I have loved looking at images of space since I was a child. Science studies were intrinsic in my decision that the god of Christianity was too small, too mean and too infantile to have created the awe inspiring universe of which we are but a tiny part.

http://imgsrc.hubblesite.org/hu/db/1994/02/images/c/formats/web.jpg

The image above is of a galaxy similar to our own. Our solar system is on a far flung arm of our galaxy’s spiral and we can only see a few thousand stars at most with our unaided eyes. These are a mixture of stars which are nearby, and bright stars further away; but they are only a tiny fraction of the 100,000,000,000 stars in our own galaxy.

In 1999 the Hubble Telescope estimated there were 125 billion galaxies in the universe, this figure is subject to change and has already been challenged by new telescopes. That we are part of something so large is very hard for us to picture cohesively. And it is this thought that I find so inspiring, spiritual. We will probably never know for sure how the universe was formed, whether there are other universes. However, we may find out we are not alone in this infinity.

Our infinitesimal size in our galaxy alone should give us pause for thought on the pettiness that governs many of our actions.

We, our planet, our solar system, our galaxy, our universe; according to quantum physics (string theory) are all energy - equals.

But we don't behave as equals. Jesus told us to love our neighbour - I think we'd be better off if he'd asked us to respect each other.
I will never feel anything approaching love for people like Boaz but I can hold respect for him as a fellow human, even when he has been particularly vicious. He believes what he believes. Live and let live.

Most of our problems are with people trying to direct us according to their beliefs and desires and the conflict when we resist.

With so much to gain from scientific inquiry why do people continue to believe in religious dogma?

Now Fraccy.. you could NEVER love me ? :) of course you could.. because the real 'me' is not the BD you see here.

I'm a bit like Paul.. 'bold when far away' but 'timid when close up'....

Love your neighbour ? sure.. it doesn't mean 'eros' type love but 'agape' type love.. not dependant on what they do neccessarily.
In fact the Greek Jesus used is just that "Agape".

Respect? hmmmm I think that implies there are qualities in the object which are worthy of praise.. But "love" in the sense Jesus spoke it, means that if you see me laying in a pool of blood in a gutter, you won't just keep walking and let me die simply because I'm your OLO 'enemy' :)

So, you don't need to feel that you have to be all warm and fuzzy toward me. (*phew* she says)

TOPIC.
The Bigness of the Universe just tells me how big and great is its Creator.
But I can only think that way because of the Word and works of Christ and his death and resurrection. They confirm His greatness and presense.

"With so much to gain from scientific inquiry why do people continue to believe in religious dogma?"

Dunno. Interesting question. The old gods, Greek and Roman and Norse and Anglo Saxon, explained natural phenomena. Their antics also entertained - like reality tv for pre-history.

Judeo-Christian types invented their religions to codify morality, I think, keep everyone on the same moral page. Also to justify tribal and personal hatreds - it's not *me* that doesn't like gay people, it's *god*.

But obviously I'm talking off the top of my head. It'll be interesting to see what others come up with.

I agree with much of what you've said, Fractelle. Contemplating the size and majesty of the universe leaves me amazed by how small and unambitious humanity's idea of god is. I love looking at pictures of the universe too.

Boazy: "In fact the Greek Jesus used is just that 'Agape'."

I thought Jesus spoke Aramaic?

Thanks Vanilla

It is amazing that with so much being discovered everyday, new technologies and the increasing ability to look further and further into the universe (which is really just looking back time) the thought alone leaves me gasping that the light we see in the nights skies started out millions of years ago. Bloody amazing! And I live in an age where we know this and can take pictures of it.

Perhaps science will prove the Big Bang theory, perhaps not. It is the journey that matters, what we discover along the way.

Whereas for me and no doubt many others, religion, is like a broken record - on and on about the same things: a paternal deity who is desperate to be worshipped - or else. Inspiring? NOT!

Look what it does to people - instead of treating people as intelligent and with respect, these so-called devout people treat non-religious with contempt and then wonder why we get a tad nettled.

I could deal with this, but my personal line is crossed when religion is at the foundation of political decisions: funding for religious schools or at its very worst flying planes into buildings.

Since 9/11 ALL religion has come under a lot of scrutiny. And rightly so, it has an appalling way in limiting the thinking of otherwise intelligent people. 9/11 was the catalyst for many to rethink religion, why do some believe in something that has no evidence and is used relentlessly for political ideals (power).

Just in Christianity alone we have people who either believe the earth is 6000 years old, or among the slightly more enlightened that their religion invented science. ROFL. If it wasn't so frightening.

Religion lobotomises rational thinking.

And, finally, people are questioning its special status that it has had over the centuries. Religion doesn't deserve any more special consideration than that given to any other superstition.

Damn well said Fractelle.

Now observe as the religious use the circuit breaker 'faith' to justify why their superstition is correct.

If this concept hadn't co-opted the more beautiful message of 'hope' as being part of it's attraction, it's simplicity as a justification for ignorance would be laid bare.

The universe is a complex question, and religion is the simplest answer. Note here, that I don't think atheism is any better.

For my two bob... Theology is philosophy's retarded cousin.

CJ... it appears that Jesus spoke both :) but well noted. Clearly, if he was using Aramaic at the time, then his words were translated into the appropriate greek to convey the correct meaning...

Ok.. VANILLA slice and FRACCY..

Where.. just where do you get the idea that to love God, and believe in Him as the Creator, means we throw our heads in the scientific sand and do nothing? Where did this come from ? Newton for crying out loud was a Christian.. as were many other scientists.
http://www.newton.cam.ac.uk/newtlife.html

Why should believing in the Creator stifle scientific enquiry? The Christian view is simply that we are locating His footsteps in Creation..and are awestruck at the wonder of His amazing Creation.

How anyone can be enthusiasitic at the 'wonder' of a Godless universe is absolutely beyond my comprehension.. because there is no 'one' there to applaud.. no 'one their to congratulate.. to praise.. to worship.. just...nothing...blank... empty.. meaningless..

So..in your godless universe.. it matters not a scrap if I or anyone else lives, dies, suffers, rejoices.. and we end up in the rather pitiful cesspool of hopelessness that any philosopher worth his intellectual salt tells us about.

As I said.. most of what I write is backgrounded on a rather broad survey of the History of Western Philosophy, so.. its not me you may wish to disagree with, but a lot of smarter people.

Dogma ? eeuwww.. shudder.. cringe.. yes, its dry, rigid.. structured and formal.. sadly it becomes neccessary when people say clearly wrong things for reasons known only to themselves

http://gbgm-umc.org/UMW/Bible/heresies.stm

But if we can see behind that, to the freshness of the Gospels and writings of Paul and others.. aah.. like a new spring flower in bloom.
Full of life and aroma..satisfying to the inner person at the deepest level.
Amen x 7

Boazy: "As I said.. most of what I write is backgrounded on a rather broad survey of the History of Western Philosophy..."

May I suggest you do some re-reading? You appear to have misunderstood quite a large chunk of it.

Boazy

I never called the universe 'godless' that is your description.

That the universe is far beyond your anthropomorphic-limited deity, proves just how much religion stifles free thought.

You can't think beyond your bible.

That there have been christian scientists, has been in spite of the restrictions (limited to certain research), in spite of the rejections (Darwin) and in spite of the trials for heresy (Galileo).

You have been posting here for years now - you haven't learnt anything, not a single thing:

NOT:

Tolerance
Acceptance
Respect

or increased your level of intellect by a single atom.

You bang on and on about the same thing - broken record that you are.

In the past 3 years we have discovered new cures for a variety of illnesses, gone further in exploring Mars, discovered life in the depths of the oceans where we thought no life could exist. And there's more where that came from. Like the universe - there are no limits.

This is wonderful, maybe its why we are here. I don't know. AND I don't pretend to know.

But I do know rhetoric when I see it and, Boaz, you are full of it.

Hey Fractelle I have a big interest in astronomy as well as metaphysics and I also look into the night sky and think what an amazing place the universe is and how it all came into being.

My thoughts on the universe – I think your number of 125 billion galaxies is merely the tip of the iceberg seeing that we cant see to the edges of the universe yet (if it does have an edge which I doubt) I think the number of galaxies are probably infinite in number seeing that the universe is infinite in size. Seeing that it is infinite in size it means that everything that could ever be imagined MUST be in it! A very humbling thought.

The only plausible theory for the creation of the universe I have heard is the “Simulator Argument” put forward by Oxford Philosopher Nick Bostrom. It is the only one that we will be able to test (hopefully with in a few decades) too see if it is possible to create our own universes and thus continue the cycle.

http://www.simulation-argument.com/

http://www.nickbostrom.com/

I also take an interest in SETI but I think the longer we go with out finding any intelligent life the less likely I believe that we will ever find it.

According to the drake equation there should be thousands of civilizations out there many of them millions of years more advanced then us. We have been looking for decades, so where is everybody? More likely then not they don’t exist because they should have been sending off all sorts of radio waves and other forms of communication similar to what we on earth have been emitting for the last 150 years.

http://www.seti.org/

Vanilla-girl, your admonishment was well-founded; and Fractelle you're right in what you said in your last post. So, in view of that, let's just by-pass BD here: we can by now write his posts for him if need be.

I think that some of us, looking from a p.o.v that starts with the conviction that there is no great Creator find contemplation of the Universe an awe-inspiring experience in its own right. But I imagine that those who regard the universe within a framework of a created artifact, instead become awe-inspired at the immensity and incomprehensibility of its creator? Perhaps each camp thinks the other is missing out on the most valuable component?

I have to admit that it completely does my head in, going onto those sites and trying to stretch my puny brain around it. Especially since one has been trained since infancy to view things within spatial or philosophical boundaries/limits.

But personally, I don't regard it as compelling proof either for or against, for the reason listed above. For me, its the dogma every time. Its History which is the baulking point for me. Although, admittedly, its a field in which Christians are not over-represented, what completely gobsmacks me is how anyone can be a Christian and still be a competent or learned scholar of Ancient History.

Pagans or God-botherers alike can enjoy this link:
http://home.mira.net/~reynella/skywatch/ssky.htm

Impress your friends by pointing out Betelegeuce to them.

Romany: "... how anyone can be a Christian and still be a competent or learned scholar of Ancient History."
Same. Or geography. Surely every Christian, Jew, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, & etc all live in mistaken belief that they were just particularly lucky to have been born into a family or region whose religion coincidently turned out to be the one true religion! Who'd'a thunk it? Knowing my luck, I'd be born in Salt Lake City only to find out the Jews were right all along, or born in the Hindu part of India only to get turned away at the Pearly Gates by Allah.

