> 
> Yes the devout christians say that there is a reason behind everything that
> "he" lets happen(or does).
> 
> Sometimes it is very hard to see that there
> could possibly be a reason for a lot of cruel
> barbaric things that happen, like rape, child
> molestation(which seems to be quite common
> inside the church lately, or is it just being noticed?)

This is a difficult topic for a lot of people; but believe me, this viewpoint doesn't get better without a God.

> I like to think that it is your behaviour that counts,
> eg: a good hearted person would do better on
> Judgement day than a church goer  that is hypocritical(doesnt practise what
> he preaches).

Hypocrites will fair much worse.

> BTW I can imagine you in a debate with the JW's
> in the park. :o))

Oops, those were JW's? Have at them! They don't think that deeply about their religion anyway.  No offense to JW's on this list ;-)

Later,

John

"John Reimer" <jjreimer@telus.net> wrote in message news:c1v0ap$2mm8$1@digitaldaemon.com...
>
> >
> > Yes the devout christians say that there is a reason behind everything
that
> > "he" lets happen(or does).
> >
> > Sometimes it is very hard to see that there
> > could possibly be a reason for a lot of cruel
> > barbaric things that happen, like rape, child
> > molestation(which seems to be quite common
> > inside the church lately, or is it just being noticed?)
>
> This is a difficult topic for a lot of people; but believe me, this viewpoint doesn't get better without a God.
>
> > I like to think that it is your behaviour that counts,
> > eg: a good hearted person would do better on
> > Judgement day than a church goer  that is hypocritical(doesnt practise
what
> > he preaches).
>
> Hypocrites will fair much worse.
>
> > BTW I can imagine you in a debate with the JW's
> > in the park. :o))
>
> Oops, those were JW's? Have at them! They don't think that deeply about their religion anyway.  No offense to JW's on this list ;-)

Yea after I made that post, I had a quick glance at
your initials knowing your name is John, I was relieved that you are JR
hahaha

I just presume they were JW's, because they tend to patrol in packs, at
least they do here in OZ.
Once you answer the door, if you are not rude its
very hard to get rid of them.

Several years ago I worked 12 hour night shifts. While trying to sleep one
day, they knocked on
my door. I made the mistake of answering the door and listening to them
for about one hour. Next week and every week
thereafter they came back, disturbing my sleep.
I tried and tried to explain that I was trying to sleep
as I was working night shift. They wouldnt take the hint. The next week when
they knocked I didnt answer the door, then I heard them yelling out through
the window "PHILL" "PHILL" hahah.
They never came back.(I guess they could hear
the music)

Phill.

>
> Later,
>
> John

> Thanks for the post.  Once again you got me hooked on a friendly debate (even though it wasn't directed at me...oops!).  I can appreciate the frankness of your reply.  Forgive me if I got to carried away with my own.  I tend to have fairly strong opinions on philosophy and religion
:-).

You're welcome.

As far as that end-of-life stuff goes, it's beyond my comprehension that if a being made this world, and all the things in it between Him and me, that He could judge me bad for living a good life against all kinds of obstacles and base instincts, merely for the act of not believing in Him. Therefore, I don't much worry about the not knowing, but just get on with being a person who has to answer to himself on a daily basis. If that ain't good enough, then I'm not good enough, and I'll have to take my lumps and spend eternity kicking the arse of the misunderstood child.

"Phill" <phill@pacific.net.au> wrote in message news:c1uvqt$2lr0$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> "Matthew" <matthew.hat@stlsoft.dot.org> wrote in message news:c1unvu$27dd$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> > Well, let me preface this by saying that I had very little religious upbringing, but what little there was was Christian, so there may be
bias
> > that I'm
> > not aware of.
> >
> > In my eaerly teens, when various close members of my family died a
variety
> > of
> > rather horrible deaths, I either fell out with God, or stopped believing
> in
> > Him/It,
> > or somewhere in between.
>
> Yes the devout christians say that there is a reason behind everything
that
> "he" lets happen(or does).

Well, I don't see it quite as black and white as that, but there is an enormous hypocrisy involved.

When I was 18, I was in a position to be able to go to the best universities in England - the one's that open doors for little effort in the rest of one's life - but I chose not to because I never wanted to get anything on name, always on merit. I've pretty much done it all my own way ever since. It's the same with morals - I choose my own, and do my best to live with them. Of course, to someone with Faith, this is hubris and arrogance of sinful proportion; the fact that it's a big weight to bear without an umbrella of support or certainty doesn't seem to cut much weight with.

