1 in 5 Americans Still Believes the Sun is Orbiting the Earth

[AnfieldAura]

1 in 5 Americans Still Believes the Sun is Orbiting the Earth - Probably that's why they're the most technologically advanced country in the world
By: Lucian Dorneanu, Science Editor

This is a not a pointless satire on the educational system in the US. These are the results of a survey that points out that only about a fifth of all Americans have a clue of what science really is, while the rest believe that the Sun is actually revolving around the Earth and that the Tooth Fairy gives them money in exchange for the falling teeth.

Dr. Jon D. Miller is a political scientist directing the Center for Biomedical Communications at Northwestern University Medical School in Chicago and he regularly surveyed US citizens to find out their scientific literacy. Many surveys have been funded by the National Science Foundation, the Lance Armstrong Foundation and some European government agencies.

The findings prove that freedom of expression means also the freedom to believe everything except scientific facts and that "only 20 to 25 percent of Americans are scientifically savvy and alert," as he pointed out in an interview for The New York Times.

As he pointed out, one adult American in five still believes that the Sun actually revolves around the Earth and not the other way around. But it doesn't stop here, he continued.

Most of them don't understand what a molecule is, besides the fact that "it's really small," less than 1 in 3 knows that DNA is the molecule of heredity and only 1 in 10 understands the notion of radiation.

"Our best university graduates are world-class by any definition," he said. "But the second half of our high school population - it's an embarrassment. We have left behind a lot of people."

Probably that's why Romanian is the second most widely spoken language at Microsoft, why Indian and Chinese scientists are making the most important discoveries for major US universities and institutes and why English is actually the most spoken language in the world, so that non-English natives can understand one another.

I don't know if this has anything to do with many US citizens being homeschooled by religious fundamentalist, or with the fact that getting an online degree is easier than getting a loan from a bank, but it's in fact good news.

Why? Because it's good to know that you will always have a good workplace waiting in the US, as long as you is doing yo' job betta an' fasta than they can eat a burger.

Bye, y'all!


Source (http://news.softpedia.com/news/1-in-5-Americans-Still-Believe-the-Sun-is-Orbiting-the-Earth-59202.shtml) link.

----------------------

What did you believe that you only recently discovered to be incorrect or untrue? And who here thought the sun revolved around the earth?

[Ricky_Blowdeal]

Those other 4 Americans are stupid.;)

[Biscan the man]

What more would you expect from a country run by a man who believes that the world was created in 7 days and that we are all descended from adam and eve.

[Lerpwl Am Byth]

That can't be true, can it?

I know there are a lot of religious nutters over there, but they're surely a small minority: most Americans to me seem to have at least a modicum of intelligence.

[lfc_all_the_way]

What more would you expect from a country run by a man who believes that the world was created in 7 days and that we are all descended from adam and eve.

I can't expect all that much from you either, since you believe we descended from apes, even though there has never been evidence of evolution from one species to another.

[lfc_all_the_way]

1 in 5 Americans Still Believes the Sun is Orbiting the Earth - Probably that's why they're the most technologically advanced country in the world
By: Lucian Dorneanu, Science Editor

This is a not a pointless satire on the educational system in the US. These are the results of a survey that points out that only about a fifth of all Americans have a clue of what science really is, while the rest believe that the Sun is actually revolving around the Earth and that the Tooth Fairy gives them money in exchange for the falling teeth.

Dr. Jon D. Miller is a political scientist directing the Center for Biomedical Communications at Northwestern University Medical School in Chicago and he regularly surveyed US citizens to find out their scientific literacy. Many surveys have been funded by the National Science Foundation, the Lance Armstrong Foundation and some European government agencies.

The findings prove that freedom of expression means also the freedom to believe everything except scientific facts and that "only 20 to 25 percent of Americans are scientifically savvy and alert," as he pointed out in an interview for The New York Times.

As he pointed out, one adult American in five still believes that the Sun actually revolves around the Earth and not the other way around. But it doesn't stop here, he continued.

Most of them don't understand what a molecule is, besides the fact that "it's really small," less than 1 in 3 knows that DNA is the molecule of heredity and only 1 in 10 understands the notion of radiation.

"Our best university graduates are world-class by any definition," he said. "But the second half of our high school population - it's an embarrassment. We have left behind a lot of people."

Probably that's why Romanian is the second most widely spoken language at Microsoft, why Indian and Chinese scientists are making the most important discoveries for major US universities and institutes and why English is actually the most spoken language in the world, so that non-English natives can understand one another.

I don't know if this has anything to do with many US citizens being homeschooled by religious fundamentalist, or with the fact that getting an online degree is easier than getting a loan from a bank, but it's in fact good news.

Why? Because it's good to know that you will always have a good workplace waiting in the US, as long as you is doing yo' job betta an' fasta than they can eat a burger.

Bye, y'all!


Source (http://news.softpedia.com/news/1-in-5-Americans-Still-Believe-the-Sun-is-Orbiting-the-Earth-59202.shtml) link.

----------------------

What did you believe that you only recently discovered to be incorrect or untrue? And who here thought the sun revolved around the earth?

I would bet it is the same in every country.

[JP Vegas]

Education is terrible out here, same with the health system but thats a whole different conversation right there. High schoo here is a joke. you just have to show up to class and barely pull your own weight and you still graduate. They're afraid that if its too hard that students will drop out like they have been doing recently. Vegas has a huge teacher shortage, I believe its around 1400 teachers, there are so many schools here as there is 1.85million residents in the valley but not enough teachers as the teachers get paid about 10,000 a year less than the national average. It's sad really.

The universities are way too expensive to pay out of pocket so you end up in debt for ages or you have to earn a scholarship in which you usually have to maintain a ridiculously high grade point average. One of the reasons I went into the military was because they offered to pay for my degree, I only have about one year left to go but its hard when im working a full time career, so I might just do the online thing to finish it.

[Jimmys Chippy]

Judging from people who appear on/watch Big Brother, Wife Swap etc, the numbers in this country will probably be the same.

[WarrenG]

I can't expect all that much from you either, since you believe we descended from apes, even though there has never been evidence of evolution from one species to another.

:confused: You don't believe that do you?

[fan4dmb]

I think every country has it's fair share of idiots and goofballs. For the most part, all of my friends are well educated (not in the sense that they all graduated from college, but that they have a clue about what's going on in the world around them). But I know one or two people who make me scratch my head and wonder how they made it this far in life :confused:

[redwah]

George. W. Bush














enough said.......................................

[JP Vegas]

George. W. Bush

I would love to have GWB go head to head on jeopardy against a goldfish. I would never be able to arrange it as "Dubya" knows it would be a tough challenge.

[kemlynreds]

You can't beat knee jerk generalisations can you, there are thick people everywhere, or perceived thick people everywhere just depends on what they have experience in, and what power you wield.

[Ducatiboy749]

If you think there aren't any thick people in England I suggest you get yourself down to Harlow Shopping Centre on a Saturday afternoon, sharpish.

Treacherous with the amount of backwardness.

[Davide]

I can't expect all that much from you either, since you believe we descended from apes, even though there has never been evidence of evolution from one species to another.

http://www.bushorchimp.com/ :D

[Ducatiboy749]

I can't expect all that much from you either, since you believe we descended from apes, even though there has never been evidence of evolution from one species to another.

:confused:

[Fulby]

It's frightening that for such a powerful country they are so ignorant to everything else around them........no doubt there are some who are intelligent, but this doesnt suprise me in the slightest.

[redsalmighty]

1 in 5 Americans Still Believes the Sun is Orbiting the Earth - Probably that's why they're the most technologically advanced country in the world
By: Lucian Dorneanu, Science Editor

This is a not a pointless satire on the educational system in the US. These are the results of a survey that points out that only about a fifth of all Americans have a clue of what science really is, while the rest believe that the Sun is actually revolving around the Earth and that the Tooth Fairy gives them money in exchange for the falling teeth.

It would probably help in an article about how stupid everyone is if they didn't totally misrepresent the information. According to the headline it's one fifth who doesn't know this, not one fifth that does.

[Rossk1992]

Just embarrassing.

We get some right fudd's up here in Scotland that's for sure.

Try walking around Govan or around Parkhead in Glasgow, or in Muirhouse etc in Edinburgh.

How that country is still standing truly astounds me. It's run by idiots, from top to bottom. Even more so than here, and that's saying something :rolleyes:

[Vigilante]

I can't expect all that much from you either, since you believe we descended from apes, even though there has never been evidence of evolution from one species to another.

Fusion of two chromosomes? or Fission of a chromosome? No I dont believe we came from Apes either.

[Rushback]

Saying that though, we mostly believe what we're told by those supposedly ITK. The ancient scholars truely believed in the Geocentric model without question

What if our scholars are wrong now, what if there is another exact copy of Earth 180 degrees the other side of Sol and we can't see it? Will I ever find my shoe?

[sunbeam1664]

Fusion of two chromosomes? or Fission of a chromosome? No I dont believe we came from Apes either.

Err....

I'm not sure that's how the theory goes....

Father - Chimp

Son - Human.

No.

Takes a little longer than that. Mutation and natural selection. A lot more believable than the fella with the beard pulling all the strings, and the apple in the garden and the two brothers, and Noah..... and on and on...

:)

[Rossk1992]

Takes a little longer than that. Mutation and natural selection. A lot more believable than the fella with the beard pulling all the strings, and the apple in the garden and the two brothers, and Noah..... and on and on...

:)


A lot more believable yes, but no more correct than the other.

Every argument is flawed in the sense that we don't truly know how we have gotten here, and we probably will never know how we got here.

Hell, we could have been brought here by aliens..

Or maybe we were apes, but then aliens genetically engineered us to be like this.

Or we naturally grew into being intelligent homosapiens.

Or god made us.

Who gives a shit as far as I'm concerned, don't think into stuff too much and we'll all be fine haha ;)

[Vigilante]

A lot more believable yes, but no more correct than the other.

Every argument is flawed in the sense that we don't truly know how we have gotten here, and we probably will never know how we got here.

Hell, we could have been brought here by aliens..

Or maybe we were apes, but then aliens genetically engineered us to be like this.

Or we naturally grew into being intelligent homosapiens.

Or god made us.

Who gives a shit as far as I'm concerned, don't think into stuff too much and we'll all be fine haha ;)

Planted here? maybe

God? I doubt that very much

fusion of two chromosomes? I wasnt sure that was possible. or at least happened in any other species on this planet.

Offtopic slightly - Anyone ever watched Loose change 2nd edition here?

[Taksin]

The Sun does go around the Earth from the human perspective so its not stupid to believe that. Scientists tend to think the nerdish perspective is the only clever one. See QI, where everything you think you know is in fact false.

[reddownunder]

I'm not convinced by evolution and the Big Bang Theory has even less credibility. The truth is we know fuck all about the universe and never will (although I do accept that the earth revolves around the sun). The view that we were created by a higher being (god) is just as plausible an explanation as any. Maybe there is a god and maybe there isn't. When no theory can be proven right or wrong its a question of what your gut feeling is. Mine is that there is a god and we are not merely here by accident. But that's just me.

And by the way there are a lot of idiots in this country. If someone took to the streets in Brisbane or Sydney you'd probably get similar results.

[pierrenoir]

I'm not convinced by evolution and the Big Bang Theory has even less credibility. The truth is we know fuck all about the universe and never will (although I do accept that the earth revolves around the sun). The view that we were created by a higher being (god) is just as plausible an explanation as any. Maybe there is a god and maybe there isn't. When no theory can be proven right or wrong its a question of what your gut feeling is. Mine is that there is a god and we are not merely here by accident. But that's just me.

And by the way there are a lot of idiots in this country. If someone took to the streets in Brisbane or Sydney you'd probably get similar results.

Very magnanamous of you to concede the earth actually revolves around the sun there. If you are not convinced of the argument from evolution it does not mean that it makes it any less truthful, if you were to say that you could not make a judgement call on that as you do not know enough on the subject is a respectable position to take but to not be convinced by what has been proven beyond any doubt is just dumb and is basically of the same type of opinion as expresed int he original post. You people genuinely scare me.

[pierrenoir]

I can't expect all that much from you either, since you believe we descended from apes, even though there has never been evidence of evolution from one species to another.

This is a joke right ?
The argument has moved on, its not a matter for conjecture but is a proven historical fact. Why is this so hard to grasp for you people ?

[reddownunder]

Very magnanamous of you to concede the earth actually revolves around the sun there. If you are not convinced of the argument from evolution it does not mean that it makes it any less truthful, if you were to say that you could not make a judgement call on that as you do not know enough on the subject is a respectable position to take but to not be convinced by what has been proven beyond any doubt is just dumb and is basically of the same type of opinion as expresed int he original post. You people genuinely scare me.

True. I didn't use the best choice of words there. By saying I'm not convinced about evolution doesn't mean I'm right or wrong. But the Big Bang theory and many views on the universe are basically speculation. You can't tell me they are correct and I can't tell you they are incorrect. They are things we will never be able to comprehend.

Never been proven beyond any doubt mate and never will be.

[pierrenoir]

True. I didn't use the best choice of words there. By saying I'm not convinced about evolution doesn't mean I'm right or wrong.
No actually you are completely wrong

But the Big Bang theory and many views on the universe are basically speculation. You can't tell me they are correct and I can't tell you they are incorrect. They are things we will never be able to comprehend.

Probably right here but the primary reason for this is because we do not posses the mental tools to comprehend it not because it did not happen, a legacy from our time wandering around the Savannagh is we did not develope our Cerebral cortex sufficiently to allow to even imagine things on this scaleNever been proven beyond any doubt mate and never will be.

But we will keep trying.

[user name]

@Vv6... can u clarify the biological science re
apes->humans please???

I fear it's gonna kick off... ;)

[Torrminator]

I'm not convinced by evolution and the Big Bang Theory has even less credibility. The truth is we know fuck all about the universe and never will (although I do accept that the earth revolves around the sun). The view that we were created by a higher being (god) is just as plausible an explanation as any. Maybe there is a god and maybe there isn't. When no theory can be proven right or wrong its a question of what your gut feeling is. Mine is that there is a god and we are not merely here by accident. But that's just me.

And by the way there are a lot of idiots in this country. If someone took to the streets in Brisbane or Sydney you'd probably get similar results.
Is it fuck.

There isn't a single shred of evidence to back up that nonsensical fairy story.

I despair that in such an enlightened day and age that so many bright people cast away reason and believe something so backward and clearly ridiculous as that story that we were all brainwashed to believe as children.

[Dids]

Is it fuck.

There isn't a single shred of evidence to back up that nonsensical fairy story.

I despair that in such an enlightened day and age that so many bright people cast away reason and believe something so backward and clearly ridiculous as that story that we were all brainwashed to believe as children.

Thank you

[¡Vamos Rafa]

Why do we have to shit all over peoples beliefs? That's what i hate about society as a whole, why not just accept that someone believes differently to you and move on? One is not going to convince the other!

[Dids]

Because if we didn't, you'd still believe the sun goes round the earth

[Taksin]

Is it fuck.

There isn't a single shred of evidence to back up that nonsensical fairy story.

I despair that in such an enlightened day and age that so many bright people cast away reason and believe something so backward and clearly ridiculous as that story that we were all brainwashed to believe as children.

This is a deluded and ill-informed view. The God hypothesis is a highly credible explanation for the existance of the universe. There is good evidence to support it. While the evidence doesn't come from scientific experiments, which cannot be designed to look for God, it is still evidence based on understanding from all fields.
'Why There Almost Certainly Is a God' by the Oxford philosopher-theologian Keith Ward is an accomplished work that outlines exactly what its title suggests. It is written with reference to Dawkins philosophically shoddy book, which has a chapter called 'Why There Almost Certainly is no God'.
Dawkins will not have the final word on this and neither will you, no matter how much you want your opinion to be true.

[isaac_hunt]

This is a deluded and ill-informed view. The God hypothesis is a highly credible explanation for the existance of the universe. There is good evidence to support it. While the evidence doesn't come from scientific experiments, which cannot be designed to look for God, it is still evidence based on understanding from all fields.
'Why There Almost Certainly Is a God' by the Oxford philosopher-theologian Keith Ward is an accomplished work that outlines exactly what its title suggests. It is written with reference to Dawkins philosophically shoddy book, which has a chapter called 'Why There Almost Certainly is no God'.
Dawkins will not have the final word on this and neither will you, no matter how much you want your opinion to be true.

I love the way you talk nonsense and present it as fact, its hilarious.

[Dids]

This is a deluded and ill-informed view. The God hypothesis is a highly credible explanation for the existance of the universe. There is good evidence to support it. While the evidence doesn't come from scientific experiments, which cannot be designed to look for God, it is still evidence based on understanding from all fields.
'Why There Almost Certainly Is a God' by the Oxford philosopher-theologian Keith Ward is an accomplished work that outlines exactly what its title suggests. It is written with reference to Dawkins philosophically shoddy book, which has a chapter called 'Why There Almost Certainly is no God'.
Dawkins will not have the final word on this and neither will you, no matter how much you want your opinion to be true.

Just curious but what evidence you going on about?

[isaac_hunt]

Just curious but what evidence you going on about?

Well some guy who believes in God wrote a book about there being a God, that's good enough for me. And he comes from Oxford too!

[Taksin]

Just curious but what evidence you going on about?

The evidence comes from philosophical questioning of life. So it tends to be philosophical in nature, just as the arguments that God doesn't exist tend to be philosophical in nature. So there is on the one hand a critical evaluation of materialism, which is the philosophy that most stridently asserts that God does not exist and that reality can be fully explained with reference to purely material evolution. This includes a critical questioning of scientific theories for the presence of the universe such as the multiverse theories and asks whether the God hypothesis actually conforms to reality more elegantly and pursuasively, including looking at the physical laws of nature, their simplicity and the fact that the whole thing hangs together based on their highly unlikely existance.

Then there is a detailed examination of the difficult to explain (by materialism) aspects of human experience that point to the fact that reality seems to contain more than just its material parts and a viscious struggle for genes to replicate themselves. So the evidence is in the problem of consciousness, the problem of evil, the sense of value and purpose in life, all of which run into severe difficulties when given the simplistic Dawkins treatment.

Ward's book is short and succinct but there are many other comprehensive treatments of the subject that are far more than the outline of a 'fairytale'.

[Beard]

I can't expect all that much from you either, since you believe we descended from apes, even though there has never been evidence of evolution from one species to another.

Oh dear

[Taksin]

Well some guy who believes in God wrote a book about there being a God, that's good enough for me. And he comes from Oxford too!

No he doesn't come from Oxford. He was working at King's College London as Professor of Philosophy when he was invited to become the Regius Chair of Divinity at Oxford University in 1991. This gives him some philosophical credentials that you and other commentators on this thread, including myself, don't have. And it makes the title of his book interesting, given his credentials.

[Vv6]

@Vv6... can u clarify the biological science re
apes->humans please???

I fear it's gonna kick off... ;)

I did see this thread last night and thought the same thing, but It is one of those that was always going to with or without my provoking stick.

In terms of evidence: -- going for a very broad outline here.

