Forum Best Bits

[Nearly Sane]

Great post from Dicky Underpants on SfG


You might also have quoted:

"That is why We ordained for the Children of Israel that whoever takes a life—unless as a punishment for murder or mischief in the land—it will be as if they killed all of humanity; and whoever saves a life, it will be as if they saved all of humanity. 1 ˹Although˺ Our messengers already came to them with clear proofs, many of them still transgressed afterwards through the land."
Surah Al-Ma'idah - 32 - Quran. (A form of the latter sentiment is also found in the Jewish Talmud.)

So, Alan, what you've done is a nice bit of cherry picking. Others have pointed out how absurdly blinkered your view is in claiming the unique divine inspiration of the Christian bible. You then try to save face by painting yourself as a kind of Marcionite, distancing yourself from the Old Testament entirely. In so doing you both manage to overlook the many of the of noble texts in the OT, and fail to acknowledge the many passages of nastiness in the NT, all of which certainly do not portray the meek and mild Jesus you think is totally representative.

Besides which, I believe someone also pointed out that Jesus considered the Tanakh to be divine truth, and specifically the first five books which are known as The Law. You surely know the text:
"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets. I have not come to abolish them, but to fulfil them. For I tell you truly, until heaven and earth pass away, not a single jot, not a stroke of a pen, will disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. So then, whoever breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do likewise will be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever practices and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.…"
Matt 5:18
And those books contain the lurid Numbers 31, which Jeremy has mentioned.



To add a little balance to your one-sided view, have to consider that Islam could hardly have built the two great civilisations centred on Baghdad and Cordoba, noted for their religious inclusiveness and cooperation (especially Cordoba) if the central message of Islam were the bloodthirsty caricature that your quotes foist upon it. It's true that many movements within Islam today seem to be moving in that direction, and you certainly won't find me citing Islam as the answer to human problems. The latter movements are certainly inspired by the texts you mention: likewise the gun-carrying Evangelical Christian right in America are no doubt inspired by the wonderful text in Luke:

“He said to them, ‘But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one.’”
Luke 22:36

The latter are probably fond of this too:
Then He will say to those on His left, 'Depart from Me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.
Matt 7:23
Those gun-tooting Yankies sure think they're standing at God's right hand.

[Nearly Sane]

From jeremyp on the Horizon Post Office schedule, including my that he was replying to for context

Then given she was in part given it for her services to the Post Office, it seems to me you are happy to not support the state honouring someone for actions that led to suicides. And yes, it's a minimal thing but one you are choosing not to do.

Devil's advocate argument here...

She assumed the position of Post Office CEO after most of the Horizon cases had already occurred so you can't blame her for the fiasco that was Horizon. She was in charge during all the covering up and obstruction and so on but I wonder how much she actually knew. You could argue that she should have made it her business to know, especially as she had to answer difficult questions in Parliament and in court (oh, actually not the latter according to ITV), but who of us has not let things slide when it might make our lives a bit more difficult to do the right thing. And, before you say "not me" just remember that, according to the ITV drama, this is exactly how a number of sub postmasters got criminal records. It's entirely possible that Paula Vennells was just grossly incompetent and unfit to hold the post of CEO of any kind of organisation.

Anyway, I was so angry after watching the first two episodes of the ITV series that I had to stop. I have since calmed down and watched the second two episodes but I'm still pretty upset because, as a person who worked in the industry of bespoke computer systems for ten years, including the period when Horizon must have been written, I know that the claim "it couldn't be the computer system" is utterly false. I would laugh in your face if you made the claim of any such system.

Furthermore, I know, if the Post Office had accepted that it could be the computer system, it would have been fixed quicker and fewer lives would have been destroyed. As an example, consider one of the early scenes where Jo Hamilton had a deficit of £2,000 and rang the "help" line to try to resolve it. Had they taken the line "oh it's a bug in Horizon" they would have logged a defect, the discrepancy would be accounted for and the software would have been fixed. Jo would not have had to answer criminal charges and neither would a lot of sub postmasters who fell foul of the same bug.

It was all so fucking unprofessional, even before we get to the cover ups and the obstruction. People need to go to prison for this. And yes, Paula Vennells needs to be stripped of her CBE which she gained under false pretences.

[Nearly Sane]

Excellent clear post from Enki on the neverending Searching for God

The evidence lies in your ability to think - to guide your own thoughts.

That's an assertion, not evidence. For it to be evidence you would have to demonstrate that it is impossible for you(i.e. your brain) to be able to guide your thoughts without recourse to something 'beyond what nature alone can give'. This you have not done.