But I think that human beings have innate capacity good, since we are evolved/designed to be social creatures, so whether it's innate good or inherited self-interest, that most people are trying to be good. Does this mean that the increasing numbers of non-believers who are still trying to express their goodness represent a creeping evil? I do hope not.

> Sometimes it is very hard to see that there
> could possibly be a reason for a lot of cruel
> barbaric things that happen, like rape, child
> molestation(which seems to be quite common
> inside the church lately, or is it just being noticed?)

I'm pretty old testament in all that. Certain things are evil - whether it's Evil or merely irreversible mal-function - and there is no excuse.

As for the hypocrisy, I can't really see that that's a result of religion, more a perversion of man. So whether or not there's any foundation to religion doesn't really take from the fact that religion involves a lot of people weilding power, and is therefore no more and no less likely to be corrupt than any organisation of man.

> I like to think that it is your behaviour that counts,
> eg: a good hearted person would do better on
> Judgement day than a church goer  that is hypocritical(doesnt practise
what
> he preaches).

Of course. If He's all knowing, what the f*** does it matter what hat you're wearing as long as your heart is positive.

> BTW I can imagine you in a debate with the JW's
> in the park. :o))

Been there. It makes me laugh when people criticise me for an open mind, for seeing possibilities in both sides, when they only get one. Hence the flourescent light gag. Maybe once in a while one of the evangelical types'll go and read a book? Wouldn't it be a cack if they did, and actually had a deeper realisation, maybe something no-one'd ever thought of.

> If the movie is half as entertaining as your review,
> I believe it will be enjoyable :o))

Thanks! :)

Charles opened the door, and I walked through with both opinionated feet. ;)

> > Yes the devout christians say that there is a reason behind everything
that
> > "he" lets happen(or does).
> >
> > Sometimes it is very hard to see that there
> > could possibly be a reason for a lot of cruel
> > barbaric things that happen, like rape, child
> > molestation(which seems to be quite common
> > inside the church lately, or is it just being noticed?)
>
> This is a difficult topic for a lot of people; but believe me, this viewpoint doesn't get better without a God.

That seems sound reasoning.

Maybe it does get better without religion, though? (Oh-oh. He's off the
fence ....)

> > I like to think that it is your behaviour that counts,
> > eg: a good hearted person would do better on
> > Judgement day than a church goer  that is hypocritical(doesnt practise
what
> > he preaches).
>
> Hypocrites will fair much worse.

Well, we're all hypocrites in one way or another. But then we're all sinners, aren't we?

> > BTW I can imagine you in a debate with the JW's
> > in the park. :o))
>
> Oops, those were JW's? Have at them! They don't think that deeply about their religion anyway.  No offense to JW's on this list ;-)

It wasn't. But I'm not naming names. There are limits to my bravery, such as it is ...

I should really, really let this drop before someone boots me out :) but a few words first...

>>This is a difficult topic for a lot of people; but believe me, this
>>viewpoint doesn't get better without a God.
> 
> 
> That seems sound reasoning.
> 
> Maybe it does get better without religion, though? (Oh-oh. He's off the
> fence ....)
> 

To me, religion is man's attempt to define structure for a worldview, much like a language/grammar is used to add structure to expression of thoughts.  Organization of a belief system, like anything else, helps people to grasp concepts better and apply them to there daily life. There are many religions in this world with different points of views of right and wrong.  While we can claim to have no religion, almost everyone has formed a quasi-structural belief system of some shape.  My claim is that, everybody has a religion whether it's formally admitted or not.  One of the most significant examples of this is the worship of empiricism and science (in fact, people are VERY religious on these subjects).  So the phrase "without religion" really doesn't mean much or is, at the very least, ambiguous.

Of the fence? I should have grabbed you and pulled you to my side of the fence while I had the chance.  I could have put you in a half-nelson or something ;-).

>>
>>Hypocrites will fair much worse.
> 
> 
> Well, we're all hypocrites in one way or another. But then we're all
> sinners, aren't we?

