Idiot sues church for saying jesus lived

alonzomourning23

alonzomourning23

CAGiversary!
Feedback
26 (100%)
ROME — Lawyers for a small-town parish priest have been ordered to appear in court next week after the Roman Catholic cleric was accused of unlawfully asserting what many people take for granted: that Jesus Christ existed.

The Rev. Enrico Righi was named in a 2002 complaint filed by Luigi Cascioli after Righi wrote in a parish bulletin that Jesus did indeed exist, and that he was born of a couple named Mary and Joseph in Bethlehem and lived in Nazareth.

Cascioli, a lifelong atheist, claims that Righi violated two Italian laws by making the assertion: so-called "abuse of popular belief" in which someone fraudulently deceives people; and "impersonation" in which someone gains by attributing a false name to someone.

Cascioli says that for 2,000 years the Roman Catholic Church has been deceiving people by furthering the fable that Christ existed, and says the church has been gaining financially by impersonating as Christ someone by the name of John of Gamala, the son of Judas from Gamala.

He also asserts that the Gospels — the most frequently cited testimony of Jesus' existence — are inconsistent, full of errors and biased, and that other written evidence from the time is scant and doesn't hold up to scholarly analysis.

Prosecutors, who in Italy are obliged to investigate such complaints, initially tried to have the case dismissed, saying no crime could be verified.

But Cascioli challenged them, and Judge Gaetano Mautone set a hearing for next Friday in Viterbo, north of Rome, to discuss preliminary motions in Cascioli's bid to have the court appoint technical experts to review the historical data and determine if Jesus really did exist.

Cascioli, 72, said in a recent interview that he decided to pursue the case against Righi, a priest in the village of Bagnoregio, near Viterbo, because the cleric had written in the parish bulletin that Jesus existed.

Asked why he went after Righi — a schoolmate when he and Cascioli were boys — and not any number of bishops, cardinals or even the pope who have asserted the very same thing, Cascioli said it didn't really matter who he named in his complaint.

"When one demonstrates that Christ didn't exist, attacking a simple priest is the same thing as attacking a bishop or cardinal," Cascioli said.

Cascioli is quick to stress that he has no problem with Christians freely professing their faith. Rather, he says in his complaint, he wants to "denounce the abuse that the Catholic Church commits by availing itself of its prestige in order to inculcate — as if being real and historical — facts that are really just inventions."

Righi, who has been a priest for 50 years, declined to be interviewed on the advice of his lawyers before the pending court date. But he set out his rebuke of Cascioli in a recent issue of his parish bulletin "Risveglio," or "Awaken," and said by telephone that the article encapsulated his position.

Righi argues that the existence of Christ is "unmistakable" because of the substantial historical evidence — both pagan and religious — testifying that he indeed lived.

"Cascioli maintains that Christ never existed. If he doesn't see the sun at midday, he can't denounce me just because I do. He should denounce all believers!" Righi wrote.

He cited many known observers, including non-Christian ones, who have written about the existence of Jesus, including the Jewish historian Flavius Josephus, considered by scholars to be the most important non-Christian source on Christ's existence.

A passage of Josephus' "Jewish Antiquities," completed in A.D. 93, cites the execution in A.D. 62 of "the brother of Jesus the so-called Christ, James by name."

Righi also cited Pliny the Younger, who in the early second century described a policy of executing Christians who refused to curse Christ, and Tacitus, another writer of the same time who wrote that Jesus was executed by the sentence of Pontius Pilate.

"You would have to give lie to each, one by one, to cancel the Christ man that they speak of," Righi wrote.

R. Scott Appleby, a professor of church history at the University of Notre Dame, concurs. There's "no real doubt" that Jesus existed, he said.

"But what Jesus of Nazareth did and what he means is a different question," Appleby said. "But on the question of the existence, there is more evidence of the existence of Jesus of Nazareth than there would be for many other historical people who actually existed. Not only did Jesus actually exist, but he actually had some kind of prominence to be mentioned in two or three chronicles."

Cascioli says he fully recognizes that his case has a slim chance of succeeding in overwhelmingly Catholic Italy, but not because his argument is lacking.

"We aren't optimistic — unless the Madonna makes a miracle, but I don't think that will happen," he joked.

Cascioli says he is merely going through the necessary legal steps in Italy so he can ultimately take the matter to the European Court of Human Rights, where he intends to pursue the case against the church for "religious racism."

"I was born against Christ and God," he said. "I'm doing it (the complaint) now because I should do it before I die."
Click to expand...

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,182341,00.html

Take this guy, along with every "religion is the suxorz" teenage athiest and shoot them. They will not be missed.
 
Look on the bright side: we'll now have a firm courtroom decision on whether Jesus existed or not. Why, this could be as important as the courtcase that proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Santa Clause exists (as portrayed in the documentary 'Miracle on 34th Streeth'.)


Edit: I realized that what I wrote could easily be miscontrued - I'm not actually DIRECTLY comparing the existance of Santa to Jesus. It was just a connection that popped into my head that I thought was rather funny. Personally, I'd be willing to bet that he did exist. Whether or not the existance of a person named Jesus 2000 years ago has any 'supernatural' meaning, though, is a whole other question.
 
[quote name='2poor']QFT

i hate those im athiest, im so cool people.[/QUOTE]
I'm an atheist and I know I'm cool.