Can you not see how impossible it would be for reasoned arguments and verifiable conclusions to just drop out from the unavoidable, inevitable consequences of physically defined material reactions?

The answer to that is 'No'. Again this is not evidence, only an appeal to something that you believe is impossible and obviously think that others should also believe is impossible.

You can try to explain it all away by quoting the complexity of neural connections and pathways, but the bottom line is that in any material model we have no control over the physically defined material reactions in the human brain.

I am not explaining something 'away', I am attempting to explain it. As you do not give any evidence for your statement, then, bottom line or not, it simply comes over as yet another assertion.

The only feasible explanation for our ability to guide our own thoughts comes from the miraculous power of our conscious awareness to interact rather than just react in order to give us the freedom we all enjoy.

Once you use the word 'miraculous' you seem to give up all hope of trying to convince  by using evidence. Anyone can say just about anything is 'miraculous'. It explains nothing and is simply a fatuous use of language to attempt to convince by underhand methods. Not only is it silly, but it is wrong. For instance here is an eminently feasible and detailed explanation(there are others available) which discusses what parts are played by conscious and unconscious thought, no 'beyond what nature alone can give' in sight!

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3724120/

To sum up. I asked you to produce evidence to support your conclusions. You have given none. My conclusion is that you are probably unable to do so and all you can produce are vague, half digested ideas which collapse as soon as they are put under scrutiny.

[Nearly Sane]

And also from Enki on the Rosario Butterfield thread


Dear Rosaria,
I know that you would probably resent or ignore this, but, nevertheless, I feel that perhaps you or your supporters may benefit from this advice.

In response to your video may I suggest that you try to show a little generosity of attitude towards people who just want to live their lives as they choose  within a Christian framework and without harming others. I realise you are basically talking to other Christians, but, instead of trying to divide, wouldn't it be better to show humility before your God by showing respect towards others, even if you disagree with them. After all, they look upon themselves as truly Christian also.
Perhaps it would give you a genuine feeling of accomplishment if you tried to respect other people's sexual differences and showed a charitable approach towards them, rather than labelling them and their practices as sinful. Your whole approach doesn't really show you in a particularly good light, does it as you tend to come across as an extremely bigoted and harsh individual who has decided that your way is the only way for Christians?

[Nearly Sane]

From Aruntraveller on the Rosario Butterfield thread


I've no idea whether Sririam thinks that.

All I can say is that heterosexuality never seems to be subject to the same kind of blanket ignorance that is so often used by some about the "homosexual lifestyle"

Homosexuals like heterosexuals are not an homogenous group. The only thing that one homosexual definitely has in common with another is that they are attracted to the same sex. That is it.

Any use of pejorative terms applied to "homosexuals" based on a perceived lifestyle is a futile exercise. We are every bit as diverse as heterosexuals. As such a point of view about my lifestyle based on my being gay is not viable.

My homosexuality tells him next to nothing about my lifestyle except that I love men, and he is being stupid if he thinks it does. If he judges me on the fact that I love men then he is foolish because it is one of the less interesting facts about me. That goes for others on here who fail to use the brain cells they claim God has given them.

Sweet Jesus, I'm 67 and still explaining simple concepts to the hard of thinking.

[Nearly Sane]

Post from Outrider on SfG

You, like many others, seem to misunderstand what I mean by free will - it does not mean free of constraints.

No, I don't. You continue to straw-man what I, and others, are saying.

Any form of consciously driven will is free in the context of it not being just an inevitable reaction beyond your conscious control.

You see, that's what I'm trying to explain - it explicitly IS an inevitable reaction beyond our conscious control. Our sense of 'conscious control' is itself an inevitable consequence of the particular prior events.

If you are in conscious control of your thoughts, words and actions then you have the gift of free will.

That sense of 'conscious control' is illusory, it doesn't reflect reality.

The materialistic alternative is that you are entirely driven by material reactions beyond your conscious control.

Exactly. Your arguments against this conclusion appear to be, primarily, a combination of arguments from consequence (you don't like the implications of this) and arguments from authority (my favourite group of Big Book of Bedtime Stories supporters says this can't be true).

It is either your conscious self in control or the uncontrollable laws of nature - there is no alternative.

Well, no. There is either our 'conscious self' - which is an uncontrollable effect of nature - or it's our subconscious activity - an uncontrollable effect of nature - or there's the possibility that it's functionally random result of particular quantum events - an uncontrollable effect of nature.

We appear to be a consequence, not an uncaused cause.

O.

