In the news this week ...

https://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/2011-01-18-sex-abuse-Irish-Vatican-18_ST_N.htm?csp=34&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Religion-TopStories+%28News+-+Religion+-+Top+Stories%29

It is shocking that the Vatican advised Irish bishops not to report paedophile priests to the police. Of course, the Vatican says that everything is better now and that the welfare of children is at the heart of their policies.

How many children could have been spared the molestations of Catholic paedophile priests had the bishops reported them to the police? And what does it tell us about bishops that they would comply with a letter from the Vatican telling them NOT to report paedophile priests to the police!

https://bbc.kongjiang.org/www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00xhj80

Today's Thinking Allowed on Radio 4 included an interview with Dr Heather Hamill, author of "The Hoods: Crime and Punishment in Belfast".

Between 1973 and 2010 the number of punishment beatings reported to the police was 5889. Interestingly, "distant republican groups" deal with delinquent youth, but on the loyalist side the picture is different: here the victims tend to be much older and the beatings are more to do with settling scores and feuding. In 2007 the number of delinquents, car-thieves, drug dealers and the like, beaten by republican groups (reported), was only 12.

Stories like this perplex me greatly. If the guy had stolen the book from a shop or from another person, then fair enough. Or even if he was attempting to use the book to set someone's house on fire, I'd give them that, afterall, theft and arson are legitimate crimes.

However, despite the sacredness the book is given by believers, to a non-believer it's simply a collection of wood pulp and ink, arranged in a fashion to make it comprehensible. If you managed to legimately obtain the wood pulp and ink before it was used in the printing and binding, and burnt it then, would it still have the same criminal tones? I don't think so somehow, so it's not the material effect of burning your own book that's the issue here.

Apparently it's 'inciting racial hatred', but the last time I looked, it wasn't a racial grouping, but a religion, and if religions are being classed as races, then how can you possibly get new converts? Race is obtained through birth, not opinion and faith. If doing something that's offensive to a religion is now a crime, then everyone in the world has broken that law, be it by eating pork, sex before marriage or even wearing the wrong clothes.

So, I'm left with two alternatives. The first is that specific acts against specific religions are now illegal. Where this list is posted is beyond me. I'm fairly sure I could burn several book titles and the police wouldn't bat an eyelid, I could also say what I like about certain religions and not be bothered. But perform specific acts against specific religions? I'd better watch out.

The second is more sinister. Perhaps the police arrested the man because of his motives in burning the book. Now, someone's motives are their own, ultimately all the law should be concerned with is the action itself, afterall, if it's what goes in inside someone's head that is now a crime, there's a word for that.

Thought crime

Re: the story about the Anglican 'baptism-lite' service.

There is a comment following the Mail Online article, with which I have a certain sympathy. And, would you believe it, it was written by a humanist.

I hope I'll be allowed to quote at least some of it:

"I think the church misunderstands the stance of non believers on this subject. It's not the length of service or religious words we take issue with, it's the notion our children are born sinners & somehow need cleansing. All children are born innocent & the only ceremony required is one to welcome them to the family or community."

That is a very good point and I hope that some of the more informed 'humanists' are aware of the fact that not all Christians buy into the notion of so-called 'original sin'. The idea that a baby is under any kind of moral judgment is a concept totally objectionable and offensive to me.

I suppose, therefore, that this probably makes me a 'Christian humanist', which is by no means the same as a 'Christian atheist'. In fact, I fail to see how atheistic materialism dignifies humanity. Being made 'in the image of God' with free-will and objectively valid reason is far more dignifying to man than being a deterministic machine assembled by a mindless universe. In fact, such intelligent humanists should consider the Christian faith, and ditch the atheistic delusion that only that philosophy is in the interests of human dignity and reason.

I wonder why the moderators are taking so long to decide if my previous post is acceptable or not.

It couldn't -possibly- be because a certain act against a certain religion is mentioned. People on this blog have been quite degoratory towards all kinds of people in the name of their faith and it's been let through, you make a comment about a legimate, BBC ran story, and it seems it's a little controvertial...

I checked the House Rules Mr Moderator and was very careful not to break any of them. Your only cause to take so long is that it's a 'touchy' subject.

Oh gosh.

I wouldn't be surprised if they did. Nothing would surpise me about what goes in the Roman Catholic Church.

Noticed the link to the review of a biography of Dietrich Bonhoeffer above, and was reminded that he was instrumental in saving numerous lives and trying to bring down the nazis, for which he paid with his life; something that wouldn't be clear if my quotation of him on another thread was seen in isolation.

Anyway; I think Lady Warsi is right to point that 'Islamophobia' has passed the 'Dinner Table Test', being acceptable in polite society. This inevitably affects not least the Pakistani community in this country, compounded by a fashionable prejudice against that particular country, despite the fact that, as far as i can see, they couldn't have been better friends to us over a very long time. Her remarks deserve more attention than that given to those made by one of her predecessors as Tory party chairman, Lord Tebbit, who said immigrants should have to pass a so-called "cricket test", to show their loyalty to this country. Would Italian immigrants be asked to stop supporting their football team? If loyalties change with different generations - fine, but it is wrong to imply that there is any morally preferable allegiance.
Unsurprisingly i also like this bit of her address;

'[She] will also blame "the patronising, superficial way faith is discussed in certain quarters, including the media" for making Britain a less tolerant place for believers.'

Lastly, as this may be my last post for a while, for what it's worth i'd like to offer a diagnosis of where we've really gone wrong in our society. In 1973 the glam-rock band 'Wizzard' had a chart-topping hit with "I wish it could be Christmas every day". My belief is that, for too many people in this country, this 'wish' has come true. Every day is treated as an opportunity to indulge in the things we want, rather than giving consideration to what we actually need. And has this made people happier? Here's what our unfairly maligned Pope Benedict had to say on the subject, in his address to schoolchildren last September;

"Happiness is something we all want, but one of the great tragedies in this world is that so many people never find it, because they look for it in the wrong places. The key to it is very simple - true happiness is to be found in God. We need to have the courage to place our deepest hopes in God alone, not in money, in a career, in wordly success, or in our relationships with others, but in God. Only He can satisfy the deepest needs of our hearts."

I disagree Theopane. She is just as guilty of creating a climate of separation. She's obviously been to a dinner party where people have let their guard down, as people do. Yet I wonder - when she is at a Muslim function or at a Mosque and people there let their guard down, she isn't quite so quick to report the derogatory way in which Muslims view non Muslims. I went to a multi- cultural school in England and had many Muslim friends and do you know what's fascinating. It isn't that white people are such and such or Muslim people are X or Y- it's that human beings of every colour and creed are pretty much the same- all harbouring prejudices and generalisations about others they don't mix with. That is why ghettoisation in any form is a bad thing- whether it's faith schools or communities living separately- because unless people mix from a young age with everyone in our society - this is the result- and it's also self perpetuating- the prejudice at the dinner table a result of the prejudice of the religiously deranged who blow people up in the name of God

Ryan: agree

Ryan, I agree,

are Mcc and theophane any different from those Warsi was talking about?

