FoodBanter.com - View Single Post

>From: "Bob (this one)"

[ . . . ]

>> It is as impossible to prove God scientifically as it is to disprove God.
>> _You_ can't prove that God _does not_ exist.
>>
>> I can give some exellent testimonies, including those of some important
>> scientists and statesmen. ;-)
>
>They can't offer proof, either. Their word counts no more than yours.

If testimony is nothing, you invalidate your own testimony that there is no
God.

>>>I think not.
>>>A god is a natural invention of our specie. It was the easy way out.
>>
>> Except that some religions -- most notably many varieties of Buddhism -- do
>not
>> believe in a god.
>
>Huh? How does this disprove the assertion above, "A god is a natural
>invention of our specie[s]."

You offer no evidence that it is "natural" -- or what the word natural means.

"Our species" believes in gods, a God, or none. You were overgeneralizing.

>> Easy how? The four major religions of the Western World began in the long
>time
>> before anesthesia. Adversity tests faith.
>
>Non sequitur.

No. "In the past, we believed . . . but now we know . . . " Religious people
have faced the circumstances of life. Faith is not easy -- but then, life is
not easy.

>>>Otherwise we would have to answer to our actions in this life.
>>
>> Except that many of those who most wished to improve _this_ life believed
>in an
>> afterlife.
>
>Still, no proof of anything.

Proof that your generalization is again wrong. Faith is not easy. Some faith
is true, but even the true faith is not easy.

>>>By extention, we also had to invent an afterlife.
>>
>> Again, there are religions which do *not* believe in an afterlife. Ancient
>> Judaism seems to have thought the personality faded out after death.
>>
>> You make too many assumptions.
>
>And, still no proof.

Proof that your assumptions about the ground of faith are wrong. I have not
sought here to prove anything else. And you are proved false.

>>>So we invent an external force that explains (in a myriad number of ways -
>>>take your pick - can any one be right?) our faults and the way to overcome
>>>them - all this based on reward/punishment - same as training a dog.
>>
>> Again, there are faiths which have nothing to do with ethics. The
>Greco-Roman
>> pantheon seems to have taken a long path.

>Deities in those societies were cast in very different roles than
>modern theology does. Are you asserting that the Spartans didn't have
>a developed ethical code? That Greece wasn't the beginning source of
>our modern ethical tenets?

No. I was asserting that the gods of the Illiad and the Odyssey were not
ethical. And it _is_ a long path between the early position and the Spartans,
and the Athenian statement that "Father Zeus does not like oath-breakers."

>> If you wish to persuade, you need better proofs.
>>
>>>In actual fact this is not a bad idea. It gives those incapable of
>>>independant thought or incapable of behavior acceptable to a close knit
>>>society an anchor - a base line so to speak - of proper conduct, and it
>>>gives the 'proper thinking people' the 'right' to punish transgressors.
>>
>> Except, again, that many of those who _were_ capable of independent thought
>> were most strongly adherent to those beliefs.
>
>Nonsense.

It is so. Zwingli and the Diggers and Dr. King and . . . again and again, some
of the strongest protesters against Things As They Are are also religious. If
you like, you can take on the words of the early feminist, Christine de Pisan,
and say that it is not right to offend people while we challenge them. But it
is more than that. These people are devout.

> > John Bunyan was no conformist.
>> He, and other religious people, fought _against_ society and its supposed
>right
>> to punish transgressors.
>
>When there were no other explanations for the natural phenomena they
>saw, faith was the major means to any sort of conclusion. Martin
>Luther wasn't a conformist, either, but he, too, didn't prove
>anything. None of them has.

They prove that your assumptions about religion are false. I have not sought
to prove more.

