 |
 |
 |
encouraging ex-Christians
Letters from Visitors to ExChristian.Net and Replies.
A letter from John
I've read the articles on your site, and I realize that some of the Christians and atheists are 2 sides of the same coin: both angry at people who don't follow their ideals.
A lot of atheists have taken pot shots at Jesus.
But, in truth, did Jesus found Christianity? NO!
Jesus was a guy who thought he had some good ideas. He may have been deluded into thinking that he had some message from God or maybe he did genuinely receive some inspiration from a higher source. I don't know and I don't care.
Christianity as we know it was created by Roman politics. The bible, which Christians claim to be inspired by Jesus - and thus has credibility, was in fact just a few of a great many writings on Christianity which happened to be... politically correct, and hence were compiled to form the bible that we know of. The other writings were suppressed and destroyed.
To what extent Jesus preached about going to Hell for your sins and insisting on Sermons every Sunday and forcing creationism down every one's throats... no one knows, IF he ever preached such things.
Indeed, why did Jesus and the apostles abandon the Jewish practice of not eating pork? (Jesus and his followers were Jews who simply thought that they had some great ideas)
Because they considered substance to be of more importance than form.
The religion is not about the ritual. U can have a great healthy diet and eat pork or not eat pork. It doesn't make a difference. You can be a great human being in many ways. They were unlikely to be as anal retentive as the militants of today.
"Christ wasn't a Christian, Buddha wasn't a Buddhist, and Mohammad wasn't a Muslim. These organized creations of other men came about after their death, and with them came the titles, rituals, and terminology's which created a separation of dogma. The terminology, the 'word' printed and bound, became the thing. As Krishnamurti said, "the name is not the thing". Shakespeare doesn't exist inside the ink on the page, the soul doesn't exist within DNA, and god cannot be found in a book." (quote from http://www.straightblastgym.com/why.htm)
Indeed the early Christians are not the militants we know of today; they were SO passive that they REFUSED to serve the Roman army, even when the Roman empire was suffering barbarian incursion after incursion. They were not all fired up and eager to kill. They did not say- I’ll burn you at the stake because you don't believe in Jesus... that came later, when Christianity was organized. Today militants threaten us not with "fire and sword", instead they manipulate the law. Instead of killing us, they only attempt to kill our souls- our ideals, our perception of freedom.
The evangelists and other fanatics like Osama, believe that if individuals do not follow certain rituals or form, like morning prayer in school and covering woman up respectively, the world will go to hell.
But was that EVER the emphasis of the prophets? Historical evidence says NO.
So to conclude, I've got this to say: Don't condemn Jesus, and as for fanatics who claim their ideas come from Jesus, I say- you have no legitimacy.
--- John
I've read the articles on your site, and I realize that some of the Christians and atheists are 2 sides of the same coin: both angry at people who don't follow their ideals.
A lot of atheists have taken pot shots at Jesus.
But, in truth, did Jesus found Christianity? NO!
Jesus was a guy who thought he had some good ideas. He may have been deluded into thinking that he had some message from God or maybe he did genuinely receive some inspiration from a higher source. I don't know and I don't care.
Christianity as we know it was created by Roman politics. The bible, which Christians claim to be inspired by Jesus - and thus has credibility, was in fact just a few of a great many writings on Christianity which happened to be... politically correct, and hence were compiled to form the bible that we know of. The other writings were suppressed and destroyed.
To what extent Jesus preached about going to Hell for your sins and insisting on Sermons every Sunday and forcing creationism down every one's throats... no one knows, IF he ever preached such things.
Indeed, why did Jesus and the apostles abandon the Jewish practice of not eating pork? (Jesus and his followers were Jews who simply thought that they had some great ideas)
Because they considered substance to be of more importance than form.
The religion is not about the ritual. U can have a great healthy diet and eat pork or not eat pork. It doesn't make a difference. You can be a great human being in many ways. They were unlikely to be as anal retentive as the militants of today.
"Christ wasn't a Christian, Buddha wasn't a Buddhist, and Mohammad wasn't a Muslim. These organized creations of other men came about after their death, and with them came the titles, rituals, and terminology's which created a separation of dogma. The terminology, the 'word' printed and bound, became the thing. As Krishnamurti said, "the name is not the thing". Shakespeare doesn't exist inside the ink on the page, the soul doesn't exist within DNA, and god cannot be found in a book." (quote from http://www.straightblastgym.com/why.htm)
Indeed the early Christians are not the militants we know of today; they were SO passive that they REFUSED to serve the Roman army, even when the Roman empire was suffering barbarian incursion after incursion. They were not all fired up and eager to kill. They did not say- I’ll burn you at the stake because you don't believe in Jesus... that came later, when Christianity was organized. Today militants threaten us not with "fire and sword", instead they manipulate the law. Instead of killing us, they only attempt to kill our souls- our ideals, our perception of freedom.
The evangelists and other fanatics like Osama, believe that if individuals do not follow certain rituals or form, like morning prayer in school and covering woman up respectively, the world will go to hell.
But was that EVER the emphasis of the prophets? Historical evidence says NO.
So to conclude, I've got this to say: Don't condemn Jesus, and as for fanatics who claim their ideas come from Jesus, I say- you have no legitimacy.
--- John
And the christian religion is, and was, very much about aspects of dogma and ritual. In its various incarnations, the bottom line has always been, "believe it or else". And if you believe it, practice it like we (the leadership) say, or you're out.
The reason we ex-christians take potshots at Jesus, as you say, are simply because we've come to accept that christianity is built on myth, and by ridiculing the beliefs of the fundamentalist christians from which many of us have sprung, it gives us confirmation that we have indeed escaped from a cult based on fear, guilt, and shame. You can't condemn someone who never existed, but you can indirectly condemn the nonsensical belief system of his devotees.
John, the end of your post summarizes your admonishment to us to abandon the argument of the legitimacy and/or existence of jesus. Allow me to say that this is a bit too simplistic a solution given the importance of god/jesus in the believer's life, and the importance of free thought in the athiest/non-christian's life. As long as it is the christian's agenda to obtain converts and dilute the separation of church and state, atheists and other non-christians will continue to speak out against christianity, even if it is only at a place like this site. Remember that christians come HERE to start arguments, we don't go to christian sites and interfere with their purposes--we're a little more open-minded in allowing like-minded people to gather and discuss their opinions in peace.
