Here we go again with another outburst from the Religion of Perpetual Outrage. Muslims worldwide are angry again, this time at the Pope.
Here we go again with another outburst from the Religion of Perpetual Outrage. Muslims worldwide are angry again, this time at (Can you guess who? Drum roll, please. . .) the Pope!…
Article comments
— go to most recent comments376 - reggie von woic
...because i'm straight?
377 - Jet in Columbus
... well we can only asssume
378 - duane
Sigh ... nevermind, gentlemen.
Good grief.
379 - Hasheet M'Drurz
I was just a boy when the infidels came to my village in their Blackhawk helicopters. The infidels fired at the oil fields and they lit up like the eyes of Allah. Burning oil rained down from the sky and cooked everything it touched. I could only hide myself and cry as my goats were consumed by the fiery black liquid death. In the midst of the chaos, I could swear that I heard my goats screaming for help. As quickly as they had come, the infidels were gone. It was on that day I put a jihad on them. And if you don't believe it, then you'd better kill me now, because I'll put a jihad on you, too.
380 - STM
You're full of sheet .....
381 - Clavos
Please, STM. Don't be fatwas--you'll just goat him.
382 - STM
Everyone here should move to Australia and start surfing ... then you could all argue about something really important, like who's got the best board, instead of this nonsense.
Dare I say it: too much pseudo-intellectual claptrap dressed up as serious thought.
I repeat: unless drastic measures are taken, this thread will continue to have a life of its own ... 'til about 3007.
And keep your hands ABOVE the keyboard.
383 - Clavos
Damn! The web cam must have been on !
384 - nugget
Chris said,
"reeking hypocrisy of people who profess to believe in a loving god whilst being largely responsible for the frankly crap conditions of billions of people right here on our earthly non-paradise"
There you have it folks. Clearly, Chris, you cannot speak objectively about Faith at all. This sounds much more like an inferiority complex than anything else.
Whether you like it or not, you DO have faith that God does not exist. You believe it to be true. Due to the absence of such evidence, you are, by default, forced to presume that he does not exist. If you were thinking with a bit more acuity, you would, like duane, say that you did not believe or DISbelieve in God. Then I would correctly label you an agnostic. Unfortunately, as it stands, you believe in consciouslessness. This makes you more faithful or dogmatic than an agnostic.
385 - nugget
STM: you have a slogan! that's cute!
386 - Jet in Columbus
....I've always thought his slogan was cute1
387 - nugget
One more thing:
Duane,
Perhaps I shouldn't have directed that spiel about faith to you. It seems that you understand that nature of Faith. That is, the more assertions one makes, the more irresponsibly dogmatic he may become.
I think this depends on the assertions themselves. The tenets of doctrine can be unclear. Thus, it is every single man's responsibility to interpret these as he sees fit. A moral man that believes the words of Christ will follow through and represent the "Dogma" without murderous absolution. Conversely, an immoral man will hear the words of Christ, recognize their power, and perhaps "bring the sword" as Christ once spoke.
Now, Christ never "brought the sword." His was rhetoric. Apparantly, it was immensely powerful because we're still quarreling about or because of it.
Anyways, I will say this one last time. Dogma, doctrine, tenets, axioms, postulates.....THE BASIC INTERPRETATIONS OF GOD GIVEN MORALS, RIGHTS, LAWS, PRINCIPLES, AND BEHAVIOR, WHETHER BUDDHIST, MUSLIM, CHRISTIAN, TAOIST, OR HINDU ARE NOT THE CAUSE OF MAN'S INCOMPREHENSIBLE PREDILECTION TO WAR.
I'd advise the lot of you secularists to read Dostoevsky, Nietzsche, and Shakespeare for starters. They eloquently bitchslap humanism and the people who pretend to evade the basic and necessary principle that is Faith.
388 - Christopher Rose
nugget # 384: You clearly need to join PETI in enrolling in some classes of elementary logic, either that or come clean and admit how hopelessly prejudiced you are.
My remarks are an expression of entirely justified ethical outrage, pure and simple. How you, or any other faithist for that matter, could try to spin it in the way you did both baffles and offends. I notice you didn't address the substance of my words and sought only to undermine them by attempting a little lazy amateur psychology.
