Brian, you argue against religion, but the fact of the matter is that much of the Australian population, and indeed, much of civilisation in general hold religious beliefs. These beliefs inform the way they live, the decisions they make and what, ultimately, is right and wrong.

While you and many others do not agree with them, the furthest reasonable step you can take is to argue against their reasons. You can't call for an abolition of religion, just because you see it as the root of their decision making. It makes you look like a silly wishful thinker; kind of like calling off the bout on a technicality, rather than jumping in the ring.

Besides, many opponents of abortion, stem cell research, cloning etc. have very sound reasons for their views, apart from reasons informed by their religion, that could sit right with the most fervent secular humanist.

It is discriminatory to attempt to silence fellow citizens because you think their views are religious, which you consider to be something outdated and 'baloney'.

Furthermore, you can’t accuse the Catholic Church of sticking its head up to “have yet another pie thrown in its face” without being prepared to cop one yourself: you state: “There is no comparison between research which sacrifices laboratory-created embryos which are unviable without a uterus and the Nazi research which sacrificed living children.” Of course an embryo can’t survive without a uterus! What do you mean by viable? What a nice euphemism for ‘human person’! I am not viable without food and shelter. So starve me and keep me in the cold and I am no longer a human person, so you can manipulate me and experiment on me. This isn’t a matter of religion – this is common sense. The only reason that an embryo is useful for stem cell research is that it is living!

Rather than pull the wool over your own eyes, just say what side of the fence you are on – you are either in favour of creating human life for experimentation and healing of other humans or against it.

All modern genetic science is based on the work of Father Gregor Mendel, an Augustinian priest in good standing. There are even some thinkers who suggest that Aquinas, another Catholic priest made much of modern scientific thinking possible by re-allerting the west to Aristotle, and by being a seious thinker himself. Criticise bad examples of religious intolerance and ignorance all you like but this wide brush polemical stuff just obscures the real issues. There's an artticle on Christopher Hitchen's latest book at
http://www.commonwealmagazine.org/
that makes my point better than I have.

It is hard to believe that anyone still believes in evolution after having so many hoaxes uncoverered. You don't need to be to smart to see the results of our so called free thinkers who use false science in order to make themselves accountable to no one. A 5 year old can see that the created world has order. It takes a lot more faith to swallow the unscienific, unproven theory of evolution. That is free thinking I suppose. It has resulted in people believeing that the aborigines have not yet evolved to the level of others yet.

Brian appears to be a typical fundamentalist athiest who is not open to views other than his own. Many of the worlds greatest scientist such as Isaac Newton were Creationist. Of course Brain believes humans came about by chance and then tries to use logic to win his arguement. Brain I suggest at best is a church hater and at worst a god hater. This has clouded his bigotted views.

I have to wonder just which of two options could be called a "crime" against humanity.

1) To manipulate a few cells in a laboratory which might lead to cures for many horrific physical conditions, or.....

2) Force children at a ridiculous age to believe in the superstition of organised religion.

If religion was not forced upon children at such an early age, then eventually it would practically die out since adults are much more able to distinguish between fairy tales and reality.
You don't need religious dogma to keep the world's population in check. Sound scientific knowledge will do just fine.

Thanks Aime for your sensible comment.

Unlike that of 'stop&think', who could more aptly be tagged 'don't think, react with prejudice'.

Brian's primary argument is against the unwarranted influence of religion, superstition and other irrational thinking on important areas of public policy.

Brian does not deny 'that much of the Australian population, and indeed, much of civilisation in general hold religious beliefs. These beliefs inform the way they live, the decisions they make' - he clearly agrees with this contention.

Nor does Brian 'call for an abolition of religion'. He simply calls for less irrational thinking and less religious influence.

Nor does he 'attempt to silence fellow citizens because [he] thinks their views are religious.

And I'm certain he is 'prepared to cop one' himself, when warranted.

He is simply observing that an embryo is not a 'human being', unless you believe the unprovable idea that human embryos are both human and have 'souls' from the instant of conception.

Nor is Brian attempting to 'pull the wool over [anyone's] eyes': he is being completely open, honest and straightforward. He is certainly prepared to 'just say what side of the fence [he is] on': he is clearly in favour of using early stage embryonic cells for experimentation and healing of other humans, and prepared to argue for it in a forum rife with all manner of irrational believers in all manner of unscientific gods, spirits, theories, superstitions and dogmas. You have to admire his courage, for he has to contend with the petty, inaccurate and dishonest ripostes from religious zealots who have nothing better to do than re-cycle their unscientific beliefs on these sites!

As soon as I started reading htis, I wondered when the religious groups were going to jump on athiesm... Nice to see they started up early.

What I want to understand is this: If your god is going to pass judgement on you, assuming that he/it exists, then surely it's your own decisions which matter, not what others do. So, therefore, if you think that abortion is "wrong", don't get one. Let those who do face the consequences (and let's not kid ourselves - there are consequences in this life and any others that may exist).

The point is: if you object to medicines which come from use of theraputic cloning, then don't use them. That's your decision to make. However we who do want them should be allowed to have them.

And before anyone brings in the typical sorts of points on polygamy or beastiality, can we please keep this on topic - we're dealing with theraputic cloning.

RELIGION.... hmmmm I'm more concerned about the BRAND of religion.

Lets contrast.

1/ Dalai Lama comes to Australia.
-No demonstrations(except maybe about oppression of Tibetans)
-No Violence.
-No declaration of "We will rule the world"

2/ HAMAS...in total accordance with its Charter, as predicted by me and many others, (in contrast to Keith Kennealy, Anthony Lowenstein,Greg Barns and similiar ilk)
has now TAKEN OVER in Gaza...AND...

Proclaimed the era of 'Islamic Rule'.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=FKH3VZSS51M0LQFIQMFCFFOAVCBQYIV0?xml=/news/2007/06/15/wgaza115.xml

I am tempted not to say "I told you so" but I will anyway.

"I TOLD YOU SO"

Now..for another fearless forecast, powerful prediction, meaningful mouth-off...

"THE ISSUE IS THE STATUS OF JERUSALEM." Talk land till the cows come home... it will always come back to this.

Another oft repeated warning I've been sounding..

"The militants/radicals drive the agenda"

People like FH and IRF will be simply swept aside in the midst of their 'friendly Islam' apologetics by Hamas types screaming "get out of the way... the Army of Mohammad is on the move"

In the mean time..... differing from the Article.. 'true' religion is great for our health.
True religion is that which is from God, not from man.

"For God so LOVED the world....that he gave...his only Son, that whoever believes in Him will not perish, but have everlasting life"

The Gospel in a nutshell.

When Jesus said "I have come to bring a sword, not peace" it is the HAMAS sword which will descend on the neck of the peaceful Christian.
Time for the 'Emperor' to wake up.. and act in defense of the State.

I bet you're fun at dinner parties.

Too right Baozy. I'm concerned with brand too. My Brand. "Organs"R Us. We deliver the liver. And never charge for the ice." If you don't like it don't use us to sell your fetus, or extra kidney, or use our service to mortgage your Grannie . Let's not start dictating who gets to do what. Children are a good renewable resource. Lets not put any special value on them just because we decided not to abort these specific children. Think of Africa as a garden of never ending organs. Eternal life for the hard living go getters that keep the world going around. And we're green. How many new businesses can say that.

