# Media Leave "South Park" Creators Out to Dry



## Big Don (Apr 25, 2010)

April 24, 2010*Media Leave "South Park" Creators Out to Dry*

Real Clear Politics EXCERPT:
*By* *Diana West*
Trey Parker and Matt Stone, the creators of "South Park," get it.
 They get the free-speech significance of the Danish Muhammad cartoons epitomized by Kurt Westergaard's bomb-head Muhammad.
They even get it across.
 "It's so sad, the whole Muhammad, the whole Danish cartoon thing," said Stone, Parker seated beside him during a joint interview with the entertainment Web site Boing Boing.
 Don't laugh. Boing Boing here goes where "elite" media fear to tiptoe, let alone tread.
 The subject was the 200th episode of "South Park," which, in unusually clean if satirical fashion, focused on Islam's fanatical, and, to Western sensibilities, ridiculous prohibitions on depictions and criticism of Muhammad, who is at one point presented in a bear suit. (Now you can laugh.)
 Stone continued: "It's like, if everyone would have just, like, normally they do in the news organizations, just printed the cartoons -"
 "Everyone would have rallied together," interjected Parker.
 "Now that guy [Westergaard] has to be hiding and all this [bleep] because everyone just kind of left him out to dry. It's a big problem when you have the New York Times and Comedy Central and Viacom basically just [wimping] out on it. It's just sad. I was, like, really sad about the whole thing."
 This -- despite the grubby Valspeak-ish patois of the astronomically successful Hollywood postmodern -- is a singularly powerful statement. It is powerful in its sincerity, and it is singular in its, well, singularity.
 No other American "name" I can think of, no one tops in pop culture, has spoken out against (or even mentioned) the Islamic threat to Western freedom of expression as exemplified by the Sharia dictates against "Motooning." Certainly no one has produced creative content about it.
 Rather, such dictates have been religiously followed -- no pun whatsoever intended -- just as though our society were itself officially Islamic. This makes "South Park's" message the closest thing yet to a mainstream declaration of independence from Sharia. For rejecting both the threat of violence and the emotional blackmail emanating from Islam over critiquing Islam's prophet, the two "South Park" creators deserve a medal.
 "They're courageous -- no doubt that they are," said Bill O'Reilly of Fox's "O'Reilly Factor" this week. He was discussing the Islamic death threats against Parker and Stone that, naturally, followed the recent "South Park" Muhammad episode.
 The threats came in a jihadist video (caption: "Help Us Remove the Filth") portraying the writer-producers as likely victims of Islamic violence along with Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Salman Rushdie, Geert Wilders, Kurt Westergaard and Lars Vilks. A photo of the slain body of filmmaker Theo van Gogh, his head nearly cut off on an Amsterdam, Netherlands, street in 2004 by a jihadist assassin, served as an example.


----------



## Big Don (Apr 25, 2010)

Cowardly Central

Last Updated: 4:59 AM, April 24, 2010

Posted: April 24, 2010 NY Post EXCERPT:


For nearly 13 years, the irreverent -- to put it mildly -- cartoon show "South Park" has ridiculed every sacred convention in the book, from major religions and celebrities to gays and the physically disabled.

Nearly every bit of over-the-top satire has outraged someone or some group and prompted calls for the show to be boycotted or even banned.

And each time, for better or for worse, the program's network, Comedy Central, has stood firmly behind creator-producers Trey Parker and Matt Stone.

Except when it comes to Islam and the prophet Mohammed.

This week, to mark its 200th episode, "South Park" featured a bit in which the characters try to figure out how to portray Mohammed without actually showing him. The show ended up showing him dressed in a bear costume.

Even that prompted a posting on a New York-based Web site, Revolution Muslim, that "warned" Parker and Stone they would end up like Theo Van Gogh -- the Dutch filmmaker killed in 2004 by an Islamic terrorist after he made a film dealing with abuse of Muslim women.

The producers sought to address that threat in the next episode -- but Comedy Central ordered any mention and depiction of Mohammed bleeped.
<<<SNIP>>>

And until the West decides -- culturally and collectively -- not to take it any longer, it's only going to get worse.


----------



## Omar B (Apr 25, 2010)

I felt cheated watching it, the episode lost it's teeth towards the end.  Hell, they didnt even rerun it later than night in the spot they usually do.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Apr 25, 2010)

I don't think they've played the episode since.  FN cowards.


----------



## Big Don (Apr 25, 2010)

* Thursday, April 22, 2010*








*Dutch court acquits Arab group of hate speech over Holocaust cartoon* University of Pittsburgh School of Law EXCERPT:
Erin Bock at 12:34 PM ET










The Netherlands Utrecht District Court on Thursday acquitted  members of the Arab European League (AEL) of hate speech charges resulting from the posting a cartoon on their website that insinuated that the Holocaust was fabricated. The criminal complaint against the group alleged that the cartoon violated Article 137c of the Dutch Penal Code, which punishes individuals for making discriminatory and defamatory statements against certain groups. The AEL argued that they do not actually deny the historical facts of the Holocaust, but that the cartoon was posted to call attention to what they saw as a double standard in the distribution of Danish cartoons depicting the Prophet Mohammed. The court held that the cartoon was offensive, but that, in light an accompanying disclaimer and subsequent statements regarding its purpose, it was nevertheless protected under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights
END EXCERPT
It is only bad, if you offend Muslims...


----------



## Omar B (Apr 25, 2010)

This is one of the reason's religion bothers the hell out of me.  You are so tied to your own mythology that even a differing idea drives you into a ponderous rage!  Sounds like insecurity to me.


----------



## Big Don (Apr 25, 2010)

And yet, somehow, every other religion is fair game for ridicule...


----------



## JDenver (Apr 25, 2010)

Big Don said:


> And yet, somehow, every other religion is fair game for ridicule...



No other religion has the central conceipt that their prophet be idolized so precisely.  It has nothing to do with a double standard or with Christian victimization.  I have no respect for death threats and intimidation.  However, I do respect that in Muslim faith you should not portray Muhammed.  Why should I disrespect their faith?  Because I live in the West and feel like we, in the West, are right about everything?

Seems arrogant to me.


----------



## Omar B (Apr 25, 2010)

I don't see it as disrespect at all.  The adherents of a religion are free to believe and practice and no show pictures of Moohamed all they want.  Doesn't mean it's a taboo subject for the rest of the planet.  I don't follow their religion, I don't see why I have to be bound by it's rules.

Just a bunch of combative trouble makers if you ask me.  My friends who are Muslims don't have a problem with it whatsoever.


----------



## Ken Morgan (Apr 25, 2010)

Omar B said:


> I don't see it as disrespect at all. The adherents of a religion are free to believe and practice and no show pictures of Moohamed all they want. Doesn't mean it's a taboo subject for the rest of the planet. I don't follow their religion, I don't see why I have to be bound by it's rules.
> 
> Just a bunch of combative trouble makers if you ask me. My friends who are Muslims don't have a problem with it whatsoever.


 
What you mean you refuse to respect and alter how you live your life by everything taught in all of the worlds 6000 current religions???

Heathen....


----------



## Omar B (Apr 25, 2010)

I'm not a religious person, if you wish to call me heathen then go ahead.  Does not bother me one bit.


----------



## Andy Moynihan (Apr 25, 2010)

Ken Morgan said:


> What you mean you refuse to respect and alter how you live your life by everything taught in all of the worlds 6000 current religions???
> 
> Heathen....


 

I'll have you know I treat every one of the world's religions with absolutely equal respect. (If it was up to me, I'd ban them ALL).

But then--who am I ****ing--we'd just find something else to bring each other misery over, because that is what we DO.


----------



## Cryozombie (Apr 25, 2010)

JDenver said:


> No other religion has the central conceipt that their prophet be idolized so precisely.  It has nothing to do with a double standard or with Christian victimization.  I have no respect for death threats and intimidation.  However, I do respect that in Muslim faith you should not portray Muhammed.  Why should I disrespect their faith?  Because I live in the West and feel like we, in the West, are right about everything?
> 
> Seems arrogant to me.



The central tenet of my Religion is that all canadians have to send me 100 bucks U.S.

Get right on respecting that for me, Ok?


----------



## Omar B (Apr 25, 2010)

Cryozombie said:


> The central tenet of my Religion is that all canadians have to send me 100 bucks U.S.
> Get right on respecting that for me, Ok?



Your ideas intrigue me and I would like to subscribe to your newsletter.


----------



## Ken Morgan (Apr 25, 2010)

Andy Moynihan said:


> I'll have you know I treat every one of the world's religions with absolutely equal respect. (If it was up to me, I'd ban them ALL).
> 
> But then--who am I ****ing--we'd just find something else to bring each other misery over, because that is what we DO.


 

Preaching to the choir my brother


----------



## Ramirez (Apr 25, 2010)

Ken Morgan said:


> What you mean you refuse to respect and alter how you live your life by everything taught in all of the worlds 6000 current religions???
> 
> Heathen....


 

There is only Crom.


----------



## Scott T (Apr 25, 2010)

Cryozombie said:


> The central tenet of my Religion is that all canadians have to send me 100 bucks U.S.
> 
> Get right on respecting that for me, Ok?


You're shortchanging yourself. At the time of my writing this, the loonie is worth 1/2000 of cent more than the greenback.


----------



## grydth (Apr 25, 2010)

JDenver said:


> No other religion has the central conceipt that their prophet be idolized so precisely.  It has nothing to do with a double standard or with Christian victimization.  I have no respect for death threats and intimidation.  However, I do respect that in Muslim faith you should not portray Muhammed.  Why should I disrespect their faith?  Because I live in the West and feel like we, in the West, are right about everything?
> 
> Seems arrogant to me.



This has nothing to do with only Muslims being disrespected for living "in the West". Right here in the West, Christians are expected to tolerate splendid "art" such as Piss Christ, a crucifix submerged in a jar of urine. If that be protected, the Muslims in the West must tolerate cartoons of The Prophet without resorting to murder, threats and riot.

Seems that Don's central point of equal treatment of religion isn't arrogant at all.... but those fanatics who murdered Theo Van Gogh, they and their cheerleaders here display the ultimate arrogance. "We'll murder you if you offend us" - what could be more arrogant?


----------



## Archangel M (Apr 25, 2010)

Why all the back bending effort to "respect" Islam when the same effort doesn't seem to be required for other peoples beliefs? 

