Then I am happy for you, you have found what you consider to be an inner peace. I have an equal right to judge things by absolutes, if that differs from others views sobeit. I never claim "believers" are wrong, that’s the difference in tolerance between many believers and non-believers. By the same token don’t expect me to paper over what I believe to be the case, its unproven claptrap.

You and I will always have different views on this I suspect, and in many ways thats healthy. For an idea, a concept, a vision (of whatever nature) to survive it must genuinely lay itself open to criticism without defensive knee jerking. I have fought throughout my life to date - in a literal as well as figurative sense - to the extent of being shot at by the clowns who beliefs were actually being given space to exist, if they would only take their bigoted heads out of the sand to understand that.

I only wish the devout followers of Faiths would respond in kind by giving others the same space to get on with their lives without this continual urge to convert me "for my own salvation" - what supreme arrogance.

In regard to your response on Religious Leaders, until they clearly demonstrate their own personal commitment to the beliefs professed, how on earth are they going to advance the cause they claim to believe in so much. Its easy to try to defend such individuals inside the cocoon of unproven concepts with "soft" reasoning that in itself does not progress the central issue.

Throughout the Ages - for hundreds, arguably Thousands of years, religious leaders of almost all faiths (each professed to be the one and only true faith by the majority at the time), have either directly ignited, sponsored, encouraged or merely turned a blind eye to such horrendous acts of unimaginable violence and human depravity its unreal. I am no paragon of virtue - but until I see a Faith that not only means what it says - but puts it into practice, I am sorry to offend, but to be honest, and not to fall prey to defensive smoke and mirrors, that’s claptrap.

Tomorrow morning when someone violently and physically attacks you to deny you the privilege of practicing your own peaceful decent belief - if that’s what you believe it to be - and you are a practicing good example of that theory, whatever that peaceful decent theory is - yell, I'll be there to tell the other individual to go spin and find some other easy target, if necessary by responding with force to unwarrented force. I expect - but rarely experience - the same reaction from devout believers of many Faiths.

A Cleric who is also a dear and close friend of mind - put it another way:

"You are assuming the religious Leader actually believes it himself".

He was right, I did, and it was a terrifying thought to ponder otherwise.

I have an equal right to judge things by absolutes, if that differs from others views sobeit.

By the same token don’t expect me to paper over what I believe to be the case, its unproven claptrap.

You certainly do have that right. However, you are asking for a proof and proofs as you must understand are based on logic and reason. So you really cant have it both ways. if you say i just dont believe "that", that is fine, no problem, But to say i dont believe that unless there is "a proof for that" then say it must be an absolute is not logical at all since there is no such thing except in mathematics which is based on certain axioms WE created and by definition even the mathematical proofs are not absolutes since they are based on OUR OWN AXIOMS.

if you submit to proofs, then you must accept its rules. one of them is the above fact i.e. there is no absolute truths in this world. All we can do is get as close as possible to it.

Essentially the way I look at it is this: given the fact we, humans, cant have absolutes then i must accept the most logical and not reject it and wait for that which does not exist. if you choose to reject it, then fine but dont say you reject it because there is no absolute proof. You and I and many others, believers and nonbelievers alike, accept non absolutes in many many ways and live with it and use it and it serves us just fine and proves us correct in accepting them. Examples are so many but just think of the physical laws we discovered over the centuries: these are the closest we got to any truths. Are they absolutes? certainly not. none of them is. but they are accurate enough and close enough to the truth that we use them and they deliver answers that serves us well.

If you accept that in everyday life, why not in deciding whether there is a Creator or not?

You still have the right to reject that, but dont say it has anything to do with providing proofs.

For an idea, a concept, a vision (of whatever nature) to survive it must genuinely lay itself open to criticism without defensive knee jerking

giving others the same space to get on with their lives without this continual urge to convert me "for my own salvation" - what supreme arrogance.

I certainly agree with that. No one have the right to force anyone to accept something that they are not convinced with. God himself ordered that no one should be forced to believe in Him. Any one who doesnt follow that , then they are not following their own beliefs.

on Religious Leaders, until they clearly demonstrate their own personal commitment to the beliefs professed, how on earth are they going to advance the cause they claim to believe in so much.

