Nobody ever follows the Prime Directive. — Vera Mont

Proof? Aliens could be watching us now without interfering. They probably want to see if Donald Trump can win the next election without their help.

If you have space travel capability and an impulsion to help those in trouble, it's impossible to obey. — Vera Mont

If you know that interfering is likely to cause things to be worse than not interfering, then it would be possible to obey the Prime Directive. Some aliens might not want to play god.

an impulsion to help those in trouble — Vera Mont

You've gotta be cruel to be kind, in the right measure.

The gods are images of man magnified to whatever size it takes to grant their wishes. — Vera Mont

It is amazing that the gods want the same things that I want.

Proof? — Agree-to-Disagree

I've seen every Star Trek, Next Generation, Voyager and DS9 episode at least three times. You do realize that the Prime Directive is exclusive to that franchise?

If you know that interfering is likely to cause things to be worse than not interfering, then it would be possible to obey the Prime Directive. Some aliens might not want to play god. — Agree-to-Disagree

Aliens not only are not bound by the PD; they've never even heard of it. We can have no idea how they think or what motivates them.

You've gotta be cruel to be kind, in the right measure. — Agree-to-Disagree

Explain that to Data. We know the theory of why a PD was formulated, but that 'right measure' is a lot easier to put on paper than to carry out in the real world. For a start, how the hell do you know whether an action will eventually result in more harm than good? It's possible that a patient being fitted for a pacemaker right now will commit a mass murder next year, but that doesn't stop the cardiologist doing his job.

It is amazing that the gods want the same things that I want. — Agree-to-Disagree

The gods don't. Only the one particular customized god you invent for yourself does.

I've seen every Star Trek, Next Generation, Voyager and DS9 episode at least three times. You do realize that the Prime Directive is exclusive to that franchise? — Vera Mont

Yes. But the Prime Directive makes good sense and I am sure that aliens with space travel capability are intelligent enough to work it out for themselves.

Aliens not only are not bound by the PD; they've never even heard of it. — Vera Mont

Aliens may not have heard the term "Prime Directive" but I am sure that they understand the concept.

We can have no idea how they think or what motivates them. — Vera Mont

True. So they might follow a belief similar to the Prime Directive. :grin:

Explain that to Data. — Vera Mont

I am confident that Data can understand the logic behind "You've gotta be cruel to be kind, in the right measure". Human parents usually understand this concept.

But the Prime Directive makes good sense and I am sure that aliens with space travel capability are intelligent enough to work it out for themselves. — Agree-to-Disagree

Then you know more about aliens than I do. As to whether it makes good sense - maybe not equally to everybody.

I am confident that Data can understand the logic behind "You've gotta be cruel to be kind, in the right measure". Human parents usually understand this concept. — Agree-to-Disagree

He understands the 'logic'; what he had trouble with was the cruelty, which is why he would not abandon Sarjenka.
And it's BS, by the way. Parents need to be firm sometimes, but they never have to be cruel.

It is amazing that the gods want the same things that I want.
— Agree-to-Disagree

The gods don't. Only the one particular customized god you invent for yourself does. — Vera Mont

:smirk:

And it's BS, by the way. Parents need to be firm sometimes, but they never have to be cruel. — Vera Mont

It is cruel to make children eat vegetables. :grin:

One of the things that I learnt as a parent is that sometimes you have to let you children make their own mistakes (allow them to get "hurt" - which is cruel). You could try to always stop them from making mistakes, but then they would never learn to take responsibility for their own lives. You have to be cruel (let them make mistakes which "hurt" them) in order to be kind (teach them to think for themselves and take responsibility for their decisions). In the right measure (you do try to stop them from driving while drunk).

... the Prime Directive makes good sense ... — Agree-to-Disagree

It seems to me :nerd: the "non-interference" PD only makes statistical sense such that, if and when Terran civilization invents FTL "warp drive" so that there is non-negligble risk of making direct contact with – biologically contaminating – or even aggressively threatening an ETI's "civilization", only then will the need arise for an ETI to interfere with us either to Terra's benefit (à la Star Trek: First Contact) or detriment (à la Village of the Damned ... or Invasion of the Body Snatchers ... or Annihilation). TBD. :yikes:

And bearded men on clouds don't work on me either. — Jamal

yet ;)

In a highly technical sense I'm Morman because I was baptised at the age of True Responsibility and Knowledge of Good and Evil: 8, and have yet to bother excising my name because it's just a hassle.