So, all of you can take your stupid anti-atheist opinions and shove them up your asses.
 
[quote name='capitalist_mao']I'm an atheist and I know I'm cool.

So, all of you can take your stupid anti-atheist opinions and shove them up your asses.[/QUOTE]


ummmm........


ditto.
 
I'm curious how capitalist_mao and bmulligan define atheism. I had a conversation with my old mormon apostate officemate yesterday, where he described himself as an "agnostic athiest" (which I found to be a contradiction of terms). According to him (and he knows his religion), he claims that while agnosticism means, to him, what it generally means to everyone else, his take on atheism is different. According to him, atheism does not imply a disbelief in the existence of anything beyond this mortal plain, but, rather, the willingness to admit that mankind, as a result of its "natural" limitations, simply cannot comprehend if - or what - lies beyond the natural. That's what makes the metaphysical, if it exists, supernatural - it lies beyond the natural, and thus completely outside of what we can detect or understand using our senses. Granted, his take might be a little too literal, as he takes the word to imply "without a (religious) belief."

This caught me off guard, because I had always understood atheism to be a strict denial in the existence of anything beyond this life. No god, no hand of fate, no force (and thus no jedi), no nothin'. Just you and me turning into the energy that will feed the plants of the postapocalyptic anime-style world of the future. That atheism implied an unwillingness to entertain the possibility that something *else* was out there. Just curious how this gels with your thoughts.
 
From what I've been told, Theism is a belief in gods and an organization thereof. Myke, your friend appears to be talking simply of being Agnostic, which is a belief of gods, but not a belief of any sort of organization. Now, if he wants to attach some sort of 'ism' to his personal belief that humans are incapable of knowing or understanding or whatever he believes, that's fine. However, attaching 'atheism' to a belief that believes in gods is just incorrect.

Atheism has the root word theism, where the prefix 'a' negates the root. So, atheistim essentially is the opposite of a belief in gods and organization, to a belief of no gods.

Agnosticism is the midway point between true belief in speicfic gods and belief in no gods.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']I'm curious how capitalist_mao and bmulligan define atheism. I had a conversation with my old mormon apostate officemate yesterday, where he described himself as an "agnostic athiest" (which I found to be a contradiction of terms). According to him (and he knows his religion), he claims that while agnosticism means, to him, what it generally means to everyone else, his take on atheism is different. According to him, atheism does not imply a disbelief in the existence of anything beyond this mortal plain, but, rather, the willingness to admit that mankind, as a result of its "natural" limitations, simply cannot comprehend if - or what - lies beyond the natural. That's what makes the metaphysical, if it exists, supernatural - it lies beyond the natural, and thus completely outside of what we can detect or understand using our senses. Granted, his take might be a little too literal, as he takes the word to imply "without a (religious) belief."

This caught me off guard, because I had always understood atheism to be a strict denial in the existence of anything beyond this life. No god, no hand of fate, no force (and thus no jedi), no nothin'. Just you and me turning into the energy that will feed the plants of the postapocalyptic anime-style world of the future. That atheism implied an unwillingness to entertain the possibility that something *else* was out there. Just curious how this gels with your thoughts.[/QUOTE]

That's pretty deep, personally I think the biggest thing atheism and any religion have in common is that they are highly subjective form person to person. They are both beliefs of a sort and as we all know beliefs are something that are very subjective and personal. I've known more than a few atheists and from the discussions I sometimes have with them, hardly do a couple of them seem to think atheism equates to exactly the same thing.

I'm also curious to see if any of the atheists of the board lend any support Casciloi though. This guy believes Jesus didn't exist and that's fine by me, however what makes him an ass IMO is that he's essentially being an "over-evangelical" atheist, by which I mean he is forcing his beliefs onto others. Atheists hate that aspect of most religions and I don't see how they can support similar tactics. I (and many others) don't like that quality in religious or non-religious people. I also think he's an ass because out of all the christians that have ever said christ existed he takes the one he knew from childhood to court and also because I have no idea how he's going to prove Jesus didn't exist because historians have only tried to prove or disprove this for roughly 2 millienia to no real results. I also don't get how saying Jesus existed, particularly to a parish of Catholics, can be construed as "religious racism".
 
Capitalist, much as I hate to cite wikipedia, this is a page I found interesting: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theism

Now, I understand what "theism" means, and I understand what "a" means as a prefix. I thought I made that clear when I remarked that, being new to the kind of philosophy my friend has, perhaps he was interpreting the phrase "atheism" too literally. As theism involves belief, and the opposite "without belief," I'd argue that my friend managed to capture the literal translation of "atheism," while what you aruge (the movement of belief in something to its polar opposite, disbelief in something) is somewhat less convincing. The logically necessay opposite of belief is "without belief" (to translate literally); to imply that this becomes the same as "disbelief" is, I would argue, incorrect.

Yes, as for that wikipage, they point out two sects of atheism: "strong" (disbelief) and weak (absence of belief). It seems like such a small gap between the two groups, but that's a pretty righteous fuckin' canyon.

Duo, that's an interesting position on the "evangelical athiest" in Cascioli. If he succeeds, I'm totally suing the buddhists. Sure, the Dalai Lama's a fascinating person and a helluva philosopher, but a man's gotsta get paid.
 
