Science is limited by its refusal to make stuff up

Well... at least it's very well drawn.

This really clarifies things for me, because it explains how right-wing pundits are basically theologians: they just make stuff up! [Link]

They're True Believers. Now it all makes sense!

HA! I don't spend nearly enough time reading Jesus and Mo.

Love it. Speaking of liars/creativity,

"The Bloody Olive"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pMgbMnAmv24

Philosophers get to make stuff up too.

I have answers:

"Why are we here?"

Mu.

"What is the purpose of beauty?"

Mu.

"Who created the laws of physics and logic?"

Mu.

That wasn't so hard.

tsg

I have answers:

exactly... Mu = I don't know, but if it will get you to stop asking me questions then Mu it its.
Unfortunately, the mongs will want to know everything about Mu. So, eventually, somebody will write a book about Mu... and people will talk about Mu...

Merry MuMass.

"Does a cow have the Buddha nature?"

Mu.

I believe in Mu! (And also Nu, Phi, and Xi.)

Show some passion --- Moo.

"Who created the laws of physics and logic?"

That's an easy one: physicists and logicians.

Next question.

I want that Jesusandmo strip on a T-shirt...

Isn't self gift-giving a time honored Solstice tradition?

To be sure, people do want their fictions.

Math and the other tools of science aren't just hard, they're simply not all that exciting. That's why we don't have science fiction stories about math, logic, and the rules of inference.

I understand the desire for an interesting fictional account, just not the insistence that the world simply must work that way, and science classes ought to say so (though ID itself is about as uninteresting as a thing can be--few really want that shit, though, they want myth, to which ID is to open the door).

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/6mb592

exactly... Mu = I don't know, but if it will get you to stop asking me questions then Mu it its.

Actually, Mu means "unask the question" or "the question assumes an answer." "Mu" is typically said to be the proper answer to "have you stopped beating your wife?"

tsg
Actually, Mu means "unask the question" or "the question assumes an answer."

Ok, I did not know that.
and I meant to type, " ..then, Mu it is."

"Mu" is typically said to be the proper answer to "have you stopped beating your wife?"

Except, of course, when the proper answer is "Yes" or "No"...

Is that an image of the prophet Mo? Never seen one before.

PZ, you're a genius...

who would ever have thought that logic was limited wy things that actually made sense...

too profound for us mortals.

I have answers:

Ah, you got it backwards.

"Why are we here?"

Um.

"What is the purpose of beauty?"

Um.

"Who created the laws of physics and logic?"

Um.

OK, it's humor, and shouldn't be taken too seriously.

But seriously, if anything, the difference between science and religion is that science recognizes that everything people think is made up by people, and therefore deserves a good deal of scrutiny, where religion teaches that some of what people think is revealed from a god.

Unfortunately, I hear Christians accuse scientists of making stuff up all the time.

Beauty may be a side effect of our needing to see, understand and evaluate our environment. Elephants have been reported to have preferences in the trappings they are given to wear, and my cat would, upon seeing a new item of art on the floor look at it, then pose next to it, copying the pose of the person or animal in the painting or statue. Clearly, she was able to see the being in the art and reacted to it; and the reaction suggests approval.

If beauty-sense exists in animals, I think scientists might very well be able to study and begin to answer the question of why. Is it related to mate selection? Threat evaluation? Food evaluation? A "sense" spun off of all those things?

That's why we don't have science fiction stories about math, logic, and the rules of inference.

and yet, last time I checked, "Alice in Wonderland" was still extremely popular...

#daveau 17,

Nope. It's a body double.

http://www.jesusandmo.net/2005/11/24/body/

Is that an image of the prophet Mo? Never seen one before.

Sometime around the Danish cartoon thing, Mo (in these comics) claimed he actually a body double.

Math and the other tools of science aren't just hard, they're simply not all that exciting.

*Refuses to rise to (probably unintentional) flamebait.* *takes deep breaths*

and yet, last time I checked, "Alice in Wonderland" was still extremely popular...

And yet, last time I checked, "Alice" isn't about math, logic, and the rules of inference. It's about a person, and it is a myth, if you will.

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/6mb592

This is why we find the evolutionist's position so misguided. Science is made by people and therefore is inherently flawed. The cartoon makes a good point of this. If you believe you can find answers in the indiscriminate and random acts of man you are risking a soul lost FOR ETERNITY. Think about evolutionistas, that's more than your whole life a million times over. In pain. Suffering. Feeling the flames lick your skin. The cartoon misses on this point and the fact that Christianity doesn't "make things up." Christianity reveals truth, but you wouldn't know that. You who can't even accept a counter opinion to your own. So vitriolic is your god darwin that you would stop children from learning from a museum-an educational space for kids. I don't need to damn you--God will take care of that.

Oh, and on that earlier rude point--I can read and write (obviously) and know how to use a computer. I am only one of many, and our numbers are growing.

Dangit people. it is Wu not Mu. And only works if you use the chinese meaning and pronunciation.

Feeling the flames lick your skin.

You sick fuck. Take your perverted fantasies elsewhere.

I can read and write (obviously) and know how to use a computer.

We tremble before your marginal literacy.

"Why are we here?"
Meh.
"What is the purpose of beauty?"
Meh.
"Who created the laws of physics and logic?"
Meh.
"Why is a frog when it sings?"
Meh.
"Do you walk to school or carry your lunch?"
Meh.

This is why we find the evolutionist's position so misguided. Science is made by people and therefore is inherently flawed.

So is religion and god. Difference is, science is self correcting.

Oh Fly, care so show us some physical evidence for your imaginary god? Something that can pass muster with scientists, magicians, and professional debunkers. Just so we can differentiate the truth using real evidence from your delusions. After all, if god only exists between your ears, the rest of us don't have to believe in your fairy tales and nasty fictional books like the bible.

I am only one of many, and our numbers are growing.

Yeah, but the smart ones are forming their own group, and their numbers are backed up by evidence and peer reviewed.

. If you believe you can find answers in the indiscriminate and random acts of man you are risking a soul lost FOR ETERNITY. Think about evolutionistas, that's more than your whole life a million times over. In pain. Suffering. Feeling the flames lick your skin.

Pascal's wager for 500 alex

The cartoon misses on this point and the fact that Christianity doesn't "make things up."

No it makes most everything up except a few vague historical references.

Christianity reveals truth, but you wouldn't know that.

O RLY? What truth is that. Care to provide some support for that?

You who can't even accept a counter opinion to your own.

Poorly supported arguments filled with circular reasoning are not deserving of being accepted.

So vitriolic is your god darwin that you would stop children from learning from a museum-an educational space for kids.

God Darwin? Are you drunk? Children don't learn from that museum laugh factory, they are lied to.

So vitriolic is your god darwin that you would stop children from learning from a museum-an educational space for kids.

Yet you chose to come here wagging your finger and showing your ass.

Good job!!

Smart off all you want. Be intolerant of those with differing opinions (casting aspersions on your own beloved multiculturalism and diversity education blather). We have fought you throughout history--and we have won. Darwinism will some day be reduced to a footnote in the history of thought, while Christ continues his rule. Laugh at me as you would laugh at your God, hyenas. I pray for you--whether you like it or not.

and yet, last time I checked, "Alice in Wonderland" was still extremely popular...

Last I checked, Alice In Wonderland wasn't science fiction.

Science is made by people and therefore is inherently flawed.

What isn't? Now I mean this very seriously. Let's say for arguement that a god much like the one you believe in exists. How do you know him/her/it and how do you know the things you know about him/her/it? Whether by logic or revelation it's still logic or revelation done by you and "inherently flawed" human being. So you don't really know any of it with certainty.

The only difference science has is a huge and well designed system for detecting and reducing possible error and for building systematically on past insights.These are big advantages over stuff that's just made up or at best that is just known privately (like religion).

O and I feel obliged to point out: By refusing to accept the Flying Spaghetti Monster you are risking an eternity of blah, blah, blah... . Pascal's wager= FAIL.

