The Problem with Atheism

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comments

Please report offensive comments below.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

jdkigbmo ztwmqufp tlnmvczq adihxp dhgmfu ndkqzvty bthgdcojm

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sincerely,

James Cornwell

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

Sincerely,

James Cornwell
Fresno, California

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hi Lindajean,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hi Soja,

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

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

Andy, many thanks for your very kind words.

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

God speed!

Soja

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

Hi Soja!

You said to Peter:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Anyway, thanks for setting such a noble example.

Andy

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

Hi Lindajean,

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

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

Hi Peter!

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

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

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

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

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

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

God bless!

Soja

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hi Soja,

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

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

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

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

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

Peter,

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

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

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

Hi Soja,

To continue on yesterdays thoughts,

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hi Soja,

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

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

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

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

Hi Soja,

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

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

Best wishes also!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hi Soja,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hi Soja,

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wishing you all the best now and always!

Soja

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

Soja,

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

Best wishes
Timmy

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

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

Best wishes
Soja

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

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

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

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

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

Soja said:

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

Obviously.

Here are some more traditions that lasted over 2000 years.

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

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

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

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

Hi Peter!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

God bless!

Soja

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

Hi Soja,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You have that right! That is a presuppositional argument.

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

Thank you! And with you also!

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

Anonymous said:

"You wish to destroy Christianity"

I wish for the end of all primitive superstitious thought.

"two thousand years old"

So?

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

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

"two billion followers"

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

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

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

"You want it to become like Scientology"

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

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

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

Nice try.

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

You wish to destroy

Christianity

two thousand years old

shaped the most powerful civilization the world has ever known

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

two billion followers

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

You want it to become like Scientology

Be careful what you wish for

Read up about Scientology before you indulge your wish any further

Good luck!

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

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

Scientology affects my life zero ways.

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

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

But nice try.

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

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

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

Anony,

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

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

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

Nope.

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

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

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

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

Anonymous,

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

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

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

Don't you think?

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

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

Enough has been written against Christianity.

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

Hi Soja,

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

Blessings!

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

Soja said:

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

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

Soja continued:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wishing you the wisdom and guidance of the Holy Spirit!

Best wishes
Soja

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

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

Peter Huff said:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Check your vest. You are bleeding to death.

GAD: “Scoreboard: GAD 6, Peter 0”

By Gad’s reasoning.

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

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

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

IV for the atheist.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

To continue then,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In Gad’s view of determining score.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

May this thread rest in peace. Amen!

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

VI continued,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

As Bahnsen says,

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

Richard Pratt says,

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

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

The article goes on to say,

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

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

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

Actually my day has not been miserable.

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

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

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

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

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

Gad's scoreboard from Gad's unsure perspective!

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

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

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

Peter,

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

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

Hi Gad,

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

Starting with VI:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hi Andy,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Then Gad said:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Gad says:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Andy says:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Andy says:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Andy says:

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

And

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

I say:

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

Andy says:

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

I say:

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

Andy says:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

LJ says:
AR is a nukes freak.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

One more thing LJ,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wow! Add super paranoid to the list.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Not me. So shaaaaadaaaaap!

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

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

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

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

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

Well that's not me so shaaaaaaadaaaaaaap!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Your opinion.

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

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

Timmy said (to AR):

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

That's exactly right, Timmy: creepy.

And that is exactly my point!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Today it is. Tomorrow it may not be.

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

Timmy: “Who said you had to?”

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

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

When I use “soon” I mean ASAP.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Timmy said,

"BOBYRDHAEPOLFTFOHDY!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So the population problem is a small campfire?

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

Who asked you to?

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

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

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

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

Knee jerkiness....

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Andy says:

"Naiveté again. What is a disease?"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

BOBYRDHAEPOLFTFOHDY!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Timmy said:
"LMAO"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lindajean,

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

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

That was nonsense, LJ.

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

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

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

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

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

No ethics? No problem.

Surely this is the devil's advocate in disguise.

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

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

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

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

Hi Andy,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Gad said:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hi Andy,

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

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

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

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

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

Indeed. And imagination.

You wrote:
"Victim mentality is for losers"

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

You said:
"Let us not lunge into engineering lifeforms we lack the courage to kill if we don't like them"

Again, I don't think we're going to have to do much killing, if any. Just better engineering next time around. But I think that the science will move very fast, perhaps to perfection in no time. They might figure it all out at once. The theory of everything. And then our only limitation is our imagination.

You said:
"Let us define a firebreak and hold the line against all attempts to fiddle with our germline before we know exactly what we are doing. The simplest way to do this, given the way people are now architected, is to make it taboo, like a religious taboo. The germline is sacred, is the GOOF. Worship Goof, o ye minions!"

Certainly proceed with caution. But sacred? Nonsense. Unless you believe in God or some higher meaning or purpose for our original germline. The original was designed by old clunky evolution. Genetic science is much better than evolution. It will make the old us look like the difference between playing X-Box 360 and Pong on the old Atari.. But some people still do hold Pong sacred. I don't know why though.

Posted by: timmy | April 20, 2008 8:08 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Gad said:

" I doubt we can even count the number of creatures that been "too successful at breeding". The result has always been, they peak and collapse due to resource depletion, disease, change in habitat or some natural disaster"

None of them had a clue as to what was happening. They had neither the capacity to be aware of what was happening, nor the science and technology to fix it.

It sounds like you're really down on your species, Gad. You think we're doomed, and we damn well deserve it. Maybe I'm misreading you but this is my honest impression based on your latest comments. I am much more optimistic about our future. I think that we will not be destroyed by terrorism, or theocracy, or out-breeding by the goddies, or global warming. (I'm least confident about that last one, but still confident) I think that the economic inequities that create the third world are going to be eliminated within a hundred years. I think that religion will be greatly diminished and relegated to almost cult status within 200 years.

All of the questions I have been asking about the future of natural selection as it sits in our hands, are questions based on us surviving all of these smaller issues. If we do, science will soon bring us to a point where we will need to decide how to evolve not only our own species, but all life on the planet. (All life that we know of) We will be defining life. So there is the meaning that we all give our own individual lives with our relationships with our families and friends and loved ones, and then there is the meaning of life in general, that we are going to have to define one day soon. Like it or not.

If we survive for another thousand years, human beings of that time will be vastly different genetically. And of course, it won't be the old school natural selection that made them that way. It couldn't be, it doesn't move that fast. It will be our genetic science that will be responsible for the difference, because it will be so much quicker and a million times more efficient than old school evolution. A relic.

But I'm sure you'll say "Ha. we'll never survive that long, we're so pathetic"

Posted by: timmy | April 20, 2008 7:21 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Timmy, your quotes in """ """:
"""
And it seems like I am the only one who marvels at the significance of the fact that humanity now finds itself dealing with a problem that no other living creature in the billion year history of life on earth has ever had to deal with. What do do about being too successful at breeding. Natural selection is over. Human selection is here. But humans are natural, so I guess it's still natural selection. But very very different from the natural selection of the last several billion years. Billion!
"""

Not at all. I discussed this billennial singularity exhaustively in my 1996 novel Lifeball. The hero realized he was at the cusp of a big event on planet Earth that would probably lead to its evolving into a lifeball, a single integrated planetary organism. Gaia had just grown its www neuronet and was waking up. To cut a long story short, the hero seeded the brew and online agents called angels took over. The top angel -- Global Ontic Driver -- delegated discipline to another angel called Supreme Angelic Terminator of Antigod Nihilists.

"""
I would expect this kind of blatant racist talk from your average Brit living in Germany, but up until now, I did not think that you were an average Brit living in Germany. You live in Germany 2008 but you talk like someone in Germany circa 1941. Can you bee specific about who these "lesser breeds" are?
"""

No, because our science there is too primitive. I was merely quoting from Rudyard Kipling, who coined "lesser breeds without the law" over a century ago. Of course I am not a blatant racist. German orthodoxy circa 1941 was based on several misapprehensions that are entirely foreign to me. But like numerous breeders of fine thoroughbreds, I see the difference between wellbred specimens (who may nevertheless be overbred and inbred) and illbred mongrels (who may nevertheless be strong and noble and carriers of worthy traits). In fact, most illbred people are are to be found among the background populations of the thoroughbreds. You know the phenomenon as "white trash" and I guess they would be among the first to go in a big cleanup.

Every day I meet individuals from the cultures you list who are as noble as your average white bread. I welcome them as brothers and sisters. But lesser specimens are not far behind, in any culture, and we need to hold the scum at bay. The genetic stakes are in part a lottery. Each one of us holds tens of thousands of cards, some good, some bad. We shall need a lot of patience to identify, isolate, and replicate a winning hand for all.

There will be mistakes. For example, imagine a fashion sweeps America for upgrading with genes for big boobs. Then, a few years later, we find the gene also causes the big-boobed ladies to lose all their IQ points, or whatever. Too late! We have a few million defective products out there. Imagine the lawsuits! Worse, imagine the decades of welfare payments. Recall the thalidomide generation. Nice enough people, deserving of the greatest compassion, but without arms or legs. Do we kill them all as soon as possible? Maybe we should rather kill people like me for letting such thoughts rage unchecked over their neuronets!

"""
It is a fact that every Arab child born, every African child born, every Philipino child born, have exactly the same capacity for intelligence, and compassion, and living the same kind of lives that you and I live. They were just born in a disadvantaged place. that is the only difference. They are victims.
"""

Victim mentality is for losers. Capacity is for dreamers. If capacity is all, then every sperm is sacred (this is a Monty Python quote, in case you decide to accuse me of semenophilia). The words "fact" and "exactly" in your PC rant are incorrect. The words "just" and "only" are poor choices too. Your use of the word "disadvantaged" betrays your real opinion. You see yourself as an advantaged one. Okay, have the courage of your convictions and go help the disadvantaged. Give up your surfing and your comic capers and go wipe the bums of a few disadvantaged infants in some malarial swamp.

"""
I am not one who is easily offended. But your use of the word "lesser breed" and Gad's slightly less offensive version of the same racist slag "morons" is quite hideous and appalling. I am truly disgusted. No wonder you think that Hitler types will rule the future. You seem to be one. If this is what you meant by this subject being "not for the squeamish", maybe I am squeamish. But cary on. I'm keen to hear more about these lesser breeds. I'll just buckle up for one hell of a ride.
"""

Now you see it. Believe me, I am as compassionate and unwilling to offend as you are. But the topic requires a lack of squeamishness that borders on the superhuman. That was the problem with the Nazi effort. They took on more than we, at this point in the evolution of our species and civilization, can chew. It's easy to say that this or that group is worthless so let's just kill them all. But implementing cleanly is hard. It was too hard for the Nazis. Therefore, to push away the day when we have to go that way again, we say, for now, never again.

This is why I say keep the tradition in view here. Philosophers and religious thinkers have long pondered questions of life and death. Perhaps a lot of what they said was nonsense, but even a trace of wisdom is better than nothing here. Let us not lunge into engineering lifeforms we lack the courage to kill if we don't like them. Let us define a firebreak and hold the line against all attempts to fiddle with our germline before we know exactly what we are doing. The simplest way to do this, given the way people are now architected, is to make it taboo, like a religious taboo. The germline is sacred, is the GOOF. Worship Goof, o ye minions!

Posted by: andy ross | April 20, 2008 3:21 AM
Report Offensive Comment

anti theism works fine for me ...i went from agnostic to anti-theism [i.e i didn't stop for coffee]

keep up the good work.

vote democratic, vote with your head. if you have children, let them decide on how they'd like to be programmed.

be well.

Posted by: alogicbit | April 20, 2008 3:01 AM
Report Offensive Comment

And by the way, I find comparing theists with racists very demeaning. Just proves that you don't have to believe in God to be a jackass.

Posted by: Rick | April 20, 2008 2:55 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Isn't the substance of this argument clumsily addressed by the badge of "Brights"

I always hated that term, but I also feel (like Harris) that the label of Atheist should not even exist. It says nothing about me except that I don't believe in a god or gods. That is it. Nothing more, and nothing less.

Posted by: Andrew | April 20, 2008 2:52 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Great idea, let's take it one step further. I won't label you an "Atheist", and you don't label me a "Theist" or a "Christian" or a "Hindu" etc. Let's just see each other as individuals who see ourselves and our world in our unique way. Labels suck.

Imagine...

Posted by: Rick | April 20, 2008 2:51 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Timmy said:
And it seems like I am the only one who marvels at the significance of the fact that humanity now finds itself dealing with a problem that no other living creature in the billion year history of life on earth has ever had to deal with. What do do about being too successful at breeding.

Huh? I doubt we can even count the number of creatures that been "too successful at breeding". The result has always been, they peak and collapse due to resource depletion, disease, change in habitat or some natural disaster.

Posted by: GAD | April 19, 2008 10:05 PM
Report Offensive Comment

BTW Andy,

"lesser breeds"??

I would expect this kind of blatant racist talk from your average Brit living in Germany, but up until now, I did not think that you were an average Brit living in Germany. You live in Germany 2008 but you talk like someone in Germany circa 1941.

Can you bee specific about who these "lesser breeds" are?
Arabs? Persians? Africans? Phillipinos? What makes them "lesser".

It is a fact that every Arab child born, every African child born, every Philipino child born, have exactly the same capacity for intelligence, and compassion, and living the same kind of lives that you and I live. They were just born in a disadvantaged place. that is the only difference. They are victims.

I am not one who is easily offended. But your use of the word "lesser breed" and Gad's slightly less offensive version of the same racist slag "morons" is quite hideous and appalling. I am truly disgusted.

No wonder you think that Hitler types will rule the future. You seem to be one. If this is what you meant by this subject being "not for the squeamish", maybe I am squeamish. But cary on. I'm keen to hear more about these lesser breeds. I'll just buckle up for one hell of a ride.

Posted by: timmy | April 19, 2008 5:53 PM
Report Offensive Comment

AR said:

"Tell that to the lesser breeds without the law who are still breeding like maggots. Given our goofy morality, we have hobbled ourselves from culling them, so what do we do? Hand out welfare until we all starve? Malthus in action!"

You tell me? You've done a good job of pointing out the problem. What about the solution? Nuke'em all?

This is the discussion I want to have. I am not squeamish. Let'er rip.

And it seems like I am the only one who marvels at the significance of the fact that humanity now finds itself dealing with a problem that no other living creature in the billion year history of life on earth has ever had to deal with. What do do about being too successful at breeding.

Natural selection is over. Human selection is here.
But humans are natural, so I guess it's still natural selection. But very very different from the natural selection of the last several billion years. Billion!

Posted by: timmy | April 19, 2008 4:27 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Bloody hell,

I can't figure out why this stupid blog is censoring my "part two".
So it's over on Gad's blog in the "Problem with Atheism" section.

Enjoy

Posted by: timmy | April 19, 2008 4:11 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Part one of two:

Yeah! Here we go. Finally, we're off that stupid purpose and supernatural crap and into a real discussion of real issues. Thank you!

I said:
"Not true anymore. This is what I am getting at. Number of offspring is now moot to the future evolution of the species. Genetics and birth control are the future"

Gad said:

"Not true!"

True!

Gad continued:
"Everything we have is based on technology not control of genetics or mutations. Technology is progressing at a geometric rate, not human genetics, we have hardly changed at all in 50,000 years"

True but irrelevant to the point. Yes, technology is progressing at a geometric rate, and so will genetics be, very very soon. I said genetics and birth control are the future, not the now. But the future of genetically engineered human beings is right around the corner. We need to start thinking about, and making our plans for that future now. When it starts, it will go at breakneck speed. We better have been thinking about this for a long long time when this day (coming sooner than we all think) arrives.

Gad continues:
"And right now morons across the world are trying to breed an army for god that will raise up and destroy the ungodly"

Not morons.
Brainwashed, uneducated victims. I repeat. VICTIMS.
The attitude that they are morons, (less capable of intelligence than you or I) is the wrong way to look at it. This is just a base reaction out of fear. They are humans just like us with all of the same plusses and minuses that we have. We need to destroy religion, not "the morons".

Gad continues:
"Technology is helping them grow that army, and when that army matures it will have more technology to use to destroy the ungodly."

Wrong! Technology will aid the army that they grow, but technology will not help them grow that army. That is just simple baby-making and brainwashing. They don't need technology for that.

Gad continues:
"Couple this with the fact that the earth can barely support all the morons now and the future is pretty bleak"

Let's ignore your use of the anger inspired term "morons" for now and focus on a very important point you bring up. We are overpopulating the earth. This is the point that I bring up as well. Survival of all living creatures up until now has always been about how many kids you can breed. Now we find ourselves in a situation that no other living creature has ever found itself in. We are too successful at breeding. The basic survival instinct of breed breed breed is now a negative force on our survival not a plus. Now we have to decide how to control and cull our breeding. That is why mutations that help us succeed at procreation will no longer be selected and become part of our new selves. Even without genetic engineering, we can, simply by means of birth control, (like dog breeding) decide which mutations or characteristics, that we wish to carry on and breed into ourselves.

But first of all, we have to decide as a society (world society) what we are going to do about birth control. Obviously the third world is breeding too much, and we are (in relation) breeding too little. If this situation were to continue on for hundreds of thousands of years, or millions of years, eventually, natural selection would favor whatever mutations happen to be coming out of people in the third world. But to be concerned about that, you would have to be a moron, who thinks that this situation, where the third world is uneducated and outbreeding us by a landslide, is going to continue for hundreds of thousands, or millions of years. It's not. This problem of third world inequities and lack of education will be over in a hundred years. Genetic engineering will be advanced enough for us to control evolution long before natural selection can keep up. Genetics doesn't have to move faster than technology. Just faster than natural selection. And of course it is.

End of Part one

Posted by: timmy | April 19, 2008 3:58 PM
Report Offensive Comment

AR said:
Malthus in action!

The sub-prime mess, weakening dollar, rapid rise in oil prices and the absurd food crops for gas plan has lead to a steep rise in food prices around the world. In a report from the world bank it said that over 30 countries were facing starvation and civil unrest or even war, food riots have already started in some places............

AR said:
Perhaps we can use our "slave" evolution (the new golem) to fashion bugs that infect the unwashed poor and spare the medicated rich. But control is key here:

Watch "I am Legend" . The news clip that opens the movie sent a chill down my spine.

BTW I liked what you said over on the SH site; that if just one person suffering is sufficient to prevent the rest of us from improving ourself, then we are all doomed.

Posted by: GAD | April 19, 2008 11:53 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Timmy said:
Number of offspring is now moot to the future evolution of the species. Genetics and birth control are the future.

I say:
Tell that to the lesser breeds without the law who are still breeding like maggots. Given our goofy morality, we have hobbled ourselves from culling them, so what do we do? Hand out welfare until we all starve? Malthus in action!

Timmy said:
Democracy and cooperation may, and most likely will, rule the day. Then we will have to decide as a society, as a collective, together, with our thoughts and ethics, and our imagination, where to take our own evolution from here. It is highly unlikely that a Hitler type will be making that decision. We will do it as a collective society. And that is why I am bringing it up for discussion.

I say:
Democracy will give us Hollywood action heroes for sons and airhead starlets for daughters. Could be worse, but they'll still have to do battle with the lesser breeds. Mad Max here we come. Seriously, we have no precedent for responsible decision making on reproductive questions except the sanctity of marriage (in goofy tradition a socially hallowed setting for the raising of kids) and the Hippocratic oath (but medical science is not so far advanced that we could just let scientists design our kids for us). I see chaos until we learn to live with a more robust and nuanced ethic of life and death. I think the best precedents here are the more philosophical debates in the Judeo-Christian tradition.

Timmy said:
Evolution is our slave now. And this is a significantly different situation than that of the last billion or so years. Monumentally different. This is the point that I am trying to explore.

I say:
Oh, no, it isn't. Sure, we can in principle do much more than before, but actually doing it effectively is something else. Again, what about the demographic time bomb that needs action now? The planet is drowning in demographic waste. We have no technology for a big cleanup that does not seem filthier than the disease (think industrial holocaust and nuclear apocalypse). Perhaps we can use our "slave" evolution (the new golem) to fashion bugs that infect the unwashed poor and spare the medicated rich. But control is key here: think of our incompetence at handling AIDS, which would be a goofy prototype of how to prune the stock. As you see, this is not an issue for the squeamish.

Posted by: andy ross | April 19, 2008 3:17 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Timmy:

I've been censored again.
Please go to Gad's blog.

Posted by: lindajean | April 18, 2008 7:10 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Timmy asked: "Can you do me a favor and never mention the words supernatural, or cosmic purpose again? They have no relevance to the discussion that I started."

Of course I can, Timmy.
All you had to do was ask.

Posted by: lindajean | April 18, 2008 5:27 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Timmy said:
Not true anymore. This is what I am getting at. Number of offspring is now moot to the future evolution of the species. Genetics and birth control are the future.

Not true! Everything we have is based on technology not control of genetics or mutations. Technology is progressing at a geometric rate, not human genetics, we have hardly changed at all in 50,000 years. And right now morons across the world are trying to breed an army for god that will raise up and destroy the ungodly. Technology is helping them grow that army, and when that army matures it will have more technology to use to destroy the ungodly. Couple this with the fact that the earth can barely support all the morons now and the future is pretty bleak. Until we evolve past hate, selfishness, ignorance and superstition nothing will change. Remember that everything we do and believe is from evolution, so we haven't evolved past crap! Your taking one tiny thing birth control, more correctly reproductive success and claiming we own evolution, that's BS.

Posted by: GAD | April 18, 2008 5:21 PM
Report Offensive Comment

LJ asks:
"Are we talking about multiuniverses and the supernatural, purpose and humanity, or natural selection?"

Give me a bloody break. Jesus!
NEWS FLASH!
I DID NOT BRING UP THE SUBJECT OF THE SUPERNATURAL. YOU DID!
I NEVER EVER EVER EVER WANT TO EVER DISCUSS ANYTHING THAT HAS ANYTHING TO DO WITH THE SUPERNATURAL BECAUSE NOTHING SUPERNATURAL EXISTS!

I DID NOT BRING UP "PURPOSE" YOU AND GAD DID!
I DO NOT WANT TO DISCUSS ANY SPECIAL OR COSMIC PURPOSE FOR US SPECIAL HUMANS. I HAVE MADE THAT CRYSTAL CLEAR.

LJ said:
Because every time I “think” I understand what you are saying it keeps changing.

NO IT DOESN'T. I HAVE BEEN SAYING OVER AND OVER AGAIN THAT I WANT NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS DISCUSSION OF SUPERNATURAL AND SPECIAL PURPOSES AND MEANINGS THAT YOU GUYS BROUGHT UP AND YET IN EVERY RESPONSE YOU GIVE YOU GO ON AND ON ABOUT SPECIAL COSMIC PURPOSES AND SUPERNATURAL MEANINGS. IT COULD NOT BE MORE CLEAR WHAT I AM INTERESTED IN DISCUSSING.

EVOLUTION AND GENETICS! THAT IS ALL.
THE ONLY REASON I MENTIONED THE MULTIUNIVERSE IS BECAUSE YOU SAID THAT ANYTHING OUTSIDE OF OUR UNIVERSE, OR BIGGER THAN OUR UNIVERSE WOULD BE CONSIDERED BY MOST PEOPLE TO BE SUPERNATURAL. AND I SAID "WHAT ABOUT THE MULTIUNIVERSE? MOST REGULAR JOES HAVE HEARD ABOUT THAT, AND KNOW ABOUT THAT, BUT THEY DON'T THINK THAT IT IS SUPERNATURAL. THEY THINK THAT IT IS SCIENCE.

LJ said:
And if this is what you want to talk about.... (genetics and evolution)
I have issues with the ethical side of it.

What issues? What ethics? Yes yes yes. This is the discussion I want to have.

Can you do me a favor and never mention the words supernatural, or cosmic purpose again? They have no relevance to the discussion that I started.

Posted by: timmy | April 18, 2008 5:18 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Any said:

"Purpose? Ask the Templeton winners."

Who said anything about purpose? not me.

Andy said:
"The winners have more kids, the rest go under."

Not true anymore. This is what I am getting at. Number of offspring is now moot to the future evolution of the species. Genetics and birth control are the future.

Andy said:
"If Adolf or Vladi grab pole position and say they want clones, we evolve that way. Or not, depending on who fights back. Survival of the feistiest"

Or not. Democracy and cooperation may, and most likely will, rule the day. Then we will have to decide as a society, as a collective, together, with our thoughts and ethics, and our imagination, where to take our own evolution from here. It is highly unlikely that a Hitler type will be making that decision. We will do it as a collective society. And that is why I am bringing it up for discussion.

Andy said:
"a proof of our slavery to evolution"

Evolution is our slave now.
And this is a significantly different situation than that of the last billion or so years. Monumentally different. This is the point that I am trying to explore.

Andy said:
"If you feel helped, good, if not, bygones."

Bygones it is then, I guess.

Posted by: timmy | April 18, 2008 4:52 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Timmy: you need to decide what topic you are going to talk about. It continues to digress ---even more so with AR weighing in.

Are we talking about multiuniverses and the supernatural, purpose and humanity, or natural selection?
Because every time I “think” I understand what you are saying it keeps changing.

And if this is what you want to talk about....

“Either way, I was just interested in a scientific discussion about the fact that humanity is the first creature in the history of living organisms that will no longer evolve based on mutations that help get us to the age of procreation, as has been the case for billions of years, and as far as we know the entire history of the universe since the mysterious big bang. Now and now only, we and we only have full control over the future of our own evolution, and eventually the evolution of all living things. As genetic science advances at breakneck speed, the only limitation to our future evolution will be our imagination, which doesn't seem all that limited.....”

I have issues with the ethical side of it.

Posted by: lindajean | April 18, 2008 4:50 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Timmy says help, there's no intelligent life down here. Gad knows I'm fortified with panpsychic experiences.

1) Timmy says:
What about the multiuniverse? That is bigger than our universe and outside of our universe what is supernatural about that? Move on from this cosmic or special meaning and purpose that you've gotten into your head. I am asking scientific questions about the future of natural selection and genetic science.

I say:
Multi, schmulti, who cares so long as it's between physicists? We can spin the math, pile on the words, eke out the evidence, all we like. In the end it fizzles out into wild ideas that fail to refer coherently. Purpose? Ask the Templeton winners. My impression was it's anything that moves us. We set a goal, we go for it. We have sex, we have kids. They want to do better, some do. The winners have more kids, the rest go under. Purpose? Ha! If Adolf or Vladi grab pole position and say they want clones, we evolve that way. Or not, depending on who fights back. Survival of the feistiest.

2) Timmy says:
This is an interesting scientific conversation that we can have. I said that there is something bigger to think about than our own personal meaning that we give our own personal lives. Global warming is one example. Our situation in the universe is another. What we are to do with our new found power over natural selection is another.

I say:
What is a person? Our personal concerns are universal. We expand to fill the vacuum placed before us, albeit thinly. A person can be more than a body. General Motors is a legal person. The God of our fathers is a moral person, for whom the more conscientious among us perform miracles of self-alienation in genuflection to the idol. All persons are godlike because the gods are persons writ large. We project, then genuflect, forgetting the self-emptying that made the god. Even the Goof is such a projection, albeit a forced one, compelled by our genes, a proof of our slavery to evolution. We see virtue in intergenerational sacrifice.

3) Timmy says:
Your personal relationships with your family and friends are so much smaller that these subjects. This does not diminish your personal meaning in any way. It's just that you are a bip of a blip, and nothing more in the grand scheme of things.

I say:
Big and small are relative and contingent. If the Goof is as small as a gene, does that diminish His Mighty Power? If Hawking is as big as the schmultiverse, does that help him move his fingers? Therefore, blips of blips can be bigger than big. And your big can be my small, my big your small. Agreement is moot, all devolves to politics.

Summary: so many words, so little result. But small is the new big. If you feel helped, good, if not, bygones.

Posted by: andy ross | April 18, 2008 3:59 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Gad said:
"He can keep changing the name but the discussion is still the same, the some special greatness of humanity in the universe/multi-verse.......... A rose is a rose by any other name."

Except that I have never talked of "some special greatness" or "some special purpose" or Some "cosmic meaning" for humanity... Ever. This is all your invention.

Notice how, if I use the word "meaning" in a sentence, you have to add the word "special" in front of it, and the words "for humanity" after it to make it sound like I am talking about god. Just as Lindajean decided to throw in the word "cosmic" for the same reasons. My words just don't sound crazy enough on their own, so you have to embellish.

LJ you say that it is the way that I am wording it that makes it seem like I am talking about the supernatural, but don't you see that it is the way that you are wording it that makes it sound that way?

Either way, I was just interested in a scientific discussion about the fact that humanity is the first creature in the history of living organisms that will no longer evolve based on mutations that help get us to the age of procreation, as has been the case for billions of years, and as far as we know the entire history of the universe since the mysterious big bang. Now and now only, we and we only have full control over the future of our own evolution, and eventually the evolution of all living things. As genetic science advances at breakneck speed, the only limitation to our future evolution will be our imagination, which doesn't seem all that limited. I find this a fascinating area of discussion but I can see that I will have to find this scientific discussion elsewhere because the folks around here seem more interested bible study 101 with Peter Huff, and smoking out closet believers disguising themselves as atheists. Good job. You got me.

carry on.

Posted by: timmy | April 18, 2008 3:03 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Gad said, "What I said was I'm no longer going to get into any long protracted discussions with you, because they tend to go no where. I have nothing personal against you, just when we go beyond discussing something to arguing about it the point of diminishing returns comes quickly."

Sweet reason has returned.

Posted by: lindajean | April 18, 2008 1:10 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Gad,

I said:
And if you are insinuating that such a discussion must unfold into a discussion and belief in the metaphysical, then go girl.

Gad said, "Well, it will. For the faithful there is no choice, everything that we learn must fit into the bible, period. If we find aliens they must either have come from god or be the devils spawn......"

Well of course it will FOR THE FAITHFUL---Agreed, and that was both of our points earlier, but I don't think Timmy is even talking about religious notions in his discussions, and I am willing to say I think he would agree with our point. The religion point is irrelevant to Timmy's discussion about purpose in the universe and he is looking at it strictly from a scientific perspective.

Gad said, " But I digress, what I was insinuating was that Timmy started with something greater for us in the universe, then threw n the the multi-verse and then moved to global warming. He can keep changing the name but the discussion is still the same, the some special greatness of humanity in the universe/multi-verse.......... A rose is a rose by any other name."

Well, I interpreted his argument a little differently (once we got a few things clarified).

The global warming remark was in reference to people only thinking about their own happiness at the expense of others and humanity. It was a digression from the mulituniverse discussion.

The multi-universe discussion was about contemplating a purpose larger than humanity. So I think when you say he is suggesting there is some special greatness in humanity, that is not how I understood it.

I think he is actually arguing something bigger. Something as complex as the multi-verse could bear a purpose or meaning for all of the cosmos (not just us little blobs here on earth), and that purpose could thereby give us meaning and purpose indirectly.

If that is what he is saying, I don't find that particularly unreasonable or wrong. Attributing something in the universe to something meaningful that may serve a meaningful or purposeful state--albeit indirectly-- to humanity, does not strike me as calling something a different name than a rose.

Wondering about this multiuniverse and a hypothetical purpose to it does not qualify someone as believing in the supernatural. And contemplating a purpose or meaning in the universe that could provide a purpose or meaning to all of the cosmos (and thereby humanity) does not either.
Is that what you are insinuating?

We are talking about two different things here:

1. that some religious people will embrace it as a supernatural (IF it were ever true); and

2. contemplating it in scientific terms and discovering a universal purpose or meaning..

Number 1 is calling a rose by a different name. Number 2 is talking about a possible phenomenon extrapolated from a possible scientific discovery.

Posted by: lindajean | April 18, 2008 12:51 PM
Report Offensive Comment

LJ said:
I thought you weren't conversing with me anymore...
a change of heart, perhaps?

What I said was I'm no longer going to get into any long protracted discussions with you, because they tend to go no where. I have nothing personal against you, just when we go beyond discussing something to arguing about it the point of diminishing returns comes quickly.

Posted by: GAD | April 18, 2008 12:43 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Gad said,
"OK, I'm on the same page now.'

I thought you weren't conversing with me anymore...
a change of heart, perhaps?

Posted by: lindajean | April 18, 2008 12:02 PM
Report Offensive Comment

LJ said:
And if you are insinuating that such a discussion must unfold into a discussion and belief in the metaphysical, then go girl.

Well, it will. For the faithful there is no choice, everything that we learn must fit into the bible, period. If we find aliens they must either have come from god or be the devils spawn...... But I digress, what I was insinuating was that Timmy started with something greater for us in the universe, then threw n the the multi-verse and then moved to global warming. He can keep changing the name but the discussion is still the same, the some special greatness of humanity in the universe/multi-verse.......... A rose is a rose by any other name.

LJ said:
No, a lack of understanding about science would lead people to believe that if there were a scientific discovery of a multiuniverse they would probably believe it would be metaphysically designed with a metaphysical purpose. (They would attribute some God-design and purpose to it.)

OK, I'm on the same page now.

Posted by: GAD | April 18, 2008 11:49 AM
Report Offensive Comment

LJ: "A theocracy does not allow freedoms and individual rights. It is based on the laws of God."

Peter: "Sure it does."

Give me an example of such a theocrcy.

LJ: "The laws of God do not allow one to question or criticize authority or change/amend God laws."

Peter: "It is hard to change perfection."

Then you no longer have a democracy. That is why a theocracy cannot work under the guise of a democracy. You have just proven my point.

LJ: "So, Peter, if you favor a theocracy, you cannot favor individual/civil rights or a government that promotes these ideals."

Peter: "Sure I can. An individual is free to live within the rights of the law of God. If he chooses to break those laws, just like in any other society, there are consequences (And without Christ in the long run, eternal ones)."

You are trying to grow apples on an orange tree. You cannot live under the laws of God and be free. This is a contradiction.

Posted by: lindajean | April 18, 2008 9:11 AM
Report Offensive Comment

I wrote to Timmy, ""I don’t think you are saying it would be a supernatural purpose, but my point was that most people would think that a mulituniverse, with a purpose, would be a supernatural concept."

Gad wrote,"A rose by any other name..."

We are not talking about roses and calling them daisies. We are talking about a multiuniverse and what (if anything) it would mean to humanity and the universe.

And if you are insinuating that such a discussion must unfold into a discussion and belief in the metaphysical, then go girl.

Gad said,
"So it is a lack of scientific understanding that leads people to believe that there is no special meaning or purpose for humanity in the universe/multiverse.........."

No, a lack of understanding about science would lead people to believe that if there were a scientific discovery of a multiuniverse they would probably believe it would be metaphysically designed with a metaphysical purpose. (They would attribute some God-design and purpose to it.)

Posted by: lindajean | April 18, 2008 8:59 AM
Report Offensive Comment

"I don’t think you are saying it would be a supernatural purpose, but my point was that most people would think that a mulituniverse, with a purpose, would be a supernatural concept."

A rose by any other name...........

"I am not saying you believe this, only that I think most people would see it that way because of a lack of scientific understanding of such complex systems."

So it is a lack of scientific understanding that leads people to believe that there is no special meaning or purpose for humanity in the universe/multiverse..........

Posted by: GAD | April 18, 2008 3:04 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Hi Lindajean, one final post.

LJ: "In response to your most recent post to me, either you favor a theocracy (or some form of dictatorship) that is a type of totalitarian government, or you favor a government that allows freedoms based on liberty, individual rights and civil liberties found in true democracies."

Freedom to do what Lindajean? Freedom to do anything?

LJ: "A theocracy does not allow freedoms and individual rights. It is based on the laws of God."

Sure it does. You are free to live within the confines of God's laws, just as in a democracy or for that matter any form of government you are free to live within the scope of its laws. An individual is free to do what is within the boundaries of the law.

LJ: "The laws of God do not give people individual rights. The laws of God punish individual rights."

Rubbish (see above).

LJ: "The laws of God do not allow one to question or criticize authority or change/amend God laws."

It is hard to change perfection.

LJ: "So, Peter, if you favor a theocracy, you cannot favor individual/civil rights or a government that promotes these ideals."

Sure I can. An individual is free to live within the rights of the law of God. If he chooses to break those laws, just like in any other society, there are consequences (And without Christ in the long run, eternal ones).

LJ: "So which do you favor?"

I still favor God's law because I know it is just. How do you determine justice; who decides? Hitler - then eliminate the Jews, the defective?
Stalin? Communist Red China? USA where a criminal can walk free for any number of crimes after a "fair trial."

Posted by: Peter Huff | April 18, 2008 2:59 AM
Report Offensive Comment

LJ: “ And this is what I mean by terrorism a slip-sliding into a totalitarian government. Because total and unequivocal submission to any authority is completely in opposition to the Constitution of the US of A and western culture. You want the rights of the majority to be honored and embraced by the government, but when the majority no longer is in agreement with you then you want their rights abolished.”

It is exactly what you are fighting for is it not? You want your views to be honored but you cannot tell me why they are right. Why are your “rights” right, because you prefer them to be?

LJ: “Please explain to me how that is not a form of repression and terrorism.”

Doing what is right is good even for those who do not see it as such. How can doing what is right ever be wrong? It wouldn't be right if it was wrong. Without an objective, absolute standard it is just your opinion. What makes your opinion right, because you hold it? In God’s law, once established that a person has committed a murder, that person will never become a multi-repeated murderer. Justice will be done.

LJ: “Especially when the rights of the people you disagree with involve behaviors you do not approve of, and you want to make criminals out of those people you do not agree with.”

There again with any standard it depends on what it is based on. Is it an absolute ultimate standard or just one based on personal or cultural preferences? If so what happens when in five years it changes again? Then who is right? It the right standard for you always the one that is currently in place? If not then what makes it wrong? Why was abortion and homosexuality considered wrong forty years ago and punished as wrong if it is in fact right? Who makes it right? Who is in the wrong, the society then or now? No Lindajean, your right is arbitrary and meaningless if it is not based on an absolute standard.

Peter: “What makes Hitler's Germany right in murdering millions, just as abortion has done? Is the woman the one who determines the fetus to be a baby? Is the fetus a fetus until after it has been born, when it all of a sudden becomes a baby? Who decides, each individual? Why is it still wrong in some countries to abort a baby? Why was it wrong in your country until recently and why is it now right? Because someone has convinced you that it is right? Who makes it right? It is just ethics by force. The ruling party determines what will be right for the country or society. So why was Germany's extermination of six million Jews wrong?”

LJ: “You are equating Hitler to people who have abortions? “

Both abortion and extermination are murder.

LJ: “If you cannot figure out the difference between the two I won’t be able to successfully explain it to you.”

No you won’t. I don’t believe you have an argument that can.

LJ said: "Your argument is that the government is squashing your rights as a Christian because it does not pass laws that “honor” and “obey” your god."

Peter: “No, my argument is how do you determine right without God's standard? It is all by force or coercion which is just another evil form of government, different but how do you determine it being any better than Totalitarianism if it is not based on absolute justice. You need an absolute standard to gauge ‘better’.”

LJ: “Once again, if you cannot determine the difference between totalitarian governments and governments based on freedom, individual rights and civil liberties I cannot help you here. You will need to take an ethics course, a course in Constitutional law and probably get some psychoanalysis.”

What is your idea of “better?” What is your standard for better? Anything that opposes the standard I hold? So who is right?

Peter: “God counts as the only absolute authority of good and right. Without Him you cannot make sense of it, it keeps changing....”

LJ: “Then democracy, individual rights, civil liberties, freedom and Constitutional government are dead.”

When not based on God's laws they are lessons on what happens when man acts as his own god.

Peter: “Do you consider Germany to be wrong in murdering six million Jews? Why?”

LJ: “I already answered this months ago. I am not going to answer questions I have already spent many hours answering.”

Peter: “Well, the fact is that not long ago abortion was considered wrong by the majority in your country. What makes it right by the majority now?”

LJ: “Well the fact is that not so long ago the majority of the people supported witch burnings, slavery and raping one’s wife was legal in all 50 states. Not long ago the majority favored segregation of schools, restaurants , public bathrooms and many if not all public places. What makes those wrong now?”

What made them right in the first place? In a society without an absolute standard, or a society that mutilates God’s law anything is possible, just like Hitler’s Germany. The point is why are they wrong? Who decides?

Peter: “Yes I would (prefer a theocracy over a democracy). As long as it was based on the laws of the God of the Bible and not on some false god.

LJ: ”Yuck.”

LJ: “You believe in terrorism and totalitarianism.”

As what right? No I don’t. You are the one telling me I do. I don’t believe in terrorism, but I do believe in the sovereignty of God. Without God’s laws terrorism is always possible depending on who comes to power.

LJ: “ This is the ultimate “creepy”.

The ultimate creepy is where everyone decides for themselves what is right in their own eyes.

Posted by: Peter Huff | April 18, 2008 2:42 AM
Report Offensive Comment

LJ: "Totalitarianism under any guise is terrorism."

Peter: “No, it is not. Absolute authority that is just and good is not terror. Terror is having done what is unjust and unfair.”

LJ: “If you mean that absolute authority requires a person to follow all of God’s laws (there are so many and they are so contrary),”

No they are not contrary. It takes context to understand what is going on, whom the law is addressing and under what circumstances. Please show me where you believe them to be contrary.

LJ: “ and that breaking those laws, like committing adultery or having sex with your own gender, would land a person in jail, then we are talking about a totalitarian form of government and that is a form of terrorism.”

No we are not; we are talking about justice for breaking God’s laws, for in theory justice should be sought when someone breaks a law of the land of the country in which they live otherwise you live in anarchy.

The question to an atheist is how do you justify your laws? To an atheist it is wrong because someone decided it is wrong. Who made them right? It is a question the atheist has no justification for. Only the Christian worldview can make morals intelligent.

LJ: “ Your God does not respect individual rights and freedoms. A government that does not allow civil liberties is a form of totalitarian government. Your theocracy would be a totalitarian government because your God is a totalitarian God.”

God does respect rights and freedoms. Since He is the ultimate right and you have broken His good standard eventually your lifestyle will catch up to you.

You immediately jump to the conclusion that in a theocracy there are no civil liberties. Again, and I will say it for the third time, God rules justly and rightly. Who are you to say otherwise? First, within any society a person is free to act within the guidelines of the established order. Second, an atheist has no way of determining justice or rightness. Justice or doing right is just a preference to you, whether that be of a few or the many. Why is one view right over another? It can ONLY be if it comes from an absolute, ultimate, objective source otherwise it is pure preference.

Peter: “On whose authority do you establish what is good Lindajean?”

LJ: “I have answered that question many, many times.”

You may have attempted to answer it but you cannot validate or justify your answer. How can you? It is just your personal, subjective, speculative preference. There is no outside objective standard. You’re it. In an atheistic universe it doesn’t matter. There is no ultimate meaning so go and eat drink and be merry for tomorrow you die. Go for the gusto, seek pleasure no matter what the cost, do anything you can get away with, you are not accountable to anyone when you are dead.