But I certainly don't believe their stuff, and haven't really found another religion that seems much different except that it's older and so the motives of their founders are harder to discern.

For the most part I think religious sexuality is so far out of date that it's not worth salvaging, because for the most part I think the family form and proper sexual etiquette are the main things preserved in churches.

What evidence or experience would convince you that (e.g.) "the God of Abraham" at least one personal God/dess (of any religious tradition) exists? — 180 Proof

Some poeple would say if God came down from the heavens and announced himself. But many would just conclude that they went insane. And wouldn't they be justified in thinking so? Everything that they experienced so far comes in contradiction with that one event, it is one event against the constant regularity of their past.

For me to be convinced, it is very simple, the evidence that there is a god would have to overall significantly outweigh {the evidence for any alternative for god in each issue where god has explanatory power} and {the evidence that there is not a god} together.

But if God came down from heavens to announce himself, not only would that have to be an experience like no other — not just seeing lights in the sky or hearing voices like Saul —, but this newfound knowledge would have to not contradict my past experiences but in fact explain many gaps in them.

What proof do you have that ants don't philosophize? — Agree-to-Disagree

I step on them before they can develop the social conditions for philosophy.

It is cruel to make children eat vegetables. :grin: — Agree-to-Disagree

Yes, it's cruel to make children eat anything. And it doesn't work. In the short term, the child is unhappy and learns to hate foods that they might otherwise come to like in time; in the long term, this is a source of eating disorders.

You have to be cruel (let them make mistakes which "hurt" them) — Agree-to-Disagree

Hitting, locking in a closet, starving, ear-pulling, burning with cigarette ends, force-feeding, carping and exorcism are cruelties. Allowing is not a cruelty. Is it not kind to let children bump a knee, but non-interference where the parent can see such a consequence might teach the child to exercise caution another time. Non-interference when he's about to fall off a three-storey building is counter-productive.
The operative phrase is: In the right measure. You use your judgment, case by case, situation by situation - rather than blindly obey a blanket directive from some uninvolved agency in the sky that's supposed to cover all contingencies.
This is what people actually do: interfere with everything - nature, their children, pets, their neighbours, other tribes, using their judgment, hoping to make improvements and often having the opposite effect.
Nobody obeys God's Prime Directive: "Don't touch the tree!" It's not in human nature to do so.

Here is a good example of convincing evidence: A novel I read some time ago, titled Towing Jehovah by James Morrow. I've read a couple of his other books, which have a similar slump in the middle where he doesn't seem to know where the story is going, but picks up again toward the end.

What proof do you have that ants don't philosophize?
— Agree-to-Disagree

I step on them before they can develop the social conditions for philosophy. — Lionino

Ants have been in existence for more than 100 million years. That is plenty of time to develop the social conditions for philosophy.

Ants are social insects. They live in organized communities, work cooperatively and efficiently, create a clear division of labor, wage war, and occasionally capture slaves.

In addition to being able to communicate, ants have an excellent sense of direction. They can find their way back to their nest by vision and smell. They orient themselves by the position of the Sun and by memory of landmarks, such as trees. Some ants also leave scent trails to aid other ants.

Leafcutter ants are industrious creatures that use the leaves to farm fungus which they eat – they are essentially mushroom farmers.

Herder ants tend to aphids – the little green bugs that drink plants’ nutrients and are considered pests by every farmer on earth, except for their own six-legged keepers. Ants love the sugary substance aphids exert and treat the bugs as their dairy cows.

Ants Have Been Raising And Milking Caterpillars Like Livestock For Millions Of Years. Some ant species have cared for certain insect species that produce food for them. Much like how humans milk cows, ants can milk a particular caterpillar species in order to obtain a nutritious beverage.

In return for providing ant colonies with sustenance, the ants care for the caterpillars in the same way that a farmer cares for his pigs or cows. In fact, some of these ant species have even been observed building shelters for their caterpillars.