I am no paragon of virtue - but until I see a Faith that not only means what it says - but puts it into practice, I am sorry to offend, but to be honest, and not to fall prey to defensive smoke and mirrors, that’s claptrap.

Here is where you really dont sound like a person who is looking objectively at things. You waiting for others to behave according to what they say to be convinced that what they say is truth? you cant reach truth that way. Look at the source itself. look into the belief systems themselves not to what the followers do. you will be surprised. Those leaders are far far away from the systems' rules and guidelines. As i said before, dont blame the system for the foolishness of the majority of the users.

You did not provide a direct quote. And it was your intrepretation of the non-quote. And should you quote the book literally, then you are quoting heresay literally as it is not a quote in the book - but again an interpretation of an interview.

When you state a fact - support the fact. When you state an opinion - call it an opinion. Do not obfuscate the issue by dancing around the truth.

Who is supporting him? I merely asked a question. You assume too much. I could turn it around and say " you bush haters will go to great lengths to lie and defame him, and spin any statement to that advantage" and I would be equally as correct as you. Except I did not say that as I would not assume that of you.

You assume too much. I could turn it around and say " you bush haters will go to great lengths to lie and defame him, and spin any statement to that advantage

Sorry if i thought you were one of his supporters. I oppose his policy, however i dont hate him at all. I feel sorry for him and our country. If you read the quotes in the book about what he said "literally" you cant escape the understanding that he consulted "Higher Father" and not his father before deciding to go to war. I didnt assume that. it is the quotes in the book of what he said. and since he did not deny or challenge Woodward on that, it is reasonable to say that is actually what he said.

Trust me, i am not one who hates anyone for his or her opinions. but sometimes i feel that some people are foolish beyond belief. Unfortunately for us he is one of them.

Finally i agree completely that we should not assume anything. but in many cases what people say implies certain things and what the quotes in the book imply was that he consulted with God before the invasion . you cant avoid that understanding after reading the quotes. When was the last time any politician said something clear and direct? rarely, and we are left to figure out what they really mean. Woodward asked him a simple question about talking to his father before the invasion. He could have said yes or no. but he in effect said: No, i go to a higher father. I cant see how else this could be understood other than that he talked to God about the war. and that was the point i was trying to make.

If my understanding is not correct, i will appreciate your correction if you tell me what is your understanding of it. may be i am missing something here.

"President George W Bush told Palestinian ministers that God had told him to invade Afghanistan and Iraq - and create a Palestinian State, a new BBC series reveals.

In Elusive Peace: Israel and the Arabs, a major three-part series on BBC TWO (at 9.00pm on Monday 10, Monday 17 and Monday 24 October), Abu Mazen, Palestinian Prime Minister, and Nabil Shaath, his Foreign Minister, describe their first meeting with President Bush in June 2003.

Nabil Shaath says: "President Bush said to all of us: 'I'm driven with a mission from God. God would tell me, "George, go and fight those terrorists in Afghanistan." And I did, and then God would tell me, "George, go and end the tyranny in Iraq …" And I did. And now, again, I feel God's words coming to me, "Go get the Palestinians their state and get the Israelis their security, and get peace in the Middle East." And by God I'm gonna do it.'"

Abu Mazen was at the same meeting and recounts how President Bush told him: "I have a moral and religious obligation. So I will get you a Palestinian state."


--bbc press release dated 10/6/05
bbc press office

This is the image that was spontaneously generated in my mind, after having read through the responses. A naked man has one end of an old-fashioned 'ear trumpet' (looks a little like a French Horn) inserted into his anus. The other end is next to his chin. He occasionally bellows gibberish into the open end, and then listens to his arse as it answers him.



"There's a well crafted master plan in the works."

I bet God feels all warm n fuzzy about you feeling that way about him, KFC - especially as you're so humble about it.

I didn't agree with Ockham either.



Having an influence on someone makes you responsible for all their actions forever after?

How wonderfully convenient that would be. "YOU had an INFLUENCE on ME - so it's your fault."

Did you mean to say quite that?

Apologies to ThinkAloud for slow reply, been away.