You follow this by once again trying the tired old trick of faithists by trying to define my position as just another act of faith. This is deeply intellectually bogus, as we should expect of faithist shills such as yourself.
I am not forced to presume anything. You and your ilk simply can't make the case for a god except by pretending it is true and then trying to rope others into your conspicuously empty corral. What utter drivel - but then to expect honesty from this most corrupt scam we call religion is truly a folly of grand proportions.
Furthermore, what the fuck exactly does "consciouslessness" mean? I can't find a definition of it through Google...
Finally, throwing around a few literary names as some kind of justification for this empty bullshit is one of the laziest and most bogus tricks of all time. There is nothing at all basic or necessary about faith - unless you're a conman as all faithists are of necessity.
389 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
Chris!
Yer back! I thought we were going to be able to express our views without your guiding wisdom.
390 - Christopher Rose
Ruvy, why are you trying to exclude me? Not because you're secretly embarrassed by all this superstitious nonsense that your poor embattled sense of reason is secretly offended by, perchance? Rest assured I shall continue to state my views and opinions just as often as the muse strikes me and that whatever I say will be born out of the cold clear vision of the non-partisan, not the meaningless rhetoric of the poor deluded zealot.
I appreciate your efforts to elevate me to a higher plane of knowledge and understanding but I'm not ready for it yet! I'm just a goy trying to do my best in a dangerously polarised world, just an ordinary joe like everyone else.
You know, I'm starting to think there are two people using your name on here. There's the moderately sane one who does seem to understand the world we live in even if they don't like it that much. Then there's the fundamentalist loon that wants to slaughter every non-Jew in the Middle East and secretly hopes that Iran will drop a nuke on Tel Aviv, as you've stated here on Blogcritics on more than one occasion...
391 - pleasexcusetheinterruption12
Speaking of cheap shots and avoiding the argument...
Wrong again, Peti. Metal is refined from chocolate, everyone knows that!
392 - Christopher Rose
Wrong again mate, that there's comedy that is.
I'm puzzled why you're so off the beat on this subject as you've been remarkably sensible up to now?
393 - Vern Halen
Hmmmm..... I knew I'd find the discussion re: the existence of God that pops up every 8 weeks give or take like clockwork here on BC.
I agree - in formal debates or discussion, the side making the positive assertion has the onus of proof - the negative side is not obliged to prove its position. So to say "Just have faith" is a weak argument given from a faithist to one who doesn't believe.
I've posited before that life & the universe as we know it that exists opposed to the force of entropy implies some sort of power that succeeds against maxmum randomness & the lowest level of energy. There's also a mathematical proof about belief & expectation that I don't recall exactly that shows belief to be of infinite value.
So, for those of you who want to stick to classical arguments, there's those avenues to explore. I don't know enough about them to defend them in any detail, but what I do know about them supports what I already suspected. Of course, you're free to choose whatever you want - belief or disbelief - whichever - I just think one should act like a compassionate human being and cut your fellow human some slack when he or she needs it, which should be important to do whether it turns out there's a God or not.
394 - Nancy
Why do we always go from discussing a tangible subject to endless philosophical discussions on existential matters that can't be proven?
395 - pleasexcusetheinterruption12
I didnt say it wasnt commedy! That's exactly what it is! It's both comedy and a way for you to ignore my argument. I agree with almost everything you said. Your negative vs positive argument is the same one ive been making all along (see post 331). Im just saying it doesnt prove there is no god. It proves the existence of god is about as likely as any other randomly generated idea the human imagination can come up with (near zero chance). My logic is the exact same logic as yours so critisizing my logic doesnt make much sense. I just disagree with your statement:
the balance of probabilities suggests that there are no gods - or, in short, there are no gods
You cant very well say there are no gods, if there is a chance there are gods. You might be wrong. Why would you assert something as true, if you knew it might be false?
396 - Christopher Rose
It's the rules of logic you seem not to get PETI. Trying to prove a negative assertion is about as possible as hugging fog and twice as pointless.
When you or anybody else cares to present some evidence of god, I'll consider it and almost certainly rebut it. Until then, let's move on, this topic has reached its sell by date.
And why haven't you separated the words in your name yet?