[quote name='capitalist_mao']From what I've been told, Theism is a belief in gods and an organization thereof. Myke, your friend appears to be talking simply of being Agnostic, which is a belief of gods, but not a belief of any sort of organization. Now, if he wants to attach some sort of 'ism' to his personal belief that humans are incapable of knowing or understanding or whatever he believes, that's fine. However, attaching 'atheism' to a belief that believes in gods is just incorrect.

Atheism has the root word theism, where the prefix 'a' negates the root. So, atheistim essentially is the opposite of a belief in gods and organization, to a belief of no gods.

Agnosticism is the midway point between true belief in speicfic gods and belief in no gods.[/QUOTE]

Techincally, agnostic, from the Greek gnostikos (knowledge), means "without knowledge." So it's not so much a midway point, as not jumping in the pool.

Theism, as has been noted, is a belief in god or gods and a system pertaining to them. Generally theism is construed as a belief in a "creator god" that made everything and guides it. Atheism, then, means only that you do not believe in a "creator god," which does not rule out belief in the soul, etc. So one could technically be an atheist and still quite spritual.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,182341,00.html

Take this guy, along with every "religion is the suxorz" teenage athiest and shoot them. They will not be missed.[/QUOTE]

QFT.

Sorry, this is Quillion. I'm signed on at my girlfriends place.

Really enjoying the discussion, and will jump in completely when I have time, just wanted to comment on the statement about "Evangelical Atheists". I find them as bad as the militant Evangelical Christians. Secondary, I hope this case is thrown out, due to the volatile nature of the suit.
 
[quote name='BigSpoonyBard']Techincally, agnostic, from the Greek gnostikos (knowledge), means "without knowledge." So it's not so much a midway point, as not jumping in the pool.

Theism, as has been noted, is a belief in god or gods and a system pertaining to them. Generally theism is construed as a belief in a "creator god" that made everything and guides it. Atheism, then, means only that you do not believe in a "creator god," which does not rule out belief in the soul, etc. So one could technically be an atheist and still quite spritual.[/QUOTE]

Atheists don't believe in god period. Doesn't have to be a creator god, its any type of god. But its also usually assumed you don't believe in the supernatural either. I guess you could technically view a soul like thing existing if you believe its just part of the natural world that isn't really understood. Believing in the supernatural, but not gods or being uncertain about god, would fit agnostics better. Atheists don't necessarily have to believe god doesn't exist, but simply have no belief that he/she/it does. If their is strong uncertainty then that would be agnostic.

I'm also curious to see if any of the atheists of the board lend any support Casciloi though. This guy believes Jesus didn't exist and that's fine by me, however what makes him an ass IMO is that he's essentially being an "over-evangelical" atheist, by which I mean he is forcing his beliefs onto others. Atheists hate that aspect of most religions and I don't see how they can support similar tactics. I (and many others) don't like that quality in religious or non-religious people. I also think he's an ass because out of all the christians that have ever said christ existed he takes the one he knew from childhood to court and also because I have no idea how he's going to prove Jesus didn't exist because historians have only tried to prove or disprove this for roughly 2 millienia to no real results. I also don't get how saying Jesus existed, particularly to a parish of Catholics, can be construed as "religious racism".
Click to expand...

I'm an atheist. Excluding this legal incident I'd have no problem with him, his book, or his opinions on jesus. I could sit down with the guy and could quite possibly walk away saying "well, I don't agree with him but I respect his opinion". The case for jesus is not airtight, but its close enough in my mind. Either way it matters little if he's right as the vast majority will still believe he existed. It will make atheists like this guy more vocal, making more people assume atheists are anti religious bigots. Some atheists assume the important aspects of religion are its factual basis, but its not. The important aspects to most are the sense of completeness, the comfort, the sense of purpose, the social community etc. Sure they believe it, but there's so much more to religion than how factual it is.

I'm sick of having to deal with atheists like this. Sure they don't believe in god, big deal. Next time don't whine when someone tries to shove jesus down your throat, since you're just the same person with a different perspective. In religion no one else should care if you are right, the only thing is if you believe you are right. I'm sick of having people make assumptions about me due to these people. I'm sick of people asking me stupid questions like "do you think killing people is wrong?" (and yes, I was asked that once) because I say I'm an atheist. I'm tired of having debates with people who claim you have to believe in god to be moral. People like this are just as religious as the rest of society, they just do it without god. What gets me angry is they drag me down with them. I can't laugh at them because I can't separate myself from them.

It's one thing if the guy was joking, then everyone could sit back and have a good laugh. But he's not, he's serious. This is a direct attack on free speech and, unlike hate laws, this speech harms no one, especially since its directed at people in the church to begin with.

One of the things I've wanted to study for years is the use of religion as a form of treatment for people. Not large scale, not any specific religion either (this is essential, as I think directing people to a specific religion, regardless of who they are, is dangerous). I've never had that opportunity, but I'd jump at the chance to do it. I don't know if it would work or, if it does, if anyone would be able to use it effectively given the biases and complications that could arise. Religion has shown itself to have a positive effects on overall happiness, and I've seen some studies showing it may be beneficial in treatment. There are studies showing reaffirming religion has benefits in treatment, such as doctor telling a sick religious person that they will pray for them. But I would like to study the introduction of religion in non religious people (regardless of whether they technically believe in god or not) suffering certain issues.