LJ: "The right to abortion is not squashing the voice of the majority. If you look at any poll, the majority of Americans SUPPORT the right to abortion.”

The majority doesn’t make it right. How can it be wrong ten, twenty years ago and oh so right today? How can something wrong become right and who determines right? Who was right, the majority back then or the majority now? You live in an upside down world Lindajean. Someone has switched the price tags on you.

LJ: “You see it as "squashing" because you don't agree with it and because it "squashes" your will to prevent women from having one. The right to abortion is the epitome of how a democracy works: the majority voice is heard."

Why is it a right to take another persons life? Why is it a right to take the life one minute before birth and a crime one minute after birth? A democracy is not God Lindajean, it does get things wrong. It can only get things right in as much as it bases it values on the objective standards of God.

Peter: “What makes the majority right?”

LJ: “You are the one that was complaining about the rights of the majority getting squashed. You wrote:
“...By not allowing us to honor God's word for one. Obedience is a form of worship. By squashing the voice, in many cases of the majority by oppressing it and undermining it until it becomes the minority.....”
LJ: “You were referring to the case of abortion.”

I was just using one of your own arguments about majority. That is a standard atheistic argument. You base things on the judgment of the majority in a democracy. If you are going to do so then I appeal to the majority also. Majority makes nothing right unless it takes the correct view. To you the majority is the correct view, until of course you come to Mr. Hitler’s Germany.

LJ: “I was simply correcting you ( in my statement above) that the rights of the majority favor abortion and now you are questioning why the “majority” in this case should have their voice heard and who gives them the right to have their voice heard? Since it is now a voice that you adamantly oppose you don’t want them to have that right any longer.”

You adamantly oppose the Christian view of life. The difference is you cannot account for why it “should” or why it “ought” to be so. “Ought” implies a standard and your standard is one that can change at any time. The only reason why it so often does not is because man inherently knows there is an objective standard and even though he suppresses that standard in so many areas of life he cannot live life without it and still make sense of anything.

For instance, in an atheistic worldview everything emerged from a “natural, material” Big Bang. So how does the atheist account for abstract, intangible universal principles or laws like logic? If reasoning is just a natural function of the brain then how can anyone have bad reasoning? Bad implies an ethical standard and a brain does what a brain does naturally so what makes reasoning bad? We are just (as Greg Bahnsen so effectively said) “biological bags of matter.” Reasoning in such a case is just the way ones brains particular atoms collide and create a particular impulse. Some people love their neighbors and other people eat them.

As for the other part to your last sentence, I oppose it because it is wrong. A majority of individuals is not absolute. They cannot set an absolute standard, they can only follow the one laid down by God. If all right is preference or subjective opinion then Hitler’s Germany was right. The only reason you are not living under his right is because he did not get away with it, as decreed by God thank goodness.

LJ: “This is the severe danger in your hubristic beliefs, and your desire to unleash your God and his vengeance onto anyone who does not agree with you.”

It is a war of ideas Lindajean. You are trying just as hard to voice your own “hubristic beliefs” but the difference is you have a standard that is firmly fixed in mid air.

Posted by: Peter Huff | April 18, 2008 2:23 AM
Report Offensive Comment

To continue Lindajean,

ME: “That is easy. Compare what is said in the Book of Mormon and the Bible. There are glaring contradictions. Compare the prophet - Joseph Smith - with what is said about a prophet of God in the Bible (Deuteronomy 18:20-22; Jeremiah 14:14-15; 29:8-9)”

LJ: “My point is none of these beliefs, Bible, Koran, book of Mormon come to us wrapped in anything other than “faith.” If it were real evidence science would embrace it.”

Evolutionary science is also a belief and as such is wrapped in faith.

LJ: "A hypothetical: If it is against God's laws (in this theocracy we are discussing) to break one of the Ten Commandments and someone breaks one of them--i.e. I don't "worship" on the Sabbath--- then what is my punishment? Do I go to jail? Do I lose my job, house, car? How does the government enforce something you call "god's laws"? If you cannot force someone to believe in God, then why (and how) do you force them to follow his "laws"?"

I'll stick to what I know.
To be honest I have not worked out or studied the Sabbath in how it ties in with the New Covenant. I have not researched it as with other commandments. Is it a jurisdictional, social, or moral law? I am only speculating on this subject, but here is my view that is possibly not the view held in Scripture. In my limited knowledge of the Sabbath it would fall under the Mosaic administration and economy and would be a picture or type of what the kingdom will be when Christ returns. In the Mosaic economy Sabbath breakers were stoned just as in the coming kingdom those outside Christ will be cast out.

As it is said, “In Him was life, and that life was the light of men. The light shines in darkness, but the darkness has not understood it. “(John 1:4-5), and again, "because in Christ Jesus the law of the Spirit of life set me free from the law of sin and death. For what the law was powerless to do in that it was weakened by the sinful nature, God did by sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful man to be a sin offering. And so He condemned sin in sinful man, in order that the righteous requirements of the law might be fully met in us, who do not live according to the sinful nature but according to the Spirit. Those who live according to the sinful nature have their minds set on what that nature desires...The mind of sinful man is death, but the mind controlled by the Spirit is life and peace..." (Romans 8:2-5a, 6)

Jesus Christ, in His time on earth instituted the New Covenant by the shedding of His blood (or giving of His life on the behalf of the believer) and His teaching on the New Covenant was instituted in part by the sayings of the Sermon on the Mount, “You have heard it said to the people long ago….But I tell you that…” Matthew 5:21-2; 27-28; 31-32; 33-34; 38-39; 43-44. (See Matthew 5-7) The Lord rose on the Sunday, the Lord’s Day, and that is the day that I as a Christian set aside to worship with other Christians and celebrate His goodness to us.

As for how do you force someone to believe in God, you can’t; only God can bring a person to belief? How do you force them to obey His laws? The same way you do any law in any society that enforces justice for wrong doing, by punishing those who break them.

Peter: “As for forcing someone to obey a law what is done in the privacy of one household is not something that can be enforced unless it is witnessed. But in the same way that you break a law by running a red light so it is in breaking a law of God. It has to be seen to be enforced.”

LJ: “So you are saying if I don’t “honor” the Sabbath (whatever definition you wish to use there are many), which is one of the 10 commandments, and it is witnessed by Joe Blow, then I am breaking the law and I could hypothetically go to jail... This is what you are saying?”

How the Sabbath relates to the New Covenant I am not sure, but you have raised a valid concern and I am trying to figure it out.

As for breaking the laws of God what Joe Blow witnessed is just hearsay and would not hold up in a theocracy.

“One witness is not enough to convict a man accused of any crime or offense he may have committed. A matter must be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses. If a malicious witness takes the stand to accuse a man of a crime, the two men involved in the dispute must stand in the presence of the LORD before the priests and the judges who are in office at the time. The judges must make a thorough investigation, and if the witness proves to be a liar, giving false testimony against his brother, then do to him as he intended to do to his brother. You must purge the evil from among you. The rest of the people will hear of this and be afraid, and never again will such an evil thing be done among you. Show no pity: life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot.” (Deuteronomy 19:15-21)

Posted by: Peter Huff | April 18, 2008 1:55 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Hi Lindajean,

ME: “ Your authority is removed by twenty centuries from what actually took place. The evidence backs up the Biblical authority on so many points.”

LJ: “It does not and cannot otherwise it would no longer be “faith” and it would be evidence.”

But it is evidence. You can see it and read it, it confirms itself as eyewitness accounts, and parts of the gospel accounts are based on historically verifiable facts.

Any evidence on origins or history, whether evolutionary or Christian takes faith to believe in. As an evolutionist you rely on faith as much and more so. Evolutionary science or abiogenesis or spontaneous generation cannot recreate how it all started. They can only build models on how they believe it started. No one was there to witness it, except God.

Supposedly your origins came from something
empirical. That is something that can be verified by the senses such as taste, touch, sight, smell or hearing. And yet you use logic, an abstract, intangible, which is not empirical to confirm all of this. How does something abstract come from something physical? Is logic tasty, noisy, visible, aromatic or contacted by feel? So how do you get something intangible and abstract from the physical realm?

You have a belief that says if I can’t see it it is not provable, since God is not visible. That is like saying you cannot confirm your car is in the parking lot unless you can see it. Does that mean it is not real? Does that mean you cannot know whether or not it is there?

Posted by: Peter Huff | April 18, 2008 1:28 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Peter:

That last one was from me (anonymous).

Posted by: lindajean | April 17, 2008 9:09 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Peter:

In response to your most recent post to me, either you favor a theocracy (or some form of dictatorship) that is a type of totalitarian government, or you favor a government that allows freedoms based on liberty, individual rights and civil liberties found in true democracies.

A theocracy does not allow freedoms and individual rights. It is based on the laws of God. The laws of God do not give people individual rights. The laws of God punish individual rights. The laws of God do not allow one to question or criticize authority or change/amend God laws.

So, Peter, if you favor a theocracy, you cannot favor individual/civil rights or a government that promotes these ideals.

So which do you favor?

Posted by: Anonymous | April 17, 2008 9:06 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Part 2 of 2

Timmy,

I said:
"So, yes I could say, I am neutral. I know nothing so I don’t have an opinion. But you asked me what do I believe and I said I don’t have a belief that something exists.

Timmy said, “Neither do I.
I do not have a "belief" that something (the multiuniverse for example) exists. I do not have a belief that it doesn't exist either. But here is your exact quote:

‘so I am left with believing there is nothing.’

That is not a lack of belief. That is a belief. You believe that there is nothing. Why do you believe that, as opposed to not knowing one way or another? Or did you just miss speak. Maybe you didn't mean to say "I believe there is nothing". Because you would then be saying that you believe that the multiuniverse does not exist. And you have no reason to "believe" that. I think you just miss spoke. Yes?”

It is a lack of belief. I believe there is nothing to indicate that there is something to believe in. I am not saying the multiuniverse doesn’t exist. I am saying I know nothing of its existence. Therefore I don’t have anything to believe. I believe there is nothing to believe in at this time. You are right, I have no reason to believe that the multiuniverse doesn’t exist. And I am not saying that.

I said:
"Well, then you could say, “Unless you have some evidence there isn’t why don’t you believe in God?”

Timmy said, “I don't know about you, but I don't believe in God because of all of the evidence that he doesn't exist. I have evidence for that. Plenty.”

That is because to believe in God you would have to believe in the supernatural. The multiuniverse may exist because it is not (most likely) a supernatural entity.

Timmy, “You do realize the significant difference between saying "I don't believe that something exists" and saying "I believe that nothing exists" right?”

Saying you don’t believe “something” exists is saying you don’t know that a certain thing exists for sure. Saying you believe “nothing” exists is saying you don’t believe there is a possibility that it could exist.

Timmy: “I don't "believe" that the multiuniverse exists. Because there is not enough evidence for me to form that belief.But I also do not "believe" that it does not exist, because there is not enough evidence for me to form that belief.”

I agree.
____
Timmy: “But I really wish you'd let this Gadian style insinuation of supernatural thought go, and focus on my questions and thoughts about the future of natural selection and genetics. This is an interesting scientific conversation that we can have if you'd just let go of this "sciencer than thow" attitude. You are doing to me, what Gad has done to both of us in the past and it's rather disgusting. Grow up.”

Well, I noticed that both Gad and I picked up on this “meaningful /purpose” idea and it suggests to me that you were saying something to insinuate you thought there was some meaning/purpose behind the multiuniverse. Especially since you began your argument here talking about meaning and purpose in the universe. So perhaps it would be fair and accurate to suggest that you did not clarify your position initially but now you have done so and now I understand what your point is.

...And when you are thinking to yourself or even saying publicly “grow up” and “holier than thou” kind of remarks towards me, I suggest that it could be a red flag to you that honing in and fine-tuning your communication skills may be beneficial in helping me to understand what indeed you are talking about. I am not a mind-reader.

Timmy, “I said that there is something bigger to think about than our own personal meaning that we give our own personal lives. Global warming is one example. Our situation in the universe is another. What we are to do with our new found power over natural selection is another. Your personal relationships with your family and friends are so much smaller that these subjects. Important to you, yes. But important to humanity? Not in the slightest I'm sorry to say. There are much bigger things to ponder. This does not diminish your personal meaning in any way. It's just that you are a bip of a blip, and nothing more in the grand scheme of things.”

Yes, we are all blips and we all know this. There is a ripple effect you have not mentioned (kind of like the butterfly effect in science.) So I disagree with you that relationships and the “small” stuff do not have an effect on humanity. You really don’t know what kind of effect one person can have on others, the world or even a small speck of the world.

end 2 of 2

Posted by: lindajean | April 17, 2008 7:47 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Timmy,

Since one of my posts kept getting rejected and it had absolutely nothing to do with my language or content, I thought perhaps it was due to length, so I am going to divide this one up into two parts and see if it accepts them. No potty mouth here.

This is part one of part two.

I said:
"Once again, what is the relevance and what does it have to do with purpose and meaning? If there is a cosmic purpose are you not assuming it is going to give us answers about that purpose'

Timmy: “Why are you babbling on about a cosmic meaning or purpose?
You were saying that you don't believe that there is anything bigger out there than us, and you insinuated that if there was it would be supernatural, and I said, "what about the multiuniverse? That is bigger than our universe and outside of our universe what is supernatural about that?" And now you are rambling on about cosmic meaning and purpose. All I said was that we can speculate about things that exist outside of our universe without talking about the supernatural.”

I don’t see this as babbling. You mentioned previously that you were wondering about a universal purpose and meaning. I said I did not believe there is anything objective to indicate there is a universal purpose and that most people, generally speaking---when you talk about “purpose” ---apply it to a supernatural. You then brought up the mulituniverse concept and I wondered if you were trying to insinuate that if there is a multiuniverse, then somehow it will explain a purpose for the cosmos. Knowing you from the perspective that I do, I don’t think you are saying it would be a supernatural purpose, but my point was that most people would think that a mulituniverse, with a purpose, would be a supernatural concept. I am not saying you believe this, only that I think most people would see it that way because of a lack of scientific understanding of such complex systems. (Most scientists don’t even understand a lot of this, let alone the common Joe Blow who worships some fantasy God.)

I said:
"What I am saying is if there is something bigger than us, whatever that may be, people in general will tend to believe it is supernatural"

Timmy said, “Yes, you did say that, and I thought is was a bizarre unfounded statement, so I said "what about the multiuniverrse? that is bigger than us" and then you started babbling on about cosmic meaning and purpose. Stop it. Move on from this cosmic or special meaning and purpose that you've gotten into your head. Go back and look at my posts. I am asking scientific questions about the future of natural selection and genetic science. This "special meaning or purpose" thing is your side tangent, not mine. Let it go.”

Well, I can move on, but it would be futile to have a discussion here if we are talking about different things. Before one can move on, one has to clarify and understand. I think it is clarified now, at least on my end.

end part one of 2
_______

Posted by: lindajean | April 17, 2008 7:41 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Timmy:

I just posted the "censored" one on Gad's.
Go figure.

Posted by: lindajean | April 17, 2008 6:59 PM
Report Offensive Comment

LJ said:
"Once again, what is the relevance and what does it have to do with purpose and meaning? If there is a cosmic purpose are you not assuming it is going to give us answers about that purpose'

Why are you babbling on about a cosmic meaning or purpose?
You were saying that you don't believe that there is anything bigger out there than us, and you insinuated that if there was it would be supernatural, and I said, "what about the multiuniverse? That is bigger than our universe and outside of our universe what is supernatural about that?" And now you are rambling on about cosmic meaning and purpose. All I said was that we can speculate about things that exist outside of our universe without talking about the supernatural.

You said:
"What I am saying is if there is something bigger than us, whatever that may be, people in general will tend to believe it is supernatural"

Yes, you did say that, and I thought is was a bizarre unfounded statement, so I said "what about the multiuniverrse? that is bigger than us" and then you started babbling on about cosmic meaning and purpose. Stop it. Move on from this cosmic or special meaning and purpose that you've gotten into your head. Go back and look at my posts. I am asking scientific questions about the future of natural selection and genetic science. This "special meaning or purpose" thing is your side tangent, not mine. Let it go.

You said:
"So, yes I could say, I am neutral. I know nothing so I don’t have an opinion. But you asked me what do I believe and I said I don’t have a belief that something exists.

Neither do I.
I do not have a "belief" that something (the multiuniverse for example) exists. I do not have a belief that it doesn't exist either. But here is your exact quote:

"so I am left with believing there is nothing"

YOU said:
"Well, then you could say, “Unless you have some evidence there isn’t why don’t you believe in God?”

I don't know about you, but I don't believe in God because of all of the evidence that he doesn't exist. I have evidence for that. Plenty.

You do realize the significant difference between saying "I don't believe that something exists" and saying "I believe that nothing exists" right?

I don't "believe" that the multiuniverse exists. Because there is not enough evidence for me to form that belief.

But I also do not "believe" that it does not exist, because there is not enough evidence for me to form that belief.

And if you can't pass you other response to me by the sensors you potty mouth, just post it on Gad's blog.

But I really wish you'd let this Gadian style insinuation of supernatural thought go, and focus on my questions and thoughts about the future of natural selection and genetics. This is an interesting scientific conversation that we can have if you'd just let go of this "sciencer than thow" attitude. You are doing to me, what Gad has done to both of us in the past and it's rather disgusting. Grow up.

I said that there is something bigger to think about than our own personal meaning that we give our own personal lives. Global warming is one example. Our situation in the universe is another. What we are to do with our new found power over natural selection is another.

Your personal relationships with your family and friends are so much smaller that these subjects. Important to you, yes. But important to humanity? Not in the slightest I'm sorry to say. There are much bigger things to ponder. This does not diminish your personal meaning in any way. It's just that you are a bip of a blip, and nothing more in the grand scheme of things.

Posted by: timmy | April 17, 2008 3:11 PM
Report Offensive Comment

I said:

"No I am not saying it has to be supernatural, only traditionally that is what most people would think. That is where the insinuation comes from."

Timmy: “What? There actually is a current theory that there is something out there beyond our universe, it's called the multiuniverse. And this theory is that our universe exists in this multiuniverse. And we know nothing about this multiuniverse except that it is outside of our universe, if it exists. And then of course this would lead to the theory that the multiuniverse may exist in a multiuniverse universe.”

That could be the case. Once again, what is the relevance and what does it have to do with purpose and meaning? If there is a cosmic purpose are you not assuming it is going to give us answers about that purpose? Maybe it will and maybe it won’t (if it even exists) but I’m not willing to make any assumptions about any of it.

Timmy, “What is supernatural about that? I don't understand why you say that talking about things that may exist outside of our universe is generally thought to be supernatural? I just have no idea what you are talking about here, and why you would bring "supernatural" into this scientific conversation. Everything is natural. There is no such thing as the supernatural.”

What I am saying is if there is something bigger than us, whatever that may be, people in general will tend to believe it is supernatural (and the job of science will be to show it is not.) Remember once long ago people believed the sun was supernatural (a god). And I am unclear if you are applying meaning and purpose to this multiuniverse. Do you think it is going to answer your questions about the universal purpose of life?

I said:
"I wallow in not knowing anything about it (not by choice just by circumstance) so I am left with believing there is nothing"

Timmy: “I don't get it. If you know nothing about it, why do you believe one way or the other. If you don't know, you should be neutral. There either is or there isn't and you don't know. What information leads you to say that you believe that there isn't?”

Belief requires either something you believe in or something you do not. You can’t be neutral about what you believe in. So, yes I could say, I am neutral. I know nothing so I don’t have an opinion. But you asked me what do I believe and I said I don’t have a belief that something exists.

I said:
"but always open to the possibility there could be. What more can you ask from a skeptic?"

Timmy: “Being equally skeptical about the theory that there is nothing out there as you are about the theory that there is. Neutrality.
Unless you have some evidence that there isn't. Why wouldn't there be?”

Well, then you could say, “Unless you have some evidence there isn’t why don’t you believe in God?”

I said:
"I don’t have anything to indicate to me there is anything out there, so I choose not to think there is until I get more info."

Timmy: “You don't have anything to indicate that there is nothing out there and yet you state that you "believe" that there isn't. Where does this belief come from?”

It comes from the fact that there is nothing to base my belief on so I believe not to believe. There is no evidence of life on Mars, so I don’t believe there is any. But if it makes you happy, I am neutral. LOL.

Timmy said, “Do you have anything to indicate to you that there are aliens out there? No you don't. So do you believe that they are not there until further evidence? Is talk of aliens, supernatural?

No, of course they are not supernatural. Why would I think that? But I don’t believe there are any aliens within the realm of our technology. I can only say there are possibilities of them existing outside the range of our technology. No evidence, no belief. Oops! No evidence, I am neutral!

Timmy: “Oh yeah, and why do you only care about humanity until 500 years from now? You didn't answer that one.”

Well, I have tried to do that but it keeps getting rejected for no known reason to me. If I can’t get it posted I will send you an email.

Posted by: lindajean | April 17, 2008 1:33 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Gad said:
"SO? A multiverse, if there is one doesn't give any special meaning or purpose to us"

So? Who said that it did?

Posted by: timmy | April 17, 2008 6:44 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Timmy said:
There actually is a current theory that there is something out there beyond our universe, it's called the multiuniverse. And this theory is that our universe exists in this multiuniverse. And we know nothing about this multiuniverse except that it is outside of our universe, if it exists. And then of course this would lead to the theory that the multiuniverse may exist in a multiuniverse universe.

SO? A multiverse, if there is one doesn't give any special meaning or purpose to us.

Posted by: GAD | April 16, 2008 11:22 PM
Report Offensive Comment

LJ said:

"No I am not saying it has to be supernatural, only that traditionally that is what most people would think. That is where the insinuation comes from."

What?
There actually is a current theory that there is something out there beyond our universe, it's called the multiuniverse. And this theory is that our universe exists in this multiuniverse. And we know nothing about this multiuniverse except that it is outside of our universe, if it exists. And then of course this would lead to the theory that the multiuniverse may exist in a multiuniverse universe.

What is supernatural about that?
I don't understand why you say that talking about things that may exist outside of our universe is generally thought to be supernatural? I just have no idea what you are talking about here, and why you would bring "supernatural" into this scientific conversation. Everything is natural. There is no such thing as the supernatural.

LJ said:
"I wallow in not knowing anything about it (not by choice just by circumstance) so I am left with believing there is nothing"

I don't get it. If you know nothing about it, why do you believe one way or the other. If you don't know, you should be neutral. There either is or there isn't and you don't know. What information leads you to say that you believe that there isn't?

LJ said:
"but always open to the possibility there could be. What more can you ask from a skeptic?"

Being equally skeptical about the theory that there is nothing out there as you are about the theory that there is. Neutrality.
Unless you have some evidence that there isn't. Why wouldn't there be?

You said:
"I don’t have anything to indicate to me there is anything out there, so I choose not to think there is until I get more info."

You don't have anything to indicate that there is nothing out there and yet you state that you "believe" that there isn't. Where does this belief come from?

Do you have anything to indicate to you that there are aliens out there? No you don't. So do you believe that they are not there until further evidence? Is talk of aliens, supernatural?

Oh yeah, and why do you only care about humanity until 500 years from now? You didn't answer that one.

Posted by: timmy | April 16, 2008 9:34 PM
Report Offensive Comment

I'm having difficulty posting a response to your April 16 5:54 pm post. I'll try it again tomorrow.

Posted by: lindajean | April 16, 2008 9:32 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Hi Timmy,

I said:
" Otherwise you are tending to insinuate there is something bigger than us out there (supernatural.)

Timmy, “Why would something bigger than us out there have to be supernatural? You are sounding like Gad here with the accusations of supernatural belief.”

It is all speculation. It was in my view an insinuation, nothing more. It could be
either/or or none. I just happen to think it is none. I don’t know it for a fact but I don’t know for a fact that it is material or supernatural either. I don’t have anything to indicate to me there is anything out there, so I choose not to think there is until I get more info.

Timmy: “Let me ask you this LJ. Where is the universe? Where is it located? Are you saying that anything that lies outside of what we know as the universe is supernatural? What are you saying?”

No I am not saying it has to be supernatural, only that traditionally that is what most people would think. That is where the insinuation comes from.

I wallow in not knowing anything about it (not by choice just by circumstance) so I am left with believing there is nothing, but always open to the possibility there could be. What more can you ask from a skeptic?

Posted by: lindajean | April 16, 2008 8:19 PM
Report Offensive Comment

LJ said:
" Otherwise you are tending to insinuate there is something bigger than us out there (supernatural.)

Why would something bigger than us out there have to be supernatural? You are sounding like Gad here with the accusations of supernatural belief.

Let me ask you this LJ. Where is the universe? Where is it located? Are you saying that anything that lies outside of what we know as the universe is supernatural? What are you saying?

Posted by: timmy | April 16, 2008 6:33 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Gad said:
"Nope. This is just a restatement of your past higher meaning and purpose beliefs"

Nope

Posted by: timmy | April 16, 2008 6:05 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Hi Lindajean,

From your comments where you don't see how birth control effects natural selection, it seems that you don't have a clear understanding of how natural selection works. I will try to clarify for you.

Random mutations occur in living organisms.
If one of these random mutations helps that organism (completely by fluke) to survive long enough to procreate, that random mutation is passed on to it's offspring and no longer becomes a random mutation but part a normal part of this new line. Now we have a whole family with this new part that helps them procreate more successfully. So this random (at one time) mutation multiplies and spreads and eventually dominates and then becomes part of this new successful species. And so it has been for billions of years. And this natural selection process continues today in all living creatures except for one. Us.

Because there are no more random mutations possible that could help us procreate any more successfully than we already are. In fact, as I have said, we are now having to curb our procreation because we are too successful. So successful in fact, that we can now control those random mutations and either stop them from occurring in our genetically engineered offspring, or create mutations that we desire and make them happen in our offspring. Our success as a species has rendered old style natural selection moot.

Billions and billions of years of one kind of evolution, over. Done. A new day. A new creature. The first creature to transcend old school natural selection. A creature that can outsmart billions and billions of years of the old natural order and control life and it's own evolution. No other creature in history has ever had to decide how it shall evolve. We do. We have to decide. Old school natural selection is simply not going to occur anymore in our species because procreation is no longer an issue. And it no longer needs to take millions of years because of genetic science. We can get at it right now. And we soon will.

This is something "bigger" to think about than our own personal subjective experiences. This is fascinating conversation to me. Scientific conversation. But if you prefer arguing over the finer points of the bible with primitive minds like that of Peter Huff, then by all means, carry on.

PS: And I'm glad to hear you say that you do not believe in anything supernatural. me neither. But I was beginning to worry about you, so thanks for clarifying.

LJ said:
"The new “selection” could be millions of years from now. To be frank, who cares? Unless you can show me there is some relevance to it in our lives today or in the next 500 years."

Actually as I have shown, with genetic science here to stay, the old "millions of years long" evolution is over. It will very soon start occurring at break neck speed, and at our hand. Don't you see that?

And what a ridiculous statement you make above. You only care about what happens in the next 500 years? Why 500? Why not 100? or 200? Or 700? Or 2000 years? Where did you get the number 500? You are concerned about your children, and your grand children, and your great grand children, and your great great grandchildren all the way up to your great great great great great great great great great grandchildren, and then screw the rest of them after that? lol.

Posted by: timmy | April 16, 2008 5:54 PM
Report Offensive Comment

To continue Lindajean,

No we are not; we are talking about justice for breaking God’s laws, for in theory justice should be sought when someone breaks a law of the land or country in which they live otherwise you live in anarchy. The question to an atheist is how do you justify your laws? To an atheist it is wrong because someone decided it is wrong. Who made them right?

God does respect rights and freedoms. Since He is the ultimate right and you have broken His good standard eventually your lifestyle will catch up to you (i.e. death and judgment).

You immediately jump to the conclusion that in a theocracy there are no civil liberties. Again, and I will say it for the third time, God rules justly and rightly. Who are you to say otherwise? An atheist has no way of determining justice or rightness. Justice or doing right is just a preference to you, whether that be of a few or the many.

Peter: “On whose authority do you establish what is good Lindajean?”

LJ: “I have answered that question many, many times.”

That doesn’t make it right. How can it be wrong ten, twenty years ago and oh so right today? How can wrong become right? You live in an upside down world Lindajean. Someone has switched the price tags on you.

Peter: “What makes the majority right?”

I was just using one of your own arguments about majority. That is a standard atheistic argument. You base everything on the judgment of the majority in a democracy. If you are going to do so then I appeal to the majority also. Majority makes nothing right unless it takes the correct view. To you the majority is the correct view, until of course you come to Mr. Hitler’s Germany.

For instance, in an atheistic worldview everything emerged from a “natural, material” Big Bang. So how does the atheist account for abstract, intangible universal principles or laws like logic? If reasoning is just a natural function of the brain then how can anyone have bad reasoning? Bad implies an ethical standard and a brain does what a brain does naturally so what makes reasoning bad? Reasoning in such a case is just the way ones brains particular atoms collide and create a particular impulse. Some people love their neighbors and other people eat them.

As for the other part to your last sentence, I oppose it because it is wrong. A majority of individuals is not absolute. They cannot set an absolute standard unless they follow the one laid down by God. If all right is preference or subjective opinion then Hitler’s Germany was right.

LJ: “This is the severe danger in your hubristic beliefs, and your desire to unleash your God and his vengeance onto anyone who does not agree with you.”

It is a war of ideas Lindajean. You are trying just as hard to voice your “hubristic beliefs” but the difference is you have a standard that is firmly fixed in mid air.

It is exactly what you are fighting for is it not? You want your views to be honored but you cannot tell me why they are right. Why are your “rights” right, because you prefer them to be?

LJ: “Please explain to me how that is not a form of repression and terrorism.”

Doing what is right is good even to those who do not see it as such. Once established that a person has committed a murder, that person will never become a multi-repeated murderer. Justice will be done.

LJ: “Especially when the rights of the people you disagree with involve behaviors you do not approve of, and you want to make criminals out of those people you do not agree with.”

There again with any standard it depends on what it is based on. Is it an absolute ultimate standard or just one based on personal or cultural preferences? If so what happens when in five years it changes again? Then who is right? Is the right standard for you always the one that is currently in place? If not then what makes it wrong? Why was abortion and homosexuality considered wrong forty years ago and punished as wrong if it is right? Who makes it right? Who is in the wrong? No Lindajean, your right is arbitrary and meaningless if it is not based on an absolute standard.

LJ: “You are equating Hitler to people who have abortions? “

Both are murder.

LJ: “If you cannot figure out the difference between the two I won’t be able to successfully explain it to you.”

No you won’t. You have no argument that can.

LJ said: "Your argument is that the government is squashing your rights as a Christian because it does not pass laws that “honor” and “obey” your god."

What is your idea of “better?” What is your standard for better? Anything that opposes the standard I hold? So who is right?

Peter: “God counts as the only absolute authority of good and right. Without Him you cannot make sense of it, it keeps changing....”

LJ: “Then democracy, individual rights, civil liberties, freedom and Constitutional government are dead.”

They are lessons on what happens when man acts as his own god.

Peter: “Do you consider Germany to be wrong in murdering six million Jews? Why?”

LJ: “I already answered this months ago. I am not going to answer questions I have already spent many hours answering.”

Peter: “Well, the fact is that not long ago abortion was considered wrong by the majority in your country. What makes it right by the majority now?”

Peter: “Yes I would (prefer a theocracy over a democracy). As long as it was based on the laws of the God of the Bible and not on some false god.

LJ: ”Yuck.”

LJ: “You believe in terrorism and totalitarianism.”

No I don’t. You are the one telling me I do. I don’t believe terrorism, but I do believe in the sovereignty of God. Without God’s laws terrorism is always possible depending on who comes to power.

LJ: “ This is the ultimate “creepy”.

The ultimate creepy is where everyone decides for themselves what is right in their own eyes.

Posted by: Peter Huff | April 16, 2008 5:27 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Hi Lindajean,

ME: “ Your authority is removed by twenty centuries from what actually took place. The evidence backs up the Biblical authority on so many points.”

LJ: “It does not and cannot otherwise it would no longer be “faith” and it would be evidence.”

But it is evidence. You can see it and read it, it is eyewitness accounts, it is based on historically verifiable facts.

Another point is that any evidence on origins takes faith to believe in. Evolutionary science or abiogenesis cannot recreate how it all started. They can only build models on how they believe it started. No one was there to witness it, except God.

Peter: “That is easy. Compare what is said in the Book of Mormon and the Bible. There are glaring contradictions. Compare the prophet - Joseph Smith - with what is said about a prophet of God in the Bible (Deuteronomy 18:20-22; Jeremiah 14:14-15; 29:8-9)”

LJ: “My point is none of these beliefs, Bible, Koran, book of Mormon come to us wrapped in anything other than “faith.” If it were real evidence science would embrace it.”

Evolutionary science is also a belief and as such is wrapped in faith.

LJ: "A hypothetical: If it is against God's laws (in this theocracy we are discussing) to break one of the Ten Commandments and someone breaks one of them--i.e. I don't "worship" on the Sabbath--- then what is my punishment? Do I go to jail? Do I lose my job, house, car? How does the government enforce something you call "god's laws"? If you cannot force someone to believe in God, then why (and how) do you force them to follow his "laws"?"

To be honest I have not worked out or studied the Sabbath in how it ties in with the New Covenant. Without looking into the matter in any great detail I am only speculating on this subject, but here is my view that is possibly not the view held in Scripture. In my limited knowledge of the Sabbath it would fall under the jurisdiction of the Mosaic administration and economy and would be a picture or type of what the kingdom will be when Christ returns. In the Mosaic economy Sabbath breakers were stoned just as in the coming kingdom those outside Christ will be cast out. As it is said, “In Him was life, and that life was the light of men. The light shines in darkness, but the darkness has not understood it.“ (John 1:4-5, and again, in John 3:18-21)

The Lord rose on the Sunday, the Lord’s Day, and that is the day that I as a Christian set aside to worship with other Christians and celebrate His goodness to us.

As for how do you force someone to believe in God, you can’t, only God can? How do you force them to obey His laws? The same way you do any law in any society that enforces justice for wrong doing, by punishing those who break them.

How the Sabbath relates to the New Covenant I am not sure, but you have raised a valid concern and I am trying to figure it out, the Lord willing.

As for breaking the laws of God what Joe Blow witnessed is just hearsay and would not hold up in a theonomy.

LJ: "Totalitarianism under any guise is terrorism."

Peter: “No, it is not. Absolute authority that is just and good is not terror. Terror is having done what is unjust and unfair.”

LJ: “If you mean that absolute authority requires a person to follow all of God’s laws (there are so many and they are so contrary),”

No they are not contrary. It takes context to understand what is going on, whom the law is addressing to, under what circumstances. Please show me where you believe them to be contrary.

Posted by: Peter Huff | April 16, 2008 5:16 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Timmy said:

“For billions and billions of years, all life (on this planet) has evolved through natural selection. Only now, after billions and billions of years, has one species (us) evolved to the point that it now controls natural selection and will control it from here on in. I repeat, we now control our own natural selection, and will control it from here on.”

You have to explain to me how birth control is now controlling our biological destiny. Since BC came about, our populations continue to double and triple. We may have “control” over reproduction but I don’t see much “control” actually taking place. Our population world-wide has doubled in about 30 years and will double again by 2050.

Timmy asked: “Is there a right thing that we should be doing with this power?
Or a wrong thing?
A right direction to go in, or a wrong one?
Can we just do whatever we want with it?
No other living species has ever had to make this decision, but we now do. How shall we evolve. I repeat, no other living species has ever had to ponder this question.”

What power? That we can use birth control? What direction --right or wrong---do you have in mind? What decision are we going to make? How many children to have? That still does not change the dynamics of our biology. If I decide to have one child instead of twenty how is that going to change natural selection? Can you give some examples?

Timmy asked, “And why, after billions and billions of years of natural selection, and billions of species of life, that never had any control over their own evolution, do we now find ourselves in charge and completely in control of our own evolution.
Has life reached, or is it approaching, some sort of pinnacle?”

We are simply choosing (some of us) not to have as many children.

Timmy asked, “How can you say that the meaning of life is just about your relations with your family and whatever you make of it yourself, when we now stand at a point in time when one living species has transcended the natural order that has been for billions and billions of years? There is something much bigger to think about than our own individual meaning that we give our own personal lives. Don't you think?"

Because as far as I can see that is all we have. If there is some other purpose that is all-encompassing, please let on. Otherwise you are tending to insinuate there is something bigger than us out there (supernatural.) Of course that possibility is there, and I won’t argue against the possibility, but I won’t make any claim of it either. If you want to search for the Big One then be my guest, but I am going to stay with the subjective and try to find some meaning in it. Life is too short to do otherwise, IMO.

Posted by: lindajean | April 15, 2008 7:34 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Timmy said, “You keep talking about individual purpose. I'm talking about the purpose of life in general. Why dose it exist? What is the end game. There isn't one?”

I don’t know that you can separate the two. We are all part of the universe. Whatever purpose there is (up to this point) beyond the biological, it is still subjective experience. And I am not willing to state there is any other general purpose than the biological (and the subjective individual experiences) unless you know something I don’t know or believe in something metaphysical (I don’t.)

Natural selection and biology only explain one aspect of purpose and that is the continuation of the species. How is that going to change just because we invented birth control? That need will still continue on in our genes for thousands or millions of years. My understanding of natural selection is it is slow and takes a long time. We will be ashes and dust long before any natural selection makes any significant changes in our biology. There is also the possibility at some time 90% of the population could die off suddenly due to disease, virus, bacteria, nuclear weapons, a meteor, etc... (think dinosaurs). We could be back at square one trying to just get food on our table.

You said, “Since evolution seems to be the thing that explains the most, my main question is, what will natural selection select next?”

The new “selection” could be millions of years from now. To be frank, who cares? Unless you can show me there is some relevance to it in our lives today or in the next 500 years.

Posted by: lindajean | April 15, 2008 7:07 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Timmy said:
There is something much bigger to think about than our own individual meaning that we give our own personal lives. Don't you think?

Nope. This is just a restatement of your past higher meaning and purpose beliefs.

Posted by: GAD | April 15, 2008 6:37 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Here are some more thoughts and clarifications about what I am asking.

For billions and billions of years, all life (on this planet) has evolved through natural selection. Only now, after billions and billions of years, has one species (us) evolved to the point that it now controls natural selection and will control it from here on in. I repeat, we now control our own natural selection, and will control it from here on.

Is there a right thing that we should be doing with this power?
Or a wrong thing?
A right direction to go in, or a wrong one?
Can we just do whatever we want with it?
No other living species has ever had to make this decision, but we now do. How shall we evolve. I repeat, no other living species has ever had to ponder this question.

How should we choose to evolve our species now that we have complete control of natural selection?
And why, after billions and billions of years of natural selection, and billions of species of life, that never had any control over their own evolution, do we now find ourselves in charge and completely in control of our own evolution.
Has life reached, or is it approaching, some sort of pinnacle?

How can you say that the meaning of life is just about your relations with your family and whatever you make of it yourself, when we now stand at a point in time when one living species has transcended the natural order that has been for billions and billions of years?

There is something much bigger to think about than our own individual meaning that we give our own personal lives. Don't you think?

Posted by: timmy | April 15, 2008 4:47 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Hi Lindajean,

You ask:

maybe you are using “responsibility” in a different context.

Irresponsible people don't use birth control. I was kind of joking.
And I'm talking about natural selection. It does not select that which helps our species survive. It selects mutations that make people more likely to have many children. Natural selection does not care how we raise our chidren. Only whether or not we have them. In fact if you don't raise your children properly, they are more likely to be irresponsible about birth control. Do you see what I am getting at? What is natural selection going to select now?

You said:
"I don't believe there is one specific objective purpose for all of humanity beyond the biological ones including procreation, cooperation and using our intelligence. These purposes insure our species' survival"

To what end?
Like I said, we have survival to the age of procreation down. There is no room for improvement in that area. In fact we are having to use pills and condoms to keep from procreating too much. And we're still over populating the earth. But natural selection is all about what helps us to do exactly what we are taking pills to stop doing. So what now for natural selection? is it over? That's what I am asking.

You ask:
What is left but individual choices about finding meaning and purpose in one's life?

The reason we have to find meaning and purpose is because we don't know what to do with ourselves now that we have survival down. That was the only meaning and purpose for all living things for all time until us humans came along. We conquered survival. Now what? Enjoy? Take up a hobby? Ride it out. Retire from survival and just kick our feet up?

You saId:
If you are asking, "Is there purpose outside our biology and our own subjective experiences?.... My answer is no. What do you think?

Our purpose is survival. But we have that down. What now?
From your comments, I can only gather that your answer is the equivalent of "take up a hobby"

I'll say it again. We have survival way way down. Too down. We don't know what to do next? That seems to be the cause of most of our strife. Our whole society is like some punk teenager with rich parents and no job and no direction in life, so he just gets into all kinds of trouble. And we are.

You keep talking about individual purpose. I' talking about the purpose of life in general. Why dose it exist? What is the end game. There isn't one?

What is the universe? What is life? Why is it here? Why does it evolve? To what end?

The reason we all have to make our own meaning for our own lives is because we don't know what the real meaning of it all is. So we just make up our own.

Since evolution seems to be the thing that explains the most, my main question is, what will natural selection select next?

Posted by: timmy | April 15, 2008 8:39 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Hi Lindajean,

Wow, you are really sharpening your sword. I will try to respond Wednesday or Thursday, more likely Thursday since my brother-in-law arrives Wednesday for a visit.

Posted by: Peter Huff | April 14, 2008 11:05 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Peter said,
“ Your authority is removed by twenty centuries from what actually took place. The evidence backs up the Biblical authority on so many points.”

It does not and cannot otherwise it would no longer be “faith” and it would be evidence.

Peter: “That is easy. Compare what is said in the Book of Mormon and the Bible. There are glaring contradictions. Compare the prophet - Joseph Smith - with what is said about a prophet of God in the Bible (Deuteronomy 18:20-22; Jeremiah 14:14-15; 29:8-9)”

My point is none of these beliefs, Bible, Koran, book of Mormon come to us wrapped in anything other than “faith.” If it were real evidence science would embrace it.

I asked: "A hypothetical: If it is against God's laws (in this theocracy we are discussing) to break one of the Ten Commandments and someone breaks one of them--i.e. I don't "worship" on the Sabbath--- then what is my punishment?Do I go to jail? Do I lose my job, house, car? How does the government enforce something you call "god's laws"? If you cannot force someone to believe in God, then why (and how) do you force them to follow his "laws"?"

So you are saying if I don’t “honor” the Sabbath (whatever definition you wish to use there are many), which is one of the 10 commandments, and it is witnessed by Joe Blow , then I am breaking the law and I could hypothetically go to jail... This is what you are saying?