John, not everyone here is focused on taking "pot shots" at jesus because a lot of us don't even believe he ever existed. I personally will mention idiotic things he was attributed with saying ("If thy hand offendeth thee, cut it off . . . ," etc.) But that is just to prove the uselessness of following jesus' teachings, which is the purported basis of christianity. Christians are taught to emulate jesus and follow his teachings. Well, you better love your neighbor but also cut off your hand and pluck out your eye if they "offendeth thee." You can't pick and choose what you want to obey. And because the bible is supposed to be the inerrant word of god, not even one sentence should be ignored. So by my logic, it's all correct or none of it is. And that's just one of the many reasons why I am an ex-christian.
Ex-christian. That is the key word here. The webmaster has created this site as a place to "encourage ex-christians." For me, finding this place and reading the ex-testimonies, articles, research, and other information has actually helped me to release my anger, confusion, anxiety, and depression that my christianity and subsequent deconversion caused. For me, it's a form of self-help to rectify a long and oppressive episode in my life. But the self-help wouldn't be possible without the webmaster and the many others who contribute to this site. John, don't you think it would be ridiculous for me, never having been a muslim, to go to an ex-muslim site and say, "Hey, come on guys, Mohammed never existed, just get over it already." I may believe that to be true, but my lack of experience in the debate would have no credibility there. Do you see the similarity regarding your post?
The things I've explained to you are already contained in various areas in this site, but I'm thinking that you don't have much of a reason or interest in doing the research yourself. Your security and comfort in thinking your are above what you see as the main argument here is evident. If that's the case, good for you. I'm sure you have more fulfilling things to do with your time than to come here and comment on things you've already figured out. Thanks for the suggestion, though.
Michelle
I don't entirely agree with your assessment of the character that Christians have come to identify as Jesus Christ. I admit though that I sometimes wonder if, indeed, such a guy ever existed except in the minds of Christians centuries later. You know, a lot of Christian based scholars would probably tell you that there's not much evidence for a historical Jesus,anyway. It's the belief that counts, at least in the minds of the believers. Yes, the governing bodies of the later Roman Catholic Church took over Christianity and made it the powerful force that it is today in the world. That power does not make the belief true.
There is very little that can be done to deprogram Christians from their irrational, brainwashing belief structure. The problem I perceive is the powerful but harmful effect these people have in society today. Their votes do count. When you have to work with these true believers who harass unbelievers in the workplace all in the name of Jesus; when you see faith based funding in these prisons that practically demand that inmates enter those programs for forgiveness from Jesus; when you have a president openly endorse those programs and declare that he, too, is a firm believer in the mission for Jesus, we have a serious threat to our freedoms in America. You might also reflect upon some of the very damaging effects Evangelical Christian pastors have had upon members of their flock. These members who have been sexually molested or raped and those who have had all their savings robbed by their pastors will probably be mentally and emotionally damaged for the rest of their lives. Hopefully, some of them can receive some kind of therapy for the harm that's been done to them.
I am, for one, not "angry." And I don't care to take "potshots at Jesus." Perhaps, I'm just too old now to enjoy that kind of fruitless reaction or rebellion. I also have no desire to declare my atheism or agnoticism like another religion which is sometimes the criticism towards arrogant guys like Richard Dawson. I guess I've come to see that it's pretty pointless to try to get people to rationally examine their irrational beliefs when it comes to the hold Evangelical Chrisitanity can have on the naive gullible minds of people who are susuceptible to the fictious promises of Evangelical Christianity. As a American citizen and a working person I am, however, deeply concerned and sometimes frightened by the harmful, fanatical, true believer mentality of these people who say they follow Jesus. They are just as scary as the Muslim terroists who set off bombs and kill innocent people all in the name of their prophet. I, too, would like to believe that the present fashionable craziness of Evangelical Christianity is just a passing phase in society but I'm afraid it will be here for a while longer.
The place to begin is in our schools. We need to teach students that there is a rational means to look at the feelings, the psychology of belief systems and especailly the predominant religion of Christianity in America. This does not have to been done in a demeaning, disrespectful manner. It can be done in a constructive way through literature and films that offer alternate means of educating people to look at the rational evidence for their feelings; and not offer their feelings as evidence of proof for their beliefs. Afterall, that won't work in real life when you have to, say, prepare your income tax or stand before a judge in a court of law. It might be lastly pointed out that in America, we are still free to believe whatever we chose to believe about our beliefs no matter how irrational they sound to others. In a Christian led America, the exact opposite is true.
I think you make some really good points here. I am an ex-christian and I have really benefitted from this site, however, I do think that some of the "humor" has been taken too far. For example, the dress-up Jesus game, where you can put clothes on a paper-doll figure of Jesus on the cross.
Jesus may have never existed, so it might not be disrespectful toward a respected teacher from history...BUT, there are, of course, many Christians that would take offense to that. As for the Christians that take offense to this website in general, they are simply narrow-minded and immature.
But I think it best to respect what other people believe. We don't have to agree with it, but there should be a line. If I were an ex-Buddhist, I wouldn't want to mock Buddha. If I were an ex-Muslim, I wouldn't want to play pin-the-tail on the Mohammad.
It's about respect, maturity, and tolerance. Are all Christians respectful, mature, and tolerant toward others? Hell no! Which is just another reason I want to be. I'm an ex-Christian all the way.
- Sarabhi
Zen/Chan are both pretty agnostic, and Stephen Batchelor is proposting an Atheist stance... Buddha himslef wasn't much interested in if there ws a God or not, but take great pains to avoid becoming a god himself (he failed)
Jesus was certainly a theist, but, looking over the Aramaic, he appears to have been Unitarian/Pantheist, rather than typical Hebrew...
Ah well...
Grandpa
However, I challenge you, if you are truly "intellectually honest" to read a couple of things and then tell me this God thing is made up.
I suggest that you check out http://yadayahweh.com/ and The Case for Christ by Lee Strobel if you haven't already.
Of course, you've got all the answers, right? Then this challenge should be a no-brainer and you'll gain more fodder for your site.
:)
Strobel? YMBJ! Tell me, are you intellectually honest? Do you think Lee Strobel is? Can you please explain why Strobel did not interview a single skeptic for any of his books? Yes, I've read Strobel. His arguments are very weak, consisting mainly of straw men, special pleading, and begging the question. This is probably why he stayed far away from anybody who might expose his fallacies. Have you read any of the rebuttals to Strobel's work? Here, you can start with these:
The Rest of the Story
Challenging the Verdict
After you've read them, come on back and tell us what you think. Bye now.