So, all of you can take your stupid anti-atheist opinions and shove them up your asses.
Click to expand...

How can I be anti-atheist when I am one?
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']
Take this guy, along with every "religion is the suxorz" teenage athiest and shoot them. They will not be missed.[/QUOTE]

Not that I agree with you but it's nice to see that you have an opinion that involves killing someone.:applause:
 
First off, I don't agree with this guy bringing the suit because I think he is advocating a certain form of censorship, and I am against almost all kinds of censorship.

However the more I think about this, the more I think that it may have some merit, in the face of other European laws that have been enacted.

For example, in Germany (and possibly Italy) it is illegal to assert that the holocaust never occured. Ostensibly this is to protect historical integrity and prevent another rise of Nazism or similar fascist ideology.

Likewise, if we think of all the war, torture, and attempted genocide that has occured because a certain group of people insisted on taking religious texts literally as historical fact, maybe a genuine attempt to separate fact from fiction in the case of religious figures such as Jesus would have similar merit.

So basically my position is this: Personally I disagree with almost all censorship, even if it doesn't jive with the convential historical record. However if one supports laws such as the German prohibition of asserting that the holocaust never happened, how can they condemn this man's crusade to uncover whether or not Jesus existed as a historical reality?
 
Kudos to alonzo for posting an article with his 2 cents at the bottom. It's about time.


[quote name='mykevermin']I'm curious how capitalist_mao and bmulligan define atheism. I had a conversation with my old mormon apostate officemate yesterday, where he described himself as an "agnostic athiest" (which I found to be a contradiction of terms). ...This caught me off guard, because I had always understood atheism to be a strict denial in the existence of anything beyond this life. No god, no hand of fate, no force (and thus no jedi), no nothin'. Just you and me turning into the energy that will feed the plants of the postapocalyptic anime-style world of the future. That atheism implied an unwillingness to entertain the possibility that something *else* was out there. Just curious how this gels with your thoughts.[/quote]

As far as I'm concerned, things are what they are. A tree is a tree and the wind blows where it blows. There's no hand of god making things happen on a whim and a prayer according to how he feels or how anyone has faith. There is no 'hidden' world beyond our existence that shapes reality. Mysticism and those who believe in it don't float my boat, so to speak.

I guess I'm more of a deist than true athiest. The universe, to me, is like that old computer game 'Life' where you have a simple set of rules that governs existence and, well, it takes on a life of it's own subject to the rules of the game. Our rules are described as the weak force, strong force, electromagnetic force, and gravity. Are they all facets of one universal force? I don't know, that's a job for physicists to describe. I'm perfectly okay not knowing the equation. We may all be subject to forces we cannot see, but they cannot be changed by anyone's hand, either an existing one or an etherial one. They are part of us and we it. And no matter how hard one can pray, the rules do not change.
 
[quote name='bmulligan']I guess I'm more of a deist than true athiest.[/QUOTE]Well, I guess atheism is inherently more complex than I had ever guessed. Perhaps I was stereotyping you whole lot a bit much; on the other hand, I never considered that atheists have much to offer in terms of discussion. That isn't to say they haven't thought out their position, but rather, there is little to explain. People have been clamoring for millenia to prove the existence of something beyond the natural world, and the atheists have consistently and correctly replied "um, NO" to each and every claim.

It sounds like you're the "weak atheist" that was referenced from that wikipedia page on theism above. I'm not certain that anyone wants to identify as a "weak" anything, but I'm not the one who submitted the wiki page. Perhaps, if it bothers you, you can edit the page so it refers to "strong atheism" and "bad ass motherfucker atheism." I think it works.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Well, I guess atheism is inherently more complex than I had ever guessed. Perhaps I was stereotyping you whole lot a bit much; on the other hand, I never considered that atheists have much to offer in terms of discussion. That isn't to say they haven't thought out their position, but rather, there is little to explain. People have been clamoring for millenia to prove the existence of something beyond the natural world, and the atheists have consistently and correctly replied "um, NO" to each and every claim.

It sounds like you're the "weak atheist" that was referenced from that wikipedia page on theism above. I'm not certain that anyone wants to identify as a "weak" anything, but I'm not the one who submitted the wiki page. Perhaps, if it bothers you, you can edit the page so it refers to "strong atheism" and "bad ass motherfucker atheism." I think it works.[/QUOTE]

From my experience our society tends to clump those who don't believe in a person god under the atheism banner, this typically includes:

1. Atheists - People who don't believe in God.
2. Agnostics - People who aren't sure God exists
3. People who believe in an impersonal god, which includes concepts such as: god exists but he has no plan for us, god doesn't have a specific purpose for each and every human and god isn't a sentient being but rather a force of some nature.
 
What I'm discussing is a major difference in philosophies among those you categorize in group 1.

Not believing in a god can mean denying the possibility that anything supernatural exists in any way, shape, or form (which, I would assume, includes the purusant cited in the OP). It can also include those who want to acknowledge the possibility that something supernatural exists, but admit that, because of the limitations of the division between "natural" and "supernatural," we're not capable of knowing it. Perhaps those tend to fall between agnosticism and atheism.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Perhaps those tend to fall between agnosticism and atheism.[/QUOTE]

That would work except that most of the actual atheists I've talked to will admit that there is at least some small chance that something that could be defined as god might exist.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']What I'm discussing is a major difference in philosophies among those you categorize in group 1.