The Big Bang theory, as its name suggests is a theory. However, all of the aspects that explain the theory have been observed actually happening, and in most cases can even be reproduced.

An object of vast density ( when matter passes through a black hole it is compressed ), emerges from that black hole and begins expanding ( something that is still happening and is actually measurable ).

All of the factors involved in the big bang theory such as fission are observable by anyone with a microscope without having to look to the stars. The obvious piece of missing relevant information is where the initial particle derived from.


Life on our planet

The rise from the primordial soup, once again has been achieved and replicated countless times. Stanley Miller and Harold Urey first created amino acids ( the "building blocks" of proteins --- which are in turn the building blocks of all life, from simple prokaryotes = single celled organisms to eukaryotes = multicellular organisms to ourselves ).

Their experiment which can be reproduced very simply by the application of sparks to a test tube of ammonia, hydrogen, methane, and water, will create chained amino acids. All of these elements/conditions being abundant on our pre-life planet.

Evolution, is also a theory, however it is once again something that has a huge amount of proof ( observed examples ). People suggest that is is an untruth because you can not directly observe it, and it is based upon the fossil record. Well it is very observable in less complex life forms such as bacterium or virons that go through many generations in an observable time frame.

As humans we have actually created a new form of directed evolution ( something that without our intervention might have taken millions of years ), in the form of selective breeding.

If you are unsure of the actuality of evolution, then it is perhaps a good thing to look at. Farmers want for example the largest or the best tasting oranges, so they uses the seeds of the oranges from the previous crop that fills those criteria. Therefore you get the best chance of big/best tasting progeny (offspring).

The domestic dog has a vast amount of breeds, all derived from one wild species. That is simply because we have breed them to fill various roles, hunter, guard dog or lap dog.

Now although this is evolution that has been directed by an outside influence, it is still evolution, something that everyone can actually physically see.

------------------------

Just to finish off, the Catholic Church officially pronounced the big bang model was in accordance with the Bible back in 1950 ish. So to be against that theory and for creationism would not make sense.


The point for both theories ( the life on our planet bit is based on raw data, no theory involved --- that is not to say that there is not another possibility, but it would need evidence to support it ) is that no matter how much provable ( factual ) information is presented, there will always be the question -- what was before ?

For this, I would turn to Occam's razor. This is the principle that given two scenarios, it recommends selecting the hypothesis that has the fewest assumptions. Now the Scientific community has provided countless replicable facts that support its theories on the origins life, the universe and its directions. I have not seen with my own two eyes, a single piece of evidence that supports creationism. I am more than open to any enlightenment in this area though and would never say that anything theoretical is without flaws.

I did post this the other day on one of the other forums, but it works just as well here.

Y4yBvvGi_2A

This is the wild banana that was in the creationist's eyes created by God. The banana in the clip is produced by selective breeding ( human assisted evolution ).

http://xmb.stuffucanuse.com/xmb/image.php?&aid=1205&wild-banana.jpg

[Dids]

So what your saying is, there isn't any evidence apart from the ramblings of believers grasping at straws desperately trying to prove something they believe in.

Why is it up to the scientists to prove that there isn't a god?

You ask a scientist a question and they'll tell you if they don't know the answer.

This is jumped upon by your lot as evidence that god does exists.

Cant prove something then it must be gods work..

Why not come up with some evidence that god exists.

[The Prince]

I had a meeting in Princeton once where someone told me that they were flying to Australia and had to fly over Europe. She was genuinely perplexed when I said that the plane wouldn't go that way. She also assumed that I loved the Queen.

That said the most popular programmes here are Britain's Got Talent, X Factor, This Morning etc, The Daily Mail still has a strong voice etc so we can hardly point the finger.

Americans aren't especially stupid, it's people who are stupid.

Stephen Fry once said that there's so much information lying around for us to pick up that it's akin to walking around in a field of gold coins and claiming that we're skint. People are lazy and have little interest in improving their minds. That's half the problem.

I have no problem believing different things. Some people want Riise back for Chrissakes.

[Vigilante]

So what your saying is, there isn't any evidence apart from the ramblings of believers grasping at straws desperately trying to prove something they believe in.

Why is it up to the scientists to prove that there isn't a god?

You ask a scientist a question and they'll tell you if they don't know the answer.

This is jumped upon by your lot as evidence that god does exists.

Cant prove something then it must be gods work..

Why not come up with some evidence that god exists.

Do you ever wonder which god they believe exists too? there are 100000s so which one? damn which made the earth? was it the one in the bible? or one the pagans believed in way before christianity.

Religion is nothing but made up bullshit to stop man from becoming insane over his natural fear of death. hell some fanatics will even blow theirself up in the belief they will come back as something else...

As for Americans....I dont trust them, and I dont mean the average joe bloggs who lives in America I mean the American government, full of shit the manipulating fuckers.

[miller0863]

What this thread needs is Herbie, to blow you all out of the water with his "lizard people" theory. Actually it's more than a theory, it's his belief due to the irrefutable evidence, which he will be only too happy to share, if he joins us after his bluebottles on toast brunch.

[David N'Goal]

I had a meeting in Princeton once where someone told me that they were flying to Australia and had to fly over Europe. She was genuinely perplexed when I said that the plane wouldn't go that way. She also assumed that I loved the Queen.

That said the most popular programmes here are Britain's Got Talent, X Factor, This Morning etc, The Daily Mail still has a strong voice etc so we can hardly point the finger.

Americans aren't especially stupid, it's people who are stupid.

Stephen Fry once said that there's so much information lying around for us to pick up that it's akin to walking around in a field of gold coins and claiming that we're skint. People are lazy and have little interest in improving their minds. That's half the problem.

I have no problem believing different things. Some people want Riise back for Chrissakes.

Spot on. I'd say the stupidity is more apathy than anything else. Lots of people just don't care to learn. When in school they obviously learn these things, but they just use the knowledge to take tests and do homework then forget about it. Most people are too obsessed with celebrity type things, stupid television shows, clothes, how much hair gel you can fit on your head, etc...

[Taksin]

So what your saying is, there isn't any evidence apart from the ramblings of believers grasping at straws desperately trying to prove something they believe in.

No Dids, that's not what I'm saying



Why is it up to the scientists to prove that there isn't a god?

It isn't, as far as I'm aware


You ask a scientist a question and they'll tell you if they don't know the answer.

Talk about a rose tinted view. Most people who trot out this kind of view - 'scientists are the ones who tell you when they don't know something' - have not worked very hard to test the theory. Also, this ignores the fundamental religious position that life is a mystery, which it is and always will be. People nowadays often have no concept of the philosophy of science and its difficulties (believing instead that science equals truth). Dawkins' views on consciousness are hotly disputed within science and he completely overlooks much of the work of those involved in the study of consciousness to advance his fundamentalist-materialist agenda.

This is what one great physicist had to say about science

"It is wrong to think that the task of physics is to find out how Nature is.
Physics concerns what we say about Nature."
Niels Bohr (1885‐1962)


This is jumped upon by your lot as evidence that god does exists.

People on both sides of the debate do tend to jump to conclusions.



Cant prove something then it must be gods work..

This is not a description of a deep understanding of creation at work.


Why not come up with some evidence that god exists.

What kind of evidence are you looking for? The existance of the universe is the first exhibit in the case for God's existance. The question is not really to do with evidence but with the subsequent arguments that explain the evidence (which are philosophical in nature). No one I have met has ever been swung one way or the other on the basis of arguments so some other means must be necessary for engaging with the truth of the matter because people do change their minds on this.

[Torrminator]

This is a deluded and ill-informed view. The God hypothesis is a highly credible explanation for the existance of the universe. There is good evidence to support it. While the evidence doesn't come from scientific experiments, which cannot be designed to look for God, it is still evidence based on understanding from all fields.
'Why There Almost Certainly Is a God' by the Oxford philosopher-theologian Keith Ward is an accomplished work that outlines exactly what its title suggests. It is written with reference to Dawkins philosophically shoddy book, which has a chapter called 'Why There Almost Certainly is no God'.
Dawkins will not have the final word on this and neither will you, no matter how much you want your opinion to be true.
Deluded?? Bit rich that.

I really do have trouble working out if you actually believe what you write on this subject. How you can turn around and call others deluded is, frankly, a joke.

My opinion is based on logic, reason and evidence, not hearsay and an old book. It's not a case of wanting it to be true and wanting others to think the same, it is a personal conclusion arrived at through consideration of the evidence.

[pierrenoir]

The evidence comes from philosophical questioning of life. So it tends to be philosophical in nature, just as the arguments that God doesn't exist tend to be philosophical in nature. So there is on the one hand a critical evaluation of materialism, which is the philosophy that most stridently asserts that God does not exist and that reality can be fully explained with reference to purely material evolution. This includes a critical questioning of scientific theories for the presence of the universe such as the multiverse theories and asks whether the God hypothesis actually conforms to reality more elegantly and pursuasively, including looking at the physical laws of nature, their simplicity and the fact that the whole thing hangs together based on their highly unlikely existance.

Then there is a detailed examination of the difficult to explain (by materialism) aspects of human experience that point to the fact that reality seems to contain more than just its material parts and a viscious struggle for genes to replicate themselves. So the evidence is in the problem of consciousness, the problem of evil, the sense of value and purpose in life, all of which run into severe difficulties when given the simplistic Dawkins treatment.

Ward's book is short and succinct but there are many other comprehensive treatments of the subject that are far more than the outline of a 'fairytale'.

This really is too much, it is not only not difficult to explain by materialism but only becomes problematic when you introduce concepts that are not only highly implausible but have the added burden of having zero evidence to support them, the same (as in identical) mechanisms you use to try and explain the existence of god can be used equally as persuasively by those who choose to try and enforce their own world view on the rest of us. You people genuinely scare me.

[Vv6]

What kind of evidence are you looking for? The existance of the universe is the first exhibit in the case for God's existance. The question is not really to do with evidence but with the subsequent arguments that explain the evidence (which are philosophical in nature). No one I have met has ever been swung one way or the other on the basis of arguments so some other means must be necessary for engaging with the truth of the matter because people do change their minds on this.

As I am sure you are aware, I come from a different set of beliefs to yourself. That does not mean that I would in anyway suggest that your position is incorrect or that the opposing position is necessarily correct.

However, in my previous post I offered a very basic outline of a few points that actually offer evidence that is observable by you, me or anyone here and now.

That is a pretty key aspect, the tangibility of the evidence. On one side you have an admittedly far from complete explanation with literally thousands of repeatable examples, on the other hand you have magic and hearsay.

--------------------------------


Intelligent design offers the idea that life was placed on earth in its current form. Now vestigiality ( the existence of a non functional appendage ) in evolutionary terms is explained perfectly by speciation events ( when one species precedes another ), genes within the original species remain and are sometimes expressed.

Now if you look at that from the creationist ideal, it suggests that God made a mistake. That the species he created were not in fact perfect.

Humans have too many teeth for their jaw, an appendix or in some cases a functional tail.

Chicken have the gene to express teeth, and in fact some are born with them.

Wales have the genes to develop legs with hoof like bases.

The list is extensive

--------------

Now if I am to believe in God as a supreme being, I do not particularly want one that makes basic mistakes with his intelligent design.
--------------

Evolution offers a linear progression in the fossil record, geneaology, embryology, comparative anatomy and physiology and phylogenetic analysis from DNA.

I mentioned Occams razor previously simply because there is not one single tangible concept within creationism. I am not saying that it is without doubt a falsehood, it is just that every piece of evidence that exists supports only one side.

The THEORY of evolution is not the same as the THEORY of creationism, Evolution is a collection of empirical factual evidence that then goes on to support the THEORY in a conclusion.

Creationism starts from the conclusion ( there is a God ), and then attempts to fit known facts to that conclusion. It obviously has to eliminate facts such as dinosaurs from the theory along the way. God put them there to test us ?

So as well as our God making mistakes in his design, he also attempts to deceive us ( in much the same way as the Devil deceived Eve in the garden of Eden ).

[Taksin]

Deluded?? Bit rich that.

I really do have trouble working out if you actually believe what you write on this subject. How you can turn around and call others deluded is, frankly, a joke.



This view that you expressed is deluded

'There isn't a single shred of evidence to back up that nonsensical fairy story'

To think this you either have to have not done your research or to ignore the evidence. Logic, reason and evidence can equally be used to give credence to beliving in God. I quoted one work that does just that. There are many others.

[Torrminator]

What evidence? It's rather difficult to research evidence that doesn't exist.

[isaac_hunt]

What kind of evidence are you looking for? The existance of the universe is the first exhibit in the case for God's existance.

It's not though is it, unless you already believe in God.

If some higher power did create the universe all those hundreds of millions of years ago it seems to me its got nothing to do with the petty, spiteful meddling creature from the bible that people want to believe in.

[Taksin]

As I am sure you are aware, I come from a different set of beliefs to yourself. That does not mean that I would in anyway suggest that your position is incorrect or that the opposing position is necessarily correct.

However, in my previous post I offered a very basic outline of a few points that actually offer evidence that is observable by you, me or anyone here and now.

That is a pretty key aspect, the tangibility of the evidence. On one side you have an admittedly far from complete explanation with literally thousands of repeatable examples, on the other hand you have magic and hearsay.

--------------------------------


Intelligent design offers the idea that life was placed on earth in its current form. Now vestigiality ( the existence of a non functional appendage ) in evolutionary terms is explained perfectly by speciation events ( when one species precedes another ), genes within the original species remain and are sometimes expressed.

Now if you look at that from the creationist ideal, it suggests that God made a mistake. That the species he created were not in fact perfect.

Humans have too many teeth for their jaw, an appendix or in some cases a functional tail.

Chicken have the gene to express teeth, and in fact some are born with them.

Wales have the genes to develop legs with hoof like bases.

The list is extensive

--------------

Now if I am to believe in God as a supreme being, I do not particularly want one that makes basic mistakes with his intelligent design.
--------------

Evolution offers a linear progression in the fossil record, geneaology, embryology, comparative anatomy and physiology and phylogenetic analysis from DNA.

I mentioned Occams razor previously simply because there is not one single tangible concept within creationism. I am not saying that it is without doubt a falsehood, it is just that every piece of evidence that exists supports only one side.

The THEORY of evolution is not the same as the THEORY of creationism, Evolution is a collection of empirical factual evidence that then goes on to support the THEORY in a conclusion.

Creationism starts from the conclusion ( there is a God ), and then attempts to fit known facts to that conclusion. It obviously has to eliminate facts such as dinosaurs from the theory along the way. God put them there to test us ?

So as well as our God making mistakes in his design, he also attempts to deceive us ( in much the same way as the Devil deceived Eve in the garden of Eden ).



That's an interesting post, VV6. You are looking at some of the philosophical implications of what evolutionary biology is discovering about life and attempting to draw meaningful conclusions about them.

To the best of my understanding (of them), I reject Intelligent Design and Creationism and most definitely in as much as they read Genesis as some sort of literal explanation for how the Earth came into being. But I'm a Catholic and the Catholic church stands against Creationism as a basic explanation. This is often confused with the fact that Catholics still believe God created the universe with all its characteristics including supposed 'mistakes'.

I thoroughly recommend 'The Selfless Gene' by Charles Foster on this subject. Reading his book leads to a much clearer understanding of the weakness of Intelligent Design theory, some of the interesting controversies in the theories of evolution and evidence against 'survival of the fittest' as well as a much more sympathetic view towards the authors of Genesis, what they were trying to say to distinguish themselves from the prevailing Mesopotamian religion that dominated their day and the ethical implications they were grappling with - including the difficulty of believing in a good God when nature is so full of pain, suffering and cruelty.

p.s. Creationism as a force to be reckoned with is a relatively new phenomenom, located mainly in America and partially fuelled by the militant atheism of Dawkins and his ilk. Both sides have made each other rich in the process of their futile arguments. The history of the relationship between Christianity and Darwin's theory is generally a far more placid affair.

[Taksin]

It's not though is it, unless you already believe in God.

The universe needs an explanation. The God hypothesis is one such explanation. Belief doesn't alter this fact either way.



If some higher power did create the universe all those hundreds of millions of years ago it seems to me its got nothing to do with the petty, spiteful meddling creature from the bible that people want to believe in.

Me neither. Especially not the petty, spiteful meddling creature that people like you wish to portray God as.

[RedNoodle]

The universe needs an explanation. The God hypothesis is one such explanation. Belief doesn't alter this fact either way.



Me neither. Especially not the petty, spiteful meddling creature that people like you wish to portray God as.

So if God is not this "petty, spiteful meddling" creature, does that not make he/she/it an apathetic creature instead? One that is quite happy to stand by and effectively watch their children obliterate themselves, partially due to arguments to do with he/she/it and things they have supposedly said/commanded?

If so, it's no better than these parents that go off on holiday and leave their toddler on their own, only to plead innocence when they are charged with neglect or manslaughter.

[Vv6]

Mr Taksin

Can you see however the way that scientific theory and practice offer tangible proof of growth within celestial bodies and phenomena therein.

Also the vast quantity of evidence that supports a linear progression of life on earth, that is available to non believers and believers alike, today, tomorrow and the next day. Actual living facts that you can see and touch right now.

My question would be, what is tangible on Gods side?

--------------------------------------------------

I do not want to be confrontational on this, because I have my beliefs and feel I should extend that courtesy to others.

I am however not sure how the writings of an individual ( in the form of the Bible, or any of the other philosophical works you mention ) offer anything more than an insight to an individuals mind. Rather like J. R. Tolkien does, it simply paints a picture without that key factor, tangibility.

-----------

One thing I would say ( although I do not speak for the scientific community ) is that there would not be quite the vociferous opposition if any of the religious standpoints had just one single piece of evidence.

I have no doubt that if something tangible could be produced, then the majority of scientists would listen. Most ( Dawkins is not our leader ) are not out to prove anything one way or the other. We just look at factual evidence and make a conclusion.

As I said previously, the religious side has made the conclusion and from that point attempts to make the facts fit.

----------

I have no intention or desire to try to change anyone's belief, nor would I ever claim that my position is 100% watertight. However, I am making my assumptions based upon things I can see and touch. What is the basis for your assumptions ?

The burden of proof is the same for both sides. One has that proof the other does not.

Whether you answer the 2 questions I pose in this post is your prerogative, but I am sure you can see how pertinent they are to such a debate

[Taksin]

Can you see however the way that scientific theory and practice offer tangible proof of growth within celestial bodies and phenomena therein.

Yes


Also the vast quantity of evidence that supports a linear progression of life on earth, that is available to non believers and believers alike, today, tomorrow and the next day. Actual living facts that you can see and touch right now.

Yes


My question would be, what is tangible on Gods side?


Traditionally, science was seen as the study of God's creation - the beauty and wonder of nature was tangible evidence of God's majesty. That hasn't changed for believers of mature sects of Christianity. Add to this some of the more baffling revelations of quantum mechanics and our grounds for thinking we understand the universe seem to be premature to say the least - in fact, the impossibilty of understanding our predicament has always been tangible evidence to me, personally. Being rational has its insane aspects.

