... Of 'fundamentalism' and 'delusion'.

I have often referred to 'fundamentalism' as being dangerous, and I maintain that. Of course it is my opinion. And I think it is important to distinguish and denounce 'fundamentalism' and the people whom adopt the fundamentalist, AKA 'fundies', attitudes and behaviors, and practice fundamentalism as a militant way of life.

Fundamentalism requires of the person whom adopts the fundamentalist attitudes and way of life, to accept the delusional dimension of fundamentalism.

To be clear about the termilogy and its pertinence in these forums, here what 'Webster' offers for 'to delude', and 'delusion', or the adjective 'delusional' :

To delude:
"... To cause to entertain foolish or erroneous notions; to lead from truth or into error; to mislead; to beguile..."

Delusion, delusional adj.:
"... the act of deluding; the state of being deluded or misled; false impression or belief; abnormal phenomenon whereby a belief is held in the presence of evidence normally sufficient to deatroy it..."

Fundamentalism requires of its militant practitionners, fundamentalists (aka, fundies), that they '... lead from the truth'. In this case, an absolute truth based on the inerrancy (error free nature) of a book.

While people can personnally beleive anything they wish, to confuse a belief for a fact, is at best a '... false impression or a false belief'. To carry that belief as fact in the public space, is where the false starts having consequences.

To stick to that confusion in a public place, in spite of others pointing to the delusion, and refuse to even consider the evidence, is to '... entertain foolish or erroneous notions', and insist on '... leading into error, and thus mislead'. This where the behavior becomes "... an abnormal phenomenon whereby a belief is held in the presence of evidence normally sufficient to destroy it...".

Knowkingly adopting delusional attitudes and behavior as required by fundamentalism, and as practiced by militant fundamentalists, on a free and open general opinion PUBLIC FORUM', which requires that they impose their pontificating truths upon others, is at best inappropriate, and at worst, plain wrong.

To denounce this state of affairs is a must. And no amount of intimidation, threats, or censorship will ever change the fact that an open public forum is not a fundamentalist training ground for biblical fundamentalism and their militant fundamentalists, nor is it a place to practice moral correction of people's comments based on personnal biblical interpretation.

To keep confusing these simple notions, is being delusional.

To put in a light that fundamentalists will certainly realte to, much like some believers of fundamentalism treat 'Homosexuality' as the sin to be hated, and the 'homosexual' as the person to be loved, so it is with delusional fundamentalism, and the people whom practice it.

People whom practice fundamentalism, I love you all.

But when you insist on practicing your brand of fundamentalism on a 'free and open forum to all beliefs and faiths', you are adopting delusional behaviors, and you can count on me to remind of that fact, with the sole intent of preserving the 'free and open' spirit of these forums.

Cration... see - ration

That which is used to sustain the troops...

As Michael often points out, we don’t all view life through the same lens.

What one sees as a meal, another sees as a mere morsel, and vice versa.

To each their own Wouldee.

aaaahhhhh.....

I see.

The eclecticism was all me. That was only a personal reflection of myself, shared as an image of my deference and agreement with something else entirely.

Not a combative swing....

But then, I am quite obscure when I choose to be.

Perhaps, affirmations of many correct and thoughtful intentions are highly misunderstood in this discussion.

I saw Cration vs. Evolution in the finals of the Big Bang Battlebots Robot gladiator Tournament back in '98. As I recall, Evolution won out in the end but it seemed like it took eons...

Fortunately Carmen Electra was the host

... Of 'fundamentalism' and 'delusion', PART II


A pertinent analogy to depict 'fundamentalism' and its relation to 'delusion', is the 'military metaphor'.

It could be said that people joining the military must adhere to and obey to a strict and unnegotiable military doctrine and dogma it could be said of its civilization distinct code of conduct.

Findings of many studies on the psychology of the military, have drawn very close parrallels between military code of conduct, and religious dogma. A military must constitute himself with the military code, very much in the same manner a militant does around religious fudamentlism and dogma.