Not believing in a god can mean denying the possibility that anything supernatural exists in any way, shape, or form (which, I would assume, includes the purusant cited in the OP). [/QUOTE]
I'm pretty sure that's being agnostic.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']People have been clamoring for millenia to prove the existence of something beyond the natural world, and the atheists have consistently and correctly replied "um, NO" to each and every claim.[/QUOTE]

Who are you to say that nay-saying athiests have been correct every time?

Your arguement is akin to someone in 16th century Europe asserting that the christian church has consistently and correctly replied "um, NO" to every assertion that the earth is not the center of the universe.

The fact is that neither athiests nor deeply religious people are more likely to be correct when it comes to what constitutes "reality". If you narrowly define "reality" as the natural world, then you are really playing a semantic game in which athiests are cornering the market by slowly redefining religious knowledge in scientific or logical terms and discarding what they cannot explain or prove as idle mythological stories.

As an example, most American strict-materialist athiests of 100 years ago would likely have likely replied "Um, NO" when asked if there are "real-world" benefits to meditation, prayer, chanting matras, etc. However modern medical science is discovering that meditation and similar religious practices can have a beneficial affect on the human body. Yet the science can only currently explain the chemical and electrical charges of a meditating brain, it cannot explain how the various religious/spiritual philosophies of those who practice meditation contribute to this practice and the resultant health benefits.
 
[quote name='camoor'] If you narrowly define "reality" as the natural world, then you are really playing a semantic game in which athiests are cornering the market by slowly redefining religious knowledge in scientific or logical terms and discarding what they cannot explain or prove as idle mythological stories.
[/QUOTE]

Which is a pretty decent summary of the progression of western religion over the last 300 years.
 
[quote name='camoor']

The fact is that neither athiests nor deeply religious people are more likely to be correct when it comes to what constitutes "reality". If you narrowly define "reality" as the natural world, then you are really playing a semantic game in which athiests are cornering the market by slowly redefining religious knowledge in scientific or logical terms and discarding what they cannot explain or prove as idle mythological stories.[/quote]

This is purely personal opinion. No true evidence one way or the other, just like religion itself. Of course a true atheist, one who does not believe in the supernatural, will see everything as part of the natural world. Some religious knowledge is backed up by science, some isn't. Especially when you deal with societies were religion covers everything (ie. medicine used by tribal groups), anything that supports traditional beliefs will have something in common with religion. And, since religion comes from the world around us its no wonder sometimes science and religion cross. Religion was around long before science, and its nearly impossible for a culture to get everything wrong.

As an example, most American strict-materialist athiests of 100 years ago would likely have likely replied "Um, NO" when asked if there are "real-world" benefits to meditation, prayer, chanting matras, etc. However modern medical science is discovering that meditation and similar religious practices can have a beneficial affect on the human body. Yet the science can only currently explain the chemical and electrical charges of a meditating brain, it cannot explain how the various religious/spiritual philosophies of those who practice meditation contribute to this practice and the resultant health benefits.
Click to expand...

Yes it can. Being happy, content, having strong social ties etc. do have health benefits. Religion helps in all those aspects, things like meditation also help is some areas. While you can obviously argue there is something special in religion, the same effects can be created without it, its just hard to find anything that combines it all like religion does. A scientist can argue, based on existing evidence, that it isn't about religion but what religion brings with it. Again, you can reasonably disagree, but science does have answers here.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']This is purely personal opinion. No true evidence one way or the other, just like religion itself. Of course a true atheist, one who does not believe in the supernatural, will see everything as part of the natural world. Some religious knowledge is backed up by science, some isn't. Especially when you deal with societies were religion covers everything (ie. medicine used by tribal groups), anything that supports traditional beliefs will have something in common with religion. And, since religion comes from the world around us its no wonder sometimes science and religion cross. Religion was around long before science, and its nearly impossible for a culture to get everything wrong.[/QUOTE]

Hmm, you seem to refute me with your first sentence, then you repeat my position with the rest. Turning your last sentence on it's head, I could say that science had the benefit of coming after religion, and its nearly impossible for a group of scientists to get everything wrong in the long run. However if you would like me to catalog all the times that individual scientists and conventional scientific thinking has been proved wrong, then this will be a very long thread indeed.

[quote name='alonzomourning23']Yes it can. Being happy, content, having strong social ties etc. do have health benefits. Religion helps in all those aspects, things like meditation also help is some areas. While you can obviously argue there is something special in religion, the same effects can be created without it, its just hard to find anything that combines it all like religion does. A scientist can argue, based on existing evidence, that it isn't about religion but what religion brings with it. Again, you can reasonably disagree, but science does have answers here.[/QUOTE]

My only point was only to show that a majority of American athiests 100 years ago would have likely been wrong (by accepted standards of what is right and wrong among rational/scientific people) about something that religion has known for aeons. Nay saying athiests are not always correct - in fact they can be wrong about things that religion gets right.
 