In addition to this there is much evidence that comes from outside of study of the material universe. Love is the most obvious one. The fact that love grows in the presence of suffering. The perennial truth of a philosophy of love and how it triumphs over the concept of a life motivated by the survival of the fittest. The example set by the saints as the living embodiment of this truth.. It goes on and on..


I am however not sure how the writings of an individual ( in the form of the Bible, or any of the other philosophical works you mention Mr Taksin ) offer anything more than an insight to an individuals mind. Rather like J. R. Tolkien does, it simply paints a picture without that key factor, tangibility.


Well, Niels Bohr agrees with you and extends that belief to science. But there is too much truth in philosophy that can be agreed upon without 'proof' beyond personal experience.

Here's a Niels Bohr quote

"We are all agreed that your theory is crazy. The question that divides us is whether it is crazy enough to have a chance of being correct."

Philosophy appeals to parts of the brain that facts can't reach.


One thing I would say ( although I do not speak for the scientific community ) is that there would not be quite the vociferous opposition if any of the religious standpoints had just one single piece of evidence.


I ask you again what you think this evidence might be? An arm, a toenail of God perhaps? It doesn't work like that. Many scientists do believe so pitching science against religion is, again, not helpful on this matter. Its a philosophical question.


I have no doubt that if something tangible could be produced, then the majority of scientists would listen. Most ( Dawkins is not our leader ) are not out to prove anything one way or the other. We just look at factual evidence and make a conclusion.

Listening is a good place to start. Seeking is even better.


As I said previously, the religious side has made the conclusion and from that point attempts to make the facts fit.


That is true to an extent. You assume that people believe without question which is not true in my experience. Even so, believing something and going from there is how a lot of learning occurs.

We have to first trust our teachers, such as our parents, and then apply what we are taught to reality afterwards. That's not 'making facts fit', although those on both sides can do that.

e.g.

the design of animals reflects the struggle of their species for survival and the fitness of their genetic mutations for their environment

the male peacock has a magnificent tail which displays its health to females

but the tail makes it easier for predators to kill it and therefore unfit for survival

that's why it has it - to show off

(you can't lose)



The burden of proof is the same for both sides. One has that proof the other does not.


The assumption that is made is that it will be a scientific proof that is required. But faith is more like a love affair than an experiment. It requires giving up of the self to something other. That is, in fact, the experiment. No one who undergoes this feels a burden of proof, much as the lover feels no need to prove that the object of his love requires justification.

[WarrenG]

First Tories and right-wing nutjobs. Now religious people.

[Vv6]

I appreciate your desire to fight your corner Mr Taksin, but it seems to rely too heavily upon philosophical possibilities.

- in fact, the impossibilty of understanding our predicament has always been tangible evidence to me, personally. Being rational has its insane aspects.


I just can not consider not understanding something as being tangible (something I can touch that has physicality).

One philosopher preaches, but it is only ever the ideas of a single individual. As I mentioned Tolkien's work is a credible. If the philosopher does not pass on his teachings then they are lost forever, as nobody will have the exact same thoughts due to individuality. In the true sciences, an experiment can and is repeatable by anyone and the concluding event is always the same.

If you start from a position of complete ignorance and are presented with 2 theories religion and science, it is fair to give them 50% credence philosophical or otherwise each. However when you add those all important provable, repeatable, tangible facts that can be seen and touched to one side, and to the other side you simply reiterate the same philosophical ideas that were part of your original 50% ( and that the other side also has ) you are left with an imbalance.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

I know it was not an easy question, but:

What is the basis for your assumptions ? was quite relevant here.

Is it a case of simply being told what you should believe in ?

-----------------

I wish you all the best with your beliefs and hope they serve you well, unfortunately I am stuck on the filthy heathen pathway. Preferring provable fact over blind faith.


===============
Bit of pedantry.

Just as an aside, I think you are missing the true definition of the survival of the fittest quote ( something very rarely used now due to its ambiguity ).

It refers not to the strongest/fittest, rather to fecundity ( the numeric production of offspring ). Also the survival part is moot seeing as if you want to produce offspring, being alive is a pretty key element.

[Taksin]

Dear Vv6
thankyou for attempting to keep discussion civil - makes a refreshing change




I just can not consider not understanding something as being tangible (something I can touch that has physicality).


I wasn't saying not understanding was tangible. I was saying the impossibility of understanding is a very direct, positive, tangible experince for me. It has been since I was about 7 years old.

We live on a ball of rock, tied by gravity to a fireball that sustains us, floating in unimaginably vast space. It is not infinite - we understand it to have limits. An edge. Beyond which is nothing - this means the universe floats in that which we cannot conceive. All this started from a point in time where the whole lot was condensed in an infinitely small point of infinite density, or something like that. Inability to understand this is built in. Anyone who thinks science can (now or eventually) make sense of this and pretend to answer 'why?' has always seemed to me to be operating with a very strange faith.

Yet the world seems full of purpose, truth, meaning and poetic justice. God has always seemed obvious to me, and my family are all atheists.

When my brother died, my mother told me he had gone to heaven even though she didn't believe this herself. Since I work on an oncology ward, I have observed this scenario many times since. It strikes me as meaningful that people cannot tell a child what they believe to be true under these circumstances - it's too cruel. Children are not stupid either. If you try to tell a child the person has just gone forever into dust, they will not be satisfied with this explanation. Wanting answers is a deep human longing. Intellectual answers based on 'facts' are not good enough for the big occasions.



I know it was not an easy question, but:

What is the basis for your assumptions ? was quite relevant here.

Is it a case of simply being told what you should believe in ?



I find this a very strange question. The basis for my assumptions could only ever be my personal understanding of life with all the flaws that go along with that - exactly the same as the basis for your assumptions. As far as I'm aware, you are not party to any scientific facts that swing the argument in your favour that I am not party to. You have assumed that more scientific facts and proofs are what is needed to understand life, including the question of God's existance. I have assumed that this is futile and the answers lie outside of science. I've never expected science to help in this area other than by filling in a few details.

Militant scientism-ists often claim and believe that they do not operate with any assumptions. But this is false - Niels Bohr was expressing this problem for scientists in the quotes I included above.

Here is Chesterton on the subject of assumptions

“It is idle to talk always of the alternative of reason and faith. Reason is itself a matter of faith. It is an act of faith to assert that our thoughts have any relation to reality at all. If you are merely a sceptic, you must sooner or later ask yourself the question, ‘Why should anything go right; even observation or deduction? Why should not good logic be as misleading as bad logic? They are both movements in the brain of a bewildered ape.’ The young sceptic says ‘I have a right to think for myself.’ But the old sceptic, the complete sceptic says, ‘I have no right to think for myself. I have no right to think at all.’

[tonk]

I believe in God.

I believe in evolution.

I like the Stephen Fry comment about knowledge laying around just waiting to be picked up. We do live in an amazing, if overwhelming age.

I'm sometimes told I read too many books. Is there such a thing as knowing too much?

[RedNoodle]

Just a small question about your last post. What evidence is there to support your claim that beyond the edge of the universe is "Nothing"? Firstly there is no such thing as "Nothing" and secondly the universe is expanding, which given my first statement must mean that it is expanding into something, we just don't know what. That for me is the key point as it seems that anything science cannot yet prove/explain must somehow be the work of god, not merely something that has not been solved/explained quite yet.

You say that those who believe in science being able to explain everything are "operating with a very strange faith" but surely it's the other way round, as science operates in a way that attempts to explain the nature of things (many which were thought to be the work/acts of God until science proved otherwise) through fact, whilst religion teaches that even though you can touch/feel/see/hear these things you should put them down to the workings of something/someone that you cannot prove in any way, shape or form actually exists.

Out of the two I would say it's the latter that are "operating with a very strange faith".

[Taksin]

Just a small question about your last post. What evidence is there to support your claim that beyond the edge of the universe is "Nothing"? Firstly there is no such thing as "Nothing" and secondly the universe is expanding, which given my first statement must mean that it is expanding into something, we just don't know what. That for me is the key point as it seems that anything science cannot yet prove/explain must somehow be the work of god, not merely something that has not been solved/explained quite yet.



The fact that you think science might explain (or solve!) what lies beyond the known universe in a way that will satisfy your mind is doubly strange to me. Firstly it places a lot of faith in man's ability to understand his predicament (through facts or information). Secondly it seems utterly lacking in a sense of wonder or mystery in the inexplicably strange fact that the universe exists at all. What could possibly be outside it? Something or nothing, neither option can have any explanatory power - just information. The big bang - that other half of the equation that we have a degree of certainty about - is an absurdity. I don't blame scientists for this.

[glockdanny]

Are you trying to tell me that the Sun doesn't orbit the earth then?

[Munkybhai]

When my brother died, my mother told me he had gone to heaven even though she didn't believe this herself. Since I work on an oncology ward, I have observed this scenario many times since. It strikes me as meaningful that people cannot tell a child what they believe to be true under these circumstances - it's too cruel. Children are not stupid either. If you try to tell a child the person has just gone forever into dust, they will not be satisfied with this explanation. Wanting answers is a deep human longing. Intellectual answers based on 'facts' are not good enough for the big occasions.


Are you essentially saying that if the truth is too much for someone to take, we should tell them a lie instead, since it makes them feel better? Or to more clearly state it, you are suggesting that we should teach people about a fictitious explanation for the universe since the answers we are getting are hurting our feelings (i.e. we are not actually all that important, even if we are pretty miraculous as far as lifeforms go)

[Munkybhai]

The fact that you think science might explain (or solve!) what lies beyond the known universe in a way that will satisfy your mind is doubly strange to me. Firstly it places a lot of faith in man's ability to understand his predicament (through facts or information). Secondly it seems utterly lacking in a sense of wonder or mystery in the inexplicably strange fact that the universe exists at all. What could possibly be outside it? Something or nothing, neither option can have any explanatory power - just information. The big bang - that other half of the equation that we have a degree of certainty about - is an absurdity. I don't blame scientists for this.

A) Please read/watch anything by Carl Sagan to witness just how awesome the universe actually is to people who still want to understand it, and

B) the word universe by definition implies everything. Now when the universe is described as being finite and limited, it is erroneous to imagine it as some kind of expanding sphere because this again makes our limited imagination think that there is an edge, and hence something on the other side. It's better to think of it as the spaces between things is expanding. Unfortunately even this image is not really that correct, but it's really just to let your brain imagine the concept of expanding space that is NOT growing as say an inflatable balloon would. See, science can be mindblowing too, just without the crutch of making our egos feel better.

[Taksin]

Are you essentially saying that if the truth is too much for someone to take, we should tell them a lie instead, since it makes them feel better? Or to more clearly state it, you are suggesting that we should teach people about a fictitious explanation for the universe since the answers we are getting are hurting our feelings (i.e. we are not actually all that important, even if we are pretty miraculous as far as lifeforms go)

No, I'm not saying what we should do. I'm saying what I have observed people doing. It makes sense to me that, around death, people fall back on the spiritual tradition they have abandoned for help. To the question 'where has he gone?' no sane person answers with 'well, according to a recent study..'
People don't call for a micro-bacteriologist to visit their bedside to help them make peace with death and they never will. That's not because they abandon science in their moment of need - they still believe everything the bacteriologist believes to be true - but they are looking for peace, not information.
They are not competing theories.

[n4c]

No, I'm not saying what we should do. I'm saying what I have observed people doing. It makes sense to me that, around death, people fall back on the spiritual tradition they have abandoned for help. To the question 'where has he gone?' no sane person answers with 'well, according to a recent study..'
People don't call for a micro-bacteriologist to visit their bedside to help them make peace with death and they never will. That's not because they abandon science in their moment of need - they still believe everything the bacteriologist believes to be true - but they are looking for peace, not information.
They are not competing theories.

It's for comfort, one of the few things religion is good for

It's comforting to think that loved one has gone to heaven and will be sat watching from above whilst sad on a cloud playing a harp. The reality that they're gone for good and their shell of a body will now decompose and be eaten by worms is not at all comforting!

[The Prince]

Are you trying to tell me that the Sun doesn't orbit the earth then?

We've been through this. Remember our discussion about the cows outside and the little toy cows in the house?

[Rossk1992]

fusion of two chromosomes? I wasnt sure that was possible. or at least happened in any other species on this planet.


I watched a couple of programmes on Nat Geo a few months ago about human evolution, was really interesting, need to find out the name of it again.

A few well respected figures in the scientific world all agreed that at some point in our 'evolution' we suddenly gained a new strand to our DNA. It's this part of our genetics that makes us 'human' they think, and allowed us to evolve from simple apes, into what we are now. There's a specific name for this strand of DNA, I'm fucked if I can remember though.

Was really interesting because it acknowledged that this is a very unique aspect of our DNA, not many other species on earth, or that have ever existed have suddenly gained a new strand of DNA.

Not only this, but it happened in a very short time period, obviously we are talking about a few thousand years but in terms of evolution it was extremely fast, which to many people suggested that there was some form of outside interference.

Even in our very young stage of civilisation we are able to alter and tweak with genetics, there is a strong argument that this could have been the case with us, a very long time ago.

Still, if this isn't the case, you have to really grasp how incredible we are then, we're different to any mammal or speices that has ever existed.

We weren't created by something devine, we are devine ourselves. :o

[Rushback]

I find this stuff fascinating, I spent two hours on a reply yesterday but didn't post it because when I read it back, it was a mish mash of gobbledygook

I found my shoe though which was nice

[Vv6]

A few well respected figures in the scientific world all agreed that at some point in our 'evolution' we suddenly gained a new strand to our DNA. It's this part of our genetics that makes us 'human' they think, and allowed us to evolve from simple apes, into what we are now. There's a specific name for this strand of DNA, I'm fucked if I can remember though.



It is called HAR1F ( not the best name I know, but it was named prior to any theories of its importance ).

It is actually an RNA ( ribonucleic acid ) strand as opposed to a DNA strand ( I do not want to go into this because it will get complex fast but basically )---

DNA works like a zipper, you have messenger RNA which in turn tells the DNA which base to partner with making a base pair.

Bases are:
A - Adenine
G - Guanine
C - Cytosine
T - Thymine

A always bonds with T
G always bonds with C

So messenger RNA codes the DNA, which then forms the double helix that DNA is seen as.


HARF1 is a section of functional RNA on its own, it is not doing the normal code for protiens - bases - DNA

-----------------

As we only have a very small deviation from chimps 1% ish it is easy to pinpoint large sections of base pairs that are consistent withing each species and also the differences.

The HARF1 gene it is thought ( it is part theory part factual at the moment ) controls the growth of our cerebral cortex ( the outer sectors of the brain ). Whenever you look at evolution, it is a good idea to look at an individual appendage or organ at a time. In cases such as the giraffes neck or for humans our brain, they tend to be the major factor and driving difference ( giraffe coming from an equine - horse ancestor ).

Our brain is the big difference between ourselves and chimps, other aspects like our gait, lack of hair, less pronounced jaws and so on would be secondary aspects to our progression in brain size.

We have a molecule in our brain called reelin which promotes growth and also the very important connections within synapses. Our HARF1 is functional whilst these molecules are being produced.

------------

As I say, it is a work in progress at the moment, but it could well be the key difference that lead to greater social skills, tool making and so on. All the things that make us what we are ( our brain ).

[Rossk1992]

It is called HAR1F ( not the best name I know, but it was named prior to any theories of its importance ).

It is actually an RNA ( ribonucleic acid ) strand as opposed to a DNA strand ( I do not want to go into this because it will get complex fast but basically )---

DNA works like a zipper, you have messenger RNA which in turn tells the DNA which base to partner with making a base pair.

Bases are:
A - Adenine
G - Guanine
C - Cytosine
T - Thymine

A always bonds with T
G always bonds with C

So messenger RNA codes the DNA, which then forms the double helix that DNA is seen as.


HARF1 is a section of functional RNA on its own, it is not doing the normal code for protiens - bases - DNA

-----------------

As we only have a very small deviation from chimps 1% ish it is easy to pinpoint large sections of base pairs that are consistent withing each species and also the differences.

The HARF1 gene it is thought ( it is part theory part factual at the moment ) controls the growth of our cerebral cortex ( the outer sectors of the brain ). Whenever you look at evolution, it is a good idea to look at an individual appendage or organ at a time. In cases such as the giraffes neck or for humans our brain, they tend to be the major factor and driving difference ( giraffe coming from an equine - horse ancestor ).

Our brain is the big difference between ourselves and chimps, other aspects like our gait, lack of hair, less pronounced jaws and so on would be secondary aspects to our progression in brain size.

We have a molecule in our brain called reelin which promotes growth and also the very important connections within synapses. Our HARF1 is functional whilst these molecules are being produced.

------------

As I say, it is a work in progress at the moment, but it could well be the key difference that lead to greater social skills, tool making and so on. All the things that make us what we are ( our brain ).


It's extremely interesting when you read into (or watch programmes) relating to all this stuff. You often wonder where down the line we changed from being mere apes, with limited cognotive ability, social skills and technical ability, to changing into a being that is capable of splitting an atom or travelling to the moon.

You're right with the name of this strand, I thought it was DNA, you rightly corrected me (just looked it up online :p).

Like you said, we only differ from our ape relatives by around 1% yet that 1% makes an incredible difference in the course of evolution and history. If we hadn't had that change, that evolution I suppose you could say, then earth would be a different place.

There was an argument that perhaps that change was brought on by outside interference in our genetic make-up, whether that is true, or even a plausible theory is debatable though.

What is interesting however is, hypothetically, had that all important evolutionary jump not been made by early apes, could it have been made by other mammals, or creatures on earth, and would they have had the ability to progress in such a fashion as we have?

[Munkybhai]

I'll admit that I love watching that history channel show, Ancient Aliens. I know most of it is bollocks but I wish it were true. It would make so much more sense, for example, that mana is derived from the Jews wandering 40 years in the desert during which time benevolent aliens gave them a "mana machine" to provide them food from condensed water and an algae housed within which had to be cleaned once a week, hence why they don't cook (and eventually do any work) every seventh day. To me that's just such a cool explanation even if it's wrong because I find it more elegant a reason than saying that they received food mysteriously each morning that fell from the sky.

The ancient astronaut theory is compelling because in some way it makes you look at ancient texts in general and wonder how our ancestors would have tried to write down or interpret things like spaceships,
advanced weaponry or other tech, and that maybe that's what we are actually reading.

That documentary had about 2 or 3 really good episodes in te beginning and then rapidly went downhill with more and more outlandish conjecture or outright lies.

[Hunt 23]

I was turned off religion as a kid. I was told that if I was good then I would go to heaven. I didn't want to go to heaven, I wanted to go to Valhalla. Those Norse Gods seem much better than ours. Imagine a night out with that Thor guy. When I was told I couldn't go I was all naughty for ages.

Valhalla or nothing for me. Looks like nothing.

[Munkybhai]

Valhalla is just north of NYC, if you still want to go.

[Munkybhai]

People don't call for a micro-bacteriologist to visit their bedside to help them make peace with death and they never will. That's not because they abandon science in their moment of need - they still believe everything the bacteriologist believes to be true - but they are looking for peace, not information.
They are not competing theories.

