care, its all about hating the church or God. I really have just given up on commenting over the nasty comments about the church and/or its members.

Quote from: fsujax on March 04, 2013, 11:15:16 AM
^^If I loved you, I have that said that many times. Given examples, but some just don't care, its all about hating the church or God. I really have just given up on commenting over the nasty comments about the church and/or its members.

fsujax remember your faith and pray for the ones without faith because they are the ones that are truly lost. ;)

But of course, the comments about the church or any kind of god is not about hate, it is about independence, honesty, and ultimately the truth of the matter, which should come to light for most humans in a few hundred years.  Some of us are simply ahead of the game, attempting to offer early enlightenment to those in need of it.

Furthermore, it is about our concern for mankind, for those who waste a lifetime preparing for an illusionary afterlife, when they should give good attention to, and enjoy, this life, the only one they will ever have.  It is about our concern for the lives and suffering of the many thousands who become victims in conflicts born of absurd religious beliefs, which are all based on fictions created by men who's minds soar to the heights of a nonexistent heavens and to the depths of a nonexistent hell.   

"Chuck Norris cleans the wax out of his ears with a shotgun."

Ron, you are a very smart man but please don't condescend to others with the "Some of us are ahead of the game".  Intellect and ego can be their own God's.  ;)

So the reason the atheist among us don't hate God is because they don't believe in his existence. But this is only their personal belief. As it is mine that God is real and is with me each and everyday.  

Quote from: If_I_Loved_you on March 04, 2013, 12:46:50 PM
So the reason the atheist among us don't hate God is because they don't believe in his existence. But this is only their personal belief. As it is mine that God is real and is with me each and everyday.  

This is the flip side of Ron's comment.  This should not be about whose beliefs are accurate but rather about respecting those with views different than our own.  That does not make them less than us in any way.  :)

So as a Christian, here's how I would answer you, Ron.  Those who act badly in the name of their religion would find a reason to act badly if there were no religion.  They are using their religion as an excuse to act badly.  That goes for badly behaving Christians, Muslims, Buddists, Hindus, etc, etc.

Jesus tells believers He came so we could have abundant life. Therefore, I do enjoy this life. Since I came close to losing it recently in an adverse medication reaction, I enjoy it even more than I did before.  That said, I live this abundant life with hope for heaven.

Now, I don't believe I'm wrong, but suppose I am.  OK, then, I'll never know it.  If you are wrong, you may be in for a big surprise.  :-) 

Quote from: Debbie Thompson on March 04, 2013, 12:50:53 PM
So as a Christian, here's how I would answer you, Ron.  Those who act badly in the name of their religion would find a reason to act badly if there were no religion.  They are using their religion as an excuse to act badly.  That goes for badly behaving Christians, Muslims, Buddists, Hindus, etc, etc.

Jesus tells believers He came so we could have abundant life. Therefore, I do enjoy this life. Since I came close to losing it recently in an adverse medication reaction, I enjoy it even more than I did before.  That said, I live this abundant life with hope for heaven.

Now, I don't believe I'm wrong, but suppose I am.  OK, then, I'll never know it.  If you are wrong, you may be in for a big surprise.  :-)

Amen!

Quote from: Cheshire Cat on March 04, 2013, 12:49:13 PM

Quote from: If_I_Loved_you on March 04, 2013, 12:46:50 PM
So the reason the atheist among us don't hate God is because they don't believe in his existence. But this is only their personal belief. As it is mine that God is real and is with me each and everyday.  

This is the flip side of Ron's comment.  This should not be about whose beliefs are accurate but rather about respecting those with views different than our own.  That does not make them less than us in any way.  :)

;)

Agree, Stephen....money, power, and in modern times, oil.  Wars are fought, millions die.  Not what God intended for His creation.  It's not money itself that's bad, but the love of money..."For the love of money is the root of all evil..."  (1st Timothy)  We are told to give of our first fruits...literally wheat from our fields and olives from our trees.  The modern equivalent is money, what we do to get it, and what we do with what it once we do.  :-) 

Quote from: Cheshire Cat on March 04, 2013, 12:49:13 PM

Quote from: If_I_Loved_you on March 04, 2013, 12:46:50 PM
So the reason the atheist among us don't hate God is because they don't believe in his existence. But this is only their personal belief. As it is mine that God is real and is with me each and everyday.  

This is the flip side of Ron's comment.  This should not be about whose beliefs are accurate but rather about respecting those with views different than our own.  That does not make them less than us in any way.  :)

Not believing in god is not the same as belief in god. They are not two sides of the same coin. One requires "faith" in something that has no evidence of its existence. The other simply requires you to go on the existing evidence.

Quote from: stephendare on March 04, 2013, 01:38:03 PM

Quote from: Adam W on March 04, 2013, 01:33:18 PM

Quote from: Cheshire Cat on March 04, 2013, 12:49:13 PM

Quote from: If_I_Loved_you on March 04, 2013, 12:46:50 PM
So the reason the atheist among us don't hate God is because they don't believe in his existence. But this is only their personal belief. As it is mine that God is real and is with me each and everyday.  

This is the flip side of Ron's comment.  This should not be about whose beliefs are accurate but rather about respecting those with views different than our own.  That does not make them less than us in any way.  :)

Not believing in god is not the same as belief in god. They are not two sides of the same coin. One requires "faith" in something that has no evidence of its existence. The other simply requires you to go on the existing evidence.

Adam you are such an intelligent person, it always pains me that you can say things with this little thought put into them.

Our consciousness and our imagination are themselves evidence of something greater than what is provable.

Your premise is just a flat syllogism.

I take no exception to people believing in god or anything like that. I am just saying that to argue that not believing in god is an equivalent form of "belief" is logically flawed.

There may well be a god - I know there is no way of knowing that and I fully accept that I cannot prove there is not. Nor do I wish to attempt to prove there is not - I honestly don't care to do so.

And for the record, I think it's worth pointing out that not believing in god is not the same as saying you know there is no god. At least it doesn't mean that in my case. I am open to the possibility that anything is possible - but I won't accept it as plausible without some evidence first.

 May I suggest interested parties read  Ronald Knox on apologetics for a better understanding of why, as Stephen contends, the existence of evidence that God exists is far harder to deny than some might think. If nothing else, his writing is accessible, compelling, un-sensational and absolutely fascinating.

Quote from: stephendare on March 04, 2013, 02:03:57 PM

Quote from: Adam W on March 04, 2013, 01:58:31 PM

Quote from: stephendare on March 04, 2013, 01:38:03 PM

Quote from: Adam W on March 04, 2013, 01:33:18 PM

Quote from: Cheshire Cat on March 04, 2013, 12:49:13 PM

Quote from: If_I_Loved_you on March 04, 2013, 12:46:50 PM
So the reason the atheist among us don't hate God is because they don't believe in his existence. But this is only their personal belief. As it is mine that God is real and is with me each and everyday.  

This is the flip side of Ron's comment.  This should not be about whose beliefs are accurate but rather about respecting those with views different than our own.  That does not make them less than us in any way.  :)

Not believing in god is not the same as belief in god. They are not two sides of the same coin. One requires "faith" in something that has no evidence of its existence. The other simply requires you to go on the existing evidence.

Adam you are such an intelligent person, it always pains me that you can say things with this little thought put into them.

Our consciousness and our imagination are themselves evidence of something greater than what is provable.

Your premise is just a flat syllogism.

I take no exception to people believing in god or anything like that. I am just saying that to argue that not believing in god is an equivalent form of "belief" is logically flawed.

There may well be a god - I know there is no way of knowing that and I fully accept that I cannot prove there is not. Nor do I wish to attempt to prove there is not - I honestly don't care to do so.

And for the record, I think it's worth pointing out that not believing in god is not the same as saying you know there is no god. At least it doesn't mean that in my case. I am open to the possibility that anything is possible - but I won't accept it as plausible without some evidence first.

Evidence?.... like two other examples of unprovable things that have the power to move the world and universe around them?

I'm sorry Stephen, can you rephrase that? I don't follow what you mean.

Quote from: fsujax on March 04, 2013, 11:15:16 AMpray for the ones without faith because they are the ones that are truly lost. ;)

Oh please.
That's just absurd.  ::) ::)

Quote from: stephendare on March 04, 2013, 02:30:22 PM
My apologies.

I was referring to your original statement.

"One requires "faith" in something that has no evidence of its existence. The other simply requires you to go on the existing evidence."

I would consider the existence of consciousness and imagination as examples of things which cannot be proven or adequately explained yet are still 'real'.  We accept that they exist because we feel them and we can measure their effect on ourselves and the world around us.

This would make two bits of circumstantial evidence that would back up the possibility of a spiritual basis of life.

If these two are possible, then a third is possible.

So 'belief' doesnt require faith with no evidence whatsoever.

And clearly by this logic, the second part of your assertion doesnt makes sense either.

"The other simply requires you to go on the existing evidence."

If we are to accept the existence of imagination and consciousness, then we must admit that there is evidence for other unseen things and motivations and there fore would be following the already existing evidence.

There are other logically deducted examples of the irrational of course, 'infinity' and 'zero' being scientifically accepted beliefs.  But I thought I would stick to the two given as examples of unseen (and unseeable) forces that additionally have intelligence and motivation behind them.

It doesnt really matter, whether you accept this evidence as proof or not, but it unecessarily demeans the intelligence of people who do by implying that there really is no evidence at all.

Clearly there is deductive evidence even if you choose to discount any direct evidence.

Okay, thanks for clarifying.

We have evidence that imagination and consciousness exist. So I am not completely certain how you can say we cannot prove them. It may be true that our understanding of them is limited or incomplete, but that is very different than saying we have no evidence of their existence.

When it comes to the existence of a god, we have no such evidence. It simply comes down to a belief based on stories that have been passed down from others or written in books, etc. Or perhaps from individual experiences that some have chosen to ascribe to the existence of a god or gods. But certainly nothing that can be shown, using the scientific method, to be evidence of the existence of a god or gods.

Zero and infinity are two things that are absolutely provable  mathematically. They may not be rational, but they are mathematical concepts. I don't really know where you are going with that - I am not a mathematician and do not necessarily work with either concept. In a general sense, "zero" is something that is very real to me in a very rational sense - as in I have zero Oreo cookies left because I ate them all. That's not irrational at all.

When it comes to dealing with concepts like the universe, etc, I consider myself somewhat agnostic. I accept that people much more intelligent that I have made many scientific discoveries and I also understand that many of those discoveries or theories may change over time. Our view of the universe may change in my lifetime - I cannot claim to be an expert here.

People see "evidence" of god all the time in their life. But it's not really evidence of god - or more accurately, it's potentially evidence of things they can't explain but that doesn't make it evidence of god per se.

But I don't care about that. That's basically faith.... and that's one of the great things about religion. At least I think so. I suppose it's one of the difficult things, because it can lead to bad behaviors in some people.

However, my main point was that people often try to say that not believing in god is a "leap of faith" akin to the "leap of faith" required to believe in god. And that's simply not true.

Quote from: stephendare on March 04, 2013, 02:56:41 PM
We have evidence of imagination?

How so?

I'd say the entire collected works of William Shakespeare, for example, would be a pretty decent example. Or the simple fact that you can think of something that doesn't exist or picture something that isn't in the room with you or in your line of sight.

Quote from: stephendare on March 04, 2013, 02:58:32 PM
please explain how you 'prove' zero without relying on the existence of something that is not 'zero'.

I'm sorry, but I'm going to need more.

You guys are getting too complex.  The argument becomes fuzzy for my old brain.

We are comparing two entirely different things, money and religion, the former being necessary and practical in order to exchange goods and services, the latter being an imagined fiction from the minds of men, and unnecessary for the growing number of us who, being enlightened as the absurdity of it all, have no need for it. 

Whereas, with rational thinking, we can eliminate religions, as they are not necessary, we cannot eliminate money, as it is a practical thing, needed to exchange goods and services.  Money, if used in a reasonable way, and acquired without placing others in the poorhouse, is necessary and works very well in our economy.  Those who attempt to accumulate obscene amounts of it, even at the expense of destroying the economy, or placing hard working folk in the poorhouse, should be guillotined or shot, as should be the case with the certain high rollers in banking, corporate, or wall street who, not being satisfied with being worth 15 million, strive to be worth 15 billion by relentlessly, aggressively, and without conscience, monetarily rape the working folks of the lower and middle classes.  BTW, if just sentences were judged against individuals of this type, I would volunteer my trigger finger or my hand to drop the blade in order to carry out the sentences.

Our consciousness and our imaginations are the consequences of the electrochemical activity within our brains.  We can imagine all kinds of images and scenarios, and we can speak about these.  This cerebral activity is not necessarily evidence that there is something greater; that is, outside of our world, or in the existence of a god.  It only shows how well our brains have evolved so that our imaginations can roam through all kinds of possibilities.  Sure, anything is possible, even the existence of gods and fairies and unicorns.  But how probable are these possibilities?  Why do some of us have difficulty assigning reasonable probabilities to what is possible?  It seems that the people inclined to avoid critical thought about probabilities, which is a quality enhanced by one’s knowledge of the sciences, are the ones who are inclined to believe the stuff of churches and gods.  But…. all is good.  According to statistics, we are slowly making headway toward having a more non-believing, or secular, society; and this, probably because the behavior of certain individuals, and events have shown too often the absurdities of it all.

Quote from: stephendare on March 04, 2013, 03:11:58 PM
Still, this is deductive reasoning.

Its just as possible that Shakespeare's collected works are simply the unwinding of a genetic program and not really the result of any imagination on the part of the elizabethan playwrite.

The point is that you cant measure it, hold it, see it, hear it, bottle it, contain it, weigh it or even prove that any product of your personal 'imagination' isnt simply the stolen idea of someone else'e process....

We believe that is something more than simply a chemical interaction within the brain, and it is more than simply an electrical sequence of some complexity.

In order to 'prove' imagination, you have to use exactly the same kinds of arguments that are used to 'prove' religious beliefs.

Which brings us back to the point.  There is evidence.  Just because it is deductive evidence mean that it should be discounted, since we do not discount deductive evidence in the examples I mentioned.

How are we defining imagination here? Seems like this same argument could apply to personality, dreams, thought, etc. Is the assertion that 'imagination' pops things into your head that are utterly unique and have no basis in your collected experiences? Is imagination simply any imagery you perceive that is not coming from sensory input?

Zero and infinity are not "scientific beliefs." They are mathematical tools. As a descriptor of quantity, they have very intuitive definitions, but they are simply definitions to assist us in using the tool. Zero is either a integer amount/count point below 1, or it is defined arbitrarily (in the case of temperature, decibels, etc). Talking about proving "zero" exists is like trying to prove "pretty" exists. Its simply a name for an idea. Infinity just simplifies the math for us in the place of 'really large number.'

Quote from: stephendare on March 04, 2013, 03:41:47 PM

Quote from: ronchamblin on March 04, 2013, 03:38:13 PM
You guys are getting too complex.  The argument becomes fuzzy for my old brain.

We are comparing two entirely different things, money and religion, the former being necessary and practical in order to exchange goods and services, the latter being an imagined fiction from the minds of men, and unnecessary for the growing number of us who, being enlightened as the absurdity of it all, have no need for it. 

Whereas, with rational thinking, we can eliminate religions, as they are not necessary, we cannot eliminate money, as it is a practical thing, needed to exchange goods and services.  Money, if used in a reasonable way, and acquired without placing others in the poorhouse, is necessary and works very well in our economy.  Those who attempt to accumulate obscene amounts of it, even at the expense of destroying the economy, or placing hard working folk in the poorhouse, should be guillotined or shot, as should be the case with the certain high rollers in banking, corporate, or wall street who, not being satisfied with being worth 15 million, strive to be worth 15 billion by relentlessly, aggressively, and without conscience, monetarily rape the working folks of the lower and middle classes.  BTW, if just sentences were judged against individuals of this type, I would volunteer my trigger finger or my hand to drop the blade in order to carry out the sentences.

Our consciousness and our imaginations are the consequences of the electrochemical activity within our brains.  We can imagine all kinds of images and scenarios, and we can speak about these.  This cerebral activity is not necessarily evidence that there is something greater; that is, outside of our world, or in the existence of a god.  It only shows how well our brains have evolved so that our imaginations can roam through all kinds of possibilities.  Sure, anything is possible, even the existence of gods and fairies and unicorns.  But how probable are these possibilities?  Why do some of us have difficulty assigning reasonable probabilities to what is possible?  It seems that the people inclined to avoid critical thought about probabilities, which is a quality enhanced by one’s knowledge of the sciences, are the ones who are inclined to believe the stuff of churches and gods.  But…. all is good.  According to statistics, we are slowly making headway toward having a more non-believing, or secular, society; and this, probably because certain individuals and events have shown too often the absurdities of it all.

ah.  so money used in a reasonable way makes it beneficial?

well ok.

thats not the tune you were singing earlier about religion.

More folks are miserable because of money than any of the gods, goddesses or deities combined.

And a lot more people die either from a lack of it or out of competition for it.

I just think you should have the courage of your convictions Ron.  You know,....if your right eye offends you, etc.

Give up the money.  Its evil and causes suffering for millions of people.

That would put you really ahead of the game.

Again Stephen.... money is very necessary and practical for our economies. And yes, people have fought over it, but we cannot get rid of money because it is necessary for our society to function.  All we can hope for is that people gain in character so that they don't kill for money, or take by theft by whatever means.  Religions and gods are different.  We can get rid of these things in good time simply because they are not necessary for society to function.  We must accept the wars caused by money simply because money is necessary for societal function, whereas we do not have to accept the wars caused by gods and religions simply because they are not really necessary for societal function.

In other words, we can do something about the religion problem, but little about the money problem.

"Chuck Norris frequently donates blood to the Red Cross.  Just never his own." 

Quote from: stephendare on March 04, 2013, 03:41:47 PM
More folks are miserable because of money than any of the gods, goddesses or deities combined.

To Ron's point of view, this would of course be logical, since misery cannot be caused by something which does not exist.

I believe Freud would argue that a lack of sex is the only true cause of misery, in which case money would be a very strong factor in alleviating misery (oldest profession and all). The guilt brought on by most major religions, being generally anti-sexuality, would then be a leading cause of misery. James Joyce (and I) would probably have something to say about that.

^Ron, you do realize that your arguments for science are just as narrow as those for individuals with firm religious beliefs don't you?  You again speak to probabilities and understandings as you think science recognizes them while taking the great leap to state that statistics of any sort are a firm indicator of the direction humanity will ultimately take with regard to how they view themselves in this universe.  I again take issue when you speak to "enlightenment" as you see it and to what degree those who have views different from yours are themselves  "enlightened or not" using your own standard which it appears is science.   Your view that you are among the ones who have it right intellectually is simply pure ego talking and does not translate to truth, just opinion. 

There are a great many individuals well versed in the disciplines of science, including doctors and physicists who actually believe in a divine presence.  There are many more who do study all things probable according to what science has proven fact through experiment and theory and understand those rules apply to "reality and universe" as science knows it.  However our science can only measure with the tools it has so far developed as they relate to what is currently understood to be our universe.  Our understanding of what exists beyond this universe or after death cannot yet be measured, no tools exist to do so.  Even nothing is something, as is dark matter in this universe.  Science knows it is there, can prove it is,  but does not yet understand what it is. 

Your argument also discounts the value of myth and legend which is necessary to cultural evolution.  I do not care for or embrace organized religion myself for many reasons, but it does not mean I am unaware that we live a great mystery that even science has yet to understand and may never understand. 

Quote from: stephendare on March 04, 2013, 03:54:29 PM
you seem to be all over the place here.

So can you prove that 'zero' exists? or is it a scientific belief?

Not sure where you are going here.

It is not a belief, nor can you prove it. It is a definition either of a null count or some arbitrary, discrete point of measure. It is a tool, not an item whose existence can be questioned.

Where I am going: Your argument is basically that science is as faith-based as religion because "zero" and "infinity" have not been 'proven' to your liking. What does that even mean?
I equated this position to saying that "pretty" has not been proven because, while you can say it, it doesn't make sense.

Regardless, zero and infinity have nothing to do with whether or not there is evidence of deities.

Also, First Baptist Church discussion...

Quote from: stephendare on March 04, 2013, 04:07:41 PM
Well if they dont exist then they cause no harm whatsoever.

Which would remove the underpinning of his argument.

Why? His argument was about religion, not deities.

I'm overwhelmed.  I'm going to become a member of the First Baptist Church.  And I'm going to close both stores and live on my little social security check.  Thanks all for getting me on the right track.

"Chuck Norris once got 100 percent on a calculus exam by writing violence for every question.  Chuck Norris solves all problems with violence." 

(http://www.indexmundi.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/world-of-religions.jpg)

This appears to have turned into a discussion about religion rather than abuse of power and the concentration thereof in FBC. I'll just mention FBCJaxWatchdog as the most recent egregious example.

Quote from: stephendare on March 04, 2013, 03:11:58 PM

Quote from: Adam W on March 04, 2013, 03:03:32 PM

Quote from: stephendare on March 04, 2013, 02:56:41 PM
We have evidence of imagination?

How so?

I'd say the entire collected works of William Shakespeare, for example, would be a pretty decent example. Or the simple fact that you can think of something that doesn't exist or picture something that isn't in the room with you or in your line of sight.

Still, this is deductive reasoning.

Its just as possible that Shakespeare's collected works are simply the unwinding of a genetic program and not really the result of any imagination on the part of the elizabethan playwrite.

The point is that you cant measure it, hold it, see it, hear it, bottle it, contain it, weigh it or even prove that any product of your personal 'imagination' isnt simply the stolen idea of someone else'e process....

We believe that is something more than simply a chemical interaction within the brain, and it is more than simply an electrical sequence of some complexity.

In order to 'prove' imagination, you have to use exactly the same kinds of arguments that are used to 'prove' religious beliefs.

Which brings us back to the point.  There is evidence.  Just because it is deductive evidence mean that it should be discounted, since we do not discount deductive evidence in the examples I mentioned.

It's still imagination, though. We may not know the mechanism by which it works, but we are observing a process and attempting to understand it. It is something we can measure and work to figure out - we can test it. We know it exists and we can try to get to the bottom of it.

That's actually the exact opposite of a god. When it comes to a god, we don't have anything. People see things (things they call "evidence") and ascribe their existence to a god. But there is nothing that can link this evidence to a god - no evidence, so to speak.

So the analogy you offer is flawed. If we had something we actually knew existed - and we called it "god" - and we were trying to get to the bottom of how it worked and what it consisted of, etc. then it would be a similar situation.

But we don't have anything. We have people telling stories or chalking things up to a higher power, etc - that's why we talk in terms of "faith" when we talk about religion. There is no need to talk about faith when you talk about imagination, because we know it exists. It may all be hardwired into our brains or it may be something we get from our ancestors or it may even be something we get from god - or viruses or whatever. But we know it happens. We have proof that people imagine, even if we aren't 100% certain of how it is happening.

We can test it. We can study it. And I bet we're learning more and more about it every year.

Quote from: stephendare on March 04, 2013, 04:57:58 PM

Quote from: andyfk on March 04, 2013, 04:56:27 PM
This appears to have turned into a discussion about religion rather than abuse of power and the concentration thereof in FBC. I'll just mention FBCJaxWatchdog as the most recent egregious example.

what would you mention about that, andy?

http://fbcjaxwatchdog.blogspot.com/2009/03/readers-in-this-post-im-simply-going-to.html (http://fbcjaxwatchdog.blogspot.com/2009/03/readers-in-this-post-im-simply-going-to.html)

Quote from: andyfk on March 04, 2013, 05:08:42 PM

Quote from: stephendare on March 04, 2013, 04:57:58 PM

Quote from: andyfk on March 04, 2013, 04:56:27 PM
This appears to have turned into a discussion about religion rather than abuse of power and the concentration thereof in FBC. I'll just mention FBCJaxWatchdog as the most recent egregious example.

what would you mention about that, andy?

http://fbcjaxwatchdog.blogspot.com/2009/03/readers-in-this-post-im-simply-going-to.html (http://fbcjaxwatchdog.blogspot.com/2009/03/readers-in-this-post-im-simply-going-to.html)

^Oh yeah - I remember that. What ever happened?

Perhaps we spend too much time worrying about FBC agenda than pushing our own agendas for downtown.