[quote name='camoor']
As an example, most American strict-materialist athiests of 100 years ago would likely have likely replied "Um, NO" when asked if there are "real-world" benefits to meditation, prayer, chanting matras, etc. However modern medical science is discovering that meditation and similar religious practices can have a beneficial affect on the human body. Yet the science can only currently explain the chemical and electrical charges of a meditating brain, it cannot explain how the various religious/spiritual philosophies of those who practice meditation contribute to this practice and the resultant health benefits.[/QUOTE]

But saying there are benefits to meditation is different from saying there is a supernatural benefit from meditation. There may be a 'real-world' benefit to it but it doesn't mean there is an unseen hand of god helping you along your journey of life while you meditate. That's usually the implication when dealing with religious believers.

I think the issue here is whether or not we all believe in a super-reality apart from the known universe. Mystics (religious, faithful, spiritual) people believe in worlds other than our reality while atheists only believe in the real world.
 
[quote name='camoor']As an example, most American strict-materialist athiests of 100 years ago would likely have likely replied "Um, NO" when asked if there are "real-world" benefits to meditation, prayer, chanting matras, etc. However modern medical science is discovering that meditation and similar religious practices can have a beneficial affect on the human body. Yet the science can only currently explain the chemical and electrical charges of a meditating brain, it cannot explain how the various religious/spiritual philosophies of those who practice meditation contribute to this practice and the resultant health benefits.[/QUOTE]

They would have been wrong, but they would have been wrong for the right reasons. Meditation and meditative-like states do have a beneficial health effect, but the beneficial effect can easily be shown to exist regardless of the philosophy and beliefs of the person doing the meditating. The best example of this is our old friend, Scientology: the point of the 'Theta zapping' exercise ('going clear' as they call it) is to force the Scientologist to enter a meditative state. The device used in auditing is a basic biofeedback monitor, which is a useful tool (even outside of scientology) in teaching someone how to achieve a meditative state. Scientologist who meditate get the exact same medical benefits as any other religion from their activities.

From this, one either has to accept that the insanity that is Scientology is a valid religious function, or else come to the conclusion that the benefit of meditation is purely based on the physical makeup of our bodies, and nothing more. So, our athiest from 100 years ago would be completely correct in asserting that meditation brings absolutely no supernatural benefit (which would almost certainly be the argument put forward by those who disagreed with him.)

Ultimately, the benefit of meditation is quite like the placebo effect. The 'scientific' person would say that sugar pills should have no effect at, say, reducing pain. Certain individuals, though, would never-the-less experience pain reduction from taking sugar pills. Which side would be correct in that debate depends on how you look at things.
 
[quote name='Drocket']They would have been wrong, but they would have been wrong for the right reasons.[/QUOTE]

The "right" reasons - which I'm guesssing for you means that their perception of meditation was based on the contemporary logic and scientific evidence, thus making this opinion a circular arguement. IE The right perspective is that which is based in science and logic, therefore if a perspective is not based on a scientific and logical viewpoint then it can not be considered right.

[quote name='Drocket']Meditation and meditative-like states do have a beneficial health effect, but the beneficial effect can easily be shown to exist regardless of the philosophy and beliefs of the person doing the meditating. The best example of this is our old friend, Scientology: the point of the 'Theta zapping' exercise ('going clear' as they call it) is to force the Scientologist to enter a meditative state. The device used in auditing is a basic biofeedback monitor, which is a useful tool (even outside of scientology) in teaching someone how to achieve a meditative state. Scientologist who meditate get the exact same medical benefits as any other religion from their activities.

From this, one either has to accept that the insanity that is Scientology is a valid religious function, or else come to the conclusion that the benefit of meditation is purely based on the physical makeup of our bodies, and nothing more. So, our athiest from 100 years ago would be completely correct in asserting that meditation brings absolutely no supernatural benefit (which would almost certainly be the argument put forward by those who disagreed with him.)

Ultimately, the benefit of meditation is quite like the placebo effect. The 'scientific' person would say that sugar pills should have no effect at, say, reducing pain. Certain individuals, though, would never-the-less experience pain reduction from taking sugar pills. Which side would be correct in that debate depends on how you look at things.[/QUOTE]

What the thinker thinks, the prover proves. Science may be able to inspire belief in a pill/placebo effect - but compare it to the power of belief in a person who was cured of cancer because they believed so fervently that the Jesus was on their side. I've seen first-hand a 70 year-old yogi who can bend his body into a pretzel. My opinion is that the power of belief is strengthened by religion/spirituality to such a degree that it unlocks power within a handful of humans in such a way that science or logic cannot inspire or explain at this present time.

Science requires a repeatable demonstration of objective results before something is considered fact - yet this cannot be done in other subjective fields (for example by what objective test could you prove that Yeats was a great poet). IMO, this does not mean that these subjective perspectives of the world do not contain truth or do not constitute a form of "reality". Eventually science and religion/spirituality may converge (and we may even devise an objective, repeatable test for determining whether Yeats was a great poet), however personally I don't have enough evidence to assume that logic is the system that defines how the universe works.
 
You're certainly free to believe that logic and rationality have no inherent value over superstition. Similarly, I'm free to consider you insane.
 
[quote name='Drocket']You're certainly free to believe that logic and rationality have no inherent value over superstition. Similarly, I'm free to consider you insane.[/QUOTE]

And if you think good thoughts, you can fly like Peter Pan !
 
[quote name='Drocket']You're certainly free to believe that logic and rationality have no inherent value over superstition. Similarly, I'm free to consider you insane.[/QUOTE]

Superstition? Let me ask you a question - do you honestly think that superstition is the same as subjectivity and the power of belief, or are you just being a smartass?

