The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Mass delusions and their consequences > Comments

Mass delusions and their consequences : Comments

By John Perkins, published 4/11/2008

The god delusion is pathological. Not only America, but the whole world, has been forced to pay the price.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 10
  7. 11
  8. 12
  9. All
John, a great read, clear and lucid, just the sort of argument regular defenders of the faith (runner!, polycrap!, can't believe I beat you to the first comment!) will try to denigrate through obfuscation and reliance on the very materials that have created the delusional states in which they find themselves.

Chris Hitchens quotes an ancient Greek Scholar (Epicurus) in his "God is Not Great ..." and I think it sums up the conundrum faced by the religious quite well:

"Is he willing to prevent evil but not able? Then is he impotent.

Is he able but not willing? Then is he malevolent.

Is he both able and willing? Whence then is evil?"

Enough said.

;))
Posted by tebbutt, Tuesday, 4 November 2008 9:48:29 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I agree - an excellent and succinct article that neatly links religious delusion with mass propensity to irrationality, which often has disastrous consequences.

Like tebbutt, I await the deluge of delusional affront to come.
Posted by CJ Morgan, Tuesday, 4 November 2008 10:18:26 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"...the excessive degree of religious belief in America and elsewhere gives rise to a dysfunctional social and political mentality. Not only America, but the whole world, has been forced to pay the price."

It's finally been said. I'm with CJ - let's wait for someone to explain how it ain't so.
Posted by bennie, Tuesday, 4 November 2008 10:31:36 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
An excellent article - one that says it all. The final paragraph sums up the entire situation.
Thanks too to Tebbutt for an incisive comment. No doubt the likes of runner, Sells, et al will come up with something irrelevent, un-informed, and irrational Judeo/Christian predjudice based as usual, but the main points of the essay seem to me to be beyond rational criticism.
I have already noted in an earlier posting the predeliction of the general American public for collective insanity in various matters - especially the more extreme aspects of an already extreme and unsubstantiated religious belief (ie christianity) - an insanity that also inter alia includes the farce presently being played out (in full colour, quadrophonic sound and wide screen TV) generally known as American politics. Thanks be to Bhudda it will soon be over - at least for now.
I would however make the point that Australia, largely as a result of the on-going pandering by successive governments (including the present labor government) to the various christian religious factions via parliamentary prayers, religion driven policies and legislative outcomes, highly disproportionate school funding aimed at the eventual destruction of the secular public school system, massive taxation concessions, local government rating concessions, financial support of numerous religious festivals, and the over-arching (and totally unsubstantiated) ridiculous assumption that church organisations are 'charities' and are therefore exempt from any number of controls and levies born by the general business communities and the public in general. In short, we are not all that far behind America in this regard - a situation that is a cause for concern among all thinking Australians.
Posted by GYM-FISH, Tuesday, 4 November 2008 10:38:14 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I too applaud this article. After attempting to reason with the unreasonable on so many of these threads, I find that John Perkins' analysis strikes a pure and honest note amid the gabble of religious proselytising, damnation and double-speak.

As a result of the 'Gibos', 'Poly-Boaz', 'Katie0' et al, I am in full agreement with Nietzsche when he says:

"Faith means not wanting to know what is true."
Posted by Fractelle, Tuesday, 4 November 2008 10:46:03 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I do not believe in God, Satan or any religion. But I wonder why people like this author have to bash people who do. I respect or don’t care about what other people choose to believe, and I don’t have to shore up my own lack of belief by attacking what other people’s beliefs on God and religion are.

The author is the founding member of the Secular Party of Australia. Fair enough if he wants to form a party standing for nothing in societies where religion is separate from state – parliamentary prayers are just a hoary old tradition quite obviously ignored by politicians – but, apart from ridiculing people he thinks are wrong, he is obviously out to ‘convert’ (to secularism) and is as much a ‘preacher’ for his cause as are bible –bashers.

Connecting religion with the so-called global-crisis in economy with his ‘faith based’ decisions which he thinks led to the crisis, is wrong. While praying for rain (Costello and Howard) was clearly ridiculous, and I totally agree with that and the author’s comparison praying for the car to repair itself, the economy, and the ‘invasion’ of Iraq (what about Afghanistan?) had nothing to do with religion from the West’s point of view. Using (as an argument against religious faith) any politician who says, “God made me do it”, (Bush) is hollow in view of the fact that we all know the U.S’s reasons for going into Iraq had nothing whatsoever to do with faith. On Tony Blair (a deeply religious man) the author hints that only those with religious beliefs would do something because they “believed it was right”, even if they don’t “admit (ted) to hearing the Word”. Anyone who ‘does the right thing’ is hide-bound religious nutter,
apparently.

The world’s problems today are not caused be faith; they are caused by politics, greed and selfishness. I have no reason to defend religion. But in this case, what John Perkins claims just isn’t so.
Posted by Mr. Right, Tuesday, 4 November 2008 10:57:43 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"One may pray for rain, but not pray that the car will repair itself."

Wanna bet? Just a fortnight ago I heard an interview with an American faith group who were espousing the power of prayer to bring down gas prices.
Posted by Clownfish, Tuesday, 4 November 2008 11:16:31 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Mr Right seems to be of the opinion that what people believe matters little - it is what they do that counts. If so, I am in general agreement in that I would support the notion that actions count more than words - or as my father used to say 'talk is cheap'.
However to imply (as Mr Right seems to do) the claim that what people believe has little to do with what they actually do is nonsensical - especially in the case of religious belief. Religious belief - notably of the evangelical christian type (although the Islamic suicide bobmbers also spring to mind) largely dictates behaviour across virtually the full range of human interaction. Aggresive proselytising, inter-sect support, and condemnation of unbelievers are tenets of most religions throughout the world - virtually universal. Religious block-voting is the curse of democracy and has sidetracked billions of dollars from general public revenue - dollars that should have been used for (eg) medical research rather than to perpetuate a defunct and irrational pseudo philosophical faith based on a hierachical self-seeking church organisation agenda.
Posted by GYM-FISH, Tuesday, 4 November 2008 11:34:28 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Drrrr! An economist speaking about rationality. It is hilarious that economists never predicted the boom or the bust. I know a number of people with economic degrees whose English is far worse than mine (and that is saying something). It is no wonder Dr Perkins has turned his attention to religion. His great learnings along with multitudes of other economist have proved they are nothing short of hot air. They remind me very much of the environmental industry who use scaremonger crap and call it science to get people to conform to their secular dogmas. If their was ever a mass delusion it was as the Psalmist says (a fool says in his heart their is no god). Unfortunately the foolish unscientific gw crap has been swallowed by all not wanting to see any real evidence. You would think with the multitudes of failed predictions from the mainstream of economist and environmentalist that they would display a little humility or hide in a cave. No instead filled with pride and indignation they wave their puny fists at God and His followers and reiterate failed dogmas that ease their consciences that one day they will face their Maker.
Posted by runner, Tuesday, 4 November 2008 11:51:11 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Runner, you made it! I thought you might be in Melbourne having the day off. Good to see you are on the job and ready to vent that spleen with some righteous venom.

Did you read my Epicurus quote? Would love to know what someone of your ilk makes of it. Polyc**p, your thoughts?

Mr Right, not sure how you see the article as an attack on people, more of a wake up call my friend.

;))
Posted by tebbutt, Tuesday, 4 November 2008 12:36:12 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
america is afflicted with a high percentage of religious nutters. but that's not the proximate cause of the financial collapse. that came from the culture of 'freedom' in management of financial affairs. nothing particularly religious or anti-intellectual there, just plain old secular greed.

the greedy give lip-service to religion, and use the resulting political support to sustain the freedom to steal.
Posted by DEMOS, Tuesday, 4 November 2008 12:36:14 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Mr Right, the term faith like freedom is many-sided, pretty well as Adam Smith warned about his idea of Laizey-faire, but unfortunately also expresses the old competitive freedom for greed, as he goes on.