397 - pleasexcusetheinterruption12
I can prove tons of negative assertions, I dont know about you.
Positive: I have a mac.
Negative: I do not have a mac.
I only have a pc, this provides evidence of the negative, b/c if i only have a pc, i cannot have a mac.
398 - pleasexcusetheinterruption12
Positive: god exists.
Negative: god does not exist.
In this particular instance, because there is no evidence whatsoever either way, I cannot prove either, and cannot answer the question "does god exist?" Negatives can be proven correct, just not this one.
399 - Martin Lav
"Typical, the faithist position demolished and they resort to the usual mindbending nonsense."
Mr. Non-Faithist,
It is quite apparent that your hatred spewing posts towards any so-called faithist is the exact opposite of what a faithist goal is to create. Therefore, you have proven by your own words that those who have faith in nothing, other than faith that those who do have faith in something, are vile, hypocritical (your words) and responsible for the crap conditions of the world, are really by your own observations, hateful, hurtful and contemptuous of anything professing to be good in nature.
You sir are a fraud and I would like to start a petition that your services to BlogCritics be revoked based on your obvious prejudiced of anyone who has faith in something. Since you have faith in nothing, you won't miss anything.
Do us all a favor and resign your position immediately.
400 - Christopher Rose
Go on then, PETI, prove to me that you have a mac; so far you've only made an assertion. Also, do you think it fair to switch the frame of reference from philosophy to material goods? I certainly don't.
As to you, Mr Lav, I rather think it is you that is spewing hate, despite your alleged beliefs. I may not have the kind of unthinking blind faith you embrace but that doesn't mean that I don't believe in stuff.
In what way exactly have I been a fraud? Methinks I see a fraud, but it is perpetrated by organised religions against all of us. I've done nothing but make the case for a small but vital aspect of what I believe.
The fact that you have resorted to a pretty nasty, albeit somewhat incoherent, attack on me and not my position tells me a lot about the depth or otherwise of your faith - and your commitment to it. Why don't you do the world a favour and book yourself some deprogramming before the cult you belong to sinks its claws in too deeply?
401 - Martin Lav
Mr. Rose,
I'll engage you one last time before the owners revoke your pass to spew any more negatory negatives.
I do not belong to any cult, nor organized religion. I believe in a higher power of my choosing, which I call God. I posted a number of times that "heaven" is a frame of mind and that in order for me to resist evil, it's not that I would resist you, it's that I would resist the need to let your views impact me either way. I have not once said anything negative on this posting except for demanding your resignation. But alas, I am not following my own advice by resisting evil and therefore I retract my request.
You may keep your post.
402 - pleasexcusetheinterruption12
Go on then, PETI, prove to me that you have a mac; so far you've only made an assertion. Also, do you think it fair to switch the frame of reference from philosophy to material goods? I certainly don't.
Huh??? If that's not a proof I dont have a mac then I dont know what is. If you're objection is solely based on the fact that we're communicating online, that is irrelevent to this. It doesnt matter what the subject matter is. It's still logic no matter what the logic is aplied to.
403 - STM
Joan Bias said (way back up the thread and I can't remember the number); "I can't speak for Mr. Rose, but the reason I find it necessary to discuss these issues is because I believe that people who belive in gods are dangerous."
Are you sure you can't speak for Mr Rose, Joan?
You possess remarkably similar vocabularies and the syntax is, well, virtually identical.
Perhaps I'm wrong; perhaps it's just that you have identical views and are therefore cybernetically attracted to each other?
404 - Luna
The key to peace in the middle east:
Muslims getting over themselves, believe it or not the world is not under Islamic rule and there are places where free speech is allowed.
Muslims appear to get outraged at the drop of a hat, of course not when they should, which has already been pointed out in numerous post in this thread.
I get outraged everytime I hear a Islamic fanatic open his mouth, but I don't go around burning down mosques or killing Muslims, albeit somedays it is a tempting thought, I was raised better.
Pray to who you want, worship who or what you want, but quit trying to shove it down everyones throat by force or otherwise. If Muslims want tolerance they need to be tolerant of those who have differing beliefs or a lack thereof.
Fanatical Islam in effect is it's own worse enemey.