Let's get real, okay?...the notion that an "all knowing" and "all powerful" being would need "assistance" in getting "His" message across is utterly absurd. My digital camera has 5 "companion books" for instruction...but that's a little different, don't you think? (Rhetorical)
I really don't this bothers Jesus "Christ" one way or the other, "what" you "think" or say about Him. Why should He? He founded the earth without you and your help, as if you could! Most humans cannot even help themselves. Onde million will not even live the night out. evey minute one dies and every minute onwe is born, can you or we do anything about it? "No"
Thanks for the info - I performed a a cursory review of both sites, and will admit that they do poke holes in Strobel's arguments; however, Strobel's work was never the basis for my faith - it was just the start of a conversation. I should have read your site more first so I apologize for pulling the trigger on that book a bit too fast.
Just so you know, when I read his book, I wondered the same questions about why he didn't interview "leading" atheists as well to present a balanced account.
I also agree that from a "scholarly" point of view, Strobel could have done more work, but I do think both reviews you pointed me to miss the "big picture" in that Strobel claims he set out to prove something to himself and landed in the opposite direction. Isn't the guy a pastor now?
Now back to the point of the original post.
I think the very nature of this site would draw in debate and I think you would all recognize that. However, I think I understand where you and others with this belief system are coming from. I think you feel like you have been lied to and want people to know your version of the truth. I could even imagine that you find it annoying for these poor misguided believers to come to this site trying to show you their light.
However, given what these people believe are the stakes for you and others this site is leading away; I think even the "ex-christians" can at least appreciate the nobility in such efforts however misguided they may seem on the surface. Stated another way - these "misguided" believers (at least those whose heart is true ) are trying to save your soul and have nothing to gain from it - just as there is nothing to gain from this site except for perhaps donations, ad-revenue, and some sort of warm fuzzies in your heart that you are helping people out by keeping them from wasting their lives in some misguided belief system.
Let's get to it.
excerpt..."GOD'S WORD" need companion books in the first place?
The companion books are to reach different audiences and ultimately bring people to truth in alignment with the objectives I stated earlier - you can't reach a Spanish audience with a Greek book. Obviously Strobel wasn't smart enough for this crowd.
excerpt....."the notion that an "all knowing" and "all powerful" being would need "assistance" in getting "His" message across is utterly absurd"
That is part of question isn't it.
What then is the purpose of this life and your life? Why did this "all powerful" and "all knowing" God not just start everyone in this mythical Heaven?
Let the verbal beatings begin!
How it happened, Mary was only 12 years old, when she put her trust in her preist and he molested her and she became pregnant, out of fear of being stoned to death, this also included the preist and Joseph and Mary, the preist quickly devised a plain to save them all from being stoned immediately.
The preist made a public anouncement of Mary having been inseminated by an Angel of the Holy Ghost, this is exactly just what the religious loonies wanted to hear, their long awaited saviour had arrived, their messiah to lead them into the kingdom of God.
Joseph freely admitted he had not touched Mary, so who else could it have been, except a Holy Ghost, as reaffirmed by her God ordained, friendly preist.
So Jesus saves, yes he saved those three from instant stoning to death, and the embellishments went on from there, it was open season of fables and lies and myths as to how and why the Christ Child had arrived.
The three wise men where so wise, that no one remembered to catch their names, and they are still roaming the Earth to this very day.
Jesus saves, yeah that's right!
The same thing for Billy Graham. In 1920, a group of 20 religious loonies in Charlotte, NC were praying for someone to lead them to Jesus, well lo and behold, up sprang out a young rising evangelist named, Billy Graham.
Why didn't someone in the group of 20 lead them to Jesus? Because they wanted it to look like their prayers had been answered.
See the mental pyschosis the mind plays of wanting to believe in miracles and myths?
Jesus was born out of wedlock plain and simple, but in order to save their own skins, they all agreed to start the folly of emaculate conception, this is exactly what people want to believe, even today over 2000 years later.
Glad to oblige…
I’ll keep mine simple.
Provide evidence that there is such a thing as a “soul”.
If you had no bible, or any other “holy” book to refer to, Shohn, would you even know you had a soul?
If so, how?
That’s the gist of the verbal beating I have for you.
To be totally honest with you....no one knows, not one person can say absolutely for 100% certain as to why we are here and how we got here.
If any one person had the exact answer, there would not be all the different religions and beliefs and crimes against humanity and wars.
The daily events around the world with wars and crimes against each other, with starvation and bloodshed is a reflection on human beings not knowing absolutes.
All we have is assumptions and presumptions and no absolutes.
We're not sure how many ancient civilations have come and gone, nor where they went.
In my opinion, we are not alone in the universe, I think there are many civilizations out there in space in other galaxies.
I believe that this planet was seeded long ago with many thousands of types of DNA by other civilizations, by higher thinking beings that know how to travel great distances in very little time.
There has to be superior beings on other planets on other galaxies, in my way of thinking, there's so much we do not know about our own planet.
All we have is made up stories that need a huge amount of faith for them to appear real.
We really know very little about our brain, there's so much that we do not know. How can anyone expect people that lived 2000 years ago, to know more than we of today?
We've had more time to think scientifically and to explore using scientific methods, whereas the people who lived 2000 years ago forbade scientific knowledge.
The people that lived 2000 years ago, all they could do is guess, we now know guessing does not produce truth, nor correct answers.
So we quit guessing and presuming and assuming, because those methods do not produce truth. it produces myths and urban legions.
Wild guess: Um, because "God and "Heaven" are "mythical"? D'oh!!!
lol
You said "...but I do think both reviews you pointed me to miss the 'big picture' in that Strobel claims he set out to prove something to himself and landed in the opposite direction." But think about this, Shohn. If it was your intention to find out the truth, one way or the other, why would you only seek input from one side? Even if Strobel decided in the end to only publish the arguments that he thought were true, this does not explain why he failed to address the real arguments against his position! In other words, I do not believe for one second that Strobel attempted any kind of balanced research. If he did, then he managed to hid all traces of it exceedingly well.
Shohn: "I think the very nature of this site would draw in debate and I think you would all recognize that."