Also like the freedom for greed, we have the faith to kill, as with the Muslims, and even as us Christians can have in what we call a Just War, as President Bush called the occupation of Iraq, with much too much personal US militarial slaughter.

Don't know much French, but understand it is a language which has better expression or true indication.

Maybe someone can help me with this attempt?
Posted by bushbred, Tuesday, 4 November 2008 12:36:55 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Well said DEMOS.
----
John Perkins blames the god delusion for all of our major global woes.

I think that he is badly overstating the case. In fact, I fear that as an economist, he is trying to divert the blame away from the human fallibility to the profit motive and onto a stool pigeon.

There is no doubt that misguided religious beliefs have a fair bit to do with it in much of the world. But in Australia, religion is not a huge force, nothing like it is in the US, and yet we are in pretty much the same sort of pickle as the US, in terms of our grossly unsustainable lifestyle and addiction to continuous growth.

I doubt that our somewhat better financial situation is particularly strongly due to us having a much less manically religious population.

The addiction to the profit motive, has led to the big end of town accumulating huge power and strongly compromising governments in their fundamental duty to mitigate the downside of the profit motive and make sure that wealth is reasonably equitably distributed. It has also led to people who are supposed to be experts being bought or duped into towing the line of the greed merchants. Many others actually believe that never-endingly increasing resource consumption, population growth and environmental impact is ok, because they live in a world where everyone around them promulgates it.

Unfortunately, many ‘scientists’, most ‘economists’ the vast majority of politicians, and a very large portion of the general populace fall into these categories.

An economist that believes in unending growth is at best a pseudoeconomist and probably outrightly a false-economist (Is Mr Perkins one of these?).

The absurdity of our addiction to continuous growth sits right at the extreme end of the spectrum of MASS DELUSION, deception, blind-eyedness and perhaps even psychosis.

THIS is what is rooting our future! And it has STUFF-ALL to do with religion, in Australia and in many other countries.
Posted by Ludwig, Tuesday, 4 November 2008 1:02:02 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
MASS delusions [give to me that mass means the majority]

so the majority of economists WERE DECIEVED thus we have had a catostropic failure of the securities industry [led by ecomonic fools having faith in a lie ,

putting economic theory on a pedistal based on their own delusional beliefs [in market forces ,not spiritual forces]

there are few eco-optimists found in churches [in good times]

this collapse being accorded to religious faith is a red herring [the bible predicted this [recall the christ upsetting ONLY the money changers tables]

so we know the consequences and the cause

[the faulse god of economic theory ,followed by a religious TYPE of zeal , that accorded faith in an economic[with the truth] THEORY

[that was betrayed even by its believers[indeed economic theorists and evolutionry theorists ,have gods with feet of clay,

that as it is revealed tries to muddy all beliefs
and any believers with the same deceiving brush #

yes many religions too have been decieved by this flesh delusion[but just as unseen market 'forces' interact with the market [higher good forces interact in this reality for the good

[of god and his creation]

that evil occurs isnt for god to cure
[but for man to realise the weak falibility of their flesh incarnation]
[jesus was offered these realms[he wisely refused it]

so why shouild he come back and rescue [or destroy it]or whatever delusional armogeddonist theoristss expect

god is love
light sustaining life [live with it its not worth dying over]

many are decieved and decieving
thus know them by their [GOOD] fruits

or their faulures
[then blaming it on others]

oh ye of little faith
shared so little of the plenty when it was good
Posted by one under god, Tuesday, 4 November 2008 1:21:20 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Now, now O-U-G, don't get ahead of yourself. What (I think) John is saying is simply that it is almost certainly causal - i.e. the relationship between "religiosityness" - surely a Bushism (esp. the evangelic type that folksy folks like Sarah P subscribe to) and some of the madness that has unfolded in terms of the USA's domestic and international affairs in recent times.

He's not saying that every Wall Street CEO is a hand clapping believer, although I suspect there will be plenty of "Court Steps" conversions sometime soon.

U-O-G, do you know polyc**p, you sure type like him, so tebbut tells me.

;))
Posted by not tebbut, Tuesday, 4 November 2008 1:51:10 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
no tebbut ,i dont know polycarp in any way
im presuming ar are the ** marks meaning
that name seems familiour [but definatly not known personally]

re your other comment i take the words of an athiest economist chosing to divert the debate [attention] on the monetory failures into a debate about religious delusions[

as most of the early responses appear to have directed their responses to that religious delusion aspect bidden through out his words]

most of what ALL of us believe must of nessisity be based on this carnate reality

but religion is about revealing the unseen sp[irit forces surrounding us [where as the eco theory is mass delusion based purely on the material made into formula [their prayer equivellent]

but like i try to say we are all decieved to greater and lessor extent [on so many different areas of this material realm] any who presume to know it all are decieved

[not by satan but decieved by this flesh ,fear , want ,need , greed , a lack of charity, a lack of forgivness [of self or others]

but that is my second post
so see you all in 24 hours
Posted by one under god, Tuesday, 4 November 2008 2:16:18 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
If Ludwig will let me, I want to stand in his tent him - piddling outside onto the opposition. In my opinion he has things pretty much right.

I have one serious disagreement when he says:

“The absurdity of our addiction to continuous growth sits right at the extreme end of the spectrum of MASS DELUSION, deception, blind-eyedness and perhaps even psychosis.

THIS is what is rooting our future! And it has STUFF-ALL to do with religion”

Religion – it has everything to do with religion. Belief in unlimited continuous growth is against reason, contrary to the ever-accumulating evidence confronting us. Such a belief, the foundation of the present dominant economic paragidm, can be nothing other than an illusion built upon faith, upon the religion of voodoo economics
Posted by colinsett, Tuesday, 4 November 2008 3:56:34 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I try my very best to understand what you are saying ONE-UNDER-GOD but you don't seem to me to be able to offer any kind of rational argument when presenting your case.
All you are able to do is offer some disjointed quotes from the Bible which bear little relevance to the matter being discussed. My only conclusion is that this confabulation tends to confirm that faith is indeed blind and that you have a very confused mind which only proves that the whole tenet of the article has some basis.
Posted by snake, Tuesday, 4 November 2008 4:00:04 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yes colinsett, the ‘religion’ of voodoo economics is vastly more destructive to our future than any conventional religion or god delusion.
Posted by Ludwig, Tuesday, 4 November 2008 4:32:17 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
This is a quote from the original article, which I want to comment about: "All the benefits of modern society, such as increased longevity and prosperity, derive from our technical advancement. These in turn derive from rational inquiry, investigation and innovation. The human mind is thus capable of great feats of ingenuity. Yet both individually and collectively we remain susceptible to superstition, deception and delusion. On the rational level, our brains operate differently from how they do on an emotional level. When not entirely psychotic, this irrationality can be regarded as benign aspect of human nature that is without adverse social consequences."

I happen to believe that not all benefits of longevity and prosperity are derived from rational inquiry, investigation and innovation; but the reason I happen to be able to believe in a higher cause, or Spirital realm of causal occurrances, is because I have experienced many events which have no other rational explanation.

I am not the sort of person whom gets carried away with religious definitions of spiritualism, or with deep and meaningful explanations of God. To my mind, God is simply a force of living being which is, by definition, greater than a human mind can conceive of. Therefore we can't define and explain and express what God is, by the very definition of God. Therefore, such attempts at explanation must inevitably always approach manifesting as psychosis.

That fact however, can not undermine belief based in positive life affirming experiences.

Yet it is also very true to say, that most overt, and dogmatic, expressions of religious belief, and especially demands for subservience on the basis of what individuals reckon might be Godly enough for themself, are wrong and need to be opposed.

This is an interesting debate.
Posted by Curaezipirid, Tuesday, 4 November 2008 5:28:17 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
O U G
Mass doesn’t mean majority in this context simply means many, a group.

