🚀 go-pugleaf

Martin Willett wrote:

"Join in and pray for a miracle with this live webcast of a classic
Christian miracle: water being turned into wine by the power of prayer!



Send in your prayers or comment on why nothing is happening with
whoever
drops by. "

I suppose the trouble with this is that God - or perhaps Gods - might
have perverse senses of humour. God would have to be conceived of as
very mechanical if he just accumulated prayers and "fired" or acted
when the prayer level passed some threshold...

Lance

Lance wrote:
> Martin Willett wrote:
> 
> "Join in and pray for a miracle with this live webcast of a classic
> Christian miracle: water being turned into wine by the power of prayer!
> 
> 
> 
> Send in your prayers or comment on why nothing is happening with
> whoever
> drops by. "
> 
> I suppose the trouble with this is that God - or perhaps Gods - might
> have perverse senses of humour. God would have to be conceived of as
> very mechanical if he just accumulated prayers and "fired" or acted
> when the prayer level passed some threshold...
> 
> Lance
> 

Perhaps this explains why the moment I left the room my cat started 
drinking the water from "the grail". You missed the live pussy show.


-- 
Martin Willett


http://mwillett.org

Was fun chatting on your site!
KD.

"Martin Willett" <mwillett.org@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:3fghe2F7mfgpU2@individual.net...
> Join in and pray for a miracle with this live webcast of a classic
> Christian miracle: water being turned into wine by the power of prayer!
>
> Send in your prayers or comment on why nothing is happening with whoever
> drops by.
>
> http://mwillett.org/miraclecam.htm
>
> -- 
> Martin Willett
>
>
> http://mwillett.org

"Martin Willett" <mwillett.org@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:3fghe2F7mfgpU2@individual.net...
> Join in and pray for a miracle with this live webcast of a classic
> Christian miracle: water being turned into wine by the power of
> prayer!
>
> Send in your prayers or comment on why nothing is happening with
> whoever drops by.
>
>
>
> -- 
> Martin Willett
>
>

Haven't  heard from you in a while.

I see you are still enjoying demonstrating your
complete ignorance of Christianity?

And you have the cheek to castigate theists for
not properlly understanding your rationalism?

Steve Wilson.

"Martin Willett" <mwillett.org@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:3fghe2F7mfgpU2@individual.net...
> Join in and pray for a miracle with this live webcast of a classic
> Christian miracle: water being turned into wine by the power of prayer!

[Hi! Martin,
Quite an 'impressive' wedsite young man.]

>water being turned into wine by the power of prayer!

People can 'pray' all they like.....but it won't happen.
God does not do miracles to merely entertain.
Just 'Watch that space'.

Jeff...

"Kool Dude" <koolnospam@reacten.com> wrote in message
news:DWJke.19799$Pi3.15559@newsfe4-win.ntli.net...
> Martin Willett's experiment doesn't seem to have given any results, and
I'm
> sure no-one is surprised at that.  But has anyone reading this had a
> real-life experience of prayer actually working, or of miracles happening?
> Why don't we see today the miracles the disciples and Christ performed?

Because such an awesome 'gift' of power granted  to the Disciples and
Apostles has
been withdrawn from men, since the closing of the 1st century.

This is why "treading on deadly serpents"....."making the blind see and the
deaf hear"....."raising the dead"...." Curing hopeless
cripples"...."Drinking any deadly thing" cannot be achieved today, nor could
be, after the Apostles finally died out.

Those who have contested such have been done, and allowed examination of the
details have found to either be frauds or liars. If not, then let the
children's hospitals be visited by these great healers and the children
cured [at least some] of their terrible infirmities etc.

I challenged myriads of  'healers' to go and heal 'Superman' Christopher
Reeves, all I ever got was excuses and procrastination.
Then when he died I said to them what a wonderful opportunity you have to go
and use the power you state God has given you for good, but he still
remained DEAD in his grave....and the 'healers' have all faded away.

Jeff...

Kool Dude wrote:
> "Martin Willett" <mwillett.org@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
> news:3fjkt4F7vmklU1@individual.net...
> 
>>Jeffrey Goldberg wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Most sophisticated religious people I know say that they pray for
>>>guidance or insight or inspiration or patience.  These more meditative
>>>prayers aren't asking for a miracle, and from an atheist's point of view
>>>these may still be helpful.
>>
>>How many religious people have the courage to leave their god(s) out of
>>their prayers altogether, in the interests of science?
>>
>>Are you up for it? Try simply meditating without asking God for
>>anything, without involving God in the conversation at all. Try if for a
>>week, see if it has any effect on your life to live without your
>>invisible friend for a week. Have you got the courage to do that or do
>>your guilt circuits kick you sharply in the kidneys at the very thought?
>>
>>I am not suggesting you give up on God or give up your faith, just stop
>>reinforcing those thoughts. Do it for a full week and see if you feel
>>any different, any "less spiritual", less happy or less moral.
>>
>>-- 
>>Martin Willett
>>
>>
>>http://mwillett.org
> 
> 
> Have you tried the experiment of <including> God in YOUR meditation?  Is a
> belief in God merely a negative meme or is there some truth in it?  You try
> a week with God, and I'll try one without.  How's that?
> KD.
> 
> 

I don't lie to myself, I respect my opinions.

I wasn't asking you (any Christians reading this) to lie to yourself, I 
was asking you to meditate rather than pray and see if it made any 
difference. This experiment doesn't require you to change your belief 
stance. If you have faith in God then what have you got to lose? Is God 
going to ignore you if you ignore God? I don't think you will believe that.

Just try a week of tackling life by yourself. God will still be wherever 
he is now at the end of it.

If you get through that week just as well on your own as with praying to 
God what would you conclude? I don't know! Why don't you try it and see 
for yourself.

I can't turn on belief in God, for a week or for a lifetime. The best I 
can manage is about forty seconds at a time, although I haven't tried 
for a few months I have made many efforts. I keep coming back to the 
fundamental issue that lying is wrong, telling myself I believe 
something when I don't is a lie. I am not a liar.

I'm just too moral to believe in gods.

-- 
Martin Willett


http://mwillett.org

  _____________________________________________________________
|                                                   ^^^^^^^^\ |
| I must not challenge deities to smite me          |       | |
| I must not challenge deities to smite me          |_ __   | |
| I must not challenge deities to smite me          (.(. )  | |
| I must not challenge deities to smite me  _       (_      ) |
|                                           \\      /___/' /  |
|                                           _\\_      \    |  |
|  SmiteCam IV                             ((   )     /====|  |
|  14 June 2005                             \  <.__._-      \ |
|___________________________________________ <//___.         ||
http://mwillett.org/atheism/Smitecam_IV.htm

"Jeffrey Goldberg" <nobody@goldmark.org> wrote in message
news:119746go22e7c7a@news.supernews.com...
>
[snip]
>
> Why isn't Jesus willing to do for me what He did for Doubting
> Thomas?
>
> As I understand things, Jesus went through a great deal of trouble,
> suffering and torture to save my soul (along with everyone else's).
> Now an additional requirement for my soul to be saved (if I
> understand things correctly) is for me to accept and believe in
> Jesus.
>
> Now Jesus should know exactly what kind of evidence would convince
> someone like me of His existence and divinity.  But so far, He's
> been either incapable or unwilling to provide that evidence.  Why?
> Is my soul not worth as much as Doubting Thomas'?  Or is He
> incapable of doing so?
>
I do not know much about your beliefs, but if you are an
atheist/rationalist, perhaps you are not open to the evidence
presented in the Gospels due to a prior commitment to naturalism.
As the naturalistic worldview cannot, by its very definition, admit to
the possibility of a supernatural explanation, i.e a Creator God, the
door is firmly shut and bolted at a deep level of belief.   Christians
know that Gods Spirit does not deny anyone their free-will by forcing
himself upon them.


> If Martin is ignorant of principles of Christianity, then I share
> that ignorance, and would welcome enlightenment.
>
> -j
>
I am suspicious of Martins motives.  I know he is intelligent enough
to know by now that these smitecam stunts do not amount to anything,
let alone disprove the existence of a Creator, yet he still persists
and glories in it.   I suspect it is just a device to irritate theists
and provoke a response.   I think such tactics betray an arrogance
of character.

Steve Wilson

Jeffrey Goldberg wrote:

> 
> Wow.  A content analysis of prayers of supplication would be 
> fascinating.  In addition to reasons or desperation, people may believe 
> that they fact that they ask God pleases God.  That is, they may feel 
> that God wants them to prey.
> 
I am not much a speller but I think you meant "pray". Why does God want 
people to pray?

The meanings given in Merriam Webster include "plea" and the making of a 
plea in a humble manner, as well as adoration, supplication, confession 
and thanksgiving.

All of these seem to me to be strongly related to power differences. So 
prayer is not normally thought of as having a conversation - it is 
entering into some kind of dependence with a much more powerful being, 
and humbly acknowledging one's lowly status.

Hmm. That leads me to think of Nietzsche's point that christianity is a 
slave religion.

> 
>> Anyway, it seems to me that if God is a supremely rational being then 
>> prayer is very unlikely to influence him. For whatever course of 
>> action he has taken must have been chosen for rational reasons. And 
>> the prayers directed at God are unlikely to change the rational basis 
>> of God's plan.
> 
> 
> I think that most theologies take that view in principle, but that in 
> practice many believers think that prayers of supplication are worthwhile.
> 
>> And all of this and we haven't yet got to the idea that God is 
>> omniscient. For if God is omniscient then he already knows not only 
>> that any particular person will pray but also what his reaction to 
>> that prayer will be. Which again makes the prayer rather pointless.
> 
> 
> Unless God values prayer itself.

See ppoints made above.

> 
> Most sophisticated religious people I know say that they pray for 
> guidance or insight or inspiration or patience.  These more meditative 
> prayers aren't asking for a miracle, and from an atheist's point of view 
> these may still be helpful.

Prayer as self-help strategy? As an alternative to reading Norman 
Vincent Peale? Well the latter thought is so distasteful that i might 
almost go for it...

Lance

Steve Wilson wrote:
> "Jeffrey Goldberg" <nobody@goldmark.org> wrote in message
> news:119746go22e7c7a@news.supernews.com...

>>Jesus should know exactly what kind of evidence would convince
>>someone like me of His existence and divinity.  But so far, He's
>>been either incapable or unwilling to provide that evidence.  Why?
>>Is my soul not worth as much as Doubting Thomas'?  Or is He
>>incapable of doing so?

> I do not know much about your beliefs, but if you are an
> atheist/rationalist, perhaps you are not open to the evidence
> presented in the Gospels due to a prior commitment to naturalism.

I find the evidence of the Gospels suspect.  Just as, for example, I 
find reports of alien abductions suspect.  You probably find the story 
of the origins of the Book of Mormon suspect for many of the same reasons.

As my example of alien abductions show, it is not the supernatural that 
is the sticking point.  Alien abduction stories do not involve the 
supernatural, but still I do not find those stories sufficient evidence 
to convince me of those abductions.  Likewise, I don't find the reports 
in the Gospels sufficient to convince me of the Resurrection.

So I don't think that it is correct to consider me closed minded.  As I 
said, Jesus knows what kind of evidence would convince someone like me. 
  I am sincerely saying that I am open to persuasion.  I just don't find 
the Gospels persuasive, just as you -- presumably -- don't find reports 
of alien abductions persuasive.

> As the naturalistic worldview cannot, by its very definition, admit to
> the possibility of a supernatural explanation, i.e a Creator God, the
> door is firmly shut and bolted at a deep level of belief.

I really don't think that some unwillingness to accept the supernatural 
is what is somehow closing my mind to the evidence of the Gospels.  I 
just find them fairly scrappy evidence for a claim so astounding.


> Christians
> know that Gods Spirit does not deny anyone their free-will by forcing
> himself upon them.

I am asking to be presented with the kind of evidence that would 
persuade me.  I am not asking for my will to forced.


> I am suspicious of Martins motives.  I know he is intelligent enough
> to know by now that these smitecam stunts do not amount to anything,
> let alone disprove the existence of a Creator,

They are, of course, stunts.  But those stunts are a also dramatic way 
of raising the same question that I've been asking here.  Why won't the 
deity reveal Himself to rational skeptics in a way that would work for 
rational skeptics?

-j

"Jeffrey Goldberg" <nobody@goldmark.org> wrote in message
news:11978slrib9r015@news.supernews.com...
> Martin Willett wrote:
>> Jeffrey Goldberg wrote:
>
>>> Why isn't Jesus willing to do for me what He did for Doubting
>>> Thomas?
>
>> It seems to me that God wants us to stop using rational thought,
>> and then we can get to heaven. That is like saying an eagle can get
>> to heaven if it doesn't fly.
>
> This is my take on things as well.  But I would like to hear what a
> defender of Christianity has to say.
>
> -j
>
Why do atheists assume that rational thought and belief in God are
mutually exclusive?  Indeed if Christianity is so irrational why does
Martin rely on Christianity for his moral framework?  If this is still
the case today, is he not complicit in this alleged irrationality?
And Martin's comment makes no sense.  If God has created us, then it
is God who has given us the capacity for rational thought in the first
place.  Why would he then want us to deny ourselves and abandon it?

I can see nothing irrational in coming to the conclusion that
Christ did indeed rise from death and appear to the disciples on the
basis of the eyewitness accounts in the New Testament.  The attested
nature of the New Testament is sufficient to support a reasoned and
rational belief in a Creator and a risen Messiah.  The atheist may
strongly disagree with this, but both have used rational thought
processes.  It is therefore wrong for the atheist to dismiss as
irrational those who have come to a different conclusion.   In
contradiction to this atheistic dogma about irrational Christianity,
Christianity encourages us to use our God given capacity to understand
the world and his revelation of himself.  Indeed Christianity gives us
good reason to trust our rationality and gives us a source for the
laws of logic.

I think theism gives a far better explanation for our rational 
faculties
than the evolutionary alternative offered by atheists.  To me if
humanity is the product  of time plus chance, how can we ever be
sure, on the basis of this explanation, of the reliability of our 
rationality?
Indeed we are sure of our rational processes used in concert with the
laws of logic, but at present I do not see that evolutionary theory 
can give
support to it.