An irrelevant aside: Romany, Fractelle and other heavenly bodies: I'm sure some elements will find this extremely "sexist" of me, but I'm really enjoying the little "ladies' gang" on OLO at the mo.

It's interesting how the Middle East has produced three dictatorial fascist gods whereas the Greeks had fun-loving gods who enjoyed a glass of plonk, a fight now and again and periodically came down to formicate with us randy humans. The Romans had an equally democratic set-up, one which meant that no one god could really take over and cause the same misery that the Middle Eastern gods have done, and indeed even a human being could be elected as a god, if he became senior enough in society. I like that religion.

Boazy "Why should believing in the Creator stifle scientific enquiry" - have you read any of runner's posts lately?

If so your question appears to have been answered.

If not possibly because scientific enquiry has a habit of coming to answers that believers in creators find uncomfortable. Be it runners refusal to accept that evolution is the most consistant explaination we have for how we came to being or his refusal to consider the possibility that research which shows the harm done by smacking children could be valid runner demonstrates the fear many of those who believe in a creator hold of serious scientific enquiry.

Perhaps you could set him straight and show the rest of us that you don't share his views.

R0bert

Romany, I was gonna say the ‘doing my head in’ thing, too : )

Fractelle, I find science amazingly inspirational because it can show us the incredible beauty of everything around us that we usually take for granted or do not even notice. Science can make us stop to smell the roses.

Not only are we part of this massive universe right here and now; we will always remain part of it, we will never leave this space and never-ending time because our atoms will, forever and ever, keep taking on life form after life form. A part of you and me and us and Boaz and Fractelle may one day assemble one and the same life form or be the dust for a new star.
There’s unlimited time and space and science can give us glimpses of what’s there and stretch our mind and make us want to discover always more because the beauty of reality feeds our spirit.

Science shows us the overwhelming massive and the minute, too.
Science shows us the most intelligent art; for example, our DNA- a work of art that we can frame!
Captures of subatomic particles seemingly disappearing into nothingness are just as mesmerising as the whole.
Holograms- parts of things containing the whole- science has no end.

Realising that all this is not imagination but reality and that there’s more of it, much more to discover, to explore, to stare at, to play with and to share (there it is!) does my head in, too.

The idea of an imaginary, supernatural being fades in the spotlight that science shines on the reality, which is part of us and which connects us all.

Hi Vanilla, Fraccy 'and gang' :)

hmmm.. I better not say any more because you already 'know' what's coming..right ?

Nah..cannot resist.

"what completely gobsmacks me is how anyone can be a Christian and still be a competent or learned scholar of Ancient History."

Well golly gosh :) we have a world class Archeologist in our own fellowship.

<<The Sumerian King List found at Kish talked about kings who lived between 10,000 and 64,000 years each. Interestingly, it has now been shown that these figures are probably mistranslated. When a system based on sixties replaces the decimal system translators had utilized, the total is remarkably close to the biblical total.>>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sumerian_king_list

We read from that Article a number of kings.. and then... from the 'artifact'/list.. we find this:

"Then the flood swept over."

Excavations in Iraq have shown evidence of a flood at Shuruppak and other Sumerian cities: a layer of riverine sediment interrupting the continuity of settlement, which was radiocarbon dated to about 2900 BC,[1] and which extended as far north as the city of Kish. Polychrome pottery from the Jemdet Nasr Period (3000-2900 BCE) was found immediately below the Shuruppak flood layer.

COMMENT:

TWO things stand out.

1/ "Long living kings" (pre flood)
2/ "a FLOOD"

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm...now watch it.. this is getting 'dannngerously' close to .. wait for it.. hold on.. the BIBLICAL account of things:)

But why woffle on.... don't let a few facts get in the way of a highpowered confident atheism. Besides..youz know it all right?

I still do not get how anyone can be 'inspired' by the grandure of a universe which just 'is'...but was not made.

"I still do not get how anyone can be 'inspired' by the grandure of a universe which just 'is'...but was not made."

I've got a theory about this and why people are Christians in general.

Christian people commonly defend their faith by saying things along the lines of what Boazy said above, and also that they don't understand who atheist could have any morality or ethical standards without god. Or, in other words, a godless universe is meaningless.

One frequently hears them say that, without Christianity, the world would descend into anarchy. They ask, "What's to stop us from taking to the streets? From raping and pillaging?"

On the other hand, we know that atheists do manage to feel inspired by the grandeur of the universe which just "is". The least religious countries, including Australia, have the highest levels of health and are the least violent. Quoting someone else: "Japan (the most atheistic nation in the G-8) has the lowest murder rate while the United States (the most Christian nation in the G-8) has the highest. Japan used to have much stronger religious faith, and a state religion, and guess what: Japan was remarkably aggressive and militaristic when "Shinto" was at its peak, and during WW2, when its Emperor was regarded as a God." In the US, the largely Chrisitian southern and midwestern states have a higher per capita crime rate than the largely atheist northern states. In fact, Louisiana, with America's highest church attendance rate, has twice the national average murder rate.

Maybe Christians are Christians because they have to be. Maybe they are simply more violent as people, so they've sought a framework to keep themselves in check. Because they haven't got an internal moral compass, so they have a deep, primal hunger for an external one. Because, if they abandoned their faith, they actually *would* take to the streets, raping and pillaging. Because they are like Boazy - they *literally* do not get how the universe is inspiring.

Thoughts?

Nice theory Vanilla, which actually has some grounding in the real world, as opposed to the 'only religious have morality.'

-

Boaz, this quote amused me: "Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm...now watch it.. this is getting 'dannngerously' close to .. wait for it.. hold on.. the BIBLICAL account of things:)"

Read the history a little closer, and you find a tale of a merchant barge vessel that was swept out to see during a period when two flooding events coincided.

As I see it, there are two possibilities:

1) An eccentric old fellow heard voices and decided to get two of every single animal on the whole planet together on a single barge (golly, what would you feed them?), while the entire planet was hit by floods.

2) A sumerian merchant was washed out to sea and some creative biblical type spun a myth from it.

Literalist bible bashers opt for 1), putting aside evidence, common sense, and the laws of physics.

Sensible people with a scrap of reasoning power that isn't governed by pre existing dogma, I think, would opt for number 2).

A thought on the ages of kings. If a king had lived 64 000 years, he would have had to have had a civilization to be king of. Dividing 64000 by 60, which I think is suggested in the earlier post, he would have lived for 1066.6 (ah, 666 again!) years and would still have needed a supporting civilization, which would surely have been literate and would have left clay tablets somewhere to prove it, if only to have documented the number of wives he got through (probably more than 7) and his multifarious and no doubt nefarious highly numerous offspring who by now would have populated the entire world. Now, there is no archaeological record of that. There's no problem with floods. Rivers flood, and some of them have 1 000 year floods, which can be massive.And no doubt natural causes can give us the mother of all floods, the 10 000 year flood.

What, no-one burned me at the stke for voting for a multicultural, pluralistic and democratic set of gods? If god is around he surely must have a whimsical and ironical sense of humour about having put us here, in paradise. Which proves my point about the existence of a multiplicity of the Graeco-Roman gods; fascists don't have a sense of humour; the Middle Eastern gods are fascists; therefore having no sense of humour they cannot exist. The Graeco-Roman gods did have a sense of humour.

TurnRightThenLeft,

I'm not religious, and I've never read the bible, but I think a lot of the bible stories are just there to make a point, not to be taken literally. I always get stuck just after Adam and Eve, and think of the incest that must have followed.

Hello to everyone

Contemplating the universe certainly is inspiring given the responses from all - except for he-who-shall-not-be-named, still caught on a track of his own making. And proving that dogma stifles and science inspires, so maybe he does perform a service of sorts.

Enough of the sniping, but hey, I’m only human.

Easytimes, I am aware of the limitations of what we currently know, but I needed to give a figure that is currently accepted to give an indication to others, who maybe haven’t really given much thought to where planet Earth really is and the immensity of the universe.

As for the possibility of other civilisations, well I don’t know. But we are here, the universe is limitless, I find it difficult to believe that, given the infinite possibilities of the universe, that we are the only intelligent life in the universe. And quite frankly, we are not all that intelligent as we like to make out. That is a very geocentric view, something religion is guilty of, and why we really need science to expand our mental maps of where we really are in relation to everything else.

Humbling indeed.

The fact of 150 years of emitting radio signals with no discernable response, doesn’t concern me at all, given the immense size of the universe.

We have to try and see ourselves from a more comprehensive viewpoint. The easiest way to do this, of course, would be to simply jump on a space ship and look back at earth, unfortunately, not readily available to the average schmo. But we have wonderful imaginations, provided we do not limit them by the artifices of dogma – any type of dogma. There are areas of scientific thought that need revising, for example, the big bang theory which creates more questions than it answers. I am not targeting religion specifically, but it IS such a big target and it DOES limit us in so many ways.

Did you know that only as recently as 1993 did Pope John Paul II acquit Galileo, 360 years after his indictment of heresy? Go figure.

I don't care what your name is, nobody walks on the water where I'm fishing!

I concur whitty and you're right - sensible Christians put their faith within a framework of science and common sense.

Unfortunately, there are literalist Christians. Take Ken Ham for instance, a former Queensland teacher who founded the 'creation' museum in the US, which now attracts thousands of visitors.

In there, they have dinosaurs alongside people and have taken an excerpt mentioning 'behemoth' as proof dinosaurs and man co-existed.

In interviews, Mr Ham says that it doesn't make sense just to pick and choose bits of the bible, you've got to believe everything.
The problem is, that this is spreading - the real indicator, is the number of people opting to believe that the world is only about 6,000 years old.

This is a denial of well grounded science in favour of passages from a book written thousands of years ago, by people with little knowledge of science.

It it was just Mr Ham and other rabble, I wouldn't worry. But it isn't.

I suspect boaz believes is among those who believe the world is less than a million years old, but if I'm wrong here boaz, by all means, correct me.

This attitude worries me - in another recent OLO article by Alan Matheson, he mentions that the Creation Bus is touring schools in Victoria, teaching a view of the world based around the creation myth - not as a fable, but as fact.

That scares the crap outta me. It's reminiscent of the Dark Ages where dogma is placed above reason, with the more shrewd dogmatists attempting to cloak faith as reason, when the truth is, never the twain shall meet.