CJ Morgan, Fractelle, tebbutt and John Perkins
It seems to me that all of you are guilty of being selectivity, inconsistency in your logic and making some dubious assumptions.
You appear to be
1. Confusing Creationism and its many conclusions with a belief in ‘a’ God, the two aren’t interchangeable. The fact that they SOMETIMES occur together doesnt prove cause and effect.
2. Neither does Religiosity (God Delusion) necessarily preclude rationality in all other areas.
3. The God delusion necessarily equates to extremism/evangelism or more irrationality that all the above including me periodically indulge in…its part of being human.
4. You all seem to assume “I can so everyone can” which is a very tendentious and over simplistic view of others. Your abilities or tendencies aren’t the base level of these traits.

The issue of opposition to “intelligent (sic) design” (aka creationism) as an alternative to science is indeed a worrying issue and should be strongly opposed. I believe its desperation tactics for those with vested interests (maintenance of their power or control). It’s simply a case of the unscrupulous using people’s insecurities for their own less than godly purposes.
In that context attack the cause not the effect.

Just in case you ignored my other posts I am an atheist and I deplore Evangelistic zeal regardless of its dogma.

Neither does it necessarily mean that they don’t want to know the truth it’s simply their choice to believe. Some need the sense of security ‘God’ bring a greater context.

Simply put life without its delusions would be simply less even unpalatable for some.
Delusions are often a defence mechanism and and often the only thing that keeps them going to then deny them that IS both delusional, Cruel and insensitive to other’s emotional/psychological short comings.

I defy any of you to prove that "a belief in a god" is intrinsically bad. Rather on closer analysis human excesses are most often the problem, religions are the excuse.
Your turn.
Posted by examinator, Tuesday, 4 November 2008 6:28:42 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Interesting and thought provoking posts Curaezipirid and examinator.

Examinator
You are very kind. You have reminded us that sometimes when vehemently defending our position we forget that for many, religious beliefs are very important.

Sometimes we also forget that there is more to unite us than divide us and religion is not itself THE problem. Religion like many other aspects of life, may be a divisive tool but the root cause of the problems attributed to religion, are probably as you say, attributable to some other aspect of human nature (the greatest probably - economic disparity).

Humans tend to fear others who are 'different' - perhaps as a survival mechanism for the pack and hence a pack mentality. These differences can be religion, class, wealth, culture (dress, language, food) or politics.

The best approach is probably to accept each other for our differences, and if some need religion for spiritual strength, peace or a moral compass perhaps they are better for it than without it.

:)
Posted by pelican, Tuesday, 4 November 2008 7:36:17 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Outstanding sir!

I only wish I could put it so succintly. Thanks mate.

Mind you religion is not the only mass delusion is it? Here's a few more :

. Democracy exists,
. You can win at gambling,
. Politicians work for you,
. No one will quote Bible scripture on this thread!

I hadn't read these comments when I wrote this so I'm now looking.

Mr Right claims wars aren't caused by faith. Excuse me, do you read Mr Wrong? Try the history section at your library, please.

Ludwig turns his blind eye, yet again.

One Under God qualifies for scripture quoting although he fails to attribute such.

Snake wisely questions One Under's lucidity. A little too much spirutal over imbibing perhaps One Under?

Examinator, as an arheist I find some of your statements rather odd. The life without delusions one in particular. You see as an atheist you should know only too well how that lack of seeking, confusion and fear of the supposedly unknown clouds our minds. Once we know the truth, no God, that cloud clears and the need for that particular crutch vanishes. There are many more we can choose from of course.

You have noticed some talking about Satan I suppose. How does that help anyone mate. It's a big part of most religions you know.

Your defiant challenge is ridiculous mate. You have proved it immediately with the subsequent words. Any spiritual or political theory looks good on paper. Add humans and it becomes corrupt, misused and useless. You have already proved it. No argument, there's no point to such. Take a Gold Star out of petty cash for proving your own statement wrong please.

There's only one way a non atheist should interpret your comments. That is as condescending and insulting but I notice you are thanked. Hmmm.
Posted by DavoP, Tuesday, 4 November 2008 8:07:04 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Examinator,
"...Delusions are often a defence mechanism and and often the only thing that keeps them going to then deny them that IS both delusional, Cruel and insensitive to other’s emotional/psychological short comings..."]

A bit like telling a child that Santa Clause doesn't exist?
When we're all grown up and have been educated to think critically using rational thought processes, we should be capable of getting through life without an imaginary friend to look out for us. Teaching people that they can believe in magical beings who make them feel comfortable and secure is cheating them out of reality and also encourages stupidity plus an acceptance of being content with not knowing nor understanding how the world around them functions.

"...I defy any of you to prove that "a belief in a god" is intrinsically bad. Rather on closer analysis human excesses are most often the problem, religions are the excuse.
Your turn..."

Religions are the excuse, and the religious are happy to use them. So why give them an easy out - let them be judged and let them stand accountable for their behaviours and excesses as other people are, don't accept excuses. Take away the religion that they hide behind and they are seen for who and what they really are.

[quote]"...(Religion) With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion"
Steven Weinberg
Posted by human interest, Wednesday, 5 November 2008 12:23:59 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
“The US-led invasion of Iraq was a religiously inspired debacle of monumental proportions.”

Apart from this delusional statement the article is so good that it would win the Dawkin’s Prize for Irrational and Contradictory thinking.

Western economists are delusional in their thinking believing that the free-market can take care of itself without any regulation. This 2008 financial crisis has proven them wrong. Peter Day from the BBC invited 6 economists to comment on the recent economic melt-down. There were six mutually contradictory opinions which prompted Mr Day concluding remark, “come back in 10 years time and let’s see who is right.”

Instead of ranting away about ‘the great global financial crash of 2008’, John Perkins should be glad that he is witnessing the very equivalent of the Big-Bang in Economic theory. Out of this chaos would evolve a system of economic order never imagined by all the Nobel laureates in Economics put together
Posted by Philip Tang, Wednesday, 5 November 2008 3:10:28 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
GYMMY.....

remarkable insight there :)

<<However to imply (as Mr Right seems to do) the claim that what people believe has little to do with what they actually do is nonsensical - especially in the case of religious belief. Religious belief>>

Hmmmmm now 'where' have I heard THAT before.. ooooooh yes..I think it was from yours truly on the BELIEFS and BEHAVIOR thread :)

Thankyou for your support. ^5

Now..If 'I' had said that very same thing I would be battered from pillar to post by all those who are overflowing and overglowing and purring and mutually petting each other in a flood of self congratulation here.

1 Cor 15:1-3

2 Peter 1:16

<We did not follow cleverly invented stories when we told you about the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty. 17For he received honor and glory from God the Father when the voice came to him from the Majestic Glory, saying, "This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased." 18We ourselves heard this voice that came from heaven when we were with him on the sacred mountain.>

Yep....totally nonsensical.
Posted by Polycarp, Wednesday, 5 November 2008 5:57:41 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
There is probably no god. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life.
Posted by bennie, Wednesday, 5 November 2008 7:37:32 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Bravo! Excellent article.
As a young child I took religion very seriously.
The first chink in the armour of faith was the question "Where did God come from?"...seemed pretty important at the time.
Needless to say I was encouraged to stop asking questions and just believe.
As I grew older I discovered that religious teachers were not interested in thinking beings...they were recruiting tribe members. The more ridiculous the thing you "believe", the more "in" the group you became. Terry Pratchett explained this in his excellent book "The Globe". It is a very human thing to do when living in tribal groups.
Modern history seems to be a story of slow escape from the tribal hierarchy of religious thinking: (God, Priest, Believer, Dirt/Slaves). Wealth (due to technology and rational science) seems to bring the parasites out and the old ways can re-assert themselves for a while. Bush being able to lie to the world to bomb a modern city for obviously false reasons (read Tedd Ralls articles from the time), and bankers being able to profit from an inevitably bursting bubble are amazing examples of why we should not be complacent, and why we must defend the way of knowledge against the way of dogma.
Thank you to most of the comments here. Makes me feel optimistic about our potential for civilisation again.
Posted by Ozandy, Wednesday, 5 November 2008 8:51:22 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I agree with many people here. This is a very good article. However, I take exception to this statement …

‘All the benefits of modern society, such as increased longevity and prosperity, derive from our technical advancement.’