Fear of being beheaded in the street??


----------



## CanuckMA (Apr 25, 2010)

I'll respect Islam when Islam rspects the other religions.


----------



## JDenver (Apr 25, 2010)

Archangel M said:


> Why all the back bending effort to "respect" Islam when the same effort doesn't seem to be required for other peoples beliefs?
> 
> Fear of being beheaded in the street??



People are missing my point.

Since when have Christians ever cared how Jesus is portrayed?  Never.  As a community they've never made clear that you cannot depict Jesus in whatever way.  Let's not pretend that the way Muslims practice their religion is the same as Christian.  It isn't.  It's a central issue to what we're talking about here.  Western Christians, and Western people in general and probably on these boards, see everything through those eyes, have no patience, tolerance or even will to see another perspective.  To do so is to 'alter the way you live', which is not at all what is really happening or really the point.  Inevitably, folks bring it back to the most extreme examples, like the ugly threats and violence made by extremists, like that's the standard of Muslim faith or of arrogance.

Ridiculing people's faith seems ugly, and, yes, arrogant to me, as if you are a superior person for being atheist.


----------



## Omar B (Apr 25, 2010)

Ramirez said:


> There is only Crom.



Yes, Crom who only gives man life and free will then asks nothing from him.


----------



## Big Don (Apr 25, 2010)

JDenver said:


> People are missing my point.
> 
> Since when have Christians ever cared how Jesus is portrayed?  Never.  As a community they've never made clear that you cannot depict Jesus in whatever way.


 Possibly the single most ludicrous statement I've read in a while. Christians have ALWAYS complained about how Christ is portrayed, and when they do, people like you, trot out the "poor persecuted Christian..." sarcasm.





> Let's not pretend that the way Muslims practice their religion is the same as Christian.  It isn't.


Yeah, Baptists and Catholics have never blown themselves up because of liturgical differences...





> It's a central issue to what we're talking about here.  Western Christians, and Western people in general and probably on these boards, see everything through those eyes, have no patience, tolerance or even will to see another perspective.


interesting, we have to tolerate (and kow tow) to Muslim sensibilities, they don't have to tolerate anything?





> To do so is to 'alter the way you live', which is not at all what is really happening or really the point.  Inevitably, folks bring it back to the most extreme examples, like the ugly threats and violence made by extremists, like that's the standard of Muslim faith or of arrogance.
> 
> Ridiculing people's faith seems ugly, and, yes, arrogant to me, as if you are a superior person for being atheist.





> Ridiculing people's faith seems ugly, and, yes, arrogant to me, as if you are a superior person for being atheist.


QFT, and yet, Bill Maher, made a movie, not long ago, that ridiculed anyone of any faith, yet, he was careful to focus his hatred on Christians, because they are less likely to try to kill you for offending them...


----------



## Archangel M (Apr 25, 2010)

JDenver said:


> People are missing my point.



I get it clearly.

It's called hypocrisy.


----------



## grydth (Apr 25, 2010)

JDenver said:


> People are missing my point.
> 
> Since when have Christians ever cared how Jesus is portrayed?  Never.  As a community they've never made clear that you cannot depict Jesus in whatever way.  Let's not pretend that the way Muslims practice their religion is the same as Christian.  It isn't.  It's a central issue to what we're talking about here.  Western Christians, and Western people in general and probably on these boards, see everything through those eyes, have no patience, tolerance or even will to see another perspective.  To do so is to 'alter the way you live', which is not at all what is really happening or really the point.  Inevitably, folks bring it back to the most extreme examples, like the ugly threats and violence made by extremists, like that's the standard of Muslim faith or of arrogance.
> 
> Ridiculing people's faith seems ugly, and, yes, arrogant to me, as if you are a superior person for being atheist.



Since the beginning. There's this Commandment: Thou shalt not take the Name of Thy Lord, Thy God in vain.... should clue most anyone in that an "art" exhibit entitled "Piss Christ" would be highly offensive. Who's kidding who here? Tell me that artist did not know, indeed intend, to offend devout Christians.

I would say that those who are blowing up or stabbing artists are the ones displaying a signal lack of "patience, tolerance".

Nobody here is telling Muslims to "Alter the way you live"... unless the way you live is to murder those you disagree with. No, I believe the point here is that they should not receive special media preferences and treatment..... and when they are offended they should turn the channel or walk out of the museum like everyone else is expected to.


----------



## Ramirez (Apr 25, 2010)

JDenver said:


> ridiculing people's faith seems ugly, and, yes, arrogant to me, as if you are a superior person for being atheist.


 
 How did atheists get dragged into this? Islam is our favorite whipping boy when it comes to demonstrating how blind adherence to religion can go wrong.


----------



## Ramirez (Apr 25, 2010)

JDenver said:


> People are missing my point.
> 
> Since when have Christians ever cared how Jesus is portrayed? Never. As a community they've never made clear that you cannot depict Jesus in whatever way. Let's not pretend that the way Muslims practice their religion is the same as Christian. It isn't. It's a central issue to what we're talking about here. Western Christians, and Western people in general and probably on these boards, see everything through those eyes, have no patience, tolerance or even will to see another perspective. To do so is to 'alter the way you live', which is not at all what is really happening or really the point. Inevitably, folks bring it back to the most extreme examples, like the ugly threats and violence made by extremists, like that's the standard of Muslim faith or of arrogance.
> 
> Ridiculing people's faith seems ugly, and, yes, arrogant to me, as if you are a superior person for being atheist.


 
  JD your statement is a bit extreme,  Christians in the past have been extremely violent in practice of their religion.

 However I do agree with your overall point.

 Dan Brown didn't have a death sentence imposed on him by the pope for the Da Vinci Code the way Rushdie did for the Satanic Verses.

 The Christ in Urine "art" had about 5 people show up in protest, the Danish cartoons of Mohammed caused clergy to be attacked , churches vandalized, riots in the street involving thousands ....somehow the irony of reacting like that to the Pope saying Islam is a violent religion didn't register with the rioters.

 And so on....


----------



## Bruno@MT (Apr 26, 2010)

JDenver said:


> No other religion has the central conceipt that their prophet be idolized so precisely.  It has nothing to do with a double standard or with Christian victimization.  I have no respect for death threats and intimidation.  However, I do respect that in Muslim faith you should not portray Muhammed.  Why should I disrespect their faith?  Because I live in the West and feel like we, in the West, are right about everything?
> 
> Seems arrogant to me.



We may not be right about everything, but in the west we should be able to behave like is customary for westerners without having to bow to the sensitivities of every other nation on earth.

If I go to Japan I am expected to abide by Japanese customs to the best of my abilities. If I am on the mat I am expected to abide by the customs of the Genbukan organization because I agreed to it in the membership rules. Outside of that, I am free to ignore Japanese customs and live like a westerner.

When I went to tunesia, which is an Islamic country, I abided by the rules that were laid out, even though I did not agree, because I was a guest. And if muslims come over to my country, I expect the same of them. My country is a secular state with a constitution and a number of freedoms, where no religion is held above others, and no religion has any power to override freedoms rooted in the constitution. And if that is too bad, then those who have a problem with that are free to go to someplace that better fits their ideology.


----------



## Sukerkin (Apr 26, 2010)

Omar B said:


> I'm not a religious person, if you wish to call me heathen then go ahead. Does not bother me one bit.


 

How I read it, I think Ken was backing up the rationality of your position rather than criticising.


----------



## Sukerkin (Apr 26, 2010)

grydth said:


> Nobody here is telling Muslims to "Alter the way you live"... unless the way you live is to murder those you disagree with. No, I believe the point here is that they should not receive special media preferences and treatment..... and when they are offended they should turn the channel or walk out of the museum like everyone else is expected to.


 
Quite so.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Apr 26, 2010)

In a supposedly-secular society, no religion has any right to any more or less _'respect'_ than any other.

It is reasonable to want people to behave in ways that do not intentionally offend others, and polite people do that in common discourse.  Most of us do not wear our prejudices and dislikes on our sleeves or tell everyone we know about what we can't stand upon meeting them.  However, this is not to say that people haven't the right to do so.  Asking for sensitivity and respect is one thing; requiring it is quite another.  Politeness enforced with a stick is not politeness.  Courtesy required by law is not courtesy.  Respect rendered at the point of a gun is not respect.  I can want people to have respect for each other's beliefs.  Demanding it of them is out of the question.

In a free society, freedom is defined by the edges, not the middle.  In other words, the boundaries are where we drive the stakes in and say _'this far and no farther'_.

Artists explore boundaries.  It's one of their functions, whether we agree with, understand, or appreciate their art.

I completely understand why many are angry that companies like Comedy Central cave to threats regarding depictions of Mohammad.  Despite the fact that many Americans (myself included) have a distinct distaste for 'Piss Christ' and the like, we don't behead people for creating such dubious 'works of art'.

I also understand that there is a secondary force at work here; in addition to the righteous indignation over the fact that Islam is seen as getting special consideration that Christianity is not, there is also the usual compounding of all of Islam into one entity.  _"This is the way these people are,"_ as it were.

When Fred Phelps displays _"God Hates Fags"_ signs at the funerals of people who have died of AIDS, we (most of us, anyway) do not say that this is exemplary of how Christians are.  We claim that Phelps' brand of Christianity is alien to us.

Yet when some Muslims object to South Park's depiction of Mohammad in a bear suit and suggest that violent deaths may be visited upon the creators of the series, some of us seem quick to say _"this is the way these people are."_

I would point out a simple fact.  Islam represents 1.2 billion people on the planet.  If all of them thought that the creators of South Park should be killed for depicting Mohammad in a bear suit, they'd be dead.  Here in Detroit, we have the single largest population of Muslims in the USA.  Not one riot.  Not one protest.  Not one insurrection.

Somehow, I do not think that the websites calling for death to the South Park creators is speaking for all of Islam.  They're extremists, as are those who think _"God Hates Fags"_ or that the entirety of a religion is responsible for the acts of a tiny minority.


----------



## Omar B (Apr 26, 2010)

Sukerkin said:


> How I read it, I think Ken was backing up the rationality of your position rather than criticising.



Yeah, I know.  I wear the badge of "heathen" or "heretic" or "blasphemer" with pride.  

I said many times, though I am an atheist I with that religion stuff was real, because then I could worship Satan.