I said: "Totalitarianism under any guise is terrorism."

Peter: “No, it is not. Absolute authority that is just and good is not terror. Terror is having done what is unjust and unfair.”

If you mean that absolute authority requires a person to follow all of God’s laws (there are so many and they are so contrary), and that breaking those laws, like committing adultery or having sex with your own gender, would land a person in jail, then we are talking about a totalitarian form of government and that is a form of terrorism. Your God does not respect individual rights and freedoms. A government that does not allow civil liberties is a form of totalitarian government. Your theocracy would be a totalitarian government because your God is a totalitarian God.

Peter: “On whose authority do you establish what is good Lindajean?”

I have answered that question many, many times.

LJ: "The right to abortion is not squashing the voice of the majority. If you look at any poll, the majority of Americans SUPPORT the right to abortion. You see it as "squashing" because you don't agree with it and because it "squashes" your will to prevent women from having one. The right to abortion is the epitome of how a democracy works: the majority voice is heard."

Peter: “What makes the majority right?”

You are the one that was complaining about the rights of the majority getting squashed. You wrote:

“...By not allowing us to honor God's word for one. Obedience is a form of worship. By squashing the voice, in many cases of the majority by oppressing it and undermining it until it becomes the minority.....”

You were referring to the case of abortion..

I was simply correcting you ( in my statement above) that the rights of the majority favor abortion and now you are questioning why the “majority” in this case should have their voice heard and who gives them the right to have their voice heard? Since it is now a voice that you adamantly oppose you don’t want them to have that right any longer.

This is the severe danger in your hubristic beliefs, and your desire to unleash your God and his vengeance onto anyone who does not agree with you. And this is what I mean by terrorism a slip-sliding into a totalitarian government. Because total and unequivocal submission to any authority is completely in opposition to the Constitution of the US of A and western culture. You want the rights of the majority to be honored and embraced by the government, but when the majority no longer is in agreement with you then you want their rights abolished. Please explain to me how that is not a form of repression and terrorism. Especially when the rights of the people you disagree with involve behaviors you do not approve of, and you want to make criminals out of those people you do not agree with.
]

You are equating Hitler to people who have abortions? If you cannot figure out the difference between the two I won’t be able to successfully explain it to you.

I said: "Your argument is that the government is squashing your rights as a Christian because it does not pass laws that “honor” and “obey” your god."

Peter: “No, my argument is how do you determine right without God's standard? It is all by force or
coercion which is just another evil form of government, different but how do you determine it being any better than Totalitarianism if it is not based on absolute justice. You need an absolute standard to gauge ‘better’.”

Once again, if you cannot determine the difference between totalitarian governments and governments based on freedom, individual rights and civil liberties I cannot help you here. You will need to take an ethics course, a course in Constitutional law and probably get some psychoanalysis.

Peter: “God counts as the only absolute authority of good and right. Without Him you cannot make sense of it, it keeps changing....”

Then democracy, individual rights, civil liberties, freedom and Constitutional government are dead.

Peter: “Do you consider Germany to be wrong in murdering six million Jews? Why?”

I already answered this months ago. I am not going to answer questions I have already spent many hours answering.

Peter: “Well, the fact is that not long ago abortion was considered wrong by the majority in your country. What makes it right by the majority now?”

Well the fact is that not so long ago the majority of the people supported witch burnings, slavery and raping one’s wife was legal in all 50 states. Not long ago the majority favored segregation of schools, restaurants , public bathrooms and many if not all public places. What makes those wrong now?

Peter: “Yes I would (prefer a theocracy over a democracy). As long as it was based on the laws of the God of the Bible and not on some false god.
Yuck.

You believe in terrorism and totalitarianism. This is the ultimate “creepy”.

Posted by: lindajean | April 14, 2008 8:27 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Timmy states:
“Natural selection will simply favor the genes of those who choose to have more babies that the rest of us. We control how much we wish to reproduce now. Heck, we use contraception to avoid it now. Perhaps responsibility will be naturally selected out of us.”

Why would responsibility be selected out and how would that improve our means to survive? By “responsibility” I am talking about the care and nurturing of raising children. If we don’t have responsible parents then I would assume that “responsibility” being selected out of our genes would be a detriment to helping the species survive. So I am not quite following you on that one and maybe you are using “responsibility” in a different context.

Please clarify.

Posted by: lindajean | April 14, 2008 7:19 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Hi Timmy,

You asked:

"It all comes back to the burning question of why we are here? Why is life? Why is survival a driving force. To what end? You can pretend that there is no reason....."

I don't believe there is one specific objective purpose for all of humanity beyond the biological ones including procreation, cooperation and using our intelligence. These purposes insure our species' survival.

Putting aside biological purposes--and metaphysical ones for which we have no evidence to make claims to--what is left but individual choices about finding meaning and purpose in one's life?

The choices are expansive and seem infinite: vocation, family, children, aesthetics, education, religion....to name a few.

If you are asking, "Is there purpose outside our biology and our own subjective experiences?....

My answer is no.

What do you think?

Posted by: lindajean | April 14, 2008 6:53 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Hi Gad,

GAD: "It is fact that the Enuma elish is written long before Genesis."

Whether or not it was written before or after the Genesis account of creation is speculation on your part.

ME: "You appeal to all these twentieth century findings that are built on liberal speculations."

GAD: "And you appeal to twenty century old goat herder superstitions."

They were around during the events described, no twentieth century armchair liberal theologian was.

ME: "So what you are implying, if I am reading your word correctly, and please correct me if I am not, is that there was actually something existing before God created the heavens and the earth, for He created the heavens and the earth from WITHIN the framework of the preexistent watery expanse."

GAD: "That's what the bible says, that's what the Jews and the Catholic church say it says, only you in your childish fantasy pretend it doesn't. Any other quote from the bible that you say says otherwise just makes for a contradiction."

The Bible says that God created everything by His spoken word. He said it, it was so. It also says that everything was created in six days. You need to do the math.

You were the one who said that, "Did God create everything? Not in the Bible."

Posted by: Peter Huff | April 13, 2008 10:15 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Hi Lindajean,

ME: "No, the onus of proof is on the atheist to show that the Bible is not in fact the word of God. What is his authority in doing so, some liberal scholar twenty centuries removed from the times?"

Isn't it interesting how null and void the atheist is of providing substantial proof, for every time you call on them to do so they defer the question, create some other diversion. Your authority is removed by twenty centuries from what actually took place. The evidence backs up the Biblical authority on so many points.

LJ: "No, the onus of proof is on the Christian to show the Koran is not in fact the word of God. What is his authority in doing so, some fundamentalist scholar 10 centuries removed from the times?"

Just look at who influenced Muhammad. Islam is a smorgasbord of different faiths; Zoroastrianism, Judaism, paganism and aberrant Christianity. See how what is said in the Qu'ran lines up with what is real. Considering Islam came 600 years after Christ, compare the Scriptures from both religions and also other sources of information for the times. See what evidence both offer to substantiate their claims.

The Westminister Confession of Faith defines God's word as the self attesting truth and uniquely authoritative. That is proved time and time again in history as well as in ethics and morals.

LJ: "No, the onus of proof in on the Baptist to show the Book of Mormon is not in fact the word of God. What is his authority in doing so, some preacher scholar 175 years removed from the times?"

That is easy. Compare what is said in the Book of Mormon and the Bible. There are glaring contradictions. Compare the prophet - Joseph Smith - with what is said about a prophet of God in the Bible (Deuteronomy 18:20-22; Jeremiah 14:14-15; 29:8-9)

Jesus Christ is the fulfillment of prophecy and Scripture is closed and complete.

"In the past God spoke to our forefathers through the prophets at many times and in various ways, but in these last days He has spoken to us by His Son..." (Hebrews 1:1-2a)

We don't need another prophet to explain to us what God has done. It has all been completed in His Son.

"The Son is the radiance of God's glory and the exact representation of His being, sustaining all things by His powerful word." (Hebrews 1:3)

"I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book. And if anyone takes words away from this book of prophecy, God will take away from him his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book." (Revelation 22:18-19)

LJ: "A hypothetical: If it is against God's laws (in this theocracy we are discussing) to break one of the Ten Commandments and someone breaks one of them--i.e. I don't "worship" on the Sabbath--- then what is my punishment?
Do I go to jail? Do I lose my job, house, car? How does the government enforce something you call "god's laws"? If you cannot force someone to believe in God, then why (and how) do you force them to follow his "laws"?"

The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath. It is a day of rest, a day of worship that we as Christians honor on the Sunday, the Lord's Day, because on the Sunday He rose from the dead, conquering death. We benefit from a day of rest. (1 Corinthians 16:2; Acts 20:7) Is it necessary to keep shops open on Sundays? No it is a family day and a day to honor the Lord, for those who are Christians.

The punishment for breaking God's laws is describe in God's word. A murderer is put to death if it can be established by two or more witnesses and the evidence lines up that he actually did the crime. In this way justice is done - an eye for an eye. He will never murder again. In this way the governing body is not responsible for financing costly expenses in housing a murderer indefinitely, if it can be established he did the crime, he only commits it once and then pure justice is done when he meets his Maker.

As for forcing someone to obey a law what is done in the privacy of one household is not something that can be enforced unless it is witnessed. But in the same way that you break a law by running a red light so it is in breaking a law of God. It has to be seen to be enforced.

And no, one cannot be forced to believe in God. Only God can bring a person to repentance and a saving knowledge by His grace and mercy, but for justice a society based on the laws the one and only true God of the Bible that He has established, they are the only laws that can be called good and just.

ME: "As are the atheist regimes of the twentieth century enough to give Christians nightmares; Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Ceauşescu, Castro."

LJ: "Totalitarianism under any guise is terrorism."

No, it is not. Absolute authority that is just and good is not terror. Terror is having done what is unjust and unfair. On whose authority do you establish what is good Lindajean?

If you take Hitler's Germany, it was one of the most highly advanced, literate societies, if not the most of its day. How could a society as educated and advanced as this murder 11 million people? Because the highly intelligent, highly literate citizens believed the lie of evolution and were convinced by the mood of the day, of which Hitler expressed quite nicely, that there was a favored race, as in turn Darwin had expressed in the very title of his work, On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. They were lead to believe that there were favorable races and inferior races that were just above those of other evolved animals such as apes.

This just shows you that given the right circumstances a well educated intelligent society will buy into anything, just as you, Lindajean, have bought into the theory of evolution.

What makes the majority right? What makes Hitler's Germany right in murdering millions, just as abortion has done? Is the woman the one who determines the fetus to be a baby? Is the fetus a fetus until after it has been born, when it all of a sudden becomes a baby? Who decides, each individual? Why is it still wrong in some countries to abort a baby? Why was it wrong in your country until recently and why is it now right? Because someone has convinced you that it is right? Who makes it right? It is just ethics by force. The ruling party determines what will be right for the country or society. So why was Germany's extermination of six million Jews wrong?

LJ: "Your argument is that the government is squashing your rights as a Christian because it does not pass laws that “honor” and “obey” your god."

No, my argument is how do you determine right without God's standard? It is all by force or
coercion which is just another evil form of government, different but how do you determine it being any better than Totalitarianism if it is not based on absolute justice. You need an absolute standard to gauge "better."

LJ: "God does not count as the majority. Only the people count in this form of government. We live in a democracy, not a theocracy."

God counts as the only absolute authority of good and right. Without Him you cannot make sense of it, it keeps changing. Todays right may very well be tomorrows wrong. So how do you know right? Because someone in power tells you it is so? Because a woman feels that her body is to be autonomous? If each woman decides for herself there is no such thing as right or wrong, it is just your preference or her preference, in the same manner that what is right in society is constantly changing. It all boils down to personal or societal preferences, so Germany's preference to murder six million Jews cannot be considered wrong on such grounds.

Do you consider Germany to be wrong in murdering six million Jews? Why?

LJ: "This is the best example you can give me? A weak one---your facts are not even correct about the majority being against abortion."

Well, the fact is that not long ago abortion was considered wrong by the majority in your country. What makes it right by the majority now?

LJ: "Am I open to a theocracy?
LOL, what do you think?"

Precisely my point as reveled in God's Word.

LJ: "Are you saying you would prefer a theocracy over a democracy?"

Yes I would. As long as it was based on the laws of the God of the Bible and not on some false god.

Posted by: Peter Huff | April 13, 2008 9:45 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Just checking in.
Same old same old huh?
The circular arguments continue.

Questions:

Is natural selection over? At least where us humans are concerned?
It is supposed to naturally select mutations that help the species survive in it's environment long enough to reproduce. But we haver that down now. There are no more improvements possible that would help us reach the point of reproduction any more that we do now. We have that down. What next? Natural selection will simply favor the genes of those who choose to have more babies that the rest of us. We control how much we wish to reproduce now. Heck, we use contraception to avoid it now. Perhaps responsibility will be naturally selected out of us. Any thoughts?

This has been the case for a very long time now. Since the beginning of civilization basically. What next? This is the perplexing question that leads to religion. We have survival and procreation down. What are we supposed to be striving for now? What next? We beat the game. We got to the Donkey Kong kill screen. Now what? Just live and enjoy and suffer? All other animals do nothing but survive. We have that down. What next? Anyone? (except Peter of course. We know what he'll say. "Just serve our master" or some bunk like that)

A comedian friend of mine does a joke about how squirrels spend 99% of their time looking for nuts. So he bought a giant sack of nuts and left it out for the squirrel in his back yard. A lifetime supply of nuts. Now the poor squirrel has nothing to do. It just sits there wondering what to do with itself. It has no more purpose. Is that not the situation humanity finds itself in now? We have our nuts. Now what are we supposed to be doing? Or what should we be doing? We want to know. But we don't. That is where religion comes from. We have basic survival down and now we want to know what to do with ourselves?

It all comes back to the burning question of why we are here? Why is life? Why is survival a driving force. To what end? You can pretend that there is no reason. That this is an invalid question. Life is, just cuz. Deal with it. I think that is a cop out. There is a mystery to life. I don't like Peter's answer to what that mystery is. And I don't agree with Gad's answer that there is no mystery. It's all here just cuz. There is something out there for us to figure out still. And none of us know what that is. But it is worth thinking about. This "just cuz" thing is as much bunk as God.

Posted by: timmy | April 13, 2008 5:59 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Peter: “There is a proper interpretation of God's laws.”

Interpretations can be subjective.
Interpretations can be arbitrary .

Peter: “God's laws are just, fair and good. How can the laws of any culture be just, fair and good unless they are based on the absolute standard, which is God? Some of the laws of societies around the world are based on the Biblical code of ethics in part but when man makes his own rules anything is possible.”

Because you attempting to convince yourself that a belief --that God’s laws are an absolute standard---are a fact.
They aren’t.

Peter: “When Hitler came to power in 1933 his agenda was to remove some of those laws in favor of Darwinian evolutionary principles, the speeding up of natural selection for the favored races.....”

Hitler’s “mad-scientist” approaches were an experiment in Social Darwinism. Charles Darwin did not write about Social Darwinism. Social Darwinism is not a product of Darwin or evolution. Social Darwinism is not a science. Social Darwinism is dead.

Peter: “As for your other questions, I will plod away at them as I think them over Lindajean. Unfortunately I do not have the time I used to when I first entered this forum.”

No need to knock yourself out trying...

Posted by: lindajean | April 13, 2008 4:18 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Peter Huff said:
"That is your assertion. Ever consider that you have it backwards? The Enuma elish and other folk lore was written after the Genesis accounts which were handed down from generation to generation and became Scripture when God told Moses to write them down."

It is fact that the Enuma elish is written long before Genesis.

Peter Huff said:
"You appeal to all these twentieth century findings that are built on liberal speculations."

And you appeal to twenty century old goat herder superstitions.

Peter Huff said:
"So what you are implying, if I am reading your word correctly, and please correct me if I am not, is that there was actually something existing before God created the heavens and the earth, for He created the heavens and the earth from WITHIN the framework of the preexistent watery expanse."

That's what the bible says, that's what the Jews and the Catholic church say it says, only you in your childish fantasy pretend it doesn't. Any other quote from the bible that you say says otherwise just makes for a contradiction.

Posted by: GAD | April 13, 2008 3:37 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Hi Gad,

To continue,

GAD: "The cosmogony written is Genesis (and else where) is clearly taken from the older Enuma elish and mixed with other myths of the time."

That is your assertion. Ever consider that you have it backwards? The Enuma elish and other folk lore was written after the Genesis accounts which were handed down from generation to generation and became Scripture when God told Moses to write them down. The Enuma elish and other ancient accounts are the myths. A myth is usually built around something that existed but that has been exaggerated and embellished over time. The accounts of these early descendants were exaggerated as the cultures spread apart at Babel and as man said to himself, "Did God really say?"

You are trying to put together the puzzle thousands of years after the fact by forcing the pieces into places they are not design to fit into. You appeal to all these twentieth century findings that are built on liberal speculations.

Posted by: Peter Huff | April 13, 2008 1:37 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Hi Gad,

GAD: "Did god create everything?"

Yes, EVERYTHING.

GAD: "Not in the bible."

Yes, in the Bible.

GAD: "One only need to read Genesis 1:1 - 1:10 to see that there was a water universe of chaos preexisting that god created the heaven and earth within."

So what you are implying, if I am reading your word correctly, and please correct me if I am not, is that there was actually something existing before God created the heavens and the earth, for He created the heavens and the earth from WITHIN the framework of the preexistent watery expanse. Does that also mean that you are suggesting that God did not create the watery expanse, since you said that in the Bible He did not create everything? There is a difference between making something OUT OF and making something within something else.

Your assertions are something that even a child in the faith could refute. You are definitely reading something into the texts that is not there. Just compare Scripture with Scripture concerning God's creation to find out what God created.

"Through Him ALL things were made, without Him nothing was made that has been made." (John 1:3)

Nothing means zero, nil.

"yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom ALL THINGS CAME and through whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom ALL THINGS COME and through whom we live." (1 Corinthians 8:6)

So all things come from God, period. So the Bible says all things. That includes everything in my books. Of course, if you are a relativist it could mean anything that you create it to mean.

"He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For by Him ALL things were created: THINGS in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; ALL THINGS WERE CREATED BY HIM AND FOR HIM. He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together." (Colossians1:15-17)

"but in these last days He has spoken to us by His Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, and through whom He made the universe." (Hebrews 1:2)

"By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God's command so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible." (Hebrews 11:3)

But they deliberately forget that long ago BY GOD'S WORD the heavens WERE FORMED out of water and by water." (2 Peter 3:5)

Notice the tense, "were formed" so He made the heavens out of water and by water. That is what the heavens were made of when He made them - water. The distinction is that He made the heavens out of water, not from within something that was already there that He did not create.

"By the word of the LORD were the heavens made, their starry host by the breath of His mouth...He spoke, and it came to be." (Psalm 33:6, 9)

"Praise the LORD, you highest heavens and you waters above the skies. Let them praise the name of the LORD, for He commanded and they were CREATED." (Psalm 148:4-5)

"This is what the LORD says - your Redeemer, who formed you in the womb: I am the LORD, who HAS MADE ALL THINGS, who alone stretched out the heavens, who spread out the earth by Myself,..." (Isaiah 44:24)

"It is I who made the earth and created mankind upon it. My own hands stretched out the heavens; I marshaled the starry host." (Isaiah 45:12)

"For this is what the LORD says - He who created the heavens and the earth, He grounded it; He did not create it to be empty, but formed it to be inhabited..." (Isaiah 45:18)

"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. [that includes everything, and from the beginning He created first the heavens and the earth and then all that is in them] Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters." [The word "Now" is a continuation on from verse 1 describing the state of the creation after He spoke it into existence.]

Verses 3-26 is a description of the order of creation of the activities God did on each particular day, after creating the heavens and the earth.

"For in SIX DAYS the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but He rested on the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy." (Exodus 20:11)

Posted by: Peter Huff | April 13, 2008 1:22 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Hi Lindajean,
Just a quick note.

LJ: "God's laws are arbitrary depending on who "defines" and "interprets" them."

There is a proper interpretation of God's laws.

LJ: "God demands perfect obedience."

Yes, God demands perfect obedience, which was provided in His Son.

LJ: "He is a totalitarian God. Any kind of government that forces God's laws on its own people will be a theocracy and a totalitarian government."

God's laws are just, fair and good. How can the laws of any culture be just, fair and good unless they are based on the absolute standard, which is God? Some of the laws of societies around the world are based on the Biblical code of ethics in part but when man makes his own rules anything is possible.

When Hitler came to power in 1933 his agenda was to remove some of those laws in favor of Darwinian evolutionary principles, the speeding up of natural selection for the favored races. He was greatly influenced by Darwin, Haeckel, and Darwin's cousin, Frances Galton on whom a lot of the German eugenics program was influenced by. Eugenics would eliminate the disabled, mentally ill, feeble minded, those with cancers and the chronic ill, those blind and deaf, etc, etc, etc, because such people would be a burden to the state and hamper the spread of the favored races. By enforcing the eugenics program some estimated 11 million people were killed/murdered, including six million Jews and three million Russian prisoners of war who were starved to death. In two days alone the Nazis shot 33,771 people, mostly Jews and buried them in a mass grave yard (the Babi Yar ravine).

Tom DeRosa records in his book, Evolution's Fatal Flaw p. 177,

"An SS officer stated, 'What was uppermost in my mind at that time was that shootings were a great strain on the men involved and that strain would be removed by the use of the gas-vans.'"

Here are a few quotes from Mein Kampf in which you can see the evolutionary trend coming through as he talks about favored races, the very title of Darwins Origins in which Hitler was so greatly influenced.Notice also Hitler's mention of folk ideas,

"Over against all this, the VÖLKISCH concept of the world recognizes that
the primordial racial elements are of the greatest significance for
mankind. In principle, the State is looked upon only as a means to an
end and this end is the conservation of the racial characteristics of
mankind. Therefore on the VÖLKISCH principle we cannot admit that one
race is equal to another. By recognizing that they are different, the
VÖLKISCH concept separates mankind into races of superior and inferior
quality. On the basis of this recognition it feels bound in conformity
with the eternal Will that dominates the universe, to postulate the
victory of the better and stronger and the subordination of the inferior
and weaker. And so it pays homage to the truth that the principle
underlying all Nature's operations is the aristocratic principle and it
believes that this law holds good even down to the last individual
organism. It selects individual values from the mass and thus operates
as an organizing principle, whereas Marxism acts as a disintegrating
solvent. The VÖLKISCH belief holds that humanity must have its ideals,
because ideals are a necessary condition of human existence itself. But,
on the other hand, it denies that an ethical ideal has the right to
prevail if it endangers the existence of a race that is the
standard-bearer of a higher ethical ideal. For in a world which would be
composed of mongrels and negroids all ideals of human beauty and
nobility and all hopes of an idealized future for our humanity would be
lost forever.

On this planet of ours human culture and civilization are indissolubly
bound up with the presence of the Aryan. If he should be exterminated or
subjugated, then the dark shroud of a new barbarian era would enfold the
earth.

To undermine the existence of human culture by exterminating its
founders and custodians would be an execrable crime in the eyes of those
who believe that the folk-idea lies at the basis of human existence.
Whoever would dare to raise a profane hand against that highest image of
God among His creatures would sin against the bountiful Creator of this
marvel and would collaborate in the expulsion from Paradise.

Hence the folk concept of the world is in profound accord with Nature's
will; because it restores the free play of the forces which will lead
the race through stages of sustained reciprocal education towards a
higher type, until finally the best portion of mankind will possess the
earth and will be free to work in every domain all over the world and
even reach spheres that lie outside the earth.

We all feel that in the distant future many may be faced with problems
which can be solved only by a superior race of human beings, a race
destined to become master of all the other peoples and which will have
at its disposal the means and resources of the whole world.

It is evident that such a general sketch of the ideas implied in the
folk concept of the world may easily be interpreted in a thousand
different ways. As a matter of fact there is scarcely one of our recent
political movements that does not refer at some point to this conception
of the world. But the fact that this conception of the world still
maintains its independent existence in face of all the others proves
that their ways of looking at life are quite difierent from this. Thus
the Marxist conception, directed by a central organization endowed with
supreme authority, is opposed by a motley crew of opinions which is not
very impressive in face of the solid phalanx presented by the enemy.
Victory cannot be achieved with such weak weapons. Only when the
international idea, politically organized by Marxism, is confronted by
the folk idea, equally well organized in a systematic way and equally
well led--only then will the fighting energy in the one camp be able to
meet that of the other on an equal footing; and victory will be found on
the side of eternal truth.

But a general conception of life can never be given an organic
embodiment until it is precisely and definitely formulated. The function
which dogma fulfils in religious belief is parallel to the function
which party principles fulfil for a political party which is in the
process of being built up. Therefore, for the conception of life that is
based on the folk idea it is necessary that an instrument be forged
which can be used in fighting for this ideal, similar to the Marxist
party organization which clears the way for internationalism.

And this is the aim which the German National Socialist Labour Movement
pursues.

"What makes a people or, to be more correct, a race, is not language but
blood. Therefore it would be justifiable to speak of Germanization only
if that process could change the blood of the people who would be
subjected to it, which is obviously impossible. A change would be
possible only by a mixture of blood, but in this case the quality of the
superior race would be debased. The final result of such a mixture would
be that precisely those qualities would be destroyed which had enabled
the conquering race to achieve victory over an inferior people. It is
especially the cultural creativeness which disappears when a superior
race intermixes with an inferior one, even though the resultant mongrel
race should excel a thousandfold in speaking the language of the race
that once had been superior. For a certain time there will be a conflict
between the different mentalities, and it may be that a nation which is
in a state of progressive degeneration will at the last moment rally its
cultural creative power and once again produce striking examples of that
power. But these results are due only to the activity of elements that
have remained over from the superior race or hybrids of the first
crossing in whom the superior blood has remained dominant and seeks to
assert itself. But this will never happen with the final descendants of
such hybrids. These are always in a state of cultural retrogression.

We must consider it as fortunate that a Germanization of Austria
according to the plan of Joseph II did not succeed. Probably the result
would have been that the Austrian State would have been able to survive,
but at the same time participation in the use of a common language would
have debased the racial quality of the German element. In the course of
centuries a certain herd instinct might have been developed but the herd
itself would have deteriorated in quality. A national State might have
arisen, but a people who had been culturally creative would have
disappeared.

For the German nation it was better that this process of intermixture
did not take place, although it was not renounced for any high-minded
reasons but simply through the short-sighted pettiness of the Habsburgs.
If it had taken place the German people could not now be looked upon as
a cultural factor.

End of quote.

http://www.gutenberg.net.au/ebooks02/0200601.txt

Tom DeRosa notes in Evolutions Fatal Fruit, p. 172-173,

"For Hitler, science would ultimately push the myths of Christianity away. He said,
'The dogma of Christianity gets worn away before the advances of science. Religion will have to make more concessions. Gradually the myths crumble. All that is left is to prove that in nature there is no frontier between the organic and the inorganic. When understanding of the universe has become widespread, when the majority of men know that the stars are not sources of light but worlds, perhaps inhabited worlds like ours, then the Christian doctrine will be convicted of absurdity.'" (Quote from John Cornwell, Hitler's Scientists, p. 35-36)

These are just a few example of what can happen when a nation or people reject God and His laws because when you reject God all that is left is subjective or situational ethics where anything is possible.

As for your other questions, I will plod away at them as I think them over Lindajean. Unfortunately I do not have the time I used to when I first entered this forum.

Posted by: Peter Huff | April 13, 2008 2:31 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Peter said, "No, the onus of proof is on the atheist to show that the Bible is not in fact the word of God. What is his authority in doing so, some liberal scholar twenty centuries removed from the times?"

No, the onus of proof is on the Christian to show the Koran is not in fact the word of God. What is his authority in doing so, some fundamentalist scholar 10 centuries removed from the times?

No, the onus of proof in on the Baptist to show the Book of Mormon is not in fact the word of God. What is his authority in doing so, some preacher scholar 175 years removed from the times?

Posted by: lindajean | April 10, 2008 6:27 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Peter, can't post a reply here it is being blocked. Even just my blog URL. See my blog for a reply.

Posted by: GAD | April 10, 2008 3:35 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Peter said, "First, God establishes His covenants with man. Some are specific to an individual or a nation and some apply to all. Second, when someone breaks the covenant or law, as in any society there are consequences, just as there are in your own country. As for someone refusing to abide by God's standards and covenants and be reconciled to Him through His Son, He will judge them on their own imperfect merit.'

God's laws are arbitrary depending on who "defines" and "interprets" them. God demands perfect obedience. He is a totalitarian God. Any kind of government that forces God's laws on its own people will be a theocracy and a totalitarian government.

A hypothetical: If it is against God's laws (in this theocracy we are discussing) to break one of the Ten Commandments and someone breaks one of them--i.e. I don't "worship" on the Sabbath--- then what is my punishment?
Do I go to jail? Do I lose my job, house, car? How does the government enforce something you call "god's laws"? If you cannot force someone to believe in God, then why (and how) do you force them to follow his "laws"?

Peter said, "As are the atheist regimes of the twentieth century enough to give Christians nightmares; Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Ceauşescu, Castro."

Totalitarianism under any guise is terrorism.

Peter: : "Actually that is the very thing Christians are fighting to maintain today, their right to worship."

LJ: "Explain how the government is preventing Christians from worshiping."

Peter: "By not allowing us to honor God's word for one. Obedience is a form of worship. By squashing the voice, in many cases of the majority by oppressing it and undermining it until it becomes the minority. I think Greg Bahnsen explains it very nicely in By This Standard,

"In the United States, the most important
historical incident in this shift [talking about a shift in perspective from Christian values] was the decision of the United States Supreme Court to strike down state laws against abortion, the infamous Roe v. Wade decision of 1973. That decision made philosophy a life and death issue. It brought to the forefront the inescapable reality of a philosophical position that Dr. Bahnsen and other defenders of biblical law have long argued, namely, that there is no such thing as neutrality.
The issue of abortion has graphically illustrated
the truth of this conclusion. Either the unborn
child is left alone to mature in the womb, or else it is executed — in this case, by a state-licensed medical professional. (It is illegal, at present, to commit an abortion for a fee unless you are a licensed physician; to do so would involve practicing medicine without a license, and the Supreme Court would uphold your being sent to jail for such a crime against humanity – "humanity" being defined as an exceedingly profitable medical monopoly.) There is no third possibility, no neutral zone between life and death: except for the rare case of an aborted child who somehow survives the executioner initially, and
is born alive in the abortionist's office. This medical possibility has created havoc for humanism's legal theorists. It has been called by one medical authority 'the ultimate complication." Once out of the womb, must the abortionist regard the baby as a legal person, or can he legally destroy it?
A legal dilemma such as this one can only arise
in a civilization which has turned its back on God
and His law. Humanist lawyers need humanistic
principles of 'casuistry" – the application of permanent general laws to concrete cases — in order to deal with such dilemmas, just as surely as Christian legal thinkers need biblical principles of casuistry. Yet Christian casuistry has been ridiculed by secular historians.
We should not forget: it is never a question
of casuistry vs. no casuistry; it is always a question of which kind of casuistry?
What has become clear to a growing minority of
Christians with respect to the "medical and social
neutrality" of abortion is also becoming clearer with respect to such social evils as pornography, inflation, officially neutral tax-supported education ("values clarification"), homosexuality, globalism, the "New World Order, New Age humanism, and contemporary Western theories of national defense (mutually assured destruction, or MAD).” end quote

The right to abortion is not squashing the voice of the majority. If you look at any poll, the majority of Americans SUPPORT the right to abortion. You see it as "squashing" because you don't agree with it and because it "squashes" your will to prevent women from having one. The right to abortion is the epitome of how a democracy works: the majority voice is heard.

I could use your same argument about the Iraq War (or a slew of other issues.) “By squashing the voice, in many cases of the majority by oppressing it and undermining it until it becomes the minority” the government is “squashing” the rights of the majority who want us to get out of Iraq.

Your argument is that the government is squashing your rights as a Christian because it does not pass laws that “honor” and “obey” your god. God does not count as the majority. Only the people count in this form of government. We live in a democracy, not a theocracy.

This is the best example you can give me? A weak one---your facts are not even correct about the majority being against abortion.

Posted by: lindajean | April 9, 2008 8:25 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Peter said: "I was reading over your last three post. You are not going to agree with anything that I say regarding a theocracy. That is the nature of unbelief. You would not be an unbeliever if you believed. I can give you many Biblical passages to give you a glimpse of what a theocracy would look like. Are you open to them?"

Am I open to a theocracy?
LOL, what do you think?

Are you saying you would prefer a theocracy over a democracy?

Posted by: lindajean | April 9, 2008 6:35 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Hi Gad,

One other thing I should say regarding your words below is that history and archaeology along with many other kinds of evidences confirm the truthfulness of the Bible, so it does not depend on the testimony alone of supernatural events and miracles although there is no greater testimony that God Himself. The eyewitness testimony is not "all there is." There are places, peoples, nations, events that confirm the testimonies. These are real in time.

GAD: "When you believe in the supernatural anecdotal testimony is all there is, therefore it has to be taken as evidence otherwise you would have nothing to hang your faith on."

One thing I would say to you Lindajean about our conversation from way back in which we talked about something extraordinary would require extraordinary evidence and when I offer it to you both you and Gad want to discount it as not being worthy. Go figure?

ME: "there is testimony in the Bible that collaborates the evidence of the virgin birth and the resurrection, such as trying to explain away the empty tomb"

GAD: "LOL! How do we know the tomb was empty, because the "story" says so! LOL! Same old crap!"

Let me ask you some questions concerning the empty tomb. You have these people (Christians) going about a short while after Jesus is crucified telling everyone that they have seen Him risen from the dead.

How would you squash such rumors?

By producing a body of their crucified Lord would have ended the spread of Christianity.

Can you produce any records that that was done?
Would that not have been the simplest method of ending it once and for all?

With the Old Testament prophesies of the crucifixion alone, along with over three hundred other Messianic prophesies speak of something unusual, especially when these early eyewitnesses write gospel accounts that tie into the Old Testament prophesies, how can these events all come to pass without divine power? (See Psalm 22 and Isaiah 53 for two OT prophesies on the crucifixion)

Can you explain the accounts of these disciples of Jesus, upon witnessing the crucifixion, boldly proclaim the gospel message (shortly after giving accounts of seeing Him alive again) at the risk of death, and most of them (recorded by secular historians as well as in some cases the Bible itself and the early church fathers) as suffering excruciating deaths for what, a lie?

Would you die for something you knew was a lie?
Would you claim something as true to intentionally mislead millions of people down through the ages just to establish something that never really happened, all the time recording other events, peoples, places that were true?
Would you teach people to be people of integrity and to go the extra mile for others and their needs, to think of others more highly than yourselves, teach them to tell the true and have the highest moral standards and love for others all the time lying to them on one of the most crucial issues that Christianity revolves around, the Resurrection, or for that matter the virgin birth?

No, the onus of proof is on the atheist to show that the Bible is not in fact the word of God. What is his authority in doing so, some liberal scholar twenty centuries removed from the times?

How does the atheist explain how sixty six different books can all have the same theme and unity being written so many centuries apart in many cases all pointing either ahead to the Messiah or back to the Messiah?

No, the atheist is an unbeliever and he must try to fit the evidence into his worldview or deny his worldview. Since he is not willing to deny his worldview, in which he plays king, the self-imposed ruler of his own domain, the one who justifies and validates everything he believes, he must dispute the evidence at every turn. "Did God really say."

That is the nature of unbelief. But he substitutes another belief to do so. It does not stack up well with what is true, with what is real.

How does he explain evil? What is his highest authority? How does he justify "his truth?" To what standard does he apply truth to as a test? To what standard does he apply morality to?

Once upon a time, long, long ago (13.7 billion, give or take plus or minus .02 to .03 billion for now)...Which theory does he hold to on the universe; the Big Bang, the modified Big Bang theory, the multiple universe theory, The Steady-State Theory, the cyclic model?

How does something living and thinking come from something non-living and non-thinking? Where has the atheist ever witnessed this happening? If he has not observed it, if it has never been witnessed then he is placing his faith in something that cannot be confirmed as having actually happened.

Sweet dreams are made of these my once upon a time originating from a fine feathered friend or a monkeys uncle, well maybe not the fine feathered friend! How does that song go? The whale bone is connected to the leg bone, the pigs tooth is connected to Nebraska man. Oh yeah! Ah the scientific mind apart from God!

Posted by: Peter Huff | April 9, 2008 1:50 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Hi Lindajean,

If you are really interested in how a biblical theonomy could look like I invite you to read Greg Bahnsen's "By This Standard" or "Theonomy in Christian Ethics."

LJ: "Congress sets the ethical standards of civil activity by passing laws that make certain acts illegal (along with the states.) The Constitution spells this out very clearly as well (as opposed to you who thinks it is the Bible and its moral absolutism that ought to set the standards and law.) (LOL, this is basic government civics here, Peter. This is the stuff 4th graders are taught.)

God has set THE standard Lindajean. You have bought into the same idea and lie offered to Eve in the Garden, "Did God really say?" In doing so you deceive yourself.

LJ: "If “freedom” and “liberty” take on the derivations you have described, then our laws will reflect such meanings and we will become a theocracy. (We are already beginning to see some inklings of that.) I think you have just told me what your definition of a theocracy is. The problem with all of this (obviously) is, who will define what one’s “covenant “ must be with God and what happens if someone in your theocracy breaks that convenant or refuses to have this relationship with God?"

First, God establishes His covenants with man. Some are specific to an individual or a nation and some apply to all. Second, when someone breaks the covenant or law, as in any society there are consequences, just as there are in your own country. As for someone refusing to abide by God's standards and covenants and be reconciled to Him through His Son, He will judge them on their own imperfect merit.

LJ: "Peter, have you ever thought about the fact you cannot force people to accept your God? As soon as you apply this belief into a legal system you have now become a dictator."

I can't force anyone to accept God Lindajean, the Bible makes that clear,

"...the sinful mind is hostile to God. It does not submit to God's law, nor can it do so. Those controlled by the sinful nature cannot please God." (Romans 8:7-8)

"What, after all, is Apollos? And what is Paul? Only servants, through whom you came to believe - as the Lord has assigned to each his task. I planted the seed, Apollos watered it, but God made it grow. So neither the one who plants nor the one who waters is anything, but only God who makes it grow." (1 Corinthians 3:5-7)

LJ: "The Constitution says nothing about “moral” freedom or a “covenant between God and man.” These are words that Christians make passionate love to, but to attribute them to the Constitution is absurd. Whatever your "man of the hour's" interpretation of the "community" (or the Constitution) was in regards to himself and his God, it only reveals his religiously tainted view of how he believed the community or Constitution ought to work. The same can be said for you."

As you reveal your religious taint also Lindajean on how it "ought" to work (ought implies a moral standard. Who establishes it? Why is it just? Who decides just?). For the atheist the highest authority and first place of worship is to himself/herself. They are their own moral law, their own truth, their own self-righteousness, their own justification.

LJ: "It’s enough to give this atheist nightmares."

As are the atheist regimes of the twentieth century enough to give Christians nightmares; Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Ceauşescu, Castro.

ME: "Actually that is the very thing Christians are fighting to maintain today, their right to worship."

LJ: "Explain how the government is preventing Christians from worshiping."

By not allowing us to honor God's word for one. Obedience is a form of worship. By squashing the voice, in many cases of the majority by oppressing it and undermining it until it becomes the minority. I think Greg Bahnsen explains it very nicely in By This Standard,

"In the United States, the most important
historical incident in this shift [talking about a shift in perspective from Christian values] was the decision of the United States Supreme Court to strike down state laws against abortion, the infamous Roe v. Wade decision of 1973. That decision made philosophy a life and death issue. It brought to the forefront the inescapable reality of a philosophical position that Dr. Bahnsen and other defenders of biblical law have long argued, namely, that there is no such thing as neutrality.
The issue of abortion has graphically illustrated
the truth of this conclusion. Either the unborn
child is left alone to mature in the womb, or else it is executed — in this case, by a state-licensed medical professional. (It is illegal, at present, to commit an abortion for a fee unless you are a licensed physician; to do so would involve practicing medicine without a license, and the Supreme Court would uphold your being sent to jail for such a crime against humanity – “humanity” being defined as an exceedingly profitable medical monopoly.) There is no third possibility, no neutral zone between life and death: except for the rare case of an aborted child who somehow survives the executioner initially, and
is born alive in the abortionist’s office. This medical possibility has created havoc for humanism’s legal theorists. It has been called by one medical authority ‘the ultimate complication.” Once out of the womb, must the abortionist regard the baby as a legal person, or can he legally destroy it?
A legal dilemma such as this one can only arise
in a civilization which has turned its back on God
and His law. Humanist lawyers need humanistic
principles of ‘casuistry” – the application of permanent general laws to concrete cases — in order to deal with such dilemmas, just as surely as Christian legal thinkers need biblical principles of casuistry. Yet Christian casuistry has been ridiculed by secular historians.
We should not forget: it is never a question
of casuistry vs. no casuistry; it is always a question of which kind of casuistry?
What has become clear to a growing minority of
Christians with respect to the “medical and social
neutrality” of abortion is also becoming clearer with respect to such social evils as pornography, inflation, officially neutral tax-supported education (“values clarification”), homosexuality, globalism, the “New World Order, New Age humanism, and contemporary Western theories of national defense (mutually assured destruction, or MAD).

PROLOGUE Xii- xiii

What makes a Christian society appear visibly different from any other kind of society? The
answer today is exactly what it was in Moses’ day: ethics.

PROLOGUE Xii- xiii

God is glorified when His law is enforced by
those who honor Him. Similarly, God is outraged
when men turn their backs on His law, for in doing
so, they turn their backs on the social and legal
restraints that alone keep man from destroying himself and the creation. Someone has called God’s law a “user’s manual” for the creation, but it is more than this: it is a user’s manual for life, God’s laws, when imparted to men redeemed by grace through faith in Christ, are the laws of life.

PROLOGUE XV

Posted by: Peter Huff | April 9, 2008 12:18 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Hi Lindajean,

I was reading over your last three post. You are not going to agree with anything that I say regarding a theocracy. That is the nature of unbelief. You would not be an unbeliever if you believed. I can give you many Biblical passages to give you a glimpse of what a theocracy would look like. Are you open to them?

Galatians 5:13-14; 6:1-2, 10; Romans 12:1-13:10; 15:1-2; Ephesians 4:2-3, 28, 32; 5:2-21; Colossians 3:12-25; 1 Thessalonians 5:11-22. The list is long. It is a call for Christians in all generation, whether living in a theocracy or not.

Only God can grant you repentance and a change of heart. What I can do is try to show you the inconsistencies of your worldview hoping God will be merciful to you. Until the Lord returns our best is going to be second best because we are sinners, we sin and fall short of God's glory (and standards). The difference between the Christian and the unbeliever is God's mercy and grace.