@Fly in the Ointment:

It's kinda hard to worry about losing my soul for eternity when I don't believe that souls exist. Why do theists keep bringing up Hell and eternal torment as a reason why I should believe? If I don't believe in souls, and I don't believe in Hell, why should I be scared?

Oh, and on that earlier rude point--I can read and write (obviously) and know how to use a computer. I am only one of many, and our numbers are growing.

Really, more and more of you bozos are learning to read and write? What's going to happen to creationism, then?

And since you apparently can read, why don't you read something intelligent for once, instead of simply reading the lies you were told?

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/6mb592

So is are religion and god.

*grumble

and last blockquote should be

I don't need to damn you--God will take care of that.

to which this makes more sense.

Yet you chose to come here wagging your finger and showing your ass.

Good job!!

/sigh

Heck, I don't even believe in eternity.

Fly in the Ointment
The cartoon misses on this point and the fact that Christianity doesn't "make things up."

1. Virgin birth
2. Star in the east
3. 3 wise men
4. born in a manger
5. born on December 25
6. massacre of the innocents
7. exodus to Egypt
8. talking with the church leaders at 12 years old
9. starting a ministry at 30 years old
10. being baptized
11. son of god
12. crucifixion
13. resurrection after three days.
etc.. etc.....

Yes, Christianity didn't make up these things. They stole these ideas from earlier and present day (at the time) sun god myths, which were all made up. See: Horus, Isis, Moses, Phrygia, Dionis, Mithras etc...
So, Christianity doesn't make things up... it steals made up things.
But since you don't know any of this information, you can be comfortable in your ignorance and what you define in your own head as "Truth".

Ephesians 1:8-12: "Wherein he hath abounded toward us in all wisdom and prudence; Having made known unto us the mystery of his will, according to his good pleasure which he hath purposed in himself: That in the dispensation of the fullness of times he might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth; even in him: In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will: That we should be to the praise of his glory, who first trusted in Christ."

In Christ, I pray for you.

"Science is made by people and therefore is inherently flawed. "

That cracks me up, considering the bible was written by MAN thousands of years ago and is unwilling to grow with the times. Science evolves as time goes on and new technologies are discovered. Science has checks and balances. THE BIBLE DOES NOT.

Fly, what is this "darwinism" you talk about? I'm not familiar with it. I am familiar with Charles Darwin, and the theory he started of evolution, but Darwin got many things wrong, and science just recognizes him as the originator of the theory. No more. And definitely not anything more than a mortal man. Meanwhile, 150 years of evidence has accumulated backing evolution, and the theory has adapted as new discoveries like DNA, genes, regulatory genes, and other subjects that were unknown to Darwin. So please call it by the right name, Theory of Evolution.

Fly in the Ointment,

This is why we find the evolutionist's position so misguided. Science is made by people and therefore is inherently flawed.

Yes, science is ever changing but the bible will always be wrong.

Think about evolutionistas, that's more than your whole life a million times over. In pain. Suffering. Feeling the flames lick your skin.

Trying to put the fear of an imaginary hell may work on little, all-too-trusting children, but it doesn't work on free thinking adults. Your obsession with pain however reveals a sick mind at work.

You who can't even accept a counter opinion to your own.

LIES. I, and many others here, frequently consider SERIOUS opinions other than our own. However, we can't waste time considering things that are blatantly silly, like astrology, big foot, and creationism.

So vitriolic is your god darwin....

STOP PROJECTING!!! Just cuz you gotta God, don't mean we do. No one here worships Darwin and no one here will say Darwin is inerrant.

Oh, and on that earlier rude point--I can read and write (obviously) and know how to use a computer

How impressive.....

I am only one of many, and our numbers are growing.

Argumentum ad populum
_ _ _ _

Sigh. Need to see a doctor about SIWOTI syndrome.

Fly @43: Dude? Bible quotes? No one not in you cult will believe something just because it's in your cult's magic book Few people here are in the cult. Therefore copy-pasted bible quotes is a tarded way to convince us of anything.

In Christ, I pray for you.

FYTP

And a hearty "fuck your mother" to you too, asshole.

-CJO's Epistle to the Godbots 1:1

Oh, Fly, here's a brighter ancient than Paul. I give you Porphyry:

"Some persons, desiring to find a solution to the baseness of the Jewish Scriptures rather than abandon them, have had recourse to explanations inconsistent and incongruous with the words written, which explanations, instead of supplying a defense of the foreigners, contain rather approval and praise of themselves. For they boast that the plain words of Moses are "enigmas", and regard them as oracles full of hidden mysteries; and having bewildered the mental judgment by folly, they make their explanations."

Well, there you are, dueling quotes. More importantly, Porphyry showed what a crock the Bible is. Demonstrate where he's wrong, and maybe I'll pay attention to your rantings (more than a quick jab, that is).

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/6mb592

"Smart off all you want. Be intolerant of those with differing opinions (casting aspersions on your own beloved multiculturalism and diversity education blather)."

Uh. Right. We are the intolerant ones. Sure.

I love ignorance!

Smart off all you want.

encouragement to be intelligent?
don't mind if we do!

Be intolerant of those with differing moronic, totally unsupported musings they like to label opinions

again, don't mind if we do, we often feel responsibility to our fellow human beings to do just that.

We have fought you ourselves throughout history--and we have won.

no kidding, you guys just can't help but shoot yourselves in the head on a near continuous basis (just look at what happened in Dover).

Darwinism The ToE (face it, it's what you really mean, since there is no such thing as Darwinism) will some day be reduced to a footnote in the history of thought

Waterloooooo!

you morons have been saying this for how long now?

go take a look at the science literature for the last 80 years and see how accurate your "prediction" has been.

...while Christ continues his rule absence.

or nonexistence, take your pick.

Laugh at me

again, don't mind if we do.

... as you would laugh at your God

well, since we're atheists, I have to ask that you make up your mind. Do you want us to laugh at you, or not?

I pray for you--whether you like it or not.

better known as the dimwitted xian flip-off.

fuck you too very much.

happy monkey!

Smart off all you want. Be intolerant of those with differing opinions (casting aspersions on your own beloved multiculturalism and diversity education blather).

You have some comprehension issues I see. Being tolerant of someone's opinion is not the same as giving their opinion any validity. You can believe all the fairy tale stories you want, and I'll support you in that. But when you try to inject your unsupported non-sense into the government or schools then you have a problem. Tolerance is not the same as acceptance or respect.

We have fought you throughout history--and we have won.

HAHAHAHA. You need some history lessons. Show me where you have won. Please. Support your argument. Name one thing where scientific research has been shown to be wrong because of a religion. Not using science, using religion. After you are done there tell me about sin causing illness, geocentrism, and the age of the earth. I can wait.

Darwinism

Please define Darwinism

will some day be reduced to a footnote in the history of thought, while Christ continues his rule.

Laughable considering that as the years go on, evolution continues to be supported by the evidence and there is no such luck for religion.

Laugh at me

I'll even point, as you are laughable.

as you would laugh at your God, hyenas.

My god? Hyenas. Again, are you drunk?

I pray for you--whether you like it or not.

PLEASE keep praying for me. Pray all day every day.

I'll learn how to pogo-stick for you.

Difference is I'll know how to pogo stick and you'll just be talking to yourself.

Science makes up stuff all the time, which then gets peer reviewed. That's the difference between science and just-so stories; science has to have some connection with observable reality, while just-so stories can get away with being interesting.

STOP PROJECTING

lol

2023 entries in the database now.

And here I thought I was the only one that worshipped hyenas.

Here's more of Porphyry for you to try to fathom, Fly. It's just a taste of how thoroughly the Bible was fisked even in ancient times:

1) Referring to Mark 16:18, Porphyry writes: "In another passage Jesus says: "These signs shall witness to those who believe: they shall lay hands on the sick and they shall recover. And if they drink any deadly drug, it will hurt them in no way." Well then: the proper thing to do would be to use this process as a test for those aspiring to be priests, bishops or church officers. A deadly drug should be put in front of them and [only] those who survive drinking it should be elevated in the ranks [of the church].