Quote from: Adam W on March 04, 2013, 05:10:04 PM

Quote from: andyfk on March 04, 2013, 05:08:42 PM

Quote from: stephendare on March 04, 2013, 04:57:58 PM

Quote from: andyfk on March 04, 2013, 04:56:27 PM
This appears to have turned into a discussion about religion rather than abuse of power and the concentration thereof in FBC. I'll just mention FBCJaxWatchdog as the most recent egregious example.

what would you mention about that, andy?

http://fbcjaxwatchdog.blogspot.com/2009/03/readers-in-this-post-im-simply-going-to.html (http://fbcjaxwatchdog.blogspot.com/2009/03/readers-in-this-post-im-simply-going-to.html)

^Oh yeah - I remember that. What ever happened?

It was settled confidentially, I believe part of the agreement was that no one can discuss the terms.  It is somewhere on the blog. 

IMO most normal people would simply find another church to attend instead of spending time attacking its pastor and staff in a blog when they didn't like what the church was doing (i.e. starting a school, starting a satellite campus).

Quote from: stephendare on March 04, 2013, 05:14:59 PM

Quote from: Adam W on March 04, 2013, 05:10:04 PM

Quote from: andyfk on March 04, 2013, 05:08:42 PM

Quote from: stephendare on March 04, 2013, 04:57:58 PM

Quote from: andyfk on March 04, 2013, 04:56:27 PM
This appears to have turned into a discussion about religion rather than abuse of power and the concentration thereof in FBC. I'll just mention FBCJaxWatchdog as the most recent egregious example.

what would you mention about that, andy?

http://fbcjaxwatchdog.blogspot.com/2009/03/readers-in-this-post-im-simply-going-to.html (http://fbcjaxwatchdog.blogspot.com/2009/03/readers-in-this-post-im-simply-going-to.html)

^Oh yeah - I remember that. What ever happened?

invasion of privacy etc.

The thing about it though is that the first baptist blogger is a Jerry Vines (who announced nationally that "Muhammed was a demon posessed pedophile") partisan, and thinks that the current pastorship is too liberal.

Im not sure most here would like to see the church becoming more far right wing and xenophobic.  But whatever floats your boat.

That's crazy (that the blogger was pro-Vines). I remember this getting a bit of press, but it kind of disappeared. But then again, it was a number of years ago, so it's hardly surprising that it's not really making headlines anymore.

Quote from: stephendare on March 04, 2013, 04:30:48 PM

Quote from: PeeJayEss on March 04, 2013, 04:18:31 PM

Quote from: stephendare on March 04, 2013, 04:07:41 PM
Well if they dont exist then they cause no harm whatsoever.

Which would remove the underpinning of his argument.

Why? His argument was about religion, not deities.

oh,  so you were just deliberately sidetracking when you conflated the two? ;)

lol.

Know thyself:

Quote from: stephendare on March 04, 2013, 03:41:47 PM
thats not the tune you were singing earlier about religion.

More folks are miserable because of money than any of the gods, goddesses or deities combined.

Quote from: edjax on March 04, 2013, 05:11:09 PM
Perhaps we spend too much time worrying about FBC agenda than pushing our own agendas for downtown.

The attention to FCB I believe is largely due to it's location, it's members in local politics and to some degree their pastor.

I have many friends who attend FCB church.  I never discuss religion with them and with good reason.  I enjoy their friendship.  For many of them it is not just about the religious teaching but is also about their church community which is quite active.  FCB is no different than many other church communities in that way except perhaps in membership, which is substantial .  I should say that none of my FCB friends have ever invited me to their church.  They knew it was not in any way a fit for me.   I respect that and my personal beliefs have not been a barrier to friendship in their view either. 

The problem in my view comes when some in politics locally allow their personal religious beliefs, largely driven home by pastor Mac Brunson to flow over into our local politics.  Make no mistake that Brunson is brutal in his views of Muslims and Gays and quite restricted in his views of evolution.  I have watched him a couple of times in his television broadcasts and the vigor with which he supports his interpretation of biblical text leaves no room for doubt that he thinks his way is the right way and he is determined, as are most pastors, to win his followers over to his interpretation.  The reality is that many of his followers don't buy all that he says, but have learned as did the fellow who blogged about him once, that to cross the pastor is to create sizable backlash.  Many followers do not want to give up their social church community and accept the words of Brunson without "openly" questioning what he professes.  It is the safe thing to do.  lol

FCB church "does" have influence in local politics and being part of their church helps "some" politically. FCB has and does lobby for and against certain issues downtown and when determined, like in the case of Ahmed or the GLBT community will not back down from pushing their beliefs upon the entire community.

If a politician want's to show how conservative they are, an alliance with FCB will do that for them and is a good choice simply because of it's size, location and vast membership.  I remember a conversation I heard Ray Holt have with another council person who was asking Ray why he left his old church to join First Baptist.  His answer was "for political reasons".  Am I suggesting that all the politicians who go there do so because of politics?  Not at all, though most recognize the allegiance as a positive in conservative Republican circles. 

In some ways we now see greater influence on the office of Mayor under Alvin Brown who is best friends with his pastor Rhim and makes no bones about that fact.  Brown is also known to open a speech or two with "God is Good" and the quoting of psalms. 

Religion does have a visible influence on public politics locally and that is not a good thing in my opinion.  I have no argument with anyone's personal beliefs or religion unless they try to force their belief systems upon others.  They, like me are free to believe as they like personally but cannot and in many cases do not represent their entire community through their personal secular views.

http://www.fbcjax.com/

I don't think it's about conversion and I can hardly imagine you being anti gay Stephen.  lol  Don't know much about the pastor before Brunson, save the commercials he aired with his wife talking about sex.  Those were something to be beheld.  As I said, each to their own with regard to personal beliefs.  Now about that political help Stephen, I think you may have to ask for it.  :)   

Quote from: stephendare on March 04, 2013, 05:14:59 PM

Quote from: Adam W on March 04, 2013, 05:10:04 PM

Quote from: andyfk on March 04, 2013, 05:08:42 PM

Quote from: stephendare on March 04, 2013, 04:57:58 PM

Quote from: andyfk on March 04, 2013, 04:56:27 PM
This appears to have turned into a discussion about religion rather than abuse of power and the concentration thereof in FBC. I'll just mention FBCJaxWatchdog as the most recent egregious example.

what would you mention about that, andy?

http://fbcjaxwatchdog.blogspot.com/2009/03/readers-in-this-post-im-simply-going-to.html (http://fbcjaxwatchdog.blogspot.com/2009/03/readers-in-this-post-im-simply-going-to.html)

^Oh yeah - I remember that. What ever happened?

invasion of privacy etc.

The thing about it though is that the first baptist blogger is a Jerry Vines (who announced nationally that "Muhammed was a demon posessed pedophile") partisan, and thinks that the current pastorship is too liberal.

Im not sure most here would like to see the church becoming more far right wing and xenophobic.  But whatever floats your boat.

i could care less about what he believes. the whole lot are loons. fbc isn't going to become the open-arm love machine they claim to be, anonymous criticism or not.
my point in bringing up the blogger is the means by which they found out who he was. they had a member of the pastor's security detail (a police officer) subpoena google (as a police officer) as part of a bogus investigation, discover his identity, close the investigation, and trespass him from the church. even worse is the lightness with which it was treated.

Quote from: andyfk on March 04, 2013, 08:02:36 PM

i could care less about what he believes. the whole lot are loons. fbc isn't going to become the open-arm love machine they claim to be, anonymous criticism or not.
my point in bringing up the blogger is the means by which they found out who he was. they had a member of the pastor's security detail (a police officer) subpoena google (as a police officer) as part of a bogus investigation, discover his identity, close the investigation, and trespass him from the church. even worse is the lightness with which it was treated.

I agree with you Andy, FBC overreached on the blogger issue. But what wasn't reported very explicitly was that someone was harassing the pastors wife at the same time and stealing mail out of their box. So the paranoia about a critical blogger was high.  Didn't justify the subpoena to Google IMHO.

There are some nice people I know there, but I have also met some not so nice people. Bad or odd behavior is not exclusive to a church I am afraid.

And furthermore... Nothing happens outside of the laws of nature.  The idea of there being a god somewhere is interesting, and somewhat fun to entertain, as is done in the science fiction novel.  However, there is no god anywhere in the universe, but only the laws of nature, which allow or cause all that we see in the universe, including man. 

The theologians and lay persons alike take hold of beliefs held yesterday, and the day before, beliefs which began at the beginning of mankind millions of years ago, and manipulate thought and conversation so as to encourage belief in some kind of a god.  They are so set in patterns of belief, so dependent upon ignorance, that they perpetuate belief in a god, in spite of there being no real reason or evidence to do so.  They believe in the existence of a god because their parents or babysitter caused them to believe, and because they receive some comfort by it, and for no substantial reason. 

Why should one care what the god-believers believe?  The safe and proper existence of humanity, with all its problems, must have the best possible sober thinking, which is outside of the realm of believing in gods, so that problems can be solved, so that suffering can be eliminated as much as possible, so that progress in mankind's existence can proceed via true wisdom.  The belief in gods skirts the truths of nature, and therefore skirts also, the real solutions to the problems faced in the human experience, which exists only in the world of nature.

The Passion Play is coming soon. Truly an amazing performance, hundreds of actors, choir and full orchestra. It is free to attend. I would encourage you to go if you have never seen it.

http://www.fbcjax.com/passionplay

QuoteRon Chamblim: 
Why should one care what the god-believers believe?  The safe and proper existence of humanity, with all its problems, must have the best possible sober thinking, which is outside of the realm of believing in gods, so that problems can be solved, so that suffering can be eliminated as much as possible, so that progress in mankind's existence can proceed via true wisdom.  The belief in gods skirts the truths of nature, and therefore skirts also, the real solutions to the problems faced in the human experience, which exists only in the world of nature

Ron, I have a question for you if you will.  Let's just take "religion and spiritual views" out of the discussion for one moment and answer this regarding your last statement in quotes above.  In your world, you alone have accessed the values, views and intellects of all persons beliefs and decided that your own is the only one that is valid, so much so that you declare that the safe and proper existence of humanity is predicated on your personal view as expressed above.  I would like to know when and how you decided that your view was supreme to all others, including many in the scientific disciplines?  This discipline you speak of and imagined future existence of humanity is devoid of what makes humanity the dynamic, challenging and diverse species it is. Personally I would not want to live in that world. lol  I guess I am just wondering at how a person decides their intellectual point of view is above all others.  Please share with us how one deduces that? 

What I don't think Ron realizes is that these posts and declarations put him right up there with a religious zealot.  All that is needed is to insert the word science in place of that of any other religious discipline and you have the same attitude which screams I have it right and you the uneducated underlings of the world must agree.   

Having said all of that, I respect Ron's views.  I just don't care for the tone of superiority expressed in those views. That tone is in fact indicative of a closed mind and that does not grow intellect in a way that leads to the safe and proper existence of humanity. ;)

“The laws of nature are but the mathematical thoughts of God.”

Euclid quotes (Greek mathematician, 300bc)

One objective I have in engaging this conversation is simply to offer options to much of our local thinking, other than what seems to be the most common, which is the belief in a system of gods and churches and religious teachings, which has little basis for belief, other than hearsay and habit.  I do this to perhaps encourage a better overall quality of thought, having more to do with reality.  To avoid excessively the realm of reality, is to avoid confronting the real problems confronting us today, and thus the best solutions for them, even as related to the problems we have in our urban core.

The ideas about gods, and afterlife, sin, and guilt is somewhat interesting, but it belongs in myth and fantasy fiction.  Nature and its immutable laws is the only thing that approaches the concept of a god.  The Native Americans were closer to the truth than we Europeans.  The laws of nature are fair, are constant, are honest, are firm, are dependable, and are unchangeable.  Long before the gods were invented by man, early man aligned his hopes and fears around nature, which, in the end, will be found to be the only god-like force to which we should give attention, as nature ultimately controls our very existence.  Nature does not favor certain peoples, nor does it offer conflicting, confusing, and ambiguous teachings to confuse the intellect, and mentally dwarf the child.  Nature does not support guilt or sin, nor does it give power to priests and preachers so that they can control and extract money, time, and intellectual independence from followers.

I'm with Cheshire.  I'm fine with Ron believing what he believes. As long as it doesn't interfere with me, it's his life and soul.    But also not fond of the implication we believers are poor, deluded souls who will one day see it his way.  If his argument is solely that he needs scientific proof of God's existence, I'd say hogwash.  But that's just me.  Edited after I read Ron's post above.  Ron believes man invented God, while I believe God invented man and everything else.  The crux of the issue in our differences.   :-)

Turn the clock back a few hundred years.  All the rules of the universe are the same as they have been from the beginning, but there is little "scientific proof." Modern science seeks to explain what is.  Faith just accepts what is without explanation.

Sorry we drifted off and hijacked the thread about FBC and it's power or lack thereof.  I tend to think it's not so much FBC as an entity as the fact that Jacksonville is a pretty conservative town, at least lately, and elects conservatives.  As MJ has pointed out on older threads, it was not always thus.  Jacksonville used to be a very progressive town.  Maybe we should blame it on Ronald Reagan and not FBC.  :-)

Ron, how did you determine "our local thinking"?  My point is how exactly do you know what is in the hearts and minds of others beyond a self decided interpretation of what others believe, even when it comes to how they interpret this universe or a divinity?

You did not answer the question I posed to you originally, which is how did you come to the realization that you above all other people have the correct interpretation of this universe and all experiences of humanity?  In reading your posts I have a hard time imagining that you ever step outside of a very closed box of personal thinking.  It has been my experience that doing that leads to myopic views.  Your first line says it all when you use the words "My objective".  You come to the conversation with an objective which is in fact to sway folks over to your views and to open their minds to other possibilities while yours is apparently closed.  lol

Quote from: Cheshire Cat on March 05, 2013, 01:04:49 PM
Ron, how did you determine "our local thinking"?  My point is how exactly do you know what is in the hearts and minds of others beyond a self decided interpretation of what others believe, even when it comes to how they interpret this universe or a divinity?

You did not answer the question I posed to you originally, which is how did you come to the realization that you above all other people have the correct interpretation of this universe and all experiences of humanity?  In reading your posts I have a hard time imagining that you ever step outside of a very closed box of personal thinking.  It has been my experience that doing that leads to myopic views.  Your first line says it all when you use the words "My objective".  You come to the conversation with an objective which is in fact to sway folks over to your views and to open their minds to other possibilities while yours is apparently closed.  lol

Narcissistic Personality Disorder Symptoms

The hallmark of narcissistic personality disorder is an apparent absorption with yourself (narcissism). Because this is a personality disorder, the symptoms are always present to some degree.

Symptoms include:

    Love of self/great self-interest
    Preoccupation with success and power
    Attention seeking
    Boasting or bragging about one’s own achievements often
    Exaggeration of abilities and achievements
    Having unrealistic goals
    Fantasies of success beyond what is likely or possible
    Hypersensitivity to possible slights and insults from others (coupled with what could be an aggressive or angry response)
    Arrogant behavior
    Belief in one’s own uniqueness/entitlement to special treatment
    Difficulty understanding another’s emotions or perspective

Be honest, metrojax, you guys are paying If_I_Loved_you to jibbertroll.

Well I don't want to define Ron's personality or say he has a disorder.  lol  He just has different opinions about things.  The rub is that he expresses those opinions in a tone of superior knowledge which stems from ego/intellect.  The ego is a tricky thing and trips up humanity on a regular basis and that includes all of us.  ;)

Quote from: stephendare on March 05, 2013, 01:31:27 PM

Quote from: PeeJayEss on March 05, 2013, 01:21:03 PM
Be honest, metrojax, you guys are paying If_I_Loved_you to jibbertroll.

well not everyone will write things like:

"It (zero) is a definition either of a null count or some arbitrary, discrete point of measure. It is a tool, not an item whose existence can be questioned."

for free. ;)

Call me altruistic if you will, I am simply concerned with improving the math skills of artists.

Quote from: Cheshire Cat on March 05, 2013, 01:04:49 PM
Ron, how did you determine "our local thinking"?  My point is how exactly do you know what is in the hearts and minds of others beyond a self decided interpretation of what others believe, even when it comes to how they interpret this universe or a divinity?

You did not answer the question I posed to you originally, which is how did you come to the realization that you above all other people have the correct interpretation of this universe and all experiences of humanity?  In reading your posts I have a hard time imagining that you ever step outside of a very closed box of personal thinking.  It has been my experience that doing that leads to myopic views.  Your first line says it all when you use the words "My objective".  You come to the conversation with an objective which is in fact to sway folks over to your views and to open their minds to other possibilities while yours is apparently closed.  lol

My observations over the years allow me to sense a local thinking population which has a majority of individuals within it accustomed to, and comfortable in, believing in a god.  However, I sense too that there is a growing population which is “on my side” if you will.  If you suggest that I attempt to sway others to my view --I certainly do, so that I might counteract the constant local momentum of pressure as conveyed by hundreds of churches attempting to sway as many as possible to their way of absurd thinking, and tugging at their valuable time and assets while doing so.

I only attempt to argue against frivolities in the mind, against the shirking of responsibilities onto some god, and back onto our own shoulders, where it belongs.  I urge sober thinking, so that we local yokels can make some progress in our urban core, so that we can break the habit of stagnation in it.  We need to move on, to break from the habits which have contributed to the comfortable and complacent mood, which only allows for inaction, where action is needed.
   
I suggest that my mind is quite open to all things in the universe, and not closed by a religious system which, by its nature, attempts to restrict the learning of its followers so as to keep them in the fold of ignorance necessary for its continued existence. 


"Once, a cobra bit Chuck Norris's leg.  After five days of excruciating pain, the cobra died."

Quote from: ronchamblin on March 05, 2013, 01:50:49 PM

Quote from: Cheshire Cat on March 05, 2013, 01:04:49 PM

Ron, how did you determine "our local thinking?"  My point is how exactly do you know what is in the hearts and minds of others beyond a self decided interpretation of what others believe, even when it comes to how they interpret this universe or a divinity?

You did not answer the question I posed to you originally, which is how did you come to the realization that you above all other people have the correct interpretation of this universe and all experiences of humanity?  In reading your posts I have a hard time imagining that you ever step outside of a very closed box of personal thinking.  It has been my experience that doing that leads to myopic views.  Your first line says it all when you use the words "My objective".  You come to the conversation with an objective which is in fact to sway folks over to your views and to open their minds to other possibilities while yours is apparently closed.  lol

My observations over the years allow me to sense a local thinking population which has a majority of individuals within it accustomed to, and comfortable in, believing in a god.  However, I sense too that there is a growing population which is “on my side” if you will.  If you suggest that I attempt to sway others to my view --I certainly do, so that I might counteract the constant local momentum of pressure as conveyed by hundreds of churches attempting to sway as many as possible to their way of absurd thinking, and tugging at their valuable time and assets while doing so.

I only attempt to argue against frivolities in the mind, against the shirking of responsibilities onto some god, and back onto our own shoulders, where it belongs.  I urge sober thinking, so that we local yokels can make some progress in our urban core, so that we can break the habit of stagnation in it.  We need to move on, to break from the habits which have contributed to the comfortable and complacent mood, which only allows for inaction, where action is needed.
   
I suggest that my mind is quite open to all things in the universe, and not closed by a religious system which, by its nature, attempts to restrict the learning of its followers so as to keep them in the fold of ignorance necessary for its continued existence. 


"Once, a cobra bit Chuck Norris's leg.  After five days of excruciating pain, the cobra died."

I don't think it is necessary to take sides when it comes to beliefs.  What I do believe is that it is important to value different views, perspectives and beliefs as long as those holding the beliefs do not attempt to impose them on others.  The problem with your statements in my opinion is that they are narrow in parameter and speak only to your perspective.    Making this an either/or is what makes the conversation about beliefs difficult and at times downright insulting to some.  You speak of science as an absolute yet many in scientific positions also believe in a divinity of some type. 

To say your observations of others is accurate because they are yours isn't proof of anything other than a view.  It says nothing about whether or not you have immersed yourself in any way into the doings of a person with specific religious beliefs so that you may taste what it is they experience.  Are your observations based simply upon what you have read and your perceptions about what you see (which by the way are perceptions and not science) or rather upon real experience immersed in other cultures, their rituals and understandings?  I am not suggesting that you should change your views but am want to know if your views are as myopic in origin as they seem.  For instance have you traveled to other countries and immersed yourself in their cultures and beliefs?  Have you experienced what they experience on their terms?  I have and can tell you that the experience can be profound in ways that cannot be imagined unless the experience is personally felt. Experiences that defy current physics and science.

I think you are want to argue a certain experience as valid in life when in fact humanity is an expression of a variety of experiences and yes, realities in that in many cases perception is reality, as it is in your case apparently.  :)

Ron, you may be surprised to hear me say this but I do not personally feel comfortable with organized religion or a single faith, in spite of being brought up a Catholic. However I do not discount religious value in the lives of many people. We can argue whether the influence is good or bad and that would be pointless.  In many ways good or bad is in reality human conscience expressing itself.  It is what it is and we respond to it as we will in any given moment.  Simply put it is an experience that impacts us in some way.  The world and divinity is greater than a religion in my view.  Is divinity tantamount to belief in a supreme being as it were or lets say a "God" or does divinity mean something else entirely?  Your equation for existence leaves out the mystery, what is unknown.  In spite of what science may teach as absolute, there are no real absolutes in this universe as science describes it. I return to the case of dark matter which science now says forms the majority of our universe, but cannot say what it is.  If they can quantify it but yet have no idea what it is, then it remains a mystery.  I know you are well read and as such you must have been exposed to those in science who state that not all is known or understood in this universe.  For instance, is Pluto a planet or not?  For years science said it was, now some in science say it is not.  This is just one small example and not meant as a great declaration in any form but rather to point out that all is not known by humanity.  That unknown for many people is divinity, what cannot be explained.

I have the same argument when it comes to many organized religions as a standard for spiritual beliefs and behaviors in many instances because the core of most of these organizations is based upon someone or group of someones interpreting life and universe based upon their own views of ancient documents and teachings. In too many cases those someones doing all the interpretation are men, so we get stories like Adam and Eve (the woman being the reason they are cast from the Garden of Eden.  lol).  The same goes for other organized religions that say a woman must cover herself and be submissive.  Men historically have been known to come up with this nonsense, frame it in religion and feed it to the masses.  This has led to abuse, the use of fear and control to drive home a specific belief.  When one has to use this sort of lever to draw others into their fold as it were, then I question the beauty and strength of the divinity and God they claim to speak for.  :)

Perhaps it is in fact the variety of beliefs that will ultimately give humanity balance.  When one ideal, religion or view scientific or otherwise attempts to rule all thinking we are in great trouble as a thinking species.

Quote from: Cheshire Cat on March 05, 2013, 02:48:11 PM

Quote from: ronchamblin on March 05, 2013, 01:50:49 PM

Quote from: Cheshire Cat on March 05, 2013, 01:04:49 PM

Ron, how did you determine "our local thinking?"  My point is how exactly do you know what is in the hearts and minds of others beyond a self decided interpretation of what others believe, even when it comes to how they interpret this universe or a divinity?

You did not answer the question I posed to you originally, which is how did you come to the realization that you above all other people have the correct interpretation of this universe and all experiences of humanity?  In reading your posts I have a hard time imagining that you ever step outside of a very closed box of personal thinking.  It has been my experience that doing that leads to myopic views.  Your first line says it all when you use the words "My objective".  You come to the conversation with an objective which is in fact to sway folks over to your views and to open their minds to other possibilities while yours is apparently closed.  lol

My observations over the years allow me to sense a local thinking population which has a majority of individuals within it accustomed to, and comfortable in, believing in a god.  However, I sense too that there is a growing population which is “on my side” if you will.  If you suggest that I attempt to sway others to my view --I certainly do, so that I might counteract the constant local momentum of pressure as conveyed by hundreds of churches attempting to sway as many as possible to their way of absurd thinking, and tugging at their valuable time and assets while doing so.

I only attempt to argue against frivolities in the mind, against the shirking of responsibilities onto some god, and back onto our own shoulders, where it belongs.  I urge sober thinking, so that we local yokels can make some progress in our urban core, so that we can break the habit of stagnation in it.  We need to move on, to break from the habits which have contributed to the comfortable and complacent mood, which only allows for inaction, where action is needed.
   