Yes we do. Many of us welcome debate. However, more often than not, what we get from visiting Christians is proselytizing, not discussion or debate. There is a big difference, as the former is quite tiresome and is often delivered with sneering condescension. We're only human here, and everybody has their limit.
Shohn: "...given what these people believe are the stakes for you and others this site is leading away; I think even the "ex-christians" can at least appreciate the nobility in such efforts however misguided they may seem on the surface....
What you are asking is actually a very complex question, in my opinion. I do not wish to be flip about it, but let me start by asking you what seems to be a very silly question. Suppose I was sure that you were on fire, and that your life was in grave danger. Am I justified in dumping a bucket of water on you? Does it depend on whether you really were on fire or not? What if you had insisted that you were just fine, and asked me to please go away? What if you calmly demonstrated for me that you were not on fire, but I still insisted that you were? Where do you draw the line between acting compassionately and being a complete jerk?
Shohn: "The companion books [to the Bible] are to reach different audiences and ultimately bring people to truth..."
But that misses the point. Why is anything other than the Bible (translated into all the world's languages) required? Wasn't it god's will to record his wishes in the Bible, and to illustrate them in a way that would reach all people? Why is Christian apologetics a billion-dollar industry? Moreover, why do all the "companion books" not agree, even on basic elements of theology, such as what is required to secure salvation?
Shohn: "What then is the purpose of this life and your life?..."
It's unclear to me whether you were quoting somebody here or asking this yourself. If it is your question, let me first pose a simpler question: "Is there is purpose to life other than what we give it?" If we can establish that there is, then we can set about trying to discern what it is. Okay?
I can tell that I'm going to like you already! I expected a big verbal club over the head and instead I got some challenging questions. Not bad.
I don't have all the answers, but I think this quibbling should at least be fun.
I'll continue tomorrow ;) - my wife and I need to hit the sack.
Thanks,
Shohn
~~If it was your intention to find out the truth, one way or the other, why would you only seek input from one side?~~
I'm an ex-christian, but am reading a case for christ now, actually, b/c i've been doing a lot of research about christianity from BOTH sides.
I have a bit of a theory as to why Strobel didn't interview, or at least didn't include interviews, from skeptic/atheist scholars. In the intro to the book, Strobel says that he and his wife were both atheists, but then she became a Christian. He says that she started becoming "happier" and he attributed that to her conversion. I think that he WANTED to believe after his wife converted b/c I think he wanted to be "happier," whether it was founded on truth or not...
So, my theory is basically that it was easy for him to switch from atheist to christian b/c he wasn't looking at the interviews from a completely objective point. He had personal interests involved.
Obviously I could be completely wrong, but the theory came to me as I got further into the book and began realizing that he wasn't going to interview any skeptics....Just a theory tho..
-Sarabhi
Long held assumptions by people, fed by the Church mean those who deny the historicity of Jesus have been considered eccentric. But that is changing...
The 'Christian' message itself, is not even original, never mind the idea of a godman.
Check out this website. Extremely useful.
http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/
As an addendum to Jim's comment, Islam is also an evangelical faith system that believes the stakes are quite high. Perhaps their efforts to convert others should be viewed as noble as well?
And, considering that the stakes are for eternity, Christianity once resorted to forced conversions, just as Islam is still practicing today.
As Jim said, discussion is one thing; proselytizing is something else entirely.
Indeed Jesus talked all of the things the Christian preachers of today have been talking about. As a matter of fact Jesus talked about Creation (Matthew chapter 19), Hell (Luke chapter 16), condemnation of the unsaved and the great tribulation(matthew chapter 24). He also talked about why atheists do not come to or leave Christ in John chapter 3 (19: And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.
20: For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved.
21: But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God.)
According to Jesus, atheists got only moral reasons for refusing him, not intellectual reasons. Intellectually, atheism is gibberish.
You also maintained that Christianity formed out as a Roman organization. But Christians were killed amass under the Roman dictators. You are right, when Christianity became the offical religion of the Roman empire, the Church became corrupt. There is no denying to that fact. As Lord Acton told, 'power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely'. Even the church is not exempt from it. So, the power-hungry church committed lot of atrocities in the history. But, if you compare their works with the teachings and life of Christ, you will see the blaring contradiction between the two. We should focus on Jesus, not on the church.
Jesus also claimed that He is God. He claimed that seeing Him would be tantamount to seeing the God the Father (John 10). Blessed be the name of Jesus. Let us praise His name, not condemn Him.
Paul, your jesus is a fable, nothing more!
The Bible has been corrupted by the Roman Church. The Gospel of Barnabas is the only authentic record of Jesus' life.
We're all just an "evolved" collection of chemicals...
Shohn, that's true, but you could also say a car is just a collection of metal and plastic parts. I think what you are saying is that from your Christian perspective, without God there is no purpose in life. But why do you need someone else to give you a purpose? And what is the "purpose" of life for a Christian? Well you don't really know, since that's up to God, but generally its worship God, read and believe the Bible, and go to heaven. But what about being good stewards of the Earth so that we don't wreck the planet, having tolerance for other beliefs (or atheists,) controlling our fertility so that we have sustainable populations, democracy, science, critical thinking, exploration of the universe, etc? The Bible doesn't address these issues, or does so very poorly; these are things we need to address in order to survive in the long term and grow as a species. Instead of living for beliefs for which we have no real proof, we need to start facing reality and improve the human condition here on Earth.
1) They are constantly attacked by Christians who threaten them with hell
2) Believers refuse to be honest about the nature and orgin of their beliefs
3) Atheists are considered second-class citizens with things like "under God" in the official loyalty oath of the nation being rubbed in their faces, "In God We Trust" on the money, etc.
4) Atheists are liable to lose their jobs and suffer other socioeconomic consequences including kids being ebaten up at school, etc. by all the "loving" believers
need I go on - ?
Best wishes.
The acronym “SSDD” applies to your posts.
We can’t seem to get through to you that quoting from the bible is as effective as quoting from Mother Goose.
So, in light of your posts Paul, please read and heed this “scripture”:
From The Holy Mother Goose, Bunny Foo Foo Chapter 1, Verses 1-3
1) Little Bunny Foo Foo, hoppin' through the forest, scoopin' up the field mice and boppin' em on the head.
2) And down came the Blue Fairy, and she said: “Little Bunny Foo Foo I don't want to see you scoopin' up the field mice and boppin' em on the head.”
3) And now I'll give you three chances, and if you keep it up, I'll turn you into a goon.