----------



## zDom (Apr 26, 2010)

Omar B said:


> Yeah, I know.  I wear the badge of "heathen" or "heretic" or "blasphemer" with pride.
> 
> I said many times, though I am an atheist I with that religion stuff was real, because then I could worship Satan.



And sometimes I wish that I could believe there is no God. Then I could embrace doing whatever I want without thought of consequence in an afterlife.


----------



## Ken Morgan (Apr 26, 2010)

zDom said:


> And sometimes I wish that I could believe there is no God. Then I could embrace doing whatever I want without thought of consequence in an afterlife.


 

So you&#8217;re only good because of the fear of retribution????

I&#8217;m good, simply because it&#8217;s the right thing to do.


----------



## Empty Hands (Apr 26, 2010)

zDom said:


> And sometimes I wish that I could believe there is no God. Then I could embrace doing whatever I want without thought of consequence in an afterlife.



Those who advance this argument specifically admit to being sociopaths.

Something to think about.


----------



## Omar B (Apr 26, 2010)

zDom said:


> And sometimes I wish that I could believe there is no God. Then I could embrace doing whatever I want without thought of consequence in an afterlife.



My sense of right, wrong and justice are not based upon fear of retribution or no making it to Heaven, Valhalla, Stovocore or Candyland.  It's based upon rational ethics needed to live in a society with other people.


----------



## Ken Morgan (Apr 26, 2010)

Omar B said:


> My sense of right, wrong and justice are not based upon fear of retribution or no making it to Heaven, Valhalla, Stovocore or Candyland. It's based upon rational ethics needed to live in a society with other people.


 
awwwooooo....Candyland....awwooooo


----------



## Big Don (Apr 26, 2010)

Omar B said:


> Yeah, I know.  I wear the badge of "heathen" or "heretic" or "blasphemer" with pride.
> 
> I said many times, though I am an atheist I with that religion stuff was real, because then I could worship Satan.


As an atheist, I don't think you can actually blaspheme, and you certainly can't be guilty of heresy.


----------



## Omar B (Apr 26, 2010)

In the eyes of one who takes religion as absolute fact I'm sure they see it as blasphemy.

I wonder though, about this Muslim group who made the threats toward CC about the South park episode.  Now that they have achieved their goal, I wonder exactly what kid of victory they think it is.  I'm sure religions would rather recruit new members rather than scare people and think of them as insane.  You cant more flies with honey than vinegar and all that jazz.


----------



## Big Don (Apr 26, 2010)

OK, according to Dictionary.com: Blasphemy is impious utterance or action concerning god or sacred things, so, atheist can blaspheme. 
Atheist CANNOT, however, be heretics.
a professed believer who maintains religious opinions contrary to those accepted by his or her church or rejects doctrines prescribed by that church.


----------



## blindsage (Apr 26, 2010)

Omar B said:


> Stovocore


That is only because you are p'tahk!


----------



## zDom (Apr 26, 2010)

This is going a bit off topic but I reckon I need to answer these.



Ken Morgan said:


> So youre only good because of the fear of retribution????
> 
> Im good, simply because its the right thing to do.



You are inferring a bit much and setting up a straw man to set aflame.

I merely said "could embrace doing whatever I want without thought of consequence in an afterlife."

I didn't say I would; I said I COULD. And nowhere in that short, flippant comment did I state or even hint that my behavior is restrained ONLY because of the fear of retribution. 

I could just cross that single consideration off the list, so to speak. 



Empty Hands said:


> Those who advance this argument specifically admit to being sociopaths.
> 
> Something to think about.



And this is a somewhat harsh implication that you should think about reserving for someone who actually says what you think I said.

Again, I didn't say that consequences in an afterlife were the *only* thing that kept me from otherwise reprehensible behavior.

I'm not going to take this any further and hijack the thread, but I'm sure with a little thought we could come up with at least a short list of things that are specifically prohibited in Christianity and hence may have consequences in the afterlife that could be done on occasion without making me a bad person, Mr. Morgan, or a sociopath, Mr. Hands.




Reading comprehension seems to be a dying skill.


----------



## Empty Hands (Apr 26, 2010)

zDom said:


> Reading comprehension seems to be a dying skill.



So because you wrote "could" instead of "would", we have all wildly misconstrued you somehow?  Come now.  I "could" never embrace murder and wanton harm to others as an example, whether God or society were to punish me for it.  

You also put no qualifiers in your post, so how are we to know you meant skipping church on Sundays and working on the Sabbath instead of murder and rape?

We can't comprehend what you don't write, especially when you make blanket statements.

Lastly, someone who is only constrained in their actions by fear of punishment and not empathy or other concerns *is *a sociopath.  It's the very definition of the term.  It is the logical conclusion to someone claiming they could do whatever they wanted if they did not fear punishment.  I did not claim you were a sociopath (reading comprehension?) as I have no way of knowing, but that is what the argument you put forward implies.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Apr 26, 2010)

Right and wrong are socially-accepted rules, norms, and taboos that vary based on the society, although some norms and taboos appear to be universal or nearly so.

It is a difficult case to prove or disprove that organized religion is the basis for the rules of society.  Animals such as primates seem not to have religions, and they have social rules, norms, and taboos, so perhaps the rules came first.  In any case, it is beyond doubt that religions (all major religions) have informed and shaped human civilization and the rules expected of members of society.

Some would claim that by not believing in any religion, one would be morally free of the rules that govern most religions (thou shalt not kill, etc) and thus would choose to do so without repercussion.  Clearly, though, all societies forbid acts such as murder regardless of whether or not they are theocracies or secular.

Others claim that religionists behave inside the rules of society only because they fear retribution by their deity.  This might be true of some religions, but most many religions offer rules as guidelines by which one should live their lives, with redemption and punishment for belief or non-belief, not acts while living.

Likewise, one might consider the infamous quote of Aleister Crowley (and later, the Church of Satan) _"Do as thou shalt shall be the whole of the law,"_ as being selfish, base, and mean.  Some enlightened souls see no problem with the statement, and believe it to mean that we are free to behave as we wish; no rule, no law, no threat of eternal damnation, can stop us from doing as we please.  But this freedom puts the responsibility for our actions on ourselves.  No institution, no religion, no diety, no government can be held to blame for what we do or fail to do that contributes to or damages society as a whole.

A sociopath understand the rules of society and chooses to disregard them.

A psychopath does not understand the rules, and cannot therefore obey them.

There is currently no term for a person who understands the rules of society, understands that they are free to obey them or not, and chooses intentionally to obey them through enlightened self-interest; some call them objectivists.


----------



## Ken Morgan (Apr 26, 2010)

zDom said:


> _"And sometimes I wish that I could believe there is no God. Then I could embrace doing whatever I want without thought of consequence in an afterlife."_
> 
> Reading comprehension seems to be a dying skill.


 
Nope, I'm correct, I stand by what i said. Anything else is semantics, but whatever.

I'm speaking and reading goodish english....
FSM help my students if I don't!!


----------



## Empty Hands (Apr 26, 2010)

Bill Mattocks said:


> There is currently no term for a person who understands the rules of society, understands that they are free to obey them or not, and chooses intentionally to obey them through enlightened self-interest; some call them objectivists.



No, some still call them "sociopaths."  At least the way I understand the way you phrased it.

Sociopaths don't just "disregard the rules of society", they have not internalized empathy in any way.  Most of us don't just avoid murder because we'll go to jail; most of us avoid murder because it would be deeply upsetting and damaging to us.  Think for instance of what many veterans go through after returning from war - and those enemy soldiers weren't innocent unarmed victims, they had every chance to fight back, and the soldiers on both sides are programmed not to see their enemy as individuals.  Beyond that, most of us have absolutely no desire to torture someone, to deprive them of food, to kill without reason or rape.  It would be very difficult to do for most of us under normal circumstances.  Most of us are great at harming others by benign neglect or blindness, but very bad at directly harming others by active malignance.

So if the only reason that someone goes along with the social contract and foregoes random murder is "enlightened self interest", then they are still a sociopath.  

Note, that this is not necessarily a pejorative term.  It's what you are born with, and you have no choice in the matter.  If you are a sociopath and you choose to act in a moral manner through self-interest or logic or anything else, then I would still describe you as a good person.  Indeed, you might actually be a _better _person than the rest of us because whether to randomly murder or not is an actual choice for you.  For most of us it isn't, and most of us don't deserve much credit for not doing something we really don't want to do.

That said real sociopaths are more common than most people think, and not good people to get involved with.  They are more common than people think because most people think of sociopaths as criminals, but most are not, and are deterred by the threat of punishment.  Most of them though have no interpersonal loyalty or real sense of ethics, and will screw another person over in a heartbeat if it gets them something out of it and the possibility of punishment or retribution is low.  About 1% of the population are estimated to be sociopaths.


----------



## zDom (Apr 26, 2010)

Empty Hands said:


> Those who advance this argument specifically admit to being sociopaths.
> 
> Something to think about.



As you are addressing my post, directly, I think it is reasonable to infer that you are suggesting that it is something I think about.


As Bill points out,



Bill Mattocks said:


> A sociopath understand the rules of society and chooses to disregard them.



The comment was made regarding afterlife, hence God's laws  which may or may not correspond to society's rules.

Therefore your comment was completely irrelevant to my statement and offensive in it's implication.

Who is to say, based on my single statement, that I'm not joyfully complying with society's rules and yet have a problem with some of God's?




Empty Hands said:


> Most of them though have no interpersonal loyalty or real sense of ethics, and will screw another person over in a heartbeat if it gets them something out of it and the possibility of punishment or retribution is low.  About 1% of the population are estimated to be sociopaths.



Anyone who knows me knows that I am extremely loyal and have a sense of ethics that in most cases exceeds that dictated by society's rules. I certainly hope I am mistaken in thinking you were suggesting that I should consider the possibility that I am a sociopath based on a rhetorical statement couched in hypothetical language.


Your original statement was erroneous and the implication was inflammatory.


----------



## zDom (Apr 26, 2010)

Empty Hands said:


> So because you wrote "could" instead of "would", we have all wildly misconstrued you somehow?  Come now.  I "could" never embrace murder and wanton harm to others as an example, whether God or society were to punish me for it.
> 
> You also put no qualifiers in your post, so how are we to know you meant skipping church on Sundays and working on the Sabbath instead of murder and rape?
> 
> We can't comprehend what you don't write, especially when you make blanket statements.