I suggest that my mind is quite open to all things in the universe, and not closed by a religious system which, by its nature, attempts to restrict the learning of its followers so as to keep them in the fold of ignorance necessary for its continued existence. 


"Once, a cobra bit Chuck Norris's leg.  After five days of excruciating pain, the cobra died."

I don't think it is necessary to take sides when it comes to beliefs.  What I do believe is important is to value different views, perspectives and beliefs as long as they do not attempt to impose them on others.  The problem with your statements in my opinion is that they are narrow in parameter and speak only to your perspective.    Making this an either/or is what makes the conversation about beliefs difficult and at times downright insulting to some.  You speak of science as an absolute yet many in scientific positions also believe in a divinity of some type. 

To say your observations of others is accurate because they are yours isn't proof of anything other than a view.  It says nothing about whether or not you have immersed yourself in any way into the doings of a person with specific religious beliefs so that you may taste what it is they experience.  Are your observations based simply upon what you have read and your perceptions about what you see (which by the way are perceptions and not science) or rather upon real experience immersed in other cultures, their rituals and understandings?  I am not suggesting that you should change your views but am want to know if your views are as myopic in origin as they seem.  For instance have you traveled to other countries and immersed yourself in their cultures and beliefs?  Have you experienced what they experience on their terms?  I have and can tell you that the experience can be profound in ways that cannot be imagined unless the experience is personally felt. Experiences that defy current physics and science.

I think you are want to argue a certain experience as valid in life when in fact humanity is an expression of a variety of experiences and yes, realities in that in many cases perception is reality, as it is in your case apparently.  :)

Ron, you may be surprised to hear me say this but I do not personally feel comfortable with organized religion or a single faith, in spite of being brought up a Catholic. However I do not discount religious value in the lives of many people. We can argue whether the influence is good or bad and that would be pointless.  In many ways good or bad is in reality human conscience expressing itself.  It is what it is and we respond to it as we will in any given moment.  Simply put it is an experience that impacts us in some way.  The world and divinity is greater than a religion in my view.  Is divinity tantamount to belief in a supreme being as it were or lets say a "God" or does divinity mean something else entirely?  Your equation for existence leaves out the mystery, what is unknown.  In spite of what science may teach as absolute, there is no real absolutes in this universe as science describes it. I return to the case of dark matter which science now says forms the majority of our universe, but cannot say what it is.  If they can quantify it but yet have no idea what it is, then it remains a mystery.  I know you are well read and as such you must have been exposed to those in science who state that not all is known or understood in this universe.  For instance, is Pluto a planet or not?  For years science said it was, now some in science say it is not.  This is just one small example and not meant as a great declaration in any form but rather to point out that all is not known by humanity.  That unknown for many people is divinity, what cannot be explained.

I have the same argument when it comes to many organized religions as a standard for spiritual beliefs and behaviors in many instances because the core of most of these organizations is based upon someone or group of someones interpreting life and universe based upon their own views of ancient documents and teachings. In too many cases those someones doing all the interpretation are men, so we get stories like Adam and Eve (the woman being the reason they are cast from heaven lol).  The same goes for other organized religions that say a woman must cover herself and be submissive.  Men historically have been known to come up with this nonsense, frame it in religion and feed it to the masses.  This has led to abuse, the use of fear and control to drive home a specific belief.  When one has to use this sort of lever to draw others into their fold as it were, than I question the beauty and strength of the divinity and God they claim to speak for.  :)

Perhaps it is in fact the variety of beliefs that will ultimately give humanity balance.  When one ideal, religion or view scientific or otherwise attempts to rule all thinking we are in great trouble as a thinking species.

Cheshire Cat this posting is very good and I have enjoyed reading it.  ;)

^ I appreciate that. 

Quote from: Cheshire Cat on March 05, 2013, 04:34:10 PM
^ I appreciate that.

^ Your Welcome.

Cheshire Cat â€" I appreciate your thoughtful and insightful comments, as for the most part they make good sense to me.  A little jousting in the world of religious belief is fun occasionally, but, even though it is fun, it is serious too, as the beliefs we hold regarding religion can affect our opinions and actions much more than we realize.  And I agree that the mysteries in religious thinking, and all the myths created by man, provide beneficial excitement to the imagination, giving adults the pleasures akin to those often enjoyed by children via fairy tales.
 
And too, I understand the need for many to engage in and reap the comforts in religious belief; and that one should be cautious while attempting to rip the beliefs away if there is no convenient replacement.  Of course, as history has shown, the power of religious belief is extreme, and not easily extracted from the believer, who is at times consumed by it.

Thank you Ron for the civil discourse.  I do understand the things about organized religion that bother you and others. More importantly perhaps, I realize that for some the understandings of science make sense to them with regard to this universe. I do not stand in judgement of that belief.  For me personally, science falls short in explaining the "Great Mystery" of life which of course includes what happens to us when our physical body ceases to exist, as well as the goings on in other dimensions and alternate worlds which science affirms exist. 

For you and others the cessation of physical life spells the end of the entire human entity as there is no belief in spirit and soul, largely because science has no measure for it. That takes us to faith which does not equal folly or frivolity.  Faith is an inner knowing.  You have faith in science, others have faith in God.  For myself, the fact that science cannot yet measure divinity or the spiritual realm is a shortcoming of science at this stage in history and does not equal proof positive that the soul and spirit do not exist.  :)  Science simply does not know how to measure "all that is" and it is folly to think that it can, especially when one considers that all science as expressed here on earth must first be processed through the mechanism of the human brain and ego.  Do I believe that there is an old man with a long white beard sitting on a cloud somewhere named "God"?  Honestly, no.  Do I look down on those who think this true?  Absolutely not.  Do I believe in the spirit, soul and creative consciousness as expressed through the human being as an extension of the universe.  Yes, I definitely do.

I personally do not experience the great mystery, divinity or what some call God as a single entity but rather an unexplainable creative conscious force/energy emanating through all things at all levels.  For instance every tree, bug, animal and even rocks, water, fire and air are alive with the energy of both physical reality and the source or divinity.  While at one level one can look at our earth and universe as a series of evolutions in a variety of organisms, which I agree has happened through out this universe, science ignores the reality of what animates this world and universe beyond what it can measure.   In the case of humanity and other living beings.  Science restricts "all that is" to a "physical form and consciousness" that ends with death.  It tells us on one hand that all of our universe is made of energy and as such energy cannot be destroyed it can only change form but does not know what form that transformed energy may take.  The difference between science and what is understood by those advanced in spirit is that conscious energy is not bound by the physical form.  Conscious energy is aligned with what some call the soul or spirit which is part and parcel of all that is in this universe and beyond it, the creative force that gives meaning to this existence both during life and after death.  Conscious energy as expressed through a human being and the organ we call the brain becomes what humanity creates on earth.  For instance, you and others are currently reading these words on some sort of technical device.  That device is made up of elements found in this physical universe.  The device first existed in the mind of a human.  That human then harnessed these physical elements to create the device of their imagination.  I think those who believe in a "Creator" and those who only believe in science can agree to that much.  What science fails to take into account is that the creative consciousness of humanity impacts what humanity creates on earth be it harmony, disharmony, hatred, love or all the other experiences that are human. The mystery that is higher consciousness expresses higher thought through the physical in order to make it manifest in this reality.  The great mystery is all things, even science.  :)

Every person must frame their own beliefs in a way that makes sense to them.  Where I depart from organized religion in a big way is the penchant of these institutions to claim that they have all the answers when it comes to understanding divinity or God.  Many hold that in order to "redeem" oneself as a human and soul, you must agree with what they propose to be fact and then holds them hostage to that belief with the fear of eternal damnation.  This egregious attempt to pull individuals into a specific belief by telling them that if they don't follow the specific teaching or a specific religion they will go to "hell", a place of the most horrible tortures imaginable is simply reprehensible.  People are coerced into a specific belief because they fear this horrible outcome, this hell, when their physical life is ended.  Using fear to manipulate people along with the doings of an entity called Satan is in many ways unforgivable in my view, but excused by those using it as a method by which to pull sinners, doers of bad deeds into line simply put to change those behaviors.  My position is that if there is beauty, enlightenment and truth to what a religion has to offer people will flock to it without the need for frightening levers to cause them to do so.

Our existence is one of many facets, experiences and beliefs that will never be quantified but experiences none the less that our human nature struggles to understand, to put into some sort of order that makes sense.  For some that is science for others that is a "God", for me it is the great mystery which vibrates throughout creation and beyond, that is all things and finds it's greatest balance in love, which cannot be measured by science but exists none the less.

Certainly there is much more to discuss with regard to beliefs and we have clearly diverged from the original topic of this thread beyond to say that there is concern when it comes to how certain religious organizations, in this case FCB impact the politics and actions of our local government.  In reality the concern in my view is much bigger and speaks I do believe to some of your concerns which is how religious beliefs impact our society as a whole.  At some point we need to address what you refer to as "fairy tales" as the term really does not accurately reflect all religious expression via parables and the like as well as holy books and documents.

Quote from: Cheshire Cat on March 06, 2013, 11:56:13 AM
Thank you Ron for the civil discourse.  I do understand the things about organized religion that bother you and others. More importantly perhaps, I realize that for some the understandings of science make sense to them with regard to this universe. I do not stand in judgement of that belief.  For me personally, science falls short in explaining the "Great Mystery" of life which of course includes what happens to us when our physical body ceases to exist, as well as the goings on in other dimensions and alternate worlds which science affirms exist. 

For you and others the cessation of physical life spells the end of the entire human entity as there is no belief in spirit and soul, largely because science has no measure for it. That takes us to faith which does not equal folly or frivolity.  Faith is an inner knowing.  You have faith in science, others have faith in God.  For myself, the fact that science cannot yet measure divinity or the spiritual realm is a shortcoming of science at this stage in history and does not equal proof positive that the soul and spirit do not exist.  :)  Science simply does not know how to measure "all that is" and it is folly to think that it can, especially when one considers that all science as expressed here on earth must first be processed through the mechanism of the human brain and ego.  Do I believe that there is an old man with a long white beard sitting on a cloud somewhere named "God"?  Honestly, no.  Do I look down on those who think this true?  Absolutely not.  Do I believe in the spirit, soul and creative consciousness as expressed through the human being as an extension of the universe.  Yes, I definitely do.

I personally do not experience the great mystery, divinity" or what some call God as a single entity but rather an unexplainable creative conscious force/energy emanating through all things at all levels.  For instance every tree, bug, animal and even rocks, water, fire and air are alive with the energy of both physical reality and the source or divinity.  While at one level one can look at our earth and universe as a series of evolutions in a variety of organisms, which I agree has happened through out this universe, science ignores the reality of what animates this world and universe beyond what it can measure.   In the case of humanity and other living beings.  Science restricts "all that is" to a "physical form and consciousness" that ends with death.  It tells us on one hand that all of our universe is made of energy and as such energy cannot be destroyed it can only change form.  The difference between science and what is understood by those advanced is spirit is that conscious energy is not bound by the physical form.  Conscious energy is aligned with what some call the soul or spirit which is part and parcel of all that is in this universe and beyond it, the creative force that gives meaning to this existence both during life and after death.  Conscious energy as expressed through a human being and the organ we call the brain becomes what humanity creates on earth.  For instance, you and others are currently reading these words on some sort of technical device.  That device is made up of elements found in this physical universe.  The device first existed in the mind of a human.  That human then harnessed these physical elements to create the device of their imagination.  I think those who believe in a "Creator" and those who only believe in science can agree to that much.  What science fails to take into account is that the creative consciousness of humanity which impacts what humanity creates on earth be it harmony, disharmony, hatred, love or all the other experiences that are human being expressed through the physical and made manifest.  The great mystery is all things, even science.  :)

Every person must frame their own beliefs in a way that makes sense to them.  Where I depart from organized religion in a big way is the penchant of these institutions to claim that they have all the answers when it comes to understanding divinity or God.  Many hold that in order to "redeem" oneself as a human and soul, you must agree with what they propose to be fact and then holds them hostage to that belief with the fear of eternal damnation.  This egregious attempt to pull individuals into a specific belief by telling them that if they don't follow the specific teaching or a specific religion they will go to "hell", a place of the most horrible tortures imaginable is simply reprehensible.  People are coerced into a specific belief because they fear this horrible outcome, this hell, when their physical life is ended.  Using fear to manipulate people along with the doings of an entity called Satan is in many ways unforgivable in my view, but excused by those using it as a method by which to pull sinners, doers of bad deeds into line simply put to change those behaviors.  My position is that if there is beauty, enlightenment and truth to what a religion has to offer people will flock to it without the need for frightening levers to cause them to do so.

Our existence is one of many facets, experiences and beliefs that will never be quantified but experiences none the less that our human nature struggles to understand, to put into some sort of order that makes sense.  For some that is science for others that is a "God", for me it is the great mystery which vibrates throughout creation and beyond, that is all things and finds it's greatest balance in love, which cannot be measured by science but exists non the less.

Certainly there is much more to discuss with regard to beliefs and we have clearly diverged from the original topic of this thread beyond to say that there is concern when it comes to how certain religious organizations, in this case FCB impact the politics and actions of our local government.  When in reality the concern in my view is much bigger and speaks I do believe to some of your concerns which is how religious beliefs impact or society as a whole.  At some point we need to address what you refer to as "fairy tales" as the term really does not accurately reflect all religious expression via parables and the like.

Here is a quote from another atheist “I said I didn't respect religion . . . and anyone who believes in fairy tales to answer questions that we can't answer. . . . So I don't respect our religions either. But I do believe it is a clash of civilizations, absolutely, between the Islamic world and the Western world. [It] has been going on for 1,000 years.”

Bill Maher quote

^ Not sure I understand what you are trying to say with this quote.

Quote from: Cheshire Cat on March 06, 2013, 12:37:43 PM
^ Not sure I understand what you are trying to say with this quote.

Atheist feel that believing in God and religion is nothing but a Fairy Tale.

^ Perhaps some do and some may not.  In any case it is the right of everyone to decide for themselves the parameters of their beliefs and that's as it should be.  ;)

Quote from: Cheshire Cat on March 06, 2013, 01:01:23 PM
^ Perhaps some do and some may not.  In any case it is the right of everyone to decide for themselves the parameters of their beliefs and that's as it should be.  ;)

True  ;)

Quote from: PeeJayEss on March 04, 2013, 04:16:23 PM

Quote from: stephendare on March 04, 2013, 03:54:29 PM
you seem to be all over the place here.

So can you prove that 'zero' exists? or is it a scientific belief?

Not sure where you are going here.

It is not a belief, nor can you prove it. It is a definition either of a null count or some arbitrary, discrete point of measure. It is a tool, not an item whose existence can be questioned.

Where I am going: Your argument is basically that science is as faith-based as religion because "zero" and "infinity" have not been 'proven' to your liking. What does that even mean?
I equated this position to saying that "pretty" has not been proven because, while you can say it, it doesn't make sense.

Regardless, zero and infinity have nothing to do with whether or not there is evidence of deities.

Also, First Baptist Church discussion...

“Black holes are where God divided by zero.”
― Albert Einstein

Quote from: Cheshire Cat on March 05, 2013, 02:48:11 PM
In too many cases those someones doing all the interpretation are men, so we get stories like Adam and Eve (the woman being the reason they are cast from the Garden of Eden.  lol).  The same goes for other organized religions that say a woman must cover herself and be submissive.

Cheshire Cat, there is a fact missing her taught me by a Baptist teacher long ago; the phone number in the Garden of Eden was "ADAM - 8 - 1 - 2."

As you are probably well aware, the rules about 'covering' and submissiveness' stem largely from mid-eastern culture. I believe the early Christian church leadership didn't want women to rock the culture boat and bring down the kinds of judgements on the whole lot of them that we see today in the 6 o:clock news. The same verses that tell a woman to act submissive etc. go on to a greater point where the men are told in Ephesians 5: 25 "Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself up for her, 26 so that He might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, 27 that He might present to Himself the church in all her glory, having no spot or wrinkle or any such thing; but that she would be holy and blameless."

For the most part, those that hold to some of the old cultural ideas that 'women are the root of all evil' have never taken the time to think through what those verses mean.  ;)

You do NOT have "faith" in science, you have a logical reasoning to believe it. Big difference.

I think the statement is in response to my comment Stephen.  Feedback is giving us his/her interpretation of having faith.  He/she takes the position that science is based purely in logic.  From my perspective Feedback is missing the reality that logic is itself a type of perception that differs from person to person.  So you still must have faith in what you perceive to be "logical" in order to believe that science has it all right.  It's parsing words from my perception but that's fine.  I know the point feedback was making about logic, but many times those claiming "logic" as a basis for understanding do not know the variables of logic.  Just ask physicists who crunch the same numbers and still come up with different interpretations of universe, how it was created and so forth.  It still boils down to faith in scientific logic.  :)

Reason is: 1 item + 1 item = 2 items
Faith is: crossing the railroad track at 60 miles per hour without looking because you have faith in the signal maintainers.

Quote from: Ocklawaha on April 20, 2013, 04:58:30 PM
Reason is: 1 item + 1 item = 2 items
Faith is: crossing the railroad track at 60 miles per hour without looking because you have faith in the signal maintainers.

One plus one equals two, because humanity has decided that it does via our limited understanding of this universe and what is beyond it.  :)   I get the math for sure and am just making a point about perception. 

This was interesting.  It seems to have been done a while back.  I missed it.  Have many of you seen it?

http://vimeo.com/12376557


"Chuck Norris was once accused of heresy by the pope, but as it turns out, Chuck Norris is, in fact, the true son of god."

Very funny...though it's a little hard to stomach Hitler as the voice of reason.

Quote from: Cheshire Cat on April 20, 2013, 05:08:13 PM

Quote from: Ocklawaha on April 20, 2013, 04:58:30 PM
Reason is: 1 item + 1 item = 2 items
Faith is: crossing the railroad track at 60 miles per hour without looking because you have faith in the signal maintainers.

One plus one equals two, because humanity has decided that it does via our limited understanding of this universe and what is beyond it.  :)   I get the math for sure and am just making a point about perception.

Right you are on a cosmic scale, 2 could be 18, or maybe is isn't, could it be a void? Actually putting your faith in science and 'reason,' considering the parameters are constantly in flux, is probably about as foolish as putting your faith in a carved statue.

Bob, Nothing like two old hippies talking science and religion. Love ya man!  :)  Psychedelic!  lol

What’s all this stuff about faith, as if it is a quality to be admired, cultivated, and even accepted in environments where it should not be?   

It seems appropriate to assume, to expect, to anticipate, to hope, or to know, but to excessively engage the emotion or practice of faith is a giving up, a copout, an admittance of one’s inability to garner the initiative, the discipline, or the ability to solve problems.     

Engaging excessively the idea of faith, especially regarding the idea that a god will do or not do something, is to shrug off one’s responsibilities onto something else.

The cultivation of the process of having faith in the existence of a god, or in the truth of a message as if it was of a god, encourages a dependency on something outside of oneself, and removes from oneself the motive to learn the truths of the universe, and thus one’s place within it. 

Ron, I guess my question to you would be, "Why does the faith others have bother you so much?" lol  Faith can be a powerful thing, faith in oneself is huge to living a good life.  Faith in your loved ones, faith in humanity or faith in God can impact the amount of peace and happiness one experiences while alive and breathing.  Faith like so many other things in life is something people can embrace or not, but I have to tell you, not having faith that there is more goodness then bad in the world for me would make life much less bearable.  :)

Quote from: Cheshire Cat on April 21, 2013, 09:32:26 PM
Ron, I guess my question to you would be, "Why does the faith others have bother you so much?" lol  Faith can be a powerful thing, faith in oneself is huge to living a good life.  Faith in your loved ones, faith in humanity or faith in God can impact the amount of peace and happiness one experiences while alive and breathing.  Faith like so many other things in life is something people can embrace or not, but I have to tell you, not having faith that there is more goodness then bad in the world for me would make life much less bearable.  :)

Diane, I refer more to the idea of “having faith” in something because one doesn’t understand enough of the environment, is desperate, or has faith that others will do something one should do oneself.  Admittedly, faith of this kind is almost necessary as one becomes desperate, and seeks “any” assistance to relieve the mind of stress and imbalance.  I think the word for your use is “confidence”.  I have confidence in myself, or Marsha has confidence in herself, or she has the confidence that Sue will perform well in the test.

I cannot have faith in humanity, or that humanity will do this or that, as it is too disturbed by deficiencies.  But I can have “hope” for humanity.  I can wish good things for humanity.  Instead of having faith that there is more goodness in life than bad, I would “expect” it to be, or I would “hope” it.  Having faith in something seems to allow one to depend upon it, when their might be no valid reason to do so, thus opening oneself to being failed or abandoned by it. 

So…. much of what we’ve been calling faith is really ideas like having “confidence”, “expectations”, “assumptions” about something.

My problem is having too many people around who seem to have a blind faith in the existence of something, or a blind faith that something is true, and acting upon it, or failing to act because of it, without a thread of evidence of it.  My problem is having too many people around who excessively seek comfort via faith, as this habit places all of us in precarious positions simply because fewer people perceive the truths around us, and thus fail to see the dangers, and the solutions. 

Much suffering in the world is a consequence of too many people having a blind faith, much as a child would depend upon a leader, a god, a religion, or a church.  These people become like sheep.  They follow like ducklings.  And sometimes they follow to the death, or to the suffering life, simply because their blind faith allows them to be oblivious to the realities in their environment, and thus the actions necessary to maintain a reasonable quality of life, void of suffering.  In the least, these ducklings, because of their habit of having faith in others, and in gods, perpetuate their dependency upon others, and sometimes perpetuates their suffering.   

Quote from: ronchamblin on April 21, 2013, 09:15:44 PM
It seems appropriate to assume, to expect, to anticipate, to hope, or to know, but to excessively engage the emotion or practice of faith is a giving up, a copout, an admittance of one’s inability to garner the initiative, the discipline, or the ability to solve problems.     

Engaging excessively the idea of faith, especially regarding the idea that a god will do or not do something, is to shrug off one’s responsibilities onto something else.

The cultivation of the process of having faith in the existence of a god, or in the truth of a message as if it was of a god, encourages a dependency on something outside of oneself, and removes from oneself the motive to learn the truths of the universe, and thus one’s place within it.

Faith is what you exercised when you plopped down on your chair to write that last piece Ron, how did you "know" that chair would hold you up?

Then we have to explain telepathic experiences, how is it a dog knows when his master comes home, or, that animals know when a major earthquake is near? These experiences can't be seen, or measured, but somehow they exist, existence in a realm of the spiritual.

“Skepticism is the default position because the burden of proof is on the believer, not the skeptic. But who is the believer and who is the skeptic?"

"I am skeptical of people who believe they know what is possible and what is not. This belief leads to dogmatism, and to the dismissal of ideas and evidence that do not fit in. Genuine skepticism involves an attitude of open-minded enquiry into what we do not understand, and this is the approach I try to follow."

A non-believer can be "pompous when he tries to persuade, even bully, religious believers, and patronizing toward those who have not achieved the intellectual superiority to which atheists lay claim."

I am a Christian. Several of our posters have a "commitment to atheism makes them dismiss out of hand the significance of religious experiences. For example, many people have experienced a sense of the presence of God, or overwhelming love, or a feeling of unity with nature, or visions, or transformative near-death experiences. In the 1970s, the Oxford biologist Sir Alister Hardy initiated a scientific enquiry into religious experiences in Britain, and found that that they were far more common than most atheists -- and even most believers -- had imagined." The study found that people with religious beliefs lived longer and healthier and happier lives then those of non believers.

"The truth. Science can only answer the questions that we ask of nature. Scientists need to be a bit more skeptical about their own findings, they need to be a bit more circumspect about what they actually do. Science is not the ultimate arbiter of truth."

"The scientific community is just like any other: it has its own rifts, agendas, schisms and personalities. Science is not homogenous, nor should it be. 'Science does not equal institutional science', Sheldrake says. It is the institutionalisation and homogenisation of science (as epitomised by Dawkins) that attempts to impose an ideological hegemony."

Quotations from: Doctor Rupert Sheldrake (born 28 June 1942) is an English biochemist, Cambridge Professor and author. He is known for having proposed a non-standard account of morphogenesis and for his research into parapsychology. His books and papers stem from his hypothesis of morphic resonance, and cover topics such as animal and plant development and behaviour, memory, telepathy, perception and cognition in general.