"by the end of this century, biotech will be redesigning human beings."

there are a lot of points worth discussing in this piece, but this sentence should scare anyone who has bothered to read some human history. it's a "who guards the guardians?" question of fundamental importance to the survival of the human race. the writer imagines that technology questions are of fundamental significance. to paraphrase bill clinton: "it's the politics, stupid."

if a few people, presumably the rich, can upgrade their progeny to superman status, the human race will split in two, or ten, and the prototype will join homo erectus in the museums.

this might be a good thing. i'm not enthralled by homosap, but i bet he would want to be consulted before bioengineers made him obsolete.

religion is just a social mechanism, it provided a living to the old people who ran it, and this injected a 'wisdom of experience' into human society. it may be obsolete. but the people who despise it publicly should tell us how we are going to keep the rupert murdochs from having grandchildren with 300 iqs and 500 year life spans. until we get real democracy, i'm inclined to back george pell whenever he stumbles onto a good cause.

and that is: keep bioengineering out of the hands of technocrats working for plutocrats

Terrific technology for the physically disabled.

However my concern is about the potential global consequences by the resultant increases in human survival rates. The human footprint is already massive, the environment degraded and our are resources depleted.

Concerns are already raised about the increases in the aged population in developed countries, which is also partly a result of advanced medical technologies.

Will biotechnology eliminate diseases that strike the elderly, such as cancers, diabetes, heart diseases etc, thus greatly increasing their lifespans?

Will the new technology be to the detriment of this already fragile planet in the long run?

Oh dear Boaz, I notice the sky is falling again.

>>HAMAS...in total accordance with its Charter, as predicted by me and many others, (in contrast to Keith Kennealy, Anthony Lowenstein,Greg Barns and similiar ilk) has now TAKEN OVER in Gaza...AND... Proclaimed the era of 'Islamic Rule'. I am tempted not to say "I told you so" but I will anyway. "I TOLD YOU SO"... People like FH and IRF will be simply swept aside in the midst of their 'friendly Islam' apologetics by Hamas types screaming "get out of the way... the Army of Mohammad is on the move"<<

If you believe for one moment that Hamas has achieved any permanent advantage, then you really don't understand what is going on.

But, thinking about it, that is probably the case anyway.

This action has been inevitable ever since Hamas won the election. It is a perfectly normal and natural progression of events, and does not signify the final victory of the forces of the Devil, or whatever apocalyptic connotation you ascribe to it.

Of course, in an ideal world people wouldn't kill each other over their religious beliefs, but unfortunately this has been part of history ever since Gods were invented.

Which of course is what this thread is all about.

Whether society should be more concerned about i) the living than ii) the unborn or iii) the afterlife.

Clearly, religious folk of all persuasions are far more interested in ii) and iii), while uninfected folk are far more likely to interest themselves in the conduct and continuation of i)

But the only thing that is "on the move", Boaz, is your irrational fear, paranoia and hatred of everything to do with Islam.

You may indeed be fun at dinner parties, but underneath, it must be a very heavy burden, all that hate.

Boaz,

I have to second Bugsy and Pericles.
Hamas (Muslims) are fighting Fatah (Muslims) Were you sleeping for the last few years?

"What should be straight-forward scientific research has been turned into a mess by the educated but scientifically illiterate supported by a cheer squad of know-nothings."

Too funny for words.

The know-nothings seem to include, Brian, the author.

Lets see....natural selection was not Charles Darwin's concept...it was Edward Blyth's.

Research in agriculture and medicine 'took off' well before Darwin, and often in spite of evolution.

To say the Catholic church equated science with heresy for a millennium is just stupid.

Even talking about therapeutic cloning (as if cloning a human life and killing it for research is different to cloning a human life for reproduction is more moral?)

All this shows the author does indeed know nothing about the history of science or the history of the church.

Whilst the author would love to return to the days where there were no moral bounds on scientific research, the rest of us remember history and know of the great evil such a notion creates.

Someone should tell the author that this issue is now a non-issue, with a far cheaper, more efficient way to obtain embryonic stem cells than the willful creation and destruction of human life.
http://alangrey.blogspot.com/2007/06/stem-cell-breakthrough.html

Such ignorance is pitiable, and especially dangerous when there are only limited resources for research. Focusing on speculative, inefficient and morally questionable research methods are just not good for our health.

Dan, those who try to silence believers who act in public life are most prejudiced. Of course we are all prejudiced to the way we each think - we are all naturally biased towards our own beliefs. Yet it is more prejudiced to dismiss an argument because a person is religious, which is ''irrational''.

Can't you see how dismissive that is? Churches don't teach that an embryo is a human being because it is written in some magic book, they honestly believe it, like I do, and like so many eminent scientists around the world do.

Dan asserts those against stem cell research should 'prove' it is a human. It has never been a widely accepted fact that an embryo is not a human. There is nothing more stifling than moving the goalposts in a debate.

Clarify your view by accepting you believe in the destruction on human life at an early stage to help older people live a few more years.

Do that, or prove that the embryo is not a human.

Consider this: if it is human, and you are destroying it, that's bad (I hope you would agree...) If it is not human, than that would be OK, a neutral outcome for the embryo, a positive for ailing people. But if you were an objective person, you would want to make sure you were not killing someone in the process, so the logical approach is to prove that it is not a human.

Now has anyone ever done that? NO. Go to any search engine, read any text book - once you have fertilisation you have a human being. You will never have a human with just an ova; nor with just a sperm. Put them together and you get a human - surely we agree on this.

If you are that keen on stem cell research just admit that you are happy with the destruction of human life at an early stage for the sake of therapeutic benefits. Then we can continue the debate. Until then, we are just chasing each other's goalposts around the park.

Perhaps there have been no demonstrations against the Dalai Lama because, despite his country being under violent opression, he doesn't go around telling us who to hate and who to fear.

Not a bad example for a religion that has no God.

Might say that the comments of Enda do fit well into academic studies based on the philosophies of Western history.

Certainly it was St Thomas Aquinas who saw the need to tone down overdone Christian faith with Socratic Reasoning as some term Aristotalian Reasoning.

This it was Aquinas who set the Western scene for not only the Rennaissance but the Age of Reason, the Age of Enlightenment and onto our present democracy, which in all truth goes back to the Greeks more than to the Bible.

Two philosophers after Aquinas do strongly carry the Faith/Reason contract combination through. England's John Locke in the late 17th century and Germany's Immanuel Kant in the late 18th century.

No need to go on, except to say that the philosophy of Western history makes intriguely interesting reading, and makes one feel disgusted that our present government if it stays in will do away with such a study if and when it strips down the Humanities.

I'd rather meet the Dalai Lama than the Chinese leadership...
Whatever your brand of religion or non-religion there is still all that art, music, literature, drama etc out there from all sorts of traditions...has that done us all more harm than good?

Fellow Human:
"Hamas (Muslims) are fighting Fatah (Muslims) Were you sleeping for the last few years?"

Fatah are at least secular. Hamas are religious lunatics, already imposing their brand of dogma on the populace, including restrictions ("protection money") on the few remaining Christians.