Steve Wilson

"Jeffrey Goldberg" <nobody@goldmark.org> wrote in message
news:1199ruuqbk4vi75@news.supernews.com...
> Steve Wilson wrote:
> > "Jeffrey Goldberg" <nobody@goldmark.org> wrote in message
> > news:119746go22e7c7a@news.supernews.com...
>
> >>Jesus should know exactly what kind of evidence would convince
> >>someone like me of His existence and divinity.  But so far, He's
> >>been either incapable or unwilling to provide that evidence.  Why?
> >>Is my soul not worth as much as Doubting Thomas'?  Or is He
> >>incapable of doing so?
>
> > I do not know much about your beliefs, but if you are an
> > atheist/rationalist, perhaps you are not open to the evidence
> > presented in the Gospels due to a prior commitment to naturalism.
>
> I find the evidence of the Gospels suspect.  Just as, for example, I
> find reports of alien abductions suspect.  You probably find the story
> of the origins of the Book of Mormon suspect for many of the same reasons.
>
> As my example of alien abductions show, it is not the supernatural that
> is the sticking point.  Alien abduction stories do not involve the
> supernatural, but still I do not find those stories sufficient evidence
> to convince me of those abductions.  Likewise, I don't find the reports
> in the Gospels sufficient to convince me of the Resurrection.
>
> So I don't think that it is correct to consider me closed minded.  As I
> said, Jesus knows what kind of evidence would convince someone like me.
>   I am sincerely saying that I am open to persuasion.  I just don't find
> the Gospels persuasive, just as you -- presumably -- don't find reports
> of alien abductions persuasive.
>
> > As the naturalistic worldview cannot, by its very definition, admit to
> > the possibility of a supernatural explanation, i.e a Creator God, the
> > door is firmly shut and bolted at a deep level of belief.
>
> I really don't think that some unwillingness to accept the supernatural
> is what is somehow closing my mind to the evidence of the Gospels.  I
> just find them fairly scrappy evidence for a claim so astounding.
>
>
> > Christians
> > know that Gods Spirit does not deny anyone their free-will by forcing
> > himself upon them.
>
> I am asking to be presented with the kind of evidence that would
> persuade me.  I am not asking for my will to forced.
>
>
> > I am suspicious of Martins motives.  I know he is intelligent enough
> > to know by now that these smitecam stunts do not amount to anything,
> > let alone disprove the existence of a Creator,
>
> They are, of course, stunts.  But those stunts are a also dramatic way
> of raising the same question that I've been asking here.  Why won't the
> deity reveal Himself to rational skeptics in a way that would work for
> rational skeptics?
>
> -j

Could be the error is in the way you are rationalising God.  If my belief is
correct, that God is everywhere, outside us, with us and within us, then he
does not need to 'reveal himself' at all.  It becomes a question of whether
we <recognise> God as revealed in the fullness of Creation.
KD.

Steve Wilson wrote:
> "Jeffrey Goldberg" <nobody@goldmark.org> wrote in message
> news:11978slrib9r015@news.supernews.com...
> 
>>Martin Willett wrote:
>>
>>>Jeffrey Goldberg wrote:
>>
>>>>Why isn't Jesus willing to do for me what He did for Doubting
>>>>Thomas?
>>
>>>It seems to me that God wants us to stop using rational thought,
>>>and then we can get to heaven. That is like saying an eagle can get
>>>to heaven if it doesn't fly.
>>
>>This is my take on things as well.  But I would like to hear what a
>>defender of Christianity has to say.

> Why do atheists assume that rational thought and belief in God are
> mutually exclusive?

Please understand that my comment, and I believe Martin's, was in 
anticipation of some believer answering my question with, "God does not 
provide you with sufficient evidence of His existence because He wants 
you to have Faith, not mere belief."

I, and presumably Martin, have heard that argument before.  But it has 
not been mentioned in this discussion.  Lance also alluded to that 
particular debate in this discussion.

So Martin was anticipating and commenting on an argument that was never 
made in this discussion.  He gave his view of it, and I concurred.

But since you are not making that argument, then it really is moot.

You are taking the opposite line, I believe.  If I understand you 
correctly, you are claiming that God has provided sufficient evidence 
for a rational person to believe.

> If God has created us, then it
> is God who has given us the capacity for rational thought in the first
> place.  Why would he then want us to deny ourselves and abandon it?

I fully agree with you.  Our two greatest gifts as a species are our 
compassion and rationality.  But please be aware that their are some 
Christians who do take the view that God wants us to surrender Reason to 
Faith.  You are not among those, but it is a fairly common position.  I 
share your objection to it.

> I can see nothing irrational in coming to the conclusion that
> Christ did indeed rise from death and appear to the disciples on the
> basis of the eyewitness accounts in the New Testament.  The attested
> nature of the New Testament is sufficient to support a reasoned and
> rational belief in a Creator and a risen Messiah.

Fine.  As I said in a separate post, I find that evidence woefully 
insufficient for such an extraordinary claim.

> The atheist may strongly disagree with this, but both have used
> rational thought processes.  It is therefore wrong for the atheist to
> dismiss as irrational those who have come to a different conclusion.

Fine.  We are both forming our beliefs by the weight of the evidence.  A 
rational process.  Not all Christians take your line on this, but I am 
pleased that you do.

Since you do, may I ask whether you believe in alien abductions based on 
innumerable eyewitness accounts?

-j

Kool Dude wrote:

...
> If my belief is correct, that God is everywhere, outside us,
> with us and within us, then he does not need to 'reveal
> himself' at all.  It becomes a question of whether we
> <recognise> God as revealed in the fullness of Creation.

We could only 'recognise' such a thing if a god seemed like the only
possible explanation for the existence of the universe... but this is
not the case.  In fact, there's more faith involved in believing that
a god just happens to exist, who made the universe, than believing
that the universe just happens to exist - We know that the universe
exists, but we don't know that a god exists.

What is it about the universe that you think 'reveals' the existence
of a god?

"Icarus" <icarus_uk@email.com> wrote in message
news:3fljt0F8hpf2U1@individual.net...
> Kool Dude wrote:
>
> ...
> > If my belief is correct, that God is everywhere, outside us,
> > with us and within us, then he does not need to 'reveal
> > himself' at all.  It becomes a question of whether we
> > <recognise> God as revealed in the fullness of Creation.
>
> We could only 'recognise' such a thing if a god seemed like the only
> possible explanation for the existence of the universe... but this is
> not the case.  In fact, there's more faith involved in believing that
> a god just happens to exist, who made the universe, than believing
> that the universe just happens to exist - We know that the universe
> exists, but we don't know that a god exists.
>
> What is it about the universe that you think 'reveals' the existence
> of a god?
>

Most observable things seem to fall apart and decay with time.  That seems
incompatible with the complex and ordered universe we see around us.  I
think a belief that the universe 'just happens' to exist still leaves us a
lot of unanswered questions.  Just saying "It's there, and that's it" is a
denial of human nature to ask and to go on asking these probably
un-answerable questions.  We still have "Why does it exist?"  "How does it
exist?" even if one does not believe in God.  Such questions still remain.
KD.

KD wrote:

"Most observable things seem to fall apart and decay with time. "

And indeed that is the case with humans (we grow old and die) and with
"species" - the fossil record clearly shows we once did not exist, and
that enormous numbers of creatures that once did exist exist no more.
It is certain that human kind will also disappear eventually. (Maybe
quite soon). Indeed the astreroid belt in the solar system shows that
the same fate awaits planets, and we even know that the stars will
change to red giants and white dwarfs over time... The universe itself
seem to be changing and may well end as completely cold and lifeless.

Lance

"Lance" <lachenicht@ukzn.ac.za> wrote in message
news:1117113243.993907.101500@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> KD wrote:
>
> "Most observable things seem to fall apart and decay with time. "
>
> And indeed that is the case with humans (we grow old and die) and with
> "species" - the fossil record clearly shows we once did not exist, and
> that enormous numbers of creatures that once did exist exist no more.
> It is certain that human kind will also disappear eventually. (Maybe
> quite soon). Indeed the astreroid belt in the solar system shows that
> the same fate awaits planets, and we even know that the stars will
> change to red giants and white dwarfs over time... The universe itself
> seem to be changing and may well end as completely cold and lifeless.
>
> Lance
>

And this is precisely my point:  If it's all winding down slowly to nothing,
logically one would suppose it must have initially started out as a very,
very ordered system.  That fits the idea of Creation better than the idea
that order came out of nothing for no reason, and now is just falling apart
slowly.  Why have order in the first place?  We're not the first people to
ask these sort of questions, whether you believe in God or not, or whatever
you believe God to be.
KD.

Kool Dude wrote:

> "Icarus" <icarus_uk@email.com> wrote in message
> news:3fljt0F8hpf2U1@individual.net...
>> Kool Dude wrote:
>>
>> ...
>>> If my belief is correct, that God is everywhere, outside us,
>>> with us and within us, then he does not need to 'reveal
>>> himself' at all.  It becomes a question of whether we
>>> <recognise> God as revealed in the fullness of Creation.
>>
>> We could only 'recognise' such a thing if a god seemed like the only
>> possible explanation for the existence of the universe... but this is
>> not the case.  In fact, there's more faith involved in believing that
>> a god just happens to exist, who made the universe, than believing
>> that the universe just happens to exist - We know that the universe
>> exists, but we don't know that a god exists.
>>
>> What is it about the universe that you think 'reveals' the existence
>> of a god?
>
> Most observable things seem to fall apart and decay with time.  That
> seems incompatible with the complex and ordered universe we see
> around us.

Whilst it is true that we observe things falling apart and decaying with
time, it's also true we observe all these same things arising out of chaos
in the first place.  Both processes seem to be part of the nature of the
universe.  The fundamental properties of matter and forces produce the order
and complexity that you see without any apparent need for tinkering to make
it all happen.  Naturally we want to know *why* the universe is the way it
is, but I don't see any reason to suppose that it requires an intelligent
creator - it's more honest to just say "we don't know" (and in the meantime,
invoke the anthropic principle).

> I think a belief that the universe 'just happens' to
> exist still leaves us a lot of unanswered questions.

Definitely.

> Just saying
> "It's there, and that's it" is a denial of human nature to ask and to
> go on asking these probably un-answerable questions.

I agree - That would be no better than the people who use a creator god as
an answer to this really difficult question of why the universe exists, and
then brush aside questions about why a god should exist with "It's not for
us to know", or some such response.

>  We still have
> "Why does it exist?"  "How does it exist?" even if one does not
> believe in God.  Such questions still remain. KD.

Yes you're quite right, of course - It just seems to me that "we don't know"
is a more rational answer than "we don't know and therefore a god must have
made it" (especially as we have no doubt that the universe exists but no
evidence that a god exists).

Kool Dude wrote:

> "Lance" <lachenicht@ukzn.ac.za> wrote in message
> news:1117113243.993907.101500@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> 
>>KD wrote:
>>
>>"Most observable things seem to fall apart and decay with time. "
>>
>>And indeed that is the case with humans (we grow old and die) and with
>>"species" - the fossil record clearly shows we once did not exist, and
>>that enormous numbers of creatures that once did exist exist no more.
>>It is certain that human kind will also disappear eventually. (Maybe
>>quite soon). Indeed the astreroid belt in the solar system shows that
>>the same fate awaits planets, and we even know that the stars will
>>change to red giants and white dwarfs over time... The universe itself
>>seem to be changing and may well end as completely cold and lifeless.
>>
>>Lance
>>
> 
> 
> And this is precisely my point:  If it's all winding down slowly to nothing,
> logically one would suppose it must have initially started out as a very,
> very ordered system.  That fits the idea of Creation better than the idea
> that order came out of nothing for no reason, and now is just falling apart
> slowly.  Why have order in the first place?  We're not the first people to
> ask these sort of questions, whether you believe in God or not, or whatever
> you believe God to be.
> KD.
> 
> 
Actually it is worse than your "come out of noting". Because the 
singularity from which we call the big bang created time and space as 
well "the universe" contents. So it isn't really meaningful to ask what 
was before because there was no time and space before...

But if God created the universe who created God? All you have done is 
push back the prioblem of the origins to an even mnore mysterious level. 
At least science has not tried to explain the mysterious with the even 
more mysterious.

Lance

Lance wrote:

> At least science has not tried to explain the mysterious with
> the even more mysterious.

An admirably succinct way of putting it  :-)

Kool Dude wrote:

> And this is precisely my point: If it's all winding down slowly to 
> nothing, logically one would suppose it must have initially started
> out as a very, very ordered system.

For your information, you are in some very good company in thinking that 
way.  Plato took exactly that position.

> That fits the idea of Creation better than the idea that order came 
> out of nothing for no reason, and now is just falling apart slowly. 
> Why have order in the first place?

Modern science has some very good ideas about how the universe came 
about.  Including its order and apparent "design".

> We're not the first people to ask these sort of questions, whether
> you believe in God or not, or whatever you believe God to be.

Even if we didn't have good scientific answers to many of these 
questions, "God" would not be the answer, unless you take a very weak 
sense of "God".

We do have the question of "where do the fundamental, irreducible, laws 
of nature come from?".  Now you might find the answer, "Because they 
just are," unsatisfying.  Fine.  I also find that answer unsatisfying.

But suppose your alternative answer is, "Because that is how God wanted 
it."  I would then ask, "Well, where did this God fellow come from?" 
You might answer that "God simply is (or was)."  Well, I find answer 
exactly as unsatisfying as the first alternative.  It gives me no new 
understanding or insight into why the fundamental laws of nature are 
what they are.  And it proposes a new thing, God, which is far more 
complicated than the thing He created (the simple, fundamental laws of 
the universe).

-j

"Jeffrey Goldberg" <nobody@goldmark.org> wrote in message
news:119a34jj1k8kl4e@news.supernews.com...
> Steve Wilson wrote:
>> "Jeffrey Goldberg" <nobody@goldmark.org> wrote in message
>> news:11978slrib9r015@news.supernews.com...
>>
>>>Martin Willett wrote:
>>>
>>>>Jeffrey Goldberg wrote:
>>>

[section cut for brevity]

>
> You are taking the opposite line, I believe.  If I understand you
> correctly, you are claiming that God has provided sufficient
> evidence for a rational person to believe.
>
I think that is about right.   I endorse the use of rationality in
examining the truth claims of a religion and respect the decision of
the person who, after examining the claim and the evidence is not
convinced.  At the end of the day, with regards Christianity, I
believe it is those who God touches with his spirit who will have
their eyes opened to the validity of the evidence.  This is not a
provable fact though, it is purely a belief based on the Bible.

>> If God has created us, then it
>> is God who has given us the capacity for rational thought in the
>> first
>> place.  Why would he then want us to deny ourselves and abandon it?
>
> I fully agree with you.  Our two greatest gifts as a species are our
> compassion and rationality.  But please be aware that their are some
> Christians who do take the view that God wants us to surrender
> Reason to Faith.  You are not among those, but it is a fairly common
> position.  I share your objection to it.
>
I am aware of Christian denominations which are known for their
tendency towards anti-intellectualism and experientialism, indeed I
struggled in one such denomination for 14 years.  I am also aware that
some individuals can go way over the top and get it completey wrong.
However Martin's comment is directed specifically at God, not to
believers.  As such his comment does not make a lot of sense and
betrays a tendency I have observed before.  The tendency is to assume
that religion is by definition irrational.   I also note this tendency
usually refers to 'religion' in an undifferentiated manner which
serves as a handy catch-all category to tar and dissmiss any
religion without needing to bother with their very different truth
claims. I find this disturbing and helps to convince me that there
is something more at work in atheism rather than just a cool and
objective rationality weighing up the evidence.