During the dark of night, the ants will stand guard outside of the caterpillar’s shelter in order to protect them from predatory attacks. At the crack of dawn, the ants will herd the caterpillars up a tree in order to allow them to feed on leaves. These caterpillar herds are guarded around the clock by ant soldiers.

You have probably stepped on the ant equivalent of Socrates, Aristotle, and Plato.

I believe in Money, and his prophet, Trump.

These are the end times, when the disciples of Money will end poverty forever by slaughtering the the massed armies of the poor who are even now starting to sweep up from the South to invade our lands and rape our children. Only the few loyal worshippers will survive, to be caught up by the Great Penis Extension and transported to the Great Marketplace in the Sky, there to serve Bezos forever.

When men choose not to believe in God, they do not thereafter believe in nothing, they then become capable of believing in anything. — G.K.Chesterton

Or to put it another way, one's life must have a centre; something must have more importance to a person than other things. Rather than tedious bickering about mere existence of a being with the name we have learned to give it, consider, when things fall apart, what you will seek to preserve? Some habit or understanding or relation to the world that is the last thing you will surrender.

Call that your god, or by some other name as you please.

I call it anarcho-Marxism.

If there are certain principles we believe are inherently good and worth committing ourselves to in a way that is not dependent on their monetary value, convenience, practicality or other contingencies; if there are values we hold that transcend our social norms and practices, that it may not in a sense even "make sense" to hold; if there is discernible to us a certain magic in an act, a creation, a word, a look that can't be reproduced without the right spirit, that is sublime, inexplicable, and unnameable; and if we can't hold our heads up unless we have protected and cherished all of this, then what of what we call it?

i.e. What @un said. But I felt like writing something. :halo:

When men choose not to believe in God, they do not thereafter believe in nothing, they then become capable of believing in anything." — unenlightened

Like what? Wasting away needlessly toiling in A dead world where everything, no matter how grand or monumental, flesh or stone, will inevitably decay and crumble to sand, for no purpose other than to do so for the sake of having something to do? Mindless pleasure that decays the mind? Grandiosity and a feeling of power over others that grows old faster than a piece of fruit left out in the hot sun? Yeah, no thanks pal. Keep your atheism. It is neither needed nor welcome in this land.

(would be my reply to the author of the quote in question)

Good thread. Not surprised to see the level of emotion and effort being expressed here. After all, people struggle to come up with a question more profound than the most basic: "What is life, after all?"

I’m an atheist because I don’t see any evidence for any of the religions. — an-salad

Fine by me if you don't see any evidence.

I'm religious; I'm not spiritual. I respect religion more than I believe it. Religions are among humanity's great creations.

I might believe in God, but not the God whose program involves micromanaging the universe. The God I might believe in is omnipresent, but not omni-engaged. His eye may be on the sparrow (as the song goes) but if a hawk eats the sparrow God may notice but does not punish the hawk.

Perhaps God is the Primum Mobile and part of the Universe. Perhaps not. I wasn't there at the beginning, so I'm guessing.

Did Jesus once walk the streets of Jerusalem? @javi2541997 believes Jesus literally existed. I'm inclined to agree, though like the London Underground riders, we must "MIND THE GAP" when reading the Gospels. Jesus wasn't around to help edit his biography which was written by authors who did not know him personally and did not have access to his phone, his tax forms, his diaries, his trial records, his birth certificate, or back issues of the Jerusalem Post.

Whether the personal testimony that they did have in their hands was reliable, God only knows.

There is nothing bad about religion that isn't bad about believers. Whatever is good in religion is good in believers. As Kant put it, nothing straight was ever built with the crooked timber of mankind.

be decent to one another. — Vera Mont

Sure.

It's an enormous PR success. It was promulgated and sold in Roman format, under the auspices of a mighty empire with some pretty canny administrators. They had the missionaries, the architects and enforcers to cobble every pagan sect into some semblance of the Christian faith. — Vera Mont

By the time the Empire, in the person of Constantine in 312, sort of got interested in Jesus the church had been in business for a while. The general policy of the Empire was to tolerate pagan sects as long as people continued to worship the official gods. Jews and Christians were not very good at this dual role. They received some static, but nothing like a vicious pogrom.