Posted by: Peter Huff | April 8, 2008 12:49 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Hi Gad,

GAD: "One thing I will address is where you said;

ME: "It takes a lot of faith to believe what you believe Gad."

GAD: "No Peter, it takes no faith to believe there is no god, it takes faith to believe there is one."

Every belief system or worldview takes faith to believe in Gad. It takes faith to believe there is no God for you have to view everything you see came about by another means and since something cannot create itself for it would have to exist, what is your explanation? Every effect you witness has a cause does it not? Since the CURRENT accepted worldview on the cause of the universe is the Big Bang, what is the cause of it?

No it takes faith to believe any worldview. An atheist has tremendous faith in something that has not been proved. No one (except God), and that includes you Gad, was around when the universe began. You can only speculate and draw conclusions from those speculation, as you have done. But are they reasonable and are they true?

faith

1. Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.
2. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. See synonyms at belief, trust.
3. Loyalty to a person or thing; allegiance: keeping faith with one's supporters.
4. often Faith Christianity. The theological virtue defined as secure belief in God and a trusting acceptance of God's will.
5. The body of dogma of a religion: the Muslim faith.
6. A set of principles or beliefs.

belief

1. The mental act, condition, or habit of placing trust or confidence in another: My belief in you is as strong as ever.
2. Mental acceptance of and conviction in the truth, actuality, or validity of something: His explanation of what happened defies belief.
3. Something believed or accepted as true, especially a particular tenet or a body of tenets accepted by a group of persons.

[Middle English bileve, alteration (influenced by bileven, to believe), of Old English gelēafa.]

SYNONYMS belief, credence, credit, faith. These nouns denote mental acceptance of the truth, actuality, or validity of something: a statement unworthy of belief; an idea steadily gaining credence; testimony meriting credit; has no faith in a liar's assertions. See also synonyms at opinion.
ANTONYM disbelief

It all takes faith Gad, or are you telling me that you have no faith in what you believe? That would be an extremely shaky foundation. It is anyway since true knowledge comes from God. That is my presupposition and from it I can make sense of truth and what is real. Truth and what is real is when I see things in God's light and think His thoughts after Him.

Posted by: Peter Huff | April 7, 2008 7:45 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Hi Peter,

This is the same old stuff that we've been through before. I've answered all your question many times over and have no desire to do so again.

One thing I will address is where you said;

"It takes a lot of faith to believe what you believe Gad."

No Peter, it takes no faith to believe there is no god, it takes faith to believe there is one.

Posted by: GAD | April 6, 2008 2:09 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Hi Gad,

Just a quick note found on Google under anecdotal evidence.

"In science, anecdotal evidence has been defined as:

* "information that is not based on facts or careful study"

[On this ground alone Gad I contend that the Christian faith IS based both on facts and careful study.]

* "non-scientific observations or studies, which do not provide proof but may assist research efforts"

[Again, the Christina faith has many verifiable scientific studies that confirm the pages of the Bible are reliable in what they reveal.]

* "reports or observations of usually unscientific observers"
* "casual observations or indications rather than rigorous or scientific analysis"

[Here again I contend the observations and writings are not based on casual observations, but a careful study.]

* "information passed along by word-of-mouth but not documented scientifically"

[The information was documented thoroughly.]

A common way anecdotal evidence becomes unscientific is through fallacious reasoning such as the post hoc fallacy, the human tendency to assume that if one event happens after another, then the first must be the cause of the second.

[Case in point, evolution.]

Another fallacy involves inductive reasoning. For instance, if an anecdote illustrates a desired conclusion rather than a logical conclusion, it is considered a faulty or hasty generalization.

[Case in point, evolution.]

Law

Witness testimony is a common form of evidence in law, and law has mechanisms to test witness evidence for reliability or credibility. Legal processes for the taking and assessment of evidence are formalized. Some witness testimony could be described as anecdotal evidence, such as individual stories of harassment as part of a class action lawsuit. However, witness testimony can be tested and assessed for reliability. Examples of approaches to testing and assessment include the use of questioning, evidence of corroborating witnesses, documents, video and forensic evidence. Where a court lacks suitable means to test and assess testimony of a particular witness, such as the absence of forms of corroboration or substantiation it may afford that testimony limited or no "weight" when making a decision on the facts."

End of quote.

So I contend that the Biblical evidence meets the requirements of valid eyewitness testimony as well as factually and that evolutionary evidence does not. No one was around when the earth was formed but God Himself. So your evidence I would link under anecdotal for some of the following reasons.

Where have you ever witnessed life originating by non-living chemical means? All we ever witness is the living giving birth to life. Were do you ever witness something non-personal giving birth to personality? Where do you ever find something non-thinking producing a thinking being? How do you get logic from something that is not intelligent? Without a mind how do you know anything, so were does awareness come from? Only from living things. Were do you ever find something non-living having intent? Where have you ever witnessed something amoral giving birth to morals? Were have you ever witnessed a non-living, physical object reasoning? Show me where you have ever witnessed any of these things or can prove that they originate from non-living matter? You can't. It takes a lot of faith to believe what you believe Gad.

On the other hand, it takes very little faith to believe that only life gives birth to the living, that only personality fathers personhood, that only intelligence produces logical, thinking, reasoning beings, that only a moral being is able to produce other beings capable of morals because that is all we ever witness.

How do you explain intangible, incorporeal ideas from a theory that starts with the physical, tangible, material, empirical? A rock does not have a mind, either do chemicals so show the proof how this can happen by evolutionary means. How can something concrete, physical, non-living produce thought?

Empirical evidence is dependent on something that is observable by the senses. Explain and show how senses come from matter? Explain how you get the laws of logic from something empirical?

Posted by: Peter Huff | April 5, 2008 10:59 PM
Report Offensive Comment

lindajean said:
"Peter believes anecdotal testimony (an empty tomb) is scientific evidence."

When you believe in the supernatural anecdotal testimony is all there is, therefore it has to be taken as evidence otherwise you would have nothing to hang your faith on.

Posted by: GAD | April 5, 2008 11:43 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Hi Lindajean,

My last post was not accepted and I can't get it through. I will try again Monday but this is frustrating.

Posted by: Peter Huff | April 4, 2008 9:18 PM
Report Offensive Comment

OP Sharma said, “Bertrand Russell says somewhere, in what would appear to be an echo of the Upanishads, that mere increase in knowledge, without a corresponding increase in wisdom, would amount to 'increase in sorrow.’”

Russell was a professed atheist. An increase in wisdom does not require a belief in the metaphysical (which you imply in your post.)

OP SHarma: “ ...but according to the Svetasvatara and other Upanishads, a greater achievement would be if human being also successfully accessed his inner space, the spiritual center of his being and of the entire cosmos. Both explorations should go hand in hand for complete knowledge and ‘fulfillment’. After all, it is only when one becomes a Self-realised soul, "seeing oneself in all and all in oneself", that lasting good can result from his manifold activities --- in this world or out of it. Without the necessary spiritual evolution, howsoever intellectually bright he may be, "man but unwittingly goes from death to death". If such an unregenerate person, who has not evolved from self-centeredness to Self-centeredness (where the Self stands for the Supreme Divine Reality informing the entire creation); who doesn’t think of others but only of himself; who, as Mahatma Gandhi would say, is not desirous of catering to his ‘need’ so much as to his ‘greed’; were to reach some distant star or planet and construct habitation for himself there, he will, in course of time, only...”

Do you have any evidence that exploring your “inner child” is going to make you a more virtuous person?

OP Sharma: “....succeed in polluting and ruthlessly exploiting that place as he has
polluted and ruthlessly exploited this good earth of ours. Not only this, he’ll even think of constructing military bases over there to conduct successful warfare against his ‘enemies’ on earth. No wonder, the Hindu shastras recommend, as Jesus Christ too did, that one had better seek the Kingdom of God...."

It sounds like you are bashing Christianity. The Christians (via Bush) are most certainly constructing military bases and conducting war “over there"; they are deserving of much "bashing."

Posted by: lindajean | April 4, 2008 8:45 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Peter believes anecdotal testimony (an empty tomb) is scientific evidence.

Posted by: lindajean | April 4, 2008 8:26 PM
Report Offensive Comment

You said:

“The early constitutional framers, similar in perspective as Witherspoon, were convinced that there was an intrinsic connection between morality and good government. In practical terms this means that non-Christians are not exempt from God’s moral law. An atheist, for example, cannot appeal to his atheism and freely live as an ethical anarchist.While the State certainly has no jurisdiction over his beliefs, it does have something to say about how he acts. This moral and civil authority remains an irritant for many in our day. All people, however, answer to some standard of behavior. The question is this: In a religiously diverse society, what ethical standard should the civil magistrate use to make moral judgments about civil activity? This question is the essence of the debate about a ‘Christian America.’ “

The debate about Christian America is whether the government has the right to establish a religion or laws that promote religious beliefs (such as the 10 commandments or prayer in schools.) The Gov does not have this right, and the first amendment states the government does not have this right, and even a 3rd grader can read the words and determine this.

Congress sets the ethical standards of civil activity by passing laws that make certain acts illegal (along with the states.) The Constitution spells this out very clearly as well (as opposed to you who thinks it is the Bible and its moral absolutism that ought to set the standards and law.) (LOL, this is basic government civics here, Peter. This is the stuff 4th graders are taught.)

Unfortunately, the Christian Right is eroding the first amendment because of their political clout in Congress, The Supreme Court and the White House.

You said, “Freedom and liberty, ideals cherished by all Americans, were rooted in a biblical moral order. Liberty was not license. Freedom was not the right always to do what one pleased.”

There is no evidence that these values originated in the Bible. But I agree that the Bible has its own specious definitions and interpretations of all kinds of things--freedom and liberty as well.

LOL! Perhaps you ought to publish a Biblical dictionary so that we can understand the real meaning of the English language according to the Bible. Do we also have a different meaning for “love” and “compassion” and “family” and “wealth” and “poverty” and “slavery” and “adultery” and “divorce” and....

You said, “ For Winthrop, success was much more explicitly tied to the creation of a certain kind of ethical community than it is for most Americans today.His idea of freedom differs from ours in a similar way. He decried what he called “natural liberty,” which is the freedom to do whatever John Winthrop described the group of Puritans who formed Massachusetts Bay Colony as “a Company professing ourselves fellow members of Christ.... True freedom—what he called “moral” freedom, “in reference to the covenant between God and man”—is a liberty “to that only which is good, just and honest.” “This liberty,” he said, “you are to stand for with the hazard of your lives.”17 Winthrop’s definition of liberty is far from the modern meaning of liberty. As it is usually defined today, liberty is freedom from moral restraints. One is not truly free, according to the contemporary use of the term, if one is bound by any moral code’

If “freedom” and “liberty” take on the derivations you have described, then our laws will reflect such meanings and we will become a theocracy. (We are already beginning to see some inklings of that.) I think you have just told me what your definition of a theocracy is. The problem with all of this (obviously) is, who will define what one’s “covenant “ must be with God and what happens if someone in your theocracy breaks that convenant or refuses to have this relationship with God?

Peter, have you ever thought about the fact you cannot force people to accept your God? As soon as you apply this belief into a legal system you have now become a dictator.

The Constitution says nothing about “moral” freedom or a “covenant between God and man.” These are words that Christians make passionate love to, but to attribute them to the Constitution is absurd. Whatever your "man of the hour's" interpretation of the "community" (or the Constitution) was in regards to himself and his God, it only reveals his religiously tainted view of how he believed the community or Constitution ought to work. The same can be said for you.

It’s enough to give this atheist nightmares.

Posted by: lindajean | April 4, 2008 8:18 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Please publish this in any suitable columns of yours. Thanks.
--- by O.P. Sharma

Bertrand Russell says somewhere, in what would appear to be an echo of the Upanishads, that mere increase in knowledge, without a corresponding increase in wisdom, would amount to 'increase in sorrow'. Arthur C. Clarke, who recently passed away, gave the much-needed 'intellectual drive', according to the scientists of the US, to exploration of outer space ---- to man's landing on the moon. This last was a great achievement no doubt, and so were Clarke’s, but according to the Svetasvatara and other Upanishads, a greater achievement would be if human being also successfully accessed his inner space, the spiritual center of his being and of the entire cosmos. Both explorations should go hand in hand for complete knowledge and ‘fulfillment’. After all, it is only when one becomes a Self-realised soul, "seeing oneself in all and all in oneself", that lasting good can result from his manifold activities --- in this world or out of it. Without the necessary spiritual evolution, howsoever intellectually bright he may be, "man but unwittingly goes from death to death". If such an unregenerate person, who has not evolved from self-centeredness to Self-centeredness (where the Self stands for the Supreme Divine Reality informing the entire creation); who doesn’t think of others but only of himself; who, as Mahatma Gandhi would say, is not desirous of catering to his ‘need’ so much as to his ‘greed’; were to reach some distant star or planet and construct habitation for himself there, he will, in course of time, only
(1)
succeed in polluting and ruthlessly exploiting that place as he has
polluted and ruthlessly exploited this good earth of ours. Not only this, he’ll even think of constructing military bases over there to conduct successful warfare against his ‘enemies’ on earth. No wonder, the Hindu shastras recommend, as Jesus Christ too did, that one had better seek the Kingdom of God (which is within us --- isvara sarvabhutanam hridesherjuna tishti, as Sri Krishna, in the Bhagvad-Gita, maintained), and acquire dharma (God’s righteousness) first, even before “trying to wrap up the skies like leather.” Thus he’ll become useful to himself and others also. The famous German professor, F. Max Mueller, will, consequently, be seen to have rightly observed (in his Three Lectures on the Vedanta Philosophy, London, 1894, p.7): ‘But if it seems strange to you that the old Indian philosophers should have known more about the soul than Greek or medieval or modern philosophers, let us remember that however much the telescopes for observing the stars of heaven have been improved, the observatories of the soul have remained much the same.’ This shortcoming needs to be rectified if one were to become truly universal, which one cannot by ‘just physically exploring the universe.’ A supremely realized soul, as mentioned above, will see himself in all others, and behave towards them as he would towards himself (atmavatsarvabhuteshu). In fact, he’ll see no ‘others’, no enemies, no evil nations or people to be wiped out altogether--- he’ll have transcended all limitations of time and space etc.. (desha, kala, nimitta), overcome the ignorance of duality.

--------------------xxxxx------------------------xxxxx---------------------
(2)

Posted by: Om Prakash Sharma | April 4, 2008 7:34 AM
Report Offensive Comment

"there is testimony in the Bible that collaborates the evidence of the virgin birth and the resurrection, such as trying to explain away the empty tomb"

LOL! How do we know the tomb was empty, because the "story" says so! LOL! Same old crap!

Posted by: GAD | April 4, 2008 2:54 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Peter:

You: If you don't like the rules then you would have the option of moving to another country in which they were more to your liking. I think that living in a biblical theocracy would be more beneficial to loving your neighbor than living in Hitler's Germany or in any other country.

Only beneficial if I followed your biblical script. You still haven’t answered my question. What happens to the atheist that doesn’t follow your Bible? What happens to someone who breaks one of the 10 commandments?

You:
Actually that is the very thing Christians are fighting to maintain today, their right to worship.

Explain how the government is preventing Christians from worshiping.

You: The Declaration of Independence which came before the Constitution states,

"“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.—That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,—That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

That is a declaration for independence, It is not the law of the land. Only a philosophy about the rights and freedoms of people. It was their version of what man is entitled as a human being and based on Enlightenment views.

You: “Many of the men who framed the Constitution were Christians and believed in God. Their minds would have, as such been influenced by their beliefs.”

They were so greatly influenced they didn’t even mention god in the constitution which is the supreme law of the land.

You: “Here again you are making an absolute statement. The "best" implies that there is no better.”

The best implies we are human and we have limitations.

Posted by: lindajean | April 2, 2008 7:54 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Peter--

Only beneficial if I followed your biblical script. You still haven’t answered my question. What happens to the atheist that doesn’t follow your Biblical laws?

You:
Actually that is the very thing Christians are fighting to maintain today, their right to worship.

Explain how the government is preventing Christians from worshiping.

You: The Declaration of Independence which came before the Constitution states,

That is a declaration for independence. It is not the law of the land. Only a philosophy about the rights and freedoms of people. It was their version of what man is entitled as a human being.

You: “Many of the men who framed the Constitution were Christians and believed in God. Their minds would have, as such been influenced by their beliefs.”

They were so influenced they didn’t even mention god in the constitution which is the supreme law of the land.

You: “What do you expect me to tell you about living in a theocracy, that your will is what will rule the rest?”

You: “Here again you are making an absolute statement. The "best" implies that there is no better.”

The best implies we are human and we have limitations.

Posted by: lindajean | April 2, 2008 6:10 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Peter:

You: “Do you count testimony as evidence?"

Testimony that falls within the realm of “normal” (physical laws) would be more inclined to be considered evidence. Not all of "normal" testimony is evidence. Testimony saying Jesus was born of a virgin is not “normal”. Testimony saying little green men live on mars is not valid evidence either.

Posted by: lindajean | April 1, 2008 6:34 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Hi Lindajean,

I'm working today so I will try and answer your questions tomorrow or Thursday.

Posted by: Peter Huff | April 1, 2008 8:43 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Peter:

LJ: "Where do you draw the line?"

You: What does it matter where I draw the line, it is where God draws the line that matters. The only theocracy worth its weight is the one in which Jesus Christ is ruling and reigning. And when He rules and reigns those who oppose will be separated from His presence for what does light and darkness have in common?

It matters where you or whoever is running your (hypothetical) theocracy draws the line.

You: I don't have any rights to limit freedoms, only the sovereign Lord has exclusive right to mandate what His creatures are free to do and not to do. But living in a Biblical theocracy the evil that abounds in the world at present would not be as evident, and living under the rule and reign of Christ on earth there would be no evil for the sheep and goats would be separated. In a Christian theocracy before the return of the Lord the mandate would be, as the apostle Paul said..’

What happens to people in your theocracy that don’t believe in God?

You: When Christ returns it would be completely pure, until then there would be shortcomings, but things would not be like they are at present in most countries where almost anything goes or is now possible.

I am not talking about Christ returning. I am talking about a hypothetical theocracy under Christian rule instead of the type of constitutional democracies we see in western societies.

You: “There again, by-in-large the theocracies that you speak of are not biblical theocracies. The USA may have been built on Christian ideals but it is no longer there.”

No, but that is what I am trying to engage you in. A conversation about a Christian theocracy. What would it look like?

LJ: "Why do you need to "quell" others' words in your God-loving theocracy?"

Peter: "It depends on what is said. It would not be a theocracy based on truth long if it was not governed by the principles of the one and only true God."

LJ: "What exactly does it "depend on"?

You: “It depends on God's word, the one and only true God, the Biblical God.”

You are not answering may question. I’ll try another way. Which human beings get to decide what is “god’s word?” There are hundreds, thousands, of versions.

You: Nothing to people who do not speak my "ordained truth." If God has not said it you are believing a lie. That is why I back up what I say with Scripture, if you would like to call what I say into question. Only if what I say lines up with God's word would it be ordained truth. If I am saying something contrary to it then call me on it.”

Nothing happens to people who don’t worship your God in this hypothetical theocracy? Get real. How does a theocracy work when there are all these interpretations of god’s word?

Posted by: lindajean | March 31, 2008 7:03 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Hi Lindajean,

Use http://www before address

americanvision.com/index.asp?PageAction=VIEWPROD&ProdID=905

americanvision.org/downloads/America's%20Christian%20History%20Web.pdf

From the pdf file,

The early constitutional framers, similar in perspective as Witherspoon, were convinced that there was an intrinsic connection between morality and good government. In practical terms this means that non-Christians are not exempt from God’s moral law. An atheist, for example, cannot appeal to his atheism and freely live as an ethical anarchist.
While the State certainly has no jurisdiction over his beliefs, it does have something to say about how he acts. This moral and civil authority
remains an irritant for many in our day. All people, however, answer to some standard of behavior. The question is this: In a religiously diverse society, what ethical standard should the civil magistrate use to make moral judgments about civil activity? This question is the essence of the debate about a “Christian America.”

Freedom and liberty, ideals cherished by all Americans, were rooted in a biblical moral order. Liberty was not license. Freedom was not the
right always to do what one pleased.

For Winthrop, success was much more explicitly tied to the creation of a certain kind of ethical community than it is for most Americans today.
His idea of freedom differs from ours in a similar way. He decried what he called “natural liberty,” which is the freedom to do whatever John Winthrop described the group of Puritans who formed
Massachusetts Bay Colony as “a Company professing ourselves fellow members of Christ.”
... True freedom—what he called “moral” freedom, “in reference to the covenant between God and man”—is a liberty “to that only which is good, just and honest.” “This liberty,” he said, “you are to stand for with the hazard of your lives.”17
Winthrop’s definition of liberty is far from the modern meaning of liberty. As it is usually defined today, liberty is freedom from moral
restraints. One is not truly free, according to the contemporary use of the term, if one is bound by any moral code."

End of quote.

Posted by: Peter Huff | March 31, 2008 5:42 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Hi again,

Peter: "Tyranny is a form of government based on cruelty and injustice. God is completely just and fair and those breaking His law get what they deserve, unless God is merciful to them by His grace. You don't earn mercy. It is something that is given to the undeserving. The rest will be justly punished.'

LJ: "Why do you think our forefathers (the men who wrote the Constitution) rebelled against England, the Monarchy and the Church?"

Peter: "I'm sure there were many reasons, but many who first settled America were Puritans, fleeing from religious persecution, so they built into your constitution a clause so that men would have the right to worship freely, as they were denied."

LJ: "Exactly my point. They were crucified by a Monarchy and State Religion."

One that was not true to Scripture.

LJ: "Those words are very clear. Gov cannot tell me who to worship and Gov cannot prevent me from worshiping whom I want. It doesn't get any clearer."

LJ: "You only see one side of the coin. There is the right to worship without the government intervening."

And you only see the other. You were the one who asked me about a theocracy and I responded. In a biblical theocracy just like in any government there are rules. An atheist does not like these rules because they want to be autonomous and are opposed to them. If you don't like the rules then you would have the option of moving to another country in which they were more to your liking. I think that living in a biblical theocracy would be more beneficial to loving your neighbor than living in Hitler's Germany or in any other country.

LJ: "No one is trying to keep you from worshiping God in this country. You have that freedom."

Actually that is the very thing Christians are fighting to maintain today, their right to worship.

LJ: " The other side of the coin is the government does not have the right to tell you who to worship, who your God is and force you to believe something you do not want to believe."

Well the government is represented by the people in a democracy and if enough people can change the law then the government will have the power to tell you what freedoms you do have, as they do now. At the moment we have certain rights in worship.

As for who God is, there is only one living and true God and He is the One who determines what is right and who is in power.

Peter: "I believe some of these people who framed your constitution wanted the church to influence government."

LJ: "There is no mention of God in the Constitution. So whatever influence they wanted in the Gov they must had not wanted it very badly. Why would they want church influence when they fought a war with Britain to get out from under a monarchy dictated by the Church of England?

The Declaration of Independence which came before the Constitution states,

Many of the men who framed the Constitution were Christians and believed in God. Their minds would have, as such been influenced by their beliefs.

LJ: "In a theocracy there is no choice about who you will worship."

Peter: "In an atheist regime there is no worship, except of man worshiping himself. "I am so wise, there is nothing I cannot do."

LJ: "And you believe the Government ought to tell me (an atheist) who and what to worship? Who and what to believe? That is CREEPY."

You asked me about a theocracy. I have told you why a biblical theocracy would be better than a government that did not believe in God. I don't expect you to like it, it is opposed to what you believe.

LJ: "You keep dancing around this. Why not tell me what you really think?"

See above and the previous post.

Peter: "The scary thought Lindajean is a relative, postmodern, pluralistic world in which truth is whatever you choose to make it. In such a world anything is morally possible, anything is socially acceptable and all things are permissible as long as you can find the strength in numbers to enforce your belief. Heaven help you if you are in the minority."

LJ: "Exactly. "Heaven help" me. I am in the minority (Atheist) and from your words you want the Gov to start deciding what "truths" I ought to believe."

What do you expect me to tell you about living in a theocracy, that your will is what will rule the rest?

LJ: "You support truth with the Bible. That is no different than me supporting truth with some thing else. Our truths are relative."

That is not true. It is different. God's word is the absolute, true standard. Our truths are not relative. One is true the other is not. Either there is a God who decrees what will be or there is not. There cannot be and not be a God who decrees and does not decree whatever comes to pass. It is an either/or, not an and/both. Either there is an absolute basis for truth or truth is false, it changes depending on who is calling it true. I say one thing, you another and never the two shall meet or be reconciled. Red is green, up is down, I'm here physically at my computer and I'm not here at my computer physically at this very minute. It does matter what you believe.

LJ: "The best we can do is behave in ways that minimize harming others. And coveting my neighbor or "forgetting" the Sabbath , etc...have nothing to do with that."

Here again you are making an absolute statement. The "best" implies that there is no better. How do you know there is no better? Are you all knowing? Can you see into the future to determine that the decision you make now will be the best later? Do you know One who is all knowing that you can determine best? If best is relative then my best is better than your best. Can you picture me sticking my tongue out at you? (:

It is late. Bye for now Lindajean.

Posted by: Peter Huff | March 31, 2008 3:46 AM
Report Offensive Comment

To continue Lindajean,

Peter: "" But the fact is still there that in its pages over and over and over again it claims to be the word of God. That is evidence.'"

LJ: "Claiming something makes it "evidence."?
Only in the minds of the religious."

Do you count testimony as evidence? That is what the gospel accounts are, eyewitness testimony among other things such as historical texts. They are evidence whether you choose to try and discredit them or not.

"Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word." (Luke 1:1-2)

"To the elders among you, I appeal as a fellow elder, a witness of Christ's sufferings and one who will share in the lory to be revealed..." (1 Peter 5:1)

"We did not follow cleverly invented stories when we told you about the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of His majesty." (2 Peter 1:16)

"That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our own eyes, which we have looked at and our hands have touched - this we proclaim concerning the Word of life. The life appeared; we have seen it and testified to it, and we proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and has appeared to us. We proclaim to you what we have seen and heard, so that you also may have fellowship with us. And our fellowship is with the Father and with His Son, Jesus Christ. We write this to make our joy complete." (1 John 1:1-7)

"...how shall we escape if we ignore such a great salvation? This salvation, which was first announced by the Lord, was confirmed to us by those who heard Him. God also testifies to it by signs, wonders and various miracles, and gifts of the Holy Spirit distributed according to His will." (Hebrews 2:3-4)

LJ: "The Koran (or one of its off-shoots) claims killing infidels will get you 72 virgins in heaven. That's evidence?"

Peter: "Yes, but how well does it coincide with what is real? Studying the life of Muhammad shows he was influenced by a number of religious teachings; Zoroastrianism, Judaism, Christianity and the local pagan deity of the half moon."

LJ: "Exactly my point and how does Jesus being born from a virgin "coincide with what is real?" Only because you believe it is coming from God"

Not only because I believe it comes from God and is true but because it is. Truth has no relevance on whether or not I believe it, truth is true despite how I feel about it for how can truth be false? Research Muhammad more and find out what influenced him. Find out how consistent Islam is with what is real, what is true. Remember both Christianity and Islam cannot both be true because they both make different claims. I know you would contend that neither is, but that is something you would have to provide proof for, as you require me to do the same.

There is historical evidence stating such that claims to be the very word of God. He was not born in the usual manner, a seed from a male for then He would have inherited Adams nature and disposition after the Fall like the rest of us have.

Your worldview is not reasonable. In all you ever witness where can you show me life or mind or intent coming from a non-living, non-thinking, non-intentional thing? There is no evidence. How about answering some of those questions? You do so well to avoid them, but of the many times I have put these questions to you or any other atheist all I get is avoidance or a change of subject.

LJ: "What about the impossibility of Jesus rising from the dead?

Peter: "Not impossible for God, although I don't expect you to grasp that fact since you live in the realm of possibility only in a natural world."

LJ: "Of Jesus being born of a Virgin?
"Of Jesus feeding hundreds with a couple of dead fish?
"Of Jesus bringing people back from the dead?"

Peter: "Yes.'

LJ: "How does any of this "coincide with evidence"? none. You demand other religions to coincide with evidence and you do not demand it from your own--or you claim your religion has evidence but it has no more evidence than anyone else. You are taking the word evidence which has several different definitions and you are applying them to religion. The "evidence" in a critique of religion requires "proof" not "testimony"."

There is historical proof that the Bible is accurate when it names people, places, events. There is proof that the Bible is accurate when it tells future events like the fall of Jerusalem in 70A.D. that was predicted by Jesus before His death around forty years earlier. I can get into this aspect if you like. There is proof if you consider the integrity of the apostles and their message in these and other areas. There is proof in changed lives that come from the preaching of the message. Reliability is established in a court of law by eyewitness testimony. The Bible gives the grounds for determining eyewitness testimony. It is determined on the grounds of two to three reliable eyewitnesses. So even though Lindajean does not accept it as evidence it is done so in a court of law.

LJ: "In a court of law, you must prove (beyond a reasonable doubt) that someone is guilty. You, Peter, must prove to me beyond a reasonable doubt that Jesus was born of a Virgin. And someone's eye-witness "testimony" is not proof."

Lindajean, the nature of a skeptic is skeptical. Any evidence I give you you will brush off as evidence unless God opens your heart, mind, ears, eyes to the truth. You have built your worldview on presuppositions that are contrary to the Gospel and Word of truth. Your very base would crumble if you changed your belief. You would not be the autonomous person you believe you are, you would be dependent for your very next breath on Someone greater than you. That is not something you want to face. Ever seen a literal physical stone breath? Where is the evidence that you can point to of anything non-living that has ever given birth or produced something living and breathing?

I have evidence that I can point to that only something living gives birth to life, only something thinking gives birth to mind, only something that has a mind has intent. Your worldview is bleak to say the least. There is no meaning or purpose to life, you are "just dust in the wind."

Peter: "Absolute truth implies at least two things: 1) that whatever is true at one time and in one place is true at all times and in all places, and 2) that whatever is true for one person is true for all persons. Absolute truth does not change [for God cannot lie]" When Skeptics Ask, p. 255-256.

LJ: "The Bible contradicts its own absolute truth if we go by this definition."

Peter: "Oh really, how does it do that Lindajean?"

LJ: "It claims that we ought to love our neighbors as ourselves and then it says an eye for an eye."

Yes we "ought to" but what happens when we don't? When we don't justice is needed.

In your worldview you cannot explain why your brand of ethics is right. Cultures change from age to age and place to place so why should I adopt your cultures view of things? What makes your cultures view of things right when another culture or another age has a completely different view of right. Which culture actually has the right view?

LJ: "It says we ought to forgive and then it says you will go to hell if you don't believe. Those are contradictions of absolute truths. There are more."

There reason people go to hell is because they have broken God's perfect laws. Why do you expect anything less than justice from a just God? Mercy is getting what we don't deserve. You don't deserve God's grace, neither do I. God gives it in His Son for those who will believe, for those whom He has mercy on, for those whom He appoints to eternal life. Do you have ears to hear? Do you have eyes to see the truth?

"In reply Jesus declared, "I tell you the truth, no one can see the kingdom of God unless he is born again....Jesus answered, "I tell you the truth, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit....For God so loved the world that He gave His one and only Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish but have eternal life." (John 3:3, 5, 16)

I will finish on another post Lindajean.

Posted by: Peter Huff | March 31, 2008 2:43 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Hi Lindajean,

How was your weekend?

LJ: "When you say, "Praising God, rejoicing in the [your] truth" this means you want a theocracy that denies a person's freedom of speech?"

Peter: "Not my truth Lindajean, God's truth, and as such all human beings are to be treated fairly, although justly, but in any fair and just government there are certain freedoms to be enjoyed. Freedoms have limitations and as such justice is still required. To be free to do anything is not healthy. It only takes a little yeast to spread through the whole batter of dough. Freedom in everything is anarchy. Freedom of speech to degrade and abuse another verbally is cruelty, or slander and misrepresent can be a criminal offense. Where do you draw the line?"

LJ: "Where do you draw the line?"

What does it matter where I draw the line, it is where God draws the line that matters. The only theocracy worth its weight is the one in which Jesus Christ is ruling and reigning. And when He rules and reigns those who oppose will be separated from His presence for what does light and darkness have in common?

LJ: "What freedoms are too much? What freedoms do you want to limit and at what price?"

I don't have any rights to limit freedoms, only the sovereign Lord has exclusive right to mandate what His creatures are free to do and not to do. But living in a Biblical theocracy the evil that abounds in the world at present would not be as evident, and living under the rule and reign of Christ on earth there would be no evil for the sheep and goats would be separated. In a Christian theocracy before the return of the Lord the mandate would be, as the apostle Paul said,

"So I tell you this, and insist on it in the Lord, that you must not live as the Gentiles do, in the futility of their thinking. They are darkened in their understanding and separated from God because of their ignorance that is in them due to the hardening of their hearts. Having lost all sensitivity, they have given themselves over to sensuality so as to indulge in every kind of impurity, with a continual lust for more.
You, however, did not come to know Christ that way. Surely you heard of Him and were taught in Him in accordance with the truth that is in Jesus. You were taught, with regards to your former way of life, to put off your old self, which is being corrupted by its deceitful desires; to be made new in the attitude of your minds; and to put on the new self, created to be like God in true righteousness and holiness.
Therefore each of you must put off falsehood and speak truthfully to his neighbor, for we are all members of one body. In your anger do not sin" : Do not let the sun go down while you are still angry, and do not give the devil a foothold. He who has been stealing must steal no longer, but must work, doing something useful with his hands, that he may have something to share with those in need.
Do not let any unwholesome talk come out of your mouths, but only what is helpful for building others up according to their needs, that it may benefit those who listen. And do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, with whom you were sealed for the day of redemption. Get rid of all bitterness, rage and anger, brawling and slander, along with every form of malice. Be compassionate to one another, just as in Christ God forgave you." (Ephesians 4:17-32)

The kind of rule in a biblical theocracy would incorporate these kinds of limits to freedom along with others Paul mentions in the next two chapters - 5:1-6:9 and are mentioned elsewhere throughout the pages of Scripture.
Please notice how these verses, along with the ones I cited relate to the Ten Commandments if you choose to read them. That is how I picture in part a biblical theocracy on the earth at present. When Christ returns it would be completely pure, until then there would be shortcomings, but things would not be like they are at present in most countries where almost anything goes or is now possible.

And that is how Christians are called to live in this present evil age, whether we live in a theocracy or a dictatorship. Living in a biblical theocracy would definitely be a better world in which to live.

Peter: "Freedom of speech has limitations even in the USA. Some things a person should be accountable for."

LJ: "Freedom of speech does have limitations. But people in Western society do not get killed for speaking against their government. In a theocracy there would be a large price for speaking out against the "God." This occurs in current theocracies."

There again, by-in-large the theocracies that you speak of are not biblical theocracies. The USA may have been built on Christian ideals but it is no longer there.

LJ: "Why do you need to "quell" others' words in your God-loving theocracy?"

Peter: "It depends on what is said. It would not be a theocracy based on truth long if it was not governed by the principles of the one and only true God."

LJ: "What exactly does it "depend on"?

It depends on God's word, the one and only true God, the Biblical God.

LJ: "Who decides what it depends on? So much for absolute truth."

God decides, we abide for He is sovereign. We, as Christians are called to trust and obey. That is not possible unless we have been born anew or regenerated by the Holy Spirit, for as I said before what do darkness and light have in common?

LJ: "What will happen to the people who don't believe and who do not speak your ordained "truth"?"

Nothing to people who do not speak my "ordained truth." If God has not said it you are believing a lie. That is why I back up what I say with Scripture, if you would like to call what I say into question. Only if what I say lines up with God's word would it be ordained truth. If I am saying something contrary to it then call me on it.

I'll continue on the next post Lindajean.

Posted by: Peter Huff | March 31, 2008 1:28 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Hi Peter:

You said, "Lindajean, that theocracy will never come until the Lord Jesus Christ returns. In the mean time the best we could ever achieve is a poor second. But a society based on Biblical truths is better than one based on little truth. A society that lived in harmony with the Lord's teaching would be one that loved its neighbor and only wanted the best for its neighbor, one in which the needs of the poor would be looked after, others would be honored and thought of above the interests of oneself, where the virtues of love,joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, gentleness and self control would be sought after, where going the extra mile for not only your enemy, but also your neighbor would be the norm, where what is evil is hated."

Utopia. Unreality. Love your neighbor is a good standard.But such love is basically part of our genetic makeup with some cultural aspects thrown in.

LJ: "When you say, "Praising God, rejoicing in the [your] truth" this means you want a theocracy that denies a person's freedom of speech?"

Where do you draw the line? What freedoms are too much? What freedoms do you want to limit and at what price?

Peter: "Freedom of speech has limitations even in the USA. Some things a person should be accountable for."

Freedom of speech does have limitations. But people in Western society do not get killed for speaking against their government. In a theocracy there would be a large price for speaking out against the "God." This occurs in current theocracies.

LJ: "Why do you need to "quell" others' words in your God-loving theocracy?"

Peter: "It depends on what is said. It would not be a theocracy based on truth long if it was not governed by the principles of the one and only true God."

What exactly does it "depend on"? Who decides what it depends on? So much for absolute truth.

What will happen to the people who don't believe and who do not speak your ordained "truth"?

Peter: "" But the fact is still there that in its pages over and over and over again it claims to be the word of God. That is evidence.'"

LJ: "Claiming something makes it "evidence."?
Only in the minds of the religious."

Peter: "Dictionary:evidence n.1. A thing or things helpful in forming a conclusion or judgment: The broken window was evidence that a burglary had taken place. Scientists weigh the evidence for and against a hypothesis.
2. Something indicative; an outward sign: evidence of grief on a mourner's face.
3. Law. The documentary or oral statements and the material objects admissible as testimony in a court of law.
tr.v., -denced, -denc·ing, -denc·es.
1. To indicate clearly; exemplify or prove.
2. To support by testimony; attest."

"Prove" --right on. No proof in your words or bible.

LJ: "The Koran (or one of its off-shoots) claims killing infidels will get you 72 virgins in heaven. That's evidence?"

Exactly my point and how does Jesus being born from a virgin "coincide with what is real?" Only because you believe it is coming from God

LJ: "What about the impossibility of Jesus rising from the dead?

Peter: "Not impossible for God, although I don't expect you to grasp that fact since you live in the realm of possibility only in a natural world."

LJ: "Of Jesus being born of a Virgin?
"Of Jesus feeding hundreds with a couple of dead fish?
"Of Jesus bringing people back from the dead?"

Peter: "Yes.'

How does any of this "coincide with evidence"? none. You demand other religions to coincide with evidence and you do not demand it from your own--or you claim your religion has evidence but it has no more evidence than anyone else. You are taking the word evidence which has several different definitions and you are applying them to religion. The "evidence" in a critique of religion requires "proof" not "testimony". In a court of law, you must prove (beyond a reasonable doubt) that someone is guilty. You, Peter, must prove to me beyond a reasonable doubt that Jesus was born of a Virgin. And someone's eye-witness "testimony" is not proof.

LJ: "The Bible contradicts its own absolute truth if we go by this definition."

Peter: "Oh really, how does it do that Lindajean?"

It claims that we ought to love our neighbors as ourselves and then it says an eye for an eye. It says we ought to forgive and then it says you will go to hell if you don't believe. Those are contradictions of absolute truths. There are more.

LJ: "Why do you think our forefathers (the men who wrote the Constitution) rebelled against England, the Monarchy and the Church?"

Exactly my point. They were crucified by a Monarchy and State Religion.

Peter: "I believe you are wrong. I believe it was to protect their right to worship God as they saw fit, so that no one could take that right away as many are in the process of trying to do now in your land. If you want to protect your own right to worship as you believe, then you have to grant others the same right to worship as they see fit, for the very fact that one day the religious principles that your constitution was founded on may be in jeopardy."

This is part of the first amendment called the establishment clause. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

Those words are very clear. Gov cannot tell me who to worship and Gov cannot prevent me from worshiping whom I want. It doesn't get any clearer.

You only see one side of the coin. There is the right to worship without the government intervening. No one is trying to keep you from worshiping God in this country. You have that freedom. The other side of the coin is the government does not have the right to tell you who to worship, who your God is and force you to believe something you do not want to believe.

Peter: "I believe some of these people who framed your constitution wanted the church to influence government."

There is no mention of God in the Constitution. So whatever influence they wanted in the Gov they must had not wanted it very badly. Why would they want church influence when they fought a war with Brittain to get out from under a monarchy dictated by the Church of England?

LJ: "In a theocracy there is no choice about who you will worship."

Peter: "In an atheist regime there is no worship, except of man worshiping himself. "I am so wise, there is nothing I cannot do."

And you believe the Government ought to tell me (an atheist) who and what to worship? Who and what to believe? That is CREEPY.

You keep dancing around this. Why not tell me what you really think?

Exactly. "Heaven help" me. I am in the minority (Atheist) and from your words you want the Gov to start deciding what "truths" I ought to believe.

You support truth with the Bible. That is no different than me supporting truth with some thing else. Our truths are relative.
The best we can do is behave in ways that minimize harming others. And coveting my neighbor or "forgetting" the Sabbath , etc...have nothing to do with that.

Posted by: lindajean | March 28, 2008 7:32 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Hi Lindajean,

Interesting post. I will try and explain why the Ten Commandments address the issues you talked about. Sorry I don't have time now. Work comes early.

Let me sum it up quickly now and I will return to it at a later date, the Lord willing.

"Let no debt remain outstanding, except the continuing debt to love one another, for he who loves his fellowman has fulfilled the law. The commandments, "Do not commit adultery," "Do not murder," "Do not steal," "Do not covet," and whatever other commandment there may be, are summed up in this one rule: "Love your neighbor as yourself." Love does no harm to its neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law." (Romans 13:8-10)

So this rule sums up the law. I'll explain more later, the Lord willing.

LJ: "You never answered my theocracy questions."

LJ: "Peter, so you are saying you would want to live in a theocracy that “quells the words of LJ and atheists” as long as you could worship your God?"

Lindajean, that theocracy will never come until the Lord Jesus Christ returns. In the mean time the best we could ever achieve is a poor second. But a society based on Biblical truths is better than one based on little truth. A society that lived in harmony with the Lord's teaching would be one that loved its neighbor and only wanted the best for its neighbor, one in which the needs of the poor would be looked after, others would be honored and thought of above the interests of oneself, where the virtues of love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, gentleness and self control would be sought after, where going the extra mile for not only your enemy, but also your neighbor would be the norm, where what is evil is hated.

LJ: "When you say, “Praising God, rejoicing in the [your] truth” this means you want a theocracy that denies a person’s freedom of speech?"