"We all"? (see Appeal To Widespread Belief (Bandwagon Argument, Peer Pressure, Appeal to Common Practice))

under a list of Fallacious Arguments http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html#force

And yes, wildly misconstrued me.

In fact at this point I am considering filing a complaint with the moderators.

Seems that at some point I must have offended you and you have been looking for an opportunity to exploit.

I carefully choose my words. If I had specifics in mind, I would have named them.

In fact, working on the Sabbath is something that causes me some concern  not against the law, but I would feel better about doing it if I could be assured there were no God who would be asking me about it later.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Apr 26, 2010)

Empty Hands said:


> No, some still call them "sociopaths."  At least the way I understand the way you phrased it.



It's a valid point.  However, we define people by the way they manifest themselves.  A person may be an intense racist, sexist, hate-monger, liberal, or any number of equally horrible things and never chose to display those beliefs;  one might argue they are still racist, sexist, etc, but how would one know and how would one go about proving it?  So basically we're stuck with classifying people based on how they behave.

If a person returns a found wallet because they believe their religion bids them to do 'good deeds', what does that mean?  The end is served; society is not damaged.

If a person likewise does it because they fear heavenly retribution if they do not, then what?  What if they do it because they fear the law?  Or if they simply believe that it is 'right' to return the wallet?

And what of the person who realizes that they could take the contents of the wallet, deposit it into the nearest trash can, and walk away enriched; but they choose not to do so.  Not because it is the 'right' thing to do, but because their enlightened self-interest informs them that such acts encourage others to do likewise, which can benefit them in the long term (or for a variety of other reasons which have nothing to do with 'right' or 'wrong').

In the end, the person gets their wallet back.  The mental deliberations of the returner may matter to some; to society it does not.


----------



## zDom (Apr 26, 2010)

Ken Morgan said:


> Nope, I'm correct, I stand by what i said. Anything else is semantics, but whatever.
> 
> I'm speaking and reading goodish english....
> FSM help my students if I don't!!



I stand by mine.

I certainly hope you make clear to your students the difference between could and would.


Could is used to express the conditional possibility or ability.

Would is used to express choice or possibility.

How often I see otherwise intelligent people go completely overboard when they hear "could" and believe they are hearing "would." It's NOT just semantics. They have different meanings.

The ability to do an action doesn't mean the choice will be made to do that action.


Am I going to have to do a search on these board to find where I have offended you, Ken? Or will you just tell me?


----------



## Empty Hands (Apr 26, 2010)

Bill Mattocks said:


> It's a valid point.  However, we define people by the way they manifest themselves.



I agree with your point here.  That's what I was getting at in that sociopaths are not necessarily bad people, and could even be considered better people if they choose to act morally.

People are complex beings anyway.  Some of us might take that wallet on occasion, but still love our kids fiercely and help little old ladies across the street.  

This discussion does underlie my problem though with the argument that the religious are more moral than the non-religious because they fear God's punishment.  Like the person who refrains from murder because they fear going to jail, that lack of action does not come from a place of morality.  True morality is uncoerced.


----------



## Empty Hands (Apr 26, 2010)

zDom said:


> In fact at this point I am considering filing a complaint with the moderators.
> 
> Seems that at some point I must have offended you and you have been looking for an opportunity to exploit.



I can't even recall any specific posts you have made before today.

I was not calling you a sociopath.  I did say though that sociopathy was implied by the argument you made.  I can't make it any more clear than that.  You can notify the mods if you like, but I have made no personal attack on you.


----------



## Ken Morgan (Apr 26, 2010)

zDom said:


> Am I going to have to do a search on these board to find where I have offended you, Ken? Or will you just tell me?


 
Offended?? Nope, sorry I didn't mean to make that impression, my apologies if I came across that way. I just love a good religion vs. atheism debate!! 
Cart before the horse.


----------



## zDom (Apr 26, 2010)

Ok great  glad to hear it isn't personal, Hands and Ken. And I love a good argument: but please argue with what I have actually said (usually very carefully selected words).

I still disagree with some of your arguments.

Off topic here so I'll just stop.


----------



## Sukerkin (Apr 26, 2010)

Just a quick "Well done" for sorting that out for yourselves, gentlemen :bows with respect:.  

I was skim reading through thinking "Oh dear, this could go South very quickly!" and dusting off my Moderator hat ... and then was heartily pleased to see misconceptions cleared up and things honourably resolved.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Apr 26, 2010)

Empty Hands said:


> This discussion does underlie my problem though with the argument that the religious are more moral than the non-religious because they fear God's punishment.  Like the person who refrains from murder because they fear going to jail, that lack of action does not come from a place of morality.  True morality is uncoerced.



I agree with the second statement, but I am not convinced that all religious people follow religious laws because they fear their Creator's retribution.  

Some have made a conscious, thoughtful, and some would say loving decision to place themselves under the command of a being they see as intensely loving, greater than themselves, and One who has a particular plan for their lives.  That may seem like an alien concept to some, and I get that.  But for those who have made such decisions and can abide by them, they seem to me to be very fulfilled, happy, and sometimes transcendent persons, filled with grace and love; I've met some that seem to shine with it; they don't strike me as being fearful of God's wrath, but rather peaceful in His loving embrace.


----------



## Bruno@MT (Apr 27, 2010)

Big Don said:


> As an atheist, I don't think you can actually blaspheme, and you certainly can't be guilty of heresy.



Actually, yes, you can. It all depends on who sets the rules. When the Catholics 'ruled' Europe in the dark ages, they were the ones who could declare someone a heretic. The personal opinion of said person was of no importance. Your status is determined by the ones setting the rules and definition of guilt, not yourself.


----------



## Empty Hands (Apr 27, 2010)

Bill Mattocks said:


> I agree with the second statement, but I am not convinced that all religious people follow religious laws because they fear their Creator's retribution.



No they don't, and I didn't mean to make this implication.  Some people clearly do the right thing because they are moved to, either by God's love or their own empathy.

Some people though explicitly DO make the argument that without God's punishment, they could do whatever they wanted to do.  It is those people I wonder about.


----------



## zDom (Apr 27, 2010)

Empty Hands said:


> No they don't, and I didn't mean to make this implication.  Some people clearly do the right thing because they are moved to, either by God's love or their own empathy.
> 
> Some people though explicitly DO make the argument that without God's punishment, they could do whatever they wanted to do.  It is those people I wonder about.



I can see how you misunderstood my comment.

Reading the above, I get the sense of a person just itchin' to do horrible things, but fearful of damnation.

Consider this verse:

"Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God." (Galatians 5:19-21, KJV)

Skip the murder but consider some the rest of this list:

How many of us, honestly, have fornicated? Had some dirty sex? Discussed what you would like to do with the hot blonde waitress? Had more than a couple nights of drunkenness?

Where does forgiveness stop and being shut out of the kingdom of God begin? Getting drunk once? Five times? Once per month?

Admittedly "whatever I want" was a bit wide but it was more of a rhetorical device than an actual deep-seated desire.

Either way &#8212; was what said really more disturbing that someone who, if they knew religious stuff was for real, would embrace and worship a supernatural being bent on the destruction and eternal damnation of all mankind? 

I was attempting to respond to that idea in similar terms, off the cuff. I guess what I was trying to convey is, "It must be nice to really not worry about the fate of your soul after death."

But I do have concerns. Are the fire and brimstone preachers right? Because I drank bourbon Saturday night and didn't go to church Sunday morning, am I damned despite what I believe?

Or are the "once saved always saved" preachers correct?

Or... am I believing in a fairy tale that is causing me to think about concerns that don't matter at all?

Are you atheists really THAT sure there ISN'T a creator?


----------



## Ken Morgan (Apr 27, 2010)

zDom said:


> Are you atheists really THAT sure there ISN'T a creator?


 
Yes.


----------



## Omar B (Apr 27, 2010)

Yup, I'm quite sure also.


----------



## zDom (Apr 27, 2010)

Well I envy you for that feeling of being sure &#8212;



... d'oh ... I hope I'm not damned for that.


----------



## Archangel M (Apr 27, 2010)

Odd that there are a number of physicists and cosmologists that are not so sure.

http://scottthong.wordpress.com/200...a-creator-or-designer-a-collection-of-quotes/

Although they are starting to use the term "intelligence" instead of "God".

Surety that allows one to look down upon another equals arrogance in my math.


----------



## Ken Morgan (Apr 27, 2010)

Archangel M said:


> Surety that allows one to look down upon another equals arrogance in my math.


 
Natural laws are very different from intellegance.

Looked down upon? By who?

I have my beliefs, you have yours. I think I'm correct, so do you. I have zero issue with that so long as nothing is shoved down anyones throat, we're all good. 

I have yet to see an atheist kill anyone because they didn't believe in disbelief.


----------



## Omar B (Apr 27, 2010)

Archangel - A bunch of people can be found who believe anything bud.  There are still flat-earthers out there.


----------



## Archangel M (Apr 27, 2010)

Ken Morgan said:


> I have yet to see an atheist kill anyone because they didn't believe in disbelief.



"It's all good"...but you feel the need to add that little barb. "Arrogant"?? no, but part of the meme.


----------



## Archangel M (Apr 27, 2010)

Omar B said:


> Archangel - A bunch of people can be found who believe anything bud.  There are still flat-earthers out there.



Intelligent design is not creationism.

http://www.discovery.org/a/1329

Although Atheists seem to want to pigeon-hole it as such because the religious like to hitch onto it as a "see I told you so". All I am saying is "I am sure there is no designer/God/cosmic intelligence" can be just as blindly dogmatic as being a religious fundamentalist.


----------



## Omar B (Apr 27, 2010)

I did not say creationism and intelligent design are the same thing.  In fact I don't see how you could construe that out of the one line I wrote about groups of people believing things.  You also link to an intelligent design web site where ::gasp:: the people on that site believe in ID.  That proves nothing except that the people who work with that site believe it it._

Atheists seem to want to pigeon-hole it as such - _We don't have weekly club meetings so I don't know what you are talking about.  You seem to categorize all atheists as the same it seems.

Numbers don't make something true and you can cite sites where people believe as such all you wish.