Yes, we are.  I'm deeply skeptical myself about the current state of affairs in Christianity.  >%90 of people that claim to be Christian or go to church do not practice what they preach.  For them, Christianity has indeed become simply a "religion," and they've lost connection with the actually worldview behind it. Their daily lives no longer reflect sincere belief.  Religion becomes something to fall back on to make them feel good about themselves. I don't think that's real or honest.  This is coming from a person who believes strongly in the Christian worldview.  I've made my mistakes in the past and have been one of those hypocrites. But I see it for what it is, and I don't want to be a part of that.  It is wrong and shameful.  But the hypocracy of these people does NOT prove or disprove the existance of God.

>>>BTW I can imagine you in a debate with the JW's
>>>in the park. :o))
>>
>>Oops, those were JW's? Have at them! They don't think that deeply about
>>their religion anyway.  No offense to JW's on this list ;-)
> 
> 
> It wasn't. But I'm not naming names. There are limits to my bravery, such as
> it is ...
> 

You don't have to say who.  As I said above, you could almost take your pick of the churches these days to fit your example.  It's a sad state of affairs.  It's just that the JW cult is such an apt example.  They are frankly hypocritical and always have been. The mere goal of there door to door harassment has nothing to do with concern for the individual they accost, so much as getting the most points for the final score (membership in the special 144,000 that get to rule the world in the end -- woah!)  Whereas, most of the conservative Christians groups have drifted into hypocracy gradually.

Yet, none of these cases of hypocracy are reasons to reject Christianity or to not study the issues critically oneself.  The failure of humans does not represent the failure of God who offers a free choice to all to believe or not.  Naturally there are always consquences either way. Such is the case with all things.

I better shut up now!

Best to you,

John

>>Oops, those were JW's? Have at them! They don't think that deeply about
>>their religion anyway.  No offense to JW's on this list ;-)
> 
> 
> Yea after I made that post, I had a quick glance at
> your initials knowing your name is John, I was relieved that you are JR
> hahaha

Lol!  I'm relieved too!

> I just presume they were JW's, because they tend to patrol in packs, at
> least they do here in OZ.
> Once you answer the door, if you are not rude its
> very hard to get rid of them.
>
> Several years ago I worked 12 hour night shifts. While trying to sleep one
> day, they knocked on
> my door. I made the mistake of answering the door and listening to them
> for about one hour. Next week and every week
> thereafter they came back, disturbing my sleep.
> I tried and tried to explain that I was trying to sleep
> as I was working night shift. They wouldnt take the hint. The next week when
> they knocked I didnt answer the door, then I heard them yelling out through
> the window "PHILL" "PHILL" hahah.
> They never came back.(I guess they could hear
> the music)
>


Arghh! Now that's a pretty bizarre story.  That's got to be as bad as it gets.  You let them talk to you for an hour?  Ouch! Very funny story, though.

Later,

John

John Reimer wrote:

> Now this is bound to be a hot topic!  We'll have to see how this group handles it!

I hope you're not against me adding some salt?

> Raised with Christian teachings or not, people end up having to determine the meaning of life on their own eventually.  Being taught it from childhood can influence a future perspective in life, but I doubt it will hold unless (a) they have allowed themselves to be "programmed" without ever considering epistemology personaly or (b) they've actually deeply and sincerely considered their Christianity and have come to the similar conclusions as they grew up with.  The former is a shaky way to for one to maintain a worldview.  Interestingly (a) does not apply only to the philosophical considerations of Christianity (Athiests and humanists love to blame the evils of religious programming as the source of this worlds problems).

Really? I thought they(us) blame human stupidity, because with or without the help of religion, it always can be used to break everything. And on the other hand, religion can be very helping. But self-belief is even better. Me, i have neither. :>

>  Propaganda occurs every single day in America and all over the world: public schools, colleges, and universities teach as fact hypothesis that have not been seen, heard, smelled, tasted, or touched.  In the vast majority of cases, students lap up the assumptions of macro evolution, big bang theory, without ever considering whether what's presented is true, reproduceable, or verifable. They aren't even given the benefit of the phrase "might be so."  No sir, no critical thinking is needed here. The intellectuals, the scientists, the teachers say so, so it must be true.

Very daunting picture you are drawing. Good that i have not grown up there. So far i can remember, it was mostly made clear to what extent lies the known and where not.

> In truth, suffering has no real meaning or depth without the existance of God (paradoxically spoken). 

I don't think i can follow. Do you deny ability to suffer to people who don't have a god?

> Everything is rendered to a mere chemical response and therefore is of no real value or significance (emotions are just such chemical responses, right?).

So, in your opinion, there are no thoughts - or they don't matter - because all they are is electric impulses? There is no speech - or it doesn't matter - because it is just vibrations of air?