The church may or may not have christianized the Empire, but more significantly, the Empire certainly imperially bureaucratized the church.

The church may or may not have christianized the Empire, but more significantly, the Empire certainly imperially bureaucratized the church. — BC

The church most certainly did convert* the Roman empire (and later, several more empires). Yes to the other half: once the organization was solidly established, it required an enormous, far-reaching administrative structure - communications, banking, supervision of the monastic orders, educational facilities, construction projects.... Lots and lots of clerics doing lots of lots of clerical work, skills which they later applied to the administration of individual kingdoms as well as the Vatican's far-reaching business interests.
(I don't say christianize, since Christ seems to have been pushed farther and farther from the center of The One True Faith as it gained power)

You have probably stepped on the ant equivalent of Socrates, Aristotle, and Plato. — Agree-to-Disagree

Good.

once the organization was solidly established, it required an enormous, far-reaching administrative structure - communications, banking, supervision of the monastic orders, educational facilities, construction projects.... — Vera Mont

True enough, but Holy Mother Church didn't become a holy big business until the medieval period -- say, around 800 to 1000 a.d. In the last centuries of the western Roman Empire (ending in 476), and for a few centuries after that, the church was a relatively small organization. As Roman/Medieval Historian Peter Heather points out, if you walked around Europe in 700, you would see some Romanesque cathedrals here and there (not big gothic ones) and little else in the way of church buildings. The church didn't deeply penetrate European societies until around 800 - 1000. Around that time, the church created parishes and lots of parish churches were built--some of them are still around.

This isn't to say that missionary work wasn't going on -- it was. And the church established footholds all over the place -- but wasn't able to expand those footholds until later.

The Roman church started out with the structure of the empire -- very top down and bureaucratic. That was the gift of Constantine and his successors.

(I don't say christianize, since Christ seems to have been pushed farther and farther from the center of The One True Faith as it gained power — Vera Mont

It's a major contradiction: Jesus the poor itinerate preacher who said "blessed are the meek for they shall inherit the earth" was answered by the worldly church: "It's not the earth the meek inherit, it's the dirt!" It was OK for kitchen monks and nuns to be meek, but that lifestyle generally didn't appeal to popes and archbishops who thought of themselves as Roman nobles.

This contradiction is reconstructed in just about every church in the US, where the church building eventually becomes the tail that wags the dog. Most churches are real estate operations, whether they want to be or not. The building becomes the biggest line item in the budget. Don't get me wrong -- I love a nicely maintained charming old church. But charming old churches are a bottomless pit of maintenance expenses. .

There is a church in Minneapolis that was torn down to make way for a freeway. The Minneapolis Lutheran Synod created in its place the 'church without walls' which now serves a large public housing and Somali community. It's about the only such operation that I have heard of. It rents an office, but the pastor's work is mostly in the public housing buildings. It's a model I would like to see more of.

Don't get me wrong -- I love a nicely maintained charming old church. But charming old churches are a bottomless pit of maintenance expenses. — BC

The one I recall most fondly was in a little nothing village, built of adobe, like most of the houses, and whitewashed once every three years. Dirt floor, studded with walnut shells, got sprinkled with water in summertime. Wooden altar and pews. The roof would probably have to be reshingled about once a generation. Get enough volunteer hands, it cost hardly anything at all.
I don't suppose that church exists anymore; probably been bulldozed for a shopping mall.

Or it might have been run through a parish church compressor - a handy machine for reducing small, disorderly charming churches to standard sized gravel. Shards of stained glass can be set in mortar on the tops of stone walls to deter migratory populations.

Just joking. The parish church compressor was mentioned in an odd funny book published back in the '70s, The Universal Daisy Spacer. It included a plastic device to aid individuals in planting daisies precisely 2.73 inches apart. The objective of the author was to achieve an orderly world--or else.

It sounds like a fun read in the optimistic-by-our-fingernails 70's. Not so much now...
I tried to google it just now and all I get is ads for 100 daisy spacer beads for $11.60. Weird shite.

Anyhow, harking back a bit, there is much to recommend parish churches - any denomination; I don't take sides in internecine squabbles - and their role in communities.