Not my truth Lindajean, God's truth, and as such all human beings are to be treated fairly, although justly, but in any fair and just government there are certain freedoms to be enjoyed. Freedoms have limitations and as such justice is still required. To be free to do anything is not healthy. It only takes a little yeast to spread through the whole batter of dough.
Freedom in everything is anarchy. Freedom of speech to degrade and abuse another verbally is cruelty, or slander and misrepresent can be a criminal offense. Where do you draw the line?

LJ: "If the answer is yes, what other freedoms are you willing to quell? You already have the right to worship your God (under the Constitution or the Canadian equivalent.)"

Freedom of speech has limitations even in the USA. Some things a person should be accountable for.

LJ: "Why do you need to “quell” others’ words in your God-loving theocracy?"

It depends on what is said. It would not be a theocracy based on truth long if it was not governed by the principles of the one and only true God.

ME: "“ But the fact is still there that in its pages over and over and over again it claims to be the word of God. That is evidence.’"

LJ: "Claiming something makes it “evidence.”?
Only in the minds of the religious."

The Bible claims it is the word of God and as such I appeal to it as evidence. Whether you wish to see it that way or not does not change the fact that its pages claim to be the very words of God, over and over. As such it is evidence.

Dictionary:
evidence

n.

1. A thing or things helpful in forming a conclusion or judgment: The broken window was evidence that a burglary had taken place. Scientists weigh the evidence for and against a hypothesis.
2. Something indicative; an outward sign: evidence of grief on a mourner's face.
3. Law. The documentary or oral statements and the material objects admissible as testimony in a court of law.

tr.v., -denced, -denc·ing, -denc·es.

1. To indicate clearly; exemplify or prove.
2. To support by testimony; attest.

LJ: "The Koran (or one of its off-shoots) claims killing infidels will get you 72 virgins in heaven. That’s evidence?"

Yes, but how well does it coincide with what is real? Studying the life of Muhammad shows he was influenced by a number of religious teachings; Zoroastrianism, Judaism, Christianity and the local pagan deity of the half moon.

ME: “Science believes the universe and this world had a beginning, whereas God proclaims He is without beginning, so which is more feasible? That is evidence.”

LJ: "Something without beginning is more feasible than something with a beginning?
This is evidence?"

It is when you look at the nature of this world and the living. No where do we see or has anyone ever witnessed life coming from non-life and yet that is a pet theory of evolution. How is it possible? The same could be said for the current most popular scientific theory of origins, the Big Bang. Supposedly this universe had a beginning according to this theory (and I would agree, but not on the time frame or method), yet in order for something it come into being in all we ever witness something had to give it being. Life gives birth to life and nothing we ever witness creates itself from nothing.

ME: “As I said before, the evidence is the impossibility of the contrary.’"

LJ: "What about the impossibility of Jesus rising from the dead?

Not impossible for God, although I don't expect you to grasp that fact since you live in the realm of possibility only in a natural world.

LJ: "Of Jesus being born of a Virgin?"

Yes.

LJ: "Of Jesus feeding hundreds with a couple of dead fish?"

Yes.

LJ: "Of Jesus bringing people back from the dead?"

Yes.

ME: “It makes sense that only a mind can give birth to or create another mind.”

LJ: "Evolution makes sense. A birth of my son with a thinking mind is from evolution. That thinking mind evolved."

Okay, please explain how it can happen and where you have ever witnessed it happening that a non-thinking, non-logical, mindless, non-living process or for that matter a physical, mindless, unthinking, non-living material has given birth to a living, thinking, being. You live by one massive leap of faith Lindajean, unless you can do that, the kind of faith that fairy tales of made of. "Once upon a time, long, long, long ago..."

ME: "Absolute truth implies at least two things: 1) that whatever is true at one time and in one place is true at all times and in all places, and 2) that whatever is true for one person is true for all persons. Absolute truth does not change [for God cannot lie]" When Skeptics Ask, p. 255-256.

LJ: "The Bible contradicts its own absolute truth if we go by this definition."

Oh really, how does it do that Lindajean?

ME: “Your country was built on the concepts and principles of God. It is no longer so because, just like Israel in ancient times, they forgot the One who was true.’

LJ: "The Constitution was built on ideals."

Those ideals in large came from minds that were influenced by faith in the living God.

ME: “Praising God, rejoicing in the truth and inviting, as God has called Christians to, others to share in His mercy and grace.”

LJ: "A government based on God is a form of tyranny."

Tyranny is a form of government based on cruelty and injustice. God is completely just and fair and those breaking His law get what they deserve, unless God is merciful to them by His grace. You don't earn mercy. It is something that is given to the undeserving. The rest will be justly punished.

LJ: "Why do you think our forefathers (the men who wrote the Constitution) rebelled against England, the Monarchy and the Church?"

I'm sure there were many reasons, but many who first settled America were Puritans, fleeing from religious persecution, so they built into your constitution a clause so that men would have the right to worship freely, as they were denied.

LJ: "Why do you think there is the exclusion clause in the first amendment."

For the very reason I stated above.

LJ: "Because they did not want the State to be influenced by the Church AND they wanted people to have the right to worship whoever they wanted (or not to worship whoever they wanted.)"

I believe you are wrong. I believe it was to protect their right to worship God as they saw fit, so that no one could take that right away as many are in the process of trying to do now in your land. If you want to protect your own right to worship as you believe, then you have to grant others the same right to worship as they see fit, for the very fact that one day the religious principles that your constitution was founded on may be in jeopardy.

I believe some of these people who framed your constitution wanted the church to influence government.

LJ: "In a theocracy there is no choice about who you will worship."

In an atheist regime there is no worship, except of man worshiping himself. "I am so wise, there is nothing I cannot do."

ME: “The scary thought Lindajean is a relative, postmodern, pluralistic world in which truth is whatever you choose to make it. In such a world anything is morally possible, anything is socially acceptable and all things are permissible as long as you can find the strength in numbers to enforce your belief. Heaven help you if you are in the minority.”

LJ: "Heaven help you if you are in the minority in a theocracy."

Rather He who is in heaven help you.

LJ: "I am not fearful of “depth”. I seek it out."

ME: “You are not seeking it out here. Open-mindedness is not always a good thing. How do you arrive at truth if all views are acceptable (except the Christian view) and yet they are all contrary? They all make different claims. Can they all be right?”

LJ: "No they are not all right. I have never claimed “all views are acceptable.”"

I give you credit for that!

LJ quote: “Rational arguments do not work on religious people, otherwise there would be no religious people.”—Dr. House"

Rational arguments do not work on atheists, otherwise there would be no atheists." - Peter Huff

What is your point? Anyone can make a statement. The question is whether it is true. First you have to show me how you can know it is true.

"The fool says in his heart, 'There is no God.'"
Quote from God, Psalm 14:1.

Posted by: Peter Huff | March 26, 2008 11:16 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Hi Peter:

You quoted me: "Nothing is absolute."

You: “There is a logical problem with making a statement like this Lindajean. As soon as you say "nothing" you have crossed the boundary of limited knowledge into the realm of the absolute, so your statement is self-refuting. It can't be true, for in order for it to be true you would have to absolutely know everything and if that were the case something would be absolute. The problem in denying absolutes is that you have to state one to deny one. It just shows the utter irrationality of your position.”

Well, you need to put the whole quote together in context : “Nothing is absolute. The closest we have to absolute is in the physical, material world through the laws of physics and nature. But even on the quantum level things begin to change.”

And by that statement I meant it in reference to human beliefs and opinions which are subjective and ever-changing. Change is inevitable. I am not saying we should not have any (moral) absolutes, because we should. Humans should all agree that abusing and killing innocent people is immoral (for example). That child abuse is wrong, that taking an innocent life is wrong. That mutilating the genitals of young females is wrong, that stoning a woman for adultery is wrong, that genocide is wrong, that slavery is wrong, etc...There are some things so atrocious we ought to be against them because they harm people and they take away people’s individual rights. So, you are taking my statement very literally (not a surprise.) It’s implied meaning was that the truths you speak of (from the Bible for example ) are not absolute. They are not absolute because people and cultures vary over time and place. Once again, I agree with you that we need some moral absolutes, although you and I are probably not going to agree on all/most of them.

LJ: "In particular we ought to have laws against corrupt and religiously inclined governments that torture their own people. There is no sane reason on this planet why young girls are forced to have their genitals mutilated, women are stoned to death for having “illicit” sex, children die from malnutrition, lack of clean water and preventable, women are raped and children are sexually molested. There is no reason why 6 billion people on this planet allow such moral atrocities to happen."

You: “I agree with you and would point to God's perfect standard, the Ten Commandments. But try keeping them and you will soon realize that you need a Savior. You are guilty of breaking them just as much as I am.’

Your 10 commandments say nothing about slavery, female circumcision, stoning women to death, etc... as being immoral. It says not honoring your parents is immoral, coveting your neighbor is immoral, not “keeping” the Sabbath holy is immoral. These are not issues of immorality!!!! LOL! These are issues of someone's social convention. These are moral “in-absolutes”. Who cares if my neighbor covets me? Who cares if I don’t go to church on Sunday. Who cares if I swear and say God’s name in vain? Who cares if children who have monsters for parents don’t honor them? “Honor” is not a moral issue. Explain how all of the 10 commandments keeps people from truly acting immorally given all of the world’s outrageous atrocities.

You, “Again you make statements that are absolute. How do you know "all" morals are subjective? How could God ever be subjective since by definition He is the knower of all things and is perfectly wise? How do you know the Bible is subjective? Is that your subjective opinion? Why would I put any trust in your subjective opinion? You have no standard to appeal to that can make sense out of morals without God. Why in your world-view was Hitler's Germany wrong? In an evolutionary world-view it was the strong exploiting the weak, just as rape or the law of the jungle could be as well in an evolutionary worldview. You have even pointed this out before if my memory serves me correctly.”

Well, considering the theory of evolution has been around about 150 years then what justified all the horrors of the world before "the strong exploiting the weak?" Humans have been acting immoral long before Darwin's theory came along to "justify" everything as you claim.

In the physical world there are absolutes. The earth rotates around the sun. That is a true absolute physical law. But can we say killing babies in Darfur is an absolute immorality? Well, you and I would agree it is immoral. We can say Peter and Linda believe killing babies in Darfur is always immoral. It is absolute in our minds, but it isn't absolute in the minds of those doing the killing. How can it be a moral “absolute” if there are people in the world that apparently don’t think it is immoral. That is what I mean when I say there are no absolutes. I wish there were moral absolutes. The world would be a better place. In general morals are absolute only because you believe they are or because you believe they ought to be.

The problem is people will never agree from culture to culture or person to person what is moral. And even people like you and I are not going to agree. So saying the Bible or 10 commandments are moral absolutes is simply your opinion. I don’t agree that “honor” is a moral issue. I don’t agree that saying “god” in a swear word is immoral. I don’t agree that worshiping graven images is immoral. These are not immoral acts, Peter. Not in my mind. Not in others’ minds.

Your moral absolutes are no more absolute than anyone else’s or mine.

LJ: "The best we can do is agree that certain immoral acts (like the ones I listed above) need to be stopped."

You: “Why should we agree?’

Because the belief that it is wrong has evolved. Most people in civilized society--the civilized society of the 21st century would agree it is immoral. There is a general understanding, knowledge, that certain acts (we call immoral) are not to the benefit of our species. We know that harming others is not beneficial to their well being. And we know that empathy and altruism are behaviors that have evolved in us over time. We know that some of these traits are found in other primates and mammals. We also know that without them we would not survive as a species.

You: “No we can do better. We can call something that is wrong wrong and be certain it is wrong because an absolute, objective, infinitely wise Being who created us has told us it is so or we have no validity to make a complaint. No God = all things possible. All things possible = anything goes. Anything goes = who are you to say otherwise?”

We cannot call something wrong because you believe in a God who tells you it is wrong. We must believe it is wrong because we know it harms people and that it is not beneficial to our species. (I would also add that with the increase in world population, we are beginning to lose sight of our evolved cooperative states--it is as though we have started rationalizing why it is OK to create wars, genocide, holocausts, etc... We are getting to the point where there are so many people we see each other as liabilities instead of assets. When the population was smaller we had a real need for each other just to stay alive.)

LJ: "And people who perpetrate these kinds of immoral acts need to be reduced to nothing so they cannot continue their sadism and hate."

You: “In an atheist, evolutionary world why? It all depends on whom is in power. That is the bottom line.”

It has nothing to do with who is in power. Only that those in power can act out their “wrongness” and get away with it. But those who are in power do not get to tell me (as an individual) what is moral. Otherwise I would have to agree with Bush that his ugly little war is moral. No way!

LJ: "Preaching the Bible isn’t going to stop the pathologies of the world. The only thing that can stop pathology is to look it straight in the eyes and prevent the pathological people from continuing it. It comes to raw power over corrupt and pathological power."

You: “That is all evolutionary thought can do is control by power and might. Right and wrong become the flavor of whoever is in power. Who decides on what is corrupt? The porn industry? Your loco politician? How far will they go?”

We’ve already had this conversation Peter. Go back and read what I said in earlier posts.

You: “Whatever you want to call it the fact remains that the majority either went along with or were caught up in the movement, just as they were in Mao's cultural revolution in which an estimated 80-100 million people were put to death.”

LJ: "Yes, like the Catholic Church that got caught up in Hitler’s extermination of the Jews. So much for moral “authority.” It just went down the tubes."

You: “Hey, the majority believe in evolution.”

The majority believe in evolution? Not sure that is true. The majority don’t even understand evolution.

LJ: "Not. Without absolute democratic governments that understand the concept of “individual rights” and “civil rights” will you have “the powers that be get away with [it].”

You: “How absolutely sure are you of that? You throw a lot of absolutes around for someone who does not believe there are any Lindajean. I point this out to hopefully make you realize again the weakness of your argument. It is like doublethink in George Orwells 1984. The Ministry of Truth or in your case evolutionary indoctrination has really done its number well!”

Democratic Gov is the best we have. Granted it isn’t perfect, but nothing in this life is.

BTW: You never answered my theocracy questions.

Posted by: lindajean | March 26, 2008 7:48 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Timmy:
You said : You misread me. I'm not testy at all. Just matter of fact.

I am pretty good at “reading” people. Reading people on a blog is more difficult.
Matter of fact trumps testy.
So I will take you at your word.

I said:
"My idea is for Gov to educate and provide knowledge to people about successful ways to raise healthy and well-adjusted children. This isn’t rocket science and understood only by the intellectual elite. Well-adjusted children grow up tho be responsible, employable and literate citizens."

You said: “This debate would never have gotten started had you said:
‘My idea is for Gov to educate and provide knowledge to people about successful ways to raise healthy and well-adjusted children’.

If I remember correctly, I said that the Gov ought to give tax breaks to people who have children. I did make a correction after first saying “married people with children” but then I corrected that statement, because that wasn’t what I meant. That was many comments ago.

You: “But what started this debate was you making the statement that government should promote MARRIAGE.”

Please find the quote. I probably said something like the Gov. needs to promote healthy relationships and research shows that married people are more “stable” and this is a good thing for for children. If the research is correct, then Gov ought to promote what is good for children. However, you have made a good argument that marriage with its 52% ending in divorce clouds the picture and so maybe we need to look at the research a little more thoroughly.

Timmy: “I have shown quite well that not only is marriage "not for everyone" but in fact it is "not for most people". It is a bad idea for most people. Unless you think that 85% cheating is a good thing. Or unless you have some solution to that problem other than, those people should have been honest enough to know that marriage is not for them in the first place.”

Blogger, you have made a good argument. Much of it is very logical and so it is hard to argue with the black and white numbers. What I have argued is that life is not always black and white. There is a lot of gray. I tend to see gray. You see black and white. That probably has a lot to do with the way we look at the world (and some of it is gender differences.)

You: “As for monogamy? I still see you as a "head in the sander".
Meaning you know that the problem exists. But you see no reason for anyone to take any action on it. Onward ho with the status quo. Everyone just keep getting married because it's working for Lindajean.”

I understand that for men monogamy is less common. And I definitely understand that a problem exists. And it isn’t JUST about me. That would be silly. But, yes, to be honest, part of it is tied into my own perspectives based on my own experiences and knowledge. It is hard to separate because it does involve the personal, just as it involves your own personal experiences and perspective. I am not going to apologize for that even if you want to call it sticking my head on the sand.

But I think you are ignoring the fact that I am, generally speaking, an open minded person and I am tolerant and even accepting of other lifestyles that are different than my own. In fact, I encourage people to beat their own drums and be genuine about who they are. So you can say “onward ho with the status quo” but only to the extent if that is what people want for themselves.

BTW: I would be interested in knowing how many women would even have this conversation with you and agree with you as much as I do. We actually agree on many points here. Certainly few religious women would. So that is about 80% right there.

You: “I think that in spite of all I have shown, you still think that most people should get married and be monogamous, and that the men just need to smarten up and stop being so damn promiscuous. Maybe a little counseling will do the trick?”

Not necessarily. I have always said that people ought to be honest and cheating is unethical. I have always said people ought not get married unless they want to. If men are so anti-monogamous they ought to stop getting married. That is what I have said. This comes down to personal choices for individuals. I think counseling can help people communicate better with each other and a person’s marriage can be strengthened by good communications skills. A lot of people lack this. Also, counseling can help give people a better understanding of the other person’s perspective. That can also help relationships. But, I am not saying counseling is going to change any great rifts or differences in a marriage or help align one person’s values with another’s.

You: “I have offered up a solution. People need to start being honest about the reality of monogamy not being the norm, and accept the fact non-monogamy is the norm. We need to change this paradigm to something that is more in line with reality. You are either in agreement with this, or you have some other solution, or you are a "head in the sander". Onward ho with the 85% cheating status quo.”

That remains to be seen. I’ll just have to ponder it some more.

Posted by: lindajean | March 25, 2008 6:17 PM
Report Offensive Comment

LJ said:
"You seem a little testy in these Easter Day comments from yesterday. Perhaps you are getting weary of our conversations"

You misread me. I'm not testy at all. Just matter of fact.

Posted by: timmy | March 25, 2008 2:34 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Hi Lindajean,

You said:
"My idea is for Gov to educate and provide knowledge to people about successful ways to raise healthy and well-adjusted children. This isn’t rocket science and understood only by the intellectual elite. Well-adjusted children grow up tho be responsible, employable and literate citizens."

This debate would never have gotten started had you said:
"My idea is for Gov to educate and provide knowledge to people about successful ways to raise healthy and well-adjusted children"

I am in complete agreement with that.
But what started this debate was you making the statement that government should promote MARRIAGE.

I have shown quite well that not only is marriage "not for everyone" but in fact it is "not for most people". It is a bad idea for most people. Unless you think that 85% cheating is a good thing. Or unless you have some solution to that problem other than, those people should have been honest enough to know that marriage is not for them in the first place.

As for monogamy? I still see you as a "head in the sander".
Meaning you know that the problem exists. But you see no reason for anyone to take any action on it. Onward ho with the status quo. Everyone just keep getting married because it's working for Lindajean.

I think that in spite of all I have shown, you still think that most people should get married and be monogamous, and that the men just need to smarten up and stop being so damn promiscuous. Maybe a little counseling will do the trick?

I have offered up a solution. People need to start being honest about the reality of monogamy not being the norm, and accept the fact non-monogamy is the norm. We need to change this paradigm to something that is more in line with reality. You are either in agreement with this, or you have some other solution, or you are a "head in the sander". Onward ho with the 85% cheating status quo.

Posted by: timmy | March 25, 2008 2:30 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Hi Lindajean,

ME: “....Without an absolute, ultimate, objective standard how do you determine they are "good"? You may need them, but two opposing views of good becomes a problem in determining which view is actually good if either is.”

LJ: "Nothing is absolute."

There is a logical problem with making a statement like this Lindajean. As soon as you say "nothing" you have crossed the boundary of limited knowledge into the realm of the absolute, so your statement is self-refuting. It can't be true, for in order for it to be true you would have to absolutely know everything and if that were the case something would be absolute. The problem in denying absolutes is that you have to state one to deny one. It just shows the utter irrationality of your position.

LJ: "The closest we have to absolute is in the physical, material world through the laws of physics and nature. But even on the quantum level things begin to change."

The next question is how did the laws get there? I can point to human law and know that where there is a law there is a lawgiver. How does a process create a law? How does information come from anything but a mind. A stone does not think and is not mindful. The same is true of mixing chemicals together. So every example I could find in reality only points to a being creating laws. So whose worldview is more logical? Again your precious theory of evolution is useless in explaining any of this for that very reason; it goes against everything we see and witness.

LJ: "We ought to have some absolute morals about how we treat each other."

We do, you just fail to see them.

LJ: "I will not argue that at all."

Smart move!

I agree with you and would point to God's perfect standard, the Ten Commandments. But try keeping them and you will soon realize that you need a Savior. You are guilty of breaking them just as much as I am.

ME: “Whose acceptable standard? Whose past experience? Whether it is your subjective experience or that of another or a group of others how do you determine good when to viewpoints are opposite each other, both claiming to be the good.”

LJ: "All morals are subjective. God is subjective. The Bible is subjective."

Again you make statements that are absolute. How do you know "all" morals are subjective? How could God ever be subjective since by definition He is the knower of all things and is perfectly wise? How do you know the Bible is subjective? Is that your subjective opinion? Why would I put any trust in your subjective opinion? You have no standard to appeal to that can make sense out of morals without God. Why in your worldview was Hitler's Germany wrong? In an evolutionary worldview it was the strong exploiting the weak, just as rape or the law of the jungle could be as well in an evolutionary worldview. You have even pointed this out before if my memory serves me correctly.

LJ: "The best we can do is agree that certain immoral acts (like the ones I listed above) need to be stopped."

Why should we agree?

No we can do better. We can call something that is wrong wrong and be certain it is wrong because an absolute, objective, infinitely wise Being who created us has told us it is so or we have no validity to make a complaint. No God = all things possible. All things possible = anything goes. Anything goes = who are you to say otherwise?

LJ: "And people who perpetrate these kinds of immoral acts need to be reduced to nothing so they cannot continue their sadism and hate."

In an atheist, evolutionary world why? It all depends on whom is in power. That is the bottom line.

That is all evolutionary thought can do is control by power and might. Right and wrong become the flavor of whoever is in power. Who decides on what is corrupt? The porn industry? Your loco politician? How far will they go?

ME: “Whatever you want to call it the fact remains that the majority either went along with or were caught up in the movement, just as they were in Mao's cultural revolution in which an estimated 80-100 million people were put to death.”

LJ: "Yes, like the Catholic Church that got caught up in Hitler’s extermination of the Jews. So much for moral “authority.” It just went down the tubes."

Hey, the majority believe in evolution. Majority does not make something right. Right has to have something to set itself against and that standard is God. Any other standard is just the in thing and is like sifting sand. That is evidenced by looking at what was thought wrong two decades ago that is today considered right.

ME: “Without an absolute standard it is not a matter of right or wrong but what the powers that be get away with. If Hitler is in control your telling him that murdering 6 million Jews is wrong is of no consequence because he makes the rules that determine what is good, just like in ancient times the monarchy was the absolute rule. Opposition results in death and silence to other views.”

LJ: "Not. Without absolute democratic governments that understand the concept of “individual rights” and “civil rights” will you have “the powers that be get away with [it].”

How absolutely sure are you of that? You throw a lot of absolutes around for someone who does not believe there are any Lindajean. I point this out to hopefully make you realize again the weakness of your argument. It is like doublethink in George Orwells 1984. The Ministry of Truth or in your case evolutionary indoctrination has really done its number well!

LJ: "It wasn’t Christianity that saved the world from Hitler. It was the “free” world. The Allied forces."

Based on the Christian ideals of right and wrong.

March 18, 2008 7:48 AM

ME: "By delusional I mean that your world view is untrue and you are willingly deceived into believing it, even though it does not conform to what is real. So you are believing a lie."

LJ: "I would agree that is what I think about your world view as well. That you are believing a lie but that does not mean you are "pathologically" or "dysfunctionally" delusional."

I realize that for God's word has already confirmed it.

Thanks for your thoughts. As always I enjoy your posts! I agree with Soja. Great discussion on marriage.

Posted by: Peter Huff | March 25, 2008 3:15 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Timmy:

I said, "Physically” is not “weird”"

You said, “I said it was "weird" that you put it twice.

You’re right. I put it twice (after looking at it again.) I meant to say, “psychologically/mentally, emotionally and physically”...

I said, "Just as psychological stress can definitely effect a person’s physical blood pressure, heart beat, etc....You cannot separate physical from mental, psychological and emotional. Including x."

Timmy said, “Nice try. But even crapy X is a stress reliever. i.e. healthy for you physically. It's quite a stretch to say that X with love is healthier for you "physically" with than X without love. They are both stress relievers, and good physical exercise.

When I said “healthier” I am meaning more physically satisfying. I guess I didn’t make that distinction. Yes, it is “healthy” physically but I am arguing it is physically more satisfying for women --x with love. That is what I mean. Do you understand what I mean and that there is a difference and a distinction. I did not clarify that very well in the last post. I stand corrected.

Timmy said, “This idea that love makes X more physically beneficial is really reaching. You stick with it if you like, but I give it no weight in this debate.”

Well, you are the one that said, love and x are wonderful (but not necessary). If love doesn’t make it more “beneficial” then what would you call it? And now you are saying it has “no weight”.

LOL! What are you saying? It is difficult to pin you down on this one. Are we still on Venus and Mars?

Posted by: lindajean | March 24, 2008 8:06 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Timmy:

You said: “The world needs fewer people getting married and having kids not more. In case you hadn't noticed we have a population problem looming. The human race no longer needs to struggle for survival by numbers. We have that down. The old paradigm of "everybody do their part to propagate the species and multiply as much as possible" has not been necessary for hundreds and hundreds of years. We now need for most people to actually opt out of that game because there are just not enough resources for continued growth of the human race. Not until we find another planet. But until then, people of course have the right to have all the babies they want, but we should stop pushing it as everybody's obligation to continue in this tradition.”

Absolutely. And I’m aware of the population problem. It will double by 2050 if we keep going at this rate (12 billion).

Timmy: “Having kids should now be only something that people who are really into should do. Not a thing that we all think is the normal thing that we all should do automatically.’

Agreed.

Timmy: “Lindajean. Don't you think that there would be a lot better parenting out there if it was not something that EVERYONE was told they should do if they are normal. If it was something that only people who are really really into it and dedicated to it decided to do? Don't you see how many people get married and have kids like drones, without even thinking that much about it? This is because it is considered abnormal if you don't. So everyone just does it. And most don't work out.”

I’ve never argued any different. You are “preaching” to the choir here. But "into it" and dedicated are two different things. People can think they are "into it" (initially) but end up not being very dedicated.

Timmy: “We don't need more kids from everyone. We need quality not quantity. Government promoting marriage (which almost never works) gives us quantity, not quality.”

There is nothing that indicates Gov has to promote “bad” policy. Only that they have a responsibility to promote/educate parents on how to raise healthy and well-adjusted children.

Timmy: “Where as a government promoting the idea of more people opting out of that whole enterprise and putting their energy and talents to other uses for mankind, frees up natural resources for the rest of us, and ensures that only people who are really dedicated to raising kids do so.”

I think promoting the "opting" out will not be accepted by too many "traditional-thinking" people such as in religious people.

Timmy: “Stop the drone mill that spits out multitudes of crappy kids.
The world doesn't need more mouths to feed.”

More agreement.

My idea is for Gov to educate and provide knowledge to people about successful ways to raise healthy and well-adjusted children. This isn’t rocket science and understood only by the intellectual elite. Well-adjusted children grow up tho be responsible, employable and literate citizens.

The Gov also has a responsibility for poor and poverty-stricken children and their parents deserve some kind of tax breaks. It is poor children who often suffer the most.

Too many people marry, have children and are completely ignorant about raising them and basic child development.

I don’t think we can expect only “good” parents to reproduce. It is, after all, a “natural” biological function much as seed-spreading is. We do need more Gov. accessible birth-control and with all this education. Promoting abstinence is about as effective as a 55 mph speed limit on interstate highways.

You seem a little testy in these Easter Day comments from yesterday. Perhaps you are getting weary of our conversations.

Posted by: lindajean | March 24, 2008 6:55 PM
Report Offensive Comment

LJ said:

"Physically” is not “weird”"

I said it was "weird" that you put it twice.

LJ said:

"Just as psychological stress can definitely effect a person’s physical blood pressure, heart beat, etc....You cannot separate physical from mental, psychological and emotional. Including x."

Nice try. But even crapy X is a stress reliever. i.e. healthy for you physically.
It's quite a stretch to say that X with love is healthier for you "physically" with than X without love. They are both stress relievers, and good physical exercise. This idea that love makes X more physically beneficial is really reaching. You stick with it if you like, but I give it no weight in this debate.

Posted by: timmy | March 24, 2008 3:05 PM
Report Offensive Comment

LJ said:

"Well, my answer has always been the Gov. ought to promote healthy lifestyles that benefit children. What those lifestyles are are obviously up for debate"

And as long as they are up for debate, the government should stay out of it. In other words, as long as 52% are getting divorced while the kids are still in school, and 85% are cheating on each other, the government should not be promoting marriage.

The world needs fewer people getting married and having kids not more. In case you hadn't noticed we have a population problem looming. The human race no longer needs to struggle for survival by numbers. We have that down. The old paradigm of "everybody do their part to propagate the species and multiply as much as possible" has not been necessary for hundreds and hundreds of years. We now need for most people to actually opt out of that game because there are just not enough resources for continued growth of the human race. Not until we find another planet. But until then, people of course have the right to have all the babies they want, but we should stop pushing it as everybody's obligation to continue in this tradition.

Having kids should now be only something that people who are really into should do. Not a thing that we all think is the normal thing that we all should do automatically.

Lindajean. Don't you think that there would be a lot better parenting out there if it was not something that EVERYONE was told they should do if they are normal. If it was something that only people who are really really into it and dedicated to it decided to do? Don't you see how many people get married and have kids like drones, without even thinking that much about it? This is because it is considered abnormal if you don't. So everyone just does it. And most don't work out.

We don't need more kids from everyone. We need quality not quantity. Government promoting marriage (which almost never works) gives us quantity, not quality.

Where as a government promoting the idea of more people opting out of that whole enterprise and putting their energy and talents to other uses for mankind, frees up natural resources for the rest of us, and ensures that only people who are really dedicated to raising kids do so.

Stop the drone mill that spits out multitudes of crappy kids.
The world doesn't need more mouths to feed.

Posted by: timmy | March 23, 2008 7:01 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Peter said:

"BTW where are the answers to my questions?"

I told you. They have all been answered many times. You just don't like the answers.

Posted by: timmy | March 23, 2008 6:23 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Timmy:

You quoted me saying:

"For some x without love is simply not satisfying."

This response came out of a comment you made a long time back saying,

“...90% of men will not be interested in monogamy for life. And love has nothing to do with it. You need to separate love form sex. Or just keep your head in the sand like the rest of society.”

When you said “you need to separate love from x” I took that very literally (my error now I can see.) I see now that you meant that I/women need to understand that x and love can be separate and for men it is more common and easier. I do not think (anymore) you are saying I (or women in particular) need to separate x from love.

So yes, I think we have come to an understanding on this.

Posted by: lindajean | March 23, 2008 8:35 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Yes Timmy, a thing. A process is a thing. Hey, BTW where are the answers to my questions?

Posted by: Peter Huff | March 23, 2008 8:35 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Hi Timmy:

Timmy: “This has been my claim all along. But in your last post, you referred women who "don't" separate love from X. And you also referred to women who "can't" separate love from X. I argued that there is no one who "can't". Only those who "don't" because they prefer not to.”

Sometimes there is a fine line between “can’t” and “don’t”.

Timmy: “I don't know about "physically". And you put that one twice, which is weird.
I agree with the others, I have always said the same thing. But physically? I'm not sure what you mean here.
Either way, the point is, that yes, for most people, X is a heightened, more emotionally rewarding, almost transcendent experience with love. Nothing I have said stops people from having love with their X.”

“Physically” is not “weird”. Why would physical be any less of an issue than psychological, mental and emotional? A person’s psychological, mental and emotional can certainly effect their physical state and her physical response (to x). Just as psychological stress can definitely effect a person’s physical blood pressure, heart beat, etc....You cannot separate physical from mental, psychological and emotional. Including x. (And if you need a short lesson in female sexuality ---because female xuality involves the integration of all of these physical and mental domains for xual satisfaction much of the time--then I will refer you to some books/websites based on scientific research.)

Timmy: “And as my answers hopefully pointed out, different strokes for different folks.
I don't like your attitude that the government should promote the lifestyle that fits your personal choice.”

Well, my answer has always been the Gov. ought to promote healthy lifestyles that benefit children. What those lifestyles are are obviously up for debate.

Posted by: lindajean | March 23, 2008 8:31 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Hi Timmy:

You said: “No one asked you to accept it as a lifestyle for yourself.
But as a lifestyle of most men, you better accept it. (especially since you haven't got a clue as to how to fix it)...Accept it, or be bitterly disappointed for the rest of your life.”

Bitterly disappointed? That’s a bit of a stretch. If nothing else comes out of this discussion, I will have learned from you that virtually all men want to be promiscuous. I won’t be bitterly disappointed if promiscuity becomes more acceptable as a lifestyle. Just concerned that more men will adopt it as their own lifestyle, as well, and there will be fewer truly monogamous men.

LJ said:
"Because this will be the norm in your “new world” scenario. Marriage goes down the tube because men are now “honest.” (And marriage/monogamy WILL go down the tube. More on that later.)"

Timmy said: “All because of honesty eh?
Boy this marriage thing really must be something special if it can be destroyed by honesty. lol.

I have never said marriage should not have honesty. We are saying the same thing here. But I am also saying if men were honest with their wives, then they would probably end up divorced. The divorce statistics already indicate something is going on when 50% of marriages end in divorce and 75% of married men are cheating on their wives. The divorces are already happening. If more men were honest, I suspect those numbers would increase.

LJ said:
"Women won’t have to be promiscuous, but if the norm changes toward promiscuity, then there will certainly be more “pressure” to follow the norm. It will be a choice, but like marriage is today, there will be pressure to conform to it"

Timmy: “No.
No one said that the norm would change to promiscuity. That is your word, and your idea. I have never said anything about promiscuity. Only that the norm would not be to marry for life. There will still be many who will choose monogamy, and others will choose something that is very close to monogamy. Many who are accepting of reality will have open relationships. These relationships exist right now LJ and they are on the rise. And they don't resemble any of the crazy examples that you have invented to make such relationships look bad.”

I am using deductive reasoning.
Something has to give here. Either married women are going to acquiesce to their husbands cheating (accept this honest husband and continue their marriage), or they are going to divorce and women will have to think about being promiscuous themselves, or be celibate. I don’t think women are going to opt out for celibacy. Maybe they will go along with husbands cheating, and accept that their husbands will be promiscuous....that is an unknown factor in your scenario. The other unknown factor is if monogamous men will stay monogamous. Like I said, something has got to give. (For every action there is a reaction.)

Timmy: “Again, the only thing that will change is honesty. I can't believe you are arguing against the introduction of honesty because of the destructive force it will be.”

I am not arguing against honesty. I have never made any statements saying people should not be honest. I am trying to reason through this logically. I don’t think things will be exactly the same. I think women are going to react to this. I am not sure in what way but I am willing to say it is possible they will seek out divorce. They do not want to knowingly be in relationships with men that are not monogamous. (I think some would actually prefer it stay under the radar.)

Timmy: “Also, there is not such thing as someone who "can't" separate love from X. Only people who "don't".

Well my last post to you discussed that. Technically, you are right. Women can have x without love. Otherwise rape would be impossible. Women can have x without love but I am saying many women cannot have “good” or “satisfying” x without love. There is such a thing as “good/great” x; “bad” x which is x that is not satisfying on many different levels; and there is is also x that just sucks!

LJ said:
"Unless you completely remove love from X (no way!) you are still going to have jealousies and dishonesty"

Timmy: “(Yes way!)
Like I said. No need to remove love from X.
X is not attached to love in the first place. Unless you attach it yourself. So don't. And jealousy also has nothing to do with love. It is more related to X.”

This is a big point of disagreement. Most women are not going to detach x from love. Why should we? It is not satisfying.

LJ said:"In your honest new world scenario, the tables are turning on them. Monogamy is scarcer and promiscuity is more common. More men are more likely to become promiscuous as well because the floodgates are open."

Timmy said: ‘LJ, you remind me of those people who think that if they legalize marijuana, the people will go crazy and start smoking pot all over the place...”

I hold no fears or alarmist views about making pot legal or being honest about x. Now you are the one getting dramatic. I am outlining a potentially real hypothesis about how this will be played out. I am assuming that if women do not want to be in non-monogamous relationships because their partners are now being promiscuous then monogamy will become scarcer and promiscuity more common. Can you entertain that thought for a moment as a hypothetical?

For every action there is a reaction.

LJ said:
"Can you agree with me that most men do not want the women they love to be promiscuous?
Are men going to accept promiscuity in women they are in love with?"

Timmy: “Men are going to have to accept that if they get to have other X partners, then their spouse also gets to have other X partners. That is only fair. Many men will opt for a monogamous relationship for this reason. And this monogamous arrangement will last as long as it lasts. But it would be ridiculous and stupid for these two to try to codify that arrangement in a ritualistic ceremony complete with legal contract. Because the odds of it lasting forever are not good. It could happen. But no ceremony or vow is going to help it last. It will end when it ends.”

I hypothesize that men are NOT going to accept this scenario. They do not want the woman they love to be promiscuous.

LJ said:
"Do you believe (for example) a man who is madly in love with a woman, a woman whom he has gotten pregnant, a woman who is going to have his child, is going to want her to be promiscuous? She tells him she is 2 months pregnant but she is going to go out and have x with another man that very night? A man is going to say “OK” to that? No way. Please explain this to me?"

Timmy: “Here is a classic example of the kind of childish, and alarmist, scenarios you like to invent to make your point. I don't see the above scenario taking place at all. Why do you think that being honest about X is going to turn people into insensitive irresponsible jerks? These are all just your inventions, Lindajean.”

These are hypotheticals. You seem to not want to discuss situations that I think could be very real in your honest new world. Are you willing to discuss the possibility that a man might become jealous or upset with a woman he has gotten pregnant that is promiscuous? Are you willing to discuss the fact that in your new honest world not everything will be the same as before if women decide to be more promiscuous instead of just being in one-sided non-monogamous relationships where their husband has other partners? There is nothing alarmist about this. These are very real possibilities.

LJ said: "Isn’t this how/why marriage came about in the first place?"

Timmy: “85% cheat. Good plan! Great solution! lol.”

You didn’t answer the question.

LJ said:
"Don’t you think most women will divorce their husbands when they learn the husband is cheating because now he is going to be honest about it? And in non-married monogamous relationships, the woman will leave also, when her partner shares all? My answer: yes."

Timmy: “They would only leave if they thought that they could go out and find a man who will be monogamous. But the reality will tell them that that is not likely. So now the only reason they would leave is if they are no longer in love. And that would be the right thing to do. Damn that honesty. Who invented it? What a trouble maker.”

No they will leave because they are pissed off that their husband/partner lied to them and cheated on them. They may decide they do not love a man who is a liar and cheater and has deceived them. And they may later decide that since only 10% of men are monogamous, and at least 50-60 or more of women are, then they are going to have to be with promiscuous men, or they are going to have to be celibate or they will just decide to be promiscuous themselves.

LJ said:
"I don’t have an answer, Timmy. But I suggest that your answer is very good for men, up to a point, until they fall in love"

Timmy: “And then honesty is no longer the best policy????
Now it's time to start denying the truth?
What the hell are you saying?”

I am not saying dishonesty is the best policy. I am saying that honesty will change some of the dynamics of relationships and I am saying men will still NOT want the woman they love to be promiscuous. I am saying you are still going to have monogamous women who want monogamous men. That is not going to change, but the dynamics will change because it is very probable that there will be more promiscuous men and fewer monogamous men. I can guarantee you almost 100% that monogamous women living with non-monogomous men is not going to cut it at all. Why do you think men lie to their wives now? They lie because they know 100% that their wife would be completely pissed off. And they don’t want their wives having x with other men. Do you think being honest is going to change a woman’s reactions or feeling to her husbands promiscuity? They will just roll over like a dog and say “OK, Hubby, I don’t have a problem with you having x other women?

LOL! Get real, Timmy. This is some fantasy of yours!

Timmy: “I don't know what you are disagreeing with? Honesty?
That's all I am promoting here”

I am disagreeing with you on the effect of honesty and how it more than likely will change the dynamics of relationships. I am not positive how this will be played out. I have suggested a few scenarios that you have labeled “alarmist.” You are saying NOTHING will change only that honesty will be the norm. You are saying honesty will enhance overall quality of life. I am not sure of that. Honesty will shine light on the problem but it isn’t going to enhance or make life better except for the promiscuous men.

Timmy: “The real bottom line.
90% of men are not going to be monogamous.
We can either continue doing it behind your back, or out in the open. You decide if you prefer to live in a state of denial, or a state of reality. If denial is less painful to you, so be it. Onward ho with this marriage thing I guess. Don't ask don't tell?”

I don’t live in a state of denial (unless my husband is really promiscuous and I am not picking up on the signs). I don’t have any reason to believe he is so what am I personally in denial about? I agree with you that 90% of men (or something close to that---it might not be exactly that high..) are promiscuous. I agree that about 60-75% of men cheat on their wives. So I am not disagreeing on the context of your argument.

Timmy: “I just don't know what you are disagreeing with LJ.
Do you think that anything I have said affects your relationship with your husband? Do you think that your relationship would be any different in my world of honesty? How so?”

No, I don’t think anything you have said affects my personal relationship, but I do think (it is possible and probable) that if men are honest about their promiscuity then it will be more attractive to men who are now monogamous. That could indeed affect my personal relationship although I do not know for a fact that it would. That is something I will never know unless your new world comes into being. So hypothetically (not as an alarmist) I would say that it could affect me personally although there is no way of knowing that until the “honesty” becomes a reality.

Timmy: “And if not. What is your concern?”

My concern is that our disagreements are a matter of degree and yet they are very important differences (and I am concerned because you seem not to be able to see those differences, acknowledge those differences and understand those differences).

I believe honesty will change the dynamics of gender relationships but will not necessarily enhance or improve a person’s quality of life.

You believe honesty will make (promiscuous men’s ) lives more bearable because they won’t have to lie (it’s similar to gays coming out of the closet.)

For you it is a matter of honesty at all cost. (Damn the torpedos!)

For me it is a matter of what makes gender relationships valuable, worthwhile and important? It is not exclusively honesty.

We lie to children about Santa Claus. Do you propose we start telling them the truth? There is a cost to honesty. I am not saying to lie, only to understand that honesty has ramifications and is not a free ride.