Ryan (@ 8) -

"That is why ghettoisation in any form is a bad thing- whether it's faith schools or communities living separately..."

Essentially I agree with what you wrote here, but I think it's unfair to point the finger at faith schools necessarily. (Note the word 'necessarily', because I am sure some faith schools do - wittingly or unwittingly - encourage prejudice).

This accusation against faith schools is based on a myth, which is that 'non-faith schools' - i.e. secular mainstream schools - function according to a 'neutral' worldview. Any concept of secularism, which is based on the myth that only the philosophy of materialism is rational and intellectually sound, and that all 'religious' ideas are based on a view of 'faith' which is seen to be contrary to reason, is divisive and ill-informed. Unless the secular curriculum engages in a proper and honest critique of the philosophy of materialism (or naturalism) and acknowledges the intellectual validity of the idea of God (yes, even in the science classroom), then secular schools simply become another form of 'faith school', except the 'faith' in this instance is 'faith' in materialism.

If Christianity should not form the ethos of a school then neither should atheism (or atheistically inclined agnosticism). Atheism is a faith, since it is based on and relies on an unproven (and inherently unprovable) philosophy.

The National Secular Society, for instance, whinges on about faith schools, but, of course, we know what views they would love to impose on children (and their kind of schools have already been tried in the USSR, and look what happened there!). Some of us are not so easily fooled by this kind of brazen divisiveness, and I don't see why taxpayers should have to finance the ideology of the NSS. If parents want their children to have a humanist education then they should send them to special humanist Sunday schools, or do it in the home at their own expense.

(OK, the last sentence in the previous paragraph was a bit 'tongue in cheek', but it might hopefully get some people thinking, which wouldn't be a bad thing!)

Personally, I think the partisan attitude of one side saying the other side "whinges on" is unhelpful. Children should be educated together, rather than by religious tribe- otherwise what do people expect. Many of us live packed together on a tiny island, living side by side, needing access to the same facilities, such as shops, doctors, dentists- yet somehow we think its ok to indoctrinate the youngest members of *our group* along tribal religious lines. It doesn't represent the diversity of the community at large, it does nothing to change society for the better- as you can see infact it pushes society backwards. People close ranks and no longer trust others from different backgounds. Wonderful way to indocrtinate each new generation

Ryan -

Fine. Then a good place to start would be for certain people to stop accusing 'religious' parents or teachers of 'indoctrinating' or 'brainwashing' children. If it's not possible for a secular humanist to indoctrinate children then neither is it possible for a religious person to do the same. True harmony should be based on the principle of justice.

If you want to be truly inclusive, then the rules of harmony must apply to organisations such as the NSS and others who make unfounded and unsubstantiated accusations against their fellow citizens. Why don't you direct your comments to organisations like the NSS who are forever seeking to be divisive and create disharmony in our country?

They say that it's wrong for taxpayers to finance the teaching of religious views. But I don't want to finance atheism. I don't want to finance a completely one-sided discussion of scientific evidence. So who is being divisive then?

Harmony is not achieved by sweeping legitimate grievances under the carpet and saying that certain people's views don't matter. All that is doing is stoking up division and alienation.

To be honest LSV , I hadn't even heard of the NSS. But I am aware of plenty of people who are segregated at an early age through religious schooling and don't meet anyone from any "other" community until adulthood, how sensible is that?

Neutrality is not what you get when you take position A then position B and indicate a place exactly between the two, allowing equal time and resources for both.

It's entirely possible for position A to be wrong.

Natman -

"It's entirely possible for position A to be wrong."

Of course.

So is position 'A' theism or atheism? Who decides?

LSV,

Since when did we teach atheism in school? As far as I can tell, not teaching any god related stuff in school is the safest option. Kids can get their spiritual education at home.

If you believe that not mentioning god at all in schools (outside of religious education) is 'atheistic', then please explain which version of the god stuff we should mention? There's a lot of them.

Natman -

Well, perhaps a healthy dose of respectful agnosticism (you know, that 'humility' thing) wouldn't be a bad thing - especially in the science classroom. That'll be the day!

But oh no! Woe betide anyone who dares to connect the concepts of 'intelligence' and 'complexity' in a science lesson. What a terrible crime! (Never mind the fact that the connection of these two concepts is a necessary condition for the success of everything else we do in life. But to read this connection into reality as a whole? Perish the thought!).

So is position 'A' theism or atheism? Who decides?

Clearly, looked at philosophically, they are both position A, so neither should be taught as fact. In science classes the question should be left the door, because it is irrelevant to the practice of science in general. (For the benefit of dishonest cherry pickers, this is not the same thing as saying certain religious claims cannot be investigated scientifically.) In religion/ethics/philosophy classes the whole gamut could be happily thrashed out. This is pretty much the experience of my daughter who attends a good state school and who is doing A level RE/Philosophy/Ethics as well as Biology. The trouble is, though, that since RE is not part of the National Curriculum, but left effectively to vested interests, the sort of broad based teaching of religious issues my daughter has enjoyed that has christians, muslims, seikhs and atheists discussing issues in class is far from guaranteed for everyone. Quite the reverse, with faith schools proliferating and now making up about a third of all state schools.

Any concept of secularism, which is based on the myth that only the philosophy of materialism is rational and intellectually sound, and that all 'religious' ideas are based on a view of 'faith' which is seen to be contrary to reason, is divisive and ill-informed.

Rhetorical guff again, as per. What evidence is there that mainstream schools operate on such a definition of secularism, as against the somewhat less hysterical one that institutions such as schools and governments should operate in isolation from religion and religious views?

The National Secular Society, for instance, whinges on about faith schools, but, of course, we know what views they would love to impose on children (and their kind of schools have already been tried in the USSR, and look what happened there!). Some of us are not so easily fooled by this kind of brazen divisiveness, and I don't see why taxpayers should have to finance the ideology of the NSS.

Hm, interesting that you need to go to a defunct totalitarian state to look for examples. As far as I know there aren't any atheist schools at the moment indoctrinating children from the Book of Dawkins. All those taking advantage of government sanctioned indoctrination so far are firmly in the mainstream religious camp. What I'd like to see is a bit of balance - anyone up for starting a school following the Cult of Cthulhu - a religion of blood, slime, sorcery and tentacles?

@LSV #18.

How is that relevant to a science class? You have talked disparagingly about people not knowing the difference between methodological and philosophical naturalism/materialism, but here you are advocating mangling the whole question up in the minds of children.

