"People say we need religion, when what they really mean is we need police"

First topic message reminder :

The above is a quote from HL Mencken, taken completely out of context purely as a starting point for this thread.

I've been watching the 'religion' themed threads for a while now, and my conclusion is that religion seems to bring out some very nasty traits in many people - the main activity on these threads has been squabbling, sniping, argument by assertion, and puerile point scoring.

This seems par for the course whenever religion is discussed, whether within small groups like this one, or on the wider world stage (I'm thinking Crusades, I'm thinking Jihad, I'm thinking abuse of women in some Muslim cultures, I'm thinking brutalisation of Muslim prisoners in Iraq and in Abu Graib)

Religion so often seems to be the excuse we use for hating, torturing and killing people who are 'different', and it seems that, even in a friendly discussion where little is at stake, religion continues its role as a fomenter of conflict.

Yet, when you look at religious texts, the rhetoric is about God's love, duties to one's neighbours, humane treatment of animals, children and all weaker individuals, sharing wealth and resources, giving to the poor and needy etc etc. I can't see anything wrong with any of that - in fact, I'm completely behind all of it.

Religion is at the core of all civilisation - it seems to have evolved within all cultures as a means of drawing the community together, collecting and preserving knowledge, teaching children, providing 'theatre' in the form of communal ritual observances, providing a sense of safety, through knowledge of the seasons, history of the community etc. In early times, heads of state would often have a priestly role, and might be sacrificed if the harvest was unsatisfactory to placate the gods.

It's clear, at least to me, that we would not be able to live within the social groups we do, and could not have made the material advances we have made, as a race, without the influence of religion in providing the ethical framework within which we can live close to each other without raw self interest undermining any attempt to create a community.
Without communities, we are only ourselves - within communities, we have access to the talents and gifts of others - the whole is definitely much greater than the sum of its parts. Mankind (and womankind) needs to live in communities - no man, as John Donne famously wrote, is an island.

So far then, religion is to be seen as a completely positive thing - religion=communities, communities=people getting access to knowledge and resources they would otherwise lack, and thereby achieving outcomes they could not even dream of alone. Looked at in this way, religion is a completely practical and very desirable thing.

Looking around the wibbly wobbly world for inspiration, I found this series of essays - i'm only posting the link to the first - you can easily find the others if you're interested.
http://theology.co.kr/whitehead/religion/1.html

This is interesting to me because it divides the concept of religion into 4 phases:
Ritual
Emotion
Belief
Rationalism
Seems to me, so far I have talked about the first two phases, and the conclusion here is that there is no problem at all with these two.
Ritual observance brings a community together, channels the emotional energy of community members, provides entertainment, access to knowledge, the foundation for a set of rules about behaviour - in short, a police presence.
I do it all the time with my dogs - 'look over here, here's a biscuit, behave in a certain way and you will have the biscuit'.
Dogs are happy, furniture remains unchewed, the household is a happy one.

When we move on to what the author of the piece would term the 'individual' aspects of religion, I think we start to get into problems, and this may be where the negative aspects of religion arise. Belief and rationalism (forming a personal code of practice based on belief, and attempting to convince others of the validity of this) are where the subjective, 'numinous' elements arise, and where the mischief can also begin.

Some religious figures have evolved what I might want to call benign beliefs - Elizabeth Fry for example, who believed that her God loved everyone, even convicted criminals, and who expressed that belief by working within the prisons of the time to provide the benefits of civilisation to those prisoners so far as she could.

Some religious figures have evolved much less benign beliefs - I might want to cite the priests of the Spanish Inqisition, whose revelation and belief was that God loved only Catholic Christians and that the use of torture and painful death would save the souls of those that fell below this high standard.(Sorry, this is VERY oversimplified, but I hope people get the gist)

In my own journey, I have found it preferable to avoid close connection to any religious movement, because I think once you get into those 'personal' aspects of religious belief and action, you do run the risk of getting involved in beliefs and attitudes that I would find morally repugnant (the belief, for example, that Baptists, Catholics, Muslims - fill in your own denomination - have the direct line to heaven the real gen, the absolute knowledge of right and wrong; and that everyone else is going straight to Hell)

I like having the concept of god - I don't care whether anyone can prove or disprove her/his/its existence. To me the truth is that we are all god's children - we all belong to the same family, we all have the right to live, to grow and to find our own truth.