If there are those who refuse to submit to such a test, they may as well admit that they do not believe in the things that Jesus said. For if it is a doctrine of [Christian] faith that men can survive being poisoned or heal the sick at will, then the believer who does not do such things either does not believe them, or else believes them so feebly that he may as well not believe them." page 50

2) Referring to Matthew 17:20, Porphyry writes: "A saying similar to this runs as follows: "Even if you have faith no bigger than a mustard seed, I tell you in truth that if you say to this mountain, Be moved into the sea - even that will be possible for you." It seems to follow that anyone who is unable to move a mountain by following these directions is unworthy to be counted among the faithful. so there you are: not only the ordinary Christians, but even bishops and priests, find themselves excluded on the basis of such a saying." page 51

3) Porphyry writes: "The God concept with which Israel began was basically polytheistic (Exodus 20:3). God was limited in power (Exodus 4:24) and local in character (Exodus 18:5; 33:3; 14-16). The most that could be claimed for yahweh was that as a national god he protected his people from neighboring peoples and their gods. His throne was on the high mountain; storm and volcanic phenomena were taken as manifestations of his presence (Exodus 19:16-19; 33.9f; 40:34-38).

The transition from desert to settled life on the land (believed to be his gift to a "chosen" people) produces a change in the character of this God paralleling the change in people's fortunes. Yahweh became the god of the armies of Israel, a was God - the God of hosts - who aided Israel in the subjugation of neighboring peoples or the defense of territory already taken. His other face, if not benevolent, was less severe: as giver of land, he was also the ball (fertilizer) of the soil and took responsibility for its fertility and for the rain, as well as for the famines that were occasionally used to winnow the population and the floods that might be sent to winnow the population and the floods that might be sent to wash away the unrighteous, "as in the time of Noah" (Gen. 6:1f).

As revealed in his political dealings with his chosen people, Yahweh was fickle. Peace and security are less thematic in the history of Israel than political instability, warfare and religious apostasy." page 96

4) Porphyry writes: "Apparently Jesus declared the Pharisees beyond the scope of salvation for their interpretations of the law (Matthew 5:20). which tended to focus on technical requirements rather than personal conversion." page 117

5) "Jewish tradition and later pagan critics knew Jesus as the son of a woman named Miriam or Miriamne, who had been violated and become pregnant by a Roman soldier whose name often appears a Panthera in talmudic and midrashic sources. The "single parent" tradition, if not the story of Jesus' illegitimacy, is still apparent in Mark, the earliest gospel (Mark 6:3), as is an early attempt to show Jesus' freedom from the blemish of his background (Mark 3:33-4)." page 122

"To counter the reports of Jesus' illegitimacy more than to secure his divine stature, his mother was declared the recipient of a singular divine honor: Jesus was the son of Mary - a virgin - "through the holy spirit" (Matthew 1:20). As is typical of his writing, Matthew comes closest to revealing the argumentative purpose of his birth story and its links to Jewish polemic against Christian belief in his reference to Joseph's suspicion of Mary's pregnancy (Matthew 1:19). He is also careful in the birth story and elsewhere to provide evidence and proofs from the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Hebrew bible - as a running narrative. " page 122

6) Regarding the Biblical prophecies concerning Jesus: "Porphyry notes that what is said in Hebrew prophecy could as well apply to a dozen other figures, dead or yet to come, as to Jesus." page 131

7) "As the mission progressed with its apocalyptic teaching persistently an issue in debates with itinerant Jewish teachers, the churches developed a variety of strategies for dealing with the delay:

the gentiles would be converted before the last days (Mark 13:10)
the power of pagan Rome and of the emperor would decline before God's son could be revealed in glory (Romans 16:20, Thess 2:2-10)

Jesus himself had professed ignorance about the time of this coming (Mark13:32), or had refused to speculate about the signs of the last days (Mark 8:11-12)

the kingdom of God was already working "secretly"and was being progressively realized through the success of the Christian mission (Luke 12:49-56; 17:22-37; Matthew 38-42).

It is best to regard these rationales as defensive and experimental. Jewish apocalyptic tradition itself had been mystically vague, studiously mysterious with respect both to the "timing" of the apocalyptic events and to the identity of the son of man." pages 135-136
8) "According to the early critics Tacitus, Pliny, and Aristides, Christianity was to be judged according to the unwillingness of its adherents to compromise. They were superstitious fanatics given to outpourings of enthusiasm, or they occasionally indulged in sexual orgies in association with their eucharistic banquets.

With the satires of Lucan, the moral critique of the church enters a new phase. Born at Samosata (Syria) around 120, Lucian regarded Christianity as a form of sophistry aimed at an unusually gullible class of people - a criticism later exploited by Celsus. The members of the new sect worship a "crucified sophist," an epithet that suggests the influence of Jewish views of the church on pagan observers. Like Galen, Lucian imagines the Christians as men and women with little time, patience or ability for philosophy, and who are willing to enthrone new leaders and gurus at the drop of a hat. To make his point, Lucian invents a mock Cynic-turned-Christian priest, Peregrinus Proteus, who dabbles in a thousand different sects and philosophies before becoming an "expert" in "the astonishing religion of Christianity. . . .

Lucian's "hero" is a shyster -the first example in literature of an anything-for-profit evangelist who bilks his congregation. . . .

For all its looseness of detail, Lucian's portrait of Peregrinus can be said to reflect a popular view of the Christians at the close of the second century." page 145 - 146

9) "In his comments, Celsus attempts impartiality: He is no admirer of Judaism ['runaway Egyptian slaves who have never done anything worth mentioning'] but acknowledges the antiquity of Jewish teaching and juxtaposes it with the newness of Christian doctrine. He thinks Christian teachers are no better than the begging priests of Cybele and the shysters of popular religions. Importantly, Celsus does not dwell on the impurity of Christian ritual (though he alludes to it), but emphasizes that Christians are sorcerers like their founder, that they lack patriotism, and that every Christian church is an illegal association which exists not because their God arranges it (thus Tertullian), but because the emperor does not choose to stamp them out entirely.

The True Word or True Doctrine of Celsus was divided into two sections. In the first, Celsus presents a Jew as the antagonist to Christianity; in the second, he argues his own case. The strategy seems intended to show that Christianity is opposed not only by the philosophers of the "pagan" empire, but also by those with whom the Christians claims to have the closest affinity. In this way, the church could be seen to have neither the wisdom of the philosophical schools nor the antiquity of custom and law to its credit. Its teaching was merely eccentric -sectarian in the mean sense of the word. In his hierarchy of civilization, the Egyptian were beast-worshipers, the Jews infinitely worse in their religious practices, and the Christians renegade Jews "whom their miserable countrymen despised and hated." What would have aroused official distaste for Christianity, however, was Celsus' suggestion that the Christians were "breaking the religious peace of the world." With an outlaw as their head, they were rebels by nature and tradition.

Celsus' "Jew" is strident in his dialogue with the Christian teacher on the failure of the life of Jesus, a theme to which Porphyry will return over a century later. That Celsus would emphasize this theme is unsurprising: we have already noted that it was at the heart of the earliest Jewish-Christian "dialogue" and their fictional reenactments by teachers like Justin. Celsus' "Jew" is, however, a more worthy opponent that Justin's. In the pagan dialogue, the Jew lectures the Christian; in Justin's the Christian lectures - and defeats - the Jew.