That is to say, the military code of conduct, like dogma of fundamentalism, must become the truth for the military himself, as is the case for the militant fundamentalist.

The code in one case, or the dogma in the other, take the form of absolute 'law' and 'truth', on an individual basis, and is furthermore unnegotiable on an individual basis.

That is essentially what constitutes 'belief' both for the militant fundamentalist, and military.

It is thus perfectly normal and required of both to substitute their personnal freedom of thought when it comes to to a matter of code or dogma.

Now the interesting part is the break-in-belonging syndrome witnessed in a number of career military.

Rather insiduous, the break-in-belonging syndrome is founded on a delsional state of the military, whom starts to confuse the military and civil spaces. In other words, a confusion where the military no longer distinguishes his family space, groups of friends, and other civil activities outside of the miliitary code of conduct. One military unconscously starts imposing 'his military' truths, to non-military people, and refuses to distinguish the evidence. Thus the delusion.

For the military to obey to the laws of the military inside of the military context, is exactly what a military should do.

For the military to start imposing military rule on family members, friends and other civil relationships in a non-military context, is the sign of delusional behavior on the part of the military.

So it is when the militant fundamentalist imposes HIS TRUTH in a public spaces.

Scientist who believe in God....even Einstein wanted to know how God created the world.....

1. Nicholas Copernicus (1473-1543)
Copernicus was the Polish astronomer who put forward the first mathematically based system of planets going around the sun. He attended various European universities, and became a Canon in the Catholic church in 1497. His new system was actually first presented in the Vatican gardens in 1533 before Pope Clement VII who approved, and urged Copernicus to publish it around this time. Copernicus was never under any threat of religious persecution - and was urged to publish both by Catholic Bishop Guise, Cardinal Schonberg, and the Protestant Professor George Rheticus. Copernicus referred sometimes to God in his works, and did not see his system as in conflict with the Bible.

2. Sir Francis Bacon (1561-1627)
Bacon was a philosopher who is known for establishing the scientific method of inquiry based on experimentation and inductive reasoning. In De Interpretatione Naturae Prooemium, Bacon established his goals as being the discovery of truth, service to his country, and service to the church. Although his work was based upon experimentation and reasoning, he rejected atheism as being the result of insufficient depth of philosophy, stating, "It is true, that a little philosophy inclineth man’s mind to atheism, but depth in philosophy bringeth men's minds about to religion; for while the mind of man looketh upon second causes scattered, it may sometimes rest in them, and go no further; but when it beholdeth the chain of them confederate, and linked together, it must needs fly to Providence and Deity." Of Atheism)

3. Johannes Kepler (1571-1630)
Kepler was a brilliant mathematician and astronomer. He did early work on light, and established the laws of planetary motion about the sun. He also came close to reaching the Newtonian concept of universal gravity - well before Newton was born! His introduction of the idea of force in astronomy changed it radically in a modern direction. Kepler was an extremely sincere and pious Lutheran, whose works on astronomy contain writings about how space and the heavenly bodies represent the Trinity. Kepler suffered no persecution for his open avowal of the sun-centered system, and, indeed, was allowed as a Protestant to stay in Catholic Graz as a Professor (1595-1600) when other Protestants had been expelled!

4. Galileo Galilei (1564-1642)
Galileo is often remembered for his conflict with the Roman Catholic Church. His controversial work on the solar system was published in 1633. It had no proofs of a sun-centered system (Galileo's telescope discoveries did not indicate a moving earth) and his one "proof" based upon the tides was invalid. It ignored the correct elliptical orbits of planets published twenty five years earlier by Kepler. Since his work finished by putting the Pope's favorite argument in the mouth of the simpleton in the dialogue, the Pope (an old friend of Galileo's) was very offended. After the "trial" and being forbidden to teach the sun-centered system, Galileo did his most useful theoretical work, which was on dynamics. Galileo expressly said that the Bible cannot err, and saw his system as an alternate interpretation of the biblical texts.