>>>Unfortunately mankind is never satisfied by something simple that works or
>>>more correctly something that cannot be used to subjugate those less
>>>fortunate or those who seem to have a natural (and obviously
>superior) way
>>>of dealing with the naturally occurring restrictions that come with living
>>>in a co-operating society.
>>
>> What was that sentence I saw you with last night? ;-)

>>>Thus we find the correct religious forces of Europe destroying several
>>>amazing civilizations in the Americas (The Conquistadores and the Jesuits
>to
>>>name two such forces).
>>
>> And several native organizations -- including some of the Indian tribes
>> oppressed by the "amazing civilizations" -- joined with the conquerors in
>their
>> fight.
>
>Come on...

>This proves that Indians weren't opportunistic? Or that they couldn't
>see which side their bread was buttered on? "If you can't beat 'em,
>join 'em."

"The amazing civilizations" practiced blood-letting, imperialism, rule by
terror. The Inca strangled child sacrifices: the Aztec practiced cannibalism.
It's a safe assumption that the subject peoples did not like these things. The
"evil invaders vs. good natives" breaks down upon closer inspection.

>>>Thus we find Islam trying to prove (by whatever means possible - including
>>>total annialation - sound familiar?) that 'their' way is the 'only' way.
>>
>> Some Muslims have done so. Some Muslims have not. Is "religion" to be
>damned
>> for the bad and not commended for the good?
>
>I think yes. The bad and the accompanying silence and inertia of the
>"good" conspire to create a miasma of evil. The "good" not standing up
>to the others creates a basis of suspicion for *everyone* who espouses
> that religion.

Except that the good (no quote marks) _does_ stand up to the evil. St. Francis
protested the crusades: so did many others. Dr. King led the march to Selma.
That some of these protests did not end the abuses does not mean that they were
worthless. A woman in Iran preaches that Islam is and should be feminst. A
woman in America writes a book against slavery.
And some people lead their lives in peace and quiet, thus quietly refuting
evil. I know a minster who had been the child of an alcoholic, and had
undergone violence in childhood. Once he was so angry and frustrated that he
went over to a parishoner and, with her permission, threw her china against the
wall. Yet he was a good pastor, gentle toward his people. His church was
strong and good. I think you ascribe too much evil to faith.

>>>Thus we find the Jews wreaking havoc in the middle east.
>>
>> . . . See above.

>>>Until we, as a thinking people, dump this outdated and patently
>>>superstitious idea of god we are doomed to do the exact thing that
>virtually
>>>all religions tell us we must not!
>>
>> "Thinking people" are religious, too. If you are ignorant of them, I'll
>post a
>> few of their names.

>Religious faith has it's roots in many conditions. Some healthy, some
>perverse. The declaration of faith has no more substance than any
>other without proof.

Your original statement _was_ overgeneralization. The declaration of faith
among thinking people proves that thought does not necessarily kill faith.

>> You seem to have some bigotry toward those who do not think as you do.
>
>Funny how the deeply religious are most like that. Have you been
>reading the insanity from Chung?

I don't read Chung. I _do_ read you. Yes, your post is bigoted. "No faith is
good" is such a sweeping generalization. Let's see . . . Would you be willing
to assert that an atheistic faith is good -- such as with some Buddhists, or
the Ethical Culture? Would you say that good people have a good faith, and bad
people have a bad faith? Or you could stand with such Anglicans as Lancelot
Andrewes, who said that good people can be saved, even from a bad sect.

>>>Any religion that allows for the destruction (through action or inaction)
>of
>>>anyone is a false religion!
>>
>> What of someone who allows people to destroy themselves? Is that evil, or
>> mercy?

>Ask the whole question and maybe an answer can be formulated.

A person says, "I want to die. I want to be damned." Is it evil to allow
this, or is it an allowance of the individual's free will?

>>>By that definition there are no (mainstream) religions that do not fall
>into
>>>this catagory.
>>
>> Again, you don't seem to have read much about religion.
>
>It's in the papers every day.

Ah! There's the problem. You wouldn't take your stand on science or art from
what's in the papers. With art, you'd go to galleries, talk to artists and
look at their work. You'd even go to Kenneth Clark -- and to learn to
differentiate him from Joe Shmoe. In the same way, you should read more deeply
about religion, and learn from those who you think are good and true.

E. P.