Familiar slanders resurface in the True Doctrine : Jesus was the son of a woman named Mary by a Roman soldier named Panthera. . . .The resurrection is rejected on the grounds that the only witnesses were "women half crazy from fear and grief, and possibly one other from the same band of charlatans, who dreamed it all up or saw what he wanted to see - or more likely, simply wanted to astonish his friends with a good tale." pages 148-149

10) "Church fathers from Eusebius to Augustine were intimidated by Porphyry's challenges and arguments - so much so that his worthiest opponent (Macarius Magnes) is not an especially articulate one, wholly unable to play the role of Origen to his Celsus. [Origen wrote Contra Celsum, the best classical refutation of Celsus' True Doctrine.] Constantine in the fourth century and Theodosius in the fifth decided that the only way to overcome Porphyry's objections was to put his books to the torch. Thus, the extent of his writings against Christianity is unknown." page 155

11) "The process of disputation (propositions followed by refutation) was the Socratic means of arriving at truth. Christian teachers such as Justin, Origen, and Minucius Felix had long since affected this style of literary opposition, though their opponents were either dead (Celsus) or fictionalized (Justin's Trypho), thus rendering them more amenable to persuasion." pages 156-157

12) "The "end" of knowledge is truth, though one could also call it a "god." This "god" is not the Christian god, nor even the Christian idea of God. Theologians from the second century onward had misread Plato (and would later misread Plotinus and Porphyry) on this fundamental point." page 159

13) "Porphyry's "God," therefore, has no need to save because he is not affected by sin. This is not to say that the philosopher fails to recognize a category of actions which are displeasing to God. But these actions are expressions of active failure and not of a passive genetic deficiency in a God-created race of men, as Augustine theorized. God strengthens those who practice virtue and "noble deeds" (Marcella 16), but he does not (cannot) punish those who fail to practice virtue or who do things contrary to virtue (Marcella 17), since the divine nature can only work for the good. Accordingly, the classical Christian theodicy does not arise in Porphyry's thought; he thinks it foolish to speculate, on Christian premises, about an all-good God, creator of an originally good world, over which, through lack of foresight (omniscience) or power (omnipotence) evil reigns and in which he is obliged to intervene time and time again. The puzzles of Christian theology are non-puzzles for Porphyry: The pieces comprise not a picture but a muddle, and can only be slotted together by trimming edges and omitting embarrassingly contorted segment. This, however, does not prevent Christian priests and teachers from selling their wares as a kind of philosophy. While religious observances -pagan or Christian - are not actually harmful, they encourage the simple-minded in a belief that God has need of them. The only true priests are the wise of the world, not the "fools praying and offering sacrifice". The only truly sinful man is "he who holds the opinions of the multitudes concerning God" (Marcella 17), and those who think that tears, prayers, and sacrifices can alter the divine purpose. The Christian god fails, in Porphyry's view, because he epitomizes false opinion, baseless hopes. He is changeable, fickle, unpredictable. His priests preach "mere unreasoning faith [in a God] who is gratified and won over by libations and sacrifices," without perceiving that men making exactly the same request receive different answers to their prayers (Marcella 23). Worse, human beings seem to believe that their basest actions can be erased by prayer, or, caught in the web of their illogic, they become haters of the world and the flesh and mistakenly accuse the flesh of being the source of all evil (Marcella 29). "Salvation" for Porphyry cannot begin with self-hatred or the abnegation of the flesh. In its demythologized form, it is simply the "soul's" quest for wisdom as expressed in the pursuit of virtue - an acknowledgment of redemption being natural to the soul because of the soul's affinity to God. Porphyry does not think of the body as vile; he thinks of it as the discardable "outer man," whose satisfaction cannot be a final end or goal because it is corruptible, limited, and earthbound. The body defines creaturely existence and not the soul's quest." pages 162-164

14) "In a devastating critique which has not survived, but which has evoked plenty of reaction from his critics, Porphyry began Against the Christians with an attack on the Christian view of prophecy. Although Platonism had actually inspired the allegorical interpretation of prophecy by teachers such as Origen, the philosopher's nemesis, Porphyry condemned the use of allegory as a means of explaining away difficulties and contradictions in the biblical text. It has even been suggested that Porphyry drew some of his polemic directly from Origin's book on the difficulties of interpreting scripture, the Stromatesis. All he had to do was to "accept Origen's negative statements . . . and reject the deeper spiritual meanings" that Origen found for them . . . . Despite his contempt for allegory - a feature which shines through rather clearly in Macarius' fragments - the philosopher was more concerned with chronology than interpretation. He denied the extreme antiquity of the Moses story, the traditional dating of the law, and the ascription of the Book of Daniel to the period before the Babylonian captivity in the sixth century B.C.E." page 166

15) "Furthermore, we know from Augustine (City of God) that Porphyry complained of the influx of educated women into the church; in his Philosophy from Oracles, written around 263, he laments (en masque as Apollo, the god of enlightenment) that it is almost impossible to win back anyone who has converted to Christianity: it is easier, he says, to write words on water than try to use argument on a Christian. They simply cannot understand the folly of worshipping as a god a man who had died as a criminal." page 168

16) "The truth seems to be that Porphyry regarded Jesus as a criminal, justly punished for his crimes by the power of the Roman state, and hence undeserving of the status of hero or of the divinity conferred upon him by his misguided followers.

Whatever Porphyry may have thought of Jesus, the bulk of his criticism was reserved for the evangelists, the apostles of Jesus - especially Peter - and the Christian mission epitomized by Paul. . . Macarius' "pagan" deals with most of the same subjects we know, from Augustine's Harmony, to have attracted Porphyry's criticism: that the apostles fabricated genealogies, that there are discrepancies concerning the time of Jesus' death, that Jesus had not claimed to be divine, and that the teaching of Jesus was obscure and self-contradictory. " page 171

17) "A general view of Porphyry's work yields the following picture: Beginning with an introduction in which the ambitions of the Christians were repudiated ("they want riches and glory. . . they are renegades seeking to take control" . . . , Porphyry went on to show their unworthiness. They accepted but misunderstood the "myths" and oracles of the Jews, then turned around and altered these to make them even more contemptible . . . . Their religion had neither a national anchor nor a rational basis; they required initiates to accept everything on blind faith. Moreover, the initiates themselves were the worst sort of people, moral invalids who (cf. Celsus) found security in their common weakness . . . . The Christians had proved that they cared nothing for those who had lived in the era before the coming of Jesus: these could not be saved.

The Christians taught absurd doctrines about the suffering of God or the suffering of a some of the supermen god. They also prayed for the destruction of the world, which they hated because they were hated by it - and believed that at its end they alone would be raised bodily from the dead . . . . The sky would be destroyed and the ruler of the world would be cast into an outer darkness, as a tyrant might be driven out by a good king. By such thinking the Christians showed contempt for God. How could god be angry? How, if all powerful, as even some of their teachers said, could his property have been stolen in the first place?

After attacking the chronology of the Old Testament . . . and arguing against Christian allegorical interpretation, Porphyry took up the subject of the writers of the gospels and epistles, whom he regarded as ignorant, clumsy, and deceptive. The fact that he wages his assault chiefly against the "pillar" apostles, Peter and Paul, suggests that he regarded the destruction of their reputations essential to wiping out the claims of an emergent Catholic Christianity . . . . Thus Paul himself had called Christian believers "wretches" (1 Cor. 6:9f) and promised his followers the resuscitation of the "rotten, stinking corpses of men" (cf. Augustine, City of God 22.27). As for Peter, he had been called "satan" even by Jesus, yet was entrusted with the keys to the kingdom of heaven . . . . The apostles proved themselves traitors, cowards, weaklings, and hypocrites - even in the accounts written by them.

The Jesus allegedly praised for piety and wisdom by Hecate in Porphyry's Philosophy from Oracles, finds no grace in Against the Christians. His parables are trivial and incomprehensible. They are "hidden from the wise but revealed to the babes" (Matthew 11:25), a state of affairs which encourages ignorance and unreasonableness. Jesus and his followers represent a lethargic ethic of the status quo, the very opposite of the Greek quest for moral excellence; indeed, his blessing on the poor and downtrodden and his repudiation of the rich make moral effort impossible. Had he not taught that selling everything and giving it to the poor (Matthew 19:21), thereby becoming a lout and a beggar and a burden on others, was the height of Christian perfection? . . . .