[another portion snipped]

> Fine.  We are both forming our beliefs by the weight of the
> evidence.  A rational process.  Not all Christians take your line on
> this, but I am pleased that you do.
>
Please do not misunderstand me, I am not a rationalist and am probably
not quite as close to your position as you might think.  I think
rationalists such as Martin make the opposite error to those who
give the supreme place to inner experience, as the only guide to true
knowledge, and downplay reason.   Rationalists do the opposite and put
logical reasoning on a pedestal and nail it down as the only way of
knowing true knowledge.  I use my rationality to the best of my
ability because it is one of the God given defining elements of being
human, and it is encouraged in the Bible, but I also see that the
human capacity for knowledge and understanding is necessarily limited
because we are finite beings.  I just do not think we are able to find
all truth by our own efforts however hard we may try and however much
we think we know, which is the impression given to me by
atheists/rationalists.
As my capacity is limited by my finiteness, I have to use belief when
the balance of the evidence points me in a certain direction.  I
could, as a rationalist, demand water-tight proof, but I think such
radical skepticsm would get me nowhere in providing the answers to the
nagging intuition in my heart that says there is much more to
existence than just bouncing molecules in a hard unyeilding universe.
I can almost hear Martin sucking his teeth at this point and saying
there is no meaning to life.
However much I appear to endorse rationality, I am not just a
logic machine crunching all the numbers and arriving at a cold hearted
conclusion to which I then conform.   I am a human being who in
addition to reason has emotions, love, feelings and intuitive
yearnings which all need to work together in balance towards
an answer.   I believe that is the way we were made and to nail
it all down exclusively to reason alone is just as bad as totally
abandoning it for experientialism.
Reason plays a very important part, but it is not the sole arbiter.



> Since you do, may I ask whether you believe in alien abductions
> based on innumerable eyewitness accounts?
>
> -j

Specifically alien abductions?  Is there here some cross-reference to
the eyewitness accounts to the resurrection in this sudden change of
subject?

I am not really that knowledgable on the specific cases of claimed
alien abduction, so I can only offer my general and uninformed
opinion.  I would say that although some cases could be put down to
outright deception, or a desire for attention, I would tend to accept
that most have had a genuine experience of some kind,  but whether it
is a real alien abduction is not quite so easy for me to confirm.
Some researchers have suggested that a sleep disorder which keeps a
person in a dreaming state, unable to move or speak but totally lucid,
is a plausable explanation.  They say there are puzzling accounts from
centuries ago of people who claim they were sat on and prodded etc by
witches whilst on their bed.  They were terrified but were unable to
move, speak, or do anything.  Whether there is some similarity to the
more modern phenomena, with substitution for an alien,  is hard for me
to say.  However even if it were the case, it  would only explain
those claimed abductions where only one person was involved.
Where two people have experienced the same event the whole
subject becomes more difficult to explain.  I have to admit
to my ignorance in that I do not know if there have been any claimed
abductions where there were more than two witnesses present to the
same event.  The more witnesses there are to the same event the more
difficult it becomes to discount the event as a human sourced
phenomena, even more so if the witnessness are not the subject of the
abduction.

Over the years I have observed some odd things about this whole
subject of aliens and UFO's which have kept me from accepting it
whole-heartedly.  For instance, why have aliens become gradually
standardised over the decades into the spindley bodied humanoid
figures with a large-head and almond eyes?  Why does there seem to
have been an increase in appearances from the late 1940's onward?  I
could be wrong, but why do alien abduction appear to be a little
less common now?  And why have the space ships changed over time
apparently keeping pace with improvements in technology and changes
in aethetic appreciation?   This indicates to me that all may not be
as it first appears.

I know this is a dreadfully lame reply to your enquiry.  I do have my
doubts but I am not firm in it.

Steve Wilson

I will go silent soon as it is a bank holiday weekend and I'm off
for a short break.  Martin has miss-timed his campaign a little.

"Steve Wilson" <stevewilson109@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:42963bb1$1_2@mk-nntp-2.news.uk.tiscali.com...
>
> "Jeffrey Goldberg" <nobody@goldmark.org> wrote in message
> news:119a34jj1k8kl4e@news.supernews.com...
> > Steve Wilson wrote:
> >> "Jeffrey Goldberg" <nobody@goldmark.org> wrote in message
> >> news:11978slrib9r015@news.supernews.com...
> >>
> >>>Martin Willett wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>Jeffrey Goldberg wrote:
> >>>
>
> [section cut for brevity]
>
> >
> > You are taking the opposite line, I believe.  If I understand you
> > correctly, you are claiming that God has provided sufficient
> > evidence for a rational person to believe.
> >
> I think that is about right.   I endorse the use of rationality in
> examining the truth claims of a religion and respect the decision of
> the person who, after examining the claim and the evidence is not
> convinced.  At the end of the day, with regards Christianity, I
> believe it is those who God touches with his spirit who will have
> their eyes opened to the validity of the evidence.  This is not a
> provable fact though, it is purely a belief based on the Bible.
>
> >> If God has created us, then it
> >> is God who has given us the capacity for rational thought in the
> >> first
> >> place.  Why would he then want us to deny ourselves and abandon it?
> >
> > I fully agree with you.  Our two greatest gifts as a species are our
> > compassion and rationality.  But please be aware that their are some
> > Christians who do take the view that God wants us to surrender
> > Reason to Faith.  You are not among those, but it is a fairly common
> > position.  I share your objection to it.
> >
> I am aware of Christian denominations which are known for their
> tendency towards anti-intellectualism and experientialism, indeed I
> struggled in one such denomination for 14 years.  I am also aware that
> some individuals can go way over the top and get it completey wrong.
> However Martin's comment is directed specifically at God, not to
> believers.  As such his comment does not make a lot of sense and
> betrays a tendency I have observed before.  The tendency is to assume
> that religion is by definition irrational.   I also note this tendency
> usually refers to 'religion' in an undifferentiated manner which
> serves as a handy catch-all category to tar and dissmiss any
> religion without needing to bother with their very different truth
> claims. I find this disturbing and helps to convince me that there
> is something more at work in atheism rather than just a cool and
> objective rationality weighing up the evidence.
>
>
> [another portion snipped]
>
> > Fine.  We are both forming our beliefs by the weight of the
> > evidence.  A rational process.  Not all Christians take your line on
> > this, but I am pleased that you do.
> >
> Please do not misunderstand me, I am not a rationalist and am probably
> not quite as close to your position as you might think.  I think
> rationalists such as Martin make the opposite error to those who
> give the supreme place to inner experience, as the only guide to true
> knowledge, and downplay reason.   Rationalists do the opposite and put
> logical reasoning on a pedestal and nail it down as the only way of
> knowing true knowledge.  I use my rationality to the best of my
> ability because it is one of the God given defining elements of being
> human, and it is encouraged in the Bible, but I also see that the
> human capacity for knowledge and understanding is necessarily limited
> because we are finite beings.  I just do not think we are able to find
> all truth by our own efforts however hard we may try and however much
> we think we know, which is the impression given to me by
> atheists/rationalists.
> As my capacity is limited by my finiteness, I have to use belief when
> the balance of the evidence points me in a certain direction.  I
> could, as a rationalist, demand water-tight proof, but I think such
> radical skepticsm would get me nowhere in providing the answers to the
> nagging intuition in my heart that says there is much more to
> existence than just bouncing molecules in a hard unyeilding universe.
> I can almost hear Martin sucking his teeth at this point and saying
> there is no meaning to life.
> However much I appear to endorse rationality, I am not just a
> logic machine crunching all the numbers and arriving at a cold hearted
> conclusion to which I then conform.   I am a human being who in
> addition to reason has emotions, love, feelings and intuitive
> yearnings which all need to work together in balance towards
> an answer.   I believe that is the way we were made and to nail
> it all down exclusively to reason alone is just as bad as totally
> abandoning it for experientialism.
> Reason plays a very important part, but it is not the sole arbiter.
>
>
>
> > Since you do, may I ask whether you believe in alien abductions
> > based on innumerable eyewitness accounts?
> >
> > -j
>
> Specifically alien abductions?  Is there here some cross-reference to
> the eyewitness accounts to the resurrection in this sudden change of
> subject?
>
> I am not really that knowledgable on the specific cases of claimed
> alien abduction, so I can only offer my general and uninformed
> opinion.  I would say that although some cases could be put down to
> outright deception, or a desire for attention, I would tend to accept
> that most have had a genuine experience of some kind,  but whether it
> is a real alien abduction is not quite so easy for me to confirm.
> Some researchers have suggested that a sleep disorder which keeps a
> person in a dreaming state, unable to move or speak but totally lucid,
> is a plausable explanation.  They say there are puzzling accounts from
> centuries ago of people who claim they were sat on and prodded etc by
> witches whilst on their bed.  They were terrified but were unable to
> move, speak, or do anything.  Whether there is some similarity to the
> more modern phenomena, with substitution for an alien,  is hard for me
> to say.  However even if it were the case, it  would only explain
> those claimed abductions where only one person was involved.
> Where two people have experienced the same event the whole
> subject becomes more difficult to explain.  I have to admit
> to my ignorance in that I do not know if there have been any claimed
> abductions where there were more than two witnesses present to the
> same event.  The more witnesses there are to the same event the more
> difficult it becomes to discount the event as a human sourced
> phenomena, even more so if the witnessness are not the subject of the
> abduction.
>
> Over the years I have observed some odd things about this whole
> subject of aliens and UFO's which have kept me from accepting it
> whole-heartedly.  For instance, why have aliens become gradually
> standardised over the decades into the spindley bodied humanoid
> figures with a large-head and almond eyes?  Why does there seem to
> have been an increase in appearances from the late 1940's onward?  I
> could be wrong, but why do alien abduction appear to be a little
> less common now?  And why have the space ships changed over time
> apparently keeping pace with improvements in technology and changes
> in aethetic appreciation?   This indicates to me that all may not be
> as it first appears.
>
> I know this is a dreadfully lame reply to your enquiry.  I do have my
> doubts but I am not firm in it.
>
> Steve Wilson
>
> I will go silent soon as it is a bank holiday weekend and I'm off
> for a short break.  Martin has miss-timed his campaign a little.
>

I like this reply, as it shows honesty and intelligence.  Enjoy your weekend
break.
KD.

> Speaking as a fellow atheist, I think Martin might have more hope of
> success if he took a glass of his finest malt whisky and challenged
> the faithful to turn it into water by the power of prayer. That just
> might arouse god's interest. BTW if there is a god I think that there
> must be an awful lot of atheists who drink at my local because the
> beer there is regularly turned to gnat's piss.

I thought that that was the miracle of turning ale into lager.

Martin,
    If God actually does strike you down to prove his existance then it will
be too late and you will spend an eternity in Hell for not believig while
you were alive. Have you considered a less terminal proof?

TTFN


"Martin Willett" <mwillett.org@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:3fjdj7F8418kU5@individual.net...
> Don't miss the show, a live webcast of the wrath of the gods!
>
>                #####
>               #### _\_
>              ####  @ @
>              ####.  _\
>             ##########____________  ~ ~ ~ SMITE!
>             ##### ####        |_\
>             #####`####-----.  |''
>             #(  # :###      `.|
>             #| |#   #|
>             #| |     |
>              | |     |
>             /__|==[]=<
>              |..     |
>              '''     |
>              |       |
>              |       |
>             /        |
>            |  http://mwillett.org/atheism/Smitecam_IV.htm
>           /          |
>          /___________\
>        SmiteCam\__/__/
>
> Tuesday 14th June 2005
>
> http://mwillett.org/atheism/Smitecam_IV.htm
>
> --
> Martin Willett
>
>
> http://mwillett.org

Steve Wilson wrote:

[A detailed thoughtful message, which I'm snipping here]


> I will go silent soon as it is a bank holiday weekend and I'm off
> for a short break.  Martin has miss-timed his campaign a little.

I will also be travelling today (Friday) and this weekend.  I'll get 
back to you next week.

-j

"Jeffrey Goldberg" <nobody@goldmark.org> wrote in message
news:11978slrib9r015@news.supernews.com...
> Martin Willett wrote:
> > Jeffrey Goldberg wrote:
>
> >> Why isn't Jesus willing to do for me what He did for Doubting Thomas?
>
> > It seems to me that God wants us to stop using rational thought, and
> > then we can get to heaven. That is like saying an eagle can get to
> > heaven if it doesn't fly.
>
> This is my take on things as well.  But I would like to hear what a
> defender of Christianity has to say.
>
I have no idea whether God exists or not but not wishing to saddle myself
with the moniker of god botherer, I would hazard that, its the religious
hierarchy rather than God that tries to stifle intelligent thought.

Alfred wrote:
> Martin,
>     If God actually does strike you down to prove his existance then it will
> be too late and you will spend an eternity in Hell for not believig while
> you were alive. Have you considered a less terminal proof?

Have you considered that it's not going to happen?

Steve Wilson wrote:

> "Jeffrey Goldberg" <nobody@goldmark.org> wrote in message
> news:119a34jj1k8kl4e@news.supernews.com...

>>You are taking the opposite line, I believe.  If I understand you
>>correctly, you are claiming that God has provided sufficient
>>evidence for a rational person to believe.

> I think that is about right.   I endorse the use of rationality in
> examining the truth claims of a religion and respect the decision of
> the person who, after examining the claim and the evidence is not
> convinced.

OK.


> At the end of the day, with regards Christianity, I
> believe it is those who God touches with his spirit who will have
> their eyes opened to the validity of the evidence.  This is not a
> provable fact though, it is purely a belief based on the Bible.

I am having problems reconciling that with what you have said above.

One the one hand, you are saying that one should base their concluding 
on the evidence through a rational process.  On the other hand, you are 
saying that to really appreciate the evidence requires being touched. 
(OK, cheap joke, but I couldn't resist the temptation.)  Let me 
rephrase:  On the other hand you are saying that to really appreciate 
the evidence requires divine inspiration.  Presumably you agree that for 
the person being touched with His spirit is not undergoing a rational 
process.

> I am aware of Christian denominations which are known for their
> tendency towards anti-intellectualism and experientialism,

That certainly exists, but that is not what I am referring to.  Only 
Martin and I have actually alluded to Jesus' answer to Doubting Thomas. 
  If I recall correctly (I'm too lazy to look it up) it is something 
like, "You have seen and you now believe, but blessed are those who have 
not seen yet still believe."

That is the core of the you "you should not seek evidence, but believe 
despite the lack of evidence" argument that Martin and I responded to. 
That type of argument does have God asking us to suspend our rationality.

 > I am not a rationalist and am probably
> not quite as close to your position as you might think.  I think
> rationalists such as Martin make the opposite error to those who
> give the supreme place to inner experience, as the only guide to true
> knowledge, and downplay reason.

Here I am speaking only for myself.  I am very distrustful of inner 
experience.  There was a time in my life, while definitely agnostic, I 
believed that everything was some how connected and that there was some 
benevolent force out there.  These feelings came from inner experience, 
but when I was in certain moods or frames of mind, I would "see" 
evidence of this in everything around me.

Then I went through a brief period where I enjoyed various chemical 
stimulation of exactly that sort of thinking.  And when I say "enjoy" I 
mean it.  I have never been so happy as on a particularly successful "trip".

But after coming down I spent some effort wondering how a chemical 
process in the brain could lead me to see things about the world around 
me that were only hinted at before.  Among other effects of the 
particular drugs, I saw patterns and shapes in what would seem like a 
randomness under a normal state of mind.