Besides the fact that men will be openly more promiscuous are we really better off? If you are a monogamous woman currently with a monogamous man, the chances are probably not.

To put this is purely personal terms it will be “better” for you but not for me.

Posted by: lindajean | March 23, 2008 7:51 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Hi Peter

Many thanks for your Easter greetings and the gospel song. I trust you are having a wonderful Easter!

Best wishes
Soja

Posted by: Soja John Thaikattil, Sydney, Australia | March 23, 2008 1:48 AM
Report Offensive Comment

To TIMMY:

On Sam Harris' thread, 'The Empty Wager' I posted more of my thoughts on the same topic on the following dates (including a list of books, which were also posted in Feb 2007 on another thread):

http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/sam_harris/2007/04/the_cost_of_betting_on_faith/all_comments.html

Ref posts:

26 May 2007 5:24 AM

19 July 2007 12:35 AM

20 July 2007 1:46 AM

4 Sept 2007 7:11 AM

9 Sept 2007 5:49 AM

Posted by: Soja John Thaikattil, Sydney, Australia | March 23, 2008 1:46 AM
Report Offensive Comment

To TIMMY:

Just popped in and noticed that you are engaged in a long running debate about sex, love and marriage. I appreciate your honest portrayal of reality concerning sexual morals as they are actually practised even if I do not agree that the way it is being practised is the best way to ensure happiness for all in society. As I mentioned very early on in this thread, sexual promiscuity gives the sexually adept more sexual partners than they need, inflating their egos with a never ending need while leaving the legitimate needs of others out in the cold.

Here for your reflection, some thoughts I posted elsewhere on The Washington Post On Faith forum over a year ago (23 February 2007):

"Emancipation or no emancipation, no matter what form emancipation may take, I personally believe that the best advice regarding love based relationships was given through an Indian poster displayed at the International AIDS Conference in Berlin 1993, titled: “Many positions with one is better than one position with many.” Referring to the author of Kamasutra, Dr Kakar wrote, “On four occasions in the text he insists that the main purpose of the Kamasutra is not the promotion of passion. On the contrary, a person who truly understands the book knows how to control his senses. The Kamasutra thus begins with the sutra, "He who wishes to preserve virtue, wealth and love in this world and the next must have a thorough knowledge of this treatise and, at the same time, master his senses" and ends with the admonition, "A wise man, proficient in all things, considering both his ethics and material interest, must not be a sensualist, thirsty for sex but must establish a stable marriage. The disjunction between virtue and sexuality is most clearly seen with regard to adultery which is unequivocally condemned as a great sin in the dharma texts.”

In my opinion, Dr Kakar’s interpretation of spirituality has some limitation. I wish to make the following observations:

1. Dr Kakar’s views on ‘Eroticism and Celibacy in Hinduism’ are the perspective of an agnostic Indian, NOT a Hindu Indian. His training in the Western school of Freudian psychoanalysis seems to be reflected in the sceptical tone discernible in his interpretation of eroticism and celibacy in Hinduism. Freudian psychoanalysis after all isn’t very open to religious concepts and has a unique interpretation of the role of sex in the human psyche.

2. When Dr Kakar sceptically states that gurus and yogis are supposed to be celibate but it doesn’t always happen, that St Theresa of Avila implied eroticism when she referred to the passion of the soul for God, and that St Augustine gave in to his lust but finally gave it up, what does he really mean? It is quite clear that St Theresa of Avila did not mean eroticism in the way Dr Kakar implies. In fact she even forbade nuns from praying for missionary priests if they noticed that the praying for a male priest became a pretext to indulge in disguised erotic thoughts about him. St Augustine supposedly fathered a child outside marriage, BEFORE he was converted, but after his conversion to Christianity, he remained celibate for the rest of his life.

3. It remains a fact that many yogis and gurus DID remain faithful to their vow of celibacy and went on to be great teachers. The number of yogis or anyone else who failed to live up to expectations does not negate the goal of celibacy in the spiritual traditions of not only Hinduism, but also Buddhism and Christianity.

4. Mahatma Gandhi chose Brahmacharya or celibacy because of his conviction that it was a powerful means to realise God. Gandhi was a passionate married man who tried to live like a sannyasi in the world, abandoning his wife only sexually but had her around him. Since he did not live like a recluse in the forest safely out of reach of worldly temptation, it is to be expected that he must have struggled with remaining celibate. But one must view his sense of deep guilt about sexuality from an incident in his life which has little to do with his religious belief. The deeply traumatising incident happened on the night his father died. It turned out that his father passed away in the night while he was making love to his wife. He had been keeping vigil with his father that night, and retired to his room shortly before his father passed away. Gandhi felt it was his lust that had prevented him from being with his father when he breathed his last. That is most likely the source of his irrational guilt regarding sexuality which has nothing to do with his views on celibacy in Hinduism. Could Gandhi have been an equally effective politician if he had not chosen Brahmacharya? We don’t know. Maybe yes. But the point is that he was acting in accordance with his convictions. Was Gandhi an infallible man? No. He achieved so much because he did everything with great passion, and his religious practice to attain God-realisation was definitely the most important part of his life, and he considered his politics only a fruit of his religion. It turned out that in the process Gandhi didn’t get it right always. For instance he carried his diet fad to a ridiculous extreme. Although he mentions in his autobiography that his carnal desires for his wife disappeared sometime after he took his vow of Brahmacharya, as per the incident related in your post, if it is true, then it seems he did have his quirk with his vow of Brahmacharya late in life, and driven by the deep seated guilt mentioned earlier, probably made an irrational associations. But the fact remains that Gandhi he was a psychologically healthy man who was willing to sacrifice anything (including his life as he claimed) to achieve his goal of God-realisation and achieved much more in his life than most ordinary mortals do. He is the man about whom Einstein said that in generations to come the world would scarce believe that such a man walked the face of this earth.

5. Dr Kakar asks, “Should one be celibate or should one celebrate sexuality?” It should be noted that celibacy was not forced on anyone in Hinduism. So why is there a need for an either/or question? In fact many great Yogis and teachers in answering the call of God ran away from their homes against the wishes of their families who wanted them to get married. (Males have the responsibility to take care of parents.) But does that mean that every person who left home in search of God was going to be infallible and destined for greatness? Does that make the genuine calling of celibacy questionable as a valid path to realise God? What exactly does Dr Kakar mean by celebrating sexuality in a spiritual way? Does any Hindu text prohibit celebration of sex by married partners?

6. I agree with Dr Kakar that a sexual union based on love maybe the only form of transcendence that most human beings may ever know. But I’m of the opinion that such a relationship should form part of a love relationship, not merely a commitment to have a sexual relationship, no matter how spiritual, free and without constraints it may be. I’m not sure however what Dr Kakar means by confined or constrained. Does it refer to the technicalities of the sexual relationship or with regard to commitment? Since some Indians consider his books controversial because it introduces the Western idea, it must refer to the nature of the relationship rather than technicalities of sex. Many will recall the Indian Guru from Poona, Rajneesh (later known as Osho) and his sexually liberating spirituality. He offered a modified form of Tantric Hinduism to his followers. The only Indians who considered him a spiritual guru were sexually emancipated film stars. The ordinary Indian referred to him as “ sex-guru” and was of the opinion that Rajneesh was popular only among those who wanted uninhibited sex with no commitment for he offered them a way deal with their sense of guilt and shame (most of them from the West being conditioned by their Christian culture) by calling such sexuality spiritual.
7. Despite arranged marriages conducted when one is quite young, which adequately meets one's sexual needs in a safe manner, it is understandable that some Indians welcome the sexual emancipation recommended through Dr Kakar’s books, after all not every Indian is happy to follow the strict moral code enforced by the society. At least in some cases it can be said that virtue is merely lack of opportunity or fear of society. The sexual emancipation will herald a new era in India, where there will be less sexual hypocrisy and any effort on Dr Kakar’s part to reduce hypocrisy must be applauded.

8. It is however simplistic to assume that all sexual problems would disappear with the advent of sexual freedom in India. The West has had to cope with unwanted teenage pregnancies and India when it goes down the path of unlimited sexual freedom, must brace itself for abortions in the millions. High divorce rates and single parent families also come with the freedom. Statistics in the West shows that sexual crimes such as incest and paedophilia have nothing to do with lack of sexual freedom. Many sexual tourists in Eastern countries are from the emancipated West. Sexual addictions in all its different variations haven’t automatically disappeared.

9. Uninhibited sexual freedom is a double edged sword and young Indians must be given very good sex education in schools which cover all aspects of sexuality in order that they may use their new found freedom with wisdom, learning from the mistakes of the West while accepting what is good.

Back to Hindu Spirituality:

Dom Bede Griffiths in the introduction to his book “River of Compassion” wrote, “In the Upanishads the understanding always was that in order to reach supreme knowledge or wisdom, jnana, it was necessary to retire to the forest and to meditate. Only the sannyasi, the monk, could attain moksha, liberation. Thus the Upanishads could only be a religion of a few. What changed everything was the doctrine of the Gita (mine - composed between 500 – 50 BC), that the householder, living an ordinary life but having bhakti, devotion to God, could reach this state of supreme union, not only as well as, but even more easily than the sannyasi. For the Bhagavad Gita, sannyasa is a difficult path for the few; bakthi is the normal path for the many. That is why the Gita has become a handbook for the Hindu, a kind of New Testament, because it is a teaching for the householder, the man living his ordinary life in the world, married and with children. By his devotion to Krishna, the personal God, he is able to reach moksha, to attain final liberation… It should be remembered that originally in the Vedas (mine – oldest surviving Scripture of the world whose oral composition was complete around 1500 BC after being composed for hundreds of years), karma means ritual work. There is a section of the Vedas concerned with ritual, but it was always considered inferior. When Adi Shankara (mine – originally a Nambudiri Brahmin from Kerala, who is credited with winning back most of the Indian Buddhists to Hinduism), the great doctor of Vedanta of the eighth century, said that nobody could reach moksha, liberation, through karma, he was simply saying that ritual will not suffice. After the Vedic period, the idea of karma was extended to include moral action in general and then social action.”

Sri Ramakrishna Paramahamsa (1836-1886) wrote: “God realisation is possible for all. The householders need not renounce the world; but they should pray sincerely, practice discrimination between the Eternal and the temporal and remain unattached. God listens to sincere prayer. Intense longing is the secret of success in spiritual life… Lust and greed are the two main obstacles to God realisation.”
…
Not just in Hinduism, but for anyone at all, life should be about celebrating sexuality within marriage for all who are married, or in a genuinely loving monogamous relationship for those who are not, and making a simultaneous vow of celibacy outside that relationship. The rare monk, nun, sannyasi or yogis called to a life of celibacy are not bound by the rules of society because they don’t belong to it. If they choose to take the vow of celibacy and make a mockery of that vow, it is really a matter for them to sort out with their God and not with the society of which they are no longer a part. If a spiritual seeker chooses to be instructed by a Guru who makes a mockery of his vow of celibacy, then the seeker has merely found what he has unconsciously searched for in the depths of his heart - after all a seeker has the freedom to move on at any time to a genuine guru of his choice.

(Posted by Soja John Thaikattil 23 February 2007)

Posted by: Soja John Thaikattil, Sydney, Australia | March 23, 2008 1:41 AM
Report Offensive Comment

LJ said:
"And here is my claim all along: Having x with love is not a necessity. It is a preference just as having x without love is"

This has been my claim all along. But in your last post, you referred women who "don't" separate love from X. And you also referred to women who "can't" separate love from X. I argued that there is no one who "can't". Only those who "don't" because they prefer not to.

LJ said:
"I will also argue (and argue determinedly) that for (many) people, x with love is more rewarding psychologically, physically, emotionally and physically"

I don't know about "physically". And you put that one twice, which is weird.
I agree with the others, I have always said the same thing. But physically? I'm not sure what you mean here.
Either way, the point is, that yes, for most people, X is a heightened, more emotionally rewarding, almost transcendent experience with love. Nothing I have said stops people from having love with their X.

LJ's rapid fire questions answered:

"Do you want to surf without waves?"

It's not possible.

"Do you want to golf without balls?"

It's not possible.

"Do you want cookies without milk?"

Always.

"Do you want cake without icing?"

Often.

"Do you want beer without pretzels?"

Always.

"Do you want music without orchestras?"

Most times.

"Do you want art without museums?"

Often.

"Do you want gardens without flowers?"

Sometimes.

"Do you want snow without mountains?"

No.

"Do you want life without aesthetics?"

Not possible

"Do you want x without love?"

Sometimes.

LJ said:
"Some things go together, and go together quite naturally, because they make life 1000x more pleasant and worthwhile."

And as my answers hopefully pointed out, different strokes for different folks.
I don't like your attitude that the government should promote the lifestyle that fits your personal choice.

LJ said:
"For some x without love is simply not satisfying."

Yes yes, we get it. What's the point? Who is saying they can't have X with love?

LJ said:
"So the real question is why should people who want x and love not have it?"

Who is saying they can't?
Just you in your wacked out scenarios that you dream up.

LJ asks:
"Why should someone that wants x with love settle for x without love?"

No one is saying they have to.

"Why should someone settle for cheap wine when she can have the good stuff?"

Who is saying they have to?
Just you as far as I can tell.

LJ said:

"Life is too short, Timmy!"

Indeed.

Posted by: timmy | March 22, 2008 9:03 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Hi Timmy:

You said: “I noticed that you did not answer my question about the different kinds of love that you referred to.”

I made a statement using chocolate as an analogy. That was my answer.

We are discussing two different points here so let’s ensure we are separating the two discussions.

First: We are discussing different kinds of love. You say love is love and there are no differences. I used the chocolate analogy to make my point that there are different kinds.

Second: We are discussing if you can separate love from x.

In matters concerning the first statement: I argue that from a philosophical and physiological point of view there are different kinds of love. (We need Andy Ross here to put in his two cents.)

And I will argue that in particular there is “falling in love” or eros and there is love for friends, family members, unconditional love known as agape. They are different. Now maybe “falling in love” is not really love in the sense you are talking about. And we can discuss that if you want. I argue it is all love. Just different kinds.

I also suggest that science will indicate the same. Below is just one recent article about “falling in love” that is available. Notice that the researchers indicate that sex and love are very different (I don’t think we are arguing that), but also that “eros” kind of love is a unique kind of love and is played out in the brain in unique ways.

http://www.the-aps.org/press/journal/05/9.htm

Quoted from the article:

Our participants who measured very high on a self report questionnaire of romantic love also showed strong activity in a particular brain region – results that dramatically increase our confidence that self-report questionnaires can actually measure brain activity. The research answered the “historic question of whether love and sex are the same, or different, or whether romantic passion is just warmed over sexual arousal.” He said, “Our findings show that the brain areas activated when someone looks at a photo of their beloved only partially overlap with the brain regions associated with sexual arousal. Sex and romantic love involve quite different brain systems.”

Using functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) and other measurements, he and his colleagues found support for their two major predictions: (1) early stage, intense romantic love is associated with subcortical reward regions rich with dopamine; and (2) romantic love engages brain systems associated with motivation to acquire a reward.

Brown explains some of these findings, commenting that “when our participants looked at a photo of his/her beloved, specific activation occurred in the right ventral tegmental area (VTA) and dorsal caudate body. These regions were significant compared to two control conditions, providing strong evidence that these brain areas, which are associated with the motivation to win rewards, are central to the experience of being in love. Humans have evolved three distinct but interrelated brain systems for mating and reproduction – the sex drive, romantic love, and attachment to a long term partner,” Fisher said, “and our results suggest how feelings of romantic love might change into feelings of attachment. Our results support what people have always assumed – that romantic love is one of the most powerful of all human experiences. It is definitely more powerful than the sex drive.”

End quoted article.

Notice the physical description of the brain is described in terms of romantic love/eros. Eros is interrelated with brains systems for sex and attachments to a long-term partners. Note, there is no discussion that this kind of chemistry is occurring when I love my brother or sister or best friend. Eros is a different and highly specialized kind of “love” that is intertwined with sex.

So describing this kind of chemistry in the brain as the generic word, LOVE, as you are doing is incorrect.

Referring to the second part of our discussion: separating x from love.

Notice that the research indicated , “Our findings show that the brain areas activated when someone looks at a photo of their beloved only PARTIALLY OVERLAP (my emphasis) with the brain regions associated with sexual arousal. Sex and romantic love involve quite different brain systems.”

I emphasized “partially overlap” because I think it is very clear that sex and love are not the same at all, but there is some indication that sex and love are not completely separate entities as you suggest. And I will argue that sex and love can be separate and they can be separate 100% in certain situations where 2 people having x do not love each other, but I also argue that if you have x with someone you love then you are going to have this “overlap” that is discussed in the article; albeit small. It is clear, this overlap is not a complete overlap, but there is something in the brains of those having x and love that does overlap, and hence the ability or desire to separate them completely in some people is not an accurate statement. Also notice that the researchers claim that sex,love and attachment are all interrelated within the brain. They are not completely infused but not completely separate either. A nice point of negotiation on our argument.

You said: “The point? Separating love from X is not something that anyone needs to do. They are separate things. Sometimes used in conjunction with one another. That is all. Having X is not an act of love anymore than giving a back massage, or getting your slippers for you, is an act of love. If you can separate those things from love, you ought to be able to separate love from those things.”

Notice you said “..is not something that anyone needs to do.” I think this is where we can agree. No one MUST separate them but no one must NOT separate them either. We are moving towards areas of preference within individuals.

And here is my claim all along: Having x with love is not a necessity. It is a preference just as having x without love is.

I will also argue (and argue determinedly) that for (many) people, x with love is more rewarding psychologically, physically, emotionally and physically.

The point here is not that a person must have x with love, only that for many, having x with love is the best way to have x. So when I say something like “monogamous women cannot separate x from love” I am saying they don’t want to have x without love because x with love is the best kind of x and having x without love is an act that feels cold and detached.

It’s like anything you have a passion for. Do you want to surf without waves? Do you want to golf without balls? Do you want cookies without milk? Do you want cake without icing? Do you want beer without pretzels? Do you want music without orchestras? Do you want art without museums? Do you want gardens without flowers? Do you want snow without mountains? Do you want life without aesthetics? Do you want x without love?

Some things go together, and go together quite naturally, because they make life 1000x more pleasant and worthwhile.

X without love (for some) is base, inferior, mediocre. And when x is base, mediocre or inferior it is very (I emphasize “very”) difficult to enjoy it. And I argue this is especially true for females because we all know that good x starts in the brain. Good x is 99% mental. If you are a person who wants love with x you are probably not going to function very well without the love part. The love part makes the emotional, psychological, mental and physical much more satisfying. For some x without love is simply not satisfying.

That is about as simple as it can get.
So the real question is why should people who want x and love not have it? Why should someone that wants x with love settle for x without love? Why should someone settle for cheap wine when she can have the good stuff?

Life is too short, Timmy!

Posted by: lindajean | March 22, 2008 4:20 PM
Report Offensive Comment

LJ said:
"I understand promiscuity. I don’t accept it as a lifestyle"

No one asked you to accept it as a lifestyle for yourself.
But as a lifestyle of most men, you better accept it. (especially since you haven't got a clue as to how to fix it)
The Iraq war might end in our lifetime. And you actually have an effect on that. (small as it may be)
The male infidelity statistics have been what they are for millennia, and will continue on long after our children's children's children are dead. And you have no effect on that. It is a fact of nature.
Accept it, or be bitterly disappointed for the rest of your life.

All because of honesty eh?
Boy this marriage thing really must be something special if it can be destroyed by honesty. lol.

No.
No one said that the norm would change to promiscuity. That is your word, and your idea. I have never said anything about promiscuity. Only that the norm would not be to marry for life. There will still be many who will choose monogamy, and others will choose something that is very close to monogamy. Many who are accepting of reality will have open relationships. These relationships exist right now LJ and they are on the rise. And they don't resemble any of the crazy examples that you have invented to make such relationships look bad.

LJ said:
"In your new honest world, for women who don’t want to be promiscuous and don’t/can’t separate x from love it will change. There are many women like this, probably the majority or close to it. At least 50% and probably more.

Again, the only thing that will change is honesty. I can't believe you are arguing against the introduction of honesty because of the destructive force it will be.

Also, there is not such thing as someone who "can't" separate love from X. Only people who "don't".

LJ said:
"Unless you completely remove love from X (no way!) you are still going to have jealousies and dishonesty"

(Yes way!)
Like I said. No need to remove love from X.
X is not attached to love in the first place. Unless you attach it yourself. So don't. And jealousy also has nothing to do with love. It is more related to X.

LJ said:
"In your honest new world scenario, the tables are turning on them. Monogamy is scarcer and promiscuity is more common. More men are more likely to become promiscuous as well because the floodgates are open."

LJ, you remind me of those people who think that if they legalize marijuana, the people will go crazy and start smoking pot all over the place. The streets will become one giant pot party. We'll have parents smoking joints in the car with their kids, and teachers smoking pot at school, it will be anarchy. Remember when they ended prohibition against alcohol and we all went crazy with our booze bingeing? It will be like that, only with X right? No. Nothing will change but honesty.

LJ said:
"Can you agree with me that most men do not want the women they love to be promiscuous?
Are men going to accept promiscuity in women they are in love with?"

Men are going to have to accept that if they get to have other X partners, then their spouse also gets to have other X partners. That is only fair. Many men will opt for a monogamous relationship for this reason. And this monogamous arrangement will last as long as it lasts. But it would be ridiculous and stupid for these two to try to codify that arrangement in a ritualistic ceremony complete with legal contract. Because the odds of it lasting forever are not good. It could happen. But no ceremony or vow is going to help it last. It will end when it ends.

Here is a classic example of the kind of childish, and alarmist, scenarios you like to invent to make your point. I don't see the above scenario taking place at all. Why do you think that being honest about X is going to turn people into insensitive irresponsible jerks? These are all just your inventions, Lindajean.

LJ said:
"Isn’t this how/why marriage came about in the first place?"

85% cheat. Good plan! Great solution! lol.

They would only leave if they thought that they could go out and find a man who will be monogamous. But the reality will tell them that that is not likely. So now the only reason they would leave is if they are no longer in love. And that would be the right thing to do. Damn that honesty. Who invented it? What a trouble maker.

LJ said:
"We can’t force men into monogamy and we can’t force women into promiscuity"

Well said. Now you're getting it.

LJ said:
"I don’t have an answer, Timmy. But I suggest that your answer is very good for men, up to a point, until they fall in love"

And then honesty is no longer the best policy????
Now it's time to start denying the truth?
What the hell are you saying?

LJ said:
"Bottom line: We are not going to agree on this. Period. No surprise"

I don't know what you are disagreeing with? Honesty?
That's all I am promoting here.

The real bottom line.
90% of men are not going to be monogamous.
We can either continue doing it behind your back, or out in the open. You decide if you prefer to live in a state of denial, or a state of reality. If denial is less painful to you, so be it. Onward ho with this marriage thing I guess. Don't ask don't tell?

I just don't know what you are disagreeing with LJ.
Do you think that anything I have said affects your relationship with your husband? Do you think that your relationship would be any different in my world of honesty? How so?

And if not. What is your concern?

Posted by: timmy | March 22, 2008 3:29 PM
Report Offensive Comment

I said: “I don't belong in this time.”

LJ said: "It is the only one you will ever have, Timmy"

Maybe.

Maybe the people from my real time will come and get me, and tell me that this was all just a big practical joke. Oh how we will laugh.

Posted by: timmy | March 22, 2008 2:04 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Peter asks:
"Which is the more rational and logical basis of faith, your evolutionary science or the Creator God?"

Well that's an easy one. Science, of course.

And I see you still think that natural selection is a thing, that selects things. Funny.

Posted by: timmy | March 22, 2008 7:13 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Hi Lindajean,

I noticed that you did not answer my question about the different kinds of love that you referred to.

I contend that there is only one. Love. Which is a deep caring for someone. You talk about "love plus X" as though it is a different kind of love altogether. I believe you called it "sensual love". Poppycock! It's just love plus X.

The point? Separating love from X is not something that anyone needs to do. They are separate things. Sometimes used in conjunction with one another. That is all. Having X is not an act of love anymore than giving a back massage, or getting your slippers for you, is an act of love. If you can separate those things from love, you ought to be able to separate love from those things.

Jealousy is another matter, that also has nothing to do with love.
Love is a deep caring for someone. That is all.

Posted by: timmy | March 21, 2008 10:58 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Hi Timmy and Lindajean,

I see you are still hedging the questions. Timmy, you especial talk about religion as being "ancient superstitious folklore" to which I would agree except for the Judeo-Christian faith. That is based on God's revelation regardless of how you chose to look upon it.

Which is the more rational and logical basis of faith, your evolutionary science or the Creator God? If you want to talk about logic and rationale then you need to show me how it is possible for life to come from non-life, personality from the impersonal, morals from an amoral process, thinking from matter. Where have you ever seen a lifeless material object that has the ability to think?

Then you need to show me where you have witnessed this happening today, or where anyone has ever witnessed it. Until you can do this I hold you as the ones believing in superstition.

All we ever witness and have ever witnessed is life coming from the living, persons from the personal, morals from moral beings, thinking from a mind, intention from a mind, so rationally what evidence do you have and have you witnessed to the contrary?

These are some of the biggest problems an atheist has and I have not seen either of you give a sufficient answer, or for that matter any atheist.

These are the questions I continue to see you both sidestepping. Can you make me aware of anywhere on this forum where you have given a logical, rational answer to any of them? Can you make me aware of anywhere where you two have personally witnessed, or anyone else has witnessed such things?

BTW Timmy, natural selection is not proof, it is an assertion. I'm asking how a non-thinking, unintelligent blind, random, chance process can select anything or how such a process actually becomes a thinking selecting intelligent process that can produce intelligent beings from the non-living?

PS. I will probably not be able to answer you both until Monday at the earliest, except possibly for a brief comment.

Posted by: Peter Huff | March 21, 2008 2:41 PM
Report Offensive Comment

I said to Peter: "Living in a theocracy is the antithesis of a constitutional democracy such as the US. You are telling me that you would rather live in such a system? A system that would quell and stifle the words of LJ and atheism? That is the world you want to live in? How would you spend all of your time Peter?..."

Peter said : “It depends on whose theocracy the society is based on, the God of the Bible or the god(s) of some make believe deity.”

and “Praising God, rejoicing in the truth and inviting, as God has called Christians to, others to share in His mercy and grace.”

Peter, so you are saying you would want to live in a theocracy that
“quells the words of LJ and atheists” as long as you could worship your God?

When you say, “Praising God, rejoicing in the [your] truth” this means you want a theocracy that denies a person’s freedom of speech?

If the answer is yes, what other freedoms are you willing to quell? You already have the right to worship your God (under the Constitution or the Canadian equivalent.)

Why do you need to “quell” others’ words in your God-loving theocracy?

Posted by: lindajean | March 21, 2008 10:12 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Timmy said (to Peter):
“I don't belong in this time.”

It is the only one you will ever have, Timmy.

Posted by: lindajean | March 21, 2008 7:34 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Hi Peter:

Peter said, “ But the fact is still there that in its pages over and over and over again it claims to be the word of God. That is evidence.’

Claiming something makes it “evidence.”?
Only in the minds of the religious.

The Koran (or one of its off-shoots) claims killing infidels will get you 72 virgins in heaven. That’s evidence?

Peter: “Science believes the universe and this world had a beginning, whereas God proclaims He is without beginning, so which is more feasible? That is evidence.”

Something without beginning is more feasible than something with a beginning?
This is evidence?

Peter: “As I said before, the evidence is the impossibility of the contrary.’

What about the impossibility of Jesus rising from the dead?
Of Jesus being born of a Virgin?
Of Jesus feeding hundreds with a couple of dead fish?
Of Jesus bringing people back from the dead?

Peter: “It makes sense that only a mind can give birth to or create another mind.”

Evolution makes sense. A birth of my son with a thinking mind is from evolution. That thinking mind evolved.

The Bible contradicts its own absolute truth if we go by this definition.

Peter: “Your country was built on the concepts and principles of God. It is no longer so because, just like Israel in ancient times, they forgot the One who was true.’

The Constitution was built on ideals.

Peter: “Praising God, rejoicing in the truth and inviting, as God has called Christians to, others to share in His mercy and grace.”

A government based on God is a form of tyranny. Why do you think our forefathers (the men who wrote the Constitution) rebelled against England, the Monarchy and the Church? Why do you think there is the exclusion clause in the first amendment. Because they did not want the State to be influenced by the Church AND they wanted people to have the right to worship whoever they wanted (or not to worship whoever they wanted.) In a theocracy there is no choice about who you will worship.

Peter: “The scary thought Lindajean is a relative, postmodern, pluralistic world in which truth is whatever you choose to make it. In such a world anything is morally possible, anything is socially acceptable and all things are permissible as long as you can find the strength in numbers to enforce your belief. Heaven help you if you are in the minority.”

Heaven help you if you are in the minority in a theocracy.

Look around.

LJ: "I am not fearful of “depth”. I seek it out."

Peter: “You are not seeking it out here. Open-mindedness is not always a good thing. How do you arrive at truth if all views are acceptable (except the Christian view) and yet they are all contrary? They all make different claims. Can they all be right?”

No they are not all right. I have never claimed “all views are acceptable.”

“Rational arguments do not work on religious people, otherwise there would be no religious people.”—Dr. House

Posted by: lindajean | March 21, 2008 7:31 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Hi Timmy:

You said: “They need to accept, and understand. (obviously, because it is reality)
Practice? Of course not. No guy is going to mind if his steady partner chooses not to have X with anyone else.”

Reality does not beget acceptance. Something can be a reality but does not require someone to accept it. Reality requires understanding/comprehension. One can understand (the reality) that we are fighting a war in Iraq. But one is not required to accept it. I, for example, do not applaud, favor, advocate, admire, popularize, etc.. the war in Iraq. But I comprehend its reality.

I understand promiscuity. I don’t accept it as a lifestyle.

LJ Says:
"In order for men to be promiscuous women also have to be promiscuous "

Timmy: No they don't. Only if they want to. Why would they have to?

Because this will be the norm in your “new world” scenario. Marriage goes down the tube because men are now “honest.” (And marriage/monogamy WILL go down the tube. More on that later.)

Women won’t have to be promiscuous, but if the norm changes toward promiscuity, then there will certainly be more “pressure” to follow the norm. It will be a choice, but like marriage is today, there will be pressure to conform to it.

Timmy: “Now here's the important part LJ. You would either be the type of person who could love someone who was not into monogamous X? Or you would be the type of person who is turned off by such promiscuity. In which case. honesty would have stopped you from becoming partners with that person in the first place. You would then have the option of trying to find one of those rare guys who are into monogamy. (they're out there) Or not being Xually active or intimate. Or reconsidering your thoughts on monogamy. Lot's of options. no reason for emotional problems.”

No reason for me, personally, in the present ( but that could change.) In your new honest world, for women who don’t want to be promiscuous and don’t/can’t separate x from love it will change. There are many women like this, probably the majority or close to it. At least 50% and probably more.

Do you agree?

In your honest new world scenario, the tables are turning on them. Monogamy is scarcer and promiscuity is more common. More men are more likely to become promiscuous as well because the floodgates are open.

A present day monogamous man (married or unmarried) may decide to hell with monogamy since it is now “abnormal.” I think monogamous men will “go for it” because it will be easier in your honest new world. Promiscuity would be the norm. Monogamous men, after all are still male; they think like males and act like males. And a monogamous man who is faithful today doesn’t mean he wouldn’t be promiscuous if he thought it would be OK or more acceptable. Monogamous men are monogamous because they choose to be. For a variety of reasons they are satisfied with their relationship. We both would agree this could (and even in today’s world can ) turn on a dime. Monogamous today, promiscuous tomorrow. Male monogamy (as you have made perfectly clear) is a tenuous circumstance. Monogamous males still have seed spreading genes. Monogamy today is no guarantee of monogamy tomorrow.

In your honest new world, women finding and keeping real monogamous relationships will be even less likely than they are today. It will not be the same as you suggest. In fact it will be very different. For truly promiscuous people (the x without love variety) life will actually get easier. For monogamous women life will get more difficult because the standard norm changes and they no longer are the “norm.” Fewer men will be monogamous because of changes in standards and acceptability. Less taboo. Women have fewer monogamous male “fish” to choose from in the ocean of promiscuity and the tide for “normal” is now against them.

Unless you completely remove love from X (no way!) you are still going to have jealousies and dishonesty. In fact I would say generally speaking men are more jealous than women, and they are much more likely to act out those jealousies through violence and aggression. Men cheat on their wives/partners, but most men do not like their wives/partners cheating on them. (These are usually relationships where they love their wife/partner but still cheat on them). You are not going to change the jealousy equation just by making things “honest.” And where there is love there is usually jealousy and where there is jealousy there is often dishonesty.

This is where it gets complicated: In your open-honest-run-of-the-mill-non-monogamous-no-strings-attached-xual-relationship, what happens if the man falls in love with a promiscuous female? (Remember he is no longer married. No attachments here.) He’s going to (naturally) not want her--his new love--to be promiscuous. He is OK with his own promiscuity and he is OK with the promiscuity of women he does not love, but he is not going to want “his” woman, that he loves, to be promiscuous. Men will still fall in love. That is not going to change. The double standard returns and it is a very deeply entrenched double standard. I would say this double standard is tied very closely to genetics.

Can you agree with me that most men do not want the women they love to be promiscuous?

Are men going to accept promiscuity in women they are in love with?

Do you believe (for example) a man who is madly in love with a woman, a woman whom he has gotten pregnant, a woman who is going to have his child, is going to want her to be promiscuous? She tells him she is 2 months pregnant but she is going to go out and have x with another man that very night? A man is going to say “OK” to that? No way. Please explain this to me? (And remember this started out as a no-strings-attached relationship---x without love.)

Isn’t this how/why marriage came about in the first place?

In a different scenario: in your new honest world, monogamous women are going to learn that their husbands are cheating. We can assume that, presently, many don’t know that their husbands are cheating, because even if they are aware of the statistics, they will be in denial about this. Human nature.

Don’t you think most women will divorce their husbands when they learn the husband is cheating because now he is going to be honest about it? And in non-married monogamous relationships, the woman will leave also, when her partner shares all? My answer: yes.

Eventually these (now divorced and already single) monogamous-prone women are going to either begin practicing promiscuity themselves or they are going to stop having x. The few men left who are practicing monogamy (if any), are not going to be enough numerically to fill the monogamy niche for 50% or more of the monogamous-prone women. Remember, these are women who have difficulty separating x from love. That is why they like monogamy in the first place. Now, some of these women are going to opt in for promiscuity. Do they have much choice? If they want x they are going to have to acquiesce or “accept” it as you state. How do they separate x from love? Remember, love is not willed, Timmy. Your words!

So what you have now is honesty in relationships where there is no love just x, which you probably had in the “old” world scenario anyways.

But you also have less x overall for monogamous females (frustrated females: not good) OR more females practicing promiscuity---which is not something they are naturally inclined to do--- but by doing it they unwillfully may fall in love with men that only want x not love. Great combination.

Don’t you agree that love and promiscuity don’t mix? You can’t love someone and not expect them to be monogamous? At least if you are male. Men who fall in love want their partners to be monogamous even as they (men) continue to be promiscuous.

As you can see, these scenarios get convoluted. And that is exactly the point. X, love and gender relationships are as gray and muddy and nonsensical as anything in reality can be.

So my point is this: what is exactly honest here? Communicating that you are promiscuous to your monogamous partner is honest. Agreed.

Are formerly monogamous women (who prefer monogamy over promiscuity) but are now practicing promiscuity because this is now the norm ---OR not practicing x at all--is this an honest lifestyle? I argue that it is not. And I argue it is not any more honest than a man conforming to monogamy.

Is it honest for promiscuous men to want the women they love to be monogamous? No it it not honest. It is a double standard.

Is a promiscuous women falling in love with a man that doesn’t love her a form of honesty?

I argue it is not. It is a form of heart-break even if he has been blatantly honest with her.

Is bringing children into these situations honest?
Explain to me how it is.

We are trading one form of dishonesty for another that is all.

If we are really honest we have to understand (not accept) that the differences between the majority of men and the majority of women is never going to change, if these differences are inherent. They definitely are for promiscuous men. Perhaps the case for monogamous females is cultural. That’s debatable. If it is cultural then “culture” has predominated throughout most of history. If, however, monogamous female sex is genetically inclined (I think it probably is) then we cannot change it. Trying to force men into monogamy has proven this. We can’t force men into monogamy and we can’t force women into promiscuity. Even if the former or later are the norm.

And we also can’t condone double standards between the genders because that is sexist and sometimes unethical.

So the real question is what do we do about it? We can change the variables but the facts will remain the same.

I don’t have an answer, Timmy. But I suggest that your answer is very good for men, up to a point, until they fall in love. Maybe the happiest people in the world are (men) who do not fall in love but can still enjoy x. Or women who can truly find monogamy (and love with x).

Bottom line: We are not going to agree on this. Period. No surprise. Your reality (as a promiscuous male) is very different than my reality (as a monogamous female).

Never the twain shall agree. Except, incidentally, on Sam Harris blogs about Atheism: a much easier topic.

Wouldn’t you agree?

Posted by: lindajean | March 21, 2008 6:23 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Peter,

All of your questions have been answered. You just don't like the answers.
You prefer ancient superstitious folklore, to science.

Posted by: timmy | March 21, 2008 3:44 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Hi Timmy,

BTW, you did not answer all my question, nor do you have the ability to from your atheistic framework. I understand that.

TIMMY: "BTW, I have answered every question you have put to me. There is no dodging here. You just don't like the answers.

March 16, 2008 3:11 PM"

ME: "So how did it become a living organism in the first place"

How did God become God in the first place?

Great answer Timmy!

ME: "Give me an example of anywhere were we witness something that is non-living giving birth to a living organism"

TIMMY: "Give me an example of anywhere were we witness a God creating anything. You have never seen it happen and can only speculate. YOU LIVE BY FAITH in something that is illogically impossible."

Great answer Timmy to my question on where you witness something that is non-living giving birth to a living organism. Explain to me how it is possible. Your tactics are more and more like those of the JW's. Whenever you start to pin them down they change the subject because they don't have the answers.

What about my numerous questions about intent? How can intent come from anything but a mind. Give me an example of where you have ever witnessed something other than a mind having intent? Everywhere you only witness intent coming from minds, so why should I believe otherwise?

Give me an explanation and evidence of how something that is non-thinking, non-intelligent can evolve into something that is thinking and intelligent? Your worldview has no answers except the magic formula of billions and billions of years. Hah!

ME: "He didn't have to but he did."

TIMMY: "Exactly my point! Making him, imperfect."

By his choice, the perfect yet limited creature willing chose (since his choice had to have the ability to act both ways or the creature would not have had a perfectly free ability to choose) to know the knowledge of both good and evil, creating the flaw and thus becoming imperfect. If we agree on this we agree. If you are saying that he was never perfect as I believe you are we still disagree and will have to remain so inclined.

Posted by: Peter Huff | March 21, 2008 2:27 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Hi Lindajean!

LJ: "I am not disputing the people, places and some of the events in the Bible. It probably has some historical truths. I am disputing the supernatural beliefs from the Bible. That Jesus was born a Virgin, that Jesus will return to earth, the Rapture..... NO amount of circumstantial evidence can prove any of this. There is nothing to “infer” here."

The Bible itself is the evidence I would appeal to first. I see two choices in regards to it. Either it is what it says it is, the Word of God or it is a myth, ancient folklore, make believe. Maybe you have another choice. But the fact is still there that in its pages over and over and over again it claims to be the word of God. That is evidence.

Then there is the evidence of something happening that caused these authors to write of Jesus not only in the New Testament, but also in the Old. The countless prophesies, over three hundred on Him alone show evidence that something unusual happened here.

Then there is the evidence that the New Testament authors were transformed by what they believed to be the risen Christ, on whom they testified earlier had been put to death and buried, only to be seen again in the flesh three days later. And these people suffered torturous deaths, for what, believing in something they believed was not true? Would you die for a lie? No they were convinced of something supernatural, something that does not happen. Why are their historical narratives so accurate? That is evidence.

Either this world was created or it somehow, and you have not been able to explain how this could happen, came into being. The same applies to the universe. Since something cannot create itself since it would have to exist before it could create anything the universe (or multi-universes) or God would have to be the self-existing cause of everything else. Science believes the universe and this world had a beginning, whereas God proclaims He is without beginning, so which is more feasible? That is evidence.

Since you cannot demonstrate how order can come from chaos, how thought can come from something that is non-thinking, how personality can come from the impersonal, how life can come from something non-living, how morals can come from something amoral, how logic can come from something without logic, and there are no examples that you have given as evidence, the evidence points to the God of the Bible who is self existent, eternal, personal, mindful, living, loving, moral, true, logical, supernatural, miraculous.

The reason I say all this is because you have never been able to show anything to the contrary in the natural world of these things happening. What is real conforms to God's word. You cannot show me what is real conforming to evolution for you cannot show me how a stone or a non-living substance can become a thinking, living, thinking, loving being. It goes against everything we know. You live by faith in something that has not been shown to be possible.

As I said before, the evidence is the impossibility of the contrary.

ME: “All wisdom and soundness of thought originates from God and when we think His thoughts after Him.”

LJ: "This is what I mean by not having evidence. There is nothing circumstantial (at best) about this statement."

First show me something that was non-living, non-thinking, non-personal, amoral becoming living, thinking, personal and moral. You can't. You take it by faith, an illogical one at that.

LJ: "If I want to infer that my dog can understand English because I have “circumstantial” evidence that she watches TV with me (when in fact all she is doing is sitting next to me on the sofa and looking at the TV) then I am free to believe she understands Geraldine Ferraro when she hears her on TV. But in reality, I am misunderstanding cause and effect relationships in this scenario. Many religious people tend to do just that."

Infer all you like, but if it does not conform to what is real your dog is just barking in the wind.

So do many atheists.

ME: “The proof is in the impossibility of the contrary.”

LJ: "Huhh....what is impossible about there not being a God?"

Before you rule out the supernatural, show me how the natural is possible in the areas I have mentioned to you many times. You can't. You, in your limited wisdom, are just speculating.

LJ: "You can say it is a mind he gave me."

ME: “Yes I can say that and you have no way of proving otherwise and no rational way of explaining otherwise.”

LJ: "I have lots of rational ways of explaining. It is your God that is irrational."

Yes, Lindajean, another great explanation! All you have done is make a statement that you have lots of rational ways of explaining otherwise. I have asked you numerous times to demonstrate and prove them and how. I'm still waiting.

ME: “Yes, you do have a wonderful mind and mind can only come from mind. You will never be able to show me how mind can come from anything but mind. And the mind that everything comes from is the Mind of God.’

LJ: "Where is the evidence (circumstantial or otherwise)? There is none Peter. You cannot prove to me that my mind comes from the Mind of God (whatever that may mean)."