Between the world's religions and belief systems, there are many more points of similarity than there are differences - we all have a moral compass, we all believe in something - what I would like to see is a proper discussion of our different beliefs, a friendly and sympathetic consideration of the points of view expressed, and a sincere attempt to reach a common understanding.
But, hey, that's just me - carry on squabbling if you like

stu wrote:BOOK review brill Sheldon,he has had a go at me all afternoon cos me and siobhans mum split up, but i've had my goes back.

He did apologise, stu. I would let it drop. I have to say I thought it pretty crass but we all drop ourselves in it sometimes. He may have been thoughtless but I don't think he was intentionally spiteful.

How is the non-smoking going?

Hope you are good...

Jo

stu wrote:BOOK review brill Sheldon,he has had a go at me all afternoon cos me and siobhans mum split up, but i've had my goes back.

Edited - as apology has been given and accepted.

Bellatori was right actually Sheldon, he did apologise in the end I didn't notice it amongst his we get through these things with prayer and faith.

stu wrote:Bellatori was right actually Sheldon, he did apologise in the end I didn't notice it amongst his we get through these things with prayer and faith.

Fair enough stu.

I am interested in any biologist or geneticist who refutes evolution, any names polyglide ?

Tosh wrote:I am interested in any biologist or geneticist who refutes evolution, any names polyglide ?

Just for the sake of interest I actually googled the idea and found the following

WE ARE SKEPTICAL OF CLAIMS FOR THE ABILITY OF RANDOM MUTATION AND NATURAL SELECTION TO ACCOUNT FOR THE COMPLEXITY OF LIFE. CAREFUL EXAMINATION OF THE EVIDENCE FOR DARWINIAN THEORY SHOULD BE ENCOURAGED.”

If you look at the list there is a lot that is wrong with it though I do not intend to go in to specifics, however, I did rather like this version of a refutation that I found referenced

Project Steve

This is a list of 1000+ scientists who support evolutionary theory. One proviso though. They are ALL called Steve!!

At least they won't forget each others name eh Bellatori.  

Bellatori wrote:If you look at the list there is a lot that is wrong with it though I do not intend to go in to specifics, however, I did rather like this version of a refutation that I found referenced

Project Steve

This is a list of 1000+ scientists who support evolutionary theory. One proviso though. They are ALL called Steve!!

I actually referenced project Steve a couple of times on the Amazon forum when Diane was being particularly stubborn and idiotic about the validity of evolution. Anyone who can deny evolution after that can believe the moon is made of cheese, while standing on it.

slice of edam Sheldon.?  

I will explain exactly what I think.

There would be no technology of any kind without there being stable matter of every kind that reacts in a certain way and maintains that way, this is put in simplistic terms for the simple minded, this could not have come about by random actions or reactions and then become stable.

In theory maybe in practice impossible.

All animal and plant life etc; are the same, all behave in a stable manner unless humans become involved.

All the interdependancies between animals and all plant life point towards intelligent and aforethouhgt being involved.

Then consider hummans against all the above.

Take a family of a mother, a father and seven children.

The father is a drunken fool, the mother a hard worker intent on doing her best for the children.

One child tries hard at school and obtains a good job.

Another takes to drugs and is in and out of jail all his life.

Yet another, born a girl, decides she wants to be a boy and has a stressful life until the Health Service gives her an operation to satisfy her wants.

A most sussesful one decides to go into politics and he becomes an MP,

However, it transpires that he is a child abuser, a liar and a thief.

I could go on but the pint is made.

What point are you making?

The fact that you ask shows your inability to consider anything in logical terms.

polyglide wrote:The fact that you ask shows your inability to consider anything in logical terms.

If it was so obvious it should be easy enough to explain it, even to someone like me.

polyglide wrote:
There would be no technology  of any kind without there being stable matter of every kind that reacts in a certain way and maintains that way, this is put in simplistic terms for the simple minded, this could not have come about by random actions or reactions and then become stable.

Not all matter is stable. Have you ever heard of radioactive decay?

polyglide wrote:
All animal and plant life  etc; are the same, all behave in a stable manner unless humans become involved.

How did humans manage to affect all of the species that became extinct before the genus Homo appeared?

polyglide wrote:
All the interdependancies between animals and all plant life point towards intelligent and aforethouhgt being involved.