405 - nugget
Chris said,
There is nothing at all basic or necessary about faith - unless you're a conman as all faithists are of necessity.
absurd. Anyone who claims that he does not have Faith is confused.
When you wake up in the morning, you have Faith, assume, hope, and reasonably guess that you still have a job. This is an assumption. You do not KNOW that you still have a job. What if the industry plant you worked in blew up in the middle of the night? What if your boss decided to pack up and move to Mexico? What if your department was laid off? What if the business was caught in a scam? What if a meteor struck the building? What if you got in a wreck on the way to work, leaving you a vegetable? No more job.
So, when you wake up tomorrow, how can you possibly say that you know, with sufficient evidence, that you still have a job.
possible answer A: "Because I can call my boss right then and make sure."
Even if you dial the number, what if your boss is offended by your paranoia, and fires you? Unlikely, yes. Impossible, no. Plus, that does not eliminate the possibility of a life-altering wreck. This is all circumstancial, but Faith is based on whether circumstances will or will not occur.
Another example of Faith:
How do you know that your wife isn't cheating on you? If she was and still wanted to be with you, she probably wouldn't tell you.
Answer: Well I trust her!
ahem, Faith? anyone? Faith?
You are a Faithist, Chris. Everyone is.
You don't know for a fact that the nuts and bolts are secure in your car everytime you take a drive.
You don't know if Osama Bin Laden is a real man or a figment of your imagination!!! Oh did the TV tell you Bin Laden is real? did the newspaper? Did millions of people? Is that what you base "proof" on? Testaments of the masses? If so I feel for you. Masses of people are lying about the holocaust. The masses actually liked Elvis. Surely you don't trust the fat, greedy, lying, "masses."
Have you touched bin laden? Do you know that he's real? You will say that's absurd. "of course he's real he's on fucking tv!!!" RIGHT. He could be some shmuck. Some lamo in a cave talkin smack. Hell, he's speaking in a different language. You also trust the translators. You have Faith that he's saying what the translator's are reporting what he's saying. You also have Faith that the networks are reporting what the translators are reporting.
All you know is that you've seen footage, read articles, watched speeches, and TRUSTED that, for the most part, they are credible. That, my friend, is why you are a FAITHIST.
Read a book lately? Non-fiction?
What makes that book a non-fiction? What makes a history book credible?
Sources. Lots and lots of sources. An author does research, amalgamates sources, organizes that research, and walaaa. But didn't those sources also have about 10 sources to their names? what about the sources of the sources of the sources? Is it still credible? After all, everyone has BIAS. Every source had bias.
Yet, you still read that book and were comfortable with the text from start to finish. You cared very little to do research on the matter yourself, because who really does that? Especially if it was for a Sunday read?
see my point? And yes, when it comes to Faith in metaphysics, the same principle applies.
406 - Luna
I apologize for the typos in my previous post that I noticed a little too late.
407 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
Returning to the topic for just a moment folks,
Pakistan clerics say Pope must go (BBC - South Asian EditionFriday, 22 September 2006, 04:37 GMT 05:37 UK)
The Pope says he was trying to spur theological debate
Radical Muslim clerics and scholars in Pakistan have demanded the removal of Pope Benedict XVI for what they called "insulting remarks" against Islam.
This is the lead paragraph on the BBC version of a number of stories on Google this morning. While others have asserted that Ratzinger was not trying tio incite the Moslem world, it appears that he succeeded. And not being a stupid man, he chose the most effective way to do so - a "private" audience.
Just as Pope Urban signalled a military campaign to conquer Jerusalem a millenia ago, Ratzinger is signalling, subtly, an oncoming campaign against Moslems in Europe now. You read it here on BC first.
408 - Hasheet M'Drurz
Makes about as much sense as jews and gentiles asking for the removal of Hasan Nasrallah as the leader of Hizbollah
409 - Christopher Rose
Well, I'm certainly getting a reminder of the folly of debating with closed minds but, in one final effort, here goes:-
Mr Lav #401, I think that was some kind of apology masquerading as a retraction of your frankly ludicrous suggestion. A suggestion that, as a mostly unknown, except for the name you use here, you have no say in how this site is run. Clearly the owners of the site are happy with me as they let me do the "job", with all it's attendant privileges and pay!