> This has puzzled me for awhile.  Specifically why people think science has any bearing, strength, or soundness in and of itself.  Science is independent of philosophy.  It is merely a tool used by mankind to organize observation.  Science is a sea of hypothesis, changing, improving, and deteriorating ideas, guesses, valid and invalid suggestions; and no matter what people think, it is a tool controlled by a fallible creature -- the human being, who typically has his own philosophical biases to boot.  Strict obedience to carefully crafted protocol of observation cannot remove the most human of flaws, biases, and philosophical predilections.   Any deep trust in science as a messenger of truth is just finding another god to worship, and one that conveniently offers no moral structure.  People have placed a very real "faith" in Science (capitalized), and just as religiously follow it as any dogmatic Christian follows his own faith.  Such faith has lead to all sorts of horrible errors in history, as science changes with new discoveries: an example would be old medicinal cures (once hailed as critical discoveries by the scientific elite) being found to be a major destructive force in the human body.  Science is the king of trial and error.  That's how it succeeds... and fails.  In it's purest form, it was never meant to be worshiped and hailed as the bringer of perfect truth.  In short, science cannot be used to determine the meaning of life, knowledge, being, or existance: such things are abstract, immaterial and beyound it's reach; and that is why there is such a stuggle and debate in philosophy and religion.

Scientific approach allows to separate certain from uncertain, known from guesses, and so on. And guesses, the theories are also of a value for a science. Furthermore, most of the effects are described by models which don't find a natural basis. For example, magnetic fields and electric fields are a model of interaction. It is unclear and irrelevant whether these fields "exist" as such, they are just a model in thoughts, which appears to describe the interaction very precisely, within our precision of measurement. That is, it is valid as long as we care. That's all there is to it.

You cannot really account for people who make some more or less typical view of the world induced by science into their religion. I don't, since i know there are limits.

> The scientist in you can decree nothing.  Such decisions are beyond the realm of science and within the realm of your personal, emotional, human evaluation of things.

I cannot prove nor disprove his existence, so i don't care. So for me he(it) doesn't exist. Why should i care about its existance anyway if it doesn't affect life? Or at least, it doesn't affect it to the positive.

-eye

Ilya Minkov wrote:
> John Reimer wrote:
> 
>> Now this is bound to be a hot topic!  We'll have to see how this group handles it!
> 
> 
> I hope you're not against me adding some salt?

No, that's fine.  I just don't know if the group will appreciate much more.

>> Raised with Christian teachings or not, people end up having to determine the meaning of life on their own eventually.  Being taught it from childhood can influence a future perspective in life, but I doubt it will hold unless (a) they have allowed themselves to be "programmed" without ever considering epistemology personaly or (b) they've actually deeply and sincerely considered their Christianity and have come to the similar conclusions as they grew up with.  The former is a shaky way to for one to maintain a worldview.  Interestingly (a) does not apply only to the philosophical considerations of Christianity (Athiests and humanists love to blame the evils of religious programming as the source of this worlds problems).
> 
> Really? I thought they(us) blame human stupidity, because with or without the help of religion, it always can be used to break everything. And on the other hand, religion can be very helping. But self-belief is even better. Me, i have neither. :>

Perhaps I was building a straw man, but it has been the case that such accusations are made over and over and over again.  In your case, I would be inclined to think that you personally would be the one to blame it on human stupidity.  And yes religion can break things, but what is it breaking and why? If it disturbs the conscience of human moral depravity, is that a bad thing? Humanists would say "yes." That's subjective depending on what you believe "good" means. I claim that a true unchanging standard of "good" only exists with a God. Without it is subjective.  As for whether religion can be used to destroy or build up, this is much more due to the people behind it verses the religion itself.


>>  Propaganda occurs every single day in America and all over the world: public schools, colleges, and universities teach as fact hypothesis that have not been seen, heard, smelled, tasted, or touched.  In the vast majority of cases, students lap up the assumptions of macro evolution, big bang theory, without ever considering whether what's presented is true, reproduceable, or verifable. They aren't even given the benefit of the phrase "might be so."  No sir, no critical thinking is needed here. The intellectuals, the scientists, the teachers say so, so it must be true.
> 
> 
> Very daunting picture you are drawing. Good that i have not grown up there. So far i can remember, it was mostly made clear to what extent lies the known and where not.