5. Rene Descartes (1596-1650)
Descartes was a French mathematician, scientist and philosopher who has been called the father of modern philosophy. His school studies made him dissatisfied with previous philosophy: He had a deep religious faith as a Roman Catholic, which he retained to his dying day, along with a resolute, passionate desire to discover the truth. At the age of 24 he had a dream, and felt the vocational call to seek to bring knowledge together in one system of thought. His system began by asking what could be known if all else were doubted - suggesting the famous "I think therefore I am". Actually, it is often forgotten that the next step for Descartes was to establish the near certainty of the existence of God - for only if God both exists and would not want us to be deceived by our experiences - can we trust our senses and logical thought processes. God is, therefore, central to his whole philosophy. What he really wanted to see was that his philosophy be adopted as standard Roman Catholic teaching. Rene Descartes and Francis Bacon (1561-1626) are generally regarded as the key figures in the development of scientific methodology. Both had systems in which God was important, and both seem more devout than the average for their era.

6. Isaac Newton (1642-1727)
In optics, mechanics, and mathematics, Newton was a figure of undisputed genius and innovation. In all his science (including chemistry) he saw mathematics and numbers as central. What is less well known is that he was devoutly religious and saw numbers as involved in understanding God's plan for history from the Bible. He did a considerable work on biblical numerology, and, though aspects of his beliefs were not orthodox, he thought theology was very important. In his system of physics, God is essential to the nature and absoluteness of space. In Principia he stated, "The most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion on an intelligent and powerful Being."

7. Robert Boyle (1791-1867)
One of the founders and key early members of the Royal Society, Boyle gave his name to "Boyle's Law" for gases, and also wrote an important work on chemistry. Encyclopedia Britannica says of him: "By his will he endowed a series of Boyle lectures, or sermons, which still continue, 'for proving the Christian religion against notorious infidels...' As a devout Protestant, Boyle took a special interest in promoting the Christian religion abroad, giving money to translate and publish the New Testament into Irish and Turkish. In 1690 he developed his theological views in The Christian Virtuoso, which he wrote to show that the study of nature was a central religious duty." Boyle wrote against atheists in his day (the notion that atheism is a modern invention is a myth), and was clearly much more devoutly Christian than the average in his era.

8. Michael Faraday (1791-1867)
Michael Faraday was the son of a blacksmith who became one of the greatest scientists of the 19th century. His work on electricity and magnetism not only revolutionized physics, but led to much of our lifestyles today, which depends on them (including computers and telephone lines and, so, web sites). Faraday was a devoutly Christian member of the Sandemanians, which significantly influenced him and strongly affected the way in which he approached and interpreted nature. Originating from Presbyterians, the Sandemanians rejected the idea of state churches, and tried to go back to a New Testament type of Christianity.

9. Gregor Mendel (1822-1884)
Mendel was the first to lay the mathematical foundations of genetics, in what came to be called "Mendelianism". He began his research in 1856 (three years before Darwin published his Origin of Species) in the garden of the Monastery in which he was a monk. Mendel was elected Abbot of his Monastery in 1868. His work remained comparatively unknown until the turn of the century, when a new generation of botanists began finding similar results and "rediscovered" him (though their ideas were not identical to his). An interesting point is that the 1860's was notable for formation of the X-Club, which was dedicated to lessening religious influences and propagating an image of "conflict" between science and religion. One sympathizer was Darwin's cousin Francis Galton, whose scientific interest was in genetics (a proponent of eugenics - selective breeding among humans to "improve" the stock). He was writing how the "priestly mind" was not conducive to science while, at around the same time, an Austrian monk was making the breakthrough in genetics. The rediscovery of the work of Mendel came too late to affect Galton's contribution.