You maybe right, its possible I do that unconsciously. My usual reaction is to look for evidence on topics, as people look for evidence as in the process of a court of law. I also accept that there is a state where a case is "unproven" - a strong element of the Scottish system (I am not Scottish, although my wife is), where the Law accepts that many situations will occur the weight of evidence is insufficient to prove guilt, however that verdict clearly states that innocence was not proven either. As guilt must be proven absolutely - ie innocent until proven guilty - charges dismissed, case Not Proven. A crude example parallel would be charges dismissed on a pure technicality before evidence heard, a common state of affairs - in Scotland its possible, not always, but possible to be "Not Proven" as a verdict.

Don’t make too much of the analogy, as poor as it maybe, my main point is we all have our own standards by which we judge things, by which we accept reality or not. Life is never simple, foolish to believe it can be reduced to such a level. For me the balance of evidence is not strong enough to make me a "believer", that as far as I am concerned is true. However, you could also say, bringing in the Scottish system of Law, I could more accurately describe it as "Not Proven". No, I don’t sit on the fence, or use grand terms such as "Agnostic" or whatever, its just the genuine expression of what I feel inside myself - and the Scottish system in Law of "Not Proven" is the best way I can express that.

I don’t imply that others are "wrong" and I'm "right", its not a question of that. Others want to believe, go right ahead, no problem with that whatsoever. Although I concede excessive zealotry by some, which almost seems they are affronted that others think differently, does get me going a little




Not attempting to, because you are absolutely right, that would be kind of nuts to go down that road.

Leaders of Faiths, Organisations, Governments - whatever - have an added responsibility, whether they like it or not. They are Leaders, they must show the highest possible standards of the principles that their Institution represents. Lead by example. Unless they do, since they are the public face of that institution how can you expect people to believe in that institution. A silly extreme fictitious example; the Pope walks into St Peter's square and machine gun's 100 visitors, and gets away with it, still remaining Pope etc. Kiss goodbye to any future converts, and you'll have a hard time keeping the majority of current believers (for the record, once again, I am not suggesting he would do that .......).

In the same way, the leader or representative cannot continually deliver smoke and mirrors as explanations or as the ultimate solution for unpalatable events - bad example, people are not stupid, and get angry. Leaders must lead by example. In all this the Pope, Cardinals, Bishops and Priests are Leaders at different levels, unless they show absolute adherence to the Faith and its values - and at worst show genuine contrition and genuine resolution when they slipup - don’t expect others to follow them, continually apologising is not enough (albeit its a start).

He occasionally bellows gibberish into the open end, and then listens to his arse as it answers him.

I dont blame you for saying that. Many think they are helping by propagating a lot of gibberish. That is a shame.

--bbc press release dated 10/6/05 bbc press office

Very interesting Kingbee. I just didnt want to pile on the man. he is not the only one. but again, it is very very revealing of the prevailent culture nowadays.

Leaders must lead by example.

No question about that. Still i believe that to judge any system, you have to look at it not at how it is being used.

At least we agree on that.

my main point is we all have our own standards by which we judge things, by which we accept reality or not.

Very true. And I wish you and all of us a successful hunt for that illusive truth. I know we cant get as close to it as we like to, but at least we can try to get as close as possible.

Reply By: kingbee

Thank you for your definition of heresay.  So Bush did not say that, just someone (with no agenda of course) said he said that.  and

(White House press secretary Scott McClellan denied the report at his press briefing Thursday. "No, that's absurd. He's never made such comments," he said.

It was denied.  So you have basically 2 different versions of a story, with the focus of the story denying it, and Palestinian "ministers" saying he said it.  Of course the BBC and those ministers have no reason to lie.

Nobody can scientifically prove a God exists, or does not exist right?

If I'm wrong, and God exists, why doesn't he come down here, and fix this place? Why does he leave it up to us to fix this fucking mess the world is constantly in?

Being all powerful you think you could whip this world into shape in a few short weeks?

If he does exist why is his only communication through world leaders and crazy people?

Why doesn't he just make his communication more pronounced? Say blocking out the sun for ten seconds, or making it appear on the other side of the sky for a min or two, or broadcasting a public service announcement by making everybody on the planet write a sentence or two, from him, in their own language, with their own hands, at the same time, just to let them know he's up there keeping score and taking notes.