There is much to recommend parish churches. I belong to a Lutheran church. I wasn't raised Lutheran, but its liturgy is meaningful and they are located across the street. The congregation used to be very large with many youth activities and programs for adult members. The sanctuary can hold about 250 - 300 people; Sunday services usually are about 125. When I joined 13 years ago, it was mostly old people (including me). Now we have a much younger congregation, have enough children to have Sunday school and (small) confirmation classes.



The church was built in 1949 for a large German Lutheran congregation belonging to the Missouri Synod. In those years they needed that much space. In the mid 1980s the Missouri Synod was split by a fundamentalist take over. Many of the Missouri Synod congregations voted to leave, as did this congregation. The vote was a 49% 51% vote in favor of leaving. Upon losing the vote, half of the congregation left.

Churches are, generally, on the decline but losing 1/2 of the congregation was bad news. It took about 20 years to recover. There are still a handful of members who have been belonged for roughly 75 years

The church was designed by Ellen Saarinen, a Finnish architect. It's a National Historic Landmark--partly because of who designed it, and partly because it broke the 'American Gothic' mold for new church buildings. It's mid-century modern--not a common style for church buildings then or later.

Eero Saarinen Elliel's son, designed the educational wing added in 1962. It includes classrooms, a huge church kitchen, dining rooms, and a full sized gymnasium. He also designed the TWA Terminal in NYC (now a hotel), Dulles Airport, and the St. Louis Arch.

here's a picture of the Luther Lounge in the Eero Saarinen wing:



Less famous, more modest churches can become the congregation's master; this one cracks the whip. The one very good thing about being a national landmark is that it enables us to apply for grants to help pay for repointing and replacing brickwork, reroofing, replacing worn out boilers, fixing damage from heavy rain, and so on. If it wasn't for the grants, the congregation would have been bankrupted.

It's like Jesus said, sir: places of worship and commerce make an uneasy mix. He may have said it more forcefully.

Something to do with a den of thieves.

I belong to a Lutheran church. — BC

Which seat do you sit in?

I'd choose immediately behind the pole.

I go to a reform synagogue. The cantor sings the songs with contemporary tunes. Last Friday night was Billy Joel/Elton John night, where every song was sung in one of their tunes. They also have a small band, with a guy on the bass, a piano, and drum. The bass guy thinks it's really funny, and he laughs the whole time.

They then read off the names of the people who they are going to pray for and the rabbi recites an ever growing list, many of whom I think recovered or died long ago. He has this little saying he says before the prayer and he ends it with the statement "some of whom may never recover." What kind of thing is that to say? I mean a little more self confidence would go a long way I think.

The rabbi is pretty shy one on one, so I try to get him to talk to me. He told me he needed to figure out a better way to talk about the biblical miracles because no one (including him) actually thinks they happened. The other day when he lamented the overturning of Roe v. Wade, my wife was like is this a religious service or some guy talking about current events? I think he was just talking about what he was thinking about.

There's this one song where at some point everyone says "woo!" and throws their kid in the air, each kid trying to grab more air than the next.

I get a kick out of the whole thing. It's a far way from the long beards and black hats of my youth. It's what religion should be. Part community, part entertainment, part spirituality, and part absurdity.

Preaching is hard work. You have to keep coming up with startling new interpretations of texts that has been chewed over for 2000 to 3000 years. The people expect their pastor/rabbi/priest to have original ideas. When I wrote a paper for a Shakespeare class the professor said we were not expected to come up with new ideas about Richard III -- there weren't any. Just prove whatever case we were trying to make. Shakespeare has been chewed on for only 400 years.

It's good to have posts in church; they enable the bored to doze during the sermon, unobserved.

Communion occurs twice: once in the service, a second time during coffee. If Jesus had been Lutheran, coffee would be the transubstantiating liquid, pie the flesh. Serving hot coffee and pie during communion would be more complicated than bread and wine.

Because God is merciful, we use a pipe organ and sing proper hymns. Why does 'hymn' have a silent 'n'? Many churches, even Lutherans, employ the abomination of "praise bands" which distinguish themselves mostly by being way too loud.

Our prayer list needs to be purged, but you know, bad optics.