There's no need to call it "science" which dredges up some kind of antagonism with "belief/faith". It's called reality. I can understand lying to children about it, because it takes the infant mind time to reach a certain level of development before he/she can understand the concept of death.

But adults too? People sometimes say that it would shatter their reality. Shouldn't that be "reveal their reality"? I mean, for children we will invent something like the tooth fairy so that kids won't be too upset when their milk teeth fall out, but we don't persist with that if it happens to an adult.

Would you rather take the blue pill if you were in the Matrix?

[Rossk1992]

The ancient astronaut theory is compelling because in some way it makes you look at ancient texts in general and wonder how our ancestors would have tried to write down or interpret things like spaceships,
advanced weaponry or other tech, and that maybe that's what we are actually reading.

I've seen that before, maybe two episodes I think, was interesting and like you said it makes you think "maybe we have been visited, or helped by aliens"

It's no less plausible than religion etc, if anything, it does play into the idea of having a 'creator' and perhaps in earlier times, man wouldn't have understood things such as spacecraft etc, so interpreted them as angels, and gods

If you look at every major religion, they speak of 'star people' or 'people coming down from heaven' - to me that sounds like primitive people trying to interpret contact with extra terrestrials.

Interesting theory definitely, especially when you look at ancient civilisations such as the Sumerians, who pioneered farming techniques, reading, writing and philosophy, as well as having a profound understanding of the stars and the solar system, you wonder how they managed to do this all without some help.

Saying that, I believe we greatly underestimate our own capability as a species, and every great act or episode in human history has came as a result of our own doing, and our own intelligent behaviour, not alien intervention.

Still an interesting theory though

[Munkybhai]

Some might even look at those Human Accelerating Regions of our genome and interpret it as implying some form of meddling by non-humans. The idea that some genes can be so highly conserved between chickens and chimpanzees (implying that they are in some way fundamental to brain development in all those animals) and yet significantly different in our own suggests so much either way. Is it outside intervention to accelerate our intelligence? Is it the evolutionary leap that allowed us to have such ecological dominance over other living organisms that just has yet to be repeated in other animals (but might in the future)? I'd like to know if dolphins, widely regarded as the next most intelligent after (or perhaps before?) us also have different genes from other mammals in those regions for brain development, or do they share the same highly conserved sequences?

[Taksin]

There's no need to call it "science" which dredges up some kind of antagonism with "belief/faith". It's called reality. I can understand lying to children about it, because it takes the infant mind time to reach a certain level of development before he/she can understand the concept of death.


This is a dubious paragraph.

If you think science equals reality you haven't thought enough about what Niels Bohr was saying.

I didn't say it was a case of lying to children - the point I was making was that people look beyond their materialist beliefs to undertand death. I don't think we should lie to children and I think they are often too clever to accept lies aswell. Neither is lying to adults comforting in the way N4c suggested. We don't say 'this is difficult to understand. Please lie to me as it will comfort me'. If you try to lie to someone on their deathbed or offer them platitutes - and I've seen this done many times - it pisses them off. Quite rightly too.

(One strange implication of the belief that you seem confident of - that there is nothing more after death [for which you have no proof] - is that funerals are no longer for the deceased. They become for us. I go to a funeral for me. I lay flowers on the grave for my benefit. I hold this memorial service to honour myself. If you really believe there is nothing eternal about the human, why bother with any ceremony?)

You also think that adults understand the concept of death. I can't agree with you on this. People who think they understand death tend, in my experience, to be people who have made themselves numb to death. Spend time with dying people and death becomes more mysterious by the day not less. The disappearance of a loved one becomes an impossibilty in the mind of those present. Just as much of an impossibilty as the state of the universe. The microbiology of the situation, however true, becomes an irrelevance. The real drama is in the question of the soul. That's what children want to know about, but then, they haven't numbed themselves to it yet.

[Rossk1992]

The mind can never die.

Do people on here honestly believe that every single emotion, every single thought, feeling, experience and sensation just disappears the moment you die? That to me seems quite impossible.

A human brain processes so much information every second that by the time we get to our deaths at, say, 75, we have literally trillions of gigabytes worth of information in our minds. Does this disappear? Just into thin air? Nah, I really don't think so.

Your body dies, and it gets put in the ground, and rots, and goes back to being what it is, part of nature. It's your mind that lives on (this is where I believe the concept of a 'soul' comes from) I think we're more than just flesh and bone.

I may just be choosing to remain ignorant to death, because I don't like the idea of 'not existing'. But nothing that has ever been, can cease to exist, everything leaves a mark, a memory.

[Dids]

Taskin mate, you don't half waffle shite.

Lots and lots of it.

But none of it means anything, it's all based on nothing, it's just fucking waffle.

[Munkybhai]

This is a dubious paragraph.

If you think science equals reality you haven't thought enough about what Niels Bohr was saying.

I wasn't talking about science at all. I was talking about the reality of what we see, not what we want to see, which is why I wanted to dispense with the word science in the first place. What is death in a plant, an animal, a human?Is there a difference? Why do we ascribe a difference to the death of tree, a toad, a chicken or other living organism (that we haven't anthropomorphised in our minds) to that of a human? I would suggest that the answer is not that we are intrinsically better, but that we want to think we are better. A human death is more important to us because we are humans. We want to thus ascribe an importance and relevance to it.

I didn't say it was a case of lying to children - the point I was making was that people look beyond their materialist beliefs to undertand death. I don't think we should lie to children and I think they are often too clever to accept lies aswell. Neither is lying to adults comforting in the way N4c suggested. We don't say 'this is difficult to understand. Please lie to me as it will comfort me'. If you try to lie to someone on their deathbed or offer them platitutes - and I've seen this done many times - it pisses them off. Quite rightly too.

There are stages of growth in a person as they go from being an infant to being an adult, and within the human there are stages of being able to understand and process loss (including death). I'll just throw a link I found to show you what I mean by this, but basically an infant (no understanding of death at all) processes loss differently from a 2 year old (death is temporary or reversible), who is different from an 8 year old (death is final, but can be evaded) and so on. The time scales can vary depending on the experiences of the children, but basically there is a final stage from which we can say someone has reached an adult conception of death. http://social.jrank.org/pages/186/Death-Development-Concept-Death.html

(One strange implication of the belief that you seem confident of - that there is nothing more after death [for which you have no proof] - is that funerals are no longer for the deceased. They become for us. I go to a funeral for me. I lay flowers on the grave for my benefit. I hold this memorial service to honour myself. If you really believe there is nothing eternal about the human, why bother with any ceremony?)

Firstly, what kind of proof would you or anyone consider as solid for the existence of an after-life? Please do not give me near-death experiences - their brains were still alive throughout the whole experience, hence they were truly not dead. If we can have some kind of criteria for an after-life then we can search for evidence. If you create a concept that is impossible to ever verify, then what's the point? The onus is on those who have an alternate hypothesis to deliver proof. It's like me saying that purple fairies take our souls to the center of the earth where they exist in a state that is beyond any sensory perception. If i just make that up now, it's obviously an invalid statement. So if I made it up 4000 years ago, it's acceptable as real?

Secondly, the ritual act of grieving and funerary rights are absolutely designed to ease the living (hence why there is such a great variance among cultures as to how they are performed, whether it is burial or cremation or sky burial - a lack of uniformity of practice is evidence that what is actually done doesn't matter, just that something is done). It helps a person get through those Kubler-Ross stages of loss (denial - anger- bargaining - depression - acceptance) or whatever model of grieving you subscribe to because it makes you feel as if the person has had a "proper" send-off and will be remembered and honoured. People want a chance to say goodbye, otherwise there can always be that doubt that can keep people stuck in denial ("He's not dead, you never showed me his body, he could still be alive, you don't know!"). You're bizarre implication is that someone who has a proper funeral is somehow better off than a poor kid who dies in a ditch with a bullet in his head who is then eaten by leopards.

You also think that adults understand the concept of death. I can't agree with you on this. People who think they understand death tend, in my experience, to be people who have made themselves numb to death. Spend time with dying people and death becomes more mysterious by the day not less. The disappearance of a loved one becomes an impossibilty in the mind of those present. Just as much of an impossibilty as the state of the universe. The microbiology of the situation, however true, becomes an irrelevance. The real drama is in the question of the soul. That's what children want to know about, but then, they haven't numbed themselves to it yet.

Death is the biological cessation of activity in one organism and the psychological reaction of the living to that death. Understanding that doesn't mean that you are exempt from it. If a family member of mine were to die, I can understand the concept of death just fine, but I also understand that there are some steps that I have to go through, as a living survivor, in order to eventually reach acceptance over the fact that that person is now dead. The particulars of each step are unimportant to anyone who is not a part of the relevant culture. I'm just of the opinion that lying to ourselves that the person still lives on in a hidden place is ridiculous, and cutting that out doesn't automatically mean that we do not honour or respect the dead correctly. The drama, as you put it, is watching people come to the understanding that death is universal. It's not numbness - it's real maturity.

[Taksin]

Death is the biological cessation of activity in one organism and the psychological reaction of the living to that death. Understanding that doesn't mean that you are exempt from it. If a family member of mine were to die, I can understand the concept of death just fine, but I also understand that there are some steps that I have to go through, as a living survivor, in order to eventually reach acceptance over the fact that that person is now dead. The particulars of each step are unimportant to anyone who is not a part of the relevant culture. I'm just of the opinion that lying to ourselves that the person still lives on in a hidden place is ridiculous, and cutting that out doesn't automatically mean that we do not honour or respect the dead correctly. The drama, as you put it, is watching people come to the understanding that death is universal. It's not numbness - it's real maturity.

That's a good post, Mr M. You've given a fairly comprehensive overview of the fullness of the materialist approach to death. I find the last sentence depressing, however. You presuppose you know what people should make of death - understanding its universality. That's an intellectual position, not an existential one. The universality of death is the beginning of the philosphical enquiry, not the end of it. All major religions continually remind their followers of death as a symbolic signpost in life - that's an important function of religion.

The Kubler-Ross psychological model of grieving can be helpful if used in the right way, but it only helps with an emotional process. It doesn't give any help with the big questions or the existential problems presented by death. On the oncology ward we have a brilliant counsellor who uses that and other models to help the dying and their families. She uses the same models to help Christians, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Atheists and Agnostics because those models are existentially neutral. Most of them accept her help gratefully without seeing it in any way as conflicting with their religious beliefs or lack of them. Those who are religious will also seek the help of their priest or rabbi or whoever, who will be trained to help them in very different ways. They will also probably end up passing through their temple of choice in a coffin for reasons that are important to them beyond the psychological.

People don't go through all the religious stuff because they feel it is proven or certain. It's part of a symbolic relationship with a mystery - a mystery that no amount of science or psychology can explain away. Its also an attitude full of hope and trust in divine providence, an experience that is deeply rooted in the personal experience of life. Going on about purple fairies is missing the point.

[The Prince]

Just to confirm that the Earth goes around the Sun. We can thank Galileo for actually proving that.

Carry on.

[fiordearg]

I was turned off religion as a kid. I was told that if I was good then I would go to heaven. I didn't want to go to heaven, I wanted to go to Valhalla. Those Norse Gods seem much better than ours. Imagine a night out with that Thor guy. When I was told I couldn't go I was all naughty for ages.

Valhalla or nothing for me. Looks like nothing.
reminds of that led zepellin song
"hammer of the gods, we drive our ships to new lands" Ah Ah Ah!

[Whopper]

I miss football.

[fiordearg]

I miss football.

6 out of 6 americans call it soccer

[Munkybhai]

That's a good post, Mr M. You've given a fairly comprehensive overview of the fullness of the materialist approach to death. I find the last sentence depressing, however. You presuppose you know what people should make of death - understanding its universality. That's an intellectual position, not an existential one. The universality of death is the beginning of the philosphical enquiry, not the end of it. All major religions continually remind their followers of death as a symbolic signpost in life - that's an important function of religion.

Thanks, I find your posts to be well written, even if I disagree. The concept of the universality of death is the stage of mental development towards the idea of death at which we consider someone to be adult, i.e. they realise that death is an inevitability and not something that can be evaded, dodged or delayed indefinitely as children/adolescents might. That's all. Reaching this level is a sign of intellectual maturity towards a difficult concept. My view on the function of religion is one of providing safety from that which we don't know/understand. Since all religions have a different concept of the afterlife, whether it be a permanent paradise, a recycling of souls, the freeing of consciousness, and so on, and all of them can't be correct, the only thing that tells me is that not one of them really knows the answer. As such, my position is why bother philosophising about what's at most a completely erroneous and at best an unprovable hypothesis?

The Kubler-Ross psychological model of grieving can be helpful if used in the right way, but it only helps with an emotional process. It doesn't give any help with the big questions or the existential problems presented by death. On the oncology ward we have a brilliant counsellor who uses that and other models to help the dying and their families. She uses the same models to help Christians, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Atheists and Agnostics because those models are existentially neutral. Most of them accept her help gratefully without seeing it in any way as conflicting with their religious beliefs or lack of them. Those who are religious will also seek the help of their priest or rabbi or whoever, who will be trained to help them in very different ways. They will also probably end up passing through their temple of choice in a coffin for reasons that are important to them beyond the psychological.

People don't go through all the religious stuff because they feel it is proven or certain. It's part of a symbolic relationship with a mystery - a mystery that no amount of science or psychology can explain away. Its also an attitude full of hope and trust in divine providence, an experience that is deeply rooted in the personal experience of life. Going on about purple fairies is missing the point.

It almost sounds like you agreed with me on the fact that grieving people require to go through certain steps in order gain acceptance of their loss, you just don't like the word "psychology", because it presumably sounds like science rather than philosophy. Like I said earlier, the lack of a uniformity across different religions or cultures when it comes to dealing with something like death simply implies that what is actually done is completely unimportant. The religion/culture tells its members that doing certain things will be good, and not doing them will be bad, so one does the things that are good because it makes one feel better about what has happened. They have done something that will bring happiness to the departed, but in reality it's all about making themselves feel able to let go of the departed. Analyzing the psychological needs of bereavement is a fascinating subject, but to imply that there's something more to be learned by delving into arbitrarily invented customs is, frankly, disappointing. It would be akin to using the Silmarillion as the basis for investigating the history of the British Isles.

[Femmefootyfan]

The mind can never die.

Do people on here honestly believe that every single emotion, every single thought, feeling, experience and sensation just disappears the moment you die? That to me seems quite impossible.

A human brain processes so much information every second that by the time we get to our deaths at, say, 75, we have literally trillions of gigabytes worth of information in our minds. Does this disappear? Just into thin air? Nah, I really don't think so.

Your body dies, and it gets put in the ground, and rots, and goes back to being what it is, part of nature. It's your mind that lives on (this is where I believe the concept of a 'soul' comes from) I think we're more than just flesh and bone.



I may just be choosing to remain ignorant to death, because I don't like the idea of 'not existing'. But nothing that has ever been, can cease to exist, everything leaves a mark, a memory.

A great post Mr Rossk. I truly beleive that the deja vu so many of us experience is exactly this. Its generation and generations of our memories, remembering.

[Munkybhai]

Analyzing the psychological needs of bereavement is a fascinating subject, but to imply that there's something more to be learned by delving into arbitrarily invented customs is, frankly, disappointing. It would be akin to using the Silmarillion as the basis for investigating the history of the British Isles.

Ok, I want to tone that down a little, after reading it, because I don't want to say that there's nothing to be learned about human psychology and its needs from analyzing the cross-cultural and religious practices of people. Just that you're extremely unlikely to find something uniquely illuminating about how humans cope with loss from, say, delving into a particular religious practice as opposed to another one.

[Munkybhai]

[/B]

A great post Mr Rossk. I truly beleive that the de javu so many of us experience is exactly this. Its generation and generations of our memories, remembering.

People with repeated deja vu are almost always having minor seizures involving the part of the brain that deals with memory (eg. Hippocampus).

Sorry to burst your bubble, because it would be way cooler your way (very Paul Atreides).

[Femmefootyfan]

People with repeated deja vu are almost always having minor seizures involving the part of the brain that deals with memory (eg. Hippocampus).

Sorry to burst your bubble, because it would be way cooler your way (very Paul Atreides).

But I didn't mean people with repeated deja vu I meant those who have maybe only one to two episodes in a lifetime and yet thier experience is so tangible that it cannot be just coincidence.

[Munkybhai]

The mind can never die.

Do people on here honestly believe that every single emotion, every single thought, feeling, experience and sensation just disappears the moment you die? That to me seems quite impossible.

A human brain processes so much information every second that by the time we get to our deaths at, say, 75, we have literally trillions of gigabytes worth of information in our minds. Does this disappear? Just into thin air? Nah, I really don't think so.

Your body dies, and it gets put in the ground, and rots, and goes back to being what it is, part of nature. It's your mind that lives on (this is where I believe the concept of a 'soul' comes from) I think we're more than just flesh and bone.

I may just be choosing to remain ignorant to death, because I don't like the idea of 'not existing'. But nothing that has ever been, can cease to exist, everything leaves a mark, a memory.

Just as a question, you think that information can never be lost. Somehow it is retained.

So... if I melt down a hard drive full of porn, I'll still be able to retrieve it from the molten remains, or do the saucy pictures all "upload" into heaven and our great-grandfathers can all enjoy bukkake like the rest of us? :D

But more seriously, people can't seem to agree on what a soul is. Is it the "life-force" that animates a body. Is it the consciousness of someone? Does that mean that if someone gets a metal spike through their brain and their personality changes, that they got a new soul? How does it differ from the things we can actually study? Is it just an archaic word that we now refer to as "the mind". Or is it just a made-up idea to help people feel that they won't disappear into nothing when they die?

Personally, if I had to state that something is my soul, the part of myself that will continue on after I die, then it would be my family and children who share a part of me inside every cell. I can't think of something more beautiful and less egotistical as a concept for a soul than that.

[Munkybhai]

But I didn't mean people with repeated deja vu I meant those who have maybe only one to two episodes in a lifetime and yet thier experience is so tangible that it cannot be just coincidence.

So your memory centres went on the fritz once or twice in your life.

Just apply Occam's Razor.

1. You actually saw the future and remembered it, but only when the event happened again.

2. You had a misfiring neuron in your brain that accidentally filed away a new memory as an old, long-term memory.

[Femmefootyfan]

So your memory centres went on the fritz once or twice in your life.

Just apply Occam's Razor.

1. You actually saw the future and remembered it, but only when the event happened again.

2. You had a misfiring neuron in your brain that accidentally filed away a new memory as an old, long-term memory.

In your opinion of course. Btw would like to say I am an athiest so I am not coming from any religious stand point.

[Rossk1992]

Just as a question, you think that information can never be lost. Somehow it is retained.

So... if I melt down a hard drive full of porn, I'll still be able to retrieve it from the molten remains, or do the saucy pictures all "upload" into heaven and our great-grandfathers can all enjoy bukkake like the rest of us? :D

But more seriously, people can't seem to agree on what a soul is. Is it the "life-force" that animates a body. Is it the consciousness of someone? Does that mean that if someone gets a metal spike through their brain and their personality changes, that they got a new soul? How does it differ from the things we can actually study? Is it just an archaic word that we now refer to as "the mind". Or is it just a made-up idea to help people feel that they won't disappear into nothing when they die?.