PETI #402: If you think merely saying so is proof, then I'm almost at a loss for words. If you choose to believe that you're being logical, that's fine. In retaliation, I choose to believe that you're fooling yourself, which is, of course, your right.
STM #403: Although I have dressed as a woman once or twice in more glamourous times I remain sturdily macho and resident in Southern Spain. I know nothing about Ms Bias other than she has made several sensible remarks here on Blogcritics. She seems eminently sane and sensible to me, quite distinctly different to many here...
Luna #404: A fair point although there are of course many extremists of all faiths: You only have to read through the totally deranged remarks made by some Jews and Christians on this site in addition to the more obvious Islamic insanities.
This is one of the reasons that support my contention that there is indeed no god and all that is done in its name is inherently anti humanity and not a little evil. So far, nobody has presented ANY remotely credible substance to counter my position.
nugget #405: You really need to clarify your thiunking. You begin by talking of faith but switch within seconds to assumptions. These are clearly different concepts.
You are, of course, seeking to change the meaning of the word "faithist". As I coined the word myself (although I'm not saying I was the first ever to do so) I shall define what I mean by it: a faithist is someone who believes in the existence of fantastical creatures with superpowers that created all of existence and demand that we worship them.
I don't believe that such creatures exist so I don't believe in gods nor anything that is done in their name by humans. I believe we are alone, certainly on this world, in the solar system and, most probably this part of our galaxy.
Therefore, it follows that we, and we alone, are responsible for all that happens on this earth, for its wellbeing and our continued survival. As such, I believe all promises of a better life in some promised paradise after death is complete nonsense that absolves people of their responsibilities to do more in the here and now to make the planet we're on a better place.
If the predominant religions (or at least the most rowdy) of Judaism, Christianity and Islam seek to manipulate people's behaviour in their one brief life into doing ridiculous or lethal acts in the name of their loving god, then that can only be prejudicial to all of us in the here and now.
If you, or anybody else for that matter, choose to believe in such blatant and unsupported nonsense, thast is, of course, your own affair. To pass from that to passive or aggressive recruitment campaigns is a threat to us all.
I truly wish there were an omnipotent god or gods, especially if they were a lot more interactive than the absentee landlord that the unholy alliance of Jews, Christians and Muslims profess allegiance to and would be quite happy, even enthusiastic, to worship such a beastie.
However, accepting such a view based on no more than the totally unsupported claims of some ancient folk in the Middle East and their charming if uninformed attempts to explain the world and all its wonders truly beggars belief.
I think you are confusing faith and belief. I believe there is such a person as Usama bin Laden, if only because it would be stretching belief to think that he was fictitious. I don't believe it as an unquestioning article of faith though.
This is a crucial difference. Faithists stick determinedly to their views despite any evidence to the contrary. I believe certain things because the balance of the evidence available tends to support the conclusion. If new information became available, my belief would quite naturally be updated to reflect that.
This is one of the key differences between our positions. Faithist views are set in stone and nothing can ever change them. This goes against the very nature of our universe, where constant change is one of the key features that can be relied upon.
To summarise: faith, trust and belief are different if related concepts with clearly defined differences of meaning. You seem to use them interchangeably, which is both poor reasoning and poor grammar.
Ruvy #407: Please explain the process by which the Pope, who commands an army of about 200 Swiss Guards, will be launching a military campaign against Muslims in Europe. You are displaying a pattern of making ludicrously over the top remarks of an increasingly bloodthirsty nature.
These include such classics as your calls to kill every Arab in the Middle East; your enthusiastic endorsement and approval of the idea of Iran dropping a nuclear bomb on Tel Aviv; and your latest brainstorm, murdering everybody connected with the slave/prostitution business in Israel. What charming ideas we see coming from a supposedly devout servant of a loving god...
410 - Vern Halen
Mr. Rose -
I read your definition of "faithist" - "I shall define what I mean by it: a faithist is someone who believes in the existence of fantastical creatures with superpowers that created all of existence and demand that we worship them.
I don't believe that such creatures exist so I don't believe in gods nor anything that is done in their name by humans. I believe we are alone, certainly on this world, in the solar system and, most probably this part of our galaxy.