----------



## Empty Hands (Apr 27, 2010)

I get where you are coming from.



zDom said:


> But I do have concerns. Are the fire and brimstone preachers right? Because I drank bourbon Saturday night and didn't go to church Sunday morning, am I damned despite what I believe?



Here's the big problem: they don't all agree on what counts as salvation and damnation.  Are the Protestants right and salvation is through faith alone?  Are the Catholics right and are works critical to salvation?  Some sects will even claim you are damned if you aren't baptised correctly.  So basically if one of them is right, your chances of following exactly the correct rules are pretty low.

Which brings me to, what sort of just and loving being would damn you to an eternity of torment and suffering for not following a set of rules exactly?  A set of rules that in the particulars (not eating shellfish, not drinking [although Jesus drank]) hurts no one.  If such a God does exist, he is an unjust and nasty creature, and your chances of avoiding damnation would again be pretty low.

Or, maybe the fire and brimstone Islamic preachers are correct. :uhohh:  What will you do then?  Which religion am I to believe?



zDom said:


> Or... am I believing in a fairy tale that is causing me to think about concerns that don't matter at all?



That is basically what I think.  There are so many similar religions and fairy tales.  Why privilege this particular one?

A famous paraphrased quote: I just disbelieve one more religion than you do.



zDom said:


> Are you atheists really THAT sure there ISN'T a creator?



In the sense of certain knowledge, no.  I am an agnostic atheist, not a gnostic atheist.  But I have no belief, and I have absolutely no reason to believe.  I have to be true to myself.

Choosing to believe to avoid damnation (Pascal's Wager) also does you no good if God exists.  According to the Bible, we are supposed to love God with all our hearts.  You don't think the omnipotent master of the universe wouldn't know that you are cynically hedging your bets?


----------



## Ramirez (Apr 27, 2010)

Archangel M said:


> Odd that there are a number of physicists and cosmologists that are not so sure.
> 
> http://scottthong.wordpress.com/200...a-creator-or-designer-a-collection-of-quotes/
> 
> ...


 

LOL!  Fred Hoyle!  You better pick someone else to support your position,  Hoyle didn't believe in a Creator ,  the only intelligence he believed in were space aliens... he was of the opinion that human beings were created by extra-terrestials.

  He was also dead wrong in the Big Bang,  in fact he opposed the Big Bang because it  meant the universe had a beginning which the Catholic Church latched onto as proof of a creator and Hoyle was an atheist . A steady state universe which he believed in requires no creator.

 Seems that link is misleading if not dishonest.


----------



## Empty Hands (Apr 27, 2010)

Scientists are people too.  And people are very good at compartmentalizing their lives and not examining the implications of one area of life in another.  Thus I know scientists that apply rigorous standards of proof to their work, but do not apply those same standards to their religious beliefs.  To the extent that they do so, it is an error in their thinking and their rationality.  That doesn't necessarily make them bad scientists.  Nor does it make God exist.

However, belief in God among scientists is far lower than the general population.  Physicists have one of the higher 
levels of belief, but again still well below the general population.  I think it is something about the precise and structured nature of physical laws which seduces them.  Scientists in messier disciplines, particularly biology, have far lower levels of belief.



Archangel M said:


> Intelligent design is not creationism.



It's also not science.  Science is falsifiable, whereas intelligent design is not.  It might be more accurately described as philosophy, but it's proponents attempt to masquerade the idea as science and teach it as science.



Archangel M said:


> All I am saying is "I am sure there is no designer/God/cosmic intelligence" can be just as blindly dogmatic as being a religious fundamentalist.



Only if being sure that Thor and Odin do not exist is blindly dogmatic.  Only if being sure that an invisible, undetectable gremlin dancing on my head does not exist is blindly dogmatic.  It is not blind dogma to say that which has no evidence for its existence does not exist.


----------



## Ken Morgan (Apr 27, 2010)

Archangel M said:


> Intelligent design is not creationism.
> 
> http://www.discovery.org/a/1329


 
Yeah it is.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qt6o...2C1F0A87&playnext_from=PL&playnext=1&index=10

The Discovery Institute??? Oh come on, a more biased creationist source can not be found!!


----------



## Ramirez (Apr 27, 2010)

Empty Hands said:


> However, belief in God among scientists is far lower than the general population. Physicists have one of the higher
> levels of belief, but again still well below the general population..


 

Really? I thought I read in Dawkins book, The God Delusion, that the harder the science (in the sense of the more physical, ie physics being a "harder" science than biology), the lower the belief in God.

IIRC Lee Smolin and Lubos Motl also say the same.


----------



## Ramirez (Apr 27, 2010)

http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file002.html

looks like physicists  and mathematicians might be slightly higher a whole 7.5% believe in god as of 1998.


----------



## Cryozombie (Apr 28, 2010)

Empty Hands said:


> It is not blind dogma to say that which has no evidence for its existence does not exist.



I'd say it is.  Just because we have no evidence of it NOW does not mean we won't at a later date.

For example, In the Stone Age, I'm sure they had no "Evidence" of electricity.  Or Viruses, etc... but those things existed without someone's evidence of such.  Oh sure, you had sickness and lightning, but no understanding of them or their root causes.  A divine, or supreme being could be the same... the world could contain a lot of evidence, but we lack the knowledge to understand it correctly, yet. 

Just sayin.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Apr 28, 2010)

With regard to the base of nearly all religions; there is a creation story.  Something that explains how the universe and specifically the world, and the people on it, came into being.

In strict terms, the universe either had a primary cause that could be described as an entity/intelligence, or it did not.  It is equally difficult for me to conceive of either option.  As difficult as it is to believe that the universe was created by a being, it is also difficult for me to believe that it happened for no reason whatsoever.  I'm claiming that either is true or untrue, just mentioning that both boggle my mind utterly.

Then, when we get into the theories of the multiverse which may be required by some theories of the origin of the universe, then there must be universes where both are true - some in which the universe was intentionally created, some in which it was not.  Even more mind-boggling.

Science is wonderful and I love it.  But it does not answer all questions; at least not yet.  It is the fallacy of every generation that we think of all previous scientific 'fact' that has since been discredited as primitive and obviously wrong, and all current scientific 'fact' as durable and perpetually true.  In other words, we always see ourselves as possessing all the truth.  Future generations will laugh at us as we laugh at scientists that claimed that if a car went faster than 21 miles per hour, all the air would be sucked out of it.  We always fail to acknowledge that many of our 'truths' are not only liable to be proven wrong, but that they probably will be.  We're always smug; we shouldn't be.

With regard to the universe, despite many theories of the origin of the universe, there is no theory that extends to the instant before the Singularity, as I understand it.  That is, it is generally accepted that at the moment of the origination of the universe, all time, matter, and energy were compressed into a microscopic dot that exploded.  Time itself did not exist before the explosion, neither did matter or energy.  So there was literally nothing.

What cause the speck that exploded?  I don't know.  I don't think anyone knows.  Everything is speculation beyond that moment, is it not?

I see no reason for animosity between those who believe the universe had an original intelligent cause and those who do not.  I can believe both,  and find both baffling and mind-boggling at the same time.  In any case, it matters very little to my everyday life.


----------



## Omar B (Apr 28, 2010)

Every religion has an origin story because it's one of the fundamental questions, even children ask their parents where they came from.  Using a creator just pushes back the questions of who created it though.  After all, it had to come from somewhere to create the universe and a consciousness without anything to be conscious of (outside stimulus) is a contradiction in terms.

Science does nto have all the answers and it never will, because the nature of science is not to sit satisfied but to move onto more unknowns.  So in that case all answers will never be solved.  More answers, yes, all, no.

_Every argument for God and every attribute ascribed to Him rests on a  false metaphysical premise. None can survive for a moment on a correct  metaphysics._
_For instance, God is infinite. Nothing can be infinite, according to  the Law of Identity. Everything is what it is, and nothing else. It is limited in  its qualities and in its quantity: it is this much, and no  more. &#8220;Infinite&#8221; as applied to quantity does not mean &#8220;very large&#8221;: it means &#8220;larger than  any specific quantity.&#8221; That means: no specific quantity&#8212;i.e., a quantity  without identity. This is prohibited by the Law of Identity._
_Is God the creator of the universe? There can be no creation of  something out of nothing. There is no nothing._
_Is God omnipotent? Can he do anything? Entities can act only  in accordance with their natures; nothing can make them violate their natures . . ._
_&#8220;God&#8221; as traditionally defined is a systematic contradiction of every  valid metaphysical principle. The point is wider than just the Judeo-Christian concept of God. No argument will get you from this world to a  supernatural world. No reason will lead you to a world contradicting this one. No  method of inference will enable you to leap from existence to a &#8220;super-existence.&#8221; - _Leonard Peikoff


----------



## Empty Hands (Apr 28, 2010)

Cryozombie said:


> I'd say it is.  Just because we have no evidence of it NOW does not mean we won't at a later date.



In a certain philosophical sense, yes.  But it quickly leads to ludicrous results.  Suddenly I can't say there isn't a giant planet made out of strawberry ice cream just outside the solar system.  I can't say there aren't invisible undetectable gremlins dancing on my head.  It isn't blind dogmatism to say these things don't exist.

As for viruses in the stone age, no one would have had the evidence necessary to even come up with the idea of viruses not to believe in.  Instead, all of the ideas-without-evidence they DID come up with were demonstrably false.  Like the four humors, or Aristotle's conception of, well, conception.  They would have been wise at the time to say that which had no evidence did not exist.  At the very least, that would have prevented bleeding as a legitimate medical treatment!

If, somehow, someone at the time did propose viruses, it still would have been rational at the time to say that which had no evidence for it did not exist.  As long as you are open to new evidence changing your conclusions, this is basically how science works.


----------



## Empty Hands (Apr 28, 2010)

Bill Mattocks said:


> ...it is also difficult for me to believe that it happened for no reason whatsoever.



I don't think you can say that it happened for "no reason."  Current singularities are governed by physical laws, so it stands to reason that the initial singularity was as well.  Particle/anti-particle pairs also "warp" into existence from "nowhere" (the basis of Hawking Radiation), but those are governed by physical laws as well.  Lastly, we can describe the physical laws governing the Big Bang all the way up to 10x10-42 (thats 0.00...42zeros...very small indeed) seconds after it occurred.  All signs point to an event governed by physical laws.