Both these mobs reckon they can run a country. What a joke!

DEMOS,

A trench digger is a machine, which improves human performance. Improving our brains might our cortex neuroclusters from confusing survival inputs/instincts from the limbic system and lower brain functions as confabulations such as religion. We could be neuroformed for the better. This could drive a stake into the heart of primitivism and substitition. With better brians we might better understand things we can quite grasp now.

Regarding circulation the classical ching lo system was probably systematised around 200 CE, William Harvey's De Moti Cotdis et Sanguinis in Anumalibus was published in 1628. I know that we have have an explosion in the amount of knowledge available to us and are making fast progress. However, I would suggest we are 300-500 years away from fundamentally changing our species. Beyond then we could be like amphibans were with land and water; We could live in real and virual worlds. Consider we might be even able to network in that virual world.

Having solved the "bubbles" problem with crygenic suspension, we could alter time in our suspended state, where we could be virtual immortals, by pereiving our world in different increments to the outside world, living a million years in our referial frame; while only one day has elapsed in world. We could exist to the real world periodically to serve what ever needs to be done. Who needs God?

Mechanical machines need only to operate reliably for years and be maintained for decades. Our futire progeny live say 120 years in world time, but perceive the Ages.

[p.s. In 1977, in my Sydney U. Pych. class, I wrote a paper on the use of undifferentiated [read stem] cells in the treatment of pituitary gland. So, some of my past specuations have come to akin fruition.]

Stop and Think. Why don't you do just that? Let me ask you this :

. Have you met God, or even spoken to him? In which case what did he/ have to say?,

. How do you there is not a divine person here today? A new Jesus or even Jesus himself? What would it take for you to believe him if he was here. Or her?

Enda.If I listen to you all scientists will be Catholics. Currently I think there are one or two who ain't.

Runner. Believe in evolution? What do you believe? The "God created the Earth in 8 days and then had a day off" rubbish? Does God have an AWA by the way? Has he renogotiated his work week with all you believers?

Well said Aime. The brain washing is more subtle in Western countries but Muslims in countries like Afghanistan and Pakistan aren't. Ever seen that video of the little boys sitting, repeating someone else's words for hours on end. Day after day? Anyone call that belief? As for Catholics, anyone heard of the Spanish Inquisiton? Now there's a fair way to decide on your beliefs.

All those "believers" cry today that atheists are trying to put them down for those beliefs. By talking and writing. Vicious people.

Wow, and what do believers do and what have they done for millenia? Any violence or coercion? Nahh, can't think of any. Sorry, man didn't exist until 2000 years ago did he. Some alien planted all those fossils and dinosaurs. Right? Or does God have a wicked sense of humour and planted them to fool some?

Wobbles, I agree totally. God exists only in people's minds actually.

OLP is heavily populated by people who believe in religion (God knows why (pun intended) and political barrackers who believe totally in one side or the other. I see no difference between these groups as they have one thing in common. They don't think for themselves and rely on what others tell them to think, do and believe.

I've been watching some video of victorious Hamas screaming "Sieg Heil."

Errr, I mean "Allahu Akhbar."

Come to think of it, is there a difference?

Once people become crazed with a religion or a political ideology reason goes out the window.

Brian Holden is fundamentally correct but wrong to single out Christianity or Catholicism.

The reason why Europe moved ahead in science is because the Europeans invented the separation of religion and state.

The reason the Muslim world remained a stagnant backwater is because they didn't.

In Europe secular society won the power struggle. In Dar-ul-Islam the clergy won.

Ok 'stop&think': nobody is 'trying to silence believers who act in public life'. That is a figment of your imagination. You don't appear to be able to read, let alone reason. Wanting to dimish the influence of religion does not imply 'silencing' believers.

Nor did I (or anybody else on this thread) demand that you 'prove' embryos are 'human'. I did not shift any goal posts. I am not terribly interested in reading any more 'proofs' by religious zealots, having been subjected to some fifty-odd years of such codswallop to date. But I am not about to try to prevent you posting more of them for me and many others to savour.

I do not accept the destruction of live human beings i.e. those embryos that have been born, unless they at some later stage decide to terminate their lives, or participate in a just activity which endangers their life.

Is rock rock when immense heat deep beneath the earth begins to change and mix the chemistry of various metals, or when it has been expelt from the volcano and begun to cool? or at some mysterious moment when its 'rock soul' mysteriously enters its rocky self?

No, it is lava or some such, until it has become rock.

In the same way, an embryo is an embryo, and begins to become a human being once it is born.

It is not necessarily bad to destroy an embryo, if that is what the mother wishes. Artificially created embryos have no 'mother'.

The goalposts are at the moment of birth, not that of conception.

Free your mind with thought, measuable evidence and logic.

Dan The Free Thinker.

Seeing as the discussion has taken a rather more philosophical bent, this is a great link:

http://www.elroy.net/ehr/abortionanswers.html

While I certainly agree that there needs to be a clear separation between science and religion, that doesn’t mean that science is without ethical considerations. Since most people tend to build their ethical framework in religious contexts, this issue is rather problematic. People like Brian Holden with their rigid intolerance towards others only aggravate the debate.

As for his article, I found the blatant anti-Catholicism that permeates it like the stench of a rotten egg, to be totally distasteful.

If the cloning of embyros is considered killing, should the "mother" and people who destroy spare embyros be charged with murder?, if there was a power strike and frozem embyros melted should should the srikers be charged with manslaughter?, if a truck smashed into a substation and cut off the power and melted the embyos should the driver be charged with manslaughter?.
Should w@nking and sex without the specific reason of reproduction be outlawed?, as both of these are killing sperm which as the potential to become a human or 5 million humans.
Please read this carefully before you start jumping up and down and abusing me for things I didn't say or mean.

Brian,

I think you draw a long bow when you named your article "Religion has never been good for our health".

My own religion has been advocating not smoking, not drinking coffee or alcohol, eating meat sparingly, and eating foods in their seasons long before there was scientific proof. Since 1833, in fact.

Other religions has beneficial health laws as well.

Perhaps your article could be renamed "Some religious laws are not good for our health"?

Again we see the fruit of fundamentalist humanism in our Aboriginal communities where hundreds if not thousands of kids are being sexually abused. It starts as young as 3 years old. The cry for 'free thinking' which allows pornography, drugs and free sex to be freely available again affects the most vulnerable. And all this just so some selfish adults can demand their rights to view this stuff.

One of the Western Australia's great humanists Jim McGinty has now allowed two men confused about their sexual identity to adopt a poor child. When are we going to stop these 'free thinkers' from destroying the lives of children? These are more warped rather than free thinkers. The most damaging religion is fundamental humanism which denies God and puts humans in His place.

Rubbish, runner, rubbish: this little free thinker has led campaigns for greater police action against illegal drug dealing and for increased state intervention in child abuse, including Aboriginal child neglect and abuse. Free thinkers have ethics too.

You are way off beam in your imaginings about the causes of child sexual abuse.

As for your prejudiced opinion about the permission being given for gays to adopt in WA, it just demonstrates how un-Christ-like some Christians like you can be at times.