10. William Thomson Kelvin (1824-1907)
Kelvin was foremost among the small group of British scientists who helped to lay the foundations of modern physics. His work covered many areas of physics, and he was said to have more letters after his name than anyone else in the Commonwealth, since he received numerous honorary degrees from European Universities, which recognized the value of his work. He was a very committed Christian, who was certainly more religious than the average for his era. Interestingly, his fellow physicists George Gabriel Stokes (1819-1903) and James Clerk Maxwell (1831-1879) were also men of deep Christian commitment, in an era when many were nominal, apathetic, or anti-Christian. The Encyclopedia Britannica says "Maxwell is regarded by most modern physicists as the scientist of the 19th century who had the greatest influence on 20th century physics; he is ranked with Sir Isaac Newton and Albert Einstein for the fundamental nature of his contributions." Lord Kelvin was an Old Earth creationist, who estimated the Earth's age to be somewhere between 20 million and 100 million years, with an upper limit at 500 million years based on cooling rates (a low estimate due to his lack of knowledge about radiogenic heating).

11. Max Planck (1858-1947)
Planck made many contributions to physics, but is best known for quantum theory, which revolutionized our understanding of the atomic and sub-atomic worlds. In his 1937 lecture "Religion and Naturwissenschaft," Planck expressed the view that God is everywhere present, and held that "the holiness of the unintelligible Godhead is conveyed by the holiness of symbols." Atheists, he thought, attach too much importance to what are merely symbols. Planck was a churchwarden from 1920 until his death, and believed in an almighty, all-knowing, beneficent God (though not necessarily a personal one). Both science and religion wage a "tireless battle against skepticism and dogmatism, against unbelief and superstition" with the goal "toward God!"

12. Albert Einstein (1879-1955)
Einstein is probably the best known and most highly revered scientist of the twentieth century, and is associated with major revolutions in our thinking about time, gravity, and the conversion of matter to energy (E=mc2). Although never coming to belief in a personal God, he recognized the impossibility of a non-created universe. The Encyclopedia Britannica says of him: "Firmly denying atheism, Einstein expressed a belief in "Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the harmony of what exists." This actually motivated his interest in science, as he once remarked to a young physicist: "I want to know how God created this world, I am not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know His thoughts, the rest are details." Einstein's famous epithet on the "uncertainty principle" was "God does not play dice" - and to him this was a real statement about a God in whom he believed. A famous saying of his was "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."

many believe in a creative source ...many call it God ... it is not necessarily the God of the bible ...

Same source nonetheless...

And your point is feralcatlady ... ?!?!?!

So do I, and so does Abra, and most other people posting around these threads.

You're confusing different concepts for self-serving purposes.

Yes all of those listed in your post believed in god, and be just as clear that none of them would have agreed with your confusiong and misleading concepts.

I have faith in you 'feral', I know you can do better than that.

Give it a try, will you ?!?!??!

In Albert Einstein’s OWN words,…

“It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.” – Albert Einstein



It’s true the Isaac Newton did investigate the bible thoroughly what you failed to mention is that he came the conclusion that the Biblical account of god could not possible be true.

You find little tidbits of history out of context but fail to follow them up with their ultimate conclusions.

Like Voil suggests,… is this a genuine desire on your part to misrepresent the truth or is it genuinely brought about by pure blind uneducated delusion?

I wouldn’t trust anything you say Feral. You distort the truth like a frosted glass window and fail to delve deep enough into anything to discover truth.

You superficially look for anything that will seeminly support your position, but you ignore the truth.

Ditto



Ditto

Feral seems to have a very limited view of God. Like anyone who speaks of God is speaking of the biblical God.

Abra,

I am disappointed in you. I half expected you to follow Feral's post with some logical facts and idea's for an "old earth" - as you are the "scientist" amoungst us. Instead - you make shallow attempts to belittle the idea that the bible is mythical, therefore a young earth is mythical. Do you really think your argument is convincing? To what do I attribute validity in your posts? Your opinion? Why? You never support it. I might consider the idea of an old earth if you could get beyond the "well you must think all scientists are idiots". Actually - what I've come to see from these threads is that the scientists here can't - or won't give reason for their "arguments". I think the idea that the earth is what_ever_billions_of_years_old id non-sense. I thought so when I was an Atheist, I still think so, because I've yet to see anyone offer a logicall explination for it. Ever. And I've offered this up to Doctoral candidates at Harvard, as well as professors there - and I still get no response.