QuoteCheck out his online experiment portal: online Experiments Portal:


THE AUDIO ANTICIPATION TEST

Can you tell what you are about to hear?

This experiment involves only one person, and takes less than six minutes to complete. You do eight trials, and receive the score at the end.

How the experiment works

In each trial, you will be presented with an audio clip selected at random. Before you hear it, you will be presented with a list of four possibilities: a skylark singing, a speech by George W. Bush, the Beatles’ Strawberry Fields, and a cat purring.

You guess which audio clip you are about to hear. After you have made your selection and pressed the 'Submit' button, you will hear the sound sample for about 20 seconds. (There may be a short delay at this stage.)

The next trial will then begin. After each eight-trial test, you are told your score. The chance level is two. You can then try the test again.

Can you get better with practice? The more you trust your feelings, the better you are likely to do. The more you think about your guesses, the more likely your score will be at the chance level.

Browser setting

Please note that you will need Flash player installed in order to listen to the audio clips during the experiment.
http://www.sheldrake.org/experiments/precogrd/

---------------------------------------------------------


Mobile Telephone Telepathy Test


To take part you you need two contacts, who should be family members or other people you know well. You all need to have mobile phones, and your senders will need to have some credit. The test takes very little of anyone's time and you can do it wherever you are.

You all need to be in the UK or in the US

How the test works:
You register online through the UK or US link below, entering your mobile phone number and the numbers of your two contacts. You should enter their names in alphabetical order, so that you can remember who is number 1 or 2. The test starts soon afterwards. You should not be in the same place as your contacts while the test is going on.

A computer picks one of your two contacts at random and sends her a text message asking her to call you at a number given in the message. Her call is answered by a computer that asks her to put in a pin number, also given in the message. The computer then calls you and asks you to guess which of your two contacts is on the line. You reply by pressing 1 or 2, and the line then opens up and you can talk for up to 1 minute. 

After a random time delay, the computer then does the same thing again, until 6 trials have been completed, and the test ends. You then receive a text message telling you how many times you were right out of 6. By chance you would be right about 3 times. 
http://www.telepathyexperiment.com


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------


THE JOINT ATTENTION TEST

With Music


Can you tell when someone is looking at the same photo as you, and hearing the same music?

This experiment involves two people, and takes about five minutes to complete. You do 10 quick trials, and receive your score at the end.

When you log on, you will be asked to do a sound test to make sure that your computer can play the sound tracks. If it cannot, you can still do the test, but you will be doing it with the pictures only and not the music.

How the experiment works

This test is symmetrical: both participants are "senders" and "receivers". One person registers both of you, gives the pair a nickname and a password. Both participants then log on to the experiment at a prearranged time. You can use the same nickname and password to do this test repeatedly

In each trial, both people are shown a picture, and each picture has a particular piece of music associated with it.  In each trial you will either be shown the same picture and hear the same music as your partner, or see a different picture and hear different music.

After 20 seconds, each of you will be asked to answer the question, "Was you partner looking at the same picture?” or  "Was you partner looking at a different picture?"

Each participant can choose whether to do the experiment with or without immediate feedback. If you choose to receive feedback, immediately after making each guess, you will be told whether your partner was shown the same picture or a different picture.

After each 10-trial test, you will be told your score. The chance level is 5.
http://www.sheldrake.org/experiments/jammuspic/register_group.php


------------------------------------------------------------------------------



The Photo Telepathy Test

Can you tell when someone is looking at your photo?
If someone looks at your photograph and thinks about you, can you feel it?
Find out by trying the photo telepathy test.

This experiment takes less than five minutes to complete. You do 20 quick trials, and receive the score at the end. The test can be done EITHER with one subject and one looker OR with two subjects and one looker.

Photo Telepathy Test for two subjects

How the experiment works

There are two subjects and one looker. One member of the group registers your group, gives it a name and a password and supplies digital photos of the two subjects. Thus the person doing the registering has to have photos of the two subjects available. These should not be very high resolution images, or they will overload the system. Ideally, images with a 640x480 resolution are sufficient.
All three participants then log on to the experiment at a prearranged time, using the registered group name and password.
In a series of 20 trials, the looker is shown the photo of subject A or of subject B in a random sequence. After ten seconds, both subjects are asked to answer yes or no to the question, 'Was the looker shown a picture of you?'
Each subject can choose whether or not to receive immediate feedback as to whether the guess is correct.

After each 20-trial test, the subjects are told their scores. The chance level is 10.

With feedback, subjects have the chance to learn how to do better, and may be able to increase their scores with practice.

Please choose which version you would like:
One Subject Test:  http://www.sheldrake.org/experiments/ptt1sub/
Two Subject Test:  http://www.sheldrake.org/experiments/ptt2sub/

Quote from: Cheshire Cat on April 21, 2013, 08:31:27 PM
Bob, Nothing like two old hippies talking science and religion. Love ya man!  :)  Psychedelic!  lol

SOLID BABY! Shine on...

"Faith is what you exercised when you plopped down on your chair to write that last piece Ron, how did you "know" that chair would hold you up?"  quote from Ock.


Ock.  I did not have faith.  I expected the chair to hold up.  I had confidence that it would hold up.  I knew it would hold up.   

The classic meaning and use of the idea of "faith" is in regard to the religious use of it.  When we delve into the discussions of chairs holding one up....... well.... what is the sense of it?  We both know that we are talking about the tendency of "believers" to "believe" something based on the faith that it is true..... and this, even when there is not a shred of evidence supporting the belief.

Is there any evidence that the chair is there, and that it is substantial?  And that it will most probably hold me up?

Why the games with such nonsense as comparing religious beliefs concerning figments of the mind, and solid chairs sitting upon the floor, when we both know the real issue?  To do so is a little fun of course.  But do we ever tire of it?   

"Then we have to explain telepathic experiences, how is it a dog knows when his master comes home, or, that animals know when a major earthquake is near? These experiences can't be seen, or measured, but somehow they exist, existence in a realm of the spiritual."  Quote from Ock. 

The dogs and other animals have very sensitive ears, and perhaps vibrational sensitivities we don't know about, other senses we are not aware of, senses that are however, a consequence of physiological structures, having nothing to do with the "telepathic", as you've mentioned.  A dogs sense of the time of day, a sensitive ear, a means to sense vibrations upon the ground, and an excellent sense of smell.... all of these things allow the dog to "know" when his owner is close, even a block away.  This is not telepathy.  And the earthquake "sense" is certainly the consequence of the animals sense of hearing, sensing of pressure changes, and the sense of ground vibrations.  There is nothing mysterious.  Nothing otherworldly.  Only ignorance of sciences allows one to assume the mysterious. 

Ron, I wonder if you understand when you are sharing your views the arrogance in your tone?  lmbo  The only time I have seen anyone as tied to their convictions as you are to science was the fanatical preachings of a religious zealot on a street corner.  You are very much that way in your judgements of others and need to "convert" them to your belief in science as the end all understanding of the universe when many scientists cannot decide amongst themselves what within their own discipline is real, imagined or properly postulated as a theory.  This tone of superiority is a bit overbearing at times. Carry on but don't expect to convert believers to your views, it isn't going to happen any more readily than you becoming a Transcendental Monk on a hillside singing the praises of Jehovah. lol 
Bottom line is the fact that the truth of reality is beyond human understanding and it is simply our inflated egos that has us believing we understand all that is. 

“Skepticism is the default position because the burden of proof is on the believer, not the skeptic. But who is the believer and who is the skeptic?"  Quote by Ock.

In order to have some order upon the earth, and within our minds, we must begin with observing via our senses the phenomena in the environment.  We stabilize our lives, our engagements with the environment so that we can survive as individuals, and as a species.  We rest, with peace in our minds.   

Out of this stable condition emerges possibilities.  We begin to exercise our minds to embrace more and more possibilities.  We stretch our imaginations to "see" all kinds of things, all kinds of possibilities.  We imagine the existence of all kinds of things, such as gods, and processes such as telepathy.

Out of this process of imagining, each of us has options to either believe all of the possibilities, or most of them, or only a few of them.  I suspect that the aborigines and the "cave men" believed quite a few of these possibilities, one being perhaps the existence of telepathy, and another being the existence of gods and spirits.

As time progressed, especially around the Enlightenment Era, we (humans) began to accumulate knowledge of the sciences, knowledge which allowed many learned men and women to reign in many of the former possibilities, and therefore to have fewer beliefs in the realms of the otherworldly and the spiritual.

The simple folk however, being without the equipment of knowledge of the sciences, were inclined to hold to the belief in the otherworldly and the spiritual, and perhaps the telepathic, partially because of habit, and partially because of the mental and spiritual benefits from it.

The believer is the individual who seems to believe in spite of reasons not to.  The skeptic is the individual who, as a consequence of having the necessary mental tools as offered by the laws of the universe, and held within what most call the sciences, is forced by way of logic and simple rational thinking, to abandon the otherworldly, the spiritual, and the idea of telepathy, these ideas held by the cave man, and to boldly claim that there is nonsense about us, and that he or she is not willing to engage in it. 

Given a stable condition wherein the evidences in the environment are for all to observe and count, it is the burden of the believer to prove the existence of anything other than what we see, observe, and experience.  Yes, I admit that anything is possible. But what about the probabilities given to all these possibilities?  The skeptic is simply saying that we should be a little cautious, and should perhaps weigh the possibilities against the laws of the universe, so that we might select carefully what be believe exists.  The "believer" is too careless, believing, almost as a consequence of cultural habit, in the gods still, and in things such as telepathy, both of which are ideas never having been supported by any evidence whatsoever. 

I choose to be a skeptic, and am wary of the believer, as some of them kill humans, and engage in wars, and shirk their responsibilities because they have faith that somebody else will take care of things, or that they shouldn't worry about this life too much, because they are going to have a good life after this one.

Quote from: stephendare on April 21, 2013, 11:44:34 PM

Quote from: Cheshire Cat on April 21, 2013, 11:20:19 PM
Ron, I wonder if you understand when you are sharing your views the arrogance in your tone?

+1

Its a little silly, frankly. ;)

Quote from: Cheshire Cat on April 21, 2013, 11:20:19 PM
Ron, I wonder if you understand when you are sharing your views the arrogance in your tone?  lmbo  The only time I have seen anyone as tied to their convictions as you are to science was the fanatical preachings of a religious zealot on a street corner.  You are very much that way in your judgements of others and need to "convert" them to your belief in science as the end all understanding of the universe when many scientists cannot decide amongst themselves what within their own discipline is real, imagined or properly postulated as a theory.  This tone of superiority is a bit overbearing at times. Carry on but don't expect to convert believers to your views, it isn't going to happen any more readily than you becoming a Transcendental Monk on a hillside singing the praises of Jehovah. lol 
Bottom line is the fact that the truth of reality is beyond human understanding and it is simply our inflated egos that has us believing we understand all that is. 

Don't mean to be arrogant.  It's just me.  Perhaps I'm an idiot.  Can't help it.  I don't know.  I do the best I can.  I try to engage people without getting into bullshit, as there is too much of it in our world.  I try to be frank.  I try to be honest.  I don't try to smooth out what I say.  I don't mean to hurt feelings. I try to be serious too, and helpful to all others, although they might not realize it.  Perhaps I can try to be less insensitive to certain realities, especially regarding the religious beliefs.       

Quote from: ronchamblin on April 22, 2013, 12:16:54 AM

Quote from: stephendare on April 21, 2013, 11:44:34 PM

Quote from: Cheshire Cat on April 21, 2013, 11:20:19 PM
Ron, I wonder if you understand when you are sharing your views the arrogance in your tone?

+1

Its a little silly, frankly. ;)

Quote from: Cheshire Cat on April 21, 2013, 11:20:19 PM
Ron, I wonder if you understand when you are sharing your views the arrogance in your tone?  lmbo  The only time I have seen anyone as tied to their convictions as you are to science was the fanatical preachings of a religious zealot on a street corner.  You are very much that way in your judgements of others and need to "convert" them to your belief in science as the end all understanding of the universe when many scientists cannot decide amongst themselves what within their own discipline is real, imagined or properly postulated as a theory.  This tone of superiority is a bit overbearing at times. Carry on but don't expect to convert believers to your views, it isn't going to happen any more readily than you becoming a Transcendental Monk on a hillside singing the praises of Jehovah. lol 
Bottom line is the fact that the truth of reality is beyond human understanding and it is simply our inflated egos that has us believing we understand all that is. 

Don't mean to be arrogant.  It's just me.  Perhaps I'm an idiot.  Can't help it.  I don't know.  I do the best I can.  I try to engage people without getting into bullshit, as there is too much of it in our world.  I try to be frank.  I try to be honest.  I don't try to smooth out what I say.  I don't mean to hurt feelings. I try to be serious too, and helpful to all others, although they might not realize it.  Perhaps I can try to be less insensitive to certain realities, especially regarding the religious beliefs.       

I think you need to back away from the books for a while and just live life as it is without expectations and experience the miracle of it.  The thing you miss when sharing your views about believers or a God is the fact that you are convinced your views are the correct views and those are the measure of all that you think regarding spirituality and reality.  Clinging so strongly to a set of views to the point that you are "wary" of believers is in and of itself an expression of fear. 

Above you stated that the "believer" is too careless. The question then becomes by whose standards are believers too careless, your own?  Of course your own and that is where the arrogance comes in.  You expect everyone to behave and believe according to your parameters.  Really?   

Your words were,
I choose to be a skeptic, and am wary of the believer, as some of them kill humans, and engage in wars, and shirk their responsibilities because they have faith that somebody else will take care of things, or that they shouldn't worry about this life too much, because they are going to have a good life after this one.

Where do you come up with this stuff? How do you know the personal beliefs of everyone else?  Because a person believes in something greater than themselves to say they are all of the things you listed above is just foolishness.

You are certainly not an "idiot" but are indeed "opinionated" to the point of testing ones patience. lol  No one understands the depth of the reality and universe we are living in and as such no one has all the answers.  Neither you or me.  The best we can do is follow our hearts and make our own choices however different they may be.  I for one have never been a fan of evangelical behaviors and that includes on the part of believers and those who embrace science.  Everyone must find their own truth and the fact is that those truth's will all be different and that's okay by me.  :)

Quote from: Cheshire Cat on April 21, 2013, 11:20:19 PM
Ron, I wonder if you understand when you are sharing your views the arrogance in your tone?  lmbo  The only time I have seen anyone as tied to their convictions as you are to science was the fanatical preachings of a religious zealot on a street corner.  You are very much that way in your judgements of others and need to "convert" them to your belief in science as the end all understanding of the universe when many scientists cannot decide amongst themselves what within their own discipline is real, imagined or properly postulated as a theory.  This tone of superiority is a bit overbearing at times. Carry on but don't expect to convert believers to your views, it isn't going to happen any more readily than you becoming a Transcendental Monk on a hillside singing the praises of Jehovah. lol 
Bottom line is the fact that the truth of reality is beyond human understanding and it is simply our inflated egos that has us believing we understand all that is.

Great Post! ;)

QuoteOut of this process of imagining, each of us has options to either believe all of the possibilities, or most of them, or only a few of them.  I suspect that the aborigines and the "cave men" believed quite a few of these possibilities, one being perhaps the existence of telepathy, and another being the existence of gods and spirits.

As time progressed, especially around the Enlightenment Era, we (humans) began to accumulate knowledge of the sciences, knowledge which allowed many learned men and women to reign in many of the former possibilities, and therefore to have fewer beliefs in the realms of the otherworldly and the spiritual.

The simple folk however, being without the equipment of knowledge of the sciences, were inclined to hold to the belief in the otherworldly and the spiritual, and perhaps the telepathic, partially because of habit, and partially because of the mental and spiritual benefits from it.

The first part of your statement sounds as though you believe that religion is nothing but bad science. However, you close with an admission that believers (simple as we are) derive mental and spiritual benefits. I admit to the partial truth of both statements. There is plenty of bad science in religion, some of which needs a cure. There are, as Rodney Stark and Bainbridge observe in "Theory of Religion", sufficient mental and spiritual benefits to the adherents to keep religious phenomena rolling generation after generation.

That sociological reality itself should be sufficient evidence that religious belief (in general) has something to offer mankind.

As far as seeking objective scientific evidence to support (by definition) supernatural phenomena one does not decry the trade of plumbing because it cannot all be done with a hammer. When one seeks evidence to support an argument, the nature and context of the argument itself is relevent the type and strength of the evidence that is required.

Quote from: Starbuck on April 22, 2013, 01:43:20 PM

QuoteOut of this process of imagining, each of us has options to either believe all of the possibilities, or most of them, or only a few of them.  I suspect that the aborigines and the "cave men" believed quite a few of these possibilities, one being perhaps the existence of telepathy, and another being the existence of gods and spirits.

As time progressed, especially around the Enlightenment Era, we (humans) began to accumulate knowledge of the sciences, knowledge which allowed many learned men and women to reign in many of the former possibilities, and therefore to have fewer beliefs in the realms of the otherworldly and the spiritual.

The simple folk however, being without the equipment of knowledge of the sciences, were inclined to hold to the belief in the otherworldly and the spiritual, and perhaps the telepathic, partially because of habit, and partially because of the mental and spiritual benefits from it.

The first part of your statement sounds as though you believe that religion is nothing but bad science. However, you close with an admission that believers (simple as we are) derive mental and spiritual benefits. I admit to the partial truth of both statements. There is plenty of bad science in religion, some of which needs a cure. There are, as Rodney Stark and Bainbridge observe in "Theory of Religion", sufficient mental and spiritual benefits to the adherents to keep religious phenomena rolling generation after generation.

That sociological reality itself should be sufficient evidence that religious belief (in general) has something to offer mankind.

As far as seeking objective scientific evidence to support (by definition) supernatural phenomena one does not decry the trade of plumbing because it cannot all be done with a hammer. When one seeks evidence to support an argument, the nature and context of the argument itself is relevent the type and strength of the evidence that is required.

Good points!  I especially like the last paragraph however intend to test the statement by taking a hammer to the sink drain.  :)

Quote from: Cheshire Cat on April 22, 2013, 01:56:27 PM

Quote from: Starbuck on April 22, 2013, 01:43:20 PM
That sociological reality itself should be sufficient evidence that religious belief (in general) has something to offer mankind.

As far as seeking objective scientific evidence to support (by definition) supernatural phenomena one does not decry the trade of plumbing because it cannot all be done with a hammer. When one seeks evidence to support an argument, the nature and context of the argument itself is relevent the type and strength of the evidence that is required.

Good points!  I especially like the last paragraph however intend to test the statement by taking a hammer to the sink drain.  :)

I like the hammer and plumbing thing, but I don't see how it is an applicable metaphor to scientific versus religious thinking. So science is a trade for understanding nature? What is the trade for understanding the supernatural? Wouldn't the supernatural also need to be experienced in some way in order for us to go about understanding it, whatever means we may use? And does saying something is supernatural mean that we cannot expend effort on trying to understand it scientifically?

Just because we believe something cannot be explained scientifically, does not mean "Why do you believe X?" is an invalid question. Since we are not born with knowledge of the supernatural, there has to be a story for how that belief was formed in our mind. The story of that belief, at least, is open for scrutiny. Everyone in the world believes something. At a minimum, 70% of them are wrong, so I think its something worth debating.

Additionally, what is the sociological reality? And why does it prove the benefit of religious belief?

Not trying to bust your chops here PeeJayEss but what are the qualifiers for these two statements?  In essence, how do you know either claim to be true?

QuotePeeJayEss:Since we are not born with knowledge of the supernatural, there has to be a story for how that belief was formed in our mind. The story of that belief, at least, is open for scrutiny.

Everyone in the world believes something. At a minimum, 70% of them are wrong, so I think its something worth debating.

" And does saying something is supernatural mean that we cannot expend effort on trying to understand it scientifically?"

Yes. Science makes the a priori assumption that it is measuring and assessing objective reality- the natural world. It lacks the tools to make a comparable assessment of supernatural phenomena. The supernatural realm by definition is outside scientific inquiry. Now science can be used to assess the natural manifestations of the supernatural (if any). For example, one can assess the social satisfaction, life expectancy, and general health metrics of religious persons and determine that they compare more favorably than with the metrics of non-religious. That might be "evidence" of a sort.

Supernatural assertions in the natural world have measurable validity, but that does not rule out a placebo effect and is not irrefutable "proof" of supernatural existence in a strict sense used by physical sciences. Ultimately our relationship with the supernatural comes down to "belief" or "faith". That takes the entire argument (by its essential nature) outside the realm of objective scientific inquiry.

One can analyze the materials, chemical content, history, social context, artistic expression, narrative of emotional impact, weight and various components of the Mona Lisa, or a Rembrandt but that does not help evaluate whether one masterwork is "better" than another. Ultimately that is in the heart and mind of the observer as a work of art speaks to the viewer during a specific experience of viewing at a certain point of time.

Likewise, religion and science are separate disciplines, each having its own criterion (tools) for evaluation... leading to my analogy of using a hammer for plumbing. Sometimes you might loosen a pipe, and sometimes all you might do is to break it.

Quote from: Starbuck on April 23, 2013, 02:57:37 PM
" And does saying something is supernatural mean that we cannot expend effort on trying to understand it scientifically?"

Yes. Science makes the a priori assumption that it is measuring and assessing objective reality- the natural world. It lacks the tools to make a comparable assessment of supernatural phenomena. The supernatural realm by definition is outside scientific inquiry. Now science can be used to assess the natural manifestations of the supernatural (if any). For example, one can assess the social satisfaction, life expectancy, and general health metrics of religious persons and determine that they compare more favorably than with the metrics of non-religious. That might be "evidence" of a sort.

Supernatural assertions in the natural world have measurable validity, but that does not rule out a placebo effect and is not irrefutable "proof" of supernatural existence in a strict sense used by physical sciences. Ultimately our relationship with the supernatural comes down to "belief" or "faith". That takes the entire argument (by its essential nature) outside the realm of objective scientific inquiry.

One can analyze the materials, chemical content, history, social context, artistic expression, narrative of emotional impact, weight and various components of the Mona Lisa, or a Rembrandt but that does not help evaluate whether one masterwork is "better" than another. Ultimately that is in the heart and mind of the observer as a work of art speaks to the viewer during a specific experience of viewing at a certain point of time.

Likewise, religion and science are separate disciplines, each having its own criterion (tools) for evaluation... leading to my analogy of using a hammer for plumbing. Sometimes you might loosen a pipe, and sometimes all you might do is to break it.

Well said Starbuck.  You are on a roll. 

Does anyone actually read Rons posts all the way through, quite frankly they read like a third year master degrees thesis

Today on Huffington Post:

"PHILADELPHIA (AP) â€" A couple serving probation for the 2009 death of their toddler after they turned to prayer instead of a doctor could face new charges now that another son has died.

Herbert and Catherine Schaible belong to a fundamentalist Christian church that believes in faith healing. They lost their 8-month-old son, Brandon, last week after he suffered from diarrhea and breathing problems for at least a week, and stopped eating. Four years ago, another son died from bacterial pneumonia."

We were discussing the idea of faith earlier.  The above illustrates individuals who ascribe to the use of faith to an extreme.  Unfortunately the two children suffered and died because of it.  The use of religious faith, whether in an attempt to solve problems, to heal another, or to allow one to release worry, is in any case avoiding the process of positive problem solving; that is, taking the proper action to solve problems.  Excessive use of faith is either a consequence of one's dependent or desperate condition, or simply the result of one's habit of shifting responsibility to others.  To encourage or promote the act of faith is to create a community of individuals who do not act, but only wish, hope, and wait for something or somebody to solve their problems.     

Quote from: Starbuck on April 23, 2013, 02:57:37 PM
" And does saying something is supernatural mean that we cannot expend effort on trying to understand it scientifically?"

Yes. Science makes the a priori assumption that it is measuring and assessing objective reality- the natural world.  (The Supernatural -OCK.) outside the realm of objective scientific inquiry.

One can analyze the materials, chemical content, history, social context, artistic expression, narrative of emotional impact, weight and various components of the Mona Lisa, or a Rembrandt but that does not help evaluate whether one masterwork is "better" than another.

I disagree, facts about the solar system were "outside the purview of science," prior to middle age discoveries. Actually Latin American natives were WAY AHEAD of European science in this area. Nothing supernatural should be outside of the study of science any more then the composition of distant planets, black holes, worm holes or the big bang... all of which may have evidence but no truly tangible facts. For all we know, the rock called Pluto might be made of green cheese, and until we get there, the best science is just a elaborate guess.