[Nearly Sane]

From Gordon


My take is that hitting small people is no different to hitting large people: it is assault in both cases, and is arguably worse when an adult assaults a child.

It's not my idea of good parenting, hence I've never lifted my hands no matter how annoying or provocatively the kids behaved (and now grandkids, who permanently live with us) - not because I'm any kind of saint, but because I think that if I did then I would be behaving badly and would be compromising my own personal standards.

It has been illegal here in Scotland since November 2020, and as far as I'm aware it isn't contentious.

[Nearly Sane]

Post of admirable clarity, with a final mic drop of honesty from Enki in SfG in reply to Vlad.

I think you would agree, though, that a good dictionary would have a more extensive definition than that. After all conscious and supernatural would describe a ghost or an angel.

I was simply trying to give as broad a definition as possible. If you have a better one I'd certainly consider it.

 

Consciousness is hard to pin down and as with the terms Universe and time there are different views on them. How do you feel about an unconscious supernatural necessary entity?

My view is that there are at least as many problems with a necessary entity as with infinite contingency. If there was a necessary entity I tend to think that it would be natural rather than supernatural because I have no evidence that the supernatural exists at all. As I also have no evidence whatever that any godlike being exists, then, if a necessary entity exists, I tend to think it would be some sort of inanimate thing/process/whatever. The bottom line for me is I don't know if it(or they) exist or if it does, then I don't know what form it takes. 

Yes, I think you have rightly touched on how fundamental and ultimate the necessary entity would be. I’m not a great one for talk of the supernatural because of it’s perjorative baggage, or the “natural/supernatural” divide. However, as evidenced by resistance to it on here at least, non- contingency is not a staple part of naturalism. The concern and focus on cause and effect and change has led to it’s sidelining and forgetting. Having said that there is no justification for the conclusion, therefore it doesn’t exist or for some of the fantastical intellectual contortions to get round the necessary entity.

So I would say a universe popping out of nothing, or existing infinitely, or creating itself or causal loops are beyond the natural....or supernatural.

Secondly, being fundamental. The necessary entity would not itself be subject to the laws of nature for everything else. So whether something like that can be described as natural,I’m not sure.

See my previous response.

Which brings us to consciousness.
I believe I have said because the necessary entity is not subject to any laws it gives rise to. Why these laws arise is indistinguishable from volition or will. Will is a sign of consciousness. Being fundamental, there is no context for any randomness or unconsciousness, or accident.

I see no reason, if there is a necessary entity, for any volition or will to be involved at all, just as I see no volition or will involved in the four fundamental forces in physics. Indeed, quantum effects could be part of it in some way. If so, then the random element might well play an important part.

Basically like everyone else, I'm pissing in the dark.

[Nearly Sane]

A small extract from one of jeremyp's posts



'If God is unchanging, he could he reveal himself to us? That would involve him changing.'

Larger post here
https://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=10333.msg887580#msg887580

[Nearly Sane]

From Christine on the UK Election Trans Discussion thread:


You can pass a law to say wolves are legally sheep. It doesn't make it true.

If I'd been asked to sign off my work emails with 'Christ is King' or some such, and my boss was sending me emails signed off with 'Christ is King' and told me I was a bigot for thinking that personal politics should be kept out of work and that being openly atheist was a daily insult akin to using racial slurs to my Christian colleagues, presumably O, BHS and PD would be on my side?

The willingness of supposedly left wing people to disregard not just women's voices and concerns, but material reality, in order to support a irrational ideology that benefits men at the expense of women and children (based in Queer Theory which suggests there's no such thing as objective reality) has certainly opened my eyes.

I've not got much option but to be "obsessed" at the moment, chaps. I'm unemployed. Judicial mediation of my ET claim is in less than 3 weeks. I'm not crowd funding, I'm paying solicitors out of my savings, because I don't want to divert scarce resources from other women worse off than me. My union PCS (37 years of subs) didn't support me despite the internal investigation that confirmed discrimination and harassment and support from the local rep. If I could afford it I'd sue them too.

[Aruntraveller]

From NS on the Stockport thread, making me even more angry and sad than I was already:

I listen to the news on this, and see the rioting, read the comments on twitter about taking back 'our country', and feel the inchoate rage driving it. I hear Peter Finch as Howard Beale in Network screaming 'I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take it anymore'. I think the madness has grown since 1976. Times change ever quicker, increasing lack of certainty. The 1970s were characterised as the 'me decade', we now live in the 'who is me' 15 minutes.