Of course asking God to send everybody on the planet a sign is asking too much, it's not God's responsibility to make himself known, but ours to believe in him without hard evidence. Evidence thats from the time of kings, before electricity, before the Earth wasn't the center of the universe, from the time before witchcraft, and burnings of people at the stake because of poor weather and crop development.

Forgive me if I speak out in a youthful voice and uneducated, for I am both in some measure, but I have searched my twenty some years for hard evidence, for the reason people are compelled to believe in this, for my own belief, for an understanding between God and me, I've looked, I continue to look, I continue to find that people believe what they want to believe, see what they want to see, read what they want to read, and sense what they want to sense.

Light a candle, and God is in the room, extinguish it and he's gone.

It's why people choose to kill others in the name of God, kill themselves, destroy communities, and start wars. It's the reason that a lot of shit is fucked up in this world, people do it because they want to believe its right, or that God wants them to do it, also making it right, in their belief.

Ethically, when is it ever right to deny someone who has not committed a crime their life? When is it right to deny their freedom? When is it right to terminate the life of an opponent when you know innocent, by innocent I'm talking about babies, and children so young they have not been corrupted or enlightened by their elders, civilians will be killed in the process?

Well folks, I hate to break it to you, but as it stands, The Easter Bunny and Santa Clause are as prevalent in our society as God is, thankfully above Tooth Fairy and Boogie Man who don't bring presents... but none of them are truly provable to not exist or exist.

It's also in my book never ethical to kill people. To deny them their liberties either, without a due process thats unethical too. These are two things President Bush has chosen to see done while he is President, either directly or indirectly.

As for religions and folklore...

We accept some of them to be fake Easter Bunny, Santa, Zeus and the Greek Gods, they are all mythology, man made of course, the latter, at one time entirely legit and with many devoted followers, lived and died with a firm belief that they would forever be above the clouds of Mt Olympus. No proof, scientific or otherwise, which we demand, or at least base a lot of our decisions on that Zeus is any more or less a God then the God of today. That's a reflection on us as a people not God as a higher power. We have discarded the God or Gods of old for the God of the new, the one who is the true God.

Just how True is he or is it a she? Maybe an It? Why would one assume God to be a man or woman, nobody knows where God came from do they. We just know he has always been and always will be. Interesting isn't it, knowing that we have been a part of it, something larger, aren't we always looking to be part of something larger then ourselves? A community, a clan, a tribe, a group, social circles, Yet God is all alone, by itself.

But God is never lonely. God is just there, and doesn't get lonely even though God made us get lonely and supposedly we are made in God's image.

I'm not saying people shouldn't live a life in a moral way, and I am saying people should live their life in an ethical way but I don't think everybody's morals will line up nor would I expect them too. People do have an obligation to live their life ethically and legally and laws help people to do that. There is no shortage of places religious or otherwise to learn how to live in a positive manner.

Certainly blowing yourselves up or starting wars in foreign countries regardless of who told you to do it is going to get you nothing but the loathing of the people here, and asshole of the month awards from anyone with morals or ethics.

I speak out in a youthful voice and uneducated, for I am both in some measure, but I have searched my twenty some years for hard evidence, for the reason people are compelled to believe in this, for my own belief, for an understanding between God and me, I've looked, I continue to look,

It is very commendable that you are aware of your limitations and are looking for answers to great questions. I am not going to give you much advice here except few principles. Just keep an open mind, look in ALL what is claimed to be God's words, and be objective in your criterion for proof. just use reason and logic as you would in any of every-day issues. In otherwords, if you really looking dont be biased and judge the evidence available not with absolutes but with humanly-possible (and understandable) evidence. I can give you many many examples for things that we dont have absolute proof of but we still believe, correctly, that they are there and our experience confirm that.

Of course asking God to send everybody on the planet a sign is asking too much, it's not God's responsibility to make himself known, but ours to believe in him without hard evidence

No, it is not too much. And we have every right to ask that of Him. And HE DID. The evidence is in His Words and His Universe. Like you said, just keep looking and thinking of what they all point to. He said the following in one of His Books: "WE will show them our signs in the horizons and in themselves till they are certain that HE is True". Just keep looking and discover the majesty and its Creator.

There is no shortage of places religious or otherwise to learn how to live in a positive manner.

Very true. if you believe that, you will reach your objective. just keep an open mind and reasonable logic.