The philosophy of science and science itself are separate endeavours. Get a grip.

grokesx (@ 20) -

"You have talked disparagingly about people not knowing the difference between methodological and philosophical naturalism/materialism, but here you are advocating mangling the whole question up in the minds of children.

The philosophy of science and science itself are separate endeavours. Get a grip."

Well, I'm glad you agree that 'the philosophy of science' and 'science' are separate endeavours. We're getting somewhere at last.

Now if philosophy should have no part in the science classroom, then it follows that the following two philosophical ideas should be eliminated from science education:

1. The concept of intelligent design.
2. The concept of unintelligent design.

BOTH (not just #1) are philosophical presuppositions. Therefore any scientific theory or claim that even as much as implieseither of these concepts should be banned from lessons, if philosophy is to be expunged from science.

If science educators are not prepared to accept this, and insist that #2 is not a philosophical presupposition, then I hope you will think again before asking me to "get a grip". Because if #2 is not a philosophical presupposition read into science, then please point me to the scientific experiment that proves this to be the case.

By the way ... it's interesting that you should use the word 'disparagingly'. Of course, we know that atheists are never disparaging about so called 'religious' people!! (Or is it a case of when theists are treated with derision, they shouldn't complain, otherwise they'll be accused of harbouring a persecution complex, but woe betide anyone who should ruffle the feathers of any of those deeply sensitive and emotionally fragile atheists?! C'mon, grokesx, I think you're the one who should try and get a grip!)

I agree with you LSV, post 18
"Well, perhaps a healthy dose of respectful agnosticism (you know, that 'humility' thing) wouldn't be a bad thing.."

It would be a good thing to have from the science classroom, to the Church pulpit, to the Mosque prayer mat.

Well, I'm glad you agree that 'the philosophy of science' and 'science' are separate endeavours. We're getting somewhere at last.

I have never argued otherwise. Insinuating people have made arguments that they haven't is not a very honest way of debating. You do it a lot.

BOTH (not just #1) are philosophical presuppositions. Therefore any scientific theory or claim that even as much as implieseither of these concepts should be banned from lessons, if philosophy is to be expunged from science.

They are. I'm guessing you are stressing over the e word, but AFAIK there is nothing that is taught in science classes that preclude anyone from concluding an intelligent first cause. Many christians have no problem with what is taught, although bible literalists are a different story, naturally.

What you are proposing has echoes of the Discovery Institute's position, which essentially is a junking of methodological naturalism in science in favour of methodological supernaturalism. Since the vast majority of people who actually know about science, you know, scientists (whether atheist, theist or whatever flavour in between) reject the idea, what reason is there to give it anything but short shrift in science classrooms? You can - along with bible literalists, fundamentalist muslims, flat earthists and moon landing deniers - fulminate as much as you like about stuff you have little understanding of and no inclination to learn anything more, but thankfully at the moment people who share your views don't get to decide what we teach in schools, in science lessons at least.

By the way ... it's interesting that you should use the word 'disparagingly'. Of course, we know that atheists are never disparaging about so called 'religious' people!!

Er, I wasn't complaining about your tone. Just that if you are going to get all combative about something, it helps your case if you don't do the same yourself and then go on to advocate teaching children the same thing to boot. It could almost be said to be self refuting.

LSV,

a) Define 'intelligence' with regards design and the universe.

b) Show me an instance of this intelligence that couldn't possibly have arisen without design.

c) Explain how the many flaws in the design come about, if indeed there is an intelligence behind it.

d) Explain who the designer is, and where he/she/it came from.

Your concept of "unintelligent design." is wrong. There is no design, merely what works and what does not.

If you want to see the idea of intelligence design introduced into the science classroom, then you'll have to provide at least part of the answers to all of the above. Else it's pure conjecture and you may as well go with the theory that it all popped into existance Last Thursday.

Natman (@ 24) -

"a) Define 'intelligence' with regards design and the universe."

The ordered input of information, by which useful effects are selected and destructive influences eliminated.

"b) Show me an instance of this intelligence that couldn't possibly have arisen without design."

Meaning what? Let me guess... if I said, for instance, life itself - let's say the eukaryotic cell or the vertebrate eye, how will you respond? Perhaps in this way? : "Ah but, even though it's mind-bogglingly improbable, we can still cook up a theory as to how these cells and eyes can arise without the need for the ordered input of information (i.e. intelligence). And since we can come up with this theory - no matter how far-fetched it is - 'reason' demands that we accept that this is true, since there must always be a bias towards a naturalistic explanation."

Good try, Natman, but I'm not falling for that one. You should know by now not to try to pull the philosophical wool over my eyes.

Unless, of course, you think that the 'natural' (i.e. mindless) development of life is not improbable? If so, brave you.

"c) Explain how the many flaws in the design come about, if indeed there is an intelligence behind it."

Ah, that's interesting. You talk about 'flaws'. Where on earth did you get that idea from? It seems to imply that you have some concept of 'perfection' in your mind by which to judge what are flaws are what are not. Hmmm. Wonder where that idea comes from in your naturalistic worldview? Please elaborate.

"d) Explain who the designer is, and where he/she/it came from."

Of course, I understand the designer to be God. But this is actually completely irrelevant from a scientific point of view, especially considering that you are not prepared to submit to the same intellectual demand. So take a slug of your own medicine first and tell me what caused the Big Bang, what caused that, and what caused the thing that caused that, etc ad infinitum. If you are not prepared to identify your 'first cause' (and give me its address and phone number), then I'll be blown if I'm going to submit to a requirement that you are patently not prepared to comply with yourself!

"Your concept of "unintelligent design." is wrong. There is no design, merely what works and what does not."

Thus saith the great Natman, who knows everything. If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck.... you get the picture. If it looks like a mechanism that works, and works like a mechanism that works, hey, it might just possibly be something designed, unless, of course, you wish to completely redefine what common sense tells us that the word 'design' means. (But as someone once told me: the one thing about 'common sense' is that it's not very 'common', as I have learnt in my journeyings on this blog!)

"If you want to see the idea of intelligence design introduced into the science classroom, then you'll have to provide at least part of the answers to all of the above. Else it's pure conjecture and you may as well go with the theory that it all popped into existance Last Thursday."

"Else it's pure conjecture"?? Now I wonder what theory that reminds me of?!

Keep digging, LSV, keep digging. The absence of even a rudimentary knowledge of probability and a wallowing in your own ignorance of evolution makes for entertaining reading. The evolution of the eye? Come on, even the Discovery Institutes has stopped trying to use that one.

And on common sense, Voltaire was right that it isn't so common, but there's another less well known quote that says something like: common sense is that which tells us the earth is flat and the sun goes round it.

LSV,

Flaws, yes, things that are either dangerous to the organism or faults that occur within standard operation but can go wrong.