I wouldn't mind if most pornography could be effectively banned, and I think that the whiz-kids could and should develop more effective ways of allowing regulation of the internet.

How does that sit with your simplistic, stereotyped view of free thinkers?

Hope your day turns out better for you than it seems to have started.

Dan

The upshot of this entire brouhaha seems to be that, in future, if Cardinal Pell (or indeed any member of the Christian clergy) wishes to avoid a pile of invective, he or she should confine criticisms to Conservative Government policies.

'The cry for 'free thinking' which allows pornography, drugs and free sex to be freely available again affects the most vulnerable.'

What a complete load of rubbish runner. I would have thought that the absence of any thinking at all allows for the incursion of porn, drugs, and free sex.

Indeed I would say that religion is indirectly responsible for these things. Religion encourages the non-questioning, non-thinking allegiance and submission to an invisible God. Therefore, when religion loses its influence in any even society the end result is nihilism. This is because religion has allowed society to atrophy to the point where it has lost the art of sceptical, rational, independent and creative thinking.

We need more 'free thinking' runner, not less. This is because 'free-thinking' has nothing to do with the mindless pursuits of Paris Hilton or your average clergyman, but everything to do with the brilliant scepticism of Dawkins or Grayling.

Indeed, a great place for Western society to begin its rejuvenation would be to make Darwinism pre-eminent. In this great body of knowledge we have the real certainty of the scientific method and none of the pie-in-the-sky waffle of religion. And not having the inherent tribalism of religions only Darwinism and science can be truly humanistic and benevolent to the mutual benefit of all.

Lastly, Darwin's Birthday (Feb 12) SHOULD be a National Holiday. A day to celebrate humanity and our unique and important place in the biosphere.

"The cry for 'free thinking' which allows pornography, drugs and free sex to be freely available again affects the most vulnerable."

What dribble: In the Middle Ages the priests would rape young women and blame the incubi. When Joan of Arch was burnt at the stake her private parts were shown publicly. Lot knew is daughters in the biblical sense after becoming drunk. Evey second there is a story of priest child molestation and the Bishop covering it up. Peter Abalard was castrated so her could not hold ecclecliastical office, being a eunuch, where her could not promote the the "Non" art of Sic et Non. The Christrian crusaders killed Muslims and fellow Christians with equal zeal. And there was the Inquisition. The dustruction of historical sites by Christians [Like the Taliban today.] Hebrews were allowed by god to rape the women of defeated armies. Ehen Christians "hung", drew and quartered people, they were hung sveral times, so the man would be embarrassed by puclic ejaculation. Galileo was shown and threated with Christian instruments of torture. A doctor, who lived, described at the how the sinews in his limbs were torns apart. The Church did not have to present evidence at the trial but only say "it existed". Other astronomers were not so lucky, they where burnt at the stake by Christians for saying the sun was the centre of the solar system. Christian pioneer settlers gave blackets as gifts to the indigeous people deliberately laced with smallpox to commit genecide [as the Hebrews committed against the Hitites.

Above, we have a brief account of your Christians, TR. IF you are like that, shame on you.

Dear TR.

Cont...

Presumably, the Lutheran Minister eho blessed the Atomic Bomb on Hiroshima, killing 200,000, was a Christian too. I think it was Urban VIII who had all the pigeons around the Vacant liked, because he didn't like them. Some the prominent Christians and Pope supported pursecuations of the Jews led to the dead and excile of the Jews, freein Christian kings from debts owned to money lenders. And of course between intrigues the Vatican bank engages in usery. And what about Christians swearing on the Bible. What Christian support for slavery? What about Christians maintaining the Black races inferior.

"As I look back on the great work that has been done during the past four years you will understand quite well that my first feeling is simply one of thankfulness to our Almighty God for having allowed me to bring this work to success. He has blessed our labors and has enabled our people to come through all the obstacles which encompassed them on their way...." - Adolf Hilter

It would stand out if Pell excommunited, Pius XI, didn't excommunicate Hilter, his fellow Christian.

Lastly, I suspect that most MAFIA members are not Muslims or free thinkers.

ACQVUIS,

Your right about organs. It is truly disgusting how there are cultures that see children that way, as organ banks. In Pakistan, wealthy Arabs from the Gulf states flock their for organ transplants, taking advantage of their poverty.

Having said that, westerners make up about 5% of that market too unfortunately.

I've seen some doco's where they try to make out westerners are the ONLY who do it, perhaps they say this because they know westerners have superior values and will force our governments to stop people going over.

IT'S the same with slavery too. Although westerners used to be involved, it stopped about 200 yrs ago, only the west is looked at as having slaves.

The west share of the market was about 2%, with Arab Muslims making up the bulk of it. It goes on today, in everywhere but the west, no thats not true. there have been cases in the west, but they are all arabs living in the west - enslaving maids from se asia.

the same in the gulf, with much of filipino economy based on workers who go there to perform domestic duties - but often get raped, bashed, not paid.

The whole world needs to be colonised again by the superior west.

Dan writes 'As for your prejudiced opinion about the permission being given for gays to adopt in WA, it just demonstrates how un-Christ-like some Christians like you can be at times.'

It is obvious to anyone with any sort of conscience that to deprive a child of a mother and father is crimminal. Have you visited a prison lately and seen how many fatherless and motherless children end up there. The decision by Mr McGinty who has bowed to his mates (homosexual lobby) is nothing short of disgusting and certainly does not take the childs interest into account. It is bad enough that these 2 men are confused about gender let alone allowing them to ruin a child's life.

Have to disagree with you runner. Homosexuals are not usually confused about their sexuality. There are many fine and talented people in the homosexual society (males and females, perfectly capable of giving a child a loving home. Do not confuse homosexuals with paedophiles.

Many paedophiles are the fathers or grandfathers of the children they have defiled - some the parish priest.

Their are also many high achievers who were raised by only one parent.

I trust you are not basing your prejudices on the flamboyant annual Mardi Gras in Sydney. Have you ever met a homosexual?

Hi Oliver,

I must say that I agree with your observations about the inhumane practices of monotheism. To me it is very clear that monotheism acerbates problems and escalates conflict wherever it resides.

However, these facts are difficult to prove. For example, show Irfan an example of Islamic cruelty and he will then cite a supposedly worse example caused by Christianity/Non-theists. After that he will then say that 'real' Islam is not cruel and those Muslims aren’t following Islam 'properly'.

No, the reason that scientists like myself promote Evolution by Natural Selection is because it's a Truth with a capital 'T'. The story of human evolution as described by science surpasses all of the infantile stories found in the Bible or the Koran.

It is now blindingly obvious to anyone with an intelligent open mind that the claims made by the Bible or Koran cannot be true. That is, the Bible and Koran are useful in that they are a nice collection of fables, but that is all they are, a collection of fables. No sane person can possibly believe that angels really exist or that Virgins really get pregnant. Don't get me wrong, I love the stories of the Bible and Koran, but they are just not factually true.

This is why the story of the human race as told by science is light years in advance of the drivel found in the monotheistic texts - it is factual and Truthful. And this innate certainty is emotionally satisfying.

So here is the core metaphysical message and the only one that really matters;

Monotheism = untruth

Science = Truths

To StevenMeyer,

What us liberal ecumenical thinkers have been trying to get across for too long now, is that it was Islam which got us out of the Christian Dark Ages. Trouble is most wooden-headed modern Christians, especially the Dubya Bush backing Endtimes Christian Americans, as well as our local Pentocostals, will not hear a bar of it.

There is an excellent Humanities study manual, called the Rise of the West, and in it you will find that it was the merging of Socratic Reasoning with a dark dogmatic early Christian faith in the Late Middle Ages that opened the historical door to the so-called democratic enlightenment we Westerners now live under.

The key to the liberal Christian belief can be found in a thesis written by St Thomas Aquinas, who was influenced by a smaller thesis called The Search for Enquiry, written by a very liberal French monk called Peter Abelard, who like the earlier monkish Knight Templars had sought to learn from their so-called enemies, the Muslims, by mixing with them.

Rather sadly, however, what eventuated was that us Teutonic or Germanic barbarians whom had already accepted Christianity, through gladly accepting the faith/reason doctrine from the more educated Middle East Muslims, rapidly progressed to the point that it deeply disturbed the Islamic Mullahs to the point that they have gradually done away with softening Islamism with Socratic Reasoning and sank into a similar fundamental Dark Ages as the earlier Christians had

Cheers, George C, WA

My mind was once set against God - doesn’t do much for one’s thinking - muddles and confuses. The author has convinced me of that.

So muddled that the old Galileo canard science=heresy is the opening gambit. http://www.catholic.com/library/galileo_controversy.asp

So muddled that the author fails to mention where he thinks natural selection comes from, and if he is a cosmological Darwinist how this invisible hand came to be in the first place – or how it can select when there is originally nothing to select from.

Muddled about whether he agrees with the Roman Emperor’s religious toleration in his 313 edict or whether he would have preferred continued Diocletian like persecution. And what ‘bureaucracy’ existed in this climate during Christianity’s first three centuries.

Muddled such that Dan Brown is taken as an authority when he claims scripture was augmented, a brief course in textual science might help here.

Muddled as to what constitutes dogma ex-cathedra and what is theologically provisional as part of the teaching duties of the Catholic Church. And what dogma is per se. Or whether materialism/physicalism/scientism are to him dogmas? Perhaps the leader of the human genome project and Christian, Francis Collins can help.

Muddled as to the true state of the science in therapeutic cloning http://www.firstthings.com/article.php3?id_article=5420&var_recherche=condic+cloning and who is the know-nothing.

Muddled when speaking as a theologian about God’s judgment of a kind of book burning of theological texts.

Muddled about what his “straight forward scientific research” is. Does the author believe Mengele’s qualifies? (He thought ethics debates were silly blips in his relentless progress . . . toward the abyss.)

How does it serve Australia to allow mental burps on a site that venerates reasoned public debate?

Grief is my dominant emotion, for I was once where the author is, finding it much easier to make stuff up about God or ignore him than purify my heart and pursue him; preferring “mind control” by silly ideas formulated by silly men in opposition to Jesus (that most despised Nazarene) to intellectual honesty.

Is it my perception, or is modern public debate wallowing in fundamentalism more than it has previously?

Accepting the proven reality of evolution in no way denies the existence of god, which is the contention of theists and atheists. It simply disproves manipulative church dogma.

The debate should be about how, why, and where god exists, and how we relate to it, rather than fighting tooth and nail over petty egotistical differences.

So the writers solution to religion?...'I advise that there is only one way forward. The books should go into the bin' Wonderful...Censorship and banning have never worked and cannot work...why is your sulution so palinly stupid?.,..where do the sciencenazi's get off? extermination of all people of faith?

'Accepting the proven reality of evolution in no way denies the existence of god...'

Yes and no.

Evolution by natural selection devastates the existence of the personal monotheistic god. Dan Dennett makes this clear in 'Darwin's Dangerous Idea'. It's a fabulous book and I thoroughly recommend it.

Evolution does allow for the impersonal god of Einstein or the Eastern religions. This type of god is strictly hands-off and does not meddle with nature.

Dear Brushy..... you keep on mentioning the sammmmme thing.. "Muslims got us out of our intellectual bondage" kind of thing.

I honestly don't know why you keep saying this.. are you expecting us to suddenly start 'appreciating' them in some new way? Life and history have moved onnnnn since that period. Its quite disputable anyway. (the claim you made) but the bottom line is.. it just doesn't matter.

It doesn't change the fanatacism and rage of those jihadis...-if we suddenly had 'appreciate Islam day' with specific mention of that period.. do you honestly think Dafur would be solved? or.. Hamas would suddenly see the light and stop killing Fatah? Or Iran stop trying to become Nuclear? Or the Muslims in Malaysia stop trying to have 'male/female' checkouts at supermarkets.. etc etc.

I can give you MANNNNNY examples of Muslim brutality and invasion after invasion... just as others can provide such reports about periods in the history of Christendom.... again.. it don't matter mate.

Look more at the driving fundamentals.. the founder.. the framework, and the future based on those.

Sometimes I get the impression you are just trying to say nice things about "Islam"..

You have made the point so many times now about 'reason/muslims' etc.. and ..for what?
There must be a new paddock to graze in mate :)

While I am agnostic verging on athiest,religion from my point of view is just a natural progression of our consciousness.We yearn the security of our maternal genetic history yet cannot come to terms with with our own finite mortality.

It is serious folly to ever to say never,since religion is the buffer zone that will enable us feeble humans to reach a higher order of awarness.Religion has been seen to be flawed,however with no floor upon which to base our values,we are doomed to chaos.

The concept of "god" is not a relevant point of contention.Life is about now.

BN,
“… if you think that abortion is "wrong", don't get one. Let those who do face the consequences”
I see. So “… if you think that invading other countries is "wrong", just don't invade Iraq. Let those who do face the consequences.”

DEMOS, dickey, Grey, stop&think, thank you for showing us all that the problem is not as simple as Brian wants us to see it. It is a scientific problem, the answer to which the scientists will eventually find. And, perhaps even more importantly, an ethical dilemma, an answer to which we all must seek, whether speaking on behalf of a Church or just on behalf of ourselves. For the sake of the suffering, but also for the sake of the future of mankind… err humankind.

My opinion is that we would never have understood and accepted the dangers of a nuclear explosion explained to us by physicists if there were no Hiroshima. I think we shall never understand the depths of the dilemma we face with the possibilities of biogenetic research, unless a side effect, probably even unintentional, will shock us, or rather our descendants.

"finding it much easier to make stuff up about God or ignore him than purify my heart and pursue him;"

Umm Martin, before your drift off with the fairies altogether,
I will remind you that your heart pumps blood, thats about it.
We could give you a heart transplant, little would change...
you'd just have a new pump. Even a pig's heart, now that
would be really pure :)

George,

The introduction of non-indigenous species into Australia [rabbits, frogs] are examples of carelessness. Just the same, the Space Shuttle or an atomic reator is controlled. Immunisation was/is dangerous too. Some of Susan Greenfield's [neurosciencist] would suggest work on the brain in near centuries will involve morphing micro-electronics to existing functionalities, rather actually changing the brain. Like extrachanging a carburetta with fuel injection, not replacing the internal combustion engine. Genes don't act in isolation and we are a fair away in undrestanding how neuroclusters work. Some neuro-mapping machines are precise but examine the brain over intervals which are too great. Oter machines are can do the micro-second stuff but are not as accurate. Once we combine the technologies, we shall have a better understanding of the brain works and be able to more safely manipulate functions. The same would be true of other technologies, such as genetics. It is a matter of finding the true path between "fools rushing in" and becoming technologically arrested: e.g., Margret Mead in 1950s referred to farming practises in Ireland as arrested when farmers did not allow land to remain fallow for intervals

Martin, I’ll tell you why the scientific method isn’t muddled but the religious method is.

The answer is simple. Science has disbelief as its default setting. In other words a scientist will only consider believing in something if there is sufficient evidence. The evidence doesn’t have to overwhelming (although it can be), just sufficient.

Religious people on the other hand have belief as their default setting and are willing to believe in something with little evidence or logic attached to it.

One example is the Night Journey from Mecca to Jerusalem by the Prophet Mohammed . Apparently he rode on the back of a winged creature called al-Buraq to what is now known as The Haram al-Sharif. Because of this flighty adventure Jerusalem has become Holy to Muslims as well as Jews with the result being the intensification of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Therefore, we have an international religio-political conflict rather than a localised political conflict which has become impossible to resolve. Indeed, this conflict involving millions of people is made manifestly worse because of a mythical flying donkey thing recorded in Islamic literature many decades after the supposed event.

What stupidity, and what a travesty. If only the people of the Middle East thought like scientists and sceptics with disbelief as their default setting!

Brian,

Many, on occasion, myself included, point the horrors of Christianity for over 1,500 hundred years. What is often missed is that Christian Church is out of contact with its first and second century Jewish roots. It is not just the god versus science thng.

The Christian Church and the very early Jesus cults were different bodies. The former related to Messiahism, Jewish tribalism and Roman Mystery cults; the latter the transformation of the failing Western Roman Empire into European and English feifdoms, later kingdoms. Jewish Messiahism [especially the zealots] was rebellion against Roman occupation [after Greek occupation]. Paul [Saul] and Constintine [Constintine's mother was a Christian], institutionalised the cults and created creed and doctrine for a Church.

Perhaps, Jesus' [aka Joshua] teachings on the Kingdom of Heaven were at odds with mainstream Messiahism; a new kind of Messiah. It is feasible his posits would have been to say the least, curious.

The Hedodians were Roman puppets and would have quashed opposition. Pilot would have looked on a contender as a pretender, like and the Dai Li Lama. However, I don't see Pilot executing people on the Jewish passover, and, I would have thought as was demonstrated in the 60-136 period, Rome would have had bigger fish to fry.

Perhaps, Hilter, Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot [per capita], were more brutal and killed more people. But that brutality was for a reign. That said, Christianity as been more prolifically suppressive over the centuries. Nothing like the Jesus of the NT, be god, human or confabulation

'In other words a scientist will only consider believing in something if there is sufficient evidence. The evidence doesn’t have to overwhelming (although it can be), just sufficient.'

If that statement was half true then evolution would of been thrown on the scrap heap decades ago.

The main problem is that the humanist thinkers ( of which many scientist belong) deny the corruption in all men's heart as so accurately described by the writers in the bible. This is why many in the science field are happy to leave ethics aside and use emotional blackmail on people when it comes to cures for diseases. The philosophy is that the ends justifies the means.

Brian makes a point which criticises the game of dungeons and dragons (religion).The dungeons and dragons players (the religious) miss the point , attacks atheism , science and inadvertantly attacks mathematics - on the internet - a product of science. All of which demonstates astounding ignorance and confirms nicely everything Brian accuses the religious of.

The classificationists of the 19th century would have served the late 20th and 21st century well by assigning the bible et.al to dusty old museum draws where they belong.

The religious position is mind boggling, so much so creates oxidisation as the neurons fire causing swelling of tissue.
Now excuse me as there are no demons nor scorpions in my head a paracetamol will serve me nicely - Thank You Charles!

With all due respects, Boaz, you are certainly no student of history, which means you have poor philosophical reasoning, A reasoning that must always pay due respect to history. Right through history it has always been a philosopher who has pointed the way to the democracy we so much appreciate right now.

Firstly, Socrates, secondly, Jesus, with the Sermon on the Mount, thirdly St Thomas Aquinas, who I have so much bored you with regarding his acceptance of Hellenistic Reasoning from educated Islamics of the time.

So onto the Rennaissance, then the Age of Reason, and the beginning of The Enlightenment, when the English philosopher John Locke motivated the plan which brought on the 1688 Glorious Revolution, when both religion and Royalty were rendered second place to a new people's democracy in England.

Years later, the American Constitution was patterned on Lockean Reasoning, except for the present power of the US President which stupidly broke the Lockean Code, aping the rebellious action of England's George Third, who had unlawfully made use of the wornout autocracy that the Glorious Revolution had discarded.

Might pay you to put your Bible, away occasionally, Boaz, and do more than a bit of historical research.

It is not that I am against you being a Christian, matey, 'cause I'm one myself, but one who likes to balance faith with a generous injection of reason.

Jesus never preached democracy if the NT is to be believed. If anything Jesus preached communism.Certainly the Jesus of the NT preached exclusionism , you have to play dungeons and dragons to be saved.

Democracy has had a long road and owes more to labour relations, business and vetrans rights than any philosopher.In Australia for example workers rights are offered to trade off for tax deductions at the ballot. Democracy is its own enemy. With no incentive to work and automation taking over in a generation or two workers may rise up , mass strike and force the governing power to concede another host of rights.No doubt a generation or two later the superstitious will be attributing those new gained rights to Jesus.

as far as moral standing is concerned many humans such as Ghandi and Martin Luther King upheld higher morals than Jesus could ever claim to have had.

Martin Luther King, Gandhi, and more modernly, Mandela. And also we must remember, Socrates before he developed a love for all kind, was a Hoplite leader, a bravest soldier ever but a killer. As he proclaimed, something made him think deep down, coming out with thoughts like - out with the Gods and in with the Good.

As his roadside teachings were proclaimed as not good for the young, he was ordered to kill himself with a dose of Hemlock, which he did, which as a former soldier he had been ordered to.

Yet all these people died with a caring for all kind, as the young Jesus suggested in the Sermon on the Mount - to even - love your enemy.

Excellent TR that you’ve gone right for the jugular. Both religions claim to be historical religions and so stand or fall by their historical veracity.

For the last two hundred years critical scholars have dissected Biblical Christianity. At the end of the three ‘quests’ for the historical Jesus, quite unexpectedly, the historical-critical method has strengthened the historical foundations of Christianity.

http://www.veritas.org/3.0_media/talks/146 ‘Resurrection: Fact or Fiction’ (mp3)
http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/menus/articles.html ‘Transcript’

Now Islam has not been scrutinised in this way. Scholars willing to use the same tools on Islam are subjected to death threats. Archaeologists and textual critics have limited to no access to the manuscripts and sites that would allow this kind of research.

Biblical faith (Greek ‘pistis’) means loyalty based on past events. In other words the Bible has God saying ‘see what I have done – now be loyal - have faith in me’. Blind faith is putting one's trust in something for no reason. Biblical faith is a reasoned positive disposition toward revealed truth.

I’m proud that my Judeo-Christian civilisation was the only one that led to the generation of modern science. It is a wonderful tool within its circumscribed limits namely the physical universe. I myself am a qualified scientist. We cannot do science on quintessentially human things – in other words no matter how much you exalt the scientific method as a way of knowing you cannot deny that no one lives their life by the scientific method. You exclude all possibility of human relationship if you’re consistent in its use as your epistemology.

"I do not think there is a *demonstrative* proof (like Euclid) of
Christianity, nor of the existence of matter, nor of the good will & honesty
of my best & oldest friends. I think all three are (except the second) far
more probable than the alternatives. The case for Xtianity is well given by
Chesterton [in *The Everlasting Man*]; and I tried to do something in my
*Broadcast Talks*. As to *why* God doesn't make it demonstratively clear:
are we sure that He is even interested in the kind of Theism which wd. be a
compelled logical assent to a conclusive argument? Are *we* interested in it
in personal matters? I demand from my friend a trust in my good faith which
is *certain* without demonstrative proof. It wouldn't be confidence at all
if he waited for rigorous proof. Hang it all, the very fairy-tales embody
the truth. Othello believed in Desdemona's innocence when it was proved: but
that was too late. Lear believed in Cordelia's love when it was proved: but
that was too late. 'His praise is lost who stays till all commend.' The
magnanimity, the generosity wh. will trust on a reasonable probability, is
required of us. But supposing one believed and was wrong after all? Why,
then you wd. have paid the universe a compliment it doesn't deserve. Your
error wd. even be so more interesting & important than the reality. And yet
how cd. that be? How cd. an idiotic universe have produced creatures whose
mere dreams are so much stronger, better, subtler than itself?"
CS Lewis

My advice is to avoid Dennett if you really want to understand Christianity, or at least balance your reading with author's who possess a living faith and have no axe to grind.
http://www.firstthings.com/article.php3?id_article=5394&var_recherche=hart+snark+dennett

Material things are compulsorily present, spiritual things to be present have to want to be seen.

Take two steps toward God and He comes running.

An interesting slant on "faith", almost worthy of a thread on its own.

Martin quotes C S Lewis:

"I demand from my friend a trust in my good faith which is *certain* without demonstrative proof. It wouldn't be confidence at all if he waited for rigorous proof. Hang it all, the very fairy-tales embody the truth. Othello believed in Desdemona's innocence when it was proved: but that was too late..."

There is something inherently circular - and therefore in my eyes deeply suspicious - about arguments that define faith in this manner.

"Trust" from a "friend" is surely earned, not given freely and blindly? To equate this to religious belief is to suggest that we trust anyone who has not been proven untrustworthy. Very noble, very high-minded, but totally impractical.

Lewis deliberately skates over the point at which trust occurs, suggesting instead a negative - that to wait for rigorous proof defies the whole concept of trust.

But let's have a look at the parable he digs up to illustrate his point. It is entirely contradictory.

Othello is a naturally jealous/suspicious character. He is fed misinformation by someone he trusts (!!). He then kills another person - apparently equally trustworthy - on the basis of information from his trusted source.

The irony does not need to be underlined. It was not a matter of a shortfall of faith that caused Desdemona's death, merely a misplacement of faith.

What Lewis fails to realize is that it is a near-perfect parable on the futility of believing one incredible story over another. Which has, of course, been the entire history of competing religions since they were invented.

If only Othello had relied on science, or logic. If only he had taken some time to test the hypothesis, rather than take Iago's word.

(Mind you, the whole nasty business could have been avoided, if Desdemona had simply said "Oh. That hanky? It's in the wash.")

When will we see this 'science' for what it is - scientific adventurism funded by taxpayers on behalf of pharmaceutical giants who will licence back the vanity based profitable by-products found while searching for 'cures'

The current research regime has been active in the UK, China et al for up to a decade and still no results. Meanwhile adult stem cells find cures...

Even if it's not bad science, its bad business / public benefit per dollar invested.

Anyway, the line in the sand will keep moving as people rejecting IVF 30 years ago flagged, but, why should we worry about 'humanness' when the author and his ilk will have us looking like the Borg http://www.startrek.com/startrek/view/library/aliens/article/70558.html

"Resistance is futile: you WILL BE assimilated..."

'Both religions claim to be historical religions and so stand or fall by their historical veracity.'

Yes, perfectly put Martin.

Indeed, there is absolutely NO reason to believe in angels with miraculous recitations, Virgin Births or resurrections when the history is not water-tight. In order to believe in the intrinsically ridicluous the relevant history must be water-tight. And it is far from that to any inquiring mind.

'If that statement was half true then evolution would of been thrown on the scrap heap decades ago.

Runner, I'm sorry you feel that way. Biological evolution is one of the most exciting disciplines in science to study.

To grasp the basic ideas of Natural Selection I thoroughly recommend Mark Ridley's fabulous work, 'Evolution'.

If you want something less textual then 'Almost like a Whale' by Steve Jones is highly entertaining. It is a modern re-writing of 'Origin of Species'.

I've just finished reading Matt Ridley's 'Genome' which is gob-smackingly good. You will never view yourself the same way again. Inspirational!

Of course, Richard Dawkins work 'The Selfish Gene' has just turned 30 and it goes without saying that everyone should read it. It hasn't aged at all and remains a masterpiece. It is one of those very rare pieces of scientific literature that it is written for the reading pleasure of the lay person but is really aimed at professional biologists and PhD students. Dawkins walks this literary tight-rope beautifully. He really is one of the great biologists of the 20th-21st centuries irrespective of his views on religion.

Blah blah blah....

OK I am not a biological scientist and so much of your debate goes over my head, so to say. As a “constitutionalist” however I wonder what has it to do with the Federal Government? After all “CIVIL RIGHTS” remained within the legislative powers of the States!
As to my personal views, I just have to reflect back how recently scientist were making known that the Hawk government ordered them to stop research in nuclear issues and they secretly continued for some three years on. Excuse me, they did their own thing regardless of being told to stop!
They were using taxpayers monies for what they held was more important then to follow legal demands to stop!

Now, cloning Saddam Hussein might be used as an example to turn of people but rest assure cloning John Howard would neither be attractive, considering his human rights and other abuses!
Hitler had also his good and his bad, I know as 96 members of my family were on special orders of Hitler traced and murdered and so neither particularly someone I can draw an example about, however it doesn’t matter if you refer to the Nazi’s, a religion or some welfare program where Aboriginals are injected with some stuff to discover how they react to it for testing purposes, it all to me is disgusting and could not be approved.
Born with Jewish blood and baptised Lutheren I gave away religion as I held people are equal. If I am dead I am dead!
My issue is however that the point when a life is deemed to be a life is debatable. Some are willing to abort any foetus holding that unless it lives on its own it is not a life whereas other accept life to exist from fertilising an egg.
People are already being killed for their body parts. Where will it stop?
Prevention is better then the cure, before some mad scientist goes overboard.

Dear Brushy :) I'm not against reason nor history, they are my greatest allies.