Furthermore, Jesus did not follow his own advice. His show of weakness in the Garden of Gethsemane prior to his arrest was disgraceful: having preached fearlessness in time of persecution to his disciples, he exhibited only fear and trembling at the moment of his capture. When Jesus stood before his accusers, he spoke like a guilty man, not like a hero on the order of Apollonius of Tyana who had been hauled before Domitian . . . . Had he been a god on the order of the ancient heroes, he would have flung himself from a parapet of the temple, he would have appeared after his death to haunt Herod and Pilate - or, indeed, to the Senate and People of Rome, to prove he had risen from the dead. That would have convinced everyone of the truth of Christian belief, and it would have spared his followers the punishment they now suffered for their beliefs. In short, had Jesus cared for his followers he could have taken care to spare them their martyrdom." pages 172-173

www.pinn.net/~sunshine/book-sum/porphyry.html

Note that this isn't just a sermon, like your quote from Paul was, it's reason and evidence brought to bear on the absurdities of "Scripture."

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/6mb592

Fly in the Ointmen,

Smart off all you want

Be dumb all you want, but remember STUPIDITY can get you thrown in the dungeon. Godbotting, which is what you did in #43, can as well. And this isn't the good kind of dungeon with all the sick sadistic crap you are into.

Be intolerant of those with differing opinions

Disagreeing with an opinion != intolrence

Get your persecution fix somewhere else.

We have fought you throughout history--and we have won.

Yes, in ages of black death, high illiteracy, and backwardness you thrived. Welcome to the 21st century.

Laugh at me as you would laugh at your God, hyenas.

WTF?!1!one!

I pray for you--whether you like it or not.

Go ahead. Stick needles in voodoo dolls of us while your at it. I care just as much.

And a Happy Monkey to you.

Ephesians 1:8-12: "Wherein he hath abounded toward us in all wisdom and prudence; Having made known unto us the mystery of his will, according to his good pleasure which he hath purposed in himself: That in the dispensation of the fullness of times he might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth; even in him: In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will: That we should be to the praise of his glory, who first trusted in Christ."

Look it can read and type!!

In Christ, I pray for you.

See my above comment #52 at the bottom.

re 43 "In Christ, I pray for you. "

From the guide to christian cliches:

"I'll pray for you"
Translation: "This conversation is over. My mind exploded." Or, "I refuse to believe you won this argument."
Acceptable Response: "Thanks, you're so kind."
Unacceptable Response: "Instead of praying, why don't you read a non-Christian book?" Or, "I'll think for you." Or especially, "Liar." http://unreasonablefaith.com/2008/05/29/a-guide-to-christian-cliches-an…

I am only one of many, and our numbers are growing.

That is indeed a worry.

I'd love to call Poe on Fly, but his/her diatribes definitely do not read like one. So, to Fly in the Ointment (more like Scab on Society) I say: produce incontrovertible and indisputable, scientifically verifiable evidence and proof of the existence of your deity.

And here I thought I was the only one that worshipped hyenas.

have you ever worshiped at the Divine Church of the Spotted Hyena, headed by the good Reverend Glickman?

http://psychology.berkeley.edu/faculty/profiles/sglickman.html

no problems with women in the priesthood there, as they pretty much run the whole show.

:)

"produce incontrovertible and indisputable, scientifically verifiable evidence and proof of the existence of your deity. "

Dontcha know? FAITH is totally proof!

Fly, once you finish showing Roger his proof for your imaginary deity, then you need to show us that the bible is anything other than a semi-historical fiction book. We are awaiting your evidence. Claims without evidence, and circular reasoning, are worthless.

@ Fly in the Ointment

You, sir, are about the second-worst POE I have ever seen.

You threaten me with the fires of hell, and then have the chutzpah to accuse me of intolerance. Well, excuse me!

Oh yes, tell me that people will suffer and be tortured for all eternity for FINITE transgressions for no reason and then tell me you follow a god of love? Yeah, that makes perfect sense, no?

You are either an atrocious POE or a seriously misguided individual. You can pray for me whether I like it or not, and I will think for you, whether you like it or not.

As long we're going to throw Bible quotes, be sure to check out Judges 1:19 and Numbers 37 while you're at it, and then get back to me. You take that literally? You are beyond belief.

Also, the threats of "hellfire" really don't do me much good since I don't believe in the concept of a soul, so I'm not really concerned about it. All the properties ascribed to the soul have been discovered as functions of our brains by the studies of modern neurology. The soul as we knew it is merely a phantom of our imaginations. Are we not like all the other animals - we die, and then cease to be?

I want to respect you as an individual, but since you do not respect me, then that is why I have lambasted you in this comment. I respect everyone who treats me decently, but an obnoxious fool I shall not hestitate to call out as an obnoxioius fool, and you fit the mold.

Merry /secular Christmas!

Now go away, you troll, or come back when you have something positive to say to us.

I'd love to call Poe on Fly

Yeah, I'm not really sure. It's good if it's fake, pretty bad if it's not.

I always figure that the idiots will side with a good Poe, regardless, so it has to be treated about the same either way.

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/6mb592

I'd like to call Poe, too, but his last post was like 45 minutes ago. Poes (do they travel in packs?) usually hang around to defend/update their rants. Thrill of the troll.

If you are a Poe, Fly, fuck you for convincing me. :-)

Is the "ointment" reason or religion?

Meh, either way, "flies" get trapped in it and die.

I'm gonna call Poe on this one, too.

This is some goofball wasting time.

Except it's dwindling. Only the number of xtians that have figured out how to post a dumbass comment has increased.

Fuck you and your bullshit hell by the way.

WAIT!!!

I now call Poe for this line:

"So vitriolic is your god darwin"

Makes sense he wouldn't capitalize Darwin's name, but to forget god's?

I call Poe on Fly. I mean really, you can just see the edge of sarcasm in the posts, he doesn't believe it, he is trying to have fun with us.

Let's do what we ought to do:

"Hey Fly! That's is exactly how all too many of these people think! Good parody. Ha ha! Seriously, do you have anything to say that adds to the conversation?"

Glen D. @56 - Even though that was a tad long, I enjoyed reading it.

I am only one of many, and our numbers are growing.

Only because of irresponsible breeding, primarily in the third world where oppressive religion prevents proper sex education and the widespread use of birth control.

Who are they talking to?

If you believe you can find answers in the indiscriminate and random acts of man you are risking a soul lost FOR ETERNITY. Think about evolutionistas, that's more than your whole life a million times over. In pain. Suffering. Feeling the flames lick your skin.

Yep, a god of infinite justice and mercy -- make a mistake for your short span of life, and be tortured for eternity (which, for those who don't know math, is "more than your whole life a million times over"). No chance for repentance, no chance for learning, just into the forever pain for you. I presume that, if you follow your god's example, if your child mouths off you beat him for days with a tire iron? Seriously, is eternal punishment for a temporal wrong your idea of justice?

I pray for you

Your concern is noted.

.. and to add to my post @#42

Christianity... The "It fell off of a truck" of religions.

Fly in the Ointment @35:
I pray for you--whether you like it or not.

And we will all say Fuck You and The Horse You Rode In On--whether you like it or not.

And really - tryng to scare us with your imaginary critters. Girl, please!
You are the one who should look out. The boogy monster will get you.

@43 - Oh dear all that is holey, now we're quoting from South Park again? Which episode is that? And the main characters are Stan, Kyle, Kenny, and Eric - there is no Ephesians in there at all.

In Christ, I pray for you.

Again? At the risk of repeating myself too much: Fuck You too.

Always "science versus religion" - philosophy isn't really either, and has the best power to get a handle on those questions. (BTW science is undergirded by philosophical work and assumptions.)

"FYTP" is "Fuck You Too, Pal", correct?

Ugh. Fly was almost interesting until it started in with the Bible copypasta. On the other hand, Porphyry is great.

I really don't "get" people who believe in invisible entities.
Man, what a frightening world they must live in.

I don't mind dealing with randomness, but if I had to deal with ghosties and demons and the like, then life would be terrifying.

Dangit people. it is Wu not Mu. And only works if you use the chinese meaning and pronunciation.

Which tone?

I am only one of many, and our numbers are growing.

That is indeed a worry.

Is it? There were not even enough of them to elect McShame.

Be intolerant of those with differing opinions (casting aspersions on your own beloved multiculturalism and diversity education blather).

What do you mean "our?"