So it is with the super natural, there are a few real scientists that are dedicated to finding a way to measure this field and perhaps even make that long sought "First Contact." However in my heart and mind I'd say that "First Contact," has already been made, and will come again. Perhaps Doctor Rupert Sheldrake, biochemist at Cambridge University and his team will see it before anyone else. http://www.sheldrake.org/homepage.html

As for the "measurement of history" your argument crumbles, and it crumbles just on the basis of Christian texts alone. I want to toss out just a few examples though I could greatly expand on them.
To wit:

Titus Lucretius Carus (ca. 99 BC â€" ca. 55 BC) was a Roman poet and philosopher. His only known work is the epic philosophical poem De rerum natura. 2 surviving texts.

Hermes - The Emerald Tablet of Hermes is the original source of Hermetic Philosophy and Alchemy. According to one legend, the text was originally carved by Hermes on tablets of emerald and placed in the King’s Chamber of the Great Pyramid of Cheops. While such stories are probably apocryphal, the document has been well known to scholars and philosophers since at least the 10th century. No surviving original copy.

Demosthenes - 384â€"322 BC, was a prominent Greek statesman and orator of ancient Athens. His orations constitute a significant expression of contemporary Athenian life. 8 surviving texts. Earliest surviving copy dated 1100 A.D., 800 years after the original text, 8 surviving copies.

Herodotus - 480-425 B.C. was an ancient Greek historian who was born in Halicarnassus, Caria (modern day Bodrum, Turkey) and  is called the father of history [see Cicero De legibus 1.5: "Herodotum patrem historiae"]. Earliest surviving copy 900 A.D., 1,300 years after the original texts, 8 surviving copies.

Plato - wrote his works from 427-347 BC. The earliest manuscript copy of Plato’s writing in existence today was written in 900 AD. That is 1,200 years after Plato’s death! And there are only 2 copies of these manuscripts in existence.

Aristotle - 384-322 B.C. Aristotle was born in Stagira in north Greece, the son of Nichomachus, the court physician to the Macedonian royal family. Aristotle was a Greek philosopher and polymath, a student of Plato. Earliest surviving texts dated 1100 A.D., 1,400 years since the original texts, 49 surviving copies of copies.

Tallus - Tallus was a secular historian who (circa AD52) wrote a history of the Eastern Mediterranean from the Trojan War to his own time. The document no longer exists but it was quoted by other writers.

Gaius Cornelius Tacitus - circa 100 A.D.  The surviving portions of his two major worksâ€"the Annals and the Historiesâ€"examine the reigns of the Roman Emperors Tiberius, Claudius, Nero, and those who reigned in the Year of the Four Emperors (AD 69). We have five surviving works by Tacitus, with some notable large gaps in the Histories. The earliest surviving fragmental copies date from 1100 A.D., 1000 years later then the originals, 20 known partial copies.

Lucian - (Born 115 AD) was a well-known Greek satirist and traveling lecturer. More than eighty works bear his name. He mocked Christians in his writing, but at the same time provided evidence that Jesus really did exist:

Gaius Julius Caesar -  lived from 100-44 B.C., and the earliest manuscript copy of his writings dates back to 900 AD, putting our best evidence of Caesar ever existing 1,000 years after his death. And there are 10 copies of ancient manuscripts of Caesar’s Gallic Wars,.

Homer - (900 B.B.) Homer, who historians are not even sure ever really existed even today, is credited with writing the Iliad in ca 900 BC. The earliest manuscript copy of the Iliad dates to 400 BC. Meaning the only proof of Homer or the Iliad being accurate is from 500 years after the death of Homer. Additionally there are 643 copies of ancient manuscripts of the Iliad written over the centuries that when compared against each other by experts have a 95.3 consistency and accuracy, making it one of the most reliable and proven documents of antiquity. The earliest copies of his works are from 400 B.C. some 500 years after his probable death, there are 643 surviving text copies.

William Shakespeare - William Shakespeare was an English poet and playwright, widely regarded as the greatest writer in the English language and the world's pre-eminent dramatist.. His famous work Macbeth is that contained in the 1623 "First Folio," the first published collection of Shakespeare's plays, one surviving original text.

ACCURACY TEST:

Old Testament, Holy Bible - Prior to 1948, some of the earliest complete manuscripts of various books of the Old Testament dated to around 900 to 1000 A.D. However, in 1947, some Bedouin shepherds were looking for some lost sheep in the hill sides surrounding the Dead Sea in Israel. Copies of the Old Testament were produced by trained Jewish scribes who would copy portions of Scripture by hand on animal skins. Around 100 B.C., these scribes began to use papyrus or paper to copy the Old Testament. When these Jews copied various portions of the Bible, they took extreme care to ensure the precision of their scribal copying. In fact, in some cases, if there was one error between a copy and the original, the copy was to be burned. When scholars compared the Isaiah scroll to our earliest copies of Isaiah previous to then (900 to 1000 A.D.), they found that there were only about 13 textual variations. Regarding Isaiah 53, which predicts the suffering and death of Jesus, they only found one variation in the entire chapter that had any possible significance: putting "light" in Isaiah 53:11.

HISTORY TEST:

New Testament, Holy Bible - (1st Cent. A.D. to 50-100 A.D. to 2nd Cent. A.D. 130) There are thousands more Greek New Testament manuscripts than any other ancient writing.  The internal consistency of the New Testament documents is about 99.5% textually pure.  That is an amazing accuracy.  In addition there are 5600 copies dated within 100 years of the events and over 19,000 copies in the Syriac, Latin, Coptic, and Aramaic languages.  The total supporting New Testament manuscript base is over 24,000 copies.

Quote from: ronchamblin on April 23, 2013, 08:46:28 PM
"To encourage or promote the act of faith is to create a community of individuals who do not act, but only wish, hope..."

...and pray for divine guidance among the professionals taking care of their children. We could exchange completely lame stories of Bozo's that refused transfusions because of some religious belief, or others who massacred 45 million people in China in 4 years because of a lack of religious belief. This proves nothing more then you and I can come up with sad, tragic and pathetic stories Ron.

Luke - the author of the third Gospel and the book of Actsâ€"is of special interest for several reasons. While the historic evidence favors a Greek origin of Luke, the Textual evidence does not. So either Luke was written in Aramaic, or the original Greek has been lost. He was the only Gentile who wrote any of the books of the Bible. Furthermore, he was the only scientist among the writers.

He is also recognized as a great historian, with his excellent accounts of the key events of the most important era in the history of the world. He also was undoubtedly a devoted Christian, a truth especially demonstrated by his unselfish service and companionship to the apostle Paul. Finally, he was probably the first Christian apologist, zealously concerned to defend and establish the absolute truth of the gospel of Christ.

Luke As Scientist and Medical Doctor

We know nothing for certain about Luke's background or his medical training. He was called "the beloved physician" by Paul (Colossians 4:14), and undoubtedly one reason for his ongoing association with Paul was the latter's need for frequent medical care.

Paul spoke of his "thorn in the flesh," (II Corinthians 12:7), for example, and his "infirmities" (II Corinthians 12:9). We don't know what these were, although they affected him "in the flesh," and thus presumably needed a doctor's care from time to time. Paul had also suffered much actual physical persecution during his ministry (see II Corinthians 11:23-27), and undoubtedly needed Luke's medical help on many occasions. We can assume that Dr. Luke could have built up a comfortable practice in such a city as Antioch (where he probably met Paul), but he chose instead to serve the Lord in this sacrificial and much-needed capacity of helping Paul. As a scientist, it is interesting to me that the only one of Paul's followers who stayed with him to the end was also a scientist (II Timothy 4:11).

So Ron? Why would I, as a Christian, or as a practicing Jew, with a solid education in history and Biblical studies, not seek the very best care for myself and my family?  Every culture has its mentally challenged or criminally insane, but we can not lay this on any religious or atheist belief.

Quote from: stephendare on April 23, 2013, 09:53:37 PM
But Ock.  How can that be?

I thought Europeans invented science in the great Enlightenment?

Shear Genius! LOL!

QuoteHermes - The Emerald Tablet of Hermes is the original source of Hermetic Philosophy and Alchemy. According to one legend, the text was originally carved by Hermes on tablets of emerald and placed in the King’s Chamber of the Great Pyramid of Cheops. While such stories are probably apocryphal, the document has been well known to scholars and philosophers since at least the 10th century. No surviving original copy.

To hear a true New Age, Space Cadet version with an English translation of the Emerald Tablets (and some pretty cool space images) check out Constance Demby's Sunborne.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gCtN-8YcCXM&list=PLE080EC5BB088730C

So Ron? Why would I, as a Christian, or as a practicing Jew, with a solid education in history and Biblical studies, not seek the very best care for myself and my family?  Every culture has its mentally challenged or criminally insane, but we can not lay this on any religious or atheist belief.    Quote from Ock.

You are correct Ock.  There are the mentally deficient who extend their behavior to extremes, just as the couple did in the Huff Post article.  Obviously something is missing in both their heads.  And too, you make sense in stating that it is somewhat useless and baseless to expend too many words trying to link the religious influence to those who are mentally challenged or insane.   

Apparently the two individuals experiencing the extreme faith acts came together in the first place because they were both a little deficient.  It is unusual to have two nuts together, just as it is unusual to have a community mostly populated by mentally deficient individuals.  When the number of apparent nuts or odd thinking individuals increases within a large population, one might suspect the influence of religion or perhaps some kind of cult.  Any population has within it a broad spectrum of individuals from the obviously "slow" to the balanced genius, which is what I call the individual who has extreme intelligence, but who also does not lack the social skills which sometimes plagues the savant-like geniuses.

Just as anybody who wished to live another day, and who finds themselves in a distressed aircraft heading toward a crash, would rather have a pilot who used every human skill possible to save the aircraft, and would not wish to have a pilot who throws up his hands and prays, there are some who sense the same dynamics of survival and progress within the general population, and with mundane problems in governing and addressing the wrongs which have evolved within society.

While the praying pilot would cause the death of all in the aircraft, the excessively praying citizen, professional, or politician, depending on his or her position and status, will influence the well-being of the other citizenry according to the degree to which he or she attends directly to any problems using secular and rational skills, and avoids the act of praying to influence or attempt accomplishing the tasks needed to achieve the goals set before them. 

So, what I'm saying is that, just as all on the distressed aircraft must live, so too, all in a society or a community must live with the best standard of living as possible, which might include a good measure of equality, fairness, and opportunity, which might include conditions reducing the suffering to all, and that these goals can best be achieved with sober and secular skills, without the excessive influence of, and practicing of, prayer and faith, as the latter two activities seem to give cover to incompetence, opportunism, favoritism, complacency, and stagnation.     

 

Stephen.  Forgive me for being honest, but you make little sense.  Please try to make at least some sense so that we can have a conversation.

Again Stephen.  Please apply greater effort to communication skills.  You drift to hogwash too often, and I think many people will agree with this opinion.  This drifting, and twisting, and avoiding, and junk.... it simply degrades the forum environment.   Try to stay on subject without simply bashing another.  If you bash someone, do it clearly, giving good reason why you feel qualified in doing so, and exactly why the person warrants bashing.  To simply throw stones is rather tiring and, as I've said, it degrades the forum.

You twist all too excessively, to the degree that I have not the time nor patience to engage it.  So I will end my engagement on this topic, as it descends to the juvenile.  You are not clever, as you would like the lackeys to believe.  You are shallow, and rather ignorant.

Quote from: stephendare on April 22, 2013, 05:50:51 PM
PeeJayEss, Forgive me, but I think I need a supernatural explanation to see the connection between your questions and deductions and the original statements.

Are you sure you don't want to ask Starbuck why they hate Science so much?

Or democracy?

Or motherhood?

What?

Quote from: Cheshire Cat on April 22, 2013, 06:09:21 PM
Not trying to bust your chops here PeeJayEss but what are the qualifiers for these two statements?  In essence, how do you know either claim to be true?

QuotePeeJayEss:Since we are not born with knowledge of the supernatural, there has to be a story for how that belief was formed in our mind. The story of that belief, at least, is open for scrutiny.

Everyone in the world believes something. At a minimum, 70% of them are wrong, so I think its something worth debating.

The first one: We're not born with knowledge of the supernatural. Nothing controversial there. We are born with knowledge of the inside of the womb and some sounds we hear on the outside (hopefully Mozart), and some instinctual prompts (keep your fingers out of my eye! probably). No baby has ever come out and proclaimed "Jesus Christ is my savior!" Not even Jesus knew he was Jesus, and he was Jesus! So the belief that you have faith in got into your head in some manner. There is a story. It came from people. All people are fallible (except the pope, even though everything he ever learned he learned from other people that were fallible) and nothing is perfect. So if nothing else, there is room for perfecting your belief.

The second one is pretty straightforward. Christians are the biggest religious group and makeup about 30% of the population. So at a maximum, their version of God is correct, and 70% of the population is wrong. If any other group is correct, then more than 70% of the population is wrong. And if the group that is correct is one that ascribes to a belief that all non-believers, non-converts, etc are not to be saved, then being wrong will be a major problem for the rest of us. If we are truth-seekers or want everyone to be saved, then we should debate the issue. "Faith" should not be an excuse to close one's mind.

Quote from: Starbuck on April 23, 2013, 02:57:37 PM
" And does saying something is supernatural mean that we cannot expend effort on trying to understand it scientifically?"

Yes. Science makes the a priori assumption that it is measuring and assessing objective reality- the natural world. It lacks the tools to make a comparable assessment of supernatural phenomena. The supernatural realm by definition is outside scientific inquiry. Now science can be used to assess the natural manifestations of the supernatural (if any). For example, one can assess the social satisfaction, life expectancy, and general health metrics of religious persons and determine that they compare more favorably than with the metrics of non-religious. That might be "evidence" of a sort.

Supernatural assertions in the natural world have measurable validity, but that does not rule out a placebo effect and is not irrefutable "proof" of supernatural existence in a strict sense used by physical sciences. Ultimately our relationship with the supernatural comes down to "belief" or "faith". That takes the entire argument (by its essential nature) outside the realm of objective scientific inquiry.

One can analyze the materials, chemical content, history, social context, artistic expression, narrative of emotional impact, weight and various components of the Mona Lisa, or a Rembrandt but that does not help evaluate whether one masterwork is "better" than another. Ultimately that is in the heart and mind of the observer as a work of art speaks to the viewer during a specific experience of viewing at a certain point of time.

Likewise, religion and science are separate disciplines, each having its own criterion (tools) for evaluation... leading to my analogy of using a hammer for plumbing. Sometimes you might loosen a pipe, and sometimes all you might do is to break it.

But how do you know that something is, in fact, supernatural?
If the supernatural does not have any natural manifestations, how do you know about it at all?
The general health an happiness of religious vs non-religious may say something about holding religious beliefs, but it says nothing about whether those beliefs are well-founded.

The judgement of art is an example where, because you don't personally understand what is happening, you call it supernatural. Research can show that certain color combinations or patterns are aesthetically appealing. If a piece of art appeals to you because of a certain experience you had, what it reminds you of, who it reminds you of, who you saw it with, etc, that can be explained scientifically too. The only limitation on predicting what a particular person will judge as pleasing or a work of art is the size of your data set. If you knew everything about how the brain perceives and organizes visual art as well as the past experiences and current state of the viewer, you sure would be able to predict what they like.

I still don't understand the plumbing analogy, but what are the religious tools for evaluation? The ones of science are obvious, but how does one critically evaluate a religious belief? If someone says something is true and it is their religious belief, does that just end the conversation? The mere fact that there is such a variety of things that people have faith in indicates that the faith of some (most, in fact) is misplaced. This isn't science versus religion, this is faith versus faith, science is agnostic.

QuotePeeJayEss: 

The second one is pretty straightforward. Christians are the biggest religious group and makeup about 30% of the population. So at a maximum, their version of God is correct, and 70% of the population is wrong. If any other group is correct, then more than 70% of the population is wrong. And if the group that is correct is one that ascribes to a belief that all non-believers, non-converts, etc are not to be saved, then being wrong will be a major problem for the rest of us. If we are truth-seekers or want everyone to be saved, then we should debate the issue. "Faith" should not be an excuse to close one's mind.

Thank you and I definitely agree with the last two sentences PJ.  :)

The following is selected quotes from Huff Post article from today:

"Chilean police on Thursday arrested four people accused of burning a baby alive in a ritual because the leader of the sect believed that the end of the world was near and that the child was the antichrist. .... The 3-day-old baby was taken to a hill in the town of Colliguay near the Chilean port of Valparaiso on Nov. 21 and was thrown into a bonfire. The baby's mother, 25-year-old Natalia Guerra, had allegedly approved the sacrifice and was among those arrested.

"The baby was naked. They strapped tape around her mouth to keep her from screaming. Then they placed her on a board. After calling on the spirits they threw her on the bonfire alive," said Miguel Ampuero, of the Police investigative Unit, Chile's equivalent of the FBI.  .... 

"Everyone in this sect was a professional," Ampuero said. "We have someone who was a veterinarian and who worked as a flight attendant, we have a filmmaker, a draftsman. Everyone has a university degree. "



Religion anyone?

Quote from: ronchamblin on April 26, 2013, 06:19:03 PM
The following is selected quotes from Huff Post article from today:

"Chilean police on Thursday arrested four people accused of burning a baby alive in a ritual because the leader of the sect believed that the end of the world was near and that the child was the antichrist. .... The 3-day-old baby was taken to a hill in the town of Colliguay near the Chilean port of Valparaiso on Nov. 21 and was thrown into a bonfire. The baby's mother, 25-year-old Natalia Guerra, had allegedly approved the sacrifice and was among those arrested.

"The baby was naked. They strapped tape around her mouth to keep her from screaming. Then they placed her on a board. After calling on the spirits they threw her on the bonfire alive," said Miguel Ampuero, of the Police investigative Unit, Chile's equivalent of the FBI.  .... 

"Everyone in this sect was a professional," Ampuero said. "We have someone who was a veterinarian and who worked as a flight attendant, we have a filmmaker, a draftsman. Everyone has a university degree. "



Religion anyone?

Oh my goodness Ron!  This is your come back discussion on a thread you said was becoming juvenile?  Have mercy!

Imagine the surprise of readers who want to find out about whether or not First Baptist Church is "so" powerful only to be led down a path of discussion about religious beliefs in general to now find a bizarre article discussing the barbaric actions of a cult in Chile who in their insanity killed a child.  That is murder plain and simple and the sad truth is that people all across the world abuse and kill children every day and it has nothing to do with religion.  I think this thread has found it's end or it should have found it's end with this enlightening article intended to draw a parallel between those who murder children and religion.  This is perhaps the final insult I think one could level at people who embrace religion by pretending this kind of insanity is indicative of those of good heart who believe in a higher power. This is a bit too much I think Ron, really a bit too much.

Quote"Everyone in this sect was a professional," Ampuero said. "We have someone who was a veterinarian and who worked as a flight attendant, we have a filmmaker, a draftsman. Everyone has a university degree. "

college anyone?

Quote from: TheCat on April 26, 2013, 08:50:44 PM

Quote"Everyone in this sect was a professional," Ampuero said. "We have someone who was a veterinarian and who worked as a flight attendant, we have a filmmaker, a draftsman. Everyone has a university degree. "

college anyone?

Hehehe.....Clever cat!

Quote from: Cheshire Cat on April 26, 2013, 07:32:04 PM

Quote from: ronchamblin on April 26, 2013, 06:19:03 PM
The following is selected quotes from Huff Post article from today:

"Chilean police on Thursday arrested four people accused of burning a baby alive in a ritual because the leader of the sect believed that the end of the world was near and that the child was the antichrist. .... The 3-day-old baby was taken to a hill in the town of Colliguay near the Chilean port of Valparaiso on Nov. 21 and was thrown into a bonfire. The baby's mother, 25-year-old Natalia Guerra, had allegedly approved the sacrifice and was among those arrested.

"The baby was naked. They strapped tape around her mouth to keep her from screaming. Then they placed her on a board. After calling on the spirits they threw her on the bonfire alive," said Miguel Ampuero, of the Police investigative Unit, Chile's equivalent of the FBI.  .... 

"Everyone in this sect was a professional," Ampuero said. "We have someone who was a veterinarian and who worked as a flight attendant, we have a filmmaker, a draftsman. Everyone has a university degree. "



Religion anyone?

Oh my goodness Ron!  This is your come back discussion on a thread you said was becoming juvenile?  Have mercy!

Imagine the surprise of readers who want to find out about whether or not First Baptist Church is "so" powerful only to be led down a path of discussion about religious beliefs in general to now find a bizarre article discussing the barbaric actions of a cult in Chile who in their insanity killed a child.  That is murder plain and simple and the sad truth is that people all across the world abuse and kill children every day and it has nothing to do with religion.  I think this thread has found it's end or it should have found it's end with this enlightening article intended to draw a parallel between those who murder children and religion.  This is perhaps the final insult I think one could level at people who embrace religion by pretending this kind of insanity is indicative of those of good heart who believe in a higher power. This is a bit too much I think Ron, really a bit too much.

Thank you Diane.  It is refreshing for someone to be so readable and direct.  We should encourage your kind of writing on this forum.

The Huff Post article quotes were interesting to me in that they illustrate some aspects of religious belief which might be of interest to our forum readers.  Although the particular Chilean beliefs were obviously different from most of our local religious beliefs, I noticed similarities, as the phrases used such as “end of the world” and “antichrist”, would indicate a relationship to Christianity.   

My purpose in offering the information as it appeared in the Huff Post is to illustrate the degree to which individuals of a cult or church can travel toward behaviors quite bizarre, especially if the individuals are led by a leader or preacher who is able to take his mind to extreme religious delusional thinking.  These people were not individually insane in the normal sense, but were brought to  a level of almost insane behavior as a consequence of intense delusional thinking based on ideas such as gods, sin, and human sacrifice.

This kind of news, although horrible, should be welcomed occasionally to remind all of us of the degree to which religious thinking, if unchallenged and unrestrained, can evolve toward quite bizarre scenarios, as is evidenced throughout history. 

After all, if it is in the nature of a religion to believe in a god, to believe in sin, to believe in forgiveness by a god, to believe in a heaven, to believe in a hell, to believe that prayer is talking to a god who will respond somehow to the individual, and in some cases to have the potential for further delusional extremes such as human sacrifices as illustrated in the Chilean article, then it seems appropriate for some of us to offer reminders that we have in our city the same or similar religious thought dynamics, reminders which might in subtle ways cause moderation in our religious environment, which is good for the community I should think.

Yes, this was murder, but it was murder influenced by a thought process which found its beginning in religious beliefs, and as history has shown, there are no limits to which religious delusional thinking can extend if given enough time, the right leadership, and a population with the right kind of needs, deficiencies, and inclinations.       


BTW, I did not mean to indicate earlier that I was ending my entire participation in this forum, but only meant that I was ending my participation in the subject for a time, taking a rest from certain hogwash which perturbed me. 

Quote from: stephendare on April 27, 2013, 02:43:23 AM

Quote from: stephendare on April 24, 2013, 12:58:41 AM

Quote"Out of this process of imagining, each of us has options to either believe all of the possibilities, or most of them, or only a few of them.  I suspect that the aborigines and the "cave men" believed quite a few of these possibilities, one being perhaps the existence of telepathy, and another being the existence of gods and spirits.

As time progressed, especially around the Enlightenment Era, we (humans) began to accumulate knowledge of the sciences, knowledge which allowed many learned men and women to reign in many of the former possibilities, and therefore to have fewer beliefs in the realms of the otherworldly and the spiritual."

Of all your quotes so far, this is probably my favorite, inasmuch as it relies on more superstition, outright ignorance of both history and even anthropology and fabricated pseudo history than a run of the mill "religious person".  At least the religious individual, in general only has to believe in one unprovable thing, the existence of a diety. (which apparently makes them nearly mentally ill)

Are you suggesting that my statement relies mostly on superstition, and outright ignorance...?  Interesting Mr. Dare.  Quite a profound statement.  And yes, i am suggesting that the religious individual, although admittedly in varying and very slight degrees, possesses some attributes of the mentally ill. 