My eventual conclusion was to be suspicious of my own mind's ability to 
spot patterns or see purpose.  Sure, plenty of patterns I noticed are 
real, but it would take investigation to verify.  Likewise with other 
aspects of inner experience.

Consider familiar optical illusions.  We experience them, yet we know 
that they are illusions.  I came to treat certain types of inner 
experiences as "cognitive illusions".   I'm not saying that I dismiss 
inner experience, I'm saying that it is a source (sometimes a great 
source) of insight and hypotheses.  But the hypotheses need to be tested 
before being accepted.  And the way to test them is to actively seek out 
evidence which would show them to be false.  (It's easy to find evidence 
to confirm any particular hypothesis, but the test comes when actively 
looking for evidence to the contrary).


It may well be that this issue of inner experience is the key difference 
between us.  People do seem to vary in the extent to which they have 
certain sorts of sensations and feelings.  I suspect that most atheists 
simply don't experience those.  I suspect that I am an unusual atheist 
in that I do share these feelings.  I have felt the love of God, but 
I've also felt the love of my pith helmet.  So, I am a bit suspicious of 
such feelings.


>> Since you do [treat the Gospels as evidence], may I ask whether you
>> believe in alien abductions based on innumerable eyewitness
>> accounts?


> Specifically alien abductions?  Is there here some cross-reference to
> the eyewitness accounts to the resurrection in this sudden change of
> subject?

Sorry.  I had made the connection in posting 
<1199ruuqbk4vi75@news.supernews.com>.  If you missed that message, then 
my question here would seem very much out of the blue.

I'll clip a bit from that posting.

=======================================================

SW:
 > I do not know much about your beliefs, but if you are an
 > atheist/rationalist, perhaps you are not open to the evidence
 > presented in the Gospels due to a prior commitment to naturalism.


JG:
I find the evidence of the Gospels suspect.  Just as, for example, I 
find reports of alien abductions suspect.  You probably find the story 
of the origins of the Book of Mormon suspect for many of the same reasons.

As my example of alien abductions show, it is not the supernatural that 
is the sticking point.  Alien abduction stories do not involve the 
supernatural, but still I do not find those stories sufficient evidence 
to convince me of those abductions.  Likewise, I don't find the reports 
in the Gospels sufficient to convince me of the Resurrection.

========================================================


> I would tend to accept
> that most have had a genuine experience of some kind,

I agree.  Or at least a genuine memory of some experience, if not the 
experience itself.

> but whether it
> is a real alien abduction is not quite so easy for me to confirm.
> Some researchers have suggested that a sleep disorder which keeps a
> person in a dreaming state, unable to move or speak but totally lucid,
> is a plausable explanation.

There are lots of plausible explanations.

> They say there are puzzling accounts from
> centuries ago of people who claim they were sat on and prodded etc by
> witches whilst on their bed.  They were terrified but were unable to
> move, speak, or do anything.

I'm familiar with that history.

> However even if it were the case, it  would only explain
> those claimed abductions where only one person was involved.
> Where two people have experienced the same event the whole
> subject becomes more difficult to explain.  I have to admit
> to my ignorance in that I do not know if there have been any claimed
> abductions where there were more than two witnesses present to the
> same event. 

I, too am ignorant of those claims.  It's a good question as to whether 
there are sincere claims of that nature.  I don't know.

> The more witnesses there are to the same event the more
> difficult it becomes to discount the event as a human sourced
> phenomena, even more so if the witnessness are not the subject of the
> abduction.

I see your point, but I'm sure that you see mine as well.  Third hand 
accounts of witness reports, even multiple witnesses of the same even, 
of a very extraordinary claim (resurrection) just isn't going to come 
close to being persuasive unless one is in a frame of mind where one 
really wants to believe.

Without your inner experiences, I suspect you would agree that the 
Gospels are not, in and of themselves, nearly sufficient evidence to 
believe such an extraordinary claim.

And so we really do get closer to "blessed are those who have not seen, 
yet still believe."  So the belief among atheists that irrationality is 
at the core of (most varieties of most religions) is based on the notion 
that it is a virtue to believe despite sufficient evidence.

> Over the years I have observed some odd things about this whole
> subject of aliens and UFO's which have kept me from accepting it
> whole-heartedly.  For instance, why have aliens become gradually
> standardised over the decades into the spindley bodied humanoid
> figures with a large-head and almond eyes?  Why does there seem to
> have been an increase in appearances from the late 1940's onward?  I
> could be wrong, but why do alien abduction appear to be a little
> less common now?  And why have the space ships changed over time
> apparently keeping pace with improvements in technology and changes
> in aethetic appreciation?   This indicates to me that all may not be
> as it first appears.

I've seen somewhere an analysis that shows that the descriptions of the 
aliens and their ships follow (not lead) images from science fiction.

> I know this is a dreadfully lame reply to your enquiry.

Hardly.

-j

Lance wrote:

> Prayer as self-help strategy?

At least that is how many believers describe their use of prayer to me. 
  Maybe they aren't telling me the whole story.

> As an alternative to reading Norman 
> Vincent Peale? Well the latter thought is so distasteful that i might 
> almost go for it...

I can see that.

Cheers,

-j

"Jeffrey Goldberg" <nobody@goldmark.org> wrote in message
news:119fvrdtkin0801@news.supernews.com...
> Only
> Martin and I have actually alluded to Jesus' answer to Doubting Thomas.

It is not true that only you & Martin had alluded to this.  I quote one of
MY earlier posts below:-  [KD]

"We can't understand God, or even start to.  Maybe that's a trite answer,
but
I don't think our inability to understand God means there is no God.  I
can't begin to know what God IS, and I see our symbols in Christianity as
'seeing through a glass darkly' a shadow of the inaccessible Glory of God.
Somehow to put it simply it seems to be about love and trust, the answer is
in scripture, over the Thomas thing Jesus said Thomas believed because he
saw, and then went on to say "Happy are those who have NOT seen and yet
believed".

I guess some of us believe although we cannot 'see'[have proof] and are
happy - that would be so even if we've got it wrong!  We'd still be happy.
KD."

Kool Dude wrote:
> "Jeffrey Goldberg" <nobody@goldmark.org> wrote in message
> news:119fvrdtkin0801@news.supernews.com...

>>Only
>>Martin and I have actually alluded to Jesus' answer to Doubting Thomas.
> 
> 
> It is not true that only you & Martin had alluded to this.  I quote one of
> MY earlier posts below:-  [KD]

I stand corrected.  Sorry for the error.

-j

"Jeffrey Goldberg" <nobody@goldmark.org> wrote in message
> Third hand accounts of witness reports, even multiple witnesses of the
same even,
>of a very extraordinary claim (resurrection) just isn't going to come
>close to being persuasive unless one is in a frame of mind where one
>really wants to believe.

Correct! Jeffrey.
Now you have mentioned the answer to what really 'ails' you.
Lack of faith.

Without faith it is impossible to find or believe in God.
Indeed. "Without faith it is IMPOSSIBLE to please God. for he that cometh to
God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that
diligently seek him." Hebrews 11: 6+ (KJV)

Thus we see the reason for the abject failure of the perishing Atheist and
the colly-wobbly Agnostic.

Jeff...

"Alfred" <dot@dot.com> scrivened in
news:0qule.407$Ri4.378@newsfe4-win.ntli.net: 

> Martin,
>     If God actually does strike you down to prove his existance then
>     it will 
> be too late and you will spend an eternity in Hell for not believig
> while you were alive. Have you considered a less terminal proof?
> 
> TTFN
> 

Has it occurred to you that you may actually be ever so slightly missing 
the point here?
No?
I didn't really think so.

> 
> "Martin Willett" <mwillett.org@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
> news:3fjdj7F8418kU5@individual.net...
>> Don't miss the show, a live webcast of the wrath of the gods!
>>
>>                #####
>>               #### _\_
>>              ####  @ @
>>              ####.  _\
>>             ##########____________  ~ ~ ~ SMITE!
>>             ##### ####        |_\
>>             #####`####-----.  |''
>>             #(  # :###      `.|
>>             #| |#   #|
>>             #| |     |
>>              | |     |
>>             /__|==[]=<
>>              |..     |
>>              '''     |
>>              |       |
>>              |       |
>>             /        |
>>            |  http://mwillett.org/atheism/Smitecam_IV.htm
>>           /          |
>>          /___________\
>>        SmiteCam\__/__/
>>
>> Tuesday 14th June 2005
>>
>> http://mwillett.org/atheism/Smitecam_IV.htm
>>
>> --
>> Martin Willett
>>
>>
>> http://mwillett.org
> 
> 



-- 
The Bible

If you're going to write a good bit of fantasy fiction, at least put some 
goblins or trolls in it, you dumb cunts. Given the choice between this 
bollocks and the Lord of the Rings, which one do you think we're going to 
go for? The Bible with its bunch of bearded nomad hippies talking shite, or 
something with fucking battles and dragons? 

And I think you're forgetting the first page, which should read: 'All 
characters in this book are fictitious and any resemblance to any real 
persons, living or dead, is entirely coincidental'.

I liked the bit when God and Jesus have a lightsaber duel on a bridge 
though.

Quote from Cunts Corner "http://www.holymoly.co.uk/cc/index.php?alpha=t"

1st Century Apostolic Traditionalist wrote:

> "Jeffrey Goldberg" <nobody@goldmark.org> wrote in message

>> Third hand accounts of witness reports, even multiple witnesses of
>> the same even, of a very extraordinary claim (resurrection) just
>> isn't going to come close to being persuasive unless one is in a
>> frame of mind where one really wants to believe.

> Correct! Jeffrey.
> Now you have mentioned the answer to what really 'ails' you.
> Lack of faith.

Thank you for making the point so clearly.  This is what I have been 
trying to persuade Steve Wilson of.  But I needed a believer to say it 
so clearly and unambiguously.  (KD suggested the same things, but less 
forcefully.)

Let me continue to quote you.

> Without faith it is impossible to find or believe in God. Indeed.
> "Without faith it is IMPOSSIBLE to please God. for he that cometh to 
> God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that 
> diligently seek him." Hebrews 11: 6+ (KJV)

Would you agree that faith requires the (partial) suspension of reason?

The way I see it is that what you are asking of me (and what your God is 
asking of me) is to be irrational in my belief.  My belief needs to be 
based on Faith and and evidence of the ordinary sort.

Steve Wilson (who I hope reads these messages when he returns from 
holiday) has scolded me and Martin for saying that religion (or at least 
Christianity) requires a suspension of rationality.  Steve may not take 
my word for that, but he may well take yours.

So thank you for pointing this out so clearly.

Whether Steve accepts or rejects your position if for him to say when he 
returns.  But I hope that reading your message, Steve now sees what 
Martin and I were getting at.

Cheers,

-j

"Muad D'ib" <atreides@arrakis.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9664CFA4B13AAkwizatzhaderrach@194.117.143.37...
. Given the choice between this
> bollocks and the Lord of the Rings, which one do you think we're going to
> go for? The Bible with its bunch of bearded nomad hippies talking shite,
or
> something with fucking battles and dragons?
>

There IS a dragon fight, "Bel and the Dragon".  It's in the apocrypha.
KD.

"Martin Willett" <mwillett.org@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:3fjuleF895geU1@individual.net...
> Kool Dude wrote:
> > "Martin Willett" <mwillett.org@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
> > news:3fjkt4F7vmklU1@individual.net...
> >
> >>Jeffrey Goldberg wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>Most sophisticated religious people I know say that they pray for
> >>>guidance or insight or inspiration or patience.  These more meditative
> >>>prayers aren't asking for a miracle, and from an atheist's point of view
> >>>these may still be helpful.
> >>
> >>How many religious people have the courage to leave their god(s) out of
> >>their prayers altogether, in the interests of science?
> >>
> >>Are you up for it? Try simply meditating without asking God for
> >>anything, without involving God in the conversation at all. Try if for a
> >>week, see if it has any effect on your life to live without your
> >>invisible friend for a week. Have you got the courage to do that or do
> >>your guilt circuits kick you sharply in the kidneys at the very thought?
> >>
> >>I am not suggesting you give up on God or give up your faith, just stop
> >>reinforcing those thoughts. Do it for a full week and see if you feel
> >>any different, any "less spiritual", less happy or less moral.
> >>
> >>-- 
> >>Martin Willett
> >>
> >>
> >>http://mwillett.org
> >
> >
> > Have you tried the experiment of <including> God in YOUR meditation?  Is a
> > belief in God merely a negative meme or is there some truth in it?  You try
> > a week with God, and I'll try one without.  How's that?
> > KD.
> >
> >
>
> I don't lie to myself, I respect my opinions.
>
> I wasn't asking you (any Christians reading this) to lie to yourself, I
> was asking you to meditate rather than pray and see if it made any
> difference. This experiment doesn't require you to change your belief
> stance. If you have faith in God then what have you got to lose? Is God
> going to ignore you if you ignore God? I don't think you will believe that.
>
> Just try a week of tackling life by yourself. God will still be wherever
> he is now at the end of it.
>
> If you get through that week just as well on your own as with praying to
> God what would you conclude? I don't know! Why don't you try it and see
> for yourself.
>
> I can't turn on belief in God, for a week or for a lifetime. The best I
> can manage is about forty seconds at a time, although I haven't tried
> for a few months I have made many efforts. I keep coming back to the
> fundamental issue that lying is wrong, telling myself I believe
> something when I don't is a lie. I am not a liar.
>
> I'm just too moral to believe in gods.

Not even immoral ones?

It strikes me that prayer, in its most usual form, is a direction of will power.
This can be to heal, mend or protect, influence people and events, seek guidance
or knowledge, or offer thanks. As kids we probably all wished and prayed for
less worthy things like toys, or the destruction of enemies...

'Destructive' prayers are somewhat frowned on nowadays, though have been common
in many religions throughout history... and even the most apparently positive
prayers can contain an element of malice, for instance, praying for an abundant
harvest, which may imply somewhat negative wishes for the locust population.

In this, prayer is little different from the casting of spells - the latter are
just prayers with extra props and different rituals to concentrate the mind and
will. Although not a Christian, I do believe there is someting in the power of
prayer, and suspect that (within reason), the power of the will can influence
events and people. Whether any higher entities are involved is impossible to say
for sure, but I don't dismiss it as a mechanism of how it works sometimes.

Prayer is a part of 'magic' and vice versa from what I've seen, and the more who
pray for something the better (something good that is!). As with all things,
some are better at it than others.

The sort of archaic mumbo jumbo we uttered parrot fashion in school assemblies
as kids are nothing more than a tedious waste of time.
                   Cheers
                            Martin

"Steve Wilson" <stevewilson109@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Ug6le.42$vb2.10@newsfe1-gui.ntli.net...
>
> "Jeffrey Goldberg" <nobody@goldmark.org> wrote in message
> news:11978slrib9r015@news.supernews.com...
> > Martin Willett wrote:
> >> Jeffrey Goldberg wrote:
> >
> >>> Why isn't Jesus willing to do for me what He did for Doubting
> >>> Thomas?
> >
> >> It seems to me that God wants us to stop using rational thought,
> >> and then we can get to heaven. That is like saying an eagle can get
> >> to heaven if it doesn't fly.
> >
> > This is my take on things as well.  But I would like to hear what a
> > defender of Christianity has to say.
> >
> > -j
> >
> Why do atheists assume that rational thought and belief in God are
> mutually exclusive?  Indeed if Christianity is so irrational why does
> Martin rely on Christianity for his moral framework?  If this is still
> the case today, is he not complicit in this alleged irrationality?