Creationists need a cheat sheet. They regularly confuse the happy-clappy touchy-feely "different paths to God" "many ways of knowing" we-all-have-our-own-truths version of Spiritual Postmodernism with Enlightenment Humanism. The methods of science in the latter are not going to level all beliefs down to an equal level of undifferentiated mush, so that they all deserve the same respect, and every view is justified as long as it's sincerely held. That's not us.

We're not the group who think Born Again Christians are being "intolerant" when they tell liberal spiritual weenies that only Jesus can lead to God. No, we're the group which thinks both the Born Again Christians and the liberal spiritual weenies are being WRONG.

Please try to keep it straight.

God's magnificent nothingness
http://gods4suckers.net/archives/2008/12/17/gods-awesome-nothingness/

Hmmm, what does SIWOTI mean anyway?

Don't think the fly's buzzed off yet, he's just taking a break. He seems real enough. Maybe it is actually GodisLove back from the pit? One of his friends? Who knows?

SOIWOTI

http://xkcd.com/386/

From the artist's site...

Samantha Vimes @22,

... my cat would, upon seeing a new item of art on the floor look at it, then pose next to it, copying the pose of the person or animal in the painting or statue. Clearly, she was able to see the being in the art and reacted to it; and the reaction suggests approval.

Eh? I'm familiar with cat owners attributing intelligence to their pets, but that's ridiculous.

(BTW science is undergirded by philosophical work and assumptions.)

sure, one can assume existence is but an imagination of a conscious entity, and that the existence may or may not have more than one actual "reality".

BAH

someone is one word dummy.

Funny in the sense of irony, as Theology and Philosophy are considered sciences. Hence both my MS are in physics and theology. Oh well!

(BTW science is undergirded by philosophical work and assumptions.)

We discussed this in another thread, but without physical evidence to keep things real, all you have with philosophy is mental masturbation divorced from reality. Science relies upon evidence, which is why it is progressing in the real world.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp

SIWOTI (only one 'O' rev ;))

BUT OF COURSE!!

In that case, i might need to see a doctor. I have a serious case of SIWOTI syndrome. like 3:30 Am bad.

Be intolerant of those with differing opinions

accuses the person who wrote,

Think about evolutionistas, that's more than your whole life a million times over. In pain. Suffering. Feeling the flames lick your skin.

What a fucking hypocritical piece of shit. When is the Rapture supposed to come and whisk these fuckers away? What's that? It's been 'tomorrow' for the last 2000 years?

Surely it must be any day now.

When is the Rapture supposed to come and whisk these fuckers away?

A new gambler's refrain from the slot machine zone:
Come on rapture, no whammy, no whammy, no whammy, spin, rapture, come on rapture, baby Jesus needs a new pair of sandals, aw...

I must give it a try next time I'm in that mood to lose (oops, this is the Internet, that should be loose) 20 bucks while I pass the time.

When is the Rapture supposed to come and whisk these [feckers] away?

Actually, it already happened.† The ones still here didn't make the grade. Either that or the B Ark was full.

Shouldn't be too hard to convince them to board a new B Ark.

   †  I seem to recall I was in the pub at the time and never noticed.

Clearly my words, and those I quoted made many of you think. Not enough of you. And like children resisting the punishment of of a loving parent, you continue to reject Christ's love and desire to help you become a better person, and know eternal love in Heaven.

I knew there would be too many comments from the Godless wanderers which populate this site. I cannot respond to you all, so I'll just say this: Christ loves you. Do you really want your children to know you are going to hell? Your family? Friends? Why be separated from them from eternity?

In Christ.

Fly, until you show physical evidence for you imaginary god, we will laugh at your antics and words. Time to put up or shut up.

(oops, this is the Internet, that should be loose)

I've not only made that mistake, but I had it in a phrase that I had printed on a dozen t-shirts. :(

"When is the Rapture supposed to come and whisk these fuckers away? What's that? It's been 'tomorrow' for the last 2000 years?"

Well, the last 1930 years anyway. At any rate, if the Rapture did occur, that would sway me. Granted it won't happen, though, it looks like i'm in for a long eternity. Oh well, George Lucas, George Carlin, Lewis Black, Douglass Adams (just to name a few), they will surely take the sting out of a lot of the devils BDSM...i mean...uh...torture, yeah, that's right. HEh heh.

Fly in the Ointment, many of us here were Christians of a calibre you can't even comprehend. I dare say I know the Bible a helluva lot better than you do, and that knowledge was gained from a real and genuine desire to believe and understand.

The day a peckerhead twit like you says anything worth thinking about theology or anything else for that matter is the day I strain my ears for four sets of hoofbeats.

Today ain't that day.

Now fuck off. Despite your selfish feelings of self-importance, you have nothing any of us want or need.

"FYTP" is "Fuck You Too, Pal", correct?

Yeah, Inspector Rebus uses it in one of Ian Rankin's novels. I don't know why it came to my mind

Oh my PZ, I'm surprised you'd be so bold as to publish a printed image of Mohamed. Haven't the jihad police threatened to do unspeakable things to you yet? They may unleash their sky fairy on you...better watch out.

Good stuff anyway. I lol'd.

String theory is more or less 'making shit up', according to some non-string theoriticians. Other than than that, though...

Anyone quibbling about Mu needs to go away and read Hofstadter's Godel, Escher, Bach.

Sorry Tulse, you got it wrong. According to his sacred fable book, that child is supposed to be stoned to death (according to both the old and new testaments). From there, his god takes over, and it's back to torture for eternity.

Fly, how do you know that what you believe is the truth? Did you check it against the evidence?

Physicalist (in #5) said:

Philosophers get to make stuff up too.

My first response to your gratuitous philosopher slam is this: Kiss my ass.But since a lot of people who don't know any more about philosophy than you do probably think you're right about that, your comment deserves more of a response (even though you personally do not).Philosophers do not simply make stuff up. Actually, what philosophers do is make arguments. Of course, some of those arguments are bad arguments, and rely on some dubious premises/assumptions. You know who generally points out those flaws? Other philosophers. Philosophy is a lot like science that way, and in lots of other ways.So why are so many philosophical arguments so endless? Bertrand Russell had the right general idea, I think:

"Philosophy, like all other studies, aims primarily at knowledge. The knowledge it aims at is the kind of knowledge which gives unity and system to the body of the sciences, and the kind which results from a critical examination of the grounds of our convictions, prejudices, and beliefs. But it cannot be maintained that philosophy has had any very great measure of success in its attempts to provide definite answers to its questions. If you ask a mathematician, a mineralogist, a historian, or any other man of learning, what definite body of truths has been ascertained by his science, his answer will last as long as you are willing to listen. But if you put the same question to a philosopher, he will, if he is candid, have to confess that his study has not achieved positive results such as have been achieved by other sciences. It is true that this is partly accounted for by the fact that, as soon as definite knowledge concerning any subject becomes possible, this subject ceases to be called philosophy, and becomes a separate science. The whole study of the heavens, which now belongs to astronomy, was once included in philosophy; Newton's great work was called 'the mathematical principles of natural philosophy'. Similarly, the study of the human mind, which was a part of philosophy, has now been separated from philosophy and has become the science of psychology. Thus, to a great extent, the uncertainty of philosophy is more apparent than real: those questions which are already capable of definite answers are placed in the sciences, while those only to which, at present, no definite answer can be given, remain to form the residue which is called philosophy."
-- Bertrand Russell, Problems of Philosophy, Ch. XV

Oops, my tone above reads wrongly as rude and dismissive. Actually, reading GEB is lots of fun and I recommend it to everyone. And if you do you will understand the meaning of Mu, and a lot of other cool stuff.

It's funny because it's true.

Anyone quibbling about Mu needs to go away and read Hofstadter's Godel, Escher, Bach.

Happy Mu-nkey!

G Felis has a nice Bertrand Russell quote in #107. But it seems to suggest that philosophy is kinda like "alternative medicine." As soon as science can show that it works, it's just called "medicine."

Sure, religions can make stuff up; but the downside is that they're then stuck with what they make up. Science needs proof, or at least evidence; but it can change its mind.

You know who generally points out those flaws? Other philosophers. Philosophy is a lot like science that way, and in lots of other ways.