But in order to believe the nonsense which you posted, one has to believe that your suspicions about the beliefs of either 'cave men' (One assumes you mean Neanderthals?  Or perhaps the residents of the French Caves of Lescaux) or Aborigines--(-and by this I think you mean primitive man, rather than Aborigines, the native inhabitants of Australia.) have any real place in a discussion about science, religion or history.


Call them whatever.  Neanderthals did of course live in caves.  The intended and fundamental meaning is important Mr. Dare.  Call them aborigines or cave men or primitive man if you like.  I really like the term primitive man, as you’ve offered.

Mr. Dare, you seem to have the habit of avoiding the issues of real interest by wasting everyone’s time on insignificant points .  Apparently you wish to submit these insignificant points to show somehow that you are a very intelligent person.  You are like a red feathered banty rooster, hopping around frantically trying to show people how much you know, either by copying large segments of original works, or by throwing out so much hogwash of trivial insignificance, readers will suspect that surely there must be something of substance within.

You are smart Mr. Dare, but not to the depth or breadth you would wish others to believe.  You do have your specialties, such as the local histories which I’ve enjoyed and appreciated so much, but I suggest caution when you extend to other areas, as it is possible that you might appear the fool.  You are someone who will consider it a “win” if you point out a misspelled word on a scientist’s nobel prize winning paper.  Substance Mr. Dare, substance. 

Have you noticed that you very seldom post original and somewhat profound thoughts on the issues you’ve engaged?  In your quest to push sensitive and sensible people away from this forum, you have indeed managed to post voluminous criticism, mostly unfair, insulting, and unsupported, which gains perhaps small appearances of credibility only because your posts are so voluminous and full of hogwash, bouncing around to this or that, so that nobody really wants to wade through it to respond.  You attempt credibility by shear volume of hogwash.  In order to gain genuine praise Mr. Dare, in order to genuinely influence others to assume you are a superior debater, please slow down and attempt to be original.  Think about the essence of what is being discussed.  Attack the essence of one’s argument, and avoid complicating the issues, and attacking others by suggesting they are simply “ignorant” or are full of “nonsense”.   

And let me linger on this for a moment.  Is it possible that perhaps you mean to use the term "aboriginal' in the Victorian sense of the term: Indigenous People?

Again, as I tend to be attentive to reasonable significance and hopeful quality, I do not consider it important to be concerned about the terms aboriginal or indigenous or primitive.  The very fact that you are concerned about these terms is proof that you are lost in shallow attacks, that you do not possess the depth of concentration or knowledge to focus on the essence of the arguments.  You attempt to obscure your lack of understanding of certain fundamental issues by nitpicking on  insignificant terms.  What is significant Mr. Dare?  Do you want to continue with arguing about these terms?  To do so is juvenile.  However, if you wish, I will gladly engage you on this rather wasteful exercise.  But really... is it necessary?  

In the first case, its just bizarre that you would offer as part of your argument your personal opinions about the supposed beliefs of other species of humans who died over 50 thousand years ago-----a huge leap of faith, Im sure you would agree.

In the second case--if you are using the terms to describe actual people, its pretty condescending of you to pass judgement on what you apparently fondly believe to be the beliefs of indigenous peoples.

Bizarre?... to offer opinions? .... my beliefs?  Horrors!!  I rather enjoy my inclination to offer opinions and beliefs about conditions of primitive peoples.  The exercise of suggesting probable mental attributes of primitives has been ongoing for hundreds of years, and I suspect that if you took the time to research, you would find that although my opinions are my own, they will probably agree with certain published students of the subject. 

The passage of time, 50,000 years, does not decrease one’s ability to discuss certain probabilities as to the beliefs of primitives, but the fact that the human mind at that time is perhaps 99.99 percent the same as the mind of the modern human “is” important.  We must assume that primitive man had similar fundamental needs as we moderns.  And therefore, we must assume that primitives would attempt to satisfy those needs in ways about which we are familiar.  This kind of thinking Mr. Dare, apparently is beyond your habit.   

Aboriginals indeed.

Before we go any further, can you cite some sources about the well known practices of telepathy amongst the Aborigines or the 'Cave Men"?

Please do Ron, inquiring minds would like to know.

I know I would like to know the source of your insights on the religious practices of 'cave men' and 'aborigines'.

Telepathy?  My position is that there is no such thing, as it would require acts involving miracles, which is to say, acts outside of the laws of nature, which would involve the ideas of gods and prayer and such.  Just as there is belief with many moderns in the existence of telepathy, and some even attempt to prove it exists, I must assume that there was also a belief amongst primitives in the idea of telepathy.  Certainly there were beliefs in ghosts and spirits and gods in the primitive minds, just as there are beliefs now. 

Regarding your wish for me to site some sources about practices of telepathy among the primitives, I must remind you that in any field of science or history or anthropology, we can, and we must, make certain assumptions until they are proven to be incorrect.  So ....  the sources are there, written by certain students before me.  I like to say that I have arrived at my opinions from a widely varied reading, but also from a long time of living, observing, and contemplation.  Therefore, I do not at this point feel obligated to site specific sources.  They are out there for you to research.  I don’t have the time to do your homework.

In summation Mr. Dare, perhaps, in your quest to inform others that you are very smart, which you are indeed in a select few realms, you should slow down a bit, and contemplate some fundamentals in the sciences, and also perhaps some fundamentals in human behavior; that is, the psychology of humans, so that you can gather habits of thinking and debate more consistent with the realm of truth, with respect for others, and with the needs of this forum. 

To continue as the red feathered banty rooster, raising the dust of the superficial insignificant, insulting and demeaning others, twisting issues with needling hogwash -- well Mr. Dare, it will only prove that you are bent on disparaging your own reputation, and that of this forum.  

Thanks Mr. Dare.  Anything of substance?  Not really.  I will review Ock's material.  Please warn him of an upcoming blast of profound logic and intellect, on a level of which he might not be accustomed.  ;)  I wonder if he ever found any trolley/train/streetcar books in my shop. 

But no, I do not dislike the Christians, as they are necessary at present for balance and comfort in the minds of many.  I simply wish to offer alternatives to local thinking so that their presence remains somewhat harmless for the local scene.  Onward Christian soldiers. 

Regarding the idea of the mentally ill.... well, as you might suspect there is a broad spectrum or curve on which we all could be placed to indicate our level of mental health.  Where are you or I on the curve?  Where are the Christians?   Where are the secularists... the skeptics?  .... that is, if one could place upon the curve an average of each segment of the population? 

In the end, we all do the best we can for the moment in time that we indulge in communicating with others.  This forum is an exercise in communicating, an exercise in forming ideas which interest us, an exercise in accurately conveying our ideas to others.  The feedback we invite allows us to weigh and question our convictions so that we might form thoughts approaching the ideals of truth and honesty.  We should guard against contaminating the discussions with attempts to harm others, or with attempts to improve our standings or self-images excessively at the expense of truth and honesty.  Balance Mr. Dare.  Calm.  And substance too.  ;)

Quote from: stephendare on April 27, 2013, 12:38:17 PM
More good advice which doesnt originate from yourself, Ron.  Let me commend you to the rest of that

From the Bible, Luke 4:23 (King James Version):

Physician, heal thyself:

Its interesting that you think of your posts in this way.  Just not terribly accurate.  But we've come to expect that by now.

Im sure it all makes sense to someone who would like to conflate Christianity with child murder as you did in yesterdays postings and still be considered a serious thinker....  But I would posit that many people would be surprised to know that their cross necklaces could be a sign that they might be in danger of murdering a three year old as a consequence of their simple faith,

sounds like a calm, substantive approach, one supposes.

As for having to 'prepare' ock for anything, he has this habit that I highly recommend to you:  He actually reads things for himself.

+ 1000

From Huffington Post (05/31/13)

Kathleen Taylor, Neuroscientist, Says Religious Fundamentalism Could Be Treated As A Mental Illness.

An Oxford University researcher and author specializing in neuroscience has suggested that one day religious fundamentalism may be treated as a curable mental illness.

Kathleen Taylor, who describes herself as a "science writer affiliated to the Department of Physiology, Anatomy and Genetics," made the suggestion during a presentation on brain research at the Hay Literary Festival in Wales on Wednesday.
In response to a question about the future of neuroscience, Taylor said that "One of the surprises may be to see people with certain beliefs as people who can be treated," The Times of London notes.

“Someone who has for example become radicalised to a cult ideology -- we might stop seeing that as a personal choice that they have chosen as a result of pure free will and may start treating it as some kind of mental disturbance," Taylor said. “In many ways it could be a very positive thing because there are no doubt beliefs in our society that do a heck of a lot of damage."

The author went on to say she wasn't just referring to the "obvious candidates like radical Islam," but also meant such beliefs as the idea that beating children is acceptable.

Taylor was not immediately available for comment.

This is not the first time Taylor has explored the mind processes of a radical. In 2006, she wrote a book about mind control called Brainwashing: The Science of Thought Control, which explored the science behind the persuasive tactics of such groups as cults and al Qaeda.

"We all change our beliefs of course," Taylor said in a YouTube video about the book. "We all persuade each other to do things; we all watch advertising; we all get educated and experience [religions.] Brainwashing, if you like, is the extreme end of that; it's the coercive, forceful, psychological torture type."

Taylor also noted that brainwashing, though extreme, is part of a the "much more widespread phenomenon" of persuasion. That is, "how we make people think things that might not be good for them, that they might not otherwise have chosen to think."


Relating Religious Fundamentalism to a kind of mental illness is an interesting view, one to which I subscribe.  Of course, we could all be placed on a curve showing our mental health or illness, some of us being on the “good or perfect” end, some on the “bad or ill” end, but most being in the middle... the typical bell curve.   
 
But what of the religious types who are not considered “fundamentalists”?  I suspect that they have only mild forms of mental illness, and would therefore be placed slightly toward the middle of the curve.

As one becomes less religious, one becomes less delusional, having a more realistic view of life and the universe in general, and therefore one would more likely be placed closer to the “perfect” end of the mental wellness/illness curve.

Myself, and most other atheists, will of course appear near the “perfect or good” end of the curve.   ;D  ;D
 
   

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/31/atheist-monument-starke-florida_n_3368319.html#slide=2518512

Public Atheist Monument Going Up Near Courthouse In Starke, Florida, Is Country's First.

A small city in heavily Christian northern Florida is about to become home to the first public monument in the United States dedicated to atheism.

Florida members of American Atheists, a national advocacy group, plan to erect a 1,500-pound granite display in front of the Bradford County Courthouse in Starke, Fla., next month, opposite a controversial year-old display of the Ten Commandments outside the same courthouse.

"We'd rather there be no monuments at all, but if they are allowed to have the Ten Commandments, we will have our own," said Ken Loukinen, the director of regional operations for American Atheists who designed the monument.

The new structure will feature quotes related to secularism from Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin and American Atheists founder Madalyn Murray O'Hair on a 4-foot-high panel, alongside a bench. It will stand in a small square in front of the courthouse, opposite the 5-foot, 6-ton Ten Commandments monument sponsored by a Christian group.

The dueling monuments in Starke are part a growing number of conflicts about public displays of religion. In February, a district judge dismissed an American Civil Liberties Union lawsuit and ruled that another Ten Commandments display in front of a courthouse in northwestern Florida's Dixie County could stay put. Controversies have also erupted this year over Ten Commandments displays in public schools in Oklahoma and Pennsylvania.

American Atheists sued Bradford County last July, saying the Christian monument in front of the county courthouse was a public endorsement of religion. In response, the county asked Community Men's Fellowship, the organization that sponsored the display, to take it down. But the fellowship replied by saying it had "prayerfully considered" the request and would not comply. The county and American Atheists went to a court-ordered mediation in March and settled upon the atheists getting their own monument.

Will Sexton, an attorney who represented the county in the settlement, said it never intended to sponsor any religion with the Ten Commandments monument, nor is it endorsing secularism with the new atheist display.

"In October 2011, the county adopted a set of monument placement guidelines that created what we saw as a free speech forum in the courtyard," he said. Sexton explained that private groups can apply to place a monument in the space, and that signs on display indicate that any such works do not represent the position of the county.

The county's free speech forum guidelines say monuments must commemorate "people, events and ideas which played a significant role in the development, origins or foundations of United States of America or Florida law, or Bradford County," cannot be permanent and cannot be "libelous, pornographic or obscene." Sexton said the atheists' planned monument met the requirements.

"What the atheists agreed to is something they could have originally been approved for without a year of money and litigation," he added.
A representative of Community Men's Fellowship did not respond to phone calls from The Huffington Post, but the organization posted a statement on its Facebook page after the settlement was reached saying that "God worked this out."

"On the very first day we were informed of the lawsuit, [member] Dan spoke up and said he believed the Lord had given him a word on how to deal fight this thing. He was right. Praise God," the statement read. "We want you all to remember that this issue was won on the basis of this being a free speech issue, so don't be alarmed when the American Atheists want to erect their own sign or monument. It's their right. As for us, we will continue to honor the Lord and that's what matters."

The Stiefel Freethought Foundation, a group led by millionaire atheist Todd Stiefel, funded the new atheist monument to the tune of $6,000. It will include a quote from the Treaty of Tripoli, a 1796 peace agreement between the U.S. and North African Muslims, which has become a rallying point for atheists because of its declaration that "the government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion.

The display will also feature Biblical quotes that supporters say correspond to the Ten Commandments, such as Deuteronomy 13:10, which says to "stone him with stones" so "that he die" in reference to people who worship other gods. (The first commandment reads, "You shall have no other gods before me.")

Loukinen, the organization's regional operations director, said American Atheists resorted to putting up its own monument only after trying to get the Christian one removed, and the group has no plans to erect any more monuments in other cities or states.

There is at least one other atheist monument in the U.S., on private land in Lake Hypatia, Ala. It's dedicated to "atheists in foxholes" and was constructed in 1999 by the Freedom From Religion Foundation."   


Hopefully interesting to some readers.  I am ignorant of the level of actual entanglement between the formal religious presence in our urban core and the individuals affecting policy and decisions within our city government -  only assuming that there is some  -- and not suggesting that any or all entanglements would necessarily be bad.

The slide show on the site, following the article shows some of the quotes to be placed upon the monument.

I wonder what people would do if I wanted to put a monument up to honor Hammurabi's Code? or perhaps the Magna Carta? both considered foundations of today's rule of law along with that Judaic legal instrument called the Ten Commandments?

True, there is no US law that says "you must worship no other god but me", but many of the commandments are carried in today's legal code.

I put my hopes that one day before i die i can see our city without fbc...its ridiculous that this business which is worth a shitload of cash pays nothing in taxes for the burden they put on our city center...too much power and id love to see them move away from an area that very very few of their members actually live. The racism that thrives there is astounding and none of you guys have the balls to call them on it..but thos is jax...itll stay that way for another 100 years..

And now the Baptists are feverishly turning away Boy Scout troops because the Scouts won't kick out gay kids. Really, Baptists are simply the modern era's Klu Klux Klan.

Thanks Spuwho, for the reminder of the Hammurabi Code.  And Garden guy.. I love you..  and your honesty, but you can be so blunt and coarse sometimes….some of which I enjoy.  And I agree Stephen, there are all shades and levels of Baptists.  We are fortunate to have within our midst what seems to be a reasonable group. 

In spite of all the argument about religion, spirituality is real.  The spirit within us exists, for some to feel more than others, and for some to endure and enjoy more at certain times in their lives.  Religious thinking and religions emerge and grow out of this fundamental spiritual need and essence within most humans.  Therefore, one should not, with good conscience offend those who apparently need their religion and who wish to publicly display their religious beliefs.  One can only perhaps offer to the religious community occasional opinions as to the extent to which religious thinking can go in the direction of the unreasonable, the abusive, and the absurd.   
   
Profound rules of living, truisms which cultivate a society promoting an environment within which all can achieve a reasonably good quality of life in spite of the selfish and evil individuals who seem to emerge within it -  individuals who always seem to cause suffering and pain - evolve from the basic human condition, that rational ability within the human mind which through evolution, removed us further from our primate cousins.  The interface between humans and society forced the creation of necessary rules and guidelines predating the ideas of the Hammurabi Code, monotheism, of Moses and Abraham, the Ten Commandments, Paul and Jesus, the Magna Carta. 

Therefore, to assume that the teachings of any cult, or modern revealed religion such as Christianity, all of which emerged man-made from these fundamental pressures and needs within the human psyche, should be forced upon the freethinking individuals in our society, whether in governmental meetings or in parks such as the one in Stark, is presuming too much authority on the part of the religious enthusiast, is encroaching on the freedom of others.  The guidelines for personal behavior and societal rules emerge from basic human needs, from the necessity of humans to maintain a reasonably good quality of life, from the need to survive as individuals and as a species, and does not have to depend upon the fabrication by man of an imagined revealed religion, which, by its nature is divisive, destructive, arbitrary, confusing, diminishing to the intellect, and open to abuse by those who desire control over others.   

The front page Times Union article in today’s paper, by Jim Schoettler, concerning the issue of praying in council meetings, is another point of confrontation between those who wish to force their religious practices upon the public at large, and those who wish to avoid entanglements with what they perceive to be artificial, man-made, and therefore imperfect religious teachings, rituals, and guidelines for living. 

In the article, an offense to the public comes from a Mr. Anderson, a Baker County commissioner, who stated that “any objectors to Christian-based invocations can leave, and return when it’s over.”  I would suggest to him that “he can leave the room, do his prayer, and return when his prayer is over.”  Actually, in the interim, before all this religious nonsense is reigned in, I prefer the solution offered in Jim’s article by Parvez Ahmed, the Muslim who sits on the Jax Human Rights Commission.  He stated, “Messages that tout one religion over another can be seen as offensive and a violation of the separation of church and state.  A simple fix …. A Moment of Silence.”  By this procedure, anyone, even the free-thinker, could simply use the silent time to think about what evil he or she could do after the meeting.

The ancient human needs to survive psychologically and physically, as individuals and as communities, has, by way of rational thinking over hundreds of thousands of years, caused the formation of rules and guidelines, of good habits, of societal expectations, of punishments, of proper and productive thinking.  The fact that various religious vehicles, such as Christianity and Islam, emerged relatively recently to incorporate many of those rules and guidelines into their teachings does not diminish the ability of, and the necessity of, modern man to consider, in light of the absurd direction most religions have evolved, to forgo the religions which hijacked many of those fundamental and necessary guidelines.   
   
   

Quote from: stephendare on June 02, 2013, 10:24:06 AM
meh.  ive usually found that anyone who guarantees you certainty, whether in the name of Kali, Ashtoreth, Jupiter or Richard Dawkins is usually just full of self delusion and bunkum. No matter how many paragraphs of hatefully bigoted speech it takes them to say "I hate ------(fill in the blank:  In this case: religious people)", it all boils down to the same thing.  Just another foolish person staking out a rocky outcrop on bullshit mountain for a cherished moment of superiority over his vastly inferior fellow chimps.

Nice to see the monument however, and its amusing that the first atheist monument was erected in a prison town.

Perhaps its no coincidence that the place where people murder their fellow men by lethal injection in the name of The State would prefer not to believe in an afterlife.

Are you relating the idea of Jupiter to Richard Dawkins?  Interesting.  Your failure in logic and perception is showing.  I had hoped you would be…. well….. showing more perception and intelligence than this Stephen. 

Hatefully bigoted speech?  A discussion of the fundamental dynamics involved as humans attempt to engage life successfully is certainly not hatefully bigoted speech.  Your comment only shows your inability to think with any depth about the psychology of man.  You seem, as always, deficient in the realm of subtle and fundamental psychological dynamics, and this deficiency forces you, in a desperate attempt to hide it, to attack those who are skilled at it.  This is why your involvement in most discussions, especially with those who offer a reasonable degree of conviction and opinion, descends to the juvenile as a consequence of your wish for this level, as it hides your inability to engage intelligent, and therefore productive, argument. 

And to suggest a valid correlation between the Stark monument to atheism, and the prison?  Are you okay? 

Now of course, you will post material taking this thread to greater depths of juvenility, to further slinging of abusive language, so that you can further obscure your deficiencies in communication.  Have you ever read old threads to determine how many times you’ve guided a discussion down to simple childish abusive language? 

Quote from: stephendare on June 02, 2013, 10:59:39 AM
yawn.  I don't remember addressing you Ron.  And Im not going to engage you in conversation. I havent ever found you capable of having a reasonable discussion on the matter.  So please, if you must post even more on the subject of how stupid non atheists are, don't invoke my name.

Much thanks in advance.

Thanks for the honesty Stephen.  I shall not continue engagement with you on this.  But the fact that you wish not to engage me in conversation suggests that you fear me somehow, perhaps my debate ability, or perhaps your assumption of a certain intellect, as if it were to be of significance. 

But of course, we all have our abilities and our deficiencies. We all have languages we know, and fields of knowledge about which we can discuss with reasonable skill.  I admit quite readily that I am ignorant about many things, and that I do not understand many languages; i.e. Urban Transportation Engineering, Spanish etc.  There is nothing wrong with being ignorant about a certain language or field of knowledge.

Some of us however, fearing being discovered as being ignorant of a certain language or field of knowledge, panic, become defensive, and attempt to obscure our ignorance by destroying the discussion, by taking it to the level of the abusive, childish language.

For my part, being ignorant in most fields and subjects engaged, I remain silent on most discussions.  I am not ashamed of my ignorance, as there is only so much time, and one is only a product of one's past.

Love you Stephen.

so? What about First Baptist Church? This thread really hasn't discussed it....funny how it got derailed....if it wasn't for FBC would there be more clubs downtown? Would downtown be more diverse? I'm just asking as I have not lived here long...

Quote from: Garden guy on June 02, 2013, 07:40:55 AM
I put my hopes that one day before i die i can see our city without fbc...its ridiculous that this business which is worth a shitload of cash pays nothing in taxes for the burden they put on our city center...

Please list a complete accounting with dollar values demonstrating the losses to the city attributable to FBC. Inquiring minds want to know, but suspect you are unable to back up your bile with facts.

Quote...too much power and id love to see them move away from an area that very very few of their members actually live.

Your comical prose is entertaining, why wouldn't one of the largest... lets see, um, large churches, hospitals, transportation facilities etc. in the City/County, not want to be in the center of said mass?  If they have many employees/members a central location is critical to their mission. Are we to supposed to believe you want these companies to move away from an area that very, very, few of their employees actually live? Your logic, isn't.

QuoteThe racism that thrives there is astounding and none of you guys have the balls to call them on it..but thos is jax...itll stay that way for another 100 years..

This one is a howler, R A C I S M ? In a church with a mixed race congregation, dynamic Spanish and Oriental ministries, and one that feeds, clothes and houses thousands of homeless every year.  It is a church big enough to send dozens of mission teams around the world to primitive tribal people or polished cosmopolitan meccas, to feed, clothe, educate and provide critical shelter and medical care to needy people. Yeah, Garden Guy, racism is just another label for unfounded hatred and you hardly appear to be the one to recklessly throw that around.

Wow.

...And Ron, I'm surprised that such a proper gentleman, no stranger to benevolent acts here and abroad, would encourage such mindless tripe.

From Ock   ..."And Ron, I'm surprised that such a proper gentleman, no stranger to benevolent acts here and abroad, would encourage such mindless tripe."


Thanks for your balanced words Ock, and your patience with my awkward ideological relation to Garden guy.  I don't mean to encourage his wording, as in my opinion its quite offensive and unproductive if he desires to make progress in his quest to have the land occupied by the FBC utilized by something else.  Even though I enjoy some few aspects of his attitude, I encourage him to be less inflammatory, and perhaps more appreciative of what the church actually contributes to the downtown area, and to other communities and individuals throughout.  In any case, he should be patient.  Rome wasn't build in a day.  Nor was it destroyed in a day.

I think that most of us, if we were to be practical about our objectives of achieving a balanced downtown core, especially as we begin to achieve the goal of high infill and vibrancy, if we ever do, would like to see more diversity occupying the city blocks currently occupied by the FBC.  I suspect that many understand that the church could operate and perform their mission just as well if they were a little distance from the city core. 

But of course at present there seems to be little logic or pressure for them to relocate, as there seems to be nothing anxious to infill the area.  We certainly don't want empty buildings there, nor do we want parking lots.  Ultimately, when and if the core ever achieves 90 percent infill, or even before that point, it would be nice to have the area utilized more than Sundays, Wednesday nights, and occasional use as a school.  I'm not sure of the actual use of the property at present.  Perhaps it is populated more than I realize.