To the first point, all that porn may have been deleted from that hard-drive, but it still exists. If you got rid of every single porn video on earth. It would still exist, because people remember it, it has left a mark, therefore it cannot be 'deleted' or merely wiped from existence.

This is the same with us, with every single fucking life form on earth. You can't just exist, then cease to exist.

The term 'soul' is what I think early humans used to describe their 'being'. Even I can't describe it, it's just you. It's your mind, your memories, your sensations, your emotions, you don't think that all that disappears when you 'die' do you?

I can't wait for the season to begin, debating this shit just drives me insane.

It's interesting, but we'll all truly never know what happens. If it turns out there's a god, fair enough. If there's not, fuck it, you're dead anyway.

Personally I think there's more to life than just being flesh and bone that comes and goes. :o

[Rossk1992]

Also, referring back to FemmFootyFan's comment about Deja Vu..

Has anybody read anything relating to DNA based memory?

DNA, is, apparently said to be an excellent platform by which to store information, much like a hard-drive on a computer, this is where animals are believed to know where to go for breeding etc

interesting stuff, considering salmon seem to just 'know' where to go when they go to their breeding grounds, likewise with birds.

[RedNoodle]

People with repeated deja vu are almost always having minor seizures involving the part of the brain that deals with memory (eg. Hippocampus).

Sorry to burst your bubble, because it would be way cooler your way (very Paul Atreides).

Thanks for posting that Munkybhai, as I was about to post the very same. For years I knew someone who had frequent episodes of deja vu and a feeling of unrealness and was at a loss to explain why they were occuring, only to be told after having a seizure that it's no more than faulty wiring in a certain part of the brain and is a classic sign of Epilepsy.

Yet another example of something believed to be more than what it is until science proves otherwise.

[Munkybhai]

In your opinion of course. Btw would like to say I am an athiest so I am not coming from any religious stand point.

In my opinion what? Where did I bring up religion in that?

Unless that was actually a response to my other posts, in which case it actually makes sense. Then yes, it was my opinion, but if there is something nonsensical about my logic, which I tried to put down clearly, then obviously it can be debated.

[Torrminator]

So your memory centres went on the fritz once or twice in your life.

Just apply Occam's Razor.

1. You actually saw the future and remembered it, but only when the event happened again.

2. You had a misfiring neuron in your brain that accidentally filed away a new memory as an old, long-term memory.
I think I need to learning a bit more about this guy Occam and his razor.

Very interesting.

[JMio]

Here's a question then...

Does it really, and I mean 'really' fucking matter?

[Hunt 23]

There's a girl in work, 32. Diagnosed with cervical cancer last year. Seemed to have got rid of it, had a date to return to work, and just got the news that it has returned with a vengeance and has spread to her hips and spine. Nothing down for her. She's got two kids, 10 and 5.

If there is a God he needs fucking.

[Taksin]

My view on the function of religion is one of providing safety from that which we don't know/understand. Since all religions have a different concept of the afterlife, whether it be a permanent paradise, a recycling of souls, the freeing of consciousness, and so on, and all of them can't be correct, the only thing that tells me is that not one of them really knows the answer. As such, my position is why bother philosophising about what's at most a completely erroneous and at best an unprovable hypothesis?


I agree that all of them can't be correct. I don't believe in the law of Karma or Reincarnation, for example. I actually think it's possible to disprove reincarnation by philosophical proof, but not by scientific method. But you only want scientific proofs, so you don't have that option. Even so, those starting points for understanding human reality often lead to very similar conclusions to those of say the monotheistic religions. That's because they are concerned with what reality is like and they have been exposing those theories to reality for a very long period of time.

On ash Wednesday we have a cross of ash placed on our forehead and are told 'ye came from dust and ye shall return to dust'. There is nothing imaginary, comforting or factually incorrect about that. Christians are not deluding themselves about that and probably have a more realistic view of death than the average person by your standards. The more realistic view would be that of the aghori who lives, naked, on the cremation grounds along the river Ganges, eats out of a skull, which is his only possession, only what is left as offerings for the dead. Sometimes they eat the flesh of dead corpses. They smear their whole body with the ashes of the burnt corpses daily, which is why they look blue-grey in colour. Its not a lifestyle for the faint hearted, the celebrity obsessed, the fashionista or the casual gardener. Clearly, they are not doing this because science has proven its truth or something. It is an attempt to peer through the illusionary aspect of life - they would have no sympathy for psychologists, who want us to become well-adjusted.

A psychologist might decide they are insane, but that would ultimately be a pilosophical position. It would not seem fair to me to suggest that the basis of religion is to give people an illusionary view of life based upon lies about what happens after death. The whole thing is much more based in reality than that for any sincere adherant.

[The Prince]

There's a girl in work, 32. Diagnosed with cervical cancer last year. Seemed to have got rid of it, had a date to return to work, and just got the news that it has returned with a vengeance and has spread to her hips and spine. Nothing down for her. She's got two kids, 10 and 5.

If there is a God he needs fucking.

Had a similar thing in 2005 with a mate. Anyone who talks to me about God after what that poor girl went through is talking to themselves.

[Femmefootyfan]

There's a girl in work, 32. Diagnosed with cervical cancer last year. Seemed to have got rid of it, had a date to return to work, and just got the news that it has returned with a vengeance and has spread to her hips and spine. Nothing down for her. She's got two kids, 10 and 5.

If there is a God he needs fucking.

Amen to that Hunt. My mam was a non drinker a non smoker, she was completely and utterly fascinated and in love with her family, she was by all means a good good person and she died aged 35 from a brain aneurysm, there would be no reason on this earth for her to be taken from us for any greater good, her untimely death destroyed more than one life and yet people try to tell me there is a god and that good "will out", Rubbish!!!!

[The Prince]

So does science kill or God? Science does, of course. So where is God in all this?

[Femmefootyfan]

So does science kill or God? Science does, of course. So where is God in all this?

In the minds of those most afraid to die I think!!

[isaac_hunt]

I have a sneaky suspicion that there may not be a God, but I am keeping it to myself as I don't want to go to hell. Reading town in the summer is too hot for me so Christ knows what hell would be like....or does he?

Even that triple jumper Jonathan Edwards has stopped believing in that nonsense these days.

[Vv6]

So does science kill or God? Science does, of course. So where is God in all this?

Well God as the ultimate creator is responsible then for creating bacterium and virons that serve no purpose for the greater good. Their life cycle is based solely around their own survival and proliferation at the expense of their host ( not very Christian )

Cancer is essentially the body doing what it is supposed to do ( cellular replication ), the problem lies in the fact that it is no longer controlled. Environmental factors such as radiation, smoking or general pollution will contribute to the expression of cancer but it is ultimately a flaw in the make up of our cells.

Another mistake in the perfect design from God.

------------

If you want to look at Gods contribution to death, then all disease/illness, famine, religious wars, in fact you could make a case for all human on human murders, as we are his design. Perhaps even throw in a bit of old age, seeing as Noah, Adam and Methusala all lived to well over 900 years old.

Science is essentially inert, it only has function when utilized by one of Gods "minions" -- most notably humans. Build a laser gun and it just sits there without interaction.

That is not to say that science does not kill stuff, it does, and its great at it.

http://tk421.typepad.com/.a/6a010536835136970c01287648c7e8970c-800wi

[Vv6]

Has anybody read anything relating to DNA based memory?


Look into Chemical memory, and genetic memory. I do not have time to explain today, but might do if the thread keeps going.

It is mostly theoretical at present, although experiments with flatworms were done in the 50's.

Empirical studies of leeches -- basically 1 leech leans a route through a maze to get a food/blood reward. After the first time it finds the reward, it will only take the exact direct route every time.

Kill that leech, and feed it to a second, third, forth and so on leech, and each new leech will know the route through the maze to the reward instantly.

It suggests that there is a transference of knowledge, which could obviously not come from the original individuals consciousness, as that ceased to be when it was killed.

-------------

Genetic memory, would be directly on the DNA sequence. If you look at a cuckoo ( I am taking it you know about laying eggs in another birds nest ), the moment it hatches it will push the other ( original birds ) eggs out of the nest. This is something that takes an extraordinary amount of effort, and has obviously not been learned/taught. It is simply an inbuilt behaviour, that is indirect to its survival programming ( ie it is not related directly to attaining food ). ------- Might do a bit on the cuckoo on the picture thread on TTWAR, there is so much more to them that makes them great.

Human babies ( experiments back in the olden days when we could do anything ), have been placed on a glass/plastic ( transparent ) surface that easily supports their weight. The surface then placed in a room with half the floor missing ( in other words it looks like there is a ledge and then a drop ). The babies will crawl to the edge only, and somehow understand again without teaching or learning that the drop represents something to avoid.

How these things are possible would point to some for of memory encoded in a passed trait, ie DNA code.

It gets more complicated, but those 2 examples should at least make you think that there could be grounds for encoded hereditary memory.

[Femmefootyfan]

Look into Chemical memory, and genetic memory. I do not have time to explain today, but might do if the thread keeps going.

It is mostly theoretical at present, although experiments with flatworms were done in the 50's.

Empirical studies of leeches -- basically 1 leech leans a route through a maze to get a food/blood reward. After the first time it finds the reward, it will only take the exact direct route every time.

Kill that leech, and feed it to a second, third, forth and so on leech, and each new leech will know the route through the maze to the reward instantly.

It suggests that there is a transference of knowledge, which could obviously not come from the original individuals consciousness, as that ceased to be when it was killed.

-------------

Genetic memory, would be directly on the DNA sequence. If you look at a cuckoo ( I am taking it you know about laying eggs in another birds nest ), the moment it hatches it will push the other ( original birds ) eggs out of the nest. This is something that takes an extraordinary amount of effort, and has obviously not been learned/taught. It is simply an inbuilt behaviour, that is indirect to its survival programming ( ie it is not related directly to attaining food ). ------- Might do a bit on the cuckoo on the picture thread on TTWAR, there is so much more to them that makes them great.

Human babies ( experiments back in the olden days when we could do anything ), have been placed on a glass/plastic ( transparent ) surface that easily supports their weight. The surface then placed in a room with half the floor missing ( in other words it looks like there is a ledge and then a drop ). The babies will crawl to the edge only, and somehow understand again without teaching or learning that the drop represents something to avoid.

How these things are possible would point to some for of memory encoded in a passed trait, ie DNA code.

It gets more complicated, but those 2 examples should at least make you think that there could be grounds for encoded hereditary memory.

^
This is really interesting and I would like to look into it some more. Thank you Vv6.

[sunbeam1664]

There's a girl in work, 32. Diagnosed with cervical cancer last year. Seemed to have got rid of it, had a date to return to work, and just got the news that it has returned with a vengeance and has spread to her hips and spine. Nothing down for her. She's got two kids, 10 and 5.

If there is a God he needs fucking.

I agree. I'm an atheist but my other half is a raised catholic and her nan is 93 and has such an amazing family with so much to be proud of and to look back on. Yet what does 'God' reward her with in her final days? He rewards her with degenerating into a drbbling child who recognises none of her 7 children, 21 grand children and umpteen great grand children who are crushed by watching a loved one turn into someone who they only wish will die asap.

If there is a God - he's an evil fucker.

[glockdanny]

There's a girl in work, 32. Diagnosed with cervical cancer last year. Seemed to have got rid of it, had a date to return to work, and just got the news that it has returned with a vengeance and has spread to her hips and spine. Nothing down for her. She's got two kids, 10 and 5.

If there is a God he needs fucking.

My wife's cousin. Moved to Aus. Became a devout Christian. Married a devout Christian. Lived a very holy life, raised a happy young family, tried to spread 'the message' to others and us in the family but not in any way that was annoying or patronising.

Had a 5 year old daughter. Brain tumour. Dead.



Nice one God :rolleyes:

[glockdanny]

Girl at work. Beautiful, caring, faithful wife, one of the nicest people you'll ever meet in your life. 33 years old. Cervical cancer. Worked hard throughout the illness. Never moaned, complained, always had a smile on her face, one of the best friends you could ever have. Cancer comes back. Dead within weeks. Aged 35.

Cheers there, God/Karma/whatever :rolleyes:

I'm not a church goer, but I prayed for her.

Is that why? Should I have been a church goer? Does it not count? Please say it's because I'm not a regular church goer so I can tell you to fuck off.

[glockdanny]

Another girl at work. Again, not a nasty bone in her body. Really nice girl. 42 years old. Brain tumour - 7 weeks later, dead.

Yeah, I'm starting to get the picture now, God.

[glockdanny]

My mate Martin Davies. One of those very few people that would NEVER get involved in any 'bitching' of any kind about anybody. Would always see the good in people. One of the single nicest people I've ever known in my life. Recently married - blissfully happy, mid-30s. Cancer. Dead within weeks.

Get to fuck :mad:

Do you just want the good ones then, is that it?

I'll carry on being a cunt then.

[glockdanny]

My local Church - we got married there and have had two children Christened there. We HAD been to the odd service there and I always put £20 in the dish.

They refused to baptise our third child because 'we hadn't joined the church community'.

I explained we've got our own friends and family who are all good people and that's who we choose to spend our time with.

No, they don't count, apparently.

Get to fuck, you stupid, arrogant, judgemental fucks. You wouldn't know the first fucking thing about people that are 'bad' and people that are 'good'.

[Munkybhai]

I agree that all of them can't be correct. I don't believe in the law of Karma or Reincarnation, for example. I actually think it's possible to disprove reincarnation by philosophical proof, but not by scientific method. But you only want scientific proofs, so you don't have that option. Even so, those starting points for understanding human reality often lead to very similar conclusions to those of say the monotheistic religions. That's because they are concerned with what reality is like and they have been exposing those theories to reality for a very long period of time.

Firstly, I'm sure that there will be hindu/buddhist philosophers who have disproved a single lifetime followed a permanent place in the afterlife too. Like I said, too many competing, radically different concepts of where we go we die and everyone starts off from their own biased philosophical starting point that will eventually lead to auto-confirmation.
Secondly, that doesn't mean that EVERYTHING that has been thought up in religion is wrong. It's very purpose, to provide answers to the unknown, requires that the answers be able to stand up to some logic. The problem is that as we learn more about our world, we realise that what we observe (eg. sun going around the earth) is not necessarily what's really going on.

Also, Hinduism is not really a polytheistic religion like, say, the ancient Greek religion.

On ash Wednesday we have a cross of ash placed on our forehead and are told 'ye came from dust and ye shall return to dust'. There is nothing imaginary, comforting or factually incorrect about that. Christians are not deluding themselves about that and probably have a more realistic view of death than the average person by your standards. The more realistic view would be that of the aghori who lives, naked, on the cremation grounds along the river Ganges, eats out of a skull, which is his only possession, only what is left as offerings for the dead. Sometimes they eat the flesh of dead corpses. They smear their whole body with the ashes of the burnt corpses daily, which is why they look blue-grey in colour. Its not a lifestyle for the faint hearted, the celebrity obsessed, the fashionista or the casual gardener. Clearly, they are not doing this because science has proven its truth or something. It is an attempt to peer through the illusionary aspect of life - they would have no sympathy for psychologists, who want us to become well-adjusted.

These are your examples as to the validity of not applying normal logic and scrutiny to religious practices? That it can either, a) sort of tally up with some things we've seen, or b) is so strange and difficult, no one would do it if it didn't provide some answers. The Fore tribe in Papua New Guinea eat the dead as part of their funerary ritual. They also, incidentally, suffer from a degenerative neurological disease that turns out to be transmitted via prions from eating the dead. Whatever strange logic they developed over the years their society has existed to justify the practice, clearly it is detrimental to their own survival and deserves questioning. Similarly, I just want the same level of scrutiny applied to all religious practices because we often discover the roost of them are vastly different from the modern version, and probably was only applicable during the bronze or iron ages when they were first started.


A psychologist might decide they are insane, but that would ultimately be a pilosophical position. It would not seem fair to me to suggest that the basis of religion is to give people an illusionary view of life based upon lies about what happens after death. The whole thing is much more based in reality than that for any sincere adherant.

Let's put it another way, why do Judeo-Christians bury their dead? As far as I know, it's because the Old Testament states that the very bodies that they died in will rise up at the end of the world, and the good people will be taken to everlasting life or whatever. But the important part is that their bodies need to be intact when buried (hence why people who committed suicide were buried with their heads cut off to prevent them from being able to take part in this).

So, from this, we can infer that any one who is cremated or otherwise disposed of are screwed. We can safely say that there have been far more people in the history of humanity who have not been buried intact, and even those that have been, are probably no longer intact. Does this sound plausible to you? And yet its the root of the practice. Should we not question it?

Anyway, got to go to work! LATE!

[Vv6]

I know this will not excite many people, but the naked mole rate genome has been published yesterday/today.

The lead team is based in the University of Liverpool ( supported by the genome analysis center -- Norwich ), and they have printed out the first draft ( to be corrected ).

Now the reason I mention this is the thread went into the people dying phase. The mole rat has great longevity for such a small mammal and is also highly resistant to cancer.

It has the potential for anti aging cells also, which may sound like pure vanity, but it does mean that the project will receive big funding ( you would be amazed at how many low profit potential cures are shelved due to lack of funding )

---------

I imagine that 99% of people will not give a dam, but this is how discovering new cures for disease begins. Most people have their lifetime touched by cancer, so this is my little salute to the scientists doing the mapping, and the naked mole rat itself.

[Taksin]

Hello Munkybhai


These are your examples as to the validity of not applying normal logic and scrutiny to religious practices?


Not at all. These were examples of how religions face death, sometimes obsessively as in the case of the aghori (over and beyond your ideas about what a mature relationship with death is). You had said;

My view on the function of religion is one of providing safety from that which we don't know/understand.

Well, I'd say the aghori does the complete opposite. He peers at death ceaselessly and sacrifices everything that makes people like you and me feel safe about life, including our rationality. Again, your critique of the function of religion - these cliches that we hear all the time about religious people wanting to delude themselves with fanciful ideas about an afterlife - you can only maintain those misrepresentations by ignoring what the religious life actually amounts to. I'd like to hear your critique of the religiousless life and its evasion of death - the daily grind of money, status, celebrity, politics, information, rationality, conformist behaviour etc. Is science really making our relationship with death more human?

As such, my position is why bother philosophising about what's at most a completely erroneous and at best an unprovable hypothesis?

Because its not just philosophising about a hypothesis (which is what you and, say, Dawkins are doing) - its a complete physical, emotional, mental and spiritual relationship with death. Living it is far more than the ideas behind it.


So, from this, we can infer that any one who is cremated or otherwise disposed of are screwed.


Can we? We could if we lived in the tiny box you are constructing for Christianty. To be honest, I know next to nothing about the history of burial. The only people who I have heard talk about burial and resurrection in the manner you have are the Jehova's Witness who have a very obtuse interpretation and observation of the Old Testament. But the New Testament has only two commandments - Love God with all your heart, mind and soul and love your neighbour as you do yourself. Nothing about make sure you don't get eaten by a leopard.