The greatest criticisms of a particular religion often come from other religious groups ;)

paradoctor wrote:

Sure, religions can make stuff up; but the downside is that they're then stuck with what they make up.

Have to disagree on that one - at least in regards to the Jebus-followers.

Contemporary christians are quite happy to ignore the bits of the bible they don't like and veritable armies of apologists have filled bookshelves with volumes of sophistry to justify why they are allowed to wear clothes of mixed fibre and eat shellfish and so forth - and don't forget how they've conveniently ignored the rules about healing (don't go to doctors - anoint with oil and pray instead) and hoarding material possessions (they shouldn't).

Even 'true' fundamentalists have many things they choose to ignore - like the bits about how the alleged Jesus is thought to have said they should proclaim their faith, i.e. quietly and to themselves.

Moron in the ointment #96

Clearly my words, and those I quoted made many of you think.

They made me think, "What a moron."

Clearly my words, and those I quoted made many of you think. Not enough of you.

Not in the way you intended, I assure you, and probably more than you'd want.

And like children resisting the punishment of of a loving parent, you continue to reject Christ's love and desire to help you become a better person, and know eternal love in Heaven.

blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah

blah

I knew there would be too many comments from the Godless wanderers which populate this site. I cannot respond to you all,

Because you'll end up wearing your ass as a hat

so I'll just say this:

this is bound to suck

Christ loves you.

My wife is going to be concerned. Strange men from the middle east sending me love letters is sure to be unsettling.

Do you really want your children to know you are going to hell? Your family? Friends? Why be separated from them from eternity?

Hell Michigan? Why would they give a shit if i went there?

In Christ.

Does he want you um... "in" him?

Shoo Fly

Malcolm, #115

They made me think, "What a moron."

Gold!

What's so bizarro about maroons like FItO is their assumption that everyone else is as much of a clueless rube as they are.

What? Hell? Like omigod! I totally never heard of that before. Painful you say? Flames licking my skin? Holy fuck! Quick, whatdoIdowhatdoIdo?

The problem is that, unless you're a spineless lickspittle coward, the only conclusion one can reasonable come to when one actually thinks about Hell is that anyone who tells you that God loves you is a either missing some key lobes or is a liar.

Here's a tip for you Fly: never ask anyone you're trying to proselytise to think. First of all, in your case it would be like a man in a wheelchair asking somebody else to run--once they start, you'll never catch 'em. Secondly, thinking too much about doctrine tends to lead to pantheism, deism, agnosticism, and even *gasp!* atheism.

There's a reason those license plates in SC read "I believe" and not "I think".

There's a reason those license plates in SC read "I believe" and not "I think

Not yet they don't and hopefully it remains that way.

Fly,

Here's something you should read before you come back to annoy us further: How To Actually Talk To Atheists (If You're Christian).

FitO, are you actually saying that the entire scientific community is wrong when it comes to biology? If so, on what grounds do you say that?

Brownian, OM #93:

When is the Rapture supposed to come and whisk these fuckers away?

Well, according to the bible, it's about 2000 years overdue already:
"Truly I say to you, there are some of those who are standing here who shall not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom"
- Matthew 16:28, Mark 9:1, Luke 9:27

"This generation will not pass away until all these things have taken place"
- Matthew 24:34, Luke 21:32

Christians today are like the idiot who doesn't want to accept he's been stood up for a date and waits by himself in the restaurant till after closing time.

Any minute now, Fly! I'm sure jesus just got held up at the office, or is stuck in traffic or something.

The unfortunate problem with the doctrines espoused by Fly is that anybody who really can think can only conclude that they're silly and a bit sad. The only people who could buy into his fundie version of the afterlife are small children, people completely ignorant of what science tells us about the nature of consciousness, or people so terrified of their mortality they can only assuage their fear by creating elaborate fantasies and calling them "Truth."

Children can grow up. The ignorant can become educated. But I'm not convinced much can be done to help the pathologically fearful. In a metaphorical sense, this latter group is living in Hell already, and I find that very sad.

For some reason, possibly suggested by the earlier comments of Fly in the Ointment, I suddenly recall a snatch of doggerel from a Three Stooges episode.

Curly, immaculate poet, is addressing his rhyme to a fly on the wall. I only recall the final lines:

"Little fly upon the wall,
Ain't 'cha got no clothes at all?
Gee, fly. Ain't 'cha cold?"

@ G Felis (#107):

Lighten up, man. I know more about philosophy than you do.

If you use some of those philosophical skills you think so highly of, you'll notice that I didn't claim that philosophers "simply" make stuff up; I said they "get to" make stuff up. My quip was motivated by the fact that the topics in the comic are addressed by philosophers as much as they are by theologians. And you'll notice that theologians are no more allowed to "simply" make stuff up than are philosophers.

Since I'm pontificating, I'll note that scientists do indeed make stuff up all the time. What differentiates science is the ideal (not always realized, of course) of empirical testability. But that ideal obviously isn't in conflict with scientists' making things up. (Though hopefully they'll toss out their hypotheses if they're falsified.)

@ Sastra (#111):

The comparison an interesting one. One disanalogy might be that philosophy generally confronts questions that are outside the domain of science proper (e.g., b/c the question cannot be decided empirically), while alternative medicine tries to play on the same turf as science-based medicine (e.g., curing a particular ailment).

Christ loves you. Do you really want your children to know you are going to hell?

Christ loves me, but will send me to hell for all eternity?

Do you have kids? If so, do you love them? Is there anything that they could do to you that would make you torture them for an hour, much less all eternity? What kind of sick demented evil parent would torture their own beloved children? And yet Christ does this all the time?

What the hell kind of god do you worship, anyway?

Making stuff up = every single religious belief of every religion ever invented.

Moron in the Ointment:

Christ loves you. Do you really want your children to know you are going to hell? Your family? Friends? Why be separated from them from eternity?

Yeah, Christ loves us so much he's going to torture us in hell for not being stupid enough to believe in him.

Fuck you asshole.

@ Physicalist
"One disanalogy might be that philosophy generally confronts questions that are outside the domain of science proper (e.g., b/c the question cannot be decided empirically)"

While there currently are questions that are impossible to answer from a natural scientific perspective, that doesn't mean that one day we won't be able to answer them. As such I'm not sure that you can make a nice wall of separation between philosophy and science. Unless the philosophical question has nothing to do with reality, in which case it's normally theology (i.e. like whether an invisible, ineffective god exists or not).

I'd imagine that before the days of the second law of thermodynamics a valid question for a philosopher would have been "How does order come about from disorder and vice versa"? At a first glance this certainly doesn't sound like the type of question where physics would give a universal answer like "Well you can't make order in a closed system dude". And yet, we now have a law that roughly speaking says that.

Another one is the age old question/joke about whether a tree makes a sound if no one can hear it fall in the forest. We don't have an answer to that, but if you ask whether the act of observing something changes it, we do. If you agree with quantum mechanics, then it is impossible to measure something without changing it - another physical answer to what would appear to be a philosophical question.

Now I certainly don't believe that we'll ever eliminate all the philosophical questions through science but you can't discount that someday we might get some them at least.

@ Physicalist:
First, you gratuitously insult an entire area of academic inquiry. Then, when a professional rises to defend his chosen field, you tell him you know more about it than he does without having any clue who he is. On top of that, you demonstrate that you're the kind of guy who says something insulting, then responds to someone who feels insulted by saying, "Lighten up! I was only joking."

That's quite a display of assholery for just two comments. I'd say I'd rarely seen the like... but would be dishonest. This is the internet, after all.

@ Coriolis: I think you're right that some sorts of philosophical problems are amenable to scientific investigation. And many philosophers agree! For example, many philosophers of mind are very engaged with researchers in fields like cognitive neuroscience and artificial intelligence and what-not.

But Physicalist is certainly right (I didn't say he was ignorant or stupid - just rude) that there are questions that cannot be decided empirically - ethical questions, for example. We can investigate the world as it is, but how do you gather empirical evidence about the world as it ought to be? (If you don't quite know what I'm getting at, learn more about the dangers of mixing up factual claims and value claims by Googling "the naturalistic fallacy".)