Didn't you guys know that earth was created by little green men/women and we are just one big science project? No dogma- just pure science:)

Hello Everybody,

I'm back. The diagnosis is good - the results are hopeful.
I just want to Thank You All - for your support.
It meant a great deal - at a time when I needed it so badly.
Again, Thank You.

I've now got access to a computer. I've missed our discussions very much.

Fact or Faith? There are many who may feel that - "For faith, fanatic faith, once wedded fast to some darn falsehood, hugs it to the last!"

I feel that its a personal choice. But I'm not fanatical about it and I definitely don't know all the answers. Only many questions.

Advances in molecular biology have revealed vast amounts of information encoded in each and every living cell, and molecular biologists have discovered thousands upon thousands of exquisitely designed machines at the molecular level. Information requires intelligence and design requires a designer.

Biochemists and matematicians have calculated the odds against life arising from non-life naturally via unintelligent processes. The odds are astronomical. In fact, scientists aren't even sure if life could have evolved naturally via unintelligent processes. If life did not arise by chance, how did it arise?

People of every race, creed, colour, and culture, both men and women, young and old, wise and foolish, from the educated to the ignorant, claim to have personally experienced something of the supernatural.
So what are we supposed to do with those accounts of divine healing, prophetic revelation, answered prayer, and other miraculous phenomena?

Ignorance and imagination may have played a part to be sure, but is there something more?

The universe is ordered by natural laws. Where did these laws come from and what purpose do they serve?

Perhaps searching for answers to questions is part of our evolutionary
process.
I know that I've still got so much to learn.

Fractelle – you are so very right when you say humans consider themselves intelligent! compared to what? You could have said a few hundred million years ago that some fungus on a rock was amazingly intelligent when it was the most advanced thing on earth.

http://edition.cnn.com/2003/TECH/space/07/22/stars.survey/index.html

According to this article there are 10 times as many stars in the universe then there are grains of sand on every beach in the world. And that’s just the ones we can see! Or in mathematical terms 70000000000000000000000000 stars!
“The actual number of stars could be infinite. The universe is so big light from the other side of the universe hasn't reached us yet”

What I meant by us broadcasting radio signals for 150 years is that other civilizations if they existed must have been broadcasting for a whole lot longer then that. Since radio waves travel at the speed of light any civilization with equipment to detect radio waves within 150 light years of earth must have picked up on our signals. It goes vise versa as well if a civilization has had been broadcasting with similar tech too us for a thousand years or ten thousand years if they are with in one thousand or ten thousand light years of us we would have detected there signals at SETI. But as I said before it has all been very quite. The only 2 option are either these civs don’t use anything close to radio waves to communicate or they don’t exist.

Welcome back foxy hope you are feeling better!

Special welcome back to Foxy, please don’t feel I am attacking you personally, I understand that your faith is very important to you. I am pleased that you have chosen to make a post here. The point I am trying to make is that formal religion is created by humans and adhering to it exclusively limits us all. As to what created the universe, no-one knows.

Vanilla,

Am in your debt for that wonderful link – have been spending much time there, and you have enabled me to provide the following Astronomical Image for today – it is awesome:

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/image/0803/lh95_hst_big.jpg

However, Christian church and political leaders continue to limit scientific research. Many fundamentalist Christians deny birth control, stem cell research and other scientific advances that could save many lives. I believe that this denial has at its foundation a very geocentric basis. We have to break free of these limitations and one of the best ways is through education (particularly in the sciences) and looking at the universe helps us to realise that we are a part of something magnificent.

We are not the apex. We are not the hub of the universe.

Religion places mankind at the centre of everything, claims that man was made in the image of a god, this is arrogant and blindfolds us.

Time to break free, time for the human race; women and men to grab the opportunity that life gives us, to create a world of learning not ignorance, of exploration instead of stagnation.

PS

Easytimes, just because we communicate using radio waves doesn’t mean others do, besides who can say that others haven’t already given us a look-over and decided we’re a tad too hostile towards each other…. Maybe if we manage not to destroy this world, in a few millennia, they will decide to make contact...

The universe is 13 billion years old, as far as we can see. That means we can receive today radio-waves that were sent out 13 billion years ago. If we aren't doing this, it could mean that either the sponsors of the radio shows have died or that we are all alone, which is indeed a worry, and certainly discredits intelligent design as no intelligent god in his right mind would do that and thus minimise the chances of life surviving somewhere; being omniscient, as a true Middle Eastern god always is, he would know what a stupid bunch we would become after Adam and Eve (all that inbreeding-was the Garden of Eden in Tasmania?), so if he was intelligent, he would have to organise several different groups of punters, each group on planets as far away from each other as is possible. Does this prove that all life-hosting planets are 14 billion light years away from each other?

For all the agnostic views held here I wonder if any of you have actually been involved in space exploration? Id rather have respect for my Professor friend at Church that has actually been involved in space exploration. Most peoples views of God are too small, because it suits them to not be acountable to anyone.

Welcome back, foxy! I agree: much to learn we all still have.
Re the supernatural experiences, our knowledge of the universe and its laws is limited but continuously increasing. Some experiences that once were thought to be supernatural can now be explained by science. In the future, our knowledge may well enable us to explain the experiences that we contribute to the supernatural today.
Our progress is slowed down as soon as we assume that there is no scientific explanation. As religion comes up with an (unproven) explanation (it’s supernatural, God/a ghost/ a spirit did it), people stop investigating and there we have a classic example how religion could slow down scientific investigation if it were not for people who are less superstitious minded.

Fractelle “The fact of 150 years of emitting radio signals with no discernable response, doesn’t concern me at all...“
I agree. Perhaps other civilisations aren’t even interested in contact with us, insignificant earthlings; perhaps they’re so far advanced that they’ve developed technologies like Google Universe that allow them to zoom in on us when we’re at our worst behaviour and they want nothing to do with a primitive civilisation that is far too pollutive and destructive.

TRTL you mention Ken Ham and his museum. This building full of crap and lies is a disaster for the minds of children and shouldn’t be called a museum. This is an excellent example of how religion still is allowed to retard the minds of children. Unfortunately, even here we have ‘religions’ such as The Exclusive Brethren that deny Australian children access to science books that are available to the rest of our young population and they receive tax funding as if they’re proper schools.
The same children are forbidden to choose their own life path and denied tertiary education. Child abuse in the name of some backward sect.

Whitty ,
You could not have been fishing at that little creek outside Darwin, a few years ago .

An old Yugoslav Territorian friend and his mate were fishing in a tidal creek when that old dinosaur "Sweetheart" some 28 foot long , grabbed hold of the outboard motor of the tinnie and tipped them and their gear into the water .

In a feat that would have Boaz David cheering and in awe at the same time, old Carl said emphatically about his quick trip to the bank ,"I walked on Water "!!.

I suspect Sweetheart had great and miraculous powers of religious transformation for all and sundry he came in contact with.

And no-one entertains the fact, that a being like ourselves, and I quote the bible, God made man in the image of him self, could be from a older part of the universe. Have a think about this. Why do we look too the stars and call what ever came from there, GOD! Its not hard to imagine, considering the fact that ancient people have drawn pictures of space beings on the walls. Planet earth was void of life for quite some time, then all of a suddenly, life just explode in all what we see today and in the past. I believe god is not what you think it is and 4.6 billions years is nothing if not quite young, if you know your stuff. So this could be a possibility.

Just a thought.

1. God is revealed in Creation by immensity, diversity, unity, intelligent order, aesthetic beauty etc.

2. God is revealed and demonstrated through the divine image of character found in human behaviour by, integrity, loyalty, truthfulness, honesty, patience, forgiveness, sacrificial love, joy, contentment, creativity, kindness, self control, deep peace, overcoming of sin and misfortune, etc. That is why People love and are inspired by people stories that express honourable aspects of His Character.

3. God is revealed in human history, even bad bits. Human injustices highlight the displeasure of such by God. God is ashamed at human sin and injustices and turns in displeasure, but takes graceous action to cure or cleanse it.

4. God is revealed in words, both expressed and demonstrated by actions - as in Jesus Christ. We ourselves reveal the God of our devotions by our attitudes. The worship of God extols the praise of his character in song, prayer and personal life. We worship God because of His Character, attitudes, creativity, actions, wisdom etc. The worship of God has a focus in one or all of these aspects because we have been inspired by one of these admirable aspects of his person and awesome revelation.

Since man has recorded songs they have been expressings the awesome handywork of the God of the Universe [read Psalms]. God does not command us to worship otherwise then it's not worship but ritual. He command us to love and demonstrate that love by action and attitude. We take time to inquire and meditate on His brilliance of character, purity and glory, as expressed in his creativity. On weekends I meet with people who are inspired by the awesome nature of God and the universe and meditate on the mind who put it together.

To make the claim that people who accept that God made the universe fail to intelligently persue science - is a spurious and naive claim. We have professors in space research, professors in botanical research, medical researchers and science teachers in our Church. They contribute to the worship of the God of creative and intelligent design

Evolution

It is possible that our planet was ‘seeded’ by beings from elsewhere in the universe. However, why that means we should prostrate ourselves to a vindictive deity and believe in virgin births leaves me flummoxed. I’m sure, if we are the result of alien intervention they would rather we continued to learn and explore and maybe meet up with them as equals at some future time.

Celivia has touched on an issue that really makes my blood boil and the Exclusive Brethren are a perfect example of this:

Religious child abuse in the form of ‘mis-education’. By ‘mis-education’ I mean preventing children from learning about the natural world and being limited to religious interpretation only. And our taxes go towards this malarky! Time religion was held to account for its actions.

Believing in superstition is a choice adults can make for themselves, but children don’t have much choice in what adults choose to teach them, this is why it is imperative that religious belief is kept out of government policies.

If religion is to be taught at all it should be as an actual subject about all religions, their history and beliefs. Then children can make informed choices for themselves, as I was able to do. Although the only religion I learnt about was Christianity, at least I had good parents who would discuss the contradictions in the bible and also gave me plenty of science books to read. I always remember my 8th birthday because this is when I received my first copy of Darwin’s Origin of the Species.

For those who would like a little light relief please check out the link below to a couple of humorous takes on creation of the universe.

http://littlurl.com/fwcuu

Foxy.. welcome back!
A verse for you: 3 John 2

<<Dear friend, I pray that you may enjoy good health and that all may go well with you, even as your soul is getting along well.>>

WHITTY.... if you havent' read the Bible, PUH-lease try, but here is an approach.

Force yourself to get past the first chapters of Genesis.. up to chapter 11. Just take it in, but obviously you will regard some bits as a bit 'mythical'.. probably the serpent which talks is the prime candidate.

From the 11th chapter it gets very very interesting. Like a good novel.

I guess I'm a bit biased, because to me, one of the most interesting bits is the 'table of nations' in chapter 11.. to most its a 'boring genealogy' but having lived in a traditional society for over 8 yrs and 'smelling the scent' of what Genesis is on about.. man.. it just LEAPS out of the pages at me because I've seen it all in operation.

When I read of the tribal encounters, wars etc, I'm reminded of a man called 'Tubu Padan' who became a chairman of the indigenous church in North Borneo, well he showed a very large scar on his back from a machette attack in pre-Christian times. Now..the people who did it, are brothers in Christ.

You will find Genesis 12 to the end a fascinating and in places heartwarming book.

DOGMA.. Fraccy...Dogma is pretty dry stuff. The resurrection of the Lord Jesus though.. aah..now THAT's action movie :) reading in Acts how it all panned out, is just mind blowing. Reading Pauls grand theological narrative of the predicament of mankind (Romans)is gobsmacking.. reading Johns gospel and letters is heartmelting.

1 John 1

<<That which was from the beginning,
-which we have heard,
-which we have seen with our eyes,
-which we have looked at and
-our hands have touched—
THIS we proclaim concerning the Word of life.>>

You might call that a "Witness Statement" :)

Philo

You stated "For all the agnostic views held here I wonder if any of you have actually been involved in space exploration?"

ROFL!!

No, I haven't been directly involved in space travel - although (if you had read an earlier post) you would know I wished that all of us could go into space and look back at earth. I guess this is why so many of us get excited by looking at space photographs, like the ones I have posted here already. BTW, I haven't been to the Arctic but I do know there are polar bears there.

Below is a link to a photo taken by NASA's Spitzer Space Telescope

http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/imagegallery/image_feature_348.html

Taken any good snaps of god lately?

Peace

Fractelle! Have you noticed that every-time a hard question or insightful logic comes up they all run for the bible and make less sense than they did a moment ago. But all of what you have presented, I fully agree. P\S The cartoons made me laugh very hard. Thanks!

I think I will throw one back at them.

For give them lord, they not know what they do.

I much prefer: "NEVER forgive them Lord, for they know EXACTLY what they do."

BOAZ_David,

I'm afraid I'm not a believer. I did walk the stations of the cross in Jeruselum, and believe Jesus existed and was an inspiring philosopher, but I think the holy book really resembles chinese whispers of Aesop type fables.

I think generally with religions I cant get past the theory to be good because of the consequences of going to hell, rather than just for goodness sake

Fractelle: You will *love* this In Our Time program about the multiverse.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/history/inourtime/inourtime_20080221.shtml

In Our Time, if you don't know it, is Melvyn Bragg's BBC Radio 4 program.

You can listen again to the program through the link and/or subscribe to the podcast via iTunes - I highly recommend it, it's the highlight of my week.

Hi Ya Whitty... well.. no one is going to force you to believe.

It might be worth a deeper look though... the quote I provided above.

Did you look closely enough at it to see what John was saying?

This is as close as it gets to a 'witness statement' by one who was actually physically "there" with Jesus.. who wrote the Gospel of John, and here.. he is saying 'we saw, we touched' etc.. call me a meany if you wish :) but that is rather compelling stuff.

You could always sus out 'authorship/textual history/traditions' re Johns letters to give more reason to either believe or not believe.

GINX.. aah..I see the Bex wore off now eh :) Do people ever ask you about that huge chunk of wood on your shoulder?

Whitty.. with Ginxy around..(and in her non medicated state)I should go the extra mile and tell you emphatically that I DON'T HATE YOU :).. nor do I even dislike you, in fact.. I don't even have a clue about you.. except for what you write here and most of it I find interesting.

Amazing how many folks are 'attacking' we believers.. all we do is give opinions, and reasons to believe.. there's no need to call out the hounds on us. The Romans tried that and it fizzed anyway.

blessings to all.

"Amazing how many folks are 'attacking' we believers.. all we do is give opinions, and reasons to believe"

Boazy, that ones a big stretch even for you.

If that is correct then it's also correct to say that those who disagree with you just give opinions and reasons not to believe.

Not many of those opposed to you are advocating for laws which would hinder the practice of you beliefs in your own life (although we would like your opportunity to intefer in others lives curtailed).

Your fundy mates (not so much yourself but sometimes) are often here trying to limit the freedoms of same sex couples.
You are forever here trying to cause problems for muslims.
Some of your fundy mates seem to be advocating for the teaching of myth as fact in regard to origins.
Your faith makes a fairly significant threat against all who don't hold to it - thankfully a toothless threat but still a threat.

That's a bit more than just opinions and reasons.

R0bert

Vanilla

Well a big thank you. I have spent a happy 43 minutes listening to that fantastic discussion on the possibility (probability?) of multiple universes. Staggering to the imagination; it offers a plausible explanation for the big bang and fits in with my personal hypothesis – that everything recycles; meaning that universes form, collapse and reform all the time.That nothing is ever lost it is simply reformed (recycled).

Also the idea of numerous universes gives room for the formation of a huge diversity among universes, one with physical laws like ours, in which carbon-based life-forms (like ours) can evolve and others where different physical laws apply resulting in, well, pretty much anything.

I should, perhaps, have qualified my thoughts on our universe as ‘the observable universe’. While we can theorise on many possibilities, we only know for sure that which we can observe. I also wanted to try and convey to the gentle reader of OLO (who may not be aware) just how incredibly big our observable universe is. A little bit at a time.

What I am endeavouring to do is offer a perspective whereby planet earth is viewed objectively into comparison with the known universe, then follow this with where religion fits into this. Religion being so completely anthropomorphically based and geocentric, it looks inconsequential when compared to just the ‘observable’ universe, let alone a multi-verse.

I prefer the K.I.S.S. principle; by keeping my argument as simple and straight forward as possible, maybe, people who haven’t thought about this idea before, can do so now.

Cheers

Vanilla, I loved that discussion and will listen to it a 2nd time tomorow. My kids would've loved the subject 'astronomy' had it been available as a complete subject at school.

Since there is a critical science-engineering-technology (SET) skills shortage in Australia despite a range of initiatives e.g. National Science Week it’s important that science education is as appealing as possible at Australian schools. A very interesting report to read if you’re interested in science education is the
“Australian School Science Education National Action Plan 2008 – 2012” http://www.dest.gov.au/NR/rdonlyres/94684C4C-7997-4970-ACAC-5E46F87118D3/18317/Volume1final_28August2008.pdf

School science education dept should promote scientific literacy by highlighting its importance because students don’t realise that science is useful in everybody’s daily life and in fact a basic need for effective citizenship. For example, scientifically literate people are those who are interested in and make informed decisions about their environment, the world and their own health, and are able to investigate claims made by others. Scientific literacy begins with early childhood explorations and continues forever.

The science curriculum must include the pre-schooler as well as the year 12’s.
I just had a visit from a Jehovah’s Witness couple with their two gorgeous little children (about 2 and 4 years old) who were obviously tired and bored from being dragged from door-to-door in the almost 30°C heat for god knows how long. I’m always hoping that these children will gain something…anything worthwhile by having to follow their parents around only to be rejected by, I estimate, 99.99% of households.
A bush walk or stroll along the beach or a ballgame in the backyard would be more entertaining, more healthy and more educational for young children.

I really love how the Australian Bureau of Meteorology ‘Indigenous Weather Knowledge’ tells us that observations by Indigenous cultures contribute to our scientific understanding. Indeed, all the wonderful information provided by our indigenous people should be used to close the gap between the outcomes of schooling for Indigenous and non-Indigenous students. How sad is it that the knowledge they gained over such a long time is not incorporated in the curriculum

Fractelle, You asked if I'd "Taken any good snaps of god lately?" God being spirit I see God revealed in the reality of the universe of which you only have in picture form

"God being spirit I see God revealed in the reality of the universe of which you only have in picture form"
Posted by Philo

Oh dear, Fractelle et al, and here we were thinking that the reality of the universe is revealed by modern science… whattayaknow?

How about the endless thoughts of crap that people go on with and too the whole world. I have been screwed over and there's nothing I can do about it. It all comes back to overpopulation! Do you remember the ten rats in a box, obviously not. but Iam only one man. I hope you are prepared to make fools of your self's. I guess dogma is with us all.

Just 4 Robert.

Rob...... the 'attacks' I was particularly thinking of were from our beloved Ginx :) I think you must have seen them "odious brood of vipers" etc.

One more point. It's not 'teaching myth' as fact....

What we want is this:

1/ An admission that on the issue of human origins (and life origins) the matter is currently one of pure speculation. There is suggestive evidence this way or that, but it is by no means conclusive.

2/ AMONG the theories offered to explain the origins of life are:

-Intelligent Design.
-Pure chance and time along with an evolutionary development.

Now..is that too much to ask ? :)

Regarding why I get rather animated on the issue of increasing Muslim power here.(miniscule as it may at this time be)

You would need to have an awareness of what is happening in Muslim controlled countries to Christians. Being that you are currently out of the fold, it's unlikely that you are privy to such information.

HINDU persecution of Christians. I could be as animated about Hindu's also. In december 2007 95 churches were destroyed and 730 homes of Christians in Kanhdamal district of Orissa state, by Hindu Extremists.
How many Hindu's have we 'persecuted' here in Australia ? I think it's 'zero'.

PAKISTAN http://www.barnabasfund.org/News/archives/article.php?ID_news_items=285

See what happens in countries controlled by Muslims. It's a pattern old son.

Philo, Boaz et al

Believe in supreme deities all you want if that gets you through the night, but that god in the bible? Not exactly supreme at all.

This may well be interpreted as an attack on you - it is not. It is an attack on formal religion; dogma.

The more we learn about the natural world the more questions are raised. Neither of you make any sincere attempts to study natural science (without your bible blinkers on), no wonder you don't understand what is being discussed here.

The universe(s) is gobsmackingly amazing.

Not so the bible, it may be open to a variety of interpretations but it never ever changes or grows.

The god as described in either testament simply doesn't have the "right stuff" to create such an immense, complex and diverse universe. Your little deity is too concerned with people obeying him, believing in him and praying to him - he is, intellectually, a child.

Well put, Fractelle.

I could believe in a god. I could never believe in one that is so insecure, it needs or even wants my worship.

Actions speak louder than prayers.

Fractelle,

The last thing I want to do is to tap on this hornets nest of atheism having seen how all other Christians have been treated. However I found it quite upsetting when I read that and would expect any other Christian reading such a comment to feel likewise. I believe that some explanation needs to be provided to help the understanding of any reader who is prepared to receive it. Such a reader at least then won’t be led to misunderstand my belief system.

Christians consider God an omnipotent being who we believe to have a number of characteristics. For the present purposes love is relevant. Indeed to Christians our God essentially is the source and summit of all love. We are monotheistic and pursuant to divine revelation it both makes sense and we believe that God wants us to love only Him as a God.

Putting this together explains the phenomenon that appears to relate to your derision of God. God cannot love us as an equal and we cannot love God as an equal if God is omnipotent. However God loves us and wants us to love Him.

A young child who strongly loves their parent essentially worships and obeys their parent. Some parents are overjoyed by such strong love not due to being intellectually challenged or insecure but simply because they value the love of their child. At the same time they are humbled because, while the difference in mental ages greatly increases the likelihood that obeying them will protect their child from harm compared to the child’s own judgement, they also know they aren’t perfect and the child will gradually discover that.

God wants us to love Him but it is only possible to love an omnipotent being as an omnipotent being. Not as an equal but by worshipping Him. God is perfect and doesn’t feel humbled by our love. It is as it should be. God has more than demonstrated His love for us and by His nature wants us to reciprocate.

I hope this helps.

Boazy,

Why do you invite comments like this:

“Fractelle! Have you noticed that every-time a hard question or insightful logic comes up they all run for the bible and make less sense than they did a moment ago. But all of what you have presented, I fully agree. P\S The cartoons made me laugh very hard. Thanks!”

Even responding like this:

“Did you look closely enough at it to see what John was saying?”

That is one of two things I need to ask you about. Is it really effectual to do that? Do you think atheists consider scripture authoritative? Further what do you expect to accomplish by lashing out at other denominations? Do you consider that things like the following ingratiate you to atheists?:

“Whitty..sounds like poor Ben had an overbearing 'Brother' at his catholic boarding school :) See what happens when you build a religious structure based on falsehood? (celibacy).. it comes out in all manner of weirdness and distortion..

How about considering Jesus approach ? "I came that they might have life, and have it abundantly" Or.. "The truth will make you free, and if the truth makes you free, you will be free indeed"”

Does any of the above seem scriptural for a Christian or strategically sensible? Wouldn’t answering with scripture invite comments like the above and wouldn't lashing out at another Christian denomination be expected to undermine your credibility with atheists?

You've got your work cut out for you there, mjpb.

Turning people off Christianity is like Boazy's *job*. And he's very, very good at it.

mjpb: "The truth will make you free, and if the truth makes you free, you will be free indeed"

Truth has never been one of Boazy's strong points, at least in his posts to this forum.

mjpb,

I think you have hit the nail on the head.

I don't think anyone would care much about the belief systems of others if it were not for the continued proselytising. If Christians instead merely practised what they preached the world could be a wonderful place.

On these threads, however, the most vociferous Christian is one who portrays all the common human faults and vices, and whose views hurt and wound others. His interjections into so many threads exhorting others to follow a path he himself does not tread, rankles.

Yet the exclusionary Christian code dictates that even if one is hurtful, intolerant, bigoted, unkind, mean and objectionable, one is ticked "good" and rewarded in the afterlife. It is little wonder that others who consciously try to live good, decent and moral lives, and never purposely to hurt others or cause pain, object to being regarded as "bad".

As you said, it is a pointless exercise continually to throw scripture at those who have clearly and plainly stated that they do not view scripture, any scripture, as the inviolate word of a god. The underlying assumption that those who do not believe in scripture are ignorant of it thus becomes irritating.

Many people have explained that they have studied these matters extensively(at least enough to know that none of the gospels were written by eye-witnesses!)and others that they have had religious upbringings they later rejected. Such matters are not undertaken lightly. People who have struggled and questioned and sought for answers quite naturally object to having these genuine searches for truth dismissed in such as way as to infer that they have never given much thought to esoteric matters.

There has been one poster on this forum who did a lot to heal the breeches between believers and non-believers. She displayed all the attributes of forbearance, non-judgmentalism, kindness and charity that is supposed to set Christians apart from others by good example. Yet she was patronised, dismissed, and judged wanting by one who considered themselves a "better" Christian!

No wonder the non-believers get antsy at times.

Ladies and gentlemen,

An awesome opportunity may present itself.

For those who don't know, to say that CJ and I haven't been the best of buddies is hugely an understatement. Thus when CJ finds the courage to reach out like that it is hard to ignore and something important must be involved. For the record I also think that it is the first time in here an atheist said a Christian has hit a nail on the head but I could be mistaken.

In this thread I saw Christians hurt and I saw some aspects of our belief system misunderstood. What the recent posts seem to indicate is a raw hurt that atheists in here want to express. To me that suggests misunderstandings and hurt going both ways.

To me this is a bridge however tenuous that could allow a fundamental change in the way in which people in here generally interact. To determine whether this be of any consequence I need to ascertain whether people in here share my perception and whether a mutually respectful dialogue and an end to the wounding is something considered desirable or whether you prefer a brawl and are prepared to take a few hits if it means getting a few in. Your feedback regarding this opportunity would be appreciated.

If there is some type of consensus to develop this I have some ideas. That is, if people in here, while acknowledging that most people won't necessarily convert from Christianity to Atheism or vice versa, want to work for a climate of mutual respect, tolerance and understanding I may be able to contribute some tools.

This whole thing has been a long term conflict. Often in situations of long term conflict a useful tool is to avoid interpreting the comments of people you disagree with. The aim is to defuse the angst in the situation. Quite often angst is triggered by misinterpretations so it isn't necessarily intellectually dishonest.

I do have some other ideas but are we agreed on the fundamentals of this approach or am I alone in wanting this direction?

"Often in situations of long term conflict a useful tool is to avoid interpreting the comments of people you disagree with."

What I mean is take them literally rather than reading in something negative that you think they mean.

Throughout the world and human history two radically different ideas concerning humanity and natural phenomena has developed; the scientific and the religious.

Science concerns itself with understanding the world/universe. Religion seeks to control human behaviour by imposing dogma that was written centuries ago.

Science learns; religion repeats.

However, I wouldn’t have a problem with religion if not for the following:

Imposing religion over scientific inquiry in schools , for example I.D. taught as a valid theory (this includes outright lies like Christians inventing science).
Receiving special treatment from government in the form of tax exemptions.
Denying women contraception and education in third world countries.
Causing the death of thousands of innocents; be it through a jihad or crusade.
Prejudice towards homosexuals, women and other religious people who don’t share the same religious beliefs as whoever is doing the discriminating!

This thread was intended as a discussion comparing the infinite possibilities of scientific inquiry to the limitations that are the result of religious dogma.

I have stated in previous threads that I used to be a Christian. I have a very good understanding of this religion. The most I can say in its favour is that it is not as bad as Islam. But it shares the same ancestry and desire for control over people’s minds and aspirations.

Formal religion is dogma; an impediment for humans to progress to any form of enlightenment.

It is not about developing the human potential for spirituality, it is about mind control.

To the intelligent and curious mind religious dogma is a form of death.

I apologise for my lack of attention to these pages as I have been ill.

I know that there is a lot that science cannot (as yet) explain, but that doesn't excuse filling the gap with a god - especially the god of the Abrahamic religions. And it doesn't excuse the constant proselytising.

What I find truly chilling is the hate that streams from the keyboards of the most vociferous of the christian posters to OLO. It is utterly vile and unnecessary. Religious you may well be - spiritually enlightened you are not.

However, it does prove my point regarding religious dogma. So, thanks for all the help guys, couldn't have done it without you.

Your are welcome Fractelle although I missed it.

Anyways sorry to try that in the forum that you started particularly with the title it has. It was out of place. I got a little carried away because of what happened. I won't push it any farther. I will however admit that I don't believe that I am continually proselytsing and don't believe that I need an excuse for having a different opinion and will stick to my God belief. That admission is for the purpose of honesty not antagonism.

I am wondering why you think I am not curious and don't like to be called unintelligent but am prepared to accept your opinion on that without necessarily agreeing. Can I assume that you have a curious and intelligent mind? You seem to imply that without saying it explicitly so I'm just wondering?

Ciao

Mjpb

If I am responding directly to a post you have made I will begin it as I have above.

My previous two posts were directed generally at people (there are many who read and do not post) to clarify my position.

I do not know whether you are a curious person, mjpb, your posts indicate you are intelligent, but restricted because of your desire to substantiate your religious beliefs.

I thought it hilarious that you should berate Boaz for his often discourteous posts when you had already described this thread as a "hornets nest of atheists" - charming. I thought that a number of posters here were discussing how wonderful the universe was in comparison to the limitations of religious dogma.

You could have entered the discussion by stating why you believe that formal religious dogma does or does not limit scientific endeavour. You know; expressed an opinion. Instead you have chosen to sit on the sidelines and make a few snide comments. All which says more about you as a person than your choice of religion.

The latest estimate on the age of our universe is:

"The universe is 13.73 billion years old, give or take 120 million years, astronomers said last week.

That age, based on precision measurements of the oldest light in the universe, agrees with results announced in 2006. Two additional years of data from a NASA satellite known as the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe have narrowed the uncertainty by tens of millions of years.

“Everything is tightening up and giving us better and better precision all the time,” said Charles L. Bennett, a professor of physics and astronomy at Johns Hopkins University and the leader of the group analyzing the data. “It’s actually significantly better than previous results. There is all kinds of richness in the data.”

About 380,000 years after the Big Bang, the universe cooled enough for protons and electrons to combine into hydrogen atoms. That released a burst of light, which over the billions of years since has cooled to a bath of microwaves pervading the cosmos.

Yet there are slight variations in the background, which the NASA satellite has been measuring since 2001. Those variations have given evidence supporting an idea known as cosmic inflation, a rapid expansion of the universe in the first trillionth of a trillionth of a second of its existence.

The new set of data is precise enough to differentiate between various proposed models of inflation. “Some of them are now completely ruled out, some of them are hanging at the edge and some of them are perfectly fine,” Dr. Bennett said. “We are sorting between these things.”

read on at:

The New York Times

http://littlurl.com/dsitt

Another wonderful example of scientific research, learning more, ruling out some theories, confirming others.

:-)

Sorry again Fractelle honest mistake. When you said:

“To the intelligent and curious mind religious dogma is a form of death.”

I figured that as a Christian it would refer to me.

“I thought it hilarious that you should berate Boaz for his often discourteous posts when you had already described this thread as a "hornets nest of atheists" - charming. “

I was telling it like I saw it without trying to be discourteous or telling either side what they want to hear. Now that you mention it I have half got my head around how the metaphorical approach could sound discourteous. I’m just used to people being offended when the metaphorical approach is used to label them as stupid or ignorant or something equally insulting rather than to describe something like that. At the time I just thought a bland description would be boring.

I could see how comments would have stung Christians and knew that could happen to me but wanted to make an explanation and had issues with Boazy’s approach.

“I thought that a number of posters here were discussing how wonderful the universe was in comparison to the limitations of religious dogma.”

I’m sure they were.

”You could have entered the discussion by stating why you believe that formal religious dogma does or does not limit scientific endeavour. You know; expressed an opinion. Instead you have chosen to sit on the sidelines and make a few snide comments. All which says more about you as a person than your choice of religion.”

Sorry again my comments weren’t specifically intended to be snide or antagonistic.

From that can I assume you want my opinion? I thought this thread was intended as a discussion comparing the infinite possibilities of scientific inquiry to the limitations that are the result of religious dogma rather than considering whether or not it does represent a limitation. There didn’t seem to be much tolerance of dissent.

I believe science and religious beliefs are generally compatible and without Christianity we wouldn’t have science or perhaps modern science. In that respect they couldn’t be more compatible. On the other hand the focus of many religions is ethics and that can in a sense limit certain types of scientific endeavour but not to any great extent. Further, the diversity among both atheists and religious even within religions also means that certain subgroups are always going to pop up who don’t like something scientific and some of those subgroups will be religious. In that respect formal religious dogma could try to impose a limitation. Thus in a general sense I’d say no but with exceptions some worthy some human error.

mjpb: "I believe science and religious beliefs are generally compatible and without Christianity we wouldn’t have science or perhaps modern science."

I must say, you've talked quite a lot about your second assertion, and yet you haven't said one thing I've found convincing. I did try to be open-minded about it.

I've got a question about the first assertion though. If that's the case, why do you think there's so much conflict between science and religion? Fundamentalist USA in particular is really hostile to science. How do you explain that within the "generally compatible" theory?

Vanilla,

mjpb: "I believe science and religious beliefs are generally compatible and without Christianity we wouldn’t have science or perhaps modern science."

”I must say, you've talked quite a lot about your second assertion, and yet you haven't said one thing I've found convincing. I did try to be open-minded about it. “

Actually I thought that I didn’t say much about it because the discussion didn’t get past the timing of the birth of science or modern science.

”I've got a question about the first assertion though. If that's the case, why do you think there's so much conflict between science and religion? Fundamentalist USA in particular is really hostile to science. How do you explain that within the "generally compatible" theory?”

The USA is considered to be a Christian country but I don’t know why you say it is “really hostile to science”. It has produced scientists like Robert Oppenheimer, and Francis Collins, research facilities like the Harvard-Smithsonian Centre for Astrophysics, NASA, and discovered things like the accelerating universe, human genome, the top quark and, RNA interference.

But mjpb, you stopped short!

NASA is not considered a fundamentalist organisation, nor are any of your other USA examples considered fundamentalist in any way. Quite secular, in fact.

"Fundamentalist USA" has given us wonderful scientific organisations such as the Creation Museum, the Discovery Institute and research discoveries like "intelligent design". Oh yes, fundamentalist USA is providing us with a veritable cornucopia of scientific research.

Incidentally, when you were talking about the human genome, did you have in mind this kind of research (not quite US but nevertheless interesting):
http://www.abc.net.au/catalyst/stories/2008/02/21/2169093.htm

Mjpb: You misread me, I said fundamentalist USA. I mean the fundamentalists churches in America.

In that case Vanilla (and Bugsy) I'm not sure. I presume they don't as an organisation. I assume that they don't subscribe to the theory of Darwinism (I'm relating that to the hostile question). Beyond that I don't know what there attitude toward science is. If I get a chance next week and you are still interested I'll do some googling.

Have a wonderful Easter everyone!

"I assume that they don't subscribe to the theory of Darwinism..."
Ah, yeah, that kind of thing.

I don't quite get you mjpd. Are you genuinely not aware that there's a schism between fundamentalist Christianity and the scientific community?

Interesting article about science and Christianity.
http://nobeliefs.com/comments10.htm

The article raises another question actually. If you believe religion and science are natural bedfellows, then why are so few scientists Christian? In 1998, on 7% of leading scientists in the USA had a personal belief in god. (http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file002.html)

Mjpb has claimed that Christians invented modern science. Using his logic then it may be claimed that Nazis invented quantum physics because of the great physicists who came from fascist Germany; including notorieties such as Max Planck, Werner Heisenberg, Wernher von Braun, among many others, who founded their science with the help of Nazis.

Then, of course, communism should be credited with post modern science for such luminaries as Lev Landau, who received the 1962 Nobel Prize in Physics for his development of a mathematical theory of superfluidity or Tsiolkovski who calculated that the horizontal speed required for a minimal orbit around the Earth is 8 km /second and that this could be achieved by means of a multistage rocket fueled by liquid oxygen and liquid hydrogen. They conducted their research, developed their theses under the communist regime and believed its ideology.

It is reasonable to question what Christianity brings to science when currently it is seeking to impose intelligent design and persuade its followers to reject sound scientific reasoning like evolution.

I can only dream of the science that could’ve been developed in the USA, without the interference of the Religious Right Wing that has dominated America for the past 8 years. Again, NASA and other such organisations make progress in spite of religious dogma.

Finally I submit the following definitions:

Dogma is the established belief or doctrine held by a religion, ideology or any kind of organization, thought to be authoritative and not to be disputed, doubted or diverged from.

Religion is derived from the word, religare, meaning ‘to bind’, which in turn means ‘to hold, to make prisoner, to restrain.

Whereas, science comes from the Latin "scientia," meaning knowledge.

And Mjpb continues to claim that religion and science are not only compatible but that Christianity aided scientific development?

Religion is a set of beliefs that a person or community hold to unify and guide human behaviour that leads to a pure and happy life. And in the State its administerers identify behavioural laws that if violated result in punishments imposed by the state. That is why we call Government appointees Ministers of a portfolio, It may or may not include a divine being.

However from ancient time it identified one who lived perfectly the set behaviour and upheld pure attitudes perfectly as posessing the spirit of the divine - they represented the character of god/God.

Christianity was radical in its approach to legalism and offered forgivnes to violators to the held laws - that they could be born again and be recognised as pure before God by His imputed righteousness, on the basis of repentance of the past and being freed from it by accepting cleansing.

This radical approach released minds held captive to past failures and behaviours to the socially established laws. It gave rise to freedom of the individual to explore their own possibilities as a person. It gave rise to radical and independent thinking in a personal relationship to God and the world he created. No laws governed his spirit only the God of all reality.

Read the book of Galatians which deals with legalism and living in the spirit of God. God is creative of all reality and nothing is secretive from Him. To know God is to discover his reality

Last Sunday at the Church of which I am a member we discussed 'laminin', the protein that bonds the cells together in the body. Amazingly it is formed in the shape of a cross. Not merely because it represents an icon of the Christian faith but it represents a bonding of the body, of which the apostle Paul states - the Church is like the human body in its function and the unity of the Church is bonded by the Cross of Christ - Christ died for our sins. That is what the message of Easter is really about. We are free of our past sins and the resurrection gives us life from our condemned and dead past.

The God of all Creation does not limit the human mind from its discovery. The spurious claim the Christianity inhibits discovery is a delusion of atheists who want to act immorally - outside the boundaries of its created design. For example they want to believe some males' penis were meant to be inserted into male anuses and call it marriage. Marriage is when two sets of genes of the same species come together to procreate according to the nature of the species design. They want to splice perfectly healthy fertilised human embryos and insert them into deformed human cells and call that science. Life is sacred and not for experementation. It may be possible but not moral. God replaces the dead by natural procreation, persons with new new life and potential. We can nuture and care for them without resorting to unethical science. Atheists see no ethical or design boundaries and life is for experementation - hence the rise in abusive drug taking and hoplessnes and violence among our youth. [There is no purpose to life]

Philo: "...'laminin', the protein that bonds the cells together in the body. Amazingly it is formed in the shape of a cross. Not merely because it represents an icon of the Christian faith but it represents a bonding of the body, of which the apostle Paul states - the Church is like the human body in its function and the unity of the Church is bonded by the Cross of Christ - Christ died for our sins. That is what the message of Easter is really about."

Bizarre. But no more bizarre than believing Jesus came back to life 3 days after being executed.

"Marriage is when two sets of genes of the same species come together to procreate according to the nature of the species design."

According to whom, outside your strange little sect, Philo? Marriage is a legal contract between two people who want to share their lives. You're talking about meiosis, but that's got nothing to do with "species design", except in the heads of fundies like you.

Amazing, philo. In one sentence you say that the perception of religion limiting science is a delusion and then go on to demonstrate exactly why that perception exists! The vast majority of scientists who work in stem cell research and with embryos are not unethical at all. "Life is not for experimentation"- so much for the field of biology or medicine.

And BTW, laminin is not formed in the shape of a christian cross in reality, only the diagrams are drawn like that. So much for science.

Well, if "Marriage is when two sets of genes of the same species come together to procreate according to the nature of the species design", then this must be an absolute abomination for you philo:

http://www.cababstractsplus.org/google/abstract.asp?AcNo=20043144647

Does Philo think that this entire discussion about the infinity of the universe as compared to the limitations of religious dogma is simply so I can behave immorally? (quoting Philo):

"The spurious claim the Christianity inhibits discovery is a delusion of atheists who want to act immorally"

ROFL!

Once again Philo, you have made me laugh and yes, once again it is at your expense. Ever considered a career in 'stand-up' (pun intended).

BTW discussion is about universe not gays - just get your head out of other people's anuses for a change, you might find you can see.

CJ Morgan,
Marriage is not the ink and paper of a legal contract as you seem to imagine, but it is a social identifying of the very act of two people who share themselves totally with each other.

If you studied biology or engineering you would know what the definition of marriage means. It is the uniting of two different sexes of a species or substances to form a new independent member of the species or a product. Atheistic trends in science see marriage to merely mean any emotional bond, that has not potential to create a new and independent member of the species or a new product.

The only sucessful ethical stem cell research is done with fetal blood or adult stem cells, where a healthy potential life is not destroyed. This research is done in many leading Christian Hospitals.

Australia's leading heart surgeon Victor Chang [whom I have met as a student] was a Christian. His Christian faith did not inhibit his research. It actually motivated him to care for his dying patients.

Philo
We cannot judge moral character based on belief or disbelief in God. If you do you are promoting religious prejudice against nonbelievers.

The ethics question should not exclusively be directed at science but at the world as a whole and that includes religion.

And about the definition of marriage- if you study sociology and history you’d know that this definition can be and already has been altered (in some countries) to include same-sex couples.

Fractelle, the definitions are very interesting when listed like that. I’d have thought that educators would want children to gain knowledge at their schools rather than install rubbish and dogma in their heads- that’s why all faith schools must stop reinforcing the brainwashing that children are exposed to at home and offer the children who show an interest in religion a wider view of not just one, but of all the major world religions.

The fact that parents and taxpayers are supporting schools in where teachers are lying/misinforming children about the history of the universe, the world and the evolution of homo sapiens means that they are delivering young people to the world that have been taught that blindly accepting claims is valued more than to investigate and desire evidence.

Celivia,
Your language definition may have changed, but the scientific facts have not and will never change. Changing the language will never change the defined science. The change in the term is merely political correctness to mean something different to what is the scientific reality of welding two to become a complete unit.

Just an interesting video for people who are interested in the original topic.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mcBV-cXVWFw

Easy Times,
Thank you for that amazing video. After watching that I felt atomic!
In the light of that gigantic universe that the human brain can’t even grasp, doesn’t it seem rather petty that some people worry about other people’s sex lives?

Hi Philo,
you are correct to say that changing a definition will not change facts- but there is nothing wrong with the facts.

Homosexuals, as equal citizens, should have as much right as you have in deciding who’s gonna get married or not. Holy books have no standing in the law.
If you cannot show a good reason for denying homos to get hooked, there is no reason to deny them that, is there?

This is a helpful site if you want to look at some facts that support SSM (same sex marriage).
http://www.bidstrup.com/marriage.htm

One fact I want to mention in case you don't care to read the article: In countries where SSM has been introduced 5 or more years ago, it has not threatened heterosexual marriage. In fact the number of opposite sex divorces reduced.
Suicide rates reduced also.

Easy times

Thanks for link - I haven't been able to watch it for some reason today I can't get anything from YouTube loaded on my browser, but am looking forward to watching it.

What is it with Philo & Boaz that, no matter what the topic, they always wind up rabbiting on about their pet peeves. Guess that's what blindly following dogma does to you.

Fractelle.....you don't have 'pet peeves' ?

Our pet peeves are simply our attempt to put a meaningless (to the atheist) universe into a meaningful context.
We also seek to highlight that no matter how grandiose and magnificent the Universe appears to our puny minds, we are stil faced with the problem of right and wrong.

If ethics and morality were derived only from 'existence' then there is nothing to steer the values in any direction other than:

-Self preservation.
-Self gratification.
-Self propogation.

Your recent posts appear to confirm this. Such a value system works find if:

-You are powerful enough to enforce 'your' version on others who may feel their version is superior, otherwise, you probably get killed.

The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them,

because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.

Ditto for women.

If it is "plain"....then obviously, those who don't see it are 'supressing' this truth for reason that they desire to live an immoral life.

The problem is, what God calls 'immoral'.. many people will call 'ok' because it helps them avoid the cognitive dissonance they would otherwise experience.. basic psychology really. You either change your belief to match your actions, or your actions to match your beliefs.

Unless we can get the context of our own lives right we are unlikley to have a right view of the bigger picture.

The ends of universe are unfathomable and because we have a devout space scientist in our Church we get constand backdrops to songs on the screen of new discoveries in astronomy.

Boaz

You love quotes so much here is one for you from Einstein

"It seems to me that the idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I cannot take seriously. I also cannot imagine some will or goal outside the human sphere. … Science has been charged with undermining morality, but the charge is unjust. A man’s ethical behaviour should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death.

Albert Einstein, “Religion and Science”, New York Times Magazine, 9 November 1930"

And the moral contribution from the Christian church?

JERRY FALWELL

I rest my case.

Fractelle, I think that you are being rather unfair to the christain church holding up Jerry Falwell like that. Far to many do support preachers like him but many also reject the shysters. There have been some great contributions to ethics and morality by christains but those don't tend to have their own TV shows or get the public attention that others do.

Many of those involved in the anti-slavery movent in the USA were devout christains.

Whilst I have a lot of grievances with the christain church and it's teachings I do try to be fair to them. Jerry Falwell and his ilk are a low point for the church not their best.

R0bert

Philo, a couple of weeks back you made a big song and dance about a disabled child whom you claimed had been miraculously cured by Jesus. You said that in the next week his surgeons and physicians would confirm this miraculous cure.

However, you have subsequently been rather reticent in providing updates about this apparently very fortunate fellow. While, as you say, "the ends of universe are unfathomable", surely more mundane acts of God like miraculously healing one person might be easier for us mere mortals to comprehend?

In that spirit, can you give us an update on your claimed "miracle"?

R0bert

Boaz bangs on continually about non-religious having no morals because on a lack of belief in the bible - what better way to illustrate a point than to use an example of greed and lies such as Falwell? Falwell would never have been given the time of day had it not been for religious dogma.

Perhaps I could've spoken about paedophile priests - would that have been 'fairer'?

Since when has Boaz ever been fair? Since when has he demonstrated any of the Christian ethics he loves to proselytise to the rest of us?

His cherry picking of dogma means he is intolerant to gays, muslims, sees women as secondary to men.... ad nauseam.

And you think I have been unfair?

What about the entire Bush administration? Not one of them behaving as Jesus preached, and you talk about fair.

Well I'll go a bit further and call your posts one of the most hypocritical I have read from someone who likes to present himself as reasonable.

CJ Morgan,
I only see this young man once a month at a common gathering of about 200 persons. Unfortunately the next meeting 5/4/08 falls on the same Saturday when I have another important annual event. However CJ I will not fail to report on the improvement in his health.

Robert you are very balanced and just in your above post.

I do not know how Fractelle arrives at the view that Boaz has demonstrated "women as secondary to men". Boaz constantly quotes the Quor'an on the place of women in Islam as that of half that of a man. He is upholding the Biblical and Christian position that in the eyes of God there is no gender preference between male or female all are equal.

Robert,

“Fractelle, I think that you are being rather unfair to the christain church holding up Jerry Falwell like that. Far to many do support preachers like him but many also reject the shysters. There have been some great contributions to ethics and morality by christains but those don't tend to have their own TV shows or get the public attention that others do.

Many of those involved in the anti-slavery movent in the USA were devout christains."

Whilst I have a lot of grievances with the christain church ... Jerry Falwell and his ilk are a low point for the church not their best.”

Thank you Robert. If Fractelle's claims about Boazy are correct then she should appreciate you proving that atheists can have integrity. You aren’t exactly a cheer leader for the Christian religion and to date only Christians have patted you on the back for that post. Hopefully some atheists out there will do the same.

I note though that on occasion good Christians do attract public attention. A recent example would be mother Theresa.

Fractelle,

If that is correct about Boazy are you saying two wrongs make a right or is that some pedantic attempt to claim hypocrisy because he didn't say something to Boazy in the same comment? Robert never hesitates to make comments such as this to Boazy:"Put your own house in order before you try and deal with the neighbours. The extremism and power of the christian penticostal movement is a far greater threat to my freedoms than anything muslims have a chance of achieving ..."
You can't take the comment in isolation and make such claims when Robert normally targets the other side.

In every other post I have seen for years Robert argues with and is critical of Christians. To call him a hypocrite for making a reasonable comment in that post is totally unfair. You know he is right. Even Christians who you despise are human and have good and bad. Is it a dogmatic requirement of your position to pretend otherwise? Why then the sanction?

I see your point Fractelle, about how boaz only highlights the negativity in the movements to which he is opposed.

But I see R0bert's point too.

Whilst I'm unlikely to be considered a supporter of Christianity, I do acknowledge that the likes of Hinn and Falwell represent the worst, rather than the best.

And yes - it is reasonable to highlight these unpleasant aspects of the Christian faith, when others attempt to claim moral superiority.

But I don't think we can categorise these people as representative of the whole religion - then we'd be guilty of the same tactics as boaz.

Thank you TRTL for supporting Robert. It does you credit. I didn't want to say it before as I didn't want to lure anyone but if Boazy really does claim no atheists have any morals then if Robert was the only one to prove otherwise he could be dismissed as the exception that proves the rule. Another atheist with obviously no strong affection for Christianity stepping up and being heard shows that ain't the case.

I'm not going to push this barrow but I have to note that reasonableness on both sides could make these discussions more productive and some people obviously could participate in that type of approach.

Thanks mjpb, though technically I'm an agnostic - I tend to think both the atheists and christians are wrong to think there can be any certainty on matters as vast and unproveable as god and creation.

What bothers me is when anyone can claim their belief set is the 'right' one and try to claim a moral high ground.

Boaz has been known to, but then again, so has West, a devout 'anti-theist' as he describes it.

All movements have their heroes and villains, and I'd categorise Falwell and Hinn as the bottom of the Christian barrel - that isn't to say I don't admire some, such as Mother Teresa, who'd rather walk the walk instead of spending so much time talking the talk.

The same goes for posters here - Foxy's a self described Christian who shows admirable restraint. Were I to categorise the Christian faith as 'evil' as boaz does for Islam, I'd be casting quite an aspersion on Foxy and I don't think that's justified.

Boaz has done just that for the Islamic community. He says that muslims can be decent people, but when he says Islam is evil, I wonder how he can justify that, given that one of the posters here, fellow_human, has shown admirable restraint in comments.

A stark contrast to the many, many anti-Islamic expressions on these boards, many of which are as violent as the admittedly vitriolic Imams they castigate.

So whilst boaz can draw this line between the faiths and people, I don't think that's reasonable, and it's clearly a by-product of his own religiosity.

I know he regards morality only from the perspective of what his god has said is acceptable.

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=1598#30678

Though he doesn't mean it to be an insult, that's precisely what it is. I don't care where he gets his morality from if he does me the same courtesy.

I think we can only judge the people on who they are, not what they are, because there's so much ugliness in the past, and people draw both inspiration and hatred from whatever belief system they adopt.

This is not a thread about moderate religion, it is about the limitations of religious dogma.

Boaz exemplifies just what adhering to a literal and inflexible interpretation of the Christian faith can do to a person’s ability to reason and think rationally.

He is rude, intolerant and insulting. When he behaves in this manner, I am well within my rights to point out examples of poor Christian behaviour such as Benny Hinn or Jerry Falwell or any other who uses their religion for their personal gain and power over others. Simply in order to show how wrong Boaz is when he claims that non-religious people are immoral.

I am stunned that my freedom to express my POV on dogma is being curtailed by the likes of R0bert and now TRTL – this is still a democracy, this is why we post at OLO.

This is why I started a thread about comparing our little planet to the wider universe. My intention is not to insult the likes of Foxy who does her religion proud, but to draw out the extremists like Boaz.

And I have.

And it appears, I have drawn out people who claim to be in favour of free speech but who would presume to dictate which examples of ‘bad christians’ I use.

Science never needed religion or any ideological system for its support or advancement. But it does need freedom to move, just as we need freedom to speak out.

Fractelle, I don't see where R0bert or I curtail your right to comment. In fact, I specifically said that I agree that when people try to claim Christianity is a morally superior way of life, then examples such as Falwell do indeed play a role in bringing them back to reality.

Myself and R0bert were just making the point that Falwell isn't representative of the whole religion - I really don't see how you can say this is curtailing your right to comment, especially seeing as we appear to be in agreement over the virtues and vices of certain posters.

When someone makes the point that a religion is inherently good or bad, I think it's fair to point to examples of the opposite.

Which applies just as much for your post as the ones we made in response - apologies if you feel as though you're being curtailed, though it would seem we're in agreement that Christianity isn't inherently good or bad.

I was just about to post that I understand where Fractelle is coming from, as I didn’t think the premise of the thread is about the moderate religion but rather about dogma when I refreshed the page and it appears I must’ve read Fractelle’s mind.
In that regard, Fractelle was right to mention Falwell.

Loose from that, RObert is right to say that Falwell doesn’t represent the Church and I agree that there have been many Christians that have done good work.

I find it a little amusing that “Mother” Teresa is mentioned as an example of a good Christian.
She is an example of someone who used the many millions of donations (some of it, at least a million was stolen money) to proselytise the most extreme interpretation of Catholic doctrine.
She did nothing about birth control even though infants and their mothers were dying by the truckload at her hospice.

She said, “I think it is very beautiful for the poor to accept their lot, to share it with the passion of Christ. I think the world is being much helped by the suffering of the poor people.”
She glorified suffering and perhaps that was the reason why she did nothing with the millions that were donated to improve the disastrous state of her very primitive hospice facilities but wasn’t afraid of using the money to extend her order by opening convents and institutions in about 120 countries in her name.
What was good for the goose was apparently not good enough for the gander, because when she became ill herself she didn’t hesitate to admit herself to a modern hospital with proper facilities.

Ah and if anyone is still in doubt how she loved fundamental Christian doctrine think about how she campaigned to prevent Ireland from ceasing to be the last county in Europe with a ban on divorce.

Celivia

Thank you for your support and your understanding of what this thread is about.

TRTL, I reiterate, this thread is about dogma - not the moderate religious. Therefore my use of Falwell as an example of the religious dogmatic is completely appropriate in this context. Without religious dogma, the likes of Falwell could never have occurred. I never stated that Falwell was representative of all christians. I don't think for a moment that he is.

The lack of critical scrutiny of religion, enables people like him or paedophile priests, or the 9/11 bombers to proceed to hurt people and cause much of the disturbance in this world.

Also, if you have been reading my posts you would know that I do make clear distinctions between dogma, moderate religion and spirituality. For example, on earlier posts to this thread I discussed being spiritual without following any formal religion. Seems to me that, like R0bert, you have just jumped in with your opinion without looking at the full context of this thread.

I think you have completely misunderstood the points I have been trying to make here. Oh well. I will try to be more succinct in future.

BTW Mother Teresa - what a peach, when she finally succumbed to illness she received the very best of medical care and technology, unlike the poor she 'helped' so much. Another example of where a lack of scrutiny can give a different impression on so-called 'good' christians.

Fractelle - I suspect we're in agreeance, by and large - though ultimately, I think perhaps you're a little quick to accuse people of curtailing freedom of speech.

It's something I myself take quite seriously, and even when I find posters comments abhorrent (not that yours are) I'd never attempt to have them banned, even though some of the posters I've criticised for hostile attitudes, have accused me of doing so (without basis).

I think the accusation that people are attempting to curtail freedom of speech can only genuinely be levelled when an attempt has been made at preventing someone from speaking their view - not mere disagreement.

Thread context is a difficult one - often threads head into other subjects. Most of the time it's depressingly repetitive as they all get streamed into a few narrow topics (any anti-feminists reading?) though other times, the topic shift can be quite productive.

In terms of context, I guess I'm just saying it's fair for Christians to defend the point that their whole religion isn't dogmatic - even though we all accept that that's the case.

Just as I'd also say you're quite justified in making the point that yes, some Christians are indeed like that.

Since I’ve dissed ‘Mother’ Teresa as a no-good Christian I thought I should come up with an example of the kind of Christian I can respect.
My preferred Christian would be someone like Jim Reiher.
http://www.evangelicalalliance.org.au/election/aGreens.htm

What I like about him as an example is:
- that he doesn’t blindly adhere to dogma- the man actually thoughtfully has shifted between denominations as he seeks to live as a Christian in our contemporary world (not a world of 2000 years ago).
- he is not a one-issue Christian.
- he thinks that all sinners should be treated equally since everyone is a sinner.
- he believes we are meant to care for the earth- not destroy it.
- he believes that medical treatment should be equally available to all.
- he values multiculturalism and fairly distributed funding for schools.
- he advocates us to do unto others (including refugees) like you would have them do unto you.
- he thinks it’s un-Christian to start wars. War should be for defensive purposes.

TRTL

I get where you're coming from. However, I'm not so sure about R0bert.

Now perhaps I was a little heavy-handed in my post to Boaz (like it's OK for him to be heavy-handed all the time) and perhaps I should have written something a little more obvious like "not all Christians are moral, for example Falwell; therefore believing in god doesn’t guarantee high morals".

However, like, Celivia I acknowledge that there are some very decent Christians and their faith seems more a part of their natures than a mere way to be ‘good’. For example Tim Costello, Shelby Spong and our own Foxy spring to mind as very sincere people.

Fundy-type Christians like BD & Philo, believe that we start out as sinners. Little babies are innocent and I find this notion of being tainted by original sin rather nasty. But this is where they get their idea that without religion we have no inherent moral ability.

We learn to behave badly, either through our parents, our teachers, other children and may be some of us are more susceptible to immoral behaviour than others; a mixture of nature and nurture. And science is providing evidence of this.

So when some evangelising, dogmatic, disrespectful religious extremist starts telling me I am somehow evil because I don’t share his faith, ‘fairness’ simply doesn’t enter into it. Boaz never ‘turns the other cheek’. I figure, if he likes to dish it out, then he should be able to take it.

All religions at some point have done some good. Problem is the good is outweighed by the bad. Not just the inquisitions, bad clergy, intolerance etc but the kind of bad that stops people from learning; from thinking for themselves; from rational thought processes: Critical Thinking.

We will continue to be held back by religious dogma for as long as religion is given special exemption from accountability. We expect responsible behaviour from other organisations – why not religion?
.

Fractelle, can I try and rewrite of the comment which prompted my post

"And the moral contribution from the athiest world?

JOSEPH STALIN

I rest my case."

Would that comment have been fair or would it have deserved a rebuttal pointing out that Stalin was hardly at the pinacle of athiest/agnostic moral thinking?

You quoted the words of a truly great man who was at the pinacal of so much and then held Falwell up as the christain churches contribution.

The thread might be about dogma but your post had wording that was much more specifix than that. It was an unfair comparison of the kind that we expect from the dogmatic as was your unreasonable claim that I was trying to stifle your freedom of speech.

The personal attack you launched in response looks a lot more like an attempt to limit free speech than my post.

I don't think Falwell is right at the bottom of the barrel, those who have sheltered child abusers within the church get that ranking.

I think I've spent enough time and posts on OLO opposing extremist thiests that my credentials on that front stand on their own. Extremists in any form present a risk to the kind of society I value.

R0bert

R0bert

There are many examples of bad people who are not religious. I do not dispute this at all.

Fact: I was responding to yet another attack on the morals of atheists by Boaz.

I am free to use whatever examples I choose. Falwell is hardly the worst example BTW.

You don't have a problem with Boaz' continual denigration of atheists, fine. But I do.

I see what you mean, RObert.
Indeed, if anyone had seriously made the Stalin comment I think I’d have replied by saying that Stalin was an example of another dogmatist- the dogma of communism.

Anyway, I think that Boaz must’ve got Fractelle’s message by now that neither atheism nor Christianity necessarily are the path to evil or the path to good.

Still, I think there is some truth in this quote by Steven Weinberg:
“With or without religion, 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.”
Or any non-religious dogma, for that matter.

Thank you all, especially Fractelle for this interesting discussion.
I feel it's time for me to move on.

Like Celivia this is my final post to this thread.

Thank you to those who really thought about their contributions and made it into a lively debate. Easytimes, I loved that Youtube link.

I found this little thought when researching and want to share it with everyone:

Universe: Uni = One, Verse = Song.
Universe = One Song.
One Song, heard by all throughout the entirety of existence.
One Song. One Message to all.
I feel that message is Love.
Love is the Law.
Love knows no religion. Love knows no nationality or country border.
Love is Love.

Bill Schell 2004

Fractelle, you've made your final post but left a parting shot at me on the way out. No need to respond to this if you don't wish.

"Fact: I was responding to yet another attack on the morals of atheists by Boaz." - but you attacked all christians in responding to comments by one particular christain.

"I am free to use whatever examples I choose." - spot on but I'm also free to rebut whatever examples are posted if I consider then unreasonable. Freedom of speech cuts both ways.

"You don't have a problem with Boaz' continual denigration of atheists, fine." - where did you get that idea? I've responded to Boazy's (and other fundies) attacks on all sorts of people on many occasions. Take some time and look at my posting history and you will see a very long history of challenging many of Boazy's attempts to denigrate those of us who don't share his faith. I am aware that Boazy is neither the best or worst that christianity has to offer. Boazy's attempts to denigrate athiests and agnostics does not make it OK to denigrate all those who call themselves christain.

R0bert