See Paul, the magic Blue Fairy (the “jesus” figure in this scripture) will change you into a goon if you don’t stop. The Mother Goose scripture is clear.
You believe this don’t you, Paul? Because you believe in that other fairy tale….
However, I take comfort in the words of the High Priest of the Church of the Holy Water Fowl who said, “We can’t begin to understand, it’s the mystery of Mother Goose”
LOL!
------
Alan - The car in your analogy had a builder. Yes it is a collection of plastic and parts - but it still had a builder, a source, a designer - whatever you want to call it. Conveniently the car just happens to be about just the right size for us wee little humans to drive.
-------
All I'm trying to work on here is whether there are gods, God, Yahweh, higher power, the Great Spirit, buddha god thing, unnamed big bang inventor, Mr. Intelligent Design dude, the Easter Bunny, the great Creator, or something whatever you want to call it.
----
Is the universe finite or infinite?
-----
Is there a better forum to talk about this - I find the comments system here somewhat clumsy.
------
I'm not saying that at all, I guess I didn't make myself clear - you can describe man as a collection of chemicals, as you can describe a car as a collection of parts, but obviously it misses the point. You seem to be hung up on the idea that some external someone or something must have created man in order for him to have a purpose or "meaning." Why not accept that we just are, and realize that it is we who give our lives purpose? And that does not mean that purpose is therefore arbitrary or trivial. A professor once said something that has stuck with me: if we have been asking a question for thousands of years and still don't have an answer, maybe we're asking the wrong question. And it should come as no surprise that Christianity (and religion in general,) has us constantly asking the wrong questions.
As far as I know, I consist largely of elements formed (from hydrogen and helium) in an ancient star that exploded into a super nova some 5 to 8 billion years ago, and the organization of said elements is due to a long process of biological evolution that began some 4 billion years ago. One could also say that I am a collection of subatomic particles, or even quarks, just like inanimate objects are.
Shohn: "The car in your [Alan's] analogy had a builder..."
Right. We know that a large number of people participated in its design, manufacture, sale, and (presumably) maintenance. It's also true that cars can be disassembled and reassembled, that their parts are fungible, and that they only require energy when moving, not standing still. We can say a great many things about cars. Which of these facts do you deem relevant?
Shohn: "Is the universe finite or infinite?"
I don't know. There is some evidence to suggest that it's finite, but nobody knows for sure.
Okay - we're at least getting some
good dialog I think. Let me know if I start to cross the line or violate protocol or something.
With the car analogy - it wasn't my analogy, but I went with it. The point was that it originated from somewhere. We know that our molecular structure seems to continue to go to smaller and smaller levels (e.g., quarks) and at the same time our universe is infinite right? If it is finite - where is the container? Is it the nothingness / vacuum that holds it? Isn't the nothingness in and of itself then something?
Conceeding that there is at least something behind our existence is better that we "just exist", which is all I was going for.
I can also understand where some of you are coming from as far as the following comments - What has "religion" done for us? It has started many wars, but has not advanced our society, etc. I'm with you on some parts of that.
I'm asking if there is something behind all of this (God, Easter Bunny, christian god, Jack the Ripper, Mr. Creator) then that means there are very real next questions.
If the universe is finite, it needn't have a boundary. This is one of the many conceptual errors that amateur cosmologists always fall into. Looking at what's "outside" the finite universe is like looking for a corner on a circle; it's semantic nonsense. This is where mathematics leaves the realm of everyday experience with "classical" physics at macroscopic scales. I must have written this a million times, but simulating the universe in your brain is a fruitless exercise if you rely on naive intuition; I call it armchair cosmology. Does your intuition tell you anything about quantum tunneling? If not, then you cannot expect it to tell you anything useful about cosmology either.
Shohn: "Conceeding that there is at least something behind our existence is better that we 'just exist', which is all I was going for."
But your destination is showing that there is a god, right? If so, then at some point you will be making a fantastic leap from the relatively mundane things we've been discussing thus far. At some point you will claim "God did it!", simply because you see no other way to explain something. How can I say that? Because that's how these discussions always go. There is always a "poof" somewhere in the theists argument; guaranteed. So, keep going, Shohn. See if you can avoid the "poof". I'll be watching... :-)
Conceeding that there is at least something behind our existence is better that we "just exist"
Shohn
Why? Why does there have to be something "behind" our existence?
Sorry man - wasn't trying to drag you down. Sounds like you're a nice enough guy. The concept that something sprung from nothing just doesn't compute for me. I have this intuitive thing etched into my brain /heart/ psyche / whatever you want to call it that says something like "Where did I come from and why?" I'd really like to understand how your answer became "I came from nowhere and it really doesn't matter anyway". Again, not trying to be rude - just wanting to understand.
Piprus - your thing about dogma and ritual is on the surface correct, but I think it is also a critique of something that you don't seem to understand - in fact one of the core messages of "christianity" was that "religion" (i.e., the Pharisees) is bad. It seems like you never really got it - I could be wrong and I'm not trying to be arrogant - honestly, but I think this may be like trying to explain what it is like to have kids to someone who doesn't have them. It just can't be done until they've experienced it. The best comparison I can think of is maybe Jodi Foster's experience at the end of that movie "Contact". She just couldn't explain it.
Even the "believe it or else" line while on the surface I can see how that message would sometimes be received and is often preached, that is not it. "Believe it or else" is forced. Love isn't forced - if someone told you "believe it or else" they had it wrong - the book is very clear about that part.
It's kind of hard to explain though - I guess where I'm struggling is I'm trying to explain something that you probably can't understand because you've never felt it and thus the only channel we can communicate on seems to be reason and "evidence". Things like love, anger, sacrifice, etc. are difficult to explain in terms of reason and that is really the challenge here.
Sheesh I feel like a Muslim saying "You're taking that out of context".
I don't claim to have all the answers, but I can relate to what you're saying about the dogma/rituals. For example, the Catholic church was and still is the worst about twisting the message. The most recent teachings from that church are that all good persons go to heaven even atheists, hindu, and the good muslims, but that is clearly not what the book says. How they got that out of the book is confusing as all get out to me, but it is what it is.
What happened to you guys anyway - a couple of corrupt pastors (gimme your money), a molesting priest, self-righteous people?
Anyway guys - it was certainly nice chatting with all of you, but I feel the steam running out on this thread. Good luck and hopefully not too many angry Christians come here to verbally assault you!