But you should know all this. You live in a Christian country that recently went through two World Wars where millions were mamed beyond recognition. We have tombs to the unknown soldier. We don't know where many of them are. Have you once heard a Christian suggest these men have jeopardised their relationship with God as a result? Nor have I.

The dull thing for me in these debates is continually defending the faith against very poor representations of Christianity or over confident assertions of the power of science to satisfy our philosophical needs (as well as disprove God). I know of a priest who has lost his faith. He is a wise and good man and continues his work because looking after his community is all he knows. His reasons for not not believing are none of the reasons cited by critics on this thread. They are much deeper more convincing.

[Mike Lad]

1 in 5 Americans Still Believes the Sun is Orbiting the Earth

only about a fifth of all Americans have a clue of what science really is

What?

Embarrassing mistake to make when having an intellectual dig at someone.

[Munkybhai]

Hello Munkybhai


Well, I'd say the aghori does the complete opposite. He peers at death ceaselessly and sacrifices everything that makes people like you and me feel safe about life, including our rationality. Again, your critique of the function of religion - these cliches that we hear all the time about religious people wanting to delude themselves with fanciful ideas about an afterlife - you can only maintain those misrepresentations by ignoring what the religious life actually amounts to. I'd like to hear your critique of the religiousless life and its evasion of death - the daily grind of money, status, celebrity, politics, information, rationality, conformist behaviour etc. Is science really making our relationship with death more human?

Many cultures have created positions whereby "skilled" individuals have the role of confronting the greatest fears that normal people have - most often death, disease, uncertainty, misfortune, the anger of the Gods - and these people do radical things. Now how someone is chosen is different for each culture. In Africa, witch doctors are assigned this role, and we find that many of them are high-functioning schizophrenics (which, in an aside, is fascinating in terms of the treatment of schizophrenia since it seems that having a culturally assigned role for them helps improve their outcomes). In Christianity, Judaism and Islam, we have well-educated priests who have studied ancient texts and have esotoric training in sometimes dead languages that can protect the normal people from evil. So again, although I find your example fascinating, I fail to see how this is really an invalidation of the attempt to demystify death and to state that our death customs are designed to help the living overcome the death more than to help an intangible and frequently ill-defined entity called the soul to go to the next stage.


Because its not just philosophising about a hypothesis (which is what you and, say, Dawkins are doing) - its a complete physical, emotional, mental and spiritual relationship with death. Living it is far more than the ideas behind it.

I wouldn't really call what I said a hypothesis. To the question of "what is death", we have clearly demarcated parameters, legally, medically, biologically. We also have the social and psychological impact of what death does to the living (which would probably cover most of your emotional, mental and spiritual relationship with death), and hence we can see a clear driving force behind the actions we make when death occurs. Someone dies, we feel sad, so we do something to help us so that we won't feel sad forever. I just leave it at that. Other people have added new hypotheses to the next question: What happens after death? It is to these hypotheses that I throw my criticism.

Can we? We could if we lived in the tiny box you are constructing for Christianty. To be honest, I know next to nothing about the history of burial. The only people who I have heard talk about burial and resurrection in the manner you have are the Jehova's Witness who have a very obtuse interpretation and observation of the Old Testament. But the New Testament has only two commandments - Love God with all your heart, mind and soul and love your neighbour as you do yourself. Nothing about make sure you don't get eaten by a leopard.

But you should know all this. You live in a Christian country that recently went through two World Wars where millions were mamed beyond recognition. We have tombs to the unknown soldier. We don't know where many of them are. Have you once heard a Christian suggest these men have jeopardised their relationship with God as a result? Nor have I.

The dull thing for me in these debates is continually defending the faith against very poor representations of Christianity or over confident assertions of the power of science to satisfy our philosophical needs (as well as disprove God). I know of a priest who has lost his faith. He is a wise and good man and continues his work because looking after his community is all he knows. His reasons for not not believing are none of the reasons cited by critics on this thread. They are much deeper more convincing.

I'm glad you brought up the fact that I am possibly ignorant of Christianity, and about society's dim view of their own religious code. It is true that I am not a Christian (shock), but I've actually found that most Christians I have met know either less about it than I do, or actually willingly pick and choose what parts of it they think are important (which is what most people do).

If you're position is that a book is the Word of God, then you, by definition, should follow everything in it. Your statement that the New Testament only has two easy to swallow commandments is, I'm sorry, just plain wrong. (Matthew 5:18-19, Luke 16:17, Matthew 5:17, Peter 2: 20-21, Matthew 15:4-7, etc). You have to follow ALL the commandments, including those in the Old Testament (and there are 613 of them!).

Picking and choosing what you think is applicable to you means that you think that a divine book, in which very specific instructions on what you must do, and the consequences for not following them are given, is open to interpretation and people can invalidate heavenly laws when it doesn't suit them. That tells me that at some level, people understand that these old religious books are out of date, out of touch with modern life. When things are too archaic, we ignore them. Yes, you're right, hundreds of thousands of soldiers were maimed and mangled by our modern warfare, far beyond what would be acceptable to your ancestors who originally followed those stories and imagined a heaven where we had to have intact bodies (I wonder if proximity to Egypt and its funerary practices were an influence). So we just ignore it. It's not important any more. Problem solved.

This is essentially why I see no reason to look beyond logic and reasoning for answers. If religious and philosophical answers can be important in one generation and then deemed inconvenient for the next, then again, what's the point? It's either the Word of God, and you follow it, or it's not, and you ignore it. The wishy-washy in between people who essentially don't have the guts to say, "This is not the literal Word of God, and I don't need it".

Eventually, I believe, we will come to the point when we understand our psychology more completely, and so will come to understand how and why we created such strange things like sometimes burying people underground in clothes but no shoes, sometimes with coins on their eyes, sometimes with their slaves and possessions, sometimes alone, sometimes burned in a pyre, and sometimes preserved with fluids and linen wraps. We will understand why it was so important to our ancestors that we have rituals, that we had an "answer" even if it turned out to be wrong.

I've made it quite clear why I think we have these strange rituals about death. We are, as individuals and as a species, chronically afraid about death. The idea of no longer existing is scary. An end to life. The essence of futility. We need an answer that makes us happy or gives us hope. Religions have cleverly hijacked this fear so that they can help give a non-weapon threat to stop people from breaking societal rules. There's always a good ending and a bad ending, and you can only reach the good one by being good during your life. It's elegant and clever, and almost certainly nonsense, and probably next to useless for stopping people from breaking rules (the majority of people will really only follow the rules because they are afraid of getting caught and punished in the real world rather than they will be caught in the next world.).

Just stop and think for a moment. If you had been born in India or Nepal, you would most likely be debating with me just as vociferously about reincarnation and karma and famous texts about Hindu/Buddhist philosophy right now. What is philosophy? Revealing the inner workings of our universe through the use of deductive reasoning. One of our most famous philosophers was Aristotle. He was also an avid scientist. It's not a mutually exclusive thing, the search for truth through science and through philosophy. In fact, philosophy's reliance on deductive reasoning manifestly requires the facts in order to use them to come with conclusions. Scientists ARE modern day philosophers. If you can strip away all preconception before you start, then you are a good scientist, and also a good philosopher (as Descartes, himself, attempted).

[Taksin]

Dear Munkybhai

Your post is based on too many misconceptions to respond to in full. A couple of points and I'll finish with a story.


Your statement that the New Testament only has two easy to swallow commandments is, I'm sorry, just plain wrong.


Ah, yes but 'There is none other commandment greater than these '. The devil is in the detail.


I've actually found that most Christians I have met know either less about it than I do


This is like the graduate who wrote a thesis on the gender politics of Shakespeare who thinks they know more than the actor who has been playing the roles on stage all his life. The religion is more than the sum of its facts.


If you're position is that a book is the Word of God, then you, by definition, should follow everything in it.

Wrong. Jesus is the Word of God. The Old Testament is, by definition, out of date. That's not to say it isn't important, necessary and fundamental to understanding, but the book is not and never has been an instructions manual.



In 2006 a gunman named Charles Carl Roberts IV shot dead 10 young girls (aged 6-13) and seriously injured a number of others in an Amish school in Pannsylvania following a seige. He then turned the gun on himself in suicide. The quotes below desrcibe some of the response of the community to this incident and are taken from the Wikipedia page dedicated to the event.

On the day of the shooting, a grandfather of one of the murdered Amish girls was heard warning some young relatives not to hate the killer, saying, "We must not think evil of this man." Another Amish father noted, "He had a mother and a wife and a soul and now he's standing before a just God."

A Roberts family spokesman said an Amish neighbor comforted the Roberts family hours after the shooting and extended forgiveness to them. Amish community members visited and comforted Roberts' widow, parents, and parents-in-law. One Amish man held Roberts' sobbing father in his arms, reportedly for as long as an hour, to comfort him. The Amish have also set up a charitable fund for the family of the shooter (including a college fund for the children of Roberts).

About 30 members of the Amish community attended Roberts' funeral, and Marie Roberts, the widow of the killer, was one of the few outsiders invited to the funeral of one of the victims. Marie Roberts wrote an open letter to her Amish neighbors thanking them for their forgiveness, grace, and mercy. She wrote, "Your love for our family has helped to provide the healing we so desperately need. Gifts you've given have touched our hearts in a way no words can describe. Your compassion has reached beyond our family, beyond our community, and is changing our world, and for this we sincerely thank you."

The Amish do not normally accept charity, but due to the extreme nature of the tragedy, donations were accepted. Richie Lauer, director of the Anabaptist Foundation, said the Amish community, whose religious beliefs prohibit them from having health insurance, will likely use the donations to help pay the medical costs of the hospitalized children.

Some commentators criticized the swift and complete forgiveness with which the Amish responded, arguing that forgiveness is inappropriate when no remorse has been expressed, and that such an attitude runs the risk of denying the existence of evil; others were supportive. Donald Kraybill and two other scholars of Amish life noted that "letting go of grudges" is a deeply rooted value in Amish culture, which remembers forgiving martyrs including Dirk Willems and Jesus himself. They explained that the Amish willingness to forgo vengeance does not undo the tragedy or pardon the wrong, but rather constitutes a first step toward a future that is more hopeful.


The response of the Amish Community is a shocking example of philosophy in action. It is based fully on a mature relationship with the gospels and and inspirational dedication to putting that philosophy into practice.

Science may be able to analyze their actions in an abstract way and draw some conclusions about the situation but it cannot inspire this behaviour in people. What they have done is light years distant from the selfish gene. In as much as this is an image of human kindness at its most beautiful, that the observer recognizes something great about what this community has achieved, something that we wish were more widespread and which would lead to a much deeper happiness if it were, then this story is evidence of the truth of the gospel philosophy. That is not all that it is evidence for, but it points to a truth that science is essentially silent upon. But that's not a problem for me - I don't expect science to provide me with my philosophy. I think that's a category error.

[Vv6]

I do not understand the idea of the persistent philosophical references, philosophy of a specific is obsolete as soon as factual evidence is present, and as has already been established there is masses of factual evidence that supports one side of the debate.

You can always move on to the next unknown factor and talk around a philosophical example, but it again really offers nothing other than an opinion.

I was not going to contribute again to this thread, mainly because I do not feel anything I have said has been challenged in a way that takes any validity away from the statements I have made. Also I have no desire to try to convert anyone to the cult of science. Not like those pesky Bunsen burner witnesses that come around to my door every week preaching the word of Darwin.

However, and maybe it is just me, but philosophy offers just about the same proof as the book God himself ( or the Holy Ghost writer ) penned. For every philosophical theory you find to support a subject there is one to oppose it. Factual science has a single answer that is testable and repeatable by anyone.

[Taksin]

However, and maybe it is just me, but philosophy offers just about the same proof as the book God himself ( or the Holy Ghost writer ) penned. For every philosophical theory you find to support a subject there is one to oppose it. Factual science has a single answer that is testable and repeatable by anyone.

This is your blind spot. This statement is actually constructed with your own philosophy.

Scientific proofs are good for questions about the material. Even then, the single answer that you crave is hotly disputed within science for many, many areas and, for all you or I know, always will be. The philosophy of science is a real subject and ignoring it leads to another kind of blindness.

The logical conclusion of your opinion is that universities have no need for philosophy departments (Dawkins has actually called for Oxford to ditch is ancient and highly active theology department). But even someone who loves science, and that includes many religious people of course, must have a philosophy. Just because there is disagreement doesn't mean it isn't important and doesn't contain much truth - just look at science!

[Vv6]

The logical conclusion of your opinion is that universities have no need for philosophy departments



The logical conclusion to what I said, was what I said ( there really is no need to over complicate it or add your own interpretation )

philosophy of a specific is obsolete as soon as factual evidence is present,

What is the point in continually theorising about specifics once factual data is attained.

I did mention in an earlier post that I had no doubt the majority if not all of the scientific community would listen and accept if there were any form of factual/tangible proof for the existence of God. This is something however that does not work both ways. Once scientific factual data is presented, then it simply moves on to theoretical philosophy without having to accept any truths.



This is your blind spot. This statement is actually constructed with your own philosophy.

Seems rather cyclical does it not ?

I will take that blind spot happily, but I am afraid for that to happen, you will have to admit to your blind spot with facts.

[Taksin]

Which facts am I blind to?

[Rossk1992]

This is actually one of the most interesting debates I've read on this forum so far.

Keep it up guys, there are some excellent arguments and counter-arguments being made in this thread :o

Personally I think we should all just live, and not worry about what's going to happen when we're all gone.

After all, we are all made up of the same matter, just atoms. Nothing more, nothing less, we belong to the universe, we are all part of a living organism ;)

[Vv6]

This is your blind spot. !

Which facts am I blind to?


Perhaps the opposing ones that you suggest I am blind to.

Its rather easy this circular noncommittal, no wonder its so popular.

[Steven - Dublin]

There's a girl in work, 32. Diagnosed with cervical cancer last year. Seemed to have got rid of it, had a date to return to work, and just got the news that it has returned with a vengeance and has spread to her hips and spine. Nothing down for her. She's got two kids, 10 and 5.

If there is a God he needs fucking.

People of faith believe that god has done that for a reason. Fucked if I know what it is but that's what they believe.

Makes you wonder, if god does everything for a reason, how much control do we actually have in our own lives? Does god only control the big things or does he control everything and we're only puppets?


My local Church - we got married there and have had two children Christened there. We HAD been to the odd service there and I always put £20 in the dish.

They refused to baptise our third child because 'we hadn't joined the church community'.

I explained we've got our own friends and family who are all good people and that's who we choose to spend our time with.

No, they don't count, apparently.

Get to fuck, you stupid, arrogant, judgemental fucks. You wouldn't know the first fucking thing about people that are 'bad' and people that are 'good'.

Why were you looking to get your child baptised then?

I didn't want my daughter to be baptised. I knew it would cause a stink with my family if they found out but my wife said she wanted it to be done (I don't know why, she never goes to mass and hasn't a clue about religion). I not against religion so I wasn't going to object. She did put me down as a catholic on the recent census when I asked her not to.

The next thing I'll have to deal with is communions and confirmations. When I was growing up, we went to mass, we knew what it was about, we knew the story of jesus. Kids today haven't a clue what's going on, they just know they get a day out and loads of money. To not allow your kid to partake is to exclude them for something that all their friends are doing. I guarantee you, if communion and confirmation was done outside school hours, about 10% of the kids would be doing it.

[Vv6]

People of faith believe that god has done that for a reason. Fucked if I know what it is but that's what they believe.

Makes you wonder, if god does everything for a reason, how much control do we actually have in our own lives? Does god only control the big things or does he control everything and we're only puppets?


This is a good point, and one that can be expanded.

I thought I would take a look at some Christian inspirational literature ( seeing as I am not an avid reader of such things, it seemed rude not to take in a few passages -- always open to the other side ).

Taken from A Purpose Driven Life by Rick Warren.


Because God made you for a reason, he also decided when you would be born and how long you would live. He planned the days of your life in advance, choosing the exact time of your birth and death. The Bible says, "You saw me before I was born and scheduled each day of my life before I began to breathe. Every day was recorded in your book!" [Psalm 139:16]


Regardless of the circumstances of your birth or who your parents are, God had a plan in creating you.
Under this view of the universe, God plans everything.

I do not think this belief is an anomaly, rather the Christian take on the bible passage its taken from.

As you suggest Mr Dublin, this puts us in the position of puppets.

"He planned the days of your life in advance, choosing the exact time of your birth and death."

Examining one simple implication of this statement. What this means is that God has pre-planned every abortion that has taken place on our planet. The mother along with the doctor that carried out the procedure are without will, as the termination of life had already been planned by God. SO Christians against abortion gets a tough break there.


Adolph Hitler, was part of Gods plan and is in fact blameless, as the lives that were taken were supposed to be taken. Everyone who died in the Holocaust died for a reason. Each life that was lost was planned, so prayer ( something that it is stated in the bible apparently by Jesus would be answered ) would have been irrelevant.


The big J

Ask, and it will be given you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you. For every one who asks receives, and he who seeks finds, and to him who knocks it will be opened. Or what man of you, if his son asks him for bread, will give him a stone? Or if he asks for a fish, will give him a serpent? If you then, who are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father who is in heaven give good things to those who ask him!

Should a person who gets pregnant through rape simply glory in the magnificence of Gods plan.

---------------------

I only looked for about 15 minutes, but the number of contradictions is astounding.

[SteelWool]

I have a sneaky suspicion that there may not be a God, but I am keeping it to myself as I don't want to go to hell. Reading town in the summer is too hot for me so Christ knows what hell would be like....or does he?

Even that triple jumper Jonathan Edwards has stopped believing in that nonsense these days.

Pascal's Wager

[Steven - Dublin]

[Quote] "He planned the days of your life in advance, choosing the exact time of your birth and death." [Quote]

see, I would interpret that as god chooses when you are born and when you die but not what you do in between. But then it always comes back to the default of everything happens for a reason.

I find it impossible to think of a god living up there in the clouds, looking down on us. And then I think that there's loads of religions out there, so what are the chances of there been 5 or 6 different gods living in some magical land?

And why are the scientologists seen as nutcases for believing in some outerspace claptrap but everyone else is alright for believing in a heaven when no one knows where that is either? Surely if you have faith in your own god and heaven, you have to respect other people's gods and religions (and that's before getting into fundamentalism which I don't mean to bring up).

[Taksin]

Perhaps the opposing ones that you suggest I am blind to.



I don't understand what you're saying here (I don't think it makes sense). You said I will have to admit my blind spot with facts. I take this to mean I have to avoid the facts to maintain my position. Is that what you think or not?

I stand by my assertion that your blind spot is the basis of your own philosophical arguments (which is not a scientific basis). There is no scientific proof that science is the only way to truth - its just a frequently assumed philosophical position which fails to admit, amongst other things, the great difficulty there is in reaching agreement within science itself.

Science provides information - we have to use that information in our philosophy but there is nowhere that says we have to use it as the basis for our philosophy. I don't see how we could anyway. I can see how it presents us with philosophical problems but that is true of the whole of life.