I'm only 'bored' as you put it, by your continued mention of the 'Islamic' debt which is in fact about 'hellenistic' reasoning.

It's just that the way you put it suggests we owe something special to Islam, when in fact we owe it to a simple coincidence of history.
The Muslims were nothing more than the 'vehicle' of the reasoning you champion. Hence, I urge you to champion the substance rather than the means by which it came. So, we owe nothing to Islam, but it may be argued that we owe something philosophically to "Muslims" due to them passing on HELLENIST reasoning. But this says nothing good or bad about Islam or Muslims than their coincidental historical role.

Still, I don't think we need go further than 1 Corinthians 15 for a dose of 'reasoning' and logic par excellence. Paul develops a theme based on very real, cold hard logic "IF Christ is not raised, then we are still in our sins" etc.."We of all men are most to be pitied"...etc..

In terms of philosophy of life, Ecclesiastes suprasses anything I know of, including Socrates. Brushy...have you read Ecclesiastes?
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=25&chapter=1&version=31

There u go..chapter one.

Who needs Socrates :)

BOAZ_DAVID,

Earlier, I did ask away when you invited me to ask you a question, because you don't answer questions. No reply.

This thread. Religion is a different construct to God or Jesus. Christian or Muslim, if God exists, human institutions would be separate to it. In Middle-Eastern-hebrew-Classical-Roman-Christian thread of history, the orgins of our "style of religion" start in Sumer, in cities like Ur, after the Garden Culure Period. Christianity may have borrowed Joshua [aka Jesus] as a centre piece, but the institutaionalise Church is a separate entity, as is, Islam, which unified the Arabs.

Though I am an old retired cockie, Boaz, I am still a qualified historian. Therefore we must clash, Boaz, as can be seen by your lack of interest in any mention of St Thomas Aquinas, both the most illustrious Churchman, as well as one of the greatest philosophers.

Furthermore, why he is the greatest is because of his acceptance of Socratic or Hellenistic Reasoning which makes us what we are today - not so much the Bible.

Therefore while you quote passages from the Bible I quote them from history, which is not based on faith but on fact.

All the same, Boaz, there is no reason why we can't still be friends while still having a shot at each other.

Cheers - George C - WA

Martin and Boaz , the first record that mentions Jesus was written by Tacitus and Tacitus only scorns christians for their behaviour yet demonstrates empathy as the Roman state punished all Christians as Christians were the arsons in the great fire of Rome. Other than the Harry potter literature some of which formed the new testament Jesus did not exist.

That is to say nobody noticed Jesus in the time he supposed to have existed. Even Pontius Pilatus who allegedly in the NT went against Roman protocol and tried Jesus himself rather than let Jesus be tried in a legal court does not report Jesus. Herods state a meticulous record keeper also had never heard of Jesus. Maybe they slipped behind the filling cabinet as did Moses flight into Egypt which is a complete surprise to the Egyptians as they never heard of this moses character either.

You believe Jesus existed, you have faith. It is not moral to want other people to believe it to. Even if Jesus did coincedently did exist every piece of information you have of Jesus is fiction.

Not that you will care because monotheists are only interested in monologue not dialogue.

West,

Good post. Also had Pilate acted some strange way and wanted to it keep out of the History books [unlikely they were like the NAZIs recorded everything]; then, some neighbouring country would have recorded the event [no record]. As I mentioned in an earlier post, much of we know about Egyptian history comes from the Greeks. I was told this personally by a visiting Eyptologist at Singapore's Asian Civilization Museum, where I am a member. Same would go for the Romans.

The region where Jesus is said to have lived did have its wondering Messiahs, who spoke of time, when the Jews would have their own Kingdom, without the Romans and before them the Greeks.

It is unlikely Pilate would do anything to risk his job like causing a riot, as we have noted before, by having an execution on the Passover. The Prefect's job was too lucrative and according to Cicero senior officials could be tried themselves for doing the wrong thing.

Thankyou Oliver
- and please keep those insights coming, your contributions are very interseting and enjoyable.

Back to science and Boaz , really consider what you are asserting. A god that creates the universe in all its dimensions. Yet a god that and knows about it and everything until the end of time could not predict NASA, Mars and Moon landings and does not understand the logical and scientific concept of a control subject. Mars and the moon the places humans could not have got to without science. Mars and the moon have no big J's signed upon them, no crucifix erected and the natures of such astro bodies not described in the Bible.

Genisis at the very least should have described the evolution of elements through to living organisms , the fabric of space and time and the ontology of everything before even contemplating the prototheist mumbo jumbo. That is of course if the Bible was not fiction.

The bible is fair enough for Dungeons and Dragons but not for brain surgery or defragging the PC.

Oh, I get what you are on about now Boazy, Ecclesiastes Chapter one:

"17 Then I applied myself to the understanding of wisdom, and also of madness and folly, but I learned that this, too, is a chasing after the wind.
18 For with much wisdom comes much sorrow;
the more knowledge, the more grief."

That describes you perfectly! And many other zealots also. I feel for you and while don't believe that it is in anyones best interest to follow you, I wish you luck in your endeavour to be free from the pain and sorrow that knowledge brings. Just stop trying to convince everyone else to want the same. Who needs Socrates indeed? Your philosophy is all there in those two verses.....

West,

The Christians would not have us flying from Earth to Mars. We would have to break through the crystal sphere around the Moon's orbit. Must all be done in Hollywood like in the movie, "Capricorn One". Don't agree? Well, there was a time when the Christians would have had burnt at the stake for disagreeing with them.

In th US, I understand , the Christians have recently opened their dinosaurs living with Adam & Eve museum. Muse-um? Isn't a muse meant to inspire rather than contrive to arrest and stagnate?

O.

BOAZ_DAVID,

You wont answer my question about this there about the humanity of Jesus that would place him above another self-actualised person, such as Carol Rogers or Elanor Roosevelt? I will try this one, again, "Did Jesus commit suicide?"

O.

Bugsy (and others), there are many wisdoms similar to the one you quoted from Ecclesiastes, for instance “Other men are clear and bright, but I alone am dim and weak … Those who know are not learned, the learned do not know.” (Tao Te Ching/DaoDeJing) or “If you persist in reasoning about what cannot be understood, you will be destroyed by the very thing you seek.” (Chuang Tzu/Zhuangzi).

However, one of the greatest Oriental wisdoms, I think, is expressed by the famous "The sage points at the moon; the fool bites his finger" attributed to Lao Tsu, or, in its more modest and popularised form, “if the finger points to the moon, the fool looks at the finger”. How many people, including some debaters here, look incomprehensively (and disapprovingly) at the Christian (Catholic) or Muslim, “finger”, each conditioned by history and culture, without being able to see that its main function is to POINT to Something beyond the reach of science and history.

There is a Western parallel to this Oriental wisdom in J.W. Goethe’s Faust “True, human beings may abound / Who growl at things beyond their ken, / Mocking the beautiful and good, / And all they haven't understood ...”. That is at least my personal experience. People mock mathematics and religion for roughly the same reason: they cannot understand what it is about, are frustrated, and consequently try to bring it down to a level they can grasp

The comments have gone off on a number of tangents. The article's core issue is that Christianity has a history of interfering with free scientific research - and is still attempting to do this.