Therefore, it follows that we, and we alone, are responsible for all that happens on this earth, for its wellbeing and our continued survival. As such, I believe all promises of a better life in some promised paradise after death is complete nonsense that absolves people of their responsibilities..."
Well, I personally would have defined it differently by leaving out the negative connotations and simply saying, "One who believes in a Creator of the universe as we know it." This dies not imply a six day creation period, or the Creator's need to be worshipped by His work, or His demand to kill others in his name. I think you are perhaps referring to religious extremists of all varieties, but I hope not to be tarred with the same brush.
In post 396, you said, "When you or anybody else cares to present some evidence of god, I'll consider it and almost certainly rebut it." I had hoped you might address my interruption in post 393, where I mentioned that life itself as it exists in opposition to the scientific principle of entropy is proof that something or someone created life & the universe as we know it. I got into this discussion on BC a few months back, (perhaps even with you, but I don't recall), and did not recieve a satisfactory reply.
I sometimes think we rely too much on the conscious process of logic here in the modern world, and rely too little on our subconscious process of intuition. Of course, some would see these as mutually exclusive, but I always thought they should be used together to make the most of, as you put it, "the world and all its wonders."
Thanx for your time,
VH
411 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
Whst I said was "This is Ratzinger letting these Europeans who are sick of Islam and Moslems pushing them around in their home countries - he's letting them know just whose side he is on. There will be more statements like this in the future...
So when the violent holocaust and murder of Moslems in Europe comes - and it surely will, Ratzinger will be leading the cheering section of European politicians saying 'it's time to clean the filth out.'"
No guns for the pontiff, Chris, no meetings of the general staff in the war room - just encouragement, in the kindest and most pastoral way, given publicly to the politicians and the others who want to slaughter the Moslems in Europe.
The pope stopped being a military commander the day the Italian army deposed him as ruler of the Papal States and he retreated to the Vatican for sanctuary. But nothing, except the commandments given at Sinai, is ever written in stone.
412 - Nancy
Much as in some ways I would like to see it happen, I don't see how any of this encourages anybody to start eradicating muslims or islam anywhere. Everyone is sick of these fools spouting off, not to mention committing atrocities while the rest of them sit by saying nothing; but that hardly constitutes comtemplated genocide or religiocide or whatever.
413 - Anthony
Its ironic that the Muslims respond to accusations of violence, by using violence. The pope should not have made those comments, however, the Muslims did misconstrue his true meaning behind the words.
I understand that a lot of the Muslims are good people, and that this is only a minority. However this minority doesn't appear to be so small worldwide. It appears that the common muslim rational says that "All other religons are wrong, and that is somehow linked to America."
It is also ironic that the founder of Islam, Mohammed himself, did take up the sword. History tells us that Mohammed led forces of Muslims back into Mecca, and conquered the city. If the founder of a religion engaged in violence, then obviously the follwers will exhibit violent tendencies as well.
414 - Michael J. West
History tells us that Mohammed led forces of Muslims back into Mecca, and conquered the city.
After Mecca's forces attacked first.
415 - Jerry
Nancy, you're right to say that there is no widespread, organized contemplation to commit mass genocide against Muslims, YET.
I thinks things are shaping up where it will eventually happen. The rest of the non-Muslim world will not continue to ignore and appease terrorists and their supporters when their own survival is on the line.
Please read a very good piece that didn't get any attention when posted on BC. It reflects what more and more people are beginning to think.
"Placating Terrorists" by Diana Hartman.
416 - Martin Lav
Mr. Rose,
Your language and description of "faithists" (as you coined them?) is so harsh, contemptous and inflammatory that it leads me to believe that you would much rather be right than happy. Feel free to cling to your "belief" that trusting in a higher power means: "existence of fantastical creatures with superpowers that created all of existence and demand that we worship them." however that is not my interpretation and it's you that is missing out on creating a trancedance of the mind in gaining strength from a loving power. I mean your writings here on this posting is quite ironic in that your choice of words boldly displays your fervent resistance to a believe in anything other than yourself.
This belief you have in your own ego can be quite overwhelming and I think it would serve you well to deflate a portion of it by allowing some spirituality in to carry this burden. Many men that have tried to attain your lofty pursuits have unfortunately been crushed by the weight of their own ego and usually the landing is not soft.