Then consider hummans against all the above.

[snip]

I could go on but the pint is made.

The point being that animals and plants are the result of intelligence but humans are not?

Very good point Norm, especially ones called polyglide. 

polyglide wrote:I will explain exactly what I think.

There would be no technology  of any kind without there being stable matter of every kind that reacts in a certain way and maintains that way, this is put in simplistic terms for the simple minded, this could not have come about by random actions or reactions and then become stable.

In theory maybe in practice impossible.

All animal and plant life  etc; are the same, all behave in a stable manner unless humans become involved.

All the interdependancies between animals and all plant life point towards intelligent and aforethouhgt being involved.

Then consider hummans against all the above.

Take a family of a mother, a father and seven children.

The father is a drunken fool, the mother a hard worker intent on doing her best for the children.

One child tries hard at school and obtains a good job.

Another takes to drugs and is in and out of jail all his life.

Yet another, born a girl, decides she wants to be a boy and has a stressful life until the Health Service gives her an operation to satisfy her wants.

A most sussesful one decides to go into politics and he becomes an MP,

However, it transpires that he is a child abuser, a liar and a thief.

I could go on but the pint is made.

The "pint" is indeed made, so your polemic is blah blah blah, some more stuff blah blah blah goddititall...QED

It's a scorcher and don't you let these dimwits bamboozle you with facts, and evidence....

Or how to spell correctly polyglide,looks better that you look stupid.

polyglide wrote:this is put in simplistic terms for the simple minded, this could not have come about by random actions or reactions and then become stable.

And you know this ... how, exactly? I mean, what are you comparing this to? What other universes can you point to in order to claim that all of them are like our universe?

polyglide wrote:I will explain exactly what I think.

There would be no technology  of any kind without there being stable matter of every kind that reacts in a certain way and maintains that way, this is put in simplistic terms for the simple minded, this could not have come about by random actions or reactions and then become stable.

In theory maybe in practice impossible.

All animal and plant life  etc; are the same, all behave in a stable manner unless humans become involved.

All the interdependancies between animals and all plant life point towards intelligent and aforethouhgt being involved.

Then consider hummans against all the above.

Take a family of a mother, a father and seven children.

The father is a drunken fool, the mother a hard worker intent on doing her best for the children.

One child tries hard at school and obtains a good job.

Another takes to drugs and is in and out of jail all his life.

Yet another, born a girl, decides she wants to be a boy and has a stressful life until the Health Service gives her an operation to satisfy her wants.

A most sussesful one decides to go into politics and he becomes an MP,

However, it transpires that he is a child abuser, a liar and a thief.

I could go on but the pint is made.

Can anyone see any "pint" being made here? It's nonsense from start to finish isn't it?

Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD wrote:Can anyone see any "pint" being made here?

Well, when I was little, I remember taking a tour of a brewery.

I'm guessing I saw several pints being made there.

I think polyglide's had a few pints too many but who am I to judge

Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD wrote:Can anyone see any "pint" being made here? It's nonsense from start to finish isn't it?

Indeed it is unless it's a cryptic prophesy of some kind. Can you see a prophesy in it?

:->

Heretic

Heretic wrote:

Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD wrote:Can anyone see any "pint" being made here? It's nonsense from start to finish isn't it?

Indeed it is unless it's a cryptic prophesy of some kind. Can you see a prophesy in it?

:->

Heretic

I am prepared to prophesy that Polly's posts won't get any more coherent.

Actually maybe if he had a few pints he might get more coherent?

I am not a gambling man but I would bet that stu is 99% short of being sane. and the other 1% would be in dispute.

Pollyfilla and that from a supposed christian wanker aswell.  

No Dan it would not, there are limits to ones capabilities and teaching the unteachable such as yourself is beyond me.
I could give you a bit of advice, discuss things with the likes of Dr Sheldon his ability seems as lacking as yours and you may just help each other, you certainly need it.

Then if I am wrong prove it, by being sensible and not indulge in silly remarks which I can counter without even trying.

polyglide wrote:No Dan it would not, there are limits to ones capabilities and teaching the unteachable such as yourself is beyond me.
I could give you a bit of advice, discuss things with the likes of Dr Sheldon his ability seems as lacking as yours and you may just help each other, you certainly need it.