It makes sense that only a mind can give birth to or create another mind. When you give birth, your son is a living, thinking being (with a mind). You cannot show me how a rock or a substance can produce a mind. Your magic ingredient is time, millions and billions of years in which there was supposedly no mind around to witness the birth of mind.

ME: “You can't establish any true judgment without an objective, ultimate, absolute standard. Anything else is just subjective opinion. The reason so many things we discover are true is because we are discovering or applying God's truth.”

LJ: "Well, you are half right. Most of everything is subjective."

Maybe, but a) how do you know that? and b)if there is not an absolute, objective, ultimate standard why should I take your word for it, or rather more to the point, what makes your word true, right, good? It is just your opinion and I have another, thank you very much. So how do you determine truth?

Without God truth is just something that happens to be the way it is today and there is no guaranteed that it will be so tomorrow, just because it has been so in the past. God is the sustainer of all things. We know that summer and autumn and winter and spring will continue because God has promised such things in His word and He does not lie.

There is a standard outside yourself Lindajean in which we can measure truth, goodness, justice, knowledge, etc., from.

"Absolute truth implies at least two things: 1) that whatever is true at one time and in one place is true at all times and in all places, and 2) that whatever is true for one person is true for all persons. Absolute truth does not change [for God cannot lie]" When Skeptics Ask, p. 255-256.

LJ: "It makes governments and societies a lot easier when there are no gray areas. But I don't see you clamoring to go live in a theocracy. Have you considered the idea? Are there any Christian theocracies in the making? I would guess you might embrace such an ideal??"

Your country was built on the concepts and principles of God. It is no longer so because, just like Israel in ancient times, they forgot the One who was true.

ME: “It depends on whose theocracy the society is based on, the God of the Bible or the god(s) of some make believe deity.”

LJ: "Living in a theocracy is the antithesis of a constitutional democracy such as the US. You are telling me that you would rather live in such a system? A system that would quell and stifle the words of LJ and atheism? That is the world you want to live in? How would you spend all of your time Peter?..."

Praising God, rejoicing in the truth and inviting, as God has called Christians to, others to share in His mercy and grace.

LJ: "Good god, that is a scary thought and gives me goose bumps."

The scary thought Lindajean is a relative, postmodern, pluralistic world in which truth is whatever you choose to make it. In such a world anything is morally possible, anything is socially acceptable and all things are permissible as long as you can find the strength in numbers to enforce your belief. Heaven help you if you are in the minority.

ME: " I invite you to look into it and test your suppositions if you wish to carry this further."

LJ: "I don't."

ME: “I don't blame you. It can get pretty in depth.’

LJ: "I am not fearful of “depth”. I seek it out."

You are not seeking it out here. Open-mindedness is not always a good thing. How do you arrive at truth if all views are acceptable (except the Christian view) and yet they are all contrary? They all make different claims. Can they all be right?

LJ: "I am only weary and frustrated with people who believe a Christian theocracy would be superior to a democracy like the US and who want to force their beliefs onto others who do not accept them."

Lindajean, I cannot force my beliefs on you, I can only point out why your beliefs do not make sense. The rest is up to God's mercy and grace. Whether you believe or not is not in my hands. But what I can do is converse with you until you tell me you have had enough.

Well, it is getting late. Shall I continue and risk staying up the other half of the night or shall I put the rest of your post aside until Monday?

I think I shall wish you a Happy Easter with your family and post the rest on Monday.

Posted by: Peter Huff | March 21, 2008 1:42 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Hi Peter:

TIMMY: "The same goes for Adam, Peter. He doesn't have to make a wrong choice to prove that he has the ability to make a wrong choice."

PETER: He didn't have to but he did.

Exactly my point! Making him, imperfect.

TIMMY: "He could make right choices his whole life, all the while having the ability to make the wrong choice."

PETER: He could have but he didn't.

Exactly my point! Making him imperfect.

Don't bother Peter. This point ends here. It is far to simple, and distilled down to a single point of contention for further discussion to help. Adam screwed-up. And a creature that screws up, even once, is not perfect.

Every day of my life, I have to give my head a shake, when the realization comes upon me, that there are fully grown adults, who actually believe this hyper leap of logic. This fairy tale. This bazar desire to be minions in the most brutal dictatorship ever imagined.

I don't belong in this time.

Posted by: timmy | March 21, 2008 12:34 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Hi Soja,

Happy Easter! The Lord is risen!

The spacious firmament on high,
With all the blue ethereal sky,
And spangled heav'ns, a shining frame,
Their great original proclaim.
Th' unwearied sun, from day to day,
Does his Creator's pow'r display,
And publishes to every land
The work of an Almighty hand.

Soon as the evening shades prevail,
The moon takes up the wondrous tale,
And nightly to the list'ning earth
Repeats the story of her birth;
Whilst all the stars that round her burn,
Confirm the tides as they roll,
And spread the truth from pole to pole.

What though in solemn silence all
Move round this dark terrestrial ball?
What though nor real voice nor sound
Amidst their radiant orbs be found?

In reason's ear they all rejoice,
And utter forth a glorious voice;
For ever singing, as they shine,
"The hand that made us is divine."

Author: Joseph Addison, 1712

Posted by: Peter Huff | March 20, 2008 11:59 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Hi Lindajean and Timmy,

Sorry to take so long in responding. I will try and sit down tonight, God willing.

Posted by: Peter Huff | March 20, 2008 12:59 AM
Report Offensive Comment

LJ Says:

"I am guessing you are saying they need to understand but not practice. Correct? Understanding does not mean a woman will accept it"

They need to accept, and understand. (obviously, because it is reality)
Practice? Of course not. No guy is going to mind if his steady partner chooses not to have X with anyone else.

LJ Says:
"In order for men to be promiscuous women also have to be promiscuous "

No they don't. Only if they want to. Why would they have to?

LJ SAYS:
"Women have 3 choices. That is it."

They have the same number of choices that they have now. Just more honesty.

LJ Says:
"But husbands who are promiscuous also sucks for women. The only difference is now they know their husband is cheating. That may be better from an ethical point but how is it better from an emotional point"

Because first of all, it wouldn't be a husband. It would be a best friend that you love deeply and often have X with. And you would be accepting that this person that you love is happiest when they have a variety of X in their life. And you would want them to be happy, because you love them.
Now here's the important part LJ. You would either be the type of person who could love someone who was not into monogamous X? Or you would be the type of person who is turned off by such promiscuity. In which case. honesty would have stopped you from becoming partners with that person in the first place. You would then have the option of trying to find one of those rare guys who are into monogamy. (they're out there) Or not being Xually active or intimate. Or reconsidering your thoughts on monogamy. Lot's of options. no reason for emotional problems.

LJ Says:
"Childish? Like immature? Having a temper tantrum? I am in the dark."

Childish about how you portray how non monogamous relationships would go. You always portray it in the worst possible light. These people, who are nothing more than honest versions of our current selves. They have no more reason to be irresponsible, dispassionate, and cruel than any of us currently do. They would take each others feelings into account and act like people who love each other. They just wouldn't be all hung up on a concept that doesn't exists for most people.

LJ"S Description of what I am saying:
"Timmy believes that marriage sucks"

Yes. For 90% of us. It is not an impossible arrangement. But certainly not something the government or society should promote as something that is healthy for all of us. (or even for most of us)

LJ Continues:
"Men are naturally promiscuous. When women marry them they are duped into believing that men will be monogamous but most are not. Men cheat on their wives and lie to them because they greatly desire x with other women"

This part is not my belief, but reality, based on statistics.

LJ continues: "When men cheat they have x without love"

Not necessarily. Some men have love with their cheating. They have either lost love for their wife, or it is also quite possible to love two or more women at once. Just like it is possible for a woman to love two or more men at once. Love has no numbers limit.

LJ continues:
"Women need to understand that men will have x without love even though for most women x without love is not natural or a choice they would make for themselves"

Yes. Yes. Yes.
Also, many many women have sex for pure lust as well.

LJ says:
Women who are married need to realize, understand and accept that their husbands are going to cheat on them and it has little to do with love"

There would be no husbands, and no promised monogamy, so there would be no cheating. Just other partners from time to time. And it is accepted by both parties, so there is no cheating.

LJ continues:
"Most men love their wives and some may even want to stay married. But most men do not want to be married"

No. There would be no marriages, except those extremely rare cases where the couple would stay monogamous. Like you and your hubby.

LJ says:
"If you want to be promiscuous then don’t get married. If you are married and cheat be honest about it. I have been saying that for days...weeks..."

Me too. But I have also been saying that this kind of honesty would lead to a world where less than 10% of us get married. and that works for me. That is exactly what I am talking about.

LJ says:
"I can tell you subjectively that the love I have for my husband is very very different than the love I have for my brother"

You should be able to describe the difference then.
Aside from X, what is it?
And what about the difference between your love for your husband and your love for your best friend. Besides X and living together, how is the love different?

Love is just a strong feeling of deep caring for someone. There are different reasons WHY you love, but love is love. And X has nothing to do with it.

LJ says:
"Marriage lasts until people decide to end it. That is what most people want. A marriage that lasts until we decide to separate"

That's just love. No marriage necessary. No need to make a vow that you don't really mean, you just hope that, what you promised is going to happen for sure, actually happens. Ridiculous. Just love and hope. Marriage is useless. Pointless. 90% will fail in their vows. What is the point?!!!

LJ says:
"When women realize this, crap will hit the fan...."

The question is. Why don't they realize it now? The facts and figures are all there.

Posted by: timmy | March 19, 2008 3:04 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Timmy said, "Exactly. Just add freedom, and monogamy is no longer the norm. It drops down to about 10% of society.But 85% still pretend..."

No, not exactly.

...."just add honesty" and your sentence will make more sense. Freedom is not the issue here that we are discussing (in western culture.)

Honesty is.

Posted by: lindajean | March 19, 2008 10:11 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Hi Timmy:

LJ SAYS:
"So are you saying (more) women need to understand this concept or (more ) women need to practice this concept?"

Timmy; Yes. The alternative is 85% of them continue getting cheated on.

You didn’t answer the question. There is an OR in that question. Do women need to understand the concept OR do they need to practice the concept? By “understand” they realize that men are going to have x without love in other relationships. Yes or no. By “practice” I mean woman go out and have X without love in various relationships? Yes or no.

I am guessing you are saying they need to understand but not practice. Correct?

Understanding does not mean a woman will accept it.

Timmy: “... I have never said that women need to be more promiscuous.”

In order for men to be promiscuous women also have to be promiscuous (that was the reason I asked you where are all of these women going to come from?) OR they are going to have to accept the fact that their husbands are being promiscuous and live with it OR they are going to have to live celibate lives and not have relationships.

Women have 3 choices. That is it.

Timmy: “Marriage sucks for women more than men. The men are not being monogamous, but the women think that they are and are being duped.”

But husbands who are promiscuous also sucks for women. The only difference is now they know their husband is cheating. That may be better from an ethical point but how is it better from an emotional point (or am I being childish now?). Whether my husband is promiscuous behind my back or in front of me, it is still emotional anguish. I don’t see that changing much, do you? Are women suppose to “get over” a husband’s promiscuous behavior?

Timmy: “.... Every time you make-up your version of how it would go, it is a very childish and angry vision of male female relations. It would go nothing like you said. Nothing. Your relationship with your husband would be exactly the same in my world. Nothing changes but honesty.”

I am not angry. I am inquisitive. I am struggling. I am a little unnerved. I’m tenacious.

I’ve only been kind of P.O.’d on this blog twice and it had nothing to do with you. That is all water under the bridge. There is nothing to be angry about here.

Childish? Like immature? Having a temper tantrum? I am in the dark.

Timmy: “Honesty. Acceptance of reality.
85% cheat. What is your alternative to what I am saying?”

I can’t have an alternative until I understand what you are saying. Whenever I try to clarify what you are saying I am accused of having some agenda here. Well at the risk of being accused of anger or childishness, I am going to attempt to paraphrase what you are saying:

Timmy believes that marriage sucks. Men are naturally promiscuous. When women marry them they are duped into believing that men will be monogamous but most are not. Men cheat on their wives and lie to them because they greatly desire x with other women. When men cheat they have x without love. Women need to understand that men will have x without love even though for most women x without love is not natural or a choice they would make for themselves. Women who are married need to realize, understand and accept that their husbands are going to cheat on them and it has little to do with love. Most men love their wives and some may even want to stay married. But most men do not want to be married.

Timmy: “The only change I am calling for is honesty. No one needs to get more promiscuous than they already are naturally. They will just start being honest about it.’

I have said that all along. If you want to be promiscuous then don’t get married. If you are married and cheat be honest about it. I have been saying that for days...weeks...

We are saying the same thing. Coming at it from a different angle.

Timmy: “There are not two different kinds of love, there is only one. Love.
X is something that we do with people we are attracted to.....
Can you explain the different kinds of love you speak of?
What is the difference between the love you have for your best friend, and the love you have for your husband, and the love you have for your brother. And don't say X..."

Philosophers have been discussing this for centuries. Plato was one of them. There are different kinds of love:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agap%C4%93

Read up on it and then we can discuss it if you want.

My comment for now is X is an act, it is not a feeling. Love is a feeling and I can tell you subjectively that the love I have for my husband is very very different than the love I have for my brother.

I love chocolate. Eating chocolate is an act, not a feeling. But I when I eat chocolate (the really good stuff) it produces a very nice feeling (not exactly love) but it is like no other feeling I get when I eat anything else. I might “love” pizza and pineapples. But the only food I get this “special” feeling with is chocolate. (Unfortunately for me, chocolate is addictive and fattening in large quantities so I have to eat it sparingly.)

LJ SAYS:
"Well, that is also my point. Don’t get married if you are promiscuous. Be honest."

Timmy: “85% of men would follow this advice if we were honest about marriage as a society in the first place. But then my world would exist, LJ. Most people would not be married or monogamous. All it takes for my world to exist, where marriage is a fringe thing and not the norm, is honesty.”

I don’t think it is quite that simple. But I agree that if honesty were in the equation, things would be a lot different.

LJ SAYS:
"The choice you have is that you can get married and take a vow and promise to love your spouse (for as long as possible) and there is nothing wrong with that as long as you are honest about it."

Timmy: “Notice how you had to clarify (for as long as possible)That is not what marriage was intended to be, and that is not how anyone sees it. Lindajean, you have a completely different definition of marriage here. And it is not the correct one. Nobody sees marriage as a promise to love as long as possible. They see it as it is worded, as a promise to love forever. That's what it is. And that is why it almost never works.”

That is when “hope” enters the picture. I don’t think you are going to get rid of people’s hopes. This kind of marriage is possible and is probably what most marriages end up being. People can say “till death do us part” but in reality, that doesn’t happen. Marriage lasts until people decide to end it. That is what most people want. A marriage that lasts until we decide to separate.

Timmy: “Lindajean. I am not calling for any change in male female X habits.
Just a change in the honesty about it.”

OK, I do see this from your angle now. I understand what you are saying-- be honest and let the cards fall as they may. Eventually marriage will no longer occur because women will not believe in “till death do us part” as a reality.

When women realize this, crap will hit the fan....

Timmy: “Why do you keep thinking that I am calling for more promiscuity?
I am calling for the same situation now, but with honesty?”

Because I think this conversation has evolved over time. In my mind you had a different argument basically saying to throw out marriage. I don’t think you are saying that now. You are saying that with time marriage will evolve into non-marriage.

Timmy: “What are you calling for?”

Honesty, hope in the future and lifestyles that don’t screw around with children’s emotional well-being (among other things).

Posted by: lindajean | March 19, 2008 8:19 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Hi Peter

Many thanks for your message. I wish you a wonderful Easter!

Best wishes
Soja

Posted by: Soja John Thaikattil, Sydney, Australia | March 19, 2008 6:19 AM
Report Offensive Comment

To Bernie from Soja, wishing you a Happy Easter!

ODE: INTIMATIONS OF IMMORTALITY FROM RECOLLECTIONS OF EARLY CHILDHOOD

by William Wordsworth

THERE was a time when meadow, grove, and stream,
The earth, and every common sight,
To me did seem
Apparelled in celestial light,
The glory and the freshness of a dream.
It is not now as it hath been of yore;--
Turn wheresoe'er I may,
By night or day,
The things which I have seen I now can see no more.

The Rainbow comes and goes,
And lovely is the Rose,
The Moon doth with delight
Look round her when the heavens are bare,
Waters on a starry night
Are beautiful and fair;
The sunshine is a glorious birth;
But yet I know, where'er I go,
That there hath past away a glory from the earth.

III

Now, while the birds thus sing a joyous song,
And while the young lambs bound
As to the tabor's sound,
To me alone there came a thought of grief:
A timely utterance gave that thought relief,
And I again am strong:
The cataracts blow their trumpets from the steep;
No more shall grief of mine the season wrong;
I hear the Echoes through the mountains throng,
The Winds come to me from the fields of sleep,
And all the earth is gay;
Land and sea
Give themselves up to jollity,
And with the heart of May
Doth every Beast keep holiday;--
Thou Child of Joy,
Shout round me, let me hear thy shouts, thou happy
Shepherd-boy!

Ye blessed Creatures, I have heard the call
Ye to each other make; I see
The heavens laugh with you in your jubilee;
My heart is at your festival,
My head hath its coronal,
The fulness of your bliss, I feel--I feel it all.
Oh evil day! if I were sullen
While Earth herself is adorning,
This sweet May-morning,
And the Children are culling
On every side,
In a thousand valleys far and wide,
Fresh flowers; while the sun shines warm,
And the Babe leaps up on his Mother's arm:--
I hear, I hear, with joy I hear!
--But there's a Tree, of many, one,
A single Field which I have looked upon,
Both of them speak of something that is gone:
The Pansy at my feet
Doth the same tale repeat:
Whither is fled the visionary gleam?
Where is it now, the glory and the dream?

Our birth is but a sleep and a forgetting:
The Soul that rises with us, our life's Star,
Hath had elsewhere its setting,
And cometh from afar:
Not in entire forgetfulness,
And not in utter nakedness,
But trailing clouds of glory do we come
From God, who is our home:
Heaven lies about us in our infancy!
Shades of the prison-house begin to close
Upon the growing Boy,
But He beholds the light, and whence it flows,
He sees it in his joy;
The Youth, who daily farther from the east
Must travel, still is Nature's Priest,
And by the vision splendid
Is on his way attended;
At length the Man perceives it die away,
And fade into the light of common day.

Earth fills her lap with pleasures of her own;
Yearnings she hath in her own natural kind,
And, even with something of a Mother's mind,
And no unworthy aim,
The homely Nurse doth all she can
To make her Foster-child, her Inmate Man,
Forget the glories he hath known,
And that imperial palace whence he came.

VII

Behold the Child among his new-born blisses,
A six years' Darling of a pigmy size!
See, where 'mid work of his own hand he lies,
Fretted by sallies of his mother's kisses,
With light upon him from his father's eyes!
See, at his feet, some little plan or chart,
Some fragment from his dream of human life,
Shaped by himself with newly-learned art;
A wedding or a festival,
A mourning or a funeral;
And this hath now his heart,
And unto this he frames his song:
Then will he fit his tongue
To dialogues of business, love, or strife;
But it will not be long
Ere this be thrown aside,
And with new joy and pride
The little Actor cons another part;
Filling from time to time his "humorous stage"
With all the Persons, down to palsied Age,
That Life brings with her in her equipage;
As if his whole vocation
Were endless imitation.

VIII

Thou, whose exterior semblance doth belie
Thy Soul's immensity;
Thou best Philosopher, who yet dost keep
Thy heritage, thou Eye among the blind,
That, deaf and silent, read'st the eternal deep,
Haunted for ever by the eternal mind,--
Mighty Prophet! Seer blest!
On whom those truths do rest,
Which we are toiling all our lives to find,
In darkness lost, the darkness of the grave;
Thou, over whom thy Immortality
Broods like the Day, a Master o'er a Slave,
A Presence which is not to be put by;
Thou little Child, yet glorious in the might
Of heaven-born freedom on thy being's height,
Why with such earnest pains dost thou provoke
The years to bring the inevitable yoke,
Thus blindly with thy blessedness at strife?
Full soon thy Soul shall have her earthly freight,
And custom lie upon thee with a weight
Heavy as frost, and deep almost as life!

O joy! that in our embers
Is something that doth live,
That nature yet remembers
What was so fugitive!
The thought of our past years in me doth breed
Perpetual benediction: not indeed
For that which is most worthy to be blest--
Delight and liberty, the simple creed
Of Childhood, whether busy or at rest,
With new-fledged hope still fluttering in his breast:--
Not for these I raise
The song of thanks and praise;
But for those obstinate questionings
Of sense and outward things,
Fallings from us, vanishings;
Blank misgivings of a Creature
Moving about in worlds not realised,
High instincts before which our mortal Nature
Did tremble like a guilty Thing surprised:
But for those first affections,
Those shadowy recollections,
Which, be they what they may,
Are yet the fountain light of all our day,
Are yet a master light of all our seeing;
Uphold us, cherish, and have power to make
Our noisy years seem moments in the being
Of the eternal Silence: truths that wake,
To perish never;
Which neither listlessness, nor mad endeavour,
Nor Man nor Boy,
Nor all that is at enmity with joy,
Can utterly abolish or destroy!
Hence in a season of calm weather
Though inland far we be,
Our Souls have sight of that immortal sea
Which brought us hither,
Can in a moment travel thither,
And see the Children sport upon the shore,
And hear the mighty waters rolling evermore.

Then sing, ye Birds, sing, sing a joyous song!
And let the young Lambs bound
As to the tabor's sound!
We in thought will join your throng,
Ye that pipe and ye that play,
Ye that through your hearts to-day
Feel the gladness of the May!
What though the radiance which was once so bright
Be now for ever taken from my sight,
Though nothing can bring back the hour
Of splendour in the grass, of glory in the flower;
We will grieve not, rather find
Strength in what remains behind;
In the primal sympathy
Which having been must ever be;
In the soothing thoughts that spring
Out of human suffering;
In the faith that looks through death,
In years that bring the philosophic mind.

And O, ye Fountains, Meadows, Hills, and Groves,
Forebode not any severing of our loves!
Yet in my heart of hearts I feel your might;
I only have relinquished one delight
To live beneath your more habitual sway.
I love the Brooks which down their channels fret,
Even more than when I tripped lightly as they;
The innocent brightness of a new-born Day
Is lovely yet;
The Clouds that gather round the setting sun
Do take a sober colouring from an eye
That hath kept watch o'er man's mortality;
Another race hath been, and other palms are won.
Thanks to the human heart by which we live,
Thanks to its tenderness, its joys, and fears,
To me the meanest flower that blows can give
Thoughts that do often lie too deep for tears.

***************************************

Posted by: Soja John Thaikattil, Sydney, Australia | March 19, 2008 6:17 AM
Report Offensive Comment

G'day Bernie! (hoping you may someday visit this website and read this)

On 5 March 2008 7:15 PM you wrote:

“Och Soja! Surely ye don't meant tae say ye'er leavin' us? Even more than Sam you are the main reason why I kept on here and had planned lots o' fab wee poems especially for you but also for you tae witness that even though Peter 'n you couldnae convert Gad 'n Timmy tae yer fundy eccentricities I would have em beggin' for more o' the poetry they so vehemently claim tae detest! Aye, and in the Scottish vernacular at that! Fr'instance, there was a Yankee Prof of English here not that long ago claiming it was impossible for sich a crude dialect as Scots tae express tender thoughts. If ye keep faith wi' me I'll show how wrang the bampot is so that even those two reprobates, Gad 'n Timmy will be in full agreement with me.
What d'ye say tae that?
If ye'er still determined tae leave then I'm off as well!”

My heartfelt thanks for your kind words which was truly balm to my soul: that you took the trouble to post English poems especially for me on Sam Harris' blog, although it isn't meant for that purpose (to be an English poetry blog I mean). But as you well know your poems are equally appreciated by LJ, so you could have continued the conversation with her and posted them for her sake too, as you always did.

As to the Yankee Professor of English who refused to be believe that Scots could express tender thoughts in such a wonderful dialect, tell him from me (if you happen to see him again), that American English is exactly Queen's English either; and if Americans can express tender thoughts in their dialect, then why can't the Scotch express their emotions in their own dialect? Tell him too that the problem he has is that he is unable to listen to Scotch with his heart.

I have truly enjoyed reading the poetry you posted, and I will always remember how you managed to awaken a love of English poetry in me (even if I am unlikely to spend much time reading English poetry). But as far as this blog goes, alas, even good things must come to an end sometime.

I wish that you find loving relationships (especially love with a special woman/women) in the context of your daily life in Scotland and whatever else you need to be truly happy in your life. Seeking substitute relationships on a blog is the best way to keep reality at bay.

With many thanks for the joy you brought me with your poetry on the Sam Harris blog, I close with an English poem for you (posted separately)!

Best wishes
Soja

Posted by: Soja John Thaikattil, Sydney, Australia | March 19, 2008 6:06 AM
Report Offensive Comment

LJ SAYS:
"What you are speaking of: “extremely low divorce rate, virtually no female infidelity and a much lower male infidelity” is from lack of freedom, "

Exactly.
Just add freedom, and monogamy is no longer the norm. It drops down to about 10% of society.
But 85% still pretend.
Silly.

Posted by: timmy | March 18, 2008 3:47 PM
Report Offensive Comment

LJ says:
"They are cheating because of the reasons you listed above POA, seed spreading, etc... but the dissatisfaction/problems in their marriage is how they justify it. (My wife is boring, a nag, takes me for granted.....so I am going to.....)"

For the ones who have unhappy marriages, yes, they can use this to justify their cheating actions. But for the ones who have happy marriages, they have to find some other justification. And they do. And they proceed with their affair. The reason for the cheating has not changed. Just that one of these guys has a little less guilt.

LJ SAYS:
"So are you saying (more) women need to understand this concept or (more ) women need to practice this concept?"

Yes. The alternative is 85% of them continue getting cheated on.

LJ says:
"but you seem to be implying that women, generally speaking, need to be more promiscuous since marriage sucks"

No, that is not what I am saying. I have never said that women need to be more promiscuous.

LJ:
"I think I have grasped that you believe marriage is unnatural for men and promiscuity is not, therefore in the case of men, marriage sks"

Marriage sucks for women more than men. The men are not being monogamous, but the women think that they are and are being duped.

LJ SAYS:
"Good, god, Timmy. Surely this this not what you mean"

Of course not. Every time you make-up your version of how it would go, it is a very childish and angry vision of male female relations. It would go nothing like you said. Nothing. Your relationship with your husband would be exactly the same in my world. Nothing changes but honesty.

LJ SAYS:
"I don’t think I am a stupid person. But I cannot get a grasp of this scenario. How is this going to work for women? What advantage are they going to have in this scenario over marriage or monogamy?

Honesty. Acceptance of reality.
85% cheat. What is your alternative to what I am saying?

"I am going to choose this kind of hideous lifestyle over the one I already have?"

Who has asked you to?

LJ says:
"(Yes, some will I understand that.) But if 100% of men are promiscuous and say only 50% of women are (at best) then how do we square the circle here? That is the part I do not understand."

That is the case now, Lindajean. What are you not getting about this? The only change I am calling for is honesty. No one needs to get more promiscuous than they already are naturally. They will just start being honest about it.

Once again, Lindajean, I am not calling for a change in sexual conduct. I'm calling for a change in honesty about the conduct that naturally has been occurring for millennia.

LJ SAYS:
"I don’t have X with my brother or best friend. You are talking about 2 different kinds of love. Platonic love and sensual"

There are not two different kinds of love, there is only one. Love.
X is something that we do with people we are attracted to.
Some people choose only to have X with someone they love.
This does not make their love different than any other love.
It's just love, with X thrown into the mix.

Can you explain the different kinds of love you speak of?
What is the difference between the love you have for your best friend, and the love you have for your husband, and the love you have for your brother. And don't say X. X is not a difference in love anymore than traveling with someone you love makes that a different kind of love than people you love but don't travel with.

LJ SAYS:
"Yes, that makes perfect sense. But that is not what you said. Or that is not the meaning you implied."

No, that is exactly what I said and what I implied.

LJ SAYS:
"Well, that is also my point. Don’t get married if you are promiscuous. Be honest."

85% of men would follow this advice if we were honest about marriage as a society in the first place. But then my world would exist, LJ. Most people would not be married or monogamous. All it takes for my world to exist, where marriage is a fringe thing and not the norm, is honesty.

Notice how you had to clarify (for as long as possible)
That is not what marriage was intended to be, and that is not how anyone sees it. Lindajean, you have a completely different definition of marriage here. And it is not the correct one. Nobody sees marriage as a promise to love as long as possible. They see it as it is worded, as a promise to love forever. That's what it is. And that is why it almost never works.

LJ SAYS:
"Then you are contradicting your own argument by saying too many women cannot separate love from X"

No, that is your argument. Are you kidding me here? I can quote you saying just that at least 6 times in this discussion.

LJ SAYS:
"I am arguing (from your point) that there are not enough women, too many are getting married and buying into the myth of monogamy and more women need to accept your point of view to level the playing field."

Lindajean. I am not calling for any change in male female X habits.
Just a change in the honesty about it.
Why do you keep thinking that I am calling for more promiscuity?
I am calling for the same situation now, but with honesty?
What are you calling for?

Posted by: timmy | March 18, 2008 2:32 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Timmy asked:

You know where monogamous marriage does work much better?
In religious theocracies. Extremely low divorce rate, virtually no female infidelity, (except rape) and a much lower male infidelity rate. But remove religious enforcement, and you get 85% cheating, and 52% divorced while the kids are still in school. Anyone want to take a stab at why that is?

Yes, I certainly will:

What you are speaking of: “extremely low divorce rate, virtually no female infidelity and a much lower male infidelity” is from lack of freedom, not from modern-day, westernized marriage. The idea in modern civilized societies is to make marriage a freedom for people and to allow people to make the choice to get married and to allow people the freedom to get out of the marriage if it doesn’t work.

Your descriptions are not even “marriages.” They are forced sexual and familial relationships. By today’s standards those relationships are a form of slavery. Marriage is not slavery in the 21st century when it takes place in civilized societies between two consensual adults. And the reason for your percentages is because people who are fortunate to live in a civilized democracy get to change their minds. This isn’t about marriage. It’s about hideous governments that don’t give people basic human rights because of some insidious belief in God.

Posted by: lindajean | March 18, 2008 2:04 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Gad said:
"Same argument as yours, just different players......"

lol
So you are agreeing with me?
Or you are just being sarcastic and have no point.

In fact they are not the same situation at all.
First of all, I did not advocate, nor is there any such thing as, a ritualistic ceremony that parents have with their children where they each pledge their love for one another until death do them part. That would be dumb dumb dumb dumb. Redundant and pointless. Just like marriage. Don't you think? No? If it's a good idea, why don't we do it now? I'll tell you why. Because it would be pointless and dumb.

Not to mention, roughly 90 % of people who take marriage vows, will break them and fall out of love.
However, when it comes to parents love for their children, I'm just guessing here, I don't have any stats on this, but challenge my guess if you like, I'm guessing that at least 90% of parents love their children till death do them part. And yet no public vows or ritualistic ceremonies.

So to recap the difference between these two things that Gad says are the same.

Marriage:
100% vow to love for life in public ritual.
10% live up to it.

Parent:
100% take no public vows or rituals to love, they just love.
90% (at least) love till death do them part. No vow necessary.

So very very far from the same argument.
But thank you for helping me illustrate yet again that public love vows in a ritualistic ceremony are pointless.

Posted by: timmy | March 18, 2008 1:36 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Timmy:

LJ: "I am saying that people cheat overall because there is something missing from their marriage and sometimes that "something" is lack of communication and marital conflicts, aging, (and good X)."

Timmy: “No that is not what you have been saying. You have been saying that women cheat for those reasons. But men, you said, cheat for a different reason. Variety. POA. Unchecked seed spreading, something younger, prettier etc.”

They are cheating because of the reasons you listed above POA, seed spreading, etc... but the dissatisfaction/problems in their marriage is how they justify it. (My wife is boring, a nag, takes me for granted.....so I am going to.....)

LJ: "If a guy is happy in his marriage, has good communication with his wife, is able to resolve conflicts with her, has good X, etc... I am guessing he may not be as inclined to cheat. Would you agree with that?"

Timmy: “No. Well, maybe with that wording "may not be as inclined to cheat". He may not, but most likely he would be just as inclined, because it most often has nothing to do with any of that. Even the good X part.”

That part is debatable. The truth is we don’t know. You have an hypothesis. That’s all.

Timmy: “I am not telling you that you need to separate your X and love. Did you think that is what I meant? Really? Come on. You can have all the X and love combination that you want. You go girl. X and love go extremely well together. Just like travel and love. I mean, traveling is nice and all, but it's really a heightened experience when you do it with someone that you love. So no, lindajean, I am not telling you that you can not have X and love together, anymore than I am telling you that you can not have travel and love together. You just need to understand that they are separate things, that go well together. But they are separate, and go just fine on their own as well.”

Well, your exact words were, “ "I deal with them fine. You do not. I can not help you. But I can tell you that reality will not change anytime soon. 100 years from now, just like 100 years ago, the stats will be the same. 90% of men will not be interested in monogamy for life. And love has nothing to do with it. You need to separate love from sex. Or just keep your head in the sand like the rest of society."

I take those words to be directed at me since I am female. You are making that statement to all women (whom you believe do not understand you can separate love from X.) Instead of saying “you need to separate love from X” I think you mean, “Women in general need to understand that love and X can be separate.” I argue that most women do understand that this can be done. But my point is so what? If women can understand this from a conceptual level, that does not mean they want to practice it. So are you saying (more) women need to understand this concept or (more ) women need to practice this concept?

Me: "And if it is natural for men to be promiscuous then by all means be promiscuous. Just don't expect me to be. And don't expect me to separate love from X because as a male you have a (natural) desire to be promiscuous"

Timmy: “I don't expect you to be anything, lindajean.”

Well, I don’t think you are expecting me personally to separate X from love, you are right, but you seem to be implying that women, generally speaking, need to be more promiscuous since marriage sucks (SKS)and so I am placing myself into this equation (as an example) because your statement seems to be aimed at women in general. And I am not quite sure what you are saying because you kind of bounce around from day to day on this.

I think I have grasped that you believe marriage is unnatural for men and promiscuity is not, therefore in the case of men, marriage sks. But I’m not sure what women are suppose to do with all of this. Are you saying that because marriage sks for men it therefore sks for women also? And if it sks for everyone then we all should just go out and have promiscuous X even though there are (probably) lots of women that are not into it but somehow we need to “get over it” and separate love from X, because with promiscuous X you really cannot have much love, because promiscuous X is usually rather short-lived, because once the guy has laid you a few times he is going to lose interest in you (because he never really loved you in the first place) and he is going to find some other hot-to-trot female, and you are suppose to be OK with that because you cannot fall in love with this guy, you can only have wild X with him, and when he is gone then you just get real girl, and go out and find another one who will do the the same pattern in a few weeks or months?

Good, god, Timmy. Surely this this not what you mean.

I know this sounds dramatic and you are not trying to say it this way, but I really don’t get what you are saying....I don’t think I am a stupid person. But I cannot get a grasp of this scenario. How is this going to work for women? What advantage are they going to have in this scenario over marriage or monogamy? I am going to choose this kind of hideous lifestyle over the one I already have? You think other women are going to do this also? (Yes, some will I understand that.) But if 100% of men are promiscuous and say only 50% of women are (at best) then how do we square the circle here?
That is the part I do not understand.

LJ: "How do you separate love from X?"

Timmy: “Easily. What does one have to do with the other?
You love your brother. You love your best friend. No X. People meet at a party. Find each other attractive. Get turned on. Have X. No love.
But X and love also go together incredibly well. Like fine wine and cheese.”

I don’t have X with my brother or best friend. You are talking about 2 different kinds of love. Platonic love and sensual.

Timmy: “I was referring to your repeated complaint that I was not taking into account the fact that women can't separate X from love as easily as men. That women are more emotional about X than men. So I said, in this world where 90% of men are not monogamous, it sucks to be a girl, given that they are naturally more emotional about X. Does that not make sense?”

Yes, that makes perfect sense. But that is not what you said. Or that is not the meaning you implied.

Timmy: “No You are demagoging an issue in a very over the top and insidious way. Shame on you. I've seen this move from you before. Very unattractive. Disgusting really.”

Well, disgusting is a bit strong. I think it appears when you are not explaining yourself very clearly. I am left with innuendoes and so that is the conclusion I infer.
No one is at fault here, Timmy. No shame. We are just trying to have a conversation. Sometimes words are unclear or misconstrued.

LJ: "My solution has not changed: Stop lying. Be honest"

Timmy: “No. That is my solution. Your solution is stop cheating and honor your vows.
If everyone who is cheating was honest, none of them would be married anymore, or would not have gotten married in the first place. The result of honesty, is that most people would not be married, or get married. That 85% would be people who should not get married. And that is my point. Marriage is not only "not for everyone". But is not for most people.”

Well, that is also my point. Don’t get married if you are promiscuous. Be honest. If you do get married and cheat, (because you discover later in life you are promiscuous) then at least be honest with your spouse that you are promiscuous or you are going to start being promiscuous. If people want marriage, then get married. If people want children then have children. But understand that promiscuity is not the best lifestyle for children because it tends to be more “unstable” and it destroys the “unit” (so does divorce.)

LJ: "I am calling for choice, hope, love and honesty."

Timmy: Me too. What does marriage have to do with any of that. What does monogamy have to do with any of that?

You can have all of those things in marriage. The choice you have is that you can get married and take a vow and promise to love your spouse (for as long as possible) and there is nothing wrong with that as long as you are honest about it.

LJ: "I do wonder: if men want to be promiscuous then where are they going to find all these women to be promiscuous with?"

Timmy: “OMG are you serious with this question?
The same place they are finding them now!
lol’

Then you are contradicting your own argument by saying too many women cannot separate love from X and that they ought to (if that is your argument). Inferring of course that if more women were doing just that there would be less marriage and more “free” X which is in your mind a very good thing. I am arguing (from your point) that there are not enough women, too many are getting married and buying into the myth of monogamy and more women need to accept your point of view to level the playing field.

Posted by: lindajean | March 18, 2008 11:29 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Timmy said:
"They have your everlasting love"

That's crazy talk! No one can promise to love their children forever. You can not will your self to love them always, to do so is to believe you have some supernatural power to do so. No parent should ever lie to their children and tell them that their love for them is everlasting, just tell them the truth that no parent can make that kind of promise.

It ridiculous for the government to spend my tax dollars to promote the ritual or parent responsibility! They should just stay the hell out of it!

Same argument as yours, just different players......

Posted by: Anonymous | March 18, 2008 9:24 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Hi Peter:

Definition you quoted about circumstantial evidence: “Evidence not bearing directly on the fact in dispute but on various attendant circumstances from which the judge or jury might infer the occurrence of the fact in dispute."

Peter: “From the manuscripts alone there is enough evidence to support the people, places, events that the Bible speaks of. These people, places, events are circumstantial evidence. Archaeology and secular history confirms many of the events, peoples, places the Bible speaks of as being of an accurate description.”

I am not disputing the people, places and some of the events in the Bible. It probably has some historical truths. I am disputing the supernatural beliefs from the Bible. That Jesus was born a Virgin, that Jesus will return to earth, the Rapture..... NO amount of circumstantial evidence can prove any of this. There is nothing to “infer” here.

Peter: “All wisdom and soundness of thought originates from God and when we think His thoughts after Him.”

This is what I mean by not having evidence. There is nothing circumstantial (at best) about this statement.

If I want to infer that my dog can understand English because I have “circumstantial” evidence that she watches TV with me (when in fact all she is doing is sitting next to me on the sofa and looking at the TV) then I am free to believe she understands Geraldine Ferraro when she hears her on TV. But in reality, I am misunderstanding cause and effect relationships in this scenario. Many religious people tend to do just that.

Peter: “The proof is in the impossibility of the contrary.”

Huhh....what is impossible about there not being a God?

LJ: "You can say it is a mind he gave me."

Peter: “Yes I can say that and you have no way of proving otherwise and no rational way of explaining otherwise.”

I have lots of rational ways of explaining. It is your God that is irrational.

Peter: “Yes, you do have a wonderful mind and mind can only come from mind. You will never be able to show me how mind can come from anything but mind. And the mind that everything comes from is the Mind of God.’

Where is the evidence (circumstantial or otherwise)? There is none Peter. You cannot prove to me that my mind comes from the Mind of God (whatever that may mean).

Peter: “You can't establish any true judgment without an objective, ultimate, absolute standard. Anything else is just subjective opinion. The reason so many things we discover are true is because we are discovering or applying God's truth.”

Well, you are half right. Most of everything is subjective.

Peter: “It depends on whose theocracy the society is based on, the God of the Bible or the god(s) of some make believe deity.”

Living in a theocracy is the antithesis of a constitutional democracy such as the US. You are telling me that you would rather live in such a system? A system that would quell and stifle the words of LJ and atheism? That is the world you want to live in? How would you spend all of your time Peter? Blogging with other Christians who want to stifle and quell the LJ’s of the world?

Good god, that is a scary thought and gives me goose bumps.

Peter: " I invite you to look into it and test your suppositions if you wish to carry this further."

LJ: "I don't."

Peter: “I don't blame you. It can get pretty in depth.’

I am not fearful of “depth”. I seek it out. I am only weary and frustrated with people who believe a Christian theocracy would be superior to a democracy like the US and who want to force their beliefs onto others who do not accept them.

Posted by: lindajean | March 18, 2008 8:21 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Hi Peter:

Peter: “So in Hitler's Germany and the cultural, political, moral, socio-economic conditions of that culture it is possible that you may have been one of those people who reasoned that it was for the best interests of the nation that the Jewish people be rounded up and put in concentration camps.....

Peter, forget Hitler and Germany. He WAS pathological. If I had lived in Germany at the time and defied Hitler I would have been dead. And probably not a quick death either. There is nothing rational about putting yourself on the line and getting killed for opposing your government that is megalomaniacal. Ditto with China. Anyone speaking out against dictators is dead meat. If you want to be a martyr then speak out and defy their policies. If you want to keep yourself, your family and your children alive then tow the line.

Peter: “ And why should/ought I listen to your subjective opinion and follow the examples of your personal experience if there are questions as to its truth or reality? On the chance that you could be right? On the chance that the masses have been right?"

You don’t have to follow my opinion. But I don’t have to follow the “opinion” of what you think God is, says or means.

Peter: “....Without an absolute, ultimate, objective standard how do you determine they are "good"? You may need them, but two opposing views of good becomes a problem in determining which view is actually good if either is.”

Nothing is absolute.
The closest we have to absolute is in the physical, material world through the laws of physics and nature. But even on the quantum level things begin to change.