--
Shohn
There are a million things I can't explain; that's precisely why I don't explain them. Quantum mechanics and cosmology (and even to some extent biological evolution) violate everyday intuition; that's why I don't insist that they conform to my intuition. Maybe it's my background in mathematics and science, but I've learned that there is far more to thinking than listening to one's gut. The gut thing is fine for some things, such as trying to find your way back to the highway when you're lost in an unfamiliar city, or even when you're trying to figure out what problem to work on next in a scientific discipline. But one's gut has absolutely no authority when it comes to determining how things actually are. In fact, it's often quite the opposite, and for good reason. The gray matter between our ears is honed for an existence on the surface of a planet where water is predominantly in a liquid state; we interact with things that are macroscopic, yet are small enough that gravitational forces are insignificant and space-time curvature are unnoticeable; Our lives are so short we don't even notice the drift of continents or the progress of glaciers; Our native logic is just adequate for quickly apprehending danger, recognizing kin, and keeping track of who owes what to whom. When we put before our brains the task of determining where life came from, why anything exists, or how we came to be the way we are, we must reason well beyond what our intuitions are prepared to handle. It's rather remarkable that we can do it at all. But the key has consistently been to ask questions, then let nature answer; that's what science does. When we impose our inner-most feeling on the world, it's no surprise that the world ends up looking a lot like us. That is what religion does. It elevates feelings to the level of absolute truth.
You are quite welcome to believe what you wish, and for any reason you wish. But there are some of us who insist on trying to grapple with what is "out there" rather than simply what we feel "in here". I do not mean to disparage the latter. I've said many times that intuition and emotion are vitally important to us. But to live by either logic or intuition alone is like trying to clap with one hand. Without intuition, one would not feel motivation to act. Without reason, one's actions would have little to do with reality--they are simply emotions writ large.
I've spent a good deal of my life pondering the big questions, and trying to learn all I can about what we known today, and how we came to know it. One of the most stunningly clear conclusions I've come to is that the elaborate edifice of religion is a castle built of human emotion; it's a self-portrait of humanity that captures our needs, our fears, our ways of influencing one another, and our most elemental understanding of how to survive--by seeking to gain favor with and thereby influence the dominant member(s) of our tribe. If there is a god or goddess out there other than the ones we've created, she has not deigned to bring this fact to our attention, and I refuse to invent her for the mere convenience of explaining that which I cannot otherwise explain. I think there is far more wisdom and infinitely greater potential in saying "I don't know."
Thanks for being respectful of my beliefs - I'll try to be as respectful of yours in return, but I'm not perfect - I'm going to ramble a bit - you have been warned!
So let me get this straight - we shouldn't live our lives by logic or intuition alone - yet the only thing that is valid for explaining our world is logic and we should focus our efforts on understanding what is "out there" and not "in here".
Or is it that we should focus on what is "out there" because that is where the greatest benefit to humanity as a species is or that is what helps us feel like we are something more than just a randomly thrown together collection of atoms and quarks. Is that perhaps on a personal level, given your skills and abilities, that science is what affords you the greatest opportunity to contribute to the preservation of the human race and that lets you fill the emptiness?
If there is no God and all we are is atoms / quarks / random electric currents, etc. then nothing we do matters because in the end we're still just dust. What value is there in preserving dust?
Now, I'm not saying that understanding scientifically how our world works is pointless because I do believe science and math has helped us out quite a bit. Cars and computers, and voice activated contraptions, and nuclear bombs and missiles so we can better fight our religious wars, space shuttles, and photon torpedoes, and maybe one day a real moon base or hotel.
You and I could argue all day back and forth about the values of science vs. religion and logic vs. intuition and emotion. Net net I think I we would both agree that "religion" is bad when used to advance "evil" and so is science, but both can be used for good as well - but to sit there and say that there is nothing behind our intuition reduces the concept of good and evil right and wrong to futility.
I'm still struggling with what exactly is so bad about the "biblical" message of "christianity" at least in its pure form.
Love the Creator, love your neighbor. Love your enemy. Don't kill people. Help your neighbor. Don't be hypocrital / self righteous, etc. and yes all of you are "sinners", but don't worry I'm going to become one of you so that we can both hang out after I die for all of you who are interested in me. Oh and yes that means there's more to life than emptiness and that instinctive intuition that I built into you tells you so and yes it is actually right.
How exactly does that hurt us as a species, if not at least giving quite a few of us a sense of hope?
Sure, I'll be the first to admit that there are plenty of people who twist the message. Love God or else you will burn in hell or simply die and yes if you want to say it that way I guess that is okay. Kind of harsh, but okay.
I think of it more as this spiritual father and his woman side got together one day and said -- Gee whiz - I feel kind of alone - I should make something. S
So he setup this thing called life so you could hopefully reach inside yourself and realize that he made you and that there is nothing you can do to ever change is love for you, but if you don't want love him back, then he still loves you enough to say okay. Like a father saying you will always be my son and there is nothing you can do to ever change my love for you, but you're not getting the keys to the car unless you finish your homework.
That this life lasts what seems like a long time to you, but is not even in time for him, and that time is a gift designed for you just so that you could experience the ups and downs of life prior to entry to paradise so that you'd actually be able to truly appreciate it. To be provided good times and bad and showing you through analogy what he feels like as you turn away from him by what it feels like to have your own children make mistakes and turn away from you.
Do those of us who feel this way about God really suffer from some kind of mass delusion that only the lords of science are smart enough to figure out and eventually explain away?
Why do science and God or whatever you want to call Him or Her have to be mutually exclusive to be able to make sense of this life and this world?
No, this wasn't addressed to me, but I'd rather go before Jim Arvo, than after = )
To any Christian: If you "KNOW" you're guaranteed a life of unadulterated eternal bliss in the clouds, this, for merely professing belief in "the one True God"---then it stands to reason that you "KNOW" you'll later on have an "eternal" amount of time to do what "really matters", and/or, whatEVER you passed up in this life. Yes? Yes, it would only make perfect sense.
Question: Then why does anything "matter" in this life, other than kneeling once or twice a week and professing your "God? Who cares about hugging a child in this life, when you could be praying to get into the next, instead? Who cares about family, friends, work, ANYTHING in this life, when you could be spending that time doing what it takes to get into the next life?---doing what "really matters"?
In fact, since you'll have an "infinite" amount of time to do what "really matters" in "heaven", then why don't all Christians grab up their loved ones tonight, and go play in traffic until they're "called to God", thus, getting a free ticket to the place where you can do what "matters" the most?
It might seem insensitive the way I posed it, but it's a valid question, especially if people are going to asssume that because this life "ends", then nothing in this life should "matter". Quite selfish and arrogant, too, I might add.
I'm still struggling with what exactly is so bad about the "biblical" message of "christianity" at least in its pure form.
Pure form, free form, rare form, reform---Christianity is a very EXCLUSIVE "club". It's "bylaws" CANNOT be questioned. Even if the Chairman of the Board is a sadistic tyrant and turns your stomach; even if this club doesn't interest you----guess what?..... you're incinerated.
One needn't "struggle" to see that "Club Christo" has a very CONDITIONAL "membership". And don't hand me your "free gift" bullshit, either.
Let me try to summarize what I think you are saying - hey God and your "children" - go f*ck yourself.
Did I misunderstand :)
When you say "came from nowhere" you must be referring to the big bang, since everything is traceable to some extent after that. As far as what caused the universe to exist I am perfectly happy to say "I don't know" and follow the developments in science as best I can. My sense of purpose or meaning or whatever you want to call it does not depend on knowing why the universe came into being or why humans exist on the Earth. I not saying it doesn't matter but like I said earlier, these are questions that people have been asking for thousands of years and we still don't have the answers, and I think we waste too much time trying to "figure it all out." There are a number of mythologies to try to explain "why," including Christianity, and none of them are credible IMO. And if you just absolutely have to know "why" before you can feel you have a sense of purpose or meaning or whatever in life, then you are going to have to subscribe to one of those mythologies, or make up your own.
You mention a false dichotomy that either there is a God, or else we are just the result of random processes. From what I understand of physics matter does organize itself, there are large-scale structures in the universe that are not random, and obviously we are not random chemicals, we are thinking human beings. Evolution is not a random process (although random mutations play a part,) it is an adaptive process. The good parts of Christianity you mention are good. But you don't need a supreme being in order to love others, prohibit crime, not be a hypocrite, and behave in a positive and responsible way. In fact I think these good things are better if there is no supreme being, since they are proof that the human race is capable of behaving in a civilized fashion without a "cosmic parent" to enforce the rules. Maybe you can explain to me why man can't be good or meaningful or have a purpose without this supreme being. And science and God aren't mutually exclusive, there's just no evidence that God exists. The only "proof" is the Bible, which is a questionable document at best, and various psychological phenomena, which can be explained without invoking spirits or the supernatural.
What's the problem with believing in a religion? Well first off, not all Christians are like you - many are into the fire-and-brimstone thing and they want to shape public policy accordingly. Religions in general are anti-democratic, they promote an obey-the-king mentality. Religion gets people thinking in simplistic terms of black-and-white and good-and-evil, and has them looking for simple answers to complex problems. Religion wants to deny science, since science keeps making it look bad. And with Christianity there is this idea that the Earth is just a temporary place, so if we wreck it, well that's just part of the grand plan, right?
I don't agree with the explanation of many events (e.g., miracles, life transformations) as you suggested, but I'm okay to agree to disagree on that for now.
Are you a physics nut by chance? I have a site I'd like a couple of you guys to check out to get your thoughts on the physics - does it hold water.
If your god is supernatural and 100% transcendent, then it's 0% understandable by a natural person such as yourself.
In order for you to chop science down, so that it is equal to the 0% understandable supernatural belief system - you'd have to suggest that science is not even 0% understandable.
You lose, if that is your intent. However, maybe you just like a change from the Christian religion, and talking about something that is real for a change.
Let me try to summarize what I think you are saying - hey God and your "children" - go f*ck yourself.
Did I misunderstand :)
Hey Shohn, nah, that would be as useless as telling Amon Ra and his "children" to go f%ck themselves. I am saying, however, f%ck ALL legendary thinking, including Christianity......so you're pretty close.
Moving on, I asked a valid question in regards to your implication that if life's "events" are temporal(in the eyes of a non-theist), then they must be meaningless. I guess you don't have an answer to my question.
Or did I misunderstand = ) ?
Let me ask you this. Is it important to you to understand how the world really operates (as best you can), or are you more concerned with being comforted by your beliefs, whether or not they are true? Forget the should / shouldn't for a moment -- that's for another discussion. If it's the former, then you cannot expect intuition to get you there. This I can demonstrate in many ways, and I've already alluded to some of them. If it's the latter you're after (i.e. comfort), then I don't see any need to be overly concerned with checking facts scientifically. You can get there through many inventive means; at least in a society where there are others to look after the reality-based stuff, like medicine and agriculture. And I don't mean that derisively. I truly mean that it is an option before you, as many an artist and poet have demonstrated, often to the enrichment of others.
But if you want to know whether your view of the world is accurate or not (for whatever reason you might cite, be it altruistic or purely personal), then I see no way to avoid testing your ideas against reality, and then accepting what reality has to say, at least provisionally. That is science in a nutshell--it's really nothing more than that. You don't need to wear a white lab coat to do it. All you need to do is ask questions, and try your best not to color the answers with your own desires.
Let me put this another way. You ask what's so bad about the "message" of Christianity. That's a value judgment, and I was not speaking to that in what I wrote above. However, if you were to ask me whether the stories in the Bible are true, or whether the Bible is the word of god, then I insist that we test these claims in whatever manner we can before making a determination, and NOT settle for consulting our feelings on the matter. The reason for this should be clear; how we feel about something needn't have much to do with whether it is true or not. Does that make sense to you? Please, let's stop here and agree on this point, if possible, before going any further. If we cannot agree on this fairly straightforward point, then it's futile to address other more complex topics.
We probably won't be able to get much further than this because my next question would be "How do you define reality?" Is this reality simply the physical world that we can measure and make statements on whether something is likely to remain true based on empirical evidence alone?
I think your question is HOW can I scientifically define the reality that I am in, indeed that we are all in, and I'm asking something more like "How do you know you're not some brain sitting in a jar on God's desk?". Would any amount of scientific or "emotional" evidence be able to refute or prove that?
Your answer is probably going to be - well I can measure it and if I can't then one day science will.
One day science will be able to prove that people love or hate each other.