You may want to read your rantings from the confines of your objective mind and not just from Southern Spain and your safe PC or Mac.
You may need a sabatical or the owners of this site would do well to increase their workers compensation coverage for you.
417 - Christopher Rose
Vern #410: I had read your #393 but didn't really understand it. On second reading, I'm still not sure I do - "life itself as it exists in opposition to the scientific principle of entropy is proof that something or someone created life & the universe as we know it." Perhaps you could explain why that is proof for I can't make a connection between the two.
As I understand it, entropy is the tendency for all energy to become equally distributed, which is equivalent to the death of everything as one of the characteristics of a living universe is differences of energy states.
As the universe, to the best of our current understanding, was born in a very brief, very powerful explosion a very long time ago and the jury is still out on whether the universal expansion continues for ever or a peak point will be reached before everything starts shrinking again, there are certainly more answers to be teased out of the mystery of it all.
Positing a mysterious creator may make the explanations easier in some ways but raises just as many questions as it answers. I for one am comfortable with not knowing the answers to these and many other issues but enjoy the incremental process of discovery.
I share your reservations over purely logical approaches but, on the other hand, there are far too many people, such as my virtual good buddy Ruvy, who abuse the intuitive process to serve their own personal faithist ends so in the end, the greater intellectual discipline of reason serves us well, just as a hammer is more useful than a bit of old rock for banging in nails!
418 - Christopher Rose
Martin #416: you really need to stop making stuff up. I am a very happy person most of the time and hope also to be as right as I can be. I certainly try hard to understand things thoroughly, whereas you seem content to combine bits of doctrine with stuff you made up all by yourself.
I'm sorry you find my words harsh when in fact I mean them most positively. I think the fact that the classical faithist position of the last few thousand years has lead us to a world as divided as we see today is pretty eloquent testimony to the falseness of the underlying superpowered being theory myself.
Watching as supposedly devout adherents of the interwoven strands of the Judaeo-Christiano-Islamo god theories succeed only in creating an ever more hostile and divided planet is surely repulsive to all people of goodwill, positivity and love and calls into serious doubt the whole lot of them. A plague on all their houses say I, in the nicest way possible!
I'm not really concerned about your personal interpretation as I fail to see how adding a few freelance theories to the whole failed concept of this absentee supercreature marks an improvement.
I fail to see how you arrive at your conjecture that I display a "fervent resistance to a believe in anything other than yourself" and certainly hope you can revisit my words for I believe I made no such claim.
Nor do I believe in my own ego, I simply believe that there is no evidence of gods and challenge all that is done in their name. I'm quite confident that if I'm wrong, they will understand and forgive me, for I act in good faith and seek only a better world than the current state of play here on our planet.
The faithists have had a long innings and have precious little to show for it. Perhaps it's time for a new, more human spirituality to emerge, one that concentrates more on the real needs of many billions of people who are suffering right now on this potential earthly paradise we call home.
I wonder if you have read any of the articles on Blogcritics written by our own John Spivey? He has what I find to be a very insightful understanding of our contemporary life and quest...
419 - Martin Lav
Mr. Rose,
We are closer to a similar understanding or belief than you probably think. I agree that organized religion has contributed to a lot of the strife in this world, however, since MOST people believe in some sort of supreme being or power and have since milenia, I would contend that you would better serve your cause to educate than to cast them all away as fools. You are in the vast minority and arguing endlessly about the existence or NON, is pointless since no one will ever agree. I am simply saying that an acknowledgement of a higher power and a belief in gaining a personal strength through this belief would better serve all people and allow them to cast away silly practices that do nothing to unite the spirit of humans together.
I suggest you read The Sermon on the Mount, by Emmett Fox
420 - Christopher Rose
Martin, I am trying to educate them but people like you keep arguing with me! My starting point is that we are alone here and directly responsible for what happens.
Invoking gods is just a way of passing the buck of personal responsibility and providing excuses for some frankly appalling behaviour.