One point of interest is the necessity of a large parking facility for the crowds which attend services.  I wonder how many of those parking spaces are used by downtown employees during the week?  If not used much, this would be a rather inefficient use of the land taken up by the parking lots. 

In any case, anyone suggesting other alternatives about the current space utilized by the FBC would probably be looking to the future.  Certainly, if the FBC departed the area now, it would be a shock to the core, leaving an empty area which would take several years to infill with something viable.

Thinking in the "ideal", which I enjoy doing, surely many will understand that the large area utilized by the FBC would, down the road, be better utilized by a diversity of retail, residential, business, and cultural and recreational entities - TAX PAYING entities to boot.  In this way, the area would attract a broad population spread through every day of the week, thereby engaging the idea of infill and vibrancy we all desire.

Some might wonder if the current presence of the FBC in the urban core is a detriment to new infill.  I wonder if some business or residential entities, having observed the rather large presence of a mega-church, have decided to delay entry into the core, or to look elsewhere altogether. 

But what of presence?  If one were to allow the FBC a one block "control area" around its eleven block structural presence, the number of blocks "controlled" by the church would increase from 11 to perhaps 28 or so.  If we assume that the urban core consists of about 115 city blocks, one could argue that the church controls about 25% of the urban core; that is, if one allows that it controls each block adjacent to its actual structures.

I'm sure that most have the view, correct from my perspective, that the FBC has overall enhanced the downtown environment up to now.  The question in the future might be whether or not a continued presence enhances.  I suspect that given the dynamics of the need for diversity and a balanced presence in the core, and the need for a recognition of the idea of freedom from religion, an increasingly important issue with many people, the FBC presence might at some point down the road be considered awkward in the least, and perhaps viewed as obstructing the achievement of a balanced urban growth by many. 

   

 





 

Quote from: stephendare on June 02, 2013, 11:17:43 AM
yawn.  I don't remember addressing you Ron.  And Im not going to engage you in conversation. I havent ever found you capable of having a reasonable discussion on the matter.  So please, if you must post even more on the subject of how stupid non atheists are, don't invoke my name.  Besides, as you know, I certainly am not as smart or intelligent as you are. Indeed who could be?  After all, you did read all that Voltaire stuff back when it was first published.  After such an accomplishment, what can the rest of us do except marvel at how it supercharged that ole brain of yours so much that you never needed to read anything else.  Truly amazing. 

You are like a modern day Minerva, freshly sprung from the brain of the 18th Century! 

Its interesting that you confuse ennui and a well founded respect for the pointlessness of debating ossified neo-thoughtsters  with fear.  Im sure a therapist would find a narcissistic bit of rorschachian insight there.  As for me, I don't really care much about the ailments of aging peacocks in captivity.

More to the present however.  Considering my diminished (and already diminutive) intellectual capacities, is it really fair to dredge my well known ignorance and anti intellectualism out for inspection.  Even though the dissection room is only in the dusty imagination of a preening old bird, it deserves a little privacy.

Much thanks in advance.

"When nine hundred years old you reach, look as good, you will not, hmmm?"

--YODA, Star Wars Episode VI: Return of the Jedi

Attacking YODA Chamblain disrupts the Force. Not a good thing to do.

Quote from: sdmjax on June 02, 2013, 04:16:57 PM
so? What about First Baptist Church? This thread really hasn't discussed it....funny how it got derailed....if it wasn't for FBC would there be more clubs downtown? Would downtown be more diverse? I'm just asking as I have not lived here long...

Shiny object syndrome. All of these threads unravel faster than you can blink. It can be quite amusing...especially if you have no expectations and just go along for the ride.

Religious faith as a mental illness?  LOL.  Of course, I heard on ABC news yesterday that they are adding caffeine withdrawal to the list of mental illnesses, which has many coffee drinkers upset at being labeled with a mental illness if they stop drinking it.

So you'll excuse me if I feel that the words "mental illness" are being as overworked, overused and watered down as the word "hate" when someone disagrees with your viewpoint.  These strong words need to be saved for real mental illnesses and real hate. 

Quote from: spuwho on June 02, 2013, 12:36:06 AM
[M]any of the commandments are carried in today's legal code.

Really?

1) Thou shalt have no other gods before me. Negative

2) Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me; And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments. Negative, and quite creepy too

3) Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain; for the Lord will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain. Negative

4) Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: But the seventh day is the sabbath of the Lord thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates: For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it. Negative

5) Honour thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee. Negative

6) Thou shalt not kill. Sure, but can we honestly say this wouldn't be a law but for the commandment not to commit murder?

7) Thou shalt not commit adultery. Negative

8 ) Thou shalt not steal. Yes, but again, don't we know stealing is "wrong" without citing a commandment?

9) Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour. Yes

10) Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's. Negative

So, really, only 3 out of the ten commandments have any relation to current legality. And, let's be honest...they'd be illegal without the commandments to avoid those (obviously) wrong things.

Quote from: stephendare on June 03, 2013, 09:38:10 AM
Jerry, its one thing to post here under another name, but please. spare us the bizarre star wars references.
http://www.metrojacksonville.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=6467;area=showposts;start=15

If theres any comparison to be made with any character in the films. there was only one athiest in the film.  Uncle Owen on Tattoine.

He kept talking about the religion being an old fools thing.  Of course he was shortly murdered.

For the record: I am not, nor have I ever been, Jerry. However, I understand why you might think so given your own fondness for using "other names". 

I do find it interesting that someone who quotes Corinthians under each of his posts exhibits such thinly veiled anger and cynicism so much of the time. But, to each his own.

"So we beat on, boats against the current, borne back ceaselessly into the past." F. Scott Fitzgerald

Quote from: stephendare on June 04, 2013, 09:03:36 PM

Quote from: ssky on June 04, 2013, 01:56:04 PM

Quote from: stephendare on June 03, 2013, 09:38:10 AM
Jerry, its one thing to post here under another name, but please. spare us the bizarre star wars references.
http://www.metrojacksonville.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=6467;area=showposts;start=15

If theres any comparison to be made with any character in the films. there was only one athiest in the film.  Uncle Owen on Tattoine.

He kept talking about the religion being an old fools thing.  Of course he was shortly murdered.

For the record: I am not, nor have I ever been, Jerry. However, I understand why you might think so given your own fondness for using "other names". 

I do find it interesting that someone who quotes Corinthians under each of his posts exhibits such thinly veiled anger and cynicism so much of the time. But, to each his own.

"So we beat on, boats against the current, borne back ceaselessly into the past." F. Scott Fitzgerald

Very little anger here, but lots of laughter.

Of course you arent Jerry.  You just happen to have his entire resume, work history and personal life memorized, and you post whenever he is criticized on the site.

Bizarre coincidence, Im sure. ;)

I assure you it is not. Think about it for a moment. Just beyond the trees you'll find the forest that you seek.

Quote from: ssky on June 04, 2013, 10:50:11 PM

Quote from: stephendare on June 04, 2013, 09:03:36 PM

Quote from: ssky on June 04, 2013, 01:56:04 PM

Quote from: stephendare on June 03, 2013, 09:38:10 AM
Jerry, its one thing to post here under another name, but please. spare us the bizarre star wars references.
http://www.metrojacksonville.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=6467;area=showposts;start=15

If theres any comparison to be made with any character in the films. there was only one athiest in the film.  Uncle Owen on Tattoine.

He kept talking about the religion being an old fools thing.  Of course he was shortly murdered.

For the record: I am not, nor have I ever been, Jerry. However, I understand why you might think so given your own fondness for using "other names". 

I do find it interesting that someone who quotes Corinthians under each of his posts exhibits such thinly veiled anger and cynicism so much of the time. But, to each his own.

"So we beat on, boats against the current, borne back ceaselessly into the past." F. Scott Fitzgerald

Very little anger here, but lots of laughter.

Of course you arent Jerry.  You just happen to have his entire resume, work history and personal life memorized, and you post whenever he is criticized on the site.

Bizarre coincidence, Im sure. ;)

I assure you it is not. Think about it for a moment. Just beyond the trees you'll find the forest that you seek.

And me without my popcorn

Quote from: Debbie Thompson on June 03, 2013, 12:29:38 PM
Religious faith as a mental illness?  LOL.  Of course, I heard on ABC news yesterday that they are adding caffeine withdrawal to the list of mental illnesses, which has many coffee drinkers upset at being labeled with a mental illness if they stop drinking it.

So you'll excuse me if I feel that the words "mental illness" are being as overworked, overused and watered down as the word "hate" when someone disagrees with your viewpoint.  These strong words need to be saved for real mental illnesses and real hate. 

I agree with you Debbie, that the idea of mental illness is awkward and difficult.  While most of us can be considered normal or balanced for the most part, many students of the subject might agree that some of us have mental attributes allowing us to have “shades” of what we call mental illness; that is, one can begin to drift toward the borderline.  I think the British neuroscientist in the earlier mentioned article is suggesting that certain forms of religious fanaticism or fundamentalism can be viewed as being treatable mental illnesses.   

If it is true that one quality of the mentally ill can be the inclination to avoid reality, then her position seems to be that the religious fundamentalist is indeed within this group, as they do seem to promote belief in things which are outside of the realm of reality, things not provable or evidenced, things such as gods and extensions related to the gods, such as rituals, demands, and certain beliefs which require actions or non-actions, such as commands or reasons to hate or kill non-believers. 

An extreme case of the idea of mental illness might be evidenced by the following video I viewed recently, taken somewhere in North Africa I believe, wherein a man was beheaded with a knife of about eight inches length.  The man, lying bound on his left side, about twenty-five, an apostate, having left Islam for Christianity, seemed calm, accepting his fate, perhaps believing he would soon be in heaven.  The executioner, standing above the bound man, spoke perhaps Arabic, some Islamic words... Allah etc... for about thirty seconds.  Then, perhaps after gaining conviction and courage via speaking words of his religion, he began to cut the throat of the bound man - blood immediately bursting out.  Holding the man’s hair in his left hand, twisting the head, cutting through even the bones, the beheading took about one minute, after which the executioner allowed the severed head to sit upon the dead man’s shoulder.  The dead man’s face, which formerly had a resigned look, had his eyes partially open, and had a slightly pained, sad look. 

Could one begin to discuss the idea that this man, obviously a man who believes the teachings of Islam, or at least his understanding of the teachings, is mentally ill?  Certainly the killing of a young man, a man who perhaps desired only to change his devotion and religious belief to that of Christianity, is a gross and terrible act to most of us. If we begin with the idea that mental illness is related to the idea of having beliefs outside of reality, one might define the executioner as being mentally ill.   

The idea of mental illness, and its possible relation to a believer in one of the religions, or in one of the several gods in vogue, is given some credibility by the quoted British scientist.  Even though the neuroscientist is focusing primarily on the extreme or radical religious individual, one might argue, and I suspect that she might also, that a mild form of mental illness exists even in the majority of believers in the current systems wherein believers continue to believe in gods, prayer, heaven, and hell etc... in spite of absolutely no evidence to support these beliefs over the past few hundreds of thousands of years. Surely, one aspect of mental illness is related to the degree to which one habitually and excessively avoids reality - and related to the degree to which one believes things which are not supported by evidence, or by the known laws of nature.

So, perhaps the neuroscientist is suggesting that the revealed religion has qualities encouraging belief in something which cannot be supported by evidence; and that this quality alone allows the skeptic, the secular individual, to look upon the religious believer as engaging a slight mental illness.  Of course, even the skeptic, the secular individual, is certainly not immune, and is free to suffer his or her own form of mental illness, from the slight, to the extreme. 

The mild forms of religious-born mental illnesses goes unnoticed by most observers simply because it is stabilized in large populations, and because many assume that the masses cannot be deluded.  A drift to slightly more extreme forms of mental illness by some, depends perhaps on the combined influence of one’s tribulations, and the quality of the charismatic religious leader. 

In any case, there seems to be many kinds of low level mental illnesses, related to both the religious and the secular.  The religious kind is unique in that it is cultivated within the organized teachings of a specific religion; can exist undetected in mild form in large populations, and goes untreated because most cannot believe it possible for millions to suffer a mild form of it.

Whereas the mild form of religion-born mental illness can be only somewhat harmful to society, history has shown that the drift to extremism can cause devastation and suffering to millions. 

   

Love the substance Stephen. 

Quote from: stephendare on June 09, 2013, 10:24:14 AM
just such dumb stuff, ron.  How on earth can you believe any of this drivel? 

Or does it just empower you to be so offensive to people who believe in things that you apparently can't?

Using your own apparent standards, I think it would be perfectly legitimate to believe that you are yourself mentally ill, you know.

You keep repeating this nonsense about how the 'gods' were originally created by mankind.  Yet you have literally no evidence that either the methods or reasons which you cite were at play.  No evidence at all.

Yet on the basis of your unfounded belief, you offensive call large segments of the population names and make medical judgements about their mental health.

Does this sound healthy or sane to you?

It doesnt to me.

Don't mean to be offensive to anyone.  I'm expanding on the thinking of the British neuroscientist's ideas; that is, that there is reason to suggest that there are mild forms of mental illness, treatable of course, in populations and individuals who ascribe to certain kinds of religious fundamentalism.

And I certainly am aware that I might possess certain attributes of the mentally ill person.  I do the best that I can.  Working on it. 

Of course, my mental illness, if there is one, is not a consequence of a belief in one of the gods or religions currently in vogue.   

Don't mean to be offensive to anyone.  I'm expanding on the thinking of the British neuroscientist's ideas; that is, that there is reason to suggest that there are mild forms of mental illness, treatable of course, in populations and individuals who ascribe to certain kinds of religious fundamentalism.

And I certainly am aware that I might possess certain attributes of the mentally ill person.  I do the best that I can.  Working on it. 

Of course, my mental illness, if there is one, is not a consequence of a belief in one of the gods or religions currently in vogue.   

Thanks for understanding my problem  Need all the help I can get.

You seem, Stephen, to suggest that the philosopher/scientists of the 18th century Enlightenment are not worthy of quoting or reading.  Of course, Newton was a little early, along with Descartes, both being for the most part of the 17th century.  These profound thinkers, persecuted in varying degrees by the church, were important catalysts in the emerging Enlightenment, which eventually destroyed the power of the church, the nobility, and the crown in France at the end of 18th century.  I could list the several important philosophers of the Enlightenment, but you can find them in any book on the subject.   


The philosophers of the 18th century were attempting to emerge from the stagnate, church encouraged, thinking of the Middle Ages, and some, those who were attempting to discuss scientific principles not in accordance with the opinions of the established church, published their material anonymously to avoid being burned at the stake by the church authorities.


Some were burned.  The pre-Enlightenment victim Giordano Bruno was burned by the church in 1600 for thinking and writing too profoundly about certain ideas of science.  Galileo escaped the fire when he agreed to support the lies taught by the church.  There were others who crossed the teachings of the church as they attempted to free mankind from superstition and other nonsense. 
       

Do you see any similarities between France of the mid-eighteenth century, and the current situation in the U. S.... or to the current situation in our urban core?  Observe briefly the components.  France had a powerful clergy/church, in partnership with the government and the nobility.  There was great wealth among a one-percent elite, made up of the clergy, the nobility, and the king, while the majority population suffered deprivations.  Sound familiar?  And we’ve all marveled at the right wing GOP nuts in our government and their relation to the Christian nuts.  Pretty close confederation I’d say - similar to that of 18th century France.


Recall the shameful quality of the front running Republicans in the last election?  None of those GOP religious nuts had one-third the sense of the group of philosophers I admire in 18th century Europe.  The average GOP politician's belief that they will not be elected unless he or she attends church is shameful, and only illustrates the dumbing down of America.
 

Are there similar dynamics in our local government?  Is our local governmental/religion tie too strong?  Is the pressure of comfort and complacency, as accepted by most in our local GOB government, and as encouraged by the local religious presence, one cause of our failure to make real progress in our urban core?
 

So ..... yes I do admire and read the writings of the 18th century philosophers, as they endured and conquered the absurd beliefs of the time, with mental abilities rare in our time.


Also, I might mention that, while I am quite comfortable in understanding classical physics, including the idea of the quantum, I am not enthused about the multi-universes and such, as most of the trained scientists don’t understand the concepts, and certainly don’t agree on them.  I prefer to wait until there is less nonsense, when there is a consensus on these rather exotic ideas about other worlds and universes.


While some might pretend that they understand “modern theoretical physics” and the multi-universe and otherworld concepts, I suggest that there is no body of information about which anyone agrees, and that therefore there is little for the layman to actually understand in the first place.  Most only wish there was actually something to understand, and then they could discuss the understanding of it.  For the time being, I suggest we engage the multi-universe stuff as we would a science fiction novel.

       


     

Quote from: stephendare on June 09, 2013, 10:58:55 PM

And you seem to think that the philosophers of the past 4,000 years whose truths are inscribed in religious texts are not worth reading. Many of them were also burned for their convictions, and in one notable case, crucified in a fairly cruel form of secular execution.  This doesnt seem to have lent any credibility to your considerations of their ideas or passions, so I find it curious that you appeal to martyrdom to make the case for the italians on the run from the ecclesiastical courts.

The problem for me is that my skepticism allows me to state that there are very few truths inscribed in the religious texts, and therefore I find myself being very selective as to what I consider worthy of use as I contemplate the past, and as I attempt to live a good and productive life.  From my perspective, the truth of the execution you mention is in question, there being nothing written concerning the possible event until many decades past the supposed event.  I wonder why there were no extant writings at the time.  Therefore, it is highly probable that the execution is only myth, generated by enthusiasts to enhance the story they wished to tell.

It is interesting that most all of the executions and burnings were related to intolerance regarding one's beliefs in the realm of religion.  My hero's of the 17th/18th century France were concerned of course with establishing greater understandings about the sciences, a that's why some were banished by church authorities, some wrote anonymously to hide their identities, and some were imprisoned or executed.  Yes, Bruno was an Italian, but most of the active philosophers I speak of were French. 

Quote from: stephendare on June 09, 2013, 10:58:55 PM
I rather like the Enlightenment era, but I do not ascribe to it the planet saving powers with which you seem to endow it.

I urge you to consider upgrading your opinion of these brave fellows in the Enlightenment who, in spite of the threat of banishment, prison, and death, finally brought an end to church controlled society, allowing the free flow of the ideas of the sciences, and ultimately the establishment of modern technology.

Quote from: stephendare on June 09, 2013, 10:58:55 PM

In your second paragraph's first sentence, you exactly state why their viewpoint on the Catholic Church is not terribly relevant to the present.  And lets be honest, the vitriol of the age was directed towards Rome, not Canterbury or Constantinople, nor Mecca and certainly not towards the Bhodi Tree.

The conflict has very similar aspects currently, in that there are religious entities which obstruct the teaching of good science, and which overall squander the time and assets of a society which could better use them elsewhere.

Quote from: stephendare on June 09, 2013, 10:58:55 PM


I am not sure what you are talking about when you describe this magical cure that the Philosophes effected regarding some imagined conquest of the absurd beliefs of their times.  If your fourth and fifth paragraphs are to be believed, then obviously they did not.

I literally see no parallel between the 18th Century and the present other than the terribly pedestrian similarities that can be ascribed to all political ages.

I see a good number of similarities, some of which appear in my paragraphs.  I am concerned about anyone who cannot see the similarities.

Quote from: stephendare on June 09, 2013, 10:58:55 PM

Finally, Im not sure what you are getting at with the multiverse  reference.  I do find it queer that you on one hand ask us to accept that modern science and reason are superior to religion but then describe them as unreliable, not to be trusted and advise that they should be treated like fiction.

You misunderstood my intention.  I am saying that there is the classical or Newtonian physics, which is the basis of 99.9 percent of our sciences and technology.  And then there is the current effort to extend our understanding to the exotic, to the realm requiring the greatest stretches of the imagination, such as with the ideas of multi-universes and black holes.  I am trying to convey that I choose to avoid engaging that realm until there is greater understanding and agreement about it in the scientific community.  It is admittedly fun stuff to contemplate for some.  However, if one desires to  engage it too much, then one's thoughts merge with the stuff of science fiction.  I usually avoid fiction.

Quote from: stephendare on June 09, 2013, 10:58:55 PM

I suppose I should point out that its pointless to address your arguments as you have literally demolished them on your own insomuch as at least two of your points are concerned, but I should think it unnecessary.

I think I am pretty clear, and non-destructive to my own arguments.  Thank you for your interesting comments.   

I'm clearly with Ron regarding the effects of enlightenment thinking in freeing western society of the most deleterious effects of religious superstition and injustice. It had its own set of martyrs including Struensee. But religion is more than merely bad science. Check out Rodney Stark's Theory of Religion for a stronger analysis than Freud offered.

Newton?  He was certainly not an atheist. 

"He (Robert Bentley) responded by arguing powerfully that the cosmic order revealed in Newton’s recent “Principia” proved the existence of God.  The was a great comfort to Newton, who had been accused of atheism."

This quote alone, from Will Durant’s “The Age of Louis XIV” suggests that Newton was aware of the fine line between being safe and unsafe regarding the church.  Of course, Newton was a sort of mystic, engaging in volume more of theology than in mechanics.  Much of his time was spent on the bible, which only shows that he was born too early to escape the theological pressure all around him at the time.  Had he been born one-half century later, and still possessed a great mind, I suspect he would have been with my heroes; Voltaire, D’Holbach, Diderot, Rousseau, Montesquieu, d’Alembert, Paine etc.

The point I intended to make is that he was a catalyst to the 18 century scientific advances, allowing the philosophers and the scientists of that century to more easily engage the sciences.

But no, Newton was not an atheist, which was probably good for his longevity.  His thinking in mathematics and mechanics was enough to put him apart and above.  To also be an atheist would have been too dangerous, and would have complicated his life too much, perhaps even impairing his work in mathematics and mechanics.  Every decade receding in time, that a non-believer or skeptic lived prior to the actual French Revolution would have placed one increasingly in jeopardy of being confronted by the religious authorities.  Newton was unfortunately too far back in time to allow for safe contemplation of anything but pious thoughts.

Quote from Stephendare:  "By the way, just to be nitpicky, I did want to point out that in your discussion of The Enlightenment, you failed to mention a single Enlightenment Era philosophe, either scientist, politician or otherwise."

The names of the philosophs are somewhat important, but if brevity is the goal, not as important as the essence and impact of the group as a whole.  But yes, I agree that the names might occasionally be mentioned in the event someone desires to research.   

H.P. Lovecraft was, by today's standards, a horrifyïng racist.  but because it was normal for the time, we can look past that and enjoy his work.  why should Newton and his christianity be any different?

Quote from: ronchamblin on June 10, 2013, 02:08:41 PM
Newton?  He was certainly not an atheist. 

"He (Robert Bentley) responded by arguing powerfully that the cosmic order revealed in Newton’s recent “Principia” proved the existence of God.  The was a great comfort to Newton, who had been accused of atheism."

This quote alone, from Will Durant’s “The Age of Louis XIV” suggests that Newton was aware of the fine line between being safe and unsafe regarding the church.  Of course, Newton was a sort of mystic, engaging in volume more of theology than in mechanics.  Much of his time was spent on the bible, which only shows that he was born too early to escape the theological pressure all around him at the time.  Had he been born one-half century later, and still possessed a great mind, I suspect he would have been with my heroes; Voltaire, D’Holbach, Diderot, Rousseau, Montesquieu, d’Alembert, Paine etc.

The point I intended to make is that he was a catalyst to the 18 century scientific advances, allowing the philosophers and the scientists of that century to more easily engage the sciences.

But no, Newton was not an atheist, which was probably good for his longevity.  His thinking in mathematics and mechanics was enough to put him apart and above.  To also be an atheist would have been too dangerous, and would have complicated his life too much, perhaps even impairing his work in mathematics and mechanics.  Every decade receding in time, that a non-believer or skeptic lived prior to the actual French Revolution would have placed one increasingly in jeopardy of being confronted by the religious authorities.  Newton was unfortunately too far back in time to allow for safe contemplation of anything but pious thoughts.

Quote from: stephendare on June 10, 2013, 04:08:38 PM

Quote from: ronchamblin on June 10, 2013, 02:21:40 PM
Quote from Stephendare:  "By the way, just to be nitpicky, I did want to point out that in your discussion of The Enlightenment, you failed to mention a single Enlightenment Era philosophe, either scientist, politician or otherwise."