I'm with you in that the feelings in the sense of the reality that I think you are going to define would not be useful from a purely scientific basis for determining how the sun works or how the laws of the universe work in this thing we call reality.
However, to the degree that science can not measure intuition or the space of consciousness it just seems like use science alone is limiting the scope.
If I ask "Do you love your mother/daughter, wife, friends, or whatever - then prove it"
The response I'm getting seems to be
"I'm can't because I can't provide any scientific proof - besides those things don't matter for defining how the universe works"
In essence, saying yes feelings and all that junk are valuable - after all we are human; however, feelings and intuition are not useful for anything other than the preservation of the species and are really not much beyond an ant's need or function to be social with the ant colony. Once again, in effect, nothing much more than dust.
I know there is a God, but I think you remain unconvinced and that is okay, but let's just say that there was in this line of questioning.
If there were this "all-knowing" deity, then would it not make sense for this all-knowing deity thing to put some physical laws that define how the little world he made work?
Why are the two mutually exclusive?
There are things that science can't explain and there are things that "religion" or the spiritual side of us can't explain yet at the end of the day all of you seem to know that "human" life has value otherwise you would not be here trying to make people's lives better and support them in what you otherwise perceive to be a waste of people's lives.
I have never said science was a waste or without value, all I'm saying is that using it alone is limiting the scope . Perhaps this is not much different than a "christian" using one "variant" of that "religion" to define what he knows about God - the Great Spirit or the giant spaghetti ball tosser or whatever you want to call him.
I suppose it depends upon how you define humanity.
If humanity is in fact nothing more than atoms and quarks - then at this moment were are in fact nothing more than atoms and quarks debating and truly it is almost comical that your atoms and quarks insistent are that what my atoms and quarks know to be true is wrong and vice versa. Atoms and quarks then arguing over what constitutes self worth and value in their "lives". Would that constitute a joke?
I've said nothing even remotely approaching this. Please quote me, and explain how you got this.
Shoh: "...I think your question is HOW can I scientifically define the reality that I am in, indeed that we are all in, and I'm asking something more like 'How do you know you're not some brain sitting in a jar on God's desk?'. Would any amount of scientific or 'emotional' evidence be able to refute or prove that?"
I cannot prove that I am not a brain in a vat. I cannot prove that I am not the plaything of some invisible being. I cannot prove that all of reality is not a projection of my imagination. If you wish to argue that any of these things pertain, then please go right ahead. Until there is some reason for me to suspect that any of the above might be true, I will continue to assume that they are not. Does that seem like an unreasonable position to you?
Your worldview seems to hinge on a deep desire for certainty, and an ineffable trust in what you feel to be true. Mine hinges on testing assertions to see if what I and others suspect actually corresponds to something real--something that is more than a projection of what I wish to see. I see your position as unreliable, and you probably see mine as unreasonable.
Shohn: "Your answer is probably going to be - well I can measure it and if I can't then one day science will."
No! That's a ridiculous statement! Please refrain from attributing any such assertion to me. Is there some way I could test such an assertion? No, there is not. Hence, it would be a baseless conjecture.
Shohn: "However, to the degree that science can not measure intuition or the space of consciousness it just seems like use science alone is limiting the scope."
Yikes. No! I'm going to ask my question again. Please cut and paste this into your reply, and do not tamper with the wording at all. Please address this question, precisely as I've asked it.
=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=
Is it important to you to understand how the world really operates (as best you can)?
=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=
That will be a yes or a no. If no, then we honestly have nothing to discuss. If yes, then we can compare notes about how we go about this. Does this make sense to you? Yes or no.
Shohn: "If I ask 'Do you love your mother/daughter, wife, friends, or whatever - then prove it'"
We can perhaps make some progress if you drop the word "proof" altogether. I demand no "proof" from you. You will get no "proof" from me. All talk of "proof" is nonsense to me, unless you want to talk about mathematics, which would be an entirely different discussion. So, let's talk about evidence. Yes, of course I can give you evidence that I love my friends and family. Although what I mean by "love" may not be precisely what you mean by "love", as we are both humans, we will share at least some of the same ideas, and those ideas will manifest themselves in similar ways. I don't see anything so mysterious as you do here.
It would probably also be useful to stop using the modifier "scientific". When I use it, all I mean is an attempt to see past one's preconceptions and prejudices. When believers use it, it's almost a pejorative, conjuring a stuffy insistence that there is only one way to think, and all else is bunk. More on this below.
Shohn: "The response I'm getting seems to be..."
In every case that your have tried to echo what you heard from me, you replace openness with dogmatism, and you replace critical thinking with narrow-mindedness. Perhaps you should simply state your own case instead of trying to paraphrase mine. I try my best to be patient, but in all honestly, I do not have infinite tolerance for having my words tortured so, and I'd rather not let this degenerate into a heated exchange. Understood?
Shohn: "...feelings and intuition are not useful for anything other than the preservation of the species and are really not much beyond an ant's need or function to be social with the ant colony. Once again, in effect, nothing much more than dust."
Okay, I have no idea where any of this came from. Is this supposed to be a paraphrasing of my position, or something that you think follows from what I said? As I pointed out earlier, if we cannot agree to the most basic things, none of the subsequent rhetoric will make any sense at all, as you demonstrated here.
Shohn: "I know there is a God,..."
You believe there is a god, yes. And you correctly stated that I am unconvinced.
Shohn: "If there were this 'all-knowing' deity, then would it not make sense for this all-knowing deity thing to put some physical laws that define how the little world he made work?"
I don't know.
Shohn: "Why are the two mutually exclusive?"
What two?
Shohn: "...all of you seem to know that 'human' life has value otherwise you would not be here trying to make people's lives better..."
There is no way we can communicate our positions to each other concerning "values" until the much more basic things are sorted out (if, indeed, that is even possible). So I'm not even going to attempt a reply to that at the moment.
Shohn: "...using it [science] alone is limiting the scope."
I think you are wrestling a straw man. Can you point to anybody here who has implied that science is the only way to obtain information about the world? I will state my position on it. If you wish to address it, please quote it verbatim in your reply.
By "science" I mean the practices that tend to mitigate our built-in prejudices and our common errors in reasoning, thereby allowing us to be more objective in our observations of what is around us. I believe it to be the best tool for gaining knowledge that has yet been discovered/invented. I do not claim that it is the only such tool, as I have no way, even in principle, to arrive at that conclusion.
Please note all the qualifiers. I