This is perhaps our biggest delusion – much greater than religion, and the source of many of our continuing problems.

Modern society hasn’t really created all that many benefits. Virtually all the benefits we enjoy today were enjoyed thousands of years ago – including agriculture, industry, craft, medicine and trade. The food we eat and the way it’s prepared have been around for many millennia, as has wine, beer and spirits.

Also, many societies throughout history have enjoyed excellent health and living conditions – especially those that have had a fairly even distribution of wealth. The many health problems associated with life in earlier times – high infant mortality, death in childbirth, disease and shorter lifespans – were more the result of squalid living conditions caused by social inequality, poverty, war and limited access to resources (which occur just as much today).

The belief that we live better today than in times past is based on the delusion of progress. But all progress really does is to create more and more complex societies that in turn require an ever increasing supply of resources just to function at the most minimal level – the Law of Diminishing returns (aka ‘economic growth’). Stress, chronic war, boom/bust cycles, crime and social breakdown are its inevitable consequences.

I don’t know how true it is but I read of a report written some years ago that claimed Aboriginal society in 1788 enjoyed a better standard of living than two-thirds of the population of western Europe at the same time. I’m inclined to agree.
Posted by SJF, Wednesday, 5 November 2008 9:07:04 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Polyc**p, you took your time! I agree with your self analysis: Yep....totally nonsensical!

Ahem, now, back to the article. The thesis behind the entire article appears to be quite sound – irrational belief systems (e.g. blind faith in something you call God, blind faith in the invisible hand of the “free” market, …) tend to be the precursor of tears (of regret, retribution, sorrow etc.).

Why? Because at their core they are flawed systems that cannot really assist anyone with an open and honest heart (or mind) to make sense of the world in which we live so fleetingly.

Did you see my quote from Epicurus above?

I would love your take on it.
Posted by not tebbut, Wednesday, 5 November 2008 9:12:04 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
No doubt after reading these posts any thinking person can only conclude that the fundamentalist atheist (or hard line secularist) are the deluded ones. Just look at the fruit of their dogmas (hate, murder, immorality, homosexuality, lies, drug usage, environmental destruction, greed etc). No wonder many of them that claim to hold to these dogmas send their children to private schools. What hypocrisy!
Posted by runner, Wednesday, 5 November 2008 10:08:56 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Crikey Runner, you do sound a little bitter if you don't mind me saying so. "Thinking" people are (in my humble view) people who are prepared to think, not people who just take "as read" the word of someone with no substantive proof to back up their position.

Would you (or your cohorts, like Polyc**p?) care to consider my quote from Epicurus and tell me if you can see a way around it?

There is no need to live in fear my friend, life is far too short to waste time fearing a vengeful diety. If (like Richard Dawkins) you are rational enough to admit you are a sceptic on these matters you can actually relieve yourself of the need to fear death (which is after all the great driver of monetheistic faiths) and get on with living your life, still doing good deeds - being "of faith" is not a pre-requisite for being a good person - and making the world a better place than it was when you arrived.

Don't let fear of death rule your life Runner.
Posted by tebbutt, Wednesday, 5 November 2008 10:31:36 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
DavoP,

Thank you for your observations highlighting the flaw in my expression > “I defy you ”< It should have read “I challenge you”
It was intended to make those who think they have “THE unconditional answer really examine what they’re saying.”
Your response ASSUMES a causal link; there are no conclusive facts to support that.
Some of the greatest Scientists, Humanitarians etc believe in or driven by a belief in higher power.

Can I suggest that many readers scan my responses and react.

You and HI both missed one of my seminal points. Expanded in related topic post. “Not every one has your genetic, emotional, intellectual capacities or upbringing”. Neither You nor I are the base standard by which to judge others e.g.
• I have a daughter now 30 who despite talent, a great I. Q. has the aggressive form of MS whose prognosis is 24 hr care in a home by 40s and unlikely to see 50. She dreams of her sole mate, children, is a vegetarian and uses complementary medicines. She believes in a future. Do I destroy her “delusion”.
• My widowed 84 YO mum, still active, for the 1st time in her life has financial adequacy and a home. She’s had a tough life (trust me). She believes in her church and that they regard her as an elder…everyone’s granny. The truth is some what more speckled. Do I destroy her “delusion”? For what? Their ‘delusions’ get them up in the morning. I can't see how imposing atheism on them would improve their lives .

I suggest we ALL have delusions of varing length/strength. Ultimately the defining factor of delusions is its intrinsic potential for harm to others. Who are my rellies harming?

Objectively Religion isn’t INTRINSICALLY bad it is what SOME people do with it.

Likewise the financial crisis isn’t due to religion it is down to people who either just happen to have extremist views or (most probably) manipulate (profit from) the lesser capable. AFL, NRL, Grand Prix etc do exactly the same thing.
Posted by examinator, Wednesday, 5 November 2008 10:52:00 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"hate, murder, immorality, homosexuality, lies, drug usage, environmental destruction, greed etc" are the sole province of secularists, according to Runner.

Such superior, suffocating, sanctimonious self-righteousness is what gives religionists a bad name
Posted by bennie, Wednesday, 5 November 2008 11:33:42 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Tebutt or not tebutt...that is the question :)

I think I'll BUTT (like a ram with big horns aaarggghh snarrllll)
or is it baaaaaaaa. with a macho edge to it?

"Is he willing to prevent evil but not able? Then is he impotent.
Is he able but not willing? Then is he malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Whence then is evil?"

Butthead... ( well.. you give and you take right? :)

Ok..*slap* in serious mode now.. (really)

This question or series of them is not unknown to Christians.
In fact it is probably the same set of mental emotional challenges which go through the mind of every would be believer as they struggle with the nature of the Almighty.

Paul the Apostle was also confronted with this dilemna...but the problem for the person seeking to undersand it all is their limited frame of reference.

Rather than repeat it all, I recommend you read Romans 9

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=52&chapter=9&version=31

For Paul and for every settled believer.. "God is sovereign" it is never a matter of "If....then" from a limited human perspective.
Consider this.... how in the world could we ever enter into the mind of our Creator with our puny minds? Not a chance. If he created all that is.. I suggest there are pieces of the puzzle which we not only do not have but could not absorb if we did.

This.. we are left, by his providence with:

a) The intellect to ask the questions.
b) Not enough to comprehend the answers.

As Paul said

19One of you will say to me: "Then why does God still blame us? For who resists his will?" 20But who are you, O man, to talk back to God? "Shall what is formed say to him who formed it, 'Why did you make me like this?' "[h] 21Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use?

Well... you can ponder all this, humbly I hope.. and contemplate your position in regard to Him.
blessings
Posted by Polycarp, Wednesday, 5 November 2008 11:37:00 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
“Ludwig turns his blind eye, yet again.”

Davo, what the….??

C’mawwn, put a bit of substance into it. Don’t just make completely hollow comments!
Posted by Ludwig, Wednesday, 5 November 2008 1:09:25 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Polyc**p, as much as I like reasonably priced pottery I cannot see your point.

Having looked at Romans 9 I am no clearer than I was before as to whether you have considered the Epicurian conundrum or not.

You appear to be simply saying "I don't need to consider it because I have this big book which I am led to believe is 100% factual and completely infallible, just a little vague on scientifically tested detail, proofs etc. ... OK, OK, I am taking it all on faith ... so the idea of Epicurus' conundrum is something I CANNOT contemplate because to do so would in effect create a logical short circuit for me that I can only resolve by ignoring the rationality of Epicurus' arguments altogether and hanging on for dear life to this big book of stories."