As for the parting shot about considering me insane, much of modern psychiatry is BS anyway, all about giving you enough drugs until you shut up and conform to the mores of the day. I really enjoy reading books about psychology and the study of the human mind, but I definately agree with Jung and his ilk - I'm guessing you're a B.F. Skinner man.
 
[quote name='camoor']Superstition? Let me ask you a question - do you honestly think that superstition is the same as subjectivity and the power of belief, or are you just being a smartass?[/quote]

Well, you got any evidence then?

As for the parting shot about considering me insane, much of modern psychiatry is BS anyway, all about giving you enough drugs until you shut up and conform to the mores of the day. I really enjoy reading books about psychology and the study of the human mind, but I definately agree with Jung and his ilk - I'm guessing you're a B.F. Skinner man.
Click to expand...

And you know this based on what? Research or emotion? I'm willing to guess.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']Well, you got any evidence then?[/QUOTE]
Pointless question: Since Camoor has already stated that he believes belief/perception is at least as important as objective reality, evidence clearly has no meaning. Regardless of how much evidence is presented to counter his position, he can simply say 'I believe otherwise', and given the worldview he's stated, it would be, for him, a valid counterargument. As I already said, though, I (and most people) consider that position insane.

When you have someone who's stated a belief such as this, futher discussion really does become quite pointless, since debate itself is founded on the ideas of rationality and logic. Here is my position and evidence for that, and here's yours - lets compare and see which one is better. When one side chooses to short-circuit the discussion by saying that they consider 'faith' to be a valid piece of evidence, further discussion is really quite pointless - you'll never be able to sway them to your side regardless of the evidence you produced. And if you can, it means they never in fact believed that faith is a valid form of evidence.

So which is it, Camoor: is it worth continuing this discussion about the value of faith vs. evidence (in which case you've automatically granted my side victory by conceding that faith can be trumped by reality), or shall we give up now? (in which case - coo-coo.)
 
[quote name='Drocket']Pointless question: Since Camoor has already stated that he believes belief/perception is at least as important as objective reality, evidence clearly has no meaning. Regardless of how much evidence is presented to counter his position, he can simply say 'I believe otherwise', and given the worldview he's stated, it would be, for him, a valid counterargument. As I already said, though, I (and most people) consider that position insane.

...

So which is it, Camoor: is it worth continuing this discussion about the value of faith vs. evidence (in which case you've automatically granted my side victory by conceding that faith can be trumped by reality), or shall we give up now? (in which case - coo-coo.)[/QUOTE]


I'm still confused about Camoor's 'belief'. Good for him if he thinks his 'belief' is as important as reality, but belief doesn't change reality. Reality is what it is. Does he think there is an invisible force that changes reality based upon how hard we think or believe? I'm ust curious.

I believe in the power of the mind, too. We can do many seemingly miraculous things as human beings with our mind power. However, no matter how hard one believes in mind over matter, you can't reverse the force of gravity, or make a statue cry, or turn tin into gold. Is Camoor saying the forces that govern reality can be muted by one's perception ?
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Try fifteen shots of Jameson and then try again.

IKIK.[/QUOTE]

That doesn't reverse it, it just shifts it from side to side and then ends up in a whirling, endless spin.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Try fifteen shots of Jameson and then try again.

IKIK.[/QUOTE]

That's actually not a bad idea. Some scientists are beginning to think that time is just a product of our perception of the universe - that it doesn't exist, so mess with your perception! Our perception of the universe evolved in order to allow us to survive on the plains of the Serengeti, not necessarily to understand the true nature of the cosmos. An example - our natural perception tends to view everthing as a duality (hot/cold, good/evil, etc) - however these are really just individual attributes that vary in degree. Likewise we have a tendency to mistake our perception of an object as the object itself - another fallacy that we fall into because it is necessary to our everyday survival. Science may correct this, but only to a degree - we see an grain of sand through a microscope and suddenly see that it is comprised of atoms - but we are still using our eyes to see these atoms and our machines to analyze them - it does not prove that they actually exist in space-time as we percieve them (I guess this is all Descartes but I never really understood the impact until recently).

I don't worship at any church of dogma, whether it be science, religion, or other. I just see religion, science, literature, mythology, philosophy, etc as tools that can be interchangably utilized by our human perception to understand and interact with the universe around us. If it doesn't work - throw it out or refine it into a theory/practice that does. If it does work - don't throw it out for the sole reason that you can't explain it with a neat scientific theory or your holy scripture of choice forbids it.

Bmulligan - we have overcome our personal bodily gravity with the power of thought - the Wright Brothers dreamed up a flying device and I guarantee that the design used equal parts of practical imagination and engineering know-how. They literally transformed the world with an idea - an idea followed up with alot of hard work and elbow grease but an idea none-the-less. If someone wishes to believe that this idea was just a bunch of organized neurons firing in a specific way in the brain of an advanced primate then that's their prerogative, but I feel that it doesn't explain or communicate what the average human understands as an "idea". And since science is ultimately empirical, I have other theories about a shadow world of ideas, theories that I'm willing to abandon if someone proves to me that they are not the best explanation of the way the universe works - this is because I readily admit that once I left pre-conceived notions of my youth behind the universe has turned out to be far stranger then I ever expected.
 