What I like most about the Russell passage I quoted above is that it suggests that philosophy is the discipline of unanswered questions, not necessarily unanswerable questions. Russell's take on those questions encourages hope that some of those questions will be answered, giving birth to new sciences. But as it stands, sometimes we aren't even sure we're asking the right questions in the first place. And supposing we are asking the right questions, how should we go about answering them? And when we do come up with answers, by what standards do we evaluate and judge between proposed answers? The areas of inquiry where proper questions get asked and answered, and where methodologies get established that allow us to build upon those basic answers to ask better and more detailed questions (from which still further discoveries can be made) - these become new sciences.

But before that happens, it's not always easy to tell the unanswerable and inherently flawed questions from the merely not-yet-answered questions. One clue lies in how people go about trying to answer the questions. Philosophers - good ones, at least - make arguments. Theologians almost never make actual arguments: What they do instead - whether they admit it or not - is build rationalizations in support of "conclusions" that are always pre-determined in advance (and so properly speaking are not conclusions at all, but assumptions). In other words, theology is to philosophy as pseudoscience is to science: In both cases, the phonies borrow the vocabulary of the actual truth-seeking discipline, and pay lip service to the methodology while actually misunderstanding or willfully perverting it.

(Caveat: It's always important to distinguish between those who engage in the perversion generally known as theology and those who engage in the honest academic study of religion using the methods of history, anthropology, sociology and the like. No insult is meant to the latter.)

Coriolis: I like that perspective. I certainly do hope that there would be a way of eventually pulling back the metaphorical curtain and putting the Man to a few questions! And many many interesting things may appear as phenomenon that we as of yet have no clue exist. Just imagine the kinds of interactions of Dark Matter and energy- that's roughly 90% of the material universe right there! But we can't. Yet.

BobC wrote:

Making stuff up = every single religious belief of every religion ever invented.

Now, now BobC - you know that's not quite true. Many religions simply steal their ideas from other, older religions who made stuff up...

P.S. for Physicalist: If you read what I have to say about theology in the previous comment, you'll understand why I could not possibly have taken your first remark as anything but the gravest of insults. You dare imply that philosophers are just like theologians? You have offended my honour, sir! (If you'd said that to my face, I'd have had to remove my glove and slap you... Gotta admit, though, snarky comments in the middle of the night are more convenient than pistols at dawn. I'm not a morning person, for one...)

G Felis: There is actually now a great movement of Atheist Biblical Scholars- for example, Hector Avalos:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2569440864215926514

I love the Jesus and Mo cartoon strip - if you aren't familiar with it give yourself a half hour to go through the achieves. I long for the day it becomes a 'South Park' style cartoon strip.

And I just loved 'Fly in the Ointment' earlier contributions. When you see stuff written like that you understand the phrase 'condemned by their own words'. On the one hand it's a drag that there are people who have a mindset like that; on the other hand you can see why it is dying out around the world, slowly but surely.

I love the Jesus and Mo cartoon strip - if you aren't familiar with it give yourself a half hour to go through the achieves. I long for the day it becomes a 'South Park' style cartoon strip on TV.

And I just loved 'Fly in the Ointment' earlier contributions. When you see stuff written like that you understand the phrase 'condemned by their own words'. On the one hand it's a drag that there are people who have a mindset like that; on the other hand you can see why it is dying out around the world, slowly but surely.

Fly - have you ever been in on a Fast Train to Georgia?

I'v got a good christian raising and an eighth grade education. There's no need for y'all to treat me this way.

Relgion: argument from ignorance (can't figure it out, it has to be $deity
Philosophy: now let's think about this again
Science: skip religion and let's see if we can work out some of that philosophy stuff for practical use.

And yet, last time I checked, "Alice" isn't about math, logic, and the rules of inference. - Glen D.

I suggest rereading it. Not much maths, true, but (jokes about) logic and rules of inference by the score.

Then there is the Land of MU.

http://www.sacred-texts.com/atl/ssm/index.htm

J&M cartoon added to rss feed. This is hilarious.

Just so you know, the link at #120 is blocked by some work filters for "pornography".

*grumble*

@ Coriolis (#129):

I agree completely that the line between science is a fuzzy one, and that we can hope that many questions that are now addressed by philosophers might someday be resolved by science. I'm a fan of "naturalizing" philosophy, though I certainly don't think that all questions can be put to empirical test (in science or in philosophy). Indeed, great scientists often engage in very serious philosophy (I'm thinking specifically of physicists like Einstein, Bohr, and Newton, but I'm confident the list could be expanded).

I think it's clear that many questions currently discussed by philosophers will have answers that will be properly scientific. For example, the question of how mental states refer to external entities (the question of "intentionality") will someday be discussed in a neurology class instead of a philosophy class (here G Felis's Russell quotation is spot on). I'm even inclined to tie questions about meaning and modality (possibility/necessity) to our scientific knowledge, and I have hopes for naturalizing ethics and aesthetics.

As I say, I'm inclined to think that some legitimate philosophical questions will remain forever independent of scientific investigations, but as I sit here trying to think of examples, I'm talking myself out of each one.

BTW: Trees do make sounds even when no one is there to hear them. Berkeley thought otherwise; he was wrong. And the belief that quantum mechanics tells us that observations always changes/disturbs the system being observed was common among the founders of QM, but it's highly misleading. (a) Such a "disturbance" view isn't sufficient for understanding quantum phenomena. (b) So-called quantum nondemolition measurements do not change the state of the system.

@ G Felis (#130 & #133):

Actually I do have some clue as to your identity, unless your username and the URL linked to it mislead. Are congratulations in order yet on a successful dissertation defense? I toyed with the idea of checking to see whether you applied for our position to glance over your CV, but I decided that might be unprofessional (and I do have piles of grading to do). My claim that I know more about philosophy than you was an honest (though obviously fallible) assessment, based on considerably more information than you presumably had when you suggested that I knew little of philosophy.

It strikes me as quaint that someone who throws around phrases like "kiss my ass" and "display of assholery" would accuse me of being rude. My suggestion that you lighten up was offered as sincere advice.

I haven't time to address at length my view of the distinctions between science, philosophy, and theology, but I'll quickly offer this: Philosophers address questions that cannot (yet?) be addressed empirically. Plenty of scientists view this with disdain, but we philosophers think there are important questions that can't be subjected to experiment. In such cases we can rely on little aside from reason and intuitions -- but this fact generally doesn't prevent us from addressing grand questions in ways that certainly won't command widespread assent. For this reason, I don't think it's unfair to view the force (such as it is) of the J&M strip as being felt by philosophy as well as theology. Theology obviously takes certain claims of religion/doctrine/faith as premises (and we may well criticize it for that), but I'm unconvinced that the standard of argument in that field is really inferior to that in philosophy or science. And it's also worth noting that neither philosophy nor science can be conducted without taking some fairly substantial premises as given (though I'd argue that the *nature* of the premises is crucially important).

As for your honor, you should be aware that many scientists feel the same way about philosophy as you do about theology. Since, e.g., the foundations of ethics cannot be empirically tested, they feel, any investigation into such matters is going to be pointless inflation of prejudices. And with respect to some philosophers, they'd be right. I suspect you may be right about some theologians, but I'm not inclined to tar them all with the same brush.

And yet, last time I checked, "Alice" isn't about math, logic, and the rules of inference. - Glen D.

I suggest rereading it. Not much maths, true, but (jokes about) logic and rules of inference by the score.

Leaving out the emphasis on "about" is understandable if you wish to ignore my careful wording (which Graculus had already done), but it is not proper.

And yes, I know about "Alice," and do not need to be told about it. While it is not science fiction, as another commenter noted, I didn't bother with that distinction, but focused on other issues. There is nothing all that unusual about logic and even math showing up in stories as important, particularly to the protagonist, but it is also true that people like stories "about" people, heroes, and not "about" math, logic, or the rules of inference.

Why people have to take things out of context to make dull plodding "points" I have yet to fathom.

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/6mb592

Haha that is quite a hilarious comic.