Feral writes:

"12. Albert Einstein (1879-1955)
Einstein is probably the best known and most highly revered scientist of the twentieth century, and is associated with major revolutions in our thinking about time, gravity, and the conversion of matter to energy (E=mc2). Although never coming to belief in a personal God, he recognized the impossibility of a non-created universe. The Encyclopedia Britannica says of him: "Firmly denying atheism, Einstein expressed a belief in "Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the harmony of what exists." "

The _whole_ quote is:

"I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings. "

It was Einstein's response to a clergyman who demanded to know if Einstein believed in God.

BTW, Feral's whole post was lifted from this webpage:

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/sciencefaith.html

It's also worth noting that the author damns Einstein with faint praise just before giving him a philosophical knife in the back:

"Einstein's failure to understand the motives of God are the result of his incorrect assumption that God intended this universe as His ultimate perfect creation. Einstein could not get past the moral problems that are present in our universe. He assumed, as most atheists do, that a personal God would only create a universe which is both good morally and perfect physically. However, according to Christianity, the purpose of the universe is not to be morally or physically perfect, but to provide a place where spiritual creatures can choose to love or reject God - to live with Him forever in a new, perfect universe, or reject Him and live apart from Him for eternity. It would not be possible to make this choice in a universe in which all moral choices are restricted to only good choices. Einstein didn't seem to understand that one could not choose between good and bad if bad did not exist. It's amazing that such a brilliant man could not understand such a simple logical principle.

These days, those who fail to understand the purpose of evil not only reject the concept of a personal God, but also reject the concept of God's existence altogether. If you are an agnostic or atheist, my goal for you would be to recognize what Albert Einstein understood about the universe - that its amazing design demands the existence of a creator God. Then, go beyond Einstein's faulty understanding of the purpose of the universe and consider the Christian explanation for the purpose of human life and why evil must exist in this world."

Humble, isn't he?

-Kerry O.

Ah, stabbing people in the back. Sounds like something fundie extremists are popular for.



What arguments?

I haven’t given any arguments to what Feral has posted because nothing she has posted is even remotely credible.

The things she claims about physics are simply untrue. How can you argue with blatant lies. It’s simply not true that there is any problem associated with the rotation of planets, etc, etc, etc.

Moreover, where does the idea that the Bible says that the Earth is only 6000 year old come from?

It doesn’t come from the Bible!!!

Some bishop sat down and figured this out based on who begat whom since Adam and Eve. I think if there is an error in calculations it probably comes down to the calculations of that Bishop. There’s no where in the Bible that states that the earth is only 6,000 years old.

This whole thing is a hoax brought to us by some Bishop! :laugh;

Also, I’m not trying to convince anyone of anything. I’m just countering Feral's clearly uninformed posts with food for thought. If someone would like to become an air-hear and be Feral’s minion it’s perfectly ok by me.

fundies 1

whateveryourcallingyourselves 0

and abra you have proved nothing and I have proved that even the scientist believed in God.......Now this only came about from me because as eljay so put it.....you jump around and write whatever trash comes to your mind instead of proving what I say is false. Also just for all of you that is what Einstein said I did not make it up.

And what makes me even more sick is thinking that any of what I say has to do with me personally.....It doesn't....

What are we... in Broward Co.?

May I interject please?


The Earth we live on is under our feet.

Where The Great Mother may have come from, without her, all of this is redundant..as are we.

Why not go outside and appreciate Her beauty?

Concerning Dr. Einstein himself,I would point out that a societal and cultural abandonment and betrayal would accompany any admission of faith or belief in such a God as depicted in the New Testament being of Jewish descent and heritage.

In light of those constraints, he must be afforded the courtesy of rest.

His personal convictions remain his own even in memory of him as a man.

His acknowledgement of Spinoza's observations should be sufficient to allow the man to rest even now.




Innumerable religious Jews maintain their belief that Jesus nad not fulfilled all of the prophecy concerning the coming of the Messiah. They are still waiting. That is their belief.

Your cration is mixing with my peas and they are attacking my mashed potatoes!