The human body is riddled with them, but if knew one small iota of biology you'd be aware of them. Instead you push your design idea into a field where the concept is laughably naive.

Plus I think that you consider that all life, the universe and everything just popped into existance because of an invisible magic being is more plausible than the slow development over billions of years is amusing.

I would like to note, William, how impressed I was by the interview which Alex Slater of the Fishermen's Mission gave to you on yesterday's programme. I have a deep personal interest in those organisations which minister to the needs of seamen and their families although I would not step on a boat myself. 

Mr Slater's approach to pastoral care was of exemplary sensitivity and the mission he represents is a shining example of Christian inclusiveness: a distinctly Christian organisation it welcomes the full participation of those of any other faith or indeed of none as full members not merely as beneficiaries.

I would like to commend Mr and Mrs Slater for the faithful way in which they have both presented and indeed represented Christ in the years of their ministry and I wish them both a long, happy, and blessed retirement.

Natman -

Oh, yes, it's really amusing isn't it. I must confess to indulging in quite a few chuckles myself when I see the attempts of certain people to wriggle out of the demands of logic. I have to say that I am quite impressed by the audacity of the atheists' playbook. You deploy quite a number of quite cunning devices to avoid answering questions (e.g. the one about the scientific experiment that proves that 'all knowledge derives from sense perception'). The ability to disown the logical implications of what you assert is also highly entertaining. Being absorbed in a world of 'pink unicorns', 'last Thursdayism', 'the Chewbacca defence' etc must be quite fun, really. It's a fascinating little culture you have there, with your own cute language and colourful put-downs. Well done.

You lot are great poker players, actually. How you can say certain things 'with a straight face' is a wonder to behold (the chief one being that: the connection between 'intelligence' and 'complexity' is irrational, and then you claim to be empiricists. Empiricism shows us, of course, that complex systems are completely dependent on intelligence, and our own experience and perception of life is all we have to go on - according to your philosophy. I actually think I'm a much better empiricist than you are.)

You decry the 'intelligence' theory on the basis that the 'mindlessness' theory 'works' (post #24). Hmmm. That's a new one to me. I must remember to apply the 'mindlessness' theory to my everyday life and see if it works. I'm sure it must do, if all these very clever scientists tell us that this is 'the truth' according to what works!

And, of course, children shouldn't be poisoned with the obviously nonsensical idea that there is actually a meaning to life, and their minds are not the result of total mindlessness. Clearly 'mindlessness and despair' is a necessary condition for a sound and healthy education! Why bother with the idea of 'intelligence' in education, when 'mindlessness' will do it all for you?!

So please do carry on being amused. When I reflect on your beliefs (and they most certainly are 'beliefs'), as I have laid them out here, my feelings tend to oscillate between amusement and a kind of concern for the surrealism of some people's perception of reality. There are times when I think Alice's experiences were actually quite sane compared to the Wonderland which is W&T (no offence, William. I am only referring to some of the offerings here!).

As for flaws in nature... well, as I explained on another thread, there are certain ideas which are perfectly logical, but can only be understood on the basis of the acceptance of certain presuppositions (something that is true of your worldview, by the way). Since you have dismissed my comments on the other thread as 'rambling', and will not address this issue (probably because you don't understand it), then I'm afraid I am not in a position to elaborate on this until such time as you are prepared to question your own naturalistic presuppositions. In other words, what I am saying is that there is a Christian explanation for this 'objection' - but are you prepared to hear it?

So well done, Natman. Keep up the good work.

Natman 27, maybe even if you don't accept the premise of humans created in Gods likeness, maybe it's possible to view it like this. Perhaps God just created the right conditions for life and just let it develop on its own, hence the great variety and diversity

@Ryan

In the context of the rough and tumble of some blog, we can all put in our two pennorth and much fun is had by all. But this discussion touches on what should be taught to children in science classes and what constitutes science. We should keep "perhaps" out of science classes as much as we can.

I don't disagree.Given the amount that needs to be taught vs amount of time in the classroom.You don't touch on religion in Geography or Maths. When I wrote the post to Natman it wasn't in the context of a science class

grokesx -

"We should keep "perhaps" out of science classes as much as we can."

Exactly.

No more ID and no more UD.

In other words, what I am saying is that there is a Christian explanation for this 'objection' - but are you prepared to hear it?

I for one am. I really, really am. Give it to us straight, with your suppositions and their justification. I've shown you mine often enough. (To recap - my supposition is that empiricism and the scientific method, while imperfect, are the most reliable ways to find explanations about the nature of reality.) Now show us yours and a few actual arguments. Puhlease.

grokesx (@ 34) -

"I've shown you mine often enough. (To recap - my supposition is that empiricism and the scientific method, while imperfect, are the most reliable ways to find explanations about the nature of reality.)"

Well, I've never seen any evidence from you - empirical or otherwise - that proves your philosophy of naturalism. So I would be grateful if could direct me to any posts that you have contributed that prove your case. I've seen plenty of bluff and attempts at obfuscation and 'distraction tactics' with your lists of 'fallacies', but I don't remember seeing any hard evidence.

"Now show us yours and a few actual arguments. Puhlease."

I can't really understand your 'puhlease', which suggests an attitude of frustration. I don't know what you could be frustrated about, since I have indeed put 'actual arguments'. For instance: I have put an - as yet unrefuted - argument about empiricism and the implications of my argument concerning this epistemology, but since my conclusion is not to your liking, then in the best tradition of 'extra perambulator plaything projection', the argument is deemed to be invalid (with no reason given as to why this is so). I had hoped that, in the rather more superior tradition of rigorous intellectual enquiry, those who claim to be guardians of 'reason and truth', would actually submit to the authority of logic. But that illusion withered away a long time ago.

As for the argument about 'flaws' in nature, I would be interested to know why the advocates of the 'mindlessness theory' of the origin of life are intent on placing a value judgment on nature. The concept of 'flaw' can only be understood in the light of some conception of 'flawlessness', in other words, 'perfection'. But the idea of 'perfection' has no meaning at all within the context of the philosophy of naturalism, since it avers that there are no objective values inherent within the universe. Things are as they are, because that is the way they are. Period. If you can't accept that implication, then you are not consistent with your own philosophy.

The very fact that materialists impose this concept of 'perfection' on a mindless and meaningless universe, and then use this concept to find 'flaws' within nature, reveals an unconscious belief that nature is not as it ought to be. Which is exactly the Christian view - dare I say, the view of that so-called 'bronze age book'! So welcome to biblical theology.