Bill Mattocks said:


> It is the fallacy of every generation that we think of all previous scientific 'fact' that has since been discredited as primitive and obviously wrong, and all current scientific 'fact' as durable and perpetually true.



True to a point, but it should not be taken to the level of relativism.  Some things are true, and will always be true.  The Sun is larger than the Earth.  DNA codes for protein.  Glycine is uncharged and glutamate is charged.  Light has characteristics of both particles and waves.  Our understanding changes and develops, but many things have been confirmed beyond a reasonable doubt.  Relativism is false.



Bill Mattocks said:


> I see no reason for animosity between those who believe the universe had an original intelligent cause and those who do not.  I can believe both,  and find both baffling and mind-boggling at the same time.  In any case, it matters very little to my everyday life.



The animosity does not come from the belief (most people believe in God), the animosity comes from a specific anti-science agenda driven by those who wish their version of religious belief to be taught as fact and the science that disagrees with it discredited and ignored.  That agenda is part of a larger campaign among some of the religious zealots to control what we can watch and enjoy, who we can have sex with, and what we can do with our bodies.


----------



## Satt (Apr 28, 2010)

So yeah...South Park is a pretty funny show IMO. I really like it because they offend EVERYONE. Even their initial disclaimer says "this show should not be watched by anyone". I love it.

opcorn:


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Apr 28, 2010)

Omar B said:


> Every religion has an origin story because it's one of the fundamental questions, even children ask their parents where they came from.  Using a creator just pushes back the questions of who created it though.  After all, it had to come from somewhere to create the universe and a consciousness without anything to be conscious of (outside stimulus) is a contradiction in terms.



Perhaps it is turtles all the way down.

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



> Science does nto have all the answers and it never will, because the nature of science is not to sit satisfied but to move onto more unknowns.  So in that case all answers will never be solved.  More answers, yes, all, no.



I agree; but my note was that every generation tends to accept the latest 'facts' as universal and everlasting when it involves something that *they* choose to believe to be true.  And every generation accepts that *previous* generations of scientists were wrong.  But not theirs.  This is the smug error of every generation.  We all do it.



> _Every argument for God and every attribute ascribed to Him rests on a  false metaphysical premise. None can survive for a moment on a correct  metaphysics._
> _For instance, God is infinite. Nothing can be infinite, according to  the Law of Identity. Everything is what it is, and nothing else. It is limited in  its qualities and in its quantity: it is this much, and no  more. Infinite as applied to quantity does not mean very large: it means larger than  any specific quantity. That means: no specific quantityi.e., a quantity  without identity. This is prohibited by the Law of Identity._



Not every description of a Creator or a First Cause stipulates that the Creator is infinite.  Of those that do, it can be argued that a Creator sufficiently near to infinite from a human perspective would be seen in the imprecise language of humans as infinite.  It may make the description wrong, but it does not preclude a nigh-infinite Creator.



> _Is God the creator of the universe? There can be no creation of  something out of nothing. There is no nothing._



That is an assumption.  It is commonly believed by science that before the Singularity, there was indeed 'nothing' in that time, space, mass, and energy did not exist.  There is nothing else that can be defined, which leaves, for all intents and purposes, 'nothing'.

So even by common 'big bang' theories, the universe was created from nothing.  A singularity exploded.  What caused the Singularity?  No one knows.



> _Is God omnipotent? Can he do anything? Entities can act only  in accordance with their natures; nothing can make them violate their natures . . ._
> _God as traditionally defined is a systematic contradiction of every  valid metaphysical principle. The point is wider than just the Judeo-Christian concept of God. No argument will get you from this world to a  supernatural world. No reason will lead you to a world contradicting this one. No  method of inference will enable you to leap from existence to a super-existence. - _Leonard Peikoff



This illustrates the pointlessness of attempting to validate Christian belief in scientific terms.  It does not render any Creation stories, including Christian ones, as impossible.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Apr 28, 2010)

Empty Hands said:


> I don't think you can say that it happened for "no reason."  Current singularities are governed by physical laws, so it stands to reason that the initial singularity was as well.  Particle/anti-particle pairs also "warp" into existence from "nowhere" (the basis of Hawking Radiation), but those are governed by physical laws as well.  Lastly, we can describe the physical laws governing the Big Bang all the way up to 10x10-42 (thats 0.00...42zeros...very small indeed) seconds after it occurred.  All signs point to an event governed by physical laws.



I can say it happened for 'no cause' because science has no cause for the Singularity to offer.  The Planck Epoch is, I believe, still the earliest we can 'look back' to the beginning of the universe.  We can offer theories about what happened and why from that moment onward, but nothing prior to that.  What caused the Singularity?

The best explanations I have read argue that in quantum physics, the laws of cause and effect are suspended.  Things literally do pop out of nowhere, for 'no reason', as you say.  That is the same as saying 'no reason' when we cannot divine the reason; we can't extract order from chaos.  If the universe was created by a chaotic random creation of a particle that somehow contained all time, space, matter, and energy, then that is pretty much the same as saying 'no reason'.  No cause is the same as no reason, at least based on my understanding of english.



> True to a point, but it should not be taken to the level of relativism.  Some things are true, and will always be true.  The Sun is larger than the Earth.  DNA codes for protein.  Glycine is uncharged and glutamate is charged.  Light has characteristics of both particles and waves.  Our understanding changes and develops, but many things have been confirmed beyond a reasonable doubt.  Relativism is false.



I agree.  I would argue (only for fun) that those who hold tightly to current scientific models of the origin of the universe would be not only dismayed, but hostile, if science were to actually discover God accidentally and be able to prove it.  Yes, I know it's impossible, but it's a fun mind-experiment.  Many are so wed to the impossibility of God and religion that there is no science that the would ever accept which proved it.  The reverse, of course, is also true; many are the religionists who will never accept scientific fact even if it does someday prove that God does NOT exist.  In some ways, disbelief *is* a belief; by which I mean that people choose the theory that they find most agreeable and refuse to accept anything that challenges that - be it God or no-God.



> The animosity does not come from the belief (most people believe in God), the animosity comes from a specific anti-science agenda driven by those who wish their version of religious belief to be taught as fact and the science that disagrees with it discredited and ignored.  That agenda is part of a larger campaign among some of the religious zealots to control what we can watch and enjoy, who we can have sex with, and what we can do with our bodies.



Religionists would say that there is an opposite force at work, one which would deny them the right to worship and practice the precepts of their religion as they please, even in private. I do not think it incorrect to say that both are right to a degree.


----------



## Omar B (Apr 28, 2010)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Perhaps it is turtles all the way down.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turtles_all_the_way_down
> I agree; but my note was that every generation tends to accept the latest 'facts' as universal and everlasting when it involves something that *they* choose to believe to be true.  And every generation accepts that *previous* generations of scientists were wrong.  But not theirs.  This is the smug error of every generation.  We all do it.
> Not every description of a Creator or a First Cause stipulates that the Creator is infinite.  Of those that do, it can be argued that a Creator sufficiently near to infinite from a human perspective would be seen in the imprecise language of humans as infinite.  It may make the description wrong, but it does not preclude a nigh-infinite Creator.
> ...



Common assumption by who Bill?  What scientist has ever said that something came from nothing?  It's a given that something cannot come from nothing.  Matter cannot be created or destroyed, only change form.  A 2 ton truck crushed to it's component parts, melted down, separated and recycled into different products would still be 2 tons of material  The same is the case with energy.  Cannot be create or destroyed, just it's form changed.

My father's a scientist and if he ever uttered such as you've said he would be drummed out of a job.

As for the different interpretations of the creator.  I addressed the most common one.  You can find so many wildly divergent versions of what it is and what it is not within even members of the same religion that the only thing I can be sure of is non of them really know what it is (it's like man qua man, but greater in every sense), but it's pretty big, really powerful and most of them fear it.  I it sounds like Galactus to me.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Apr 28, 2010)

Omar B said:


> Common assumption by who Bill?  What scientist has ever said that something came from nothing?  It's pretty much a given that something cannot come from nothing.  Matter cannot be created or destroyed, only change form.  A two ton truck crushed to it's component parts, melted down, separated and recycled into different products would still be 2 tons of material  The same is the case with energy.  Cannot be create or destroyed, just it's form changed.
> 
> My father's a scientist and if he ever uttered such as you've said he would be drummed out of a job.



In a real sense, there had to be nothing prior to the Singularity.  The Singularity contained all time, space, mass, and energy.  All of it.  Therefore anything that was not the Singularity did not exist.  It was nothing.  We can look back in time to the moment of the Planck Epoch and a trillionth of a second before, and beyond that, nothing.  Not that we can't 'see' beyond that, that there was literally 'nothing' there to see.  There was no _there there_, to pervert a phrase.

http://www.krysstal.com/quantum.html



> Another quantum effect is the famous *Uncertainty Principle*. This implies that there is a built-in uncertainty in the Universe. It is possible for something to be created out of nothing, given enough time!



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



> It is argued, for example by Victor J. Stenger, that the universe could have come from nothing. The positive energy bound up in matter being balanced by the negative energy of gravitation which is responsible for the expansion of the universe.
> Logically it can be argued that if the universe, including space-time itself, as well as matter and energy, is "everything that exists" then there can be nothing (i.e. there cannot be anything) outside or before it.
> So what does it mean to say that the universe has "come into existence" from nothing, if there was no time "before" it existed?



In fact, religionists often use this 'common sense' argument that something can NOT come from nothing to defend their beliefs against atheists.  They point out (correctly) that atheists MUST believe that something can come from nothing.

It's a thorny issue, and I see both sides of it and understand neither.  But yes, quantum physics says that something not only can come from nothing, but it does so all the time.


----------



## Omar B (Apr 28, 2010)

It's an interesting rabbit hole to jump down, except that accepting that there was a singularity accepts that something contained all matter and energy.  So nothing came from nothing, the matter and the energy were there, as I said, matter and energy cannot be destroyed, only their specific configuration can change.  the singularity expanded or exploded or whathaveyou and it's insides spilled out and the universe was created is one way to look at it.

Another is that space is infinate, and in it's infinate biggness (stole that from Douglas Adams) you can see universes collapse into black holes and matter spun out and coalese into new larger, smaller or altogether different forms.  I don't think our specific solar system was here the whole time, maybe another system was here before that got destroyed, it's component parts scattered to float around a newly born sun.