The need to have a villain to hate has been abused many times in history by grifters, madmen, megalomaniacs, and now is no different. There's an episode of Buffy The Vampire Slayer where demons exploit the fictional murders of children to feed off the hatred caused by a witch hunt following those murders, and that plays in my head watching the manipulation that followed the tragic events in Southport.

The creation of the villains allows the mess of life, the dark depressing bits, to have some sense made of them. Hitler saw that and used it to indulge his own fuming hatred. Some just see a chance at celebrity, an opportunity to make their own small lives mean something. They tell stories of new world orders, and grand conspiracies which link everything since if you just join the dots you see the big picture that must be true. So the violence in Leeds, in Southend, and Manchester Airport, are all building to the murders of 3 girls at a Taylor Swift dance class. The shocking madness of what happened which is impossible to process is explained, and given meaning.


And my mind plays the imagined screams of those poor children.

[Nearly Sane]

From Christine


Apart from the people, like me, who've lost their jobs; women questioned by police for stating the simple truth that men aren't women; the women locked up in prison with men; women and girls losing out to men who pretend to think they're women so they can win prizes at sport; children being told at primary school that they might have been born in the wrong body; female nurses being ogled by a pervert while they change into their uniforms; disabled women unable to insist on same-sex initimate care. This list is not exhaustive.

Oh yeah, and the gay, lesbian and bisexual people who had their meeting disrupted by young idiots who've swallowed a load of irrational nonsense releasing thousands of insects in the venue to try to prevent them from speaking. Happily, they didn't succeed.

By "people's lives" you presumably mean your life?

[Nearly Sane]

From Gabrella on SfG


Yes agreed about the power hungry shepherds - they would exist in any sphere including politics - so what you see as one of the problems of religion is that it is basically politics with woo.

Religion does not exist in a vacuum - on a personal level it is part of culture and shaped by culture and also shapes culture. On a collective level, humans are already tribal and divided and religion is one tool to be employed to react against or harness already existing divisions amongst humans.

Divisions and internal / external threats pre-existed religion for each community or society. So if some bright spark came up with a religion to counteract or neutralise a perceived external or internal threat and it worked by uniting people against the perceived threat or by enabling people to dig deep to have resilience against the threat or to cope with the threat, then it's not surprising if people see religion as a useful tool and keep using it and passing it onto their children.

Many people often face real threats to their health, lives, community and way of life so they'll push back. Some use religion to push back in the political sphere or in times of war - but you can't isolate religion as being the factor that allows leaders to brainwash people into fighting for their cause or country, as leaders would still be brainwashing people without religion - because humans can be brainwashed and leaders like to lead.

[Nearly Sane]

From Prof D on the assisted dying thread


Sure, there is definitely a difference between accessing treatment and refusing it - for a competent person the latter is an absolute right, the former is a limited right, limited by the law and the treatment being one of an accepted set of options for the individual's clinical condition. If assisted dying were made legal it would be added to the range of other options (which currently may include further active disease treatment and palliative care) for a competent adult with a terminal illness and less than 6 months life prognosis.

But for a person with those features I don't see why it should be, or would be, any less limited as an option and a right compared to the other options. I don't think you would be expected to, or should be expected to, demonstrate that you have exhausted other options, just as someone currently doesn't need to demonstrate that they have exhausted active disease treatment options before being able to access palliative care. If a competent individual determines that they do not wish to continue to pursue active disease treatment for whatever reason then their decision is respected. That should be the case too for assisted dying. Within the limits of the law (competent adult with a terminal illness and less than 6 months life prognosis) then they should be able to choose not to continue active disease treatment and/or palliative care and should be able to consent to assisted dying and have their decision respected.

Another point - my understanding from other jurisdictions, e.g. Oregon, is that we aren't in the world of palliative vs assisted dying as an either/or choice. Rather most people will move through each stage - so those that ultimately opt for assisted dying will have spent months on palliative case before finally opting for assisted dying when the palliative care no longer works for them. There is often a focus on pain, but actually autonomy, being able to make decisions for yourself and being able to have some kind of quality of life I think are just as important. The challenge for palliative care (even the very best, and I've seen it) is that it trades off pain relief for loss of decision making and autonomy as the person becomes increasingly more sedated.

Certainly, from my perspective, and from watching both my parents and in-laws die I can understand how individuals may not wish to go through that very last stage, which often seems to be hugely distressing for the individual, but without any way in which their distress can be meaningfully managed. But that stage is often perhaps just a few days, maybe a week. So it may well be the case that assisted dying is commonly used in the last few days as a choice to remove that horrible end stage (it certainly seemed horrible for both my parents, who were being cared for in an award-winning palliative care setting), rather than in the last few months.