Let's cut to the chase, shall we, with a practical application of this discussion. It is rather interesting (and, indeed, disturbing) when we look at the ethical response to 'flaws' in nature. Let's take a disabled child in the womb. Are Christians, generally speaking, the ones who support the destruction of unborn disabled children? One would think that, with our idea of 'perfection', we would be the first to sanction this abomination. But no. We find that it is often the so-called 'humanists' ('anti-humanists', more like), with their complaint about 'flaws', who are the ones supporting such a policy. In other words, they impose on a completely innocent child an idea of 'perfection' which does not, and indeed cannot, exist within their own philosophy. And yet the very people who uphold the concept of perfection also uphold the value of life - flawed or otherwise!

Don't you find that rather ironic, grokesx? Don't you find it rather strange that those who believe that life is the result of intelligent design, are often those who seek to protect 'flawed' life? And those whose philosophy seeks to 'explain' that all life has its origin in mindless chaos, and for whom 'flaws' are inevitable, often show no mercy to those they judge to be 'flawed'.

So when we look at this issue from a conceptual as well as a practical moral point of view, we see that the materialists' use of it, is spurious, to say the least.

Nuff said.

LSV quote " Don't you find it rather strange that those who believe that life is the result of intelligent design, are often those who seek to protect 'flawed' life? And those whose philosophy seeks to 'explain' that all life has its origin in mindless chaos, and for whom 'flaws' are inevitable, often show no mercy to those they judge to be 'flawed'"

Ooooh I don't know LSV, shaky ground there when you consider so many proponents of ID live in the Bible Belt of the US. Hardly a bastian of tolerance or showing mercy to those of a different ethnicity, often having the death penalty and also beset with some of the highest murder rates, pregnancy rates, & school dropout rates in the US

LSV,

I question my "naturalistic presuppositions" all the time, it's called science; perhaps you should look it up one day and apply the concept to your own presuppostions. However, there is nothing else to replace it that offers the same level of explainability and robustness. You might be happy to slap a 'goddit' label on things you don't understand, but thankfully the rest of the world moved on from that.

And I use the word flaws deliberately, if we are designed, then how do you explain the many aspects of, not only the human body, but 'creation' as a whole that are obviously not well designed. It implies one of three things:

1) God (for want of a better word) isn't all-powerful and was unable to create a universe or creatures without such flaws
2) God is all-powerful, but left the flaws in and allows the pain, misery and suffering they cause through some inscrutable Plan. (Kind of flies in the face of justice and love being inherant universal traits though.)
3) God doesn't exist or didn't create the universe.

I'm not comparing anything to any kind of perfection, despite your attempts to crowbar that into my words, but I'm talking about such things as autoimmune diseases, appendicitis, hernias, wisdom teeth, air and food down the same hole, etc. Afflictions and problems that are easily explained away using evolutionary theory but seem to sit and laugh in the face of 'intelligent' design.

How you can look at instances like this and claim that we were created by a loving creator god is beyond me. Even a first year medical students could come up with solutions to those issues if given god-like creation powers.

ID isn't science. UD is a misnomer.

And yet the very people who uphold the concept of perfection also uphold the value of life - flawed or otherwise!
Unless that life happens to belong to a homosexual, an adulterer, a misbehaving child, a non-believer, a blasphemer...

Natman (@ 37) -

"I question my "naturalistic presuppositions" all the time, it's called science; perhaps you should look it up one day and apply the concept to your own presuppostions."

In other words, you employ a commitment to the empirical method ('science'), which, if this is the *only* means by which you seek truth, is entirely dependent on a naturalistic presupposition, and then you attempt to question that presupposition by that method! It's quite hard to get one's head round this one: it's a bit like saying that "I am prepared to question the validity of the English language by speaking English" or "I'm going to question the presupposition that mathematics has validity by doing mathematical calculations." It has all the appearance of a circular argument (probably because it is a circular agument; quacks like a duck...).

Why not try questioning your 'naturalistic presuppositions' by questioning the logic of empiricism itself? Go a bit deeper than mere science and try your hand at a bit of logic!

"You might be happy to slap a 'goddit' label on things you don't understand, but thankfully the rest of the world moved on from that."

"The rest of the world" meaning what, exactly? Ah, I know... "the rest of the world which agrees with Natman". I think you'll find that most people in the world are not atheists, but I suppose they just don't count, do they? Another circular argument, with a rather chilling moral implication (dare I call it a form of 'intellectual fascism'? Except it's not very intellectual.)

Not doing very well, are we, Natman?

Phew. Well let's press on through your diatribe...

"...that are obviously not well designed."

Ah, so you do subscribe to a concept of 'design'! How can you call something 'not well designed' without having in your mind a concept of 'design', i.e. the concept of being 'well designed'? Like I said in an earlier post, you can't impose a value judgment on nature while subscribing to a philosophy in which no values can possibly exist. So, instead of worshipping before the altar of 'scientism' (which is not the same as 'science', actually), why don't you look at this logically, and recognise your own inconsistent application of your own naturalistic presupposition?

So I reiterate what I wrote earlier: you cannot judge that something has 'flaws' if you are not measuring it against a standard of 'flawlessness', which you have to accept is objectively valid. It's a bit like trying to measure a piece of string in a world in which the concept of 'measurement' doesn't exist. You cannot pass any moral or aesthetic judgments on reality, unless you have some objective basis for doing so.

If naturalism is true, then there are no 'flaws', because the concept is utterly meaningless (as are all concepts, actually). Nature is just what it is. If you cannot understand that, then you are not a philosophical naturalist. You are, in fact, paying unconscious homage to a philosophy you claim to reject.

"I'm not comparing anything to any kind of perfection, despite your attempts to crowbar that into my words..."

Here we go again. No, not trying to crowbar it into your words, but drawing out the logical implications of what you are asserting. I know that you constantly try to disown the logical implications of your viewpoint, when those implications become embarrassing, but I'm not falling for it, Natman. If you talk about 'flaws', then you must have some idea in your mind as to what a 'flawless' nature ought to look like. Otherwise you have no logical basis by which to judge that something has 'flaws'! And the concept of 'flawless' is synonymous with 'perfect'. Hence logically you have to subscribe to a concept of 'perfection'. If you do not, then stop talking about 'flaws'!

"ID isn't science. UD is a misnomer."

And therefore, by that same logic (since 'science' and 'philosophy' are distinct), 'science' is not 'naturalism' ('science' is a method of studying nature, whereas naturalism is a philosophical interpretation of reality as a whole. 'Naturalism', therefore, cannot be 'science', unless, of course, you can provide direct empirical and observational evidence of the whole of reality, proving that nothing else exists beyond that which you have been able to observe. Good luck with that one, mate).

UD is not a misnomer at all - at least, not in Natman's thinking, since I have proven from your own words, that you admit a concept of 'design' (otherwise you would not be able to talk about something being badly designed) and you believe that such design is not the result of any kind of intelligence. Therefore logically you believe in Unintelligent design. Talk about 'crowbars' to your heart's content if you like, but that is the logical implication of what you are saying (you do accept that ideas have implications, don't you??)