Don't get me wrong, I think there is allegorical value in most big books including the one you (apparently) use to guide your life, though not enough to justify putting one in every hotel room in the world.

Humble secular blessings back at you.

Oh, and runner, you just sound like a bit of a gay-hating bigot to me.
Posted by tebbutt, Wednesday, 5 November 2008 1:54:45 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I have no doubt at all that greed, corruption and the unsustainability of the ethos of economic rationality all played a part in the current economic crisis. Also true; it is not the moderate religious to blame, it is always the extremists of any ideology. However to galvanise many people, there is nothing like religion and particularly the pentecostal sects:

In Australia, Hillsong promotes the idea of "prosperity gospel", however it's impact is small in comparison to the influence of this "gospel" in the USA.

Time Magazine quotes its own poll numbers on prosperity gospel:

"17 percent of Christians surveyed said they considered themselves part of such a movement (prosperity gospel), while a full 61 percent believed that God wants people to be prosperous. And 31 percent—a far higher percentage than there are Pentecostals in America—agreed that if you give your money to God, God will bless you with more money. … Of the four biggest megachurches in the country, three—Joel Osteen's Lakewood in Houston; T.D. Jakes' Potter's House in south Dallas; and Creflo Dollar's World Changers near Atlanta—are Prosperity or Prosperity Lite pulpits."

While most mainstream Christians decry the "prosperity gospel", this offshoot from the old style TV evangelism have had significant influence in both the Republican party and on Wall Street. George W Bush was placed in office by the financial support of the Pentecostal church.

That it is not the only cause of the Wall Street meltdown is true. However to claim that religion has absolutely no influence on politics or finance is simply absurd
Posted by Fractelle, Wednesday, 5 November 2008 2:01:08 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
tebbutt

I would not have the arrogance or stupidity to question our Creator in the way Epicurus did. When you understand how small you are and how big the universe is and how much bigger the Creator is you really are not in a position to tell Him how to run things or question His credibility. You and Epicurean certainly share in general, a self righteousness that blinds you from seeing the need of a Saviour. As I mentioned in a previous post the psalmist rightly says that a fool says in his heart there is no god. You ought to be very happy that God does not deal with evil immediately. You would not be alive today if that was the case.
Sorry to tell you I ain't the least bit bitter. In actual fact I enjoy life immensely.
Posted by runner, Wednesday, 5 November 2008 4:51:04 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
tebbut

When Chris Higgins debates he has next to him a mug of beer. Quite often he is in a drunken stupor. However, he makes a lot sense to his fans because he is speaking a load of nonsense.

For example in quoting Epicurus "Is he [God] willing to prevent evil but not able? Then is he impotent.”, he and many of his fans have assumed that there is ‘evil’ and ‘good’ in this world. But this is pure nonsense because there is no such thing as ‘good’ or ‘evil’; what we have are only belief systems. ‘Good’ and ‘evil’ are subjective concepts.

The Bali bombers are not evil because they have killed over 200 people. They acted consistently with their belief-system. Some may think jiahdists are evil to do this, but your ‘evil’ is their ‘good.’ There are no absolutes because this world and all contained therein came into being by chance. The strong ones survive and through a process of natural selection and adaptation the weaker ones are weeded out.

Therefore, Hitler was not evil when he killed millions of Jews and disabled persons because he believed in the evolution of the superior Aryan race. His belief system is consistent with the central tenet of evolution; survival of the fittest through a process of natural selection and adaptation. The same can be argued for Stalin and Mao who put millions to death for the sake of a better and healthier homosapien species.

That is why we atheists should not bat an eye-lid when lesbians and homosexuals are executed in Islamic countries because such lifestyle is not able to produce off-springs through the natural process --the survival of homosapiens is called into question. The Islamists may do it for a very different reason but the result is still the same.
Posted by Philip Tang, Wednesday, 5 November 2008 6:30:13 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
i see the m ass delusion debate about religion continues [despite the heading being mass delusions AND THEIR CONsequence]

but i will add yet another DELUSION
[that of global warning or is it global COOLing?

regardless of the scientist expecting to clean up with carbon funding, or the awards and favour of their masters [big buisness ,bankers]will bestow upon them ,if they deliver this new GLOBAL tax gift

think of it the same way big buisness did,
they simply did a bad burn during their base measurement period
[the equivelent to running your car on full choke to get the highest reading possable]

then after you get the tax [they get the credit
then they go back to normal running
[and sell the extra carbon credits to the bank
[or get loans on the credit]

we are talking about a new CREDIT[ie money]
and a new tax,

designed purely to boost big buisness income and their own bonus

carbon credit should flow to people then to buisnes

but is it Global warming
or COOLING

climate change is a buzz word

govt MUST say warming OR cooling
[then define who pays what ,to go to who ,to do what]

either way the world gets a new TAX
either way its us who pay extra from our fast depleting credit

it is a huge underwriting of bigbuisness ON top of our consuming
[and we get no pay increase,
nor tax reduction

[yet big buisness can apply for OUR funds
[and hundreds can claim egsemption

because they have the lawyers
that could prove this NEW delusion [neo tax] is unconstitutional

and govt dont want them to do that so exgsemptions all round
who's delusion?
Posted by one under god, Wednesday, 5 November 2008 7:23:33 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Philip Tang, could not agree with you less.

You sound like someone who lacks basic human empathy, that is a pathological affliction too, just like religious fundamentalism.

I reject both positions.

As for Runner, you display all the venomous anger that I would exect from a fundamentalist. If that makes you happy mores the pity.

Perhaps you and Philip Tang should exhange email adresses?

Don't live in fear and don't foster hate.
Posted by not tebbut, Wednesday, 5 November 2008 7:43:02 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I have difficulty understanding how some contributors can support their beliefs.
Runner pays tribute to the psalmist. I prefer to look at modern arguments than accept a view several thousand years old. There are plenty of ways to show that an all powerfull and just god is an illogical concept. As for the size of the universe and god being larger - Ahhhhhhh! And he supposed to worry about and know what six billion humans are up to.
As for good and evil. Surely no thoughtful competent person should take advantage of the gullibility of someone less competent. To do so in my view is unfair and therefore evil. That may be idealistic but it is a good way to test one's own behaviour. For that reason I consider the concept of original sin as used by the clergy in dealing with a child is a fundamental evil and the concept could not have come from a just god.
I see one contributor has read the advertisment planned for UK busses. "THERE PROBABLY IS NO GOD SO STOP WORRYING AND ENJOY LIFE." A great idea. One life is enough to get on with.
Posted by Foyle, Wednesday, 5 November 2008 8:26:09 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I’d like to ask if those true god disciples; runner, Polycarp, one under god, etc support my absolutely urgent push for us to get our society onto a sustainable footing.

As I keep harping on, on this forum, we MUST achieve a sustainable society, and quickly. The alternative is simply a huge crash event where the rule of law collapses and food supplies and other vital resources become impossible to obtain for a large part of the populace. Many die and most survivors have their quality of life very greatly reduced. Or a scenario of that sort.

It befuddles me so extremely as to why religions don’t embrace the absolute necessity of a sustainable lifestyle that is in balance with the environment and resource base. The concept of sustainability just seems like the most worthwhile basic religious philosophy of all….especially in a time of such rampantly unsustainable human behaviour.

Why hasn’t Christianity or a branch of Christianity or any other major religion embraced this? Why haven’t people banded together and started a new religion in the absence of anything from the major religions?

It seems to me that all religions are fundamentally missing the most important point of all here…that we as all sorts of societies around the world and as a species need to survive, and in harmony with our surroundings, and with a decent quality of life.