That's nice.  You live in an unusual world then.  Most modern texts that I have read state things clearly in the declarative "is" such as the universe is "billions of years old."  It is true they admit to current unkowns (eg, my pathophysiology texts are quite honest when they don't know how a certain drug works in the body: they are clear about that and just give a good guess which I actually appreciate), but that's easy. When it comes to past unobservable events such as "evolution", they have all but made up there mind for you and are quite willing to call it "fact".  This is also the case with the majority of public elementary science texts.

>> In truth, suffering has no real meaning or depth without the existance of God (paradoxically spoken). 
> 
> 
> I don't think i can follow. Do you deny ability to suffer to people who don't have a god?

A universe without a God is not one I would understand or fathom.  But if we speculated such a universe, suffering would just be another emotional response with no inherent meaning or significance because, in such a circumstance, we are merely beings of dust, with no soul other than the electrical synapses firing in the brain.  No morality could really exist.  People would indeed be free to act on their own desires.   "goodness" would likely be what feels best at the right moment for any one individual.  If one fella felt like murdering another fella, well it might be "good" for one and "bad" for another (as is usually the case).  People in this world do operate as if they are in such a world.  But just because people have decided to not believe in a God, does not mean He does not exist.  Many people hate religion because it sometimes tells them they can't do what makes them feel good.  But without that stricture, there is chaos.

> 
>> Everything is rendered to a mere chemical response and therefore is of no real value or significance (emotions are just such chemical responses, right?).
> 
> 
> So, in your opinion, there are no thoughts - or they don't matter - because all they are is electric impulses? There is no speech - or it doesn't matter - because it is just vibrations of air?

You misunderstood me, likely because of my rather sloppy writing ability.  That reference was my renditon of what the secular humanist and athiest worldviews reduce the body and mind to.  It's an example of why the medical profession, which is quite humanist in operation, tries to fix mental diseases with drugs and chemicals because, from their perspective, that's all they can see the human body as being (a complicated biological combination of organs: no more and no less). This is understandable, of course, given that the medicine is a science and it's veiws are limited.  But with this philosophical limitaion, they may be permanently restricted from finding a solution if they do not see a human as being more than biological. My own opinion is that human suffering is very real, matters much, and fixing it goes far beyond mere biological interventions.  I believe a soul immaterial exists.

> 
> Scientific approach allows to separate certain from uncertain, known from guesses, and so on. And guesses, the theories are also of a value for a science. Furthermore, most of the effects are described by models which don't find a natural basis. For example, magnetic fields and electric fields are a model of interaction. It is unclear and irrelevant whether these fields "exist" as such, they are just a model in thoughts, which appears to describe the interaction very precisely, within our precision of measurement. That is, it is valid as long as we care. That's all there is to it.

To some extent I disagree about your viewpoint of science.  It ATTEMPTS to separate known from guesses, but it must start with guesses in order probe further. And many guesses turn out to be worng later, but work for many years because there is enough similarity for the model to function until new abnormalties surface in the analysis.  Many models are indeed as simple as magnetic and electrical fields and reflect "accurate enough" models for general use.  I don't deny that we can form models that work, but just because we can do that, does not make science a tool to describe matters of origins and knowledge of beginnings.  It's a completely inneffective tool for discovering events of long ago.  But people tend to carry over their faith in it's abilities to too many theoretical fields of extrapolation where there is a real inability for real interaction with objects either due to time or distance (ideas that in themselves make little sense in a godless worldview).

> You cannot really account for people who make some more or less typical view of the world induced by science into their religion. I don't, since i know there are limits.

Well, that's good.  Not everybody does.

>> The scientist in you can decree nothing.  Such decisions are beyond the realm of science and within the realm of your personal, emotional, human evaluation of things.
> 
> 
> I cannot prove nor disprove his existence, so i don't care. So for me he(it) doesn't exist. Why should i care about its existance anyway if it doesn't affect life? Or at least, it doesn't affect it to the positive.

And that's your free choice.  If caring about it is not important to you, than why write about it? God's existance would very much affect life because He would have made it.  If you don't believe so, that's fine, but it doesn't change whether He exists or not.  Also You can't claim that God's existance affects life to the negative if you don't believe He exists in the first place.  You must first accept that He exists, then blame Him for making things so miserable, and finally decide you'd rather be against Him than for Him.  That's your choice too. ;-)

Later,

John

From the subject I thought you were talking about Walter!

Ant