Coming back to the issue of 'flaws', and the general issue of suffering: I tend to take the view that the only people who have the authority and right to speak about 'the love of God' and indeed 'the existence of God' concerning this issue are those who are actually suffering and whose lives are 'flawed'. It does seem rather interesting that the countries of the world, which are the most affluent and comfortable (often thanks to a Christian heritage) seem to contain the greatest number of atheistic pontificators, who patronisingly declare that the sufferings of others (those 'uneducated simpletons', most of whom are not atheists, and never would be) constitute proof of the non-existence of God. Exploiting the sufferings of others to promote your own philosophy, especially one that the sufferers actually reject, is one of the worst forms of abuse, in my view. If you want to base your philosophy on your own personal suffering, fair enough, but keep other people out of it, thanks.

I know a thing or two about suffering and 'flaws', Natman, and I don't see these things drawing me ineluctably towards a rejection of the reality and love of God. Obviously you see things differently.

LSV,

So, that short list I gave of example of biology that doesn't quite work as well as it could, had it been designed... you're not going to even bother to refute it?

You're quite happy to wave your hand and say 'oh, you poor person. I can't possibly comment on the source of your misery. It's all from god you know, chip up.'

Religous claptrap. Either god takes the blame for the bad 'design', or it isn't designed.

It's very, very simple, if you even glanced at a biology textbook you'd realise that design, intelligent or not, is false thinking. Evolution isn't random nor is it 'survival of the fittest', it is, however, unguided.

Natman -

Don't bother reading what I wrote. I quite understand. You're a very busy person, obviously.

As for me, I tend to think that logic is quite a good guide to discovering what is true (logic used on well justified presuppositions, of course). Of course, I can only speak for myself, but if others want to call logical arguments 'claptrap', then I can only do what any normal, sane human being would do, and feel a certain pity for them. It's certainly not my loss, that's for sure.

LSV,

So you're saying that the things mentioned on the list are working in the exact way that they were designed to do?

I'm trying to look at things from your perspective; that is that everything is ordered due to a design.

So are they flaws or not?

Well, I've never seen any evidence from you - empirical or otherwise - that proves your philosophy of naturalism. So I would be grateful if could direct me to any posts that you have contributed that prove your case.

And I have said a gerzillion times that evidence proves nothing. Proofs reside in maths and formal systems and nowhere else. I have laid out on many occasions the basis of a scientific outlook which proceeds without recourse to philosophical naturalism, which as you say is unprovable, as are all such philosophies. I won't go over it again, only reiterate that methodological naturalism delivers reliable results and that other methods don't. Boringly normal for sciency types.

I can't really understand your 'puhlease', which suggests an attitude of frustration.

No, but weary resignation covers it.

For instance: I have put an - as yet unrefuted - argument about empiricism and the implications of my argument concerning this epistemology, but since my conclusion is not to your liking, then in the best tradition of 'extra perambulator plaything projection', the argument is deemed to be invalid (with no reason given as to why this is so). I had hoped that, in the rather more superior tradition of rigorous intellectual enquiry, those who claim to be guardians of 'reason and truth', would actually submit to the authority of logic. But that illusion withered away a long time ago.

Dishonest posturing. We were in the middle of a discussion on this very issue on another thread and you just walked away. As I have said before, and you haven't responded – quelle surprise – we established on the other thread that the self refuting nature of strong empiricism does not make it necessarily false. If you were a tenth as proficient in philosophy as you pretend, you would know that anyway. We also established that science and empiricism, with all attendant limitations, deliver knowledge. If, as you seem to think, there are other ways of gaining knowledge, what are they? How do we know if the knowledge they deliver is useful and how do we distinguish between genuine practitioners and charlatans?

The concept of 'flaw' can only be understood in the light of some conception of 'flawlessness'.

As Natman said, the concept of a flaw in this context is the result of taking the design hypothesis seriously. So we are talking on your terms, accepting, if you like, the premise for the sake of argument. But to take it seriously we have to subject it to scrutiny and make predictions using the explanation and subject them to test. A bit difficult in this case, but we can give it a shot. If the human body were designed by a powerful creator who loves and cherishes his creation and wants them to, for example, enjoy the benefits of effective sight, we might expect the design of eyes to be pretty spot on. If we found that what was produced turned out to have a blind spot due to nerves making their way to the brain from the light sensitive side and furthermore, if light had to make its way through multiple layers of cells before it hits the photo-receptors, it would be fair to say the design was sub optimal. Or, to put it another way, flawed.

And that's just the beginning of it. Natman has mentioned other examples, but here's one that might interest you - spontaneous abortions. Up to 50% of pregnancies end in miscarriages, so the designer is either very careless or doesn't really bother much about this mass killing of innocents.

But the thing is, the design hypothesis, with its ideas of perfection and flawless design, is not the only game in town. The theory that organisms evolved primarily due to natural selection, going in small stages from one state to another and thus having limited material to "work with" (metaphor there, not to be taken literally) predicts that we would see sub optimal performance in organisms that do the job of surviving and reproducing in a haphazard fashion.

It fits the evidence pretty well. Mind you, there is a third hypothesis to go with that of an all loving, all powerful creator and unguided nature, and that is the concept of a malevolent misanthropic, nihilistic god of casual brutality and cruelty. I'm not sure that it doesn't explain the evidence at least as well as naturalism, and certainly has to make fewer concessions to reason than all the standard deities. So I say to you, my children, heed the Call of Cthulu.

Let's cut to the chase, shall we, with a practical application of this discussion. It is rather interesting (and, indeed, disturbing) when we look at the ethical response to 'flaws' in nature. Let's take a disabled child in the womb. Are Christians, generally speaking, the ones who support the destruction of unborn disabled children? One would think that, with our idea of 'perfection', we would be the first to sanction this abomination. But no. We find that it is often the so-called 'humanists' ('anti-humanists', more like), with their complaint about 'flaws', who are the ones supporting such a policy. In other words, they impose on a completely innocent child an idea of 'perfection' which does not, and indeed cannot, exist within their own philosophy. And yet the very people who uphold the concept of perfection also uphold the value of life - flawed or otherwise!

Don't you find that rather ironic, grokesx? Don't you find it rather strange that those who believe that life is the result of intelligent design, are often those who seek to protect 'flawed' life? And those whose philosophy seeks to 'explain' that all life has its origin in mindless chaos, and for whom 'flaws' are inevitable, often show no mercy to those they judge to be 'flawed.

Overblown rhetoric that's a bit wasted on me. I'm anti abortion but pro choice. Pro choice because when all the baby killing sloganeering is finished, the plain fact is that criminalising abortion doesn't make it go away.