In addition, this would imply that those with the most information (scientists and modern people in general) are the best philosophers, which is one of the most practical ways of doubting philosophy that comes from science. For all the information we have at our disposal now, there are very few people alive today that know how to think nearly as well as Aristotle did even if he was vastly short on information by our standards.

[Vv6]

I take this to mean I have to avoid the facts to maintain my position. Is that what you think or not?


Religion has ignored facts for a long time and even ignores parts of its own Bible . You can say that you do not ignore factual data, but seeing as this is science vs religion, I think you and I as individuals are rather insignificant.


For all the information we have at our disposal now, there are very few people alive today that know how to think nearly as well as Aristotle did even if he was vastly short on information by our standards.


Back to the philosophical again ?? As I said I do not see what point you are trying to make with it.

Quotes like the one above mean absolutely nothing, and even if it was worth anything, ( and Aristotle did THINK better than we do in the present day ?? ) it is always just opinion, and the opinion of a single individual at that.

You might not like these people, but they represent religion and what they say has as much credibility as any other preachings.

Pi77koTk8mc

k0FMZiEmM14

There are thousands more. This is the word of God, and somehow they all think they are right.

As I said, you might not like it, but their interpretations are just as valid as yours, and equally substantiated. So is that your God ? -- it must be pretty busy up there.


Any thoughts on the God's plan - abortion - Hitler - mass murder line ?

[Taksin]

As I said, you might not like it, but their interpretations are just as valid as yours, and equally substantiated. So is that your God ? -- it must be pretty busy up there.


I have no desire to watch those videos. Religious nut-jobs are easy to find. But not all interpretations are, as you claim, as valid as each other. The only way you can think that is if you think there is no value in philosophy or theology (which, indeed, you appear to do), which set about making philosophical and theological judgements about philosophical and theological statements and matters.


Any thoughts on the God's plan - abortion - Hitler - mass murder line?

Yes, it looked like very shoddy theology indeed.

[Taksin]

I'm reminded of Eagleton's critique of The God Delusion where he asks

"What, one wonders, are Dawkins’s views on the epistemological differences between Aquinas and Duns Scotus? Has he read Eriugena on subjectivity, Rahner on grace or Moltmann on hope? Has he even heard of them? Or does he imagine like a bumptious young barrister that you can defeat the opposition while being complacently ignorant of its toughest case?"



http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n20/terry-eagleton/lunging-flailing-mispunching

[LordGrabiner]

If god's gift to humanity is free will on what basis do people think prayers to Him asking for wishes to be granted will be answered?

For instance people pray for that God will help them get the job. Well if god helps that person get the job has he not intefered with the employer's mind when making their choice between different candidates?

Or why do people pray to God asking for people to be healed from diseases? If those prayers worked then wouldn't priests live to a infinite age what witht he whole congregation praying for them?

Partly because of the above i find the whole notion of there being a personal God absolutely crazy. If there is someone there he definitely does not intefere with the world in any way because if he did surely he would stop innoncent deaths and tragedies. If he is the cause of those things then he must be pretty sadistic.

On the other hand if somebody was to argue that God is 'merely' the force that brought the universe into existance then that would be impossible to refute as we could never prove it any other way so in this sense i am undecided on His existance.

[Taksin]

If he is the cause of those things then he must be pretty sadistic.



Because for 5 thousand odd years of people working with the idea that God is good and loving, they forgot to notice that lots of bad stuff has been happening all around them...

(The idea that God is good, which was (and evidently still is) a revolutionary idea, comes from a people who were, or at least who believe themselves to have been, enslaved by the Pharoah of Egypt. They were not looking at the world through rose tinted spectacles in terms of life's cruelty. In fact, life has never been overly kind to the Jews it would appear and yet something has bound them as a perennially exhiled people in a way that is not comparable to any other race of people, to my knowledge)

[LordGrabiner]

Because for 5 thousand odd years of people working with the idea that God is good and loving, they forgot to notice that lots of bad stuff has been happening all around them...

(The idea that God is good, which was (and evidently still is) a revolutionary idea, comes from a people who were, or at least who believe themselves to have been, enslaved by the Pharoah of Egypt. They were not looking at the world through rose tinted spectacles in terms of life's cruelty. In fact, life has never been overly kind to the Jews it would appear and yet something has bound them as a perennially exhiled people in a way that is not comparable to any other race of people, to my knowledge)

So do you believe he is indifferent to peoples' needs and wishes then? Whats your opinion on Him being a personal God then?

When you say someting has bound them as a a perennially exhiled people are you inferring that this is how God wants it? If so perhaps they would've faired better dropping their beliefs

[Jobo]

Because for 5 thousand odd years of people working with the idea that God is good and loving, they forgot to notice that lots of bad stuff has been happening all around them...

(The idea that God is good, which was (and evidently still is) a revolutionary idea, comes from a people who were, or at least who believe themselves to have been, enslaved by the Pharoah of Egypt. They were not looking at the world through rose tinted spectacles in terms of life's cruelty. In fact, life has never been overly kind to the Jews it would appear and yet something has bound them as a perennially exhiled people in a way that is not comparable to any other race of people, to my knowledge)

The Jews never thought that God was good but something to be obeyed.Monotheism existed in Egypt before there was any Jews or a Jewish religion.

[Rossk1992]

Has anybody thought that 'God' isn't an actual 'real' entity?

'God' as we know it cannot be described in detail, cannot be proven by any facts or figures, it is merely belief.

What does bind everybody though is the belief in an over-whelming force that binds and governs every single thing not just on earth, but in the universe.

Perhaps 'god' is the universe, and the universe is 'god'. Our cosmos is infinitely massive, it is incomprehensibly vast and diverse. It creates life, it takes life. It governs everything within it by the laws of physics, gravity etc.

It can't be contacted or bargained with. It can't be stopped and you cannot fight it. It just is the way it is.

We were all created by the universe we live in, we're all made up of the same matter and we'll all go back to being the same.

[Vv6]

I have no desire to watch those videos. Religious nut-jobs are easy to find.

That is the first thing I have agreed with you on.

But not all interpretations are, as you claim, as valid as each other.

Their interpretations are less valid because ?


it looked like very shoddy theology indeed.

I have no doubt it did to anyone that is willing to simply ignore the sections of the Bible they choose not to explain. There were direct bible passages there, and there are many more that repeat the same ideas throughout, that God chooses the point in time that we come into and go out of our mortal life.

[Vv6]

It can't be contacted or bargained with. It can't be stopped and you cannot fight it. It just is the way it is.



http://www.reelcomix.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/terminator.jpg ? God

[Rossk1992]

http://www.reelcomix.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/terminator.jpg ? God

Oh f#ck yes!

if only though ;)

Everyone needs to look at the REAL truth though and look up 'The Annunaki' online...Some seriously delusional shit on that topic laugh out loud

[Torrminator]

You can always move on to the next unknown factor and talk around a philosophical example, but it again really offers nothing other than an opinion.

I was not going to contribute again to this thread, mainly because I do not feel anything I have said has been challenged in a way that takes any validity away from the statements I have made. Also I have no desire to try to convert anyone to the cult of science. Not like those pesky Bunsen burner witnesses that come around to my door every week preaching
I wasn't going to 'contribute' again either, but this is simply the post of the thread.

[Torrminator]

Which facts am I blind to? No, wait....

[Munkybhai]

Dear Munkybhai

Your post is based on too many misconceptions to respond to in full. A couple of points and I'll finish with a story.



Ah, yes but 'There is none other commandment greater than these '. The devil is in the detail.



This is like the graduate who wrote a thesis on the gender politics of Shakespeare who thinks they know more than the actor who has been playing the roles on stage all his life. The religion is more than the sum of its facts.



Wrong. Jesus is the Word of God. The Old Testament is, by definition, out of date. That's not to say it isn't important, necessary and fundamental to understanding, but the book is not and never has been an instructions manual.



In 2006 a gunman named Charles Carl Roberts IV shot dead 10 young girls (aged 6-13) and seriously injured a number of others in an Amish school in Pannsylvania following a seige. He then turned the gun on himself in suicide. The quotes below desrcibe some of the response of the community to this incident and are taken from the Wikipedia page dedicated to the event.

On the day of the shooting, a grandfather of one of the murdered Amish girls was heard warning some young relatives not to hate the killer, saying, "We must not think evil of this man." Another Amish father noted, "He had a mother and a wife and a soul and now he's standing before a just God."

A Roberts family spokesman said an Amish neighbor comforted the Roberts family hours after the shooting and extended forgiveness to them. Amish community members visited and comforted Roberts' widow, parents, and parents-in-law. One Amish man held Roberts' sobbing father in his arms, reportedly for as long as an hour, to comfort him. The Amish have also set up a charitable fund for the family of the shooter (including a college fund for the children of Roberts).

About 30 members of the Amish community attended Roberts' funeral, and Marie Roberts, the widow of the killer, was one of the few outsiders invited to the funeral of one of the victims. Marie Roberts wrote an open letter to her Amish neighbors thanking them for their forgiveness, grace, and mercy. She wrote, "Your love for our family has helped to provide the healing we so desperately need. Gifts you've given have touched our hearts in a way no words can describe. Your compassion has reached beyond our family, beyond our community, and is changing our world, and for this we sincerely thank you."

The Amish do not normally accept charity, but due to the extreme nature of the tragedy, donations were accepted. Richie Lauer, director of the Anabaptist Foundation, said the Amish community, whose religious beliefs prohibit them from having health insurance, will likely use the donations to help pay the medical costs of the hospitalized children.

Some commentators criticized the swift and complete forgiveness with which the Amish responded, arguing that forgiveness is inappropriate when no remorse has been expressed, and that such an attitude runs the risk of denying the existence of evil; others were supportive. Donald Kraybill and two other scholars of Amish life noted that "letting go of grudges" is a deeply rooted value in Amish culture, which remembers forgiving martyrs including Dirk Willems and Jesus himself. They explained that the Amish willingness to forgo vengeance does not undo the tragedy or pardon the wrong, but rather constitutes a first step toward a future that is more hopeful.


The response of the Amish Community is a shocking example of philosophy in action. It is based fully on a mature relationship with the gospels and and inspirational dedication to putting that philosophy into practice.

Science may be able to analyze their actions in an abstract way and draw some conclusions about the situation but it cannot inspire this behaviour in people. What they have done is light years distant from the selfish gene. In as much as this is an image of human kindness at its most beautiful, that the observer recognizes something great about what this community has achieved, something that we wish were more widespread and which would lead to a much deeper happiness if it were, then this story is evidence of the truth of the gospel philosophy. That is not all that it is evidence for, but it points to a truth that science is essentially silent upon. But that's not a problem for me - I don't expect science to provide me with my philosophy. I think that's a category error.



Did you even look up any of those passages in the New Testament that I put up there? Your own quotes clearly do not state that the other commandments are invalidated. Since I can only assume you decided to ignore my findings, I'll have to put them up here.

“For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass the law until all is accomplished. Whoever then relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but he who does them and teaches them shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.” (Matthew 5:18-19 RSV)

"It is easier for Heaven and Earth to pass away than for the smallest part of the letter of the law to become invalid." (Luke 16:17 NAB)

"Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. Amen, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest part or the smallest part of a letter will pass from the law, until all things have taken place." (Matthew 5:17 NAB)

"All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for refutation, for correction, and for training in righteousness..." (2 Timothy 3:16 NAB)

or

"Know this first of all, that there is no prophecy of scripture that is a matter of personal interpretation, for no prophecy ever came through human will; but rather human beings moved by the holy Spirit spoke under the influence of God." (2 Peter 20-21 NAB)

“He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death.” (Matthew 15:4-7) - just Jesus reaffirming that Old Testament commandment.

Now you will tell me that I misread it? That I'm misquoting? If there is a problem in the translation, then by all means, you can find me the original Aramaic/Greek versions and show me my error. Jesus, I suspect, was speaking out against the dogmatic following of the 613 commandments by the rabbis as if it were an instruction manual on how to get into heaven rather than understanding the spirit of the commandments, which were to promote a good, healthy, clean life (in a bronze age culture).

If anything, you just confirmed my whole point. People will take from it what they want to hear, what tallies up with their own reality. Once that position is taken, it's just a matter of adapting the available sources so that they fit your new cultural paradigm.

You're right, the devil is in the details, and I wish more people paid attention to them. The reality of religions in general is that they are all subjective creations of people living "usually" in the distant past, and they all had presuppositions and agendas at the start and as they evolved. You know that none of the Christian holidays stand up to any scrutiny when examined. Vast swathes of the Old and New Testaments read like badly plagiarised mock-ups of older, more venerable Middle Eastern stories. Practices and traditions often co-opting the older established ones in order to make them more palatable, sometimes not even changing the very name of the holiday, like Easter - the supposedly most holy day in the Christian calender to everyone older than 15.

How does Catholicism get away with outright idol and icon worship of mortal humans like Mary and the disciples? Not all Catholics believed it at one time, but a few debates at the second Council of Nicea, and wow, now they can all be idol worshipers like their roman and Greek ancestors. Iconoclasts were now just Jewish and Arab-influenced heretics! Scary!

I want a time machine invented, just so that people can go back and find out what really was going on in the past. The Ramayana claims to encompass all of India, but when people actually mapped out how far the characters traveled by foot or by chariot, they came up with dramatically tiny areas of land and sea. I would be shocked if almost anything we read in ancient books can be taken as even remotely accurate or literal.

Back to my scientists are modern day philosophers, I stand by it. I am starting to think that you (and Vv6) have taken the point of view that philosophy is simply the pursuit of intangibles. I disagree with that. Philosophy is much more than that - it asks the question "why" as the next step after an engineer/mathematician as asked the question "how". These are the same questions that scientists ask. The only difference is that scientists demand that once the why is asked, the answer must be something that firstly makes logical sense, and secondly can be backed up with empirical evidence, and we refuse to use someone else's word to prove it. Ancient philosophers have been doing that since they first asked "why". The reason why so much of it was so confusing was because the source materials for how our universe worked were largely semi-fictional accounts created by people thousands of years ago.

You're right, a good scientist has no desire to shape human culture (even if he already has through discoveries), merely to understand the questions "how" and "why". I think that philosophy does the same thing. Mills didn't make up a list of things to do to be good. He just examined "how" we create cultural labels of right and wrong and why we chose them. The same for Kant, or with almost any other ethical philosophy. It's always a question why and how. They are not dogmatic. Religions probably started out as philosophy (Dad, why does the sun travel through the sky? Well son, that's because Apollo is actually driving a big shiny chariot), but after so many years, they become stubbornly entrenched as the truth without the ability for people to question them. This is the crux of my problem with religions - they defy scrutiny and jealously guard "knowledge", making new categories and claiming that it defies human understanding, so it must be Godly. The more we learn, the less remains within the sphere of religious knowledge, until, I predict, we will come to the stage where religions are only guarding knowledge of themselves. Then what's left? Will people realise then that they are just some pretty good stories that were more important a long time ago?

Today, we still have many of the same questions as philosophers, but now we have new tools for answering them. Things that seemed so intangible may soon be perfectly understandable. Why is one action right in one culture, and wrong in another? Why do we feel sad? Why do we fight? Why are we cruel? You do the studies of psychology and sociology a huge disservice by claiming that they'll never be able to pierce the curtain that surrounds our mind. That is the whole purpose of psychology. Understanding why and how our brains, the most complex structure on this planet, works. Maybe we will even understand why we invented religion?

My personal belief? Well, I already said it many times - humans are fearful and impatient people. We wanted to understand what it was that was making us scared, and we didn't want to wait thousands of years until we figured out the answers, so we took the first logical ones we invented. Unfortunately, we are also an incredibly stubborn species (as this thread might attest), and also very sore losers, so we don't like to admit that we made a mistake for so long, and we'll fight tooth-and-nail not to look stupid.

[Taksin]

Yep. It was all a mistake. I admit it. Someone let the Amish know before we turn out the lights.

[Munkybhai]

In your face!

I understand that none of what I say will make a dent in your mind. Pauline doctrine has made it so that many Christians believe that they are saved through faith alone. All other religions have similarly constructed logic-proof/evading answers to philosophical questions over the centuries, but since formal science began, we have noticed the gradual erosion of what answers are considered to be within Religions' sole province.

This was always more for those on the fence, to see what each side uses to logically justify their position.

[Vv6]

I would always be happy for anyone to say they believe without any doubt that God exists and that he created the world and so on, simply because they do. It is not my job/duty/desire to convert people.

It is these philosophical work around's and picking a choosing of which areas both scientific and biblical to just omit as they no longer fit the starting point ( which is the conclusion ) that God did and does everything.

[andypandy]

I'm still not convinced guys, is there a god/s or not?! :D

[isaac_hunt]

I'm still not convinced guys, is there a god/s or not?! :D

Nah

[Taksin]

In your face!

I understand that none of what I say will make a dent in your mind. Pauline doctrine has made it so that many Christians believe that they are saved through faith alone. All other religions have similarly constructed logic-proof/evading answers to philosophical questions over the centuries, but since formal science began, we have noticed the gradual erosion of what answers are considered to be within Religions' sole province.

This was always more for those on the fence, to see what each side uses to logically justify their position.

I'm not that interested in seeing what each side uses logically to justify its position - there is rarely anything I haven't heard before that comes up in these debates. I'm interested in defending the faith against logically flawed arguments to cast doubts in the minds of the oh-so-certain debunkers that see themselves ridding the world of superstition and the enemies of reason.

The honest truth is I think you and Vv6, with whom I have enjoyed some of the more humble earlier exchanges that at least on the surface of things appear to be taking a reasoned approach to debating, have delusional positions. Your last two posts have essentially been subjective polemics that don't stand up to reality - you leave yourself no other option but to see someone like me as logic/proof-evading, fighting a pre-supposed losing battle, hypnotised by pauline doctrine, unable to admit to my obvious and undeniable mistakes, motivated by fear etc etc..

But life isn't so easy to understand. It isn't easy for science and it isn't easy for philosophy or religion. You think it is at least easy to write off the philosophy you disagree with and say nothing about the shortcomings of your own philosophy (Vv6 even appears to think he is above philosophy). But there are too many fine minds out there, not to mention good people, that could dispel the reliability your imaginary straw man opponent. Not being open to this is not just dishonest, it is robbing you of a large portion of what's interesting about life. Those criticisms are not aimed at all atheists or all scientists, by the way, just at people like you who think Christianity is disproven and want to ram it down our throats - it isn't.

Not a word of admiration for the inspirational behaviour of the Amish community who saw their children mass-murdered in an afternoon. Compare this with the incessant hatred on these boards for relatively minor sinners such as Kelvin McKenzie and we begin to see the difference a philosophy makes. But I would imagine you will manage to hold tight to the cliched belief that it is religious people who are judgemental - a belief that is often completely resistant to challenge in the minds of those free from the shackles of religious doctrine.

[Jobo]

I'm not that interested in seeing what each side uses logically to justify its position - there is rarely anything I haven't heard before that comes up in these debates. I'm interested in defending the faith against logically flawed arguments to cast doubts in the minds of the oh-so-certain debunkers that see themselves ridding the world of superstition and the enemies of reason.