In fact, I need to ask; what the hell are religions doing if they aren’t addressing this point?
Posted by Ludwig, Wednesday, 5 November 2008 9:21:09 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
dear ludwig >>quote];why havnt people started a new religion [in the ansence of anything from the majors'<<

many would agree[that we allready have too many religions]

jesus was discusted HIS[our]fathers house was divided
[noting this was PRE-christianity] ,
BUT jesus didnt come to found a church

he came to prove we are all reborn[after 'death']
and allow us to know emmanuel[meaning 'god with us'

jesus didnt say judge each other
he said love god[and love neighbour ,
the new test-i-meant]

christ's house is more divided now
even more than the fathers house was divided then

[but this is good , as long as we dont decieve gods children [and who is not a child of god]or generate faulse idols
[or adulterate gods good

[recall jesus saying 'why call ye me good'
[god al;one is the only good

but jesus revealed gods goodness
[see me see my father[just LIKE 'god with us'; emmanuel]

see my brother that we are eternal spirits
[what are mere sufferings of mortal flesh to eternal glory]
[we live because god[good]lives within us all]

that we do to the least we REALLY DO TO GOOD [god]
living enthroned in ALL our hearts
wether we realise it or not

we are to know our master's [good]loving [living] voice

to eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil ,[and realise that we love to do
ie love good life given of the lifegiver via gods light

or reject the light[life giver]
and serve that 'vile'
[to live in the vile veil[ed]; evil]
ie to reject the light[or enjoin with the love of evil]

god dont judge

[we are like to all be like him
[we love that we made]so does he

but we are all different[god has so many facets,we each ,all reflect but a tiny bit of the allness god[good]love is

[ok and the bad ,we like god are capable of rejecting the vile or the good
but we will all draw together
[in time] in gods time]
when we are all able to live to love all that of the good
Posted by one under god, Thursday, 6 November 2008 1:22:36 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ludwig: << Why hasn’t Christianity or a branch of Christianity or any other major religion embraced this? >>

A very pertinent question, but I think that it's been substantially answered in John Perkins' article.

While I know several Christians and numerous Buddhists who support campaigns for ecological sustainability, I've yet to see or hear any leaders of churches or other religions involve themselves. Indeed, most of the more vocal Christians at OLO are aggressively anti-environment, which is of course just another reason to dismiss their silly rants.
Posted by CJ Morgan, Thursday, 6 November 2008 6:38:55 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
CJ,

Take a look at the work of Patriarch Bartholomew, the head of the Orthodox Church

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9D07E7DB133EF935A35751C1A96F958260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=2

Rev. John Chryssargis, who is working with him on environmental issues, also said in that article: "The idea is to help the priests understand that part of worshiping God is to respect the natural world."

The Archbishop of Canterbury has said similar things. It is only certain Christian groups who want to be part of the problem rather than part of the solution. The Catholic hierarchy and some if its followers are obsessed with pronatalism. Some of the Protestant fundamentalists believe that God will save us from our own stupidity if we get the really important issues right, like banning abortion or gay marriage. Others believe that Jesus is coming soon, so the environment doesn't matter.
Posted by Divergence, Thursday, 6 November 2008 11:02:26 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thanks for that, Divergence - interesting stuff indeed. However, I wonder why we don't hear similar things from church leaders here in Australia? Certainly not from the Jensens, Aspinall, Pell etc.

And quite the reverse from the fundies who seem to infest OLO. I often wonder why it is that some of them are so antagonistic towards the environment that they believe their god created.
Posted by CJ Morgan, Thursday, 6 November 2008 4:22:11 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
'I often wonder why it is that some of them are so antagonistic towards the environment that they believe their god created.'

Personally I have found that most Christians are far more conscious of the environment than most. What Christians object to is the false self righteous morality preached by many environmentalist in the name of science. Any thinking person can see that the crap dished up by the likes of Gore, Flannery and some on OLO is just that. Just happens that most Christians I know would rather do something practical in helping people than convincing people of their pseudo science conclusions (the very thing they accuse those who believe in creation). It just happens that these 'peace promoters' often turn out to be the most violent people in our nation (just look at the 'peaceful' environmental demonstrations).
Posted by runner, Thursday, 6 November 2008 5:24:01 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hello runner, you're not just John Howard posting via clever psuedenymn are you? You know, "power walker" = "runner" in nursing home speak?

Your bigotry knows no bounds.

Unquestioning love and obedience always,
Posted by tebbutt, Thursday, 6 November 2008 7:42:55 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Tebutt

'Your bigotry knows no bounds.' Unless you compare it with the fundamentalist secular humanist who can murder the unborn and claim their is nothing wrong with it or yourself who seems very quick to judge and slow to listen.
Posted by runner, Thursday, 6 November 2008 7:50:31 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Wow runner(aka power walker), you are ON FIRE tonight (figuratively speaking of course).

Each piece of feedback appears to elicit another example of your bigotry.

How dreadfully un-Christian of you!

Look, you are either really stuck in your little world or a wonderfully wierd satirist, I would like to think the latter, so enjoy the rest of your day and love always,

t.

PS. don't live your life in fear of death my boy!
Posted by tebbutt, Thursday, 6 November 2008 9:07:05 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hello Polycarp and runner.

Did you see my request for your opinions in my previous post on this thread? http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=8121#126923

I see the connection… or lack thereof… between religion and sustainability as being of the most fundamental importance.

Don’t you?

Thanks one under god for your response.
Posted by Ludwig, Saturday, 8 November 2008 1:08:59 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Foyle

It’s good you agree that there really is no such thing as “evil” because you have the wisdom to see that original sin is not a reality. Since people are no different from their cousin, the monkey, and in the final analysis end up in the grave to be food for worms and creeping stuff, they must as well live for ourselves.

All the millions killed by the world’s great leaders (mistakenly called dictators by some) Stalin, Mao, Hitler, Omar al-Bashir (Sudan’s president, indicted for crimes against humanity), Milosevic and others down the century should be of no worry and concern to us (atheists) as they were acting out their belief system or, as Dawkins might say “they were dancing to their DNA”.

‘The universe we observe has … no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference. … DNA neither knows nor cares. DNA just is. And we dance to its music.’ (Dawkins)

As Dawkins, the hope and savior of us atheists, has said, there is no such thing as evil, DNA is.

There are places in northern Thailand where one can indulge in all kinds of sex with children, infants, animals , etc. you name it, they have it. All one needs to do is to pay for these services. If one’s belief-system is to have kinky sex and yet be troubled by one’s conscience, the solution is to become an atheist. As Dawkin has assured us, there is no life after death. Divine retribution is just pure nonsense. Having a ‘conscience’ belongs only to the weak who believe there is a god or the supernatural.

We atheists have evolved into a higher order than the religionists, so our minds are cleared of ‘conscience’. Since we dance according to the dictates of our DNA, don’t fault us for anti-social behavior
Posted by Philip Tang, Sunday, 9 November 2008 10:32:21 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Tang knows very well that atheists do not argue for a "clearing of conscience" as he puts it. I don't speak for all atheists, but we are born with natural biological conscience that makes us strive to do the right thing by others ie. a natural instinct to do no harm. This is not to argue that humans are perfect (far from it).

Do the ardent religious amonst us think that Religion alone can provide a moral compass? Without some form of natural conscience Religion is meaningless. Religion can't MAKE people do the right thing you have to really believe that doing the right thing is the best thing for society. If you are only doing it because God says so - it is not pure nor real - a house of cards.

The fact that Tang has to twist the facts to fit in with his own dogma merely demonstrates that his own beliefs are on very shaky ground.

Who do we fault for the anti-social behaviour of paedophile priests then? God.

Shame on you.
Posted by pelican, Sunday, 9 November 2008 10:46:53 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
To those who believe Tang is wrong.

Believing that Tang is wrong in what he says is in fact the supreme delusion of most societies.
Societies are guilty of mass delusion. Hence the we are so loving and tolerant delusion, despite the facts of history screaming that we are nothing of the sort. Here you have the facts documented and staring mankind in the face but does he dechiper history unemotionally and rationally, no he prefers to believe in the delusion of himself as being as unharmful as Santa Clause and the Easter Bunny.