421 - Vern Halen
Not being a scientist, I don't know if I'm explaining this at all correctly, but I believe your explanation of entropy in your second paragraph there is correct. All energy being equally distributed is also the equivalent of all atoms achieving a state of maximum randomness. Leave a building long enough & its constituent parts will crumble and fall, as would a living body decay. Another way of looking at it is if you piled up the lumber, hammer & nails, and wiring, the house wouldn't build itself; now would a humann being materialize out of a jar full of carbon, nitrogen, oxygen and hydrogen (as an aside, I'm hope I'm not seen as one of those supporting the current fad of Intelligent Design - that seems little more than a half right idea fronting a political agenda). I hope I am simply stating the obvious: if something seems organized, there's a better chance someone organized it rather than it was just a happy accident.
In much the same way, we can see the universe as having some sort of organization: in the scientific principles that regulate the cosmos - the speed of light, the rotation of planets, the acceleration of free fall in a vacuum; and in living beings: some self aware, others, maybe not. I can't see how atoms, which are continually looking for their lowest energy levels, can spontaneously continue to exist in these organized groups in defiance of established scientific principles. That power that keeps the whole thing going is beyond nature, i.e., supernatural by definition. I suppose it's also called God in some places.
I understand why you say it raises as many questions as it answers, and I'm glad to hear you say you're comfortable with you own understanding and processes - I suspect you are as comfortable with yours as I am with mine. It may be presumptuous, but when all's said & done, whether it turns out there's God or not, perhaps we'll all end up in the same place. All I ask is that my faith not be held against me because of the misuse of the term by others. Many have committed heinous acts in the name of whatever deity they worship; these people do not reflect the Creator as I myself believe Him/Her/It to be.
Thanx for your insight - see you on the BC boards,
VH
422 - Christopher Rose
That's the tricky thing about obviousness Vern, sometimes it does just happen as certain physical processes play themselves out. Just 'cos something is organised does NOT mean there is an organiser, however tempting or obvious it may seem.
I may be wrong but I think you have your science a bit backwards when you say "I can't see how atoms, which are continually looking for their lowest energy levels, can spontaneously continue to exist in these organized groups in defiance of established scientific principles".
As I understand it, atoms are simply following the laws of nature or physics (take your pick), they don't spontaneously exist at all, as all matters is conserved, it's just that the energy becomes evenly distributed, given enough time.
If you mean the secular miracle of life, well sure, there's lots left to learn yet - but that doesn't justify making up wild unsupported theories that require the existence of undetectable superbeings.
As there are tons of evidence to support the entire evolutionary process, from barely a few seconds after the big bang right up to the present day and more is being learned on an almost daily basis, I choose to go with the simpler explantion that it just happened. Of course, the whole question of why remains, but that is a totally different issue...
Faithists do trouble me - in the sense that you can never be sure when they are going to leap off and do unhelpful or vile things in the name of their god, as for example, we have seen calls for mass murder against the "enemy" espoused by Jews (Hi Ruvy), Christians and Muslims in these very pages right here on BC.
On the other hand, men of reason can generally be trusted to follow the simpler (?) twin dictates of their heads and hearts alone...
423 - Jabba
How hypocritical can Muslims be? Honestly. They complain that the pope is being unfair and lying when he recites a quote saying that Islam is spread through violence and the sword of jihad. Yet how do they react? Warning that this will result in violence, bombing Catholic churches, killing nuns, and vowing to assasinate the pope. Well doesn't that just prove Benedict wrong. He was way off, that doesn't sound violent at all. This isn't even taking into account the inherant hypocracy of Muslims complaining about intolerance for ANY reason. They not only insult the Jewish faith every chance they get, but call for the annihilation of all Jews. You cannot complain about being disrespected when you do not give respect to anyone.
424 - Vern Halen
My apologies - I wasn't clear about atoms - I wasn't referring to their existence as such; I was referring to their existence as an example of organized matter. A small point of little consequence in the big picture.
Well, you may be right, logically, but intuitively I can't go along with your position - there's just way too much out there that we don't know yet, and I don't think it's possible for humankind to know everything. So, until we do, I'm comfy in my beliefs.
Oh, and back to the guy who started this all, the Pope. What was he thinking? is all I can say. I hope it's not an age thing - seems like it won't be long until I'm old enough myself to say goofy things and let others take advantage of me.
425 - nugget
Christ: assumptions require faith. NIce symantics dodge though.