Christianity is by and large based on a very appealing moral framework,
involving charity, tolerance, protection of the weak and respect for others.
Love for our fellow men in other words, and as we almost all prefer to be loved
and live in peace, it caters for our human nature well.

You don't have to believe in Christ as the son of God (or even God) to be
'good', kind, tolerant, loving and understanding however - I like to think I am
on the whole, although I am not a Christian. Many who profess to be devout
Christians certainly don't abide by such a moral framework, although I'm glad to
say most seem to.

> And Martin's comment makes no sense.  If God has created us, then it
> is God who has given us the capacity for rational thought in the first
> place.  Why would he then want us to deny ourselves and abandon it?

And given us the power (and therefore presumably the right) to question His
plans for us, and what we are supposed to do? He hasn't given us many clues
really, and can't be surprised (I reject the notion He knows all and cannot be
dismayed or surprised) when we reject the notion of His very existance?

Either God made us with inherent, fatal flaws, or is flawed Himself, since so
many of us let him down, dissappoint him, and doubt his existance. Maybe that's
part of the 'made in his image' thing?

What He expects of us, He should have made more clear - or given us better
facilities and abilities to understand His notoriously 'mysterious ways'! A few
scraps of writing written by hearsay witnesses and unsupported by historical
records), are not really enough for most people these days  certainly not me.

> I can see nothing irrational in coming to the conclusion that
> Christ did indeed rise from death and appear to the disciples on the
> basis of the eyewitness accounts in the New Testament.  The attested
> nature of the New Testament is sufficient to support a reasoned and
> rational belief in a Creator and a risen Messiah.  The atheist may
> strongly disagree with this, but both have used rational thought
> processes.

The historian also has problems, if thinking rationally and looking objectively.
Likewise the scientist.

You say 'attested' there Steve, but by whom?

> It is therefore wrong for the atheist to dismiss as
> irrational those who have come to a different conclusion.   In
> contradiction to this atheistic dogma about irrational Christianity,
> Christianity encourages us to use our God given capacity to understand
> the world and his revelation of himself.  Indeed Christianity gives us
> good reason to trust our rationality and gives us a source for the
> laws of logic.

I'll leave out the obvious question 'why did He make it all so diffcult and
confusing?', and the even more awkward 'why did He make us in the first
place?' - too heavy!

I still say that there really isn't enough evidence to make such an important
decision about the possible fate our immortal soul upon. Surely God must know
this - or is He toying with us? Why does He need to 'test' his creations so - if
all that is said about Him is true, He is infallible, and makes no mistakes.

> I think theism gives a far better explanation for our rational
> faculties
> than the evolutionary alternative offered by atheists.  To me if
> humanity is the product  of time plus chance, how can we ever be
> sure, on the basis of this explanation, of the reliability of our
> rationality?

Obviously we can't, we are constantly disappointed by our rationality and
reason, and frequently fail disastrously as a consequence. Either we are
ill-equipped, or flawed in manufacture.

> Indeed we are sure of our rational processes used in concert with the
> laws of logic, but at present I do not see that evolutionary theory
> can give
> support to it.

It is not entirely satisfactory, I agree, but it does provide a far more likely
and acceptable explanation of most things, than the notion we were created by an
all-seeing, all-powerful, omnipresent and loving God.

Sorry...
               Cheers
                        Martin

"Jeffrey Goldberg" <nobody@goldmark.org> wrote in message
news:1199ruuqbk4vi75@news.supernews.com...
> Steve Wilson wrote:
> > "Jeffrey Goldberg" <nobody@goldmark.org> wrote in message
> > news:119746go22e7c7a@news.supernews.com...
>
> >>Jesus should know exactly what kind of evidence would convince
> >>someone like me of His existence and divinity.  But so far, He's
> >>been either incapable or unwilling to provide that evidence.  Why?
> >>Is my soul not worth as much as Doubting Thomas'?  Or is He
> >>incapable of doing so?
>
> > I do not know much about your beliefs, but if you are an
> > atheist/rationalist, perhaps you are not open to the evidence
> > presented in the Gospels due to a prior commitment to naturalism.
>
> I find the evidence of the Gospels suspect.  Just as, for example, I
> find reports of alien abductions suspect.  You probably find the story
> of the origins of the Book of Mormon suspect for many of the same reasons.
>
> As my example of alien abductions show, it is not the supernatural that
> is the sticking point.  Alien abduction stories do not involve the
> supernatural, but still I do not find those stories sufficient evidence
> to convince me of those abductions.  Likewise, I don't find the reports
> in the Gospels sufficient to convince me of the Resurrection.
>
> So I don't think that it is correct to consider me closed minded.  As I
> said, Jesus knows what kind of evidence would convince someone like me.
>   I am sincerely saying that I am open to persuasion.  I just don't find
> the Gospels persuasive, just as you -- presumably -- don't find reports
> of alien abductions persuasive.
>
> > As the naturalistic worldview cannot, by its very definition, admit to
> > the possibility of a supernatural explanation, i.e a Creator God, the
> > door is firmly shut and bolted at a deep level of belief.
>
> I really don't think that some unwillingness to accept the supernatural
> is what is somehow closing my mind to the evidence of the Gospels.  I
> just find them fairly scrappy evidence for a claim so astounding.

I am with you here absolutely Jeffrey, the supernatural is the last explanation
I turn to when all natural, scientific explanations fail. I nevertheless accept
and have seen the 'supernatural' with my own eyes, many times.

Likewise, being a keen historian of scientific training myself, the historical
evidence that might confirm the veracity of the gospels, or the story of Christ
is less than 'wanting' - it hardly exists. All that despite many centuries of
desperate, often highly dubious searching by historians and archaeologists with
agendas, attempting to 'prove' it.

I too am 'open to persuasion' (no reasonable person should not have an open
mind), but when it comes to staking my soul on something, I require mmore than
the Bible, and the assurance of those who thump it. To me, and anyone objective,
that is entirely reasonable.

> > Christians
> > know that Gods Spirit does not deny anyone their free-will by forcing
> > himself upon them.
>
> I am asking to be presented with the kind of evidence that would
> persuade me.  I am not asking for my will to forced.

This is the dilemmas for Christianity in the modern world - we ask and demand
proof and evidence. I'm afraid there is none, at least, not nearly enough to
decide such a serious issue as the fate of your soul after death.

> > I am suspicious of Martins motives.  I know he is intelligent enough
> > to know by now that these smitecam stunts do not amount to anything,
> > let alone disprove the existence of a Creator,
>
> They are, of course, stunts.  But those stunts are a also dramatic way
> of raising the same question that I've been asking here.  Why won't the
> deity reveal Himself to rational skeptics in a way that would work for
> rational skeptics?

That is of course another Martin (to avoid confusion). You would think that a
loving, omnipresent God as believed in by Christians would appreciate our
dilemma, and help us out. So far, He hasn't for me, and many, many others.

I have been accused of "being angry with God", which is a fair observation. Were
God what Christianity purports him to be, I would indeed be furious at his lack
of care, attention, sympathy and action. God, if you choose to call the power or
powers that be above us, is obviously not like that, or he would be worthy only
of contempt and loathing, like a cruel child torturing his pets. How could
anyone possibly 'love' such a callous, careless and neglectful entity?

It can only be that God looks on in despair, unable to intervene for some
reason, has other fish to fry elsewhere (it is a very, very big Universe, of
which we are but a miniscule part after all), or has gone on holiday - assuming
He ever existed.

All in all, this notion of 'God' as an individual, sentient entity who looks
down on us with love and affection, just doesn't work - not for me.Even if I did
believe in Him that way, loving him would be an impossibity (fearing maybe, but
not loving).

I hope I will discover the truth one day, but I won't hold my breath (I daresay
if I ever do, my breathing days will be over anyway). Until then, I will pay as
much respect as I can to the marvels around me, and take solace in the knowledge
that I am such a tiny, transient part of a Universe so vast, it really makes
little difference what I do - except to me and those here with me now.
                   Cheers
                           Martin

PS Why God apparently requires and demands adulation, love and worship from his
creations is another question I find intriguing. Anyone have any ideas?

"Steve Wilson" <stevewilson109@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:42963bb1$1_2@mk-nntp-2.news.uk.tiscali.com...
>
> "Jeffrey Goldberg" <nobody@goldmark.org> wrote in message
> news:119a34jj1k8kl4e@news.supernews.com...
> > Steve Wilson wrote:
> >> "Jeffrey Goldberg" <nobody@goldmark.org> wrote in message
> >> news:11978slrib9r015@news.supernews.com...
> >>
> >>>Martin Willett wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>Jeffrey Goldberg wrote:
> >>>
>
> [section cut for brevity]

And more snippage for the same reason...

>
> > Since you do, may I ask whether you believe in alien abductions
> > based on innumerable eyewitness accounts?
> >
> > -j
>
> Specifically alien abductions?  Is there here some cross-reference to
> the eyewitness accounts to the resurrection in this sudden change of
> subject?

I can't speak for for Jeffery, but I (being 'the other Martin') would say there
is a very strong connection, as there is with the phenomena of ghosts and UFO's
to name but two 'paranormal events'. There are (in some cases) no adequate
scientific explanations.

> I am not really that knowledgable on the specific cases of claimed
> alien abduction, so I can only offer my general and uninformed
> opinion.  I would say that although some cases could be put down to
> outright deception, or a desire for attention, I would tend to accept
> that most have had a genuine experience of some kind,  but whether it
> is a real alien abduction is not quite so easy for me to confirm.
> Some researchers have suggested that a sleep disorder which keeps a
> person in a dreaming state, unable to move or speak but totally lucid,
> is a plausable explanation.  They say there are puzzling accounts from
> centuries ago of people who claim they were sat on and prodded etc by
> witches whilst on their bed.  They were terrified but were unable to
> move, speak, or do anything.  Whether there is some similarity to the
> more modern phenomena, with substitution for an alien,  is hard for me
> to say.  However even if it were the case, it  would only explain
> those claimed abductions where only one person was involved.
> Where two people have experienced the same event the whole
> subject becomes more difficult to explain.  I have to admit
> to my ignorance in that I do not know if there have been any claimed
> abductions where there were more than two witnesses present to the
> same event.  The more witnesses there are to the same event the more
> difficult it becomes to discount the event as a human sourced
> phenomena, even more so if the witnessness are not the subject of the
> abduction.

These phenomena seem to have been experienced by humans since records began, and
as time went on, different explanations and theories have been put forward to
explain them.

I can speak with some authority here (for once!), as I have certainly seen a
UFO, have definitely witnessed poltergeist phenomena, and have experienced
(though never seen) 'ghosts'. I also know with absolute certainty that the
'alien abduction' phenomena is no myth, it happens. Without going any further, I
am extremely reluctant to believe it has anything to do with visitors from other
planets, though I don't dismiss it entirely (there are other possibilities, some
just as bizarre).

> Over the years I have observed some odd things about this whole
> subject of aliens and UFO's which have kept me from accepting it
> whole-heartedly.  For instance, why have aliens become gradually
> standardised over the decades into the spindley bodied humanoid
> figures with a large-head and almond eyes?  Why does there seem to
> have been an increase in appearances from the late 1940's onward?

The 'almond eyed' alien became 'popular' after Whitley Streiber's book
'Communion' was released in the early 80's (a bizarre book, which anyone
remotely interested in religion or the subject really should read - a film was
also made of it, starring Christopher Walken).

The image was reinforced by the Spielburg film 'Close Encounters of the Third
Kind' and 'ET', which spawned a strange modern folklore about these 'alien
entities', which many kooks and theorists have expanded into a quasi religion
since.

Before that time, 'aliens' were seen as hulking robots or malevolent warlords
with slaves, such as Ming the Merciless, but if you go back further you will
find the now familiar, spindly, almond eyed creatures cropping up throughout
history as elves, 'little people' or various demons.

The Saxons used to live in terror of 'elf shot', (arrows fired by the little
sods), and abductions have always been connected with them, along with the
phenomena of 'lost time'.

Exactly what or who they are, what they are up to, or what they want of us, has
always been a bit mysterious, but it often seems to involve reproduction in some
form. I'm pretty sure they have always been 'with us' somehow, though how and
why.... don't ask me! Personally, I suspect that they are probably part of what
cosmologists call 'dark matter', the invisible part of the Universe that is
normally undectable (and unseen) by us, sitting here on a tiny rock, going round
a very average star, on the edge of a nondescript galaxy, in a remote corner.
They perhaps exist in a 'dimension' that co-exists with ours, but can only
occasionally be seen - as do other things, like UFO's and ghosts.

Very speculative, but there is far more 'proof' of their existence (thanks to
reliable observers and witnesses) than there is for the existence, prescence and
miraculous deeds of Jesus Christ - 'faith' is not required. Not by me anyway - I
know - though I won't go into that on a public newsgroup.

> I could be wrong, but why do alien abduction appear to be a little
> less common now?  And why have the space ships changed over time
> apparently keeping pace with improvements in technology and changes
> in aethetic appreciation?   This indicates to me that all may not be
> as it first appears.

Probably just because of changing technology, fashion and ideas. I remember
Tintin going to the moon in what looked rather like a V2.... now he would go in
a B2 lookalike I expect. Elves used to use bows and arrows, today they probably
sport plasma weapons. We almost always adapt what we see and experience (if
outlandish) into the framework of out current technology and understanding, and
our political and religious beliefs.

All is not as it appears, and never has been - that's for sure!

> I know this is a dreadfully lame reply to your enquiry.  I do have my
> doubts but I am not firm in it.

Not at all Steve - it is 'food for thought', and that's what it's all about!

> I will go silent soon as it is a bank holiday weekend and I'm off
> for a short break.  Martin has miss-timed his campaign a little.

That's the other Martin of course - I don't campaign, just ask awkward
questions....