Like all religions the Islamists use it as an excuse to carry out what their underlying biological urges tell them to do. It's all about their own suvival as a bloodline. They thus delude themselves as to their real motives,at least Hitler was honest.
Posted by sharkfin, Tuesday, 11 November 2008 2:07:49 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Economists are extremely hard to understand. When the economic or markets report comes on the radio, I sometimes go over and tap it to see if the station has somehow switched over to SBS. I can’t understand a word they’re saying. It sounds like they’re speaking in tongues.

And Bushbred, as for French being a more expressive language, I don’t think so. Every language has its strengths and weaknesses in describing things. All languages tend to borrow things from other languages. Perhaps Smith borrowed the term laissez-faire as it was a more apt or fitting expression for what he wanted to say at the time. The English dictionary today has quite a high percentage of words taken directly from French. When I studied French, I found it had its holes too. For example, they don’t distinguish between ‘wife’ and ‘woman’, ‘house’ and ‘home’. The French use the same word (vol) for flight as they use for theft. This makes it really tricky when you’re trying to find a missing package at the post office.
Posted by Dan S de Merengue, Wednesday, 12 November 2008 10:05:32 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Pelican wrote, “The fact that Tang has to twist the facts to fit in with his own dogma merely demonstrates that his own beliefs are on very shaky ground.”

Now pelican, my atheistic dogma is based upon the very infallible words of Dawkins himself, who decreed (ex cathedra) that there is no evil or good, ‘DNA just is’.

Dawkins, the chiefest exponent of Darwinism and atheistic evolution, knows full well that once atheistic evolutionists admit the existence of good and evil, the very foundation of atheistic evolution will start to tumble.

Many pseudo atheists argue erroneously that there is such a thing as conscience.

“It's not a surprise that something like this [conscience] would evolve naturally. Morals are, basically, the rules by which our social groups function. They ensure that things are reasonably fair and that relationships run reasonably smoothly. ...Our conscience is basically our ability to internalize rules — we know right from wrong and prefer the right to the wrong…” http://atheism.about.com/od/atheismatheistsmorals/a/EvolutionMorals.htm

Since life came into being by random placement of atoms and molecules, what right has group A to judge that group B is wrong, or vice versa?

For example, dogs are eaten in many parts of East Asia – Indo-China, Korea and parts of China but such dietary habits are frowned upon in other parts of the world. In the final analysis, your ‘wrong’ is my ‘right’ and, my ‘good’ is your ‘evil’. ‘Good’ and ‘evil’ , ‘wrong’ and ‘right’ are relative concepts.

Dawkins being trained in the sciences knows that the proposition is logically indefensible, therefore, ‘DNA just is’.
Posted by Philip Tang, Thursday, 13 November 2008 3:50:12 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
For the priests who abuse children, the church openly admits it is an error (sinning) against God and great harm has been done to the victims. Apologies and compensation has been paid to the aggrieved party.

The teaching of the Bible on conscience is clearly laid down by the Apostle Paul

“For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified. For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus.“
(Rom 2:13-16)
Posted by Philip Tang, Thursday, 13 November 2008 3:59:31 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
A welcome contribution to understanding the very real impact of residual apocalyptic religio-superstition in the US psyche'. This theme of 'the persecuted' has resonated since the original settlers escaped religious persecution, believing New England would see the imminent apocalypse. Cromwell was the 1st guess. True to Epicurean brilliance "rulers regard religion as useful", the motivation for pentecostal fundamentalism which sustains Quakers, Mormons, Old World Fundamentalists, has been exploited by the "heretical" Pentecostalism.
http://atheistage.org/?p=171
'Pastor' of End Times Creationist Sarah Palin tells his congregation "You can't follow Jesus and not die", "Jesus lived in war mode", would be so if alive today, and Iraq is where he wants you. Palin: "I can do my bit, but.. you must be right with God". Iraq is a religious war in the minds of key players: John's 100% correct. Atheists are actively separated in US units, forbidden to congregate & this is being challenged by SCA.

Due to foreign policy influences it's vital to grasp the theocratic pollution we experience. Australia is being shredded by religious dominance and corruption. Only Israel and Hungary allow the tax breaks into commercial areas as we do - heck, just check who manages EVERY council owned rec' centre. And staff hold hobby certificates whilst those with science degrees fly OS. Repeat that across schools, welfare, employment agency, skills outsource, grants funding...
http://firesnake.org/index.php?post_id=343066

Australia is a theocracy in denial. Runner is walking - or running - proof. Feed us sport, we won't notice.
Posted by Firesnake, Friday, 14 November 2008 10:11:45 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Paul never met JC and his writings cover material specific to many deities dating to several thousand years BCE; annunciation, crucifixion, resurrection, ascension. All relate to a Pagan astrological allegory most spectacularly refined by the Egyptians' Horus & Osiris.
Then, Krishna, Attis -Phrygia, Dionysus/Bacchus, Mithra of Persia, Zoroaster, Zarathustra...
http://paganizingfaithofyeshua.netfirms.com/parallels_chart.htm

Nonetheless; "Theology of Money" series: Prosperity Theory, Paul.
http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=swW1VhoQ_pg

"13th Disciple from Hell"
http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=U8kB6WvXX0c&feature=related
Posted by Firesnake, Friday, 14 November 2008 12:46:08 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"For the priests who abuse children, the church openly admits it is an error (sinning) against God and great harm has been done to the victims. Apologies and compensation has been paid to the aggrieved party." - mayby not always so openly and certainly not always willingly. Many still seem to be waiting for the apology and compensation.

http://www.toowoombapressreleases.com/?id=123568
http://www.cathnews.com/article.aspx?aeid=4046
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2002/03/24/25usa-priests.htm
http://www.catholica.com.au/gc2/occ/013_occ_210608.php
http://www.hsnsw.asn.au/articles/VptsQ207.pdf - Search for Liz O'Donnell
http://www.shoal.net.au/~mwoa/in_defence/statement_sabalaskey.html
http://www.multiline.com.au/~johnm/ethics/ethcont84.htm
http://www.multiline.com.au/~johnm/ethics/ethicscontents2.htm
http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/brethren-bid-to-hide-sex-assaults/2006/12/29/1166895479254.html
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/06/20/1087669848719.html
http://tor.id.au/article.php?story=20080312112602436&mode=print
http://www.deception.com.au/1999_2005.htm (some might find this one offensive )
http://brokenrites.alphalink.com.au/
etc, etc, etc...

Robert
Posted by R0bert, Friday, 14 November 2008 12:59:28 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi Ludwig.....

I accept your mild poke on the other (Lords Prayer in Parliament) thread and try to respond.

Your issue seems to be about Christians not embracing sustainability?

Mate..where in the world do you get that idea from ?

I'm totally PRO sustainability, and I don't know any brothers and sisters who are not.

We were given stewardship of the eath.. ie...the responsibility to keep it going..not destroy it.

blessings.
Posted by Polycarp, Friday, 14 November 2008 7:24:40 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
That hurt! Fell clean awf me chair and cracked m’ numbskull on the tiled floor! OUWW!

Oh the shock of Polycarp actually responding!

Thanks mate. Much appreciated. I hope a bit of dialogue can now ensue on this vitally important subject of the connection between Christianity and sustainability. This ‘mass delusions’ thread is surely the place for it.

“Your issue seems to be about Christians not embracing sustainability?”

Mmm yeayus….that is corrrect.

“Mate..where in the world do you get that idea from ?”

Maaaate, where do I start?

Um…how about the fact ol’ Ludwig is posting on this forum about sustainability and related issues at a tremendous rate n has been fa three years…and the number of supportive responses from the numerous prolific Christian posters has been…well….next to nil.

How about the effort I had to go to (with numerous cross-posted reminders) to get a response to this issue on this thread (still failed to get runner to respond).