Either way, it's a deep rabbit hole but I'm not one to give way to a supernatural when logic clearly states that a there is no such thing as a consciousness without something to be conscious of. The mind (any mind) works by bouncing off outside stimulus, every conception we have in our head is based upon this.  I will not accept the explanation that god is just awesome at everything including conception in a void.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Apr 28, 2010)

Omar B said:


> It's an interesting rabbit hole to jump down, except that accepting that there was a singularity accepts that something contained all matter and energy.  So nothing came from nothing, the matter and the energy were there, as I said, matter and energy cannot be destroyed, only their specific configuration can change.  the singularity expanded or exploded or whathaveyou and it's insides spilled out and the universe was created is one way to look at it.



Well, the Singularity is the most commonly-accepted theory at the moment.  But you are only looking inside the Singularity.  Clearly there was an outside, since the size of the Singularity is defined by science (sub-atomic).  Size implies something to measure it against.  Otherwise, you'd have to say that the Singularity was as big as it was, and the universe is as big as it is, and no way to give either a number.  You could not even say that the universe is expanding, because it would always be the same size; the size that it is.

Language begins to break down at that point and resemble Zen koans.



> Another is that space is infinate, and in it's infinate biggness (stole that from Douglas Adams) you can see universes collapse into black holes and matter spun out and coalese into new larger, smaller or altogether different forms.  I don't think our specific solar system was here the whole time, maybe another system was here before that got destroyed, it's component parts scattered to float around a newly born sun.



That's another spin on the "Turtles all the way down" argument.  If everything depends on something else, then that implies that there is a first cause, or it implies a never-ending loop of causation (turtles all the way down).



> Either way, it's a deep rabbit hole but I'm not one to give way to a supernatural when logic clearly states that a there is no such thing as a consciousness without something to be conscious of. The mind (any mind) works by bouncing off outside stimulus, every conception we have in our head is based upon this.  I will not accept the explanation that god is just awesome at everything including conception in a void.



Heck, I'm not asking you to.  But you'll note that in the end, you make a choice and then believe in it.  That's another form of belief.  Many religionists work the same way.  They pick the belief that sits best with their internal logic and understanding and go with it.  I know, I know, you're *logical* and they're not.  But they'd claim that their internal logic is correct for them just as yours is for you.


----------



## Omar B (Apr 28, 2010)

Since the singularity is as you said sub-atomic, but contained all matter and energy then the size really doesn't matter at all does it?  If the planet were huge or the size of a tennis ball it still would have all life and we would still all live here.  Size is relative to what's next to it and since there's nothing next to a singularity ...

The turtles all the way down idea seems to needlessly exist when one can simply state that the universe always was.  There's nothing larger and older than infinity and since that's how the universe is described then there's no beginning of it is there.

Good points all around Bill, but as you stated there's no definite answer at this point.  I can't wrap my head around the god concept and you can't wrap yours around the no-god concept and there we stand.


----------



## Empty Hands (Apr 28, 2010)

Bill Mattocks said:


> That is the same as saying 'no reason' when we cannot divine the reason; we can't extract order from chaos.



Even chaotic systems behave according to physical laws.  Even at the quantum level.  Electrons, for instance, violate many "common sense" natural rules like being in several places at the same time and "warping" from one spot to another without seeming to travel the intervening space.  Yet, they are tightly bound by physical laws.  They have a discrete charge and mass, they behave in predictable ways, both statistically and aggregately, etc.  If even something as wacky as quantum particles are still governed by physical laws, I don't see why the singularity should not.  Current singularities are, after all.  I don't think "no reason" is really accurate, although it is beyond our understanding.

Which brings me to "nothing".  It may not be accurate to speak about the singularity coming from "nothing."  Whatever that medium was, it certainly was different.  It still exists, if it can be said to, outside the bounds of our current universe.  Yet we are tied up in our frame of reference.  Even a perfect vacuum in this universe is not "nothing", it is a medium where our understood constraints of mass, energy, and time exist.  Outside that, is something very different, literally incomprehensible from our frame, but it may not be "nothing."  

String theory after all holds that there may be many universes, suspended like soap bubbles (although that implies a spatial relation which is not accurate) in this medium.  String theory is probably not true, but it helps in thinking about that "other" space.



Bill Mattocks said:


> I agree.  I would argue (only for fun) that those who hold tightly to current scientific models of the origin of the universe would be not only dismayed, but hostile, if science were to actually discover God accidentally and be able to prove it.



Of course.  People are people after all.  I see many scientists cling to their pet theories after the whole field moves on.  People are not rational, and good scientific thought takes an enormous amount of discipline, at all times.  Thankfully science the enterprise is self correcting over time, and larger than individual scientists.  Thus the bad thinking eventually gets weeded out.



Bill Mattocks said:


> Religionists would say that there is an opposite force at work, one which would deny them the right to worship and practice the precepts of their religion as they please, even in private. I do not think it incorrect to say that both are right to a degree.



I honestly have a lot of difficulty seeing that, and I am pretty fair minded about these things.  Many atheists and secular organizations have called for government and religion to be separated.  Polemicists like Hitchens and Harris have strongly criticized religion, even called the practicioners deluded and irrational.  But not once have I seen such people or organizations call for the private practice of religion (apart from stuff like denying your kids insulin) to be regulated or restrained in private.  Criticism is not the same thing as preventing you from worshiping.

If anything, I think that most religionists are more in danger from other religionists than the secular.  Once you reach a certain zealotry level, all the other sects and faiths become obviously wrong and must be controlled and fought against.   Look at the anti-Catholic prejudice in this mostly Protestant country in the 19th/early 20th century.


----------



## Empty Hands (Apr 28, 2010)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Clearly there was an outside, since the size of the Singularity is defined by science (sub-atomic).  Size implies something to measure it against.



No, singularities, even the ones we observe today, have no size.  They are a mathematical point, with no x, y, or z coordinates.  Yet they have an enormous amount of mass.  Yeah, I know.

When scientists speak of "large" and "small" black holes, they are referring to the size of the event horizon, which is determined by the mass.  Mass varies, but all singularities are dimensionless.  



Bill Mattocks said:


> Language begins to break down at that point and resemble Zen koans.



No kidding.

The problem is we are bound in our own frame of reference.  Mass without size and "nothing" are literally incomprehensible given the universe we are enmeshed in.  Yet that's what it is.  That's why most of these theories were developed from pure mathematics before observations confirmed the theories.

Part of the reason I think this works is that mass is not solid.  Mass is an expression of energy, and the solid matter we see around us is almost entirely composed of empty space with interacting energy fields that give us the illusion of solidity.  Thus there isn't really much "size" to pack into a tiny amount of space.  Or any space at all.  That's how you can end up with a teaspoon sized piece of neutron star weighing as much as a city block.

I love this stuff, but it really is incomprehensible in a visceral way.


----------



## blindsage (Apr 28, 2010)

Empty Hands said:


> Which brings me to "nothing". It may not be accurate to speak about the singularity coming from "nothing." Whatever that medium was, it certainly was different. It still exists, if it can be said to, outside the bounds of our current universe. Yet we are tied up in our frame of reference. Even a perfect vacuum in this universe is not "nothing", it is a medium where our understood constraints of mass, energy, and time exist. Outside that, is something very different, literally incomprehensible from our frame, but it may not be "nothing."


This is what many religions basically say.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Apr 28, 2010)

Omar B said:


> Good points all around Bill, but as you stated there's no definite answer at this point.  I can't wrap my head around the god concept and you can't wrap yours around the no-god concept and there we stand.



Actually, I can't quite wrap my head around either one!  None of it makes much sense to me.  But I somehow manage to get through the day! :asian:


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Apr 28, 2010)

Empty Hands said:


> Even chaotic systems behave according to physical laws.  Even at the quantum level.  Electrons, for instance, violate many "common sense" natural rules like being in several places at the same time and "warping" from one spot to another without seeming to travel the intervening space.  Yet, they are tightly bound by physical laws.  They have a discrete charge and mass, they behave in predictable ways, both statistically and aggregately, etc.  If even something as wacky as quantum particles are still governed by physical laws, I don't see why the singularity should not.  Current singularities are, after all.  I don't think "no reason" is really accurate, although it is beyond our understanding.



I take my descriptions from stated opinions of quantum physicists who certainly know more about it than I do.   I am aware of the way electrons change orbits from one shell to another with what appears to be no time in-between, which would clearly violate E=MC2.  Funky stuff, eh?



> Which brings me to "nothing".  It may not be accurate to speak about the singularity coming from "nothing."  Whatever that medium was, it certainly was different.  It still exists, if it can be said to, outside the bounds of our current universe.  Yet we are tied up in our frame of reference.  Even a perfect vacuum in this universe is not "nothing", it is a medium where our understood constraints of mass, energy, and time exist.  Outside that, is something very different, literally incomprehensible from our frame, but it may not be "nothing."



So when language no longer can confine the understanding, one either speaks in pure mathematical symbols, and thus has some understanding, or one is a layperson (like myself) and are reduced to taking some things on (dare I say it) faith.



> I honestly have a lot of difficulty seeing that, and I am pretty fair minded about these things.  Many atheists and secular organizations have called for government and religion to be separated.  Polemicists like Hitchens and Harris have strongly criticized religion, even called the practicioners deluded and irrational.  But not once have I seen such people or organizations call for the private practice of religion (apart from stuff like denying your kids insulin) to be regulated or restrained in private.  Criticism is not the same thing as preventing you from worshiping.
> 
> If anything, I think that most religionists are more in danger from other religionists than the secular.  Once you reach a certain zealotry level, all the other sects and faiths become obviously wrong and must be controlled and fought against.   Look at the anti-Catholic prejudice in this mostly Protestant country in the 19th/early 20th century.



I was friends with Robin O'Hair, grand-daughter (and lookalike) of Madalyn Murray O'Hair (both tragically murdered). Believe me when I say that her grandmother's form of atheism was quite antithetical to religion of all sorts.  I don't recall any expression of suppression of private religious belief or practice, but demands for the removal of television shows that had religious components, banning churches, revoking non-profit status for churches (even such as Salvation Army which basically just do charitable work) while not demanding similar restrictions for non-profits which are not religious, and so on.  We're not just talking about taking 'In God We Trust' off of US currency, but banning such things as signs in front of churches.