The honest truth is I think you and Vv6, with whom I have enjoyed some of the more humble earlier exchanges that at least on the surface of things appear to be taking a reasoned approach to debating, have delusional positions. Your last two posts have essentially been subjective polemics that don't stand up to reality - you leave yourself no other option but to see someone like me as logic/proof-evading, fighting a pre-supposed losing battle, hypnotised by pauline doctrine, unable to admit to my obvious and undeniable mistakes, motivated by fear etc etc..

But life isn't so easy to understand. It isn't easy for science and it isn't easy for philosophy or religion. You think it is at least easy to write off the philosophy you disagree with and say nothing about the shortcomings of your own philosophy (Vv6 even appears to think he is above philosophy). But there are too many fine minds out there, not to mention good people, that could dispel the reliability your imaginary straw man opponent. Not being open to this is not just dishonest, it is robbing you of a large portion of what's interesting about life. Those criticisms are not aimed at all atheists or all scientists, by the way, just at people like you who think Christianity is disproven and want to ram it down our throats - it isn't.

Not a word of admiration for the inspirational behaviour of the Amish community who saw their children mass-murdered in an afternoon. Compare this with the incessant hatred on these boards for relatively minor sinners such as Kelvin McKenzie and we begin to see the difference a philosophy makes. But I would imagine you will manage to hold tight to the cliched belief that it is religious people who are judgemental - a belief that is often completely resistant to challenge in the minds of those free from the shackles of religious doctrine.


You don't know much about ancient history or the depth of depravity of mckenzie.You're as judgemental as the people you're argueing with.

[Munkybhai]

I totally concur that everyone is judgmental about something. Its impossible not to, otherwise from where fo you construct your personal philosophical outlook from? The Amish response is something that is at least consistent with the ethical guidance given by the New Testament. Do I find it completely admirable? It's one of those instances where it's difficult to gauge considering the way the Amish can exist in a fishbowl. The Amish showed an enormous amount of compassion towards, essentially, innocent people. Not resorting to base human emotion in seeking retribution against uninvolved people is wonderful. I think that we could learn a lot about restraint and justice from that example, but don't we already hold up that a murderer's family are not responsible for his actions? That the sins of the father do not transmit to the children? I praise they had the right intentions along with the right actions. Most people can't master that.

What if the killer had been alive? Should they have forgiven him too? Should they not have judged the guilty man, lest they be judged too? What if we amplify it, and substitute the Amish for the Jews during the holocaust. Should they then allow the ones who killed millions of them to not face trial because God will judge them himself? How would social order respond to a society where the criminal is not only forgiven but his family is rewarded by the victims? The Amish may eschew certain civic institutions like the police, but law enforcement still has jurisdiction over them. Essentially, there is still a man with a gun watching and making sure that everyone plays fairly.

I understand why you brought up that example. It's a reaction that brings out the best of a philosophical position on ethics and remains true to it in the face of a tragic test. I just think that it's the kind of reaction that would not work if there was no system of earthly criminal justice that enforces the rules. Put the Amish in Africa or Afghanistan with no protection from a military and let's see how long they can last against aggressors who don't agree with them and have no compunctions about hurting them. Turning the other cheek only works if everyone plays by the same rules and are mentally strong enough to genuinely adhere to their ethical position without resorting to simple emotions like revenge and anger. I don't think we live in that world yet. I'm not sure if we ever will while we still have disparity between people.

[Munkybhai]

Also whenever I think about the Amish, I can't stop hearing Amish Paradise in my head.

[Munkybhai]

I've been writing this as I walk home from work. So i finally got home, and remembered the other thing I wanted to say.

Holding up people adhering to their philosophical theory is all very good, I just object to the idea that an ethical philosophy requires a religious basis. Does the sentence, "Don't murder" acquire new meaning if you add the words, "God says," to the beginning? Are people so naughty that they will be unable to follow a rule if it isn't backed up with the threat of eternal damnation? Maybe they are, but that just seems so shallow to me.

A question I would ask is whether there is an actual difference in concept between, say Jesus' parables (or Krishna's bhagvad Gita, or, etc...) and Aesop's Fables? Both can be used to teach ethics, both utilize stories, both are taught to little children so that they might understand dilemmas and how to solve them in a socially correct manner.

[Taksin]

I totally concur that everyone is judgmental about something. Its impossible not to, otherwise from where fo you construct your personal philosophical outlook from? The Amish response is something that is at least consistent with the ethical guidance given by the New Testament. Do I find it completely admirable? It's one of those instances where it's difficult to gauge considering the way the Amish can exist in a fishbowl. The Amish showed an enormous amount of compassion towards, essentially, innocent people. Not resorting to base human emotion in seeking retribution against uninvolved people is wonderful. I think that we could learn a lot about restraint and justice from that example, but don't we already hold up that a murderer's family are not responsible for his actions? That the sins of the father do not transmit to the children? I praise they had the right intentions along with the right actions. Most people can't master that.

What if the killer had been alive? Should they have forgiven him too? Should they not have judged the guilty man, lest they be judged too? What if we amplify it, and substitute the Amish for the Jews during the holocaust. Should they then allow the ones who killed millions of them to not face trial because God will judge them himself? How would social order respond to a society where the criminal is not only forgiven but his family is rewarded by the victims? The Amish may eschew certain civic institutions like the police, but law enforcement still has jurisdiction over them. Essentially, there is still a man with a gun watching and making sure that everyone plays fairly.

I understand why you brought up that example. It's a reaction that brings out the best of a philosophical position on ethics and remains true to it in the face of a tragic test. I just think that it's the kind of reaction that would not work if there was no system of earthly criminal justice that enforces the rules. Put the Amish in Africa or Afghanistan with no protection from a military and let's see how long they can last against aggressors who don't agree with them and have no compunctions about hurting them. Turning the other cheek only works if everyone plays by the same rules and are mentally strong enough to genuinely adhere to their ethical position without resorting to simple emotions like revenge and anger. I don't think we live in that world yet. I'm not sure if we ever will while we still have disparity between people.


The interesting thing about the Amish response is not just that they didn't blame or were even nice to innocent people. They went to the killer's funeral in active prayer and love. They took responsibility for looking after his children and they comforted his family who, naturally, would be feeling terrible about what happened. Those actions are not only uncalled for, they are beyond the imagination of the average person. I don't see what that has to do with the status of the law or the bubble they live in or the lack of a bubble we live in. Something horrible beyond most people's experience happened to them - they responded in a strikingly authentic way - its admirable because most of us wouldn't have the wits to even think of responding that way and, in my opinion, we know that what they have done is exceptionally good. When I first heard that story, it took my breath away. (and there's nothing soft headed about it - they are pacifists and they condemn violence. That doesn't change)

Now, that story is an example of the central message of the gospels lived through a community. Not just love your family, not just love your mates but love your enemy. As an intellectual position it's interesting but as a living example I think it becomes evidence - yes, evidence - for the power and truth of the gospels. Its much better evidence than any argument. It's selfless love in action - there's no science than can prove or disprove its validity.

Arguments almost never convert people because we don't base our deepest insight into life upon statistics, studies or philosophical deductions. We trust our own judgement too much for that.

Just like we decide who is a good footballer based on our own personal insight - or perhaps the insight of someone we have decided is trustworthy - (not proof) so we decide what's true philosphically based on our best available perception, with all the limitations that entails.

I bet Vv6 never believed in God before he examined the science of it and started constructing his arguments. His belief that science is doing away with God is more of a gut feeling than anything proven. People who know far more about science and philosophy than any of us on here still retain their faith and aren't going anywhere. Getting angry about it won't change that fact.

[ger_ryan22]

If God didn't exist it would be necessary to invent him.

[redrule]

1 in 5 Americans Still Believes the Sun is Orbiting the Earth - Probably that's why they're the most technologically advanced country in the world
By: Lucian Dorneanu, Science Editor

This is a not a pointless satire on the educational system in the US. These are the results of a survey that points out that only about a fifth of all Americans have a clue of what science really is, while the rest believe that the Sun is actually revolving around the Earth and that the Tooth Fairy gives them money in exchange for the falling teeth.

Dr. Jon D. Miller is a political scientist directing the Center for Biomedical Communications at Northwestern University Medical School in Chicago and he regularly surveyed US citizens to find out their scientific literacy. Many surveys have been funded by the National Science Foundation, the Lance Armstrong Foundation and some European government agencies.

The findings prove that freedom of expression means also the freedom to believe everything except scientific facts and that "only 20 to 25 percent of Americans are scientifically savvy and alert," as he pointed out in an interview for The New York Times.

As he pointed out, one adult American in five still believes that the Sun actually revolves around the Earth and not the other way around. But it doesn't stop here, he continued.

Most of them don't understand what a molecule is, besides the fact that "it's really small," less than 1 in 3 knows that DNA is the molecule of heredity and only 1 in 10 understands the notion of radiation.

"Our best university graduates are world-class by any definition," he said. "But the second half of our high school population - it's an embarrassment. We have left behind a lot of people."

Probably that's why Romanian is the second most widely spoken language at Microsoft, why Indian and Chinese scientists are making the most important discoveries for major US universities and institutes and why English is actually the most spoken language in the world, so that non-English natives can understand one another.

I don't know if this has anything to do with many US citizens being homeschooled by religious fundamentalist, or with the fact that getting an online degree is easier than getting a loan from a bank, but it's in fact good news.

Why? Because it's good to know that you will always have a good workplace waiting in the US, as long as you is doing yo' job betta an' fasta than they can eat a burger.

Bye, y'all!


Source (http://news.softpedia.com/news/1-in-5-Americans-Still-Believe-the-Sun-is-Orbiting-the-Earth-59202.shtml) link.

----------------------

What did you believe that you only recently discovered to be incorrect or untrue? And who here thought the sun revolved around the earth?

Well I am an idiot ( or just healthy sceptical )

To belive you I need proof !

Just tell me what everyday observations you make that makes you aware that the earth is moving around the sun ?

I suspect that you may be under the influence of other peoples observations and maybe maths or physics, am I right ?

I hear proof everyday on radio and tv and when talking to people ... People talk of sun set and sun rise, they see the same as me and we cant all be wrong all over the globe !

Hear me now and listen to me later, we dont need all party tricks physics to walk the earth, maybe the moon but look how busy that stroll is .

I demand an appology for your attack on our basic instincts !

[Munkybhai]

You're right. Maybe the earth isn't moving at all and the entire universe is spinning and rotating around us! Einstein said it was possible too!

[redrule]

You're right. Maybe the earth isn't moving at all and the entire universe is spinning and rotating around us! Einstein said it was possible too!

Could well be

Just a snob will claim superiority of the less educated by claiming that earth is moving around the sun as most schooled people are learned that it is a fact based on others observations.

I wonder how bright the ancient philosophers must have been by comming up with a theory based on their own observations of stars for such a long period of time to see the possability of us moving around the sun ?

Kind of easy to have someone at school telling you, well read chapter 7, earth orbits the sun.

Think about it, how cleaver must a man have been to be first with this compaired to the auther of this thread ?

Not a day of schooling with computers and lexicons, just a some vine , some good food and sex and after that a look at the stars waiting for the missus to fall a sleep, voila The big bang theory.

[Torrminator]

I used to consider that maybe I wasn't actually moving when I walked, that the world was just revolving below my feet.

Then I realised that my thought was probably bollocks. Possible though. In effect, I suppose there is some truth in it.

[ger_ryan22]

Raise your hand if you're 100% sure God doesn't exist?

[Munkybhai]

The interesting thing about the Amish response is not just that they didn't blame or were even nice to innocent people. They went to the killer's funeral in active prayer and love. They took responsibility for looking after his children and they comforted his family who, naturally, would be feeling terrible about what happened. Those actions are not only uncalled for, they are beyond the imagination of the average person. I don't see what that has to do with the status of the law or the bubble they live in or the lack of a bubble we live in. Something horrible beyond most people's experience happened to them - they responded in a strikingly authentic way - its admirable because most of us wouldn't have the wits to even think of responding that way and, in my opinion, we know that what they have done is exceptionally good. When I first heard that story, it took my breath away. (and there's nothing soft headed about it - they are pacifists and they condemn violence. That doesn't change)

I'm not taking anything away from the actual act. It is an amazing example of the level of compassion that a community can have. Normally, you just see this kind of thing from individuals. I just question whether this kind of ethical code could translate onto the larger scene once you remove a benevolent, tolerant society that is willing to protect it. I'm kinda moving onto another debate now, since I think we can see that the previous one has pretty much run its course and there's stasis.

Can complete pacifism work? I know people will hold up Gandhi, and as an Indian I want to believe that his non-violence led to the subcontinent's freedom, but a part of me is skeptical and wonder's if the only reason Britain relinquished control was because she didn't have the troops to control such a vast territory after WW2.

Other examples include Tibet, where essentially a fundamentalist pacifistic Buddhist government has been exiled by another power that doesn't care what world opinion thinks and is too powerful to be sanctioned by others.

The resistance in Tiananman Square was iconic in the West, but did nothing for the people it was meant to. I met educated Chinese professionals who only discovered the incident once they left the country. Instead, the opening up of China has been driven by commerce more than anything else.

Examples going the other way might also include the recent demonstrations in Egypt, as well as the aforementioned Gandhi. I know there are a few others, but I can't really remember them right now. The idea fascinates me. When you see shows like Star Trek that put forward a future where humans have moved beyond war and greed and work only for the betterment of themselves, I wonder is that really possible? Will our animal nature (basic hoarding instinct, prioritising blood relationship over anything else, etc...) be overcome by the idea of universal sharing and benevolence?

[Munkybhai]

Raise your hand if you're 100% sure God doesn't exist?

I'm 100% sure that our religions are completely made up.

If there is a God/Universe creator, maybe he's the person who turned on the computer program simulating the universe in his lab. And maybe that person is also just a simulation running in another computer, and so on.

[pinedoor]

Can complete pacifism work? I know people will hold up Gandhi, and as an Indian I want to believe that his non-violence led to the subcontinent's freedom, but a part of me is skeptical and wonder's if the only reason Britain relinquished control was because she didn't have the troops to control such a vast territory after WW2.



I'd consider myself a pacifist, but you're right that Ghandi was pushing an open door. After WW1 and the Amritsar massacre in 1919, it was quite clear the Raj was on it's way out. The empire was slowly crumbling.

In 1942, when Ghandi issued his "Quit India" statement, he did so knowing the Imperial Japanese Army was on Indian borders having overrun Malaya and Burma. So while he was happy to be promoted for his pacifism, he was also quite happy to have the Japanese do his fighting for him.

[ger_ryan22]

I'm 100% sure that our religions are completely made up.

If there is a God/Universe creator, maybe he's the person who turned on the computer program simulating the universe in his lab. And maybe that person is also just a simulation running in another computer, and so on.

But how can you be 100% sure?

Heavy stuff for a Saturday morning :D

[Munkybhai]

A couple of my friends were approached by some high school kids in Philadelphia who were from the Worldview Academy and asked, "Do you know what happens why you die?" before being given a kinda nice pamphlet that opens like one of those paper fortune telling thingies with which girls like to play. They handed that pamphlet to me (after having a nice laugh whilst asking difficult questions of those kids) and I was just so amused by what I read.

It starts out with: "What do you believe?

"What happens when you die?

"If you claim there are many paths to God, please consider [that] you just claimed to be all-knowing–a very arrogant position. You, also, are being uncompassionate because you do not care enough to tell others the easiest and simplest path. You merely let them struggle needlessly."

Umm... I'm not sure if that's what it means if you say there are many paths to God... If anything, it might imply a lack of knowledge or conviction but let's keep going.

It then decides to tackle the different ideas of death - reincarnation, heaven and hell, and extinction (I suppose that's me), in order to prove that we should believe in heaven and hell. What follows is just about the flimsiest nonsense I've ever read about those three ideas.

Reincarnation:

Question: How do you know that Reincarnation is true?
Answer: "I trust my feelings," or, "I trust some other authority."

Question 1: Are your "feelings" or other authorities totally trustworthy?"
Answer 1: No - "If your answer is "No," then would you like to know what is totally trustworthy? If you answer is Yes ------> Heaven and Hell!

Answer 1: Yes - "If your answer is yes, then have you ever been deceived by others or have you ever deceived someone else?"
Yes: If you say yes and agree that other people and one's feelings can deceive, then could you be wrong about reincarnation?"

If No, proceed to the big final argument about reincarnation!

Question 2: after all the possible incarnations, what happens next?
If your answer is, "I become divine/a god!" or, "I become part of the great nothingness (extinction) after working through my bad karma," then ---->
Is it right to impose the soul of a Hitler, suicide bomber or serial rapist on a newborn baby to work off bad karma?" Is that justice? (And now my favorite) Even if karma is true, do you really want what you deserve, or would you prefer to receive grace and mercy?"

I'm not even sure I have to pick this apart, even my philosophical adversary, Taksim, will
concede that the writers of this haven't the foggiest idea what reincarnation is about with that newborn baby comment. And funnily enough, I think it's fair that we get what we deserve. That's essentially how our society's system of justice if predicated.

Anyway, eventually, the pamphlet will say you're wrong (if you can just concede for a moment that people are capable of lying) and say that you should move on to the Heaven and Hell section.

Extinction:

Question: How do you know what you believe is true?"
Answer: Either I trust my conclusion or some other authority.

Oh noes, they's gots us now!
Question: Are you/the other authority omniscient? (all-knowing)?

Yes: If your answer is yes, then how many dwarf stars are there in the Milky Way Galaxy, and how has their cumulative electrical charge fluctuated in the last 75 years? (Seriously you would have to admit that you cannot know everything.)

No: If your answer is no, then what if you are wrong about extinction.

Let me see, if I replace "you/other authority" with "the Bible," it should come up with the right answer... oh wait it doesn't either. Hmm... or I could look it up on Google... oh my Lord... Google is omniscient! Google is God! All Hail the Mighty Google!

Essentially this algorithm descends into, "If you're wrong and don't want to find out the truth, then you could be going to HELLLLL! Otherwise, carry on to the Heaven and Hell section."

Heaven or Hell:

Where do you think you will go when you die?

Answer: Heaven - how do you know? Because I'm a good person? Have you ever lied, stolen or thought bad things? Or, is it because I trust in Jesus Christ? Ding ding ding, we have a winner!

Answer: Hell - do you know or even care how horrible Hell is and would you like to escape it? No --> Please reconsider your position. Hell is a terrible place of loneliness, pain and suffering, a place in which you are always reminded of the worst in you and your need to be loved by a holy God. Again, please reconsider.

Sounds like a weekend at my ex-girlfriend's place.



So did anyone else besides me have a good belly ache from reading that?

[sunbeam1664]

Lets face it. Ignoring personal beliefs in spirituality which I respect but don't have myself, I can't abide any form of organised religion. In my view they're perfectly happy with you being a superstitious hysterical imbecile as long as you put your money in and keep your offspring as bought in as you are.

All of this pamphleteering is to catch hold of more paranoid converts to their callous religion. And America may just have a more brazen set of them than we have but it's all the same really...