How about runner’s extremely anti-green sentiments as expressed elsewhere numerous times?

I heard an interesting segment on Breakfast on Radio National yesterday morning, from green evangelist Reverend Richard Cizik. It gave a clear idea of where Christianity is in relation to environmentalism and sustainability in the US. I can’t imagine it is any different in Oz.

Some quotes;

“Green evangelism is in its infancy”

“This is a moral calling””

“we have to integrate the idea that we have to live sustainably”

http://www.abc.net.au/cgi-bin/common/player_launch.pl

The Christian / environmentalism relationship is extremely primaeval. And any semblance of meaningful support for sustainability is yet to be realised.

Polycarp: “I'm totally PRO sustainability”

Excellent. But I'm not at all sure about your bro's and sis's.
Posted by Ludwig, Saturday, 15 November 2008 8:36:27 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"Unless you compare it with the fundamentalist secular humanist who can murder the unborn and claim their is nothing wrong with it or yourself who seems very quick to judge and slow to listen." - Runner

The Christian god the progeny of Adan & Eve to inherit original
sin.

Runner: Could God prevent miscarriages? What do you think of a divinity whom kills the unborn?
Posted by Oliver, Monday, 17 November 2008 2:20:40 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Oliver you ask

'Runner: Could God prevent miscarriages? What do you think of a divinity whom kills the unborn?'

The simple answer to that is yes. If God can create the universe then He can certainly prevent a holocaust or a mis carriage or a rape.

Now you tell me what gives you the moral authority to judge that killing is wrong? (in some cultures cannibalism is looked up to while in others marrying young girls as young as 6 or 7 is legal). So where is your authority to say what is right and wrong?

It is interesting that you seem to throw a dark shadow over God's character. When a plane crashes and some die and others live God's character is called into question and yet when a woman gets to choose whether to kill her child or not you call it choice because it is her 'moral' choice.

One theologian (Ravi Zacharias) rightly says that we can't have free will without suffering. In other words we can't have choice without consequences. We can choose to love or choose to hate. Both have consequences. We all choose to sin and then complain about the evil consequences. Simply in a evil sin cursed world babies will die. We don't need to add to that evil by helping them die.

A time will come when evil will be done away with. Jesus showed He had power over every evil. He rose from the dead and has offered eternal life to all those who would turn from their own evil hearts and allow Him to cleanse them. Throwing doubts over God's character was the very thing that the serpent did to Adam and Eve. I know that no man would be able to show us a greater love than that Christ should die for a wretch like you or me.
Posted by runner, Monday, 17 November 2008 3:27:37 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Runner,

Did I say that killing was morally wrong? I was drawing a parallelism. I pointed out that said God routinely commits acts, to which, I feel you object. I assumed it was you whom stated that killing the unborn is wrong, and, by way of extension, my posit, said God.

Or,would you have a pater familaris, wherein an Ancient Roman man held the power of life and death of his children, because he created them? Is creation of life a moral justification for taking the same life?

Thus, relatedly, your posit, does beg the question, if a God is the Creator; Does being the Creator, automatically affix absolute morality upon this entity? And by what authority?

Can God using using a Bic pen and sheet of paper draw a perfect circle, without changing the qualities of the pen and paper, or changing the physics of space-time? Remember a perfect circle does not only have to be perfectly round, as Plato (Perfect Forms) would have it: A circle in 3-D space is a spiral once the dimension of time is added.

Could God envisage a task God could not achieve as God? Notice, I said could and not would.

Regards,

O
Posted by Oliver, Monday, 17 November 2008 6:28:11 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
If only Paul of Tarsus had written 'justification by logic' instead of 'justification by faith', we wouldn't be caring two hoots in a hollow log about this religious nonsense.

Frank Blunt
Posted by Frank_Blunt, Tuesday, 25 November 2008 10:08:45 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Well, despite a pretty solid effort, ol Ludwig just couldn’t get the discussion on Christianity versus sustainability rolling on this thread. So he started a new thread: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2315,
and lo and behold, the discussion rolled… not least with both posters that he was trying to engage!

Velly stlange!
Posted by Ludwig, Wednesday, 26 November 2008 7:36:18 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Philip Tang
[QUOTE]

..>>We atheists have evolved into a higher order
than the religionists,so our minds are cleared of‘conscience’.

Since we dance according to the dictates of our DNA,
don’t fault us for anti-social behavior..<<

dorkins[not the physisist dawkins]is a figure head[A-soundlike]'authority

[who espouses belief,that flat fish'evolved'because one eye moved out of the mud,despite its fry[young]looking like normal fish,a huge[lloll]

further he is of the school that HATES life[wars-ON-god]

feeling their better and WE'are'worse[and that he as an a-thiest [blueblood?]has the right to dispose of lessors[lesser beings]

going as far as killing whole rivers[poluting water supplies[our airs and waters[while they consume the'pure'thing out of bottles]and have their underground bases to hide in while their servants[athiests] cleanse the earth of the[to their mind[viral dna

QUOTE...>>All the millions killed by the world’s great leaders (mistakenly called dictators by some)Stalin,...<<

who using the'bolchovics'murdered 25 million xtian's?

who control over georgia[as well as their homeland in the mid east[formilly called palistein?]##but you are revealed by your list of heroes

...>> Mao,Hitler,Omar al-Bashir(Sudan’s president,indicted for crimes against humanity),Milosevic and others down the century should be of no worry and concern to us[atheists) ...>>>[LOL]a fools paradox my bro

you drink the'metal fluerides and femail horemoans in your water
you eat the same transfats,poisens,gm food
you get the same mercury'PRESERVED'medication's

the same neural programing via tv
and the same dna mutations via cell_phone-towers
you too get mercury in your teeth

breath the micro/particulate from our fuels[laced with a known carSINo-gene's]

...<<as they were acting out their belief system or,as Dawkins might say“they were dancing to their DNA”....

i would say not allowing our dna to dance

because they hope to controle the tune
then stop the music[between now and jan 26]

just to bring on their'MESS-i-ah_ya-ya][via hollow-gram and or a fake alian[suppirior genes you know]via a fake/alian'landing'.

and their latest czars or bird flue pandemic

godd luck to your supporior genes bro

luckly zion got the zion'star war'offensive system and their bunker bombs[and cluster bombs[made in usa]

REGARDLESS;only the blue-bloods survive
[nothing below under-secertary]

or 28 th rank-KING in masonry
[sub-order of the teutonic_zionista mos-t-sad]]
Posted by one under god, Thursday, 27 November 2008 10:11:35 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
one under god

Did u sniff paint as a teenager?
Posted by runner, Thursday, 27 November 2008 11:53:45 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
typical non response runner

see we live in times of treason
where bankers are owned by coorperations
and coorperations controle other corperations

they were bought using fiat currency
bankers have bought up the world with paper

created by an iou that was turned into a security

well that sold so well

they collateralised anything signed
a ticket , a bail order, a application to vote
application to register marrage, children or a drivers licence

councils , state govts collateral-ised our assets [into securities]
greating 2 quadrillion of fraud

they[bankers coorperations] quickly secured into 'real'asset's

knowing via hyper inflation they 'repay ' the 'debt' back in deflated value [when we enter hyper-inflation shortly

[like nigeria HYPER-inflation like german HYPER_inflation where the fraud is systematic and control over the media ,science, law , courts policing etc is absolute

we need media distraction now
a 911 fear to get our leaders secure enough
for the gene-ocide, see other post, to rid the 'bad' dna

selling us the delusions via the media

well the consequences are red flag distractions
and the murder of law, civil rights and finance needing THE NEXT WAR

i have been exposing them for a long time
hoping THEY wake up

so i speak my truth in code

just because the code gives you flash/backs
is no excuse to put it back on me

your post reveals more about thee than me
Posted by one under god, Thursday, 27 November 2008 3:50:56 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 10
  7. 11
  8. 12
  9. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy