Age of fiberglass
Mr Jinx
"In this age of fiberglass I'm searching for a gem."
Fiberglass is a manufactured composite. Gems, by contrast, are
pure ... made by God (or professor Dawkins' void).
What a lovely contrast Dylan gives us here in his Dirge. What an
arresting image. All of man's hi-tech endeavour cannot compete in the
singer's affections with something pure and elemental.
And the application of the metaphor to the search for an idealised
woman: (the girl/gem from the Egyptian red river shore, perhaps?) fits
'like a glove' and occupies our hero as he sits polishing his gems.
Mr Jinx
M. Rick
Dylan was arrested for trite images in New Jersey, but released when
Springsteen argued that his own images were even triter.
really real
>> What a lovely contrast Dylan gives us here in his Dirge. What an arresting image. All of man's hi-tech endeavour cannot compete in the singer's affections with something pure and elemental.
>
> Dylan was arrested for trite images in New Jersey, but released when
> Springsteen argued that his own images were even triter.
>
I don't think the fiberglass image is trite but it is clumsy. The only
fiberglass images that come to my mind are early Corvettes and boats.
It's kind of a deadening image, typical of Dylan's songwriting problems
in this stage of his first revival.
badlands420
> Fiberglass is a manufactured composite. Gems, by contrast, are
> pure ... made by God (or professor Dawkins' void).
Poor Dawkins, people act like he murdered their god or something. All he did
was to say what most reasonable people think and back it up with science.
The vitriol he gets directed at him by religious people is a stark
illustration of how insecure they really are in their beliefs.
Ron Fowler
he says it. He comes across as a very arrogant man - but then, I suppose
the height of arrogance is to assume there is no higher being than
man...or shall I say human....the dyslexic, insomniac agnostic stayed up
all night wondering if there really is a dog.
Mr Jinx
Dawkins has done more to conjure God into being than anyone else in
the last 100 years. Before he came about God was a sideline (a bit
like the Easter Bunny). Thanks to Dawkins ham-fisted 'science' and
his steady stream of high-profile book launches God is right back at
the center of the agenda again. God must be on his knees in gratitude
to his humble servant Dawkins.
Mr Jinx
M. Rick
Sometimes I hear a dog barking in the middle of the night. Or at
least I think it's a dog. It could be God barking, or someone barking
in God's voice. Whatever the case, I don't lose any sleep over it.
Barkers during waking-hours tend to be more annoying and dangerous. I
remember we all got rabies shots after those Dylan Jesus concerts.
badlands420
> Thanks to Dawkins ham-fisted 'science'
Dawkins is an evolutionary biologist. You're some dude on a Dylan newsgroup.
You tell me, who has more credibility on matters of science?
badlands420
> He comes across as a very arrogant man
Not compared to his prominent contemporaries (particularly Christopher
Hitchens). Not even close. People who see Dawkins as arrogant usually have
their knickers in such a twist over his subject matter that his dry English
wit is lost on them.
badlands420
>Dawkins has done more to conjure God into being than anyone else in
the last 100 years.
Do you have some empirical basis for this statement?
>Before he came about God was a sideline (a bit
like the Easter Bunny).
It doesn't say much for almighty God that he needs Richard Dawkins to make
him relevant.
frinjdwelr
"badlands420" <mike...@uranus.net> wrote in message
news:lsTUm.67847$de6....@newsfe21.iad...
find him arrogant, but yes quite humorous. I have yet to come upon any
"hamfisted" science, whatever that is. His positions are clearly stated,
and placed in historical context. No great new revelations really, but he
pulls a lot of previous work together in a logical and reasonable way.
Personally I wish he was wrong. But unfortunately he's probably not.
Sheikh Mohammed al-Badlandi
> Personally I wish he was wrong.
How come?
Jumbo
> "badlands420" <mikeh...@uranus.net> wrote in message
>
> news:lsTUm.67847$de6....@newsfe21.iad...
>
> >>Dawkins has done more to conjure God into being than anyone else in
> > the last 100 years.
>
> > Do you have some empirical basis for this statement?
>
> >>Before he came about God was a sideline (a bit
> > like the Easter Bunny).
>
> > It doesn't say much for almighty God that he needs Richard Dawkins to make
> > him relevant.
>
> Coincidentally, I'm right in the middle of reading his last book. I don't
> find him arrogant, but yes quite humorous. I have yet to come upon any
> "hamfisted" science,
Good lord. He must have a new one out.
Mr Jinx
He is definitely wrong.
All scientists and scientific dabblers are proved wrong in the end.
It is only a matter of time. Name me one who has been right about
everything.
Mr Jinx
Martin
> The vitriol he gets directed at him by religious people is a stark
> illustration of how insecure they really are in their beliefs
"We're Christians, and we don't like what you said about God"
"Well then, forgive me"
Jumbo
It's good that he's admitted he's wrong. But now he has to make
reparations for all the harm he's done by spreading misinformation.
badlands420
Again, do you have any empirical/factual basis for this statement?
Announcing something over and over again doesn't make it so.
> All scientists and scientific dabblers are proved wrong in the end.
Wow, if we were living in the 16th century this statement would be no less
laughable.
badlands420
>It's good that he's admitted he's wrong. But now he has to make
>reparations for all the harm he's done by spreading misinformation.
Which do you recommend, the rack or the thumbscrew?
Martin
> Which do you recommend, the rack or the thumbscrew?
How about crucifixion? It worked for Jesus, didn't it?
Martin
> It's good that he's admitted he's wrong
Jumbo
badlands420
> No, just some intellectual honesty.
When has Dawkins been intellectually dishonest?
This is just like Jinx accusing him of "ham-fisted science." These are both
bold charges to make, especially with no apparent basis except your own
religious predilections.
If intellectual honesty was your goal, you could simply tell the truth and
say "I don't like Professor Dawkins because he thinks my religion is
bullshit."
Mr Jinx
All science is ham-fisted. Name me one scientist from 500 years ago
or more whose theories are all still intact.
The problem with Dawkins (in rather the manner of a crazed God) is he
assumes all knowledge is within our grasp and he has the power to
unweave the rainbow and show us all how stupid we all have been.
Dawkins is a puny little being just like the rest of us. He is an ant
seeing a match strike and imagining it to be the sun. Good luck to
him, though. He is helping the religious to build a stronger god.
Mr Jinx
Martin
> When has Dawkins been intellectually dishonest?
Interestingly, this hasn't actually been substantiated at all
> This is just like Jinx accusing him of "ham-fisted science." These are both
> bold charges to make, especially with no apparent basis except your own
> religious predilections
Yes
> If intellectual honesty was your goal, you could simply tell the truth and
> say "I don't like Professor Dawkins because he thinks my religion is
> bullshit."
Exactly
badlands420
>All science is ham-fisted. Name me one scientist from 500 years ago
or more whose theories are all still intact.
So a scientist has to be 100% correct to be 1% credible? Are you also
willing to apply that standard to the Bible?
Jumbo
>
> When has Dawkins been intellectually dishonest?
>
> This is just like Jinx accusing him of "ham-fisted science." These are both
> bold charges to make, especially with no apparent basis except your own
> religious predilections.
And what are they?
> If intellectual honesty was your goal, you could simply tell the truth and
> say "I don't like Professor Dawkins because he thinks my religion is
> bullshit."
I don't have a religion.
M. Rick
You've got the Dylan religion.
frinjdwelr
"Mr Jinx" <vernon_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:aeef7341-ed13-4789-bd1a-
>All science is ham-fisted. Name me one scientist from 500 years ago
>or more whose theories are all still intact.
This is just a totally ham-fistedly stupid statement.
>The problem with Dawkins (in rather the manner of a crazed God) is >he
>assumes all knowledge is within our grasp and he has the power to
>unweave the rainbow and show us all how stupid we all have been.
Completely false. You obviously have never read his books and are showing
your ignorance.
Mr Jinx
What has the Bible got to do with science? The Bible is a collection
of books that are part allegory, part parable and part myth (with some
resounding truth).
Let's just say that if no one here has come up with a single scientist
from 500 years ago or more of whom it can be said "He was 100% right"
then we have to admit that science is demonstrably a fallible measure
for anything. And its ONLY function is to clarify. It has no other
purpose. That makes it rather shoddy as a measure, doesn't it?
Would you use a ruler to build a house that you knew was always at
least slightly (and often wildly) out?
Mr Jinx
Mr Jinx
> "Mr Jinx" <vernon__bris...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:aeef7341-ed13-4789-bd1a-
>
> >All science is ham-fisted. Name me one scientist from 500 years ago
> >or more whose theories are all still intact.
>
> This is just a totally ham-fistedly stupid statement.
>
If it is a stupid statement perhaps you would like to scientifically
demostrate how by listing me some scientists from 500 years ago or
more whose theories are all still intact. Show your workings.
> >The problem with Dawkins (in rather the manner of a crazed God) is >he
> >assumes all knowledge is within our grasp and he has the power to
> >unweave the rainbow and show us all how stupid we all have been.
>
> Completely false. You obviously have never read his books and are showing
> your ignorance.
On what sceintific basis are you able to state (as if fact) that I
have not read Dawkins' books?
Mr Jinx
Martin
> On what sceintific basis are you able to state (as if fact) that I
> have not read Dawkins' books?
Which ones have you read? I haven't read any, but your statements
sound like someone who's come to a conclusion based on tabloid
headlines. I think that's why frinjdwelr assumes you haven't done the
research. I know just by reading a general overview of his work that
I'm likely to agree with him; your position sounds like you've done
the same, just coming to the opposite conclusion. You've referred to
him being 'wrong' about something, but without going any further. If
you could be specific about that point, perhaps we could take the
matter a bit further?
Mr Jinx
No, no, Martin. Best that I don't say which ones I've read until
frinjdwelr answers my question. It would spoil the scientific
veractiy of the experiment.
I think it is important to see if his assertion that I have not read
Dawkins' work has any scientific basis in fact or whether is was just
an act of faith on his part.
Mr Jinx
Martin
> I think it is important to see if his assertion that I have not read
> Dawkins' work has any scientific basis in fact or whether is was just
> an act of faith on his part
Don't be such a baby. If you know Dawkins' work, call his bluff. If
you don't, he's calling yours
Mr Jinx
On the contrary. He made an assertion. I'm just waiting to see if
he has any scientific proof for that or whether he operates purely on
faith in these matters. I think it's important to find that out
before we proceed.
I'm also still waiting for someone to mention a scientist from 500
years ago or more whose theories are still intact.
Mr Jinx
badlands420
>Let's just say that if no one here has come up with a single scientist
>from 500 years ago or more of whom it can be said "He was 100% right"
>then we have to admit that science is demonstrably a fallible measure
for anything.
This is just a stupefyingly simplistic pattern of thought. It doesn't even
warrant a serious response.
badlands420
>I think it is important to see if his assertion that I have not read
>Dawkins' work has any scientific basis in fact or whether is was just
>an act of faith on his part.
If you've read The Blind Watchmaker, I'd love to know which sections you
dismiss as being scientifically ham-fisted. If you haven't, none of your
statements about Professor Dawkins carry the slightest kernel of
credibility.
badlands420
>I'm also still waiting for someone to mention a scientist from 500
>years ago or more whose theories are still intact.
Science has never claimed to be unerring or infallible, and you're the first
person I've ever heard try to write off science AS A WHOLE on such a
ridiculous basis. The bedrock of science is the testable hypothesis. We call
it a "hypothesis" because it may very well be wrong. To the extent that
Galileo, Copernicus, Kepler, Newton, et al. went to their graves believing
incorrect hypotheses were actually correct, it wasn't due to any flaw in
their science or intellect, it was because the means did not yet exist for
the hypotheses to be tested with sufficient rigor as to be proved incorrect.
And you're willing to nonchalantly write off some of the greatest minds in
human history on this basis? If this is what religion does to people, I'm
glad I'm an atheist.
nate
>
> Would you use a ruler to build a house that you knew was always at
> least slightly (and often wildly) out?
>
> Mr Jinx
ignoring your "often wildly" gaff:
i would be comfortable using the most accurate ruler practical,
knowing that none-the-less it was not 100% perfect. for example,
getting the measurements to within a wavelength of red laser light
would be well beyond what i would consider acceptable for building a
house. but if i want to make a mirror for my telescope i proceed to
use more accurate methods. all methods of measuring the accuracy of
rulers were developed by science, not by reading a collection of fairy
tales.
you lose in this argument, because all measurements as they stand from
science blow away any measurement from biblical texts.
if you are comfortable using a ruler only 3% accurate as opposed to
one that is 99.99997856% accurate be my guest, but i'll never hire you
to build my house.
- nate
frinjdwelr
"Martin" <martin...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:fd98e4c8-6015-42bc...@u37g2000vbc.googlegroups.com...
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
He won't answer. He's pulling one of his typical Jinx moves. Whenever
someone calls him out on anything he dodges by detouring the discussion in a
totally irrelevent direction. ie...the silliness of proclaiming an internet
post must be turned into a scientific experiment before he can respond to
the content.
frinjdwelr
"badlands420" <mike...@uranus.net> wrote in message
news:fycWm.97934$rE5....@newsfe08.iad...
>
>>I'm also still waiting for someone to mention a scientist from 500
>>years ago or more whose theories are still intact.
>
> Science has never claimed to be unerring or infallible, and you're the
> first person I've ever heard try to write off science AS A WHOLE on such a
> ridiculous basis. The bedrock of science is the testable hypothesis. We
> call it a "hypothesis" because it may very well be wrong.
Obviously true, as taught repeatedly from about 4th grade onwards.
Religions, on the other hand claim to be unerring and/or infallible as a
matter of course. Yet what religion is still intact in all it's practices
and accepted beliefs over the last 500 years?
Why are religions allowed to change and evolve?
badlands420
> Yet what religion is still intact in all it's practices
> and accepted beliefs over the last 500 years?
Almost everything that's considered a "godly act" in the Old Testament would
be a felony in any modern society.
badlands420
> ie...the silliness of proclaiming an internet
> post must be turned into a scientific experiment before he can respond to
> the content.
Not to mention the silliness of condemning books he's clearly never read, or
the even sillier silliness of a lay person impugning the scientific
credentials of an Oxford biology professor.
Jumbo
> > I don't have a religion.
>
> You've got the Dylan religion.
Sorry, no.
Jumbo
>
>
> Obviously true, as taught repeatedly from about 4th grade onwards.
> Religions, on the other hand claim to be unerring and/or infallible as a
> matter of course.
??? All "religions"? One great big monolithic easy target (just like
Mr Dawkins prefers...) And yet Mr J is "ham-fisted" in *his*
responses!!!
> Yet what religion is still intact in all it's practices
> and accepted beliefs over the last 500 years?
> Why are religions allowed to change and evolve?
You've just rebutted your own point. If any religion considered itself
infallible, it would have to declare itself null and void before
"changing and evolving". Therefore, no genuine religion considers
itself "infallible".
Jumbo
Talk about your ignorance!
Jumbo
>
> Not to mention the silliness of condemning books he's clearly never read, or
> the even sillier silliness of a lay person impugning the scientific
> credentials of an Oxford biology professor.
Today's lesson: Must not question the science clergy. Must not
question the science clergy. Must not...
Jumbo
> > No, just some intellectual honesty.
>
> When has Dawkins been intellectually dishonest?
Personally, I prefer to start not with Dawkins or the Bible. I'll go
for Montaigne any time. His basic question is, "Que scais je?" (Please
supply accents etc.) I.e. "What do I know?"
An atheist is someone who ASSERTS there is no God (just as a Calvinist-
Protestant, for example, is someone who insists Christ died to save us
and we can all relax and do what we like now, which is, imo, and with
respect, twaddle). Dawkins claims to be an atheist. Anyone who answers
"I *know* there is not a God" is therefore intellectually dishonest.
Your turn.
Martin
> He won't answer. He's pulling one of his typical Jinx moves. Whenever
> someone calls him out on anything he dodges by detouring the discussion in a
> totally irrelevent direction. ie...the silliness of proclaiming an internet
> post must be turned into a scientific experiment before he can respond to
> the content
Yes
Martin
> Anyone who answers
> "I *know* there is not a God" is therefore intellectually dishonest
Bollocks. I know there is no God because the concept of God was
invented by human beings. I believe in science because it tells us
things we need to know. Like gravity 'n' shit
M. Rick
Understanding the characteristics of a fictional being isn't the same
as having knowledge of a real person or natural events. I can say "I
know Superman by heart" but that doesn't mean there was (or is) an
actual Superman with an external reality who corresponds to the
story. Supernatural beings and events in religious texts have no
greater external reality than Superman and the flying monkeys in the
Wizard of Oz. So in that sense the honest answer is "I know nothing
of God."
Martin
> So in that sense the honest answer is "I know nothing
> of God."
Perhaps that's better than 'bollocks'
badlands420
"Jumbo" <ch...@cupolagallery.com> wrote in message
news:9b630e79-e853-42d5...@26g2000yqo.googlegroups.com...
> Talk about your ignorance!
Okay, let's.
badlands420
> Today's lesson: Must not question the science clergy. Must not
question the science clergy. Must not...
Are there straw men in heaven?
badlands420
>An atheist is someone who ASSERTS there is no God
I don't believe in deities because I've never seen the slightest shred of
evidence that any exist. I don't need to "assert" God's nonexistence any
more than I need to assert the nonexistence of Santa Claus or the Tooth
Fairy.
>Anyone who answers "I *know* there is not a God" is therefore
>intellectually dishonest.
I *know* there's no Zeus who sits on Mount Olympus tossing thunderbolts
around. Does this make me intellectually dishonest?
Martin
> Perhaps that's better than 'bollocks'
Actually, I still prefer 'bollocks'
nate
>
> All science is ham-fisted. Name me one scientist from 500 years ago
> or more whose theories are all still intact.
In 460BC Democritus came up with the idea that substances ultimately
were made up of atoms (which was loosely greek for indivisible). The
notion that elements are made of atoms, below which the element loses
it's existence, has held up pretty well.
- nate
frinjdwelr
On Dec 17, 1:22 am, "frinjdwelr" <frinjdw...@charter.net> wrote:
>
>
> Obviously true, as taught repeatedly from about 4th grade onwards.
> Religions, on the other hand claim to be unerring and/or infallible as a
> matter of course.
??? All "religions"? One great big monolithic easy target (just like
Mr Dawkins prefers...) And yet Mr J is "ham-fisted" in *his*
responses!!!
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No. I said "religions," plural, as in generally more than one. You added
the "all." I also said, "as a matter of course," which is a phrase that
assumes exceptions. You and Jinx seem to have a need to disallow any
possible exception to anything.
That said, I'd be interested in finding out more about a religion that
teaches it's followers they don't need to take its teachings that seriously
because they may well be wrong. The leaders could preach, "This is maybe
what you should believe, but then again maybe not since we're not
infallible. Maybe Jesus meant this, but then again maybe he meant that. We
hypothosize that x might be a sin, but experiment to check it out, since we
might be in error."
Might be kind of a fun religion.
> Yet what religion is still intact in all it's practices
> and accepted beliefs over the last 500 years?
> Why are religions allowed to change and evolve?
You've just rebutted your own point. If any religion considered itself
infallible, it would have to declare itself null and void before
"changing and evolving". Therefore, no genuine religion considers
itself "infallible".
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Then why do they often claim to be, and to know the truth to the exclusion
of other religions?
Why doesn't a religion declare itself null and void instead of changing and
evolving over time as most religions have in fact done?
Are you saying no religion is genuine?
Mr Jinx
Give it time
Mr Jinx
Mr Jinx
Only fundamentalist religions claim to have all the answers and a
monopoly on the truth. It is as easy to attack these sort of idiots
as it is to ridicule scientists who claimed the earth was flat.
Dawkins in his God Delusion book (one of the books of his I have read)
frequently attacks extremist fundamental religion and applies it to
ALL religions. This is slippery at best. It would be like pointing
at an alcoholic and claiming all drinkers are like that.
Mr Jinx
badlands420
>Dawkins in his God Delusion book (one of the books of his I have read)
>frequently attacks extremist fundamental religion and applies it to
>ALL religions.
The God Delusion is, for the most part, not a scientific book. Since your
initial charge against Professor Dawkins alleged "ham-fisted science," I
asked if you'd read The Blind Watchmaker, which is the book wherein he makes
his scientific/biological arguments in favor of an earth without design.
Since you never responded to this query, I think it's reasonable to assume
you haven't read the book. Since you haven't read the book, you know nothing
of Dawkins' scientific methodology and are spectacularly unqualified to pass
judgement on it.
Janice
> Since you haven't read the book, you know nothing
> of Dawkins' scientific methodology and are spectacularly unqualified to pass
> judgement on it.
Does this rule-of-thumb also apply to those who have not studied
Catholic/Christian doctrine or read the Bible? Are people who
criticize religion spectacularly unqualified to pass judgement on it
if they have not immersed themselves in the teachings?
~`~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
badlands420
>Does this rule-of-thumb also apply to those who have not studied
>Catholic/Christian doctrine or read the Bible? Are people who
>criticize religion spectacularly unqualified to pass judgement on it
>if they have not immersed themselves in the teachings?
Yes. Criticism from an ignorant viewpoint is never valid.
badlands420
It should also be noted, though, that the vast majority of Christians have
never read the Bible. Which always struck me as very, very weird. If you're
going to devote your life to a belief system based on one certain book,
shouldn't you actually read the damn thing at some point?
sween5
> "badlands420" <mikeh...@uranus.net> wrote in message
The vast majority of Christians have never read the Bible? Is that
really a fact?
badlandsCuatrocientosVeinte
>The vast majority of Christians have never read the Bible? Is that
really a fact?
In my experience, when discussing the Bible with practicing Christians, I
almost always know more of it than they do. They typically only read the
passages their priest/pastor/reverend tells them to, just like you'd do your
homework in gradeschool.
I've asked many Christians whether they've read the entire Bible, and no
one's ever said yes. Almost invariably, they've never heard of the Gnostic
Gospels or the Council of Nicaea, which I suppose is exactly how the church
wants it.
frinjdwelr
"badlandsCuatrocientosVeinte" <mike...@uranus.net> wrote in message
news:D5dXm.102463$Wf2....@newsfe23.iad...
attending Catholic school, we were indeed heavily discouraged from reading
the Bible. We were taught that we should just study and accept the church's
interpretations because the Bible itself was confusing and difficult to
understand.
Of course as a teenager that only made me more curious, so I did read the
whole thing. And I found out the church fathers were right. Doing so did
indeed cause me to have lots of questions about the validity of their
teachings.
I agree that if a person is going to criticize religion they ought to do
their homework and investigate what religions assert. Trouble was, the more
I read and studied, the less I believed.
khematite
> "badlandsCuatrocientosVeinte" <mikeh...@uranus.net> wrote in message
There's a lot of history to that state of affairs:
M. Rick
I would estimate that 95% of Americans can tell you the basic tenets
of the dominant form of Christianity. But allow me to enlighten the
spectacularly unqualified: God (i.e. Bible God) is the creator of
everything and the judge of your eternal soul. If you accept Jesus as
God you will receive glory in heaven and (with a little luck) great
blessings on earth. If you don't then you're going to suffer the
consequences. Dylan fans requiring greater "immersion" can buy flame-
retardant suits at bobdylan.com.
Martin
> Are people who
> criticize religion spectacularly unqualified to pass judgement on it
> if they have not immersed themselves in the teachings?
Someone who hasn't read the bible is unqualified to criticise the
bible. However, you don't need to have read the bible in order to
criticise religion as a concept, which is a different thing
Jumbo
>
> of God."
How do you know?
Jumbo
Only if you claim to be able to "prove" it. I wasn't addressing
personal convictions, but the intellectual dishonesty in representing
personal conviction as scientific fact.
Jumbo
>
> news:ab62b317-6e2b-4573...@y24g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
> On Dec 17, 1:22 am, "frinjdwelr" <frinjdw...@charter.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Obviously true, as taught repeatedly from about 4th grade onwards.
> > Religions, on the other hand claim to be unerring and/or infallible as a
> > matter of course.
>
> ??? All "religions"? One great big monolithic easy target (just like
> Mr Dawkins prefers...) And yet Mr J is "ham-fisted" in *his*
> responses!!!
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---
> No. I said "religions," plural, as in generally more than one.
Come on. Religions without an article means all religions. If I said
apples are red, and you pointed out some were green... but you know
the rest.
> You added
> the "all."
> You and Jinx seem to have a need to disallow any
> possible exception to anything.
I'm just standing up against dogma.
> That said, I'd be interested in finding out more about a religion that
> teaches it's followers they don't need to take its teachings that seriously
> because they may well be wrong. The leaders could preach, "This is maybe
> what you should believe, but then again maybe not since we're not
> infallible. Maybe Jesus meant this, but then again maybe he meant that. We
> hypothosize that x might be a sin, but experiment to check it out, since we
> might be in error."
>
> Might be kind of a fun religion.
Yes, it sounds great.
> > Yet what religion is still intact in all it's practices
> > and accepted beliefs over the last 500 years?
> > Why are religions allowed to change and evolve?
>
> You've just rebutted your own point. If any religion considered itself
> infallible, it would have to declare itself null and void before
> "changing and evolving". Therefore, no genuine religion considers
> itself "infallible".
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Then why do they often claim to be, and to know the truth to the exclusion
> of other religions?
If they do that, they are not genuine religions.
> Why doesn't a religion declare itself null and void instead of changing and
> evolving over time as most religions have in fact done?
> Are you saying no religion is genuine?
I'm saying religions either change or cease.
Jumbo
:)
Jumbo
Yes. (But these guys on here don't want to hear that...)
Jumbo
> >Dawkins in his God Delusion book (one of the books of his I have read)
> >frequently attacks extremist fundamental religion and applies it to
> >ALL religions.
>
> The God Delusion is, for the most part, not a scientific book.
How are you qualified to say it isn't scientific? I thought we lay
people weren't allowed to comment on that.
Jumbo
Jumbo
<mikeh...@uranus.net> wrote:
> >The vast majority of Christians have never read the Bible? Is that
>
> really a fact?
>
> In my experience,
Which is after all synonymous with fact in the badlands.
Jumbo
Good point. But you also don't need to have read Dawkins to understand
the basic flaws in an exclusively empirical approach to understanding
existence.
Martin
> Good point. But you also don't need to have read Dawkins to understand
> the basic flaws in an exclusively empirical approach to understanding
> existence
The thing with religious people is they are clinically insane, which
impedes progress to some extent. That's what I teach my kids, anyway
badlands420
>Only if you claim to be able to "prove" it. I wasn't addressing
>personal convictions, but the intellectual dishonesty in representing
>personal conviction as scientific fact.
If something's scientifically factual, there's no need for belief or
conviction.
badlands420
> Which is after all synonymous with fact in the badlands.
I don't even know what this means. First of all, I didn't say or intimate
that my experience was synonymous with fact. Second of all, what the hell is
your point? Would it be more credible if I spoke of someone else's
experience?
badlands420
>Good point. But you also don't need to have read Dawkins to understand
>the basic flaws in an exclusively empirical approach to understanding
existence.
And those flaws would be?
frinjdwelr
"khematite" <khem...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:f1043ded-131a-49a6...@c34g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
http://www.catholicity.com/commentary/carlin/05386.html
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Interesting article. But it certainly isn't just the Catholic church that
discourages its followers from thinking too deeply about its teachings.
Martin Luther repeatedly proclaimed that the greatest enemy of religion was
reason.
Certainly rabbis and mullahs don't encourage their followers to question
their own teachings. Those TV preachers don't get all ranting, and fired up
with everyone waving arms to swelling background music to promote
introspective pondering. Most religions by necessity prey on emotion over
rational thought.
frinjdwelr
"Mr Jinx" <vernon_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:6fed824f-cc32-4005...@b15g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
On Dec 18, 2:00 am, "frinjdwelr" <frinjdw...@charter.net> wrote:
>
> > Obviously true, as taught repeatedly from about 4th grade onwards.
> > Religions, on the other hand claim to be unerring and/or infallible as a
> > matter of course.
>
> ??? All "religions"? One great big monolithic easy target (just like
> Mr Dawkins prefers...) And yet Mr J is "ham-fisted" in *his*
> responses!!!
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> No. I said "religions," plural, as in generally more than one. You added
> the "all." I also said, "as a matter of course," which is a phrase that
> assumes exceptions. You and Jinx seem to have a need to disallow any
> possible exception to anything.
> That said, I'd be interested in finding out more about a religion that
> teaches it's followers they don't need to take its teachings that
> seriously
> because they may well be wrong. The leaders could preach, "This is maybe
> what you should believe, but then again maybe not since we're not
> infallible. Maybe Jesus meant this, but then again maybe he meant that. We
> hypothosize that x might be a sin, but experiment to check it out, since
> we
> might be in error."
>
> Might be kind of a fun religion.
>
Only fundamentalist religions claim to have all the answers and a
monopoly on the truth. It is as easy to attack these sort of idiots
as it is to ridicule scientists who claimed the earth was flat.
There you go with the no exceptions "all" again.
But it's not just fundamentalists that claim to have answers and know
truth, or have a better ability to interpret the will of God.
The whole point of joining one particular religion over another is that your
beliefs aline with what that religion teaches and not with another.
Every mainstream religion that I know of preaches that people should join
them (often sending out recruiters) because they know the truth about the
word of God and answers to questions of morality. I know of no mainstream
religion teaching that any ole religion is as good as any other or that
promotes the "maybes" that I describe above. Again, if you know of one, I
might be interested in joining.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dawkins in his God Delusion book (one of the books of his I have read)
frequently attacks extremist fundamental religion and applies it to
ALL religions.
Mr Jinx
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Applies what to ALL religions? Belief in a God? Dependence on some holy
book? Belief in life after death? Reward for believers and punishment for
evil doers? Faith in the face of unexplainable mysteries? Because these are
the common elements Dawkins applies to MOST religions. I have the book
right here. Can you remember even one example of his "frequent attacks" on
fundamentalist religion that he applies to all? I'd be glad to look it up
and recognize your point.
khematite
>
> http://www.catholicity.com/commentary/carlin/05386.html
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Interesting article. But it certainly isn't just the Catholic church that
> discourages its followers from thinking too deeply about its teachings.
> Martin Luther repeatedly proclaimed that the greatest enemy of religion was
> reason.
Discouraging thinking isn't the same thing as discouraging reading of
the Bible, which was the original issue. There's no question that
traditionally the Catholic church discouraged reading of the Bible,
while Protestant sects (not to mention Jews) did not. Nor, so far as
I know, does Islam discourage reading of the Qu'aran.
> Certainly rabbis and mullahs don't encourage their followers to question
> their own teachings. Those TV preachers don't get all ranting, and fired up
> with everyone waving arms to swelling background music to promote
> introspective pondering. Most religions by necessity prey on emotion over
> rational thought.
But no religion is as centralized as Catholicism. Those seeking
religious guidance within Protestantism, Judaism, and Islam can
probably find varying religious viewpoints with regard to reason and
emotion by checking out assorted ministers, rabbis, or mullahs over
time. No one is forced to become a follower of a ranting TV preacher,
given the varieties of Protestantism. And we hear all the time that
there is a very different Islam to be found in most mosques than that
preached by ranting, fanatical pro-Al Qaeda mullahs. On the other
hand, seeking out a spectrum of religious approaches may, as a
practical matter, be somewhat harder for Catholics, given the
hierarchical nature of the Catholic church.
frinjdwelr
I wrote:
> > Yet what religion is still intact in all it's practices
> > and accepted beliefs over the last 500 years?
> > Why are religions allowed to change and evolve?
>
> You've just rebutted your own point. If any religion considered itself
> infallible, it would have to declare itself null and void before
> "changing and evolving". Therefore, no genuine religion considers
> itself "infallible".
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Then why do they often claim to be, and to know the truth to the exclusion
> of other religions?
Jumbo answered:
If they do that, they are not genuine religions.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Not meaning to pick on Catholics, but certainly the Catholic Church for one,
teaches that they are the one true faith ---- to the exclusion of any other
religion. So Catholic is not a genuine religion in your opinion??? What
about Islam with its demarcation between true believers and infidels?
> Why doesn't a religion declare itself null and void instead of changing
> and
> evolving over time as most religions have in fact done?
> Are you saying no religion is genuine?
I'm saying religions either change or cease.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Exactly my point all along. Religions that survive evolve over time and
change their teachings. So therefore, at what point in their evolution were
they teaching falsehoods that needed to be altered? At what point were or
are they misinterpreting the word of God? Were/are they hearing God wrong
or did God change his infalible mind? How is a mere believer supposed to
determine what God wants him to do or believe if no religion stays
consistent?
Could you give an example of a religion you consider genuine?
Just Walkin'
>
> Exactly my point all along. Religions that survive evolve over time and
> change their teachings. So therefore, at what point in their evolution were
> they teaching falsehoods that needed to be altered? At what point were or
> are they misinterpreting the word of God? Were/are they hearing God wrong
> or did God change his infalible mind? How is a mere believer supposed to
> determine what God wants him to do or believe if no religion stays
> consistent?
> Could you give an example of a religion you consider genuine?
>
that religions, in general, have had to change over the years merely
to survive indicates the "un-infallibility" of their teachings. Even
if we are to isolate meaningful and valuable components of each faith,
those virtues do not void out the fact that each faith is a product of
human imagination rather than the revealed word of any deity.
M. Rick
"How do you know that God is purely an imaginary being?"
1) despite thousands of years of investigation and inquiry there isn't
any credible evidence of God's external reality
2) a study of the "reality" claims reveals self-serving deceits
M. Rick
genuine. Zeus didn't keep up with the times, but simply on the level
of faith Zeus is as "genuine" as the Bible God.
badlands420
> Changing or not changing doesn't make a religion any more or less
> genuine.
No, but it renders claims of divine revelation even less credible than they
were to begin with.
Martin
> "How do you know that God is purely an imaginary being?"
The concept of God was invented by human beings. References to God
weren't found buried in the ground for thousands of years. Based on
this evidence, God is as real as the Grinch, the Lorax, Humpty Dumpty
or Santa. Like a child who imagines Father Christmas delivering
presents, God exists in the mind of those who believe in him;
unfortunately for them that doesn't mean he exists in reality
Jumbo
The non-existence of God is not "scientifically factual" (whatever
that means).
Jumbo
They can't account for free will, for starters.
Jumbo
> "Jumbo" <ch...@cupolagallery.com> wrote in message
> > Then why do they often claim to be, and to know the truth to the exclusion
> > of other religions?
>
> Jumbo answered:
> If they do that, they are not genuine religions.
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> Not meaning to pick on Catholics, but certainly the Catholic Church for one,
> teaches that they are the one true faith ---- to the exclusion of any other
> religion.
Certainly the Catholic Church claims to be "the one true faith". As
such it insists on the need for constant revision of doctrine in line
with curial and conciliary thinking. This basic point, that
"infallibility" is based on a processual understanding of truth/
revelation, is what most people (including yourself here)
misunderstand about the Catholic Church's history and position with
regards this issue.
>
> > Why doesn't a religion declare itself null and void instead of changing
> > and
> > evolving over time as most religions have in fact done?
> > Are you saying no religion is genuine?
>
> I'm saying religions either change or cease.
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> Exactly my point all along.
Yes, that's why I said you rebutted yourself to start with.
> Religions that survive evolve over time and
> change their teachings. So therefore, at what point in their evolution were
> they teaching falsehoods that needed to be altered?
They were never avowedly "teaching falsehoods". Truth is not static,
it is processual.
> At what point were or
> are they misinterpreting the word of God?
See above.
> Were/are they hearing God wrong
> or did God change his infalible mind?
See above.
> How is a mere believer supposed to
> determine what God wants him to do or believe if no religion stays
> consistent?
You really need to read a book on that. One about Catholicism would do
it.
Jumbo
>
>
> On point, I am going to have to agree with frinjdwelr here. The fact
> that religions, in general, have had to change over the years merely
> to survive indicates the "un-infallibility" of their teachings. Even
> if we are to isolate meaningful and valuable components of each faith,
> those virtues do not void out the fact that each faith is a product of
> human imagination rather than the revealed word of any deity.
But what if the ongoing development of the "human imagination" IS the
revealed word of the deity?
Mr Jinx
Wishing you a scientifically un-factual (?) mystic-gnostic Happy
Christmas, Jumbo.
(sorry to butt into the converstion, by the way)
Mr Jinx ;-)
Jumbo
>
> "How do you know that God is purely an imaginary being?"
> 1) despite thousands of years of investigation and inquiry there isn't
> any credible evidence of God's external reality
You're here (I assume).
> 2) a study of the "reality" claims reveals self-serving deceits
Yes, but one should be tolerant of empiricists.
Jumbo
But why are you so addicted to the Bible God? Look up from your musty
tomes, man.