               Cheers
                       Martin




>

--------------080704050203060609030901
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit



martin reboul wrote:

>"Jeffrey Goldberg" <nobody@goldmark.org> wrote in message
>news:1199ruuqbk4vi75@news.supernews.com...
>  
>
>>Steve Wilson wrote:
>>    
>>
>>>"Jeffrey Goldberg" <nobody@goldmark.org> wrote in message
>>>news:119746go22e7c7a@news.supernews.com...
>>>      
>>>
>>>>Jesus should know exactly what kind of evidence would convince
>>>>someone like me of His existence and divinity.  But so far, He's
>>>>been either incapable or unwilling to provide that evidence.  Why?
>>>>Is my soul not worth as much as Doubting Thomas'?  Or is He
>>>>incapable of doing so?
>>>>        
>>>>
>>>I do not know much about your beliefs, but if you are an
>>>atheist/rationalist, perhaps you are not open to the evidence
>>>presented in the Gospels due to a prior commitment to naturalism.
>>>      
>>>
>>I find the evidence of the Gospels suspect.  Just as, for example, I
>>find reports of alien abductions suspect.  You probably find the story
>>of the origins of the Book of Mormon suspect for many of the same reasons.
>>
>>As my example of alien abductions show, it is not the supernatural that
>>is the sticking point.  Alien abduction stories do not involve the
>>supernatural, but still I do not find those stories sufficient evidence
>>to convince me of those abductions.  Likewise, I don't find the reports
>>in the Gospels sufficient to convince me of the Resurrection.
>>
>>So I don't think that it is correct to consider me closed minded.  As I
>>said, Jesus knows what kind of evidence would convince someone like me.
>>  I am sincerely saying that I am open to persuasion.  I just don't find
>>the Gospels persuasive, just as you -- presumably -- don't find reports
>>of alien abductions persuasive.
>>
>>    
>>
>>>As the naturalistic worldview cannot, by its very definition, admit to
>>>the possibility of a supernatural explanation, i.e a Creator God, the
>>>door is firmly shut and bolted at a deep level of belief.
>>>      
>>>
>>I really don't think that some unwillingness to accept the supernatural
>>is what is somehow closing my mind to the evidence of the Gospels.  I
>>just find them fairly scrappy evidence for a claim so astounding.
>>    
>>
>
>I am with you here absolutely Jeffrey, the supernatural is the last explanation
>I turn to when all natural, scientific explanations fail. I nevertheless accept
>and have seen the 'supernatural' with my own eyes, many times.
>
>Likewise, being a keen historian of scientific training myself, the historical
>evidence that might confirm the veracity of the gospels, or the story of Christ
>is less than 'wanting' - it hardly exists. All that despite many centuries of
>desperate, often highly dubious searching by historians and archaeologists with
>agendas, attempting to 'prove' it.
>
>I too am 'open to persuasion' (no reasonable person should not have an open
>mind), but when it comes to staking my soul on something, I require mmore than
>the Bible, and the assurance of those who thump it. To me, and anyone objective,
>that is entirely reasonable.
>
>  
>
>>>Christians
>>>know that Gods Spirit does not deny anyone their free-will by forcing
>>>himself upon them.
>>>      
>>>
>>I am asking to be presented with the kind of evidence that would
>>persuade me.  I am not asking for my will to forced.
>>    
>>
>
>This is the dilemmas for Christianity in the modern world - we ask and demand
>proof and evidence. I'm afraid there is none, at least, not nearly enough to
>decide such a serious issue as the fate of your soul after death.
>
>  
>
>>>I am suspicious of Martins motives.  I know he is intelligent enough
>>>to know by now that these smitecam stunts do not amount to anything,
>>>let alone disprove the existence of a Creator,
>>>      
>>>
>>They are, of course, stunts.  But those stunts are a also dramatic way
>>of raising the same question that I've been asking here.  Why won't the
>>deity reveal Himself to rational skeptics in a way that would work for
>>rational skeptics?
>>    
>>
>
>That is of course another Martin (to avoid confusion). You would think that a
>loving, omnipresent God as believed in by Christians would appreciate our
>dilemma, and help us out. So far, He hasn't for me, and many, many others.
>
>I have been accused of "being angry with God", which is a fair observation. Were
>God what Christianity purports him to be, I would indeed be furious at his lack
>of care, attention, sympathy and action. God, if you choose to call the power or
>powers that be above us, is obviously not like that, or he would be worthy only
>of contempt and loathing, like a cruel child torturing his pets. How could
>anyone possibly 'love' such a callous, careless and neglectful entity?
>
>It can only be that God looks on in despair, unable to intervene for some
>reason, has other fish to fry elsewhere (it is a very, very big Universe, of
>which we are but a miniscule part after all), or has gone on holiday - assuming
>He ever existed.
>
>All in all, this notion of 'God' as an individual, sentient entity who looks
>down on us with love and affection, just doesn't work - not for me.Even if I did
>believe in Him that way, loving him would be an impossibity (fearing maybe, but
>not loving).
>
>I hope I will discover the truth one day, but I won't hold my breath (I daresay
>if I ever do, my breathing days will be over anyway). Until then, I will pay as
>much respect as I can to the marvels around me, and take solace in the knowledge
>that I am such a tiny, transient part of a Universe so vast, it really makes
>little difference what I do - except to me and those here with me now.
>                   Cheers
>                           Martin
>
>PS Why God apparently requires and demands adulation, love and worship from his
>creations is another question I find intriguing. Anyone have any ideas?
>
>
>
>
>he has an inferiority complex and needs constant reassurance.
>
>
>
>
>  
>


--------------080704050203060609030901
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
  <title></title>
</head>
<body>
<br>
<br>
martin reboul wrote:<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
 cite="mid429a5b5b_4@mk-nntp-2.news.uk.tiscali.com">
  <pre wrap="">"Jeffrey Goldberg" <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:nobody@goldmark.org">&lt;nobody@goldmark.org&gt;</a> wrote in message
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="news:1199ruuqbk4vi75@news.supernews.com">news:1199ruuqbk4vi75@news.supernews.com</a>...
  </pre>
  <blockquote type="cite">
    <pre wrap="">Steve Wilson wrote:
    </pre>
    <blockquote type="cite">
      <pre wrap="">"Jeffrey Goldberg" <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:nobody@goldmark.org">&lt;nobody@goldmark.org&gt;</a> wrote in message
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="news:119746go22e7c7a@news.supernews.com">news:119746go22e7c7a@news.supernews.com</a>...
      </pre>
    </blockquote>
    <blockquote type="cite">
      <blockquote type="cite">
        <pre wrap="">Jesus should know exactly what kind of evidence would convince
someone like me of His existence and divinity.  But so far, He's
been either incapable or unwilling to provide that evidence.  Why?
Is my soul not worth as much as Doubting Thomas'?  Or is He
incapable of doing so?
        </pre>
      </blockquote>
    </blockquote>
    <blockquote type="cite">
      <pre wrap="">I do not know much about your beliefs, but if you are an
atheist/rationalist, perhaps you are not open to the evidence
presented in the Gospels due to a prior commitment to naturalism.
      </pre>
    </blockquote>
    <pre wrap="">I find the evidence of the Gospels suspect.  Just as, for example, I
find reports of alien abductions suspect.  You probably find the story
of the origins of the Book of Mormon suspect for many of the same reasons.

As my example of alien abductions show, it is not the supernatural that
is the sticking point.  Alien abduction stories do not involve the
supernatural, but still I do not find those stories sufficient evidence
to convince me of those abductions.  Likewise, I don't find the reports
in the Gospels sufficient to convince me of the Resurrection.

So I don't think that it is correct to consider me closed minded.  As I
said, Jesus knows what kind of evidence would convince someone like me.
  I am sincerely saying that I am open to persuasion.  I just don't find
the Gospels persuasive, just as you -- presumably -- don't find reports
of alien abductions persuasive.

    </pre>
    <blockquote type="cite">
      <pre wrap="">As the naturalistic worldview cannot, by its very definition, admit to
the possibility of a supernatural explanation, i.e a Creator God, the
door is firmly shut and bolted at a deep level of belief.
      </pre>
    </blockquote>
    <pre wrap="">I really don't think that some unwillingness to accept the supernatural
is what is somehow closing my mind to the evidence of the Gospels.  I
just find them fairly scrappy evidence for a claim so astounding.
    </pre>
  </blockquote>
  <pre wrap=""><!---->
I am with you here absolutely Jeffrey, the supernatural is the last explanation
I turn to when all natural, scientific explanations fail. I nevertheless accept
and have seen the 'supernatural' with my own eyes, many times.

Likewise, being a keen historian of scientific training myself, the historical
evidence that might confirm the veracity of the gospels, or the story of Christ
is less than 'wanting' - it hardly exists. All that despite many centuries of
desperate, often highly dubious searching by historians and archaeologists with
agendas, attempting to 'prove' it.

I too am 'open to persuasion' (no reasonable person should not have an open
mind), but when it comes to staking my soul on something, I require mmore than
the Bible, and the assurance of those who thump it. To me, and anyone objective,
that is entirely reasonable.

  </pre>
  <blockquote type="cite">
    <blockquote type="cite">
      <pre wrap="">Christians
know that Gods Spirit does not deny anyone their free-will by forcing
himself upon them.
      </pre>
    </blockquote>
    <pre wrap="">I am asking to be presented with the kind of evidence that would
persuade me.  I am not asking for my will to forced.
    </pre>
  </blockquote>
  <pre wrap=""><!---->
This is the dilemmas for Christianity in the modern world - we ask and demand
proof and evidence. I'm afraid there is none, at least, not nearly enough to
decide such a serious issue as the fate of your soul after death.

  </pre>
  <blockquote type="cite">
    <blockquote type="cite">
      <pre wrap="">I am suspicious of Martins motives.  I know he is intelligent enough
to know by now that these smitecam stunts do not amount to anything,
let alone disprove the existence of a Creator,
      </pre>
    </blockquote>
    <pre wrap="">They are, of course, stunts.  But those stunts are a also dramatic way
of raising the same question that I've been asking here.  Why won't the
deity reveal Himself to rational skeptics in a way that would work for
rational skeptics?
    </pre>
  </blockquote>
  <pre wrap=""><!---->
That is of course another Martin (to avoid confusion). You would think that a
loving, omnipresent God as believed in by Christians would appreciate our
dilemma, and help us out. So far, He hasn't for me, and many, many others.

I have been accused of "being angry with God", which is a fair observation. Were
God what Christianity purports him to be, I would indeed be furious at his lack
of care, attention, sympathy and action. God, if you choose to call the power or
powers that be above us, is obviously not like that, or he would be worthy only
of contempt and loathing, like a cruel child torturing his pets. How could
anyone possibly 'love' such a callous, careless and neglectful entity?

It can only be that God looks on in despair, unable to intervene for some
reason, has other fish to fry elsewhere (it is a very, very big Universe, of
which we are but a miniscule part after all), or has gone on holiday - assuming
He ever existed.

All in all, this notion of 'God' as an individual, sentient entity who looks
down on us with love and affection, just doesn't work - not for me.Even if I did
believe in Him that way, loving him would be an impossibity (fearing maybe, but
not loving).

I hope I will discover the truth one day, but I won't hold my breath (I daresay
if I ever do, my breathing days will be over anyway). Until then, I will pay as
much respect as I can to the marvels around me, and take solace in the knowledge
that I am such a tiny, transient part of a Universe so vast, it really makes
little difference what I do - except to me and those here with me now.
                   Cheers
                           Martin

PS Why God apparently requires and demands adulation, love and worship from his
creations is another question I find intriguing. Anyone have any ideas?




he has an inferiority complex and needs constant reassurance.




  </pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>

--------------080704050203060609030901--

2nd June 2005

http://mwillett.org/miraclecam_John_Paul_II.htm

Catholics want to put John Paul II in the fast-lane to sainthood. Why 
not help out with this live webcast of transubstantiation performed by 
the soul of the late Pope?

Come along and pray!

Let's beatify John Paul II the 21st century way!

-- 
Martin Willett


http://mwillett.org

  _____________________________________________________________
|                                                   ^^^^^^^^\ |
| I must not challenge deities to smite me          |       | |
| I must not challenge deities to smite me          |_ __   | |
| I must not challenge deities to smite me          (.(. )  | |
| I must not challenge deities to smite me  _       (_      ) |
|                                           \\      /___/' /  |
|                                           _\\_      \    |  |
|  SmiteCam IV                             ((   )     /====|  |
|  14 June 2005                             \  <.__._-      \ |
|___________________________________________ <//___.         ||
http://mwillett.org/atheism/Smitecam_IV.htm

On Tue, 24 May 2005 18:34:18 GMT, "1st Century Apostolic
Traditionalist" <nospamatall@add.com> wrote:

>
>"Martin Willett" <mwillett.org@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
>news:3fghe2F7mfgpU2@individual.net...
>> Join in and pray for a miracle with this live webcast of a classic
>> Christian miracle: water being turned into wine by the power of prayer!
>
>[Hi! Martin,
>Quite an 'impressive' wedsite young man.]
>
>>water being turned into wine by the power of prayer!
>
>People can 'pray' all they like.....but it won't happen.
>God does not do miracles to merely entertain.

Does God actually do anything?

>Just 'Watch that space'.

What space?

>
>Jeff...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

martin reboul wrote:

> PS Why God apparently requires and demands adulation, love and
> worship from his creations is another question I find intriguing.
> Anyone have any ideas?

The simple answer is that man (during a less enlightened age) create god 
in his own image.

But your point is, I think, larger than that.  I routinely use this in 
my answer to Pascal's wager.  I believe that a good God wouldn't ask us 
to sacrifice reason and demand faith and worship.  So if god is as 
described, then my native sense of good and evil makes me believe that 
such a god is evil and I will oppose any such god.

-j

In article <11a9vdgb820e6e2@news.supernews.com>,
Jeffrey Goldberg <nobody@goldmark.org> wrote:

>I routinely use this in 
>my answer to Pascal's wager.

Pascal's wager is self evidently completely ridiculous in any case. You can
construct an infinite number of similarly completely fabricated, ridiculous
stories and then demand adherence to them based on this daft "argument".
You can (and indeed people have) constructed any number of mutually
contradictory ridiculous fantasies and demand adherence to each one (which
even the daft adherents aver is absurd) on the basis of this same logical
absurdity. It is frankly just plain undignified. I really can't for the
life of me understand why you bother - save for your unfortunate hobby.

Jeffrey Goldberg wrote:
> Steve Wilson wrote:
>  
>> Jeffrey Goldberg wrote:
> 
> 

Jeffrey.
Just to let you know I have not cut your post down because I dismiss 
what you have said, I don't.  I have taken on board your criticism, and 
this is partly the reason why I have taken so long to reply.  I have 
needed to distil it out so I can chew it over.

> 
>> I do think you have got me wrong at this point. I have not denied
>> that belief involves more than just reason and evidence. I believe
>> reason and evidence form a very important, though not exclusive part
>> of the process of coming to faith and consequent belief in Christ.
> 
> 
> This extra bit, this bit beyond reason and evidence, would you consider 
> it irrational?  I believe that it is.  It is both irrational and 
> necessary for faith.  And this is why I say that many religious people, 
> including you, believe statement (1) above.  You are fully acknowledging 
> that this extra bit is required, but do you agree that it is irrational?
>

Would you say a spiritual experience renders the situation
irrational? I know full well such experiences are not objective by their
nature, and can be a bit problematic,  but does it make such
experiences automatically irrational. I like to think I am a fairly down 
to earth person, but I did have one such experience, which I have always 
found hard to adequately explain.  It deeply affected me and happened at 
a difficult time in my life when I was considering the claim of Christ 
and begining to realise he could actually be who he claimed.  If you 
like, it was a kind of 'conversion experience'.  It was the most 
unpleasant and shame-filled moment of my life, a moment when I saw 
myself as I was.  I suppose I could rationalise it all away by saying it 
was a self-fulfilling delusion brought on by a prior inclination to 
believe in Christ, but to me this somehow just does not fit with the 
whole picture of my life.  Am I irrational if I concluded there was 
something about my spiritual experience which was beyond normal 
explanation and beyond my comprehension?

yet at the same time, I do admit I had a yearning and an intuition that 
the world around me was not the sum total of reality, and I was open to 
the possibility of a Creator God.  Does this make me irrational? Am I 
guilty of setting myself up for finding something to believe just to 
impose order on a chaotic world?  In this tendency, I know I am far from 
alone. I know it has been a defining element of man's existance from the 
very beginning.  Is it reasonable to dismiss such a universal experience 
as a weakness of our species? Or might it not just as well be indicitive 
of a greater reality even though it may get expressed in sometimes 
bizarre and irrational ways?  To me the problem is finding which, of all 
the religions, tells me the truth.  To my knowledge Christianity is the 
only relgion that bases itself on a claim to objective evidence i.e the 
resurrection, and asks each individual to consider the evidence.  Am I 
irrational if I add the eyewitness evidence of the New Testament, the 
recorded actions of the Apostles after the resurrection, the historical 
spread of Christianity throughout the Roman world and my own inner 
experience to conclude that it is Christianity which reveals the real 
truth about this unseen reality, to which human intuition and longing 
grope?