----------



## Empty Hands (Apr 28, 2010)

Bill Mattocks said:


> I was friends with Robin O'Hair, grand-daughter (and lookalike) of Madalyn Murray O'Hair (both tragically murdered). Believe me when I say that her grandmother's form of atheism was quite antithetical to religion of all sorts.



Ah yes, I had forgotten her.  She's a pretty rare sort.  Also one woman, and a handful like her, stacked up against an organized campaign that all but owns one major political party?  I don't see the "they each have a point" equivalency there.


----------



## Archangel M (Apr 28, 2010)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Actually, I can't quite wrap my head around either one!  None of it makes much sense to me.  But I somehow manage to get through the day! :asian:



And if there is a God/designer what makes anybody believe that they can honestly have a clear conception of what he/she/it is? 

The "anti-religion" types seem to like to define the faithful as believing that "God" is some sort of white haired guy with a crown hovering in a flying throne up in the sky. Or some sort of comic book character. Makes it easier to have a few "yuck-yucks" at their expense. Look at how complex and difficult to grasp our "science" has become. If there is a creator do we really believe it would be any easier to understand?


----------



## Empty Hands (Apr 28, 2010)

Archangel M said:


> The "anti-religion" types seem to like to define the faithful as believing that "God" is some sort of white haired guy with a crown hovering in a flying throne up in the sky.



I don't know where we got that idea...







Archangel M said:


> If there is a creator do we really believe it would be any easier to understand?



Many religionists, particularly the more fundamentalist ones, claim they understand Him quite well.  They know what he likes.  They REALLY know what he doesn't like.  They talk to him every day, and they know _exactly _what you must do to get him to like you and to save you.

Much like the Greek gods, the fundamentalist God becomes an outsize humanlike figure magnifying all your worst traits and hating all you hate and liking all you like.

Comparatively few (at least by volume) go for the ineffable creator God.  The hard to understand God might not hate the gays like you do.

The "anti-religionists" can only work with the material the religious give them.  To many, God is clearly nothing more than personal wish fulfillment.


----------



## Empty Hands (Apr 28, 2010)

blindsage said:


> This is what many religions basically say.



Could you elaborate?  I don't see the similarity, at least with the religions I can think of.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Apr 28, 2010)

Empty Hands said:


> Ah yes, I had forgotten her.  She's a pretty rare sort.  Also one woman, and a handful like her, stacked up against an organized campaign that all but owns one major political party?  I don't see the "they each have a point" equivalency there.



Percentage-wise, there also aren't many atheists.  So of course they don't have quite the same impact.  Respectfully disagree here, but I take your point.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Apr 28, 2010)

Archangel M said:


> And if there is a God/designer what makes anybody believe that they can honestly have a clear conception of what he/she/it is?



I suspect because it is hard to worship an abstract concept, but that's just my opinion.



> The "anti-religion" types seem to like to define the faithful as believing that "God" is some sort of white haired guy with a crown hovering in a flying throne up in the sky. Or some sort of comic book character. Makes it easier to have a few "yuck-yucks" at their expense. Look at how complex and difficult to grasp our "science" has become. If there is a creator do we really believe it would be any easier to understand?



Well, my own belief is that Creator, if there is such a thing, is probably quite well beyond our comprehension on any level, including the visual.  Given that, I shrug and retreat to the part of my mind that deals with complex problems using simple concepts.  I realize that the chances are quite against it being accurate, but (shrug) I'm OK with that.


----------



## Omar B (Apr 28, 2010)

Begs the question, why worship something you can have no conception of?


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Apr 28, 2010)

Omar B said:


> Begs the question, why worship something you can have no conception of?



That's down to emotions, I think.  It makes me feel good.  That should be a good enough reason.  I have had experiences that I choose to believe have something to do with my personal interaction with my Savior.  Real?  No way to say.  But they work for me and that's pretty much all I need.  Now, it's no basis for convincing anyone else that my experiences are real; but I don't try to.


----------



## Archangel M (Apr 28, 2010)

Why study something that we apparently have no clear conception of?


----------



## Archangel M (Apr 28, 2010)

Bill Mattocks said:


> That's down to emotions, I think.  It makes me feel good.  That should be a good enough reason.  I have had experiences that I choose to believe have something to do with my personal interaction with my Savior.  Real?  No way to say.  But they work for me and that's pretty much all I need.  Now, it's no basis for convincing anyone else that my experiences are real; but I don't try to.



Same thing with the idea of something like "love". Some people seem content to live their lives in a world of chemical reactions, electrical impulses and hormonal influences. I prefer to look at (and live) life in a different way.


----------



## Empty Hands (Apr 28, 2010)

Archangel M said:


> Why study something that we apparently have no clear conception of?



Because with study of the world around us we can be fairly certain we will find the answers eventually.  Not so with God.  Unless you count dying, I guess, but that's an experimental protocol I don't plan on signing up for anytime soon.


----------



## Empty Hands (Apr 28, 2010)

Archangel M said:


> Same thing with the idea of something like "love". Some people seem content to live their lives in a world of chemical reactions, electrical impulses and hormonal influences. I prefer to look at (and live) life in a different way.



So you think people who see love as a biochemical reaction don't feel the emotion?

Emotions are real and powerful.  They are meaningful.  They are also biochemistry, which we can increasingly map.  Some people are born without the ability to love (Reactive Attachment Disorder), so of course it is biological in basis.

That doesn't make it unreal.

Do you really think you love your spouse or kids more because you believe in God?


----------



## blindsage (Apr 28, 2010)

Empty Hands said:


> Could you elaborate? I don't see the similarity, at least with the religions I can think of.


The fundamental belief of many religions is that there is something outside the bounds of the our universe's laws and outside our ability to conceive of.  If you can scientifically postulate basically the same thing, it's not much different from what many religions believe.


----------



## Big Don (Apr 28, 2010)

Satt said:


> So yeah...South Park is a pretty funny show IMO. I really like it because they offend EVERYONE. Even their initial disclaimer says "this show should not be watched by anyone". I love it.
> 
> opcorn:


 How dare you try to reroute the discussion to the original topic?!


----------



## Ken Morgan (Apr 28, 2010)

Empty Hands said:


> Because with study of the world around us we can be fairly certain we will find the answers eventually. Not so with God. Unless you count dying, I guess, but that's an experimental protocol I don't plan on signing up for anytime soon.


 
Agreed
We've had superstition for tens of thousands of years, we've only had real science for maybe 100? 150? years....
give us, humankind, time and we will unravel most of the secrets of the universe.


----------



## Sukerkin (Apr 28, 2010)

Aye.  After all the whole point of reason and intelligence is to recognise what you don't know and pursue a line of investigation that rectifies that.

But I have to reiterate Don's point above, in that this discussion, whilst very stimulating, is not really targeted closely to the OP.  Given that one of the basic rules of the Study is that discourses cleave to the topic (reasonable perambulation being permissible) it might be a good idea to nudge things back on track.


----------



## Ken Morgan (Apr 28, 2010)

Sukerkin said:


> Aye. After all the whole point of reason and intelligence is to recognise what you don't know and pursue a line of investigation that rectifies that.
> 
> But I have to reiterate Don's point above, in that this discussion, whilst very stimulating, is not really targeted closely to the OP. Given that one of the basic rules of the Study is that discourses cleave to the topic (reasonable perambulation being permissible) it might be a good idea to nudge things back on track.


 
K...
South Park is assume!!
Producers have no balls....but i understand why.


----------



## Empty Hands (Apr 29, 2010)

blindsage said:


> The fundamental belief of many religions is that there is something outside the bounds of the our universe's laws and outside our ability to conceive of.  If you can scientifically postulate basically the same thing, it's not much different from what many religions believe.



No, it seems very different to me. Religion postulates a specific being outside this universe who created this universe, and who intervenes in this universe on a regular basis.  Science, at best, says there might be other universes or a multiverse-like medium beyond our universe.  Those are radically different propositions.


----------



## Empty Hands (Apr 29, 2010)

Sukerkin said:


> But I have to reiterate Don's point above, in that this discussion, whilst very stimulating, is not really targeted closely to the OP.



The OP was another in a long string of tiresome posts attempting to show how hypocritical the West is for bending over backwards for the nasty Muslims while persecuting the poor, downtrodden Christians.  We turned mud into gold here.


----------



## Sukerkin (Apr 29, 2010)

:lol: 

I won't deny that some good discourse has come out of it, *EH*, I said as much above but, if people wish to take a conversation off at a tangent from the OP, in the Study it is recommened that a new thread on the tangent is started rather than wandering too far from the OP.

Time to do my Sympathetic Cop impression and iterate that I don't make the rules, it's just my job to help see that they are adhered to.


----------



## blindsage (Apr 29, 2010)

Empty Hands said:


> No, it seems very different to me. Religion postulates a specific being outside this universe who created this universe, and who intervenes in this universe on a regular basis. Science, at best, says there might be other universes or a multiverse-like medium beyond our universe. Those are radically different propositions.


A specific being who exists outside of our physical laws and is incomprehensible.  That very much fits into the original way you described it.  That description implied we don't know and probably can't know, now you are changing it to we have a few good ideas, it seems, because you don't like the connection I made.


----------



## Empty Hands (Apr 29, 2010)

blindsage said:


> A specific being who exists outside of our physical laws and is incomprehensible.  That very much fits into the original way you described it.



I said nothing about a being.  I also don't know what you mean about changing my ideas.  I said there may be something "outside" our universe that is literally incomprehensible.  An interuniversal medium perhaps.  That is nothing like a Creator God.


----------



## blindsage (Apr 29, 2010)

Empty Hands said:


> I said nothing about a being. I also don't know what you mean about changing my ideas. I said there may be something "outside" our universe that is literally incomprehensible. An interuniversal medium perhaps. That is nothing like a Creator God.


If it is literally incomprehensible, then how would you know?


----------



## Empty Hands (Apr 29, 2010)

blindsage said:


> If it is literally incomprehensible, then how would you know?



It doesn't seem to me like that follows.  If something is incomprehensible, then it must be all things which are incomprehensible?  When we get right down to what religions propose, they do not propose "something is incomprehensible out there...we'll call it God" they propose a specific incomprehensible being which created this universe.  Also, they propose a being which interferes in the workings of this universe.  If that happened, that would be one means by which you might tell the difference between proposed incomprehensibilities.


----------