Just spotted this:

(logic used on well justified presuppositions, of course)

Come on, man. You're halfway there. Present and justify. Don't be shy. The worst we'll do is laugh.

Natman -

I don't know why you keep stealing ideas from a worldview you reject (well, I do actually, as that worldview happens to be true).

What you don't seem to be able to acknowledge is that if your view of reality is true, then everything that exists is nothing other than a conglomeration of atoms and molecules (or particles, if you want to be pedantic about it). That's it. There are no values, no ideas, no morals, no aesthetic judgments, no meaning, no purpose. Nothing except different blobs of matter.

So within this philosophy a 'flawed' system is meaningless. The word 'flawed' has no more meaning that the word 'xcqwtjk'. We might as well all start talking gibberish, frankly.

In fact, there are no categories either, since we have no objective basis by which to decide which blobs of matter should be described in one way or in another. You may say, for instance, that a blind person is a 'flawed' system on account of his blindness. But actually, according to materialistic reductionism, a human organism without the ability to see is just another 'blob of matter', in essence no different from a human being who is not blind. To place a judgment on one blob of matter that doesn't apply to the other is nonsense, because we are just talking about totally meaningless 'blobs of matter'. There is nothing 'flawed' about it, because there is no purpose involved; there are no values involved; there is nothing to say: "that's right and that's wrong"!

You just don't seem to be able to think through the logical implications of what you believe about reality. According to your philosophy, reality is a totally and utterly mindless swirling mass of matter and energy. Nothing more. Where do values or purposeful ideas, such as functionality and design, fit into it? The answer is: they don't.

So what I would like to know is: what philosophical idea gives you permission to talk about 'good design' and 'bad design'? 'Good' and 'bad' are value judgments. Where exactly do they come from in a totally mindless, valueless and purposeless universe? (And no stealing from a meaningful worldview to answer that question, please).

Yes, you can criticise the idea of an intelligent designer by referring to 'flaws', but the only way you can refer to flaws is if you believe in the concept of intelligent (and therefore purposeful) design to start with, as I have clearly shown. Of course, one has to ask why there are flaws (and the Bible offers an explanation concerning the implications of a moral universe), but certainly the existence of 'flaws' cannot support the philosophy of materialism, because a materialist cannot even ask the question in the first place, without being totally inconsistent with his own philosophy!

but certainly the existence of 'flaws' cannot support the philosophy of materialism, because a materialist cannot even ask the question in the first place, without being totally inconsistent with his own philosophy!

You can't critique a position that you don't hold? That's a novel thought and consigns all of philosophy to the depths. And rather harsh on 99% of your own posts here. Unless you are tacitly admitting that your own philosophy is inconsistent? That would make it about the most honest thing you've ever said.

"So what I would like to know is: what philosophical idea gives you permission to talk about 'good design' and 'bad design'? 'Good' and 'bad' are value judgments"

Because you insist that the universe obeys some kind of design, if that is so, then you have to be able to explain the flaws in that design. I'm quite happy with the reasonings put forwards by evolutionary and cosmic theories as to why those things exists, but I struggle to understand how a such a devout believer in intelligent design can reconcile such evolutionary outcomes with the concept of a loving and/or omnipotent god. Either he's not omnipotent or he's not loving. Given how dehabilitating, easily prevented and pointless most of the items on that list are, you can't have both.

You're right, however, I do think the universe is "nothing other than a conglomeration of atoms and molecules" (both of which are particles, btw), however, your assumption that "There are no values, no ideas, no morals, no aesthetic judgments, no meaning, no purpose" is wrong. We, as humans, assign such things ourselves. Without us, yes, they don't exist, but as social, cultural and empathic creatures, we created such concepts to allow us to function as a coherant whole. Why you insist that atheistic worldviews cannot contain such things is beyond me.

What I seem to be getting from your words is that you believe that those evolutionary features that cause us so much trouble are somehow the result of a Fall From Grace, where a single female (created -after- god couldn't find a suitable animal to partner the man with) and a single male were tempted by a talking snake(!) to eat a fruit that enabled them to know Right and Wrong (how did they know it was wrong if they didn't know?) and therefore condemned us all to misery and pain regardless of us making that original choice or not.

Wow. Loving and omnipotent right there. Even better! Free will -and- punishment for using it. Praise the Lord.

I don't know what's worse, that you seem to sincerly believe that a god would punish the entirety of the human race for the actions of two people, or that a loving and all-powerful being didn't or doesn't have the ability to prevent it.

God did not design robots...He wanted man to love and worship him out of choice and we have that same choice.


The problem is that we have all inherited that sinful nature and it prevents us from knowing God and being obedient to him.


It's important to understand what sin is and how it effects each one of us and then see how valuable you are to God in the fact that he punished his Son, Jesus instead.


Unfortunately, the view that is so prevalent, is that God is some vile dictator who just destroys people if they do not obey him.


That just reflects a vast misunderstanding of sin and a vast misunderstanding of the holiness of God.

Newthornley,

"God did not design robots...He wanted man to love and worship him out of choice and we have that same choice."

So if we choose -not- to love and worship him he'll accept that choice and leave us be? I think not. The bible is very clear about what happens to people who don't choose to do what god wants. That's not a choice, it's coersion.

"The problem is that we have all inherited that sinful nature and it prevents us from knowing God and being obedient to him."

So we're all to be punished for the sins of our forefathers? That sounds fair... not.

"It's important to understand what sin is and how it effects each one of us and then see how valuable you are to God in the fact that he punished his Son, Jesus instead."

Not true. If Jesus was god, then it was hardly 'punishment', how can an immortal and omnipotent being punish itself? Plus, if he was truely serious about punishing someone else instead, then belief in Jesus and god would be irrelevant, we'd all be saved regardless.

"Unfortunately, the view that is so prevalent, is that God is some vile dictator who just destroys people if they do not obey him."

That sounds about right, otherwise what you're saying is that god doesn't punish those who don't do as they're told.

If I told you to love and obey me and if you didn't I'd torture you for ever and ever, would you regard that as a choice, or would you 'love and obey' me out of fear of punishment?

Natman, God will certainly leave you a alone if you want him to but he still loves you too much and he wants you to know that first before you make that choice.


God does not want to torture you forever and ever...you totally misunderstand the character of God.


As I have said in previous postings...it is absolutely essential to understand what sin is....research it thoroughly before you begin to judge the character of God.

Likewise, your view of the Godhead is rather mixed up too...I would need to send you some written material to help you with that.


I'm sure that you'd also agree that it is right to judge and to punish those who disobey the law in our society.



If we did not have a justice and legal system then there would be big problems.



God judges too because man sins/rebels....same principle.



It always appears that mankind will only accept God on the basis of his terms and not Gods

Newthornley,

2 simple questions for you then that only require simple answers:

1) If I use my god-given free will not to love and obey him, will he respect that decision and not punish me?