Steve Wilson

Steve Wilson <stevewilson109@hotmail.com> wrote:

> 
> yet at the same time, I do admit I had a yearning and an intuition that
> the world around me was not the sum total of reality, and I was open to
> the possibility of a Creator God.  Does this make me irrational? Am I
> guilty of setting myself up for finding something to believe just to 
> impose order on a chaotic world? 

Exactly, you have it in a nutshell. In the past when man did not have
science such seemed the best way to make sense of what seems to be a
capricious world. But now we have proven ways of explaining the world,
we no longer think the gods must be angry when it is stormy or the earth
moves. To do so in the age of the weather forecast and the Richter scale
is to look silly and antediluvian as some comments about the recent
tsunami have proven. Sure science does not know everything but slotting
god into the unkown bits is not only to make a mistake but also to
condemn your god to inevitable diminution. I have asked this question of
a number of believers over the years: what does your god do in this
world now, apart from your subjective feelings?

 In this tendency, I know I am far from 
> alone. I know it has been a defining element of man's existance from the
> very beginning.  Is it reasonable to dismiss such a universal experience
> as a weakness of our species?

Is it reasonable to dismiss our tendency to violence as a weakness in
our species? it is just as venerable an instinct as the divine. Yet in
the modern world we decry violence, at least outside of very well
defined arenas. We have rules for it. It is arguable that religion has
been a force for bad in the world (yes and good) but you can make the
same case for violence, it is good when the police use it to rescue
hostages, but bad when the hostage takers use it. In a perfect world
there would be no violence. Some of us think the same way about
religion.

> Or might it not just as well be indicitive 
> of a greater reality even though it may get expressed in sometimes 
> bizarre and irrational ways?  To me the problem is finding which, of all
> the religions, tells me the truth.

How about asking if ANY of them is capable of telling you any truth you
can't get from other sources without all the associated baggage? I asked
myself that question and came out of the fog of belief into the light of
knowledge, accepting doubt and ignorance without the need to fill them
with the unproven. Such also frees you from the guilt.

 > To my knowledge Christianity is the 
> only relgion that bases itself on a claim to objective evidence i.e the
> resurrection, and asks each individual to consider the evidence.  Am I
> irrational if I add the eyewitness evidence of the New Testament, the
> recorded actions of the Apostles after the resurrection,

Eyewitness? none of the gospels was written anywhere near the events
they purport to describe. Our earliest copies are from even later and
show evidence of copying from each other, plagiarism of other religions
(Mithraism for eg) and copying errors. If you call that objective
evidence then I'm afraid I shall have to ask you why you do not also
firmly believe in Nessie, that UFOs are alien spacecraft, Hitler is
still alive and there are fairies at the bottom of my parent's garden
because I and my siblings say so and countless other similarly well
attested things? Just because one myth is older than another is only
evidence that it is older, not that it is truer.

> the historical 
> spread of Christianity throughout the Roman world and my own inner 
> experience to conclude that it is Christianity which reveals the real
> truth about this unseen reality, to which human intuition and longing
> grope?

You mean quantum mechanics? I'd try reading Schroedinger if I were you,
better than groping (and with much less guilt).

Peter
-- 
Add my middle initial to email me. It has become attached to a country

Peter Ashby wrote:
> Steve Wilson <stevewilson109@hotmail.com> wrote:
> 
> 
>>yet at the same time, I do admit I had a yearning and an intuition that
>>the world around me was not the sum total of reality, and I was open to
>>the possibility of a Creator God.  Does this make me irrational? Am I
>>guilty of setting myself up for finding something to believe just to 
>>impose order on a chaotic world? 
> 
> 
> Exactly, you have it in a nutshell. In the past when man did not have
> science such seemed the best way to make sense of what seems to be a
> capricious world. But now we have proven ways of explaining the world,
> we no longer think the gods must be angry when it is stormy or the earth
> moves. To do so in the age of the weather forecast and the Richter scale
> is to look silly and antediluvian as some comments about the recent
> tsunami have proven. Sure science does not know everything but slotting
> god into the unkown bits is not only to make a mistake but also to
> condemn your god to inevitable diminution. I have asked this question of
> a number of believers over the years: what does your god do in this
> world now, apart from your subjective feelings?
> 
To be sure, religions have been a way to to make sense of a capricious
world, but that is not the whole story. You seem to miss the element of
humanity looking beyond the physical to the eternal and it is
apparent that this awareness has been a persistant part of humanity from
earliest times.  It seems to me this element is invariably dismissed by
atheists as a weakness, yet I find it hard to take this view with much
credence when atheism is based on a materialism.  Materialist philosophy
cannot admit to anything but material causes by definition.  To me it 
comes across as a rather meaningless assertion when materialist atheism 
is philosophically unable to acknowledge any possibility of an eternal 
existance.

There are many highly intelligent people who are Christians, many of
whom are involved in the sciences.  Christians have no problem with the
increasing knowledge of the natural world and the alleviation of
suffering gained through science, although it may perhaps
have issues with some of the moral problems created by some advances. 
But non-the-less Christians do encourage the scientific
endevour and are involved in the process. It could also be said that
it was the Christian worldview which kick-started modern science in
the first place by providing the essential understanding that the 
physicalworld was separate from the Creator.   For this reason I find 
your 'god of the gaps' reasoning a little misplaced.

When I pray to God, coincidences multiply.  I see lives, including my 
own, which have been transformed.  I see Christians who are so inspired 
by the love of God that they give up careers to dedicate themselves to a 
  live of caring for suffering people with little prospect of material 
reward or recognition. I similarly see Christians who give up a 
comfortable life to go and be missionaries and risk death as a result.



>  In this tendency, I know I am far from 
> 
>>alone. I know it has been a defining element of man's existance from the
>>very beginning.  Is it reasonable to dismiss such a universal experience
>>as a weakness of our species?
> 
> 
> Is it reasonable to dismiss our tendency to violence as a weakness in
> our species? it is just as venerable an instinct as the divine. Yet in
> the modern world we decry violence, at least outside of very well
> defined arenas. We have rules for it. It is arguable that religion has
> been a force for bad in the world (yes and good) but you can make the
> same case for violence, it is good when the police use it to rescue
> hostages, but bad when the hostage takers use it. In a perfect world
> there would be no violence. Some of us think the same way about
> religion.
> 
In Darwinism I would have thought violence was perfectly normal, it is
part of the mechanism for survival and evolution.  As such it is neither 
good or bad and this present world is as good as it gets.  I am 
wondering where you get this concept of a perfect world where there is 
no place for violence. Are you holding on to some vestage of Christian 
belief? And hasn't religion come about by the same evolutionary 
mechanism? On what basis can an athiest say it is in any sense bad?  It 
just is.  At most all you can say is we no longer need it. Communist 
Russia took that line and tried unsucessfully to violently suppress 
Christainity for several decades. And that brings me back the tenacity 
of this awareness of eternity as part of what it means to be human.  It 
stubbornly refuses to die and, instead of at least giving it some 
consideration on that basis, atheists dismiss it as the refuge of weak 
irrational people.

We do not dismiss the tendency to violence, we manage it as you
say and have rules for it. Why can atheists not even acknowledge the 
human tendency to ponder a transcendent reality might at least have
some validity, even though it may get expressed in some bizarre ways?
It could just be, dispite all the rubbish, it might be pointing
us to something important.

> 
>>Or might it not just as well be indicitive 
>>of a greater reality even though it may get expressed in sometimes 
>>bizarre and irrational ways?  To me the problem is finding which, of all
>>the religions, tells me the truth.
> 
> 
> How about asking if ANY of them is capable of telling you any truth you
> can't get from other sources without all the associated baggage? I asked
> myself that question and came out of the fog of belief into the light of
> knowledge, accepting doubt and ignorance without the need to fill them
> with the unproven. Such also frees you from the guilt.
> 

Guilt? You must have been a Catholic. What is needed is some outside
information.  Pagans are quite right when they say we cannot know of the 
reality beyond this physical world, so we are free to indulge in our own 
ideas. I think we need input (revelation) from outside. I believe God 
has spoken into this world through Christ.

>  > To my knowledge Christianity is the 
> 
>>only relgion that bases itself on a claim to objective evidence i.e the
>>resurrection, and asks each individual to consider the evidence.  Am I
>>irrational if I add the eyewitness evidence of the New Testament, the
>>recorded actions of the Apostles after the resurrection,
> 
> 
> Eyewitness? none of the gospels was written anywhere near the events
> they purport to describe. Our earliest copies are from even later and
> show evidence of copying from each other, plagiarism of other religions
> (Mithraism for eg) and copying errors. If you call that objective
> evidence then I'm afraid I shall have to ask you why you do not also
> firmly believe in Nessie, that UFOs are alien spacecraft, Hitler is
> still alive and there are fairies at the bottom of my parent's garden
> because I and my siblings say so and countless other similarly well
> attested things? Just because one myth is older than another is only
> evidence that it is older, not that it is truer.
> 
I've done a bit of digging for you.

The earliest scraps of papyrus date back to about AD50, according to the 
leading German papyrologist, Carsten Thiede.  The John Rylands fragment 
containing five verses from the New Testament is dated to AD.117-138. 
The Bodmer Papyri and the Chester Beatty Papyri both date from around
AD 200. The oldest major fragments, the Codex Vaticanus, containing 
almost the entire Bible, and the Codex Sinaiticus, containing over 50% 
of the New Testament, both date from around AD 350.
This may seem to be distant from the event, but it is nearer to the
event than many other historical documents, which I suspect you would
not be so quick to dismiss. Our existing copies of the histories of
Pliny the younger date from 750 years after the original.  Those of
Suetonious 800 years.  With the works of Tacticus there is a
bridge of 900 years.  In the case of Caesar's Gallic War (58-50BC.) the 
the gap is 1000 years. Only one fragment of Livy's Roman History gets 
near to the New Testament with a gap of 400years.  Are you going to 
apply the same judgement to all these documents which you apply to the 
New Testament?

Quote:
"It cannot be asserted too strongly that in substance the text of the 
Bible is certain: especially is this the case with the New Testament. 
The number of manuscripts of the New Testament, of early translations 
from it, and of quotations from it of the oldest writers in the Church, 
is so huge that it is practically certain that the true reading of every 
doubtful passage is preserved in some one or other of these ancient 
manuscripts.  This can be said of no other ancient book in the world" 
(Fredrick G. Kenyon, Our Bible and and the Ancient Manuscripts, Harper & 
Brothers, page 23.)

Quote:
"There is no body of ancient literature in the world which enjoys such a 
wealth of good textual attestation as the New Testament."  (F.F. Bruce, 
The Books And The Parchments, Fleming H. Revel co. page 178)

Quote:
Historian Philip Shaff has shown that only 400 variants (errors) could 
possibly have any effect on the meaning of the passage concerned and 
that only fifty of these are of any importance.  Even more 
significantly, Schaff says that not a single one of these variants 
alters an article of faith or a preceopt of duty which is not abundantly 
sustained by other and undoubted passages, or by the whole tenor of 
Scripture's teaching.  This gives a very diffent picture from the 
sweeping statement that manuscripts contain 200,000 differences.
(John Blanchard quoting Philip Shaff, Companion to the Greek Testament 
and the English versions, Harper & Brothers)

Informed atheists realise all this and do not attack the New Testment at 
this particular point.  They find other areas.


Mithraism:  A few pointers.

All the doctrines of Christianity are contained within the Old 
Testament, there was no need to borrow from a pagan religion, I can 
provide the corresponding Old and New Testament verses if you wish. The 
Old Testament pre-dates Mithraism.  Also the New Testament writers were 
Jews, or at least under the instruction of Jews.  They were devoted to 
the legitimacy and inspiration of the Old Testament and detested pagan 
religions.  To borrow doctrine from a pagan religion would have been 
blasphemous. It is far more probable that as Mithriasm evolved, it began 
to adopt some of the Christain concepts.

Quote:
"While there are several sources that suggest that Mithraism included a 
notion of rebirth, they are all post-Christian.  The earliest...dates 
from the end of the second century A.D."
(Wilson, Bill, compiled by; The Best of Josh McDowell:  A Ready Defense; 
  Nashville, Tenn.,  Thomas Nelson Publishers; 1993, p. 167.)

Steve Wilson.

> 
>>the historical 
>>spread of Christianity throughout the Roman world and my own inner 
>>experience to conclude that it is Christianity which reveals the real
>>truth about this unseen reality, to which human intuition and longing
>>grope?
> 
> 
> You mean quantum mechanics? I'd try reading Schroedinger if I were you,
> better than groping (and with much less guilt).
> 
> Peter

Steve Wilson <stevewilson109@hotmail.com> wrote:

> Peter Ashby wrote:
> > Steve Wilson <stevewilson109@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > 
> > 
> >>yet at the same time, I do admit I had a yearning and an intuition that
> >>the world around me was not the sum total of reality, and I was open to
> >>the possibility of a Creator God.  Does this make me irrational? Am I
> >>guilty of setting myself up for finding something to believe just to
> >>impose order on a chaotic world? 
> > 
> > 
> > Exactly, you have it in a nutshell. In the past when man did not have
> > science such seemed the best way to make sense of what seems to be a
> > capricious world. But now we have proven ways of explaining the world,
> > we no longer think the gods must be angry when it is stormy or the earth
> > moves. To do so in the age of the weather forecast and the Richter scale
> > is to look silly and antediluvian as some comments about the recent
> > tsunami have proven. Sure science does not know everything but slotting
> > god into the unkown bits is not only to make a mistake but also to
> > condemn your god to inevitable diminution. I have asked this question of
> > a number of believers over the years: what does your god do in this
> > world now, apart from your subjective feelings?
> > 
> To be sure, religions have been a way to to make sense of a capricious
> world, but that is not the whole story. You seem to miss the element of
> humanity looking beyond the physical to the eternal and it is
> apparent that this awareness has been a persistant part of humanity from
> earliest times.

OK we can think about things beyond the physical, just like we can think
of Doctor Who storylines. But I'm afraid I'll need more than your
yearnings to convince me there is anything beyond the physical, just
like I'll need more than a TV programm to convince me there really are
Time Lords.  Mankind has yearned to fly for aeons as well, yet we still
can't do it without technological fixes. If you doubt me you are welcome
to leap from your nearest high place. Evidence, evidence, evidence.