Which post of mine are you replying to? Are you feeling ok?  

Exactly Dan had a few to many points o lager I FINK.  

polyglide wrote:Then if I am wrong prove it, by being sensible and not indulge in silly remarks which I can counter without even trying.

Sounds like a plot for a Monty Python sketch.

Heretic

polyglide wrote:No Dan it would not, there are limits to ones capabilities and teaching the unteachable such as yourself is beyond me.
I could give you a bit of advice, discuss things with the likes of Dr Sheldon his ability seems as lacking as yours and you may just help each other, you certainly need it.

My ability for what is lacking? You can't construct a coherent post even when you're hurling an insult. Why not focus on the posts, instead of ad hominem?

polyglide wrote:Then if I am wrong prove it, by being sensible and not indulge in silly remarks which I can counter without even trying.

You see this is the fundamental flaw in your reasoning process, expecting people to prove a negative. If someone claims a unicorns exists then it's incumbent on them to validate the claim, not on everyone else to falsify it. Please note this is a salient comment on the content of your post, and not an ad hominem attack. Though you'll probably respond with more ad hominem anyway.

Take a family of a mother, a father and seven children. The father is a drunken fool, the mother a hard worker intent on doing her best for the children. One child tries hard at school and obtains a good job. Another takes to drugs and is in and out of jail all his life. Yet another, born a girl, decides she wants to be a boy and has a stressful life until the Health Service gives her an operation to satisfy her wants. A most sussesful one decides to go into politics and he becomes an MP, However, it transpires that he is a child abuser, a liar and a thief. I could go on but the pint is made.

Let it all out polyglide, think of me as your counselor, we all have problems, although not as weird as yours.

Your home would make great reality TV, you could be a national celebrity.

I think polyglide watches too many soap operas, reads the Daily Mail and the bible and thinks that's a true reflection of real life.

I know, I know, I should actually hold your hand and lead you to the water to enable you to drink or you would die of thirst.

The point I was making, which any child would understand, is that the human race is so far removed from any other living thing that the possibility of humans being the result of evolution is sevaral times, in terms of odds, over and above those of odds accepted as impossible.

In the place of water put knowledge.

polyglide wrote:I know, I know, I should actually hold your hand and lead you to the water to enable you to drink or you would die of thirst.

The point I was making, which any child would understand, is that the human race is so far removed from any other living thing that the possibility of humans being the result of evolution is sevaral times, in terms of odds, over and above those of odds accepted as impossible.

In the place of water put knowledge.

Accepted as impossible by whom? Who defines these odds? Can you actually back this up with something beyond the usual "you're too stupid to understand" (or words to that effect) response?

polyglide wrote:The point I was making, which any child would understand, is that the human race is so far removed from any other living thing that the possibility of humans being the result of evolution is sevaral times, in terms of odds, over and above those of odds accepted as impossible.

Hmm ... so ... based on that logic ... since a giraffe is so far removed from an amoeba, one must assume that an all-powerful and omnipotent giraffe-god created the universe and the earth specifically for giraffes.

Besides, polyglide, you cannot calculate the odds of successfully completing an impossible task. That's sheer idiocy. If there are odds of something happening, no matter how remote, then it is possible.

Shirina wrote:

Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD wrote:Can anyone see any "pint" being made here?

Well, when I was little, I remember taking a tour of a brewery.

I'm guessing I saw several pints being made there.

I put it in inverted commas as it was a quote from Polly's post. Just for the record I like brewery tours.

polyglide wrote:I know, I know, I should actually hold your hand and lead you to the water to enable you to drink or you would die of thirst.

The point I was making, which any child would understand, is that the human race is so far removed from any other living thing that the possibility of humans being the result of evolution is sevaral times, in terms of odds, over and above those of odds accepted as impossible.

In the place of water put knowledge.

I'll ignore the personal insults, and focus on the risible nonsense about evolution.

"the human race is so far removed from any other living thing "

This is wholly untrue, humans just as an example share 97% of their DNA with chimpanzees. Once again you really, really, ought to learn a little bit about evolution as your ignorance on the subject is staggering. Evolution as more evidence to support it that any sane objective person could refute, so when a person denies it all they're really doing is showing they have absolutely no conception of how the scientific process works to validate evidence.