We ought to have some absolute morals about how we treat each other. I will not argue that at all. In particular we ought to have laws against corrupt and religiously inclined governments that torture their own people. There is no sane reason on this planet why young girls are forced to have their genitals mutilated, women are stoned to death for having “illicit” sex, children die from malnutrition, lack of clean water and preventable, women are raped and children are sexually molested. There is no reason why 6 billion people on this planet allow such moral atrocities to happen.

Peter: “Whose acceptable standard? Whose past experience? Whether it is your subjective experience or that of another or a group of others how do you determine good when to viewpoints are opposite each other, both claiming to be the good.”

All morals are subjective. God is subjective. The Bible is subjective. The best we can do is agree that certain immoral acts (like the ones I listed above) need to be stopped. And people who perpetrate these kinds of immoral acts need to be reduced to nothing so they cannot continue their sadism and hate. Preaching the Bible isn’t going to stop the pathologies of the world. The only thing that can stop pathology is to look it straight in the eyes and prevent the pathological people from continuing it. It comes to raw power over corrupt and pathological power.

Peter: “Whatever you want to call it the fact remains that the majority either went along with or were caught up in the movement, just as they were in Mao's cultural revolution in which an estimated 80-100 million people were put to death.”

Yes, like the Catholic Church that got caught up in Hitler’s extermination of the Jews. So much for moral “authority.” It just went down the tubes.

Peter: “Without an absolute standard it is not a matter of right or wrong but what the powers that be get away with. If Hitler is in control your telling him that murdering 6 million Jews is wrong is of no consequence because he makes the rules that determine what is good, just like in ancient times the monarchy was the absolute rule. Opposition results in death and silence to other views.”

Not. Without absolute democratic governments that understand the concept of “individual rights” and “civil rights” will you have “the powers that be get away with [it].” It wasn’t Christianity that saved the world from Hitler. It was the “free” world. The Allied forces.

Posted by: lindajean | March 18, 2008 7:48 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Hi Peter:

You said, "By delusional I mean that your world view is untrue and you are willingly deceived into believing it, even though it does not conform to what is real. So you are believing a lie."

I would agree that is what I think about your world view as well. That you are believing a lie but that does not mean you are "pathologically" or "dysfunctionally" delusional.

You said, "Fair enough."

A consensus. Thanks for taking the time to clarify all of that with me.

Posted by: lindajean | March 18, 2008 7:12 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Gad said:

"But I will also tell them that the greatest tragedy in life is not love that didn't last, but never finding love you believed was everlasting"

They have your everlasting love.
So it will not be a tragedy if they do not find a love that they "believe" will defy the 90% against odds. But you tell them what you like.

And I am just blown away to hear an atheist of your enthusiasm level saying that it is not important if the statistics (science) says that 90% will break their marriage vows, What's important is that you "believe" and "hope" that it will last forever. A man who loves to call others "wishful thinkers" at the drop of a hat, now preaching the ultimate in wishful thinking. A fairy tale. The irony.

But I have no problem with this kind of wishful thinking. I have this kind of wishful thinking about my love. But you don't make vows, and sign legal contracts, and create rituals (that all normal people should follow) based on wishful thinking. You just have it. And enjoy it while it lasts.

And the government should stay the hell out of it!

Posted by: timmy | March 18, 2008 3:25 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Hi Lindajean,

YOU: "These people found love in marriage"

These people found love.
Marriage was the religious ritual, come societal norm, that they went through because everybody normal goes through it. Heck, a girls mom and aunts start hounding her as early as 18 years old who she is going to marry and when? Because every girl must get married. Meaning every girl must (if they are normal and lovable) find a man who will promise to love them forever. And every man, if he is normal, (read "with us" read "with God") should find a girl and offer to love her forever. This is normal. Other lifestyles are alternative, promiscuous... heathen.

Society teaches this. And we know full well that 90% of those who follow this ritual will fail. That is not "hope". That is delusion. Hope is what all people have, that their life will go well. And their lives will go better, when we stop teaching our children that they are abnormal if they do not find true love, like everybody else.

YOU:
"I am saying cheating on your spouse harms your marriage and destroys trust. That puts any love you may have with your spouse at odds"

I 100% agree. I am saying the same thing.

YOU:
"I am saying that people cheat overall because there is something missing from their marriage and sometimes that "something" is lack of communication and marital conflicts, aging, (and good X)."

No that is not what you have been saying. You have been saying that women cheat for those reasons. But men, you said, cheat for a different reason. Variety. POA. Unchecked seed spreading, something younger, prettier etc.

YOU:
"If a guy is happy in his marriage, has good communication with his wife, is able to resolve conflicts with her, has good X, etc... I am guessing he may not be as inclined to cheat. Would you agree with that?"

No.
Well, maybe with that wording "may not be as inclined to cheat". He may not, but most likely he would be just as inclined, because it most often has nothing to do with any of that. Even the good X part.

YOU:
"From your quote above: What is it I (personally) need to get past?"

I didn't say you (personally). I was responding to this:
"So how does a woman get past the fact that 90% of men will have multiple partners in their life, married or not?"

I assumed that by "a woman" you meant any woman. All women. You are any woman. Were you not asking how any woman could get past this. And are you not included in that category? Nothing personal. All women need to get past it. Because it's reality. And has been for a long time. And will be for a long time to come.

YOU: "I NEED to separate love from sex?"

I am not telling you that you need to separate your X and love. Did you think that is what I meant? Really? Come on. You can have all the X and love combination that you want. You go girl. X and love go extremely well together. Just like travel and love. I mean, traveling is nice and all, but it's really a heightened experience when you do it with someone that you love. So no, lindajean, I am not telling you that you can not have X and love together, anymore than I am telling you that you can not have travel and love together. You just need to understand that they are separate things, that go well together. But they are separate, and go just fine on their own as well.

YOU: "Having a monogamous relationship is incredibly satisfying and provides me with much pleasure"

You go girl. Just don't be telling me that the government should promote it just because it's working for you. It's not working for most.

YOU:
"And if it is natural for men to be promiscuous then by all means be promiscuous. Just don't expect me to be. And don't expect me to separate love from X because as a male you have a (natural) desire to be promiscuous"

I don't expect you to be anything, lindajean.

YOU: "How do you separate love from X?"

Easily. What does one have to do with the other?
You love your brother. You love your best friend. No X.
People meet at a party. Find each other attractive. Get turned on. Have X. No love.
But X and love also go together incredibly well. Like fine wine and cheese.

YOU:
"You know it sucks to be a girl? Have I ever said that?"

I was referring to your repeated complaint that I was not taking into account the fact that women can't separate X from love as easily as men. That women are more emotional about X than men. So I said, in this world where 90% of men are not monogamous, it sucks to be a girl, given that they are naturally more emotional about X. Does that not make sense?

YOU:
"So you are comparing "try being a guy in a false paradigm of monogamy..." with the girl's life I just described above?

No.
You are demagoging an issue in a very over the top and insidious way. Shame on you. I've seen this move from you before. Very unattractive. Disgusting really.

ME: "What is your solution to the 85%, lindajean?"

YOU: "My solution has not changed: Stop lying. Be honest"

No. That is my solution.
Your solution is stop cheating and honor your vows.
If everyone who is cheating was honest, none of them would be married anymore, or would not have gotten married in the first place. The result of honesty, is that most people would not be married, or get married. That 85% would be people who should not get married. And that is my point. Marriage is not only "not for everyone". But is not for most people.

YOU: "I am calling for choice, hope, love and honesty."

Me too. What does marriage have to do with any of that. What does monogamy have to do with any of that?

YOU:
"I do wonder: if men want to be promiscuous then where are they going to find all these women to be promiscuous with?"

OMG are you serious with this question?
The same place they are finding them now!
lol

Posted by: timmy | March 18, 2008 2:49 AM
Report Offensive Comment

OK, Timmy. We are only going in circles again, so never mind. I will tell my children that everlasting love is a rare and beautiful thing. But I will also tell them that the greatest tragedy in life is not love that didn't last, but never finding love you believed was everlasting.

Posted by: GAD | March 18, 2008 1:16 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Gad,

ME: "The vow doesn't say "hope to" it says "will""

YOU: "Pointless semantics"

lol. The only difference between "hope to" and "will" is semantics. lol

YOU: "Good then lets take supernatural power out of the discussion of marriage"

Not a chance.
I said that it was a coincidence that the couple were still in love, not that, to be able to love at will, is not a supernatural power. It is. Because it is not a natural power.

If I promised you that I was never going to let anyone hurt you. And then you went your whole life and no one hurt you. Did my promise have anything to do with that? Of course not. It was a fluke, and my promise only appeared to have been kept. But for that outcome to have anything to do with my promise, I would have to have supernatural powers.

Same goes for the promise to love forever. You have no more control over that than the other. I'm not saying that you believe in the supernatural because you made that vow, Gad. I'm saying that you made a promise that you have no control over the result of. You can certainly control whether or not you stay with your spouse. But if you think that you have any control over whether or not you will continue to love your wife forever, you would be imagining the supernatural power to love at will. And you would be believing in free will.

YOU:
"But they all have a chance at it, and just like lottery you can't win if you don't play. What would have us tell our children, you ain't got no hope in hell of ever having everlasting love so just take what you can get when it comes along."

What's wrong with the truth? Everlasting love? It's just like genius. It's rare. Special. And not something that you can just have with hard work. I wanted to be a rock star when I was 15. My parents didn't tell me that I had no chance in hell. They told me the odds, and the realistic chance that I had. They told me that while I would need to try hard, and work hard, that still might not be enough. I understood. I went for it anyway. But I wasn't a failure when it didn't happen. Because it was not entirely in my control. And so rare. Like the lottery.

So what should we tell our kids about everlasting love?
That it happens to about 10% of us if we're lucky. (as opposed to the current paradigm of "you are abnormal if you do not vow love for life with someone, and a failure if you do, and it goes south)
Tell them the truth.

Posted by: timmy | March 18, 2008 12:41 AM
Report Offensive Comment

You: "I am not arguing that multiple partners are "a better lifestyle than marriage", I am arguing that marriage does nothing to stop people from having multiple partners. I am arguing that multiple partners is a natural state of being and goes on with or without marriage...."

I called you dogmatic because you were arguing that promiscuity (multiple partners) is better than marriage and I felt that was your opinion and in my view you have nothing to back that up. If you are not arguing that then I do owe you an apology... I apologize. But this seems to be the undertone of your whole argument. After reading your quote above, you explicitly state otherwise. I will hold you accountable to that in any future references.

YOU: " But if you think that changing the marriage vows in this way is a good idea, why not, instead of scrapping all of the good things about religion along with religion itself, let's just change some of the words in the bible to show that it is metaphorical and not literal. Then we can all still go to church, and preach about love thy neighbor, and have bake sales and we can all call ourselves Christians and not believe in anything supernatural. It's the same thing, Lindajean......"

It is not the same. If people got rid of the supernatural in religion there would be no religion. You can have bake sales and talk about loving your neighbor without believing in God. If you changed and tweaked the Bible to be all metaphorical it would still not be simply Greek mythology. Do people who study Greek mythology believe in Zeus? Hardly. But people who study the Bible metaphorically still believe in God. You can take the literalism out of the Bible but you can't take God and supernatural out of Christianity and still be "religious."

You: "Fluke. Was going to happen with or without those vows. The vows were moot to the outcome. No?"

That is not the point. These people found love in marriage. Making a vow and having hope is not supernatural.

You: "Research indicates so far that religion wins also. Do you believe that research?"

I don't denounce it. It is possible (and common sense) that there are certain advantages to people's well-being who claim to believe in God. For one thing the vast majority of people do believe in God. When a vast majority hold such a view I would argue they would feel some kind of satisfaction in knowing that their belief in God is such an appealing belief. Yes, I believe religious people to some degree may be happier than non-religious people. That does not mean their belief in God is real. Only that their belief in God makes them feel a sense of happiness and peace. Big difference. And of course it does not mean they are better people.

Me: "But once again you are simplifying it as people (men) cheat because they no longer love their spouse. I argue they cheat because of boredom, stress, communication, loss of youthfulness... and not necessarily because they no longer love their spouse. There is a big difference."

You: " I am the one who says that you can love your spouse, and have sex with others at the same time. You are the one that seems to be arguing that having X with others is somehow at odds with love."

I am saying cheating on your spouse harms your marriage and destroys trust. That puts any love you may have with your spouse at odds.

You:
"Secret multiple X = Good for children
Open multiple X = Bad for children"

This is why I argue you are simplifying "multiple X".

You: "Here now, you are acting as though you think that cheating has to do with communication and conflicts? Before you had a very different reason for men cheating, saying that it has nothing to do with these elements of a relationship. So which is it? You think that better communication will improve the cheating stats? Seriously?"

Admittedly, I struggle with this answer because I think there are many reasons why people cheat. But I am saying that people cheat overall because there is something missing from their marriage and sometimes that "something" is lack of communication and marital conflicts, aging, (and good X). And if you are correct that men cheat because it is natural for them to do so, I think that if they are having problems in their marriage that is going to help them justify cheating. If a guy is happy in his marriage, has good communication with his wife, is able to resolve conflicts with her, has good X, etc... I am guessing he may not be as inclined to cheat.

Would you agree with that?

Me: "So how does a woman get past all the emotions when Mr. Wonderful says I am out of here after a 3 month "fling." Then another Mr. Wonderful comes along for another 3-6 months and leaves, and then another"

You: "I don't know about this woman in this childish example you provide above. I don't see open relationships working that way. ..."

This is human nature. To deny that women (in particular) will get emotionally involved with a man she has X with and to say that is "childish" ignores human (female) nature. I imagine there are also men who get emotionally attached to women they have X with. I don't see any of this as childish. It is part of falling in love. I find that to be rather beautiful.

Do you think it is "childish" for a wife to be emotionally hurt when her husband has X with another woman? Or for a husband?

Me: So how does a woman get past the fact that 90% of men will have multiple partners in their life, married or not?

You: I don't know. But I do know that you need to get past it somehow.
Have you tried accepting reality? Give it a whirl, it's worth a shot.

This is not about me personally accepting reality. I have a realistic view of (my) marriage and hold no fantasy that it is guaranteed to last the rest of my life (only hope that it will if I still feel the way I do about it in 20 years.) If there are 3 out of 4 chances my husband will cheat on me I understand that could be a possibility and someday a reality. I am not hiding my head in the sand. But I am hopeful that if it happens he will be honest with me and I am hopeful that there is also a chance it may never happen at all.

From your quote above: What is it I (personally) need to get past?

Me: "Men seem to be able to have X without all the emotional stuff in non-committed relationships, but I argue most women cannot. And how do you deal with jealousies which are innate in human emotions?"

You: "I deal with them fine. You do not. I can not help you. But I can tell you that reality will not change anytime soon. 100 years from now, just like 100 years ago, the stats will be the same. 90% of men will not be interested in monogamy for life. And love has nothing to do with it. You need to separate love form sex. Or just keep your head in the sand like the rest of society."

I don’t expect “help”. Just your (honest) view on the matter.

I NEED to separate love from sex? Why? I don't really want to have X without love because (from past experiences) I found it very cold, indifferent and heartless. I did not like it (very much) and it is not something I would want to incorporate into my lifestyle. I learned from my experiences as most intelligent people do. Having a monogamous relationship is incredibly satisfying and provides me with much pleasure.

You said long ago this discussion is not about my personal relationship (or yours) that we are talking about marriage in general. But now you are saying that I, LJ need to separate love from X? That is like me saying you should not be promiscuous. I have never said that. I've only said that cheating is unethical because it is dishonest. And if it is natural for men to be promiscuous then by all means be promiscuous. Just don't expect me to be. And don't expect me to separate love from X because as a male you have a (natural) desire to be promiscuous.

How do you separate love from X? Been there and done that. No romance. No satisfaction.

You: "85% cheat.
Monogamy for life is not impossible. Just highly highly improbable, and unnatural.
We can try to fight nature. But we usually loose. And that's when people get hurt. When they have unrealistic expectations."

That is not the only time people get hurt.

You: “...This we can fix. By changing our paradigm.
Do not teach children (especially poor little girls) that they will grow up and meet Mr. Wonderful, and that they will get married and stay married for life. You know, if they are NORMAL. If they choose to not get married, this would be an alternative lifestyle. Abnormal."

Go girl.

You: "I know it sucks to be a girl in this reality, Lindajean. But you should try being a guy in this false paradigm of monogamy for life...."

LOL. What is on your mind blogger friend? You know it sucks to be a girl? Have I ever said that? Not in my reality. If you are frustrated being male then I have some suggestions for you....

It certainly sucks for some females who are forced into arranged marriages at the age of 14, who are raped, who have to cover their total bodies when they go out in public, who will be stoned to death if they have sex outside of marriage , etc... we can both agree that would definitely suck, can't we?

So you are comparing "try being a guy in a false paradigm of monogamy..." with the girl's life I just described above? A white, middle class (wealthy?), intelligent man such as you who can probably have his choice of woman at the bat of an eye and who has a (natural) urge to be promiscuous at times?

Yeah, Timmy, life sure sucks!

I've never made any claims most women in Western culture have lives that suck. Only that if a woman is going to be promiscuous she is probably going to pay an emotional price for it; that if a woman's husband cheats on her she is probably going to have an emotional reaction to that (and will be hurt by it); and if a woman is going to cheat on her husband than she has some major problems in her marriage and it might be beneficial for her to ponder this and be honest with her husband. That is all I am saying (about women in general).

You: "You end up having to lie about your real instincts and Xual desires. It's not good. Honesty is better.
What is your solution to the 85%, lindajean?"

My solution has not changed: Stop lying. Be honest.

You: "I am calling for honesty.
You are calling for more denial, I guess, because you certainly have offered no solutions to 85% cheating."

I am calling for choice, hope, love and honesty. I have no control or power over the fact that 85% of married people cheat. You are right. I have no solutions. But logic will tell me that if marriage is not working for 85% of the people who start off wanting to be married and who actively seek it out, there are probably many reasons for that and I don't know that men's natural urges to be promiscuous are the one and only variable. But I am not willing to discount that your argument has substance. I do wonder: if men want to be promiscuous then where are they going to find all these women to be promiscuous with unless they want to start paying for it?

Well, that is nothing new under the sun.

You: "Honest acceptance of reality is good for children"

Up to a point.

Posted by: lindajean | March 17, 2008 3:46 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Timmy said:
"The vow doesn't say "hope to" it says "will""

Pointless semantics.

Timmy said:
"No, not a supernatural power."

Good then lets take supernatural power out of the discussion of marriage.

Timmy continued:
"Just coincidence. Unless you think that the reason it happened was because they promised each other it was going to happen. And that it wouldn't have happened unless they made that promise"

Well that is a very interesting question. Is the percentage of people who promise and succeed greater then those who don't promise? Do those who promise try harder then those who don't promise? Do those who promise have fewer partners then those who don't promise........

Timmy said:
"It (Everlasting love) is rare and special. Most kids have no hope in hell of ever having"

But they all have a chance at it, and just like lottery you can't win if you don't play. What would have us tell our children, you ain't got no hope in hell of ever having everlasting love so just take what you can get when it comes along.

Posted by: GAD | March 17, 2008 2:52 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Posted by: timmy | March 17, 2008 2:01 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Gad said:
"It does not take supernatural power to say that you will love someone till your dead, only hope"

LOL.
Like I said to Lindajean. The vow doesn't say "hope to" it says "will".
If the vow said "hope to" you would be right.
But it says "will", so I am right.
Unless you think that you can love at will.

Gad continued:

"And if even one (and there are far more then that) couple does love till death do them part, that's proves your argument is invalid, unless you claim it was supernatural power that made it possible"

No, not a supernatural power. Just coincidence.
Unless you think that the reason it happened was because they promised each other it was going to happen. And that it wouldn't have happened unless they made that promise.

I didn't say that everlasting love does not exist. I just maintain that it is extremely rare, as opposed to everyone's birthright. And if you think that society does not teach our children right now that it is practically their birth right, you are wrong. It does. All kids grow up thinking that the norm is everlasting monogamous love. And that is so very far from the truth. Monogamous marriage is for less than 10% of the population. Everlasting love is like genius. It's not everyone's to have with just a little hard work and hope. It is rare and special. Most kids have no hope in hell of ever having it. And that is Just reality. The divorce rates and cheating stats back this up.

Posted by: timmy | March 16, 2008 10:44 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Hi again,

ME: "...if you base validity on circumstantial evidence why do you discount the Bible, for it contains both circumstantial and direct evidence?"

Nonsense.

"circumstantial evidence
n.

Evidence not bearing directly on the fact in dispute but on various attendant circumstances from which the judge or jury might infer the occurrence of the fact in dispute."

From the manuscripts alone there is enough evidence to support the people, places, events that the Bible speaks of. These people, places, events are circumstantial evidence. Archaeology and secular history confirms many of the events, peoples, places the Bible speaks of as being of an accurate description.

The manuscripts claim to be handed down accounts and eyewitness testimonies of what actually transpired.

And the Bible itself claims itself to be the hand of God, a compilation of sixty-six different books penned by over 40 different human authors, all claiming to be inspired and lead of God to record His dealings and revelation of Himself to man. Through these 66 different books written over a timespan of hundreds of centuries there is a unity and consistency to the message, in other words common themes throughout, all pointing to man's rebellion and God's solution, the Lord Jesus Christ. The list goes on.

LJ: "The Bible can teach us some of this, I will not argue with that. But the Bible does not have a monopoly on wisdom and soundness. I would say the Bible has a very poor record of this in many instances."

All wisdom and soundness of thought originates from God and when we think His thoughts after Him.

ME: "The difference between your measure and mine is what I am contending for. God is truth; ultimate, objective, absolute truth. You have no way of disproving Him and yet you call those who believe in Him delusional? That is subjective unless you can offer some proof for your experience, that it is true."

LJ: "You have no way of proving him."

The proof is in the impossibility of the contrary.

LJ: "So at best you say I ought to accept him on faith and I am not willing to do that. Otherwise today the Bible, tomorrow the Koran."

Yes you ought to and are responsible to God for breaking His laws and decrees, but I also realize that you will not unless God has mercy on you and brings an end to your delusion, your deception, your hardheartedness to God.

There is only one truth, God's, as revealed in the Bible. All other religions are man's attempt to create God in his image.

ME: "All the time using the mind that God has given you."

LJ: "You can say it is a mind he gave me."

Yes I can say that and you have no way of proving otherwise and no rational way of explaining otherwise.

LJ: "I will just say it is a mind I have and appreciate and hope it will continue to work well as I age."

Yes, you do have a wonderful mind and mind can only come from mind. You will never be able to show me how mind can come from anything but mind. And the mind that everything comes from is the Mind of God.

ME: "There again you make your judgments based on your subjective experience. It's as circular as you claim my views are, and I would contend any argument can be when pushed far enough.'

LJ: "I am saying that judgements are based on subjective experience and knowledge about the world. I don't know of any other way to experience it. You of course want God in the equation. But that is your wish, not necessarily a fact."

You can't establish any true judgment without an objective, ultimate, absolute standard. Anything else is just subjective opinion. The reason so many things we discover are true is because we are discovering or applying God's truth.

ME: "So we both claim the other is delusional in their belief. So who is right? Is right to you the majority opinion?"

LJ: "Right is not the majority opinion--otherwise George Bush would not be president!"

LJ: "Right" is clear,reasonable thinking that is ethical and moral (not harmful to others)."

Ethical and moral as believed by who? Harmful by whose definition?

LJ: "Lots of gray areas in "right". In a theocracy, right is "god" --no gray areas."

That is right, if that god is the one and only God, the Christian God. The gray areas come when we read into instead of taking out of the Bible what it actually says.

It depends on whose theocracy the society is based on, the God of the Bible or the god(s) of some make believe deity.

ME: "There again, who is delusional, you or I? How do you know anything for sure? What is your bench mark? Self? A collection of subjective selves? If there is nothing objective out there then all anything is is irrelevant subjective opinion that is hard to prove as true for which standard are you going to use as a benchmark?"

LJ: "My benchmark is knowledge, reason and experience and some cultural values about ethics and morals"

There again, whose and why are they right?

ME: " I invite you to look into it and test your suppositions if you wish to carry this further."

LJ: "I don't."

I don't blame you. It can get pretty in depth.

LJ: "I believe there is some historical hypotheses that Jesus was actually a living, red-blooded person. I don't believe anyone has actually "proven" he existed."

ME: "You could say the same thing about Napoleon Bonaparte or any other historical figure who is no longer physically alive on this earth. I believe Napoleon is just some historical hypotheses that may or may not have actually existed."

LJ: "Napoleon did not claim to be God or God's son. He did not claim to come back and visit us and Rapture us into heaven. It is these kinds of claims I am challenging, not whether Jesus was born in Bethlehem and his father was a carpenter."

No Napoleon did not claim these things. Anyone who would claim such things would either be crazy, a liar or who he claimed to be. Those are the three choices that C.S. Lewis proposed. He would not have been a "good teacher" if in fact he was lying or crazy. When you study the Biblical accounts, the gospels and epistles, you see that they reveal a Person of high ethical character that is interested in the wellbeing of others and teaches love, first for God then for others.

ME: But if you look at the evidence for Napoleon's existence and that for the Lord Jesus Christ you would have to say, as any reasonable historian has done in the past, that these were actual historical people. Would you agree with that or do you still want to go on probability? Even that probability is hard to question and still go by the guidelines you gave earlier about circumstantial evidence as being valid.

LJ: "If there is the same kind of evidence I will agree both men lived in the past. But there is no evidence suggesting immortality or supernatural. This is the bone of contention."

The Bible claims to be a supernatural book. This is an evidence whether you choose to look at it that way or not. And something happened after the death of Jesus that changed the course of human history. Something happened to these men who claimed to be disciples of Jesus that transformed and continues to transform to the good peoples lives throughout the centuries.

I will have to leave it here tonight Lindajean. Time is short these days.

Posted by: Peter Huff | March 16, 2008 9:46 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Timmy said:

"Do you promise to love this person forever, till death do you part?"

"A person can only make this promise if they believe that they have the supernatural power to love at will."

That is an absurd statement. It does not take supernatural power to say that you will love someone till your dead, only hope. And if even one (and there are far more then that) couple does love till death do them part, that's proves your argument is invalid, unless you claim it was supernatural power that made it possible.

Posted by: GAD | March 16, 2008 9:22 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Lindajean says that I am being dogmatic because:

"Because you are arguing from an opinion and you don't have substance to back up your belief that multiple partners are a better lifestyle than marriage and that this will improve the quality of life for children"

I am not arguing that multiple partners are "a better lifestyle than marriage", I am arguing that marriage does nothing to stop people from having multiple partners. I am arguing that multiple partners is a natural state of being and goes on with or without marriage. Multiple partners is by far, the norm, compared to monogamy for life. The only thing that marriage does is make us lie about it. And my substance to back this up is the statistic that 85% of married people cheat on each other. Add in the people who don't ever get married and you have about 95% of the population not being monogamous. Once again, I am not arguing that multiple partners is better, just the norm, by far.

I am arguing that more honesty about this would probably improve the life of children. You are arguing that more sticking our heads in the sand about it is the way to go. Because you are not offering any solutions to the problem of people cheating. In fact, you admit that you don't even know why it is that they are doing so in such mass numbers.

YOU:
"It is dogmatic because it is YOUR----Timmy's-- opinion and you think it is a good idea. "

Having an opinion, and thinking that it is a good idea makes you dogmatic?
Explain yourself dear blogger. Do you not have ideas that you think are "good". Does this make you dogmatic?

You owe me an apology and a retraction of the "dogmatic" accusation, Lindajean.

YOU:
"It has nothing to do with supernatural. It has to do with hope in the future"

No, lindajean. You can not change the marriage vows to suit your argument. The word hope does not exist in the marriage vows. If it did, you would be right. But it doesn't, so I am right. Please examine the following examples.

"do you have hope that this union will last?"

A person can say "yes" here, and it requires no belief in supernatural powers.

However:

"Do you promise to love this person forever, till death do you part?"

A person can only make this promise if they believe that they have the supernatural power to love at will. Otherwise, this is like making the promise to never let any harm come to someone. It is a nice sentiment. But impossible to promise.

YOU:
"I am down on that!!! Been there, said that. Let's change them. Right now, today! Put out an ad in the LA Times and NYT! I am with you on this. 100%. 200%. Are you convinced I believe this is a great idea?"

People in love naturally hope that it will last forever. There is no need for this marriage thing. But if you think that changing the marriage vows in this way is a good idea, why not, instead of scrapping all of the good things about religion along with religion itself, let's just change some of the words in the bible to show that it is metaphorical and not literal. Then we can all still go to church, and preach about love thy neighbor, and have bake sales and we can all call ourselves Christians and not believe in anything supernatural.

It's the same thing, Lindajean. Just scrap it all together. We don't need the institution of religion for "love thy neighbor". And we don't need the religious institution of marriage, to have hope of everlasting love.

YOU:
"And because they want varied X then marriage overall is doomed and so get over it LJ and admit that marriage is antiquated and delusional. That is what you want me to agree to and I cannot and I do not ."

So be it.
Keep your head in the sand, and tell yourself that monogamy is the norm.

YOU:
"I will argue that marriage is delusional when religious beliefs enter into the picture stating that women submit to their hubs and they must "obey" them and all that crap. And yes it is delusional when people say "until death do us part" and actually believe those words literally and that by saying them something magical is going to happen to their spouse and he/she will never cheat on them.....that is delusional but sometimes it is not completely delusional because some people do stay faithful to their spouse a lifetime."

Fluke. Was going to happen with or without those vows. The vows were moot to the outcome. No?

YOU:
"Government should promote healthy relationships and "units" that benefit children. Research indicates so far marriage wins"

Research indicates so far that religion wins also. Do you believe that research?
But seriously, 85% cheat. So if marriage is good for children. So is cheating.

YOU:
"But once again you are simplifying it as people (men) cheat because they no longer love their spouse. I argue they cheat because of boredom, stress, communication, loss of youthfulness... and not necessarily because they no longer love their spouse. There is a big difference."

I have never said this. You keep saying that I have said this. But I haven't.
I have stated repeatedly and repeatedly that men cheat because monogamy is not natural to them. Not because they don't love their spouse. I am the one who says that you can love your spouse, and have sex with others at the same time. You are the one that seems to be arguing that having X with others is somehow at odds with love.

YOU:
"you argue that multiple X is not harmful to children and does not affect their sense of security and "unit." I argue you have nothing to back this up objectively and it is only your opinion"

No.
I argue that multiple X goes on in 85% of marriages, so it is you, by your argument that marriage is good for children, who argues that multiple X is good for children. Perhaps you argue that marriage is good for children, because the parents in a marriage are more likely to keep that multiple X secret from the kids, because they are keeping it secret from each other. Where as a couple who is being honest with each other (not married) in an open relationship, would be less likely to keep multiple X secret from their children.
Secret multiple X = Good for children
Open multiple X = Bad for children

YOU:
"But you are missing the point that cheating is complex and there are probably things married people can do to decrease the chances of it by communicating, and looking at conflicts in their marriage more honestly"

Here now, you are acting as though you think that cheating has to do with communication and conflicts? Before you had a very different reason for men cheating, saying that it has nothing to do with these elements of a relationship. So which is it? You think that better communication will improve the cheating stats? Seriously?

YOU:
"In multiple partner relationships your simplistic view ignores that when people have X there are emotional components to this act"

No it does not. There is nothing simplistic about my view. Just realistic.

YOU:
"So how does a woman get past all the emotions when Mr. Wonderful says I am out of here after a 3 month "fling." Then another Mr. Wonderful comes along for another 3-6 months and leaves, and then another"

I don't know about this woman in this childish example you provide above. I don't see open relationships working that way. But women in general have to deal with men as they are. Not as they would like them to be. They should not have been told when they were little girls, by society, that the norm is to be monogamous with prince charming for life. They were lied to. You were lied to. Now your expectations are not in line with reality.

So how does a woman get past the fact that 90% of men will have multiple partners in their life, married or not?
I don't know. But I do know that you need to get past it somehow.
Have you tried accepting reality? Give it a whirl, it's worth a shot.

YOU:
"Men seem to be able to have X without all the emotional stuff in non-committed relationships, but I argue most women cannot. And how do you deal with jealousies which are innate in human emotions?"

I deal with them fine. You do not. I can not help you. But I can tell you that reality will not change anytime soon. 100 years from now, just like 100 years ago, the stats will be the same. 90% of men will not be interested in monogamy for life. And love has nothing to do with it. You need to separate love form sex. Or just keep your head in the sand like the rest of society.

85% cheat.
Monogamy for life is not impossible. Just highly highly improbable, and unnatural.
We can try to fight nature. But we usually loose. And that's when people get hurt. When they have unrealistic expectations.

Conclusion? Marriage is not for most people.
And yet most people get married.
This we can fix. By changing our paradigm.
Do not teach children (especially poor little girls) that they will grow up and meet Mr. Wonderful, and that they will get married and stay married for life. You know, if they are NORMAL. If they choose to not get married, this would be an alternative lifestyle. Abnormal.

I know it sucks to be a girl in this reality, Lindajean. But you should try being a guy in this false paradigm of monogamy for life. You end up having to lie about your real instincts and Xual desires. It's not good. Honesty is better.
What is your solution to the 85%, lindajean? Onward ho? Head in the sand?

I am calling for honesty.
You are calling for more denial, I guess, because you certainly have offered no solutions to 85% cheating.

Honest acceptance of reality is good for children
Denial, secrecy and painting a false world through rose colored glasses is not.

Posted by: timmy | March 16, 2008 4:47 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Peter,

Jesus went from birth to death without ever sinning, right? Jesus was prefect, right? Was Jesus programmed? If so Christianity is a sham. If he had sinned he would not have been perfect and there would be no Christianity Prefect beings do not make imperfect choices. Your world view simply and logically can not support the perfection of God, Adam and Jesus, each one contradicts the perfection of the other two. It is an insolvable problem, to continue to try without changing any of your definitions is pointless and is wasted effort.

Posted by: GAD | March 16, 2008 4:04 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Lindajean:

As stated previously I'm no longer going to get into any long protracted discussions with you, because they tend to go no where.

This answers most of your post, which was therefore redundant questioning.

“Hell my incompatible views are more inline with Dennett's then your compatible ones.”

Beyond that go back and reread Dennett's views more carefully (assuming you did in the first place). Pay close attention to his materialist, deterministic and evolutionary views of free will. His "version" of free will does not supersede cause and effect, is it simply about the precision of the output in relation to the deterministic inputs. I.E. it is virtual i.e. it is an illusion .

Posted by: GAD | March 16, 2008 3:38 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Peter,

BTW, I have answered every question you have put to me. There is no dodging here. You just don't like the answers.

Posted by: timmy | March 16, 2008 3:11 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Peter,

Is God a programmed robot, because everything he does is right and good? Does this mean that God is an entity that is programmed to do only good, with no free will to make wrong choices? I mean, by your logic, God either makes some wrong choices from time to time, or he must be programmed to make only right choices. Right?

Posted by: timmy | March 16, 2008 3:08 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Peter said:

"He was created only knowing the good, but the option was there to know evil as well. If he was perfectly free to choose you're saying he would not choose evil. Then I'm saying if this was the case then his ability to choose was not completely free"

Yes it was.
What are you on about Peter?
You have the choice to kill other people right now. But you have chosen not to do so. Does the fact that you choose not to kill your neighbor, mean that you are a robot, programed not to kill? Or just that you made the free choice not to kill?

The same goes for Adam, Peter. He doesn't have to make a wrong choice to prove that he has the ability to make a wrong choice. He could make right choices his whole life, all the while having the ability to make the wrong choice. We wouldn't know until his death that he is perfect. Because he would have the opportunity to make a wrong choice and not be perfect right up until his death. But after he dies, we can look back and see that he was perfect. Because we know that he did have the choice to do bad or wrong, and yet he never did. That doesn't make him a programmed robot. That makes him a perfect human.

Get it?
Probably not.

Posted by: timmy | March 16, 2008 2:58 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Hi Lindajean,

To continue,

ME: "So how do you separate illusion from reality? How do you know that any of your experiences are anything more than illusion? It is a pretty fine line to walk and still make sense of life is it not? Am I just having an imaginary conversation with myself here? "

LJ: "That fine line is based on experience, good reasoning abilities, cultural conventions and individual/cultural morals."

So in Hitler's Germany and the cultural, political, moral, socio-economic conditions of that culture it is possible that you may have been one of those people who reasoned that it was for the best interests of the nation that the Jewish people be rounded up and put in concentration camps. In Mao's China your reasoning and the cultural conventions of the times may have persuaded you that sterilization and abortion and a limit of one birth per family was the way to go, and if you found out that your baby was going to be a girl abort it and hope the next one would be a boy.

ME: "Well without an ultimate, objective, absolute Authority how do you separate subjective opinion and subjective experience from reality, from what is real? Because you have found something in common with someone else? And why should/ought I listen to your subjective opinion and follow the examples of your personal experience if there are questions as to its truth or reality? On the chance that you could be right? On the chance that the masses have been right?"

LJ: "I don't need a God to tell me what is "real". If it's raining outside, does God tell me that? No, I look at the window and I have a physiological experience with my eyes, ears and brain that tells me it is raining outside . Why do you imply that I need God to verify what I experience is real?"

There are so many things that you cannot verify with your senses that are qualitative rather than quantitative, so there is no way that you can experience them with your ears, eyes or physical senses. Rain drops are some of the things you can, but how do you determine that your "experience" of "good" is actually good, especially when someone else is convinced their opposite contrary experience is good?

LJ: "I need good, sound, reasoning abilities and a brain that functions well."

Without an absolute, ultimate, objective standard how do you determine they are "good"? You may need them, but two opposing views of good becomes a problem in determining which view is actually good if either is.

ME: "So are you equating a valid experience to consensus? In that case Hitler's Germany and the death camps or 100 million Muslim extremists who condone suicide bombers must be right in their particular cultures."

LJ: "No, I am not. I am equating a valid experience to standard acceptable behaviors, conventional norms and what most reasonable people would tell me is "valid" along with my own past experiences."

Whose acceptable standard? Whose past experience? Whether it is your subjective experience or that of another or a group of others how do you determine good when to viewpoints are opposite each other, both claiming to be the good.

LJ: "I am talking about functional, sane people here. I am not talking about deranged, maniacal killers like Hitler who have no reasonable understanding of reality. You are really talking about true DELUSION. Hitler was a madman. The fact that millions of Germans went along with him tells us the POWER and FEAR a madman can instill in the masses. It's called "cognitive dissonance" and is a defense mechanism. Google it. There was also a survival instinct playing out in the German masses."

Whatever you want to call it the fact remains that the majority either went along with or were caught up in the movement, just as they were in Mao's cultural revolution in which an estimated 80-100 million people were put to death.

Without an absolute standard it is not a matter of right or wrong but what the powers that be get away with. If Hitler is in control your telling him that murdering 6 million Jews is wrong is of no consequence because he makes the rules that determine what is good, just like in ancient times the monarchy was the absolute rule. Opposition results in death and silence to other views.

Posted by: Peter Huff | March 16, 2008 2:42 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Hi Lindajean,

Sorry to take so long in responding to your last post.

LJ: "I would like to clarify what that means exactly when I call you "delusional" and likewise what (I think) it means when you call me that as well. (Let the record note that PH has used the word "delusional" in describing my beliefs on this blog.)"

LJ: "First, when you use the word "delusion" or "delusional" in reference to my words, I do not take it personally at all. And I assume the same when I use those words in reference to your beliefs."

LJ: "When I call you delusional, as when you call me delusional, I take that to mean that in your opinion you don't believe my views are sound or substantial---that I am not giving you a good enough or convincing enough argument to convince you they are true. Delusional implies that maybe one does not have the whole picture here, that they are "in love with" their own thoughts and words and are not looking at the other person's point of view seriously. It implies that there is not enough evidence to make those words ring true and that if you believe your own words, you are believing in something that is not necessarily "real" or believable to others. Delusional implies that you are dogmatic and unwilling to think outside the box."

LJ: "Would you agree that such a word can mean those kinds of things in relation to our discussions and using the word is not a frontal assault on some one's intelligence, their personality or their sanity? That it is not "insensible" to use such language in a debate over religion and atheism?"

I agree that because I call your worldview delusional it does not mean that I do not count you as a highly intelligent, loving, functional human being with dignity and worth.

By delusional I mean that your worldview is untrue and you are willingly deceived into believing it, even though it does not conform to what is real. So you are believing a lie.

LJ: "Because even though I believe you have "delusional" thoughts about religion, I would never say that PH is pathologically delusional; that he cannot function in everyday world events; that he is dysfunctional and lacks reasoning and logical skills in the everyday world of life. No, I would not say that about you or anyone else on this blog. Just as I don't believe you have suggested likewise with me.:

Fair enough.

Posted by: Peter Huff | March 16, 2008 1:22 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Gad said to me: “back at you.”

This is not an answer.
Only a defense at not answering.

Gad said, “It's a guaranteed conclusion that your idea of free will is incompatible with Dennett’s, so don't pat your own back to hard....”

Explain what is “guaranteed” about any idea I had that is incongruent with Dennett’s view of compatible determinism.

Gad said, “Hell my incompatible views are more inline with Dennett's then your compatible ones.”

Prove this. Show me how your “ incompatible determinism” is more in line with his “compatible determinism” and my “compatible determinism” and is different than his.

Gad said: “ As has become typical you are just following the leader that you think you can project your views on to give them some validity with the least effort possible without actually having to have a clue.”

Give an example of how I am “projecting my views” that are “clueless” in regards to Dennett.

On November 4 I posted the following to validate my views on compatible determinism which are similar to Dennett’s :

“And to paraphrase Daniel Dennett : We are free to make decisions, to have the ability to anticipate likely consequences and to act to avoid undesirable ones. While much of nature is deterministic and follows the rules of physical laws, as humans we have "elbow room" to make real choices in our behaviors.”

That is me agreeing with (by paraphrasing) his compatible determinism.

Just to refresh your memory, a definition of compatible determinism is below from Wikipedia:

“Compatibilism is the belief that free will and determinism are compatible ideas, and that it is possible to believe both without being logically inconsistent (people who hold this belief are known as compatibilists)....”
and... [it] is a theory that argues that free will and determinism exist and are in fact compatible.The compatibilist definition of free will states that free will is not the ability to choose as an agent independent of prior cause, but as an agent who is not forced to make a certain choice.”

This is the elbow room he speaks of.

Dennett also writes in Freedom Evolves that "Human freedom, is not an illusion; it is an objective phenomenon, distinct from all other biological conditions and found in only one species, us."

This quote was cited at :

http://www.reason.com/news/show/28782.html

This is not what you believe (if I understand you correctly) from your long ago comments about incompatible determinism.

Sam Harris

Posts By Category

Posts By Date

The Problem with Atheism

Comments