The names of the philosophs are somewhat important, but if brevity is the goal, not as important as the essence and impact of the group as a whole.  But yes, I agree that the names might occasionally be mentioned in the event someone desires to research.

Trust me that I personally do not need either a list of names or a primer on Enlightenment era literature or belle lettres, I just find it curious that of all the names you mentioned, not a single one of them was involved with it.

A cursory review of the Enlightenment might not reveal some of the names I mentioned, perhaps because many of these gentlemen were atheists or deists, individuals with whom the religious reactionaries of the 19th century had little in common, and toward whom they offered little favor.  Perhaps too, because of the successes of these gentlemen in exposing the absurdities of the bible and religion, they might have been partially removed from some histories by later theologically focused historians.

Voltaire of course was right in the middle of the Enlightenment.  He and D’Alembert, two of the mainstays of the Enlightenment, edited the great Encyclopedie between 1751 and 1765.  Such was the impact of the first two volumes, the Paris Theology faculty, the Sorbonne, condemned the books to be publicly burnt.  After much lobbying, the work was again allowed to continue but, after publishing volumes III through VII, Pope Clement XIII condemned the work. 

See any similarities between the early church/religious entities, and those of current times; that is, as they act to oppose the truths as offered by science?  Creationism anyone?  The thinking of the Middle Ages anyone?  If it was left to the religious enthusiasts over the centuries, if it were not for the brave and determined Enlightenment thinkers, we westerners might be suffering more of the Middle Ages, continued exposures to the cruelties of nature, and perhaps to greater absurdities of even more religions.

I will return soon to discuss the other fellows mentioned above - those whom you’ve suggested were not involved in the Enlightenment - and some others.

Quote from: stephendare on June 10, 2013, 11:43:57 AM
for people unacquainted with 'Arianism" or any who might be apt to confuse the term with the Hitlerian Aryanism, here is a servicable definition of the doctrine:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arianism

QuoteArianism is the theological teaching attributed to Arius (ca. AD 250â€"336), a Christian presbyter in Alexandria, Egypt, concerning the relationship of God to the Son of God (Jesus of Nazareth). Arius asserted that the Son of God was a subordinate entity to God the Father. Deemed a heretic by the Ecumenical First Council of Nicaea of 325, Arius was later exonerated in 335 at the regional First Synod of Tyre,[1] and then, after his death, pronounced a heretic again at the Ecumenical First Council of Constantinople of 381.[2] The Roman Emperors Constantius II (337â€"361) and Valens (364â€"378) were Arians or Semi-Arians.

The Arian concept of Christ is that the Son of God did not always exist, but was created byâ€"and is therefore distinct fromâ€"God the Father. This belief is grounded in the Gospel of John passage “You heard me say, ‘I am going away and I am coming back to you.’ If you loved me, you would be glad that I am going to the Father, for the Father is greater than I." (John 14:28)[3]

Arianism is defined as those teachings attributed to Arius which are in opposition to mainstream Trinitarian Christological doctrine, as determined by the first two Ecumenical Councils and currently maintained by the Roman Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox Churches, the Oriental Orthodox Churches, the Assyrian Church of the East, all Reformation-founded Protestant churches (Lutheran, Reformed/Presbyterian, and Anglican), and a large majority of groups founded after the Reformation and calling themselves Protestant (such as Methodist, Baptist, most Pentecostals), with the exception of such groups as Oneness Pentecostals, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Jehovah's Witnesses, Iglesia ni Cristo and Branhamism.[4] "Arianism" is also often used to refer to other nontrinitarian theological systems of the 4th century, which regarded Jesus Christâ€"the Son of God, the Logosâ€"as either a created being (as in Arianism proper and Anomoeanism), or as neither uncreated nor created in the sense other beings are created (as in Semi-Arianism).

Thanks for the info Stephen.  To most rational thinkers, the above should illustrate the awkwardly fabricated and changing nature of the church dogma and teachings, and therefore the lack of much validity to it.

Stephen Dare Quote: "Trust me that I personally do not need either a list of names or a primer on Enlightenment era literature or belle lettres, I just find it curious that of all the names you mentioned, not a single one of them was involved with it."


Let’s look at Paul Heinrich Dietrich von Holbach, or, Baron d’Holbach, whom you’ve suggested, Stephen, was not a part of the Enlightenment.  Originally from Germany, and reared as a Roman Catholic, he become an influential philosophe in France, a proud atheist, and a frequent contributor of articles in the sciences to the Encyclopedie.

In order to avoid being burned by the ecclesiastics, he frequently wrote under a pseudonym, one being a M. Boulanger, a deceased individual; another being M. Mirabaud.

D’Holbach was well versed in the sciences, and wrote “The System of Nature” and “Christianity Exposed”.  Both were condemned by the Parliament of Paris (1770) as being anti-Christian literature - “impious, blasphemous, and seditious, tending to destroy all idea of divinity, to rouse the people to revolt against religion and government, to overthrow all the principles of public security and morality, and to turn the subjects away from obedience to their sovereign.”  “The books were to be burned, the authors were to be arrested and severely punished.”

Some of his beautiful writing -- “Religion is the art of intoxicating men with enthusiasm (religious fervor), to prevent them from dealing with the evils with which their governors oppress them. .... The art of reigning has become nothing more than that of profiting from the errors and abjection of mind and soul into which superstition has plunged the nations.  .... By means of threatening men with invisible powers, they (church and state) force them to suffer in silence the miseries with which visible powers afflict them.  They are made to hope that if they agree to being unhappy in this world, they will be happy in the next.” 

Keep in mind that he lived in France during the reigns of the kings Louie XV and XVI, a time of oppression and difficulties for the masses.  In spite of his wealth, D’Holbach was sensitive to the plight of the third estate.  His writings greatly influenced the Enlightenment movement, which eventually destroyed the powers of the clergy, the nobility, and the sovereign king Louis XVI, who was of course guillotined in 1793.

Yes, this man was an integral part of the Enlightenment.   

Stephen Dare quotes in blue:



Lets pretend that Newton did not write voluminously on the subject of his religious beliefs.  What on earth makes you think that he was privately an atheist?  Because that would make one of the greatest English thinkers of the 17th Century more similar to a bookshop owner in the new millennium?


Don't you think that it damages your point that so much science could come from such a deeply religious man?  Especially one who did not see the contradiction between science and religion?


Finally, are you of the opinion that the Anglican Church was in the habit of burning heretics with any enthusiasm during this era?


Of course, I’ve never said that he was privately an atheist.  Where did you get that idea? 


Newton apparently, as a consequence of being brainwashed with religious teachings while a child, was inclined to assign to a higher being anything which escaped his understanding.  So.... no I do not consider the fact of his religious leanings and his science thinking, as damaging any of my points. 


I am of the opinion that any church entity, even in England at the time of Newton, was considered to be a possible enemy of anyone who, by way of investigating the sciences, offered opinions or knowledge conflicting directly with the dogma of the church.  Most of the burnings occurred much earlier, but served in memory as reminders of the degree to which the church can exceed reasonable behavior toward those who, even by accident, expose any weaknesses in the church dogma.   

Stephen ....... here you go again.  You have found yourself being shown weak in knowledge and logic.  So you begin to twist, to squirm, to exaggerate, to obscure, to denigrate, to descend to the juvenile...... all because you don't want to take the time to think through the fundamental aspects of the ideas we've engaged.   

You of course will not admit that you were totally unaware of the existence of one of the most important Enlightenment figures.  And there are more.  Would you like for me to "enlighten" you to their existence too.

Your fear of being discovered ignorant about something (and there is certainly nothing wrong with being ignorant) causes you to concentrate on trivial items about Newton.  The subject can be very interesting Stephen.  It can certainly be much more than an argument about certain details about Newton. 

You seem to focus on any "possible" error on my part, and then you spend great energy attempting to expose it, even if the energy involves distortions and outright lies.   

Apparently your wish is to somehow destroy my credibility.  Give it a good try ol chap. 

Caught you red handed Stephen.  Again, there is nothing wrong with being ignorant of something.  I go to the below detail just to prove a point.

At 10:34 a.m.

You mentioned that I had not listed any names of philosophers in the Enlightenment.


At 2:08 p.m.:

I listed several of the philosophers, including d’Holbach.


AT 4:08 p.m., you state:

"Trust me that I personally do not need either a list of names or a primer on Enlightenment era literature or belle lettres, I just find it curious that of all the names you mentioned, not a single one of them was involved with it."

(The important thing here is to notice that the phrase "all of the names you mentioned, not a single one of them was involved with it" proves firstly that you read the names, including d'Holbach, and secondly that you believed at the time that they, including d'Holbach, had nothing to do with the Enlightenment.)


At 10:23 p.m.

I offer, for your enlightenment, a little bio of d’Holbach, as your statement of 4:08 p.m. clearly suggested that you were ignorant of his existence. 


10:45 p. m. 

Crushed to discover that you failed to know about d’Holbach, you accuse me of somehow tricking you by posting the list of names in which I included d’Holbach late in the game.  You forget the statement you made at 4:08, which clearly shows that you read the list, and that your belief at the time was that d’Holbach and the others were not involved in the Enlightenment.


11:34 p.m.

In a frenzy, you read up on d’Holbach, and offer:


“As it happened, I had to take a break in my posting while I went to a meeting with Devlin Mann and then spent some time in transit.


My post, already begun before you posted your short list, was awaiting being posted, and as there had been another post in the meantime, I did not see your list.  It was after all, three days after you began talking about the Enlightenment without accurately mentioning a single person from the era.

As for your somewhat unfortunate assumption about my familiarity or lack thereof with D'Holbach, Im afraid that once again you have spoken a little too soon.  And with characteristic ignorance of the reality...... “

Please Stephen..... there is nothing wrong with being ignorant or wrong about something.  We are all ignorant about certain things.  Your fear of being discovered in error or ignorant is the cause of your consistent inclination to obscure any failings by driving the discussion into the dirt, by constant distortions and frivolities, and even to disparaging and denigrating remarks about your fellow posters ... anything to obscure the truth.

A little sarcasm and frivolities  adds a little humor, and is good for the spirit, but too much impairs productivity and civility.

Love you Stephen.  These French philosophers are phenomenal, some being somewhat obscure.  I will offer some more names later, and post some small bits of their writings....... beautiful material. ..... giving pleasure to the mind.   

 

Quote from Stephen Dare:

As for your somewhat unfortunate assumption about my familiarity or lack thereof with D'Holbach, Im afraid that once again you have spoken a little too soon.  And with characteristic ignorance of the reality.

I first read about the good Baron in a biography about Frederick the Great (a personal hero) in 1983.  Actually several.  The first one, I believe, was by Nancy Mitford, one of my favorite biographers, and a person very well versed in the era.  The second time was the same year in a book called The Soldier Kings, the story of the Hohenzollern family of Prussia. 

If you have read the Mitford biography, perhaps you will recall that she published in great detail, the relationships that Frederick had with the intellectual community of the age, dwelling particularly on his daily luncheons and the various intrigues that resulted.  D'Holbach---as well as every other figure of the continental Enlightenment, especially including Francois Marie Arouette, was prominent in Frederick's life.

So I am sorry to have to correct you in your lumpheaded assumption, but I am afraid that I must."


I don't recall that Frederick ever met d'Holbach, nor that there was any direct correspondence between the two.  Frederick appears to have read and enjoyed many French philosophes, and even visited with some, but when d’Holbach, one of there leaders, attacked the idea of the absolute monarch within “The System of Nature”, Frederick, who of course was an absolute monarch, turned against most philosophes, and certainly against d’Holbach.

Therefore, to say that d’Holbach was “prominent in Frederick’s life”, seems to  stretch somewhat the facts, as the two seem never to have corresponded with each other. 

Also, it seems that Ms. Mitford, in her book titled “Frederick the Great” never once mentioned d’Holbach.  I might have missed a reference of course, and might be corrected, but I couldn’t find one reference to the great atheist/materialist.  The omissions of d'Holbach, which seem to occur too often in historical accounts, might be the result of his using too many aliases to avoid being persecuted, but also perhaps because he was such a proud and profound atheist, a position perhaps often abrasive to some scholars who might be agnostics or only mild atheists.   

Did you really read Mitford's book?

     

Quote from Stephen Dare:

As for your somewhat unfortunate assumption about my familiarity or lack thereof with D'Holbach, Im afraid that once again you have spoken a little too soon.  And with characteristic ignorance of the reality.

I first read about the good Baron in a biography about Frederick the Great (a personal hero) in 1983.  Actually several.  The first one, I believe, was by Nancy Mitford, one of my favorite biographers, and a person very well versed in the era.  The second time was the same year in a book called The Soldier Kings, the story of the Hohenzollern family of Prussia. 

If you have read the Mitford biography, perhaps you will recall that she published in great detail, the relationships that Frederick had with the intellectual community of the age, dwelling particularly on his daily luncheons and the various intrigues that resulted.  D'Holbach---as well as every other figure of the continental Enlightenment, especially including Francois Marie Arouette, was prominent in Frederick's life.

So I am sorry to have to correct you in your lumpheaded assumption, but I am afraid that I must."


Still unable go admit you were wrong ....  first about Mitford even mentioning d'Holbach, and then about d'Holbach being "prominent in Frederick's life."  I suppose the earlier work, which you also claim to have read, will save you from being exposed as being ignorant and, nature forbid, wrong.   

Again Stephen.... there is nothing wrong with being wrong or ignorant.  Admit it sometimes and you will not have to degrade this forum by attempting to trash others.  Why must you act so much like a child.  You've always wanted others to know that you have been around.  Act like it. 

d'Holbach, a noble, would do away with hereditary aristocracy: 

"A body of men that can lay claim to wealth and honor solely though the title of birth, must of necessity serve as a discouragement to the other classes of citizens.  Those who have only ancestors have no right to reward ...  Hereditary nobility can only be regarded as a pernicious abuse, fit only for favoring the indolence ..... and incompetence of one class to the detriment of all.  ... Old title deeds, ancient documents, preserved in medieval castles -- are they to confer upon their inheritors a claim to the most exalted posts in Church and state, in the courts of justice, or in the army, regardless of whether these  inheritors posses the talents necessary for the proper accomplishment of such duties?"

Such is this man's state of mind.  And he is one who has benefited from inheritance.  Perhaps his opposition to the practice is because he perceives too often the incompetence in others established in privileged positions, those who have gained by the same mechanism.

Below is d'Holbach's ethic, formulated in his "Code of Nature".

"Live for yourself and your fellow creatures.  I (nature) approve of your pleasure while they injure neither you nor others, whom I have rendered necessary to your happiness ..... Be just, since justice supports the human race.  Be good, since your goodness will attract every heart to you.  Be indulgent, since you live among beings weak like yourself.  Be modest, as your pride will hurt the self-love of everyone around you.  Pardon injuries, do good to him who injures you, that you may .... gain his friendship.  Be moderate, temperate, and chaste, since lechery, intemperance, and excess will destroy you and make you contemptible."

From an atheist.

Such is the beauty and truth, from my perspective, of d'Holbach's writings, and as the essence within seems to be relevant to our times, I've shown below several paragraphs of the beginning of his "System of Nature: Or, the Laws of the Moral and Physical World." (about 1770).  Although the essence of his atheism does not appear in strength in these early paragraphs, I apologize for any slight offense his words might cause upon some in our local environment.  Such is the beauty, I thought the exposure to it might impress even the believer, those of the faith, who chances upon this forum.

The following is the first paragraph in the preface.  This kind of thinking illustrates one aspect of the essence of the Enlightenment, and prepares the reader for his attacks upon the comfortable and complacent institutions, one being the church, which at the time seemed to encourage and perpetuate ignorance within the masses.  Beautiful... gaze upon it as if was a work of art.

The source of man's unhappiness is his ignorance of Nature. The pertinacity with which he clings to blind opinions imbibed in his infancy, which interweave themselves with his existence, the consequent prejudice that warps his mind, that prevents its expansion, that renders him the slave of fiction, appears to doom him to continual error.

He resembles a child destitute of experience, full of ideal notions: a dangerous leaven mixes itself with all his knowledge: it is of necessity obscure, it is vacillating and false:â€"He takes the tone of his ideas on the authority of others, who are themselves in error, or else have an interest in deceiving him.

To remove this Cimmerian darkness, these barriers to the improvement of his condition; to disentangle him from the clouds of error that envelope him; to guide him out of this Cretan labyrinth, requires the clue of Ariadne, with all the love she could bestow on Theseus. It exacts more than common exertion; it needs a most determined, a most undaunted courageâ€"it is never effected but by a persevering resolution to act, to think for himself; to examine with rigour and impartiality the opinions he has adopted.

He will find that the most noxious weeds have sprung up beside beautiful flowers; entwined themselves around their stems, overshadowed them with an exuberance of foliage, choaked the ground, enfeebled their growth, diminished their petals; dimmed the brilliancy of their colours; that deceived by their apparent freshness of their verdure, by the rapidity of their exfoliation, he has given them cultivation, watered them, nurtured them, when he ought to have plucked out their very roots.

And the first two paragraphs of the first chapter: "Nature and Her Laws".

Man has always deceived himself when he abandoned experience to follow imaginary systems.â€"He is the work of nature.â€"He exists in Nature.â€"He is submitted to the laws of Nature.â€"He cannot deliver himself from them:â€"cannot step beyond them even in thought. It is in vain his mind would spring forward beyond the visible world: direful and imperious necessity ever compels his returnâ€"being formed by Nature, he is circumscribed by her laws; there exists nothing beyond the great whole of which he forms a part, of which he experiences the influence. The beings his fancy pictures as above nature, or distinguished from her, are always chimeras formed after that which he has already seen, but of which it is utterly impossible he should ever form any finished idea, either as to the place they occupy, or their manner of actingâ€"for him there is not, there can be nothing out of that Nature which includes all beings.

Therefore, instead of seeking out of the world he inhabits for beings who can procure him a happiness denied to him by Nature, let him study this Nature, learn her laws, contemplate her energies, observe the immutable rules by which she acts.â€"Let him apply these discoveries to his own felicity, and submit in silence to her precepts, which nothing can alter.â€"Let him cheerfully consent to be ignorant of causes hid from him under the most impenetrable veil.â€"Let him yield to the decrees of a universal power, which can never be brought within his comprehension, nor ever emancipate him from those laws imposed on him by his essence.

When I read this thread, I feel like I am watching the cat chase the laser light on the floor.

Quote from: spuwho on June 13, 2013, 08:16:37 AM
When I read this thread, I feel like I am watching the cat chase the laser light on the floor.

I have eaten so much popcorn and consumed so much beer reading this I think I may be nauseous...

Quote from: BridgeTroll on June 13, 2013, 08:19:27 AM

Quote from: spuwho on June 13, 2013, 08:16:37 AM
When I read this thread, I feel like I am watching the cat chase the laser light on the floor.

I have eaten so much popcorn and consumed so much beer reading this I think I may be nauseous...

Ditto

Quote from: JayBird on June 05, 2013, 10:27:00 AM
And me without my popcorn

Thanks for the feedback guys.  To appreciate fully this writing, keep in mind the era within which he lives.

Compare his eloquence, and his perception into the mind and predicament of man, to the words of a Glenn Beck, a George Bush, or a Pat Robertson, or most of the front runners of the last Presidential race.

Got to work.... later.

The nausea has nothing to do with d'Holbach's writings... 8)

Quote from: ronchamblin on June 13, 2013, 09:01:39 AM
Thanks for the feedback guys.  To appreciate fully this writing, keep in mind the era within which he lives.

Compare his eloquence, and his perception into the mind and predicament of man, to the words of a Glenn Beck, a George Bush, or a Pat Robertson, or most of the front runners of the last Presidential race.

Got to work.... later.

Oh no, actually I am learning quite a bit and enjoying it. It is just the undertow of clashing personalities that seems to have drowned poor Mr. Knowledge.

(http://static.rcgroups.net/forums/attachments/1/1/7/4/6/a698125-228-pissing%20contest.gif?d=1137072322)

In this episode of "Who Runs Jacksonville?", I discuss at length the history of First Baptist and the role that they have in Jacksonville Politics   http://youtu.be/h9uNIn6G_LQ

Quote from: stephendare on June 13, 2013, 11:02:57 AM
Meh.  I don't think that eloquence is really a substitute for truth, btw.

And I think your comparison suffers all the more when you juxtapose reasonable writing (like the passages you quoted) with claims that Christians will kill babies, or are mentally ill, or that white people coming the same conclusions about science that Muslim culture and the Chinese had already established centuries earlier 'saved' the world from ignorant Chrisians.

I don't think its possible to borrow the dignity of other peoples writing in order to cover the execrable claims that one makes about one's neighbors.

I know many people in the very Baptist environment of my childhood who have a similar belief.  That they can demean, or pass judgement or berate people unreasonably, (and sometimes out of no other motivation than cruelty and the feelings of self validation that it can bring) and then quote the sweet and gentle words of Jesus to cover such behavior.

This kind of rank hypocrisy and smug, thinly veiled hatred that is the root of so much that makes our everyday lives lesser places is very unbecoming.

By the way, its too bad that the only voices you hear in the world belong to Glenn Beck, George Bush, or Pat Robertson.  There are others, you know.

Perhaps if you tuned into the very real Enlightenment that is going on in the real world around you, you wouldnt think that the way to 'fix' the imaginary problems of the 18th Century is to call people like Debbie Thompson or Ocklawaha mentally ill or potential child murderers.

Believe it or not, the intellectual milieu that exists today outside of the very lowbrow world of politics and people sitting around in a cafe bitching about the punditocracy of that world is more moving, more stirring, more viscerally exciting than anything that has ever happened to humanity in its long history.  And I suspect that you are totally missing it.

Also, may I suggest that you update your reading and your explorations on this matter.  It seems that you probably stopped forming your opinion on these issues sometime in the 1970s, and every vapid televangelist, and every false move by a posturing politician has only cemented the conclusions of a thirty year old version of yourself.

May I suggest that you start with the writings of Mircea Eliade?  While hardly the last word on the subject, he is a good starting point.  An excellent place to start is in his treatise: The Sacred and the Profane: The Nature of Religion (trans. Willard R. Trask), Harper Torchbooks, New York, 1961.

Eliade is more like the Spinoza of his age, I think.  I am a great admirer of his ideas, although not necessarily his prose.  But I suppose one gets used to that in philosophical treatise.

Perhaps the Western War on Religion is dying down as we come to a keener understanding of the mysteries of both Science and Faith. 

But you will convince no one that you have any Truth to peddle by telling them that they are mentally ill.  Except maybe addicts.

Stephen ..... and I am being completely honest with you ...... as I have no reason to avoid honesty.... but what you have said above contains so many untruths, exaggerations, distortions, insults, and attempts to denigrate, it would take me too much valuable time to respond to each and every point.  I simply do not have the time to engage such nonsense.
 
Therefore, I shall ignore all of them, not because of an inability to engage them productively, but because this potentially valuable and productive forum should not be used to engage the foolishness you continue to inject .... not only regarding me, but with many others, many of whom have jumped ship to escape your habitual juvenile nonsense.  In other words, I am not willing to dignify your nonsense with a response to it.

As I've said before, you seem intent of cultivating an unreasonably high image of your knowledge and your intellect, both I suspect as being reasonably high, but not as high as you would like others to believe.  The problem, and I said this before, occurs when someone threatens your image, perhaps by suggesting that you are ignorant about something, or by innocently asking you to explain something.  You become threatened, and then defensive, and then verbally attack with all sorts of nonsense to obscure your lack of knowledge, or perhaps some mistakes you made in conversation.  You then waste many posts attacking whomever is the victim for that day.  There is nothing wrong with being ignorant Stephen.  We are all ignorant about many things.

Enough Stephen.  Let us have productive forum.  As I've said before, I enjoy your posts, as they are for the most part interesting and witty, although occasioning too many stilted words to attempt further enhancing your image.  I suspect that when you know it best to use a word known by 98 percent of the readers, you spend 15 minutes searching for a word which means approximately the same, but has the advantage that it is known by only .05 percent of the readers.  The purpose is not to impress with stilted words, but to convey accurately your ideas.

I see that you have reposted some of my posts.  Wonderful.  Are you willing to have a civil discussion about one of them?  I am willing to discuss the events and my reasons for posting them.

Or do you simply wish to throw insults?