>  It seems to me this element is invariably dismissed by
> atheists as a weakness, yet I find it hard to take this view with much
> credence when atheism is based on a materialism.  Materialist philosophy
> cannot admit to anything but material causes by definition.  To me it
> comes across as a rather meaningless assertion when materialist atheism
> is philosophically unable to acknowledge any possibility of an eternal
> existance.

We will be more than happy to acknowledge it, IFF you ever come up with
some EVIDENCE. If you have read materialist philosophy and failed to
grasp this simple and salient point then you have not understood it.

> There are many highly intelligent people who are Christians, many of
> whom are involved in the sciences.

At a far lower rate than in the general population, especially in
Biology. Nobody I work with is  a practising xian, the closest is a
Nigerian guy who is  a practising moslem. But then Islam never had the
hangups about science the west did. It was cultural forces that brought
the stagnation but never forget, it was Islam and the knowledge they had
that kick started the Rennaisance. You see Darwin gets in the way with
xians, the logic of evolution was part of what started me on the road
from belief to understanding. This is why: if we were not created and
this universe was not created then even if your deity exists, what do we
owe it? I have noticed you have not addressed my question about what
your god does. Many xians have failed that question so you are not
alone. You can posit me a god who sits outside of time and space and
presses the go button for the big bang and I will go 'nice hypothesis'
but even if you are right, on what basis do I owe it acknowledgement?
let alone worship? 

This is the big problem religion has with the increasing knowledge of
the modern world, we have less and less reason to worship. Our daily
bread? where did the wheat come from? the evolution of grasses is well
known as is the story of which one we humans used and bred until we had
wheat. Ditto Saccaromyces cerevisiae, so we have wheat, yeast and water.
Noone gave us bread, we humans gave it to ourselves. Go through all the
reasons the prayers give you for worship, for what you supposedly owe
your god and science has answers for them that do not include or need
the divine in the explanation.

I say again, even if god exists I say So What?


  Christians have no problem with the
> increasing knowledge of the natural world and the alleviation of
> suffering gained through science, although it may perhaps
> have issues with some of the moral problems created by some advances.

See above.

> But non-the-less Christians do encourage the scientific
> endevour and are involved in the process. It could also be said that
> it was the Christian worldview which kick-started modern science in
> the first place by providing the essential understanding that the 
> physicalworld was separate from the Creator.   For this reason I find
> your 'god of the gaps' reasoning a little misplaced.

See above about the role of Islam, go learn your history before you try
and teach it to me.

> When I pray to God, coincidences multiply.  I see lives, including my
> own, which have been transformed.  I see Christians who are so inspired
> by the love of God that they give up careers to dedicate themselves to a
>   live of caring for suffering people with little prospect of material
> reward or recognition. I similarly see Christians who give up a 
> comfortable life to go and be missionaries and risk death as a result.

For the former, think about this, what about the sacrifices of those who
do the same without the promise of eternal bliss with the threat of
damnation? Are they not more worthy of my respect? 

For the latter, I will not cast aspertions the motives of missionaries,
but I dispute that they have been a universal force for good. You have
to be a cultural imperialist to conclude so. 

> 
> >  In this tendency, I know I am far from 
> > 
> >>alone. I know it has been a defining element of man's existance from the
> >>very beginning.  Is it reasonable to dismiss such a universal experience
> >>as a weakness of our species?
> > 
> > 
> > Is it reasonable to dismiss our tendency to violence as a weakness in
> > our species? it is just as venerable an instinct as the divine. Yet in
> > the modern world we decry violence, at least outside of very well
> > defined arenas. We have rules for it. It is arguable that religion has
> > been a force for bad in the world (yes and good) but you can make the
> > same case for violence, it is good when the police use it to rescue
> > hostages, but bad when the hostage takers use it. In a perfect world
> > there would be no violence. Some of us think the same way about
> > religion.
> > 
> In Darwinism I would have thought violence was perfectly normal, it is
> part of the mechanism for survival and evolution.  As such it is neither
> good or bad and this present world is as good as it gets.  I am 
> wondering where you get this concept of a perfect world where there is
> no place for violence. 

If you have no concept of Utopia for what is there to strive? "Yet, a
man's reach should excede his grasp, or what's a heaven for? "

Acknowledging the utopian is a necessary part of the striving, but we
should still strive.

>Are you holding on to some vestage of Christian 
> belief? And hasn't religion come about by the same evolutionary 
> mechanism? On what basis can an athiest say it is in any sense bad?  It
> just is.  At most all you can say is we no longer need it. Communist 
> Russia took that line and tried unsucessfully to violently suppress 
> Christainity for several decades. And that brings me back the tenacity
> of this awareness of eternity as part of what it means to be human.  It
> stubbornly refuses to die and, instead of at least giving it some 
> consideration on that basis, atheists dismiss it as the refuge of weak
> irrational people.

Please do not assume attitudes I do not hold. Certainly religion can be
a refuge for weak, irrational people. It can also be a refuge for the
unthinking, the unchallenging, or perhaps worst of all, those who think
and challenge yet refuse to draw the conclusions their reason demands
because they do not want to cast off the comfort blanket. The
psychologists will tell you the human brain is wonderful at finding
rationales for not doing what we know to be right.

> We do not dismiss the tendency to violence, we manage it as you
> say and have rules for it. Why can atheists not even acknowledge the 
> human tendency to ponder a transcendent reality might at least have
> some validity, even though it may get expressed in some bizarre ways?
> It could just be, dispite all the rubbish, it might be pointing
> us to something important.

Evidence, evidence evidence. Why do you not acknowledge that the human
tendency to ponder the existence of Nessie or UFOs might have some
validity? Religion should not be some special case of irrational belief
just because it is old. You see I'm not just an atheist scientist, I am
also an arch sceptic. It all comes down to evidence. I'll accept Nessie
is real when we have a live or dead one, ditto UFOs (pace conspiracy
theories). Just as with god, even if a glowing winged being flew out the
sky tomorrow and announced 'I AM GABRIEL' I would want a lot more than
his assertion.

> > 
> >>Or might it not just as well be indicitive 
> >>of a greater reality even though it may get expressed in sometimes 
> >>bizarre and irrational ways?  To me the problem is finding which, of all
> >>the religions, tells me the truth.
> > 
> > 
> > How about asking if ANY of them is capable of telling you any truth you
> > can't get from other sources without all the associated baggage? I asked
> > myself that question and came out of the fog of belief into the light of
> > knowledge, accepting doubt and ignorance without the need to fill them
> > with the unproven. Such also frees you from the guilt.
> > 
> 
> Guilt? You must have been a Catholic. 

Ah sectarian abuse in the form of an assumption. FYI in my past
incarnation as a believer I was a good Presbyterian. You don't need to
be Catholic to know xian guilt, emphasis is one one thing, existence
another.

>What is needed is some outside
> information.  Pagans are quite right when they say we cannot know of the
> reality beyond this physical world, so we are free to indulge in our own
> ideas. I think we need input (revelation) from outside. I believe God
> has spoken into this world through Christ.

outside? outside where? Your belief is of no consequence, it is not
admissible as EVIDENCE.

> >  > To my knowledge Christianity is the 
> > 
> >>only relgion that bases itself on a claim to objective evidence i.e the
> >>resurrection, and asks each individual to consider the evidence.  Am I
> >>irrational if I add the eyewitness evidence of the New Testament, the
> >>recorded actions of the Apostles after the resurrection,
> > 
> > 
> > Eyewitness? none of the gospels was written anywhere near the events
> > they purport to describe. Our earliest copies are from even later and
> > show evidence of copying from each other, plagiarism of other religions
> > (Mithraism for eg) and copying errors. If you call that objective
> > evidence then I'm afraid I shall have to ask you why you do not also
> > firmly believe in Nessie, that UFOs are alien spacecraft, Hitler is
> > still alive and there are fairies at the bottom of my parent's garden
> > because I and my siblings say so and countless other similarly well
> > attested things? Just because one myth is older than another is only
> > evidence that it is older, not that it is truer.
> > 
> I've done a bit of digging for you.
> 
> The earliest scraps of papyrus date back to about AD50, according to the
> leading German papyrologist, Carsten Thiede.  The John Rylands fragment
> containing five verses from the New Testament is dated to AD.117-138.
> The Bodmer Papyri and the Chester Beatty Papyri both date from around
> AD 200. The oldest major fragments, the Codex Vaticanus, containing 
> almost the entire Bible, and the Codex Sinaiticus, containing over 50%
> of the New Testament, both date from around AD 350.
> This may seem to be distant from the event, but it is nearer to the
> event than many other historical documents, which I suspect you would
> not be so quick to dismiss. Our existing copies of the histories of
> Pliny the younger date from 750 years after the original.  Those of
> Suetonious 800 years.  With the works of Tacticus there is a
> bridge of 900 years.  In the case of Caesar's Gallic War (58-50BC.) the
> the gap is 1000 years. Only one fragment of Livy's Roman History gets
> near to the New Testament with a gap of 400years.  Are you going to 
> apply the same judgement to all these documents which you apply to the
> New Testament?

On the basis of your arguments we must similarly accord reality to the
events and ideas contained in the Epic of Gilgamesh, which predates the
Bible, or the hieroglyphs from way down in Old Egypt. On your criteria I
should worship the god of Akhenaten, we know Akhenaten existed,
Tutankhamun was his son. That is hard evidence of existence, we have
none from The Time of Christ. As you acknowledge. Thankyou btw for
making my point, you have not been able to substantiate that
'eyewitness' claim, have you?


> 
> > 
> >>the historical 
> >>spread of Christianity throughout the Roman world and my own inner 
> >>experience to conclude that it is Christianity which reveals the real
> >>truth about this unseen reality, to which human intuition and longing
> >>grope?
> > 
> > 
> > You mean quantum mechanics? I'd try reading Schroedinger if I were you,
> > better than groping (and with much less guilt).

Well have you been reading your physics?

Peter

-- 
Add my middle initial to email me. It has become attached to a country

Steve Wilson wrote:
> Jeffrey Goldberg wrote:

> Jeffrey.
> Just to let you know I have not cut your post down because I dismiss 
> what you have said, I don't.  I have taken on board your criticism, and 
> this is partly the reason why I have taken so long to reply.  I have 
> needed to distil it out so I can chew it over.

That is fine.  Please note that will probably not be participating on 
Usenet for probably at least the next 10 days.

>>> I do think you have got me wrong at this point. I have not denied
>>> that belief involves more than just reason and evidence. I believe
>>> reason and evidence form a very important, though not exclusive part
>>> of the process of coming to faith and consequent belief in Christ.

OK.  I did get you wrong initially.  But later I saw that that was your 
view.  I just wanted to make sure that we all understood that it was 
your view.

>> This extra bit, this bit beyond reason and evidence, would you 
>> consider it irrational?  I believe that it is.  It is both irrational 
>> and necessary for faith.  And this is why I say that many religious 
>> people, including you, believe statement (1) above.  You are fully 
>> acknowledging that this extra bit is required, but do you agree that 
>> it is irrational?
>>
> 
> Would you say a spiritual experience renders the situation
> irrational?

I'm going to quibble about words here.  I'm not trying to make trouble' 
I'm just trying to avoid trouble down the road.

An experience just is.  It is neither rational nor irrational.  It is 
what (or rather how) you conclude things (whether consciously or not) 
from the experience that can be rational or irrational.

Throughout my life, I've had minor mystical experiences.  I used to give 
some weight to them as revealing some sort of truth.  Until I discovered 
that I could dramatically induce and enhance those experiences by 
ingesting certain controlled substances.

Now I treat them as an analogue of optical illusions.  The experiences 
still exist, but what I conclude from them is that the reveal things 
about the human mind, and not about the world.  This is just the same as 
with optical illusions.  They reveal something about the human visual 
perceptual system, and not something about the object being looked at.

So, I do believe that it is irrational to give a certain kind of 
evidenciary weight to mystical experiences.

I hope that that answered your question.  I am not trying to dodge it; 
I'm trying to reframe it in a way that I can give what I hope is a 
complete answer.

> I know full well such experiences are not objective by their
> nature, and can be a bit problematic,  but does it make such
> experiences automatically irrational.

As I said.  The experiences are neither rational nor irrational.  It is 
how we make inferences based on them that can be rational or irrational.

> I like to think I am a fairly down to earth person, but I did have
> one such experience, which I have always found hard to adequately
> explain. It deeply affected me and happened at a difficult time in my
> life when I was considering the claim of Christ and begining to
> realise he could actually be who he claimed. If you like, it was a
> kind of 'conversion experience'. It was the most unpleasant and
> shame-filled moment of my life, a moment when I saw myself as I was.
> I suppose I could rationalise it all away by saying it was a
> self-fulfilling delusion brought on by a prior inclination to believe
> in Christ, but to me this somehow just does not fit with the whole
> picture of my life. Am I irrational if I concluded there was 
> something about my spiritual experience which was beyond normal 
> explanation and beyond my comprehension?

I don't mean to diminish your experience or account.  I do know how 
powerful and compelling such an experience can be.  But I've had a very 
similar experience, not about Jesus, but about a silly hat someone had 
once given me.  Sure the experience involved psycho-active drugs.  But 
upon later reflection it made me highly sceptical of all such experiences.

> yet at the same time, I do admit I had a yearning and an intuition that 
> the world around me was not the sum total of reality, and I was open to 
> the possibility of a Creator God.

Again, I was in the same situation.  And I became absolutely convinced 
that my pith helmet was my guardian angel and through it I could get the 
barest glimpse of the Glory of the All Knowing Goodness.

> Does this make me irrational?

Having the experience doesn't make you irrational.  But I do think that 
what you've done with it, does make you irrational.  Furthermore, your 
God seems to insist that people have such experiences, and that they 
attribute them the way that you did.  That is why I believe that your 
God is demanding irrationality.


> Am I 
> irrational if I add the eyewitness evidence of the New Testament, the 
> recorded actions of the Apostles after the resurrection, the historical 
> spread of Christianity throughout the Roman world and my own inner 
> experience to conclude that it is Christianity which reveals the real 
> truth about this unseen reality, to which human intuition and longing 
> grope?

In a word, yes.  The records in the Gospels and in the Acts of the 
Apostles should be highly suspect for all of the reasons I raised in 
previous posts.  Consider Mormonism, or any other religion which you 
deny.  Most have records of eye-witness accounts of miracles long ago. 
The Christian texts are no more credible then those.

As for the historical spread of Christianity, that can hardly be some 
evidence that you would really want to take seriously.  Mormonism is the 
fasted growing religion in the world today.  Other religions, 
particularly Islam, had periods of rapid spread.

Finally, there is the question of your inner experience.  I have argued 
that such experiences should be treated as highly suspect.

So, yes.  You behave as someone who say wants to believe that, say an 
irksome country was developing WMDs and so ignored all the evidence to 
the contrary, and believed too quickly all of the supporting evidence, 
no matter how weak such evidence would be under close examination.

Cheers,

-j