2) If he will punish me for exercising my free will and not choosing to love and obey him, is that really free will?

It sounds like it's a false choice really.

And from what I have read in the bible, 'sin' seems to be whatever the ruling priesthood at the time says it is. Unless you're referring to Original Sin, in which case punishing humanity for the actions of two people who didn't even know right from wrong at the time of the 'sin' seems overly excessive.

Sorry Natman your last statement is wrong. Adam and Eve did indeed know right from wrong because they knew the consequences before they disobeyed. Genesis chapter 2 verse 17.

Also read from Romans chapter 5 verse 12 and that should help also.


Think a moment about the basis on which you love someone.


Now I can see by your response that you have a pretty dim view of God.


It's pretty safe to assume that you see God differently from me.


I see God as a God of love and compassion....you see him as tyrant


Now I can see how you would end up thinking that way but I would also say that you your judgment comes as a result of failing to tackle some very important issues.


I think I've said before and it is vitally important to understand what the Bible teaches about sin and how that affects our understanding of God and our relationship with God.


It also affects what we think of God. God wants you to worship him out of love... not out of a sense of fear.


If you really think about it..it does make sense.

Newthornley,

I do not see your god as a god of love and compassion.

He made me gay (if he exists it is the only thing I am grateful to him for coz it really is an enriching and loving life), and then he told the rest of you to kill me.

I hate to do a Homer but Duh!!!!

Newthornley,

If they didn't know the difference between good and evil before they ate from the tree, then how did they know disobeying god was evil?

On another matter, if god was so insistant that they don't eat from that tree, why did he put the tree there in the first place?

I think it was Alan Partridge who said;

"I believe in Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve."

Nice one Theo, for your sweet entree into the conversation- why not add a sprinkling of Biblical verse or a nice topping of Gods angry with you.Plenty of straight couples can't have kids but stay together because they love each other, but no that's not good enough- you want reproduction!. You can believe in Adam and Eve, but maybe we should leave storytime until you're tucked up in bed with your hot cocoa & pj's and perhaps in future, concetrate solely on your own reproductive endevours and nobody elses

Maybe in Catholic terms, there's a theological dimension to it. The concept of original sin ,not living forever & having to reproduce - maybe in a parallel universe it's Gay people who see straight people as more sinful with the burden they carry of childbirth and the hard labour of providing for a family. It's about as ridiculous as straight people thinking gay people are more sinful.
You could almost say the Catholic Church has positively encouraged the principles of "Adam & Steve" through an effective formative experience program for younger Catholics.

Sorry Natman you either haven't followed what I said.


Read Genesis 2 and 3 carefully.


He allowed Adam and Eve the ability to make choices...that is why he put the tree there. He even named the tree and told them what would happen if they ate it. They knew the consequences if they were to disobey.

Imagine if someone put you in a garden..provided for all your needs...that relationship was a loving mutual relationship.
There is, however, one thing in the garden that is harmful to you and harmful to your relationship.

What would seem the best thing for you to do...not get involved with that thing that was harmful.

Now, perhaps, this is not a perfect illustration but I hope you get the point.



I wont even reply to your rediculous comment Dave because it's extremely poor and bigoted one that reflects your ignorance.

Newthornley, Don't you think it's rather cruel and intolerant of you to say Dave is bigoted & ignorant, when he's talking about God and Love.
It's the human element that's at fault.People can lead happy,good and fulfilling lives regardless of what their sexuality is. People from all walks of life do good deeds, make others happy, enrich this world and make it better in their own small way.

Then other people with darkened souls, filled with anger and hatred, spout religious verse and stamp on his back
This is the crux of it- It isn't God that's pushed him away, it's other people who feel they own God, take on God's authority like some deranged Powerranger and punish with words and actions. No-one has the right to do that on Gods behalf.You don't have the right to take away his access to spiritual sustenance for being true to himself

"Imagine if someone put you in a garden..provided for all your needs...that relationship was a loving mutual relationship.
There is, however, one thing in the garden that is harmful to you and harmful to your relationship.

What would seem the best thing for you to do..."

I wouldn't put that one thing in there in the first place!

If god was omniscient, then he knew that they'd break the rule, knew that they'd use their free will to decide against what he said and still punish, not only them, but everyone who ever existed afterwards.

How can you not see that as the actions of a sadistic tyrant?

They might've known the consequences of their actions - "but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will certainly die.", but without the knowledge of good or evil, then it would not of been possible for them to know that those consequences were wrong. When you tell a 1 year old child not to do something, chances are they know it's wrong, but still do it regardless. Adam and Eve didn't even have that luxury, yet god still saw fit to punish them and all of their descendants for ever and ever.

Theo,

"I think it was Alan Partridge who said;

"I believe in Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve.""

I am not sure when Alan Partridge became a theologian of note, but good on you for picking a satirical parody of yourself to make your point.

Here is another one,

If god made Adam and Eve, who made Adam and Steve ?

As for me being bigoted and ignorant when I am simply reflecting what your book teaches then you are merely enforcing my contention that it is the source of your belief, your bible, which contains ignorant and bigoted views.

Sorry Theo, second comment was a response to Newthornley

When I said ignorant Dave...I meant ignorant of the Bible.

Your response clarifies how little you really know .

Both you and Natman can't and won't look beyond your bitter views.

What an absolute shame...but I suppose you'll just continue to wollow in it rather than take a little more time to see how and why Christians love God.

Until you do...its not worth conversing with you.

Newthornley,

And you won't look beyond your own narrow minded opinion of your god, spoon fed to you from a book that's so full of contradictory details it'd struggle to pass an editor today.

I note, with little suprise, you're abandoning the debate. Evidently you either cannot or will not justify your position. Are you only good at being a missionary to friendly ears? I think your Jesus would keep going somehow.

You're a laugh Natman...refering to me being narrow-minded.

Look in mirror sir before you accuse anyone else.

You are confused by your own rantings...your not interested in what I have to say.

By the amount of comments you make across the blogs all you're interested in is being heard by whoever will listen to you.


I told you what I believe....you're not interested....fair enough.

Newthornley,

Why is it a problem to be ignorant of the bible, it is just a book of tales. I have not read the Grapes of Wrath, it doesn't make me a bad person. It is your veneration of your book of tales which is the problem. You cannot accept that I can ignore it, that I do not have to live my life by it, that I regard it as a load of nonsense. I think your bible is a load of stuff made up by people trying to control other people.

I am as entitled to that view as you are to regard that nonsense as true.

I am also entitled to live my life by my rules not yours or your gods.

Your entitled to your opinion Dave.

Thankfully all it is an opinion and not the real truth.

Like Natman...all you can do is verbally attack anything you don't understand.

How sad!!