[quote name='Drocket']Pointless question: Since Camoor has already stated that he believes belief/perception is at least as important as objective reality, evidence clearly has no meaning. Regardless of how much evidence is presented to counter his position, he can simply say 'I believe otherwise', and given the worldview he's stated, it would be, for him, a valid counterargument. As I already said, though, I (and most people) consider that position insane.

When you have someone who's stated a belief such as this, futher discussion really does become quite pointless, since debate itself is founded on the ideas of rationality and logic. Here is my position and evidence for that, and here's yours - lets compare and see which one is better. When one side chooses to short-circuit the discussion by saying that they consider 'faith' to be a valid piece of evidence, further discussion is really quite pointless - you'll never be able to sway them to your side regardless of the evidence you produced. And if you can, it means they never in fact believed that faith is a valid form of evidence.

So which is it, Camoor: is it worth continuing this discussion about the value of faith vs. evidence (in which case you've automatically granted my side victory by conceding that faith can be trumped by reality), or shall we give up now? (in which case - coo-coo.)[/QUOTE]

Thanks for answering my questions for me. And you're accusing me of being close-minded.

I think 'belief' is different from 'faith'. As I understand it, belief does not imply proof, it is simply something that the mind holds as true. Faith is a strong belief held even in the face of contradicting proof. No, I'm not a fan of faith. Yet we all believe something (unless you're a nihilist :D )

I make a effort to keep an open mind because I know that there are a great deal of people who are wiser about the world . I admit that I get overly aggravated by dogmatists and group-think.

As for the discussion being pointless - I suppose it depends on your position. I could speculate with others about metaphysics all day, but I realize that it's not everyone's bag.
 
[quote name='camoor']Bmulligan - we have overcome our personal bodily gravity with the power of thought - the Wright Brothers dreamed up a flying device and I guarantee that the design used equal parts of practical imagination and engineering know-how.[/QUOTE]
Gravity pulled down on wright brothers' plane as hard as anything else on the world. Saying that gravity was overcome (overpowered, or subdued) is wrong. It's like saying that Astronauts orbiting Earth have no gravity pulling on them, which is incorrect.

You can believe whatever you wish, but your beliefs aren't going to suddenly affect anything more than what you think. Meanwhile, the universe will continue to work as it always had, with many different laws that are representable as mathematical formulas and equations .
 
I'll start taking bets now that when camoor is 50 he'll be a raging conservative. He reminds me of a horowitz. Too far gone, to out there, that if he ever realizes all the holes in his thought he'll like shift dramatically to the other side and then turn around and occuse all those who haven't done the same to be insane and blind.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']IThat's what makes the metaphysical, if it exists, supernatural - it lies beyond the natural, and thus completely outside of what we can detect or understand using our senses. Granted, his take on Atheism might be a little too literal, as he takes the word to imply "without a (religious) belief."[/QUOTE]

That's me in a nutshell. I think religions are fiction. Just like the Easter Rabbit or Santa Claus. NOT REAL.

Parents say, "Behave or Santa Claus won't bring you presents." I think ~5000 years ago, ancient leaders did the same, "Behave or God will kill you."

Religion was invented as a way for Leaders to control their underlings.
 
[quote name='capitalist_mao']Gravity pulled down on wright brothers' plane as hard as anything else on the world. Saying that gravity was overcome (overpowered, or subdued) is wrong. It's like saying that Astronauts orbiting Earth have no gravity pulling on them, which is incorrect.

You can believe whatever you wish, but your beliefs aren't going to suddenly affect anything more than what you think. Meanwhile, the universe will continue to work as it always had, with many different laws that are representable as mathematical formulas and equations .[/QUOTE]

I'm tempted to break out in a R Kelly song, but I'll refrain :D

Seems like we're arguing semantics now - gravity DID pull the wright brothers down, I was just pointing out that man was flying, something that some scientists once theorized could not happen without the help of helium. I was thinking of overcoming gravity as in "getting the better of" gravity - much as the pilot in that old WWII movie does when he whispers to his plane "c'mon baby - fly!"

I think that most in this thread have made very reasonable responses and I wish that I could explain it better to everyone (I find it exceptionally difficult), much as I'm sure that many of you with a fully scientific view wish you could explain science to me in such a way that it gets me to convert over from my open, logically skewed, and quite foolish perspective on what constitutes reality. However to be honest I think I need to go through several more years of learning before I can really fully put forward what I am trying to say in a way that you will either understand or not feel the need to lash out.

I believe in science, I believe there is a great deal of truth in every respected scientific theory, but I also have open-ended beliefs that are currently not backed by science.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']I'll start taking bets now that when camoor is 50 he'll be a raging conservative. He reminds me of a horowitz. Too far gone, to out there, that if he ever realizes all the holes in his thought he'll like shift dramatically to the other side and then turn around and occuse all those who haven't done the same to be insane and blind.[/QUOTE]

Maybe my friend, but personally I doubt it. I don't like big government enough to distrust either party, you would have been better off saying "libertarian". However I do attempt to keep my metaphysical beliefs out of my politics.
 
[quote name='electrictroy']Religion was invented as a way for Leaders to control their underlings.[/QUOTE]

Invented... or utilized. Early religion was also likely an attempt at science - IE look at those lightning bolts coming down - it must be because a god is angry.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top